The Wheels of the World website. I pre-ordered a copy, it’s due out in September, by which time the world may changed irrevocably, natch. Spendy little tome - about $50 to get it in the US - but looks like quite a monumental piece of work, 624 pages of overblown bellows blowing.
This is the story of a continuum, from John McSherry, a 21st century icon, backwards in time through his three formative heroes – Paddy Keenan, Liam O’Flynn and Finbar Furey – and thence to Séamus Ennis, Willie Clancy, Johnny Doran, Leo Rowsome, Patsy Touhey and a litany of unrecorded legends before them. It is also a snapshot of professional Irish traditional musicians, after the goldrush of the late 20th century, keeping calm and carrying on.
John wrote it with Colin Harper, also. The initial run is only 2k copies so get 'em while they’re hot, or whatever state books are in fresh off the press.
Hopefully it will make a nice addition to O’Neill’s classic “Irish Minstrels and Musicians”. I pre-ordered a copy myself, since the Dollar-Euro exchange rate is pretty favorable from this end at present.
I have seen a copy of the book (there was a someone doing a little promotion in the street for the Willie week). I must say it has its own bias. It will be 20 euro in Ireland, which is fair enough.
A book of which it is said : “A history of an instrument and its players, from the present day back through the dawn of recorded sound into Irish musical history, lore and legend.” is apparently a history book, and like a real history book, should be unbiased. Unless history here is conceived like in the 19th century, but today it is considered a modern science, and so should be done in the most objective way.
That said, I’d be interested in having a look at it.
Except “real history” books are never “unbiased.” Not a single one. Not one written in the 19th century and not one written yesterday. They all reflect the biases and points of view of the people who wrote them. There is no such thing as “objective” history (or objective science for that matter, but that’s a different discussion) since the historian has to choose their sources, interpet sources, be cognizant of the agendas and biases inherent in said sources, construct a narrative linking the material together, which will be very individual to the writer, and no matter how objective anyone tries to be, they will never escape who they are and their worldview and particular methodology in their analysis.
As for history being considered a “modern science,” it’s just not. I don’t even know where to start with that one, other than to say historians don’t think of themselves as scientists, and scientists most assuredly do not regard historians as fellow scientists. Totally different methodologies, philosophies, practices. Historians don’t follow the scientific method. Scientists don’t qualitatively analyze texts. You can be a historian of science, however, and qualitatively analyze scientific texts.
The academic historians who supervised my history PhD were very much aware that no one is or can be objective, which you have to keep in mind when consulting secondary sources – meaning other people’s history books. It’s lousy methodology when you assume your secondary sources (not to mention primary ones) are objective.
When I did my master’s in the history of science, I wrote and read a lot of papers discussing why even the natural sciences aren’t objective: they create a facade of objectivity, but it is arguable that they are subject to people’s agendas, politics, funding, etc.
A good historian approaches his or her sources with an open mind and hopefully not too much of an a priori agenda, but they’ll also be aware that they won’t escape their point of view anyway. Postmodern, Foucauldian reflexivity is commonly discussed and taught in postgraduate courses; so trainee historians approach their own work and others’ with open eyes, knowing it will always be reflective of the writer and where they are coming from, cuturally, politically, whatever.
In Britain and the States, no one views history as a science, or even close. It is squarely in the liberal arts camp. I don’t think it even gets to be a social science, which most natural scientists think aren’t “real” science anyway.
Since the book is not out yet, we can only judge the promotional materials, which at first glance seem to lack a certain humility; i.e. it is nearly always better to let other people call you a “21st century icon” if they will, than for the author to claim it for himself.
At the Willie week copies of the book were available (not for sale though) and, FWIW, I leafed through a copy of the book.
I have read Colin Harper’s book ‘Irish Folk Trad and Blues’, and enjoyed his treatment in that book of the history of Sweeney’s Men, Anne Briggs and the connections and relations involved. He does have this interest in the (English) folkscene and that, combined with McSherry’s own influences and interests, shines clearly through in the treatment of their subject. That is what I referred to above as the book having it’s own bias.
All right then, I totally agree but therefore I suggest all the history books should be given some title of that kind, let’s say : " A biased history of Britain" by Simon Schama. so that citizens shouldn’t be misled.
Having had some experience of the industry, I can say with near-certainty that this is the voice of publishers trying to hype their product, not John McSherry big-noting himself. Humility is not in the publishers’ dictionary.
Seriously… if you’re a piper why would you not get the book?! It smacks of a certain snobbery, if I may say, for people to be condemning a book they haven’t read for bias, when who among them has a) played like McSherry, or b) written a 650-page history of uilleann piping?
By the way, who’s the publisher ? Can’t see any name on the website. Anyway, the idea of the book comes from John McSherry, and he certainly has his own word to say, for apparently the project initially depends on him. But this is not what matters the most.
Quoting from the promotional website :
“The book evolved from renowned piper John McSherry asking author and acquaintance Colin Harper if he fancied helping create a small book based around transcriptions of his (John’s) compositions and interpretation of traditional tunes, with perhaps some biographical material.
Being an historian at heart, Colin’s instinct was to expand the prose content in order to cover something of the uilleann pipes’ history…”
That is the thing which seems a bit far-fetched to me, how to mix both concepts ? A difficult task I think. This is why I said from the start that it could be interesting and that I’d like to have a look at it.
I think it’s one thing to say the book evolved from a particular concept, and quite another to say the book has two fundamental concepts. But in any case, I would expect the histories/biographies to aid in the interpretation of McSherry’s arrangements, just as you would get more out of any artist’s work by knowing more of their influences.
so that citizens shouldn’t be misled.