I’ve been using Grey Larsen’s cut fingering (and hence roll fingering), but watching videos of great players closely, I can’t seem to find any that actually use it. Seamus Tansey, for example, cuts a note using the same finger he uses to play it. As far as I could tell from watching Matt Molloy–although it was harder to follow his finger movements–he does the same thing. Is that what more seasoned players have observed as well?
Also, when doing the strike part of the roll, at least on a G, Tansey and others seem to use both B1 and B2. Is this a common thing, perhaps for more pop? Maybe flute-dependent?
Also, when doing the strike part of the roll, at least on a G, Tansey and others seem to use both B1 and B2. Is this a common thing, perhaps for more pop? Maybe flute-dependent?
Ornamentation and cutting in particular is a far more intricate and varied subject than that projected by Larsen’s simplified thinking on the subject. Reality is much less codified and infinitely more varied, and at times more nuanced, considered and expressive, than the book will have you believe.
Oooh, got out of bed on the wrong side again this morning, Mr Gumby? I don’t think that airing your well-established antipathy to Grey and his works really adds much to the discussion. Feel free to come out with your own series of books on the topic.
I don’t think it generally matters much which fingers you cut with, DD_flute. Taking a G note for example (xxx ooo), I find I can and probably do cut on either L2 or L3 (you can cut on L1 but it can introduce a funny partial). Remember that we don’t actually want to hear the pitch of the note you are cutting to, the cut should be too short to discern that.
In terms of the strike (which I learned to call the tip, probably from Mary Bergin?), I’d normally only use the finger directly below (R1 in this case). Maybe some players do use two fingers to amplify the effect. But it’s quite possible also that their fingers tend to move together when unsupported. I think you should feel free to use whatever works for you. Let the sound be your guide more than the videos!
Oooh, got out of bed on the wrong side again this morning, Mr Gumby? I don’t think that airing your well-established antipathy to Grey and his works really adds much to the discussion. Feel free to come out with your own series of books on the topic.
And that’s you addressing the issues at hand?
Now please point out which points in my post above were not relevant to the discussion.
Geez, the guy sells a guide to learning to play. No need to tear him down for his pains. No need to “demolish” him, is there?
I think if you live in Ireland surrounded by people who play ITM, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact than in other parts of the world, interest in ITM Is rare and highly specialized. There is no local pub where I can go learn; there is no neighbor down the street who plays ITM. The closest flute lessons are half an hour at best away, likely much more in heavy traffic, and expensive. An Irish bar in town is doing something rare on thursday night: having actual irish music with “Paraic Keane and friends.” It’s a closed session. It’s not like gathering at the pub during Willie Week.
I have the book and found it useful, although I pretty quickly figured out there were multiple ways to cut a note and even I, beginner that I am, do it differently depending on the tune and the effect I’m struggling to get. I guess a method book could say “cut it any old way” or “do whatever works best,” but as a teacher for a living I’ve found that “just keep doing it till you figure it out” is not exactly the most effective approach. I mean, eventually you have to figure things out for yourself in all fields, but the point of teaching is guidance on the way.
The stakes here are relatively low. It’s not a case “see that poor guy, swilling cheap wine and sleeping in an alley? He learned to cut from the gray Larsen book, and now look at him!” Demolition seems like overkill.
I agree with you. But then that is the case with pretty much all tutor books. Their descriptions can always be read as overly proscriptive or ‘simplified’. They’re usually only a starting point.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not much of one for learning music from books but I have read the chapters of Larsen’s book on ornamentation. One useful example he gets across is how ornamentation is often misleadingly notated. Personally I found that helped me to better understand the basic dynamics of cuts and rolls i.e. the basics of what I should be aiming for. And when we get the basic dynamics it frees us when we are listening to variations and replicating more easily to go in a more expressive and nuanced direction without being hampered by misperceptions and misinformation.
Sometimes being shown what not to do is worth taking on board. If it works, it doesn’t matter to me where that guidance comes from.
I did a workshop on ornamentation with Grey years ago at the St. Louis Tional. I’ve taken a number of workshops from good people, e.g. Catherine McEvoy, Mike Rafferty et al. FWIW, I found Grey’s workshop exceedingly helpful.
I did 3 summers with Grey (and Cindy) some years ago when I was starting out. They are great, IMHO, especially for beginners. FWIW, I still do cuts and rolls “the Grey way”.
I see a lot of people piling on Mr Grumpy here, but at the risk of taking some flack myself, I want to
say that I think his post summed up the situation quite accurately.
I own and have read Grey’s book and I started out trying to follow his method closely. Much later I found
out more about how other players approach ornaments (especially cuts) and I found that the approach Grey
proposes is quite unusual, in the sense that it doesn’t seem to match what a lot of top players do. After trying
some other approaches I also came to the conclusion that, for me at least, Grey’s approach was much
more difficult to execute well. I honestly feel that it held me back a bit … which is not to say that its a
bad book, just that in that particular regard it didn’t work well for me.
If you take a look at Conal O’Grada’s book he outlines how he fingers various ornaments and gives
good justification for his own choices. His approach is quite different to Grey’s. He doesn’t say that
you should do it his way, but the rhythmic effects become quite apparent.
My sense of this is that 1) there are numerous ways to cut and pat, 2) there are numerous styles of playing and 3) that individual flutes vary in their response to ornamentation. Consequently, the concept that there is “one way” is pretty meaningless. More, it’s gaining experience with your flute and developing a sense of how you want it to sound and then learning what works best for you. Taking advice is one thing, treating it as gospel may be counterproductive. (And no, I don’t use Grey’s style and my own is a work in progress.)
"Tansey, for example, cuts a note using the same finger he uses to play it. " - Could you explain that, please ?
My flute class were looking at a Conal O’Grada transcription last night. He separated 2 lower octave G notes in a jig by striking with all 3 fingers on the bottom hand, in effect playing a “D” as the lower grace note. I have heard him discuss this at Ballyvourney “Cruinniu” classes. It may be a feature of his own style of playing, but he certainly makes it work.
I attended a piping class with Mick O’Brien this summer, and was very struck by how often he varied fingerings of notes and ornaments. Each time he explained that he made a given choice because he felt it was right for the given spot in the tune. So fingering was not hard and fast, but rather choices among possibilities.
To relate this to this thread, at one point when discussing an F# roll in a tune, he said he cut with the first finger of his bottom hand so that the roll was there, but not obtrusive. He went on to say that he normally cut with the third finger of the top hand, and sometimes used more than one finger. Same thing with taps-sometimes he used one finger immediately below the note, and sometimes more than one, but the point was the degree of articulation he thought was best at a given point, and the fingering that allowed him to achieve what he wanted.
I don’t think it is just a piping thing to use multiple fingerings for the “same” thing (e.g. an F# roll). As an former baroque flute player, it is striking how many alternative fingerings there are, some for tone colour, some for trills, some for tuning. I suspect that the belief of the time that different keys had different qualities, and that it was the musician’s job to bring these out had something to do with the number of alternatives. Even Rockstro’s fingering charts from the 1800’s for simple system flutes show multiple possibilities for fingerings, so it seems possible to me the idea of multiple ways to play things has lingered on.
Among traditional musicians there is a lot of attention to very minute little things that may not be obvious to listeners not well versed in the idiom or to new comers. The whole thing of playing on cut first time around and using another in a repeat to change texture, the placement of cuts and graces relative to the note being cut and all the other stuff that makes minute little changes in the overall sound and texture are an important part of this music. Perhaps there’s a strong piping influence there, on the pipes there are endless ways of changing sound and colour, but they are important on flute and even whislte as well. And a lot of players will weigh and consider carefully how the various cuts and other ornaments influence the music. To an experienced listener these things are an important part of the musical ‘language’. Reducing this to a mere one size fits all mechanical action without further importance ignores an important aspect of this music. That’s my experience and how I see it anyway. But if you sit regularly with listeners who respond to these minute changes as the tune goes along, you realise the importance of attention to detail.
In the days that I was in need of a flute tutor/book I’d make my choice based on authors flute playing. So I chose June McCormack over Grey Larsen because I much preferred her playing and think she’s a better player.
I think that we are often too quick to denigrate the efforts of those that have taken the trouble to try to fill a gap they perceive. In just my memory, O’Neill, Bulmer & Sharpley, Miles Krassen, Grey Larsen, Breandán Breathnach, and probably every other collector, compiler or tutor-writer have copped it over the years. The inference seems to be: “I’m so good that nobody else’s work meets my high standards”. Even though these alleged standards have not been established in any measurable form. Talk is cheap.
We all know that this is an aural tradition, and is difficult if not impossible to convey adequately in notation form. We all know that there is nothing like a real live tutor (formal or informal) compared to a book or tutor-tape. We all know that a real live tutor is a luxury unavailable in many if not most parts of the world. We all know that regional variation plus the realities of informal traditional transmission allows an infinity of outcomes in style. We all know that a full description of decoration in Irish music is more the realm of a PhD dissertation than a how-to introduction tutor. Yet when someone has a go at filling an obvious gap, they cop flack for trying.
Let’s show respect for those that have attempted to fill the gap. That doesn’t mean we should limit ourselves to that level of achievement. If a later tutor, for instance, seems to cover the ground better, then we should feel free to applaud that. But that doesn’t mean we should denigrate what went before. It doesn’t make us any taller.
the linked article by Bill Ochs is talking about Larsen’s system for notating cuts, not his system for playing them, and far from “demolishing” it, it simply says that the existing system can notate more precisely what kind of cut to use, while Larsen’s system merely says to play an unspecified kind of cut. this is a completely reasonable point and is well made, but i don’t see why it has to be one or the other: if you want to notate a particular type of cut, you can use a grace note, and if you want to notate a cut in general, you can use a Larsen symbol. or you can use one or the other or do something else entirely, if you want; no one is forcing anyone to use Larsen’s system if they don’t want to.
as far as playing cuts goes, i’ve come to realise that Larsen’s book is more or less “how to play Irish traditional music like Grey Larsen does”. the book could be improved by making this a bit more obvious; it is easy to read it and come away with the idea that Larsen’s way of doing things is the standard or common way to do it, and he does very little to dispell that notion other than an occasional nod to the idea that “some people might do it differently”.
I no longer have Larsen’s book but the impression I was left with was that in introducing his notation system he does denigrate what went before. I was already happy with the system Bill Ochs describes, having come across another tutor book, and was not convinced by Larsen’s criticism; it was nice to later find the Bill Ochs C&F article. However, Larsen’s notation seems a good way for him to notate the things he wants to describe.
I lent Larsen’s book and never asked for it back because I found Conal O’Grada’s whole approach suited me better.
That said, I generally do use Larsen’s fingering for cut’s because I practiced them when I had his book, my fingers work well that way and I don’t usually want chirpy cuts - especially when separating repeated notes in non-Irish music.
Well, Larsen’s book is a tutorial for newcomers. As such, he’s trying to give useful information to get started, based on his own technique, like every other flute tutorial I’ve picked up including Conal O’Grada’s, Fintan Valleley’s, and June McCormack’s. For what it’s worth, I found O’Grada’s tutorial the most useful as a single source, but all had interesting views to offer.
Anyway, it’s been a while since I read the Larsen tome, but I don’t recall the advice on cuts being presented as the only way to do it. He might have suggested it was the best way, but that’s what you get with any of these flute tutorials. As it happened, I came across the Larsen tutorial first before the others, so his recommended technique for cuts was where I started. I guess I still do most cuts that way but not all of them. I sometimes cut with fingers further from the note when it sounds better in a given tune, and I’ll sometimes do taps with two fingers below the note instead of one. Just depends on the tune. I haven’t gotten to the point yet where I’ll intentionally vary how I cut notes in the repeats of a tune for the sake of variety, but it’s a goal to shoot for after I get a little better.
I try not to think about it too much. Every time I start to analyze what I’m doing, my playing gets messed up. I’d hate to have to write a tutorial based on what I do! But it doesn’t sound too terrible to my ears, so far. Listening to examples of what it should sound like is key, and I try to do as much of that as I can.
Wow, thank you everybody for your extremely informative responses! I’ll try to respond to the issues raised one by one, in no particular order:
I hadn’t even heard of Conal O’Grada or his book, but I will certainly take a look. Thanks!
Just to clarify, what I meant by cutting “using the same finger he uses to play it” (which I realize is not the best way to put it) is cutting G using T3 (or L3, now that I see this notation is also used).
I am far from any concentration of ITM players, and have had to rely on texts to get an idea of what’s what.
My background is in classical and jazz piano, and when you learn a fingering for, say, a difficult passage in one of Chopin’s etudes, that’s the one you use every single time (jazz is more lenient but usually far less difficult). So I like getting one fingering in which to become very proficient through practice and then sticking with it for my beginning stages.
My last note is that my objective, quite simply, is to imitate as closely as possible what I hear from Seamus Tansey. I like lots of flute players, but when I finally came across his playing it resonated very strongly. Most important, to me, is the lovely rhythmic flow (I think this is due partly to what Larsen calls the lilt?) of his playing and the very natural-sounding ornamentation. (Or, in my musical thinking: Altan is rock-n-roll ITM, Tansey is a swinging Oscar Peterson ITM. Hope that makes sense to somebody.) So if anybody has any specifics on how to reach that particular goal, myopic as it may seem, I would be very grateful.
My last note is that my objective, quite simply, is to imitate as closely as possible what I hear from Seamus Tansey. I like lots of flute players, but when I finally came across his playing it resonated very strongly. Most important, to me, is the lovely rhythmic flow (I think this is due partly to what Larsen calls the lilt?) of his playing and the very natural-sounding ornamentation.
For learning, imitation and close study is one thing. In the even slightly longer term you bet move away from that as soon as possible. In Irish music playing and developing style is not a matter of learning to run off a piece and stick to it forever, it’s the constant variation and own style that’s highly rated.
Study Tansey closely by all means if that;s your thing take in his influences but don’t learn off his music note perfect to play it back the same each time, he wouldn’t play it the same twice himself. Key is, to state the obvious, is to learn what is going on, why he plays it the way he does and what effect he is trying to achieve. But after that, put your stamp on it, by all means incorporate elements of all players that influence you but the end goal is to combine all these influences and acquire your own voice and expression.
