Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[press on regardless]

From a musical dunce's perspective the only problem I can see is if that if you eventually change to a DG box you will be massively disappointed with its sound compared to the sweet CF, or is this just me?

[Dazbo]

No, I prefer the sound of a CF to DG and I think Steve_F does too (and Rich Arrowsmith uses a CF for Pecsaetan I believe).

[george garside]

From a musical dunce's perspective the only problem I can see is if that if you eventually change to a DG box you will be massively disappointed with its sound compared to the sweet CF, or is this just me?

its more likely to do with the gradual deteriation in hearing that goes with increasing age!  I too prefer the sound on CF  and wondered why until I haad a hearing test  which revealed that I have SLIGHT difficulty picking up higher pitches , which the audiologist said is quite normal - later that day it dawned on my why I prefer the sound of C or G!

on the 3 row I often transpose stuff into  AEBflats which also sound quite nice & is dead easy on a BCC#!!

george

[press on regardless]

CAN YOU SPEAK UP PLEASE GEORGE

[Jake Middleton (brinwins)]

I also started on the malison absolute beginners, some say its too wordy but I found it to be really very good. As for c/f and D/g i cant say much more than has already been said, but here is a youtube video of a man playing morris music (as usually played on a D/G) on a C/F box:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2FvW_7LqNaA

[Brian Peters]

Anyone who's ever had any kind of tutoring from me (and hello to those of you already on this thread) will know that I advocate using the ears and brain whenever possible.  The logic of the melodeon is such that sight-reading directly onto the right-hand buttons is actually quite hard unless you have a lot of experience, so for most of the twenty-odd years I've been playing, I've sight-read the tune (or used a piano keyboard in extremis), learned it in my head, then worked it out on the melodeon, essentially by trail and error.  If you already know a tune like, say, "Princess Royal" in your head, then you can learn it on any melodeon regardless of key.

What the Mally book means by "learning to read music in the keys of D & G" is something I'm not quite clear about.  When you learn how to read music 'properly' you usually start with a C scale and progress gradually onto scales with more accidentals.  To read music in only two keys would mean you couldn't, for instance, read a tune from sheet music in C or A, and adapt it for your D/G box.

But yes, the general point is that the fingering is essentially the same regardless of the key of instrument.  Tablature will work regardless - although I'm not a great fan of that either!

[oldclubII]

Anyone who's ever had any kind of tutoring from me (and hello to those of you already on this thread) will know that I advocate using the ears and brain whenever possible.  The logic of the melodeon is such that sight-reading directly onto the right-hand buttons is actually quite hard unless you have a lot of experience <snip>

Yes, but I think it's worth the learning effort! Many other instruments, especially brass instruments like the trumpet, do not have fingering that follows what we find on a score like a piano would. I agree with the memory thing, but sight-reading definitely has its benefits whether it's a melodeon, piano or clarinet. I've come across too many players who knew nothing about music theory, and to me it's a major handicap, especially when you want to join a group of serious or pro musicians.


 

[Lester]

I've come across too many players who knew nothing about music theory, and to me it's a major handicap, especially when you want to join a group of serious or pro musicians.

I 100% agree about the music theory part of your argument. The more I understand music theory the easier many aspects of melodeon playing becomes. I wish I had bothered many years ago.
But I do disagree re sight reading many of the people I know who do sight read seem to have to have the music in front of them all the time and are constrained by the way it is written. I believe writing down folk music is the first step in killing it. YMMV

[Theo]

I'm with you there Lester.  I can read notation to the extent that given a bit of time I can work out a tune from notation, but I certainly can't sight read.  I reckon its actually impossible to "sight read" traditional material because the notation records only a skeleton on which to build the music.  So much information about dynamics, timing, rhythm, ornamentation is missing, and rightly so.  It would take out most of the fun if everything was down on paper.

I left a band partly because of the sight readers in it.  We were pro musicians in that we got paid to play.  I always adopted the principle that if I was giving a paid performance I should know the music well enough to not require notation in front of me.  I finally realised  that I had to go when I looked across at the band leader while we were playing something as well known as Jamie Allan and his full attention was on the notation.  We had been playing together for several years at that point and the material was well rehearsed and familiar.  Really no need for that in my humble opinion.

[george garside]

 agree with Theo - some ability to read the dots is useful to get an outline of a tune  or to sort out the bit you can't get quite right by ear.  However many , but by no means all, classicaly trained musicians sole aim is to play the stuff exactly as written, not even indulging in the slightest variation, alteration or whatever.
  The theory of crotchets, quavers etc is fine as far as it goes  but a good traditional musician may well feel inclined to play  a crotchet minus  9% or plus a 'wee bit' which cannot be shown on written music, thus varying the gap between notes. 

The funny thing is that at the top of the musical pile the classical people do much the same as do traditional  players. I think the following quote by the concert pianist Artur Schnabel ( can't remember where I nicked it from) says it all.

"The notes I  handle no better than many pianists, but the pauses between the notes - Ah that is where the art resides."

george

[Andrew Wigglesworth]

Yes, but I think it's worth the learning effort! Many other instruments, especially brass instruments like the trumpet, do not have fingering that follows what we find on a score like a piano would. I agree with the memory thing, but sight-reading definitely has its benefits whether it's a melodeon, piano or clarinet. I've come across too many players who knew nothing about music theory, and to me it's a major handicap, especially when you want to join a group of serious or pro musicians.

Sorry, but I could hardly differ from you more profoundly.

I know many of professional musicians who do not sight read.  Site reading has nothing to do with the proficiency of a folk/traditional musician.  In fact I've often seen it acting as a positive hindrance.

What do you get by sight reading?  Simply quick way of knocking off a few notes as written on a piece of paper.

Theo quite rightly points out that things such as "dynamics, timing, rhythm, ornamentation is missing", I would go further to say that It also cannot carry the understanding of how a player makes a tune fit upon a particular type of instrument and how a player uses the quirks of their instrument to embellish and improvise on a tune.  Music notation also cannot teach about the social context of a tune and how it should be played in that context.

It takes no account of local styles, no account of who you're playing with, what you're playing for or where you're playing. 

So, what does sight reading give you that is of use?  Can you learn a tune more quickly?  I would say no since you must go through exactly the same process as anybody else to truly start to understand the music.

Does it allow you to build a larger repertoire more quickly? If you call a book of sheet music a repertoire, then yes. If the mechanical recital of dots on a page is a repertoire, then yes.  If you never break away from the dots and start trying to understand the music properly, then yes.

I seriously cannot think of a single upside for a folk musician of site reading, I can however think of many downsides for those who aspire to play folk music.

I've seen those who have destroyed sessions by their ignorance in bringing music stands and blithely setting off into bizarre renditions of tunes made nonsensical by "sight reading".  I've also experienced the unbelief of classical musicians who have come to dances (as dancers) and cannot understand how we knew so many tunes.

The greatest skill for a folk musician is that of listening, observing and the practising, ie. actually experiencing and understanding the music in it's context.

Please, please, don't anybody be put off by thoughts of inadequacy because of the people who tell you that you *must* learn to read music, let alone sight read.  The melodeon is a simple instrument, the traditional tunes are simple, learn them and start doing them justice in the wild away from the stuffiness of "formal" music education and the musical snobs who have no understanding of what it's all about.

[oldclubII]

I did not mean to say that written music is everything! It's a reference, and a way of passing along tunes that otherwise might be forgotten. Sound recordings or listening of live real performances are obviously better than written material, however scores can be used as a jump-start tool in learning the bases of a tune if there is no audio reference.

I don't understand that agressive attitude towards people who can use scores in order to help learning a tune! I never said one must learn how to sight read, I just said that it helps if you can do, and it can be a useful tool. I can play by ear and I can read, to me it's a nice thing to be able to do both.

[risto]

I can play by ear and I can read, to me it's a nice thing to be able to do both.

Yes, I agree. I have classical training but learn all folk music stuff from records, from players who know the music. In this process notation is very handy and quick learning aid if you use transcribing.

I have to disagree with Brian Peters, the melodeon - referring to BC - is a very logical and simple instrument, after sixteen tunes I can sight read and play from notation, only the far ends with notes rarely used need some tinkering. Though it may be that the chromatic layouts are more easy to internalize I am absolutely sure that if you only played from notation it wouldn't take long till you remember where the notes are, even if there weren't any logic at all. That is one of the wonders of the human memory, you learn them by heart. After all there are only 42 notes to remember.

[Pushpull]

I don't understand that agressive attitude towards people who can use scores in order to help learning a tune! I never said one must learn how to sight read, I just said that it helps if you can do, and it can be a useful tool. I can play by ear and I can read, to me it's a nice thing to be able to do both.

It's an attitude which surfaces every time sheet music gets mentioned on this forum. It's prevalent amongst those who don't sight read - "I can't do it so it's the work of the devil". I agree with you that it's a useful tool but not essential for folk music.

Oh and Andrew, you must know some really crappy classical players.

Roy.

[Lester]

I don't understand that aggressive attitude towards people who can use scores in order to help learning a tune! I never said one must learn how to sight read, I just said that it helps if you can do, and it can be a useful tool. I can play by ear and I can read, to me it's a nice thing to be able to do both.

I believe you are misreading what people are saying. I use manuscript (very slowly) and ABC (a bit faster) to learn tunes regularly, I also learn by ear. I believe that if I learn by ear I can remember the tunes better. What I do think is wrong is people who ONLY play from "the dots". My view is that it makes their playing stilted as the manuscript only has the notes not the essence of the tune. Others have expressed this better in this thread.

This is my view of the world and you are more than entitled to disagree.

[Theo]

I don't understand that agressive attitude towards people who can use scores in order to help learning a tune! I never said one must learn how to sight read, I just said that it helps if you can do, and it can be a useful tool. I can play by ear and I can read, to me it's a nice thing to be able to do both.

[george garside]

just a couple of thoughts on this thread. I am not anything near a site reader as described by Theo. In fact I am like many traditional musicians in that I can read the music for any tune I already know! but otherwise struggle sometimes dot by dot!. But if I learn a tune from the dots (slowly) I find it much more difficult to play from memory.  It's almost as if the subconcious is saying 'I don't need to remember that because I can get the bit of paper out again next time'. 
On the other hand if learned 'by ear' it has to be commited to the memory  as ( with a bit of prompting  I can play tunes I havn't played for years so the bare bones of them must lurk somewhere in the brain for a very long time. 
this must be why those who learn from the dots become dependent on them.  When teaching a good dot reader I  swiftly remove the sheet of music part way through a tune in the hope that the player will then continue without it.  I also suggest that good readers when practicing/playing at home  turn round part way through a tune so they cant see the dots. - it works quite well in converting site readers into good listeners.(I find that many readers rely totally on visual  input to the brain & hence down the arm to the fingers & buttons and don't opperate a 'feedback loop' via the ear!)

I would however agree that some command of the dots i.e. a simple melody line, is very useful at times just to kick start a tune that you may only have a vague idea of or perhaps only know by memory the first few bars.

 for session playing reliance on dots is a total handicap. A few years ago when  leading a very large session at Sidmouth (around 150 players) an elderly lady ( probably about my age! but I still think I'm about thirty!!!) with large piano accordion turned up early, her husband was carrying  a suitcase full of sheet music and music stand!  She asked me what tunes we would be playing.  My reply was 'just try to busk as best you can as I have no idea what is going to be played or in what order, and if you happen to have the music, which is fairly unlikely we will be tree tunes furthur on by the time you find it!  Thankfully she stayed aand had a go at busking for the first time in her life - and more importantly enjoyed it.

I too am envious of the true site reader who can , without previous knowledge, play a complicated orchestral piece at performance speed and high quality - but of course the aim is to play exactly as written, the conductor having already made any adjustments to the dots to put his stamp on it ----hence the joke ' what is the definition of an orchestra?  - a bloody big musical instrument played by a conductor'

george (feeling verbose this morning)

[Pushpull]

this must be why those who learn from the dots become dependent on them

Oh come on George, you're just Trolling now.

Roy.

[Stiamh]

My experience is that D/G C/F or other fourth apart systems naturally lend themselves to playing by ear.   And because so many notes are duplicated it's less easy (not impossible, just less easy) to learn from notation because in most cases a single note on the stave can be played in two different places.  For example in the key of G major every note except C can be played in two different places, likewise in D major every note except C# and low E exists in two places.  So in addition to interpreting the written score, there is a decision to be made about where to play almost every note.

But then surely you have to make that same decision even when you're playing by ear?  So what's the big deal?

If knowing where the duplicate notes are poses a particular difficulty for playing from written music, then it means you have to get to know your instrument well - another advantage!

I'm a very strong advocate for playing by ear and over years of teaching fiddle and tin whistle I have done my utmost to discourage learners from using sheet music - until they have really got a handle on the music they are trying to play - which may take years.

Once you do know what you are doing on your instrument, and in your idiom, being able to read music (either sight-reading proficiently, or being able to work out a tune from music) has to be an advantage. Why knock it?

Of course, thousands of utterly fantastic trad musicians cannot read music - clearly you don't need to be able to read to master a folk idiom. But it's still a very useful skill, and I don't see the point of arguing otherwise.

[Theo]

But then surely you have to make that same decision even when you're playing by ear?  So what's the big deal?

Interesting point,  I'd not thought of it that way.  I suppose I was mentally making a comparison with other instruments.  Recently learning the fiddle I find the notation makes more sense with the fiddle. I'd put that down to traditional fiddle having only one fingering for most notes, and even when using the 4th finger to avoid changing strings there are no harmonic consequences as there are with the changes in bass availability when you choose to play on push or pull on a D/G box.