I subscribe to your fiddle philosophy! Cheers to you, mate.

Recently, I have been working on a new set list of tunes on the upright for a show coming up in a few weeks.
Just learned, rehearsed 30 tunes and performed on the drums for the first time in 8 years.
Rehearsing on the drums for a Grateful Dead tribute show this coming Saturday.
My wife and I are doing a reunion show DEC 27th and it's been about 9 years since we played out as a duo (Upright and Guitar)
Last but not least, I have a solo singer songwriter night coming up REAL soon.
This has left my fiddle to the wayside which does make me sad but I know it'll be there.

Cheers!~

To quote Homer "I subscribe to your religion. Tell me more!" 

You didn't tell me there was DONUTS! ! !

Is there anything they can't do?

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

Work on what you want to play until you are satisfied that you can at least play the tune - solo.

---

I disagree. Work on the tune so you can play along the person/source from which you learned it. You don't have to play exactly the same notes, but it should fit with it. A friend called it having the same "sense of the tune". From their it will evolve with you over the years. (As a side note, I've noticed that other styles of music, that I played before playing the fiddle, shows up in my fiddling e.g. Jug band and ragtime)

So I don't have to play the exact notes??

I can understand the well-meaning thought process behind this ideology, but I have to say that I completely disagree with it.

Focusing all your attention on yourself is very dangerous for several reasons. First of all, it ignores the fact that the violin has been, since its appearance, a social instrument (its first recorded use in history was in the orchestra for an opera by Monteverdi). It has always been intended to be played to a listening audience—not the player. The instrument doesn’t even sound quite the same under the ear as it does at a distance. Thus the only way to really know if your playing is any good is not to “search your heart” or “trust your gut” or some other kind of cliche designed to disguise the amour propre that Pascal railed against but to tune in to the audience. 

Second, it lops off the audience and shuts the player in a box the confines of which are limited to that player’s perception and sensibility, two things which may make for a rather slim package. This is a problem that is not specific to Old Time music—it has become standard practice to encourage musicians to treat performance as a mode of self-exploration and unswerving focus on the inner mind, completely shutting the audience out. This is a modern trend, and I think it is a very large part of the reason modern music and its performance has declined so heavily in popularity—the audience is perceptive enough to realize that the music isn’t being played for them. The great musicians of the past had an incredible ability to pull audiences in. A good musician had an almost hypnotic power over the listener, like the snake charmer. Listen to people talk about great performances and you hear the same thing over and over: the musician reaches out and grabs me every time I hear it and time ceases to progress in its normal fashion. This kind of greatness came from a carefully developed ability to communicate to an audience. When you consider many of the great recordings by blues players or old fiddlers, it’s significant to remember that many of those players would have died of starvation had they not found a way to draw crowds.

Working on something to please yourself is a very efficient way to shorten your practice time and handicap the development of technique. I agree that there are excellent self-taught musicians, but those people are exceptional for their ability to accurately assess their skill and they tend to be very good at listening to feedback, whether that means taking it on board or setting it up as a windmill against which to tilt. But for mere mortals, a great deal of assistance is needed to learn anything of substance about the violin, and that applies to every aspect of the instrument.

It’s easy to become complacent especially when you’re playing in a group and the bar isn’t set high. The “I’m the ideal teacher for myself” mentality is something that is found a lot among fiddlers. It is a major reason behind the distance between violinists and fiddlers and it’s a reason why many fiddlers are unable to improve over time. This is of course not always the case, but it happens enough to become a stereotype. Put in caricature, the violinist is afraid to play lest anyone hear a note and call it out for being imperfect, and the fiddler is afraid that the audience might not hear every note whether they want to hear it or not. The last thing needed is to focus more on the self and tune out the audience.

I agree that one needn’t always use the standard bowing patterns to play a tune, but I would differ by suggesting that good players learn all the techniques and then make judicious decisions about their application. A lot of players who are trying to teach themselves listen to recordings and attempt to reverse-engineer the process. This often leads to people focusing obsessively on details but missing fundamentals. If, for example, you tried to learn to play like Vassar Clements by simply slurring more (knowing that Vassar slurred more than his peers), you’d be missing everything else and boiling down what was left into something that didn’t resemble Vassar’s approach to playing, even if the bow was being used for the same number of notes per phrase.

Choosing music you enjoy playing is something that can help to maintain flagging motivation, but it also runs the risk of putting you in a rut and it can prevent development as a musician. I don’t mean that you should seek music you don’t enjoy or like all the time to challenge yourself, just that if you stay too attached to pleasure, stagnation will set in. This is a problem that musicians face all the time—they play music that they really enjoy for a while, but after enough repetition, the enjoyment dissipates and the lack of development frustrates them. To combat this they either have to learn how to “just shut up and play” or they have to look for new ways to explore their musicality; neither option is right or wrong.

A friend of mine once said that his goal was to play for the best ear in the room whenever he performed, whether that ear belonged to someone in the audience or to himself. I think there’s something noble in the idea that your own satisfaction is the minimum requirement, not the whole point.

Rich i respect your pedagogical approach to the Violin, and totally understand the crucial discipline's involved in the playing of such an instrument. But i think the playing of the "fiddle" is more akin to the playing of more ancient instruments in the family of bowed instruments, Such as the "Bowed Lyre" family of instruments.

The fact that it is/was easier to get a hold of a cheap mass produced fiddle, and play in a similar manner to the older instruments, clouds the fact that most of the tunes and techniques originate from the more ancient traditions and instruments.

yeah i knew i would have to edit this, but i hear more fiddle-centric sounds in the ancient bowed lyre traditions than i do in the playing of amazing violinists.

So all you back porch fiddlers- start playing for the best ear 'mongst the crickets! Nature's original fiddlers. J/K Rich, much of what you say is true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

I can understand the well-meaning thought process behind this ideology, but I have to say that I completely disagree with it.

Focusing all your attention on yourself is very dangerous for several reasons. First of all, it ignores the fact that the violin has been, since its appearance, a social instrument (its first recorded use in history was in the orchestra for an opera by Monteverdi). It has always been intended to be played to a listening audience—not the player. The instrument doesn’t even sound quite the same under the ear as it does at a distance. Thus the only way to really know if your playing is any good is not to “search your heart” or “trust your gut” or some other kind of cliche designed to disguise the amour propre that Pascal railed against but to tune in to the audience. 

Second, it lops off the audience and shuts the player in a box the confines of which are limited to that player’s perception and sensibility, two things which may make for a rather slim package. This is a problem that is not specific to Old Time music—it has become standard practice to encourage musicians to treat performance as a mode of self-exploration and unswerving focus on the inner mind, completely shutting the audience out. This is a modern trend, and I think it is a very large part of the reason modern music and its performance has declined so heavily in popularity—the audience is perceptive enough to realize that the music isn’t being played for them. The great musicians of the past had an incredible ability to pull audiences in. A good musician had an almost hypnotic power over the listener, like the snake charmer. Listen to people talk about great performances and you hear the same thing over and over: the musician reaches out and grabs me every time I hear it and time ceases to progress in its normal fashion. This kind of greatness came from a carefully developed ability to communicate to an audience. When you consider many of the great recordings by blues players or old fiddlers, it’s significant to remember that many of those players would have died of starvation had they not found a way to draw crowds.

Working on something to please yourself is a very efficient way to shorten your practice time and handicap the development of technique. I agree that there are excellent self-taught musicians, but those people are exceptional for their ability to accurately assess their skill and they tend to be very good at listening to feedback, whether that means taking it on board or setting it up as a windmill against which to tilt. But for mere mortals, a great deal of assistance is needed to learn anything of substance about the violin, and that applies to every aspect of the instrument.

It’s easy to become complacent especially when you’re playing in a group and the bar isn’t set high. The “I’m the ideal teacher for myself” mentality is something that is found a lot among fiddlers. It is a major reason behind the distance between violinists and fiddlers and it’s a reason why many fiddlers are unable to improve over time. This is of course not always the case, but it happens enough to become a stereotype. Put in caricature, the violinist is afraid to play lest anyone hear a note and call it out for being imperfect, and the fiddler is afraid that the audience might not hear every note whether they want to hear it or not. The last thing needed is to focus more on the self and tune out the audience.

I agree that one needn’t always use the standard bowing patterns to play a tune, but I would differ by suggesting that good players learn all the techniques and then make judicious decisions about their application. A lot of players who are trying to teach themselves listen to recordings and attempt to reverse-engineer the process. This often leads to people focusing obsessively on details but missing fundamentals. If, for example, you tried to learn to play like Vassar Clements by simply slurring more (knowing that Vassar slurred more than his peers), you’d be missing everything else and boiling down what was left into something that didn’t resemble Vassar’s approach to playing, even if the bow was being used for the same number of notes per phrase.

Choosing music you enjoy playing is something that can help to maintain flagging motivation, but it also runs the risk of putting you in a rut and it can prevent development as a musician. I don’t mean that you should seek music you don’t enjoy or like all the time to challenge yourself, just that if you stay too attached to pleasure, stagnation will set in. This is a problem that musicians face all the time—they play music that they really enjoy for a while, but after enough repetition, the enjoyment dissipates and the lack of development frustrates them. To combat this they either have to learn how to “just shut up and play” or they have to look for new ways to explore their musicality; neither option is right or wrong.

A friend of mine once said that his goal was to play for the best ear in the room whenever he performed, whether that ear belonged to someone in the audience or to himself. I think there’s something noble in the idea that your own satisfaction is the minimum requirement, not the whole point.

---

"Thank you, Rich. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there are a good number of folks who see “wisdom” in what you are saying. And for those who think that way, they should aim directly at that bull-eye without reservations, with sincere dedication. It will work—or it won’t work. There is no way to know until it is put to the test; this applies to any method a person chooses.

Will all those who follow your wisdom “succeed?” That’s the real question, isn’t it? But what does that mean? Who defines success for the fiddler—You? Me? The audience (if there is one)? I submit that it will always be the fiddler who makes that decision for themselves, regardless of outside influences. Much of this is dependent on the goals a fiddler sets.

The only ones that don’t succeed are those who quit. The historical record is full of individuals who “succeeded,” each with a unique story. Ironically, if you ask the most successful musicians, “What does it feel like to have ‘made it?’” what do most of them usually say?

Your points are worth serious consideration and will mean a lot to some. But I’m sure you know they won’t have the same impact on everyone—for good reasons. Would you invite me to elaborate?"

The way I see it, if you aren't trying to make a living with the instrument or succeed in any fiddle contests (whether they be formal or informal), you simply do what you can and try to enjoy it as much as you can. In any case, right now I'm listening to an old multi-LP set that has Itzhak Perlman doing fiddling concertos. And I ain't-a gonna try to compete with the dude, either.

I think you need look no farther than to “The Fiddler of Dooney” for an answer:

“When I play on my fiddle in Dooney,
Folk dance like a wave of the sea.”

It’s all about the audience. If the playing doesn’t move the listener, it has no value.

It was music that pacified Cerberus and music that could mold Plato’s republic. Socrates, in the hours before his death, relates that his one regret is that he didn’t play music in his lifetime. Homer’s Iliad is essentially an epic song about the wrath of Achilles and the way that it leads to the downfall of a great city and its nobility. Listeners to the public performances of the Homeric epics realized their value and wrote them down so they could be preserved.

Music is a language shared among people and it describes the human experience better than anything else in existence. It is the duty of anyone who dares to claim the title of musician to use this incredible language to communicate something.

Why are musical venues struggling everywhere with audience attrition and lack of growth among younger listeners? To me, so much of it comes down to the ideology that has been taught about music in recent generations, one in which music is viewed as a mode of isolated indulgence. Look anywhere and you’ll see masses of people listening to recorded music alone in cars or through headphones. There is plenty of music consumption, but much less music sharing. Music is becoming more and more a part of the personal identity rather than a cultural identity. My grandparents grew up playing music at home with family. Popular tunes would come out and people would buy the music so they could play it at home.

People who want to keep a language alive have to speak it regularly or they gradually lose the ability to converse. What alarms me about AI is not the idea that music is being written by machines, but rather that it’s being written and performed by them and humans aren’t making music themselves.

This is important because the current popular view of music erases the audience and with it all its value.

Well there is a weird synchronicity I have found…
When I play from MY heart, people seem to enjoy it more.

Playing to express/please oneself can increase the enjoyment of listeners…it’s a win-win.

It was after I abandoned trying to copy other players, that my own fiddling seemed to become better received. I dunno why, but maybe others find this too…?

At my first fiddle lesson, James Kelly said “play from your heart” but I didn’t trust myself - and finally now I kind of do.

At the risk of sounding too open minded I'm going to say I agree with both view points. It is certainly an individual trip but if one doesn't pay attention to what went before it's pretty easy to get off track.

Admitting that I'm one of the ones who studies the old guys pretty hard, but telling anyone a specific way to do something is a waste of time. As Kieth Maillard said in his book The Clarinet Polka, "If words changed people there wouldn't be any alcoholics."

quote:

---

Originally posted by NCnotes

Well there is a weird synchronicity I have found…
When I play from MY heart, people seem to enjoy it more.

Playing to express/please oneself can increase the enjoyment of listeners…it’s a win-win.

It was after I abandoned trying to copy other players, that my own fiddling seemed to become better received. I dunno why, but maybe others find this too…?

At my first fiddle lesson, James Kelly said “play from your heart” but I didn’t trust myself - and finally now I kind of do.

---

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of playing from the heart, but to me that's a completely different thing from playing with only yourself in mind.

I do think, though, that any musician who seeks to play musically or wants to sound natural and heartfelt can only reach that point after extensive learning and practice. Great players, even child prodigies, don't just spring into existence as fully formed musicians. Bach spent hours by candlelight copying out Vivaldi manuscripts to learn the Italian style, Mozart was developed by his father, Paganini was required to practice for hours a day by his father and then handed over to great teachers,  Mark O'Connor was developed by Benny Thomasson, Tommy Jarrell learned from his grandfather and other local musicians.

I think the term "from the heart" is typically meant to play following one's ideas and making artistic decisions that seem appropriate. However, the ability to express something has to come from somewhere, and, again, I don't believe that it already exists in musicians before they learn to use their instruments. I believe man is a musical animal and that everyone has some kind of capacity for music. But to turn the natural inclination toward music into musicianship, the primordial clay needs to be shaped and fired by the kiln if it is to be of any value.

I think a good musician also needs to have a sense of proportion. Playing with heart is often associated with a heightened emotional state, but that can cross a line where it turns ridiculous. Too much "schmaltz" and the playing becomes mawkish and crass, a mere caricature of musicality. 

Agreed about “crossing the line” into schmaltz! :-)

His advice was probably about having enough confidence to play it your way, instead of copying other players’ style and their interpretation of a tune. ( at that time, that was the main way I “taught myself” )

Not so much about avoiding all training in how to play the instrument- in fact he said that for many students, focusing more on playing scales daily would help them to progress faster!

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

It’s all about the audience. If the playing doesn’t move the listener, it has no value.
 

---

And that is where you make my point.  In this case, the question is:  Who is the audience that will always be listening to you every time you play?  Is that person being moved when you play? If you can't please yourself with what you are doing - it will be very difficult to please any one else. However, I will say that - there will always be a "value" attached to what you are doing. The only way there could be "no value" is when you do not make the attempt. 

In my opinion - art finds it's best expression when it is made from within the "soul" of the artist - as an expression of them self. When art is only created for the purpose of having the praise of others - most of the time it will be "soulless".  

I used to play with a delta blues artist many years ago (Zeke Johnson). His performance was rough, certainly unpolished. I had an appreciation for him and what he played - but he was not well received by the general public. And as the years have passed - I have developed an even deeper appreciation for what he "did". It was everything he intended for it to be. And for him - in his mind - that was the way it was supposed to be played.  And I agree. He played in a way that satisfied him - that it was right. 

JImmie Rodgers certainly was unconventional in a lot of what he did. Bob Dylan is another good example. Bill Monroe. Earl Scruggs. And there is a might long list of folks who decided that there would be no compromise aimed towards commercializing their expression in art. They played their music the way they want to (not like everyone else) - to please them self as an audience of one to start with. And that is what moves music in "new" directions. 

I'm not saying that aiming to please an audience is "wrong" or a mistake. I'm saying that - no one should think that pleasing others with what you play or how you play is always going to lead to success.  And I'll repeat myself here: "Much of this is dependent on the goals a fiddler sets."

“But it’s all right now, I learned my lesson well. You see, you can’t please everyone, so you got to please yourself.”

OK. In light of recent comments - I thought it might be worth reviewing what was said in the OP, just so there is no mistaking what those views were - that is getting debated. So, here it is  again:

Find the tunes that you like. (listen)
Do your best to play what you hear.  (listen - learn - practice)
If you hear someone doing something you like - that you can't do (yet) - ask them how they're doing that (if you can). (listen - learn - practice)
If you're curious - find and listen to the original sources - AND other versions (informed). Note any difference - decide the importance. (listen - learn)
Work on what you want to play until you are satisfied that you can at least play the tune - solo.  (listen - learn - practice)
If you can, play it with others - listen as the tune is being played and be prepared to try to make complimentary adjustments. (listen - learn)
If you're leading the tune and feel compelled - introduce the version you learned - how it might be different, why you like it.

Listen - but don't obsess over what others have to say about what you are doing "wrong". Consider it - and decide for yourself. There is no accounting for taste. Please yourself first - change when you feel the need. And if it's not working - don't force it. Move on. (listen - learn)

Now,      I'm going to suggest that nothing was said about how a fiddler needs to isolate themselves from everyone else - and ignore what others would say or how they play - and only do what pleases them without any consideration for what has been done before or what others are wanting to do now.  In fact - the very opposite would seem to be true.  Am I wrong?

What I did say was:  the fiddler is ultimately the decision maker for what they play and how they play.  And standing on that principle, if things aren't working out - consider the options. And if "things" aren't going to change or adapt -  don't force the issue - move on.  I would suggest that would be appropriate advice for any old time fiddler - or 1st chair concert violinist.  ...or for people involved with anything in general.

You know how to tell when a person is a leader?

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

In my opinion - art finds it's best expression when it is made from within the "soul" of the artist - as an expression of them self. When art is only created for the purpose of having the praise of others - most of the time it will be "soulless".  

---

But you can't actually know when art comes "from the soul." An artist has an ability to make art and it either moves you or it doesn't. People sometimes like to fantasize about what's going on in the artist's head and claim to be able to hear the true emotions of the artist being poured out in music. This is just romanticism and it often has no basis in fact. Any discussion about how the artist was feeling at the time is either just window dressing or pure speculation. 

The phrase "the show must go on" used to be popular in show business and it was used frequently to point out that it was the performer's duty to put on the best show possible regardless of everything else. Actors have sustained significant injuries during shows and have yet maintained their parts as if they were in good health  and spirits. Musicians sometimes talk about playing shows when they are mentally checked out but having listeners describe the depth of feeling in their playing. It doesn't matter whether the musician is doing it to make a buck, to stroke an ego, to simply have fun, or to "make art." What matters is whether the performance is any good and whether the musician plays the music with musicality. There's plenty of music that gets attention because it's considered relevant to the moment, but once time has passed, it fades into oblivion because there was never a foundation in musicality. Good music survives either because it's written so well that it continues to allow for interpretation throughout ages or because it's played so well by good musicians that it endures. When you look under the hood, there's something tangible that proves its worth.

To your question about leadership, going your own way is not necessarily a sign of great leadership or decision-making ability. Contrast Xerxes in his uncontrollable rage ordering a river to be flogged because it caused a delay in troop movement to Xenophon, trapped far into hostile territory after the assassination of Cyrus and using excellent negotiation tactics and the ability to adapt to an almost impossible situation to lead his troops back home safely. Stubbornness in a player is only valuable if it produces a good result; if it doesn't, it's merely recalcitrance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

But you can't actually know when art comes "from the soul."

You are creating a philosophical rabbit hole. If soul can only be known by others, then by your own measuring stick you cannot know whether your violins embody soul until someone else tells you. And when a musician buys one of your instruments - doesn't that instrument carry a part of you with it out the door?  What is that - if not soul? Surely you recognize when your own work satisfies your measure. That contradiction shows the artist can indeed know. The luthier will usually know when a violin is well-made, even before anyone plays it. In the same way, an artist knows when their performance comes from the soul, regardless of an audience reaction. The opinion of others can only offer positive or negative reactions. But the soul of art is known by its source—the creator. To deny that is to deny the maker’s own authority over their craft. And art that happens to have an appeal to a group of folks - those folks will want more. If the reaction is negative - that doesn't mean their art had no soul. An artist should never allow others' opinion to steal away their soul. 

The phrase "the show must go on" used to be popular in show business and it was used frequently to point out that it was the performer's duty to put on the best show possible regardless of everything else.

I’m not sure what that has to do with anything I was talking about. But you are right - when faced with an obligation to perform - you don’t want to pull a “Neil Young” debacle and send your band mate a telegram that says: “Dear Stephen, funny how things that start spontaneously end that way. Eat a peach. Neil.” - while the band mate sits in the green room waiting for you to show up for the concert performance. [Neil - you deserve to have that story told again, and again.]  No. You show up and you perform - because you said you would - that’s why “they” came. And yes - you give the music all you can - regardless of any other circumstances. Those other things do not matter. Doing your best is a choice. If you do - that defines soul. Yes - you can “know”.  You are defining “soul” as being created from out of the opinion of others. I define it by acknowledging  where soul comes from - the heart of the artist - not the the audience.

To your question about leadership, going your own way is not necessarily a sign of great leadership or decision-making ability.

I think you missed my point again.     The very best indication of a leader = folks choose to follow.

I hope you have had the experience of knowing when you have expressing your “soul” in what you do. If you have - then what are we talking about?  I know what it feels like when I perform (do anything) from my soul. It is very satisfying. A lot of times it happens in spite of myself.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

I can understand the well-meaning thought process behind this ideology, but I have to say that I completely disagree with it.

Focusing all your attention on yourself is very dangerous for several reasons. First of all, it ignores the fact that the violin has been, since its appearance, a social instrument (its first recorded use in history was in the orchestra for an opera by Monteverdi). It has always been intended to be played to a listening audience—not the player. The instrument doesn’t even sound quite the same under the ear as it does at a distance. Thus the only way to really know if your playing is any good is not to “search your heart” or “trust your gut” or some other kind of cliche designed to disguise the amour propre that Pascal railed against but to tune in to the audience. 

Second, it lops off the audience and shuts the player in a box the confines of which are limited to that player’s perception and sensibility, two things which may make for a rather slim package. This is a problem that is not specific to Old Time music—it has become standard practice to encourage musicians to treat performance as a mode of self-exploration and unswerving focus on the inner mind, completely shutting the audience out. This is a modern trend, and I think it is a very large part of the reason modern music and its performance has declined so heavily in popularity—the audience is perceptive enough to realize that the music isn’t being played for them. The great musicians of the past had an incredible ability to pull audiences in. A good musician had an almost hypnotic power over the listener, like the snake charmer. Listen to people talk about great performances and you hear the same thing over and over: the musician reaches out and grabs me every time I hear it and time ceases to progress in its normal fashion. This kind of greatness came from a carefully developed ability to communicate to an audience. When you consider many of the great recordings by blues players or old fiddlers, it’s significant to remember that many of those players would have died of starvation had they not found a way to draw crowds.

Working on something to please yourself is a very efficient way to shorten your practice time and handicap the development of technique. I agree that there are excellent self-taught musicians, but those people are exceptional for their ability to accurately assess their skill and they tend to be very good at listening to feedback, whether that means taking it on board or setting it up as a windmill against which to tilt. But for mere mortals, a great deal of assistance is needed to learn anything of substance about the violin, and that applies to every aspect of the instrument.

It’s easy to become complacent especially when you’re playing in a group and the bar isn’t set high. The “I’m the ideal teacher for myself” mentality is something that is found a lot among fiddlers. It is a major reason behind the distance between violinists and fiddlers and it’s a reason why many fiddlers are unable to improve over time. This is of course not always the case, but it happens enough to become a stereotype. Put in caricature, the violinist is afraid to play lest anyone hear a note and call it out for being imperfect, and the fiddler is afraid that the audience might not hear every note whether they want to hear it or not. The last thing needed is to focus more on the self and tune out the audience.

I agree that one needn’t always use the standard bowing patterns to play a tune, but I would differ by suggesting that good players learn all the techniques and then make judicious decisions about their application. A lot of players who are trying to teach themselves listen to recordings and attempt to reverse-engineer the process. This often leads to people focusing obsessively on details but missing fundamentals. If, for example, you tried to learn to play like Vassar Clements by simply slurring more (knowing that Vassar slurred more than his peers), you’d be missing everything else and boiling down what was left into something that didn’t resemble Vassar’s approach to playing, even if the bow was being used for the same number of notes per phrase.

Choosing music you enjoy playing is something that can help to maintain flagging motivation, but it also runs the risk of putting you in a rut and it can prevent development as a musician. I don’t mean that you should seek music you don’t enjoy or like all the time to challenge yourself, just that if you stay too attached to pleasure, stagnation will set in. This is a problem that musicians face all the time—they play music that they really enjoy for a while, but after enough repetition, the enjoyment dissipates and the lack of development frustrates them. To combat this they either have to learn how to “just shut up and play” or they have to look for new ways to explore their musicality; neither option is right or wrong.

A friend of mine once said that his goal was to play for the best ear in the room whenever he performed, whether that ear belonged to someone in the audience or to himself. I think there’s something noble in the idea that your own satisfaction is the minimum requirement, not the whole point.

---

I like what you are saying but want to just comment on one term, "Reverse-engineer".  I have a friend who I jam with weekly.  She approaches fiddling in a reverse-engineer fashion.  Her goal is to find the oldest recorded version of a tune and do her best to duplicate the sound/bowing and yep, she can sound just like the original audio.  The good thing about that is that she is trying, successfully, to preserve that original sound.. Good for her..Of course I'm trying to listen to those same tunes and just interpret them my own way.. So.  To reverse-engineer an old tune can be of value in that it brings to light the sound/bowing of the original fiddler when those things are often not appreciated.  

yeah i have tried to be emotionally detached from the technical and physical side of playing, but it just doesn't work for me.

But too much of the emotive side of playing is is schmaltz and false also. (Dont get me wrong schmaltz has it's place the same as technical wizardry imo).

Thing is to be able to switch between them, and all the grey areas in between, and try to deliver an honest performance with all the skills you have at hand, and hope folk enjoy and/or understand your intentions, as much as you are enjoying playing it.

Congratulations, Tony! You've re-awakened the sleepy FHO-ers!

Here's my take...there's too much in this one post/thread to address all of it, so I'll do y'all a favor and keep mine short...lol.

First...I figure you need to learn the exact notes only if you're a new player....if you've played a while and sorta have the hang of it...you can get the rhythm and melodic contour/ chord progression down and go with the tune. The famous fiddler at the source available today wasn't playing it exactly as s/he learned, so why do we have to do that? As I said, if you're a newbie fiddler it's probably a good idea to copy-cat entirely; otherwise...get the gist of it and go with it. If you are playing at a jam with others, make sure how you play it doesn't mess 'em up...stick with it close enough so everybody can enjoy playing it together. Don't go crazy at a jam...that's just rude and most of us here probably would not do that anyway.

As to the bowing...yes it has been a big controversy here. I started out trying to learn patterns and convinced if you didn't do that you wouldn't play well...you'd fumble with the bow, etc. Well the only problem was after a few years of that those patterns still weren't working for me and still sounded contrived and premeditated...premeditated bowing sounds like a jail sentence...lol. Only two have stuck with me...the Nashville shuffle (probably not like you might think...lol), and Kentucky bow/ Georgia bow, whatever you wanna call it...which basically two notes per bow. I think if a person develops some since of maneuvering without fumbling on the bow they'll be ok...this is how N. Shuffle works for me...I skip so many of the strokes but they ghost to keep my bow going right and I don't match up the notes with the strokes...I mean sometimes I do, but not always as a rule...so the notes sneak around however they want and my down up-down up-down ups skip around in their own way too...it gives me bowing freedom without the bad side effects. I attempted to make YouTubes showing my own perception of this a few years back but not sure if they're any good...I'm no good on camera and I'm not so good at 'splaining these sorts of things. Anyway, someone attempted to tell me I believe this exact thing I later discovered about the shuffle many decades ago...and I think recently I might've figured out what he was talking about.

Anyway, of course if you are a musicology-minded person and you want things exact, then you can do that and set the artistic freedom aside for the sake of preserving the historical nature of a fiddle tune or however many you are working up that way.

I got interrupted so many times during this post I forgot what other short topics of this I was gonna throw in my two nickels worth...so, you all can take a deep breath, knowing the groundhog has finally shut up and starting her supper...lol.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TuneWeaver

---

I like what you are saying but want to just comment on one term, "Reverse-engineer".  I have a friend who I jam with weekly.  She approaches fiddling in a reverse-engineer fashion.  Her goal is to find the oldest recorded version of a tune and do her best to duplicate the sound/bowing and yep, she can sound just like the original audio.  The good thing about that is that she is trying, successfully, to preserve that original sound.. Good for her..Of course I'm trying to listen to those same tunes and just interpret them my own way.. So.  To reverse-engineer an old tune can be of value in that it brings to light the sound/bowing of the original fiddler when those things are often not appreciated.  

---

In my post, I brought up reverse-engineering as a bad way to learn to play the instrument. My point was that a player who is new to the instrument can't yet assess what is important and what is background or eccentricity.

When it comes to studying a player, tune, or playing style, I see it as an immensely useful tool, something that can enhance understanding and musicianship. I'm not against that at all. I just think it's important to do this once you've learned the fundamentals of the instrument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

But you can't actually know when art comes "from the soul."

You are creating a philosophical rabbit hole. If soul can only be known by others, then by your own measuring stick you cannot know whether your violins embody soul until someone else tells you. And when a musician buys one of your instruments - doesn't that instrument carry a part of you with it out the door?  What is that - if not soul? Surely you recognize when your own work satisfies your measure. That contradiction shows the artist can indeed know. The luthier will usually know when a violin is well-made, even before anyone plays it. In the same way, an artist knows when their performance comes from the soul, regardless of an audience reaction. The opinion of others can only offer positive or negative reactions. But the soul of art is known by its source—the creator. To deny that is to deny the maker’s own authority over their craft. And art that happens to have an appeal to a group of folks - those folks will want more. If the reaction is negative - that doesn't mean their art had no soul. An artist should never allow others' opinion to steal away their soul. 

The phrase "the show must go on" used to be popular in show business and it was used frequently to point out that it was the performer's duty to put on the best show possible regardless of everything else.

I’m not sure what that has to do with anything I was talking about. But you are right - when faced with an obligation to perform - you don’t want to pull a “Neil Young” debacle and send your band mate a telegram that says: “Dear Stephen, funny how things that start spontaneously end that way. Eat a peach. Neil.” - while the band mate sits in the green room waiting for you to show up for the concert performance. [Neil - you deserve to have that story told again, and again.]  No. You show up and you perform - because you said you would - that’s why “they” came. And yes - you give the music all you can - regardless of any other circumstances. Those other things do not matter. Doing your best is a choice. If you do - that defines soul. Yes - you can “know”.  You are defining “soul” as being created from out of the opinion of others. I define it by acknowledging  where soul comes from - the heart of the artist - not the the audience.

To your question about leadership, going your own way is not necessarily a sign of great leadership or decision-making ability.

I think you missed my point again.     The very best indication of a leader = folks choose to follow.

I hope you have had the experience of knowing when you have expressing your “soul” in what you do. If you have - then what are we talking about?  I know what it feels like when I perform (do anything) from my soul. It is very satisfying. A lot of times it happens in spite of myself.

 

---

Your reading of my post does not reflect the its meaning. First, my point about soul was that another person cannot know what is in your head, so therefore it's impossible for someone else to actually know whether you're fully invested in a performance or playing "from the soul." A good musician has the talent and training to be able to present the audience with a performance that has an emotional impact. A musician doesn't spring into existence--it takes careful and intentional development. With that training comes the ability to perform regardless of the circumstances. This is why I mentioned the famous phrase "the show must go on;" a good performer will be able to persuade you that the performance is from the heart even if all they're actually thinking about is how much a broken leg is hurting or what they'd like to eat for dinner afterwards. A number of players even take this to an extreme by making exaggerated movements and making faces that suggest sublime passion. It's part of the stage act and it doesn't actually mean the playing is good, it's just a visual to convince people with poor ears that something important is happening on stage. A good actor allows you to suspend reality enough to believe that the prepared lines he's saying are from the heart and that they represent his personal human condition  and makes something contrived feel natural. A bad one flails about and only highlights the fact that he's reciting lines. The performance doesn't resonate with the audience because it doesn't create the suspension of reality. Whatever is actually happening within the mind, soul, heart, or stomach of the player can't be known by others and does not make the playing more genuine. What matters is the music that's being played well or badly.

To be honest, I think the term "playing with soul" is really not a very useful one. I believe it's meant to imply that the player is emotionally, physically, and perhaps spiritually attuned to the performance. But I think this is a rather inexact and naive way to describe musicality. Mechanical and unmusical playing is not appealing to the majority of listeners because it lacks musical sensibility, not because the player is absent of emotion. One of the most striking moments in the infamous "From Mao to Mozart" comes during a masterclass in which a young girl plays for Isaac Stern. Her playing is technically accurate but lacks musicianship, so Stern stops her and tells her that she's played the right notes but she's missing something. He then asks her to sing the melody she's been playing for him. Even in her nervousness, she ends up singing the melody in a way that is musical. Stern then points out how much more musical the singing is and that her playing needs to reflect that. She applies the lesson and immediately improves. The problem was not that she wasn't playing from the heart, it was that she hadn't been taught to play musically yet.  You could romanticize it by arguing that the singing is musical because it comes "from the heart," but I don't think that is what makes it musical. The singing works because the singer understands the phrasing of sung melodies and knows out of necessity how to moderate her breathing to prevent the phrasing from sounding awkward.

I must vehemently disagree with the idea that the best sign of good leadership is the proclivity of others to follow. Many tyrants, dictators, crime lords, swindlers, conmen, scammers, and cult leaders have amassed followings, usually at the expense of the followers. Forging your path through life by crushing your own people into the ground is not what I would call good leadership, even if a lot of people are willing to submit themselves to it. This is why I used my example of two famous ancient leaders. Xerxes had far more followers, but his leadership was terrible and maniacal, which cost him and his vast horde dearly. Xenophon, on the other hand, led a small contingent of soldiers in his anabasis and showed incredible leadership by getting them home safely and with hardly any loss of life.