Posts Tagged ‘bagpipe music’
Highland Cathedral Bagpipe Music
Highland Pipes And Drums: Bagpipe Music Of Scotland by Ian McGregor & Scottish Pipe Band
This product is manufactured on demand using CD-R recordable media. Amazon.com’s standard return policy will apply.
Price: $15.98
The Highland Bagpipe
This is an EXACT reproduction of a book published before 1923. This IS NOT an OCR’d book with strange characters, introduced typographical errors, and jumbled words. This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book.
Price: $36.75
First Book: A Collection of Bagpipe Music for All Stages
This is a book of light music designed mainly for entertainment. This style of music is sometimes termed “kitchen piping” and is widely included in the repertoires of bands and musicians worldwide. It is distinguished by its high degree of creative technicality and musical innovation. The tunes are divided into jigs, hornpipes, marches, airs, and other tunes.
Price: $14.95
Just as I Would’ve Played It – Bagpipe Music
Bagpipes
A while back I was going on about how I thought most of us go about listening to music – specifically, bagpipe music. My ramble was around how we should try and get over the discomfort we feel (that’s the delicate way of putting it) when we hear musical interpretations outside of what we’re used to hearing – or playing.
There is one comment that lands on the adjudicator’s score sheet from time-to-time that strikes me as egomaniacal in the extreme (and if I think about it, as an occasionally itinerant judge guy, I may’ve even scratched out the words at some point over the years – surprise). But most of us learn and move forward. Anyway, the line goes something like this: “Beautiful/lovely/fabbo rendition; just as I would’ve played it“.
The comment is meant to be the apex of praise meaning “you’ve played like me, welcome to the rarefied world of me”…or something like that…the comment assumes that the person writing the crit sheet is the last word, the sole arbiter of good style, good music. And, I suppose, strictly speaking, a piping judge is just that, for the time s/he is sitting and taking in a competition.
The you’re-playing-like-me comment is, of course, meant with the, um, best intentions, but I wonder: if that is the best of golden praise is this kind of comment helpful in the broader context [corporate-speak alert]? I suppose from the point of view of those who view bagpipe music as a sort of precious museum piece; a static, unchanging, and slightly fragile thing, well, this comment works – it makes sense: we’re all “tradition-bearers” dammit and the tradition must be passed unchanged from one generation to the next in a bullet-proof box (maybe one like that natty Louis Vuitton World Cup trophy case).
For me, comments like this are not helpful. Bagpipe music is brilliant. A tip of the hat to the Scots, inventors of the modern world. Like the people who invented it the music is resilient, formidable and, like all great art forms, tailor-made for evolution. It stands on its own without any need of the good-intentioned propping up of judges or Gollum-like fawning.
Yesterday I read a comment on one solo piping judge’s scoresheet: “engaging”. Great comment. I suggest the listener’s engagement, the degree to which a musical rendition moved a person, is one of the best – if not the best – criteria for assessing the merits of a musical performance.
It’s not often easy to keep an open mind. But when it comes to listening to music, at least, an open mind is a state we should all strive for.
Easier said then done.
M.
by Michael Grey
Play the Sweet Bagpipe Music (You Like)
Sweet Bagpipe Music
I was driving to band practice this morning and happened on a really interesting interview on the radio.
Michael Enright, host of CBC Radio One’s “Sunday Edition” was talking to the famous pianist, Janina Fialkowska. She is one of the world’s preeminent piano interpreter’s of Frédéric Chopin and Franz Liszt, the great early-mid 19th century composers. Fialkowsaka has had a great career, winning big competitions and playing with the world’s best orchestras. She’s also had her share of tribulations. In 2002 her career came to a slamming halt: she underwent treatment for the removal of an aggressive cancerous tumour in her upper left arm. A nightmare for anyone – musician or not.
While she convalesced she gave concerts around the world presenting music composed especially for the left hand – though she used her right. Her story is an inspiring one. As she recovered she progressed from “left-handed” Ravel and Prokoviev compositions to the more familiar two-handed compositions on which she has built a career.
Today she spoke of one of the biggest professional changes that occurred as a result of her health problems: Fialkowsaka no longer agrees to play music she doesn’t like.
The standard way of things in the classical music world is something like this: a soloist is called up and asked to perform with an orchestra. The soloist is given the music to be played. And that’s it. You learn the music and show up and play well (one hopes) and get paid. Don’t like the music you’re meant to play? Tough. “Suck it up, princess”.
Fialkowsaka says now when invited to play she acknowledges the repertoire request but, if she doesn’t like it, she tells them and suggests what she will play. Apparently orchestras work with her – no probs. “I play better and audiences are happier,” she says.
The piping parallel is crazy clear.
I was thinking of all the sub-par, damn-near crappy tunes I’ve had to learn over the years courtesy of set tune lists – “The Blind Piper’s Obstinacy”, anyone? And I think Janina F has it right. Wouldn’t the world be filled with much sweeter music if musicians – and pipers – could play the music they pleased?
The same thing happens in bands, of course, but bands are not democracies. A talk for another day.
M.
by Michael Grey
What Makes a Good Pipe Band Score Sheet?
Bagpipe Music
Having been around the game a while it sort of stands to reason that I will have seen a whackload of pipe band “score sheets”; you know, those near-impossible to read pages (sometimes due to penmanship) passed to bands following the announcement of results. And yay, reason prevails: I have.
It’s on these pages that bands usually learn what adjudicators thought of their competitive performance – and, by the way, it’s from these pages that pipe band people generally judge adjudicators. I’m a sentimental sort, believe it or not, and have, truth be told, quite a few pages dating back to my earliest times with bands laying around the old archives – and some recent artifacts, too.
As I came to the very end of this past contest season I came to reflect on what made up a good adjudicator’s sheet.
Sheets are always passed around the band and it struck me that not all members value the same comments. Yeah, drummers tend to focus on percussion [hello!] and pipers on piping. But when I thought about it, it struck me that really, it was the overall band comments that most often caught the attention of pipe band people – generally speaking.
When I say “overall” I mean comment that either provided insight on ensemble, the overall ability of the band to engage the listener, or comment that somehow came across in a way that pulled the band — or “tribe”, if you will — together. I’ve observed that should comment from any one judge be viewed by band members as patently unfair the outcome usually sees the band pull together in a sort of collective indignation. Bad sheets can be a weird sort of team-builder.
“Bass drum destroying the ensemble”, “snare phrasing completely undermines melodic line”, “a completely dispassionate performance” and “musically devoid” are possibly imagined examples of “bad sheet” that effectively team-builds.
I like sheets that reflect the personality of the assesor – unless, of course, s\he’s an unhappy, miserable, unhelpful sort, then, not so much. In my part of the world, at least, it’s not completely out of the ordinary to read a comment from a piping judge that goes something like, “Bill missed the attack” or “Jenny’s harmony effort really worked for me” or “I thought Bruce was going to hyperventilate by the end of the performance”. It’s a small world and I’m good with judges naming names when comment is passed along in a collegial, fair and respectful way. These sample comments are all fictitious, for the record – but, I assure you, I’ve seen variations on all of these sorts of comments – and then some. I’m sure you have, too.
Anyway, just what makes good pipe band score sheet comment? The kind of comment that connects with bandspeople?
I suggest comment most valued by pipebandspeople has characteristics that include:
First and foremost, jargon-free notes around fundamentals, the “media”, the instrumentation and technique used to create the music: Impartial comments that assess the objective mechanics of the performance: Did we play unanimously [oops, jargon-alert, I mean, did we play together]? To what degree were we tuned? Did we sustain that tuning? Judges that have the ability to clearly and unambiguously portray an assessment around these elements score big-time with pipe band folk. Should they miss this – and they do – and have – they are usually summarily proclaimed incompetent (to put it in a PC way).
At the same time – I hesitate to say “secondly” – judges that have the courage to state a musical bias while stating informed musical reasons for that bias are usually appreciated – or – at the very least, remembered. We’re talking an assessment of music, after all. A good judgey comment in this department, to my mind, might go something like this: “march unsettled-feeling; pipe corps lacking unison due to phrasing ahead of the beat, especially at PM’s side of band”. This would fit in a sort of primary musical comment category. A secondary category might be around a melody or musical passage: “on first listen the repetitiveness of ____ tune’s phrasing left me cold”. Or, better yet, a positive musical comment: “the surprising minor-major key change to the second melody moved me – love it”. If comment is stated respectfully it really is hard to fault.
So what makes a good pipe band score sheet? Considered, fair, balanced and, I say again, respectful comment around mechanics and music. I think that’s it. To somehow portray listener engagement would be fantastic but really, for now, I suggest pipebandspeople would be happy with a fair and respectful shout out around mechanics and music.
And by extension? What makes a great pipe band adjudicator? A person who not only capitalizes on their experience but rises above that sphere of experience and reflects, processes and considers a result in a way that demonstrates intellectual and personal integrity. A person who has demonstrated a love for the music by being a life-long student of the music and not a self-proclaimed life-long authority on the music. It’s a tall order and, happily, most of the adjudicators I have encountered around the world fit this category.
It’s the very few who fail miserably. To those few I point to Van “the Man” Morrison for inspiration: “You can’t stay the same. If you’re a musician…you have to change, that’s the way it works”.
Give me the argument against that.
M.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.