# Technique, Theory, Playing Tips and Tricks > Theory, Technique, Tips and Tricks >  Should a Serious Mandolin Player Learn Classical?

## JonZ

It is interesting to compare pedagogy for mandolin and violin. As my son has encountered various violin teachers in many genres, it has been a constant that if you are going to be a _serious_ player in any genre, you have to develop good classical technique. They all say, basically, keep your classical teacher, and add another teacher for the genre that interests you. Most recently, a pianist who is teaching him jazz theory said, "You have to learn everything: sight reading, theory, technique. The days of guys who just played by ear are pretty much over."

In mandolin, not so much.

On the other hand, you have people like Thiele and Marshall who appear to embody this "all encompassing" approach.

Thoughts?

----------


## JeffD

> "You have to learn everything: sight reading, theory, technique. The days of guys who just played by ear are pretty much over."
> 
> In mandolin, not so much.


I absolutely think that is true, in mandolin as much as anywhere else. I think the last generation was able to get where they are perhaps without some of the theory and reading skills etc., but never again. Chris Thile, Sierra Hull, etc., can do it all. And at that level of success, that level of ability is going to be needed.

The competition level is so high, I think what ever you can't do, there is someone who can, and he or she will get the gig.

----------


## JeffD

> They all say, basically, keep your classical teacher, and add another teacher for the genre that interests you.


I think that though it is slim, the chances of a violin student having a career in classical music is higher than that of a mandolin student.

So perhaps we can have more debate about what techniqes to learn to get where. In violin, I belive that clasical techique gives you the most flexibility to play the other styles, so it is still a good foundation. I don't know if the same is true for mandolin classical technique.

----------


## catmandu2

Jon, while in music--as in everything else--the state of the art is ever increasing in technical and stylistic capacity, the question is too general to answer definitively.  What are the goals?  What is meant by "serious player"?  And, what does "learn classical" mean?

I imagine some players are quite serious, yet whose playing ambitions might be relatively narrow, and whose technical facility--while no doubt being enhanced generally by technical study in classical pedagogy--may not require such.  Some folk styles, for example, may not be predicated on either the technical repertoire of skills nor the theoretical aspects involved in technical study in the "classical" or jazz idioms

Personally, I pursued strict classical pedagogy (guitar) for the first 15-20 or so years in my playing.  The technical fundmentals I acquired allow me to apply skills and concepts to any idiom I pursue.  But the theoretical and practical skills I've developed derive more from jazz study

If the goal is to do as much with music as possible, no question that classical and jazz pedagogy are of immense value (possibly "essential").  If a person is going to play cajun, ITM, maybe bluegrass, other folk styles--the ROI of "serious" classical and jazz pedagogy may be somewhat relatively diminished.  Of course, any study that builds technical capacity can't be bad.  In a "technically sophisticated" genre (maybe bluegrass), no doubt "classical" pedagogies will assist with develpping skill.  But IMO harmonic and stylistic wherewithal are the "next steps"--and in fact more extensive than technical fundamentals.  It's common for "classical" players to drill technical exercises as needed for given repertoire demands.  Is this what you mean by "learning classical"?--pursuing some of the exercises, concepts, practice techniques, ergonomics, etc. rather than "serious" immersion in the idiom--repertoire--which implies something else

Does "learning classical" mean immersion in traditional pedagogy?, or merely applying some principles?  Finally, can a mandolin player be a "serious" player and play only folk styles not requiring extensive technical command and literacy of advanced harmonic form?

----------


## JeffD

That is interesting. Jazz study certainly will get you your vitamins and minerals. Most serious jazz people are theory hounds.

Sometimes I really wish I liked jazz.

----------


## Pete Martin

> Sometimes I really wish I liked jazz.


A friends quote

*"Jazz, it's better than it sounds"*
 :Grin:  :Laughing:  :Mandosmiley:

----------


## Pete Martin

I think a student can *seriously* study any music.

----------


## John Flynn

It's different strokes for different folks. It depends on what your goals are. If you want to play classical, then of course that's what you need to do. If you are going to play the violin as a "fiddle" or the mandolin in Irish Trad, blues, bluegrass, rock, old-time, etc., it is not nearly as much a priority. 

I used to play with a great old-time/bluegrass fiddler who started out on classical violin. She said, "About the time you start being a good fiddler, you realize you are doing just about everything your violin teacher told you was wrong." There is a violist with the St. Louis Symphony who is now a fairly well known old-time fiddler. I talked to his fiddle instructor once and she described teaching him as "a process of un-learning."

I recently tried to get into classical mandolin. I started rehearsing with a mandolin orchestra and got a bona-fide classical mandolin instructor. I took it very seriously for several months. I think if I had kept up the effort for about three years or so, I might have been OK at it. But I finally realized a few things about myself, that apply only to me, but self-awareness may be the most important kind of learning we do in life. I learned:
Classical folks are great musicians, very dedicated and generally great, considerate, helpful people. I have rarely felt so welcomed and supported by any group of musicians. I ironically encountered less snobbery that I have with other genres.Classical is HARD, even for a lot of experienced classical musicians. You really have to be dedicated.I consider myself a solid intermediate player in the "folk genres" I mentioned. I do read music a bit and I do know theory fairly well. However, I found myself way, way down in the beginner category, and completely overwhelmed, in classical.I play for fun and fulfillment. I can do that in the folk genres now. It would have taken more time than I probably have left to live to get there in classical.I like playing by ear. I don't like reading music, even though I can to some degree. I don't see any shame in playing by ear. Music is sound, for heaven's sake, not ink! I get more joy from figuring out a tune aurally than by reading notation or tab.I can still do a world of learning in the folk genres, enough to keep me happily busy for the rest of my days.My favorite mandolin players, the ones I like to listen to, are primarily ear players. 

Mike Marshall was mentioned by the OP. I am now enrolled in his Academy of Bluegrass Mandolin Program. I know he is can do nearly anything on mandolin and knows almost everything about music, but his AOB program only touches on theory and note reading. It is not the main thrust at all. BTW, it is by far the most rewarding learning experience I've had on mandolin.

----------


## JeffD

The real issue is the future. Can someone become a world class mandolin player, in the bluegrass of the future or any other genre including classical, popular, jazz, folk, without learning everything? 

"You have to learn everything: sight reading, theory, technique. The days of guys who just played by ear are pretty much over" means that you may have been able to get "there" by ear before, but not anymore.

We are talking about professional level - Marshall, Thile, Hull, as well as the mostly classical stars like Lichtenberg, the recently departed Alison Stephens etc. Not the avocation level that many of us enjoy, however lucrative it may be.

Can a mandolin student with professional aspirations afford to avoid learning to read music, or avoid music theory.

----------


## catmandu2

I imagine, these days, when a person undertakes beginning study with a competent instructor--even in a "folk" program--that instructor is likely to employ technical aspects derived from "classical" pedagogy--ergonomics, exercises, theory and reading (at least to some extent)--and impart these as "fundamentals" regardless of stylistic preferences of both student and teacher.  Beginning pedagogy is fairly standardized; these aspects are common to playing across most genres--that is, learning fundamental technique enables playing generally.  If a player pursues playing in the "classical" idiom--depending upon the playing situation one pursues within the idiom--practice regimens will vary somewhat.  Orchestra players practice relevant exercises and rehearse scores.  Jazz players practice technical execution and theoretical concepts

Part of any pedagogy should include tone production and efficient ergonomics.  To what extent further aspects of theory, reading, improvisation, and advanced technical exercises are incorporated will depend on the direction of the player

From what I've read from you Jon, I suspect you may have somehting in mind as to "general" musicanship and player ability.  After a year or two of basic "classical" study, one really must begin to focus on some area of specialty in order to devote the requisite time to develop--in order to advance most efficiently.  If one is to be an orchestra player, one generally practices elements relevant to the score for which one anticipates auditioning.  Depending on "what" and "where" you're playing, your exercise regimen will be refined appropriately

If you want to do it all--I recommend ear training above all.  It's all good, but for my money--I like to be able to rely on my ears, for they're the fastest means to the end, for me.  If you want to be able to read a score or a chart someone hands you--better practice that.  Technical execution is one thing--the vehicle of delivery; _what_ you execute is more a function of the _music_.  The question, I suspect, is: "how do you get to the music"..?

----------


## Randi Gormley

If all learning is relevent, then of course you have to learn it all. Getting good at it all is entirely different. Jon's assumption is that we WANT to play it all and play it all brilliantly.
I find myself content to be a strong intermediate player of ITM, although I would, of course, like to get better. Pedagogy doesn't help me there. Knowing why my husband's A-minor-diminished-seventh chord works (or doesn't) when I'm playing a jig is not necessary for me to play in session. Being able to sight read (which I do fairly well) doesn't let my mandolin triumph over the uilleann piper sitting beside me or the bodhran behind me. There are no solo improvisional riffs in ITM, just additional diddly bits I can toss in on the occasional down beat. My music sounds pretty stark when compared with the professionals (or when you compare it with jazz or bluegrass) but it fits what I do. I'm a pure amateur and have no delusions of giving up my day job to make a name for myself in music of any kind. I'm lucky if I can make a local name for myself in my own profession, and I've been doing it for more than 35 years!
As for the professionals, I do agree that the bar is being set higher all the time and if you want to compete on that level, you have to be able to compete all the way. Competition is about advantage anyway, and learning classical pedagogy and technique gives an advantage nobody wants to ignore. But I will make a plea on behalf of the non-traditional musician (the one-genre wonder or the ear-learner). When "real" music gets too sophisticated, too perfect, too confining, it becomes a museum piece and any advancement will come from the ranks of the untrained who hear a different sound. That's been the pattern so far, at least as much as I understand it. My opinion, of course, fwiw.

----------


## JeffD

> As for the professionals, I do agree that the bar is being set higher all the time and if you want to compete on that level, you have to be able to compete all the way. Competition is about advantage anyway, and learning classical pedagogy and technique gives an advantage nobody wants to ignore.


I think that is Jon's original point.




> But I will make a plea on behalf of the non-traditional musician (the one-genre wonder or the ear-learner). When "real" music gets too sophisticated, too perfect, too confining, it becomes a museum piece and any advancement will come from the ranks of the untrained who hear a different sound.


The idea is that perhaps this is less possible than it was in the past. I don't know. Certainly its not impossible. But with things like on line music schools and access to music, there is less isolation where someone like this can develop.  One competes on the world stage right from the beginning. 

I think its more possible with something like mandolin, whose music and boarders are not as clearly defined as violin. But increasingly less so.

----------


## John Flynn

> I imagine, these days, when a person undertakes beginning study with a competent instructor--even in a "folk" program--that instructor is likely to employ technical aspects derived from "classical" pedagogy--ergonomics, exercises, theory and reading (at least to some extent)


I can only say two of my experiences provide sharp counterpoints to that statement. My favorite mandolin player, who was also my instructor for many years and the person I would still most like to play like, doesn't read music or tab, only knows theory in the practical, hands-on sense, not the pedagogical sense, and claims to have never done a musical "exercise" in his life. He just plays. But I learned a lot from him, so he is in some sense a "competent instructor."

By contrast, the classical instructor I had for a while claims that a lot of the famous players today, including some big names that have been mentioned in this thread, do not follow classical pedagogy. Keep in mind this guy started as a hard-core classical player with a classically trained instructor and he has over 50 years experience in the genre. According to him, things like posture, pick choice, the holding of the instrument, the position of the hands and the attack of the pick on the strings, that these celebs are teaching today are major departures from classical pedagogy, going well beyond mere "personal preference." So I asked the obvious question, "Then, how did they get to be so good?" 

He said, "That's not the question. The question is how much better could they have been if they had been doing it right all these years!?" Now, I am just reporting that conversation, not representing it. My opinion is that in the long run, whatever works, works. But to say that the big names today are grounded in classical technique, and basing their teaching on classical technique, seems very much open to debate.

----------


## catmandu2

I'm not sure those are sharp contrasts John.   Even theoretical knowledge--acquired in a practical, hands-on sense--is "theory"; theroretical instruction does not need to be done with paper and pencil only.  I certainly acquired years of theory from playing and learning from folks "showing me stuff"

I would be surprised if the instructor you cite did not practice any type of exercises, or assist you with such.  Did you simply, and only, play tunes?

Knowing the names of the chords is not a bad idea either (this is theory--"at least to some extent"); the instructor may even show what the note looks like on a staff (reading).  But John, do you really think many beginning instructors start right off with tunes, even without explaining some "context"--how to sit, hold it, or how to pick and fret "efficiently"...?  I'm sure there are plenty who teach more "informally."  But if pedagogical sytems--methodology--facilitates anything at all, it is communication--a method for an instructor to impart assistance to the student

----------


## JonZ

I am not trying to make a point. I was just curious about the similarities and differences in how violin and mandolin are approached.

----------


## catmandu2

> I am not trying to make a point. I was just curious about the similarities and differences in how violin and mandolin are approached.


Oh.  Well there are tremendous differences, generally--certainly in the US; one comes from the orchestral tradition--one from more folk tradtions

----------


## mando.player

> I am not trying to make a point. I was just curious about the similarities and differences in how violin and mandolin are approached.


I think the approach to each instrument is driven by their prevalence in the world at large.  Violin has a much deeper reach in the real world and as such has a well defined curriculum for teaching and "appraising" students.  That level of detail isn't there for the mandolin.  That can be a good thing and a bad thing.  On the positive side, students aren't funneled into a specific method of learning, which I suppose could stifle learning or grow tiresome.  The downside is that students and their instructors (if you can find one!) are left to fend for themselves.  It's a mixed bag. As a purely recreational player, I've enjoyed finding my way.  With that being said, my playing would most certainly be at a higher level had I went through a more formal and focused method of learning.

I also play guitar, which has helped in locating educational materials.  For instance, I'm waiting on the mother of all books on 3-note chords for guitar (Three-Note Voicings and Beyond, Randy Vincent).  As I work through this material I'm hoping to transfer it to mandolin at the same time.  My goal is to further my jazz studies on mandolin by being able to back myself up on guitar (BIAB for bass and drums, self on rhythm guitar and mandolin).  I'll be learning the theory twice, which helps it sink in.  My end goal is to apply that theory twice (recording Real Book standards) which helps it stick.

I'd surely learn the mandolin faster if all of these materials existed in mandolin form.  But as they say, the journey is half the fun.

----------


## John Flynn

> I would be surprised if the instructor you cite did not practice any type of exercises, or assist you with such.  Did you simply, and only, play tunes?


Well, yes, that's exactly the way it was. There were no exercises, ever. The teaching was, "I play this...then you play it the same way." I did that for about 5 years. I learned that the technique was inherent in the way he played the tunes. I realized that he was teaching "a sound," not a process or a theory. I'm not saying it's the only or even the right way to teach, but  it was an important lesson. For instance, I had struggled for years with tremolo. Instructors would say, "Well, you just start out slow and build up speed." Didn't work for me. I would always reach a "speed barrier." This instructor showed me a tune that just sounded soooo cool with tremolo, don't even remember what was now. It just wasn't same without the tremolo. I just had to make that SOUND. Then it just came to me all of sudden and I could do it at will in any tune.

BTW, I found out later that a lot of classical music in the traditions of India are commonly taught this way. No exercises, no notation, no academic theory. Sometimes the instructor doesn't even show you on the instrument. He SINGS it. He sings "da-dada-DAH" or whatever. Then you play "da-dada-DAH" on the sitar, or whatever. It is pure aural tradition. So our "classical pedagogy" is not the be all and end all.

----------


## catmandu2

Modeling can constitute much of the process.  But the Indian classical music system is much different: notes--and even the percussion sounds, the rhythms, the forms--are given "names" from the outset.  The "theoretical" aspects are transmitted in an entirely different manner than "traditional" Western pedagogy, but the aspects are transmitted nonetheless.  IME, the two systems are so different that a comparsion cannot be made for use here.  Perhaps they do not use paper and pencil, but the system is HIGHLY standardized, codified, and *formally* disseminated --as much or even more than "Western" systems.

Regarding "an absence" of exercises in Indian classical music--are you kidding?

Regarding your teacher and experience: even if you just "play the tune" over and over until it sounds "just right"...is this not a drill, an exercise?  The idea behind methodologies consisting of isolated technical approaches is intending to make the process of learning (disseminating/receiving) more efficicent.  I don't doubt that many instructors appraoch it far less optimally

----------


## John Flynn

> Modeling can constitute much of the process.  But the Indian classical music system is much different: notes--and even the percussion sounds, the rhythms, the forms--are given "names" from the outset.  The "theoretical" aspects are transmitted in an entirely different manner than "traditional" Western pedagogy, but the aspects are transmitted nonetheless.  Perhaps they do not use paper and pencil, but the system is HIGHLY standardized, codified, and *formally* disseminated --as much or even more than "Western" systems


I agree. I think what we are both talking around is that there are different kinds of pedagogy for different types of music, rather than a "pedagogy vs. non-pedagogy" as implied by the OP. So Western classical, some Eastern classical genres and all kinds of folk genres have their own methods that are quite different, but all impart many of the same things. This seems self-evident in the observation that generations of people start out in those genres and become successful in them, time after time. I think the real debate implied in this thread is whether in the future, will all great players, in all genres, have to be grounded in the Western classical pedagogy? Personally, I think not. In fact, I think the lines of classical teaching have already been blurred by many of the great players. Sure, there will always need to be a methodology to facilitate learning. But what we see to today is an evolving hybrid that will ever continue to change. 

There are many paths to every destination and many destinations to every path. Sorry, I didn't mean that to sound as much like "Master Po" as it probably did!

----------


## catmandu2

> ... will all great players, in all genres, have to be grounded in the Western classical pedagogy?


No


I think the discussion is more about formalism vs "structuralism" (for lack of better terms).  Certainly, the "Western classical" system is big on formalism

----------


## bobby bill

A serious mandolin player should learn classical if that is what he wants to play.  The aspects some folks are associating with classical (sight-reading, technique, theory, development of tone) are relevant to most any genre, although I know there are purists in some genres who act like stinky cheese walked in if they catch someone sight-reading.

But there is not one "classical way" either.  I used to practice Czerny (rote technical keyboard exercises) for an hour like taking a tablespoon of castor oil before getting to the fun stuff.  I came to UT as a harpsichord major 37 years ago and one of the first things my new teacher did was throw out the exercises.  If there was a little section in a piece that was difficult - well, there's your exercise.  I guarantee that if one can play all the pieces in Bach's Well Tempered Clavier, there is little reason to sit around and play scale exercises . . . and the former is a lot more fun.  There is more than one was to skin a cat and I believe this is what catmandu is saying in the previous post.

----------


## greg_tsam

JonZ often posts thought provoking questions but I'm not sure what he's getting at here.  All he really said in his OP was if you're going to be any good at any genre of violin then you need classical training and learn "everything".  If you're going to play mandolin, forgetaboutit.

Then he mentions Thile and Marshall and asks for thoughts thus provoking a interesting but convoluted discussion thread on the M/C, which is great.  I like it.  But JonZ never said anything.  He's providing fodder for discussion.  


I've never taking any training and play by ear and read tabs.  All my learning is from watching others in real life or videos with the rare occasion gleaning something out of books.  I play in a Contradance band and everyone is classically trained and reads music except me.  In rehearsals I sit amazed in wonderment by 10 different people playing 10 different instruments, all taking a solo, and all playing each note exactly the same, note for note.   

Then comes my turn.  

I play the first time through "straight" just like them but, often, on the 2nd time through I improvise the melody slightly and sweeten it up.  The first time doing this there were 10 people searching their sheet music desperately trying to figure out where I got those notes and where I was in the music.

I thought I did something wrong but started laughing when it came to me.  They can't improvise.  One of them tried a song or two later, got scared after ONE measure and went back to reading.  She's a really talented violinist who is graduating the masters music program at the  University of Houston.  I know she got scared b/c we laughed about it afterwards.  

One thing classical training doesn't do is teach improve.

I think we put too much emphasis on certifications and correct technique and this approach and that approach.  To think one must have learned everything in every genre to be anything in one genre is absurd.  B.B. King plays single notes.  Elvis Presley was a bubblegum pop star.  Lady GahGah actually knows piano and sings.  Justin Bieber...err...makes my point even clearer that you don't have to know it all to make it professionally and to succeed and make money.

Although there is a world of competition out there, music shouldn't be about competition.  The business of music is something else entirely.  It should be about the art of expressing emotion through sound.  Connection.  Unicorns, puppy dogs and bunny rabbits.  

So, now I'm rambling...





> It is interesting to compare pedagogy for mandolin and violin. As my son has encountered various violin teachers in many genres, it has been a constant that if you are going to be a _serious_ player in any genre, you have to develop good classical technique. They all say, basically, keep your classical teacher, and add another teacher for the genre that interests you. Most recently, a pianist who is teaching him jazz theory said, "You have to learn everything: sight reading, theory, technique. The days of guys who just played by ear are pretty much over."
> 
> In mandolin, not so much.
> 
> On the other hand, you have people like Thiele and Marshall who appear to embody this "all encompassing" approach.
> 
> Thoughts?

----------


## catmandu2

Bill!   :Disbelief:

----------


## bobby bill

I like the skin on that cat just fine (not so sure about the tongue).  

Everyone has a story about the brilliant classical musician who cannot play Twinkle Twinkle by ear.  Like every urban legend, there is a nugget of truth (sometimes a very small nugget).  But there is nothing anti-classical about learning to play by ear.  It is just that it has been historically underemphasized in a lot of music curricula.  And that's a shame.

----------


## catmandu2

Alright, in order to prevent bobby bill from sounding CRAZY...here's my original pic   :Wink:

----------


## Charlieshafer

To many different levels to compare. As was stated earlier, the chance to play classical mandolin professionally is rather slim, while playing bluegrass is much greater. I think the violin and mandolin are different beasts, and I'm a nut about classical training on violin for fiddlers. That bar is set way high now, and most of the fiddlers from the 30's through the 70's wouldn't stand a chance anymore. Mandolin is different for all but a few, so no, I don't think classical training is necessary. That said, any training in classical or jazz will make you a better player, so if one is motivated to be the best they can be, you pretty much have to go for it. 

And as far as what Greg said about competition, as much as we'd like to pretend it shouldn't be a part of music, if you're a pro, trying to get gigs, it is. In jazz, the phrase always thrown about was "Stan gets all the gigs" referring to Stan Getz. And, if you're trying to put food on the table, you want all the gigs. And that means you have to be better, which by nature, is the essence of competition. Sucks, but that's the way it goes. So, to completely refute what I said earlier, if classical training helps technique to the point it makes you that much better, and you get the gigs, well, dust off the Bach and get cracking.

----------


## David Lewis

You can never learn too much. A serious player learns everything s/he can to ensure the absolute best playing. As for formal training, it never hurt anyone who was really serious about it. Though you might take a while to find the right teacher, the search is worth it. 

Of course, there's nothing wrong with playing just for fun. And ocassionally, playing for fun teaches you far more about the instrument than exercises...

----------


## JonZ

Several thoughts in no order of coherence...

Mando.player, I have looked at that 3-note chord book with the same thoughts as you. Then I consider the difference in tuning between guitar and mandolin, and wonder how well it would translate. It seems like it will be more useful to apply his reasoning, than his voicings. I will be interested to hear what your experience is.

I also notice in jazz guitar that few people say that you _need_ good classical training. They may say you need to sight read, but not that you need to learn classical technique. I suppose that has to do with the nylon stringed instrument being so different from the typical jazz box.

It seems that vtechniquehnique is more uniform across genres, or perhaps that classical training teaches you to get any sound you might want.

I hear some of the "do-it-all" mandolinists playing classical music on their F styles, and they sound great, but often quite different than strictly classical players. All musicians are going to sound different, of course, but Butch Baldisari playing classical sounds quite different from MarilynMarilynn Mair playing classical. Not just because of their instruments, but because of their picking style. 

So, I don't know if learning "classical technique" would _improve_ the non-classical players who play classical.

----------


## greg_tsam

I agree with a lot of everything said here.  For the record, I'm a lifelong learner and a teacher but not a music teacher.  I taught children's gymnastics tumbling, cheerleading building and Aikido.  All of these are potentially dangerous pursuits when done correctly and guaranteed dangerous when done incorrectly.  The one of the keys to safely learning these things is proper technique.  

Many times I saw kids struggle so hard to get their techniques down when performing back hand springs and higher intermediate skills.  What did I do?  I took them aside and asked them to show me a cartwheel.  Then I corrected their technique and re-enforced it through repitition and when they had the correction down I took them back to back handsprings, back flips, lay outs, whatever.  But it all connected to basic technique learned on day 1.  Attention to detail is crucial.  The kids usually showed immediate improvement and gradually became more fluid and advanced.

Then some kid who was self taught would come in and flip all over the place with natural ability but no technique.  These "backyard" tumblers were dangerous but you had to admire their spirit.  When we taught them proper technique they shot to the head of the class.  They came in already able but proper training made them better.

I see music as a physical/mental skill set just like those others except the mental areas used are manipulating the fingers and relating it to the ears and brain.  And, yes, I know it's competitive.  I get caught in that trap less and less but it still happens.  People pick the best picker for gigs.  Hell, even when another mando player sits down I wonder what he's got.

But, happy to say, it usually goes away as soon as we start jamming.  I love jamming with another mando that speaks my language.  But when they're competitive it plain sucks.  Miserable experience with no call and response.

Everything has its place, I guess.

----------


## KristinEliza

I hesitate jumping into the mix...because I am 'one of those' players that can read anything you put in front of me, but hesitates when improvising.  It's certainly not because I don't have an ear, or don't know how to improvise...I chalk it up to over thirty years of reading music with an emphasis on perfection and being scared to death to make a mistake when I get off the page.  Does that mean I (and other classically trained musicians) don't have an ear?  Trust me...we have highly refined ears, it's just we've learned a different way.

I guess it all depends on what learning 'classical' means.  And this has been touched upon in this thread already.

1.  Learning 'classical mandolin' is more than just playing classical music on mandolin.  It's an entirely different style of playing and technique.  Do I think it's necessary to study classical mandolin to become a 'well-rounded' mandolinist?  Not really (dodging bullets).

2.  Learning through 'classical technique' is different.  Generically it means a solid foundation on posture and technique...then applying those concepts to your playing.  It's learning to walk before you run.  It's similar to Greg's post about gymnastics.  I've seen many students that could play pieces a couple levels above them, but they were a sloppy mess...their technique wasn't to that level yet...teach the technique first, so you don't have to go back and relearn everything you did wrong.  This doesn't have to be boring...it all depends on the teacher.

3.  Playing classical music.  It certainly helps if you can read musical notation.  Can you play classical music without proper technique?  Absolutely...unless you plan on getting a bunch of classical gigs.  Classical music repertoire has a lot to offer you musically (as all styles do) and it's good to get a few pieces under your belt and in your ear.

----------


## Bill Baldridge

Well said, KristinEliza.

----------


## JonZ

Greg_tsam, "cheerleading building" does sound dangerous. Something about power tools and short skirts just doesn't mix.

Kristin, do you know of any self-taught classical players with great "classical technique"? What do classical players think of classical renditions by the "super pickers" from outside of the classical tradition?

Imagine: How Creativity Works has an interesting section on musical improvisation. Researchers did MRIs on the brains of musicians in the act of improvising and found that when they started to improvise, they shut down the part of the brain that inhibits. 

(There is a good critique of the book here on some problems with Jonah Leherer's argumentation on this matter.)

----------


## KristinEliza

> Kristin, do you know of any self-taught classical players with great "classical technique"? What do classical players think of classical renditions by the "super pickers" from outside of the classical tradition?


That's a hard one to answer.  Does self-taught mean 'never had a lesson'?  I know many people that grab an occasional lesson when they can (when the teacher is in town/state/country), but is otherwise pretty much on their own, and I would say they have good classical technique.  I don't know anyone personally that has just got a classical method and taught themselves.  As in any genre, modeling and a bit of guidance is an asset.  Learning pick hold from a picture might not be as successful as having someone show you and tweak your hold.  Or listen to your playing and say "Hey, that standard hold isn't really working for you.  Let's try adjusting it."

As for the 'super pickers', I can only voice *MY* opinion as a classical player.  I certainly appreciate anyone's performance of classical music...but I _enjoy_ those who have taken the time to learn the MUSIC, not just the NOTES.  There are a lot of considerations that go into learning / playing classical music that aren't on the page.  Music from different time periods (Baroque, Classical, Romantic, etc.) have different stylistic considerations.

And it also depends on my expectations as a listener.  I went to a PB concert a year ago and Thile played a Bach Partita as an encore.  Would I have had different expectations as a listener if he had performed it in a 'Classical' setting...probably...but did I enjoy/appreciate it any less in the setting in which I heard it...no.

On the MM and CL duet CD...the first few times I heard the C Major Sonata I was put off by the strange phrasing choices.  But the more I listened to it, the more I enjoyed it and 'got' it based one MM's addition on the the bass line which changed it all up.

I guess...with ANY style of music...I am more impressed with a performance that is musical.  Although I do occasionally enjoy some flashy, mind-blowing technique, just playing something fast doesn't make it spectacular.

----------


## Turnip Mountain Picker

Should a serious mandolin palyer learn classical?  Only if your serious about and want to play classical.

----------


## Alex Orr

How do you define "serious"?  I mean, I'm a serious hobbyist, but I'm only ever going to be a hobbyist.  I took this up in my thirties.  I have a job and a life outside playing mandolin.  I like playing (or trying to play) bluegrass, so that's what I do.  I think over-obsessing about _how_ to learn can take away from enjoying playing, as well as hinder learning itself.  Especially for folks who take up an instrument as a hobby later in life, one of the first things they should do is adjust their expectations.  Odds are highly likely you will NEVER be as good as Thile or Marshall, so just accept it.  Even for someone who takes it up young, the odds are you are not going to be a professional mandolin player because the job market for professional mandolin players is really, really, really, really small.  Then again, if you're independently wealthy.  Like Duff said, there's hundreds of dollars to be made in the bluegrass business.

I guess if you're starting a kid off really young, then maybe teach him some classical, but if he wants to play something else, let him do that instead.  What happens if you force a kid to play something on an instrument that he doesn't like?  Usually it means he loses interest in the instrument.  

Jazz guitar and classical are quite different.  I don't know why you'd want to learn classical guitar if what you really wanted to do was play jazz.  If you want to learn to play jazz, then just play jazz.

----------


## JonZ

I suppose the people who are counseling my son are saying something like--if you want a shot at going professional in any genre, develop good classical technique and reading skills.

So trying to go pro, or develop pro level skills, is serious.

I don't care for the expression "over-obsessing" in this context. (Is there a correct amount of obsessing?) "Over-obsessing" and "over-thinking" tend to get slapped on any discussion that does not particularly interest the person applying them. I doubt anyone here is seriously at risk of thinking too much. If someone is obsessing so much about how to learn that they cannot learn, they will likely give up the instrument and not participate in these discussions.

Over-TV-watching, on the other hand...

----------


## Charlieshafer

> I suppose the people who are counseling my son are saying something like--if you want a shot at going professional in any genre, develop good classical technique and reading skills.
> .


As far as violin goes, that's a true statement.

----------


## mandocrucian



----------


## John Flynn

> As far as violin goes, that's a true statement.


The violin, yes, but not necessarily the fiddle!

----------


## SternART

<<I like the skin on that cat just fine (not so sure about the tongue). >>

Tongue?  (Maine Coon)

I think that the partnership of (Cat)erina Lichtenberg and Mike Marshall is a potent one.......making each of them better musicians, as they each push their personal envelopes in new directions.

----------


## JonZ

Obsession with funny internet cat pictures has been the downfall of many a serious musician.

----------


## catmandu2

> Obsession with funny internet cat pictures has been the downfall of many a serious musician.


No, no...only _over_-obsession   :Wink: 

Jon, you're likely aware of Mark O'c's site--this came up today on another thread...seems like it could be relevant to you

http://markoconnor.com/index.php?pag..._of_Creativity

I haven't read through it yet, but caught this item--maybe Mark elaborates more and you might find it useful

_I believe that the “technique-oriented” (left-brain) musical training so prevalent in recent string methods is responsible in large part for the paucity of string playing composers, arrangers, improvisers and band/ensemble leaders in the United States_

----------


## margora

"By contrast, the classical instructor I had for a while claims that a lot of the famous players today, including some big names that have been mentioned in this thread, do not follow classical pedagogy. Keep in mind this guy started as a hard-core classical player with a classically trained instructor and he has over 50 years experience in the genre. According to him, things like posture, pick choice, the holding of the instrument, the position of the hands and the attack of the pick on the strings, that these celebs are teaching today are major departures from classical pedagogy, going well beyond mere "personal preference." So I asked the obvious question, "Then, how did they get to be so good?" 

He said, "That's not the question. The question is how much better could they have been if they had been doing it right all these years!?""

The problem with this observation by Mr. Flynn's instructor -- whom, if I am guessing the identity correctly, is a fine player and well known teacher -- is that there is nothing whatsoever like a standard orthodoxy for "classical mandolin".   Someone who follows the modern Italian approach to the instrument -- a student of Carlo Aonzo's say -- will hold the mandolin and pick very differently from someone who is a student of modern German methods (Marga Wilden-Husgen, to be specific).   Someone who is a student of Alex Timmerman's in the Netherlands (or Ralf Laneen's in Belgium) will strongly prefer the use of the very long pick advocated nearly a century ago by Silvio Ranieri.   Then there are the modern Israeli players, such as Avi Avital, whose left and right hand technique bears very little resemblance to any of the above.   Which of these is "right"?  Each style has advocates who play at exceptional levels.  If I had to make an argument, I would probably favor, on empirical grounds, the Germans, because they have produced a steady stream of extremely strong players (of whom those that are know in the US, such as Caterina, are the tip of a very large iceberg) but German educational methods are quite successful at replication no matter what is being taught, so that is not an especially persuasive argument.  

I suppose one could argue that the "famous players" alluded to above would be "better" if they followed any of the above approaches to classical mandolin, but I myself do not find the counterfactual at all persuasive.   Classical mandolin methods are mostly designed to teach people to play the literature of the classical mandolin.   This is not something that, say, Chris Thile, is interested in doing -- that said, I am confident that if he wanted to play, say, the Calace Preludes, he could do it easily (as Mike Marshall can, and has).  In terms of overall musical abilities and impact very broadly defined, I would personally say that Thile is superior to all of the above, and I say this as someone who plays strictly classical mandolin.   In other words, I don't think he would be any better at what he does if he began at age 5 by studying "classical mandolin" instead of how he actually began and, God forbid, he might never have developed his other skills if he did.

With regard to the original question, I would say that standards have risen in American mandolin circles that make a strong musical background -- reading, theory, ensemble skills, etc. -- extremely valuable if not essential, but this has nothing per se to do with classical mandolin methods.   I would say, as I have at other times on the 'cafe, that American mandolin circles have a narrow view of right hand technique (basically, DUDUDU ....) and the much more expansive right hand skills taught, say, by the Germans (or Italians or the Dutch) would be a valuable addition to anyone's skillset, even if they never play Vilvaldi or Calace.

----------

Alex Orr, 

August Watters

----------


## jackmalonis

I feel like since there's so many classical pieces (especially music writtem for solo violin, Bach's partitas come to mind) that many consider to be some of the most beautiful pieces writtem in hundreds of years, regardless of which genre you're particular to.

Since that is the case studying classical music should come from the want to study it, as opposed to the fear that its necessary. 

Only have your son study classical if he's emotionally invested in learning it because, I don't mean to sound sappy but thats where real music comes from. 

That being said it can be INCREDIBLY rewarding to be able to play your favorite classical piece/pieces. It just makes you feel... cultured.

If your son is a young mandolinist (much like myself) then he probably likes Chris Thile, and Thile does some awesome renditions of some of Bach's pieces for solo violin. Have him youtube those and it might spur his love for classical mandolin!

----------


## foldedpath

> I suppose the people who are counseling my son are saying something like--if you want a shot at going professional in any genre, develop good classical technique and reading skills.


"Going professional in any genre" is an awfully wide category, and it includes folk and world music styles that require just as much serious study _within_ those traditions as classical music does within its own tradition. Classical music isn't some kind of bedrock that provides a foundation for all music styles, regardless of what some teachers might say.

As just one example, I've encountered too many fiddlers from a classical background who just couldn't wrap their heads around Irish traditional music. There are great fiddlers who do have a classical background and play terrific Irish trad, but there are also scads of fiddlers like the one in this video clip below, who think they're playing "Irish" because they're playing the notes, and ignoring the heart of rhythm and ornamentation in the music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w654...eature=related

Twenty years of further classical instruction won't fix the problems that poor lady is having. A steady diet of _listening_ to great Irish fiddlers, and maybe some instruction from actual Irish trad players, might help. The same would apply to many other folk genres like Gypsy jazz, Blues, you name it. A classical background is great for classical music, and some people can transcend it and play in other genres. But I've seen many classicaly-educated players who just can't make that leap.

Contrast that clip with this one, of three kids from this summer's Willy Clancy Week playing a couple of reels:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS2rD...ature=youtu.be

Now, they may have classical teachers (also), for all I know, but there's a feel in that playing that you won't learn from a classical teacher who isn't familiar with the tradition. I've met young kids with an equivalent feel for OldTime fiddling, and they didn't get it from a classical violin teacher.

And the same would apply to mandolin, I think. To avoid too much classical straight-jacketing (assuming that's not the only focus one has), then I think it's a good idea to encourage kids to learn by ear as much as possible, along with whatever other classical-based instruction they're getting. Learning music by ear is the gateway to these other styles of music (including improv!), and its a skill that many purely classical-trained players simply never learn.

----------


## JonZ

I don't think anyone is saying to learn other genres by learning only classical violin, just that it is a very important foundation. In the violin world it seems to be "do classical and...", among teachers in most styles. There are plenty of exceptions, of course.

My son is just one person, but what I have seen is that he listens to and plays a lot of Celtic, Scandanavian Traditional, and jazz, but has definitely come to appreciate the control that he has gained from classical training, and would not consider quiting it, though the repertoire is not his favorite. This has become more pronounced as he has matured, and better connects long-term goals with short-term sacrifices.

Now, about the Marc O'Connor Method...

I think he sets up a false dichotomy of "European" vs. "American". Seriously, are students going to benefit from leaving out Bach? I get the benefits of the American musical tradition, but it's not either/or. He is a good marketer though, as this dichotomy sets his materials apart. 

String teachers will continue to pull from this and that.

----------


## KristinEliza

> The problem with this observation by Mr. Flynn's instructor -- whom, if I am guessing the identity correctly, is a fine player and well known teacher -- is that there is nothing whatsoever like a standard orthodoxy for "classical mandolin".


It's the same in the violin / bowed string world.  There are several 'schools' of technique...different bow holds...different scale systems...but they are all considered authentic classical technique.

----------


## JeffD

> But to say that the big names today are grounded in classical technique, and basing their teaching on classical technique, seems very much open to debate.


I agree, but I think the question is the future big names. And I agree with Cat on this, its not so much classical technique as some lessons grounded in formal technique, Western or otherwise, as opposed to just getting it on your own. Can one "get it on yer own" and have reasonable asiprations of becoming a big name. You could in the past, but are those days over? Chris Thile and Sierra Hull started on their own but got a lot of formal training and continue to benefit from it.

Isn't that really the essence of a performer. To hide how hard you have worked on things and how much you have depended on instructors and to look like you just play. To look and sound like music just comes out of you. So much so that your fans try to get as good as you by emulation, and hoping that the music will "just come out" of them too.

I remember an interview with one of the greatest scat singers, Mel Torme. Someone from the audience asked him how one prepares oneself to be a scat singer. And his reply rocked my world. He said first learn to sing all the scales, in every key, and then learn to sing accurately all the intervals between every note and every other note, so that you can reproduce the interval on demand. Combine that with a good grounding in music theory and composition.  

All that work to sound spontaneous!

----------


## JeffD

> but I _enjoy_ those who have taken the time to learn the MUSIC, not just the NOTES.  There are a lot of considerations that go into learning / playing classical music that aren't on the page.  Music from different time periods (Baroque, Classical, Romantic, etc.) have different stylistic considerations..


Yay!

I wish I had said that.

You bring up an important distinction. In terms of our present discussion, I think its important to distinguish between learning classical technique and learning classical music. They overlap sure, but they are not the same. A mandolinner with serious bluegrass aspirations can surely benefit from learning some classical technique, but not so much, perhaps, from learning classical music.

----------


## JeffD

> If your son is a young mandolinist (much like myself) then he probably likes Chris Thile, and Thile does some awesome renditions of some of Bach's pieces for solo violin.


Hmmm. They are technically brilliant and accomplished, but (with a few noted exceptions) I much prefer the classical mandolin players' renditions.

I don't have the classical vocabulary or training to know why, but I would offer this - the classical player, it seems to me, is pointing to the music, saying listen to this, listen to how beautiful this is.  Chris Thile, among many many others, when he plays some Bach, seem to me to be pointing to himself, and saying listen to me, see how brilliantly I can play this. You walk away in admiration of Chris Thile, and perhaps would spend money on a slow motion video of his left hand, but you don't walk away filled with beauty.

----------


## Charlieshafer

I remember having a discussion several years ago at a round-table type thing with a bunch of fiddlers and a few classical violinists. The argument came up that "classical players played notes but without the feel or emotion of the fiddlers." After a little go around, everyone agreed that this wasn't the result of them being classical players, it was the result of them not being good musicians, or particularly musical people. That simple. Music is emotion, and the inability to adapt to all styles and play with cultural intent or emotion is simply a lack of musicality of the player. Harsh, but unfortunately true. Training and practice doesn't make you a great musician, it simply provides you with the tools to express your creativity or musicality. If those skills aren't within you, ah...er...maybe take up some other profession, if you're intending it to be a career. 

But I'll stand by my assertion absolutely that to make a career of fiddling now, you need a strong classical background. You're competing for gigs and attention with the likes of Jeremy Kittel, Jason Anick, Brittany Haas, Gabe Witcher, to name just a few, and all have had extensive Suzuki or traditional classical training. You simply need the chops, pure and simple. It's not true for all instruments, I know, but as the OP is talking violin, then this is how it's going. It's a brave new world for the violin, and even the traditional die-hards, like the New England Conservatory, have started "Alternative Strings" majors and masters programs. How come? Well, it's a lot easier to to explain to mommy and daddy, who just dropped 160k on a college music education, that at least with the newly-evolving musical scene there's a pretty solid chance of making a living. 

It's actually an exciting time, with this trend sort of becoming the New American Classical Music. It really started with the Turtle Island String Quartet, moved through Darol Anger and Mike Marshall, and then picked up various musical geniuses as it rode along like Bela Fleck and Edgar Meyer. Crooked Still produced some of the most flat-out beautiful chamber music on their last cd before calling it quits, and of course, Punch Brothers are making their own statement now. Look out for Mariel Vandersteel, who's debut cd (Hickory, I think) is fantastic. Brittany Haas is getting ready for another, and Hanneke Cassel always releases the most incredible stuff going for Scots/Celtic. 

Anyway, from my vantage point, if you're looking to make an impact nationally/internationally, you better have chops. Playing locally? I guess it's up to you as to how good technically you want to get so you can really enjoy yourself. That's a whole different thread, for sure, as you can have a great time with music being a complete hack (look what music therapy programs do for patients who have never touched an instrument before) but, again, the original post referred to the evil money (as in going pro), so that's the standard we have to set.

----------


## catmandu2

> Now, about the Marc O'Connor Method...
> 
> I think he sets up a false dichotomy of "European" vs. "American". Seriously, are students going to benefit from leaving out Bach? I get the benefits of the American musical tradition, but it's not either/or. He is a good marketer though, as this dichotomy sets his materials apart.


I haven't read through it enough to get that, but what I do gleen is a general comparison between trad "classical" pedagogy (or string methods) and other (say, jazz), and find his conclusions logical





> String teachers will continue to pull from this and that.


Which string teachers?

----------


## catmandu2

> But I'll stand by my assertion absolutely that to make a career of fiddling now, you need a strong classical background. You're competing for gigs and attention with the likes of Jeremy Kittel, Jason Anick, Brittany Haas, Gabe Witcher, to name just a few, and all have had extensive Suzuki or traditional classical training. You simply need the chops, pure and simple. It's not true for all instruments, I know, but as the OP is talking violin, then this is how it's going. It's a brave new world for the violin, and even the traditional die-hards, like the New England Conservatory, have started "Alternative Strings" majors and masters programs. How come? Well, it's a lot easier to to explain to mommy and daddy, who just dropped 160k on a college music education, that at least with the newly-evolving musical scene there's a pretty solid chance of making a living.


I think this is a logical conclusion and with clear evidence: we see elements of classical (and jazz) increasingly infusing the fiddling genres.  A logical product of general "gentrification" of folk music (as it were)--the planet is "shrinking"

----------


## jackmalonis

> Hmmm. They are technically brilliant and accomplished, but (with a few noted exceptions) I much prefer the classical mandolin players' renditions.
> 
> I don't have the classical vocabulary or training to know why, but I would offer this - the classical player, it seems to me, is pointing to the music, saying listen to this, listen to how beautiful this is.  Chris Thile, among many many others, when he plays some Bach, seem to me to be pointing to himself, and saying listen to me, see how brilliantly I can play this. You walk away in admiration of Chris Thile, and perhaps would spend money on a slow motion video of his left hand, but you don't walk away filled with beauty.


I think I'd have to agree. It's hard to argue against that when he did, after all, choose the more or less "pop" spotlight.

I was just pointing out that for someone not already "into" classical music, that Thile is a good segway into the genre (for example I saw Thile play some Bach and then I immediately picked up Avi Avital's new CD full of Bach renditions) especially for someone close to my age.

----------


## August Watters

Wow, there's much wisdom in this thread. It's long though so if I may recap:

- classical mandolin is not the same as classical music on mandolin
- classical technique is not just for classical music
- there's little standardization about which techniques or learning approaches may be considered "classical"
- "classical" learning traditions vary by nationality as well as by time or era
- within national traditions, there are plenty of different approaches
- our musicals worlds are evolving quickly and barriers are breaking down, thus the perceived distance between "classical" and "everything else" is shrinking quickly.

The original question was "must a serious player study classical mandolin?" My view is yes, for several reasons: 

1) classical mandolin orchestra music is historically where the American mandolin began. You can't go very deep in American mandolin music without getting back to Italian classical mandolin ensemble music -- this music is part of our heritage and studying it is part of understanding where newer mandolin traditions came from.

2) the technical standards in the classical world(s) are astronomical. To try to understand them may challenge conventional wisdom from other worlds, but can also open up a range of possibilities.

3) the various classical traditions are like sources of folk wisdom, passed through the generations. Why reinvent the wheel? More specifically, the understanding of tone and how it is produced can really open up possibilities.

4) the boundaries between musical genres are quickly dissolving, so exploring the space between is a natural path for someone who wants to master any genre.

I don't think studying classical mandolin is for everyone, but the OP's question was about someone who studies the instrument seriously. We could talk forever about what "classical mandolin" or "seriously" mean, but I definitely think exploring this territory has a lot to offer.

----------


## catmandu2

> I agree, but I think the question is the future big names. And I agree with Cat on this, its not so much classical technique as some lessons grounded in formal technique, Western or otherwise, as opposed to just getting it on your own.


I forget where we were on this thing.  But I'm not sure we're thinking of the same thing, Jeff.  I do highly recommend studying in the classical tradition (I'm biased, having come up through the tradition myself)--I think it cultivates an approach to playing (aside from the basic elements of posture, ergonomics, exercises, etc.) that is highly valuable to developing players.   I think (and this really shows my bias) it's particualrly helpful in the beginning--although ideally it's probable that taking it all in as much as possible and as early as possible is most beneficial.  I can't articulate it just now--I went without coffee yesterday and my head is pounding.  Forgive me for again posting the Hal Galper vid, but here he uses classical approach (not technique, per se--for Hal says there is no difference between "classical" and "jazz" technique--but repertoire and approach, *concept*, "how your body's being used, how it feels, the whole thing...") to develop jazz articulation and control--namely, using "classical" phrasing and articulation as a "baseline" and starting point, point of departure, etc. for other stylistic approaches; the "classical" approach representing a relatively "pure," even or unembellished rendering of "the music" (the notes), etc.  I think this may be useful (again) to the OP

Hal says, "straight," even, smooth..."_no articulation_--should be _automatic_"--that is, a sort of default.  I  think the classical idiom is an especially effective way to acquire this habit, or inclination, or approach to execution--my bias is that this is _best_ learned in the beginning, or assimilated as fundamental.  IMO, trad "classical" pedagogy is particularly effective for cultivating "control" (as Hal says) for it generally removes the many stylistic elements of various contemporary forms and cultivates "smoothness and evenness," for example in the case of Bach and Baroque forms, as a starting point, or perhaps, it is particularly effective for modeling florid articulation and expression in the case of romanticism, and classicism, etc.  In other words, perhaps it serves as "best practices" for models

Make sure you at least listen starting at 8:20"

----------


## catmandu2

So, let me elaborate in order to clarify then:




> ... will all great players, in all genres, have to be grounded in the Western classical pedagogy?


No




> _Should_ a Serious Mandolin Player Learn Classical?


Yes, certainly (if I understand the question)

----------


## KristinEliza

> I remember having a discussion several years ago at a round-table type thing with a bunch of fiddlers and a few classical violinists. The argument came up that "classical players played notes but without the feel or emotion of the fiddlers." After a little go around, everyone agreed that this wasn't the result of them being classical players, it was the result of them not being good musicians, or particularly musical people.


Oh my.  I certainly hope this isn't a blanket statement saying classical violinists don't play with feel or emotion!

As with any style of music, one needs to study/listen to the genre in order to play it faithfully.  While I could certainly technically play the same  music as a fiddler, I would need to study the style and genre in order to make it sound authentic.  I would never presume that my years of classical training would make me just as good or better than someone who has been been fiddling for years!

Apples and oranges!

----------


## catmandu2

> Oh my.  I certainly hope this isn't a blanket statement saying classical violinists don't play with feel or emotion!


That does sound weird, Charlie.  I think the way Hal Galper accounts for it above (control) is more apt

I might suggest, however, that while (as Kristin says) a strictly classical player wouldn't necessarily have assimilated "fiddling genre" feel, the "classical" player is exposed to a very wide variety of expression requirements.  It might be fair to say, very generally, for example that the fiddler will be more accomplished in rhythmic emphasis and the violinist moreso in "control"--the fiddler might swing better, and the violinist more adept with Bach...but, does this have meaning?--what can we learn from a comparison?  Is one style _more expressive_ than the other?  I think the salient point in this is one of utility, that we can simply expand our facility and range of expression by assimilating broad lessons.  Is one "better" than the other?  Of course not.  Do different methods produce different results?  Of course

----------


## catmandu2

AUGUST W., sheesh I skipped right past your excellent post and jumped right into my rant.  Should have left it up there!  Have a great day guys and gals

----------


## bobby bill

> Oh my. I certainly hope this isn't a blanket statement saying classical violinists don't play with feel or emotion!


Could be a blanket statement or not.  But you're going to find a recurring theme here that classical musicians are mere automatons, with no ears (couldn't even play Mary Had a Little Lamb without the music), and no emotion or feeling (they just spit out the notes on the page in front of them).  I couldn't tell you where this notion comes from.  I always guessed that it was a defensive reaction from the less than proficient ("well, I can't do all that, but I do it with feeling").  It kind of flies in the face of the fact that some of the best musicians in the world playing some of the most emotion-filled music (oh, and with feeling) will often find a music stand in front of them.  Go figure.  Here's a guy just spitting out the notes:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotat...&v=yv5HmKomT7Y

No feeling here.

----------


## catmandu2

Right, okay last post

I should have said: is one better than the other?  And the answer, more correctly, assumes a dimension of much broader sociologic proportion than only "music"

----------


## SincereCorgi

> Could be a blanket statement or not.  But you're going to find a recurring theme here that classical musicians are mere automatons, with no ears (couldn't even play Mary Had a Little Lamb without the music), and no emotion or feeling (they just spit out the notes on the page in front of them).  I couldn't tell you where this notion comes from.  I always guessed that it was a defensive reaction from the less than proficient ("well, I can't do all that, but I do it with feeling").  It kind of flies in the face of the fact that some of the best musicians in the world playing some of the most emotion-filled music (oh, and with feeling) will often find a music stand in front of them.  Go figure.  Here's a guy just spitting out the notes:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotat...&v=yv5HmKomT7Y
> 
> No feeling here.


I totally agree Bobby, but there's a lot of the flipside of that attitude on the classical side. I can't count the number of times growing up that I've heard classical players dismiss popular music as 'easy', so much so that I believed it myself. It can be a very insular and somewhat cult-like world.

----------


## Randi Gormley

Interesting. I didn't read Charlie's statement as painting everyone with the same brush. My thought (which may be completely wrong, of course), was his statement: "The argument came up that "classical players played notes but without the feel or emotion of the fiddlers." After a little go around, everyone agreed that this wasn't the result of them being classical players, it was the result of them not being good musicians, or particularly musical people" meant that the classical players who played without emotion (or who played fiddle tunes without emotion) weren't particularly musical people, not that ALL classical players weren't. You can't listen to classical music without feeling all manner of emotion coming from the musicians. there are, of course, lots of so-called musicians who only understand the notes, not the music behind them, but you'll find that all over: dancers who know the steps but don't understand the internal rhythm of dance, writers who know the forms but can't understand the rhythms and patterns of language.

----------


## greg_tsam

Classical players play without emotion?  Classical music is easy?  Merely automatons?  That's just ridiculous and wrong.  I've always respected the training and dedication it takes to be a classical musician and know a good many classical musicians to know it ain't easy.  They play with emotion and feeling.  

One thing that surprises me about some classical players is their apparent lack of improvisational skills but I know this is b/c their training goes in a different direction.  Of course this doesn't apply to all classical musicians but many.  I thought maybe they didn't have the "ear" for it but later found out their musical ears are highly refined.  They usually just don't have practice playing without charts and musical notation in front of them.

Apples and oranges as far as the way the brain thinks about the two.  I know classically trained musicians that can do improve but they find it difficult at first.  My son is growing up around a family of performing musicians, grandparents, mother father, aunts and uncles, we all play and perform.  

His mother and his aunt have started at 4 years old in Suzuki and then went on to play bluegrass, honky tonk, gypsy and jazzy violin.  His mother can do wildly improvized solos that are classified best as eclectic or transcendental.  Still, she had to learn this skill until she got to a point where she was merely a conduit of emotion pouring out of her instrument.  Kinda hippy trippy, i know, but it is what it is.

She once considered giving advanced lessons to other like her, classical types, who wanted to learn to improvise.   I questioned her if there was a need for this and she said "Oh yes."  Apples and Oranges.

----------


## catmandu2

Well, I think this is a common misconception: among the skills required from "classical" players is, in fact, playing without inserting "personal emotion"; the classical milieu is not the same as most other forms, in that, much of the "emotion" is "in the hands" of the composer, the conductor, the ensemble--this is one of the highly refined skills distinguishing the ability of the classical player--to play free of interpretation or to "interpret" devoid of the phrasing, articulation, and expression common to contemporary forms

----------


## JeffD

> One thing that surprises me about some classical players is their apparent lack of improvisational skills but I know this is b/c their training goes in a different direction.  Of course this doesn't apply to all classical musicians but many.  I thought maybe they didn't have the "ear" for it but later found out their musical ears are highly refined.  They usually just don't have practice playing without charts and musical notation in front of them.
> 
> Apples and oranges.


Indeed. And you have to differentiate between playing and learning music without the sheet music, by ear, and improvising. Classical folks are often weak in both areas.

I can understand the latter - I share that with a lot of classical musicians - there is so much wonderful music out there I want to play, I have never had a burning desire to improve upon or even too heavily ornament the original tune.

The former, playing by ear, I find essential, because there is so much to the music that you have to hear to really get.

----------


## bobby bill

> but there's a lot of the flipside of that attitude on the classical side. I can't count the number of times growing up that I've heard classical players dismiss popular music as 'easy'


Agreed.  You can find closed minds almost anywhere.

----------


## Charlieshafer

It seems like Randi got my point, but others may have missed the point due to my incredibly convoluted syntax. Of course good classical players play with emotion. What's music without emotion? Sonic accounting, that's all. The point was that the really good musicians who are inherently musical people can play it all. Sure there's a different technical vocabulary, but with a little practice, anyone with really good technique can pick it up. As an afterword to the classical players listening to Tommy Jarrell, I gave them a recommended listening list, and after a couple of weeks, the difference was apparent between them. One "got it" immediately, and was playing fiddle styles in old-time and Scots with great swing and emotion and style, the whole works. The other one (this almost too good to be true) wanted to know of there was any way he could get all the slides, flicks, chunks and chops in written notation because he couldn't get the right timing or grace notes perfectly. He just couldn't get the feel of it listening and playing along with the tunes I gave them. 

As an aside, I'm recalling a workshop Hanneke Cassell gave our group where she was really working on driving a dance using Scots reels. (She is primarily a Scots fiddler, after all, and essentially is the lead teacher at Alasdair Fraser's Valley of The Moon fiddle camps.) What she did was first teach a quick reel, then she taught everyone to play the notes dead on, but with poor timing and accents. After that, she had everyone re-work the tune with intentionally wrong notes, but with great drive and timing, really working on the "drive" in dance music. The results opened everyone's eyes (and ears). The wrong-note-right-timing version just flew and sang and had everyone bouncing in their seats. The right-note-wrong-timing version simply stank, to put it mildly.

So it's not the notes, it is the emotion and timing and flair that a tune is played with. From a classical standpoint, take Bach's Partita in E (the famous prelude) and listen to Viktoria Mullova's recent version (worth the download price for educational value alone) and listen to the dynamics. Amazing, and full of emotion. Then take a different version (any number will do) and while they may be trying to be speed demons, it's relatively lifeless. 

So, in short, all great music is filled with emotion, and great players can get that emotion in any style, with a little work. But no matter what instrument, you still need the chops. What August Watters said above is all very true as far as the technical grounding required for any really serious musician.

----------


## JonZ

> I haven't read through it enough to get that, but what I do gleen is a general comparison between trad "classical" pedagogy (or string methods) and other (say, jazz), and find his conclusions logical
> 
> Which string teachers?


I haven't read all of his website, but at his camp he went into it at length. It kind of irritated me that some of his evenening presentations (He taught none of the actual classes and never ate with the students--you get the picture.) were basically infomercials. There were, however, many good classes.

THE string teachers.




My guess would be that classically trained players would have the easiest time switching to an unfamiliar style, except when it comes to improvisation.

----------


## SincereCorgi

> I haven't read all of his website, but at his camp he went into it at length. It kind of irritated me that some of his evenening presentations (He taught none of the actual classes and never ate with the students--you get the picture.) were basically infomercials.


That's interesting... I kinda do get that infomercial vibe from a lot of his materials. I've been working out of his violin method, among others, and it's nicely done- great CD to play along with (_much_ better sound quality than the Suzuki offerings...) and nice arrangements for the tunes. It ends up feeling like Mark O'Connor promotional material, though, because a lot of the pieces have these full color facing-pages with pictures of young Mark O'Connor and little autobiographical essays about, for example, how playing the violin makes him feel that he can touch the sky. I've never seen a method do anything quite like that.

----------


## JonZ

All musicians need to promote themselves. He is very good at it. I'm fine with whatever works, as long as it is ethical.

There is nothing _wrong_ with his materials that I can tell, if you okay with playing only American music. I just think it is odd how he sets it up as American string instruction having been hampered by an _exclusive_ emphasis on European music, so now we need to have a method that is _exclusively_ American.

The string teachers that I know have always drawn on various methods repertoireoire. His method will be a nice balance--not replacement--for the more Euro-centrictric methods.

I think a lot of what is on the website comes from his son's dissertation (Harvard PhD, I believe). He read it at the camp.

----------


## greg_tsam

> The wrong-note-right-timing version just flew and sang and had everyone bouncing in their seats.


This is my goto defense of every lead I take.




> ...so now we need to have a method that is _exclusively_ American.


Mark O'Conner method for violin.

----------


## catmandu2

> ... makes him feel that he can touch the sky. I've never seen a method do anything quite like that.


While that may be a bit hyperbolic...for the record, I am familiar with methods enabling such (albeit, not _violin_ per se)

----------


## Jim Nollman

I've been playing contra dances lately with a lifelong professional jazz horn player. He's been on tour with people you've all heard of. With us, he's mostly playing penny whistle (a very expensive one i might add). 

When he first started sitting in, I asked him what about this music attracted him. I suppose i must have sounded like I thought he was slumming. now in his sixties, he said he's looking for some new music to conquer. And he is constantly amazed at how "cathartic" these tunes become when played at our usual breakneck dance speed, and by a band of players who know how to keep the syncopations sharp as a knife. He's told me he  hasn't played such rollicking fun  music in years that has the capability to get the dancers whooping and sweating.  This is not a judgment, but an observation. 

He has always been a one-note-at-a-time melody player. He surprised me the other night me to say that the 20 or so tunes he's learned so far — morpath rant, money in both pockets, sandy boys, whiskey before breakfast, etc, etc — are as melodically sophisticated as jazz standards.  

Over the past month we've performed 3 or 4 dances together. He's often expressing annoyance with himself for having to keep his face stuck in the written music. By contrast, I play everything by ear. He told me that ultimately, that's the only way to get good at this music. He doesn't think anyone can play this music very well so long as they have to follow a chart. Maybe its the same with all music. 

In terms of this thread, I guess I've gone around the barn to conclude that studying with  a teacher may be critical for certain musical disciplines. But it can be irrelevant with others. And it can also keep you separated from the true source with yet others. Makes me think of the Beatles, who just picked up their instruments and got great by simply playing them into the ground.

----------


## homejame

O.K. my two pennorth.  I sight read top line. moderately well - have almost got to the point  where I can look at a tune and play it straight out the box. Irish Polkas were giving me some trouble- (with their hiccups in odd places)- so, I took the book to France with me...O.K. I play across genres. across instruments too. Fender base, slide guitar guitar etc etxc. some fiddle . Mandolin. Which at the moment is my raison de... I play by ear as well. Now, the sight reading is cool because if they come into a dance practice (where I play buttonbox) and say can you......I can normally 'get it' by the time they've learn't the dance.The ear is cool cos I can pretty much pick up tunes on the fly in certain circumstances. I am working on some Bach for mandolin. I thought about it after seeing Thiele. I can see why- it gives you a whole different 'road map' of the neck. BUT.   just joined our local bluegrass band. my learning curve went parabolic..in 3 months on the road - rehearsals etc,  I have learned more about the neck in the last 3 months than the last few years.See- over here, if your playing for a country dance band - Mandolin would normally just play the tune-the accordion player would fill the chords in. So I have been shoveling chord theory down me neck as fast as it will go. Thus far I have survived - and improved( wipes fevered brow). So - you do need the best of both worlds. A good ear, and the reading as well - if only to get the tune a dam sight quicker- had the fiddle player yelling Mackinleys march down me ear last week- if he'd just put the dots in front of me we'd have been there in half an hour or so ( maybe , lolol). 
I'm also doing about 2/3 hours a day practicing at the moment.its a slack time for study at the mo ..........( am 63 btw- retired  and an open uni student)

----------


## greg_tsam

Too bad we can't get Evan Marshall to get on here and respond to all this.  I love that guy's playing and picking and, as most all of us know, he very accomplished in sight reading, playing by ear, classical and bluegrass.  Probably a lot of other things I just don't know about.

Nice post, homejame.

----------


## bobby bill

> he said he's looking for some new music to conquer.


Seems like kind of a red flag.  You don't conquer music.  If you are lucky, music conquers you.

----------


## homejame

thanks Greg- trying not to sound to 'cocky'- but I aint the youngest bunny on the block by a long way- and I have not had half the parental 'push' like a lot of the young whizz kids seem to have these days. And are they any better for it?? Maybe   ''' should find its own level - as the saying goes around here. There is an awful lot of theory kicking around -just trying to wade through a page on jazz mando makes me head funny. If your lucky - music'll conquer you -if not- it'll chew you up and spit you out in bubbles. I am constantly pushing the envelope-still. again, that's the beauty of this stuff - you never stop learning.Banjo lesson this morning,practice for   a 'scratch' ceildih band tonight. Bluegrass practice tomorrow evening, then the second gig at our new residency, 'The Quaker House'  in darlington- a lovely old fashioned, small venue- with some excellent beverages on tap..that's on Sunday evening folks. Olympics - what... who........!!!!!

----------


## greg_tsam

The most eye opening part of music for me was when I discovered it was like peeling back the layers of an onion.  There's always another one waiting for you when you finish the last.

----------


## Jim Nollman

Yes, Greg says it well:  like peeling the onion. 

I can pick up and deconstruct any fiddle tune in a few minutes by ear.

BUT...I don't read, and have always lamented the fact that I'll never play a Bach fugue without weeks, maybe months,  of getting it wrong.

----------


## JRcohan

I have to agree with Pete Martin's post.  The genre of music is not as important as the seriousness of study.  I personally enjoy playing classical music on mandolin but bluegrass, jazz, and swing can be analyzed, studied and performed at the highest levels as well.

Don't study classical just for the sake of it.  If you find a classical piece you love, then delve on in.  Be it by ear or sheet music.

Jake
http://www.jakecohan.com

----------


## August Watters

> Don't study classical just for the sake of it.


Fair enough, but for those who want to investigate what classical mandolin traditions have to offer, Bob Margora gave us a pretty good example back in post #44 of this thread:




> I would say, as I have at other times on the 'cafe, that American mandolin circles have a narrow view of right hand technique. . . the much more expansive right hand skills taught, say, by the Germans (or Italians or the Dutch) would be a valuable addition to anyone's skillset, even if they never play Vilvaldi or Calace.


The disagreement here, I think, is about the learning process: do we only pick and choose which pieces we want to incorporate into our own personal voice? Or do we immerse ourselves in established learning traditions to see where they go? I like both approaches.

----------


## catmandu2

> I have to agree with Pete Martin's post.  The genre of music is not as important as the seriousness of study.  I personally enjoy playing classical music on mandolin but bluegrass, jazz, and swing can be analyzed, studied and performed at the highest levels as well.
> 
> Don't study classical just for the sake of it.  If you find a classical piece you love, then delve on in.  Be it by ear or sheet music.
> 
> Jake
> http://www.jakecohan.com


I think it  may be useful here to reiterate that "learning classical"--or "delving into a piece" willy-nilly--is really a wrong-headed approach to the classical milieu; the idiom is predicated on a system of skill development--whose benefifs manifest commesurate with investment; in other words, this recreational approach to a system of highly refined skills will have limited efficacy--without systematic approach to study.  The classical tradition is not really a domain for dilettante dabbling--it is really a pedagogic system designed to build upon skills in logical sequence; "playing around" with a piece you like to hear, while perhaps providing a nice diversion, will yield limited benefit for the idea is to execute repertoire "effectively"--with many subtleties involved.  So I think the dilettante approach is kind of like going deep sea fishing with light tackle and a can of worms...for lack of a better analogy.  Or, perhaps a better one might be: going to Egypt or Chaco canyon for a day of sightseeing...

----------

August Watters

----------


## jackmalonis

> I think it  may be useful here to reiterate that "learning classical"--or "delving into a piece" willy-nilly--is really a wrong-headed approach to the classical milieu; the idiom is predicated on a system of skill development--whose benefifs manifest commesurate with investment; in other words, this recreational approach to a system of highly refined skills will have limited efficacy--without systematic approach to study.  The classical tradition is not really a domain for dilettante dabbling--it is really a pedagogic system designed to build upon skills in logical sequence; "playing around" with a piece you like to hear, while perhaps providing a nice diversion, will yield limited benefit for the idea is to execute repertoire "effectively"--with many subtleties involved.  So I think the dilettante approach is kind of like going deep sea fishing with light tackle and a can of worms...for lack of a better analogy.  Or, perhaps a better one might be: going to Egypt or Chaco canyon for a day of sightseeing...


While the willy-nilly delving into classical pieces might not be AS fruitful as the wholistic approach to studying the genre, I can truthfully say that nothing has helped my technique more than "delving into" some of Bach's partitas... Just because I liked listening to them.

----------


## catmandu2

> While the willy-nilly delving into classical pieces might not be AS fruitful as the wholistic approach to studying the genre, I can truthfully say that nothing has helped my technique more than "delving into" some of Bach's partitas... Just because I liked listening to them.


Ah, my apologies--don't wish to try to dispute your experience.  I forget that I tend to think on this from my own experiences--with classical guitar--with which there are a great many more nuances involved than with "classical" mandolin.  I suppose one could dabble with a bit of Bach with mandolin without great strenuousness and achieve satisfactory results.  Carry on!

----------


## Charlieshafer

> The classical tradition is not really a domain for dilettante dabbling--it is really a pedagogic system designed to build upon skills in logical sequence


Yes! Playing classical tunes may be fun for some, and is fun for many, but just playing isn't the point. It's the whole technical aspect of tone projection, picking technique, fingering technique, and all that boring stuff. What happens eventually is that you get (hopefully) total control over the instrument, so that you can make whatever sound you're looking for exactly when you want to make it, and at most any speed necessary. It's all about dynamics; loud/soft, crescendo/decrescendo, fast-to-slow/slow-to-fast, etc.  Certainly for one just wanting to chop away to some bluegrass warhorse doesn't require this, but, if you're looking to really be a professional, you need a pretty big bag of tricks. Sort of like Felix; a magic bag of tricks is even better.

----------


## OldSausage

> ...my own experiences--with classical guitar--with which there are a great many more nuances involved than with "classical" mandolin.  I suppose one could dabble with a bit of Bach...


Someone catch my jaw...

----------

pickloser

----------


## jackmalonis

> Ah, my apologies--don't wish to try to dispute your experience.  I forget that I tend to think on this from my own experiences--with classical guitar--with which there are a great many more nuances involved than with "classical" mandolin.  I suppose one could dabble with a bit of Bach with mandolin without great strenuousness and achieve satisfactory results.  Carry on!


Thank you I most certainly will!

But I just wanted to point out at that for many who can't afford/don't have time for lessons, the music in and of itself has PLENTY to offer without committing oneself to the whole pedagogy of classical music. 

While it will never be as intensive as large scale classical training,  a good ear will pick up on the subtle nuances and by necessity of being able to play a piece fluidly, your technique will adapt accordingly. 

From my (very limited) experience, so much of becoming a great player is figuring out the "kinesthetics" and stylistic technique that complement most one's anatomy.

----------


## August Watters

> While the willy-nilly delving into classical pieces might not be AS fruitful as the wholistic approach to studying the genre, I can truthfully say that nothing has helped my technique more than "delving into" some of Bach's partitas... Just because I liked listening to them.


Me too - this is how I was introduced to classical music on mandolin! My teacher, Bill Leavitt - who founded the Berklee guitar department - introduced me to Partita #2, which I'm still working on after all these years. Didn't take long to take it over to mandolin.

But the Bach partitas are a good illustration of the confusion that I think still underlies this thread: the difference between "classical music on mandolin" and "classical mandolin." The Partitas are gorgeous, challenging, and endlessly rewarding to play on mandolin - and yet their relationship to the classical mandolin tradition is peripheral. This is music composed for violin, and to the extent that they work well on mandolin, it's up to us to figure out fingerings, picking, and all the other little details of interpretation.

"Classical mandolin," on the other hand, is music specifically composed for the mandolin, taking advantage of its unique characteristics. It's best learned by studying with a teacher who has been immersed in a specific tradition, but if you don't have easy access to that, an experienced player might get a lot from jumping into one of the method books. Marilynn Mair has a new method "The Complete Mandolinist" (which she described to me as the only new method in the English language); Mike Marshall has republished the classic Calace method. And there are several others available free on the internet; search IMSLP.

I think it's important to distinguish between different goals: the OP's question was about the importance of studying the classical tradition for a "serious" player, and I commented on that earlier. But most folks are playing for their own reasons. I think we all have a deep-seated need to create music -- so it's great to experiment with "classical music for mandolin" or "classical mandolin."

----------


## catmandu2

> Someone catch my jaw...


Doubtful?  FYI, there are many, many more variables to control with (classical) guitar

----------


## Tom Haywood

I guess classical in this context refers to European and American music and not classical Indian raga, etc. Classical music offers excellent "language" and skills practice to the serious or casual mandolin player, in addition to encouraging the reading of musical notation. I look at a little bit of Bach or Beethoven about twice a year and am always amazed to find some musical phrases that are standard in bluegrass or other genres, often in a context that offers insight into hand positions, fingering, and general tonality of the instrument. I studied classical piano when I was young, but I have almost no interest in playing classical music on the mandolin or studying classical mandolin technique. Working some on Bach's Bouree in G last week resulted in some unexpected nice backup on some country music this week. Go figure.

----------


## Beanzy

For anyone wondering whether they should even embark on the learning journey after reading these posts I would say do it.
For me the approach of using the Bickford methods worked because it was focused on the instrument and used the music chosen to serve the development of technique, rather than just mashing the student into the classical repertoire. Ragtime, music-hall & popular tunes from the early 1900s all help to keep the technique learning engaging. It's really tough to get a grip on techniques by using just one composer or era in music. That kind of specialism can be very dry and you can feel a bit adrift without the experience that lets you know what is expected from the score. I've only worked through three of the four Bickford books and have decided to take a break by using the Mair method for a while as it can be very dry just working through technique and she has a fresher approach which i could use right now. 

I'd recommend people get a bit of a road map of what you want to achieve as you could get a bit marooned in the sheer scale of the parallel tasks of understanding the genre/style, techniques and repertoire. For those starting out into classical set simple goals rather than grand ones to start. Something like being able to play-along with a recording of a piece you like while reading your part from the score, is useful if you don't have access to an ensemble locally. But if at all possible have some playing/preforming objective in your sights. Residential courses are great for this as you tend to practice your keester off in the run up to them and the exposure to so many others at various levels shines a spotlight on where you've got to.

As a cellist it said a lot to me when Stephen Isserlis commented on his 2007 album of Bach suites for Cello "I finally dared to do it". Given he began playing at 6 years of age and plays with a depth of feeling and phenomenal level of technique, it says a lot about his understanding of the composer & how much he needed to do to understand these works to a level where he could perform them to his own satisfaction.

----------

jackmalonis

----------


## Capt. E

> Alright, in order to prevent bobby bill from sounding CRAZY...here's my original pic


I was recently given a birthday card with this photo on it. Did you sell it or has it been stolen?

I think of Sarah Jarosz who is attending the New England Conservatory presently (majoring in song writing), just issued her second album and is a rising star in the bluegrass - singer/songwriter world.  I know she is learning things at the school that will serve her well in her music career. No education is wasted. My gr-grandmother who graduated from Pratt in 1900 always said everyone should have a good education, even if they are a manual laborer...it enhances your entire life. I am sure we will continue to see remarkable musical artists who play by ear, do not read notation and whose creativity and ability astounds us, but it is a hard path to follow. A good musical education will usually help.

----------


## catmandu2

> I was recently given a birthday card with this photo on it. Did you sell it or has it been stolen?


Well it's neither my photo nor my cat...although I _do_ have lots of cats and could provide an original photo or two of them!   :Smile:

----------


## catmandu2

> For me the approach of using the Bickford methods worked because it was focused on the instrument and used the music chosen to serve the development of technique, rather than just mashing the student into the classical repertoire. Ragtime, music-hall & popular tunes from the early 1900s all help to keep the technique learning engaging. It's really tough to get a grip on techniques by using just one composer or era in music. That kind of specialism can be very dry and you can feel a bit adrift without the experience that lets you know what is expected from the score.
> 
> I'd recommend people get a bit of a road map of what you want to achieve as you could get a bit marooned in the sheer scale of the parallel tasks of understanding the genre/style, techniques and repertoire.



Well said and much better than I, Eoin

----------


## JRcohan

> Fair enough, but for those who want to investigate what classical mandolin traditions have to offer, Bob Margora gave us a pretty good example back in post #44 of this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> The disagreement here, I think, is about the learning process: do we only pick and choose which pieces we want to incorporate into our own personal voice? Or do we immerse ourselves in established learning traditions to see where they go? I like both approaches.


I think that is great insight.  Both schools of learning can be effective.  In the end I think it depends on the person.  No two people learn exactly the same way.  

One idea is that only after a concept is mastered can one move on to attempt the next in the chronology of techniques.  This I believe is stressed more in classical musicians than bluegrass players.  I'll admit added discipline is a good thing any way you look at it.  

The other school of learning is to let players, even sometimes encourage them to attempt songs/techniques _slightly_ out of their own ability.  This helps stop the problem of only playing what is comfortable.  Do this with caution. When one delves into new musical ground, they must later going back to the fundamentals of that idiom if they really want it reap the benefits.

I must agree with "margora" right-hand technique must be stressed more than it is currently in the States, and it does pays off no matter what style of music you are playing.

----------


## margora

"But the Bach partitas are a good illustration of the confusion that I think still underlies this thread: the difference between "classical music on mandolin" and "classical mandolin." The Partitas are gorgeous, challenging, and endlessly rewarding to play on mandolin - and yet their relationship to the classical mandolin tradition is peripheral. This is music composed for violin, and to the extent that they work well on mandolin, it's up to us to figure out fingerings, picking, and all the other little details of interpretation."

I am developing a workshop,  "Bach on the Solo Mandolin: The Sonatas and Partitas" that is intended for the Classical Mandolin Society convention.   Part of the workshop deals with the history of performing the Bach solo violin works on mandolin.

The earliest documented reference is Carlo Munier.  In his Op. 200, Munier published five movements from the Bach S&P's.    Due to a delay in publication, Op. 200 did not appear until 1905, but based on the opus number can be dated to around 1900, meaning that Munier was working on his arrangements in the mid to late 1890s.   Around the same time, Silvio Ranieri and Ernesto Rocco, both among the greatest of the early 20th century classical mandolinists, routinely programmed various movements (e.g. the Fugue from BWV1001) in their solo performances. 

In the United States it seems very likely that Pettine studied the Bach works in the early 20th century.   Late in his life (the 1950s) he made a private recording of the Chaccone; all of the recordings that he made in the 1950s were of repertoire that he had played while young.   Demetrius ("Anton") Dounis almost certainly played Bach on the mandolin; in addition to being one of the great early 20th century players (he was the first to record a Calace prelude in the early 1900s, on a cylinder) he was also a leading violinst, and he published his own edition of the S&P's for violin.   Sol Goichberg played Bach (in the 1930s).

Post WW2, the frequency increases (e.g. Anneda, who taught Orlandi, who taught Aonzo; d'Alton, who taught Alison Stephens; Neil Gladd).   Among the present generation of high level classical players, it is a very long list (e.g. Acquavella, de Grebber, the Israeli's, and many, many Germans).  Or, as Carlo Aonzo put it when I discussed the issue with him a few months ago, "Now, everyone plays Bach".

Based on this history I would say that it is extremely likely that, had the classical mandolin not fallen by the wayside in the 1930s-1970s, there would have been many more performances of the Bach on mandolin in the past.   It is also clear that the performance history on the mandolin is as long as that on the classical guitar, which also dates from roughly the same period (i.e. Tarrega).

August is correct that the Bach is not central to the repertoire of the classical mandolin, in the same sense that the music is not central to the repertoire of the classical guitar (it is arguably more central to the repertoire of the baroque lute, because there exists a period -- that is, 18th century -- intabulation of the Fugue from BWV1001 for lute), which is to say that any and all performances on the mandolin are transcriptions (as they are on classical guitar).   However, as the above list implies, this music now forms an important part of the prospective repertoire of aspiring professional performers.   In time, I expect there will be a very strong performance tradition of this music on mandolin, as there now is on classical guitar and lute.

FWIW, I think it is great that bluegrass, popular, etc. players are studying the Bach works.   They are for everybody.

----------


## JeffD

> with classical guitar--with which there are a great many more nuances involved than with "classical" mandolin.


While I am not the one to do it, I am sure there are many who could argue this effectively.

----------


## catmandu2

> While I am not the one to do it, I am sure there are many who could argue this effectively.


They are worlds apart (think "right hand").  It's a bit like a harp to a hammered dulcimer.  I think you can understand this without necessarily being a player of both guitar and mandolin--there are many more variables to control in classical guitar technique.  No slight toward mandolin--they are simply two different animals

I haven't an interest in "arguing" over this point--or which instrument is "better"--only pointing out that the technical requirements of (classical) guitar and mandolin are vastly different, and why you might find (as I experience it) an orientation of staunch tradition among classical guitarists (particularly).  Generally, you probably won't find many flatpicking guitarists undertaking classical guitar pieces with classical guitar technique and expecting much benefit to one's flatpicking technique--it would be a little like thinking one's deer hunting in the fall would have some crossover to one's flyfishing


Anyway, Robert's post says it all nicely (in response to the OP): 




> With regard to the original question, I would say that standards have risen in American mandolin circles that make a strong musical background -- reading, theory, ensemble skills, etc. -- extremely valuable if not essential, but this has nothing per se to do with classical mandolin methods.   I would say, as I have at other times on the 'cafe, that American mandolin circles have a narrow view of right hand technique (basically, DUDUDU ....) and the much more expansive right hand skills taught, say, by the Germans (or Italians or the Dutch) would be a valuable addition to anyone's skillset, even if they never play Vilvaldi or Calace.

----------


## JeffD

> They are worlds apart (think "right hand").  It's a bit like a harp to a hammered dulcimer.  I think you can understand this without necessarily being a player of both guitar and mandolin--there are many more variables to control in classical guitar technique.  No slight toward mandolin--they are simply two different animals
> 
> ... Generally, you probably won't find many flatpicking guitarists undertaking classical guitar pieces with classical guitar technique and expecting much benefit to one's flatpicking technique--it would be a little like thinking one's deer hunting in the fall would have some crossover to one's flyfishing


They are vastly different absolutely. For a second there I thought your comparison was between classical guitar and "the narrow view of right hand technique in American mandolin circles", which would be as incorrect as comparing the 400 year history of classical mandolin in Eurpoe with flatpicking the guitar.




> Anyway, Robert's post says it all nicely (in response to the OP):


Indeed.

----------

