Playing by ear.

[Anyanka]

I have merged the two topics, as suggested

 

[BobM]

unfettered by the temptation to play exactly as someone else has so written!
George

There's nothing wrong with what some else has written, if it has some kind of merit, or even as an example of what NOT to do. I don't think that are ever going to agree on this one George, but I don't think that a few extra chords (2 in this case) is significantly harder to play and, the additional benefit is learning to train one's ears and musical perception etc etc for the next time a similar tune comes along.

Aim High, and Enjoy the Ride!

BobM.

 

[donn]

I feel that this is pretty close to illustrating why there isn't much out there in the way of written down tutors for how to get along without written down music.

The 3 chord proposition is a fairly sensible one, but only because a lot of our music falls inside those bounds. My own taste in music tends to be sort of thin in that area, though, so I reckon I'd be off that path in a hurry. The whole point being to connect your internal and external faculties of making music, there's little point in following some kind of curriculum unless it happens to perfectly match your musical sensibilities.

By the way, I find that while trying to write about this, I'm confounded by a vocabulary problem. We say we play what we "hear", but we don't really mean "hear" in anything like the sense of "perceive via ears", rather it's more like mentally rehearsing the music in some sort of internal form. For which I'd like to have a verb, please, that isn't so ambiguous as "hear."

 

[BobM]

By the way, I find that while trying to write about this, Im confounded by a vocabulary problem. We say we play what we hear, but we dont really mean hear in anything like the sense of perceive via ears, rather its more like mentally rehearsing the music in some sort of internal form. For which Id like to have a verb, please, that isnt so ambiguous as hear.

Aural Perception Is what I was taught at music school. Hear is an easier word to use on a forum?

BobM.

 

[donn]

Aural means "of or relating to the ear or sense of hearing", so that's no help at all.

 

[smdc66]

There are of course many 'handy hints and tips' that can facilitate the acquisition of these skills and I would be quite happy to put together a few pages on the subject of ''playing by ear '' if the 'forum powers that be' would be prepared to put them somewhere readily accessible on a permanent basis

george

this is a good offer - i think many would appreciate an effective guide to help aquire these skills

its nice that some people are prepared to give up their time and share knowlege

i think there are other permanent threads here so would have thought the forum powers could help here

like someone also said earlier in the thread it would be also be nice for someone to put out some recordings on the tunes mentioned earlier and or others by ear but time is precious i know

 

[BobM]

Aural means of or relating to the ear or sense of hearing, so thats no help at all.

I did say Aural Perception, try adding add the word Music to the search.

http://moodle.musicentre.co.uk/course/info.php?id=66


http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdoc... from 2010/Unit-4-Aural-Perception-Skills.pdf


https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=aural+perception+in+music

And so it goes..

BobM.

 

[donn]

Ah, well, I see you're indeed talking about hearing, literally. So that adds up - but it's what I'm not talking about.

What happens in my head, on the way to a tune coming of my accordion, is not, literally, hearing. I ... imagine music, let's say. I suppose I could do it if I became deaf, heaven forfend, as Beethoven is supposed to have done. We say I "hear" it (in my head), I play "by ear" even if my ears don't figure in the process in any particularly important way, because (I guess) when we "imagine" a tune, we're drawing on experience that comes in via the ears. But it just seems like there ought to be a better word.

 

[george garside]

The way I think of the the process in the head is something on these lines:

Playing 'by ear' --- The ears act as a microphone to transmit the music into the 'storage bank'----when a tune is to be played it is sent from the storage bank into the 'processor' which then decides the detailed way a tune is to be played and transmits the appropriate signals down the arm/fingers/box.

Playing from the dots--- the eyes act as a camera to transmit the dots directly to the processor which decides the appropriate e detailed way the tune is to be played and transmits the appropriate signals down the arm etc.

So there is not a world of difference between the two processes .

For by ear playing 'storage' of the tune is an integral part of the process. Playing from dots tends to miss the 'storage part of the process as presumably the processor does not see any need for storage as the sheet of dots can be looked at again next time----or something like that!


george

 

[JIM D.]

George is quite correct on his statement. This thread should have been as posted as "Learning By Ear" and not "Playing By Ear" An accomplished musician can read music and play it by ear. The untrained musician that cannot read is doomed to learn it by ear and as a result is limited in performance and repertoire.

 

[george garside]

Exactly! The term 'playing by ear' is technically incorrect but seems to be accepted 'shorthand' for ''learning by ear and playing from memory''

george

 

[BobM]

I love the line on the .pdf where it says,

"discuss musical textures such as chord structures, harmonies, rhythm changes and intonation."

Not much of that going on around here..

 

[donn]

I would say "play by ear", for improvised music, like particularly bass. Melody instruments may have memorized a sequence of notes, but the bass is following his ears, that's how I do it anyway. Of course it works only if the music is familiar enough that what you hear, will serve to predict what you'll play, so in a sense memory does play a role, but it doesn't have to be memory of the specific tune.

 

[Glenn]

I agree with you Bob. This thread currently best fits in a philosophy forum or English semantics forum than a musical instrument forum.

 

[Pippa]

Ah, well, I see youre indeed talking about hearing, literally. So that adds up - but its what Im not talking about.

What happens in my head, on the way to a tune coming of my accordion, is not, literally, hearing. I ... imagine music, lets say. I suppose I could do it if I became deaf, heaven forfend, as Beethoven is supposed to have done. We say I hear it (in my head), I play by ear even if my ears dont figure in the process in any particularly important way, because (I guess) when we imagine a tune, were drawing on experience that comes in via the ears. But it just seems like there ought to be a better word.

A bit like visualising, but for hearing rather than seeing?

 

[george garside]

this 'playing by ear' thread has had one of the largest number of views ( 1300+) on the forum. I suspect that many of these 'views' have been contributed by members and visitors, particularly the latter, seeking information about playing the box 'by ear'.

There are probably as many box players playing or wanting to play 'by ear' in various musical traditions as there are classicaly trained readers. My personal experience of 50 odd years of box playing and teaching certainly support this.

Both 'schools' are of absolutely equal merit in that and each provides a great deal of satisfaction and enjoyment to its adherents and of course to those who do a 'bit of both'. Both have advantages and disadvantages according to where, what, and with who you prefer to play.

Unfortunately this thread has done little to encourage or inform those who, for very good reasons, want to learn to or improve their 'by ear' playing skills or indeed for 'readers' who wish to be able to face both ways so to speak.

Many of the posts have been written, no doubt in all sincerity, by the 'theorists' amongst us who seem to feel duty bound to try to 'theorise' and otherwise point out the limitations of 'playing by ear'

I am therefore suggesting that for the sake of clarity and because the number of views strongly indicates a demand we start a new thread under the simple title of '' learning to play the accordion by ear '' .

Perhaps a new section entitled ''teaching and learning'' (melnet have a vibrant one) would provide an appropriate space for both schools to help and encourage their respective followers.

george :ch

 

[BobM]

this 'playing by ear' thread has had one of the largest number of views ( 1300+) on the forum. I suspect that many of these 'views' have been contributed by members and visitors, particularly the latter, seeking information about playing the box 'by ear'.

There are probably as many box players playing or wanting to play 'by ear' in various musical traditions as there are classicaly trained readers and those undertaking classical training. My personal experience of 50 odd years of box playing and teaching certainly support this.

Both 'schools' are of absolutely equal merit in that and each provides a great deal of satisfaction and enjoyment to its adherents and of course to those who do a 'bit of both'. Both have advantages and disadvantages according to where, what, and with who you prefer to play.

Unfortunately this thread has done little to encourage or inform those who, for very good reasons, want to learn to or improve their 'by ear' playing skills or indeed for 'readers' who wish to be able to face both ways so to speak.

Many of the posts have been written, no doubt in all sincerity, by the 'theorists' amongst us who seem to feel duty bound to try to 'theorise' and otherwise point out the limitations of 'playing by ear'

I am therefore suggesting that for the sake of clarity and because the number of views strongly indicates a demand we start a new thread under the simple title of '' learning to play the accordion by ear '' .

Perhaps a new section entitled ''teaching and learning'' (melnet have a vibrant one) would provide an appropriate space for both schools to help and encourage their respective followers.

george :ch

There's disinformation here George. I offered the OP (goldtopia) who created the pre-merged post, a set of chords that I know will work, (Skye Boat Song) but because it doesn't fit your frankly, nieve 3 chord trick you derailed the topic. Training the ear is important,and learning what the chords actually do, and are for, is a major part of playing by ear.

I'm not a "theorist", I'm a practical musician and make the most of my living as an "earist". I was "earing" it all day today as I was for 3 hours last night.

Your posts remind me of that Samuel Goldwynism, "When I want your opinion I'll give it to you". And speaking of your 50 years of playing, so have I, 45 as a professional.

This is a forum George, def, "a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged".

I find myself lost for words when you give out the kind of information, that on forums for most other instruments would be challenged immediately.

Some tunes are great with 3 chords, some simply aren’t.. Being interested in getting a good sounding chord sequence isn't a negative skill, why do you always make it sound elitist to try?

In conclusion, you're not encouraging the positives of aiming high, it's more "lower your standards and hope for the best".

BobM.

 

[colinm]

I would like the threadd to continue because I still csnnot play by ear

 

[Pippa]

I am therefore suggesting that for the sake of clarity and because the number of views strongly indicates a demand we start a new thread under the simple title of '' learning to play the accordion by ear '' .

Feel free to do that, George

 

[donn]

I would like the threadd to continue because I still csnnot play by ear

But if we continue on in this vein, sure enough you will be able to, count on it!