Paper presented to the International Musicological Conference, Maynooth, 1995.© S. C. Hamilton.

The germ of the idea behind this paper was contained in a question put to me by an American academic. The discussion was touching on the fact that Irish traditional musicians do not, to any real extent, intellectualise about the music they play, and in fact tend to be rather suspicious of those who attempt to do this. I was then asked if not this, what aspects of the music do Irish traditional musicians talk about. Without hesitation I replied that probably the major topic of discussion was what might be called ‘traditionality’ or in other words the way in which a performance or piece of music was seen to either reinforce or conversely be seen as irrelevant or even in some cases damaging to the ‘tradition’.

This had been only an informal discussion, but the notion stayed with me, and the more I thought about it, the more I came to realise that in fact this whole notion of ‘traditionality’ was indeed to central not only to the verbal exchanges among musicians but by extension to their musical behaviour as well. Further thought made me realise that the kernel of this idea is the way in which musicians [and by extension the consumers of their music] appreciate music: in other words their main concern as verbally expressed is an aesthetic one. A survey of the literature reveals that this concern is not simply a modern one but has been a factor with differing degrees of centrality for almost all the commentators on Irish music. The notion of the tradition as something which needs to be protected from change and preserved, pervades almost all the accounts from the end of the 18th century to the present day. The great collectors, Bunting, Petrie, and Joyce, all seem to have been motivated by what they perceived as attempts to halt a decline.

Buntings work dealt almost exclusively with the playing of the harpers who were very much a dying breed in his day, and seen in this light his attempts at preservation and revival must be seen as amongst the most genuine, for the music with which he concerned himself did in fact die out shortly afterwards. In fact although Bunting has been criticised for not recording exactly the music he heard and adapting it to his own standards, he himself was very critical of the use to which his collections were put, particularly with regard to the way in which his material was altered by Stephenson to suit the words of Moore.

It might be stated as a general principle that all preservationists innovate in their attempts to preserve.

To our modern ears the claims of the other collectors as to the necessity of their collections from the point of view of shoring up a dying art are rather hard to believe. Joyce, in comparing the situation in his native Limerick, in an article published in 1911, with that of his youth states:

“That crossroads is still there but there is no longer any music, dancing or singing”

Similarly the belief of the Gaelic League activists around the turn of the century that their Feis Ceoil competitions were necessary to ensure the survival of “traditional singing in Irish” as they were wont to call it, sounds bizarre in comparison to the modern perception of this era resounding with music and song throughout rural Ireland.

The solution to this conundrum lies to some extent in the fact that all these individuals and bodies were defining “traditional” or “Irish” music for themselves.

To Bunting it was the music of the harpers, and even this he saw as contaminated by Italianate elements introduced by Carolan (as did Petrie!); he had little interest in the dance music tradition which was in a vibrant stage of development at the time. O’Neill in his “ Irish Folk Music” noted that only three “so called” jigs were recorded by Bunting, and not a single reel or hornpipe. With characteristic drollery he remarks

“Lamentations there are in plenty, and an occasional lullaby adds a little variety to the gloom” ( IFM p.254)

The aim of the Gaelic league was to ensure that the music that they encouraged was Irish, and they assiduously strove to eliminate what they saw as foreign elements. The dancing of sets of quadrilles which had become widespread in Ireland since the 1820s was condemned as foreign, and the league, and its offshoot, Comisúin le Rincí Gaelacha, chose to encourage instead step dancing, which they saw as the characteristic native Irish dance form, without realising that in fact both the principle of stepping, and the tune types used to accompany it were also both imports. [I have dealt with this general area extensively in another paper……Hamilton, Eclectism in Irish Traditional Music, ACIS Conference 1995]

Whatever about the levels of musical activity in the days of the 19th century collectors, there is no doubt but that traditional music of all kinds was in a severe decline by the middle of the 20th century, and that this decline lead to a revival generated from within the ranks of the musicians themselves. The major organisation involved in this revival – Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann tried to stimulate interest via a series of competitive festivals, and an associated series of rules reveals the types of music and song that they sought to promote.

Each of these periods, and commentators is characterised by the feeling that Irish music was undergoing an unwelcome change, and that Irish music was threatened with disappearance. It is important to remember however that in fact, like any living tradition, Irish traditional music was changing and evolving throughout this period (from the late 18th century to the present), and that the tendency to regard it as an unchanging monolith is not only simplistic but demonstrably wrong.

If, as is the case with many revivalist and preservationist movements, age is seen as a hallmark of traditionality, then it must be taken into account that very many of the currently accepted elements of the tradition are of no great age, and that even the oldest have probably been widespread for less than 300 years. The perception, popularly held, that traditional music is somehow a remanent of old Gaelic culture, and uncontaminated by later cultural domination is also, with the possible exception of traditional singing in Irish, patently untrue.

This “monolith theory” of traditional music ignores the historical fact that Irish music as we see it today, is the result of a long series of innovations, the vast majority of which seem to be borrowings from the dominant English and European culture, rather than anything which had its origin, in either Gaelic, Scots-Irish, or Anglo-Irish culture.

I have elaborated on this point in the previously quoted paper, but to recap briefly, all of the instruments except the bodhrán and with the possible ( and I stress possible) exception of the uilleann pipes are borrowings from the mainstream European tradition. The same applies to all the dance forms, both in terms of the type of tune they are danced to, and the basic steps themselves. In terms of song, narrative English language songs, despite the preponderance of local reference, use what is essentially an imported form, and there is even some suspicion that the forms and themes of sean-nós may have had their origin in medieval Europe. Having seemingly claimed that Irish music is in fact not Irish at all, let me hasten to add that of course I believe that it is, not only Irish, but quintessentially so, because it is the process and not the product which defines its Irishness.

Given the same melody, the same tune or dance form, the same instrument, it is yet unmistakable when these are combined by an Irish traditional musician in an unquestionably Irish process. This process itself can in some ways be explained as being closely related to the term “style”.
If we accept that the corollary of local, regional, and personal style, is national style, and that the basic elements of national style are evident in the first three, then perhaps we can begin to approach the process of making music in an Irish way.

The principles of variation and decoration as used by Irish traditional musicians and singers, and dancers for that matter, depend very much for their success as stylistic elements, on the assumption that the listeners have a great degree of familiarity with the basics of the music. Variations depend for their effect on the contrast that they make with the basic tune, and it therefore follows that this basis must be well known to the listeners. Given the large repertoire that Irish music, even on a local level, enjoys, aesthetic involvement implies amongst other things that the listener is familiar with a large body of melody, and also sufficiently familiar with rhythms, since rhythmic variation plays its part as well.

In the old social milieu in which Irish traditional dance music and song developed, this level of familiarity was not difficult to achieve. Firstly, and this would have been more evident the earlier in the period, and the more rural the area, many people existed in a monomusical situation where the music in question was all they heard. Secondly access to the music was unrestricted and occurred in the normal environment where all other social activities took place. Thus children, for example, were exposed to it from birth.

The amount of music making that took place in 19th century Irish rural society, according to records of the time, was very large, and song and oral music in the form of lilting seems to have been of great importance here, allowing by personal performance the reinforcement of the repertoire and style. Ó Madagáin records ( Functions of Irish Song in the 19th Century) the almost constant use of song and lilting as a form of personal entertainment while working.

This situation was diluted later on by the encroachment of other musics into the Irish rural environment, especially after the advent of the phonograph and radio, but even though the effect of the media – and other social pressures which are beyond the scope of this paper – were paramount in the mid 20th century decline of traditional music in Ireland, I would argue that the aesthetic principles which governed the performance of the decreasing amount of traditional music which was played, remained largely the same.

It might be argued that even before the decline, the aesthetic principle of variation/decoration had begun to disappear with the increasing amount of ensemble playing within Irish tradition music. How can subtle variations be appreciated when a whole group of musicians are playing together, as for example in the early American bands, the Ceili bands, or later again in sessions?

I believe this can be answered by the concept of the group solo which I have argued elsewhere. Basically this concept suggests that in situations such as the ceili band and session the musicians still play in a solo manner using variations, even when these clash with what other musicians are doing around them in strictly art music terms. The emphasis is still very much on solo performance, except that now it happens in the company of others who are doing the same thing. The ensemble component consists of simply starting and finishing at the same time, and playing in the same basic rhythm!

In terms of innovation and conservatism, the popular perception of innovation being a recent occurrence in an otherwise conservative tradition also needs to be debunked.

Although it is true that the pace of innovation has increased in this century, and especially since the revival, it has already been demonstrated that the majority, if not all of the features which describe Irish traditional music, are the result of a series of innovations over a long period of time. If conservatism is to be seen as the rejection of innovation, then the Irish tradition cannot be seen as conservative.

It is probably true that traditional music in Ireland has seen a series of increases and declines in popularity, often on a local basis. This might account for such statements as that of Joyce quoted above, and warns us of the danger of applying local evidence on a national scale.

However there is little doubt that the decline which began in the 1930s and continued up to the 1950s was more serious and widespread as well as being better documented than any previous decline. One of the major reasons for this decline was the radical change that Irish rural society was undergoing at the time. Traditional music suffered heavily as people transferred their allegiance to other forms of music and entertainment.

One of the most interesting aspects of the revival when it began in the 1950s and 1960s was its urban base, the more so because it seems that many had abandoned traditional music as a badge of backward ruralism.

This revival of course brought changes, and in this case some of the changes were perhaps more obvious, and drew adverse comment from some who saw themselves as the guardians of the tradition.

New instruments such as the guitar, and later the bouzouki, and the widespread use of the bodhrán, reinforced rhythmic and harmonic aspects of the music to a much greater extent than in the first flowering of Irish ensemble music earlier in the century. New forms of ensembles appeared who played a form of music which was much more arranged than anything heretofore, and to which the term group solo could not be applied.

I would argue that the real change however, and that which will have the long term effects, lies in the fact that the use and function of pre-revival and post revival music are quite different. I am using the terms use and function as defined by Alan Merriam in ‘The Anthropology of Music’ where use refers to the physical or social situation in which music is heard.

Thus examples of the use of Irish traditional music would be at a wedding, at a ceili etc.. Function, on the other hand refers to more to the psychological role that the music plays for the individual and the society.

Functions include such concepts as what Merriam calls physical response, e.g. dancing in the Irish context, entertainment, aesthetic enjoyment, symbolic representation, contributing to the integration of society etc. (Merriam lists ten functions)

Changes in use are perhaps most obvious when we consider what König calls the social genres of the music. Pre-revival dance music took place initially mostly outdoors, and with the advent of better housing towards the end of the 19th century, in farmhouse kitchens. Song was an intimate exchange within a small group of friends and neighbours most often in a domestic situation, or as O Madagáin has pointed out a personal performance which could take place in almost any situation.

As Irish society changed new uses for traditional music began to appear, and for a time existed side by side with the older ones.

One use which began to assume importance with the rise of the Gaelic League and the associated Feis Ceoil movement, was in competition, and again, mostly initiated by the same people, the concert platform. The later use was expanded with the arrival of sound recording, and just over two decades later, radio.

Post-revival music and song became strongly influenced by its presentation through the media, with the accompanying separation of the musician/singer and their audience. Social genres where the boundary between the audience and the performer were indistinct largely disappeared, although the session did take over this role to some extent.

It is in terms of function though, that we really arrive at the heart of the matter. I believe that the contrast between the functions of traditional music in the tightly knit, intimate, rural society which persisted well into this century in various places, and its function in the international media driven, multimusical society of today is stark. As against the case of use, the appearance of new functions is not an issue. Rather what we see is a change of emphasis, with some functions vanishing almost completely, and others assuming a new found domination.

Dancing for example, as one function of traditional music has assumed a vastly different position within the overall hierarchy of functions in the post-revival period. This in itself has an effect on the other functions, since music freed from the rhythmic constraints imposed by dance, has the possibility of assuming a different role in emotional expression, for example, as another of Merriam’s listed functions.

The function of aesthetic enjoyment is of course the one which most concerns me here, and in fact several of the other functions seem to me to be subsumed in it to some extent.

Entertainment and aesthetic enjoyment are obviously related in this way, for a piece of music or a song must presumably be aesthetically enjoyable to be entertaining, but more of Merriam’s functions also contribute to the function of enjoyment, since presumably listeners can take pleasure from such things as symbolic representation. Perhaps the way in which the functions of traditional music have changed are best understood in the following hypothetical, but none the less I hope, realistic illustration.

The scene is a pub in the west of Ireland, let us say in the Connemara Gaeltacht. A man is singing what is commonly known as a sean-nós song, and his listeners are composed of two groups. The first are the locals from the immediate area, and the second, a group of young Irish-Americans on holiday in the area.

Let us look how the song is perceived by the two groups in terms of the following of Merriam’s functions: Communication, Aesthetic Enjoyment, Emotional Expression, and Contribution to the Continuity and Stability of Culture. (All chosen for the reason that I think they are prominent functions in this situation)

From the local’s point of view the performance fails to work on any of these levels. The man’s Irish is so poor that they have difficulty understanding him, so communication is at a premium, they derive little if any aesthetic enjoyment since his performance style lacks any of the attributes that they value…..he sings in a loud, though not untuneful voice repeating the melody exactly in each verse, and inserting stylised decorations in inappropriate places. Any emotional expression which the song might have in another mouth is lost in this instance.

In terms of the last function…contribution to the continuity and stabiltiy of culture… this performance does just the opposite in the minds of the locals. They see it as another example of how their society is losing its continuity and stability.

The performance functions differently for young Irish-Americans on the other hand. In terms of communication it fares not much better seeing as how none of them are Irish speakers, but they recognise the fact that the song is in Irish, and this in itself is a source of intense aesthetic enjoyment to them. Even though they cannot understand the words they feel the emotional intensity of the song, perhaps represented by the ( to their ears ) strange way in which the song is sung.

In complete contrast to the locals they feel that this, more than anything else they have met with on their holiday, gives them a feeling of continuity with the past of a culture with which they strongly identify. The fact that the song is being sung in their ancestral language is evidence to them of the stability of the society that produced it.

What the Irish-Americans don’t realise is that the singer is also Irish -American, and he has learned the song phonetically from a record, and his singing of it is his way of trying to identify with Irish culture. My contention, based on many years of observation is that since the revival, the function of Irish traditional music for large groups of Irish society, if in fact they listen to traditional music at all, is much closer to that ascribed to the Irish-Americans in the above example. If in fact this is the case, what are the implications for traditional music in Ireland?

In this account I have looked at how on the one hand much intellectual activity in the field has been stimulated by the impression that there is loss through change, and yet how on the other hand the Irish tradition can be shown not to be conservative in its historical acceptance of innovation.

Especially in the revival period what I would consider to be superficial changes such as new instrumentation and performance genres have been charged with indicating a serious change in direction for the tradition in Ireland. The essence of the argument in this paper is that in fact the less obvious changes that have taken place in the use and function of traditional music in Irish society, and in fact in other societies where it has made an impact, are much more serious in their implications. This is analysed as residing largely in the area of aesthetic appreciation, and the comparison is drawn between the pre-revival situation based on an intimate familiarity with the repertoire, and the post revival, where increasingly the aesthetic relies on nostalgia and a generalised “celtic “ identity.

As transmission of the tradition becomes more media oriented, the temptation for the performer is to capitalise on this new aesthetic, with the result that for me at any rate, the essence of what I consider to be the aesthetic beauty of traditional music….. the almost infinite degree of subtle variety in the presentation of themes…. becomes lost in the necessarily more general function that traditional music in Ireland now seems to serve.