I find that I try to learn too many tunes too fast; the ones I like just a little less or can't quite get fall by the way side and get only half learned. I then get into a kind of "clean house" mode and I brush up the orphans for a few months until I get a little bored. I then try to learn too many tunes at once and the whole process starts again.
Just trying to figure out if I should be learning more new tunes, or if it's better to really get the old ones down. But then it seems you run the risk of getting stagnant and bored if you overplay something - lose the excitement and fun, so to speak.
A good player can play a wide range of melodic patterns in different keys and rhythms and play them well. Knowing these patterns comes from knowing lots of tunes. That's why you never get pros from Ireland who only know the 20 tunes they play on their album. They know all the tunes. You'll often hear people say that repertoire isn't important and that it's okay to play a handful of tunes really well. That's just an excuse not to get off their arse and learn the repertoire. So, do both. Be patient. Learn lots of tunes and learn to play them well. Don't go for one at the expense of the other.
spend time on both! start each practice session with the tunes you love and want to develop. then work on your transitions between tunes, just the last phrase of one and the first of the next (also invert them, so you can switch both ways). after that, try to play several tunes in a row without stopping as a set, even try to come up with tunes for the set on the fly. if you mess up, dont worry! the important t hing is to decide whether or not you will allow mistakes; with the pieces you are working on, decide you will stop. with these, decide you will go on.
you should do this second half with tunes that you are working to master, but then also do it for tunes that you do not know so well, and are in your "later pile". you could also spend some time on learning new tunes that you dont intend to learn very well, to be played in this last quarter of practice.
every day, i work on just a few pieces, but then i go through without stopping and try to play all the tunes i havent played in a long time. they usually sound horrible, but it keeps them fresh in my mind, for when i am ready to really devote time to them.
Its not the size of your repertoire that matters it's what you do with it. I was once told by a very respected Irish fiddle player that if you think you know 100 tunes and only play 10 correctly then you only KNOW 10 tunes. He is absolutely right, spend your time working on a few tunes and get them right. Then and only then should you start to expand your repertoire.
Ah, they go hand in hand, don't they. As you learn more tunes you come across new patterns, new phrases. In turn when you go back to the tunes you know better, new possibilities open up. Balance is important though, if you just rush through half learning as many as possible and don't spend much time going backwards, it's hardly to your benefit. The critical factor when learning is to get the rhythm right - miss a few notes here & there don't matter as long as you have the rhythm and feel of the tune, you can listen and fill them in later as you wish.
"....do both. Be patient. Learn lots of tunes and learn to play them well. Don't go for one at the expense of the other." - I'd go along with Dow & Eliot on this one.
Actually Ptar I think you might know the fella that told me that. A fellow countryman of yours if i'm not mistaken, name of Fergus McTaggart now living and teaching in Shannon. Great fiddle player and ejudicates at the Fleadhs.
I think the only thing we would have in common would be our country of origin!
For sadly, nobody will ever describe me as a "Great fiddle player"
& as for - "and ejudicates at the Fleadhs." - I'll avoid the obvious pun & just say that the only educating I could do there would be show folks to their seats!
Fergus isn't the gus on the right of this photo, by any chance, is he?
The more tunes you know, the more you can participate in a session which makes the session more enjoyable. And, let’s face it, if you are only going to work on 10 tunes until they are perfect, then you’re never going to move on. I find that there is a constant evolution in my playing and that effects they way I play tunes.
I try to learn one or two new tunes a week (and by learn, I mean able to get through the whole tune by memory with no major screw ups). I’m not going to start these tunes at a session, just want to be able to play along. It takes months of polishing for me to start a new tune at a session. At the same time I’m reviewing five or more tunes that I’ve been playing for a while.
This week, for my new tunes it’s O’Rourke’s and Mulqueens. For review I’m working on Kesh (I heard someone do some cool ornamentation at a session last week) Morrison’s and Cooley’s (I’m really trying to get those first finger roles just right) and an Alasdair Frasier set that I’ve been working on off and on for about 18 months and finally have it to where I think I’ll play it at a session.
As with most either/or questions, the correct answer is a compromise between both. It doesn't do you or your session mates any good for you to be able to fluff your way through every tune during the evening, doing a poor job of playing the tunes. On the other hand, if you sit all evening with your instrument silent, that is no fun either. Between one and two hundred tunes can keep you busy for much of the night at many sessions, if you learn the most commonly played tunes for that particular session. And at some point, there seems to be a threshold where you have the basic patterns down, and tune learning gets easier. Or so I am told, I am still a slow learner myself.
Thanks everyone for all the great advice - there's some really good, practical stuff. I'll be implementing many of these suggestions into my practice. Sessions are few and far between in my neck of the woods and at the ones I go to the same tunes get played over and over, so it's hard to know what to work on. I've found some great tunes from reading the posts on this site, so that's mostly where the practice on new tunes comes from. And from albums.
I know a good amount of tunes to play for people, but I think if you can't play all of your repertoire really well, then you're trying to learn increase your repertoire too fast. The tunes in your collection that you don't have down, just don't play them for people until you've got it. I think that having a large amount of songs able to play at a moment's notice is just as important as playing them well at a moment's notice. That's why learning a new song is like learning two things. You have to remember the song, and you have to remember how to make it sound good.
Quality is defintely the key. I say this from the viewpoint of a respected Bodhran player. the only way to say honestly that you know such and such tunes is to be able to play them properly. this is my personal approach to learning tunes and it hasn't failed me yet. I'd never jump in on a tune that I was not familliar with yet love to listen to the changes and nuances so as to be able to learn it properly. The saying my dad always used was the first you get good and then you can expand. A bunch of half learned tunes in ones repertoire wouldn't be very impressive at a paying session now would it?
Some pretty good advice here - as described above, it is frustrating when you regularly have to fluff your way through a session because you don't know most of the tunes being played.. what is more frustrating for me is that while I get snatches of the tunes as they're being played I don't remember how they go right through. Compounding the problem is that the sessioners(?) don't know the names of 85% of the tunes they play, so I've got nothing to take home, or to hang the fragments on. Consequently I've been finding it difficult to pick up the tunes that I could share with them. Recording the sessions is a little problematic - it tends to overwhelm my simple recording device. But I may have to go back to that...
Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
Is it better to know lots of tunes kind of, or a fewer number and be able to play them well?
# Posted on June 10th 2006 by Fiddlephilia
Re: Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
Yes to both.
# Posted on June 10th 2006 by Eliot
Re: Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
I find that I try to learn too many tunes too fast; the ones I like just a little less or can't quite get fall by the way side and get only half learned. I then get into a kind of "clean house" mode and I brush up the orphans for a few months until I get a little bored. I then try to learn too many tunes at once and the whole process starts again.
I kind of like it... what was the question again?
# Posted on June 10th 2006 by ottoschmelk
Re: Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
Just trying to figure out if I should be learning more new tunes, or if it's better to really get the old ones down. But then it seems you run the risk of getting stagnant and bored if you overplay something - lose the excitement and fun, so to speak.
# Posted on June 10th 2006 by Fiddlephilia
Re: Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
A good player can play a wide range of melodic patterns in different keys and rhythms and play them well. Knowing these patterns comes from knowing lots of tunes. That's why you never get pros from Ireland who only know the 20 tunes they play on their album. They know all the tunes. You'll often hear people say that repertoire isn't important and that it's okay to play a handful of tunes really well. That's just an excuse not to get off their arse and learn the repertoire. So, do both. Be patient. Learn lots of tunes and learn to play them well. Don't go for one at the expense of the other.
# Posted on June 10th 2006 by Dr. Dow
Re: Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
spend time on both! start each practice session with the tunes you love and want to develop. then work on your transitions between tunes, just the last phrase of one and the first of the next (also invert them, so you can switch both ways). after that, try to play several tunes in a row without stopping as a set, even try to come up with tunes for the set on the fly. if you mess up, dont worry! the important t hing is to decide whether or not you will allow mistakes; with the pieces you are working on, decide you will stop. with these, decide you will go on.
you should do this second half with tunes that you are working to master, but then also do it for tunes that you do not know so well, and are in your "later pile". you could also spend some time on learning new tunes that you dont intend to learn very well, to be played in this last quarter of practice.
every day, i work on just a few pieces, but then i go through without stopping and try to play all the tunes i havent played in a long time. they usually sound horrible, but it keeps them fresh in my mind, for when i am ready to really devote time to them.
# Posted on June 10th 2006 by daiv
Re: Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
Its not the size of your repertoire that matters it's what you do with it. I was once told by a very respected Irish fiddle player that if you think you know 100 tunes and only play 10 correctly then you only KNOW 10 tunes. He is absolutely right, spend your time working on a few tunes and get them right. Then and only then should you start to expand your repertoire.
# Posted on June 10th 2006 by Bernie
Re: Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
Ah, they go hand in hand, don't they. As you learn more tunes you come across new patterns, new phrases. In turn when you go back to the tunes you know better, new possibilities open up. Balance is important though, if you just rush through half learning as many as possible and don't spend much time going backwards, it's hardly to your benefit. The critical factor when learning is to get the rhythm right - miss a few notes here & there don't matter as long as you have the rhythm and feel of the tune, you can listen and fill them in later as you wish.
# Posted on June 10th 2006 by the wounded hussar
Re: Do Both!
"....do both. Be patient. Learn lots of tunes and learn to play them well. Don't go for one at the expense of the other." - I'd go along with Dow & Eliot on this one.
# Posted on June 10th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
Bernie, you say size isn't important! Well tell that to this dude (don't worry, it's not rude): http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/giantrabbit.asp#photo
# Posted on June 10th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
Actually Ptar I think you might know the fella that told me that. A fellow countryman of yours if i'm not mistaken, name of Fergus McTaggart now living and teaching in Shannon. Great fiddle player and ejudicates at the Fleadhs.
# Posted on June 10th 2006 by Bernie
Re: Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
I think the only thing we would have in common would be our country of origin!
For sadly, nobody will ever describe me as a "Great fiddle player"
& as for - "and ejudicates at the Fleadhs." - I'll avoid the obvious pun & just say that the only educating I could do there would be show folks to their seats!
Fergus isn't the gus on the right of this photo, by any chance, is he?
http://beggarsrowfolkband.tripod.com/beggarsrownewphotoalbum/id1.html
# Posted on June 10th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
The more tunes you know, the more you can participate in a session which makes the session more enjoyable. And, let’s face it, if you are only going to work on 10 tunes until they are perfect, then you’re never going to move on. I find that there is a constant evolution in my playing and that effects they way I play tunes.
I try to learn one or two new tunes a week (and by learn, I mean able to get through the whole tune by memory with no major screw ups). I’m not going to start these tunes at a session, just want to be able to play along. It takes months of polishing for me to start a new tune at a session. At the same time I’m reviewing five or more tunes that I’ve been playing for a while.
This week, for my new tunes it’s O’Rourke’s and Mulqueens. For review I’m working on Kesh (I heard someone do some cool ornamentation at a session last week) Morrison’s and Cooley’s (I’m really trying to get those first finger roles just right) and an Alasdair Frasier set that I’ve been working on off and on for about 18 months and finally have it to where I think I’ll play it at a session.
# Posted on June 10th 2006 by iampeterfonda
Re: Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
As with most either/or questions, the correct answer is a compromise between both. It doesn't do you or your session mates any good for you to be able to fluff your way through every tune during the evening, doing a poor job of playing the tunes. On the other hand, if you sit all evening with your instrument silent, that is no fun either. Between one and two hundred tunes can keep you busy for much of the night at many sessions, if you learn the most commonly played tunes for that particular session. And at some point, there seems to be a threshold where you have the basic patterns down, and tune learning gets easier. Or so I am told, I am still a slow learner myself.
# Posted on June 10th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
Thanks everyone for all the great advice - there's some really good, practical stuff. I'll be implementing many of these suggestions into my practice. Sessions are few and far between in my neck of the woods and at the ones I go to the same tunes get played over and over, so it's hard to know what to work on. I've found some great tunes from reading the posts on this site, so that's mostly where the practice on new tunes comes from. And from albums.
# Posted on June 10th 2006 by Fiddlephilia
Re: Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
I know a good amount of tunes to play for people, but I think if you can't play all of your repertoire really well, then you're trying to learn increase your repertoire too fast. The tunes in your collection that you don't have down, just don't play them for people until you've got it. I think that having a large amount of songs able to play at a moment's notice is just as important as playing them well at a moment's notice. That's why learning a new song is like learning two things. You have to remember the song, and you have to remember how to make it sound good.
# Posted on June 10th 2006 by Aldivalloch14
Re: Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
Quality is defintely the key. I say this from the viewpoint of a respected Bodhran player. the only way to say honestly that you know such and such tunes is to be able to play them properly. this is my personal approach to learning tunes and it hasn't failed me yet. I'd never jump in on a tune that I was not familliar with yet love to listen to the changes and nuances so as to be able to learn it properly. The saying my dad always used was the first you get good and then you can expand. A bunch of half learned tunes in ones repertoire wouldn't be very impressive at a paying session now would it?
# Posted on June 11th 2006 by newfie percussionist
Re: Quality VS Quantity - What do you think?
Some pretty good advice here - as described above, it is frustrating when you regularly have to fluff your way through a session because you don't know most of the tunes being played.. what is more frustrating for me is that while I get snatches of the tunes as they're being played I don't remember how they go right through. Compounding the problem is that the sessioners(?) don't know the names of 85% of the tunes they play, so I've got nothing to take home, or to hang the fragments on. Consequently I've been finding it difficult to pick up the tunes that I could share with them. Recording the sessions is a little problematic - it tends to overwhelm my simple recording device. But I may have to go back to that...
# Posted on June 11th 2006 by Brown Creeper