The problem I have with the oft-repeated “slow good, fast bad” dichotomy is that it seems to, in its purest form, completely dismiss the entire careers of most of the players we all admire: Molloy, Crawford, Gavin, Kennedy, Hynes, etc. Lads, these fellows play fast on practically all of their recordings, and I don’t believe there’s anything intrinsically wrong with that.
A trip to Vaughan’s set-dancing barn in Kilfenora will show what one of the uses for speed is: the dancers positively DEMAND it (and I do mean that they will vocally display their displeasure if the music is too pokey). What we’re playing is dance music, after all; the concept of slowing it down to have a closer listen is a relatively recent development. Furthermore, just because music is played slow doesn’t automatically mean that it is any good.
Rather than the “slow good, fast bad” dichotomy, I’d rather see a four-way split: Slow and Bad, Slow and Good, Fast and Good, Fast and Bad. S&B is for really boring, soulless, pulse-free droning-on, while F&B is for the speed merchants who lose the beat, their friends, the plot. That leaves two positive categories, and I can continue to find both “The Branch Line” (the original Coen bros.) and “The Whirlwind” (Glackin/Hannan) equally transcendental without feeling that I am worshipping false gods.
I think a lot of the people in that topic are saying that upon hearing themselves they realize they may be in the F&B category and that they ought to slow it down a bit and work on things. Take a step back, so to speak, and work on it more.
Basically I agree - you can of course play fast and beautifully. And if you do it won’t seem as fast as if you’re playing slow and poorly. I should have used the word “rushed” rather than “fast.” I never said that it was bad to play fast. I did say “It’s a rare musician who is able to play balls to the wall on every tune that comes up in an open session.” And that’s true. Matt & Kevin don’t know 100% of the tunes out there. Nobody does. And they play slower on tunes they’re learning. I did say that you should always play in your comfort zone, wherever that is, and especially solo.
What we’re playing is dance music, after all; the concept of slowing it down to have a closer listen is a relatively recent development. Furthermore, just because music is played slow doesn’t automatically mean that it is any good.
While it is “dance music” there are loads of great players who have never and would never play for a dance. You can call it dance music, but lots of it is drawing room music.
To say it’s dance music and therefore has always been played fast doesn’t sound right to me. Nor would it to Mary MacNamara, Micho Russell (RIP), Tara Diamond, Peadar O’Loughlin, Kitty, and other “slow,” lovely players. The music isn’t limited to Vaughan’s nor is that the criterion of good music. Lots of great music is played in kitchens.
There are places, like Ballinakill in East Galway, and East and West Clare, where there has always been a more measured approach to the music.
And what we like about the music played by Crawford et. al. isn’t the speed, it’s the musicality.
Think of it as “slow good” before all else. If you can play “slow good” then you will have built the foundation to be able to play “fast good” and eliminate the risk of “slow bad” and “fast bad.”
Though I play with the tone of men and of angels, and have not rhythm, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of speed, and understand all tunes, and all ornamentation; and though I have a big nasty hard buzzing bottom D, so that I could remove pint glasses from the table to crash upon the floor, and have not rhythm, I am nothing.
And now abideth phrasing, speed, rhythm, these three; but the greatest of these is rhythm.
Yes, one and all, rhythm is indeed of paramount importance. As an accompanist, I value rhythm more than just about anything in music (there is purposefully arhythmic music that I enjoy). The oft-repeated implication that I chafe against is that playing at a faster tempo precludes playing rhythmically, which it doesn’t, and playing at a slower tempo guarantees that the music will be groovy, which also isn’t automatically true.
A typical logical fallacy used to support assertions of this sort is to compare the best example of slow playing with the worst example of fast playing, i.e. the guy next to you that keeps speeding up. This has always reminded me of features I used to occasionally encounter in English papers, where Jeremy Clarkson or someone of his ilk would make very sweeping statements about the superiority of English people to Americans. Typically, this comparison was presented as London’s best and brightest vs. some abominable American stereotype character - McDonald’s-chomping, SUV-driving, etc. Funny how you never see Clarkson trotting out a hypothetical Burberry-stock-devaluing Chav to do rhetorical battle with some Nobel-prize-winning American chemist. As I said, it’s a logical fallacy.
My point is that there’s room in the world for both fast and slow playing of Irish music, and we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss someone else on the basis of the speed at which they like to play. Furthermore, it’s equally unhelpful to try to prove the superiority of one opinion over another through the use of flawed forensics.
I believe a leading champion of the ‘speed kills’ philosophy
is Mike Rafferty. He tells his students (myself included,
briefly) to play at a relaxed pace. First, because one stays
in ‘control’ of the tune, but, second, because great speed, even
when the musician is in control,
tends to obliterate what’s beautiful in it. In short, his
problem with speed is largely aesthetic; I think he feels
that virtuosity of that sort murders the tune.
That Rafferty says it’s so doesn’t make it so, of course.
I’m not so deeply into this music to have an educated
opinion; also I doubt that there are hard fast rules
about how to approach this or that music. (I’m sure Mike
isn’t so foolish as to think that music played slowly
is necessarily played well (he’s heard me, for one thing!).)
Speaking subjectively and personally, while I’m more likely
to be awed by the virtuoso at speed, I’m more likely
to be moved by Creaven and Rafferty. So far.
By the way (and FWIW) Glenn Gould, when asked toward the
end of his life how he viewed his playing, said that when he
was young he played the pieces too fast.
A good player and play well fast or slow, which one they choose to do is their choice and theirs alone. It is not the tempo which makes one good, it is the interpretation of the tune. There are many many aspects of playing ITM, tempo is just another one to take into consideration. Some people don’t like lots of ornamtents and don’t play that way. No one would compare two players that play very differently and say one is better beccause they play one way.
Lets look at Matt Molloy and Michael Rafferty, both are masters of the Irish Flute one plays fast with lots of ornaments where the other plays slow with less ornamentation and more lilt. Does that make Rafferty the better player because he plays slow? No, comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges the two are completely different players who choose to play in completely different styles.
What am I getting at? Slow does not equal good and fast does not equal bad, there is much more to playing the flute than the tempo. But when it comes to new players a lot of them try to play faster than they can. Speed will come with time, but until then sit back, relax, and enjoy playing the tunes at a nice easy pace. It isn’t a race and just because Crawford plays a million notes a minute doesn’t mean you have to. Do you think he learned all of those tunes at that tempo?
Some people can play better (better rhythm and the tune just sounds swingier) faster than slower which kind of tells me there might be something wrong. But being a beginner I’m not sure what that may be.
I’ve been watching the RTE dvd “Come West Along the Road”. It has some great footage of dancing, and really puts the music into perspective. I’ve watched half the dvd and haven’t noticed any “fast” playing for the dancers.
I am very happy to weigh in on this topic, because it strikes near and dear to yours truly.
While pushing tempo before you’re ready is a trap many fall into, speaking for myself, I get to a point where I need to play at a certain tempo, or the tune doesn’t sound right. This was brought home to me in using the Amazing Slowdowner software. Even a flawless performance loses something if slowed down too much.
Another fact to take into consideration is that you don’t necessarily play a tune better by slowing it down. In other words, whatever may be lacking in the performance may have nothing to do with how fast you are playing it. A strange thing about ITM that I have never run across in other forms of music is that we all seem to think with time and practice, we can all play like Matt Malloy. I have a certain level of ability that I try to constantly improve, but at the same time, I know that I am not brilliant. Slowing down doesn’t make me sound any better, it just takes whatever deficiencies I have and makes them slower. Not exactly my goal.
So while I agree that speed for its own sake, or taken on in an effort to impress is not to be encouraged, the idea that playing a tune slowly will iron out problems of performance is a bit simplistic, IMO.
Just as a final note, I want to stipulate that some of the tunes I’ve learned by using the Amazing Slowdowner, I will only play at 75-80% of the recorded tempo, so maybe it’s a question of what you mean by fast.
Maybe I’m crazy, but my theory is that the tune and the player’s familiarity with it should determine the optimal speed. One wouldn’t play Faith mo Bhurartha or Rosin Dubh at a fast clip would they? And I doubt Garrett Barry’s would work well as an air. Well, maybe it could, but that’s beside the point.
A musician is an artist. Do art teachers tell painting students not to use red? Or does the painter use colours, including red, to achieve the effect (s)he wants to depict on the canvas?
Il Friscaletto’s post raises, if not directly poses, a good question: just what qualifies as fast, anyway?
I’ve certainly heard someone grumbling about a session’s being altogether too fast, which in other quarters would have been regarded as a lovely mid-tempo session (the richest, most aromatic kind).
Isn’t speed, to a certain extent, relative?
To my mind, “extremely fast” means over 120 bpm. “Feis tempo” for reels is 112 bpm. Left to my own devices, I end up playing reels at around 100-108 bpm. The one time I met Gearoid O hAllmhurain he made fun of me for playing even that fast.
