Tinfoot - Posted - 12/19/2011:  09:49:45

Heh, see there? I didn't know there was a name for it although on reflection it seems obvious that there should be.



However, my verbose description (which I simply came up with on my own without formal knowledge) vs the Single Term is a perfect example of exactly what I was pointing to: as per Woodchuck's last post and the original post about "intuitive music theory knowledge of the original players"... No real concrete intuition of forms and progressions or such are really needed by them. Just "swappin' tunes" and playing with the same string tunings like the fellars do in your neck of the woods, and maybe copying a few tricks from those folk down at the end of the valley who use a different sound. 

*** I suppose one could differentiate between "Copying" and "Innately Understanding" the music being played instead of using the term "Music Theory" in this context.



For us, today's players, music theory sure does facilitate discussion and even makes learning/creating a new form far easier and quicker (months/years versus a lifetime/generations)... but to actually play it or create a new form, no - I wouldn't think music theory is necessary at all. Just more time.

Edited by - Tinfoot on 12/19/2011 09:53:24

Deaf Lester Crawdad - Posted - 12/19/2011:  11:33:29

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldwoodchuckb



1.  But did the folks who did the "folk processing" call it "the folk process"? 

2.  Or did they simply think of it as "swappin' tunes".

3.  Also Folk Process usually implys the gradual changes made as the tune is passed down - that doesn't sound like Dr Hoctor's Music Theory Class to me. He was not a man who put up with variation. "Play it as it's written, Mr. Spadaro. There are no syncopated eighths shown in the score."

---

1.  Matters not what they might have called it -if indeed they called it anything at all.   What matters now is that we've evolved an easily-understood term that simplifies our communication about a factor of music.   And that's what music theory is all about: easing communication about things musical.   Enabling a clear mindset.

2. The post I was replying to was referring to the way tunes evolve as each generation adds their own changes  -either intentionally or otherwise.   That's a different and more extended process than just 'swappin' tunes'.

3.  The good Doctor Hoctor was a pedant who either failed to teach  -or was not aware-  that intentional modification of music 'as she is writ' is an old and much-honored tradition.     Bach, Mozart, et all  were renowned in their own times for the ability to extemporize at length on themes of their own or 'borrowed' material, and Mozart in particular was said to have nonverbally satirized other composers by overly-exaggerating their own compositions and cliches to the point where they appeared laughable.

Music theory is very definitely not based on the concept of excluding any possible future changes: it's job is merely to accurately record the way a given composer thought a given arrangement should go at the moment it was written down.

~Pete

Deaf Lester Crawdad - Posted - 12/19/2011:  11:43:34

quote:

---

Originally posted by mwc9725e

 I heard, though, that the legendary Blind Grapefruit Succotash actually taught music theory at some college or other.

---

 I never met my distinguished colleague the good Doctor Succotash, but I, Deaf Lester Crawdad, taught music -along with some music theory and music history- at the University of California for nigh on to 12 years under the obviously fictional moniker of Pete Roehling.

Why do you suppose anyone would make up a stupid name like that anyway?

cockneybanjo - Posted - 12/19/2011:  11:51:12

interesting post about self-taught American engineers. I saw quite a few of these in the great North Sea development phase of the 1970s and early 80s. They knew everything there was to know about what they had learnt from experience, but very few of them managed the transition to the developing technology because they simply could not learn fast enough, and they lacked the means to record,  transmit and share their experience.

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/19/2011:  12:10:43

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deaf Lester Crawdad

quote:

---

Originally posted by mwc9725e

 I heard, though, that the legendary Blind Grapefruit Succotash actually taught music theory at some college or other.

---

 I never met my distinguished colleague the good Doctor Succotash, but I, Deaf Lester Crawdad, taught music -along with some music theory and music history- at the University of California for nigh on to 12 years under the obviously fictional moniker of Pete Roehling.

Why do you suppose anyone would make up a stupid name like that anyway?

---

 UC. I graduated from that system, but not Berkeley -- UCLA & UC Irvine. I guess that makes us cousins or something? 

Tinfoot - Posted - 12/19/2011:  12:51:57

Well, Pete ... err... sorry, Dr. Crawdad, certainly seemed to summed up the consensus...

So.. um.. what is inquiry now?

plunknplinkntwang - Posted - 12/19/2011:  14:30:30

quote:

---

Originally posted by mwc9725e

We think the old timers didn't have or use much, if any, knowledge of music theory. Probably true to a great extent, but they must have had a lot of intuitive knowledge of the subject. Otherwise, how did all those myriads of "strange" banjo tunings come to pass? 

When I was a kid, I could tune my guitar between standard, open G ( aka Vestapol? ), and drop D. I could do that because those tunings were open tunings in the scale I grew up with ( Don't remember what that mode's called , Dorian? ). But the "weird" ones, like F#DGAD and double C, I didn't even know about, leave alone find the various chord fingerings.

So isn't there some kind of intuitive music theory knowledge at play in the development and use of those tunings?

 

---

I'm not sure that "they" were any different to "us"; for instance the BHO community has members who are fluent in music theory, and those [like me] who've no real understanding of how it works but just enjoy porch picking.   The main changes in "us" later generations is that we live longer, need different skill sets to make a living and have faster methods to communicate and disseminate news.   

Deaf Lester Crawdad - Posted - 12/19/2011:  23:15:33

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tinfoot



Well, Pete ... err... sorry, Dr. Crawdad, certainly seemed to summed up the consensus...



So.. um.. what is inquiry now?

---

(Raises hand...)    Not "Doctor".    Not even "Professor".

Just "Instructor": the appellation conferred upon those the UC system hires to teach their students but does not wish to reward with a contract bestowing benefits or tenure.   

But what the heck: it was a temporary job I took with the understanding that it might not last more than a semester, and it ended up lasting 12 years instead.

~Pete

Edited by - Deaf Lester Crawdad on 12/19/2011 23:27:37

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/20/2011:  07:35:36

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deaf Lester Crawdad

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tinfoot



Well, Pete ... err... sorry, Dr. Crawdad, certainly seemed to summed up the consensus...



So.. um.. what is inquiry now?

---

(Raises hand...)    Not "Doctor".    Not even "Professor".

Just "Instructor": the appellation conferred upon those the UC system hires to teach their students but does not wish to reward with a contract bestowing benefits or tenure.   

But what the heck: it was a temporary job I took with the understanding that it might not last more than a semester, and it ended up lasting 12 years instead.

~Pete

---

 Good for you, academia's too title-conscious anyway. It always gets kind of tiresome going to meetings and hearing people who've known each other for years addressing each other as "Professor This" or "Professor That".

Deaf Lester Crawdad - Posted - 12/20/2011:  11:49:51

quote:

---

Originally posted by mwc9725e

Good for you, academia's too title-conscious anyway. It always gets kind of tiresome going to meetings and hearing people who've known each other for years addressing each other as "Professor This" or "Professor That".

Depends.  

The administrators and the institutional stupidity/inertia of the tangled UC bureaucracy were a regular pain in the behind, but some of the professors I got to know ended up becoming life-long friends; and the one thing I learned was that you really can't categorize the UC teaching staff.     Some few of 'em are snobs, but just about the time you think you've got 'em scoped out you meet someone who's so far out of the norm in one way or the other that it throws all of your preconceptions about "ivory tower college professors" into a cocked hat.

For instance: one of the most rug-chewing right wing enthusiasts I've ever met was an older UC climatologist  -who was worried about man-caused global warming around 10 years before it ever hit the media.   (He must be awfully upset about present-day political developments if he's still with us.)

Or the Geography professor name of Homer Aschmann, who, I eventually discovered, was Jewish and had been the navigator on a WW2 8th Air Force B-17 that was shot down over Germany about 18 months before the end of the war...   One of the nicest  -and smartest-  men I've ever met: one who would happily share a beer and a song with you, and who (bless his memory) never turned a hair when I began dating his youngest daughter.

Or Bob Gill; a Biology professor who's favorite hobbies were climbing active volcanoes and collecting poisonous snakes.  He also played the hammered dulcimer in an old-timey band with me for a couple of years.

Or Greg Crockett, an anti-nuke nuclear physicist who was one of the best  -if not the best- clawhammer banjo players I've ever heard.   He liked to hunt with his .50 caliber Sharps black powder rifle when he wasn't designing our present Global Positioning Satellite system.

You couldn't invent these people if you tried, and I've been lucky to have known them.

~Pete

Edited by - Deaf Lester Crawdad on 12/20/2011 11:52:34

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/20/2011:  12:36:14

For instance: one of the most rug-chewing right wing enthusiasts I've ever met was an older UC climatologist  -who was worried about man-caused global warming around 10 years before it ever hit the media.   (He must be awfully upset about present-day political developments if he's still with us.)

Or the Geography professor name of Homer Aschmann, who, I eventually discovered, was Jewish and had been the navigator on a WW2 8th Air Force B-17 that was shot down over Germany about 18 months before the end of the war...   One of the nicest  -and smartest-  men I've ever met: one who would happily share a beer and a song with you, and who (bless his memory) never turned a hair when I began dating his youngest daughter.

Or Bob Gill; a Biology professor who's favorite hobbies were climbing active volcanoes and collecting poisonous snakes.  He also played the hammered dulcimer in an old-timey band with me for a couple of years.

Or Greg Crockett, an anti-nuke nuclear physicist who was one of the best  -if not the best- clawhammer banjo players I've ever heard.   He liked to hunt with his .50 caliber Sharps black powder rifle when he wasn't designing our present Global Positioning Satellite system.

You couldn't invent these people if you tried, and I've been lucky to have known them.

~Pete

---

 Or BHO contributor, Curt Bouterse (cbcarlisle), who is a musicologist, has a lot of knowledge of the world's music, and ( I believe ) either currently teaches it, or has taught it, in the UC system. In his spare time ( that's a joke, of course )  he makes banjos and plays at a level that I can only aspire to achieve.

Fathand - Posted - 12/20/2011:  18:05:21

I don't think reading music has much if anything to do with music theory. Theory is an explanation of how the music we are used to is put together, reading music is knowing which note to play when.

I would venture that a lot of old bluesmen knew which chords went together to play a song and which chords to switch to to play in another key. So they would have understood the theory of 1, 4, 5 progressions even if they called it something else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc Nerenberg

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldwoodchuckb

...

Blind Lemon Jefferson ... and most of the Delta blues men had know knowledge of music theory and I doubt it was an important subject in most one, two or even four room schoolhouses.

 

---

Next you're gonna tell me that Blind Lemon Jefferson, Blind Blake, Blind Willie Johnson, Blind Boy Fuller, Blind Willie McTell, Blind Sonny Terry, Blind Alfred Reed and all those other blind musicians whose names I forget, couldn't read music? Wow! Who'd'a guessed it?

---

Marc Nerenberg - Posted - 12/20/2011:  18:27:02

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fathand

I don't think reading music has much if anything to do with music theory. Theory is an explanation of how the music we are used to is put together, reading music is knowing which note to play when.

I would venture that a lot of old bluesmen knew which chords went together to play a song and which chords to switch to to play in another key. So they would have understood the theory of 1, 4, 5 progressions even if they called it something else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc Nerenberg

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldwoodchuckb

...

Blind Lemon Jefferson ... and most of the Delta blues men had know knowledge of music theory and I doubt it was an important subject in most one, two or even four room schoolhouses.

 

---

Next you're gonna tell me that Blind Lemon Jefferson, Blind Blake, Blind Willie Johnson, Blind Boy Fuller, Blind Willie McTell, Blind Sonny Terry, Blind Alfred Reed and all those other blind musicians whose names I forget, couldn't read music? Wow! Who'd'a guessed it?

---

 

---

Excuse me, but that remark about blind musicians reading or not reading music was a joke. Look at it again.

Sultans of Claw - Posted - 12/20/2011:  18:40:55

Years ago, I was watching a television event hosted by Dick Clark where he asked Stevie Wonder (at a remote location and with audio difficulties) "Stevie, if you can't hear us, can you at least see us?"

The look on Stevie Wonder's face was priceless.

Deaf Lester Crawdad - Posted - 12/20/2011:  19:25:30

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sultans of Claw



Years ago, I was watching a television event hosted by Dick Clark where he asked Stevie Wonder (at a remote location and with audio difficulties) "Stevie, if you can't hear us, can you at least see us?"



The look on Stevie Wonder's face was priceless.

---

Yes, but he didn't know it. 

Don Shriner - Posted - 12/20/2011:  19:28:52

I think theory is for intellectualizing music, That's not a bad thing, especially when communicating with other musicians. The thing for me as a banjo player is all the tunings sort of change the game every time you re-tune. All I really can do is close my eyes, get lost in the melody and play. One of the best pieces of advice I ever heard came from John Hartford, he said " play chromatically, you can only be off by one"

but........ what do you call a person who hangs out with musicians?......... the banjo player.

banjopogo - Posted - 12/20/2011:  20:23:03

Kind of off topic, but kind of in line with the original post...
You know how I think a lot of tunings came about? Slipping friction pegs, (or bumped or kid-twisted geared pegs) and trying to get back in tune without electronic tuners. Or trying to retune from one tuning to another, and making a mistake and getting lost.
I've rediscovered "Last Chance" tuning that way a couple of times!

Serendipitous accidents happen!

Probably all the more with fretless banjos.

Don Shriner - Posted - 12/20/2011:  21:43:06

I am not familiar with Last Chance, care to enlighten?

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/21/2011:  09:10:42

quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Shriner

The thing for me as a banjo player is all the tunings sort of change the game every time you re-tune. 

---

 I don't see it that way. Theory unifies, it doesn't divide. If I know what a major triad is, for example, I  can find it in any tuning. Same thing for knowing what a minor chord, or suspended chord, etc. is. Theory generalizes ( expands ) our thoughts, in music or math, science, virtually any subject -- that's why it's so useful. Instead of memorizing how long it takes a particular hammer to hit the ground when I drop it from a particular height, I have a simple equation that will satisfactorily tell me how long it will take any hammer dropped from any height to hit the ground . Furthermore, I can use that equation to derive other useful results.

Instead of memorizing the finger positions for making a C chord in open G tuning, I have a simple method for finding a C chord ( or ANY triad ) in ANY tuning. 

I just don't see how it can be argued that theory isn't worth learning -- if you learn it, it's there when you need it, if you don't need it in any specific circumstance, then don't use it.  I don't understand how anyone can argue that not possessing knowledge is better than possessing knowledge, about anything, music or otherwise. Contrary to the old bromide, what you don't know CAN hurt you.

Edited by - mwc9725e on 12/21/2011 09:19:55

minstrelmike - Posted - 12/21/2011:  09:53:08

I warn folks that changing the tuning is essentially changing the neck. Your chords and scales are now different.

The theory is still the same regardless just like you and the mandolinist and the guitarist are playing the same chords in the same key with different fingerings.

To me, the best part of alt-tunings is the sound.

But the worst part is when folks lie to you and say learning a new tuning will teach you the neck better.

That's like saying learning your chords on the mandolin or guitar will teach you the banjo neck better.

Learning the same song in the same key in different tunings teaches you the neck better.

But the standard way of learning 4 songs in one tuning then 4 different songs in a different tuning doesn't teach the beginner very much at all. It pretty much provides the appearance of playing without actually learning to _play_. (This was how Banjo Newsletter introduced their issue on teaching).

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 12/21/2011:  11:36:47

quote:

---

Originally posted by minstrelmike

I warn folks that changing the tuning is essentially changing the neck. Your chords and scales are now different.

The theory is still the same regardless just like you and the mandolinist and the guitarist are playing the same chords in the same key with different fingerings.

To me, the best part of alt-tunings is the sound.

But the worst part is when folks lie to you and say learning a new tuning will teach you the neck better.

That's like saying learning your chords on the mandolin or guitar will teach you the banjo neck better.

Learning the same song in the same key in different tunings teaches you the neck better.

But the standard way of learning 4 songs in one tuning then 4 different songs in a different tuning doesn't teach the beginner very much at all. It pretty much provides the appearance of playing without actually learning to _play_. (This was how Banjo Newsletter introduced their issue on teaching).

---

I certainly agree with that last part but I don't think of the banjo as an instrument where "learning the neck" is very important - except to one who plans on doing bluegrass style solos - which is NOT old time anyway. The goal is to learn the tunes and I concentrate on teaching my students how to hear and find the Melodies, without much open reference to music theory. It is my sneaky way of teaching ear training - getting the student to realize the relationship of notes in a tune, and how that relationship is the same in all tunings and all tunes of the same mode and scale type (pentatonic - hexatonic - heptatonic - histrionic, etc). It is all part quick and dirty music theory (although nothing like the crapola 19th century music theory classes I had to sit through), plus a lot of sneaky ear training.

I used Old Time Music (in a wide definition) as the easiest way to teach this even if the student wanted to play other styles on the banjo. By getting OT down (which is the basis of so many other musics) he gets a practical, working knowledge of the banjo and of folk music, and as much "theory" as he will need unless he wants to go into jazz, or 20th century classical. I don't teach with "NO MUSIC THEORY". but then again I think I could, and I know that people like Tommy Jarrell and most of the famous banjo players we collect to learn their sounds, had no formal training at all. they were taught in the usual old time way - They grew up listening to older relatives and their friends play. When they picked up an instrument they did their best to copy what they heard.

Some of these people could read "Church Music" Choir music from books (either shape note or normal diatonic) but assumed that there "weren't no notes to a banjo - you just play it." A few, like Buell Kazee, studied music in college and even applied his vocal courses to his singing. Some people find his voice too "practiced" but I enjoy it a lot - and I can understand his lyrics. Some of the Charles Seeger's children were trained in music reading and probably some theory but they quickly went from recording folk performance on paper as their father and Ruth Crawford Seeger had mostly done, to recording in their own memories (essentially becoming the playback method) and then later on audio tape.

I'm not in the "original methods" school, where the student hangs around until he has caught enough stuff to work on at home, nor am I determined that the student has to be able to play the Major and Minor Diatonic Scales perfectly before I will teach him a tune - Heck, most folk tunes are not in those scales anyhow. If anything I tend to start with tunes and later point out what mode and type of scale was used - then go on to teaching the same mode in a different tuning and how to relate the two tunings together. People can hear the difference betwen my Mixolydian "Old Joe Clark" and the Dorian version I got from a LOC record - that is one of the examples I use when teaching modes. I have an A major Shady Grove and the more normal version in A Dorian. Both are good examples of how to work with pentatonic scales too. But the main thing is people learn the tunes and later will find that they remember (when learning a new tune) what they already know about modes and scales, until eventually the modality and scale information will leap off the recording without anyone telling them anything.

Much of this is stuff I have not yet figured out how to write out in a book. It is much harder to teach when you don't have the student sitting across from you. My book, like most books, can only be improved with feedback, which is one good reason why it is still changing - I know that even a DVD can be updated later, but I also know that is unlikely to happen. One thing I know for sure is that I will continue to use as much Music Theory as I think my students need to help them with their banjo playing, but I have no prejudice against teachers who avoid theory altogether and very little against teacher who use (IMHO) too much {useless} theory. Obviously however, I do have some issues with them - such is life. It is always hard to determine where to stop in teaching stuff like theory.

Don Shriner - Posted - 12/21/2011:  16:30:53

Very well put. And I agree with pretty much all I understood from it. For me, I find movable chord shapes are always my fall back position.
Learn these in whatever tuning your using then play to the words or melody, listen for the intervals. Train your ears. I encourage new players who ask me, to use their electronic tuner sparingly. this isn't a visual thing, you can't tune by sight. I guess to me theory is that way. The banjo is kind of a cantankerous affair at best to theorize.

PrairieSchooner - Posted - 12/22/2011:  07:38:06

From Peter Seeger's banjo book: "Do you read music?"  "Not enough to hurt my playin'!"  (Quoted from memory; no claims for accuracy)

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/22/2011:  07:44:59

quote:

---

Originally posted by PrairieSchooner

From Peter Seeger's banjo book: "Do you read music?"  "Not enough to hurt my playin'!"  (Quoted from memory; no claims for accuracy)

---

 Heard that one before, but I'll bet Pete can read music fluently.

Marc Nerenberg - Posted - 12/22/2011:  18:00:23

quote:

---

Originally posted by mwc9725e

quote:

---

Originally posted by PrairieSchooner

From Peter Seeger's banjo book: "Do you read music?"  "Not enough to hurt my playin'!"  (Quoted from memory; no claims for accuracy)

---

 Heard that one before, but I'll bet Pete can read music fluently.

---

He certainly can - even wrote an instruction book on the subject called "Henscratches and Flyspecks". The quote, which appears on the back cover of the book, is attributed to someone else - an old time musician from the 1800's, if memory serves me well.

MountainBanjo - Posted - 12/23/2011:  08:05:07

But he didn't let it hurt his playing. ;-)

R.D. Lunceford - Posted - 12/23/2011:  11:12:00

quote:

---

Originally posted by R.D. Lunceford

 

The quote on the back cover of Pete Seeger's banjo manual sums it up:

"...can I read notes?  Hell, there are no notes to a banjo.  You just play it."

Reply made by an old-time banjo picker, interviewed around 1850, and asked if he could read music.

---

EggerRidgeBoy - Posted - 12/27/2011:  17:23:47

quote:

---

Originally posted by R.D. Lunceford

quote:

---

Originally posted by R.D. Lunceford

 

The quote on the back cover of Pete Seeger's banjo manual sums it up:

"...can I read notes?  Hell, there are no notes to a banjo.  You just play it."

Reply made by an old-time banjo picker, interviewed around 1850, and asked if he could read music.

---

 

---

This is well off-topic, but I've always been skeptical of the 1850 date for that quote.  It seems to me more likely to have been from 1950.  I mean, in 1850 the banjo had been part of "mainstream" (white) American culture for less than a decade, and there wouldn't really have been such a thing as an "old-time banjo picker". Unless the reference was to an African-American banjo player, which, although possible, seems unlikely - I know some of the early minstrel banjoists described learning the instrument from African-American musicians, but I don't know of any recorded interviews of or quotes by black players themselves from such an early date.  I always wondered if it weren't simply a misprint, although if that were the case I'm guessing Pete would have cleared it up decades ago.

Anyway, like I said, not really on-topic - just something I wonder about every time I see that quote.

R.D. Lunceford - Posted - 12/28/2011:  02:01:11

quote:

---

Originally posted by EggerRidgeBoy

quote:

---

Originally posted by R.D. Lunceford

 

The quote on the back cover of Pete Seeger's banjo manual sums it up:

"...can I read notes?  Hell, there are no notes to a banjo.  You just play it."

Reply made by an old-time banjo picker, interviewed around 1850, and asked if he could read music.

---

 

---

This is well off-topic, but I've always been skeptical of the 1850 date for that quote. 

---

We have the quote and the attribution.

 The quote from the 1850 interview itself doesn't indicate he is an "old-time banjo-player" (can I read notes?....).

The attribution (reply made by an old-time banjo picker...) may have been written by Pete himself 100+ years later, and he may have been referring to the player as "old-time" because he was by that time.

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/28/2011:  09:22:38

quote:

---

Originally posted by R.D. Lunceford

quote:

---

Originally posted by EggerRidgeBoy

quote:

---

Originally posted by R.D. Lunceford

 

The quote on the back cover of Pete Seeger's banjo manual sums it up:

"...can I read notes?  Hell, there are no notes to a banjo.  You just play it."

Reply made by an old-time banjo picker, interviewed around 1850, and asked if he could read music.

---

 

---

This is well off-topic, but I've always been skeptical of the 1850 date for that quote. 

---

We have the quote and the attribution.

 The quote from the 1850 interview itself doesn't indicate he is an "old-time banjo-player" (can I read notes?....).

The attribution (reply made by an old-time banjo picker...) may have been written by Pete himself 100+ years later, and he may have been referring to the player as "old-time" because he was by that time.

 

---

If Pete wrote it, I'm betting it was with tongue in cheek, cause Pete's almost sure to be able to read music better than most of us,  his whole family are musicians. 

Sort of like the guy I use to work for, who was a master engineer of some 50 years' experience. When some wannabee would presume to teach him the ins and outs of engineering, the boss would always ask a question he knew the upstart wouldn't be able to answer, and he'd preface the question with something like "Ignorant country boy that I am, let me ask this: " 

Unfortunately, I think in this forum we're too eager to try to put people down who may know how to do things we don't know how to do -- like maybe read music and know how to construct chords, as a direct application of music theory ( go try MEMORIZE all the chords at the back of Pete's book, for example, and that's just for a couple of tunings).

 There's no reason a banjo player should be proud of not knowing a thing or two about music, that attitude just helps perpetuate the old " dumb, slobberin' banjo player" stereotype.

Edited by - mwc9725e on 12/28/2011 09:24:34

hweinberg - Posted - 12/28/2011:  09:38:19

You could make a mistake guessing how much musical theory (a term created by students of music rather than performers) an oldtime musician had by listening to a performance. Fred Cockerham's very traditional banjo playing might lead you to think one thing and his very sophisticated fiddling lead you thinkmsomething else.
If you only heard Doc Watson and Family recordings, you wouldn't guess how much Doc knows about music. (Ralph Rinzler got him to focus on traditional music when he started marketing Doc during the folk music revival. Doc was mostly playing a Les Paul in a country band.)

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/28/2011:  13:47:27

quote:

---

Originally posted by hweinberg



You could make a mistake guessing how much musical theory (a term created by students of music rather than performers) an oldtime musician had by listening to a performance. Fred Cockerham's very traditional banjo playing might lead you to think one thing and his very sophisticated fiddling lead you thinkmsomething else. If you only heard Doc Watson and Family recordings, you wouldn't guess how much Doc knows about music. (Ralph Rinzler got him to focus on traditional music when he started marketing Doc during the folk music revival. Doc was mostly playing a Les Paul in a country band.)

---

 I liken music theory to mathematics, or programming -- all are "economical" ways to express ideas. "Economical" is a term mathematicians use to express generality. With a little knowledge of music theory, you can, at least in principle, find any chord in any tuning. That's because music theory generalizes the subject of chords, etc.

It's like the old physics problem of finding how fast a ball, dropped from a specific height, is going just before it hits the ground. You could try to memorize all possible speeds, for all possible heights, and for all possible balls -- which is not possible. But with one simple mathematical equation ( which is easy to memorize ) you can calculate the terminal speed of ANY ball dropped from ANY height in ANY gravitational field.

I honestly don't understand how a little knowledge of music theory can make one a lesser banjo player, but maybe someday I'll hear or see a convincing argument that supports that position. It'll have to hurry up and manifest itself, though, I'm already almost 81 years old and don't expect to be around forever.

MountainBanjo - Posted - 12/28/2011:  14:11:57

I honestly don't understand how a little knowledge of music theory can make one a lesser banjo player, but maybe someday I'll hear or see a convincing argument that supports that position. It'll have to hurry up and manifest itself, though, I'm already almost 81 years old and don't expect to be around forever.
---------------------------

Well first of all I hope you stick around a while, because your threads are some of the more interesting as are your recordings.

But I haven't seen too many people, or even any people, say that a little theory will hurt someone's banjo playing. I have seen many examples where having little or no theory did nothing to impede someone's stellar musicianship, and there are many country-folk-traditional examples of this. But that's apples and oranges. Theory might help people many people, but it also is going to bore the pants off of many people.

I like to tell the story of my friend who came over some weeks after I bought a tenor banjo to play around with. He had never played a banjo, and within 10 minutes he could play everything on that banjo that he needed to in order to keep up with us. He was, not coincidentally, a PhD in some obtuse fringe area of mathematics. To him this stuff was a piece of cake. To many other people, theory (and mathematics) a) are very difficult and/or b) are not interesting enough to pursue, c) are not strictly necessary for what they want to play. While theory won't hurt your banjo playing a bit and may help some, it isn't necessary or worthwhile for others.

And I hope this doesn't start something, because that's not my intent.

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 12/28/2011:  14:16:59

I don't think learning some music theory would hurt anyone's playing - unless they attemped to follow all the rules of western music theory, in which case their music would be as dull as dishwater. My point is that the great majority of music is made without reference to any of the tenants of music theory and is not in the slightest bit harmed by that lack.

You are an engineer, Bill - you see things as logical forms built on a solid mathematical foundation. I'm a writer, a non-tech writer. But I don't think about sentence structure - in fact I'm dyslexic and cannot hold on to the the knowledge of grammar long enough to apply it to what I do.

I see music as a form of speech. And/or as the flow of ideas. Old Time Music is pretty simple, but once I was able to follow 3 part fugues and more-or-less follow 5 parters - I could at least laugh at the jokes, and that was what I liked the best. I have no comprehension of fugue theory, and could not begin to explain the structure of a symphony, or even a sonatina, or a sonnet. I can barely follow the structure of a haiku.

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/28/2011:  14:43:00

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldwoodchuckb

I don't think learning some music theory would hurt anyone's playing - unless they attemped to follow all the rules of western music theory, in which case their music would be as dull as dishwater. My point is that the great majority of music is made without reference to any of the tenants of music theory and is not in the slightest bit harmed by that lack.

You are an engineer, Bill - you see things as logical forms built on a solid mathematical foundation. I'm a writer, a non-tech writer. But I don't think about sentence structure - in fact I'm dyslexic and cannot hold on to the the knowledge of grammar long enough to apply it to what I do.

I see music as a form of speech. And/or as the flow of ideas. Old Time Music is pretty simple, but once I was able to follow 3 part fugues and more-or-less follow 5 parters - I could at least laugh at the jokes, and that was what I liked the best. I have no comprehension of fugue theory, and could not begin to explain the structure of a symphony, or even a sonatina, or a sonnet. I can barely follow the structure of a haiku.

---

 Well, you're probably right, we all have our own strengths and weaknesses. But cute homespun statements like "they ain't no notes on a banjo" and " Don't read music well enough to hurt my playin' " sound a little demeaning. 

To me it's similar to the old movie I saw back in the 30s or 40s ( Ma and Pa Kettle? ), "Cain't read and I'm proud of it". Humans have special brains and as an engineer-cum-teacher-cum-aspiring banjo player, it's distressing to think there are humans who seem to be proud of their lack of knowledge. Not knowing's nothing to be embarrassed about, but being proud of not knowing is appalling to me.

I have to admit that I'm more than somewhat biased by seeing so many college freshman students who have to take remedial english and math classes -- BASIC ARITHMETIC they can't do, and they're high school graduates?

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 12/28/2011:  14:55:48

I think that you'll find few of us here say things like "Not enough to hurt my playing" in a completely serious way. It is another banjo joke, and we banjo players need our jokes to buffer and defend against all the fiddlers who think we are all idiots, and all the "serious musicians" who think we are complete doofuses.

Dan Gellert - Posted - 12/28/2011:  18:33:54

I take "not enough to hurt my playing" quite seriously whenever I meet a technically competent instrumentalist who NEEDS to be looking at a score (or have one precisely memorized) in order to play ANYTHING!

I'm amazed at how many people have been carefully trained into that position, and it's a whole lot more of a handicap than is being unable to read. Musical notation can be an excellent servant, but it is not worth a damn as a master.

banjoak - Posted - 12/28/2011:  18:57:32

I think these conversations hinge on what we call "music theory".



A. HOW. Forming an understanding of how things work. This can be done just through casual observation. Noticing similarities in structures, how things are related, how things are organized and categorized. This leads to forming some type of rules. Which leads to recognition, predictability and probability when hearing something new. As well in creating something new and expressive quality, but limited somewhat to the context of what mostly conforms (rules). They can be unwritten rules, and not well detailed, hard to be verbalized, be full of exceptions and anomalies. Nor are rules written in stone, they get expanded or changed when exposed to more music and the more exceptions and anomalies show up. One does not need any formal Music Theory 101, nor names for things. Just observation. Only need the rules/theory needed for the music they want to play. Nor does one really need to know the why.



B. WHAT. The descriptive. Naming things. It's not entirely necessary for A. Most folks do come up with names. It helps to organize many ideas in one's head. No doubt using common names can help with communicating. It might or might not conform to Western Music Theory names. This also is part though where formal Music Theory attempts to formalize, verbalize and write things down as rules. To be able to read music. Knowing the names (and reading) though isn't the same as understanding how or why. Knowing written rules is not quite the same as, nor require actual understanding the how or why.



C. WHY. This gets usually goes beyond "because it sounds right/good" and asks "but why does it sound good?" Gets extended into mathematics, physics, psychology, philosophy, spirituality. The practical use for this is to predictively create music that doesn't conform to current rules, to extrapolate and expand current rules.

In response to the original perplexed question, I think most the old time musicians definitely had A (how), it wasn't a just bunch of notes to them, but were organized in ways they understood. A developed intuitive music theory. The basic how music works is all one needs to come up with various tunings. IMO many had a bit of B as well, using terminology of key and note names, even minor, without formal theory they still had enough exposure to those names to find them useful.

As far as theory hurting one's playing, I have this thought in context of above: Some folks are making the music fit the theory.  This is different than those that are making the theory fit the music.

 

Don Shriner - Posted - 12/29/2011:  07:02:28

all banjo jokes start with a theory........it's up to us to prove them right.

Edited by - Don Shriner on 12/29/2011 07:09:01

EggerRidgeBoy - Posted - 12/31/2011:  16:49:01

quote:

---

Originally posted by R.D. Lunceford

quote:

---

Originally posted by EggerRidgeBoy

quote:

---

Originally posted by R.D. Lunceford

 

The quote on the back cover of Pete Seeger's banjo manual sums it up:

"...can I read notes?  Hell, there are no notes to a banjo.  You just play it."

Reply made by an old-time banjo picker, interviewed around 1850, and asked if he could read music.

---

 

---

This is well off-topic, but I've always been skeptical of the 1850 date for that quote. 

---

We have the quote and the attribution.

 The quote from the 1850 interview itself doesn't indicate he is an "old-time banjo-player" (can I read notes?....).

The attribution (reply made by an old-time banjo picker...) may have been written by Pete himself 100+ years later, and he may have been referring to the player as "old-time" because he was by that time.

 

---

Good point - the quote and the  attribution are separate things, and could easily reflect very different eras.

For what it's worth, since I brought the subject up, it seems the quote is at least "semi-authentic".  According to the experts on the Minstrel Banjo site:

It was a period quote, uttered by Fred Mathers in a Cadenza article in the late 1890's/early 1900's, as he discussed the early days of the banjo. It was probably a cliche, then and now, but I can vouchsafe its use in the aforementioned period. 

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 12/31/2011:  18:16:15

quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Shriner

all banjo jokes start with a theory........it's up to us to prove them right.

---

Ouch! That one is almost cruel - but being a banjo player, it went right over my head.

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 12/31/2011:  18:57:01

I think the problem is that some people are associating banjo jokes with Zen Truths handed down from the mountain. They are jokes. While there is a little truth in the "Not enough to hurt my playing" that particular truth is that the person didn't waste a lot of time learning how to read music in order to play a type of music that was not written down.

I spent my first year playing what is now known as Classical Banjo - nothing I learned at that time was ever much use in playing folk banjo styles later. My main motivation was that my teacher loaned me his 1914 Whyte Laydie # 7 to learn. I would have been willing to play the white pages of a phone book to use that banjo. Unfortunately for me, after a year he was beginning to get more banjo students as the Folk Era was commencing (He said, I was his first 5 string banjo student since the 1920s and his first banjo student of any sort since the late 30s). I had to give back the WL and buy my own banjo. Once I had my bright new Harmony Resotone my motivation dropped off a cliff and eventually I dropped banjo altogether in favour of flamenco guitar.

Did my ability to read Classical Banjo Music hurt my playing? No, but it did not forward it, since I was never really interested in Ragtime era solo pieces. I was a kid at the time and can't say that I regretted the time lost - but I kinda wish I had been ambitious enough to look for a Whyte Laydie to buy - or at least some other quality instrument.

There is this persistent theory that reading music will kill your ability to improvise or learn by ear. The fact is that is as fallacious a statement as the "Not enough to hurt my playin" or "There ain't no notes, you just play it" ones. The only reason a lot of people can't escape written music is because they never trained their ears. If you aren't willing to practice something you will never learn how to do it. This is true for reading music and it is true for picking up music by ear.

People figure that they know how to play the instrument and therefore should just be able to pick up tunes off the records - and of course they see people like me who can do it, and just assume we were born with that ability. They assume knowing where all the notes are on the banjo will solve the whole problem - but you gotta be able to hear the relationships between the notes or they still don't get anywhere. Interval training, is only a part of ear training, but I found it was enough to untie me from music forever. What I've never been able to do is convince guitar or banjo students to "waste" time on stuff that doesn't relate to what they want to do - whether is be the collected works of Villa-Lobos or Jimi Hendrix.

Let me repeat:

The only people who end up tied to written music are those who are too lazy or too ill informed to do the necessary work. I've spent my entire life around classical musicians and I can tell you that few of them that I know are unable to improvise along with folk, rock, jazz, and/or pop music. Try to remember that those hapless kids staring at the music stands in school band or orchestra are NOT musicians. They are mostly never going anywhere with music, and will never pick up the trumpet again after graduation day. Some might try out for the college equivalents, but even there will quickly find out that the standards are too high, and they don't have the training to get into the group.

Every once in a while one of them will get the bug and become a musician - but they are a tiny minority. Most people are simply too lazy to become real musicians. Others know that they will never be good enough to make a career of music and settle for some day job that calls for an MBA or PHD in applied Quantum Mechanics - glorified greasemonkeys. It is easier to get a law degree than to become a fully formed musician. You need the physical ability, the mental dexterity and the talent. That is why Roscoe Holcomb and Miles Davis are revered, while you call the guy who got you out of that last speeding ticket a shyster.

Edited by - oldwoodchuckb on 12/31/2011 19:06:43

R.D. Lunceford - Posted - 12/31/2011:  19:20:57

quote:

---

 

 

Originally posted by mwc9725e



 

 

---

 Well, you're probably right, we all have our own strengths and weaknesses. But cute homespun statements like "they ain't no notes on a banjo" and " Don't read music well enough to hurt my playin' " sound a little demeaning. 

**********************************************************************

I always look at those sorts of statements as being half-truths...  To me, "don't read music well enough to hurt my playing" emphasizes the need to listen to all of the nuances that can't be represented by ink on paper without which the music would be lifeless.

As for "there ain't being no notes on a banjer", in the context of the 1850's the statement  makes sense in a sideways sort of way as banjos had no frets, thus no notes. 

DoubleG - Posted - 12/31/2011:  21:55:13

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tinfoot

Well, he referred to the "bizzaro" tunings ... and I see those tunings as simple some guy waaaay back when with old gut strings just playing however those strings were "tuned to" with a couple twitches on the pegs once in awhile. He just kicked around on it, trying to get something out that sounded like the the old fella 2 mountains over (who happen to have his "tuning" to something else, whatever those strings happen to be at). Finally after awhile, he figures out the "fretting" and makes it sound real good - and the folk around him that want to play too just "mimics the sound" by adjusting their pegs till it sounds like him, and the "tuning" gets established in a region.   Along comes a city dweller who actually knows "music theory", likes what he hears, figures out the real tuning scheme, goes back and copies it and inevitably publishes it. Thus "bizzaro" tunings were formally born.



This is ALL just pure supposition, but it makes sense to me why such "tunings" exist. Nothing intuitive really, just some dude on a randomly tuned mountain banjo idling over the winter with it till music comes out.

---

This is great! Only thing is, hope the banjo doesn't get bumped and go out of tune and he remembers how his banjo was tuned the next time he tries to play the tune the same way. He might have to learn it all over again and rely on someone else who figured it out two mountains over.

RG - Posted - 01/01/2012:  01:18:20

Originally posted by R.D. Lunceford

"I always look at those sorts of statements as being half-truths...  To me, "don't read music well enough to hurt my playing" emphasizes the need to listen to all of the nuances that can't be represented by ink on paper without which the music would be lifeless.

As for "there ain't being no notes on a banjer", in the context of the 1850's the statement  makes sense in a sideways sort of way as banjos had no frets, thus no notes." 

Complete agreement R.D., this is a auditory based music whether we like it or not, it most definitely is not textually based...if you don't listen to it, you're not going to get it.  I for one am very comfortable with the fact that not everything can be categorized or defined, some things just need to be approached from faith and the heart...and the rest will take care of itself...

mwc9725e - Posted - 01/01/2012:  07:19:25

 

---

This is great! Only thing is, hope the banjo doesn't get bumped and go out of tune and he remembers how his banjo was tuned the next time he tries to play the tune the same way. He might have to learn it all over again and rely on someone else who figured it out two mountains over.

---

 Great observation, I've actually done that -- "invent" a tuning for a song and then later  forget how I did it.

Edited by - mwc9725e on 01/01/2012 07:20:33

mwc9725e - Posted - 01/01/2012:  07:59:06

quote:

---

Originally posted by RG

Originally posted by R.D. Lunceford

"I always look at those sorts of statements as being half-truths...  To me, "don't read music well enough to hurt my playing" emphasizes the need to listen to all of the nuances that can't be represented by ink on paper without which the music would be lifeless.

As for "there ain't being no notes on a banjer", in the context of the 1850's the statement  makes sense in a sideways sort of way as banjos had no frets, thus no notes." 

Complete agreement R.D., this is a auditory based music whether we like it or not, it most definitely is not textually based...if you don't listen to it, you're not going to get it.  I for one am very comfortable with the fact that not everything can be categorized or defined, some things just need to be approached from faith and the heart...and the rest will take care of itself...

---

 Either we aren't discussing the same thing or else I guess we'll just have to disagree. I see that kind of viewpoint as advocating taking the lazy way out. 

I'm of the belief that, if I'm going to learn to do something to the best of my ability, I need to learn the fundamentals, and music theory is fundamental. I learned to play football and baseball that way, I learned mathematics that way, I learned to be a competent Marine that way, and I believe that's the way to learn to make music as well as my own physical limitations will let me do it.

Now, I didn't first learn the guitar, for instance, by diving headlong into theory -- my stepdad, and others,  taught me the "put this finger here, and that finger there " way. And that's the way I learned to play ( if I can call it that ) the banjo. For years, I learned tunes by listening to records and other players( my stepdad was manager of a Cajun band, and they often practiced at our home).

But it didn't end there. If I wanted to progress, I knew a little bit of theoretical knowledge can help enormously toward that end. If I don't know anything other than the simplest things like how many steps there are between the notes in  major scales, the theory can simplify the learning process by seriously reducing my dependence on books and charts. Heck, I know the sequence of all notes in all major scales,  and minor scales as well, because I know the very simple difference between a major and minor scale. The recipe's in my head, and it doesn't take up much space in my mind at all.  I'm sure you know those things too, and call it what you will, that's music theory.

Having that knowledge, contrary to what many are espousing on this thread, should make the "learn-to-play" process go faster and more efficiently, because you gain a better appreciation of what might sound good at some particular point in the tune you're learning. -- you don't have to dig it out of a book or record, or you may just prefer doing it differently from the way the recording artists did it.

Music theory isn't intended to impede the interjection of your own personal feeling into what you play, Mozart's a good example of that, his music had tremendous amounts of "feeling" in it. Would Wade Mainer's, or Wade Ward's, or any of the myriads of others' playing be impaired if they had known music theory? Of course not, and it would be nonsensical to try to argue that point -- the theory provides fundamental information about music, it doesn't promote the removal of the performer's mind from the performance, any more than theoretical knowledge about internal combustion engines removes the mechanic's mind from his job of fixing the car.

Well, the length of this tome pales, in comparison with those of OWC ( that's a joke, Tony ), but I'm gaining on him.

Edited by - mwc9725e on 01/01/2012 08:19:36

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 01/01/2012:  16:18:23

Yep, a couple more paragraphs should get you into my range, Bill.

Remember however that Mozart was a prodigy - He was playing and composing good music by the age of four. I doubt he ever needed any "Theory" to do what he did - the kid was a certified genius.

Erroll Garner and Thelonius Monk were also geniuses - neither could even read music. Lennon and McCartney couldn't read music either. Irving Berlin could only play in the key of C so he had a piano built with a movable keyboard - he would crank it up to the best key for the singer. All of his music was transcribed by an assistant who could transpose for him.

I really think that music theory is about explaining music, not about composing it, and certainly not about playing it - especially concerning folk music.

And I can give one example of where music theory can hurt your playing - an example we both have in common.

How Knowing (Some) Music Theory Has Created A Musicologist's Nightmare In Flamenco

Many music theory educated flamenco guitarists will, upon being asked how that strange flamenco scale works, go into a rambling explanation of Phrygian mode with all sorts of weird stuff about the chord harmony came from India (where chord harmony was unknown when the gypsies left) - it tends to get so involved I can't for the life of me follow it. All of this comes from a fundamental lack of applying logic to what is happening. People see the key listed as mi natural  - which would translate into E Natural - Europeans tend to use the solfeg names for keys, based on C being Do. But the root of the key is not E, it is A, and the scale is not a straight mode at all. The scale is actually A harmonic minor aka la minor). Which allows for both G natural and a G sharp notes appearing as standard.

The Am, GM, FM, EM harmony is actually one of the earliest chord based acompaniments for the harmonic minor scale - note that both G and G# appear in the chords. The structure goes back to at least the 13th century as a song accompaniment. I suspect that since it only seems to show up in southern European music that there is a Moorish basis to it.

Much of the confusion about key is based on the fact that the Gypsys call that key E (or mi) natural instead of A minor. This is simply a misinterpretation on the part of the Gypsies. If it ends with an E - it must be in the key of E. But Flamenco is like Angeline the Baker - the tunes end on the fifth (or Dominant) note of the scale. Actually the return to the A is implied in all the music. It is simply left hanging (again, like Angeline The Baker) on the 5th.

The harmony and ending on the dominant are both features easily audible in the music of the Sephardic Jews, who were driven out of Spain in 1492 (along with the Moors) and migrated to Turkey where they were welcomed. The gypsies were new to Spain and I have no idea how they avoided being run out like everyone else - they were probably willing to "convert" and work for really low wages, but I've never gotten into the history of the Spanish Conquest of Iberia

The crazy "Phrygian" theory is all over the internet where people try to explain Flamenco without fully understanding how a simple harmonic minor scale works. I've even seen it in a couple printed books. Many of the writers claim the gypsys brought the Am, G, F, E harmony with them to Spain, but the gypsys only carried their melodies and singing style into Spain. They sang unaccompanied and always adapted local instruments and music to their dances. What we thought of as traditional flamenco back in the 60s, was what was known as "Cafe Flamenco". It came from the 1890s when tourists began flocking to Spain as a place to escape the cruel northern winter.

Gypsys were hired by local bars and instead of just hanging out and singing or dancing when they pleased, learned to sing and dance the way the touristas liked it. Easy to follow that logic. The gypsys were only marginally "paid" by the clubs - usually enough cheap wine to get the evening started. They made the rest of their money in "tips" from the touristas. I did my first stage sets playing flamenco in NYC coffeehouses under the same system. The player plays a while and then carries a basket around and collects tips. The clubs were called baskethouses and were considered the dregs of Village Entertainment - but you could get a start. Since the clubs in NYC didn't even have wine, we got coffee, and the occasional stale baked goods.

Of course all this has nothing to do with playing flamenco, consequently everyone does jes'fine, whatever they believe the proper names for the keys should be. It is only in explaning flamenco that this Phrygian business gets in the way.

Deaf Lester Crawdad - Posted - 01/01/2012:  22:00:03

quote:

---

Originally posted by mwc9725e

---

This is great! Only thing is, hope the banjo doesn't get bumped and go out of tune and he remembers how his banjo was tuned the next time he tries to play the tune the same way. He might have to learn it all over again and rely on someone else who figured it out two mountains over.

---

 Great observation, I've actually done that -- "invent" a tuning for a song and then later forget how I did it.

---

 Yeah, that's right up there with finding a great new chord progression -or lick- by accident right in the middle of a tune and then not being able to find it when you go looking for it directly afterwards.

Reminds one of "The Lost Chord";  the lyrics for which are reproduced below  -with slight modifications included for Banjo Hangout purposes... 

-------------------------------------------------------------

While jamming one day on my banjo

I was weary and much ill at ease,

And my fingers wandered idly

Throughout the tempered keys.



I know not just what I was playing,

Or what I was dreaming of then;

But I struck one chord of music

Like the sound of a great Amen

It flooded the crimson twilight,

Like the close of an angel's psalm,

And it lay on my fevered spirit

With a touch of infinite calm.



It quieted pain and sorrow,

Like love overcoming strife;

It seemed the harmonious echo

From our discordant life.



It linked all perplexe'd meanings

Into one perfect peace,

And trembled away into silence

As if it were loth to cease.



I have sought, but I seek it vainly,

That one lost chord divine,

Which came from the soul of the banjo,

And entered into mine.



It may be that death's bright angel

Will speak that chord again,

And it may be that only in Heaven

Shall I hear that same Amen.