Brooklynbanjoboy - Posted - 01/29/2015:  03:32:20

Good morning BHO citizens:

My question is about how a traditional musician -- a musician playing traditional music -- gets better at the craft, improves. 

More specifically, does improvement (musically) end up trespassing against traditional music? 

Let me try and clarify:  A musician with whom I have been speaking about the various “old time scenes” in places like Chapel Hill and Lexington VA observed that the Foggy Mountain String Band was overly particular about how they played tune.  They were, in short, preoccupied with playing tunes “right.” 

That musician speaks of how, in his own experience, a traditional or old time banjo or fiddle player improves their playing.

And one key feature of improvement, in this player's view, is “losing more and more carefulness."

Does this mean that improvement is departing from precision?

Does that mean altering or departing from prescribed technique?  Does that take one further and further from the "traditional" element of old time banjoing?

Does it mean taking traditional tunes and pushing them into spaces they have never occupied?

And does that mean departing from the traditional "text," thus altering tradition and not just technique?

I wonder whether you might help me understand that? 

Thanks.  V/R,

Lew

Edited by - Brooklynbanjoboy on 01/29/2015 03:34:45

ramblin - Posted - 01/29/2015:  04:14:06

"Tradition" is a big church with a lot of pews. It's also at once precious, endangered, malleable and enduring.

In order to get "better," at some point you have to develop some kind of healthy disrespect for your subject matter.

Doing things in your own way is also an important part of playing within the tradition.

I didn't really answer your question. :)

JoePasko - Posted - 01/29/2015:  04:28:24

I think 'traditional' often times, is just people mistaking convention for scripture.

I can't think of any style of music that fell off the truck fully developed.  I suppose the term best applies to a style or genre of music, or a method of playing it, that was abandoned for a period of time, and the re-discovered ?  

I read once that when George Thorogood first approached Rounder Records about a record deal, they said "well, we mostly put out traditional music". 

And George said "well, I play traditional rock & roll".

Sideshow Skip - Posted - 01/29/2015:  04:29:03

Some people like to lock themselves into unwritten rules which define how they think a certain type of music should be played. That's fine for them, if they want it like that. They like to carry on doing things the way is has always been done, thereby keeping a tradition alive. Great. That does not mean that everybody has to follow their example. If we all played the same, music would be dead boring. Everybody is different, and each individual brings a new life to the music, thereby creating variety.
This is no rule book which says " the banjo has to be played like this or this". If that were true, we would never have had Earl Scruggs or Bela Fleck or Bill Keith, Mark Johnson, Rob Stentson, Cathy Fink etc., etc., etc.
We can and do all learn from each other. "taste" is personal and what one fines as good may be rubbish to another. So what ? It's all about making music and having a good time. "Prescribed technique" is merely a learning aid, a starting point, which you can diverge from, manipulate, turn upside down, whatever.
I, personally, love to go "outside the box", make variations, interpretations, change words, tempos....whatever, just for the express purpose of making it different.
Do your thing, set yourself free and have fun !!

JoePasko - Posted - 01/29/2015:  04:51:22

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sideshow Skip

I, personally, love to go "outside the box", make variations, interpretations, change words, tempos....whatever, just for the express purpose of making it different.

Do your thing, set yourself free and have fun !!

---

And that my friend is the true folk aesthetic. 

JoePasko - Posted - 01/29/2015:  05:03:00

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sideshow Skip

 They like to carry on doing things the way is has always been done, thereby keeping a tradition alive. Great.

---

Yup, that's just fine, too.   But maybe not so much if they're going to be dweebs or crybabies about it. 

darwinyarwin - Posted - 01/29/2015:  05:28:25

One of the oldest songs in our heritage of "traditional" music is a ballad titled Lord Randall. You probably can think of the melody line and a version of the lyrics. There are dozens of versions of the song, all of which have evolved from versions at least as old as the 1600's.  So ... which one is the traditional version? Which one is "right"? More pertinent to your question, which ones are "wrong"? What  if a "wrong" version has turned out to be the most influential or the one folks play the most?  ... You mentioned 'precision'. What version is precise? ... How many versions are imprecise?  See the problem with terms like "right" and "trespass"?   Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry for Lord Randall. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Randall It'll help to  illustrate how tradition works and how one song can morph into thousands of influences --- all "traditional".

Now, what key is the right key for Darlin' Cory? Is major or minor key the traditional key? Is it a kerosene lantern she's carrying on her shoulder? How many jugs is she bringing?  It there a triplet pattern on the bridge or is it just a straight roll?

mbuk06 - Posted - 01/29/2015:  05:48:07

Musical improvement technically or emotionally? Technically it simply means increasing one's facility to make the sounds we want to make. What a person does with that facility is another question.

Like much deceptively 'simple' creative expression that simplicity is often the product of someone who knows how to play fancy but chooses not to so that what they express is true to them. And that is a whole different ball game from the artist who mimics that simplicity because it's all they can manage.

Musical (or any artistic) improvement is just as much about the hard-won knowledge of what to discard. And you can't discard something you never had in the first place; only ignore.

This recurring question always reminds me of visiting the Fernand Leger Museum in Biot, in the south of France. There you got the full story arc of that artist from boyhood. This perspective enabled an understanding of how his later characteristic huge scale, simplified, figurative paintings were an exploration of simplicity and truth enabled by having mastered 'technique' (and presumably found to be a creative dead-end) at a very early age. Doubt this? Check out his drawings made when he was only 14 years old. They will astound and add the lie to any criticism of his adult work as the work of a 'naive'. 

Edited by - mbuk06 on 01/29/2015 06:02:16

BadWolf - Posted - 01/29/2015:  05:50:06

pick any traditional song and go listen to a bunch of different people playing it. i doubt youll hear the same song twice.

UncleClawhammer - Posted - 01/29/2015:  05:53:27

I would agree with "losing more and more carefulness" if it's meant in the sense that, the more you play a song, the less careful you are about it. When you get it in your fingers, they remember it even when the brain doesn't. Stuff that I would've had to agonizingly concentrate to play when I first learned I can play and have a conversation with someone now. But if he means you can just get sloppy with it, absolutely not. 

Many traditional players were always trying to play just beyond their current ability. Mike Seeger said of one traditional player he took lessons from, "If you learn it, I'm gonna move up higher. I ain't gonna let you catch me. That's what makes good musicians." Bill Monroe was the same way.

Edited by - UncleClawhammer on 01/29/2015 06:00:10

BDCA - Posted - 01/29/2015:  05:58:47

I was a photography professor for many years and I can attest that  the process of learning the visual arts is analogous to learning music in our genre.

I found it critical to expose my students to as much imagery from acknowledged photographers as possible. Not so they would copy styles and subject matter but so they would understand what those "great" photographers were saying. Then their task was to develop their own vision.

There is both the craft and the art of making music, The ideal situation is to learn the craft of until playing  becomes second nature while at the same time learning the music, which IMHO, happens in a totally different part  of the brain. First you learn the tune, then eventually you absorb it and it becomes part of you. Once you have internalized the music then you are no longer mimicking but actually creating music. Once you reach this stage, you are adding to the body of music while having one foot in the tradition, truly understanding it, while contributing your own slant which may just be subtle or significant. 

Music isn't a popularity contest, IMHO, its about self expression and communication,   BBB  suspect you are over thinking this one. One of my other credos is "If you are not having fun, it ain't music"

It's easy to play the notes exactly the way the greats did. Get the tabs and read away. I cringe when I see music stands at jams. Music should go from ears direct to fingers.

Cya!

Bob

stanleytone - Posted - 01/29/2015:  06:00:44

This is a good topic . Just because one is steeped in tradition doesn't mean they have to suck.One of the things that hurts old time or bluegrass is the notion that the mediocrity makes the music more quaint,more like the way the early backwoods player did it.Well, first of all, those early backwoods players were probably too busy just trying to survive to devote a lot of time to practicing.And most of them probably played on instruments that probably weren't that good a quality.So,if one wants to use that criteria as a yardstick to measure whether one is true to tradition, then naturally some will feel that improving beyond that will somehow make the music less of what many view it to be.........music of the common man, a music that is accessible to the working class, music that one can get enjoyment out of without having to be too proficient at it. A kind of musical communism if you will, creating a classless musical society where everyone is musically an equal and welcome in the jam( you see that put into practice at many a festival where jambusters horn in and spoil a tight jam.)

As far as improving, for sure when many people get good at a style , they can often also get bored, and start looking for ways to spice up their playing by incorporating licks or playing styles that are not common to even good quality traditonal playing. That's when you will hear the "that's not bluegrass/oldtime" comments.That was a big bone of contention when melodic banjo playing became popular in the 70's.

All this is just my opinion , of course, but it is based on decades of jammin , festivals,and conversations with others on topics such as this.

Edited by - stanleytone on 01/29/2015 06:04:01

mbuk06 - Posted - 01/29/2015:  06:18:04

quote:

---

Originally posted by stanleytone

As far as improving, for sure when many people get good at a style , they can often also get bored, and start looking for ways to spice up their playing by incorporating licks or playing styles that are not common to even good quality traditonal playing. That's when you will hear the "that's not bluegrass/oldtime" comments.That was a big bone of contention when melodic banjo playing became popular in the 70's.

 

---

Gary's comment goes to the heart of this process. There is an overriding sense that those exceptionally talented individuals who have mastered technique and standard forms at an early age do indeed seek 'something else'. Not so much through 'boredom', but artistic hunger and their burning desire to 'push on' and use that knowledge and exceptional facility to seek clarity and truth through simplicity of expression. 

Most of the rest of us never reach that point of technical mastery where this transition takes place.

Then there is the fascinating subject of the true creative 'naives' who retain an untutored simplicity that is almost impossible to replicate; only mimic...

Brooklynbanjoboy - Posted - 01/29/2015:  06:41:51

All very articulate, helpful answers, and many that have offered much more precise configurations of the question that i should have or could have asked.  Thanks, all.

V/R,

Lew

mdthib - Posted - 01/29/2015:  07:08:43

I like the phrase "losing carefulness" as an unusual way to think about musical growth. Many types of music have to do with excellence and precision and repeatability and reliability—some version of making people into human phonographs who sound flawless and the same. By contrast, I'm drawn to old time music because I want to develop the ability to remake a tune based on who is there and what we are doing. When I began, I tried to have a habit to play tunes in different ways, but only with practice and lots of time playing with others have I really begun to find the flow and the playfulness and ways to play with a tune, play around a tune, and let the tune connect me to others in a flexible way. It is certainly more carefree than careful, more caring about music as social than as purely sonic. 

These are the kinds of topics that keep me coming back to BHO. 

rudy - Posted - 01/29/2015:  07:18:17

Great comments.

The few "old time police" I've witnessed seem to be just a variation of being Elvis impersonators, only they don't bother with wearing the exact same clothes.

In reality many of those same folks being "impersonated" would have most likely loved to have better technique, chops, or an instrument as is currently available to modern players.

There's nothing wrong with progress.

BDCA - Posted - 01/29/2015:  07:28:15

Two Words:

Adam Hurt

Cya!

Bob

UncleClawhammer - Posted - 01/29/2015:  07:40:30

As someone who identifies more as a member of the old-time police perhaps more than he should, I will say there's nothing wrong with learning a tune exactly the same way as you've heard it, but you shouldn't feel obligated to do it that way. There are times when I don't change an arrangement at all, because there's no sense in messing with something that's already perfect.

It's incredibly false to characterize old-time music as simple or quaint. Southern traditional players weren't musically literate, but they were very musically sophisticated. If modern players have grown more adept in some ways, they're still surpassed by the old-timers in others. And, of course, there were old-timers who could play just as fancy - equal or better than - as new players.

erikstill - Posted - 01/29/2015:  08:17:13

I have run into the "old time police" mainly when I was just starting out. Not only do they spook new players, but in my opinion they are killing the actual tradition they think they are protecting. Learning a tune from your favorite player is nothing but a foundation. Heck, its exactly what the old timers did. They would learn a song passed down or just hearing it then theyd make it their own. And too many times people, especially fiddle players IMO, think playing it "right" means playing it poorly. These old time players were not pedagogues they were musicians. They never saw themselves as the end all interpreter of the music they played. And no one 70 years later should think they are either. Being a musician means interpreting a piece and making it a part of you. Jascha Heifetz, Itzak Perlman all added cadenzas to priceless pieces of music 100's of years after they were written and no one told them they werent doing it right. So dont tell me Im not playing banjo right cause i dont drop my thumb on old joe clark....Sorry started this post pre-coffee

sgdesertrat1 - Posted - 01/29/2015:  08:36:29

My father (who played cello) used to tell a story about going to see Mstislav Rostropovich, the great Russian cellist, speak when he was in college. When asked what advice he’d give to an aspiring young cellist, Rostropovich said the young cellist needed to focus on technique until it became automatic and only when he/she no longer needed to think about technique, could he/she transcend technique, putting the techniques together creatively to create great art.

A week later he heard Duane Allman on the radio asked how to become a great rock guitarist and he said that you have to drill all those licks you hear other guitarists do and you drill them until they’re automatic, then you can put them together however you want and make up your own licks and it can sound pretty good.

It struck my father that both men said the same thing in their own way. I don’t aspire to be as brilliant on the banjo as either of these men were on their instruments, so I worry less about the fact that I have not yet mastered all of the techniques before I start playing around with them and having some fun, but I think it’s the same process. When I learn a new technique, I usually drill the technique a bit in isolation and then try to incorporate it into some songs I already know. Then I might try to learn a new song that uses the technique. I’m not sure that this has much to do with the OPs question, but as I read the discussion, this is what I thought of and I hope it’s helpful to someone.

AndrewD - Posted - 01/29/2015:  09:21:04

Ahh - yes ! The Eternal Keepers Of the Sacred Flame (AKA Old Time Police). "If you aren't playing it exactly like Gid Tanner and the Skillet Lickers played it on a particular Wednesday afternoon in 1927 when they happened to have been recorded  then your playing it WRONG". Stuff 'em.

We should be aware of history and aspire to accepted models of quality. But if we just copy the past we are archeologists not musicians.

Jim D - Posted - 01/29/2015:  09:41:33

I contemplate with pleasure the number of hours that I've not spent thinking about stuff like this.

Jim

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 01/29/2015:  10:22:32

There is room in the tradition for those who prefer to reproduce old recordings, those who simply use traditional tunes and songs as a springboard for their own material, and everything in between. People choose their own route just as in most genres. This has always been true and always will be true. I suggest you stop worrying about trespassing and just enjoy music exactly the way YOU want to play it.

mbuk06 - Posted - 01/29/2015:  10:32:09

Probably the main difference in terms of creativity is that old time tunes are more often than not passed from person to person and/or picked up by ear at sessions. We don't start with a blank canvas. And that very human sharing process almost guarantees that variations arise. Whether from inaccuracy or from the recipient's preference to play it just a little different so it suits them better. Surely it's more relevant that we're part of that sharing process and celebrate those variations?

But I say that from a perspective of never having encountered the 'old time police' or been part of a session where that level of dogma is found. Maybe those guys have become fixated on recorded sources that to them are 'set in stone'? Common sense says they're not and can never be; that's just the way one person, in one place, played the tune at one set moment in time. And there's no-one stopping anyone sticking rigidly note-for-note to that one version if they like. 

Edited by - mbuk06 on 01/29/2015 10:33:31

stanleytone - Posted - 01/29/2015:  10:35:37

quote:

---

Originally posted by UncleClawhammer

 

It's incredibly false to characterize old-time music as simple or quaint. Southern traditional players weren't musically literate, but they were very musically sophisticated. If modern players have grown more adept in some ways, they're still surpassed by the old-timers in others. And, of course, there were old-timers who could play just as fancy - equal or better than - as new players.

---

I never said it was simple or quaint . what i was  saying   was many people view the mediocre playing of your average backwoods old time player as being more true to tradition and more simple and having that charm of being quaint (and I will add here having more of an innocence to it) than a more polished performer of the same genre.There are some who value the whole culture that the music represents rather than the music itself.So to those people , the rougher , mediocre player represents to them more of what old time music is all about.......a reflection of the hard life that the mountain folk of old had to endure. Now does another picker/ musician view it in the same light? I'm sure there are those who think it untraditional to play anything not made out of a cigar box. The point I guess I'm trying to make is that sticking to tradition is no excuse to not improve on your playing.If one is going to stick to a traditional style, then make every note count just as much as more progressive player, and get the best tone you can out that instrument.

And there's nothing wrong with playing it simple or quaint...as long as it's good

Edited by - stanleytone on 01/29/2015 10:37:20

Viper - Posted - 01/29/2015:  11:09:19

quote:

---

Originally posted by UncleClawhammer

I would agree with "losing more and more carefulness" if it's meant in the sense that, the more you play a song, the less careful you are about it. When you get it in your fingers, they remember it even when the brain doesn't. Stuff that I would've had to agonizingly concentrate to play when I first learned I can play and have a conversation with someone now. But if he means you can just get sloppy with it, absolutely not. 

Many traditional players were always trying to play just beyond their current ability. Mike Seeger said of one traditional player he took lessons from, "If you learn it, I'm gonna move up higher. I ain't gonna let you catch me. That's what makes good musicians." Bill Monroe was the same way.

---

This is how I view the "losing more and more carefulness" philosophy. It's freeing yourself having to try so hard to get the tune right and being able to play it freely. I think that's where we start learning to express ourselves as musicians. 

ramblin - Posted - 01/29/2015:  11:18:02

It's kinda wrong-headed to equate "getting better" with "progressive" playing in any form. "Getting better" can mean a lot of things, among them the acceptance and appreciation of simplicity and space. "Progressive" is an unfortunate term and denotes an aesthetic preference for jazz, usually. In that sense, "progressive" isn't always, "better" or "progress" - although I suppose it can be sometimes.

Otherwise, the notier and more harmonically dense the music is, the "better" it is... and we can probably agree that idea's not going to stand up over time...

UncleClawhammer - Posted - 01/29/2015:  11:19:42

quote:

---

Originally posted by stanleytone

quote:

---

Originally posted by UncleClawhammer

 

It's incredibly false to characterize old-time music as simple or quaint. Southern traditional players weren't musically literate, but they were very musically sophisticated. If modern players have grown more adept in some ways, they're still surpassed by the old-timers in others. And, of course, there were old-timers who could play just as fancy - equal or better than - as new players.

---

I never said it was simple or quaint .

---

I didn't even imply that you had. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

stanleytone - Posted - 01/29/2015:  11:27:46

You know reading all this makes one wonder......at what point does a music genre stop evolving?Is there a line drawn in the sand ,and if so, who draws it? At what point did someone say ,"In order to preserve the traditionalness of the music certain rules must be followed." Who made the rules,ad by what authority? Is it the adherence to certain scales, rythms and keys and chord progressions  that keeps one within tradition? And if so, who is the final authority? Or is it just a general consensus, the opinion of the majority?At what point did "Sittin' On Top of the World" be labeled traditional or progressive by whether or not an E minor chord was thrown in ?Or was the Eminor  the original chord and some progressive decided to throw it out and stay in the G chord?And who was it that decided to take an old negro blues tune  like that and turn it into an old time / bluegrass standard? Some progressive mountain  farmer  perhaps? All food for thought.

Im laid up from an operation so I have plenty of time on my hands.

stanleytone - Posted - 01/29/2015:  11:30:46

you have made some good points my friend . this is an amazing thread.and only people who take the music seriously will probably reply.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UncleClawhammer

quote:

---

Originally posted by stanleytone

quote:

---

Originally posted by UncleClawhammer

 

It's incredibly false to characterize old-time music as simple or quaint. Southern traditional players weren't musically literate, but they were very musically sophisticated. If modern players have grown more adept in some ways, they're still surpassed by the old-timers in others. And, of course, there were old-timers who could play just as fancy - equal or better than - as new players.

---

I never said it was simple or quaint .

---

I didn't even imply that you had. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

---

stanleytone - Posted - 01/29/2015:  11:35:27

that is a beautiful statement  of a truth, somtimes less is more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ramblin

Otherwise, the notier and more harmonically dense the music is, the "better" it is... and we can probably agree that idea's not going to stand up over time...

---

RG - Posted - 01/29/2015:  11:53:37

I have a wealth of field and original recordings, and in spite of the "old timers did it any way they wanted", there is a structure and sameness to how they played a tune...for example, Tommy Jarrell played tunes he learned from his dad in a style almost identical to his father...and nobody even remotely interested in this music would accuse Tommy Jarrell of not being "musically improved"...there are a lot of examples of this in the extensive recorded history of this music... 

That being said, I think Tony and Frankie have provided excellent responses to the OP's question in their posts...

There is room in the tradition for those who prefer to reproduce old recordings, those who simply use traditional tunes and songs as a springboard for their own material, and everything in between. People choose their own route just as in most genres. This has always been true and always will be true. I suggest you stop worrying about trespassing and just enjoy music exactly the way YOU want to play it. - originally posted by OWC

It's kinda wrong-headed to equate "getting better" with "progressive" playing in any form. "Getting better" can mean a lot of things, among them the acceptance and appreciation of simplicity and space. "Progressive" is an unfortunate term and denotes an aesthetic preference for jazz, usually. In that sense, "progressive" isn't always, "better" or "progress" - although I suppose it can be sometimes.



Otherwise, the notier and more harmonically dense the music is, the "better" it is... and we can probably agree that idea's not going to stand up over time...-originally posted by ramblin

Edited by - RG on 01/29/2015 11:59:31

charliea - Posted - 01/29/2015:  12:06:25

As I think has been said in various ways, there's music, and then there's art.  You can be an accomplished musician, but not an artist.  You can be an artist without being an accomplished musician.  Special things tend to happen when you get a combination of the two.  There is, of course, no one sound that all would agree is "old time banjo", but there are some sounds that most would agree are in the ballpark.  I recommend you go hit one over the fence.

Andyincov - Posted - 01/29/2015:  12:42:54

These two early paintings are by Pablo Picasso and Marcel Duchamp.  They're rather good and are also highly 'traditional'.  Of course, these two went on to create Modernism and, it could be argued, much of the modern world.  

I think the point I'm trying to make is obvious but I'll say it anyway.  Traditionalism is wonderful but so are the creative people who take something old and make it something new.  Ironically, that new thing eventually becomes traditional.  Funny old world!

(it's the same with music)

Edited by - Andyincov on 01/29/2015 12:43:53

BDCA - Posted - 01/29/2015:  12:47:45

Andrew, to follow through on your painting example,has been for centuries, and still is, common practice for painting students to show up at museums with easel and canvas and copy the masters. I have seen some of these copies being painted in Europe and they are identical from a distance. It's always a good learning experience to walk a while in the foot prints of the masters.

Cya!

Bob

stanleytone - Posted - 01/29/2015:  13:09:15

I guess it all boils down to how one wishes to play. The musical chameleon will definitely find more opportunities to strut his stuff. When I play a Stanley tune I play it straight like Ralph would, having cut my teeth on Ralph's playing.To this day , even though I can play the more contemporary banjo a la Shelor, and even a few Bela tunes, Stanley is still what hits my banjo nerve.And you can't get much more traditional than him.

JoePasko - Posted - 01/29/2015:  13:26:26

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andyincov

These two early paintings are by Pablo Picasso and Marcel Duchamp.  

---

Wasn't it Duchamp who hung a toilet seat on the wall, and called it art  ??  LOL -  I guess the same sometimes goes with music, as well !!!

Andyincov - Posted - 01/29/2015:  13:29:17

It was actually an upside down urinal, but yes, it was he. Hahahahaaha. Bless him - I love a bit of Duchamp.

Laurence Diehl - Posted - 01/29/2015:  14:02:55

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andyincov

It was actually an upside down urinal, but yes, it was he. Hahahahaaha. Bless him - I love a bit of Duchamp.

---

Was that a traditional urinal or one of them new-fangled things?

stanleytone - Posted - 01/29/2015:  14:09:25

 I reckon eventually, given enough time, everything becomes traditional. 

Chris Keefer - Posted - 01/29/2015:  14:18:29

I think the only thing that you should keep getting better at after you learn the absolute basics of the banjo is simply being able to hear and know what the fiddle player is playing, at least in the context of Old-Time banjo. There is a huge difference though in solo banjo playing, I know a lot of purists who dont believe melodic clawhammer is old-time banjo, at all. In most of the banjo world, except for actual old time stringbands, most of the tradition has been far passed. Tablature is not part of the Old-Time tradition, but has become the medium of choice despite the Billions of fiddlers and banjo players you can listen to online over and over and play along with. Its just a new day and age, and solo/melodic banjoing is beautiful, progressive, pretty, and difficult, but its probably not really old-time music in the sense of traditional music.

mbuk06 - Posted - 01/29/2015:  15:01:24

Really interesting OP and responses. 

Not wishing to go off on a tangent but to me that idea of 'musical improvement' also relates to a constant sense of searching. revising and assimilating these 'discoveries'. I guess it's a combination of respect for tradition and curiosity. As RG mentioned above there is a characteristic sameness to tunes and in some ways our modern eclectic pick-n-mix approach may (paradoxically) cause us to overlook the more obscure earliest versions and can lead to learning 'generic' versions of tunes that while fun to play have lost some of the old idiosyncratic phrasing. For example think of the tune Rock The Cradle Joe that tends to get played at sessions and then go listen to Babe Spangler's version from the 1940's. Same tune; but peculiarly and wonderfully distinctive. These personal 'discoveries' are a form of 'musical improvement' regardless of 'self' because that knowledge will inevitably and unconsciously inform and influence our musical choices .

Edited by - mbuk06 on 01/29/2015 15:06:16

Brooklynbanjoboy - Posted - 01/29/2015:  15:26:36

I get the sense that musically “carefulness” is a reference to coloring within the lines, trying to stay close to a traditional piece as played by a specific musician.  I think in some ways it has to do with revivalism versus whatever is the opposite of revivalism, but it is also more than that.  It is ever present in the context of musical challenges such as simply learning a tune.  Do I very carefully reproduce what a musician shows me or do I bounce where I feel I should, slur where I think it needs it, etc. 

Now, those are questions I might ask myself, but I'm not a musician.  I’m just a guy with a banjo.  OK, a guy with four banjos. 

However, I'm trying to figure out what real musicians ask themselves when they are in this context, how they grow or develop, how they work with the trajectory of a tune and either take it in their own direction or keep it true to its original form. 

I suppose I have been looking at traditional music as a body of work that remains unchanged.  People who play traditional music might trifle with it, get inventive and strike on more stirring ways of playing the tunes, but then they’ve taken tradition and modified it. 

That is, there are several possibilities. 

If we regard Tommy Jarrell as a traditional musician, we can enjoy their music by listening to it on recordings (if we’re lucky). 

For others, where these live field recordings do not exist, we depend on musical scores or the memory of people who heard the original played by the original – and any attempt to replicate that music modifies it, or at least cannot be said with certainty to represent what the traditional player (Chopin, for example) intended when they played the tune.  Just like any attempt to measure a chunk of wood modifies that piece of carpentry grade lumber. 

If we try to learn the traditional tune from any of these sources of the tradition, the very act of attempting to replicate it represents a change exerted on the traditional piece – whether its louder, or longer, or more intricate, or exactly like it was intended by played on a kazoo instead of a fiddle. 

Now, I’m prepared to acknowledge that I may have started with a very static view of traditional music.  However, a more flexible view that regards a tradition as a living thing and thus something that is subject to modification, alternation, explication, amplification, whateverification – well, that might mean we’re no longer talking about tradition.  Instead, we’re talking about post-traditional efforts to understand tradition, and every act aimed at understanding modifies just as surely as every carpenter measuring a piece of wood ultimately modifies that wood. 

Measuring something modifies it.  I generally use wood as the example.  No ruler can exactly capture the dimensions.  The human eye and hand coordination, the thickness of the lead pencil marking the cutting line, the wear and tear on the ruler (or more often than not the flawed standards of exactitude common in the Chinese factories that produce our carpentry rulers – go with Japanese stuff…), and the nature of the kerf of the saw laid against the cutting line, all these things to me suggest that measuring modifies the measured.

Studying something modifies it, too. 

I’m also prepared to accept the argument that I’ve thought too much about it and need to move on . . .

Thanks for all your telling, articulate, and thoughtful views.  I appreciate the help in trying to work through this stuff. 

V/R,

Lew

Bill Rogers - Posted - 01/29/2015:  16:46:13

This was not an issue before recordings.  Traditional musicians learned tunes and played them as they heard them--not necessarily as they'd actually been played.  Tommy Jarrell had no hesitation in modifying tunes--nor, I assume, did many other traditional musicians.  The preservationist streak among today's players of traditional music frowns on differing from the source.  I have no problem with either approach.  But the idea someone is playing a tune "wrong" is one I question, unless the player purports to be replicating so-and-so's version, but is not so doing.

stanleytone - Posted - 01/29/2015:  16:50:54

Brooklyn B.B., I guess it really all comes down to each individual's capabilities,and how he uses them.I am sure we have all seen that old video of all those famous banjo players on stage with Earl playing F.M.B. All those other famous players of the day were playing it pretty straight, then the one guy whose name I used to know but can't remember, kind of a hippie lookin dude, steps up and plays some really melodic stuff all the way through his break. Now I'm sure there were some in that crowd who thought"Man what's that guy been smokin'?Why didnt he just play it straight like Sonny, J.D. and all the others?"But I can imagine some of the players up there might have thought,"Man,I want what he's been smokin'! "Most of all, I bet Earl thought it was awesome.

I don't even know where I'm going with this! Just been cooped up in the house for a week after surgery.Can't play banjo other than practice open rolls.talk about sounding traditional! 

JoePasko - Posted - 01/29/2015:  17:21:04

Funny story.   Late night festival jam session a few years ago.   Liquor, weed, some very talented pickers.  No genres unconsidered, we were jamming on Zappa, Zeppelin, Thelonious Monk..whatever was tossed out onto the dirt for our bluegrass savagery. One guy with a guitar was not appreciating this. He was noticeably perturbed, muttering under his breath that we should be playing 'traditional' bluegrass songs.   He finally gets his chance and leads in rendition of Fox On The Run.   And he's all placated and s***.   You get the irony of that, right ? 

Edited by - JoePasko on 01/29/2015 17:22:16

minstrelmike - Posted - 01/29/2015:  17:55:48

Tradition comes in two forms: as it's happening and as it's remembered. Bluegrass was brand-new when it started. The folks who traditionalized it are the ones locking it down. Same with all the folks remembering Bach, or Louis Armstrong, or Django.

I think of myself as a standard traditional musician. I picked up the banjo because I liked the sound and I learned to play the songs I listened to as a youth mostly from other people, not from recordings or sheet music. I didn't take lessons. OTOH, last night I played solo at an open mic and did these songs (which in my life experience _are_ traditional).

Minor Swing,

an original The Restraining Order Proves That I Still Care

Old Time Religion (perverse Pete Seeger version)

Locomotive Breath (Jethro Tull) 

Walk of Life (Dire Straits)

Only the Good Die Young (Bill Joel)

Proud Mary (Eric Burden)

I Am a Pilgrim (Doc Watson style)

Ain't Nobody's Business (with extra original words)

I doubt most folks think of that as tradition but Oh Susannah was the number one hit song of 1849 (another song I do) It wasn't traditional at that point in time. imo, it sort of started American pop music. Sold 250,000 copies and inspired a lawsuit. And got lots of folks trying to write other hit songs. Is that traditional or not?

 

Edited by - minstrelmike on 01/29/2015 17:56:15

banjopogo - Posted - 01/29/2015:  18:43:03

I think your friend has a preconceived idea about Old Time and the people who played it.  Wade Ward sounded pretty careful to me.  Bascom Lamar Lunsford also strikes me as the careful type.

Among fiddlers, you had a lot of fiddlers playing at fiddle contests WAY back- they aren't a new thing.   Bruce Greene in the notes for Five Miles of Ellum Wood talks about such a contest.   You'd better believe that the most careful fiddlers one.   Bunt Stephens was a national contest winner, and you'd better believe he was careful.  Eck Robertson too, also Doc Roberts, Clayton McMichen, William Stepp, and many others.

I think some of this preconception comes from two things:

1. the amazing popularity of the Skillet Lickers... it wasn't a very careful sounding group.... in spite of Clayton McMichen's efforts to the contrary!

2. the fact that the majority of fiddlers and probably also banjo pickers whose playing was recorded in field recordings were old men past their playing prime.  There's a certain endearing funkiness in many of those recordings, but if you'd heard the same players 20, 30 years before, you might not have heard any funkiness at all!

I think there is a fine line between picking attainable goals and have a sour grapes attitude.

No matter who you are, if you listen to recordings of the oldtimers, you can find some playing at your level and maybe a little above your level.  Those players offer us attainable goals.   But that doesn't mean that they are the be all and end all of Old Time music.  I know when I was a younger fiddler, I ignored fiddlers who at the time seemed to represent an unattainable goal.

banjopogo - Posted - 01/29/2015:  19:19:40

quote:

---

Originally posted by stanleytone

This is a good topic . Just because one is steeped in tradition doesn't mean they have to suck.One of the things that hurts old time or bluegrass is the notion that the mediocrity makes the music more quaint,more like the way the early backwoods player did it.Well, first of all, those early backwoods players were probably too busy just trying to survive to devote a lot of time to practicing.And most of them probably played on instruments that probably weren't that good a quality.So,if one wants to use that criteria as a yardstick to measure whether one is true to tradition, then naturally some will feel that improving beyond that will somehow make the music less of what many view it to be.........music of the common man, a music that is accessible to the working class, music that one can get enjoyment out of without having to be too proficient at it. A kind of musical communism if you will, creating a classless musical society where everyone is musically an equal and welcome in the jam( you see that put into practice at many a festival where jambusters horn in and spoil a tight jam.)

As far as improving, for sure when many people get good at a style , they can often also get bored, and start looking for ways to spice up their playing by incorporating licks or playing styles that are not common to even good quality traditonal playing. That's when you will hear the "that's not bluegrass/oldtime" comments.That was a big bone of contention when melodic banjo playing became popular in the 70's.

All this is just my opinion , of course, but it is based on decades of jammin , festivals,and conversations with others on topics such as this.

---

I think you're on to something.

There is a West Virginian living locally to be close to kids and grandkids.  He grew up with the music.   I've jammed with him.  I had read someone say on-line that a particular fiddler's fiddle sound was "too smooth to be Old Time".   I asked him about this, and he LAUGHED and said.... "I remember all the fiddlers when I was a boy playing THE BEST THEY COULD!"

And he LOVES Bruce Molsky's playing by the way- has one of his albums!

And I believe you're right about the quality of instruments too.   And I'd like to add that one factor was the quality of the STRINGS... or the LACK of quality strings.   One time I heard that Black Diamond fiddle strings were the ones that the old timers were mostly likely to have used back in the day, so I bought me  a set- they were easily the roughest, nastiest sounding fiddle strings I had ever played to that point, and that I have ever played since!  No matter how Old Time they were, they came right back off that fiddle!