Backwards Roll?

[PallasAthena]

I was looking at some ornamentaiton I wrote in on some of my sheet music and I realized that in one place I wrote in what is essentially a roll but played in reverse. In other words: note-tap-note-cut-note in stead of note-cut-note-tap-note. I sort of like it and learned it a lot more easily then I learned a conventional roll (or at least I think I did as I wrote it into the music before I could roll well). Is there an actual term for this, or is it just some unorthodox thing I picked up on/made up?

[s1m0n]

A roll is what works.

[Key_of_D]

As I understand it, a roll, is a cut followed by a tap. Be it a long roll, or a short roll. Although there is more to rolls then what I just mentioned of course.

However, I've personally discovered what you brought to the table a while back... just on accident, (I'm fairly certain I'm dislexic...) and musically it does work. Though if you went around and started teaching everybody to play a roll in this "backwards" manner, some traditional purists may (or may not who knows) scold ye for doing so...

-Eric

[Guinness]

A reverse roll can come in handy in a few instances, but if it's "easier" then perhaps you're having difficulty executing a normal roll? Keep practicing the standard roll (note-cut-note-tap-note).

[okstatepiper]

I find that in one tune that I am working on, since there is a run down just before the repeated notes, that I can only do a reverse roll. It sounds good, especially since there is a regular roll the measure before. But this is the only place that I have used one, and it seems to just happen. I don't mess with it.

[s1m0n]

What I mean is that the goal of a roll is sound, not fingering. If you can get the right sound some other way than is standard, use that.

But bear in mind the proviso that some things are standard because they're easier at speed. This might be one, but it doesn't seem obvious that it will.

A roll is a rhythmic variation, not a melodic one, so the particular pitches of the cut and tap gracenotes aren't especially important. Some folks claim that the farther they are from the note being rolled, the crisper the roll or cran sounds. I wouldn't worry about it.

~~

30 years ago there weren't any whistle tutors and people learned by imitating a sound, and/or by asking around, watching their father, etc. Now we learn from books or videos, and accord information in print an undeserved authority. Something becomes "the" way to do X or Y, instead of "a" way.

If you listen to the pre-Mary Bergin generation of whistle players--oh, Micho Russell, Tom McHale, Packie Manus Byrne, etc--everyone sounds different. In the post-Mary Bergin era, everyone sounds like Mary Bergin (except, ironically enough, Mary Bergin).

So try your way for a time. It won't hurt to work on the other way and let your fingers and ears pick which to use when, but don't feel like there's only one way to skin this cat.

[Key_of_D]

I don't know, but rolls have been taught and played like this for at least a good 200 years, first starting with the uilleann pipes... So I don't think it's something to make a great habit of doing. Exceptions there are to every rule of course, but not always either.

And although you're partly right about the roll being a rythmic variation, its not necessarily a melodical one, I think you may have missed the point because you're using this roll in music, so I said musically, it works, which techinically, makes it also a melodical variation. I wasn't referring to the pitches that the cut and taps can produce in playing a roll at all, obviously those should be heard as "blips", rather then perceivable notes - And so I can see why playing a roll backwards shouldn't matter... Try playing short rolls backwards, then again around 120 bpm...

It seems to me there must be a reason why the word "tradtional" is put into the title of Irish traditional music.

These are just my feelings, so as always don't take it to heart if it bothers ye that much, or if it's too sweet to swallow, take it with a grain of salt!

Cheers,

-Eric

[Borderpiper]

I tend towards the normal way of playing rolls but I do use backwards rolls if I've got 4 notes in a row and I want to finish with a grace note instead of a tap. It sounds nicer than doing two grace notes one after the other.

[jim stone]

I was looking at some ornamentaiton I wrote in on some of my sheet music and I realized that in one place I wrote in what is essentially a roll but played in reverse. In other words: note-tap-note-cut-note in stead of note-cut-note-tap-note. I sort of like it and learned it a lot more easily then I learned a conventional roll (or at least I think I did as I wrote it into the music before I could roll well). Is there an actual term for this, or is it just some unorthodox thing I picked up on/made up?

John Skelton taught us to do this in a workshop,
but, emphatically, not as another way to do a roll,
but as a separate ornament in its own right.

In effect it functions as a tap. There are places
in a tune where one might tap to accentuate
a note. The tap is the attack on the note.
This sometimes is done in jigs. Adding
the cut very close, immediately after the
tap, adds emphasis.

Good to have in one's bag of tricks,
but rolls are better done traditionally.
They definitely sound different.

[pancelticpiper]

When I think about it, there are times when a roll is not really a roll, it's just a series of gracenotes used to articulate notes rather than using the tongue. In those situations it doesn't matter at all what sequence is used. At other times, the roll has the rythmic function of a roll, which isn't created by using any other sequence.
Also there's the "piper's roll" which starts with a cut then has two pats. It also does not have the same rythmic effect as the roll proper.
So for example you could start the Kesh Jig:
G cut G pat G / cut G A B
or
cut G pat G pat G / cut G A B
or your "backwards"
G pat G cut G / pat G A B
Or any other sequence. It's all good.

[crookedtune]

If you listen to the pre-Mary Bergin generation of whistle players--oh, Micho Russell, Tom McHale, Packie Manus Byrne, etc--everyone sounds different. In the post-Mary Bergin era, everyone sounds like Mary Bergin (except, ironically enough, Mary Bergin).

Interesting observation, and you see that in all types of folk music. IMO, it's a double-edged sword: regionally-based sounds are on the decline, and there is some homogenization of styles, since everyone has access to the same models. On the other hand, ANYONE can now learn to play ANY music, even if there are no "masters" living in town, and playing at the local pub. This opportunity never existed until the technology came along.

Frankly, I'm pretty happy with the global model, where you can get access to all types of music, and choose what speaks to you the loudest. Besides, if you play enough, you'll develop your own sound, no matter how much you may try to imitate others.

[Trixle]

[ On the other hand, ANYONE can now learn to play ANY music, even if there are no "masters" living in town, and playing at the local pub. This opportunity never existed until the technology came along.

I've been thinking about this concept a lot lately. I have the habit of always wishing i started something earlier than i did. I started playing guitar, wished i had started it at like 8 or 9, started wrestling in 10th grade, wish i had started in like 5th or 6th. I started playing whistle in April, but started wishing i had started it when i was a kid like some people did. But then i was thinking, when i was kid there was no such thing as the internet. The newest, most powerful computer of my day that i knew about was Apple 2e, which i used to mess around on in second grade.

Not coming from even a remotely irish background, i realized that even if i had somehow heard of the whistle and gotten one, i would never have had a teacher. I probably would just have had to like, check books out from the library or listen to irish records bought with saved up comic book sales and tried to figure it out on my own, probably slowly and painstakingly from scratch.

Starting now, though, it's like bam, just jump on the internet and download the sheetmusic, or join in a virtual session, or watch eskin or ryan dunns play stuff slowly and learn from them, or interact on this forum with other whistlers who'll answer most of my questions and give tips and piointers and such. Or pop over to brother steve's page for some whistle theory and such. There is just so much info on the net that i feel kinda like some new fogie, wondering how people survived and did stuff before the internet, even though i remember a time when there was no such thing.

THis is totally off topic, i guess, but still, this thread has really added to my wondering.

[pancelticpiper]

s1m0n has a point (in contrasting the pre-MB and post-MB periods), but if it is meant that pre-Mary Bergin there was no such thing as an Irish style, that each player entirely invented his own style, each having a unique technique, and "anything goes" was the norm, I think that is taking the point far beyond the truth. It is easy, for someone not very familiar with Irish music, to hear two or three players taken at random who happen to play very differently from each other, to assume this.
I was playing whistle (and flute and uilleann pipes) for a number of years before I'd ever heard of Mary Begin. Yet, my playing is rather similar (except of course she is far more accomplished) because all the people I heard play back then (the 1970's) sounded more or less alike.
I learned quite a few of Micho's odd tunes back then from a guy who had spent a week hanging out with Micho and had hours of tape of his playing. This guy pointed out that Micho made up his own way of playing, not knowing about rolls. To him (who had spent a year or two in Ireland playing music and hanging around with many of the well-known players of that time) Micho was an aberration. Though, when I actually heard the tapes, Micho's playing didn't sound all that different from others I'd heard at the time. While technically his rolls are different, they still have the effect of a roll.
I've listened to hours of recordings of the old flute players from the 20's through the 50's and 60's and there IS a shared style and technique common to nearly all of the players.
People who are coming into ITM just now, when there are many people fusing ITM with jazz and other non-ITM musics, won't get the grounding in the tradition unless they take the trouble to look for it.

[Key_of_D]

As far as ITM whistler's go, Micho Russell's style/playing probably stands out the most in my opinion. In a good way though.

[s1m0n]

This guy pointed out that Micho made up his own way of playing, not knowing about rolls. To him (who had spent a year or two in Ireland playing music and hanging around with many of the well-known players of that time) Micho was an aberration. Though, when I actually heard the tapes, Micho's playing didn't sound all that different from others I'd heard at the time. While technically his rolls are different, they still have the effect of a roll.

This is the point I was trying to make--Micho's rolls were exactly what I was thinking of. I'm also aware that every time a new instrument enters the tradition, a means of recreating the rhythmic effect of a roll has to be worked out, and the way this happens differs according to the notes (and fingers) available on that instrument. A roll on a box is can be quite different from the 'same' roll on a flute or whistle, and these often differ from what's possible on a tenor banjo. A music robust enough to tolerate this much variation between instruments in a session (or solo) and remain recogniseable can accomodate someone rolling a whistle backwards.