More “ornaments” on flute vs. fiddle, concertina et al?

Having read the recent “ornamentation” yea or nea discussion made me think of an offshoot of that. It seems the flute (and perhaps the other open-holed wind instruments such as the pipes and the whistle) uses much more “ornamentation”, e.g. cuts, rolls, strikes/taps, than the violin or other melody instruments. Of course, the use of these techniques varies from flute player to flute player, but my favorite style is Roscommon (e.g. Matt Molloy, John Wynn) which is highly “ornamented”. Or perhaps this could just be my ears and lack of experience being a flute player who is relatively new to the music. My thought is that the concertina and the fiddle play the tunes “more cleanly” as compared to the wind instruments which gain much of their style from the pipes, an instrument that must use legato techniques of articulation. Also, many flute players have a fuller, more nuanced tone when using ornamentation than when playing “straight” notes. Maybe the degree of “ornementation” is obvious and self-evident, or am I missing something?

When I play flute, I tend towards “less is more” and use as little ornamentation as I think I can get away with.
On the other hand, I know a couple of fiddle players who use so much ornamentation you’d have a job to tell what the tune is!

I think we flute or whistle players have extra tools at our disposal. For instance, we have to breath and that provides us an opportunity to add a little something to the phrasing of the tune.

Sorry that should say breathe, with an “e” at the end.

I agree with Wurzel sometimes less is more on ornamentation. I’ve heard some Flute/Whistle players who played excellently without a heap of ornamentation and vice versa. Its depends on both the tune and the player i think.

Everybody prefers to play a tune differently, its what makes the music your own.

I think its just important to make sure the basic tune isn’t distorted by too much ornamentation.

Leaving aside the fact that because the twiddley bits aren’t “ornaments”, but part of the tune (which of course negates the nonsense argument that a tune can be “distorted” by itself - I agree, however, that a tune can disappear up its own ass by simply having too many notes). there is really not much you can do on the flute that you can’t do on the fiddle.

On the fiddle, I like especially to breath. I really appreciate the addition this gives to phrasing. And doing it like a flute player would, snatching a few little gaps in just a few bars and then playing big chunks with filled up lungs.

As string instruments go, the fiddle is uniquely suited to playing flute twiddley bits because of the continuous analogue stimulation of the string. To get the same clean roll you get from a flute requires that single line being interupted. A concertina and a button accordian can come close, but the act of stopping and starting different reeds cannot help but introduce a staccato that is not there on the fiddle and flute.

And some triplet like run ups are great with the flute and the fiddle. I love the staccato sount of the oft used B, Cnat, D on the flute:
XOO OOO
OXX OOO
XXX XXX
No tongue, just the act of closing the holes. It works so well on the fiddle also when you single bow the notes.

And the smooth B, Csharp, D:
XOO OOO
OOO OOO
XXX XXX
Again, no tongue, just the act of closing the holes in this run sounds very legatto. And play it slurred on the fiddle.

InSearchofCraic, I think you need to listen to more fiddle players

A good fiddle/flute duet is usually very tight. And I think that this is helped by the fact that both players can carbon copy each other’s versions and ornamentation. While the flute and fiddle have their obvious differences, I think that for each ornament on the flute, there is a parallel technique on the fiddle which can be used. Maybe except for the crann which really is unique.

There’s probably someone else who can answer this better than me…. I’ve only played concertina for a relatively short while and I don’t play the other two instruments at all.

I just thought I’d bring up that there’s an aweful lot of choice on concertina. Many notes are doubled or even tripled on the concertina…. for example, I can play the same note… say a G from the same octave by pressing three different buttons located in different rows on the left-hand side of my concertina. Because of this, I’m not strictly limited to playing the G only when I’m pressing the button… I could instead chose to use one of the other Gs and get the same note by pulling. So pressing or pulling notes can affect the phrasing of a tune a lot, as can the stacato effect that quickly changing the bellows direction would give. And in any case, one might even say that the concertina is comparable to the flute in terms of phrasing, because of the limited air supply of the bellows. Though, there are some ways to play around this a bit (the air button).

Then, there’s also the ability to play chords, or play in octaves (playing the melody in the upper and lower octave simultaneously) on some parts of a tune. Plus, there’s the cuts, taps, rolls, vibrato (though to a more limited extent than the whistle or flute, I’d say… we’d have to shake the bellows and that’s a bit of a nuisance), etc.

So the options are there. I don’t see that concertina is a limited instrument in terms of ornaments…. and certainly, some players are doing TONS of things when they play. Though, there are a lot of players who don’t as well. Just depends on the person, I’d say.

Micheal O Raghallaigh

llig,

There is no question that I absolutely need to listen to more fiddle players. Thanks for your insights.

I agree with Gretchen. The concertina can be a very versatile instrument. There are tons of ways of adding in ornamentation. A fine exponent of this is Micheal O’ Raghallaigh. Jack Talty (Noel Hill’s nephew) also has a unique way of tapping a note on the opposite side of the concertina on which the melody is being played.

On the other end of the scale, Mary MacNamara is someone who uses hardly any ornamentation in her playing. This may be due to the fact that she is from East Clare, an area known for it’s musical simplicity.

What is a pity though,is that ornamentation is a must these days if one is to progress in fleadhs,etc. Is this ruining the tradition? And is it fair on those players who might be fantastic players,but just because their style might not contain a lot of ornamentation means their brilliance as a player is not recognised?

Lots of players add excessive clutter to a tune, but this always seems to be more palatable on fiddle and flute than on most other instruments, especially, the concertina and even the pipes, To me, the music can easily start sounding silly when people go overboard with gurgles and borborygmes - I have more than once been struck by the utter absurdity of excessively tight piping, for example.

Well, that certainly is the first time I’ve heard someone complain that Comhaltas was too progresive.

I think the concertina is indeed a very versatile instrument, but its diddley bits are its own. They don’t translate seemlessly from the flute and the fiddle. I’m not complaining, just pointing it out. Though it certainly does a better job of it than, say, a banjo.

And I wouldn’t let Comhaltas bother you, or anyone else for that matter. If you like your tunes without much diddley twiddley, it’s up to you.

ISC, get a hold of the seminal Molloy, Peoples, Brady record. And there’s a Frankie Gavin flute record where he multi tracks the fiddle on some of it. And Bothy Band of course.

Jeeves, I think whether it sounds cluttered or not is often more to do with the player’s ability rather than the amount of what you could describe as superfluous stuff. A good player will place the twiddley bits so well that they do not become the focus of what you are hearing. Though doing that is harder on the concertina than the flute or fiddle for the reason I gave earlier: Having to change, start and stop reeds gives a staccato that is hard to smooth out.

the ornamentation for the English ,and he Anglo Concertina,require different approaches,the problem with the english concertina,is to avoid sludginess when performing rolls,particuarly in reels[because of their speed].
whereas a roll on a fiddle would normally,be note above note below.
I find that for example[sometimes] a D note,might be better rolled with the same finger dEdAd,becausethe E andThe A are in the same row,there is going to be a clear seperation,or alternatively dEdEd,the advantage of the first one is that if your timing is a split second out,youare hitting achord note,youare also using your index finger [the strongest].Dick Miles

“On the fiddle, I especially like to breathe.”

Nothing helped my phrasing more than attempting to emulate the breathing of flautists and whistlers.

Llig, i didnt mean the twiddley bits of the tune that ARE notes i meant the bits people add in between of their own accord.

Lorna. I’d be interested to hear how you do twiddley bits that AREN’T notes.

Magic! well I’m not explainging myself properly i meant sheet notes as there written. I think i think i actually confused myself here.

explainging????? I meant “explaining”

Oh I get it, sorry. You think the notes in the sheet music ARE the notes. And any notes that aren’t on the sheet music are not notes. Is that right?

no. Awh i give up. Of course they are notes if they are played otherwise its just silence. But that the twiddle bits of the tunes written in the sheet music are the tune but the other NOTES that are played are ornamentation.

Oh right then. What if you wrote the twiddley bits down?

but thats changing the basic tune isnt it? i mean surely if everyone did that all the tunes would be bastardised and would be different everywhere? I’m just talking about derogating from the basic tune were too much ornamentation is put it.
I’m not or have never claimed to be all knowing about trad. I will probably never know everything, its a learning process.

You must understand that i came from Clarinet where no ornanmentation was added i had to play what was on the sheet and that was it. I learned acoording to exam books and played the pieces i was told to learn. No imagination. Thats why i changed to trad. So please forgive my ignorance clearly im not as educated as you in the ways of irish music.

🙂

OK, lets take it the other way. What if none of it was written down. How would you know which notes were what you refer to as the tune?

Good one Michael!

Michael, stop picking on poor Polly. If you wrote EVERYTHING down, the sheet music would be a muddled mess, full of those little tiny notes, curves for slurs, twiddly things for rolls, etc. I hate it when people try to capture everything. And they would not capture the brief chirps that are not quite notes of any pitch, the puff of breathing, the different dynamics, the flexing of rhythm, etc. And then some idiots would say that they have finally captured “the tune” and treat us like Polly was treated when playing her clarinet. Better to just have the bones on the sheet music, know that what is on the page is just some bones to use as a memory aid, and breath life into the stuff ourselves!

Al, of course I know what you mean and agree. But where do you draw the line of what you write down and what you leave out? That’s what I’m getting at. When you know the music, the question is irrelevant.

But LollyPolly, as being new to it, had a problem. She said:

“i didnt mean the twiddley bits of the tune that ARE notes i meant the bits people add in between of their own accord.”

“I’m not explainging myself properly i meant sheet notes as there written.”

I’m simply illustrating that you can’t make such a clear distinction. A tune is most profoundly not what is written down and everything else being “the bits people add in between of their own accord.”

This is precisely why I advise newcomers to the music to avoid the written stuff, especially those who can already read. It gives them the wrong impressions of what’s important.

I want to add something to that. The same should really go for classical music. The notes on the page do not capture the “brief chirps that are not quite notes of any pitch, the puff of breathing, the different dynamics, the flexing of rhythm, etc” for classical music either.

Music is aural, so we should be getting it *all* by ear.

But, the reason classical musicians use sheetmusic is not only because it’s conventional to do so, but most often because it’s simply too complex to pick up the whole thing by ear. For example it might be possible with someone very patient with a good ear to pick up a whole Chopin Prelude by ear, without once looking at sheetmusic, but having the music there speeds up the process. Of course you don’t get variations like you do in trad, but there’s still a lot in the music that can’t be represented on the page.

The same mindset might also apply to beginners learning trad music, and it causes them to rely on the dots. Perhaps people perceive the music as too complex to pick up by ear. How do you get around that? How do you convince people that it’s simpler than they think, and it just takes a few years of dedication, and perseverance to get it right?

Yes, but sheet music to the Chopin prelude does come with the instruction “Play all these notes, in this order.” It doesn’t run the caveat: (but usually, you’d be playing some more, preferably following a tightly defined tradition. And leave some out if you want. And next time through, do in different.)

“But, the reason classical musicians use sheetmusic is not only because it’s conventional to do so, but most often because it’s simply too complex to pick up the whole thing by ear”

I know some classical musicians who would profoundly disagree with that, at least for everything past the baroque period. They might have a little leeway in terms of tempo or coloration of certain notes, but to have a first-hand understanding of it the composer’s intentions, you must refer to the page.

llig, that’s what I meant when I said “you don’t get variations like you do in trad”. Of course there’s limitations to the comparison. My main point was to do with complexity. Which wasn’t really a point at all, more of a vaguely formed thought 🙂

kennedy, please elaborate on what you said. It’s pretty meaningless to go “that’s wrong and I know a bunch of people who’d disagree with you, it’s like this” and then not give evidence or examples.

I wish lazyhound were around, he’s been playing classical music for a long long time and he knows how it’s done…

I wasn’t saying you were wrong. Maybe it is possible to learn a Beethoven symphony by ear. But I’ve never heard of anyone doing it that way, and from what I know about classical pedagogy from reading and classical musician friends who tell me things, the way to learn a classical piece is to begin with the score. Read it, note the key signature, the accidentals, the key changes, the dynamics, the overall structure, see how it fits into other pieces from the period and/or composer, and basically get a sense of it before ever touching the instrument. There are debates on whether it’s wise to listen first to an interpretation of it---some think this is fine, while others think it has a detrimental effect on creativity and musical understanding.

I have a good friend who is a Juilliard-trained pianist and I asked her once if she ever tries to get a sense of a piece by listening to it first before trying to learn it. She said no, but more than that, she didn’t really understand why I was asking the question. It’s just not how they do it. Which is not to say she can’t learn things by ear---in fact, she has one of the most amazing ears I’ve ever encountered and can listen to a few bars of any of the Irish tunes I play for her and tell me what mode it’s in, and write it all down for me too. From all of this, I’ve picked up the impression that the classical approach to music is just extremely different than the approach we have. The written music for them is essential; there’s no point in trying to play that music without it, it would be completely disregarding the intentions of the composer to do it that way.

Michael, I am glad I prodded you to say more…I heartily agree that what is important to this music, and what gives it its unique character, is more often than not something the page fails to capture!

Thanks for sticking up for me AlBrown. At least you kinda understood what i was trying to say.

I’ve actually learned lots of Irish song by ear Llig, the first tune i learned was the Kesh and it was by ear only.

I know i’m not expert but im tryin ok!

Lorna, what does the sheet music to diddley tunes give you?

What if none of it was written down. How would you know which notes were what you refer to as the tune?

I’m having deja vu. haven’t we seen these posts before?

I’m getting the same sensation,kennedy,it’s one of those quantum time warp thingees,like being sucked into a whirlpool,you just have to close eyes,relax and hope you get thrown clear before your molecules start to come apart….

That is TST
TheSessionTradition
We do not know what the other is talking but will argue it to death. & in the morning begin again.
LOL This is just a random post I haven’t the foggiest idea what this thread is about. At 1st it looked like another one . . . which looked like another one.
Please resume.

I took a look at InSearch ofCraic’s question. It’s not bad.
Somebody else is on a tangent.
Cheers!

Llig it gives me an idea as to where to start when tryin to learn a new tune, then i find a version i like the sound of and learn it through practicing and trial and error.

Just got back, met up with an old friend, and over a few tunes i asked him his approach to ornamenting and learning by ear, which he does regularly, answer; bones first.
Just as i suggest, he strips the tune down to its fundamentals, and slowly will add stuff back in.
He will lilt the tune, getting to know it..
This approach creates space in the music, allowing the rhythm to be clear, and strong.
also heard a whistler busking, but i couldn’t tell if he was playing a jig or a reel! Too many ornaments, not enough rhythm.
I also think that some of the reluctance of players to countenance playing without ornaments is because they know they are not in tune, their intonation is off, so, if they keep moving their fingers perhaps no one will notice!
As far as playing tunes at a fair lick, in a lively manner, with good intonation and rhythm, this will take a few years and is a fair ambition in itself.

As in everything it is a question of balance. There is no obligation to ornament a tune at all. The important thing is to have good rhythm and intonation.
Often musicians will judge each others performance and their own, using technical issues as criteria, thinking that, somehow, the more technical stuff they can fit in, the better it will be.. This is completely irrelevant to the majority of folk, who just want to hear good music.

“The important thing is to have good rhythm and intonation”.

Well, I can’t really disagree with this. Except that I wouldn’t phrase it like that. I’s say that the “prerequisite” is to have good rhythm and intonation. The “important” thing is to be inventive.

Just caught that last post Michael.
Curious will you carry that fiddlers sense of intonation over to the flute or will rhythm take precedence. Don’t get me wrong both are important. I just think it may give you a challenge.
Fiddlers just glare at me something awful.
Cheers!

The “prerequisite” on any instrument is to have good rhythm and intonation. The “important” thing on any instrument is to be inventive.

“ The ”prerequisite“ on any instrument is to have good rhythm and intonation. The ”important“ thing on any instrument is to be inventive ”

Anyone seen ‘Groundhog Day’? 🙂

Seriously - very succinctly put, MG - I agree

Yep, id agree Llig. Yet some fiddlers have earnt them selves big reputations with poor intonation.
And if you play with a rhythm guitarist the rhythm can be lost without the guitar.
My point is that at least in the early days ornaments can confuse a players rhythm. Also, learning to play a reel full of ornaments at a slow speed without also being able to do it at full speed can be a disadvantage for a player . ‘Cant keep up’ ‘too fast’ are the sob stories i hear so often.
I think that the where and when to ornament is a decision to be left to each individual and teaching tunes with ornaments can potentially stunt this growth.

“if you play with a rhythm guitarist the rhythm can be lost without the guitar”. nonsence. only if you’re crap to start with. Time and time again I hear the same old rot of: “the guitar and the bodhran are there to keep the rhythm”. nonsence, all the rhythm is in the tune.

Yes, in the early days, the twiddly bits of a tune can confuse a players rhythm. All the more reason to get cracking and get them under your belt sooner than later.

Yes, the where and when to put the twiddey bits of a tune is a decision to be left to each individual. But only within a very tight predefined framework that is the tradition. How are you going to learn the tradition? First, listen. Second, emulate. Third, innovate. How can you say that the step of emulation can stunt growth. You leave out this step you no longer have the music.

how can i say it? i see it regularily.
copy the tunes, and the ornaments. Where and when[and if] is a matter of personal and regional style.

Grey Larsen was teaching ornamentation at Lark Camp several years back.
He emphasized that ornamentation is most effective when it enhances the rhythm. That helps with all of the following;
- accents
- steady tempo
- clean & clear ornamentation

without rhythm, as a result of overenthusiastic ornamentation you have nothing. Without ornaments you still have the tune.
I rest my case m’lud.

Without rhythm, as a result of overenthusiastic twiddley bits you have a bloody racket. Without twiddley bits, all you have is part of the tune (which could well be without rhythm anyway).

Welcome one & all to the remarkable, stupendous, didactic exploration in to the depths of the craicing grand session topic about . . .
Well we are not really sure what the subject is but it is fresh & traditional . . . ornaments? Too many; Oh no ~ Not enough
Ahh but this one is just right give a listen.
Seriously I think this is every bit as good as Monty Python & miles above the old SNL;
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75ishimmer.phtml
Can I get a witness?
Amen!

You miss the point Muse. The argument is whether the tunes are complete with the twidley bits. Or the tunes are “as written” and, if you want, you can “ornament” them, i.e., hang baubles on them.

I withdraw the comment.

I dont think there is any argument as to whether we ornament our tunes. how and where and at what stage are the points of disagreement.
But we are not talking writing down, allthough that is a usefull method of transmission. but both learning by ear and style of play.
My contention is clear. The tunes are the primary factor and should be played well befor adding ornaments.So that the player is not repeating from rote memory, but using their inventiveness. So that the mental space gained by having rythmic mastery allows a relaxed unrushed feel.
Also so that the player can become a competant musician befor trying to become a good one.
I automatically add ornaments say, if i were reading a tune.When formally studying western art music i was told off for this, to play as written!
There are many approaches to ornamenting a tune. Some personal and regional styles do very little. They are still however playing ITM, The tunes.
There are so many other factors involved in applying inventiveness and originality to the tunes that to be honest ornaments are hardly that big a deal!
It is not possible to roll on a banjo, I can approximate one but it is a relatively pointless exercise. This simply does not mean trad cant be played on a banjo as Llig, tongue in cheek i imagine , suggests.
The very ridiculousness of that proposition puts the argument into some perspective.

I think the argument is clear, jig:

I argue that the tunes are “complete” “with” the twidley bits.

You argue that what you refer to as “the tunes” (the bits of them that you can write down) are the primary factor and should be played well before adding the twiddley bits (you refer to the twiddley as ornaments).

Have I defined the polarity?

I think so.
My contention is that the tunes are complete without the twiddly bits. Its partly the twiddly bits that add the personal touch.
A rough old farmer may not have the twiddly bits yet still play the tunes with verve,and spirit.
I also think that some sessions could improve drastically were folk to lay off some ornaments, and listen more.

I argue that the tunes are not complete without the personal touch

Fair enough, you have a good point there. Its not only through ornaments that the personal touch is achieved though, as you know, swing, phrasing, melodic variation are some of the other things that can be done. My point is that untill the tunes bones are grasped, the rhythme understood/mastered its too early to be adding personal touches. After all in your session if a newby fills up their playing, at 1/2 speed, with poor rhythm and dominates the sesh, you would not be happy! If they were content to ply a striped down vsn at your comfort speed you might not object. After all if they dont get in the way……

Any speed is comfortable with me. I’d much rather slow down for a beginner to a speed where they can cope with the twiddley bits than force them to play so fast that they couldn’t fit them in. You are never gonna learn phrasing by rushing

Fair enough Llig, I like to play my reels in a nice laid back feel sometimes, I also like to ramp it up. Its not speed so much that im on about, its rhythm. I just feel that a lot of the problems i see people struggling with are because they are trying to be fast with ornaments but not really capable, so it sounds rushed, they struggle because they are trying to do all the stuff they hear on cd’s perhaps not realizeing that it can take many years [decades]to be able to play at session speed with ornaments.
Fair enough to play laid back with ornaments but its only half the story. If you want to play fast , you may need to strip it down, then once pace is achieved, ornament to your hearts content.
A separate issue altogether is playing ensemble, this also can require less twiddly stuff.Less is more as they say.
There is also this point; Some people presume that if they put all the twiddly bits in, then thats it….. Thats all there is to it……They learn a roll here, etc copy their teacher and think they have it……First you need to make the music your own, become so familiar with it that the ornaments just happen, that you are truly stamping your personality not just rote learning. There are so many different issues that i feel its good practice to play the tunes in a stripped back style, as well as with all the flowery bits.
For example some old Clare players were known for their simple uncomplicated settings of tunes. Relying on good phrasing and the melody to stand on its own without much in the way of ornaments at all. Yet they were renownd players. So there is no doubt that the approach i am suggesting is valid for some people and in some situations. Its up to the individual to decide if it applies to them.

See that’s a major problem that you are not helping with:
“ If you want to play fast , you may need to strip it down.”

If you want to play fast, there is really no alternative than to learn how to do it. Ramping it up but playing only half the tune is an appalling thing to advocate.

And you have your other point the wrong way round:
“Learn a roll here, etc copy your teacher and think you have it……First you need to make the music your own,”

Surely it should be: Learn a roll here, etc, copy your teacher. “secondly” you need to make the music your own.

And the only way to learn how to play fast is to learn how to play slowly and accurately. It’s the only way to develop the coordination needed. Any music teacher worthy of the name will tell you this.

yep.

I have made it quite clear on a number of occasions that the only way to play fast is to practice slowly, Im sure you are not willfully trying to misrepresent my position.
LLig no one is advocating playing half a tune. The tune is clearly the melody. The ornaments are a separate issue entirely . Dependant on the instrument played as is once again obvious to anyone with half a mind.. Llig suggesting that the ornaments are part of the tune is simply a mistaken impression gained by his limited experience of musical instruments.
However you seem to be determined to hold on to your increasingly untenable position with your laughable comments regarding banjos being one of the more extreme and deluded examples of your self important and insulting comments.
So i leave you with this; If you are right then Micho Russel, MIck O‘Connor, Gerry O’Connor and David McNevin etc etc etc must be wrong.
I for one would reconsider my views were i to find myself arguing that some of Irelands finest traditional musicians were not playing ‘the music’ as you call it.
Lazyhound, my position is clear. learn the tunes slowly and carefully.play them hundreds of times till you can play them properly. ITM is dance music, not western art music. Untill you can play a reel in reel time, with a clear dance able rhythm then you are not doing the music justice. After that you can ornament or not, its up to you, play it at what ever pace you like[ unless playing for dancers].
To suggest that a tune played with hardly any ornaments is somehow not ‘the music’ is once again displaying a simple lack of understanding.
It seems to me that many of Lligs views come from playing the tunes in a pub, in a city in Scotland, with an intellectual mindset. As do his views on performance. I have attempted to engage him in informed intelligent open minded debate upon this subject, if you or anyone wishes to continue in that i am happy to continue.
However if its simply point scoring then i have no interest whatsoever in playing that kind of game. It is quite simply beneath me.
I have no need to bow down to anyone in the context of being a musician. I have been a gigging musician for thirty years. I am not the most gifted or technically proficiant musician in the world, but have gained recognition by some who are.
I am simply propounding a viewpoint that i have achieved through a great deal of experience. If you or anyone wish to argue a point, by all means, we all have our strengths and weaknesses that offer different viewpoints.

A wedding cake is not a wedding cake without the icing. It’s just a cake.

A christmas tree is not a christmas tree without the lights and tinsel. It’s just a tree

A diddley tune is not a diddley tune without the diddley bits. It’s just a tune.

>>A wedding cake is not a wedding cake without the icing. It’s just a cake.<<
According to your wealthy English culture perhaps.

>>A christmas tree is not a christmas tree without the lights and tinsel. It’s just a tree<<
According to your late 20th century wealthy English culture perhaps.

>>A diddley tune is not a diddley tune without the diddley bits. It’s just a tune.<<
According to your ……………….

Need i say more?

tee he

I can just picture you at your daughter’s christmas wedding reception. The bothy has a few sprigs of holly hung over the doorway, but the tree is bare and the cake is brown - with not even a layer of jam. But everyone is cheery enough, dancing to keep warm. “Hey Jig, will you play a bit faster now” “Aye for sure, we only need the the six notes per bar in this tune anyway”.

“.. Llig suggesting that the ornaments are part of the tune is simply a mistaken impression gained by his limited experience of musical instruments.”

“However if its simply point scoring then i have no interest whatsoever…”

“I have been a gigging musician for thirty years. I am not the most gifted or technically proficiant musician in the world, but have gained recognition by some who are.”

No Jig, you needn’t say more, you’ve said enough.

BegF And youve said what? your contribution to this discussion? hmm? thats it? well thats brilliant! says it all.

Llig, if thats all we can afford, then so be it. She will still be loved which is worth more than any icing on the cake. Or tinsell on a tree!

Yeah, but it’s not all you can afford is it?

Yep – I’m listening and learning – guilty as charged of not jumping in with the “right” answer. I own up to knowing less than Llig and less than what you say you know – so maybe I’ll learn something from ye.
But give us a break with the “I have been a gigging musician for thirty years.” therefore I’m right attitude. Most of us have been playing quite some time too.
…and the “According to your late 20th century wealthy English culture perhaps.” - What – are you saying we don’t have tinsel here either ?

Im just making a point that i have done this type of thing before. Its honestly not an ego thing! i couldnt care less what material possessions you ,I or anyone else has, and i consider skill in a physical discipline like music a material possession. But its a material possession i have at the moment, cant take it when im gone!.
As it happens i am right, so what? who cares? Theres no monopoly on being right . It does’nt matter who has the facts, just that they are freely available., that we all can have them.. Thats it really, you dont need to take it from me..read, study. research. Regional styles. etc its traditional that the music is taught to the kids., you dont expect them to start cutting and rolling before they have the tune do you? . Perhaps adults want a bit more than just the tune, they want the flash bits to show how good they are…and some of us give them that.
A reel is not a reel till it can be played at reel time. After that, whatever. untill that point , untill you can play the tune correctly what are you doing ornamenting it?
Once you have the reel,then if you want to ornament it you will need to slow right back down, put the triplet in, then bring it back up. A sprinter will practice for a race by sprinting, not jogging round the track.
No one, least of all me says this is the only approach, But, it is A valid approach. No one said you must not ornament a tune. Llig seems to think you must, its not ‘the music’ without them. Some regional styles in Ireland are very sparse when it comes to ornaments, Anyone who can say that they dont do it ‘right’ in Clare might like to rethink their opinion.
I have a number of valid points that i have picked up over the years here in Ireland.Llig has a number also, i am not denying that.

Llig If i or anyone else can not afford icing on our daughters cake or would rather feed a hungry child than stick some stupid f****in tinsel on a tree , that doesnt mean its not a Christmas tree or a wedding cake. Perhaps it might actually be more of a Christmas tree. Less fluff and more substance.

Oh tinsel is a German thing , as are christmas trees. In Czeck they have a traditional christmas meal of Fish, Carp i think. Goose was the traditional meal befor turkey, an American import i think., if you could afford it that is…..or boars head.
Its actually amazing how pretty modern concepts become ‘traditional’ in a short space of time.
What happened to the yule log? And how traditional things can be forgotton so quickly.

Yes you have a point jig, so has Michael.

But you do realist the cake/icing was an analogy don’t you ?

It seems a bit much to be almost taking it literally and combining that with giving it the holier than thou
treatment re hungry child, tinsel etc… to be offered as proof that you’re right and Llig is materialistic.

Keeping it as a discussion was more interesting.

Ok fair enough, yes i do realise it was an analogy, but i actually feel that analogy’s are fair game for a response! But there is allways a bit of truth in jest.
So christmas isnt christmas till theres a yule log burning…… Any how im a fully qualified scrooge🙂 best not get me started! where were we, ah yes ornaments in traditional Irish music.
Next

Yes, it is amazing how pretty modern concepts become ‘traditional’ in a short space of time. 30 years even. Or maybe the career of not the most gifted or technically proficiant musician in the world, but one who has gained the recognition of some who are? Maybe 30 years is just long enough for the twiddley to be entrenched in the music. Maybe the twiddley bits have become part of the tune.

Maybe there are still pockets of people who play the tunes without the modern concepts of twiddley bits. That’s fine, of course.

I dont think the ‘twiddly bits are a modern concept, they are a part of traditional Irish music, a big part even, And you could say that its by their absence that the music in some regions becomes defined, a conscious decision ,perhaps, to define ’their‘ style by the absence of something. just as another region might define their style by using a lot of one ornament and not much of another,. Im sure we all agree we dont want it all to sound the same, ’euro-trad’ even!
Once again im not arguing against ornaments, that would be hypocritical, im arguing for the conscious use of ornaments, and/or the conscious decision not to use them.
Many beginers and even players of many years, fall foul of the indiscriminate use of them, to the extent that the tune can lose all meaning, sense of rhythm. I have seen it in super proficient players , they know the rhythm so its not a problem for them, but the listener can not make head nor tail of it. It’s not actually music any more because the rhythm is gone, the cohesion, sense of movement , ‘logical’ progression.
Their is no doubt that the best of us will keep a strong rhythme however they choose to ornament, Seamus Ennis for example. But once again to strive for the heights of a player like that is an admirable aim, but it will take decades, a life time. One step at a time.
The rhythm must be kept throughout, the sense of rhythm, not just the pace.
For the first few years i suggest people concentrate on getting to know the ‘bones’ not trying to fill it up, or show how good, or clever they are, just play the tunes pure and simple.
Practice the ornaments as a separate issue. Practice them too, in context. But at first as a conscious decision. Not because they only know a roll at this point, try a cut, a triplet, no ornament, a melodic variation, a rhythmic variation.Exercise the mind in choosing what goes where.
Its no coincidence that some advanced players shun a lot of ornaments. Just as others use certain ornaments to define their style

This is music, not a technical exercise.

“By their absence that the music in some regions becomes defined, a conscious decision ,perhaps, to define ‘their’ style by the absence of something”

Ah ha!!!

So if you play the tunes without the twiddley bits, the tunes are defined by the absence of the twiddley bits?

That’s a better definition of the twiddley bits being part of the tunes as I have come up with so far. Thank you

No Llig, they are part of traditional Irish music, not the tunes.By their very nature they cant be part of the tune. its very simple. They are ‘ornaments’ get it? If they were part of the tune then People like Mary Macnamara wouldnt be playing the tunes right…. Is that really what you think?

Does Mary Macnamara play here tunes with “the absence of something”?

Personally, I don’t think of the “twiddley bits” as ornaments, but as articulations. For me, this is a critical distibction, and it may help clarify what Michael means.

Each note in a tune is articulated--there’s no other way to hear them. A bow is drawn against a string, a breath is blown into a hollow tube, a button or key is pushed and bellows squeezed or drawn. The construction of our instruments dictates how we articulate each note.

But we also have choices--how smooth or sharp an attack, how to time the note, loud or soft, etc.

A fiddler decides when to change bow directions, how much to lean on or unweight the hairs, how the fingers land on the strings and press them against the fingerboard. A fluter decides where to inhale, how much air to use, how the lips shape and direct that air stream, and how the fingers fall and rise from the holes. And so on.

So even if you play a tune without a single roll or cut or triplet, you are still going to articulate each note, in accordance with the nature of your instrument. And also in accordance with your understanding of this particular form of music. An Irish fluter will breathe in different places than a classical fluter would. A fiddler will change bow directions in different places than a violinist, and attack the strings with a different feel.

In all of this, ***how we articulate the timing*** of the notes is the most important aspect of our playing. Irish trad evolved as dance music, so it’s all about timing. The melodies are built around the timing of each tune structure--reel, double jig, slip jig, hornpipe, polka, etc. As is well demonstrated by any midi file, how the timing is articulated is what makes it sound “Irish” and not something else.

In come the twiddley bits--cuts, rolls, scratch triplets, etc. The purpose of all of these bits is to create lift, pulse, interest, variety, suspense, surprise, even wildness in the timing of the tunes. They are first and foremost articulations of timing. Play a tune without articulating the timing, and you are not playing Irish trad music.

Even the sparest Irish trad player (as some say Micho Russell was, or Mary MacNamara is) varies how they articulate the timing--cutting onto some notes, stopping some notes short, “popping” notes, slurring or smearing into others. These articulations must be part of the tune in order for it to sound right. Anything less comes out like a midi file, eh?

Does this mean that every tune must include cuts, rolls, and triplets? No. But listen close and you will hear many other articulations. They aren’t “ornaments” because they are essential to the genre, integral to breathing life into the tune.

As I said above: play a tune without articulating the timing, and you’re not playing Irish trad.

Good man Will

And un-notated little details like making a slide up to the F-nat or F# on the E-string not by sliding the finger but by quickly increasing the finger pressure on said F-nat or F# from zero until the sound reaches the desired note. A couple of classical violinists I know have been intrigued by that.

Yep Trevor. Some fiddlers do that same thing on other notes as well, gradually coming down on the note from the finger below--like a slow-motion hammer-on (borrowing from guitar terminology). It sounds like a slide, but more subtle. Kevin Burke does it--says he learned it from listening to blues guitarists.

But I hear it in Bobby Casey’s playing, and all the Clare players.

I certainly never mentioned articulation, we were talking about ornaments.
The ‘twiddly bits’ as you so quaintly put are ornaments, there is a clear difference. cuts, and rolls, are described as ornaments,[by every known authority that i can think of anyhow}
not ‘ articulations.’
>>Does this mean that every tune must include cuts, rolls, and triplets? No<<
Exactly, my point.
I have been constantly stressing the importance of timing throughout.
Stressing the importance of a clear strong pulse .
as you said;
>>play a tune without articulating the timing, and you’re not playing Irish trad.<<

If you take a series of crotchets, 2, 3, or 4, tripet each one you dont have a march or a reel, you have a jig or a slip or a single jig. Too much ornamentation can lead to a loss of the tunes rhythm. Ok if thats what you want but..
A ‘cut ’ bowed is a triplet effectively.
Any how excellent post tat. i agree with almost everything you said apart from the bit about the triplets etc being articulations. As far as i am aware it is the rhythmical flow ‘against’ the tunes flow that puts then into a different category . Interesting point of view though.

Jig, all the old timers called them “ornaments” because that was the term bandied about by musicians from other genres. But that seems to be shorthand for how they articulated the notes. The term “articulation” is gaining widespread use among many of the brilliant players of today, in part because they recognize that “ornament” doesn’t do justice to what these bits actually do in a tune.

Similarly, some players talk about “grace” notes, borrowing that from classical music. But nothing could be more different from a classical grace note than an Irish cut, roll, or bowed triplet.

Oh, and by “triplets” I was talking about scratch or bowed triplets--the staccato articulation, not the simple grouping of three notes in a melodic line.

And I wasn’t specifically addressing anything you’ve posted here, jig. Just musing on my own understanding of this music, and how it jibes with Michael’s views.

Jig, I’ve noticed that there is a thing you cannot seem to help yourself from doing when discussing this music. You constantly refer to the terminology of notation. Your language is littered with stuff like crotchets, time signatures, as written, etc.

Free you mind, begin to enjoy the fluidity that defies terminology. Free your music.

I was thinking of highland pipers grace notes actually.
Like i say , i use ornaments and different articulations a lot
But not, say, if im playing with a better fiddler, or a great box player, because i would just be getting in the way. I am not an egoist, i know my place.
If you read my posts my position is clear. And my reasons behind that position.
As you know , on the banjo all triplets are ‘bowed’ so to speak.

MY points remain clear and wellfounded and i have yet to hear a valid argument against this position though i keep an open mind.
Almost the entire language we discuss music in is from the classical world. I am all for the development of languages , they dont stay still. However you either use the language with its definitions or you wont be understood. The language we use is the product of centuries of development. A roll,[ the french name] or turn can be played in many ways depending on the piece of music it is in. The language of music defines them as ornaments. call it what you will however, we can but see if it is taken up.
An ornament is a thing and a process , articulation is a process.
best wishes.

Llig Actually i have not used this term yet;>>as written,<< however i could be mistaken so do by all means, if you can be bothered dig it up ,and we can see what the context is.
As you can see from my post above I use the commonly understood terminology of music, not written music Llig, just music. The words describe actions and things. The act of putting them on paper is a different issue.
As it happens we are all using the medium of writing to communicate. I find a clarity of expression using this descriptive language, a clarity i actually find lacking in some of your post to be honest.
Another thing, People have been playing and talking about music, be it trad or whatever for a long long time, thats thousands and thousands of musicians who were every bit as good as you or I. We are but a blip in time, lets not become so full of our selves that we somehow think we are any more special, or gifted or eloquent than our forefathers. We are but men, full of vanity and conceit. Time will rob us of everything we hold dear, all that we love.
No one is perfect, however we can but try.

Wonder if i subconsciously lifted that from somewhere? 😉

Jaysus, Jig, you sure know how to inflate your own posts while telling others not to do the same. Um, you *do* realize that (based on your bio) some of us are older and have been playing the music just as long (and longer) than yourself? We’re not all adolescents kneeling at your feet, eh?

Cheers back at ya’

Jeez tat, i dont know where you got that from, a bit touchy tonight arnt you? You got a specific point you want to mention? I certainly know full well that many people have been playing a lot longer than me, so what. I still know what i know. I can still do what i can do. And ive not yet met anyone else who can match me, let alone beat me. . I ve met lots of people who can do plenty i cant too. so what, who cares?
Im not inflating my posts, or my self, what would be the point in that? to look good on an internet site? Im not interested. We are all unique , with our pro’s and cons. I bet your a lot better fiddler than me, you know a lot more tunes than me. so what? I will ask for advice when i need it and help someone if asked. If some one spouts bullsh*t or bullies someone i will speak up. You or anyone can mock or condemn if you want, i am secure in my self and neither you nor anyone can touch me.

ps you reckon thats the >.We are but men, full of vanity and conceit<, bit😉

What you ought to know about Tat is he’s a thoroughly generous and caring person who unfortunately has the combination of above average intelligence and an extra-large ego. This plays out as mildly annoying in meatspace, but can end up a bit more abrasive over a messageboard.

Here’s my recollection of a conversation we had at the pub a few nights ago, which somehow came to the topic of uncertainty in physics:

>silver bow: “It’s no use for me to tune my fiddle too exact because my fingers are way out of tune anyway. It’s sort of like when you’re adding two measurements in physics, and one already has the larger magnitude of uncertainty…”

>cheshire puddy tat: “Ah! You mean the Heidegger principle!”

>silver bow: “Huh? Heidegger? …you mean, uh, the Nazi philosopher?”

>cheshire puddy tat: “Hah hah! No. You know, the Heidegger principle.” [grins widely with his signature cheshire grin] “Jaysus silver bow, I guess you just don’t know your physics.”

It dawned on me later that he must have meant the Heisenburg principle, (which is, totally unrelated to what I was talking about).

TradChic writes: “A fine exponent of this is Micheal O’ Raghallaigh. Jack Talty (Noel Hill’s nephew) also has a unique way of tapping a note on the opposite side of the concertina on which the melody is being played.”

~~~

Yet another reference to the ‘phantom button’. 🙂

But jig, why do you insist on your 4/4, 2/4 whatever debate? All the language you require is the word “reel”. etc

And you take the word “ornament” too literally. the idea that they merely adorn the tunes is simply not right. they are not additions to the tunes. They are the way they are played. You say, “you either use the language with its definitions or you wont be understood.” This is the problem. By taking the word “ornament” too literally you give your self and others the wrong impression of what the music is. And this is why I’ll debate this into the ground. I don’t want people to go about telling people stuff that’s not right.

And just for the record, that grinning cat has never ever annoyed me once, in all the exchanges we’ve had over the years. Unlike the majority here.

Llig i am happy to debate this point because i stand with the collective wisdom of generations of traditional musicians behind me.
Find me one authority who will back up your claim and i will be delighted to hear what they have to say.

re the 4/4 2/2 argument.
I just like to be clear about what is happening. I have a pretty good understanding of this subject as it happens. I can point out a number of examples of players ‘doing it’ if you or anyone likes.

Honestly its just about getting things clearer for newbies. If we let them continue thinking something is the case when it isnt then what will happen ? we will get people doing their best to understand , to play the music, but it wont have the right feel because they are using the mind instead of the heart.
Im not talking about tune players. thats pretty obvious… listen to the greats. that is how its done. enough different styles and influences and a personal choice can be made as to the direction a tune player wishes to go, slow and steady, fast and furious. etc etc.

No i am talking as a backer, a rhythm guitarist and drummer….
to backers basically.. all you need to do is listen to the tunes and play allong… you dont need these 4/4 or 2/2 concepts at all. BUT if you are going to use them then use the right ones.

Jig, the trouble with your posts is that you spend most of your words telling yourself how right you are and how much you know instead of taking in what other people are saying and responding to that.

If you want an example of a player who talks about articulations (it can be and is a noun, too, btw) in this music, and not “ornaments,” check out Grey Larsen’s flute/whistle book. Or Kevin Burke, Sean Smyth, John Carty, and Oisin MacDiarmada.

Your argument over 4/4 vs 2/2 misses the point on several levels:

1. Good backers learn to play this music by listening and playing along, not from sheet music (the only place where 4/4 and 2/2 raise their little heads).
2. Most Irish reels have four beats to the bar--two strong and two weak. It doesn’t matter whether you call that 4/4 or 2/2.
3. The strong beats often fall on the 1 and 3 (as opposed to the 2 and 4, which is a backbeat rhythm), but it’s up to the player (immersed in the tradition) to interpret this and to mix it up a bit to create lift and a cogent sense of phrasing.

Point being - their are valid rationales for notating reels in either 2/2 or 4/4. If you insist that only one is correct, then you’re imposing a rigidity on sheet music that doesn’t square with the conventions trad musicians use to interpret sheet music. Any newcomer to this music who wants to uses the dots would be well advised to learn and understand those conventions (especially the ones that deviate from “standard classical training”).

[Finally, LOL at silver bow, who is great fun to play tunes with but who apparently takes me and my tween-sets banter way too seriously. 🙂 Of course I was talking about the Hindenberg (ka-boom) principle! Sigh….it’s so tedious when it takes you till the next day to get the joke….. 😎 ]

Geez, I guess I really do have a bee in my shorts….

Jig, what I mean to say is that you’ll likely run into more friendly discussions here and enjoy them more--even when the participants disagree--if you focus on reasoning and substance, instead of repeatedly citing authorities (all too often yourself included) and their opinions.

The opinion itself matters less than the reasoning it’s based on.

Interesting , like i said, we can but see if it catches on. Personally i dont see the point but whatever.>>(it can be and is a noun, too, << IKn what context? physiology? I thought the music dictionary was quite clear about that, oh well.

1>>>the only place where 4/4 and 2/2 raise their little heads).<,

Thats simply untrue. It is part of the spoken language as well as written. A drummer may not read music at all, but he will understand if i say 4/4 at 240. There is a huge difference. between 2 and 4.

2>>It doesn’t matter whether you call that 4/4 or 2/2.<<

Give me a break, thats straining my incredulity!
>>their are valid rationales for notating reels in either 2/2 <<

And these are?
>> how much you know instead of taking in what other people are saying and responding to that.<<

Maybe so,but im not the only one! Anyhow hardly telling myself something i dont already know am i? Im simply putting my point across.
If there are valid reasons , great lets hear them. But telling me something exists but not showing me is simply inadequate.
For example you just gave me a list of names. Exactly . Great , thanks. I can now go away and investigate a bit more.

No bother, I like a good defense, a challenge 🙂
But i have to disagree strongly, i always clearly state my reasoning , i only quote authorities AFTER i’ve made my case. WE may not agree on certain issues, but im sure we agree on many others

Well, I’m glad I strained your credulity--that’s the point of deliberating this stuff, eh? Two minds are better than one only if they contain different ideas.

So try reading my post again. Since you asked, I gave the rationales for 2/2 and 4/4 --they’re in my points 2 and 3 above, plain and clear. And in the bit about trad musicians understanding the trad conventions that we apply to the dots.

So it’s not just about “putting my point across” but actually trying to comprehend other people’s points too, taking them in, and perhaps opening yourself to the possibility--however dim you might think--that there’s something to what they’re saying (in spite of the fact that it runs counter to your tightly held personal opinions).

For instance, I’m perfectly willing to agree that the distinction between 2/2 and 4/4 matters to some musicians. All I’m suggesting (and Michael and Dow too if I read them right) is that it doesn’t matter in trad music because we understand the music aurally first and use the dots (with conventions that are different than in classical music) as a simplified mnemonic.

c’mon Tat, just admit you’re a Know-it-all.

And perhaps rather than our ‘tween-set’ banter, it’s you who takes your internet banter way too seriously. I love reading this board and seeing the latest argument, which always resolves the same way: You’re categorically right, and whomever you’ve managed to offend is not only wrong but incapable of understanding anyone else’s viewpoint. How convenient! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

If I make it to the sesh tonight, will have to hear more about your big bang ka-boom theory. And i’ll be sure to whip out Egan’s Polka on accordion.

Heh, you pot stirrer you.

But you’ve mistaken me for the unclad emporer. I’m just a lowly serf, indentured to the tunes.