I would just add one other thing which may sound as though I am contradicting myself (as someone who isn't too good reading dots) but one of the "learn by ear" problems is, as you say, adding in bits which shouldn't be there - anything from a wrong note (ie not the right note for the tune) to a whole section. I'm a terror for doing that and, on hearing the tune again, realise the mistake and it's really hard to unlearn "your" version. At least with the dots you have source material to check against (although that's not always accurate either but at least it's a start). It's getting confusing now as this same thread is running on two different music lists (NSP and Hurdy Gurdy)! Deja-vu time! Colin Hill ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Gibbons, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 3:30 PM Subject: [NSP] Re: preserving the tradition....a non-traditional approach
> On 6 Nov 2006, Gibbons, John wrote: > > > But different MS versions of, say Gingling Geordie/Wylam Away' vary > > enough that it's clear that transmission has been by ear in many cases. > > in response to Chris Birch: > > Playing by ear alone is a > > good way of risking permanent loss of repertoire even without > > manuscripts being thrown onto the fire. > > We even already have a fine recorded example of this process in > action. > > Sorry, Colin Hill but it's Holey Ha'penny again! > > Play the T. Clough version, immediately followed by Billy Pigg > playing it. > > In Billy's playing, there is enough for the careful listener to > realise that Billy was heavily influenced by / listened to / was > taught by Clough, but in the intervening 30-ish years between the > recordings, memory has supplied bits, strains are switched > round...etc etc. > > I know Billy has a reputation for careless playing, but the influence > is there ( far more than I realised when the Pigg book was written), > and comes through despite deviations, ill-health, and (reputedly) > dislike of being recorded. At the same time he has altered it to his > own style (whether one approves of that or not). > > I also have a tape where he specifically says that he used to play > Felton Lonnin, but has since forgotten it - and tries to play the > first two parts to prove the point. > Billy could write music down, but disliked doing it, and was not well > versed in it. > > I am sure there are other examples of tunes which would appear to > have been written down at some time remote from when they were learnt > by ear - with the transcriber supplying the 'missing bits' from his > own training, taste and style. > > In fact I wouldn't be surprised if we've all done it, at one time or > another - how else would all those different versions of tunes > develop? > > Yes, we need both processes. > > Chris again: > >Surely any normal mortal musician's reply to the questions "can you > read > >the dots?" and "can you play by ear?" should be "of course" in both > cases? > > There are gradations of reading the dots, though - from the super- > efficient sight-reader, who believes he has nothing to learn other > than following the page; through the addicted -to-dots player who > will not even try to play without a book in front of them; to the > person for whom the dots only convey a general impression of up and > down, long notes and short, with the detail filled in by aural > transmission. And all shades between. > (And don't forget the unsighted - who don't have the option. I am > told Braille music is difficult to generate without very expensive > software) > > Playing by ear also ranges from the "won't look at music as it > corrupts the traditional learning process" school, through the "I can > play it without music once I've learnt it" to those who can > effortlessly reproduce and remember tunes they have heard once. > > Julia > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >
