Can you solo in your head or hum over a tune's changes?

[henryrobinett]

Allow me to play devil's advocate here. I think it's great to hear music in your head, and I'm not disputing that some people can do this, but my contention (---which I am not asserting as true but only saying here because it's a point worth 'hearing'; I haven't thought this through yet) is this: This is NOT how people improvise (at least not well), and for a simple reason: if you hear a cool line in your head, a line that fits over the changes going by, and then play it, you'll be LATE. There's no way around this. If you hear it first, you will play it late.

Well no, I don't think so. The fascinating thing about music is that it's THE art of time and sets up these great predictors. That's how surprise and anticipation and deceptive cadences work. The ability to predict is part of musics great strength.

When I create music in my head or otherwise, I know what is happening ahead of time. I'm going in a direction. I may repeat, I might respond, I might do something out of the ordinary, but almost always I'm at least half a step ahead, if not more. There's no latency.

[paynow]

Well no, I don't think so. The fascinating thing about music is that it's THE art of time and sets up these great predictors. That's how surprise and anticipation and deceptive cadences work. The ability to predict is part of musics great strength.

When I create music in my head or otherwise, I know what is happening ahead of time. I'm going in a direction. I may repeat, I might respond, I might do something out of the ordinary, but almost always I'm at least half a step ahead, if not more. There's no latency.

Tip of the hat sir; some great work on your site. So, on "Full Moon And Empty Arms," you're hearing all of that? That's pretty fast.

[MarkRhodes]

When I create music in my head or otherwise, I know what is happening ahead of time. I'm going in a direction. I may repeat, I might respond, I might do something out of the ordinary, but almost always I'm at least half a step ahead, if not more. There's no latency.

I understand this feeling, but I don't think it solves the problem. If you're always ahead (-in your head) you don't hear what you played *just now* because you're hearing what you'll play next..... If you're always 'at least a half step ahead,' then you are *always* out of time!

I think what we hear in our heads is shaped by what our fingers are doing. We think the hearing moves the fingers but the fingers react more quickly than our, um, hummers can hum! (This is why we can all play some things faster than we can sing them, if we can sing them at all.)

[henryrobinett]

Tip of the hat sir; some great work on your site. So, on "Full Moon And Empty Arms," you're hearing all of that? That's pretty fast.

Thank you! Well yes, more or less. The more you know the more you can hear. But I think it's kind of like Dizzy telling Miles, "You can only play what you hear." Or something like that. Miles didn't hear things in the higher register like Dizzy did. I hear pretty fast. But I HEAR the stuff in my head. I can't accurately hum it. No way. But I'm hearing it.

But at least as important is I understand the fretboard pretty well, so what I hear bares a resemblance and understanding of what I'm seeing on the fretboard. They go together, like a hand in a glove.

Thanks again for listening and responding!

[GodinFan]

It's easier to play what's in your head on saxophone. Instrument doesn't get in the way.

Are you speaking as a saxophonist?

[henryrobinett]

I understand this feeling, but I don't think it solves the problem. If you're always ahead (-in your head) you don't hear what you played *just now* because you're hearing what you'll play next..... If you're always 'at least a half step ahead,' then you are *always* out of time!

I think what we hear in our heads is shaped by what our fingers are doing. We think the hearing moves the fingers but the fingers react more quickly than our, um, hummers can hum! (This is why we can all play some things faster than we can sing them, if we can sing them at all.)

Wel OK, but I think of this entirely differently. Yeah I'm not really LISTENING to what I just played. I can't. That would REALLY mess up my playing. I'm in the moment of CREATING. I'm not listening to myself. If I did that I'd continually question, criticize and would be stuck. I'm ahead, reacting, creating and letting the moments go by.

I mean look, you're playing in a group and doing fours with the drummer. You KNOW what's going to happen. Fours. The drummer plays a cool little pattern. You respond in kind. But you can't THINK too much. You're reacting. In the moment. And if you are listening to much to what YOU JUST DID you're going to play stiff and have terrible time.

I know what you're saying by being shaped by what our fingers are doing. But this is the challenge: to TELL our fingers what to play and not be held captive by what the are doing. We aren't slaves to our fingers. It's the other way around. Our fingers do what we tell them to do. Yes, we can set up an autonomic system where they can just go along on their merry way, but who wants to do that? It does come in handy when drunk, but not much otherwise. It doesn't REALY take a lot of attention, once you do it enough.

[Spirit59]

Are you speaking as a saxophonist?

I can't speak for spook but he's right - assuming we're talking about someone who had done the work that is required to become "one with their instrument".

Notes formed on the sax are made not only by pressing keys, but *you* are integral to forming the note (embouchure, breath), so if you aren't hearing what that note should be *dead on*, you will sound like dooky.

From day one, a sax player never sees his fingers! So they never have to cross the hurdle of "stop looking at your fretboard", which is also huge in making the instrument "part of you".

The very act of playing the sax promotes ear growth, more so than guitar.

[MarkRhodes]

I know what you're saying by being shaped by what our fingers are doing. But this is the challenge: to TELL our fingers what to play and not be held captive by what the are doing. We aren't slaves to our fingers.

You're acting like they're not YOUR hands! Like your conscious thoughts are really YOU while your hands are, well, lesser things. I think this is a mistake. The interplay of brain and hand is extraordinarily complex. (This goes for everyone, not just musicians.) YOUR brain is involved in *whatever* your hands do. It's a myth that "focusing" on what we're doing with them increases efficiency. It tends to be the other way round.)

[GodinFan]

I can't speak for spook but he's right - assuming we're talking about someone who had done the work that is required to become "one with their instrument".

Notes formed on the sax are made not only by pressing keys, but *you* are integral to forming the note (embouchure, breath), so if you aren't hearing what that note should be *dead on*, you will sound like dooky.

From day one, a sax player never sees his fingers! So they never have to cross the hurdle of "stop looking at your fretboard", which is also huge in making the instrument "part of you".

The very act of playing the sax promotes ear growth, more so than guitar.

The reason I asked the question is because the statement that was made definitely does not match up with my experience.

I'm a professional woodwind player. I've been playing saxes, clarinet, flute and bassoon for 30 years.

There is a consistency to guitar technique that makes it easier to play what you hear.

On guitar if you want to play a B then play a note a whole step higher, you know it can always be found two frets higher. You have a choice of fingers, but you always know that going up the neck two frets will raise the pitch by a tone.

On saxophone, things are a lot less consistent. On a tenor sax, that B is now a C# on the instrument (Bb transposition). C# is a nice easy note. No fingers! However, if you want to go up a tone, you have to add your thumb, 3 LH fingers, and 4 RH fingers.

For the sake of argument, let's say I just decided to play a B on saxophone and go up a whole step. It's played with the LH first finger. If I go up a whole step from there, I remove that finger.

Saxophone does not have consistent movement of fingers, guitar does.

I dispute the relative ease of playing what's in your head on saxophone over guitar.

I've made much more rapid progress playing jazz on guitar because of the relative simplicity in finger technique.

As for the saxophonist not seeing their fingers, it's not really a big deal. Most of the fingers on the saxophone keys do one thing; they don't have to move around. Saxophonists tend to learn to read quicker because they don't have to visually ascertain whether they're in the right place on the keyboard.

[jayx123]

This thread is really interesting. I like to scat while improvising and i can pretty much sing what i play. A lot of times when i improvise by singing (without the guitar in my hands) I will need to move my fingers like I'm playing the guitar. Its like my singing improvisation is wired to my fingers. So my singing has some kind of a visual reference to the different fingerings and positions.

I hope this makes sense

[henryrobinett]

You're acting like they're not YOUR hands! Like your conscious thoughts are really YOU while your hands are, well, lesser things. I think this is a mistake. The interplay of brain and hand is extraordinarily complex. (This goes for everyone, not just musicians.) YOUR brain is involved in *whatever* your hands do. It's a myth that "focusing" on what we're doing with them increases efficiency. It tends to be the other way round.)

OK. That's fine. We just fundamentally disagree. I use my hands. My mind creates the music. I tell my hands where to go and what to do. But you can think of it anyway you want. My way works for me.

Obviously I train my hands and spend my life training my hands to do what I want them to do. I resist training my hand does to me. That's why I practice: to undo habits my hands want to do all on their own.

That's like an author giving credit to his hand for writing a novel or poem. He used his hand to write it, but his mind and imagination wrote it. I see no difference here. I play the guitar. I use my hands to realize what I imagine. Not the other way around.

[fep]

This thread is really interesting. I like to scat while improvising and i can pretty much sing what i play. A lot of times when i improvise by singing (without the guitar in my hands) I will need to move my fingers like I'm playing the guitar. Its like my singing improvisation is wired to my fingers. So my singing has some kind of a visual reference to the different fingerings and positions.

I hope this makes sense

As I remember, you do this well.

Have you ever recorded yourself singing a solo without your guitar. If so, is it basically the same as the notes you use when playing?

[Spook410]

Are you speaking as a saxophonist?

I spent a couple of years in jazz fusion bands in the mid 1970's playing saxophone after years of tedious high school and college music programs. Then some years after that jamming and in the occasional pickup band. I was never a good jazz musician. I did, however, spend many hours on stage and off improvising and I think I was fairly good at it as I was not in a horn section but more in the typical jazz role alongside others out front. Still have a nice Selmer MKVI in the closet though I no longer play though which is a pity.

Relative to this discussion, saxophone is so very different than guitar when it comes to just doing what your brain wants. For me, it was always much easier. Your hands are always in position. There are only two and a half octaves. It's not polyphonic. Usually only one way to get to where you're going. I never thought about what my hands were doing. You talked about going from C# to D (fingers off vs fingers on) but who really thinks about that? By the time you're up there soloing your muscle memory has that down to the point where it's like breathing.

[Arpeggio]

Yes your voice is most probably more closely linked to the part of your brain responsible for your perception of sound than your fingers are, so if you sing while you play or sing then try to play what you just sang you are bridging the gap between your fingers and that part of the brain.

2 important things for me are that connection and my imagination, if you can get to the point of aural fret-board awareness where the only thing to work on is your imagination then as an improvisor I think you are looking at a wide open space in front of you of musical freedom and potential.

[AlsoRan]

As I remember, you do this well.

Have you ever recorded yourself singing a solo without your guitar. If so, is it basically the same as the notes you use when playing?

I took the time to try this test. My improvising is very rudimentary but the answer for me was "Yes." The little melody I sang was the same as the notes that I was groping to play.

It was a slow melody so I don't know how if this would be true on faster songs.

[henryrobinett]

If I find myself just playing way too much, I sometimes will start to sing along with my soloing. The lines then become more focused and melodic, and less abstract and diarrhetic. The other thing singing does is it forces you to breathe, like a horn player, where phrasing becomes more natural because of it.

[Spirit59]

The reason I asked the question is because the statement that was made definitely does not match up with my experience.

I'm a professional woodwind player. I've been playing saxes, clarinet, flute and bassoon for 30 years.

There is a consistency to guitar technique that makes it easier to play what you hear.

On guitar if you want to play a B then play a note a whole step higher, you know it can always be found two frets higher. You have a choice of fingers, but you always know that going up the neck two frets will raise the pitch by a tone.

On saxophone, things are a lot less consistent. On a tenor sax, that B is now a C# on the instrument (Bb transposition). C# is a nice easy note. No fingers! However, if you want to go up a tone, you have to add your thumb, 3 LH fingers, and 4 RH fingers.

For the sake of argument, let's say I just decided to play a B on saxophone and go up a whole step. It's played with the LH first finger. If I go up a whole step from there, I remove that finger.

Saxophone does not have consistent movement of fingers, guitar does.

I dispute the relative ease of playing what's in your head on saxophone over guitar.

I've made much more rapid progress playing jazz on guitar because of the relative simplicity in finger technique.

As for the saxophonist not seeing their fingers, it's not really a big deal. Most of the fingers on the saxophone keys do one thing; they don't have to move around. Saxophonists tend to learn to read quicker because they don't have to visually ascertain whether they're in the right place on the keyboard.

I think we're coming at this from two different angles.

I'm referring to the effect that playing / learning the sax has on one's ear and "oneness" with the music, thus facilitating playing the music in your head. The guitar doesn't require that you hear *anything* in order to play it - as long as your instrument is intonated correctly, and you fret the note correctly, the resulting note will be in tune whether you hear it or not.

I wasn't addressing any issues that could impede a connection to the music such as not being able to play in all keys. Of course you're going to have some problems playing what you hear in your head if you don't have instant access to at least all major scales, triads, extensions etc.

[henryrobinett]

Hm. I think any musical instrument, including guitar, requires that you hear it "in your head." I don't know what to make of the people who claim not to be able to. I think maybe they're not knowing what is meant by "hearing it in your head" or just haven't gotten to the stage of being able to play fluidly.

I could always hear music in my head. Interestingly I never particularly heard, or hear, the GUITAR. I heard lines that were more associated with an instrument like a piano or tenor sax, even as I played the guitar.

I think I know what you mean though. The sax or trumpet resonates in your head, unlike a guitar or piano or bass. But unless you're playing those instruments completely mechanically, I think you hear the guitar in your mind's imagination.

I wear out my throat sometimes, not because I'm singing, but because the sound (I think) is emanating from my throat and then through my fingers. OK, OK. What I mean is I IMAGINE I'm singing while playing guitar. Not REALLY, but in effect. I don't have a picture of myself on stage like Sinatra belting one out while playing it all on guitar. Yet I'm not making a sound. It's weird. I'm not aware of it consciously, but I don't imagine the sound is coming from my fingers. My musical awareness is in my throat.

For instance when I transcribe something or try to play back a phrase, I FIRST get the sound in my throat - I DUPLICATE, the sound in my throat or inner voice, then my hand, whether I'm holding a guitar or not, fingers an imaginary fretboard. I'm not saying I'm always correct, but I have an approximation. I do this just listening to music. I see a fretboard in my mind, whether I'm listening to Brad Mehldau or Coltrane, but I hear the note in my throat.

Strange I know. I'm just realizing this.

[fep]

So this is me playing what I sing or singing what I play, how the heck do I know. (I know my pitch isn't very good, this is technically beyond my vocal abilities, maybe if I did it more often).

I sight-sing a lot and I know that if you transcribed this and asked me to sight-read it, I'd have to really labor thru it and couldn't do it anywhere near this tempo.

If you put your guitar down, in the case, in the next room, would you be able to sight-sing this at tempo if it was transcribed?

If not, why not?

This is what I don't understand. If you can play what you hear, then why wouldn't sight-singing be equally easy.

[henryrobinett]

Cool. No, I couldn't. Because it's a different process. Reading presents it's own problems and issues. Taking a sound, or notes from your mind, is a creative process of invention. Putting that on an instrument, if you are a good, capable musician, is an entirely different process than reading and sight-singing a score.

Plus some people can't sing. I had my thyroid removed two months ago and I still can't sing. I was never a singer, but I could find the pitch reasonably well. Now I can't even do that! My vocal cords deceive me. But I can still hear the pitches in my head.

I do have to often, with some of my more beginner students, get them to HEAR pitches. This is why I really try to force them to tune the guitar with their ears and not with the electronic tuner. Some students can't hear rhythms well either. But I believe everything can be taught, when you debug it and find out what they're doing wrong. And it's always some misunderstood concept. I test them to see what they're hearing and get them to try to hear something else.

[MarkRhodes]

Hm. I think any musical instrument, including guitar, requires that you hear it "in your head."

Nobody is questioning whether people can hear music in their head. Yes, we can. The question is whether when people are improvising they are a) hearing a line (or portion thereof) and b) immediately playing what they hear.

I think fep had the best question (-which I quoting from memory; check his previous post for accuracy): If you can do that, why can't you immediately play anything you hear someone *else* play???????

Now, some people may be able to do that. My mother plays piano by ear and could always play any tune she wanted from memory. (Curiously, she's never come up with a tune on her own.)

My suspicion is that the lines we hear in our head (-when improvising) are the types of things we've played a lot and that our awareness of them is not their *source*: we know how what our fingers are about to do will sound because we've played it before, usually lots of times before. Sometimes we have a novel idea. (Though in my case, I come up with most of my cool licks when I'm noodling, and when I hear something cool, I go, 'whoa! Where'd that come from? Who cares, finder's keepers!")

[AlsoRan]

So this is me playing what I sing or singing what I play, how the heck do I know.]

Good illustration, fep (like I said on another thread, watch out George Benson!)

Almost like thinking of words to say and uttering them at the same time. Is there a lag between the thought and the utterance? How long? Or can they happen together.

[MarkRhodes]

So this is me playing what I sing or singing what I play, how the heck do I know. (I know my pitch isn't very good, this is technically beyond my vocal abilities, maybe if I did it more often).

Cool! I think you've seized the heart of the matter here.

I think we want to think that your minds know more than our hands, but it's our hands on the guitars for hours a day. They don't follow direct orders. ("Play a C note, okay, cool, now a D, and then we'll play the E next, very good!" That's how kids think when they first learn to drive and it's why they're so dangerous on the road! They think so much they can get themselves killed.)

Even when we use a lick--how many jazz players have started a chorus of blues in F with Charlie Parker's opening phrase from his famous "Now's the Time" solo?--you don't hear the lick in your head--it's really a two-measure lick--and THEN play it. You just know you want to play that lick and then you are playing it. Your fingers were probably ahead of you but you weren't conscious of that. Our conscious thoughts are so often 'just-so stories' told about things we did without thinking about them at all.

[Spirit59]

Though there may be no definitive consensus as to what "playing what's in your head" is, I don't think it fair to claim that you can do so if everything that comes out is comprised of "licks" that you've play a million times before. I always thought the term was referring more to music that you come up with in your head, away from the guitar, something not necessarily guitaristic in origin....

[henryrobinett]

I took it form the OP that he was talking about hearing it in your head. If you can sing the solo over changes in your head, that's what I take it to mean.

I was surprised when a guitar instructor that I met on a plane ride told me it is a gift to be able hum a solo over changes. He said he could not do it and that many can't even hum the solos to existing recorded songs.

I have always been able to do that. I have met a few guitarists that agreed with this gentleman.

Now I am asking, was this fellow correct? And if so, then could this be the missing element in a lot of guitarists that say they can't improvise very well, despite years of learning Jazz theory?