Aural tradition in music - any takers?

Subject: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Hopfolk
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 07:32 AM

Hello, I have a question for the musicians out there:

Whilst there was certainly (largely due to illiteracy) an oral culture of passing-on songs - Was there a musical equivalent, and is there any consideration given within the musical community as to the value of continued re-interpretation of folk tunes.

I ask this because folk lyrics often change with each singer and yet musical notation seems so... rigid. What I mean is - I can write down lyrics easily, but it's a bit more complicated to score a tune - so do tunes tend to stagnate because of this?

Cheers

CamoJohn

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: GUEST,T-boy
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 07:36 AM

Yes, definitely. And the tunes would change just like the words.

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: GUEST,T-boy
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 07:39 AM

Sorry, that's 'yes' to the first question.

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 08:01 AM

Many traditional musicians, myself included, are at best marginally musically literate, and this I believe has always been the case. So the "integrity" of a tune depends on the (communal) memory of the musicians- remember, few musicians operate in isolation, and there are always others around to keep the standard intact, at least within the current generation of musicians within that area.

Aural music has probably tended to ossify rather within recent decades, because recordings are widely available and carry the authority of being attached to respected names. Hence musicians with different versions find that their variant is often considered 'wrong' or 'old-fashioned', and gets crowded out.

This also happens in song- I remember Derek Elliot getting very annoyed once, because he was singing (IIRC) his version of 'Adieu to old England', and the audience joined in the chorus- except Martin Carthy's version.

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Snuffy
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 09:19 AM

Look at Morris tunes for an example of how many different shapes the same tune may take: 24 versions of Princess Royal in the "Black Book", about evenly split between major and minor.

Many other examples can be found: Young Collins, Constant Billy, Jockey to the Fair, etc

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 10:30 AM

Yes, the tunes change just like the words. I believe the change is more inadvertant with the tunes than with the lyrics. It "just happens" naturally with the tunes---as a result of folks making changes based on their talent and creative abilities, and, also, the musical emotions of the moment. The tales told in the songs can stay close to the older version, based on the memory of the singer and/or the collector. BUT people might want to personalize the words to a song---a more local geographical reference, or by putting in a better known person or two!

How about retired cowboy Del Bray's version of Barbara Allen. I met Del in a Cheyenne, Wyoming bar back in 1962. We shared a six-pack in my hotel room across the street while swapping some songs. He sang:

In Medicine Bow where I was born,
There was a fair maid dwellin',
Made all the boys ride saddle sore,
And her name was Barbara Allen.

The tune was pretty much one of those that were often always used for this old ballad---or, at least, that was how I remembered his tune when I set out to record it. I wrote down the words while he was singing it. Did I get 'em right? I hope so! (I think it is in the D.T.)

In my version of "The Lakes Of Ponchartrain", I admit to inserting the date of my own wedding anniversary into it. ;-) And I sang it to the old tune of "Come All You Tramps And Hawkers" just because I loved the tune more than the one Helene Stratman Thomas had collected in Wisconsin for the Archive Of Folksong at the Library Of Congress.

It was on the third of January I bid Cairo town adieu,
Traveled down the river road my fortune to pursue,
No money in my pockets, no credit could I gain,
'Twas then I turned with longing to the lakes of Ponchartrain.

I swung on board of an old boxcar just as the day did dawn,
I rode the rods from sun to sun---then I lit down again,
As the shades of evening fell, the low ground I did gain,
And there I met the creole girl by the shores of Ponchartrain.

Keep in mind, this is just one guys point of view. Could be an intersting thread...

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: sian, west wales
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 11:15 AM

Clera (the Welsh Traditional Instruments society) and trac (trac-cymru.org) both run workshops and projects which focus on transmitting music - vocal or instrumental - aurally. The "value" is partially in knowing that you're carrying on a tradition. However, I think there are other education arguments that can be made. For instance, I've seen non-academic children and adults respond tremendously to aural transmission (in one case, a very autistic young man) and it obviously also has value to visually disadvantaged musicians.

I also believe that the skills required to learn aurally are different from those that depend on written music. When I have to make a case for our work with funding agencies that are mainly economic or community development oriented, I claim that people who can successfully learn aurally tend to be more entrepreneurial in nature, able to respond more rapidly to changing circumstances (think 'sessions' - you have to adapt quickly).

Of course, I don't have any proper research to back this up (yet) but stating something with conviction can often carry the day with 'suits'.

siân

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 11:20 AM

I was going to mention Del Bray's version, Art, though I always think of it as "Art Thieme's Barbry Allen." :-) Folks in Wyoming sure enjoyed it when my sister and I sang it.

I was visiting with a fiddle-maker in Wyoming, a family friend and son of the fiddle-maker/fiddler who taught my dad and who also made my dad's fiddle. I played a tune I'd learned by ear from dad and the son told me it was the Western Colorado version of the tune; in Wyoming it was slightly different. This was long before I found Mudcat or knew much about how songs and tunes get passed around and changed. I just knew what I'd heard growing up.

Another thing I've noticed, being classically trained, I decided to get a book of fiddle tunes to learn from reading the "dots." Well, forget that! My EAR did not remember THAT tune THAT way; my fingers deviated from what was written to follow what I'd always heard from my dad and mom. Nowadays I only use dots once in awhile to recall how a tune starts OR I use audio reminders, i.e. recordings, etc.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 11:32 AM

Talking of purely melody-oriented music, such as fiddle tunes-- yes, they do change, especially in how runs are ornamented and how rhythms are interpreted. And I would bet O'Carolan would grin to hear some of HIS work done today. When this happens, the basic elements are quite recognizable-- I am not sure how our minds work so that's true-- even tho in so many respects, the tunes are not at all the same as they once were!

I think newcomers to tune work need to be reminded (over and over) that if they are learning a piece from notation, it's just one person's transcription of what they heard, and that many others may also have now learned from that same notation-- but others may have lerarned the same tune with differences, by other notation or from just hearing it and wanting so much to play it.

I know I have a lot of tunes in my head that are not exactly as I first heard them, or as the notation I heard played would have them go-- I can learn most of a tune accurately after only a few hearings, and be able to whistle it back; but my mind will fill in gaps of interval or phrasing if I don't get it all as heard. And that adjusted version is what will stick no matter what I try!

~Susan

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: MMario
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 11:45 AM

don't even *ask* what my mind can do to a tune...

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 01:09 PM

Oral transmission of lyrics can lead a song or ballad far from its original form, but print acts as a counter-influence to stabilize text. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that many more traditional singers were textually literate rather than musically literate (meaning they could read lyrics from a song sheet, but not the musical notation). So the transmission of tunes is probably closer to a 'pure' oral tradition than transmission of lyrics. But then recorded music has certainly stabilized tunes in the twentieth century. I imagine "Weeping Willow" (for example) was probably sung to more than one melody prior to the Carter Family's recording. The extremely popular (and lovely) recording probably helped stabilize the tune in the 1930s and beyond.

Bertrand Bronson wrote an article about the preservation of tunes among traditional singers. Could be relevant to this discussion, I'm going to try to dig it up.

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Charmion
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 01:40 PM

After many years as a singer of conventional repertoire -- choirs, cantatas and the dreaded art song -- I came late to traditional music learned by ear. I was actually taught to scorn those who played by ear and, therefore, could not refer to the score to ensure that the composer's intentions were fully carried out. I am only now -- at age 51 -- learning how to play by ear, a task I find equally fascinating and challenging.

First, to address the original question: Another factor influencing changes in tunes is the instrument played by each musician in the transmission chain. I play the mandolin, which lends itself to triplets, runs, double-stopping and chords, but doesn't do rolls like a whistle or grace notes like the pipes. So if I learn a tune from a whistle player, I change the rolls to triplets and add chording. If I then teach the tune to a piper, she will keep my triplets and add grace notes and drones, and obviously leave out the chords.

And so on.

Aural transmission requires enormous effort on the teacher's part, both in breaking down the tune and in patiently repeating it with the pupil until it is fully learned. Have you ever wondered why traditional tunes are so short -- typically, eight to sixteen bars plus two or three variations? Try teaching an art song or an aria to a singer who doesn't read music (or, for a real challenge, a blind singer), and you'll rapidly realize that the traditional tunes are honed down to a size and shape (as it were) that is easy to absorb without the aid of notation.

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 01:55 PM

I play by ear. Have all my life. I have taken a year of music theory at the university level, and it taught me to 'understand' why some chords work well with others and some don't. However, when I hear a song I like and decide to learn it, I will often use a modal where the writer used a triad; a major where the writer used a seventh chord. So, the work changes. I still credit the author (always) and say that I have made changes. Some people call that arranging--I just call it changin'.

I have the clearest memory of some stanzs from Dylans "Stuck Inside of Mobile" and when I looked finally at the sheet music I saw I had been wrong. I think this is really all part of the folk process. (I read somewhere that there are more versions of "House of the Rising Sun" than a guy or gal could shake a stick at--which remindes me of a joke I'll post to the humour thread--and not all of that would have been on purpose.

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 01:59 PM

So, the Oral /Aural Tradition roles on.

Just to drag a theme in from a thread of mine .......

Can the detailed structure of a tune tell us anything about its age?

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 03:39 PM

Here's my take on the subject.
It is only a very recent idea that when there are "dots" written, that you only play the dots which are on the paper. Historically the written notation was there as a guideline of how a tune went, but a soloist was expected to be able to interpret the music. What was actually played depended on the skill and virtuosity of the player. A "good" player added twists, turns and decorations which lesser talents were not technically capable of.
When people learn tunes without using "dots" there are two common ways of doing it. One is to learn note for note or fingering for fingering from another player(or from listening to a recording). When you do this you end up with an accurate reproduction of how the tune was played.
Another way of picking up a tune is from knowing your instument and being comfortable with a style of playing you are used to. If you are confident with your instrument, and have a good ear, you can listen to a tune being played and produce something which "fits" in with what is being played. It may not be an exact note for note copy, but is just as valid a way of learning. Playing this way, you may not play a melody the same way any two times running. Improvisation is as valid a part of the folk tradition as learning a tune in exactly the style of a local "teacher".
Quack!
Geoff the Duck.

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Charmion
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 03:45 PM

Les in Chorlton: Yes, it can, but only very broadly. An English (as in composed in England) song with a 12-bar blues structure, for example, is obviously a 20th or 21st century artifact, as it had to have been created by an English person who was intimately familiar with the 12-bar blues, a 20th-century American form.

The world-wide circulation of recorded music since the Second World War has broken down regional variations in tune structure and instrumentation so much that fusion is now the rule -- think "Irish bouzouki" ...

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 10:58 PM

There are a lot of music traditions that are transmitted completely orally--and there are some, like Jazz, that are fundamentally oral traditions, but use written music for convenience--

It is important to remember that there is a difference between simply learning a song by ear--which would be basically memorizing what you hear--and being taught orally--which would be learning how to play and what the rules of a music tradition are by another musician--

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Wrinkles
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 05:45 AM

When I live in Enniskillen I was told about an example of aural song transmission.

One of the local rugby teams, Brookeborough I think, was slated to take on a team from Tyrone whom they hadn't had a match against for at least 2 decades. A song had been written to comemorate that occasion and the team got an older villager to sing it for them several times so that they could get the tune fixed in their heads; their intention was after the match to write new lyrics to tell the tale of how the latest match against the Tyrone team went.

I never found out if they actualy did write a new version, or hear the old one.

Wrinkles

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Hopfolk
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 07:31 AM

Paul: I imagine that would tick Mr.Elliot off somewhat.

Art Thieme: Sometimes the words don't seem right. As we are a product of our experiences, our interpretation of everything we encounter varies from the next person. I think this extends to music and song, also. Like in Martin Carthy's version of "Polly on the shore" I just can't sing:
"As I myself have done,
In the merry merry month of may
When I was pressed by a sea-captain,
and on-board a man of war I was sent"
For me it has to be "I did stray" - because it rhymes, basically. And music is the same. Something that sounds like a song that was playing when you got dumped by a girlfriend might be (subliminally maybe) changed for something different. I dont know, but it makes ya think.

Sian: There must be something in that. I aren't stoopid but the level of perseverance needed to hammer "Learning to read music" into my noggin seems way higher than "Picking up a tune". I've tried, honest.

Michael morris: Certainly, people who could read hymns in church could read folk broadsides. It's all a question about timespan. I do think that it is often overlooked just how rare and expensive some instruments were 150+ years ago. I think there may have been less Fiddle-players then than now :-)

Peace, I'll look for the joke :-)

Geoff: Musical notation does seem to be a guideline. After all, the feeling and "Spirit" of a tune is almost impossible to convey without person-to-person contact.

Thanks all for your comments and answers.

CamoJohn.

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Mr Red
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 07:44 AM

speaking as a (ducks below parapet) drummer

YES

frankly anyone who can't read notation has to do it aurally. And judging by the variations I hear - yes the folk process is precessing nicely in the sessions I go to.

Ask at any Irish session what the tune is they often say "the tune in D" - and you will hear a lot of variations on that title.

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Fossil
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 08:15 AM

All this above reminds me of the inimitable Paul Downes: during an long, long session of tuning up, he came out with: "the aural tradition's very important in folk music. My next song is an example of this - I learned it off my old Dad, years ago.......
(more tuning)
.......
(more tuning)
.......

....... mind you, he learned it off a Bing Crosby record!"

And then he sang "Buddy, can you Spare a Dime".

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Tannywheeler
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 10:37 AM

Can't have an oral tradition without an accompanying aural component.

Once, at a post-concert party in Austin, I mentioned that I had heard ABOUT "Keep On The Sunny Side" most of my conscious life, but never met the song itself. There was a moment of stunned silence, then a comment about the Godly duty to combat criminal ignorance, then 15 musicians formed a circle around me and played and sang that song for almost 30 full minutes. By the end of the first time through, I had 50% of the chorus. By the beginning of the third time through I had the cho. and most of the first verse. After about 22 min. I had about 95% of the verses. It was a wonderful evening. The same evening I had my first taste of Single Malt Scotch. Talk about significant moments....       Tw

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: M.Ted
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 12:45 PM

Learning a song by hearing and watching others play it is pretty easy--in fact, it is probably a lot easier to learn a song this way than to learn a song from written music t because that requires interpretation--As a performer, you tend to recreate someone elses performances first, then come up with your own interpretation later--

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 01:10 PM

It is called "port a beul" in Gaelic and is very much a part of passing tunes along. A Google search with those words should lead to more information.
                Slainte,
                   Sandy

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 04:16 PM

not all its cracked up to be.

you learn a lot of stuff wrong

and then you get old and its too late to learn it right _ I have found

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 04:19 PM

tell you something else - I really hate it when somebody puts my music down as a load of bloody dots on paper

to paraphrase Patrick MacGoohan

I'm not a load of dots, I'm a human being

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: M.Ted
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 10:49 AM

It all depends on who you are, weelittledrummer--Art Tatum could perform a song if he heard it once--and this apparently extended to classical piano compositions, as well as jazz stuff.

My theory is that talent comes from t the Devil who uses it as a way to overwhelm the rest of us with despair--

I

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Hopfolk
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 07:15 AM

I wonder how often three or more people get together for a session, bringing three or more different interpretations together and end up all playing an entirely different version, influenced by each other.
I like that idea.

Very similar to the rock'n'roll "Jam session". Trial end error, almost. Or evolution (Oh poop... I swore!)

CamoJohn

PS: Hmmmm Single malt. There should be a law that makes people "who don't like whiskey" try a nice single... just to make sure.

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Tannywheeler
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 04:57 PM

That CamoJohn's got a good point--but if he combs his hair right it won't show! If you're on my side of the Atlantic (or Pacific) write your Congressperson and let's see what kind of trouble we can foment.                   Tw

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 06:05 PM

Its a good job Art Tatum heard someone who could play classical compositions correctly - he could have ended up just a dirty bopper playing that awful modern jazz stuff.

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: muppitz
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 06:11 PM

After Warwick festival this year I decided to dub Tom Napper "The Duracell Bunny", (please finish reading this before you make any assumptions!) from about 11.30 pm to around 4.30 am, he was constantly playing along or leading a tunes/song session outside the Moor & Coast food tent.
I was astonished at his knowledge of tunes, he was, what sounded to me, note perfect in every tune, or at the very least he was never OUT of tune.
Somewhere in the middle of this session I asked him, mid-tune, if there was any tune in the world he didn't know, his reply was;

"Yes, this one"

Interpretation & musicianship or luck, you decide!!

muppitz x

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 06:14 PM

Somehow, this discussion reminds me of an analogy I heard years ago:

A good actor brings much more to his role than the mere words. THis added value stims, in great part, from his hearing of other performers' interpretations. Therefore, the written word is useless.

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: treewind
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 06:24 PM

From the original message:
folk lyrics often change with each singer and yet musical notation seems so... rigid. What I mean is - I can write down lyrics easily, but it's a bit more complicated to score a tune - so do tunes tend to stagnate because of this?

It's exactly the same with tunes as it is with words.
Many's the tune I've written down, the way I play it, and then later checked against what I thought was the printed source I learnt it from, and found I'd changed it.

In fact I'd say it's easier to change tunes that it is to change lyrics, certainly no harder.
Musical notation is no more exact than the written word, and human memory is equally fallible in both departments.
And bad, hastily written music handwriting, like its text counterpart, is open to guesswork as to what was originally meant.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Aural tradition in music - any takers?
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 01:18 PM

Well, there's nothing like a good joke, weelittledrummer-and... well, you know the rest;-)