Listening to Irish trad music I sometimes think that tone of the musical instrument is low down on the musicians priorities , the music being the top one. I especially thought this listening to the old fiddle players, they always seem to bow very close to the bridge which gives a not so pleasant tone. But I sometimes notice that a lot of pipers seem to favour a harsher tone . Do you think that in some way there is actually a tradition of tone .Could it be that a harsher tone carried better in dance halls of outside when busking .
Do you think its important for a piper to consider the people who are listening and should try and produce a tone that is easy on the ears. Personally I think one of the reasons Liam O’Flynn is such a popular piper even with non –pipers ( apart from being an excellent piper) is the fact that he has his pipes set up to produce a tone that is very listener friendly .
Is it that pipers are playing in sessions more that before where tone is not that important compared to volume and being heard over other instruments.
What d’ya think ?
Interesting topic. Certainly their is a place for music for the heart and music for the head.
Projection and hard tone are brilliant for dancers and might equally excite a non informed listener.
The more reflective mode could work both ways while being easier on the ear it might not give the uninformed ear enough of a shock to get their attention.
Thinking about my own ears a bit. I love 4 stop Hohner melodeon a over dry boxes, I like to play flute with volume and projectio and push the instrument, but I would prefer to listen to flat pipes, but then again I find the touhey cylinders very interesting listening.
My ear has a place for Martin Hayes and Vincent Campbell as two people Ive been listening to a lot of this week.
Not a lot of time for a more modern aesthetic such as reverb and synth washed. That may be a prejudice I have consciously or unconsciously developed.
I think it depends on the hierarchy of learning that a new musician chooses to follow, which is often set by their teacher (if they have one). Some schools of thought are to develop really good fundamentals, like tone, scale work, etc. first, and then use them as a base to start learning tunes. The other end of the spectrum is to start learning tunes, to be able to play something, and then go back and work on technique, tone, etc. I think a good teacher should balance both, not focusing so much on the fundys that the student gets bored or frustrated, but also not just banging out repertoire without giving a base of knowledge so that the student winds up a ‘one trick pony’ or sorts just able to rattle off a few tunes without the ground for making their own decisions and interpretations or having the ability to teach themselves tunes. Having worked mostly in the string world, and having taught several students myself, I’ve seen the budding maestros who can rip off a challenging piece rather impressively, but ask them about stylistic features or how to play scales, and you get a blank stare. It’s especially hard when new players, whose teachers are building them a strong fundamental ground, see this kind of student play, as it makes them really antsy. I don’t think students, of any age, who are given a strong fundamental ground before really getting into tunes can truly appreciate it until later in life, when they’re working on their own without a teacher’s aid. It’s super rewarding to be able to make one’s own musical judgments and discover!
Personally, I was first taught music by being given a great fundamental foundation, then learning material, all the while stepping back to critique aspects like tone and style. It has really tempered my approach to music, and it’s the same way I teach my students.
Developing one’s tonal ‘signature’ is, to me, one of the lofty aspirations all musicians should stride to attain. Not just playing the notes, but putting oneself into them, and creating something truly special. Not so much worrying about what the audience wants to hear, but really creating something full of life that self-satisfies.
When it all comes down to it with the pipes: to belt is human; to tone, divine.
Well I’m no Lord, but what you have written makes sense, however I rarely hear traditional musicians talk about the process of learning in the same way and certainly not in the same terms.
Fundamentals, hierarchy, lofty aspirations.
I wonder would Tom Morrison have been as exciting if he sat down thought about refining his tone. Perhaps he did and he made the aesthetic choices he made. Perhaps he practiced scales as well.
I know a little about one of the old greats. John Kelly told me to play closer to the bridge precisely to get that harder edge to the tone. He said that it carried better. From memory, I think he was talking about playing indoors, but solo for dancing.
Two things have happened in the trad music world , with amplification there is no longer a need for an instrument to have a penetrating tone and dance music is now mostly listened to rather than danced to. It seems to me that not a lot of trad musicians take that into account, but I agree with Dunnp that the likes of Martin Hayes and Liam O’Flynn are aware of that fact and make a real effort to make their instruments very listenable.
Good thread, lads
And I think you have made some very useful points.
(afak) O’Flynn mostly plays in mic’d up situations
I don’t think he’s a session monster or whatever
and you wouldn’t get a tenth of his music if he was in a noisy pub with a banjo and a bodhran
for instance. (aaarrrggghhhh)
Listenable music vs “being heard over the din” music…
or whatever