The Steel Guitar Forum

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 10:49 am**

I’m truly convinced that when it comes to music related to E9 PSG the successful players learn by mental cut and paste and good physical application.
They listen to a lot of PSG and train their ear to hear the sound of the pedals and knee levers as one or a combination are engaged including the bending sound of each and all.
After listening to a lot of music with E9 PSG you will hear long and short combination of these applications repeated over and over again in recording archives and by retaining more and more of these little mental clips in your mind, you then will only be limited by your physical ability to apply them and the soul you put into them.

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 10:54 am**

Danny Gatton famously didn't know theory. He played advanced jazz chords and scales just by finding them on the instrument, without knowing their names. In one of his instructional videos I've seen where he plays a chord and says "I don't know what that chord is...I think it's some kind of ______.", and he's wrong. Didn't stop him from playing circles around almost everyone. Not everyone has his innate facility, of course!

Just an observation--not an attempt to support any "anti-theory" position. Theory is very useful, but as someone said somewhere on the Forum recently, theory is about music, music isn't about theory.

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 11:15 am**

Without having read all of these replies yet (I apologize if I am reiterating anything here), I would like to comment on your thoughts about intervals and learning styles...

On the subject of learning styles: I have been teaching guitar (non-pedal six string) in my hometown here for about 5 years now. Obviously my experience is little in comparison to that of some of the players here. However, I do notice that learning styles greatly vary from student to student. I have some students who cannot play a note unless they have sheet music in front of them, while some of my other students cannot hold a good rhythm unless you take the book away and let them follow their own ear. It's my job to find out my students' strengths and weaknesses so that I can focus on those weaknesses. Like Reece mentioned, books and study materials are great, but sometimes a teacher can break that barrier by finding the proper "channel" to help the student learn. Sure our brains were all created to operate alike, but we all have different strengths and weaknesses and I think this affects how our brain absorbs and retains information. I think you just need to find the right "channel" or method to help you learn your intervals by ear.

On the subject of intervals and ear training: One of my first music teachers in grade school used to play intervals on the piano and we would get quizzed almost daily. I didn't learn much from the repetition of those quizzes (although I am sure many other students at the time did). It just would not sink in for me. However, in high school I had a teacher who used a different approach to teach intervals. She used common songs, hymns, carols, jingles, etc. that we already had memorized. I could easily hum tunes like "oh when the saints" and "somewhere over the rainbow", so why couldn't I those songs as a reference? For example, the first two notes of "somewhere over the rainbow" are a Perfect Octave interval. And the first two notes of "oh when the saints" give you an ascending Major 3rd interval. I am not an expert on intervals, but I really suggest trying to learn intervals using songs you know as reference. I just googled and found this link on using songs for interval recognition: http://www.people.vcu.edu/~bhammel/theo ... gnize.html It's worked for me anyway! I hope it helps... but maybe you've tried this already

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 12:06 pm**

Don Brown, Sr. wrote:JD,

Since this topic is "Learning To Play By Ear" I can tell you exactly what your problem is. Lots of the replies here, have very little or nothing at all to do with learning to play by ear.

Nearly every reply I've read here has more to do with Theory and, when playing BY EAR, Theory doesn't even enter into it AT ALL. Absolutely Zilch.
...

I think there is theory and then, there is theory.

I don't think that an ear-player is completely lost.
He may not need to rely on any theories about scales and such and is most likely a key-independent thinker.
BUT, once one knows where to find certain intervals, may it be be knowing them in simple and universally (key independent) applicable means as numbers or assigning a direct hearing-visual link (knowing what to expect from a distance executed along the strings or plaid on a pair of strings... The ear player knows... and to know, he had to learn SOMEHOW.

Is that theory... I doubt the conservatory people would agree... but so what?

Bo Legg wrote:I’m truly convinced that when it comes to music related to E9 PSG the successful players learn by mental cut and paste and good physical application.
They listen to a lot of PSG and train their ear to hear the sound of the pedals and knee levers as one or a combination are engaged including the bending sound of each and all.
After listening to a lot of music with E9 PSG you will hear long and short combination of these applications repeated over and over again in recording archives and by retaining more and more of these little mental clips in your mind, you then will only be limited by your physical ability to apply them and the soul you put into them.

I can hear some of the typical changes on PSG... both E9th/C6th... then, there is stuff that well, falls out of the ordinary and it takes some more hunting. But, while that's part of one can do, I think it's only a partial picture... which explains why so many who started out on PEDAL steel, a mechanically certainly intimidating instrument, they turn virtually blank minded set up behind a non-pedal steel.

Brint Hannay wrote:Danny Gatton famously didn't know theory. He played advanced jazz chords and scales just by finding them on the instrument, without knowing their names. In one of his instructional videos I've seen where he plays a chord and says "I don't know what that chord is...I think it's some kind of ______.", and he's wrong. Didn't stop him from playing circles around almost everyone. Not everyone has his innate facility, of course!

Just an observation--not an attempt to support any "anti-theory" position. Theory is very useful, but as someone said somewhere on the Forum recently, theory is about music, music isn't about theory.

It goes into similar direction as the first quote above.
I however doubt one can make that argument and then state that so'n'so ear player plaid so'n'so scale.
That's the problem I see with the jazz schools. They map out an ear playing creator's work, and overlay scales, like transparencies over it and say "HEY, THAT's the "scale" he was doing". Up to 99% that may even be a perfect match. BUT the truth is, the ear player did not SEEK to play withing that scale... it's a mere RESULT from the creation an it is NOT invertible, much to the schools who then peddle the concept out to whom ever is desperate enough to buy into it, that if you just play randomly XYZ scale, you are playing blues or jazz or beebop.
But that was not your point, Brint, now was it?

Anyways, I think the ear player HAS to build an ID-link between the heard/expected/desired and the visual distances on his instrument. Theory or not, distances are intervals.

COULD ANYBODY STILL ANSWER THIS PLEASE:

J D Sauser wrote:
minor thirds / Major thirds:

If you play them I, III it's a third.
But if you play them III, I, while it's the same notes just inverted, the interval is a 6th, right?
So, the inversion to a minor 3rd becomes a Major 6th and likewise, the inversion to a Major 3rd becomes a minor 6th, still right?

Now the question (if all the above passes the test):
As WHAT do you hear them (the 6ths)? As 3rds with the root on top or as a separate sound of intervals... the 6ths?

The ear training software I presently use, sometimes plays intervals from top to bottom... EG: I have to call a minor third after I hear first a C and then an A successively. It's harder. I get them by mentally (silently) let them ring in the "normal" order for now... but I don't like it because I do not want to become reliant on self invented crutches.

... J-D.

... J-D.

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 12:25 pm**

JD,

That's my point, I didn't know what an interval even was, so it most certainly couldn't have been on my mind. "Hey! I knew C, D, E, F, G, A, B & C" And nothing else period.

Scales never entered into it, nor anything else, other than to listen to the tunes played and then learn them by trial and error, where those sounds were, and carry it over into other tunes.

While at the same time, I could pick up anything and pick out songs on single strings, or by single keys on a piano, etc. Or the same on a fiddle. So then it's a matter of finding out where the other fingers went to making up the rest of it.

No science at all, but tons and tons of practice with NO THEORY whatsoever in mind. Why? Because I knew NONE to have to deal with..

And I'm convinced that is the only way to play by ear from start to finish... Usually some who play by ear, early on, find out that he/she can play most any instrument to some extent, and pick a song out with very little trouble.

I can't say. My wife says it's a definite gift from Above.. She's usually right.

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 12:59 pm**

Don,
I think I was carved out of the same block as you, with exactly the same method of learning music

People ask me 'Hey Man, what scales do you know?'

I wouldn't know a scale, even if I tripped over one

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 1:28 pm**

J D Sauser wrote:But that was not your point, Brint, now was it?

Actually, it was!

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 1:37 pm**

COULD ANYBODY STILL ANSWER THIS PLEASE:

J D Sauser wrote:
minor thirds / Major thirds:

If you play them I, III it's a third.
But if you play them III, I, while it's the same notes just inverted, the interval is a 6th, right?
So, the inversion to a minor 3rd becomes a Major 6th and likewise, the inversion to a Major 3rd becomes a minor 6th, still right?

Now the question (if all the above passes the test):
As WHAT do you hear them (the 6ths)? As 3rds with the root on top or as a separate sound of intervals... the 6ths?
[ J-D.

This is just my take - when intervals exist in a "pure" context, like you're learning them, C to A is a sixth, and that's how I'd hear it. C to A 8va is a 13th, etc. But when we actually USE intervals, it's usually in a harmonic context, in which the interval could sound like an inverted b3, for example if an A minor chord was being played. It's still a 6th, that's alway true, it would just sound and function like a b3.

This is why modal thinking can be problematic - C major (ionian) sounds like D Dorian when a Dm7 chord is played. Function and context are important.

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 3:52 pm**

Richard,

It seems to me that we both took the best route. We had nothing else on our minds to conflict with the actual playing....

Christopher,

I just read over your post, and just reading it, makes me wonder just how many, started out in music period, without knowing much at all about Theory, and then went on to later, studying the theory end of it?

Because, I truly don't think anyone can learn to play by ear, if in fact, they aren't actually applying that learning process right from the start.

Yes I know folks who know theory inside and out, such as Paul, Buddy and many, many others. But I can say this: "When they are playing, they aren't thinking a thing about theory. They're playing by ear, what comes to their minds (at the time)."

Paul, help us out here!!!!

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 3:53 pm**

I've been playing music, by ear, since I was 8 yrs. old. I started on my fathers old six string acoustic and taught myself. I had a fairly successfull career doing that in R&R bands. I took music in grade school, but, had trouble understanding and relating the scales and notes to realtime playing. Something to do with Dyslexia, I think. When I started to play steel, I approached it the same way with decent results, except for some chords I couldn't get on my Maverick. I upgraded to a "Pro" steel and with the help of Jeff Newman and "TAB", I proceeded to progress immensely. I still have some trouble with relating tab as fast as I want, so, I still rely heavily on "ear playing". I'm seasoned enough and it works for me to learn by ear, but, it's not for everyone. I applaud those, who, can read music and translate it to the steel. I can't and never will, but, that's OK. I'm fine with what I can do.

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 5:27 pm**

Don

Like most guitarists, I learned by ear first. Someone taught me a couple of chords, and off I went. As time went by, and the music I was interested in became more complex, I found that I wanted to know more about it, so, painfully, I started teaching myself the rudiments of musical theory. Eventually, playing jazz became my passion, and since I wanted to play jazz for my living, being conversant with reading music and understanding the ins and outs of theory seemed necessary, for me. I studied 18th century counterpoint with a guy named David Borden, and jazz guitar with Jim Hall. I never did get to college, but I do teach at one as an adjunct jazz guitar instructor. Many times I've been hired to play someone's original music, or their specialized arrangements, with no rehearsal and no advance music, and was expected to get it right the first time. I can't see how that would have been possible without thorough music knowledge.

Can I play by ear? You bet - I do it all the time, and am grateful for the ability, and feel bad for those musicians who can't. There are lots of musicians who only play by ear (such as yourself), and who play great - the list is long, and I have the upmost respect for their skills. Do I regret having a good understanding of theory? Not at all - it has in no way hindered my progress as a musician, and seems to have helped it, considerably.

I have no problem with musicians being dedicated to learning by ear - everyone is different, and has a different path. What I fail to understand is why so many musicians who play by ear cop an attitude about musicians with the ability to read and understand theory. Sure, there are lots of crappy well schooled players, but so what? There are plenty of crappy ear players, as well. Why is either way "best"? If it's best for you, great. Some people learn one way, some learn another way - hopefully, we all make music that has beauty and soul, whatever we did to learn how to play.

Sorry for the longwinded response -

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 6:34 pm**

Christopher,

If I caused you to feel as though I was putting you or anyone down, because of his/her way of learning or playing anything, I'm totally sorry. That indeed was not my intention at all.

On the contrary, if that was the case, that would be putting down a lot of very fine pro players, and I can guarantee I'd never do that.

I was only honest in my posting about Myself Not knowing anything on theory, the entire time I was making my living playing. Many, years. I'd much rather have been able to say that I knew it all. Theory, the works. But that wouldn't have been the truth at all.

Again my apologies if you or anyone else took it the wrong way. But in keeping with the topic, it's the best explanation I could give on playing by ear and how to do it.............. Don

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 7:02 pm**

I use, and teach, music theory as a vocabulary so that musicians can communicate with each other. It is nice to be able to articulate and discuss one's musical desires with other players, and it is also nice to have a quick and efficient way of diagnosing and solving musical problems when people are trying to play together and encountering difficulties.

But when I'm improvising a solo in a performance there isn't time for any of that. I just listen very carefully to what The Muse tells me to play next, and then I try to get there on my instrument before the moment is lost. The ideal for me is to have "elephant ears" and no brain, and I hope that my fingers will work properly, and that Lady Luck will be with me. (As well as beautiful Ms. Muse!) But Don is right, when unfamiliar chord changes hit your ear and the audience is waiting for you to play exactly the right notes, there is no time for music theory...

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 7:13 pm**

I did not mean to shoot down the sight readers of the music world nor do I look down on those who have taken the time to learn theory and to read music.

I posted on my experiences of over 50 years of playing along with those who have learned to play by ear and those who have studied music theory and note playing. In my post, I noted only that those who have learned to play by ear seem to be able to jump into it off the cuff easier than a player who reads and plays their music off music sheets.

There are many times that I have wished that I had spent the time studying some theory rather than sticking with my ears only.

No offense meant to anyone.

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 7:35 pm**

A great way to learn intervals by ear is...practice listening to them!
This link provides a way to test your ability.
I think it uses Flash, so check if it works in your browser. Just hit OK at the bottom when options load to get started. Once you get the hang of it, go back to options and check augmented 4ths, compound intervals, and change type and direction to both, to add difficulty.

Clete

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 8:46 pm**

Don -

No problem - I wasn't trying to single you or anyone else out, just allowing myself to respond to several comments about ear vs theory that I thought should be addressed. I certainly prefer that all of us, whatever our opinions, be civil and respectful to each other, especially when (in my case) we are responding to someone as experienced as you!

Please - if I made you feel personally attacked, I apologize.

I do have a question for you, or anyone who has ben playing any instrument for a long time - do you think that, when improvising, we are using ear alone, or are we modifying ideas that have become "hand habits" to suit our particular needs at the time? We learn where certain types of sounds are on the instrument, and what those sounds look like, graphically on the neck, and have habits that involve those sounds, which begs the question, how much are we improvising?

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 10:27 pm**

I think improvisation is a combination of three things: theory (chord structure, scales, arpeggios etc.), memory (phrases, melodies, motifs) and last but certainly not least, experimentation.

Charlie Parker (arguably one of the best improvisers), had a style based on theory obviously, but also his own bag of tricks. He incorporated certain "riffs" he had mastered, and, almost like variations on a theme, changed these riffs subtly to fit the progression and melody.

Another improvisation technique is recognizing similarities in progressions, and utilizing melodies or themes from other familiar songs out of context within a solo. This has been done for centuries, and though it might not be considered improvising in the true experimental context, it still relies on ear training and theory to know what works and what doesn't.

I forget who to quote, but "There are only 12 original notes" (in western music anyway). Many combinations or series of notes we hear in our head were played by someone else first and mentally "borrowed" and put into the personal bag of tricks.

Clete

Posted: **19 Aug 2010 11:07 pm**

Christopher Woitach wrote:Don -

I do have a question for you, or anyone who has ben playing any instrument for a long time - do you think that, when improvising, we are using ear alone, or are we modifying ideas that have become "hand habits" to suit our particular needs at the time? We learn where certain types of sounds are on the instrument, and what those sounds look like, graphically on the neck, and have habits that involve those sounds, which begs the question, how much are we improvising?

In my opinion, when a long time player improvise on the fly, he/she plays by subconscious recall. Because of repetitive mind training over a long period of time, something in our brain tells us what comes next without a conscious thought process involved.

This is much like someone who plays a piano and has been reading musical scores for many years. He or she can talk, laugh and joke around and, seemingly, not even be looking at the musical score. When the player first started learning however, he or she dared not take his/her eyes off the note page nor the piano keys. Even the physical chore of placing the hands on the proper keys without conscious input was not possible. In time however, through repetitive practice, the brain sees those notes at a subconscious level and far ahead of what the conscious mind sees. He/she needs no conscious input to figure out where their fingers should be. In other words, the brain has already noticed and recognized the musical score four or five bars ahead of what the player is actually playing and is already preparing the body for what is coming in a practiced, chronological order.

Likewise, a steel guitar player who has been playing the instrument for say thirty years, knows what improvising is needed five or six bars ahead of what is being played at the present. A certain combination of notes and chords from many years of past experience is telling him what should come next without his conscious input. Therefore, without a conscious thought involved, his hands are already moving through combination of notes required without a conscious thought process being involved.

Now if any of you can understand what I just typed you are crazier than I am.

Posted: **20 Aug 2010 2:43 am**

The thread is not just about playing by ear - I also hear JD asking about methods to specifically help the cognitive process of being able to recognize and/or visualize musical intervals upon hearing them:

Learning to play by ear: Listening, recognizing, visualizing

I have never given much thought to train my ear/brain to identify (listen, hear, ID) intervals. I thought it'd come by itself. I really did. There was a time I could dedicate up to 8 hours a day playing... I thought that by HAMMERING it in, it would come. I did NOT.

For those of you who insist that the only way to do this is to simply do it over and over - i.e., hammer it in - and if it doesn't happen, then God didn't intend for it to happen (I'm quoting Don's example here because he openly verbalizes the thoughts that I think are often implied):

No science at all, but tons and tons of practice with NO THEORY whatsoever in mind. Why? Because I knew NONE to have to deal with.. Smile

And I'm convinced that is the only way to play by ear from start to finish...

I can't say. My wife says it's a definite gift from Above..

First - I acknowledge that it is possible to become a good player without knowing any theory. I wouldn't argue with anybody's approach - if learning absolutely no structure works for you, great. I've known some good musicians over the years who know absolutely no theory and are fine players.

Second - I assume if you believe that theory is irrelevant, then your advice to JD would be to simply play and not worry about what he's asking about - how to identify intervals, think cognitively about intervals, scales, and chords as he is asking about - essentially that pure trial and error is the only way to go. I hear that in some of these responses, even to the point where it's being argued that those of us with a different approach are off-topic in our responses to the entire concept of ear playing. For example -

Since this topic is "Learning To Play By Ear" I can tell you exactly what your problem is. Lots of the replies here, have very little or nothing at all to do with learning to play by ear.

Nearly every reply I've read here has more to do with Theory and, when playing BY EAR, Theory doesn't even enter into it AT ALL. Absolutely Zilch.

Let's just say that I have a different opinion. I think what JD is asking is very important - are there any ways to aid our cognitive thought processes to learn to better hear those things whose structure we may understand? I think many musicians do have a knowledge of various structural aspects of music - intervals, scales, arpeggios, chords and how they're voiced, progression of voices in chords, the structure of complex chord progressions, and so on - but want to understand how to better process that kind of information in the context of real-time listening and playing - i.e., playing by ear. For me, that is an important musical goal - to be able to quickly process what I'm hearing and intuitively understand where to proceed. I have no problem doing this for simple music, but as the music gets more complex, so does the intuition needed to do just that.

It's been said that in playing by ear, one is never thinking about theory. Well, I guess that is true for me also - neither am I breaking down passages into modes or whatever as I'm playing - I generally am not reading music in band situations I'm in, nor thinking about that kind of thing. But if I'm preparing to play music that I haven't figured out yet, I find breaking things down into structural elements I understand to be very useful. My experience is that if I do that enough times to a particular piece or style of music, I gradually develop deeper intuition about it - to me that's when it gets most interesting.

I think it's great if you can just sit and listen and listen and, without any other cognitive thought process or structural knowledge, simply intuit how to do it. Sometimes I hit a piece and it happens like that - wonderful. But sometimes I hit a brick wall like JD suggests and structural understanding can help me move to that intuition and the ability to 'just hear it'.

JD can tell me if I'm on the right wavelength here - but that's how I'm taking his questions: How can one aid the ear-playing cognition process?

Posted: **20 Aug 2010 3:28 am**

J D Sauser wrote: minor thirds / Major thirds:

If you play them I, III it's a third.
But if you play them III, I, while it's the same notes just inverted, the interval is a 6th, right?
So, the inversion to a minor 3rd becomes a Major 6th and likewise, the inversion to a Major 3rd becomes a minor 6th, still right?

Now the question (if all the above passes the test):
As WHAT do you hear them (the 6ths)? As 3rds with the root on top or as a separate sound of intervals... the 6ths?
[ J-D.

My take - intervals are intervals, but the interpretation of intervals depends on the reference frame - as Christopher says, usage. For another example, the notes E, G, Bb form an Edim arpeggio or chord. But if the reference frame - the context in which an ensemble is playing - is relative to the C root, then I think most people will hear this as a C7 arpeggio or chord without the root, and not relative to the E root.

One can argue - OK, if you practice enough, you'll eventually just hear it and intuitively 'know' that E, G, Bb 'sounds good' in certain situations when playing over a C chord. Great, but I personally find it helpful to be able to visualize that, in fact, E, G, Bb is C7 without the root. I used this partial before I ever noticed it was a diminished, but after I understood that relationship, I think I found it easier to cognitively understand, and ultimately intuit, hear, and apply it when appropriate. Intuition is a useful type of knowledge. Analytical understanding is another useful type of knowledge. Knowledge is power. My opinion, YMMV.

Posted: **20 Aug 2010 11:23 am**

Dave,

Maybe this thread should have been titled differently from the above to: "Recognizing Intervals"

I'm reading it as saying: "Learning to play by ear: Listening, recognizing, and Visualizing."

And the above is just about what takes place in playing by ear.

#1 Listening: "You hear the tune (in your head) if you are already familiar with it.
#2 Goes into the above if you recognize the tune.
#3 You visualize it being played and play it.

That doesn't seem nearly as complicated to me, as having to figure out all the other stuff before hand.

What happens if you're on a job, and the band leader says, since we have some small children here, how about we get you to do "How much is that doggie in the window."

What are you going to do? Evaluate where all of the intervals are at, and which inversions, etc., are taking place, and then analize it, or tell him/her, how about we get that tune next week, after I have time to go over it. Or, are you going to simply say ok and just play it?

The above assumes that sometime in your life you've definitely heard the song, regardless of whether you've never ever tried playing it?

If you can do that, then you can play by ear. If you can't you definitely don't play by ear, and only by memory of what you've already learned how to play by other means.

The first mention of whatever tune it is, starts it rolling around in the head, and then, out of that, comes the tune you play.

Now to me, that doesn't sound anywhere near as complicated, or perplexed as what things otherwise, seem to be.

If your going to simply play it, then by all means, your doing it by ear.................

Posted: **20 Aug 2010 12:00 pm**

For myself, I can't picture it being very useful to go through exercises in "recognizing intervals" by hearing two notes played either simultaneously or one after the other and attempting to identify the interval. Intervals don't mean anything except in context. E to G is a minor third, fine. But for me to try to learn a song by ear in which that interval occurs, whether it is the root and third of a minor chord or the third and fifth of a major chord makes all the difference. To me, the fact that it's a "minor third" is completely irrelevant when I'm finding it in the context of a C major chord.

I do, however agree completely with this:

Dave Mudgett wrote:after I understood that relationship, I think I found it easier to cognitively understand, and ultimately intuit, hear, and apply it when appropriate. Intuition is a useful type of knowledge. Analytical understanding is another useful type of knowledge. Knowledge is power. My opinion, YMMV.

I'm partial to this quote attributed to Charlie Parker: "First, learn your instrument. Then forget about all that, and just play."

Posted: **20 Aug 2010 12:33 pm**

Different strokes, fellas - no problem. But JD did ask if anybody had suggestions for methods to help him identify intervals, with the following comment:

I have never given much thought to train my ear/brain to identify (listen, hear, ID) intervals. I thought it'd come by itself. I really did. There was a time I could dedicate up to 8 hours a day playing... I thought that by HAMMERING it in, it would come. I did NOT.

So I really don't think that saying, "Just play and play songs and it will come." addresses his question.

Now, whether or not anything I or anybody else suggest will work for someone else is very much an open question. I think that going through the ear-training process I described while studying classical piano was very helpful to me later when moving to guitar, banjo, and ultimately pedal steel, all of which I play "by ear" most of the time. But YMMV, no problemo.

I'm partial to this quote attributed to Charlie Parker: "First, learn your instrument. Then forget about all that, and just play."

Emphatically agreed. I guess the question is, "What are some alternative ways to learn the instrument." But p.s. - I'll bet Bird had no trouble recognizing intervals, so I'd add "and learn about music."

I don't think one size fits all - whatever works.

To me, if one approach ain't cuttin' it, it's probably a good idea to try something else. At least, that's what I thought this thread was about.

Posted: **20 Aug 2010 8:07 pm**

Brint Hannay wrote:For myself, I can't picture it being very useful to go through exercises in "recognizing intervals" by hearing two notes played either simultaneously or one after the other and attempting to identify the interval. Intervals don't mean anything except in context...

Sorry Brint, I wholeheartedly disagree and am sticking to my guns on this one.

Recognizing intervals between two notes is integral to determining what chord you're hearing, what notes are used in a melody, what a harmony note to a melody might be, what scale or mode might work in improvising, what chord progression is used etc.

There are three parts to music: Rhythm, Melody and Harmony.

The latter two parts are all about intervals. Developing your ear in recognizing two note intervals is the first step to recognizing three note chord intervals. As chords become more complex with close and wide intervals added, it is essential to have an ear for intervals.

Learning to play your instrument requires the physical (practice, motor skills, hand-eye coordination, dexterity etc.) and the mental (music theory, memorization, repertoire etc.) Granted you dont need to study or consciously train any of the mental aspects to be able to play, but it will probably require a lot more of the physical (practice, practice...practice). I was very fortunate to study music theory with a good teacher for two years in public high school many years ago. It's perhaps the only class I took that I still remember everything I learned.

Maybe interval training isn't useful to you, but I feel it is for JD and others who struggle with it.

In this thread, not only is two note interval training in context, it is the context.

BTW, like Dave Mudgett, I began learning by ear on guitar and found I relied less on theory.

Here's a twist on interval training Don may take to:
Instead of naming the interval you hear, just sing or play it!
No theory involved, just ears.
Many teachers say "If you can sing it you can play it."

Clete

Posted: **20 Aug 2010 10:26 pm**

Fine, Clete, as Dave M. has said, everybody's an individual. What works for one may not work for another, and vice-versa. If I need to hear what an interval means in the harmonic context, is that a shortcoming or an asset? I'd like to think an asset, but given the mediocrity of my musicianship, probably a shortcoming. Whatever the case, E+G actually doesn't sound the same to me when E is the major third of C in its moment as when it's the root of Em in its moment. That's why when someone asks me "Do you know this tune?" and hums the melody to me, I'm in the dark unless they know enough to give me the key (harmonic) context first. Is that first note of the melody they hum a root, a third, a fifth, a second leading to a third...?

This may mean I'm chained to diatonic Western harmony, but I actually think if the music were an Indian melody, I'd still relate to the pitches as they related to the drone note (if I knew it), rather than to their distance from each other.

BTW, I started out learning guitar entirely by ear, and 12 years later studied theory for six months or so, and have found that incalculably beneficial ever since.

The Steel Guitar Forum

Learning to play by ear: Listening, recognizing, visualizing

Re: Learning to Play by Ear

Re: Learning to Play by Ear

Re: Learning to Play by Ear

Ear Training

Re: Learning to Play by Ear

Learning to play by ear: Listening, recognizing, visualizing