I play in an ITM session where many of the players use sheet music. This seems unorthodox to me and also just plain bad. It's ridiculous to me that people are paging through binders of music every time we switch tunes. These people have been playing these tunes for years this way. Especially the guitar players, who apparently can't be troublede to memorize a simple sequence of chords. Argh! Anyone else run into this sort of thing? Any suggestions to get people motivated to memorize? Or I am just overly obsessing about something silly and inconsequential?
Have to agree with you Tim (unless it's a "slow" or "learning" session. What annoys me most is when players use a chair as a music stand taking a place from another musician and creating gaps in the session - I always think the music works better with musicians fairly close together.
Using a chair for music is ridiculous, I agree. But the "memorize it" people have to understand that not all of us can memorize things easily. I've always had a problem with it & it's not laziness -- if you knew me and my high energy level you'd know what I mean. I'm not totally reliant on the music, note for note, but I follow more of the pattern of the music than individual notes. So it might be semi-memorized, but if the music is taken away, I'm lost. I know it would be a lot more convenient for me & everyone else if I could memorize it, but I'm not willing to give up the enjoyment of the music to make everyone else happy! For me it would then be work instead of fun & what's the sense in that?
Just whistle - are you initially learning the tune by ear or dots?? This makes a BIG difference. Tunes learned by ear stick in the memory much better. It's a skill that takes months/years to learn, but then, so does reading sheet music decently.
Tim - have you thought about starting up another session and inviting the ear-learners only? (With the intention of using that as bait to get everybody into ear learning?)
Hmmm. I don't mean to be beating up on people who have trouble memorizing. Is this quite a common problem?
I don't have an easy time memorizing tunes. I had to spend a lot of time over a period of several months learning the 50 or 60 tunes they play at my session. And sometimes they still fall out of my head and need to be crammed back in. But I guess I see the memorization as just part of the reality of playing in a session. At least for myself, it's not optional.
Part of my annoyance is that I have to memorize like 100 notes per tune on my fiddle and then there are guitar players who can't bother to memorize where to play 3 damn chords This is true of 3 or 4 guitar players who show up at the session.
I tend to think that it's laziness and lack of something forcing them to do it that causes people not to memorize, much more so than actual inability to memorize. But maybe I am wrong.
wormdiet -- starting a new session would be a pretty big step and not really something I have the time or inclination for right now. But it is a fine idea.
I was thinking that if somebody like Kevin Burke could stop in and just ridicule the heck out of people using sheet music, that might just take care of the situation. Anyhow, it would make me smile.
Geez, I don't mean to be such a downer. Really, I'm a nice guy (just ask me).
In my opinion, music should be heard, not read, to be best understood and performed. Just like reading a book is more rewarding than listening to an actor on an 'audio book'.
I figure you do what you have to do, in order to get the basic tune learned. For me, the dots are helpful--but I ditch them as soon as I can.
Here's an example of why using sheet music at sessions is bad: One time this guy forgot his music stand, there wasn't a spare chair, so he put his big binder of sheet music on the table behind him--and played the whole session with his back to the rest of us! Very strange.
Serendipity. Today is William Maxwell's birthday, and Garrison Keillor featured him on today's Writer's Almanac (http://writersalmanac.publicradio.org/). According to Keillor, Maxwell once said, ""What we ... refer to confidently as memory ... is really a form of storytelling that goes on continually in the mind and often changes with the telling."
He was talking about personal memories, but I would say the same is true of "memorizing" tunes. They are stories we retell. Once you get in the hang of thinking aurally/musicially (instead of thinking of the names of notes or what the dots on the page mean or where your fingers go to make the sounds), it becomes much easier to *recall* the tunes, speaking them in their own language, if you see what I mean.
Too often, playing from sheet music seems to create a fog between the music and the player, a visual layer that interferes with listening to the pure sound. (That said, a good sight reader can use the dots to quickly "hear" the music, internalize it, and then retell the tune without the dots. A bit like using the words in a diary to refresh your recall of a story from your own life.)
Tim, challenge your sheet music slaves to a simple test. Ask them to play Happy Birthday or Mary Had a Little Lamb, from memory. If they're competent musicians at all, they'll be able to do it. Then remind them of all the pop songs they carry in their heads (I'm particularly fond of saying "Oh Mandy, you came and you gave without taking" just to prove how annoyingly persistent our memory for melody can be), mostly learned from listening to the radio or MTV--not from dots.
Yes, Irish trad tunes are notey and tend to run at a faster clip than your average Top 40 ballad of teen angst. But once you get familiar with the forms and idioms of this music, it's not rocket surgery. And "storytelling that goes on continually in the mind and often changes with the telling" is precisely what playing this music--especially in sessions--is all about. You can't do that well if you're tethered to the dots.
Disclaimer: I'm not Kevin Burke, so what I say won't carry any weight with your session mates. But the Irish trad world is full of average schmoes like me who'll never have the street cred of Kevin Burke, but who can still engagingly play hundreds or thousands of tunes from "memory" without visual crutches. That's the beauty of this music--you don't have to be a giant talent to participate. But you do have to learn to speak the language.
Yes, learning tunes by ear is hard at first, but it can be done. I sometimes still rely on the dots at home but never in a session. I agree that tunes learned by ear stay in your mind better, it's a direct line to your fingers.
I find that the tunes I have taken the effort to learn by ear are always there, in my mind. They are not "memorized," as I would have to do if I read something from sheet music and then worked on committing it to memory. They are simply there ; I "have" them.
Of course, this is not to say that the tunes I "have" are always at the forefront of my memory. I may have to hear the first few notes to have the entire tune come back to my fingers...or, if I see the "dots," all I will need will be the first measure or so. In essence, I can use the sheet music is as a mere "cheat sheet" that will cue up the entire tune in my head.
On the other hand, tunes that I've "memorized" in the traditional sense (i.e., learned from sheet music first, rather than learned aurally) will not come back to me in this magic way.
I can understand how having sheet music at a session could be interruptive, and memorizing tunes, notes and chords would definitely be preferential, for all instruments... but my question is…Where are these guitar players getting music with chords so conveniently laid out? Am I missing the "The Idiots Guide to Guitar Chords for Session Tunes"? If someone could let me in on the secret I promise, promise, promise, I will never bring the music to a session.
Not that I'm complaining about trying to figure out simple chord changes (I seriously am in awe of people who play melody instruments and can pick entire tunes up by ear), it would just be nice to have a cheat sheet now and then to know that one is playing something that is even close to how it should be played.
cuthail, I don't know where the chorded versions of the tunes that folks in the session I attend come from. I know that the Fiddler's Fakebook has chords for all its tunes, and I have seen other tune books with chords. I think Ryan's and O'Neill's do not have them.
By the way, I just want to be clear that I have no problem with using sheet music to learn tunes. That's how I get the initial skeletal knowledge of most tunes I learn. But I think you have to move on, as soon as possible, from the sheet music and let the tune live and breath on its own via your memory and interpretation.
sounds fairly lame. and it strikes me that the energy that one uses to visually play a tune off of sheet music at a session is energy and concentration better used toward listening to others in the session and responding more creatively to the musical nuances.
There is nothing wrong with learning tunes from paper, as long as you know how to interpret and ornament them correctly and how to do appropriate variations. You'll get this by having listened to the music for 5-10-20 years easily!! But they will still be a lot harder to remember than the ones you just learn by ear.
I have honestly never been to a session where someone played from written music. Guess I haven't lived....
A few added observations ... it is not reasonable to expect a novice player to pick up a tune by ear in near real time at a session: so a good tape recorder would come in handy for those wishing to get away from the notes; the person should be encouraged to learn by ear [with the aid of a few notes if need be]. It is also fair to say that some tunes are what you'd call "tricky" and don't have particluarly easy sequences, especially when played at a good clip.
Most of my tunes are in my head, but I often need the notes to work out new tunes. I can also sight read on the fly, thanks to earlier training. Tunes almost always fall into place for me once re-listen to them a few times with the basic starting points laid out from the notes if needed.
Memorizing tunes is hard for everybody, especially at first--it's especially hard if you've let your memorization skills atrophy for years--but it's something that we all need to do as musicians, just like playing in tune with proper rhythm. After your first 5 tunes (start with simple ones), memorization gets much easier, and music becomes much more fun for everyone.
Don't get me wrong. Sheet music serves a number of useful purposes. It's really good for teaching; Padraig O'Keefe used to give it to his students, after all. It makes bowings and fingerings much easier to teach, and it can be good for helping people break down a tune into manageable chunks for practicing.
But it's easy to get used to it to the point that you become dependent on it, and that can be a crippling limitation. If you need paper to play, then you can't change-up sets of tunes easily and you can't play variations. Furthermore, everybody around you has to put up with your added space requirements, and the extra time it takes you to flip pages... and what about when somebody else starts a "Gan Ainm"? I also agree with Brendan that when you play with sheet music, the attention you pay to the page is attention that would be better used listening/interacting with your fellow musicians.
I give notes to students in my classes, mainly because it makes everything easier for everybody. However, my rule is that nobody is allowed to read the paper in class when we all play together. Too many times, I've seen students loose the beat or the rhythm altogether, and not even notice because they were too slavishly focused on their slip of paper (this is, of course, one of the worst things a musician can do in a group). My memorization rule always gets a few whines at the beginning of the class term, but I've seen consitent enough improvement in the students to know that it's the right thing to do for everybody's sake.
All that said, sessions are about being social as much as they are about getting better at playing music. If the collective vibe at your session allows for sheet music, then who am I (or you?) to tell them to put it away? I don't think it's worth being a jerk over, but then again, I'm not sure I'd be excited about accomodating the page-turners while they struggle to flip through to the page that has the "Connaughtman's Rambles" on it...
I'd suggest you change to another, more advanced session. Using sheets for same tunes for years tells that these folks have different goals. It's not a bad thing to learn from sheets but using them for years instead of days or weeks sounds what? ridicilous?
This sheet music reading bunch is certainly outside the session norm, although every attempt at carrying on the tradition is, in my opinion, a good thing.
It is not that hard to let go of the music--you just have to have the courage to release your grip on it and trust in yourself.
Perhaps you can suggest that they set a goal of playing at least one tune a week without music, then string them into sets, and within a year or so, voila, you have enough material for the better part of an evening.
And I would suggest that you don't really LEARN the music until you play it without dots, or LEARN a song until you sing it without words in front of you. And the magic of that is, it remains there in your head, rattling around and available to be played, for YEARS after you learned it, especially if you reinforce it by playing regularly.
As everyone says above, giving up the sheet music allows you too get into the music much more, watch the people around you, connect with the collective vibe of it all (wow, I sound like I am back in the '60s, far out man)!
"I don't have an easy time memorizing tunes. I had to spend a lot of time over a period of several months learning the 50 or 60 tunes they play at my session."
I guess it does take some people significantly longer to memorize. I've been working on tunes, mostly by ear, for over 5 years and I really only KNOW 60 tunes. That's only about 1 a month. However, 1 a month is okay with me...
"In my opinion, music should be heard, not read, to be best understood and performed. Just like reading a book is more rewarding than listening to an actor on an 'audio book'."
Isn't that kind of backwards?
Not related to the above statement, but if you enjoy science fiction at all, you should try listening to "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" read by Douglas Adams, the author. It's a really good audio book...as good as reading the words on paper, if not a bit better.
The sheet music is just a tool for referencing and cataloguing your tunes away from any session. Playing at a session with sheet music would be like having a conversation with someone and reading your part from a script.
Apart from the first time the session group try a new set of tunes together, the dots are strictly for home use where the tunes are practiced until committed to memory. A musician needs to relate to the players around him/her rather than a music book. With a little bit of determination most players should be able to learn off at least one tune a week so that it doesn't take all that long to become an active participant in thesession.
I've never seen anyone using sheet music at a session,only word sheets and that very rarely.If anyone brought sheet music to the sessions I go to they'd probably be laughed out of the pub.
In the sessions I go to about the only time we ever see sheet music is if someone has just come across a new tune, hasn't had time to learn it, and so passes on the dots to someone in the session. Fair enough, I'd say.
And what is "knowing" a tune? We've been through this before, but I think there are several identifiable categories.
The top one is knowing a tune so well that you can confidently lead off with it on any occasion without thinking about it. If you have say 30-50 tunes in this category then you'll have no trouble in leading most of the time in an average session, or leading a ceili band for set dancers.
The second category is probably needing a small prompt to get you started - like a few notes scribbled in a notebook. Many ceili band leaders do this just to avoid accidents. I've sometimes seen that little notebook in sessions.
The third is being able to play along when someone else starts the tune. This is the largest category and has its own subdivisions, from being virtually note-perfect downwards to ... whatever.
I don't think lazyhound's "top" category is really the top. What about being able to play it in a variety of keys, either intentionally for variety or of necessity if someone accidentally starts it in the "wrong" key? Or being able to come up with variations on the fly, or notice if someone you're playing with is playing a different version and adjust so you don't clash?
One beginners' session in Baltimore used to use Dave Mallinson' s books of sheet music as their standard. If a tune was in one of the books, it was fair game
These books, which show chords, are now published by Mel Bay. The titles are:
100 Essential Irish Session Tunes
100 Enduring Irish Session Tunes
100 Evergreen Session Tunes
100 Irish Polkas
One of my session pals does the reading while playing. He's a very handy banjo player, and it just seems a shame that quite often someone starts a new tune in the session he's frantically leafing through pages of dots trying to find the tune which he *obviously* recognises anyway, sometimes only finding it half way through the tunes allotted run! (usually played 3x over.)
I've suggested he photocopies the commoner ones and sellotapes them together in the usual sets our session(s) play, but he hasn't quite got round to doing that. I have to say though, he seems to be using the dots far less these days, so maybe it is possible to "grow out of" the habit.
There's a world of difference between playing the melody and playing chords.
Sure, anyone can sing Happy Birthday. That's easy. We humans are probably hard-wired to remember melodies.
Try naming or singing the chords that go with Happy Birthday. I can't do it. Can any of you?
I'm learning penny whistle. My goal with that instrument is to play without looking at sheet music. I'm making good progress in that direction.
But I find playing rhythm guitar a totally different experience. I can sometimes remember simple chord progressions, but have never been able to remember the more beautiful and complicated chord progressions. They strike me as incredibly abstract. I've never found a way to relate the chords to the melody so I could remember them.
Sure, some rhythm guitarists play simplified progressions. A couple hours of playing D, G, A would bore me to death. For me, there's no beauty or fun in that.
Laziness? I don't accept that. I can remember melodies and I work at memorizing them.
But chords? Whew. Those who can remember the complex progressions must have talents I don't have.
Now, if there is a method that might work for me, I'd love to hear about it!
if rhythm players have to play from paper then I'd suggest that they aren't really understanding the movement within the tunes.
i don't try to play tunes in sessions that i don't know backwards - well, almost! So it could be fair not to expect accompanists not to play rhythm if they don't know the progression of the music. Really clever guitarists and bouzouki players I've seen seem to, within a few seconds, be capable of grasping how a tune will develop, even if they aren't that familiar with the melody.
There's a *session* here where lots of folks, including some leading it have folders full of music - I can't understand it really, especially as they play the same tunes and songs in the same combinations and ways as they have for some years.
I've found that my ear is only now just starting to sharpen up - to be able to pick up tunes (not the embellishments - just the basics) a lot more quickly than before, without the dots or abcs. It can take some time. Once I've learnt a tune, I never go back to the dots.
Music stands in a session are just a nuisance and an impediment, though if the session stopped to give, say, a singer and guitarist a "spot" with stands it would be different. They get in the way, fall over with files etc. crashing to the floor, and I assume they isolate each player in a world where he/she doesn't see or listen to the other players, but follows an unvarying line of written notes and rhythms.
Written music in itself, on the other hand, is quite invaluable for learning tunes at home. So of course is recorded music. If you can't quite get the gist of a recorded reel, for instance, you can with luck find it manageably laid out in a tune book. Meanwhile, hearing live or recorded music will give you some idea of the way, or ways, a written tune can come to life in the playing. (And good written tutors exist to teach ITM playing techniques which can't be learned by listening to recordings, unless these are specifically tutor recordings.) Eventually, you may get to the interesting point when you can imagine the sound, on maybe a variety of instruments, of a written tune you've never heard of before, and decide whether it's an also-ran or something quite exciting. Likewise, you'll find it easier as you go on to hear a live tune and break it down instinctively into its written components, to learn if wished at leisure, or pass on.
A session is not the place to practise tunes . It's not an easy place to learn tunes, unless you've gone for some time and some start to lodge in the grey matter; if tunes get played that you've heard on albums, they may well sound very different played live a couple of yards away from you, maybe on different instruments. So it's as well to come to sessions with a number of tunes learned by heart at home, and some requisite technique to hand, and be primarily occupied with what the other players are doing, joining in or leading when it seems a good idea, but
basically watching and listening a lot.
I visited a session recently where they only played one tune then stopped - then played another - no sets, none of the organic progression from tune to tune that can happen so naturally at some sessions. The reason - they all had to find the chart for the next song. I think I planted a seed by asking to do two tunes back to back - WITHOUT stopping. Of course this entailed bookmarks and quick page turns etc.
My "home" session tolerates limited music - especially when someone or several of us, are learning a new tune. But most of the music is played without.
The real thing about memorizing, IMHO, is to be in that musical place where you are "inside the tune" just playing and everyone else is, and the music just flows out of everyone and mixes together unencumbered, on and on, freely. It can be a terrific feeling and that's why I play music, and why I play Trad.
This sums up what I think about reading tunes, from Kevin Burke's website:
"Jessie Christopherson was giving me Violin lessons and at the same time I was learning about the Fiddle at home from my parents' record collection and from family friends. Most of the musicians I was hearing at home played 'by ear' and Jessie was teaching me to read so, to combine the two skills, we thought it would be a good idea to bring Jessie a few Irish tune books and let her take me through them. She was quite happy to do so and before long I had learned several fiddle tunes at my violin lessons. But there was a problem - they sounded strange! And not just because I was a beginner! So we brought Jessie up to the house and played her some recordings of Irish music and asked her why they sounded so different from what I was playing. She explained that what was written in the books was very different from what we were hearing. This was a revelation! I realized that "don't believe everything you read" does not only apply to newspapers! So, how do you make written notes spring to life and become sounds that could justifiably be called music? This became 'the Quest.'"
But sometimes, if you live in place that doesn't have players that are steeped in the traditional idiom, you have to settle for playing with sheet music. Which is better than not playing at all I suppose.
art, Regarding chord patterns: Mr Mallinson's books (mentioned above) are a good starting point, but certainly not the end all and be all. Some of the chord patterns shown in his books are to my taste, others are not. Just as some of the settings of tunes are the way you hear them in local sessions around here, some are slightly different. You can use the books to learn, but don't be afraid to try different things and move beyond the same progression every time.
There are a lot of basic chord patterns for the major, minor and modal tunes that are fairly predictable. I don't know how I got there, but after a few years of accompanying sessions, I got to the point where I could find at least an adequate chord progression for most tunes just by hearing them once through(although Ed Reavy's tunes are often difficult for me). And the same with American folk tunes, I just accompanied a local chorus in a concert of folk music, and for most songs the chords just came to me, I could just feel where they were going.
Start with simple progressions as a basis, and then learn to add in passing chords, minor substitutions, and all those other odd chord voicings.
Visit coyotebanjo's web site, and buy his book, for a very good guide to advanced accompaniment.
Listen listen listen and practice practice practice.
And most of all, enjoy the music!
I’m not a back-up player, but it seems to me that it requires a large helping of intuition along with a clear understanding of the modes and being familiar with the rhythmic styles. Following sheet music for the chords removes any intuition and puts a false bottom on your understanding of the modes. Learning by example, i.e. listening to capable players and practicing at home what they are doing, is the best approach, and after that you’re free to come up with your own interpretation. But the most important aspect is having access to your intuition so you can flow with the music when you go to a session.
Following up on the chord patterns thing; unless you're the only guitarist in a session I believe that all the passing chords, inversions and subsitutions are kinda a bit rude to anyone else playing. Because two people aren't automatically going to hear a tune and think in the same way about the same bit. That and the fact that, unless you know a tune inside out, playing non-scale notes is risking a serious clash. Which sitting down with a pencil and paper will avoid (or experimenting in your own time).
And if you pre-arrange the tunes (ie work out chords beforehand), to me that takes half the fun out of it. If you prefer pre-arranged tunes a band is perhaps a more ideal situation.
That and, CHORD SCALES!!!!! For all scales, modes, natural, melodic and (jazz) harmonic minor. Most tunes are quite I-IV-V -y, but whether it's I-IV-V, I-IV-v, i-iv-V, i-iv-v, i-IV-v, etc etc. Obviously, that's not to say those are the progressions you'd play, just the basic idea of what the subs, inversions and passing chords should be based around.
"Most tunes are quite I-IV-V -y, but whether it's I-IV-V, I-IV-v, i-iv-V, i-iv-v, i-IV-v, etc etc."
This leaves the tunes that are either in the dorian or mixolydian modes. I'd say it would amount to at least half of the tunes or more. One of the first hurdles back-up players new to the scene encounter are these modes.
I don't know what chord scales are, or melodic and harmonic minor scales are, nor do I know why Andy capitolized some of his chord numbers. But if Andy left out the scales associated with dorian and mixolidian modes, as PB has suggested, he left out a large and very distinctive part of the Irish repetiore.
Wow, thanks! Many of those replies about rhythm guitar were very helpful.
At the sessions I've attended we don't usually talk much, so there's little "education" occurring, beyond what one picks up by listening and watching.
It sounds like there's a different way to think about playing in a session that might be more exciting and in an odd way easier (after some learning on my part).
I've ordered coyotebanjo's book in hopes that that will give me some of the tools I need.
I didn't miss out the modes. For reference -- capilalisation represents major chord, lower case is minor. So the Root, fourth, fifth progression in the mixolydian mode is I, IV, v. Obviously, in reality, if it was in Amix, you'd play a G maj quite alot. And it's relative minor is E minor. Which is the "v" chord. I find thinking modes as variations on the basic major or minor scale most useful - i.e. the mixolydian is the major scale with a flattened 7th, dorian is the minor with a sharpened 5th. But in a session, it's far easier to know what the scales of chords are than to go "it's mixolydian, so it's a flat 7th, so the 5th chord is minor, the third diminished, the 7th a semitone lower and major........"
A chord scale is the chords that exist in a certain scale (ie a scale of chords) - in A maj that's -- A, Bm, C#m, D, E, F#m, G#dim. In Amix it's -- A, Bm, C#dim, D, Em, F#min, G etc etc.
The harmonic minor is the minor scale with a sharpened 7th -- in A that's -- A, B, C, D, E, F, G#. This is more appropriate than the natural minor in some cases (some Swedish tunes are very suited for this), and is useful for making subsitutions. The melodic minor is mainly used for making substitutions, and has a sharpened 6th and 7th. So, in A -- A, B, C, D, E, F#, G#. It's not that I'd use these all the time, or indeed very often, but it's good to know about them.
As all these scales are connected, the more a rhythm player knows the better they can interconnect these elements to produce an interesting rhythm part. Obviously, there isn't time to do this in a session, and nor is it appropriate. Nontheless, it's useful to know. Clearly, I should have explained myself better, this might be the "quater note" Vs "crotchet" thing, I might be using English notation which makes no sense to those across the pond. I hope I've cleared everything up.
Andy, Thanks for the long and thoughtful explaination. My comment was more a profession of my ignorance than any criticism of what you had stated about chord structures. Having learned what little music theory I know in bits and pieces on the fly, I appreciate folks that take the time to explain things on this board!
In the major mode the "I" chord is the Tonic, the "IV" chord is the Subdominant, and the "V" chord is the Dominant. Each of these serves a harmonic function related to the title, but the number relates to the tone in the scale that the chord is built on. In the Dorian and Mixolydian modes the Dominant chord is built on the 7th note of the scale instead of the 5th as it would me in the major mode. For this reason I like to think of the chords as they relate to their function rather than the note of the scale, which can be misleading. For example; in D mix, the Tonic is a D major chord, the Subdominant is a G major chord, but the Dominant is a C major chord built on the 7th scale tone instead of an A major chord built on the 5th.
> "I find thinking modes as variations on the basic major or minor scale most useful - i.e. the mixolydian is the major scale with a flattened 7th, dorian is the minor with a sharpened 5th."
Dorian scale is actually 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, 6, b7
i.e. no sharpened 5th there.
Dorian is minor with a sharped 6th, not 5th. (So the 6th is just as it would be in a major scale, rather than flatted as it would be in a minor scale).
Mixolydian and Dorian are great for guitar jams. Both of these modes have a great sort of mix of major-ness and minor,-ness and you can sort of drift between them. The only difference between them is the 3rd. When you play it flatted it's Dorian, when you play it a a regular major 3rd it's Mixolydian. And it's nice to throw in some flatted 5ths in there for some more grit.
Well spotted, that was a typo I should have spotted when I checked my post. It should have said "dorian is the minor with a sharpened 6th".......it was a long explaination :-$ Speaking of typos, I guess Phantom meant "instead of an A minor chord built on the 5th".
Thanks for pointing that out, I'd hate to be misinforming people!!
No, I meant A major. I have found that people who don't yet understand modes will mistakenly play an A major chord as a "V" (Dominant) chord instead of a C major chord to function as the Dominant. Because they don't understand the mixolydian mode they also fail to realize that a "V" chord would be minor. The same sort of error is typical with people who assume Dorian tunes are minor and they mistakenly use the I, IV, V progression as well.
Oh, oops. Ah well, I'll just quietly go back to my corner and stop confusing the innocent people....... But yes, that is a mistake frequently made, although it's equally possible to play the minor 5th chord as the dominant, particularly if it's a minor7th. Although it doesn't sound as dominant as the C, it's a reasonable substitute to my ear (which doesn't mean it actually is )
Dow, I realize one of your favorite things is to call people "pedantic," but it has no relation to my point in this thread. As I mentioned above; I prefer to think of the chords related to their function rather than the number related to the tone in the scale they fall on. If you don't understand the harmonic function I'm referring to, here's a link to your source related to the Dominant chord.
I fully understand the harmonic functions of everything you refer to in this thread, Phantom Button. I was merely pointing out that your post was inaccurate and misleading when you said "In the Dorian and Mixolydian modes the Dominant chord is built on the 7th note of the scale instead of the 5th as it would be in the major mode". In the dorian and mixolydian modes, the chord built on the 7th note of the scale is called the "subtonic", not the "dominant". If you want to call it the "dominant", that's okay, but readers would have to understand that that's your mistake.
There was nothing misleading; I meant exactly what I said. The chord that functions as the Dominant is actually built on the 7th tone in the mixolydian mode. The "V" chord would be built on the 5th tone, but it wouldn't function as a Dominant chord. This is the first hurdle to over come when encountering ITM as a back-up player. The same is true for the Dorian mode.
Again, it doesn't function as the dominant. It has a function which is similar to the dominant of the major mode in that it is of secondary importance to the tonic, but in the mix and dor modes, it has the specialised name of "subtonic". There's a special word for your bVII chord already in the English language. If you choose not to use it, that's your decision, but it's a shame that you choose to replace it with an erroneous term. It's like insisting that a tangerine is an orange. Well it sort of is. But given that there is a word in the English language "tangerine", you might as well use it.
That's your misperception of the situation. There's no winning or losing here. I'm telling you a simple fact, not stating an opinion, so there *is* no argument. Either you've made the same mistake as before and misread my post and assumed I was talking about the "subdominant", or you're being deliberately obtuse. Either way I've totally lost interest.
I only mentioned it in the first place because I know how Jack can't stand being wrong ::mischievous smile:: and I was enjoying the irony of my calling him pedantic, and then blatantly being pedantic myself.
I would ask what dominant and subtonic means in relation to chords, but maybe I better let sleeping dogs lie! I thought dominant had something to do with whips and chains............
Somehow I knew Dow wasn't really leaving. Anyway, to answer you query, Al, the I, IV, V (1,4,5) is the most basic chord progression in western music. It relates to the tone in the scale that the chords are built on. They also have harmonic functions that their titles refer to. The "I" chord is the Tonic or 'home', the "IV" chord is the Subdominant, which means it's the second most domiant chord, and the "V" chord is the Dominant or strongest chord in the sequence. AThe strength relates to the stress it creates in wanting to resolve back to the Tonic or 'home' chord. In the Mixolydian and Dorian modes the "V" chord doesn't feature the strongest stress to resolve back to the Tonic. The strongest chord in those modes is built on the 7th tone (Subtonic) but functions as the Dominant instead. I hope this explains it.
From a strictly technical standpoint, I'm with Mr Blanket / Dow / (Will??). From a playing standpoint, if anyone can hold this debate whilst playing a tune, I'll happily buy them a drink to shut them up. From a musical standpoint, if all accompaniment was the same and we agreed about everything it'd be very very boring. From a alcohol point of view, I'm a bit drunk, and I'm fairly certain I mis-spelled accompaniment........
When it comes to theory Dow is nearly always right
(I say nearly as we have to allow for typos etc)
Still though I understand what Phantom is saying,
In E Dorian tunes , the chord other than Em that features prominantly (and this is a generalisation) is D the subtonic,
but as it is a strong chord in this mode Phantom is saying it functions as the Dominant.
BegF wrote: "In E Dorian tunes , the chord other than Em that features prominantly (and this is a generalisation) is D the subtonic,
but as it is a strong chord in this mode Phantom is saying it functions as the Dominant."
Correct... if you were playing in a true E minor scale you would use the B major "V" chord as the Dominate. To use a D major chord would result in an altered chord sound and wouldn't function as the Dominant at all. The same holds true between Mixolydian and Major.
Right, let's get back to some good old-fashioned boring academic stuff ...
For reference, here are the equivalents between today's names of modes and the names given them in Ancient Greece :
Ionian (major) = old Lydian
Mixolydian = old Ionian or Hypophrygian
Dorian = old Phrygian
Aeolian (minor) = old Aeolian (no change)
Phrygian = old Dorian
Locrian = old Mixolydian
Lydian = old Syntolydian
Source: Helmholtz's "Sensations of Tone"
I think by "true minor", Jack means not the "natural minor" but the "harmonic minor" used in classical music, where the D would be sharp so that you get a B7-Em resolution which is so pleasing to the classical ear. It is in Jack's comments about harmony that the dirty little secret of his classical upbringing is most apparent. Mind you, I'll give him this: he certainly knows more theory than your average anglo concertina player (they mostly open their mouths to drool).
I've noticed that when I try to learn a new tune by sight, it takes a LOT longer to learn it than if I did it by ear. Something in the way the "data" is entered into the brain makes a difference. I had the same problem as I weaned myself from sheet music. Stuff I could play well with paper in front of me, even though I wasn't really reading it note for note, vanished into the ether when I so much as closed my eyes. I decided that I must have been using the paper as a crutch, so I put it away. It was painful for a while, but it passed. Memory is like a muscle, the more you use it, the easier it gets to use it. Try it, you'll like it. :^)
Thanks for the info on that dominant and tonic stuff, I now see how it works, but I never had words to explain why some chords work together better than others, I just knew that they did.
tune memorization
tune memorization
I play in an ITM session where many of the players use sheet music. This seems unorthodox to me and also just plain bad. It's ridiculous to me that people are paging through binders of music every time we switch tunes. These people have been playing these tunes for years this way. Especially the guitar players, who apparently can't be troublede to memorize a simple sequence of chords. Argh! Anyone else run into this sort of thing? Any suggestions to get people motivated to memorize? Or I am just overly obsessing about something silly and inconsequential?
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by crazy_fingerz
Re: tune memorization
Have to agree with you Tim (unless it's a "slow" or "learning" session. What annoys me most is when players use a chair as a music stand taking a place from another musician and creating gaps in the session - I always think the music works better with musicians fairly close together.
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by Bannerman
Re: tune memorization
Using a chair for music is ridiculous, I agree. But the "memorize it" people have to understand that not all of us can memorize things easily. I've always had a problem with it & it's not laziness -- if you knew me and my high energy level you'd know what I mean. I'm not totally reliant on the music, note for note, but I follow more of the pattern of the music than individual notes. So it might be semi-memorized, but if the music is taken away, I'm lost. I know it would be a lot more convenient for me & everyone else if I could memorize it, but I'm not willing to give up the enjoyment of the music to make everyone else happy! For me it would then be work instead of fun & what's the sense in that?
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by justwhistle
Re: tune memorization
Just whistle - are you initially learning the tune by ear or dots?? This makes a BIG difference. Tunes learned by ear stick in the memory much better. It's a skill that takes months/years to learn, but then, so does reading sheet music decently.
Tim - have you thought about starting up another session and inviting the ear-learners only? (With the intention of using that as bait to get everybody into ear learning?)
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by wormdiet
Re: tune memorization
Hmmm. I don't mean to be beating up on people who have trouble memorizing. Is this quite a common problem?
I don't have an easy time memorizing tunes. I had to spend a lot of time over a period of several months learning the 50 or 60 tunes they play at my session. And sometimes they still fall out of my head and need to be crammed back in. But I guess I see the memorization as just part of the reality of playing in a session. At least for myself, it's not optional.
Part of my annoyance is that I have to memorize like 100 notes per tune on my fiddle and then there are guitar players who can't bother to memorize where to play 3 damn chords
This is true of 3 or 4 guitar players who show up at the session.
I tend to think that it's laziness and lack of something forcing them to do it that causes people not to memorize, much more so than actual inability to memorize. But maybe I am wrong.
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by crazy_fingerz
Re: tune memorization
wormdiet -- starting a new session would be a pretty big step and not really something I have the time or inclination for right now. But it is a fine idea.
I was thinking that if somebody like Kevin Burke could stop in and just ridicule the heck out of people using sheet music, that might just take care of the situation. Anyhow, it would make me smile.
Geez, I don't mean to be such a downer. Really, I'm a nice guy (just ask me).
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by crazy_fingerz
Re: tune memorization
There's nothing wrong in using sheet music to learn tunes. But, once you learned the tunes, it would distract you, instead of helping you.
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by slainte
Re: tune memorization
In my opinion, music should be heard, not read, to be best understood and performed. Just like reading a book is more rewarding than listening to an actor on an 'audio book'.
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by copo24
Re: tune memorization
I figure you do what you have to do, in order to get the basic tune learned. For me, the dots are helpful--but I ditch them as soon as I can.
Here's an example of why using sheet music at sessions is bad: One time this guy forgot his music stand, there wasn't a spare chair, so he put his big binder of sheet music on the table behind him--and played the whole session with his back to the rest of us! Very strange.
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by mickray
Re: tune memorization
Serendipity. Today is William Maxwell's birthday, and Garrison Keillor featured him on today's Writer's Almanac (http://writersalmanac.publicradio.org/). According to Keillor, Maxwell once said, ""What we ... refer to confidently as memory ... is really a form of storytelling that goes on continually in the mind and often changes with the telling."
He was talking about personal memories, but I would say the same is true of "memorizing" tunes. They are stories we retell. Once you get in the hang of thinking aurally/musicially (instead of thinking of the names of notes or what the dots on the page mean or where your fingers go to make the sounds), it becomes much easier to *recall* the tunes, speaking them in their own language, if you see what I mean.
Too often, playing from sheet music seems to create a fog between the music and the player, a visual layer that interferes with listening to the pure sound. (That said, a good sight reader can use the dots to quickly "hear" the music, internalize it, and then retell the tune without the dots. A bit like using the words in a diary to refresh your recall of a story from your own life.)
Tim, challenge your sheet music slaves to a simple test. Ask them to play Happy Birthday or Mary Had a Little Lamb, from memory. If they're competent musicians at all, they'll be able to do it. Then remind them of all the pop songs they carry in their heads (I'm particularly fond of saying "Oh Mandy, you came and you gave without taking" just to prove how annoyingly persistent our memory for melody can be), mostly learned from listening to the radio or MTV--not from dots.
Yes, Irish trad tunes are notey and tend to run at a faster clip than your average Top 40 ballad of teen angst. But once you get familiar with the forms and idioms of this music, it's not rocket surgery. And "storytelling that goes on continually in the mind and often changes with the telling" is precisely what playing this music--especially in sessions--is all about. You can't do that well if you're tethered to the dots.
Disclaimer: I'm not Kevin Burke, so what I say won't carry any weight with your session mates. But the Irish trad world is full of average schmoes like me who'll never have the street cred of Kevin Burke, but who can still engagingly play hundreds or thousands of tunes from "memory" without visual crutches. That's the beauty of this music--you don't have to be a giant talent to participate. But you do have to learn to speak the language.
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by Will CPT
Re: tune memorization
Yes, learning tunes by ear is hard at first, but it can be done. I sometimes still rely on the dots at home but never in a session. I agree that tunes learned by ear stay in your mind better, it's a direct line to your fingers.
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by mehere
Re: tune memorization
I find that the tunes I have taken the effort to learn by ear are always there, in my mind. They are not "memorized," as I would have to do if I read something from sheet music and then worked on committing it to memory. They are simply there ; I "have" them.
Of course, this is not to say that the tunes I "have" are always at the forefront of my memory. I may have to hear the first few notes to have the entire tune come back to my fingers...or, if I see the "dots," all I will need will be the first measure or so. In essence, I can use the sheet music is as a mere "cheat sheet" that will cue up the entire tune in my head.
On the other hand, tunes that I've "memorized" in the traditional sense (i.e., learned from sheet music first, rather than learned aurally) will not come back to me in this magic way.
I don't know why. But it really is magical.
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by lcox
Re: tune memorization
couldn't agree more
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by mehere
Re: tune memorization
I can understand how having sheet music at a session could be interruptive, and memorizing tunes, notes and chords would definitely be preferential, for all instruments... but my question is…Where are these guitar players getting music with chords so conveniently laid out? Am I missing the "The Idiots Guide to Guitar Chords for Session Tunes"? If someone could let me in on the secret I promise, promise, promise, I will never bring the music to a session.
Not that I'm complaining about trying to figure out simple chord changes (I seriously am in awe of people who play melody instruments and can pick entire tunes up by ear), it would just be nice to have a cheat sheet now and then to know that one is playing something that is even close to how it should be played.
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by Cailin Rua
Re: tune memorization
If we played Christmas carols at sessions this issue would never come up -- everyone knows how they go. Merry Christmas!
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: tune memorization
cuthail, I don't know where the chorded versions of the tunes that folks in the session I attend come from. I know that the Fiddler's Fakebook has chords for all its tunes, and I have seen other tune books with chords. I think Ryan's and O'Neill's do not have them.
By the way, I just want to be clear that I have no problem with using sheet music to learn tunes. That's how I get the initial skeletal knowledge of most tunes I learn. But I think you have to move on, as soon as possible, from the sheet music and let the tune live and breath on its own via your memory and interpretation.
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by crazy_fingerz
Re: tune memorization
sounds fairly lame. and it strikes me that the energy that one uses to visually play a tune off of sheet music at a session is energy and concentration better used toward listening to others in the session and responding more creatively to the musical nuances.
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by Brendan
Re: tune memorization
There is nothing wrong with learning tunes from paper, as long as you know how to interpret and ornament them correctly and how to do appropriate variations. You'll get this by having listened to the music for 5-10-20 years easily!! But they will still be a lot harder to remember than the ones you just learn by ear.
I have honestly never been to a session where someone played from written music. Guess I haven't lived....
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by kris
Re: tune memorization
A few added observations ... it is not reasonable to expect a novice player to pick up a tune by ear in near real time at a session: so a good tape recorder would come in handy for those wishing to get away from the notes; the person should be encouraged to learn by ear [with the aid of a few notes if need be]. It is also fair to say that some tunes are what you'd call "tricky" and don't have particluarly easy sequences, especially when played at a good clip.
Most of my tunes are in my head, but I often need the notes to work out new tunes. I can also sight read on the fly, thanks to earlier training. Tunes almost always fall into place for me once re-listen to them a few times with the basic starting points laid out from the notes if needed.
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by mokelly
Re: tune memorization
Ah, a "Fakebook"! Sounds very much like my "Idiot's Guide" that I've been searching for. Thanks for the heads-up Tim. I am giddy !
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by Cailin Rua
Re: tune memorization
Justwhistle,
Memorizing tunes is hard for everybody, especially at first--it's especially hard if you've let your memorization skills atrophy for years--but it's something that we all need to do as musicians, just like playing in tune with proper rhythm. After your first 5 tunes (start with simple ones), memorization gets much easier, and music becomes much more fun for everyone.
Don't get me wrong. Sheet music serves a number of useful purposes. It's really good for teaching; Padraig O'Keefe used to give it to his students, after all. It makes bowings and fingerings much easier to teach, and it can be good for helping people break down a tune into manageable chunks for practicing.
But it's easy to get used to it to the point that you become dependent on it, and that can be a crippling limitation. If you need paper to play, then you can't change-up sets of tunes easily and you can't play variations. Furthermore, everybody around you has to put up with your added space requirements, and the extra time it takes you to flip pages... and what about when somebody else starts a "Gan Ainm"? I also agree with Brendan that when you play with sheet music, the attention you pay to the page is attention that would be better used listening/interacting with your fellow musicians.
I give notes to students in my classes, mainly because it makes everything easier for everybody. However, my rule is that nobody is allowed to read the paper in class when we all play together. Too many times, I've seen students loose the beat or the rhythm altogether, and not even notice because they were too slavishly focused on their slip of paper (this is, of course, one of the worst things a musician can do in a group). My memorization rule always gets a few whines at the beginning of the class term, but I've seen consitent enough improvement in the students to know that it's the right thing to do for everybody's sake.
All that said, sessions are about being social as much as they are about getting better at playing music. If the collective vibe at your session allows for sheet music, then who am I (or you?) to tell them to put it away? I don't think it's worth being a jerk over, but then again, I'm not sure I'd be excited about accomodating the page-turners while they struggle to flip through to the page that has the "Connaughtman's Rambles" on it...
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by Georgi
Re: tune memorization is not hing but
I'd suggest you change to another, more advanced session. Using sheets for same tunes for years tells that these folks have different goals. It's not a bad thing to learn from sheets but using them for years instead of days or weeks sounds what? ridicilous?
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by Risto
Re: tune memorization
This sheet music reading bunch is certainly outside the session norm, although every attempt at carrying on the tradition is, in my opinion, a good thing.
It is not that hard to let go of the music--you just have to have the courage to release your grip on it and trust in yourself.
Perhaps you can suggest that they set a goal of playing at least one tune a week without music, then string them into sets, and within a year or so, voila, you have enough material for the better part of an evening.
And I would suggest that you don't really LEARN the music until you play it without dots, or LEARN a song until you sing it without words in front of you. And the magic of that is, it remains there in your head, rattling around and available to be played, for YEARS after you learned it, especially if you reinforce it by playing regularly.
As everyone says above, giving up the sheet music allows you too get into the music much more, watch the people around you, connect with the collective vibe of it all (wow, I sound like I am back in the '60s, far out man)!
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: tune memorization
"I don't have an easy time memorizing tunes. I had to spend a lot of time over a period of several months learning the 50 or 60 tunes they play at my session."
I guess it does take some people significantly longer to memorize. I've been working on tunes, mostly by ear, for over 5 years and I really only KNOW 60 tunes. That's only about 1 a month. However, 1 a month is okay with me...
-Brett
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by bretton
Re: tune memorization
"In my opinion, music should be heard, not read, to be best understood and performed. Just like reading a book is more rewarding than listening to an actor on an 'audio book'."
Isn't that kind of backwards?
Not related to the above statement, but if you enjoy science fiction at all, you should try listening to "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" read by Douglas Adams, the author. It's a really good audio book...as good as reading the words on paper, if not a bit better.
-Brett
# Posted on August 16th 2006 by bretton
Re: tune memorization
The sheet music is just a tool for referencing and cataloguing your tunes away from any session. Playing at a session with sheet music would be like having a conversation with someone and reading your part from a script.
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: tune memorization
Apart from the first time the session group try a new set of tunes together, the dots are strictly for home use where the tunes are practiced until committed to memory. A musician needs to relate to the players around him/her rather than a music book. With a little bit of determination most players should be able to learn off at least one tune a week so that it doesn't take all that long to become an active participant in thesession.
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by Bannerman
Re: tune memorization
I've never seen anyone using sheet music at a session,only word sheets and that very rarely.If anyone brought sheet music to the sessions I go to they'd probably be laughed out of the pub.
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by dafydd
Re: tune memorization
What next, "Irish Music For Dummies"?
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by dafydd
Re: tune memorization
In the sessions I go to about the only time we ever see sheet music is if someone has just come across a new tune, hasn't had time to learn it, and so passes on the dots to someone in the session. Fair enough, I'd say.
And what is "knowing" a tune? We've been through this before, but I think there are several identifiable categories.
The top one is knowing a tune so well that you can confidently lead off with it on any occasion without thinking about it. If you have say 30-50 tunes in this category then you'll have no trouble in leading most of the time in an average session, or leading a ceili band for set dancers.
The second category is probably needing a small prompt to get you started - like a few notes scribbled in a notebook. Many ceili band leaders do this just to avoid accidents. I've sometimes seen that little notebook in sessions.
The third is being able to play along when someone else starts the tune. This is the largest category and has its own subdivisions, from being virtually note-perfect downwards to ... whatever.
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by lazyhound
Re: tune memorization
I don't think lazyhound's "top" category is really the top. What about being able to play it in a variety of keys, either intentionally for variety or of necessity if someone accidentally starts it in the "wrong" key? Or being able to come up with variations on the fly, or notice if someone you're playing with is playing a different version and adjust so you don't clash?
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by GaryAMartin
Re: tune memorization
One beginners' session in Baltimore used to use Dave Mallinson' s books of sheet music as their standard. If a tune was in one of the books, it was fair game
These books, which show chords, are now published by Mel Bay. The titles are:
100 Essential Irish Session Tunes
100 Enduring Irish Session Tunes
100 Evergreen Session Tunes
100 Irish Polkas
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by art
Re: tune memorization
One of my session pals does the reading while playing. He's a very handy banjo player, and it just seems a shame that quite often someone starts a new tune in the session he's frantically leafing through pages of dots trying to find the tune which he *obviously* recognises anyway, sometimes only finding it half way through the tunes allotted run! (usually played 3x over.)
I've suggested he photocopies the commoner ones and sellotapes them together in the usual sets our session(s) play, but he hasn't quite got round to doing that. I have to say though, he seems to be using the dots far less these days, so maybe it is possible to "grow out of" the habit.
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by Alf Tupper
Re: tune memorization
Have any rhythm players responded to this thread?
There's a world of difference between playing the melody and playing chords.
Sure, anyone can sing Happy Birthday. That's easy. We humans are probably hard-wired to remember melodies.
Try naming or singing the chords that go with Happy Birthday. I can't do it. Can any of you?
I'm learning penny whistle. My goal with that instrument is to play without looking at sheet music. I'm making good progress in that direction.
But I find playing rhythm guitar a totally different experience. I can sometimes remember simple chord progressions, but have never been able to remember the more beautiful and complicated chord progressions. They strike me as incredibly abstract. I've never found a way to relate the chords to the melody so I could remember them.
Sure, some rhythm guitarists play simplified progressions. A couple hours of playing D, G, A would bore me to death. For me, there's no beauty or fun in that.
Laziness? I don't accept that. I can remember melodies and I work at memorizing them.
But chords? Whew. Those who can remember the complex progressions must have talents I don't have.
Now, if there is a method that might work for me, I'd love to hear about it!
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by art
Re: tune memorization
if rhythm players have to play from paper then I'd suggest that they aren't really understanding the movement within the tunes.
i don't try to play tunes in sessions that i don't know backwards - well, almost! So it could be fair not to expect accompanists not to play rhythm if they don't know the progression of the music. Really clever guitarists and bouzouki players I've seen seem to, within a few seconds, be capable of grasping how a tune will develop, even if they aren't that familiar with the melody.
There's a *session* here where lots of folks, including some leading it have folders full of music - I can't understand it really, especially as they play the same tunes and songs in the same combinations and ways as they have for some years.
I've found that my ear is only now just starting to sharpen up - to be able to pick up tunes (not the embellishments - just the basics) a lot more quickly than before, without the dots or abcs. It can take some time. Once I've learnt a tune, I never go back to the dots.
Nathan
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by Brown Creeper
Re: tune memorization
Music stands in a session are just a nuisance and an impediment, though if the session stopped to give, say, a singer and guitarist a "spot" with stands it would be different. They get in the way, fall over with files etc. crashing to the floor, and I assume they isolate each player in a world where he/she doesn't see or listen to the other players, but follows an unvarying line of written notes and rhythms.
Written music in itself, on the other hand, is quite invaluable for learning tunes at home. So of course is recorded music. If you can't quite get the gist of a recorded reel, for instance, you can with luck find it manageably laid out in a tune book. Meanwhile, hearing live or recorded music will give you some idea of the way, or ways, a written tune can come to life in the playing. (And good written tutors exist to teach ITM playing techniques which can't be learned by listening to recordings, unless these are specifically tutor recordings.) Eventually, you may get to the interesting point when you can imagine the sound, on maybe a variety of instruments, of a written tune you've never heard of before, and decide whether it's an also-ran or something quite exciting. Likewise, you'll find it easier as you go on to hear a live tune and break it down instinctively into its written components, to learn if wished at leisure, or pass on.
A session is not the place to practise tunes . It's not an easy place to learn tunes, unless you've gone for some time and some start to lodge in the grey matter; if tunes get played that you've heard on albums, they may well sound very different played live a couple of yards away from you, maybe on different instruments. So it's as well to come to sessions with a number of tunes learned by heart at home, and some requisite technique to hand, and be primarily occupied with what the other players are doing, joining in or leading when it seems a good idea, but
basically watching and listening a lot.
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by nicholas
Re: tune memorization
I visited a session recently where they only played one tune then stopped - then played another - no sets, none of the organic progression from tune to tune that can happen so naturally at some sessions. The reason - they all had to find the chart for the next song. I think I planted a seed by asking to do two tunes back to back - WITHOUT stopping. Of course this entailed bookmarks and quick page turns etc.
My "home" session tolerates limited music - especially when someone or several of us, are learning a new tune. But most of the music is played without.
The real thing about memorizing, IMHO, is to be in that musical place where you are "inside the tune" just playing and everyone else is, and the music just flows out of everyone and mixes together unencumbered, on and on, freely. It can be a terrific feeling and that's why I play music, and why I play Trad.
(and why I memorize)
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by flutedoog
Re: tune memorization
This sums up what I think about reading tunes, from Kevin Burke's website:
"Jessie Christopherson was giving me Violin lessons and at the same time I was learning about the Fiddle at home from my parents' record collection and from family friends. Most of the musicians I was hearing at home played 'by ear' and Jessie was teaching me to read so, to combine the two skills, we thought it would be a good idea to bring Jessie a few Irish tune books and let her take me through them. She was quite happy to do so and before long I had learned several fiddle tunes at my violin lessons. But there was a problem - they sounded strange! And not just because I was a beginner! So we brought Jessie up to the house and played her some recordings of Irish music and asked her why they sounded so different from what I was playing. She explained that what was written in the books was very different from what we were hearing. This was a revelation! I realized that "don't believe everything you read" does not only apply to newspapers! So, how do you make written notes spring to life and become sounds that could justifiably be called music? This became 'the Quest.'"
But sometimes, if you live in place that doesn't have players that are steeped in the traditional idiom, you have to settle for playing with sheet music. Which is better than not playing at all I suppose.
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by stoner420
Re: tune memorization
art, Regarding chord patterns: Mr Mallinson's books (mentioned above) are a good starting point, but certainly not the end all and be all. Some of the chord patterns shown in his books are to my taste, others are not. Just as some of the settings of tunes are the way you hear them in local sessions around here, some are slightly different. You can use the books to learn, but don't be afraid to try different things and move beyond the same progression every time.
There are a lot of basic chord patterns for the major, minor and modal tunes that are fairly predictable. I don't know how I got there, but after a few years of accompanying sessions, I got to the point where I could find at least an adequate chord progression for most tunes just by hearing them once through(although Ed Reavy's tunes are often difficult for me). And the same with American folk tunes, I just accompanied a local chorus in a concert of folk music, and for most songs the chords just came to me, I could just feel where they were going.
Start with simple progressions as a basis, and then learn to add in passing chords, minor substitutions, and all those other odd chord voicings.
Visit coyotebanjo's web site, and buy his book, for a very good guide to advanced accompaniment.
Listen listen listen and practice practice practice.
And most of all, enjoy the music!
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: tune memorization
I’m not a back-up player, but it seems to me that it requires a large helping of intuition along with a clear understanding of the modes and being familiar with the rhythmic styles. Following sheet music for the chords removes any intuition and puts a false bottom on your understanding of the modes. Learning by example, i.e. listening to capable players and practicing at home what they are doing, is the best approach, and after that you’re free to come up with your own interpretation. But the most important aspect is having access to your intuition so you can flow with the music when you go to a session.
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: tune memorization
Following up on the chord patterns thing; unless you're the only guitarist in a session I believe that all the passing chords, inversions and subsitutions are kinda a bit rude to anyone else playing. Because two people aren't automatically going to hear a tune and think in the same way about the same bit. That and the fact that, unless you know a tune inside out, playing non-scale notes is risking a serious clash. Which sitting down with a pencil and paper will avoid (or experimenting in your own time).
And if you pre-arrange the tunes (ie work out chords beforehand), to me that takes half the fun out of it. If you prefer pre-arranged tunes a band is perhaps a more ideal situation.
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by Andy V
That and, CHORD SCALES!!!!! For all scales, modes, natural, melodic and (jazz) harmonic minor. Most tunes are quite I-IV-V -y, but whether it's I-IV-V, I-IV-v, i-iv-V, i-iv-v, i-IV-v, etc etc. Obviously, that's not to say those are the progressions you'd play, just the basic idea of what the subs, inversions and passing chords should be based around.
Can anyone name all the scales above???
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by Andy V
Re: tune memorization
"Most tunes are quite I-IV-V -y, but whether it's I-IV-V, I-IV-v, i-iv-V, i-iv-v, i-IV-v, etc etc."
This leaves the tunes that are either in the dorian or mixolydian modes. I'd say it would amount to at least half of the tunes or more. One of the first hurdles back-up players new to the scene encounter are these modes.
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: tune memorization
I don't know what chord scales are, or melodic and harmonic minor scales are, nor do I know why Andy capitolized some of his chord numbers. But if Andy left out the scales associated with dorian and mixolidian modes, as PB has suggested, he left out a large and very distinctive part of the Irish repetiore.
# Posted on August 17th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: tune memorization
Wow, thanks! Many of those replies about rhythm guitar were very helpful.
At the sessions I've attended we don't usually talk much, so there's little "education" occurring, beyond what one picks up by listening and watching.
It sounds like there's a different way to think about playing in a session that might be more exciting and in an odd way easier (after some learning on my part).
I've ordered coyotebanjo's book in hopes that that will give me some of the tools I need.
# Posted on August 18th 2006 by art
Re: tune memorization
I didn't miss out the modes. For reference -- capilalisation represents major chord, lower case is minor. So the Root, fourth, fifth progression in the mixolydian mode is I, IV, v. Obviously, in reality, if it was in Amix, you'd play a G maj quite alot. And it's relative minor is E minor. Which is the "v" chord. I find thinking modes as variations on the basic major or minor scale most useful - i.e. the mixolydian is the major scale with a flattened 7th, dorian is the minor with a sharpened 5th. But in a session, it's far easier to know what the scales of chords are than to go "it's mixolydian, so it's a flat 7th, so the 5th chord is minor, the third diminished, the 7th a semitone lower and major........"
A chord scale is the chords that exist in a certain scale (ie a scale of chords) - in A maj that's -- A, Bm, C#m, D, E, F#m, G#dim. In Amix it's -- A, Bm, C#dim, D, Em, F#min, G etc etc.
The harmonic minor is the minor scale with a sharpened 7th -- in A that's -- A, B, C, D, E, F, G#. This is more appropriate than the natural minor in some cases (some Swedish tunes are very suited for this), and is useful for making subsitutions. The melodic minor is mainly used for making substitutions, and has a sharpened 6th and 7th. So, in A -- A, B, C, D, E, F#, G#. It's not that I'd use these all the time, or indeed very often, but it's good to know about them.
As all these scales are connected, the more a rhythm player knows the better they can interconnect these elements to produce an interesting rhythm part. Obviously, there isn't time to do this in a session, and nor is it appropriate. Nontheless, it's useful to know. Clearly, I should have explained myself better, this might be the "quater note" Vs "crotchet" thing, I might be using English notation which makes no sense to those across the pond. I hope I've cleared everything up.
# Posted on August 18th 2006 by Andy V
Re: tune memorization
Andy, Thanks for the long and thoughtful explaination. My comment was more a profession of my ignorance than any criticism of what you had stated about chord structures. Having learned what little music theory I know in bits and pieces on the fly, I appreciate folks that take the time to explain things on this board!
# Posted on August 18th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: tune memorization
In the major mode the "I" chord is the Tonic, the "IV" chord is the Subdominant, and the "V" chord is the Dominant. Each of these serves a harmonic function related to the title, but the number relates to the tone in the scale that the chord is built on. In the Dorian and Mixolydian modes the Dominant chord is built on the 7th note of the scale instead of the 5th as it would me in the major mode. For this reason I like to think of the chords as they relate to their function rather than the note of the scale, which can be misleading. For example; in D mix, the Tonic is a D major chord, the Subdominant is a G major chord, but the Dominant is a C major chord built on the 7th scale tone instead of an A major chord built on the 5th.
# Posted on August 18th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: tune memorization
> "I find thinking modes as variations on the basic major or minor scale most useful - i.e. the mixolydian is the major scale with a flattened 7th, dorian is the minor with a sharpened 5th."
Dorian scale is actually 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, 6, b7
i.e. no sharpened 5th there.
# Posted on August 19th 2006 by Risto
Re: tune memorization
Dorian is minor with a sharped 6th, not 5th. (So the 6th is just as it would be in a major scale, rather than flatted as it would be in a minor scale).
Mixolydian and Dorian are great for guitar jams. Both of these modes have a great sort of mix of major-ness and minor,-ness and you can sort of drift between them. The only difference between them is the 3rd. When you play it flatted it's Dorian, when you play it a a regular major 3rd it's Mixolydian. And it's nice to throw in some flatted 5ths in there for some more grit.
Yes I am a theory nerd
# Posted on August 19th 2006 by crazy_fingerz
Re: tune memorization
Well spotted, that was a typo I should have spotted when I checked my post. It should have said "dorian is the minor with a sharpened 6th".......it was a long explaination :-$ Speaking of typos, I guess Phantom meant "instead of an A minor chord built on the 5th".
Thanks for pointing that out, I'd hate to be misinforming people!!
# Posted on August 20th 2006 by Andy V
Re: tune memorization
No, I meant A major. I have found that people who don't yet understand modes will mistakenly play an A major chord as a "V" (Dominant) chord instead of a C major chord to function as the Dominant. Because they don't understand the mixolydian mode they also fail to realize that a "V" chord would be minor. The same sort of error is typical with people who assume Dorian tunes are minor and they mistakenly use the I, IV, V progression as well.
# Posted on August 20th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: tune memorization
Oh, oops. Ah well, I'll just quietly go back to my corner and stop confusing the innocent people.......
But yes, that is a mistake frequently made, although it's equally possible to play the minor 5th chord as the dominant, particularly if it's a minor7th. Although it doesn't sound as dominant as the C, it's a reasonable substitute to my ear (which doesn't mean it actually is 
)
# Posted on August 21st 2006 by Andy V
Re: tune memorization
Phantom Button, the flat 7th is not a dominant, it's a subtonic. If you're gonna be pedantic you might as well get it right
# Posted on August 21st 2006 by Dow
Re: tune memorization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtonic
# Posted on August 21st 2006 by Dow
Re: tune memorization
Dow, I realize one of your favorite things is to call people "pedantic," but it has no relation to my point in this thread. As I mentioned above; I prefer to think of the chords related to their function rather than the number related to the tone in the scale they fall on. If you don't understand the harmonic function I'm referring to, here's a link to your source related to the Dominant chord.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_%28music%29
# Posted on August 21st 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: tune memorization
I fully understand the harmonic functions of everything you refer to in this thread, Phantom Button. I was merely pointing out that your post was inaccurate and misleading when you said "In the Dorian and Mixolydian modes the Dominant chord is built on the 7th note of the scale instead of the 5th as it would be in the major mode". In the dorian and mixolydian modes, the chord built on the 7th note of the scale is called the "subtonic", not the "dominant". If you want to call it the "dominant", that's okay, but readers would have to understand that that's your mistake.
# Posted on August 21st 2006 by Dow
Re: tune memorization
There was nothing misleading; I meant exactly what I said. The chord that functions as the Dominant is actually built on the 7th tone in the mixolydian mode. The "V" chord would be built on the 5th tone, but it wouldn't function as a Dominant chord. This is the first hurdle to over come when encountering ITM as a back-up player. The same is true for the Dorian mode.
# Posted on August 21st 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: tune memorization
Again, it doesn't function as the dominant. It has a function which is similar to the dominant of the major mode in that it is of secondary importance to the tonic, but in the mix and dor modes, it has the specialised name of "subtonic". There's a special word for your bVII chord already in the English language. If you choose not to use it, that's your decision, but it's a shame that you choose to replace it with an erroneous term. It's like insisting that a tangerine is an orange. Well it sort of is. But given that there is a word in the English language "tangerine", you might as well use it.
# Posted on August 21st 2006 by Dow
Re: tune memorization
Ha, no wonder I was getting deja vu. We've had this stupid conversation before: http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/9226. Ok I'm outta here - I loathe the discussions.
# Posted on August 21st 2006 by Dow
Re: tune memorization
You loath not winning your argument.
# Posted on August 21st 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: tune memorization
That's your misperception of the situation. There's no winning or losing here. I'm telling you a simple fact, not stating an opinion, so there *is* no argument. Either you've made the same mistake as before and misread my post and assumed I was talking about the "subdominant", or you're being deliberately obtuse. Either way I've totally lost interest.
# Posted on August 21st 2006 by Dow
Re: tune memorization
Awe come on guys ... I havn't a friggin clue waht your on about, but it's bleedin entertainin'.
# Posted on August 21st 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: tune memorization
I only mentioned it in the first place because I know how Jack can't stand being wrong ::mischievous smile:: and I was enjoying the irony of my calling him pedantic, and then blatantly being pedantic myself.
# Posted on August 21st 2006 by Dow
Re: tune memorization
I would ask what dominant and subtonic means in relation to chords, but maybe I better let sleeping dogs lie! I thought dominant had something to do with whips and chains............
# Posted on August 21st 2006 by AlBrown
Re: tune memorization
Somehow I knew Dow wasn't really leaving. Anyway, to answer you query, Al, the I, IV, V (1,4,5) is the most basic chord progression in western music. It relates to the tone in the scale that the chords are built on. They also have harmonic functions that their titles refer to. The "I" chord is the Tonic or 'home', the "IV" chord is the Subdominant, which means it's the second most domiant chord, and the "V" chord is the Dominant or strongest chord in the sequence. AThe strength relates to the stress it creates in wanting to resolve back to the Tonic or 'home' chord. In the Mixolydian and Dorian modes the "V" chord doesn't feature the strongest stress to resolve back to the Tonic. The strongest chord in those modes is built on the 7th tone (Subtonic) but functions as the Dominant instead. I hope this explains it.
# Posted on August 21st 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: tune memorization
From a strictly technical standpoint, I'm with Mr Blanket / Dow / (Will??). From a playing standpoint, if anyone can hold this debate whilst playing a tune, I'll happily buy them a drink to shut them up. From a musical standpoint, if all accompaniment was the same and we agreed about everything it'd be very very boring. From a alcohol point of view, I'm a bit drunk, and I'm fairly certain I mis-spelled accompaniment........
# Posted on August 21st 2006 by Andy V
Re: tune memorization
When it comes to theory Dow is nearly always right
(I say nearly as we have to allow for typos etc)
Still though I understand what Phantom is saying,
In E Dorian tunes , the chord other than Em that features prominantly (and this is a generalisation) is D the subtonic,
but as it is a strong chord in this mode Phantom is saying it functions as the Dominant.
# Posted on August 21st 2006 by BegF
Re: tune memorization
BegF wrote: "In E Dorian tunes , the chord other than Em that features prominantly (and this is a generalisation) is D the subtonic,
but as it is a strong chord in this mode Phantom is saying it functions as the Dominant."
Correct... if you were playing in a true E minor scale you would use the B major "V" chord as the Dominate. To use a D major chord would result in an altered chord sound and wouldn't function as the Dominant at all. The same holds true between Mixolydian and Major.
# Posted on August 22nd 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: tune memorization
Right, let's get back to some good old-fashioned boring academic stuff ...
For reference, here are the equivalents between today's names of modes and the names given them in Ancient Greece :
Ionian (major) = old Lydian
Mixolydian = old Ionian or Hypophrygian
Dorian = old Phrygian
Aeolian (minor) = old Aeolian (no change)
Phrygian = old Dorian
Locrian = old Mixolydian
Lydian = old Syntolydian
Source: Helmholtz's "Sensations of Tone"
# Posted on August 22nd 2006 by lazyhound
Re: tune memorization
Is that a typo Phantom ?
if you were playing in a true E minor scale you would use B minor (not major) as the dominate
# Posted on August 22nd 2006 by BegF
Re: tune memorization
Thanks BegF. The cheque's in the post.
I think by "true minor", Jack means not the "natural minor" but the "harmonic minor" used in classical music, where the D would be sharp so that you get a B7-Em resolution which is so pleasing to the classical ear. It is in Jack's comments about harmony that the dirty little secret of his classical upbringing is most apparent. Mind you, I'll give him this: he certainly knows more theory than your average anglo concertina player (they mostly open their mouths to drool).
# Posted on August 22nd 2006 by Dow
Re: tune memorization
That's right - minor. It would be major if it was harmonic minor.
# Posted on August 22nd 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: tune memorization
Oh... after posting that Dow's comments appeared. Yes... I have classical drool.
# Posted on August 22nd 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: tune memorization
I've noticed that when I try to learn a new tune by sight, it takes a LOT longer to learn it than if I did it by ear. Something in the way the "data" is entered into the brain makes a difference. I had the same problem as I weaned myself from sheet music. Stuff I could play well with paper in front of me, even though I wasn't really reading it note for note, vanished into the ether when I so much as closed my eyes. I decided that I must have been using the paper as a crutch, so I put it away. It was painful for a while, but it passed. Memory is like a muscle, the more you use it, the easier it gets to use it. Try it, you'll like it. :^)
# Posted on August 22nd 2006 by ismisepol
Re: tune memorization
Thanks for the info on that dominant and tonic stuff, I now see how it works, but I never had words to explain why some chords work together better than others, I just knew that they did.
# Posted on August 22nd 2006 by AlBrown