I have been following this thread with great interest, both as a performer and teacher of music, and as someone with a degree in “Classical” music but who has been performing traditional Irish for the last 10 or so years and is accepted by professional Irish musicians as playing “in the style”. When I first played Irish Music, I learned tunes the same way as I had always learned music. I played everything “perfectly” as written. Professional Irish musicians said “that’s nice but it’s not Irish” This drove me crazy for a very long time! I listened to recordings and thought I sounded just like what I heard. Then I started to tape myself and when I really listened, realized that, yes the tune was the same but the “feel” for lack of a better word was different. That was a turning point for me. I realized that yes I was playing the right “language” but my “accent” was wrong. It was like trying to speak English with an English accent (or American, or Japanese etc) rather than an Irish accent.
Nobody is saying that there is only one way to play a tune, be it Irish, American, Scots or whatever but if you want to play it in a very specific style, you have to listen and imitate the style, style cannot be notated, just as an accent in language is not notated.
I’m not meaning to sound preachy but if you look at the history of Western Art Music (often termed “Classical” it went from being learned by ear and improvised upon in the Medieval period, to being written down and the ornamentation improvised in the Baroque period, to every note, dynamic, ornament etc. being notated by the composer with no room at all for improvisation by the performer by the 19th century. Notation is a tool that can be helpful, but in tradtional music it only provides the skeleton of the true music, the rest has to be added by the performer. The experience of the performer determines how the piece will sound. Even within the same country, the accent(in language) or musical style can vary, that what makes music a living, wonderful tradtion!
Sorry for the rambling, but I wanted to jump on the bandwagon too with my 2 cents!!
Sue
Sorry to revive what everyone probably thought was a blessedly dead issue, but for the sake of the archives and for those of a scholarly temperament I thought I’d add one little historical note. I was reading The Northern Fiddler the other day and found an exchange in which the old Ballygawley fiddler Peter Turbit was asked by Allen Feldman about the fiddlers of his youth. He replied, "Well the good fiddler I knew in this area besides Ned Turbit was Patrick Campbell, he played by note and Ned Turbit, he played by ear, but they were both good fiddlers–two different styles.
Question: Did you hear much of Master McDermott?
Answer: Oh, I heard him three or four times: he played by note too. He kept a terrible good fiddle.
So, for what it’s worth, there’s historical sanction for all approaches.
and another tuppence. . .
I learned to read music, and took up a wide variety of instruments, with varying levels of success. It is virtually impossible to learn a tune on the hammered dulcimer by reading music, because you may be able to find the notes that are on the page, but your hammer patterns will be unworkable.
But with the whistle I find that I get a basic jig or reel tune down far faster by reading the music, then trying it in session where I make what I’ve learned fit in with what others are playing.
If I try to learn in session, all I get are chord progressions; in session it seems that other whistle players are so intent on proving their speed and mastery of (over) ornamentation that I can’t get them to 1) slow down to where I can hear how they get from here to there, and 2) stop with the flourishes and play a straight tune. The only musical assistance I’ve gotten without paying for it has been from the old men who have nothing to prove and everything to share. Bless the old men!
I think learning to play by ear is best for children and adults.
Almost every song ever written was first crafted by ear. The process involves hearing something in your head, then working it out on an instrument until it sounded right.
Learning this way, a person picks up subtle nuances that cannot be taught from the page.
My nine-year-old son is learning to play piano by ear and sight using Simply Music’s video training course. It is amazing the difference in his response to this method verses the old sight-reading traditional method.
Simply Music’s creator makes the point that we all learn to talk first and then read and write second. He recommends the same sequence is best for learning music. Learn first by seeing (others play), hearing and repeating. Sight reading and music theory can come later.
To check out Simply Music go to http://www.simplymusic.net
Yes, in the Academic world, learning by the sight reading method is emphasized. But why? It’s probably because, if one was to write a song before the advent of the tape recorder, he or she had no other way to insure the note and sequence structure of the song would be maintained or remembered. Sheet notation cornered the market, especially from a commercial point of view. Songs that were reproduced on sheet music travelled farther and faster than songs that travelled by ear.
I do believe that if tape recorders and video recorders had always been around, this would have dramatically affected the way music would be documented and passed down. The academic world would not be so dogged-reliant upon the sight-reading method.
Who wouldn’t want to see Bach or Mozart (sp?) on video playing their originals?
Being a published songwriter of many praise songs, I believe sheet music is best to communicate and maintain a degree of uniformity among audiences as a song spreads in popularity. Not everybody has that great of an ear to reproduce melodies, chords and rhythms accurately. Sheet music keeps everybody from straying too far from home.
Purists emphasize accuracy…or an allegience to the originator of the song or tune. Expressionists emphasize to role of creativity by the artist. Each will irritate the other, but both have a vital role in keeping old music alive and appreciated by new audiences.
Cinead
[ This Message was edited by: Cinead on 2001-08-13 19:56 ]
Ive known a few non-readers who hold on to a notion that sight reading prevents good ear training and refer to notation in derogatory terms such as fly dirt etc and coming late to sight reading myself and remembering how intimidating it was in the begining I wonder If its an attitude built on fear and insecurity.Reading music to many of us can be as joyful as the music itself and is a wonderful tool to have,and the whistle is probably the most intuitive of all instruments to learn on-take the chalenge-you wont regret it! 
Mike
“The only musical assistance I’ve gotten without paying for it has been from the old men who have nothing to prove and everything to share. Bless the old men!” Thanks tyghress
HECK OF A NOTE
I play it just as I read it, now what’s the matter with that?
I only play by ear because I’m blind as a bat.
Those dots and lines on the paper only confuse the sound.
But if I didn’t have them to follow, awful sounds would abound.
I can’t remember how the tune goes, the music helps me some.
Learning to play by ear? I might as well be deaf and dumb.
If I had my preference and opportunity to
choose,
I’d learn by ear and I’d learn by note, (and better memory I could use!)
——some old men thoughts——
Thanks to everyone who contributed to a great debate…
I guess there’s no right or wrong but definitely the authors’ comments are a little bit strong on the side of the ‘ear’.
Regards,
Gerry
Not meaning to beat a dead horse, but I just realized another fine reason for leaning a bit on notation rather than ear. I just listened to a lovely air played on MP3.com, and realized that I had heard it, nearly intonation for intonation, (and certainly ornamentation for ornamentation) by another whistler.
Before anyone assumes that this person ‘stole’ the style and performance I’d like to point out that I learned a certain jig primarily from listening to the very same person in session, and once I got the written music for this jig, found out that I was dropping notes, tripling things that were best sounded as a single note, etc. just because that was how I had heard it.
Taking written, bare-bones music encourages you to interpret it yourself.
“Taking written, bare-bones music encourages you to interpret it yourself.”
I heartily agree with that idea. It’s fun to work out from the basic melody your own interpretation, placement of ornamentation and phrasing, then listen to professional renditions and compare. Great learning tool.
Tony
Reviving an old thread:
Surely once one is familiar with the basic feel of a jig, reel, or hornpipe, it isn’t a giant leap to learn another tune from the page and play it in the same style?
OTOH, I couldn’t possibly learn a slow air solely from the page, as each is so different. But having heard the tune enough times, the page shows me where my fingers should be going in what order, when my ear may still not be up to the job, though the rhythm and feel definitely still comes best through the ears for me.
WRT ornamentation, I put it in where I feel like it & rarely see it notated in the page; I hope my judgement of how much, what & when is improving over time.
Attending a singing class on Wednesday, we sang “The Galway Shawl”. The tendancy was, I felt, to put in too much vocal ornamentation, two or three “warbles” per line. I think of Brother Steve’s croutons in the soup metaphor when I think there’s too much ornamentation going on.
So now totally off-topic, several tunes are mentioned in that song, and I would like to know the story behind “Rodney’s Glory”. Who was Rodney, and what was his Glory? The other tunes, Stack of Barley, The Foggy Dew, and the Blackbird, lead me to guess that the singer was probably a piper or flautist. Any knowledgeable on this?
cheers, Martin
I can’t answer your questions, Martin, but I have a question of my own. I am very short on cash to buy CD’s to hear traditional music played, so I have been copying sheet music off the internet to build up my collection of tunes. That is my primary resource to be able to play tunes on the whistle.
However, since I am a beginner, I don’t yet know the rhythms of jigs, reels, etc., though I’m learning, well enough to make it sound right. I obviously need to listen to professional musicians playing the tunes. But there’s so many CD’s to choose from. For someone who is so low on cash and can’t afford to buy more than one or two CD’s right now, what would anyone recommend as a good one to start with? I want to learn to play by ear (which I don’t do well yet) as well as reading notes (which I have been doing).
I have gone to and very much enjoyed several web sites that have clips of different people’s playing and this has helped me get a feel for what the tune is supposed to sound like. But I’ve heard a lot of people say that it’s super important to listen to professional musicians, too.
Any ideas or advice for me? I’d specifically like to know of a good CD that would help me know what the tunes are supposed to sound like, but wouldn’t be too impossible for a beginner to play along with. Is there such a thing?
Thanks!
On 2002-01-18 11:39, Martin Milner wrote:
Reviving an old thread:Surely once one is familiar with the basic feel of a jig, reel, or hornpipe, it isn’t a giant leap to learn another tune from the page and play it in the same style?
You are right, that shouldn’t be a problem, don’t try it though when you are learning without an example you can listen to (and, no, the computer p[laying back ABCs won’t do)
Re Rodney, George B. Rodney was a British admiral who won a big victory against the French somewhere around 1782(?). I’m pretty sure this tune celebrates his achievement.
These quotes from this thread struck me as being right on target, some for “ear” and some for “eye”:
Gerry - school and mainstream music pedagogy emphasizes visual reading skills, even though the art form we are trying to master is aural, not visual.
Frank - Most of these Irish tunes were played hundreds of years ago, and were passed down the generations by ear…during those generations, the songs get changed by the artists who play them.
Emma - Notation alone will never be able to communicate completely a tune’s personality.
Tony - would argue strongly that one could never learn to play in the traditional style without hearing what it sounds like. But, that is not to say that learning a new tune has to come from how you hear someone else play it.
Claudine - Music is an international language, if you know it, you’ll be able to play with people anywhere in the world. So - as you all learned to speak and read english - why not learn music?
Tom - there are people in Japan who can read and write English fluently, but have only the vaguest idea of how to speak it. Of course, there are also those who understand and speak the language, but cannot read or write. Both of these extremes are missing out on much of the beauty of the language… …how would you like to learn, say, Mandarin Chinese by simply listening to recordings of people speaking it, without getting to ask them what they’re saying, or see how they’re producing the sounds?
Rich - One standard pedagogical technique for jazz is to transcribe solos: the idea is to take a recorded solo you like, and write it out as accurately as possible, and then analyze it or learn it yourself or both. It’s hard, and while there’s certainly a school that thinks that soloing is more holistic than “what notes did he play over this turnaround”, it’s certainly useful to take apart what the pros do note for note.
Ron - L.E. McCullough states in his tutorial that contrary to popular myth most professional caliber players do indeed read music and the myth of them all playing by ear alone is nothing more that a myth of trad music. Does anyone honestly think Paddy Maloney could score a film without being able to read music?
Lee - To play any type of music well, you have to play what is felt, not just what is written, not just what is heard. For me, music is a medium that allows us to communicate even when words fail, with a richness that goes beyond… …when I hear I new tune, my mind immediately flows with emotive response. It also associates the tune with a hundred tunes that sound or feel the same. Seeing the tune in standard notation gives it a back bone, keeps me from morphing the music into a different tune… …If I want to join folks in a session playing a new tune, if I have a backbone (standard notation) for a tune, I can readily recognize how the group is altering the tune to reflect what the group wants to express.
Patrick - I can get a modern arrangement of a medieval tune and learn to play something that very few people have heard in several hundred years. If you want “freedom” in music, reading the notes is like being able to read a map that leads you to a beautiful place.
Sue - if you want to play it in a very specific style, you have to listen and imitate the style, style cannot be notated, just as an accent in language is not notated… Notation is a tool that can be helpful, but in traditional music it only provides the skeleton of the true music, the rest has to be added by the performer. The experience of the performer determines how the piece will sound. Even within the same country, the accent(in language) or musical style can vary, that what makes music a living, wonderful tradition!
Cinead - if one was to write a song before the advent of the tape recorder, he or she had no other way to insure the note and sequence structure of the song would be maintained or remembered. Sheet notation cornered the market, especially from a commercial point of view. Songs that were reproduced on sheet music travelled farther and faster than songs that travelled by ear. I do believe that if tape recorders and video recorders had always been around, this would have dramatically affected the way music would be documented and passed down…
…I believe sheet music is best to communicate and maintain a degree of uniformity among audiences as a song spreads in popularity. Not everybody has that great of an ear to reproduce melodies, chords and rhythms accurately. Sheet music keeps everybody from straying too far from home.
Robert
Well, I sure am glad that controversy is settled…
I’d like to make one observation supporting what has been touched on here, from an historical perspective.
Historically, music that is down on paper is more likely to survive intact than music that is handed down by aural tradition. The Old Testament Psalms are a good example. The text (lyrics) for the Psalms were originally verses set to music, and this text has survived in a number of languages with translations all very close to the original in the modern Bible. However, because the original melodies, rhythms and chords were not written down, the music itself is not available to us.
In much the same way, chord notation for trad music is a fairly recent trend, having only been included in more recent instruction sets and song collections. As a result, the chords used today are no doubt very different from what was played 100 years ago. I’m pretty sure that some of the chords commonly used today in “trad” music are anything but “traditional”. Dsus2/A (D-E-A with an A in the Bass), Em sus2+4 (E-F#-A-B), etc etc.
Certainly, these newer chord choices are interesting and alive, but what a shame that we don’t know many of the original chord choices simply because there was no written record kept of this information.
Best wishes
Robert
[ This Message was edited by: rpmseattle on 2002-01-18 14:07 ]
On 2002-01-18 14:06, rpmseattle wrote:
In much the same way, chord notation for trad music is a fairly recent trend, having only been included in more recent instruction sets and song collections. As a result, the chords used today are no doubt very different from what was played 100 years ago. I’m pretty sure that some of the chords commonly used today in “trad” music are anything but “traditional”. Dsus2/A (D-E-A with an A in the Bass), Em sus2+4 (E-F#-A-B), etc etc.Certainly, these newer chord choices are interesting and alive, but what a shame that we don’t know many of the original chord choices simply because there was no written record kept of this information.
Best wishes
Robert
[ This Message was edited by: rpmseattle on 2002-01-18 14:07 ]
I think Robert that this refutes the point you are trying to make. A 100 years ago there were no chords in IrTrad, because there was no accompanyment, except on the harp. The traditional Irish tunes were lilted or played in unison. There were no guitars, bouzoukis etc.
So what we have here is someone seeing written music with chords, and using this to give them an idea of what the tradition was like, rather than listening to the old timers or speaking to them about the music in Ardare, Co. Donnegal in the 1920s.
I think most of the people who advocate learning by ear are not opposed to musical notiation: They merely want to point out the dangers of assuming that a sense for the tradition can be gleaned from the page.
My take on this issue comes from my first musical love, Jazz, and all of the insanely awesome jazz musicians I’ve played with.
Jazz has almost exactly the same aural (by ear) tradition as IrTrad. Yet, jazz musicians, from the late '20’s on were also expected to be killer readers, so they could play in jazz orchestras. So they’ve integrated both methods seamlessly.
Now, if you know anything about jazz, you know it’s all about feel. There are innumerable nuances that are impossible to notate. Kind of like IrTrad, huh? Yet a jazz player is capable of reading a chart (often they can sight-read it) and put in all of the expression and nuance that characterizes jazz. And this is like almost EVERYBODY who plays jazz - I have never played with anybody very famous. I’ve just played with journeyman-working stiff types, but they all can do this!
The point is: you can have it all. Learn to play by ear. Learn to read. Carefully learn the stylistic nuances of IrTrad by tons of listening, and learning tunes by ear. Then, you can get tons of obscure notated tunes from the internet from discontinued albums you’ll never find. But you’ll be able to play them because you can read AND because you’ve learned how to play Irish!
On 2002-01-18 14:32, jomac wrote:
The point is: you can have it all. Learn to play by ear. Learn to read. Carefully learn the stylistic nuances of IrTrad by tons of listening, and learning tunes by ear. Then, you can get tons of obscure notated tunes from the internet from discontinued albums you’ll never find. But you’ll be able to play them because you can read AND because you’ve learned how to play Irish!
Very elegantly put Jo. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
The thing that many sheet-music proponents are reluctant to accept, it seems to me, is that you can’t learn the nuances from the written music. Or maybe it’s that they don’t want to accept that there are nuances, because if there are nuances it follows that learning them would involve work, and time.
Steve
PS Martin - can we have a moratorium on croutons now?