Skeleton Dance

[Austin]

Ok so first of all, sorry for all the posts recently, but I was overcome with excitement when I finished the first part of my arrangement or I suppose reimagining of the skeleton dance by Greenop. Should be attached to this post if I did it correctly. I'm dying to know what you guys think.

[Trapdoor2]

Essentially, you're notating an improvisation. Back in the day, better players would do this on the fly...but I wouldn't expect them to scratch it all down...it just happened. I have no problem messing about with any tune...but much of the charm of Classic Banjo stems from playing the original dots (just like they did back in the day). We have a history of hewing to those dots pretty strictly. (cue muppets Statler and Waldorf).

You probably already know this: when using voices in Musescore, the additional rests are usually hidden. At some level of complexity, they're needed...so that's left up to the scorer-er.

Also, when I put a score up, I usually include an mp3 of it. Not everyone can hear it in their head from sight-reading it. I certainly can't.

Keep exploring!

[Austin]

I understand. I did notice some recordings are different from the way it's written. Specifically, the Banshee recording by Bradbury. Sorry, I didn't mean to step on anyone's toes. 

Trapdoor2 said:

Essentially, you're notating an improvisation. Back in the day, better players would do this on the fly...but I wouldn't expect them to scratch it all down...it just happened. I have no problem messing about with any tune...but much of the charm of Classic Banjo stems from playing the original dots (just like they did back in the day). We have a history of hewing to those dots pretty strictly. (cue muppets Statler and Waldorf).

You probably already know this: when using voices in Musescore, the additional rests are usually hidden. At some level of complexity, they're needed...so that's left up to the scorer-er.

Also, when I put a score up, I usually include an mp3 of it. Not everyone can hear it in their head from sight-reading it. I certainly can't.

Keep exploring!

[Joel Hooks]

RE: Bradbury… he had his bag of tricks, “filling” (often with triplets), “ascending arpeggios”, and accenting melodies in intervals (thirds, 6ths, octaves).  In his manuscript he actually DOES write all of that in, often in a different color ink over the top of his incredibly sloppy handwriting.

 All of his tricks may be found in his 1967 book, but you have to look for them and application in improvising is not spelled out.  I guess he expects you to figure that out on your own.

Bradbury’s arrangements are pretty special.  His main thing was mixing strains from various pieces (the best parts) and calling the piece by a new title.

[Joel Hooks]

RE: Skeleton Dance, when arranging and adding fancy bits try and keep in mind the point of the piece.  You can cram in all the notes you want and lose the point.

This is romantic era programmatic music that tells a story.  Following carefully the dynamic markings you create the full effect of the cemetery, night time, full moon, wind, and rattling bones of the dancing skeletons all coming to a solid end when either they “get you” or the sun rises putting an end to the fun (this is all interpretation).

Musical fireworks are fun but the main theme of this piece seems to work better played straight.  

[Austin]

True it's like I'm trying to turn it into a Lisztian showpiece... sorry about that, but more importantly are we positive upon positive this has no connection to the lineage of European art music?

Joel Hooks said:

RE: Skeleton Dance, when arranging and adding fancy bits try and keep in mind the point of the piece.  You can cram in all the notes you want and lose the point.

This is romantic era programmatic music that tells a story.  Following carefully the dynamic markings you create the full effect of the cemetery, night time, full moon, wind, and rattling bones of the dancing skeletons all coming to a solid end when either they “get you” or the sun rises putting an end to the fun (this is all interpretation).

Musical fireworks are fun but the main theme of this piece seems to work better played straight.  

[Trapdoor2]

I sure hope not. Euro "art music" is on my "avoid at all costs" list...

Austin said:

True it's like I'm trying to turn it into a Lisztian showpiece... sorry about that, but more importantly are we positive upon positive this has no connection to the lineage of European art music?

[Jody Stecher]

Some of it makes a good variation.  But I wouldn't make it so complex at the start of the piece.  Save the good parts of your version for later.  The idea of triplets is musically sound. But so many? Maybe not. Not at the start certainly.

The original simple melody (the *bare bones* --ha ha-- melody) is effective As Is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I do  make variations and improvs on small parts of composed music but only when the variation seems to be as good as the original.

I have 3 problems with this transcription.

1) in measure 4 the stretch from D at fret 2 of the bass string to A flat on fret 6 of the first string does not seem worth the discomfort. Not enough benefit (if any) to justify the extreme stretch on the 27 and 28 inch scale banjos I tried this on. 

2)  Measure 8 starts with C in the bass. D would make more harmonic sense to me. Then comes A natural. A flat would make more melodic sense.

3) The original 8 measures are more effective to my ears. Again, "if it ain't broke don't fix it".   

[Joel Hooks]

"but much of the charm of Classic Banjo stems from playing the original dots (just like they did back in the day). We have a history of hewing to those dots pretty strictly. "

I'm all for changing things up-- but in an informed way (and this is just my opinion on that last part).  My general approach is to get the basics of the piece down as close to as written as I can with special attention given to dynamic markings (if there are any).  For me, this is to understand the point of the piece (I see them as all short stories).

Once I have that, I consider what I might like better.  Most of the time I change nothing.  Sometimes I alter rhythms or add fills.  Straight pieces I will try dotted, dotted I will try straight. 

One of the (many) things I like about Bradbury is, if he did not like a part of a piece, he would change it out to one he did.  So you like that A and B of a piece but the trio is flat or anemic?  Plug in a trio from another piece you like. I mean, why not?  It is your music.

But most importantly, it needs to be musical.  Playing too quickly, cramming in as many notes as possible, and no thoughtful dynamics makes for a flat piece.

And here is where I am critical of Fred Van Eps.  An example of what I mean is his Cupid's Arrow by Paul Eno.  Eno wrote the A part with snaps and slurs (and Zarah Bickford wrote that Eno always played it this way).  With the snaps and slurs, it gives an impression of the fluttering wings of a cupid= programmatic and very much keeping with the supernatural theme of the romantic era.

FVE plays it rapid fire in positions-- blasting through with the finesse of a Browning M1919.  There is no breathing and the effect is entirely lost with the showoff fireworks.  FVE's barrel never overheats.

In FVE's 1950s recordings he had developed his "triple fingering" which he bragged about how fast he could rip out notes.  And rip out notes he did, but they are often so fast that they sound sloppy.  And much of it seems like he is just cramming in notes because he can.  Where one note is needed, he shoves in 6 in a buzzy trill like fashion. 

[Jody Stecher]

I play Cupid's Arrow 90% Eno and 10% Van Eps (not that I play as well as either). I'll use the FVE sounds sparingly and judiciously ( I hope).  Yes, the snaps and slurs are essential to achieve the flavor.

I agree that dynamics are an essential part of musicality. But sometimes the notated dynamics on a printed score are contrary to how I can play the piece most effectively. I don't reject dynamic markings automatically but if I feel the music differently I'll play it how I feel it. And I may well feel it differently tomorrow than I do today.   I also find the dynamic markings on some banjo scores to be arbitrary. They seem to have been put in by the publisher or printer (rather than by the composer) simply to fill up the page. 

I agree that playing as though one were being paid by the note makes for obnoxious music but I don't find that to be the rule with Van Eps. Sometimes? Yes, unfortunately. But there are plenty of recordings of his with an ample dynamic range.

Joel Hooks said:

"but much of the charm of Classic Banjo stems from playing the original dots (just like they did back in the day). We have a history of hewing to those dots pretty strictly. "

I'm all for changing things up-- but in an informed way (and this is just my opinion on that last part).  My general approach is to get the basics of the piece down as close to as written as I can with special attention given to dynamic markings (if there are any).  For me, this is to understand the point of the piece (I see them as all short stories).

Once I have that, I consider what I might like better.  Most of the time I change nothing.  Sometimes I alter rhythms or add fills.  Straight pieces I will try dotted, dotted I will try straight. 

One of the (many) things I like about Bradbury is, if he did not like a part of a piece, he would change it out to one he did.  So you like that A and B of a piece but the trio is flat or anemic?  Plug in a trio from another piece you like. I mean, why not?  It is your music.

But most importantly, it needs to be musical.  Playing too quickly, cramming in as many notes as possible, and no thoughtful dynamics makes for a flat piece.

And here is where I am critical of Fred Van Eps.  An example of what I mean is his Cupid's Arrow by Paul Eno.  Eno wrote the A part with snaps and slurs (and Zarah Bickford wrote that Eno always played it this way).  With the snaps and slurs, it gives an impression of the fluttering wings of a cupid= programmatic and very much keeping with the supernatural theme of the romantic era.

FVE plays it rapid fire in positions-- blasting through with the finesse of a Browning M1919.  There is no breathing and the effect is entirely lost with the showoff fireworks.  FVE's barrel never overheats.

In FVE's 1950s recordings he had developed his "triple fingering" which he bragged about how fast he could rip out notes.  And rip out notes he did, but they are often so fast that they sound sloppy.  And much of it seems like he is just cramming in notes because he can.  Where one note is needed, he shoves in 6 in a buzzy trill like fashion. 

[Austin]

Why? I'm just curious.

Trapdoor2 said:

I sure hope not. Euro "art music" is on my "avoid at all costs" list...

Austin said:

True it's like I'm trying to turn it into a Lisztian showpiece... sorry about that, but more importantly are we positive upon positive this has no connection to the lineage of European art music?

[Trapdoor2]

Short answer: "I yam what I yam."

My preferences are built on 67yrs of listening to a very broad selection of music. I can't tell you why. Maybe it was my Mom playing Prokofiev's "Peter and the Wolf" when I was a 3-yr old. Or discovering Sousa. Or being tortured by Schumann's Lieder. Or having to sit thru an entire boring Opera for that one brilliant aria (tip: get a box, show up for the one tune, leave again). I enjoy the Classical genre as a whole, but you can't like everything. I don't want to deconstruct to enjoy...even though I have had my mind changed due to deconstructive discussions of specific works.

Meh. We're all walking chaos.

Austin said:

Why? I'm just curious.

Trapdoor2 said:

I sure hope not. Euro "art music" is on my "avoid at all costs" list...

Austin said:

True it's like I'm trying to turn it into a Lisztian showpiece... sorry about that, but more importantly are we positive upon positive this has no connection to the lineage of European art music?