Authenticity in music : manuals verses oral history

[Silas]

Re: Authenticity in music : manuals verses oral history

Will, RJ is just quoting himself again. No need to fret.

Actually, he's just being sarcastic in his comments about the left handed, minstrel show, mandolin player.

[Danny]

Re: minstrel Banjo website

...There is too much post-war influence in the aural tradition for it to be reliable without carefully comparing it to primary sources...

Academically-trained historians know that context is key, and that there was a considerable population of people who lived in CW times who still were living well into the recording age. Example Adelina Patti (a Southern songbird during the war), who sang for Lincoln and later recorded the song, which has since been transferred to CD. That's a case where an Aural source is superior to documented sheet music. If English ballads survived 200 years untouched to surface in 1920s field recordings, and 2000 year-old Native American chants survive untouche to this day I think we can trust aural traditions less than 100 years old, not even a generation from the period we study. BUT OF COURSE only in context with documented sources. No one here suggested otherwise.

....One cannot assume that these tunes were played during the war just because these tunes were played by veterans..."

And just as valid: One cannot assume that veterans didn't play songs they played during the war. We know for a fact that some professional stage minstrels were veterans, as I listed in a legacy post.

Dan Wykes

[33rdaladrummer]

Re: Authenticity in music : manuals verses oral history

Take this recording of Turkey in the Straw as an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9FBFcuhXgA&feature=related

Is this the way Turkey was played during the war? In this case we can compare to the 1861 sheet music, but for many field recordings we do not have that luxury.

You claim that "2000 year-old Native American chants survive untouched to this day", but how do we know what they sounded like 2000 years ago?

Sure, 1920s field recordings of some tunes might sound exactly the same as they would have in the 1860s, but what about the musicians you claim were "recorded early in the last century already knowing...styles not mentioned in tutors ever"? Is this an instance of an "Aural source is superior to documented sheet music."

[Danny]

Re: Authenticity in music : manuals verses oral history

Take this recording of Turkey in the Straw...Is this the way Turkey was played during the war? In this case we can compare to the 1861 sheet music, but for many field recordings we do not have that luxury.

Likely no greater difference than there was between players of the same music at the time, even those with the same sheet music. Classical music in modern times makes the point: listen to several orchestras recordings of Pachabel's Canon in D. But we don't have to take the academic historian's approach, we can choose to stop at "if it wasn't documented, we don't recognize it." I'm not advocating one approach over another.

You claim that "2000 year-old Native American chants survive untouched to this day", but how do we know what they sounded like 2000 years ago?

Because it was passed directly from father to son, mother to daughter, and the instrument (voice) hasn't changed. You either accept that as valid context or you don't. I chose to accept the claims of modern Native Americans that they are.

...what about the musicians you claim were "recorded early in the last century already knowing...styles not mentioned in tutors ever"? Is this an instance of an "Aural source is superior to documented sheet music."

No.

- - - - - - - -

You know, it seems you'd be more comfortable with the mod's view on this topic, and I wouldn't think less of you if you did. I still think it's a worthy topic that goes directly to our impressions, which are impressions of people, not documents. I choose to factor in likely human behaviors because I have that in common with CW soldiers of the time. In context, aural and folk tradition fleshes out the scantly documented record - these soldiers weren't automotons in a Disney world panorama.

Dan Wykes

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Authenticity in music : manuals verses oral history

we can choose to stop at "if it wasn't documented, we don't recognize it."

That pretty much is the stated and respected mission statement of this community and website. You are one of the few "prolific posters" who refuses to embrace or at minimum, silently respect it.

There is considerable and detailed historical record of and pre-dating the period, much of which has direct military provenance and / or a signigant popular culture following and is annotated accordingly. As such there is no need to make 145+ year later second guesses as to what their brother's friends cousin who had a neighbor on the other side of the holler that served in the Royal Navy in 1776 likely, mighta, coulda passed on to Billy Yank in 1863.

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Indianabugles]

Re: Authenticity in music : manuals verses oral history

I seem to recall a similar thread that ran along the grounds of not many folk could read music during the civil war. In that case the amounts of music were documented, plus all those that Butler burned from the CS side but....
In spite of this we still I seem to recall it was still decided most couldn't.

"if it wasn't documented, we don't recognize it?" Did not all that sheet music not count as documentation.

I myself am a trained classical musician and have learnt and played Turkey in the Straw from the score.
When I play it is is different from my brothers initial interpretation, still from the score.
Both were different from my friend who played it after listening to it on the Internet.
My brothers version was compatible with mine, the other was not. RJSamp makes good point on the the score being one of the best and closest.
My point is even if played from the score there are going to be inflections and variances caused by the style of play of the musician, one learned score reading musician makes a small variance and if he is then heard and passed on by aural then it will breed furthers. I am of the strong belief that there must have been a solid core of reading musicians to moderate this musical Chinese whispers, if you will, but that is an argument for another day.
My point is there must have been a massive degree of variance anyhow, originally that is, and perhaps in many ways both are correct. The aural interpretations and the original score.
Was there not a story of a fiddler who won a competition to free himself from a POW camp and freely admitted making up half the tune?
If anyone can furnish me with his name would be most grateful.

The other problem with this, and one that is being fiercely pushed by Danny and I have yet to fully grasp why after what I am going to say here is this. This area is so subjective, Not only is it not counted like rifles but when it is described it is done so in a most subjective manner and often without much knowledge on the part of the listener. Bit like my wife describing a Ford Mustang as pretty and big, no help at all but it is true.
Me, I just play, if the tune was played then or was popular, post then, I play it. Occasionally I play a little Bach, of the Medelssohn revival type, but just a bit, after all it was available. I also play period Hymns for the service we have on a Sunday.
Now to the point, I have on occasion been asked, "Is that music period, are we sure?" and have been checked up on and on one occasion found to be wrong, and sure as a musician I found that annoying and on occasion frustratingly limiting in a manner that only musicians can,especially after I invested a great deal of time, effort and love making it sound as I thought it should and in all honesty it is sometimes very hard to take from non musicians who tell musicians what musicians back then did, did not do. In this respect I understand Dannys point.

But, just learn it, just play it, enjoy it.
As long as it sounds musical and not horrendous and the instrument is period, this is where I refer back to the above, the the audience know no better. If your version is from a tutor, cassette etc then it is you interpreting someone else's interpretation and this is period correct, people learnt from each other . If you get it from the dots and forge your own interpretation this is also correct.

It was documented, we can recognize it!

People around me have said I can see why soldiers liked that tune to march to, I can see why Lorena was banned for being sad.

Different people, 100+ years apart hearing the same tune and with the same reactions, my interpretation from the dots cannot be too far out.
The audience is still subjective Danny and that is never going to change.

But care has to be taken for us musicians are wanton and prone to taking liberties. So I am generally viewing the restrainings on what I play and what I play it on as a necessary evil. There is plenty to do, play and work with within the existing boundaries of, documented score, accounts(Subjective) and musings of the period. So we must respect that and that is what I take to be my understanding of if it was documented play it.
On the same count Danny, arm up with period music, all documented, waltzes, military tunes, camp tunes, the whole Work and Root back catalogue if you like then play through them and drop some random Irish folk tune in the middle, see who notices, just a thought. Bet they are more likely to ask about the odd GFRoot piece they have never heard of than the Folk one. Bet if you then asked them to describe it ... well you get the picture from here.
There has to be some control on the musical front even if it is artificially hard to take into account the non understanding of non musicians or singular understanding of sorts of musicians.
And guys, it ****** me right off when non musicians do it as well. I have even put away my violin and said **** it, go do it yourselves over comments made about things that the commentators are neither qualified or capable of doing themselves, and I am not talking about standard of performance here.
It is this that has made me post here for I feel Dannys point but have managed to restrain that little demon in myself, well most of the time.
But Danny, this is such a subjective field and words cannot contain or describe music. Get your fingers off the keyboard and go play some more tunes, documented ones, with them. It doesn't matter how you learn them, tutor, cassette, TV or heaven forbid, listening to someone else or the printed music. I came real close to having my passion for playing at events extinguished when I first played at an event and found out half my tunes were post war.
On the same count I really admire your passion, haven't heard you play yet, and I do think musicians are really passionate and want to add as much "Va, va, voom" and panache into every repertoire and performance as they can and it is real easy to get carried away on that wave. It is also real easy to KILL that drive and passion! For all music.

[Danny]

Re: Authenticity in music : manuals verses oral history

Indiana - Quite an essay on the use of musical score in CW times, but to get back on what this thread is about:

a) For CW period-style players, the printed period instrument manuals and tutors are the best source of authentic technique we have.

b) Some here think they should be considered the only source.

c) Others here think oral history and early recordings are also valid sources, in context with the printed manuals and tutors.

d) The mod will make the final call.

Dan Wykes
Not exactly "fierce"

[Silas]

Re: Authenticity in music : manuals verses oral history

This merry-go-round of a thread has spun around too many times. Before someone becomes ill, I'm stopping it.