Classical Training

Subject: Classical Training
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 09:44 AM

Some here would say, that the notes carry meaning
And others there are who must notate their gleaning
While contestants audition, backstabbing permission
The folk process lives without sophisticate leaning

So, I am courteously wondering just how you feel about the 'classical' approach to folk and traditional music... I am constantly in awe of the sheer mastery and convenience of an instantly read tune... and yet, somehow... this 'freeze dried' version of heartfelt songs... though well preserved... is somewhat lacking in freshness...

...and what's worse, is the implicite denial of deeper substance... by some of the very people who 'profess' to know it so well...

What are your thoughts on this question?

Does the 'classical' approach to folk and traditional music detract from..., or enrich the underlying musical passion?

With much intrinsic questioning, ttr

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 09:46 AM

take the "freeze-dried" version - run it through a folk-processing brain - perform the song while the audience is drinking - and

viola! it's thawed!

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 10:11 AM

You ask a very good question and one that's been around for a very long time. I'll use myself as an example: I was formally trained in music, starting when I was 12. I studied piano, theory and composition. When I was 14, I started serious voice study and continued till about 21. My voice teachers, three of them, were all classical and operatic singers. At this time I also had the benifit of tutoring in elecution and diction from a longtime radio announcer and performer. I became enthralled with traditional folk music when I was thirteen. I taught myself the basics of guitar about then, but I also studied guitar formally over the years. Now the question, did all this formal training hurt me. In my opinion, no. When I was about 16, I knew is was folkmusic that I wanted to pursue, though I kept up with my formal training. The formal training developed my voice as a musical instrument. The education gave me the ability to read and score music. But my singing 'style' is my own. And I do believe that I can present a ballad, with my voice and guitar, with good diction, with the best of them. Could I do an aria or a German"art" song today? Yes, but not very well. But with a couple of years of re-training and study, I probably could. I still occasionally sing at a wedding or a funeral and it's at those times I realize the value of my earlier study. Hope this helps. CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: alanabit
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 10:13 AM

I have several thoughts on this subject and no real hard and fast opinion. The first thing is that "classical training" does not really mean one specific thing. Friends of mine who play at the highest level (chamber music quartets in concert halls) have been trained in the theory and technique of music. More than that they have been educated in approach, interpretation etc. Some would differ, but I believe that there is a difference between training and education.
    I think that what your original post was driving at is that there is a difference between accomplishment on its own and real accomplishment allied to a profound musicality. To be fair to classical musicians, I think they are very aware of this and think and care about it a great deal. Like you, I am quite dazzled at their skill and knowledge.
    In my own experience of classical musicians, I have always been pleasantly surprised by how positively they have reacted to me, even though I will never get near their level of musicianship. I have never found them either patronising or dismissive. I must admit though, I do sometimes wistfully think I wouldn't mind being able to apply their level of technique and knowledge to what I do! Let's have more bridges and fewer borders!

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Kim C
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 10:27 AM

I do both kinds. In my own personal experience, one helps the other.

I started out as a child (of course!) playing the piano by ear. That was all I did for several years. Then I got to piano lessons, and did all that classical stuff. I loved it. It was a challenge. But I never gave up playing by ear.

Then I got into the guitar (can't read tab at ALL), and the fiddle. Anything I know on the guitar is totally by ear, but I can tell you what key I'm in, and the dominant and subdominant and the Fsus4 and all that stuff. Fiddle stuff.... some by ear, some by music, some by a combination of the two. I've been known to look at a piece of sheet music for a fiddle tune and say, I don't like that arrangement, I'm hearing it in my head a different way.

I have been doing some classical violin stuff for the past year, and I enjoy that too. Another challenge. The technical stuff definitely helps my fiddle playing.

As far as meaning in music... well, either you have it, or you don't. I don't believe that's something that can be adequately taught.

Your mileage may vary.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 10:32 AM

Alanabit, your thoughts trigured off some more of mine. Notice in my previous letter I preferred to use the word "formal" training. A large part of my early education came from a very close friendship with friend I grew up with. He was a child prodigy, performed the violin in concert at age 8. His Father and Mother were both classical musicans and teachers. So I really grew up surrounded by formal music. When I started college, as a freshman music major, within one week I was taking senior level courses. And, like you, I've always been amazed by several trained musicians abilities to pick up just about any instrument, and within a minutes, make wonderful music. Bob

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 12:25 PM

I knew a lady who was an extremely classically trained violinist. She was fascinated by country fiddle. She worked at it and became an adequate if not somewhat mediocre fiddler.

She lacked the feel and the soul.

People can read music and get all the training that they will ever want. However, if you are missing the feeling and soul, I think it's somewhat worthless.

What great philospher said, " I read music, but not enough to hurt my playing."

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: alanabit
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 12:34 PM

Thanks Bob. In fact, I think yours and Kim's approach is typical of a great number of folk musicians. In Köln, I am lucky enough to know Klaus der Geiger, who to my mind is indisputably one of the world's greatest folk musicians. He studied classical violin and composition (under Stockhausen among others), played with the Boston and San Francisco Philharmonic Orchestras and then moved on to a thirty plus year career as a busker singing protest songs. To hear him play live is to experience the sheer vigour of a passionate maestro. He is essentially now a folk musician who has allied exemplary technique to formiddable commitment. The two ingredients feed off each other.
      I like to pick up new skills if I can, because I like to have more than one tool in my bag. It never hurts to know something, but a wise musician does not use all his tools for every job. I think that's the essence of what you and Kim are saying too.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST,emily b
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 12:43 PM

Couldn't we ask the same question about any kind of art? Drama, painting, etc? If an actor trains by "method acting" versus something else, or a painter is self taught versus MFA'd, if the art touches someone, isn't that what counts?

I've known folk dancers who were certainly not trained dancers and while they knew which foot went where, they were hopeless at getting the particular style of the dance. Opera star Kathleen Battle just doesn't sound right singing gospel. Many folk musicians wouldn't sound right singing the blues because their voices aren't suitable or their soul isn't pained enough.

I am classically trained and was singing in a small a cappella group. We were doing a contemporary piece and I tried one of the solo lines. I was told I sounded like Mary Poppins singing pop. Sad but true. One the other hand, when I sing Celtic music, my training has helped produce a clear tone and good diction. After all, the words are a very important part of folk songs. No sur titles to folk music.

Is a classically trained singer any worse than a trad folk singer singing a rebel song and not recognizing it as such?
Emily

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Kim C
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 12:44 PM

Using all the tools for every job usually ends up with the baby being strangled!

When I studied the piano, I went to judgings and competitions every year. I have never been a great technical player at anything - this could probably be resolved if I practiced more. My highest marks were always in interpretation. And I have come to realize, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 12:47 PM

Alanabit ... I can't resist another brief post, that I suppose is really an allegory! You mentioned something like "a wise musician does not use all of his tools for every job." Besides my hobby of folkmusic, I am also a deck builder. Ans as you say, I do not bring every tool I have to every job. My truck couldn't carry them. And besides, and here's the allegory, I would be "overloaded!" CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 01:57 PM

Feeling, expression, soul, whatever you want to call it, is the essence in any interpretation. This applies to any repertoire, and any performer, classically trained or not.
Many people think that a classical musician is just following the printed score. This is never true unless the musician is an automaton.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 02:07 PM

Too many musicians are an automation. They read music and play it much the same way a newscaster on TV reads from a teleprompter.

You can teach music theory all day and make someone extremely technical. That doesn't make that person interesting to listen to.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Kim C
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 03:05 PM

Q and Martin are both right.

So, Bob, you really ARE a Deck Man!

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 05:08 PM

Some formally trained musicians can hack it and some can't. Some self-taught can and some can't. If I could work out what "it" was I wouldn't be posting here, I'd be making some money selling it.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 08:19 PM

I tend to agree with GUEST, Martin Gibson.

The old time music I am obsessed with isn't about the notes, it's about the rhythm. Playing all the right notes is the easy part. Playing them "convincingly" (for want of a better term) in a traditional fiddling style (central WV, eastern KY, Galax VA) appears to be difficult.

To my ear (emphasis on MY EAR) most of the cIassically trained violinsts I know who play old time music sound pretty much like classically trained violinists playing old time music. That's not really what I want to hear. They play all the right notes at the correct speed in the right way, but it is not convincing to me. That's not a criticism, it's just my personal preference.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 08:38 PM

A couple of things: to Kim C ... yes, I really am a "deck man." In fact, that's the name of my business. By the way, and I hope this gives you smile, my business slogan is: "YOU SHOULD SEE WHAT I SAW!" Also, as one who has had a nodding aquaintence with classical orchestras, I do say that there is need for both extremes, if you will, in the makeup. Remember, a full compliment of orchestra members is about 125 persons. When you get down to the solo level, which is what this thread is really about, it gets real personal (no charge for the humor). I have to mention my friend Don Firth's favorite performer relating to this discussion ... is William Dyer Bennet. (sp?) This man walked the razor thin edge of this thread. I have always enjoyed him on BOTH levels. You figure it out! I'm going to alert Don to this thread, as I'm sure he will be able to add much to this conversation. AIN'T MUDCAT GREAT! CHEERS, Bob(deckman)Nelson

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 11:17 AM

Nice Postings all! Dyer-Bennett is a fine example of many infleuences conjoining... How about Eileen Ivers? I am fine with the 'mental' approach, when it is not tending towards elitism... and a good performance by an arrogant musician always seems to be a dud...

I have been thinking about this for some time... Do the classically trained musicians generally tend to be more competitive? My experience says yes... and the trouble I have with this is that any competitiveness in folk/trad spoils the outcome of the aggressor... thus casting a pallor overall...

Does anyone teach people how to play with love?... or is it a self taught thing... ?

Cheerio! ttr

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 12:38 PM

"Do the classically trained musicians generally tend to be more competitive?

I doubt it. I've seen just as much 'jealousy' and competitiveness in folk groups as I have in classical circles. That always ruins the enjoyment, for me.   A lot of people don't even TRY to develop their musical talents because they think "oh, I'll never be as good as so-and-so, so what's the point?" I think that's really sad, and a true waste of potential.

"Does anyone teach people how to play with love? ... or is it a self-taught thing?"

For some, it just comes naturally. But for everyone, having a teacher or musical 'mentor' who plays with expression and love, who really does LOVE music for it's own sacred sweet sake, is the best "instruction" of all. The students pick it up as if through "osmosis".
Even if they have the dreaded task of learning how to read music as well! Love prevails, even over the written score!!!

:>)    daylia (all full of love now!)

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Strick
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 12:45 PM

Seems most folks agree with what I thought when I read the first post. Classical trainings is a great and helpful thing if you can get over it. (that is, learn to play any music the way it's meant to sound).

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Kim C
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 01:11 PM

I don't compete with anyone but myself. My formal training has been a big help to me, and I have been able to use it, and my own natural instinct, together. Most of the time that works pretty well, although sometimes has rather humorous results. Right now my teacher has me working on some Handel sonata, and there was a note I was playing wrong, because it sounded more "right" to me than the right note! :-) Now, in fiddling, at least, you can get away with that all day long.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 03:53 PM

"I don't compete with anyone but myself."

Good for you, Kim!

" ... and there was a note I was playing wrong, because it sounded more "right" to me than the right note! :-) Now, in fiddling, at least, you can get away with that all day long."

When my piano students "learn" a "wrong" note, I always point it out to them and demonstrate the "right" one so they can hear the difference. I figure that's my job as a music teacher. But -- as long as they are not intending to perform the piece for marks (ie exams, festivals) -- if they insist that they like their version better, I don't mind if them play it their own way. And sometimes, I even agree -- their own version does sound better! Sometimes I think Bach made it his business to use strange, awkward-sounding harmonies!

So how do you get away with it on the fiddle? Creative intonation, maybe? My viola teacher had the ears of a ... well, a god maybe! I couldn't get away with diddley!!

Unless I wore a halter and a real short skirt ... then he didn't notice as much ...

daylia

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 03:59 PM

I certainly agree with all the comments on the four previous postings, assuming another posting does not slide in while I'm writing this. I wanted to add to the question as to whether classically trained musicians are more competitive. I think the answer is largely YES. And the reason is the fault of the "system" itself. Assuming that you studied at a large and prestigious Music school, such as Oberlin Conservatory of Music, as my friend Lauren did, you are a product of the system. From there he went onto many prestigious orchesters, playing such conductors as Stokowski (sp?). He attended master classes in conducting with the likes of Berstein, (again sp?) etc. Probably for 20 years of his life, he was always in a competitve postition. Second chair, challenge for first chair, challenge for Concert Master (assistant Conductor)? At the time of his death, he had had quite a marvelous career not only as a violin soloist, but had conducted five orchestras. So, many of the classically trained musicians I've known are very competitve. Hopefully, the older they get, and the more secure, the more human they become. But let me tell you ... it's a tough world out there. You may reach a certain level of proficency, but you're always looking over your shoulder because youngsters are always comming up behind you. And if YOU are sitting in the First Chair violin section, and they are in the Second Chair section. the ONLY way they can advance is to challenge you. And they do! CHEERS, Bob (I'm enjoying this thread, as if you couldn't tell).

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 04:12 PM

I grew up with both formal classical in piano and violin, but also hearing my mom and dad play for dances, both by ear and off the music. I was fortunate in all of my teachers and in the choices they made for music. IMO, one couldn't help but be moved by the glorious harmonies, etc. of Mozart, Beethoven, Telemann, Vivaldi, etc. Of course, I was just as moved by the songs and tunes I learned from mom and dad.

I think Itzak Perlman is a great example of someone who can bridge the gap - ever heard him on klezmer fiddle?!

I am very grateful for the early training, esp. for my ear, both classical and trad. It's priceless, as far as I am concerned, to my happiness and satisfaction when making music.

I think where classically trained violinists who try to fiddle get into trouble is if they try to do it all by the dots and don't just do it by ear. They have to learn to loosen up, realise they do not have to be formal about it. It's almost like riding a bicycle without the training wheels for the first time (NOT that classical music is at all simple in the playing technique, etc!)

Ciaran Carson had some good points about all of this in his book on Irish music and time. If I get a chance I'll post an excerpt from the most excellent book!:-) There are also a couple of old thread about this I'll try to find.

kat

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 04:28 PM

Hi Kat ... very interesting thoughts you just posted! For many years, I used to 'poke' my friend Lauren, remember he was a formally trained violinist, by calling his violin a "fiddle." This would always upset him, which is why I did it. Up here in Seattle, we have been blessed by the presence of one the masters of fiddling, Vivian Williams. My memory says that she won the Weisor,Idaho competition when she was a teenager. My friend Lauren heard her once, and grudgingly commented that was pretty good. The irony in this story is that my friend Lauren's daughter, is also a concert violinist. Sometime ago, she mentioned to me that she's getting intrested in fiddling. Go figure? CHEERS, Bob (in fairness to my friend it's important to remember that he had perfect pitch, and the sliding and slurring of pitches drove him nuts).

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Mudlark
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 05:29 PM

Listening to Leadbelly play piano...it's like somebody falling down stars...flubbed notes, sometimes out of rhythm..but god he sounded like he was having fun...it's always been a part of his music I've enjoyed. No WAY a classically trained pianist could allow their hands that kind of playing, is my guess. My mother was a classical pianist and went crazy trying to play "boogie-woogie" back in the late 40's (at my dad's insistence). She could get all the notes, dead simple compared to Rachmanianoff (sp), but dead, dead, dead.

Leadbelly's guitar playing wasn't all that great either, but it fit his music perfectly. On the other hand, I could listen to Julian Bream or John Williams play classical guitar all day, as well, and enjoy both equally.

I can't read a note, have never taken a lesson, and have always been a bit shy and hangdog about my simple guitar playing. But I really love the music, the stories, the feel of folk...and there have been times when I've been accompanied by a much better guitarist than myself...and been unhappy with the result. I think it IS hard not to use all of one's nifty, hard-won tools all the time. It takes not only sensitivity but valiant restraint to give a song just what it needs (as as the performer perceives it)...and nothing else.

But oh, to be ABLE to pick well, do barre chords, etc. And I love to hear music theory expounded, tho I don't understand one word in 10. I feel really fortunate to love so many kinds of music...classical, folk, blues, jazz...and I don't care if there are crossovers. As far as I'm concerned, the only time crossovers work is when you have to be TOLD it's a crossover.

Very interesting thread, lots of good, thoughtful posts.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 05:58 PM

Mudlark ... "valient restraint!" What perfect phrase. One very important part of musicianship is to value restraint ... the knowing of when to underplay something, or to say it another way ... to know when enough is enough! CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 06:05 PM

Beware! Lengthy Discourse Follows!

"Does anyone teach people how to play with love?"

Well, actually, yes. One of my voice teachers asked me bring my guitar to lessons and after the vocal technique part, he would ask me to sing whatever songs I was working on at the time. He would often stop me in the middle of a verse and say, "Now what does that line mean? Tell me in your own words." His point was, "Don't sing by rote. Be sure you understand the meaning of the words you are singing. What are the emotions those words convey? What do they mean to you?" Methinks that's teaching to play and sing with love.

I think there are a couple of things at work here. The most important one might be called "inherent musical sense." Where this comes from, I don't know. Listening to music from an early age? Growing up in a musical family? Anyway, some people seem to have it, some people don't.

If a person simply doesn't have it, no amount of music lessons and training will turn him or her into an inspired, charismatic performer. He or she might become a very competent musician, able to play anything at sight from written music, and sometimes play with spectacular technical proficiency (I'm thinking of a particular classic guitarist; many CDs out, but not quite as well known as Segovia, Bream, Williams, Romero, or Fernandez. He plays everything about half again as fast as it should be played and he never misses a note, but he has an attack like a flamenco guitarist and his playing is absolutely soulless). Some of these folks make good orchestra musicians: "reads expertly, technically proficiently, and plays well with others." This is not to put symphony orchestra musicians down in any way. But it's important for a symphony musician to be able to suppress his or her individual inclinations and follow the interpretation of the conductor, or the result will be ragged at best and chaos at worst. But good symphony musicians rarely become solo concert performers (although there are notable exceptions to this). Qualifying to play in a symphony orchestra requires that a musician have an extensive amount of musical training, but too much of an individual style can be counterproductive. But a musician who has this inherent musical sense can modify their style to fit the situation.

If a person has this inherent musical sense, he or she can probably do pretty well without formal training. Presuming that he or she has this quality in combination with certain physical attributes such as a good natural singing voice (not necessarily operatic, but at the very least, able to sing on pitch, and preferably not sounding like fingernails on a blackboard), and has the necessary ambition and drive, the basic requirements for a successful singing career are present. If they have a normal and fairly supple pair of hands, they can teach themselves to play a musical instrument (say, a guitar) out of manuals. But remember—this is a form of training (you have to learn your first chords from somewhere). There are a lot of successful musicians out there who are self-taught—self-trained. Lots of singers of folk songs. Lots of pop singers. Frank Sinatra, for example, never had any formal voice lessons. And, surprisingly enough, Metropolitan Opera bass-baritone Ezio Pinza (Some Enchanted Evening) never learned to read music very well. He had to memorize entire opera scores by ear!! (I would say that being able to do this indicates a certain "inherent musical sense.")

But self-teaching means you have to grub it out on your own. If you don't learn to read music (not that hard, really) you are limited to learning songs by ear: by having singers write out the words for you and sing it over and over for you until you get the tune; or play the CD repeatedly while you scribble and memorize. You're cut off from whole libraries full of song books and sheet music—unless you can get friend who is both patient and musically literate, or someone like Pinza's vocal coach to work with you (how much did Pinza have to pay him for that, I wonder). Not being able to read music is very limiting for a musician. Consider, for a moment, an actor who can't read, and has to get someone read the script to him over and over until he has it memorized! The chances of his having a successful acting career are pretty slim! How much easier just to learn to read. Think of the independence. With diligence, you can teach yourself to read music, but it's a lot easier with a teacher.

And music theory. Reading music is analogous to knowing the alphabet and recognizing words and sentences. Music theory is analogous to spelling and grammar. What notes go into making a major chord? A minor chord (that's sort of like spelling words). When you decide on what key you want to do a song in, what chords are available to you in that key? Not just three, there are a whole bunch you can chose from (major and minor; I'm not talking about modified and added-note chords). How do you know which chords you could use at a particular place in the song? When you start to learn music theory, all this becomes clear. Music theory includes such things as the Circle of Fifths (what chords go with which keys and how to transpose easily), scale structure (what's the difference between major and minor keys and how come not all minor scales are the same?). What are modes? How do they differ from the scales we normally use? How do you recognize them? How are modes used? What chords would you use for a song in, say, Dorian mode? Why is it especially important for those who work with folk music to know something about modes!??

Notice that:—

1. These are questions that come up frequently and repeatedly right here on Mudcat (umpteen different threads).

Some of the answers Mudcatters come up with are correct, but unfortunately many answers are not, and contain a lot of misinformation. Lots of people here have studiously avoided anything that resembles formal training and are burdened with trial-and-error misconceptions, confused and confusing use of terminology, and general bewilderment. If you don't already know, how do you tell which is which? More confusion for the innocent! Lots of blind leading the blind, I'm sad to say! Best to get it from a good book on the subject or from a class specifically devoted to teaching music theory.

2. The answers to all these questions can be found in a good, comprehensive textbook on music theory. In any halfway decent school of music, they're covered in freshman music theory classes. Some universities offer courses in basic music theory for those not majoring in music in evening classes—for not that much money. Oddly enough, not all that many private piano, voice, guitar, or violin teachers do a very good job of teaching music theory, because, although they might be able to read very well, many (I venture to say, most) never learned music theory themselves. They, in turn, learned from teachers who didn't know it either, and could teach only by rote. This goes a long way toward explaining people who have had lots of lessons and read well, but don't seem to quite know what they are doing and often don't play with much heart. If your teacher won't or can't teach it to you, find someone who can.

And voice. There are many good singers floating around who have never had a voice lesson. There are also a lot of singers floating around whose voices go to pot fairly quickly. Singing with a tight vocal apparatus or not using good breath support is hard on the larynx and the vocal folds, those delicate little strands that make the whole thing possible. Chronic laryngitis, nodes on the vocal folds, and any of a number of other hazards that come as a result of bad vocal technique can cut a promising career short—or, at least, a lot shorter than it could be. I once heard Russian basso Mark Reizen sing Prince Gremin's aria from Eugene Onegin at the age of ninety! And he sounded as rich and full as he ever did. Good vocal technique kept him going. A few voice lesson taken early on—learning to relax your throat and "place" the voice, and learning to use good breath support—can make singing a lot easier and save you a lot of grief later on. And don't worry: it won't make you sound like an opera singer. Believe me, there are lots of young singers aspiring to sing opera who wish it was that easy!! Not many people can, because not many people were born with that kind of big, full, resonant voice.

Now, one thing I hope is coming through loud and clear, here. Anyone (and there are large numbers of folk music enthusiasts with this misconception) who thinks that if you learn a song from written music, you can't sing it and it play with heart is dead wrong. If a person doesn't sing with heart, it's not because they learned the song from written music, it's because they haven't really learned the song. They may have learned the words and the notes, but the rest of it has to come from within themselves. If you can tell that they are singing from written music and not from some inner impulse, emotion, or understanding, that's not the fault of the written music, that's the fault of the singer. Example: one actor learns a speech from a copy of The Complete Works of Shakespeare and delivers it brilliantly. Another actor learns the same speech from the same volume and he stinks to high heaven! Is this the fault of Shakespeare? Or the publisher of the book? If so, please explain.

A major misconception of a lot of folk music enthusiasts is the idea that music theory is a bunch of rules and prohibitions that dictate how you must play and sing, and that it will sit there on your chest like a ghoul, destroying your "naturalness" and "spontaneity."   They just simply don't understand what music theory is all about. Music theory is to a musician what structural engineering is to an architect. It's "how it's put together." Knowing structural engineering allows different architects to come up with radically different designs for the same kind of building, both of which are structurally sound. If the buildings all come out like "little boxes," that's not the fault of structural engineering, it's lack of insight on the part of the architects in question. The truth is that music theory opens a whole world of possibilities! It shows you what you can do. Many times it reveals possibilities that you probably never would have thought of on your own. Any time it suggests not doing a particular thing, there is usually a reason for it. Musicians in the past have tried it, and it turned out to be a real clinker. Try it yourself and see. Music theory is the combined knowledge of all of those musicians who have gone before. To turn you back on this fund of knowledge and experience is just plain foolish.

Why knock yourself out trying to reinvent the wheel?

Learning to read music will greatly expand the sources you can use.   Knowing music theory, in addition to broadening your horizons enormously, will help you work out your own individual arrangements without having to copy anybody else's (in fact, you may find other people are starting to copy yours). But—once you've learned all the notes, learning to play the music is your responsibility.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 06:20 PM

WHEW! ... Well said Don! For those of you that don't know of the close relationship and high regard I have for Don, this is a fine example of why I consider him one my best mentors! Love to you Don, Bob

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 07:11 PM

It is said that if you want to play (or sing) a solo you need to practice the piece until you know all of the notes without looking at the music. Then you need to practice the piece until you no longer know the notes. Then you can play (sing) it from your soul.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Frankham
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 07:30 PM

I think it can work both ways. Louis Armsrong. If he had studied formally what would have happened? OTOH Burl Ives studied Schuber Leider with a Met vocal coach. John (Ti Jean) Carignan played fiddle so well self-taught that classical musicians came to listen to him do things they couldn't do and break all the rules.

There are good reasons to learn classical styles. More breadth and perspective in music is one. A lot of jazz musicians studied Stravinsky, Bartok (Charlie Parker is one). Bix knew Ravel and Debussey. Jelly Roll Morton played classical music before jazz.

OTOH does Eileen Farrell have the "Right to Sing the Blues"?

Now when it comes to vocal technique to save your voice, that makes sense. If it requires learning a few Italian vocalises, why not?

What is meant by classical music? Today, jazz may be the American classical music, some say. Alan Lomax used to say that classical music or art music has a European base and might be more foreign to American musicians than traditional folk music.

I think Phillip Glass is a genius. He could be the new American classical music too. Borrows from folk and ethnic rhythms.

But if you study European "classical" music, this may not help you understand jazz, blues, trad. country or even pop styles. But OTOH the techniques that are gleaned from the study of so-called "classical" music can help when you go to study the disciplines of aforementioned jazz, blues, trad country,trad folk, pop or rock.

But these are different disciplines and require the same attention as one would spend on "classical" music.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 07:36 PM

Yes, Bev and Jerry, that's what we did for solo competitions in school, but i hated the memorising part even though I did well. It is so much less enjoyable than learning/memorising something by ear!

Mudlark, way back when some classically trained pianists could do like Leadbelly, my Uncle Courtney did so on piano and his brother, Howard, could really cut loose on clarinet, despite the fact that they had classical music lessons while growing up. My dad, who had a few fiddle lessons and was taught to read music in grammar school (didn't all schools used to do that? Ours did.), still talks in awe of their incredible natural talent for jazz, trad, and dance music. My sister has an old 78 that Uncle Courtney had made one time. I'll have to see about getting a copy of it made.:-)

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 07:37 PM

Bev and Jerry ... Well said! I guess this thread has got my juices going! I think a beautiful example of this subject was exhibited at a concert that Don and I participated in this last Memorial Day weekend. About a hundred years ago, 1958 or 59, Don arrived with this glorious version of "Delias Gone." He'd gleeped it from a recording of Rolf Cahns' (sp?) It was a beautiful song, but it was the classical guitar arrangement that captured me. After threats of severe pain, Don sat me down and taught me, note for note, that guitar arrangement. (poor fellow). As the years went by, I reconnected with this song many times. Some years ago I met David Bromberg when I opened a concert for him. I listened backstage as he did this song. I was again fascinated with the song and the arrangement that Don, through Rolf Cahn, had brought to me. This year, at the Northwest Folklife Festival, Don and I had the glorious opportunity to perform together again. One of the songs we did, and we'd never done this as a duet before, was "Delias Gone." We found out, as we were preparing for the performance, that our solo presentations had changed ... and yet they still worked. The guitars were rock solid. but we had forgotten and had also gained whole new verses. Most importantly, vocal styles had changed, yet they worked together as we traded verses. To me, this represents several things: the value of solid musicianship forged from years of solid study and practice; the mutual acceptance of the creative process; and most of all, the mutual repsect for the music and the musicians. CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Bassic
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 08:41 PM

I am no musicologist but I am a classically trained musician. One of the key observations I have been made awaree of in the last 3 or 4 years since I discovered traditional music for myself, is that it is "All in the rhythm". Listen to a "classical violinist" and a "fiddler" play an up-tempo tune and each will give the same tune different qualities. The instinct of the classical violinist is to seek out the "phrase" in the tune, in other words, its lyrical quality. A Violinist tries to make their instrument "sing". That is usually what will dominate their interpretation.
The fiddler on the other hand, will usually seek out the rhythm of the tune and that will be the characteristic that is emphasized or "comes across" most strongly in their interpretation. Which is correct?
The numerous settings of traditional tunes in classical music have produced some wonderful pieces in the classical repertoire, but they do sound "different" to their traditional origins. Try dancing to some of them!! That is the key, it's the dance origins of traditional playing, where the emphasis is on the rhythm, which gives this music its character. They were written to be played with a rhythmic emphasis and I believe it isn't until classically trained musicians "discover" this and put less emphasis on phrasing that they start to get the "feel" of traditional music. The best players manage to combine both elements. I know the above is a sweeping generalisation but I have observed it to be true on several occasions.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 08:43 PM

Well said, Bob

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 08:54 PM

Please forgive me for posting my opinion before I've had time to read the whole thread, but this is a subject I've given considerable thought to before now…

Classical training, for the most part, means training to be part of an orchestra. There are exceptions—pianists are usually soloists, for example. Classical training concentrates on technical skill rather than originality, individuality, or interpretation. Even young pianists are given such difficult material to work on—Chopin, for instance—that they are considered to be doing well if they can only get all the notes in the right place, never mind whether they play with any feeling.

Next time you see an orchestra, watch the fiddlers—excuse me, violinists—and notice how their bows are moving. There may be more than one fiddle—there I go again—violin section playing different notes, but within one section, all the bows will be moving up or down in unison. This is not a coincidence. The lead violinist (What's the term? First chair? Concert master?) goes over the score and decides whether each note should be played with an up stroke or a down stroke, notates the score accordingly, and passes out copies to everyone in the section, so that they all play each note in the same way.

By contrast, watch a bunch of folk or bluegrass fiddlers jamming together, and you will see their bows going every which way. I think if you tried to tell any folk fiddler (other than a raw beginner) which way to move his bow, he'd tell you to stick it where the sun don't shine!

Individual expression is antithetical to orchestral music—and choir music, which is the equivalent for voice. If there is to be any expression, that's what the conductor is for: to tell the musicians exactly what to express and how and when to express it, note by note, phrase by phrase, so that they all express the conductor's feelings, not their own. Of course, soloists are an exception, but remember, you don't get to be a soloist until you've had years of experience playing as an orchestra member, and most classical musicians never become soloists.

I've known a couple of classically trained musicians who switched to folk music, and my impression is that they've had the life beaten out of them. Or maybe the life has never developed. They can pick up a piece of sheet music and play it perfectly the first time—perfectly, meaning all the notes are in the right place—but it's devoid of feeling, or any sense of fun, and sounds mechanical, rather like a midi file. No one note is emphasized more than any other. I'm not saying a classically trained musician can't become a good folk musician, but it seems they first have to "unlearn" part of their training.

One thing that classically trained musicians miss out on is playing for dances. I think playing for dances is a very good experience for folk musicians. It teaches you rhythm and the importance of a strong beat above anything else. It also gives you a chance to fool around and have fun, because the dancers won't notice most of the embellishments you put in. You can take risks and make mistakes and it won't matter.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Benjamin
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 09:17 PM

If you ever have a chance to hear a recording of Charles Ives playing the piano (Composers Recordings Inc. has one out called "Ives plays Ives), I would highly recomend it. Ives was a classicaly trained pianist and composer, one of the first musicians to graduate from Yale, yet had a deep respect for (for lack of a better word) vernacular music.
Also in Seattle is a pianist named Annivile Blues. She grew up studing classical piano and at some point switched over to blues. From talking to her, she doesn't really regret a thing in her previous training.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: hesperis
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 09:20 PM

Don Firth and Bassic - EXCELLENT points!

I started music early on. My mother was a singer-songwriter guitar player who was completely self-taught. My father was a musician who could play perfectly but had little soul. At a very early age, I knew the difference, and wanted to learn only so much theory as would support actual music. At the age of 3, I actually refused to go to piano lessons with a teacher who concentrated on technique to the exclusion of fun. Music is about having fun, not about being the greatest piano player on the planet.

I've had certain classical or classically-trained "elite" jazz players try to make me play like them, but we're all fortunate that most are there for the love of the music, not just the love of technique. Some of the classical training I received got in the way if I let it, and I did my best to not let it do so.

It is definitely possible for the classical training and knowledge to support the REAL music.

A lot of classical players don't realize that there is more to music than classical. Different genres have a different emphasis of what is important in the music.

When I compose, I have an innate sense of musical structure. I always had it, and learning theory helped make it better. I know when to break the rules to let the music's soul be what comes through.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 09:51 PM

"Classical training concentrates on technical skill rather than originality, individuality, or interpretation"

Jim, either you have no classical training or you went to an extremely lousy school.

Marks for performance of pieces and studies for instrumental exams at the Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto are assigned as follows --

FAIL - inconsistent tempo
    - distorted rhythm
    - inaccurate notes
    - technical limitations
    - little or no dynamic contrasts
    - lacking in continuity

PASS - 60-69% - fairly consistent tempo
    - accurate rhythm
    - fairly accurate notes
    - some technical ability
    - basic dynamic contrast
    - general continuity

HONOURS - 70-79% - consistent tempo
       - accurate and shaped rhythm
       - accurate notes
       - technical control
       - clearly marked dynamic contrast
       - some definition in articulation
       - a sense of phrasing and line
       - good tone quality
       - some idea of style

FIRST CLASS HONOURS - 80-89% - appropriate, well maintained tempo
                   - rhythm; accuracy, vitality, flexibility
                   - technically fluent
                   - wide range and subtlety of dynamics
                   - flexibility, direction and shaping of phrases
                   - convincing and appropriate articulation
                   - depth and balance of tone
                   - secure and varied touch
                   - fluent and confident in performance

1ST CLASS HONOURS WITH DISTINCTION - 90% and over
                  
                   - exceptional performance, virtually impossible to   
                      criticize
                   - artistry and flair
                   - interpretive insight and a talent for
                      communicating this to the listener

The reason violinists in an orchestra all bow the same way is because they have learned to hold and use the bow in a manner that produces the finest quality and widest range of tone and articulation technically possible on that instrument.

Classical musicians who've been well taught do not have to "unlearn" ANY of their training to play other genres of music, including folk music. The slightly different styles, instruments and "techniques" merely add to their repertoire. And their technical and theoretical knowledge makes that a whole lot easier.

daylia

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Stewart
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 10:27 PM

Very interesting thread.

Don and Deckman, I agree with you completely. I was classically trained, but I've also listened to a lot of folk music since I was young. So that has helped. But also the classical training has been quite helpful - both voice and violin, and some music theory in college. Some of the best young Irish fiddlers now are classically trained, but also have been exposed to a lot of Irish music growing up with their families (Liz Carroll for example). I think that makes a big difference. Listening to the music is as important as playing it.

Jim, I know what you mean about non-solo classical playing - I've played in school orchestras and too many choirs (I gave that up many years ago). I like the freedom in folk music to interpret it in my own way, and to not worry about making a few mistakes. I probably couldn't make it anymore as a classical musician (much too difficult for me now), but I can do a reasonably good job as a folk musician.

I've tried to write some of my own tunes and find that my music theory background has been quite helpful - saved a lot of trial and error. And the ability to read music and figure out chords and keys is a great advantage.

Cheers, S. in Seattle

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 10:34 PM

That Memorial Day concert at Folklife was great! Bob has a good, solid baritone voice that he uses well, and you can hear every word of whatever song he happens to be singing because his diction is crisp and clear without calling attention to itself. And his guitar accompaniments are solid, tasteful, and straightforward. As far as I know, Bob has never studied classic guitar, but he plays a great-sounding old Martin classic and his general technique looks classic to me.   I'm sure if he wanted to, with a few hours in the woodshed with the sheet music, he could whip off a bit of Sor or Tarrega. Bob's musicianship is solid as a rock, and it works in the service of putting the song across. And he knows a heck of a lot of great songs. It was a real kick working together again! [By the way, my sister got some pretty good pictures, so when I get them scanned in, I'll see about getting them posted on the "Member Photos & Info / Events" page. That'll be a bit yet.]

Jim, read my post above (03 Jul 03 - 06:05 PM), paragraph four, where I talk about symphony orchestra musicians. We agree on most things.

I think beginning orientation has a fair amount to do with it, but it doesn't have to rule your life. A musician who has had a lot of classical training with the idea of becoming a classical musician, and then decides to do some serious forays into folk music may have some difficulty in loosening up sufficiently, at least at first. Classical training and practice concentrates pretty heavily on precision and beauty of tone (at least by classical standards), whereas a lot of folk-style playing is pretty sloppy (again, by classical standards), with less emphasis on beauty of tone. Once the classical musician does loosen up enough to say, "Oh, what the hell!" and just lets 'er rip, he or she is going to be essentially indistinguishable from any other folk musician—except for playing very well and sounding pretty darned good. I've heard this happen on a number of occasions. Above, Bob mentions Vivian Williams, who started out with classical violin training, turned to bluegrass, and was the first woman to win a national country fiddling contest back in the early Sixties (which means she had to be better than everyone else, especially the men, by a pretty wide margin). She can saw that sucker with the best of them (obviously!), but when she wants to, she can back off and milk a beautiful, sweet tone out of that violin/fiddle. Unless she decides to try to unseat Nadia Salerno-Sonnenberg, she has all the technique she'll ever need and then some.

It's nice to be able to do both

Horrible example: Some years ago, I heard a prominent operatic tenor do Lord Randal in one of his recitals. He was great with the operatic arias and the art songs, but he didn't know Lord Randal from Fred Mertz! He gave it the full, Italianate operatic treatment, making it sound like the final aria in Lucia di Lamermoor, as Edgardo lays there dying with a dagger in his chest. Gawdawful! The tenor was strictly opera-oriented, and he had no idea of how to put a folk song across. Bad choice. Even some of the opera buffs in the audience were a bit turned off. Oddly enough, John Jacob Niles used to get away with that sort of thing! I've heard that during his rendition of Hangman, Hangman, Slack Your Rope, he's all over the stage, writhing, falling to his knees, gasping, and clutching at his throat. . . .

I repeat: classical training is not going to erase your ability to do folk music well (or any other kind of music, for that matter) unless you let it. Quite the contrary. It gives you the ability to do all kinds of things that you would not be able to do otherwise.

Glorious example: Wynton Marsalis. He had classical training in the beginning, and he is one of the top jazz trumpet players in the world, highly respected by jazz musicians and classical musicians alike. All I had ever heard of him was his jazz, and then one night on the tube, I saw him and heard him play Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 2. I've heard that a lot, but I've never heard it played better.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 10:35 PM

Daylia: Your first guess was right: I have had no classical training worth speaking of. (I did learn to read music somewhat.) But I have no folk training either, so I have no reason to be prejudiced one way or the other. I am not a musician. Everything I know about music, I learned by listening to it or reading about it. If that means I'm not entitled to an opinion, fine, but hey, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. So if you don't like my ideas, please argue with the ideas and don't resort to ad hominem arguments.

So, do I understand you correctly, that you're denying that there is any, ah, concerted effort on the part of the violinists to all move their bows the same way? That they all just know, by virtue of their training, that the right way to play one note is with a down stroke and the right way to play another note is with an up stroke? And they all just naturally agree on this? And this agreement produces better music? And all the great folk fiddlers of the world have somehow just failed to discover this principle?

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 11:49 PM

Jim, I wasn't trying to attack your person -- just pointing out how obvious it was (to me, anyway) that you've either had no classical training or (unfortunately) very bad training. Your remarks clearly demonstrated a lack of knowledge of what's required of classical musicians, how they "make the grade". I wasn't trying to insult you personally!

Interpretation, expression, sensitivity and playing "from the heart", the ability to improvise with flair (and "cover" your mistakes by doing so!), a talent for developing a rapport with your audience, a deep sense of personal style and individuality, a clear understanding of the style of the music -- AS WELL AS correct notation and rhythm -- these are the characteristics that make an exceptional musician in any genre, including classical. I posted the RCM examination marking system to demonstrate that -- and other reputable schools are the same.

On the violin, using a down-stroke with the bow produces a strong beat, and an up-bow produces a weaker one. This is a natural physical thing -- the 'handle' end of the bow is heavier, and if you start the stroke there, it produces a louder, sharper tone than starting at the tip. Also, on a down-stroke you are working WITH gravity (your arm is moving downwards towards the floor), while on an upstroke you are pushing against gravity. This also affects the "weight" -- or strength -- of the tone.

(It's the same principle with the guitar -- a down-stroke with the pick produces the strong beats, up-strokes produce weaker ones. It's the way the instruments and the human body are made, and the way gravity works).

Most Western music is written with a measured pulse (ie. waltzes are in 3 time, the pulse is Strong-weak-weak). The violinists in an orchestra all bow the same way because they are all playing -- (hopefully) -- the same piece, with the same rhythm and the same basic pulse, at the same tempo, on the same instrument. They all use downstrokes for the strong beats, ups for the weaker ones -- because that's how the rhythmic pulse is achieved on a violin, and they've all learned that. And they all have learned to hold the bow in the manner that is physically best for facilitating technical and tonal variety and control. Why do they bother to learn all this? Because the style of music they perform DOES sound best that way -- and if you want to be excellent, it's an absolute requirement.

As to whether or not folk musicians figure this out -- some do and some don't, according to what they need and what they want.

daylia

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 12:30 AM

As I've mentioned before, my late friend was, an addition to being a violinist, a symphony orchestra conductor. Over our lifetime of friendship, I attended many rehersals and performances of his various orchestras around the world. As we had grown up together, I always knew that I could poke fun at him as I felt he needed. One time, I complained, after a rather boring concert, that all the violin bows, sawing in unison had put me to sleep. He carefully explained to me, with complete dead pan, while dressed in his formal tails backstage, that the reason they do this is, is to keep the conductor in proper time!
True story! CHEERS and again, what a great thread!

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 01:24 AM

I thought that I should explain my previous posting in more detail. In a full orchestra, usually about 125 musicians, the ranking goes like this: The "Conductor" is the boss. The means that he can play EVERY instrument in the orchestra, and can and will,interupt what the composer intended with the scoring, with every single instrument; the second in command is the "Concert Meister", he is always the first chair in the violin section. He is the person who actually rehearses the orchestra most of the time. The Conductor, and the Concert Meister are a team. They together, plan the programs, the sheduales, the tours, the money, etc. At any time, the Concert Meister has to be able to fill in for the Conductor ... period. So you can see what a demanding and lifelong committment orchestral life becomes. My friend died hard of cancer. We'd been buddies, and thrown rocks at each other since we were five. I learned so much from him. My only regret is that I never took up the option to "carry his violin" once on a Europeon tour. It would have been an honor! CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 03:27 AM

From a Pacific Symphony Orchestra web site:

"The leader of the first violin section is the principal solo violinist of the orchestra and is also the concertmaster. Duties include ... making difficult technical decisions for the entire section, such as bowing techniques ..."

From an article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette on a concertmaster's duties:

"That means keeping sections bowing in the same direction...."

From an article in the newsletter of The Orchestras of Australia Network, called "Key Roles and Relationships: The Concertmaster":

"The first priority when you first sit down to rehearse a work is to have all the bowings the same in your section and ideally across the strings."

My point was: I don't think most folk musicians could tolerate this kind of lockstep regimentation.

Help me out, people. I don't think I'm succeeding in getting my idea across. I'd like to hear from those of you who have had the experience of playing in a folk band where some members had classical training and some did not. How did it work for you? Did you have conflicts? Were you able to resolve them? How did it feel?

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: *daylia*
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 10:55 AM

Jim -- As a classical pianist and piano teacher, who also studied viola for several years as a kid (including many years of playing with the local Youth Orchestra) and gave that up at 15 to play the guitar (by ear and by watching friends -- no lessons but highly motivated as a lover of both rock and folk genres), I'll describe my "debut" performing with a group of folk musicians -- what it was like and how I felt.

A friend had taken me to a local coffeehouse where folk and blues musicians had an open stage. There was an excellent blues musician - Wayne Buttery - on site that night. My friend, much to my dismay, kept telling everyone that I was some sort of excellent piano player until Wayne called me up on stage to "jam" with him and his backup band. I was a bit terrified, because although I love the blues I'd never jammed with anyone before, least of all on stage. But I'd been trained by many years of performing at exams and recitals and festivals to come through under pressure, so I valiantly went up there and sat at the keyboard, my hands shaking and my heart pounding.

Wayne looked at me and said "okay, 12-bar blues in E". I had no idea what he meant by "12-bar blues", but I was too nervous to let on. From practicing technique (scales, chords etc) and studying theory, at least I knew the key of E (and every other key too) and which chords are related to it (that's called harmony). They started playing, and I started 'jamming' along, very simply at first, following the chord progressions by ear, just loving the rhythm.

After a minute, I was thinking "Hey, I know this pattern -- everyone knows this pattern! A million songs have it, even one of my own compositions! So this is what's called the 12-bar blues??? Cool ..." I got more confident, started experimenting with the chords, adding 7ths and 9ths (as I'd learned them from theory and practicing technique).

Then Wayne gave me a nod, and said "take it away". I realized this meant I was to do a "solo" -- egads!! I clutched a bit at first, but loosened up after a few seconds. I was figuring "okay, a solo. That means something to show off your technique, I guess". So I ran through the chord changes, using bits of scales and broken chords and arpeggios , adding a few more 7ths and 9ths and a few "weird" notes for good measure. (Those "weird" notes are why they call it the blues, I was thinking). I bet it was the most "classical" sounding blues jam heard in that coffeehouse to date, but the audience seemed to like it, anyway.

I know I did -- although I was very much relieved when the song ended and I was out the spotlight. So I found out what 12-bar-blue meant that night, even did a passable job of "jamming" along with professional blues musicians on stage, no less! When I told my friend what I'd learned up there, he couldn't believe I really had no idea what "12-bar blues" was at first. If it hadn't been for my classical training in technique, my knowledge of theory and harmony, my well-trained ear, and many years of being trained as a performer, I'd have been sunk, that's for sure!! I wouldn't have had the confidence to even try ....

Regarding "everyone bowing in the same direction" in an orchestra, I belonged to a Youth Orchestra for many years, and I don't recall anyone ever working with us to get us "bowing the same direction". As long as everyone's playing their parts correctly -- with the proper rhythm and articulation (phrasing, legato or staccato touch etc) -- and following the written music (the up and down strokes are clearly marked on the score, at least where they vary from what's standard for the rhythm and phrasing) -- then everyone DOES bow in the same direction, without any special "regimentation".

For a professional orchestra, it's probably vital to have someone (the concert-master) make sure everyone's playing their parts correctly - no bowing mistakes!! -- because it LOOKS better to the audience than to have all those "sticks" flailing around in any old direction. We were not a professional orchestra -- yet. We had no concert-master, but the conductor would take us aside and work with us privately if we were having trouble playing (or bowing) our parts as written on the score.

Please pardon me for going on so long, but I'd also like to share this success story about one of my 9 yr old piano students. He phoned me last night, just ecstatic -- he got 89% (First Class Honours) on his Grade One piano exam at the RCM!! I'm VERY pleased, and he's VERY proud! Average marks at the Conservatory, for all grade levels, are in the 70's.

By preparing for that classical exam, he got a very well-balanced musical education this year. This is what he was required to do --

* Perform from memory four different pieces of contrasting styles. He chose a little Baroque Minuet, an imaginative "tone-painting" called "The Snake", the "Beaver Boogie" (a cute little riff by a Canadian composer in 12-bar blues) and a traditional English piece called "Hunting Horns".

* Perform from memory a half dozen different major and harmonic minor scales and triads (chords), to demonstrate technical ability and basic knowledge of keys.

* Perform with accurate notes, rhythm and dynamics, a very simple 4-bar phrase he'd never seen before, to demonstrate his ability to read music (sight-reading)

* Clap back a rhythm he'd never heard before, after hearing it played twice by the examiner; and play back a very short melody based on the the first three notes of the scale, after being told the key and hearing (not watching!) the examiner play it twice. This is called ear training.

That's a lot of preparation for a 9-year old! This kid just loves it though and works very hard. Of all my students taking exams this spring, he was the best prepared, had his pieces memorized the longest.

Now he wants a few summer lessons -- so he can learn the themes from Star Wars and Superman in his new pops book (a reward from his Mom for taking the exam), and we can do more "jamming", improvising and composing in rock/blues styles. He just loves this aspect of his lessons, but we had to let it go for a few months to prepare for the exam. You can only cover so much in a half-hour lesson once a week!

Anyway, that's an example of what classical training is all about, at least the way I teach it. It's definitely not "harming" him in any way -- to the contrary, it's giving him a very well-rounded and fun musical education.

Thanks for the opportunity to share this success story!

daylia

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Peterr
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 11:41 AM

Fascinating thread - so many thoughts spring to mind reading it. Bev & Jerrys point is so good, and is better than the one I use 'the music has to be in your fingers, not your head'
My daughter has been brought up with folk, has a music degree, and that really helps with learning tunes. eg in sessions 'Whats that tune?' she'll jot the name down, start playing it at home as soon as she finds the dots and will then play it out after a week or so when it's in her fingers. Incidentally, she plays mainly recorder and I'd like some people who think it's second best to a tin whistle to hear her belting out reels or caressing a slow air, but thats off the subject.
Playing for dance is just so important for trad tunes, and an ability to play technically demanding music as classical musicians do does not necessarily give them the ability to keep a strict tempo.
Anyone recall the wonderful programmes with Menuhin playing alongside Grapelli, and some Shetland fiddlers (Tom Anderson?)
I just wish I'd learned to play much earlier in life, and then I might have some idea about what it's like to play classical.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 11:49 AM

Jim Dixon,

Abandon hope.

Been there. Can't do it.

There are just too many fundamental pre/misconceptions going on here.

For the sake of simplicity I will focus on fiddling and "violining".

Perhaps the most fundamental and insidious misconception (IMHO) is the one that views traditional fiddling as bad or poor or at least lesser violin playing.

If you begin with the assumption that traditional fiddlers and classically trained violinists are doing (or trying to do) essentially the same thing and have essentially the same goals, then QED it is patently obvious that classically trained violinists and/or classical training have something to offer to trad fiddlers and fiddling.

But if you DON'T start from there, then the conclusion doesn't follow at all. You can actually start making sense of the notion that classical training could be an obstacle to getting trad fiddling "right".

Abandoning the first starting point and getting to the 2nd is not easy. Probably cannot talk anybody into it. It is more a "you gotta be there" kind of intuition.

Discussions like this always have faint, but to my ears unmistakable, echoes of cultural imperialism. You basically get lots of variations on, "If they'd just stand up straight and put the violin in the right place and hold the bow correctly and work on that scratchiness, they'd sound so much better."

Don't even get me started about singing.

If you cannot win. Change the rules.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 12:02 PM

Guest Russ: Please elaborate on your experience. Are you a folk fiddler? Did someone tell you to "stand up straight" etc.? Who was it? A fellow band member? What happened next?