Classical Training

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: keberoxu
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 03:14 PM

And then there is the late Sean Maguire, whose combination of classical technique with traditional Irish repertoire make him the object of Mudcat Cafe controversy, as existing threads demonstrate. Can't be all bad, though, if it brings attention to the tradition?

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: keberoxu
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 01:50 PM

Welcome back, Stringsinger....I see that you had a different username when you posted on this thread over ten years ago.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 12:08 PM

You can live more than one life time and not know everything about music. This shouldn't stop anyone from continuing to learn, classic, jazz, folk, trad,, pop, it's all music and some of it more interesting than other of it but worth every bit of study to get better at no matter what you like or play. Critics for the most part usually get in the way of creative musical activity. There are a few who are able to point out the developed aspects of music that is worthy of listening.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: gillymor
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 10:08 AM

Joe Venuti's classical training didn't seem to damage him too much. :) Matter of fact probably had a lot to do with his gorgeous tone and precise intonation. In the Irish Trad realm American fiddler Liz Knowles also seems to have benefitted from C.T.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: keberoxu
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 01:16 PM

Reporter: There's one element of your background that's almost unique among bluesmen: you studied guitar at the Chicago Conservatory of Music. What was the extent of your formal training?

Sumlin: I studied for six months with this old guy who was with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. It was the first time I ever saw a dude who played both opera and blues on his guitar. It had a huge impact on me, because I didn't know the piano keyboard and I didn't know how to read -- I didn't know an F from an A, an A from a B or a B from a C. That guy showed me so much in just six months.

....You have to learn how to use your instrument to its fullest. You got five different Es, you got five different As, and you got to use them all. If you're all over the neck, you're better. That's why I never used a clamp [capo] like Muddy, or Albert Collins, or Jimmy Rogers: Why limit yourself? You'll notice that kids coming up today play great, and they don't use a clamp because they've got better knowledge of the instrument.

interview dated 1994

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Leadfingers
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 10:24 PM

Formal Classical training is very useful from the point of view of learning new tunes ! Actually PLAYING the tunes in an interesting way is a totally different story !

I see a reference to Louis Armstrong above a ways - He WAS taught to read music in the Boys Brigade , and was quoted as saying he DID read , but not enough to hurt his playing !

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Will Fly
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 06:31 PM

I don't care one way or another whether Hubert Sumlin had formal musical education or not - or know whether that education contributed to his blues playing or not. All I know is that the riff he plays on Howling Wolf's "Five Hundred Pounds Of Joy" sends shivers down my spine even now. And that the riff on "Smokestack Lightning", along with Wolf's voice, is a sacred sound I've adored since I first heard the record at the age of twelve - sixty years ago.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: keberoxu
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 05:35 PM

And for an example of something different than my previous post:

Mudcat started out specializing in the blues, and I know you all have heard of Hubert Sumlin. I see he has an obit thread here, and a search on his name brings up many other threads.

How many of you are aware of Sumlin finding a teacher and studying music formally? He did, and was a dedicated student. Did this detract from his blues guitar playing? Did it contribute positively to his blues guitar playing? This is beyond my acquaintance, I depend on the rest of you to remark on the subject.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: keberoxu
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 05:23 PM

This thread starts with a question in the OP regarding performers whose approach to traditional music is rooted in formal music training, especially lessons in classical music.   Then the thread branches, some of the digressions are more interesting than others.

Recently on a thread about singing, a Mudcat member unburdened themselves (gender-neutral) about their high expectations for the interpretation of the Elizabethan lute song, and an experience decades ago that was a deeply emotional disappointment. That long-ago attendance at a performance of musicians with classical-music background was well described and reminded me of how common that sort of thing was then. You can still find that turning up in places today. There is more variety now, though.

I mean to say, there is actually greater variety in performance practices amongst classically-trained musicians. One reason is that since the end of the Second World War, generations of scholars have probed long and deep into researching performance practices in centuries gone by. There are recordings of European music from the Baroque period, for example, that are setting the trend today in listening and studying, and they have a sound that would have met with a lot of objection exactly one hundred years ago when Baroque music was being played according to Romantic or post-Classical performance practices. An obvious example is string orchestras playing Baroque music, or even earlier music, with as little vibrato as possible. If you're as old as I am, you can recall when nobody classical dared make a sound quite like that.

There have been similar changes, parallel changes, in singing, so you now have classically trained singers who do not sing all repertoire with a full-blown Romantic vibrato, as was so often done early in the 20th century.

That's all I feel like posting just now, but there is a lot of room for friendly positive discussion here.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Kim C
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 04:12 PM

Mister and I have a friend who is a classically-trained violinist. Got a Masters Degree and all that. He's an incredible fiddler, and an all-around nice guy. We were on a gig with him for the first time a couple of years ago, and I was Scared To Death! I knew he was way more experienced than me, and I was just petrified.

Well, that was stupid. He was very complimentary and encouraging. We played with him again this year, and had a blast.

Granted, his training probably makes his playing sound more polished - but it doesn't overshadow his spirit or his love of playing.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 02:09 PM

". . . Waltzing Matilda as a waltz." Yeah, I hear you, Frank. My admiration for Richard Dyer-Bennet is not totally without bounds. His musicianship was next to impeccable, but there are certain songs that he recorded that, in my opinion at least, his judgment could be considered a bit questionable.

I think he was at his best on European songs and doing ballads as a lute-singer or court minstrel might have done them (conjures up a vivid image). He was in top form with songs like The Joys of Love (Plaisir d'amour), Oft in the Stilly Night, and So We'll Go No More a-Roving (all on Dyer-Bennet Records #1). But on some of what Walt Robertson called "the more hairy-chested songs," he leaves a bit to be desired. There are certain songs that he recorded that, if I had his voice, I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. His renditions of John Henry and Drill, Ye Tarriers are technically very good, but to my ear, they come out a little pale. Questionable choice of repertoire. And occasionally he tries to "get cute" with a song, such as lapsing into 3/4 on the chorus of Waltzing Matilda. No, Dick. No, no, no!!

Formal training is one thing. Taste is another.

Russ, I know what you mean. "Folk music" has become a sort of non-term. Not much real communication there. "Folk music" is what you find in the folk music bin at the record store. Whenever asked what kind of music I do, if I say "folk music," people tended to say, "Oh! You mean, like Peter, Paul, and Mary?" or something like that, and then I'm in for a long, drawn-out discussion, trying to explain that Peter, Paul, and Mary were not the be-all and end-all of folk music. Nor do I wish to be pigeon-holed as an old Sixties hippie. So I usually give a sort of weasel answer: "Ballads, sea songs, folk songs, a few lute solos on the guitar, that sort of thing." Since Seattle is currently strong on early music (The Seattle Early Music Guild, the Medieval Women's Chorus, and a couple of local early music groups), I try to draw a vague association between early music and what I do. I figure that since Custer La Rue of the Baltimore Consort sings a lot of folk songs and ballads, and since there actually is a strong connection anyway, I'm not really misleading them (too much. . . .). If the conversation continues, people usually ask things like "What, exactly, is a ballad?" and then I can explain things without having to wade through a lot of long-standing misconceptions about what folk music is.

And Thomas, yes, you're spot on about immersing yourself in the kind of music you want to do. And when you do that, self-teaching can work well, assuming you go about it in some logical manner, which it sounds like you have. I felt like I was coming from way behind when I first started. I had a rough idea of what I wanted to learn, but I didn't know where to find the information I needed, so I saw formal training as a way of jump-starting the process. Since I had a fairly clear idea of what I wanted to do, I was able to pick and choose what to concentrate on and what I didn't need to study all that deeply. When the third year at the U. of W. School of Music came along, I knew that what was being offered would take me off in directions I didn't think would be especially valuable to me (composition, orchestration, etc.), so I dropped out and started taking private theory lessons from Mildred Hunt Harris, a local composer and music teacher. She had me bring my guitar to the lessons and we worked with the songs themselves. She knew more about music in general than I did, but I knew more about folk music that she did, so as we worked through possible arrangements, she always left it to me to decide what was appropriate and what wasn't. Once she got the hang of what I was after, she was a great one for figuring out neat harmonic and contrapuntal lines and making them look like simple bass runs. Good teacher!

Wow! This is a heck of a discussion! Thanks for starting it!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 11:16 AM

"Folk Music"

It's said this before but this seems to be an appropriate time to say it again

Because the term "Folk Music" is not univocal, I generally avoid using it.

However, I sometimes use the term because it is not univocal in just the right way.

For example, it sometimes comes up in the course of idle conversation with people who do not know me very well that I am an amateur musician. The invariable question is "What kind of music do you do?" I have two answers depending upon my mood.

If I am not in the mood to begin an extended discussion, I answer "folk music". The invariable response is "Oh, you mean the kind of music that [insert name of any artist or group who has ever been characterized as 'folk'] does?" To which I respond, "Yes", no matter what artist or group has been named. At which point the questioner moves to another topic. You see, in the States the nice thing about 'folk music' is that everybody thinks they have at least some notion what I am talking about. And almost everybody thinks they know enough about 'folk music' to know that they are not very interested in that particular genre. Thus 'folk music' serves as a nice, polite 'conversation stopper'. I get the impression from the English contributors to mudcat that the situation might be similar there.

If, on the other hand, I am in a garrulous mood I respond, "old time music". In the States almost nobody has a clue what "old time music" is unless they are members of the relatively small community that performs it. So the invariable response is "What's that?" At which point I kick into my didactic mode and begin a lengthy explanation.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 09:51 PM

Very thought provoking...

Special thanks to you, Don, for the most comprehensive and enjoyable posts I have ever seen... I am taking it all in, but it's a lot to digest all at once...

Through the years, I have had a strong interest in music. I have played my way into a basic proficiency at what ever musical types interest me. I say I'm self taught, and strictly, I am... but with all the music I've listened to throughout my life, I learn from recordings what I like... and am taught by example. I can listen over and over to a piece of music, gleaning what i like, noticing what I can, and picking up what comes 'naturally' to me. There is some good in this, and I find it easier to learn what I enjoy.

At the same time, I have been keeping alive a basic ability to improvise... both within a song structure, and 'free form', and this brings my original material to the fore... as well as my freedom of expression. I am a great believer in Improvisation as a 'freshener' and as a 'personal healing agent'... but the originality of the stumbled onto delight is constantly inspiring and empowering. Writing songs from scratch is a form of folk music in it's purest sense, and though the concept of 'indiginous' is currently sort of defunct due to the prevailent multi cultuaral media in our lives, I do believe it is possible to write a honest song wherever you live.

As far as the pursuit of a specific genera goes, I'd say that the more you saturate yourself in it, the better you get. If a classically proficient player can play a jig on a site read, imagine how well he/she could play it after immersing themselves in a lengthy and persistant study of the genera in question! Talent must apply itself to the genera in question, take it seriously, and study it. ...and, you can't play it like you mean it without practice...

As for me, I have been enoying my 'self taught' method for 25 years. The opperational force within me says "your abiding love for people will bring out your best music"... but then, I do practice for some hours every day...

Be Good! ttr

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 07:46 PM

This thread (thanks again Don) just reminded me of a very interesting "melding" of the two extremes of training, if you will. A hundred years ago, when I was in my freshman year of College as a music major, I was totally submerged in music classes: theory, piano, voice, composing, etc. My "voice" teacher was also the head of the music dept. His wife was also the piano and theory proffessor. At my daily private voice lessons, I studied it all: breathing, posture, diction, languages, elocution, voice placement, German art songs, on and on. And, as my voice teacher was a "Basso Profondo" (sp?) he naturally decided that I should be also. To this day I can still do a full three octave slide from my upper regester to my lowest possible note with a "break." But, and here's the point of my story, I was chosen to sing the lead in a 25 voice Cantata for the Spring concert. And what was the piece? My voice teacher chose "The White Pilgrim," by James Pullen Johnson. It's a folk cantata based on several white spirituals, and tales, from the Southern Mountains. Part of the reason I was chosen was because I could play guitar and we wove the instrument into the performance. Quite wonderful, as I recall. ("Oh, Brother, Will You Meet Me, On Cannans Happy Shore"). So, just because one takes "formal studies" and "classical studies" in music does NOT mean that you can't maintain the feel and warmth of 'folk music.' CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: hesperis
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 07:24 PM

Classical training, when used in conjunction with folk process taining, merely gives you a vocabulary for communicating better about and with the music.

It's up to you what you do with that.

Note to jjmorri's daughter - look up French Horn Jazz Soloist on the internet, and come to the next meeting with your conductor about it armed with real info. I wish I'd had the internet when I was trying to learn jazz... I had to learn it on sax, trombone and flute, then transfer what I learned to my REAL instrument, on which I was never able to perform jazz solos in the concerts. (This in spite of being a "star student" and being given an amazingly free rein in the band room compared to what was usually permitted by the "dictators".)

Why should you have to learn jazz on an instrument that isn't your primary instrument? It doesn't make any sense.

There are French Horn Jazz players out there, and some are quite good. Plus, the Boss Brass has always had a French Horn section, so it is quite possible to do good "real" jazz with horns in the ensemble.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 07:03 PM

Slight misconception here, Greg. Taking voice lessons does not mean training to sing opera. No voice teacher who isn't an outright charlatan (and granted, there are a few of those) would try to turn somebody into an opera singer unless they have the kind of vocal instrument it takes, and then, only if that's what they want to do. Operatic voices are not that common, much to the general upset of many young singers who would like to be able to sing opera.

As far as anyone trying to turn Leadbelly into an opera singer is concerned, it would not have happened. He was a tenor, but not that kind of tenor. No good voice teacher would have ever tried to steer him in that direction. And ten years? Not likely. I took lessons off and on over a period of about three, maybe four years at the outside, and this gave me more that enough to learn to "place" my voice and breath properly, allowing me to sing without strain and thereby avoid damaging my vocal apparatus. If I ever started having problems, I would go back to a voice teacher and have them help me get it straightened out. But nobody has ever mistaken me for Ezio Pinza, even though we have the same category of voice. So, for that matter, does Gordon Bok.

And as to saying, "I don't say classical training makes it impossible to play traditional music. I say it makes it very, very difficult." I don't see where the difficulty comes in. The classical teacher doesn't get into your head and rewire your brain. You are always free to make your own judgments and accept or reject what the teacher is telling you to do. I did a fair amount of that as I went along. If lessons of any kind seem to induce a pupil into being able to do something only one way, that's not the fault of the lessons, that's the fault of the pupil.

Granted, a long time classical musician is probably going to have trouble putting folk music across. I can't conceive of Luciano Pavarotti ever being able to do folk songs very convincingly. But I'm not suggesting that someone who wants to do folk music take as much training as someone who wants to do classical music and devote themselves exclusively to the study of classical music for years before returning to folk music. I'm suggesting that some study can be of great value in that it teaches you how to use the most efficient techniques for doing something. Then you can use them or reject them according to your own judgment.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Frankham
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 06:50 PM

Don, I agree with you about people trying to sound and be something they aren't. I am a fan of Mike Seeger but I know that he will never be as authentic as a Doc Watson since it came to him second hand. He still is a stirring and exciting performer who communicates the "essence" of folk music whether or not he is part of the society that he brings to an audience through his music. So when I listen to someone like Mike, I don't care if he's the "real deal" or not. The same is true for Burl or Pete or anyone who brings to the music an understanding and sensitivity.

So, ya' gotta' be yourself and don't try to be someone you aint unless you're a very good actor. Even then, there is a difference between a stage-worthy characterization and the person who learned the style from his/her community at his parent's knees. Jean Ritchie is the "real deal" but I like hearing her sing with others who maybe aren't like Oscar Brand or as she demonstrates so beautifully on her CD's with trained singers that it fits artistically.

AS to classical training, if it helps someone become a better interpreter of folk song why not?

It has to be said that there are some not so hot authentic folksingers and folksongs out there. Just because it's folk doesn't mean that it's automatically great entertainment or great music.

I would rather hear Richard Dyer-Bennett than a real out of tune bad authentic folksinger singing doggerel that no one understands any more.

I realize that this is subjective too but I think that if you listen to enough folk music you can discern what's interesting and musical and reflects the integrity of the song and music.

A way to not do this is to play Banjo Patterson's Waltzing Matilda as a waltz.

Frank Hamilton



Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 06:27 PM

Don,

Thanks for the detailed reply.

The fact that you agree with much of what I say isn't nearly as surprising as the fact that you read my discourse in the first place. I am used to being ignored.

I also really meant it when I said that I am perfectly happy to call you a folk singer, and a good one.

And even though Ralph Stanley is one of the deities in my personal music pantheon, I am not willing to grant that Ralph Stanley sings Pretty Polly "better" than you. It's an truly an apples an oranges comparison. Like comparing Lagavulin and Glenlivet.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: greg stephens
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 06:12 PM

There is a difference between what I'm saying and what Don Firth is saying, and as Guest Russ says, the difference lies in how we are using the term folk. Of course classical training wont hurt you if you want to be a Burl Ives or a Richard Dyer Bennet or a Paul Robeson or a Marsalis or whatever( I dont mean imitating them, I mean performing in that sort of area). ```But after an intensive ten years operatic training, I doubt if even someone as strong-minded as Leadbelly could have gone back and sung folksongs the way he used to, not without conscious effort and hard work: to un-learn the mannerisms he had picked up. Now,to some people that kind have education might have improved his performance.....but as "folk music" I would say it wold have more than likely been changed for the worse. As Russ says, of course it "depends what you mean by folk".
    And I will repeat, I dont say classical training makes it impossible to play traditional music. I say it makes it very very difficult. Some people overcome that difficulty very successfully, and end up the stronger for having a foot in both camps.
    Personally (just so you know where I'm coming from Don!) I have no classical training formally,instrumentally or theoretically, but have an adequate working knowledge(self taught from books,experience and keeping my ears open) of theory from writing brass and choral arrangements.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 05:14 PM

GUEST, Russ, it may come as a surprise, but I tend to agree with much of what you say.

I think the key lies in the overall intent of what the individual musician is trying to do. I was not born and raised in a folk tradition like someone such as Jean Ritchie was. I am urban born, raised in sizable cities, and subject to the wide variety of cultural influences this entails. Most of the singing I did before I took up the guitar and started to learn folk songs in my very early twenties was around campfires at Scout camp with a bunch of other kids, and things like that. Influenced by "standard American English" as spoke by radio announcers, I talk like a city kid. Apart from speaking English with an American accent, it would probably take a Professor Henry Higgins to pin me down to any particular region of the U. S., and even that's pretty doubtful. In essence, if I were to assume some kind of regional accent, it would be counterfeit—phony.

Like just about every city kid, I grew up hearing pop songs, Broadway show tunes, classical music, movie music, commercial jingles, and the usual stuff, along with a few folk songs—as sung by Burl Ives, Susan Reed, Richard Dyer-Bennet, and The Weavers. My first interest in actually singing folk songs myself came while I was going with a girl who liked folk songs and had just inherited a neat old parlor guitar from her grandmother. She set about teaching herself how to play it. It looked like fun, so I bought myself a cheap guitar ($9.95, but other than sounding like an apple crate, it could be tuned accurately and the action was soft) and started to learn with her. She showed me how to play G, C, and D7, and since she could read music, she taught me the first few songs I learned. Then we both ran into Walt Robertson, Sandy Paton (now of Folk-Legacy Records), and several others. I heard Walt Robertson sing a concert, and my interest got really serious.

So, to me, folk music is an acquired interest, not something I grew up with. And on top of this, none of the singers I was acquainted with early on, either personally or on records, was what you might call a "specialist." Burl Ives sang mostly American songs, but did English, Irish, and Scottish as well. Susan Reed sang lots of Irish songs, but also songs from pretty much all over. Richard Dyer-Bennet sang songs and ballads from all over the world, including songs he translated from French, German, and Swedish, along with art songs, some poems he set to music, and songs of his own composition. The Weavers also sang songs from all over the world including Africa, India, Japan, and Alabama. This was the wide and deep pool I dipped into to learn the songs that I sing. Later on, I found Folkways recordings and various field recordings and learned songs from them as well.

I am not a specialist. I don't sing songs of any one region. I am intrigued and interested by songs from all over, so I learn them and sing them. I'm pretty good with accents (especially with dialect jokes), and with some Scottish songs I affect a Scots burr (with a name like Firth, I think I can claim a little kinship there), but in general, any dialect or regionalism I assume is going to be artificial, and unless the song really seems to demand it, I don't do it (I do a version of The Frozen Logger with a broad Swedish accent that seems to crack people up, but that's strictly for humor). In general, I believe that the principle that Dyer-Bennet set down, quoted above, about "no song is ever harmed by being articulated clearly, on pitch, with sufficient control of phrase and dynamics. . . ." etc., is a good one.   

Ralph Stanley, for example, sings songs pretty much indigenous to the area in which he grew up. I don't believe he thinks much about how to sing them, he just sings in his natural voice and with his natural accent, which is regional. The way he sings Pretty Polly is a mind-blower! But if I were to try to sing that with the same tone and accent that he uses, it would be totally phony coming out of my mouth. So I don't. I sing it my own way. Who does it better? I think he does. But then, I sing a lot of stuff that he doesn't and that he probably wouldn't even want to try.

If I did want to specialized in the songs of one particular region, I would get pretty academic, research it down to a gnat's eyelash, and do my damnedest to try to sound as authentic as possible. This, I think, is pretty much what Mike Seeger has done, and as far as I can tell, he sounds pretty genuine. But I am a "generalist." I sing a wide variety of songs, not just the songs of one region. I think that calls for a different approach.

I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people who now play an instrument and sing folk songs came to it by essentially the same route that I did. To quote Burl Ives, "I'm not a folk singer. I am a singer who just happens to like to sing folk songs." And I try to sing them as genuinely as I can. Not the way Ralph Stanley or anybody else does.

But in general, I am really put off by city-born kids who sing a wide variety of songs, but knock themselves out trying to sound like they're eighty-years-old and toothless.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 01:19 PM

Dustin ... I actually knew a very good folksinger, first name Dave, who performed with the Robert Shaw group and was on the recording of that album. We often talked about the chorale and what it was like. He has gone on to a magnificant career as a folksinger, mainly in chantey singing. He always said that his time with that group was a wonderful experience and taught him a great deal. He also mentioned that it really helped to develope his voice as a musical instrument. I hope this adds to the discussion. CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST,Dustin
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 12:48 PM

Hmm, just to cause trouble, why not take a specific example of classical training maybe, or maybe not, damaging an interpretation? Surely some of you have heard the "Sea Shanties" album by the Robert Shaw Chorale. Did their training damage their interpretation, or not? If it did, was it necessarily so?

Dustin

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 09:42 AM

There are a couple of different threads here masquerading as one.

This is a contribution to the "folk music versus classical training" part of the thread, not the "competition" part of the thread.

"Folk music" is being used in at least two different senses here. That's OK by me.

There's "folk music" in greg stephens' sense:
"I do strongly believe it is very very very difficult for a classically trained musician to play folk music"

There's "folk music" in Don Firth's sense:
"I take a dim view of people who try to discourage others from taking lessons or say that formal training will spoil you for folk music."

What is going on? Is this a tomato/tomahto thing or is there more to it than that?

The "what is folk music?" threads are notorious on mudcat.
So, I am not interested in choosing between greg and Don. I am not interested in praising one for the correct use of the term and damning the other for misusing the term.

Also, I am not interested in clarifying Don's use of the term. He can do way better than me.

I am interested in clarifying greg's use of the term because he and I are more or less in the same camp.

So.......

Consider if you will, "Devil ate the groundhog", a tune played by central WV fiddlers and Eastern KY fiddlers.

Even if a central WV fiddler and an Eastern KY fiddler play exactly the same notes, the performances will sound very different. So who's doing it right?

Neither, and both.

It is these delicious differences that lead me to disagree completely with Richard Dyer-Bennet when he says "The value lies inherent in the song, not in the regional mannerisms or colloquialisms."

The problem with Rick D-B's claim is the word "The" in the phrase "The value". I claim that "value" is much more complicated than he thinks.

I agree that there is "a" value which is "inherent in the song". "Devil ate the groundhog" is a great tune in and of itself and independent of "regional mannerisms or colloquialisms." But that is just one aspect or level of the song's value. In some situations it might not even be the more important one.

"Devil ate the groundhog" as performed by Paul David Smith (Eastern KY fiddler) has whole new layers or aspects of value. It's the precisely the "regional mannerism or colloquialisms" that Paul David provides and Rick D-B dismisses that provide these additional layers or aspects of value.

So when I politely and humbly suggest (HAH!) that classical training might just possibly cause issues in the performance of folk music, this is the kind/type/sort/species/variety of folk music I am talking about.

Surely, no matter what definition one uses, Paul David Smith is clearly a folk musician and "Devil ate the groundhog" is clearly folk music. But just as clearly Paul David is not a folk musician in quite the same way that Don is a folk musician. And just as clearly "Devil ate the groundhog" as performed by Paul David is not folk music in quite the same way that "Devil ate the groundhog" as performed by Don is folk music.

Remember, I am not denying the Don is a folk musician playing folk music, and doing a wonderful job of it.

So my point is:
IF you want to be a folk musician along the lines of Paul David rather than along the lines of Don,
More specifically,
IF you want to play the fiddle tunes of Eastern KY,
AND you only have one lifetime to do it,
AND you are not a musical ubermensch,
THEN you need to think seriously about some questions:
1) Why not cut to the chase and focus on Eastern KY fiddlers and fiddling?
2) Since you are interested in precisely the "regional mannerisms or colloquialisms" that Rick D-B and the classical music establishment are not interested in, why would you use any of the limited time, energy, and talent you have for classical training?
3) Since classical training MIGHT make it more difficult later to embody those "regional mannerisms or colloquialisms" in your playing, why bother?

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Mark Clark
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 01:29 AM

Thirty years ago in Chicago there was a place on Belmont Avenue called the Nashville Skyline Lounge. It was a medium rough sort of place—someone did start shooting while I was in there one night—with a three-piece country band that held forth most nights. A lot of the musicians would stop in there after their regular gigs just to hear this band. The guitarist was truly wonderful and would play absoutely anything you asked him to play. If he didn't know the song you requested he'd pull the score out of a large case he carried and sight read it for you. He had every popular style down and played perfectly and effortlessly and with great innovation.

It turned out the saloon gig was only to support his daytime activity which was the formal study of classical guitar. There was absoutely nothing about his country band performance to hint that he was anything but a good ol' boy who lived and breathed country music. I never got to hear one of his classical recitals but I've always thought it would have been impressive.

I'm with Don and the others who believe there is no amount of learning that is going to hurt your playing. You may not choose to use everything you've learned in every performance you do but the training and theory can only help.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 09:43 PM

Geeze Don! I just wish you'd get SERIOUS about your music! Bob

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 08:22 PM

Thanks, Daylia.

This is kind of a hobby-horse of mine, and I tend to get a bit tooted up about it. When I first started out, I was musically illiterate. I couldn't read music and I didn't even know what a chord was, other than a way of splaying your fingers out on a fingerboard, so I couldn't learn songs from song books. I had to learn them from other people or from records—and at the time I started (early Fifties, well before the Great Folk Scare got under way), there were not that many records of folk songs readily available. And unless someone showed me what chords to play, I was at a loss.

I thoroughly enjoyed singing folk songs (at least the songs that I did know), and people seemed to enjoy listening to me sing them (or, at least, they were very tolerant). So I made a really dumb decision: I decided I wanted to become a "professional singer of folk songs" like Burl Ives or Richard Dyer-Bennet. The field wasn't that crowded (yet), but what made it such a dumb idea was that I wanted to make a career in music when I didn't know anything about music. My voice was sort of okay and I could play most of the basic chords on the guitar (learned from Guckert's Chords for Guitar Without Notes or Teacher), but I didn't know anything about how to work out accompaniments. I started taking voice lessons to tidy up some of its rough edges, and classic guitar lessons so that I could learn to use my fingers efficiently and find out what that terra incognita above the third fret was all about. Then I enrolled in music theory classes at the university so I could get a clue about how to put all this together. Some of my folk singing buddies told me that if I wanted to do folk music, this was absolutely the wrong way to go. If I learned "classical," I would never be able to do folk music. In fact, one or two got downright hostile at the idea. But I went ahead and did it anyway.

In 1957, I had a chance to meet and talk with Richard Dyer-Bennet. He was very supportive and encouraging, and told me to keep right on doing what I was doing. So I did. In 1959, I got tapped to do a television series on our local educational channel (now the local PBS affiliate). That was a bit of a break. I spent the next several years doing concerts, doing more television, and singing in clubs and coffeehouses almost every weekend, and in general, getting paid to do something that I would have done anyway. I stuck pretty close to the Pacific Northwest, so I didn't become one of the "biggies" during the Great Folk Scare, but that wasn't what I was all about anyway. I still sing (parties, hoots, festivals, and such), but I don't do it professionally anymore. I figure that, all in all, I haven't done too badly for a guy who was as ignorant as I was when I first started.

I take a dim view of people who try to discourage others from taking lessons or say that formal training will spoil you for folk music. If I had followed some of the advice I was given, I wouldn't have gotten anywhere. I probably would have spent my life hunched over a drafting table at Boeing. No singing career, no nuthin'! When I look back on what could have happened (or, rather, not happened) with me, I get kinda mad when I hear people say things like that.

But what really makes my blood boil is when some performing singer of folk songs advises newbies to avoid lessons, claiming that they never had any musical training—and then I find out that they're shining people on. One of the guys who tried to discourage me from taking lessons gave me the story that he had never had music lessons, couldn't read music, and hardly knew one chord from another. Years later I learned—from his sister—that he had taken nine years worth of violin lessons when he was a kid! Now, what the hell was that all about!!??? I call that competitive! And this happens more often than you might think!

When I sing, do I sound like Richard Dyer-Bennet? I couldn't even if I wanted to. First, he was a light, lyric tenor, a tenore leggiero (not a counter-tenor as some people say) and I'm a "bullfrog-in-a-rain barrel" bass-baritone. Second, I usually keep my guitar accompaniments pretty simple—but I can get pretty flashy if the spirit moves me. I can play a few classical guitar solos and I do play a few lute-style accompaniments when I think they're appropriate, like, say, on ballads such as The Three Ravens. When it comes to deciding the best way to put a song across, my formal training doesn't limit me, it lets me make choices.

Richard Dyer-Bennet said, "The value lies inherent in the song, not in the regional mannerisms or colloquialisms. No song is ever harmed by being articulated clearly, on pitch, with sufficient control of phrase and dynamics to make the most of the poetry and melody, and with an instrumental accompaniment designed to enrich the whole effect."

Yup. Works for me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Jen M
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 04:58 PM

As the mother of a child who will start this fall at Penn State, music education, I've found this discussion interesting. She loves all things musical--from playing classical french horn (By the way Hesperis, when she insisted on being allowed to play in the jazz ensemble ,the director tried to make her play mellophone instead!)to the penny whistle and dulcimer and singing. (She dreams of having an alphorn as well.) She's formally trained on the horn and self taught on the others. The formal training has made learning other instruments easier. By the way, she refused to audition for any conservatory based program. She felt the competition would take all the fun out of music and says she's just not THAT obsessed with her horn. I think whatever one's training, the love of music is what makes a true musician.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: greg stephens
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 03:05 PM

I've played with loads of musicians with classical training, and loads who didnt. neither group is consistently better at playing folk music in my opinion(and of course its only my opinion,that always needs saying. There are plenty of widely admired musicians that bore the arse off me).
   Having said that, I do strongly believe it is very very very difficult for a classically trained musician to play folk music. Of course they are wonderful at sight reading and playing all the notes in tune in the right order. But so what? That is only the first step on a long road.
   Equally, of course it is difficult for a folk musician to learn to play classical music. The approach is totally different.We are all used to the agonies of hearing opera singers doing recital versions of folk songs, or virtuuso classical violinists doing a little daring jazz with Stefane Grappelli (yawn yawn). Technique doesnt get you very far in folk or jazz, you've got to understand music to play it. And that takes time, and sometimes you have to take time unlearning a lot of stuff before you can learn something new.
   Any good classical fiddler could play Orange Blossom Special or the Mason's Apron twice as fast and twiddly as any primitive old folkie. Whether you'ld actually want to hear them do it twice is the point.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: hesperis
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 02:27 PM

It's definitely not classical training that is the problem, but societal factors such as elitism and competitiveness.

I'm had people be elitist about jazz, saying that French Horn can't play jazz because it's not a jazz instrument! What the?

Some people are inclusive and some people aren't. It doesn't matter what they play, it's how they play.

Yes, you are more likely to find elitism in a more formal training situation, however there is a form of "reverse" snobbery practiced by people who think that informal and untrained music is superior precisely because it's informal and untrained.

Music is about having fun, loving music, and getting better every time you play. Nothing more and nothing less.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 12:59 PM

"...those who tended to "be competitive" generally didn't get very far. They wasted their time and energy on the inconsequential".

"Be they classical, jazz, or folk, most of the really good musicians I have met simply want to do music, are eager to help others, and don't sweat the small stuff."

"Just do the best that you can do, whatever and however you conceive that to be, and let the chips fall where they may."


Don, I just want to say that I've really enjoyed and appreciated all of your insights here. Thanks so much for giving your time and energy to this thread, and for just being who you are!

Thank you too, ttr, for starting this valuable and interesting discussion. And to everyone else for your great contributions!

daylia

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 11:08 AM

Hi John! I assure you it is I that is at the disadvantage here, having picked apart the peck you posted... I was pickled by what came across... and used it as an example... I love your music, and I really appreciated your post immediately above... thanks for the clarity.

I have seen your work with Telynor a few times, much to my delight, and spoken with you casually thereof... I am a Ballad singer, broadly a UK DADGAD accompanyist, and Hammered Dulcimer enthusiast ...I made the dulcimers I play.

I have been playing with a very fine multi-instrumentalist for some years now, but I am taking time out to process a few of my 'issues'... like this one. I am currently playing with a wonderful 'Sligo' style Irish fiddler.

Thank you for responding with such earnestness, and I'm sorry for the projection of my own issues... Good Luck! ttr

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: John P
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 10:26 AM

Thomas,
    I don't know how you pulled any hint of competitive music out of my post, but I can assure you that I don't use to music to compete on any level. I speak out against musical competitions in any organization I'm involved in that starts leaning that way. I see music as a way of sharing, and get turned off whenever I see pros getting professionally competitive, or session players playing musical one-upmanship games.
    I can also assure you that my definition of "what sounds like folk music" is extremely broad. Even though I play mostly traditional folk music, there is nothing of the traditionalist about me. Folk music spreads a vast and, fortunately, usually very inclusive umbrella.
    Never having had any formal musical training (except, a little, as a percussionist in high school), I am usually in awe of people who can get the kind of versatility out of their instruments that classical training can bring. I am envious of people who can sight read music. I have had the good fortune to play with some very highly trained classical musicians who are great folk musicians. Also some great folk musicians with no training at all. And every where in between.
    I'm sure that a lot of people here have had the experience of listening to an Irish reel played on a violin without any lilt. It sounds pretty flat, and loses the rhythm that makes the tune what it is. Another classic example is a folk song with a conatgious rhythm being turned into an art song by an operatically trained singer. Or blues played without the subtle syncopations that make it sound like the blues. I will defend to my last breath the right of any musician to play any music in whatever way turns their crank. But that doesn't mean I enjoy listening to it all, or that it meets my private aesthetic of what any genre of music ought to sound like. Or that I will be willing to spend much time playing along.
    I find myself at a bit of a disadvantage here. You seem to know me, but I can't place you, at least not by the moniker "Thomas the Rhymer". Is there another name I would likely know you by, and where have we met?

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 12:26 AM

Hi Stewart!

Yes, I have to stick up for John P too! ...and my appologies to him if he or anyone else takes my analysis of his post as a personal attack of some (un)kind...

Having had the pleasure of meeting him, and hearing his fine music, I am in full agreement with you.

Also, I must say, that competitiveness is at least as rampant in my own 'go it self taught' approach to the music I do, ...as any classically trained person's...

That being said, I do feel wonderous strong about the folk community's need to be supportive and enjoyable... for all who might pick up an instrument someday, as well as for those who play with a flair in front of a room full of appreciation. Everyone has room for improvement, and the more we know, the more obvious it is to us that we have so much to learn...

Cheerio! ttr

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Stewart
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 11:17 PM

Hi Tom, I just have to come to the defense of John P. I think you read him wrong or John wrote it wrong. He's really a first-class musician who plays traditional and old music, mostly British Isles and French, in a very good way (even gets paid for it). And he's also a very friendly, non-judgmental, non-competitive guy. I think you'd like him if you met him. We could talk about it at the next session.

About competition - I was introduced at an open mic recently as someone who had retired and now has lots of time for music. I then said something about my new career as an unemployed musician (something I prefer, and can now afford). One of my musician friends in the audience, with a great sense of humor, piped up and said "but there's a lot of competition there."

Cheers, S. in Seattle

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 08:56 PM

Hi Russ... thanks for the reply...

My tack is simply this... I feel that John's approach to his recent critique is, in this case, indicative of a more general trend amoungst many types of musical training... that the critisizms are most often distructive put downs rather than constructive attempts at empowerment, and that the competitive aspect found in classical training is partly responsible for this.

I feel that the musical training and devotion requisite to a powerful musical education is a fantastic accomplishment, and much to be admired... However, there is a shadow side to all that... and the cultural bias towards competition is one of them.

I am as self taught as I can be. I am vigillant, and proud... I do not hold education against the indoctrinated, nor do I need to put down new tallent... I wish everyone well, and I try to offer constructive input, while making sure that I'm not being 'catty'...

I believe that there are far too few musicians per capita in our country, and this competition 'crappola' is probably one of the main reasons...

Seems people are accepting the 'rat race' more and more these days...

See ya! ...and say something nice, ...OK? ttr

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 08:26 PM

Thomas,

As far as I can tell, John P. simply expressed a personal preference. Unfortunately he used a term, "folk music", that apparently pushed a button.

I think he's might have a point, so let me give it a try.

I avoid the term "folk music" except in special situations (but that's another thread). So I won't claim to know what "folk music" sounds like.

But I do know, for example, what central WV or Eastern KY fiddling sounds and should sound like. I assume that such counts as folk music.

To paraphrase John, I don't care much to listen to people, of whatever training or lack thereof, who play central WV tunes but don't know how to make it sound like central WV fiddling. For example, a good friend is awesome when she plays tunes from Eastern KY, but she's just not "convincing" when she tries a squirrelly old crooked tune from central WV.

You'll have to take my word for it that my dissatisfaction with her playing has nothing to do with her "attempting perhaps to impersonate a culture by dressing the part without actually having lived it." She's not from Eastern KY either. Anyway, I prefer not to say, as John says, "It just doesn't sound right." "Right" is just too loaded. That's why I used "convincing."

Now it probably wouldn't be easy to sound like a central WV fiddler without growing up with central WV fiddlers, but it is not apriori impossible. I know people who can do it. I also know people who cannot do it, some of whom happen to be from central WV.

I am willing to make a distinction between trying to sound like a central WV fiddler and trying to be a central WV fiddler (without actually being from central WV). I OK with the former but not the latter.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 06:58 PM

Competitiveness is a complicated enough subject that it probably deserves a thread of its own.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 06:48 PM

Bob, that's a very uplifting story! Congratulations to you and the rest of the staff for creating what sounds to me like a "nurturing" and fun music class which encouraged each student to develop their musical potential, whatever their 'natural' ability and regardless of their neighbour was capable of. That's what music is really all about -- it's "food" for the soul, body, mind and community that EVERYONE benefits from partaking in -- no matter what their level of ability!

Thanks for sharing this -- daylia

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 06:37 PM

One of the best comments about competition that I have ever heard was made by Rolf Cahn during a conversation in a restaurant in Berkeley in 1959. Someone who was looking for singing jobs in the area asked him, "What's the competition like?" He answered as follows:—

"Competition? I don't know. I never think about competition. Look, I once had a chance to hang out with the Mercedes team during the thousand mile Mexican Road Race. There were Jaguars, Porsches, Ferraris, Allards, Cunninghams, they were all there. But during the strategy meetings, none of the other cars were even mentioned. All the Mercedes team talked about was how to get the Mercedes from point A to point B as fast and as safely as possible. I figured that there was a lesson there. So I don't waste my time and energy worrying about competition. I just try do the best that I can do."

During my time among classical musicians and music students, I found that there was less of a spirit of competition and more one of sharing information and knowledge and of helping each other. There were exceptions, of course, but those who tended to "be competitive" generally didn't get very far. They wasted their time and energy on the inconsequential. I've encountered about as much "competitive spirit" among singers of folk songs as I have among classical musicians. It's not the kind of music one plays or the milieu within which one plays it, it's more a matter of individual orientation. Be they classical, jazz, or folk, most of the really good musicians I have met simply want to do music, are eager to help others, and don't sweat the small stuff.

Auditions? Sure. You can think of them in terms of competition (and lots of people do), but that is really a waste of time, energy, and most importantly, concentration. Just go out there and play and/or sing the best you can. If you divert your attention from the music you're performing by worrying about how you compare with the other people there, you're just asking to be interrupted with a "Thank you, that will be all. Next, please!"

Just do the best that you can do, whatever and however you conceive that to be, and let the chips fall where they may.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 06:15 PM

Daylia, your comments struck another responsive note with me. For about 5 years, some years ago, I taught "beginning Guitar" at the local community college. As classes got rolling, and more and more interest resulted, I brought in more teachers, and lo and behold, we had a rather complete program of beginning, intermediate, advanced and blues guitar. I also expanded into "folk Music, history and performance skills." As the staff we built up became closer, we even put on five years of Folk Festivals. (I have to mention that this was with the great help and leadership of the late John Dwyer, Father of Stilly River Sage). Quite grand in all! I really enjoyed the teaching, especially the coming together of whole families and ages. I'd have grandparents and teenagers in the same class. One consistant challenge I had, was to try to overcome the student's feelings of doubt: "I can't sing, I'm no good, in grade school my music teacher told me to be quiet," on and on. One of the interesting aspects of this kind of teaching that I well remember was the complete ABSENCE of competition. It was almost universal that everyone felt somewhat inadequate. And in feeling inadequate themselves, they were very encouraging to everyone else and we all reveled in the growth. CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 05:53 PM

kat, I agree with you about folk musicians -- at least some of them -- being just as privy to the stifling woes and blocks of competition as any other kind of musician. Or any other profession, for that matter. Competitiveness is a part of the culture we are born and raised in. Fishermen have it, cooks have it, models have it, parents have it --- maybe even "sanitary engineers" have it!

Little Hawk, if you're reading this thread, please tell us about how you felt when you heard that excellent folk guitarist -- Moe Stevenson - play at the coffeehouse in Barrie a couple Fridays ago.

I consider Little Hawk a pretty good guitarist himself -- he's awesome on the harmonica too! But he said this fellow's playing made him feel jealous, "less than", discouraged about his own playing.

And I know how he feels. I've felt like that so many times in both folk and classical circles. My absolute love of making music saves me, though.

A few years ago I tried to convince the "powers that be" at the Barrie Music Festival (classical) to make the classes non-competitive. Give the kids a written critique of their playing, give them a "group lesson" as the adjudicator speaks to each one about their performance, give them each a ribbon or certificate to honor their efforts and participation -- but keep the marks private, and eliminate the out-dated (in my mind) concept of 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. That was what I wanted.

I've so many students who don't want to compete, but would benefit greatly just from having a stage to perform on, the opportunity to hear their peers and the chance to learn about music from someone other than me! And I'd seen enough crestfallen little faces, heard enough bitter comments like "So-and-so ALWAYS wins! I may as well not even go!" The worst is "Second place is the first loser". NO-ONE with the guts to perform on stage is any kind of "loser", imo!

Well, the "powers that be" at the Festival did listen to me, and suggested we poll our students to find out what was their preference - competitive or non-competitive classes. The results were, believe it or not, that the overwhelming majority of the kids DID want the competition! And the "powers that be" were much relieved -- that meant they didn't have to anything more brain-wrok than average out the marks to determine who won the (more-than-ample) money awards at the end of the Festival.

But of course, that's the absolutely greatest reward that musical training could have for children, according to the standard values and mores of Western culture -- the chance to be "better than" your neighbour - in public no less! - and make big bucks, right?? Money - the be-all and end-all. grumblegrumble AARRGGHHHH!

Thanks for the chance to "vent".

daylia

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 04:59 PM

ttr, just one mention, while the classical world may have a lot of competition in it, folk is not without some of it, too. I am thinking specifically of a fiddlin' contest my dad entered in an area of the country with which he was unfamiliar. If the audience had been voting, he was the winner; they weren't, but they did tell him afterwards that the judges were buddies of the much poorer fiddler who did win, year after year, and apologised for that to him. It was enough to put him off forever from any type competition and that was when he was traveling around and playing out all of the time.

kat

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 03:23 PM

I am really enjoying this thread, and I've been thinking long and hard about these concepts for decades now, and the thoughts expressed here are actually helping me out of some of my own biases... Thanks, all!

I'd like to express myself more clearly, as I've discovered that while reading this thread, my original intentions are becoming clearer... as to why I needed to begin it.

John P's post is indeed a signpost for me, and hoping he will excuse me, I will use it as an example.

"Folk musicians are people who play folk music and make it sound like folk music. I don't care much to listen to people, of whatever training or lack thereof, who play folk music but don't know how to make it sound like folk music. It just doesn't sound right. But the idea that a musician would automatically be disqualified by classical training is both silly and elitist."

I have strong feelings come up in me when I read this...

The first is this... 'sounding like' folk music is an oxymoron for me. Either it is folk music, or not. People who try to 'sound like' a genera, in my opinion, are attempting perhaps to impersonate a culture by dressing the part without actually having lived it...

Does John P think he can tell us what 'folk music' sounds like? I would like to ask him to tell us just how he knows... before he 'doesn't care much to listen to us'... actually, I can imagine a scenario where John P packs up his judgements and leaves, while the rest of us enjoy the personal expressions of a supremely creative and expressive interpretaion...

...and, after making such judgemental assertions... with the self assurance of a snob in sheep's clothing... the cresciendo is achieved for me with the last declaration.

After reading this thread, I see little exposition on the topic of turning away classical trained individuals from a hearty and avid folk (a)vocation... and herein lies my mordant (mordent) personal drama... I find the pedantic nature of John' P's post to be not so very silly, but... quite elitist.

Hoping you all will excuse my ascerbic response here... I am doubting that any of you knew how strongly I felt about this topic, or how John P is peripherally connected to my need to start this thread...

For me, a lot of this is about the competition... or more specifically... the 'training' that occurs when a person is deluged with sophisticated learning that is steeped in a constantly competitive atmosphere. I believe that it is this undercurrent of a competitive ethos, even more than the 'deindividualisation' of the musician... that I am anxious to avoid. I have personally witnessed countless occasions of 'psychic undermining' and 'confidence sabatauge' by people who are basically good musicians... but since they have gone through a rigorously competitive system, part of what they have 'learned' is that music is about who 'wins'... and that subtile techniques for 'tweeking' other potential 'competitors' is expected and in some cases, researched...

My take on 'folk musicians' is that most of the time we want to encourage the 'best' in others, and the rest of the time, we are letting others find the best in ourselves... and one's right to be 'really good' is attested to and achieved only by how those around them feel about themselves...

Love to all, and all the best! ttr

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 01:25 PM

The truth* about Andrés Segovia:—

Self-taught? A myth.

When little Andrés (age four) heard a guitar for the first time, he wanted to learn to play one. His father (a church organist by profession) was pleased that he was interested in music, but put the kibosh on the guitar because he felt it was the instrument of the gypsies and other undesirable people (thus displaying his ignorance of guitarists such as Fernando Sor, Francisco Tarrega, and a host of others). He wanted Andrés to learn a "legitimate" musical instrument like the piano or the violin. Andrés didn't take to these at all. He said that in his childhood view, a piano was a monster that screamed at you when you poked its teeth, and a violin was a creature that cried when you beat it with a stick. A guitar was an instrument that you could hold in your arms, and when you stroked and petted it, it made sweet sounds. He was adamant about wanting to learn to play the guitar and, as young as he was, he refused to give up.

The result of his father's objections to Andrés' learning the guitar was rather counterproductive, because whenever he got the chance, he would manage to hang out with the gypsies (the very people his father objected to) and get the gypsy (flamenco) guitarists to show him things. Apart from the extensive use of rasgueados, flamenco technique and classical technique are almost identical. How Segovia managed to get a guitar and spend enough time practicing, I'm not sure—but obviously, he did. He was probably so determined that his father gave in.

One would have thought that with his initial instruction on the guitar, he might have gone into flamenco, but his father's playing of classical music at home had its effect. That's the kind of thing Segovia wanted to play, but on the guitar. He got a copy of Dionisio Aguado's guitar method and carefully taught himself. Then he moved on to the studies of Fernando Sor, and by the time he was fifteen, he auditioned to enter the University of Madrid, where he learned music theory and all the rest of it.

Andrés Segovia was essentially self-taught as far as guitar technique is concerned, but to characterize him as totally self-taught is not accurate. He had a thoroughly grounded formal musical education.

I'm sorry, but one cannot justify the advantages of a lack of formal musical training by pointing to Segovia.

Don Firth

*I've forgotten many of the details, but I read all of this in a series of articles written by Segovia in the Guitar Review, an irregularly issued magazine put out by a group of New York classic guitar buffs in the Fifties and Sixties. It's publication was pretty sporadic, sometimes only one issue a year, and someplace along the line I lost track of it. Apparently, though, it's still truckin'. *TWANG*

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST,Dustin
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 04:32 AM

Interesting thread. Some random responses to a bunch of different points by a bunch of different people.

I think Russ and that fiddle FAQ both touched on something important--you can't learn anything without respect for the music you want to learn and a willingness to meet it on its own terms. It goes both ways. I don't think a folk musician who can't accept orchestral music as having its own reasons for doing what it does is any better off than a classical musician who regards folk music as "incorrect." The fun comes in learning why, and you can't learn why if you don't think there is a why to learn.

It's a bit astonishing to hear someone say that one simply must never unlearn "classical technique" to play non-classical music. I can't speak for piano, but I'm curious if anyone advocates playing acoustic blues guitar in the classical position and forbids blues guitarists to use fingerpicks, steel strings, or their thumb to fret the low "E" string, or playing classical guitar on a Dobro with a flatpick. I find it difficult to understand anyone saying that either Gary Davis or Segovia was using the wrong technique for what they did. Better to ask why, I think.

There wasn't much differentiation between "classical technique" and being able to sight-read standard notation. When someone says "classical technique," I think of things like rest strokes vs. free strokes, wrist positions, and so on. Sight-reading is a different animal, I'd say, and certainly not the sum total of "classical technique." That must be true for any instrument. Oh, well--at least newer method books are less likely to have a section on notation titled "the rudiments of music" rather than something like "the rudiments of musical notation."

I don't think that learning some classical technique or sight-reading is a bad thing, but there are an awful lot of teachers out there teaching either or both without teaching much music. The fact that classical music has a developed pedagogy allows a lot of idiots to inflict rote playing on their students (my mother used to teach ear playing to the products of that kind of instruction). Is that worse than the lack of a fixed pedagogy allowing a lot of idiots to teach folk guitar as thrashing on a few open chords? I dunno, but in my book turning someone off to music is a pretty serious crime.

Dustin

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 03 - 11:50 PM

Perhaps what Segovia meant by being self taught was that he never had any "formal training." Sure, he picked up a few things here and there from people like Lloblet. But just because someone showed him how to tune a guitar or make a G chord doesn't mean he was taught how to play the way he did. I think he did that on his own. In that sense, he was "self taught." Saying that he wasn't self taught because he learned a few fundamental things from people along the way is too strict a definition for me. I accept Segovia's claim that he was "self taught."

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 06 Jul 03 - 08:49 PM

Russ: Thanks for the link. I found it fascinating reading, although I'm not a fiddler. It's just encouraging to know that there's someone out there who can speak intelligently about both classical and folk styles and respects both. I think I'll pass it on to some fiddler friends of mine.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: Deckman
Date: 06 Jul 03 - 08:39 PM

Guest ... I would like to gently throw this thought out: The very first time I held a guitar in my hands at age 10, I was "self taught." The very first time I saw a chord diagram, or someone showed me how to tune it, or showed me a chord, I was no longer "self taught." I doubt, very much, that the wonderful Segovia, lived his life without anyone showing (teaching) him something. Bob

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 03 - 07:46 PM

...interesting bit of trivia: Segovia was self-taught.

Subject: RE: Classical Training
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 06 Jul 03 - 07:01 PM

Jim,

I am truly sorry to hear about your bad experience. I know a few classically trained violinist who truly "get it" when it comes to traditional fiddling and they are a joy to play with.

If you are not already familiar with it, you might enjoy "Twelve questions violinists ask about fiddling"
at
http://www.dhebert.com/publications/fiddleFAQ.html

Russ