"Playing What You Hear" (according to Don Mock.)

[Kojo27]

never mind

[Kojo27]

Using my own logic?

I never said, "If he can't sing them, he isn't "hearing" them. He might "listen" to them all day but still be unable to hear them."

Indeed you did not say these last two sentences - only the first. In the second and third (above in the quote), I was, I thought, re-stating, for clarity and test of our agreement, what you meant in your sentence.

If our definitions of "hearing" had been the same, I would have been using your logic.

Looks like *this* is our point of disagreement. With all the respect in the world to you, fep, I believe that if a person is really "hearing" a set of notes, he can sing, hum, whistle, grunt - reproduce, in sound, somehow - those notes he has in his aural imagination. If you don't believe this, Google a bit. 'Tis true. If you can't sing it (or whatever), you aren't hearing it - that's the problem. Singing problems are hearing problems... or really "imagining" problems. Hal Galper talks of this, as does George Kochevitsky in the book Galper got it from. But lots of voice and ear-training teachers have known this for many years.

Thus my statement that a person might *listen* to some music all day, but still be unable to "hear" it -- to vocalize it.

Here is our point of difference in the original problem. "Playing what you hear" - to me - means being able to play what you can reproduce with your mouth or your vocal cords. Because if you "own" a set of notes, you can sing or hum them. However, it seems that, with your definition of "hearing," it means playing anything someone throws at you.

I'd say there probably aren't but a very few, if any, who could do this. Anything? Would take perfect pitch and a highly trained ear just to have a hope, I think.

I said it should be "easy to sing". But, I'll admit singing is not easy for some, so that statement was sloppy. But it doesn't take away from my argument, we aren't talking about singing we're talking about hearing. ....if you can sing it you certainly can hear it, though the opposite is not necessarily true (for those that have difficulties singing)....

I respectfully disagree, fep. Talk to singing teachers, to ear-training teachers -- see what they say. Google it even. I will later - I'm very rushed right now.

Where did I say, "He might "listen" to them all day but still be unable to hear them."

You didn't. That was my statement. Sorry

We are talking about very accomplished musicians aren't we? We're talking about musicians that can play anything they hear, right?

No, not necessarily - I'm including ordinary players. If I specified only very accomplished players, I didn't intend to.

You said: "Yet you imply in other parts of your post that if a person can play what he hears, he should be able to play whatever he listens to! A contradiction?"

I don't understand how that's a contradiction.

Now that I see where you're coming from, I don't see one either. I disagree with you - that's all.

I understand your position now, and I hope you see mine. "Listen" and "hear" are not, to me, the same thing at all, when we're talking about being able to play what you can hear. I could possibly listen to atonal piano music all day and not be able to reproduce it - see? I don't have the "ears" for it. And I would never create ("hear" and play) an original phrase made up of tones I can't hear.

kj

[EightString]

Sure, if you're great at it, then it should be more thrilling than lick machines. Just sayin' that there are a lot pf players that play in public that sound to me like they're not there yet. I'd rather hear a slick lick machine than the guy who's struggling to make up melodies no one has ever conceived before. Now, the latter maybe more difficult, more admirable and indeed more arty, but the majority of listeners seem to prefer music with less awkward surprises. Even jazz guitarists seem to prefer Wes and Pass over Sco. Don't get me wrong, I like risk taking, but only when it comes off. Besides, it can be argued that line players can still take risks with their playing, enough to thrill (obviously unhip) listeners like me at least, anyway....

There's the disconnect.

I'm not necessarily trying to thrill the listener with risk-taking. I would rather the listener be thrilled with the overall musicality of the performance. I'm very much a "play for the song" kind of guy, even when soloing.

To that end, extemporaneous melody composition poses very little risk for me. I'm never really in a position that I'm "fishing for clams". There are no "awkward surprises" because what I play in that way is what I intend to play. I am playing melodically, with malice aforethought.

[Kojo27]

There's the disconnect.

I'm not necessarily trying to thrill the listener with risk-taking. I would rather the listener be thrilled with the overall musicality of the performance. I'm very much a "play for the song" kind of guy, even when soloing.

To that end, extemporaneous melody composition poses very little risk for me. I'm never really in a position that I'm "fishing for clams". There are no "awkward surprises" because what I play in that way is what I intend to play. I am playing melodically, with malice aforethought.

When you're creating your melodies "spontaneously," are you using solfege as a means of knowing where your mental creations are on the guitar? That's my connection - though I am not advanced at this; just basic stuff. If I'm in the key of Eb, I know that "sol" is Bb, that "la" is C, etc. And I know all the notes on the fingerboard, so there's no real lag between imagining and playing. If not solfege, how do you "hear" your way from brain to guitar?

kj

[princeplanet]

There's the disconnect.

I'm not necessarily trying to thrill the listener with risk-taking. I would rather the listener be thrilled with the overall musicality of the performance. I'm very much a "play for the song" kind of guy, even when soloing.

To that end, extemporaneous melody composition poses very little risk for me. I'm never really in a position that I'm "fishing for clams". There are no "awkward surprises" because what I play in that way is what I intend to play. I am playing melodically, with malice aforethought.

Fair point.

[fep]

When you're creating your melodies "spontaneously," are you using solfege as a means of knowing where your mental creations are on the guitar? That's my connection - though I am not advanced at this; just basic stuff. If I'm in the key of Eb, I know that "sol" is Bb, that "la" is C, etc. And I know all the notes on the fingerboard, so there's no real lag between imagining and playing. If not solfege, how do you "hear" your way from brain to guitar?

kj

I went through the 4 semesters of college ear training Our teacher wanted us to use scale degree numbers. Although if we had previous formal ear training and were already locked in to solfege, we could use that instead.

To answer the obvious question, for a b5, #5, or a 5, we'd just sing 5 for all of them but think the # or b in our had if that was the note we were after.

I think this method is more suited for jazz, as using scale degrees is part of the vernacular, (e.g. VI ii V I).

KJ wrote: "I'd say there probably aren't but a very few, if any, who could do this. Anything? Would take perfect pitch and a highly trained ear just to have a hope, I think."

I have met two people that can do this. One of them would notate everything she'd listen too in her head. She said she has a really hard time turning it off, she does it without thinking about it. It makes it hard for her to just relax and listen to music. She's a young piano teacher I took lessons from. My favorite is her tune Fronk:

Jaeryoung Lee | Gratis muziek, tourneedata, foto's, video's

[EightString]

When you're creating your melodies "spontaneously," are you using solfege as a means of knowing where your mental creations are on the guitar? That's my connection - though I am not advanced at this; just basic stuff. If I'm in the key of Eb, I know that "sol" is Bb, that "la" is C, etc. And I know all the notes on the fingerboard, so there's no real lag between imagining and playing. If not solfege, how do you "hear" your way from brain to guitar?

kj

Ah, no, I don't use solfege at all. I use a relative approach that used to be more conscious, but it has been absorbed into my subconscious from decades worth of playing.

So, I'm usually not thinking of the note values at all, but of their intervalic relationships to the preceding notes and to the chords and changes. I also think ahead with melodies as well, so I might "pre compose" a little melody right before I play it.

This is how I also approach chord work, always with relative movement and "hearing" the changes before they come.

But again, it's more subconscious. In a way, it has to be, because I'm a singer, and I can't be consciously thinking too much about chord changes and fills while I'm trying to deliver a good vocal performance.

On a related note, I would bet that the fact that I play guitar WHILE I sing has a good deal to do with forcing me to deal with this stuff in my subconscious.

[whatswisdom]

I think this method is more suited for jazz, as using scale degrees is part of the vernacular, (e.g. VI ii V I).

fep - I always dig your posts. To add further and maybe help the OP, with western harmony music being based on a tertian system, it is very helpful to become fluent in spelling scales in 3rds, up and down. Do this in in all keys until you can do it in your sleep. It takes some effort, especially in the beginning, and the brain doesn't want to go backwards, but make no mistake, when you can spell cegbdfa...afdbgec; gbdf#ace...ecaf#dbg, etc. etc., with ease, you're setting yourself up for success. Spelling chords becomes much easier, the keyboard becomes your friend--and the fretboard. All because you know your musical alphabet. Best thing about this is that you can do it anywhere, anytime. No guitar needed.

[NSJ]

To me, the fundamental goal is to be able to sing everything, and instantly find/transfer those notes on the board. Also, how are you going to respond to what someone else has just played or is playing if you can't hear and identify those notes on the fly? I.e., to take and develop a line, you have to know the line. It's all very simple, but, at the same time, very difficult to properly execute, because it requires a lot of ear training, particularly for me, because I did not grow up singing. I'm trying to spend some time away from the guitar, at the piano, match pitches, etc. Musicians in other fields don't have to worry about this as much, but , to me, its a "sin qua non" element, JAZZ 101.

Also, another function of scatting or singing your lines, even if you don't the notes exactly, at least you have the RHYTHMIC contours of your line. To me, a melodious/lyrical line played with a a great groove is the most important thing.