The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 26 to 45 of 45
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by DonEsteban
    Open your mouth and sing it. If you can't sing it, it's not you improvising but most probably your fingers.

    Doesn't need to be in real time and neither be as beautiful as Kurt Elling does it.

    Once you sang it (or couldn't) you don't find that "mystical" inner ear "mystical" anymore. It's just another expression for your musical imagination.

    It's a lot like talking. When you describe a house (or a situation or anything else), you must know how it looks, what has happened. And you must know the language good enough to find the right words describing it. Some do it better and become writers, others are less versed. It's a matter of practice like everything in life.

    Playing improvised music? Same same but different.
    I am an architectural historian. I describe houses. I write. I don't practice; I do not know any writers who do. Writing is rewriting, as someone once said.

    Improvising music is entirely different for me. I pick up my guitar and play. I have no idea what I am going to play. I certainly do not sing and then play it; that would not be improvising, but playing a composition. Nor do it play it in my head. But that does not mean it is just my fingers, because they are controlled by my mind. I just let it do with them whatever it wants.

    Of course, what anyone does when they are improvising is their own business. Some I suspect have put a lot of work into their performance before they play. Some might be visualising vast screeds of theory. Others might be drunk.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    Hm.. there are people who can hear but cannot control their vocal apparatus at all and cannot sing what they hear
    There might also be another category of people whose internal hearing is limited by what their fingers already know how to do.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    The mind influences what the fingers do, and in turn the fingers influence what the mind "hears", and in turn the mind influences what the fingers do, and in turn the fingers influence what the mind "hears", and in turn the .... it's a feedback loop i like to call "Fingears".

    But there's a wide spectrum isn't there? We know that some geniuses like Mozart, Bird, Stan Getz even, are perhaps at one extreme end, and we know the kid at guitar centre who is trying to play scales as fast as he can but can't sing a scale to save himself is at the other extreme end.

    The rest of us are somewhere in between.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    .... i like to call "Fingears".
    Good one!

    (I call it "Singing With My Hands")

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    my inner ear is not mystical
    If i think of a song i know
    I kinda ‘hear’ it in my head/ear

    i don’t think it’s that unusual ....
    (or at all mystical)

    1 hear it
    2 sing it
    3 play it

  7. #31
    I'm sort of a musician. I should have music going on in my mind all the time. But when it happens, it's so annoying

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    It’s the music in your head. Hopefully, with enough work and study, that’s what comes out on the instrument.

  9. #33
    When I was composing, I never ever heard anything in advance. No music in the head. Just noodled until found something that had a vibe and spark.

    Now, when practicing something for longer, I get it going in my mind (some random things) for a while after putting down the instrument. That is so annoying

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Really finding it quite difficult to understand this. Nonetheless...

    The inner ear is a physical organ involved in the processing of sound. The rest of this discussion seems to be about the psychological manifestation of sound as it relates to something else, an idea, some notation etc. IOW a lot of things.

    There doesn't seem to be a distinction between someone else's music, like Salieri reading a Mozart score on a plinth, and your own solo, "where shall I take this idea?" They're different things.
    Did Salieri, before he gave up composition to take up van driving, attribute the lines to the stated instruments in the score and hear the orchestra as a whole? Or did he just hear a piano concert? Or did he just use his trained skill to see the arc of the piece and the elegance of the orchestration. (Genuine question: do we have polyphonic musical imagination? I don't think I have. Though maybe with musical recall which will involve different processes).

    I have always been in awe of pianist's reading skills, ever since I saw a teacher close up at college, sight reading some Aaron Copeland on a score and correcting the student. Verily, this was indeed, the ant shit. That was a display of a fantastic, though learned, skill in transliterating the dots on the page by trained finger responses into audible sound. Spatial awareness, visual trends, known structures, chromatic surprises, trained confidence etc. It is possible that absolutely NO hearing, inner or outer, was involved in order for such a mechanistic process to result in musical sound. The end result may not even have contained any 'music' as Marinero was alluding to as I read it (below).

    I am a good English reader, I can also read it jumbled up and backwards, a test set by railway station posters in the UK without any problem - I have learned to read properly. I think this is what Ragman1 was saying. Nothing surprising about that, guitarists in the main just don't do it. We want short cuts. That doesn't stop us being great musicians though of course. As I like to say, 'the map is not the territory'.

    Hearing your own music inside your head - the inner ear in this thread? - is different again. You can't hear it, before it is created. The problem is getting it to exist.

    You can build from what the previous notes were 'meaning' by imagining and realising the notes. i.e. what am I feeling now having heard those notes, and how do I continue? That requires some imagination to hear the next note/s, some skill to know where to put your fingers and a great deal of discipline NOT TO PLAY YOUR USUAL STUFF. Choose between 'what a great lick player' cf 'what a great, creative player'.

    I don't believe people can't do this. It is very difficult sometimes. Try making up a solo on crotchets at a moderate tempo (needs discipline). If that's too fast, try minims. Don't memorise it, that's not the point. Sing it first if you like and you don't feel good enough to play as you sing. Singing whilst playing takes time (certainly to align) but is just a method to associate what you hear with what you play. If you don't hear anything to sing, you're not dead, you may have no faith in yourself, or need to learn how the guitar fretboard sounds more, or just take the risk with a note and see what happens. Not hearing anything in your imagination? I'd be surprised.

    Nothing to do with your ear. That's just a slang way of saying that what someone plays is of higher 'quality' - the right notes at the right time in the right rhythm. 'Great ears, man'. It means a greatly developed imagination, coupled with greatly developed skills in playing it. The great stuff is hardly ever about playing great technical stuff. Now that stuff, IS dead.

    I watched Tubby Hayes on TV a couple of nights ago fronting his big band. If he was 'inner-hearing' his solo at 300bpm I'm a pink toothbrush.


    If you read from music a lot you can hear what you see written down. It's not magic, it's just familiarity, memory, thought, repetition.
    if we mean creative ideas expressed through music . . . cannot be purchased by any means. It's either there or absent.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugo Gainly
    Did Salieri, before he gave up composition to take up van driving, attribute the lines to the stated instruments in the score and hear the orchestra as a whole? Or did he just hear a piano concert? Or did he just use his trained skill to see the arc of the piece and the elegance of the orchestration. (Genuine question: do we have polyphonic musical imagination? I don't think I have. Though maybe with musical recall which will involve different processes).
    Well I have met a few people in my life who have been able to hear music they don't know in their heads from a score. It's a learned skill. In a time where they was no other way to hear music either than get it performed, professional musicians got a lot of practice from early childhood. As far as polyphony goes, I don't know.

    What probably helped in Salieri's time is how conventionalised the music of that time was. This reminds me of something Mahler said about one of Schoenberg's scores - that he'd been looking at scores his whole life and he couldn't hear Schoenberg's piece. So I think it's much like the way we read words on a page and recognise the syntax and grammar, perhaps imagining the voices of certain characters in a novel as imitating certain actors or acquaintances (I mean, I hear the words in my head when I am reading a sentence). Much like looking at a sentence in an unfamiliar language using a familiar alphabet, Mahler couldn't recreate those sounds in his mind's ear. I can sometimes hear bits looking at scores, but it's not a skill I really have. Maybe someone else does?

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugo Gainly

    I am a good English reader, I can also read it jumbled up and backwards, a test set by railway station posters in the UK without any problem - I have learned to read properly.
    You konw the old tcirk, I spusope, wrehe yuor brain can rgencosie wrdos so lnog as you hvae the frsit and lsat lrteets wrhee tehy slhuod be. I dno't rebmeemr the rwaaliy sotaiton pertsos, thugoh. Snudos itstnrneig :-)

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Trouble is, that's how I play when I read the correct stuff...sigh.

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    ... I can sometimes hear bits looking at scores, but it's not a skill I really have. Maybe someone else does?
    Uncle Reg, maybe??

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugo Gainly
    The inner ear is a physical organ involved in the processing of sound. The rest of this discussion

    Genuine question: do we have polyphonic musical imagination?

    I have always been in awe of pianist's reading skills

    Hearing your own music inside your head - the inner ear in this thread? - is different again. You can't hear it, before it is created. The problem is getting it to exist.

    If he was 'inner-hearing' his solo at 300bpm I'm a pink toothbrush.
    Polyphonic musical imagination? Yes, the inner ear being discussed is the mind's inner ear, which presents a phenomenological isomorphism of the past, present, or subsequent future actual physical manifestation of the sound. It can do this in serial real-time or in whole configuration space. It hears various applied modifications, manipulations, and comparisons.

    Practice
    includes modifications of what you internally self hear (listening to your mind's ear as your backing track)
    - stripping the melody line to hear only harmony changes
    - adding or deleting passing chords
    - adjusting the level of extensions and alterations
    - changing key, tempo, style

    Judgement
    includes internal spatial presentation (comparative improvisational musical judgement - yes, it is heard before created)
    - hearing external sound and your own internal ideas
    - hearing and comparing different idea versions or variations of a segment simultaneously
    - selecting which version or variation sound's best

    Execution
    includes internal serial presentation (real-time content you pass to the instrument)
    - hearing the selected version in normal time
    - this includes both the external sound and your own contribution

    The pianist's reading skill you describe is called "touch typing", for the same reason a touch typist can produce perfect copy without grasping the content or meaning.

    300bpm is 10 eighth notes per second... Don't confound the different aspects of how inner-hearing is represented with the final execution. It may take you a few seconds to execute a line, but almost no time in audiation configuration space to hear, compare, select, and only then convert to serial real-time for execution. Spatial objects are Gestalts, whole things, the parts of which are perceived, processed, and manipulated simultaneously, even if those parts are subsequently made manifest as serial objects in real-time.

    As you can tell this is all very difficult to discuss because there is little existing popular vocabulary or a well known base of concepts. Some might think these things can't be true. However, you only have to listen to top musicians to hear them make these things seem like nothing compared to what they are able to do.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pauln
    Polyphonic musical imagination? Yes, the inner ear being discussed is the mind's inner ear, which presents a phenomenological isomorphism of the past, present, or subsequent future actual physical manifestation of the sound. It can do this in serial real-time or in whole configuration space. It hears various applied modifications, manipulations, and comparisons.

    Practice
    includes modifications of what you internally self hear (listening to your mind's ear as your backing track)
    - stripping the melody line to hear only harmony changes
    - adding or deleting passing chords
    - adjusting the level of extensions and alterations
    - changing key, tempo, style

    Judgement
    includes internal spatial presentation (comparative improvisational musical judgement - yes, it is heard before created)
    - hearing external sound and your own internal ideas
    - hearing and comparing different idea versions or variations of a segment simultaneously
    - selecting which version or variation sound's best

    Execution
    includes internal serial presentation (real-time content you pass to the instrument)
    - hearing the selected version in normal time
    - this includes both the external sound and your own contribution

    The pianist's reading skill you describe is called "touch typing", for the same reason a touch typist can produce perfect copy without grasping the content or meaning.

    300bpm is 10 eighth notes per second... Don't confound the different aspects of how inner-hearing is represented with the final execution. It may take you a few seconds to execute a line, but almost no time in audiation configuration space to hear, compare, select, and only then convert to serial real-time for execution. Spatial objects are Gestalts, whole things, the parts of which are perceived, processed, and manipulated simultaneously, even if those parts are subsequently made manifest as serial objects in real-time.

    As you can tell this is all very difficult to discuss because there is little existing popular vocabulary or a well known base of concepts. Some might think these things can't be true. However, you only have to listen to top musicians to hear them make these things seem like nothing compared to what they are able to do.
    Just wondering Paul, do you yourself possess the abilities you're describing here?

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    I think what we might call inner ear, or musical talent in hearing etc, is often just exposure and/or practice in music, which leads to developing these skills. Especially if done at a very early age. Like anything musical, it can be vastly improved if worked on. Growing up, doing classical piano lessons but listening to rock, I would solo in my head for years before finally getting a guitar..

    Something of interest has always been for me: perfect pitch! I've heard players that have it (I don't), and know people that work on it. I believe all small kids have it, or most of them, but they forget it if they don't follow up on it.

    I've played songs and guitar on many of my nephews and nieces when they were very young (about 2-3 years old or younger), and they all would sing back in the correct key and note. Even the next day, if they remembered the melody of a song, they would remember the key as well. If you played a motif repeatedly, they all sang it back (even days after) in tune and without transposing it. Playing the same song in two different keys would come across as two different songs. I can't do that myself!

    Like many of my adult students kids, my sisters kid, who has spent hours and hours listening to me practice scales and play, has great relative pitch and singing. Exposure to music does that, but very importantly, hearing scales and arpeggios too (when someone practices them in the house). Repeating daily also.

    After hearing me practice the pieces for my final classical exams for maybe a month, my nephew came in the room one day and sang along the whole thing. He got everything (and it was pretty complicated music!), and would only miss on passages that were too difficult to sing properly unless someone trains in singing. But his "inner ear" was 100% correct. Maybe five years old at the time, without any musical training to speak of. Just exposure to music.

    So imagine if a kid has the talent, and starts to work on music and play an instrument early on (as many famous musicians did). It's no wonder they can reach very high levels in hearing perception. It's just equivalent to all the other aspects of musicianship of accomplished players.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    To to OP:

    Maybe the inner ear thing definition is overcomplicated, and the same time confused with the terms "good ear" For me it is simply similar human brain capability, very similar to hearing speach in my head, for example just like this very moment, when I try to phrase my thoughts to communicate this forum.

    Just because one can hear human speach in his head, it does not mean he is a good speaker... it does not even mean he is a good thinker, or good understander, or good communicator. Those listed are is skills, and in general correlated with practice and the starting IQ.

    Similarly inner ear is not correlated with musical skills and musical IQ. Of course if you practice your ear, and develop your musical skills you can hear more and more things, and you can imagine more and more things and execute tgem on instrument or just hear in your inner. I am not sure I can explain clearly, the inner ear is not a separate thing in its own, it just an always existing capability to imagine things in your head, strictly according your actual current level of musicality,

    ***

    As Christian wrote: memory is important. Strongly agree, it is essential, similarly to speach. Without memory our head is an empty void, it is foolish to think that without prevoiusly filling it with content, any meaningful could come out. This goes for improvisation too. Especially for improvisation.

    ***

    Regarding the populat belief, "if you can not sing it, then it is not you who improvising, it is your fingers"... well this is simply a half truth. (Just for the record, I do believe that good ear and musical skills, and musical IQ is essential for improvising) but still, this singing belief remains a misleading statement. First of all my fingers is also me, I mean in artistic creative way too. But I know this is not a very convincing argument... so take this: Take the greatest singers of your choice, or your favourites. Compare they impros with Freddie Hubbard, Cannonball etc and those just the single voice horns... not talking to Bill Evans, and list here your piano heroes.

    Bottom line, I understand, that a very simple few note impro can hold equal artistic value than a zillion notes I do not talking about that. But I do not think that any *extra* in their impros (the listed non vocal musicians) compared to the way simpler vocal impro is void, and just fingers Because the statement about "if you can not sing..." would lead that conclusion.

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabor
    To to OP:

    Maybe the inner ear thing definition is overcomplicated, and the same time confused with the terms "good ear" For me it is simply similar human brain capability, very similar to hearing speach in my head, for example just like this very moment, when I try to phrase my thoughts to communicate this forum.

    Just because one can hear human speach in his head, it does not mean he is a good speaker... it does not even mean he is a good thinker, or good understander, or good communicator. Those listed are is skills, and in general correlated with practice and the starting IQ.

    Similarly inner ear is not correlated with musical skills and musical IQ. Of course if you practice your ear, and develop your musical skills you can hear more and more things, and you can imagine more and more things and execute tgem on instrument or just hear in your inner. I am not sure I can explain clearly, the inner ear is not a separate thing in its own, it just an always existing capability to imagine things in your head, strictly according your actual current level of musicality,

    ***

    As Christian wrote: memory is important. Strongly agree, it is essential, similarly to speach. Without memory our head is an empty void, it is foolish to think that without prevoiusly filling it with content, any meaningful could come out. This goes for improvisation too. Especially for improvisation.

    ***

    Regarding the populat belief, "if you can not sing it, then it is not you who improvising, it is your fingers"... well this is simply a half truth. (Just for the record, I do believe that good ear and musical skills, and musical IQ is essential for improvising) but still, this singing belief remains a misleading statement. First of all my fingers is also me, I mean in artistic creative way too. But I know this is not a very convincing argument... so take this: Take the greatest singers of your choice, or your favourites. Compare they impros with Freddie Hubbard, Cannonball etc and those just the single voice horns... not talking to Bill Evans, and list here your piano heroes.

    Bottom line, I understand, that a very simple few note impro can hold equal artistic value than a zillion notes I do not talking about that. But I do not think that any *extra* in their impros (the listed non vocal musicians) compared to the way simpler vocal impro is void, and just fingers Because the statement about "if you can not sing..." would lead that conclusion.
    yeah I find the Edwin Gordon thing ‘everything must be heard fully formed in the minds ear’ is a bit fundamentalist. Ears are important of course but it’s more complicated than that. Sometimes playing something we didn’t hear can give us an idea. As Peter Bernstein said ‘how about I play it, then I hear it?’ (then it gives an idea that will lead to something else.) sometimes a ‘mistake’ can lead us somewhere more interesting than what we intended.

    In the same vein Vaughan Williams was advised by Ravel not to compose straight to score from the inner ear, which for VW was the way he usually wrote, but instead to sit at the piano and compose there because ‘the ear cannot invent new harmonies’ only repeat what it already knows.

    Also in jazz you are a Co-creator. It’s not like you are Bach improvising a fugue on a pipe organ in splendid isolation; more like someone having a conversation and the conversation may well take an unexpected turn. As a result it’s necessary not to get too hung up on the contents of your own head.

    It’s give and take, a cycle

    That said I think the accurate audiation of rhythm is absolutely essential for jazz. Pitches can be not quite what you expected, but rhythmic weakness will show right away. This is definitely the way I hear faster stuff; it’s subdividing basically.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 08-07-2022 at 05:10 AM.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    Just wondering Paul, do you yourself possess the abilities you're describing here?
    I was trying for clarity with a difficult topic in which the mechanisms are substantially unconscious and what one may grasp of them is caught in glimpses through abstract personal symbols and inner representations over the years; what I should have made more clear was that all of that I wrote was an attempt to express what I may know of my own mechanisms.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pauln
    I was trying for clarity with a difficult topic in which the mechanisms are substantially unconscious and what one may grasp of them is caught in glimpses through abstract personal symbols and inner representations over the years; what I should have made more clear was that all of that I wrote was an attempt to express what I may know of my own mechanisms.
    So I can take that as a "Yes"?