Jump to content

Noel Hill classes: beginners tunes


Recommended Posts

Hi Dirk

 

I think you are asking what tunes will Noel teach.

 

If that is your question I would say that only Noel could tell you what tunes he will teach. He may not even know that until he is in the classroom. I attend Noel's classes and I would like to know which tunes we will be working on too. It seems it would be good to have a head start on the tunes taught in any class but often I don't know them at all. I do enjoy the process of hearing a tune for the first time, not knowing where the melody will be going, and gradually having the tune become familiar and internalized. Maybe that is a benefit of not knowing the tunes you are about to be taught.

 

Richard

 

here is an answer from a document i wrote which is distributed to all newcomers of the camp. i think it can partially answer your comment: "Noel has a head full of tunes, from a life long of learning, and a huge binder full of tunes written out, from a life of trying to put down on paper what he knows. Some tunes he will chose for your class ahead of time, and some he will chose during class as he reacts and adapts to the situation and learning needs of each class."

 

beyond that, i think that the benefit of working with noel is that you get to work WITH him. you hear him play it, you watch him, you get his viewpoint. just getting the tunes ahead of time would be no help, and very much a hindrance. his settings are very different than you will find in any tunebook, so you'd end up having to unlearn a tune.

 

from my experiences learning with noel and from learning with others, i can say that the sheer newness of the tunes helps you learn them. in cognitive psychology, there are theories about the encoding of memories, which posit that a large part of retention is in how the memory was encoded in the first place (meaning how it got in there). compare that to another theory, which is that the more elaborate and meaningful the encoding, the more staying power it has. so, if we look at the situation under this light, we can see that:

 

new tunes make you pay attention very closely, because you are trying to get familiar with the tune, as well as try to learn it. you will be habituated to old tunes, and thus pay less attention, as you will assume you know it. this means that you will have less diverse information to encode, because you will be attending to less information.

 

you will pick up on more information in the classroom than on a piece of paper--you will have a context for the memory, a situation, as well as types of information in multiple senses, such as sight. research shows that the multiple modality encoding lasts longer (modalities=sight, sound, words, etc). when you are paying attention more closely, you will pick up aspects of rhythm and phrasing which are very subtle, which you may not even notice if you were not paying attention.

 

that being said, you are right in that multiple exposures to information are correlated with better memory retention. that is why recordings are so significant--you can have multiple exposure to the tunes over time. i dont know about you, but i would rather have my first exposure to a tune be from someone like noel, than from a tune book or another source.

 

one added benefit is that it is great practice for learning new tunes as a skill in itself. from noel's workshops alone, i have learned so many great strategies for picking up tunes quickly, just for the simple fact that i was forced to do it. last year for the first time i actually felt like we werent being given enough tunes! i felt that two tunes a day was not enough, and had noel give us four tunes one day. i think i only ended up learning three, so i didnt repeat the request, :rolleyes:.

 

with all that being said, i do agree with you that the workshop format can be frustrating. it is just so must information crammed into a small timeframe. for every workshop i go to--even my favorites--i always have things that i wish could be different. workshops are just not the ideal way to learn, but they are often our only option. i was watching a documentary about the new york irish community and the absolute immersion into dance and music that kids used to get, even in this country, and i can't help but feel short changed.

 

I attend Noel's classes and I would like to know which tunes we will be working on too. It seems it would be good to have a head start on the tunes taught in any class but often I don't know them at all. I do enjoy the process of hearing a tune for the first time, not knowing where the melody will be going, and gradually having the tune become familiar and internalized. Maybe that is a benefit of not knowing the tunes you are about to be taught.

I don't know Noel's thoughts on the matter, but...

If Noel -- or any teacher -- wants to teach specific techniques or styling, I would imagine that it could be a great hindrance to have students who have already taught themselves
different
techniques/styling, through practicing without instruction before the class starts.

 

i agree with you. it can be very difficult to relearn a tune you already know, especially if it is from noel, as his fingerings can be unique if you have never learned from him before. however, in this instance, the original poster does not play the anglo, so it may be useful to have a leg up!

 

Ok folks,

 

thanks for the reactions. I think I'll have to risk the jump. Next week is very close now. I'll keep you informed

 

Dirk

let us know how it goes! have fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Noel -- or any teacher -- wants to teach specific techniques or styling, I would imagine that it could be a great hindrance to have students who have already taught themselves different techniques/styling, through practicing without instruction before the class starts.

i agree with you. it can be very difficult to relearn a tune you already know, especially if it is from noel, as his fingerings can be unique if you have never learned from him before. however, in this instance, the original poster does not play the anglo, so it may be useful to have a leg up!

I disagree. Even if one isn't learning specific fingerings, there are still phrasing, ornamentation, and other aspects of styling. If you develop your own versions before experiencing what the teacher wants you to learn, it will require more effort, not less, to absorb what's being taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always re-learning tunes, and learning new ways to play old tunes. It is easier to relearn a tune than to learn it from the beginning. It's just like learning a variation- how hard is that? Isn't it easier to learn a variation, or a slightly different ending, than to learn the tune ab ovo? I think it's a great idea to know as much as possible - and to have as many tunes as your head can hold - before going to a workshop.

I also think that the difficulty of unlearning old habits is over-rated. Having a bad habit on an instrument implies some familiarity with the instrument. Noel once told me that he tells parents of kids who want to play the concertina, that they should put the concertina on the top shelf of the closet and not to let the kid play it until they've taken a few lessons from Him. I can see his point also. Lessons from a good teacher are invaluable, but I believe that any time spent with your instrument will help you become a better player.

Edited by David Levine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always re-learning tunes, and learning new ways to play old tunes. It is easier to relearn a tune than to learn it from the beginning. It's just like learning a variation- how hard is that? Isn't it easier to learn a variation, or a slightly different ending, than to learn the tune ab ovo? I think it's a great idea to know as much as possible - and to have as many tunes as your head can hold - before going to a workshop.

I also think that the difficulty of unlearning old habits is over-rated. Having a bad habit on an instrument implies some familiarity with the instrument. Noel once told me that he tells parents of kids who want to play the concertina, that they should put the concertina on the top shelf of the closet and not to let the kid play it until they've taken a few lessons from Him. I can see his point also. Lessons from a good teacher are invaluable, but I believe that any time spent with your instrument will help you become a better player.

 

 

I find that as I become more experienced with the Anglo, learning variations of how to play a tune does become easier. But when I was new, just a couple of years ago, it was a different matter. I attended Noel's workshop having learned all my fingerings from a copy of a well known tutor, which I used for about a year before going to Noel's class. I think it took me the better part of the week with Noel and intensive (sometimes frustrating) effort to finally unlearn my previous default button selections and start to adopt his. Well worth the effort though. Now, with more knowledge of and experience with my instrument, it is easier (though still not always easy) to pick up a new way to phrase a familiar tune, a new ornamentation to add, or play around with the rhythm in a different way. Noel's own method takes account of this too as he teaches more button alternatives to the beginner's default positions as your experience increases.

 

However, I don't know if the ability to add variations increases linearly with experience. I imagine if I had played a tune a certain way for 20 years, it might make it more difficult to adopt a significant change in technique. Not there yet, just speculating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always re-learning tunes, and learning new ways to play old tunes. It is easier to relearn a tune than to learn it from the beginning. It's just like learning a variation- how hard is that?

 

I guess our brains are all different, but once I used a certain fingering for years for a tune, it will be much harder for me to burn the new fingering to memory compared to if I would have learnt the tune from scratch. But it depends on what tune, what fingering, etc. If it's just a single note/button, it's easy, but if it's a whole phrase, the ghost of the older version will haunt me for a while.

 

Interestingly, up to last year in july I was only using a single fingering for notes, and spent months relearning my fingering so that I can use alternate buttons. After a year working on this, I'm pretty happy with the result. My brain knows that there are three As, two Ds, two Gs etc and I'm even able to pick one on the fly. I never suspected such thing would be possible for me, I guess it's just a matter of practice. I had a recent lesson where the player was mostly using the high D on the right side, instead of the left side like Noel, Edel, Tim will teach you (as default, they all use both). Anyway, I found it was very easy for me to pick up the right side D, since I learnt to use both.

 

Bottom line, I think if you simply learn to use all alternate buttons, it will be much easier to adapt to any teacher/lessons you'll get. I'm confident I would not have a hard time taking classes with Noel, which cross fingers a lot, or for example Frank Edgley (who plays a bit more along the row). Kate McNamara uses the right side much more than other teachers I had, and it's part of what she describes as her East Clare style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I am always re-learning tunes, and learning new ways to play old tunes. It is easier to relearn a tune than to learn it from the beginning. It's just like learning a variation- how hard is that?

 

I guess our brains are all different, but once I used a certain fingering for years for a tune, it will be much harder for me to burn the new fingering to memory compared to if I would have learnt the tune from scratch. But it depends on what tune, what fingering, etc. If it's just a single note/button, it's easy, but if it's a whole phrase, the ghost of the older version will haunt me for a while.

 

Interestingly, up to last year in july I was only using a single fingering for notes, and spent months relearning my fingering so that I can use alternate buttons. After a year working on this, I'm pretty happy with the result. My brain knows that there are three As, two Ds, two Gs etc and I'm even able to pick one on the fly. I never suspected such thing would be possible for me, I guess it's just a matter of practice. I had a recent lesson where the player was mostly using the high D on the right side, instead of the left side like Noel, Edel, Tim will teach you (as default, they all use both). Anyway, I found it was very easy for me to pick up the right side D, since I learnt to use both.

 

Bottom line, I think if you simply learn to use all alternate buttons, it will be much easier to adapt to any teacher/lessons you'll get. I'm confident I would not have a hard time taking classes with Noel, which cross fingers a lot, or for example Frank Edgley (who plays a bit more along the row). Kate McNamara uses the right side much more than other teachers I had, and it's part of what she describes as her East Clare style.

 

i agree with you, azalin. i could talk about this all day and argue it, but in general, for most of the population, trying to take an automatic behavior, convert it into a controlled behavior, and then re-encode it into a new automatic behavior is very difficult, especially due to the frustration it can cause.

 

the reason it may be easy for david is not because the act itself is easy, but because david has probably automaticized the skill of being able to learn new fingerings on the concertina. i myself have practiced this, and can usually switch between different fingering patterns on the fly. in order to be able to play any concertina, i make sure to switch back and forth between using first finger C# and second finger C#, which requires me to switch between using push B on the left and pull B on the right. so, whenever i play a tune, i switch back and forth between playing as if on a wheatsone and playing on a jeffries as far as C# on the right hand goes. in order to learn how to do this, it took me several years: first i owned a wheatstone layout. then i bought a jeffries layout, and had to learn how to play that. now, i own a carroll standard layout, which is basically a jeffries layout with an extra C#. so, having grown used to playing everything in jeffries layout, i started playing everything as if i was playing on a wheatstone, which took some getting used to (now, please remember that as far as second octave Bb, pull G, etc, this does not apply). recently, i have begun practicing going back and forth on the fly--without planning ahead when i will switch--going from wheatstone C# to jeffries, and back. the hardest part of this is of course using push B, which i had grown out of practice with. it is definitely worth the time, because the other day i had to spend a couple hours playing a wheatstone layout, and i had no problem with it. it also affords me more phrasing possibilities when playing with my carroll standard layout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always re-learning tunes, and learning new ways to play old tunes. It is easier to relearn a tune than to learn it from the beginning. It's just like learning a variation- how hard is that? Isn't it easier to learn a variation, or a slightly different ending, than to learn the tune ab ovo?

if i recall, David, a few months ago you found it very difficult to make the switch to the wheatstone layout, and tried to get your wheatstone concertina re-arranged so that it could be played with jeffries fingering. so, i would say you find it very difficult as well! i think i was one of the people telling you that it wouldnt be too hard to relearn all your tunes with a first finger C# and push B.

 

this is the sort of difference we are talking about... so-called muscle memory re-training, though personally i do not like the term, as the problem is not in the memory nor in muscles, but in the fact that in general automatic behaviors happen automatically, and it is very hard to change them. muscle memory, or neuro-muscular facilitation, is indeed a measurable phenomenon, but it is not the underlying mechanism as i understand it in this situation.

 

now, if we went to get very esoteric, we can debate why it is so hard to change behaviors, but i have several loads of laundry to fold and a trip to pack for. so, i'll just have to leave it at that i agree with you in spirit David--that if we learned how to properly encode and automaticize behaviors using an actively mindful and spontaneous attention, it would not be difficult to learn new things. but as it stands right now, most of us are limited by the learning patterns modeled to us by society, and trying to alter old, automaticized neuromuscular-behaviors is much more difficult than acquiring new ones. so, although i agree with you in theory, i disagree with you in reality.

Edited by david_boveri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting posts Dave. Again, our brains are all different, so it's a bit ineffective to argue on something that is not standard (but it's always fun!).

 

I often use both fingerings in the same tunes I play, depending on the phrase I'm playing. I'll often use both C# (for example, in Langtrom's Pony, I'll use both Bs and both C#) so I could not really 'fork' it like you do and say "ok, I'm playing Jeffries this time instead of Wheatstone", or vice-versa. Also, my push C# isn't in the same location as the push C# on the Wheatstone anyway, so it would be a 'fake' Wheatstone layout.

 

Speaking of which... the Carroll layout, with 3 C#, seems appealing to me, as I'm using Eb in only a few tunes and all of them (if I remember correctly) can be played using the push Eb... I think I use the pull Eb in Beare Island but could use the push one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often use both fingerings in the same tunes I play, depending on the phrase I'm playing. I'll often use both C# (for example, in Langtrom's Pony, I'll use both Bs and both C#) so I could not really 'fork' it like you do and say "ok, I'm playing Jeffries this time instead of Wheatstone", or vice-versa. Also, my push C# isn't in the same location as the push C# on the Wheatstone anyway, so it would be a 'fake' Wheatstone layout.

 

Speaking of which... the Carroll layout, with 3 C#, seems appealing to me, as I'm using Eb in only a few tunes and all of them (if I remember correctly) can be played using the push Eb... I think I use the pull Eb in Beare Island but could use the push one...

 

you know, i decided to just take the plunge get all 3. to be honest, i havent used pull c# yet... wally had shown me what the pull c# was useful for but i forgot! i'll ask him when i see him next week. my problem is that i did actually really like having push Eb, but the problem again is that i dont use pull c#, so having that extra Eb was preventing me from having a c# i really wanted. so, basically my choice is to have two pull Eb's or 3 c#'s if i want to maintain two push c#'s.

 

Interesting posts Dave. Again, our brains are all different, so it's a bit ineffective to argue on something that is not standard (but it's always fun!).

well, i would agree with you that everyone is inexorably different, and i would take it a step further in arguing that every day you are different than you were before (cf. neurogenesis if you are interested--until recently, this was a purely philosophic notion, but now we know that there can be drastic neurological changes in as little as seconds).

 

arguing about universals when we are all so different is walking on a thin line... however, it is clear some things are MOSTLY universal, and to look at these things presumes normality. watch tribes on remote pacific islands, and try to tell me that they are not 99% the same as you or me, including how: they like to make jokes, uphold tradition, gossip about their neighbors, wear clothes that look nice within the restrictions of their culture, believe things that are not true, try to accomplish things, and worry about the future when their stability is threatened, and help each other in need--we all do these things. it is true that there are people out there who do not, but just because there are some does not mean we should not try to find out what we have in common.

 

the important thing is to not assume universality or proclaim the irrelevance of talking about how people work in GENERAL, but to try to prove that something what is largely universal and to what extent and for what reason, and examine what is different about those who break the mold and try to figure out why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, our brains are all different, so it's a bit ineffective to argue on something that is not standard (but it's always fun!).
well, i would agree with you that everyone is inexorably different, and i would take it a step further in arguing that every day you are different than you were before (cf. neurogenesis if you are interested--until recently, this was a purely philosophic notion, but now we know that there can be drastic neurological changes in as little as seconds).

 

arguing about universals when we are all so different is walking on a thin line... however, it is clear some things are MOSTLY universal, and to look at these things presumes normality.

Even many of the (almost) "universals" may be learned, rather than innate, but I suppose that doesn't greatly matter if everyone learns the same things without realizing that they're learned. And social behavior is one thing, while perception of one's surroundings can be something quite different. Here are two interesting examples I came across (separately) many years ago.

  • Psychologists testing members of a "primitive" African tribe were surprised that the subjects were unable to recognize drawings of common animals in their environment, such as elephants. To them they were just random lines and blotches, not contours and shading. Instead, when they were asked to make their own 2-dimensional drawings of these 3-dimensional animals, they drew the outline of what the animal's skin would look like after it had been removed and laid flat. That was their experience of the relation between 2 and 3 dimensions.
  • A standard nonverbal and supposedly culture-free psychological test was given to the members of a south sea island. These obviously intelligent individuals scored miserably, every one of them! Upon closer examination of the test results, it was noted that nearly all the "errors" occurred in a certain few sections of the test, and the islanders all gave the same "wrong" answers. How could that be? Again, it had to do with images. The answers which the testers assumed to be "correct" were based on similarities and differences in shape (triangle vs. square vs. circle, e.g.). It turned out that the islanders based their answers on topology, i.e., how things are connected, regardless of shape. What accounted for this difference? The islanders didn't build machines, where fitting shapes together is important, but their lives centered around fishing... with nets. And in weaving nets, what is of paramount importance is how the different threads/ropes connect to each other.

There are also definite differences in the way both individuals and cultures relate to "music". In some African cultures one can have "music" without a melody, but not without drumming. To Western Europeans, the opposite is true. And these days there are people who cannot accept as "music" anything that doesn't have a prominent chordal background. (Not yet the Irish, but even they are tending that way, with guitars and "bouzoukis".)

 

Since the advent of the WalkMan and now the iPod, plus music playing in grocery stores and when you wait on the telephone, there are people who have grown up so surrounded by music that they become anxious if things are quiet enough to hear the sounds of nature.

 

...we all do these things. it is true that there are people out there who do not, but just because there are some does not mean we should not try to find out what we have in common.

I agree with you here, David.

 

the important thing is to not assume universality or proclaim the irrelevance of talking about how people work in GENERAL, but to try to prove that something what is largely universal and to what extent and for what reason, and examine what is different about those who break the mold and try to figure out why.

And here. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, our brains are all different, so it's a bit ineffective to argue on something that is not standard (but it's always fun!).
well, i would agree with you that everyone is inexorably different, and i would take it a step further in arguing that every day you are different than you were before (cf. neurogenesis if you are interested--until recently, this was a purely philosophic notion, but now we know that there can be drastic neurological changes in as little as seconds).

 

arguing about universals when we are all so different is walking on a thin line... however, it is clear some things are MOSTLY universal, and to look at these things presumes normality.

Even many of the (almost) "universals" may be learned, rather than innate, but I suppose that doesn't greatly matter if everyone learns the same things without realizing that they're learned. And social behavior is one thing, while perception of one's surroundings can be something quite different. Here are two interesting examples I came across (separately) many years ago.

  • Psychologists testing members of a "primitive" African tribe were surprised that the subjects were unable to recognize drawings of common animals in their environment, such as elephants. To them they were just random lines and blotches, not contours and shading. Instead, when they were asked to make their own 2-dimensional drawings of these 3-dimensional animals, they drew the outline of what the animal's skin would look like after it had been removed and laid flat. That was their experience of the relation between 2 and 3 dimensions.
  • A standard nonverbal and supposedly culture-free psychological test was given to the members of a south sea island. These obviously intelligent individuals scored miserably, every one of them! Upon closer examination of the test results, it was noted that nearly all the "errors" occurred in a certain few sections of the test, and the islanders all gave the same "wrong" answers. How could that be? Again, it had to do with images. The answers which the testers assumed to be "correct" were based on similarities and differences in shape (triangle vs. square vs. circle, e.g.). It turned out that the islanders based their answers on topology, i.e., how things are connected, regardless of shape. What accounted for this difference? The islanders didn't build machines, where fitting shapes together is important, but their lives centered around fishing... with nets. And in weaving nets, what is of paramount importance is how the different threads/ropes connect to each other.

There are also definite differences in the way both individuals and cultures relate to "music". In some African cultures one can have "music" without a melody, but not without drumming. To Western Europeans, the opposite is true. And these days there are people who cannot accept as "music" anything that doesn't have a prominent chordal background. (Not yet the Irish, but even they are tending that way, with guitars and "bouzoukis".)

 

Since the advent of the WalkMan and now the iPod, plus music playing in grocery stores and when you wait on the telephone, there are people who have grown up so surrounded by music that they become anxious if things are quiet enough to hear the sounds of nature.

 

...we all do these things. it is true that there are people out there who do not, but just because there are some does not mean we should not try to find out what we have in common.

I agree with you here, David.

 

the important thing is to not assume universality or proclaim the irrelevance of talking about how people work in GENERAL, but to try to prove that something what is largely universal and to what extent and for what reason, and examine what is different about those who break the mold and try to figure out why.

And here. :)

 

i love those examples. i love reading about the pirahã, who basically cast aside most of our ideas of what is intrinsically human, but keep all the important parts.

 

it is so amazing how our culture and experience dictates our perception. i used to wonder whether or not we were corrupt or missing something compared to isolated, tribal cultures, but then i have realized that this over-obsession with innovation, information, and science IS my culture, and just as people who live in isolated tribes with no outside contact would think it strange to live like us, i think it is strange to live like them. we are just as naive, misguided, caught up in superstition, and limited by our perception of the world as they are. no more, no less. the reason they have not all modernized is because they like how they live, and the reason that even the most steadfast "back to nature" types still keep most of their modern, cultural artifacts and traditions, is because they like their own culture, too.

 

living a wood cabin built with tools made in a factory with raw materials that come from across the globe is still just as modern as living in the middle of new york city, sipping a latte and surfing the internet. i've yet to hear a back to nature kind of person contend that we should free our selves of such modern, industrial-capitalistic ideas such as freedom of speech, literacy, human rights, environmentalism or sanitation. after all, all of these things are not innately definitive of the human experience, are culturally derived, and just as "unnatural" as wasteful consumerism and environment-ravaging industrialization. the earth doesnt care whether or not we desecrate it, WE care, and our culture dictates that we should. i dont mean this as a criticism of these progressive, "hippie" or "green" ides, as i love my i like my vegetarian food, tie-died shirts, alternative footwear and recycling as much as the best of them. however, i do understand that the REASONING behind it is fallacious, and i partake in my share of these shenanigans because i think it is wasteful to not recycle, i like the taste of vegetarian food, i love tie-died clothes (when appropriate, of course!), think that my shoes should protect my feet instead of assuming that my feet were designed wrongly and needed to be supplemented by nike, and above all think that it will suck for our descendants if we dont take more care of the world we live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...