Forum demographics: types of box / music / methods of learni

[george garside]

Edit by Pippa: This thread has been split from a previous thread discussing why we need 80+ bass accordions. I created a new thread for the newly emerging topic!

What I love about people is how after a while they change the message, question , meaning of something just by being around it.............. :lol:


120 boxes are with us and I lurve em.(cant afford one , cant justify given my innate and hereditary total lack of talent ) all of em..96,80 right down to the really tinywhiney little 8 button .......

All I meant was ...when you have something that is spot on , right for the job , does what the tin says it will do and gives you ALL the tools you need.....why ,oh why go 80 plus ? {} .........and I think that the answer is somewhere between Because it is ,okay? and Because we can? ......this has been fun :tup:

Indeed Jarvo! at the risk of furthuring thread drift and considering the diverse range of opinions expressed it would be interesting to have some sort of poll (like they do on melnet) to get an idea of how many of us belong to which school of box playing ( or in the case of beginners the direction they intend to take) There would also need to be a voting position ? for those who dont feel they fit in especialy to one or other of the choices offered.

The question is, I suppose, what are the catagories/schools that would need to be listed. For what its worth I would start the ball rolling by suggesting the following choices and also suggest that people only vote for one i.e. the nearest to their main interest.

classical ( general aim to play music precisely as written and maybe having taken or taking exams and grades)

folk/traditional ( either from music or by ear but with own variations either accidentaly or deliberately!)

jazz

jolly tunes ( being anything not listed above)

a bit of everything ( including one or more of the above)

It may also be of interest to use the same poll to establish the numbers of dotists and earists eg

play mainly from written music ( fairly good to excellent reader)

play part from dots and part by ear ( can read the music for tunes you already know!)

play mainly or exclusively by ear.

These are just suggestions and others may have better/different/worse ideas or disagree with the whole idea of a poll - feel free!

george

 

[Matt Butcher]

I agree that such a poll would be interesting (do that have anything like that on melnet? I don't remember seeing it. No idea how I would class myself on melnet (though to be fair I'm not a "real", "proper" "core" member of melnet, I just hang around posting irrelevant comments and wade in from time to time when I think people are bashing tradidions that don't match their own). It would be interesting, but I have some reservations.

In reality I think there is too much division in the accordion world in the sense that people seem to get worked up against each other (and I'm not blaming any faction or any other, it seems to me to come from all sides and I mix with a good few accordion players). I know a good many old time / jolly tune players (some extremely skilled musicians) who hate both folk and classical, some classical players who look down on folk and old time / jolly tune (and others who have a very flexible outlook), English folk musicians who hate Scottish, Irish, Italian, jolly tunes, you name it (and others who have a very flexible outlook).

The way I see it, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with dedicating yourself to one style of music, one approach, whatever it may be - in fact the best musicians often do exactly that. Sometimes though it seems to spill over into hostility and resentment (and I am speaking from personal experience here not just making wild generalisations). I know there are some very strong historical reasons for that - snobbery, class conflict, urban brass band tradition vs rural folk, different ethnic traditions, commerce vs tradition, you name it, but too often I have seen accordion players getting into fights over the same small cake instead of baking more cakes, or something, you know what I mean. Please note I am not trying to blame anyone in particular for this, and I am not suggesting that anyone should be afraid to stand up for what they believe in musically.

(We could get into a big debate about definitions: let's say you just play Italian music, is that folk? If you went along to a local UK pub session with your Italian tunes, would they see you as a folk player? If you play the Dambusters March, does that make you a classical player? etc. But I'm not sure that definitions are very important.)

I know I would have to put myself down as playing a bit of everything and playing some things from music, some by ear. Which would be fine. I would definitely not suggest that doing "a bit of everything" is superior - it suits me but those who dedicate themselves to achieving one style may be able to take that style further.

One thing's for sure, in my opinion, if the majority turn out to like one thing or another, that should never dictate the content that should get discussed on the forum. I don't agree with a majority dictating what should be discussed on a forum, diversity is king (though the people who run the forum are the bosses and we need to respect their decisions, as they make the effort to keep it going). So if it turns out that everyone else likes talking about nothing but musette music and I want to post a thread about Irish folk, there should be nothing to stop me doing that, except for the possibility that I may not get an answer. That's how I see things anyway.

I would be interested to see the results, but whatever they say, I hope we can all still keep talking to each other.

 

[Pippa]

I agree with Matt, it would be interesting to see the results, but we do have to be careful of conflict on the matter. I think it pays to remember if someone says "x is better because...", they mean better for me, or better for this music, or better for this person's needs... I don't think anyone ever means to say "x is the best, full stop" - and we'd better all remember that before taking offence. I'm sure we can all agree that matters of taste are never personal attacks!

 

[donn]

I'm not even sure it would be interesting. Now it is interesting to know what any one of us might be playing, but the poll reduces this information to a meaningless aggregate. I personally do not want to define myself by a specific roped off area of music. For example, I am not ashamed to admit that I play some English tunes common to a type of English Morris dancing, but if I just wanted to play something for you because I thought it was a fine tune that I've tried to perfect, not at all sure any of those tunes would be in the running. Other areas that I might like to identify with if I were obliged to check off a list, but in reality I haven't much to show for my struggles with that repertoire. I could go on, you'd probably be spellbound, fascinated by my personal journey here (OK, not really), but as an increment to some ill defined poll category? Worse than meaningless.

Same with the reading vs. by ear thing. I know certain parties are very keen to make an us vs. them distinction on this basis, but really there are a few different ways to use written music, and a few different ways to go without it, and when we really get to talking about how we each go about these things, my impression is that we could all be different. I find the talk interesting, the numbers meaningless.

 

[george garside]

I agree with Matt, it would be interesting to see the results, but we do have to be careful of conflict on the matter. I think it pays to remember if someone says x is better because..., they mean better for me, or better for this music, or better for this persons needs... I dont think anyone ever means to say x is the best, full stop - and wed better all remember that before taking offence. Im sure we can all agree that matters of taste are never personal attacks!

I think that far from being divisive a poll , (not necessarily with the headings I have posted merely to start a discussion, ) would probably highlight the fact that most of us have far more in common than as far as preferred music etc than we have differences aand that such a pole would unite rather than divide. I would probably have to put myself down as a bit of everything because whilst my main enthusiasm is for folk I do enjoy playing all sorts of other stuff when the fancy takes me.

As far as the dots or ear neither is best and both have brilliant musicians in their ranks and I think each lot looks on the other with (sometimes well hidden) admiration! I just think it would be interesting to see how the mix comes out. I would put myself down as being ok with the dots for any tune I already know etc

If we collectively/democratically decide to haave such a pole I think it should be treated as a bit of fun and that nobody should spend endless time agonising over what to put or indeed in trying to find non existant meanings/divisions or whatever in the result

But as I Said, its only an idea


george

 

[Pippa]

Donn makes a good point - perhaps discussion would be more enlightening than an anonymous poll!

 

[jarvo]

Im not even sure it would be interesting. Now it is interesting to know what any one of us might be playing, but the poll reduces this information to a meaningless aggregate. I personally do not want to define myself by a specific roped off area of music. For example, I am not ashamed to admit that I play some English tunes common to a type of English Morris dancing, but if I just wanted to play something for you because I thought it was a fine tune that Ive tried to perfect, not at all sure any of those tunes would be in the running. Other areas that I might like to identify with if I were obliged to check off a list, but in reality I havent much to show for my struggles with that repertoire. I could go on, youd probably be spellbound, fascinated by my personal journey here (OK, not really), but as an increment to some ill defined poll category? Worse than meaningless.

Same with the reading vs. by ear thing. I know certain parties are very keen to make an us vs. them distinction on this basis, but really there are a few different ways to use written music, and a few different ways to go without it, and when we really get to talking about how we each go about these things, my impression is that we could all be different. I find the talk interesting, the numbers meaningless.

Well dont enter the poll then :ch just draw up a stone and well have a chat ..... {} I dont even know how we got to this point....see my latest post on the original thread......never was I intending to be mischievous or divisive ....just idly curious ...

 

[donn]

just draw up a stone and well have a chat .

Am I to fling the stone before, or after Ive made my statement?

 

[george garside]

gentlemen - please!

george

 

[knobby]

Be nice, folks.

Sent from my ST21i using Tapatalk 2

 

[jarvo]

Draw up a stone...pull up a rock...have seat.... what ?......

 

[george garside]

Ah!

G

 

[jarvo]

Ah!

G

I can see how an otherwise inference could have been drawn ,looking at it again... :b

 

[george garside]

:tup:

g

 

[Tom]

Never seen the term "jolly tune" before. It means "old time" as opposed to folk? Yeah, I play anything that interests me, and not much at that. I don't care about anyone else unless they are unkind. This forum rocks. Oh yeah, got to get that info to Jim......

 

[george garside]

I use the term ''jolly tune'' because I can't think of any other way of describing the wide range of /popular, ? well known, ?everyday etc etc tunes that don't fall readily into a specific category but which are often played on the box ( and indeed on other instruments) because they are enjoyable/ fun to play and for no other specific reason. Whilst there is probably a written version or indeed many slightly different written versions adhering strictly to these is not compulsory and indeed a bit of doing your own thing with them is to be encouraged.

I would certainly include the following Happy Wanderer, yellow rose in texas, coming round the mountains, bluebell polka, putting on the style, kenees up mother brown, daisy daily, oh dear what can the matter be, when the girl in your arms, The oak and the Ash, Brahms lullaby, Tiparary, pack up yourf troubles, Lilly Marlene, all Christmas Carols, sing song tunes eg Irish Eyes are smiling, Brass band tunes eg col bogey, etetc etc x 1000!(or more)

just nice tunes that take the fancy of the player and which are played with the emphasis on sounding good/nice without getting hung up about 'correctness'' and which are not readily/ easily defined as classical, folk or Jazz although they may be on the fringe of them

Can anybody come up with a better term for the myriad of ''stuff in the middle'' that is probably played by the majority of box players

george

Does anybody else have

 

[Pippa]

I like "jolly tune", I think it's descriptive! I'd not heard it before but instantly knew what you meant.

 

[jarvo]

It used to be called "Middle Of The Road" back when I was a yoof....I think it is still pertinent as a genre title ....in fact many hobbyist song writing sites use it as a current genre......a song/tune that all generations can get along with .....and not necessarily "jolly"....Moulin Rouge I would cite as an example....old show tune...or film tune, quite whimsical, very nice but not jolly ....has no particular genre ....perhaps other than show / film ....and even then you would not as a new listener necessarily know that .

Evergreens is another handle for similar .........


"Jolly Tunes " is good, provided off course that it does not make you want to throw yourself off Beachy Head...........or any end of Terra Firma in the nation of your choice / occupa....... er, residence is a better word ..

CJ

 

[george garside]

I started to use the term 'jolly tunes'' many years ago in answer to queries about box lessons. I would say something on the lines of what sort of stuff are you aiming to play --?classical, ?folk or / jolly tunes. The vast majority of my would be students opted for ''jolly tunes''

( and I include slow, mournful, miserable tunes under the br0ad heading Jolly tunes as I see the term ''jolly'' as being as much about an individuals approach to playing as to the tempo of the tunes)

george

 

[donn]

I would say "popular music." The full phrase (as opposed to "pop") hints that some of it might not be contemporary, but someone new to the conversation might take a while to fully understand that. Still, it's closer to having a meaning that people are acquainted with. I'd never heard anyone else use the term "jolly tunes"; to me, it means "happy, cheerful tunes", which would include a lot of northern european music and as jarvo points out, would exclude a certain amount of popular music. I would never play a happy, cheerful tune, if I could avoid it, stuff like that is what gives the accordion a bad name! (haha, just kidding ... sort of.)