Well said again, Anthony.
It's indeed the possession of both skills which is rare.
We recently met a lady who had played professionally in the string
section of a leading national orchestra for years, and had just retired.
Name the conductor, and she'd played under them.
She now left the instrument in its case, as that was part of her working
life, which was now, rather gratefully, over. Playing music for pleasure
- good heavens, no!
She was also distinctly threatened by the notion of improvising - we
were doing an informal presentation of Tudor music at the time - but in
a way which said she rather wished she could, though she'd never admit
it. As it was, the machinery of her hands presumably read the dots
without the music ever reaching her mind.
We felt sorry for her.
Richard.
Anthony Robb wrote:
What a long, long way we've wandered from my initial point!
No one can take any pride at all in not having a skill and I for one
know no "by ear" leaner who would not wish to add the skill of
sight-reading to their box of repertoire-expanding tools. For many it
simply wasn't an option. They picked up the tunes from listening to
what was available and pleasing to them. The lack of such a useful
skill as sight-reading forced them to listen over and over again to the
style of music played and gave them an insight into the music hidden
beyond the dots. It is the absorption of the music into their very
being which gives this music, often simple on the surface, it's
complexity, vitality and beauty. Traditional music has been
successfully passed on by listening for many generations. This is not
beyond any musician who wants to aspire to it. It does, however,
require more discipline from a dots reader because tunes can be
quickly, nay instantly, accessible to them. The worry is that the more
people who do this, without lots and lots of listening to what
generations before have worked at and left us, the more we will be
passing on a watered down version of the tradition.
Stewart Hardy is a truly gifted musician by any standard. His sight
reading is impeccable. Jimmy Little wouldn't know where to start with a
page of dots. The one thing that they share is the amount of listening
they do to take in every ounce of life and bounce from our music and
then give it back with their own unique surprises and turns. It is
unmistakeably part of the tradition but not slavishly copied and
reproduced. Dots on their own can never pass on this feel for the
music.
No one is (snobbishly) damning sight-readers per se. We are saying
there is a heirarchy of approaches in traditional music; the most
important is listening (over and over again -even if this doesn't mean
actually learning by ear) then turn, once the music has been
absorbed, to the dots for reference, repertoire expansion, resurrection
of old manuscript tunes etc. When done this way around, each and every
one of us involved in the tradition benefits and so our blessings (not
condemnation!) be upon you.
As aye
Anthony
--- On Wed, 2/12/09, christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu
<christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu> wrote:
From: christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu
<christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu>
Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music
To: j.gibb...@imperial.ac.uk
Cc: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu
Date: Wednesday, 2 December, 2009, 16:02
John:
>I haven't damned 'classical musicians' at all.
I wasn't accusing you personally of damning classical musicians. Sorry
if it came over that way.
Some people, including some who should no better, do damn classical
musicians, however, and even take a pride in their own inability to
read the dots. Inverted snobbery if you ask me.
Btw, when I used the term "damn" I was merely referring back to Sheila
Bridges' contribution, in which she wrote "and it
>seems that many who are damning the classically trained on
>this nsp ..."
Best
c
To get on or off this list see list information at
[1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
