I actually agree with all this, but I for one have received the reply "no, we're trying to get away from that" when I asked a well-know Irish musician if he could read music.
I have also heard a well-known singer dismissing classical players with the phrase "the buggers couldn't do it if it wasn't written down". These people, both of who I highly respect, can remain anonymous, as I am talking about my experience and not pointing fingers at others. Peace C __________________________________________________________________ From: Anthony Robb [mailto:anth...@robbpipes.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:32 PM To: j.gibb...@imperial.ac.uk; BIRCH Christopher (DGT) Cc: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: Re: [NSP] Re: From notation to music 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