tonyelder - Posted - 01/02/2014:  11:55:31

fiddlepogo:

You're citing Bayard.  It's about Southwest Pennsylvania fiddling.  You can't really generalize his statements beyond that.

I'm not attempting to present it as anything other than what it is. But I think it is worth noting that we have now reviewed old time fiddling traditions from 3 areas in 3 different books  – Missouri (Ozarks), Alabama (so Appalachia / deep south), and now Southwestern Pennsylvania. And so far, very little is said about bowing patterns (if anything at all).

And these areas have fiddlers that are recognized as important old time dance fiddlers.

fiddlepogo:

Now.... it may have been mathematics and a feel for the rhythms that cause them to do just those patterns, but in my experience, if you don't use the same bowing strategies as another fiddler does, you are likely to get a VERY DIFFERENT rhythmic feel.  So if you want to get the same rhythmic feel, some "reverse engineering" may be in order- that is, analyze the bowings1

You make it sound as though every old time fiddler from back then had this driving ambition to play everything exactly like everyone else. I think it is more likely that the better fiddlers wanted to be recognized for being different – to the point of being able to play tunes in a way that others weren't able to play.

Did Melvin Wine pride himself in the way he could play tunes exactly the same way as Tommy Jarrell? ...and Tommy play the same way as Bunt, Luther and William? Would it be plausible to say - if we learned the way one played then we will have learned the way they all played?

I do believer they were all able to play with approximately the same rhythmic feel, and were able to produce that same feel in their own unique way – style – using their own bowing strategies.

fiddlepogo:

However, this style is not what drives me as far as bowing, although I'd be willing to learn a tune from them or Bayard if I liked it.  I'm way more interested in how Tommy Jarrell and Melvin Wine bowed... or Bunt Stephens.... or Luther Strong or William Stepp- my favorites haven't changed much as far as Old Time since I joined here in 2007.

I can appreciate that. And I have said on several occasions that if a person is interested in playing and sounding exactly like Tommy Jarrell (or any fiddler), he will need to study just exactly what it was that Tommy Jarrell was doing with his bow. But that “is not what drives me”, though I'm not opposed to picking up as much as I can about the way these guys played. But I'm just as interested in hearing contemporary fiddlers.

My “beef” has been over the insistence that the only way to play old time fiddle tune is to use preconceived bowing patterns that have to be mastered as a separate discipline. In the past, it has been suggested that all of the old time fiddlers learned them as part of their tradition – and that we must do what they did if we want to play like they did.

The evidence doesn't seem to support that idea. I'm open to the idea that it may have happened in a few places, but it is certainly not common knowledge. For the most part - they did not talk, teach, or learn bowing patterns separately. The evidence supports the idea that they learned to play the tunes and in the process of learning the tunes, they figured out their own bowing strategies that worked for them.

And today, we are focusing on things that - they weren't focused on. That's not wrong, but it shouldn't be proclaimed as necessary along with dire warnings if we ignore the "truth".

fiddlepogo:

Thus my focus on guys who had something different going on like Tommy Jarrell and Melvin Wine.

I admit-- I'm biased.... biased towards unusual fiddlers who have unusual (but still traditional) bowing strategies.

And here you make my point very plainly.

Don't you think it is ironic, that someone would say - it shouldn't be considered traditional for someone to be an old time fiddler unless they learn to play like the fiddlers that you admit were out of the ordinary and unusual?

fiddlepogo:

And in my experience, the only reliable ways of imitating those unusual bowing strategies is to break down the moves analytically, or to imitate the moves intuitively without counting.... and having tried both, I think breaking down the moves analytically is more reliable.

I think there are a lot of folks who would agree with you. But I also think there are some who don't think it is necessary. I think there are some who would say, I don't need to do that to be a good traditional old time fiddler.

fiddlepogo:

If someone is content to sound like a sawstroke fiddler, or a Nashville based fiddler, yeah, I'd say the bowing analysis is largely unnecessary, because those strategies are so obvious.   But then, I would MISS the one or two times that some unusual bowing occurred in the original!

I've said this before - ANY pattern that is repeated with emphasis on a rhythm that is created by the pattern without regard to the melody will be in danger of rendering the tune unrecognizable. It might have a rhythm pattern, but it will not capture the rhythmic feel of the tune.

I believe that ANY bowing strategy that is focused on capturing the rhythmic feel of a tune a person hears - can – and eventually will – capture it. Maybe not in a way that pleases everyone – but how often would you expect that to happen anyway?

imo - It is entirely possible for a basic Sawstroke fiddler to use accents, slurs, pushes, etc, in ways that capture the musical expression of the melody in a tune without sacrificing any rhythmic feel and maintain good meter. 

After all - the Nashville shuffle really isn't much more than a fancy sawstroke with an accent.  

imapicker2 - Posted - 01/02/2014:  11:57:34

In quantum bowing, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of up and down inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a bow known as complementary variables, such as position xand momentum p, can be known simultaneously. For instance, the more precisely the position of some bow is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.^[1] The formal inequality relating the standard deviation of position σ_xand the standard deviation of momentum σ_p was derived by Earle Hesse Kennard^[2] later that year and by Hermann Weyl^[3] in 1928,

where ħ is the reduced Planck constant.

The original heuristic argument that such a limit to bowing should exist was given by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, after whom it is sometimes named the Heisenberg bowing principle. This ascribes the uncertainty in measurable quantities to the Nashville-like disturbance triggered by the act of observation and analysis of up and downing of the bow

What he said!   What he said?   My head hurts!

fiddlepogo - Posted - 01/02/2014:  15:17:38

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

 

fiddlepogo:

You're citing Bayard.  It's about Southwest Pennsylvania fiddling.  You can't really generalize his statements beyond that.

I'm not attempting to present it as anything other than what it is. But I think it is worth noting that we have now reviewed old time fiddling traditions from 3 areas in 3 different books  – Missouri (Ozarks), Alabama (so Appalachia / deep south), and now Southwestern Pennsylvania. And so far, very little is said about bowing patterns (if anything at all).

And these areas have fiddlers that are recognized as important old time dance fiddlers.

fiddlepogo:

Now.... it may have been mathematics and a feel for the rhythms that cause them to do just those patterns, but in my experience, if you don't use the same bowing strategies as another fiddler does, you are likely to get a VERY DIFFERENT rhythmic feel.  So if you want to get the same rhythmic feel, some "reverse engineering" may be in order- that is, analyze the bowings1

You make it sound as though every old time fiddler from back then had this driving ambition to play everything exactly like everyone else. I think it is more likely that the better fiddlers wanted to be recognized for being different – to the point of being able to play tunes in a way that others weren't able to play.

Did Melvin Wine pride himself in the way he could play tunes exactly the same way as Tommy Jarrell? ...and Tommy play the same way as Bunt, Luther and William? Would it be plausible to say - if we learned the way one played then we will have learned the way they all played?

I do believer they were all able to play with approximately the same rhythmic feel, and were able to produce that same feel in their own unique way – style – using their own bowing strategies.

fiddlepogo:

However, this style is not what drives me as far as bowing, although I'd be willing to learn a tune from them or Bayard if I liked it.  I'm way more interested in how Tommy Jarrell and Melvin Wine bowed... or Bunt Stephens.... or Luther Strong or William Stepp- my favorites haven't changed much as far as Old Time since I joined here in 2007.

I can appreciate that. And I have said on several occasions that if a person is interested in playing and sounding exactly like Tommy Jarrell (or any fiddler), he will need to study just exactly what it was that Tommy Jarrell was doing with his bow. But that “is not what drives me”, though I'm not opposed to picking up as much as I can about the way these guys played. But I'm just as interested in hearing contemporary fiddlers.

My “beef” has been over the insistence that the only way to play old time fiddle tune is to use preconceived bowing patterns that have to be mastered as a separate discipline. In the past, it has been suggested that all of the old time fiddlers learned them as part of their tradition – and that we must do what they did if we want to play like they did.

The evidence doesn't seem to support that idea. I'm open to the idea that it may have happened in a few places, but it is certainly not common knowledge. For the most part - they did not talk, teach, or learn bowing patterns separately. The evidence supports the idea that they learned to play the tunes and in the process of learning the tunes, they figured out their own bowing strategies that worked for them.

And today, we are focusing on things that - they weren't focused on. That's not wrong, but it shouldn't be proclaimed as necessary along with dire warnings if we ignore the "truth".

fiddlepogo:

Thus my focus on guys who had something different going on like Tommy Jarrell and Melvin Wine.

I admit-- I'm biased.... biased towards unusual fiddlers who have unusual (but still traditional) bowing strategies.

And here you make my point very plainly.

Don't you think it is ironic, that someone would say - it shouldn't be considered traditional for someone to be an old time fiddler unless they learn to play like the fiddlers that you admit were out of the ordinary and unusual?

fiddlepogo:

And in my experience, the only reliable ways of imitating those unusual bowing strategies is to break down the moves analytically, or to imitate the moves intuitively without counting.... and having tried both, I think breaking down the moves analytically is more reliable.

I think there are a lot of folks who would agree with you. But I also think there are some who don't think it is necessary. I think there are some who would say, I don't need to do that to be a good traditional old time fiddler.

fiddlepogo:

If someone is content to sound like a sawstroke fiddler, or a Nashville based fiddler, yeah, I'd say the bowing analysis is largely unnecessary, because those strategies are so obvious.   But then, I would MISS the one or two times that some unusual bowing occurred in the original!

I've said this before - ANY pattern that is repeated with emphasis on a rhythm that is created by the pattern without regard to the melody will be in danger of rendering the tune unrecognizable. It might have a rhythm pattern, but it will not capture the rhythmic feel of the tune.

I believe that ANY bowing strategy that is focused on capturing the rhythmic feel of a tune a person hears - can – and eventually will – capture it. Maybe not in a way that pleases everyone – but how often would you expect that to happen anyway?

imo - It is entirely possible for a basic Sawstroke fiddler to use accents, slurs, pushes, etc, in ways that capture the musical expression of the melody in a tune without sacrificing any rhythmic feel and maintain good meter. 

After all - the Nashville shuffle really isn't much more than a fancy sawstroke with an accent.  

 

---

1. Bayard.... different people have different focuses.

This article is pretty thin on facts about Bayard:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P...on_Bayard

But it does mention his focus on melodic families and melodies in general "at a time when other collectors focused on texts"

So it's looking like he had a melodic focus.  That's great as far as it goes.  But my focus is a rhythmic one.  Don't get me wrong- I love a good fiddle tune melody, but it's the phrasing that makes the melodies come alive for me, and it's how the bow is used, both in terms of bowings AND how they are phrased that makes them sound Old Time or not.  Violinists can play fiddle tunes, and they sound like classical exercises, the local Irish Trad players like to play some Old Time tunes.... and they sound WAY more Irish than Old Time when they do.

Also.... if the fiddlers he collected played like the ones in the video, there really is nothing in his playing that would distract him from a melodic emphasis.  Also.... he also collected fife tunes.... no bowing there.    I would really love to know what Bayard's musical education consisted of.  He could obviously WRITE music notation, so I'm suspecting some kind of classical instruction.

2.  Did I say anything about Jarrell and Wine sounding like each other???  I don't think they do- they sound quite distinct to me in the grooves they get, and some of the key patterns are different.  But I like them both because they both have quite a bit of non-Nashville, non-sawstroke stuff going on in their bowing.... Jarrell having one flavor, Wine another.

3. And I'll say it again.... the different emphasis is due to the different conditions.  Trying to use the same bowing approach the oldtimers did when you don't have the same visual access to the previous generation of oldtimers is not going to give you the same results.

Visual input has been HUGE for me in picking up bowings.   And Tom Sauber showed me Syncoshuffle in person in a very similar way to the way Tommy Jarrell was talking to Mike Seeger and Alice Gerrard.... "you go like this... do it like this".   When the fiddler you want to learn from is showing you, they don't need names or analytical words.   "A picture is worth a thousand words". 

4.  Another reason for the different emphasis.  Anglo American culture tends to be kind of weak in terms of the importance of rhythm... African-American culture in contrast emphasizes it a lot more.   PART of what made Old Time distinct from it's mostly Scottish fiddling ancestors (Knauf's collection of Virginia Reels has a bunch of VERY Scottish sounding tunes in it) is the African American influence.   One of the traditional terms that Alan Jabbour mentions is "Rag Bow"... that's a pretty strong hint that in addition to a bunch of fiddle rags entering into the Old Time repertoire as well, there was also a bowing influence from ragtime fiddlers.

Anyway, I've seen (or heard it) actually time and time again that if people who have a mostly Anglo-American musical background try and learn an Afro-American tune, say a spiritual, they straighten it out, and totally change the groove.  Either they flip the emphasis back to a constant downbeat emphasis and make it sound like a polka, or they get into a rigid, constant,  backbeat emphasis like hard rock, Bluegrass backup, or "Bug Music" (Horseflies style fiddling).  What I like about Blues and (at least some) Old Time fiddling is that neither is rigid that way... there is a freedom and a back and forth between emphasizing the downbeat and emphasizing the backbeat.

Three of my favorite bowings, Syncoshuffle, Smoothshuffle, and Sawshuffle, have something going on in them related to hemiola and Double Shuffle... they all group notes in a 4/4 tune in groups of threes.  This is SUPER characteristic of ragtime.   Bluegrass also has it in McReynolds picking and Scruggs picking.  And I'm saying that Old Time has this Ragtime heritage too in these "spice" bowings, although some oldtimers had it more than others.  And that's part of my focus, and what I'm trying to preserve or pass on in Old Time fiddling.

Because basically, FOR ME.... if you strip those distinctive things out of Old Time, given a choice between Scottish fiddling and that super straight sounding version of Old Time... I'd go with Scottish fiddling as being more flavorful and interesting.  Because Scottish fiddling HAS Nashville patterns and super clean saw stroke going on, but it also has bowed triplets and left hand ornaments too.

Hey... it's happened already in a way.   In putting together the American Fiddle Tunes album, Alan Jabbour was careful to include one side of Northern Old Time players.  There used to be such Old Time players all over the Northeast and Midwest.  In the Old Time revival, those fiddlers got totally neglected.   New England fiddlers used to fiddle more like that, but contradance fiddling in New England now has a really strong Cape Breton influence which is very Scottish sounding.

Like it or not, Old Time fiddling is now in competition with:

1. Bluegrass fiddling  (in the 1940's and 1950's, Old Time did one round with Bluegrass, and didn't fare so well!!)

2. Contest Fiddling

3. Irish Trad fiddling

4. Scottish fiddling

5. Canadian fiddling in general, and Cape Breton fiddling in particular.

6. "Celtic" fiddling.

Bluegrass is fast and clean, and has sawstroke, Contest fiddling likewise with jazzy touches, Nashville and Georgia Shuffles going on- AND the showy Double Shuffle.

All the rest have some form of diddly.

In my view, these more obscure patterns used rhythmically are part of Old Time fiddling's distinctives.

Have you noticed that the Old Time fiddler who is able to hold his own (like on the concert circuit) and attract attention and draw people to Old Time when they could be playing classical or Irish Trad is Bruce Molsky?? And he is obviously into non-standard bowings used in a very rhythmic way.

I'm not saying we should all become Bruce Molsky clones in our bowing... far from it... but his general approach is, I believe, a very healthy approach for the future of Old Time fiddling... that is "non-standard bowings used in a very rhythmic way".

tonyelder - Posted - 01/02/2014:  15:23:04

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

 

How about we do this.



I will use audacity to record a short clip that will have 2 rounds of a fiddle tune played by someone that is recognized as a good example of an old time fiddler.



I will offer that clip as a measuring stick in a separate mp3 - so anyone can do the same as what I propose to do.



The objective will be to record myself as I play along with that short clip to establish that I can play that tune - in a way that is comparable to the style of the recording by the "real" fiddler. It won't be necessary to play it exactly note for note, but it needs to be played with the same rhythmic feel and melody. In other words - would they invite me back if it were a jam?

And when the short clip has ended, I will continue to play un-accompanied for 2 more rounds.



This will do 2 things. (#1) It will answer your question about how well, how stable, how whatever - I can play THAT version of the tune in the way THAT fiddler plays it. And (#2) If the fiddler I am playing with is a recognized old time fiddler - then if I can play a good imitation of the rhythmic drive and melody that he plays with - then my flavor of anywhichway is working. Right? And I must be on a road that leads to  becoming a good old time fiddler. Right?



And if you want to prove to me how much better and more efficient your bowing pattern method works - then you do the same thing with the same tune - or perhaps another of your choosing.



I know that I will be working to play with the rhythmic feel and drive of what I hear on the recorded version.



And I suspect you will defer to a bowing pattern that you can make work efficiently for you.



I'm wondering which of us would sound more like the old time fiddler on the recording.

It should be fairly easy to tell.



 

---

Just remembered. I did something like this already. I uploaded it to my homepage back in July of 2012 and attached it to a post in a thread similar to this one.

We were having pretty much the same discussion about the need for learning bowing patterns. I offered this as evidence that folks can do ok without learning bowing patterns.

I didn't offer this (then or now) to say - look at how good I am. I do feel like I have improved over the last year and a half, but I know I'm still not another Tommy Jarrell.

I did offer this back then, and now - to ask - if I had been there with my fiddle, would they have wanted to ask me to stop playing? Or would I have been welcome to play some more tunes with them?

I know I kept up with the tempo, but was I able to capture the rhythmic feel of the tune? Did I mangle the melody? Was my playing a distraction?

youtu.be/fdROoZaKyko

tonyelder - Posted - 01/02/2014:  15:46:08

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

Have you noticed that the Old Time fiddler who is able to hold his own (like on the concert circuit) and attract attention and draw people to Old Time when they could be playing classical or Irish Trad is Bruce Molsky?? And he is obviously into non-standard bowings used in a very rhythmic way.

I'm not saying we should all become Bruce Molsky clones in our bowing... far from it... but his general approach is, I believe, a very healthy approach for the future of Old Time fiddling... that is "non-standard bowings used in a very rhythmic way".

---

On that - we agree. In as far as the appeal of old time music to the wider public and the main stream media is concerned his flavor has the best chance of survival.

And perhaps that is one of the reasons I'm not so interested in learning formulated patterns. To me - studying bowing patterns separate from the tunes is for the purpose of classifying and cataloging with the end result being - they get standardized.

Right or wrong - for me right now - I have no desire to approach it like that.

I think I have a fairly good sense of rhythm - developed over a good number of years. It's not limited to fiddle, it is music.

2 of my very favorite groups when I was younger was "The Band" and "Little Feat" - and if anyone knew any thing about rhythms and how to make them work - THOSE GUYS DID!

Edited by - tonyelder on 01/02/2014 16:04:28

Humbled by this instrument - Posted - 01/02/2014:  19:13:38

quote:

---

Originally posted by imapicker2

 

In quantum bowing, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of up and down inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a bow known as complementary variables, such as position xand momentum p, can be known simultaneously. For instance, the more precisely the position of some bow is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.^[1] The formal inequality relating the standard deviation of position σ_xand the standard deviation of momentum σ_p was derived by Earle Hesse Kennard^[2] later that year and by Hermann Weyl^[3] in 1928,

where ħ is the reduced Planck constant.

The original heuristic argument that such a limit to bowing should exist was given by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, after whom it is sometimes named the Heisenberg bowing principle. This ascribes the uncertainty in measurable quantities to the Nashville-like disturbance triggered by the act of observation and analysis of up and downing of the bow

 

What he said!   What he said?   My head hurts!

 

---

Nicely stated and aptly applied, Imapicker; however, the standard deviation of momentum a dum dum diddly um bum as perspired by Werner Von Bong Heisenburg lacks a basic runcible understanding of the Planck constant as it varies  through time.  Just saying.

fiddlerjoebob - Posted - 01/02/2014:  21:38:04

quote:

---

Originally posted by Humbled by this instrument

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by imapicker2

 

In quantum bowing, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of up and down inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a bow known as complementary variables, such as position xand momentum p, can be known simultaneously. For instance, the more precisely the position of some bow is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.^[1] The formal inequality relating the standard deviation of position σ_xand the standard deviation of momentum σ_p was derived by Earle Hesse Kennard^[2] later that year and by Hermann Weyl^[3] in 1928,

where ħ is the reduced Planck constant.

The original heuristic argument that such a limit to bowing should exist was given by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, after whom it is sometimes named the Heisenberg bowing principle. This ascribes the uncertainty in measurable quantities to the Nashville-like disturbance triggered by the act of observation and analysis of up and downing of the bow

 

What he said!   What he said?   My head hurts!

 

---

Nicely stated and aptly applied, Imapicker; however, the standard deviation of momentum a dum dum diddly um bum as perspired by Werner Von Bong Heisenburg lacks a basic runcible understanding of the Planck constant as it varies  through time.  Just saying.

---

I belive this was originaly stolen from wickedpidea, adapted and posted here by fiddlerjoebob....Ha   

fiddlepogo - Posted - 01/02/2014:  22:00:14

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder



 

And perhaps that is one of the reasons I'm not so interested in learning formulated patterns. To me - studying bowing patterns separate from the tunes is for the purpose of classifying and cataloging with the end result being - they get standardized.

---

Well, that's your ASSUMPTION. you are mistaking a "means" for the "end".. to me, studying bowing patterns separate from the tunes is so I'm fluent at them and the bowing transitions they contain, so that when I apply them to tunes, they become STRONG LINKS IN THE CHAIN.

"A chain is as strong as it's weakest link"  Every fiddle tune involves a chain of bowing moves.  If you speed it up, or get stressed by stage fright or recording jitters, you WILL find out where the weak link is.  Patterns help me two ways: 

1. Their modularity allows me to chain them, with each one fitting a different part of the tune.  If one proves to be a bad fit or weak link for the tune, I can try 3 or 4 alternate patterns, and the problem is solved.   With the weak link replaced with a strong one, the tune is more "bulletproof"... easier to play when nervous or when I get sped up by someone else.

2.  The patterns I've practiced have contained enough different bowing moves so that, in a case where I can't use the Old Time patterns, like waltzes, jigs, or Irish Trad tunes, my "anywhichway" playing is more confident and more fluid.  

And also because they sound cool!   And the more you practice them, the more fluid they get, and the cooler they sound!

And actually, they don't HAVE to be standardized.  The more cool patterns you learn, the more you learn the principles underlying them, to the point where you could even come up with hybrids.

I like to think of patterns as being like a smorgaboard.  You don't have to use them all.... take what you like, leave the rest.  I decided I'd gotten tired of Nashville.... not a problem, replaced it with other stuff.

The classification and naming is just to make things a little more orderly, and easier to discuss.  Can you imagine trying to order in a restaurant, where the entrees didn't have names?

fiddlepogo - Posted - 01/02/2014:  22:02:13

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pathfinder

 

You probably think white people can't play percussion instruments ....LOL!!

---

Bait.

fujers - Posted - 01/02/2014:  22:48:41

Man you are talking some deep stuff there. How about perpetual bowing ever thought about that?

Pathfinder - Posted - 01/03/2014:  06:28:58

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pathfinder

 

You probably think white people can't play percussion instruments ....LOL!!

---

Bait.

---

I didn't mean it that way, but you made some comparisons between races and music that is not valid in my opinion. The comparison should have between cultural preferences or what one experiences and them relates to and not race as a factor.

When you consider preference, the race component drops out of consideration, IMHO. This is why you can see white blues percussionists and black opera singers (my preference for the finest blues electric guitarist is the late Stevie Ray Vaughn). It doesn't take being one race or the other, just what you prefer. Mostly our preferences are the result of experiences and therefore, we adopt what is common to our experiences.

If you attend a black Pentecostal church, you are going to here the culture, not the race. If a white church flattens out a black spiritual, its not because they are white, but that how they prefer. When comparing churches and how they sing, denominations greatly affect the music. Black or white, the charismatic/Pentecostal churches are more exuberant in their worship.

Back to bowing, I recently had the thought that many old fiddlers did not have the skills or choose to play with a long bow and had to do something to fill in the gaps which similar to a guitars strum between essential notes. I wonder if what you we are seeing is more compensation than strategy?

imapicker2 - Posted - 01/03/2014:  11:28:24

Yea! What fiddlerjoebob said. That's right.  My head still hurts.Where did I put my banjo?

fiddlerjoebob - Posted - 01/03/2014:  13:58:02

Its quite simple, really.   If you focus on how the bow moves, it moves differently than if you were not focusing on how it moves.

Edited by - fiddlerjoebob on 01/03/2014 14:08:32

groundhogpeggy - Posted - 01/03/2014:  14:33:03

Hmmm...more quantum mechanics????

tonyelder - Posted - 01/03/2014:  15:09:47

youtube.com/watch?v=c35DLFQDCBM

And here Charlie Walden teaching a fiddle workshop expressing his opinion of bowing patterns and how he recommends learning tunes.

Of course, everyone is different.

And that is the point.

He is a good old time fiddler.

groundhogpeggy - Posted - 01/03/2014:  16:22:59

Yes, it's interesting to see the different ways people deal with the whole bowing issue.  I never heard of him but looking around on youtube he's pretty doggone good!  

Edited by - groundhogpeggy on 01/03/2014 16:28:00

fiddlepogo - Posted - 01/03/2014:  18:40:54

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pathfinder

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pathfinder

 

You probably think white people can't play percussion instruments ....LOL!!

---

Bait.

---

I didn't mean it that way, but you made some comparisons between races and music that is not valid in my opinion. The comparison should have between cultural preferences or what one experiences and them relates to and not race as a factor.

When you consider preference, the race component drops out of consideration, IMHO. This is why you can see white blues percussionists and black opera singers (my preference for the finest blues electric guitarist is the late Stevie Ray Vaughn). It doesn't take being one race or the other, just what you prefer. Mostly our preferences are the result of experiences and therefore, we adopt what is common to our experiences.

If you attend a black Pentecostal church, you are going to here the culture, not the race. If a white church flattens out a black spiritual, its not because they are white, but that how they prefer. When comparing churches and how they sing, denominations greatly affect the music. Black or white, the charismatic/Pentecostal churches are more exuberant in their worship.

Back to bowing, I recently had the thought that many old fiddlers did not have the skills or choose to play with a long bow and had to do something to fill in the gaps which similar to a guitars strum between essential notes. I wonder if what you we are seeing is more compensation than strategy?

---

If you go back to my post the word CULTURE was there.  You were taking me out of context, creating a straw man. Read it AGAIN... and while your'e at it, why don't you QUOTE me... that's what the QUOTE feature is for.... so people can verify that you are actually replying to what the person said and not creating a "straw man"... putting words in their mouth they did not say.

Some cultures place a higher value things on some things than others.  A big part of cultural differences is simply how highly (or how low) something is valued in one culture compared to another.   Rhythm had a strong place in African cultures, being used for communication as well as music, and they STILL value  rhythm very highly... rap music being a prime example.

The dominant white culture in America still doesn't value rhythm that highly, although probably higher than they used to.

fiddlepogo - Posted - 01/03/2014:  18:51:54

In fact, I'll be a nice guy and do it for you:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo



 

4.  Another reason for the different emphasis.  Anglo American culture tends to be kind of weak in terms of the importance of rhythm... African-American culture in contrast emphasizes it a lot more.   PART of what made Old Time distinct from it's mostly Scottish fiddling ancestors (Knauf's collection of Virginia Reels has a bunch of VERY Scottish sounding tunes in it) is the African American influence.   One of the traditional terms that Alan Jabbour mentions is "Rag Bow"... that's a pretty strong hint that in addition to a bunch of fiddle rags entering into the Old Time repertoire as well, there was also a bowing influence from ragtime fiddlers.

Anyway, I've seen (or heard it) actually time and time again that if people who have a mostly Anglo-American musical background try and learn an Afro-American tune, say a spiritual, they straighten it out, and totally change the groove.  Either they flip the emphasis back to a constant downbeat emphasis and make it sound like a polka, or they get into a rigid, constant,  backbeat emphasis like hard rock, Bluegrass backup, or "Bug Music" (Horseflies style fiddling).  What I like about Blues and (at least some) Old Time fiddling is that neither is rigid that way... there is a freedom and a back and forth between emphasizing the downbeat and emphasizing the backbeat.

Three of my favorite bowings, Syncoshuffle, Smoothshuffle, and Sawshuffle, have something going on in them related to hemiola and Double Shuffle... they all group notes in a 4/4 tune in groups of threes.  This is SUPER characteristic of ragtime.   Bluegrass also has it in McReynolds picking and Scruggs picking.  And I'm saying that Old Time has this Ragtime heritage too in these "spice" bowings, although some oldtimers had it more than others.  And that's part of my focus, and what I'm trying to preserve or pass on in Old Time fiddling.

Because basically, FOR ME.... if you strip those distinctive things out of Old Time, given a choice between Scottish fiddling and that super straight sounding version of Old Time... I'd go with Scottish fiddling as being more flavorful and interesting.  Because Scottish fiddling HAS Nashville patterns and super clean saw stroke going on, but it also has bowed triplets and left hand ornaments too.

 

---

Have I made myself clear?   I was contrasting two CULTURES.

Now, you were saying????

fiddlepogo - Posted - 01/03/2014:  20:38:42

quote:

---

Originally posted by fujers

 

Man you are talking some deep stuff there. How about perpetual bowing ever thought about that?

---

You mean where you feather the direction changes so you can't hear them at all? I enjoy hearing and watching someone do that, it's amazing- but it doesn't grab me enough to want to learn to do it myself.

I tend to like bouncy, happy sounding fiddling (well, unless I'm in the mood for a modal tune) , and short-bow fiddling gets that for me, so that's what I am- a short bow fiddler.

fiddlepogo - Posted - 01/03/2014:  21:12:49

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlerjoebob

 

Its quite simple, really.   If you focus on how the bow moves, it moves differently than if you were not focusing on how it moves.

---

Yeah, but if you focus on how the bow moves and practice it enough to learn it by heart, then you can stop focusing on how it moves, and it will STILL move differently.

It's just like learning to drive.   At first, everything is deliberate and slow, and kind of jerky, and you'd best stay in a parking lot.  After a while, it's embedded deep in your motor coordination centers, and your motions are fluid and smooth, and you can actually think about other things besides which gear do I shift into.  But you're still doing it right.

For the 999th time, THINKING about shuffles is only the initial phase.   When I play a tune, almost never have to think about what shuffle to put where... they just happen!

This way of learning isn't any different that what I had to do to learn Travis picking on guitar.   I could try to "wing it" all day and not get that.   Once I read it tabbed out, and  learned it by heart, after a while, I didn't have to think about it any more.

I don't understand why in virtually every other activity, you folks are willing to use your brains, but when it comes to fiddle bowing you want to check it at the door!!!

And the irony is.... I'VE GOT a MATH DISABILITY!!!   But I can count to eight!!!!  And to analyze bowing, that's all you need! (Well at least for short bow fiddling)

3-3-1-1 is Smoothshuffle.

In terms of the math, it's actually

3+3+1+1 = 8

1-2-1-2-1-1 is Syncoshuffle.

In terms of the math, it's really

1+2+1+2+1+1 = 8, and so on.

We're talking first grade math here people!!!!  Simple addition!   You can do it on your fingers. (Literally- leave the thumbs out of it!) It's not rocket science... not advanced calculus.... your head should NOT HURT!!!!

And actually most of you can probably out calculate me any day of the week in almost any other activity.

Maybe part of the reason I like shuffle patterns so much is that it's a kind of math I can actually DO!!!!

Edited by - fiddlepogo on 01/03/2014 21:16:17

fiddlepogo - Posted - 01/03/2014:  22:17:09

Something just occurred to me.

MAYBE the real reason why bowing analysis is so hard for so many is that....

It's in base 8!!!!  (Trust me, this isn't a concept I think about every day.... I vaguely remember a chapter about bases WAY back, and that I didn't DO well at all with it!)

And actually, in terms of the numerals used, it would be more like base 3!

We are so used to base 10, maybe because the norm is having 10 fingers.

So maybe only thinking in terms of 8, and only using ones, twos, and threes to get that total just doesn't work so easily for a lot of people.

And maybe that's partly why classical people don't seem to have trouble with bowing patterns- they deal with that kind of math all the time in reading music... in fact, if you notate it out with slurs for them, they'll have no trouble at all, except maybe with the PHRASING of them.

An alternative is perhaps that the math involved in analyzing bowing patterns is so utterly simple that your minds fall asleep from the sheer boredom of it all.... whereas for me, with my math disability, it's just challenging enough to remain interesting.

tonyelder - Posted - 01/04/2014:  00:10:07

pogo, you said:

"I don't understand why in virtually every other activity, you folks are willing to use your brains, but when it comes to fiddle bowing you want to check it at the door!!!"

and then you said:

"MAYBE the real reason why bowing analysis is so hard for so many is that...."

You know - some might consider that to be a bit offensive.  I bet you didn't really mean it quiet like it came out - did you?

I think perhaps you are analyzing things from a faulty premise.

I think it is more likely that there are "so many" who really don't see the need for analyzing their bowing in the same way you are insisting is necessary. When it didn't seem to be that necessary yesterday, and doesn't seem to be that necessary today. It doesn't really have to do with the degree or level of difficulty. And it certainly doesn't mean that "folks" are not willing to use their brains when it comes to fiddle bowing.

Why do you have such a problem with that?

Edited by - tonyelder on 01/04/2014 00:13:49

Pathfinder - Posted - 01/04/2014:  03:06:34

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

 

 

 

In fact, I'll be a nice guy and do it for you:

---

Have I made myself clear?   I was contrasting two CULTURES.

Now, you were saying????

---

"The dominant white culture in America still doesn't value rhythm that highly, although probably higher than they used to." That's what I am saying :).

pdfarrell - Posted - 01/04/2014:  04:52:52

In the African night clubs I was predominately a nashville shuffle/sawstroke anywhichway dancer. I'm sure sure i threw in a synco-shuffle, even a rare sawshuffle, here and there. But now that I know the names of these new shuffles I'm using them more and more. And if I do say so myself the results are quite good. I'm sorry that no video exists.

fiddlepogo - Posted - 01/04/2014:  06:24:50

quote:

---

Originally posted by pdfarrell

 

In the African night clubs I was predominately a nashville shuffle/sawstroke anywhichway dancer. I'm sure sure i threw in a synco-shuffle, even a rare sawshuffle, here and there. But now that I know the names of these new shuffles I'm using them more and more. And if I do say so myself the results are quite good. I'm sorry that no video exists.

---

Videos exist.

groundhogpeggy and reddesertviolin have videos of the bowings I talk about:

reddesertviolin

youtube.com/watch?v=aj1jE7c-pAM

groundhogpeggy:

youtube.com/watch?v=a_gltVh92Js

Those will get you the bow directions.

Listen to my bowing podcast in my music section for some different ways of phrasing those directions.

Like with Nashville, there are umpteen different ways of phrasing any bowing pattern- which notes you accent and which you don't will totally change the character.  For instance, Syncoshuffle can be used for extreme syncopation as the name implies, but it can also be phrased to sound rather "straight"... that is, the accent is on the downbeat.

David Bragger also has some great bowing videos... he uses patterns, but in the videos, he just teaches you the bowing for the whole tune stroke by stroke.... well, actually, in this one he does break down the Syncoshuffle which he calls the Syncopated Shuffle.

youtube.com/watch?v=6ODqEp20SU...zHCDXksop

In the video, Groundhogpeggy does it very syncopated, and that's how I used it mostly at first.  Slowly, as I got more control, I was able to do it more subtley, like David Bragger, although I still don't feel the need for a mid-bow push on that one... but who knows?

pdfarrell - Posted - 01/04/2014:  06:41:44

I was actually joking a bit, trying to inject some levity in the race issue... Picture a white guy dancing in a synco-shufle kind of way with a bunch of Africans... There's no video of that (thank goodness)

Then again my point was somewhat serious. Putting a name on these shufles has made it easier to transfer it into my playing. For the good I think.

groundhogpeggy - Posted - 01/04/2014:  07:11:27

Oh gosh I forgot about that video I did...lol...lol...lol...silly!  Well I sat and watched it just now and bout choked to death on my coffee laughing ... But inspired to try and make a newer one to compare.  That was a year and a half ago...and even though I've had very little time to practice, I think maybe I might have a little better control on those licks now, not sure though.  I sure have a long way to go.  But I might look into just doing another one to see...see if I have any more comfort or insight-- doesn't it really come down to a combination of those two things?  Comfort with muscle memory for fitting those licks/ shuffles into the (8 note?) space...insight into what your tune is trying to say and how to get the notes within your shuffles to say it it allow it to come through.  Always makes me think of the most brilliant thing Dwight Diller said about double thumbing Clawhammer: the right hand is like a pool of water, the left hand drops notes like pebbles into the pool.  

fiddlepogo - Posted - 01/04/2014:  07:15:26

That video of Sugar Hill is an especially good example of Tommy's playing because you can SEE what he's doing with the bow at least part of the time.

And it's VERY predictable:

Long strokes (starting with a down stroke) at the beginning.  Sawstroke or Nashville in the middle (I think he does both for variation)

Similar long strokes at the end.  He does those beginning and ending strokes the same way every time. 

Never gets turned around, always starts on a downbow. Always the same moves (that can be analyzed as mathematical patterns) Solid as a rock.  

Trust me, that last statement has SOMETHING to do with what went before.

Since the middle sections are saw stroke or Nashville, get the beginning and ending licks, and you've got the bowing.

 

fiddlepogo - Posted - 01/04/2014:  08:11:17

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

 

pogo, you said:

"I don't understand why in virtually every other activity, you folks are willing to use your brains, but when it comes to fiddle bowing you want to check it at the door!!!"

and then you said:

"MAYBE the real reason why bowing analysis is so hard for so many is that...."

You know - some might consider that to be a bit offensive.  I bet you didn't really mean it quiet like it came out - did you?

I think perhaps you are analyzing things from a faulty premise.

I think it is more likely that there are "so many" who really don't see the need for analyzing their bowing in the same way you are insisting is necessary. When it didn't seem to be that necessary yesterday, and doesn't seem to be that necessary today. It doesn't really have to do with the degree or level of difficulty. And it certainly doesn't mean that "folks" are not willing to use their brains when it comes to fiddle bowing.

Why do you have such a problem with that?

 

---

Well.... it's a little blunt, yeah.

I'm just getting a little tired of this "Quantum mechanics bowing" and "my head hurts" stuff, which is making it sound like bowing analysis is overcomplicating things.

It ain't rocket science....it's counting to EIGHT.

And only counting to THREE for the slurs.

It's not because you can't..... If math challenged ME can do it, so can ALL of  you.

It's 'cause you don't WANT to.  

And WHY that is, I haven't figured out yet.

Tommy Jarrell did Syncoshuffles.... or a variation thereof.   You seem to like Tommy Jarrell's fiddling.... you ought to be all over that!

But you say, "I tried it and it didn't work".   Keep at it... keep it on the "back burner".... practice it at the end of a practice session when you're warmed up.

Don't even THINK about trying to integrate it into your tunes until it's smooth.

You apparently have the Leftwich video... I'd major on watching the video... that will show you how the motions relate to the phrasing.

Why do I have a hard time with it?

So far, no one has convinced me that not analyzing is a "better mousetrap".

Yes, not analyzing works for a few, but I don't see it working consistently well.... more like a roll of the dice.

I've heard a lot of "not analyzing being a better mousetrap" TALK from people here over the years, but I don't see it working consistently.

I'm just not impressed.

Conversely, I see teachers who analyze, and who play well... impressively well.  And they are able to impart that to students.... to enough of them (even here on the Fiddle Hangout) that I'm impressed.

groundhogpeggy - Posted - 01/04/2014:  08:37:35

Omg...I just now tried to do a new video...alone in the house for the morning...thought ud take advantage of it.  Yeah I turned on the ipad camera six times...phone ringin and people coming to the door!!! Finally I was so confused by the time I got the camera rolling I did a bad job, I think, but pressed on, thinking I would give am explanation in bubble-notes and edit the video...then my ipad crashed ( happens so much after the update I'm considering getting rid of it), but fortunately I hadn't erased the video yet, tried again and got it to youtube...moved to the big computer to edit and put it my notes and it crashed...I have no idea what's wrong with it, never saw it do that weird thing...so hubby will be unhappy when ge gets home...anyway, also the dogs got wound up during the hurried video,,,hers an update just for comparison with that one linked above--- bowing bag of tricks revisited--- youtu.be/AoCrSFhVOCU and I think I need to make another pot of coffee!!!

groundhogpeggy - Posted - 01/04/2014:  08:51:10

Even though my luck with time left to my own devices and reliable technology isn't running so hot these days...I do believe my comfort level with these licks has improved some over the past year and a half.  I think this might make me lean a little further toward the bowing licks side of the fence here--- not cutting down the other side, I know there are great fiddlers who don't go near this discussion, but just saying in my own playing...I believe giving these lucks/shuffles/patterns some time has eventually allowed me to be able to throw them in and out at will without getting tripped up so easily ( but I'm not beyond the tangled, tripped up bowing syndrome yet), and to gave something reliable to toss into my N. shuffling so I don't get bored.  I never think in the binary terms, up it down ( why should I...computers are my enemies!!!!), I think of a musical unit that I know by feel only ( realizing technically it's normally eight counts), and bowing schemes that fit a unit.  That's it!

groundhogpeggy - Posted - 01/04/2014:  08:53:14

Now back to the coffee pot-- back to work!

fiddlerjoebob - Posted - 01/04/2014:  09:10:09

Dear me, this thread is on it's 28th page and I only mentioned "Quantum Bowing" one time.  Pogo, I wish you wouldn't tire of it and dismiss me quite yet.  I have been reading this conversation for years with much interest.   I enjoy and agree or learn from you quite often.  And, because of that,  I have been thinking a lot about this notion of Q-bowing...I thought it was a good and fresh contribution to the phraseology of this thread.., even though clearly I stole it from Heisenberg.  Sorry if I am being redundant redundant and it has been used before.  Anyway, what I meant by it, and only for myself, is that I have a very hard time following any kind of notation while bowing. I don't read music and even thinking about U-dd-d, while I play, I loose my focus.   I have tried to deconstruct my bowing as I play, and it always messes up my bowing.   Its just the way I am I guess, even after 40 years of pulling and pushing the bow I still don't know just what it is that I do.  If I like it, I let it rip and if I don't like it,  I do it another way, or another way, or another.  What are those other ways?  I don't know. I can't describe them.   Its a mystery really..........a miracle even...at least for me. 

tonyelder - Posted - 01/04/2014:  10:11:59

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlerjoebob

 

Dear me, this thread is on it's 28th page and I only mentioned "Quantum Bowing" one time.  Pogo, I wish you wouldn't tire of it and dismiss me quite yet.  I have been reading this conversation for years with much interest.   I enjoy and agree or learn from you quite often.  And, because of that,  I have been thinking a lot about this notion of Q-bowing...I thought it was a good and fresh contribution to the phraseology of this thread.., even though clearly I stole it from Heisenberg.  Sorry if I am being redundant redundant and it has been used before.  Anyway, what I meant by it, and only for myself, is that I have a very hard time following any kind of notation while bowing. I don't read music and even thinking about U-dd-d, while I play, I loose my focus.   I have tried to deconstruct my bowing as I play, and it always messes up my bowing.   Its just the way I am I guess, even after 40 years of pulling and pushing the bow I still don't know just what it is that I do.  If I like it, I let it rip and if I don't like it,  I do it another way, or another way, or another.  What are those other ways?  I don't know. I can't describe them.   Its a mystery really..........a miracle even...at least for me. 

---

...that has been my experience.

I've mentioned before that I've watched and attempted to follow David Bragger's videos. I commented on his calling out the "ups" and "downs" while he would play a tune and people thought I was being sarcastic. I followed up by saying "NO" I'm freaked out over someone being able to do that while the fiddle. The part that I found humorous was the idea that I could follow his instructions while I play.

if I would be willing to invest the time - I would eventually be able to do that. But I'm just not motivated enough to put forth the effort, it's not what a skill I feel like I need to have.

Nevertheless, it is impressive to watch him do that. I sometimes have trouble calling out "last time" without it fouling up my playing.

pdfarrell - Posted - 01/04/2014:  10:35:31

To Tony Elder,
Try David Braggers Can You a Tobacco Hill. Pretty simple tune. You have a clear Nashville shuffle in the A part., and a clear synco-shuffle in the B part.

I found that having a tune like that to practice makes it possible to get the synco -shuffle fluent. Then you can see that it fits in places where you might normally put a Nashville shuffle. I suspect you will enjoy the variety that it gives to a tune.

I think of it as Chik-oo-Chik-oo-Chika. The Chika can be clipped off to lead in anticipation of the next measure.

pdfarrell - Posted - 01/04/2014:  10:43:36

By the way, you're probably already doing it if you do a tune like Breaking Up Christmas (or probably lots of Tommy Jarrell tunes though I'm not an expert)

tonyelder - Posted - 01/04/2014:  11:11:44

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

It's 'cause you don't WANT to.  

And WHY that is, I haven't figured out yet.

Tommy Jarrell did Syncoshuffles.... or a variation thereof.   You seem to like Tommy Jarrell's fiddling.... you ought to be all over that!

But you say, "I tried it and it didn't work".   Keep at it... keep it on the "back burner".... practice it at the end of a practice session when you're warmed up.

Don't even THINK about trying to integrate it into your tunes until it's smooth.

You apparently have the Leftwich video... I'd major on watching the video... that will show you how the motions relate to the phrasing.

 

Why do I have a hard time with it?

So far, no one has convinced me that not analyzing is a "better mousetrap".

Yes, not analyzing works for a few, but I don't see it working consistently well.... more like a roll of the dice.

I've heard a lot of "not analyzing being a better mousetrap" TALK from people here over the years, but I don't see it working consistently.

I'm just not impressed.

Conversely, I see teachers who analyze, and who play well... impressively well.  And they are able to impart that to students.... to enough of them (even here on the Fiddle Hangout) that I'm impressed.

---

You are still working from a false premise. 

I PROMISE YOU – anyone who has ever pulled a bow across the fiddle strings in an attempt to make the fiddle sound like what they hear in their head, has been deeply involved with analyzing what they are doing and experimenting with how they do it - to satisfy their goal. I have never said – nor have I heard it said by anyone else - that not analyzing is a "better mousetrap". I have heard plenty of objections to the idea that your version of analyzing is the only method that will actually work.

I'm not trying to be a smart here – but, why should anyone be concerned about what impresses you? That wouldn't be a bad thing, but what would it prove? Are you expecting everyone to be motivated by what impresses you?

I've seen and heard a good number of folks who play tunes using patterns. They are convinced that what they are doing is old time fiddling because they are using a bowing pattern. “That” is what makes it old time. Most of these folks have been playing for YEARS and they know hundreds of tunes – cold / off the top of their head. And yet every tune they play – I hear the patterns more that the tune. Sometimes I don't even recognize the tune. To borrow from Tommy - "They know a thousand tunes and can't play a one."

Is that suppose to inspire and impress? It doesn't impress me.

I've said this so many times before, but here is where it belongs – so, I'll say it again.

Yes, learning patterns can make you a good fiddler, but learning them doesn't mean you will be a good fiddler. There are no guarantees.

And you can become a good fiddler without learning patterns, but there doesn't mean you will. There are no guarantees.

There is so much more to being a good fiddler – imo.

Edited by - tonyelder on 01/04/2014 11:24:17

groundhogpeggy - Posted - 01/04/2014:  11:20:45

It ain't for everybody...I think of guitar fingerpicking as a comparison...I have a bag of tricks, but I don't really know what they are...they just fit.  When I was little I struggled to learn a few picking schemes on the guitar...over the decades I snatched a few more here and there and the ones I'd had learned before morphed and now I don't know what I do, but it fits and I don't get tripped up picking.  If you were lucky enough to learn fiddle that young, that way...you might go crazy thinking about it.  But I realize there are some good sounding fiddlers who stick with saw stroke or whatever too...I don't think it's fit everybody.  But, fiddle is a hard instrument, and it is easy to decide not to think about bowing...some of us do need to think about it though.  It's helped me, though also I think another helpful thing is to know how you wanna sound...know what it is your going after, that's even harder, maybe, to get in touch with...ain't an easy instrument, and is guess there are many ways to approach it.  I might try to do a better bowing update than that terrible one I did earlier today sometime when I've got time...and...well it'll probably be never...lol...so I'll just leave it for now.  Somebody else put up a video, how bout?

tonyelder - Posted - 01/04/2014:  11:47:53

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

I've seen and heard a good number of folks who play tunes using patterns. They are convinced that what they are doing is old time fiddling because they are using a bowing pattern. “That” is what makes it old time. Most of these folks have been playing for YEARS and they know hundreds of tunes – cold / off the top of their head. And yet every tune they play – I hear the patterns more that the tune. Sometimes I don't even recognize the tune. To borrow from Tommy - "They know a thousand tunes and can't play a one."

Is that suppose to inspire and impress? It doesn't impress me.

 

---

I'd like to temper this statement, because it comes across a bit more harsh than what I intended.

It's not that I am unimpressed with their talent or skills as a fiddler. They've been playing a long time - and over the years, they have become accomplished in a style and technique of playing that they consider to be important. That is what they wanted to do.

But I'm just not impressed with that style of playing. That just doesn't inspire me. That is not what I want to do.

I hope that makes sense.

Edited by - tonyelder on 01/04/2014 11:50:48

pdfarrell - Posted - 01/04/2014:  11:51:41

Tony,

Did you try the Tobacco Hill with D Bragger? Slow it down. Try to ignore the up bow pulse.

If there is ever a debate between the ego and better fiddling, let better fiddling win... The fiddle is much bigger and greater!

Edited by - pdfarrell on 01/04/2014 11:55:35

groundhogpeggy - Posted - 01/04/2014:  11:56:34

I gotta say I tried both David Bragger and Brad Leftwich...all that up down up up down etc. drove me crazy!  I like whole units, can't learn from isolated stuff, but lots of people can and Bragger and Leftwich have done a lot of good in their teachings.

tonyelder - Posted - 01/04/2014:  12:38:29

quote:

---

Originally posted by groundhogpeggy

 

It ain't for everybody...I think of guitar fingerpicking as a comparison...I have a bag of tricks, but I don't really know what they are...they just fit.  When I was little I struggled to learn a few picking schemes on the guitar...over the decades I snatched a few more here and there and the ones I'd had learned before morphed and now I don't know what I do, but it fits and I don't get tripped up picking.  If you were lucky enough to learn fiddle that young, that way...you might go crazy thinking about it.  But I realize there are some good sounding fiddlers who stick with saw stroke or whatever too...I don't think it's fit everybody.  But, fiddle is a hard instrument, and it is easy to decide not to think about bowing...some of us do need to think about it though.  It's helped me, though also I think another helpful thing is to know how you wanna sound...know what it is your going after, that's even harder, maybe, to get in touch with...ain't an easy instrument, and is guess there are many ways to approach it.  I might try to do a better bowing update than that terrible one I did earlier today sometime when I've got time...and...well it'll probably be never...lol...so I'll just leave it for now.  Somebody else put up a video, how bout?

---

I think there are a lot of similarities between guitar and fiddling (as many as there are differences).

And a lot of similarities in our bowing discussions and flatpicking (especially bluegrass / from my experience). There are always those who are wanting to learn how to flatpick solo breaks on a guitar. And it seems that there are just about as many who will tell you how to get there.

There are those who swear that you have to learn and practice scales (and there is a bunch) – the more the better. But you have to practice them – and practice them, and then practice them some more – always practice them. They must be mastered if you are ever going to be a good flatpicker.

Then there is the “library of licks” club. Flatpickin Guitar magazine will bury you with licks each month. And there are hundreds or thousands more on YouTube who will offer 25 variations of the G run (like you couldn't come up with any on your own). And over the years you will have accumulated a gazillion licks you can chose from at any moment as you need them.

Then there is the hero syndrome. The folks who will meticulously pick apart every solo that someone like Tony Rice has ever played, and will spend endless hours studying every stroke he ever recorded. They want to be another Tony Rice because he is Mr. Bluegrass Guitar. The folks who insist that if you aren't on the same path, you'll never really be a flatpicker.

And then there are those that will approach the goal from this angle. They will listen to their favorite guitar players, try to pick up what they can from what they like. Try to make it fit what they are learning in a way that sounds good – and polish what they have learned. They will add to it when they discover something new that inspires them. They understand scales, and even practice them, but they also understand that if what they play sounds good/right it will be something based on the scales. And chances are – it will most likely be something they heard or saw in a video or live. If not exactly - it will be something similar to (if not the same as) some of the licks in Flatpicking Guitar Magazine or a Youtube video. And if they aren't – so what? If it sounds good – it sounds good. And they will always be picking up some stuff from all the folks that inspire them – all their guitar heroes like Tony Rice, Byran Sutton, and any number of others, as they learn to play the songs/tunes they like.

A lot of our discussions have these same kind of elements in them - imo.

In the end – it really depends more on your motivation and how well you apply yourself towards the goals you have. All of those tools can contribute to your success – but none of them can guarantee it.

tonyelder - Posted - 01/04/2014:  13:00:09

quote:

---

Originally posted by pdfarrell

 

Tony,

Did you try the Tobacco Hill with D Bragger? Slow it down. Try to ignore the up bow pulse.

If there is ever a debate between the ego and better fiddling, let better fiddling win... The fiddle is much bigger and greater!

---

  ...ok, I'll try to ignore the up bow pulse.

"If there is ever a debate between the ego and better fiddling, let better fiddling win... The fiddle is much bigger and greater!"

I like that.

You've put into words something that I like to think is exactly the way I approach my fiddling. But it's easy to understand that - someone else looks at what you are doing - they may wonder if that is true. But we just have to trust that we are being true to ourselves. What others think is not nearly as important.

Nope. I haven't looked at it yet. I have looked at several in the past. But I'm going there now to look at this one you have recommended.

But before I go there let me tell you a story. I had a band mate once who was a really good "swing" guitar player (he was our fiddler). We were learning a few swing tunes, and I wasn't playing something exactly the way he thought I should. So he asked if I would be offended if he showed me the way it should be played. I said "Sure, but only if you aren't offended if I don't play it that way." He looked at me puzzled. I said "You are starting with a few assumptions - that after you have shown me,  I will be able to do it just like you have shown me - or that I will want to play it that way. But yes, I do want to hear what you want to show me."

Thanks again.

Edited by - tonyelder on 01/04/2014 13:04:30

fiddlepogo - Posted - 01/04/2014:  13:12:40

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

I've seen and heard a good number of folks who play tunes using patterns. They are convinced that what they are doing is old time fiddling because they are using a bowing pattern. “That” is what makes it old time. Most of these folks have been playing for YEARS and they know hundreds of tunes – cold / off the top of their head. And yet every tune they play – I hear the patterns more that the tune. Sometimes I don't even recognize the tune. To borrow from Tommy - "They know a thousand tunes and can't play a one."

Is that suppose to inspire and impress? It doesn't impress me.

 

---

I'd like to temper this statement, because it comes across a bit more harsh than what I intended.

It's not that I am unimpressed with their talent or skills as a fiddler. They've been playing a long time - and over the years, they have become accomplished in a style and technique of playing that they consider to be important. That is what they wanted to do.

But I'm just not impressed with that style of playing. That just doesn't inspire me. That is not what I want to do.

I hope that makes sense.

---

Yeah, I've heard some fiddlers like that. 

Rock and a hard place.  Think:  is this dance music or listening music???

While painful as listening music,  what I usually hear is that the rhythm is steady and solid... if monotonous.

And if they have a stiff bow hold, it's going to be hard for them to give Nashville a relaxed feel.

The pity is that in the Sugar Hill video, the bowings Tommy is using are SO NOT rocket science.

He's using:

1. Nashville

2. Sawstroke (both in the body of the tune.

3. an opening lick that is almost certainly the beat leading Syncoshuffle variant known as "Tommy's Lick".

4. a closing lick that may be either that or 3-3-1-1 with the final two strokes replaced by the beginning of the beat leading Syncoshuffle.

3-3-1-1 LOOKS a lot like Tommy's lick, but it doesn't lead the beat.

Three or four patterns!!!  And most intermediate fiddlers know the first two already!!!!

Nothing succeeds like success..... using the bowing patterns Tommy uses will give you very much the same sound, allowing for personal phrasing of them.   AND if you use the bowing patterns Tommy is using the way he is using it, you WON'T get turned around, because he's not.

That is obvious in this video, and it was obvious to me when I got to watch him play live.   He ALWAYS started on a downbow.... and there was never the slightest hint of him getting turned around and having to fake his way out.

fiddlepogo - Posted - 01/04/2014:  13:41:24

Oh yeah.... and those painful pattern fiddlers you talk about.... I've never seen a one that isn't locked into ONLY NASHVILLE.

(Well, actually, I did see a video about a year and a half ago of a guy who was trying to use sawstroke the way some use Nashville.... if you think solid Nashville is painful..... he replace what should have been long notes in the tune by just sawing back and forth!!!  Awful!  Gimme solid Nashville rather than that!  But hey... he doesn't count- according to the people who claim sawstroke isn't a pattern!)

JUST ONE MORE PATTERN work make it work so much better!

When I was using ONLY Nashville, I was NOT HAPPY with my fiddling.  Once I added Smoothshuffle (3-3-1-1) as an alternative, it was amazing how much more I could follow the melody.

 

One pattern is going to tend to be rigid, and the only fiddlers who can then make it sound musical have to have a supple wrist and have learned to phrase Nashville in an attractive way..... but I still wouldn't want to fiddle that way.

Edited by - fiddlepogo on 01/04/2014 13:42:38

fiddlepogo - Posted - 01/04/2014:  13:48:31

You know.... one key trick here.

if you learn how to do another pattern as an "opening lick" like Tommy and so many of the oldtimers did, once you've done it, you can go on to Nashville.... fiddle the rest of the tune, then use the opening lick again as a closing lick.....   and then repeat it for the beginning lick of the next repeat or next part.

Either Syncoshuffle or Smoothshuffle can be used that way.

And Peggy.... you did BOTH of those well enough to demo them in a video.... so I KNOW you can do the motions.... you just need to get some appropiate melody notes happening while you're doing them!

In any case, keep doing them on the side "on the back burner".  It may take a while for them to get "done" but trust me, they make the bowing "omelette" a lot more tasty when you add them.

Edited by - fiddlepogo on 01/04/2014 13:52:10

fiddlepogo - Posted - 01/04/2014:  14:11:56

quote:

---

Originally posted by pdfarrell

 

 Putting a name on these shufles has made it easier to transfer it into my playing. For the good I think.

---

 THANKS for saying that. 

Part of the reason I put up with the way these bowing threads generally go, is that I get to "name names".... and eventually people will start to see that 3-3-1-1 and 1-2-1-2-1-1 are rhythmic entities just like Nashville.... but with different grooves or personalities that spice things up.

Calling them (respectively) Smoothshuffle and Syncoshuffle gives them a "handle", and it also says something ABOUT their personalities.

100%  Nashville or Sawshuffle can sound SO choppy.... adding Smoothshuffle can make that much easier to take.   Syncoshuffle adds the spice of syncopation, and gives you another option of fitting the pattern to the tune, instead of mangling the tune to fit a SINGLE pattern... which is almost always Nashville.

In addition:

Sawshuffle:  1-1-1-3-1-1

as the name implies a lot like sawstroke... but a bit less choppy.  Great for adding clarity at the beginning of a phrase, but still keeping a shuffle-like drive.  Hey.... maybe it should be renamed Clarity Shuffle!

Bouncyshuffle (I used to call this Offset Nashville, but that gives you no idea of the actual flavor... what it actually does, which is BOUNCE!)

1-2-1-1-2-1.   It's basically the first part of a (non-beat-leading) Syncoshuffle repeated twice.  Like with Nashville, the challenge is getting both parts to match, since they are in different directions.

OTJunky - Posted - 01/04/2014:  14:33:07

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

 

 

Well.... it's a little blunt, yeah.

I'm just getting a little tired of this "Quantum mechanics bowing" and "my head hurts" stuff, which is making it sound like bowing analysis is overcomplicating things.

It ain't rocket science....it's counting to EIGHT.

And only counting to THREE for the slurs.

It's not because you can't..... If math challenged ME can do it, so can ALL of  you.

It's 'cause you don't WANT to.  

And WHY that is, I haven't figured out yet.

....

---

The reasons for this have been explained now by lots of different members in lots of different ways in lots of different threads over the years.

So if you haven't figured it out, it can't be because members with different opinions are reluctant to share them.

--OTJ

tonyelder - Posted - 01/04/2014:  14:37:20

fiddlehangout.com/global/ckedi...png") no-repeat center rgb(255, 0, 0); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-radius: 2px 2px 0px 0px; top: -17px; width: 17px; height: 17px; right: 17px; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 0px; font-size: 0px; display: block; position: absolute; z-index: 9999; cursor: pointer; -ms-border-radius: 2px 2px 0px 0px;" title="Insert paragraph here" unselectable="on">↵

follow up thoughts:

---

There are those who swear that you have to learn and practice scales (and there is a bunch) – the more the better. But you have to practice them – and practice them, and then practice them some more – always practice them. They must be mastered if you are ever going to be a good flatpicker.

And they can become super proficient with those scales – playing them at lightning speeds, backwards and forwards. And there will be those who will say that everything they play sounds like another scale exercise – no melody, no style.

Then there is the “library of licks” club. Flatpickin Guitar magazine will bury you with licks each month. And there are hundreds or thousands more on YouTube who will offer 25 variations of the G run (like you couldn't come up with any on your own). And over the years you will have accumulated a gazillion licks you can chose from at any moment as you need them.

And they can become super proficient at the library of licks. And they can play a stream of licks one after the other, and there are some they can play the heck out of – perfectly and effortlessly. But there are those who will say the same licks get used in every break they play – you can tell when one ends and the next lick begins. And Lord help them if they lose their place – can they get back on track?

Then there is the hero syndrome. The folks who will meticulously pick apart every solo that someone like Tony Rice has ever played, and will spend endless hours studying every stroke he ever recorded. They want to be another Tony Rice because he is Mr. Bluegrass Guitar. The folks who insist that if you aren't on the same path, you'll never really be a flatpicker.

And they can play those breaks and do a good imitation, and when it comes to a few of the licks – they can nail it. But there are those who will say that they sound too much like they are trying to be something they aren't. And when it comes to playing songs or tunes that weren't recorded by that artist – the solos sound strained and out of place.

And then there are those that will approach the goal from this angle. They will listen to their favorite guitar players, try to pick up what they can from what they like. Try to make it fit what they are learning in a way that sounds good – and polish what they have learned. They will add to it when they discover something new that inspires them. They understand scales, and even practice them, but they also understand that if what they play sounds good/right it will be something based on the scales. And chances are – it will most likely be something they heard or saw in a video or live. If not exactly - it will be something similar to (if not the same as) some of the licks in Flatpicking Guitar Magazine or a Youtube video. And if they aren't – so what? If it sounds good – it sounds good. And they will always be picking up some stuff from all the folks that inspire them – all their guitar heroes like Tony Rice, Bryan Sutton, and any number of others, as they learn to play the songs/tunes they like.

And they will usually have used a combination of all the above. The danger is that they can get stuck in any of the same traps, or get complacent. But the nature of this method means they are having to learn the instrument as they figure out how to play what they hear. If they develop a good ear that becomes familiar with the style they are wanting to play they can learn to improvise without a direct reference point in scales, licks, or heroes, and be able to make it sound convincing – because they have a feel for what sounds right. This doesn't mean they don't use the other tools – just means they aren't focused on mastering one like some might be. They will still be looking for help – everywhere they can find it.

Yes, someone who determines to master skills of any of the tools can become to be musical too. They all have there place. But in every case you have to get beyond the confines of the tools to make what they play sound more musical.

But, don't tell me you can't be musical without mastering one of the tools first.