Thanks for this quote RogerS.

quote:

---

Originally posted by woodwiz

I thought the appeal of fiddling is that each person plays a tune their own way, and never exactly the same way twice.  How does that relate to an exact sequence?

I have recordings of more than one performance of the same tune by individuals like Cyril Stinnett and Pete MacMahon, and the different performances are distinctly different. I've seldom found two transcriptions of a given tune that were the same, unless one was copied from the other.

---

If I find a tune version that is REALLY nice, with a really strong melody, I might play it very close to the sheet music or whatever source I learned it from, since I really don't feel it can be improved upon.  Occasionally accidental changes creep in.  And I'll add drones, double stops and bowing patterns as I see fit.

If on the other hand some part or parts of the melody seem garbled or just boring, I'll listen to a bunch of versions and see if I can't come up with something that represents the strong points of all of them ( I did this recently with "Old Blind Sow").  If I learned the tune as a song or a banjo song, I feel free to embellish the core melody in a fiddley way.

IOW, an exact sequence is only appealing for me if it's an EXCELLENT one... otherwise, why bother?  Or else find some way of fixing it.

I've always been able to learn to sing songs by ear, so it really wasn't that hard to transfer it to other instruments including fiddle.
Sheet music is doable, but more work. The really hard part for me with learning something by notation is to get where I can remember it and play it without the notes.
It may take MONTHS. By ear could take days, weeks or minutes depending on how complex and how catchy it is- simple catchy tunes can be learned very quickly.

I think the fact that both my mom and grandma sang for us and with us kids was a factor in the ability to pick up a tune by ear.

Edited by - fiddlepogo on 07/16/2012 21:19:46

quote:

---

Originally posted by woodwiz

I thought the appeal of fiddling is that each person plays a tune their own way, and never exactly the same way twice.  How does that relate to an exact sequence?

I have recordings of more than one performance of the same tune by individuals like Cyril Stinnett and Pete MacMahon, and the different performances are distinctly different. I've seldom found two transcriptions of a given tune that were the same, unless one was copied from the other.

---

If I find a tune version that is REALLY nice, with a really strong melody, I might play it very close to the sheet music or whatever source I learned it from, since I really don't feel it can be improved upon.  Occasionally accidental changes creep in.  And I'll add drones, double stops and bowing patterns as I see fit.

If on the other hand some part or parts of the melody seem garbled or just boring, I'll listen to a bunch of versions and see if I can't come up with something that represents the strong points of all of them ( I did this recently with "Old Blind Sow").  If I learned the tune as a song or a banjo song, I feel free to embellish the core melody in a fiddley way.

IOW, an exact sequence is only appealing for me if it's an EXCELLENT one... otherwise, why bother?  Or else find some way of fixing it.

Happy Birthday! I'm wondering if some f us are wired different... I'm not sure if I hear individual notes, after thinking about this thread...I think what I hear is mre the general pattern of a tune...the contour, the ups and downs and questions and answers so to speak...maybe the direction, the gist, the progression, and the energy. I never get the notes entirely right, I don't think. Maybe I almost get it right with Happy Birthday, but usually I harmonize at the end, and over the weekend for my husband's birthday I realized while harmonizing at the end I suddenly dropped low instead a high...I think I was giving my daughter an opening to get up high and show off her voice...well anyway...I think there is something different about how we all play and hear...maybe you could try humming the tunes without actual notes and just hum the general contour and then try to match playin that? Don't know, but something like that might free you up from the paper. I tried going to play with the dulcimer club a few month back and they were sticklers about notes, exact notes, everybody in perfect step...I couldn't stand it...it really depressed me to be there and I just had to leave. The people were nice, but the notes drove me away fast.

well, humming or singing does help. Memorizing the music is the easiest way, then I can play it and concentrate on the sound and adjust my fingers accordingly. Ive learned alot since this post a few months ago. Mostly due to a focused self evaluation of my playin in a honest way. Focusing on the issues and working to correct them separately from my regular practicing and keeping a practicing journal which contains all the self critiques and improvements etc so I can see where Ive come from and plot a course to reach my goals. Violin fiddle any instrument playing really, it takes focused determination to improve and mature practice to succeed. I am resolved to see this through and I can now track my progress so I dont feel like im waisting time. I hope yall are doing the same, this is the key missing link that nobody tells you about getting better.

I listen to a tune over and over and go over it in my head. I'm better at figuring it out by ear than I was when I first started and I usually learn it a lot faster now too, but sometimes I just need to watch someone play a tune as well as listening. But I don't think I ever learn it exact from the source though, but its always very close and then I just sort of play it my own way. But I was like this with guitar too.

Listening repeatedly to what you want to play is really crucial to playing by ear. As you gain skill and experience, you'll get better at picking things up on the fly, but imo that comes after being able to play by feel what you have listened to and have in your head.

I've been loading tunes into an mp3 player.  I can put a tune on infinite repeat, stick in the earbuds, and top it off with ear muffs to kill outside sound.  Then I go mow the lawn or blow snow or make wood.  I've learned a few tunes this way.  Maybe the chief merit is that I get my chores done, but I keep telling myself that keeping my hands busy while learning the tune is good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

quote:

---

Originally posted by IdleHandss,

but after years of doing that on other instruments i sought the discipline of exact sequences.

---

NOW if you could ONLY see your way clear to applying "the discipline of exact sequences" to bowing....

Great phrase, I love it!

Almost as much as StrawTurkey's "craftsmanlike bowing"!

---

Exact sequence matters in the notes of a melody, not in bowing directions.  Its a matter of knowing when things matter and when they dont.

quote:

---

Originally posted by woodwiz

I thought the appeal of fiddling is that each person plays a tune their own way, and never exactly the same way twice.  How does that relate to an exact sequence?

I have recordings of more than one performance of the same tune by individuals like Cyril Stinnett and Pete MacMahon, and the different performances are distinctly different. I've seldom found two transcriptions of a given tune that were the same, unless one was copied from the other.

---

Relatively exact, of course you can very how arpeggiation and suble phrasing is going on.  But it has to be recognizable as the tune. It certainly not what just might sound good over the same chords. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IdleHands

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

quote:

---

Originally posted by IdleHandss,

but after years of doing that on other instruments i sought the discipline of exact sequences.

---

NOW if you could ONLY see your way clear to applying "the discipline of exact sequences" to bowing....

Great phrase, I love it!

Almost as much as StrawTurkey's "craftsmanlike bowing"!

---

Exact sequence matters in the notes of a melody, not in bowing directions.  Its a matter of knowing when things matter and when they dont.

---

Well, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that one then (And perhaps we've gotten down to the CORE of our disagreement)... while I tend to hold on to what I think is the prettiest version of a tune in my head, it doesn't STAY exact, and there is the possibility of hearing a version with a prettier section and wanting to learn it.  And I add notes occasionally. And actually, the tunes I've known the longest like Soldier's Joy, Turkey in the Straw, and Seneca Square dance morph quite a bit since I've heard physically and continue hear in my head so many different ways of playing them.  But rhythmic grooves NEED the exactness, the precision of practiced patterns... and if a tune morphs to another variant requiring a different phrasing, using a different pattern continues to keep the level of rhythmic precision very high.
 In fact, different patterns seem to drive some of the variation- for instance, since Syncoshuffle got smoothed out and useable about 4 years ago, I'm coming up with more syncopated variants of the melody lines of various tunes.

And I LOVE Roger Netherton's fiddling, and it would probably drive you nuts.  In all his playing that I've heard, every time he plays a part of a tune through, he's spinning out a different version of the melody- all sound Old Time, and all sound good.  In his hands, a fiddle tune is a living, breathing thing that is in a continual state of change.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

quote:

---

Originally posted by IdleHands

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

quote:

---

Originally posted by IdleHandss,

but after years of doing that on other instruments i sought the discipline of exact sequences.

---

NOW if you could ONLY see your way clear to applying "the discipline of exact sequences" to bowing....

Great phrase, I love it!

Almost as much as StrawTurkey's "craftsmanlike bowing"!

---

Exact sequence matters in the notes of a melody, not in bowing directions.  Its a matter of knowing when things matter and when they dont.

---

Well, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that one then (And perhaps we've gotten down to the CORE of our disagreement)... while I tend to hold on to what I think is the prettiest version of a tune in my head, it doesn't STAY exact, and there is the possibility of hearing a version with a prettier section and wanting to learn it.  And I add notes occasionally. And actually, the tunes I've known the longest like Soldier's Joy, Turkey in the Straw, and Seneca Square dance morph quite a bit since I've heard physically and continue hear in my head so many different ways of playing them.  But rhythmic grooves NEED the exactness, the precision of practiced patterns... and if a tune morphs to another variant requiring a different phrasing, using a different pattern continues to keep the level of rhythmic precision very high.
 In fact, different patterns seem to drive some of the variation- for instance, since Syncoshuffle got smoothed out and useable about 4 years ago, I'm coming up with more syncopated variants of the melody lines of various tunes.

And I LOVE Roger Netherton's fiddling, and it would probably drive you nuts.  In all his playing that I've heard, every time he plays a part of a tune through, he's spinning out a different version of the melody- all sound Old Time, and all sound good.  In his hands, a fiddle tune is a living, breathing thing that is in a continual state of change.

---

Im sure it doesn't change enough so people dont recognize it.    And rhythms need to be steady, but that doesnt require they be on the same bowstroke.    Like I said, melodies depend more on an a similar sequence of notes, more than steady rhythms rely on certain beats being on the same bowstroke.  I still think what I thought previously, despite your input.

What might be the hardest part of learning have something to do with sifting through advice of different points of view; from violin teachers to discussions on bowing patterns on FHO.

One of the hardest parts of learning I believe stems from setting up brain processing filters, and interpreting through those filters. It can over amplify things to that are there to meet our expectation filter, even insert things that are not really there; and it skims over (if not ignores) or reduces the importance of some things that are there.

One thing that some folks struggle with in trying to play by ear is in what they set up in their brain of the focus, what's the most important things; and one of the top things is this view of the exact sequence of notes. Their concept of "by ear" tends to be very quantitative based, more sequential, note by note, with focus on getting them in time to quarter, eighth, sixteenth; and rote memorizing that. As well some go down the bowing direction pattern path. The concept of variation exists as another worked out sequence of notes. As such they get focused quite a bit on the minutia of detail, as all those things "must" be critical. Some go down the path of intellecualizing what's going on by using written rules of music theory. Not saying that these appraoches won't work for some folks. But have noticed a musicians taking that approach and 1. struggling, for years; and IMO that is a very complex approach, and to make progress keeps getting more complex; 2. despite getting better, more of the details, seeming right in analysis, on paper, their playing always seems to be lacking something, missing an overall something else; which sometimes can be fairly obvious to others (like their timing gets off), mostly they seem blindly oblivious to what they are missing, and their approach is more of the same (more precision with metronome, more detail). That filtering leads them sometimes to a bit of defensive stance; "The instrucion (of Fiddling source) is essentially doing A, B, C, D... and I'm essentially doing A, B, C, D... so I must be doing it 'right', so folks should like and respect what I play"

Another approach, and idea of "by ear" is qualitative based. Starts with stepping back from the detail, and grasping the big picture. A good way to step back is to listen, dance and sing. As GHP said - listen for the contour; but as the harmonic feel, the phrasing and the big rhythmic feel and flow. Then working on the structures of the basic framework, just the most important notes that are giving it that. Some folks refer to it as the "bare bones" but I like the idea of "essential framework" - not just the notes, but the rhythm and the qualitative articulation and expression of those notes. Then the finer details become about feeding into the larger framework; other to further strenghthen, but can be used to slightly bend the fell one way or another, give variation to the feel and flow, - the details can be quite flexible. The big rhythmic feel and flow, and overall contour, needs to be steady, but the details can vary without changing those.

The reason I advocate the latter approach of more qualitative, sensory feel and flow, over the former more quantitative analytical, intellectualized approach: The qualitative senses things that are going on, (and need to happen) including subconsiously some very important qualitative details that are very difficult to quantify, the write definition and specific instruction, tends to use less filtering. The quantitative forms filters, largely on what it can define and quantify, instructions, which indeed can seem a lot easier, but can also miss qualitative aspects, their filter blocks it out.

Playing by ear is a different skill than playing from notation. They are 2 very different things, imho. Music is a language and playing 'by ear' is actually a skill more like speaking extemporaneously. I think we are doing a disservice to music by making it all linear and left brained and closing the door on personalizing it. (Yes, I know written music can be interpreted, but that's not the same a making a tune your own.)  Playing from notation is more analogous to reading a story out loud. Do we spend hours and tons of angst trying to make our vocalizations so precise? We wouldn't dream of it unless we were performing classical theater.

And, playing by ear is different than memorizing a tune. Memorizing is simply puking out what the notation dictates.

Immersion is an effective way of learning a language. Babies take 1 - 2 years of babbling before they can string words together to form sentences. Fiddlers should take at least the same amount of time, all the while listening and trying to play along. Playing along in a group is one of the best ways of adding to your musical vocabulary. Old time jamming is very accessible because of the repetition and simple patterns.

Good luck! I think it's an attainable skill for most people, given the right techniques and support.

Terri

i can almost always pick up a tune once i've listened to it for awhile. It is easier if i know the key first. Sometimes the graces and ornaments throw me off a bit, but if i stick to it i get it. it is a discomfort in the beginning but the more i do it the easier it gets. I just learned Leather Britches off youtube. My hardest challenge is to put the whole tune in order.

Edited by - justme on 07/18/2012 02:23:48

quote:

---

Originally posted by IdleHands

Well, as usual, i feel on the other side of some fence here from most people. What drew me to fiddle tunes is precisely that they are NOT just jamming over a chord progression. They are melodies first, and rely more than other genres on relatively exact sequences of notes. These tunes evolved in an era where there were no instruments playing "the chords". The chords are a modern overlay seeking to integrate these tunes with our modern notions of harmony/polyphony. I think it takes more discipline to learn exact sequences than it does to just jam over a progression. I like jamming over progressions, but after years of doing that on other instruments i sought the discipline of exact sequences. I also never read music before picking up fiddle. I used it as my opportunity to finally get good at reading the dots. I believe in ear learning too, by the way. And I do both. Im kind of like Bizarro picklefish.

---

 Actually, Alaskafiddler didn't say anything about jamming over a chord progression. He's talking about musical syntax, which doesn't preclude chording but doesn't require it, either. I suspect you are much more in touch with syntax in your playing than you realize.

quote:

---

Originally posted by p1cklef1sh

Is learning to let go of what you thought learning was. I am trying to train myself to learn by ear. I have been able to read music since my early years and I am now 41 (tommorow, yea me!) I have been feeling a real bodily urge to reach for the sheet music to figure out what is missing when I am trying to learn. I know this will eventually phase itself out but I thought it interesting enough to share. Its almost like a panic attack or like a craving for comfort food, I was surprised at how powerful this urge was.

---

Like riding a bike with your hands off the handlebars! HAH! Remember how scared you were when you first did that?

Lots of good advice here. But one thing hasn't been talked about, or at least not in the way I see/hear/play.

When learning by ear you need to learn, while you're listening, to mentally strip out all the unimportant bits and only take in the ESSENCE of the tune, the SKELETON. This represents the lowest common denominator-- the least amount of notes you can possibly play and still have the melody be recognizable by anyone who knows the tune.

THAT is the melody you "play by ear" whether you're alone or picking up a tune on the fly at a jam. Once you can do that flawlessly and easily, then the rest is easy. Really. And yes, once you mentally learn this skill, it then becomes possible for the tune to literally go in your ears and come out your fingers pretty much instantaneously. It freaked me right out the first time it happened. And it doesn't always happen, I have to be "in the zone" for it to easily happen. Someday it'll happen on five part tunes where the parts are more than four bars long. And crooked. And in the key of F.

One other thing occurs. Some people do have to learn a tune in progression from the first note to the last. I don't pick up tunes that way. I do it in chunks.

For instance, the thought process could go something like this--

First three notes of this tune same as first three notes of {insert name of tune I already play} but then there's some other stuff. (which I'll fill in during subsequent times the tune is played.) Oh, there's a chunk that's the same as the second bit of the B part of {insert name of tune I already play} but then it goes into a three note run down, a slide to the third finger on the A string, and . . . hmm. And then back to that second bit of the B part of {insert name of tune I already play} that I already played once. Looks like that's the repeating theme of this tune.

Now the B part, which starts off similar to {insert name of tune I already play}, at least for the first couple measures but in the key of A instead of G. Then an inversion of that repeater from the A part, and then the repeater, only moved up onto THAT string. And then . . . hmm. Hooboy, there's that bit I remember hearing in {insert name of tune I already play} but with a slide down.

Second time through the whole tune I'm filling in those blanks between bits.

My point is that if you always learn a tune from the first note to the last note sequentially, then you're hampering yourself. There are all these bits, phrases, runs, and such that are pieces of musical vocabulary. Some of these bits that you already know from another tune are in many of the tunes you will be learning. But they're BITS. So if you're going from the first note to the last, you might not be able to recognize them that way as easily and cobble them together on the fly. And that's what you need to learn in order for things to happen in real time on the fly.

I hope that makes sense. It's not an easy concept to pass on in words.

Edited by - bj on 07/20/2012 17:56:44

quote:

---

Originally posted by bj

quote:

---

Originally posted by p1cklef1sh

Is learning to let go of what you thought learning was. I am trying to train myself to learn by ear. I have been able to read music since my early years and I am now 41 (tommorow, yea me!) I have been feeling a real bodily urge to reach for the sheet music to figure out what is missing when I am trying to learn. I know this will eventually phase itself out but I thought it interesting enough to share. Its almost like a panic attack or like a craving for comfort food, I was surprised at how powerful this urge was.

---

Like riding a bike with your hands off the handlebars! HAH! Remember how scared you were when you first did that?

Lots of good advice here. But one thing hasn't been talked about, or at least not in the way I see/hear/play.

When learning by ear you need to learn, while you're listening, to mentally strip out all the unimportant bits and only take in the ESSENCE of the tune, the SKELETON. This represents the lowest common denominator-- the least amount of notes you can possibly play and still have the melody be recognizable by anyone who knows the tune.

THAT is the melody you "play by ear" whether you're alone or picking up a tune on the fly at a jam. Once you can do that flawlessly and easily, then the rest is easy. Really. And yes, once you mentally learn this skill, it then becomes possible for the tune to literally go in your ears and come out your fingers pretty much instantaneously. It freaked me right out the first time it happened. And it doesn't always happen, I have to be "in the zone" for it to easily happen. Someday it'll happen on five part tunes where the parts are more than four bars long. And crooked. And in the key of F.

---

Good point about the tune's "skeleton". 

Several things can help give a sense of what that skeleton is.

1. If you're a singer, and learn the verses to tunes like Soldier's Joy, Leather Breeches, Cripple Creek, Sourwood Mountain, etc, you notice right away that the fiddle melody is a lot more complex than the the singing melody- do that often enough, and when you hear an ornate fiddle version, you can work it backwards to a skeleton.  Do it a little more, and you have an idea of how to make almost any folk ditty sound like a fiddle tune.

2. Banjo players more often than not just play a skeleton of what the fiddler is playing.

3. If you go to a source like the Digital Library of the Appalachians (actually a collection of sources) there is a WIDE variation in the quality of the fiddling.  It would be tempting to ONLY listen to the fiddlers who have a reputation for good playing, but some of the less stellar fiddlers also have something to offer- their simpler versions are usually much closer to the skeleton of a tune than the versions of the better fiddlers.  Fiddlers who grew up in a tradition would hear fiddlers on a variety of different levels, embellishing a tune skeleton to different degrees.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bj

One other thing occurs. Some people do have to learn a tune in progression from the first note to the last. I don't pick up tunes that way. I do it in chunks.

For instance, the thought process could go something like this--

First three notes of this tune same as first three notes of {insert name of tune I already play} but then there's some other stuff. (which I'll fill in during subsequent times the tune is played.) Oh, there's a chunk that's the same as the second bit of the B part of {insert name of tune I already play} but then it goes into a three note run down, a slide to the third finger on the A string, and . . . hmm. And then back to that second bit of the B part of {insert name of tune I already play} that I already played once. Looks like that's the repeating theme of this tune.

Now the B part, which starts off similar to {insert name of tune I already play}, at least for the first couple measures but in the key of A instead of G. Then an inversion of that repeater from the A part, and then the repeater, only moved up onto THAT string. And then . . . hmm. Hooboy, there's that bit I remember hearing in {insert name of tune I already play} but with a slide down.

Second time through the whole tune I'm filling in those blanks between bits.

 

My point is that if you always learn a tune from the first note to the last note sequentially, then you're hampering yourself. There are all these bits, phrases, runs, and such that are pieces of musical vocabulary. Some of these bits that you already know from another tune are in many of the tunes you will be learning. But they're BITS. So if you're going from the first note to the last, you might not be able to recognize them that way as easily and cobble them together on the fly. And that's what you need to learn in order for things to happen in real time on the fly.

I hope that makes sense. It's not an easy concept to pass on in words.

---

This is a good point too.  When I'm trying to learn a tune live, I use this approach, and it goes something like this:

1. After hearing the tune part on the first time through, by the second time through I've identified parts that are similar to other tunes I already know, and I try and play along with those parts, but somehow kind of marking time in between those parts, since they seldom are found next to each other.

2. Then I do the same with the second part.

3. Then when the first part comes around again, I play along with the parts that I have guessed on the basis of other tunes, and focus my attention on filling in the gaps- the parts that I haven't figured out yet.  If the tune isn't that hard, usually I can get most of the remaining ones.

4. If I got everything close to figured out, the third time through I can work on details.  If there is a small stubborn spot or two, I can work on those areas.

5. WHILE I am doing all this, I'm mostly looking at the other fiddler's left hand, and trying to read the left hand fingers for clues as to what is actually being played.  It's not as easy reading fingers as it is notes (it depends on the size of the fingers and how high the fiddler lifts them off the string), but it can at least get you close.

So, with this non-linear phrase based approach, it's kind of like bowling- get the easy ones the first time, then "pick up the spares" the second or third time.

bj - I've always thought of bicycle analogies; and at some point it's about you gotta go for it, and hop on. And some folks need to take the training wheels off to really get the sense of fiddling (they are sitting at the jam playing it too safe). The cool thing about music is when you crash it (almost) never require medical attention.

I do some of the same approach of playing by ear, and of course the more you play the more you start recognizing familiar riffs. Though I also find a good way to strip the tune down is if you are familair with the key (at least the pentatonic space) just listen to the contour (whether tit's going up in pitch or down, and about how far) and the strong beats tend to layout the contour. Often most of the main contour is on the root third fifth and octave equivalents, In D it goes A to D to F#... then listening to the in between notes as steps inbetween.

I have also thought of a similar "by ear" approach to bowing accents. Focusing first on the big beat. Like a song of Angeline; but not just play the notes/beat in time, give the simpler version some rhythmic umph, like a singer would, noting that you have to emphasize (accent) some over others. And once you got that to "feel" like something, then add the other bowing to feed into that.

Edited by - alaskafiddler on 07/21/2012 05:36:01

In my opinion, the best way to learn fiddle tunes is from source recordings by ear. It's not the only way to learn, but you can really tell who learns this way as opposed from books, sheet music, and other fiddlers at festivals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mutt

quote:

---

Originally posted by IdleHands

Well, as usual, i feel on the other side of some fence here from most people. What drew me to fiddle tunes is precisely that they are NOT just jamming over a chord progression. They are melodies first, and rely more than other genres on relatively exact sequences of notes. These tunes evolved in an era where there were no instruments playing "the chords". The chords are a modern overlay seeking to integrate these tunes with our modern notions of harmony/polyphony. I think it takes more discipline to learn exact sequences than it does to just jam over a progression. I like jamming over progressions, but after years of doing that on other instruments i sought the discipline of exact sequences. I also never read music before picking up fiddle. I used it as my opportunity to finally get good at reading the dots. I believe in ear learning too, by the way. And I do both. Im kind of like Bizarro picklefish.

---

 Actually, Alaskafiddler didn't say anything about jamming over a chord progression. He's talking about musical syntax, which doesn't preclude chording but doesn't require it, either. I suspect you are much more in touch with syntax in your playing than you realize.

---

Im just getting the feeling that many believe  a tune can be anything that sounds good over the same chord progression, and in a live jam you can probably do that and could even sound cool and impressive, but tunes are not really that.  That's improvising over a progression.  Even if alaska didnt say, im feeling some think it.  

Edited by - IdleHands on 07/26/2012 08:53:32

quote:

---

Originally posted by alaskafiddler

I have also thought of a similar "by ear" approach to bowing accents. Focusing first on the big beat. Like a song of Angeline; but not just play the notes/beat in time, give the simpler version some rhythmic umph, like a singer would, noting that you have to emphasize (accent) some over others. And once you got that to "feel" like something, then add the other bowing to feed into that.

---

What you say about vocalizing is right on when it comes to the skeleton. I was a vocalist first and foremost, started in choral singing when I was a kid. So maybe I've always thought that way, since it's my musical roots.

Yeah, we haven't talked about bowing in relation to picking tunes up on the fly. 

When I was starting out I had a teacher I took a half dozen lessons from.

One of the MOST IMPORTANT things he taught me was downbowing on the downbeat, and his explanation for it was that it was a great place to start from on any tune, it made it easy to bow any tune, and you could vary from that once you learned the tune. The reason it's a great place to start is it allows you to bow rhythmically from the get-go, and once you've learned to do it, it's more or less mindless and intuitive, though learning it wasn't as easy. He was right, though, it does make it EASY to bow any tune, gives you an instant starting point.

I don't think about downbowing much anymore, but truth is that downbowing on the downbeat as my "stock" bowing is so ingrained into my playing that it's the first way I bow any tune I'm learning when I'm picking something up on the fly, and it's always the touchstone I come back to within the tune's bowing structure. So I really don't have to THINK about the bowing until after I've internalized the tune and learned it and gotten it to the point where I can kick it off. And by then I'm already doing variations on the bowing. Any thinking I do at that point is me trying to stretch myself. There's already a form to my bowing. A bowing skeleton, if you will. I then hang the muscle and skin in the form of bowing ornaments and shuffles on that skeleton.

I know there are other approaches. But this one works for me. Some friends have commented on how far I got in so short a time. In thinking about it, I really think there are two things that got me there. Downbowing. And Woodshedding.