At 10:38 AM 9/29/98 -0700, you wrote:
>The critical phrase in your email is that this music is "a living
>tradition", which implies that it changes over time.
Yuval essentially asked what instruments are standard for Irish trad music
-- by which I assumed, rightly or wrongly, he meant session music. Every
music has basic standards of practice. These change, and thats okay. The
trouble with this discussion is that the words tend towards absolutes that
It seems to me that the "voice of sanity" is the one that says that there
is a de facto consensus that particular instruments are accepted, and
others can be problematic. To ignore this is to be absurdly inclusionist,
to define session music so broadly that basically, it means nothing.
BTW, I've come to the conclusion that guitars, in fact, *are* standard --
at the very least, strummed rhythm. Poor guitarists my be troublesome, but
when the greatest standard bearers of the music -- Andy McGann, Paddy
O'Brien, Tom Doherty etc ... not to mention virtually *every* young irtrad
group on the planet -- play with guitarists to very good effect, I think we
can say that guitars have *arrived*.
I say this not to let you know that *ta-da* I approve of guitars (c'mon all
you guitarists, out of the fox holes), but just as an aside to point out
what I see as a case of pragmatism overcoming philosophy.
Anyway ... poor fiddlers are troublesome too.
>Am I to believe that I wasn't listening to "real" Irish
>traditional music because of the presence of guitars?
You are not expected to believe anything other than the fact that the
poster is writing what *he or she* believes.
>I have a hard time
>All, of course, IMHO!
Similar caveats apply to every word I post. I might disagree with you, but
I don't have the time to disrespect you.