Assuming, for the purposes of this discussion, that learning tunes from recordings or live, from real humans, is the ideal way to expand one's repertoire, I now submit the following related but subordinate question to the panel:
Is it better to learn tunes from reading staff notation (option A) or from listening to midi-fied ABC files of tunes (Option B)?
I suggest that, while neither option conveys the stylistic nuances of the genre, listening to computer files is somewhat preferable to notation because it works those mental muscles used for learning tunes aurally. Can anyone give me a good argument that staff notation beats sound files? If so, please elaborate.
Neither just pick it up by ear from your favourite version as you need the feel as well as the notes some times I learn a tune from the outside in by playing along and getting the feel of it then the notes fall in place gradually
I don't like the sound of electronic music at all. When you look at a score without an instrument, you can imagine the sound of anything playing; your mind can put in the trills, rolls, cuts, triplets--whatever you want--then translate them to your fingers and your own instrument.
I’m sure it depends a lot on the individual. If I could only have one, I’d go with the dots. The only thing I use the MIDI version for is to get a quick impression of the new tunes as they come in. If I want to learn one, I’ll look for a recording or make what I can of it from the dots.
The MIDI tunes can be really frustrating to listen to. Some of the ornamentation comes out so weird that it’s very distracting. And listening to a jig with no lilt whatsoever can throw me off balance. My brain might try to hear it in 4/4.
Definitely without a shadow of doubt the dots is better. The problem with the computer is that it plays like a computer, it has no humanity. The dots are abstract enough for your brain to construct what the music should/could be, provided of course that you can already play.
I think I have only two or three tunes that I've reintroduced to society from the petrification of the dots, but they seem to work. Though it's hard to tell.
I find it hard to "hear" midi files...I am currently in the process of teaching myself to learn tunes aurally...that is to say, for really the first time, I am learning tunes by ear. I have found some mp3 files that are really helpful, but when I listen to midi files, for some reason, I have to rely more on pulling out the dots to fill in the missing pieces.
btw, I find that I can learn tunes faster by ear than y the dots...learning by ear forces you to listen to the tune, commit it to memory, and then let the learned part of the brain take over as opposed to using the dots as a crutch.
Sunny - I will try to be there. . . lotsa parties that weekend. It's about 1/4 mile from where I live, so I probably won;t have any excuses to get out of it
Guess I am in the minority on this one then - I find it preferable (In the absence of a good recorded version) to play the Midi at around 50% speed, NOT on a real instrument setting at all. . . just something to convey pitch. Actually, I set my ABC player to harp. I'll play it back about 5-10 times and play along, picking up what I can. As soon as I feel a part of the tune is internalized, I'll play it solo. (That;s when the actual learning occurs) .I'd like to think I'm conversant enough with the idiom that I can add my own articulations and emphasis and not have it sound like a computer.. . . but maybe I'm playing the Radiohead versions of tunes. Feel free to exile me. . .
Like most others I dislike Midi recordings of Irish music, but if you do have to have it the best playback is probably by ABCMus2.0 which, as I recollect, makes provision for "lift" to be given to the music by slightly lengthening the first eight note of a beat, and things like that. I believe it is controllable by the user.
Just slightly hijacking the direction of this thread - I just reset my preferences on ABC Navigator to get it to play back "Flute" and it doesn't sound too bad at all. The ornamentation of course is all wrong but it is otherwise quite passable. It's still MIDI but the best I have managed to get out of the computer so far.
Does this depend in a big way on the quality of your sound-card?
I agree with Michael. (and not just because he's now my official boyfriend).
If you have a sound source, you are likely to play so that you sound like it - which is probably not a good thing when its computer music; whereas if you go from the dots, you'll think about how you want to make it sound. (This latter is related to the notion, previously discussed, of "making a tune your own")
Judging from the pedants who pick over peoples ABC contributions, I would say that, providing you can read dots, it is better to learn from notation as it can be interpreted in your own style rather than someone elses.
If you can't read tadpoles, it might help to hear different people play the same tune.
I prefer the dots but it's not a limitation off the MIDI file format that makes the tunes lifeless but the way they are arranged.
It is quit possible (though time consuming) to impart to a tune most of the nuances of a live performance. Some shortcuts are available in software such as Groove-Quantize, which, for example, allows you to apply any given amount of dotting to a tune. The subtleties of ornamentation timing are also possible with a little effort and with my Deger E Chanter I can record directly from my playing.
If Jeremy is agreeable, I'll record some midi tracks to put in the tunes section.
Dots are best for me, because like a true traditional old f*rt, posting remarks on The Session, and using those little silver disks that replaced my LPs is about as far as my technical skills go. But to augment hearing a tune from another person, which is my primary way of learning music, the dots work better than some computer generated sounds for me.
There have been a few occasions where I learn a tune just from dots, but it always needs some calibration when I do encounter it in a session, different settings/interpretations I guess.
Learning from a Midi file should *never* be a substitute for learning by ear from real musicians. It's only really useful just ot get " a quick jist" of how the tune goes so I decide whether it's worth persevering with or not. There was a time when my sight reading wasn't very good so midis helped me more then. However, these days I do it much better by just following "the dots" and I can play it in a more accurate style because I've been used to listening and/or playing the real thing.
However, learning tunes by ear from real players is still the best way but "the dots" do help. I don't find the midi files so much of an advantage these days.
Difficult one to call as with the dots you're relying on how well the tune is transcribed but equally by ear it depends on well the tune is played! On balance I'd go for dots as, has already been said, it allows for personal interpretation - a bit like the book and the film where the latter can often be very disappointing.
Lesser of two evils?
Lesser of two evils?
Assuming, for the purposes of this discussion, that learning tunes from recordings or live, from real humans, is the ideal way to expand one's repertoire, I now submit the following related but subordinate question to the panel:
Is it better to learn tunes from reading staff notation (option A) or from listening to midi-fied ABC files of tunes (Option B)?
I suggest that, while neither option conveys the stylistic nuances of the genre, listening to computer files is somewhat preferable to notation because it works those mental muscles used for learning tunes aurally. Can anyone give me a good argument that staff notation beats sound files? If so, please elaborate.
You'll be quizzed in the morning.
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by wormdiet
Re: Lesser of two evils?
Same difference!
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by Ptarmigan
Re: Lesser of two evils?
Both. I would say the dots if I really had to choose though.
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by Unseen122
Re: Lesser of two evils?
Neither just pick it up by ear from your favourite version as you need the feel as well as the notes some times I learn a tune from the outside in by playing along and getting the feel of it then the notes fall in place gradually
midi or dots ?
midi maybe more useful !
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by Ripthecalico
Re: Lesser of two evils?
I don't like the sound of electronic music at all. When you look at a score without an instrument, you can imagine the sound of anything playing; your mind can put in the trills, rolls, cuts, triplets--whatever you want--then translate them to your fingers and your own instrument.
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by dmarie
Re: Lesser of two evils?
I’m sure it depends a lot on the individual. If I could only have one, I’d go with the dots. The only thing I use the MIDI version for is to get a quick impression of the new tunes as they come in. If I want to learn one, I’ll look for a recording or make what I can of it from the dots.
The MIDI tunes can be really frustrating to listen to. Some of the ornamentation comes out so weird that it’s very distracting. And listening to a jig with no lilt whatsoever can throw me off balance. My brain might try to hear it in 4/4.
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by Bob himself
Re: Lesser of two evils?
Definitely without a shadow of doubt the dots is better. The problem with the computer is that it plays like a computer, it has no humanity. The dots are abstract enough for your brain to construct what the music should/could be, provided of course that you can already play.
I think I have only two or three tunes that I've reintroduced to society from the petrification of the dots, but they seem to work. Though it's hard to tell.
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by llig leahcim
Re: Lesser of two evils?
I find it hard to "hear" midi files...I am currently in the process of teaching myself to learn tunes aurally...that is to say, for really the first time, I am learning tunes by ear. I have found some mp3 files that are really helpful, but when I listen to midi files, for some reason, I have to rely more on pulling out the dots to fill in the missing pieces.
btw, I find that I can learn tunes faster by ear than y the dots...learning by ear forces you to listen to the tune, commit it to memory, and then let the learned part of the brain take over as opposed to using the dots as a crutch.
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by Sunnybear
Re: Lesser of two evils?
wormdiet, you going to TSFC on the 18th?
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by Sunnybear
Re: Lesser of two evils?
Sunny - I will try to be there. . . lotsa parties that weekend. It's about 1/4 mile from where I live, so I probably won;t have any excuses to get out of it
Guess I am in the minority on this one then - I find it preferable (In the absence of a good recorded version) to play the Midi at around 50% speed, NOT on a real instrument setting at all. . . just something to convey pitch. Actually, I set my ABC player to harp. I'll play it back about 5-10 times and play along, picking up what I can. As soon as I feel a part of the tune is internalized, I'll play it solo. (That;s when the actual learning occurs) .I'd like to think I'm conversant enough with the idiom that I can add my own articulations and emphasis and not have it sound like a computer.. . . but maybe I'm playing the Radiohead versions of tunes. Feel free to exile me. . .
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by wormdiet
Re: Lesser of two evils?
Like most others I dislike Midi recordings of Irish music, but if you do have to have it the best playback is probably by ABCMus2.0 which, as I recollect, makes provision for "lift" to be given to the music by slightly lengthening the first eight note of a beat, and things like that. I believe it is controllable by the user.
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by lazyhound
Re: Lesser of two evils?
Just slightly hijacking the direction of this thread - I just reset my preferences on ABC Navigator to get it to play back "Flute" and it doesn't sound too bad at all. The ornamentation of course is all wrong but it is otherwise quite passable. It's still MIDI but the best I have managed to get out of the computer so far.
Does this depend in a big way on the quality of your sound-card?
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by Donough
Re: Lesser of two evils?
I agree with Michael. (and not just because he's now my official boyfriend).
If you have a sound source, you are likely to play so that you sound like it - which is probably not a good thing when its computer music; whereas if you go from the dots, you'll think about how you want to make it sound. (This latter is related to the notion, previously discussed, of "making a tune your own")
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by showaddydadito
Re: Lesser of two evils?
Judging from the pedants who pick over peoples ABC contributions, I would say that, providing you can read dots, it is better to learn from notation as it can be interpreted in your own style rather than someone elses.
If you can't read tadpoles, it might help to hear different people play the same tune.
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by geoffwright
Re: Lesser of two evils?
I prefer the dots but it's not a limitation off the MIDI file format that makes the tunes lifeless but the way they are arranged.
It is quit possible (though time consuming) to impart to a tune most of the nuances of a live performance. Some shortcuts are available in software such as Groove-Quantize, which, for example, allows you to apply any given amount of dotting to a tune. The subtleties of ornamentation timing are also possible with a little effort and with my Deger E Chanter I can record directly from my playing.
If Jeremy is agreeable, I'll record some midi tracks to put in the tunes section.
PP
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by Pied Piper
Re: Lesser of two evils?
Dots are best for me, because like a true traditional old f*rt, posting remarks on The Session, and using those little silver disks that replaced my LPs is about as far as my technical skills go. But to augment hearing a tune from another person, which is my primary way of learning music, the dots work better than some computer generated sounds for me.
There have been a few occasions where I learn a tune just from dots, but it always needs some calibration when I do encounter it in a session, different settings/interpretations I guess.
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by AlBrown
Re: Lesser of two evils?
Learning from a Midi file should *never* be a substitute for learning by ear from real musicians. It's only really useful just ot get " a quick jist" of how the tune goes so I decide whether it's worth persevering with or not. There was a time when my sight reading wasn't very good so midis helped me more then. However, these days I do it much better by just following "the dots" and I can play it in a more accurate style because I've been used to listening and/or playing the real thing.
However, learning tunes by ear from real players is still the best way but "the dots" do help. I don't find the midi files so much of an advantage these days.
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by Johannes J
Re: Lesser of two evils?
Difficult one to call as with the dots you're relying on how well the tune is transcribed but equally by ear it depends on well the tune is played! On balance I'd go for dots as, has already been said, it allows for personal interpretation - a bit like the book and the film where the latter can often be very disappointing.
# Posted on December 6th 2005 by Bannerman