No offense Bowhand, but this topic has come up more than once in the last month or two, and it's damn depressing at 45 to hear all these teens and twenty somethings bemoaning their advanced age. Sigh.
The short answer is: 15 is young, youthful, fresh, unripe, blooming with vigor and energy and the time to do something with it. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
And I'd reframe your question: are there any really good fiddlers who started "late" in life? You betcha. Lots of fiddlers (many of them just as good or better than those "famous" ones) started in their teens, twentys, or even (gasp!) thirties.
Why is it we imagine playing fiddle well requires a start in utero? I mean, do we pretend that neuro surgeons are no good if they haven't practiced with a scalpel before shedding their diapers? Do we dismiss people's dreams to be sculptors, welders, violin makers, writers, engineers, movie makers, chefs, etc. just because they weren't child prodigies?
Granted, research suggests that musical capacities respond well to nurturing in the early years. But aren't we bombarded by music from the womb forward, every day of the year? I know my own kids have heard music every day of their lives, whether they wanted to or not, lots of it passive listening but with substantial amounts of active listening and direct participation as well. An early start doesn't hurt--unless you burn out--but it doesn't guarantee success either, and a "late" start doesn't mean you're doomed to mediocrity.
I read once about this fiddle player (I don't remember his name, it's a couple of years ago) in his forties, I believe, who after playing for only 5 years was invited to join some fairly well known group (don't remember their name either). So you see it can happen to the best of us! BTW, I don't remember whether it was in ITM or maybe Old Time...
You might be able to tell that I'm of quite advanced age myself... my memory is going at a rapid pace! What was the question again?
Thanks for your contribution, folks.
As regards late bloomers, there's one guy I overlooked. His name is Jim McKillop, a very talented fiddler, who first took up the instrument at age twenty six.
Catriona MacDonald in an interview with Fiddler Magazine a few years ago said something like "I started playing at eleven which is quite old for the fiddle." I remember that quite well and it depressed me a little at the time but I carried on regardless. )
It's quite possible to be a good fiddler at any age and who wants to be famous, anyway? As Will says many of us will absorbed music from an early age--- I knew many of the Scottish tunes and others before I started playing and it's quite easy to play them once you know the basics of your instrument. Also, playing another instrument helps too--anything at all as long as you're a bit musical.
One advantage of starting young is that you "have less fear" about what people might think of your playing ability. Also, there is probably the tendency to make more allowances for children as they are learning. Your uncharitable adult friends are more likely to say "Don't give up the day job". )
I certainly don't think that your late teens is too late to start, although there are many distractions at that age--part of the reason I couldn't stick with the guitar. Maybe, your late thirties, forties, or older is a bit late if you want to be famous but you'd probably have more sense at that age, anyway, and that wouldn't be your goal. It's still possible to play the fiddle well and for your own enjoyment. That's all that really matters.
The question is a bit stark, and could be answered simply "Yes".
Are you the 15+ who is looking to take up fiddle? Are you looking for encouragement for yourself? or for someone else? or seeking ammunition to discourage someone? or just trying to win an argument down the pub?
Put a bit about yourself in your profile - that's what its there for.
Bowhand, I notice that those who are disparaging of the idea of starting to learn an instrument later in life (whatever that means) are usually not players themselves. I suspect that they are frustrated players who never gave themselves a fair shot at this stuff because of fears, low self esteem, and the like.
A customer where I work, when finding out that I started on the harp at age 32 was amazed. Not because I'm so good (ha ha!) but because he wasn't used to hearing of people start up music at such an "advanced" age. He thought for a moment and then said, "You know, that's the same age that Cyndi Lauper started up her music!" I certainly appreciated the sentiment and encouragement that he meant to convey with it.
In contrast, another customer whose tiny little girl has already be learning violin, said to me, when he found out I started fiddle at age 37, "Hmmm, well you're not dead yet..." Give a girl a break buddy, since when is 37 even considered remotely close to dead? By the way this guy is at least 10 years older than me.
Oh, so what I meant to say bowhand was--15 you have the world and future ahead of you shining and bright. Anything is possible--seize the moment! Do what you love and you'll be great by the time you're my age!
Well .... I was 53 years old when I took up the fiddle and I don't call that late. I am now 62 and consider I have years of playing left in me yet. Age doesn't matter ... what does matter is that you enjoy the music and playing it.
I started playing piano at the age of 5 or 6, and have continued playing music of one form or another ever since - so at nearly 30, I ought to be a brilliant, blinding, wizard of a musician. But I'm not. I'm all right. I've got so used to being overtaken by people with 4 or 5 years of playing behind them that I don't even want to kill them anymore.
David, you *are* brilliant. You must be so good at moving the goalposts, that you still haven't noticed...
I remember making a half-hearted attempt at learning the whistle, in my twenties, but being too cowed by the mysterious unknowables of the task, and thinking - it's a bit pointless, I'll never be any good, look at these genius nine-year-olds doing that stuff, and here's me, 26 and looking like an idiot.. At that age, you're too bothered about what people think, and the shame about being compared against children, unfavourably.
But now, in my (late) thirties, I've got over that! Dammit, in a few years, if I work hard, I'll be quite good - and I don't let it get to me, too much, that there will always be nine-year-olds with greater proficiency. They have had great advantages, which the rest of us just have to accept - it isn't a bloody competition. And their greater proficiency doesn't necessarily give them better innate musicality. If you've got that inside you, then for God's sake, let it out! By Any Means Necessary!
There are plenty of adults in their 30s, 40s, and later, who go along to classes at Willie Week, where they find themselves sitting in a class of children. And they swallow their pride and accept that, and get on with it, because they want to learn. And many of them become extremely good players, too - because dedication is the one thing you *can't* do without. I bet there are fewer in their twenties, who will submit themselves to the supposed 'shame' of sitting amongst the under-tens. But it's a real shame if this social fear prevents people from making a commitment to learning - when in reality, they are *plenty* young enough. I really regret being caught in that mental trap, myself.
Just do it! Fifteen? That's YOUNG!!!
I think the question itself is an expression of one of the major problems in trad music. We've begun to adopt a commercial mentality that says that the top, "famous" people are the standard because they're commercially successfull and on stage. If you can't play like them RIGHT NOW then you might as well not play. It's part of this process of taking the music out of the community, canning it in a slick package, and putting it on stage like it's a finished product. You don't have to be from or live in Clare to have a community of friends where trad music is a large part of life or to simply enjoy the tunes for the sake of the tunes for yourself. I think you have to ask yourself what it would be like if you were as good as so-and-so today. Would it make you better than other people? Would it make you happy in life? Probably not. Read Last Night's Fun, by Ciaran Carson, and think about the journey he describes in trad music. This music is about the friends you make, the experiences you live through and the laugh track in the background that every once in a while bends you doubled over. If you look at this music as something to be possessed or as a tool to fame and fortune then that's pretty sad. You'll miss out on so much.
My reason for posting the initial question was, the predominant number of today's "famous" fiddlers began as children.
I am interested in those who didn't, purely on the basis of curiousity. Please bear that in mind, as one or two contributers adopted a defensive approach, instantaneously!
Also, the term "famous musicians" was chosen on the basis that it was a general and accessible reference point. Rather than embrace the esoteric, I hoped contributers would derive their answers from a known sphere, thus providing a level playing field for discussion. We can't all discuss the musical prowess of Paddy Joe X from down the road, can we?
It's also easier to document the progress of a famous player rather than speculate on an unknown quantity. So as you see, I'm not a superfical person!
As regards Jerball's post - fame in the traditonal music world is seldom, if ever, attained by talentless individuals. Traditional musicians are never championed to the extent of their pop counterparts. Those who excel in the traditional music world, do so, without the aid of superficiality. The 'Fame versus Talent' debate has not entered our stratosphere just yet!
What gets the defenses up is that you bought into the notion that 15 is a "late stage" in musical life. That was a large part of how you framed your initial question. Coupled with the "famous" bit, it leads me to think that you've missed the point of trad music. So I was perhaps mistaken.
That said, I've played music since I was 7 on a whole parade of instruments, and I think it all adds up. So it happens that many of the brilliant players we've all heard of have played since they were wee ones. More importantly, they kept playing. They didn't quit. They slogged away for millions of hours. I'm convinced the number and quality of hours spent playing matter much more than what age you first started.
Will, you can move (musical) mountains with practice. Matt Molloy practices six hours a day, while fiddler Zoe Conway practices eight. But they can't compare with jazz great Charlie Parker, who practised sixteen hours a day for three years!
Ideas? I have lots of ideas. That recording serves its purpose well--providing a slow version for beginners to learn from. But it's not representative of the playing of the person who recorded it, and so it's not really fair to single them out based on that track. Plus it's not my place to unmask them.
I always feel a bit sorry for people who "practice" half their days away. I would hope that Matt Molloy and Zoe Conway are *playing* 6 or 8 hours a day and enjoying it, rather than slaving away over technique. Some of us are lucky if we can play that many hours in a week, with jobs and family and other priorities. Others shape their lives to allow lots of time for music, even if it is "just a hobby."
I think six hours practice is a little excessive too, although I frequently *play* for that length of time if not every day. Perhaps 30 mins to an hour is sufficient time for most people to practise things like technique----if only I could discipline myself to do as much as this! I do like to play much more , if I can, but as Will suggests it's more for enjoyment than practice. Even learning new tunes probably falls into the latter.
People like Matt Molloy are professional musicians and their playing will not be *practice* as we know it. There will be live gigs, rehearshals, recordings, preparing arrangements of tunes/sets , composing of music etc which will no doubt take up a lot of time. I don't think that you can compare our needs to that of full time musicians.
I think 30 intense mins per day devoted to solidifying technique is more beneficial then 2 hours *practicing* tunes. The more solid your technique is, the quicker and more fluent your tune-learning becomes. It works for me, and it's worked for my students too.
Give over, Helen! If you start using words like 'brilliant' to describe the likes of me, you'll have to start inventing new words to describe the thousands of musicians that make me look like a barnacle on a whale's bottom. The OED's quite big enough as it is.
I heard once - and I think I've got the story more or less right - that a professor at one of the big music colleges in the UK remarked that any would-be concert pianist who needs to practice more than 4 hours a day is in the wrong job.
As a general principle I'm inclined to go along with that. There is only so much that the human physiology and brain can take in in one go without a rest to give the brain a chance to absorb stuff and for the muscles, nerves, tendons etc to recuperate and develop. Do too much and you're quickly into the region of diminshing returns. I've heard it said that 35-45 minutes is as long as a given learning activity should last without a rest break, which is why school lessons, lectures etc rarely exceed that period.
Trevor
Er, Bowhand, I think I'll stop participating in conversations that I have no idea what they're about and who they're with, thank you.
Jim's hit it on the head about brief but intense time spent polishing technique. We've had this discussion before, ages ago, and if I recall correctly, some of us "practice" a lot, while others (myself included) mostly "play," for enjoyment, and what little "practicing" we do is relegated to short, intense focus on a specific area that needs improvement.
I suppose which camp you fall into might depend on what stage you're at in your playing. Beginners tend to need more work on technique, more experienced players less so. But I know that beginners can benefit from focusing their practice time more specifically on technique and also leaving lots of time to just play for fun. And most veteran musicians I know play mostly for fun, but still try to set aside a little time every week to work on technique.
Sorry it took so long to reply, these 'old bones' don't move as fast as they use to! Relatively late stage? At FIFTEEN?! Late stage of puberty maybe! My idea of someone taking up the fiddle at a 'late stage' is forty plus. You know, after you've accumulated kids, debt, dust, and the like. I took up the fiddle after twenty years of procrastinating. I haven't played an instument since high school (not much call for trombones in ITM). Golly
p.s. I'm pulling forty not pushing it!
David, you don't look anything like a barnacle - they don't have beards, for a start. That would be mussels.
Alright then, to construct a more precise description; your playing is highly skilled, as well as creative, expressive, subtle, and tastefully and imaginatively ornamented, both on the mandolin and the whistle.
There you go! And I'm far from the only person to choose those adjectives - I've heard highly complimentary remarks on your playing from some top class players.
Actually, the age of thirteen years or more is considered late, as one's potential will not be fufilled, apparently.
Yes, one may become a good musician but not the best one could be.
Bowhand, you can seriously improve your technique in much less time than four hours a day. And anyway, only a professional musician, or a student perhaps, or a Job Seeker (British term for someone not in employment - or have they changed it again?) can possibly have 4 hours a day to devote to their playing.
I detect a certain, Spartan, 'No Fun' element to your attitude. As in - 'you have to do it till it hurts! And start when you're 5 years old! And scrap your social life! Otherwise you will never be Good Enough!
Are you sure you've quite got the gist of this Irish music thing? Perhaps classical soloist or Olympic rowing champion would be more your line?
Too much practice, especially without expert guidance, is as likely to lead to permanent damage as it is to a glorious career. Monomania is not in itself always a good thing...
Very well said Nell!
I don't mean to be patronizing Bowhand, but sometimes when we are very young--emphasis on *very young*--as you are, we can get tunnel vision about stuff. Relax, have fun--it's dance music for pete's sake!
Will raised an important point in the opening paragraph of his last posting on this thread. I think it's important enough to merit discussion in a new thread.
Trevor
'Merely for the peasants'?? LOL!!!! Are you *trying* to undermine your credibility here?
Practice as much as you like, Bowhand, if you think it'll turn you into Frankie Gavin.
You seem to think, however, that it's all about virtuosity. You're missing a whole lot. That's not my problem. But you're implying that people who start the fiddle at an age greater than 15 are a) doomed to mediocrity, and b) might as well not bother. That is a harmful and stupid notion, which is why I bothered to reply.
A fiddle teacher once told me that I might as well quit if I couldn't practice a minimum of four hours a day. I did quit--taking lessons from him.
Sure, in the beginning stages, learning an instrument takes some serious woodshedding--time developing your technique. And if you're ambition is to win competitions, then by all means, practice harder and longer than your competitors. Seamus Connolly and Brendan McGlinchey had a famous rivalry going for years, and they both breathed, ate, and slept the fiddle. Did it make them better players? Sure. Did they reach their musical potential? Maybe.
But I like to think that musicality goes way beyond polished technique. I've learned that at the knee of some mighty Irish trad players, but I've heard the same thing from the likes of Yo Yo Ma, Leonard Bernstein, and Itzahk Perlman. Ma even said "Perfection is not the goal of a performance. You can have a planned approach to a piece, but you also have to have something that you really want to share through the music. The goal is not perfection, but expression." And you have to be human and have a life beyond the practice room if you hope to have something to express.
Frankly, that's what's wrong with most competitions--they emphasize technical proficiency over expressiveness. And I'd rather listen to a "defective" fiddler play with heart than a technically perfect fiddler play without heart any day.
Since most of us here at thesession.org focus primarily on playing in sessions (and the occasional band gig for kicks and grins), technical perfection is not our ambition, even if it were possible. In Irish music, I've found that even "the best" musicians (whoever they are) are more than glad to play with us amateurs, regardless of how few hours a day we "practice." In some cases, they show even more respect for those of us who manage to attain a high level of competency despite the other priorities in our lives. See, for nearly everyone I've met in this music, including some brilliant players, it's not about where you fit in some pecking order of technical mastery. It's about loving the tunes and playing them with other people who love the tunes.
If anyone wants to hear a technically perfect rendering of music all they have to do is to make a midi version using one of those midi orchestration programs. They'll hear perfection alright, but it will have about as much soul as a dried shrivelled walnut.
Trevor
Bowhand, if you're really serious about the practicing thing, try just one solid hour of Sevcik studies per day. These (if you don't already know) are the basis of the best violin (or fiddle) technique. They were written by a master, and they cover *everything* you could ever wish to do on the instrument, regardless of whether you want to play concertos, solos, or any brand of I.T. fiddle music.They won't bastardise I.T. music, and they won't cover individual style, interpretation, feeling or any of the other aesthetics (that is entirely your responsibility), but they will remove the need for endless hours of practicing.
Hmm, I dont actually see what is so wrong with BowHand's posts at all. I'm a perfectionist, unfortunately a really, really lazy one, If I practiced as much as I think I should I'd be brilliant by now. I started way later than all of my friends and it shows. I want to sit in sessions and not feel overwhelmed by brilliant players, I want to be able to add to the brilliant sessions and not have my friends be nice to me cause they like me as a person but include me because they like me as a musician. Weve had this discussion a million times and people know how het up about it I get about music. I wouldnt agree with the competion thing - sure its great to say 'my friend won the all ireland' blah, blah, but Ive friends who are brilliant who wouldnt dream of entering.
I'm all for people playing for fun and enjoying and not stressing about how they sound and happily playing from the heart. But it isnt my view, If I feel out of my leauge then I'm much more inclined to practice. Ive learnt more tunes in the last few months - now that my friends from Clare are here - than I have in a year. Nothing wrong with that. Oh and by late I mean 18years old. And before ye lads freak out and say that is young, one of my closest friends has been playing 16years and Ive been plahying 8 and it makes such a difference, I know it isnt a competion- but everybody aspires to something different in their lives, this is what I aspire to
I don't think anyone is against practising as such, BB, but we all agreed that 4 to 6 hours on technique etc was a bit excessive and probably counter productive. Of course, a lot of people will play for that length of time-sometimes I have days like these--but I'm sure it's not all serious practice and will be partly made up of playing for pleasure or other things I mentioned earlier.
Is this Seamus Creagh from Cork? He lived in Edinburgh for a bit over twenty years ago was brilliant even then and sounded as if he'd been playing for years. He couldn't have been much older than 33 in those days, if that.
Have a good Christmas. I'm having a little holiday and won't be doing any practice although I'm taking my instrument with me for a tune. I can never be parted from my music. :>))
Good one, Dave--I was thinking the same thing actually.
No there's nothing wrong with really wanting to practice that much. When I first started on the harp, there were many days that I did practice for 4 hours. It really did jump start my playing and I am glad I did it. But I did it out sheer joy, love, obsession, (sometimes frustration at not being able to do what I needed to do, so I'd do it over and over til I got it.) whatever. And I hope Bowhand is getting the same joy out of it as well. I just think that what rubbed some people the wrong way was that they felt he was being joyless and a taskmaster towards himself and others whom he felt didn't practice that much. That is just how it seemed to come across from your posts Bowhand. Correct me if I am wrong...just don't get angry, we are only trying to understand you.
My starting post there was seeking to look at different attitudes to practising; to explore the difference between playing for pleasure and playing to achieve a goal.
I simply disagree with this whole notion that you can't become a brilliant musician unless you start at age 3 or 5 or 7. Bridie, your example of you and your longer playing friend isn't about what age you each started at, but how long you've played. Your friend isn't better because s/he started out young, but because s/he's been playing *twice as long* as you. The lesson in that is--no matter what age you are, don't hesitate to start playing the instrument of your dreams.
Back in the day when I taught bluegrass banjo, I'd sometimes get two new students starting in the same week. Six months later, one would be brilliant, ready to join a band, while the other would still be plonking along haltingly on Boil Dem Cabbage Down. In one case, the plonker was 10 years old and the brilliant player was 35. Neither had played an instrument before. But one used his six months well, and the other didn't. Maybe one had more innate ability than the other too.
Yes, in the beginning, it helps to put in some long blocks of practice, four hours a day if you can manage it without hurting yourself. But a decade or two or three later, playing well in technical control and with a large bag of tunes under your belt, I'd be terminally depressed if I needed four hours a day just to stay sharp. And I'd never suggest that other players couldn't play to their potential without some such arbitrary round number of requisite practice.
I guess part of what I'm trying to say is that playing to our "full potential" isn't just about technique. It's also not about "perfection" in technique. I have to agree with Yo Yo Ma--the goal isn't perfection, but expression.
I know I've substantially improved my playing over the last few years by getting daily exercise, going for long walks in the mountains, reading books, meditating, eating better, and getting more sleep (at least once in a while). Even learning other instruments--learning flute has made me a better fiddle player, taught me things about phrasing I probably could not have learned any other way. And as Jim suggests (promoting the Sevcik method), the *quality* of your practice time is more important than the sheer number of hours.
I don't know at what age Willie Clancy took up the pipes, but it must have been in his twenties. It was in the 1940s, anyway, and he was born in 1918. Alright, you might say that Ronan Browne or Paddy Keenan (who both started very young) are technically better; but you'd meet with some opposition if you said that they were better musicians than Willie Clancy - who didn't do too badly, did he, given his 'relatively late' start?
I don't consider starting in 20s, 30s 40s etc is too late at all. I think it depends more on what your personal goals are and how much time you devote to learning technique & tunes. 4 hours a day for me would really annoy my wrist and neck. It may take longer to learn fiddle, but the time will pass regardless of what I do. Should I give up simply because I'm 49? Not by a long shot!!
On another thread, Chris mentioned that he bows before playing. I do this too, and I've found it's probably the singlemost important thing I've learned for improving my playing. I know this sounds New Age and mystical (but hey, I am Sensei Bosley, eh? , but it helps remind me to approach the music I would receive a gift, which always feels good. A bit humbling, but a bit excited and playful, too, like Christmas morning. This is an attitude that kids tend to have subconsciously--if music feels like play to them, they accept it like being let out for recess. As adults, some of us have to unlearn our work habits and relearn how to play. On the other hand, I've seen kids who lost the connection between music and play very early on, and their music has no joy and they almost always quit music entirely before adulthood. What a shame.
When we accept the gift of music, and the gift of enjoying music, even "practice" becomes play time. Kerri once described it as the difference between "grinding a tune into my fiddle," versus "lifting the tune out of the strings." Well said.
Doesn't sound New Age and mystical to me, but then I'm in the same boat with Will. I've always thought of Zen not so much as a religion but as a philosophy and practice for learning how to pay attention, moment-to-moment, to one's life. In that respect, it's a rare thing--a lot of people sleepwalk through a lot of their days--but it's also great training for a musician (you know, "pay attention, moment-to-moment", etc).
It's tough, too--it doesn't blink at the reality of suffering, or say "it'll all be better in the great bye-and-bye."
For me, the strongest appeal to the practice (of both Zen and music) has been looking at long-term practitioners and saying "I don't understand how yet, but I want to look at life the way THAT guy does." In that respect, the emphasis person-to-person contact with great teachers is also analogous b/w music and Buddhist practice.
Zen+music story: one of my great teachers, though I only met him twice, was a man named Watazumido Susho, a Zen teacher and shakuhachi master. He was a wild dude: would change his name and his country of resident every few years, to ensure that those students who found him were the ones who *really* wanted to study with him. He also used to practice concentration by playing flute in the middle of Tokyo traffic jams, and intensity by going out to the railyards and trying to scream louder than the trains. He could do it, too.
For those who might be interested, one classic beginner's text is "Zen Mind Beginner's Mind" by Shinryu Suzuki, the founding teacher of San Francisco Zen Center, and a key figure in bringing Zen to America. The book is transcriptions of his teisho or Dharma talks, and a key insight he provides is that to be a beginner at something is actually a fruitful place to operate from: "In the expert's mind there are many preconceptions. In the beginner's mind there are few."
Me, I'm not sure I *have* a way of looking at life. I just sort of take it as it comes, enjoy it as it happens, and thank God for the gift of the next minute as it comes up.
I wish there were 30 hours in a day so I could have 4 of them all to myself for practice. But then there would only be 5.75 days in a week, ie, the weekend would only be 18 hours long. Aaaagghh!!
So, as it is, I'm lucky, and I mean really lucky, if I can wangle an hour tops per day for pracko. That said, I did used to have periods where I would practice at least 1 up to 3 hours a day (including busking). But playing that much gets you bliddy knackered. As many of the posts above indicate, quality rules over quantity. What happens when you get to the end of you repertoire? Oh, maybe I'll just go through it all again, after all, I've only been practicing for 2 hours 40minutes, still got 1 hour 20 to go....(?!)
Anyway, this has been discussed elsewhere ad nauseam, eg in The Law of Diminishing Returns, with more wit and less acrimony:
Incidentally, BowHand, you haven't put anything about yourself on your bio, so all we know is you're 26, play fiddle, and are not superficial. Pleased to meet you. I'm none of those.
Danny, how do we *know* BowHand is not superficial? For all we know, s/he is trying to fool us into thinking s/he's not superficial, or perhaps all this talk of practising and living up to your potential is only superficial...?! ;)
In conclusion, those content with their lot are a soulful happy bunch who get the big picture.
Conversely, those who embrace a stringent work ethic are mere technicians, devoid of meaningful expression and perspective.
Actually, in a way, yes, it is vague and without context, BowHand. First off, you STILL haven't told us anything about yourself in your bio even though people have requested that you do so, so we don't know whether you've played for two months or two decades, where you are and who you learned your music from, what basis you have for your musical philosophy and beliefs, etc.
Second, as you've accused others of doing, so you have done: by becoming combative almost right off (whether you meant to come off that way or not), you immediately put people on guard against you and you sounded condescending and patronizing, and I don't know anyone at all who likes that in their faces, including you. To top it off, you've done so to some of the people who are considered old timers and de facto leaders here at The Session, and who are exceedingly good players with years under their belts at this stuff. That doesn't speak well for your notions of session etiquette, frankly, which means that a great many of us are at this point wondering why someone who behaves like a newbie is giving out like this.
Most of us, you'll find upon longer and more careful acquaintance, are not particularly content with our lot and work very hard at improving, while still trying to maintain a balanced life and meet our commitments to family and friends. To have someone throw that in your face as not working hard enough is rather patronizing and condescending, don't you think?
"those content with their lot..." The world's not so black and white, is it?
See there's a difference between being a perfectionist and simply striving to improve. I've improved more in the last year than in nearly all the other years I've played combined. But not by practicing more hours or working "harder" at it (there's such a thing as working smater) or aiming for some arbitrary, externally determined level of ability. And I know I can continue to improve along the track I'm on. Geez, I might not play at all if I thought I was at a permanent plateau....(well, okay, I probably would--free beer and all that . Then again, I don't define myself solely on my music.
Funny, cuz to me, this capacity for continued growth and improvement is just another reason that "how young you are when you start" matters less than how you approach the music once you've finally started (at whatever age). And this from someone who's played music since age 7. It's a journey, not a destination.
I'm pretty much on the fence on this one, but there is some strange knack that kids have for picking things like music, dance etc really quickly. And while not saying that picking up music about the age of 12 is a bad thing - I'm pretty sure Frankie Gavin/Tommy Peoples etc etc wouldnt be that amazing if they hadve taken up music in their 20s/30s. Having said that it is whatever makes you happy. And it seems to me everybody who has commented is doing what suits them best and that is really a great thing. I also think that we are all really different in our outlook towards this music, Michael G thinks its diddly easy, I on the otherhand find it hard and frustrating alot of the time. occasionally I will be rewarded when I'm playing along and suddenly realise its really cranking at that moment (thats when I usually lose it but anyways...) Ive had a lot of critisism on this site in regards to me being frustrated and never thinking I'm good enough etc etc, but that is me and thats what makes me practise and thats what makes me determined and thats my experience and therefore that is ok! Phew!
Agreed Bridie. There are lots of ways of looking at learning and playing music. So starting before you lose your first baby tooth and practicing your fingers to the bone (and never thinking you're good enough works for some people. All I'm trying to say is that there are other ways of becoming brilliant on an instrument. And it feels *good,* not stringent or frustrating.
I don't mean to sound preachy, or like I'm trying to convert anyone. Stop reading here--fine by me. But for anyone who's interested, here's what a great jazz pianist has to say about it:
"When you don't try as hard to be good, you play better."
"Maybe you admit that your goal is to sound good, and you ask, What's wrong with that? Well, let's apply the issue to speaking. Imagine you asked someone, 'What's your goal when you speak?' and they answered, 'I just really want to sound good. I really need to sound good, and I won't rest until I sound good.' What would you think of that person? Probably that he's pretty shallow. But in music, people exert real effort, withholding love from themselves and others, *just trying to sound good.*"
"One approach to music says 'I play music well, therefore I am an artist.' But that doesn't hold up.... Can you say, 'I speak English well, therefore I am an artist'? Of course not. It all depends on *what you say* with language."
"Along with the desire for a deeper experience comes an intense drive to be a better player. These aspects often work against each other. True musical depth is not about better playing, but about more 'organic' playing..... We need to hear the process of a musician working on himself."
-From Kenny Werner, Effortless Mastery: Liberating the Master Musician Within.
Yeah, the sexism is one of the gripes I would have with Mr. Werner's book if I'd edited it. The other is that he lingers a little too long over some self-love affirmations. But in all other respects, there's a lot of good stuff in there.
I started playing the fiddle 3 and a half years ago, at age 45. I had been playing fiddle tunes on a mandolin for three years, and found an old German fiddle at a garage shop. How hard could the right hand part be? Within months I started wondering if I was too old to be starting this particular instrument. It is my instrument of choice now, and I spend far more time learning it than all my other instruments. Similarly, I spend far more time learning ITM than old time, bluegrass, and accompanying singers. I took up basketball at age 38 and had delusions of mediocrity, but on a good night I could beat some 25-year-olds who played college ball one on one. Unfortunately, my physical condition deteriorated faster than my skills improved - I really had started too late (or at the last possible moment). So now I try to learn the fiddle and the tunes as efficiently as possible. I am interested in one of Jim Doran's comments that 30 minutes spent practicing technique is more valuable than two hours spent on tunes. I would love to find a 10 minute routine to start my 45 minute practice sessions. For a year or two, I played scales and occasional arpeggios, which really helped.
I'm up for another discussion about tipping if anyone's keen?
Let's see... we've covered cows, goats, elephants... how about giraffe-tipping? Has anyone seen Eddie Izzard's spiel about evil giraffes? "I shall get up early and eat all the leaves off this tree, and when the other animals wake up there will be no more leaves... and they will DIE! mwuhahahahaha". He also did a sketch about methods of procreation for the giraffe. I think lamposts were involved, but the gist was "any way you can figure out, basically... - chin up! (*groan*). But nothing about tipping, sadly. When I was an exchange student in Germany (the cow-tipping years, as I like to think of them), I had kids convinced that, living in Africa and all, I rode an elephant to school every morning, and had to take the roof off our house so that my pet giraffe could come inside out of the rain (doh!).
Thats so funny Q. When I went to London when I was 11, the kids were convinced that a kangaroo carried my books to school for me - and I didnt even tell them that! I just think they all watched Skippy too much when they were little!
By the way Bowhand - if all we did is talk about music, It would be a mighty boring place to hang out. Its nice to have a mix and talk about elephants once in awhile!
So, was Skippy like Lassie over here in the States? "Bark, bark..!" "What's that, girl?" "Bark, bark, bark!" "You say Timmy is caught in a cave-in in the old mine down the road, Lassie?" "Bark! Bark!" "Good *girl*, Lassie!"
Why don't I remember any mutant roos in Tank Girl?
It looks like maybe this topic has outworn it's welcome, but I will just say one more thing--Bowhand, to quote Mae West (that denizen of Irish music--ha ha!) "It's not what you say, it's the way you say it"
In other words, like bb, I am a bit on the fence as well concerning 4 hours of practice a day. I've done it and I have seen how it's improved my "chops". (It also gave me a really sore wrist and neck problem, too but that's not the point.) That's not the problem, per se--it's the way you come across in your language and attitude when you are speaking to us--Zina and Will have said it already anyway, so that's it for me....
With respect, Andee, I only articulated what many music teachers here in Ireland consider to be an advantageous time to learn i.e. childhood - when we're especially receptive and free from adult problems. That's the crux of the matter.
My classics tutor told me that children below about the age of puberty learn languages in a different way to adults. This isn't to say that adults can't learn a foreign language as quickly as a child - it's just that a different approach is needed. It may be the same sort of thing with music.
Trevor
Well, clearly there's advantages to being young when tipping roos. Not too young mind you, because you want to be able to run away faster than a roo, and you have to be strong enough to counteract that famous tail. But too old, and you'll lose the tactical advantage, not to mention the wanton desire to tip roos in the first place.
Trevor, I think you are right about how children learn vs. adults. As adults, we might want it more for ourselves, a child might be more motivated from parental influences. Starting as a child helps one have more years of playing time, so bh is right for that advantage...
I think this is a good question, but only in regard to the fiddle. I was told that with the violin, it is impossible to attain mastery of classical violin if you do not start at an early age--has something to do with muscle formation. These limitations apparently do not exist to the same degree for other instruments. I was told that it would be impossible for me to become a concert violinist, not having started as a child, but that it is perfectly within the realm of possibility for me to become a concert cellist or flautist or trumpeter. This is the consensus of almost all classical violin pedagogues, from what I've been told. However, I have also been told by the same people I've spoken to, that it is possible to attain a high degree of proficiency if you're playing folk music, such as ITM or bluegrass. I guess it has to do with the fact that these types of music don't require the same excruciating degree of precision that is required in classical music.
With regard to being as good as the "famous" ones, that's a very real concern if one is incapable of deriving enjoyment from playing that falls short of that standard. I have been playing whistle for 3 years and flute for about 7 months, and sometimes the frustration of not being able to play at the a certain level far outweighs any pleasure I derive from playing. The only reason I continue is the knowledge that with more practice, I will get ever closer to my ideal (fortunately, my ideal does not require that I sound like Matt Molloy or Kevin Crawford--otherwise I would just take up crossword puzzles as my new hobby). So, I guess I would really like to know how many examples are there of people starting the fiddle later in life and attaining a degree of mastery that was more pleasure than frustration? I would like to learn to play the fiddle, but I don't want to bother if my late start would mean that I would not be able to bring my musical ideas to fruition because of unconquerable physical limitations. I would rather just stick with the flute or take up the accordion.
I love the movie 'Tank Girl' - its so hilarious, Zina I cant believe you forgot about the roos - that was Ice T!!!!
Anyhow - yeah Roos can be a bit nasty - lets just say I dont even feed them at patting Zoo's because Ive seen what they can do! My ex thought I was mad for being afraid of a 'cute roo'! Pretty sure its bloody impossible to actually Tip one as well....
In relation to whistlmans post. I really think that trad has changed so much in the last 20years. The standards have been raised and people are getting much more technical about their playing. People are earning a living from it (well some people) etc. So I think that because of this, even though maybe now, its less technical etc that classical, every day people are getting better and better and more proficient in their chosen instruments, they are pushing the limits. I also think that being an amazing fiddle player has nothing to do with this position or that position etc but as Zina says, its about being able to play a tune that everyone plays but make it 'special' and *that* is really whats hard about this music. It is so to be average at trad or even good. But to be truly amazing - thats the hard part. Luckily most of us are content with being as good as we can be, and are desperate to be amazing
Where did I put my brain this morning?
It may have something to do with the copious amounts of Egg nog I consumed last night! Which I have never tried before - it is not something that we have in Australia at all - and it is loveley - I felt sick after cause I had about 7 glasses of it - its so rich, but yum yum!
I've had a look at the Sevcik (pron. "shev-chick" I think) School of Violin Technique that Jim Dorans referred to quite a few posts (2 days!) ago. I hadn't been aware of Sevcik, so it's quite a revelation. Thanks, Jim!
The studies on fingering are in 4 thickish volumes, the first is about the 1st position only, the second and third about the higher positions (rarely relevant to ITM), and the fourth is about the really virtuoso stuff you'd need for concertos.
I think as far as ITM is concerned the first volume is the main one of interest, and will give you all the left hand technique you'll ever need. It's probably not necessary to study the whole volume. Get the first dozen (quite lengthy) exercises under your belt paying attention to the suggested bowing techniques and other matters, and gradually building up speed, and your technique will be fairly well set up, IMO. You'll then be in a good position to cherry-pick further points of technique further on in the book to work on if you need them.
Jim's quite right in saying that Sevcik will remove the need for countless hours of practice - but what he *didn't* say was that you'll have spend a hell of lot of time working on Sevcik (or any tutor method for that matter) before you reach that enviable stage! Sorry Jim, but I had to mention that!
The preface to Sevcik gives some very useful hints about left hand position and finger action which will benefit all fiddle players; but what I think is very important for anyone embarking on a course of technical study such as Sevcik is for them to have their progress monitored by a good teacher. The teacher will give practical advice that no book can ever give, will nip bad technique in the bud, and will provide that invaluable "pair of ears" that is so difficult for beginners to acquire.
One last point, Vol 1 of Sevcik is good value for money - only
just read whistleman's post. You are of course, correct. The best demonstration (as a flute player!) I can show you, if yer modem is quick enough, because it's quite a big Jpeg image, is to click on my name, follow the link to my session, and just *look* at the angle Steve Mulherne holds his Axe.
I've read through Will's posts *again* and I'm afraid there are many points I disagree with.
However, the topic was interesting and seldom boring methinks.
I'm happy to agree to disagree. No problemo. Our experiences of music are clearly different, Sir BowHand, and as long as we can air them here without unduly disparaging the other, the conversation will continue to be interesting. "Two heads are better than one only if they're not thinking the same thing."
The Sevcik violin studies are published in the UK by Bosworth of 8/9 Frith Street, London W1V 5TZ. Bosworth specialise, I believe, in the tutor manuals, reference works etc end of the market. Their website is http://www.musicsales.com
If anyone wants to buy Bosworth's sheetmusic in paper format (snail-mail) or as digital download go to their alternate site http://www.musicroom.com
Trevor
Trevor - thanks for all the info about aquiring the Sevcik studies. I think it's important not to try to digest too much of these at once. One may have to spend a bit of time on these studies just to get used to the practice routine, but they, like any other studies, are designed solely to improve technique, and to be used in conjunction with an other practice, or playing tunes, or whatever. They are not a substitute for any of these things.
I think one advantage of these books (eg book 1, first page) is - it's already got the student training all four fingers equally, in the space of a few bar lines - few other studies do that. After a few days solely on this page, I found it so much easier to play cuts, triplets and other ornamentations in IT fiddle.
Re Seamus Creagh: I believe he had some rudimentary fiddle tution as a child and went on to play on the 'folk' scene around Britain and Ireland. It was in his 30s that he developed a serious interest in traditional music, specifically the Sliabh Luachra style - and look where it got him.
I remember I was buying a flute at the Fleadh in 99 (god I'm getting on.....anyhoo - I was trying them out and getting a gurgley faded noise that wouldnt pass as a note, when these 2 wee young boys came up and started playing the flutes at this stall like demons -they wouldve been 9 or 10 and I was mortified. I ended up giving the flute in away in the end - I think just seeing that ended my flute playing days before they really started
Late Bloomers
Late Bloomers
Are there any famous fiddlers who commenced their fiddle studies at a relatively late stage (e.g. 15yrs.+)?
Thanks.
# Posted on December 19th 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
Mair
# Posted on December 19th 2003 by pitnekit
Re: Late Bloomers
There ere no late stage, there
# Posted on December 19th 2003 by pitnekit
Re: Late Bloomers
sorry! Mean to say -There are no late...
# Posted on December 19th 2003 by pitnekit
Re: Late Bloomers
LOL and CMAO (crying my arse off)....
No offense Bowhand, but this topic has come up more than once in the last month or two, and it's damn depressing at 45 to hear all these teens and twenty somethings bemoaning their advanced age. Sigh.
The short answer is: 15 is young, youthful, fresh, unripe, blooming with vigor and energy and the time to do something with it. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
And I'd reframe your question: are there any really good fiddlers who started "late" in life? You betcha. Lots of fiddlers (many of them just as good or better than those "famous" ones) started in their teens, twentys, or even (gasp!) thirties.
Why is it we imagine playing fiddle well requires a start in utero? I mean, do we pretend that neuro surgeons are no good if they haven't practiced with a scalpel before shedding their diapers? Do we dismiss people's dreams to be sculptors, welders, violin makers, writers, engineers, movie makers, chefs, etc. just because they weren't child prodigies?
Granted, research suggests that musical capacities respond well to nurturing in the early years. But aren't we bombarded by music from the womb forward, every day of the year? I know my own kids have heard music every day of their lives, whether they wanted to or not, lots of it passive listening but with substantial amounts of active listening and direct participation as well. An early start doesn't hurt--unless you burn out--but it doesn't guarantee success either, and a "late" start doesn't mean you're doomed to mediocrity.
# Posted on December 19th 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Late Bloomers
I read once about this fiddle player (I don't remember his name, it's a couple of years ago) in his forties, I believe, who after playing for only 5 years was invited to join some fairly well known group (don't remember their name either). So you see it can happen to the best of us! BTW, I don't remember whether it was in ITM or maybe Old Time...
You might be able to tell that I'm of quite advanced age myself... my memory is going at a rapid pace! What was the question again?
# Posted on December 19th 2003 by heike
Re: Late Bloomers
Thanks for your contribution, folks.
As regards late bloomers, there's one guy I overlooked. His name is Jim McKillop, a very talented fiddler, who first took up the instrument at age twenty six.
# Posted on December 19th 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
Catriona MacDonald in an interview with Fiddler Magazine a few years ago said something like "I started playing at eleven which is quite old for the fiddle." I remember that quite well and it depressed me a little at the time but I carried on regardless.
)
)
It's quite possible to be a good fiddler at any age and who wants to be famous, anyway? As Will says many of us will absorbed music from an early age--- I knew many of the Scottish tunes and others before I started playing and it's quite easy to play them once you know the basics of your instrument. Also, playing another instrument helps too--anything at all as long as you're a bit musical.
One advantage of starting young is that you "have less fear" about what people might think of your playing ability. Also, there is probably the tendency to make more allowances for children as they are learning. Your uncharitable adult friends are more likely to say "Don't give up the day job".
I certainly don't think that your late teens is too late to start, although there are many distractions at that age--part of the reason I couldn't stick with the guitar. Maybe, your late thirties, forties, or older is a bit late if you want to be famous but you'd probably have more sense at that age, anyway, and that wouldn't be your goal. It's still possible to play the fiddle well and for your own enjoyment. That's all that really matters.
John
# Posted on December 19th 2003 by Johnny Jay
Re: Late Bloomers
Bowhand - why do you ask?
The question is a bit stark, and could be answered simply "Yes".
Are you the 15+ who is looking to take up fiddle? Are you looking for encouragement for yourself? or for someone else? or seeking ammunition to discourage someone? or just trying to win an argument down the pub?
Put a bit about yourself in your profile - that's what its there for.
Dave ;o)
# Posted on December 19th 2003 by showaddydadito
Re: Late Bloomers
Bowhand, I notice that those who are disparaging of the idea of starting to learn an instrument later in life (whatever that means) are usually not players themselves. I suspect that they are frustrated players who never gave themselves a fair shot at this stuff because of fears, low self esteem, and the like.
A customer where I work, when finding out that I started on the harp at age 32 was amazed. Not because I'm so good (ha ha!) but because he wasn't used to hearing of people start up music at such an "advanced" age. He thought for a moment and then said, "You know, that's the same age that Cyndi Lauper started up her music!" I certainly appreciated the sentiment and encouragement that he meant to convey with it.
In contrast, another customer whose tiny little girl has already be learning violin, said to me, when he found out I started fiddle at age 37, "Hmmm, well you're not dead yet..." Give a girl a break buddy, since when is 37 even considered remotely close to dead? By the way this guy is at least 10 years older than me.
# Posted on December 19th 2003 by Andee
Re: Late Bloomers
Oh, so what I meant to say bowhand was--15 you have the world and future ahead of you shining and bright. Anything is possible--seize the moment! Do what you love and you'll be great by the time you're my age!
# Posted on December 19th 2003 by Andee
Re: Late Bloomers
Well .... I was 53 years old when I took up the fiddle and I don't call that late. I am now 62 and consider I have years of playing left in me yet. Age doesn't matter ... what does matter is that you enjoy the music and playing it.
# Posted on December 19th 2003 by Bernie
Re: Late Bloomers
I started playing piano at the age of 5 or 6, and have continued playing music of one form or another ever since - so at nearly 30, I ought to be a brilliant, blinding, wizard of a musician. But I'm not. I'm all right. I've got so used to being overtaken by people with 4 or 5 years of playing behind them that I don't even want to kill them anymore.
# Posted on December 19th 2003 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: Late Bloomers
David, you *are* brilliant. You must be so good at moving the goalposts, that you still haven't noticed...
I remember making a half-hearted attempt at learning the whistle, in my twenties, but being too cowed by the mysterious unknowables of the task, and thinking - it's a bit pointless, I'll never be any good, look at these genius nine-year-olds doing that stuff, and here's me, 26 and looking like an idiot.. At that age, you're too bothered about what people think, and the shame about being compared against children, unfavourably.
But now, in my (late) thirties, I've got over that! Dammit, in a few years, if I work hard, I'll be quite good - and I don't let it get to me, too much, that there will always be nine-year-olds with greater proficiency. They have had great advantages, which the rest of us just have to accept - it isn't a bloody competition. And their greater proficiency doesn't necessarily give them better innate musicality. If you've got that inside you, then for God's sake, let it out! By Any Means Necessary!
There are plenty of adults in their 30s, 40s, and later, who go along to classes at Willie Week, where they find themselves sitting in a class of children. And they swallow their pride and accept that, and get on with it, because they want to learn. And many of them become extremely good players, too - because dedication is the one thing you *can't* do without. I bet there are fewer in their twenties, who will submit themselves to the supposed 'shame' of sitting amongst the under-tens. But it's a real shame if this social fear prevents people from making a commitment to learning - when in reality, they are *plenty* young enough. I really regret being caught in that mental trap, myself.
Just do it! Fifteen? That's YOUNG!!!
# Posted on December 20th 2003 by Nell
Re: Late Bloomers
I think the question itself is an expression of one of the major problems in trad music. We've begun to adopt a commercial mentality that says that the top, "famous" people are the standard because they're commercially successfull and on stage. If you can't play like them RIGHT NOW then you might as well not play. It's part of this process of taking the music out of the community, canning it in a slick package, and putting it on stage like it's a finished product. You don't have to be from or live in Clare to have a community of friends where trad music is a large part of life or to simply enjoy the tunes for the sake of the tunes for yourself. I think you have to ask yourself what it would be like if you were as good as so-and-so today. Would it make you better than other people? Would it make you happy in life? Probably not. Read Last Night's Fun, by Ciaran Carson, and think about the journey he describes in trad music. This music is about the friends you make, the experiences you live through and the laugh track in the background that every once in a while bends you doubled over. If you look at this music as something to be possessed or as a tool to fame and fortune then that's pretty sad. You'll miss out on so much.
# Posted on December 20th 2003 by jerball
Re: Late Bloomers
My reason for posting the initial question was, the predominant number of today's "famous" fiddlers began as children.
I am interested in those who didn't, purely on the basis of curiousity. Please bear that in mind, as one or two contributers adopted a defensive approach, instantaneously!
Also, the term "famous musicians" was chosen on the basis that it was a general and accessible reference point. Rather than embrace the esoteric, I hoped contributers would derive their answers from a known sphere, thus providing a level playing field for discussion. We can't all discuss the musical prowess of Paddy Joe X from down the road, can we?
It's also easier to document the progress of a famous player rather than speculate on an unknown quantity. So as you see, I'm not a superfical person!
As regards Jerball's post - fame in the traditonal music world is seldom, if ever, attained by talentless individuals. Traditional musicians are never championed to the extent of their pop counterparts. Those who excel in the traditional music world, do so, without the aid of superficiality. The 'Fame versus Talent' debate has not entered our stratosphere just yet!
# Posted on December 20th 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
What gets the defenses up is that you bought into the notion that 15 is a "late stage" in musical life. That was a large part of how you framed your initial question. Coupled with the "famous" bit, it leads me to think that you've missed the point of trad music. So I was perhaps mistaken.
That said, I've played music since I was 7 on a whole parade of instruments, and I think it all adds up. So it happens that many of the brilliant players we've all heard of have played since they were wee ones. More importantly, they kept playing. They didn't quit. They slogged away for millions of hours. I'm convinced the number and quality of hours spent playing matter much more than what age you first started.
# Posted on December 20th 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Late Bloomers
Will, you can move (musical) mountains with practice. Matt Molloy practices six hours a day, while fiddler Zoe Conway practices eight. But they can't compare with jazz great Charlie Parker, who practised sixteen hours a day for three years!
# Posted on December 20th 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
Will, I just listened to the "Mason's Apron" (slow version) on the 'Small Circle' website and I wondered who the fiddler was. Any ideas?
# Posted on December 20th 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
Ideas? I have lots of ideas. That recording serves its purpose well--providing a slow version for beginners to learn from. But it's not representative of the playing of the person who recorded it, and so it's not really fair to single them out based on that track. Plus it's not my place to unmask them.
I always feel a bit sorry for people who "practice" half their days away. I would hope that Matt Molloy and Zoe Conway are *playing* 6 or 8 hours a day and enjoying it, rather than slaving away over technique. Some of us are lucky if we can play that many hours in a week, with jobs and family and other priorities. Others shape their lives to allow lots of time for music, even if it is "just a hobby."
# Posted on December 20th 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Late Bloomers
I think six hours practice is a little excessive too, although I frequently *play* for that length of time if not every day. Perhaps 30 mins to an hour is sufficient time for most people to practise things like technique----if only I could discipline myself to do as much as this! I do like to play much more , if I can, but as Will suggests it's more for enjoyment than practice. Even learning new tunes probably falls into the latter.
People like Matt Molloy are professional musicians and their playing will not be *practice* as we know it. There will be live gigs, rehearshals, recordings, preparing arrangements of tunes/sets , composing of music etc which will no doubt take up a lot of time. I don't think that you can compare our needs to that of full time musicians.
John
# Posted on December 20th 2003 by Johnny Jay
Re: Late Bloomers
I think 30 intense mins per day devoted to solidifying technique is more beneficial then 2 hours *practicing* tunes. The more solid your technique is, the quicker and more fluent your tune-learning becomes. It works for me, and it's worked for my students too.
Jim
# Posted on December 20th 2003 by Worldfiddler
Re: Late Bloomers
Give over, Helen! If you start using words like 'brilliant' to describe the likes of me, you'll have to start inventing new words to describe the thousands of musicians that make me look like a barnacle on a whale's bottom. The OED's quite big enough as it is.
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: Late Bloomers
Will, the fact that the tune was played slowly is irrelevant, although anonymity is the performers right should they wish to utilise it.
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
I heard once - and I think I've got the story more or less right - that a professor at one of the big music colleges in the UK remarked that any would-be concert pianist who needs to practice more than 4 hours a day is in the wrong job.
As a general principle I'm inclined to go along with that. There is only so much that the human physiology and brain can take in in one go without a rest to give the brain a chance to absorb stuff and for the muscles, nerves, tendons etc to recuperate and develop. Do too much and you're quickly into the region of diminshing returns. I've heard it said that 35-45 minutes is as long as a given learning activity should last without a rest break, which is why school lessons, lectures etc rarely exceed that period.
Trevor
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Late Bloomers
Er, Bowhand, I think I'll stop participating in conversations that I have no idea what they're about and who they're with, thank you.
Jim's hit it on the head about brief but intense time spent polishing technique. We've had this discussion before, ages ago, and if I recall correctly, some of us "practice" a lot, while others (myself included) mostly "play," for enjoyment, and what little "practicing" we do is relegated to short, intense focus on a specific area that needs improvement.
I suppose which camp you fall into might depend on what stage you're at in your playing. Beginners tend to need more work on technique, more experienced players less so. But I know that beginners can benefit from focusing their practice time more specifically on technique and also leaving lots of time to just play for fun. And most veteran musicians I know play mostly for fun, but still try to set aside a little time every week to work on technique.
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Late Bloomers
Sorry it took so long to reply, these 'old bones' don't move as fast as they use to! Relatively late stage? At FIFTEEN?! Late stage of puberty maybe! My idea of someone taking up the fiddle at a 'late stage' is forty plus. You know, after you've accumulated kids, debt, dust, and the like. I took up the fiddle after twenty years of procrastinating. I haven't played an instument since high school (not much call for trombones in ITM). Golly
p.s. I'm pulling forty not pushing it!
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by golly
Re: Late Bloomers
I think anyone whose serious about improving their technique should practice at least four hours daily, otherwise you're just 'crathing the surface.
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
David, you don't look anything like a barnacle - they don't have beards, for a start. That would be mussels.
Alright then, to construct a more precise description; your playing is highly skilled, as well as creative, expressive, subtle, and tastefully and imaginatively ornamented, both on the mandolin and the whistle.
There you go! And I'm far from the only person to choose those adjectives - I've heard highly complimentary remarks on your playing from some top class players.
OK, I'll shut up now!
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by Nell
Re: Late Bloomers
Actually, the age of thirteen years or more is considered late, as one's potential will not be fufilled, apparently.
Yes, one may become a good musician but not the best one could be.
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
Bowhand, you can seriously improve your technique in much less time than four hours a day. And anyway, only a professional musician, or a student perhaps, or a Job Seeker (British term for someone not in employment - or have they changed it again?) can possibly have 4 hours a day to devote to their playing.
I detect a certain, Spartan, 'No Fun' element to your attitude. As in - 'you have to do it till it hurts! And start when you're 5 years old! And scrap your social life! Otherwise you will never be Good Enough!
Are you sure you've quite got the gist of this Irish music thing? Perhaps classical soloist or Olympic rowing champion would be more your line?
Too much practice, especially without expert guidance, is as likely to lead to permanent damage as it is to a glorious career. Monomania is not in itself always a good thing...
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by Nell
Re: Late Bloomers
Very well said Nell!
I don't mean to be patronizing Bowhand, but sometimes when we are very young--emphasis on *very young*--as you are, we can get tunnel vision about stuff. Relax, have fun--it's dance music for pete's sake!
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by Andee
Re: Late Bloomers
Will raised an important point in the opening paragraph of his last posting on this thread. I think it's important enough to merit discussion in a new thread.
Trevor
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Late Bloomers
Nell, do you really believe that the likes of Se
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
Actually, Andee, I'm old and bitter. I'm 26.
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
'Merely for the peasants'?? LOL!!!! Are you *trying* to undermine your credibility here?
Practice as much as you like, Bowhand, if you think it'll turn you into Frankie Gavin.
You seem to think, however, that it's all about virtuosity. You're missing a whole lot. That's not my problem. But you're implying that people who start the fiddle at an age greater than 15 are a) doomed to mediocrity, and b) might as well not bother. That is a harmful and stupid notion, which is why I bothered to reply.
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by Nell
Re: Late Bloomers
Nell, that's a total misrepresentation of what I posted.
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
Mmm. I can see that you're out to make a lot of friends worldwide here, BowHand.
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by Zina Lee
Re: Late Bloomers
I'll just say that I disagree completely with BowHand's rather puritan approach to the music and leave it to that.
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Late Bloomers
Oh what the hell. I'll risk the undertoe....
A fiddle teacher once told me that I might as well quit if I couldn't practice a minimum of four hours a day. I did quit--taking lessons from him.
Sure, in the beginning stages, learning an instrument takes some serious woodshedding--time developing your technique. And if you're ambition is to win competitions, then by all means, practice harder and longer than your competitors. Seamus Connolly and Brendan McGlinchey had a famous rivalry going for years, and they both breathed, ate, and slept the fiddle. Did it make them better players? Sure. Did they reach their musical potential? Maybe.
But I like to think that musicality goes way beyond polished technique. I've learned that at the knee of some mighty Irish trad players, but I've heard the same thing from the likes of Yo Yo Ma, Leonard Bernstein, and Itzahk Perlman. Ma even said "Perfection is not the goal of a performance. You can have a planned approach to a piece, but you also have to have something that you really want to share through the music. The goal is not perfection, but expression." And you have to be human and have a life beyond the practice room if you hope to have something to express.
Frankly, that's what's wrong with most competitions--they emphasize technical proficiency over expressiveness. And I'd rather listen to a "defective" fiddler play with heart than a technically perfect fiddler play without heart any day.
Since most of us here at thesession.org focus primarily on playing in sessions (and the occasional band gig for kicks and grins), technical perfection is not our ambition, even if it were possible. In Irish music, I've found that even "the best" musicians (whoever they are) are more than glad to play with us amateurs, regardless of how few hours a day we "practice." In some cases, they show even more respect for those of us who manage to attain a high level of competency despite the other priorities in our lives. See, for nearly everyone I've met in this music, including some brilliant players, it's not about where you fit in some pecking order of technical mastery. It's about loving the tunes and playing them with other people who love the tunes.
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Late Bloomers
If anyone wants to hear a technically perfect rendering of music all they have to do is to make a midi version using one of those midi orchestration programs. They'll hear perfection alright, but it will have about as much soul as a dried shrivelled walnut.
Trevor
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Late Bloomers
Bowhand, if you're really serious about the practicing thing, try just one solid hour of Sevcik studies per day. These (if you don't already know) are the basis of the best violin (or fiddle) technique. They were written by a master, and they cover *everything* you could ever wish to do on the instrument, regardless of whether you want to play concertos, solos, or any brand of I.T. fiddle music.They won't bastardise I.T. music, and they won't cover individual style, interpretation, feeling or any of the other aesthetics (that is entirely your responsibility), but they will remove the need for endless hours of practicing.
Jim
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by Worldfiddler
Re: Late Bloomers
Sounds interesting, Jim. Thanks.
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
Hmm, I dont actually see what is so wrong with BowHand's posts at all. I'm a perfectionist, unfortunately a really, really lazy one, If I practiced as much as I think I should I'd be brilliant by now. I started way later than all of my friends and it shows. I want to sit in sessions and not feel overwhelmed by brilliant players, I want to be able to add to the brilliant sessions and not have my friends be nice to me cause they like me as a person but include me because they like me as a musician. Weve had this discussion a million times and people know how het up about it I get about music. I wouldnt agree with the competion thing - sure its great to say 'my friend won the all ireland' blah, blah, but Ive friends who are brilliant who wouldnt dream of entering.
I'm all for people playing for fun and enjoying and not stressing about how they sound and happily playing from the heart. But it isnt my view, If I feel out of my leauge then I'm much more inclined to practice. Ive learnt more tunes in the last few months - now that my friends from Clare are here - than I have in a year. Nothing wrong with that. Oh and by late I mean 18years old. And before ye lads freak out and say that is young, one of my closest friends has been playing 16years and Ive been plahying 8 and it makes such a difference, I know it isnt a competion- but everybody aspires to something different in their lives, this is what I aspire to
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by bb
Re: Late Bloomers
One other point tho - I read somewhere that Seamus Creag took up fiddle at 33 and he is great - not sure how true that is tho
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by bb
Re: Late Bloomers
I don't think anyone is against practising as such, BB, but we all agreed that 4 to 6 hours on technique etc was a bit excessive and probably counter productive. Of course, a lot of people will play for that length of time-sometimes I have days like these--but I'm sure it's not all serious practice and will be partly made up of playing for pleasure or other things I mentioned earlier.
Is this Seamus Creagh from Cork? He lived in Edinburgh for a bit over twenty years ago was brilliant even then and sounded as if he'd been playing for years. He couldn't have been much older than 33 in those days, if that.
Have a good Christmas. I'm having a little holiday and won't be doing any practice although I'm taking my instrument with me for a tune. I can never be parted from my music. :>))
John
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by Johnny Jay
Re: Late Bloomers
Bowhand
I think 26 is too early to take up being old and bitter. You'll make a far better job of it if you wait until you are about 35.
;o)
Dave
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by showaddydadito
Re: Late Bloomers
Good one, Dave--I was thinking the same thing actually.
No there's nothing wrong with really wanting to practice that much. When I first started on the harp, there were many days that I did practice for 4 hours. It really did jump start my playing and I am glad I did it. But I did it out sheer joy, love, obsession, (sometimes frustration at not being able to do what I needed to do, so I'd do it over and over til I got it.) whatever. And I hope Bowhand is getting the same joy out of it as well. I just think that what rubbed some people the wrong way was that they felt he was being joyless and a taskmaster towards himself and others whom he felt didn't practice that much. That is just how it seemed to come across from your posts Bowhand. Correct me if I am wrong...just don't get angry, we are only trying to understand you.
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by Andee
Re: Late Bloomers
You guys might like to look back at this thread:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display.php/2177
My starting post there was seeking to look at different attitudes to practising; to explore the difference between playing for pleasure and playing to achieve a goal.
Merry Christmas all.
Dave ;o{
(older and bitterer)
# Posted on December 21st 2003 by showaddydadito
Re: Late Bloomers
Harumph, bah humbug!
I simply disagree with this whole notion that you can't become a brilliant musician unless you start at age 3 or 5 or 7. Bridie, your example of you and your longer playing friend isn't about what age you each started at, but how long you've played. Your friend isn't better because s/he started out young, but because s/he's been playing *twice as long* as you. The lesson in that is--no matter what age you are, don't hesitate to start playing the instrument of your dreams.
Back in the day when I taught bluegrass banjo, I'd sometimes get two new students starting in the same week. Six months later, one would be brilliant, ready to join a band, while the other would still be plonking along haltingly on Boil Dem Cabbage Down. In one case, the plonker was 10 years old and the brilliant player was 35. Neither had played an instrument before. But one used his six months well, and the other didn't. Maybe one had more innate ability than the other too.
Yes, in the beginning, it helps to put in some long blocks of practice, four hours a day if you can manage it without hurting yourself. But a decade or two or three later, playing well in technical control and with a large bag of tunes under your belt, I'd be terminally depressed if I needed four hours a day just to stay sharp. And I'd never suggest that other players couldn't play to their potential without some such arbitrary round number of requisite practice.
I guess part of what I'm trying to say is that playing to our "full potential" isn't just about technique. It's also not about "perfection" in technique. I have to agree with Yo Yo Ma--the goal isn't perfection, but expression.
I know I've substantially improved my playing over the last few years by getting daily exercise, going for long walks in the mountains, reading books, meditating, eating better, and getting more sleep (at least once in a while). Even learning other instruments--learning flute has made me a better fiddle player, taught me things about phrasing I probably could not have learned any other way. And as Jim suggests (promoting the Sevcik method), the *quality* of your practice time is more important than the sheer number of hours.
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Late Bloomers
I don't know at what age Willie Clancy took up the pipes, but it must have been in his twenties. It was in the 1940s, anyway, and he was born in 1918. Alright, you might say that Ronan Browne or Paddy Keenan (who both started very young) are technically better; but you'd meet with some opposition if you said that they were better musicians than Willie Clancy - who didn't do too badly, did he, given his 'relatively late' start?
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Nell
Re: Late Bloomers
I don't consider starting in 20s, 30s 40s etc is too late at all. I think it depends more on what your personal goals are and how much time you devote to learning technique & tunes. 4 hours a day for me would really annoy my wrist and neck. It may take longer to learn fiddle, but the time will pass regardless of what I do. Should I give up simply because I'm 49? Not by a long shot!!
Deb.
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Agnes Nutter
Re: Late Bloomers
On another thread, Chris mentioned that he bows before playing. I do this too, and I've found it's probably the singlemost important thing I've learned for improving my playing. I know this sounds New Age and mystical (but hey, I am Sensei Bosley, eh?
, but it helps remind me to approach the music I would receive a gift, which always feels good. A bit humbling, but a bit excited and playful, too, like Christmas morning. This is an attitude that kids tend to have subconsciously--if music feels like play to them, they accept it like being let out for recess. As adults, some of us have to unlearn our work habits and relearn how to play. On the other hand, I've seen kids who lost the connection between music and play very early on, and their music has no joy and they almost always quit music entirely before adulthood. What a shame.
When we accept the gift of music, and the gift of enjoying music, even "practice" becomes play time. Kerri once described it as the difference between "grinding a tune into my fiddle," versus "lifting the tune out of the strings." Well said.
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Late Bloomers
Nicely said.
Doesn't sound New Age and mystical to me, but then I'm in the same boat with Will. I've always thought of Zen not so much as a religion but as a philosophy and practice for learning how to pay attention, moment-to-moment, to one's life. In that respect, it's a rare thing--a lot of people sleepwalk through a lot of their days--but it's also great training for a musician (you know, "pay attention, moment-to-moment", etc).
It's tough, too--it doesn't blink at the reality of suffering, or say "it'll all be better in the great bye-and-bye."
For me, the strongest appeal to the practice (of both Zen and music) has been looking at long-term practitioners and saying "I don't understand how yet, but I want to look at life the way THAT guy does." In that respect, the emphasis person-to-person contact with great teachers is also analogous b/w music and Buddhist practice.
Zen+music story: one of my great teachers, though I only met him twice, was a man named Watazumido Susho, a Zen teacher and shakuhachi master. He was a wild dude: would change his name and his country of resident every few years, to ensure that those students who found him were the ones who *really* wanted to study with him. He also used to practice concentration by playing flute in the middle of Tokyo traffic jams, and intensity by going out to the railyards and trying to scream louder than the trains. He could do it, too.
For those who might be interested, one classic beginner's text is "Zen Mind Beginner's Mind" by Shinryu Suzuki, the founding teacher of San Francisco Zen Center, and a key figure in bringing Zen to America. The book is transcriptions of his teisho or Dharma talks, and a key insight he provides is that to be a beginner at something is actually a fruitful place to operate from: "In the expert's mind there are many preconceptions. In the beginner's mind there are few."
gassho
chris smith
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by coyotebanjo
Re: Late Bloomers
Oh, all you New Age and mystical types.
I'm KIDDING. I'm KIDDING. *snort*
Me, I'm not sure I *have* a way of looking at life. I just sort of take it as it comes, enjoy it as it happens, and thank God for the gift of the next minute as it comes up.
*grin* Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. LOL
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Zina Lee
Re: Late Bloomers
I wish there were 30 hours in a day so I could have 4 of them all to myself for practice. But then there would only be 5.75 days in a week, ie, the weekend would only be 18 hours long. Aaaagghh!!
So, as it is, I'm lucky, and I mean really lucky, if I can wangle an hour tops per day for pracko. That said, I did used to have periods where I would practice at least 1 up to 3 hours a day (including busking). But playing that much gets you bliddy knackered. As many of the posts above indicate, quality rules over quantity. What happens when you get to the end of you repertoire? Oh, maybe I'll just go through it all again, after all, I've only been practicing for 2 hours 40minutes, still got 1 hour 20 to go....(?!)
Anyway, this has been discussed elsewhere ad nauseam, eg in The Law of Diminishing Returns, with more wit and less acrimony:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display.php/1754
Incidentally, BowHand, you haven't put anything about yourself on your bio, so all we know is you're 26, play fiddle, and are not superficial. Pleased to meet you. I'm none of those.
:~}
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Rudall the time
Re: Late Bloomers
Danny, how do we *know* BowHand is not superficial? For all we know, s/he is trying to fool us into thinking s/he's not superficial, or perhaps all this talk of practising and living up to your potential is only superficial...?! ;)
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Zina Lee
Re: Late Bloomers
In conclusion, those content with their lot are a soulful happy bunch who get the big picture.
Conversely, those who embrace a stringent work ethic are mere technicians, devoid of meaningful expression and perspective.
P.S. Is the above vague or without context? *Sob*
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
Actually, in a way, yes, it is vague and without context, BowHand. First off, you STILL haven't told us anything about yourself in your bio even though people have requested that you do so, so we don't know whether you've played for two months or two decades, where you are and who you learned your music from, what basis you have for your musical philosophy and beliefs, etc.
Second, as you've accused others of doing, so you have done: by becoming combative almost right off (whether you meant to come off that way or not), you immediately put people on guard against you and you sounded condescending and patronizing, and I don't know anyone at all who likes that in their faces, including you. To top it off, you've done so to some of the people who are considered old timers and de facto leaders here at The Session, and who are exceedingly good players with years under their belts at this stuff. That doesn't speak well for your notions of session etiquette, frankly, which means that a great many of us are at this point wondering why someone who behaves like a newbie is giving out like this.
Most of us, you'll find upon longer and more careful acquaintance, are not particularly content with our lot and work very hard at improving, while still trying to maintain a balanced life and meet our commitments to family and friends. To have someone throw that in your face as not working hard enough is rather patronizing and condescending, don't you think?
Zina
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Zina Lee
Re: Late Bloomers
"those content with their lot..." The world's not so black and white, is it?
. Then again, I don't define myself solely on my music.
See there's a difference between being a perfectionist and simply striving to improve. I've improved more in the last year than in nearly all the other years I've played combined. But not by practicing more hours or working "harder" at it (there's such a thing as working smater) or aiming for some arbitrary, externally determined level of ability. And I know I can continue to improve along the track I'm on. Geez, I might not play at all if I thought I was at a permanent plateau....(well, okay, I probably would--free beer and all that
Funny, cuz to me, this capacity for continued growth and improvement is just another reason that "how young you are when you start" matters less than how you approach the music once you've finally started (at whatever age). And this from someone who's played music since age 7. It's a journey, not a destination.
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Late Bloomers
I'm pretty much on the fence on this one, but there is some strange knack that kids have for picking things like music, dance etc really quickly. And while not saying that picking up music about the age of 12 is a bad thing - I'm pretty sure Frankie Gavin/Tommy Peoples etc etc wouldnt be that amazing if they hadve taken up music in their 20s/30s. Having said that it is whatever makes you happy. And it seems to me everybody who has commented is doing what suits them best and that is really a great thing. I also think that we are all really different in our outlook towards this music, Michael G thinks its diddly easy, I on the otherhand find it hard and frustrating alot of the time. occasionally I will be rewarded when I'm playing along and suddenly realise its really cranking at that moment (thats when I usually lose it but anyways...) Ive had a lot of critisism on this site in regards to me being frustrated and never thinking I'm good enough etc etc, but that is me and thats what makes me practise and thats what makes me determined and thats my experience and therefore that is ok! Phew!
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by bb
Re: Late Bloomers
Agreed Bridie. There are lots of ways of looking at learning and playing music. So starting before you lose your first baby tooth and practicing your fingers to the bone (and never thinking you're good enough
works for some people. All I'm trying to say is that there are other ways of becoming brilliant on an instrument. And it feels *good,* not stringent or frustrating.
I don't mean to sound preachy, or like I'm trying to convert anyone. Stop reading here--fine by me. But for anyone who's interested, here's what a great jazz pianist has to say about it:
"When you don't try as hard to be good, you play better."
"Maybe you admit that your goal is to sound good, and you ask, What's wrong with that? Well, let's apply the issue to speaking. Imagine you asked someone, 'What's your goal when you speak?' and they answered, 'I just really want to sound good. I really need to sound good, and I won't rest until I sound good.' What would you think of that person? Probably that he's pretty shallow. But in music, people exert real effort, withholding love from themselves and others, *just trying to sound good.*"
"One approach to music says 'I play music well, therefore I am an artist.' But that doesn't hold up.... Can you say, 'I speak English well, therefore I am an artist'? Of course not. It all depends on *what you say* with language."
"Along with the desire for a deeper experience comes an intense drive to be a better player. These aspects often work against each other. True musical depth is not about better playing, but about more 'organic' playing..... We need to hear the process of a musician working on himself."
-From Kenny Werner, Effortless Mastery: Liberating the Master Musician Within.
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Late Bloomers
Hey, that's "MS. ArtistE" to you, Harmon. *grin*
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Zina Lee
Re: Late Bloomers
Yeah, the sexism is one of the gripes I would have with Mr. Werner's book if I'd edited it. The other is that he lingers a little too long over some self-love affirmations. But in all other respects, there's a lot of good stuff in there.
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Late Bloomers
I started playing the fiddle 3 and a half years ago, at age 45. I had been playing fiddle tunes on a mandolin for three years, and found an old German fiddle at a garage shop. How hard could the right hand part be? Within months I started wondering if I was too old to be starting this particular instrument. It is my instrument of choice now, and I spend far more time learning it than all my other instruments. Similarly, I spend far more time learning ITM than old time, bluegrass, and accompanying singers. I took up basketball at age 38 and had delusions of mediocrity, but on a good night I could beat some 25-year-olds who played college ball one on one. Unfortunately, my physical condition deteriorated faster than my skills improved - I really had started too late (or at the last possible moment). So now I try to learn the fiddle and the tunes as efficiently as possible. I am interested in one of Jim Doran's comments that 30 minutes spent practicing technique is more valuable than two hours spent on tunes. I would love to find a 10 minute routine to start my 45 minute practice sessions. For a year or two, I played scales and occasional arpeggios, which really helped.
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by russellrapport
Re: Late Bloomers
Summary
I believe more practice yields more progress.(Patronising)
I've concur with the prevalent school of thought which favours early musical introduction.(Patronising)
I maintain that one can become a good player despite a late introduction. (Condesending)
I defended my opinions in a cogent and non-personal manner. (Patronising) (Condensending) (Disrespect)
I made a benign request which was interpreted, on the basis of implication, as 'improper' .(Condesending) (Patronising)
Did you know that I'm an irresponsible layabout as I frequently broach the subject of practice? *YAWN*
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
Look, can we not end all this and discuss, I dunno, music?
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
I'm up for another discussion about tipping if anyone's keen?
Let's see... we've covered cows, goats, elephants... how about giraffe-tipping? Has anyone seen Eddie Izzard's spiel about evil giraffes? "I shall get up early and eat all the leaves off this tree, and when the other animals wake up there will be no more leaves... and they will DIE! mwuhahahahaha". He also did a sketch about methods of procreation for the giraffe. I think lamposts were involved, but the gist was "any way you can figure out, basically... - chin up! (*groan*). But nothing about tipping, sadly. When I was an exchange student in Germany (the cow-tipping years, as I like to think of them), I had kids convinced that, living in Africa and all, I rode an elephant to school every morning, and had to take the roof off our house so that my pet giraffe could come inside out of the rain (doh!).
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Q
Re: Late Bloomers
Thats so funny Q. When I went to London when I was 11, the kids were convinced that a kangaroo carried my books to school for me - and I didnt even tell them that! I just think they all watched Skippy too much when they were little!
By the way Bowhand - if all we did is talk about music, It would be a mighty boring place to hang out. Its nice to have a mix and talk about elephants once in awhile!
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by bb
Re: Late Bloomers
Now kangaroo tipping--that would be a real challenge. They tip back, so I hear. And you're not likely to get back up afterward, eh?
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Late Bloomers
Yes Will, but to be fair to the old roo, Skippy did get the two kids rescued from the abandonded mine over at the old Mackenzie place.
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by showaddydadito
Re: Late Bloomers
Maybe Will meant the mutant roo's from Tank Girl? Them's a marsupial you wouldn't wanna tip. Or ask to carry your school books!
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Q
Re: Late Bloomers
So, was Skippy like Lassie over here in the States? "Bark, bark..!" "What's that, girl?" "Bark, bark, bark!" "You say Timmy is caught in a cave-in in the old mine down the road, Lassie?" "Bark! Bark!" "Good *girl*, Lassie!"
Why don't I remember any mutant roos in Tank Girl?
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Zina Lee
Re: Late Bloomers
It looks like maybe this topic has outworn it's welcome, but I will just say one more thing--Bowhand, to quote Mae West (that denizen of Irish music--ha ha!) "It's not what you say, it's the way you say it"
In other words, like bb, I am a bit on the fence as well concerning 4 hours of practice a day. I've done it and I have seen how it's improved my "chops". (It also gave me a really sore wrist and neck problem, too but that's not the point.) That's not the problem, per se--it's the way you come across in your language and attitude when you are speaking to us--Zina and Will have said it already anyway, so that's it for me....
# Posted on December 22nd 2003 by Andee
Re: Late Bloomers
With respect, Andee, I only articulated what many music teachers here in Ireland consider to be an advantageous time to learn i.e. childhood - when we're especially receptive and free from adult problems. That's the crux of the matter.
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
Wait, I just remembered about the mutant roos!
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by Zina Lee
Re: Late Bloomers
My classics tutor told me that children below about the age of puberty learn languages in a different way to adults. This isn't to say that adults can't learn a foreign language as quickly as a child - it's just that a different approach is needed. It may be the same sort of thing with music.
Trevor
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Late Bloomers
Well, clearly there's advantages to being young when tipping roos. Not too young mind you, because you want to be able to run away faster than a roo, and you have to be strong enough to counteract that famous tail. But too old, and you'll lose the tactical advantage, not to mention the wanton desire to tip roos in the first place.
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Late Bloomers
Well, yes, and too young and the roo might squish you going over...
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by Zina Lee
Re: Late Bloomers
Trevor, I think you are right about how children learn vs. adults. As adults, we might want it more for ourselves, a child might be more motivated from parental influences. Starting as a child helps one have more years of playing time, so bh is right for that advantage...
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by Aine Ni Scully
Re: Late Bloomers
Hey Q - so is it tipping aardvarks in Serth Effrica?
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by Rudall the time
Re: Late Bloomers
I think this is a good question, but only in regard to the fiddle. I was told that with the violin, it is impossible to attain mastery of classical violin if you do not start at an early age--has something to do with muscle formation. These limitations apparently do not exist to the same degree for other instruments. I was told that it would be impossible for me to become a concert violinist, not having started as a child, but that it is perfectly within the realm of possibility for me to become a concert cellist or flautist or trumpeter. This is the consensus of almost all classical violin pedagogues, from what I've been told. However, I have also been told by the same people I've spoken to, that it is possible to attain a high degree of proficiency if you're playing folk music, such as ITM or bluegrass. I guess it has to do with the fact that these types of music don't require the same excruciating degree of precision that is required in classical music.
With regard to being as good as the "famous" ones, that's a very real concern if one is incapable of deriving enjoyment from playing that falls short of that standard. I have been playing whistle for 3 years and flute for about 7 months, and sometimes the frustration of not being able to play at the a certain level far outweighs any pleasure I derive from playing. The only reason I continue is the knowledge that with more practice, I will get ever closer to my ideal (fortunately, my ideal does not require that I sound like Matt Molloy or Kevin Crawford--otherwise I would just take up crossword puzzles as my new hobby). So, I guess I would really like to know how many examples are there of people starting the fiddle later in life and attaining a degree of mastery that was more pleasure than frustration? I would like to learn to play the fiddle, but I don't want to bother if my late start would mean that I would not be able to bring my musical ideas to fruition because of unconquerable physical limitations. I would rather just stick with the flute or take up the accordion.
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by whistlemanhimself
Re: Late Bloomers
I think I'll start up a new sport--tipping classical violin pedagogues....
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Late Bloomers
I love the movie 'Tank Girl' - its so hilarious, Zina I cant believe you forgot about the roos - that was Ice T!!!!
Anyhow - yeah Roos can be a bit nasty - lets just say I dont even feed them at patting Zoo's because Ive seen what they can do! My ex thought I was mad for being afraid of a 'cute roo'! Pretty sure its bloody impossible to actually Tip one as well....
In relation to whistlmans post. I really think that trad has changed so much in the last 20years. The standards have been raised and people are getting much more technical about their playing. People are earning a living from it (well some people) etc. So I think that because of this, even though maybe now, its less technical etc that classical, every day people are getting better and better and more proficient in their chosen instruments, they are pushing the limits. I also think that being an amazing fiddle player has nothing to do with this position or that position etc but as Zina says, its about being able to play a tune that everyone plays but make it 'special' and *that* is really whats hard about this music. It is so to be average at trad or even good. But to be truly amazing - thats the hard part. Luckily most of us are content with being as good as we can be, and are desperate to be amazing
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by bb
Re: Late Bloomers
I meant to say 'its is sooo *easy* to be average.....etc
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by bb
Re: Late Bloomers
and I also meant *not* desperate to be amazing!
Where did I put my brain this morning?
It may have something to do with the copious amounts of Egg nog I consumed last night! Which I have never tried before - it is not something that we have in Australia at all - and it is loveley - I felt sick after cause I had about 7 glasses of it - its so rich, but yum yum!
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by bb
Re: Late Bloomers
Helen, you'd be amazed at the diversity one can find within the world of barnacles.
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: Late Bloomers
I've had a look at the Sevcik (pron. "shev-chick" I think) School of Violin Technique that Jim Dorans referred to quite a few posts (2 days!) ago. I hadn't been aware of Sevcik, so it's quite a revelation. Thanks, Jim!
The studies on fingering are in 4 thickish volumes, the first is about the 1st position only, the second and third about the higher positions (rarely relevant to ITM), and the fourth is about the really virtuoso stuff you'd need for concertos.
I think as far as ITM is concerned the first volume is the main one of interest, and will give you all the left hand technique you'll ever need. It's probably not necessary to study the whole volume. Get the first dozen (quite lengthy) exercises under your belt paying attention to the suggested bowing techniques and other matters, and gradually building up speed, and your technique will be fairly well set up, IMO. You'll then be in a good position to cherry-pick further points of technique further on in the book to work on if you need them.
Jim's quite right in saying that Sevcik will remove the need for countless hours of practice - but what he *didn't* say was that you'll have spend a hell of lot of time working on Sevcik (or any tutor method for that matter) before you reach that enviable stage! Sorry Jim, but I had to mention that!
The preface to Sevcik gives some very useful hints about left hand position and finger action which will benefit all fiddle players; but what I think is very important for anyone embarking on a course of technical study such as Sevcik is for them to have their progress monitored by a good teacher. The teacher will give practical advice that no book can ever give, will nip bad technique in the bud, and will provide that invaluable "pair of ears" that is so difficult for beginners to acquire.
One last point, Vol 1 of Sevcik is good value for money - only
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Late Bloomers
just read whistleman's post. You are of course, correct. The best demonstration (as a flute player!) I can show you, if yer modem is quick enough, because it's quite a big Jpeg image, is to click on my name, follow the link to my session, and just *look* at the angle Steve Mulherne holds his Axe.
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by Rudall the time
Re: Late Bloomers
I've read through Will's posts *again* and I'm afraid there are many points I disagree with.
However, the topic was interesting and seldom boring methinks.
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by BowHand
Re: Late Bloomers
I'm happy to agree to disagree. No problemo. Our experiences of music are clearly different, Sir BowHand, and as long as we can air them here without unduly disparaging the other, the conversation will continue to be interesting. "Two heads are better than one only if they're not thinking the same thing."
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by Will Harmon
Re: Late Bloomers
The Sevcik violin studies are published in the UK by Bosworth of 8/9 Frith Street, London W1V 5TZ. Bosworth specialise, I believe, in the tutor manuals, reference works etc end of the market. Their website is http://www.musicsales.com
If anyone wants to buy Bosworth's sheetmusic in paper format (snail-mail) or as digital download go to their alternate site http://www.musicroom.com
Trevor
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Late Bloomers
I have placed a link to www.musicroom.com on the Links page, in the Tutorials section.
Trevor
# Posted on December 23rd 2003 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Late Bloomers
Trevor - thanks for all the info about aquiring the Sevcik studies. I think it's important not to try to digest too much of these at once. One may have to spend a bit of time on these studies just to get used to the practice routine, but they, like any other studies, are designed solely to improve technique, and to be used in conjunction with an other practice, or playing tunes, or whatever. They are not a substitute for any of these things.
I think one advantage of these books (eg book 1, first page) is - it's already got the student training all four fingers equally, in the space of a few bar lines - few other studies do that. After a few days solely on this page, I found it so much easier to play cuts, triplets and other ornamentations in IT fiddle.
Jim
# Posted on December 24th 2003 by Worldfiddler
Re: Late Bloomers
Re Seamus Creagh: I believe he had some rudimentary fiddle tution as a child and went on to play on the 'folk' scene around Britain and Ireland. It was in his 30s that he developed a serious interest in traditional music, specifically the Sliabh Luachra style - and look where it got him.
# Posted on December 26th 2003 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: Late Bloomers
ahhh, so thats it - I knew I heard something about it -thanks for the info david.
# Posted on December 26th 2003 by bb
Re: Late Bloomers
I remember I was buying a flute at the Fleadh in 99 (god I'm getting on.....anyhoo - I was trying them out and getting a gurgley faded noise that wouldnt pass as a note, when these 2 wee young boys came up and started playing the flutes at this stall like demons -they wouldve been 9 or 10 and I was mortified. I ended up giving the flute in away in the end - I think just seeing that ended my flute playing days before they really started
# Posted on January 5th 2004 by bb