Music - Evolution, development, and interpretation

[Tim Twiss]

Segovia....I am sure we all know this household word. To many, he stands for purity and tradition. He is the one that made Classical guitar so popular in the 20th Century. Consider what he did....just as parallels to our genre. There were many original pieces and contemporary songs he did, but think about the older style he interpreted...Bach, and all the guitar lute and vihuela literature he revived. he added many notes to Bach for his arrangements.....especially if you look at violin partitas. He interpreted material and played them on a non-traditional instrument...the Torres guitar, the growth of the smaller European instruments. Anyway, he blazed a way, and many consider him the gold standard.

He interpreted and brought to life old music. There are many that play period lutes and such....but think of him, as we all interpret the notes of long ago. Play it as it speaks to us.

[Strumelia]

Dan'l said:

Terms are confusing. I can't quite make out what's in agreement or not.

- Does "traditional" merely mean "original composer unknown"?

Yes terms and their definitions are always confusing.  Agreement is seldom the norm.

"Traditional" doesn't 'merely' mean only one thing, depending on the usage.  But in our particular usage here, I believe it's generally accepted that the composer is cited if known, and if not known then the tune is labeled for practical purposes as 'traditional'.

- Does "traditional" merely mean "folk" or "aural tradition"?

Again, 'traditional' doesn't 'merely' mean only one thing covering all usages.  Can you clarify what difference you believe there to be between "folk" and "aural tradition". One would need to know your definition of the two terms in order to respond to your question with any logic.  Those pesky term definitions again!

- Is a tune "composed" without having been written down? 

Of course it can be composed without writing it down.

And if so, is such a composition a "folk" or "aural tradition" after all?  And if so, does that qualify as a "traceable source" or not?

Again, depends on your definitions of "folk" and "aural traditions" and what you believe the differences to be. And in the end, it likely wouldn't matter how you or I categorize them anyway.  Someone else might categorize them differently, because they'd have differing definitions based on their own reading and research.  There are too many encyclopedias. The Drone debate again.  ...What is 'folk music'...what is traditional music?...  ..."pornography, I can't define it but I know it when i see it"...  lol

- If most of the early Briggs was not "original," then is most of the book's content "traditional"?  (if so, I sure got that wrong)

Personally, I view like this- if an old tune/song's actual composer is still unknown, I, like most people, label it 'traditional'... just as commercial musicians and the copyright royalty-collecting people do.  So, if Briggs did not compose 'most' of the tunes in his tutors, and if most of the tunes do not yet have verified composers identified... then yes 'most' of that book's tunes would be considered 'traditional'.  At least by 'most' people.

[Al Smitley]

To rule out "commercially-composed" and those by a known composer from being "traditional", we'd have to rule out Turlough O'Carolan and, of course, Foster.  "Traditional" is, indeed, a tough one to define and seems even more so with time's passing.  If "Oh! Susanna" remains familiar to all 22nd or 23rd century ears, wouldn't some think of it as "traditional"?  I'm not taking a stand.  I really don't know!

[Strumelia]

Dan'l said:

Still, I sense a prejudice that somehow traditional origin is considered by some to somehow be more genuine and thus of higher value than commercially composed. It seems therefore that the hope and the default assumption is that an unattributed song must certainly be of traditional origin.  

Personally, I don't feel that way myself.  Could you possibly be projecting onto others this prejudice you are 'sensing'?  Rating pieces of music as 'genuine' or of more or less value based on whether the composer is known or whether they wrote the piece while making their living is illogical, irrelevant, and meaningless.

       In fact any unattributed tune may have been just as likely composed for a payed performance, particularly if we've established that a tune does not have to have been written down to be considered the original composition. So it's equally defensible that the source of most of the early tutor material, Briggs included (I believe, Tim) is not traditional.

       That's not to say that I don't relate to the charming nostalgia of traditional and folk origins, the visual of grandma passing along a song from her girlhood to her grandson on the front porch of the cabin, strumming a homemade dulcimer. It's just that tunes created for cash-generation should be considered equally likely, equally charming and equally genuine.

I don't see how money has anything to do with whether music is traditional or not.  We'll never know, nor would it matter, if unknown composers of old tunes and songs were compensated for their work.  All music can be charming, and all music can be 'genuine' !   And what the heck does 'genuine' mean anyway?

Grandma in her prairie dress gently strumming tunes on a home made dulcimer on her porch... O how I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard that Jean Thomas-esque cliche.   "Traipsin' Woman" strikes again.  ;D

[Strumelia]

Well, everyone has their own views and definitions of things.  That's about all I can add at this point.

Oh- and I wasn't referring to myself as "Traipsin' Woman"- it was a reference to Jean Thomas.

Well, everyone has their own views and definitions of things.  That's about all I can add at this point.

Oh- and I wasn't referring to myself as "Traipsin' Woman"- it was a reference to Jean Thomas.