THCD, Not THCD

[Tobus]

I play a lot of traditional music, and I'm familiar with the usage of the term in that context. But I think the "traditional" moniker is applied more for convenience, since the original composers' names have been lost to history and widespread use. It's not an absolute requirement. A lot of tunes written by O'Carolan, for example, have become traditional Irish tunes even though we know who wrote them and when. If someone asked you to play a set of traditional Irish tunes, you wouldn't automatically exclude Si Bheag Si Mhor just because you know who wrote it, would you? The tune has been played for over 300 years, which is perhaps longer than some other "traditional" Irish tunes, and I think it's fair to say that through its long history and usage, it's a traditional tune.

I really think we're trying to split hairs beyond reason when we try to rigidly define "traditional" with rules like this. The only thing that makes something traditional is that there is a tradition of using it. A tune that's been played widely for 300 years is traditional. A style of dress that's been worn roughly the same way for several generations within a particular folk tradition is, by definition, traditional, regardless of who started it.

[Nathan]

In my view you can compose new tunes in the traditional style and while the particular song with a copyright holding composer isn't considered a "trad" in the colloquial tradition, the group who plays only traditional tunes and songs written in the same style can rightly say they play traditional music exclusively. Moreover, in my neck of the woods, a trad is anything you don't have to pay royalties on when recording or performing. So trad = public domain Celtic music and would include compositions by Neil Gow, J. Scott Skinner, O'Carolan etc... but would exclude popular modern traditional style tunes by Jerry Holland, Neil Dickie or Dan R. MacDonald.

If someone writes a modern tune on a traditional instrument and it sounds enough like the established tradition, it enters the canon and is played by traditional players. If it does not, it is rejected as fusion or some such word.

Let's look at Highland Dress. We know who invented the Glengarry bonnet but that didn't stop it from entering the tradition and, it could be argued, is still very much a part of traditional highland piper's dress.

[bikercelt1]

I kind of see a point of confusion here; "Happy Birthday" may not be a "traditional Tune" but its a tradition to sing it on someone's birthday. So if we're using the same thought process a particular item might not be "Traditional" but the way it's used in context might be perceived by observers as THCD. The less experienced the observer is the more liberal the application of the term "traditional". So is the issue that what seems traditional to we Americans who are learning as we go seems wildly radical to Scots who were raised wearing kilts?

[OC Richard]

Well we'll just have to disagree. I wouldn't consider Carolan compositions to be "traditional" any more than I would compositions by his contemporaries like Bach.

Is it entirely clear-cut? Not in the sense that "Irish traditional music" contains, in its corpus, both traditional tunes and tunes by known composers. Generally the traditional players themselves know which tunes are composed tunes and which are traditional.

On the other hand, it's difficult to find anything about Traditional Highland Dress which has a known inventor. There are many things which we know at what date they were introduced into the Army, but invariably these things had existed for many years in civilian dress before that date and/or there are multiple unprovable creation stories.

[Jock Scot]

..............

On the other hand, it's difficult to find anything about Traditional Highland Dress which has a known inventor. There are many things which we know at what date they were introduced into the Army, but invariably these things had existed for many years in civilian dress before that date and/or there are multiple unprovable creation stories.

I am not at all sure that I understand your position here OCR. I cannot comment on the music aspect as that is beyond my ken, but at a guess most tartans, not all, have a name of the weaver and/or dates were recorded along with possibly who designed it. Now it actually matters not that a couple of fraudsters designed some tartans or whoever, the fact is that someone had to. There are a number of books and records, much of it now computerised, thus making information freely available to all, that illustrate all this perfectly.

Personally and respectfully, I think that you are overthinking all this and I think that in this case I can probably speak for many kilt wearers who have no idea who designed, when made, age, etc., of any given tartan. It matters not to them that "their tartan"was designed in 1750---1850---1950----or, in the case of the Wildcat Tartan 2015. I do think though, that many are surprised just how young "their" tartan is, when and if they ever think about it and research it. Whilst all that may be of considerable interest to some of us here, I don't think there are many that take any of the above into consideration when deciding to wear their kilt traditionally.

[Nathan]

On the other hand, it's difficult to find anything about Traditional Highland Dress which has a known inventor. There are many things which we know at what date they were introduced into the Army, but invariably these things had existed for many years in civilian dress before that date and/or there are multiple unprovable creation stories.

We know who invented the Glengarry bonnet but that didn't stop it from entering the tradition and, it could be argued, is still very much a part of traditional highland piper's dress.

[OC Richard]

Yes there are multiple creations stories about the Glengarry, one being that an officer in the 79th foot invented it in the 1840s for their pipers. It the Glengarry type cap being widely worn in the 1820s dispels that myth easily. The Glengarry Fencibles story is more likely, for sure, though some say that the cap he's wearing in that painting isn't a Glengarry... we can't know for sure.

In any case the Glengarry is merely a different "blocking" of the traditional Scottish bonnet, the origin of which is unknown, as is the origin of the kilt, the sporran, the dirk, the all-steel pistol, the claymore, the ghillie shoes, and everything else, which is my point.

About tartans, we know the origin of very few if any of the old "clan tartans". I've read through Peter MacDonald's The 1819 Key Pattern book and nearly all the tartans therein seem to have unknown origins. The fact that a tartan was woven by Wilson doesn't prove that they themselves designed it (perhaps Peter could enlighten us on this).

Even with the military tartans only the creation of the tartan for The Gordon Highlanders is documented AFAIK.

Of course the Allen Brothers invented dozens of tartans; these can't be considered "traditional" by my definition, as can Isle Of Skye or any other tartan with a known designer.

[MacKenzie]

My how we do split hairs, exponentially, here.

But it's always informative.

Is tradition origin related or style/mode related?

Curious.

[Tobus]

Is tradition origin related or style/mode related?

Despite what some would wish it to be, tradition is defined solely by usage and acceptance. That's it. Nothing more. Styles and fashions are invented all the time out of thin air, but they do not become traditions until they have been established over a period of time. And they disappear all the time too. The existence of a tradition cannot revolve around any other criteria other than the fact that people are doing it routinely and perhaps even ritualistically.

I typically dislike the internet chat board defense mechanism of invoking Webster in cases like this, but here we go:

Full Definition of TRADITION

1
a : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)
b : a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable

2
: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction

3
: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions

4
: characteristic manner, method, or style <in the best liberal tradition>

So it seems to me that as long as something is established, accepted, and customary, it's a tradition. Regardless of whether it's perfectly clear who started it or whether its origins are unknown.

[Nathan]

I agree with Tobus. A case in point being that I think a Barbour jacket is now considered traditional country wear and, given the similar demographic of those who wear kilts and those who pursue country recreation in the UK, it has de facto become traditional kilt wear given the appropriate weather. My undertanding is that it has all but displaced the Inverness cape among traditional civilian kilt wearers.

We know that the Barbour jacket was invented by Barbour.