Following the tabs vs creativity

[RodCH]

Don't get me wrong. I can't sight read and I wish I could. If you can, I salute you and envy you.

Thirty or more years ago I was a classical guitarist, no more accomplished as such than I am as a mandolinist, which is to say, not much. I basically always played with the music in front of me, and I played what was on the sheet. No improvising. This was not jazz. I think in my weird, younger self sort of way, I was proud of that.

I remember some concert violinist, a household name (which name escapes me of course) say "I play as many wrong notes as anyone, but I fix them so fast that nobody notices".

Well, he may play as many wrong notes as "anyone" but I doubt if he has me beat. But the thing I notice is that wrong notes can be a source of inspiration. Especially if they happen to be on key, and at the front of a phrase, they can be turned into lead-ins. Inside a phrase, they may become hammer on's or pull offs (to catch the right note, immediately after). You might find you like the result so much you just start doing it that way on purpose.

I just learned a couple of new songs by tabs (from Mando Lessons, good site), Fisher's Hornpipe, and Banish Misfortune, but I memorized them as quickly as possible and will play from now on by ear. The tunes will now slowly change as time goes by. A double-stop added here, an extra frill there, etc.

I looked at the tabs from another song which I had already worked up, Soldier's Joy. Now my wife (who is not a musician or a fan of old-time music) had told me out of the blue that it was her favorite song that I played (possibly damning with faint praise there). Of course, she wouldn't know Soldier's Joy if it bit her on the nose. Still, it must sound...not awful?

I had worked up my Soldier's Joy arrangement from the "Will the Circle Be Unbroken" version. Probably have not heard the album in 30 years. I think it is the banjo part that is in my head. I took a look at Soldier's Joy on Mando lessons. It is a good song. I think it is even in the same key. It would take, I think, a pretty good ear to tell that it was the same song I had played for my wife. And, I like my version better. I'm keeping it.

My point here is that written music, strictly adhered to, is a barrier to creativity. Having been on both sides of the fence at different times in my life, I think the Jazz people have it right.

[JeffD]

I kind of agree. I might say it a little different.

It seems to me that reading music, and improvising and ornamenting tunes, are two different skills, and that both need to be practiced. What ever you don't pay attention to doesn't get done.

So I would say the barrier to creativity is avoiding working on being creative. Adhering to the written music and learning to read well is not a barrier - the barrier is avoiding the opportunity to depart from the written page that limits your creativity.

It is perhaps a subtle difference. What I am trying to steer clear of is the mindset that one should not learn to read because it is a barrier to creativity. Quite the opposite. Learning the tunes "as written" is gathering the materials with which to be creative. It is collecting the spices and getting your fingers, ears, heart, and brain into the music. In order to depart from the sheet music, you have to have been reading the sheet music. In order to depart from the tune you need to be playing the tune.

[mandroid]

Vs getting the music in your head.. once you can whistle or hum the melody, then ,
let your fingers give it a Go.

[JonZ]

Neither learning music from scores nor by ear harms creativity. Both give you musical ideas that you can adapt. But to improve creativity, you must practice it.

[foldedpath]

My point here is that written music, strictly adhered to, is a barrier to creativity. Having been on both sides of the fence at different times in my life, I think the Jazz people have it right.

You're expected to be creative in altering the tune in Jazz, or playing a Bluegrass solo based on a fiddle tune like Soldier's Joy.

On the other hand, these are considered "traditional" tunes which means they're often played by amateur musicians in groups like OldTime jams and Irish pub sessions. The fact that the melodies exist in common, static versions is what allows people to play them together. If you go too far afield from Soldier's Joy with creative altering of the main melody line, you won't be able to participate in an OldTime jam without getting the stink eye. Same thing with Banish Misfortune in an Irish pub session.

There are still ways to be creative with a fiddle tune within those limits, especially with Irish traditional music where you can play ornaments "around" the base notes. When I play Banish Misfortune in a pub session on mandolin, I'll add trebles (quick triplets) in several places, and a few double stops here and there. Other musicians in the session will be doing their own ornaments, like cuts and rolls on the fiddle. It works without clashing, because these are "extra" articulations, and some are so fast that you can't hear an actual pitch. They embellish the tune without altering the main melody so everyone can still play together.

Solo performance of traditional fiddle tunes has a bit more room for creative variations. Advanced OldTime and Irish players will slightly alter phrases each time around, so they're not playing exactly the same notes every time. And still, not changing it so much that the tune isn't recognizable. Fiddlers like Kevin Burke and Liz Carroll are masters at this. It's something I try to do occasionally, but I'm not very good at it. There's a fine line between a subtle variation and just wrecking the tune. If you take off on an improvisation like a Bluegrass or Jazz player would handle it, then it no longer sounds like "traditional" music. And again, this is for playing solo, or in a band arrangement. It can't be done in a casual unison melody jam without causing train wrecks.

Anyway, I just wanted to mention this, in case you have aspirations to play fiddle tunes like Soldier's Joy or Banish Misfortune with other musicians. If you will always be playing solo, then the sky's the limit. You can alter the tunes any way you want, and the Trad Police won't come knocking at your door.

[cbakewell]

FWIW, I have been collecting as many ABC format tunes as I can from old 'dance master' manuscripts.

I wrote some code that turns them into MP3 files I can listen to, which helps me identify which ones I might want to learn.

Most of these were recorded in the manuscripts in the 1700s and 1800s, and I'm guessing, were probably passed from one area to another by 'ear'.

As one might expect, many tunes appear in multiple manuscripts and often vary both in title and music due to the 'lost in translation' effect.

For example, the tune 'Bobbing Joan' appears in other collections as 'Robert Johns', 'Bob and Joan' etc and there are quite a few 'alternative' transcriptions even for well known tunes such as 'The Harvest Home'

I think this enriches us all - if you mis-remember the tune, but it still sound good, go with it!

[foldedpath]

As one might expect, many tunes appear in multiple manuscripts and often vary both in title and music due to the 'lost in translation' effect.

For example, the tune 'Bobbing Joan' appears in other collections as 'Robert Johns', 'Bob and Joan' etc and there are quite a few 'alternative' transcriptions even for well known tunes such as 'The Harvest Home'

I think this enriches us all - if you mis-remember the tune, but it still sound good, go with it!

That's one way it happens, when you know you're doing it. The other way is the "Chinese Whispers" process of unintentional variation when a tune is passed down by ear (a.k.a. the the Folk Process" (link to Wikipedia).

It's how the murder ballad "Matty Groves" turned into "Shady Grove" when it traveled across the ocean to America. The hornpipe "Jolly Beggarman" (also a song with lyrics) turned into the "Red Haired Boy" reel through a similar process. The really good melodies tend to stick around, even through this kind of variation over a hundred years or so.

Sure, go for it, if a change you come up with sounds good! But keep in mind that the folk tradition also involves communities playing music together, where a common repertoire of tunes allows group participation. Once you alter an existing tune far enough, you're down to solo performance only. Unless you can convince anyone else to learn the "new" version of the tune.

[OldSausage]

If you're enjoying making music, and like the music you make, you're doing it right. However you do it.

[T.D.Nydn]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"...Albert Einstein

[Jacob]

Not playing the music as written is not playing the music.
Playing music derived from the written music or a variation based on the written music is a creative and desirable skill.
But, it is not playing the music. It is playing something else, different music.

[Ivan Kelsall]

''How you learn & by what means'', is up to the individual. You can be a 100% competent musician in the strictest sense of the term simply by playing ''what's written'' - orchestral musicians do that all the time,''improvisation'' isn't expected in their genre of music. However,that doesn't mean to say that they can't do if the music demands it,as in the case of Classical 'solo musicians'. In their case,these 'improvisations' are called ''Cadenzas''. Many of these became so famous in their own right,that they were transcribed & are performed by soloists today. In the case of the Beethoven Violin Concerto,the Cadenzas performed originally by Fritz Kreisler are mostly performed today,although Cadenzas by other performers are also used.

'Creativity' is something that you either have to one degree or another or you don't. It sounds a bit harsh to say that,but in over 50 years of playing,i've come across Bluegrass 'musicians' who can play what was on the TAB & nothing more. They simply lack any semblance of being able to put something together themselves musically. Whether that's because they lacked the ability,or haven't bothered to 'try' to do it,i don't know. This i where i think that ''learning to play by ear'' as well as, comes into it's own. Listen to as much of the music that you want to play as you can. Listen to what each band member does,& where & how he does it. Try to ''listen through'' the music to hear what the band members are doing while backing the singer or soloist up.
That was all i had back in 1963 & was teaching myself banjo, & it works if you keep at it - so keep at it,just like i'm doing on mandolin myself - i'm 11 years into ''keeping at it''. ''Pick along'' to as much music as you can on I/net radio / YouTube or CDs. Try things out for yourself & you might be amazed at what you come up with,
Ivan

[David L]

Not playing the music as written is not playing the music.
Playing music derived from the written music or a variation based on the written music is a creative and desirable skill.
But, it is not playing the music. It is playing something else, different music.

Music and art are not that black and white. Improvisation, like most things, is a continuum. In almost all styles of music, adding an ornament is still "playing the music". If you add phrasing and subtle dynamic variations, you are still "playing the music". Or you can add a few ornaments and passing tones. Or you can improvise at the ends of phrases. Or you can change around a few phrases. When does it quit being "playing the music"? You should never just "play the music". You should make music using the written notes as a guide. How closely you follow that guide is dependent on the performer and the style.

Orchestras and concert bands expect you to follow the notes closely, but that is more a function of having multiple people playing the same part. With multiple people playing the same part, the part obviously needs to be played the same. Even in orchestral settings, the notes can be easily changed if there is only one person on a part (such as percussion or trumpet).

"When does music become different music?" is the same kind of unanswerable question as "When does a species become another species?" in evolution.

[Jack Roberts]

I am no great shakes at improvisation. I never tried to be: I had a guitarist in my band who couldn't read a note of music and he did all the improvisations for us.

On the other hand, I have specialized in resurrecting old tunes from 18th century and 19th century flute and violin notation. I try to play them as closely as I can to the way they were notated to bring long forgotten tunes back to life again. I could improvise, but my desire to be creative is based on a passion to re-create that which was lost. If I were to spend time improvising, adding licks, or substituting phrases, I would not succeed.

My approach to music requires attention to learning and practicing the reading of notation (sometimes archaic forms) and experimenting with mandolin fingering patterns, tempos, and dynamics: those parts of the music that are not notated. Although I admire melodic improvisation, if I were to spend time on that, it would take time away from discovering and trying to re-create lost tunes.

Having said that, I never play the tunes I know the best, such as "Fisher's Hornpipe", the same way I originally learned them anymore.

Enjoy your music, however you may play it. Be careful not to misdefine creativity: sometimes it is very subtle.

[Jess L.]

... Be careful not to misdefine creativity: sometimes it is very subtle.

Good point.

[Jess L.]

... You should never just "play the music". You should make music using the written notes as a guide. How closely you follow that guide is dependent on the performer and the style. ...

Yes, especially for stuff like fiddle tunes where the 'original' written music was often just a skeleton outline of the tune anyway, to help people remember how the basic tune goes. That type of notation was never intended to be the authoritative 'way' to play the tune. Playing it exactly as written would sound weird if that was the only version that a person ever played. There's lots of subtle stuff involving timing, syncopation, accented notes, the 'rhythm' besides just what shows on paper, and yes a whole bunch of additional notes as well, that don't show in the written notation.

The notation or tab can be a great starting point though, everyone has to start somewhere. Nothing wrong with using whatever tools that are available. To *not* avail oneself of tools such as tab etc, would be kind of like trying to run a 600-acre farm without any modern steel implements nor even oxen/horses to help with the tasks, yeah one *could* do that, but why make it harder than necessary unless there's some larger idealogy/principle involved there.

Heck for probably the first 5 years I played, the only thing I was comfortable with was copying my mentors' playing note-for-note (although that was either live or later on via half-speed home recordings of their playing), I wanted to play *exactly* the way that they did, to the smallest detail that I was capable of detecting (only available via listening, can't efficiently write down that level of detail, see paragraph below). So the copy-cat phase is a perfectly valid and useful phase to be in, and a great way to learn. But you're not going to get that level of accurate detail in anything written on paper.

Anyone who's ever tried to write down an *exact* note-for-note transcription of a good fiddler, knows that's is a futile effort to try writing down *everything* that the fiddler is playing in the tiniest details including ornaments etc... yes it's technically possible (like, "if we can send a man to the moon, we should be able to accurately transcribe fiddle tunes" ) but the problem is that attempting to write down *all* the details makes the notation look extremely complex and foreboding and nearly unreadable.

And not everyone would want to use the exact same ornaments and variations anyway, a lot of it is a matter of personal style or what the individual player thinks sound best for their own playing.

... Orchestras and concert bands expect you to follow the notes closely, but that is more a function of having multiple people playing the same part. With multiple people playing the same part, the part obviously needs to be played the same. Even in orchestral settings, the notes can be easily changed if there is only one person on a part (such as percussion or trumpet). ...

Yup.

To the OP:

Variations and improv come with experience in a particular genre, just keep pickin' and keep listening to the styles/genres you like, and before you know it you'll find yourself playing an occasional cool variation and thinking "Where did *that* idea come from?" Eventually that sort of thing happens more and more and you don't even have to think about it.

Also, record yourself once in a while and when you listen to your own recordings you'll probably notice at least a few instances of what you *thought* was a 'mistake' that actually sounds good! The 'mistakes' that turn out cool can be reused again later, on purpose, as variations.

[JeffD]

You should make music using the written notes as a guide. How closely you follow that guide is dependent on the performer and the style..

As David points out, different styles are tolerant of improvisation to different degrees.

In my experience a session focused on traditional music, be it Irish, Scottish, Scandinavian, Quebecois, what ever, generally is focused on the tune, with maybe a little ornamentation, but not a lot. Playing the tune expressively is prized over playing the tune differently. An old-time (Southern Appalachian) is often in this category too, though there are exceptions.

At the other end of things a bluegrass jam as built into it the expectation that one will take a break and depart some (or entirely) from the tune. In which case the spontaneous creativity (innovation), speed and dexterity (mastery of the instrument) are prized.

I think it takes some experience in a genre to get the hand of what is the tune and what is ornamentation added by the particular player you are listening to. I know it took me a while to sort it out.

[JeffD]

Not playing the music as written is not playing the music.

Even the written tune may not always be the tune. Discernment is required.

For example, while the Portland Collection fiddle tune books give for the most part a straight generic version of the tune, the Fiddlers Fakebook gives a specific artists version of the tune, with that artist's idiosyncrasies all written out (and includes a list of the recordings on which you can hear it). The Phillips Collection gives several variants of the same tune from different artists.

[Shelagh Moore]

Not playing the music as written is not playing the music.

With ITM and other traditional music it is often quite hard to find the original source in written form. Furthermore most session players will pick the tune up by ear from other players (almost all my repertoire has been learned by ear) and the tunes will often evolve as a result. Having played in sessions in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, France, Belgium, other parts of Europe, Canada, the USA and Australia I've often seen local variants of tunes. This is perfectly acceptable, enriching and entirely to be expected and any nearby tune police (possibly sent by "The Session") may kindly go away...

[catmandu2]

In my experience a session focused on traditional music, be it Irish, Scottish, Scandinavian, Quebecois, what ever, generally is focused on the tune, with maybe a little ornamentation, but not a lot...

I think you're confusing "ornamentation" with "variation."

There IS "a lot" of ornamentation among these styles - indeed, some say that ornamentation is what makes Irish trad..

[soliver]

Just a thought,... they say that Picasso mastered the traditional style of painting before he changed the way we looked at the fine Arts in developing the Cubist style... point being that variation inherently indicates that there is a "home base" or a basic standard of sorts. So IMHO, mastery of the "home base" of the tune (in some fashion) will eventually lead to a better ability to vary from its original form.

I personally get stuck. I have gotten to know a good handful (a repertoire if you will) of tunes and have yet to develop the improvisational skill to be able to vary significantly from how I have learned it... I feel stuck sometimes.

[catmandu2]

I personally get stuck. I have gotten to know a good handful (a repertoire if you will) of tunes and have yet to develop the improvisational skill to be able to vary significantly from how I have learned it... I feel stuck sometimes.

Start simply - "old time" fiddling for example. Perhaps avoid thinking "improvisation" and, instead - think of "invention": play some portion of the tune somewhat different. There're innumerable ways to alter a line, phrase, or figure with accent, inflection, substitution, etc. Start small - with a turn here or twist there. Let yourself go - experiment. If nothing else, impart a subtle rhythmic accent - different from the first time through - just to get the feeling of breaking free.. If your inhibition gets the better of you, plan a variation ahead of time. All manner of ways... It's the basis of the idiom, so if you listen to players with experience and wherewithal you'll hear slight variations throughout -

You're right - that with more experience, and familiarity with a tune (and an idiom), your inclination to appropriate the tune to suit your style, and how you feel the music, will likely increase proportionately.
.

[Steve Ostrander]

Just a thought,... they say that Picasso mastered the traditional style of painting before he changed the way we looked at the fine Arts in developing the Cubist style...

It's always best to learn the rules before you learn how to break them.

[Caleb]

I can't read notation and don't even want to learn anymore. I've sat down with some great materials to help and just can't get excited about it. I know it would "open up a whole world to me," etc, etc, but I guess that world will have to remain closed.

I use tabs to get the basic ideas down and build from there: but most times, and especially with the simple stuff I tend to play, I can figure it out by ear. I'll never play Bach that way but that's not my goal. My motto is: If you're happy, you win. This approach makes me happy. YMMV.

[catmandu2]

Looking upthreads here, I would offer that - it might be useful to de-emphasize the term "improvisation" in the context of beginning/intermediate pedagogy or generally in trad forms such as what's typically being discussed. We're not so much improvising as we are simply imparting some personal feeling and inflection in our playing. We're not really doing much at all, in terms of improvising; we're simply avoiding playing something exactly the same each time...which can be done very simply, organically.

although, if you're getting to the point where you feel that playing in your style IS making some statement or distinguished expression, then perhaps the subtleties you're imparting are increasingly effective.

[foldedpath]

With ITM and other traditional music it is often quite hard to find the original source in written form. Furthermore most session players will pick the tune up by ear from other players (almost all my repertoire has been learned by ear) and the tunes will often evolve as a result. Having played in sessions in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, France, Belgium, other parts of Europe, Canada, the USA and Australia I've often seen local variants of tunes. This is perfectly acceptable, enriching and entirely to be expected and any nearby tune police (possibly sent by "The Session") may kindly go away...

This is certainly true. I've had to alter what I thought were common versions of a tune when playing in local sessions.

One thing I have noticed though, is that popular session tunes written by living artists (or only recently deceased) tend to be played without local alteration from one session to another.

Every time I've heard something like Liz Carroll's "The Diplodocus" or Jerry Holland's "Brenda Stubbert's" it's been the iconic recorded version. In OldTime circles an example would be Jay Ungar's "Ashokan Farewell." I've heard Ashokan Farewell played both very well and very badly in many different gatherings, but I don't think I've ever heard a single note changed from the original. It's usually the old tunes that drift, and can be found in countless variations from session to session.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the difference is that more recent compositions have always existed in recorded format, right from the beginning. There was never a period where the tune was only transmitted by ear from one generation of musicians to another. A recording by the composer serves as an anchor against drift.

Sheet music can work in a similar way when the composer is known. I've seen this more in Scottish sessions than Irish ones, especially where pipers are involved. If you're playing a Gordon Duncan pipe tune, then by God you will play that version, and not alter a single note. Variations are expected in solo performance, but not when playing together in a group. Pipers can be pretty strict about this stuff.