Why admire the "geezers"?

Irish Flute
1

Hey all,

I have a serious question for you all out there, and especially for the seasoned players:

I was born and raised in the LA area of Southern California, and I’m the only one in my family ever to play Celtic music - totally self taught, never having taken lessons. I’ve never been out of the country or even to the East Coast, so as a result, though I play “Traditional Irish Music”, the Tradition that encompasses Irish Music means precisely diddly/squat to me. I don’t understand it or partake in it, nor have I ever been exposed to it in anything approaching “pure” form.

Last summer I was at a camp in Northern California and a man who had admired my playing came up and asked me to recommend some good CDs or flute players to him as starter material. My response was: “Rule #1: nothing recorded before 1990. Rule #2: Absolutely nothing recorded before 1970.”

The immediate result of that comment was me getting my a*s chewed off before every person in the session.

My question then is this: why do so many musicians respect and idolize the “flute geezers” (sic - not my term, and I assume we all know who I’m talking about) as paragons of technical and stylistic excellence when even a musical layperson can tell that there are dozens of musicians that have outstripped them decades ago? And given such, why recommend and extol said older musicians as good examples of an art form with the forknowledge that they’re technically sub-par?

I don’t mean this as an insulting or inflammatory post, and I hope it won’t be taken as such - I’m asking an honest question that’s always bugged me. As a reasonably experienced flute player myself, I’ve found these older players to be useful reference material and a superb source of tunes, but beyond that why respect or at the most emulate their musical abilities when we have the work of hundreds of better musicans at our behest? Why set them up as musical icons?

Again, I’m absolutely not trying to pick a fight or step on anyone’s toes. I really do want to know the answer here, and if I’m in any way off-base, feel free to correct me.

Regards all 'round,

Jamey.

2

Well, I have heard many “new” players and “old” players, and I don’t see how modern players would be “better” than the old ones. If you are talking about technical efficiency, then yeah, I would see that flute players from the 90s are more “advanced”, if for you this is what irish music is all about, but if you’re talking about style, then I personally prefer the “old” style, which is less based on speed and ornamentation and more on phrasing and style, but this is all a matter of taste I guess really.

3

Sounds too me that the reason you don’t admire the old guys is that you’re giving way more importance to technical virtuosity than to musicality.

To appreciate what the old guys have, maybe you need to be a little more open to what they and their music has to tell us.

I don’t know that much about flute-playing, but I know a little more about fiddle playing. I have often got neophyte fiddlers to listen to some of my recordings of the old guys. Often they don’t “get it” or like what they hear because they don’t hear what they are looking for.

They don’t hear brilliant, classical, clean technique and they don’t hear equal-tempered intonation, so they assume the players have faulty technique. Big mistake.

Take an old geezer like Bobby Casey: to me, he’s got way more technique, in ITM terms, than say Paddy Glackin or Nollaig Casey. (Not in “violinistic” terms, I grant you.) But neophytes won’t hear his incredible technique and mastery of variation. They’ll just hear the scratches and the odd (to their ears) intonation. They are missing out on fantastic music.

I think that chances are you’ll change your mind about this point as you stay with the tradition. If not, well, I’d say that’s your loss.

Would you say, why admire Leadbelly and BB King when you have Eric Clapton and Stevie Ray Vaughan? Would you say there is no point in listening to Louis Armstrong because there is Miles Davis or Winton Marsalis?

4

I think Harry Bradley would be considered one of the great Modern Technical players…yet I remember reading a post where he says (or someone says about him)that he studied some old recordings and worked on his style from them. I know when I talked to John Wynne who is another awesome player he told me to study John McKenna (no luck finding his albums).

I guess it depends on what kind of player you want to be but after going to Bill Ochs whistle class I decided more than anything I want to play with lots of lift. I also like the flow but it seems these two things can occasionally contradict each other.

I got into Irish music thru studying my heritage and maybe that’s another reason why I would rather stay close to the tradition as much as possible.

I see these guys like James Murray and Josie McDermott as having lots of soul. I guess that’s what I want to accomplish, more soul than flash.

To each their own.

5

Many years ago, when I was in college, I wanted to work on a particular project for a class paper. My very wise professor told me that in researching that particular topic, I might end up reading some publications from the 1920s or 1930s. But not to worry, he said: people were smart back then, too.

People were good flute players back then as well.

Old players are not “better” or “worse”–just different. (Though sometimes they are better or worse).

It is easy to get seduced by voluptouous recording values, or technique that seems to stem less from Irish music than jazz or classical music.

But this is separate from the questions that, at least to me, really matter: does this musician know how to put across a tune? Is this musician conveying something beyond the notes?

I take weekly lessons from Mike Rafferty and, while he might not be the best technician around, he really knows how to make a tune say all that it can say.

That is what matters to me.

Tim

6

The real answer, it seems to me, is that playing the music is really about the music, not about the instrument, nor the technique or speed in which you have mastered the instrument. The expression “pure drop” is appropriate – a good single malt cannot be underestimated or outmoded by some newer, hastier drink, though it can certainly share the shelf with it.
Like you, Jamie, I have no background in Irish culture or music, either – my background, for twenty some-odd years of my adult life after college, was in rock guitar. But what impressed me most when I switched over to playing traditional music was the pulse and feel of the music, not the lightening speed some of it is or can be played with. While technically much of what the “old geezers” did or do is simpler, to play it well is actually harder to accomplish. This is because it’s not a technique to learn, but an absorption of the artform – the beauty and (sometimes) simplicity of the tunes are not lost in the variations as they are (often) now, buried under heavy ornamentations, slickness or unnecessary speed (though many could ornament with the best of the newer players). In a word, there is a soul to their playing, something cherished by any musician of any genre. And that’s something you either hear or you don’t.
There’s certainly nothing wrong with the newer flute players or newer arrangements and ideas, but the geezers, as we’ve chosen to call them, were the real deal. And, IMHO, the best of the younger players are emulating them or are still inspired by them, not leaving them behind as relics. Remember that the best of these newer players will someday be thought of as geezers, too, their ideas old and cliched to a younger bunch.

7

It’s a good enough question to get me past the lurking and give my 2 cents. The geezers come from a time when the music was still centered on dancing rather than just performance. Their playing had a particular lift to it that doesn’t come from fast tempos but from their styles of playing. I’ve been at this 10 years and in every flute workshop I’ve taken in that time, every superior player has pointed to the geezers as one of their primary sources.
Last year I had the incredible good fortune to spend a week in a workshop with Peter Horan. At age 75, his tone was superior, his technique inspiring and I expect to be working from the material on the workshop tapes for some time to come. If you’re really hooked on this stuff, you’ll be after the geezer mojo too!

8

All that you all have been saying is true…except…

Being a bodhran maker (ducks for cover), I VERY OFTEN see and hear people claiming to want to play in a “traditional” style because it is thought to be the quickest way to get into a sesh. In other words, I see time and time again people using the word “traditional” to mask a lack of ability. Now, I’m not saying that older more pure-drop style players have a lack of ability (in fact, I believe the opposite- I believe their stripped down style was more soulful), but what I am saying is that these days, lots of less-than-competent players hide under the guise of wanting to “play traditional” or “not liking the tunes so fast” or “not liking so much ornamentation” because they themselves can’t pull off technically good playing and don’t want to look bad. In THIS sense, I think that the older styles have become a bit tarnished as of late, simply because the style has been so readily claimed by so many who ought not. Trust me, every time you see a new bodhran player making a racket, if you mention that they quiet down, you might very well be met with “but I’m playing ‘Kerry style’”. Again, this is not every case, and does not apply to everyone. You can really tell when it comes down to the soulful-ness of the playing. I find as I advance along, that I am growing to appreciate the older players more and more. So its a tricky thing really, and I wouldn’t be so quick to blow Jamie’s initial point off. I think in some ways, he may be on to something.

Just my 2 cents…
rob
http://www.metloef.com

9

tt made a good point that got me thinking.

I think one advantage we have today over players from a long time ago is that we are able to be exposed to so much talent and to hear it as often as we like.

I think the advantage that they had in years past is the daily pace was much slower and they could dedicate much more time to playing then we can.

10

J, You are obviously no great fan of the auld’ stuff… :slight_smile:

You should’nt have to like it , but to consider it technically substandard is completely subjective.

They had more than enough technicality to get their message across and in cases shone well up and beyond it. That their tuning or phrasing are’nt to modern tastes is not their fault ,and I for one am glad that I started approaching their recordings and eventually retrained my ear to their terms. I have learnt a wealth of technique and have been introduced to a whole new approach to rhythm and tone variation.

Again, I don’t think people HAVE to like this stuff, but it might be an interesting excercise to ask yourself why you don’t.

All the best, Harry.

http://www.strayceol.com

[ This Message was edited by: Harry on 2002-10-03 12:26 ]

11

I have little experience so I won’t weigh in on why the “geezers” are worth a listen (though I think they are). However if I were to give a one-word answer it would be “maturity.”
But I think Jamie brings up a very important issue as did the others who responded. I think it’s worth questioning why we give so much reverence to the musicians of the past or those who represent an older generation; not to say that they don’t deserve it. But at least Jamie is looking for a better answer than “because the geezers are better in some ways that would be hard to explain if you don’t hear it right off.”
Perhaps the best way to approach the question is to ask “what is the best way to play just one note without ornamentation or changing the tone?”
Cheers,
Aaron

12

[quote]
On 2002-10-03 12:12, AaronMalcomb wrote:
But at least Jamie is looking for a better answer than “because the geezers are better in some ways that would be hard to explain if you don’t hear it right off.”

Jamie has stated a preference for modern playing which is now generally quite different from the older stuff that he alludes to. He also percieves (and I think coming from a modern stylistic context, unfairly) that the old music is in some way inferior. In the same helpful and progressive spirit that Jamie put his question, I mean that in the nicest possible way (although we do differ on it).

I think that both older and new styles are capable of great merit despite their differences (viva le differance and all that). So if it is important to question our reasons for exalting some older players as you suggest, then why do you also suggest that it is not so important to question how we approach the old music given that the context and way in which is now played has changed so drastically?

With a reasoned and sensitive approach I think a lot of the old music remains an incredible resource in it’s own context and beyond.

All in all, I do have a lot of experiance in this respect and this might just be more useful information to some than to suggest the consideration of a unadorned long note.

Regards, Harry.

http://www.strayceol.com

[ This Message was edited by: Harry on 2002-10-03 13:12 ]

13

I think Jamie asked the question in good faith, even if most (myself included) argue for the “geezers”. Early on, I was more drawn to the Bothy and Lunasa style arrangements and flair than the more traditional tunes, accompanied by accordians and the like (still haven’t grown too fond of those) because my background was in more progressive modern music in general and these bands helped me make the transition to traditional playing. It took a while for me to appreciate a simple flute over a thumping piano or a concertina, or to really listen to instruments recorded without modern studio processing. Seeing through the production and fancy arrangements (which are still fine, BTW, if not always necessary) took some time, to the point where I often find the now-overdone key changes, chromatic runs or fancy rhythmic shifts more disingenuous than appealing.
So the follow-up question is why someone would say they play traditional music, but not like the old traditional stuff? The new stuff is an extension of the old stuff, and most of the older players were (or, those still living, are) as good on a technical level as the newer players, and many are better. Really listen to them, learn the tunes the way they play them, and you’ll see that’s true. Not always as easy as it sounds, which is part of its beauty. When I learn a tune from a more modern player, I very often get it exactly – the older players, instead, do little subtle things I don’t always get. As I said earlier, its the culture and absorption of the music that makes the difference in sound, the spirit in which its expressed. It’s all part of the music – you can’t really play the music and disavow yourself from its roots, even if you personally prefer modern sounds or modern approaches in your own playing.
To Rob, anyone who uses the word “traditional” to hide a lack of skill really doesn’t understand the tradition or the players they claim to emulate anyway. One can only hope that in their simplified playing they will eventually learn to play the tunes correctly, as opposed to that second equally obnoxious session ill, the way-too-fast-and-sloppy player who can’t hold a steady beat or melody in a beer glass.

14

BTW, I assumed that Jamey (or Jamie) was a male of the species there.

Are you? And do you know gentleman fluter Jack Gilder of the bay area? He’d probably enjoy a tune and a chat about such things.

Regards, Harry.

http://www.strayceol.com

15

Thanks a million for your replies all - this has been a great clarification for me! As Harry aptly stated, I am not a great fan of “the auld stuff”, and will freely admit to exposing myself to as much Dave Matthews Band and as any traditional music. You can guess what kind of a slant this gives my playing and preferences…

I can also see how my position vis a vis the “Geezers” is in some ways highly subjective, and I freely allow for those who overtly and honestly prefer the sound and phrasing of older styles. If Seamus Tansey isn’t my particular brand of vodka, that doesn’t mean he can’t be yours!

I’ll also freely admit that some older players are fantastic points of reference, both in terms of stylistic development and repertoire. If there was nothing more we could glean from them, they wouldn’t keep remastering their recordings.

A certain point still bothers me though, and I’ll proffer some specific examples: consider the opening tracks to McDermott’a “Darby’s Farewell” and McConnell’s “For the Sake of Old Decency”, just as microcosms of the genre. I don’t think - though I’m open to being corrected here - that anyone would argue that these tracks are not technically inferior to, say Crawford’s “D Flute Album”. That is, whether the musician in question chose to play that way or cannot really play any better, when you break it down to trills, cuts, taps, rolls, and crispness of fingering, many older musicians don’t hold a candle to the top “modern-style” flute players.

In light of that, should we 1.) continue to extol the technical ability of certain older players and 2.) consider them as material worthy to be benchmarks of ability and artistry?

I feel as if I’m waffling a bit, so I’ll ask straight out. Again I do not mean to, and I earnestly hope I won’t, offend anybody - I’d really like to find an answer to this. Should we still consider these older players top musicians, or are they better judged just sub-par artists who were in the right place, at the right time, and around the right people, and just happened to make the right impression? Or, were they just the only material available at their time, and thus icons by pure default?

Thanks again to all.

Regards,
Jamey.

16

And, oh yeah - that would be “Jamey” most assuredly of the male persuation, Harry - and yes, I know Jack quite well! We’ve had many a great night of tunes and talk in Northern California, and many a wondrous lengthy digression on the tradition of the music, which he has greatly helped me in understanding. Stylistically, I don’t think we’ll ever see eye to eye, but his knowledge or the community in the music is more help than you can imagine.

And, just as matter of crazy coincedence, about a month ago, I drove across three of the four major American deserts for 24 hours straight with a copy of “Bad Turns and Horse-Shoe Bends” and a demo tape of one Harry Bradley blasting on my stereo the whole way - all at Jack’s suggestion (and provision, in the case of the tape)! I got a few weird looks in Phoenix, but hey, that kind of tunes demands a serious decible level.

Jamey.

17

Well Jamey,
A simple answer to your question would be yes… and no… :slight_smile:)

I will continue to hear them as masters of character, personality, wit, tone ,articulation and ornament and you won’t because I think we’re listening for different things… how do you quantify mastery in ITM- by counting ornaments and falshy runs and trills? If so you seem to be missing the point of what I, and I know alot of other people find very special about it, but it’s an open field and there’s plenty of room for all.

Regards, Harry.

http://www.strayceol.com

[ This Message was edited by: Harry on 2002-10-03 18:41 ]

18

“… the Tradition that encompasses Irish Music means precisely diddly/squat to me. I don’t understand it or partake in it, nor have I ever been exposed to it in anything approaching “pure” form…”

Jamie - A few observations offered without agenda:

Your statement seems to indicate you are aware something more indeed exists in the tradition. Perhaps the fact that you gave the guy a few “rules” (your word) was bothersome to the witnesses (they would be so classified if this goes to trial in Ireland :slight_smile:).

Traditional Irish music is magnetic. It draws people in and holds many of us. Self-taught players mimic their way through tunes initially, hitting a few wrong notes, then eventually all the right notes for some period of time. Novices instantly recognize that repertoire is required to play in sessions so tunes are often learned at a rate that exceeds the player’s knowledge of the music. It’s similar to popular breeds of dogs, where the ability to procreate can exceed the preservation of desirable genetic traits (this analogy offered to see if it holds water, if it does I may copyright it).

Valuable lessons are learned along the way by hearing diverse settings and sharing. The use of ornaments is a proficiency in itself. Rarely does a beginner realize all, or any, of that. They want tunes and sessions and the great high that can come from playing with others. I completely understand. However, sharing knowledge of deeper elements is the stuff of tradition and there is no substitute for a mentor(s) and time, and it is very rewarding when a mentor is willing and available. Old, sour guys do not fit my definition in this case. They have their place, but I have yet to figure out where that exactly is. Some who are separated from first-hand access to the tradition do recognize the value that access provides. Academic study and regurgitation of a tradition is something quite different than living it (God bless the internet). It is honest to recognize that even while attempting to participate as we each can.

Throw in a few snob know-it-all attitudes, a few don’t-give-a-damn-about-tradition suspicions, and the potential for misunderstanding is virtually instantaneous. The answer to your question is that the old geezers are indeed top musicians. The flashiest, swirling slam dunk would never have been seen but for the set shots of days gone. All this, of course, just opinion.

19

Oooops, I thought the first one was lost!!!

[ This Message was edited by: Harry on 2002-10-03 18:34 ]

20

Just the opinion of one more, but I think the purpose of carrying on with traditional music is to honor the music, not to honor the musician. When we look at some of the players who can really dazzle us with technique, we’re no longer honoring the music. Some of the “geezers” can cut to the heart of the music without calling so much attention to themselves. It’s about soul, and it’s about taste.

To draw a guitar parallel, I’ll listen to Muddy Waters over Yngwie Malmsteen any day. Sorry if I spelled that last name wrong. Even my spell checker is confused by it.