The art of practicing.

[fiddlerwill]

... By Madeline Bruser.

This is a really good book I just picked up cheap from amazon. I read extensively on the subject of music and this is a classic. A lot she has to say is very applicable to what we do; trad. She has a lot of perceptive insights.
Get it .

What other books could you recomend for trad music or music making in general?

cheers

[SteveShaw]

There are one or two good books about Irish music for reading for enjoyment such as Last Night's Fun, and I bought a good novel called Carolan's Concerto by I forget who (my favourite author) but you won't learn much about how to play this music from any book. A tutor book for any given instrument (if it's any good, which most of 'em don't seem to be to me - I have a fair collection, mostly unused ) might just get you in the ball park but that's all. This is about using your ears, not reading books.

[fiddlerwill]

Is that so steve? Well why then has Pat Mitchel produced such amazing books of transcriptions of Seamus Ennis, Patsy Touhey and Willie clancy? Why did Leo Rowesome produce his teaching book and tune book? Why did Breathnac, O'Neill,Goodman and all collect so many tunes into books? why does Matt Crannitch, Tony Warde Seamus Ennis,and everyone produce instructional books?

I found the advice of Patsy Touhey very helpfull, should I close my mind to what he offers because his book was written a hundred years ago?
I disagree with your premise; I learn stuff from books all the time. 'The art of practicing,' is brilliant, I also find all sorts of books of interest. I prefer not to close my mind to what other musicians have to say and to offer whatever genre or instrument they come from, they all have something to offer. were you to actually read the books instead of 'burning' them you might find it very informative.

How does one recognise what is happening in a piece of music if your new to an instrument or genre? How would you know what Willie Clancy was doing? Of course you wouldn't have a clue. Only after years of dedicated effort is it possible to identify more than the bare outline of a tune. You could listen all you like, but without prior education on the instrument you would be baffled. How does he produce these sounds? Well its quite possible to buy a book that will tell you clearly and simply in words and dots written by an amazing piper. That is advice I respect Steve, informed advice. Doesn't matter where Its found, books, the old Boy next door, a young student , a Lecturer at Sibelius Academy, emails, websites etc etc.

Why close your mind to what this person is saying? not even to read her work, condemn it out of hand.... You ever learn something from a web site Steve? This site for example is all words written down. Why do you come here? not to learn? Why do you write if not to 'educate ' others?
There is a strange dichotomy displayed in your post; you condemn the written word, in written word, you declaim against something, while doing it yourself.

[highland-piper]

I've been reading Barry Green's The Mastery of Music. It's an examination of the character traits of the world's best musicians. Very interesting. He also explores the things that make one person great that would hinder another (e.g., what makes a good opera singer is different from what makes a good percussionist).

The best book I've read on the subject of music is Daniel Levitin's This is Your Brain on Muisc. Mr. Levitin was a guitarist before becoming a record producer. He worked with the Doobie Brothers and Steely Dan, to name two that I remember. Then he started to get interested in what makes people like music, so he went off and earned a PhD in Neuroscience so he could study the brain wrt music. The book is a synopsis of everything that science has been able to learn about making, learning, and enjoying music. Mr. Levitin is careful throughout to identify things that have been established experimentally, things that are likely based on some evidence, and his opinions. So you always know if he's talking about what science has established vs. speculation.

If you really want to learn about effective practice, read Levitin. I just saw a blurb on PBS for a show called The Musical Brain that he's in.

[SteveShaw]

You asked and I told you I thought that most tutor books that are any good will at most get you in the ball park. They cannot turn you into a good player of this music. Again, this is my experience, so feel free to take my point of view with a pinch of salt. In my time I've bought tutor books on playing whistle (at least three of those), flute, mandolin, B/C box, D/G melodeon, harmonica, banjo and that Matt Cranitch fiddle one you mentioned (just in case you think I try everything in some panic-stricken frenzy, the majority of those were for my two kids). My response to you, as everyone can read, is one of lukewarm enthusiasm for tuition books, not out-of-hand condemnation as you wrongly suggest. I suppose a well-written and well-paced tutor will go some way to helping someone to master an instrument, but it will never help you to get Irish music under your skin to any significant extent. Just a view, as ever.

[benhall.1]

I love tune collections, especially the old ones. And new ones - if there's one I find that I haven't got that looks good, I'll likely buy it. And yet, Steve's right. It's music; it's about listening. It was quite a few years listening and playing this music before I started to get much out of the books, even though I started collecting them right from the beginning.

I know some people who've got their tunes mainly out of books. At least one of them thinks he's great. But he can't play at all.

[SteveShaw]

I've been reading Barry Green's The Mastery of Music. It's an examination of the character traits of the world's best musicians. Very interesting. He also explores the things that make one person great that would hinder another (e.g., what makes a good opera singer is different from what makes a good percussionist).

The best book I've read on the subject of music is Daniel Levitin's This is Your Brain on Muisc. Mr. Levitin was a guitarist before becoming a record producer. He worked with the Doobie Brothers and Steely Dan, to name two that I remember. Then he started to get interested in what makes people like music, so he went off and earned a PhD in Neuroscience so he could study the brain wrt music. The book is a synopsis of everything that science has been able to learn about making, learning, and enjoying music. Mr. Levitin is careful throughout to identify things that have been established experimentally, things that are likely based on some evidence, and his opinions. So you always know if he's talking about what science has established vs. speculation.

If you really want to learn about effective practice, read Levitin. I just saw a blurb on PBS for a show called The Musical Brain that he's in.

It's always interesting to read about these wider aspects of music. One aspect that plagued me for years was feeling tense when playing. Partly to do with going out less prepared at times than I should have been and partly to do with fretting about mistakes. The first is fixable, of course, but the second can be more intractable. I find it odd to think that reading about practice techniques could have helped me much. You know what I think about practice and ITM. Practice is for getting on top of your instrument but it will not work for getting the music under your skin. My personal analogy apropos of the psychology of all this is my tinnitus. I have to find my own way through that, and I do quite well as it happens, but I know for sure that going to tinnitus support groups and talking about it for hours, or reading up all the literature on it, would not help me one little bit. Counter-productive in fact. It could be that a good dose of Alexander Technique would be more useful for some music-related worries...

[fiddlerwill]

Thanks piper, i have them on order. look forward to reading them

[highland-piper]

Another great book, if you're interested in fiddle music, which I assume you are based on your user ID, is Scottish Fiddle Music in the 18th Century.

It really digs deep into the development of Scottish Fiddle music, pretty much from the start. It's a well documented, but largely unknown history. I realize that this book is in the "Irish" forum, and not a "Scottish" forum, but they have quite a bit in common. What's really interesting is how much of the conventional wisdom is 19th and 20th century (romantic) fabrication.

[fiddlerwill]

Have that one thanks. Very interesting book because it does seem to clear up a common myth that this music is ' peasant' music. Which of course it is not, It s highly developed , technically demanding, sophisticated and stunningly beautiful in its full expression while also being plain and approachable allowing all to become involved. A typical mistake is to judge the plain and simple melodies as though that 'was' the music, and to assume that complexity for its self is of value, Little realizing that in simplicity lies power and strength and its this solid foundation upon which we recreate anew the Spirit of the music every time we allow it, and ourselves full expression.

I also have all the current Piping stuff , Donaldson , Gibson etc etc.

[SteveShaw]

The whole point is that this music is not sophisticated and technically-demanding. Firstly, the music is essentially melody. Many a great band has added fabulous accompaniment to melody, and I love that to bits, but this music is melody. Second, the music is exceptionally regular. Eight-bar sections repeated and only a tiny minority of tunes straying from this. Third, the music is overwhelmingly diatonic, commonly modal in nature. Only occasionally do we have to worry about accidentals and we are seldom confronted with weird modulations. Fourth, the music does not set out to challenge technically the instruments on which it is played. D and G tunes nearly all sit beautifully on whistles and simple flutes. I can play (given a bit more application than I usually display ) the vast majority of Irish tunes on ten-hole diatonic harmonicas with just 18 available notes. Fiddle players play this music in first position. Many an untutored player has become a rattling good exponent of Irish music. I am always extremely suspicious of anyone who claims that this music is complex or sophisticated. Of course, like any music you have to work at it to play it well, but mostly that work consists of getting involved, doing a lot of listening and aiming to fit in. But if you say that it's complicated and sophisticated you're saying that you are a member of some mythical exclusive club of cognescenti and you would rather the non-mystical riff-raff kept their hairy arses out. No thanks!

By the way, the only person I know of who's recently described Irish music as peasant music is me. And when I said that I was at pains to say that it was peasant music in the best sense of the word. Try to avoid flapping around with vague half-quotes that misrepresent the spirit of what people say. It isn't politics or religion here, you know.

[benhall.1]

I agree, Steve, that the music is simple music. It's best played that way, too. But it can take some folks a long time before they get that 'Eureka' moment when they realise that it's simple.

The one thing that does irk me at times is this 'there's no technique required' argument that Michael peddles over at the mustard, and you've paraphrased in your post. I get where he's coming from (and you, I guess), in that there aren't any of the special classical techniques involved. But there are techniques involved that can be quite tricky, like the rolls, crans etc, and it does take a helluva long time to be able to play an instrument well enough to be any good at this music. Most people, in my experience, never actually get there. So there must be some technique to it.

Now, I can tell you that, although I've been trying to play flute now for the past 16 months, I am nowhere near good enough for sessions. If I didn't play another instrument, I could get disheartened with the line that 'it's easy, there's no technique, just play'. Fortunately, I can always whip out the fiddle.

[benhall.1]

Mind you, the thing that really irritates me is the sort of posting that deliberately poses the idea that people are on one 'side' or the other [not you, Steve ]. So, just to be clear, whilst I find that it takes oodles of practice to play an instrument even half-sensibly, I'm still going to be using my ears rather than books, and reading the books (when I can be bothered, which means about once a year) as background interest.

[SteveShaw]

Yeah, you have the ornamentation and it's a challenge to play some ornaments correctly and in tempo. If ornaments are a challenge for a player then they have to practise them for sure. To me, though (and the range of ornamentation on harmonicas is limited but it's there), playing ornaments is part of learning the instrument. Classical music has a lot of ornamentation, commonly composed into the music unlike Irish ornamentation, and you still need to be master enough of your instrument to play them properly. I didn't say the music is necessarily easy to play but that isn't at all the same as saying that it's complex and sophisticated. Like any music I can think of, from nursery rhymes to Stockhausen, you have to do a lot more than just get notes (which is why I don't like dots, which is just notes). But Irish music does have an underlying simplicity of structure, in line with peasant music (in the best sense) the world over. But you could write the simplist kiddies' ditty in the world and it wouldn't make the pipes any easier to play. By saying that Irish music is basically a simple music one is saying that there's no room for exclusivity or snobbery, and that, if you take it seriously, get involved witb a good dash of humility and do a ton of listening you have a game chance at getting good at it provided you can play your instrument reasonably well. That final caveat is surely an irreducible condition for playing any music which is probably why I neglected to include it in my last post. And yes, I'm quite happy to concede that I've come to agree enthusiastically with Michael on this, along with a good few other matters. Not everything though. To defend him, I don't think he's saying you don't need any technique, rather that the range of technique needed is very limited. Playing the fiddle in just first position for example.

[fiddlerwill]

Fair enough ben,
As far as simple goes, let me clarify;Firstly 'simple' is a relative term. Its effectively meaningless without stating exactly what you are comparing it against. Secondly To play this music well is not so 'simple' You ever hear masters of the music declaiming how 'simple' it all is? It also depends on what instrument you are playing. Ben has it sussed there. He has become a beginner again and so realises that its only simple when you can do it. How simple is the playing of a master piper?
I would agree that in a way, some aspects of the music are simple when compared with other music just as aspects are complicated when compared to other forms of music. But to what end do we compare apples and oranges? why compare jazz to trad? or Art music to Jazz, Reggae to Blues, Shostakovitch to Schoenberg? its meaningless. IMO its using language to promote a hidden agenda. Why? What point of meaning is there in such comparison?
It could be said that the tin whistle is a simple instrument in comparison to say the UP, or that the GHB are a simple instrument compared to the UP. But in what sense is something 'simple' ?
The GHB has a particular form of music, Piobaireachd, that is not playable on any other instrument that I know of. Yes its possible to play the 'ground'; the tune , on other instruments, and were a fiddler or whistler etc to play this ground , and think that was all the music was, he might say its a simple little tune. But actually the music is far more than the basic tune. That is just one aspect of it.

This is why I wonder exactly what this comparison is about? subtly putting down a form of music by comparing it to a different form? comparing only some aspects of the music to only some types of music? I could just as easily go on about how complicated and technically demanding trad is in relation to some other forms of music. But like I say its apples and oranges. Its both pointless and meaningless without express clarification and IMO indicates more about the comparer than the subject compared.
.


As far as ears versus Books ben , in your post you do exactly what you say irritates you! >>I'm still going to be using my ears rather than books, <<
Creating an either/or situation where none exists in reality, its not either/or, but both. No one has ever said its possible to learn the music from books alone and its quite normal to learn by ear alone. But its not 'obligatory'! some of us like to read, to get into many facets of the music in many ways.
Some play and practice all day every day as they have done all there lives, some pick up there instrument once a week for a few tunes at the session. One is not better than the other because it all boils down to what we, as individuals, want from our music. Having one 'faction' disparaging the other because they do things differently is pointless because we do things for our own motivation.