[NSP] Re: From notation to music
Hi all As part of my practice I like to alternate between reading and playing by ear, I find I can concentrate more on my tone (when playing flute) when playing from memory, but dots are great for training my fingers ... but I did learn classical first so sightreading is a skill I want to keep up to date and fresh (having said this, I don't perform from dots, just use them to learn tunes ). Other days I like to put on a favourite tune on my ipod and try to figure out what's happening, completely different skills but just as good a work out. So, I am firmly on the fence, ear, sight and memory are all great musical work outs for me and I'd be a poorer person without them. I'm not sure it's a question of dots 'v' ear but more what you do with them... personal opinion! The only problem I find with this moving to ear world is that I can't seem to remember the names of any of the tunes! Does anyone have tips or tricks? It may be because I learn most of my new tunes from my ipod whilst driving, and I can't look at the names!!! On the pipes it's not an issue as I can only play one tune so far! Amble 2009/12/3 colin <[1]cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk> Phew, what a lot of responses. Going back to the "reading and writing" aspect, just being able to read what's on the page won't make anyone a good actor will it? There's something "extra" that makes the difference between a player who can reproduce what's written down exactly and HOW they play it. Two players, same notes, different performance. On the subject of classical players, I do feel one should take into account that, when playing in an orchestra, doing one's own thing may not be a good idea :-) A time and a place for everything. Colin Hill - Original Message - From: <[2]christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu> To: <[3]anth...@robbpipes.com>; <[4]j.gibb...@imperial.ac.uk> Cc: <[5]...@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:43 PM Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music 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:[6]anth...@robbpipes.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:32 PM To: [7]j.gibb...@imperial.ac.uk; BIRCH Christopher (DGT) Cc: [8]...@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
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
Phew, what a lot of responses. Going back to the "reading and writing" aspect, just being able to read what's on the page won't make anyone a good actor will it? There's something "extra" that makes the difference between a player who can reproduce what's written down exactly and HOW they play it. Two players, same notes, different performance. On the subject of classical players, I do feel one should take into account that, when playing in an orchestra, doing one's own thing may not be a good idea :-) A time and a place for everything. Colin Hill - Original Message - From: To: ; Cc: Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:43 PM Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music 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 wrote: From: 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
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
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
wrote:
From: 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
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
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
wrote:
From: 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
[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
wrote:
From: 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
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
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 http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
Yes, Chris, you are absolutely right both about amatuer orchestras and that among the enormous amount of people who took "music lessons" in the 20th century the arts of playing by ear, improvizing etc did appear to have been lost. However, I remember that in one section of the final exam for the GGSM (Music Education degree at the Guildhall School of Music) in the early '50s, students were given a 2 bar phrase upon which to imrovise and expand into a march, minuet, or whatever. in the style of "x", "y" or "z". Quite a number of the most brilliant performers and teachers I am coming across, do it. Our grandson's violin and fiddle teachers encourage and help him to do it. The composers who coach our composition group are stunningly impressive - " . . so you don't know what to do next . . ? Well, Beethoven would have done this using your theme . . . Chopin would have done this . . . . Debussy would have done this . . . Bernstein would have done this . . . and if you want to sound as though you are quoting a Hoedown or a Shottish you would turn it this way . . ". I think that many people want to do it but don't know how to set about it and the series by Robert Pace (Lee Roberts Music Publications Inc. can be obtained through Schirmer, Inc.) is excellent. Basicly a piano method, each level includes "Finger Builders" (technique), "Music for Piano" (pieces), "Theory Papers" (explanations of harmony, etc) and "CREATIVE MUSIC" where the pupil is given a musical phrase and must improvise/compose an answering parallel and contrasting phrase, with the same and/or different bass patterns. All of the keys signatures are introduced and used right from the beginning and the phrases are transposed into all of the keys. Alas, as adults most of us don't have the patience to do that sort of simple " baby stuff" which, of course, does lead on to the "sort of stuff" we would like to be able to do. End of lecture - now I really will shut up! Sheila -Original Message- From: christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu To: bri...@aol.com; matt...@alledora.co.uk; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:53 am Subject: RE: [NSP] Re: From notation to music Well said, Sheila! Those who damn "classical musicians" are usually in fact damning their own isconceptions of them. here is a big difference between the people who have received some sort of classical" training but wouldn't be able to play anything without dots in front f them, and then don't play very well because they're not real musicians to egin with (string-sections in amateur orchestras are full of them - all relying n each other to cover up for them) (where was I?) and the fine classical usicians for whom reading, writing, listening and in some cases improvising are ll just self-evident elements in a musician's arsenal. Alas, since the classical period" in the strict sense (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven etc.) the art f improvising has largely been lost among classical musicians - exceptions eing organists, harpsichordists (improvising continuo from figured bass) and arly-music specialists, who will improvise ornamentation. ike with so many things, the rot set in in the 19th century. Here endeth the second lesson. >-Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of bri...@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:31 AM To: matt...@alledora.co.uk; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music I'll give my half-pennyworth and then shut up. I admire and respect quite a lot of folk musicians who play only by ear., I also admire and respect quite a lot of classically trained musicians who play from the dots, and it seems that many who are damning the classically trained on this nsp list don't realize that many of the very best among the classically trained can (and frequently do) play brilliantly by ear, and can capture the nuances of different styles, be it folk, national, period, or whatever. I agree that many classically trained musicians tend to be glued to their dots. But do all those who learn by ear play superbly? Re: "musical dictation". Like so many things in life, this is a matter of practice. Children learning to read words first do it by spelling everything out letter by letter but with practice comes fluency. None of us as adults needs to read aloud in order to understand what is written. Similarly with music. As far as dictation is concerned, usually you first are given a short phrase and learn to jot down the rhythm, then start with simple melodic lines.If you keep it up you become fluent - if you don't you get rusty!. As you look at the dots of a tune yo
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
Stephen: > >The lack of 'improvisation' runs inline with the omnipotence of the >composer and bigger orchestras in Romantic period. Hard to improvise >in this context! True. > >But is this really decline, or the 'rot set(ting) in'??? > Well it was the loss of a skill. Whether it was the "rot setting in" is of course a matter of taste, but to my mind the hypertrophy of the Romantic and 20th orchestra was an illustration of "more is less". Getting a bit off-topic: I can very much enjoy massive orchestral stuff, but I think it's interesting that - to my mind at least - Schoenberg summed up and excelled everything the 19th century composers had been striving for in a mere half hour for string sextet (Verklärte Nacht in the original version. I don't think the string orchestra version adds much apart from volume, bulk and stodge, while reducing clarity. This is purely a personal opinion - I don't want to get into pointless arguments.) c To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
Chris, The lack of 'improvisation' runs inline with the omnipotence of the composer and bigger orchestras in Romantic period. Hard to improvise in this context! But is this really decline, or the 'rot set(ting) in'??? Steve D Steve D On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:53 AM, wrote: Well said, Sheila! Those who damn "classical musicians" are usually in fact damning their own misconceptions of them. There is a big difference between the people who have received some sort of "classical" training but wouldn't be able to play anything without dots in front of them, and then don't play very well because they're not real musicians to begin with (string-sections in amateur orchestras are full of them - all relying on each other to cover up for them) (where was I?) and the fine classical musicians for whom reading, writing, listening and in some cases improvising are all just self-evident elements in a musician's arsenal. Alas, since the "classical period" in the strict sense (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven etc.) the art of improvising has largely been lost among classical musicians - exceptions being organists, harpsichordists (improvising continuo from figured bass) and early- music specialists, who will improvise ornamentation. Like with so many things, the rot set in in the 19th century. Here endeth the second lesson. c -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of bri...@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:31 AM To: matt...@alledora.co.uk; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music I'll give my half-pennyworth and then shut up. I admire and respect quite a lot of folk musicians who play only by ear., I also admire and respect quite a lot of classically trained musicians who play from the dots, and it seems that many who are damning the classically trained on this nsp list don't realize that many of the very best among the classically trained can (and frequently do) play brilliantly by ear, and can capture the nuances of different styles, be it folk, national, period, or whatever. I agree that many classically trained musicians tend to be glued to their dots. But do all those who learn by ear play superbly? Re: "musical dictation". Like so many things in life, this is a matter of practice. Children learning to read words first do it by spelling everything out letter by letter but with practice comes fluency. None of us as adults needs to read aloud in order to understand what is written. Similarly with music. As far as dictation is concerned, usually you first are given a short phrase and learn to jot down the rhythm, then start with simple melodic lines.If you keep it up you become fluent - if you don't you get rusty!. As you look at the dots of a tune you hear it in your head. Conductors are probably the experts in this field, hearing not only one line but a whole score in their heads as they look at it - and woe betide a member of the orchestra who plays a sharp when it should be a natural or a flat, or is late with an entry - even though the whole gang may be playing. There is nothing arcane about the process but for most of us it does require practice, ! working at it, and keeping it up. End of lesson, Keep smiling. Sheila -Original Message- From: Matthew Walton To: gibbonssoi...@aol.com Cc: anth...@robbpipes.com; cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:18 am Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music It's got a lot to do with training, I think. I learned music in what ight be termed a 'classical' style - in that there was an instrument, e, a teacher, and a sheet of paper with music notation on it. Over ime I learned to read the notation and play what's written there, and hen learned things about how to interpret that to give a good erformance, as the notation never encompasses every aspect of how one hould play it. You can put a sheet of music in front of me and, rovided it's within the capabilities of my instrument, I can have a tab at playing it. Assuming it's not beyond my technical skill, I an, given enough time, turn it into a fluent performance, much as I ight practise reading a speech aloud so that I can deliver it well. What I cannot do, however, is listen to music and write it down. It's ifficult. It's slow. It requires me to play around with an instrument o make sure I've got the idea of which notes are involved correct. 'm also terrible at notating heard rhythms, even though I can play otated rhythms fairly easily. I don't know why it works this way, but t does - and this is common in classically trained musicians. I also find it very hard to listen to a piece of music and play it, ither joining in or copying afterwards. I have never lear
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
Hear hear! >-Original Message- >From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu >[mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Victor Eskenazi >Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 11:16 PM >To: Anthony Robb >Cc: cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu; >gibbonssoi...@aol.com >Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music > > > Was it the classical period...? > Music was never fully written out as it is today. > You were given the basic melody and the chord structure... >Somewhere > along the line things were "dumbed down"... > Victor > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 01:58, Anthony Robb ><[1]anth...@robbpipes.com> > wrote: > > It would be weird if that's what our music is about. > The essence of this music, however, is that we hear the >"stories", > learn them, make them our own and reproduce them, not verbatim, > but > slightly differently as mood and memory serves. They have to > become > part of us; not something external interpreted from marks on a > page. > Once they are inside us it is very natural to share them with > others. > As aye > Anthony > --- On Tue, 1/12/09, [2]gibbonssoi...@aol.com > <[3]gibbonssoi...@aol.com> > wrote: > From: [4]gibbonssoi...@aol.com <[5]gibbonssoi...@aol.com> > Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music > To: [6]cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk, >[7]...@cs.dartmouth.edu > Date: Tuesday, 1 December, 2009, 0:38 > But remembering the words of a speech, writing them down > verbatim, > then being unable to remember them again without reading the > transcript > is plain weird > -- > To get on or off this list see list information at > [1][8]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > -- > References > 1. [9]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > -- > >References > > 1. mailto:anth...@robbpipes.com > 2. mailto:gibbonssoi...@aol.com > 3. mailto:gibbonssoi...@aol.com > 4. mailto:gibbonssoi...@aol.com > 5. mailto:gibbonssoi...@aol.com > 6. mailto:cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk > 7. mailto:nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu > 8. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 9. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > >
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
Well said, Sheila! Those who damn "classical musicians" are usually in fact damning their own misconceptions of them. There is a big difference between the people who have received some sort of "classical" training but wouldn't be able to play anything without dots in front of them, and then don't play very well because they're not real musicians to begin with (string-sections in amateur orchestras are full of them - all relying on each other to cover up for them) (where was I?) and the fine classical musicians for whom reading, writing, listening and in some cases improvising are all just self-evident elements in a musician's arsenal. Alas, since the "classical period" in the strict sense (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven etc.) the art of improvising has largely been lost among classical musicians - exceptions being organists, harpsichordists (improvising continuo from figured bass) and early-music specialists, who will improvise ornamentation. Like with so many things, the rot set in in the 19th century. Here endeth the second lesson. c >-Original Message- >From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu >[mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of bri...@aol.com >Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:31 AM >To: matt...@alledora.co.uk; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu >Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music > > >I'll give my half-pennyworth and then shut up. > >I admire and respect quite a lot of folk musicians who play >only by ear., I also admire and respect quite a lot of >classically trained musicians who play from the dots, and it >seems that many who are damning the classically trained on >this nsp list don't realize that many of the very best among >the classically trained can (and frequently do) play >brilliantly by ear, and can capture the nuances of different >styles, be it folk, national, period, or whatever. I agree >that many classically trained musicians tend to be glued to >their dots. But do all those who learn by ear play superbly? > >Re: "musical dictation". Like so many things in life, this >is a matter of practice. Children learning to read words >first do it by spelling everything out letter by letter but >with practice comes fluency. None of us as adults needs to >read aloud in order to understand what is written. Similarly >with music. As far as dictation is concerned, usually you >first are given a short phrase and learn to jot down the >rhythm, then start with simple melodic lines.If you keep >it up you become fluent - if you don't you get rusty!. As >you look at the dots of a tune you hear it in your head. >Conductors are probably the experts in this field, hearing not >only one line but a whole score in their heads as they look at >it - and woe betide a member of the orchestra who plays a >sharp when it should be a natural or a flat, or is late with >an entry - even though the whole gang may be playing. There >is nothing arcane about the process but for most of us it does >require practice, ! > working at it, and keeping it up. > >End of lesson, > >Keep smiling. > >Sheila > > > > > >-----Original Message- >From: Matthew Walton >To: gibbonssoi...@aol.com >Cc: anth...@robbpipes.com; cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk; >nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu >Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:18 am >Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music > > >It's got a lot to do with training, I think. I learned music in what >ight be termed a 'classical' style - in that there was an instrument, >e, a teacher, and a sheet of paper with music notation on it. Over >ime I learned to read the notation and play what's written there, and >hen learned things about how to interpret that to give a good >erformance, as the notation never encompasses every aspect of how one >hould play it. You can put a sheet of music in front of me and, >rovided it's within the capabilities of my instrument, I can have a >tab at playing it. Assuming it's not beyond my technical skill, I >an, given enough time, turn it into a fluent performance, much as I >ight practise reading a speech aloud so that I can deliver it well. >What I cannot do, however, is listen to music and write it down. It's >ifficult. It's slow. It requires me to play around with an instrument >o make sure I've got the idea of which notes are involved correct. >'m also terrible at notating heard rhythms, even though I can play >otated rhythms fairly easily. I don't know why it works this way, but >t does - and this is common in classically trained musicians. >I also find it very hard to listen to a piece of music and play it, >ither joining in or copying afterwards.
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
Well Ruggiero Ricci says that when he was 15 he played the Ernst concerto for Heifetz, who was duly impressed but commented "but you need to be able to sight-read it". I suppose one has to practise like hell to get the technique in the first place and then just keep on playing whatever comes along (as I get the impression most experienced orchestral players - at least rank-and-file string-players - do). Csírz (rank and vile string-player) >-Original Message- >From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu >[mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Julia Say >Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:32 PM >To: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu >Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music > >On 1 Dec 2009, Gibbons, John wrote: > >> Most dot-dependent players can't >> notate or pay what they hear, only what they see. > >I am reminded of a jaw dropping comment I once heard (from a >player of pipes): > >"I don't need to practise, I can sight-read" > >Julia > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
I'll give my half-pennyworth and then shut up. I admire and respect quite a lot of folk musicians who play only by ear., I also admire and respect quite a lot of classically trained musicians who play from the dots, and it seems that many who are damning the classically trained on this nsp list don't realize that many of the very best among the classically trained can (and frequently do) play brilliantly by ear, and can capture the nuances of different styles, be it folk, national, period, or whatever. I agree that many classically trained musicians tend to be glued to their dots. But do all those who learn by ear play superbly? Re: "musical dictation". Like so many things in life, this is a matter of practice. Children learning to read words first do it by spelling everything out letter by letter but with practice comes fluency. None of us as adults needs to read aloud in order to understand what is written. Similarly with music. As far as dictation is concerned, usually you first are given a short phrase and learn to jot down the rhythm, then start with simple melodic lines. If you keep it up you become fluent - if you don't you get rusty!. As you look at the dots of a tune you hear it in your head. Conductors are probably the experts in this field, hearing not only one line but a whole score in their heads as they look at it - and woe betide a member of the orchestra who plays a sharp when it should be a natural or a flat, or is late with an entry - even though the whole gang may be playing. There is nothing arcane about the process but for most of us it does require practice, ! working at it, and keeping it up. End of lesson, Keep smiling. Sheila -Original Message- From: Matthew Walton To: gibbonssoi...@aol.com Cc: anth...@robbpipes.com; cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:18 am Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music It's got a lot to do with training, I think. I learned music in what ight be termed a 'classical' style - in that there was an instrument, e, a teacher, and a sheet of paper with music notation on it. Over ime I learned to read the notation and play what's written there, and hen learned things about how to interpret that to give a good erformance, as the notation never encompasses every aspect of how one hould play it. You can put a sheet of music in front of me and, rovided it's within the capabilities of my instrument, I can have a tab at playing it. Assuming it's not beyond my technical skill, I an, given enough time, turn it into a fluent performance, much as I ight practise reading a speech aloud so that I can deliver it well. What I cannot do, however, is listen to music and write it down. It's ifficult. It's slow. It requires me to play around with an instrument o make sure I've got the idea of which notes are involved correct. 'm also terrible at notating heard rhythms, even though I can play otated rhythms fairly easily. I don't know why it works this way, but t does - and this is common in classically trained musicians. I also find it very hard to listen to a piece of music and play it, ither joining in or copying afterwards. I have never learned to play by ear'. I suspect if I could do that, notating heard music would be great deal easier... It is, of course, possible to learn both ways. I should do that. On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:25 AM, wrote: The trouble is some think 'reading music' and 'reading music notation' are synonymous - the trick is to read the dots and put the music back into them. I guess the player who can only play from a notated copy she'd just written down, on hearing,, would be a good ear-player if she believed in it. Notation has its uses, particularly in complex music, but the people who can't play unless they are reading are limiting themselves. John -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
Was it the classical period...?
Music was never fully written out as it is today.
You were given the basic melody and the chord structure... Somewhere
along the line things were "dumbed down"...
Victor
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 01:58, Anthony Robb <[1]anth...@robbpipes.com>
wrote:
It would be weird if that's what our music is about.
The essence of this music, however, is that we hear the "stories",
learn them, make them our own and reproduce them, not verbatim,
but
slightly differently as mood and memory serves. They have to
become
part of us; not something external interpreted from marks on a
page.
Once they are inside us it is very natural to share them with
others.
As aye
Anthony
--- On Tue, 1/12/09, [2]gibbonssoi...@aol.com
<[3]gibbonssoi...@aol.com>
wrote:
From: [4]gibbonssoi...@aol.com <[5]gibbonssoi...@aol.com>
Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music
To: [6]cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk, [7]...@cs.dartmouth.edu
Date: Tuesday, 1 December, 2009, 0:38
But remembering the words of a speech, writing them down
verbatim,
then being unable to remember them again without reading the
transcript
is plain weird
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
[1][8]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. [9]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:anth...@robbpipes.com
2. mailto:gibbonssoi...@aol.com
3. mailto:gibbonssoi...@aol.com
4. mailto:gibbonssoi...@aol.com
5. mailto:gibbonssoi...@aol.com
6. mailto:cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk
7. mailto:nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu
8. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
9. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
On 1 Dec 2009, Gibbons, John wrote: > Most dot-dependent players can't > notate or pay what they hear, only what they see. I am reminded of a jaw dropping comment I once heard (from a player of pipes): "I don't need to practise, I can sight-read" Julia To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
I am a fairly good ear player and a fairly good sight-reader, but, unfortunately, dreadful at turning sound into notation - I need to ask my fingers what they are doing. Only 2 sides of the triangle. The link from sound back to notation is missing in my case. I found it weird that Mike's friend's friend had a different side of the triangle missing, from sound to playing - as I think he did. Most dot-dependent players can't notate or pay what they hear, only what they see. John -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Matthew Walton Sent: 01 December 2009 13:18 To: gibbonssoi...@aol.com Cc: anth...@robbpipes.com; cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music It's got a lot to do with training, I think. I learned music in what might be termed a 'classical' style - in that there was an instrument, me, a teacher, and a sheet of paper with music notation on it. Over time I learned to read the notation and play what's written there, and then learned things about how to interpret that to give a good performance, as the notation never encompasses every aspect of how one should play it. You can put a sheet of music in front of me and, provided it's within the capabilities of my instrument, I can have a stab at playing it. Assuming it's not beyond my technical skill, I can, given enough time, turn it into a fluent performance, much as I might practise reading a speech aloud so that I can deliver it well. What I cannot do, however, is listen to music and write it down. It's difficult. It's slow. It requires me to play around with an instrument to make sure I've got the idea of which notes are involved correct. I'm also terrible at notating heard rhythms, even though I can play notated rhythms fairly easily. I don't know why it works this way, but it does - and this is common in classically trained musicians. I also find it very hard to listen to a piece of music and play it, either joining in or copying afterwards. I have never learned to play 'by ear'. I suspect if I could do that, notating heard music would be a great deal easier... It is, of course, possible to learn both ways. I should do that. On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:25 AM, wrote: > The trouble is some think 'reading music' and 'reading music notation' > are synonymous - > > the trick is to read the dots and put the music back into them. > > > > I guess the player who can only play from a notated copy she'd just > written down, on hearing,, > > would be a good ear-player if she believed in it. > > Notation has its uses, particularly in complex music, but the people > who can't play unless they are reading are limiting themselves. > > > > John > > > > -- > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
It's got a lot to do with training, I think. I learned music in what might be termed a 'classical' style - in that there was an instrument, me, a teacher, and a sheet of paper with music notation on it. Over time I learned to read the notation and play what's written there, and then learned things about how to interpret that to give a good performance, as the notation never encompasses every aspect of how one should play it. You can put a sheet of music in front of me and, provided it's within the capabilities of my instrument, I can have a stab at playing it. Assuming it's not beyond my technical skill, I can, given enough time, turn it into a fluent performance, much as I might practise reading a speech aloud so that I can deliver it well. What I cannot do, however, is listen to music and write it down. It's difficult. It's slow. It requires me to play around with an instrument to make sure I've got the idea of which notes are involved correct. I'm also terrible at notating heard rhythms, even though I can play notated rhythms fairly easily. I don't know why it works this way, but it does - and this is common in classically trained musicians. I also find it very hard to listen to a piece of music and play it, either joining in or copying afterwards. I have never learned to play 'by ear'. I suspect if I could do that, notating heard music would be a great deal easier... It is, of course, possible to learn both ways. I should do that. On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:25 AM, wrote: > The trouble is some think 'reading music' and 'reading music notation' > are synonymous - > > the trick is to read the dots and put the music back into them. > > > > I guess the player who can only play from a notated copy she'd just > written down, on hearing,, > > would be a good ear-player if she believed in it. > > Notation has its uses, particularly in complex music, but the people > who can't play unless they are reading are limiting themselves. > > > > John > > > > -- > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
The trouble is some think 'reading music' and 'reading music notation' are synonymous - the trick is to read the dots and put the music back into them. I guess the player who can only play from a notated copy she'd just written down, on hearing,, would be a good ear-player if she believed in it. Notation has its uses, particularly in complex music, but the people who can't play unless they are reading are limiting themselves. John -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
It would be weird if that's what our music is about.
The essence of this music, however, is that we hear the "stories",
learn them, make them our own and reproduce them, not verbatim, but
slightly differently as mood and memory serves. They have to become
part of us; not something external interpreted from marks on a page.
Once they are inside us it is very natural to share them with others.
As aye
Anthony
--- On Tue, 1/12/09, gibbonssoi...@aol.com
wrote:
From: gibbonssoi...@aol.com
Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music
To: cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk, nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu
Date: Tuesday, 1 December, 2009, 0:38
But remembering the words of a speech, writing them down verbatim,
then being unable to remember them again without reading the
transcript
is plain weird
--
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
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
But remembering the words of a speech, writing them down verbatim, then being unable to remember them again without reading the transcript is plain weird -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
Of course, I think the clue is in the phrase "reading music". Nobody would raise an eyebrow at someone listening to a speech or play and writing down the words - punctuation and all, would they? I presume that being able to read music (rather than following the dots as best we can and filling in the spaces with our ears) should mean just that. Many of us can follow the dots (easier for us than most musicians as, generally, we only have either one or two sharps in the scale) but fewer, I think, can actually READ them as well as we would like, Maybe on a par with "getting by" with French or German whilst on holiday. Colin Hill - Original Message - From: "Mike and Enid Walton" To: ; "colin" Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [NSP] Re: From notation to music A friend of a friend, who was a trained musician, once amazed me - I played a tune, she (after checking one note if I remember) had to write the dots out, which she did perfectly, before she played it. I was very impressed but confused as it's completely the opposite of the way I work. She was a violinist (not piper, definitely not fiddler) by the way [Probably my first contribution for years] Mike - Original Message - From: "colin" To: Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:48 PM Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music Interesting thread. As one who plays by getting the dots to sound like the tune I have heard, some of the comments remind me of something in my own family which may clarify some of the problems. Both my mother and her aunt were excellent pianists. The aunt, in particular, having achieved many certificates for her playing. It was interesting, however, to find that she couldn't carry a tune for toffee. Without the dots, she couldn't really play anything at all. With the dots, anything you liked - and as written. My mum could do both but preferred to play by ear which she could do with quite complex tunes. You can guess who was the most popular at parties :-) Most of us, I'm sure, do the latter. Then again, the "Chinese whisper" syndrome plays a part in tunes changing over the years when transmitted aurally. Is that a good or a bad thing? Of course, it may be good to have an "original" transcript for historical purposes but, then again, how many traditional tunes have that? As I said, an interesting thread this. Colin Hill - Original Message ----- From: "Gibbons, John" To: Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:25 PM Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music Matt has said: Any system of notation relies on a culture which knows how that particular music is played, just as any written language relies on people knowing how to pronounce it (greiss / grace etc.). The problems Anthony highlights are well known - use dots if you know how the music sounds, otherwise they are a hindrance. The trouble with tunebooks in simplified notation - eg jigs in straight quavers, or notating rants and reels identically, is that people from different cultural backgrounds, or even nearer/further from the Border, will have very different ideas as to how to play the tunes. Ideally the best way of understanding 'how a tune really goes' is to listen to a good traditional performance. This is why recordings from traditional sources are so important, and contact with live traditional performers even more so. But some literalist note-players - particularly if they are classically trained, and/or far from Northumberland - tend to believe that if a jig is notated in straight quavers, it 'should' sound in equal straight quavers; or if a hornpipe is notated in dotted quavers and semiquavers, the dotted quavers 'should' take 3 times as long as the semi's. The only way to explain these aspects of style to someone who takes notation literally is probably if the NPS or someone publish a style guide with examples. Breathnach and others have done this for Irish music - it was Breathnach's little book and CRE volumes 1 and 2 that taught me what I should listen for. Stuart Hardy has started a similar job for Northumbrian music with his book on jigs - but the job isn't finished yet. Rants, reels and hornpipes, anyone? John -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [[1]mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Matt Seattle Sent: 04 November 2009 11:24 To: gibbonssoi...@aol.com Cc: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [NSP] Re: schei greiss "Notereader makes Hornpipes sound fairly good in 21/16, with dotted and undotted quavers alternating." Do you mean 20/16, John? Any system of notation relies on a culture which knows how that part
[NSP] Re: From notation to music
A friend of a friend, who was a trained musician, once amazed me - I played a tune, she (after checking one note if I remember) had to write the dots out, which she did perfectly, before she played it. I was very impressed but confused as it's completely the opposite of the way I work. She was a violinist (not piper, definitely not fiddler) by the way [Probably my first contribution for years] Mike - Original Message - From: "colin" To: Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:48 PM Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music Interesting thread. As one who plays by getting the dots to sound like the tune I have heard, some of the comments remind me of something in my own family which may clarify some of the problems. Both my mother and her aunt were excellent pianists. The aunt, in particular, having achieved many certificates for her playing. It was interesting, however, to find that she couldn't carry a tune for toffee. Without the dots, she couldn't really play anything at all. With the dots, anything you liked - and as written. My mum could do both but preferred to play by ear which she could do with quite complex tunes. You can guess who was the most popular at parties :-) Most of us, I'm sure, do the latter. Then again, the "Chinese whisper" syndrome plays a part in tunes changing over the years when transmitted aurally. Is that a good or a bad thing? Of course, it may be good to have an "original" transcript for historical purposes but, then again, how many traditional tunes have that? As I said, an interesting thread this. Colin Hill - Original Message - From: "Gibbons, John" To: Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:25 PM Subject: [NSP] Re: From notation to music Matt has said: Any system of notation relies on a culture which knows how that particular music is played, just as any written language relies on people knowing how to pronounce it (greiss / grace etc.). The problems Anthony highlights are well known - use dots if you know how the music sounds, otherwise they are a hindrance. The trouble with tunebooks in simplified notation - eg jigs in straight quavers, or notating rants and reels identically, is that people from different cultural backgrounds, or even nearer/further from the Border, will have very different ideas as to how to play the tunes. Ideally the best way of understanding 'how a tune really goes' is to listen to a good traditional performance. This is why recordings from traditional sources are so important, and contact with live traditional performers even more so. But some literalist note-players - particularly if they are classically trained, and/or far from Northumberland - tend to believe that if a jig is notated in straight quavers, it 'should' sound in equal straight quavers; or if a hornpipe is notated in dotted quavers and semiquavers, the dotted quavers 'should' take 3 times as long as the semi's. The only way to explain these aspects of style to someone who takes notation literally is probably if the NPS or someone publish a style guide with examples. Breathnach and others have done this for Irish music - it was Breathnach's little book and CRE volumes 1 and 2 that taught me what I should listen for. Stuart Hardy has started a similar job for Northumbrian music with his book on jigs - but the job isn't finished yet. Rants, reels and hornpipes, anyone? John -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [[1]mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Matt Seattle Sent: 04 November 2009 11:24 To: gibbonssoi...@aol.com Cc: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [NSP] Re: schei greiss "Notereader makes Hornpipes sound fairly good in 21/16, with dotted and undotted quavers alternating." Do you mean 20/16, John? Any system of notation relies on a culture which knows how that particular music is played, just as any written language relies on people knowing how to pronounce it (greiss / grace etc.). The problems Anthony highlights are well known - use dots if you know how the music sounds, otherwise they are a hindrance. Ancedote, half-remembered: an arranger scored out a trumpet part for Miles Davis with a serious attempt at imitating what he understood of the nuanced rubato of Miles' phrasing - Miles said, I can't read this, man, write it straight, I'll phrase it. -- To get on or off this list see list information at [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
