Thanks Richard - I agree with much of this, though I feel it needs to be
the right speed, rather than just speed.
I have played other instruments for various sorts of dance, both
traditional & historical, for a long time now, where indeed the dancers
need to be able to rely on the right energy. Sometimes this seems to be
better provided by strong rhythm and time to allow them to move in an
enjoyable way rather than feeling they're doing a sprint.
I realise it all depends on the nature of the dance, and don't get the
chance to play for Northumbrian dancers, or dances, which I realise may
need quicker stepping, so I can't yet speak for this. Hence my question
about the speeds given in Peacock - not criticism, just a question, I
hasten to add.
In the case of, for example, Morris, which I realise is a very
different kettle of fish, more energy is often provided by playing
slower, when they can make bigger movements, rather than keeping them to
short quick steps which frustrates them.
By the way, for those into nerdy counting, "All the Night I Lay with
Jockey" is given a figure of 120 bpm in the new Peacock. Pauline Cato's
"New Tyne Bridge" CD makes it sound relaxed and cheerful and quite fast
enough at 116, Andy May's "Happy Hours" CD comes in at 108. I'm not
suggesting it's a race. Both are great musically, both sound lively
enough to my ear. Both, incidentally, are also obviously within their
comfort zone, as discussed in an earlier string, and make it sound as if
they're actually playing slower!
All ye best,
Richard Y
Richard Shuttleworth wrote:
Hello Richard,
A distinction should be made between playing for dances and playing
for pleasure. Dancers need the music to be quite fast otherwise they
feel clumsy and uncoordinated; to move along and feel light on their
feet they need speed - which the player has to provide. When the
piper is simply playing for his/her own pleasure then the music can
take over and set its own tempo.
Cheers,
Richard S.
Richard York wrote:
I find this very reassuring, Matt!
I'm still bashing away at Peacock, and only recently took note of the
metronome settings in the recent edition, some of which are, to me,
stratospherically fast.
I've been wondering if these were based on general practice, either
current or historical, or other evidence, or personal editorial
preference.
I know that in other traditional dance music I play, slow is often
increasingly better, but was ascribing my falling well short of these
"target" speeds here to my lack of nsp experience & skill.
- but I also noted that on some recent CD's I've heard, some of the
pieces feel as if they're played slower than the figures given, and
they feel right to my untutored southern ear. I'll have to go check
now with CD & metronome!
Best wishes,
Richard.
Matt Seattle wrote:
On 6/9/09, Di Jevons [1]<d...@picklewood.info> wrote:
I do think however there is a danger that 'life and bounce' can be
mistaken
for 'breakneck speed'
Well said, Di. Going further, 'life and bounce' are (imho)
incompatible with 'breakneck speed'. Try, for example, to play a jig
with any kind of lilt AND to play it fast, and you'll soon stop
wanting to play it fast. This is so obvious to me now, but I admit it
took me years to arrive at the obvious.
Breakneck speed with accuracy IS impressive, as Paul points out with
some irony; it is unattainable for many (self included), and more
importantly - do you want to be impressed by music, or caressed by
music?
To get on or off this list see list information at
[2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:d...@picklewood.info
2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
