The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > PLAY and Write

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 08-10-2013, 09:13 AM
JonPR JonPR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silly Moustache View Post
An example that led me to this theory :

I used to play with a banjo player in a five piece, and one day he said to me - "the solo that you just played was quite different to how you played it last week - which is right ?"

I said - I never know what I'm going to play - I just think the melody and improvise around it - it's never going to be the same twice is it?"

He looked at me as if I'd just confessed a crime and said - "that's very dangerous!"

His observation explained to me why he always fought against our making our own arrangement of a number that he'd learned from a record or some tablature. He thought that if it was written or recorded that was IT - no alternatives. which is why (I think) his music was so mechanical and lacking in feeling.

When I was discussing the audience appeal of one very long and complex piece - he replied - "I don't give a *** about the audience - I just want to get it right!"

That to me demonstrates a horizontally opposed point of view to the instinctive player.
Yes, an extraordinary example of the poisonous effect of the European classical attitude to music - not just the wrong-headed attitude to notation (score = holy scripture), but the equal confusion over improvisation.
And doubly remarkable coming from a banjo player! (Not the kind of instrumentalist one would normally think had suffered from a classical education...)

A couple of things are worth saying in general, IMO.

The invention of notation (as we know it, dating from around 1000 AD) has immeasurably enriched our culture. A lot of the music it has allowed to be written and preserved may not be to my taste, but that's beside the point. It's the fact that it allows us to hear music we would not otherwise hear that is its value.

When it comes to improvisation, it's often forgotten that many (if not most) of the great classical composers were renowned as improvisers in their day. Baroque music (of which Bach was king) actually incorporated improvisation as part of its system; it was expected that performers were able to improvise, to a given outline according to the rules of the genre. (In the same way as jazz and folk improvisers do so within the rules of their genres.)
Broadly speaking, it was the culture of Romanticism in the 19th century (beginning with Beethoven) and the growth of the symphony concert culture, that led to the notion of the composer as God, score as gospel, musicians as mere functionaries transmitting His message. (It roughly parallelled the industrial revolution, analogous to capitalist entrepreneurs and hordes of obedient workers.)
There was no place for improvisation in that kind of music; which was not a problem in itself, if that's how the composer wanted it to go. But it led to musicians being trained without ever needing to improvise. Generations of classical musicians emerged from their lengthy education completely unable to improvise - as if they'd been bred to remove that gene.

The invention of audio recording was another mixed blessing for musical culture. Notation simply recorded as much information about a piece of music as could be written down. Now audio recording preserved the whole thing! Musicians who'd suffered a conventional musical education (overseen by the Romantic concept of the composer-genius) naturally acquired a tendency to want to "get things right"; previously notation had required a certain degree of "interpretation"; players might worry about what a composer had "really meant". Now, one had recordings which could provide a 100%-reliable reference - at least when the composer had had a hand in the recording, as 20thC composers increasingly did, and of course as they usually have done in popular music of the last 50 years.
An original recording became a sacred reference. If a "cover" doesn't sound like the record, then it is in some way "wrong" or "imperfect".

While rock music tended to get confused and fall in love with the idea of recording (the frozen iconic artefact), jazz fought vigorously against this deadly tendency, and still does. Some people still see certain jazz recordings (by the "greats") as tantamount to scriptural perfection, but performers generally don't. The masters certainly never worked that way. A recording would simply be a record of how they happened to improvise on that particular tune on that particular day, on that particular take. No "perfection" about it. The next take, the next performance, would be different; as it always should be.
The point being to create a musical experience, afresh every time. Drawing an important distinction between "dead" music (on a recording) and "live" music, experienced in the here and now, once and once only.

(As with notation, I'm not saying the effect of recording on music is all bad. It has enabled us to hear music we would never normally have encountered, either because it was before our time, or made far away - or both. But the idea is not to worship and seek to reproduce, in helpless awe; the idea is to be inspired to absorb it all and create new music of our own.)

"Composition" is not central to jazz. In that way, jazz resembles folk and blues music, which deals in half-remembered old tunes played any way the performer feels like (making the material as relevant to him/her and the audience as they can). The point is not what is played but how it is played.
When you go to see a folk, blues or jazz gig, you don't go hoping to see the artist's last recording faithfully reproduced (at least you shouldn't). You go hoping to see (and hear!) what they will do tonight. You go for the one-off real-time experience, the social event - which is exactly what music always was throughout human history, and (luckily) still is in most places.

Luckily, your banjo player is one of a sad minority!
"I don't give a *** about the audience - I just want to get it right!" - priceless!
__________________
"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." - Leonard Cohen.

Last edited by JonPR; 08-10-2013 at 09:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-10-2013, 10:22 AM
TomiPaldanius TomiPaldanius is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 218
Default

JonPR very much agree with you. Great posts.

About learning Beethoven's 5th by ear. I would say Yes. I would learn it by ear. With ear training you start learning music more as sounds which speak to you. Like that major third down. It has totally different sound when it is played down compared when it is played up. Very dramatic.

Like what Paco De Lucia did with Aranjuez concerto it would be great to hear more personality of the player than the composer. I always love to hear personality more than "product" of very much controlled environment. Of course not all classical musicians are "boring" but classical guitar environment should start to get little more relaxed and free.

Of course written notation has a lot value. It belongs to the classical canon and there was not much of a choice.

But if we talk about popular rhythm music, I don't see any reason learning songs from notation because you can develop the skill to learn it by ear and that way you will learn to understand music better as well.

I used to have a book of Gary Moore's greatest hits. I don't know how many pages Still Got The Blues was but I was memorizing it mechanically from tabs.

Now we did it at Elite group and immediate realization was that it goes with II-V-I pattern like for example Sunday Morning from maroon 5 or Wild Word verse from Cat Stevens and many other songs you can put to certain templates.

You don't need 10 pages of tab when even 2 words can tell you the main structure of the song.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-10-2013, 11:00 AM
JanVigne JanVigne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 960
Default

"Dogmatic rule based classical training was not for me really because if I wanted to change something from Mozart Variations or Bach piece: The verdict was "Get the original score" or "Do you think you are better than the composer?". No freedom.

Something was missing. I was not happy to be as a teacher in a classroom where is not much actual music to learn from. Just a book in a front of a student and you kind of try to get the music out from the sheet music but "perfect connection" is not there. Before I tell you what was missing I will tell more about my journey."





dog·mat·ic
[dawg-mat-ik, dog-] Show IPA

adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas; doctrinal.

2.
asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated.

Synonyms
2. arbitrary, imperious, dictatorial




The old saying; "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach", is proven in any university setting. Whenever I think about my years in undergraduate and then graduate school I find there were too many who taught as a way to avoiding doing. In fact, though I had originally pursued a graduate degree in Theatre out of a desire to teach, by the time I had completed my MFA program I'd run into so many bad teachers who were there for what I considered to be all the wrong reasons, I never tried my hand at institutionalized teaching.

I'm often reminded of the many discussions circulating through my graduate class as we neared the day when we would have to face a world that really didn't give a hoot about the piece of paper we had claiming our mastery of any subject. Too many of my classmates were of the opinion that should no "real job" come along they would teach. Since I'd had several excellent teachers through the years along with many very wretched teachers I found this alternative to be offensive. Along with that attitude, my experience suggested those who thought of teaching as a less than "real job" were also the most protective of their cat bird perch once they became entrenched in a teaching position. "Like" attracted and then protected "like". Often without subtlety they made sure there was no real competition amongst the other instructors who might threaten their existence in a poor educational system they had created. Not all institutions are like this, but too many are. If I'd really understood the politics which exist in any field, I might have looked into teaching.

Recently, a neighbor got a promotion to a position teaching high school physics at one of the premier magnet schools here in Dallas. He has no education degree, which can be seen as either a good or a bad thing given the situation in obtaining a degree in education. That and the fact the Texas legislature is on a downward slope when it comes to defending education. The same rules apply equally across all fields it seems, those who can ...

This neighbor though also lacked any formal education in physics. He got the job through the "persuasion" of a wealthy backer with contacts. His stated opinion was he could read ahead of the students and therefore had no worries. "It's only high school physics." I had no appropriate response unless I wanted to offend him. Which seemed as if it would serve no purpose, he already had the job.


Too many bad teachers exist. The vast majority of better teachers leave because of the bad ones. The ones who can't, yet insist no one else can try in their presence. I suspect every one of us have a few favorite teachers who inspired us in some way. There simply are not enough talented teachers to go around.


Yet, there are originalists and free thinkers, conservatives and liberals, objectivists and subjectivists, nationalists and internationalists, theists and atheists, etc, etc in every field. More importantly, there is the vast middle ground. And, as polls continue to indicate, even more who don't give a rip about the subject.

People are more than willing -especially on the internet - to voice their opinions and denounce all who disagree.

IMO we only become dangerous in our own thinking when we become one of those willing to denounce another when they disagree with our own views. IOW, when we ourself become so dogmatic we can only see the world from one side. There's no danger to the existence of mankind should someone want to play an exact copy of some other player's work. Nor is there any reason to dislike the player who occasionally drops and extra finger when they feel the need.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-10-2013, 11:58 AM
Bern's Avatar
Bern Bern is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 10,748
Default

Jan, 'denounce' is such a strong word. I'm sure there are some who tend to do that. Having strong views on any subject based on one's experience should not be denounced then as well.
__________________
There are still so many beautiful things to be said in C major...
Sergei Prokofiev
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-10-2013, 12:27 PM
Silly Moustache Silly Moustache is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Isle of Albion
Posts: 22,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paikon View Post
I dont get it ,i want to play Beethovens 5th, what should i rely on? paper or ear ?
Depends on whether you are playing a kazoo or swanee whistle.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-10-2013, 12:54 PM
JanVigne JanVigne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 960
Default

"Jan, 'denounce' is such a strong word. I'm sure there are some who tend to do that. Having strong views on any subject based on one's experience should not be denounced then as well."




Nothing personal against TE but would you then say, "If you can't work it out by ear, get a job at a hardware store", is an opinion, a strong view or a denoucement?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-10-2013, 01:50 PM
Bern's Avatar
Bern Bern is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 10,748
Default

Well...from the personalty TE has shown, I'd say he was saying in it jest. Then again, I don't know the circumstances when he said it. It might have been misreported, misinterpreted or taken out of context...who knows ?
__________________
There are still so many beautiful things to be said in C major...
Sergei Prokofiev
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-10-2013, 01:59 PM
Scotch Scotch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 523
Default

I read this post with excitement. I've been also had a goal of getting there but no direction. Past few months decided and found out that i need to train my ear because playing with other musicans i wasn't talented, i can play any song if i had tab but that wasn't any good. Now i'm on my journey of training and say being one with music.

Then i read who wrote this and it was TOMI, Loved your arrangements and was there at the start of your Allears course. I registered to email but my wallet had to many moths to allow me to go on this course but in a way i'm glad i haven't yet. As I like to understand music more, genres and how things change and i want to have these clicks in my brain where it makes sense.

All the best Tomi Keep up with what you're doing.
Kind Regards
Chris.
__________________
Faith FJ.
Lowden F23CFF
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-10-2013, 04:10 PM
JanVigne JanVigne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 960
Default

Bern, I'm not aware of the circumstances either. On its face, it looks to me like a rather strong denouncement of many musicians. Hearing someone with TE's immense technical skills say such a thing might come across to many as intimidating. You're right though, given his on stage persona, I doubt this was his intent.

I would like to think he had no intention for a classical musician to work out an entire symphony by ear. Likewise, if a composer cannot work it out by ear, they are probably in the wrong profession. But the musician isn't in need of such skills and shouldn't be denigrated if they never feel compelled to compose. It is the composer/conductor's job to work out a symphony or such. The musician's task is to follow the conductor's lead. Ears are only required to make sense of what the conductor requests.

Still, I tend to think it would be a shame if someone who wanted to be a musician in a serious sense of the term were devoid of theory to the extent that given an outline of a song they could not work out an idea by ear. As I've mentioned on several occasions one of my pet peeves has been the "Play like so and so" authors who insist on placing flatted this and the sixth of that into music played simply because it sounds right to the musician's ear. At times there is an insistence that music must conform to rigid rules other than just sound good.

We've also mentioned that acoustic blues from the first half of the 20th c/ was most of all dance music, not a cerebral exercise in shooting your cheatin' woman/man/boss/mule/train/etc. The musician who has no need for the pleasure of the audience is, IMO, in another world that I know little about. I can only imagine the friction when attitudes flare over what is important, the playing or the player.


But that's the world we live in and taking a stance that one approach is wrong while your approach is right is a blinkered view of life.

Every year the audience is confront by directors wanting to reinterpret Shakespeare as mobsters in 1930's Chicago, lobster men in 1950's Louisiana or cowboys in the Old West of imaginary cowboys, sweet gals and rustlers. On the other hand, there are dozens and dozens of productions which claim to stay true to what we imagine a 17th c/ audience might have seen and heard. Which is correct when neither applies to the life of the modern audience? Traditionalists exist just as do revisionists. It is the audience which should matter most. If Al Capone/Henry III is as distant from the audience's life as is a Henry who lived four hundred years before his life was made into a play, both seem to me to be missing something the audience needs. Henry was a well known historical figure of Shakespeare's day but no modern day student has that background to work with in either production.


Having gone through a program where the students were less important than the egos of the faculty, I feel sorry for anyone who is faced with rigidity in the face of creativity. Yet, equally rigid views of how others should go about their art seem equally misguided to me.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-10-2013, 04:52 PM
Bern's Avatar
Bern Bern is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 10,748
Default

Jan, at the end of the day, what TE says or doesn't say has only an effect on people who kind of worship the guy. Personally, I look at TE as an entertaining player who really knows his stuff. Whatever his opinions are, aside from the technical aspects of playing, honestly...I couldn't care less.
__________________
There are still so many beautiful things to be said in C major...
Sergei Prokofiev
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 08-10-2013, 06:36 PM
indigomist indigomist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 79
Default

I really need to train my ear. I hate having to look for tabs, as most of the time they don't exist or are faulty. (apart from Jon's, of course )
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-10-2013, 09:04 PM
TomiPaldanius TomiPaldanius is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 218
Default

If anyone here want to get started with practical ear training, you can pm me and tell your story and goals? I am happy to get you started.

Or would here be interest for live online conference? Forums are good but I like to explain ear training and the skill to learn by ear with real music. I can arrange a live conference room.

I won't charge anything. Lets just hang out and see does it make any sense. Don't be scared if you feel you are not good. It is lack of practice. I won't drag you to deep waters first.

I feel that forum conversations have a danger of missing the point. It is like writing about healthy diet or exercising without actually doing it. So let's get to work. It is never too late.

What you think?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-10-2013, 09:28 PM
rick-slo's Avatar
rick-slo rick-slo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 17,172
Default

The best way to get better figuring out new music by ear is of course to practice doing it. However having
a little knowledge (intuitively or more formally) about keys, scales, chords, chord progressions, and typical
song structure helps make quicker sense of what you are hearing to help organize it and stick it in your memory.

For some music the first thing to do is to pay careful attention to the rhythm and timing.

When the guitar is not at hand, practice going through tunes (new tunes or your old ones) with your mind's ears.

With a guitar piece you may have to figure out the tuning used. That is ear training in itself, although upfront
knowledge of certain methods makes it easier.
__________________
Derek Coombs
Youtube -> Website -> Music -> Tabs
Guitars by Mark Blanchard, Albert&Mueller, Paul Woolson, Collings, Composite Acoustics, and Derek Coombs

"Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Woods hands pick by eye and ear
Made to one with pride and love
To be that we hold so dear
A voice from heavens above
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-11-2013, 03:22 AM
shawlie shawlie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,727
Default

That now (in)famous quote, I sometimes think of it. But then I realize that if say Leonard Cohen was unable to tab out something like "Hot Type" by Michael Hedges after a a few listens, it wouldn't really lower my opinion of Cohen or his music.

But more I think of it, I've been trying to work things out by ear once in a while. The easy little melodies are a little easier, but often those even give me troubles. Knowing chords in the keys (and the more obvious progressions) helps me to figure out the general chords for things and strumming along to cetain sections of pop songs on the radio goes ok (well, by the time I have a bit of it figured out, the song is over).

To try more (melodies) I spent the Saturday trying to figure out the theme to "The House of Elliot". Loved the song when the series came out, kind of been in my head for the past 20 years (was it that long ago..?).

elliot -you tube/clarinet
elliot - original theme

I started with the slower clarinet version in F and used the real version for the second (minor) section (in D, but transposed it to F - the first section fits kind of nice in F with a bit of alternating bass style).

I found it extremely difficult. The very first few lines - this is a type of melody I've played lots of times, even probably made some up like that, but it sounded so foreign and strugled to find out what it was. And couldn't, not properly. I had the first section more or less - but only some of it was right, many other things not.

So my wife had to help me (she whistles it once or twice and works it out quickly). It was so hard to hear especially how "wide" the melody can be. Might try the second section today, see if I can work it out without help.

No idea why I can't hear it (but I can't sing it either, might help if I could) but perhaps with practice. Really didn't expect it to be so hard.
__________________
a few fingerstyle country-blues and folk tunes

"Yeah!" - Blind Boy Fuller
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-11-2013, 04:32 AM
Topah Topah is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2
Default

Deleted post.

Last edited by Topah; 08-11-2013 at 04:33 AM. Reason: old account
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > PLAY and Write

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=