Something Michael said got me thinking. We were talking about "listening" versus "watching" in the context of learning playing techniques, but somehow it got steered onto whether your sense of sight can add to your enjoyment of the music.
Michael maintains that the tunes are abstract aural art and therefore your sense of sight would add nothing to your appreciation of them. He says that using your sense of sight in this context automatically entails that you're appreciating the music as "performance art", since what you see is only what's in front of you.
I maintain that what you see is what your brain sees, not what your eyes see. We all know that it's your brain that takes the image your eyes give you and turns it so that it's the right way up and cleverly interprets information from both eyes to give you 3D vision and an ability to judge distance. Well, why shouldn't your brain be able to take it further than that?
You're going to think this is weird, but I'll say it anyway. When I was a kid (about 2 or 3 - preschool), I used to listen to my parents' records for hours, but I couldn't and wouldn't just listen. I had to be looking at pictures in certain books for certain tunes or songs. For anyone else, the books had no connection with the music, but for me they did (my parents thought it was really weird but they just left me to it). From a very early age, my brain had wired itself to associate certain images with certain pieces of music. I wouldn't look at the pictures in the order they came in the book. Each tune had its own picture and I'd actually leaf through to find the right one, or swap books if necessary. So I've had the same feeling into adulthood and not thought anything of it. When I see films, I'm always aware of whether the background music is "right" or not, i.e. whether it "goes with" the image I'm seeing. I feel as though my sense of sight is connected somehow with my hearing, and that makes sense physiologically I suppose, since both signals are dealt with by the same brain. So if I'd been blind from birth, then I wouldn't know what stuff around me looked like, so I wouldn't have the same images to associate with the music, and I'm guessing I'd appreciate music in a different way.
I don't know what my point is really. I suppose I'm wondering if anyone else knows what I'm talking about, or whether I'm just an insane, babbling idiot.
That's really interesting Dow, I really think that's cool, not weird. I'm only adding to this discussion because strangely I am the exact opposite. Like you, I grew up listening to my parents records; everything from German 'Oompah' music to Johnny Cash, Wilf Carter, Stompin' Tom and Don Messer. The difference is, I had to have all the lights turned out to really get into it. I needed all the visual stimuli to 'go away' so there was no distraction. I took it one step further and layed on the ground with the speakers 3 feet or-so to either side of my head so that other 'noise' couldn't get in and it would feel as live as possible. Even now, often I need to turn all the lights out to play violin.
Sorry folks. A series of google searches gave me a big word beginning with "s", and when I cut & pasted it into the discussion search box I found that this has been discussed before @ http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display.php/3237. Where was I in April?
Dow's tale of visual association is perplexing. My discussion with him has centered on his asertion that he can get more out of a players music if he hears and sees it created rather than just hears it. I now realise it is more than this, but is paradoxically simpler to understand. Somehow, the aural is not enough, and he makes up for this with extra visual stimulation. The problem is, and by his own admitance, the extra visual stimulatiuon he seeks has nothing to do with the art of the orriginal music. He may think it helps him, but how?.
There's synasthesia (sp?) of course where people hear colours or mix senses in other ways.
I don't think I am that difficult word because I don't "hear" colours, literally, in the sense that I would see yellow upon hearing a tune in the way that I see yellow in front of me now. But I do have a definite idea of what colour a tune or other piece of music "is". It seems to be strongest in purely instrumental music and diminish as lyrics get more important and the personality of the singer takes over, in which case I just seem to think of the singer (even if I don't know what they look like).
When did I say that the extra visual stimulation has nothing to do with the art of the original music? I didn't say that - I said it has nothing to do with it as a "performance art". I'm talking about hearing and sight used as one inseparable sense to appreciate a tune.
Oh I see, you're still talking about techniques? Okay Michael, I'm in above my head - sorry mate I dunno what I'm talking about anymore. All I know is, that tune, "Over The Bog Road", I was playing it today, and it's really really really *blue*! I don't think I have that s~~ wotsit thing though because I don't see colours in front of me or anything like that.
Maybe this is where the problems lie. "The visual" is a human's strongest sense and it seems possible that in order to understand stuff that exists entirely within the relm of one of the other senses, our brains lend a few cells that are usually linked to sight. Christ knows how this works, we need a neurologist.
If we have preformed visual stimuli that we associate with music (like Trevor's sight reading) our brains seem naturally to cling to it.
But the whole thing about brains is that you train them to what you want And Mike (above) must surely have the best way.
But Dow, you said you had a picture in a book that went with a particular song? What has that visual stimulation got to do with the art of the orriginal music?
Further thoughts. Regarding the fiddle I think I'd associate red with major keys such as A or E major. D, major or minor, I'd associate with some shade of brown, and G, B-flat and Emin with greens. A min, for me would be a dark blue, verging on indigo.
Different types of sound also tend to have colour associations for me: trumpet - red, possibly a brilliant red; cello - a warm brown; viola - brown with a touch of blue; flute - warm white, possibly a touch of gold.
Again, this is the problem. We visualise stuff that is just inventions in our heads. For example, we think of high notes as being literally higher than lower notes, we even gesticulate by pointing upwards. But this is an invented conotation that has no basis in the actual sound what so ever. If you play the cello, your brain even does an automatic turn arround and accepts that your hand is going "higher" up the neck when to any lay person, it's patently obvious that it's going lower. Higher notes are merely faster vibrations.
So my point is: to get the best out of music, you must attempt to strip away all of these artifical constructs and concentrate on the purely aural.
E minor is usually green for me too - a dark green. It's the sort of colour that would be nice for a car, but not for a tune usually, which is why I'm not all that keen on E minor tunes compared to others.
But Michael, everything you see around you is an invention of your brain. What about when you're dreaming? You can still see and walk around and stuff can't you? But you've got your eyes shut.
"To get the best out of music, you must attempt to strip away all of these artifical constructs and concentrate on the purely aural".
This is where I really really really disagree with you Michael. Why do these "frequencies" sound nice to you? Why do you like the sound of a certain interval/chord/instrument timbre? Why are social constructs more "artificial" than scientific ones? Music isn't just a series of "frequencies". If it was, how then do you explain why certain tunes make you feel certain emotions like sadness or joy?
That's right, everything you "see" around you is an invention of your brain (convolutedly based entirely on the truth of the origin of reflected photons recieved through the retina, depending on your favoured branch philosophy oc course). And every thing you "hear" around you is an invention of your brain (ditto). The trick is not to the two muddled up
This is fun, but confusing, replying to alternate postings.
Ah ha, now we're getting down to it. Tunes don't inspire emotions in me like saddness and joy. And I don't think of frequencies or timbre either. It's abstract. An this is indeed where we disagree
Dow, I reckon you are a synasthaesiac (?), my dear! I don't think even bona-fide synasthaesiacs see the colour as though it were literally in front of them - it's the 'mind's eye' that sees it. Myself, I'm more like SL* - colours and shapes are definitely part of my perception of sounds.
I heard an interesting feature on the radio a while back; studies had been made of the way that blind-from-birth, and blind-from-age two, people processed language. The results of the tests suggested that blind-from-birth people had a much more acute perception of pitch difference than those who became blind later, and it was also suggested that they co-opted part of the visual cortex - re-assigned for the processing of sound instead of vision. This didn't surprise me at all. Neither did I have any trouble with the sample pitch test they played in the programme, which was supposed to be difficult for sighted people. I don't think many musicians would have had trouble with it.
I did try to find out whether they had made comparitive tests of musicians and non-musicians, as well as different types of blind people - but didn't manage to get any further information.
I'm highly aware of visual sense in my understanding of music. The more acutely I listen to a piece of music, the more vividly I 'see' it. Likewise maths. If you asked me to add two numbers without seeing any images in my head, I doubt I could do it. You could say that my brain is a very visual brain, and that's the way I do things. I know that some people *don't* have much visual component to their musical understanding; their brains must be dealing with it in a different way.
Michael, you dismiss these different ways of experiencing things, but I think it is because you yourself are not familiar with them. You have your own way of appreciating the music, which is fine! But you don't have to insist that anyone who experiences it differently is doing it 'wrong'. I remember you being very dismissive once when I talked about the feelings I'd had from a particular piece of music: involving notions of hope, optimism, and courage against adversity. You thought these were ridiculous things to interpret from a piece of music - but I don't. That's part of the way I understand music... ooh, whole 'nother discussion there altogether!
Jeez, I have *stacks* of work to do, must go! Eek!
Muddled up?! Okay, maybe you're right.
It's just that for me, I don't think I'd enjoy the tunes as much if I just played them as a bunch of notes and ignored everything else that went with it - its colour and sharpness, and the way it makes me feel when I hear it or play it.
I don't hear Michael saying we should ignore our feelings. He did say music is "abstract expressionism," and I agree with that--music is all about expressing ourselves.
Bear in mind that our emotional labels are also abstractions, ideas that we pin on certain chemical reactions in our bodies. Conditioning can create weird associations, like intense fear at the sight of bare feet. Sure, it's common to hear the minor mode as "sad," but in fact there's nothing sad about it--I'm often uplifted upon hearing or playing minor tunes. Sometimes they are simply calming, sometimes they release anger.
Point is, we infuse the music with our own moods, and when listening we actively interpret the sounds--but each of us interprets differently and none of it is "wrong." Just personal.
Nell, what sort of shapes do you get? For the A-part of The Eel In The Sink, I get something that looks like a seesaw but you can move the seat from side to side so that one end is longer than the other.
Now I'm kind of jealous that some people get shapes as well (sorry, Michael), I only get colours. I'm also very interested to hear what shapes they are.
If anyone's interested, some of my colours:
Am: blue to purple with red "flecks"
Em: dark blue mostly, but those vary more than most
D: yellow or saffron
Weird East-Galway contraptions like Fahey tunes tend come out burgundy
It depends on the indivual tune as well of course.
Mine are much more nebulous and variable. The shapes might be smooth curves or jagged edges, for example - it's more an impression of shape... certainly nothing as specific as a seesaw! And the colours are also more vague and changeable. Common ones would be blues and greens, purple, and orangey-brown. Never red, oddly! But I'm not a proper synaesthete (?) as they aren't consistent. If they are, you can claim your synasthaesiac ID card and all-areas pass...
Nonsense Jim. You just need to video yourself playing fiddle on playground equipment with swirling psychodelic colors in the background. A fish-eye lens might help.
Hmm.. just re-reading my previous long post, realised it's a bit rambling (it was quite rushed) - anyway my point was that the brain is plastic; I think it's quite conceivable that not only blind people but sighted people too, can use parts of their visual brain for processing other sensory phenomena. With any complicated mental task (like processing language, say) lots of different parts of the brain are involved. I'd say that the same is true with music, and that the relative dominance of different parts of the system would vary between people.
It would be great if someone would look at the brains of 'visualisers' and 'non-visualisers' as they listen to music, and see how that differs as the brain areas light up.
I have to admit that I sometimes "see" the sheet music for tunes and have even used that to read ahead to avoid going off on some unplanned detour.
I can actually recall the page the tune is on--whether it's recto or verso (right or left hand face of the book), the font, sometimes even page number.
But most of the time, while playing, I'm lost in the aural skirl of the tune, not seeing anything.
Will, I have another friend who has 'photographic memory' like that and remembers stuff like page numbers, the way you do. He also has the most incredible recall for anything verbal; lyrics of naff pop songs from the 1970s, *millions* of jokes, all kinds of stuff.
I think your experience, and SL* and Dow's experiences, reflect different aspects of visual functioning altogether. In your case it's an accurate, fact-based use of visual information. In theirs, an impressionistic sensory experience of another kind altogether.
And, in case someone is about to construe some sort of bias here - I have *no* value judgements on this issue, as to one way being better than another! I think it's fascinating how peoples' minds vary in the way they process things. Also, to suggest to someone whose brain works one way, that they should try the other way, would be utterly pointless; it's just the way they're wired!
what i think michael, is that dow has something good going for him. it has nothing to do with the original character of the music, of course. it is all in his head. but the trick isnt to not get it all muddled up. its to muddle it up as possible.
when i hear music, i hear music. but i have trouble hearing music. even though i play music hours every day, it is hard for me to "get into" music. i have to hear a song several times before i even begin to fully process it like a normal, even non musical person would. of course this varies on the type of music, the mood i'm in, etc. but its not normal. and it is a hindrance, because whereas a normal person can hear a song (perhaps not an irish one... normies think they sound all the same) and process it, understand it, and know a lot of whats going on. as for me... i cant. i barely hear it. it just goes in one ear and out the other. i cant tell you if i like something for a while because i havent heard it. of course, i have gotten used to this, so i pretend to myself and others that i like them and hope i end up liking htem in the end.
so what dow does is amazing. doesnt make him a genius, but it is a very good thing . and it might not work for everyone. but it gets him into the music. it gets him to understand himself and the music. because that's where it boils down to. you can never fully transmit somethin the way you meant it when you try. there's a piece i composed a year or 2 ago (neo classical / avante garde), that i never wrote down, and am writing down now. it is the hardest thing in the world. because i cant just write it as i see it in my head. because not only are there many fermate and accelerandi ritardandi everywhere. sometimes the tempo will change on a note, slow down, and then speed up the next drastically and then the note after that has a fermata and can be played as lon as i feel like it. which is intensely complicated. in my head, i might see four 32nd notes, but when i play, i might play something dotted or whatever. and thats not even counting in the tempo changes and the fermate. if i were to stop changing tempi and stop taking liberty with the note length, it still is played and intended to be played, differently than i view the note lengths in my head, even though i would never play them the way i view them.
so when writing it out, it was too complicated to use time signatures cuz it changes time signatures every measure... from 5/4, to 3/4, to 7/8 to 3/4 to 9/8, etc. a friend of mine decided after hearing that it was a free form, and time signature was too irrelevenet. and its still hard. like i said, to get the note lengths right.
i can play it how i want to, all the time. if you had a flute, i could teach it to you by ear and you would get it, and learn the nuances, and learn what notes you can stretch and bend, and extra trills, doubled notes, etc that i didnt write in and dont play that would fit in, depending on the persons personality. but how do i convey that in writing? it is a dauntin task, but it is good for me and i do enjoy it. no matter what, no one will ever play my piece the same way i do. ever. it is impossible. it is not written to be played as i play it. it is written to be played liberally and differently by eveyrone. but i am having trouble figuring out how to show them that. because although it is completely free the interpretation, there is a general feel that you have to take a lot more liberty than is normal. draw our double dotted 8ths for a couple measures, and then half notes for one measure. how much or how little you draw it depends on how you want to, but you still have to draw it and create a lot of tension.
just like no one in the history of the world will be able to play my piece like i do, no one will ever be able ot play the same irish tune the same. now, not to the same extent as my piece, because there are a lot of fixed rules whereas mine has no fixed rules. and although we as humans really want to be able ot pass on our legacies or share in past's legacies together, in the same way, we cant. cuz we dont think the same. we dont hear the same. and we dont remember the same. so what dow does is good. he found what works for him as a small child, and it still works now. he gets intimately connected to the music in a way a lot of us never do. which means he can best find out how it means to him, and best figure out how he should play it according to what visuals it represents; even if he is not able to do so, he can strive for it.
not saying he should abandon style, or anything. but within the irish style, of course, there is unlimited potential for personal style, and it seems to me to be a good tool to find his own personal style and cling to it.
so, michael, i would say muddle away. everyone. if it works for you to see colors, see colors, and forget what i was like not to. if it works for you to feel the rise and fall, do it. if it works to feel the emotion, the mood, the sense, do it. if it works to just straight hear the music and have it resonate through your body, do it. for me, what works really well, is imagining people i know that play really well playing it, so i can hear their style and learn from them even though they're not there. which helps me get the rhythm, the neagh (nyah) and to get the feel of the piece. once i get that down i keep how they might play in mind, but change it to how i want ot play it, to develop my own style, that often directly contradicts what they have told me to do, but i fit it into the implied framework that i can build because we all have enough subconscious data on our favorite players to know pretty well how they would play most things, its all a matter of tapping into it.
the most important thing is to do *SOMETHING*. engage yourself in a new way. even if you dont like it. try something else. the more you engage yourself in the music, the better. and, haha, here's a lesson i need to learn: you're never gonna be as good as you think you are, and you're never gonna be as bad as you think you are.
You lot always have the best discussions while I'm virtuously working instead of surfing on my employer's time. (She says, coming late to the thread.) ;)
I have synaesthesia, but in my case the one sense it doesn't affect is sound; it covers scents, flavors, textures, and colors. Chocolate not only tastes brown, the flavor of it has a soft silky texture like cat fur --- regardless of what the physical texture is like. Fresh cut grass smells intensely green and the scent has definite edges, like the edges of a sword blade. Dow, I at least don't see the colors, although I sometimes see the textures. For instance, with the smell of fresh cut grass, I see edges in my mind's eye.
On the other hand, when I listen to music, if I'm not doing something else at the time as well, I often get images in my mind's eye. Sometimes I get pictures of what the music sounds like to me (1812 Overture brings up battlefield imagery), sometimes memories of things I associate with the tune, sometimes just colors or textures or flashes of movement. No idea what it is, and it's not consistent enough to figure out.
Michael, not to be snarky, but talk to someone who lives with neurological disabilities before you blithely say you can train the brain in any way you want. For some people that's true, but others are hard-wired to be different. Sometimes you can work out a way around the differences, sometimes you just have to live with them.
And one last comment: Tom Anderson set the tune The Silvery Voe in the key of (iirc) F because to him that key was a silver color.
I'm very close to someone with a srange debilitating neuroligical condition and one of the things we realise, through many many discussions, is that training the brain is the whole process of being human. And I take great delight in watching my 15 month old daughter train her brain. Neural connections do not make themselves, they are made by deliberate repertition. You learn what you want to learn.
As for the hard wireing you refer to, this is stuff that your dna dictates, and yes, there is indeed a certain degree of it. But avaible evidence suggests that this is practical stuff, like being able to swallow. There seems to be some esoteric stuff also, like yawning when other people yawn but evn this has practical functions (apparently, it's best for a troup of primates to sleep together, hence the hard wired signal) But for something to be hard wired into your dna, it has to be a behavioural phenomenom that is very very ild indeed. Certainly much much older than our invention of art.i
Wow Jim; that was pretty shattering even though I have to say I agree with a lot of what you just said to Michael. People are sometimes not what they seem to be on chatrooms.
Michael I do not want to "strip away any artificial constructs and concentrate on the purely aural" because they all enhance my enjoyment of the music. They are for me and obviously others, the keys that help us to unlock the soul/spirit of the music.
Without them it is hard for tunes to "inspire emotions" and you are missing out.
Cheers to all
Michael,
Thank you for answering seriously. I appreciate that.
Granted, the brain can be trained, and new neurological pathways can be formed. (I did mention that training can work for some people, and in some situations.) I'm glad that's the case for your friend.
It's not entirely the case for others, however. My husband, my father, and myself, all with Asperger's syndrome, have found that even though we do seem to be able to train our brains to overcome some of our challenges, other challenges are insurmountable. Current theory on the development of Autism Spectrum Disorders includes the idea that in the growing ASD brain, areas develop in such a way that neural pathways do not form properly, and that possibly those areas remain unable to form normal pathways. Thus my reference to hardwiring. Certainly no amount of effort over more than 40 years for my husband and I, more than 80 for my Dad, has fixed certain challenges. And believe me, we have all three tried desperately hard to fix ourselves. It is not easy or pleasant or fun to be irrevocably broken; it is not something we get emotional benefits from. But it is real.
You might want to read Temple Grandin's autobiography for more insights on the reality of living with intractable neurological issues. She is a high-functioning autistic.
Saraê
Michael I appreciate your being on this site actually. I agree with a lot of what you say. I do think you're incredibly difficult to get to know though, and that's why people get frustrated with you and have a go at you. I think a lot of people will read what you've written and assume that you're clinical and emotionless because you've said that music "doesn't inspire emotions like sadness or joy". What's missing is an explanation of why the tunes *do* inspire you, if it's not for emotional reasons. Is it that you enjoy the physical control over your body as you conquer a tune? Or is it the opposite? Do you enjoy allowing yourself to be controlled by the music? Or is it nothing to do with either?
"Tunes don't inspire emotions in me like saddness and joy. And I don't think of frequencies or timbre either. It's abstract. An this is indeed where we disagree".
First of all, when I said "frequencies" I was referring to when you were talking about "vibrations", and saying that, for me, music is more than that.
Also, emotions like sadness or joy *are* abstract. You said music is abstract, so I don't see where you're disagreeing with me. So can you explain what abstract thing it is you get from the music that's enough to make you want to play the tunes. Or is it so indescribably abstract that you can't even begin to explain it in worldly terms? Is it like tremors in the force that binds the universe together or something?
I used to play classical music. There are so many different colours in classical music that to me it ends up looking like one of those impressionist paintings - lots of fussy little flecks everywhere in pastel colours. I love trad because, for me, each part of a tune has a bols, block of colour like those big splodges of colour you get in modern abstract art. The vividness of the colour depends on the tune, but I especially crave tunes that are either in bold, primary colours, or colours that are just interesting because of their novelty value, like steely blue-grey or Will's phlegm yellow-green [gag]. I'd love to go to a session and take some large sheets of paper and some poster paints or felt tips or something, and just paint tunes, drawing their shape and colouring them in. I've painted other music before and come up with some really wacky-looking stuff! I've just never done it at a session because I've always wanted to play and drink.
Different composers have different colours as well. A lot of Ed Reavy's tunes are in brown. Vincent Broderick's are often blue. Paddy O'Brien's are often in rich reds and oranges. Paddy Fahy in deep purples, greens and blues. Okay I'll stop now because I'm making a complete idiot of myself.
Dow, Where do you see the colours?
Is it a haze around you when you hear those tunes or do you see the dots on the page dripping with colour, or do you see this purple haze around BB as she launches into Paddy Fahey's No.#?? Or is it just that Basil turns blue when playing a Vincent Broderick tune?
That was a bit tongue in cheek but I am serious about wondering where this colour appears to you.
I'll share my little bit of weird with you. When I am playing with someone who is really in the groove playing a lovely tune and I am accompanying in full maximum synchromesh (I like that) - I get this feeling like something is bouncing up and down in my brain. Something starts to really resonate or whatever and I am not seeing anything at all anymore. That part of my brain finally has switched off. Maybe I am supporting Michael's argument here in an indirect way.
I know what you mean about the bouncing thing! With the colours, I don't actually 'see' them as such. I just associate a tune with a colour in my head, so I know what colour a tune is, and I can say "this tune is yellow". But I can usually only do that if I know the tune really well. My point about sense of sight is that, if I had been blind from birth, I wouldn't know what "yellow" looked like, so I'd make non-visual associations with tunes. Maybe Michael's right and I am confusing and distracting myself. Dunno...
ZEN and the art of tune appreciation
When you climb a mountain it might help you to look up every now and again to remind yourself where you are going and what you are doing. The object is to be on top of the mountain at which point you no longer need to look up but you have to get there first. To get up the mountain you don't need to look up, just follow the path and keep climbing upwards. But for many of us struggling up the path we need some mental image to help us get there.
Wow did I really say that.
Jeremy will probably delete this as having no ITM relevance. Maybe he's already at the top of the mountain looking down laughing at me and others.
for starters, of course we are all primates. If any one starts any creationist bull, I'm out of here pronto.
But why do I play? That's a good question, but not neccesserily one that needs answering. "Why not" is as good an answer as any, but I suspect you won't be happy with that.
"Is it that I enjoy the physical control over my body as I conquer a tune? Absolutly not. I'm not interested in the physicalities of playing music, I thought I'd made that abundantly clear. It's why I play simple music.
"Is it so indescribably abstract that I can't even begin to explain it in worldly terms?" More or less yes, for I know it touches me deeply in the parts of my brain that are resposible for what you refer to as abstract emotions. Love, anger, etc. But I don't see these emotions as abstract. These feelings are very tangible and easilly describable. What music does for me is indescribable, by its very nature. I could play how I feel, but I can't speek it. Music to me is a language so utterly apart from the normal luanguages of communication, speech, body language etc, that I can find no cross over references at all. This is why phrases like love and happiness have no relevence.
There are no limitations to what you can express using language. Anything existing in the world and any existing human emotion can potentially be expressed in words. That's the power of language. If the word doesn't exist, make one up! That's what I do frequently. Maybe you should consider whether your inability to express what music does for you is not because it's impossible, but because you either don't wish to open up to anyone and *try* to express it (because you don't want anyone to see behind your carefully constructed but nevertheless brittle veneer of cynicism), or perhaps you don't want to open up to yourself and *try* to express it. That's fine, but you're imposing these limitations on yourself, Michael. Trust me, they're in your own head.
I think I understand what Michael means, and I also think I agree with him about phrases like love and happiness having no relevance.
I've heard mathematicians describe the zone they get into sometimes when incredibly complex calculations seem to flow easily and effortlessly - so much so that they feel as if they are sailing, not motoring, through their equations - as a feeling that they characterise as "sublime".
It's something I've often equated with 'absolute' music - music supposedly free from 'programme' or narrative or emotion. Baroque music is this way, and I'd say our stuff is too. Certainly for me, when you get to that treasured Zone where everything comes together, it's a transcendental state in which the terms happy or sad have no meaning.
When the music is carrying you along, have you ever you feel a total negation of self, of personality and ego? That's it, right there.
If Michael had explained it like that I would have agreed with him
For me trad is limited when it comes to expressing emotion. I find a lot of classical music over-emotional with its constant changes of speed and vibrato and stuff. Trad tunes allow you to explore other aspects of music. For me it's the colours and textures of tunes like I said. But let's not go over the top with this "abstract", "unworldy", "transcendental state" stuff. They're just tunes for god's sake. They're for drinking beer to and having a laugh, not to enter an abstract feckin' parallel universe.
I dunno, the transcandental seems the highest and most proper aim for any music, whatever genre! And I don't see any shortage of it in Irish music. The beer and blather aspect of Irish music is wonderful and I love it, but the music also transcends that, particularly at certain moments, and expresses something very... um, let's see... deep and elemental and timeless and BIG... about the state of being human. I'm loathe to give examples, as then we'll fall into the realm of personal taste. I suppose it might be like a state of religious ecstasy (I'm not religious, I'm just guessing) or the type of experience described as 'spiritual' or profound. And that is *certainly* emotional for me - very. That the nirvana-state of mathematics might be described as non-emotional doesn't surprise me, but then mathematics was not devised by humans as a means of expression - it's about truths of the universe which are independent of human existance. (Though, it takes the human mind to perceive them, which is beautiful and exciting; and, scientific understanding may sometimes be emotion-free - but can also be ecstatic.)
I don't find Baroque music free of emotion. I don't find *any* music free of emotion. The idea of music without emotion, to me, is as impossible as a river without water. But I guess this goes to show that music is many things to many people! I'm not intending all this as a reposte to the opposing view, by the way. Just a description of my own view. If other people relate to music in a completely different way from me, it doesn't bother me, it's fascinating. I do get a little rankled if people tell me that I'm 'wrong' to experience it that way, though. I wouldn't make the same claim in reverse. There isn't any right or wrong. Though I suppose we all resonate more to the music of other people who have the same 'musical values'.
Thanks Michael. I'm only passing on what I've learned from others. For some reason people seem to go out of their way to give me advice on how to negate my ego. People are nice
So when you're playing tunes in a session Michael, do you tell people that they're "wrong" and that they "don't get it" after a set of tunes? Or do you find that impossible to say even if you wanted to because your ego has been negated by the music? Sometimes you say stuff that shows how fragile your veneer of cynicism is. Have a look at this dictionary definition:
cynic [sin-ik] n. person who believes that people always act selfishly. cynical adj. cynically adv. cynicism n.
Does that exclude you then?
Me, I don't necessarily get any negation of self. I find I can get to know myself better through playing music, in fact, so the opposite.
Quote from Michael in a previous thread: "When I was learning I listen almost exclusivly to Kevin Burke which was a very bad thing indeed. I remember saying to myself that when I can play toss the feathers like Kevin Burke, i'll be able to play the fiddle. But what I realised when I eventually could play toss the feathers like Kevin Burke, was that that was all I could do. I then went on to learn to play the fiddle"
So you developed your own style, and now you express yourself through music in your own way, presumably when you're playing on your own and also in sessions. So where does "negation of self" come into it? Surely the whole point of the music is to be *you* and express yourself as *you*.
Hardly ever talk about tunes in sessions. Even if we do it's just a terssary "that's a good tune" or "goan' remember to play that one next week, I nearly have it." Don't even talk about music, we drink beer and have a laugh, as you say. But then the tunes start and of off we trundle to the "abstract feckin' universe" (as you so splendidly put it) for a short while, all communicating in this strange language that meens nothing but everbody understands anyway. Then it's back to the beer and banter. Simple as that
Can we see if we can get Jeremy to rename this site to theabstractfeckinuniverse.org
LOL, I knew you'd ignore my question. You're quick to put that veneer up again and repair all the little holes. I bet you hate that people here try and see behind it by asking you stuff like what music means to you. Or maybe you secretly enjoy that. It's okay I know the answer to my question anyway
This isn't directly related to the most recent comments here but I remember Radio Luxembourg had a jingle in the late sixties "Colourful Radio Luxembourg". I always thought that this was a bit ridiculous as you couldn't see a radio broadcast or the music thereon.
Um... Jim, I hate to ask... but would you mind translating? What might Cromwell & Co have to do with anything? I wouldn't make any assumptions, by the way, as to what percentage of people here are or aren't anything. Unless you are omniscient.
I must say, I often like and agree with some of the things Michael says, but his ideas of opinion and fact seem to merge.
What he say is often right , but his phrasing is often off.
“Yeah, Q gets it.” – ah would ya go away and sheidt !
So “whoever agrees with me is right” ….and this immediately after Nell’s post…
“I do get a little rankled if people tell me that I'm 'wrong' to experience it that way, though. I wouldn't make the same claim in reverse. There isn't any right or wrong”
You obviously have an excellent ear though Michael, that listening alone lets you get there, but for some people, they will get there quicker with the benefit of other senses. I’m not blind, so my listening senses will never be up to the standard of a blind person because I’ll have another sense to distract from it. Rather than ignore it though I should use it to my advantage – to make up for my less than perfect ear.
In a recent post you referred to Donal Lunny’s arm positioning as way to get his rhythm.
Do you listen to his arm position to “get” this ?
How did the question of religion appear on my thread? Bloody hell youse lot, can we not discuss one thing at a time?!
Michael, I don't want to ask you a question, because I already know the answer you'll give. I figure that if you want to tell me something, you'll tell me, and if you don't want to tell me, you'll find some way of not.
So what I'm going to do instead is tell you something about me. I'll tell you why I play Irish tunes.
I play Irish tunes because every so often in a session, when everything's right, I get a sudden rush of seratonin which I find exhilarating, and it makes me feel as if my head has gone all long and thin and weird-shaped. Then sometimes I get this thing where all the hairs stand up on my arms, and my back suddenly shudders uncontrollably.
I like the music because it bypasses the over-emotional-ness and romance of classical music, and touches something more primal and instinctive in me. I wouldn't call it entering some feckin' parallel universe, but I'm sure it's a bit like the feeling a tribal person gets when drumming or dancing, or the feeling a clubber gets when off their face on ecstasy and dancing in the early hours.
I would say that I'm addicted to this feeling. I don't need much of it to survive. Even just a few moments in one session is enough. When I get that feeling it makes me happy, and I come away from the session feeling contented and fulfilled.
I like the tunes because they are all different in texture and colour. They're bold and compact and manageable little bundles. Being able to pick out tunes from the vast pool of trad available to me is really liberating. It's like having a huge, bottomless bowl of really delicious sweets. I can pick out as many as I like when I like. I can gorge myself on them till I'm sick if I like. But they can't rot my teeth or make me fat.
I like sessions because I get to see my friends and be creative with them. I get to do something that's constructive and not harmful to other people. I enjoy the interplay between self expression and consideration of other people's expression, and the satisfying feeling of making them mingle together into one expression - a one-off spontaneous event in the universe that can never be recreated.
I see you fellas have plenty of time on your hands. Anyway, be careful of what you're lookimg at when learning tunes. I used to watch nature documentaries while drumming tunes in my head, this resulted in seeing spiders while playing the New Policeman, and aligators when playing Major Harrison's Fadora. I suppose you could put it to good use though and watch a Victoria's Secret fashion show while learning tunes.
See I don't think you were wrong, sometimes it's ok to get the visual help....I mean to take it to a rediculous limit, if you never saw someone play the fiddle, would listening
to to it make you realize you use a bow and your arms and etc etc.
How do they get that sound on the flute, of the blow into it !
I that's taking it to a ridiculous level, but in a sense it's not.
Hahaha imagine if we had to do it *all* by sound alone. Some of us would have our fiddles on our knees like a viol. We'd be blowing the flute backwards and playing the box with both hands like a piano, joggling it up and down on our knees. How the hell would we go about doing something with the pipes?! The bellows could be used like a foot pump...
Sorry I just came by this site for a discussion on ITM... OH
I must have hit on a site for boring arguments on metaphysics......
Colors?
Black... Guinness
Tunes... Not many
Why?
To much black...
Feeling... Bored....
What colour is that???
Who gives a shidt... emmmmm Black
Have anudder Guinnes y'all
Whoops...euphoria... ??? and what colour would be
Sorry my brain just detached.....
cop on folks.... it is Irish trad music
not American / European analyse the World peace problems here..... jeeeeeessss.
I'm laughing at the irony of your post form yesterday:
"I was rash in my condemning of musicians, and to comments they posted. I now have learned of their frustrations, and hopefully have (or at least feel I have) given up that quest (like it was mine to begin with!!).
Thw Session has at least given me insight...
I lurked and then steamed over comments posted before trashing peoples genuine agruments.....
Lurking actually caused me more anxiety!
Reading the responses to my comments was a great teacher...
as they say... "every day is a school day""
Hey Dow, Eoino is just saying maybe we're analysisng it too much, and should get back to the tunes....I'm sure you've done the same in posts, maybe a bit more eloquently, but no need to try and make a pri*k out of him.
Dow...
prehaps you mis-understand me....
I was referring to a few people in this thread who have gone off the way I have in the past.
I was relating my comments to "music and playing music", not colour or bright lights....
Don't be too snide with your comments..
If you care to re-read my previous post, it was posted in the best possible humour, hoping to get a chuckle from the group....
I did not expect that someone of your intelligence would pick my post up as attacking..
I could also re-read your posts and post them as an attack on you... depending on the subject... or how I would like to interpret them at the time.....
I have at least apologised for my outbursts to the group.....
Can you "see" tunes?
Can you "see" tunes?
Something Michael said got me thinking. We were talking about "listening" versus "watching" in the context of learning playing techniques, but somehow it got steered onto whether your sense of sight can add to your enjoyment of the music.
Michael maintains that the tunes are abstract aural art and therefore your sense of sight would add nothing to your appreciation of them. He says that using your sense of sight in this context automatically entails that you're appreciating the music as "performance art", since what you see is only what's in front of you.
I maintain that what you see is what your brain sees, not what your eyes see. We all know that it's your brain that takes the image your eyes give you and turns it so that it's the right way up and cleverly interprets information from both eyes to give you 3D vision and an ability to judge distance. Well, why shouldn't your brain be able to take it further than that?
You're going to think this is weird, but I'll say it anyway. When I was a kid (about 2 or 3 - preschool), I used to listen to my parents' records for hours, but I couldn't and wouldn't just listen. I had to be looking at pictures in certain books for certain tunes or songs. For anyone else, the books had no connection with the music, but for me they did (my parents thought it was really weird but they just left me to it). From a very early age, my brain had wired itself to associate certain images with certain pieces of music. I wouldn't look at the pictures in the order they came in the book. Each tune had its own picture and I'd actually leaf through to find the right one, or swap books if necessary. So I've had the same feeling into adulthood and not thought anything of it. When I see films, I'm always aware of whether the background music is "right" or not, i.e. whether it "goes with" the image I'm seeing. I feel as though my sense of sight is connected somehow with my hearing, and that makes sense physiologically I suppose, since both signals are dealt with by the same brain. So if I'd been blind from birth, then I wouldn't know what stuff around me looked like, so I wouldn't have the same images to associate with the music, and I'm guessing I'd appreciate music in a different way.
I don't know what my point is really. I suppose I'm wondering if anyone else knows what I'm talking about, or whether I'm just an insane, babbling idiot.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
That's really interesting Dow, I really think that's cool, not weird. I'm only adding to this discussion because strangely I am the exact opposite. Like you, I grew up listening to my parents records; everything from German 'Oompah' music to Johnny Cash, Wilf Carter, Stompin' Tom and Don Messer. The difference is, I had to have all the lights turned out to really get into it. I needed all the visual stimuli to 'go away' so there was no distraction. I took it one step further and layed on the ground with the speakers 3 feet or-so to either side of my head so that other 'noise' couldn't get in and it would feel as live as possible. Even now, often I need to turn all the lights out to play violin.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by c_ya
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Sorry folks. A series of google searches gave me a big word beginning with "s", and when I cut & pasted it into the discussion search box I found that this has been discussed before @ http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display.php/3237. Where was I in April?
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Dow's tale of visual association is perplexing. My discussion with him has centered on his asertion that he can get more out of a players music if he hears and sees it created rather than just hears it. I now realise it is more than this, but is paradoxically simpler to understand. Somehow, the aural is not enough, and he makes up for this with extra visual stimulation. The problem is, and by his own admitance, the extra visual stimulatiuon he seeks has nothing to do with the art of the orriginal music. He may think it helps him, but how?.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by ...
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
I wonder how Andy's tune re-learning, and its hoped for results, turned out...
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Q
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Yes, that is interesting.
There's synasthesia (sp?) of course where people hear colours or mix senses in other ways.
I don't think I am that difficult word because I don't "hear" colours, literally, in the sense that I would see yellow upon hearing a tune in the way that I see yellow in front of me now. But I do have a definite idea of what colour a tune or other piece of music "is". It seems to be strongest in purely instrumental music and diminish as lyrics get more important and the personality of the singer takes over, in which case I just seem to think of the singer (even if I don't know what they look like).
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by SL*
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
I can usually "see" the shape of a tune when I hear it, its ups and downs, but that could be related to being able to sight-read from a score.
Trevor
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
When did I say that the extra visual stimulation has nothing to do with the art of the original music? I didn't say that - I said it has nothing to do with it as a "performance art". I'm talking about hearing and sight used as one inseparable sense to appreciate a tune.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Oh I see, you're still talking about techniques? Okay Michael, I'm in above my head - sorry mate I dunno what I'm talking about anymore. All I know is, that tune, "Over The Bog Road", I was playing it today, and it's really really really *blue*! I don't think I have that s~~ wotsit thing though because I don't see colours in front of me or anything like that.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
That tune I posted today as well, that's blue too.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Maybe this is where the problems lie. "The visual" is a human's strongest sense and it seems possible that in order to understand stuff that exists entirely within the relm of one of the other senses, our brains lend a few cells that are usually linked to sight. Christ knows how this works, we need a neurologist.
If we have preformed visual stimuli that we associate with music (like Trevor's sight reading) our brains seem naturally to cling to it.
But the whole thing about brains is that you train them to what you want And Mike (above) must surely have the best way.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by ...
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
But Dow, you said you had a picture in a book that went with a particular song? What has that visual stimulation got to do with the art of the orriginal music?
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by ...
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
I don't know.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
"Mike must surely have the best way"
But if I turned the lights off, I'd still see stuff in my head. How can you not?
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Yeah but I've become colour-deaf and tone-blind recently.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Rudall the time
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
The Eel In The Sink is bright red if you play it in A mixolydian with C#s. So is The Black-haired Lass, as long as you put C#s in.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
I enjoy a tune better with my eyes shut, just concentrating on what I'm hearing and not getting distracted by other stimuli
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Cath
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Further thoughts. Regarding the fiddle I think I'd associate red with major keys such as A or E major. D, major or minor, I'd associate with some shade of brown, and G, B-flat and Emin with greens. A min, for me would be a dark blue, verging on indigo.
Different types of sound also tend to have colour associations for me: trumpet - red, possibly a brilliant red; cello - a warm brown; viola - brown with a touch of blue; flute - warm white, possibly a touch of gold.
Trevor
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Again, this is the problem. We visualise stuff that is just inventions in our heads. For example, we think of high notes as being literally higher than lower notes, we even gesticulate by pointing upwards. But this is an invented conotation that has no basis in the actual sound what so ever. If you play the cello, your brain even does an automatic turn arround and accepts that your hand is going "higher" up the neck when to any lay person, it's patently obvious that it's going lower. Higher notes are merely faster vibrations.
So my point is: to get the best out of music, you must attempt to strip away all of these artifical constructs and concentrate on the purely aural.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by ...
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
E minor is usually green for me too - a dark green. It's the sort of colour that would be nice for a car, but not for a tune usually, which is why I'm not all that keen on E minor tunes compared to others.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
But Michael, everything you see around you is an invention of your brain. What about when you're dreaming? You can still see and walk around and stuff can't you? But you've got your eyes shut.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
"To get the best out of music, you must attempt to strip away all of these artifical constructs and concentrate on the purely aural".
This is where I really really really disagree with you Michael. Why do these "frequencies" sound nice to you? Why do you like the sound of a certain interval/chord/instrument timbre? Why are social constructs more "artificial" than scientific ones? Music isn't just a series of "frequencies". If it was, how then do you explain why certain tunes make you feel certain emotions like sadness or joy?
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
That's right, everything you "see" around you is an invention of your brain (convolutedly based entirely on the truth of the origin of reflected photons recieved through the retina, depending on your favoured branch philosophy oc course). And every thing you "hear" around you is an invention of your brain (ditto). The trick is not to the two muddled up
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by ...
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
This is fun, but confusing, replying to alternate postings.
Ah ha, now we're getting down to it. Tunes don't inspire emotions in me like saddness and joy. And I don't think of frequencies or timbre either. It's abstract. An this is indeed where we disagree
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by ...
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Dow, I reckon you are a synasthaesiac (?), my dear! I don't think even bona-fide synasthaesiacs see the colour as though it were literally in front of them - it's the 'mind's eye' that sees it. Myself, I'm more like SL* - colours and shapes are definitely part of my perception of sounds.
I heard an interesting feature on the radio a while back; studies had been made of the way that blind-from-birth, and blind-from-age two, people processed language. The results of the tests suggested that blind-from-birth people had a much more acute perception of pitch difference than those who became blind later, and it was also suggested that they co-opted part of the visual cortex - re-assigned for the processing of sound instead of vision. This didn't surprise me at all. Neither did I have any trouble with the sample pitch test they played in the programme, which was supposed to be difficult for sighted people. I don't think many musicians would have had trouble with it.
I did try to find out whether they had made comparitive tests of musicians and non-musicians, as well as different types of blind people - but didn't manage to get any further information.
I'm highly aware of visual sense in my understanding of music. The more acutely I listen to a piece of music, the more vividly I 'see' it. Likewise maths. If you asked me to add two numbers without seeing any images in my head, I doubt I could do it. You could say that my brain is a very visual brain, and that's the way I do things. I know that some people *don't* have much visual component to their musical understanding; their brains must be dealing with it in a different way.
Michael, you dismiss these different ways of experiencing things, but I think it is because you yourself are not familiar with them. You have your own way of appreciating the music, which is fine! But you don't have to insist that anyone who experiences it differently is doing it 'wrong'. I remember you being very dismissive once when I talked about the feelings I'd had from a particular piece of music: involving notions of hope, optimism, and courage against adversity. You thought these were ridiculous things to interpret from a piece of music - but I don't. That's part of the way I understand music... ooh, whole 'nother discussion there altogether!
Jeez, I have *stacks* of work to do, must go! Eek!
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Nell
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Muddled up?! Okay, maybe you're right.
It's just that for me, I don't think I'd enjoy the tunes as much if I just played them as a bunch of notes and ignored everything else that went with it - its colour and sharpness, and the way it makes me feel when I hear it or play it.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
I don't hear Michael saying we should ignore our feelings. He did say music is "abstract expressionism," and I agree with that--music is all about expressing ourselves.
Bear in mind that our emotional labels are also abstractions, ideas that we pin on certain chemical reactions in our bodies. Conditioning can create weird associations, like intense fear at the sight of bare feet. Sure, it's common to hear the minor mode as "sad," but in fact there's nothing sad about it--I'm often uplifted upon hearing or playing minor tunes. Sometimes they are simply calming, sometimes they release anger.
Point is, we infuse the music with our own moods, and when listening we actively interpret the sounds--but each of us interprets differently and none of it is "wrong." Just personal.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Will Harmon
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Nell, what sort of shapes do you get? For the A-part of The Eel In The Sink, I get something that looks like a seesaw but you can move the seat from side to side so that one end is longer than the other.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Now I'm kind of jealous that some people get shapes as well (sorry, Michael), I only get colours. I'm also very interested to hear what shapes they are.
If anyone's interested, some of my colours:
Am: blue to purple with red "flecks"
Em: dark blue mostly, but those vary more than most
D: yellow or saffron
Weird East-Galway contraptions like Fahey tunes tend come out burgundy
It depends on the indivual tune as well of course.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by SL*
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Mine are much more nebulous and variable. The shapes might be smooth curves or jagged edges, for example - it's more an impression of shape... certainly nothing as specific as a seesaw! And the colours are also more vague and changeable. Common ones would be blues and greens, purple, and orangey-brown. Never red, oddly! But I'm not a proper synaesthete (?) as they aren't consistent. If they are, you can claim your synasthaesiac ID card and all-areas pass...
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Nell
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Well, that's my teaching video clips idea well and truly stuffed now, isn't it?
Jim
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Worldfiddler
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
For some reason, I see hornpipes in plaid....
:- |
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Will Harmon
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Nonsense Jim. You just need to video yourself playing fiddle on playground equipment with swirling psychodelic colors in the background. A fish-eye lens might help.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Will Harmon
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Oh, and that Mostar Sevda Reunion is midnight blue.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by SL*
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Hmm.. just re-reading my previous long post, realised it's a bit rambling (it was quite rushed) - anyway my point was that the brain is plastic; I think it's quite conceivable that not only blind people but sighted people too, can use parts of their visual brain for processing other sensory phenomena. With any complicated mental task (like processing language, say) lots of different parts of the brain are involved. I'd say that the same is true with music, and that the relative dominance of different parts of the system would vary between people.
It would be great if someone would look at the brains of 'visualisers' and 'non-visualisers' as they listen to music, and see how that differs as the brain areas light up.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Nell
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
I have to admit that I sometimes "see" the sheet music for tunes and have even used that to read ahead to avoid going off on some unplanned detour.
I can actually recall the page the tune is on--whether it's recto or verso (right or left hand face of the book), the font, sometimes even page number.
But most of the time, while playing, I'm lost in the aural skirl of the tune, not seeing anything.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Will Harmon
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Will, I have another friend who has 'photographic memory' like that and remembers stuff like page numbers, the way you do. He also has the most incredible recall for anything verbal; lyrics of naff pop songs from the 1970s, *millions* of jokes, all kinds of stuff.
I think your experience, and SL* and Dow's experiences, reflect different aspects of visual functioning altogether. In your case it's an accurate, fact-based use of visual information. In theirs, an impressionistic sensory experience of another kind altogether.
And, in case someone is about to construe some sort of bias here - I have *no* value judgements on this issue, as to one way being better than another! I think it's fascinating how peoples' minds vary in the way they process things. Also, to suggest to someone whose brain works one way, that they should try the other way, would be utterly pointless; it's just the way they're wired!
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Nell
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
what i think michael, is that dow has something good going for him. it has nothing to do with the original character of the music, of course. it is all in his head. but the trick isnt to not get it all muddled up. its to muddle it up as possible.
when i hear music, i hear music. but i have trouble hearing music. even though i play music hours every day, it is hard for me to "get into" music. i have to hear a song several times before i even begin to fully process it like a normal, even non musical person would. of course this varies on the type of music, the mood i'm in, etc. but its not normal. and it is a hindrance, because whereas a normal person can hear a song (perhaps not an irish one... normies think they sound all the same) and process it, understand it, and know a lot of whats going on. as for me... i cant. i barely hear it. it just goes in one ear and out the other. i cant tell you if i like something for a while because i havent heard it. of course, i have gotten used to this, so i pretend to myself and others that i like them and hope i end up liking htem in the end.
so what dow does is amazing. doesnt make him a genius, but it is a very good thing . and it might not work for everyone. but it gets him into the music. it gets him to understand himself and the music. because that's where it boils down to. you can never fully transmit somethin the way you meant it when you try. there's a piece i composed a year or 2 ago (neo classical / avante garde), that i never wrote down, and am writing down now. it is the hardest thing in the world. because i cant just write it as i see it in my head. because not only are there many fermate and accelerandi ritardandi everywhere. sometimes the tempo will change on a note, slow down, and then speed up the next drastically and then the note after that has a fermata and can be played as lon as i feel like it. which is intensely complicated. in my head, i might see four 32nd notes, but when i play, i might play something dotted or whatever. and thats not even counting in the tempo changes and the fermate. if i were to stop changing tempi and stop taking liberty with the note length, it still is played and intended to be played, differently than i view the note lengths in my head, even though i would never play them the way i view them.
so when writing it out, it was too complicated to use time signatures cuz it changes time signatures every measure... from 5/4, to 3/4, to 7/8 to 3/4 to 9/8, etc. a friend of mine decided after hearing that it was a free form, and time signature was too irrelevenet. and its still hard. like i said, to get the note lengths right.
i can play it how i want to, all the time. if you had a flute, i could teach it to you by ear and you would get it, and learn the nuances, and learn what notes you can stretch and bend, and extra trills, doubled notes, etc that i didnt write in and dont play that would fit in, depending on the persons personality. but how do i convey that in writing? it is a dauntin task, but it is good for me and i do enjoy it. no matter what, no one will ever play my piece the same way i do. ever. it is impossible. it is not written to be played as i play it. it is written to be played liberally and differently by eveyrone. but i am having trouble figuring out how to show them that. because although it is completely free the interpretation, there is a general feel that you have to take a lot more liberty than is normal. draw our double dotted 8ths for a couple measures, and then half notes for one measure. how much or how little you draw it depends on how you want to, but you still have to draw it and create a lot of tension.
just like no one in the history of the world will be able to play my piece like i do, no one will ever be able ot play the same irish tune the same. now, not to the same extent as my piece, because there are a lot of fixed rules whereas mine has no fixed rules. and although we as humans really want to be able ot pass on our legacies or share in past's legacies together, in the same way, we cant. cuz we dont think the same. we dont hear the same. and we dont remember the same. so what dow does is good. he found what works for him as a small child, and it still works now. he gets intimately connected to the music in a way a lot of us never do. which means he can best find out how it means to him, and best figure out how he should play it according to what visuals it represents; even if he is not able to do so, he can strive for it.
not saying he should abandon style, or anything. but within the irish style, of course, there is unlimited potential for personal style, and it seems to me to be a good tool to find his own personal style and cling to it.
so, michael, i would say muddle away. everyone. if it works for you to see colors, see colors, and forget what i was like not to. if it works for you to feel the rise and fall, do it. if it works to feel the emotion, the mood, the sense, do it. if it works to just straight hear the music and have it resonate through your body, do it. for me, what works really well, is imagining people i know that play really well playing it, so i can hear their style and learn from them even though they're not there. which helps me get the rhythm, the neagh (nyah) and to get the feel of the piece. once i get that down i keep how they might play in mind, but change it to how i want ot play it, to develop my own style, that often directly contradicts what they have told me to do, but i fit it into the implied framework that i can build because we all have enough subconscious data on our favorite players to know pretty well how they would play most things, its all a matter of tapping into it.
the most important thing is to do *SOMETHING*. engage yourself in a new way. even if you dont like it. try something else. the more you engage yourself in the music, the better. and, haha, here's a lesson i need to learn: you're never gonna be as good as you think you are, and you're never gonna be as bad as you think you are.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by daiv
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
OK Will, thanks for the advice. I'm off to consult Samuel Salmon, maybe do a little mescalin while I'm at it!
Jim
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Worldfiddler
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
I can't "see" the music, but sometimes it sure stinks.
# Posted on November 4th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
You lot always have the best discussions while I'm virtuously working instead of surfing on my employer's time. (She says, coming late to the thread.) ;)
I have synaesthesia, but in my case the one sense it doesn't affect is sound; it covers scents, flavors, textures, and colors. Chocolate not only tastes brown, the flavor of it has a soft silky texture like cat fur --- regardless of what the physical texture is like. Fresh cut grass smells intensely green and the scent has definite edges, like the edges of a sword blade. Dow, I at least don't see the colors, although I sometimes see the textures. For instance, with the smell of fresh cut grass, I see edges in my mind's eye.
On the other hand, when I listen to music, if I'm not doing something else at the time as well, I often get images in my mind's eye. Sometimes I get pictures of what the music sounds like to me (1812 Overture brings up battlefield imagery), sometimes memories of things I associate with the tune, sometimes just colors or textures or flashes of movement. No idea what it is, and it's not consistent enough to figure out.
Michael, not to be snarky, but talk to someone who lives with neurological disabilities before you blithely say you can train the brain in any way you want. For some people that's true, but others are hard-wired to be different. Sometimes you can work out a way around the differences, sometimes you just have to live with them.
And one last comment: Tom Anderson set the tune The Silvery Voe in the key of (iirc) F because to him that key was a silver color.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by sara g
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
I'm very close to someone with a srange debilitating neuroligical condition and one of the things we realise, through many many discussions, is that training the brain is the whole process of being human. And I take great delight in watching my 15 month old daughter train her brain. Neural connections do not make themselves, they are made by deliberate repertition. You learn what you want to learn.
As for the hard wireing you refer to, this is stuff that your dna dictates, and yes, there is indeed a certain degree of it. But avaible evidence suggests that this is practical stuff, like being able to swallow. There seems to be some esoteric stuff also, like yawning when other people yawn but evn this has practical functions (apparently, it's best for a troup of primates to sleep together, hence the hard wired signal) But for something to be hard wired into your dna, it has to be a behavioural phenomenom that is very very ild indeed. Certainly much much older than our invention of art.i
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by ...
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Wow Jim; that was pretty shattering even though I have to say I agree with a lot of what you just said to Michael. People are sometimes not what they seem to be on chatrooms.
Michael I do not want to "strip away any artificial constructs and concentrate on the purely aural" because they all enhance my enjoyment of the music. They are for me and obviously others, the keys that help us to unlock the soul/spirit of the music.
Without them it is hard for tunes to "inspire emotions" and you are missing out.
Cheers to all
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Donough
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Michael,
Thank you for answering seriously. I appreciate that.
Granted, the brain can be trained, and new neurological pathways can be formed. (I did mention that training can work for some people, and in some situations.) I'm glad that's the case for your friend.
It's not entirely the case for others, however. My husband, my father, and myself, all with Asperger's syndrome, have found that even though we do seem to be able to train our brains to overcome some of our challenges, other challenges are insurmountable. Current theory on the development of Autism Spectrum Disorders includes the idea that in the growing ASD brain, areas develop in such a way that neural pathways do not form properly, and that possibly those areas remain unable to form normal pathways. Thus my reference to hardwiring. Certainly no amount of effort over more than 40 years for my husband and I, more than 80 for my Dad, has fixed certain challenges. And believe me, we have all three tried desperately hard to fix ourselves. It is not easy or pleasant or fun to be irrevocably broken; it is not something we get emotional benefits from. But it is real.
You might want to read Temple Grandin's autobiography for more insights on the reality of living with intractable neurological issues. She is a high-functioning autistic.
Saraê
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by sara g
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Michael I appreciate your being on this site actually. I agree with a lot of what you say. I do think you're incredibly difficult to get to know though, and that's why people get frustrated with you and have a go at you. I think a lot of people will read what you've written and assume that you're clinical and emotionless because you've said that music "doesn't inspire emotions like sadness or joy". What's missing is an explanation of why the tunes *do* inspire you, if it's not for emotional reasons. Is it that you enjoy the physical control over your body as you conquer a tune? Or is it the opposite? Do you enjoy allowing yourself to be controlled by the music? Or is it nothing to do with either?
"Tunes don't inspire emotions in me like saddness and joy. And I don't think of frequencies or timbre either. It's abstract. An this is indeed where we disagree".
First of all, when I said "frequencies" I was referring to when you were talking about "vibrations", and saying that, for me, music is more than that.
Also, emotions like sadness or joy *are* abstract. You said music is abstract, so I don't see where you're disagreeing with me. So can you explain what abstract thing it is you get from the music that's enough to make you want to play the tunes. Or is it so indescribably abstract that you can't even begin to explain it in worldly terms? Is it like tremors in the force that binds the universe together or something?
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
E major is bright yellow. E mixolydian is a rich, thick, golden yellow.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
E phyrgian is phlegm yellow-green....
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Will Harmon
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
LOL @ Will taking the piss out of me
I used to play classical music. There are so many different colours in classical music that to me it ends up looking like one of those impressionist paintings - lots of fussy little flecks everywhere in pastel colours. I love trad because, for me, each part of a tune has a bols, block of colour like those big splodges of colour you get in modern abstract art. The vividness of the colour depends on the tune, but I especially crave tunes that are either in bold, primary colours, or colours that are just interesting because of their novelty value, like steely blue-grey or Will's phlegm yellow-green [gag]. I'd love to go to a session and take some large sheets of paper and some poster paints or felt tips or something, and just paint tunes, drawing their shape and colouring them in. I've painted other music before and come up with some really wacky-looking stuff! I've just never done it at a session because I've always wanted to play and drink.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
"bols"? "bold"!
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Different composers have different colours as well. A lot of Ed Reavy's tunes are in brown. Vincent Broderick's are often blue. Paddy O'Brien's are often in rich reds and oranges. Paddy Fahy in deep purples, greens and blues. Okay I'll stop now because I'm making a complete idiot of myself.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Dow, Where do you see the colours?
Is it a haze around you when you hear those tunes or do you see the dots on the page dripping with colour, or do you see this purple haze around BB as she launches into Paddy Fahey's No.#?? Or is it just that Basil turns blue when playing a Vincent Broderick tune?
That was a bit tongue in cheek but I am serious about wondering where this colour appears to you.
I'll share my little bit of weird with you. When I am playing with someone who is really in the groove playing a lovely tune and I am accompanying in full maximum synchromesh (I like that) - I get this feeling like something is bouncing up and down in my brain. Something starts to really resonate or whatever and I am not seeing anything at all anymore. That part of my brain finally has switched off. Maybe I am supporting Michael's argument here in an indirect way.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Donough
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
I know what you mean about the bouncing thing! With the colours, I don't actually 'see' them as such. I just associate a tune with a colour in my head, so I know what colour a tune is, and I can say "this tune is yellow". But I can usually only do that if I know the tune really well. My point about sense of sight is that, if I had been blind from birth, I wouldn't know what "yellow" looked like, so I'd make non-visual associations with tunes. Maybe Michael's right and I am confusing and distracting myself. Dunno...
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
ZEN and the art of tune appreciation
When you climb a mountain it might help you to look up every now and again to remind yourself where you are going and what you are doing. The object is to be on top of the mountain at which point you no longer need to look up but you have to get there first. To get up the mountain you don't need to look up, just follow the path and keep climbing upwards. But for many of us struggling up the path we need some mental image to help us get there.
Wow did I really say that.
Jeremy will probably delete this as having no ITM relevance. Maybe he's already at the top of the mountain looking down laughing at me and others.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Donough
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
for starters, of course we are all primates. If any one starts any creationist bull, I'm out of here pronto.
But why do I play? That's a good question, but not neccesserily one that needs answering. "Why not" is as good an answer as any, but I suspect you won't be happy with that.
"Is it that I enjoy the physical control over my body as I conquer a tune? Absolutly not. I'm not interested in the physicalities of playing music, I thought I'd made that abundantly clear. It's why I play simple music.
"Is it so indescribably abstract that I can't even begin to explain it in worldly terms?" More or less yes, for I know it touches me deeply in the parts of my brain that are resposible for what you refer to as abstract emotions. Love, anger, etc. But I don't see these emotions as abstract. These feelings are very tangible and easilly describable. What music does for me is indescribable, by its very nature. I could play how I feel, but I can't speek it. Music to me is a language so utterly apart from the normal luanguages of communication, speech, body language etc, that I can find no cross over references at all. This is why phrases like love and happiness have no relevence.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by ...
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
There are no limitations to what you can express using language. Anything existing in the world and any existing human emotion can potentially be expressed in words. That's the power of language. If the word doesn't exist, make one up! That's what I do frequently. Maybe you should consider whether your inability to express what music does for you is not because it's impossible, but because you either don't wish to open up to anyone and *try* to express it (because you don't want anyone to see behind your carefully constructed but nevertheless brittle veneer of cynicism), or perhaps you don't want to open up to yourself and *try* to express it. That's fine, but you're imposing these limitations on yourself, Michael. Trust me, they're in your own head.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
"Love" isn't abstract?! Rubbish! Try drawing the feeling of "love" with a pen and paper without drawing a heart.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
I think I understand what Michael means, and I also think I agree with him about phrases like love and happiness having no relevance.
I've heard mathematicians describe the zone they get into sometimes when incredibly complex calculations seem to flow easily and effortlessly - so much so that they feel as if they are sailing, not motoring, through their equations - as a feeling that they characterise as "sublime".
It's something I've often equated with 'absolute' music - music supposedly free from 'programme' or narrative or emotion. Baroque music is this way, and I'd say our stuff is too. Certainly for me, when you get to that treasured Zone where everything comes together, it's a transcendental state in which the terms happy or sad have no meaning.
When the music is carrying you along, have you ever you feel a total negation of self, of personality and ego? That's it, right there.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Q
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
If Michael had explained it like that I would have agreed with him
For me trad is limited when it comes to expressing emotion. I find a lot of classical music over-emotional with its constant changes of speed and vibrato and stuff. Trad tunes allow you to explore other aspects of music. For me it's the colours and textures of tunes like I said. But let's not go over the top with this "abstract", "unworldy", "transcendental state" stuff. They're just tunes for god's sake. They're for drinking beer to and having a laugh, not to enter an abstract feckin' parallel universe.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
I dunno, the transcandental seems the highest and most proper aim for any music, whatever genre! And I don't see any shortage of it in Irish music. The beer and blather aspect of Irish music is wonderful and I love it, but the music also transcends that, particularly at certain moments, and expresses something very... um, let's see... deep and elemental and timeless and BIG... about the state of being human. I'm loathe to give examples, as then we'll fall into the realm of personal taste. I suppose it might be like a state of religious ecstasy (I'm not religious, I'm just guessing) or the type of experience described as 'spiritual' or profound. And that is *certainly* emotional for me - very. That the nirvana-state of mathematics might be described as non-emotional doesn't surprise me, but then mathematics was not devised by humans as a means of expression - it's about truths of the universe which are independent of human existance. (Though, it takes the human mind to perceive them, which is beautiful and exciting; and, scientific understanding may sometimes be emotion-free - but can also be ecstatic.)
I don't find Baroque music free of emotion. I don't find *any* music free of emotion. The idea of music without emotion, to me, is as impossible as a river without water. But I guess this goes to show that music is many things to many people! I'm not intending all this as a reposte to the opposing view, by the way. Just a description of my own view. If other people relate to music in a completely different way from me, it doesn't bother me, it's fascinating. I do get a little rankled if people tell me that I'm 'wrong' to experience it that way, though. I wouldn't make the same claim in reverse. There isn't any right or wrong. Though I suppose we all resonate more to the music of other people who have the same 'musical values'.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Nell
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Musician 1.: Will we play The Copperplates?
Musician 2.: Sorry no, it clashes with my outfit.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by SL*
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Yeah, Q gets it. That negation of self and ego is a wonderous thing.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by ...
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Thanks Michael. I'm only passing on what I've learned from others. For some reason people seem to go out of their way to give me advice on how to negate my ego. People are nice
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Q
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
So when you're playing tunes in a session Michael, do you tell people that they're "wrong" and that they "don't get it" after a set of tunes? Or do you find that impossible to say even if you wanted to because your ego has been negated by the music? Sometimes you say stuff that shows how fragile your veneer of cynicism is. Have a look at this dictionary definition:
cynic [sin-ik] n. person who believes that people always act selfishly. cynical adj. cynically adv. cynicism n.
Does that exclude you then?
Me, I don't necessarily get any negation of self. I find I can get to know myself better through playing music, in fact, so the opposite.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Quote from Michael in a previous thread: "When I was learning I listen almost exclusivly to Kevin Burke which was a very bad thing indeed. I remember saying to myself that when I can play toss the feathers like Kevin Burke, i'll be able to play the fiddle. But what I realised when I eventually could play toss the feathers like Kevin Burke, was that that was all I could do. I then went on to learn to play the fiddle"
So you developed your own style, and now you express yourself through music in your own way, presumably when you're playing on your own and also in sessions. So where does "negation of self" come into it? Surely the whole point of the music is to be *you* and express yourself as *you*.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Hardly ever talk about tunes in sessions. Even if we do it's just a terssary "that's a good tune" or "goan' remember to play that one next week, I nearly have it." Don't even talk about music, we drink beer and have a laugh, as you say. But then the tunes start and of off we trundle to the "abstract feckin' universe" (as you so splendidly put it) for a short while, all communicating in this strange language that meens nothing but everbody understands anyway. Then it's back to the beer and banter. Simple as that
Can we see if we can get Jeremy to rename this site to theabstractfeckinuniverse.org
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by ...
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
LOL, I knew you'd ignore my question. You're quick to put that veneer up again and repair all the little holes. I bet you hate that people here try and see behind it by asking you stuff like what music means to you. Or maybe you secretly enjoy that. It's okay I know the answer to my question anyway
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
This isn't directly related to the most recent comments here but I remember Radio Luxembourg had a jingle in the late sixties "Colourful Radio Luxembourg". I always thought that this was a bit ridiculous as you couldn't see a radio broadcast or the music thereon.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Johnny Jay
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
..and Mr. Bradley, don't forget him. He's gone too.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by BegF
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
And on the eighth day God created "Diddley dee" and he *saw* that it was good.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Johnny Jay
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Dow, sorry there, we may have been postying at the same time, which specific question do want me to answer
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by ...
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Um... Jim, I hate to ask... but would you mind translating? What might Cromwell & Co have to do with anything? I wouldn't make any assumptions, by the way, as to what percentage of people here are or aren't anything. Unless you are omniscient.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Nell
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
This is one of the bizarrest threads ever.
People engaged in furious debate about whether the imagery in their heads whilst listening to music are "right" or "wrong".
Then Cromwell and Hitler get involved. Somehow.
Er...?
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by SL*
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
I must say, I often like and agree with some of the things Michael says, but his ideas of opinion and fact seem to merge.
What he say is often right , but his phrasing is often off.
“Yeah, Q gets it.” – ah would ya go away and sheidt !
So “whoever agrees with me is right” ….and this immediately after Nell’s post…
“I do get a little rankled if people tell me that I'm 'wrong' to experience it that way, though. I wouldn't make the same claim in reverse. There isn't any right or wrong”
You obviously have an excellent ear though Michael, that listening alone lets you get there, but for some people, they will get there quicker with the benefit of other senses. I’m not blind, so my listening senses will never be up to the standard of a blind person because I’ll have another sense to distract from it. Rather than ignore it though I should use it to my advantage – to make up for my less than perfect ear.
In a recent post you referred to Donal Lunny’s arm positioning as way to get his rhythm.
Do you listen to his arm position to “get” this ?
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by BegF
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
How did the question of religion appear on my thread? Bloody hell youse lot, can we not discuss one thing at a time?!
Michael, I don't want to ask you a question, because I already know the answer you'll give. I figure that if you want to tell me something, you'll tell me, and if you don't want to tell me, you'll find some way of not.
So what I'm going to do instead is tell you something about me. I'll tell you why I play Irish tunes.
I play Irish tunes because every so often in a session, when everything's right, I get a sudden rush of seratonin which I find exhilarating, and it makes me feel as if my head has gone all long and thin and weird-shaped. Then sometimes I get this thing where all the hairs stand up on my arms, and my back suddenly shudders uncontrollably.
I like the music because it bypasses the over-emotional-ness and romance of classical music, and touches something more primal and instinctive in me. I wouldn't call it entering some feckin' parallel universe, but I'm sure it's a bit like the feeling a tribal person gets when drumming or dancing, or the feeling a clubber gets when off their face on ecstasy and dancing in the early hours.
I would say that I'm addicted to this feeling. I don't need much of it to survive. Even just a few moments in one session is enough. When I get that feeling it makes me happy, and I come away from the session feeling contented and fulfilled.
I like the tunes because they are all different in texture and colour. They're bold and compact and manageable little bundles. Being able to pick out tunes from the vast pool of trad available to me is really liberating. It's like having a huge, bottomless bowl of really delicious sweets. I can pick out as many as I like when I like. I can gorge myself on them till I'm sick if I like. But they can't rot my teeth or make me fat.
I like sessions because I get to see my friends and be creative with them. I get to do something that's constructive and not harmful to other people. I enjoy the interplay between self expression and consideration of other people's expression, and the satisfying feeling of making them mingle together into one expression - a one-off spontaneous event in the universe that can never be recreated.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
I play because the beer is free. THe colour of the beer is black. That I know for a fact.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Rudall the time
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Ah, now we have demasked Jim as Frankie Gavin.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by SL*
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
I see you fellas have plenty of time on your hands. Anyway, be careful of what you're lookimg at when learning tunes. I used to watch nature documentaries while drumming tunes in my head, this resulted in seeing spiders while playing the New Policeman, and aligators when playing Major Harrison's Fadora. I suppose you could put it to good use though and watch a Victoria's Secret fashion show while learning tunes.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Cobblestone, 7... got it. See you there Jim.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
see you in Hughes Jack but leave Jim behind!!
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by MollyB
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Dow, after all this, sometimes a little too confrontational, banter. I agree with you.
BegF, Yes, I did say that about Donal Lunny, and I was wrong. And contrary to popular belief, I like it when someone points out when I'm wrong
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by ...
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
See I don't think you were wrong, sometimes it's ok to get the visual help....I mean to take it to a rediculous limit, if you never saw someone play the fiddle, would listening
to to it make you realize you use a bow and your arms and etc etc.
How do they get that sound on the flute, of the blow into it !
I that's taking it to a ridiculous level, but in a sense it's not.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by BegF
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
…also I’m as uncomfortable with people ganging up on you and your opinions as I am with you presenting your opinions as fact.
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by BegF
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Hahaha imagine if we had to do it *all* by sound alone. Some of us would have our fiddles on our knees like a viol. We'd be blowing the flute backwards and playing the box with both hands like a piano, joggling it up and down on our knees. How the hell would we go about doing something with the pipes?! The bellows could be used like a foot pump...
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
And what should we do with this wind instruments ?
Oh no...don't put it there..ah crissake I have to wash it now !
# Posted on November 5th 2004 by BegF
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Sorry I just came by this site for a discussion on ITM... OH
I must have hit on a site for boring arguments on metaphysics......
Colors?
Black... Guinness
Tunes... Not many
Why?
To much black...
Feeling... Bored....
What colour is that???
Who gives a shidt... emmmmm Black
Have anudder Guinnes y'all
Whoops...euphoria... ??? and what colour would be
Sorry my brain just detached.....
cop on folks.... it is Irish trad music
not American / European analyse the World peace problems here..... jeeeeeessss.
# Posted on November 6th 2004 by Eoino
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Oo that was a constructive post. Congratulations.
# Posted on November 6th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
I'm laughing at the irony of your post form yesterday:
"I was rash in my condemning of musicians, and to comments they posted. I now have learned of their frustrations, and hopefully have (or at least feel I have) given up that quest (like it was mine to begin with!!).
Thw Session has at least given me insight...
I lurked and then steamed over comments posted before trashing peoples genuine agruments.....
Lurking actually caused me more anxiety!
Reading the responses to my comments was a great teacher...
as they say... "every day is a school day""
Perhaps your graduation was premature.
# Posted on November 6th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Hey Dow, Eoino is just saying maybe we're analysisng it too much, and should get back to the tunes....I'm sure you've done the same in posts, maybe a bit more eloquently, but no need to try and make a pri*k out of him.
# Posted on November 6th 2004 by BegF
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
I agree. A bit more of the grace and understanding, a little less of the smiting/sniping at anyone withing reach, yeah?
# Posted on November 6th 2004 by Q
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Dow...
prehaps you mis-understand me....
I was referring to a few people in this thread who have gone off the way I have in the past.
I was relating my comments to "music and playing music", not colour or bright lights....
Don't be too snide with your comments..
If you care to re-read my previous post, it was posted in the best possible humour, hoping to get a chuckle from the group....
I did not expect that someone of your intelligence would pick my post up as attacking..
I could also re-read your posts and post them as an attack on you... depending on the subject... or how I would like to interpret them at the time.....
I have at least apologised for my outbursts to the group.....
Yes, Dow.. every day is indeed a school day....
# Posted on November 6th 2004 by Eoino
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Sorry Eoino. I had a bad moment! Please accept my apology.
# Posted on November 7th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: Can you "see" tunes?
Dow,
your apology is accepted 100%.
Regards,
Eoino.
# Posted on November 7th 2004 by Eoino