I have found youtube to be a very useful source of versions of tunes. For example, comhaltas has posted numerous performances that I believe I can rely upon as accurate renderings of particular titles. However, when individual players the world over arm themselves with video cameras and then post their recent mastery of "Connaughtman's Rambles" as played on the banjo they bought last week, a much wider variety of versions of particular titles can be found. As time goes forward, more and more of these types of versions will be available. Frequently I have found exquisite versions of tunes just by clicking and hoping that someone with actual talent has posted a video. I guess I'll just have to
keep the faith that the wheat will naturally separate itself from the chaff, and quality will rise to the top when doing a search for renderings of a tune name on youtube.
Any thoughts on this?
I don't think there's any such thing as an "accurate rendering" of a particular title, so keep watching YouTube! Misquoting the Pirates of the Caribbean movie: "The notes are more guidelines than actual code - aaarrrgghhh!". I have numerous books with ITM music (as I'm sure you do as well) and you'll find the same tune with different sequences or combinations. That's part of the beauty of ITM for me - it's more like jazz than we think!
What reliance I place on Wikipedia tends to be when it is dealing with technical subjects such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, music and the like. Articles on these subjects are usually written and monitored by people at the sharp end of the subject, and have references to original source material. Personal slants tend to be rare. An example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computus - a stupendous article on the calculation of the date of Easter (let's be topical, at least!).
I'm very careful with Wikipedia is when it is dealing with politics, religion, modern history, psychology and similar. There are too many opportunities in these areas for contributors with personal agendas to muddy the waters with omissions and downright misinformation, which may not be obvious to any but the expert.
Separating the wheat from the chaff in YouTube - difficult. Best thing imho is to look for specific performers coupled with specific tunes, and take it from there. The YouTube "star" system is useless. And be aware that a proportion of comments will from a base of little or no knowledge, and sometimes an urge to mess things up.
yes indeed,Trevor- it's not really different from evaluating printed sources etc except that it's much easier for some dodgy stuff to creep in now and again.
although malicious or ignorant types are less likely to tamper with such subjects as you mention-i could,for example,imagine some mischief being wreaked on the theory of evolution by a creationist.
so i do worry sometimes when wiki gets quoted as a de facto source.
as for youtube-well yes,i've seen the most asinine comments on quite a few videos.
and for some reason there appears to be an unusually wide degree of anti-semitic comments on quite a few classical music videos(where a conductor or performer might or might not be jewish).
again,it's the nature of the world wide web to attrarct all sorts.
This approach always makes me think, "Eat sh*t - 100 million flies can't be wrong..." There's nothing wrong with agreement, but when it's phrased as an appeal to popularity, we've gone off the rails somewhere. Popularity contests might be a great way to elect a president, but they're not the best way to establish truth/knowledge etc. I know you knew that, so: Vote for MEEEE!
If the people uploading the "good" stuff would be very specific in their descriptions it would be much easier to filter the wheat from the chaff. "Here we are playing a set of jigs at our local session in 1999" or "a hornpipe and a reel on my grandfather's fiddle" are a completely useless descriptions. Good titling is important too. What I'm getting at is that the onus in on the person doing the uploading--aye there's the rub. Of course, "chaff" posters can be descriptive too, but I did say "easier to filter"...
Sometimes a maiden has to kiss a lot of frogs, before she finds her prince. If I stumble on a good clip, I sometimes go to the home page ("channel") of the poster to see what else is there. And of course you can search for famous players and bands by name--and see if the poster has put up other good stuff, by other good players.
YouTube is free, and sometimes you get what you pay for. Just enjoy the (unintentional) comedy for a few seconds, and click another link.
I would find it boring if it was all brilliant. It's all the nicer to find gems like Sandy Denny singing 'Fear an bhata'. Just make sure you don't spend too much time browsing.
mickray
I quite argee with what you are saying, But even in those good
old days - My granda - and great grandas time - I've been told
Two different counties played not only different styles but different versions of the same tune,,Likely not learnt right
or bits added in between all the counties/players etc on
the way around Ireland,,And you'll see it on the very modern
ABC file ie/ four titles T: ,,,,My first experince was a tune I learnt
when young = '' The Yellow Heffier '' But below county Monaghan its = '' The Bunch Of Keys'' Grin and bare it it
happened then also,- Maybe thats how some new Tunes where Born,,
jim,,,
Usually the best-known and respected players' versions of tunes are something worth watching, as well as some of the contenders in the Comhaltas finals. What beggars belief is when superannuated musical "toddlers" think we want to share their progress. Yikes.
Just to restore some balance, and to challenge those who think things like Wikipedia and YouTube are somehow not as good as a printed encyclopedia / the BBC / whatever...
Fascinating thing I've noticed - and maybe it's because people can be more "anonymous" on YouTube - that the people who leave the least useful comments are often the ones who haven't put up any of their own stuff. I don't mean the useful / constructive criticism, but the gratuitously negative stuff.
What I think is really good about YouTube (as an uploader *and* as a viewer) is the great conversations you can have and the connections you can make. I got two major bits of video work out of it - one for a project to rebuild an ancient Iraqi instrument, and one to produce a video catalogue for Morley Harps - and it's a great way of finding out what people really think about your own music-making.
All respect to anyone who puts their own stuff onto it - and I wonder if some of the people on this very site, who are critical of YouTube, have put their own stuff up there? You don't *have* to watch anything, and you don't have to like it all.
As an uploader, you have to be prepared to enter into a dialogue with some people to find out what they mean (because many users have strange ways of putting their thoughts into print and you have to check out any assumptions on what they meant) but putting your music out there is a great way of getting feedback. You just have to be a bit brave and prepared for the knockers (so to speak).
The variety of responses to my initial observations has been interesting and informative. I think that sites like this one will continue to serve the purpose of providing a secondary filter to separate the wheat from the chaff on sites like youtube.
For example, when links are provided that get right to an excellent performance or rendition of a tune, this is very useful.
While I'm at it, this is the link that led me to post this discussion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8azZ0o1oI8
I did a search on youtube for "the old copperplate" and
I clicked on a number of duds (the chaff) before landing on this link, with a superb performance of the tune I was looking for.
This video also inspired me to learn "hunter's house".
So, I've benefited greatly from yotube's ease of use.
However, I just would like a little more discipline from the
uploaders of the world.
Hmm - ! I guess jamacc, your comment was tongue-in-cheek! I personally believe discipline is a key element of creativity - I've noticed it's the wannabe musicians / artists who somehow believe creativity equates to some sort of free-for-all... but that's a whole 'nother topic!
It was an 'off-the-cuff' response to halfwaythere's comment above, Mark.
"I" sometimes wonder why someone has uploaded something which I consider not good enough to be shared - but if someone says "you can upload anything as long as I think it's good" - then I don't believe it would work. And no-one is forcing me to click the buttons to watch and listen to anything that's on Youtube.
Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
I have found youtube to be a very useful source of versions of tunes. For example, comhaltas has posted numerous performances that I believe I can rely upon as accurate renderings of particular titles. However, when individual players the world over arm themselves with video cameras and then post their recent mastery of "Connaughtman's Rambles" as played on the banjo they bought last week, a much wider variety of versions of particular titles can be found. As time goes forward, more and more of these types of versions will be available. Frequently I have found exquisite versions of tunes just by clicking and hoping that someone with actual talent has posted a video. I guess I'll just have to
keep the faith that the wheat will naturally separate itself from the chaff, and quality will rise to the top when doing a search for renderings of a tune name on youtube.
Any thoughts on this?
# Posted on March 23rd 2008 by halfwaythere
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
I don't think there's any such thing as an "accurate rendering" of a particular title, so keep watching YouTube! Misquoting the Pirates of the Caribbean movie: "The notes are more guidelines than actual code - aaarrrgghhh!". I have numerous books with ITM music (as I'm sure you do as well) and you'll find the same tune with different sequences or combinations. That's part of the beauty of ITM for me - it's more like jazz than we think!
Pat
# Posted on March 23rd 2008 by plunk111
Re: Youtube - wikipedia: ham-on-rye
yes,well that's the internet for you.
wikidpedia being another example of the 'all of human life is here' syndrome.
but the number of times i see it used as reference leads me to think it's here to stay.
# Posted on March 23rd 2008 by biggus dave
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
'I don't think there's any such thing as an "accurate rendering" of a particular title, so keep watching YouTube!'
On the other hand there's a variety of inaccurate, messy and total sh*te renderings, which indiscriminately pop up on the tube as well.
# Posted on March 23rd 2008 by kilfarboy
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
What reliance I place on Wikipedia tends to be when it is dealing with technical subjects such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, music and the like. Articles on these subjects are usually written and monitored by people at the sharp end of the subject, and have references to original source material. Personal slants tend to be rare. An example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computus - a stupendous article on the calculation of the date of Easter (let's be topical, at least!).
I'm very careful with Wikipedia is when it is dealing with politics, religion, modern history, psychology and similar. There are too many opportunities in these areas for contributors with personal agendas to muddy the waters with omissions and downright misinformation, which may not be obvious to any but the expert.
Separating the wheat from the chaff in YouTube - difficult. Best thing imho is to look for specific performers coupled with specific tunes, and take it from there. The YouTube "star" system is useless. And be aware that a proportion of comments will from a base of little or no knowledge, and sometimes an urge to mess things up.
# Posted on March 23rd 2008 by lazyhound
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
yes indeed,Trevor- it's not really different from evaluating printed sources etc except that it's much easier for some dodgy stuff to creep in now and again.
although malicious or ignorant types are less likely to tamper with such subjects as you mention-i could,for example,imagine some mischief being wreaked on the theory of evolution by a creationist.
so i do worry sometimes when wiki gets quoted as a de facto source.
as for youtube-well yes,i've seen the most asinine comments on quite a few videos.
and for some reason there appears to be an unusually wide degree of anti-semitic comments on quite a few classical music videos(where a conductor or performer might or might not be jewish).
again,it's the nature of the world wide web to attrarct all sorts.
# Posted on March 23rd 2008 by biggus dave
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
If any definition of anything is "what's agreed" then surely it's a better definition if it's agreed by more people?
Discuss!
# Posted on March 23rd 2008 by Mark Harmer
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
This approach always makes me think, "Eat sh*t - 100 million flies can't be wrong..." There's nothing wrong with agreement, but when it's phrased as an appeal to popularity, we've gone off the rails somewhere. Popularity contests might be a great way to elect a president, but they're not the best way to establish truth/knowledge etc. I know you knew that, so: Vote for MEEEE!
# Posted on March 23rd 2008 by Gzeg
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
If the people uploading the "good" stuff would be very specific in their descriptions it would be much easier to filter the wheat from the chaff. "Here we are playing a set of jigs at our local session in 1999" or "a hornpipe and a reel on my grandfather's fiddle" are a completely useless descriptions. Good titling is important too. What I'm getting at is that the onus in on the person doing the uploading--aye there's the rub. Of course, "chaff" posters can be descriptive too, but I did say "easier to filter"...
# Posted on March 23rd 2008 by gw
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
Sometimes a maiden has to kiss a lot of frogs, before she finds her prince. If I stumble on a good clip, I sometimes go to the home page ("channel") of the poster to see what else is there. And of course you can search for famous players and bands by name--and see if the poster has put up other good stuff, by other good players.
YouTube is free, and sometimes you get what you pay for. Just enjoy the (unintentional) comedy for a few seconds, and click another link.
# Posted on March 23rd 2008 by mickray
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
I would find it boring if it was all brilliant. It's all the nicer to find gems like Sandy Denny singing 'Fear an bhata'. Just make sure you don't spend too much time browsing.
# Posted on March 23rd 2008 by kuec
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
mickray
I quite argee with what you are saying, But even in those good
old days - My granda - and great grandas time - I've been told
Two different counties played not only different styles but different versions of the same tune,,Likely not learnt right
or bits added in between all the counties/players etc on
the way around Ireland,,And you'll see it on the very modern
ABC file ie/ four titles T: ,,,,My first experince was a tune I learnt
when young = '' The Yellow Heffier '' But below county Monaghan its = '' The Bunch Of Keys'' Grin and bare it it
happened then also,- Maybe thats how some new Tunes where Born,,
jim,,,
# Posted on March 23rd 2008 by FIDDLE4
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
Usually the best-known and respected players' versions of tunes are something worth watching, as well as some of the contenders in the Comhaltas finals. What beggars belief is when superannuated musical "toddlers" think we want to share their progress. Yikes.
# Posted on March 24th 2008 by drone
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
I love that term "superannuated musical toddlers" - lol - a classic!
Keep on droning, drone!
# Posted on March 24th 2008 by jamascc
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
Just to restore some balance, and to challenge those who think things like Wikipedia and YouTube are somehow not as good as a printed encyclopedia / the BBC / whatever...
Fascinating thing I've noticed - and maybe it's because people can be more "anonymous" on YouTube - that the people who leave the least useful comments are often the ones who haven't put up any of their own stuff. I don't mean the useful / constructive criticism, but the gratuitously negative stuff.
What I think is really good about YouTube (as an uploader *and* as a viewer) is the great conversations you can have and the connections you can make. I got two major bits of video work out of it - one for a project to rebuild an ancient Iraqi instrument, and one to produce a video catalogue for Morley Harps - and it's a great way of finding out what people really think about your own music-making.
All respect to anyone who puts their own stuff onto it - and I wonder if some of the people on this very site, who are critical of YouTube, have put their own stuff up there? You don't *have* to watch anything, and you don't have to like it all.
As an uploader, you have to be prepared to enter into a dialogue with some people to find out what they mean (because many users have strange ways of putting their thoughts into print and you have to check out any assumptions on what they meant) but putting your music out there is a great way of getting feedback. You just have to be a bit brave and prepared for the knockers (so to speak).
# Posted on March 24th 2008 by Mark Harmer
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
The variety of responses to my initial observations has been interesting and informative. I think that sites like this one will continue to serve the purpose of providing a secondary filter to separate the wheat from the chaff on sites like youtube.
For example, when links are provided that get right to an excellent performance or rendition of a tune, this is very useful.
While I'm at it, this is the link that led me to post this discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8azZ0o1oI8
I did a search on youtube for "the old copperplate" and
I clicked on a number of duds (the chaff) before landing on this link, with a superb performance of the tune I was looking for.
This video also inspired me to learn "hunter's house".
So, I've benefited greatly from yotube's ease of use.
However, I just would like a little more discipline from the
uploaders of the world.
# Posted on March 24th 2008 by halfwaythere
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
But if you introduce "discipline" then it would have to be at the cost of "freedom"
# Posted on March 24th 2008 by jamascc
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
Hmm - ! I guess jamacc, your comment was tongue-in-cheek! I personally believe discipline is a key element of creativity - I've noticed it's the wannabe musicians / artists who somehow believe creativity equates to some sort of free-for-all... but that's a whole 'nother topic!
# Posted on March 24th 2008 by Mark Harmer
Re: Youtube - separating the wheat from the chaff
It was an 'off-the-cuff' response to halfwaythere's comment above, Mark.
"I" sometimes wonder why someone has uploaded something which I consider not good enough to be shared - but if someone says "you can upload anything as long as I think it's good" - then I don't believe it would work. And no-one is forcing me to click the buttons to watch and listen to anything that's on Youtube.
# Posted on March 25th 2008 by jamascc