Reading music

[canpiper]

I find it hard to believe that anyone could creatively impose ornamentation on every part of every piece every time in a way that sounds pleasing. Or do I have more work to do than I thought?

I'd say you have work to do, there's no reason why you couldn't play through a tune , add ornamenttion and variation as you go along. If you know your music.

Perhaps that's so. But my point wasn't that it's not possible to add ornamentation and variation as you go. Doing that is very easy. If you can play at all, you should be able to do this with some proficiency. My point was that, if to say that someone can 'sight read' means that they never, ever, fail to do this flawlessly, effortlessly, at a performance level, regardless of the complexity of the tune, or nature of the arrangement, and that they never, under any circumstances, ere in adding an ornamentation in a way that sounds anything but natural and musical... then sight reading is a rare skill. In fact, I doubt that I've ever known such a person. Can you do this?


On the hornpipe issue:

I guess I'm not really gathering how your point differs...because I agree.

[canpiper]

While trad music is far less technically demanding then many other forms, in this respect it seems that classical musicians would at least have the advantage that the notes they need to play are actually in the music. But if you're making up the ornamentaiton...well, do you mean to tell me that you've never sat down with a hornpipe you've never seen or heard before, and, at some point in your first run through the tune, added a slur or a cran in a place that sounds awkward (or maybe even made you stumble)? My hat's off to you if you haven't...but I must say I'd be suspicious.

[Screeeech!!!]

On the hornpipe issue:





Two random examples of tunes that in my mind couldn't be mistaken for reels, even if the nuances of the rhythm aren't immediately obvious from the notation.

Have you got a short sound file of these, please?

[Cynth]

Almost all these questions have now been answered with better answers than I can give, but I just have a couple things to add. The most important being that I should have just spoken for my own situation and not said things like "most of us", etc. I don't know who "most of us" are even . So let me identify myself as a person who can read music, who is a total beginner in seriously listening to and wanting to play Irish music, who does have some background in playing classical music on the piano and American country music on the guitar, and who can sight read music at a very elementary level on the piano.

Hold on a minute! There might be some real advanced players who can look at the sheet and play the tune in the correct style so that it sounds like music. But most of us can't. Some of us can pick up the skeleton of the tune from the sheet, but have to listen to it on CD's to hear how it should actually sound.

Is that true? That was really a part of my original question. My guess (and the sense I'm getting from the thread so far) is that this might be a little strong. I have no doubt that it is the rare whistle player (or musician of anykind) who can "sight read" in the sense clarified above by burnsbyrne and some others - who can look at a piece and play it flawlessly at a performance level without rehersal - but I've usually understood (perhaps, then, misunderstood) the ability to sightread as a matter of degree, such that it would be meaningful to ask how well one sight reads (as I did earlier). I expect that there are a lot of people, like myself, who are far from being 'really super advanced', but who can play most tunes smoothly and make them sound like music (and, more importantly, the music the notes are meant to represent) after a few run throughs to iron out difficult parts, and to figure out what kind of ornamentation to impose.

The sheet music doesn't help you with phrasing, ornamentation, etc. So the people that can sight read up to speed and sound good are really super advanced players.

Music can convey quite a lot, actually, so again, I'm not sure I completely agree, but I was independently interested about the ornamentaion point. It seems like a lot (if not most) written music for the whistle out there is sans ornamentation. Why? You can write grace notes in most music programs, can't you? I know Bagpipe music includes all of a tunes ornamentations. Why doesn't whistle music? Is it another convenience issue? It's completely understandable if it is, of course. Although, it does impede ones ability to translate the score to music - and may defeat it in some cases, as Cynth suggests.

Could it be that the music should be flexible, or that it is shared by numerous instruments, and so would be inappropriate to add instrument specific ornaments?

Thoughts?

I could find a sheet music tune for some American country or bluegrass tune and I would probably have an idea of how it should sound because I have listened to that kind of music so much. On any music, I could hit the notes, but I could only get the right "sound" on music that I had listened to alot. I might not have heard that particular tune, but I would have heard many like it and I would have in my head the style---I guess that would be phrasing, emphasis, ornamentation, etc.---and what you do to get that style. I'm speaking just for me. Since I haven't listened to enough Irish music with real care and my understanding of what the musician is actually doing to get the sounds that make the style is very limited, I can play the notes of an Irish tune as written and it will sound absolutely nothing like music, let alone Irish music, because I don't understand how to make it sound like Irish music---the phrasing, ornamentation (the least of the problems), subtle timing changes, emphasis, variations, etc. But I am a beginner, so "most of us" was a goofy thing to say. But from where I am, it would be a very advanced player who could look at a sheet and have in his head what to do with the notes to make that tune sound like Irish music. Even someone who could do that with a lot of run throughs would be very advanced in my book!

So the people that can sight read up to speed and sound good are really super advanced players. I'm talking about Irish trad music here.

I don't understand why you have to make this genre specific? I can't for one moment see that sight reading ITM is any different to sight reading any other genre.

I think this is a good point. I was thinking of classical music where you usually do have phrasing, staccato markings, rests, speed changes, ornamentation, etc. a lot of things marked in to help you sort of understand where the music is going. In the Irish sheet music I've seen, there is nothing to guide you along. But I think there is really just as much in classical music that can't be written down as in any other kind of music. The markings give hints, but you can make a real hash of it anyway.

I think notation is one way we preserve and pass along music and then good musicians, people who have been trained or who have studied or grown up within a musical tradition, can interpret the notation to make the sort of music the notes were intended to make.

While trad music is far less technically demanding then many other forms,

I don't agree with this, but again, my experience is limited. When I listen to a master of any instrument in Irish (or in other traditional music I have listened to), that person seems as far away from me in technical ability as, say, Dinu Lipatti does on the piano. And I'm talking just about physical dealings with the instrument.

[Cynth]

Have you got a short sound file of these, please?

http://www.rogermillington.com/tunetoc/index.html
There are many tunes here, but you go down the list and you'll see them. Click on the name and then the page with an MP3 of that tune will come up.

[fearfaoin]

My point was that, if to say that someone can 'sight read' means that they never, ever, fail to do this flawlessly, effortlessly, at a performance level, regardless of the complexity of the tune, or nature of the arrangement, and that they never, under any circumstances, ere in adding an ornamentation in a way that sounds anything but natural and musical... then sight reading is a rare skill. In fact, I doubt that I've ever known such a person. Can you do this?

Given that incredibly narrow definition of sight reading, then yes, I
agree with you, there's a somewhat limited pool of people who can do
this, most of them probably professionals. I've never before heard your
definition of "sight reading", though.

[canpiper]

My point was that, if to say that someone can 'sight read' means that they never, ever, fail to do this flawlessly, effortlessly, at a performance level, regardless of the complexity of the tune, or nature of the arrangement, and that they never, under any circumstances, ere in adding an ornamentation in a way that sounds anything but natural and musical... then sight reading is a rare skill. In fact, I doubt that I've ever known such a person. Can you do this?

Given that incredibly narrow definition of sight reading, then yes, I
agree with you, there's a somewhat limited pool of people who can do
this, most of them probably professionals. I've never before heard your
definition of "sight reading", though.

This isn't my definition. If you look to the first and second page of the thread, several people responded to my question about how well people in whistleland can sight read by noting that sight reading is the ability to take a piece of music you have never seen, and sit down in front of an audience and perform, time and time again. That is a high bar indeed, but was not the notion I had in mind. As I said earlier, I've thought of ones ability to sight read as being a matter of degree; I've thought of it in terms of a capacity that is not all or nothing. The quotation you originally cited me with was my response to that strict definition, not my account of my own defintion. I was saying that, if the strict definition is the proper definition, than my definition was wrong, in which case very few people must be able to sight read.

[Cayden]

One could argue this skill has no use as no good Irish musician will repeat a tune the same way twice while playing. I can read msot tunes and play them from paper doing wha tyou do wit htunes, I suppose that what I would REALLY consider 'performance' level, not a term I'd necessarily apply to a verbatim-each-time-over reproduction.
By the end of the day it is all about bringing the music to life from the page.

[canpiper]

One could argue this skill has no use as no good Irish musician will repeat a tune the same way twice while playing. I can read msot tunes and play them from paper doing wha tyou do wit htunes, I suppose that what I would REALLY consider 'performance' level, not a term I'd necessarily apply to a verbatim-each-time-over reproduction.
By the end of the day it is all about bringing the music to life from the page.

Interesting. That makes me feel better. Thanks!

[Screeeech!!!]

Have you got a short sound file of these, please?

http://www.rogermillington.com/tunetoc/index.html
There are many tunes here, but you go down the list and you'll see them. Click on the name and then the page with an MP3 of that tune will come up.

Thank you Cynth.

Peter, these are not notated correctly. These tunes can only be played correctly from that notation if they are not read correctly, which would require someone to actually know what the tune is supposed to be played like.

For me the purpose of notation is to give as accurate a representation of the music as possible. And in these two pieces i do not see anything like this being done. Sure the notes are there, but they are in the wrong place timing wise.

This form of musical notation can divide one beat up into 1/64ths evenly and 1/96ths complex. There's a whole host of other features, as mentioned by Cynth above that can also be incorporated. The limitations mentioned earlier in this thread about this form of notation simply do not exist to my mind. The limitation only exists in how much detail the writer wishes to instill into the work. Sadly, in ITM, this seems to be very little.

So back to Canpiper's point (i think, or maybe i've missed the point entirely by now ) if the music is notated correctly, and a sight reader of that genre uses it, then you will get an accurate representation of the music notated. If, however, the music is not notated correctly, then all the sight reading skill in the world won't help one bit.

[fearfaoin]

This isn't my definition. If you look to the first and second page of the thread, several people responded to my question about how well people in whistleland can sight read by noting that sight reading is the ability to take a piece of music you have never seen, and sit down in front of an audience and perform, time and time again.

Oops, I apologize for accusing you.
To me, sight reading is looking at a new tune and playing the proper
notes at the proper rhythm at whatever speed necessary. This is
what we called "sight reading" in high school and college band, and
at competitions.

[Cayden]

Peter, these are not notated correctly. These tunes can only be played correctly from that notation if they are not read correctly, which would require someone to actually know what the tune is supposed to be played like.

If you had read the transcription page you would have seen that was exactly the intention of the transcriptions presented there. To give a structure of support when listening to the soundclip. Not more not less. There are caveats with every transcription saying the notation should not be separated from the soundclip.
And in general this is how notation is used in Irish music (clue: read Breandan Breathnach's 'The use of notation in the transmission of Irish Folk Music')

We can talk about 'correct' transcriptions until the cows come home, fact is NOBODY uses those because there's no practical use for transcriptions of that level of detail except in academic settings when examining detailed aspects of a player's approach. Some of the notations in James Cowdery's 'The Melodic Tradition of Ireland' would spring to mind in this context even though there's a good argument to be made these aren't fully detailed to your standards. Michael O Suilleabhean's transcriptions of TommyPotts' playing ditto.

I was actually looking for notations of his own playing of the Bucks of Oranmore and Miss Monaghan by Seamus Ennis (which can be found in Ceol an Phiobaire) but unfortunately these weren't on-line. It interesting to see what he himself thought important in his approach to those particular tune, as a help to learning the tune it is less usefull than the, it could be argued simplified, other notations supplied in the same book (and those are on-line at Na Piobairi Uilleann's website).

The notations in The Dance Music of Willie Clancy or The Piping of Patsy Touhey are detailed, but therei s no clue whatsoever in them what the music actually sounded like, what happens tonally when these gentlemen play their pipes.
Anybody going out reproducing the tunes from these transcriptions would make a fool of themselves, for more than one reason. So one can wonder again about the practical use of a high level of detail (other than examining styles and approaches).

To go back to the whistle: Bill Ochs is doing wonderful work on Micho Russell's music which includes writing highly detailed transcriptions. I doubt though that, using them, anyone will ever manage to sound remotely like Micho without an intimate knowledge of how Micho's music sounded in the first place.

So what was the point of this discussion again?

[shadeclan]

To play devil's advocate for a second, is this function of notation being superseded by the easy availability of recording technology?

For some purposes, yes. However, I don't think that it can replace written notation. For example, I have a recording of "Banish Misfortune" that I enjoy very much. It is difficult, however, for me to "finger out" the notes on my whistle because the music is a little fast and my ear isn't as good as some. I had to slow the tune way down in order to catch what notes they were playing. Were I reading the music from notation, I could have easily seen how to play it (even though I would have to "decode" that notation at a relatively slow pace).

The recording of the song gives me more information than written notation, but sometimes we humans need to eliminate superfluous information in order to zero in on the information that is important to us. I think that written notation can give the musician the ability to do that more easily than can a recording, while a recording can provide information such as "am I playing this correctly?" or "am I playing this well?" or "how do I play this so that it sounds the way I want it to sound?".

Would you agree Wormdiet?

[FJohnSharp]

When I go to session and they hand me a sheet of music, I cannot play it from sight. I need to take it home and learn it.

On drums, I can sight read enough to sit in with most groups (of the type I play in) without rehearsal.

[Screeeech!!!]

Shadeclan, i agree with you. (for once )