Perhaps of interest to this discussion, Breandan Breathnach wrote a few words regarding tempo in the Introduction to the third printing of the first volume of Ceol Rince na hEireann.
I quote:
“It was pointed out to the editor that readers not familiar with Irish dance music had been left in the dark about the tempo at which this music was usually played. The following shows the tempo for each class of this music:
To play the music at a quicker tempo detracts from the melody; to play it somewhat slower can do no harm. It was customary for many of the older musicians when playing for themselves to adopt a slower pace than that demanded by the dancers.”
edifying discussion, thanks all!
I was told that beginning dancers need relatively faster pace because their footwork is simpler, and that accomplished dancers need less than lightning pace because they have so many more steps to fit in…
I play mostly in Cork city, where, as anyone who has played there will know, slower playing is somewhat neglected. I am a pretty good musician, and I know probably 90&+ of the tunes in any session - but I sometimes have problems playing tunes because they’re so fast. Not just finger-fast, but so fast that breathing patterns for the flute have to be adjusted, and there’s often nowhere to take an adequate breath without dropping a couple of notes. When I was learning first whistle, then flute, the emphasis was on tunes for dancing - we would learn lots of polkas and slides and hornpipes because if there were dancers, then that’s what they would be dancing sets to. And I also did Irish solo dancing for years, both before I started music, and when I was playing in groups I would dance. So the emphasis was always on finding a tempo that would work for the dances. So we would play quite fast, but still in a relaxed way - there was no sense of pressure to get all the notes in. And we always had to be able to play them well at slow speeds too, because playing for solo dancers, esp. hornpipes, requires the ability to keep all the notes even at slow speeds.
But in Cork, I find that the emphasis is on reels. Lots of “session” reels. Preferably in A or even sometimes E. So I can play them, but I would never want to try to play them at slow speeds, because I’ve come to dislike them 'cause a)I don’t like the keys they’re in, and b)I find it really frustrating not to be able to do things with the tunes as I play them.
I also know a lot of very good “session” musicians - who know all the tunes, and play 'em fast - who physically can’t keep the beat when they’re asked to play more slowly…
Sorry about the ramblings!
Deirdre
Perhaps, in a way, unless dealing with issues of accompanying dancing, the entire discussion about speed is irrelevant to the main point, i.e., music. It seems to me that the two main points are (1) to be in control of your playing at whatever speed, and (2) to play with your whole heart at whatever speed. I think it was on Ken Burns’ jazz series that I heard Louis Armstrong say something to the effect that, “if it makes you tap your toes when you listen to it, it’s good music; if it doesn’t, it’s not.” That seems to me like a far better rule of thumb than a metronome setting.
[ This Message was edited by: Jon-M on 2002-10-19 13:46 ]
Inspired by Peter, I’m making an effort to listen to more music. I don’t know about the rest of you, but life has gotten particularly hectic it seems these days, and I think in my drive not to “lose” the memory and feel of the 40 tunes I have in my head, I try to practice them in different ways. One day, all jigs, then airs, then reels, then sets of my favorites of all kinds, then, working at different speeds on different types and keys of whistle on just one or two tunes, etc. In my drive to practice, I occasionally fall into a rut and am not really paying enough attention to listening (and not just to me recording)and to the feel of the music.
My very favorite tune is a jig, The Rolling Waves (aka The Lonesome Jig), at first a bit of a difficult tune to get right. I play it a lot and think I play it pretty well; but I went back to my old Bill Ochs notes and noted he suggested listening to a version on the Portland album by Kevin Burke and Micheal O Domhnaill.
Well I got the CD (used and cheap and like new from Amazon)and it’s wonderful. Anyway, I played it for my wife who has heard me play it too many times, and asked for a comparison. She said I wasn’t playing the tune with the same bounce and some other words, that all add up to “lilt.” Now, I have excellent rhythm, but that’s not the same as lilt. I guess it’s some combination of rhythm and phrasing that equals lilt.
I remember once Bill gave us some old lilting tapes (sort of Irish scat singing), and said that’s what it was all about. Listening to the music really is so important.
On 2002-10-19 10:51, CDon wrote:
Perhaps of interest to this discussion, Breandan Breathnach wrote a few words regarding tempo in the Introduction to the third printing of the first volume of Ceol Rince na hEireann.
I quote:
“It was pointed out to the editor that readers not familiar with Irish dance music had been left in the dark about the tempo at which this music was usually played. The following shows the tempo for each class of this music:
To play the music at a quicker tempo detracts from the melody; to play it somewhat slower can do no harm. It was customary for many of the older musicians when playing for themselves to adopt a slower pace than that demanded by the dancers.”
End quote.
Is it just me or is this confusing? Why would tempo be given in dotted quarter notes? Does 127 dotted quarter notes per minute translate to 85 beats per minute (127/1.5)? I’ve always heard that hornpipes were slower. Whazzup??
On 2002-10-19 18:44, vaporlock wrote:
Why would tempo be given in dotted quarter notes?
Because that’s how the beat falls in a jig. In a double jig there are six eighth notes in a bar (6/8 time), but they are grouped into two beats each comprising three eighth notes, which is equal to a dotted quarter note.
In other words, when you tap your foot twice per bar in a jig, you’re tapping every dotted quarter note.
In other words case the number of dotted quarter notes per minute equals the number of beats per minute equals the number of times you tap your foot per minute…
Make sense?
To return to the subject, I don’t know why you’re all agonizing about what dancers want, as though this was some kind of diktat. How many of you out there ever play for dancers anyway?
Some of you do, no doubt, as I do occasionally. Well then you have to give them more or less what they want, especially if you want to get paid. (For step dancing, you had better given them almost exactly what they want.) In any other situation, you can play at whatever speed suits you, can you not?
In which case, as others have wisely said above, the main point is not to play faster than you can play well.
Hmmm…well, IMO, there’s nothing wrong with fast as long as it’s clean. I think it becomes “too fast” when the speed doesn’t move the rhythm up anymore, or add to the feeling that is created by speed.
nickt wrote:
The crucial decider on speed is the dancer; jigs, reels, hornpipes, etc are DANCE tunes, and if the dancer can’t keep up or is losing the feel of the tune and the rhythm, then it’s TOO fast - even if the listeners seem to enjoy it. The fact that the vast majority of us play without a dance troupe is irrelevant.
I completely disagree. Even traditionally, musicians when they were not playing for dancers would choose a tempo that best suited them. As has been pointed out, it was generally a slow pace in the “old” days. I attribute that to the more relaxed tempo of life in that era. Now, musicians seem to prefer faster playing; possibly something to to with the faster tempo of life. In any case, I’m under the impression that there has always been a distinction drawn in Irish trad between music played for dancing and music played for listening. The same rules did not apply to both types of music.
As I read the through this topic, I was trying to figure out how I was going to describe what I feel is an appropriate speed. Then I came upon Deidre’s post and she basically said it for me:
…So we would play quite fast, but still in a relaxed way - there was no sense of pressure to get all the notes in…
Yes, exactly! Quick enough to give the rhythm it’s maximum amount of rhythmicness, but not so fast the notes ever seem crammed or rushed or like your not savoring the tune’s emotions.
In other words case the number of dotted quarter notes per minute equals the number of beats per minute equals the number of times you tap your foot per minute…
Make sense?
Ummmmm…yeah, it does. Feeling kinda silly for not thinking that through on my own. Thank you Steve.
Interesting. My fife and drum corps marches at 110-112 steps per minute. For reels and hornpipes we take one step for every two quarter notes. For jigs, we take one step for every three eighth notes. Marches are in 2/4, so we step on every beat. By the quote above, we’re playing all our jigs slow, our hornpipes quite fast and our reels pretty much on the money. Go to a session, though, and they’re playing the reels a lot faster than that, and the hornpipes at least as fast.
Historically, there were several different marching tempos. 110 bpm is a quick march. There is at least one corps (Moodus, Connecticut) that consistantly plays at 90 bpm. It sounds stately when they play a march, but very weird when they play a jig.