Should a Serious Mandolin Player Learn Classical?

[JeffD]

If your son is a young mandolinist (much like myself) then he probably likes Chris Thile, and Thile does some awesome renditions of some of Bach's pieces for solo violin.

Hmmm. They are technically brilliant and accomplished, but (with a few noted exceptions) I much prefer the classical mandolin players' renditions.

I don't have the classical vocabulary or training to know why, but I would offer this - the classical player, it seems to me, is pointing to the music, saying listen to this, listen to how beautiful this is. Chris Thile, among many many others, when he plays some Bach, seem to me to be pointing to himself, and saying listen to me, see how brilliantly I can play this. You walk away in admiration of Chris Thile, and perhaps would spend money on a slow motion video of his left hand, but you don't walk away filled with beauty.

[Charlieshafer]

I remember having a discussion several years ago at a round-table type thing with a bunch of fiddlers and a few classical violinists. The argument came up that "classical players played notes but without the feel or emotion of the fiddlers." After a little go around, everyone agreed that this wasn't the result of them being classical players, it was the result of them not being good musicians, or particularly musical people. That simple. Music is emotion, and the inability to adapt to all styles and play with cultural intent or emotion is simply a lack of musicality of the player. Harsh, but unfortunately true. Training and practice doesn't make you a great musician, it simply provides you with the tools to express your creativity or musicality. If those skills aren't within you, ah...er...maybe take up some other profession, if you're intending it to be a career.

But I'll stand by my assertion absolutely that to make a career of fiddling now, you need a strong classical background. You're competing for gigs and attention with the likes of Jeremy Kittel, Jason Anick, Brittany Haas, Gabe Witcher, to name just a few, and all have had extensive Suzuki or traditional classical training. You simply need the chops, pure and simple. It's not true for all instruments, I know, but as the OP is talking violin, then this is how it's going. It's a brave new world for the violin, and even the traditional die-hards, like the New England Conservatory, have started "Alternative Strings" majors and masters programs. How come? Well, it's a lot easier to to explain to mommy and daddy, who just dropped 160k on a college music education, that at least with the newly-evolving musical scene there's a pretty solid chance of making a living.

It's actually an exciting time, with this trend sort of becoming the New American Classical Music. It really started with the Turtle Island String Quartet, moved through Darol Anger and Mike Marshall, and then picked up various musical geniuses as it rode along like Bela Fleck and Edgar Meyer. Crooked Still produced some of the most flat-out beautiful chamber music on their last cd before calling it quits, and of course, Punch Brothers are making their own statement now. Look out for Mariel Vandersteel, who's debut cd (Hickory, I think) is fantastic. Brittany Haas is getting ready for another, and Hanneke Cassel always releases the most incredible stuff going for Scots/Celtic.

Anyway, from my vantage point, if you're looking to make an impact nationally/internationally, you better have chops. Playing locally? I guess it's up to you as to how good technically you want to get so you can really enjoy yourself. That's a whole different thread, for sure, as you can have a great time with music being a complete hack (look what music therapy programs do for patients who have never touched an instrument before) but, again, the original post referred to the evil money (as in going pro), so that's the standard we have to set.

[catmandu2]

Now, about the Marc O'Connor Method...

I think he sets up a false dichotomy of "European" vs. "American". Seriously, are students going to benefit from leaving out Bach? I get the benefits of the American musical tradition, but it's not either/or. He is a good marketer though, as this dichotomy sets his materials apart.

I haven't read through it enough to get that, but what I do gleen is a general comparison between trad "classical" pedagogy (or string methods) and other (say, jazz), and find his conclusions logical

String teachers will continue to pull from this and that.

Which string teachers?

[catmandu2]

But I'll stand by my assertion absolutely that to make a career of fiddling now, you need a strong classical background. You're competing for gigs and attention with the likes of Jeremy Kittel, Jason Anick, Brittany Haas, Gabe Witcher, to name just a few, and all have had extensive Suzuki or traditional classical training. You simply need the chops, pure and simple. It's not true for all instruments, I know, but as the OP is talking violin, then this is how it's going. It's a brave new world for the violin, and even the traditional die-hards, like the New England Conservatory, have started "Alternative Strings" majors and masters programs. How come? Well, it's a lot easier to to explain to mommy and daddy, who just dropped 160k on a college music education, that at least with the newly-evolving musical scene there's a pretty solid chance of making a living.

I think this is a logical conclusion and with clear evidence: we see elements of classical (and jazz) increasingly infusing the fiddling genres. A logical product of general "gentrification" of folk music (as it were)--the planet is "shrinking"

[jackmalonis]

Hmmm. They are technically brilliant and accomplished, but (with a few noted exceptions) I much prefer the classical mandolin players' renditions.

I don't have the classical vocabulary or training to know why, but I would offer this - the classical player, it seems to me, is pointing to the music, saying listen to this, listen to how beautiful this is. Chris Thile, among many many others, when he plays some Bach, seem to me to be pointing to himself, and saying listen to me, see how brilliantly I can play this. You walk away in admiration of Chris Thile, and perhaps would spend money on a slow motion video of his left hand, but you don't walk away filled with beauty.

I think I'd have to agree. It's hard to argue against that when he did, after all, choose the more or less "pop" spotlight.

I was just pointing out that for someone not already "into" classical music, that Thile is a good segway into the genre (for example I saw Thile play some Bach and then I immediately picked up Avi Avital's new CD full of Bach renditions) especially for someone close to my age.

[August Watters]

Wow, there's much wisdom in this thread. It's long though so if I may recap:

- classical mandolin is not the same as classical music on mandolin
- classical technique is not just for classical music
- there's little standardization about which techniques or learning approaches may be considered "classical"
- "classical" learning traditions vary by nationality as well as by time or era
- within national traditions, there are plenty of different approaches
- our musicals worlds are evolving quickly and barriers are breaking down, thus the perceived distance between "classical" and "everything else" is shrinking quickly.

The original question was "must a serious player study classical mandolin?" My view is yes, for several reasons:

1) classical mandolin orchestra music is historically where the American mandolin began. You can't go very deep in American mandolin music without getting back to Italian classical mandolin ensemble music -- this music is part of our heritage and studying it is part of understanding where newer mandolin traditions came from.

2) the technical standards in the classical world(s) are astronomical. To try to understand them may challenge conventional wisdom from other worlds, but can also open up a range of possibilities.

3) the various classical traditions are like sources of folk wisdom, passed through the generations. Why reinvent the wheel? More specifically, the understanding of tone and how it is produced can really open up possibilities.

4) the boundaries between musical genres are quickly dissolving, so exploring the space between is a natural path for someone who wants to master any genre.

I don't think studying classical mandolin is for everyone, but the OP's question was about someone who studies the instrument seriously. We could talk forever about what "classical mandolin" or "seriously" mean, but I definitely think exploring this territory has a lot to offer.

[catmandu2]

I agree, but I think the question is the future big names. And I agree with Cat on this, its not so much classical technique as some lessons grounded in formal technique, Western or otherwise, as opposed to just getting it on your own.

I forget where we were on this thing. But I'm not sure we're thinking of the same thing, Jeff. I do highly recommend studying in the classical tradition (I'm biased, having come up through the tradition myself)--I think it cultivates an approach to playing (aside from the basic elements of posture, ergonomics, exercises, etc.) that is highly valuable to developing players. I think (and this really shows my bias) it's particualrly helpful in the beginning--although ideally it's probable that taking it all in as much as possible and as early as possible is most beneficial. I can't articulate it just now--I went without coffee yesterday and my head is pounding. Forgive me for again posting the Hal Galper vid, but here he uses classical approach (not technique, per se--for Hal says there is no difference between "classical" and "jazz" technique--but repertoire and approach, concept, "how your body's being used, how it feels, the whole thing...") to develop jazz articulation and control--namely, using "classical" phrasing and articulation as a "baseline" and starting point, point of departure, etc. for other stylistic approaches; the "classical" approach representing a relatively "pure," even or unembellished rendering of "the music" (the notes), etc. I think this may be useful (again) to the OP

Hal says, "straight," even, smooth..."no articulation--should be automatic"--that is, a sort of default. I think the classical idiom is an especially effective way to acquire this habit, or inclination, or approach to execution--my bias is that this is best learned in the beginning, or assimilated as fundamental. IMO, trad "classical" pedagogy is particularly effective for cultivating "control" (as Hal says) for it generally removes the many stylistic elements of various contemporary forms and cultivates "smoothness and evenness," for example in the case of Bach and Baroque forms, as a starting point, or perhaps, it is particularly effective for modeling florid articulation and expression in the case of romanticism, and classicism, etc. In other words, perhaps it serves as "best practices" for models

Make sure you at least listen starting at 8:20"

[catmandu2]

So, let me elaborate in order to clarify then:

... will all great players, in all genres, have to be grounded in the Western classical pedagogy?

No

Should a Serious Mandolin Player Learn Classical?

Yes, certainly (if I understand the question)

[KristinEliza]

I remember having a discussion several years ago at a round-table type thing with a bunch of fiddlers and a few classical violinists. The argument came up that "classical players played notes but without the feel or emotion of the fiddlers." After a little go around, everyone agreed that this wasn't the result of them being classical players, it was the result of them not being good musicians, or particularly musical people.

Oh my. I certainly hope this isn't a blanket statement saying classical violinists don't play with feel or emotion!

As with any style of music, one needs to study/listen to the genre in order to play it faithfully. While I could certainly technically play the same music as a fiddler, I would need to study the style and genre in order to make it sound authentic. I would never presume that my years of classical training would make me just as good or better than someone who has been been fiddling for years!

Apples and oranges!

[catmandu2]

Oh my. I certainly hope this isn't a blanket statement saying classical violinists don't play with feel or emotion!

That does sound weird, Charlie. I think the way Hal Galper accounts for it above (control) is more apt

I might suggest, however, that while (as Kristin says) a strictly classical player wouldn't necessarily have assimilated "fiddling genre" feel, the "classical" player is exposed to a very wide variety of expression requirements. It might be fair to say, very generally, for example that the fiddler will be more accomplished in rhythmic emphasis and the violinist moreso in "control"--the fiddler might swing better, and the violinist more adept with Bach...but, does this have meaning?--what can we learn from a comparison? Is one style more expressive than the other? I think the salient point in this is one of utility, that we can simply expand our facility and range of expression by assimilating broad lessons. Is one "better" than the other? Of course not. Do different methods produce different results? Of course

[catmandu2]

AUGUST W., sheesh I skipped right past your excellent post and jumped right into my rant. Should have left it up there! Have a great day guys and gals

[bobby bill]

Oh my. I certainly hope this isn't a blanket statement saying classical violinists don't play with feel or emotion!

Could be a blanket statement or not. But you're going to find a recurring theme here that classical musicians are mere automatons, with no ears (couldn't even play Mary Had a Little Lamb without the music), and no emotion or feeling (they just spit out the notes on the page in front of them). I couldn't tell you where this notion comes from. I always guessed that it was a defensive reaction from the less than proficient ("well, I can't do all that, but I do it with feeling"). It kind of flies in the face of the fact that some of the best musicians in the world playing some of the most emotion-filled music (oh, and with feeling) will often find a music stand in front of them. Go figure. Here's a guy just spitting out the notes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotat...&v=yv5HmKomT7Y

No feeling here.

[catmandu2]

Right, okay last post

I should have said: is one better than the other? And the answer, more correctly, assumes a dimension of much broader sociologic proportion than only "music"

[SincereCorgi]

Could be a blanket statement or not. But you're going to find a recurring theme here that classical musicians are mere automatons, with no ears (couldn't even play Mary Had a Little Lamb without the music), and no emotion or feeling (they just spit out the notes on the page in front of them). I couldn't tell you where this notion comes from. I always guessed that it was a defensive reaction from the less than proficient ("well, I can't do all that, but I do it with feeling"). It kind of flies in the face of the fact that some of the best musicians in the world playing some of the most emotion-filled music (oh, and with feeling) will often find a music stand in front of them. Go figure. Here's a guy just spitting out the notes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotat...&v=yv5HmKomT7Y

No feeling here.

I totally agree Bobby, but there's a lot of the flipside of that attitude on the classical side. I can't count the number of times growing up that I've heard classical players dismiss popular music as 'easy', so much so that I believed it myself. It can be a very insular and somewhat cult-like world.

[Randi Gormley]

Interesting. I didn't read Charlie's statement as painting everyone with the same brush. My thought (which may be completely wrong, of course), was his statement: "The argument came up that "classical players played notes but without the feel or emotion of the fiddlers." After a little go around, everyone agreed that this wasn't the result of them being classical players, it was the result of them not being good musicians, or particularly musical people" meant that the classical players who played without emotion (or who played fiddle tunes without emotion) weren't particularly musical people, not that ALL classical players weren't. You can't listen to classical music without feeling all manner of emotion coming from the musicians. there are, of course, lots of so-called musicians who only understand the notes, not the music behind them, but you'll find that all over: dancers who know the steps but don't understand the internal rhythm of dance, writers who know the forms but can't understand the rhythms and patterns of language.

[greg_tsam]

Classical players play without emotion? Classical music is easy? Merely automatons? That's just ridiculous and wrong. I've always respected the training and dedication it takes to be a classical musician and know a good many classical musicians to know it ain't easy. They play with emotion and feeling.

One thing that surprises me about some classical players is their apparent lack of improvisational skills but I know this is b/c their training goes in a different direction. Of course this doesn't apply to all classical musicians but many. I thought maybe they didn't have the "ear" for it but later found out their musical ears are highly refined. They usually just don't have practice playing without charts and musical notation in front of them.

Apples and oranges as far as the way the brain thinks about the two. I know classically trained musicians that can do improve but they find it difficult at first. My son is growing up around a family of performing musicians, grandparents, mother father, aunts and uncles, we all play and perform.

His mother and his aunt have started at 4 years old in Suzuki and then went on to play bluegrass, honky tonk, gypsy and jazzy violin. His mother can do wildly improvized solos that are classified best as eclectic or transcendental. Still, she had to learn this skill until she got to a point where she was merely a conduit of emotion pouring out of her instrument. Kinda hippy trippy, i know, but it is what it is.

She once considered giving advanced lessons to other like her, classical types, who wanted to learn to improvise. I questioned her if there was a need for this and she said "Oh yes." Apples and Oranges.

[catmandu2]

Well, I think this is a common misconception: among the skills required from "classical" players is, in fact, playing without inserting "personal emotion"; the classical milieu is not the same as most other forms, in that, much of the "emotion" is "in the hands" of the composer, the conductor, the ensemble--this is one of the highly refined skills distinguishing the ability of the classical player--to play free of interpretation or to "interpret" devoid of the phrasing, articulation, and expression common to contemporary forms

[JeffD]

One thing that surprises me about some classical players is their apparent lack of improvisational skills but I know this is b/c their training goes in a different direction. Of course this doesn't apply to all classical musicians but many. I thought maybe they didn't have the "ear" for it but later found out their musical ears are highly refined. They usually just don't have practice playing without charts and musical notation in front of them.

Apples and oranges.

Indeed. And you have to differentiate between playing and learning music without the sheet music, by ear, and improvising. Classical folks are often weak in both areas.

I can understand the latter - I share that with a lot of classical musicians - there is so much wonderful music out there I want to play, I have never had a burning desire to improve upon or even too heavily ornament the original tune.

The former, playing by ear, I find essential, because there is so much to the music that you have to hear to really get.

[bobby bill]

but there's a lot of the flipside of that attitude on the classical side. I can't count the number of times growing up that I've heard classical players dismiss popular music as 'easy'

Agreed. You can find closed minds almost anywhere.

[Charlieshafer]

It seems like Randi got my point, but others may have missed the point due to my incredibly convoluted syntax. Of course good classical players play with emotion. What's music without emotion? Sonic accounting, that's all. The point was that the really good musicians who are inherently musical people can play it all. Sure there's a different technical vocabulary, but with a little practice, anyone with really good technique can pick it up. As an afterword to the classical players listening to Tommy Jarrell, I gave them a recommended listening list, and after a couple of weeks, the difference was apparent between them. One "got it" immediately, and was playing fiddle styles in old-time and Scots with great swing and emotion and style, the whole works. The other one (this almost too good to be true) wanted to know of there was any way he could get all the slides, flicks, chunks and chops in written notation because he couldn't get the right timing or grace notes perfectly. He just couldn't get the feel of it listening and playing along with the tunes I gave them.

As an aside, I'm recalling a workshop Hanneke Cassell gave our group where she was really working on driving a dance using Scots reels. (She is primarily a Scots fiddler, after all, and essentially is the lead teacher at Alasdair Fraser's Valley of The Moon fiddle camps.) What she did was first teach a quick reel, then she taught everyone to play the notes dead on, but with poor timing and accents. After that, she had everyone re-work the tune with intentionally wrong notes, but with great drive and timing, really working on the "drive" in dance music. The results opened everyone's eyes (and ears). The wrong-note-right-timing version just flew and sang and had everyone bouncing in their seats. The right-note-wrong-timing version simply stank, to put it mildly.

So it's not the notes, it is the emotion and timing and flair that a tune is played with. From a classical standpoint, take Bach's Partita in E (the famous prelude) and listen to Viktoria Mullova's recent version (worth the download price for educational value alone) and listen to the dynamics. Amazing, and full of emotion. Then take a different version (any number will do) and while they may be trying to be speed demons, it's relatively lifeless.

So, in short, all great music is filled with emotion, and great players can get that emotion in any style, with a little work. But no matter what instrument, you still need the chops. What August Watters said above is all very true as far as the technical grounding required for any really serious musician.

[JonZ]

I haven't read through it enough to get that, but what I do gleen is a general comparison between trad "classical" pedagogy (or string methods) and other (say, jazz), and find his conclusions logical

Which string teachers?

I haven't read all of his website, but at his camp he went into it at length. It kind of irritated me that some of his evenening presentations (He taught none of the actual classes and never ate with the students--you get the picture.) were basically infomercials. There were, however, many good classes.

THE string teachers.




My guess would be that classically trained players would have the easiest time switching to an unfamiliar style, except when it comes to improvisation.

[SincereCorgi]

I haven't read all of his website, but at his camp he went into it at length. It kind of irritated me that some of his evenening presentations (He taught none of the actual classes and never ate with the students--you get the picture.) were basically infomercials.

That's interesting... I kinda do get that infomercial vibe from a lot of his materials. I've been working out of his violin method, among others, and it's nicely done- great CD to play along with (much better sound quality than the Suzuki offerings...) and nice arrangements for the tunes. It ends up feeling like Mark O'Connor promotional material, though, because a lot of the pieces have these full color facing-pages with pictures of young Mark O'Connor and little autobiographical essays about, for example, how playing the violin makes him feel that he can touch the sky. I've never seen a method do anything quite like that.

[JonZ]

All musicians need to promote themselves. He is very good at it. I'm fine with whatever works, as long as it is ethical.

There is nothing wrong with his materials that I can tell, if you okay with playing only American music. I just think it is odd how he sets it up as American string instruction having been hampered by an exclusive emphasis on European music, so now we need to have a method that is exclusively American.

The string teachers that I know have always drawn on various methods repertoireoire. His method will be a nice balance--not replacement--for the more Euro-centrictric methods.

I think a lot of what is on the website comes from his son's dissertation (Harvard PhD, I believe). He read it at the camp.

[greg_tsam]

The wrong-note-right-timing version just flew and sang and had everyone bouncing in their seats.

This is my goto defense of every lead I take.

...so now we need to have a method that is exclusively American.

Mark O'Conner method for violin.

[catmandu2]

... makes him feel that he can touch the sky. I've never seen a method do anything quite like that.

While that may be a bit hyperbolic...for the record, I am familiar with methods enabling such (albeit, not violin per se)