Shaping the tune or why doesn’t it sound the way it should?

Reading various posts over the years I think I’m not alone here in describing the following scenario:

You’ve bought all the fiddle/flute/ whistle etc tutor book/cd combo and the cd rom that takes you from A to B (and is excellent in its own right). Your cd rack is up to snuff with all the requisite old timers perhaps and then some. You even had various teachers for a while who showed you tunes (but not perhaps how to really play them with perhaps an exception here or there but then he/she suddenly moved away!). You pracitce. You listen. But still the tunes do not quite sound the way they should.

Why? Is it because, as Llig pointed out in some earlier post last week we are still learing mechanically? Although I suspect many of us here are playing the right notes, mostly in tune, and even getting in some half decent ornaments and “correct” slurring patterns still the music isn’t sounding quite the way it should.

All I can think of is that somehow the mechanical approach isn’t working and that something more is required….that somehow learning a tune’s ‘shape’ [that’s as close as I can come to defining my hunch about this] isn’t about the motor movements, the ornaments or the slurring. It’s something more….

But what? any suggestions?

sorry “learning mechanically”. mea typo.

It’s the rythmn not the mechanics

IMO it’s mainly because beginners massively underestimate how long they should practice and massively overestimate how much they actually do practice. For example, a learner says “I have been playing for a year”. What they actually mean is “I play 15 minutes a day, but actually miss an average of three days a week so in reality I play 1 hour a week. I also miss about a dozen weeks a year so I’ve actually played for 40 hours” - about as much as many people who can already play play in one week. Same applies to some experiences players - “I’ve played the guitar for 20 years” - Oh no you haven’t, you’ve played the guitar for about 6 months in comparison to someone who takes it seriously

Not directed at anyone obviously. I’ve started playing the guitar myself 25 years ago but never seriously enough to be particularly good at it!

Yes Shylock is right, it’s the rhythm, totally.

The best way I’ve found to work on this is to take a good recording of a tune that you can play up to speed and alternate careful listening with playing along.

Listen very closely to the way the tune flows, where the accents are, etc. When you play along play quietly or with a mute so you can really hear if you are staying right with the recording. Once you can play spot-on with the recording that will help give you some muscle memory of how the rhythm should go.

But you can’t really do this mechanically, you have to really listen and get the feel of the music. You have to feel the rhythm of the tune, if that makes sense. I think this is where people who grew up in the tradition have a huge advantage over those of us who came to the music later in life.

Bog and Mark…
good points. I should have added “and practice a good hour -2 hrs a day 7 days a week”….because I suspect many on this site DO [and many don’t ;)] and yet….the music sounds flat. it isn’t living and breathing -- it’s D.O.A.

I suppose things like Polkas would illustrate my point….they are generally played so badly and yet how often do we note beginner fiddle players [for eg] trotting them out? Having no clue how they should sound. Beginners are not to “blame”…often it’s the so-called teacher who haven’t a clue and so perpetuate what I’ll call this “ lack of shape in tunes” -- believing, quite incorrectly, tthat polkas are the “simplest” of all the Irish trad repertoire. But imho they seem among the most subtle imho.

But polkas often seem to illustrate this glaring “shape thing” I’m trying to get a handle on.

I often wonder how much of the music people listen to when they are having these sort of troubles.

To me, it seems like it just takes time and immersion.

I had a classical music teacher tell me once that if I wanted to play classical music well, I had to listen to it all the time.

This is the same principle. If you want to play the music well, you have to listen to it. It’s the same as language. You can’t speak a language like a native speaker if you simply dabble in it once in a while. You can have a few years of language class in school, but unless you immerse yourself in the language, you’ll never become truly fluent and sound ‘right’.

So, that’s what I always ask people when they have these problems. “Are you listening to the music?” “Well, yeah, kinda…” “A lot? Like, a whole lot? Like, all the time?” Your output will be equitable to your input.

Somewhere someone once said that listening to the music is also learning. You are learning while you are listening, you’re absorbing the way it should sound. The more you do it, the better your playing will be.

This is all providing the musician in question has mastered the mechanics of their instrument, or at least is adept in playing it.

Worrying about getting the sound ‘right’ before any mechanics are squared away is putting the cart before the horse.

People born into the music are immersed in it. You can and should to the same, if your goal is to play the music well. Yes, play tunes on your iPod all the time. Listen at work, at home, in the car, in the toilet, etc.

That’s MHO, your results may vary.

Having had a little bit of experience teaching tunes and technique I see frequently that most adults want to fly before they crawl. Aspects of bowing and ornamentation which take experienced players a lifetime to develop are thought to be part of the fundament that can be rote learned in a couple of months. When it is discovered that this doesn’t work it leads to frustration which further blocks the ability to get the student’s head around the essential qualities of the music.

Patkiwi wrote:

“which further blocks the ability to get the student’s head around the essential qualities of the music.”

Which are? Let’s spell them out then!

[pk…you’ll be happy to note you were the only person who once explained/showed how polkas were to be played….we worked on the Kerry at the time…and just the other week I was passing on to a total beginner what you’d taught us…in the space of 15 minutes what had sounded wooden and discrete in her playing [we were working on the Kerry polka!] began to sound like music! she was sooooo happy. it was amazing. ’nuff said.]

“to me, it seems like it just takes time and immersion.”

Thats it in a nutshell!!!! A few people have used a few different metaphors that sit equally well. I particularly like the idea of this music as a language and the fact that it takes a looong time to get even the rudiments going!!

Something that this generation of musicians has lost, I think and this is only my two cents, is the notion of internalising the music. This notion is still fuzzy in my head so excuse me if i cant explain it concretely! What i think i mean by internalising it is listening. Properly. “hold on” i hear you say “sure aren’t we always harping on about listening.” yes and no. Most of the time when we listen to this music were listening and we’re thinking “jeez, thats a lovely roll there” or “i might throw in that sequence of triplets” or “lovely crossbowing”. `we’re listening and analysing and breaking it down. Thats fine. i suppose. but i think that what we should be doing is merely listening. Just sit back and LETTING IT IN!! bop to it, lilt to it, move to it, tap your foot to it.. whatever!!

what we seem to be doing to the music is over analysing it and i think that most of peoples’ problems are deriving from that. just let it in and it will eventually come out!!!

i could be talking rubbish.. . but its just an idea!!

and by problems i mean the whole sounding mechanical thing etc…

Very nice galway-fiddle! Yes, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. It’s not a math problem, it’s music, a language. Just soak it up, all the time. Get it into you. Don’t analyze it to death, just internalize it. Great word there.

galway

yes, that’s sort of what I’m trying to get at, ie, “the whole sounding mechanical thing”

Gill/Llig said it well last week when he alluded to our emphasis on the mechanical aspects of finger patterns/motor memory

But don’t many teachers of ITM and/or tutor books/dvds etc focus on just that?!!! that’s my point….

In other words, Michael’s comments that most ITM playing is “s h i t” [which depressed me considerably…hence this post today] seemed to imply it was s h i t because of the points you raise in your post about….that is, analyzing the music, thinking about the mechanics of this and that…trying to let the fingers “memorize” those mechanics….

instead of SHAPING the tune or letting the tune’s shape somehow seep into our being….

well, maybe listening AND time are the only way.

so, in the meantime, are we simply stuck with being sh*te players? somewhat depressing thought.

should read “post above” . sorry.

Re rhythm: Lately I have been looking very closely at what I’m playing, in detail, and finding many places where the notes are basically correct, but slightly off, timing-wise. When a good player plays a tune, every single note is timed correctly to keep the momentum going. Not only do they avoid rushing or slowing down whole phrases--every note within each phrase is right where it should be. And it’s not mechanical, midi-like precision, because there are little syncopations in there too.

So I think it must be a combination of general immersion, to know the overall flavor, plus a lot of nitpicky detail work too. At least, that’s the only way I can see the tune coming out with such consistent “rightness” when a good player trots it out.

You can take your phrasebook into a foreign pub and order a pint, or find out where the toilet is. But could you have everyone in stitches with a story? It’s the way you tell them. Phrasing, timing. Most tunes have a kind of question-and-answer structure, or maybe a three-person discussion. Not just a string of notes, however beautifully played.

I think this is an interesting thread. Most people play too fast. Even accomplished players lose some of the beauty if they rush the tune. Just one mistake tells me that I am playing too fast. I like to be able to hear the beat throughout and be spot on with the rhythm. Solid, steady, never mind the tempo.
I don’t know about over-analyzing. I do think of just listening and focused attention being different. When I listen carefully I can hear an ornament well done and fitting within the context of the tune. You have to think about how an ornament is constructed and not just wing it or put in a triplet just anywhere because you can.
I think Lunasa and the hot bands are are fine but if you want to get somewhere at some point you have to listen to the way Mary MacNamara, Caoimhín Ó Raghallaigh or Mike Rafferty or Geroid O hAllmhurain phrase - and pace - a tune. It isn’t speed and it isn’t driven but it’s great stuff and will do more for your music than listening to the hot bands.
Just my opinion. But I’m a slow old fart anyways.

Doesn’t sound like you’re enjoying the tunes you play, mtodd. I’d say, don’t expect to sound like ‘xyz’. Listen to them play by all means - hum or whistle the tune to yourself - I think it’s easier to ‘internalise’ it that way.
But then pick up your instrument and go for the sound image in your head - enjoy it for what it is and also as a work in progress.
I don’t think you can expect more of yourself that that!

JDg

Brilliantly put! So, ok, the mechanics of this music are just that then. They are *some* of the building blocks necessaray….walking before we run. Sure. Fair enough…the stuff that Llig was touching on last week.

But the ornaments, slurs etc aren’t enough to tell a story. As Mickray is saying, it’s the phrasing, the timing of good playing that’s so deft, so “right” and just. The notes on a page can’t denote that. And teachers…at least any I’ve had….can seemt to get beyond that to take you to where you’re telling a story with your music.

But maybe that’s something that can’t be taught.

Greetings,

I’m not a fiddler or a melody player nor do I even think I represent the music in a traditional way. That said I believe I can often times discern when a player is playing the notes with some rhythmic quality and when a player is allowing the music to come out through their instrument. I know that sounds very “mist on the bog” but I do believe the music eludes scholarly boundaries or at the very least has done so to this point in time. Like in many things of today’s world I believe we may have educated ourselves to idiocy.

If one hasn’t come to the music having been raised in the culture I too believe total immersion is the most efficient way to find it in its truest sense.

All the best!

Peace,
Ed

In my experience, the best players are both immersed and simply wallowing in the sound, AND they’re at time analytical and very methodical in their approach. It helps to do both.

The question I see posed here is: Once you have the mechanics down, what turns a string of notes into dance music?

I’d suggest focusing on four aspects of your playing: attack, dynamics, timing, and phrasing.

Attack is a weird word for this, but it’s the common term. What I mean is how you start and end each note. On fiddle, it’s how your bow comes onto a note, and how it leaves that note. If you listen closely to the good players, they’re constantly varying these nuances--slurring or sliding into a note here, popping abruptly off a note there. IIf your attack is always the same, your playing becomes predictable and mechanical sounding. A good example of this is when Martin Hayes does a long string of single bows with exactly the same attack for each note in a jig. He quickly loses whatever swing and lift he had going into the phrase. I’m always disappointed when I hear him do this.

By dynamics, I mean emphasizing certain notes or bits of melody by varying how loud or soft you play them. In Irish music, we don’t typically vary the dynamics over whole phrases or sections of a tune, the way classical music does. Instead, dynamics happen at the micro level--swelling the volume of a note, say, or playing the middle note of each group of three in a jig slightly softer (and shorter) than the others. When you slur from a weak beat onto a strong beat, it often sounds “right” to swell the volume a touch. This gives the music a pulse.

Timing is different from phrasing. Timing is the length each note is held relative to the other notes around it. It’s also about the length of the silences between notes. Strong beats and melodically important notes typically want to be a tad longer than weak beats and less important notes. But sometimes you can emphasize a beat or a note by clipping it abruptly short, or starting it a hair early, or delaying landing on that beat or note. Good Irish players can vary the timing of all of the notes within a phrase, while still keeping the phrase dancing along to a steady beat.

So what is phrasing? One way to think of phrasing is how the timing of notes comes together in longer chunks. But most people find it easier to think of phrasing as the “sentence structure” of a tune. When we talk, we use commas and periods and dashes to separate clauses of each sentence. We also use attack, dynamics, and timing to shape our sentences into meaningful smaller chunks. Music works the same way, but we don’t usually see punctuation marks to tell us where one phrase stops and the other starts. You have to suss that out from listening to other players and from the tune itself--where, to YOUR ear, does the tune pause or take a turn? Where would you put commas or periods? Some people listen for the “call-and-answer” motifs, but more subtle phrasings are often more interesting. And bear in mind that good players will often alter the phrasing--moving the commas and periods around--to create a new sense of how the chunks of a tune hold together.

These aspects of playing obviously overlap, so at some point, you have to gel them all together to make the music click. But that can be a tall order for someone starting to figure all this out. No harm in taking each aspect one at a time and building skill on just attack, or just timing, etc. The better you become at the individual aspects, the easier it will be to shape the phrasing to match what you hear in your head (or someone else playing).

“In my experience, the best players are both immersed and simply wallowing in the sound, AND they’re at time analytical and very methodical in their approach”

I agree totally, but what i would say if I was saying that is

“In my experience, the best players are both immersed and simply wallowing in the sound BEFORE they CAN BE analytical and very methodical in their approach”

You know what I mean?

Totally agree. The immersion is the most important thing. And all the analysis and methodology in the world won’t help if you don’t deeply know what it’s supposed to sound like.

That said, most of the brilliant players I’ve talked without about playing can break out the elements and technique in great detail and with loads of insight. Clearly, they’ve thought about this stuff, and that informs their playing. I’ve found that it’s the best way too for me to keep learning, to keep moving my own playing to the next level.

“talked with”

geesh, I can barely type today. Should go back to bed….

Thing is, I know mtodd has listened to this music a lot, and continues to immerse himself in it. So immersion alone isn’t enough, for him. In fact, most of the people I’ve taught to play music are helped by learning specifically what to listen for--attack, dynamics, timing, phrasing, etc. Once you can hear these things, they’re more likely to come out in your own playing. In most cases, it helps to woodshed a bit on each element, as well.

Will
You’ve hit the nail(s) on the head! [as per usual? ;)].

Yes, I see what you’re getting at…breaking down the music into well, shall we say, “different listening areas” for lack of a better phrase?

Timing and phrasing….excellent. You’d think they’d be the same…well, I guess they overlap, sure. But I see the distinctions you’re making.

What this gives me is something to think about as well as listen *for* not only in my own tune making but that of others. Super. I just didn’t quite have a structure/analogy for what it was I was pondering. I can hear what’s *missing* but I didn’t quite have the words to give it form. (But I guess if one can hear what’s missing then at least that’s half the battle…pretty hard to make it swing if you can’t quite discern why the swing might not be there…)

I suppose all this stuff you’re talking of is what makes ITM really “sparkle” when it comes together seamlessly and O’Neill to call it “Irish Folk Music: A Fascianting Hobby”…for obvious reasons. Altho perhaps we could call also title a book “irish Folk Music: A MADDDENING Hobby” also for obvious reasons? ;)

thanks again Will. good stuff. i will print and read this more tonight. [that’s why I love The Session.org…friends in the struggle]

So let’s throw “lift” into the equation… Because the slightly nebulous concept of lift is what I consider to be missing in when the music sounds “flat”. So Will, where does lift fit into your equation? Is it the combined sum of the attack, dynamics, timing, and phrasing? Or is it a piece of its own?

I agree that a lot of players substitute speed for style. But I also have found that the vast majority of this music that I have heard that I would consider good (with lots of lift) also involves a lot of speed. The difference is that when it’s played well at a fast speed, it sounds effortless. When it’s played poorly at a fast speed, it sounds forced and out of control.

Yes, I’m from the Jungian fiddling school of the subconscious. Too much technical talk and analyzing makes me glaze over. I like to keep it simple for my stupid self. I hear it, I make the fiddle do what I hear, that’s it. “Fiddle do that.” Ooga booga. More caveman style, maybe.

So, needless to say, I’m glad Will is around to do all that heavy thinkerizing for us! 😉 If you need me, I’ll be in my subconscious.

…and the Reverend too. When Will and he get together there’s bound to be some serious worderizing going on ’bout stuff that’ll make yer noggin hurt. Carry on lads!

SWFL, aka ‘Man of Action rather than words’,
obviously you’re of the M.G. “just put it under your chin and scrape away” school…🙂

I guess some of need to regress more…perhaps move to a gaitor shack out there in the glades somewhere….

“some of us” i meant. rotten keyboard!

To sound right it has to be fast but relaxed…lots of people get the first part but miss the second.

That’s also why good players play much faster than it sounds like they are playing. When the playing is rushed it isn’t interesting to listen to at all.

To my ear, lift happens when attack, dynamics, timing, and phrasing work together. Because any one of those elements can create lift, but would soon become predictable if you had only that one tool to use. That said, timing is probably the most crucial to get “right”--if your timing doesn’t create lift, the other elements won’t help as much.

I also tend to think of lift in different ways. One kind of lift is created simply by playing with a light, nimble touch (in contrast to grinding the notes out with a heavy hand). We want our cuts, rolls, triplets, and other twiddly bits to be crisp and clean, effortless, rather than muddy and plodding. On fiddle, for instance, I’m amazed at how light and easy my bow hand feels most of the time. In contrast to how tense and heavy it felt through my early years of playing. Economy of motion, ease, and a light touch can in themselves create a sense of lift.

The other way I think of lift is as a sort of momentum. Overall, a tune should have this momentum as a pulse that keeps the tune moving forward. We do this by keeping a steady beat and emphasizing strong beats. A “driving” feel is created when you keep the emphasis firmly on the strong (down) beats. To create lift, you’ll want to subtly emphasize the weak beats too. This can be done by giving the weak beats a sharper attack (more pop coming onto or off of the note), swelling dynamics onto the beat, and by pouncing on the weak beat a skooch early or delaying landing on the weak or strong beat by hanging on the previous note or leaving a micro gap of silence. Attack, dynamics, timing.

Let’s look at My Darling Asleep for some ways to articulate lift.

So the opening melody goes: |fdd cAA|BAG A2 G|

You can immediately create lift by coming into that first strong beat “f” by slurring onto it from the “e” below: e|fdd cAA|. However you play that slur, you’ll get more lift if you swell the volume as you come onto the “f” and if you let the “e” hang just a bit, so the “f” strong beat is delayed just a hair.

Note that you can do the same thing as you go from the last A of the first bar onto the B of the second bar.

Attack and timing come into play later in the tune, when we go: G|FAA def|gfg eag|

A nice way to get some lift is to add a melodic triplet: |FAA de/e/f|gfg… The triplet moves up in pitch toward the “g” and it uses weak beat space to both anticipate and delay resolution to the “g” on the next strong beat. Another bit of lift comes from rolling that “g”: de/e/f|~g3 eag| where the “g” is held a spell before popping the cuts and taps, again carrying the emphasis beyond the down beat itself.

A light, crisp, clean attack is essential, and so is impeccable timing. Listen to how your favorite players do this sort of thing, in at least this much micro detail. Then listen again, closer, slower.

It may be harder to create lift at slower speeds, but it can be done (any treble jig will require it at a crawl). And the lift of good players can make faster speeds sound relaxed, even though the music is cranking by.

Let me point out that I don’t think this way when I’m playing. It’s all been internalized. I’m as subconscious as they come in mid flight.

But I’ve noticed that not everyone can just fly by the seat of their pants, including some musicians who think they sound just fine without analyzing the bits. (Not pointing a finger at SWFL or anyone else here, just making a general observation.) In fact, *nearly all* of the really brilliant musicians I’ve known have thought about the details down to the atomic level. They may not talk about it much, and when they do, they don’t all use standard musical terms. But they can demonstrate a remarkably refined awareness of the bits and nuances.

And many of the mediocre players I’ve heard are clearly unaware of the nuances. You can tell, because *you can’t hear any nuances in their playing.* The timing never varies. The dynamics never vary. The attack never varies. The phrasing is unclear or nonexistent.

Will, that’s a bit like saying that you have to study physics to be a good baseball player.

Not everyone needs to break things down on a conscious level to grasp what’s going on. For some the best approach is to “just put it under your chin and scrape away.”

Some people need to talk about and analyze the nuances of playing, others can grasp what’s going on by simply listening and playing. Not everyone is the same, and there’s no one way to go about things, as long as plenty of listening and playing are going on.

Marklar, it’s soooo far from saying study physics to play baseball that your analogy falls flat on its face.

What I’m saying is study baseball to play baseball.

And I never said everyone has to learn this way. Your splitting hairs for the sake of splitting hairs.

While we’re at it, you said above that “To sound right it has to be fast and relaxed.” I agree with the relaxed bit, but not at all that it has to be fast. You’re missing the point if you think lift comes from speed.

Give me a break Will, whose splitting hairs for the sake of it now? Of course lift doesn’t come from speed (and I never said that it did), but speed is a characteristic of Irish music, isn’t it? If you want to play an Irish reel the way it’s traditionally played, you’re going to have to be able to play fairly fast aren’t you?

I wasn’t trying to attack you, I was making a counter argument. Stop playing tit-for-tat, that’s how these discussions become nasty.

Here’s another generalization that works for me: most people’s first approach to learning a bunch of tunes is to get some notes down, along with enough technique to get them sounding like a tune. After a while, this isn’t really enough; you’ve come along to the point where you can hear the difference between any number of “good” players and yourself. Apart from the raw technique, it seems to me that most players (have to) focus on the beginnings of notes, because that’s what the tune IS for them.

Later on, you figure out that the ends/tails/posterior regions of notes are even more important for creating swing & lift etc. What this comes down to is that “to emphasize the minor beat” as Will says above, you have to give it room to find its place in the tune, but because its not (usually) as loud as the main beat, it needs to have some silence around it. Hence the end of the previous note has to be disciplined to remain in its own little time slot. (Picks up chair and whip.)

I’ve had some success getting students to focus on playing and thinking about just the minor beats - playing reels like hornpipes until they sound natural, for example - as a way to help them internalize the right length for the now off-beat notes.

This clip of Joan Hanrahan and Dympna O’Sullivan comes really close to being perfect IMO - the phrasing and the rhythm work together to keep the major and minor beats apart so that they can both get their due:

http://comhaltas.ie/music/detail/comhaltaslive_266_5_joan_hanrahan_dymphna_osullivan/

If I had less space, I’d describe their approach as “thoughtful”.

I’m just offering this in the hope of getting more good ideas for thinking about this stuff…

I think the analogy distinction between studying baseball and studying physics is an important one.

There is a certain amount of natural skill required to be good at baseball, but to play at the higher levels, there is nobody who hasn’t become a student of the game, analyzed minutia, and internalized it all. In a lot of cases, that *does* include some study of physics. Like why a pitch may curve because of spin more at sea level than at 5000 feet, etc.

The analogy is good. The truly great players of this music do seem to have studied the minutia, and internalized it.

I meant to offer a “put in under your chin and scrape away” example as well. I have a friend who learned fiddle in his teens, and made several trips to Ireland to drink beer and listen to sessions. Unfortunately, he never really learned much fiddle technique, and his rhythm is terrible (much better on guitar, just to point out that he does know the difference).

But if you can get past that, he’s actually a very interesting player - knows several versions of a huge number of tunes, and regularly comes out with some killer variations. I always thought he had so much music inside of him bursting to get out that he really couldn’t slow down long enough to worry about the technique. It’s hell to listen to until you get the gist of what he’s playing though.

Gzeg, that clip of Joan and Dymphna also shows how much lift and pulse can be created even at a fairly slow pace. They’re certainly not playing fast. A good one for listening closely to attack, dynamics, timing, and phrasing.

Greg,
this is very interesting and maybe ties into the idea of slurring across bars/beats and measures?

ie, what you describe is a kind of on/off approach…this is the phrasing/shaping thing I was thinking about….you have to know where to “end” [ever so slightly] in order to begin the note that, say, might introduce the next phrase…So do you give that “ending phrase” note ever so slightly more or less room which should then in turn give an ever so slight difference in emphasis to what comes next, ie, the note that shapes the *next phrase* in the musical sentence.

What Will talks about in terms of “attack, dynamics, timing and phrasing”.

All thoughtful stuff. thanks.

And think about what a good player Gzeg’s friend could be with a little focus on rhythm. Shame, that.

Yes, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I had six years of intense classical violin training from the ages of seven through thirteen. I put it away for fifteen years, and took it back out eight years ago to play nothing but this music.

I know that those years of torture, er, uh, I mean, rigid, strict classical violin study gave me all sorts of good technique and mechanics for actually playing the instrument. Really, when I say “fiddle do that” I’m probably doing a million little things I haven’t had to think about since I was eight.

So yes, ‘stick it under yer chin and scrape away’ is exactly what I did, combined with a near-psychotic obsession about listening to this music 24-7.

Of course, the missing portion of the story is I had these technical things Will refers to, about the actual physics of playing the instrument, drilled into my head repeatedly at a very young age, when it would all stick. I internalized that. Now when I try to put into words what I’m specifically doing, it just makes my eyes cross. Ah well.

So ‘stick it under yer chin and scrape away’? I guess, but really I’m a ‘ringer’, eh? 😉

FWIW, I just uploaded a clip of me scraping through Bobby Casey’s reel on my SoundLantern account: http://www.soundlantern.com/UpdatedSoundPage.do?ToId=18062

Nothing special--in fact, some of it is bloody awful. I made this clip for a student of mine so she could hear the tune and how the cuts and rolls fit in. (And yes, I’m aware that my intonation is a bit squirrely in places--my fingers are a wreck from shoveling dirt to build a bike pump track in my yard. 🙂 )

The point is, at this slower speed, you can easily hear places where I clip a note short, or linger on another, how some notes get a little extra volume, and how the timing of the cuts and rolls helps create a push and pull between weak and strong beats. Even at a crawl, and even in a tune with longish phrases, you can create a sense of lift and interest and momentum.

Gzeg, that clip you offered shows exactly HOW people ought to be playing, putting the rhythm and phrasing first, and not bothering with speed to show off.
Only last night I was in a session where a young lad, otherwise talented and capable, played a hornpipe so fast it was almost a reel, with no signs that he understood what he was doing to the tune; and then he expected me to follow in with a second at the same speed, which I declined.
Put the sign up at every session -“SPEED KILLS !”

Speed does not kill

Speed only kills if the person can’t play well at slower speeds either.

Poor phrasing and trying to play beyond ones capabilities kills, as well as other musical things.

A good indicator is when someone tries to speed up (or slow down) to a speed they think suits them at a session. Someone who has control over what they’re playing can settle into the groove of the speed of the person who started the tune.

No, speed does not kill, it’s just the rapid deceleration. As the man who fell out of the tall building said, two floors up, “So far, so good.”

“…trying to play beyond one’s capabilities…” is often where speed becomes a factor.

But I agree--lots of other things can ruin the music. Speed just tends to make them worse.

Quite

>> lots of other things can ruin the music. Speed just tends to make them worse.

I agree for the most part. But since the rhythm smoothes out a bit to the ear as it goes faster, the speed can also mask some problems too.

And I think that’s probably why some people choose to substitute speed for style…

‘…the speed can also mask some problems too….’

‘…And I think that’s probably why some people choose to substitute speed for style…’

Exactly.

I heard rooney recenlty - not rushed, not fast. When I played along it was so much slower than I thought. It just had a natural lift. Thats my favorite type of diddley - where you can’t even work out the speed. Its not an issue.

Yeah, but if you’re really listening to it, bad rhythm played faster sounds horrible.

Bottomline is that some people don’t know what their musical shortcoming are--they aren’t listening accurately to themselves. It helps to know what to listen for--things like attack, dynamics, timing, and phrasing. Learn to play them well at a slow pace. If you can’t do it well slow, it won’t work at a faster pace.

It’s true that speed is a problem if the player can’t play in a relaxed manner with lift and bounce at that speed. That’s obvious, but the problem is generally the player not the tempo.

But is speed not important in Irish music? Do you like slow reels? Does a slide sound right played at jig tempo? When you listen to players like John Doherty, Michael Coleman, or other such standard bearers, do they play slowly?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like tunes at breakneck pace all the time and I think there’s a tendency to speed things up too much. But I think that you all know very well that speed is characteristic of Irish music, when it is matched with that paradoxically relaxed rhythm.

You have to get the rhythm, bounce, lift, nyah, or whatever else you want to call it right before a tune sounds the way it should. But you also need to be able to get it up to speed without playing beyond your ability to do the first part right, as well.

‘Learn to play them well at a slow pace.’

For me thats the clincher.
Though it takes me a long time to get them up to some session speeds, which is why I can only play at my own ones!

As someone says here often, you can’t really afford to be impatient. I’m sure it will come.
Keep her lit as they say.

I’ve only been at ITM for about 3 years. I’m finding tunes have to age
for quite a while before you start getting a handle on their internal
rhythms, phrases and implied counter-melodies. And if you vary the
amount of swing and tempo, new things start popping out at you from
the same old tune.

It’s the stuff I first learned more than a year ago that
is developing like this, not the stuff I’ve learned in 2008. When you
go over them mentally while you’re walking the dog or whatever, these
hidden bits start jumping out at you. That must be what people like
Canny and Fahey used to do while shoveling cow poo and fixing fences.

It’s making me think you have to play for about 10 years before you
know what you’re doing with this stuff.

More like 30 years. Or maybe 40 years. (I can hope, can’t I?)

Playing the tunes in your head really does help a lot. I find I can go over the tune at a nice slow lope, toying with all sorts of inflections and variations. It’s almost as good as actually playing the tune on fiddle--certainly helps cement it in place so I can launch it at the session later.

Hi,

What Will CPT is describing in his posts are the fundamentals in learning music…this applies to any music including ITM

Whether you grasp it consciously or unconcsiously it needs to be grasped regardless of what speed you play a tune

A knowledge of your particular instrument and developing these skills ie Rhythm, Timing, Phrasing, Dynamics etc sets you on a firm foundation in becoming a good musician

You have to listen to know where to place this stuff within a tune and you want to listen to good players and where they place this stuff in their tunes

Scrape away or analyse….but practice the fundamentals of learning music

Learn from other players and listen to CD’s by all means, but at some point though you will end up developing your own style

my 2 cents
pkev

This is a really good thread.

In learning any complex task, not just music, you have to learn the basic technique *and* you have to internalize it. As I see it you need to be able to hear the phrasing, the timing, the emphasis in your own and other people’s playing, but in order to sound good that needs to be internalized so you can play it more or less automatically. You can’t do any complex task well if you are thinking about every single element of it. Reading Will’s excellent post breaking the music down into timing, phrasing, attack, is insightful and intimidating. That’s a lot to think about! When I’ve taught people to ride horses I say, “Okay, now keep your heels down, hands even, softly holding the reins, elbows bent and following the movement, shoulders back, look where you’re going, follow the movement of the horse and at the same time not be thrown off balance, maintain your position and not be stiff as a board, ask the horse to maintain her body position as well and ask her to do whatever it is you want her to do” They look horrified -- that’s a lot to keep track of and it is all changing at every second, every step the horse takes. The only way to attain a high degree of competence at it is to internalize most of those elements so you react to stuff the second it happens, rather than the thirty seconds it takes to realize the horse is now doing a, b, and c and you now need to do x, y, and z to correct it, oh wait, how do you do that again? By that time you’re halfway across a field (or maybe the horse is but you are not)!

That said, it is much easier to write about this process on the internet than it is to apply it to my playing, which I find enormously frustrating at times. I put hours and hours into it and I still often wonder why I continue to suck, but I get the impression from threads like these that this is a common condition.

The horse riding analogy is good, Em. Another one might be learning to play golf. Learning a consistent golf swing is a daunting task at first. You have to remember to keep your head steady, with your eye on the ball. Your feet should be about shoulder width apart. Your knees slightly bent. Bring your hands back in a smooth pendulum arc, without twisting your torso too far. Don’t switch the club direction to quickly. Make sure your left arm stays straight. Your hands must turn over through the swing, and your weight should transfer from your back foot to your front foot. And all the while, if you’re thinking too much, you’re going to screw the shot.

Studies have shown that the brain activity in a pro-golfer’s head goes way down during their swing. They’ve internalized all the little bits to the point where they can clear their minds, and let the swing happen without much stress (unlike most of us golfers. My game tends to go to hell if my brain gets too active…)

Anyway, a good golf instructor knows how to teach you in ways that isolates various aspects of the swing to work on at any given time, instead of overloading you with information. The one golf instructor I had many years ago said “no more than two swing thoughts, and you’re better off with only one when you’re learning”. That same kind of advice works well with Will’s fundamentals. When you’re starting out, concentrate on one aspect at a time, until you have it internalized to a large extent, and can “put it on automatic” while you’re working on other aspects.

So Rev, what was yer mind full of that day you hit the soaring tee shot into oncoming traffic on the back nine last summer….?

😎

To his credit, Rev managed to hit the ball so cleanly that it bounced not once but twice before angling off the two lane road. Hang time between ricochets was well into the double digits, too. We’re talking a ten story bounce the first time….

😛

It could have been the pressure of trying to impress one of my heroes… 😛

Hahahahahha!

I want to know if I let the rosin dust build up on my fiddle like Ms Hanrahan’s, will I magically get all that lift, phrasing and expressiveness too 🙂

This is something I can relate to very well as its a problem I have spent the last month addressing in my own playing.

Being my own critic I constantly chaffed myself for the fact that even though I could play a tune note perfect it would still sound dull, flat, devoid of something.

SO I took a step back and retreated to listening for a while.

Selected a tune to use as an exercise after hearing it on a cd., in my case Bovalgies Plaid after hearing ALasdair Fraser playing it on the north road CD. Its not the most cheerfull tune, but its one that needs to be devoid of nothing.

Alasdair Fraser playing it, the tune oozes such a sweet sadness and enrobes you within it.

When I played it, the notes where there, the slurs where there, the grace notes were all there, the timing was there, listening to a recording of myself playing it, the tune was flat, the immense sadness was gone.

Then my daughter got the nail on the head, she told me to feel it as I play it and really hang your bow on those long high notes as they are the ones which pierce the heart with such sweet sadness that is this tune.

So, I played the tune over and over until I had in memory every last dot and tail, listened to it on cd a few times, went out for a walk to clear my head of the mornings frustration, came back picked up the bow, and I played the tune so differently that it shocked me, the more i projected the sadness of the tune the more I listed to it, the more I listened to it, the more i got caught up within it & the more that happened the better I played it.

Its still not perfect, vibrato needs working on but its fastly improved as in the tune has a heart now, but it did teach me a lesson i would do well never to forget.

In order to play the music well, you have to allow yourself to feel the body of the tune and in turn you will become the driving force behind the notes.

If you play something just as its written it will play flat, it may well have swing and good timing but it will be devoid of oomph.

Bloody hell, here we go again. A ton of posts on this one? Come on, it’s not feckin’ rocket science.

Actually, the answer to this one is the title to this one:

https://thesession.org/discussions/19565.

The reason why the vast majority of diddley music is s h i t is because for some inexplicable reason, personalities are not brought round the table. Heads down, no communication, no fun, no gossip, just boring old fecking lifeless concentration.

My favorite part of this thread was when Will typed an encyclopedia that was very long and thoughtful, and then a few posts later apologized for feeling poorly, and barely being able to type. 😉

I was a bash-away kind of player until I took some lessons a few years ago, and found it very enlightening to break the act of playing the guitar down the way Will describes, and examining each component. I couldn’t have done it without a teacher, because my problems were all in ‘blind spots,’ parts of my technique that I couldn’t quite explain.

I like the baseball anthology because baseball is an sport where every component is measured and managed to improve the overall performance of the player and the team. In fact, did anyone see the New York TImes editorial yesterday, written by John Kerry, Newt Ginrich and Billy Beane of the A’s, which spoke of applying statistical analysis to medical issues to cut the cost of health care? So baseball is not just the greatest sport ever played, it can be an example for all of us.

I liked your story, Wabbit, quite excellent description of the process of truly learning a piece of music. Because in the end, technique only matters when it serves the emotion, and shape, of the tune. To loosely paraphrase Duke Ellington, “You don’t have the gift, if it ain’t got that lift…..”

Again, I really don’t think that sporting analogies help. The reason you break technique down in sport is to give yourself a measurable improvement. Sport is all about measuring. Improve your swing and you’ll hit a golf ball further and with more accuracy. Music is not like that. It is, at its most humble of levels, immeasurable.

There is some mileage in the analogy with riding a horse. You have to feel the horse, be at one with the horse’s movements etc. But it falls down because you are not the horse, and herein lies the problem for many people. They look at playing their instruments as like riding a horse and they look at playing tunes like riding a horse: sure you’ll get better at it if you can internalise all the technique and and be at one with your musical instrument and the music, but that still treats your instrument and the music as something separate from your self. People who aren’t musicians but have great technique always treat their instruments and the music like animals/pets. They have them tamed, they are in control of them, they are their friends, they even often give them names.

But all the musicians I know are not in the least bit interested in musical instruments. They know that the instrument itself is not important, they certainly don’t personificate it. Just so long as the thing is capable of reproducing the articulations required. They know that technique is not important, technique will come, all you have to do is play. They know that the music is an absract vehicle.

What they do know, though there is never any point in discussing it (except maybe with you shower) is that you yourself make the noise. It is your expression. It is an expression of you. It is a personal expression of your relationship with others’ personal expressions.

It’s such a straight forward and simple thing.

‘But all the musicians I know are not in the least bit interested in musical instruments.’

How come they have no influence on you and your hardon for your fiddle, and bad fiddle music?

🙂

Michael, it seems a case of being unable to see the forest for the trees. When I played classical I knew many players who had fantastic technique--far better than I--but whose playing was as lifeless and dull as a player piano or a midi file. They seemed to be so far into the technical details of making music that they forgot what music was.

Making music is simple when you look at it as a whole, it’s really just about pure expression. It’s like crying or laughing or any other emotional expression, but mediated through an instrument. But it’s easy to get bogged down in the details of making music and forget all about the emotional aspects of it.

Wabbit is right, if you don’t feel it it doesn’t work. What separates a boring player from an interesting one is that an interesting player will make you feel something when you listen to him/her. If you aren’t feeling the music on an emotional level when playing then no one who is listening will feel anything either.

There can be value to breaking down the music into its technical details, but there comes a point where that all has to be set aside in the service of just plain making music. At the end of the day it’s an intuitive process no matter how you intellectualize it. Music requires more heart than brain (good music at least).

Good musicians have good music in their heads. People who play with “lift” or whatever you choose to call that hear the music that way in their heads. AND good musicians have mastered their intruments so that they can articulate the music that they have in their heads. In this sense Gill is wrong -- the instrument does need to be tamed.

So if your music is not coming out as you would like it too, it is likely because:

1) You haven’t assimilated the music to the point where you have a very clear idea of how YOU play. I.E. when you hear tunes in your head, you hear other people playing them in the way that they would play them rather than the way you would play them.

2) You have assimilated the music and you do have your own way of realising it in your musical mind, but you haven’t mastered your instrument to the point where you can play exactly what you hear in your head.

I usually agree with you, Michael, but I have to disagree here: “They know that technique is not important, technique will come, all you have to do is play.”

While it is true that if *all* you focus on technique, your playing will sound boring and mechanical, if you just “let it happen” and don’t work on good technique, you will sound sloppy and struggle to play up to speed. Do people automatically pick up how to play clean rolls, triplets, crans, etc. without working on it? I’d like to know where they are (and can I take whatever they’re taking). At least on the pipes -- I can’t speak for other instruments. I know players who have never sorted their technique out and the music just doesn’t sound right.

Of course the noise you make is your personal expression, but there are generally accepted ways to do it correctly, or not, in order to play ITM. You yourself have said this. If it is nothing more than the personal expression of whatever, then why isn’t every eedjit with a cello, saxophone, or didjeridoo welcome at your session? How can you differentiate between bad playing and good playing? There is a normative standard of playing and part of it is indeed how you express yourself, but the other fundamental part is mastering the technique of playing your instrument so you can get the best sound out if you can.

There is no harm in talking about or analyzing it. If you don’t want to engage in the analysis, don’t read this thread and go have a tune. Whilst I’m in the office not playing anyway, I’d rather analyze Irish music than deal with my actual work. 🙂

I didn’t say it is your expression in isolation. The importance of it with regard to this music is that it is a personal expression of your relationship with others’ personal expressions.

And while there may be no harm in talking about or analysing it, there certainly is harm in talking about and analysing it too much. And I’d concider 100 post of talking about and analysing on a thread entitled “why doesn’t it sound the way it should?” too much.

Chrishty, that’s a good post. Yes, good musicians have mastered their intruments so that they can articulate the music that they have in their heads. But it’s the analogy of “taming it” that I have a problem with. If anything, you have tamed yourself. The instrument is not alive, you are.

This whole argument is people asking how they can give the music life. I feel that if you need to ask that question you have missed out on something that is fundamental to what music is. You don’t give music life. You are yourself alive. Music is an expression of being alive.

Even the oft used expression of “breathing life into music” is not how it works. You don’t breath your life into it, that seperates it from the self. Music IS the breath of life.

technique is extremely important, however it is not the be all and end all. i agree with silver spear there. People dont become good and are just suddenly able to do somethings like rolls by just focussing on playing. people still have to take time out to learn the rolls and then putting them into context. technique is extremly important in the music, its what shapes it into GOOD music. all good music has technique, however big or small. if there was none we would just hear single bowing on the fiddle and how awful would that sound? slurring is a technique, so are triplets, trebles, double stops, you get the picture. people in musical families are not born good. like anyone they have to learn it, but it is an advantage growing up listening to the music and learning some things that you cant get off cds and books by osmosis. to say technique is secondary is wrong IMO, it is just as important, how much you focus on it and incorporate it into your playing is up the person. i agree with spear on the pipes comment aswell. I know lots of people who play pipes. there are people who come from other instruments to play, like they stared off on whistle and and went onto another instrument and decided then to pick up the pipes. being able to lay whistle is a huge advantage but if you don’t learn the proper piping technique when playing the pipes whats the point? piping without proper technique sounds boring, its all on one level. in my opinion people like mcgoldrick are guilty of this, being able to play whistel and thinking that they can play PROPER pipiing. il tell you something proper piping is tommy reck, johnny doran, seamus ennis. listening to their playing you can hear the difference between having technique and not having it. tommy reck is the best closed fingered piper ive heard, while johnny doran is the epitomeof the classic traveller pipers. technique is far important than people think.

Right oh … of course technique is secondary:

How many people have you met with poor/little technique who could still play great music?

And how many people have you met with great technique who sounded like robots?

I’m not saying that technique is not important. I’m saying that it pales into insignificance compared to music. Music is not technique and no amount of technique will make you into a musician

“For some the best approach is just to put it under the chin and scrape away.” Marklar

That will explain why it’s taking me so long to learn the flute!! I knew there was something wrong………….

SilverSpear, I don’t think that Michael is saying that technique isn’t important. He’s saying that it can be learned by playing without having to analyze and study what’s going on.

I can’t picture John Doherty studying technique on a conscious level. Not that he didn’t think about bowing, articulation, etc. from time to time, but I picture him learning by imitation, which is really the traditional way to learn fiddle isn’t it? If you want a great fiddler, don’t bother with lessons on music theory and technique, just lock the fiddler in the barn until he/she can play Bonnie Kate 🙂

I guess my point it, just because someone doesn’t study technique consciously doesn’t mean that that person doesn’t learn technique…you can learn by doing, by imitation, by trial and error, which I think is how many folk musicians learn.

There are lots of tutorials online that discuss in detail how to do a roll, complete with dots showing the “notes.” You could read thousands of words about how it’s done, breaking it down step-by-step. And that can be helpful for some people. But you can also learn to do rolls by simply imitating other players and just doing it over and over again, and you won’t end up with inferior technique by relying on your ears and intuition.

For the record I’m the type that does analyze things, but I strongly disagree with the notion that conscious analysis is necessary to master technique.

I’ll admit that when I was learning classical there were some things that did need to be analyzed (music theory, history, etc. was important), but I don’t think that applies to folk music. And maybe that’s where this disagreement is coming from, since a lot of people here have feet planted in both the classical and folk camps.

When it comes to an aural tradition, I really don’t think that anything more is necessary than listening and playing (but I’m not knocking analysis as a tool if you want to use it; I’d be a hypocrite otherwise).

LOL, cross-posted. I guess Michael IS saying technique isn’t so important…that’s what I get for trying to speak for him 🙂

I love these periodic visits to the Department of Architectural Terpsichore. Really, I do. Is there a more human endeavor than effing about the ineffable?

+1 bonus points re: “Terpsichore”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terpsichore

…and a great thread, even if Llig is bugged by it.

I like this Lligism right here:

“…This whole argument is people asking how they can give the music life. I feel that if you need to ask that question you have missed out on something that is fundamental to what music is. You don’t give music life. You are yourself alive. Music is an expression of being alive…”

It’s good fun, Bob. LOL. I think questions of how people learn music are interesting, but I admit to geekiness in this regard and one of my actual projects is how people learn medicine.

Again, speaking for pipes as it’s all I have experience with, no one can just pick up a set of pipes and just be able to play it. Not even Johnny Doran, who learned from his father. Too bad Johnny isn’t around to tell us how he was taught and if his father played and expected him to imitate it or taught technique separately. I think both those methods are valid depending on how the the person learns. I also think at the end of the day both come into play. You can show someone the correct finger motions for playing a cran but at the end of the day they have to listen to lots of pipers, absorb the sound of a cran and integrate it into playing. I don’t believe most people can only listen to a lot of full speed crans and play them no bother, nor do I believe learning the rote technique without lots of listening and internalization will get you anywhere. I’m advocating that both technique and this qualitative process we are calling internalization (for lack of a better term at the moment) are fundamental to playing music correctly. Saying one is secondary to the other makes no sense and does not accurately express how people learn Irish music.

Marklar, when you say conscious analysis, do you mean spending hours contemplating every nuance of a roll? If so I don’t believe that’s necessary, either, but I think someone needs to be like, “you play it this way,” and shows you how you move your fingers. Or watching someone playing and if you’re observant enough to see what they are doing, you can obtain the same information. Either way you still need to listen to lots of music so you know whether your rolls are correct or not and can fix them if necessary.

SilverSpear, by conscious analysis I mean stopping playing to think about what’s going on, like studying notation of a roll or reading about it or any other way of studying it divorced from the subconscious act of playing.

The other approach would be to watch and listen other players and start slapping your fingers around until you get the right sound, by relying on your ears and intuition.

Personally, I started out trying to learn rolls the first way, by reading everything I could find about how it’s done and listening to everyone who would talk to me about it. It didn’t work, no matter what I knew about how to do a roll I couldn’t get my fingers to do one.

But eventually it just happened while practicing. There was a certain spot in a tune I was playing that normally had a roll, and it just started coming out without my thinking about it. It wasn’t quite right at first of course, but it had the basic sound, and the more I played and listened to myself the better I got at it.

The point is that in my case analysis got me nowhere at all, whereas just listening and playing made it eventually happen on a completely subconscious level….I mean I wasn’t even consciously trying to do a roll when it started happening, it was kind of spooky.

Now, you could argue that the analysis laid the groundwork for me to figure it out on a subconscious level. There’s no way to know. But I tried to do it consciously for over a year with no success, I kid you not. Then months after giving that up I got into the tune I was practicing and it just started happening without even trying.

Now that I’ve written about it, I think that it was that experience that formed my attitude about this topic.

But at the end of the day I really think that this idea that you need analysis and study separate from playing to become a good player is coming from the classical world, and is not really valid when it comes to folk music.

You can pick apart the music and study timing, phrasing, etc. if you want to, but you can learn the same things by simply playing and listening. My main objection is to the notion that people who don’t tear apart the music and analyze it only think that they know how to play and have terrible technique; I just don’t think that’s true and I think it’s very arrogant to say so.

i know what you are saying… but i am saying technique is what makes music sound good. technique comprises of even the simplist of things. paddy canny’s playing playing for example SOUNDS simple but there is a huge amount of technique. proper bowing plays a huge part in this. people take simple things for granted slurring is a technique, double stops, triplets, whatever. to the ear is sounds simple but break it down and look at it closely, there is a lot of technique in what sounds like simple music. name off any musicians who you think plays with soul, I guarantee you that this comes about with having some amount of technique. as i said, technique includes simple things. an understanding of great music is not enough, to achieve it some amoutn of technique is required no matter how big or how small. kitty hayes played great music from the heart, but that wasn;t achieved by just ‘playing’. she had good technique, she didnt work solely on this technique, she had the right amount to be able to play the way she wanted. thats what it is all about. its how much you want to emphasise it, she had the amount she wanted and was able then to concentrate on phrasing tunes the way she wanted them to be heard and played them with passion. you cant say that someone is a great soulful player and that they have no technique! they have to have at least some to be able to play the way they do.

people might not realise themselves but if you have a little phrase in a tune and you do some little jump or twist in it, that is technique. its not a case i dont think of whether they have bad or good technique, i think it is how much they emphasise it in their playing.

i also agree with that statement that conscious analysis is not needed to study technique. the greats didnt read it from a book, they just heard it being played and tried to recreate the sound. its music by osmosis, you might not realise if or what you are doing but regardless of this you are doing it all the same, the same as some person who consciously sits down and studies it for months.

I’m not disagreeing with you, however, I think the actual analysis can be helpful in some cases, but if course it will not get you all the way. You need to play and listen. I’d say watch as well -- I love watching good pipers play and can remember the odd thing they did that I liked and try to incorporate it into my own playing. Even that takes a certain amount of experience. A dead beginner couldn’t watch an expert player play at full speed and figure out what he or she is doing.

I don’t think you *need* to tear apart the music but for some that might be helpful. For others, maybe not. It’s pretty well known that individuals respond quite differently to various methods of teaching. To initially learn most musos need it slowed down, broken down, etc. but don’t need to read a PhD thesis on it. This is a complicated question and simple answers like, “just playing and listening will sort you out” are not really helpful, to be honest. You have to know the basics of making your instrument work, you have to learn what you are listening for, and that is not intuitive in all cases, although I imagine it may be more intuitive for people who have grown up around the music.

no you’re right silver s. defo wont get you all the way, but some is needed to give you a kickstart.

Yes, you can define everything you do as technique if you like, every nuance, it doesn’t really matter. The important point is that you are not going to be able to play the subtleties of the timing in this music without hearing it well. Simply hearing it that is, not formally studying it. Studying rolls, for example is utterly pointless, That geezer dickens metronome is testament to that.

And really, it’s the subtleties of the timing that makes it sound the way it should

Aye, so we finally more or less agree! 🙂

Marklar, you tend to take a specific statement and turn it into a ridiculous generalization, apparently just so you can disagree with it. To wit:

“My main objection is to the notion that people who don’t tear apart the music and analyze it only think that they know how to play and have terrible technique; I just don’t think that’s true and I think it’s very arrogant to say so.”

Funny, cuz no one here has said anything of the sort.

My point (miles above in this thread) was that *some* non-analytical players think they sound just fine, while everyone else in the room is cringing at the caterwauling. I never said that this is true of all musicians. “Analyze or fail.” That’s absurd.

But it is true that some--even many--people who’ve never had a lesson, who prefer to remain oblivious to technique and music fundamentals end up sounding like sh!t. We’ve all met them--the rove amongst us. The discussion archives on this site are chock full of threads and comments about “session wreckers” who can’t keep a beat, can’t play in tune, and have tone that would take the skin off a rhinocerous. It’s arrogant to inflict this on other people.

All I’m suggesting is that 30 more years of osmosis isn’t likely to improve these people’s “music.” Yet I’ve found (in 35 years of teaching folk and trad music) that a brief foray into the basics of making a pretty sound can do wonders.

Learning to play music is basically a process of learning to listen. The more you can hear and appreciate, the richer your music will be. Some people ask for help when they realize that they’re not hearing some nuance--and they want to know what to listen for. Hence questions like the one that started this thread.

Sure, we can say, “If you have to ask, you won’t understand the answer.” Big help that is. There’s nothing wrong with explaining the fundamentals, with the aim in mind of internalizing all that so it just happens subconsciously.

Just playing and listening WILL sort you out. If it doesn’t, if you don’t find that advice helpful, then well, I dunno really, I’m at a loss. You must trust your ears. If you have to make a concious effort to learn anything in this music it must be first and foremost to trust your ears

Cheers, Will. You said what I was trying say, except you were clearer.

I will reiterate that playing and listening WILL sort you out IF you have some fundamental understanding of how to listen and play. As Will just said, we have all surely met musos who have been playing for 30 years and nevertheless just caterwaul away at it. Playing alone isn’t enough.

Learn the way the “greats” did--they didn’t get it from a book or studying technique.

Sure, but for every Bobby Casey or Tommy Peoples, there are thousands of fiddlers who sound like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLY8mRu_zVI

play video

He’s never going to sound like Casey or Peoples. Meanwhile, he could benefit from lessons on the fundamentals.

Michael, I agree that listening and playing can sort some people out. You and I both learned that way. Some people have a knack for it (you), and others persevere despite all odds (me).

But there’s a whole ’nuther crowd out there, represented by the gent in the clip I posted just above, who think they are making music when, in reality, they don’t have a clue what to listen for. And they’re so enraptured with their own playing, they never stop to really listen. If you suggest that they simply listen to themselves, and to better players, they still won’t get it. In my experience, the only way to wake them up is to help them listen to specifics--like timing, intonation, tone, attack, dynamics, phrasing. Giving them some specific to focus on helps them hear the gulf between their own playing and that of a Casey or Peoples. Without a specific, they tend to just get defensive and argumentative.

Don’t know if that’s entirely fair Will, we don’t know if the chap in the clip has been playing for a year or 20. If it’s the later then this is no hope of him becoming decent, if it’s the former then he needs encouraged not used as a bad example on the web. I agree with all you are saying though but all the listening in the world does not make a musician. Without technique a great listener will appeal to a very small minority.

Bogman, the guy made and posted that clip himself. I can’t help that.

And it doesn’t really matter how long that particular gent’s been playing. My point is that we all know of long-time players who sound just like that or worse, and who could benefit from some focused listening and playing (which is all that “study” or “technique” really are).

There’s a tendency on this site to pussy foot around pointing out the shortcomings in amateurs’ music. As though it’s somehow bad manners to notice where a musician could stand some improvement.

That really isn’t helpful, though. No one ever improves by being told, “That’s nice” or “Your music flows.” And here we are on a thread where someone is asking for advice on how to improve--what to listen for and how to integrate it into his playing. Why does this always have to turn into a defense of learning music fundamentals? No one is saying that osmosis *never* works or that lots of listening and playing aren’t necessary. Just that for some folks, focusing on the basics for a spell can be helpful.

Radical stuff, dude.

Will, I apologize if I misunderstood you but that’s how I read your post.

If a person can play for decades and be unable to hear that they are playing crap when listening their own playing, then I suggest that that person has latched on to the wrong hobby.

Maybe breaking down the music into things that don’t require a good ear to understand can help someone like that, but it won’t solve the fundamental problem of a bad ear.

Some people can draw. I can’t. I could spend years trying to draw and I would improve some, and some pointers from a good artist might help, but I’d still be crap. Same with music, if you don’t have the ear for it you’ll never be much good, that’s just how it is.

I suppose you’re right Will, Some of the stuff people post of themselves on youtube never ceases to amaze me. (not usually in a good way)

Marklar, I didn’t think I could draw either, till I took a class and had some no-brainer stuff about 2-D pointed out to me.

It’s corny, but the older I get, the more “true” this seems to be: “Whether you think you can or think you can’t, you’re probably right.”

In all my years of teaching, I’ve only run across one person who couldn’t play music and improve at it. He had no rhythm. I suspect it was some sort of neurological disorder. He still enjoyed trying to play Cripple Creek on banjo, and that’s what we did, month after month. I tried every which way to help, and finally told him he might benefit from another teacher, or a different instrument, etc. He said that it didn’t matter--he simply enjoyed the process, even if it wasn’t going anywhere.

On the other hand, I can think of loads of people who didn’t know how to listen very well, and after 3 months or 6 months of lessons, they were happily exploring a whole new aural universe. Are any of them going to be the next Joshua Bell or Tommy Peoples? I doubt it. But neither are any of us on this thread. So what? We can still play and enjoy music.

The point of this thread is: why limit yourself? Instead of caving into the label of a “bad ear,” why not try a different approach? If analysis and technique are giving you what you want, then try a more osmotic, expressive path. If immersion and osmosis aren’t doing it for you, try a more focused approach. Be aware that there are pitfalls in any approach. Find someone to play with. Listen to each other. Listen to yourself the way the other person might hear you.

“Why limit yourself?” is a good question. I don’t think people learning folk music realize how much their attitudes towards music are shaped by the culture around them. And our culture (speaking as a Western North American) has a limited view of the role and purpose of music. People have a long road to hoe just coming to grips with an instrument and getting a few tunes under their belts, but they also have to learn to deal with the attitudes and expectations of the folks they live with. “Oh, you play the flute. Well, you’ll have to come over to our sing-along on Saturday.” Or look at the comments in the thread about people mocking ITM buskers somewhere. For most people, music is another commodity that’s extruded by a machine somewhere (Nashville?), and their main relationship to it is as a consumer.

I keep thinking about this article that I’ve posted here before:

http://www.meghandaum.com/articles_by/art_by_music_bag.html

For me it explains a lot about why people react the way they do to someone learning or playing traditional music. I’d go and listen to Will’s YT example, but I already take a dim view.

The other thing that’s worth mentioning in the context of listening is R. Murray Shafer’s idea that “all sound is music” at least to some extent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Murray_Schafer

Apparently he got into a lot of trouble with the musical establishment for saying this, but it makes a lot of sense. What does “you need to listen more” actually mean to a person who either just doesn’t listen, or who has to tune out much of the sound in their lives because it has no meaning?

That idea helped me a lot when I was starting out, even though I was already a music listener, because it opened my ears to a bunch of possibilities, like the sound of traffic, the little musical phrase gas makes when it goes through a regulator (excuse me), or the amazing amount of tone you can get out of a phone book.

There’s a direct connection with that idea and Charlie Lennon’s tune about “Mowing the Field” or whatever it is. Insert countless other examples here - my current favorite is “Ceol na gCeartan” (the music of the forge; #153 in your hymnals). The other example that appelas to me is Padraig O’Riada’s first cd, where they recorded some of the tracks in a schoolroom with the window open so you could hear some of the outside sounds. In the liner notes he talks about trying to put music back in a more natural context.

Sorry about the tangential diatribe….

M.Gill:

“And really, it’s the subtleties of the timing that makes it sound the way it should”
-M.G. 2008, Oct.28th

Would you not agree that *timing* of all qualities is what “shapes the music” …? to bring me back to my subject line.

And no doubt a player’s own history of learning, listening, quirky pesonality, background, family etc informs that…at the higher levels anyway.

I’m not sure i do agree.

I think there is a thing, unfortunately, about being able to make Irish music sound the way it should by utilising the subtleties of the timing. But I don’t really agree that *timing*, of all qualities, is what “shapes” it.

I think you can make any tune “sound” Irish. (It’s one of my musical shortcomings. I can’t but not do it) but it’s the shape, the melodic shape, that truly defines the genre

Yes, because it’s the melodic structure that suits the reel form or the jig form or the slip jig form. The melodies are molded to fit the forms (and in most cases the dances). Timing helps express that underlying form, but only if you understand (intuitively or more explicitly) the form.

So you don’t “shape” the tune. Instead, the tune shapes your use of timing and all the other elements to suit the form.

Or maybe I’m just full of Guinness….

There was a fella in last night, top bloke, famous for - amongst other things - the way he turns tunes. He had the boys of malin, a pretty common tune and he was saying it was a scottish tune. (I know Malin is in Donegal, but that’s as near as damit to Scotland) Anyway, he played it pretty straight forward and I was agreeing, it certainly had some very scottish sounding turns in it. Then he playing it his way, maybe only 20% diferent, mostly by being less repetative, and the whole thing was transformed into something really really Irish sounding. It was a moment of pure magic. Very clever bloke.

Great anecdote. thanks Michael.
btw…i see your and Will’s point. in previous two posts. the diff tune forms have their own subtleties and possibilities

I wrote above that “the tune shapes your use of timing and all the other elements to suit the form.”

At the same time, you can’t treat all reels, say, the same, just because they’re reels. As Michael says, the melody is paramount. So take two reels (different melodies, obviously), and how you play them must vary (to some extent) if you have any hope of getting to the heart of the matter and making music.

Yes, and that gets at the fact that this music is an aural tradition. There are a lot of subtle things that are conveyed through playing and listening that can’t be explained or written down.

Which is why the two things you need to do to learn to make a tune sound right are to listen and to play. You won’t find the answer to how to make a tune sound right from reading this thread, or from reading anything else.

It’s all in the music. You have to listen and imitate, there’s nothing else that will really help, though we can go on and on and on about the topic anyway, obviously.

Will
for instance, it’s interesting to compare say The Scholar vs. The Wise Maid…..two very different approachces I would think just for the sake of example.

I had the interesting experience of playing The Scholar a couple of years ago. I learned it from a source that was slightly “dotted”….it didn’t sound like a hornpipe, but it didn’t swing full bore ahead the way some reels do. Other players had learned it in a much more ‘straight’ style and found it difficult to follow…although,really, my version wasn’t very idiosyncratic…in fact, I might have got it from Cranitch and I KNOW a very good local piper played it almost the same way. So I’mnot sure where these other two players got their version.

Would that be something along the lines of what you’re talking about?

Yes, mtodd, that’s part of it. Another good example is the difference between a lyrical reel like The Morning Star and and more driving tune like Fintan McManus’ (aka Guns of the Magnificent Seven). Totally different feels.

Marklar, why do you persist to read and participate in a thread whose very premise you disagree with? What’s the point, other than to argue? You say “There are a lot of things conveyed by playing and listening that can’t be explained or written down.” What proof do you have of that? And why should we take your word for it--many generations of great musicians have spent thousands of hours of their lives teaching and mentoring and explaining and writing things down to pass them on to others.

Sure there are some ineffable qualities of music--it’s largely an emotional art form. And certainly you cannot learn to make music without listening and making music yourself. No one here has suggested otherwise. But it’s a fallacy to say that because you MUST listen and play, that no other approach might also be useful and helpful.

Some of us enjoy of the challenge of trying to articulate what making music is all about, and how to do it better. We cannot play music 20 hours a day--there’s time enough to engage in dialogue about it, too. And if you don’t like doing that, or think it’s a waste of time, then consider no longer wasting your time with us here, eh?

Will, if you go back and read the original post, I’m trying to give an honest answer to that. The only “argument” here is that you have a different opinion and seem to take great affront to anyone saying something other than “wow, you’re right Will, you’re so smart.” Nowhere have I said that the things you are talking about are without value, my point is that I don’t think those things will find the answer mtodd is looking for.

Disagree all you want, but lay off of the personal attacks. I’ve been reading your posts for years and while you are generally one of the best contributors here, you have a definite tendency to become hopping mad any time someone contradicts you, especially if it’s someone you think is new here. You seem to have a lot vested in playing the role of an authority figure here and you seem to take any disagreement as a challenge. I didn’t come here to pick a fight with you or to make up stuff to argue about, you are the one being combative and making attacks.

And as for making up stuff to argue about, you’re picking on my statement that “There are a lot of things conveyed by playing and listening that can’t be explained or written down.” Now, that’s true of music in an aural tradition by definition, isn’t it? You know damn well that it’s true, and you’ve probably said the same thing yourself before. Not to mention the generations of great musicians who have spent thousands of hours of their lives passing down the music that way.

Take your ego down a notch. I know you’re a founding member and important here, but neither this board nor this thread revolve around you. Like it or not, I have just as much right to post here as you do, and I would appreciate it if you would voice your disagreements in a more respectful and civil manner.

In any case, dealing with jig taught me that the best thing to do when folks get nasty on the mustard board is to leave and not try to get the last word in, so I’m done with this thread, no point in ruining it for everyone else over us two.

Erm, thanks for all the unasked for psychological profiling and advice. Too bad you don’t have a clue who you’re talking about. Tad presumptious, doncha think?

Cheerio….

😏

I’ve never said that we can’t explain this music. I think it’s relatively easy. As Michael is fond of saying, it’s not rocket science.

In fact, explaining is exactly how it gets passed along from one player to the next, from generation to generation. Very few, if any, people pick it up completely by osmosis--even the people who learn easily and quickly that way benefit from help and tips and demonstrations of how things are done.

Typing and reading an online forum is a distant second best to having a mentor in person. But it’s better than just listening to cds and looking at sheet music….

I’m gonna side with Marklar. Sorry Will.

I’m kind of repeating myself from above, but the original question is very specific. It’s asking what else is there to help you to improve, once you’ve exhausted all the analysis. And your response is more bloody analysis. I’m not knocking your analysis, it’s best I’ve come across, but enough is enough already

No one is trying to substitute analysis for listening and playing. I don’t see Will’s analysis as harmful and indeed, even an attempt to describe what is happening in Irish music may help the original poster so they know what to listen for and think about. No, of course it won’t solve all their problems but it seems to me that it is possible to listen and play for years and never get it. If you bring in the analysis, maybe you can teach people *how* to listen.

My initial answer to mtodd would be listening and osmosis, given way he worded the question, but if you can articulate key elements of the music to focus on when listening or playing, why not illustrate them for others?

No worries Michael. I know we’re closer to agreement than disagreement on this. I think where we differ is in our responses to someone who has tried immersion and osmosis but still doesn’t have the feel, Michael says “I’m at a loss” (and Marklar says you’ve picked the wrong bloody hobby).

See, as a music mentor, I get these people all the time, year after year. If I were at a loss, or told them to quit music and take up knitting, there’d be a lot of sad, wistful knitters around. (Come to think of it, maybe that’s why the thrift stores are alway full of somber, shapeless homemade sweaters….)

No where in mtodd’s initial post did he say he’d tried the analytical approach. He described it as “mechanical” and that’s a different animal. He described teachers who taught tunes, but NOT how to play them. In short, he described going through the motions without understanding why, or how to do the motions, or how to think and feel about the motions. “Mechanical” does indeed sum it up well. But it sounds far from an analytical approach to me.

My response (in this case, having listened to clips of mtodd’s playing) was to take this fuzzy, seemingly ineffable art of music and explain four of its fundamental elements. Understanding what timing or phrasing is certainly requires lots of attentive listening, but for some people (typically the ones who end up asking these sorts of questions), it helps to explain to them exactly what to listen for. A lifetime of listening and immersion won’t amount to much if it’s the lazy way most people “listen” to, say, muzak. It helps LOTS of people to understand what specifically to listen for. We have a simple vocabulary for this--why not use it, especially for aspiring musicians who ask for help?

I guess I’m just not willing to throw up my hands in defeat the second someone says, “I’ve been listening to and trying to play this music for ___ years, and it still doesn’t sound right. What can I do?”

FWIW, I spend the majority of time in lessons just playing with people, and I expect them to spend a chunk of time every day listening to music and playing music. The analytical part is a fairly small piece, time wise, but hugely important in helping people progress to actually making music.

I also have a problem with people who suggest that late bloomers or people who aren’t “naturals” at something should accept their limitations and give up. Few of us would ever learn to walk if we took that advice--we’re not particularly well designed for bipedal motion. It takes perseverance. As do most things. Face it, about the only things we do naturally are breathe, swallow, and flinch. I for one am glad no one discouraged me from moving beyond that level of development….

OK, I’m sure I’m going to regret breaking my rule about not posting again, but there’s a distortion I have to clarify:

When Will says “Marklar says you’ve picked the wrong bloody hobby,” he is taking what I said out of context. I was commenting on the guy in the clip that Will himself posted as an example of someone who was fairly hopeless.

In no way did I imply that mtodd should give up. In fact, the reason I feel I have a right to voice my opinion on this subject is because I had the same problem myself. And you can guess how I solved it.

Will, your second post is completely bogus. You are really going a long way to imply that I said things I didn’t say.

Well, yes, it is possible to listen and play for years and never get it. But it’s not possible to really hear and play for years and never get it. So the conundrum is: how to transform merely listening into propper hearing.

Telling someone what to listen for may help some people, but I’m really not convinced. It sure ain’t gonna help Dickens.

Maybe I’m too fatalistic, but I really believe that if you can’t hear what is infront of your ears, no amount of coaxing can possibly steer you too it. The only thing that can help you is you yourself. You have to steer yourself to listen and hear.

I just don’t get the senario where a student can ask the teacher what to listen for. You can’t tell someone what to listen for, it just doean’t work. Sure, you can point them in the right direction and maybe that will cause something to click in understanding what they are hearing, But there has to be a desire and an open mind to trust your ears on your own. If you don’t have this desire and open mind to do it your self, you are better off giving up and taking up knitting. Either that or some foul-mouthed git will give you a well deserved kicking.

Marklar, you’re the one twisting things.

The guy in the Youtube clip ISN’T HOPELESS--that’s my point. And I certainly never said or implied that your comment was directed at mtodd. If you think I suggested that, then you need more help than I can offer in straightening out your reading comprehension issues.


LOL, Michael, you remind me of a quip from Wilson Mizner: “There’s no use teaching those who refuse to be taught.” 🙂

All I’m saying is that we CAN indeed help someone learn what to listen for. The faculty for attentive listening is there, even if dormant, in lots of people who aren’t making full use of it. I know this because I do it on a daily basis with my students, and also with my session mates. And when a mind opens to the soundscape around it, or to previously missed features of that soundscape, you can see the epiphany as clear as day. And you then hear it in their music.

A simple example of this is teaching someone how to tune a fiddle. When the strings aren’t in tune, most people recognize that it “sounds bad” or “doesn’t sound right.” But very few people notice the beats--the clashing overtones of discordant strings. I demonstrate the beats for them and call their attention to the fluttering wah-wah sound of the beats on strings that are a half-step or so out of tune. Some people have a hard time hearing the beats, so I play two notes in unison--say a fourth finger A on the D string and the open A string above, but with the fingered A slightly flat, so the beats are really easy to hear. I put the fiddle right under their ears and do this, and I describe what to listen for--that fluttering wah wah wah sound inside the tone. Then I show them how the beats get slower the closer the fingered pitch gets to the open string A.

At this point, most people are fascinated because they never heard the beats before, and now they can miss them. And from here on out, they find it much easier to tune their fiddles.

It works, even with people who “need to be taught.”

Off-topic, but of interest to me … This ‘beats’ thing. Obviously they’re there, but I’ve always been a bit puzzled by using them to tune properly. I’d rather do it by just tuning the thing in tune. By reference to the intervals.

Anyway, a comment of no importance … carry on …

No, I think it is important. The method of tuning by listening to the beets is a way for people who can’t tune their instruments to tune their instruments, if you get what I mean.

Is it ultimately pointless? I’m banging on about being able to hear a lot recently, but it’s so fundamental. If you can’t hear when you are in tune, then you are not going to be able to play in tune. (unless you are playing a piano or a fixed reed thing, that someone else has tuned for you, of course).

Yeah. But my point is that if you can’t hear it just by reference to the interval itself, without bothering about the beats, then you can’t hear intervals. Which means you’re *still* not going to be able to play in tune.

“You can’t tell someone what to listen for, it just doesn’t work.” But you do Michael and it does .

Sometime ago you said something along the lines of “loud notes sound as if they start earlier, quite notes as if they start later ” (apologies is I have miss-remembered it). It has taken quite a bit of listening (and watching bow movements in video clips, and messing in Audacity) to get the point where I can think. “Sounds like some of that swing is coming from dynamics rather than just timing and note lengths” (followed by, “I wonder if its possible at speed on a flute”)

No, I think tuning is learned. Like everything else, there are some people who have a natural sense for it and others who have to put more time into developing their ear but it *is* something that can be learned. The percentage of the population that is so hopelessly tone deaf that they simply cannot be trained to do this is minute.

There is a fair bit of anecdotal evidence on this thread showing that it is possible to teach someone what to listen for and how to listen. At Willie Clancy Week Ronan Browne had a class where he showed you how to listen to and closely engage with recordings and yes, analyze different elements so we could talk about how swing, drive, lift etc varied in different styles. Ronan’s a smart guy. Do you think he would have bothered if it were impossible to show people how to listen for these things? As david_h just observed, you yourself have done it. Recently you posted advice on how to learn to listen to yourself playing, and it was really good and helpful.

Is there evidence that listening correctly cannot be taught?

Who are you addressing, Silver? I’m a bit puzzled …

I agree that tuning can be learned - obviously *is* learned - and that teaching can, and does, help.

But I do understand the point that with careful listening and experience on the instrument things should happen by some magical feedback loop without having to analyse it.

(this is the post I didn’t make because I didn’t want to get involved in a side discussion)

And on the other discussion here. I remember that years ago hear someone commented in a discussion that their wife heard a chord as three notes (or however many) whereas they heard is as a chord.

I come into the second category and assume that when I hear two notes in succession I hear an interval that can sound not quite right in some way, but that I hear two out of tune notes together as wrong because of the beats.

Beats are something that people can be told to listen for. A pair of notes or a melody line being ‘in tune’ is altogether more subtle.

(Oh, and by the way Silver Spear, it was the Commhaltas clip of a hornpipe that you posted a link recently that really convinced me about dynamics giving swing even with very ‘straight’ timing)

Sorry, I didn’t mean to give the impression that you can’t be taught stuff. And I know that tuning is learned. There really is no tone deaf medical condition I’ve heard off (there might be one, but I bet it’s very very rare) similar to colour blindess.

It’s just that with this thread in particular, I don’t think there can be any deconstructive analytical ways to shape a tune and make it sound the way it should.

Yes, you can tell someone what to listen for and give examples, but if ultimatly they don’t/can’t hear it, there’s nothing else you can do. Dickens and his rolls are a prime example. I’ve failed with it. What can you do?

Why not simply demonstrate the right way Llig, simply record your self playing. That way you can avoid the difficulties of using words.
I know I would be interested in hearing your l interpretation of some tunes, why not record something that is not even Irish, that way we can hear how you make it sound Irish.
I’m sure you would agree its a far more direct method than discussing it here.

Of course you might say that there are plenty of recordings to demonstrate rolls. I would agree, I like Michael Coleman’s rolls. But still, it might clarify for us the right way to play The Music, as you do seem very definite what the wrong way is, and as you do knock others playing here regularly then would it not be fair and honest to put your own playing up in the spirit of sharing.

There is a world of difference between teaching or advising someone who is willing to listen and interested in learning, i.e. mtodd who asked for help. If someone isn’t any good but convinced that they are brilliant and not interested in advice, then there is f*ck all you can do about it. That is an important distinction.

There is a medical condition for everything these days. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were a tone deaf disorder.

We’ve been through this before:

https://thesession.org/discussions/18142

Basically, I won’t be goaded. It’s not about whether I can play or whether Dickens can play. It’s not an ego thing. I never asked Dickens to record his rolls, I asked him if he could point me to a recording of them on a concertina. I’d still like to hear that.

Matt Molloy:

http://www.soundlantern.com/UpdatedSoundPage.do?ToId=18349

Notes so tasty you could eat them. Music that’s absolutely right…nothing added, nothing to be taken away … amazing in its honestness. I guess that’s the genius of this music in the hands of a genius.

(As a personal aside: I heard something similar once …live with Harry Bradley over here in Hog Town….it was as if the notes were literally visible..I mean they’d got actual corporeal shape/body)….your mind was hearing the notes but the notes might have well been buns popping out of his flute holes …I swear you could see them. It was the most amazing experience!….this was 3-4 years ago now.

He came back the next year but it wasn’t the same magic. Brilliant playing but whatever it was that night, it wasn’t on the menu for the next year. But enough of that.)

I don’t know about the prevalence of tone deafness, but color blindness is fairly common among men - something like one out of ten.

The thing with teaching people to hear the beats, is that then you can teach them to recognize that shimmery sound when the beats go away and the two pitches are in tune. Eventually, they don’t have to listen for the beats anymore--they can tune a fiddle by playing the fifths against each other and listening for that shimmery sound when the fiddle rings because the strings are in tune to each other, not slightly off.

Some people really do seem to need this sort of step by step process, with specifics broken out. In fact, most of the people I’ve ever played music with learn some parts of the music this way, even if they pick up other stuff whole and by osmosis. I know that it’s worked this way for me--tuning came naturally. I sussed out the beats stuff later, and then found it useful mostly to help others understand what “discord” actually means and sounds like. But getting bowed triplets to sound good was more of an analytical process--I could hear the three distinct notes, but I had no idea how to get them that crisp. No amount of mimicking what I heard was getting me any closer to decent sounding triplets. I really had to dig in and take them apart to understand them before I could replicate them. (And you can go to my profile and click on the Sound Lantern link to hear for yourself whether you think my bowed triplets are the real deal or not. I suspect consistency will be a lifelong pursuit. 🙂 )

Cheers for the link, Michael. He makes that flute sing.

If you haven’t heard Matt Molloy playing the Morning Thrush on the Shadows on Stone album, DO IT! It is one of my favourite tracks, ever.

Will hit the nail on the head, saying that some aspects come by osmosis, others must be learned, and that varies widely from person to person. If someone had not analytically broken down the mysterious backstitch into its components parts I would not have figured that one out.

I know you can play, Michael, that’s not the point. The point seems to be whether or not people can be taught how to acquire that ineffable quality that makes Irish music sound good and whether it is something you can analyze or if it is only something that can *only* be obtained through years of listening and osmosis.

There’s a false dichotomy on this thread--people who can and do learn “naturally” through osmosis, and people who learn by breaking out the elements and building them back together again. The real world isn’t like that. Most people learn both ways, sometimes even on the same subject.

Also, people who have a hard time knowing what to listen for aren’t necessarily stuck in that mode for life. For most people, they just need to reawaken their ears--learn to pay attention that way again. A mentor can jog that ability into action, and then the student doesn’t need the mentor any more. I see that happen, regularly.

Dystonia is fairly common, particularly among older folks. Not only do some people lose the ability to differentiate pitches, but pitch itself can change so that a person hears A not at 440 but at 450. And it may affect only a specific range of pitch (typically the higher end of our hearing range). Tone deafness and dystonia are well documented in Oliver Sacks’ latest book, “Musicophilia,” which is a scary but entertaining read about our brains on music and what can go wrong.

Right, so as I see it most people don’t *only* learn by osmosis nor can they only learn by being taught the bare mechanics. The vast majority of musicians will undoubtedly learn with some combination of both, but I doubt that you can quantify or generalize about how much or how little.

Maybe I am reading Michael’s posts incorrectly, but I get the impression that he is saying that you can learn how to play Irish music without analyzing the mechanics of tunes or techniques. I don’t find this to be the case -- there are times when breaking something down is an incredibly useful tool.

See, I told you they have disorders for everything! I was only halfway being flippant. 🙂

The problem with the purely “natural” osmosis learning model is that it sees our brains as mere sponges, absorbing whatever they’re immersed in. While there’s some glimmer of truth in that, neuroscience increasingly shows just how actively our brains are in organizing and reorganizing and shaping all the information that flows in. Our brain’s plasticity (its ability to rewire) doesn’t just react to input--it categorizes input, re-categorizes it, shuffles it around, considers it from several angles, and continues to bounce new input off of it. This is fundamentally a process of analysis and synthesis, over and over. Why should conscious learning be that much different from how our brains work all the time? It isn’t. Osmosis only works if there’s cognitive activity going on in the immersed brain.

Right. This is what I’m saying.

As children, when we learn music, we have so many more synapses, connections, etc. All those fundamentals about how to play the instrument get internalized, as in my case. I put it down for 15 years but never forgot, it all came back to me. I literally was able to hear things and make the fiddle do them, because of all those sound fundamentals I had internalized into my subconscious as a child. Obviously not right away, but just hammering away at listening and imitating, using those sound basics that I don’t consciously think about.

…AND, in fact, if I think about them too much it’s like a golf swing, I’ll break down. I know, I’ve tried. Freezes me cold. Better to just let fly.

Now Llig has often said he’s been playing since a lad, same as me. I’m sure he’s internalized all those basic mechanics and the elements of making decent music, so when he says just listen properly and make it so on your instrument, if you can, like I do, well, we’re both coming from a similar place that folks who start playing as adults can’t appreciate, and vice versa.

OK, perhaps appreciate is the best word, but perhaps fully understand, just as we can’t understand why people can’t just hear the tune, play the tune, or hear the error, fix the error, or hear the ornament, make the ornament, whatever it is.

So yes, you guys are right when you say people learn both ways. In the case of folks who learned the mechanics at an early age, and don’t need to dissect them constantly, because they are able to hear the tune, play the tune, and can listen correctly, well, they have already done that learning portion, it’s internalized, it’s subconscious already. These people can make music. They can hear things and play them. Making that subconscious skill conscious to pick it apart is, like a golf swing, going to munk up the process and be counter-productive.

Darn you all! You’ve sucked me in again! I’m outta here, gonna go find a nice thread to make dirty jokes on. 😛

‘not’ - appreciate NOT the best word

Ian, I agree. I’ve been playing music since I was 7. I don’t analyze anything when I’m playing. In fact, one of my personal gripes about some music is how intellectualized it is.

But we can play “naturally” in part because we’ve internalized the mechanics and how to listen--stuff we *were taught* at an early age.

Why should we expect grown ups to learn without being taught? As if they stepped out of line as kids and missed the handouts, so they’re forever doomed to mediocrity….

And (not pointing any fingers) I’ve raised this point before, but there are many, many musicians who learned as children, left it, and came back who now think they’re naturals and sound terrific, when in fact it’s painfully clear to those around them that their listening and playing abilities aren’t up to snuff. I’d go so far as to say this is one of the more common afflictions at sessions--people who believe their own publicity.

A little self-critique, with an open mind and an ear to specifics, might do wonders.

Hmm silver spear, how do you know he can play? I’m curious, you are assuming so? or you have heard him? But my point was not whether he can play or not, just that he gives out and criticises others without the courage to face the same. He tells us what we ‘should’ and ’shouldn’t do yet can’t or wont demonstrate. He uploads someone else’s playing! Without permission no doubt! Unbelievable.

Anyhow this thread is not about that and I was simply answering llig’s rhetorical question, sorry for the diversion.

One of the satisfactions of learning later in life is recognition that things still do get internalised. To work at learning a tune in D and then sometime later accidentaly play it G is evidence of quite a bit of rearrangement of the synapses.

Some things you just can’t break down. Playing over a drone really did improve my intonation without at any time having to think whether I was too high or low.’ The means of building up the feedback system must be inbuilt into our brains.

Would I want to be taught a golf swing by someone who had internalised it as a kid and never broken it down into steps ? I might be better off just watching them.

Crossed

But nearly added that when it comes to learning from what people say on this board I put “does it make sense to me”, “does this person teach” and “I’ll try it and see if it works” way ahead of wanting to hear clips.

Ionannas - Michael can play great… ….SS knows it and I know it, and anyone who goes to Sandy Bells on the right night knows it. Why he or anyone should be expected to demonstrate their playing on this website is beyond me. I’d rather not do it myself, mostly because i’m actually quite shy, i’m a perfectionist and i’m my own worst critic. Whatever the case, Michael stands on firm ground when he criticises, and appearing to wish that that wasn’t the case isn’t going to get you anywhere.

“I’ll try it and see if it works.”

Yes! As long as it’s not genuinely harmful advice (such as putting blutack on your bridge, or sticking sharpened pencils in your ears), that’s the ticket.

I try out lots of ideas posted on this board, and tips I pick up from other players, to see what sort of mileage I can get out of them. It was a post here that turned me on to Thomastik Vision strings, which I like a lot. I learned a lot from lazyhound’s trick of sliding your left thumb around on the neck to keep it loose, and to make it easier for fourth finger reaches (say to the high c on the e string).

I am sorry for posting that clip of Matt Molloy without permission. I know it’s wrong,, but I did it within the spirit of discussing something with your mates and throwing a record on the the hi-fi as part of the general conversation. Kind of like - back track lads and lasses and cool off with something sublime. When it’s served its other purpose and Dickens has heard it (not that I have much faith that it’ll do any good, but I live in hope) I’ll remove it. Everyone should have that album anyway. If not. get it.

One of the great things about Matt Molloy playing those three jigs (though I’d like to hear him play the third part of the middle tune) is that every little detail of the articulation is laid bare. It shows how simple the music can be. How straight forward it can be. How little you actually need.

I like to think I can play, but uploading myself playing those tunes just wouldn’t be the same. I will not be goaded into the horrid egotistical route of “this is how it’s done and I’ll show you”. I really don’t think there is a place in the music for that.

Lovely playing by Molloy, but the reverb is unnecessary and annoying. Sigh.

"this is how it’s done‘’ That is up to you, but you are doing this all the time here, only you are telling us, not showing us. you are also telling us how bad some of us are, in your opinion, well everyone is entitled to their opinion right enough. You are regularly telling us how ‘Irish’ you sound etc , I just felt you might like to back up your verbose boasting with a demonstration. It appears not. Fine. A man who talks about smashing someone’s fingers with a lump hammer wouldn’t get any respect from me however good he played.

Ha. If I tried to play like that my synapses would say something like “The server encountered an internal error () that prevented it from fulfilling this request.”. Which is what soundlantern just said when I tried to listen to it again.

I don’t think I’m saying “this is how it’s done‘’. I think I’m saying more something along the lines of ”this is a way of how I think it’s done". If I come across as being too preachy and narrow minded then I apologise. Some people wind me up and I get annoyed, I’m sorry, I shouldn’t get annoyed. But that’s life.

I’m also sorry if I came across as a verbose boaster. But surely, posting clips of me playing would make that far far worse?

<<But surely, posting clips of me playing would make that far far worse? >>

Hmm, I’m not sure really, I suppose it depended on your playing. But at least we could make up our own minds. Either your playing really is as good as you make out, in which case well done, or its not , and in that case at least we can judge the efficacy of your approach in that light.
Either way at least you would stand or fall on the strength of your playing alone.

Does it matter? Well I think it would at least put things in perspective. Anyone who doubts you, can hear for them selves the result of your approach. If you want to make a point re, timing, or lift, or whatever, then demonstration would be the clearest method.

I’ve met some amazing musicians who all say michael is really good. Thats enough for me. Trust me - these people would have no qualms in saying someone was sh*te if they were.

… and the above advice is from lonannas is from someone without a bio and who seemingly doesn’t reply to emails when they are sent asking for explanation … just so people know …

from lonannas is from etc etc. Perhaps he/she should do likewise and demonstrate him/herself.

That’s why I finally added some clips to Sound Lantern, so people could hear what all this blathering was about. I know full well that I’m just an average session fiddler, nothing special. I also know that microphones freak me out and I can’t relax and the recordings I post don’t sound as good as I wish they did. But it doesn’t matter. I’ve gotten no few emails thanking me for posting the Roscommon Reel with some of the articulations explained, and I think there’s room for that sort of exchange in our online community. I’d like to hear tunes and tips from other folks, too.

LOL, Michael, the side benefit to posting some clips of yourself is that you can tell all the posers who won’t post anything to feck off…with authority. 😀

(FWIW, I’ve heard clips of Michael’s playing and he is indeed really good, and fun. I’d like to hear more, but not for the reasons Ionannas gives.)

… and Michael … some of us put up clips because it is who we are warts and all … some of us play for the shear joy of playing … no ambition to stardom … should we be ashamed because we aren’t great? No, I think if that is who you are it is the right thing to be open with it … no pretence … but then again I guess you lot could never grasp that one … having it all on a platter so to speak … (or am I just voicing sour grapes … I do hope not … some of us simply love to play full stop)

Problem is, CD, for some of us, the whole recording thing intrudes heavily on the sheer joy. It’s like the difference between losing yourself inside the tune at a session vs. performing a tune for an audience. I tried to get my mind around that for the sake of posting some clips, but it still felt too contrived. Feels too much like using the music for some other end, and that rubs me the wrong way. So I can understand Michael’s resistance to it.

Sorry CD? There is no email from you in my inbox! I think you must have made a mistake there? or perhaps the PM function goofed up?
Will I think its the same for many of us, It certainly is for me. I can play live in front of an audience without problem but am nervous with a recorder going , Its partly feedback I guess, an audience is immediately responsive, while a recorder waits till the end before telling you how it was!

If you go back to that thread:

https://thesession.org/discussions/18142

You’ll see that I do soften. The spirit of sharing does appeal to me. And if that general feeling comes back here (there was a glorious period of friendliness after Jig got booted off) returns, then I may do it. But there is no way I’m gonna do it under these conditions.

However, I’m grateful for the postings of support, and it’s worth noting that I often share tunes via recordings and, heaven forbid , dots, with people on this web-site.

And I have never disguised my real identity or where I can be found in the real world. I spell my name backwards just so that it doesn’t come up with a simple google search, for obvious reasons. And it really really annoys me when people type it the right way round. Dickens does it on purpose and I tell you what, the way he says my name on his “rolls on the concertina” clip really does make me want to smash his fingers with a lump hammer. I’m sorry Ionannas, but listen to that again and see if you can sympathise.

Yep, Ion, playing tunes for people is fine. Playing them into a fecking maching just feels wrong. But I do it for my students all the time, so they can listen at home between lessons.

I didn’t realise it annoyed you to spell your name the right way round … but then I assumed you’d spelt it backwards for different reasons … What about your first name? Is that OK?

btw, I was sorry to have missed you when I passed through Edinburgh earlier in the year. Maybe another time.

I dont think there is any excuse for those words llig. I can see that you have issues between the 2 of you, but do they need to be aired here? He has a right to his opinions as do you, why indulge in personal attacks ? it does no good and lowers the tone of the forum IMO.
You insist above that he has not ‘got rolls’, Whether that is the case or not, was it necessary to refer to that in this thread?
You dont want to post your playing and I totally understand that, Of course not! Think of all the comments you have made about others….

I don’t have personal issues with Dickens at all. I don’t post his real name in a sarcastic sneeriness like he does mine. Of course he has a right to his opinions and I will always defend that right. I don’t even have a problem with his playing, He can play however he likes. I think his music is truly dreadful and with regard to him not getting rolls (amongst other things, of course, but the roll thing is a kind of catalyst), I’ve yet to hear anyone come his defence. I say his music is dreadful, but that’s just me talking. Of course any one else is free to think it’s OK.

Am I in the habit of making comments about others’ playing?

well maybe not specifically - though your characterizations of bad tendencies are so accurate that I often suspect you might be talking about me

Which precisely goes back to what llig said before about the validity of abstract arguments and points. If they’re right, have rational integrity, and stand up to scrutiny, why should it matter what the musical standing of the individual holding the view is. We can’t all be John Kelly, and even if we’re just another punter we might never be able to play like John Kelly even with all the right understanding, approach, attitude and technique. Mind you, I suppose i’d have to have that view as i’m not that great a player at all!

Anyway, if we are going down that line, and given that Ionannas does very little to offer a coherent argument or rational comprehension of approach, the views thus purported must come from someone of very high musical standing, someone we should all respect. I can’t wait to hear your playing Ionannas because I know it must be great.. ..sincerely. I’m expecting something at least as good as my friend Johnny Canning, runner up in All Ireland Senior Fiddle last year.. ..managed, btw while carrying out his hospital house jobs (about the busiest and most stressed one can ever be as a doctor).

What are you on about Jamie? which views are they? do cut and paste so I can see what you are talking about.

The authority on which you ever stand when you comment. Such as your objection to llig here, or your objection to my argument two weeks ago (because i’m not John Kelly and therefore presumably didn’t have the right to the view I held). You nevertheless allow yourself the right to object, i.e. to hold a contrary view, so I presume given your constant emphasis of coming up to the mark, the authority on which you stand must be sincerely substantial.

My objection to llig here is that he talks about lump hammers and fingers, criticises others but wont put his playing up.
Your argument from the other day is….?

<< presumably didn’t have the right to the view I held>>Hmm, thats a strange presumption, you are entitled to your views, as am I.

I’ll remind you… ….knowing nothing about me you conclude:

Ionannas: “There is no ‘should’ about it. This music defies all boundaries beginners such as yourself can put upon it. Were you John Kelly I would consider your words carefully. People can offer their help as they so often do, or not. Its their free choice.”

From this one single post you take a view of principled authority such that you feel quite comfortable and capable in your own right of making a dogmatic statement about the ethics of ITM: that there should be no “shoulds”. You dismiss me as a beginner knowing, unless I’m very much mistaken, nothing at all about me. And evoke the view that the words on the page are only worth considering if they come from someone of the ilk or standing of John Kelly.

Its a strong position to take. I needn’t single out any one view though. Merely the fact you make a point or express a view, at the same time as appealing to the online performance of other contributors who express views on this website is enough.

Hmm, have you removed a link to your playing recently?

I mentioned John because we were chatting the other day at the session and I have a lot of respect for his views and playing.
As far as I can say the dogmatic quote came from you, ITM ‘should’. I simply said that It defies boundaries, the boundaries that you, for example, appear to place upon it. like; >> ITM should be learnt in the context of sessions<<

I’m sorry but that just makes little sense to me, to me sessions are where we go out to play a few tunes . I would almost argue that sessions are t the antithesis of trad, often enough they are a business engagement! I dont know, perhaps it was that statement that led me to believe you were a beginner.? or did you remove a link?

No link i’m afraid.

Well I have no idea then what made me say that? Sorry If I offended you.

To say there should be no “shoulds” is to be even more absolute and dogmatic than me. It is to make an explicit absolute statement that ethics has no place at all in ITM. My “should” in the context of a belief that there is a place for ethics in ITM, allows at least the room for argument and debate about what should and shouldn’t happen. Besides which my complete quote was: “ITM should be learnt in the context of sessions, one to one transmission, and some recordings too” …and the order didn’t imply a hierarchy.

No offense taken, and sorry for harping on myself……

………..I am intrigued, however, to hear your playing.

Ionannas, for the record I have heard Michael play. We live in the same city.

In any case, why should he or anyone else post their playing in order to validate whatever statements they make on this website? I know Will and a few other people did after the mishegoss with Jig and it was really nice to hear them, but it’s not necessary.

To go back to the original point of this thread, I think we are circling around awareness of the learning process. Those who learned music as adults of who teach music to people of all ages and abilities may be more aware of the process of learning and cognition than those who learned it as kids. Children do pick up things faster and with less effort. I really don’t remember the process of learning to ride a horse, as I learned to ride at 6 or 7 years old, but I can remember all too well the painful steps of starting out on pipes, as I was 21. Does anyone here remember each step of learning how to speak their first language? If you are in the “learned as a kid” category, the technique and the basic comprehension of “tune mechanics” will be far more natural than for the average adult learner.

Jumping topics… “Should” is a dangerous word. I agree with Jamie’s characterization of it above but I’m leery of the word as I have heard it used in fairly negative ways I disagree with, i.e. you *shouldn’t* play such-and-such tune on the pipes. Obviously ITM doesn’t exist in an ethical vacuum, there are norms which we can sometimes describe, and there are ideal ways to pass on the tradition, which of course implies less-than-ideal practices exist as well. At the same time it is doesn’t exist outside of the people who play it so it is a bit dodgy to pin it down with immutable absolutes.

Where does this silly notion come from that everyone has a “right” to their own opinions?

I can agree with that only if said opinions are based on a lucid grasp of reality, at least an attempt to inform and educate oneself on the subject(s) and facts relevant to the opinion, and some semblance of rationality.

Ill-informed, poorly thought out, unfounded opinions are a scourge. We may not be able to stop people from holding stupid or dangerous opinions, but neither do we have to tolerate their stupidity and the harm it can do to the rest of us.

As soon as opinions are made public, they’re fair game. Test them--if they’re not based in reality or sanity, if they’re not rational and thoughtful, then they have no standing in rational conversation.

What is offered without reason or evidence can be disregarded without reason.

Will that was a very eloquent response to the problems of free speech. But I do feel that there might have been times where I may have disagreed with your opinion though I do highly respect it, and seeing your opinion made me challenge myself about what I feel even if I have got it wrong. In that sense there is a right to opinion.
Before I heard your sound clips I never doubted the validity of our postings but I suppose hearing you play did give it all a sense of official stamp of approval.
Maybe this should have been sent a private mail but what the hell!
As for MG, I would love to hear him play but it wouldn’t matter if I never did. I take what he says at its face value and I am assured by those who know more than me that he’s good at his music.

Yep, Will, I almost entirely agree with that. However, I do agree with Ionannas that everyone has the right to express a view or opinion… …what they don’t have is any sort of intrinsic right to the inherent validity of the opinion or view they express. As you say, as soon as the view is expressed it is there to be grappled with, criticised and scrutinised; they’re fair game. The problem comes when, in an area with a circle of knowledge, such as ITM, then there are some views that are more right than others, and if everyone thinks their view is equally valid then the body of those who “do” ITM will change what ITM constitutes at an ever increasing rate. Thats one thing that this website can be great for, because it means anyone with the humility to, will have exposure to some quite sensible coherent views apart from their own, which, if they make rational sense, might moderate their own views and attitudes.

Throwing in a opinion not based on reason or evidence can freshen views that are in danger of forgetting their basis and becoming dogma. Through the process of disregarding them *with reason* . I find ‘brainstorming’ an uncomfortable activity and cringe at the term ‘thinking outside the box’. But the basis is that some apparently spurious ideas spring from mental associations that might not be given voice otherwise, or might trigger some of the same.

So yes, opinions offered without reason or evidence *can* be disregarded without reason but it may be a lost opportunity for a rethink and restatement of what is reasoned. Buried in those battles with jig was some interesting stuff uttered in exasperation.

Could even call it ‘discussion’

Yep, there is only subtle differences in our opinions on this.

I think free speech is vital. Everyone should have the inane right to spout what ever thoughts they have, be them eminently sensible or bonkers drivel. And it’s the responsibility of society in general to sort out which is which. It doesn’t really matter how valid you think you are. You certainly should not be given mere credence just because you think you are more credible.

I disagree that what is offered without reason or evidence can be disregarded without reason. It’s kind of the wrong way round. You should attempt to see reason in any argument and if none is found, then it can be disregarded. i.e., you disregard “with” reason.

With specific regards to this music, it’s even more important that you should not be given more credence just because you think you are more credible. The “I’m right. your wrong” argument is always a non starter and that’s one of the reasons I won’t wade in with a clip of my playing.

The other reason I refuse to refuse to record something for you all is that the music it self is not an argument. To put something up invites people to bicker about it. It makes it “fair game”. I know it shouldn’t, but it does.

Cross post there david, we agree about the “with reason” thing

I like the idea that we disregard bad ideas “with” reason. There are a lot of ideas that are just wrong, but we also need to remember that in a lot of issues, there are different approaches, different and different ways at looking at things. And we are better for raising those approaches, discussing them, and learning from the discussion. That is what this part of the ‘yellow board’ is all about, after all.

llig I think you should post a clip of yourself, not for your credibility, but because a lot of people are genuinely curious to hear what you sound like. I’d be really interested to see whether anyone slagged your playing, because it would say more about them than it would about you. I’d also be interested to see which tune(s) you choose to post.

I find the ethics of ITM an interesting subject. What are these ethics? ‘’the should and should nots‘’ and who is to say?
I have heard many opinions over the years and would be curious to hear more. But they are only opinions.
Will’s point about opinions was interesting too, everyone and there cat has one, but not all are equal. I would agree with that, but it creates a hierarchy and who decides the order of that hierarchy? I have to say I view this all with a bit of scepticism. My view that there are no ‘ ethical choices in this music is one that encompasses many forms of ITM. There are certainly people who have very strong views on how ITM should be played, the old guard, and I respect their views, but to say that if we dont play to their standards means that we are not ’doing it right’? I’m not so sure.
Even the old guard accept, and encourage regional variation, so who are we to lay down the ‘law’?

The problems posed by “free speech” in ITM on this website and the ones you might encounter in “real life” are quite different. People are much more responsive to social cues in the real world and you are, either implicitly in your playing or explicitly in what you say, engaging with community norms and values. There is no danger that practices will change what ITM constitutes at its most fundamental levels because there is a large community of players maintaining and teaching those standards. Sure, there are individual sessions where it’s socially acceptable to play off sheet music on your saxophone, but (a) those people would not go to the “more advanced” session and (b) even if you asked them if they would attend session x (assuming they know about it) they would flat-out say no (and maybe come up with excuses like session x is too elitist, but that is by the by). If they did go, they would get a lot of negative reinforcement from session x. This is one of the ways in which the concept of “high level ITM” is continuously applied. You do it by who you allow into your social group and how you interact with them. Social exclusion or inclusion is a far more powerful training tool than telling someone off on the internet.

ITM isn’t that unusual in terms of how epistemic communities delineate“correct” knowledge and expertise. You know yourself, Jamie, that you can’t get anything published in a peer reviewed medical journal if the information you’re proposing doesn’t subscribe to certain standards of knowledge and practice. To be a member of the community of medical practitioners you are trained in a specific way and adopt specific paradigms and methods. Anyone who doesn’t follow normative practices -- for example, a doctor who practices a humoural theory of medicine -- will most likely be censured by the community.

On this website the direct interaction is minimised so anyone with a bone to pick and an opinion *can* post. They can even pretend they are an “expert.” For the most part this is fine -- as Michael and David have more or less said, it gives people the chance to think about stuff, argue it, and engage in debate, which to me is a very healthy thing. A lot of really interesting stuff gets said in these discussions. It is also of dubious risk to ITM. While the advice of someone like Jig could be dangerous to a beginner starting out, even he appeared in the context of the arguments he started so beginners would be exposes to everyone else’s opposing views.

Ionannas, there *is* an ITM hierarchy. It’s not formal like in a university or corporation but at the same time it is undeniable. When someone who is a highly respected player walks into a session, the other players will respond with deference. You can tell at any session which players are towards the top of the hierarchy and which ones are not.

Generally the people who do a lot of experimentation and boundary-pushing in this music have a firm grounding in more “traditional” forms of playing. They are well aware of what they are pushing and the nature of their experimentations. I’m not a hardcore, pure-drop only traditionalist in the least bit, but in order for something to be ITM, even slightly more experimental ITM, it has to have certain recognizable qualities.

Ok but on this website for example, how are beginners to judge the advice given? Surely only in relation to the actual ability of the person giving the advice. If the pond only contains small fish then even a slightly chubby fish is going to seem big.
The consensus of opinion amongst a large group does not automatically reflect reality. It depends on the general knowledge base does it not?

<<You can tell at any session which players are towards the top of the hierarchy and which ones are not. >>

Hmm, thats more to do with who’s gig it is rather than whether the players are super hot, and It wouldn’t surprise me if this situation is very different in different places.

So there are 2 factors in determining this hierarchy then;skill and who’s session it is…. right?

Nope, because the “general knowledge base” is a construct. Knowledge is mediated through social interaction and it is impossible to look at it completely divorced from its social context. Especially when you get into something that is completely constructed like music. We can only describe “correct” ITM within the context of its practitioners who agree on what “correct” ITM is and analyze how those constructs are taught and reinforced. Consensus of opinion reflects the reality of that epistemic group.

There are a lot variables determining hierarchy, from skill, to personality, to who’s session (if anyone’s) it is, etc. My point was that every session has a hierarchy to some degree.

<We can only describe “correct” ITM within the context of its practitioners who agree on what “correct” ITM is>>

Very well put.. and who are they?

“Ok but on this website for example, how are beginners to judge the advice given? Surely only in relation to the actual ability of the person giving the advice.”

When I first started posting here I was a dead beginner, so speaking from experience I can say that it’s fairly straightforward to work out, through the kinds of social interactions you observe on this website, who has legitimate expertise and who does not. There’s no quantitative way to describe it, but the levels of interaction even on an online forum reveal who has knowledge by the qualities of their posts and who the majority of the community accepts as having knowledge.

“They” are all of us. But not all of us have equal say in what constitutes knowledge. It goes back to who has expertise and authority, which of course is determined by the community -- that is, us. Essentially it is a feedback loop or many feedback loops.

as a beginner using this website, I don’t really need to hear or see a clip of somebody in order to weed out the good advice from the bad. There are those that contribute to discussions, and there are those that seem to just want to pick fights with them, not really offering anything pertinent to the topic at hand.
It’s pretty obvious.
well, maybe not pretty…

But thats my point, Is not the majority of the community here isolated from the source and perhaps not fully qualified to judge? Strange ideas can become accepted by a majority and people can be ostracised for disagreeing with that, Is that healthy? Of course we would hope that these strange and wonderful ideas are filtered out, but that depends on the filtering system.

<<“They” are all of us. But not all of us have equal say in what constitutes knowledge. It goes back to who has expertise and authority, which of course is determined by the community -- that is, us. Essentially it is a feedback loop or many feedback loops.>>

Exactly, once again you hit the nail on the head, you may be a beginner in ITM but you could waltz rings round me in this type of discussion!
But if the community is uninformed then that community can create myths which bear no relation to reality, look at the Johnstown mass suicide based upon a delusional myth. How is a community meant to avoid this kind of mass delusion when opinions that disagree with that myth are condemned merely because they disagree?

Hmm. Waiting.

Sorry, was waiting for someone higher up the heirarchy to tackle that from an ITM angle.

A: It is not a closed community.
B: Delusional myths have been done recently but from the outside it just looks like two groups each claiming they are being rational and that the other one suffers from a delusional myth. Goes nowhere.
C. Being close to the source gives no automatic authority. Still have to make a good case in support of an opinion.

three good points there.

It’s not as hard as we think to separate the wheat from the chaff here. I’ve been doing it for a while now, and wyogirl hit the nail right on the head.

Loony ideas or ones that are seriously out of whack become apparent after a while. At first, you have to rely on the ‘elders’ to point out the idiocy. Then, you learn yourself. You combine that with listening to the music, playing the music, listening to and playing with other people, and you are on your way.

Of course, it requires a properly functioning brain versed in critical thinking to do that.

Oh yes, and as Will points out, you have to be honest with yourself, just as honest as you are when you listen to other folks. Please see ‘brain with critical thinking ability’ above. 😉

“…there are many, many musicians who learned as children, left it, and came back who now think they’re naturals and sound terrific, when in fact it’s painfully clear to those around them that their listening and playing abilities aren’t up to snuff. I’d go so far as to say this is one of the more common afflictions at sessions--people who believe their own publicity…”

Loony ideas or ones that are seriously out of whack become apparent>.
hmm You think so? To my mind the opposite occurs here, they are in fact enshrined in the session myths. That’s just my view of course.

>> seriously out of wack >. where? here on the session? or in the larger world of ITM ?

Yes, I can see the problem with dismissing irrational positions without reasoning against them. That’s not really what I meant. Except in cases where you present a rational case that counters the irrational one, but the lunatic keeps insisting he’s (it’s almost always a man, eh? 🙂 ) being logical and is right, dammit. There’s a point of diminishing returns, and it eventually makes more sense to not argue, but simply point out that the other person’s thinking is whacked out. We’ve seen that here on the mustard board no few times.

My “people who believe their own publicity” applies to musical abilities AND reasoning skills. It’s not always an easy thing to know whether you’re being rational or not, and discourse with others can sometimes help sort that out. But some crazy people are utterly convinced of their reasoning and can’t see the leaps and hiccups in their thinking. I suppose at some point you either let them rant, or you distract them with some shiny baubles….

Obviously, I totally agree with the people who chimed in to defend reasoned dialogue in the face of aired opinions, inane and otherwise. I didn’t mean to suggest we shouldn’t reason against poorly formed positions. I suppose some of us just get tired of doing it so frequently. 🙂

And the basis for deciding whom to listen to on this forum is clear--does what they say make sense? Does it hold up to reasoned scrutiny? Playing ability would be low down on my list of criteria for assessing the worth of someone’s posts here.

Ok so where’s the rational case for there being a hierarchy of musical instruments? for example.

https://thesession.org/discussions/6109/

Oh come on, there is no rational argument for there being a hierarchy, certainly not in that thread. In fact the opposite. the rational arguments are against there being any such hierarchy except in the minds of some. Michaels argument rests on spurious logic, taking an assumption for granted when that assumption is itself false.

As ed says
It seems to me that this is an attempt to impose a pre-conceived model on the music. You’re entitled to try this if you want. But don’t be surprised when it breaks down in the face of reality.

Ed.

So its not a myth then is it ?

“And the basis for deciding whom to listen to on this forum is clear--does what they say make sense? Does it hold up to reasoned scrutiny? Playing ability would be low down on my list of criteria for assessing the worth of someone’s posts here.”

I absolutely agree, but you are contradicting your own previous posts in this thread. Your response to a difference in opinion was not a rational analysis of what makes sense, but a combination of personal attacks ultimately backed by a classic logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). And yet you insist that you are the one being rational and logical.

And as for playing ability, you previously said that posting clips of your playing gave you the ability to tell others to “feck off, with authority.” But maybe that was just a rhetorical flourish on your part, I’m not sure how serious you were. But more than once you’ve implied that people who either refuse to post clips or haven’t played in your presence should be suspected as charlatans.

You are a knowledgible, experienced, and valuable member of this community. And your playing is quite good too. But that does not give you the right to insist that you are always in the right and anyone who disagrees is wrong, you still have to make the case and argue the facts, not just attack the other person. Using your reputation and respect as a bludgeon is not a rational argument and can lessen both.

You know Will, I like you and respect you. Have for a long time. Generally your contributions here are valuable and I’ve learned some things from you. But you have a temper that seems to flare up whenever a name you don’t recognize disagrees with you. You can say the other side is irrational and makes no sense all you want, but it carries little weight if you don’t respond rationally yourself.

And if you still don’t believe me about your attacks and your reliance on appeals to authority, think on this: you treated me very differently before I changed my user name. How much are you reacting to the content of posts, versus the name underneath?

So then why does it crop up so often? That discussion was years go, yet the same line is being peddled here still in one guise or other; The ‘required articulation,’ required by who precisely?
Anyhow I’m glad that the hierarchy bull is not a session myth.Though we were talking about hierarchies on this thread earlier,
So of course the guitar and bodhran are welcome additions to a session then?

To post or not to post on SL that is the question….

What if Llig had written only nonsense on this board from day one? opinionated nonsense or otherwise?

Would anyone be interested in the validity of his playing?

What if he was a fecking brillo player? BUT he posted absolute drivel sh*te? what would we do then?

the tautology above is: your opinion is only as worthwhile/good as your playing…

I thing what Michael has said is, to paraphrase and put words in his mouth, “accept my opinion for what it’s worth based on your own knowledge of the music and how my knowledge either confirms your knowledge or even, hopefully, illuminates some new point for you. If it does not do that, hey….”

that’s how I interpret this anyway. sorry if i misrepresnt anyone.

Screetch (your name change never lost me--I’ve know it was you all along), you’re the one who started off implying I was being arrogant. And I’m sorry if you feel personally attacked, but I can’t see where I’ve done that, in this thread or elsewhere. I’ve certainly challenged some blanket absolutist statements you’ve made here without any substantiation (e.g., “To sound right it has to be fast and relaxed.”The “has to” implies that this music doesn’t sound right if it’s not played “fast.” And that just doesn’t hold up when you consider all the lift and pulse and life good players get at any tempo. Lots of great players in this tradition are known for their slow, lyrical approach to the tunes. I don’t like seeing the myth of speed promulgated--it too easily leads less experienced players astray.) Besides, lately, you seem to think all my posts are aimed at you, personally. And they’re not.

Where the ’ell did I make an appeal to authority???? Sure, sometimes I’ll cite some brilliant player as a source of info or advice, but that’s not to imply that we should all simply take their word for it. Rather, I’m just noting that *I’m* not the source of said info.

Yes, the “feck off” bit was all in fun, and I didn’t say it gave *me* that authority--I was slagging Michael--he’s the one who likes to tell people off. Did you somehow miss the big grin ( 😀 ) emoticon on that post?

Screetch, many times in this thread I’ve talked about how ***some*** people approach this music, and you’ve taken it as though I’m generalizing to *all* people. When I said some people who learn by osmosis don’t sound as good as they think they do, you became defensive as though I’d said “you and everyone else who learns by osmosis suck.” Which I clearly never said. And it wouldn’t make any sense if I did because ***I*** learn primarily through osmosis--as I’ve said many times, I use a more analytical approach only when I need to understand what I’m doing so I can explain it to my students.

Criminently, I don’t have *any* problem with *anyone* disagreeing with me. But there’s a difference between disagreeing in a reasoned way, responding to substantive points with your own substantive points, vs. misrepresenting what was said, ignoring the substantive points, and complaining about personal attacks.

I’ve long enjoyed your contributions here, Screetch, but the whole planet Marklar theme seems to have untethered you.

Ah Ionannas, if only we taught all people how to critically think, the world would be a much better place, not just our little slice of it.

Unfortunately, most education is regurgitation of facts without processing them and thinking about them, which leads to situations like you mention, both here and in the world.

End of rant.

Ion, I too have been uncomfortable with Michael’s theory on the hierarchy of instruments and the resulting (alleged) criteria for what constitutes “proper” articulations. But I think I understand where he’s coming from.

A. Traditions change (if they’re to remain living), but they do so fairly slowly--that’s an essential aspect of what makes a tradition “traditional.” Rapid change isn’t typically thought of as a traditional characteristic.

B. This particular traditional music went through a long period where pipes, whistle, fiddle, and eventually flute became well established instruments for playing this music. Other instruments were far less common within the tradition, or absent all together.

C. Players of the established instruments (“The Gang of Four” 😉 ) developed approaches to articulation that tightly mimicked one another because they liked what they heard and for the sake of sounding “traditional.” It also helped them play in unison. This went on for generations.

D. Some people began to use other instruments to play this music: concertina, banjo, accordion, and so on. They too developed approaches to articulation intended to mimic the Gang of Four.

E. Each instrument also features articulations peculiar to that instrument.

F. For some people, the jury is still out on how well the late-comers blend in or whether their articulations sound “right” when played with the Gang of Four.

Mind you, this isn’t *my* theory nor my belief. It’s just how I understand what I’ve seen Michael and others posit. (Apologies if I’ve misrepresented any part of this as well. Just trying to help move the conversation forward.)

FWIW, I don’t find it all that productive to categorize and label instruments. I’d rather just enjoy playing music with people. But I do understand that sometimes the nature of an instrument or a player’s approach to this music on an instrument can lessen the enjoyment factor of a session.

I have not been following this thread.
Hope my just added discussion is considered to be about heirarchies or proper use of articulation.
I might have to read this thread. All I want to do is session.
Cheers!

Er, I think you’re right Will, it’s my attitude that has changed and I must be misreading you, now that I read over it. Not sure why, but I’m going though a difficult time right now for various reasons, so maybe I’m just lashing out at whatever’s at hand. Not sure, but I’m more than happy to end it.

No worries Marklar--we just got off on the wrong foot on this thread. Sheet happens. (Besides, it’s not like I didn’t get a bit touchy and sarcastic for no good reason. Takes two to tango. 🙂 )

Stick around--it’s getting interesting. 🙂

<<They too developed approaches to articulation intended to mimic the Gang of Four>>This went on for generations.>> Where is the evidence for this? historical records etc? do they exist at all?

Is it really true? or a myth propagated by fiddlers and pipers? 🙂

The first thought that came to my head was about the hierarchies of instruments. I mean I’m sure it is a reality if people want to make it so, thats up to them. What the point is apart for ego building I dont know.

But it was just the first thought that came to mind, another one was the difference between ornaments and articulations I just saw on random’s thread. This Is, IMO another session myth that is not based in reality, but just a divisive line to separate those ‘in the know’ and those not. Now , rereading your post will you are in the ‘articulations camp’, so you must have a reasoned argument for why you choose to use this term ? Id be interested to hear it, or is there a previous discussion you could link to perhaps?

Not just a session myth. Grey Larsen returns to the distinction repeatedly in his flute book. But I will shut up before I am accused of ‘appeals to authority’. Back to snooze by my pint in the corner with half an ear open.

Ages since I learned a new word on two successive days (mishegoss, criminently).

Ion, see Random’s thread, where I just explained why I use the term “articulations.” (We’re posting simultaneously, it seems.)

I think the evidence for musicians developing articulations on their particular instruments comes in several forms.

Some early written collections include notated rolls and cuts and other grace notes. This was carried forward into O’Neill’s and Breathnach’s work, often showing the twiddly bits from a variety of different instruments. Looking at those twiddly bits shows some consistency of usage across instruments, as well as where their approach to articulation diverges.

Recordings document the same sort of thing, although over a shorter history. But starting with the earliest ceili band recordings in the first years of the 1900s, you can hear various instruments playing in unison and doing their best to play twiddly bits all together in a way that blends tightly.

Other evidence seems more anecdotal and just a part of the lore, so no doubt some of it is “myth.” But I’ve known at least two generations of trad players who talk about ways to mimic the pipes on flute or fiddle, as well as on concertina and accordion. In many cases, these musicians cite older players from previous generations as the source for such ideas. A famous example is New England fiddler Frank Ferrel who tells his listeners to close their eyes while he launches into an old Irish or Scottish tune and makes his fiddle sound remarkably like the pipes not just in the twiddly bits but also the overall tone.

SS: “They” are all of us. But not all of us have equal say in what constitutes knowledge. It goes back to who has expertise and authority, which of course is determined by the community -- that is, us. Essentially it is a feedback loop or many feedback loops.

I couldn’t disagree more. That’s not what ethics is about at all. Your long post above seems to describe ITM merely in terms of psychological phenomenon rather than recognizing an ethical dynamic within it. Not wishing to lay myself prone to the same fire that Cardinal O’Brien recently received, but it seems apt to point out that when the system comes down to community determination, the community is prone to go very wrong, such as how the people of Germany in the early 1930s went wrong in their total obsession with a new Germany they could be proud of. Ethics is not a mere average determination of a community, in fact, often it is the single member of a community having the courage to stand up in opposition to what a community is doing or saying (not that that sort of conscientious objection is the sort of thing likely or at all necessary in ITM.. ..but that wasn’t my point)! Coming back to ITM, what matters is the attitude of the individual to ITM, not what some individuals of expertise or authority have to say! What a few individuals of apparent authority say is secondary to some sort of principled approach, such as llig outlined previously:

“I think it boils down to ego. Traditional Irish music is ego free. The best of it has the overriding respect for the myriad of personal contributions over the ages that have created it. You put the music first, not your own personal contribution to it. And this means you have to learn it properly. Learn how it has been played and learn how it is played by the best proponents of it now.”

I’m not very interested in obsessing over a hierarchy of instruments, but notice, Ionannas how the notion of a hierarchy of instruments might emerge from the above attitude. Certain instruments, more than others, helped to shape the tunes, in composition or in evolution, such that they are an essential, but historical aspect of the tradition. That might not appear relevant or important at all to you, but if you stand ego free in front of the body of ITM knowledge that you have a genuine admiration, love and respect for, you inevitably realise that some instruments are an older and more fundamental contributor than others to what you enjoy today. Would you be the first to invite Seamus O’Donnell to all your favourite sessions telling him to leave his flute behind and bring his sax? And would you be the first to invite any sax player who has the eventual ability to get to his level of trad sax to come to all your sessions too? He’s a mighty player on both instruments (and of course a good singer), but if that wouldn’t be your preference, why not? Sure, the reality is that traditions evolve, and new instruments will inevitably be incorporated along the way… …but what seems important to me is that the individual takes a humble non-egotistical approach and consequently the rate at which the tradition evolves will be less than it might otherwise be!

I might add that while I love the sound of a good guitar accompanist in the session, I do notice that when the tunes of a group of good trad instrumentalists are played without accompaniment, the inferred harmonies from temporally close intervals, and to an extent synchronous melodic variation, can be a damn site more complicated than the sequential chord driven progressions that guitar accompaniment tends to force the tunes along. Eventually those harmonically complex aspects of the tune will be lost in the slow drift of evolution in accordance with guitars as an integral ITM instrument. It’s just an observation and suggests no necessary compunction, but it is one of the reasons why I enjoy and find something particularly unique about unaccompanied ITM. As for: “The ‘required articulation,’ required by whom precisely?” I would say: “Required” by the non ego driven individuals who want and are motivated to do justice to the music they love and are in the process of discovering!

You guys need to get out more….

We were!

You were? Sheesh. You need to share the bottle of wine I’m drinking…a nice mellow Aussie white.

I’d prefer a nice New Zealand white, but I’ve been out all w/e drinking Caledonian 80/s and playing tunes………

Excellent post Jamie. I would agree with most of your points. However there are some I would question.
For example, the sax, I think that any musical happening of quality inevitably has a balance of instruments. So a sax would be out of place in an average session right enough, but not because of a hierarchy, but simply from a point of aural balance. Were the session to include guitar and bass, banjo, pipes and box then I would ask Seamus to bring the sax without a doubt.

As to required articulation, I would posit that your understanding is a complete reversal. That they are only required by egotistic individuals who are motivated by their own ego’s mainly. I feel that this is the case for a number of reasons. Firstly its quite obvious to me that excellent trad can be played with minimal ornamentation. [unless , of course, you feel that ornamentation is required’ in which case obviously you will feel it is lacking.]
I Have the pleasure of talking and playing with some excellent musicians who are deeply rooted, for generations, within the tradition, and they simply do not require ornamentation. There for I have to wonder at the attitude that there is any requirement for ornamentation other than in people detached from the tradition.. There are certain requirements for public performance all right, but ornaments are not one of them, in my opinion and that of the folk I chat and play with.

Now I suppose this discussion needs to clarify something, ornaments and articulations. To me they are different. Ornaments are rolls cuts, taps, double stops slides etc. [left handed on the fiddle] Articulation’s are the different way we pronounce the music. So I wonder if we are actually talking about different things? Although according to my understanding llig will and yourself use‘ articulations’ to mean ‘ornaments’…

I’m glad Jamie quoted that “ego free” quote from me, above. Thanks Jamie.

I think the reason I prefer the word articulation over ornament is because I can’t seem to differentiate between what is “tune” and what is “twiddley bit”. Sure, some players play with hardly any twiddley bits and others play with lots. Or more accurately, some players play mostly with hardly any twiddley bits and others play mostly with lots. But they all articulate.

But then again, I’m becoming increasingly tired of trying to explain any of this. Words literally escape me. I use words and people take them to mean something completely different from how I intended. It’s very frustrating, so I’m gonna see if I can give up on it.

In practice, you just play tunes. I suppose that if you are starting out on your journey with this music, and especially if you are learning tunes from sheet music, you probably will be making differentiations between what you may refer to your bones of the tune and how you might decorate it. But I think it’s quite important to be able to loose these distinctions, to play more freely and to not compartmentalise the notes that come out. It’s all just tune, as simple or as complicated as you want to make it.

I’m trying to back to the basics of the title of this interesting thread.

I think that it’s a difficult thing to say that there is such a thing as “sound the way it should”, because there are so many different ways the music can and does sound. As many, in fact, as there are individuals who play it. But if I can quote from myself above, if you have “the overriding respect for the myriad of personal contributions over the ages that have created the music … you put the music first, not your own personal contribution to it,” then shaping the tune into something that sounds the way it should, should not be a problem.

(provided, of course, you can hear)

I think llig made some very good points there.

Maybe the problem could stem from trying to make it sound as it ‘should’. Rather than just playing tunes to the best of your ability and enjoying the process.Perhaps there is too much ‘attention’ being focussed on ‘the process’ thereby distracting from the ‘actual’ process, 2 minds so to speak.

Perhaps its the desire to be something you are not that is interfering with the result? This is actually one of the reasons I think its wise to deal with technique as a separate issue to the making of music. That way the concentration is not lost on attempting to deal with various tricky details. You are free to just play.

I feel that attempting to stretch your boundaries is not a process to be dealt with while you are playing. The ornaments, tricky passages, intonation, etc are dealt with at a different time and head space to the relaxed and free flow of play. This is my philosophy in a nutshell.

So my advice, if its not sounding as it ‘should’, would be to accept firstly that its not possible to sound like our role models, be in Bobby Casey, or John Doherty or anywhere in between in a few years. It didn’t take them a few years!
Secondly, reduce rather than add on. simplify to a point where you are able to play, flow, without technical issues distracting you. That’s how it ‘should’ sound. It should sound like you playing at your level. whatever that might be. not trying to be something you are not, just be yourself. In time with application, you will one day start to approach the sound you feel you are capable of and aspire to.

Ionannass, thank christ we are agreeing. I completely agree, nae applaud. Thanks for that clarity. Succinct and important.

That’s one S in Ionannas….😉

Well that is really something. After reading through all this thread I finally get to a posting that really makes sense to me (Ionannas) and as a bonus I find llig agrees.

Just curious…has anyone else on this thread actually listened to mtodd’s clips posted on Soundlantern?

I have done, Will. Is that curiosity leading somewhere?

Some thought provoking stuff starting on 1st November. I am particularly drawn to Ionannas’s paragraph starting “Secondly, reduce rather than add on.. ” and hope anyone who disagrees with it explains well.

I don’t disagree with Ion’s advice there. That’s why in my earliest posts on this thread, I suggested going back to the fundamentals--paying attention to attack, dynamics, timing, and phrasing. Using these qualities, you can create nyah without any twiddly bits. Timing is probably the most important.

That’s a pretty minimalist suggestion.

And timing is shape. And shape is irrespective of ego and twiddley bits. Shape can be minimalist, but that doesn’t mean it’s simple to achieve.

And if it were so easy to just scrape away and somehow magically arrive at that/those wonderful sound[s] -- a multicplicity of approaches to [a] tune[s] -- then we’d have many more good players than we do with with a good solid swing, rhythm and *dance* feel to their music. In other words lots of “nyah”.


And we do not.

And that’s my point.

Cheers, mtodd. A succinct but very good point.

I can pontificate theory all day but to be honest I have little in the way of practical advice, as I am a pretty rubbish player myself and barely have a clue about creating “nyah.”

I have to agree with will there. I think he hit the nail on the head as regards ‘creating’ Nyah. I cant say I have ever approached my music in that fashion, and in that depth, but listening to the soundlantern link I would agree that the stretching of certain notes to create swing would be the way to go. Of course actually playing along with a recording or a live player with this quality could achieve the same effect.
Also attack and dynamics.
The shaping of individual notes with a soft begining. This can be practised separately getting louder then softer on single notes using a long bow.

A tune that helped me in this was Farewell to Erin. At a slow pace . Imagining the ship rocking with the swell., and let the tune do the same, exaggerating the swing. Saddle the pony also, another descriptive piece,https://thesession.org/tunes/307
Imagine tackling up with a nice soft swing then setting off with a bit more life to it. A great tune to ‘put’ some ‘nyah ’ into.

Approach these 2 tunes at a nice soft pace. Treat them as you would[should?] any tune, with care, attention respect and affection. Be gentle with them, stroke the notes softly . Try to imagine that each note swells up from the earth, from your heart… Try to reach the soul of the tune, Don’t skim the surface superficially but feel the longing in Farewell to Erin, feel the working mans love and respect for his one pony.

All to often the music is approached with the mindset of a fast moving 20/21st century, fast cars and instant gratification through the media. These tunes are from another time. To really get inside them requires a different approach than perhaps we are used to in this day and age.

See, even Ionannas is now using words to explain how to put hyah into your playing. 😉

And it’s well put, too. That’s just the sort of stuff I do with my students--explain the technique while describing and modeling the nyah you’re after. How we touch each note with the bow is what allows us to vary from soft sounds to edgy sounds, from a whisper to a roar, from lilting to driving, etc.

I find most people respond well to descriptions of how it *feels* to play this way, how it *feels,* for example, to flex your bow hand rather than playing with rigid fingers and wrist. And that all helps players uncover the nyah in the music and in their own playing.

Listen to mtodds clips on Sound Lantern. Sounds to me like he’s got it fairly sussed out on the jigs. Heh, the first time Kevin Burke asked me to play a tune for him, I played a jig. And he said, “Well anyone can play jigs. Let’s sort the men from the boys with a reel, then, eh?” 🙂 And so mtodd’s woodshedding his reels (aren’t we all?).

Ionannas
I agree, Saddle the Pony is a lovely descriptive tune where you can get the up/down of the notes to mimic the act of riding…I think oft overlooked also is Out on the Ocean….when played well it’s a joy and a joy to play -- for the same reasons. There are a lot of tunes like that in the music it seems….the Foxhunter’s reel and jig being another prime example I suppose. I was playing it and trying for that feel just the other day in fact [saddle the pony].

Will’s comment vis a vis Burke made me laugh. I heard an old timer once say something similar along the lines of “well, sure, reels are fine, but it’s *the airs* that separate the men from the boys” or it might have been “the wheat from the chaff” 🙂

But I think jigs *are* a bit easier to get a handle on…in terms of their shape/sound that is, once you’ve had some bow patterns suggested [surring 3/4 for instance and 6/1]….reels tho are another matter entirely. There seem to be more choices and, by and large, they’re probably faster…in other words for people grappling with trying to sort through and find some kind of sound that swings, reels are a bit of a challenge.

What often happens is they end up sounding square, slurs are in the ‘wrong’ spot or they end up 2 notes per bow which also gives a square feel. Once you’re onto the idea of varying bowing patterns [3311; 1313; 1133; 2 13 2slur1; etc,] I think you begin to appreciate how a tune gets “shaped” for better or worse…and the inexhaustible ways to come at the music….

Ionannas, you wrote:

“All to often the music is approached with the mindset of a fast moving 20/21st century, …..To really get inside them requires a different approach than perhaps we are used to in this day and age.”


well said. hear, hear to that.

Well to be honest I wouldn’t have a clue about bowing patterns. 🙂 never thought about it.
Reels dont ‘have’ to be fast, unless you are playing for dancers. To get the hang of reels I think its handy to play them reel slow with lots of swing, stretch the first note almost exaggerate it at first clipping the second to keep your beat.

Vincent Broderick’s tunes tend to be descriptive.

I have listened to Mtodds tracks on sound lantern,I like his style of playing,and think he sounds good for someone playing eight years.enjoyable ,thankyou mtodd.

“I can’t picture John Doherty studying technique on a conscious level”

I can.

I bet you his technique was second to none and I bet he put many a hard hour in perfecting it.

Statements like that demean the musician. Do you think he just drank his craft out of his mummy’s tit?

🙂

What I should have said is that anyone with half an ear and half a brain to go with it would hear J D’s playing as technically innovative. Sure, so he listened and emulated Scott Skinner… Was that unconscious? Bollox was it. The end result was sublime.

Regarding the vague argument that runs through this thread: on the one hand the really good traditional musicians have the sound in their head, yeah fine, and chrishty summed it up quite well earlier. But they still put the work in. And if that isn’t developing technique, then call it what you will…

Conclusion: saturation - technique = music
saturation + technique = music
technique - saturation = nasty
- technique - saturation = people I avoid like the plague

there’s nothing to disagree with that logic equation. However, it can be simplified when you take into account that:

saturation -> technique.

In that technique is a byproduct of saturation

So what is saturation?
Is that going to session every night of the week?

Excuse me? so a listener who saturates him/her self with the music will become a great player? If that was all it took! No of course not, they must first pick up an instrument and figure out how to get a sound out of it… technique.


An instrument like the Uilleann pipes for example can not just be picked up and ‘scraped away at’ if you think it can, play us a tune. yeah right! I wont hold my breath.

I know a really great uilleann piper who has devoted so much time on pipes that he cannot keep an embochure on flute.
All about choices.

I’m nearly 50 years old. In all that time I’ve never met a completely natural musician--one who never had to woodshed. And that includes singers. The people who never spent any time woodshedding sound terrible. Every decent musician I’ve ever talked to tells stories about learning their instrument and the music. Most of them talk about thousands of hours honing the twiddly bits and other particulars.

Of course, a lot of that time is spent in listening and playing. But it’s not just simple immersion or saturation. It’s conscious, attentive, careful listening and playing that turns a knack for music into genuine nyah.

sorry Ionannas, yes, the saturation includes listening and playing. (including, vitally, listening to your self)

is technique a byproduct?

Yes, I think so. It’s a by product of making music. It’s certainly not an end in itself. Least ways, anyone I’ve ever met who did think it was an end in itself was a dreadful musician

Hmmm. I think technique *can* be a byproduct, and your skills will improve the better your learn to listen and strive to reproduce the sounds you hear and want to make.

But that’s just one approach to learning technique, and not necessarily the best way, especially for people whose listening abilities are rusty or dormant. Plus, not everyone has the same level of physical coordination--it takes some people longer than others to suss out how to control a fiddle bow, for instance. But that doesn’t mean that they aren’t highly musical.

For such folks, spending some time focused on technical basics and chops isn’t an end in itself but a means to unlock their musicality.

If your listening abilities are rusty or dormant, then no amount of focusing on technique will make you a better musician

I disagree. Technical aspects of playing can help you learn to listen more closely and with more understanding.

For example, focusing on how to make a strong, clear tone with your bow is one way to learn how to listen more specifically to what tone is and what its various qualities can be.

Not everyone “gets it” straight off, holistically. Some people benefit from learning about the specific bits, like tone and intonation and timing, and combining the bits into a musical whole.

Seems silly to even debate this.

And your listening doesn’t have to be rusty to benefit from focusing on some specific aspect of your music. My son is a very good guitar player. Can play everything from classic 50s rock to the latest metal. Rock solid rhythm across a huge range, from rockabilly to reggae, blues to grunge, etc.

A few months back he asked me to teach him how to play 5-string banjo. I showed him some rolls (picking patterns) and we worked up a solo for Cripple Creek. A week later, he was playing the tune and most of it sounded fine. But he was swinging the picking, just slightly elongating the downbeat thumb pick. I pointed that out to him and played the pattern straight, then Cripple Creek with no swing. And I told him what the difference was (swing = longer downbeat, straight = even note lengths throughout the picking pattern). It took him another 20 minutes or so to iron out the timing.

Yes, he probably would’ve eventually sussed it out on his own, but this approach worked too, and saved him another week of wondering why it didn’t sound right.

He’s quick to pick up such things, and usually gets them on his own. But every once in a while, he uses me as a sounding board, to ask about what I hear when he plays. I think that’s a healthy way to grow as a musician.

Funny how millions of musicians learn this way, across all genres, on all instruments. Why dismiss it here?

Saturation… I meant by that the way that your brain becomes completely familiar with the subtleties be through hearing them as a child or diligent stuff as an adult. What I meant by it was “Knowing how it’s meant to sound, at all levels of subtlety.”

Like breathing, or eating, or the other end of the carcass.

… be [it] through…

“As soon as opinions are made public, they’re fair game. Test them--if they’re not based in reality or sanity, if they’re not rational and thoughtful, then they have no standing in rational conversation.”

I agree with the premise. But, keep your remarks on reality and sanity to yourself, Will. Reality and sanity are two quite separate arenas, and people who inhabit both and others from time to time will quickly tell you not to mess with stuff you don’t understand. Grrrr.

It’s the least understood prejudice, and time for it to stop.

I’m just fed up with the continual stimatizing of people with mental health problems. My early new year’s resolution, so to speak, to call it out.

ha! That “least” should have been a “most”! Hoisted… petard… etc…


I take solace in the fact that perhaps only one in ten know what a petard is…

hmmm. correction.

STET

Main Point: There is a huge F U C K I N G difference between the Insane and the Stupid.

Don’t tar with the same brush.

Sigh.

Yes, I think there is a difference between insane and stupid. But the insane can often be as stupid as the sane. That “jig” fellow clearly had some mental health problems, but he was stupid too. And I’m not saying the one had necessarily anything to do with the other.

Sorry, I was off on one.

Perhaps the whole debate about *how* one learns this music, or absorbs it, or develops one’s chops to play it and shape it comes down to a middle ground between the Llig and Will camps. I’m not so sure it’s a cart before the horse question….that is, listening giving rise to technique/technique giving rise to better listening. I think it’s likely that a number of things more or less have to happen at the same time…that is, a simultaneous give and take between the camps.

At various points in your development [listening or playing] wouldn’t you want to be emphasizing one thing over another for the short term? (But, ultimately, of course music is meant to be heard and listened to, so the whole ultimate goal in this is to be a skilled listener which no doubt will play itself out in becomming a more skilled player. )

I’m guessing the process is probably more what Will is suggesting and that is a flow back and forth between technique and *acute"* [ie, honest] listening [to reference Llig’s points] not only to other players [cds] but to *oneself*.

On the one hand, woodshedding might [most definitely, I’d argue] heighten one’s brain’/ears sensitivity to recognizing patterns or ways of attack, dynamics in the music…whatever you want to call it…the colour of the tune, its particular swing etc.But also acute listening…or honest listening if you will…would avoid the pitfalls of “I think that’s the way it sounds” when, in fact, it doesn’t.

I can’t believe it’s solely black and white as Llig seems to keep hammering on. Yes truly hearing is important, but why not use every means available to help us get there -- or closer to it. That just seems to make sense to me.

Musicianship IS technical as well as emotional…you have to figure out how to access both. And if one heightens or suddenly illumines aspects of the other, then great. Whatever works.

Is it better to scrape away in isolation and darkness for months or years? or get the benefit of someone who might help you along the road…..

isn’t that called The Tradition? tradition isn’t isolation, it’s passing it on….how to listen, how to play.

Both things it seems to me.

No worries mutatis.

I was having an off day myself when I went off on that rant about irrational opinions.

If you removed the “I disagree” from Will’s post, and maybe replaced it with “But”, the sense of the first paragraph would flow nicely from llig’s post just before it. I think.

Hmmm. Nope, I think I really am disagreeing with Michael’s expressed view there.

You 2 seem to learn from one anothers’ comments. Right?

Yes. “Two minds are better than one” only if they contain different ideas. I learn a lot from Michael, no doubt more than he learns from me.

If that’s what you meant.

Or are you getting at something else?

Some day you will have to get together & play some tunes.

Yes, I’d like that very much, and we’ve talked about it. Unfortunately, there appear to be some difficulties with an intervening 3,000 miles of ocean….

Probably a few members would love for that session to take shape.

Why? Just so Mike and I would quit wasting so much bandwidth pontificating at each other?

😉

(spent so long replying that I got logged off, but have learnt to copy first)

OK. Within the context of the preceeding discussion I was interpreting “make you a better musician” as “make it sound the way it should”. You said “can help” not “will help” so that allows for listening abilities staying dormant. I read the two sentences together several times and was going to comment before the little diversion.

My (mis)understanding from the two posts was along the lines of what mtodd said. I feel that I can gain from an interpretation in which you can both be right.

(oh and by the way Will months ago you recommended some tunes and asked for feedback on how they helped. Thanks. They did and still do - but the context keeps changing)

I think where Michael and I mostly differ is in our optimism or pessimism for helping people who need to be taught. I hear him saying that such people cannot be taught how to make the music sound right. And I would disagree with that.

I suspect that difference is due to the fact that I teach this music to people every day, and have many years of teaching music (including other genres) from which to draw on experiences of seeing people “get it” despite initial difficulties. As far as I know, Michael doesn’t formally teach music. There’s a difference between doling out advice and tips now and then vs. sussing out various ways to explain and demonstrate this stuff to hundreds of diverse people over 30 years.

No doubt that sounds like oneupsmanship, but that’s not att all how I mean it. I’m just saying that playing this music and teaching this music are two different things, compatible and overlapping, yes, but also different in terms of the skills and mindset required. I have no doubt that Michael is the more experienced and fluent player. I suspect that I am the more experienced and fluent teacher.

Regardless, I respect Michael and his reasons behind his views. I enjoy the back and forth of our conversations here. I hope that our tone here reflects that respect, though I can see how some readers might misinterpret our disagreements as heated or even unfriendly. Nothing could be further from the truth.

David, glad the tunes helped. Yep, the context always changes--at least it does as long as you’re progressing. So that’s a good sign!

What aspects of playing are you focused on these days?

Being in tune and in time with tunes stripped down to as simple as makes sense. Its mainly an instrument thing - breath control. Getting the note to speak when it needs to and pulling it to pitch asap. Currently playing along with assorted recordings (slower tunes; waltzes, marches, carolan) Building up the feedback loops.

But on Michael’s recommendation I have been listening to “Heathery Breeze” so it won’t be long before I am back to working on the rolls with The Orphan.

Yes, listening to Heathery Breeze should help and inspire to no end.

The Orphan is also a good tune to play slowly without rolls.

As it happens, back when you suggested those tunes I started making notes which included for The Orphan “…bad rhythm in the rolls was upsetting the flow of the tune so I substituted a single cut until I had the overall rhythm…”. I took your comments on the tune to indicate that it was OK to do that ! At that time I was having trouble with dynamics - my first octave B was too loud which was skewing the way the phrasing worked for me.

Sounds good. Peeling back to cuts is a good way to approach using finger articulation to punctuate the beat and timing. And cuts are a precursor to rolls in the sense that well-timed, crisp cuts make for well-timed, crisp rolls.

You can also use the Orphan to work on simple finger coordination, better than playing scales:

D|E3 EDE|GFG AGA|B3 ABA|GE/F/G EDG|
E3 EDE|GFG AGA|B3 ABA|GED E3||

The only twiddly bit is the triplet, but it’s an easy triplet, especially at slower speeds, and all three notes are slurred on one breath--no need for tonguing or glottal stops, etc. It’s all in the fingers.

To separate the E3 from the following EDE, I normally use a cut with a finger above, but you can also do a glottal stop, or simply shorten it to E2 and take a breath there.

Thanks. Ha, you are getting me back towards the dance tunes.

Well, if you want to play with lift and pulse and nyah, the dance tunes are essential.

Sure, that’s where I’m heading but on the mandolin I tried to walk before I could run so am happy now to back-track as soon as things start sounding too rough. Doing a lot of listening though.