How much ornamentation is enough?

The goal you’re presumably working towards is to have a full palette of ornaments at your fingertips, which you can fluidly drop in or out of suitable phrases/locations in any of the tunes you know when the spirit moves you. Common motives for throwing in an ornament include accentuating the beginning or end of a phrase, disguising (or at least enabling) a breath, doing it differently the second time you play a repeat, and showing off.

(either straight, or turned into a roll)

breath

glottal stop

All of the above options can be freely substituted, as can some ornaments (a triplet, a slide, etc) not noted. Unless you’re showing off, you probably won’t use more than one of the more obvious ornaments per 8 bar section, but if you know how to do 'em all, you can play one the first time and something (or nothing) else the second time through.

In general, ornamentation tends to be denser after the repeat than before.

It’s a glitch in the Matrix.









I hope you know kung-fu.

It seems there are two types of “ornamentation” – the first type is really articulation and expression. Cuts and strikes to separate notes or emphasize them. You need some minimal amount of that to clearly express the tune, and you can’t really go much beyond that before you start putting emphasis where it doesn’t go. So you really wouldn’t want to cut and/or strike every single note in a melody.

The other type is melodic ornamentation. That one is simply a matter of taste.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQDPenBUC68

What is the opening tune in this video?

Its listed as The Dimming of the Day, which I don’t know well enough to identify.
I thought I heard bits of John of the Glen in it, but if so its not a straight forward rendition. There are fragments in the first minute, then a reasonably clear rendition of several bars starting at about 0:54. Whatever it is, it is a lovely bit of playing, though the video is a bit mauve for my tastes.

EDIT: AKA Sean O Duibhir a Ghleanna, though there seem to be other tunes with this name as well (eg a hornpipe).
EDIT AGAIN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQKoOm9g34A&feature=related

Is there another reason for ‘ornamentation’?, - changing the ‘attack’ of the note. I see some of the actions as changing the ‘shape’ of the note. I dont know what this is in physics (d volume)/(d time)?. Or would you see this as one of the other two?

Also, some notes in some contexts seem (to my ears) to sound a lot ‘richer’ if next to certain other notes. Not so much to do with the melody as with tonal appreciation.

Or I may be talking blox.

My own thoughts on this: the melody must always be present and recognizable, and it must be played in correct rhythm and steadily.

To me, when parts of the melody are “covered up” by ornamentation, that’s too much. Ornamentation should enhance the melody and rhythm, never weaken them.

I’ve heard some players use ornamentation as a cheat, such as introducing long rolls into a tune to “cover over” part that they find too difficult to play. This is blatantly obvious and is always a bad idea; it never sounds like anything except someone that hasn’t really learned to play the tune correctly.

If you are playing with other players and the way you are ornamenting stops your playing from blending, or makes it difficult for the other players to play the tune, then that’s way too much.

Finally, there are times that “how much” is answered by “how many players?” In my own experience, a level of ornamentation (and melodic variation) that’s appropriate for a session of three or four players is only going to make everything sound muddy when there are ten folks trying to blend and play a tune well.

As others have said–probably better than I have–it’s a taste issue, but it’s can also become an issue if it stops your listeners or your fellow musicians from recognizing or enjoying the tune.


–James

I’m one of the sparse ornamentation crowd. I’m not saying I don’t ornament, but I certainly don’t do much. I’ve been listening to a lot of old flute and concertina music lately, and I find myself drawn more and more to the music that has very little (to even a complete lack of) ornamentation. The Russell’s are a perfect example of this.

Now, that’s not saying that Kevin Crawford or Noel Hill aren’t amazing players who sound great. They certainly are. I enjoy listening to them very much. I just don’t enjoy playing like them.

Yeah, that’s a non-answer.

I’d say that changing the attack (or any other part of the envelope of a note) is part of emphasis – phrasing might be a better term – that is, ornamentation can help create phrasing.

There’s a lot of gray area. I’m learning some tunes from Cathal McConnell’s tapes, and he uses a lot of rolls. He opens Morrison’s jig with an E roll and a B roll, where a lot of people seem to play an E roll followed by BCB or something. Same thing in the third measure. The E roll seems to be pretty universally accepted as being part of the tune. So it’s not really an ornament in that case. Mr. McConnell’s B roll seems a pretty good example of a melodic ornament.

In the B part of the tune you have those triplets with two E’s. You either have to tongue them or cut them. So they’re part of the tune (not really ornaments). The high-a’s you might want to tongue to give a sharper attack – especially on some whistles where 2nd register notes are tricky – which would be more the case of overcoming a difficutly of the instrument than necessarily wanting to do anything with the A.

It’s my opinion that there is very little ornamentation present in the playing of most Irish traditional whistle and flute players, and they can with no difficulty play traditional jigs and reels etc with no ornamentation whatsover, and do so on a regular basis.

By definition, an ornament is something that is not part of the tune, that the tune can do just fine without, that is added for decorative effect.

There’s little of that in traditional whistle and flute playing, aside from trills and crans, both of which are often thought of as being stylistic devices borrowed from the uilleann pipes.

The seperation of notes of the same pitch by using fleeting gracenotes is, to me, a form of articulation. Traditionally most Irish whistle and flute players chose to articulate repeated notes with their digits rather than their tongue.

Now, if a tune has three G’s in a row and you seperate them with gracenotes, forming a “roll”, how is that any more “ornamentational” than if the three notes were seperated by the tongue? The gracenotes are of such short duration that they’re not heard as notes but as articulations upon the note G, and have little ornamentational impact. Moreover, these “rolls” are not superfluous to the tune but are essential to it. So, being neither decorative nor superfluous, I don’t consider single gracenotes and the rolls constructed out of them to be “ornaments”.

Now single gracenotes which form the initial attack of a note on the beat are another matter. I’m not sure how “decorative” they are but they do give a different character to the attack of the note. What to me are definately “ornaments” are “short rolls” because, at least to me, it seems like they’re never actually necessary for the progression of the melody, and they are quite decorative.

Now about crans, yes they’re “ornaments” I would say, but on the other hand if you play three Bottom D’s in the normal timing of the tune (not shoving four notes into the space of three like a cran) and these three Bottom D’s are seperated by single gracenotes, then that’s not really an “ornament” but simply a way to articulate those D’s.

So anyhow to flip the question around from “how much ornamentation is enough?” to “how many gracenotes are enough?” I would say that enough gracenotes are required to articulate the repeated notes of the tune and keep the tune flowing along on the breath. Without these gracenotes you have Irish tunes in which all the articulation is done by the tongue, which to me doesn’t fit the traditional style on the flute or whistle. No “ornaments” are needed at all.

Interesting posts, thanks to all.

An interesting distinction between ‘ornaments’ and ‘grace notes’ PanCelticPiper. Maybe I was not being as exact in my terminology as I should have been, though I do seem to recall some cavil against the term ‘grace note’ too. Maybe because of its classical music heritage and the baggage that came with it (apologies if my memory is playing up). Be that as it may I like your definition. I would just have to pose another “how many gracenotes are required to [articulate the repeated notes of the tune and] keep the tune flowing along on the breath?”. I am not sure there is one answer.

When I posed this question I knew it would ultimately come down to a matter of taste and situation. The goal of a whistler playing a jig in a session is different from that of a solo whistler playing a slow tune, maybe. I think the latter needs to do more to keep the attention/interest of the audience and ornamentation or grace notes seem to be the key. And I am asking more from the point of view of the slow whistler.

Just my (unlearned) opinion :smiley: . Reasoned disagreement is always welcome

(Just wait until I start asking about melodic variation, that should be fun…)

Someone light the fire under the tar,
I’m off to collect some feathers.

I agree - but in most cases your three Gs in a row are one choice among many possibilities. To use the example of Morrison’s Jig taken by highland-piper, it is perfectly possible to play the entire tune very satisfactorily (and quite “traditionally”) without playing a single roll.

I don’t care for the term “ornamentation” myself but when, for example, many players erode the melody in esp. jigs by playing rolls in place of something more interesting than EDE or GAG, they are doing so out of choice and because they think (emphasis on they) the tune will sound better that way. So really they are ornamenting, attempting to beautify or add style to the tune.

BTW highland-piper, if you’re playing a whistle that won’t allow you to jump from e to a without tonguing - well I wouldn’t call such an instrument a whistle at all.

On Cathal McConnel’s instruction tape, iirc, he advocates tonguing and/or sliding into the high notes (2nd octave G & higher) as a general practice. But I haven’t listened to that part in a long time.

I mainly play Susato and Clarke.

To work with a live example, how would folks consider the version here. Too little ornamentation, too much, just right, or “other”. And perhaps more importantly, what criteria did you use to come to that conclusion.

(Delicacy caveat… I don’t know who the player is; he may be on the list. I just happened to pick this one out as I’ve been working with this tune, not because I liked or disliked the arrangement.)

Best wishes.

Steve

I think that’s a great version - it’s not how I’ve heard the tune, but it’s certainly lovely playing and easy to pick up on what the guy is doing.

I reckon the ornamentation is about right for me. Probably because it seems to me that it’s about right for him.

I don’t disagree with pancelticpiper but I would suggest that there are times when a roll would be cosidered ornamental. For example, if a player were to intentionally put a roll into a phrase for the purpose of adding a lift to the upbeat or adding emphasis to the downbeat, that is ornamenting/colouring/articulating the tune, is it not?
Thoughts?

I used to have a lot of similar questions myself - I think one of the most important things is listening, which I haven’t heard mentioned as a solution in this thread. You could listen to lots of airs if you want to play slow airs, and listen for the ways they are played. You could listen to just one player and how that person plays different tunes.. you could listen to a lot of different players from one area, or lots of different players from different areas.. but the more you listen and sort of get it into your mind, the more you will have certainty on whether you should ‘ornament more or less’ or do various decorations or kinds of phrasings, etc. And when I say ‘the more you listen’ I mean kind of saturating yourself with the music. - hope this is helpful, it certainly was for me.

Thankyou all for considered replies. It seems that the appropriate level of ornamentation is, in the final call, a personal thing.

From the discussion I take the following message: There are some ornaments (and I use the term loosely) which are so regularly used at a certain point in a certain tune that their description as mere ornaments could be disputed. There are also cases where the majority of people would consider the ornamentation overdone. And in between these two is a great grey area where individual tastes may vary.

Saturation listening was mentioned late in the discussion, and this is the method I have been using most. Find a version that moves me, listen (endlessly) and play along (endlessly). It is not always a whistle piece that moves me most though, although I do have and like a lot of Joanie Madden recordings. It is as likely to be a vocal, fiddle or even guitar recording that I try to play to which gives me less ‘instruction’ for ornament.


I started this topic because of a constructive comment made about my version of 'Cape Clear '- try more ornamentation. I recorded ‘Staker Wallace’ in the hope of hitting peoples upper limits for too much ornamentation, but either failed or you were all too polite. With my ‘Niel Gows Lamment’ I thought the ornamentation about right for me - the ornaments seemed to want to be there. If anyone cares to comment I would welcome the input.

I’m not really adding much here … but just to say … Phill, that is an absolutely classic comment. One of the best posts I’ve read on this forum. Next time I need a nail hitting squarely …

Good man!