Use Your Ear, Not Your Eye

[Les Cruttenden]

I learned a few basic lessons on the piano when I was eleven..developed my playing by ear...but now use both methods.I use the same for the whistle that I started to learn about two months ago....surely one learns best inthe way that suits them best! I got hold of a book of Irish whistle tunes to be used in conjunction with a disk...I go through the music...listen to the disk and then interpret the music as I wish but nonetheless in line with Irish tradition...thats how I do it because it's best for me..all for advice....but we should not think our way is the only way or the best way. Les.

[Cayden]

I've barely been exposed to "the" Irish tradition, but when I play an Irish slow air, I play it exactly right--because I play it as I want to hear it. That's what I do with Bluegrass, blues, Old-Timey, and Chinese music.

Even when I play in front of hundreds of people, I try to play everything exactly as I want to hear it. Them as don't like it can ask for their money back.

You play it the way you want, fine. The fact you don't give a hoot if it's correct or not doesn't make it right. Slow air playing is not an easy task and few are well enough equipped to do it justice.


In <a href="http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php ... rt=0">this thread</a> I quoted Terry Moylan, who had it spot on:

I often heard airs played by pipers who leave out notes or phrases which are needed to bear the metre and words of the asssociated songs, or more often insert redundant notes or phrases which are not supported by the song metre and for which no corresponding words exist. For the listener who knows the words, this is torture. The listener who does not has no yardstick with which to asses the validity of an instrumental rendering of a song air, and is therefore in no position to do so.

[Teri-K]

So true, Peter. A single compliment from a conversant audience is worth 10,000 from an ignorant one.

[Darwin]

I've barely been exposed to "the" Irish tradition, but when I play an Irish slow air, I play it exactly right--because I play it as I want to hear it. That's what I do with Bluegrass, blues, Old-Timey, and Chinese music.

Even when I play in front of hundreds of people, I try to play everything exactly as I want to hear it. Them as don't like it can ask for their money back.

You play it the way you want, fine. The fact you don't give a hoot if it's correct or not doesn't make it right. Slow air playing is not an easy task and few are well enough equipped to do it justice.


In <a href="http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php ... rt=0">this thread</a> I quoted Terry Moylan, who had it spot on:

I often heard airs played by pipers who leave out notes or phrases which are needed to bear the metre and words of the asssociated songs, or more often insert redundant notes or phrases which are not supported by the song metre and for which no corresponding words exist. For the listener who knows the words, this is torture. The listener who does not has no yardstick with which to asses the validity of an instrumental rendering of a song air, and is therefore in no position to do so.

That's fine for someone whose personal taste is closely linked to that tradition, but mine is not. I didn't grow up with it. I grew up with "traditions" that permit the instrumental rendering of a tune to vary greatly from the sung version. That's a big part of why I'm not much interested in ITM. I like extreme variation and I like harmony. Why should I try to change who I am to match who you are? (Meaning "you" as a representative of those who grew up in the tradition.)

I'll agree that people who claim to represent a tradition should actually do so, but I don't. As you say, I don't give a hoot for ITM, so I did overstate my case. The way I play is exactly right for me.

It's interesting that strictly instrumental slow airs are so common in ITM. This is quite different from Bluegrass and Old-Timey music, where the sung versions of songs are much more common than strictly instrumental versions (with the exception of a few notable tunes from swing sources, like "Sweet Georgia Brown" or "Alabama Jubiliee", and maybe a few more, like "Home, Sweet Home"--and even those aren't hard to find sung versions of).

I have tried to run down sung versions of various slow airs. I found a couple on the Web and bought two CDs to get two more. Beyond that, all I can do is put my trust in the recorded instrumental versions that I have.

Someone needs to record sung versions of all the songs in Walton's Ireland's Best Slow Airs, untainted by jigs, reels, polkas, and hornpipes. I really don't want to buy 100 CDs to hear 110 songs. That's almost half the price of a new guitar.

[Kysh]

Second, you have to understand that I feel no need to reply to a post that begins 'what utter B.S.'; Most of the whistlers I've met, and all I've cared to remember, have been above that sort of statement.

And yet, apart from those two letters, rh made an interesting refutal of your point re. classical music. Speaking as an intrigued reader, I'd really wish you would comment on that instead... ;)

Cheers,
Jens

As a classical as well as a traditional musician, I can tell you that interpretation is as important in classical music as in any other type of music. Anyone who thinks that the goal of the classical musician is simply to reproduce the notes on the page as written hasn't spent much time at all in the world of classical music. Even classical choral music is subject to the interpretation of the conductor, who plays his choir as an instrument.

Ahh, but there's a point in passing; "the interpretation of the conductor". And that is exactly the case. For the musician, their job is to play the notes and dynamics as written, and follow the 'interpretive' lead of the conductor. The musician is the conductor's interface to the instrument-- Or more specifically, the 'part'.

Furthermore, interpretation in classical music is much more subtle than interpretation in other types of music-- And amusingly enough, pretty much as a rule follows the lead of the 'interpretive instructions' written on the page. :>

That isn't to say, mind you, that it's not a factor; As I said, I love classical music-- But classical music is rarely about the 'instrumentalist'. There is about 'zero' room for 'interpretation' from an instrumentalist point of view, though admittedly that percent goes up in solo, duet and basso continuo roles.

Now, the subject of interpretation in classical music is actually rather aside from my original point; My argument wasn't that sheet music left no room for interpretation, my argument was that even if you know the language, it's possible to mispronounce the words on the page. Witness: Homographs
such as the wind that blows and the wind that cranks, the bow that bows to the archer differs from the bow of the ship festooned with multicolored bows on her christening; I like to eat bass, and desert, but that means eating a fish and running away from the army; I've neither wood nor sand in my teet.

Is this just a false analogy? I don't believe so; You can know a language well, know phonics well, and still get it wrong, even from context. The same goes for music. The 'character' of a tune is something not often discussed in Classical music, because it's already 'there'; It is, however, something that deeply possesses Irish trad; You can play the same notes with the same rhythm and get many different songs. Lilting songs, jaunty songs, adventuresome songs, sad songs.. without changing a note or the musical form.

Anyway, I may or may not have made the points to which I aspired; Whether I have or not, however, I've spoken long enough on this. :>

-Kysh

[amar]

no comment

[Redwolf]

Ahh, but there's a point in passing; "the interpretation of the conductor". And that is exactly the case. For the musician, their job is to play the notes and dynamics as written, and follow the 'interpretive' lead of the conductor. The musician is the conductor's interface to the instrument-- Or more specifically, the 'part'.

That was an extreme example. A great deal of classical music is played or sung by soloists, and it's THEIR interpretation that makes it unique. Heck, I can listen to the same piece played on our church piano by our regular pianist and by a guest pianist who plays for us occasionally and know instantly who is playing by the way in which he or she plays the piece.

In the case where you have a conductor, the conductor is the musician, and the choristers or individual instrumentalists are his instrument...and again, you can definitely tell the difference when the same choir is directed by different conductors. In that case, yes...the instrumentalist's job is to do exactly as the conductor directs...but that's not in any way, shape or form the be-all and end-all of classical music.

Redwolf

[Kysh]

Ahh, but there's a point in passing; "the interpretation of the conductor". And that is exactly the case. For the musician, their job is to play the notes and dynamics as written, and follow the 'interpretive' lead of the conductor. The musician is the conductor's interface to the instrument-- Or more specifically, the 'part'.

In that case, yes...the instrumentalist's job is to do exactly as the conductor directs...but that's not in any way, shape or form the be-all and end-all of classical music.

Redwolf

I don't really disagree with your post, though I would suggest that the difference you hear between two different players is likely less 'interpretation' and more 'mistakes' from a classical point of view; However that's not necessarily the case.

This approaches the point where it becomes very difficult for me to adequately explain myself: I love classical music, and I've heard some wonderfully sweeping renditions of things that ... 'nearly' ... brought tears to my eyes. But the interpretation is always restrained before it can 'get out of hand'. A great many classical pieces of current fame are of little intrinsic value, from a musical standpoint; They are pieces written to highlight the virtuosity of the composer or performer, or pieces (Like much of Mozart's work) that are cheap candy. Usually even when a composer gets a great idea, an inspiring play between two themes, a story-- she can't help but screw with it.

The mark of a great composer, to me, is someone who can write something awesome and then leave it alone to be played.

Here's why: My definition of music is this: "A non-(explicitly-)verbal expression of emotion; A story told with emotional voicing."

There's a lot of music in any genre that I don't like; I've heard quite a lot of genuine 'irish' music that I thought was crap, though played perfectly, until I'd heard a great player perform it, wherupon my hair was stood on end.

I've also heard quite a lot of American folk and blues, specifically, that was technically no better than refined loam.. but in listening to it, one was rocked to the core.

Really, what is music? Some might say 'culture', others might say 'entertainment', or 'things to dance to', but I stand by my definition; If it doesn't express anything or tell us a story (No, doesn't have to be verbal), it is just noise. It doesn't matter how 'artistic' it is, or how 'technically profound'; These are words that describe spatters of white paint on a white canvas on sale for thousands of dollars at some modern art show; Music, itself, is much closer to the heart-- And it takes a lot of heart to play Irish music and play it well.

-Kysh

[John-N]

Around and around we go.....

It seems like this discussion always boils down to three fundamental issues as I see it:

1. Learning a new instrument
2. Learning a new style (ex. ITM)
3. Learning a new tune

For many people they are doing all three things at once, and a lot of our discussions blur these 3 together.

Learning a new instrument is primarily achieving technical proficiency on a new instrument. My goal is always to get to where the instrument is a "natural extension" of my body so that I can play whatever I hear without have to think about technical things like fingering, intonation, etc. I learned my first two instruments in a public school setting where they taught us using fingering charts and sheet music. If I could do it all over again I would rather learn a new instrument strictly by playing by ear, and then add reading music later. If you can't play the instrument then there's not much point in learning how to read sheet music. The highly successful Suzuki method of teaching encourages (requires) students to learn their instruments by ear.

Learning a new style (ex. ITM) is a more complex task than it would seem. That's why so many on the board have strong emotions about this. As it has been said already, music styles are like languages. It is effective when learning a new language to be emersed in an environment where everyone speaks that language. Young children can learn difficult languages when they are surrounded by it. And for music that means plenty of listening and interacting. Some have already expressed their opinions that they don't care for the ITM style. That's fine. Those of us who do care know that it takes years to master the subtle nuances that make ITM different than other styles of music.

Learning a new tune. It seems to me that the ideal situation for learning a new ITM tune would be to have someone else teach you the tune very slowly in person by playing/repetition. For many of us on this board who aren't fortunate enough to have good players to teach us tunes in person we have to resort to tapes and CDs. Tapes and CDs are a good source for anyone but I think that in person would be better if possible. The fast tunes that I like are impossible for me to learn by ear at full speed since I really want to get the melody notes correct. I'm sure that some have the ability to pick out individual eighth notes at 220 bbm but I cannot [yet]. So what I do is slow down the tunes to 1/2 speed and transcribe the melodies using ABC notation. Many times I do this using my ears (relative pitch) w/o using my instrument. I listen to the tape/CD at full speed and read my transcription just to make sure that I've got the melody right. I usually don't transcribe the ornamentation etc. of a performance unless I'm intentionally trying to study something specific. Then I work on it (visually for awhile) to quickly get the melody notes under my fingers, and then after about 100x's for a difficult tune I file the sheet music away in a notebook and play it from then on by memory. After many months I might pull the sheet music out again.

We as players need to practice the tunes long enough that we internalize them. We cannot effectively improvise on a melody until we have committed it to memory. Then we can mess around with it and spice it up.

[anniemcu]

If we all played the same tune the same way there wouldn't be much use for recordings, different players, or playing it more than a few times in a lifetime, now would there?

I *like* hearing someone else's interpretation. If I want the original writer's version, I'll seek that recording, or see them in person.

The biggest part of Musical Tradition is the folk process... that method through which much is carried down, with the input, interpretation and personalization of the individual player.

I have written a few songs and tunes. I wrote them the way I wanted them. I would be quite flattered if someone chose to play them at all, let alone to add their own twist... as long as they don't claim it as their own.

Here's to the Folk Process, may none of us folk it up too much!

[MurphyStout]

This type of thread will never be finished. There are people out there that try to justify learning ITM through sheet music and they are wrong. People like StevieJ, Azalin and myself know we aren't going to change these peoples opinions but nevertheless we have to keep saying it for all the new people out there who don't know any better and have the potential to be great players if only they new the do's and don'ts. That's why I post in these threads anyways.

And to the people who learn from sheet music, don't be suprised when we get up to go have a drink at the bar when you plop down and play with horrible rthyhm, groove and phrasing. And if you're real bad, we might just ask you to leave.

[Redwolf]

This type of thread will never be finished. There are people out there that try to justify learning ITM through sheet music and they are wrong. People like StevieJ, Azalin and myself know we aren't going to change these peoples opinions but nevertheless we have to keep saying it for all the new people out there who don't know any better and have the potential to be great players if only they new the do's and don'ts. That's why I post in these threads anyways.

And to the people who learn from sheet music, don't be suprised when we get up to go have a drink at the bar when you plop down and play with horrible rthyhm, groove and phrasing. And if you're real bad, we might just ask you to leave.

Or we can just leave. We know when we're not wanted.

Redwolf

[DCrom]

I actually agree with Stout. Sort of. That is, it's always PREFERABLE to learn by ear, with the help of someone who already knows the music. And just like Redwolf, I try to keep out when more advanced players are playing all-out.

But -

For some of us still working on our listening skills (me) the sheet music also helps to make sure we have the bones of a tune correctly, and works as a memory jog. (Sometimes, I just need the first measure or so to get me started on a tune I haven't played for a while.

I think the real bugaboo is "mechanical playing" - learning from sheet music only is often a factor here, but the real problem is ignorance: these folks just don't know the IrTrad style, and don't even KNOW what they're doing wrong - or that they *are* wrong. Sheet music, alone, can give an illusion of proficiency, especially if they are already skilled instrumentalists in another style.

However, sheet music - for someone who DOES know the style, and how the tunes *should* flow - is actually a pretty good, low-tech, tool for learning tunes they've never actually had a chance to hear.

I'd say that until you're well-seasoned in the style, learning *only* from sheet music is a bad idea. And that once you've got the bones of a tune down, you're better putting away the sheet music for it. But those notes on a page can be a valuable tool, in conjunction with lots of careful listening, in making a tune your own.

Of course, the other curse of beginning players is just plain lack of ability. I still have that in fair share - my rhythm has improved some, but still has a long way to go, and my ornamentation is still pretty basic. And if you're still at this stage, you have no business jumping into the middle of a session uninvited. But that's not "sheet music" - that's "manners".

[Wanderer]

This type of thread will never be finished. There are people out there that try to justify learning ITM through sheet music and they are wrong. People like StevieJ, Azalin and myself know we aren't going to change these peoples opinions but nevertheless we have to keep saying it for all the new people out there who don't know any better and have the potential to be great players if only they new the do's and don'ts. That's why I post in these threads anyways.

And to the people who learn from sheet music, don't be suprised when we get up to go have a drink at the bar when you plop down and play with horrible rthyhm, groove and phrasing. And if you're real bad, we might just ask you to leave.

And some people don't let facts get in the way of their opinions.

I've never heard it advocated to learn the style of ITM by looking at sheet music. I have heard that people use it to get the bare bones of a tune, and use their ear to learn the style. Used in this way, sheet music is no different than ABC format...a method of keeping track of the notes. (I've seen some people say ABC is OK but sheet music is still bad..what's that all about?)

But hey, you just keep on railing against this strawman, wrong though the argument may be.

[colomon]

I've said it before (quite possibly on this thread -- I've no desire to go back and check): People who make a big fuss about learning by ear are completely emphasizing the wrong thing. What is good is learning by listening to good playing.

If you are seriously and repeatedly listening to good playing of a tune, it doesn't matter whether you get the skeleton of the tune by reading dots or working by ear or even by feeling the lumps on the heads of great players; if you listen to the good stuff, and strive to play like that, odds are your playing with be pretty decent.

And if you learn by ear listening to crappy playing, your own playing is going to be crap.

Someday if I get bored, maybe, I'll record four or five tunes and see if any of the "experts" can tell which ones I had dots for.