Are there two King of the Fairies? I am interested in finding the sheet music for the version that appears in Danu’s “Up in the Air” album but I wonder whether Danu have misnamed the tune because it bears no relation to the music that appears here on the session.org? Can anyone help?
I find that the only reliable way to have sheet music that exactly matches a version of a tune is to learn the tune by ear and then transcribe it myself.
...especially with tunes from this website----most of them are wildly different from versions I hear where I live. And then many of the people who submit here don't exactly have the best command of abc, so there are many transcription errors as well.
i first learned to read music because i was involved in an old-school, regimental-style Highland pipe band, That was how you learned the tunes-by reading them. When I finally learned to apply that skill to an old copy of O'Neill's 1001 Gems i was astounded at what was missing. Where were the cuts, the rolls, the crans, the weirdlittle different bits? Well, I haven't had much use for the flyspecks and henscratches ever since, but I sure do wish I still had that old {1939) O'Neill's just as an artifact
Hey Carl looking forward to hearing you play the King of the Pipers. You should know better than to ask for sheet music round here. The Kings of ITM will always pipe up.
Jungian Collective Subconscious Irish Traditional Music Archetypes:
Smart-alecky, wise-ass fluter
Miserable fiddler with questionable social skills
Over-enthusiastic backer (goat, six string) with questionable rhythm skills
Old grumpy man in back of pub, typically hollers things such as “yer not playing it right!” or “what the heck d’ya need dots fer?” or “is that a &*#%+@ recorder?!?”
Etc. etc.
So ask not for whom the Llig grumbles at, he grumbles on behalf of the great collective archetypal subconscious.
Wow, I need more coffee. It’s too early for all this. [yawn]
Thanks for your help everyone. I will check out the King of the Pipers as suggested.
The only version of King of the Pipers that I have with me at the moment is by Altan and I have given that a quick listen. It is a pretty close, but by no means perfect match for the tune on the Danu album. I will give the ABC file a listen tonight on the home computer and hear what that sounds like.
Ilig. I suspect you are not necessarily looking for an answer to your “why sheet music?” question, but what the heck. I have only recently learnt to sight read (after 28 years of playing by ear) so I am looking for opportunities to practice . Also I want to learn the bare bones of the tune so that I can add my own ornamentation rather than copy someone elses. That said I note your comments Kennedy and have come across the same problems ( most recently with Girl of the house)
Hey Joel, shouldn't you be working? I actually heard Kate playing this tune on Wednesday night and I was chuffed to stumble across its name on the Danu album yesterday by sheer luck - or at least what I thought was its name.
Carl, try transcribing a few tunes. It's actually very good practice because you have to think about keys, accidentals, and note durations, among other things. And if you do it in abc and then run it through a converter, you get to learn abc as well.
If we go back to the original question.........
......what we have is someone asking to find a way to learn a particular tune played exactly as he has heard it ( on a record ).
I think there is another question there that no-one has tried to answer; do/ should we try to reproduce exactly what we have heard and learnt from other people, or should we try, without losing the tradition, to put something of ourselves in it ?
Watching a re-run of a television documentary the other night, a well-known non-ITM musician said of another group that their aim ( apart from making lots of money ) was always and every time they performed to sound the same ( as their records ), and he didn't think much of that creatively. It was Dave Crosby talking of the Eagles, but the general idea could be applied here too. Is what we should be doing ONLY reproducing exactly what went before, or is there room for re-interpretation ?
Why is the dots v. ears argument so polarised, heated and fascinating? Try an analogy (not sure how far it can be stretched.
The dots are not the territory they are a map of the territory. When you start learning to read a map you are constantly suprised by how different the actual land is from what you expected. If you tried to paint a picture or make a model of the land you wouls be unlikely to produce something that was recognisable. However as you gain experience, the map allows you to find your way around in strange territory. As experience increases attempts to model the land without seeing it become more realistic. But the detail is what you make up, not what is really there.
So why do people get so heated about the issue? Those brought up in a place, or who have lived in a place for some time have no need of maps. are the natives trying to keep out the foriegn invader? In earlier times in England airfields were not signposted so that German saboteurs couldn't find them. Sorry about the length of this comment
At a wild guess, because some peeps can only feel ok with a Them-and-Us situation, so they can feel secure in having something to defend. And defend they do, to the death!
When a stranger to this music stumbles across it and fancies a go at it and asks for a map, I always say, forget the map. You can't get to know a place with a map. Sure, you can get from a to b. But that's not knowing a place.
Third on the left, second on the right, straight on down park road, left along canal street.
Some basic instructions might be better. But really, you should just wander about the place and get to know it, get to know the people, get to know the place. No short cuts.
The idea that I'm hiding the place from someone because I refuse them map is so so far from the truth.
But what if without the map, it's just an impenetrable wilderness in their eyes? what if they just need the map to take their first few steps on one of the paths, and then start to find their way? what if, without it, they give up and miss out?
A general problem with the O'Neill collection is that it seems to be mostly transcriptions of tunes that visiting musicians played to the good Captain and his assistants, or were tunes recollected by him (probably only partially recollected in some cases, and then reconstructed!). If a tune being played or recollected didn't have ornaments then you wouldn't expect them to appear in the transcription. Or there might even have been a policy not to generally include ornaments in the transcriptions.
Another area in which O'Neill is not quite up to scratch is in the occasional strange choice of key signature, or the use of a natural or sharp when the opposite is clearly what was intended. To me, a possible explanation is a mis-hearing or mis-interpretation of what was being played.
O'Neill is still very useful, of course, but mainly as a reference. With all its errors and ambiguities it's not really for beginners - it needs an experienced eye and ear to interpret it. Roche and Breathnach are better researched resources, in my view.
Thank you for your comment Michael. Bearing in mind that it's only an analogy, the point I want to make is that of course the map is not the territory, it lacks detail and may be just plain wrong but, as native to the place you can not understand the value of the map to those who want to find their way there, and yes, once they get their bearings and get to know the the place they will not need the map.
We're stretching the analogy a bit far, but it has it's good points. Yes, a map, or any diagram is not the real thing, but a graphic representation of some information about the real thing. What information that is represented and can be construed from the map/diagram depends on map/diagram's specific purpose and the interpreter's prior knowledge of the symbolism used. The question is, will an understanding of something via a diagram help one's understanding of it when one encounters the real thing.
I was asked by a tourist once, in Edinburgh\s Grassmarket, how to get to George IV bridge. They had a map that had the Cowgate shown as an intersection with George IV bridge, so off they had trotted down the Cowgate expecting to be where they had wanted to be. Only to find themselves six stories below.
And the trouble with maps of diddley music is that they use identical symbols to other maps of different kinds of music, but those symbols represent different sounds. So someone coming to the music new, but already versed in the knowledge of musical representational symbols, will interpret the map wrongly. The map, for them, is worse than no help at all, it's misleading.
"I think there is another question there that no-one has tried to answer; do/ should we try to reproduce exactly what we have heard and learnt from other people, or should we try, without losing the tradition, to put something of ourselves in it ""
Excellent point pete. I actually think its essential to put your self fully into the music, otherwise its not trad, but an immitation, a good imitation maybe, but thats all it is: a copy.
I recall Micho saying that one day Breandan questioned him on this, he ask'd why micho's tunes were all a bit different to the standard way of playing them. Michael replied, that he learn 't them as best he could, by ear, but that he would go home with the bones of the tunes and make bits up ! or something to this effect. he gave Breandan 300 tunes.
So now where does this position coincide with lligs , that we must learn the tunes 'exactly' as they were played? At all?
Skipping over the physical impossibility of actually doing what llig says he does, learning them 'exactly' , I wonder which is 'right'
I find learning tunes from the dots much more satisfying than by ear, firstly , unlike llig my ear isn't as good perhaps, so many of the tunes i learnt 20yrs ago by ear are my own remembering, slightly different tio the standard often, which gives me originality, but not accuracy! (recently hearing Michos story reassured me!)
But mainly I am after the general picture, I use the various transcriptions and my own memory to find a way of playing that sounds right to me. it works for me. Its a traditional method, unlike using slow down software the pause/rewind button etc.
I make a point on that other thread about source; that learning by ear is of little value in attaining an 'authentic style' whatever that is unless the source itself is 'authentic'! Using an example of a fiddler I know who uses vibrato on every feckin note, but learnt all his(admittedly small) repertoire by ear (badly, sigh) and i actually wish he would look at the feckin dots to get his tunes 'right'(ish)
So I speak up for the dots. I love em.
I dont like transcriptions of individual players, they seem pointless. If you want the tune, learn the bones and add your own interpretation's, your own rolls cuts slides etc, a perfect copy of a masterpiece is only that , a copy. an individual work of art, be it a master piece or not, is an expression of personal thought, feeling etc. You can keep your dry. note perfect , dull renditions of tunes thanks, I prefer the real thing.
I am starting to suffer synisthesia but I think you making good points here. For sight read sound, for map read dots but it the artist puts into the art that makes it sublime. You don't get that from painting by numbers
I think it's worth pointing out that although I make every effort to learn the tunes 'exactly' as they were/are played, that's merely the first process in being comfortable with them and actually playing them myself. I couldn't agree more that mere imitation is not the music at all. But it sure is the first step on the way.
And of course, there is plenty of contradiction and conundrum in that. For example, how do you learn exactly how someone plays a tune when they play it different every time? And, as Ionannas pointed out, physical exactitude is an impossibility.
But contradiction lies at the heart of all great art.
And I think it's also worth pointing out the inherent danger in a person's desire to put their own stamp on stuff. If you hear a really good player, or indeed, if you have the good fortune to sit and regularly play with really really good players, who is to say that you yourself should be steering things.
It's another contradiction to be savoured: How to humble yourself before the music and yet still put yourself in it? Both being necessary, and seemingly mutually exclusive.
Ionannas, everything you described, about your fiddle playing friend, you observed with your ears. Let him know about his mistakes.
Why should he, or you, trust a visual representation of music over what you hear? Once you trust your ear then hearing becomes listening.
I love sheet music as well. I don't diminish the accomplishments of cartographers, calligraphers, composers, & transcribers.*
Problem is; I know of too many 'loose tunes' being introduced that a player discovers from the page. Better if they are 'looking' with their ears. Yet it is sad when certain "ear musicians" cannot get it right. It is possible to improve (ones' ears).
* at present I do not use sheet music though I know it as well as any. Listening is great!
Funny random, in my own way I did that, I lent him a copy of John Vesey; Sligo fiddler, he reported back that he didn't like the style!! At that moment I realized he was a lost cause
Llig raises an interesting point about personal desire to "put their own stamp on stuff." that I think is very valid. I think its essential to go through the whole process in becoming a musician, specifically in this style, that being learn the tunes, listen to the tunes, internalize the tunes and play them lots!.
In this way, with 'a right' approach , and exposure to the real thing, be it live or recordings, then an original style will organically grow.
"How to humble yourself before the music and yet still put yourself in it?"
I see it as becoming familiar with the tunes and stripping away inessentials until the tune becomes a 'blank canvas', rather than adding more and more; cuts rolls triplets etc. Once this 'Groking' of the tune becomes whole then what you do with the tune really is personal expression
I feel that its good to become familiar with the melody to such an extent that it actually becomes a part of you and you are a part of the melody when you play. That way, when you play you really 'are' expressing yourself.
Personal expression is not something you add on, but the very root of the music.
I am certainly not saying that I have this down pat! Its really only the last couple of years for me that I have felt I am starting to 'get it', to be fluid with interpretation , where the tunes and my playing of them 'well'up from inside me, where I dont consciously know what I am doing anymore . Perhaps in another thirty years I really will get it
Yes, I like that, when the music becomes a part of you, so you physically are expressing your self. Much better than trying to put a stamp on it. The key, of course, is not to try, just let it happen. "Personal expression is not something you add on, but the very root of the music". Yes, very good that.
Though I can't really get my head around the "blank canvas" analogy. I can't, and see no need to try to strip away others' interpretations of tunes. The tunes aren't blank. They have embedded within them the weight and interest of the generations who have and continue to play them. I would hate to strip that away. The tunes are richly beautiful canvases painted by generations, and it is your duty not to smother them. This is why the first step in playing them is to really get inside them, understand every nuance of them. And that does not just merely include other's personal interpretations of them, they ARE, by their very nature, composed of interpretations. And this is why I don't learn tunes from sheet music. And why I discourage others from doing so.
"they ARE, by their very nature, composed of interpretations."
Hmm, I dont see it that way. I see the tunes as existing in another dimension untill we manifest them by playing; inanimate pure melody. We then bring our life experience to 'the table' in our interperatations. This ,I feel, is what makes each player/fiddler unique and original, gives us a personal sound, just like our voice. I am not especially fond of the sound of my own voice, but if it were taken away and replaced with anothers voice I would not be happy! my voice is MINE ! I
I see it as painting anew a fresh new piece, The tune is the concept behind the music, the structure, etc. mind, even the melody can become fluid yet retain its 'tune-ness'.
I feel that too much intellectual analysis of the music can strip the life from it. ITs a tune, pure and simple, a beautifull melody, how we interperate that, the flavour so to speak, is personal expression. This certain something that I personally feel is perhaps missing in much modern music. The notes are all there, the 'diddly bits' yet it doesnt move me, why?It can be perfect technically, yet somehow empty, Its the form without the soul.And soul is not something you can dissect, or buy in the music shop!
I've great respect for the old guys, with a rich life behind them, no need to try to impress, no need to try and be somethging they are not, they play the tunes as they feel and damn the begrudgers. I listen all the time to them. They inspire me, they show me what can be done and ways to do it. But I dont ever try to slow down or copy them. I feel that by listening, and listening, and listening, that their music becomes a part of me and that occasionaly I find myself unconsciously reproducing a little bit of what they do in my music, but try to actually consciously do that !! oh if only I could! but I am happy that it happens at all!
I respect others approaches to the music, what ever works for you is OK in my book, I just offer my own view .
Up until fairly recently I used to think of tunes in that exact same way Ionannas, abstract entities that float around the ether until some one plucks one out and gives it the brief manifestation of vibrating molecules in air. Then back to the ether it goes, ready for the next time.
But I found two problems with it.
Firstly, it's impossible to draw a line between what exactly is being reproduced and what is being created.
Secondly, I felt I had to justify what "the ether" was. This is easy to answer for people who hold the view that tunes can be separated from interpretation. For them, the tunes can be stored in data bases like this one here, like forests of Sitcus spruce, all planted in straight uniform lines, waiting to be chopped down and adorned for x-mas. But it's harder for me, for someone who doesn't believe that terms like skeleton and decoration are helpful.
So I went back to basics and realised that the tunes actually exist in the playing and the memories of those who play and have played them. It's as simple as that. And the feedback loop of what those memories comprise of, is peoples' playing. And this is why I say that the tunes ARE, by their very nature, composed of interpretations.
I'd say that playing a Jazz solo is like painting anew a fresh canvas. Playing diddley music is very far from this. It is interpreting interpretations.
Aka
Aka
Are there two King of the Fairies? I am interested in finding the sheet music for the version that appears in Danu’s “Up in the Air” album but I wonder whether Danu have misnamed the tune because it bears no relation to the music that appears here on the session.org? Can anyone help?
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by Carl McAndrew
Re: Aka
There are a lot of tunes with "debateable" titles on that recording, I seem to remember. I'll give it a listen again.
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by Kenny
Re: Aka
http://www.thesession.org/recordings/display/1129
See comments by "paul95".
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by Kenny
Re: Aka
why do you need the sheet music if you have a recording?
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by ...
Re: Aka
Because he wants to learn it how he wants to not how you wants to llig, got a problem with that?
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by I ♥ Dow
Re: Aka
Let's not bother with all this again eh. Just read this instead. I guarantee that anything that could be said now was already said on this:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/19350
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by ...
Re: Aka
ha, I particularly liked:
"My interjections on such requests are of the utmost relevance to playing this music and I shall continue to do it. If it bugs you? Tough."
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by ...
Re: Aka
I find that the only reliable way to have sheet music that exactly matches a version of a tune is to learn the tune by ear and then transcribe it myself.
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by kennedy
Re: Aka
...especially with tunes from this website----most of them are wildly different from versions I hear where I live. And then many of the people who submit here don't exactly have the best command of abc, so there are many transcription errors as well.
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by kennedy
Re: Aka
i first learned to read music because i was involved in an old-school, regimental-style Highland pipe band, That was how you learned the tunes-by reading them. When I finally learned to apply that skill to an old copy of O'Neill's 1001 Gems i was astounded at what was missing. Where were the cuts, the rolls, the crans, the weirdlittle different bits? Well, I haven't had much use for the flyspecks and henscratches ever since, but I sure do wish I still had that old {1939) O'Neill's just as an artifact
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by pipewatcher
Re: Aka
Indeed.
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by skin&bow
Re: Aka
On my copy of O'Neils they are in pencil.
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by David50
Re: Aka
Hey Carl looking forward to hearing you play the King of the Pipers. You should know better than to ask for sheet music round here. The Kings of ITM will always pipe up.
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by McDermott
Re: Aka
Jungian Collective Subconscious Irish Traditional Music Archetypes:
Smart-alecky, wise-ass fluter
Miserable fiddler with questionable social skills
Over-enthusiastic backer (goat, six string) with questionable rhythm skills
Old grumpy man in back of pub, typically hollers things such as “yer not playing it right!” or “what the heck d’ya need dots fer?” or “is that a &*#%+@ recorder?!?”
Etc. etc.
So ask not for whom the Llig grumbles at, he grumbles on behalf of the great collective archetypal subconscious.
Wow, I need more coffee. It’s too early for all this. [yawn]
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Aka
Special thanks for Krick for correctly identifying the fiddler and fluter archetypes.
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Aka
Thanks for your help everyone. I will check out the King of the Pipers as suggested.
The only version of King of the Pipers that I have with me at the moment is by Altan and I have given that a quick listen. It is a pretty close, but by no means perfect match for the tune on the Danu album. I will give the ABC file a listen tonight on the home computer and hear what that sounds like.
Ilig. I suspect you are not necessarily looking for an answer to your “why sheet music?” question, but what the heck. I have only recently learnt to sight read (after 28 years of playing by ear) so I am looking for opportunities to practice . Also I want to learn the bare bones of the tune so that I can add my own ornamentation rather than copy someone elses. That said I note your comments Kennedy and have come across the same problems ( most recently with Girl of the house)
Hey Joel, shouldn't you be working? I actually heard Kate playing this tune on Wednesday night and I was chuffed to stumble across its name on the Danu album yesterday by sheer luck - or at least what I thought was its name.
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by Carl McAndrew
Re: Aka
Of course I was after an answer. And your's is a pretty good one. Much better than D.J.F.'s on that other long thread. He was just bloody bone idle.
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by ...
Re: Aka
Carl, try transcribing a few tunes. It's actually very good practice because you have to think about keys, accidentals, and note durations, among other things. And if you do it in abc and then run it through a converter, you get to learn abc as well.
# Posted on December 5th 2008 by kennedy
Re: Aka
If we go back to the original question.........
......what we have is someone asking to find a way to learn a particular tune played exactly as he has heard it ( on a record ).
I think there is another question there that no-one has tried to answer; do/ should we try to reproduce exactly what we have heard and learnt from other people, or should we try, without losing the tradition, to put something of ourselves in it ?
Watching a re-run of a television documentary the other night, a well-known non-ITM musician said of another group that their aim ( apart from making lots of money ) was always and every time they performed to sound the same ( as their records ), and he didn't think much of that creatively. It was Dave Crosby talking of the Eagles, but the general idea could be applied here too. Is what we should be doing ONLY reproducing exactly what went before, or is there room for re-interpretation ?
# Posted on December 6th 2008 by Guernsey Pete
Re: Aka
http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display/31
# Posted on December 6th 2008 by Kenny
Re: Aka
Why is the dots v. ears argument so polarised, heated and fascinating? Try an analogy (not sure how far it can be stretched.
The dots are not the territory they are a map of the territory. When you start learning to read a map you are constantly suprised by how different the actual land is from what you expected. If you tried to paint a picture or make a model of the land you wouls be unlikely to produce something that was recognisable. However as you gain experience, the map allows you to find your way around in strange territory. As experience increases attempts to model the land without seeing it become more realistic. But the detail is what you make up, not what is really there.
So why do people get so heated about the issue? Those brought up in a place, or who have lived in a place for some time have no need of maps. are the natives trying to keep out the foriegn invader? In earlier times in England airfields were not signposted so that German saboteurs couldn't find them. Sorry about the length of this comment
# Posted on December 7th 2008 by greg sheils
Re: Aka
And sorry about the typos
# Posted on December 7th 2008 by greg sheils
Re: Aka
Harry
At a wild guess, because some peeps can only feel ok with a Them-and-Us situation, so they can feel secure in having something to defend. And defend they do, to the death!
(Though of course this probably makes me a Them)
# Posted on December 7th 2008 by suesinger
Re: Aka
Harry, your analysis could not be more wrong.
When a stranger to this music stumbles across it and fancies a go at it and asks for a map, I always say, forget the map. You can't get to know a place with a map. Sure, you can get from a to b. But that's not knowing a place.
Third on the left, second on the right, straight on down park road, left along canal street.
Some basic instructions might be better. But really, you should just wander about the place and get to know it, get to know the people, get to know the place. No short cuts.
The idea that I'm hiding the place from someone because I refuse them map is so so far from the truth.
# Posted on December 8th 2008 by ...
Re: Aka
But what if without the map, it's just an impenetrable wilderness in their eyes? what if they just need the map to take their first few steps on one of the paths, and then start to find their way? what if, without it, they give up and miss out?
It isn't the same for everyone.
# Posted on December 8th 2008 by suesinger
Re: Aka
A general problem with the O'Neill collection is that it seems to be mostly transcriptions of tunes that visiting musicians played to the good Captain and his assistants, or were tunes recollected by him (probably only partially recollected in some cases, and then reconstructed!). If a tune being played or recollected didn't have ornaments then you wouldn't expect them to appear in the transcription. Or there might even have been a policy not to generally include ornaments in the transcriptions.
Another area in which O'Neill is not quite up to scratch is in the occasional strange choice of key signature, or the use of a natural or sharp when the opposite is clearly what was intended. To me, a possible explanation is a mis-hearing or mis-interpretation of what was being played.
O'Neill is still very useful, of course, but mainly as a reference. With all its errors and ambiguities it's not really for beginners - it needs an experienced eye and ear to interpret it. Roche and Breathnach are better researched resources, in my view.
# Posted on December 8th 2008 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Aka
Thank you for your comment Michael. Bearing in mind that it's only an analogy, the point I want to make is that of course the map is not the territory, it lacks detail and may be just plain wrong but, as native to the place you can not understand the value of the map to those who want to find their way there, and yes, once they get their bearings and get to know the the place they will not need the map.
# Posted on December 8th 2008 by greg sheils
Re: Aka
We're stretching the analogy a bit far, but it has it's good points. Yes, a map, or any diagram is not the real thing, but a graphic representation of some information about the real thing. What information that is represented and can be construed from the map/diagram depends on map/diagram's specific purpose and the interpreter's prior knowledge of the symbolism used. The question is, will an understanding of something via a diagram help one's understanding of it when one encounters the real thing.
I was asked by a tourist once, in Edinburgh\s Grassmarket, how to get to George IV bridge. They had a map that had the Cowgate shown as an intersection with George IV bridge, so off they had trotted down the Cowgate expecting to be where they had wanted to be. Only to find themselves six stories below.
And the trouble with maps of diddley music is that they use identical symbols to other maps of different kinds of music, but those symbols represent different sounds. So someone coming to the music new, but already versed in the knowledge of musical representational symbols, will interpret the map wrongly. The map, for them, is worse than no help at all, it's misleading.
# Posted on December 8th 2008 by ...
Re: Aka
"I think there is another question there that no-one has tried to answer; do/ should we try to reproduce exactly what we have heard and learnt from other people, or should we try, without losing the tradition, to put something of ourselves in it ""
Excellent point pete. I actually think its essential to put your self fully into the music, otherwise its not trad, but an immitation, a good imitation maybe, but thats all it is: a copy.
I recall Micho saying that one day Breandan questioned him on this, he ask'd why micho's tunes were all a bit different to the standard way of playing them. Michael replied, that he learn 't them as best he could, by ear, but that he would go home with the bones of the tunes and make bits up ! or something to this effect. he gave Breandan 300 tunes.
So now where does this position coincide with lligs , that we must learn the tunes 'exactly' as they were played? At all?
Skipping over the physical impossibility of actually doing what llig says he does, learning them 'exactly' , I wonder which is 'right'
I find learning tunes from the dots much more satisfying than by ear, firstly , unlike llig my ear isn't as good perhaps, so many of the tunes i learnt 20yrs ago by ear are my own remembering, slightly different tio the standard often, which gives me originality, but not accuracy! (recently hearing Michos story reassured me!)
But mainly I am after the general picture, I use the various transcriptions and my own memory to find a way of playing that sounds right to me. it works for me. Its a traditional method, unlike using slow down software the pause/rewind button etc.
I make a point on that other thread about source; that learning by ear is of little value in attaining an 'authentic style' whatever that is unless the source itself is 'authentic'! Using an example of a fiddler I know who uses vibrato on every feckin note, but learnt all his(admittedly small) repertoire by ear (badly, sigh) and i actually wish he would look at the feckin dots to get his tunes 'right'(ish)
So I speak up for the dots. I love em.
I dont like transcriptions of individual players, they seem pointless. If you want the tune, learn the bones and add your own interpretation's, your own rolls cuts slides etc, a perfect copy of a masterpiece is only that , a copy. an individual work of art, be it a master piece or not, is an expression of personal thought, feeling etc. You can keep your dry. note perfect , dull renditions of tunes thanks, I prefer the real thing.
# Posted on December 8th 2008 by piobagusfidil
Re: Aka
I am starting to suffer synisthesia but I think you making good points here. For sight read sound, for map read dots but it the artist puts into the art that makes it sublime. You don't get that from painting by numbers
# Posted on December 8th 2008 by greg sheils
Re: Aka
it's what the artist puts into the art...
# Posted on December 8th 2008 by greg sheils
Re: Aka
and is midi the equivalent of tomtom
# Posted on December 8th 2008 by greg sheils
Re: Aka
I think it's worth pointing out that although I make every effort to learn the tunes 'exactly' as they were/are played, that's merely the first process in being comfortable with them and actually playing them myself. I couldn't agree more that mere imitation is not the music at all. But it sure is the first step on the way.
And of course, there is plenty of contradiction and conundrum in that. For example, how do you learn exactly how someone plays a tune when they play it different every time? And, as Ionannas pointed out, physical exactitude is an impossibility.
But contradiction lies at the heart of all great art.
And I think it's also worth pointing out the inherent danger in a person's desire to put their own stamp on stuff. If you hear a really good player, or indeed, if you have the good fortune to sit and regularly play with really really good players, who is to say that you yourself should be steering things.
It's another contradiction to be savoured: How to humble yourself before the music and yet still put yourself in it? Both being necessary, and seemingly mutually exclusive.
# Posted on December 8th 2008 by ...
Re: Aka
Ionannas, everything you described, about your fiddle playing friend, you observed with your ears. Let him know about his mistakes.
Why should he, or you, trust a visual representation of music over what you hear? Once you trust your ear then hearing becomes listening.
I love sheet music as well. I don't diminish the accomplishments of cartographers, calligraphers, composers, & transcribers.*
Problem is; I know of too many 'loose tunes' being introduced that a player discovers from the page. Better if they are 'looking' with their ears. Yet it is sad when certain "ear musicians" cannot get it right. It is possible to improve (ones' ears).
* at present I do not use sheet music though I know it as well as any. Listening is great!
# Posted on December 8th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: Aka
Funny random, in my own way I did that, I lent him a copy of John Vesey; Sligo fiddler, he reported back that he didn't like the style!! At that moment I realized he was a lost cause
Llig raises an interesting point about personal desire to "put their own stamp on stuff." that I think is very valid. I think its essential to go through the whole process in becoming a musician, specifically in this style, that being learn the tunes, listen to the tunes, internalize the tunes and play them lots!.
In this way, with 'a right' approach , and exposure to the real thing, be it live or recordings, then an original style will organically grow.
"How to humble yourself before the music and yet still put yourself in it?"
I see it as becoming familiar with the tunes and stripping away inessentials until the tune becomes a 'blank canvas', rather than adding more and more; cuts rolls triplets etc. Once this 'Groking' of the tune becomes whole then what you do with the tune really is personal expression
I feel that its good to become familiar with the melody to such an extent that it actually becomes a part of you and you are a part of the melody when you play. That way, when you play you really 'are' expressing yourself.
Personal expression is not something you add on, but the very root of the music.
I am certainly not saying that I have this down pat! Its really only the last couple of years for me that I have felt I am starting to 'get it', to be fluid with interpretation , where the tunes and my playing of them 'well'up from inside me, where I dont consciously know what I am doing anymore . Perhaps in another thirty years I really will get it
# Posted on December 9th 2008 by piobagusfidil
Re: Aka
Yes, I like that, when the music becomes a part of you, so you physically are expressing your self. Much better than trying to put a stamp on it. The key, of course, is not to try, just let it happen. "Personal expression is not something you add on, but the very root of the music". Yes, very good that.
Though I can't really get my head around the "blank canvas" analogy. I can't, and see no need to try to strip away others' interpretations of tunes. The tunes aren't blank. They have embedded within them the weight and interest of the generations who have and continue to play them. I would hate to strip that away. The tunes are richly beautiful canvases painted by generations, and it is your duty not to smother them. This is why the first step in playing them is to really get inside them, understand every nuance of them. And that does not just merely include other's personal interpretations of them, they ARE, by their very nature, composed of interpretations. And this is why I don't learn tunes from sheet music. And why I discourage others from doing so.
# Posted on December 9th 2008 by ...
Re: Aka
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hb0f8ivrjBk&NR=1
# Posted on December 9th 2008 by ...
Re: Aka
PRICELESS !
Where on earth did you find that, Michael? I loved the bit at the end where he speeded up and the wheels fell off!
# Posted on December 10th 2008 by domhnall.
Re: Aka
"they ARE, by their very nature, composed of interpretations."
I
Hmm, I dont see it that way. I see the tunes as existing in another dimension untill we manifest them by playing; inanimate pure melody. We then bring our life experience to 'the table' in our interperatations. This ,I feel, is what makes each player/fiddler unique and original, gives us a personal sound, just like our voice. I am not especially fond of the sound of my own voice, but if it were taken away and replaced with anothers voice I would not be happy! my voice is MINE !
I see it as painting anew a fresh new piece, The tune is the concept behind the music, the structure, etc. mind, even the melody can become fluid yet retain its 'tune-ness'.
I feel that too much intellectual analysis of the music can strip the life from it. ITs a tune, pure and simple, a beautifull melody, how we interperate that, the flavour so to speak, is personal expression. This certain something that I personally feel is perhaps missing in much modern music. The notes are all there, the 'diddly bits' yet it doesnt move me, why?It can be perfect technically, yet somehow empty, Its the form without the soul.And soul is not something you can dissect, or buy in the music shop!
I've great respect for the old guys, with a rich life behind them, no need to try to impress, no need to try and be somethging they are not, they play the tunes as they feel and damn the begrudgers. I listen all the time to them. They inspire me, they show me what can be done and ways to do it. But I dont ever try to slow down or copy them. I feel that by listening, and listening, and listening, that their music becomes a part of me and that occasionaly I find myself unconsciously reproducing a little bit of what they do in my music, but try to actually consciously do that !! oh if only I could! but I am happy that it happens at all!
I respect others approaches to the music, what ever works for you is OK in my book, I just offer my own view .
# Posted on December 10th 2008 by piobagusfidil
Re: Aka
Up until fairly recently I used to think of tunes in that exact same way Ionannas, abstract entities that float around the ether until some one plucks one out and gives it the brief manifestation of vibrating molecules in air. Then back to the ether it goes, ready for the next time.
But I found two problems with it.
Firstly, it's impossible to draw a line between what exactly is being reproduced and what is being created.
Secondly, I felt I had to justify what "the ether" was. This is easy to answer for people who hold the view that tunes can be separated from interpretation. For them, the tunes can be stored in data bases like this one here, like forests of Sitcus spruce, all planted in straight uniform lines, waiting to be chopped down and adorned for x-mas. But it's harder for me, for someone who doesn't believe that terms like skeleton and decoration are helpful.
So I went back to basics and realised that the tunes actually exist in the playing and the memories of those who play and have played them. It's as simple as that. And the feedback loop of what those memories comprise of, is peoples' playing. And this is why I say that the tunes ARE, by their very nature, composed of interpretations.
I'd say that playing a Jazz solo is like painting anew a fresh canvas. Playing diddley music is very far from this. It is interpreting interpretations.
# Posted on December 10th 2008 by ...
Re: Aka
You bastard Michael,
I've just wasted half the morning watching that girl clapping along to The Washerwoman. Didn't really notice the playing....
# Posted on December 10th 2008 by Ottery
Re: Aka
me too...
# Posted on December 10th 2008 by bogman