Hearing Things

[Kojo27]

IN YOUR OPINION, is it fairly common, or somewhat common, or not real common - or what - for a person to be able to sing/hum/whistle/grunt melodies, staying in key, but continually making totally new melodies, with creatively varied rhythms, for 10, 20, 30 minutes or more - keeping strict time, never having to pause to 'think'... how common is this? To be able to "hear" (create or imagine) melodies, and bring them into being simultaneously?

Just asking for your thoughts, comments.

[JonnyPac]

My favorite quote about music...

"For a person as obsessed with music as I am, I always hear a song in the back of my head, all the time, and that usually is my own tune. I've done that all my life." ~Bjork

[mr. beaumont]

How common? I'd say not very...but I'd also venture to guess any of the jazz players we hail as "greats" can/could do it.

Mind you, even though that list numbers in the hundreds, it's a VERY small percentage of the whole of "musicians."

I can do it on a simple level. Took me ten years to get there. I'm figuring with a little work by the time I'm 50 I might actually be a decent player

[Kojo27]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

My favorite quote about music...

"For a person as obsessed with music as I am, I always hear a song in the back of my head, all the time, and that usually is my own tune. I've done that all my life." ~Bjork

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

How common? I'd say not very...but I'd also venture to guess any of the jazz players we hail as "greats" can/could do it.

Mind you, even though that list numbers in the hundreds, it's a VERY small percentage of the whole of "musicians."

I can do it on a simple level. Took me ten years to get there. I'm figuring with a little work by the time I'm 50 I might actually be a decent player

Thanks much for the replies - really. It's a simple question, or seems so to me. Hope others chime in.

Jonny, I'm the same way - there's always something playing.

Mr. B. -- I gotta say I'm a little surprised. I would have thought most could do this sort of thing. I really hope others will opine. With me, it's easier with blues. I wonder if that's true for others.

And Mr. B. - You say it took you ten years to get there, so are you saying this is something you consciously practice? If so, how do you go about it?

Thanks again guys.

kj

[bako]

I can play in a key or song form all day long and I can play most of what I hear without pause.
The part of what you suggest that is challenging is continually making totally new melodies,
with creatively varied rhythms. Playing is easy, saying something meaningful is a work in progress.

[JonnyPac]

I can't play well unless I "hear it"... I sound like a total sloppy beginner if I mechanically play or get into a situation where I literally cannot hear myself in the mix (lack of mental/physical feedback) and just go through the motions. There is a constant exchange between my hands (the instrument) and my ear, and that determines what I do next- and of course I am constantly taking in the Gestalt sound of myself in the mix of the other musicians. "Listen then play" and "The song comes first" are good mantras.

Another quote I enjoy:

"Then suddenly I hear my guitar singing
And so I just start singing along
And somewhere in my chest
All the noise just gets crushed by the song."

~Ani Difranco

[JonnyPac]

I'm all quotes today!

"You have art writers who constantly celebrate the "intuition" extreme, and think that this is the sort of apex of human existence, and you have scientists who by default almost dignify the other one. That's where they live, or that's where... they'd like to live. They want to be able to make the kind of statements that push that boundary. What I would like to see is a conversation that admits that we spend most of our time somewhere in the middle, and we ought to find a way of thinking about it."

~Brian Eno from: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/eno/eno_p2.html

"Intuition has to lead knowledge, but it can't be out there alone."

~Bill Evans

I dig these feedback-positive ways of creative thinking. Listening in a huge input.

[mr. beaumont]

You know, I'm always thinking in a jazz context...so I see what you are saying...I was saying that I think it takes a long time to be able to do this over complex chord progressions and play/sing lines that are melodic and that follow the changes.

And absolutely I practice it...just singing along with what I play. I'm no george benson, but I can carry a tune...at least a little bit

[JonnyPac]

Isn't it amazing how Kurt Rosenwinkel uses a lapel mic and literally sings along through his guitar amp? Talk about killer tone! lol

[JonnyPac]

"I heard things."

http://www.hark.com/clips/rnnvqpllrv-i-heard-things

[phdmerrill]

Its an interesting subject. I can't sing a whole tone scale from thin air, without a guitar in hand, but I could obviously hear and feel it when I or someone else plays it. Same goes for a lot of musical concepts, which leads me to believe singing/scatting (at least for a beginner, as I as am) is less about developing your mind's ear/voice than it is about refining your phrasing.

Scatting is not about accurately hearing the tone of each interval as it goes by, but instead is about making your manual playing sync up with the organic, tuneful lyricism of what is in your head--which isn't a precise set of tones, but a melodic shape and a rhythm. Bee-boppa-dooey-da-dop surely doesn't communicate the intervals, but it does say everything about the rhythm and the feel of the phrase. Your instrument will take care of the harmony and intonation; that's why we're guitarists and not singers.

I don't mean to say that you can be completely tone-deaf and still play as well as anyone else. A player ought to be able to sing along with what he plays with reasonable accuracy, and singing the blues should come easily enough without an instrument at hand. I just mean to say "hearing" doesn't necessarily have to implicate precise pitches. Hal Galper mentions that it is impossible to "hear" all the tones of a chord simultaneously, even if we've been trained to identify the chord--I think that says a lot about how we listen to music. Anyway, these are just my thoughts on the matter.

[Kojo27]

Interesting thoughts, guys - love the quotes, JP.

Apparently, I didn't define what I meant exactly right. It's natural for guitar players to pull a guitar into the scenario, as I would have done, too -- but here I'm talking about just singing - or scatting, or doodle-doodle-dooing, or whatever, the main thing being that the melodies are pleasant and interesting. Not earth-shattering, just a long, seemingly endless stream of melodic babba-dabba-dabba-do. Mainly eighth notes and triplets, but with quarter notes, dotted notes, the usual stuff of what we think of as a melody.

AND: I failed to state: this can (but doesn't have to be) diatonic. No key changes, just a major scale or some blues scale, pentatonic, mixolydian - whatever comes natural.

I'll tell you while I'm at it why I'm asking. I knew a guy in college who could do this. He sang well, and probably could have gone on indefinitely.

And yes (but don't be distracted by this!!!) he could then pick up his guitar and continue the same way, the notes he played sounding like a continuation of how he'd been singing. No licks. Or none that I could catch. He'd sing wide intervallic leaps, weird little staccato rhythms, anything to keep things varied.

Well, I'm not in this guy's league, and not an advanced musician maybe, but I can do the major scale singing part. Give me Clapton-esque blues, and it's even easier. I assumed all along that anybody could do the singing, or almost anybody -- certainly musicians. Thus all these threads I've started about playing what you hear, but it seemed that some didn't exactly get what I was talking about. THIS is what I was talking about.

Many moons ago, before I tripped and fell into hell and quit playing, I could *almost* do this with guitar, if I stayed with blues or a major scale, or a mode from the major scale.

Please, guys: this is not to boast!!!! Compared to a well-rounded guitarist/musician, I SUCK. Some things I can do, and I'm preparing to post some stuff, finally.... but I've been trying for a year to figure out for sure whether the singing thing is common -- or not. With major scales and blues, I was thinking most could create stuff verbally for as long as they wished. Yay? Nay?

JUST THE SINGING/HUMMING. Not playing while singing.

kj

[cosmic gumbo]

I concur that singing along with improv can do good, but some folks get obsessed with it, and to my logic, it's something that the greatest of sax and trumpet players were never able to do, yet they are the soloists that many of us try to model ourselves after....however, I do have to mention that brass and wind players have to breathe while they play, so a lot of phrasing is related to it, just like singing. In a big band, sometimes horn charts have notation for breathing, so everyone doesn't take a big breath at the same time!

[Kojo27]

Thanks CG.

Above, in post #12, I try to explain what it is I'm so curious and confused about, but I suppose that because of previous threads (mine) and the fact of this being a jazz forum, it's tricky to see that I'm talking about such a simple thing!

I try again, boiled down:

*Not scatting while playing.
*Just singing simple major scale melodies, or 3-chord blues.
*Keep the melodies interesting - imagination goes all the time.
*No pausing to think. Strict time from start to finish.
*For 15 minutes, even more.
*No guitar involved! Just singing simple melodies (or humming, whistling, etc.)

Would you say this is something most could do? Or most musicians, at least? Given your experience, what would you say?

kj

[JonnyPac]

I can hum, sing, and scat all day long (though it ain't always pretty and sweet). I played singer/songwriter stuff for over a decade, and I also learned "jazz phrasing" by scatting along to recorded bebop changes.

Again, at this point, I feel like I have "my song" going constantly, and I just need to tap into it to improvise melodically. I can divert it with interesting chords and scales now, but the flow is not interrupted when I am in the zone. Bjork's quote rung so true to me... BTW I am not posing as a virtuoso (I am far from it); just a creative thinker trying to express my musical ideas in a jazz idiom.

[Kojo27]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

I can hum, sing, and scat all day long (though it ain't always pretty and sweet). I played singer/songwriter stuff for over a decade, and I also learned "jazz phrasing" by scatting along to recorded bebop changes.

Again, at this point, I feel like I have "my song" going constantly, and I just need to tap into it to improvise melodically. I can divert it with interesting chords and scales now, but the flow is not interrupted when I am in the zone. Bjork's quote rung so true to me... BTW I am not posing as a virtuoso (I am far from it); just a creative thinker trying to express my musical ideas in a jazz idiom.

Oh God, THANK YOU, Jonny! You can do it, too then. Great. It doesn't have to be great stuff - just in time and somewhat prolonged, on purpose. Thanks, a million. And it's okay if you're doing jazz, or non-diatonic stuff; it's just that it doesn't have to be. The process is the thing.

I know this question sounds crazy, and I almost didn't post it. Sometimes, though, you just give things a try. Crazy or not. There *is* a bigger point to follow this one, I hope.

[cosmic gumbo]

Most musicians are NOT improvisors. Those that are, or are serious about improvising can probably produce an endless stream of simple vocal inventions over some basic harmonic changes for as long as they care to.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by Kojo27

Oh God, THANK YOU, Jonny! You can do it, too then. Great. It doesn't have to be great stuff - just in time and somewhat prolonged, on purpose. Thanks, a million. And it's okay if you're doing jazz, or non-diatonic stuff; it's just that it doesn't have to be. The process is the thing.

I know this question sounds crazy, and I almost didn't post it. Sometimes, though, you just give things a try. Crazy or not. There *is* a bigger point to follow this one, I hope.

[Astronomer]

It's weird...I can hum endless lines when I'm walking or engaged in another activity, but once I try to repeat it during practice...I freeze up and end up only playing licks I've practiced. It's a mental block that I have to work on. But I've found that ever since I've been practicing my singing, my ability to hear melodic lines has gotten better than ever. I don't know...perhaps I'm too busy analyzing the changes I'm playing over instead of just playing what comes to my mind...

[JonnyPac]

Sometimes humming a rhythm will inspire fresh melodic content. Rhythmic mold for liquid melodic notes... You dig?

[Kojo27]

Originally Posted by Astronomer

It's weird...I can hum endless lines when I'm walking or engaged in another activity, but once I try to repeat it during practice...I freeze up and end up only playing licks I've practiced. It's a mental block that I have to work on. But I've found that ever since I've been practicing my singing, my ability to hear melodic lines has gotten better than ever. I don't know...perhaps I'm too busy analyzing the changes I'm playing over instead of just playing what comes to my mind...

Dear Astronomer -- if, below, my reply segues into a little rant, please understand that the rant is not directed in any way toward you! If it is a rant, it's mild anyway - I think. Thanks for your good post.

kj
-----------

When you say, "...when I try to repeat it during practice...," are you still referring to humming? Or are you talking now about *playing* the lines you can easily come up with when not playing? What if you set your guitar down, divert yourself for a moment, and then start casually humming -- can you still do it? Probably you can.

If your ear/hand connection is good (can you start on any fret w/any finger and play Yankee Doodle, in good time, without a mistake?), and especially if you purposely keep your melodies simple, going from humming to playing should be a matter of practice, it seems to me.

But it's here, I believe, that we need to be very careful, if we're concerned about playing what we hear and not falling into mostly "hearing what we play." This becomes a chicken-and-egg thing, and it's very hard, after just a brief time of scatting to the guitar lines, to know the difference. Are we playing what we're singing -- or singing what we're playing?

Once some fingering patterns, melodic sequences, arpeggios, and substitutions, let's say, are second nature, the temptation is so strong, to me anyway, to take a path of lesser resistance, and leave behind patterns of sounds, of which the imagination was formerly the impetus, in exchange for patterns of sounds (melodically guaranteed by "fingering patterns," etc.), of which things such as playing through CAGED fingerings, and imposing scale pattern X or chord Y are the impetus. It's at this point in our improvising that we've begun to trade a hearing thing for a thinking thing. A musical thing for an intellectual or muscle-memory thing.

In my opinion, this way of playing is not something we should let ourselves do.

You say,

"I don't know...perhaps I'm too busy analyzing the changes I'm playing over instead of just playing what comes to my mind..."

I think you might be right. I think most of us do this. I catch myself at it all the time. Some respected teachers even recommend playing this way: "Let your fingers fly," they say. The notion, I think, is that your ear will catch up with your flying fingers, and then you'll once again be playing what you hear... Hmm. I say, no. When your ears catch up, all you're doing, for sure, is hearing what you play. We can "hear along" (and sing along) as our fingers do their dance-like steps over a no-slip course of pre-marked safe spaces. Sure you can scat this way, but it's back-ass-ward.

"But that's how it's done - like it or not," says Mr. Flying Fingers, turning up the TV volume with his toes.

I don't believe one would be pedantic to say, "Most guitar players probably do it this way -- but this doesn't mean that everyone must do it that way; this doesn't mean it's the only way. And I'm going to try not to do it this way."

What if, as students of improvisation, we REFUSE to "let our fingers fly?" Does this make us pedants? Snoots? How dare we think we're onto something better? No - I don't see how this is so. If it is so, someone please explain.

How does one learn to play only what he hears? For one thing, SLOWLY, I think. Sing it, then play it - over simple, recorded vamps, loops, BIAB tracks, etc. Sing it; then play it. Repeat. Get good at the most basic stuff and work up gradually to the harder stuff. This can be scary to me. It shows me just how musically creative I really am - or am not. Joe Pass said that players who rip off a fast run and then admit (often BRAG) that they couldn't possibly play it that way again -- that they should be ashamed and go home. They aren't involved in a hearing art. It's some sort of show of dexterity and little more. If we're really hearing what we play, we should be able to repeat virtually anything we just played. Or sing it back.

I can play a Bm pentatonic scale over a CM7 chord, and produce patterned, hip sounds... but if I can't sing or hum or grunt the VERY SAME sounds, before OR after the playing -- what did I really do? I showed that I know this thing; I showed that I could apply it mechanically. I showed what my fingers could do. But where's the musical aspect of what I did?

Someone just off-stage whispers: If a listener can't tell the difference, who cares? It's fun to let the fingers fly -- people like it: watch 'em dance. If you're an artist you have to play what the people like, don't you? So what's it matter?

[CURTAIN.]

kj

[Kojo27]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

Sometimes humming a rhythm will inspire fresh melodic content. Rhythmic mold for liquid melodic notes... You dig?

I dig - yep. It's even fun to steal rhythmic figures from transcriptions (or just from recorded solos, etc.) and play for 30 minutes over a vamp, forcing yourself to get top melodic mileage from that same figure.

There's nothing like drill to make a thing second nature.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by Kojo27

I dig - yep. It's even fun to steal rhythmic figures from transcriptions (or just from recorded solos, etc.) and play for 30 minutes over a vamp, forcing yourself to get top melodic mileage from that same figure.

There's nothing like drill to make a thing second nature.

True that!

[pingu]

Someone just off-stage whispers: If a listener can't tell
the difference, who cares? It's fun to let the fingers fly -- people like it:
watch 'em dance. If you're an artist you have to play what the people like,
don't you? So what's it matter?

I think the audience can feel the difference tho ........
bettween licks and tunes made up then and there
of course most of the time in improv it's a mixture
and the faster the tempo gets ........... you know what happens !

the aud like a little flash sometimes (wish I had some)
but you wouldn't wanna just play your licks on a ballad would you ?

[Kojo27]

Originally Posted by pingu

I think the audience can feel the difference tho ........
bettween licks and tunes made up then and there
of course most of the time in improv it's a mixture
and the faster the tempo gets ........... you know what happens !

the aud like a little flash sometimes (wish I had some)
but you wouldn't wanna just play your licks on a ballad would you ?

Oh, agreed, pingu. That little section was sarcasm. The audience (or some of them) will sense the difference. And worse, perhaps, the player is going to know - and what kind of improviser does that make him? What kind of artist?

This question of hearing and playing is a big one for me, obviously, I suppose. Some say I'm too idealistic, and I think that's true sometimes. But then when I remember that I *can* play only what I first create in my aural imagination, when I keep it ultra-simple, I have to wonder what am I doing exactly, when, at some point along the line of complexity, or non-simplicity, I cease to do this, and allow myself to believe that merely hearing what I play is good enough - "for now"...???

I'm letting myself cheat, because I can cheat. And few listeners can easily tell the difference. Few can know when I'm playing something I've concocted in my head, on the one hand, and when I'm playing fingering patterns, on the other hand, and having perhaps only a vague notion of what the music will sound like, esp. pitch-wise, until it issues forth from my amp or sound hole.

I do see that I'm beating a dead horse, though - I appreciate VERY much how some of y'all have put up with me through all this. I'll leave it alone now - I see it's a question I'll have to answer for myself. I have to say it bugs me a bit that more players don't seem concerned, in the least, with this -- that success in improvisation seems little more than playing an appropriate doo-hickey over the right thing-a-ma-jig, so that "shit sounds altered," or whatever. Maybe I'm too cynical; maybe I should play and not worry about how others deal with it.

Last, let me say that, in posing such questions, I do NOT intend to be judgmental about others' playing. I simply don't understand. It *seems* that some players aren't concerned with this thing that is a major question, unanswered, for me -- and I have no idea how they got past it. I'll have to get past it - or not - so here we go.... (I do have a plan, FWIW. Lots of drill. See you guys in a year maybe. Ha.)

kj