Use Your Ear, Not Your Eye

[rpmseattle]

>>"But what sets the traditional player apart from those trained in Western art music is never conveyed accurately in the notation so in that sense it is not a valid record of the particular performance it tries to transcribe unless it is read by a person who knows the tradition from the inside (i.e. someone who acquired the music by ear)and is able so to interpret the notation correctly."

This is very true, Peter.

Music editors have debated for years the exact performance meaning of such symbols designed to depict various important performance ornamentation at various points in history - turns, trills, mordents etc etc. In some cases, there are several editions of the same piece, each with its own editorial comments about how these ornamentations are to be played. And these from editors who are all "inside" the same Classical tradition!

In this day and age, certainly, Jazz music (particularily big band jazz) and many other popular forms enjoy the benefits of an "eye & ear" approach. The printed information provides a way for a large ensemble to play a particular composer's ideas, but for the stylistic interpretation and performance, one listens to their peers, to records and goes to concerts, or sits in. Because, in order to include the amount of information necessary to convey every single nuance of a performance, the page would be so cluttered up as to be unreadable, and it is doubtful that the additional notational devices required to realize an accurate rendering would catch on with the mainstream (being incredibly hard to read and time consuming to learn correctly), and as such, wouldn't be decipherable anyway within 200 years.

I think from this point in history, we have an advantage of being able to provide future generations both a frozen aural record (via recordings) as well as a written one (for clarity as to the original, unembellished melody and harmony, for instance).

Obviously as you and others have pointed out directly or indirectly, when we speak of the musical living tradition of any culture, one must be immersed in the sound of it and experience it as a part of everyday life, either for a lifetime, or for those who didn't grow up with it, absorb it gradually by association until it becomes a part of their playing "style". Of course, that is in the short term. In the long term, nearly everything about the original concept will have imperceptibly changed after a couple of centuries. No one from the original "Living Tradition" is still living... And that is where some sort of written record - any documentation - (even incomplete and sometimes inaccurate) is helpful to those of us interested in unearthing the beginnings and evolution of a particular style.

Robert

[Kysh]

Here's my take, and I offer this as a listener more than a player; I've heard so much Irish music played without any feel that I tend to lean towards blaming sheet music.

Irish music without feel just sounds like a string of notes.. like jazz.. it has no movement, it starts nowhere and goes nowhere; It may be played blazing fast, with perfect ornamentations, great choice of 'breathing spots', and 'interpretation', but in the end there's no life to it.

A good example of this would be the whistle part in "Fellowship of the Rings'; In addition to being fairly poor, in my opinion, it was played to classical perfection. Note perfect. No phrasing. It wasn't lyric, it was there. Do you know that when people ask me to play it I honestly can't remember it to do so even if I'd wanted to? I've seen the film at least half a dozen times, and that piece of music is almost focal.. and yet it's so boring that it slips out of my brain instantly.

Often I hear classical music and I think how much better it would have sounded if the performer had slighted certain notes, held certain other notes- Had fallen into a lope, or danced around a point rather than just plodding on it like some great elephant... but all these things are considered 'errors' in the classical sense; The ideal, in classical music, is MIDI -- The performer is just an interface to the instrument, like a player piano. And it sounds it.

And yet there are classical musicians who break the mold and play with exuberance and lust for the music, but they tend to be denounced by the paperheads who wave their metronomes, lips curled in stiff disapproval. There is a split here, but it's very carefully disavowed officially by all heavily classical players.

So what does this have to do with sheet music versus learning by ear?

I can read sheet music, but I learned Irish music from a very early age, by ear. I look at the notated music for songs and sight-read it a little.. it usually sounds like nothing at all.. and then maybe I'll recognize the tune, and the playing becomes a totally different thing. Entirely different than the notation on the paper, something that moves and lives and breathes.

The difference is that I've heard it and I understand the pattern of its speech. Have you ever heard the old saw, "You've got the em-PHAS-is on the wrong sy-LAB-le?" That's what it's like to learn irish trad from sheet music. You learn the notes, and maybe you can construct the notes into a tune by adding rhythm -- But you don't learn the music; Knowing that it's a jig and playing it like a jig doesn't mean it'll sound like the tune.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, late though it may be on the subject. ;>

-Kysh

[whistlerroberto]

Hmmm...this seems to be a rather contentious issue. I sometimes learn from sheet music, but I listen to the piece performed, especially if it has more than one interpretation, as I like to know the "emotion" behind the piece. I've been starting to learn more by ear, and sometimes learning that way is just plain more fun, especially if it's a piece you really like.

I think that it's really an individual choice at the end, as some people have a better ear than others. Me and my brother have a good ear for music and language we tend to remember "Phrases" in language and music quite readily. If someone has a naturally bad ear, I think they should learn a little more by sheet music if possible, BUT one I think one should always strive to learn some songs by ear if they are going to learn more by sheet music. You never know how good or bad an ear you have for music until you try to learn by ear. Certainly, though you can't learn the finer emotion/melody of a song until you hear it. That's something you just can't write down.

It would be impossible to write down the emotion that is involved in traditional chinese music for example. I think that's the best example of the inability of sheet music to capture the entire range of emotion...again a very contentious issue! I believe, too, that there shouldn't be absolutes. I figure ones practice should reflect ones abilities.

Whistlerroberto

[whistlerroberto]

Hmmm...this seems to be a rather contentious issue. I sometimes learn from sheet music, but I listen to the piece performed, especially if it has more than one interpretation, as I like to know the "emotion" behind the piece. I've been starting to learn more by ear, and sometimes learning that way is just plain more fun, especially if it's a piece you really like.

I think that it's really an individual choice at the end, as some people have a better ear than others. Me and my brother have a good ear for music and language we tend to remember "Phrases" in language and music quite readily. If someone has a naturally bad ear, I think they should learn a little more by sheet music if possible, BUT one I think one should always strive to learn some songs by ear if they are going to learn more by sheet music. You never know how good or bad an ear you have for music until you try to learn by ear. Certainly, though you can't learn the finer emotion/melody of a song until you hear it. That's something you just can't write down.

It would be impossible to write down the emotion that is involved in traditional chinese music for example. I think that's the best example of the inability of sheet music to capture the entire range of emotion...again a very contentious issue! I believe, too, that there shouldn't be absolutes. I figure ones practice should reflect ones abilities.

Whistlerroberto

[StewySmoot]

I had no formal music training when I started the whistle 3 1/2 years ago. The closest I came to reading music was reading whistle tablature. After I learned the scale structure and the finger positioning, it seemed far simpler to just listen to a tune and play along with it instead of trying to learn to read sheet.

It seems to me the purpose of sheet was to write it down and make a tune portable. Nowadays with music freely available as MP3s or on audio CD and with the ability to slow a tune down for learning purposes, learning to play the whistle from sheet seems like playing along to a MIDI file. It cannot capture the nuances learned playing along to the real thing.

[Bloomfield]

Here's my take, and I offer this as a listener more than a player; I've heard so much Irish music played without any feel that I tend to lean towards blaming sheet music.

Irish music without feel just sounds like a string of notes.. like jazz.. it has no movement, it starts nowhere and goes nowhere; It may be played blazing fast, with perfect ornamentations, great choice of 'breathing spots', and 'interpretation', but in the end there's no life to it.

A good example of this would be the whistle part in "Fellowship of the Rings'; In addition to being fairly poor, in my opinion, it was played to classical perfection. Note perfect. No phrasing. It wasn't lyric, it was there. Do you know that when people ask me to play it I honestly can't remember it to do so even if I'd wanted to? I've seen the film at least half a dozen times, and that piece of music is almost focal.. and yet it's so boring that it slips out of my brain instantly.

Often I hear classical music and I think how much better it would have sounded if the performer had slighted certain notes, held certain other notes- Had fallen into a lope, or danced around a point rather than just plodding on it like some great elephant... but all these things are considered 'errors' in the classical sense; The ideal, in classical music, is MIDI -- The performer is just an interface to the instrument, like a player piano. And it sounds it.

And yet there are classical musicians who break the mold and play with exuberance and lust for the music, but they tend to be denounced by the paperheads who wave their metronomes, lips curled in stiff disapproval. There is a split here, but it's very carefully disavowed officially by all heavily classical players.

So what does this have to do with sheet music versus learning by ear?

I can read sheet music, but I learned Irish music from a very early age, by ear. I look at the notated music for songs and sight-read it a little.. it usually sounds like nothing at all.. and then maybe I'll recognize the tune, and the playing becomes a totally different thing. Entirely different than the notation on the paper, something that moves and lives and breathes.

The difference is that I've heard it and I understand the pattern of its speech. Have you ever heard the old saw, "You've got the em-PHAS-is on the wrong sy-LAB-le?" That's what it's like to learn irish trad from sheet music. You learn the notes, and maybe you can construct the notes into a tune by adding rhythm -- But you don't learn the music; Knowing that it's a jig and playing it like a jig doesn't mean it'll sound like the tune.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, late though it may be on the subject. ;>

-Kysh

Good post.

[rh]

The ideal, in classical music, is MIDI -- The performer is just an interface to the instrument, like a player piano. And it sounds it.

And yet there are classical musicians who break the mold and play with exuberance and lust for the music, but they tend to be denounced by the paperheads who wave their metronomes, lips curled in stiff disapproval. There is a split here, but it's very carefully disavowed officially by all heavily classical players.

what utter B.S. ...

Interpretation is the highest ideal in Western Art Music, or so-called "Classical" music. Interpretation can only begin, however, after certain technical demands have been met.

Listen to recordings of great artists who are universally regarded as being so and you'll hear the difference... at least if you know what you're listening to. Heifetz was as recognizable as Elman in their unique manner yet no one sneered at them. If current players are not as distinguishable, blame market trends and not the music. But please don't confuse the two.

[lyrick]

Seeing this thread resurface is like watching a train wreck about to happen.

[Azalin]

Irish music without feel just sounds like a string of notes.. like jazz.. it has no movement, it starts nowhere and goes nowhere; It may be played blazing fast, with perfect ornamentations, great choice of 'breathing spots', and 'interpretation', but in the end there's no life to it.

Wow, you found the words to describe what's my feeling about that stuff, but never could express it acurately. I sometimes play with some people who are classicaly trained and just perfect, *too* perfect. Although the music itself is flawless, playing with those people ends up being the most boring experience ever. The music is sometimes so predictable, it's like a typical Hollywood movie, and there's no special energy in it, as if you were playing with a technically perfect zombie.

[Kysh]

The ideal, in classical music, is MIDI -- The performer is just an interface to the instrument, like a player piano. And it sounds it.

what utter B.S. ...

Interpretation is the highest ideal in Western Art Music, or so-called "Classical" music. Interpretation can only begin, however, after certain technical demands have been met.

First, you have to understand that I'm speaking someone who loves classical music and has been 'listening with their ears'.

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.

-Kysh

[Kysh]

Seeing this thread resurface is like watching a train wreck about to happen.

Oh.. dear me. What 'ever' have I done? ;>

-Kysh

[rh]

First, you have to understand that I'm speaking someone who loves classical music and has been 'listening with their ears'.

Not sure what you're getting at here, if this is a thinly-veiled personal attack or what. So i won't respond.

Second, you have to understand that I feel no need to reply to a post that begins 'what utter B.S.';

And yet you did.

Most of the whistlers I've met, and all I've cared to remember, have been above that sort of statement.

I call them as i see them. Would the whistlers that you care to remember make such a sweeping generalization as you did in your previous post? How might they feel if such an opinion was rendered of ITM?

I'm sure you feel your remarks were well-considered, and, apparently, above any sort of criticism. I felt otherwise. You spoke your mind, as did i. You could have stated your musical preferences (e.g., don't much care for classical or jazz) without making some grandiose aesthetic pronouncement on the performance practice of a complex body of work which spans centuries, but you did not. I actually agreed with much of what you said in your post. But IMO you utterly destroyed your credibility with these gratuitous attacks on music other than ITM.

[happyturkeyman]

When you learn by sheet music - you're learning
COMMUNISM

[Redwolf]

I say (always have and always will) that both are important. Clearly one can't learn to play any tune in an authentic style without listening to lots of really good musicians. That said, if I had to hear every tune I've ever learned before I could play it, I wouldn't have very many tunes under my belt...my CD and concert budget doesn't stretch quite that far, and to be honest, I live in an Irish cultural wasteland! If you have a feel for the style, though, there's no reason you can't acquire new tunes from printed sources. Yes, you'll adapt those tunes when playing with other people...that's good musicianship! Further, I think that, if a beginner takes the admonition to listen and learn the style to heart, there's no reason he or she can't learn from printed sources.

I do have to say, now having done it, that I don't like playing from printed music at a session (the local slow session plays from music). I find it nearly impossible to read the music AND focus on what I should be doing in relation to the other musicians around me. I'm going to be spending the next couple of months working learning the local session favorites as nearly as possible by heart, so I won't be tempted to use the music at all (granted, that will take a while, but I'm starting right now with just a few jigs, reels and polkas). I think the printed music is a great learning tool, but not something that should become a crutch.

Redwolf

[Jens_Hoppe]

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