minstrel: Flute music help please

[Tibicen]

> I have just finished my first, and rather successful, attempt at building a 
> 6 hole transverse flute out of PVC pipe. It is in the key of G, just 
> because. 

Congratulations!  Were you aware that in period, alto recorders (and I
think the corresponding transversos) were in G?  Way to go!

>    What I know of music theory could be written on a post-it-note. The whole 
> idea that I can have two flutes (in different keys) that I can use the same 
> fingering on to play the same song, but be playing sharps and flats on one, 
> and regular notes on the other bounces off my brain like a .22 fired at an 
> M1 tank. 

Actually, it sounds like you have the idea just fine.  It may make
your brain ache, and you may not have internalized what the
ramifications and use of that factoid are, but you do seem to know it.

> I guess that's why I play by ear; that's as far into my cranium as 
> music wants to go. I understand that there was/is a notation system that 
> used "do-ray-me" instead of C-D-E that might be more in keeping with the 
> mechanics of the flutes I am playing. Or would I be better off just learning 
> to interpret the dots on the page to match the finger positions on one 
> flute, and then just change flutes when I want to change keys, and not think 
> about it too much?

The way those of us "serious musicians" who play multiple fingerings
do it, is that we learn to match the dots on the page to the finger
positions on each flute.  That is, when I see a note on the G line, if
I'm holding a C instrument, the lefthand fingers close, while if I'm
holding a G instrument, the left first and thumb close, while if I'm
holding an F instrument, just the first left finger closes.

You would not be wrong to guess that this is a considerable amount of
brain-warping effort to learn.

But as to whether it's *hard*.... well, it depends.  Many people, when
they say something is "hard" mean "I couldn't get it right off".  This
is *definitely* something that one doesn't get "right off".

But... all it takes to do it is persistance.  If you just keep trying
it, over and over, eventually you realize you can do it.  When you
start, you suck.  Yea, verily, I am the voice of experience, having
just taken up G (Ganassi!) fingering a year ago.  At first, you go
from a competant musician who makes beautiful music, to a fumble
fingered fool who peers at the music and thinks "Oh, crap, what are my
hands supposed to be doing??"  But if you don't get your ego all
wrapped up in that, if you don't get all uptight ("I suck, I should
throw down my instrument and hide in the closet in shame"), and you
just keep at it, sucking though you may be, in a while -- and, a
gratifyingly short while it is, too -- you don't suck any more.

That "while" varies from person to person.  For me, it's about three
weeks.  Then, for the next three weeks, I have trouble keeping my
fingerings all straight in my head, and the new fingerings can
interrupt my old fingerings.  Then I'm pretty much in the clear.

When I was 17, my mom, in a fit of whimsy, bought a "Clockowitz(tm)"
-- an wall clock in perfect mirror image.  Numbers printed backwards,
hands moved backwards.  For about three weeks, to tell the time
looking at this thing, I had to sit and think "OK, the big hand is on
the... 3... and the little hands is....".  Then, I could tell the time
just by glancing at it -- and I couldn't read *normal* clocks, for 3
three weeks.  But then after a total of 6 weeks, I could read either
sort of clock, orienting by the directions the numbers were printed.
In fact, it becamse such second nature, that I couldn't even tell you
-- without sitting to think -- whether the clock I had just read was
forwards or backwards.

Learning different fingerings is *precisely* like that.  

So, it's not *hard*, though it will make your brain ache and it might
sand some corners off your ego.  It's not like trying to comprehend
linear algebra.  In fact, it's not really a matter of *comprehension*
at all.  It's, perhaps surprizingly, not much about *understanding*
anything -- merely *recognizing* and *remembering* and *reflexes*.

In fact, a lot of woodwindists don't understand any music theory, but
they play multiple fingerings, and read fluently.

It comes down to "When I see this symbol on the page, and I'm holding
that instrument, what do I do with my hands and mouth?"

So, all you have to do is *keep trying it*.  And then, rather
magically, you just start succeeding.  There is no "aha" moment,
because there is no trick one suddenly "gets".  Just inevitably, over
time, if you don't give up, it comes, incrementally, easier and easier
each time, until some day, it comes so easily, it is second nature.
It really comes down to sheer hours of trying it.

Now, there is *some* comprehension.  Nothing that is beyond you (as
evidenced by your post.)  The thing is, I don't think you will be able
to absorb it without *auditory* examples, which you won't get in email.

>     I'd just bag it all and keep playing by ear, but it would be nice to be 
> able to pick up a sheet of music and be able to play the song. But as you 
> have probably already figured out, I am not even sure what questions I 
> should be asking. Any help/discussions that can be kept at a "See Spot play 
> the flute. Play Spot play" level would be greatly appreciated.

I think this a very worthwhile goal; literacy always is.

I think what would work for you is to have a *teacher*, who as an *on
going* project with introduce you to the necessary concepts in small,
bitesized pieces, and drill you on examples.  (Not just try to
"explain" it all at once.)

There is a.... method, for lack of a better term... a paradigm of
instruction... in the classical music pedagogical tradition which is
somewhat unusual in pedagogical traditions -- and this is *precisely*
the sort of thing which it is *excellent* for.  Those of you who have
seen the movie "The Karate Kid" will understand when I call it "Wax
on, wax off" Instruction.

The instructor gives the student an exercise.  And once the student
can execute the exercise -- in our case, has the music in his hands
and ears -- *THEN* the instructor uses it as an example of something
he is trying to explain.  He provides the phenomenological hook, on
which to hang the concept, *then* presents the conceptual
understanding.  And he does this over and over, taking small steps
each time, laying one small stone at a time, until the whole building
of understanding is erected.

I think that is what you would find the easiest and fastest.  It
requires that you find an instructor whom you can *trust*, since you
won't get explanations of why something is to be learned before you
begin it, you must just obey the instructions of your teacher.

Good luck!  I hope this is helpful.

-- Tibicen