|
02 Sep 09 - 05:33 PM (#2714944) Subject: Could be played with no musical training From: The Fooles Troupe This was triggered by a thread that talked about certain instruments "the appeal being that they could be played with no musical training-- " Gaaahhhh - why do those who know nothing think that they are so good that.... aaaagghhhhh... |
|
02 Sep 09 - 05:40 PM (#2714950) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Leadfingers Robin ! I know a number of very competent performers on a variety of instruments who have never suffered the Strait Jacket of Formal Musical training ! |
|
02 Sep 09 - 05:42 PM (#2714951) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Jack Campin Is that the sound of a kazoo I hear? |
|
02 Sep 09 - 06:06 PM (#2714964) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Don Firth There is a fair number of very fine musicians out there who have had no "formal training." But they have had training. They have trained themselves. Don Firth |
|
02 Sep 09 - 06:11 PM (#2714972) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Leadfingers Good Example is Johnny Dodds , New Orleans Clarinettist , who was never taught that it was impossible to do a perfect slur through four (I THNK) Octaves ! so he DID , as a break on 'Joe Turner Blues in 1927 |
|
03 Sep 09 - 12:59 AM (#2715177) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: M.Ted That having been my comment, I will endeavor--well, I'll say something, anyway-- There are many in this world who are oblivious to the idea that achievement requires effort. They think that people fortunes fall out of the sky, and that you just have be in the right place at the right time. They believe that all you have to do is sit down at a typewriter and you're the next Shakespeare, that anyone can be a movie star, and that people just pick up instruments and play them--and so they keep looking for an instrument that requires no practice, no discipline, and no particular talent. I know these people are out there, because I've had many of them come to me for music lessons. They tend to show up with either really cheap or really expensive instruments, they want to "learn guitar in one week", or day, or in their sleep, and they never practice. Nowadays, they buy casio keyboards and Band-ia-a-Box, go online, or just play "Guitar Hero", but in the golden ages past, they bought ukelins and autoharps and fretless zithers from travelling salesman, fiddled with them for a couple days, and then stuck them under the bed. |
|
03 Sep 09 - 01:01 AM (#2715178) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Joe Offer Hey, I want to see some respect here. The kazoo is MY instrument... |
|
03 Sep 09 - 03:46 AM (#2715210) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: GUEST Gaaahhhh - why do those who know nothing chance that by wearing ribbons and bells and prancing on their toes...someone will mistake that for a dance? aaaagghhhhh...
Thanks. -Joe Offer-
|
|
03 Sep 09 - 04:30 AM (#2715222) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Leadfingers M.Ted = Thats fair enough ! We ALL know tho odd Joe like that , as we ALL know the guys who have worked out what they want to play , without any FORMAL instruction . Its the Elderly Lady , got off the train at Grand Central Station and asked how to get to Carnegie Hall . |
|
03 Sep 09 - 04:42 AM (#2715229) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Geoff the Duck Let me add my voice of outrage to Joe's and extol the virtue of the noble kazoo. Let's face it, without musical training it is just a lump of silent metal. It is the musicality and ear of the virtuoso which turns it into a magical experience, soaring and swooping through the whole vocal range of the performer. As for ensemble work, the key is responding to the subtleties of your fellow musicians. Quack! Geoff the Duck. Selby Kazoo Orchestra / Windy Bottom Kazoo Ensemble. |
|
03 Sep 09 - 05:18 AM (#2715240) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Jack Campin The one that amazes me is the traditions where people learn the violin with no teacher. In former times, this was the norm in Shetland and Transylvania that I know of, and presumably other places in between: you'd just watch, practice at home (or up a remote hill in a barn) and join in when you could. In Shetland, this led to a distinctive style of bowing, since there weren't many players and once you got the basic idea you'd be playing along with them for life. In Transylvania (much larger place with musicians much more mobile) it led to utter anarchy with many different styles coexisting. |
|
03 Sep 09 - 05:35 AM (#2715245) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Geoff the Duck Anarchy? Maybe -I don't know anything about Transylvania. But did it work? Over the years, I have seen many "classically trained" violinists who just do not know where to start with folk music unless they have dots in front of them. This is because they have never learned to listen and watch what other players do, only to listen for where their dots fall within the score. Quack! GtD. |
|
03 Sep 09 - 05:49 AM (#2715250) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Marje There can be a big difference between "musical training" and making an effort to learn to play (or sing) well. Many people don't have formal training but learn a lot from instruction books and from listening to recordings. They also work their apprenticeships by playing or singing with others and talking to them about their techniques, tunings etc. Recording yourself playing or singing and listening to the playback can be quite salutory, and of course practice is crucial. One-to-one formal tuition can be helpful too, and it rarely does any harm, but it doesn't guarantee success - it needs to be combined with some of the things listed above. There are, on the other hand, lazy musicians/singers who try to get by without doing any of the above, and we all know how they sound. I think, as has been implied above, that TV talent shows are adding to the problems, as many young people seem to believe that the important thing is to have bags of confidence, a good "image", and to reallyreallyreally WANT to be successful, to WANT it more than anything in the world, etc, etc. There's also the sloppy "good enough for folk" attitude, which has been discussed elsewhere. But there are many respected players or singers (and we all know some of them too)who are largely or entirely self-taught. They are the ones who have worked hard and learned to use their instrument or voice to the best of their ability. It's not about how you learn, it's about whether you make the effort to learn at all. Marje |
|
03 Sep 09 - 06:20 AM (#2715265) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Jack Campin I don't know anything about Transylvania. But did it work? Yes. Look at the Romania/Hungary travelogue from last year on my website - I have some links from there to Transylvanian fiddling samples (though I was more interested in whistle). Or just search "Zerkula Janos" on YouTube. In many places there has been a long tradition of blind fiddlers. Katherine Campbell's "The Fiddle in Scottish Culture" has a chapter about them in Scotland. Since a blind fiddler can't even watch what the other guy's fingers are doing, they end up even more idiosyncratic. The blind fiddler "Financ" (Zoltan Antal) from Gyimes has a left hand position like no other I've seen, much higher up than usual and occasionally curling his thumb round to stop a B drone on the G string. You should be able to see that on some the video on the web. |
|
03 Sep 09 - 07:32 AM (#2715282) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Bobert The entire concept behinf Orff music is teaching kids to play with little or no musical training... The instruments, Xylophone, Metallophones, Glockenspeils can be manipulated so there are really no wrong notes... Throw in the unpitched percussion and all it takes to play them (and sound good) is some level of basic rhytum... B~ |
|
03 Sep 09 - 08:12 AM (#2715297) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: The Fooles Troupe Now look what I started... I knew it would all end in tears... :-P |
|
03 Sep 09 - 08:20 AM (#2715302) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Dave Roberts I once went into a music shop in Crewe and asked if they had any kazoos. I would have got a better reaction if I'd offered to burn down the shop. 'The kazoo.' said the shop owner disdainfully, 'is NOT a musical instrument'. It is, of course, its main appeal being that it can be played with no musical training. Dave Roberts Bob Webb Kazoo Orchestra |
|
03 Sep 09 - 08:22 AM (#2715304) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: The Fooles Troupe QUITE and all it takes to play them (and sound good) is some level of basic rhythm UNQUOTE ... and as someone who had friends whose children learned music that way ... PRACTICE... :-P |
|
03 Sep 09 - 08:25 AM (#2715307) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: The Fooles Troupe Haha Dave... crossposted! :-) |
|
03 Sep 09 - 08:55 AM (#2715328) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Phil Edwards I'd like to turn it round and ask what instruments can't be played without any musical training. I was playing tunes on the recorder by ear before I ever learned to read dots; I can still pick out a tune by ear as quickly as I can sight-read (i.e. not very quickly). My Dad used to play piano, and he never learned to read dots (although he could sight-read solfa). How he learned the left-hand parts I'll never know. I find the idea of being a self-taught guitarist equally mindboggling, but people do do it - one of the best guitarists I know plays chords with names like "D with an extra bit". So what instrument is there that's so complex and counter-intuitive that no untaught outsider could ever learn to find their way around it? Lute? Pipe organ? Bandoneon? |
|
03 Sep 09 - 09:05 AM (#2715333) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Jack Campin The voice, if you want to sound like an opera singer. |
|
03 Sep 09 - 09:50 AM (#2715362) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: GUEST,leeneia This argument could go on forever, because everyone has a different definition of 'training.' At one extreme, training could be defined as learning from a music teacher with a music degee. At the other extreme, merely hearing someone hum, whistle or sing a tune counts as training. I learned about that second def. in a Chinese restaurant. There, members of the staff, many newly-arrived in the U.S., sang 'Happy Birthday' to a baby girl. It was awful. (It was also charming.) They knew the words, but some had never internalized the intervals in do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do. That made me realize that Westerners are all trained to duplicate certain intervals. Even those who have never heard The Sound of Music. |
|
03 Sep 09 - 11:23 AM (#2715442) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: M.Ted Before you decided what "training" is, you have to decide what "playing" consists of--if you define playing as simply banging out a melody on the idiophone of your choice, that doesn't require much help, but if you define "playing" as something like this Jascha Heifetz plays Paganini Caprice No. 24, you're probably going to need all the help you can get-- |
|
03 Sep 09 - 01:11 PM (#2715517) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Songbob I have had one "official" (i.e., paid-for) music lesson in my life. But I used to live near Dupont Circle, in 1966-1967. During the summer season (whenever it was warm enough and not raining, that is, no matter the month) there were always little knots of people gathered here and there on the grass, playing music. Usually whatever was going around in "folk circles," but that means it was pretty eclectic. And anyone could sit down in the circle, open an instrument case, and play along as best he/she could. And the good thing was, when the song was finished, you could ask, "Hey, what was that where you moved that D chord up the neck?" and get the answer, "Oh, well, at the 7th fret, it's a G chord, and up at the 9th, you get an A. You have to watch the bass strings, but it works." Bingo! Instant lesson in chord inversion (or alternate positions, whatever you want to call it). I must have had as many as three or four such lessons every night, for two summers (by 1968, it had gotten pretty hairy there, and it's hard to play music while breathing tear gas). How many lessons is that? Add to it places like the Alexandria Folklore Center, in operation at the time, where similar learning sessions could be carried out, and I had a bachelors/masters/doctorate season in two years. In that time, I took up banjo, mandolin, autoharp, and fiddle, plus making much improvement on guitar and even harmonica. I had my first public performances then, which is a totally different kind of learning experience, but a valuable one. I wrote my first Gawd-awful songs, too, just to show that that time wasn't a total plus. So am I a trained musician? Damned right I am. Bob |
|
03 Sep 09 - 01:16 PM (#2715521) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Phil Edwards M.Ted - I take the point, but even virtuosi aren't all trained. I remember John Peel once playing a rather crude bit of punk and commenting, "You're probably thinking that guitarist sounds like he lost two fingers in a gypsy caravan fire". Then, of course, he played something by Django. |
|
03 Sep 09 - 02:30 PM (#2715574) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: John P Playing the kazoo requires being able to sing in tune. I've been playing music professionally for 40 years and have never been able to play the kazoo competently. I think this thread is really about non-musicians who want an instrument that they can play with no effort, not about musicians who haven't had any formal training. There are a few instruments that can be played fairly easily by non-musicians (Musicmaker, lap dulcimer, kazoo, even the harp), but they still require a decent sense of rhythm and a sense of the melody as whole instead of a bunch of disconnected notes. Someone who doesn't have those things won't even be able to make the mindless instruments sound good. So maybe they aren't entirely non-musicians?? Then there are the fairly good musicians who don't have any self-critical facility. They think that because the are a Musician, they can obviously play music without practicing endlessly. I'd almost rather hear a non-musician banging on a drum; someone who obviously could be very good but doesn't know they're not is really sad. Self-taught musicians are, if they are any good, equally able as highly trained players. Training comes in many forms. Playing along with others can be a great music school. |
|
03 Sep 09 - 02:44 PM (#2715586) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Don Firth Andrés Segovia's father was a musician; a church organist. At the age of six, Andrés wanted to become a musician: a guitarist. His father said, "No!" The guitar was the instrument of the gypsies and the lower classes. Not a decent instrument for his son to play, and he didn't want him to be associating with people like that. Violin, piano, fine. But the guitar? No! This, even though there were a number of respected guitarists he apparently wasn't aware of: Fernando Sor, Francisco Tàrrega, Carulli, Aguado; Franz Schubert played the guitar, although, as far as I know, he didn't compose for it, Beethoven referred to the guitar as "an orchestra in miniature". . . . This turned out to be a bit counterproductive for Andrés' father. Young Andrés took to hanging around where the gypsies hung out, listening to them play flamenco and other stuff on their guitars, and saying, "How do you do that? Show me." With his father's attitude as it was, I don't know how he managed to get his hands on a guitar so he could practice, but he did, and he also managed to get a copy of Dionisio Aguado's Escuela de Guitarra, a guitar tutor published in 1825 (still in print today and still a very good technique book), and taught himself out of that, supplemented by Fernando Sor's collection of 120 graded studies. He made sufficient progress in his own self-instruction that he played a recital at the age of 15, which got him a scholarship to the University of Madrid school of music. There, he learned music theory and all the other stuff. But—the key to the whole thing is a) get an idea of how to proceed either from a few lessons to begin with, or a good technique book (which you read carefully), then b) place seat of pants on seat of chair, pick up guitar (or whatever musical instrument you chose), and (Beware! Dirty word!!) practice, practice, practice! I have had formal training, both singing and classic guitar lessons, plus some conservatory training. But my first "instruction" on the guitar consisted of Claire, my lady friend at the time, showing me how to finger G, C, and D7 on the guitar, and a few months later, Walt Robertson teaching me a bunch of picking patterns and bass runs. It was later that I started taking weekly lessons that I paid for. Was what Claire and Walt showed me "training?" I knew a guy when I was at the University of Washington who decided he was going to be a poet. He adopted the requisite scarf and beret (his idea of what it took to be a poet), wandered around proclaiming that he was a poet. He actually wrote a little doggerel from time to time, but it was really bad stuff. Nobody else referred to him as a poet, except with a snicker. How many people do you know who tell you, "I'm a songwriter," but their songs really deserve a quick trip to the nearest septic tank? Being a poet or a musician or a brain surgeon requires a bit more than just calling yourself one. I had a friend who was an artist. Really good. When people asked him what he did, he said, "I'm a painter." People would then say, "Oh, you're an artist?" Ric would respond, "Well, I paint pictures. Whether or not I am an 'artist' is not for me to say. That's for others to decide." I'd say that Ric know where his towel was. Don Firth |
|
03 Sep 09 - 02:47 PM (#2715587) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: autoharpbob How did I guess that the autoharp would figure in this thread? Please disabuse yourself of the stereotype that all one has to do is strum this in time and press the chord buttons - actually that is quite difficult itself and requires some musical ability whether trained or not. But masters of this instrument do so much more than that. It is an instrument that it is easy to play at a mediocre level - very hard to play well. And of course training will help that - see the UK Autoharp Association for details of such training. |
|
03 Sep 09 - 03:33 PM (#2715630) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: GUEST,Ebor_Fiddler Don't show disrespect for those who buy expensive instruments they can't play and stick them under the bed! They are the thoughtful ones who have children who find it after Daddy's handed in his dinner pail and give it to Oxfam. This keeps down the cost of instruments for the rest of us. I see several comments about the kazoo, but no-one has even mentioned the Swanee Whistle (as played on at least one of Mr Armstrong's records) without which the former cannot be played seriously. The good Samantha will attest to this. |
|
03 Sep 09 - 05:37 PM (#2715743) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Tim Leaning Ok so what is meant by musical training? Some of the thread could be read to mean all trained violinists should sound the same ? Cant be what yo meant surely. |
|
03 Sep 09 - 07:24 PM (#2715807) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Jack Campin The swannee whistle, along with the "Langley" English ocarina, are a different kind of instrument. They're both designed so that nobody can play them well. I presume the attraction of that to a certain kind of beginner is that they know they'll never have any competition to look up to. |
|
03 Sep 09 - 07:59 PM (#2715826) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Joe Offer Autoharpbob says, and I applaud him for this:
The Autoharp is one instrument that is played badly more often than not. Nothing worse than trying to sing when somebody is playing an out-of-tune Autoharp badly. -Joe- |
|
03 Sep 09 - 08:23 PM (#2715839) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Tattie Bogle 12 years of training for this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESBmqCEz69w |
|
03 Sep 09 - 08:23 PM (#2715840) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Bluegrassman Dave went to a shop down in Crewe Asked the man "have you got a kazoo" The man said "son don't be absurd "That's the daftest thing that I've heard" He took Dave round the back And he gave him a smack Poor David's request was denied Dave said to the man, "yes I know" But my musical skills are quite low I just want to sing and to play with a thing Please help me, please do what you can The man knew what to do He'd met quite a few So he promptly sold Dave a Bodhran |
|
03 Sep 09 - 08:33 PM (#2715843) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Don Firth The original idea of the autoharp (the "chord-zither"), or so I have been told, was to develop an instrument that teachers, camp counselors, Sunday school teachers who were presumed to be non-musicians—or, for that matter, pianists who might not have a piano available, could strum chords for leading group singing. An instrument that, in a short period of time and with minimum effort, they could learn to play adequately for the purpose. Then, the inevitable happens: someone develops such an instrument, then someone else comes along (such as the Stoneman family, or Maybelle Carter) and turns the bloody thing into a virtuoso instrument. Well, of course, there is always the shaky egg. But you really should have some sense of rhythm. . . . Don Firth P. S. Bongos? Real big in the Sixties. I think about half the world's population who had no sense of rhythm had a set of these mass-torture devices. |
|
04 Sep 09 - 03:20 AM (#2715963) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: The Fooles Troupe Don, the problem is that if someone pulls out a set of bongos (to use your example), or any other instrument, that many people (often those who cannot play ANY instrument themselves) will immediately decry the ability of such a person... without ANY attempt to listen to what they do... been there, done that, got sick of being put down by "I'd like to turn it round and ask what instruments can't be played without any musical training. I was playing tunes on the recorder by ear " etc ... ... practice, practice, practice ... is INDEED training - of oneself BY oneself :-) |
|
04 Sep 09 - 10:44 AM (#2716137) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: GUEST,leeneia I agree with you, Foolestroupe. |
|
04 Sep 09 - 12:19 PM (#2716197) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: John P On the other hand, maybe we should look at mindless instruments in the hands of the untrained as a gateway drug. Some of them will move on to becoming musicians. |
|
04 Sep 09 - 01:07 PM (#2716227) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Songbob "The original idea of the autoharp (the "chord-zither"), or so I have been told, was to develop an instrument that [ ] non-musicians [ ] could strum chords for leading group singing." Actually, as I understand it, it was developed partly for that (after all, it was a selling point, so why not make the claim?), but as well for teaching a new system for writing music. Or at least, Mr. Zimmerman hoped that this new system would catch on. It involved numbers instead of letters, and was intended to make it possible to write without the musical staves (treble clef, bass cleff, etc.). The system was a disaster, and never adopted by more than a handful of hopeful dreamers who couldn't memorize "Every Good Boy Does Fine" and "FACE." Early autoharps have a number as well as a letter on the chord bars and the chart that sits under the strings. Those numbers were for use in the music-writing/reading scheme that Zimmerman proposed. Thank God he didn't succeed with the scheme, but luckily, his chord-harp did succeed in its other feature -- an easy-to-use accompaniment instrument. I'm sure countless numbers of people learned a lot about music through use of the autoharp. Bob |
|
04 Sep 09 - 01:13 PM (#2716232) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Alice Dave Roberts, I got the same reaction when I went into a local musical instrument store and asked if they had penny whistles. (clerk looked down his nose and said, that's a toy, not an instrument) It's the local snooty guitar and mandolin shop. |
|
04 Sep 09 - 01:14 PM (#2716234) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Alice I repeat what others have said, self training IS musical training. |
|
04 Sep 09 - 02:01 PM (#2716265) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Don Firth Robin, my comments above are not just a gratuitous put-down of bongo players, they're based on bitter experience. In the early Sixties, one of the coffeehouses I played in regularly on weekends was Pamir House (started out to be an Indian restaurant, but it fizzled, so the adaptable owner decided to hire a few folk singers and turn it into a coffeehouse). It was a very enjoyable place to sing, because Mr. Timmons, the owner, hired two or three singers to sing on weekends (and he payed regularly and reasonably well). We would sometimes sing one at a time, but generally all two or three, or sometimes four of us would be up in front at the same time, swapping songs, bantering back and forth, singing solos or impromptu duets or ensembles. Very informal; we were having fun and and the audiences loved it. Like a party. But some people were not aware that we had been auditioned and hired by Timmons, we hadn't just wandered in off the street. Thinking that it was some kind of "free for all," they would sometimes join in—often with musically disastrous results. Since the two Mikes, Judy, Jerry, Jim, Alice, Sue, me, et al, accompanied ourselves on guitars of various sizes, shapes, and qualities, with the occasional 5-string banjo in evidence, those who wanted to participate (uninvited by either us or the management) would come in most often with a set of bongos—and instrument that, in addition to being inexpensive, they assumed didn't require talent or ability to be able to play. All one had to do, they seemed to think, was just bang on the things. Generally, once Timmons (back in the kitchen) became aware of the cacophonous arrhythmia, he would come out and invite the individual to kindly knock it off. But often, before Mr. Timmons had a chance to come out and ask the interloper to stuff a sock in it, I would have bongo players attempting to provide a sort of palsied pseudo-Caribbean rhythm, not only to such songs as The Sloop John B., but to Greensleeves, The Unquiet Grave, Edward, or Come All You Fair and Tender Ladies. I have heard bongos, bodhrans, and other percussion instruments played with a great degree of taste and skill and with very good effect. But unfortunately, many people seem to assume that if you can pound on a table-top, you can automatically play such instruments like a virtuoso. Don Firth |
|
04 Sep 09 - 03:47 PM (#2716326) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Jane of' ull I come from that self-taught tradition otherwise known as poverty! My parents wouldn't have been able to afford music lessons, but I'm glad for that as I've always played mainly by ear and hated following the dots. I'll never be a slave to the stave! |
|
04 Sep 09 - 06:49 PM (#2716459) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: The Fooles Troupe I just love stories like that Don! :-0 |
|
04 Sep 09 - 09:43 PM (#2716526) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: The Fooles Troupe "never be a slave to the stave" Ah - all the 30s 'big bands' and many jazz bands then and now supply part music - you are EXPECTED to be able to play what the COMPOSER/ARRANGER set out... Only 'soloists' are allowed the 'luxury' of 'making it up as they go along'... viz... QUOTE because the are a Musician, they can obviously play music without practising endlessly UNQUOTE I call these 'artists' "B-graders" - no matter how good they THINK they are, they can never understand WHY they never seem to improve - of course that is being kind and assuming they can tell the difference... The WHOLE POINT of the original development of various forms of music notation was to PRESERVE good music, intended to be an AID TO MEMORY, not some slavish imprisonment of 'artistic taste'... I personally love the guide in front of me (and as a pipe organ and choir/ensemble muso, I can read full 'conductor score' - with multiple simultaneous parts), as I can use that as a starting point. I love those 'fake books' with the tune and chord structure - I can start playing immediately (tunes I have NEVER heard before take a few minutes to get up to speed) without trying to remember millions of tunes... Of course if someone can only 'play by ear', I still respect them (based on their output) - I just think it sad that they are unnecessarily limiting their potential capabilities... |
|
05 Sep 09 - 06:12 AM (#2716638) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Jack Campin There is a strange fetish in the folk/trad scene about not being able to read music. I can think of one world-famous performer who publicly claims not to be able to read music but has been spotted doing it at home. |
|
05 Sep 09 - 06:30 AM (#2716646) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Dave Roberts Bluegrassman - that's excellent! Actually we were thinking of using a bodhran in the act but, unfortunately (or not, according to point of view), the bodhran player (Bob Webb's partner Gilly) managed to punch a hole in the thing thus scuttling the project. Currently I'm learning to play the ukulele, another 'comedy' instrument but, in the right hands, capable of making music of great beauty and refinement. Something, alas, I don't think can be said of the poor old kazoo. |
|
06 Sep 09 - 04:46 AM (#2717339) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Penny S. I think I started this ball rolling. I would not call myself a musician, but I do know some stuff about music, and can generally hear what chords are required in a song, or work it out on paper if required. I lost the practice habit when neighbours started to go on about interflats noise, and a child was put in the spare bedroom next to mine, which was the only room without a sound channel to other properties. This will soon be rectified, and the keyboard, guitar and thumb piano come back into use. But I also have a physical problem. I get to a certain level, and then practice fails. It's difficult to describe what I mean, the simplest way is to call it clumsiness. I just hit a wall, and however much I do, I don't improve. I get worse. I know I could not do the autoharp playing that others do, but I could use it to augment my singing, and get to use chords I can't manage on the guitar. As for the guitar, there was an odd phenomenon with that. After learning some Spanish techniques with the right hand, I discovered that that hand developed ways of playing without my consciousness interfering, in just the way that the non-musical expect to be able to play, described above. Sounded good. I need to practice again to get back to that. Unfortunately, my left hand has no such abilities, and once removed from the key of G, which is now too high for my voice, is completely at sea. It is very very frustrating, and not solvable. There is this clumsy business at work. Penny |
|
06 Sep 09 - 05:33 AM (#2717350) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Tradsinger This thread has wandered a little from musical 'training' to the ability to read music, so here's my fourpennyworth. It used to be considered by some people in England that the ability to read music was a hindrance to being able to play folk music properly, and it is true that there were and are some musicians who played extremely well without being able to read the dots. It is also true that there are 'trained' musicians who cannot play without the dots in front of them. It is equally true that there were and are lots of 'trained' musicians who are perfectly at home in the folk idiom. However, the current breed of top young(ish) folk musicians (e.g. Tim Van Eyken, Jon Spiers, the Askew Sisters, Andy Cutting etc, etc) all know loads about the theory of music and are able to put this into practise to add value to their performances. The ability to understand how music works, i.e. intervals, scales, chords, is akin to knowing the grammar of a language. You don't need to know grammar to speak a foreign language but you will speak it infinitely better if you do. You don't need to read and understand music to play but it will improve your musicality if you can. If you can then make the leap from the theory to the sound, even better. It is one thing to know what a minor 7th chord or a flatted 7th looks like, but if you know what it sounds like and you can recognise it and play it, then you've cracked it. Over the years, I have tried to understand musical 'grammar' and it makes sense. When one of the groups I am in is rehearsing, it is musical shorthand to say 'sing a fifth above me' or 'play a relative minor chord'. If you try to express these ideas without the knowledge of musical grammar, you run into difficulties or even play or sing the wrong notes, or at least notes or chords which are less effective. So my point is that musical training, by which I don't mean just practising your instrument, but getting to grips with the musicality of it as well, will enhance your playing and make it easier for you to play along with others. And it's not rocket science. I rest my case. Tradsinger |
|
06 Sep 09 - 06:43 AM (#2717372) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: autoharpbob The autoharp was originally designed as stated, to be easily played, and yes, Gustav was kind of obsessed with his new notation system. But the autoharp has developed, thanks to players like Bryan Bowers, in a similar way to how the harmonica came into its own with Larry Adler. More and more people are becoming aware of the possibilities of the instrument and how much can be achieved withi its limitations. And I doubt there is another intsrument which can train the performer in chord structure as effectively. If you move away from the standard chromatic autoharp into the diatonic possibilities, you can only play the chords you put on the instrument - so you have to work out what chords you want, what notes go into those chords, and what notes you will need to tune the 37 provided strings to in order to play those chords. I agree Tradsinger that knowing this grammar is a big advantage, and is almost indispensable if you want to make progress on the autoharp. Penny, I played guitar - badly - for forty years, just strumming with a few basic pick patterns. Then 15 years ago I had a breakdown, from teaching. I played nothing for five years, then when I came back to it I found I had developed arthritis and could no longer hold down a chord. Five years ago I found the autoharp. Now I hold down a chord with one finger, and use the picking patterns that I still have in my right hand to play the harp. I am much more musical on the autoharp than I ever was on the guitar. The way you describe how your right hand moved "without your consciousness interfering" is exactly right. You just sing with your fingers. The great thing about the autoharp is that if you do this when a button is pushed, you are bound to hit notes that are in the right chord. And the bit about the harp being in tune Joe - is of course a given. How easy is it to sing with someone playing a guitar out of tune? But most top-range autoharps now have fine tuners and they probably are more in tune than most guitars - and stay that way longer! |
|
06 Sep 09 - 09:13 AM (#2717416) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Marje I think you have a point, Penny, in that most of us reach a plateau at some point and find we don't easily make much more progress. To some extent it's just something we have to accept, although I daresay there are instances where lessons would help. The level you can reach depends on your abilities but also on the choice of instrument. I am a weak guitarist, but my deficiencies are the other way round from yours. I can ususally work out what chord I want, but am a bit clueless as to what my right hand should do with it. Maybe we could work out some kind of double-act :-) Seriously, if you can play in G, you don't need to learn much more to play in D. Learn the chords of A and Bm and you'll find that, along with the chords you already know, you've got the basics. With those two keys and a capo, you should be able to strum in any key you want. (Proper guitarists, shut up please. I know this is not what an expert would do, but this is from one non-expert to another, OK?) But a word about keys (and I do know what I'm talking about here): no one key is right or wrong for your voice. It depends entirely on the range of the song, which - in G for example - might run, say, from low G to middle-B, or from middle-D to high D. You need to find the right key for your voice for each song, either by trial-and-error or by knowing your comfortable range and finding which key will place the song there for you. Marje |
|
06 Sep 09 - 09:41 AM (#2717428) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Dave Roberts I'm very interested in the point about people with formal musical training being at a disadvantage when it comes to folk music. As far as I know, of the three members of Lost In The Mist I am the only one who was formally taught to read music. In fact I was given piano lessons up to the age of 11 and passed the preliminary examination before the demands of a grammar school education meant that I 'had' to abandon music lessons. And before anyone tells me that I should have stuck with those lessons, I know, I know. It's one of the greatest regrets of my life that I didn't. Only in the last few years have I dared to venture into the world of folk music and I have been fortunate indeed to be able to team up with two consummate musicians. Bob Webb has been in the music business since 1967, most of those 42 years as a professional, and Ian is one of the best melodeon players in the business. For what it's worth, I think that natural ability, instinct and long years of just getting on and doing it count for a lot. |
|
06 Sep 09 - 09:43 AM (#2717429) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Dave Roberts BTW, I've no idea why my previous post came out as a series of lines rather than proper paragraphs. It wasn't intended that way. |
|
06 Sep 09 - 09:51 AM (#2717432) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: meself Some of you are a little hard on those who take up an instrument only to "put it under the bed". No doubt all of us have tried our hand at some pursuit and then given it up because we discovered that mastery of it would require more time and effort than we were willing to devote. |
|
06 Sep 09 - 11:23 AM (#2717461) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: autoharpbob The "10,000 hours" theory comes in here. Someone did some research on how long it took various different people to become expert at whatever it was they did. Turns out that if you spend 10,000 hours on something - anything - you will become an expert at it. Your choice! |
|
06 Sep 09 - 06:18 PM (#2717646) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: The Fooles Troupe Hmm it got lost - lucky I saved it "if you spend 10,000 hours on something - anything - you will become an expert" That was in relation to a physical motor skill - CAT/PET scans can show the build up of the nerve fibres in the relevant skill area. The 10,000 mark was for someone at the standard of a concert pianist in the Classical area - babies show this change in the speech areas. As far as the 'expert' thing - it was 'do 20 mins a day for 3 months' and you become an intellectual expert in a small restricted area of knowledge. "I get to a certain level, and then practice fails. It's difficult to describe what I mean, the simplest way is to call it clumsiness. I just hit a wall, and however much I do, I don't improve. I get worse." Normal. The trick is to 'take a break and let it sink in' - not 30 years :-), but a week or two, then come back with serious intent. Keep repeating this - the brain DOES need time to assimilate, wire up new physical connections, etc. That said - I do have actual micro motor nerve wiring damage - caused at birth due to low oxygen - and there are certain physical skills (writing neatly, etc) that it is just a waste of time to stress about, that is similar to what you say - but I CAN improve... and KEEP that improvement! Interestingly, I CAN perform intensely minute accurate such physical skills when 'isolated', because I can 'scavenge' circuitry (due to the training) to do certain functions, but when the original functions are demanded, the circuitry is 'returned', and my apparent 'improved ability' in that area dissipates instantly (it returns when the brain's "internal processing demands" subside)... this was demonstrated to me by the physiotherapist as part of the diagnosis :-) Of course this means that when I did blacksmithing, while I CAN temper steel (it's just a visual skill, with no micro motor physical skill needed) brilliantly, actually hitting the hot metal to do neat work is impossible (I can build the fire correctly to weld, etc) - but I CAN SEE mentally what is needed, and can actually instruct those who are willing to trust and listen to someone who cannot physically demonstrate :-) - 'those who can, do', etc... Another such related quandary was how I could do titration brilliantly 'to the last drop', but be such an uncoordinated klutz with the other needed physical skills in Analytical Chem at uni... I was asked repeatedly to demonstrate to others who had difficulty this 'the last drop colours the lot' skill :-) |
|
06 Sep 09 - 07:11 PM (#2717681) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: The Sandman There is a strange fetish in the folk/trad scene about not being able to read music. quote Jack Camping. ah yes,some of those ignoramuses on www. session.org llig leahcim,springs to mind. |
|
06 Sep 09 - 10:48 PM (#2717778) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Don Firth "I'm very interested in the point about people with formal musical training being at a disadvantage when it comes to folk music." Truth to tell, I think this idea is simply wrong at best and downright disingenuous at its worst. Putting it bluntly, it's a cheat! For one thing, it simply isn't true No matter what kind of music you're interested in performing, the more you know about music in general, the better off you are. I'd had some singing lessons when I was a teenager, before I developed an active interest in singing folk songs. This was, in no way, a disadvantage. I learned how to sing without straining my voice, which is why, at the advanced age of 78, people tell me that my singing voice is pretty much as good as it ever was (listening critically to practice recordings of my own voice tends to confirm this), and even though, if I've taken my vitamins and have a good tail-wind, I might be able to sound like an opera singer, that doesn't mean I have to. I started taking classic guitar lessons because I was eager to learn quickly and I wanted to be able to do other things on the guitar besides just strumming chords. I also didn't know much about music theory, so I took some formal study in the subject. Rather than lumbering me with rules and constraints, studying music theory opened up a wide range of possibilities that I never would have dreamed were there. While I was doing this, some folkie acquaintances of mine cried "Doom, Firth, doom!! Studying music is going to ruin you, destroy your 'naturalness,', and you'll never be able to do folk music if you keep up with this blasphemy!!" Not so's anyone would notice! Interestingly enough, one of the guys (quite a good singer and guitarist, actually) who was warning me the most vociferously that, by studying music and taking lessons, I was destroying my ability to do folk songs, claimed that he couldn't read music and didn't really know one chord from another. He just listened until he had a song memorized—strictly by ear—and by trial-and-error, figured out an accompaniment on his own. All by ear. Or so he said. Then—I met his sister. I learned from her that when he was a kid, and before he took up the guitar, he'd had nine years of violin lessons. And, yes, he could read music quite well! So—what was that all about!?? Don Firth |
|
07 Sep 09 - 12:30 AM (#2717808) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: MGM·Lion I am reminded of the story told by Sharp, of how he showed a transcript of a song he had field-collected to fellow musician, who said, "No, you can't have transcribed this accurately. An unlettered countryman could not possibly have sung so perfectly in the Dorian mode." |
|
07 Sep 09 - 05:12 AM (#2717893) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Jack Campin There is something to the anti-notation position, if you're talking about sounds and techniques that standard notation hasn't figured out how to represent. Instruments that play harmonics are an example; for something like the Moldavian kaval (large 5-hole flute played in the higher registers) simply notating the pitch of a note doesn't tell you how to get it, there are alternate fingering/breath-pressure combinations that will make the same sound (your fingers will tell you which one makes for the easiest way to play the tune). I doubt if anyone has ever learned how to play the Jew's harp or didgeridoo from sheet music. And in some cases, like the Indian tabla or Bulgarian tapan, notation is theoretically possible, but given the speed of the music and the rarity of the occasions when you'd want to reproduce a pre-composed pattern, there isn't much point to it. |
|
07 Sep 09 - 01:25 PM (#2718159) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: M.Ted In some ways, it's a personality thing--a lot of the people drawn to folk music just don't like having other people tell them what to do-- |
|
07 Sep 09 - 07:30 PM (#2718450) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Tattie Bogle There is a sort of inverted snobbery that emanates from non-readers, that if you CAN read you think yourself superior, which is way off the mark. (Maybe why Don Firht's friend pretended that he couldn't read music?) I have said before on other threads that I believe the ability to read music and to learn or play by ear are complementary, and taht both skills are equally valid, neither is better than the other. |
|
07 Sep 09 - 08:54 PM (#2718498) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Rowan I think you have a point, [], in that most of us reach a plateau at some point and find we don't easily make much more progress. From when I was a guest I remember a similar thread, but I can't now find it. My experiene of what Marje described has been that there were several plateaux; I'd get to a certain stage and then, no matter how I tried, I couldn't improve. Then, some time later, I'd get beyond that particular block and improve until I hit another. This has gone on for soome years now and I think it fits Robin's description of how some brains work; he has a known set of variables whereas I just got on as best I could. Which brings me to Robin's original post. Many of us have different definitions of what constitutes "training" and I suspect there's be similar variety in how we defined "instruction", "teaching" and "learning". The casual explanation to Don, by his friend of the time, of how chords could be constructed on a guitar is really instruction (for some) or teaching (for others) his retention of the knowledge (learning) required repetition (training) and application of the methodology (by trial and error?) to create other chords. The key to progression is to keep up the practice of putting yourself into such learning situations and applying what you find out; ie practising. Such practices and practising is what everyone does when they're training. The old hoary chestnut of 'not reading the dots' could be said to apply to me; I can't read music but I've had the pleasure of being in the company, for many years, of others who knew enough theory and could explain what they knew with simplicity and clarity. I managed to become relatively well informed (although Jack took a few strips off me at one stage) to be able to write music (that didn't need a stave) well enough for others to perform from the score exactly what I had envisaged. But, while I was actively performing with Oz bush bands I deliberately refrained from learning to read the dots, not because I thought it might impair my performance, but because I was continually coming across people who had tried to learn to play an instrument but failed. They would express amazement that I could sing and play without having had formal "instruction" and ask how I'd done it. In most cases, they had gone and bought an instrument (usually a guitar) and then had tried to teach themselves at least three things at once; (1) the ergonomics of the instrument and keeping it in tune, (2) how to read music, and (3) how tunes and chords actually work, often using unfamiliar material in the instruction books. #3 can be hard enough, especially for people who've been told consistently that they're tone deaf but trying to do the others simultaneously can lead to a sense of failure. I explained that I had listened hard and extensively to the sort of music I was interested in and could imitate reasonably well with my voice, a form of training I would suggest they tried. I then found an instrument that didn't need constant tuning and that I could "find my way around" ergonomically; for me it was a concertina and I'd recommend they tried a range of instruments rather than just stick with the popular ones. I'd suggest they tried "Happy Birthday" or a few simple nursery rhymes with melodies they already knew. I'd also suggest they found a place to practise where there was no "critical audience" and they could make mistakes in peace; I could play only three tunes for at least a year. And then, once they'd got the hang of their instrument a bit better and wanted to explore, then get into learning to read the dots, always with an ear to how others played the same or similar pieces and why they sounded the way they did. But a good teacher will help you get there quicker, once you've trained your ears. Now that I'm no longer that sort of performer I will get into learning to read (and write) the dots, as I need to keep up with my daughters, who are both extremely competent at dots and by ear. And, like them, I'll probably get going with a formal teacher. Cheers, Rowan |
|
08 Sep 09 - 08:33 PM (#2719413) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Bruce MacNeill To Penny S. Hitting a wall is fairly normal in my experience. I have 3 students, 2 teenaged girls and myself. The girls are beginners and I've been learning off and on for 50-some years. We all hit walls. When I hit one, it's usually because I've been concentrating on one piece of music for too long and I've learned mistakes that I'll keep making if I keep playing the same piece. If I walk away from that one and go play something else until I've forgotten enough of the mistakes, I find that when I go back to it, I can make progress. I don't find music to be easy. I can read the dots but I have to have my reading glasses on and sit so close that the guitar hits the music stand and I can't play while reading the dots. I have to memorize the dots, figure out how to play them train myself to play them without thinking too much and then I can start trying to make music out of them. IMHO, the theme is in the dots but the music isn't. I can also play by ear to some degree but it's still a matter of finding the theme, figuring out the chords and melody and then trying to make music out of it. Anyway, IMHO, if you hit a wall, go play something else for awhile, try a different song or a different instrument. Come back and start again and the wall may have moved further into the piece. That's what I have my teenaged students do, move on to something new and then come back to where the wall was. Good luck. |
|
09 Sep 09 - 08:05 AM (#2719689) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: Marje Thanks for that, Bruce. I find it very encouraging to think that the "wall" may not be fixed, but may creep away from me if I pretend to ignore it. I'll put that to the test some time soon, but trying out some things I've got stuck on, and see if I can take the "wall" by surprise. I think maybe in sessions it happens sometimes, when someone else leads a tune and I start to play along and then after a few lines I think, "Oh right, I remember what this is!" and then, a few bars later, "..but I can't play this one!" Only I find I seem to have played it somehow - badly, I expect, but somehow. Perhaps sometimes you just need to let your subconscious and your fingers take over, without analysing too much. Marje |
|
09 Sep 09 - 11:07 AM (#2719819) Subject: RE: Could be played with no musical training From: GUEST,leeneia "the ability to read music and to learn or play by ear are complementary" Tatie, that is so true. I swing both ways. There are 225 tunes on my list of songs for dulcimer, and they are all by ear. When my friends come over, we use dots & sticks, which are projected on the wall of the living room. Without the music, we would never get anything played. People act like reading music is such a big deal. I have a friend, a former school music teacher, who says she can teach an adult to read music in two hours. That's less than the time it takes to watch a football game. One thing nobody's mentioned is that being able to read a line of music greatly saves time for everybody. I once made music with a guy who insisted that everybody learn new tunes by ear, from him. It wasted so much session time! Soon my fellow players urged me to sneak behind his back and print the music, so I did. |