I've been learning to play violin/fiddle for a couple years and have worked on ITM for almost a year. I can play several tunes fairly well, but none so well that I can play them to speed _confidently_.
Instead of beating on the same several tunes over and over again, is there any merit whatever to working on, say, 6 or 7 at a time, all in different states of competency? I don't really sight-read, so I really am learning the songs but it seems like a very very slow process and working on a handful gives a little variety. For those who have been in this situation, how many tunes have you worked on simultaneously like this?
Take a strong fiddle album like Star Above the Garter and learn it tune for tune. On day 1, learn the first tune and play it a bunch. On day 2, play the first and then learn the second. Once you can play your way from top to bottom, your repertoire and technique will both have expanded significantly, given both the amounts of playing and amounts of listening that you've done. You'll be able to pick out common phrases and bowing patterns; in general, it's just easier to wrap your fingers around the music.
As a beginner fluter if I had spent the last 9 months on the Star of County Down I don't think I'd be anywhere near capable of playing that or any other Irish tune well.
I really believe each new tune helps learn the last. You never stop learning any of them. You are always adding to what you know.
Maybe I'm just stupid--but I don't think I could learn a tune a day for 31 days in a row. Certainly couldn't do them any real justice, at that rate. And I have been playing a lot longer than 2 years.
I think most of us work on several tunes at a time, trying to get them as fast as we can. If you are like me, it will never be fast enough.
Working on the same tunes can be good if you're working on technique, like ornaments and bowing. But it can get boring to play the same tunes over and over, so learning some new tunes to go with the old ones can help.
One new tune a week is plenty, one a day would be hard to do unless you're so good that you can get a tune down pat with ornaments in one day (I sure can't). Also, learning 6 or 7 tunes at the same time seems excessive. Two or three is plenty.
I agree with sbhikes - and others have said this on the mustard board. And also I agree with mickray; you might be able to
learn a tune on Monday but it's just in your short-term memory.
Have a few on the go at the same time and give them all at least a few days. Shuffle new ones in and "learned ones" out.
You could probably pick up 5-15 a month that way and they
would stick in your head permanently.
You must build up a bunch of what they call "licks" in jazz - common patterns that you have to embed in your muscle memory. You have to go through 100's of tunes and memorize
them enough to struggle through slowly. Move along quickly to new stuff - don't try to get them perfect. Occasionally drag old tunes out of the closet and you'll see that, without practicing, these old tunes get easier.
Get ready to struggle with this for years, or maybe forever.
If you listen to really good players in your local
session or even somebody like Kevin Burke - you can hear how even their playing matures over time.
I'd say the exception to all this would be a really talented
kid - like Dan the Man I'm guessing
"Move along quickly to new stuff - don't try to get them perfect"
I can't agree with this---if you don't bother to get the tune right before you move on to the new one, then you end up having a lot of sloppy tunes---and what's the point in being a sloppy player?
It is a real struggle to resist the urge to learn tunes, though. I tend to zero in on a few that I'm determined to play in public, and don't put them away until I can lead a session with them. Sometimes they'll be tunes I'll have worked on for months---sometimes it feels like eating the same thing for lunch every day, but it's worth it when you can play something and you know it sounds solid and other people will enjoy playing along with it.
But yes, I usually have 6 or 7 going at the same time! It's easier to do if you practice a lot---more time for the new ones as well as the old ones.
Well, no matter which way I plan to do it, I never stick with it. If I tell myself I am only going to work on three tunes for a couple of weeks -- for all the reasons one would do THAT -- I find I'm just too bored and I can't make myself do it. If I tell myself, "I think I'll just enjoy myself and learn a couple of new tunes I want to learn over the next few days," then I find myself in the middle of learning a new tune -- suddenly realizing that I need to be working on tunes I already know so I can get my speed up without losing any technique. One problem I have is that having learned virtually ALL tunes by ear, and having lived where there is a lot of ITM and been listening for years and years, I have heard tunes played with so many variations. I tend to NOT play a tune exactly the same way every time, and that can be a big mistake when you are learning. When I was going to sessions I'd find that I'd start playing something and I would get "stuck between" the various versions I had practiced, therefore, coming to an unfortunate halt -- like I can't figure out which way to play it.
I suggest analyzing a tune and learning it absolutely well from start to finish, exactly ONE way, for the beginning. That way, when you go to a session you know the tune for sure and don't win up stopping in the middle.
Get a bunch of tunes. Then go back and put a few very obvious variations that you like in each one, and practice playing them using those few variations.
Then, a few months later, while you are slowly adding new tunes at a steady pace, go back and re-analyze the first bunch of tunes you learned. Tape yourself playing. Listen carefully to see what you like and don't like, what you think sounds up to par or under par.
Off and on, practice with a metronome to 'ground' yourself for the rhythm, or play along with a CD for the same reason. By the same token, if you ever want to start tunes at a session, you'll probably have to be able to establish some kind of a rhythm and stick to it reasonably well, yourself.
This is what was hardest for me. I found I would learn one part of a tune better than another part. I could play one part better than I could play another part. This winds up being no good -- it's fine when you're alone, but you will frustrate the hell out of your co-sessioners.
So you have to strike a mid-point between strong discipline and total debauchery!
"Move along quickly to new stuff - don't try to get them perfect"
I think this is one of the most fundamentally basic bits of sound advice you could possibly hope for. Where would we be if we didn't move on prior to perfection? I'm currently working on several thousand tunes and not one has ever reached perfection.
"I suggest analyzing a tune and learning it absolutely well from start to finish, exactly ONE way, for the beginning. That way, when you go to a session you know the tune for sure and don't win up stopping in the middle."
This flies in the face of everything the music is about. If you are ever going to really "get it", you must embrace the fluidity of it right from the start.
Certainly you will be trying out new tunes before you've reached perfection, but you can't really say you know a tune until you can play it clean. When practicing, play until you make a mistake and then start over, stick with it until you can play the whole thing three times without mistakes, at whatever speed you need to use. Then play through it WAY faster than you can manage, at least twice. Learn it with your brain and your slow twitch muscles and then let them teach your fast twitchers.
I believe you need to thoroughly know a tune one way before you can add other ways, and after you know it three or four ways, you're ready to play it in the more fluid manner.
LOL - seeking perfection in this music is sorta like seeking complete honesty in politics. It took me years to understand the fluidity of this genre; in fact I still have to remind myself of it from time to time.
But back to the original question, I think it's great to work on a few different tunes at once. Some will come quickly, other will fight you for a while until your grey matter embraces the melody. I think the progress comes faster when you challenge yourself in this way.
Also - this is communal music. The journey is much more enjoyable if you can find a few other beginners to play and learn tunes with. A bit like weight watchers I should think - you might lose a few pounds on your own, but just imagine the results when you team up with other like-minded souls.
Learn tunes that you like , they are much easier.
Get a slowdowner and play along at a slow pace with the CD. There are some great CD's out there with a tune on each track for beginners, Comhaltas, Craobh Naithai,Frank Custy, etc. Find a partner to play along with.
While you don't have to be perfect to move to the next tune, be sure to keep going back over the old ones to get even better.
Its better to have a few tunes pretty o.k than a load of not so good ones.
Have fun,
If I only moved on once I had a tune "perfect", the sum total of my repertoire would consist of the polka that I learned at my first lesson. Assuming that I hadn't by now tossed my fiddle out the window out of boredom, frustration, or both. When I've got a tune quick and steady and lively, I won't retire it - I'll start working on variations (some of which clash with what we play at the session, so I won't play those versions there).
A tune a week works for me, and I tend to spend about half an hour a week on the new tune, and the remainder of my practice time on the rest of my repertoire. I am quick at picking up tunes, and could probably handle one a day, but I don't feel that that would be the best use of my time. There's bowing and tone and intonation and ornamentation and rhythm to be honed.
What I *don't* devote time to explicitly is bringing tunes up to speed. It took him a year of my teacher telling me over and over again to play slowly - no, slower than that - no, MORE slowly - ok, TD&M, play it AS SLOWLY AS YOU CAN - before I was able to take the message to heart. Speed, I've found, takes care of itself. I check in every week or so to see how quickly I can play a tune comfortably, but I don't aim for speed. Without explicitly trying, I can now play all of my polkas, most of my jigs, and over half of my reels quickly and competently enough to keep up at every session I've been to. (Still struggling mightily with playing triplets crisply and at speed, though; I have a pile of reels that I can zip through cleanly, but not without omitting or smudging the triplets.)
I think it's a good idea to learn to play a tune one way all the way through so that you can play at the session. Nobody is going to care that you didn't add any variations at the session.
While you are playing it your way at the session, listen to the variations that others add. Because you know your tune so well, it'll be so much easier to hear the variations that others do. Then go home and see if you can do the variations you heard yourself.
Many people will say that if you don't learn variation from the start all hope is lost and you'll never understand this music. That's fine if you have someone who can show you the variations from the get go. It's also fine if you already know how to play your instrument. But if you are completely new to your instrument, you're not only trying to learn the music but you're also trying to learn how to play the instrument.
In other words, I think you have to give yourself a break and remember you are learning how to play the instrument. That you can't riff away on some melody is nothing to feel bad about. Eventually you'll be able to do it.
Oh, and I try to learn 2 or 3 new tunes at a time while going back to other tunes I already know. I'm not a great musician, so perhaps I'm all wrong, but I'm making progress, enjoying myself, and the people at the session have never asked me to leave.
A tune a week is a good rate. I started off in a weekly tune learning session (that I now lead much of the time). There may be weeks where I didn't get the tune because of being overwhelmed when I was first starting, but looking at my repertoire, I still average about 1 tune a week.
I do it more in spurts now. A week in MT with Will CPT brought 9 tunes into the fold, and the occasional week goes by where I don't get around to officially learning a tune. But that's offset by the fact that I pick up tunes in sessions a lot more. When that happens, I make a note of it, and can use a recording or the dots to officially work it through in about 5-10 minutes, just to make sure I have all the bits that I might have glossed over while picking it up on the fly.
And before you jump on me for being a "noodler" or something, I generally only pick up tunes that I've heard a bunch of times in session, and I often pick it up because I don't realize that I don't actually play the tune. Afterwards, asking someone what the tune was always brings a surprise - "oh, I've never actually learned that one!".
For myself, it was best to keep learning new tunes which caught my ear, simultaneously developing new fingering and bowing skills, and precludingboredom. That said, a lot of repetition burns the neural pathways, so I revisit them regularly to perfect nuance, and, since they're rather like old friends, we often surprise each other with heretofore hidden subtleties.
If you've only been playing violin for a couple of years and you feel you can play several tunes fairly well but just not up to tempo with confidence, I'd say you're doing better than most people that weren't started playing in childhood. Whatever your previous regimen has been probably doesn't need much tweaking.
It is common for "formal" musical training to have a student working on several different areas at once: scales, technical studies, ear training, sight reading, improvisation and general repertoire building. (A lot of these are arguably not applicable to this genre). Working on several things at once is entirely normal.
My advice is to keep adding tunes to your daily mix until you find the point where your progress declines then back off. Save a small percentage of those for finer polishing but phase those out periodically too so you don't over work any one thing. For morale purposes, I like to maintain at least a couple of pieces "under my fingers" that I feel I can perform really well.
What is your aim? quantity or quality? To achieve both will take time and focus. You want to play the fiddle? or ITM? If you want to do both it will take time.
For example, Frankie Gavin started on the tin whistle. After 6 years he started the fiddle. 7yrs later he won 2 all Ireland's for fiddle and flute.
Practice what you like, what works for you. The only draw back if you try too many at once you may not get them all.
Personally I doubt the wisdom of trying to learn tunes on the fiddle at all to start with. I suggest learning your tunes on the whistle, while concentrating your fiddle efforts on technical practice like ... wait for it .... scales arepeggio, patterns , bowing . etc, plus slow airs, song melodies and such like. However if you think your up for it........work away.
I have to agree with monkey there, a couple of nice easy tunes you can play well, to return to when things start to get a bit much for you can do the world of good for your moral. I like the Steneole polska, a Swedish tune, and The left side jig. both in Gm , a great key for the fiddle. Also the old copperplate and castle Kelly in Am, both at a nice slow easy pace, with plenty of lilt.
>>"What is your aim? quantity or quality?" Quality, but, playing two tunes over and over and over again gets boring. Perhaps here, my problem is that there are some technical things that are blocking me, but I'm still trying to tune the process.
I've recently discovered the Mulvihill _Beginning_Irish_Fiddle_ CD and a few of the first songs are dead simple, and learning those have helped me feel like I'm not completely in a rut.
Jig, your suggestion to learn tunes on the whistle first is actually really interesting -- a whistle is that much simpler to learn? I realize there is a tremendous amount of technical points to master with a fiddle which probably helps to get in the way.
Absolutely. A lot easier. Not easier to master of course , but as a fiddler that is not your aim. The idea is to learn the tunes in your head really. the whistle is just a mechanical aid.
There are two aspects; learning tunes, and getting better at the tunes you know.
Learning tunes can be done as fast as you can manage.....
getting better at them now... thats the tricky part
Honestly, the technical aspects of the fiddle will be what holds you back. trying to master technique while also trying to practice AND learn tunes...........need I say more.
I suggest you concentrate on your bowing, and intonation, Get some lessons if you can, it will make it a lot easier.
There are no short cuts. Be patient.
Master small easy steps, If you want to play tunes play them on the lower3strings, its all a bit more forgiving.
The problem with playing the same2tunes over and over, is that you could just be ingraining bad habits.
The problem with starting off playing tunes is that they are actually difficult, even polka's, to play well.
With the whistle you also train your ear. You achieve one of your goals;to play tunes. You can focus your fiddling on technical issues. You can attain a feeling of satisfaction at playing these tunes.
Kids round here learn the tin whistle first. Starting as young as 4.
There may well be vociferous opposition from some folk here to my suggestions. Its up to you to decide. Good luck
"There are two aspects; learning tunes, and getting better at the tunes you know."
Absolutely not. At the very basic and most profound level, what you refer to as " learning tunes" and "getting better at the tunes you know" are exactly the same thing.
It goes like this:
As you learn a tune, you get better at playing it and consequently get to know it better. And the more you get to know a tune, the more you learn it and learn about what it can be.
You cant get better at something until you know how to do it.
First you learn the mechanics, then you can refine those mechanics.
Any how, I take very little you say seriously Llig, I doubt even you believe half the stuff you say, especially when it flies in the face of common sense. Such as your comment above, which, superficially makes some sense until examined carefully.
Until you know how to do something, be it play a tune or dance a polka, you cant step to the next level and polish, or get better at it.
Someone might come up with some esoteric nonsense like' you never 'know' a tune. ' buts that's all it is. we may never understand the full depths of a tune fair enough but to suggest that Frankie or Jackie dont 'know' the tune is merely an attempt at maintaining a power trip. you 'have it' and others dont....
What's the difference between learning and refining? Where do you draw the line? Playing music is not like driving where you are a learner until you pass a test then suddenly you are a refiner. "First you learn the mechanics, then you can refine those mechanics." Toss.
Common sense is often wrong. There are a myriad of examples.
You can doubt if I believe what I say if you like. It matters not. For what it's worth, I never doubt that you believe what you say. That matters not also, when you believe toss.
And you'll come back at me in your unimaginative inimitable way and say that what I believe is toss, et-cetera et-cetera, and round and round we go.
However. what's important is that a hell of a lot of beautifully creative people have clubbed together over the years and come up with one of the most fabulous bits of esoteric nonsense that was ever invented. This music.
Big difference. until you learn to do something, say drive a car, a mechanical skill, you cant get better at it. Now, once you can do it, you can either get better at it, study advanced driving, evasive driving etc or just maintain your skill, or start getting lazy, forgetting etc. but untill you can drive a car, it doesnt matter how many books you read you wont get better at it.8-?)
Just like playing music, or any other physical skill. you learn how to perform the manouver, say playing the notes of a tune, once you can do that, you can get better at it, play it smoother, with ornaments, rhythmic variations, dynamic variation etc etc. all the things that make a beginner playing the tune and an expert playing the same tune, sound so totally different.
Is there something here that is not clear, and correct?
I did'nt mention a license, you did.so I sometimes wonder if you pay any attention to what I write rather reading what you want to hear.
As any one can read , there are no contradictions. Once again you appear to believe that by stating something that makes it so.
At no point do we give out licenses to say someone is not a learner. I personally remain a learner, even after30yrs I dont know it all, neither do I profess to. However simple facts are clear. As per my original statement.; ''You cant get better at something until you know how to do it.''
<<And you ignore the line of the argument:>> you have one?
You asked a number of questions. I answered them.
You say learning a tune is not a mechanical skill... What precisely is it then?
How can you define the dividing line between "first learning the mechanics, then refining those mechanics"?
And another straight forward question (though I have to phrase it rhetorically, because you won't answer it): When you learn something, are you not getting better at it?
The defining line is when you can 'play' the tune, until you can play the tune you cant get better at playing the tune, you are learning it.. That is simple enough for even you to understand yes?
>>When you learn something, are you not getting better at it>>
With learning a skill you are basically using your short term memory, and , i gather, specific parts of the brain.
Playing the tune uses other parts of the brain to access the tune from long term memory.
However if you are talking about using sheet music as a memory aid then you could be playing the tune even though you dont know it. you havent learnt it.
You must be getting very frustrated, Michael. You seem to me to be stating the bleeding obvious, and in a clear and concise way (wish I could write like that).
sure I can . thats difficult? not at all, Frankie, and Jackie can play their tunes. its not rocket science. Once again llig you haven't got a clue. simply resort to swearing. pathetic.
Ben, nobody? so you think you can get better at driving before you can drive? duh. you can get better at a tune before you can play it?
Just my 2 cents worth since I briefly read through the thread. Somewhere up there it seems Michael was saying keep it fluid. I get the most out of a session when this happens. A session does not strive for perfection. The quality of the music & the players can be brilliant. But perfection? Those articulations ~ things like slides are just plain good fun.
Oh keep up your practice, keep looking for the sound you want. & in a learning (i. e. 'slow') session it is O.K. to focus on the details. But when the session becomes about the craic, leave the lessons behind & play that fiddle!
So, today I’m finally able to “play the tune.” Yesterday, was I completely unable to play it at all, in any recognizeable form, or was I, in fact, able to play it, but just not as well as I can today? I’m confused.
Its quite simple, if you can play the tune from start to finish, then yes you can play the tune... circular logic. Perhaps not very wel, but yeah you can play it.
Its pretty damn obvious if you can drive a car or not, get in and try. same with a tune, you can, or you cant.
Once you can play the tune then you have the opportunity to get better at it by practising the tune, the techniques required to play the instrument, ornaments etc.many years of this focus can lead to a masterful performance of said tune. still the same tune.
What does "play" mean? Play how accurately? Fluff a note or two? Play it in time? How fast? How slow? How in tune? Play it perfectly once, but then loose it for the next few times?
etc etc etc
Man A: "I got in the car the other day and put it into first and eased up the clutch and I didn't stall it. Off I moved. I can drive."
Man B: "Did you stop the car when you wanted?"
Man A: "Yeah, braked and put the clutch down just before stopping. Turned the engine off, hand brake on. I can drive. Start to finish."
Man B: "Did you go round any corners?"
Man A: " What's a feckin corner?"
Man B: "Stop swearing. Nobody is going to pay attention if you keep swearing."
Man A: "Sorry"
Man B: "Well, you have learned to drive on an abandoned airfield with a two mile runway. Roads have bends in them."
Man A: "Hey, I can deal with bends. You turn the steering wheel and round you go. And when you come back to the straight, you just let go of the wheel and it rights its self."
Man B: "Ooooh no no no no no. When you come out of a corner you must feed the steering wheel back in your hands. Never ever ever let it feed back by its self or you won't pass your driving test.
Play slowly and cleanly through the form, start to finish, from memory, sure you may make mistakes, who doesn't? even Jackie and Frankie fluff up occasionally.
Once the tune is lodged in your long term memory, then you know it. Then you can spend the rest of your life getting better at it.
Knowing how to do something,is the first stage. after 25 yrs of playing the blarney pilgrim, I can safely say I know the tune, and I can play it pretty well, on a number of instruments. But I am still working on that specific tune. Incorporating new possibilities every time I play it. It only took a few hours to learn the tune,I am still getting better at it.
Michael you have got me interested.
I can play 'Blarney Pilgrim' whem it just pops up & I don't know any better. But most of the time ~ no. It just wants something I cannot seem to get a hold of.
So how's it work? How do you 'learn' tunes?
From people, from recording, from DNA, from recordings, from teachers' or do you just go to the session?
It sounds like a riddle.
Back before I abused my keyboard.
I was wondering about now; as a seasoned session player ~ 'How do you like playing The Blarney Pilgrim'?
Or anything you learned once upon a time.
I play 'The Music Of The Masters' every day, without fail, jigs reels, hornpipes mostly.
Of course I am flexible though i cant do the box splits like i used too
I am rough enough I assure you
I think the art is to remember the enthusiasm we had as beginners for a tune , and recreate that, or an approximation of it, when we play it again . I have no time or patience for negative thinking or attitudes.
I do that partly by learning the tunes on a number of instruments. Anyone says the blarney pilgrim is easy has forgotten what it was like as a beginner. try playing it on an instrument you have never touched before....I am not keen on is a routine, perfunctory, going through the motions. if a tune is worth playing, its worth playing well. that means with spirit and technique.
So many 'beginner' tunes are looked upon with scorn by people who feel that they are 'beneath' them. Well if it was good enough for Padraig O'Keefe, its good enough for me.
It was Michael's patience with you which peaked my interest. The "Music of the Master's" was an oblique reference to classical music as it would be played by highly trained academics. But you were close. I merely wanted to know from lliG if he had a mentor or if playing trad came to him in another way.
Cheers!
Boys & girls this thread has taken so many twists I cannot even comprehend the subject. Much less the answer.
VoxRob I only hope you can find something among the knots.
It's so obvious Ilig is right on this one. Even when you're playing
something that's supposed to be carved in stone (not really), like a Bach
Partita, it's still an evolutionary process. Even more in the folk
traditions.
Of course the process is a fluid one but it is simple. until you have learnt the form, 'the tune' you are learning the tune. Once you know the tune , a process that may take hours or weeks, whatever. You then can spend time playing it. untill you know it you cant play it, can you? you spend time getting better at it.
These two basic processes , relevant to learning any form, not just tunes. use different parts of the brain. they are distinct physiological processes.
I suggest you study the subject rather than simply take a 'side' or hold an opinion.
Where is this alternative hypotheses? None has been put forward by the opposing camp.
Mphuppert , A bach partita is not carved in stone. the general flow is written down, the tune. you learn the tune, then you spend the rest of your life getting better at it. unless once again we are talking about sight reading. a different process again altogether.
Bach can and is played differently by every performer. It is not 'carved in stone ' It is a fluid process. but until the form is learnt you are learning the form.
Put it like this ; A river valley is formed by the action of rain. upon the structure of the land. Until the balance point is reached and the water starts to flow in specific channels there are many options or routes. once the channel/s are created the l action of the flowing water enlarges the channels. over countless years these channels grow deeper and meet up with other channels . Not being a geologist my description is poor but the general idea is clear.
learning the tune is the start, then the process of enlargement can take place
.And ben, do you really think I care less if 'everyone' agrees or not? Have you any idea of how the brain learns? how many years have you spent studying the subject of learning and teaching? If the best you can come up with is a school yard doggerel then I think that answers my questions.
River courses are a beautiful example of the fluidity of the ever-changing. You think the earth started out flat, then it rained and the rivers we now have were formed.
I've just been reading up on a subject I haven't thought about for a while, though I studied it a bit once a long time ago: cognitive science. The basic principle behind the modern theory of how we learn is that everything new we learn is built on pre-existing knowledge and experience.
Hmmm ... no sudden jump from 'learning to do it', then 'learning to do it better', then.
Funny, the principles seem to fit with common sense as well.
Like the way we learn language - actually, EXACTLY like the way we learn language. We start to communicate even before we're born, and then it's a gradual, and changing process all through our lives, as the words we use, the extent of our vocabulary and even our accents change over time.
>>Hmmm ... no sudden jump from 'learning to do it', then 'learning to do it better', then.>.hmm thats rather a leap there?. you state nothing new, just the obvious.....
Exactly my point, re; such a scales etc, small sections which we build upon.
No one apart from you mentioned a sudden jump.
I simply stated that untill a forms basic structure is learnt; the tune, you are not practising, or playing that form. parts of it fair enough.
Once the form is learnt, there are numerous subtle depths to be developed. but the first stage is memorisation.
Once you can play the tune from memory, you can then build on the basic form.
its possible to learn a form in a given length of time. . you know the tune as such. there is no argument here is there? or does Llig suggest that no one ever 'knows' the tune? maybe in some esoteric philosophy this is true, but we are concerned with exoteric practicalities. the mechanics of performing a technical skill. Until this structure is stabilized the esoteric depths are hidden.
Without structure, you have no form. Without form you have no tune.
I have not read the last 2 posts. I hope they prove me wrong!
For better or worse I will offer a comment.
From the early part of the discussion I feel there is useful information for any 'Relative beginner' on fiddle. At some point there is a shift away from this healthy & robust conversation. Each side has good intentions. Yet it boils down to who is right & who is wrong (on the facts) &/or who is right & who is wrong (in terms of opinion). My only reasonable conclusion is that egos cannot be set aside. Despite the insistence on everyone's part that he/she is being a good sport; it is the other who lacks humility; there is a strategy of degrading the opposite party. At present I cannot forsee any reconciliation ~ I do feel the rise in temperature as each individual adds kindling on top the pyre.
Pay close attention young musicians. There is much here for you to learn about music ~ & even more about people.
That is what we are here for right? It is people who make music.[well up untill recently]
There is a serious discussion re the mind, its learning processes. that links to the learning of tunes. If certain individuals wish to bring this discussion to a level of childish slagging i feel that is a sham, but i wont stand by . I will engage at their level. this is part of the modelling process, then attempt to bring the discussion around to a level of calm intelligent debate.
Remember this subject is one of universal disagreement, cognitive science falls short when dealing with basic facets of humanity. I am not a scientist. but i have plenty of empirical experiance to support my contentions.
You maintain a position, fair enough, but you give no supporting statements or justification. You state your position as though it automatically is true. you have no argument only repeatedly saying 'i am right your view is nonsense'.
Thats the sum total of your argument? '' I am right , you are wrong''.? |Reminds me of De Bono's book of the same title. In fact it could describe your complete philosophy could it not?
By the way i wish you could refrain from attempting to encapsulate my position in little one liners. you are generally so far of the mark as to be laughable.
I avoid belief systems . i prefer to keep an open mind. untill you or anyone actually comes up with a valid argument backed up by explanation i will consider the hypotheses presented to me by highly reputable and intelligent minds to be my working models.
So how would you describe the learning process then ?
>.I believe in the power of calculus to explain the world better than mere arithmetic.<< surely thats not it? oh dear.
Yes, I believe in the power of calculus to explain the world better than mere arithmetic. And you can take that either as being straight forward or an analogy. But this line of thought is beyond you. I'll keep it with reference specifically to the topic:
The learning process is fluid. It is not a linear collection of small steps.
so you reckon that learning processes are not fixed and are likely to change, often repeatedly and unexpectedly:
In what way? what precisely do you mean by learning process? or is it all so fluid that language can not encapsulate it?that there is no structure or form to it?
bBesides even with fluids there is always a tipping point, transformation point, when the infinite possibilities manifest in reality. like Schrödinger's cat , when the box opens it is alive or dead. there is, always a point where life ceases or begins. however wide that point may be. It is , then it isnt.
you dont know the tune... then you do.
"i prefer to keep an open mind. untill you or anyone actually comes up with a valid argument backed up by explanation i will consider the hypotheses presented to me by highly reputable and intelligent minds to be my working models."
The above quote would be all well and good if we were discussing science, but this is MUSIC. It's an ART. There's nothing in any art that has to be supported by "valid argument" or "hypotheses". Surely, this is SO elementary that even jig should be able to fathom it.
If a guy like Van Gogh paints one of the world's most highly regarded paintings, he doesn't need to have "valid argument" to make it a great painting. But of course, if jig was the teacher, there'd never be any great paintings. All artists would be forced to do 'painting by numbers', because that's the 'jig method'.
Poetry, music, painting, dance, drama, all the arts, produce high quality inspiring work by way of individuality and originality.
Of course, we often get boring tedious formulaic mediocre stuff in all these fields, and as often as not, it's because someone is trying to follow the stultifying 'rules' that someone like jig has insisted are essential, and don't know any better.
jig says that he didn't say that there was a sudden junp between 'learning a tune' and 'learning to play a tune better'. But he did. He said that they were two different learning processes that involved two different parts of the brain. He then implied that Michael had no point to make because he (Michael) had not studied the subject, implying that he (jig) *had* studied the subject.
Which leads us directly on to the next contradiction. jig says it's to do with the diffferent parts of the brain involved in these different learning processes that occur either side of "the tippping point" and then says later that he has no time for science, preferring instead to rely on 'the old masters' and his 30 years (25? 50? it tends to vary depending on how worked up he is) experience and the fact that he 'knows what he is talking about'. So, is he relying on common sense then? Well ..
Here's the next contradiction:
When I point out that the science in fact says the same thing that would be evident by reference to common sense, and the same thing that Michael has been saying repeatedly - clearly and WAY too patiently - jig says that, well, that's 'obvious' isn't it? And then flatly goes and contradicts it again! ... and his 'you've got to learn the tune first then you get better at it ... etc (As if, and we haven't pointed this out yet, 'cos it's hard amongst all the drivel, it was about learning one tune. Anyone who has really played this music for *any* length of time should know that it's not about learning one tune. One gets more and deeper insight into *the music* from the moment one first hears it throughout one's life - provided one has an open mind and open ears.)
Yes of course, but wouldn't you agree the cerebellum is more concerned with (sic) automatising (as alluded to) motor functions and in particular those which require positional information, as oppposed to the actual task of learning eg new tunes or even techniques such as rolls, cuts etc. I saw no mention of Heschl's Gyrus per se or the superior temporal gyrus (although temporal lobe was mentioned) or the hippocampus in any of your links. But thanks for your efforts nonetheless.
Nestled up against the amygdala, looking more like a paw than the seahorse for which it was named, the hippocampus lays down new memories, establishes personal history, and creates spatial awareness. The hippocampus is connected to almost every part of the neocortex, the thin outer layer of the brain where self-awareness, language, and abstract thought take form. An event does not become a long-term memory until it's bounced back and forth between hippocampus and cortex for two or three years. Much of the activity takes place during sleep and in dreams. After that, the frontal and temporal cortices can recall information without the aid of external stimuli.
Non-personal memories such as the capital of Vermont, the multiplication tables, or the location of the spare car key also begin in the hippocampus and end in the cortex. How quickly we can retrieve the information is dependent on how often we need to remember it and its emotional value. This is why cramming all night for a final can net a decent score on a test although the hastily acquired knowledge is forgotten soon afterwards. It is also why immersion into a culture is the quickest way to learn a second language. By involving all the senses—sight, sound, taste, smell, touch, and movement—vast networks of related information can be constructed in a short time. The process of becoming an expert requires a similar immersion.
Gosh! These last few posts have been interesting. Great to have them set out clearly without aggression ..
Anyway, going back to learner's learned post above, has anybody (learner perhaps?) got any research which *directly* relates to learning music, or learning how to play an instrument? I still reckon the process of learning new ITM tunes would be slightly different still - and this is what I would be *really* interested in - but if there was some stuff on the process of learning music generally, it would be a start ...
Meanwhile, going back to the original post, I reckon it's too stultifying to just try to learn one tune at a time. When I'm in tune learning mode (particularly on whistle, which I can't play very well), I tend to have between half a dozen and a dozen tunes on the go. I typically get frustrated that I can't play any of them for quite some time, and then, when I've almost got bored with not being able to play them, I suddenly find that I *can* play one of the ones I started on some months before.
>>Gosh! These last few posts have been interesting. Great to have them set out clearly without aggression ..
Yep. It IS possible, ben, even on here to have an acrimony-free discussion, and on a controversial topic, such as the sites in the brain involved in music learning, that as yet no-one, even the best neuroscientists, know the complete answer.
Let's all learn from THIS.
There is some research on the psychology of learning music, but not as much as you'd think. I can't find anything thus far on learning folk music, but haven't yet exhausted all databases available to me (and I'm limited at the moment to what the university has online access to). Here is a summary of one semi-relevant article I found. We will see what further searches turn up.
Palmer and van de Sande (1993) addressed "the specific problem of the units of knowledge that contribute to the cognitive organization of music performance. What musical structures and units are retrieved from memory, organized, and executed in skilled performance?" They explain that Western music is structured in such a way that pitches, chords, and keys are distinct units of knowledge. Pitches are primary units and chords and keys are secondary units, as they are derived from individual pitches played together and the patterns of intervals among the pitches.
The study analyzed musical errors (basically the participants played tunes on a piano linked to a computer, which recorded wrong notes) and found similarities between musical performance and other skilled tasks like typing and speech. In language production, errors are related in sound or meaning to whatever the person meant to say. This study found errors in music were harmonically or locationally relate to the "correct" note. They suggest then that performers use the categories of notes, chords, and keys constrain the information available to the performance.
Units of knowledge in music performance. Palmer, Caroline; Van de Sande, Carla; Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol 19(2), Mar 1993. pp. 457-470.
learner,
>....Instead of beating on the same several tunes over and over again, is there any merit whatever to working on, say, 6 or 7 at a time, all in different states of competency?
...was part of the original question. May I respectfully point out that the learning process in question seems to me not so much to do with subcortical motor control feedback loops but the conscious acquisition of actual tunes, THEN their concomitant execution by the aforementioned feedback loops. Although the medial temporal lobe cropped up in your quotes. Would you know which cortical layer(s) of the MTL is involved in this memory formation process and what receptors are present? Layer IV for example? Are these cells eg, cholecystokininergic?
Also, I nearly forgot till just now, you know of course (or should, going by the links you provided) that LTP (long term potentiation: making STMs into LTMs) is mediated by the hippocampus mostly at region CA1. So there ye go. We're back to the hippocampus. Also hippocampal LTP depends on NMDA and mGluR1 and 2 receptors, depending on location in the hippocampus.
Please tell me it is only with Irish music that a conversation can take this kind of turn. More power to you Maniac.
My mind was totally amazed when I juxtaposed your last comment with the one before that. Yet my brain was nonplussed.
I'm going in tomorrow to have my annual hippocamal relocation ~ AHR?
Of course that would look better if it spelled out ARRRGHH!
Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
I've been learning to play violin/fiddle for a couple years and have worked on ITM for almost a year. I can play several tunes fairly well, but none so well that I can play them to speed _confidently_.
Instead of beating on the same several tunes over and over again, is there any merit whatever to working on, say, 6 or 7 at a time, all in different states of competency? I don't really sight-read, so I really am learning the songs but it seems like a very very slow process and working on a handful gives a little variety. For those who have been in this situation, how many tunes have you worked on simultaneously like this?
Thanks
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by VoxRob
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Take a strong fiddle album like Star Above the Garter and learn it tune for tune. On day 1, learn the first tune and play it a bunch. On day 2, play the first and then learn the second. Once you can play your way from top to bottom, your repertoire and technique will both have expanded significantly, given both the amounts of playing and amounts of listening that you've done. You'll be able to pick out common phrases and bowing patterns; in general, it's just easier to wrap your fingers around the music.
--DtM
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by Dan the Man
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
As a beginner fluter if I had spent the last 9 months on the Star of County Down I don't think I'd be anywhere near capable of playing that or any other Irish tune well.
I really believe each new tune helps learn the last. You never stop learning any of them. You are always adding to what you know.
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by sbhikes
Re: learning every tune on Star Above the Garter
Maybe I'm just stupid--but I don't think I could learn a tune a day for 31 days in a row. Certainly couldn't do them any real justice, at that rate. And I have been playing a lot longer than 2 years.
I think most of us work on several tunes at a time, trying to get them as fast as we can. If you are like me, it will never be fast enough.
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by mickray
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Working on the same tunes can be good if you're working on technique, like ornaments and bowing. But it can get boring to play the same tunes over and over, so learning some new tunes to go with the old ones can help.
One new tune a week is plenty, one a day would be hard to do unless you're so good that you can get a tune down pat with ornaments in one day (I sure can't). Also, learning 6 or 7 tunes at the same time seems excessive. Two or three is plenty.
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by Marklar
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
I agree with sbhikes - and others have said this on the mustard board. And also I agree with mickray; you might be able to
learn a tune on Monday but it's just in your short-term memory.
Have a few on the go at the same time and give them all at least a few days. Shuffle new ones in and "learned ones" out.
You could probably pick up 5-15 a month that way and they
would stick in your head permanently.
You must build up a bunch of what they call "licks" in jazz - common patterns that you have to embed in your muscle memory. You have to go through 100's of tunes and memorize
them enough to struggle through slowly. Move along quickly to new stuff - don't try to get them perfect. Occasionally drag old tunes out of the closet and you'll see that, without practicing, these old tunes get easier.
Get ready to struggle with this for years, or maybe forever.
If you listen to really good players in your local
session or even somebody like Kevin Burke - you can hear how even their playing matures over time.
I'd say the exception to all this would be a really talented
kid - like Dan the Man I'm guessing
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by Hup
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Oh, right.
Bear in mind it took me a year to be able to do that "top to bottom" bit, and I cheated past the slow airs : P
--DtM
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by Dan the Man
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
"Move along quickly to new stuff - don't try to get them perfect"
I can't agree with this---if you don't bother to get the tune right before you move on to the new one, then you end up having a lot of sloppy tunes---and what's the point in being a sloppy player?
It is a real struggle to resist the urge to learn tunes, though. I tend to zero in on a few that I'm determined to play in public, and don't put them away until I can lead a session with them. Sometimes they'll be tunes I'll have worked on for months---sometimes it feels like eating the same thing for lunch every day, but it's worth it when you can play something and you know it sounds solid and other people will enjoy playing along with it.
But yes, I usually have 6 or 7 going at the same time! It's easier to do if you practice a lot---more time for the new ones as well as the old ones.
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by kennedy
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Well, no matter which way I plan to do it, I never stick with it. If I tell myself I am only going to work on three tunes for a couple of weeks -- for all the reasons one would do THAT -- I find I'm just too bored and I can't make myself do it. If I tell myself, "I think I'll just enjoy myself and learn a couple of new tunes I want to learn over the next few days," then I find myself in the middle of learning a new tune -- suddenly realizing that I need to be working on tunes I already know so I can get my speed up without losing any technique. One problem I have is that having learned virtually ALL tunes by ear, and having lived where there is a lot of ITM and been listening for years and years, I have heard tunes played with so many variations. I tend to NOT play a tune exactly the same way every time, and that can be a big mistake when you are learning. When I was going to sessions I'd find that I'd start playing something and I would get "stuck between" the various versions I had practiced, therefore, coming to an unfortunate halt -- like I can't figure out which way to play it.
I suggest analyzing a tune and learning it absolutely well from start to finish, exactly ONE way, for the beginning. That way, when you go to a session you know the tune for sure and don't win up stopping in the middle.
Get a bunch of tunes. Then go back and put a few very obvious variations that you like in each one, and practice playing them using those few variations.
Then, a few months later, while you are slowly adding new tunes at a steady pace, go back and re-analyze the first bunch of tunes you learned. Tape yourself playing. Listen carefully to see what you like and don't like, what you think sounds up to par or under par.
Off and on, practice with a metronome to 'ground' yourself for the rhythm, or play along with a CD for the same reason. By the same token, if you ever want to start tunes at a session, you'll probably have to be able to establish some kind of a rhythm and stick to it reasonably well, yourself.
This is what was hardest for me. I found I would learn one part of a tune better than another part. I could play one part better than I could play another part. This winds up being no good -- it's fine when you're alone, but you will frustrate the hell out of your co-sessioners.
So you have to strike a mid-point between strong discipline and total debauchery!
Linda
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by Fid42
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
"Move along quickly to new stuff - don't try to get them perfect"
I think this is one of the most fundamentally basic bits of sound advice you could possibly hope for. Where would we be if we didn't move on prior to perfection? I'm currently working on several thousand tunes and not one has ever reached perfection.
"I suggest analyzing a tune and learning it absolutely well from start to finish, exactly ONE way, for the beginning. That way, when you go to a session you know the tune for sure and don't win up stopping in the middle."
This flies in the face of everything the music is about. If you are ever going to really "get it", you must embrace the fluidity of it right from the start.
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Certainly you will be trying out new tunes before you've reached perfection, but you can't really say you know a tune until you can play it clean. When practicing, play until you make a mistake and then start over, stick with it until you can play the whole thing three times without mistakes, at whatever speed you need to use. Then play through it WAY faster than you can manage, at least twice. Learn it with your brain and your slow twitch muscles and then let them teach your fast twitchers.
I believe you need to thoroughly know a tune one way before you can add other ways, and after you know it three or four ways, you're ready to play it in the more fluid manner.
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by justjim
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Perfection is one of those subjective terms. No one is ever going to be perfect! So the question is how close do you want to come?
It's like saying how long does it take to be good. What's good? And even for one person, the definition can keep changing.
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by kennedy
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
LOL - seeking perfection in this music is sorta like seeking complete honesty in politics. It took me years to understand the fluidity of this genre; in fact I still have to remind myself of it from time to time.
But back to the original question, I think it's great to work on a few different tunes at once. Some will come quickly, other will fight you for a while until your grey matter embraces the melody. I think the progress comes faster when you challenge yourself in this way.
Also - this is communal music. The journey is much more enjoyable if you can find a few other beginners to play and learn tunes with. A bit like weight watchers I should think - you might lose a few pounds on your own, but just imagine the results when you team up with other like-minded souls.
Good Luck!
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Learn tunes that you like , they are much easier.
Get a slowdowner and play along at a slow pace with the CD. There are some great CD's out there with a tune on each track for beginners, Comhaltas, Craobh Naithai,Frank Custy, etc. Find a partner to play along with.
While you don't have to be perfect to move to the next tune, be sure to keep going back over the old ones to get even better.
Its better to have a few tunes pretty o.k than a load of not so good ones.
Have fun,
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by murcu
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
If I only moved on once I had a tune "perfect", the sum total of my repertoire would consist of the polka that I learned at my first lesson. Assuming that I hadn't by now tossed my fiddle out the window out of boredom, frustration, or both. When I've got a tune quick and steady and lively, I won't retire it - I'll start working on variations (some of which clash with what we play at the session, so I won't play those versions there).
A tune a week works for me, and I tend to spend about half an hour a week on the new tune, and the remainder of my practice time on the rest of my repertoire. I am quick at picking up tunes, and could probably handle one a day, but I don't feel that that would be the best use of my time. There's bowing and tone and intonation and ornamentation and rhythm to be honed.
What I *don't* devote time to explicitly is bringing tunes up to speed. It took him a year of my teacher telling me over and over again to play slowly - no, slower than that - no, MORE slowly - ok, TD&M, play it AS SLOWLY AS YOU CAN - before I was able to take the message to heart. Speed, I've found, takes care of itself. I check in every week or so to see how quickly I can play a tune comfortably, but I don't aim for speed. Without explicitly trying, I can now play all of my polkas, most of my jigs, and over half of my reels quickly and competently enough to keep up at every session I've been to. (Still struggling mightily with playing triplets crisply and at speed, though; I have a pile of reels that I can zip through cleanly, but not without omitting or smudging the triplets.)
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by Tall, Dark, and Mysterious
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
I think it's a good idea to learn to play a tune one way all the way through so that you can play at the session. Nobody is going to care that you didn't add any variations at the session.
While you are playing it your way at the session, listen to the variations that others add. Because you know your tune so well, it'll be so much easier to hear the variations that others do. Then go home and see if you can do the variations you heard yourself.
Many people will say that if you don't learn variation from the start all hope is lost and you'll never understand this music. That's fine if you have someone who can show you the variations from the get go. It's also fine if you already know how to play your instrument. But if you are completely new to your instrument, you're not only trying to learn the music but you're also trying to learn how to play the instrument.
In other words, I think you have to give yourself a break and remember you are learning how to play the instrument. That you can't riff away on some melody is nothing to feel bad about. Eventually you'll be able to do it.
Oh, and I try to learn 2 or 3 new tunes at a time while going back to other tunes I already know. I'm not a great musician, so perhaps I'm all wrong, but I'm making progress, enjoying myself, and the people at the session have never asked me to leave.
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by sbhikes
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
A tune a week is a good rate. I started off in a weekly tune learning session (that I now lead much of the time). There may be weeks where I didn't get the tune because of being overwhelmed when I was first starting, but looking at my repertoire, I still average about 1 tune a week.
I do it more in spurts now. A week in MT with Will CPT brought 9 tunes into the fold, and the occasional week goes by where I don't get around to officially learning a tune. But that's offset by the fact that I pick up tunes in sessions a lot more. When that happens, I make a note of it, and can use a recording or the dots to officially work it through in about 5-10 minutes, just to make sure I have all the bits that I might have glossed over while picking it up on the fly.
And before you jump on me for being a "noodler" or something, I generally only pick up tunes that I've heard a bunch of times in session, and I often pick it up because I don't realize that I don't actually play the tune. Afterwards, asking someone what the tune was always brings a surprise - "oh, I've never actually learned that one!".
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by Reverend
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
For myself, it was best to keep learning new tunes which caught my ear, simultaneously developing new fingering and bowing skills, and precludingboredom. That said, a lot of repetition burns the neural pathways, so I revisit them regularly to perfect nuance, and, since they're rather like old friends, we often surprise each other with heretofore hidden subtleties.
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by drone
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
If you've only been playing violin for a couple of years and you feel you can play several tunes fairly well but just not up to tempo with confidence, I'd say you're doing better than most people that weren't started playing in childhood. Whatever your previous regimen has been probably doesn't need much tweaking.
It is common for "formal" musical training to have a student working on several different areas at once: scales, technical studies, ear training, sight reading, improvisation and general repertoire building. (A lot of these are arguably not applicable to this genre). Working on several things at once is entirely normal.
My advice is to keep adding tunes to your daily mix until you find the point where your progress declines then back off. Save a small percentage of those for finer polishing but phase those out periodically too so you don't over work any one thing. For morale purposes, I like to maintain at least a couple of pieces "under my fingers" that I feel I can perform really well.
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by monkey440
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
What is your aim? quantity or quality? To achieve both will take time and focus. You want to play the fiddle? or ITM? If you want to do both it will take time.
For example, Frankie Gavin started on the tin whistle. After 6 years he started the fiddle. 7yrs later he won 2 all Ireland's for fiddle and flute.
Practice what you like, what works for you. The only draw back if you try too many at once you may not get them all.
Personally I doubt the wisdom of trying to learn tunes on the fiddle at all to start with. I suggest learning your tunes on the whistle, while concentrating your fiddle efforts on technical practice like ... wait for it .... scales arepeggio, patterns , bowing . etc, plus slow airs, song melodies and such like. However if you think your up for it........work away.
I have to agree with monkey there, a couple of nice easy tunes you can play well, to return to when things start to get a bit much for you can do the world of good for your moral. I like the Steneole polska, a Swedish tune, and The left side jig. both in Gm , a great key for the fiddle. Also the old copperplate and castle Kelly in Am, both at a nice slow easy pace, with plenty of lilt.
# Posted on January 29th 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Thank you all for a great discussion.
>>"What is your aim? quantity or quality?" Quality, but, playing two tunes over and over and over again gets boring. Perhaps here, my problem is that there are some technical things that are blocking me, but I'm still trying to tune the process.
I've recently discovered the Mulvihill _Beginning_Irish_Fiddle_ CD and a few of the first songs are dead simple, and learning those have helped me feel like I'm not completely in a rut.
Jig, your suggestion to learn tunes on the whistle first is actually really interesting -- a whistle is that much simpler to learn? I realize there is a tremendous amount of technical points to master with a fiddle which probably helps to get in the way.
# Posted on January 30th 2008 by VoxRob
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Absolutely. A lot easier. Not easier to master of course , but as a fiddler that is not your aim. The idea is to learn the tunes in your head really. the whistle is just a mechanical aid.
There are two aspects; learning tunes, and getting better at the tunes you know.
Learning tunes can be done as fast as you can manage.....
getting better at them now... thats the tricky part
Honestly, the technical aspects of the fiddle will be what holds you back. trying to master technique while also trying to practice AND learn tunes...........need I say more.
I suggest you concentrate on your bowing, and intonation, Get some lessons if you can, it will make it a lot easier.
There are no short cuts. Be patient.
Master small easy steps, If you want to play tunes play them on the lower3strings, its all a bit more forgiving.
The problem with playing the same2tunes over and over, is that you could just be ingraining bad habits.
The problem with starting off playing tunes is that they are actually difficult, even polka's, to play well.
With the whistle you also train your ear. You achieve one of your goals;to play tunes. You can focus your fiddling on technical issues. You can attain a feeling of satisfaction at playing these tunes.
Kids round here learn the tin whistle first. Starting as young as 4.
There may well be vociferous opposition from some folk here to my suggestions. Its up to you to decide. Good luck
# Posted on January 30th 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
"There are two aspects; learning tunes, and getting better at the tunes you know."
Absolutely not. At the very basic and most profound level, what you refer to as " learning tunes" and "getting better at the tunes you know" are exactly the same thing.
It goes like this:
As you learn a tune, you get better at playing it and consequently get to know it better. And the more you get to know a tune, the more you learn it and learn about what it can be.
# Posted on January 30th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
You cant get better at something until you know how to do it.
First you learn the mechanics, then you can refine those mechanics.
Any how, I take very little you say seriously Llig, I doubt even you believe half the stuff you say, especially when it flies in the face of common sense. Such as your comment above, which, superficially makes some sense until examined carefully.
Until you know how to do something, be it play a tune or dance a polka, you cant step to the next level and polish, or get better at it.
Someone might come up with some esoteric nonsense like' you never 'know' a tune. ' buts that's all it is. we may never understand the full depths of a tune fair enough but to suggest that Frankie or Jackie dont 'know' the tune is merely an attempt at maintaining a power trip. you 'have it' and others dont....
# Posted on January 30th 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
What's the difference between learning and refining? Where do you draw the line? Playing music is not like driving where you are a learner until you pass a test then suddenly you are a refiner. "First you learn the mechanics, then you can refine those mechanics." Toss.
Common sense is often wrong. There are a myriad of examples.
You can doubt if I believe what I say if you like. It matters not. For what it's worth, I never doubt that you believe what you say. That matters not also, when you believe toss.
And you'll come back at me in your unimaginative inimitable way and say that what I believe is toss, et-cetera et-cetera, and round and round we go.
However. what's important is that a hell of a lot of beautifully creative people have clubbed together over the years and come up with one of the most fabulous bits of esoteric nonsense that was ever invented. This music.
# Posted on January 31st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Big difference. until you learn to do something, say drive a car, a mechanical skill, you cant get better at it. Now, once you can do it, you can either get better at it, study advanced driving, evasive driving etc or just maintain your skill, or start getting lazy, forgetting etc. but untill you can drive a car, it doesnt matter how many books you read you wont get better at it.8-?)
Just like playing music, or any other physical skill. you learn how to perform the manouver, say playing the notes of a tune, once you can do that, you can get better at it, play it smoother, with ornaments, rhythmic variations, dynamic variation etc etc. all the things that make a beginner playing the tune and an expert playing the same tune, sound so totally different.
Is there something here that is not clear, and correct?
# Posted on January 31st 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Yes, there is loads there that is not clear or correct. For starters, you flatly contradict your first sentence with your second. duh.
And you ignore the line of the argument:
At what point do you give the musician a licence that tells them they are not a leaner any more?
It's a shame you don't take my questions seriously - not for you, you've prooved you're incapable, but for the poor souls you purport to teach.
(And as an aside, the driving licence has nothing to do with being able to drive a car, it is purely a certificate of safety.)
# Posted on January 31st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
I did'nt mention a license, you did.so I sometimes wonder if you pay any attention to what I write rather reading what you want to hear.
As any one can read , there are no contradictions. Once again you appear to believe that by stating something that makes it so.
At no point do we give out licenses to say someone is not a learner. I personally remain a learner, even after30yrs I dont know it all, neither do I profess to. However simple facts are clear. As per my original statement.; ''You cant get better at something until you know how to do it.''
<<And you ignore the line of the argument:>> you have one?
You asked a number of questions. I answered them.
You say learning a tune is not a mechanical skill... What precisely is it then?
# Posted on January 31st 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
How can you define the dividing line between "first learning the mechanics, then refining those mechanics"?
And another straight forward question (though I have to phrase it rhetorically, because you won't answer it): When you learn something, are you not getting better at it?
# Posted on January 31st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
The defining line is when you can 'play' the tune, until you can play the tune you cant get better at playing the tune, you are learning it.. That is simple enough for even you to understand yes?
>>When you learn something, are you not getting better at it>>
With learning a skill you are basically using your short term memory, and , i gather, specific parts of the brain.
Playing the tune uses other parts of the brain to access the tune from long term memory.
However if you are talking about using sheet music as a memory aid then you could be playing the tune even though you dont know it. you havent learnt it.
# Posted on January 31st 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
You must be getting very frustrated, Michael. You seem to me to be stating the bleeding obvious, and in a clear and concise way (wish I could write like that).
# Posted on January 31st 2008 by benhall.1
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
sure I can . thats difficult? not at all, Frankie, and Jackie can play their tunes. its not rocket science. Once again llig you haven't got a clue. simply resort to swearing. pathetic.
Ben, nobody? so you think you can get better at driving before you can drive? duh. you can get better at a tune before you can play it?
# Posted on January 31st 2008 by jig
Relative beginner
Just my 2 cents worth since I briefly read through the thread. Somewhere up there it seems Michael was saying keep it fluid. I get the most out of a session when this happens. A session does not strive for perfection. The quality of the music & the players can be brilliant. But perfection? Those articulations ~ things like slides are just plain good fun.
Oh keep up your practice, keep looking for the sound you want. & in a learning (i. e. 'slow') session it is O.K. to focus on the details. But when the session becomes about the craic, leave the lessons behind & play that fiddle!
# Posted on January 31st 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Yes Muse, fluidity is the key to it all. The music abhors rigidity
# Posted on January 31st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
So, today I’m finally able to “play the tune.” Yesterday, was I completely unable to play it at all, in any recognizeable form, or was I, in fact, able to play it, but just not as well as I can today? I’m confused.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by Bob himself
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Tee he ...
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Its quite simple, if you can play the tune from start to finish, then yes you can play the tune... circular logic. Perhaps not very wel, but yeah you can play it.
get in and try. same with a tune, you can, or you cant.
Its pretty damn obvious if you can drive a car or not,
Once you can play the tune then you have the opportunity to get better at it by practising the tune, the techniques required to play the instrument, ornaments etc.many years of this focus can lead to a masterful performance of said tune. still the same tune.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
"play the tune from start to finish"
What does "play" mean? Play how accurately? Fluff a note or two? Play it in time? How fast? How slow? How in tune? Play it perfectly once, but then loose it for the next few times?
etc etc etc
Man A: "I got in the car the other day and put it into first and eased up the clutch and I didn't stall it. Off I moved. I can drive."
Man B: "Did you stop the car when you wanted?"
Man A: "Yeah, braked and put the clutch down just before stopping. Turned the engine off, hand brake on. I can drive. Start to finish."
Man B: "Did you go round any corners?"
Man A: " What's a feckin corner?"
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Man B: "Stop swearing. Nobody is going to pay attention if you keep swearing."
Man A: "Sorry"
Man B: "Well, you have learned to drive on an abandoned airfield with a two mile runway. Roads have bends in them."
Man A: "Hey, I can deal with bends. You turn the steering wheel and round you go. And when you come back to the straight, you just let go of the wheel and it rights its self."
Man B: "Ooooh no no no no no. When you come out of a corner you must feed the steering wheel back in your hands. Never ever ever let it feed back by its self or you won't pass your driving test.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Play slowly and cleanly through the form, start to finish, from memory, sure you may make mistakes, who doesn't? even Jackie and Frankie fluff up occasionally.
Once the tune is lodged in your long term memory, then you know it. Then you can spend the rest of your life getting better at it.
Knowing how to do something,is the first stage. after 25 yrs of playing the blarney pilgrim, I can safely say I know the tune, and I can play it pretty well, on a number of instruments. But I am still working on that specific tune. Incorporating new possibilities every time I play it. It only took a few hours to learn the tune,I am still getting better at it.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
I lodged a tune in my long term memory once. Then I heard someone play it differently. It was the same tune.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Sure, I play the tunes differently every time, same tune though..... and?
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Michael you have got me interested.
I can play 'Blarney Pilgrim' whem it just pops up & I don't know any better. But most of the time ~ no. It just wants something I cannot seem to get a hold of.
So how's it work? How do you 'learn' tunes?
From people, from recording, from DNA, from recordings, from teachers' or do you just go to the session?
It sounds like a riddle.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by Random_notes
~
Sorry, hope you can read past the typos
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by Random_notes
***
Jig you need to be flexible.
Keep some of th e rough edges . . .
or switch to The Music of the Masters.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by Random_notes
Hmmmmm
Tonight's topic;
Relative beginner
ITM/
fiddle
Back before I abused my keyboard.
I was wondering about now; as a seasoned session player ~ 'How do you like playing The Blarney Pilgrim'?
Or anything you learned once upon a time.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
I play 'The Music Of The Masters' every day, without fail, jigs reels, hornpipes mostly.
Of course I am flexible though i cant do the box splits like i used too
I am rough enough I assure you
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
I think the art is to remember the enthusiasm we had as beginners for a tune , and recreate that, or an approximation of it, when we play it again . I have no time or patience for negative thinking or attitudes.
I do that partly by learning the tunes on a number of instruments. Anyone says the blarney pilgrim is easy has forgotten what it was like as a beginner. try playing it on an instrument you have never touched before....I am not keen on is a routine, perfunctory, going through the motions. if a tune is worth playing, its worth playing well. that means with spirit and technique.
So many 'beginner' tunes are looked upon with scorn by people who feel that they are 'beneath' them. Well if it was good enough for Padraig O'Keefe, its good enough for me.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by jig
*
It was Michael's patience with you which peaked my interest. The "Music of the Master's" was an oblique reference to classical music as it would be played by highly trained academics. But you were close. I merely wanted to know from lliG if he had a mentor or if playing trad came to him in another way.
Cheers!
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by Random_notes
Lost in the loop
Boys & girls this thread has taken so many twists I cannot even comprehend the subject. Much less the answer.
VoxRob I only hope you can find something among the knots.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
It's so obvious Ilig is right on this one. Even when you're playing
something that's supposed to be carved in stone (not really), like a Bach
Partita, it's still an evolutionary process. Even more in the folk
traditions.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by Hup
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
I've got a tune (in 6/8) going through my head (jaunty little number):
Llig is right
Jig is wrong
And everyone here will agree so
Tum-ty tum
Tum-ty tum
Ti tiddley diddley daaah dum
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by benhall.1
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Ben
It seems more like a (12/8) slide to me, particularly the last line/bar
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by domnull
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Of course the process is a fluid one but it is simple. until you have learnt the form, 'the tune' you are learning the tune. Once you know the tune , a process that may take hours or weeks, whatever. You then can spend time playing it. untill you know it you cant play it, can you? you spend time getting better at it.
These two basic processes , relevant to learning any form, not just tunes. use different parts of the brain. they are distinct physiological processes.
I suggest you study the subject rather than simply take a 'side' or hold an opinion.
Where is this alternative hypotheses? None has been put forward by the opposing camp.
Mphuppert , A bach partita is not carved in stone. the general flow is written down, the tune. you learn the tune, then you spend the rest of your life getting better at it. unless once again we are talking about sight reading. a different process again altogether.
Bach can and is played differently by every performer. It is not 'carved in stone ' It is a fluid process. but until the form is learnt you are learning the form.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Put it like this ; A river valley is formed by the action of rain. upon the structure of the land. Until the balance point is reached and the water starts to flow in specific channels there are many options or routes. once the channel/s are created the l action of the flowing water enlarges the channels. over countless years these channels grow deeper and meet up with other channels . Not being a geologist my description is poor but the general idea is clear.
learning the tune is the start, then the process of enlargement can take place
.And ben, do you really think I care less if 'everyone' agrees or not? Have you any idea of how the brain learns? how many years have you spent studying the subject of learning and teaching? If the best you can come up with is a school yard doggerel then I think that answers my questions.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
River courses are a beautiful example of the fluidity of the ever-changing. You think the earth started out flat, then it rained and the rivers we now have were formed.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
domnull - how could I *be* so stupid (no comments necessary *just* at this point, Dow)?
Of *course* it's a slide. In fact it's a positive slippery bleedin' slope.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by benhall.1
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Exactly Llig, fluid and ever changing
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
I've just been reading up on a subject I haven't thought about for a while, though I studied it a bit once a long time ago: cognitive science. The basic principle behind the modern theory of how we learn is that everything new we learn is built on pre-existing knowledge and experience.
Hmmm ... no sudden jump from 'learning to do it', then 'learning to do it better', then.
Funny, the principles seem to fit with common sense as well.
Like the way we learn language - actually, EXACTLY like the way we learn language. We start to communicate even before we're born, and then it's a gradual, and changing process all through our lives, as the words we use, the extent of our vocabulary and even our accents change over time.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by benhall.1
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
>>Hmmm ... no sudden jump from 'learning to do it', then 'learning to do it better', then.>.hmm thats rather a leap there?. you state nothing new, just the obvious.....
Exactly my point, re; such a scales etc, small sections which we build upon.
No one apart from you mentioned a sudden jump.
I simply stated that untill a forms basic structure is learnt; the tune, you are not practising, or playing that form. parts of it fair enough.
Once the form is learnt, there are numerous subtle depths to be developed. but the first stage is memorisation.
Once you can play the tune from memory, you can then build on the basic form.
its possible to learn a form in a given length of time. . you know the tune as such. there is no argument here is there? or does Llig suggest that no one ever 'knows' the tune? maybe in some esoteric philosophy this is true, but we are concerned with exoteric practicalities. the mechanics of performing a technical skill. Until this structure is stabilized the esoteric depths are hidden.
Without structure, you have no form. Without form you have no tune.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by jig
I have not read the last 2 posts. I hope they prove me wrong!
For better or worse I will offer a comment.
From the early part of the discussion I feel there is useful information for any 'Relative beginner' on fiddle. At some point there is a shift away from this healthy & robust conversation. Each side has good intentions. Yet it boils down to who is right & who is wrong (on the facts) &/or who is right & who is wrong (in terms of opinion). My only reasonable conclusion is that egos cannot be set aside. Despite the insistence on everyone's part that he/she is being a good sport; it is the other who lacks humility; there is a strategy of degrading the opposite party. At present I cannot forsee any reconciliation ~ I do feel the rise in temperature as each individual adds kindling on top the pyre.
Pay close attention young musicians. There is much here for you to learn about music ~ & even more about people.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
That is what we are here for right? It is people who make music.[well up untill recently
]
There is a serious discussion re the mind, its learning processes. that links to the learning of tunes. If certain individuals wish to bring this discussion to a level of childish slagging i feel that is a sham, but i wont stand by . I will engage at their level. this is part of the modelling process, then attempt to bring the discussion around to a level of calm intelligent debate.
Remember this subject is one of universal disagreement, cognitive science falls short when dealing with basic facets of humanity. I am not a scientist. but i have plenty of empirical experiance to support my contentions.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Again, the polarisation is clear.
Jig believes in "small sections which we build upon."
I believe in the power of calculus to explain the world better than mere arithmetic.
Jig separates the acts of learning to play and getting better at playing.
I maintain that this is nonsense, they are one in the same.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
You maintain a position, fair enough, but you give no supporting statements or justification. You state your position as though it automatically is true. you have no argument only repeatedly saying 'i am right your view is nonsense'.
Thats the sum total of your argument? '' I am right , you are wrong''.? |Reminds me of De Bono's book of the same title. In fact it could describe your complete philosophy could it not?
By the way i wish you could refrain from attempting to encapsulate my position in little one liners. you are generally so far of the mark as to be laughable.
I avoid belief systems . i prefer to keep an open mind. untill you or anyone actually comes up with a valid argument backed up by explanation i will consider the hypotheses presented to me by highly reputable and intelligent minds to be my working models.
So how would you describe the learning process then ?
>.I believe in the power of calculus to explain the world better than mere arithmetic.<< surely thats not it? oh dear.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Yes, I believe in the power of calculus to explain the world better than mere arithmetic. And you can take that either as being straight forward or an analogy. But this line of thought is beyond you. I'll keep it with reference specifically to the topic:
The learning process is fluid. It is not a linear collection of small steps.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
so you reckon that learning processes are not fixed and are likely to change, often repeatedly and unexpectedly:
In what way? what precisely do you mean by learning process? or is it all so fluid that language can not encapsulate it?that there is no structure or form to it?
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
bBesides even with fluids there is always a tipping point, transformation point, when the infinite possibilities manifest in reality. like Schrödinger's cat , when the box opens it is alive or dead. there is, always a point where life ceases or begins. however wide that point may be. It is , then it isnt.
you dont know the tune... then you do.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by jig
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
The learning process is the process by which we learn, duh.
Yes, it is ALL fluid, the learning process, everything. The structure is fluid. The form is fluid. Not a linear collection of small steps.
Shall I be specific? You can't draw a line between knowing a tune and then moving on to learning to play it better.
Would you like me to be more succinct?
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
"i prefer to keep an open mind. untill you or anyone actually comes up with a valid argument backed up by explanation i will consider the hypotheses presented to me by highly reputable and intelligent minds to be my working models."
The above quote would be all well and good if we were discussing science, but this is MUSIC. It's an ART. There's nothing in any art that has to be supported by "valid argument" or "hypotheses". Surely, this is SO elementary that even jig should be able to fathom it.
If a guy like Van Gogh paints one of the world's most highly regarded paintings, he doesn't need to have "valid argument" to make it a great painting. But of course, if jig was the teacher, there'd never be any great paintings. All artists would be forced to do 'painting by numbers', because that's the 'jig method'.
Poetry, music, painting, dance, drama, all the arts, produce high quality inspiring work by way of individuality and originality.
Of course, we often get boring tedious formulaic mediocre stuff in all these fields, and as often as not, it's because someone is trying to follow the stultifying 'rules' that someone like jig has insisted are essential, and don't know any better.
# Posted on February 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
jig says that he didn't say that there was a sudden junp between 'learning a tune' and 'learning to play a tune better'. But he did. He said that they were two different learning processes that involved two different parts of the brain. He then implied that Michael had no point to make because he (Michael) had not studied the subject, implying that he (jig) *had* studied the subject.
Which leads us directly on to the next contradiction. jig says it's to do with the diffferent parts of the brain involved in these different learning processes that occur either side of "the tippping point" and then says later that he has no time for science, preferring instead to rely on 'the old masters' and his 30 years (25? 50? it tends to vary depending on how worked up he is) experience and the fact that he 'knows what he is talking about'. So, is he relying on common sense then? Well ..
Here's the next contradiction:
When I point out that the science in fact says the same thing that would be evident by reference to common sense, and the same thing that Michael has been saying repeatedly - clearly and WAY too patiently - jig says that, well, that's 'obvious' isn't it? And then flatly goes and contradicts it again! ... and his 'you've got to learn the tune first then you get better at it ... etc (As if, and we haven't pointed this out yet, 'cos it's hard amongst all the drivel, it was about learning one tune. Anyone who has really played this music for *any* length of time should know that it's not about learning one tune. One gets more and deeper insight into *the music* from the moment one first hears it throughout one's life - provided one has an open mind and open ears.)
# Posted on February 2nd 2008 by benhall.1
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Which parts of the brain are involved in these different types of learning?
I'm curious to know as I have my own ideas about this.
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by Alf Tupper
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
(here's a hint: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/185/3/258)
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by Alf Tupper
Eureka!
I finally get the point!
You are right & anything else is nonsense.
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
of course.
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by Alf Tupper
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Yes of course, but wouldn't you agree the cerebellum is more concerned with (sic) automatising (as alluded to) motor functions and in particular those which require positional information, as oppposed to the actual task of learning eg new tunes or even techniques such as rolls, cuts etc. I saw no mention of Heschl's Gyrus per se or the superior temporal gyrus (although temporal lobe was mentioned) or the hippocampus in any of your links. But thanks for your efforts nonetheless.
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by Alf Tupper
Beginner
Where you been hiding learner?
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
a few wiki articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocampus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_Vinogradova
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dentate_gyrus
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by Alf Tupper
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
I saw no mention of a rubber policeman (my favorite scientific utensil name) in your paper, Key, but thanks anyway.
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by joesmith
Look twice before crossing
Manufacturing Knowledge
by Donalee Markus
Nestled up against the amygdala, looking more like a paw than the seahorse for which it was named, the hippocampus lays down new memories, establishes personal history, and creates spatial awareness. The hippocampus is connected to almost every part of the neocortex, the thin outer layer of the brain where self-awareness, language, and abstract thought take form. An event does not become a long-term memory until it's bounced back and forth between hippocampus and cortex for two or three years. Much of the activity takes place during sleep and in dreams. After that, the frontal and temporal cortices can recall information without the aid of external stimuli.
Non-personal memories such as the capital of Vermont, the multiplication tables, or the location of the spare car key also begin in the hippocampus and end in the cortex. How quickly we can retrieve the information is dependent on how often we need to remember it and its emotional value. This is why cramming all night for a final can net a decent score on a test although the hastily acquired knowledge is forgotten soon afterwards. It is also why immersion into a culture is the quickest way to learn a second language. By involving all the senses—sight, sound, taste, smell, touch, and movement—vast networks of related information can be constructed in a short time. The process of becoming an expert requires a similar immersion.
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Montpelier
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by joesmith
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Nobody needs a hippocampus or cerebral cortex when they've got Google. That's proven here everyday.
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by joesmith
?
Proof?
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Yeah, or wiki. But you need to know what you're going to look for in the first place
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by Alf Tupper
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
You're a funny one, Muse, if you're expecting proof here.
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by joesmith
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
What? I wouldn't believe you if you told me nothing was true.....
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by Alf Tupper
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Gosh! These last few posts have been interesting. Great to have them set out clearly without aggression ..
Anyway, going back to learner's learned post above, has anybody (learner perhaps?) got any research which *directly* relates to learning music, or learning how to play an instrument? I still reckon the process of learning new ITM tunes would be slightly different still - and this is what I would be *really* interested in - but if there was some stuff on the process of learning music generally, it would be a start ...
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by benhall.1
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Meanwhile, going back to the original post, I reckon it's too stultifying to just try to learn one tune at a time. When I'm in tune learning mode (particularly on whistle, which I can't play very well), I tend to have between half a dozen and a dozen tunes on the go. I typically get frustrated that I can't play any of them for quite some time, and then, when I've almost got bored with not being able to play them, I suddenly find that I *can* play one of the ones I started on some months before.
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by benhall.1
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
i see Llig and jig have been suspended that's a shame.
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by BegF
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
I'm not being sarcastic by the way.
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by BegF
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
>>Gosh! These last few posts have been interesting. Great to have them set out clearly without aggression ..
Yep. It IS possible, ben, even on here to have an acrimony-free discussion, and on a controversial topic, such as the sites in the brain involved in music learning, that as yet no-one, even the best neuroscientists, know the complete answer.
Let's all learn from THIS.
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by Alf Tupper
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Hear hear!
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by benhall.1
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
There is some research on the psychology of learning music, but not as much as you'd think. I can't find anything thus far on learning folk music, but haven't yet exhausted all databases available to me (and I'm limited at the moment to what the university has online access to). Here is a summary of one semi-relevant article I found. We will see what further searches turn up.
Palmer and van de Sande (1993) addressed "the specific problem of the units of knowledge that contribute to the cognitive organization of music performance. What musical structures and units are retrieved from memory, organized, and executed in skilled performance?" They explain that Western music is structured in such a way that pitches, chords, and keys are distinct units of knowledge. Pitches are primary units and chords and keys are secondary units, as they are derived from individual pitches played together and the patterns of intervals among the pitches.
The study analyzed musical errors (basically the participants played tunes on a piano linked to a computer, which recorded wrong notes) and found similarities between musical performance and other skilled tasks like typing and speech. In language production, errors are related in sound or meaning to whatever the person meant to say. This study found errors in music were harmonically or locationally relate to the "correct" note. They suggest then that performers use the categories of notes, chords, and keys constrain the information available to the performance.
Units of knowledge in music performance. Palmer, Caroline; Van de Sande, Carla; Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol 19(2), Mar 1993. pp. 457-470.
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by TheSilverSpear
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Good stuff.
I presume that 'learning, memory and intelligence' are 'inextricably' connected, rather than 'inexplicably' so.
# Posted on February 3rd 2008 by benhall.1
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
learner,
>....Instead of beating on the same several tunes over and over again, is there any merit whatever to working on, say, 6 or 7 at a time, all in different states of competency?
...was part of the original question. May I respectfully point out that the learning process in question seems to me not so much to do with subcortical motor control feedback loops but the conscious acquisition of actual tunes, THEN their concomitant execution by the aforementioned feedback loops. Although the medial temporal lobe cropped up in your quotes. Would you know which cortical layer(s) of the MTL is involved in this memory formation process and what receptors are present? Layer IV for example? Are these cells eg, cholecystokininergic?
# Posted on February 4th 2008 by Alf Tupper
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Also, I nearly forgot till just now, you know of course (or should, going by the links you provided) that LTP (long term potentiation: making STMs into LTMs) is mediated by the hippocampus mostly at region CA1. So there ye go. We're back to the hippocampus. Also hippocampal LTP depends on NMDA and mGluR1 and 2 receptors, depending on location in the hippocampus.
# Posted on February 4th 2008 by Alf Tupper
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
And there was me thinking all this time that STM stood for Scottish Traditional Music
# Posted on February 4th 2008 by domnull
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Short and long term memory.
I suppose ITM could stand for Intermediate Term Memory.
That would suit me better as I hate those dreaded initials.
# Posted on February 4th 2008 by Alf Tupper
Re: Relative beginner ITM/fiddle
Please tell me it is only with Irish music that a conversation can take this kind of turn. More power to you Maniac.
My mind was totally amazed when I juxtaposed your last comment with the one before that. Yet my brain was nonplussed.
I'm going in tomorrow to have my annual hippocamal relocation ~ AHR?
Of course that would look better if it spelled out ARRRGHH!
# Posted on February 9th 2008 by Random_notes