Teaching students who can't read music

[keydetpiper]

I've had a gentleman approach me to teach him pipes "the right way." He has experimented with the pipes and has a set, but hasn't been properly taught. He's already an accomplished musician, playing guitar, banjo, harmonica, tin whistle, and Uillean pipes, but in his own words "I can't read a note and don't care to but I really would like to become a better piper."

I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions for teaching without sheet music. One of my former teachers (a very experienced piper and teacher) often teaches students without music, but I don't have a lot of experience teaching, so I haven't developed any techniques or strategies for this sort of thing. Any ideas? Thanks!

[dorothy]

In the old days, they used Canntaireachd to teach the tunes. It's essentially teaching the tunes by singing them.

If he's motivated, he'll learn, one way or the other.

The main reasons to learn piping with written music are 1) the student has something visual to refer to when learning the tunes and 2) eventually he can learn tunes on his own from the vast piping literature.

It is my observation that in any piping class, whether the students have a piece of paper in front of them or not, the teaching is done by rote. And rote learning makes for quick memorization.

[EquusRacer]

Keydetpiper: There is generally "trouble in River City" when someone makes a request to learn "the right way" and at the same time puts restrictions on what he'll learn (e.g., "don't care to" learn to read music). So which is it?

To be a better piper, I believe that he needs to learn the music, which also includes the gracenotes and embellishments. Can he play better without doing so? Of course. But why not learn? It's not like pipe music is all that difficult.

There are tutorials out there which teach playing of various instruments and where reading the actual music is not taught initially. The Suzuki method is one of the better known methods of this type. The piping equivalent is where you learn the finger position to a note on the staff, without necessarily knowing initially what that note is.

That said, he's going to make your job difficult if he puts restrictions on what he's willing to learn and not learn. Good luck! :hatoff: Michael

[Gary Guth]

The only thing I might do differently at this point with him is to incorporate him writing the note names next to the note heads before he starts learning the tune. He can learn all of the positions first. I would then go back and break down the the rhythm in sylables: 1e&a, 2e&a etc. You're going to build each tune together. The end result will be him reading music. Just don't make a big deal out of it. I teach a lot of "Older Guys" and have to trick them into the process as they all say they don't read music. I didn't either when I was born. I've learned since then and so can they.

Gary

[Richard Mao]

I've never had a student flat refuse to learn to read music...

several who didn't know how... and had difficulties whil learning

BUT in your case I might try the following...

Print whole note versions of really well known tunes... tunes already in your student's head

We wish you a merry Christmas
Good King Wenceslaus
Reveille (loA D F D loA, etc)
Amazing Grace...
Marine Corps Hymn

I could name a dozen more

separate the same note appearances with a ggrace or a tap... and start there... start with the tune sheet nameless on the top.... let him work it out

get him through these tunes as a reward in between normal scales and a lot of two note combos and arpeggios,

and I think your problem may be solved... when he can recognize the melody note and form it with his fingers and blow the note.

then you can start more complicated gracings...

depending on the student's age, mental flexibility, and finger agility... this could add one to three months in front of your normal tune/exercise beginner's progression.

fwiw

If the student refuses to read music.... then how I would proceed .... is still teach scales... and ask him how he memorizes... can he then develop some unique to himself written memory/shorthand system... to allow him to play back to you what you showed him?

how would he teach another student, if he is an accomplished musician already? and adapt and adopt his methods... for use on him.

I have not yet exhausted the strategems...


:lol:


Do you want to meet Bob again? Come and reminisce with me about him .. he lives in a corner of my heart...

Richard Mao, The Peking Piper ( PekingPiper@mao.org )

[JRM]

His words: " the proper way". Your words: " you're going to learn to read bagpipe music".
Use tapes to backup your teaching. He came to you for a reason.

[Melissa Bautz]

Here's my experience with this.

I took on a dyslexic student six years ago...reluctantly. I had just moved from a big city to a very small town. I was the only piper in the town and was interested in starting my own band. So I figured "Why not take on this student?"

I told him up front that I preferred that he try to learn to read music. He explained to me that he had tried and failed to read music many times before (with other instruments) but that he was an accomplished musician on those instruments. I soon verified that statement...not before I took him on however.

Right from the first lesson, this fellow merely watched my fingering and mimicked my playing. To the infinite degree of accuracy I'll have you know. Better than my music-reading students! This was merely his way of learning. And he was well-practiced at it. Within 8 months of instruction from me this individual played "Farewell to the Creeks" and "Come By the Hills" at my wedding on the pipes. And he did it well. Very impressive.

Was/is he normal? No!

Is it possible to learn pipes w.o. sheet music. You bet!

This guy currently plays light music and piobaireachd extremely well...at an accomplished Grade IV to Grade III level. He has a very nice, wide repertoire and has one of the steadiest sets of pipes I have ever heard.

He chooses not to compete for he has severe carpal tunnel syndrome and it "attacks" at random. So his technical abilities are unpredictable. However, on a good (Carpal) day this guy can play the socks off of any Gr. III player anywhere.

This individual is the one person I always enjoy doing performances with. He can lead, follow, deal with last minute mid-tune changes.

He has an incredible ear for tuning. Better than my own. I'll often defer to him when I'm tuning my "band". He's my right hand.

It can be done. In my student's situation, he took it upon himself to tell me what he needed to learn w.o. music. In my opinion, that is the only way to go.

That is, I think if the student is insisting on not learning the instrument in the way you are accustomed to teaching it, that s/he must tell you what s/he needs to "do it right".

Good luck
Melissa

[CalumII]

I think many instructors can over-emphasise the use of the music to the point where the actual aim of the exercise can be forgotten. One very good piper I know has severe dyslexia and literally can't interpret written music in any useful kind of way. On the other hand, he can pick up any tune on a single hearing and reproduce it cut for cut. Similar to Melissa's experience, a far more useful piper than someone with excellent sight reading skills. What I do with my pupils is work with music on a regular basis, but once a month or so I teach them a tune without music.

Cheers,
Calum

[JRM]

Point of clarification,....I was refering to people with no learning or physical disabilities. Big difference between "can't" and "won't".

[EquusRacer]

You took the words right out of my mouth, JRM. :thumb:

There are two different issues here. And unless I read the original post incorrectly, it appeared that the 'student' was setting the conditions.

Thanks for your concise and clear summary. :hatoff: Michael

[dorothy]

Calum wrote " but once a month or so I teach them a tune without music."

Once again I have to preach my one sentence sermon: The music is what you hear.

The dots on the paper show you how to make it, sort of. So you are teaching your students music without charts. Nothing wrong with that.

[bob864]

What does he mean by "the right way?" Maybe his goal is to learn to play proper embelishments and to play cleanly. Maybe he's more interested in writing his own arrangements of tunes than in learning the established literature.

If you want to teach him, then suggest he bring a recorder to lessons -- I find that even though I read music well, I can actually learn tunes quicker by listening to recordings of my instructor playing than from the dots.

If he gets serious, he may well come to the conclusion that learning to read notes has many advantages. Reading bagpipe music is much easier than reading, for instance, guitar music, in my experience.

[ratherbpiping]

"I can't read a note and don't care to but I really would like to become a better piper."

When I take on a student, I am pretty up front about what I think the right way is. first of all it takes time, secondly it takes practice and thirdly, In the course of learning correctly, you will develop some level of ability to read music.

[EquusRacer]

dorothy posted: "The dots on the paper show you how to make it, sort of. So you are teaching your students music without charts. Nothing wrong with that." In a limited context, you're right. In a broader sense, however, here's my issue:

While you're teaching music (and, yes, the music is what you hear), you're also depriving a student of one tool. What happens, let's say, if that student decides to join a band and the P/M hands out music and says, "Let's have this on chanters next week and on the floor the following"?

So your student is limited to having to get a recording or have someone play it for him...i.e., to learn by ear; simply because he didn't want to learn to read music and you accommodated him.

Can a case be made that you're being paid for a service (teaching) and that the customer is always right? Sure. But it's a poor case; for the student, by definition almost, doesn't know all that's involved and it thus behooves the instructor to ensure that the student receives the benefit of his or her knowledge and experience.

I like Mike's approach, too. :thumb:

[E.M.P.]

Suggestions for teaching without sheet music:

You could sing a note and have the student play it back to you, or you could play the note and have the student sing it back. If you both have the chanters going, the student will likely just look at your fingers rather than rely on his/her ears.

One of my favorite exercises is to have the student play just drones while I sing the tune. Then we switch places. I play drones while he/she sings.

The great advantage of singing the music is that you learn how to phrase it; there are good places to take a breath, and there are bad places.

Ed

[Scot Kortegaard]

The written music is a place to start. It's sort of like a painter taking his inspiration from a beautiful vista in nature. Teach him how to read the music, and *then* how to interpret it.

As mentioned earlier, unless he has some sort of condition that precludes learning to read music, you'd be doing him a diservice if you didn't show him how. It's like reading a book to someone, versus teaching him to read it himself. When he learns to read, the whole world of pipe music opens up for him.

Also, I wouldn't let him tell *you* how to teach. If you're giving the instruction, then you set the class structure. He can like it, or not.

With that in mind, it's important also for students to be able to *learn by ear*. I teach both methods, and it makes for a more rounded player. First sing the tune, then play one phrase, then memorize that phrase - and off you go.

Cheers,
Scot.

[Famous Amos]

I think that illiteracy is as limiting in music as it is in the rest of the world.

I can't understand how anyone could consider themselves a musician unless they are fluent in the language of music. That includes being able to read and write it!

[bob864]

Originally posted by Famous Amos:
I think that illiteracy is as limiting in music as it is in the rest of the world.

I can't understand how anyone could consider themselves a musician unless they are fluent in the language of music. That includes being able to read and write it! For a completely different point of view, ask a group of fiddlers :eek: It's a pretty common belief amongst fiddlers (especially in Irish and Old Time circles) that being able to read music (in and of itself) will somehow ruin one's ability to play musically.

Go figure. :rolleyes:

Bob

[dorothy]

Not just fiddlers, but many, many folk musicians. They believe, often correctly, that people who play "off of paper" all sound alike.

These illiterate musicians are quite fluent in their own dialect of music, which is extremely difficult to impossible to notate exactly as performed.

[bob864]

Originally posted by dorothy:
Not just fiddlers, but many, many folk musicians. They believe, often correctly, that people who play "off of paper" all sound alike.

These illiterate musicians are quite fluent in their own dialect of music, which is extremely difficult to impossible to notate exactly as performed. [emphasis added] Sounds like a good description of bagpipe music. Or Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, or Ellington. You can't get the stylistic component of any type of music off the written page anymore than you can learn to speak with a different accent from a book. But how many people change their accent because they learn to associate written symbols with the noises they make?

Bob

[Famous Amos]

Originally posted by dorothy:

These illiterate musicians are quite fluent in their own dialect of music, which is extremely difficult to impossible to notate exactly as performed. fluent in their OWN DIALECT... very well put. So if I want to be extremely good at an extremely narrow portion of music, I can probably get by without learning to read music. Mark one in the 'CONS' section for reading music, and that still leaves hundreds of 'PROS'...

In many performance groups, music ends up being memorized by the time it is presented to the masses, so the players can incorporate the nuances that are not contained in the notation, but getting the music memorized is vastly easier if you have notation to refer to.

[Jim Sloan]

Speaking for myself, I would have a devil of a time memorizing tunes if not for sheet music.

4 parted tunes expecially come to mind, say "Rhodesian Regement".

I would have to listen to the music over and over instead of just taking some sheet music along to practice almost anywhere,anytime.

Jim

[EquusRacer]

Egads! Since when did increasing one's options make them less of a musician.

In other words, where does learning to read music cancel out that musician's ability to express beautifully...in ANY dialect or style? :shrug:

And does knowing how to read music suddenly make one deaf? Yeesh!

It's simply adding a tool--as said a number of times--or adding options. It's not cancelling out other skills.

[bob864]

Originally posted by EquusRacer:
Egads! Since when did increasing one's options make them less of a musician.

In other words, where does learning to read music cancel out that musician's ability to express beautifully...in ANY dialect or style? :shrug:

And does knowing how to read music suddenly make one deaf? Yeesh!

It's simply adding a tool--as said a number of times--or adding options. It's not cancelling out other skills. I agree 1000%, but the archives of fiddle-l and irtrad-l are replete with examples of people who will argue with you. Mostly their arguments boil down to something like "I know this guy who...." and then they have a single example that they read too much into. Either the guy has no ear because he only plays from sheet music or the guy has no soul because when he plays from sheet music he doesn't play with an authentic style.

I think the reality is they guy probably has a better ear than the people watching (playing in an orchestra takes a pretty good ear), but he's such a good reader he prefers to use that skill, and well, he just hasn't bothered to learn the style. Many classically trained musicians really don't want to take the time to learn a folk style but yet like the idea of being able to play the music.

We bagpipers (particularly GHB) don't face this situation ourselves to any large extent becuase the bagpipe isn't a normal part of the orchestra.

Bob

[dorothy]

I certainly agree that the ability to read music notation is a useful skill. It's pretty much a necessity in an orchestra or chamber group. If you want to improve your sight reading skills, join a string quartet or accompany the school choir. I did both of these things, and it certainly worked.

But it seems that the pendulum has swung in the "paper" direction so far that many have never developed the skill to pick out a tune by ear. I like to jam with bluegrass musicians to hone my "ear" skills.

Both sight reading and ear training are acquired with practice. Both are useful in learning to make music, but they are not mutually exclusive.

I might add that W.A.Mozart was composing music before he learned to read anything. His father Leopold wrote down his early compositions.

[EquusRacer]

I cannot argue with the very excellent notion of balance, Dorothy and Bob. Both skills should be honed; and notwithstanding my insistence of teaching students to read music, the ear still trumps! :hatoff: Michael

[MacDhughaill]

Why would anyone choose to limit themselves before they even start? Could you imagine someone going for piano lessons and refusing to learn to read music?

[Scot Kortegaard]

Originally posted by CorkPiper:
Why would anyone choose to limit themselves before they even start? Could you imagine someone going for piano lessons and refusing to learn to read music? Sorta like walking onto a car lot, negotiating a price, and then telling the salesman you don't want the wheels.

Doesn't make any sense to me ... at all.

Scot.

[dorothy]

"Could you imagine someone going for piano lessons and refusing to learn to read music?"

Yes. My nephew, when he was about 8 years old, was quite adamant about learning to play the piano without reading music. He asked me to teach him, and I did for about a year--showed him chords and how to pick out a lead line. I was his only piano teacher. When he was in high school, he spent time on his own figuring out more chords and riffs. Now he is a fine jazz pianist and it is a joy to hear him sit down at the piano and improvise.

[bob864]

Paul McCartney can't read music, and he's done OK.

:lol:

I agree with you too dorothy, ear skills are essential for anyone who wants to make music. Given a choice of only one or the other, you can be a blind musician, but not a deaf one!

Bob

[EquusRacer]

"I agree with you too dorothy, ear skills are essential for anyone who wants to make music. Given a choice of only one or the other, you can be a blind musician, but not a deaf one!" OK; we get it! Of course the ear is essential. No sheet music is going to allow you to tune and balance your chanter or drones. And it can only give some "road signs" on expression.

And we recognize that some awesome musicians don't read music. Does that fact negate the value of teaching a student to read music? Of course not.

I only object to the inference that teaching one to read music takes away that player's musicality.

[bob864]

Originally posted by EquusRacer:

I only object to the inference that teaching one to read music takes away that player's musicality. I think we might all be in agreement then :thumb:

[JRM]

Lots of people can't read or write english either, but I don't hear anyone recommending that it's unnecessary or ill-advised to know how to read and write.

[Trailing Drones]

JRM, you beat me to it. The analogy, in my mind, is an actor wanting to learn to act, but not wanting to learn to read. That's obviously preposterous, or at least problematic, (inconvenient?), and so is playing music without learning to read.

As much as I love Sir Paul, even he has limited himself by not learning to read and write music. When he delved into more serious music endeavors, he had to turn to a "ghost writer" of sorts to turn his ideas into music that other musician's could read and perform.

Come on, folks, it's not that tough!

[MacDhughaill]

There are only nine notes. It is not brain surgery.

[CalumII]

But then again, the Beatles had a sense of pitch and key that was unhampered by a rigid understanding of the way that music and theory is 'supposed' to work.

Paul MacCartney has been quite adamant over refusing to learn to read music - I recall reading an interview where he cited numerous examples of occasions where people transcribing his music could not accurately notate what he was asking them to.

Cheers,
Calum

[Charlie Rutan]

Originally posted by CalumII:


Paul MacCartney has been quite adamant over refusing to learn to read music -Yes, how many slips of paper, I wonder, are lying around his piano with something like:
'G, C,2,3,4, hold, D7, G' etc written on them?
Has he invented his own notation?

Or is he blessed with instant recall of everything hes ever heard or played? (nah...)

Jazz musicians routinely read a chart, then abandon it completely, then recap it.

I once read an account of Beethoven (when he could still hear something) playing one of his concerti from a 'page full of indecipherable scratches, scribbles and gouges'

So, even if one is inventing their own notation, its still musical literacy of some sort.

There's no advantage I see in being illiterate, in music or any other language.

BTW, arent there 12 tones?

The GHB often has more than 9.

But that's another topic...

(quick one: How do you get a guitar player to shut up?
Put a chart in front of them! :D :D )

[AAA]

Paul MacCartney has been quite adamant over refusing to learn to read music Try tell Richard Parkes that you want to play in his band, but he'll need to play the tunes over with you a few hundred times as you don't read music.

He'll probably start with the jig, "Tripping Down the stairs".

[David]

I have encountered several steps between actual illiteracy and total literacy in music:

1] The piper who cannot get the music off the page no matter what without hearing it first. Then, and only then, do the notes make sense.

2] The piper who cannot "hear" the music while looking at it on the page, but who can pick at the notes painfully and slowly on the practice chanter, gradually finding a melody.

Thee are lots of very good pipers who fit in these categories, although I doubt any great, experienced pipers today (I stress today) have any trouble "hearing" melody from reading notes. In the classical music world frankly one couldn't survive without this ability. Yet many pipers manage to play well though poor music readers, especially in a strong group setting.

[Famous Amos]

Originally posted by bob864:
Paul McCartney can't read music, and he's done OK.

:lol:

I agree with you too dorothy, ear skills are essential for anyone who wants to make music. Given a choice of only one or the other, you can be a blind musician, but not a deaf one!

Bob No deaf musicians?? Check out this site:
http://www.evelyn.co.uk/

Evelyn Glennie, a very well-known percussionist that is completely deaf. She often plays without shoes in order to feel the vibrations of the accompaniment through the floor. Interestingly enough, she is scottish, and also plays the GHB!

There are many notable blind musicians, but I bet that if they could choose, they would like to be able to read music.

[Barmy_Drumma]

"There are many notable blind musicians, but I bet that if they could choose, they would like to be able to read music."

OKAY, this mite be a different situation but it still applies, if the student has a good ear he can learn anything! Dont believe me? well lets talk about 2 of my oldest friends! both totaly blind, as i said not the same situatoin but they both have extriemly good ears, one of them has played piano infront of the queen (he cannot read a single bit of music and he never wants too) and he has been on TV playing, the other one, well lets just say the name Stevie Wonder, ive talked to him many a time, i dont think he can read music but i may be wrong.. all im saying is you can get by on a good ear, reading music is NOT i repeat NOT oh and did i say NOT IMPORTANT!!

OH and btw if click here (http://www.bobdunsire.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001344#000000) you'll see a topic i brought up about this, i cannot read drum music and i dont want to learn. people basicaly said if i wanted to go any further in my drumming i would have to learn.. well can i just say one thing, hopefully next year im going upto grade 1 and i stil cannot read music :) :thumb:

BD :hatoff:

[Famous Amos]

Barmy... sounds like you found a way to beat the system.

But just for kicks, why not learn to read music, and then if you feel that it has limited your ability in any way, shape, or form, burn every piece of sheet music you have and never lift a pencil again... My bet is that you'll find little nuances that you didn't realize were there... stickings that you have been doing one way that may be more easily or effectively executed as written.
And the real beauty is, you'll be able to find a score online or in a book and play it without having to get someone else to play it for you first...
I don't doubt your ability. I just doubt that you are a better player illiterate than you would be literate. You could prove us all wrong, but not unless you learn to read first, then you can compare.

[EquusRacer]

"...all im saying is you can get by on a good ear, reading music is NOT i repeat NOT oh and did i say NOT IMPORTANT!!" Thank you, Famous Amos, for responding so eloquently to that post! :thumb:

Barmy: If you'd said, "will not a musician make", or something to that effect, I might have bought it. But the emphasis on not important? I refer you to Amos' concise and excellent post.

To those stalwart ones who refuse to learn music and insist that they're better off, again I refer you to Amos' post.

To those who talk about the old fiddlers, I would remind you that fiddle (violin, viola, whatever) is quite different. There aren't the holes, frets or other 'guides' available; and the ear is absolutely, without question, essential.

Is the ear not essential in piping? I didn't say that. But at least there are holes and fingering patterns which bring you into proximity to the notes...which are also down on sheet music.

[AAA]

Evelyn Glennie, a very well-known percussionist that is completely deaf.

Interestingly enough, she is scottish, and also plays the GHB!She'll make a fine judge at the Worlds!

[JRM]

Imagine a world where Mozart, Beethoven, Stevie Wonder, Shakespeare, Brahms, Handel, Neil Dickie, Stephen King, Mary Shelley, Bram Stoker, etc. never wrote a note or a word. What a tremendous loss that would have been. Imagine how muc easier it would be for Sir Paul if he could write it down himself and not have to try and interpret his thoughts to someone else for them to write it down.

For every 1 exceptional person that makes it without reading and writing, there are hundreds that don't. The nuances of expression are not written on a page, but it's a great place to start and the page makes life a whole lot simpler to learn.

Is it possible to learn to play without knowing how to read and write? Of course, but it's not recommended. Is it desirable to know how to read and write? Of course.

To put it another way, oral histories have a tendency to become clouded and change with the passage of time. The written word remains unchanged. Try getting along for one week without reading or writing a single word or piece of music (assuming you can read and write) and see where it gets you.

This discussion has gone beyond silly.

[Nick_MacKavelly]

To put it another way, oral histories have a tendency to become clouded and change with the passage of time. The written word remains unchanged. Try getting along for one week without reading or writing a single word or piece of music (assuming you can read and write) and see where it gets you. You had me, right up until this quote. Many cultures, especially Indigenous ones, have strong connections with oral history. Just because these oral accounts are told as a story, or passed as a myth, does not mean they can be completely de-legitimated (as you have tried to do). In the decision on the case R v. Delgamuukw 3 S.C.R. 1010, Mr. Justice Lamer stated that "oral histories both embody historical knowledge and express cultural values ... and constitute acceptable evidence for a claim to Aboriginal title."

If its good enough for the courts, who are you to attack it?

Your view further displays a harsh tone of Eurocentricism, as you fail to realize that there are cultures around the world, with strong and vibrant musical traditions, but music notation. Notes on a page do not make music - it is something far more abstract. While I agree, that there is a benefit to being able to read and write music, it is not a necessity.

[JRM]

Originally posted by Nick_MacKavelly:
[QUOTE] Just because these oral accounts are told as a story, or passed as a myth, does not mean they can be completely de-legitimated (as you have tried to do).
If its good enough for the courts, who are you to attack it?

as you fail to realize that there are cultures around the world, with strong and vibrant musical traditions, but music notation. Notes on a page do not make music - it is something far more abstract. While I agree, that there is a benefit to being able to read and write music, it is not a necessity. Don't read words or meaning into what is not there. Nowhere have I sought to de-legitimize oral traditions nor have I attacked them or any indigenous groups or traditions. Imagine how much clearer these oral histories would be if they had been clearly and factually written. I doubt that many bear strong resemblance to the original telling due to the passage of time and the inevitable changes that creep into storytelling.

How many histories have been lost because they were never written down, or were not passed on by oral tradition? There is much of the history of the indigenous peoples of the world that has been lost because they were not passed on via the oral traditions. No need to examine why that may have happened, the fact remains that it did. Much of early European,and Metiterranean history and knowledge would be lost to us if it wer not for the work of ancient Roman, Greek and Muslim scholars that created, and the monastic orders that dilligently copied (granted not all of the them were so altruistic or accurate), the surviving ancient masterworks. It was the rediscovery of this ancient knowledge that enabled Europe and much of the known world at that time to emerge from the dark ages. And yes, some of it was also passed down via oral traditions. But this is getting way off topic.

The question was : is it a good thing and beneficial to teach someone to read and write music. the answer is obvious. Yes

[AAA]

Originally posted by Nick_MacKavelly:

If its good enough for the courts, who are you to attack it? What courts are talking about?

In a court of law, verbal contracts are very hard to enforce or prove and Hearsay is not allowed.

If you don't know how to read music, then you have no true understanding of the musical language

The "monkey see, monkey do" style of playing is very amatuerish, yes there are good folk players who repeat great music, but they're not playing anything original or interesting.


Bottom line, if a student is only interested in playing the favourites at the local St Paddy's day parade, then reading music is not that crucial.

If you want to play in a good band, then learn to read the dam music!

[WileyBagpipes]

WOW

All of you make some great points and recommendations for learning music. There are also some strong philosophical arguments about music and the script of music.

I find myself having to agree that the tune or the music exists as an entity unto itself, hardly ever contained in the scripting of the music. As such, it is impossible to REALLY learn the music just reading the script and without some foundation of hearing how it is supposed to sound. I can see where one could argue that hearing it alone should be enough for a piper to learn a tune. A truly good piper should be able to pick up a new tune relatively easily after hearing it repeatedly over the coarse of say a week or a month. Perhaps all who say that the musical script is the only way to learn should try to learn a tune this way and see if you can do it!

On the other hand, teaching music to a student obviously involves communicating all of the structures that are required for the performance of the tune. While I don’t think any one in the “piping” world would deny this can be done by ear alone (like Cantereachd was), I feel, and I believe the general consensus here is, that the written musical script is the most efficient means for that communication. While not perfect or essentially complete, It does give us the best way to quickly disseminate music to a wide audience of pipers who wish to play a tune. It allows us to be able to play a tune after only hearing it maybe one or two times by filling the structural details of the tune.

All said and done, anyone could become a great piper by hearing and imitating the fingering of their teacher (as illustrations above describe.) But this seems illogical if not impractical when we have the written script to use and the student is in no way impaired beyond a pre-conceived notion that they “don’t want” to learn how to read music. If explained correctly, reading music is very simple and I would encourage anyone who can manage 26 letters, 10 digits and the English language that they can handle the 9 notes and embellishments of pipe music.

[dorothy]

"The "monkey see, monkey do" style of playing is very amatuerish, yes there are good folk players who repeat great music, but they're not playing anything original or interesting."

That can be true whether you learn someone else's tune by rote or paper. But new music comes to the ear from the soul before it goes onto the instrument, paper, or a recording. That's where the really original and interesting stuff comes from.

[WileyBagpipes]

The only thing I would add Dorothy is this;

Just because a performance is not "original" doesn't mean it isn't interesting and certainly not every "original" performance is necessarily interesting!

- and -

Because someone learns the technique of an instrument via the "monkey-see-monkey-do" method (or is that Yamaha?) doesn't mean that they don't have music in their soul.
:idea:

[dorothy]

I'm not the one who suggested that. See "AAA"'s post about two up.

[WileyBagpipes]

Oh sorry Dorothy, it didn't look quoted, my bad.

Than I make the case to AAA

[CalumII]

Oral histories can be very accurate. Australia's aborigines have been shown to retain detail over huge periods, in one case 20,000 years. The Isle of Man was ruled by orally transmitted laws until they were forced by London to write them down in 1918. Hindu priests did not write down the Rigvedas for approximately two thousand years and still consider written versions as opposed to orally learned versions to be inferior.

We are getting quite off topic. To bring it back to the point, it's worth remembering that there are three types of learning - aural, visual, and kinaesthetic. They way you use music with your student should be dependent on the type of learner they are.

Cheers,
Calum

[Stacy Bernard Slay]

Not reading sheet music - piping certainly existed before ceol mor was printed. Hmmm, difficult. I guess if you had audio or video recordings of the songs you need to learn it is very possible and I'm sure done more than we know. But sheet music was taught to me on clarinet at 10. I cannot really imagine leaving that out of the learning experience. With no time signature's using a metronome solo would be interesting.
I disagree with Dorothy's last post - yes that is where original and interesting stuff comes from without paper we wouldn't have much of a knowledge of the good stuff from generations past . In fact no two people ever read sheet the same. Everyone has inflections that don't repeat from person to person. If you don't translate your own reading you are actually learning the tendencies and idiosynchrysis of somebody else. This will limit your style and originality for the classics. Teach them the notes, Or, teach them to learn ...... not a difficult decision.Or maybe I'm just getting older.

[Stacy Bernard Slay]

Oh wait - not Dorothy's last post but the one about originality....

[Kevin F. Gilstrap]

Originally posted by AAA:
[QUOTE]

If you don't know how to read music, then you have no true understanding of the musical language

Paul McCartney, John Lennon, Leo Kottke, Irving Berlin, James Brown, Ray Charles and George Benson are but a few very accomplished musicians that could not read music. Now, they may not have a "true" understanding of the musical language, but I don't think anyone really cares.

[bob864]

Originally posted by WileyBagpipes:

believe the general consensus here is, that the written musical script is the most efficient means for that communication. While not perfect or
Learning from written music is very efficient. My instructor has been assigning me tunes to learn from the dots. "Learn this tune on your own." I don't ever learn them perfectly from the sheet music, but I get most of them, and it lets us spend more time on working on technique and expression, and skip the rote part.

There are a few radical exceptions, like Mozart, who could learn any music from hearing it only once.

Bob

[bob864]

That can be true whether you learn someone else's tune by rote or paper. But new music comes to the ear from the soul before it goes onto the instrument, paper, or a recording. That's where the really original and interesting stuff comes from. [/QB]When I'm improvising on my own, it seems like the music goes straight from my soul to my instrument.

Bob

[mpete]

Why not learn to read music?? Why handicap yourself. If you have the "soul" for the music I don't think the written note is going to stiffle that.

As for 'jamming' with other players They are usually the one doing the 'jamming'.

And Yes! i have heard a few good sessions!

[Ron Teague]

I probably shouldn't jump in here as I am mostly a piobaireachd player but, my major teachers have not been big on written music. They have advocated first learning how to sing a tune and then how to finger the tune while singing it. I learn how to play a tune by singing it first, with no written music. This is the method used by Donald MacDonald with the Two Bobs. I have a tape of what my current teacher wants me to play and then I play along over and over again. I am starting to be able to hear the small grace note differences such as a d grace on low a rather than a "din" a low g grace on low a. It is a small but important difference.

Ceol mor doesn't do well with written music. To begin with there is a big difference in how the music is actually written. I don't mean differences in settings. Different authors actually WRITE the music differently. Have a look at Dr. Donaldson's notes on the set tunes on the Piper and Drummer web site for examples. Donald MacDonald goes one way Angus MacKay yet another as does Gen Thomason and then there is the Piobaireachd Society and Kilberry. They are all different. How does one chose which written music to actually learn given the surfeit of possibilities. Simple-one doesn't. One learns Auraly and Orally from the teacher.

Traditional Canntaireachd can be trouble. It is better to make up your own or borrow what your teacher uses.

FWIW Luciano Pavarotti doesn't read written music.

[EquusRacer]

"FWIW Luciano Pavarotti doesn't read written music." Right. He hires someone who DOES read music to work with him on the piece!

[Ron Teague]

This whole problem of learning to play music, an auditory and motor process, by using visual references has been knocking around in my head for a week now. It is an interesting problem in learning theory. The moving from the parts of the brain which process and interpret visual stimuli to the parts which express auditory ones is a complex process, obviously.

The question for me is does the use of visual stimuli to 'inform' the auditory expression help or hinder the learning of how to play a tune, i.e retard or speed up the process. I'm going to have to ask my neuropsychologist and learning theorist palls about this one. I'm going to dig around Psych Abstracts when I get back to campus and see what I can find out about "Learning How to Play Music: The Use of Visual Signs to teach Motor and Aural Expression" or something like that. I put what I find on the Forum.

In the meantime, I decided to try a little exploratory experiment on myself. I learned three tunes 1, where I didn't look an any music at all but listened to a recording of my teacher play the tune, 2. where I looked only at the music with not hearing the music and 3. looked at the music while I listened to my teacher play the tune. What I found was Number 2 was the slowest and Numbers 1 and 3 took about about the same amount of time to memorize a tune. Now clearly this isn't a fair test as I have been playing for quite a while(I can sight read most piobaireachd notation, except for Gen Thomason, but he is weird) and know the idiom more or less. All this proves is that for long time players written music might not be all that helpful. I don't yet know about beginners which is the original purpose of this thread.

(This is a long winded post, I suppose it is time for me to get back on campus and start teaching again. This is what happens when Profs have too much time on their hands)

Cheers

[bob864]

Originally posted by Ron Teague:

The question for me is does the use of visual stimuli to 'inform' the auditory expression help or hinder the learning of how to play a tune, i.e retard or speed up the process?I bet you won't find much in the literature, because most (all?) college music professor types are music readers and it probably hasn't occured to them that there *might* be an issue to investigate.

First, I think you need to specify if by "learning to play a tune" you mean "memorize" or not. I can hand my wife a piece of music and she can learn to play it in seconds or minutes. Memorizing it could take a lot longer, but she doesn't, as a rule, memorize music. For me, learning a tune from a recording of my instructor is pretty impossible at this point, because I can't hear the difference between D, G, and E gracenotes -- at least not on practice chanter.

But intuitively, it makes sense that eye-hand coordination isn't the same thing as ear-hand coordination. I bet you'd find that some people are better learning one way while others were better the other, and some equal both ways.

Supposedly there's a study that says that if you are using sheet music (all things being equal) you will memorize better if the paper isn't clean. I think it applies to both coffe stain type stuff and penciled in notes.

Here's another observation point -- I've gone to a few fiddle workshops and usually they take the form of learning a tune by ear. By the end of the workshop sometimes I can play the whole tune, and other times just part of it. Even if I can play the whole tune at the end of the workshop, I usually can't play it at all later that night.

Bob

[Pipepoop]

Through these forums when someone mentiones leaving a few embellishments out, or dumbing-down a tune there is no shortness of criticizm.

I whole-heartedly believe the same way about reading music. If you're going to learn to play music (i.e. the pipes), then you darn well need to learn to read it.

If you learn tunes by other means you will eventually find yourself playing them differently as time progresses.

[CalumII]

If you learn tunes by other means you will eventually find yourself playing them differently as time progresses.But that's true even if you learnt from the music. Apart from band music, I don't play anything exactly as per. I have my own opinions about what constitutes good arrangement and embellishment, and apart from 'The Booths of Comrie', I very rarely find it!

Reading and writing the music is extremely important, but it is vital to recognise that notation is not the music itself, it is only marks on paper. The music happens somewhere else.

Cheers,
Calum

[Pipepoop]

Well said CallumII, I agree. I was so caught up in making a point I over looked a very important attribute of music, interpertation and expression.

[Bill Mc]

I'm on this forum but can't read and don't care to.

:shrug:

I type by ear...