[NSP] Re: ear-learners vs note-learners
Richard Hensold wrote: notation, and will tend to visualize musical notes as taking up precise, blocky chunks of time. Such a person is often unable to hear the rhythmic subtleties that give life/bounce or lift/drive to the music. Hi Dick, I like to think I'm quite sensitive to the subtleties of music, but I have a very very poor memory - it's a case of 'new tune in, old tune out' for me when I learn by ear :( -- Anita Evans To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: this list is safer now
I got quite a surprise last time I recorded myself playing - it was far too fast for my liking Related anecdote: Once while setting up for a gig, music playing in the background included a very fast and flashy version of Orange Blossom Special (not on the pipes!). When I asked who was playing, I was told you. Hmmm... The instant recognisability of the true master! ;-) czírz To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Was: this list is safer now//speed
Interestingly (to me at least) classical musicians and critics tend to use preserving the dance character (of, say, Bach's partitas for solo violin) to mean not playing too slowly. My experience of playing for dancing (morris, scottish, rocknroll) tells me it should mean not playing too fast. c To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: ear-learners vs note-learners
Richard Hensold wrote: This is a very interesting topic, but the thread that followed AR's post seemed to miss the point a bit. It's becoming an accepted notion that ear-learners (people who started out playing music entirely by ear, and only started reading music years later, if at all) think about/experience/play music in a fundamentally different way than note-learners (people who were taught to read music concurrently with being taught their instruments), Can note-learners learn to play like ear-players? I think so, but I'm still working on what methods work best. I tend to analyze everything and do lots of directed listening, and while this is very good at helping to hear new things, it's sort of counter-intuitive to think that analyzing something will help you eventually arrive at a more intuitively-musical way of playing. Comments, anyone? A very important issue particularly for organisers of playing groups. I run a small monthly piping session- most of the players are what Dick describes as 'note-learners' but I was an ear-learner and learned to read music later. If a new piece of sheet music is passed around the note-learners can generally play it immediately, possibly in a mechanical sort of way but I struggle badly until I have heard it several times, by which time the note-learners are ready for something else. I need to know the shape of the tune by hearing it, not just from the dots. If I play to the group, I interpret the tune as I see fit and I have had the response 'but you're not playing what's written'. In a more formal workshop I will always teach at least one tune by ear but the relief is obvious when the dots come out! There is a significant gulf here and the trick is to try not to let it spoil the fun whichever angle you come from. Group playing is of course a bit of a special case since everybody has to keep together and with more than about three or four players I think it's often not really very musical. This is fine when playing in private, as long as everybody is aware of the limitations, but if there is an audience then there is a problem. One odd personal point is that over recent years I have become more reliant on the dots and less able to memorise a new tune, which I regret, and I think this is due to too much music reading. Cheers Richard -- Richard Evans To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Was: this list is safer now//speed
I'm still bashing away at Peacock, and only recently took note of the metronome settings in the recent edition, some of which are, to me, stratospherically fast. I have never taken note of them so can't comment. What I eventually took note of was the remark of Thomas Bewick quoted in the earlier NPS facsimile reprint (my copy is now falling apart but treasured) - with his old tunes, his lilts, his pauses, and his variations, I was always excessively pleased. Somewhere else it is written that Peacock was the best player of his day, though not a scientific performer (correct me if needed). I strongly suspect that there is a literal meaning to 'pauses' here; in the slower tunes based on song airs, imitate what a singer does with the last note of a line by holding the last note of a phrase. This requires a sensitivity to music beyond reading the dots, and is an aspect of expression (not to be confused with self-expression). It can be overdone of course, but an absence of passion - or any emotional involvement - will leave us cold. For the faster tunes I don't think there is necessarily an optimum speed for a Peacock tune or anything else, it depends on the occasion, the company, the available 'juice' (NOT the liquid kind). Richard Y mentioned All The Niight I Lay With Jockey - I'd recommend you also listen to Chris Ormston's recording. I play this tune on Border pipes (not NSP) and one thing I noticed recently was how the arpeggios in the last strain - which I previously thought of as mere padding - can come alive if the initial note of four is held as long as possible without making the next three impossible - does this work for any NSP players here? There's also the Clough procedure, which Chris does in his repeat, of filling out the arpeggio, B/c/dgd rather than Bcgd. There are other ways of varying what appears to be the most boring part of the tune, and there are other versions of this (and other Peacock) tunes which cast more light, much needed in the absence of a living culture of variation playing. (A word of caution - this tune has been misunderstood by some players who incomprehensibly treat it as an A minor tune and play it with inappropriate drone tuning, a recommendation thankfully not repeated in the 1999 edition.) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Was: this list is safer now//speed
in case you didn't spot my mistake B/c/dgd rather than Bcgd should read B/c/dgd rather than Bdgd To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: ear-learners vs note-learners
I can relate to this. I play by ear and, if using dots, use them as a guide where the ear fails a little (oh, it's THAT note) and learn tunes from what I am playing rather than what's on the page. Even at 59, I am pleased to say that, eventually, once the tune is in their, it still stays. The odd thing is that if I'm unsure of a tune and then have to go back to the dots, they don't make sense until I hear myself playing a snippet I recognise and then it all comes back. I have tried to learn the dots for years but still can't get all that's contained in them - more just the actual notes rather than the phrasing etc until I can hear someone else playing the tune and then it falls into place. Dot illiteracy, I suppose. :( Colin Hill - Original Message - From: Richard Evans rich...@evansweb.co.uk Cc: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:17 AM Subject: [NSP] Re: ear-learners vs note-learners Richard Hensold wrote: This is a very interesting topic, but the thread that followed AR's post seemed to miss the point a bit. It's becoming an accepted notion that ear-learners (people who started out playing music entirely by ear, and only started reading music years later, if at all) think about/experience/play music in a fundamentally different way than note-learners (people who were taught to read music concurrently with being taught their instruments), Can note-learners learn to play like ear-players? I think so, but I'm still working on what methods work best. I tend to analyze everything and do lots of directed listening, and while this is very good at helping to hear new things, it's sort of counter-intuitive to think that analyzing something will help you eventually arrive at a more intuitively-musical way of playing. Comments, anyone? A very important issue particularly for organisers of playing groups. I run a small monthly piping session- most of the players are what Dick describes as 'note-learners' but I was an ear-learner and learned to read music later. If a new piece of sheet music is passed around the note-learners can generally play it immediately, possibly in a mechanical sort of way but I struggle badly until I have heard it several times, by which time the note-learners are ready for something else. I need to know the shape of the tune by hearing it, not just from the dots. If I play to the group, I interpret the tune as I see fit and I have had the response 'but you're not playing what's written'. In a more formal workshop I will always teach at least one tune by ear but the relief is obvious when the dots come out! There is a significant gulf here and the trick is to try not to let it spoil the fun whichever angle you come from. Group playing is of course a bit of a special case since everybody has to keep together and with more than about three or four players I think it's often not really very musical. This is fine when playing in private, as long as everybody is aware of the limitations, but if there is an audience then there is a problem. One odd personal point is that over recent years I have become more reliant on the dots and less able to memorise a new tune, which I regret, and I think this is due to too much music reading. Cheers Richard -- Richard Evans To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[no subject]
Matt wrote: how the arpeggios in the last strain - which I previously thought of as mere padding - can come alive if the initial note of four is held as long as possible without making the next three impossible - does this work for any NSP players here? The idea of delaying the off-beat notes in the arpeggios has two realisations on NSP - you can either play the initial note short, staccatissimo, with a gap before the remaining notes, or else play it as long as possible without of course slurring - more like on BP. As the strain's repeated, you can compare and contrast. John -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Was: this list is safer now//speed
In the original reprint of the Peacock Tunes I did not indicate metronome markings and I am not sure if I was involved in setting them for the current reprint. I had felt it was useful to indicate something for new players not familiar with the idiom and generally erred on the slower side of the playing speed as there was a tendency to play the tunes and particularly the airs with variations too fast encouraged by the appearance of all those semi-quavers as the variations developed. I know of one player who is still convinced they should be played at break-neck speed but as I got to know the tunes I realised that a steady march tempo was all that was needed as long as you got the pulse right. The 120 marking for 'All the Night' is a little too fast I agree but it depends how you are feeling and what time of day you are playing the tune. With all the metronome markings a small percentage either way will get you where you want to be and the markings are useful in that respect. Colin R -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: ear-learners vs note-learners
I always found that getting the group to put the instruments down, and sing the tune, as best the voice allows, until it's internalised; and only then encouraging people to play it with the same feel as they sang it, works better than some ways of ear teaching, and tends to get more spirit into it. Sometimes you need to sing it at a different pitch, just to be able to reach it, which is not ideal, but still helps. Richard Y Richard Hensold wrote: So, many teachers (such as Margaret) try to counter this by teaching tunes by ear in workshops. It's a good idea, but does it work? In other words, does it actually teach people to hear the subtleties they've learned to miss over the years? This is an honest question, and I certainly invite comment, but I'll start by doubting that it does work. I think once you've learned to hear music a certain way, the simple intuitive approach will no longer work. Your ears can certainly be retrained, but you've developed hearing habits of hearing that must be actively broken. Can note-learners learn to play like ear-players? I think so, but I'm still working on what methods work best. I tend to analyze everything and do lots of directed listening, and while this is very good at helping to hear new things, it's sort of counter-intuitive to think that analyzing something will help you eventually arrive at a more intuitively-musical way of playing. Comments, anyone? To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Peacock’s Tunes Facsimile
I too have a copy of the Peacocks Tunes Facsimile, 'falling apart but treasured as Matt has said, after nearly 30 years of use. Second-hand copies of this are hard to find and although the later NPS edition in standard format is extremely useful, the facsimile has its own particular interest. Perhaps the NPS might consider re-issuing this Old Testament of piping one day. Francis -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Peacock’s Tunes Facsimile
I,m sure it's online somewhere Francis, but my question is who actually learnt these tunes from the tradition --- ie from someone who learnt them from someone whose knew someone who learnt from Peacock ? do we have anyone -- if so could they please set up a master class Dave S (Tongue In Cheek) Francis Wood wrote: I too have a copy of the Peacocks Tunes Facsimile, 'falling apart but treasured as Matt has said, after nearly 30 years of use. Second-hand copies of this are hard to find and although the later NPS edition in standard format is extremely useful, the facsimile has its own particular interest. Perhaps the NPS might consider re-issuing this Old Testament of piping one day. Francis -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.61/2167 - Release Date: 06/10/09 05:52:00
[NSP] Re: [NSP] Re: Peacock’s Tunes Facsimile
On 10 Jun 2009, at 18:04, Dave S wrote: I'm sure it's online somewhere Francis Well it is . . . on The FARNE site: http://www.asaplive.com/archive/browse_by_collection.asp Nicer to have the book though. Wright must have printed more than the three or four surviving. Search your attics, everyone! Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] re notes v. ear
Hello all, I've long been interested in the manuscript versus ear argument, as broached by Dick Hensold and many others, and have never believed that either is, or should be, exclusive. I began my musical life purely as a note reader but have, through much hard work, trained myself to play quite a lot of tunes by ear. Am I a better player because of that? I hope so: I like the freedom that not relying on a manuscript gives whilst at sessions. On the other hand, having experienced the teaching of those who rely solely on teaching a tune by playing a phrase and then getting the group to repeat it and so on, until the tune is learnt, I don't find this to be a particularly reliable method as it is too easy to 'learn' an inaccurate phrase or group of notes. I find it much easier to see the music, and then use that as a visual memory, in order to learn the tune by heart. I suppose that what I am saying that our individual cognitive predilection means that the good teacher uses different methods to suit different pupils. I think of music as music: whether it is folk, classical or whatever. As I've never heard the B.B.C. Symphony Orchestra criticized for 'flat' playing because they are playing from music, I think that criticism is rather a reflection on the skill of the players, rather than a criticism of the medium being used. Peter. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] re notes v. ear
I think of music as music: whether it is folk, classical or whatever. As I've never heard the B.B.C. Symphony Orchestra criticized for 'flat' playing because they are playing from music, I think that criticism is rather a reflection on the skill of the players, rather than a criticism of the medium being used. I think Peter makes just the point here that I was going to make, when Anthony (I think) first started the debate. Also, Dick made very good points. The flatness and mechanical playing problems which many people perceive with playing from dots is only inevitable for people who struggle with the reading, and those who think that the dots represent *exactly* how music should be played. Only a computer plays music exactly as written - good musicians will always lengthen/shorten certain notes, pull the rhythm around subtly and put life expression into the music as they read it. I'm sure everybody with a so-called classical music training here (and jazz or whatever) - i.e. anyone for whom the purely mechanical act of reading written music is completely second nature, does the reading without consciously thinking about doing it. Playing the music sensitively, with the right style or expression or whatever, is what you do with it on top of the reading so to speak - well or less well depending on your musicianship and understanding of the music. People who do jazz or early music maybe depart from the written notes more than main-stream classical players do - but all competent musicians would surely reject idea that reading inevitably leads to flatness. Philip To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: re notes v. ear
Here here! I was hesitating about saying exactly the same thing, only you put it better than I could. Cheers, Richard Philip Gruar wrote: I think Peter makes just the point here that I was going to make, when Anthony (I think) first started the debate. Also, Dick made very good points. The flatness and mechanical playing problems which many people perceive with playing from dots is only inevitable for people who struggle with the reading, and those who think that the dots represent *exactly* how music should be played. Only a computer plays music exactly as written - good musicians will always lengthen/shorten certain notes, pull the rhythm around subtly and put life expression into the music as they read it. I'm sure everybody with a so-called classical music training here (and jazz or whatever) - i.e. anyone for whom the purely mechanical act of reading written music is completely second nature, does the reading without consciously thinking about doing it. Playing the music sensitively, with the right style or expression or whatever, is what you do with it on top of the reading so to speak - well or less well depending on your musicianship and understanding of the music. People who do jazz or early music maybe depart from the written notes more than main-stream classical players do - but all competent musicians would surely reject idea that reading inevitably leads to flatness. Philip To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: re notes v. ear
Can I just say, with particular reference to Richard's last post, that I am in no way claiming any superiority for the classically-trained position. Reading my post again, it looks a bit as if I am. I enormously admire all those who play mostly by ear. I think on the whole they are better musicians than me - but I just wanted to defend those of us who play best from the written music against the charge of alway and inevitably playing without any life and expression. Communication with listeners is always best without the music-stand in the way, of course. Philip To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Was: this list is safer now//speed
Hi Matt, et al, Dick HensoldSt. Paul, MN 651/646-6581 Traditional Folk Music, Early Music, and Cambodian Music Northumbrian smallpipes, recorder, Medieval greatpipes,Swedish sackpipa, beyaw. [1]www.dickhensold.com On Jun 10, 2009, at 5:14 AM, Matt Seattle wrote: ...Richard Y mentioned All The Niight I Lay With Jockey - I'd recommend you also listen to Chris Ormston's recording. I play this tune on Border pipes (not NSP) and one thing I noticed recently was how the arpeggios in the last strain - which I previously thought of as mere padding - can come alive if the initial note of four is held as long as possible without making the next three impossible - does this work for any NSP players here? There's also the Clough procedure, which Chris does in his repeat, of filling out the arpeggio, B/c/dgd rather than Bcgd. There are other ways of varying what appears to be the most boring part of the tune... I thought that was what I did with that variation-- it's typical of what I would do. But when I listened to my recording, a clip of which is available at: [2]http://www.dickhensold.com/mp3s/All_the_Night_I_Lay_with_Jockey.mp3 , I found I did something different. BTW, I don't consider that strain to be mere padding. The previous strain is sweeping scalar figures, emphasizing melodic contour, and the strain in question contrasts the previous one by using the repeated arpeggios to emphasize the beat, which is what I try to do in my version. The repeated Bs, which fall on the beat, help to emphasize it since B's are sort of a live note on our pipes, owing to the particular resonance the B has with the drone. As it happens, my rhythmic treatment of this strain is also an example of the kind of rhythmic subtlety I was referring to in my first post, and can serve for a pedagogical experiment, if you'll please bear with me. This experiment would give some idea of the effectiveness of directed listening for ear-training. Here's how it would work: Listen to the clip above, especially strain 6 (which starts at about 1:01 in the clip, and goes to the end of it), and try to hear what I'm doing with the rhythm to emphasize the beat. In a later email, I will describe what I'm doing. If my description matches your observation, you would be in group A. If you're not quite sure what I'm up to (rhythmically, that is), or the description DOESN'T match, listen to the clip again and see if having read the description makes it possible for you to hear the rhythms described. If, after reading the description, you can then hear what I'm doing with the rhythm, then you would be in group B. If, after reading the description, you CANNOT hear what I'm doing with the rhythm, then you would be in group C. You could then all email me off-list and tell me what group you're in, and I would count how many were in each group. I would then be able to tell by the numbers in each group whether the description (or directed listening) was effective. I'm guessing it would take you 5-10 minutes to do this (assuming you listened to the 15 seconds in question several times). The description will be in a following email. I really appreciate anyone who takes part in this impromptu, unscientific, ad hoc little experiment. I think often about trying to explain music to people, and I really hate wasting everyone's time when the explanation isn't working! -- References 1. http://www.dickhensold.com/ 2. http://www.dickhensold.com/mp3s/All_the_Night_I_Lay_with_Jockey.mp3 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
