Hi all...just wondering about this. At sessions, what do you all prefer to play (or just play): the traditional tunes as notated on sheet music OR an interpretation of those tunes. i.e. some versions recorded by itm bands seem to differ slightly from the notated version. That doesn't mean they're better/worse, they're just different.
The problem with using the notated version of a tune is that it is in itself an interpretation and usually a poor one at that. There is no recognised "standard" notation for most Irish tunes; traditionally they are passed from one musician to another by ear. Most people find a recording they like and play something similar, with their own adaptations or, if they're lucky, learn directly from another musician by ear. The notation is normally used as a guide to help you along; it shouldn't form the basis of your version of the tune, if you can help it.
Even in the Scottish tradition, the self styled "King" of the fiddle, Scott Skinner said that the music should only be taken as the bare bones of the tune. I just wish more Scottish players would heed that advice. As for myself, I'm all for lugging it pretty well all the time & leaving the flysh*t alone as much as possible. (lugs = ears in Scots).
LUGS=EARS in ENGLISH! Dinna be blate man! Lallans isnae some blatherskite fearlie dialect! Mony a word is guid English (if it CAN be GUID English).
I had to explain to my daughter what a lug is. She kens now.
I'm with you, Ron, in terms of learning by luggie and leaving the wee dots in a pure and virginal state, but the dots folk post here are already ornamented with "The way so-and-so plays it". How many tunes could be reduced to their simplest dots? And if you're copying someone and aren't up to their standard, (especially if they ornament to b*ggery, ) what do you do? - Sorry, Fit dae ye Dae?
Thanks for the replies. I usually adapt the notated tunes to my own playing, often even to the mood I'm in (i.e. playing a reel in a minor scale instead of major). But I thought I'd just ask you guys (& girls) because I've met some players who just learnt the notation by heart and refuse to differ even a single note...
As a P. S.
In the introduction to "Traditional Scottish Fiddling" it says:
"Scottish music has been evolving for centuries and been influenced by the traditions of many countries. As tunes are "passed on" from one musician to another the music evolves and changes" - & so has it been with Irish Music.
In defense of the great tune collections, I must say I find it fascinating to browse through these books and try out tunes I have never heard of before.
However, when you have been playing for years you tend to have an instinctive feel for how a tune will go from reading the bones of it, that flysh*t Ron P was talking about, & I believe we would have lost many good tunes were it not for the great collectors.
So let's not be too hard on the scribes.
I say three cheers to Bunting, Roche, Breathnach, O'Neill & their like.
They all left behind them wonderful collections of tunes for us all to play around with.
So yes Gorgash they are different.
But I don't agree with BegF when he says they are worse, for the written tune was never meant to be the whole tune, just a naked manikin for each of us to dress as we see fit!
I guarantee everyone on The Session has at least one collection of tunes, large or small, & have made good use of it over the years, as they learned.
This knocking written music attitude reminds me of all those folk who come into Trad music after hearing folk like the Dubliners or the Corries.
No sooner are many of them hooked on the hard core stuff but they start to poo poo the Balladeers, who have done an amazing job down through the years interesting people in ITM from all walks of life, who perhaps weren't fortunate enough to have had Seamus Ennis, Willie Clancy or John Kelly as a Dad, or ever heard it as they grew up!
We all need to be more tolerant, chaps!
A word of warning too, don't just learn your tunes from the funky new versions you hear on the latest 'boy bands of ITM - CDs. But cross-reference their version with other versions from older recordings &, dare I say it, from the older versions in tune collections.
Oh yes, & never stop working on every tune you play, cause just like in the wild west, there's always a better version hiding round the corner, just waiting to surprise you!!
As this is a follow on discussion about right and wrong versions, and if such a thing as right and wrong is compatable with this music, I'll cary on where I left off last time:
I took my two year old to the cinema the other day. She calls it the cimena. It's cute, it's common and there is absolutly no confusion as to what she's on about. But it's wrong. simple as that. I don't pull her up about it of course, it's more fun for her to find out in her own time. But when she says it right, I'll have a little smile to myself that she's grown up that little bit more.
I don't think we can be dogmatic about whether written or what's played is best. They're all just someones personal interpretation of the tune. The "played" version may be best for newcomers who have yet to develop a feel for the tunes as this can never be shown in the dots. However, I've yet to hear as nice a setting of Jenny Picking Cockles as that shown in O'Neills 1001 collection. My advice is take tunes from wherever you can and only play the settings you enjoy - unlike classical there is definitely no definitive or correct version of any tune (in my opinion anyway!).
Hi Dick, fair point, but I wasn't saying "don't " - simply saying I try to use the lugs as much as possible. And yes, lots of great tunes would have been lost forever without notation and all these very important collections.
Michael Gill, you're quite wrong, the correct name for the cinema is "The Flicks" - don't you know anything....
I use the notated music to give me the bare bones of what's in the tune and my ears to pick up the nuances of ornamentation, etc. I tend to combine the two because I have an abysmal memory and seeing the notes as a visual reminder of the tune brings it all back into my mind.
Plus I do find it fun to read through random tunes in collections.
And of course, KFG the notation is not the music. It's simply a visual representation of the music, a memory aid as it were. Much akin to the written word, which are a visual representation of spoken words.
I used that very argument some time ago; and elaborated on it at some length, but appended an argument that a musician playing from the written music is like an actor reading from a script.
The script is not the play. The actor needs to memorize the script and then bring it to life in his own way, which often even includes modifying the dialog.
I am most distinctly *not* one of the "anti dot" people around here, but this is not a pro-anti dot thread.
It is a "Are the dots the 'correct' version" thread, and not only are they not the 'correct' version, they are not even the version being notated, most of what is to be actually played being left to the discretion and sensibilities of each individual player.
Even serious "art" music used to be that way, before composers got elevated to godhood.
If I like a tune well enough to take the time to internalize it, I'll internalize the version I like, no matter how it's packaged. .. . seems pretty straightforward. these days those tunes mostly come from albums or sessions, but there's some good stuff lurking in dots.
1-Take any song...any tune written out in sheet music or ABC format listed on this site. Lets call it tune Z
2-Without listening to each other, ask each of us to play tune Z.
3-Observe all the differences between the ways we each play the tune.
There will be a virtually infinite amount of subtle and not so subtle differences in the way we each play the tune. No two of us would play the tune exactly alike.
Yet many of the members here still transcribe music. Why? (ok I’ve gotta get back to work).
I don't think it matters so much where you learn a tune from, it's what you do with it later that counts. You can learn a tune from notation and play it like that every single time, and I think that would get boring. But you can also learn a tune from ear and play it that way every single time, and that would also get boring. The key is to use your source as a springboard for your own version. I think this is key to "folk" music. if we all played tunes the same way it would be like rock cover bands or something. I think that how you vary and ornament your music is what defines your musicianship. Our approach to tunes is like our "fingerprint". It's part of what makes me me and you you, and it's good that we're all a bit different. That might sound a bit pretentious, but you know what I mean don't you?
One of my all-time favourite musicians Captain Beefheart once said that he liked to "play" music, as opposed to "working" music, and if you keep that sentiment close to yr heart, I reckon you can't go far wrong.
As stated above, if you stay with this music for any amount of time at all, you will find that any written notation (including the famous Chief O'Neill's) is just one of many interpretations of what is handed down by the aural tradition. And since many of the nuances of the music are not captured well by musical notation, the best you get from a piece of paper is a version viewed "through a glass darkly."
Yeah, it's kind of like reading with the lights out. all music, whether learned by ear or from dots has to be internalised. I know musicians who learn entirely by ear, but only play the bare bones of a tune. They are playing by rote, which is just as bad as playing by rote with music. notation and simple versions of songs are both around simply to help people learn the outline of a tune, the essence comes from within and comes from experience.
For me, both ways are equally as bad as the other, except that when one plays by rote by ear they will be exposed to the embellishments that others use and after much trial and tribulation might manage to internalise and use these embellishments to decorate their tunes. Those who learn from music have a chance to individualise the song, but they have to be brave enough, and learned enough to attempt it first.
As to why we still transcribe music, it's a great way to share it with others around the world. It's how the little tune from middle of nowhere is played in a completely different country. Also, we are under the mistaken impression that by notating our music people will be able to read it for the ages to come. Sadly that isn't the case, hopefully standard musical notation is here to stay, but surely that's what the church thought when they first started notating music in the ninth century, that everyone would always be able to read and understand the music. With that music, we only have a bare melody, so we have to guess as to how to embellish and harmonize. It's the same when learning any music from notes, you have to make educated guesses at what is implied rather than written.
One other thing that I'd say, purely from my own perspective, is that I can remember most of the tunes I initially learned by ear, but have great difficulty recalling those I initially learned from the dots. Others, may of course, have the opposite experience.
I am sorry but I have to deviate from the subject line just a bit. What happens in sessions is, that in order for everyone to play, there must be a standard setting. This is where we get what is called ‘an old session tune’. This is a tune that is played in the same way every time so everyone can play together. Everyone plays differently in session than they do solo or in performance. Personal styles can only come out in non-session play. A particular session will develop it’s own style of playing a tune after a period of time. So it is ‘session vs other’ more than ‘dots vs lug’ IMNSHO
baglady,
O. K. that may well be the case in a session where the same group of musicians meet each week & play a lot of the same tunes.
But when a new musician joins that session for a night, each time he or she starts a tune, they play it there own way & the regulars have to, or 'should', adapt their interpretation of the tune to blend in with the stranger's version of it!
What is interpretation? In traditional music, do you need to "earn" the right to interpret the music according to your own "feeling"? What is the difference between "interpretation" and learning the tune badly?
Learning the tune badly is playing the wrong notes in the the wrong order. Interpretation is either playing the wrong notes in the right order, playing the right notes in the wrong order or playing the wrong notes in the wrong order again and again!
As a musician, I study the playing styles of others in my genre, by listening to cd's, live performances, jamming, etc. I have come to see that every genre has it's standard licks and riffs, the trick is learning to employ the right riffs on the right style of song, and that is accomplished by listening to good musicians
I vividly remember listening to a very accomplished Mandolin player rattle out Irish Tunes all night at a session. Now he knew the tunes, and could play fast, with loads of triplets all over the place, but each tune sounded wrong somehow.
After a while it dawned on me what he was doing wrong & why all the tunes sounded off - he played his triplets, more often than not, in the wrong places.
So he was playing the triplets in the 'wrong order' & so was playing the tunes 'badly'!
Interestingly he learned a lot of his tunes from books & that was his mistake, not 'listening' enough.
He should have listened to Ron P & used his Lugs more!
So, where does playing some of the wrong notes in almost the correct order, but making it sound completely right, fit the definition? Have a listen to some of the early Tommy Peoples recordings and compare with most any written version.
which is why that one was on the list too. . .I've known lots of folk musicians, one of whom one a national championship on the hammer dulcimer by getting lost and making it up while following his guitarist. . .wrong notes, right order, championship and praise for a wonderful arrangement. Ain't life grand.
sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
Hi all...just wondering about this. At sessions, what do you all prefer to play (or just play): the traditional tunes as notated on sheet music OR an interpretation of those tunes. i.e. some versions recorded by itm bands seem to differ slightly from the notated version. That doesn't mean they're better/worse, they're just different.
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by Gorgash
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
Dag Tim!
The problem with using the notated version of a tune is that it is in itself an interpretation and usually a poor one at that. There is no recognised "standard" notation for most Irish tunes; traditionally they are passed from one musician to another by ear. Most people find a recording they like and play something similar, with their own adaptations or, if they're lucky, learn directly from another musician by ear. The notation is normally used as a guide to help you along; it shouldn't form the basis of your version of the tune, if you can help it.
Tot straks
Conán McDonnell
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by Conán McDonnell
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
So they're not just different, they're worse.
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by BegF
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
The notation is not the music.
KFG
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by KFG
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
Well said lads.
Even in the Scottish tradition, the self styled "King" of the fiddle, Scott Skinner said that the music should only be taken as the bare bones of the tune. I just wish more Scottish players would heed that advice. As for myself, I'm all for lugging it pretty well all the time & leaving the flysh*t alone as much as possible. (lugs = ears in Scots).
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by On Sabbatical
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
LUGS=EARS in ENGLISH! Dinna be blate man! Lallans isnae some blatherskite fearlie dialect! Mony a word is guid English (if it CAN be GUID English).
I had to explain to my daughter what a lug is. She kens now.
I'm with you, Ron, in terms of learning by luggie and leaving the wee dots in a pure and virginal state, but the dots folk post here are already ornamented with "The way so-and-so plays it". How many tunes could be reduced to their simplest dots? And if you're copying someone and aren't up to their standard, (especially if they ornament to b*ggery, ) what do you do? - Sorry, Fit dae ye Dae?
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by Innocent Bystander
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
Thanks for the replies. I usually adapt the notated tunes to my own playing, often even to the mood I'm in (i.e. playing a reel in a minor scale instead of major). But I thought I'd just ask you guys (& girls) because I've met some players who just learnt the notation by heart and refuse to differ even a single note...
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by Gorgash
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
As a P. S.
In the introduction to "Traditional Scottish Fiddling" it says:
"Scottish music has been evolving for centuries and been influenced by the traditions of many countries. As tunes are "passed on" from one musician to another the music evolves and changes" - & so has it been with Irish Music.
In defense of the great tune collections, I must say I find it fascinating to browse through these books and try out tunes I have never heard of before.
However, when you have been playing for years you tend to have an instinctive feel for how a tune will go from reading the bones of it, that flysh*t Ron P was talking about, & I believe we would have lost many good tunes were it not for the great collectors.
So let's not be too hard on the scribes.
I say three cheers to Bunting, Roche, Breathnach, O'Neill & their like.
They all left behind them wonderful collections of tunes for us all to play around with.
So yes Gorgash they are different.
But I don't agree with BegF when he says they are worse, for the written tune was never meant to be the whole tune, just a naked manikin for each of us to dress as we see fit!
I guarantee everyone on The Session has at least one collection of tunes, large or small, & have made good use of it over the years, as they learned.
This knocking written music attitude reminds me of all those folk who come into Trad music after hearing folk like the Dubliners or the Corries.
No sooner are many of them hooked on the hard core stuff but they start to poo poo the Balladeers, who have done an amazing job down through the years interesting people in ITM from all walks of life, who perhaps weren't fortunate enough to have had Seamus Ennis, Willie Clancy or John Kelly as a Dad, or ever heard it as they grew up!
We all need to be more tolerant, chaps!
A word of warning too, don't just learn your tunes from the funky new versions you hear on the latest 'boy bands of ITM - CDs. But cross-reference their version with other versions from older recordings &, dare I say it, from the older versions in tune collections.
Oh yes, & never stop working on every tune you play, cause just like in the wild west, there's always a better version hiding round the corner, just waiting to surprise you!!
Phew! I feel much better now!
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by Ptarmigan
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
As this is a follow on discussion about right and wrong versions, and if such a thing as right and wrong is compatable with this music, I'll cary on where I left off last time:
I took my two year old to the cinema the other day. She calls it the cimena. It's cute, it's common and there is absolutly no confusion as to what she's on about. But it's wrong. simple as that. I don't pull her up about it of course, it's more fun for her to find out in her own time. But when she says it right, I'll have a little smile to myself that she's grown up that little bit more.
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by ...
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
Very well put.
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by BegF
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
I don't think we can be dogmatic about whether written or what's played is best. They're all just someones personal interpretation of the tune. The "played" version may be best for newcomers who have yet to develop a feel for the tunes as this can never be shown in the dots. However, I've yet to hear as nice a setting of Jenny Picking Cockles as that shown in O'Neills 1001 collection. My advice is take tunes from wherever you can and only play the settings you enjoy - unlike classical there is definitely no definitive or correct version of any tune (in my opinion anyway!).
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by Bannerman
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
Hi Dick, fair point, but I wasn't saying "don't " - simply saying I try to use the lugs as much as possible. And yes, lots of great tunes would have been lost forever without notation and all these very important collections.
Michael Gill, you're quite wrong, the correct name for the cinema is "The Flicks" - don't you know anything....
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by On Sabbatical
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
I use the notated music to give me the bare bones of what's in the tune and my ears to pick up the nuances of ornamentation, etc. I tend to combine the two because I have an abysmal memory and seeing the notes as a visual reminder of the tune brings it all back into my mind.
Plus I do find it fun to read through random tunes in collections.
And of course, KFG the notation is not the music. It's simply a visual representation of the music, a memory aid as it were. Much akin to the written word, which are a visual representation of spoken words.
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by Crysania
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
I used that very argument some time ago; and elaborated on it at some length, but appended an argument that a musician playing from the written music is like an actor reading from a script.
The script is not the play. The actor needs to memorize the script and then bring it to life in his own way, which often even includes modifying the dialog.
I am most distinctly *not* one of the "anti dot" people around here, but this is not a pro-anti dot thread.
It is a "Are the dots the 'correct' version" thread, and not only are they not the 'correct' version, they are not even the version being notated, most of what is to be actually played being left to the discretion and sensibilities of each individual player.
Even serious "art" music used to be that way, before composers got elevated to godhood.
KFG
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by KFG
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
Friggin' adults think to bloddy much.
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by tulloch
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
I forgot to put a
after that. so..... 
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by tulloch
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
If I like a tune well enough to take the time to internalize it, I'll internalize the version I like, no matter how it's packaged. .. . seems pretty straightforward. these days those tunes mostly come from albums or sessions, but there's some good stuff lurking in dots.
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by wormdiet
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
1-Take any song...any tune written out in sheet music or ABC format listed on this site. Lets call it tune Z
2-Without listening to each other, ask each of us to play tune Z.
3-Observe all the differences between the ways we each play the tune.
There will be a virtually infinite amount of subtle and not so subtle differences in the way we each play the tune. No two of us would play the tune exactly alike.
Yet many of the members here still transcribe music. Why? (ok I’ve gotta get back to work).
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by Pete D
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
I don't think it matters so much where you learn a tune from, it's what you do with it later that counts. You can learn a tune from notation and play it like that every single time, and I think that would get boring. But you can also learn a tune from ear and play it that way every single time, and that would also get boring. The key is to use your source as a springboard for your own version. I think this is key to "folk" music. if we all played tunes the same way it would be like rock cover bands or something. I think that how you vary and ornament your music is what defines your musicianship. Our approach to tunes is like our "fingerprint". It's part of what makes me me and you you, and it's good that we're all a bit different. That might sound a bit pretentious, but you know what I mean don't you?
One of my all-time favourite musicians Captain Beefheart once said that he liked to "play" music, as opposed to "working" music, and if you keep that sentiment close to yr heart, I reckon you can't go far wrong.
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by plinkeyplonkey
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
As stated above, if you stay with this music for any amount of time at all, you will find that any written notation (including the famous Chief O'Neill's) is just one of many interpretations of what is handed down by the aural tradition. And since many of the nuances of the music are not captured well by musical notation, the best you get from a piece of paper is a version viewed "through a glass darkly."
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by AlBrown
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
Yeah, it's kind of like reading with the lights out. all music, whether learned by ear or from dots has to be internalised. I know musicians who learn entirely by ear, but only play the bare bones of a tune. They are playing by rote, which is just as bad as playing by rote with music. notation and simple versions of songs are both around simply to help people learn the outline of a tune, the essence comes from within and comes from experience.
For me, both ways are equally as bad as the other, except that when one plays by rote by ear they will be exposed to the embellishments that others use and after much trial and tribulation might manage to internalise and use these embellishments to decorate their tunes. Those who learn from music have a chance to individualise the song, but they have to be brave enough, and learned enough to attempt it first.
As to why we still transcribe music, it's a great way to share it with others around the world. It's how the little tune from middle of nowhere is played in a completely different country. Also, we are under the mistaken impression that by notating our music people will be able to read it for the ages to come. Sadly that isn't the case, hopefully standard musical notation is here to stay, but surely that's what the church thought when they first started notating music in the ninth century, that everyone would always be able to read and understand the music. With that music, we only have a bare melody, so we have to guess as to how to embellish and harmonize. It's the same when learning any music from notes, you have to make educated guesses at what is implied rather than written.
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by musicfan
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
One other thing that I'd say, purely from my own perspective, is that I can remember most of the tunes I initially learned by ear, but have great difficulty recalling those I initially learned from the dots. Others, may of course, have the opposite experience.
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by On Sabbatical
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
I am sorry but I have to deviate from the subject line just a bit. What happens in sessions is, that in order for everyone to play, there must be a standard setting. This is where we get what is called ‘an old session tune’. This is a tune that is played in the same way every time so everyone can play together. Everyone plays differently in session than they do solo or in performance. Personal styles can only come out in non-session play. A particular session will develop it’s own style of playing a tune after a period of time. So it is ‘session vs other’ more than ‘dots vs lug’ IMNSHO
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by baglady
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
baglady,
O. K. that may well be the case in a session where the same group of musicians meet each week & play a lot of the same tunes.
But when a new musician joins that session for a night, each time he or she starts a tune, they play it there own way & the regulars have to, or 'should', adapt their interpretation of the tune to blend in with the stranger's version of it!
The 'thot plickens'!
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by Ptarmigan
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
P. S. This means then that personal playing styles DO in fact come out in session play after all!
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by Ptarmigan
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
Even people that play together every week will have recognizably unique styles, even on session favorites.
I don't listen to other flute players play because they sound like me - I go to hear the differences.
The key is to keep the differences within an acceptable range. . . so that they are "variations" in style rather than "deviations."
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by wormdiet
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
Exactly worm!
Let's face it there are enough deviants on this site as it is, thank you very much!
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by Ptarmigan
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
What is interpretation? In traditional music, do you need to "earn" the right to interpret the music according to your own "feeling"? What is the difference between "interpretation" and learning the tune badly?
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by Jode
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
Learning the tune badly is playing the wrong notes in the the wrong order. Interpretation is either playing the wrong notes in the right order, playing the right notes in the wrong order or playing the wrong notes in the wrong order again and again!
As a musician, I study the playing styles of others in my genre, by listening to cd's, live performances, jamming, etc. I have come to see that every genre has it's standard licks and riffs, the trick is learning to employ the right riffs on the right style of song, and that is accomplished by listening to good musicians
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by musicfan
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
I vividly remember listening to a very accomplished Mandolin player rattle out Irish Tunes all night at a session. Now he knew the tunes, and could play fast, with loads of triplets all over the place, but each tune sounded wrong somehow.
After a while it dawned on me what he was doing wrong & why all the tunes sounded off - he played his triplets, more often than not, in the wrong places.
So he was playing the triplets in the 'wrong order' & so was playing the tunes 'badly'!
Interestingly he learned a lot of his tunes from books & that was his mistake, not 'listening' enough.
He should have listened to Ron P & used his Lugs more!
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by Ptarmigan
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
see, it works as a definition. . .
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by musicfan
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
So, where does playing some of the wrong notes in almost the correct order, but making it sound completely right, fit the definition? Have a listen to some of the early Tommy Peoples recordings and compare with most any written version.
# Posted on August 30th 2005 by Gzeg
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
which is why that one was on the list too. . .I've known lots of folk musicians, one of whom one a national championship on the hammer dulcimer by getting lost and making it up while following his guitarist. . .wrong notes, right order, championship and praise for a wonderful arrangement. Ain't life grand.
# Posted on August 31st 2005 by musicfan
Re: sessions: sheet vs. interpretations
Cross-reference: See the current Geek thread for an attempt to get written notation to sound more like actual playing!
# Posted on August 31st 2005 by AlBrown