When I first started learning ITM by ear I wasn't very good at it. That's because 1)I hadn't been playing that long and my storehouse of stock phrases wasn't large and 2)my ear wasn't developed enough to distinguish these phrases on the CDs I was learning from. At the present, after my ear-learning ability is greatly improved, I can go back to some of the first tunes I learned and realize how different my version is compared to what's on the album. I have termed this phenomenon an "ear-learning peculiarity." My question is: are peculiarities, aberrations, and deviancies actually blessings in disguise? Do these "mistakes" in learning tunes enrich the tradition by introducing new versions and settings? Can I go further and say that as I get better at hearing the exact notes that the Chieftains, Altan, and Lunasa play I'm really just mimicking their setting? After all, throughout the history of ITM hasn't mistakes/forgetfulness been instrumental in giving ITM a wealth of not just new versions but whole new tunes? I can't help but wonder if ITM hundreds of years ago consisted of a mere handful of tunes but through time ear-learing peculiarities snowballed to produce thousands and thousands of tunes. I don't know if I'm making any sense, but what do you all think?
Re: Ear-learning peculiarities and their role in ITM
I'd never thought about this before, but it could make sense that forgeting (how many ts in that word?) how a tune goes, but playing it anyway, could create a different or better version, or a different tune. Sounds plausible to me!
Re: Ear-learning peculiarities and their role in ITM
It's absolutly fundamental to an aural tradition, as important to the music as DNA mutation is to evolution.
I too inadvertantly learned tunes wrong when I was younger. But the interesting thing is the way I have unintentionally passed these mutations on to the generation under me. I now have most of these deviances corrected, but there are still certain people I play with who prefer my earlier "wrong" versions. And who am I to complain.
Re: Ear-learning peculiarities and their role in ITM
I think as the tradition was developing, someone would travel through a region in Ireland, pick up a tune and bring it home, and everyone in his/her area would play it as he/she learned it. This is likely how different settings came into existence, and of course, they are all valid.
My feeling is that what you played when you first learned the tune may have been "wrong," but it worked within what was being done on the recording. If you continued to play the tune the way you learned it, at a session, no one would probably notice. On the other hand, if you learn a setting that is not popularly played at sessions, you may well find your version does not work. For example, I have two versions of Tenpenny Bit, each with a completely different b part. I actually like to play all three parts, but I know the b part most players use, so I use that in a session. The alternate b part simply would not work.
Re: Ear-learning peculiarities and their role in ITM
Jim, it sounds really convincing to me. There's an Irish tune called "The Longford Tinker" (http://thesession.org/tunes/display.php/369). It's a 3-part Bm tune, but as someone points out, it derived from a simple Scots tune called "Jenny Dang the Weaver" (http://thesession.org/tunes/display.php/380). What's interesting is that the original Scots version has only 2 parts and written in Dmaj!!! Great evolution, isn't it? And what's more surprising, Cape Breton singer Mary Jane Lamond sings in Gaelic to this simple melody!!!
Re: Ear-learning peculiarities and their role in ITM
Even though I play by ear a lot, I notate more or less everything I play nowadays for the benefit of strangers in the band, and anything I used to play 10+ years ago is written out long-hand. So, in essence, I have a record of how my style has changed since my late-teens (when I wrote on clay tablets or slate).
If you are playing by ear instead of reading, over quite a short period of a year or so, I find myself playing a tune slightly differently.
I notice, because I have it notated. Would anyone only playing by ear or from memory, notice how they change a tune over time?
Re: Ear-learning peculiarities and their role in ITM
By gum, Geoff, you're a young 'un. When I was a lad we had to chalk our notations on dinosaur skin. But this was in the days before we'd learned how to kill them. So I rarely bump into my earlier tunes. And whenever I do, it's usually painful.
It's much easier these days since we learned to kill them. The slow ones, anyway. And the slow ones were always good for writing slow tunes on. The fast ones were only any good for quick tunes.
By the way, I'm enjoying playing my new O'Ugg dinosaur-skinned bodhrán.
But back to the point - I'm sure new tunes come out of the natural evolution of old tunes, but surely there's more?
What about those patterns of notes that come out when we're just playing as in playful practice? And some patterns of notes emerge in particular ways for particular instruments because of their physical makeup and how we have to play them, that's why some tunes are fiddle tunes, some flute tunes or whistle or whatever. They're easier to play on their native instruments.
Ear-learning peculiarities and their role in ITM
Ear-learning peculiarities and their role in ITM
When I first started learning ITM by ear I wasn't very good at it. That's because 1)I hadn't been playing that long and my storehouse of stock phrases wasn't large and 2)my ear wasn't developed enough to distinguish these phrases on the CDs I was learning from. At the present, after my ear-learning ability is greatly improved, I can go back to some of the first tunes I learned and realize how different my version is compared to what's on the album. I have termed this phenomenon an "ear-learning peculiarity." My question is: are peculiarities, aberrations, and deviancies actually blessings in disguise? Do these "mistakes" in learning tunes enrich the tradition by introducing new versions and settings? Can I go further and say that as I get better at hearing the exact notes that the Chieftains, Altan, and Lunasa play I'm really just mimicking their setting? After all, throughout the history of ITM hasn't mistakes/forgetfulness been instrumental in giving ITM a wealth of not just new versions but whole new tunes? I can't help but wonder if ITM hundreds of years ago consisted of a mere handful of tunes but through time ear-learing peculiarities snowballed to produce thousands and thousands of tunes. I don't know if I'm making any sense, but what do you all think?
# Posted on June 17th 2004 by jdave
Re: Ear-learning peculiarities and their role in ITM
I'd never thought about this before, but it could make sense that forgeting (how many ts in that word?) how a tune goes, but playing it anyway, could create a different or better version, or a different tune. Sounds plausible to me!
# Posted on June 17th 2004 by Jonathan
Re: Ear-learning peculiarities and their role in ITM
It's absolutly fundamental to an aural tradition, as important to the music as DNA mutation is to evolution.
I too inadvertantly learned tunes wrong when I was younger. But the interesting thing is the way I have unintentionally passed these mutations on to the generation under me. I now have most of these deviances corrected, but there are still certain people I play with who prefer my earlier "wrong" versions. And who am I to complain.
# Posted on June 17th 2004 by llig leahcim
Re: Ear-learning peculiarities and their role in ITM
Bribanjo
Leaving ou the high B on "MBtB's" b part!
Your such a slacker!!!
(or is your banjo one of those long neck jobbies?)
;~)
# Posted on June 18th 2004 by Chef Paul
Re: Ear-learning peculiarities and their role in ITM
I think as the tradition was developing, someone would travel through a region in Ireland, pick up a tune and bring it home, and everyone in his/her area would play it as he/she learned it. This is likely how different settings came into existence, and of course, they are all valid.
My feeling is that what you played when you first learned the tune may have been "wrong," but it worked within what was being done on the recording. If you continued to play the tune the way you learned it, at a session, no one would probably notice. On the other hand, if you learn a setting that is not popularly played at sessions, you may well find your version does not work. For example, I have two versions of Tenpenny Bit, each with a completely different b part. I actually like to play all three parts, but I know the b part most players use, so I use that in a session. The alternate b part simply would not work.
# Posted on June 18th 2004 by Ailin
Re: Ear-learning peculiarities and their role in ITM
So according to Jim, we have to tell Kevin Burke not to make fun anymore of the woman asking him the play *the* Irish jig!
# Posted on June 18th 2004 by heike
Re: Ear-learning peculiarities and their role in ITM
Jim, it sounds really convincing to me. There's an Irish tune called "The Longford Tinker" (http://thesession.org/tunes/display.php/369). It's a 3-part Bm tune, but as someone points out, it derived from a simple Scots tune called "Jenny Dang the Weaver" (http://thesession.org/tunes/display.php/380). What's interesting is that the original Scots version has only 2 parts and written in Dmaj!!! Great evolution, isn't it? And what's more surprising, Cape Breton singer Mary Jane Lamond sings in Gaelic to this simple melody!!!
And could anybody comment on my version of Merry Blacksmith? http://thesession.org/tunes/display.php/72/comments I just mixed up two similar tunes and unintentionally invented a nice version of it.
# Posted on June 18th 2004 by slainte
Re: Ear-learning peculiarities and their role in ITM
Even though I play by ear a lot, I notate more or less everything I play nowadays for the benefit of strangers in the band, and anything I used to play 10+ years ago is written out long-hand. So, in essence, I have a record of how my style has changed since my late-teens (when I wrote on clay tablets or slate).
If you are playing by ear instead of reading, over quite a short period of a year or so, I find myself playing a tune slightly differently.
I notice, because I have it notated. Would anyone only playing by ear or from memory, notice how they change a tune over time?
# Posted on June 19th 2004 by geoffwright
Re: Ear-learning peculiarities and their role in ITM
By gum, Geoff, you're a young 'un. When I was a lad we had to chalk our notations on dinosaur skin. But this was in the days before we'd learned how to kill them. So I rarely bump into my earlier tunes. And whenever I do, it's usually painful.
It's much easier these days since we learned to kill them. The slow ones, anyway. And the slow ones were always good for writing slow tunes on. The fast ones were only any good for quick tunes.
By the way, I'm enjoying playing my new O'Ugg dinosaur-skinned bodhrán.
But back to the point - I'm sure new tunes come out of the natural evolution of old tunes, but surely there's more?
What about those patterns of notes that come out when we're just playing as in playful practice? And some patterns of notes emerge in particular ways for particular instruments because of their physical makeup and how we have to play them, that's why some tunes are fiddle tunes, some flute tunes or whistle or whatever. They're easier to play on their native instruments.
\())
# Posted on June 21st 2004 by greenman