I find the endless debate (argument?) about dots vs. ear rather tiresome, but at least some healthy discussion about it surfaces from time to time. And in reading the Lunasa thread, I just had a thought occur to me that I hadn't considered before...
I find the argument to be very similar to debating which is better, a book, or a movie of the same story. My first wife was very intelligent, but had a reading disability related to dyslexia. When we met, she had never read a fiction book all the way through, because she would get bogged down with trying to read to the point where she wasn't processing the story as she was reading. She couldn't understand how a book could be better than a movie. She couldn't "see the movie in her head" while she was reading. So I spent some time reading fiction to her, so that she could see how much better books can be. A book can have so much more information than a movie (partially because you can see inside the character's minds, and partially because it doesn't have to fit neatly into a 2 hour package...)
Similarly, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to learn a tune from the dots when they already have a recording of it. (I realize this is backwards from the movie example, but in this case, the recording has so much more information than the written notation.) I generally side with Llig, and his snippy comments whenever anyone asks for the notation to a tune that they have a recording of. I can't sight read music, so I can't "hear the music in my head" when I'm reading the music. The dots can be a handy tool for reference, but when you have a recording, you have something much closer to the whole story, which for me, is a much better place to learn from.
BTW, that ex-wife now reads fiction on her own because she finally understood how much better it can be, so she worked through her disability to get to where she wanted to be. Similarly, learning to learn by ear may be difficult for some people, but ultimately, I think it's worth it. Conversely, I think it would be good for me to push my music reading skills to the point where I *can* "hear the tune in my head" when I read music, because I am generally well enough versed in the music now to flesh out a tune and make it sound Irish from just the "bare bones" version...
However, I would still consider learning the music from the dots as a beginner to Irish trad to be a hinderance, and I'm glad that I started learning it by ear.
there is a time when seeing dots or similar instrument fingering can help me, it's for the few intervals that I hear as inverted.
There are times when I can play back and listen to the recording of a session/lesson and I'm certain it's ascending/descending (whatever), but when I watch the fingering or see the dots and what's being played is the opposite. The visual and auditory together help inform my kinesthetic choice and help me play the same tune instead of a variation (but, that's another long thread)
...depends on the instrument I'm listening to for the source; octave strings of the 'zouk can cause problems, but fiddle is worse. Tenor banjar, tambura, and flute are usually easier to follow; it seems independant of fixed and movable pitch scales ....
I've slowed recordings down and looped the interval in quesion, then watched the player and I'm still inverted.
I don't thing the book/film thing is a good analogy. Books and films are different art forms, to be appreciated in their own way. Think instead of a play. Would you read a play or go and see a performance? But this is more of an analogy for classical music. Diddley music is different. It's not like you'd go and see Richard III and the actors are using the script as a guide.
Why learn from a recording when you can learn from another player?
In any case one does not have to take what you "see" or "hear" literally. The most important thing is to be true to the music.
There are different styles (or accents) in trad. You shape your individual style according to what you like & who you are playing with.
Back to not taking things too lterally. Is it not possible to learn a tune one way & yet be able to play it 'slightly' differently? I find the 'accent' of our tunes varies depending on who shows up in session. For example, we have players who drop by ony once or twice a year. That is when the ears begin to perk up.
At 3 years on the Yellow Mustard, I am a relative newcomer, and have seen all the "dots vs. ears" posts I can stand. I think I know where it comes from, and the schoolteacher in me has an idea to address the problem.
I'd guess that most musicians who discover trad come to us from the classical world, where accurate interpretation of notation is critical. If a classical violinist comes here and wants to learn the music, how can you blame him or her from printing out tunes and bringing the dots to a session? That's what they know. Usually, they discover the answer after posting an innocent comment here and then are hit with the ant-dot posts, which are often cryptic, unhelpful, and unkind.
That's what happened to me when I first signed on. I was totally unprepared for a musical experience so completely dependent on the aural, and it took me a long time to finally understand the right way to learn ITM. I'm still learning.
If someone were to write an introductory document of sorts, "Trad 101" or something, comparing and contrasting trad to other genres of music, especially the role of learning by listening instead of reading the music, and somehow make it available to newcomers, I think it would diffuse a lot of the slagging that goes on, and maybe some bad feelings as well. It could be as simple as a link to someone's online profile.
In my opinion, telling someone "why do need the dots when you have the recording?" without explaining more completely does not help. When I first saw that, I thought, well, yes, I hear it, now show me the music for it.
I am not making any value judgements here about aural vs. reading styles, or trad vs. classical. I just think we can be more informative to newcomers. Effective communication solves most problems.
When this argument arises (Dots v. Ear) the analogy I always come back to is that learning this music exclusively by dots is like learning about the human body by only looking at a skeleton. Every tune has it's bare bones, but it is the musician that creates the meat, guts and pulse of the melody. A great player of this music can take the bare bones of a tune a show you a body like Elizabeth Hurley when they are done adding the muscle and curves to it. Regretfully, I end up with something resembling Dame Edna. Be that as it may, regardless of our analogy choices, most readers here would agree dots can only give you the bones; the quick made for TV movie lifted off the great novel; the metal girders before the great architectural innovations are added. I think I fall squarely into the Llig and Reverend camp on this one.
Yes, Jusa, we all agree that the ears guide you better than the eyes do. All I'm saying is that if we did a better job explaining all that to newcomers, it just might diffuse a lot of the Dots vs. Ears stuff that flies about.
OK then, I'll take all this on board. The reason I make it a question, "why do you need the dots when you have the recording?" is because sometimes, rarely I admit, the poster actually does have a decent reason and I don't want to just asume that the requaest is from someone who's not familiar with the benefits of trusting their ears. But I admit it's not a friendly thing and it reeks of withering sarcasm. I'll try to think of a better way to put it.
As a young child I had piano
lessons. At university I attended music classes. Through all of this education sheet music played a part, but only one part. I would also isten to my instructor(s) play, sight - sing melodies, listen to recordings & attend concerts; as part of musical "appreciation"., Each gave me necessary AURAL parts of the music.
Anyone trad or classic . . . dot or ear etc. etc etc. will come around to listening & hearing.
Notation is useful to specific purposes.
That whch is aural is universal through all of music.
Greg, your point is well made. However, it seems withering sarcasm is also part of the learning experience and the craic of it all. Llig, although your opinions may lack the "gentle tact" some of us would prefer, occasionally it takes a boot up the chute to get the message across. I've gotten the boot a few times over the years from experienced players, and in the long run it helped me - (after I realized they were actually trying to help me)
All I'm saying is, when learning a tune I'd rather look at Liz Hurley than a skeleton.
I see no need to change the question.
There have been frequent good responses.
I hope to see this (thesession.org) tradition continue in the lively manner in which it always has.
Random Notes, I think you make a good point - that there are multiple sources from which we can access this wonderful music. However, I don't think that by itself negates Rev's or Llig's contention that MORE can be learned from listening than gleaned from lifeless sheet music. Would you agree or no?
I agree with using your ears.
Music has life. Sheet music by itself is lfeless. In the capable hands & ears of many session members it may be used to make beautiful sounds.
I read music as I read a book, watch a movie, or listen to a trad player. There is no singular literal iterpretation. This is the appeal of each form.
Accuracy? Not in art!
Over the years, I have distilled what I think about music notation into two things:
1. If you are coming to this music from another genre and can already read music, I'd advise you to learn tunes by ear instead of the dots.
2. Yes, the the exchange of tunes is one of the things that keeps traditional Irish music alive. But the sharing of tunes with strangers via notation is so fraught with difficulties that I advise against it.
Jusa Nutter Eejit, what's a Phoenician(?) doing thinking about Elizabeth Hurley and Dame Edna?
Speaking of movies, I can remember the ancient Never On Sunday: the interloping American visitor to Greece mortally offends a bouzooki player by telling him that real musicians know how to read music. The tart with the warm heart (played by Melina Mercouri) puts it right by asking "Dmitri, can the birds read music?"
Granted that its best to learn from a teacher, What about beginers who dont have access to a teacher?
If they try to learn from a recording they will have to compromise. The recording will likely be highly ornamented and played fast, with many variations. A beginer will not be able to approach this.
Difficult even for an experianced musician.
Where then are they to learn tunes? from Listening to the midi file of the ABC? Is that better than from the ABC?
If A musician gains enough skill to copy note for note, inflexion for inflexion ,a tune from the playing of a master , admirable that may be, its just a reproduction, not worthless but is that art?
When I was taught my tunes, many years ago I was taught them without ornaments, the bones. Over the years I learnt the ornaments, listened to many interperatations and came upon my own way of playing the tunes. This is exactly the same process I go through when learning a tune from notation.
The skill of listening is essential, but so is the spirit of originality and improvisation.
Mere copying results in a technically excellent performance but that is not 'the music' . Superficially it sounds like it, because its a good copy, but its simply generic and somewhat empty .
The spirit of 'The music' is that of the personality of the player,the individual touches, not a generic 'Irish Fiddler'.
THE BONES OF THE TUNE ARE THERE TO BE FILLED OUT AND BROUGHT TO LIFE BY THE SPIRIT OF THE PLAYER.
Yes, the skill of listening is essential, as is the spirit of originality and improvisation. There is no contention there. In fact, I'd say they are pretty much the same thing anyway. If you really are listening, you will be appreciating the originality and improvisation.
You make an example of a musician gaining enough skill to copy note for note, inflexion for inflexion, a tune from the playing of a master. Are there really people out there who's music is like this? I think that to only play like this you would have to have some form of autism or something. The more likely scenario is that if you are skilled enough in being able to make such a reproduction, you will also have developed the skills and vocabulary of articulation to be able to play the music with yourself in it also. How can you not have, it's human nature. But to learn the style (or rather, be able to fully appreciate that there are as many styles as there are players), is of the utmost importance. And the best way to do that is to copy. This music has a very specific vocabulary of articulations unique to it. These have to be learned, not made up, or it's simply not the music.
Your all encompassing caps locked mantra has a fundamental error at its base. I hear the bones/flesh analogy all the time and this (together with written down diddley tunes) entrenches a common misunderstanding. With a hunk of meat, you can cut through the flesh and your sharp knife stops at the bone. You can strip away the meat and reveal the skeleton. Meat/bones, bones/meat. But with diddley tunes, this delineation is not at all clear. Is that little cut you do between two notes bones or meat? Is that slow G roll at the beginning of the kesh jig bones or meat? Is that little variation someone did that got transcribed by Sergeant O'Neil and pickled for a century bones or meat? I suggest that if you ask these questions right from the start of your playing, it will put you in a much better position to be able to bring your own originality and improvisation to it. To limit a learner's playing of the music to an entrenched skeleton is to remove, at the start, the very ethos of originality that they should be striving for.
So the difference of opinion can be distilled thus:
a) Learn the bones (if such a thing exists) and add your flesh when you are able.
b) Learn how other people play it and through that process, learn how you wish to play it yourself.
The consensus within the tradition is clear. Cuts and rolls are ornaments. They are not integral.
b] some advanced players do play with little in the way of ornamentation, this is both personal and regional variation.
I agree there are specific ornaments and articulations within the bounds of the tradition. These have to be learnt, absolutely, by listening. There is no contention here.
I'd say that dots are most often the mutant bones of some rare creature. Attempting to flesh them out yourself without any real knowledge of the type of flesh that was once there leads to all manner of deformity.
I've rarely had much success getting a tune direct from dots without ever hearing another player playing it. Some have been satisfactory, but then often when you actually hear someone else playing it you realise the monstrous aberration you have spawned.
Oh dear, I'm starting to sound like a delegate at the Wannsee Conference .... Still, it is what I think, and what has been my experience both personally and in observation.
Typo, I must respectfully disagree with some your above entry, admittedly only IMHO:
I think that the cuts and rolls and much of what seems to have been decreed "apocryphal" or simply "extra"(?) in recordings and performances I hear of many a tune actually ARE part of the tune, and how the tune really sounds when performed. Definately nothing that can be discarded without making a tune into something else.
My point is, I think a lot of the "diddly stuff" some folks hear in a tune is not merely personal ornamentation of the moment. It may instead be a vital part of what the composer originally put together. (Bone, not meat.)
I hope I expressed that opinion clearly.
Your thoughts, sir?
If I fell asleep for decades like Rip Van Winkle, and came back to the mustard board, would the dots and ears debate still be continuing?
Yawn!!!
Come to think of it, this debate has become so dull and predictable, it is making me sleepy.......
I'm going to steer clear of the sheet music vs ear thing (I can do both, don't care) and talk about the movie vs book thing.
It's funny, seems like my whole life, there was always a dichotomy between people who had read the book and those who hadn't when a movie came out. Invariably people who had not read the book liked the movie while those who had were disappointed.
Then the first Lord Of The Rings movie came out. I'd not read the books, and was dismayed that, contrary to the usual situation, people who loved the book loved the move while people who had not read Tolkein left the theatres saying "huh?"
Now, after seeing the movies, I've read the LOTR books and I love the books and think the movies are just about as well done as possible.
Still, it's the only time that that has happened that I'm aware of, of people who have read the book first liking the movie more.
Well rook I could'nt argue with that. We would have to actually ask the 'composer'. We could ask a living composer, such as Charlie Lennon.
I would suggest however that by its very nature, the music can be played on instruments other than the composers instrument of choice.
Its true however the ornaments could, in theory, be part of a tune. Would you have an example of a tune that can not be played on a particular 'traditional' instrument?
If the tune has to be modified , such as one that drops below D on the whistle, does that therefore make it 'wrong'? or a different setting?
If two players play a Charlie Lennon tune , one who plays it as written, and one who inserts his own ornaments, is one 'correct' and the other not?
My own position is that ,even where Charlie has written in ornaments , they are suggestions. If you listen to him play the tunes he varies from the notation consistantly. Which is right? the notated setting, the first time round or the second?
This is my argument in relation to the 'bones' of a tune.
It also, however, supports LL's proposition that listening is essential and that a reliance on 'only' the source of notation is a mistake.
When i learn a tune by ear I listen to the melody, the bones. once this is grasped I will listen to hear what the player does with the tune. This doesnt mean that I will copy them ,but that I note with interest the various possibilities in conjunction with other aural sources. A very similar process if I learn a tune from notation.
Learning any form of music soley from notation is fraught with difficulty. What happens, however, when we listen to a great player who learnt their tune from notation? say in resurecting a lost tune from an obscure manuscript. They will play it with the articulations and ornaments appropriate to the Genre.That is a personal rendition, it is not 'the correct' way of playing the tune, just one way.
Back to LL's example of the Kesh Jig, there are various possibilities on the first G; GAG, or GF#G, G, treble on G, GDG, GBG, G roll, etc etc
One is not more correct , they are all various possibilities and reliance on one as 'the correct' version precludes all the others.
It is not possible to roll G on , say a G whistle, but to suggest that the tonal variety added by a high, or Low G whistle must be put aside?What do you think?
So let's take a tune that goes below the D and you play it on a flute. Is the flute version a variation? Is it a compromise? Does the flute version contain all the bones? Or is the flute version's bones different?
We both agree that neither are wrong, but can we agree then that the bones are not as solid as you think?
I've just been listening to Matt Molloy's Heathery Breeze and his "ship in full sail" is marvellous. But the "bones" of it are very different to the "bones" in the tune section here. More similar to one posed by Will in the comments, but not that either. I particularly have always like the way he play the bottom D as the first note in the second bar rather than the octave d. But I wish he played the third part, I like the third part. So not only are bones being changed and left out, whole limbs can be knocked off.
I understand your thesis complete Llig - my analogy, (bones and meat) like many analogies relies on sweeping generalizations to make a basic point. Your question as to where bones end and meat begins is of course valid to the overall dissection of this musical cadaver. Example, in a reel like the Congress, the B section has an essential roll which "makes the tune" in my opinion. One could argue this ornament is a "bone" in the tune, whereas another could argue it's an ornament and therefore optional meat. To that end this argument could go on endlessly. I still think the bones/meat is a valid analogy to someone just discovering this music and may be schooled in sheet music exclusively.
yes, I know the bit in that tune you mean. Though you can leave it out on the odd occasion, as a variation.
But my point all along is that for someone just discovering this music who may be schooled in sheet music exclusively, the best advice is for them to leave the sheet music alone completely, at least for a while.
Thanks for the debate, as I left you on your own for a while there... I knew that healthy debate could be had here without it turning into a flame war... (It is thankfully missing one particular element of fire... Next, I'm thinking of starting a topic on scales and arpeggios, to see how that one goes too )
Michael, your opinions on this are valued by myself and a lot of people here, and it's nice to see you "flesh them out" a bit more. The fact that we do have this debate over and over is probably the reason that your initial responses are generally so short, and I understand that, but maybe finding a response with less of the withering sarcasm is the way to go.
Richard, I agree about the LOTR series. They were accepted much better by people who had read the books than any other movies I have ever seen. Although, I was still a little disappointed. The first one missed the whole Tom Bombadil thing, and they worked too hard to bring Arwen into the story too early, etc. Generally, I think the Harry Potter ones are fairly well received as well. Part of that is because the first book, at least, was short enough that the movie could follow it very closely, without taking too much artistic license.
But my point still stands - the book generally fleshes out the story more fully than a movie. So when you're seeing a movie of a book you've read, you're seeing someone else's interpretation of something that you have formed an image of in your head, and it can often clash with your own image. Similarly, someone who is unfamiliar with Irish Music trying to flesh out the meat of a tune from the bare bones would invariably do so in a way that clashes with what we consider to sound traditional. It can be done well by people that are fluent in the tradition, of course.
Oops, in re-reading the thread, I'm not so sure the aforementioned element of fire is missing after all...
We may be doomed for another cycle of deja vu. But I guess we can attempt to welcome the vocal newcomers with open arms, instead of prejudicing our opinions of them with a hunch... Fingers crossed.
I suspect that some tunes do start out life with the twiddly bits as "vital organs." The B part of Humours of Tulla begs for rolls on those f sharps, and any well-steeped traditional fiddler, piper, fluter, whistler, etc., making up that tune would naturally play rolls there. They are part and parcel of the melody line and rhythmic structure of the tune. Yes, you can leave them out or do some other twiddly bit in their place, but as a variation. The rolls are what makes that bit of tune a trad tune and not something else.
It helps to remember that this music is largely composed on the instrument of the composer--worked out not just in the mind, but under the fingers. Fingers that know the twiddly bits.
So Will, it is probably fair to ask at this point whether "Bang your Frog on the Sofa" began life with twiddly bits, and were they removed prior to submitting the ABC to theSession?
Grego, I was actually thinking of using Bang Your Frog as an example of how the twiddly bits are part of the tune. That tune basically wrote itself, and the A part came out all linear melody line--I still don't put any twiddly bits into the A part when I play it. But the B part wanted bowed triplets, per the joke about how to get triplets that sound like Tommy Peoples' triplets. I think of the B part as "needing" the triplets in certain places because the triplets themselves were inspiration for the tune.
So that tune is a good example of both strong, linear melody lines that don't need much or any twiddly bits (I'm thinking here of stuff like the A part to The Scholar, or Maudabawn Chapel, or Fly in the Pint) and tunes that rely on the twiddly bits for a significant part of their form (for example, the B parts to Humours of Tulla, Last Night's Fun, Milliner's Daughter, or any and all of Bucks of Oranmore).
Of course, plenty of tunes straddly that over-generalized dichotomy. Tunes like Sgt. Early's Dream that feature a strong melody line that retains lots of opportunities for twiddly bits.
(Caveat - I don't think of Bang Your Frog as a particularly "trad" tune, nor "Irish." I'm not sure where it fits, or if it fits at all. I just enjoy playing it.)
Maybe sometimes the composer doesn't appreciate the twiddly bits that are part of the tune he's created, and essential to it. Perhaps you should tour some more of the session world, Will, and see if you can find out how the Frog is Supposed To Be Played. [ ]
A bit like Eleanor Rigby. L&McC were clueless, and it took Frankie to show us the real tune.
LOL, go on, grego, post the abcs of the twiddly-dee version of Bang Your Frog--I'd love to see it.
I *do* think composers can easily miss the potential a tune offers because they heard it one way for it to come out in the first place, and that's it. I mix all sorts of things into the B part of Bang Your Frog, but the A part resists change, for me.
So how many people listening into this conversation come to ITM "exclusively" schooled in sheet music ~ never having given a thought to using your ears?
A more interesting poll might be to ask how many people came to ITM relying on the dots, and finally realized that they didn't sound right until they let go of the dots and started using their ears instead. I've probably met 10-12 people that have told me that specifically.
Random Notes - I know what you're getting at. So let me just give you a fewl examples based on something I have witnessed on several occasions at "Learner" or Slow-sessions here in the U.S. A group of eager beginners, some with musical backgrounds and some with none, hunched over piles of sheet music picking their way through tunes they have never heard before. Now flash forward a few months to the same group and they are still hunched over the same sheet music and tunes - completely reliant upon the dots. It may be unknown to see this sort of behavior where you live or with the type of musos that you know, but these folks are out there in large numbers. So if someone is lurking out there and reading this debate and attends a session just like the ones I have described, I would hope this exchange might give them a whole new perspective. That's all.
I'm tempted to venture an opinion or thought here, after lurking for a couple of weeks, and I should say that I don't read music though I can translate it fairly well. I'm not fluent. And I don't really have any background in 'ITM' as it's called here. I also play guitar so my credibilty is now firmly dis-established.
I do listen though. And it seems to me that the sheet music only really pays attention to the notes and assumes that the time values (whole half quarter etc) are trustworthy. If they were trustworthy then surely the MIDI versions would sound fairly accurate? Is this right? (Question1)
I get the impression that the notes depicted are approximate enough in their timing as to make a reel sound like a forced march.
Which begs the question:
Is it possible to write sheet music for trad so that a classical musician can play it? (Question2)
Hypothetical, I know, but curious. The 'dots' (for me) help clarify the notes of the tune since I don't know it well enough to differentiate all that is played, but they don't have any rhythm.
I like the idea of bones for beginners. It sounds simpler. Is there a player who (no pun intended) plays the bones of the tunes or is it something you have to intuit after absorbing several versions of a tune? (Question3)
Stu, the problem with your instrument is it's only capable of playing the "bones". The majority of the articulations we discuss are not possible on a guitar.
1. If anyone thinks the midi versions sound fairly accurate, they would be a hopeless case.
2. "Is it possible to write sheet music for trad so that a classical musician can play it?" Technically it could be possible to write out a piece of music with all the minute subtleties of timeings. But the piece of paper would be so dense, it would be impossible to read. So no. (and that's not taking into account that to be really accurate, the piece of paper would look different every time you piched it up.)
I like the question cStu. Are classically trained players the equivalent of hardware and the dots are the software whereas with itm ... (finish the analogy)
It's a misunderstanding of classical music and classical musicians if you think they do not "interpret" what is written on the page. I fyou think they don't put themsoves into it. Well, the best players anyway. Try progamming a Schubert piano sonata into you midi piano and compare it with a CD of Alfred Brendel.
The best players do, that's the argument. The dots are a splendid and wondrous tool, but your ears must always come first, in any genre.
There's nothing wrong with using sheet music as a way of helping kids learn to play. Whatever genre you are learning, you will learn to associate certain marks on the page with certain sounds of the music. With diddley music, for example, you will associate three notes the same in the first half of a bar in a jig as a natural place to play a slow roll. If you grow up with this, it's fine. But if, for example, you have learned to read music from within the classical genre, you will automatically interpret three notes the same in a jig as three notes the same. You will play them: da. da. da. You won't play it: dardle are, or dumdede, or dum-diddley etc. You will play it wrong because you have learned that these three blobs represent da.da.da. It is ingrained in your brain. So the only way to learn how a jig actually goes is to put away your miss translation and listen instead.
Michael,
The longer your posts get, the more detailed and informative they become. This goes back to my original thesis; ie, there should be something in writing somewhere to which newcomers can be directed,
Michael -
"It's a misunderstanding of classical music and classical musicians if you think they do not "interpret" what is written on the page...." -Thanks! I'm glad that someone FINALLY pointed that out.
Books vs. Movies, hmmm. I quite liked Stardust the movie, but I absolutely loved Gaiman’s book. Different mediums bring out different things. With books, it’s the reader who fills in the blanks, yes the words are there, but without the readers imagination, the book is dormant. With movies, you passively watch someone else’s imagination.
With music, the tune is dormant without the sounds. I can’t think anyone would play any form of music without having heard it first. I don’t think anyone would pick up the score of piece of music and decide yes, I want to play classical, anymore than seeing the sheet music for any jig and decide yes, I want to play Irish, etc.
I read this quote from Jasper FFord which I found interesting, “Get the picture? Yes, but how is it done? By following a simple Imaginotransference protocol? When a reader praises an author, they should reserve 75% of that praise for themselves...”
The reader in this case, becomes a musician playing.
Reverend---I feel you were right on in your initial paragraphs and stated it well also. My take---ONE method alone is in- complete. So much more can be had when we try to learn using BOTH methods.
I'm sorry hauke, but I can't agree with that. With diddley music you do not need the dots. Having the ability to read music will not make you a better player. Using only your ears and no written music to learn and play this music right to the highest standard is perfectly possible. The idea that this method of learning would be somehow incomplete is certainly wrong. For starters, what about blind people?
I agree with llig there. I am saying that I would like to learn to read music better, but only as a tool, now that I have at least a decent grasp on the "vocabulary" of Irish music.
I could certainly continue playing and learning without learning to read, and I probably will for quite some time, because I have better things to do than sit down and work on learning to read music... Like, I dunno... Learning more tunes. Or working on some stylistic things I learned at a recent festival, etc. So while it would be nice to have that extra tool in my arsenal, I wouldn't consider it necessary.
Which was better, the book or the movie?
Which was better, the book or the movie?
I find the endless debate (argument?) about dots vs. ear rather tiresome, but at least some healthy discussion about it surfaces from time to time. And in reading the Lunasa thread, I just had a thought occur to me that I hadn't considered before...
I find the argument to be very similar to debating which is better, a book, or a movie of the same story. My first wife was very intelligent, but had a reading disability related to dyslexia. When we met, she had never read a fiction book all the way through, because she would get bogged down with trying to read to the point where she wasn't processing the story as she was reading. She couldn't understand how a book could be better than a movie. She couldn't "see the movie in her head" while she was reading. So I spent some time reading fiction to her, so that she could see how much better books can be. A book can have so much more information than a movie (partially because you can see inside the character's minds, and partially because it doesn't have to fit neatly into a 2 hour package...)
Similarly, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to learn a tune from the dots when they already have a recording of it. (I realize this is backwards from the movie example, but in this case, the recording has so much more information than the written notation.) I generally side with Llig, and his snippy comments whenever anyone asks for the notation to a tune that they have a recording of. I can't sight read music, so I can't "hear the music in my head" when I'm reading the music. The dots can be a handy tool for reference, but when you have a recording, you have something much closer to the whole story, which for me, is a much better place to learn from.
BTW, that ex-wife now reads fiction on her own because she finally understood how much better it can be, so she worked through her disability to get to where she wanted to be. Similarly, learning to learn by ear may be difficult for some people, but ultimately, I think it's worth it. Conversely, I think it would be good for me to push my music reading skills to the point where I *can* "hear the tune in my head" when I read music, because I am generally well enough versed in the music now to flesh out a tune and make it sound Irish from just the "bare bones" version...
However, I would still consider learning the music from the dots as a beginner to Irish trad to be a hinderance, and I'm glad that I started learning it by ear.
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by Reverend
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
there is a time when seeing dots or similar instrument fingering can help me, it's for the few intervals that I hear as inverted.
There are times when I can play back and listen to the recording of a session/lesson and I'm certain it's ascending/descending (whatever), but when I watch the fingering or see the dots and what's being played is the opposite. The visual and auditory together help inform my kinesthetic choice and help me play the same tune instead of a variation (but, that's another long thread)
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by mike henry
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Rev, could you please come up with a slightly more inside-out analogy? I'm not sure I misunderstand you....
Heya Mike, I'm curious why it is that you heare some intervals as inverted. Is it an auditory processing problem--a flipped neural switch somewhere?
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by Will CPT
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
...depends on the instrument I'm listening to for the source; octave strings of the 'zouk can cause problems, but fiddle is worse. Tenor banjar, tambura, and flute are usually easier to follow; it seems independant of fixed and movable pitch scales ....
I've slowed recordings down and looped the interval in quesion, then watched the player and I'm still inverted.
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by mike henry
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
I don't thing the book/film thing is a good analogy. Books and films are different art forms, to be appreciated in their own way. Think instead of a play. Would you read a play or go and see a performance? But this is more of an analogy for classical music. Diddley music is different. It's not like you'd go and see Richard III and the actors are using the script as a guide.
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by llig leahcim
Book or movie?
Why learn from a recording when you can learn from another player?
In any case one does not have to take what you "see" or "hear" literally. The most important thing is to be true to the music.
There are different styles (or accents) in trad. You shape your individual style according to what you like & who you are playing with.
Back to not taking things too lterally. Is it not possible to learn a tune one way & yet be able to play it 'slightly' differently? I find the 'accent' of our tunes varies depending on who shows up in session. For example, we have players who drop by ony once or twice a year. That is when the ears begin to perk up.
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Hey all,
At 3 years on the Yellow Mustard, I am a relative newcomer, and have seen all the "dots vs. ears" posts I can stand. I think I know where it comes from, and the schoolteacher in me has an idea to address the problem.
I'd guess that most musicians who discover trad come to us from the classical world, where accurate interpretation of notation is critical. If a classical violinist comes here and wants to learn the music, how can you blame him or her from printing out tunes and bringing the dots to a session? That's what they know. Usually, they discover the answer after posting an innocent comment here and then are hit with the ant-dot posts, which are often cryptic, unhelpful, and unkind.
That's what happened to me when I first signed on. I was totally unprepared for a musical experience so completely dependent on the aural, and it took me a long time to finally understand the right way to learn ITM. I'm still learning.
If someone were to write an introductory document of sorts, "Trad 101" or something, comparing and contrasting trad to other genres of music, especially the role of learning by listening instead of reading the music, and somehow make it available to newcomers, I think it would diffuse a lot of the slagging that goes on, and maybe some bad feelings as well. It could be as simple as a link to someone's online profile.
In my opinion, telling someone "why do need the dots when you have the recording?" without explaining more completely does not help. When I first saw that, I thought, well, yes, I hear it, now show me the music for it.
I am not making any value judgements here about aural vs. reading styles, or trad vs. classical. I just think we can be more informative to newcomers. Effective communication solves most problems.
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by Greg the Piano Tuner
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Hear hear, Greg!
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by Feargal French
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
When this argument arises (Dots v. Ear) the analogy I always come back to is that learning this music exclusively by dots is like learning about the human body by only looking at a skeleton. Every tune has it's bare bones, but it is the musician that creates the meat, guts and pulse of the melody. A great player of this music can take the bare bones of a tune a show you a body like Elizabeth Hurley when they are done adding the muscle and curves to it. Regretfully, I end up with something resembling Dame Edna. Be that as it may, regardless of our analogy choices, most readers here would agree dots can only give you the bones; the quick made for TV movie lifted off the great novel; the metal girders before the great architectural innovations are added. I think I fall squarely into the Llig and Reverend camp on this one.
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
'LIVE!" ~ any time over print, typed or filmed...
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Yes, Jusa, we all agree that the ears guide you better than the eyes do. All I'm saying is that if we did a better job explaining all that to newcomers, it just might diffuse a lot of the Dots vs. Ears stuff that flies about.
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by Greg the Piano Tuner
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
OK then, I'll take all this on board. The reason I make it a question, "why do you need the dots when you have the recording?" is because sometimes, rarely I admit, the poster actually does have a decent reason and I don't want to just asume that the requaest is from someone who's not familiar with the benefits of trusting their ears. But I admit it's not a friendly thing and it reeks of withering sarcasm. I'll try to think of a better way to put it.
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by llig leahcim
Which was, the book?
As a young child I had piano
lessons. At university I attended music classes. Through all of this education sheet music played a part, but only one part. I would also isten to my instructor(s) play, sight - sing melodies, listen to recordings & attend concerts; as part of musical "appreciation"., Each gave me necessary AURAL parts of the music.
Anyone trad or classic . . . dot or ear etc. etc etc. will come around to listening & hearing.
Notation is useful to specific purposes.
That whch is aural is universal through all of music.
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Greg, your point is well made. However, it seems withering sarcasm is also part of the learning experience and the craic of it all. Llig, although your opinions may lack the "gentle tact" some of us would prefer, occasionally it takes a boot up the chute to get the message across. I've gotten the boot a few times over the years from experienced players, and in the long run it helped me - (after I realized they were actually trying to help me)
All I'm saying is, when learning a tune I'd rather look at Liz Hurley than a skeleton.
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Withering movie?
On the contrary ~ I have learned far more from listening to the tunes than I have learned from trying to decipher the genteel Mr Gill's typos. ;)
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Can't we just have another bodhran bashing thread instead? We haven't had one of them for...oh, about 3 days now.
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Maybe complete the bio application form . . .
# Posted on June 22nd 2008 by Random_notes
With equal respect to all newcomers & the old guard
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/18191/comments#comment378831
I see no need to change the question.
There have been frequent good responses.
I hope to see this (thesession.org) tradition continue in the lively manner in which it always has.
Thanks in advance for all your comments.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Random_notes
Which came 1st?
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/index/search?name=Dots
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
...and your point, Random Notes, would be that we have covered this topic ad-nauseam, right?
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
I'll wait for the movie?
Sorry Jusa I do not want to mess wit tradition. It was a momentary lapse. Sometimes the internet is too easy.
Please carry on.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Random_notes
Which is better?
Even The Reverend did not think before posting his sermon.
We have both: dots & not.
So it began & so it always shall be.
Welcome to The Session
The exchange of tunes is what keeps traditional Irish music alive. This website is one way of passing on jigs, reels and other dance tunes.
Some of the tunes are well known, and some are more obscure. It's this mixture of the familiar and the new that makes for a good session.
jeremy accepts tunes in ABC format & prepares the dots & the MIDI.
Like it or not this has been the standard for almost one decade.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Random Notes, I think you make a good point - that there are multiple sources from which we can access this wonderful music. However, I don't think that by itself negates Rev's or Llig's contention that MORE can be learned from listening than gleaned from lifeless sheet music. Would you agree or no?
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Yes Jusa
I agree with using your ears.
Music has life. Sheet music by itself is lfeless. In the capable hands & ears of many session members it may be used to make beautiful sounds.
That s up to the player.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Random_notes
**
I read music as I read a book, watch a movie, or listen to a trad player. There is no singular literal iterpretation. This is the appeal of each form.
Accuracy? Not in art!
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Random_notes
**
interpretation
apologies for the crack about typos.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Over the years, I have distilled what I think about music notation into two things:
1. If you are coming to this music from another genre and can already read music, I'd advise you to learn tunes by ear instead of the dots.
2. Yes, the the exchange of tunes is one of the things that keeps traditional Irish music alive. But the sharing of tunes with strangers via notation is so fraught with difficulties that I advise against it.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Jusa Nutter Eejit, what's a Phoenician(?) doing thinking about Elizabeth Hurley and Dame Edna?
Speaking of movies, I can remember the ancient Never On Sunday: the interloping American visitor to Greece mortally offends a bouzooki player by telling him that real musicians know how to read music. The tart with the warm heart (played by Melina Mercouri) puts it right by asking "Dmitri, can the birds read music?"
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by oldstrings
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Granted that its best to learn from a teacher, What about beginers who dont have access to a teacher?
If they try to learn from a recording they will have to compromise. The recording will likely be highly ornamented and played fast, with many variations. A beginer will not be able to approach this.
Difficult even for an experianced musician.
Where then are they to learn tunes? from Listening to the midi file of the ABC? Is that better than from the ABC?
If A musician gains enough skill to copy note for note, inflexion for inflexion ,a tune from the playing of a master , admirable that may be, its just a reproduction, not worthless but is that art?
When I was taught my tunes, many years ago I was taught them without ornaments, the bones. Over the years I learnt the ornaments, listened to many interperatations and came upon my own way of playing the tunes. This is exactly the same process I go through when learning a tune from notation.
The skill of listening is essential, but so is the spirit of originality and improvisation.
Mere copying results in a technically excellent performance but that is not 'the music' . Superficially it sounds like it, because its a good copy, but its simply generic and somewhat empty .
The spirit of 'The music' is that of the personality of the player,the individual touches, not a generic 'Irish Fiddler'.
THE BONES OF THE TUNE ARE THERE TO BE FILLED OUT AND BROUGHT TO LIFE BY THE SPIRIT OF THE PLAYER.
.... caps lock.....
typo
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by typo
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Yes, the skill of listening is essential, as is the spirit of originality and improvisation. There is no contention there. In fact, I'd say they are pretty much the same thing anyway. If you really are listening, you will be appreciating the originality and improvisation.
You make an example of a musician gaining enough skill to copy note for note, inflexion for inflexion, a tune from the playing of a master. Are there really people out there who's music is like this? I think that to only play like this you would have to have some form of autism or something. The more likely scenario is that if you are skilled enough in being able to make such a reproduction, you will also have developed the skills and vocabulary of articulation to be able to play the music with yourself in it also. How can you not have, it's human nature. But to learn the style (or rather, be able to fully appreciate that there are as many styles as there are players), is of the utmost importance. And the best way to do that is to copy. This music has a very specific vocabulary of articulations unique to it. These have to be learned, not made up, or it's simply not the music.
Your all encompassing caps locked mantra has a fundamental error at its base. I hear the bones/flesh analogy all the time and this (together with written down diddley tunes) entrenches a common misunderstanding. With a hunk of meat, you can cut through the flesh and your sharp knife stops at the bone. You can strip away the meat and reveal the skeleton. Meat/bones, bones/meat. But with diddley tunes, this delineation is not at all clear. Is that little cut you do between two notes bones or meat? Is that slow G roll at the beginning of the kesh jig bones or meat? Is that little variation someone did that got transcribed by Sergeant O'Neil and pickled for a century bones or meat? I suggest that if you ask these questions right from the start of your playing, it will put you in a much better position to be able to bring your own originality and improvisation to it. To limit a learner's playing of the music to an entrenched skeleton is to remove, at the start, the very ethos of originality that they should be striving for.
So the difference of opinion can be distilled thus:
a) Learn the bones (if such a thing exists) and add your flesh when you are able.
b) Learn how other people play it and through that process, learn how you wish to play it yourself.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
The consensus within the tradition is clear. Cuts and rolls are ornaments. They are not integral.
b] some advanced players do play with little in the way of ornamentation, this is both personal and regional variation.
I agree there are specific ornaments and articulations within the bounds of the tradition. These have to be learnt, absolutely, by listening. There is no contention here.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by typo
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
I'd say that dots are most often the mutant bones of some rare creature. Attempting to flesh them out yourself without any real knowledge of the type of flesh that was once there leads to all manner of deformity.
I've rarely had much success getting a tune direct from dots without ever hearing another player playing it. Some have been satisfactory, but then often when you actually hear someone else playing it you realise the monstrous aberration you have spawned.
Oh dear, I'm starting to sound like a delegate at the Wannsee Conference ....
Still, it is what I think, and what has been my experience both personally and in observation.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by pavlf
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Typo, I must respectfully disagree with some your above entry, admittedly only IMHO:
I think that the cuts and rolls and much of what seems to have been decreed "apocryphal" or simply "extra"(?) in recordings and performances I hear of many a tune actually ARE part of the tune, and how the tune really sounds when performed. Definately nothing that can be discarded without making a tune into something else.
My point is, I think a lot of the "diddly stuff" some folks hear in a tune is not merely personal ornamentation of the moment. It may instead be a vital part of what the composer originally put together. (Bone, not meat.)
I hope I expressed that opinion clearly.
Your thoughts, sir?
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Rook
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
So the "consensus within the tradition" is not clear then?
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
I'm not sure that the composer's intention is what it's all about? Actually, I am. It isn't.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by pavlf
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
If I fell asleep for decades like Rip Van Winkle, and came back to the mustard board, would the dots and ears debate still be continuing?
Yawn!!!
Come to think of it, this debate has become so dull and predictable, it is making me sleepy.......
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by AlBrown
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
I'm going to steer clear of the sheet music vs ear thing (I can do both, don't care) and talk about the movie vs book thing.
It's funny, seems like my whole life, there was always a dichotomy between people who had read the book and those who hadn't when a movie came out. Invariably people who had not read the book liked the movie while those who had were disappointed.
Then the first Lord Of The Rings movie came out. I'd not read the books, and was dismayed that, contrary to the usual situation, people who loved the book loved the move while people who had not read Tolkein left the theatres saying "huh?"
Now, after seeing the movies, I've read the LOTR books and I love the books and think the movies are just about as well done as possible.
Still, it's the only time that that has happened that I'm aware of, of people who have read the book first liking the movie more.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Richard D Cook
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Well rook I could'nt argue with that. We would have to actually ask the 'composer'. We could ask a living composer, such as Charlie Lennon.
I would suggest however that by its very nature, the music can be played on instruments other than the composers instrument of choice.
Its true however the ornaments could, in theory, be part of a tune. Would you have an example of a tune that can not be played on a particular 'traditional' instrument?
If the tune has to be modified , such as one that drops below D on the whistle, does that therefore make it 'wrong'? or a different setting?
If two players play a Charlie Lennon tune , one who plays it as written, and one who inserts his own ornaments, is one 'correct' and the other not?
My own position is that ,even where Charlie has written in ornaments , they are suggestions. If you listen to him play the tunes he varies from the notation consistantly. Which is right? the notated setting, the first time round or the second?
This is my argument in relation to the 'bones' of a tune.
It also, however, supports LL's proposition that listening is essential and that a reliance on 'only' the source of notation is a mistake.
When i learn a tune by ear I listen to the melody, the bones. once this is grasped I will listen to hear what the player does with the tune. This doesnt mean that I will copy them ,but that I note with interest the various possibilities in conjunction with other aural sources. A very similar process if I learn a tune from notation.
Learning any form of music soley from notation is fraught with difficulty. What happens, however, when we listen to a great player who learnt their tune from notation? say in resurecting a lost tune from an obscure manuscript. They will play it with the articulations and ornaments appropriate to the Genre.That is a personal rendition, it is not 'the correct' way of playing the tune, just one way.
Back to LL's example of the Kesh Jig, there are various possibilities on the first G; GAG, or GF#G, G, treble on G, GDG, GBG, G roll, etc etc
One is not more correct , they are all various possibilities and reliance on one as 'the correct' version precludes all the others.
It is not possible to roll G on , say a G whistle, but to suggest that the tonal variety added by a high, or Low G whistle must be put aside?What do you think?
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by typo
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
I agree with most of what you say.
So let's take a tune that goes below the D and you play it on a flute. Is the flute version a variation? Is it a compromise? Does the flute version contain all the bones? Or is the flute version's bones different?
We both agree that neither are wrong, but can we agree then that the bones are not as solid as you think?
I've just been listening to Matt Molloy's Heathery Breeze and his "ship in full sail" is marvellous. But the "bones" of it are very different to the "bones" in the tune section here. More similar to one posed by Will in the comments, but not that either. I particularly have always like the way he play the bottom D as the first note in the second bar rather than the octave d. But I wish he played the third part, I like the third part. So not only are bones being changed and left out, whole limbs can be knocked off.
Where do bones end and flesh begin?
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
I understand your thesis complete Llig - my analogy, (bones and meat) like many analogies relies on sweeping generalizations to make a basic point. Your question as to where bones end and meat begins is of course valid to the overall dissection of this musical cadaver. Example, in a reel like the Congress, the B section has an essential roll which "makes the tune" in my opinion. One could argue this ornament is a "bone" in the tune, whereas another could argue it's an ornament and therefore optional meat. To that end this argument could go on endlessly. I still think the bones/meat is a valid analogy to someone just discovering this music and may be schooled in sheet music exclusively.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
yes, I know the bit in that tune you mean. Though you can leave it out on the odd occasion, as a variation.
But my point all along is that for someone just discovering this music who may be schooled in sheet music exclusively, the best advice is for them to leave the sheet music alone completely, at least for a while.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Thanks for the debate, as I left you on your own for a while there... I knew that healthy debate could be had here without it turning into a flame war... (It is thankfully missing one particular element of fire... Next, I'm thinking of starting a topic on scales and arpeggios, to see how that one goes too
)
Michael, your opinions on this are valued by myself and a lot of people here, and it's nice to see you "flesh them out" a bit more. The fact that we do have this debate over and over is probably the reason that your initial responses are generally so short, and I understand that, but maybe finding a response with less of the withering sarcasm is the way to go.
Richard, I agree about the LOTR series. They were accepted much better by people who had read the books than any other movies I have ever seen. Although, I was still a little disappointed. The first one missed the whole Tom Bombadil thing, and they worked too hard to bring Arwen into the story too early, etc. Generally, I think the Harry Potter ones are fairly well received as well. Part of that is because the first book, at least, was short enough that the movie could follow it very closely, without taking too much artistic license.
But my point still stands - the book generally fleshes out the story more fully than a movie. So when you're seeing a movie of a book you've read, you're seeing someone else's interpretation of something that you have formed an image of in your head, and it can often clash with your own image. Similarly, someone who is unfamiliar with Irish Music trying to flesh out the meat of a tune from the bare bones would invariably do so in a way that clashes with what we consider to sound traditional. It can be done well by people that are fluent in the tradition, of course.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Reverend
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Oops, in re-reading the thread, I'm not so sure the aforementioned element of fire is missing after all...
We may be doomed for another cycle of deja vu. But I guess we can attempt to welcome the vocal newcomers with open arms, instead of prejudicing our opinions of them with a hunch... Fingers crossed.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Reverend
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
I suspect that some tunes do start out life with the twiddly bits as "vital organs." The B part of Humours of Tulla begs for rolls on those f sharps, and any well-steeped traditional fiddler, piper, fluter, whistler, etc., making up that tune would naturally play rolls there. They are part and parcel of the melody line and rhythmic structure of the tune. Yes, you can leave them out or do some other twiddly bit in their place, but as a variation. The rolls are what makes that bit of tune a trad tune and not something else.
It helps to remember that this music is largely composed on the instrument of the composer--worked out not just in the mind, but under the fingers. Fingers that know the twiddly bits.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Will CPT
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
So Will, it is probably fair to ask at this point whether "Bang your Frog on the Sofa" began life with twiddly bits, and were they removed prior to submitting the ABC to theSession?
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by grego
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Grego, I was actually thinking of using Bang Your Frog as an example of how the twiddly bits are part of the tune. That tune basically wrote itself, and the A part came out all linear melody line--I still don't put any twiddly bits into the A part when I play it. But the B part wanted bowed triplets, per the joke about how to get triplets that sound like Tommy Peoples' triplets. I think of the B part as "needing" the triplets in certain places because the triplets themselves were inspiration for the tune.
So that tune is a good example of both strong, linear melody lines that don't need much or any twiddly bits (I'm thinking here of stuff like the A part to The Scholar, or Maudabawn Chapel, or Fly in the Pint) and tunes that rely on the twiddly bits for a significant part of their form (for example, the B parts to Humours of Tulla, Last Night's Fun, Milliner's Daughter, or any and all of Bucks of Oranmore).
Of course, plenty of tunes straddly that over-generalized dichotomy. Tunes like Sgt. Early's Dream that feature a strong melody line that retains lots of opportunities for twiddly bits.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Will CPT
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
(Caveat - I don't think of Bang Your Frog as a particularly "trad" tune, nor "Irish." I'm not sure where it fits, or if it fits at all. I just enjoy playing it.)
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Will CPT
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Hmmmm.
Maybe sometimes the composer doesn't appreciate the twiddly bits that are part of the tune he's created, and essential to it. Perhaps you should tour some more of the session world, Will, and see if you can find out how the Frog is Supposed To Be Played. [
]
A bit like Eleanor Rigby. L&McC were clueless, and it took Frankie to show us the real tune.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by grego
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
LOL, go on, grego, post the abcs of the twiddly-dee version of Bang Your Frog--I'd love to see it.
I *do* think composers can easily miss the potential a tune offers because they heard it one way for it to come out in the first place, and that's it. I mix all sorts of things into the B part of Bang Your Frog, but the A part resists change, for me.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Will CPT
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Me - no. I saw the flat in the key signature and ran!
So the B part as shown is only the skeleton of the tune, to which meat must be added by the player to his or her own taste,eh?
[I'm sure the vegitarian contingent have long ago abandoned this thread.]
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by grego
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Bring on the vegetarians then. Bring on an infinite savoy cabbage, with endless layers of juicy green leaves.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
I couldn't play bones, kept moving my arm, so took up the bodhran.
As it is goat skin, does this fit in with "fleshing it out?".
Sorry Mr Llig, couldn't resist, especially after watching that old dear in Sandy's on YouTube.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by bodhran bliss
Can we take a poll?
So how many people listening into this conversation come to ITM "exclusively" schooled in sheet music ~ never having given a thought to using your ears?
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Grego, the B part I posted has a bunch of triplets in it, where they felt like they *had* to be.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Will CPT
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Okay, the skeleton with a few essential organs. One kidney, no spleen or appendix...
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by grego
(Let me know when this starts to get irritating...)
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by grego
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
A more interesting poll might be to ask how many people came to ITM relying on the dots, and finally realized that they didn't sound right until they let go of the dots and started using their ears instead. I've probably met 10-12 people that have told me that specifically.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Reverend
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Random Notes - I know what you're getting at. So let me just give you a fewl examples based on something I have witnessed on several occasions at "Learner" or Slow-sessions here in the U.S. A group of eager beginners, some with musical backgrounds and some with none, hunched over piles of sheet music picking their way through tunes they have never heard before. Now flash forward a few months to the same group and they are still hunched over the same sheet music and tunes - completely reliant upon the dots. It may be unknown to see this sort of behavior where you live or with the type of musos that you know, but these folks are out there in large numbers. So if someone is lurking out there and reading this debate and attends a session just like the ones I have described, I would hope this exchange might give them a whole new perspective. That's all.
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Gulp
They really have never heard the tunes before?
That is terrifying.
Guess things are worse than I imagined.
Long live the aural tradition!
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
I'm tempted to venture an opinion or thought here, after lurking for a couple of weeks, and I should say that I don't read music though I can translate it fairly well. I'm not fluent. And I don't really have any background in 'ITM' as it's called here. I also play guitar so my credibilty is now firmly dis-established.
I do listen though. And it seems to me that the sheet music only really pays attention to the notes and assumes that the time values (whole half quarter etc) are trustworthy. If they were trustworthy then surely the MIDI versions would sound fairly accurate? Is this right? (Question1)
I get the impression that the notes depicted are approximate enough in their timing as to make a reel sound like a forced march.
Which begs the question:
Is it possible to write sheet music for trad so that a classical musician can play it? (Question2)
Hypothetical, I know, but curious. The 'dots' (for me) help clarify the notes of the tune since I don't know it well enough to differentiate all that is played, but they don't have any rhythm.
I like the idea of bones for beginners. It sounds simpler. Is there a player who (no pun intended) plays the bones of the tunes or is it something you have to intuit after absorbing several versions of a tune? (Question3)
*tops up glass*
# Posted on June 23rd 2008 by cStu
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Stu, the problem with your instrument is it's only capable of playing the "bones". The majority of the articulations we discuss are not possible on a guitar.
1. If anyone thinks the midi versions sound fairly accurate, they would be a hopeless case.
2. "Is it possible to write sheet music for trad so that a classical musician can play it?" Technically it could be possible to write out a piece of music with all the minute subtleties of timeings. But the piece of paper would be so dense, it would be impossible to read. So no. (and that's not taking into account that to be really accurate, the piece of paper would look different every time you piched it up.)
# Posted on June 24th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
I like the question cStu. Are classically trained players the equivalent of hardware and the dots are the software whereas with itm ... (finish the analogy)
# Posted on June 24th 2008 by leoj
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
It's a misunderstanding of classical music and classical musicians if you think they do not "interpret" what is written on the page. I fyou think they don't put themsoves into it. Well, the best players anyway. Try progamming a Schubert piano sonata into you midi piano and compare it with a CD of Alfred Brendel.
# Posted on June 24th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Might that be construed as argument for learning classical music by ear?
# Posted on June 24th 2008 by leoj
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
The best players do, that's the argument. The dots are a splendid and wondrous tool, but your ears must always come first, in any genre.
There's nothing wrong with using sheet music as a way of helping kids learn to play. Whatever genre you are learning, you will learn to associate certain marks on the page with certain sounds of the music. With diddley music, for example, you will associate three notes the same in the first half of a bar in a jig as a natural place to play a slow roll. If you grow up with this, it's fine. But if, for example, you have learned to read music from within the classical genre, you will automatically interpret three notes the same in a jig as three notes the same. You will play them: da. da. da. You won't play it: dardle are, or dumdede, or dum-diddley etc. You will play it wrong because you have learned that these three blobs represent da.da.da. It is ingrained in your brain. So the only way to learn how a jig actually goes is to put away your miss translation and listen instead.
# Posted on June 24th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
i might be wrong but i think the pianist,Joanna McGregor used to learn pieces by ear...and maybe she still does!
though she reads of course.
what's on a page,even in classical stuff,is n't the whole story,as Micheal says.
# Posted on June 24th 2008 by biggus dave
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Michael,
The longer your posts get, the more detailed and informative they become. This goes back to my original thesis; ie, there should be something in writing somewhere to which newcomers can be directed,
# Posted on June 24th 2008 by Greg the Piano Tuner
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Michael -
"It's a misunderstanding of classical music and classical musicians if you think they do not "interpret" what is written on the page...." -Thanks! I'm glad that someone FINALLY pointed that out.
# Posted on June 24th 2008 by tomw
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Books vs. Movies, hmmm. I quite liked Stardust the movie, but I absolutely loved Gaiman’s book. Different mediums bring out different things. With books, it’s the reader who fills in the blanks, yes the words are there, but without the readers imagination, the book is dormant. With movies, you passively watch someone else’s imagination.
With music, the tune is dormant without the sounds. I can’t think anyone would play any form of music without having heard it first. I don’t think anyone would pick up the score of piece of music and decide yes, I want to play classical, anymore than seeing the sheet music for any jig and decide yes, I want to play Irish, etc.
I read this quote from Jasper FFord which I found interesting, “Get the picture? Yes, but how is it done? By following a simple Imaginotransference protocol? When a reader praises an author, they should reserve 75% of that praise for themselves...”
The reader in this case, becomes a musician playing.
# Posted on June 24th 2008 by Agnes Nutter
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
Reverend---I feel you were right on in your initial paragraphs and stated it well also. My take---ONE method alone is in- complete. So much more can be had when we try to learn using BOTH methods.
# Posted on June 24th 2008 by hauke
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
I'm sorry hauke, but I can't agree with that. With diddley music you do not need the dots. Having the ability to read music will not make you a better player. Using only your ears and no written music to learn and play this music right to the highest standard is perfectly possible. The idea that this method of learning would be somehow incomplete is certainly wrong. For starters, what about blind people?
# Posted on June 24th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
I agree with llig there. I am saying that I would like to learn to read music better, but only as a tool, now that I have at least a decent grasp on the "vocabulary" of Irish music.
I could certainly continue playing and learning without learning to read, and I probably will for quite some time, because I have better things to do than sit down and work on learning to read music... Like, I dunno... Learning more tunes. Or working on some stylistic things I learned at a recent festival, etc. So while it would be nice to have that extra tool in my arsenal, I wouldn't consider it necessary.
# Posted on June 24th 2008 by Reverend
Re: Which was better, the book or the movie?
The book, every time.
# Posted on June 24th 2008 by bodhran bliss