Patrick's OK --his ideas, well....
Bill Rogers
invective hurled his way on this and other newsgroups. As one who has
at times agreed with Patrick, and at others vehemently disagreed, I
suggest that the personal attacks and name-calling are out of line. We
can and should attack his opinions when we believe they are cockeyed.
But that doesn't make Patrick an idiot or evil or anything else. He
sees the world of banjo differently than most it seems; so be it. In
my opinion he's done a damn sight more good than harm to the promotion
of the five-string banjo. We need to remember that, and confine our
attacks to the substance of his opinions--not his person. I'd urge him
to do the same.
Bill
cris...@funkyseagull.com
> In the past week or so Patrick Costello's had a lot of personal
> invective hurled his way on this and other newsgroups.
Yeah, but when you look at who's saying it there isn't much to worry
about.
-Patrick
jstone999
Pat, ein freues neues jahr, und ich wunsche alles gutes.
gruess jeff
Seven Inch Dilly
-dilly
"jstone999" <jsto...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109008370.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sierrafrog
with what he sees as needless preoccupation with unimportant things such
as strings, tone rings, brand names, artists of the week,and personal
impediments. Yes, his style is a bit abrupt (to say the least) and he
can really tick people off when he's on a roll, but I've read his stuff
for almost ten years and I can't disagree with his central message(s):
Relax. It's only a banjo. Get to work.
And this world would be a lot more boring if the Patricks of it weren't
out there to needle a bit and to help keep us thinking instead of whining.
Long may he prosper.
Sean Barry
Donald Borchelt
Sean Barry:
> Patrick annoys some people because he is very self assured and impatient
> with what he sees as needless preoccupation with unimportant things such
> as strings, tone rings, brand names, artists of the week,and personal
> impediments. >
Just because he feels that strings, tone rings, brand names and even
"artists of the week" are unimportant doesn't mean he has to try to ruin the
conversations for those who do. I'm sorry to say this, I respect the hard
work that you put in, but I'm glad you don't own this list.
- Don Borchelt
cris...@funkyseagull.com
I'm not the one with a problem here, folks. Don can't tell you "why" he
hates me because he really doesn't know. For his actions and his almost
childlike desire to have a tantrum any time my name is mentioned I can
only guess that the hatred is more about what I've accomplished than
anything I've said.
Kind of sad in a way.
-Patrick
Mark Lathem
..
>And this world would be a lot more boring if the Patricks of it weren't
>out there to needle a bit and to help keep us thinking instead of whining.
>
>Long may he prosper.
>
>Sean Barry
Amen, Sean. Amen.
--
Mark Lathem
Steve S
believe, in the mid 1980s, at a gathering in Philadelphia sponsored by the
Philadelphia folk song society called the Spring Thing. This was a
gathering off-season at a kids summer camp in which "folkies" occupied
cabins and generally carried on like adolescents. Music was secondary to
acting like an adolescent. Patrick showed up. I cannot remember clearly if
he had an instrument with him, but if he did, it was one of those strange
"Dobjo" hybrids. I don't know if he was playing banjo at the time, but I
was into my banjo gymnastics phase. Patrick seemed fascinated by my
execution of the fifth string ride, all sorts of dropped thumb weirdness,
thumb crosses; chucks and pops, nothing really musical, that came later in
my banjo career...
Patrick seemed eager, friendly and genuinely interested in banjo playing.
I was very surprised to encounter him in this newsgroup expressing highly
rigid, closed minded opinions about music. I was surprised to be the
recipient of an online attack, and I flamed him mercilessly. I am sorry I
did that.
I guess we all change over the years. I have lost the ability to play banjo
due to a silly joke of a disease named after an old-time ace ballplayer..
Patrick has become convinced there is only one way to play banjo. And so it
goes.
s.
--
______________________________________
Steve Senderoff & Trish Vierling
"...Ya run your E string down oh, I don't know, about three frets...anyway,
it corresponds to the third note on the A string...here's ya tuning..."
.........Tommy Jarrell
http://home.comcast.net/~steventrish/start.html
"Mark Lathem" <markl...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:942n115mh6il9rcgu...@4ax.com...
jstone999
Seven Inch Dilly wrote:
> dennoch ist er noch ein Arschloch
>
> -dilly
>
mag sein, aber ich habe mir selber versprochen nett zu sein wenn es um
Pat geht. Vielleicht klappt es, vielleicht nicht.
jeffstone
goettingen
edmund.hamer
edmund.hamer
Seven Inch Dilly
Gutes Glück.
-dilly
cris...@funkyseagull.com
That's easy to say, but if you read my books (and you can do that for
free) you'd find that you're not quite on the mark there. Any "style"
can be boiled down to a core set of concepts (that's one of the things
I learned in places like the Spring Thing). By separating two old time"
banjo players like Uncle Dave and Tommy Jarrel you wind up losing that
core concept in favor of what you see as differences.
It's like the old saying, "great knowlede sees all as one. Small
knoledge breaks down into the many." If you ditch the popular concept
of regional styles and look at frailing (or whatever they are calling
it this week) from a "big picture" perspective you not only can see how
everything is related - you can also get closer to that point where
what you play ends up a true expression of yourself in a given moment.
Once you lose the baggage and pseudo-intellectual bugspit people toss
onto old time banjo you end up with a simple and powerful means of
artistic expression. Once you have that you are free. Free to explore
your own ideas, understand what players in the past were up to and free
to say the stuff that words can't express through the medium of music.
That's anything but rigid. It just scares the hell out of people who
want somebody to think for them.
As for your handicap, do you have to have an instrument in yor hands to
teach? Maybe your body isn't in great shape, but your mind is still
there. There are still things you can do and things you can contribute.
-Patrick
PS
The Dojo was gone before 89 so we're probably talking '87 or '88.
Carl Baron
cris...@funkyseagull.com wrote:
> As for your handicap, do you have to have an instrument in yor hands to
> teach? Maybe your body isn't in great shape, but your mind is still
> there. There are still things you can do and things you can contribute.
He still does (presently harmonica) and does contribute greatly.
Carl
Steve S
news:1109253720....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Once you lose the baggage and pseudo-intellectual bugspit people toss
> onto old time banjo you end up with a simple and powerful means of
> artistic expression. Once you have that you are free.
Boy, this is the last time I apologize for participating in a flame war.
Patrick, your statement above is simply anti-intellectualism put forward by
somebody with an amateur knowledge of pseudo Eastern philosophy.
> As for your handicap,
I am not handicapped. I am disabled, in the sense that Rev. Gary Davis was
disabled, this is to say certain parts of my body don't work at optimum
efficiency. Neither are any of the people living with my disease, which
happens to be Lou Gehrig's disease, handicapped. I go about my life, make
music, write long-winded reviews for the old time Herald, and generally
enjoy myself. Your writing style is abrasive and patronizing.
Do you mean to tell me that you find the differences between the right hand
placement of Uncle Dave and Tommy Jarrell and the corresponding differences
in banjo tone they obtain uninteresting? As something to be worked through
on the path to musical enlightenment? I suggest that you read a recent OTH
article about the musical pathway taken by John Herrman.
j_ns...@msn.com
It's ironic that you suggest that Steve S. (or whoever your straw man
is there) wants somebody to think for _him_, in the same post that you
rely on an "old saying." Expecting simple top-down platitudes such as
"Any 'style' can be boiled down to a core set of concepts" or "great
knowledge sees all as one, small knowledge breaks down into the many"
to do understanding work for you is "reductionism," which was one of
the great constants in Western, Old Age philosophy, Aristotle to Kant,
and in my sincere opinion qualifies as "pseudo-intellectual bugspit" if
anything does.
Joseph Scott
Steve S
news:1109626443.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It's ironic that you suggest that Steve S. (or whoever your straw man
> is there)
i'm real...
--
______________________________________
Steve Senderoff & Trish Vierling
"...Ya run your E string down oh, I don't know, about three frets...anyway,
it corresponds to the third note on the A string...here's ya tuning..."
.........Tommy Jarrell
http://home.comcast.net/~steventrish/start.html
> Patrick,
cris...@funkyseagull.com
> Boy, this is the last time I apologize for participating in a flame
war.
The interesting thing here is that you dropped the original complaint
and switched to bitching about how you don't like me or the way I say
things.
> I am not handicapped. I am disabled, in the sense that Rev. Gary
Davis was
> disabled, this is to say certain parts of my body don't work at
optimum
> efficiency. Neither are any of the people living with my disease,
which
> happens to be Lou Gehrig's disease, handicapped.
Well, give that you were vauge about your problem what was I supposed
to say?
As somebody who is more than half deaf and epileptic I don't have a
problem with the word handicap. We all have our own crosses to bear.
> Do you mean to tell me that you find the differences between the
right hand
> placement of Uncle Dave and Tommy Jarrell and the corresponding
differences
> in banjo tone they obtain uninteresting?
I think, "pointless" would be a better word for that. Neither one of
them was really all that good - Macon at least was a showman - and
instead of treating them as icons it would be better for everybody if
students were encouraged to go beyond what they did rather than treat
every note as sacred.
-Patrick
Peter Feldmann
>
>That's easy to say, but if you read my books (and you can do that for
>free) you'd find that you're not quite on the mark there. Any "style"
>can be boiled down to a core set of concepts (that's one of the things
>I learned in places like the Spring Thing). By separating two old time"
>banjo players like Uncle Dave and Tommy Jarrel you wind up losing that
>core concept in favor of what you see as differences.
"Differences" are what makes the world go 'round. The wonderful
thing to me is that you can instantly tell a Tommy Jarrel
recording from an Uncle Dave record. How then, call you call
them the same? I love both of 'em, but why try to ignore the
differences?
>It's like the old saying, "great knowlede sees all as one. Small
>knoledge breaks down into the many." If you ditch the popular concept
>of regional styles and look at frailing (or whatever they are calling
>it this week) from a "big picture" perspective you not only can see how
>everything is related - you can also get closer to that point where
>what you play ends up a true expression of yourself in a given moment.
This same concept was going round in the very early 1960s. I
remember a quote of Big Bill Broonzy re. the application of the
word "folk" to his blues: "Of course it's folk music! I'm not a
horse, am I?" It is in noting the differences, and
acknowledging them, that one arrives at a comprehensive
understanding of the music and its evolution & development. If
one took 20 flavors of ice cream and mixed them all together,
you get a bowl of brown-colored mud with no particular
attraction or flavor except cold. Keep them seperate and get a
taste of each one, and you learn a lot about ice cream.
As for artistic self-expression, everything "new" is based on
what has come before. Playing music with no rules winds up as a
soup of notes with no structure. Learn the rules of a style
before attempting to break them.
__Peter
--
Peter Feldmann
http://www.bluegrasswest.com
Bands, bookings, & etc. for old time and
neo-classic country music.
j_ns...@msn.com
"Playing music with no rules winds up as a soup of notes with no
structure. Learn the rules of a style before attempting to break
them."
I think a lot of the great old-time musicians and C&W musicians didn't
pay much attention to the idea of "rules" of styles. To give two random
examples:
-- I don't think Bob Wills had a deep understanding of jazz, and I
don't think that hurt the quality of his jazz-inflected music any, it
was the curious innovative thing it was, and imo superb
-- I don't think blues and yodeling had much to do with each other by
any pre-established stylistic rules, and that didn't stop Jimmie
Rodgers and others from combining them
The European fiddle and African banjo wouldn't have got together in the
New World in the first place if somebody hadn't not cared what the
usual rules and styles were.
Joseph Scott
lofg...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
But Joseph --
What Peter said was "learn the rules of a style," not "learn the rules
of a banjo." Anyone who grows up listening to a musical style learns
the rules of the style by heart, and therefore also knows the
traditional limits. Some traditional musicians with both talent and
venturesomeness experiment with applying that style to a new
instrument, and at the same time extend that style. Charlie Poole was
obviously familiar with parlor banjo methods as he applied that method
to produce music that combined Appalachian and ragtime styles. A lot of
these musicians also realized that music should be fun, and should not
be taken as seriously as a city slicker who arrives and tries to learn
this stuff while sitting at your knee. That's how the banjo and fiddle
got together, not by people either caring or not caring what "the usual
rules and styles were."
Lyle
Peter Feldmann
>
>I think a lot of the great old-time musicians and C&W musicians didn't
>pay much attention to the idea of "rules" of styles. To give two random
>examples:
>-- I don't think Bob Wills had a deep understanding of jazz, and I
>don't think that hurt the quality of his jazz-inflected music any, it
>was the curious innovative thing it was, and imo superb
I think you greatly underestimate Bob Wills. He was a superb
band leader and was very precise in getting the sound he wanted.
His own fiddling followed widely accepted fiddle tune formats.
At the same time, Wills was attracted by the then-new jazz sound
and went after & hired musicians who could play. And even in
jazz, there are "rules", believe me.
>-- I don't think blues and yodeling had much to do with each other by
>any pre-established stylistic rules, and that didn't stop Jimmie
>Rodgers and others from combining them
There were blues yodelers before Rodgers. Many of Rodgers'
songs fit in very well with then-accepted formats / song rules
of mother and home, longing for a sweetheart, etc. What we have
in Rodgers is not an absence of rules or a tradition, but the
blending of at least three distinct musical areas.
>The European fiddle and African banjo wouldn't have got together in the
>New World in the first place if somebody hadn't not cared what the
>usual rules and styles were.
That is the power of what biologists would call "hybrid vigor".
Of course there are new styles forming in music, this is the
nature of the beast, and what makes life exciting. Taking your
example of fiddle/banjo, it really was an example of blending
two instruments - each from very different cultures - together
to form a new, hybrid sound. But _both_ of those instruments
came from their own, ancient, stylistic backgrounds, complete
with tunings, performance rules, etc.
__Peter
j_ns...@msn.com
Anyone who grows up listening to a style knows how that style tends to
sound, but I don't think knowing how something tends to sound has to be
seen in terms of the idea of following "rules."
Joseph Scott
j_ns...@msn.com
What have I written that greatly underestimates Wills? Here's what I
wrote about him in my previous post: "I don't think Bob Wills had a
deep understanding of jazz, and I don't think that hurt the quality of
his jazz-inflected music any, it was the curious innovative thing it
was, and imo superb."
Here's a quote from Jimmy Wyble about Wills: "Bob loved Bessie Smith
and he loved Louis Armstrong. He loved jazz, but he really didn't
know that he loved jazz (laughs). It just made him feel good, so
that's why he liked it."
I know there were blue yodels before Rodgers, which is why I worded it
"Rodgers and others," but anyway the point is, whoever was the first to
combine blues with yodels was not following preexisting rules about
blues or yodels.
Joseph Scott
SwamiRiver
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Hi Peter F., you wrote:
>
> "Playing music with no rules winds up as a soup of notes with no
> structure. Learn the rules of a style before attempting to break
> them."
>
One does not learn the rules of style. John Hartford told me once that
style is simply based on one's limitations. One translates playing (or
acting or drawing or etc) into one's own bag of behavior, and what we call
"style" is the results of the individual's makeup and spirit as well as
the limitations he or she has, the boundaries.
Is style perfect, crystal clear sounds that are uniform as in a classical
musician's performance? Is it the very imperfect, often gritty playing of
a Lightnin' Hopkins? Is it the strict melodic form of elevator music?
Perhaps the freeform improvisation of jazz?
The first half of the quote may be true, but only partly. If the
individual doesn't have something to say, words can come out as nonsense.
Notes can do so the same way. If the person has a vision/idea of where he
or she wants to go, you have sentences or, to follow the above, music.
The second half? Nope. Although some painters will slaveishly mimic
classical painting and master it before leaving the form behind forever
for their own vision/approach, I don't see that happening in the world of
music in that way.
Swami
lofg...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
SwamiRiver wrote
>
> One does not learn the rules of style. John Hartford told me once
that
> style is simply based on one's limitations. One translates playing
(or
> acting or drawing or etc) into one's own bag of behavior, and what we
call
> "style" is the results of the individual's makeup and spirit as well
as
> the limitations he or she has, the boundaries.
>
"Limitations" is an unfortunate word, because it carries baggage due to
its use as an insult, as well as an implication that the limitations
are technical or musical. I'd be the first to admit my playing is
strongly influenced by the desire to make a virtue out of my
limitations, but not all musicians are like that. The boundaries can be
formed by the limit of what the artist perceives as "good taste" in the
artistic sense, independent of ability. An excellent old-time fretless
banjo player, whose name now escapes me, reportedly once said about
bluegrass banjo, "I'd like to know how to play it. And then not play
it."
> The second half? Nope. Although some painters will slaveishly mimic
> classical painting and master it before leaving the form behind
forever
> for their own vision/approach, I don't see that happening in the
world of
> music in that way.
You didn't know Bob Dylan when he was slavishly imitating Woody
Guthrie.
Lyle
David Sanderson
This discussion, it strikes me, is perhaps being confused by the
question of performing traditional music. One of the inherent
characteristics of traditional art is that it has "rules," unwritten,
carried by a community as a sort of assumed consensus about how music,
in this instance, ought to be played. As traditions used to be
geographically delimited, these standards varied from community to
community. So, for example, if you really want to sound like a Kentucky
fiddler then you need to assimilate the "rules" that underlie that
playing tradition. So in that sense there are rules, and you pretty
much have to learn them, more or less, if you are to master a particular
tradition. These traditional standards are different from "rules" that
might be enunciated ex post facto for whatever reason, and the
discussion probably needs to take both sorts of rules into account.
--
David Sanderson
East Waterford, Maine
Jeff Sekiya
100th anniversary of his birth. It's about 11 minutes.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4524467
jeff
Donald Borchelt
"Peter Feldmann" <pet...@silcom.com> wrote in message
>As for artistic self-expression, everything "new" is based on
> what has come before. Playing music with no rules winds up as a
> soup of notes with no structure. Learn the rules of a style
> before attempting to break them.
>
I agree with Peter. But I don't think of them as rules, more like
guidelines.
- Don Borchelt
www.banjr.com
David Sanderson
> Fair enough, but I still claim that following preexisting rules,
> whether unwritten or not, hasn't been particularly central to people
> making great music over the centuries. For instance, most of the guitar
> rags I (and probably most people) listen to most were played by people
> who probably understood the "rules of ragtime" (as it were) far less
> well than Scott Joplin did, and in practice that didn't make folk rags
> inferior music to city rags, imo.
>
> Joseph Scott
Oh, I'll agree with that. Music is an art that tends to be malleable,
sometimes as though it had a will of its own. Particularly with
traditional musics, where the "rules" are implicit and the music isn't
captured by being written down, change happens constantly, whether it
results in an individual with a unique style or a new or partly new way
of playing. The endless variation is part of the fun of it all.
cris...@funkyseagull.com
> structure. Learn the rules of a style before attempting to break
> them."
Outside of some basic guidelines we call music theory -and I'll just
quote from my latest book to simplify my views on that:
"The thing you have to keep in mind is that music is a discipline.
There are rules and structures built into the basic language of music
that must be followed if you want to play with other musicians. You
cannot ignore the fact that 4/4 time must have four beats to a measure
or that you can't slow down the tempo of a song because of tough chord
changes and then speed up when the easy ones come along.
These rules are not here to bog down your creativity or force you to
sound like everybody else. They are here to enable you to communicate
with other players. If there wasn't a mutually agreed upon set of
concepts to work with everybody could come up with their own
definitions and the results of that would be chaotic."
-From "A Book Of Five Strings"
Outside of that, the stylistic rules you speak of are just nonsense.
If the people I'm playing with are making musical sense I could care
less about fitting into the boundaries of a style. We had a guy show up
at our jam this weekend with a euphonium and much to the shock of some
of the more traditional-minded players in the group it fit right into
the music we were playing. A mini-tuba might not be in the rules of a
style some saggy-assed old creep would enforce, but by just letting go
of that sort of crap we were able to have some fun, try something new
and open the music to some pretty creative thinking.
There ain't no rules. It's just music. You either play it or talk about
it.
-Patrick
Steve S
and inflammatory (see quote below)
news:1110274944....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>A mini-tuba might not be in the rules of a
> style some saggy-assed old creep would enforce, but by just letting go
> of that sort of crap we were able to have some fun,
This reminds me of a cartoon I saw in the New Yorker many years ago. Very,
very, very, sophisticated people dressed in tuxedos were holding martini
glasses at a very exclusive party at some apartment on the west side of
Manhattan. One of the guests sat down at the piano, and the hostess
prepared to join him to sing a very sophisticated jazz standard torch song.
Standing next to them was another fellow dressed in a similar tuxedo. He
had a very earnest look on his face and obviously was desperate to be
included. Sticking out of the back of his pants was a huge Sousaphone, and
the caption read "Really, I have it right here with me".
There are no stylistic rules, but there are stylistic characteristics, which
provide the necessary information to define what you may call a genre.
Somebody attempting to play fiddle tunes on a euphonium during an old-time
music jam session would cause me to run the other way. However I
participated in a phenomenal session in which the bass line was held down by
a Civil War reenactor who specialized in re-creating Civil War brass band
music. He was playing the helicon, a precursor to the modern tuba.
The moral of the story is that to do this, you really have to know how, to
quote the title of a guitar showpiece played by Lonnie Johnson. To assert
otherwise is indicative of insufficient knowledge of your material.
--
______________________________________
Steve Senderoff & Trish Vierling
"...Ya run your E string down oh, I don't know, about three frets...anyway,
it corresponds to the third note on the A string...here's ya tuning..."
.........Tommy Jarrell
http://home.comcast.net/~steventrish/start.html
Gillespie Gail
st...@tommyjarrell.gov wrote on 3/8/05 10:53 AM:
> <cris...@funkyseagull.com> wrote in message that is needlessly offensive
> and inflammatory (see quote below)
> news:1110274944....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>> A mini-tuba might not be in the rules of a
>> style some saggy-assed old creep would enforce, but by just letting go
>> of that sort of crap we were able to have some fun,
>
> TSticking out of the back of his pants was a huge Sousaphone, and
> the caption read "Really, I have it right here with me".
>
> However I
> participated in a phenomenal session in which the bass line was held down by
> a Civil War reenactor who specialized in re-creating Civil War brass band
> music. He was playing the helicon, a precursor to the modern tuba.
Hey, I think I heard a guy (that guy?) with a helicon laying down a perfect
bass line in a rag session at the last Mt. Airy. He really knew what he was
doing & it was fantastic.
G
lofg...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
cris...@funkyseagull.com wrote:
>
> "The thing you have to keep in mind is that music is a discipline.
> There are rules and structures built into the basic language of music
> that must be followed if you want to play with other musicians. You
> cannot ignore the fact that 4/4 time must have four beats to a
measure
> or that you can't slow down the tempo of a song because of tough
chord
> changes and then speed up when the easy ones come along.
>
> These rules are not here to bog down your creativity or force you to
> sound like everybody else. They are here to enable you to communicate
> with other players. If there wasn't a mutually agreed upon set of
> concepts to work with everybody could come up with their own
> definitions and the results of that would be chaotic."
> -From "A Book Of Five Strings"
>
> Outside of that, the stylistic rules you speak of are just nonsense.
That's undoubtedly true if you're playing with a band or in a jam. But
some of my favorite performances of traditional music do not follow
those 4/4 rules: Bascom Lunsford's "Dry Bones," for example. There is
also a whole genre of interesting music that I associate with Kentucky
where the banjo is played very fast and the song is sung very slowly,
so the sung rhythm is independent of the 2/4 banjo rhythm.
Lyle
j_ns...@msn.com
master it before leaving the form behind forever
for their own vision/approach, I don't see that happening in the world
of music in that way."
To the best of my understanding, mimicking someone else before
developing one's one vision/approach has been normal and common in the
world of music. Gene Autry started out singing like Jimmie Rodgers, Ray
Charles started out singing like Nat Cole, and so on and so on.
Joseph Scott
j_ns...@msn.com
Jug's basically mock brass bass.
Joseph Scott
waltermitt...@yahoo.com
"We had a guy show up at our jam this weekend with a euphonium and much
to the shock of some of the more traditional-minded players in the
group it fit right into
the music we were playing."
apparently bill monroe toyed with the idea of adding a clarinet to an
early line-up of his bluegrass boys.
i can easily see a concertina or an accordian added to bluegrass; in
fact i really enjoy picking along to good cajun music, especially david
doucet's cd featuring josh graves.
David Sanderson
The accordion was there, in Monroe's pre-F&S group; he dropped it as
things got hotter and higher pitched. In a sense the change can be seen
in the difference between the accordion and Scruggs' banjo playing.
Accordions were pretty standard in country groups for a very long time.
Monroe with a clarinet would have been moving himself towards the sound
of other small groups that used some clarinet lead; the Hoosier
Hotshots, say. It's good for some purposes, but doesn't have that edge
to it that Monroe was headed toward, except possibly in the hands of the
old New Orleans players.
ban...@gmail.com
Morita, or the Ralph Macchio role...
John
Todd
breaking any rules? I've tried it and is sounds good to me, and seems to
fit. Anyone else ventured into that area?
Todd
j_ns...@msn.com
Todd wrote:
> I have a question, is playing a Gm Pentatonic scale against an E
chord
> breaking any rules?
Bb and C against the B in the E chord will tend to sound more like the
bebop tradition than the C&W tradition.
Joseph Scott
Todd
Todd
--
(_)=='=~
<j_ns...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1110564876.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
The Very Lonesome Boys
> > "Playing music with no rules winds up as a soup of notes with no
> > structure. Learn the rules of a style before attempting to break
> > them."
>
> Outside of some basic guidelines we call music theory -and I'll just
> quote from my latest book to simplify my views on that:
>
> "The thing you have to keep in mind is that music is a discipline.
> There are rules and structures built into the basic language of music
> that must be followed if you want to play with other musicians.
<... list of rules clipped ... >
> Outside of that, the stylistic rules you speak of are just nonsense.
So _your_ rules are ok (hey, they're in a BOOK!), but anything else is
"nonsense"?
>
> If the people I'm playing with are making musical sense I could care
> less about fitting into the boundaries of a style.
Heard that line before; have a son into punk rock. And what do you
mean by "making musical sense", other than conforming to _your_
conception of what the rules ought to be? Just because you may be
unaware of them doesn't mean they don't exist. You don't need to know
the equations describing gravitational theory to keep from falling on
your rear end when you trip.
> We had a guy show up
> at our jam this weekend with a euphonium and much to the shock of
some
> of the more traditional-minded players in the group it fit right into
> the music we were playing. A mini-tuba might not be in the rules of a
> style some saggy-assed old creep would enforce, but by just letting
go
> of that sort of crap we were able to have some fun, try something new
> and open the music to some pretty creative thinking.
Great use of language, I guess you could call it "creative". Just
becaue _you_ hadn't thought of something before doesn't make it new.
That kind of thinking would make any 2 year old who's handed his first
ice cream cone the inventor of ice cream.
You think adding a tuba is "new", being "creative"? Try listening to
some of my recordings with Creme Brule, done ca. 10 years sgo. Oh, and
then go back the past 100 years in recordings where you'll find plenty
of other examples of "saggy-assed old creeps" being "new" and
"creative" with tubas, etc.
> There ain't no rules. It's just music. You either play it or talk
about
> it.
>
> -Patrick
You end your diatribe against rules by spouting one of your own ... So
you're the John Wayne of OTM? How long have I got to get out of Dodge?
The Very Lonesome Boys
"One" may not, but a lot of other people do. Otherwise, there wouldn't
_be_ any styles.
> John Hartford told me once
God Bless John Hartford!
>that style is simply based on one's limitations.
If it were simple, there wouldn't be anything to discuss. Limitations
are one aspect (among many!) of how a particular individual fits into
a musical style.
Dan Gellert
dea...@so.xyz wrote on 3/7/05 7:04 AM:
"learning the rules" of music isn't learning abstract rules of theory. It's
listening and imitating, exactly the way a child acquires language. You
don't have to know all the parts of speech, or even how to read, in order to
be an eloquent speaker-- but you do need to have been exposed extensively
and intensively to eloquent speech, and to have paid obsessive attention to
it.
IMO "slavish imitation" IS THE WAY you arrive at your own style (!) You do
your best to emulate your model perfectly, (a goal which cannot actually be
achieved) and that process undertaken within the context of your unique set
of "limitations" is what produces your individual style.
Dan
Library Guy
>"learning the rules" of music isn't learning abstract rules of theory. It's
>listening and imitating, exactly the way a child acquires language. You
>don't have to know all the parts of speech, or even how to read, in order to
>be an eloquent speaker-- but you do need to have been exposed extensively
>and intensively to eloquent speech, and to have paid obsessive attention to
>it.
Again, I say, Bravo, Mr. Gellert!
LG
Peter Feldmann
<dgel...@skyenet.net> wrote:
>
>"learning the rules" of music isn't learning abstract rules of theory. It's
>listening and imitating, exactly the way a child acquires language. You
>don't have to know all the parts of speech, or even how to read, in order to
>be an eloquent speaker-- but you do need to have been exposed extensively
>and intensively to eloquent speech, and to have paid obsessive attention to
>it.
>
>IMO "slavish imitation" IS THE WAY you arrive at your own style (!) You do
>your best to emulate your model perfectly, (a goal which cannot actually be
>achieved) and that process undertaken within the context of your unique set
>of "limitations" is what produces your individual style.
Thanks Dan, you put it very well.
Another positive aspect of this imitation is that, in attempting
to reproduce the musical efforts of those gone before, you
acquire a certain understanding of their playing and singing
styles that can be gotten in no other way.
And it is in the study of the _differences_ between performances
of various players that one begins to sort out the essentials,
rather than the fluff.
__Peter
Greenberry Leonard
<dgel...@skyenet.net> wrote:
> IMO "slavish imitation" IS THE WAY you arrive at your own style (!) You do
> your best to emulate your model perfectly, (a goal which cannot actually be
> achieved) and that process undertaken within the context of your unique set
> of "limitations" is what produces your individual style.
There are many revivalist fiddlers whose playing makes it obvious that
they did not invest time in obsessive, slavish imitiation of early
recordings or fiddlers from the tradition. You can't succesfully
deviate from a style if you haven't mastered the foundation of that
style.
I think modern fiddlers who did not put their ears close to those old
recordings and examine every minute detail don't even come close to
approximating that archaic, ancient sound so indigenous to old-time
fiddling. That light-hearted approach may be satisfying enough for
certain fiddlers to play, but it's not satisfying to my ear.
Another aspect of this is that I realize I cannot undo all the modern
music that went into my ears during my lifetime. They are different
than the sounds that fiddlers immersed themselves in 100 years ago, and
the difference can't help but influence me. But I want my fiddling to
sound like it's 100 years old - or to get as close to it as humanly
possible. So, I often block out the modern world and immerse myself in
the old recordings. It's just as critical as the actual fiddling, IMHO.
When I teach fiddle classes, I tell the students that half of learning
old-time fiddling is listening, listening, listening.
When I seriously want to learn a tune, I first try to learn to play it
as close as I can to the old recording. Only when I'm as close I think
I can get, do I think it's appropriate to deviate and add things that
depart from an original recording. However, I try to make sure that
even those departures are based on core fiddle phrases and details
taken from the traditional fiddlers.
In traditional music, developing a distinctive style is a little like
making chicken soup and varying the seasoning a little - but not so
much that it doesn't still taste like chicken soup. After all,
originality is rarely more than a satisfying remix of existing
elements.
cris...@funkyseagull.com
When the did I ever say it was?
The concept of rhythm isn't abstract. Without it there is no music.
Playing the banjo without working with chords and scales isn't
possible. You can "say" otherwise, but it won't change the facts.
The imitation thing . . . here's a simple example of where you're
wrong.
When I was a kid I wanted to learn some fingerstyle guitar tunes. The
songs I wanted to learn were Freight Train, Doc's Guitar, Deep River
Blues and the Doc Watson cover of Don't Think Twice It's Allright.
I bought some books and talked to some guitar players and they all said
that I had to learn each tune individually. When they played the songs
and when the tunes were in tab everything was treaded as separate.
Then I ran into an old guitar player who informed me that every song on
my "list" was the same song.
I told the old guy, "No way!" I showed him how the tab was different
for each tune. They even SOUNDED different.
The old guy just said, "It's all the same song" and ripped through
Freight Train and led it right through the other songs on my list.
Then he went on to show me how each arraignment was built on a simple
scale pattern played out of a C chord like this:
(standard guitar tuning)
----------------0----1----3----1----0-------
-----1----3-----------------------------3--
-------------------------------------------
---------------0-------------------0-------
-----3-------------------3-----------------
-------------------------------------------
Count: 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 &
In tab this don't look like much, but it's an amazing little measure of
music. We're holding a C chord and by playing an alternating bass
pattern and moving your little finger (you hit that note on the first
string at the first fret by flattening out your index finger - the one
that's on the second string at the first fret when you're holding a C
chord).
On it's own it's just kind of cool, but if you keep that scale pattern
going and change to an F, Am, G or E chord (the bass notes change to
match the root-five of whatever chord you are in) you suddenly have the
framework for the melody line to thousands of tunes.
This tied in with a trick I'd learned earlier from another old picker.
I wrote about him in the chapter of The How and the Tao of Folk Guitar
titled "Finding Mississippi". You can read it here:
http://www.funkyseagull.com/folk/folk-guitar.html#miss
Anyway, the trick boiled down to changing chord forms to phase out a
melody.
For example, if you hold a C chord on the guitar (3-3-2-0-1-0) you
could strum out the melody like this:
(just strum each chord while you sing each word in the verse)
3-3-2-0-1-3 3-3-2-0-1-0 3-3-2-0-3-0 3-3-2-0-1-0
freight train freight train
See what we're doing here? The first "C chord" is played with the
little finger on the first string at the second fret, followed by a
'normal' C chord, then a chord inversion with the little finger on the
second string at the third fret and then going back to a standard C.
That works for simple strumming, but if you go back to the measure of
tab you'll notice that the chord inversions we were using all fall in
that little snippet of a C scale.
Once I started messing round with that idea I ran into Rolly Brown and
he helped me put things together even more.
Once I started expanding that idea into other keys I was able to start
playing more and more songs until I got to the point where everything I
do is improvised. I don't have to "learn" songs because, like the old
guy said, "They're all the same."
Before any of you overreact to that, yeah, every tune has a unique
melody but "making music" involves working with the basic structure of
the tune. You have the rhythm of the song and the melody, because of
the interrelationship between scales and chord progression, give you
the chord progression - or vice versa. Sometimes I'll work the melody
out of the chord progression and sometimes I'll work the chord
progression out from the melody. Six of one, half dozen of the other.
And yeah, you have to know theory to pull it off. If it was hard I
could understand all of the bitching and whining about it. It's just a
simple set of concepts that give you ways to work with the flow of
music rather than struggling to remember what note to play.
Learn one thing and you learn ten thousand things.
learn a concept and explore fifty ways to use it rather than trying to
memorize fifty separate concepts.
That's not Zen, that's common sense.
The trick is to avoid getting caught up in the bullshit about 'style'.
You is who you is. learn how to play and your "style" will come through
all on it's own the same way it does when you walk, talk and go about
your day to day life.
Your style is who you are. If you stop hunting for it and just let
yourself be yourself it'll be right there waiting for you. Stop trying
to achieve something and just play.
To learn how all of this applies to old time banjo (and to see just how
simple music theory really is) you can read A Book Of Five Strings by
yours truly for free online at
http://www.funkyseagull.com/five/five-strings.html
For more basic guitar stuff the free version of The How and the Tao of
Folk Guitar can be found here:
http://www.funkyseagull.com/folk/folk-guitar.html
-Patrick
Todd
I've been caught up in the study of theory for years (applied to "bluegrass"
5 string banjo) and it has enhanced my "style" of playing greatly. It also
opens up doors to playing in different positions, and not being afraid to
improvise and venture to different areas of the neck, because I know there's
always a scale or pattern that will take me back to the root of whatever I
started. (I sometimes scare the heck out of the guitar player, but I always
know where I'm going) IMHO it's always best to know everything you can about
your particular instrument, and I believe that a lot of players are just a
little un-motivated to sit down and learn why the lick they just played
worked where they put it. I was asked recently after a show just excatly
what "style" of banjo I was playing, and all I could tell the guy was I play
what I happen to feel at the time, and he said well everything fit really
well and had a hard time believing that about two thirds of what I was
playing was improvised as I went. I just took the time to learn the neck,
and the scales/chords/modes and how to apply them. It works for me.
Todd
--
(_)=='=~
<cris...@funkyseagull.com> wrote in message
news:1110939452.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Marc Horowitz
MH
<cris...@funkyseagull.com> wrote in message
news:1110939452.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
cris...@funkyseagull.com
general stupidity of "players" in the various genres. It's "easy" to
memorize the individual finger moments of a song, but what you end up
with is a single-0use deal. You don't walk away with anything you can
apply anywhere else.
For an example of how easy it is to work with scales and chords:
A scale is just a sequence of notes. The formal term is something more
along the lines of "the key of E is a major mode with a root of E," but
we won't be getting into modes for a while so thinking of it as a
sequence of notes makes things easier for now.
In Western music we are only working with twelve notes. The twelve
notes are named after the letters A through G with a note or half-step
between each pair of letters except between B and C and E and F:
A | B C | D | E F | G |
Your half step is either a sharp (#) or a flat (b.)
The half step between A and B can be called either A# or Bb.
A# means that the A note is raised one half step higher. Bb is the B
note lowered one half step. A# and Bb are the same note and the other
half steps follow the same pattern.
So with all twelve notes laid out you have the chromatic scale:
A A#/Bb B C C#/Db D D#/Eb E F F#/Gb G G#/Ab
Once you understand the idea of half steps you can just write out your
chromatic scale like this to save space and make it a tad clearer.
The " | " symbol will be used to represent a half step.
A | B C | D | E F | G |
To hear this on your banjo play the third string at the second fret
(an A note) and play that string on each fret all the way through
twelve frets for each note of the chromatic scale.
To figure out the notes of the C scale we need to lay out the string of
notes starting with our root note. In this case the root note is C so
we start with the C note. Because we are only working with the letters
A through G the notes after the G note is going to be A.
It might help to think of the notes as being laid out in a loop or
circle.
C | D | E F | G | A | B C
Now if you notice we started on C and ended on C. That second C is
called the octave. It is the same note as the root but higher in pitch.
What we have here now is a chromatic scale starting on C and ending on
C.
Root, whole step, whole step, half step, whole step, whole step, whole
step, half step.
C is the root.
1. a whole step from C is D.
2. a whole step from D is E.
3. a half step from E is F
4. a whole step from F is G
5. a whole step from G is A
6. a whole step from A is B
7. a half step from B is C
So your C scale is
C D E F G A B C
Now, try writing out some scales on your own.
Once you have a scale laid out- and it might be a good idea to sit down
and work out A couple of scales here for keys you will be using a lot
on the banjo like A,D and G andd keeping them handy to use in the next
step- go ahead and number each note:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
C D E F G A B C
The notes numbered 1, 4 and 5 (C, F and G) will be your major chords
for the key of C.
Go back and look at all the songs you play in the key of G you will
notice that almost all of them use some combination of G, C and D. Some
songs will only have two of the chords but most of the time you will
see all three.
The note numbered 6 is going to be your relative minor. In this case
Am.
Every root chord has a relative minor chord. We'll go into this in more
detail later on, but every key has a unique number of sharps and flats.
The key of C has no sharps or flats and the key of G has one sharp
(F#.) The same rule applies to minor keys. Any minor key that has the
same number of sharps and flats as a major key is the relative minor of
that major key.
The key of Am has no sharps or flats therefore it is the relative minor
of C.
It is good to know your relative minor chords (the 6 chord in the
number system) because you can swap them around in some situations. If
you are playing a song and cannot remember how to make an Am chord you
can just play a C chord. It is different but it is close enough that
you may get away with it.
The note numbered 2 is going to be both a minor chord and a major
chord. In this case Am and A.
Number 3 is where it gets kind of neat because in folk music this is
often referred to as an "off chord." In the key of C your off chord is
E (remember when I mentioned Freight Train?.)
Your 6 chord can be played as a major chord as well. But it is kind of
funky. You will really only use the major 6 once in a great while. In
some songs like "Little Maggie" you might run into what some players
call a mountain seven. That is when you flat the 7 chord. That is why
"Little Maggie" goes from G to F rather than G to F# (it's actually a
mode, but modes complicate things at this point - if you want to learn
about modes look for the free online edition of "A Book Of Five
Strings" by yours truly at http://www.ezfolk.com)
So right now we know how to build a scale and how to build a chord
progression and your head hasn't exploded yet. Let's take this over to
the guitar.
Just about every fretted instrument you are going to run into is laid
out so that the fretboard follows the concept of the chromatic scale.
This goes back to ancient Greece when a bunch of old fat guys in togas
were spending all day plunking on a monochord.
If your guitar is in standard tuning your first string is tuned to E.
If you fret that E string at the first fret you end up with an F note.
Fret that E string at the third fret and you get an F#. If you lay out
a chromatic scale staring on E you can see you each fret moves along
the chromatic scale.
E F F#/Gb G G#/Ab A A#/Bb B C C#/Db D D#/Eb E
It's the same for each of your string. The tird string is tuned to G so
you you waled down the fetboard you'd end up with this string of notes:
G G#/Ab A A#/Bb B C C#/Db D D#/Eb E F F#/Gb G
To hear this on your guitar play the third string at the second fret
(an A note).
Then play that string on each fret all the way through twelve frets.
You have just played each note of the chromatic scale. This works
because the fretboard is laid out to follow the chromatic scale.
Look at it this way. The third string of your banjo is tuned to G. If
we fret the G string at the first fret we get a G#/Ab. Keep that idea
moving down the fetboard and . . .
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|---0----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10----11----12-|
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
G G#/Ab A A#/Bb B C C#/Db D D#/Eb E F F#/Gb G
Each string on your banjo follows the same pattern. The first string is
tuned to D so fretting the first string at the first fret gets you an F
note and fretting at the third fret gets you a . . . come on, figure
this one out on your own . . . if you said "D#" you've got the idea!
Now if we take that G chromatic scale and follow the whole and half
steps to create a major scale we'll wind up with this:
|-------------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
|---0---2----4----5---7---9----11--12-|
|-------------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
G A B C D E F# G
Now instead of walking up the fretboard, let's walk "across the
fretboard.
It's easy:
We start on G
|-------------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
|---0---------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
G
The next note is A
|-------------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
|---0--2------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
G A
The next note is B - and that happens to be the same note as the second
string open
|-------------------------------------|
|---------0---------------------------|
|---0--2------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
G A B
And after B . . .
|-------------------------------------|
|---------0--1------------------------|
|---0--2------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
G A B C
After C is D, which is the next string open
|----------------0--------------------|
|---------0---1-----------------------|
|---0--2------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
G A B C D
And we can walk up the first string to finish the scale
|----------------0---2--4--5----------|
|---------0---1-----------------------|
|---0--2------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
G A B C D E F# G
What you've just done here is play a G scale out of an open G chord
position.
Now barre across the second fret and play the same scale
|---------------2--4--6--7--------------|
|---------2--3--------------------------|
|---2--4--------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------|
And that's an A scale out of an A chord position.
See what's happening here?
Now let's look at an F position scale
And F scale out of an F chord (F: 3-2-1-3)
|---------------------2--3-----------|
|---------------1--3-----------------|
|---------2--3-----------------------|
|---3--5-----------------------------|
|------------------------------------|
Move that up the neck to an A chord (A: 7-6-5-7) and you gen an A scale
|--------------------6--7---------------|
|--------------5--7---------------------|
|--------6--7---------------------------|
|--7--9---------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------|
Now let's look at the D position:
D scale out of a D chord (D:4-2-3-4)
|-------------------------------------|
|-----------------0--2--3-------------|
|-----------0--2----------------------|
|--0--2--4----------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
Up the neck we change the fingering a bit to compensate for the lack of
open string and we wind up with this:
G scale out of a D-position G chord (D:9-7-8-9)
|-------------------------------------|
|-----------------5--7--8-------------|
|-----------5--7----------------------|
|--5--7--9----------------------------|
|-------------------------------------|
Every major chord is made up of the first, third and fifth note of a
scale. What that means is if you take any chord form you will have the
rest of the scale within easy reach.
Because chord progressions are built from scales all of your chord
forms are going to fall into patterns on the fretboard.
For example, a song that starts out using an F position chord - in
theis example we'll use an F position G chord
|----5---------------------------------|
|----3---------------------------------|
|----4---------------------------------|
|----5---------------------------------|
|--------------------------------------|
will ALWAYS give you the "4" chord in the Nashville number system by
barring across the same fret. In this case a C
|----5-------5--------------------------|
|----3-------5--------------------------|
|----4-------5--------------------------|
|----5-------5--------------------------|
|---------------------------------------|
and will ALWAYS give you the "5" chord by playing a D position chord
one fret down the neck. In this case D
|----5-------5-----4---------------------|
|----3-------5-----3---------------------|
|----4-------5-----2---------------------|
|----5-------5-----4---------------------|
|----------------------------------------|
You'll find other patterns if you ness around with the idea.
If you have a grasp of rhythm you can apply this to any song and then
take that song into any key.
Think about that for a second. Imagine the possibilities. It's enough
to make your head spin. Instead of "slavish imitation" you are suddenly
free to explore your own ideas and use the instrument to play with
anybody, anywhere at any time.
And this isn't just a "banjo thing". All fretted instrument work this
way. The fingerings when you use different tunings - but the
relationships don't change.
Memorize on song and that's all you'll know.
Learn how things work and you can play everything.
If it was hard I could understand your bitching and whining.
-Patrick
Library Guy
>I think the idea that music theory is abstract is really based on the
>general stupidity of "players" in the various genres. It's "easy" to
>memorize the individual finger moments of a song, but what you end up
>with is a single-0use deal. You don't walk away with anything you can
>apply anywhere else.
That's not true. If you know your instrument, if you are immersed in
the music you are trying to play, and most importantly, if you have a
little bit of talent and are musically creative, you can do things of
great merit without knowing diddly-squat about music theory.
On the other hand, being as musically trained as James Galway or Itzak
Pearlman or Ludwig von Beethoven does not mean that you can play
Irish, Klezmer, Old-Time or Polka music, just because you know
theory, unless you have immersed yourself in it and *tried* to make it
as much a part of you as is possible.
LG
Steve S
I began music as a classical musician and played clarinet for nearly 30
years. During the time, I studied intensively ear training, music theory,
analysis, orchestration, compositional techniques, conducting, basic
pedagogy, functional keyboard, literature, acoustics, physics as related to
music, music and computers, engineering and production; essentially
everything that a conservatory student learns on the way to master the
elements of Western classical music.
About 1980, I picked up the guitar and became hooked. I made a very
conscious decision to learn traditional music completely without reference
to my classical training. That meant the only tools I had available to use
were my ears to listen to other players and my eyes to watch their bodies. I
came to the conclusion that the only way of learning any of this music was
to intensely listen and try to imitate exactly what I was hearing. In fact,
I spent about a year trying to imitate the banjo playing of the library guy
(unsuccessfully!)
I am sorry Patrick, but the approach you are describing for learning
traditional music is simply too superficial. What you describe simply
does not provide you with the tools to join the tradition and ultimately
become a member of what is now a living tradition. Your approach is good
for folks who may like to sit around and use traditional music as a
friendly sort of self entertainment. I'm not saying there is anything wrong
with this, but my approach to music of any sort is much more demanding, as
is many of the people on this list. I'm not saying that one approach is
better than the other. Understand that we're talking about different
worlds, and your approach would get me nowhere in my world.
However, you have to use the right tool for the job. About a year ago I
found myself unable to play any of my string instruments and slowly losing
my mind. Being able to rejoin a musical community became a matter of
life-and-death. I was able to play the harmonica. You can bet that I used
all of my classical training to be able learn to get around on the
instrument and begin transcribing fiddle tunes into a form playable on the
harmonica. I now feel comfortable enough to begin to learn how to play the
damn thing idiomatically.
s.
--
______________________________________
Steve Senderoff & Trish Vierling
"...Ya run your E string down oh, I don't know, about three frets...anyway,
it corresponds to the third note on the A string...here's ya tuning..."
.........Tommy Jarrell
http://home.comcast.net/~steventrish/start.html
"Library Guy" <dal...@vet.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:24lg319spiiseiq6g...@4ax.com...
cris...@funkyseagull.com
> On the other hand, being as musically trained as James Galway or
Itzak
> Pearlman or Ludwig von Beethoven does not mean that you can play
> Irish, Klezmer,
Actually it does.
http://www.frugalfun.com/fiddlershouse.html
-Patrick
cris...@funkyseagull.com
> traditional music is simply too superficial. What you
describe simply
> does not provide you with the tools to join the tradition and
ultimately
> become a member of what is now a living tradition.
There trouble here is that you are talking about a living tradition,
but at the same time you want everything to remain static.
Before you read the rest of this post do me a favor and go read my
books. You can do this for free (how's THAT for giving to a tradition?)
and if you turn off your personal animosity towards me long enough to
read what's being presented you'll be able to get a feel of where I'm
coming from.
What I "give" to my students is nothing more than the basic tools to
start making music. I do use storied from my personal experiences to
illustrate concepts like getting over stage fright, but even then the
idea is only to get the student thinking, "hey, he went through the
same problems I'm having when he was starting out."
My reasons for teaching this way are pretty simple: it's not my job to
dictate personal taste. If somebody comes to me to learn how to play
the banjo that's what they will get. After that I don't care if they go
on to play "traditional" fiddle tunes or join a punk rock band. It's
none of my business.
You can't put on tradition like a hat. Tradition is something you have
to live. It has to be part of YOUR life. In order to be part of a
tradition in terms of playing an instrument you have to walk out your
front door and become part of your community. Listening to records and
debating how many pimples Clarance Ashley had on his left buttock on
the internet isn't going to make you a part of a tradition.
The way I teach is pretty simple. I'll see a student three or four
times over a span of a couple of months. Once the student has a couple
of chords and some kind of picking pattern down I'll drag them kicking
and screaming to a jam session and get them using those couple of
chords and that picking pattern. Once the jam is over I give him or her
a hug and tell them that the lessons are over. From that point on it's
up to the "player" (not "student") to take those basic skills and find
his or her own way to put them to use.
I'm still around to answer a question when they hit a wall, but the
whole bogus "I am the teacher" routine is left out of the equation
because I trust these people enough to let them follow their hearts.
It's not my decision to dictate what they can or can't do with the
information.
You say what I teach won't work in your "world". That's funny because
unless your group has a proprietary version of the language of music
(as in, "This song is in the key of Q13") I could sit in and play along
with your group - and so could my students. We may not be all anal
about playing every note exactly like some funky 78 RPM record, but
everything would work because a C chord is a C chord is a C chord.
By trying to keep songs and techniques some kind of dark secret the
communities of traditionalists and preservationists have killed the
folk process. Instead of giving people the tools to make music you just
want them to sit quietly and stare at you in awe. I keep meeting people
coming out of camps and workshops convinced that they are not good
enough, smart enough, talented enough or wonderful enough to ever play.
I don't know 'bout you, but I don't think that kind of nonsense is
helping traditions in any way, shape of form.
-Patrick
Library Guy
The polite response is "Balderdash!".
I'm not impressed (at least I haven't been yet) by any classically
trained musician's attempts at traditional forms. You can doubtlessly
find any number of web site hypes to contradict me. Have fun trying
to do so.
Traditional music is not about virtuosity, or hype, or
professionalism, or musical literacy, or world-wide reputation,
or how many books you've written on how easy it is, not even if you
give those books away for free.
Traditional music, at least good traditional music of lasting value,
is an art form, and not something you pick up in vocational school,
like automobile mechanics.
FD
Library Guy
>There trouble here is that you are talking about a living tradition,
>but at the same time you want everything to remain static.
That's how you mis-interpret Steve's comments, anyway.
>Before you read the rest of this post do me a favor and go read my
>books. You can do this for free (how's THAT for giving to a tradition?)
The tradition is not yours to give away. The tradition is Tommy
Jarrel's (you remember, that guy who can't play the banjo, easy as it
is) and others'. Not mine, not Steve's certainly not yours.
>and if you turn off your personal animosity towards me long enough to
>read what's being presented you'll be able to get a feel of where I'm
>coming from.
The animosity is not towards you. It's not animosity, either. It's
taking a stand against a misguided idea.
>You can't put on tradition like a hat. Tradition is something you have
>to live. It has to be part of YOUR life. In order to be part of a
>tradition in terms of playing an instrument you have to walk out your
>front door and become part of your community.
Seems like I heard that somewhere before. And it seems like you, with
your "go read my books", are the complete antithesis to that.
cris...@funkyseagull.com
Yes it is. It belongs to all of us. That's the whole point of "folk
music".
-Patrick
Donald Borchelt
<cris...@funkyseagull.com> wrote in message
news:1110998709....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I had a feeling even before I clicked on the link that I knew generally
where it was going to take me, and I was right. In that same 1995 PBS
special mentioned in the article, Perlman also plays some old-time hoedowns,
in particular I remember he did a great job on Bill Cheatum, picking in a
jam with some bluegrass players. Perlman had the bowing all down, the
Nashville shuffle, rocking the bow, double stopping, etc. It was great. As
I recall, he talked about how different the bowing, and indeed the whole
genre, was from classical playing. He learned it by sitting down with
fiddlers and watching, listening, and imitating how they did it.
A few times I have seen the Boston Pops orchestra include a medley of
old-time tunes in their performance. The tunes were played from a score,
and were stripped of the little idiosyncratic bowing techniques and other
things that good old-timey fiddlers use constantly. Instead, some arranger
had come up with harmony, counterpoint, etc., in accord, I'm sure, with all
of the established conventions of highbrow composition, following the
time-honored tradition of the Pops. I've always felt that the results were
flat, and uninspired.
Just the same, nobody is really arguing with Pat's basic contention that a
new picker should start with a few simple patterns, learn the basic chords
and how they work, and generally find their way around the banjo neck,
before they tackle something harder. Duh! What most people object to is
the constant contempt and derision that Pat heaps upon anyone who gets
excited about anything other than funky seagull and his latest give-away
offer. Well, I'm sorry Pat, I know that you are giving some stuff away
free, and that's good- I give my old cloths to the Salvation Army, too, and
we will both be rewarded for our good deeds when we get to heaven- but in
the meantime, I'll bet you're making money in there somewhere, too, just
like the rest of us in this world. In spite of all your sanctimonious
posturing, I still think new pickers are well advised to listen to as much
good old-time or bluegrass banjo picking as they can get ahold of. And if
they hear something they think sounds great, eventually, when they are
ready, they should try to figure out how it was done. As the man said, it's
that simple.
- Don Borchelt
www.banjr.com
Library Guy
Thanks for letting me know. FD
Library Guy
>Nobody is really arguing with Pat's basic contention that a
>and how they work, and generally find their way around the banjo neck,
>before they tackle something harder.
I won't even quote the more inflammatory parts of this poster's
message. But the above is true.
FD
Greenberry Leonard
<cris...@funkyseagull.com> wrote:
There will always be people who play traditional music and those who
"play at it". There are people who are enamored with the music, and
want to play it, and are content to learn the mere basics and not
immerse themselves any further. For these people, Patrick's book is
probably a great aid. And I'm sure the folks who approach music in this
manner get a great deal of enjoyment "playing at it" - who am I to
judge? And I have to admit, I have a lot more respect for anyone who
picks up a musical instrument in the evening rather than zone out over
the latest episode of Survivor.
That said, I think there is a great distinction between the those who
"play at" the music and those who have immersed themselves in the
tradition to the degree that their playing really reflects their
efforts. I think it's unfair to say that someone who "plays at" the
music can simply join any old-time jam - no matter what the level of
expertise - and fit in. That is misleading.
These two types of musician approach the music in a completely
different manner and at a different level. I'm not saying the two
should never mix.
But the pat statement that it can all be learned from books, or is
easily adopted and integrated misses the mark. I think traditional
music should be approached with a deep respect, and I think it takes a
good deal of time and effort to approximate the style. Assuming it is
easily adopted, or that there is little distinction between those who
play the music in a nonchalant manner and those who are deeply immersed
in the music is flippant, at best.
Mark Lathem
>The tradition is not yours to give away. The tradition is Tommy
>Jarrel's (you remember, that guy who can't play the banjo, easy as it
>is) and others'. Not mine, not Steve's certainly not yours...
To use your own words:
"The polite response is "Balderdash!"."
--
Mark Lathem
jstone999
cross-posted: the folks over at rec.music.country.old-time have been a
great pleasure to read.
I'm also beginning to understand why Pat feels persecuted. While I,
too, think that imitation is the key to learning, and while I myself
have taken him to task for being abrasive, I think Pat's basic
point--get the fundamentals down and run with it where you will--is
fully sound. I can understand why one might be slavish to a tradition
when that is where one's heart lies. But that is a journey one
undertakes on one's own: Pat's job as a teacher is to impart to his
students the skills for undertaking any journey they choose. And while
I, too, have taken Pat to task on the subject of "styles" (since he
tends to exagerate his case), I must say that I find his sense of
democracy, his tendency to reject any gnostic elite, is also sound and
fully within the spirit of old-time music. When he says that folk
music is "ours" I would have to agree. I'm not a Buddhist, but there
is a kind of one-hand clapping truth here: the music belongs to none
of us; the music belongs to all of us.
Look, we're people living with music, not museum curators. If you are
inspired to spend your life trying to make your violin sound like it's
100 years old, I completely respect that: but if you achieve it,
you've arrived at making the sound your own. I like the idea of
preservation, but I like the idea of playing what's in your own soul
better, and while I still think that imitation is the starting point
for learning an art, the goal should be to put something of yourself
into the music.
The problem which has developed in this thread is that we have two
positions presented in their rhetorical extremes. I don't think any of
you over at rec...oldtime are truly gnostics, but sometimes you sound
like it. And I don't think Pat is a "do your own thing" hippy with
absolutely no respect for tradition (why did he want to learn Doc
Watson's stuff, after all?). I think one can have respect for tradition
and still wish to be innovative. For the most part I disagree with
Pat, because I think one has to "grasp" the music (which I would
contend requires imitation) before one can even hope to make a
contribution of one's own--that's just basic communication (one has to
learn the language first). But I still think we all--and I include
myself here--tend to have a gut reaction to reject everything Pat says,
even when he expresses sound ideas. Thus, as I have said, I understand
why he tends to feel persecuted.
Of course, maybe I misundersand Pat. Thus a question for him: I said
you have to learn the language first, something with which I'm sure you
agree. But do you you think there is only ONE musical language
(rhythm, melody, harmony, etc.) or do you think that there are MANY
musical languages, such as rock and roll, jazz, and old-time?
jeffstone
goettingen
NOSPAM...@aol.com
not to put down Itzak Perlman (I couldn't even begin to play what he
plays!!) but his renditions of Bill Cheatham owe a lot more to
Nashville session players (who also have an amazing command of
technique) than to the James Cole String Band. His renditions of
klezmer are beautiful, but they do not move me as much as some of those
funky older recordings (particularly the very early recordings such as
from Belf's Romanian Orchestra -- check out Mark Rubin's belf.com).
Patrick's method for getting folks started on banjo sounds fine to me
-- but for these learners, it may be just the beginning to their
musical journey. I know that when I started off in old time music, I
had a similar attitude to Patricks and was not really interested in
delving deep into it -- but eventually (it took quite a few years) I
was able to appreciate what you can get out of the quest for more
musical depth by closely studying older recordings and hanging out with
the old guys and gals who are musical masters. It's not exactly about
counting Clarence Ashley's pimples -- it can start that way, but it can
develop into a wonderful journey with countless detours and side trips.
The immersion/careful listening and copying method can eventually
result in a more well-rounded viewpoint of the music, and what at first
sounds really simple often, upon closer examination, has layers and
layers of subtle cool stuff that contributes mightily to the total
sound that drew you to the piece in the first place. I've found this
to be true of every kind of traditional music, not just oldtime. Of
course each person should put some of themselves into the music, it's
practically impossible not to. But for me and for many of us here,
there is a great satisfaction in the feeling of being part of a musical
lineage that stretches far back. Best, of course, is if you have the
genius to actually contribute to that lineage, but most of us aren't in
that class -- however we can still find plenty of fun, social
interaction, and satisfaction in the music!
Suzy T.
jstone999
NOSPAM...@aol.com wrote:
> But for me and for many of us here,
> there is a great satisfaction in the feeling of being part of a
musical
> lineage that stretches far back.
Me too, which is why I got into old-time to begin with. And I fully
support doing your utmost to learn the "language" of old-time. But
Pat's coming from somewhere else, I think: he's trying give another
generation access to the music by saying the the lineage looks not only
back but forward. Getting into geneology and charting your ancestors
is somehow diminished when you refuse to have children. And having
children, while it does preserve one's genes, results in a new,
unpredictable generation. The problem with old-time music, as is the
problem with all "styles", is to properly receive and respect the
tradition while keeping it alive and growing. Hey folks, I admit this
may be an impossible ideal: after all, 1920s jazz and 1940s jazz are
both called jazz, but are different. The bebop innovators preserved
something, but they also destroyed something. How we can do this with
old-time, I don't know. I don't pretend to know. But if I don't give
something of myself to the music, if I don't "procreate", I let it die
(or shut it away in a museum).
Preserving a "tradition" is a difficult thing, indeed.
jeffstone
goettingen
Don Tuite
the intemperate words and the expressions of wounded feelings.
AND the peacemakers and calmers.
It's like a real family. It's like the music is worth peoples' time.
Don
cris...@funkyseagull.com
> (rhythm, melody, harmony, etc.) or do you think that there are MANY
> musical languages, such as rock and roll, jazz, and old-time?
I do agree with the learning the language first, but in stages. I think
part of what's wrong with the whole "slavish imitation" approach is
that people focus on the presentation of a particular tune without
building up the skills and concepts that made the presentation in
question work in the first place.
That leads me to your question Do I see music as a single language?
Yes.
If you ask anybody to state the differences between, say, rock and old
time music every answer is going to be based on superficial things. Old
time has a different beat. Rock is usually played on electric
instruments. Old time musicians have a deeper sense of tradition. Rock
musicians dress differently from old time musicians.
The trouble here is that none of these answers ever address the simple
fact that the same musical language is being used in every style of
Western music. We use different rhythms in rock and old time music but
the very nature of rhythm allows for an almost infinite number of
possibilities so you can't say that working with a unique rhythmic
pattern creates a new kind of music. The same rhythmic concepts that
fuel hip-hop are used in different ways in old time music. It's
different rhythms, but those rhythms are based on the same language.
After rhythm the only other place to look is at the music itself - the
notes. Rock and old time use the same notes and they are not really
used in different ways. The structure of a G scale isn't going to
change if you are playing rock or old time. Even in jazz, where you
sometimes work with really unusual combinations of notes and unusual
scale patterns, is played with the same twelve notes used in old time.
When Pythagoras scientifically fixed the modes he was looking for a way
to unify and understand the universe (the whole 'music of the spheres'
deal) and while the astrology behind his motives may have been
hocus-pocus (then again, when you look at how modes are used to create
specific reactions you've got to scratch your head and wonder) the end
result was the framework for a simple language that transcends time,
race and creed. Other than mathematics and children I can't think of
anything that can bridge cultures and generations the way music can.
I think a lot of the confusion surrounding music stems from the way
people approach it. The average person wants to play NOW. The line of
through is that if you can learn how to play Foggy Mountain Breakdown
or Smells Like Teen Spirit right away you will "be" a musician.
The problem with this approach is that it focuses on the performance of
a single song without giving the student any of the tools to make the
performance work - and I'm not just talking in terms of music theory.
There is a honking big psychological issue that you have to get around
in order to play an instrument and in terms of how your brain handles
the information.
When you "slavishly imitate" a song you put yourself in the position
where you have to consciously think about everything you are doing. The
trouble with trying to make music that way is that there isn't any time
to "think" when you are playing a song.
In the space of a measure you have a set number of beats falling in a
specific pattern. The pattern varies depending on the time signature,
but in the end everything has to even out. Two eighth notes have to be
played in the same amount of time as a quarter note, two quarter notes
have to played in the same amount of time as a half note . . . you get
the idea.
The trouble comes in when you try to consciously think about what you
are supposed to do in that space of time. By the time you think about
what string to play, your eyes single out the string, send the signal
and your brain fires off the command to your hand you'll have already
slipped out of rhythm and most of the time you won't even realize it.
If you stop trying to present a single song in a specific manner and
spend time developing the basic skills you can get yourself to the
point where playing is as natural as walking or talking.
For the banjo that "first step" is learning how to play rhythm in a
group setting. The object isn't to learn "songs". What you want to do
in the very beginning is learn how to simultaneously perform a group of
tasks:
*playing rhythm in rhythm with a group: frailing, flatpicking a
'boom-chuck, playing a three-finger roll or any other rhythmic
technique)
*following a chord progression: Not "remembering" the chords to a song,
but learning how to hear and instinctively feel a chord progression.
*changing chords
*singing
*dynamics: dropping your volume when somebody else takes a break
It's easy to look at that list and say that these are easy skills to
perform separately, but once you start doing them at the same time
things get tricky. My own approach to helping students through this
phase is to simply not make a big deal about it. If you don't tell them
that it's supposed to be hard they tend to just do it. When you point
out that if learn three chords and a picking pattern there are a coupe
of thousand songs to sing the whole teaching gig gets even easier.
The cool thing about all of this is that by the time you can perform
that first group of tasks the next steps of adding in melody and doing
"cool stuff" like improvising breaks is a completely natural process.
Not only that, you have enough of a grounding in practical music theory
to be able to start "seeing" how you can adapt what you already know
into new genres.
The "reason" this works is it gives you time to make each new set of
tasks and concepts second nature. This isn't anything new because we do
it every day of our lives. We don't "think" about walking. We don't
"think" about each action involved in driving a car. We don't even
"think" about the actions involved in reading something like this post.
There was an interesting article on this idea released in the January
2005 issue of Psychological Science. You can read about it here:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/aps-hmc030805.php
When you start to take this into consideration the idea of trying to
actively "memorize" a songs starts to look more and more futile.
The idea that you have to immerse yourself into a particular culture to
play a song is like saying that ordering a cheeseburger at a McDonalds
in Idaho is different from ordering a cheeseburger at a McDonalds in
New York. There are "subtle nuances" in terms of the experience (for
example, ordering a cheeseburger in Galax was unique because everything
in the local fast food joint had a film of nicotine-funk on it about an
inch thick . . . even I thought it was gross) but in the end you still
just walk up to the counter, order your meal and pay your money.
Let's face it, the real reason people make these lame posturing excuses
about culture is that it's an easy cop-out. Saying 'I ONLY play
such-and-such music' is just another way of saying "I can't". If you
notice, almost everybody who droned on about "slavish imitation" also
brought up the idea of limitations. The sad thing about it is that
these defense mechanisms have been twisted into complete subcultures.
Now music, a force that should bring people together, is being used to
drive people apart. You have to spout the right "influences" (in other
words, music you don't understand but you have to claim to love in
order to be accepted into a particular cult), play the right brand of
instrument with the right accessories and wear the right costume. The
music isn't the main focus anymore. It's all about fitting in.
As for personal style, it's not really an issue because once you start
really playing your true self is going to come shining through. The
trouble today is that we are told from day one that we are not "worthy"
enough to bring anything of ourselves to our chosen instruments.
I think that sucks. I don't want to hear somebody play only what he
thinks everybody wants to hear. I want to walk away from a performance
feeling like I've just shared something with the performer. A jam
session should be like a conversation rather than a recitation. The
language of music gives us tools to communicate on an emotional level -
and if you think about that it's enough to make your head spin because
instead of having somebody say "I feel happy" or "I feel angry," with
music you can FEEL that anger and that joy.
That's the reason the whole church mode deal happened way back when.
Music scared the hell out of the church because musicians have a power
to change things that goes beyond physical mediums. A book or a
painting are physical things you have to carry around to share with
people, but a song can be sung anywhere there is people. Even the
internet can't speed information as quickly and effectively as a folk
song.
I like to joke with my students that folk songs are "weapons of mass
instruction."
A big mistake people make is putting too much focus on the
ornamentation of a song in a particular recording. The idea seems to be
that if a fiddler breaks wind in the middle of a solo on a recording
then everybody who ever plays that song has to strain for a fart at
that same point of the song in order to be "authentic".
Just play the freaking song. Come up with your own ways to dress it up
or simplify it. When you're playing that song it's YOUR song.
When I was in Ireland two years ago I spent a week wandering around
making music with people from all over the world. At one point I wound
up on a street corner with a banjo player from France and an accordion
player from Israel. Neither of them spoke English that well, but when I
said, "You Are My Sunshine" and strummed a chord they started playing
right along. There we were from different corers of the world with our
own languages and cultures but through this thing we call music we were
brothers for that moment in time.
I can't stand the idea of using music to separate people. I'm sick and
tired of having people with no skill other than the ability to kiss ass
strut around telling people they are not good enough, not "worthy"
enough to pick up a banjo and start exploring music. Somebody in this
thread commented on playing for your own enjoyment like it was
something beneath a "real" old time musician and that kind of
illustrates how screwed up everything is right now.
I don't care about personal taste. I love the Sex Pistols as much as I
love Doc Watson. It's all good music and as a musician I am able to
take part in all of it - and most of all I am able to bring something
of myself into the mix. You and I might be into different flavors of
music, but if we put our personal prejudices aside we can sit down
together and make music all night long because we are both "speaking"
the same language.
Even the idea of one musician being "better" than another is off-base.
If all you can do is play three chords and keep rhythm I'm not going to
run you out of a jam. There isn't any shame in playing simply. The only
shame is in not playing at all. Not trying.
The music that was is still here to inspire us, but in the end each of
us has to walk out own path and find our own "way". Try to hold onto
the past for too long or reach too far into the future and you lose the
present moment. You are here now. You have something to say, something
to share something to give to the world around you. To do it all you
have to do is pick up an instrument and start playing. You don't need
talent or permission because music belongs to all of us. It's all there
for the taking as long as you don't make the mistake of putting limits
on yourself before you even start.
Pay it all. Jazz, swing, old time, blues, bluegrass, hip-hop, country
and even disco. There is a whole world out there waiting for you. Why
turn your back on any of it?
-Patrick
http://patrickcostello.blogsome.com
http://pik-ware.com
Sean
> That leads me to your question Do I see music as a single language?
> Yes.
>
> If you ask anybody to state the differences between, say, rock and
old
> time music every answer is going to be based on superficial things.
Old
> time has a different beat. Rock is usually played on electric
> instruments. Old time musicians have a deeper sense of tradition.
Rock
> musicians dress differently from old time musicians.
>
> The trouble here is that none of these answers ever address the
simple
> fact that the same musical language is being used in every style of
> Western music.
I have to disagree with your premise. I'll grant you that the same
basic musical *sounds* are used in every style of Western music. But
old time music, rock, blues, and jazz are (to my mind, at any rate)
different languages in the same way that English, Spanish, and German
are different languages. They all have some of the same roots and even
share some of the same words and linguistic structures. But they are
all very different nonetheless.
Sure, there are only so many notes in the western musical scale. There
are only a finite number of note positions on a fretted instrument
fingerboard. So, I can see where one could come to the conclusion that
if one is playing any genre of music on a banjo (or any fretted
instrument) it's all the same musical language.
However, I liken it to thinking that there are only so many linguistic
sounds that a human mouth can make. I can certainly, after 50 years of
speaking, make most of those sounds with no difficulty. That doesn't
mean that I can speak Mandarin Chinese or Hindi or Portuguese and make
any kind of sense without long and hard study. Part of that study would
be imitation of native speakers required to get intonation, nuance and
even basic syntax correct.
Peace,
Sean Ruprecht-Belt
cris...@funkyseagull.com
> I have to disagree with your premise.
That's cool . . . but what are you basing your argmument on? From
reading your post it sounds like you're saying that rock and old time
are different just because you say they are.
German and English are two different languages. I'm not crazy or stupid
enough to think otherwise - but that does nothing to prove that the
musical language used in rock is different from the language used in
country or bluegrass.
Like I said would happen in my post, you are getting caught up in the
superficial differences we use to define genres and missing the common
threads that run through everything we're playing and listening to.
Stop trying to "make" it fit into a definition and really look at it
for what it is. There is a whole forest in front of you are you only
want to see one leaf.
-Patrick
Greenberry Leonard
<cris...@funkyseagull.com> wrote:
> The trouble here is that none of these answers ever address the simple
> fact that the same musical language is being used in every style of
> Western music.
Accepting your analogy, then what needs to be addressed here are the
dialects.
Ever watched a movie featuring an actor clearly not from the south
faking a Southern drawl? (Aussie Nicole Kidman in Cold Mountain comes
to mind.) It just doesn't sound right.
When emulation of another dialect is not approached with respect and
care, it belies an ignorance and disrespect of the culture that
someone's trying to imitate.
> When you "slavishly imitate" a song you put yourself in the position
> where you have to consciously think about everything you are doing. The
> trouble with trying to make music that way is that there isn't any time
> to "think" when you are playing a song.
Yep, and with lots of practice, it becomes second nature, and with a
little more practice, it approaches actual music making. It's myopic to
claim that anyone can make music right away without a good deal of
practice.
> The idea that you have to immerse yourself into a particular culture to
> play a song is like saying that ordering a cheeseburger at a McDonalds
> in Idaho is different from ordering a cheeseburger at a McDonalds in
> New York.
That is the most ridiculous analogy I've ever heard. And it is a great
example of the aforementioned ignorance and disrespect.
> Let's face it, the real reason people make these lame posturing excuses
> about culture is that it's an easy cop-out. Saying 'I ONLY play
> such-and-such music' is just another way of saying "I can't".
Drivel is too tame a word for that statement. It is patent bullshit. I
have devoted myself to old-time music because I want to sound as
authentic as possible. Other influences pull me away from that
authenticity. If I played Cajun fiddle and old-time fiddle, each would
affect the other, and neither would reach the level of expertise that
is possible with a singular devotion. It's not about can't. It's about
won't. It's about focus and dedication.
> A big mistake people make is putting too much focus on the
> ornamentation of a song in a particular recording.
You want to leave out all the spice and seasoning - let's run the music
through the deflavorizing machine until it's as bland as strained cream
soup. What a pitiful musical diet. A taste of this, and a couple bars
later, you're hungry again!
What you're really proposing is to take the music out of music.
Library Guy
>> Let's face it, the real reason people make these lame posturing excuses
>> about culture is that it's an easy cop-out. Saying 'I ONLY play
>> such-and-such music' is just another way of saying "I can't".
Hey, I think you've got something there, Patrick. I'm old and rusty
now, also distracted by fatherhood and other interests, and "I can't".
But when I took first prize in the oldtime banjo category at the
Galax Fiddlers' Convention in 1985, I could. I'm not the only banjo
player on this ng who has done that, either. I must have missed the
year you won.
Yeah, that's nasty, I know. I'll spare you further unfair attacks
from myself by ignoring the rest of this tiresome thread. I don't
think I'll miss anything important.
Frank Dalton
Gordon Banks
> Pay it all. Jazz, swing, old time, blues, bluegrass, hip-hop, country
> and even disco. There is a whole world out there waiting for you. Why
> turn your back on any of it?
>
Maybe 'cause it ain't my boogie.
Mark Lathem
>Ever watched a movie featuring an actor clearly not from the south
>faking a Southern drawl? (Aussie Nicole Kidman in Cold Mountain comes
>to mind.) It just doesn't sound right.
I agree; but this supports Patrick's argument, not yours.
>> Let's face it, the real reason people make these lame posturing excuses
>> about culture is that it's an easy cop-out. Saying 'I ONLY play
>> such-and-such music' is just another way of saying "I can't".
>
>Drivel is too tame a word for that statement. It is patent bullshit. I
>have devoted myself to old-time music because I want to sound as
>authentic as possible. Other influences pull me away from that
>authenticity.
I don't agree with Patrick's statement, but your reply is, IMHO, a
little sad. There's nothing wrong with devoting yourself to a
particular musical genre or style because you love it, but to do so
"because I want to sound as authentic as possible" sure sounds like
posturing to me.
I don't wish to take away anything from the "old guys"--heck, I
fervently hope to be one myself someday. But this is popular music--a
living form. By all means listen to the Tommy Jarrel, Kyle Creed,
Buell Kazee, Roscoe Holcomb, Dock Boggs, Fred Cockerham, etc. etc.
Take stuff from them and put it in your kit bag, but don't try to *be*
them; you'll come off like Nicole Kidman doing a bad Foghorn Leghorn
impression.
Of course, if you work really hard, and practice with sufficient
devotion and respect, I suppose you could come off like Nicole Kidman
doing a really good Foghorn Leghorn impression <g>.
>> A big mistake people make is putting too much focus on the
>> ornamentation of a song in a particular recording.
>
>You want to leave out all the spice and seasoning - let's run the music
>through the deflavorizing machine until it's as bland as strained cream
>soup. What a pitiful musical diet. A taste of this, and a couple bars
>later, you're hungry again!
That's not what he said. Read it again. If repetitively imitating a
particular arrangement ad nauseum is your idea of spice and seasoning,
then please pass the cream soup.
>What you're really proposing is to take the music out of music.
No, it seems to me that he's proposing we focus on substance rather
than form.
For the life of me I can't figure out why Patrick continues to attract
such ire. Sure he's more blunt than he probably should be, and
there's no doubt that he enjoys picking a fight, but the
pitchforks-and-torches responses only serve to bolster his position.
I sincerely don't wish to offend you or anyone else. If you get your
jollies from "authenticity," then more power to you--I wish you every
success and much happiness. But forgoodnesssakes, why is everybody
getting their knickers in a twist? This is *folk* music; as such, it
belongs to all of us. Even the boneheaded idiot who doesn't agree
with you <BG>.
--
Mark Lathem
Sean
Please don't be so defensive. I'm not suggesting that you're either
crazy or stupid. Sorry if it came off that way. I'm only stating my
viewpoint on the matter of different musical languages and the best way
I could see to do so was to relate it to spoken language. Doesn't mean
either of us are crazy or stupid, just that we disagree on a point of
discussion.
What I'm basing my argument on is about 30 years of playing rock and
roll, old time and southern rural blues styles on guitar, banjo, lap
dulcimer, mandolin, fiddle and ukulele. I'm not saying that these
genres are different just because I say they are. I'm basing my
viewpoint on experience and observation.
While I agree with you that there are some commonalities in all Western
musical forms, I don't agree with you that the differences are
superficial. And that's what I was trying to point out by my
illustration that European languages have some commonalities, but are
profound differences in all of them.
- Sean R-B
jstone999
Mark Lathem wrote:
> I don't wish to take away anything from the "old guys"--heck, I
> fervently hope to be one myself someday. But this is popular
music--a
> living form. By all means listen to the Tommy Jarrel, Kyle Creed,
> Buell Kazee, Roscoe Holcomb, Dock Boggs, Fred Cockerham, etc. etc.
> Take stuff from them and put it in your kit bag, but don't try to
*be*
> them; you'll come off like Nicole Kidman doing a bad Foghorn Leghorn
> impression.
Right.
jeffstone
goetttingen
Steve S
expressed on this board centers around his concept of "slavish imitation".
Patrick views slavish imitation in the learning and interpretation of music
as detrimental to future musical endeavors and advocates the learning of a
few simple techniques followed by free immersion in the music. Patrick also
appears to believe that the free immersion should be done with minimal
regard to genre specific characteristics, that is to say "do your own thing"
thus allowing "your music" to appear. I personally consider this attitude
to be counterproductive to learning to perform and understand any genre of
music. I then thought, are there any genres of music in which practitioners
of the art do not go through a slavish imitation phase during the technical
learning process, and are there any genres in which the technically
competent musician does not employ slavish imitation as a starting point for
the interpretive process?
In the instrumental mastery phase of classical music, a teacher is
considered essential. You are instructed by a combination of written and
oral tradition. The material is based on pedagogical materials many
generations old. The actual physical processes for playing an instrument in
the classical style are very strictly codified and essentially all students
are indoctrinated under these precepts. There are very few if any
autodidact classical musicians. The teacher was trained in exactly the same
way. However, distinct pedagogical traditions exist that can be traced
back to very influential teachers, for example, Daniel Bonade in the
clarinet world or Galamian or Joachim in the violin world. Once the young
classical musician achieves the technical competency to tackle the
literature, his repertoire is determined by the notes on the page. The music
must be played exactly as written by the composer, but some room is given
for interpretation. Interpretive practices, very much like in old-time
music, are transmitted orally, or more recently, by recording, and may be
traced back to individual musicians with very strong musical personalities,
such as Toscanini, Stokowski, Heifetz, etc., but basically there are
generally agreed-upon interpretive practices which are followed very
closely.
The instrumental mastery phase of popular music or rock-and-roll is
different but similar. To concentrate on rock-and-roll, autodidact
musicians are more common, but almost universally, a young guitarist will
attempt slavishly to assimilate genre specific "licks" or entire solos
associated with commercially successful or critically acclaimed musicians
such as Charlie Christian or Jimi Hendrix. A rite of passage is to play in a
cover brand, and many commercial rock-and-roll players rarely "advance"
beyond this stage. As is in classical music, interpretive parameters are
strictly defined for the various commercial sub-genres of the field, but
creativity is defined as presenting a combination of existing elements in
new ways and placing a personal interpretive stamp upon the same. There is
more tolerance for cross genre interpretive activity, but the more "far out"
things get, the less they are heard. Surprisingly, some of the greatest
innovators display almost a classical music style discipline when
approaching their art, such as Zappa or Hendrix (much in contrast to his
public persona).
Similar analyses of the pedagogical and performance practices of other forms
of Western music such as jazz, other forms of commercial music such as
musical theater traditions (which nowadays are entered through the classical
portal), and essentially all other genres of existing ethnic music will
reveal similar results.
Mastery of any of these musical traditions requires a period of slavish
imitation to assimilate what the tradition is about to allow musician to
play idiomatically. If you bypass this phase, in my opinion, it is
impossible to achieve more than a superficial knowledge to understand and
ability to play the music you are involved with, which is unacceptable to
me.
s
Donald Borchelt
"Mark Lathem" <markl...@usa.net> wrote in message
> There's nothing wrong with devoting yourself to a
> particular musical genre or style because you love it, but to do so
> "because I want to sound as authentic as possible" sure sounds like
> posturing to me.
>
> I don't wish to take away anything from the "old guys"--heck, I
> fervently hope to be one myself someday. But this is popular music--a
> living form. By all means listen to the Tommy Jarrel, Kyle Creed,
> Buell Kazee, Roscoe Holcomb, Dock Boggs, Fred Cockerham, etc. etc.
> Take stuff from them and put it in your kit bag, but don't try to *be*
> them; you'll come off like Nicole Kidman doing a bad Foghorn Leghorn
> impression.
>
Well, I am not sure why it is posturing for Leonard or anyone else to want
to sound authentic to a particular style or type of music, if that is what
they want to do. Leonard is not trying to force that desire on you or
Patrick or anyone else, he just resents being called a "saggy-assed old
creep," or whatever other disrespect that Patrick comes up with, for wanting
to do it himself. There are two kinds of people in this world, the ones who
try to make others feel good about themselves, and the ones who try to make
others feel bad about themselves. Patrick thinks he belongs to the former,
and that may well be true when he runs his workshops and jams for his
devotees back in Crisfield, but on these lists, he is constantly ridiculing
people for their enthusiasm for things or attitudes he considers foolish or
stupid. On this list, at least, when he dishes it out, he gets it back in
kind. It's a good thing, too.
As for your second paragraph above, I have never seen anyone on this list
ever suggest that anyone should blindly copy Tommy Jarrell, Kyle Creed, or
any of the classic old time pickers note for note. "Take stuff from them
and put it in your kitbag" is all any of us have ever suggested, as far as I
can tell. When Leonard says he wants to sound "authentic," it doesn't
sound to me like he is saying that he wants to copy them note for note. I
understand what he means, and so does anyone else who truly hears the magic
in the performances of those classic pickers. When I pick up the banjo and
play (with three fingers), I don't pick like any of those guys. But I have
listened to all of them, and have borrowed some from all of them (except
Buell Kazee, whom I've never heard), and I believe I have come up with a
sound that is still authentic to that tradition in certain critical ways,
even though I don't technically pick at all like they do. And I think that
anyone who wants to really get into old time banjo is well advised to do the
same, listen to as much good old time picking (or bluegrass, if that's your
thing) as you can, and the stuff you think is really great, try to figure
out how it got done. That's how you learn and grow. And when someone
laughs at that, and says or implies that your stupid for doing that, I'm
going to argue with him. Not because I have any delusions that I am going
to change his opinion (to tell the truth, I don't even what to), but because
there are probably others out there lurking who might be glad to hear from
another person that THEY aren't stupid because they want to borrow some
sounds from Tommy Jarrell, or whoever.
Now, Mark, you are going to come back and say that this is really sad, or I
must hate Patrick really bad, or I have really misunderstood everything, or
whatever. That's fine, go right ahead. You're entitled to your comeback,
too.
- Don Borchelt
www.banjr.com
Mark Lathem
>Well, I am not sure why it is posturing for Leonard or anyone else to want
>to sound authentic to a particular style or type of music, if that is what
>they want to do. Leonard is not trying to force that desire on you or
>Patrick or anyone else, he just resents being called a "saggy-assed old
>creep," or whatever other disrespect that Patrick comes up with, for wanting
>to do it himself.
Perhaps it's the word "authentic" that we're stumbling over. For me
it carries a negative connotation, in that it implies that doing
something another way is somehow inauthentic.
"Posturing," too, carries a strong negative connotation, but the term
had already been used and I couldn't come up with a better one. I
probably should have tried harder. Nevertheless, I think we can all
agree that there *are* too many poseurs out there who treat certain
recordings as Holy Writ rather than snapshots in time. As you know,
in bluegrass banjo circles this reached the point that it became a
standing joke--e.g. John Duffey's "no, no...that's not the way J.D.
Crowe played it."
The extant recordings of old-timers are not canon, but some treat them
as if they are. IMHO, these folks need a little poke in the ribs now
and then <G>.
>...on these lists, [Patrick] is constantly ridiculing
>people for their enthusiasm for things or attitudes he considers foolish or
>stupid. On this list, at least, when he dishes it out, he gets it back in
>kind. It's a good thing, too.
No argument there--except I think Patrick generally ridicules
*attitudes* not *people*. In either case, I'll stipulate that Patrick
is a royal pain in the @$$. I happen to like him a great deal, but
I'll be the first to agree that he isn't always right. What surprises
me is the level of anger he rouses. To paraphrase Bill Rogers'
comments from a few days back, it's perfectly OK to attack Patrick's
opinions, but the attacks that have been leveled against him
personally are downright mean.
Patrick comes at this issue from the perspective who, as a young man,
was berated by "saggy-assed old creeps" for playing things "wrong."
Right or wrong, he still carries that baggage. Anybody who's really
interested in learning where he's coming from should read his
books--they're pretty good...and they're absolutely free.
>As for your second paragraph above, I have never seen anyone on this list
>ever suggest that anyone should blindly copy Tommy Jarrell, Kyle Creed, or
>any of the classic old time pickers note for note. "Take stuff from them
>and put it in your kitbag" is all any of us have ever suggested, as far as I
>can tell. When Leonard says he wants to sound "authentic," it doesn't
>sound to me like he is saying that he wants to copy them note for note. I
>understand what he means, and so does anyone else who truly hears the magic
>in the performances of those classic pickers.
Then perhaps I misunderstood this response by 'Greenberry Leonard' to
Patrick's contention that too many people try to copy a particularr
recording note-for-note:
>>> A big mistake people make is putting too much focus on the
>>> ornamentation of a song in a particular recording.
>>You want to leave out all the spice and seasoning - let's run the music
>>through the deflavorizing machine until it's as bland as strained cream
>>soup...
>Now, Mark, you are going to come back and say that this is really sad, or I
>must hate Patrick really bad, or I have really misunderstood everything, or
>whatever...
Not at all, Don. Thanks for your well-reasoned response.
--
Mark Lathem
cris...@funkyseagull.com
> For the life of me I can't figure out why Patrick continues to
attract
> such ire.
let's see, I'm young . . . Well, sort of young. I'll hit the big
three-five next week, but that's pretty young compare to some of these
old duffers.
Where was I? Oh yeah, I'm young, self-confident, successful and, most
of all, I'm right.
See, you've got to have more than a bit of mojo attached to your name
to have a thread spanning three Usenet groups dedicated to challenging
your ideas. It's actually kind of flattering in a way.
While the intent of the traditionalist camp is to find a way to
discredit me in some way or another all of this actually boils down to
free advertising for me. look at it this way, If the wackos on the
Banjo-L had left me alone years ago I probably would never have gone
into business - and without the constant attention they aimed at me I
probably never would have been able to sell thousands of books and
videos.
For me, it's not about the money - I really do believe that folk music
belongs to all of us and I've given away more than I'll ever sell - but
it is nice to think that the people who hate me so much help keep me in
coffee and cigarettes.
In the end it's a battle of ideals. I want open folk music up and help
bring it back to the people. My detractors want to make it a private
club.
The cool thing about all of it is that by fighting me they wind up
helping me.
Thanks for the smokes, guys. Stay angry and narrow-minded. It's good
for business.
-Patrick
Marc Horowitz
MH
<cris...@funkyseagull.com> wrote in message
news:1111242293....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Donald Borchelt
<cris...@funkyseagull.com> wrote in message
> While the intent of the traditionalist camp is to find a way to
> discredit me in some way or another all of this actually boils down to
> free advertising for me.
Patrick, I think everybody figured out years ago that you mix it up in order
to get free advertising. We're not THAT stupid! Personally, I never pick
another man's pocket; I've never tried to dissuade anybody on this list from
buying your books or videos. So, if this all works for you, personally,
well, you're welcome.
- Don Borchelt
Mike Stanger
Greenberry Leonard <oldmangre...@oldtown.com> wrote:
(clip)
Green says:
> Ever watched a movie featuring an actor clearly not from the south
> faking a Southern drawl? (Aussie Nicole Kidman in Cold Mountain comes
> to mind.) It just doesn't sound right.
>
> When emulation of another dialect is not approached with respect and
> care, it belies an ignorance and disrespect of the culture that
> someone's trying to imitate.
>
Patrick says:
> > When you "slavishly imitate" a song you put yourself in the position
> > where you have to consciously think about everything you are doing. The
> > trouble with trying to make music that way is that there isn't any time
> > to "think" when you are playing a song.
Green replies:
> Yep, and with lots of practice, it becomes second nature, and with a
> little more practice, it approaches actual music making. It's myopic to
> claim that anyone can make music right away without a good deal of
> practice.
etc...:
> > The idea that you have to immerse yourself into a particular culture to
> > play a song is like saying that ordering a cheeseburger at a McDonalds
> > in Idaho is different from ordering a cheeseburger at a McDonalds in
> > New York.
More heated retoric:
> That is the most ridiculous analogy I've ever heard. And it is a great
> example of the aforementioned ignorance and disrespect.
up another notch or two:
> > Let's face it, the real reason people make these lame posturing excuses
> > about culture is that it's an easy cop-out. Saying 'I ONLY play
> > such-and-such music' is just another way of saying "I can't".
more pufferage:
> Drivel is too tame a word for that statement. It is patent bullshit. I
> have devoted myself to old-time music because I want to sound as
> authentic as possible. Other influences pull me away from that
> authenticity. If I played Cajun fiddle and old-time fiddle, each would
> affect the other, and neither would reach the level of expertise that
> is possible with a singular devotion. It's not about can't. It's about
> won't. It's about focus and dedication.
and on we go:
> > A big mistake people make is putting too much focus on the
> > ornamentation of a song in a particular recording.
>
> You want to leave out all the spice and seasoning - let's run the music
> through the deflavorizing machine until it's as bland as strained cream
> soup. What a pitiful musical diet. A taste of this, and a couple bars
> later, you're hungry again!
>
> What you're really proposing is to take the music out of music.
Hi, Guys...
Both of you need to cool yer jets and go sit in the shade for a
while.... Grr! Grr!
Mr. Green: Actors (and musicians) may show ignorance trying to speak or
play in a dialect that's not native to them, but they don't necessarily
show disrespect. Some actors, and some musicians, have a greater ear for
mimicry than others, is all. Being a good mimic doesn't mean you become
part of the tradition of any particular place, it just means you can do
a better imitation.
Tradition comes from living the life, where ever the tradition comes
from. Here's a little anology for you...
I come from a long tradition of Idaho cowboys- 5 generations worth. I
could take either one of you and dress you up in all the right apparel,
put you on the right horse with the right gear, teach you everything I
could think of about how to do the job, but neither of you would be a
Idaho cowboy.
You could come back from our ranch and impress the hell out of all your
friends, but you would just be all hat and no cattle. You both have your
own traditions that are as deep and strong as mine, and if I came over
and you taught me everything you could about your tradtions, the results
would be no more authentic for me than mine would be for you.
That's not to say either one of you couldn't become the real deal- all
that takes is most of a lifetime of living in the life and the place.
And if you were to do that, you would only be "authentic" to that little
neck of the woods. An Idaho cowboy sings a different way from an
Oklahoma cowboy, but both have spent their lives breathing in dry cow
manure and playing the same music. If you have spent your life wearing
flat shoes, you will never be able to authentically understand the
elements that color their songs. And they couldn't ever authentically
create your music, either.
A record is just a moment of time that is captured and preserved. A
devoted listener may be able to eventually imitate that moment
accurately, but he won't be able to create a different song from scratch
authentically- a new tune will just be a pastiche of good mimicry.
And neither of you will ever be able to be anyone other than who you are.
Every player expresses his own history in some unconcious way with
every song he plays, and every song that's sung exhibits his own
physical limitations and abilities. Personally, I believe that the only
"authentic" way to play any tune is to do it as honestly I can, as
sincerely as I can, and as unaffectedly as I can. I play the notes and
sing the words, but I'll never be able to mimic someone else's native
speech, or the little idiocyncracies of music that develop in any
community... all I can do is appreciate them deeply, and do it like I do
it. Don't sweat it so much- just play it lie you play it!
regards,
Stanger
Mike Stanger
A tip of the hat in sincere appreciation! You know more big words than I
do! You're a true master of rant, for sure...
regards,
Stanger
In article <8tudnd78DdU...@comcast.com>,
Steve S
news:mrstanger-41E9B...@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> Hi, Steve...
> A tip of the hat in sincere appreciation! You know more big words than I
> do! You're a true master of rant, for sure...
> regards,
> Stanger
This is only the way that I write, due to a lifelong indoctrination by the
academic community from which I am retired. My friends all know that my
speech is mostly monosyllabic and consists of about 30 percent obscenities,
and another 10 percent of simply the words "banjo", "fiddle", and "beer".
:)
--
______________________________________
Steve Senderoff & Trish Vierling
"...Ya run your E string down oh, I don't know, about three frets...anyway,
it corresponds to the third note on the A string...here's ya tuning..."
.........Tommy Jarrell
http://home.comcast.net/~steventrish/start.html
>
>
>
Gordon Banks
> > I have to disagree with your premise.
>
> That's cool . . . but what are you basing your argmument on? From
> reading your post it sounds like you're saying that rock and old time
> are different just because you say they are.
>
> German and English are two different languages. I'm not crazy or stupid
> enough to think otherwise - but that does nothing to prove that the
> musical language used in rock is different from the language used in
> country or bluegrass.
Music isn't a language. Humans have come up with various schemes for
analyzing and representing music using symbols, but music is not
inherently symbolic, and thus has no language. Nothing short of
encoding the sonic data itself will allow music to be reproduced
perfectly.
Mike Stanger
Sometimes the pen is mightier than the mouth... keep up the good work.
regards,
Stanger
In article <RfydnR_-hsD...@comcast.com>,
cris...@funkyseagull.com
their spleens for the time being.
The really funny part about this whole mess is that you idiots decided
to attack me at a pretty bad time in my life. There was some
hearing-related stuff going on that could have spelled the end of my
career (the details are sketched out here:
http://patrickcostello.blogsome.com/2005/03/25/you-cant-play-my-guitar/)
But it all worked out in the end. I found a way around the latest
personal roadblock and the keepers of the perpetual flame of mediocrity
couldn't get their collective crap together long enough to slow me down
all that much.
The topic of this thread was meant to attack my ideas, to bring me down
to your level and generally try to find a way to shut me up. In the end
you failed. Its too late to do anything now 'cause I've got my guitar
back and that means I'm back.
Our calendar of appearances this summer is filling up fast. Maybe I'll
see you guys on the road. I'd be happy to jam with any of you or to
kick your ass up and down the parking lot a few times. It's your
choice. I'm good either way.
Hugs & sloppy kisses
-Patrick
Donald Borchelt
- Don Borchelt
<cris...@funkyseagull.com> wrote in message
news:1111751849.0...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
j_ns...@msn.com
People putting "themselves" into their music isn't important to me the
way it is to you. For instance, suppose for the sake of argument that
many of John Jackson's recordings are almost identical in style and
content to his father Suttee Jackson's music -- if so, when I listen to
those recordings, I don't mind a bit. (More the reverse -- I'm glad to
have them to listen to.) Why should I mind? Or to give another example,
many of my favorite bluegrass recordings of the late '40s and early
'50s are by people who are directly imitating the Blue Grass Boys sound
rather than striking out in some new direction. Doesn't bother me.
Should it?
"[...] job as a teacher is to impart to his students the skills for
undertaking any journey they choose."
Of course people should undertake any journey they choose, whenever.
Meanwhile, a person who claims to be teaching X ought to be teaching
skills related to X based on a good understanding of X, in fairness to
his or her students. For example, when someone tries to run with the
idea that the use of minor chords were normal and common in old-time
music, he strikes me as someone who hasn't researched (formally or
informally) old-time music as well as many of the people on
rec.music.country.old-time have.
A comparison would be dixieland and bebop, which as jazz goes were
largely antithetical to each other: I happen to be a big fan of both,
and if I took a class on playing either of them, I would be
disappointed if the teacher seemed to be using bebop-associated
knowledge to supposedly teach dixieland or vice-versa, because they're
quite different, and there would be a considerable danger of students
getting aspects of those two styles muddled _while believing they
weren't_.
Joseph Scott
j_ns...@msn.com
disagree with, but I guess I'll respond to a couple things here (and I
honestly don't care whether he calls me an "idiot" or the like or not,
but I am interested in having a constructive conversation with him):
"If you ask anybody to state the differences between, say, rock and old
time music every answer is going to be based on superficial things."
Do you believe that, for instance, the fact that drum sets are normal
and important in rock, whereas drum sets are almost always absent in
old-time, is a "superficial" thing, and if so what are using the word
"superficial" to mean?
"Rock and old time use the same notes and they are not really used in
different ways."
You're wrong, Patrick. Honest. They are generally used in different
ways. For instance, "major pentatonic" and "minor pentatonic" and
nearly so are more common in old-time music than in rock music. That's
why, for instance, Robbie Robertson's "The Weight" hits our ears as
sounding "older" than it is, compared to most rock music of its era --
Robbie noticed (consciously or unconsciously) the difference in "ways"
and used it to do what he was trying to do, make his original melody
sound old-time-ish.
Stuff closer to pentatonic was more common in late 19th and early 20th
century U.S. rural music ("white" and "black") than in late 19th and
early 20th century U.S. urban music. Stuff closer to chromatic was more
common in late 19th and early 20th century U.S. urban music ("white"
and "black") than in late 19th and early 20th century U.S. rural music.
During that whole period, rural musicians were lagging behind urban
musicians in adopting scales with more notes, generally speaking. And
what ways of using notes were/are used in relatively young styles such
as bluegrass, rock, etc. was impacted by what styles were feeding into
those styles when. If you really don't see any differences here, then
in my honest opinion you're in a poor position to give others advice
about the relationship between scales and styles (e.g. the old-time
style, in your _Old-Time Banjo_).
Joseph Scott
M Hendrickson
Thanksgiving table sticking beans in his nose. He's probably basically
a good kid but needs to be the center of attention. Ignore him and
he'll probably grow up to be something someday.
Spanking him will only make it worse.
j_ns...@msn.com
Patrick's personality is one thing. Many people who are good educators
or resources regarding music have quirky personalities. My concern is
that Patrick presents himself as someone who can teach about old-time
music, but doesn't seem interested enough in old-time music to do the
job responsibly.
For instance, in the section of _Old-Time Banjo_ on "The [sic] Blues
Scale," he recommends trying playing Albert King and Buddy Guy stuff on
the banjo. (Two excellent urban-oriented electric guitarists who came
along after Lonnie Johnson, T-Bone Walker, B.B. King, and other blues
innovators had succeeded in wiping most of the old-time folkish
ruralish sounds out of blues and putting a ton of jazz influence into
blues.) For anyone who's interested in playing _old-time_ banjo, that's
basically sticking beans in your nose. Sticking beans in your mouth
would have a heck of a lot more to do with listening to actual old-time
blues banjo, e.g. "Corrinne" by Nathan Frazier and "Chilly Winds" by
Wade Ward. Whether Patrick doesn't know much about old-time blues
banjo, or doesn't much care about the difference between it and playing
King and Guy stuff on the banjo (_and_ thinks it's his call whether his
students should stick beans in their noses, er, care about the
difference either), or both, the inadequacy of that section in
addressing the relationship among "old-time" music, blues, and banjo
does a disservice to people who take the title of his book seriously.
Joseph Scott
Donald Borchelt
one who is 22, the other is 16, but they both still want their baskets. My
Easter baskets are pretty cool, if I can brag a little bit. Anyway, I have
had to raise them alone since the oldest was 9, so I have a little
experience, anyway, with bringing up kids, not that I have been that good at
it. But I do know that it is not our job to make an adult out of Patrick.
That responsibility belongs to "dear old Dad," and from this distance,
believe it or not, I think the guy is trying hard and doing his very best,
working with his kid on all of his banjo projects, etc. But that's his work
to do, not ours.
Now, I agree, there is little doubt that Pat is starving for attention- when
this thread petered out for three days last week, he deliberately posted a
very inflammatory thread, just to jumpstart it again. And coming back at
him is not going to make him shut up, that's obvious, but from my
observation over a number of years, he is a better behaved toddler when
people stay on him. On banjo-l, where the listowners pretty much declared
Patrick off-limits, probably after buying into his "I'm just a poor,
troubled little sick boy" excuse, he was far more abusive to other
listmembers than he is here.
But the other reason I don't see this as a childrearing issue, is that out
of all of this argument there are some important banjo ideas which get
vetted. In fact, a lot of people who mostly lurk will come out of the
electronic woodwork when one of these discussions gets really heated. Even
in a dysfunctional family, life goes on.
- Don Borchelt
"M Hendrickson" <marsh...@hend.net> wrote in message
news:z5q1e.86212$755.73233@lakeread05...
jstone999
j_ns...@msn.com wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> People putting "themselves" into their music isn't important to me
the
> way it is to you. For instance, suppose for the sake of argument that
> many of John Jackson's recordings are almost identical in style and
> content to his father Suttee Jackson's music -- if so, when I listen
to
> those recordings, I don't mind a bit. (More the reverse -- I'm glad
to
> have them to listen to.) Why should I mind? Or to give another
example,
> many of my favorite bluegrass recordings of the late '40s and early
> '50s are by people who are directly imitating the Blue Grass Boys
sound
> rather than striking out in some new direction. Doesn't bother me.
> Should it?
No, it shouldn't. You're right. What I was trying to say, and must
not have said very well, is that good music comes from the "soul."
Imitating others can also come from the soul: if I want to learn to
yodel ala Hank Williams (which I've spent at least a year on), then
more power to me. I WANT to do it. It comes from me, because it's
what I want. I was trying to say something that perhaps seems a
contradiction: that Patrick is right when he says do what you want,
and that those who are "imitating" are also right, because that's what
THEY want. I don't know your name, so I assume your a rec...old-time
member rather than a alt...banjo member. But my constant quarrel with
Pat had been what I perceive to be an overwhelming contradiction: on
the one hand he says "do what you want." On the other he says "do it
this way, or else you are being hogtied by traditionlist fascists."
And my point is: if you WANT to do your absolute best to copy something
you like, that's doing "what you want." And I say go for it.
> "[...] job as a teacher is to impart to his students the skills for
> undertaking any journey they choose."
>
> Of course people should undertake any journey they choose, whenever.
> Meanwhile, a person who claims to be teaching X ought to be teaching
> skills related to X based on a good understanding of X, in fairness
to
> his or her students.
You're right again. I agree completely.
Thanks for your comments.
jeffstone
goettingen
edmund.hamer
i agree with your comment to jeff, but it presupposes that any one teacher
has all the knowledge needed to impart to a student.
to me a beginner with the banjo but having trained several apprenctices in
my trade, it would seem likely and logical for a student to learn the basics
from one teacher and move on to another equipped and skilled in whatever
area a student chooses to follow. that would include picking up some bad
habits as well as good ones. my personal experience to the banjo is that i
had to find out that my local music shop did not know the difference between
a four string and a five string banjo.
they could sell me banjo, and of course they did, the wrong one of course,
so i looked elsewhere and found a shop who sold banjos, with staff who
played banjos, and give free advice.
that was part of my learning experience. others will have to do exactly the
same. good luck to the person who finds a teacher who knows it all. i dont
blame the teacher for only imparting what knowledge he has. part of the
learning curve is for a student to assimilate and then filter out what is
and is not appropriate?
i am definitely no expert, just quoting from life and my own experience.
eddy
<j_ns...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1111873754.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
j_ns...@msn.com
"your comment to jeff[...] presupposes that any one teacher has all the
knowledge needed to impart to a student.[...] good luck to the person
who finds a teacher who knows it all."
I wrote that a teacher should have a "good" understanding of a
particular subject s/he claims to teach, should "do the job
responsibly." I haven't presupposed or written that any teacher knows
everything about a particular subject, or that students only have one
teacher.
"part of the learning curve is for a student to assimilate and then
filter out what is and is not appropriate?"
There's always a learning curve, and a good teacher cares enough to
make the learning curve short (e.g. try listening to Nathan Frazier),
not long (e.g. try listening to Buddy Guy).
Best wishes,
Joseph Scott
cris...@funkyseagull.com
> that Patrick presents himself as someone who can teach about old-time
> music, but doesn't seem interested enough in old-time music to do the
> job responsibly.
The trouble here is that you want me to stick to 'your' version of old
time music.
The How and the Tao of Old Time Banjo was only written as an
introduction to the concept of frailing banjo for a bunch of high
school kids. I only mentioned Albert King and Buddy Guy because there
was a better chance of the kids the book was written for responding to
those artists than something more archaic. The thing about Albert King
and Buddy Guy is that if you get turned on by them the odds are pretty
good you'll start digging around to find older stuff.
Like I've said more than once, teaching isn't about giving all of the
answers. It's about getting the student to start asking questions. I
didn't bypass anything, I just gave them a reference point closer to
what they are already familiar with. By doing that it gives the kids a
chance to explore without an authority figure to revolt against.
Everything stays open and the older stuff doesn't get tainted with
anybody's personal preferences.
It's not my job to say what you can or can't do with the techniques
presented in the book. Frailing is what it is. Once you have the basics
down I could care less what a student does with it. You say I should
teach old time music responsibly and my question right back is that
would be next to impossible because none of you people can even agree
on exactly what old time music is. If I tried to make every bozo with
no chops but a strong conviction about how to play happy the book would
have been three times the size and impossible to use.
Screw that. You're all going to hate me no matter what I say or do, so
why bother trying to make you happy?
-Patrick
PS
Before any of you bring it up again, the do your own thing attitude
isn't a contradiction to my stance against slavish imitation.
Look at the word "slavish". It implies to the student that he or she
has to be servile or submissive to YOUR ideals. That's sick - even
sicker when you stop to realize that most of the gurus preaching this
tripe can't carry a tune in a bucket.
To top it off, it's a lousy way to teach because you end up trying to
copy notes with no concept of what you are doing. Try jamming with a
slavish imitator. It's a real trip.
In any art or craft there is a basic set of skills to work with. Once
learned, what you do with those skills is up to you.
How complicated is that?