Music By Ear

Subject: Music By Ear
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 08:20 AM

It's not that I am recommending ignorance. Just making an observation.

Over the years, I keep coming across people who are trained musicians, excellent sight readers and steeped in music theory who can't play or sing without sheet music. The first time that it happened, I was caught completely off guard. It never occurred to me that someone could be a skilled musician, but be helpless without sheet music. On more than one occasion, I've asked someone who plays piano far better than I play any instrument to play something for me. And they've answered, "I can't play anything without sheet music." I could have taught them chopsticks, I suppose. I'm a tentative sight reader myself, slowly learning more as I sing in a male chorus. But even there, other than anthems, we don't sing with sheet music. Mostly, I try to follow the baritone harmony in hymnals when the congregation is singing, and I can wing it fairly well. But, I am strictly an amateur.

When I was looking for someone to sing a bass harmony on one of my albums, I asked two different singers in the church choir where I was going at the time, and got the same answer from them. "Let me look at the sheet music." When I told them that there wasn't any, they said, "Then I can't sing a harmony." I offered to give them a tape of me singing the harmony on one channel and the melody and other harmonies on the other so they could sing along with me, or just isolate the bass harmony, but they were adamant. They insisted without sheet music, they couldn't do it.

More recently, I've become aware of people who are trying hard to learn to play by ear. I have a friend who is a highly trained pianist who can play enormously demanding classical pieces, who is trying to learn to play by ear. And having a terrible time of it.

As I say, I don't recommend ignorance, and I don't think that because you are a trained musician it has to limit your ability to sing or play an instrument by ear. Being an "ear" man, myself, it's hard for me to understand trained musicians who can't play or sing without sheet music.

In my quartet, people assume that I do all of the arrangements. When I tell them that I don't, they ask, "Well, who does?" "Without sheet music, how can you arrange harmony singing?" I'll make more comments on that, as the subject was raised in the Sitting At The Kitchen Table thread. I thought it was worth starting a separate thread about.

With a nod to my dear friend, Art Thieme... let me know what you think about the whole topic.

I'm all ears.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: *daylia*
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 08:40 AM

Well, for one thing I consider ALL musicians 'trained' to some extent -- either self-trained or trained by others to sing 'on key' and/or play their own instrument, at least!

Some people with formal music education were never given ear-training as well. So they become overly dependant on the written score, as Jerry points out. But others who've learned to read music always played by ear as well (like myself) and so can go either route as required.

Still others who learn music via the written score are sure to memorize it before performance -- soloists, especially. You don't really know the music until you've memorized it -- that's what I tell my students. Once it's memorized, the true fun begins -- you can really play it 'by heart' -- without a crutch, and with more of your energy / attention free to focus on artistry, style, emotional expressiveness, your own unique interpretations and 'feelings'. ANd THAT'S what music's all about, imo.

Choirs, orchestras, and certain ensembles are different though, because the parts and the way they weave together are so complicated, I suppose. In any case, as long as ear-training and improvisation skills are included in formal music education from the start, there's certainly no harm and a lot of advantages to "knowing the score".

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 08:41 AM

These days, I do American Old Time Music almost exclusivesly. For it, I am an strictly an ear man myself. As are most of the people I play with. In a previous life I learned to read music to play other types of music.

In my experience learning by ear and learning from dots are two very different ways of learning. It is not that they preclude each other, but they don't seem to compliment each other either. At least for me.

No matter how you learn you'll develop dependencies which are not easy to lose. Dot readers depend on dots, ear hearers depened on notes.

I know some classically trained violinists who play old time. It takes a long time to get past the stage where you sound like a violinist playing fiddle music instead of a fiddler. Some never do.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 08:41 AM

I can sing by ear, just about. I can listen to a top line and sing a harmony by visualising the melody line. But I'd rather write it down, just to be sure. I cannot play by ear. I really, really can't. I must write it down and learn the part first. People tell me I just lack confidence. 'Just do it', they say. No, I can't. I say it's the price you pay for having gone to 'proper' music lessons. But among classically trained musicians there are many who can play by ear and can join in a session with no problem at all. Can one of them please come along and explain how?

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: *daylia*
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 08:56 AM

I can read music AND play by ear, countess richard. The two do not cancel each other out -- a person will use one or the other or both depending on their experience, 'comfort level' and what the musical situation requires.

I've 'played by ear' since I was a toddler, started to learn to read music when I was about 4. The theory and ear-training I studied for years as a kid developed my ability to play by ear even further -- now I could not only hear when the music sounded 'good' or 'bad', but I knew WHY it sounded 'good' or 'bad' too.

Writing the music down is a fantastic memory aid. One of the best! So if you find that works best for you, just delete all the 'advice' and nay-saying coming your way and go for it, I say!

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: GUEST,maryrrf
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 08:56 AM

This is something I don't understand either. I don't read music and play entirely by ear. I wish now that when I was a child I had gone ahead and learned how to read music, instead of faking out my piano teacher who would play a piece through for me before we worked on it - and then I would be able to pick it out without reading the notes. Eventually, as things got more complicated I couldn't do that anymore and I was found out. My parents were kind of disgusted (can't say I blame them) and pulled me out of lessons. Mostly, I would like to read music so I could figure out melodies from song books.

But I don't understand why a musician who could read music and was technically very good at the instrument, wouldn't be able to just play (especially a simple piece) without the sheet music.   I have known this to be the case, though, with people who make their living playing music in symphonies. They can play all kinds of complicated violin parts, but they couldn't play even the most simple fiddle tune without music, and look shocked at the very idea. That said, I know some other symphony musicians who transition quite easily to traditional styles and play without sheet music.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: LilyFestre
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 09:15 AM

I think there are advantages to both. I'm paper trained and currently working on learning to develop my ear so that I CAN play things without the music, or having had seen the music. I recently attended a workshop where there were many of us trying to figure out just how to play by ear. There was one person in the center of the room who started by telling us what note she was starting with and then she would play a succession of notes and we would try to play it back to her. About half an hour later, she played phrases without giving us the starting point. That made it a little more difficult but I was picking up some of it. Now, at home, I can play something (or my husband can) into the tape recorder and use it to play back to myself to practice against. The tape would play the recorded bit and then there is silence to allow me time to figure out and play what I just heard. It's not easy, but it is helping.

One thing that bothers me about the topic or playing by music or by ear is the attitude that some folks have. There are those who think one is better than the other and continue on to stick their nose in the air at those who have the opposite skill. That's just a shame.

My husband is taking guitar lessons and his teacher is teaching him both by the book and how to jam without music. He does, however, tell him (because my husband really struggles with the sheet music/individual notes) that the ability to read sheet music is a valuable skill. It has allowed him to join several bands when the audition calls for him to play as lead, or the bass or whatever. He can just jump in and go. This guy can and does play by ear as well, but he says that when it comes to working with a band, it's far better to be able to look at the sheet music and immediately be able to play than to stand there and fumble around with the notes a little.

I don't know. I think both have their benefits and those that can do both should consider themselves lucky. :)

Michelle

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Black Diamond
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 09:17 AM

speaking as a relative beginner, Ive been learning to play a musical instrument for about 3 years(from the ripe old age of 51, with no previous musical background, and tone deaf as far as singing - I can empty a room quicker than you can blink if I start to sing!!
I think a lot depends on how you were brought up. If you lived (whether in a small village community, or a musical family) where music was all around you then you would have absorbed the tunes without really knowing it, and there would have been oldies to point you in the right direction, so there was not a huge need to be able to read the dots. However if you were like me, I didnt know the tunes not coming from a folky background.
I found that the best way for me was to learn to read music so I could repeat and repeat and repeat the tune until I had got it into my head, whilst at the same time listening to a cd of the tune. BUT then once having got the tune in my head, I forget the dots and try to play it "my way", or listen as much as I can at sessions, so I can improve my "performance" as a whole, rather than just play the tune.
Hope this makes sense - its not easy putting it down in words, but all I can say is Thank God for the dots , for CDs, for all those friends with kind words of advice and support, and for all those in sessions who have shown me much tolerance and patience and let me join in with them arent folkies nice people.
Black Diamond

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: *daylia*
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 09:19 AM

I think that's simply because they have no experience playing by ear, maryrrf, and possibly no encouragement to do so. Not everyone 'plays by ear' as a very young child, but a lot of people do.

And I know exactly what you mean by 'faking out my piano teacher'. I was a lazy reader - I could do it but I wouldn't, because I could play by ear so (relatively) effortlessly. But I had to take exams where sight-reading was worth a fair chunk of the total mark -- so if I couldn't read quickly or well it was obvious. And my teacher was always sure take up the slack, so to speak.

I have a lot of students who play so well by ear that they're lazy readers. I can relate to that perfectly! With students like this, I've learned over the years NOT to play more than the first few bars of the piece to be learned -- just so they can hear enough to choose their own repertoire. Then I make 'em read it through on their own -- and step in to demonstrate / assist as required.

I think reading music is much harder than playing by ear -- takes more co-ordination, uses a lot more areas of the brain simultaneously. Scientists and educators continue to document that formally trained musicians playing music in a group with others (ie an orchestra) WHILE READING THE WRITTEN SCORE use more areas of the brain simultaneously than for any other human activity studied.

Even ncluding brain surgeons performing brain surgery (these studies were done at McGill, one of Canada's leading medical schools).

And I think that's why people resist it so much -- it IS very challenging and literally takes years of effort, practice and dedication to become fluent and confident at it.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 09:31 AM

I think the answer is as daylia says - that the two approaches can run in parallel. Without knowing much about it I would suspect that somehow different parts of the brain are involved in the two approaches.

I started learning by ear, then at 12 I learned theory of music and became very good at prima vista singing, straight off the score sheet without any practice (sadly, I lost the sharpness through lack of practice over the years). Thereafter, for some 20 years in chorts I learned my parts from score sheets, while at the same time learning to play on the guitar and sing whatever songs I fancied, entirely by ear.

When it comes to harmonising I half-visualise the line like Diane; but I don't depend on that exclusively, as some of the more exciting harmonies come from practices outside the usual primo-secondo close harmonising. Indeed, my favourite harmony lines would be the third harmony line (usually reserved for baritone or bass, which is what I used to sing in choirs); and for that I have to somehow "feel aurally" the melody to choose the appropriate third line harmony. I am using the word "feel" on purpose, because to me it is an almost tactile experience. When I do that I am likely to be making small involuntary body movements (neck, shoulders and arms mostly), while when I am singing close harmony (primo secondo), I am more relaxed, and might close my eyes (visualising).

I guess then that for me, harmony singing is the only time when I alternate using the two approaches, depending on the harmony I choose to go for.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 09:38 AM

Hey, Michelle:

I had a dog that we paper trained... ;-)

The other driving force, I think, is whether you desire to sing a choir or chorale, or play in a band. All would necessitate reading music. If your desire is to sing and perform alone, or in a small group that improvises harmonies and plays by ear, then the necessity for learning to read music is far less important. I've never sung in, or have desired to sing in a choir, and I rarely play with other musicians (it's very exciting when I do, by the way as it really stretches me musically and I recommend it.)

What it finally boils down to is the music that I hear and want to play isn't on sheet music. I can read music well enough to learn the melody from a song book. Singing alone, there's no motive for reading the harmonies.

As I say, I don't recommend doing things the way that I do, or think that it is a superior (or inferior) way to play music. It's just the way that I do it.

Whatever works. I do believe that both skills are valuable, and while the Men's Choruses that I sing in don't often sing from sheet music, I appreciate it as a change of pace when we do, because I've slowly become a little better at sight reading.

Jerry
Jerry

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: *daylia*
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 09:41 AM

Yes, playing by ear activates the auditory/motor/memory/emotional/creative areas, while reading the score (ideally) uses all of the above PLUS all the visual areas associated with reading and language.

Using only a few of these areas does not cancel out or cripple the others, but it does take effort and practice to co-ordinate all that input!

BTW, the first time I heard the phrase "paper-trained" was here on Mudcat. It feels so much like a put-down that I won't be picking it up as a habit, myself.

I am not a dog.

Funny, I rarely hear people who can read music putting down those who play by ear. It's usually the other way around. And it's pretty easy to see why, too.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 09:42 AM

Jerry,

Without sheet music, how can you arrange harmony singing?"

The quartets that are your heritage didn't write down much of what they did, either. Don't you find it special to continue on in that tradition? I do-- our band doesn't do quartet harmony, but we are enriched by our forebears' approach to any song we do. The bass singer, for example, may inspire my husband to reach for his electric bass. Not that Hardi replicates that sung bass line, exactly-- he jumps off from that starting point. Or a bass singer in one song may inform his playing on a totally different song.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Abuwood
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 09:53 AM

In the end dots are only a guide, two people can read the same dots and come out with a different interpretation of the tune.
I am with Black Diamond, I bash the tune out on the piano from the dots, put it in my head and then try to play or sing it. Harmonies for me I think come from learning to sing parts in a choir so you then learn to hear what fits. I am only a 21st century folkie so sometime I have to learn it from a book.
I think both skills are useful so long as you are not tied to one or the other.
Steve quotes I think it was BB King who when asked if he could read music answered "Not enough to hurt my playing".
Nuff said
Ali

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 09:59 AM

Harmony singing by ear is relatively natural if those who are doing it have listened to and appreciated fairly straightforward four part harmony. When we learn a new song, the person who is singing the lead start out, and we usually can step right in and sing a harmony line. From that point on, it's a matter of adjusting particular chords.. perhaps moving the baritone and lower tenor up a third to tighten the harmony in a particular spot. Also, because my quartet (when it was a quartet) was a bass, two baritones and a lower (second tenor) tenor. That meant that on any particular song, one of us might be singing harmony in a range that was not our natural range. We needed two tenor harmonies and depending on the song, either Frankie or myself (both baritones) would pick up the second tenor harmony, while our second tenor would sing first tenor. On some songs where the lead shifts from one singer (and range) to another in a song, Frankie and I would switch harmonies. When he sang his lead section as a baritone, I'd switch to the second tenor harmony and then when Derrick (our tenor came in) I'd drop down to the baritone harmony and Frankie would take the second tenor harmony. If that didn't work, depending on the key, when Derrick was singing lead, Frankie would move above him and sing falsetto, as the range was too high for his voice. Or I would. When Joe sang lead, I'd often drop down and sing the bass harmony (which is the most fun of them all.) Everyone wants to be Mister Bass Man. All of this flows quite naturally because we all sing by ear and seem to hear the same harmonies in our head. If we run into a rough spot, I'll play the chord on my guitar and ask everyone to pick a note.
That works real well, too..

As I say, I don't feel superior about this approach, or even recommend it. I consider the ability to play music by ear a gift. How can you brag about a gift?

Jerry

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Peter T.
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 10:07 AM

There is a difference between some of what is being discussed and being able to improvise, which is what some people are gesturing towards here.   The big difference ( I think, as a learner) is being able to feel the "field" of a chord and the pattern of movements of chords through a song. It is being able to play around in that field and move to the next one, and so on, correcting and adapting as you go, without fear.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: LilyFestre
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 10:12 AM

Paper trained...heard that expression at the workshop I attended and thought it was funny....it has a bit of truth to it, no? :)

In music that is sung, I hear the harmony in my head quite readily (sometimes I can sing it too!) because my Mom sings bass in a women's chorus and has for years. Technically she sings alto, but her voice is deep enough that she has been asked to sing with the men. She also sings in a barbershop quartet as the bass. In addition, I played the bass clarinet in the school band and it was a rare occasion that I ever had the melody...I just learned to hear the melody.

These days, I sing for my own enjoyment and play fiddle for myself and occasionally others (later this week in fact!). Often I play my fiddle along with a computer program (MidiNotate or Noteworthy and am now fussing with Finale) which allows me to print out various parts. Lots of times I like the computer to play the melody and I play the harmony...just sounds better to my ears (not my playing but the combination of sounds).

I agree with whoever said that sometimes it's all in what you are exposed to. Children who are exposed to music throughout their lives probably will have an easier time picking up an instrument and getting those subtle nuances that aren't written on the page. For me, it was music, but the harmony of music (band, bass clarinet practice, listening to Mom's practice tapes which were recorded directly in front of the alto section).

Someday I WILL be able to do it fluently without the notes...until then, it's either notes or squeaking it out by trial and error for me! :)

Michelle who was paper trained *G*

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Betsy
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 10:35 AM

Paul McCartney couldn't read a note - neither could Lennon, I can't think of two Musicians ? who have given me more pleasure , so that'll do for me .I'm in their gang, but infinitely less talented .

Cheers

Betsy

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: LilyFestre
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 10:35 AM

That should read, I just learned to hear the harmony!!!! Sorry about that!

Michelle

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Sorcha
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 10:55 AM

I am a 'classicaly' trained violinist...took me almost 30 years to understand 'by ear'. I can do it now, but I'm not good at it. Took me almost 15 yrs to stop sounding like a violinist masqerading as a fiddler.

One biggie is that in Classical music if it's NOT on the page, DON'T play it. Whoever played, Shave and a Haircut at the end of the concerto will DIE! (LOL)

What does bother me a LOT is a folk etc group near here that has to have music stands and sheet music to play at all.....even in a session or concert venue. By the time they find their music the tune is over.

Also, somehow 'memorize' is different from 'having' a tune....you can forget memorized stuff but if you 'have' a tune you have it forever.

Clear as mud?

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Louie Roy
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 11:40 AM

I have played by ear my entire life and I don't know one note of music.I sing by ear and when you sing by ear you have to learn the songs the same way they were played and sung by the original artist.Never and I say never try to sing a song looking at a copy of the words or you will be ashamed of what you hear if someone tapes it.You have to learn the song and get it in your head exactly as the original artist and another thing when you play and sing by ear you will never slurr a song every word will be crisp and clear and if someone wants to copy it they have no trouble deciphering every word.As the old fiddle player who played by ear told an accomplished Violin player I can do something you can't do I can play in the dark.The fiddle player I play with is blind and has been for 8 years but he plays as good a fiddle as many of the experts we have to listen to on Radio or TV today.Also if you have a new tune that he's never heard wi9th the tape or recording for him to copy in 2 hours he will be playing it as good as the original.It is your pick,but myself there is only one way and that is by ear.Louie

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 12:26 PM

Hey, Louie:

That's one way to learn songs by ear. I do it exactly the opposite. And I encourage the guys in my group to do the same. I want them to hear a recording of the song (if it exists) and get a feel for it. Then I give them the words and we make it our own. I think that it's very important to put yourself in the song, honoring the basic melody and the words, but making the interpretation your own. For me, if you don't internalize the song and make it part of who you are, then you're only reproducing someone else's expression.
And it isn't about memorizing, as Sorcha mentioned. You can get the words right, the melody perfect and not make a mistake... and never get the song. I'm not terribly bothered if someone messes up (or even forgets a word now and then.) We all do that. I want to feel that the person is singing from their heart, to me.

A song sung right doesn't come from the lungs. Ot comes from the heart.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 12:36 PM

I believe it comes down to the type of music we play, Jerry. Folk music is passed from musician to musician and it evolves as it goes. You might hear "Gypsy Davy" done by 10 folkies 10 different ways. We have an oral and an aural tradition. Uilleann Pipers are the same way. Captain O'Neil may have transcribed the pipe tunes in his famous collection, but the facts are that the "dots" are just a guideline, or a framework. The same tune done by different pipers will sound different.

Folks that study harmony singing, work from a strict mathematical interpretation to get their beautiful result. They apply their wonderful gifts according to the method they have been taught. Those of us in the folk arts tend to just do what we think sounds good, based on what we have heard, based on our influences.

None of this is an endorsement or indictment of one method over the other. Just the way I see it.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: *daylia*
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 12:39 PM

Paper trained...heard that expression at the workshop I attended and thought it was funny....it has a bit of truth to it, no? :)

Hmmm ... would it be funny to call people who've learned to read and write English or French or Chinese etc 'paper-trained', then?

Or is 'paper-trained' only funny when referring to people who know how to read and write music?

Sorry, to me neither is funny. Then again, as a kid I didn't think it was funny when my viola teacher called my instrument an 'axe' either. I liked my instrument. So go put down somebody else's - that was my attitude.   

Touchy, eh?   

Flippin' musicians! ;-)


You have to learn the song and get it in your head exactly as the original artist ...

Well, that depends on if you want to sound exactly like the original artist or not. Not everyone does, or does in all circumstances.

I like Bob Dylan's work, for example, but I wouldn't want to sing exactly like he does! And a typical Dylan song is not only very VERY long, but I often find quite a few of the words incomprehensible the way he pronounces them. So I do want to look at/memorize the written lyrics, if I intend to perform with confidence and do justice to his songs.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 12:40 PM

Louie, if you sing or play exactly as the original artist, surely you restrict yourself to certain ranges and keys that may not be the most appropriate to your voice or instrument? And also, as Jerry very rightly says, if you're just copying you won't be inside the song or tune and will never make it your own:

You know all the words and you sung all the notes but you never quite learned the song she sung (Mike Heron: The Hedgehog Song)

What a nice thread! Thank you Daylia, thank you George for your replies. Yes, I'll try.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Louie Roy
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 12:56 PM

I wasn't trying to say you must sing a song the same as the original artist you have to have your own style and as Jerry says a song come from the heart not the lungs and that was what I was trying to say but I guess I messed up royaly

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: *daylia*
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 01:04 PM

Not that royally, Louie. You did fine! I was just being picky picky picky. A real stickler for tiny little nit-pickin details. A real pain in the u-know-what .... that's what happens when you teach music all your life though ..... picky picky PICKY picky picky!!!! :-)

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: LilyFestre
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 01:05 PM

Daylia,

   I hadn't ever heard the "paper trained" comment referring to those of us who were trained using written music and it struck a funny bone in me. :) I'm sorry it bounced off yours wrong. Nothing bad is meant by it at all. :)

What can I say? I have a weird sense of humor!

Michelle (who oddly enough has never "paper trained" any of her 6 dogs...that isn't to say they aren't potty trained though....)

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: *daylia*
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 01:07 PM

LOL! Hey, I have a weird sense of humour too.

Look, I even spelled it weird!

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 01:23 PM

I would dearly like to be able to read music better than the very limited "c" "a" err   "d" - now how does the timing go?   that I can, but I don't understand why playing from ear or memory prohibits or prevents playing from dots or vice versa. After all, we all here can read (words) and we can all speak without the words in front of us. I also find it odd that in some areas we expect musicians to use words and dots. It would look a bit odd if actors did that, wouldn't it?

Yet, similarly, we at least half expect poetry readers to use the words.

Odd, that.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 01:28 PM

I also find it odd that in some areas we expect musicians to use words and dots.

In every classical community choir I've belonged to, we were coached to use the score as a learning tool but, by the last weeks of rehearsal we were expected to "get out of the score" and have our eyes only on the conductor. Eyes on the conductor, ears on the section for blend and expression. And when you achieve that (easier for the native-ear-learners), well-- you fly.

So at the end, we might or might not have had scores in our hands--but very little attention on them once our time to "come in" arrived.

It's quite something to be played by the conductor as part of a large, corporate instrument. A bit like a good session!

~Susan

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 01:41 PM

Jerry's "tentative sight reader" self-description fits me, too. I was supposed to cantor two pieces in church yesterday with two minutes of rehearsal, and I skipped the second one because I just couldn't get it that quickly. I learn most things by ear, but then I forget them almost immediately and need the notes in front of me to keep me reminded how the song goes - this is especially true for me in harmony singing, because most harmony part arrangements don't make aural "sense" to me yet. I can usually pick up melody parts right away and can often sight-read them right off without hearing them, but harmony parts just don't come naturally to me yet. And for singing with a choir, I think you generally have to have written harmony parts, so all the tenors are singing the same thing.

After attending a couple of Jerry-and-Bev workshops, I've started to learn to sing harmony by ear, and it's a real pleasure compared to the painstaking process of learning choral harmony parts. I just listen for the chords in a song, and make up my own melodies to fit; or I listen for the opportunity to make a chord that fits, especially at the ends of lines; or I find a good drone note to sing.

So, I think there are advantages to both singing by ear and by notation. I do both, but I don't feel very confident at either one. Mostly, it's still hard work for me to get a song down. Sometimes, I wonder why I didn't learn all these skills forty years ago instead of learning them now at the age of almost 58. Think of all the time I wasted, learning songs the hard way....

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: MaineDog
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 02:39 PM

If paper training is all you have, then you can only play that which is on the paper! Folk music, dance music, early music notations seldom contain all the nuances needed to play these well.
My fiddle teacher always taught me tunes by ear before she would give me the music. I was usually surprised to see what the music actual was, and what it wasn't.

MD

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 02:39 PM

Naw, Joe, you're only 57..

Jerry

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: GUEST,Val
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 02:47 PM

Most of what I've played in this second half of my life has been "by ear" and/or memory - and always concocting my own "arrangements". But I'm generally a soloist (not always by choice? *grin*) so I have less need to be precise. "That wasn't a mistake - that was jazz!"

I do know the "dots" (trebel cleff, at least. Now trying to learn bass cleff for harp), and was "paper trained" in Jr. High band. However my sightreading skills are currently abysmal at best. Never bothered to practice sightreading for voice or any of my current instruments.

It IS very useful to know your way around the inkblots, though, even if you don't usually perform with them. That is an extremely common medium to communicate melodies these days (although with the increasing popularity of technologies like MIDI and easy digitized sound recording, learning "by ear" is again becoming practical). Depending on instrument, at least being able to decipher a lead sheet & chords is really helpful in increasing one's repertoire - especially if you want to play something you found in an old book somewhere that hasn't been widely distributed on a recording.

As for ensemble work, it really depends upon the rest of the group whether everyone works best with precisely defined parts written down vs. a common understanding of the general direction the song is going & the ability/willingness to "wing it" (or anywhere along that spectrum). Also what is the expectation/tolerance of the audience regarding precision of reproduction of the piece.

Val

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 03:40 PM

Hey, Louie:

I figured you probably weren't expressing youself well. I'm glad that you value personal interpretation, too.

As a testimony to my primitive sight reading skills, back in the early 60's when I was living in New York city, I was asked to perform at a 99 cent Hootenanny at Town Hall. My guitar teacher, Dave Van Ronk was at the concert and he particularly liked a song that I sang, Cryderville Jail. After the concert, he asked where I'd learned it. I told him that I learned it from the Alan Lomax book, Folk Songs Of North America. He said, "It doesn't sound anything like that in the book." I laughed and said, "The way I read music, that's how it sounded to me." I had the words right, and the melody and the chords. What else do you want? But, I just sang it with my own rhythm and phrasing, breaking up Cryderville into Cryder/ville. It was the changes in phrasing that he really liked. When they do a songbook, they pass a song through a homogenizer and strip the melody down to it's most simplified version. It's up to the person who learns the song to add the grace notes, subtleties and phrasing to give the song it's unique quality.

My favorite story tough is of a young kid who came to a Ceilihd at Carnegie Tech in Pittsburgh, many years ago. I didn't experience this, but my friend Duane Thorpe told me the story. This kid was very new to the whole performing experience and got up and did Kilgarry Mountain, which was very popular at the time... you know, "I crack my whip and I draw the blood." Cow sadism. It was always done at a robust clip. If you could sing with your arms akimbo, and still play guitar, that would have been the favored rendition. This kid got up there and sang it reallll slow, and drove everybody nuts. When he finished, someone came up and said, "Why did you do it so slow? It's supposed to be a fast song!!" This kid grew up on a farm and new cows. He said, "oxygen move reallll slow."

Cracks me up, even retelling it.

Reminds me of a favorite line in Mountaineer's Courtship where the Suitor says he's going to bring his oxen to the wedding. His intended sings, "Why don't you bring the buggy, the buggy, the buggy?" and he answers, "'Cause my ox won't work with the buggy, the buggy, the buggy.. my ox won't work with the buggy, 'cause I never seen 'em trot."

Jerry

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Little Robyn
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 04:05 PM

I reckon it's a left brain/right brain thing.
Yes, early conditioning and training will make a difference but people who have to rely on music are probably very left brain/logical people while those that just listen and do are likely to be the right brain/artistic people.
I was trained to read dots but found it a struggle (still do, 50 years later) and when I was tested for L/R brain dominance, I came out strongly on the right.
My husband is very left brained and he's currently working out tunes on his computer - putting dots in and shifting them and worrying them to death. The end result will be perfect and a big help to those that need dots but I've probably got the tunes in my head already and once they're there, they'll just come out through my fingers.
Years ago I went busking, with a list of tune/song titles as a prompt. I would play the tunes and watch the passers-by, thinking various thoughts and enjoying the scenery and music. But if someone came up and started talking to me, I felt my brain shift gear, and, in order to keep playing, I'd have to think about what note I was up to and make a conscious effort to remember what came next. I can 'cruise' in right brain but have to concentrate in left brain.
Does that make sense?
(A lot of left brain people don't believe in right brain - they think it's just lazyness!)
Robyn

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 04:19 PM

Yep, Jerry, I understand completely. When I do concert setting stuff, I have to warn folks that my phrasing will often be different than what they are used to. I usually ask them to listen for how I am doing it when they join in. This is the folk process at work for me. I usually listen to a version or two, but then I interpret it the way that I "hear" it in my head, and based on what I want folks to focus on. I think that is an advantage to ear players. Every song has a meaning to the performer. It is not always the same meaning as the author or others intended. And so we interpret based on what it means for me. I think your beautiful "Handful of Songs" is a perfect example. I have heard your version, Sandy and Caroline's version, Matt Watroba's version, and many others. Mine is phrased and timed differently. I like each one of these versions, but I sing it the way I hear it.

One of my favorite groups to sing for is the FSGW'ers. They are such a savvy, talented and gifted bunch of folkies that they listen and then sing back with you on the choruses just they way you intend. It is so powerful and gratifying to hear your version coming back at you with just the right melody/harmony backing. I always feel as though they are entertaining me. No sheet music needed there, they just listen and add what they feel is right. I absolutely love it!!!

Van Ronk was your guitar teacher???????? Damn, son, I think I need to come take some lessons from you. And Frank Hamilton too. How lucky we are to be Mudcatters.

Great thread, my friend.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: GUEST,Janie
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 04:28 PM

In spite of being in chorus for 6 years I never got to where I could sight read. The best I can do is to sort of read the intervals between notes to give me a clue with an unfamiliar piece of music. Middle C is the only note I instantly recognize on sheet music. With choral harmonies, I just have to sing the harmony until I memorize it. I have decent relative pitch and can usually find a harmony line to sing in informal settings. I seem to completely lack the neural pathways, though, to translate what is written on the page into the music in my head or throat.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 04:35 PM

I think that I must be more right-brained than left-brained. And then there are those times when I'm just plain lame-brained.

The irony of learning to play guitar from Dave Van Ronk is that he prepared me beautifully for playing black gospel. I know Dave must be getting a big laugh out of the irony of it.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: *daylia*
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 05:00 PM

I can 'cruise' in right brain but have to concentrate in left
brain.

Yup. That's what makes it seem daunting, at first. But spend enough quality time with the left-brain stuff and it becomes like second nature too.

Then you'll cruise right along, "left-brained" or not.

And then there are those times when I'm just plain lame-brained.

LOL!

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Scoville
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 05:33 PM

I thought "paper trained" was funny, too, but then we call anything with a listed composer "wrote music" around here.

I started on piano and learned to read music at a very basic level, although I was never a good sight-reader and I've always had to know a song well in my head before I can learn it either from music or by ear. Plainly put, if I can't hum it, I can't play it, printed music or not. I have to be able to generate it on my own. I also can't handle anything complex--your average church hymnal is pushing my upper limits.

. . . then I started playing old-time. Holy cow. Sheet music? We don't need no stinkin' sheet music.

When I started, I couldn't hear chord changes to save my life (which is a bad thing if you've fallen into the position of back-up guitarist) and I'm seriously not sure how that band put up with me for as long as it took me to learn. I did learn, though.

When I was a kid I couldn't hear if I was off-key and I couldn't separate melody from harmony. I've even gotten better at that by listening to singing with harmony (old Red Clay Ramblers, Louvin Bros., Carter Family) in the car on my way to work and back. I've yet to translate this to playing music but at least I can hear it and pull it out now.

I do wish I could read music better but I cannot imagine any longer not being able to play by ear.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: GLoux
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 08:46 PM

This is a HUGE issue, as far as I'm concerned, and Jerry, you've once again managed to stir up something hot....

Our band, Run of the Mill String Band, was hired to teach at the Folk College at Juniata College just last month and were absolutely amazed at the number of people who were genuinely disappointed when we said that folk music is based upon the "aural tradition" and didn't have sheet music for the folk music we played and taught. My wife, Palmer, somehow had brilliantly anticipated this expectation and went out of her way to find and duplicate copies of sheet music of many of the tunes she taught (from the Fiddlers' Fake Book, Christeson, etc.) but a number of crusty curmudgeons complained when what she played (her version/embellishments) didn't match *exactly* what the hand out (sheet music) described. She'd explain that she had been playing that tune for years and made it her own and she had lots of fun adding nuances each time through that weren't represented on the sheet music. They just didn't "get it"...such an explanation fell on deaf ears. Others did and really loved the approach.

In retrospect, I feel that we could have done a better job of making clear that our sessions were not sheet music oriented and that bringing a mini-disc or cassette recorder was in order, but we were definately taken aback by these folks interested in "folk music" but expected it to be "classically" prepared for them.

When I say it is a HUGE issue, I'm trying to imply that reading sheet music is simply not the true path to folk music. It can be a beginning, but should be outgrown. I used to read sheet music (was paper-trained?)...I had piano lessons for a while, but the draw towards folk and old-time for me, was that you learned it knee-to-knee from someone you wanted to learn from. For example, Jerry...did Dave vR ever give you sheet music, or were you right in his face absorbing his stuff?

Choral, orchestral, etc. music requires sheet music, but to me, folk music is defined by NOT using sheet music. Transcribing folk music into sheet music homogenizes and shreds and sheds tradition so that folks who place themselves in a parochial box of "can't play without sheet music" can pretend to play folk music. It's a terrific way of documenting the music for beginners, but it doesn't capture the essence, and shouldn't become a crutch that can't be outgrown.

In my humble opinion (IMHO)...

I'm on my way to search for a box of prunes right now...I hope I have not offended anyone...that is not my intention.

-Greg

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 08:55 PM

Right dead on, Greg. I feel your pain. LOL.

Mick

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 09:14 PM

Dave Van Ronk and sheet music. Haw, Haw!!!!! He taught me the basic picking patterns with tablature but I was weaned off that very quickly. I only took lessons with him for three months, and he felt he'd taught me all I needed to go on on my own. Not to become The Son Of Dave Van Ronk, but that I had the tools that I needed. After I had the basic patterns and he'd talked a little about chords and progressions, he'd run through a song for example, You're A Good Old Wagon and after doing it two or three times, slowing down wherever I asked, I'd take a stab at it and get the rudiments down. By the next week, I'd have my own version of it worked out. It would have a lot of Dave in it, but a fair amount of me as well. He NEVER taught me a complete song that I did note for note.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 09:29 PM

Louie, I thnk I know what you meant. I've played a fiddle tune I grew up hearing my dad play, then looked at the sheet music for it and found it deviated from what my ear knew, so I kept playing by ear. I found the version my ear learned of a certain song, was a western Colorado version, different even from the next state north, Wyoming.

And, yes, in orchestra, unless you are the soloist and can improv thrilling and appropriate "embellishments," if it ain't on the page, it doesn't get played.

I know I've said it before, I feel so fortunate to have grown up in a musical family with, what I learned on Mudcat, is called blood harmony among three sisters, one brother and my mom and dad. We all learned to read music, but we also learned by ear, so I feel we got the best of both and I am grateful.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 10:14 PM

So is this the mystery?

Paper-trained musicians can "hear" music in their head that they read off a sheet without laying hands on an instrument. They can also hum (or sing) passages out loud, on key, without the benefit of any external cue for a reference. They can hear a passage being played and transcribe the melody to paper. Seems like their "inner ear" is highly developed.

So it seems like a small jump from being able to do that to picking up their instrument and reproducing the tune. Yet, as has been noted, lots of formally trained musicians balk at the idea.

But it seems like an ear-trained musician who was familiar enough with musical symbols to know what notes the dots represent would have difficulty doing the same thing, although his ear is (supposedly) highly developed as well. She or he probably couldn't "hear" the notes as well, and probably couldn't hum the tune off the page accurately without the benefit of some reference tone to compare to. Also, it would probably be difficult for this hypothetical play-by-ear musician to transcribe a musical passage from just a listen. Yet, put their instrument in their hands, and lots of them can reproduce the tune after listening through once or twice - ?

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: melodeonboy
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 10:38 PM

A very interesting thread, Jerry. I have direct experience of what you're talking about.

Some three years ago, while living in Qatar, I got to know the violin teacher at the music school. She was a top quality classical musician, and had been the head of music in the Bulgarian Ministry of Education. I got together with her to play some simple folk stuff and asked her to play a violin solo to one of my songs, and found that she was totally confused and asked me for the score to it. She was unable to play any accompaniment at all without the written music and we gave it up as a bad job.

A year or so later later, I made contact with her successor, a Polish conservatoire-trained classical violinist, and found that he could play to absolutely anything, and we ended up playing folk music together (him without any rehearsal, the clever bugger!). He was also able to jam freely with my blues band.

Being musically trained AND having the ability to play by ear gave him a significant advantage over both me and the Bulgarian lady.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 10:43 PM

Now this is a GREAT topic (admittedly I'm not an unbiased observer here).

I have (at least a foot) in both camps.

I sure remember trying to fool the piano teacher-with mixed success--at playing a piece by ear rather than exactly what was on the page. I still do that somewhat--especially in accompanying on 19th century parlor songs, etc. I don't always agree with the piano part in the book--feel that chords should be adjusted, etc.--so the melody can come through more clearly.

But I'll have to admit being able to read music has been a huge help. In fact a bit of music theory--not a lot but a bit--is also very useful. Here Bach is in G major, here in D minor, here in F major, etc,----rather than note, note, note. Very useful in a chorus. I'm sure not the best sight-reader in the world on the piano--but as I said, in choral music, a few theory tricks really help in learning it fast.

And I'll heartily second the idea that choristers should get out of the music as fast as possible in order to be able to watch the conductor. In fact if you don't watch the conductor, not only does it shackle him or her in bringing the music to life--but here may well be--obvious--train wrecks (the technical term). Of course my view is that in a concert of classical music--and in fact in music in general--the thing to do is just keep going. The only way to communicate crystal clear to an audience that the group is lost is to stop.

So--don't ever stop the piece --and try to figure out where you are in the music. You usually can.

And I also strongly support those who find non-classical music should be played or sung by ear (unless it's a completely written out arrangement--e.g. medley of Gershwin songs).

I agree with those who can't understand why folk music should be played from sheet music--I would think sheet music absolutely kills any chance for spontaneity. In learning a fiddle tune, I'd think it would be better to just have somebody play it several times, then play slowly while the learners play along. When music stands come out at a folk session, I often feel like going elsewhere. Not always but often--it's not quite as bad as when Rise Up Singing comes out.

Admittedly I basically don't play fiddle tunes. I do make up harmonies in folk music--both vocal (on choruses) and on the viola. And it seems to be appreciated. I also know you have to listen before you try to throw in harmonies. In fact, in any informal session, vocal or instrumental, I find possibly the most important thing is not to jump in too soon--only when you know how the song or tune goes--particularly since people like to do even familiar music in their own style--so what you consider standard harmony may not in fact work.

But my hat is well and truly off to Jerry and anybody else who can make up their own arrangements. The few times I've tried to do that in a group it was not easy, to put it mildly. The first harmony is straightforward but after that it's hard to avoid duplicating somebody else's harmony. Or at least I found it so.

Once upon a time I had a group which absolutely loved the Watersons, and tried, with mixed success, to do something similar with our voices. It sure wasn't exactly what they did, but the style was close. And we had a lot of fun--and learned a lot of great songs.

I also agree that the somewhat amazing phenomenon exists that classically trained musicians can be chained to the score. My chorus, of about 180, has sung all over--including at the Albert Hall and at Spoleto, and does a huge range of music, from the Mozart Requiem, Bach B minor Mass etc., to spirituals. However, whenever it is asked to actually put the music down and sing without sheet music completely there are always some who you can see are petrified at the idea. But for gospel, for instance, there's no question it's far better if you do--in fact just about essential.

And please don't ask my group to clap in rhythm or, especially sway together--or move together during the music. Jan says a good number of the group look like fish out of water in spirituals--just hope we don't sound that way.

I suppose it boils down to-- it just ain't easy for a big classical group to swing.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Scoville
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 11:11 PM

I don't see why an aurally-trained musician would necessarily have a harder time "imagining" written notes. If you know the scale and are reasonably familiar with written music, I would think it would be no more difficult than the vice-versa. It's hard for me, but as I said, I'm lousy at reading music and, although I've made up for it pretty well with experience, I'm not a natural "ear person". I wonder if the difficulty is in the focus of interest rather than ability--aural music people going for the basic melody and classically trained people focusing on note-for-note.

I do use written music for tunes for which I have it, but do not have a recording (or for which the recording I have is either unintelligible, exasperatingly primitive, or is an arrangement I don't like). Even then, I prefer not to have all the ornamental notes written in. I don't want to play it just like the guy who wrote it down and I, personally, can't learn that kind of thing from written music, anyway.


As a side story: My great-great-grandfather play music all his life but never learned to read or write music. He would make up very ornate (think showy 1890's stuff) marches and waltzes on the piano and then play them for a friend, who would write them out. The stuff is so complex my mother had to hire a friend who was a professional pianist to play it so we could get a recording of some of it; nobody in the family can play it. Sort of a nice collaboration between aural and classically-trained musicians.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: GUEST,Jim
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 07:04 AM

I have been singing "on the fly" harmonies for years, often in company with a friend who is a classicly trained opera singer. After some time, I finally noticed (I'm really not very observant) that she either wasn't singing, or would only sing the melody. I asked her why she didn't sing a harmony, and was pretty much dumbfounded when she said that she couldn't do it without sheet music. Her phrase is that the harmonies "glow like a silver thread" when she hears them, but she can't do it by ear. Not having been "paper trained" myself (love that phrase), this seems incomprehensible to me, but I accept that it is so.

War story: On the other hand, I once knew a classicly trained pianist who often improvised "off sheet." One time, I was sitting with some friends prior to a church service, and he was playing softly as people were arriving. After a moment, I realised that I didn't recognise the "hymn" he was playing, although it was clearly a "hymn" from the full SATB parts he was playing. After closely listening for what seemed like a full five minutes, I realized that he was playing the Oscar Meyer Weiner song, as a hymn. I'm afraid that I guffawed quite inappropriately for the setting. I couldn't even share what I found so funny, since we were in Korea, at a Korean service -- none of the congregation had ever heard of Oscar Meyer weiners, let alone the advertising jingle.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 10:37 AM

Interesting related article here: Your Brain on Music Sorry I can't seem to access the brain imaging maps that go with this article online! I'm glad I have it in "hard copy". I leave it out in my studio for parents to peruse, and send copies home with all my new students ....

Playing music:

There are few activities that require more of the brain than playing music. It uses complex feedback systems that take in information, such as pitch and melody, through the auditory cortex (1), and allow the performer to adjust his playing.

The visual cortex (2) is activated by reading � or even imagining � a score;

the parietal lobe (3) is involved in a number of processes, including computation of finger position;

the motor cortex (4) helps control body movements;

the sensory cortex (5) is stimulated with each touch of the instrument;

the premotor area (6) remains somewhat mysterious but somehow helps perform movements in the correct order and time;

the frontal lobe (7) plans and coordinates the overall activity;

and the cerebellum (8) helps create smooth, integrated movements.


Apparently, certain vital areas in BOTH sides of the brain become much larger in 'classically-trained' musicians, as more neural connections are formed through intensive musical practice. ANd the earlier musical education begins, the greater these changes become ie

It is also thought that musicians who have had early training use their brains differently than non-musicians. For example, musicians use more complex circuitry in both sides of the brain compared to non-musicians. Some scientists believe musicians also tend to use the left half of their brain when analyzing music. The left hemisphere processes language and is used for reasoning tasks, leading scientists to believe musicians process musical information more analytically than those without training.

It was commonly thought that people experienced the majority of music-related activities in the right hemisphere, where emotional and spatial information are processed. Today, however, it is believed that both hemispheres network together when it comes to musical activity.

For these kinds of brain changes to occur, musical training must take place early on in a musician�s life. If it doesn�t occur until after puberty, there isn�t as much modification...

But there is STILL modification -- so please don't give up hope! I have watched adult students who came to me insisting they were tone-deaf, learn to match tones, to sing in tune and eventually develop accurate 'relative pitch' - simply through motivation, dedication and faithful practice of ear-training exercises. Believe it or not! The human brain is an AMAZING thing, and music is the elixir of life nurtures it so wonderfully ... oh I could go on and on waxing poetic here, but that's enough for now. You're spared!   :-)

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 10:41 AM

Wow, sorry about those weird looking characters in the quotes above folks. I think that happens when certain fonts are cut and pasted, and I'm not sure how to prevent it.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: ridge plucker
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 12:26 PM

Daylia,

Would you share some advice for someone that would like to develop their ear? What is an effective approach?
You are right about the brain being an amazing thing. I do research on lipid chemistry of the brain at Cornell University.

Thanks,

Pete

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 12:44 PM

Daylia: I think if you converted quotes to plain text in a text editor they would paste without the weird symbols.

Yes, I echo Pete's request for an effective approach to developing how to learn by ear. It's not as though, as I said earlier, I can't do it with the voice. Brain to larynx works (though reluctantly). Brain to fingers doesn't. I'm too scared not to write it down first.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Little Robyn
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 03:46 PM

Daylia, that's brilliant! Thank you.
Robyn

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: GUEST,Rev
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 05:15 PM

A theme that keeps recurring in these posts is that the so-called "paper trained" musicians are "afraid" or "scared" to try playing without music. Maybe that's the crux of the problem. At some point in their training they were made to believe that they would sound bad or foolish if they went off the paper, and so they became unwilling to take the risk of playing "without a net." I dated a woman for a while who was a classically trained violinist, and loved Old Time. We played in a band and he insisted that she wanted to try to learn everything by ear. Once she learned the tune she played beautifully, but the learning process, even for the simplest fiddle tunes, was agonizing and frustrating. I can imagine why people who are well-trained musicians would balk at putting themselves through such a humbling experience.

Maybe this would be a good topic for another thread, but it's reminiscent of the typical statement one often hears from classically-trained singers, that they're reluctant to sing in a folk style because they're afraid that they will hurt their voice. As far as I know folk singers tend to have much longer careers than classical singers and have far fewer vocal problems. It seems that maybe fear of folk music is instilled in some classical players!

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 06:43 PM

I wasn't ever told I would be terrible if I didn't use the notes, BUT one has to have a good ear in order to play the violin or any stringed instrument for that matter. What I don't understand is someone with that good of an ear NOT being able to play by ear. I don't remember it being any kind of problem in the school orchestras I played in from 2nd grade on through high school. Makes me more and more convinced I have a lot to be thankfull for.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 10:15 PM

It's true, Kat--it sure is easy to take things for granted, and not realize how lucky we are to have been given musical gifts--through no merit of our own.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 10:21 PM

Isn't that the truth, Ron.

I asked my brother, the classical composer and pianist (he was offered a world-renowned career op. in his teens), about this. He is quite a bit older than me and was much more serious at it. Went on to get a masters in theory composition. Anyway, he said they had it *pounded* into their heads they had to use the music and, then, of course (I DO remember this bit from my orchestra days! Hated it!) they had to memorise it in order to play for competitions, solo performances, etc. He had no problem playing his own music without any dots, but they didn't allow that, at the time.

He thinks it may not be as rigid now, but doesn't really know.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: GUEST,Rowan
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 03:57 AM

Great discussion. Utmost admiration for the eloquence and abilities!
Dahlia's posting of the bits of the brain activated by particular musical activities reminded me of a televised discussion, between (I seem to recall) Andre Previn and Peter Cook, broadcast (in Australia) some years ago. Both were describing their methods of acquiring 'performance fluency' of relatively demanding piano pieces.

Andre played a particular piece (the name of which I couldn't begin to remember) that he'd described as having presented him with a serious learning task when he first attempted it; he described many of the processes Dahlia listed. He then went on to say that he'd been playing it for so long that the level of concentration required had diminshed to the extent that he could play it while having a couple of conversations at the same time. He demonstrated this and commented that the processes had probably been so automated that a series of short-cuts had been hard-wired and that he expected that very few (by comparison) parts of the brain were actually involved during his currrent playing of it.

Peter Cook then suggested that all the hard wiring would count for nought if he were now required to play the piece in a quite different key that he'd never associated with the piece. And then suggested Andre play it in such a key.

It was quite obvious that all the brain areas that had been short circuited before were now being brought into play again (sorry!!!) as he went through this new learning process. I might add there was no sheet music involved.

It was a demonstration of an idea that got me interested in exploring a few things about music. When I was 6 I'd been sent off by my parents (both dancers but unable to play the piano we had; my mother could sing G&S by memory though) to a piano teacher who was a real tartar. By the time I was 8 I was getting very short-sighted and my parents, thing that reading sheet music was the cause, ended my piano-learning torture. It wasn't but, even if I'd been able to enlighten them I'd have kept my mouth firmly shut.

As I grew up I was a bit envious of friends who could play instruments. One mate was learning flute but I couldn't get a single note out of it. Later on guitars became 'the go' but I could never even tune one properly let alone play a recognisable tune. But I had great fun singing around campfires and singing around the piano when a very accomplished neighbour visited. Lots of 1890s to 1950s stuff and even some "trad."

Riding to uni on my pushbike I found a mouthorgan (a decent Hohner) which I cleaned up but I coudn't figure it out. I went to Mawson for a year ("everybody learns to play an instrument there" we were told) but the recorder my sister gave me was unfathomable, as was the Hohner C melodeon. But I could lead any singing quite happily. When I got back to Melbourne I got right into singing "unaccompanied harmonies" (these days more fashionably called a cappella) and had a great time. Most people learned parts by standing beind (or next to, if you could) someone who was singing the part you wanted to learn.

A few English concertinas appeared, usually used to accompany singing, and I thought I'd like to learn such a compact accompanying instrument. I mentioned this to a friend and he gave me a lovely Hohner C melodeon with the comment "I don't want any money, Just play me a couple of tunes as payment." What a millstone! All the tunes I had in my head (there was always at least one!) were dance tunes, full of notes and impossible. It sat on my bookshelf accusingly.

We got invaded by Adelaide tin whistlers at one stage so I thought I'd try one. Well, 10 minutes for a verse of Amazing Grace was very off-putting. Being a bit of a dancer I used to go the the Yarralumla Woolshed dances (in Canberra; for you northern hemisphere people Canberra is about 8 hours' drive north of Melbourne) and was asked to join a very accomplished a cappella group. I'm sure some of the group could read music but I never saw any sheets of dots, although the comprehension of theory was formidable. The best songs were for singing without instruments although a couple of the group played mouthorgan and accordion. They kept such playing for tune sessions and dances. By this time I'd cracked the lagerphone, which was handy for the latter but verboten for the former. But I did an enormous amount of intent listening to a very wide range of folk music, as it was the only way I could learn either tunes or songs.

The mouthorgan player started teaching himself accordion and found a white laminex Anglo 20 button concer. On one of my monthly visits I started exploring it and got keen.   "Take it for the month" he said. What a godsend! The tune I learned (to a song still only in the oral tradition for the next ten years, I'm told) got me so excited that I rang him on the STD and played it to him. "Ah," he replied, "The reason I was able to get into it and the accordion so easily is because I already played the mouthorgan. They all use the same system." So I pulled out the mouthorgan and melodeon and applied a bit of logic and ended up by playing all three, although I tend to learn on the concer.

We ultimately performed as a rather popular bush-dance band and, as a dancer & teacher I became the caller & MC. The mouthorgan player ultimately acquired competence on a wide variety of instruments, which enabled me to 'have a go' on things as different as lap dulcimer, bowed psaltery and what the Irish call 'concert flute' and classical musicians call 'simple system flute. I found I could get a tune out of each of these in about ten minutes, which started me thinking about how people learn to play music. It seemed to me that, once I'd hard wired many of the learning circuits involved with the concer, transfer to mouthorgan or melodeon ought to be relatively straightforward, as the mechanics are similar. To transfer to things as different from the concertina and each other as flute, psaltery and dulcimer seemed to suggest that there was more fundamental wiring being connected.

When that group went its separate ways another in Melbourne took over its mantle and was sought after by dancers for the next ten years. During breaks, I lost count of the number of times I was asked 'how long I'd been playing' and 'how I'd learned' usually followed by a tale of how 'they'd tried to learn an instrument' (usually a guitar) but the exercise had defeated them. They regarded the fact that I hadn't started playing a concertina until I was 32 as testament to talent that I'm sure I don't possess.

I suspect that what had defeated almost all of them was that there are at least three things being learned at the same time when one starts to learn an instrument. I suspect the first is 'how tunes actually work, their structure and what makes them tick'. Some of us take it for granted but it has to be learned. Then they have to learn the mechanics and ergonomics of the particular instrument. On top of that they also have to learn to read dots. Any one of these by itself can be daunting but they try all three at once.

On top of that, most people seem to have a history of being put down when learning, which makes the task even more difficult. Even with encouragement, Dahlia and many of the posters above have indicated the monumental nature tasks involved so it's no wonder so many give up with a sense of defeat.

I tried to encourage them with the notion that you didn't have to read music to be able to play it, that they should try an instrument that suited them rather than conform to popular notions, that they should find a place with no critical audience, to listen intently to lots of music of the type they wanted to play and just have a go; forget about sheet music until they'd become confident with some tunes.

"But I don't know any tunes!"
"You know 'Happy Birthday' don't you?"
"Yes"
"Well, try that, then a few hymns you learned at Sunday School, anything that strikes your fancy. When you find that you need to read music to learn a tune, then you can teach yourself how to read it."

This may seem to be a bit different to the main part of the thread but many of us were not as fortunate as some of you who've learned at the feet of the great masters. As another put it, I'm not recommending my path over others as 'the best approach' but describing it as one that worked for me and may work well for some. My daughters are learning formally (and doing well at Eisteddfods) but I make sure they get exposed to everything the National and Nariel can offer them. That way they'll be far better than I ever will.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 06:02 AM

Great posts:

Just a couple of comments. Yes, I took lessons from Dave Van Ronk.I was 29 years old at the time. I took lessons for about 3 months. Before that, I took lessons for 3 or 4 weeks back when I was about 15. That was it for lessons. Everything else, I figured out by myself. In high school I was playing fairly sophisticated chord progressions (clumsily) doing my attempt at playing jazz, not having any idea what the chords were. My approach was very simple. I could hear the music in my head. It was only a matter of figuring out how to put my fingers in the right place so that it came out of the guitar. Before the guitar, I bought a mandolin at a pawn shop and figured out a few tunes on that without a book or lessons. Years later, when I was in my mid twenties, I bought a violin and learned to play fiddle tunes well enough to perform with a friend of mine who played hammered dulcimer. It helped a lot that he played real loud, I must admit. I took two lessons on banjo. In all of those years, I never tried to reproduce music from recordings. I always heard the music in my head and wanted to play what I already heard.

Again, I don't recommend this approach to learning. And I don't say this with pride. We all have different gifts. Some people can do things with ease that are very daunting to me. Hopefully they realize that they are "gifted." Funny, the phrase "a gifted musician" doesn't always translate into realizing that the ability is a gift. It's up to the individual to be grateful for the gift and use it wisely. I'm sure everyone in here has known people who were gifted, and wasted the gift. Meanwhile, others struggle for years to learn what someone else could learn in minutes. I have the greatest respect for Rowan for persisting for so many years to break down the learning code on instruments. That had to be done out of love for the music. Only love could keep someone going that long with so many disappointments.

Many years ago, I met someone at a conference who was familiar with some articles I'd written. We hit it off immediately. Early in the conversation when he was telling me that he had kept all the articles, I thanked him and immediately downplayed them. I told him that I figure that if I can do something, it's no big deal. He l;aughed, because he felt the same way. He had a great visual gift for creating innovative, interactive exhibits. I've always felt that way, and on the plus side, it's a hedge against getting puffed up about something you're doing that others appreciate. It never seems like a big deal to me. On the minus side, it can make you insensitive to how difficult something can be for someone else. Nothing is more down-putting than being told by someone who can do something with ease that "It's easy, what's wrong with you?"

"Easy for you, deeficult for me." (remember who used to say that?)

If something comes easily, it's nothing to take pride in. It should just make you grateful. Then, it's up to you to honor and nurture the gift and use it well.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: pavane
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 07:31 AM

Back to the organisation of the brain.

It is well known that we have several different kinds of memory. For myself, I find it easy to play by ear a tune I have learned by ear (Aural memory), but if I learn something from the dots (visual memory), I find it difficult to play without them.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 10:24 AM

Oh ARRRRRGGHHHHH I just spent a couple hours on a post re basic ear training exercises, previewed it, went to submit it -- and it didn't take. Hit submit again, and I lost the whole !@#$#*$! thing!   

AAARRRGGGGHHHH   that's what I get for not saving it on wordperfect first!

Anyways, so sorry I haven't time to re-do it all again right now. I'll be back later, but in the meantime if you're interested, check out this excellent ear-training and music theory site I found yesterday:

Click on "Trainers" -- the ear exercises are at the bottom. They offer everything from basic tone-identification to recognizing complicated jazz chords by ear. WOw -- I LOVE a challenge!! ANd the site can play an ear-training "teacher" or "helper" role for absolute beginners, at least to some extent.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: wysiwyg
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 10:29 AM

That's a VERY cool site, daylia!

~S~

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Alba
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 12:50 PM

These days I play by Ear.
Don't sight read very much anymore unless I am involved in someone else's project and they give me Manuscript that I have to learn before recording.

I did, for a while, join a really great choir. The project required strict sight reading.
Trouble was I couldn't attend the weekly rehearsals due to my own Music commitments so I decided it was unfair to "pop in" when I had time when the other Members where working so hard at the rehearsals every week. (The Conductor felt that way too:)
It was a pretty complicated piece they were working on by Zoltan Kodály and to be honest I was so out of touch with sight reading I knew I wouldn't be up to scratch and have it in my head by the performance deadline.
[Sight reading for such a performance, to me, is kind of like learning a Script for a Play, you work at getting it off by heart till you can put the Script down. It seems like you will never be able to get those words in your head, words that are so vital to the other cast members as cues and for timing but the more you all rehearse, the more the words stick, until finally...Viola. No Script!:)]
Back to the choir.....
I attended their Concert, full choir and symphony Orchestra and it was simply was wonderful and I felt a pang of regret that I wasn't part of it.(and maybe a tad put out by the fact that I was most definitely not indispensable...heehee)
Maybe when I have time to commit I will try for a place in the choir again. Maybe...* smile *
I find that Sight Readers at sessions tend to be less inclined to improvise. A few years back I had the pleasure of going to dinner at a friend's house in Denmark. Her partner is a classical violinist. Myself and a few other Trad musicians, that were there slso, got out our instruments and struck up a few tunes later in the evening. Peter, the violinist, sat listening closely but even though we asked him to play with us, he said he couldn't join in as he knew none of the tunes we were playing and he said he was amazed that we could all play together by ear even though some of us had never played together before. He couldn't "get" the Session concept at all.
However after a while Peter produced his Violin and proceeded to play for Mozart for us. It was, in a word, sublime. That's when none of us could join in with him and where left to sit and listen in awe at this wonderful Musician's beautiful playing...**smile**
So to me, I guess whatever path you use to find your way into the Joy of Music....it's a case of...
Either way, as long as you play:)
Have a good one Folks.
Jude

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 12:58 PM

Musically I guess I was sort of a late bloomer. I didn't have any kind of music lessons when I was a kid. But with various kinds of music on the radio, both my sisters and I picked up popular songs and various other kinds of music. Then there were the campfire sings at Scout camp, that sort of thing. Nothing out of the ordinary. But I think I just got used to picking stuff up by ear.

My more-or-less formal musical education began when I was about eighteen. A friend of mine liked opera, and he was a great admirer of the Italian tenor Beniamino Gigli (JEE-lee). Someplace along the line he learned that he was a tenor. He went berzerk and started taking voice lessons from a retired Metropolitan Opera soprano who was living and teaching in Seattle. Just for the hell of it, I decided to take some lessons from her too. I turned out that I'm a bass or bass-baritone (e.g., Ezio Pinza, Gordon Bok). Mrs. Bianchi had me singing a few easy songs (early opera, Monteverdi and such), but for the most part, I went around blatting tenor arias—several keys down.

I learned the tunes to arias just by listening to records, but I started trying to read music. I had a friend, Jon Berg, a couple of years older than me, who was majoring in music at the University of Washington. Cello. He sat me down at a piano one day and said, "If you're going to do music, you'd better learn something about it. Let's start with the rule for major scales," which he then explained, "Half-steps between three and four and seven and eight; all the rest are whole steps," and demonstrated on the piano. He had me repeat the rule for major scales ("half-steps between three and four and seven and eight; all the rest are whole steps.") until he was pretty sure I had it. Various times over the next several days the phone would ring. "Firth? Berg here. What is the rule for major scales?" To which I would respond, "half-steps between three and four and seven and eight; all the rest are whole steps." He would then say, "Very good! Carry on." and hang up. Then he started on the various permutations of the minor scales (natural, harmonic, and melodic).

In the meantime, my reading improved and I could sit down at the piano (which I couldn't play) and pick out the melody lines with one finger to songs that I wanted to learn but hadn't heard. Once I had the tune in my ear, I didn't really need the sheet music any more.

Then, when I was twenty-one, I fell in with questionable companions (Claire Hess, Walt Robertson, Sandy Paton, Dick Landberg, etc.) and got very interested in folk music. First Claire and then Walt started me off on the guitar, and I started learning songs right, left, and center. I preferred to hear other people sing them first or pick them up off recordings, but by then I could read sufficiently well (but not very well) to be able to pick out tunes on the piano—or on the guitar (I figured it would be a smart idea to learn where the notes are on the fingerboard, at least in the first position).

A couple of years later I got really serious, deciding that I wanted to do concerts and such. I took more voice lessons from Mrs. Bianchi and then from a couple of other teachers, and started taking classic guitar lessons. Finally, I went back the university and changed my major to music (from English Lit.). It was at the U. of W. School of Music that I started learning music theory—chord structure, harmony, the usual musician's tool-kit.

I'm still a lousy reader, but I'm better than I used to be. I can look at a song that I've never heard and pretty much figure out what it sounds like without having to pick it out on an instrument, but I can't just pick something up and sing it off at sight. And with the guitar, I can read a easy pieces of classical music off fairly well, until it starts going way up the fingerboard. But then, ever real sharp classic guitarists usually have to work things out ahead of time, since a lot of the notes occur several places on the fingerboard, and where you would want to play a particular note depends on what leads up to it and what follows.

When learning songs, it's easier for me to pick it up off a record than it is to learn it from sheet music or a song book, but I can do it. Reading is very handy to be able to do.

My wife, Barbara, had years of piano lessons when she was a kid and she plays very well. But her teacher never had her memorize anything, and she's stuck without the music. But she sings well, and has no trouble picking up songs by ear.

I think it's foolish for a person who wants to do music to refuse to learn to read music or to learn a bit of music theory for fear of sullying their aura of folk purity. But it's just as foolish for a classically trained musician not to try to get away from the written music and learn to improvise and just mess around. Without being a little adventurous, neither musician knows what's really possible for them.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: GUEST,maryrrf
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 01:35 PM

I would guess that there would be a fair number of classically trained musicians who've just been programmed by their instructors to not play anything that isn't written down. I think the best case scenario is being able to read music and play by the notes but also to play by ear, and there are quite a number of folks who can do that. Wish I had learned to read music when I was younger and I suppose I could still do it, but the truth is I just don't feel like putting forth the effort at this point. I can work out guitar arrangements by ear but my son, who reads music and has taken numerous music theory classes, can work out in a few minutes what it might take me days to figure out.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 03:31 PM

I have to agree with GUEST,Rev, that a lot of "paper trained" musicians are afraid to try to play without music. Frankly, I think this is the fault of their teachers, insisting that they play the notes—as written, all the notes, and nothing but the notes. I think memorization is absolutely essential for a concert soloist, and memorization, improvisation, and a certain measure of just "piddling around" should be a standard part of any musician's musical education. Otherwise, they're limited in their musical skills.

I've had a lot of guitar students with prior formal musical training. Some of them have no problem playing without written music and pick up improvising and song accompaniment with no problem. But others, when I try to get them to just goof around with a simple picking pattern while changing chords (no sheet music), act as if they're creeping along a six inch ledge a thousand feet from the canyon floor. Afraid of making a mistake. I have to try to convince them that in this context, it's impossible to make a mistake, and even if it were, it would not mean the end of the world. Within my experience, this kind of fear seems to be an individual thing.

I currently have a guitar student who had lots of piano lessons when she was younger, and she plays the piano quite well. She wants to use the guitar for song accompaniment, but she wanted to learn some classic guitar as well. We've just about completed Aaron Shearer's Classic Guitar Technique, Vol. I, and she can play the exercises and the easy Sor, Carulli, and Aguado studies pretty well—from the music in Shearer's manual. But I'm going to start her memorizing something fairly easy, and pry her loose from the written music. In fact, we're not going to use written music at all. The piece "Romance de Amor" by anonymous (just about every classic guitarist plays it, and a lot of folkies have even taken a shot at it) falls into the easy to easy-intermediate category and I think she's at a point where technically she can handle it. I'm going to show it to her, a measure at a time, and have her learn it that way, without notes to go by. Have her think of it as a sequence of finger positions and movements. If she can manage that, then it shouldn't be too hard to get her improvising chord changes and right-hand patterns. At least that's the plan.

With classically trained singers, I can't see what the problem would be for a classically trained singer to sing folk songs. I've had a fair amount of classical training and folk songs are about all I sing. More often than not, it's the song that has a problem with the singer. I once heard a well-known operatic tenor doing "Lord Randal," giving it the full Italian opera treatment like Edgardo in the final act of Lucia di Lammermoor, singing his last aria with the dagger in his chest. Great in Lucia. A gawdawful way to do "Lord Randal! But I've also heard opera singers do folk songs very well. Their renditions wouldn't make an ethnic purist happy, but they were very tasty nonetheless. It, too, seems to be an individual thing.

As to the relative longevity of careers, I'm not sure I agree that folk singers necessarily have longer careers than classical singers. On the one hand, classically trained singers, particularly opera singers, work pretty hard, often having to sing, without amplification, over a full symphony orchestra going full blast. That's a heck of a lot harder than singing over a single guitar or banjo, so there would be good reason for an opera singer's voice to poop out fairly early. They're kind of like athletes in a way. But on the other hand, you have singers like the Russian basso Mark Reisen. I've seen a film clip of him on the Classic Arts Showcase channel singing the role of Prince Gremin in Tchaikovsky's Eugene Onegin at the age of 90. He was so feeble he could hardly walk around the stage without holding onto someone's arm, but his voice was as rich and full as it ever was. Amazing! Pete Seeger is 87, and his voice started to go at least a decade ago. Although he handled his voice fairly well, he did tend to sing "tight," and that can do it.

When soprano Beverly Sills retired, she still sounded darn good. Someone asked her why she was retiring when she sounded like she was still at the top of her game. She responded that she could notice that singing wasn't quite as easy as it once was and she wanted to retire before the audiences started noticing it too. She went on to say, "I'd rather have people ask, 'Why did she retire?' rather than have them ask, 'Why doesn't she retire?'" Smart lady!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 08:45 PM

I learned to read music, along with playing the piano, from the age of 6, so having music in front of me and reading it comes as second nature to me. I did memorise some pieces for school concerts, etc, but otherwise usually had the music in front of me. As I have become more involved in folk music and especially in circles where learning by ear is encouraged, I do this double translation in my mind's eye - hear sound/visualise dots on page/play.
It used to be that if I heard a CD track that I liked, I would sit down with the pause button at the ready and transcribe what I heard to paper, then learn it from the dots. I've just realised that the last tune I heard that I wanted to learn I HAVE NOT written down, and I'm out there playing it: am I winning at last?
I still believe that being able to read music is a positive advantage: you can open a tune book and try out all the tunes rather than wait around for someone to come and play you something over and over till you get it. Or if you see a song with interesting words that you don't know, you can read the melody if it is written down.
As far as harmony singing goes I sing alto, so am used to NOT singing the main melody, and I agree with other posters that this gives you a sense of what fits with the main tune, and harmonising comes fairly easily to me (without paper music)

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Kaleea
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 09:42 PM

jeepers, creepers! I, also, hit "submit message" a couple of days ago, but it didn't get posted either. OK, I'll try to reremember what I remembered.

I'm a "Classicly" trained educator (Popeye would say "edjooma-cator) who grew up playing & singing-reading Music at school & church & by ear the rest of the time at home & wherever. I have played with many fine Musicians over the years, some who play with & some who play without using Music.
I spoke to one of my professors in college about this very subject. She told me that a few decades ago, it was the train of thought that playing "by ear" was considered uncouth & certainly not encouraged. Improvising was really naughty-it led to such evils as--Jazz!! This ridiculous notion came about over time mainly because the rich & royals & sometimes The Church, wanted to separate themselves from the lower classes by hiring composers & Musicians to write & play high falutin' Music.   Nevermind that the great composers often used folk tunes for their works. Somehow this notion crept into the late 18th & 20th century working classes who had pianos at home. More separation so that some could feel superior to others.
Then, in more recent times, the Music educators have realized the value of ear training, & it is encouraged by most of us-but evidently not by all. My Mus Theory prof was quite thorough & ear training was as important as the dots on the pages. AFter all, we had to hear the intervals & chords & all the other Musical concepts to be able to understand them well enough to write them down.
Any great concert Musician must be able to play dozens of pages of those dots & all the other scratchings without the printed Music before an audience. Without a good (well-trained) "ear" this would not be possible. Music can only be experienced by the audience by hearing it. It is an aural experience.
In earlier eras, persons who were blinded when young were often sent to study Music so as to be able to make what living they could. The modern schools for blind persons have the benefit of Braile. Did you ever wonder how & what exactly those ancient blind ones studied? They studied all of those complicated Music theory concepts & the difficult instrumental technique, but did it without paper. Turlough O'Carolan comes to mind. Fortunately, for those of us who could never hear him play his harp way back then, his son notated much of his work.
Notation is one tool which helps us be able to share this aural experience we call Music with others.
There is no reason for ear methodologists or paper methodologists to think one method better than the other. There is every reason to respect those who have the knowledge of either & or both.
AFter all this brouhaha, our audiences are listening to our Music.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Alba
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 10:02 PM

" There is no reason for ear methodologists or paper methodologists to think one method better than the other. There is every reason to respect those who have the knowledge of either & or both.
After all this brouhaha, our audiences are listening to our Music."

Bravo Kaleea:)
Best Wishes to You as always
Jude

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 10:54 PM

Kaleea, I think what your prof told you about playing by ear being considered "uncouth" and all that was indeed true, but it had to have been limited to a coterie of the more ignorant and hard-nosed music "educators" during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, perhaps more in American than in Europe. But hardly to composers and musicians themselves. Lots of private teachers, particularly of piano, seem to feel (or, at least, used to feel) that way.

During the Renaissance and Baroque periods, it was common for people of the middle and upper classes to get together for a musical evening and, basically, jam. The host would bring forth a "case of viols," someone else would tune up a lute, and one of the guests would bring a box of recorders. They would sit around a table with copies of the music, usually just the melody line. Someone would play, or perhaps sing, the melody, while the person with the viola da gamba filled in a bass line, someone with a sopranino recorder would do a high obbligato, and those with the other viols, recorders, and a lute or two would fill in the middle parts. What they were playing would probably—could probably—never be played the same way twice.

This sort of playing was where modern "Early Music" groups such as the New York Pro Musica and the Baltimore Consort draw their inspiration. Later, composers took these small instrumental ensembles, wrote parts that had previously had been improvised, and what we now call "chamber music" got its start. During most of the history of music, improvisation has been an important—in some cases, essential—part of a musician's tool-kit, including amateur musicians.

They tell the story of how Beethoven was invited to some nobleman's home to play for his guests, and when he arrived, he discovered that another composer, whom he, with apparently good reason, regarded as an unimaginative, sycophantic little twit, had also been invited to perform. Beethoven was steamed! The twit had written a string quartet, and the quartet was played first. When Beethoven's turn came, he made a great show of flopping the manuscript for the piano sonata he had planned to play on the floor beside the piano, then reached over and took the part the twit had written for the second violin off the second violinist's music stand, and proceeded to improvise a "theme and variations" from in for half an hour—brilliantly!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 11:01 PM

To be an accomplished ear musician - learn to play in at least five different keys and always be ready to follow the lead vocalist or the brass. Training Suggestions have been posted in previous threads.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

You are truly taxing upon other musicians....when you expect them to play in "your key." The only ones offered this liberty are vocalists.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 08:06 AM

So I can now play in G,D,A,C majors and A,B and E minor (seven keys so far) but then the guitarist reaches for his capo and goes into C sharp or B flat -NOT very friendly keys for a B/C button accordion! I do have all the notes there, but it's just learning all the other keys!
I once met a brilliant whistle player who just carried the one whistle in his inside jacket pocket, unlike those who carry a large package of whistles in different keys. He said, "I can play in any key, I know all my sharps and flats" so there's a challenge for me on my accordion.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 09:34 AM

K, I'll give this another go! As a piano teacher, here's how I approach ear training with absolute beginners, be they 6 or 66. Hope a piano-centered approach is useful here.

HINT: at first you'll need a musical buddy with a reliably trained ear - and plenty of patience - to help with these exercises at first. And please remember that my students are also learning how to play the instrument (ie technique, scales, pieces) AND the basics of music theory at the same time, at their first lessons. All this works together for a complete musical education. You can't understand the ear training exercises without a workable knowledge of the music theory behind them!

First, I see if the student can differentiate between musical pitches - the very first step in playing by ear! I have them look away from the piano, tell them to listen VERY carefully, play two notes and ask if they sounded the same or different. If they ace this (and most do), great! We go on to the next step. If not, I work on tone matching till they can hear the differences themselves.

For tone matching, I play a key that's comfortably within their voice range and ask them to sing it back to me. If they're in tune, wonderful!   If not, I play the key again while singing the correct pitch and indicating whether they need to sing "higher" or "lower"; they adjust their voice till they get the unison. Unisons have a most satisfying, deep resonance – it usually doesn't take long before they can recognize this and match tones without assistance.

And we work on recognizing "higher" and "lower": I have them turn around, play two keys and ask which sounded higher. If they get it right, great! If not, I practice with them till they can. I start very simply, using two notes an octave apart. Most people can hear this! Then I narrow it down very gradually, using smaller and smaller intervals, until they can answer accurately even when the two notes are only a semitone apart. And I have them sing the notes too, so they can feel the physical differences in producing the higher or lower tones they are hearing.

Once they have "higher" and "lower" down, we start working on scales and intervals – the basic building blocks of all Western music. I teach them to play the easiest scales on the piano, having them sing them as they play (using doh-re-mi). Then we work with just the first three notes of the scale (doh-re-mi) – I have them turn around, tell them what key I'm in, and play a very simple 4-note melody for them twice, using just those 3 keys. I tell them I can start on any of the three, so they must listen VERY carefully to whether the notes move higher or lower. If they hum the little melody the second time I play it, they can hear/feel those differences more readily.

Once they can echo back a three-note tune accurately, I extend it to the first five notes of the scale, then the first five plus the upper octave, and on and on. And eventually, with time and practice, they're accurately playing back complicated melodies using the whole scale and beyond.
:-).

To play back a melody accurately, one must be able to recognize intervals too – so we start with the simplest. I show them how chords are formed by playing the first, third, and fifth notes of the scale at the same time. We find, play and sing those intervals using the different scales they've learned ie doh-me (major third) and doh-soh (perfect fifth).   I have them practice "finding" the intervals with their own voice ie I give them the doh and ask them to sing up the scale (without using the piano as a guide) to mi. They hold the "mi", I play it on the piano. If it matches, great!   If not, we practice till it does.

Once they can do this, they are WELL on their way to developing accurate 'relative pitch' – even the ones who insisted they were tone deaf!   :-)

Then we do the same thing with "soh", till they can sing a perfect fifth accurately from a given 'doh'.   We practice differientating between the 3rd and the 5th, till they can identify them accurately by ear when I play them on the piano (without looking, of course). The upper octave is next; and eventually all the other degrees of the scale are added.   And I have students practice the scale exercises, on their own at home (ie give themselves the doh, sing up or down to the desired interval, check it with the piano).

Singing the scale and/or using bits of familiar songs for reference is very helpful in recognizing/singing intervals by ear ie

a minor 2nd (semitone) is the theme from Jaws
a major 2nd is Happy Birthday
a minor 3rd is O Canada
a major 3rd is Doh a Deer (a female deer)
a perfect 4th is Here Comes the Bride
a p5 is Twinkle Twinkle
a +6 is My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean
a p8 is Over the Rainbow   

etc etc.

Sometimes I have to twist arms to get students to sing at their piano lessons, and some people just refuse to sing at all. :-(    This is more common with those over the age of 8 or so - another incentive to starting music lessons as early as possible!    For students who won't sing, ear training is more challenging (for the teacher, anyway!), takes longer and the results are usually more limited – but progress can still be made using just the piano (or other instrument as the case may be).

There's MUCH more to ear training – students move on from intervals to identifying chord qualities (majors, minors, 7ths, inversions etc), cadences and other chord progressions by ear. And this is only about developing an accurate sense of pitch – I haven't even touched on the other fundamental element of music here yet, which is TIMING.

There's a whole different set of graded exercises for rhythm which I present alongside the pitch exercises. But I think this is more than enough for now. So thanks to all for asking, and for your supportive comments! I enjoy reading about your personal musical history and experiences and I want to respond to some of your great stories above but I'm out of time again. I'll be back so please keep 'em comin! And thanks for the thread, Jerry.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Folkiedave
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 09:42 AM

In 2004 Sheffield City Morris went to the World Folkloriade in Hungary. Some member's daughters were Irish dancers and needed a fiddle player. One of our members wives is a classical fiddle player and played for them but it took her ages to learn a tune by memory - and she was doing other things she never normally did. She played stood up, by herself and in the open air. She found all this very difficult.

And she was good enough for the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra!!

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 12:08 PM

Well here I sit, waiting out a cancelled lesson, and pondering Kaleea's insights about the 'acceptability' of playing by ear in different cultures and time periods. Thanks, Kaleea!

Notation is one tool which helps us be able to share this aural experience we call Music with others.

Yes, and it's important to realize that it's only a tool, NOT a master, and certainly not the be-all and end-all of music! As some of you have pointed out, written music is fallible (not always accurate) and limited as to how much information it can convey. ANd a written score always lends itself very easily to individual interpretation and variation, depending on the 'comfort level' of the performer (and/or their teacher). For better or for worse.

Today, as Kaleea pointed out, attitudes toward music and how to teach/learn it have become more lenient. This creates problems sometimes when preparing students for exams/festivals. Some highly qualified examiners/adjudicators have their own unique stylistic interpretations and take extreme liberties with the written score. They prefer the music 'their way' and penalize children for playing what's written on the page!

This frustrates me to no end as a teacher! What am I supposed to do -- teach the kids to how to read the music accurately and follow the score carefully, only to tell them they can perform it either the way it's written or, if they prefer, any old way they please?

Case in point -- last spring one of my 8 year old beginners performed a little piece called "A 16th Century March" at the local festival. It's very cute piece, very short, very popular with the kids.

The March tempo is clearly marked at the top of the score: quarter note = MM at 120 (metronome speed). That tempo works perfectly for the march style, and it's easy to handle for the kids too. My student had practiced diligently with the metronome -- his timing was perfect, and he knew that little piece inside out.

Did a wonderful job at the festival - no slips, perfect memory, dynamics and timing were awesome, and his individual interpretation/feelings did come through like a charm as he played. He did me proud -- some artistry, for an 8 year old I thought!

But when the adjudicator stood up to talk to the kids and give out the marks/awards, she told him he should have played it twice as fast! A little more work on appropriate style and tempo and you'll have a great piece, she said.

And then proceeded to give him one of the lowest marks in that class. He was crestfallen, nad I was, uh, quite QUITE upset! I knew he'd played that piece at precisely the tempo indicated by the editor on the written score - which IS indeed, a march tempo! And perfectly 'in style' with that piece, imo!

So I went up to her desk and called her on it, in person, after the class was over. I showed her the tempo indication on the music -- MM at 120. I demonstrated that tempo to her, marching with my feet left, right, left, right. Yes, that's a perfect march tempo! Then I doubled it as she'd instructed my student to do --- leftrightleftright -- it was ridiculous!

That wasn't a march, it was running on the spot!!

Well, she said patronizingly, this is a 16th Century March. They did everything MUCH differently in that day and age. Oh, really, I said? That's news to me! What, people marched THAT quickly in the 16th century? In those 2-ton suits of armour, no less?

What were they, human being or ants, pray tell?!?

ANd besides, if the kids are to play it at 240 not 120, why isn't it MARKED as 240 on the score? Am I supposed to teach my students to follow the score, or not?

Well, she said, shifting uncomfortably and patting at her hair, I KNOW Mr. So-and-so and Ms So-and-so, the editors of this piece. They are my personal friends -- I work with them at the Glenn Gould Professional School at the Royal Conservatory. They are my colleagues.

Well, at that point my blood was boiling. But instead of yelling "IS THAT SUPPOSED TO IMPRESS ME? WELL, IT DOESN'T!!!" at her, I just turned around and walked out. The adjudicator's decisions and marks are final anyway; there was no point in arguing with her and obviously no room for discussion. And I didn't want to risk her penalizing the rest of my students for the duration of the festival, just because I dared to take her to task on her so-called 'educated' (but musically ridiculous imo!) tastes and opinions.

Which happened anyway.

Oh well, I warned them all the best I could    :-(

I understood her attitude better when I cooled down enough to ponder where she was coming from -- the Glenn Gould Professional School, no less. Glenn Gould is one of Canada's most famous and most eccentric pianists. He is best known for his unique interpretations of J.S. Bach's work -- for instance, he recorded every one of Bach's 2 and 3-part Inventions at least twice as fast as anyone had ever heard them before.

I remember listening to his recordings as a kid learning Bach Inventions, and I didn't like it at all. I still don't. He plays so incredibly fast you can't even hear the different parts, the imitation, and how they weave together -- it's just one big
blur. As far as I;m concerned, at that tempo the awesome complexity and beauty of Bach's work is lost -- the piece is over before the listener can even begin to appreciate it. For that reason, I've never used him as a 'role model' for my students and I probably never will.

But to each their own. Thanks for listening ...

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 12:10 PM

Yikes, sorry bout the bold font. :-( I didn't want to risk losing the whole post using hte preview feature to check the html -- that's how I lost it yesterday I think.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: GUEST,Rowan
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 08:14 PM

Wonderful conversation! Thanks to so many of you for the insights and memory prompts. Dahlia's posting about her teaching is really familiar to me, as it is basically how my daughters are taught (the older on piano and the younger on recorder) when they go to their 'formal' teachers who, while preparing them for AMEB exams where all the things Dahlia described are tested, are trying to get them to enjoy the experience of music. Here the recorder teacher has an advantage over the piano teacher because it's much easier to get a consort together and the tradition doesn't often require more than two pianos at once. There is a great bunch of recorder players (all under 15 years old) in about four groups from just the one teacher and there are three or four recorder teachers (in a population of only 25,000) with similar arrangements. They have a great time!

It wasn't the way I was taught, more's the pity. And, with my 'informal' training by exposure to the folk scene, the stuff they were learning was very familiar to me. I just couldn't read the dots!

Then Dahlia described the march! In Australia we have a tradition (from the Welsh) of Eisteddfod competitions which may not have got across the Atlantic, I don't know. All the music teachers encourage their students as it gives them practice at public performance. Most of the adjudicators take a 'teaching' approach to their adjudicating but even so there can be 'odd' results. Most performers (and, more importantly, their parents) take such oddities in their stride.

I agree with Don's comments about a competent musician being defined (although he didn't get quite so specific) as one who was fluent by ear and by sight. It's one of the reasons why, when someone described me as a musician, I'd most commonly reply that I wasn't a musician, but a person who played music. The technical competence that Tattie describes is still beyond me on the Anglo, although singing unaccompanied in any key within my vocal range is a doddle and I can usually cobble a harmony line within a verse or so, when someone else starts the song, if I know the words.

When I described my conversations at dances, with people who despaired at their own failures, they usually volunteered the comment that they couldn't read music. It seemed to me they thought that reading music was the single most important criterion/hurdle/failure about their inability to play an instrument. It was because of this one thing that I usually responded that "I can't and don't read music." Sometimes I'd even go so far as to say that I deliberately didn't read music, as an attempt to encourage them. But I'd always include in the conversation, later, the comment about learning to read when the inability became an impediment.

Dahlia's descriptions reminded me that many people associate an understanding of music theory and the ability to read scores. As a teacher (of other disciplines) I can quite appreciate her position but my own experience (while not necessarily to be recommended) indicates some viability of other approaches. For some years I was part of a high school system that had respect for innovation and I was in it at the deeply innovative end, teaching in a community school. These can take over every part of your life that is spare and I thought, to give the teaching some 'competition' I'd put myself in a position where I could do some proper research on how people learned to play music.

I already had the required 'anecdotal' stuff (this was after the realisation with the psaltery, the flute and the dulcimer), as well as the required pedagogical, psych and physiological aspects of theory and practice as applied to learning. What I needed was a handle on formal music theory so I enrolled at La Trobe Uni in music. The prospectus said it concentrated on 20th century composition (Fine by me!) and was only 30 mins drive away with most of its classes after work finished for the day. Perfect!

Being able to count on my fingers relatively fast I could apply most of my Anglo playing and harmony singing experience to get through the first year theory tests, even though they wanted all harmonies to use major thirds and fifths. "Strange?" I thought, considering the prospectus and the fact that they had the best collection of Balkan music in Australia at the time. I could ignore the obnoxious pedant lecturer who emphasised that "all folk music was derivative from classical music" although, when during a lecture he demonstrated something on an electric keyboard with the comment "At least it's better than a tin whistle!" my response from the middle of the theatre blistered the paint and his bluster. At the time, our band had a whistle player who rivalled Mary Bergin!

My best experience of that course was trying to write scores for other performers in what we called the brake drum, broken glass and prepared piano workshop. Finally I understood what dots were about, because we couldn't use them and had to resort to other written communication on the score. During this exercise I remembered Peter Parkhill's NFF workshop in '73 on Percy Grainger (currently the subject of a museum display in Sydney) and his collecting and transcription. Percy was apparently (I know you afficionados will correct me if I'm wrong) the first to use wax cylinders to make field recordings of 'traditional' singers, in the 1890s, when most were using the sol-fa method.

Grainger transcribed a piece (unfortunately the title escapes me) where every grace note and rhythm change was displayed in minute detail. Where the sol-fa method gave the item a key and a time signature and the classicists described the singer as 'off-key', Grainger showed half a dozen scale changes and rhythm variations in every half stanza, all repeated faithfully in subsequent verses. In the brake drum workshop I started to understand notation but I can still only read "on my fingers". Sigh.

The final straw in my participation in that music course came when the pedant lecturer told me, during a conversation about musical experience, "I don't care what you think you already know about music! You are an empty vessel which WE will fill up with what is important!" Well, that was entirely antithetical to everything I understood about learning anf teaching so I just walked out. I still needed to give the community school some competition so, at enrollment time the next year I fronted up looking for something where my existing knowledge could contribute formally. I chose Prehistory (I already was an ecologist with an understanding of oral history) and the Music desk was adjacent to Prehistory's. The Head of Dept was there and he asked why I wasn't continuing. I explained that they weren't really implementing their prospectus. He commented (with some resignation in his voice) that most of their music students came straight from high school, had been taught that music started with Bach and finished with Beethoven, were highly resistant to attempts to widen their horizons, and ended up as teachers in schools who thought the same as the students. I was unsurprised when I heard some years later that that Dept had folded. Meanwhile, I had become an archaeologist. And I've been too busy to keep at the dots.

I don't mean to divert the thread, but the abilities and attitudes of those of you like Don and Dahlia are not universally applied. There are all too many with experiences like mine. I'm lucky in that I've had a context in which I've been able to develop despite initial drawbacks and, while I thank Jerry for his respect, it is really the others I've sung and played with, both formally and informally (especially the latter) to whom the respect should be directed. I keep my ear to the ground and nose to the grindstone; it's difficult to read the dots when doing so but, you all know the score.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Tootler
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 06:50 PM

An interesting thread, with some good arguments. There seems to be a consensus that being able to read music is a useful skill, but it is not the B all and end all.

I have another question. When is it appropriate to use music and when not. There are some conventions and situations when you expect to see musicians working from written score.

In classical music of all types it is the norm the main exception being g the soloist in a concerto. This is also true of most types of larger ensemble - military bands, brass bands, big bands etc.

In most other types of music it is not the norm to work from sheet music especially with smaller groups.

This is surely just a convention and there are exceptions. I see no harm in working from music if you think it will enhance your performance. Very often it is there as a prompt rather than a reading every note.

Now a more tricky one. What about at your local folk club on a singers night or singaround or at a session - or whatever the equivalent types of event are on the west side of the Pond?

I know last night at the Folk Club I go to regularly it was my turn and I was going to play a tune I know well. For some reason I forgot the beginning and after three goes had to have a quick look at the dots. Once I had done that I was away and did not need to use them again. I think we all forget sometimes and having the dots handy is very useful for those times when you forget. So I don't have strong feelings about using the dots - or keeping a copy of the words of a song to hand. Unlike a play we do not always have a prompter in the wings, so need to keep one with us.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 12:06 AM

I would think there should be no objection to keeping words and/or music to hand in an informal setting. (As long as it's not the "Blue Book" AKA Rise Up Singing AKA the "Blue Book of Death" (as in Blue Screen of Death).

But just a sheet of paper or two can be a good talisman in warding off stage fright--even if you never look at it (which is of course ideal).

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: GUEST,Rev
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 12:45 AM

In Santa Barbara we have an Irish bar that hosts a so-called "session" once a week. I went down there once with a couple of my button accordions, expecting to be able to sit in, and expecting that it would be a by-ear kind of gathering. I was quite taken aback to find that almost everyone who showed up pulled out a ream of sheet music, and they all played ( abit like Irish robots) exactly what was written in front of them. On top of that I was the only buttonbox player amongst about a dozen fiddlers and at least five guitarists. I have to say it was exactly the opposite of my prior experience of an Irish session, and I never went back, but most of the people there seemed very happy and content to do it that way. Different strokes I suppose...
Rev

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: brioc
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 07:45 AM

I come from a musical family. WE all "learned" various instruments in the course of our childhood.....ie.up to 14.
We sat around the piano and just sang songs or had little dances in the sittingroom. and once or twice a week we went to music school after normal school, and on saturdays for theory.
Today , practically everyone can play an instrument. Some gave it all up and have come back to it 30 years later. You never lose what you once learned, it is amazing. But most of us can play by ear and with sheets.
These days I play ina irish band. one of our members plays flute. She is classically trained, and great at doing technical stuff. but she only reads music, cant begin to do it by ear. for me, it is odd to be on stage playing irish music with musicstands! I never use music on stage, and don't know how you can communicate your song or tune to the audience when you can't look at them.
I wonder what non-musicians, but audiences have to say..........

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: *daylia*
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 09:45 AM

I have another question. When is it appropriate to use music and when not. There are some conventions and situations when you expect to see musicians working from written score.

In classical music of all types it is the norm the main exception being g the soloist in a concerto. This is also true of most types of larger ensemble - military bands, brass bands, big bands etc.

Yes -- imagine what a 30-minute symphony would sound like if each player in a 100-or-so piece orchestra was required to perform their part from memory! No matter how seasoned and well-trained the musicians, or how well or long they'd had their parts memorized, under the added pressures of public performance memory is the FIRST thing to fly out the window. Musicians are human beings, not computers!

Even if only half the players had to cut out just once, or contend with just one little memory slip/wrong note or phrase/loss of timing that sounded like doo-doo-- that's a total of 50 unexpected silences/memory slips/doo-doos!

Or approx 2 per minute of music.

Yikes! I wouldn't elect to be the conductor of such an orchestra -- or just even the audience, for that matter.

However, in classical music, soloists of all genres are strongly encouraged to perform for memory. Memory is always one of the final touches when working on new repertoire with my students. Some people memorize music VERY quickly. Play it a couple times through, and they know it! Others find it more of a challenge, and still other students simply refuse to perform without their music.

They want their 'crutch', for confidence. And that's fine by me too. Although I encourage ALL of my students to memorize their favourite repertoire, and most do perform for memory at my in-house recitals and performance classes, I allow my students to bring the music up if they absolutely insist on it.

I'd much rather have them perform with the music than not perform at all!

Funny thing is, I watch them and over half the time these reluctant memorizers don't even LOOK at the music once they;ve started playing!   And when I point this out to them afterwards, they look surprised. "Oh, maybe I didn't that time, but I STILL want my book!" At that point, I can usually convince them to at least try it without the music, and give them another chance to perform without it. And it's wonderful to see the look on those little faces when they realize that they really didn't need the book after all.

BUt I teach them ALL to bring the music with them when performing, even if they have it memorized. They can leave it with me, or leave it on their chair when they go up to play. It's as Tootler says -- For some reason I forgot the beginning and after three goes had to have a quick look at the dots. Once I had done that I was away and did not need to use them again. I think we all forget sometimes and having the dots handy is very useful for those times when you forget.

Yes, VERY handy indeed! Can't count how many times even my best memorizers have rescued themselves this way.

FOr festivals, memory is not an option. If you want a mark and a chance to win the awards, you must give your written score to the adjudicator. Students who perform with the music are given a written critique, but no mark.

For Conservatory exams up to Grade 10 level, on any instrument, memory is not a requirement BUT up to 10 marks are allocated for memory (2 per piece). And when you need a 60 just to pass, 10 marks can make a big difference!

For the Performers ARCT exam (the final diploma awarded by the Conservatory, post-Grade 10) memory is a prerequiste. NO memory, no exam, no mark and no diploma. It's that simple -- and the Conservatory puts out an important message for students that way.

Accomplished soloists perform for memory. And that's that!

For my ARCT exam, I had to don a long concert gown (which I hated! ;-) and play about 45 minutes of music in the Royal Conservatory Concert Hall, empty except for the 9 intimidating-looking bone-faced examiners staring at me. (Or, at least they looked bone-faced to me, at 21!) I played an 10-page Bach Prelude and Fugue, a complete 38-page Beethoven Sonata, and 3 somewhat shorter pieces from the Romantic era and the 20th century (Debussy, Liszt, Bartok) for a total of 70-odd pages of music. All fully memorized. That, plus a VERY demanding sight-reading and ear test, was what was required for an ARCT. And Performer's ARCT students need 70, in all parts of the exam, just to pass.

Memory is not required for the Teacher's ARCT though. Go figure!

As for folk music, it doesn't bother me at ALL to watch people using "the dots" as a memory aid for the instrumental parts or song sheets for the lyrics. If they enjoy the experience of performing more that way, why not? If they feel they can do a better job with the lyrics etc in front of them, who does that hurt? No-one! It's the MUSIC I'm there for, not to judge the performer's ability to play for memory or lack thereof! And I feel more comfortable keeping a song sheet handy myself, even if I think I don't need it.

You never know!

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Tootler
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 11:04 AM

As long as it's not the "Blue Book" AKA Rise Up Singing AKA the "Blue Book of Death" (as in Blue Screen of Death)

I have seen references to this book in other threads and it seems to generate a lot of heat. Some seem to love it and some hate it.

As someone from t'other side of the pond, perhaps you could enlighten me. What exactly is this book, and how is it used (or not) that generates such heat?

Merely curious.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 01:18 PM

I've been singing for over 30 years now and I learned all my songs by ear. I would love to be able to read music - but it has always been a complete mystery to me. I saw a Mandarin Chinese phrase book the other day and reckon that I've got more chance of learning that language than I have of reading music.

I sing English trad. songs which have beautiful tunes that, in my opinion, tend to be ruined by harmonisation - harmony groups and other sorts of choir, please note!!

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 01:40 PM

Tootler, CLICK HERE to land in one of the several threads on the subject-- it has a whole buncha other threads linked at the top of it.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Little Robyn
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 05:10 PM

Tootler said -- For some reason I forgot the beginning and after three goes had to have a quick look at the dots.

Our Morris side has a page called Howzitgo which has the name and first 2-4 bars of the A and then the B part of each tune.
Once I have the start, the rest just follows.
Robyn

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 05:41 PM

Folk singers seem to be stuffed into a bag in which any paper in the vicinity is a no-no.

In a previous thread, I went on at length about how Barbara and I, after being in on the organization of the Seattle Song Circle in 1977, dropped out after a few years when it morphed into sessions in which people came to rehearse songs they were in the process of learning instead of singing songs they had already learned. Then later, it turned into a sort of hymn-sing, with people sitting around singing out of their mandatory copies of Rise Up Singing.

At the first song fests and "hoots" that I attended back in the early Fifties, it was expected that one learn a song before attempting to sing it for other people. This carried over into performance, and when I started singing gigs, I never even thought of appearing before an audience with anything beyond a set-list masking-taped to the side of my guitar. In fact, one or two people even twitted me for that! They seemed to think that if I planned a program for a gig ahead of time instead of just winging it, I was "going commercial." I think if I'd appeared with a song book or a notebook containing lead-sheets, there were at least a couple of people who would have hauled me up before the regiment, cut the buttons off my shirt, broke my guitar across their knee, and marched me around the compound and driven hence in shame and disgrace. But it never occurred to me to need to do so. It was essential that everything be committed to memory.

When I was performing actively, other than learning new songs, I rarely needed to practice because I was singing somewhere, coffeehouse, concert, or whatever, at least three times a week. So people wouldn't get tired of the stuff I did, I made sure to keep rotating my repertoire. I knew somewhere between two and three hundred songs, but since I didn't repeat a song all that often (except when requested), I developed a reputation for knowing thousands of songs. The songs were pretty solidly imprinted in my memory. This didn't mean that I didn't blow it every once in a while (being in the middle of "The Fox," and suddenly discovering the words all dangling down-o!), but it didn't happen very often.

That was then. This is now. Although I have sung a few gigs recently and get together with friends every now and then for a "hoot," I'm not singing anywhere near as often as I used to, so the words to songs sometimes tend to drift off a bit. It seems to be a case of "last in, first out." The songs I first learned seem to be indelible in my memory, but songs I've learned recently are not so firmly entrenched. If for no other reason, I just haven't sung them as much.

I really hate that business of launching into a great song I've learned recently, only to get about three verses into it and suddenly discover that the first line of the fourth verse has Gone South. There I am, gazing up at the ceiling, hoping that the Spirits of Troubadours Past will write the words up there in letters of fire, but, alas, so far that hasn't happened. True, I have achieved Geezerhood, and this may have something to do with it, but other than this, my memory seems to be as sharp as it ever was. I think it's because, as I said, I just haven't sung the newer songs as many times or as often as the earlier ones I learned.

Barbara and I watched the "Down from the Mountain" DVD a few weeks ago. I noticed that on stage there were music stands beside the mike stands. And some of the performers were using them. Both John Hartford and Ralph Stanley (yes, Ralph Stanley!) were definitely reading from whatever was on the music stands (probably lead-sheets). Gillian Welch, Alison Krauss, and Emmylou Harris weren't reading from the music stands, but they did glance at them from time to time. Only the Cox Family and the Peasall Sisters did not.

Therefore, there is precedent. I see no problem with keeping a notebook containing lead-sheets within easy view, as long as it isn't obtrusive and I don't need to do any more that glance at it occasionally if and when the words go fuzzy. As long as I already know the songs thoroughly, no one can justly give me grief for having lead-sheets nearby strictly as a safety net.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: GUEST,Rowan
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 01:09 AM

I used to use a Hewlett Packard calculator with a memory like Don's and I'm familiar with having blank spots suddenly appear in the middle of a song that I used to sing all the time. But then, I remember introducing my brother to someone, quite a few years ago, and having my memory suddenly blank out.
"Jeez! I can remember his bloody surname!" I explained. Since then I've used the experience to explain away all sorts of embarrassing senior moments. And our band regularly used a set sheet on the floor (in fornt of the mic stands but behind the foldbacks) to remind us of what we already knew.

On another aspect of reading music from dots, ABC Radio National (Australia's equivalent to Britain's Beeb and, more or less, to America's NPR) broadcast a program a couple of weeks ago on the Blind Choir, in Australia. Those of you better set up for such access than I can download a podcast of the program (they keep them on their website for 4 weeks) which (from memory, is "Into the Music". I recall hearing one of the members of the choir describe the process of reading the music from Braille, which is OK for picking the notes. Because none of them could see the conductor, however, their listening skills had to be red hot. Most of us who've performed in singing groups will be familiar with the fine pitch control one develops when trying to pitch one's note 'against' someone else's for that perfect harmony. [Who knows, it might have been modal rather than mean.] But the Blind Choir members seemed to believe (and the small excerpt broadcast supported their assertion) that such intense listening meant that they were often tighter as a choir than many sighted ones. Interesting thought.

Cheers, Rowan.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 12:05 PM

"Blue Book"--(Rise Up Singing)---good book, lots of good songs--but sometimes treated as a "folk hymnal"--e.g. "Please turn to page 34 and sing the second one from the bottom". Not exactly what many of us are looking for in a singaround.

Makes it easy for people to show up at a sing--not having learned one song--and lead the group stumbling through a song whose title that person likes.

And really widespread throughout the US.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 12:09 PM

And quite a few (sometimes heated) threads on the topic (Blue Book AKA Rise Up Singing)--pro and con-- already on the 'Cat. You might want to check them if you have interest.. But we're trying to not let this one be dragged back into that debate.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 12:38 PM

Yes, for RUS (Blue Book) discussion, please use the links in my last post.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 01:00 PM

I thought the way Seattle Song Circle started out back in 1977 was just fine. I'll drift this thread for a moment to explain a system that worked well, in case someone else might light to give it a try.

We got together every Sunday evening at 7:00 or 7:30, I forget which. Unless you were glued to Masterpiece Theatre or something like that, there usually wasn't much else going on on Sunday evenings. The gathering would last for two hours, until 9:00 or 9:00 and then adjourn, which would get people home early enough for a work day on Monday.

We actually sat around in a literal circle. One of the folks found an old unused storefront in the University District that the owner or real estate manager let us use on Sunday evenings (as I recall, somebody knew somebody), so when the group expanded to as many as seventy on some Sunday eves, the circle's circumference increased quite a bit, but there was still sufficient room to form the circle. When we eventually had to give up the storefront, we found other places, like meeting rooms in the Good Shepherd Center. Sunday evenings were good because there would be nothing going on in these places and they would let us use them free.

The circle idea was so that everyone got a chance. We would decide to go either clockwise or counterclockwise, and when your turn came up, you had three options:   1) you could sing, either a solo or you could lead the whole group in something (any chorus song, but sea chanteys were always a good choice; easy for everyone to pick up on and when the whole group got going, they can really sound good); 2) you could request something from someone else ("Hey, Stan, how about 'The Skin Diver and the Mermaid?'"); 3) or you could simply pass ("I got nuthin'.").

It was a good place to pick up new songs. With everyone's agreement, there were usually at least a half-dozen small, battery powered cassette recorders in operation. I have a couple dozen cassettes of some really good stuff, and after several months, Sally Ashford went through her tapes, did some transcribing (words and music, plus a credit for whoever introduced the song to the group), and presented us all with a "Seattle Center Song Book," —not to be used at the meetings, but just for our own enjoyment and so newcomers would know where we'd been. Still got it. That was a lot of work, Sally! Thanks!

These sessions were great. Folks used to drop in from as far north as Vancouver and as far south as Portland.

Dunno why it changed. Too bad.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 01:04 PM

". . . might light to give it a try."

Looks like I have to do some more training with my Dragon NaturallySpeaking voice recognition program -- or edit a bit more carefully.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Tootler
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 05:38 PM

Thanks Susan for the links. They were very useful and gave me the info I wanted. I was just curious. Also thanks to Ron for explaining why people get so heated. I understand better now.

We don't really have anything equivalent over here, at least I've not come across anything. What you often find here is people turning up with ring binders or folders full of sheets of dots for tunes or of words of songs - often with chords (myself included <g>). Everyone has their own collection which has its own downside - scrabbling through a folder for the song they were going to sing and can't find when it's their turn. I wouldn't be surprised if you get the same thing happening over there.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 06:44 PM

Everyone has their own collection which has its own downside - scrabbling through a folder for the song they were going to sing and can't find when it's their turn. I wouldn't be surprised if you get the same thing happening over there.

Sure we do. :~) (meemeemeemeeeeee!) There are some who can just come out with a complete lyric out of their heads-- and I've had a few at my house to see them actually do it-- but it's like Sorcha said upthread-- you might KNOW a song (lyric, chords) but that doesn't mean you HAVE it.

I forget what thread I said it in (at length), but one benefits from giving some thought to which songs are really solid parts of one's repertoire, and which songs one loves but which are still getting there or may never belong there.

I'm always surprised to "meet" a song that is clearly mine-- I found one this summer and confirmed last night that it is VERY much a song that belongs in my rep. There are a zillion others I "have" as tunes but whose range, etc. make them not really mine to sing, or whose texts are not right for me even in the way their word-shapes fit in my mouth.

But by thinking of these repertoire categories, at least I am narrowing down my "rep" to what would fit in a binder to remind me what they are-- when I get into a song circle I'm often completely not able to recall what songs I might offer. I don't mean that I forget the words-- my mind gets so taken up in the listening part of my brain, hearing others' turns, that the "mental songlist" I might SING doesn't "boot up" at all!

It's handy to be able to blame that on age, but I think it's more a case of just not having DONE it when there's been a chance.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 07:12 PM

FSGW (Folklore Society of Greater Washington) sings started out similarly--at least I think so---I wasn't present at the creation. But we used to sit around in a circle, starting about 9 on Friday, one day a month at the Ethical Society building and sing--much like Don's arrangement.   There was ostensibly a topic--e.g. " Things with Wings"--any song which mentioned a bird, angel, plane--or any song you could work into that definition by some agonized preface.   Or Parodies-- that was always a smash hit. As was Sea Songs. But the topic changed every month--and was announced in the newsletter a month in advance.

If I recall correctly, there was no light but candlelight--or were the lights turned way down? At any rate, you couldn't see that well. That meant 2 things: 1) people in general had to have their songs memorized and 2) there were lots of chorus songs--since that gave you a chance to think of the next verse--and just cause we all liked them--and liked to throw in harmonies.

And about 12 or 12:30, after almost everybody was gone, we'd sometimes get into rugby songs--they were great--and very inventive. I remember the sad day when our main source for these said he'd turned over a new leaf and wasn't going to do them anymore. Tragically, he was as good as his word.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 07:18 PM

Oh what the heck..

100

Jerry

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 07:52 PM

Yeah, Ron, we often did topics and themes also. Sometimes it was fairly general, such as "sea songs" or "mining songs," and sometimes the theme would get a bit tighter, like "songs of seduction or attempted seduction," for example Greensleeves, Blow the Candles Out, or The Trooper and the Maid. They were often a challenge and got people searching for something that would fit the theme, and that, in turn, frequently had us delving into new areas for material. Very good! Stimulating. Educational. Broadening.

Sometimes someone would try to bung in a song that didn't really fit the theme, and it was always a snort to hear their rationalization for it. Got kind of ingenious sometimes, or at least, pretty entertaining!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 08:01 PM

Boy, I've really gotta start proof-reading my stuff before I hit the "Submit" button. I just re-read my post of 23 Jul 06 - 01:00 PM and spotted another goof or two. The big one is that the title of the book Sally put together was "The Seattle Song Circle Song Book," not "The Seattle Center Song Book."

That probably wasn't the fault of the DNS program, I think I just mis-spoke. Sorry, Sally.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: AggieD
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 10:38 AM

Like many others I find this thread very interesting.

I grew up with music all around me, from the likes of the early pop & rock to classical through to various types of folk music. Singing was always encouraged & even now we still sing together, albeit very casually, & mainly tunes from the shows.

I also took some formal singing lessons & learnt to read music, although I too like many others was very lazy about learning properly & winged it very often.

So to me music, especialy singing, was so natural that I always used to have trouble understanding those people who struggled, especially when it came to just singing along. I often sit & wince at 'harmonies' because I am able to hear when it's not right & lots of people think I'm crazy when I say certain dischords physically hurt my ears, but they do. I have also been singing in a choir, but I am on the point of quiting because I find that so many of them rely totally on the sheet music, don't try to learn their parts & never look at the conductor. Interestingly I find the formal singing far more of a strain than when I freely harmonise in a singaround etc.

I also play a melodeon, mainly for Morris, but also for my own pleasure, & I learn tunes by both ear & from music. However I rarely play the tunes that are written down, my husband tried to play the tunes with me & got very annoyed because I changed the timing & often put embellishments in. Imho this is the way folk music develops. I love listening to different people doing the 'same' song & hearing how they adapt to their own style.

I also love going to as many workshops as I can, especially for voice, I have picked up so many different hints & ideas that I can put into practice.

Subject: RE: Music By Ear
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 07:50 PM

I saw a TV show recently where one guy played the harmonica
with his nose and another played making noises with his mouth

another played a song using his Armpit and another played a tune
thru his cupped hands

another played a melody using the hand and elbow methos

another contestant was 'wolfing' down some pork and beans but i had to leave, and missed that part.