Ben, pancelt is referring to the Milman Parry / Albert Lord hypothesis that has come to be known as Oral Formulaic Theory, which has had an enormous influence on folkloristics. And on me … since Lord was still teaching at Harvard when I was an undergraduate.
Lord’s “The Singer of Tales” probably still best summarizes the issues and insights.
In short, it’s much more complex and subtle than just stringing stuff together. Think in terms of musical grammar - syntax, morphology, vocabulary, and underlying structure. Not to mention human creativity.
Is this the one? Is it readable by someone with not formal training in music theory? If so it might make a good winter reading project by the sound of the contents…
Think of Alice in Wonderland when the animals all fall into a pool of Alice’s tears, and the mouse recites the history of William the Conquerer to dry them off … because it’s the driest thing he knows. The Singer of Tales may run a close second.
The book’s not really about music, so no music theory is needed. The focus is on the Homeric Greek epics and their modern analogues in Serbian gusle performance. But the underlying mystery is universal: How does an oral musician-poet, possibly illiterate, consistently reproduce sung/recited performances of works which may last literally for days and days, without impossibly memorizing everything?
The answers go to fundamental questions that are applicable to any folk performance - including Irish tunes. How do we learn from unwritten sources (without the dots!). What does it mean to say that two performances of a tale (or settings of a tune) are “the same”. What is the role of variation, and where does it come from? How do you go about looking for “deep structure” behind a performance? Does writing things down change or even destroy tradition?
If you can make the leap to generalize from the specifics of the book, there are good insights to be had. Honestly, so much of the discussion on the Chiffboard and elsewhere seems like constantly reinventing the wheel, in a vacuum of unawareness of brilliant work which has gone before in ethnomusicology and folkloristics. It’s a constant source of frustration.
By the way … though the book may be dry, the back story is not. Milman Parry died of a gunshot under mysterious circumstances shortly after he and Lord completed their Balkan fieldwork, just as Lord was completing his Ph.D. Of course, Lord inherited all the materials and went on to make his academic career on them. So the constant (and unfounded) rumor at Harvard was that Lord had devised an unorthodox way to further his case, and he was regarded somewhat in awe by his students in Intro to Comparative Literature. I remember once looking through some of their original wire spool recordings from Serbia, and thinking to myself - “evidence”.
Thanks, MTGuru. Dry I can handle (eg) especially in a SW English winter . Using Greek Epics as a Rorschach is fun too. I think I will seek out a copy after the equinox.
FiddlerWill - did you pick up the book? Or did you pick up the quality of dryness associated with the book? If the former, then I would appreciate your thoughts when you read it.
Certainly Phill. I recall hearing some of these ideas a while ago and from what I heard, and my experience, it made a lot of sense so I was delighted to get a clear lead on this from MT. I use Amazon for Bibliography hunting After reading a really good book, I go through the Bib and get whatever is available from Amazon market place , then I do the same with the next set of books., ad infinitum! This process leads me into some very interesting research and writings.
It’s the difference between analysis and synthesis. Work analysing oral traditions and the structures that tend to build up in them can be fascinating - if you’re into that kind of thing. (I used to be, but I’ve gone off it. ). But I think it is a step too far to say that Irish tunes are made up of interchangeable building blocks. I think that, when applied from a practical session point of view, this is the sort of over-simplification which leads to comments ( heard in just about any decent session in Ireland) like: “I think you have that part a bit differently” or, more subtly, “That’s an interesting version you have there”. They both mean the same, which is, translated, “You’re playing it wrong”. It’s the unique features of tunes that interest me - the bits you can’t change. I think this stuff is covered in that old work as well as the building block stuff (from dim and distant memory). But again, I’m most interested from a practical session point of view - what can you do and what you should not, as opposed to the analytical approach of breaking down the results of the process.
Oh dear, the old ‘wrong and right’ version crops up! how does one define wrong and right? in relation to which setting? I wonder at your translation Ben, have you actually discussed this with people who say this to find out if they really mean what they say or your ‘translation’? You see wrong settings, and right settings are a matter of opinion, such as good settings or bad settings. In relation to what?
For example we can look at the tunes of Charlie Lennon, a modern day composer of traditional music. If you wish to argue whether his stuff is ‘traditional Irish music’ well please take it up with him. Thats how he defines it and I personally would not choose to argue the point with him.
So we have the composers settings as a reference. If my setting is different to the setting Charlie has in his book does that make it wrong? Personally I dont think so. Its different. I play the tunes as I choose to play them, If I prefer a slight modification well so does Charlie as he does not play the tunes as written! why would he? The tunes are Ideas, which we can interprete in our own fashion. If we all played a particular setting , fair enough we could all sit in the same session and play together note for note, but that is not what its about! That what I term Eurotrad, same tunes, same settings, same ornaments in the same place ! no thanks.
The life and soul of the music is how we choose to play the tunes and the way we vary them. How can there be a right or wrong setting? according to who? The Bothy Band? Im quite serious here!
If I play standard tunes ion a different key , am I playing them wrong? or if I play them at a slow pace so it not dance music any more? or if I play the Blackbird as did Tomy Potts, is it wrong? Did Tommy play his tunes wrong?
How does one define wrong and right? in relation to what particular standard? which particular book? or recording? or player?
Ben, I agree with this, too. We’re not talking Legos here. In the case of Irish chunes, the blocks are more like thematic motifs that exploit well-travelled patterns to build to architecture of the tune. It’s a higher level of abstraction.
Take Harvest Home as a simple example: |DAFA DAFA|defe dcBA|eAfA gAfA|edcB AGFE|
You have
Broken arpeggio on the I. A common “establishing” theme for hornpipes.
Rising-falling stepwise, one octave up. A bit of a tease, a bit whimsical.
Pedal point on the V, with climax. Creates a kind of static tension.
Full scale descent to tonic resolution. Rapid release of tension.
The tune crafter might mix-and-match those basic motifs, reorder, invert, substitute, etc. And create a tune that’s both similar and different.
They both mean the same, which is, translated, “You’re playing it wrong”.
Forgive a silly question: So, if each group of session-eers (what do you call them?) were to translate a particular tune into “dots,” one group’s “right” version (in terms of basic melody) would differ subtly from another’s? Or maybe even a little more than subtly?
No, Will. You’ve missed my point. I’m not talking about the merits of different settings - I’ll leave that to others elsewhere. . I wouldn’t say there was a right or wrong setting, assuming it is an extant setting somewhere and not something just made up on the spot. (I suppose, if one were being picky, you could say that there might be a ‘right’ setting for a particular session - kind of “that’s how we play it round here” type of thing.). So, assuming that there may be several different settings of a tune, and within those different settings, several different possible places for variation, there are still some things which are constant about any particular tune, and not interchangeable. And yes, I’m sure of my translation and no, I wouldn’t have dreamed of asking..
There are “settings” (what a rigid-sounding word) that have arisen out of good use of imagination but there are also “settings” that have resulted from mishearing or from deliberate alterations that result from dumbing-down the tune to meet someone’s limited skill level. We had a recorder player who did this a lot. “Settings” of tunes made by people who are not very good listeners can be obstinately at odds with the versions that most people play (note the plural). Good settings can nearly always be quickly adapted to in sessions even if they differ markedly from “your own version.” I will not be persuaded that there is no such thing as a poor setting. These do exist and are quite common. You’ll know whether it’s a widely used, valid setting once you strike up a conversation about it with its exponent. If they tell you that their wacky version is the only one they’ve heard/ever played, be very suspicious! The tunes are not invulnerable to degradation, not by a long chalk.
Are the “dots” on the session.org generally reliable as “authentic” tunes?
How does one figure out the boundaries of authenticity in varying the basic melody of a tune, especially to fit in breaths?
I’m thinking of MTGuru’s version of The Sailor’s Wife, which he kindly posted for me some time ago. He sneaked a high D in there, which I liked and have imitated a bit in trying to learn to vary the tune a little.
Forgive me; I just have a worry about “doing it wrong.” I want to make sure I’m not degrading any tunes, or that I’m playing anything that would too greatly offend the ear of a true trad. musician. On the other hand, I don’t want to get unnecessarily wound up about things, which might be paralyzing to the learning process.
The Session tune section is, well, a collection of dots. It’s no better or worse than any other collection of dots.* Note that I say collection of dots rather than collection of tunes. There isn’t very much information about a tune in the dots, unfortunately. I’m not trying to be all mysterious, believe me. If you are worried about doing it wrong I suggest you avoid notation altogether and learn by ear.
I’m thinking of MTGuru’s version of The Sailor’s Wife, which he kindly posted for me some time ago. He sneaked a high D in there, which I liked and have imitated a bit in trying to learn to vary the tune a little.
There you go. That’s the way to do it!
*The comments section under each tune can be quite interesting though.
I want to make sure I’m not degrading any tunes, or that I’m playing anything that would too greatly offend the ear of a true trad. musician.
You won’t be doing either. And don’t worry about those old curmudgeons who may think they’re the true trad musicians. Any true trad musician worth his or her salt would be encouraging you once they see you’re serious about it.
Fair enough Ben @mockingbird. I think there is often a commonly accepted baseline setting of a tune. but there will be many different settings and variations of the tune that individual musicians develop over time as they incorporate bits and pieces and turns that they hear people play.
As far as the session.org settings, well Its not possible to generalise there .
You need to listen to real people playing the tune and once you’ve done this enough the dots on the session are only a map which can give you a way into these tunes. So it depends on who you listen to. I think this is absolutely crucial to play ‘authentic’ trad, you need to listen to it a lot. This is the bottom line, spend your money, borrow from the library get recommendations listen day and night untill the tunes are an integral part of you, then the dots, are really just an aid to memory and a short cut to figuring out the tricky fast twists and turns .
. It depends on the person submitting the tune as to the setting submitted and its ‘validity’ . I use the sesh for tunes all the time, but I will quite likely go through all the settings finding the one that sounds right, or a combination of parts that sound right in reference to what I have in my head from my listening material.
So for example I have Pat Mitchels album on my phone, Ive listened to it hundreds of times, at some point I got hold of the track listing and grabbed a bunch of printouts from the sesh, but I dont follow them slavishly I use them as possibilities, Ideas. This way for example I can run through a tune 4 or 5 times ‘from the dots’ and I have it because its already in my head from repeated listens. Sometimes I can literally play through a tune from the dots once and I have it and the reason I can is because Ive listened to it hundreds of times.
Fair enough about playing it ‘wrong’ but its not the notes that dictate right or wrong, its not the ornaments either, its the way you play the notes that matters, the feel. How to play right? listen to it played right by experts, the real thing, the thing itself.
I always think back to Micho Russel and his description of how he got his tunes. He reckoned that ‘they were more my own composing than trying to follow ‘the other way’’ when asked by Brendán Breathnach why his tunes were so different to those in O’Neills.
. Using Greek Epics as a Rorschach is fun too. I think I will seek out a copy after the equinox.