Hi all. I’m a beginner and I’m working on rolls. I’m listening a lot to recordings (lots of Matt Molloy and Kevin Crawford), and I hear rolls being done with different rhythms.
There’s what I’d call a standard long roll: a dotted quarter subdivided into eights by a cut and a tap. Then there’s the cran on low D which seems to subdivide a dotted quarter into 2 sixteenths and 2 eighths, more or less. But I’m hearing a lot of rolls that sound like crans - only they aren’t on Ds; they’re on notes you usually roll, Gs, As, F#s, etc. But they still get that 2 sixteenths and 2 eighths stutter.
So can anybody tell me what technique is being used? And what other roll variations am I unaware of?
As a beginner … When you reach the point where you can hear/see/imitate those techniques yourself without asking, then you’ll be ready to worry about them. That’s not supposed to be flippant. It really kinda works that way.
Besides, I hear dozens, even hundreds, of variations* of this kind in people’s playing. The question is far too large for a reasonable answer, I think. And that’s part of why the study of this music is a lifelong effort.
Long rolls, short rolls, condensed rolls, cut rolls, double-cut rolls, tongued/throated rolls, slide rolls, inverted rolls, flip rolls, bounced rolls, bouncing ball rolls, fronted rolls, delayed rolls, Micho rolls, Finnegan rolls, treble rolls, etc. … and all possible combinations and permutations of the above.
I’d concentrate more on solid rhythm, phrasing, breathing, lift, intonation, embouchure, grip, etc. Horse before the cart, and all that. The basic “standard” ornaments can take you very very far.
Sorry for the prissy answer. Probably not what you wanted to hear …
Actually your answer was what I wanted; the list of variations. Really I just wanted to get some idea that many variations existed and that my subdivide-into-eighths (more or less) rolls were not supposed to somehow sound like double-sixteenths-and-eighths.
Though I really wanna know what a bouncing ball roll sounds like.
It’s an accelerating long roll. Think of a ball bouncing on a table. As it loses energy, the bounces will get closer and closer together. Delay the cut slightly, or start with a “lazy” finger lift. Then make up for lost time by accelerating the rest of the motions so that the entire roll is completed by the end. The final tap will end up quite close to the next note. Voilà, bouncing ball.
Yes that’s right, they’re not. But there are many ways of doing that deliberately if you want:
Double-cut long roll: G/{c}G/{B}G{F}G
Double-tongued treble long roll: .G/.G/ .G{F}G
Fronted (lazy) long roll: G/B/ G {F}G
Condensed long roll + note: G/{B}G/{F}G {B}G
Condensed Finnegan roll + note: .G/.G/{F}G {B}G
Whoa, all those rolls! Reminds me of a sushi bar menu.
Thanks for the abc rendition of the various flavors, really helps me to get it. The Double-cut roll seems kinda like a cran, but with a tap on the last note instead of a cut. The double-tongued treble long seems like “tu-ku-tu” followed by a tap. And so on.
I may have to dump some of the recordings I’m listening to into some slow-down S/W to make sure, but I’m thinking what I’m hearing is mostly the Double-cut long roll. I’ll have to give that a try once I get my regular roll under control. Maybe in 2014.
Of course, with reference to Markus’ and my previous posts, maybe it’s not so much the type of roll as what you put in 'em… salad rolls, beef & onion rolls, cheese rolls, ham & tomato rolls, sausage rolls, even…dare I mention it… that American obscenity the peanut-butter and jam [sorry, “jelly”] roll… - or is a jelly roll too jazzy for this forum?
Or if we’re feeling gymnastic, there’s forward rolls and backward rolls and all manner of flips and somersaults…
At the risk of bringing this thread back on-topic, the OP may want to check out Grey Larsen’s book “The Essential Guide to Irish Flute and Tin Whistle”. It breaks down some of the many ornamental variations in great detail.
I do think Larsen does a good job explaining and categorizing the basic ornaments. But for the kinds of variations I mentioned above - not so much.
One of the strengths of the Larsen approach is in concentrating on the basics - exactly what a good beginner’s method should do. But it’s also a weakness, giving the impression perhaps that the basic inventory is all there is, and that it can be applied almost mathematically.
There’s a lot more to ornamentation, and there are many more ornaments than Larsen describes. But it’s a useful method if you keep those limitations in mind.
