Squawks Squeaks and Bad Technique

Irish Flute
21

very true about the recordings of the 30s etc, but weren’t most of the recordings we’re talking about made on a reel to reel, much later?

i think it’s a combination of all of these points

  1. many of the players achieved their great (sometimes local) renown (enuff to have been sought out for a preservation recording in the first place) by having a large repertoire, memory of tunes never committed to paper, and decades of being a music maker. They were not necessarily performers as we would think of today. For many, music was not their day job, so to speak. nor was it usually “performed” (to an audience, etc), but was played for more practical purposes (a dance, for instance, or session)
  2. by virtue of the fact that one admits they were “preservation recordings,” one acknowledges that these musicians were old, and not usually in the best of health.
  3. in addition the instruments, regardless of initial quality, had been subject to decades of home remedies and piecemeal repairs (and, in some cases, abject neglect)
  4. lastly, when running thru a dozen tunes for the recording (which, given cultural attitudes, the musician may have felt a silly endeavor in the first place) there was no editing done, nor was it usually (it’s my understanding) done in a studio setting.

so you’ve got a sick old man who hasn’t really played in a long time, playing a spotty flute on a reel to reel recording done in the acoustics of his living room or kitchen, without editing.

there are, of course exceptions to everything, tho…

22

Then there’s hope for me…

23

there was a fine folk singer singing away at a pub. and in the middle of the song he sneezed. after the performance an audience member approached the singer and said " gee, that was a brilliant rendition, except for that sneeze in the middle, what a shame. where did you get that version of the song?". the singer replied “shame? oh why do you say that? it’s a tradtional song and that is how i learned it. the farmer down the road sung it the same way - he sneezed at exactly the same place too.”

24

I did read your post very carefully Gordon, you wrote:

"Few had great voices or flawless musical chops (distinctly different point from not being able to play or sing…"

This disturbed me as the recorded musicians I mentioned, from the 1920’s onwards, such as Robert Johnson, Willie McTell, Blind Blake and many others, did indeed have great voices and flawless musicial chops, obvious to anyone that listens I’d have thought. I wasn’t trying to educate you Gordon by the way, merely named a few names for those reading this thread who are prehaps not so aware of the great country blues musicians of the past. Eric Clapton et al are indeed fine musicians, but I prefer the older guys that’s all.

Anyway I’m glad that you were/are a guitar player too. The same here, been fingerpicking for over 25 years, still have my National and Martin 00028, although most of my spare time these days goes to playing the pipes, and more recently the flute.

The huffing, puffing, squeals and squarks of the old fluters and pipers don’t bother me at all, it’s the musicality, emotion, and njaah I’m listening for. I think we’re in agreement here

25

Steampacket; whether these folks had “great” voices or not is a matter of opinion on the fan’s part, and subject to time and place – the distinction being that a lover of original old blues players is a relatively small group of listeners with an ear for root music. Quite small, relative to the number of listeners to their major-label counterparts, who would feel that most of the people you name do not, in fact, have “great” voices or technical chops.
I was talking about an artists technical abilities being consumate, not whether you or I prefer them over their newer, or next generation, counterparts, who often aim for flawless playing, including near-perfect intonation, and a general lack of “squeaks and sqawks”. So, if you place an Albert King against a Stevie Ray Vauhn, on a technical level, Stevie wins, personal preferences aside, as a player capable of both heart-wrenching blues, and a myriad of other styles ol’ Albert never dreamed of, nor – probably – cared to play, listen to or emulate. When you place a Jack Coen against a Kevin Crawford, Crawford wins as well, personal preferences aside, in spite of the fact that, to me, Jack is the “real deal” and Kevin is, well, not so much.
The fact that both Crawford or Stevie (were he still with us) would probably not say a word against their predecessors is because they are/were (probably) respectful of the sources, living and dead, that they try to pull from. What Albert does with one note, most players need two or three. Same for Jack on his battered flute (though I hear he recently switched to a Grinter). The man breathes ITM, he doesn’t merely play it.

On a more personal, OT guitar note, while I admire the players of “pure root” blues, I ultimately find the twelve bar, painfully-pulled slow hand blues quite boring, much preferring to play and listen to the more varied adaptations of blues that appeared in the 60’s and 70’s. I play a Strat, loud, and not a Dobro. Interestingly, I am considered a dinosaur in my tastes, too, and don’t find much interesting after, say, '85…

OTOH, and perhaps ironically, I much prefer the “roots” side of ITM, Jack Coen, Joe Burke, Mike Rafferty, Cathal McConnel, Josie McDermott, et al, to the post-Molloy, somewhat (to my ears) generic, hyper-speed players found in contemporary ITM bands.

All a matter of taste, my friend, and not a matter of right or wrong.

But, that said, I stick by my original point – I believe that the older players in ITM, blues, folk, played for a different aim than appealing to a wider audience, and in doing so, they did not generally give a damn whether they were always in tune, or that their voices, flutes, guitars, etc. sounded perfect. In that, they were often not as technically proficient, but, also in this, they were/are often much better. I do add the caveat, however, that many of the old timers really could play the hell out of their instruments (or voices) – I don’t even slightly mean to imply that all of these folks are or were in any shape or form inferior players. Just not as hung up on slickness or perfection.

BTW, in regard to several of these other posts, not all of these old recordings were made when the players were on their last lips; sometimes, they really did sound like that. Appropo to what I was saying to Steampacket, we’re just not used to hearing music sound like that.

Gordon

26

I hear what you’re saying Gordon, but don’t agree as regards the technical abilities of older traditional Irish or blues musicians contra that of the present generation of musicians playing. Johnny Doran, Michael Coleman, Patsy Touhey etc. had incredible chops/techique that hasn’t been surpassed to this day. Not so strange as they were pro musicians. The same goes for bluesmen such as Robert Johnson, Willie McTell, Gary Davis, Hubert Sumlin, Johnny Winter or Mike Bloomfield etc.

Older flute players such as Seamus Tansey, Peter Horan, Josie McDermott, McConnell or the supreme master from Sligo Pat Mahon were no slouchs when it comes to techicnique either. Fluters such as Matt Molloy, Catherine McEnvoy, Harry Bradley, Tara Diamond, Conal O’Grada, Kevin Crawford, Marcus O’Murcha also have the tech. abilitity & the njaa - Peace

27

Well, Steamy, ol’ boy, we could go 'round and 'round on this, and we have already, a bit. More importantly, I’m not sure we’re in particular disagreement here; I did make a very clear and sincere caveat that many of these players, including at the ones you name, are great players in their own right and are in no way inferior to anyone, before or since, in any case. What I do feel is that many have been copied, the music and style altered to reach a more accepting and wider audience, and that, consequently, their techniques and styles have been improved upon. Whether or not this was/is to the music’s benefit or harm is up for debate, player by player and song by song.

We have, of course, gone way OT; we began (I think) essentially in agreement that the squawks and squeaks of some early recordings (italics intended to make point in and of itself) are not necessarily an indication of bad playing or bad musicianship, but rather the result of a number of things which might even include a bad day for a good musician. Lord knows I’ve heard enough recordings of myself that I wouldn’t want passed around for posterity down the road, even if both I and my audience at the time didn’t seem to notice. Interestingly, as time goes by, the mistakes don’t sound as bad to me, either.

Gordon

28

“What I do feel is that many have been copied, the music and style altered to reach a more accepting and wider audience, and that, consequently, their techniques and styles have been improved upon” G.

Hmm, sorry you’re wrong Gordon old chap. Their techniques and styles haven’t been improved on. What has happened is that people copy the past musicians and in order to reach a wider audience (read commercial, in many cases) an altered bland style emerges that isn’t necessarily an improvement on the old stuff. Peace - anyway let’s all play som tunes and practice our technique :slight_smile:[/i]

29

Well, I guess that was bad phrasing on my part; improvement is hardly what I meant to say, and I agree with you here.
But (you knew it was coming!) I think it’s silly to say that everything that came before is by default better than what can follow, especially considering the groundwork is already there. If this were true, why do we play and try to improve? While in many cases, what came first (or earlier, in any event) IS better – it’s the original after all , and credit should be lain at the feet of an original – it’s unfair to assume that a later player, inspired by the old, and perhaps talented as well, can’t in some way add (note that I’ve removed the word “improve”) upon the old. If this were not true, a fellow like Molloy – fast approaching “geezerhood” anyway – would always be perceived as a bland follow-up to the “real” players. Clearly this is not so. And should it all end with Molloy? I don’t think so. Should Stevie Ray not have done hisbrilliant rendition of Voodoo Child? Didn’t eclipse Jimi, of course, but it was both a tribute and, um, an improvement in many ways. It certainly cooked..
In short, music aimed at a wider audience isn’t always banal, although most is – but then, not every old geezer was a Seamus Tansey, either. Appreciating early works doesn’t nullify newer forms.
Lastly, I already played for three hours today.. :wink:
Gordon

30

We (meaning flutes) don’t, I don’t think, have the right archetype for the discussion you two are having. (I am just WAITING for the posts to rail on me for this one, my fire extinguisher is READY.)

I think an extreme example of the phenomenon that Gordon’s pointing towards is to be found most readily in the uilleann world (my apologies to Mr. Laban): Liam O’Flynn. If you take almost any of his recordings, they’re, well, sanitary. No missed octaves, no reeds squeaking or squawling, no gurgling, perfect (albeit probably mixed) balance of drones, regs, and chanter. His recording Out to An Other Side, or Another Side, whatever, is almost starched. He’s got a very entertaining and very technically “safe” rendition of The Foxhunter on there . . . well, you need to hear it.

I wholeheartedly disagree with Steampacket on a matter of taste, however. Technique has evolved to some extent, even in vocal traditions. Older blues singers, including the ones you mention, had a raw sound that modern singers can’t really reproduce. Maybe if a performer were to spend 25 years in a coal mine, or 45 years smoking hand-rolled, unfiltered cigarettes . . . push his/her voice to the limit on a nightly basis . . . then things would be different. I grew up hearing very raw Appalachian music, which was technically probably kind of bad, but which I remember as being infinitely musical. Infinitely moreso than, say, the modern fluteplayers whose main interest (and attraction) is speed.

The key (whoa, somebody put a stake in me) is the damn downbeat. To the modern ear, I think, with all this breakneck playing, there’s something almost halting about listening to good old players play, because they waited for the downbeat. That’s the key. (Where is this coming from?).

I think part of it also comes from the fact that a lot of people now are taught, and taught by method, rather than by self-instruction based on hearing, or by instruction by really good players. As these instrumental techniques become propagated, they’ll (almost necessarily) become regularized. . . and once they become regular, there seems to be a kind of a right way to do things, and a bunch of wrong ways.

Don’t listen to the squeaks and squawks. Listen to the music.

Oh, yeah, I only played for an hour today. :wink:

Stuart

31

Indeed Stuart, it is the essence of the music that we hear or should hear from these old players. Some of these squeeks and squaks are their rythem section some may be TB some maybe the product of a rye sence of humor. But I think authentisity is worth the work it might envolve to overcome our modern sinsabilities and listen to these old guys with the respect deserved by the keepers of the tunes. As I said before this is the music of the people not of MCI or Sony or what ever. And ultimetly when all else has faded away it will be the old geezer who passes on the tunes to the new generation of wippersnappers. Who will then spend hours debating the authenticity of and the technecal abilities of those they learned the music from.
Boy its late and I am still practicing on this darn thing. Don`t realy know how many hours I played today.

Tom

32

Umm, the squeaks and squawks ARE a part of the music. From what I’ve heard, it’s often difficult to determine what is the deliberate expression or character of the playing, and what might be a “mistake” or technical “failing”. At times it seems to me that there either must be amazing control over every aspect of the player’s sounds, or a lot of very happy accidents. In any case, in this discussion there seems to be a appreciation both for technique and performance. Both would be best, but if you can only get one of these characteristics, I prefer performance over technique. Performance is musical, technique really isn’t.

Puff diddly-diddly,

Kevin Krell

33

Yes, I agree with Gordon & Stuart that there are indeed some outstanding musicians playing today, thank goodness. An inspiration to us all. Liam O’Flynn’s recordings never used to turn me on, seemed too perfect, but then I heard Liam playing live with his fan by his side at the Tonder Folk Festival, Denmark, and he had the odd squeak and squall in there and so I was converted. I guess I like the huffs, puffs, honks, squeaks etc.

One day when we get hooked up to electricity I’ll have to buy one of those electric record player contraptions and see what all the fuss is about
:slight_smile:

34

I’m afraid that, despite the interesting discourse that took place, I don’t feel that what I would like to discuss has really been covered in depth. Perhaps I’m not putting across my meaning clearly enough or I’m not very good in interpreting responses.

I am not trying to ask, if geezers are worth respecting or not. Or if their technical abilities are better or worse than today’s musicians, if they are a great contribution to the existence of the music, etc. I think Rama’s analogy of the folk singer and the sneeze is close to what I am trying to address. However it’s not quite there either, as that sneeze brings in all sorts of negative connotations that may or may not necessarily be applicable here.

We all know that lots of these older generation musicians play in a very raw manner, with all of the aforementioned squeaks and screeches. Are all of these definitely due to old age, illness or simple lack of practice? Are none of these intentional and in accordance to what they wanted in the first place?

Another thing that came up is, are we sure that all those older musicians would necessarily have preferred our “better” modern instruments? I think this may have some relation to the often debated Generations Vs expensive whistles argument too. Its often a shock to some that many musicians prefer playing “inferior” cheap whistles instead of the polished, sweeter sounding, louder XYZ brand whistles. Or maybe no, their instruments are truly in a horrid near unplayable state.

If the answer to the above questions were a loud resounding yes, then would be like the sneeze analogy. It would then seem silly and regressive to learn the geezer’s style of huffing and squeaking, just like the singer imitating the sneeze in the middle of the folksong. But I’m not totally sure, especially the part about the rawness and miscellaneous sounds not in accordance to what they had in mind. I’m doubtful that these older generation players should be necessarily viewed as musical victims of circumstances.

From the responses I read, I gather that it’s the opinion of many that the miscellaneous sounds didn’t bother the geezers at all, they just “played the music”. In this case, is it also silly and regressive, in a modern day context, aspiring to such a sound? Or is it laudable?

Maybe I’m simply thinking too much and should just go home and play some chunes.

35

I know what Kevin above meansbut i don’t think I would speak of ‘performance’ in this context. Actually I think it is the one thing essential to this discussion, the function of the music has changed, performance has come into it, music is tailored with an audience in mind, singers don’t sing primarily in the kitchen but have performance in mind, musicians work out their rolls and triplets and variations with the stage or recording in mind.

Motivation has somewhat shifted from the internal to the external. Same holds true for how music is often acquired today. While former generations would often pick their own way through the basics of an instrument and commence learning tunes from neighbours and other musicians, picking up technique along the way, today’s musicians are much more formally taught with loads of emphasis on technique. Much less a natural absorbing of music, left to ferment until it comes out from inside the starting player than something coming from without, ‘here go the rolls and there the cranns etc’.

I think that on one hand music is of it’s time and traditional music played today is bound to be different from that played by the generations before us. On the other hand I think it would be foolish too to think that what you hear on CDs IS today’s traditional music. There’s a whole landscape of living music out there that is not reflected properly in any of today’s recordings. I am privileged I suppose I am able to see music in it’s natural environment, where it thrives, and sit down and play with musicians from the older generation and at the same time see the fermenting hotbed of young players playing alongside them, learning and absorbing.

I don’t think it’s fair to say today’s musicians are better, it doesn’t do justice to the great players who went before us. And I have heard enough surviving non commercial recordings to know they were not lacking in any way. But there are different approaches today, yes.

I’ll try to react now to Eld’s last post that was posted while I was writing. in short the shift can again partly be explained by playing for an audience and a far wider audience than ever before and maybe more important for the first time an audience that is by and large from outside the tradition, an audience with different tastes and values.
Is it silly to copy some elements, well in some cases it may well be, I have met a man from France who could perfectly copy all Micho Russels’s idiosyncrasies in his playing and a German man who had the old bicyclepump style of some old fluteplayers down to a tee. Yet it didn’t feel like they had anything to say, they had jsut copied the appearance, the exterior of the tune. But it was an empty shell.
Music is a personal thing, you absorb elements of the playing of different people you learn from but you have to go down to the essence, the core of the music and that is in the rhythm and the phrasing. How you achieve getting that right is what matters, how you delevelop your musical language. Don’t focus too much on things marginal. If you can achieve something by copying elements from an older player’s music that’s fine but it is a means not an end.

36

Well, now, there it is in the proverbial nut shell. By far, IMO, the best post on the subject yet. Not to insult anyone or anger anyone but I could never see the real value of mimicing any player and/or his/her tune when the above is so true: “Music is a personal thing”. I stopped going crazy about not sounding like Skip Healy or Chris Norman about a year ago and now want to sound like ME. . . .“the rythym and the phrasing” - the “essence”, the “core”. WOW. That’s it!

Play on – BillG

37

I agree with both sentiments here, Peter’s first and Bill’s personal take on it. But, since we are all learning, at whatever level, learning to play from people we admire is a part of learning to play and find your style. If you really like Skip’s or Chris’ playing, Bill, that’s the style you should listen and learn from. Not to overtake them (good luck), but to absorb what you like about their playing into yours.
Mimicking is quite another thing; if you imitate the squawks and squeaks because you think it’s authentic, you’ve missed the point. If you throw in Skip’s chromatic runs just because you can, you’ve missed the point. But if you learn how to use the occasional squawk and squeak, via learning from someone you admire in order to make a tune, or your style, sound the way you intended it, it’s all right, then. Anything you add to a tune should have some reason; not a well-thought-out one, necessarily, but one that, to your ears, sounded right.
The unspoken elephant in this conversation is that some people have the ability to transcend what they’ve learned and create something new, or – perhaps more importantly – leave a piece of themselves in their music. Most players, old geezers, newbies or young speed-demons alike, didn’t or don’t. So a huge chunk of music, then and now, was or is simply mediocre. Perhaps enjoyably so, but mediocre just the same. Being yourself, a fine aim in playing music, is a must, but it won’t happen by design; it’ll happen when and if it does, and learning from people you admire is the only way to get better.

Gordon

38

I am agree mostly with Gordon, or he with what I said before, whichever way you look at it. I am not so sure though I would agree with him when he says the old players [I hate the term ‘geezer’ which to me has an unpleasant condescending sound it, even if it’s usually justified by saying it’s a term of endearment] didn’t leave a part of themselves in their music. Ofcourse there’s always and at any time a big grey area of mediocrity but overall I feel that most of the older players I have ever encountered had a distinct character to their music, in good music personality always shines through. It rather in this day and age with all it’s teaching and radio and recording, competitions and group playing, that music has become far more homogenised, to my ear anyway.

39

Small aside.

There is nothing more humbling than hearing a recording of yourself, especially when you thought your playing was spot on.

We, in this time also, have the ability to hear a much wider range of players than ever before.

Denny

40

… and let’s not forget the fact that these guys are most definitely HEARD differently now: i.e., their original listeners weren’t hearing with Dolby inside closed automobiles or thru headphones, etc. … They were sitting in bars or kitchens with drinks and tea and dancing and conversation and Lord knows what-all else.

And then there’s another aspect of hearing: learning from recordings. Back then it would be not only bad form, but impossible to ask someone to play a tune exactly the same way 10,000 times (and slowly, please), so you could learn it. I think you had to pick it up on the wing more. Today we have CDs and recordings to listen to & learn from, not to mention the appropriately-named Amazing Slow Downer.

Anyway, just my opinion, but personally, I think that the changes work both ways – it’s not just how music is played and learned and recorded that’s different, it’s also how it’s HEARD.

:slight_smile:

cat.