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

[AlsoRan]

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?

[paynow]

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?

Is the instructor a jazz player? Some of it could have to do with an inability to sing; maybe they can hear it in their head but can't sing it because their voice is terrible.

[AlsoRan]

Is the instructor a jazz player? Some of it could have to do with an inability to sing

He was actually a Blues guy who played in bands and taught. I would think Blues guitarists, given the vocal nature of many Blues solos (Albert King, BB King, etc..), would be especially adept at humming solos.

[fep]

I agree with the guitar instructor.

I think for many there is a big difference between thinking you can do this and actually being able to do this. I've heard at least one jazz great (was it Herb Ellis?) vocalize while soloing on the guitar and the pitches he was singing were not what he was playing, not even close.

Everyone has different innate abilities and some are much more naturally gifted than others. If you're like me, singing with good pitch is not easy. And I sing all the time (when I'm alone ).

There is a technical element to singing that most need to work on and there is vocabulary building that also needs to be worked on. And, there is often a big disconnect between what someone thinks they sound like and what they actually sound like. Recording and listening to play back can cure that.

If you can hum or sing solos and read music notation, shouldn't it be easy for you to sight-sing?

Have you ever recorded and listened back to a recording of yourself singing or humming a solo? Have you transcribed what you sang?

Try this: Record all this; set your metronome to 110, strum and hold a G major chord, sing eighth notes, a mixolydian scale up and down. Now strum and hold Bb major, sing a blues scale up and down. Listen back, how did you do?

That's a good test and should be really easy for a jazz guitarist that is also good at singing solos. Much easier than singing an altered scale or chromatic licks.

Some can do this, but I think many can't.

I've even heard singers that think they are "jazz singers", who scat like scat (as in coyote scat).

[paynow]

Fep, you said Herb Ellis. I was trying to think of someone before, couldn't remember who, and now I do: Oscar Peterson. Herb reminds me of Oscar because of the trio.

He would sing his solos and it sounded like someone kicking a goat. Now I'm sure that in his head he was hearing it, but it wasn't coming out that way.

And now I know what "coyote scat" is. Yuck. Here in New York we have "rat scat," "roach scat," "cat scat," and "cats who can scat."

We do have coyotes, but thankfully I've not run into one.

[MarkRhodes]

I've heard Oscar doing that on some live recordings. (Doesn't Keith Jarrett do this too?) Herb did it too. In his books, he encourages players to "sing what they play." It's not really singing, or even humming, and whoever said above that the pitches don't necessarily match what's being played must've heard some of the same recordings I have, because I got the same impression!

I think it's great for rhythm, though, and it keeps you from thinking too much while playing. ;o)

[MarkRhodes]

It just popped into my head that Jimi Hendrix could sing Buddy Guy solos. He knew several by heart and others heard him sing them.

[paynow]

I've heard Oscar doing that on some live recordings. (Doesn't Keith Jarrett do this too?) Herb did it too. In his books, he encourages players to "sing what they play." It's not really singing, or even humming, and whoever said above that the pitches don't necessarily match what's being played must've heard some of the same recordings I have, because I got the same impression!

I think it's great for rhythm, though, and it keeps you from thinking too much while playing. ;o)

Good points. I read somewhere that Barney Kessel would whistle something, then immediately try to play it. An exercise of sorts.

[monk]

Some people don't have a pleasing vocal quality or the range to accurately sing a line. This has nothing to do with whether or not they can hear music in their head.

I discovered that I could hear music in my head when I was around six years old. I was riding in the car with my parents and we passed a billboard advertising a well-known soft drink. As I looked at the billboard, I could hear the music to the TV commercial in my head. For months afterward, one of my favorite pastimes was thinking of songs and "playing" them in my head.

It began with the Sony Walkman and I think that more and more, this ability is being short circuited by people walking around with mp3 players. For most people, music has become an external commodity rather than an internal ability.

I would bet that the fellow that AlsoRan met plays by rote or just strings licks together to solo.

There is much that has been written of the ability of Bach and Mozart sitting down with a blank sheet of staff paper and composing with no instrument present and Beethoven wrote many of his greatest works after becoming deaf, transferring the music in his head to paper.

This may not be the politically correct thing to say but I believe that the ability to hear music in one's head is a necessary component for being a working musician. If one can't hear music in their head, they should find something else to do.

[Spirit59]

Don't let these examples of less than pleasing vocalizations during improv performance distract you from the reality regarding the necessity of hearing what you're playing.

We've all heard Keith Jarrett vocalize during performance - is he always on pitch? Not even close, but it's not the point - it's a way of connecting to the music. Does anyone really think that he's not hearing what he's about to play? You better believe his ears are up to the task. Is it necessary to vocalize during performance? That's a decision you have to make.

One of the negatives of guitar (at least in terms of developing as a musician) is that the physical nature of the instrument allows one to play things you can't hear. Not so with horns, as pressing the correct keys only get's you part of the way there - the embouchure fine tunes it, and if you ain't hearing it, it ain't gonna happen, period.

So - back to the point - spend some of the time singing what you're playing or comp for yourself and just sing. You can "cheat" and re-orient yourself / check your vocal lines with your guitar.

The music should come out of you as much as possible.

[Little Jay]

There's music in my head all the time: in the shower, at the office, while driving, always. My way of falling asleep is to take a jazz standard and solo over it in my head. Or rehearse melodies in my head.

In fact, I sometimes have to turn off the radio or tv because they interfere too much with what I'm singing in my head.

Frustrating thing is that I can't instantly play the music in my head on the guitar, there's a time lap. Although it's getting better and better, especially if I close my eyes and let go and try not to think too much about what I'm playing but listen to the music in my head and let my fingers follow that.

(while typing this I was soloing over 'Round Midnight in my head.....)

[mr. beaumont]

I have been saying
..probablyuch too often lately....that one of the things absolutely necessary for playing jazz is for it to be the music that plays in your head...

I think being able to sing a solo over changes might be tje single most important skill an improvisor needs...to somewhat qupte hal galper...if you cannot hear ot...you cannot play it.

[MarkRhodes]

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.
I think what most people do is hear music *as* they play it but *think* they heard it before, the way people think they know what they're going to say before they say it but they don't. (For the most part.)
Humans are adept at making sense of things after they happen. (The brain research on this is fascinating.) Our fingers, when playing, make a million decisions that are never conscious to us. (Neurscientist Michael Gazzaniga suggests the example of typing to appreciate this. We all type, we type without looking at our keyboards, but if someone asks us where the "V" key is, we have to stop and think, even though if we were about to type "vowel" or "wave" we would *know* where the "V" is.)
The brain is more efficient when it works "automatically." Conscious attention actually slows us down. (Gazzaniga suggests that this is why musicians and free-throw shooters "choke." They would be better off NOT thinking, and doing things as automatically as possible.)

I may start another thread on this but for here and now, I submit the proposition that if you play what you hear first in your head, your playing will be late. (A further complication: the harmony sounding when you heard that line in your head will have changed by the time you play it!)

[fep]

^ ^

I think I agree with Markerhodes

I hear music in my head often too. And I'm connected to what I'm playing in a way that it seems I'm playing what I'm hearing (or am I hearing what I'm playing?).

It's an interesting topic.

Let me ask this:

If you can play what you hear in your head. Then, given that the music isn't beyond your technical ability, shouldn't you be able to play what you hear on a recording, instantaneously?

And if you can do that shouldn't you be able to transcribe easily, very quickly, without an instrument? (after you've found one reference note for the entire piece)

And, wouldn't you be beyond having to do any ear training exercises as they would all be so easy it would be pointless?



Okay, I know some folks can do that. And to a certain extent I had to do that in my ear training classes. But the pieces where easier to transcribe than a typical jazz solo.

From what people are posting, it would lead one to believe you all can easily do what is asked in the above questions. Really?

Also, have any of you scatted a solo over jazz changes and then transcribed it? How does it compare to what you typically play as a guitar solo? I guess it would have to be extremely similar?

Me, I still do ear training, mostly in the form of sight-singing, almost every day. Funny thing is I think I can probably do that better than most, maybe I'm delusional. From the what's written on this thread, you all must be able to sight-read better than me.

[mr. beaumont]

I dont think listening and hearing are the same thing.

I also think it is possible to "hear" and "play" almost simultaneously... Because when i am really on i can do this...and although thats not an everyday occurrence i think it can be with work.

[fep]

I dont think listening and hearing are the same thing.

I also think it is possible to "hear" and "play" almost simultaneously... Because when i am really on i can do this...and although thats not an everyday occurrence i think it can be with work.

Okay then...

How about you listen to two measures of Charlie Parker, you sing it, you listen again, you sing it.

Now you're hearing it in your head... Shouldn't you now be able to transcribe it without your instrument, very quickly, no delay, as fast as you can write, no mistakes?

I am not trying to be a smart ass, I'm really curious about this. This topic is something I hear over and over and I can't reconcile that playing what you hear is a reality, without one being able to very easily transcribe without an instrument.

[mr. beaumont]

Maybe, maybe not...a different skill, in my opinion.

My take on what Galper is saying is that when we improvise, the only stuff we can really pull from is what we can hear in our head... Everything else is just our fingers doing the walking...

Now i could take that parker lick and maybe, if i had a really sharp ear, remember it well enough to play it back on the guitar....but that is diffferent than having that sound so internalized that it can bubble up maturally as i am playing.

[fep]

Have any of you actually tried to do experiments to convince yourself that what you are saying about playing what you hear is true?

Since I'm the primary trouble maker, I did one myself. Why don't you all try this and let's see what we come up with.



Am I the only one that has done this?

[Spirit59]

Have any of you actually tried to do experiments to convince yourself that what you are saying about playing what you hear is true?

Since I'm the primary trouble maker, I did one myself. Why don't you all try this and let's see what we come up with.



Am I the only one that has done this?

The main reason why they are different is that in the second example, your "finger vocabulary" is probably active, at least somewhat, as in the case of most of us.

[MarkRhodes]

I dont think listening and hearing are the same thing.

I also think it is possible to "hear" and "play" almost simultaneously...

Jeff, I think it's possible to hear and play almost simultaneously too, and I think that's what is often meant by 'playing what you hear' but given that our conscious mind processes things slowly (-compared to how fast non-conscious processes work) this might be an illusion.

Let me give you a real cool example: touch your nose with the tip of a finger. Now answer this question: which did you feel first? Everybody says "I felt them both at the same time" but this is not actually possible. (The message from the tip of your nose must travel only a few inches to reach your brain, while the message from your fingertip must travel all the way back down through your hand and up your arm and shoulder first--but our conscious mind perceives them as 'the same time,' but they're not.)

As far as music goes, I am not looking to argue with anyone who says "I hear lines and then play them." (Though I think Fep's question is apt: then why can't you play anyone ELSE'S lines as soon as you hear them? Not *you,* Jeff, but just the General Person making that claim.)

My concern is with players who are bothered because they *don't* hear great lines running through their head when they play, or many lines at all. Are they doomed to mediocrity? I think not, at least not necessarily.

Anyway who is 'blowin' and flowin'' has my blessing. (For what little that's worth.) But I think this kind of talk---which is fine for people who understand it from the inside--could confuse players who think, "Geez, now I not only have to think of all these chords and scales and jazz vocab, I have to listen to a horn solo in my head, and immediately repeat it on my guitar!" Terrifying task too many.

[MarkRhodes]

Let me ask this:

If you can play what you hear in your head. Then, given that the music isn't beyond your technical ability, shouldn't you be able to play what you hear on a recording, instantaneously?

Fep, that's a brilliant question!

[Spirit59]

I dont think listening and hearing are the same thing.

I also think it is possible to "hear" and "play" almost simultaneously... Because when i am really on i can do this...and although thats not an everyday occurrence i think it can be with work.

Lots of players hear & play simultaneously - for sure.

I think some of us are attaching subtly different meanings to the word "hear".

"Playing what you hear", to me, doesn't mean that I hear something come out of a speaker and then I play it correctly on my instrument - it means playing the stuff I come up with in my head.

[AlsoRan]

"finger vocabulary"

Just this concept is very interesting.

I have found that the finger vocabulary comes into play primarily on very fast runs. I find I can't really clearly play them in my head and certainly can't sing or hum them with the proper pitches. But, I can let my finger play it out and then pick up with my silent head melody at the end of the run.

Just how my mind has worked so far although I have not had the motivation to investigate as well as fep.

Also, I tend to think a note or two ahead, so when I know a particular chord change is coming, I already have something in mind and the first note or two get me into the phrase. Sometime I will come in a little ahead of the beat, others times a little after.

Thanks for all the inputs.

[Spook410]

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

I can hum with my guitar playing. Out of tune. This only applies to things I can relax and noodle over.

If I want to play something with intellectual intent, I have to focus, not hum, and get better on guitar.

[Buster Loaf]

If I concentrate and focus I can sing in pentatonic, but it don't come easy until I've got it running a bit.