I'm curious, when you're learning a new tune, how important is it to you, and how much energy do you put into trying to accurately capture the exact notes of the original melody.

I feel that the basic melody is what the tune is about, after that what you do with it becomes your interpretation of the tune, your variation, etc...   if you plan to play with others then knowing and playing the basic tune is important in that nobody is going to know your version...

Play Happy

you definately want the melody in your head. cant learn it unless you can hum it! after that its like what Swing said.....fiddle music is all improvisation on top of the melody. Classical is a different story.

Many people, me included, learn a tune from hearing others play it from various sources-- live, recordings, youtube, etc. So in this case they usually learn it from an already modified source. Even if you lay hands on sheet music, different sources of this may vary a little. I just try to listen to a few players, and if a common melody is identifiable, I try to home in on it as best I can. So I'm not concerned if the way I work it up is exactly right, just that it's recognizable and enjoyable.

I want to know the model as precisely as possible, then I change it up to suit myself. I know what I'm playing differently.

If I think a tune has historical significance as played by a certain person, I do my best to learn it note for note. For instance... tunes I'm learning from a recording of Tommy Jarrell for instance, I'll try to nail it as close to how he did it as I can. If I suspect the source has been watered down by successive players (such as a tune considered a festival jam favorite) I'm not so critical. Here an example might be learning to play Soldier's Joy, or Liberty perhaps. In that case I do my best to determine the basic melody and come up with my own variation.

With a lot of them, the original is some Scottish or Irish tune.

The original for Leather Breeches is Lord McDonald's Reel.

The original for Molly Hare is "Fairy Dance" by Nathaniel Gow (not Niel, his son)

While there is a strong resemblance, the originals would sound kind of out of place in an Old Time jam.

Instead, what you have in Old Time is a whole family of related versions.  Some versions of a tune I'll really like and want to learn, with some, I'll be thinking I don't like it until I hear a version that just hits the spot.

Other times I might use a part of one version and a part of another.

Or I might listen to a whole bunch of versions and allow them to come together spontaneously in my mind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

With a lot of them, the original is some Scottish or Irish tune.

The original for Leather Breeches is Lord McDonald's Reel.

The original for Molly Hare is "Fairy Dance" by Nathaniel Gow (not Niel, his son)

---

I thought the original for Leather Breeches was The Princes Welcome into Inverness, McGlashen, 1780-81?

"not Niel... "  that would be not Niel, son of Nathaniel, son of "Famous Niel"  I guess.  All three were fiddlers and composers.  

I posted the question because I've seen different approaches and levels of adherence to the source material. I know that folk  tunes are moving targets with many different versions floating around, but still I'm amazed at the different things people come up with even when their source material is the same. In those instances I can't always tell if they are poor transcribers and not hearing it correctly, or, if it's just not that important to them and they're casually and purposefully varying the tune to their liking or ability. I always approached tunes like mini lessons and strived to raise my playing to meet the tune, thats just me. I've also noticed some players have an impressionistic approach and play a composite of the melody from all the versions they've heard. This is usually the case with common tunes, which is very cool because each variation sounds like a different legit version of the tune and not a variation. Others are attracted specifically to some players version of a tune. When I find something I like it's usually the way someone does it and I'll spend a lot of time trying to capture it. Funny though, I don't think of myself as a traditional player or a recreationist but it does bothers me when the melody is messed with in a lazy way.         

Edited by - Peghead on 09/21/2012 01:32:13

I always go after the melody from the best, and/or oldest source I can get. However, as the tune evolves in my fingers and mind over the years, I sometimes go back and listen to that original recording, some 5 or 10 years later, to sometimes modify what I've been playing. Then the evolution starts again.

Old-time is such a rhythmic style of playing, that it is sometimes difficult to pick out the exact melody, even when watching someone's fingers!

A lot of times - I'm not sure that the source material I'm learning from is the "original melody". I learn from the recordings I have, and they are either the only ones I have, or they will be my favorite out of many versions I might have. But the early field recordings just don't appeal to me, so I am usually not learning from them. (sorry - just me)  I have noticed that - usually - when there is more than one recording of a tune, even from the same artist, there will be variations in the way they play it. That might depend on who they were playing with at the time, where they were playing, or when it was played during their career, etc. So, which do you use when trying to "accurately capture the exact notes"?

Concerning the versions I learn from - my goal is to play the same notes and rhythm, with the same accent, as best I can. I know I can never get it all. Truth is - they probably don't play it exactly that same way anymore either. Nevertheless, that recording becomes a resource - not just for the tune, but more for learning the techniques of the playing style that I like. I know every time I listen to it, play along with it - the more I'm going to pick up on the subtle stuff I didn't hear earlier.

I figure - if I like that version - others are going to like it too. So, I'm shooting for comments like "Cool. What was that called?". And I don't get too concerned about comments like: "That's not how its suppose to be played." or "That's not the way I play it."

Maybe I'll change further down the line. We'll see.
 

Edited by - tonyelder on 09/21/2012 08:31:55

A little off topic maybe, but the Fiddler's Companion outlines the history of "Largo's Fairy Dance" here:  http://www.ibiblio.org/fiddlers/LAR.htm

I think on his recording of "Old Molly Hare" Fiddling Powers said it was discovered "during the rebuilding of King Solomon's temple," which is good too.

I think of a melody as the horizon in the mountains, or the skyline in a city. There are certain peaks or buildings that stand out and are easily recognized - Grandfather Mtn, Whitetop, Pond, etc. around here, or say the Chrysler building or the Empire State Building in NY. Then there are other, less important points in between. If you don't include those highlights in the melody it won't be recognized, but the other connecting parts can be left moore to individual interpretation without having to call it a different tune.

Edited by - DougD on 09/21/2012 08:40:18

My guess is that it would be difficult to get this notation for tunes that are no longer copyrighted. In the repertoire books, authors make changes to the melody. The ability of a fiddler shapes the way they play a tune, and this will shape the notation. If I play notation, and it sounds anything like what I have heard, I give it a try. I don't think most fiddlers play tunes exactly as written. Individual playing skill and taste determines how they play a tune.

Peter Martin has a book with exercises and some music theory. His chapter or two at the end of this book taught me more about APPLIED music theory than all the music theory books I have.

Whatever it is that is notated in the basic collections we all know, Ryans, Stacy Phillips, The fakebook, i generally find to sound nice. And somebody cared enough to write it down. I start with those, and generally try to play them note for note, just to really open myself up to SOME specific version, and its idiosyncracies and new note combinations it contains. I dont believe in playing some semi-improvisational amalgamated composite version. I think if i did that i would really just be falling into a lazy pattern of riffs I already have played.

quote:

---

Originally posted by IdleHands

Whatever it is that is notated in the basic collections we all know, Ryans, Stacy Phillips, The fakebook, i generally find to sound nice. And somebody cared enough to write it down. I start with those, and generally try to play them note for note, just to really open myself up to SOME specific version, and its idiosyncracies and new note combinations it contains. I dont believe in playing some semi-improvisational amalgamated composite version. I think if i did that i would really just be falling into a lazy pattern of riffs I already have played.

---

 I think I'm with you on this. Some melodies are so clear and fragile that you notice it when one note is out of place. J.P. Fraley's playing comes to mind. Other melodies are more open ended and can be roughed up with good results. Style and setting  have alot to do with it too. Carlb -I've had that experience too many times, thinking I've got a tune down cold and returning to it later to find all kinds of things that I didn't notice. The tunes may be simple but good players are working on a lot of levels in the execution. The minds ear sometimes hears what it wants and is quick to fill uncertainty with something familiar.   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sue B.

I want to know the model as precisely as possible, then I change it up to suit myself. I know what I'm playing differently.

---

+1 Many tunes (often local specific) are played a certain way and I want to learn (burn in) "that" way (that model), first. Most of the time it's written somewhere.

There are proponents of authentic OT fiddle replication that insist on every note, every bow stroke be spot on. There's a tune I'd been playing for a long time, and yet when I sat in a workshop with Brad Leftwich I learned I was bowing it "wrong".  I did learn some very interesting stuff from him (I always do!), but....

....I have to say that when I learn a tune, I also try to get every note and bow stroke right.....according to the way I hear the tune. I guess I don't catch all the nuances that some people do, but I don't find it very constructive to sweat those small details. When I wanted to learn M. Wine's Cold Frosty Morning (in G, BTW), I listened to how he played it, and I replicated that sound. If you happen to bow it just like Melvin did, that's an added bonus, I suppose. But I also have to remember that I'm me, not Melvin, so there will inevitably be small differences. What? I shouldn't play the tune unless I can play it just like the source did? I don't accept that. Who among us succeeds in doing that? None but the most skilled, and since I ain't the most skilled, I'll stick to me method, thank you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bsed

There are proponents of authentic OT fiddle replication that insist on every note, every bow stroke be spot on. There's a tune I'd been playing for a long time, and yet when I sat in a workshop with Brad Leftwich I learned I was bowing it "wrong".  I did learn some very interesting stuff from him (I always do!), but....

....I have to say that when I learn a tune, I also try to get every note and bow stroke right.....according to the way I hear the tune. I guess I don't catch all the nuances that some people do, but I don't find it very constructive to sweat those small details. When I wanted to learn M. Wine's Cold Frosty Morning (in G, BTW), I listened to how he played it, and I replicated that sound. If you happen to bow it just like Melvin did, that's an added bonus, I suppose. But I also have to remember that I'm me, not Melvin, so there will inevitably be small differences. What? I shouldn't play the tune unless I can play it just like the source did? I don't accept that. Who among us succeeds in doing that? None but the most skilled, and since I ain't the most skilled, I'll stick to me method, thank you.

---

That deserves more than just a "Like"

How about a couple of

...to go along with it!

I do my best to replicate the melody. I enjoy trying to learn it as closely to the source as possible in all aspects and then using that as my basis for any variations I might come up with later.

We play the tunes through the filter of our experiences. It's had to replicate someone's fiddling who was isolated from popular music culture  when many of us grew up listening to the Beatles, The Who, the Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, Elvis, etc., etc. etc. So, I play tunes like me although I may be influenced by Tommy Jarrell, Earl Collins, JP Fraley, Cyril Stinnett, etc. etc.

I guess I fall into the camp that tries to learn the melody like they hear it from whatever source- field recordings, other recordings, jam sessions, etc.  I generally don't go after every nuance but probably keep the general idea and , as Frank Sinatra would say, Do it my way .  :-)  That is especially true when I learn Irish, Swedish, French Canadian, etc. tunes- they definitely come out my way- Midwestern.

Chirps

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dick Hauser

My guess is that it would be difficult to get this notation for tunes that are no longer copyrighted. In the repertoire books, authors make changes to the melody. The ability of a fiddler shapes the way they play a tune, and this will shape the notation. If I play notation, and it sounds anything like what I have heard, I give it a try. I don't think most fiddlers play tunes exactly as written. Individual playing skill and taste determines how they play a tune.

Peter Martin has a book with exercises and some music theory. His chapter or two at the end of this book taught me more about APPLIED music theory than all the music theory books I have.

---

Non copyrighted tunes go into the public domain, and are sometimes easier to get actually.  There are many communities dedicated to preserving these tunes.  And if one learns to read ABC notation there seems to be an almost infinite supply of tunes to learn.  

I try to forget the melody and proceed from there...lol..not really, but almost!

I took lessons from a famous player once, and he told me he uses the formula: melody, get away from it, melody, get away from it, melody , get away from it.

On a 2nd or 3rd solo you can really cut loose and use flashy licks more, on the first solo (especially if you lead the song) you should stick closer to melody.

This is for bluegrass , for old time or fiddle tunes, you should be closer, I think.

That has been my approach. I try not to play only melody, that gets boring. But some of the old fiddle tunes are written so beautifully, if you change them , I find it's not for the better.

But , if you don't put your own spin on it, where's the fun???????????????

Edited by - blgrssr on 09/22/2012 12:11:58

quote:

---

Originally posted by groundhogpeggy

I try to forget the melody and proceed from there...lol..not really, but almost!

---

 ..........oooooohhh, wide open for comment about "patterns", but I like grammas and groundhogs. So, .....

...pass