A popular subject, I know, but I’ve been thinking about it again because of the Carlos Nunez thread.
“Purist” approaches to trad music seem flawed to me. The problem, as far as I can see, is that musical forms aren’t stagnant - they are constantly developing and growing out of something earlier. Irish trad didn’t materialize out of nowhere, and I doubt anyone could point to a time where ITM starts or stops. 150 years ago, music in Ireland just could not have sounded the same as it does today (if you could go back 150 years with a set of Uilleann pipes, you would have the only set in all of Ireland – they didn’t exist yet). How much more different was music 300 years ago? 500?
So here’s my problem in a nutshell: purists seem to me to be trying to preserve what they think is a traditional way of playing, but which was only a way people played for a very short period of time. Trying to emulate the way the old people played when you were a kid, or the way people play on the oldest recordings you can find is not to capture the essence of a musical form, it’s only to mimic a short moment in that music’s development.
Aren’t purists, then, buying into a kind of myth when they think they are actually promoting the traditional way of playing? Isn’t their conception of what is traditional simply a function of how short our lives and memories are?
Moreover, aren’t we just stultifying the growth and relevance of a musical form by resisting changes in it?
These are all honest questions, and any guidance or clarity would be very welcome.
The purists serve to counteract the efforts of “non-purists” who want to move the tradition along too quickly. The thing about tradition is that it is supposed to change, but very slowly, and the natural balance of purists to innovators seems to keep the tradition in a nice crawl. Which leads me to my opinion on the subject: leave well enough alone. If someone wants to innovate, power to them. If someone doesn’t want to innovate, power to them, too.
The old purist curse is bandied out again. Maybe just maybe it would be good to live the live and sit down with the people who really have it, see how the thing moves, understand the aesthetic and how it is passed on and then rethink and rephrase the whole thing. The weather is much to nice to beat this poor old horse.
The nice thing about music is that there’s lots of it for everybody. Reading canpiper’s comment, it occured to me that recorded music is the ultimate answer the the purist discussion. Pure or impure, once it’s recorded, it’s present for all time.
Since I just acknowledged liking Cher on another thread, I probably shouldn’t say anything about purity.
Personally, I think there’s much to be said for a “live and let live” approach to this. I admire the folks who want to preserve the traditions, but I do get a bit irritated when (a) people aren’t respectful of the traditional approaches and try to pass off non-trad for trad and (b) when traditionalists are snobs about nontrad. But, my irritation is not anyone else’s problem.
Peter’s right about how this is endlessly debated without resolution. I was recently watching a documentary about a small independent Blues label in Mississippi. They make very traditional blues recordings, but they’ve also sold a lot of records in which they do things like re-mix and use samples to create more modern and more commercial recordings. When confronted about that, the owner of the label said that there aren’t enough blues purists on the planet to allow these musicians to make a decent living. I wonder if that’s not true of Irish trad. A lot of people come to Irish trad music by first being exposed to Irish-influenced musicians outside–or on the edges–of the tradition. Just like a lot of people get into more authentic blues via B.B. King.
While there are certainly some people who want to embalm traditional music and freeze it in time, I think most so-called purists are looking to maintain essential qualities of the music and the culture that supports it, which get lost when commercial interests, modern influences, and a performance orientation are incorporated in it. I personally don’t think any of the modern stuff is a threat to the old, it’s just a different kind of music and is part of a different culture. I don’t see any significant antagonism between the two or even much of a relationship between them. Will modern influences destroy traditional music? No, because there will always be a few people who are attracted to the real thing (which I view as more of an overall approach to the music rather than a specific style of playing) and who keep it going. I encounter more people today who are into “pure drop” music than I did in the 1970s.
For me, personally, life is way too short to worry about classifying things to such an extent. I’d rather not worry about it, I know what I do and don’t like when I hear it. On the other hand, I don’t know that I would speak out too much against “traditionalists” and this is why:
If someone said to me that (to give a modern example) “I like Flogging Molly better than The Dropkick Murphy’s because they play traditional music”, I cannot say that I wouldn’t want to correct them in saying that Flogging Molly is most definitely not traditional music by any standard I can think of. At the same time, I cannot fault a “traditionalist” for arguing that the Chieftains are not traditional music by their standard of ITM. I don’t see that as anything wrong at all. What gets me are the elitist folk, the ones who are up in airs and think they are better than anyone who isn’t hardcore for the “pure drop”. I dont’ think listening to one kind of music or another makes you better. I also dont’ think it makes you any more or less comitted to Irish music, it’s simply a matter of taste.
For me it’s all about the attitude. I have noticed, unfortunately, that many of the “traditionalist” type you speak of are stubborn, set in their ways and often rude to those who don’t share their opinions. This is obviously, not to say that all of them are like this. You can be as “pure drop” as you like, more power to you. You can be as modern as you want, come in and change things around 'til it’s not recognizable as ITM by anybody’s standards. Again, more power to ya. But if you’re up in airs whilst doing so then bugger off.
I will say that I appreciate those who have taken the time to introduce me to some of the old greats, to set me straight when I first came on the scene and thought that the Dubliners and the Chieftains were as “pure drop” as it got. There were some who, instead, just made me feel unwelcome in my ignorance and left a bad taste in my mouth but my sincere thanks to those who were patient and kind.
I’m all for the ‘do your thing’, and ‘there’s lots for everybody’ bit. In fact, it might be that purists just like the way the old people use to play more than the way people play today. What I have trouble understanding is purist critiques of inovative playing (like the critiques of Calros Nunez’s galacian piping in the other thread).
Congratulations’ comments above are interesting, though. There must be some way to distinguish, say, Irish music from Galacian. If a galacian piper pushes the envelope too far - say, towards Irish music - there must be some point at which we should be able to say that she is no longer playing galacian music, but is playing irish music on a traditional galacian instrument. So maybe Congratulations is right, and there is something to the idea that development in music has to be controlled, and that purists (in the best cases) are really reacting to uncontrolled, or reckless development that threatens the integrity of the tradition. Thanks.
canpiper, I think there are two discrete elements or headers to this question and
purism can be useful under one header to maintain the identity of the tradition
and be a force for stagnancy and stifling under another.
The first header (purism is good) is about the field or setting of the tradition - the predominant melodic scales, its approach to harmony, rhythmic frameworks, its emotional atmosphere/s and its anchoring repertoire (signature songs of a tradition).
The second header (purism is not good) is about individual expression and includes innovative nuance, innovative hardware (new or developed instruments) and such like.
Rigidities that stifle freedom to interpret and explore or that set in stone the preferred articulations of one group are not purist in the true sense for they foul the lifeblood of the tradition. Purism in a tradition is about protecting its broad distinctive characteristics which define areas within which its members enjoy traditional freedom of expression.
I do think when attacking this subject it is important to get the terminology right, I am quite sure that when I talk about ‘traditional’ musicans that brings up a totally different mental image compared to Canpiper’s (in fact I was talking about subjects concerning this discussion and the views held in the Candian scene with pipemaker Joe Kennedy over the weekend who moved from Canada to Armagh). In fact I see a large group of people who had their music handed down through their families, to whom it’s part of their lives, who live with the norms and values of it, with the culture that goes with it without much of a fuss and without much of a concern whether or not what they are doing is ‘traditional’ enough or not. I think of my friend (concertinaplaying and nearing her 8th decade in life) Kitty Hayes, who has a highly developed natural sense of music and it’s rights and wrongs. She goes to Lunasa concerts and thinks they are brilliant, eventhough she thinks ‘they have some of the tunes wrong, not as nice as we have them’. There’s a whole world out there you know nothing of when listening to CDs, visiting messageboards and going to the odd concert and session.
A lot of very nice music is being played, not everything fits in with everybody’s taste but so what? Traditional music will be around for another while and move at it’s own pace and in it’s own direction while discussions here continue until the cows come home.
I think Congratulations’ comments would be close to how I feel. It is a sort of similar thing with language. We know music and language change over time. The struggle between the conservative people and the non-conservative people may help to keep whatever the nugget of uniqueness is intact, because change will be slower and have to be accepted by more people. When people who are not trained in a tradition make changes, I think they are likely making changes that the musicians of that tradition would not make. That music is more complex than people realize. People who have played and heard it for years and years can make changes without thinking about it because they are part of that music. Other people are free to make changes, but I just don’t think they should expect those changes to be automatically accepted in the traditional sphere. Their music is based on traditional music.
I have not witnessed “pure drop” people being snobbish. What I have witnessed is upsetness when something that is not traditional is called traditional. I feel that way. I am happy for anyone to play whatever they want and listen to what they want. But I am unhappy when they call it traditional when it is not. That is really the only problem I have and I think it is at the root of many arguments. I don’t want to stifle anyone at all. But I don’t understand why, if they want to add reverb or echo or guitar or drums or whatever, why is it necessary to call that music “traditional”? Why not say it is “based on traditional music”? I would be very happy with that. Then if I were getting a CD or going to a concert I would know what the music was going to be like and I could decide if was my thing. And audiences would also understand better what they were listening to.
Thank you for starting this topic.
It always gives me great pleasure to shine new light on an old topic.
The fact that we had dinner last week and yesterday and the day before yesterday does not mean we shouldn’t have it today.
Such topics interest me because I was born into a family and a culture with a living tradition. My father is a well known folk singer and instrumentalist who was never a professional but has the respect of professionals. My mother sings songs that her village sings to this day and her ancestors sang in the highlands of Nepal. I am not untouched by this.
However I have a discursive mind too and I live in an age and a situation where I need to communicate with people of other backgrounds and experience fields. I cannot see any harm in attempting to talk about traditions. Good discussion tests the limits of our expression and drives its refinement.
I think it’s good to know where “you” came from so you have some sort of perspective on where “you” are going. There should always be both - the tradition (al) and those moving forward.
Actually I think this sort of debate is healthy and inevitable when an artform has a rich past and is also alive and moving forward.
There are those who want to neatly box define and write recipes for particular genre, particular players, particular regional styles, and particular points in time of those - only certain spices, only certain ingredients, only prepared that certain way …
Then there are those who like to take a bit of this, a bit of that, and a bit of something else, mix and serve up something new.
(There are even those who don’t want anything to do with anything that has already been done (talk about limiting yourself!!), but I’m going to ignore them for this discussion)
Most of us are somewhere in between.
The fact that music does indeed evolve is inescapable. The fact that all music uses some form of rhythym and a finite set of audible tones makes for a wide field fertile for crossovers and mutation. I do appreciate the staunch holdouts for historical accuracy in traditional styles. I don’t want to lose any of it… but I likewise don’t want to be limited to it.
There is no problem with people pursuing their own preferences, and because of them, we have great history as well as evolving art.
The problem comes in when anyone in any one of those nitches, decides that they are right and everybody else is wrong. (Of course, that’s a major problem in life in general… just look at any political or religious discussion. )
Each of us is a product of our experiences and our music cannot help but reflect that. No traditional style just popped into being… it came from someone’s own experiences, from whatever they heard, were shown, interpreted or conglomerated. It wouldn’t be there at all if someone hadn’t changed something along the way… otherwise we’d all still be playing the same instrument (probably bones) and have an extremely limited repetoir.
I am grateful to those who keep the traditions alive and well, so that I can learn from them and adopt what I like, focus where I want and find my own pleasure in music of all kinds.
But annie, what if the people changing things just didn’t call the music “traditional”? What if they said it was “based on a tradition”? I don’t know of anyone who feels others shouldn’t play what they want. I just know of people who think that not everything should be called traditional. I know it might be a problem exactly defining in words what “traditional” is, yet I think even I with not that much experience can come pretty close now to telling if something would be considered traditional.
One can play “Traditional Music” without playing it in the pure tradition. Likewise, one can play on all the traditional instruments and play non-traditional music. Maintaining a certain level of authenticity is fine and admirable, important even, but not the only way to go.
I don’t mind the definition so much as the exculsion of anything else from being considered worth knowing, pursuing, enjoying and playing.
I play traditional music… Irish, Scotts, Appalachian, and others… but I am not a purist. Does that make my music worthless as a form of entertainment or useless as part of someone else’s introduction to traditional music? Apparently not. I do not make any claims to purity, am not steeped in one tradition, nor do I set myself up as a prime example… I simply know what I know, play what I play, learn what I can and share what I have… which, by the way, is the very essence of traditional music.
Amazingly hot topic to bring all this input in one day! And I enjoyed it immensely. This discussion parallels others I’ve witnessed in other fields of folk music – most recently “old-time” southern mountain music.
Here’s my take on it:
We all have an intuitive feel for what constitutes the “tradition”. We can choose to stay very close to it by limiting our innovations and savoring the inventions of our predecessors. As a relative “purist”, I do that by choice, and possibly lack of any unique vision of my own.
“Living Tradition” builds on those roots and moves things forward. The best musicians among us are able to do that, and this music often becomes “roots” music for those who come later. We can all name many of these genius innovators.
“Contemporary”, “popular”, “commercial” and similar terms are useful for describing new music that has limited ties to a specific tradition. That’s fine too, and these forms will usually dominate the mass market.
All have their place, and we really don’t have to choose between them. God bless the purists for protecting the music, the innovators for moving it forward, and the inventors for exploring uncharted territory. I love it all.
)