Thus, I must agree with StewySmoot “I think collectively our POVs have raised the level of consciousness of how to accurately the sounds we call music” >
Of course I must mention that I MEANT to say “accurately interpret the sounds”, but this was only after Feadan and I had a pleasant off-line discussion on the matter.
If you liked what I said, blame me.
If you dont, blame Feadan
garycrosby wrote:
Feadan, I wasn’t offended by your comments - afterall you did qualify the B.S. with the adjective jovial which, to me at least, indicates a “casual usage” as you stated.
Good! BTW, you can call me David 
However, I was taken aback by your comments. Correct me if I’m mistaken but isn’t the entire point of this type of a discussion to learn by sharing information, by sharing opinions, and by asking questions? Thus, asking legitimate questions like “Is throat singing actually singing or is it tuning?” does not undermine Jessie’s point.
That question in particular seemed to me to be phrased in a less than serious manner and have a painfully obvious answer so I guess I added it to the let’s-be-silly-&-pedantic list. I’m sorry that I misunderstood. Since the term “tuning” usually refers to bringing an instrument into a desired pitch I don’t see how it could apply here. It is called throat “singing” and involves the human voice so it would be correct to refer to it as singing. Like lilting…using a human voice to sing a tune (akin to skat singing in jazz). The action is singing but the music is a tune not a song.
Tom posted:
It is not, as they say, rocket science!
Well, Tom, I agree with you. But if Gary is sincere in his concerns as addressed above then it appears that it is not really that obvious to everyone, alas. Wouldn’t that be all the more reason to take the original post a teency bit more seriously and try to educate others?
Cheers,
David
David, every time I check the board, there’s another last post on this topic by you. You seem quite set on having the final word on this particular issue. Well I’m not sure I’m going to let you.
On 2001-08-23 21:05, Feadan wrote:
…It> is > called throat "> singing> " and involves the human voice so it would be correct to refer to it as > singing> . Like lilting…using a human voice to sing a tune (akin to skat singing in jazz). The action is singing but the music is a > tune > not a > song> .
Getting back to the REAL topic, I think there are 2 subtly different usages of the word “song” here. The 1st is linked to the production of sound/words/music by the human voice or proceeding forth from the mouth. Thus, the issue here is whether every such piece of music accordingly produced is a “song”, or only if it is accompanied by words. What if, like in scat/lifting, the words are unintelligible syllables? Is this still singing? Can the music proceeding forth still be called a song rather than a tune? After all, sound (syllable) production is similar in these cases. I’m guessing sound production is different in the case of throat singing. Maybe here, you couldn’t call the music proceeding forth a “song” but rather a “tune”.
The 2nd usage: “song” as in “a piece of music specifically written/composed with words”. Thus, I could ask an instrumentalist to “play this song”. THe latter ends up playing the tune of that song, but I wouldn’t see anything wrong about how the request was phrased.
tuaz, thinking seriously about this topic
To add to the confusion, most of these tunes have many sets of words writen to them. Some ‘Irish’ songs consist of english tunes with irish words set to them - dublin in the green, Maid of fife, etc. The tunes get recycled, and new words are set to them as needed. There are tunes in the swedish fiddle playing tradition called 'engelskas’some of which sound suspiciously like irish tunes that I know.
As far as I’m concerned, Tuaz, you’re right on the money
On 2001-08-24 07:11, nickb wrote:
To add to the confusion, most of these tunes have many sets of words writen to them.
Most of these tunes, Nick? I would beg to differ. I think the percentage of tunes that share a melody with songs is probably quite small. To subtract from the confusion, the very simple point is that it isn’t proper to call tunes, i.e.Banish Misfortune or Sheehan’s Reel, a song. I don’t think we really need to hash over the “grey area” anymore do we? Okay, Porridge, your turn (Maybe you can tell us how many of the tunes in your wonderful book are also songs).
On 2001-08-24 11:44, Feadan wrote:
Okay, Porridge, your turn >
'Sokay, David, I don’t really have anything to add so you can have the last word after all.
Well actually, I would say this. Speaking as a writer and editor, with long experience of “correcting” the writing of others: I think it’s very handy if we all use the same words to use the same things. I personally would prefer people to use the word “tunes” for things that are not songs as you and I understand them.
BUT language is only a set of conventions and it’s inevitable that conventions will differ between and even within communities and even between individuals. If you get irked by people using words or language in a way that is different from your own, or if you try to single-handedly hold back the tide of linguistic change and divergence, you’ll wear yourself out. I know. I’ve given up and I’m much happier!
[ This Message was edited by: Porridge on 2001-08-24 12:04 ]
On 2001-08-24 11:44, Feadan wrote:
. . .On 2001-08-24 07:11, nickb wrote:
To add to the confusion, most of these tunes have many sets of words writen to them.Most > of these tunes, Nick? I would beg to differ. I think the percentage of tunes that share a melody with songs is probably quite small. . .
I think there was a bit of confusion. When Nick wrote “these tunes,” he referred to the subset of tunes that have words hence making them songs. I have heard scores of songs that have a melody in common with other songs. I have heard the Listowel Hornpipe with 5 sets of words draped over it in the last year alone. Slides, marches, hornpipes, jigs, and some polkas all are very susceptable to being good source material for songs. I have read (the source does not come to mind) that songs in the Irish tradition are valued most for their words and poetic or social impact. The melody takes a back seat. Originality for a melody is also not critical in the tradition. That would explain why great songs are draped over catchy tunes from throughout the tradition.
Also, in John Skelton’s class this year, John discussed some tunes that he knows no words for but believes that they were once songs. The use of longer notes at the end of phrases was one of the artifacts discussed as being a clue to a tune having been a song first.
I don’t think you could convince me that it does not happen often. Rest asured, it does happen.