View Full Version : Would method books be different if profit wasn't the goal.
mandodan1960
Apr-20-2012, 10:11pm
It's my understanding that instructional materials are composed mostly of fiddle tunes because they are the most profitable for the publishers. I've noticed that the majority of songs are marked "Traditional" and have always assumed that this was to avoid paying royaltys. My question is: Do you think the consensus of the best way to learn would change to more of a 1) Learn good rhythm 2) Learn how and when to take a break 3) Learn how to get back into the song smoothly when your break is over. I've often questioned the logic of newbies being expected to play a fiddle tune as an gateway "rite of passage" into playing with others. Seems like a tall order that invites failure. mandodan1960
Mandobart
Apr-20-2012, 11:24pm
Items 1, 2, and 3 you describe are very important, I agree. However, I'm not sure they can be taught effectively in anything other than a group setting. It would seem difficult to pick these up from a book, playing by myself. I don't think learning fiddle tunes is a set up for failure; however, there is a difference between learning a tune note-for-note in a book and then playing that tune in a jam.
catmandu2
Apr-21-2012, 12:45am
As bart says
You have to start somewhere...in the folk-mandolin music idiom, these (fiddle tunes) form a lexiconic foundation. Just as basic melodies such as hot cross buns and mary had a little lamb comprise beginning repertoire for other instrument/genre pedagogical methods. Basically, you must learn a melody before you can deploy other techniques--rhythm, harmony, improvisation, dynamics, subtleties and nuances, etc.--to make the repertoire interesting
AnneFlies
Apr-21-2012, 9:53am
Fiddle tunes are easy to learn (simple repeating parts), fun to play, lots of people play them, and we already know how they should sound. This makes it ideal for a new student, and if there's a profit to be made all the better. Complexity can be added later, once the basics are mastered.
Randi Gormley
Apr-21-2012, 2:20pm
There's a small enough market for mandolin books as is so music stores usually only carry one or two; considering how many genres are out there, it just makes sense to try to aim a beginner book that appeals to the most learners, is my thinking. You're making the assumption that everybody learning the mandolin plays bluegrass, where chording or backbeat or strumming is a basic skill. None of that is at all useful to, say, playing Irish, and I'm not all that sure much of it is necessary in old time. both of those genres rely heavily on fiddle tunes. When I was looking for beginning mandolin books, I'd see if the melody line looked interesting and never even thought about what else was on the page.
Jim Garber
Apr-21-2012, 3:58pm
Similar thread in progress here (http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/showthread.php?84727-Is-fiddle-tunes-the-only-way-to-learn&highlight=fiddle).
August Watters
Apr-21-2012, 5:23pm
Yes - I noticed the similiarity too, Jim! And it's interesting: with all the varieties of mandolin music out there, we're beginning to wonder, why all the emphasis on fiddle tunes?
I wonder if we're showing the influence of the internet; suddenly the breadth of options is obvious. But it wasn't very long ago that mandolin was equated almost exclusively with bluegrass or old-time music, or perhaps Italian folk music. Everything else was just about forgotten. What a great time to play mandolin!
mandodan1960
Apr-21-2012, 6:43pm
Similar thread in progress here (http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/showthread.php?84727-Is-fiddle-tunes-the-only-way-to-learn&highlight=fiddle).
Yes, Jim it was that thread that got me thinking but I didn't think my question was exactly the same. I thought it was possible that I could Hi-Jack that discussion so I decided to start a new thread.
Pete Summers
Apr-21-2012, 8:33pm
The correct answer is Yes. They'd be free.
;)
Jeff Hildreth
Apr-21-2012, 10:15pm
If the puublisher cared.. they would all be spiral bound.
JeffD
Apr-23-2012, 12:26am
It's my understanding that instructional materials are composed mostly of fiddle tunes because they are the most profitable for the publishers. I've noticed that the majority of songs are marked "Traditional" and have always assumed that this was to avoid paying royaltys.
I think the main reason traditional tune books have been so profitable is that so many mandolinners want to learn fiddle tunes.
My question is: Do you think the consensus of the best way to learn would change to more of a 1) Learn good rhythm 2) Learn how and when to take a break 3) Learn how to get back into the song smoothly when your break is over.
Couple of thoughts. I don't think there ever was a consensus that one had to learn fiddle tunes, except in those genres where fiddle tunes are the basis of the music.
Those three skills are very important. Learning to play fiddle tunes is an excellent way to achieve those three skills. Not the only way, not even necessarily the best way, but a real good way.
(If by taking a break you mean a bluegrass break, then IMHO learning to play the tune is real important.)
I've often questioned the logic of newbies being expected to play a fiddle tune as an gateway "rite of passage" into playing with others. Seems like a tall order that invites failure.
Well for mandolin, in the US anyway, most of the others you would be playing with would be playing fiddle tunes. IT, OT, BG are still the biggie genres, and they are all fiddle tune based.
Jazz and rock genres, and the singer songwriter side of folk music one could excell on mandolin without playing fiddle tunes. Classical of course, but many fiddle tunes were used as exercises and warm ups for violinists back in the day.
I don't know about the rite of passage part. Being able to play fiddle tunes is the criteria for fitness for jamming with others who are playing fiddle tunes. I don't know how it would apply elsewhere.
This is the part, however, that I struggle with. Learning to play a fiddle tune is exactly like learning to play a melody. Any melody.
I don't think you can go far in any genre of music not learning how to play the melody.
I don't think fiddle tunes are any more or less instructive than other melodies to learn, with the exception of the etudes that classical folks use to focus on specific skills.
I think the traditional emphasis on fiddle tunes as a way to learn melody has been their easy availability, and that they are the basis of a lot of different genres of music in which mandolins are featured.
JeffD
Apr-23-2012, 12:29am
And if it makes money for music publishers thats great. It keeps the tunes alive. Its wonderful that enough people play want to learn to play fiddle tunes that a music publisher can make money selling tunebooks.
OldSausage
Apr-23-2012, 7:14am
I don't see what a good alternative would be. I'm not sure why it's a tall order for a newbie to learn to play a few fiddle tunes. Fiddle tunes are about the simplest small chunks of music that you can profitably learn to play. Most solos to singing songs that you hear on recordings are very much harder to play on Mandolin. Because fiddle tunes are hard to play on banjo, most banjo beginner books feature breaks to old folk songs.
abuteague
Apr-23-2012, 7:28am
If profit were not the goal, I'd get myself a custom method book that took into account only things that I had heard before and loved. Exercises would be based upon my favorite artists and also from songs of my youth including an eclectic collection of 70s melodies that live on in my head. Every exercise would be comfortable and familiar. It would be tailored to my ability and level and I'd get a new edition as soon as I'd mastered the last edition.
Apparently though, people grew up at different times listening to different things and I have to put up with what the majority of people who buy method books want.
I'm learning to learn by ear so maybe I'll get my wish after all...
OldSausage
Apr-23-2012, 9:08am
That's an interesting point, Abuteague. Whatever materials you can gather or graze from recordings, books, videos, workshops and teachers, your real challenge as a mandolinist is to build your own course to match your goals. So I think it helps a lot if developing good ear skills and learning to read and write music/tab are early on your personal curriculum.
mandodan1960
Apr-23-2012, 9:35am
I do not begrudge a publisher who makes a profit putting together instructional DVD's, books, etc. I think its great that they are making that investment in a limited market. What I questioned was if the material would be a completely different if no consideration at all was given to profit. (I know that is not realistic) but I just wondered is it because fiddle tunes are a good starting point for a variety of styles OT,Celtic,BG that this is why the majority of materials are focused in that direction. Would more Jimmy Martin, Osborne Brothers, Bill Monroe, etc type songs be considered to be used as a source of material for learning rather than just songs marked as traditional. Do most Mandolin players want to learn fiddle tunes or has the publishing industry steered everyone in that direction by making it the most known/learned song at your average BG jam.
I guess the tall order for me is the expectation to play the A part twice the B part twice with full jam around them is quite problematic for a new player. On the other hand singing song BG breaks can be faked a little easier as 10 to 12 measures of notes and that would seem to be easier and less stressful.
I appreciate the comments and respect the point of views expressed and don't mean to beat a dead horse but I just felt the need to clarify my point.
Mandodan1960
Jim Garber
Apr-23-2012, 9:52am
When I was first learning there were few books out there at all. Bluegrass was Jack Tottle and then later Andy Statman/Jesse McReynolds. For old time music I don't recall any mandolin books but there was Miles Krassen for Appalachian banjo and fiddle. I highly doubt that publishers steered anyone toward fiddle tunes. If anything, it is the other way around.
Bluegrass comes from old time originally and much of old time music is based on dance tunes from the British Isles. Of course there are songs in all these genres. When I was first learning I learned fiddle tunes by ear and that was a sensible way to do it. Also, i was not in a band at the time so going to a jam with a few friends who played at a similar level was the best thing to do.
Eventually, I did get in a band and that is where I learned accompaniment, breaks and fills.
If playing a fiddle tune solo is a tall order, perhaps you are playing in the wrong jam. The beauty of an old time music jam is that no one really plays any breaks but all plays together. That is why it is much easier to learn it where the expectation is not to solo.
In any case, there is really no substitution for playing with others. I would suggest that you get together with a friendly group of like-minded players and play tunes, songs, breaks etc. -- whatever appeals to you and at a comfortable tempo. No need for pressure if you are just starting. This should be fun.
I also think that books have their limit. I don't think I could learn how to solo or improvise from a book. Perhaps a DVD might be better or certainly a one-on-one lesson with a good teacher, but even in the latter case, there is no substitute for actually playing. On the job training. :)
draino
Apr-23-2012, 10:09am
Would more Jimmy Martin, Osborne Brothers, Bill Monroe, etc type songs be considered to be used as a source of material for learning rather than just songs marked as traditional.
For a mandolin-specific book, I think you're not just looking at "decreased profitability" if you include copyright material for which royalties must be paid, but "in the red." Probably why most fakebooks are either straight sheet music, useable by all instruments, or guitar-tabbed, useable by seemingly 99% of all instrument players.
Chip Booth
Apr-23-2012, 11:18am
I agree that learning fiddle tunes is a very reachable goal for a beginner. They can simplified, and they often repeat phrases even within a single A section, often repeating a phrase from the A section at the end of the B section, so that memorization is not as challenging as it first appears.
Of course the reason a publisher uses traditional music is so that they don't pay royalties. I teach, and I often have my students (both guitar and mandolin) learn at least one fiddle tune regardless of the genre they are interested in. For me the most important reason is that no style of music I can think of provides the kind of straight eight note picking patterns found in fiddle tunes. Scales can provide this but not in context of a song. Once a student learns a basic scale pattern playing a fiddle tune that uses that pattern exclusively can perfectly illustrate how music is put together.
Mandobart
Apr-23-2012, 11:42am
Here's another way to learn to play songs that you like (rather than whatever songs they use as learning tools in a given method book). This is how I learned guitar decades ago. Learn chords. It is easier to learn a song by first knowing the chords and where they change in a song than to pick the melody, especially if you don't read music or tab fluently. Learn the basic I, IV, V, and relative minors for the most commonly used keys in the genre you like. For C&W, folk and rock, that would be A, C, D and G. For blues its usually A, E and D. For BG (fiddle tunes) common keys are A, B and D. Most songs featuring banjo or dobro are in G. Anyway, when you add these up you're only talking about seven total major chords to cover all these keys, and 6 relative minors. Can you learn 13 chords? You bet. You will end up learning many more as you progress. Get any one of many available mandolin chord books, or find the charts here on the cafe (http://www.mandolincafe.com/cgi-bin/chords/ch.pl) and elsewhere online.
Now go to chordie.com (www.chordie.com/) or similar and find (almost) whatever song you like; it will show up in the standard lyrics with chords over the words format to show you where the changes are. If its a song you like and can sing you already know where the chord changes are. You'll be surprised how quickly you can learn to play the chords to a song and sing along (or accompany a singer). You can play the rhythm however you want, and however it fits in the group of folks you play with. Add melodic highlights playing notes in the chord, etc. if you like. These are things that for me naturally progressed from first knowing the chords. You don't need a method book to learn this, just a little motivation.
I still think it is worthwhile to learn to read music, to take in lessons and workshops and play multiple genres and styles. But for a beginner just starting out who really doesn't like bluegrass or whatever is presented in the method book, a chordchart, chordie and some practice can get you playing songs today.
[QUOTE=mandodan1960;1045657] Do most Mandolin players want to learn fiddle tunes or has the publishing industry steered everyone in that direction by making it the most known/learned song at your average BG jam.
I think you have it entirely backwards. The publishing industry is not able to steer everyone, or anyone really. They follow. They are the tail, not the dog. Many, if not most, mandolin players do want to learn fiddle tunes. Yes.
I guess the tall order for me is the expectation to play the A part twice the B part twice with full jam around them is quite problematic for a new player. On the other hand singing song BG breaks can be faked a little easier as 10 to 12 measures of notes and that would seem to be easier and less stressful.
It is stressful to be a beginner at anything. Learning anything starts with being uncomfortable not knowing. Music is perhaps a little more stressful because playing with people is also playing in front of people, which has a lot in common with with performing.
Wanting to play music that has fiddle tunes and melody at its base, and not wanting to learn to play those melodies, is like wanting to play baseball, but not wanting to learn to throw and catch, because its stressfull to have to do it out on the field in front of the other players. Seeking something other than learning the melody, something that is easier to fake, is like hiding in the outfield and hoping no ball is hit your way.
For me a lot of the fun has been the skills development and overcoming the performance anxiety and looking back and finding I have progressed and looking forward and seeing how far I want to go. I would not want to "fake" it, and miss any of that.
That is an interesting question... "...if profit weren't the motive."
But profit is always the motive. I can't think of anyone who prints books and doesn't expect to make some profit. wages, commissions, etc... If you could get someone to do it it would be a mighty thin book. As a former printer I have to tell you that paper is really expensive, as is labor, as is design, as is shipping, as is advertising.. Who do you expect would do this for free? and would your really expect the composers and copyright owner of contemporary tunes, for instance, give away the rights to the tune to publishers and others?
Some tunes in print are mushy, trite, and out of date but they are no longer under copywrite and often they may be good tunes for simple learning techniques. Learning is sometimes pretty dull, particularly learning techniques. But if one makes an effort with the dull ones one can go on to the more interesting and complex music.
OldSausage
Apr-23-2012, 2:20pm
I like dull tunes. Actually, I can't think of a dull tune.
mandocrucian
Apr-23-2012, 2:58pm
FWI: Regarding song/tune material.
Unlike doing a cover version of a song on your CD, which only requires a "Mechanical license" (you pay 8 or 9 cents per tune per CD) which can not be denied to you, publishing written sheet music is completely different. They (owners of the song publishing) don't have to let anybody that they don't approve of, print it or use it, and they can demand/negotiate any price they think they can extract for it.
Big publishers (Hal Leonard, Cherry Hill, etc) have legal departments that deal with getting clearances/licenses for using well-known pop/country/etc. Plus, those are the corporations that song publishers/artist management want to deal with, not some small independent company or individual that isn't worth their time/effort to even bother with.
Of course the reason a publisher uses traditional music is so that they don't pay royalties. .
Nah. I don't buy it. There are more tune books out there with copyrighted material, popular performers, albums, broadway musicals, jazz fake books and standards fake books, and broadway fakebooks, a lot more tune books with owned music than there are traditional tunebooks.
No, there is only one reason that publishers use traditional music. And that is because there are enough folks that want to buy traditional music.
Jack Roberts
Apr-23-2012, 3:55pm
yes. They wouldn't be as good.
Charlieshafer
Apr-23-2012, 5:37pm
yes. They wouldn't be as good.
Ha! Too true. Altruism only goes so far when you're giving stuff away, as the costs don't get lower, they only compound with each money-losing transaction. Of course, you could subscribe to the economic theories of Mad Man Muntz and the infamous Muntz Jet, where he just figured if he lost a few thou on every car, he'd just make it up on volume.
As per fiddle tunes, it's already been said very well; they're the basis for all roots music, not just bluegrass. Gotta know them if you ever want to sit in a jam or session of any kind. As to the AABBAABB format of old time tunes, that's actually a benefit. Most old-time jams repeat the format for what seems like half an hour, giving everyone plenty of time to figure it out by ear if you don't know it off the top of your head.
A fake book, in its traditional sense was a mimeographed or poorly copied and printed copy of a published tune completely avoiding any royalties to publishers, songwriters, etc. Normally only the melody line and words were shown or sometimes just the words and chords were indicated. So people could "fake" it. Normally they were bound with three ringed binders. Its point was to avoid royalties since performers needed or wanted to to have hundreds or thousands of tunes and lyrics at their convenience. Virtually all professional bar room or night club entertainers had them. I am not a professional but I assume most current entertainers have them as well. It is simply too expensive not to use them and no one can remember all the words and melody to thousands of tunes.. I used to have several fake books but gave them away many years ago.
Back in the 1970s some publishers put out spiral bound "fake books" (maybe they still do) but they were not really violating copyrighted material because they only included old standars long out of copyright.
JeffD
Apr-24-2012, 12:45pm
There seems to be a ton of fake books these days. Just about any kind of music you are into you can find a fake book for it.
Chip Booth
Apr-24-2012, 5:31pm
Nah. I don't buy it. There are more tune books out there with copyrighted material, popular performers, albums, broadway musicals, jazz fake books and standards fake books, and broadway fakebooks, a lot more tune books with owned music than there are traditional tunebooks.
No, there is only one reason that publishers use traditional music. And that is because there are enough folks that want to buy traditional music.
Jeff, in my experience working at a music store overall the copyrighted song collection books probably sold as well, maybe even better than basic method books, but were usually 2 to 4 times the price of the basic "How to play your instrument - Book 1". No single collection book sold anywhere near as well individually as the basic method books, so I submit the real profitability probably lies there. As a result production costs are kept at a minimum for the basic books, and consumer cost is lower to also drive more sales.