The perfect method part 2

[Austin]

Something stuck with me the last time I posted about the fact that I wanted to write my own method eventually. "What more could be said on the topic?" I don't think much more could be said on the topic however, The structuring of everything could be done a bit better I think. Right now it seems like Bradbury's method has this gigantic wall of difficulty that you have to get past that starts around sidewalks of New York on page 35. I think it's trying to make music that's too comprehensive rather than making simple exercises. I know there are a ton of those as well, but those aren't very musical. It may first seem that these two statements are contradictory. Not enough sight reading exercises that are comprehensible pieces of music, and too many comprehensible pieces, but I think the difficulty curve is just too steep. I remember when I first started the mountain polka I could memorize in a week but the sidewalks of New York I still haven't been able to memorize or even play through fully after going past page 59. Maybe that's a skill issue, but nevertheless I think it points to an issue that it's introducing way too much way too quickly. Let's look at another example, The caissons go rolling along, it's in cut time. In my eyes, it's way too soon to introduce a beginner to that. That's what I can bring to the table, simple musical etudes that slowly increase in difficulty. Arrangements just do not make the greatest etudes for learning. Instead etudes need to be crafted with a specific lesson in mind. It seems like Bradbury did this at a surface level, but I think he sacrificed alot of The beginner's ability to learn by using arrangements to get his points across. Just my thoughts on the matter as a beginner using this book.

[Joel Hooks]

And they both did not raise the bass.

[Jody Stecher]

That is so.  What does that have to do with the content of my post?   I did not say that insipid sound comes from an un-raised bass string. I said that this will happen with no bass string at all.  I ascribed a particular resonance to raised bass tuning, not a superior resonance.  

Joel Hooks said:

And they both did not raise the bass.

[Joel Hooks]

hmm, I'm confused then Jody. 

I wrote "Drilling down on exercises based around octaves has allowed me to stop raising the bass for pieces marked as such."

Then you wrote in response (I'm presuming):

About elevated bass: When the 4th string goes up to D it generates different overtones than it did when tuned to C. These overtones, also called "upper partials", color the sound of the notes played on the higher strings. This happens when the well-tuned 4th string just sits there untouched. Providing tone color is one the functions of the low string of any stringed instrument.     So gDGBD is not only a device for ease of fingering. It is also a way of providing a particular resonance.  This can be verified by playing a  G major scale in gCDGD and then again in gDGBD. The tone color is noticeably different. A worthwhile experiment:  try playing the same G scale with no 4th string at all (loosen the tension or try this when changing strings).  The best banjo in the world will sound comparatively insipid and lacking character without the support of the overtones of the 4th string."

My takeaway was that in your opinion raising the bass string for pieces marked for that needed to be played with the bass raised otherwise they will "sound comparatively insipid and lacking character without the support of the overtones of the 4th string."

Then I responded regarding Van Eps and Ossman because they did the exact same thing (not raising the 4th). 

Did I miss something here?

[Joel Hooks]

I see... I guess I could have understood better if there was a separation between the bulk of the paragraph and the "removal of the 4th".

At any rate, I am lazy and can't be bothered to reach up and turn that peg.  So I'll continue to work on exercises of octave jumps, runs, and stretching my little finger to reach the F# on the 4th string while playing 1st position.

[Jody Stecher]

Yes, I think so.

Joel Hooks said:

Did I miss something here?

[Jody Stecher]

 I wouldn't attempt Spanish Fandango without raising the 4th string. Playing D at fret 2 of the bass string at the same time as B at fret 9 of the 1st string is a stretch that exceeds the most ambitious of Cammeyer's demands on the left hand.  Tuning up the bass string to D not only makes this harmony possible, it also creates a special "hum" or resonance that only an open string provides and the overtones color the fretted notes on the high strings.  It's not cheating. It's employing a musical tool.  

Joel Hooks said:

I see... I guess I could have understood better if there was a separation between the bulk of the paragraph and the "removal of the 4th".

At any rate, I am lazy and can't be bothered to reach up and turn that peg.  So I'll continue to work on exercises of octave jumps, runs, and stretching my little finger to reach the F# on the 4th string while playing 1st position.

[Joel Hooks]

I play SP without raising the 4th.  Instead of the open D, I play octaves of the melody note. 

That said, I don't play that piece very often so when I do, it is not worth the trouble of reaching up to turn the peg.

Likewise with Darkie's Dream (and similar), I am able to play the intro harmonics by moving the harmonic D (4th string 12th fret) to the 3rd string 7th fret.  Works just fine and even adds something by going an octave higher.

[Joel Hooks]

I have not, nor do I, consider bass elevated "cheating".  It is perfectly legitimate auxiliary "tuning" or scordatura.  I will criticize no banjoist for doing it.

For me, personally, I just don't like to fuss around with my peg, then wait as the string goes flat, retune, and so forth.  Lately I've been playing Weavers with tied on tailpieces so it also tends to throw the rest out of tune as well. 

Jody Stecher said:

 I wouldn't attempt Spanish Fandango without raising the 4th string. Playing D at fret 2 of the bass string at the same time as B at fret 9 of the 1st string is a stretch that exceeds the most ambitious of Cammeyer's demands on the left hand.  Tuning up the bass string to D not only makes this harmony possible, it also creates a special "hum" or resonance that only an open string provides and the overtones color the fretted notes on the high strings.  It's not cheating. It's employing a musical tool.  

Joel Hooks said:

I see... I guess I could have understood better if there was a separation between the bulk of the paragraph and the "removal of the 4th".

At any rate, I am lazy and can't be bothered to reach up and turn that peg.  So I'll continue to work on exercises of octave jumps, runs, and stretching my little finger to reach the F# on the 4th string while playing 1st position.

[Austin]

Where can I find these scale exercises by Parke Hunter?

Joel Hooks said:

I call much of this stuff "short pieces" for lack of a better term.  Usually, two parts (though sometimes 3) and fairly easy. 

When presented as part of a well graded method book I consider them "etudes" (also lack of a better term) even if they are common pieces (such as Rattlesnake Jig, Green Corn, Spanish Fandango, &c).

I use this stuff as personal entertainment. 

Then there are the lesson based pieces.  I regularly review these things.  It might be a waste of time, but I feel like these lessons provide me with something.  Drilling down on exercises based around octaves has allowed me to stop raising the bass for pieces marked as such. 

I often do "reps" as, I do with dumbbells, 1 set of ten scale exercise from Parke Hunter, 1 set of ten random Trinkaus RH pattern study, Harmonics and Octaves study from Harry Turner-- all warmed up and ready to go.  

Since this is a hobby for me, it has to be entertaining or I won't do it.  All the stuff I work on is amusing, even the lesson based exercises. 

[Austin]

Never mind I found them

Austin said:

Where can I find these scale exercises by Parke Hunter?

Joel Hooks said:

I call much of this stuff "short pieces" for lack of a better term.  Usually, two parts (though sometimes 3) and fairly easy. 

When presented as part of a well graded method book I consider them "etudes" (also lack of a better term) even if they are common pieces (such as Rattlesnake Jig, Green Corn, Spanish Fandango, &c).

I use this stuff as personal entertainment. 

Then there are the lesson based pieces.  I regularly review these things.  It might be a waste of time, but I feel like these lessons provide me with something.  Drilling down on exercises based around octaves has allowed me to stop raising the bass for pieces marked as such. 

I often do "reps" as, I do with dumbbells, 1 set of ten scale exercise from Parke Hunter, 1 set of ten random Trinkaus RH pattern study, Harmonics and Octaves study from Harry Turner-- all warmed up and ready to go.  

Since this is a hobby for me, it has to be entertaining or I won't do it.  All the stuff I work on is amusing, even the lesson based exercises. 

[Austin]

I just feel like they could be more than just a run-up the scale and then back down. Douglas actually taught me a pretty good one for the left hand. What he calls triangle shapes up the neck.