-
Does the improvisation of the best jazz musicians who know little or no theory sound different from those with a strong theoretical foundation? How far can you go without theory?
Who would be some examples of great "ear only" musicians?
-
05-10-2013 08:43 PM
-
In jazz, you have to know your shit somehow, be it academically or intuitively. So even the "ear players" had a system of organization and were likely a heck of a lot more articulate about things than romantic writers would like us to think...for example, check the video where the supposed ignoramus Wes Montgomery teaches the band to play a tune, using--gasp-- chord names.
Truth is, in jazz, you can't play it without organization, and you can't organize without some sort of system. In other words, show me an "ear only jazz player" and I'll show you somebody who understands a heck of a lot more than they let on.
i would go as far as to say in jazz, there were no great "ear only" musicians. Ear only seems to be a magical term reserved for rock and blues musicians, whose magic ears can inevitably only hear a pentatonic scale.
-
Chet Baker
-
Vincent Van Gogh
-
From working in the music school and attending a lot of seminars by the old cats I would say many started as ear players and later started learning the names of things. Some learned so they could communicate with others, some to study, and some so they could do seminars and try to talk the talk. I'd say in the long run is both learn the same thing, the theory approach saves time, by not reinventing the wheel to come up with labels for things. Trouble is some theory people depend too much on theory and don't spend enough time playing and developing their ears. IMO like everything in life a balanced approach is the best solution.
-
There are some great ear only horn players - Art Farmer, Getz, Baker. Like B said they have a system of organization. Guitar is harder to be an ear only player because its laid out in such a way that you can see everything, like piano. So whether you call a C7 a C7 or a "Blue Devil" it amounts to the same thing.
Holdsworth is one who doesn't read or know chord names. Bireli is another. But I wouldn't call either ear only players.
-
@henry, o.k. your last sentence confused me.
How could the not be able to read and yet not be ear players????
please elaborate.
thanks
-
Reading music and understanding how it functions and being able to articulate other musical concepts are not the same thing...
We're ALL ear players...at least, we had better be.
-
Being an ear player and not being able to read are not the same thing, as Jeff said. You can not read and still not be an ear player. Playing by ear means your reference is ear only. If you have a system for understanding chords and their construction, progressions, you have the ability to play well and not exclusively by ear. When you can see the scales you know what fits and what doesn't. I don't call that ear playing per se.
Originally Posted by edh
-
Everyone has a point. I think us "non-ear players" work hard enough to learn stuff so it is in our ear and we can play like ear players.
-
There are many players who play "by the hand", by patterns and acquired mannerisms who's purpose is to fill the space of changes. Reading players are not immune. I've had students I've had that have played years "by ear" who actually don't hear what they are doing. This comes from an attitude where acquiring practical licks, transcribed phrases, things that will get you through a jam (in both senses of the term) is the objective. To some of these students, actually having control of a lyrical line seems an incomprehensible task. Originally Posted by edh
Eye transcription can be different from ear transcription. As mentioned in above posts, that balance makes the most complete improvisation, and is not always a given when people learn about playing.
David
-
Adrien Moignard!
Tommy Emmanuel!
Guthrie Govan! At first at least. Now I'm sure he's great with charts/theory/transcription due to his voracious hunger for knowledge.
-
I've been playing jazz for over twenty years.
Can't sight read to save my life.
Well I guess I sort of can but someone who can would be on the ninth song before I got through the first.
I do indeed play by ear.
What I did need to do though was learn my chord theory.
I chart read obviously.
Then I base what I solo over my knowledge of those chords.
There's been mention of playing by hand which is valid to a point
Running scales is a mechanical thing but if you don't have an ear that will only get you so far.
I think ear players do sound different.
You're going with your gut instead of a sheet of paper.
Mind you as someone else stated...you do need to study what's involved in each chord
If you don't you'll be playing Jimmy Page licks over I'll Remember April.
Chords I know.....sight reading.....not so much.
-
The more complicated the music... the better the ear needs to be.
Everyone knows most standards... or has at least heard them. If you can't hear the tune, hmmm how do you play by ear. It's not like because I can sight read and understand harmony, theory etc... that I can't play using my ears. I hear what I sight read and still use my ears when I think about what I'm playing.
It's pretty easy to hear ear players when... like I said... When the music gets a little more complicated. Not good or bad.
The choice of which notes we play can become very subjective... but there is common practice with jazz. Basic starting references for improve etc... When the ear makes choices of which notes to create relationships... what process makes that decision.
The majority of theory, harmonic concepts etc... are all from tunes. If you know all the tunes, you basically know all the theory. You can even trial and error different applications of common chord patterns. Somewhat create new theory or harmonic applications through that trial and error process using your ears.
Good ears... being able to hear what you know and being able to hear what you don't know...
-
In the guitar world I think Wes Montgomery would be the most famous jazz player who supposedly could not read notation.
I learned classical guitar formally as a young guy studying for four years or so, but I soon developed my ears by learning rock, country and jazz subsequently. I appreciate my excellent sight reading skills, because I still enjoy playing classical music, but also it comes in handy reading charts of original compositions and from an analytical point of view. In addition if you compose and use notation software, it is a great help.
Of course, I'm not confusing reading notation with knowing musical theory formally versus playing "by ear". In effect, the moment I start playing or recording music, I virtually never 'think' about theory. I play by ear. I find the moment you start thinking about what you are doing, you lose the improvisational flow. So I play what I want to hear in the moment.
I have all sorts of personal theories about learning improvisational skills and what I would call little technical tricks or principles to make one's improvisations more coherent. But in the end, you must play what you hear. Even when I write my library of jazz standard transcriptions, I rarely write out transcriptions "note-for-note", as I never play the same tune exactly the same twice. That would take a lot of the fun and spontaneity out of it.
Not to ramble on, but I never really studied scales beyond Segovia's diatonic major and minor scales (very useful), and never focus on modes. I understand them technically and theoretically, but I don't find them useful when playing. There are twelve tones in Western music, and I use 'em all.Last edited by targuit; 05-13-2013 at 10:08 AM.
-
I think people who talk about playing by ear alone sometimes are talking about two different things, one of which I understand and the other I do not.
If you are talking about understanding the theory and creating a framework within which you can explore possibilities using your ear rather than simply constructing a line using theory alone, then I understand that.
If you are talking about improvising without a framework and simply hearing sounds and responding to those sounds without a starting point or framework, then I doubt I will ever get that. Surely, if the band is playing Autumn Leaves in Em for example, in order to come up with something you have to start with a framework - ie like it's in Em; the chords are Am7, D7 etc; that certain arpeggios and scales work well with the chords that are being played; that the melody is what it is; that certain resolutions will sound good; that failing to resolve at all will not sound that good; that if you want to fail to resolve then you will have to do something else; and on and on.
If there are actually guys that can actually play by ear alone in the strict sense, then that is mysterious and amazing to me.
-
Almost all musicians, whether or not they can read, or name notes or chords, etc can play a simple melody (happy birthday, mary had a little lamb) on any instrument they can coax a sound out of: no reading required, no identification of the notes, just an intuition derived from the experience of hearing intervals. Hearing chord changes is just a more advanced version of this, and most jazz players can hear chord changes (especially to standards) in their head without any reference to their names, but just an aural version of intuitively feeling the root movement. Originally Posted by ColinO
So if someone calls "Autumn leaves in Emi" the only actual thinking I (or any other semi competent jazz musician) have to do is "first chord is Ami". I feel the progression and improvise without ever thinking explicitly about what chord is next, when comping, my fingers know where to go without my thinking explicitly what the chord is, in the same way when I play happy birthday I know what to do once the first pitch is chosen. Ditto with any tune I know well. I can read, I know a certain amount of theory, etc, but it just isn't the point when improvising. The thinking happens when learning a new tune (i.e. committing the harmony to memory). Of course, when reading an unfamiliar tune with non-obvious harmony, I'll do some thinking, but I'm looking more for harmonic snippets I know how to handle (II-V-I, Imaj-Imi, Imin- bIIImi, etc) than chord-by-chord.
Learning a tune *means* going from the chord symbols to feeling the progression. I played a few times with a Wes disciple who didnt know chord names, but I'd show him tunes by strumming the chords in sequence, he then "felt" the harmony, and could then play it, with his own voicings (and he was a monster improvisor). So everything was "by ear" for him, but it is no more mysterious than being able to play a simple melody by ear.
-
I used to play with a sax ear player, this is what he does he uses the melody of the tune to guide him through the changes. before he would play a new tune he played the melody then he would ask me to play the chords and he would select from the melody "important notes" then he would use these notes as "stepping stones", so he was basically playing by ear around these notes.
-
I used to play with an ear only tenor player; still do from time to time. Good player, but it was sometimes frustrating. You could hear him hesitate around the changes. He'd play and test his notes against the chords, especially the first chorus or two, if he didn't know the tune. And I write music so we'd always be playing original charts or arrangements. It's like playing with some blind piano players. As good as they are, sometimes you could hear a little lag or hesitation as they feel the keys for positioning.
This guy was a real ear player. It had nothing to do with whether he read music or not. He didn't understand chords or how to play on them. I used to try and teach him. He didn't get it. But he had great ears and could play like a slower version of M. Brecker and Dexter Gordon.
-
This is a fascinating question/topic...
I think the main thing (being a terrible sight reader myself) is..as I mentioned
Chord theory and scales.
If you don't know what makes up a chord and what scales will actually work over it
You are indeed going to have trouble coping.
Once you have a good understanding of chord structure and what will work...
Then you have the mental freedom to take "liberties"and stretch out.
Your ears if trained properly will guide you.
But knowing what's involved in the chords you're playing I believe is paramount.
-
I'm primarily an ear player but I do have a good education both in jazz theory and analysis. I don't know exactly when I became an ear player but I believe it is a natural transition from playing a lot of different live songs and a history of doing a lot of transcription of your favorite masters' solos. For me, this has been a lifetime study and will continue as long as I am able. Also I do know a lot of tunes, maybe 450-500 songs, mostly old standards.
wizLast edited by wizard3739; 05-13-2013 at 08:38 PM.
-
Those are some great insights how a musician progresses. Originally Posted by wizard3739
-
I don't know about Birelli, but you are certainly right about Holdsworth not being an "ear only" player. Holdsworth has a highly systematic approach which is very developed... and idiosyncratic. You can find a video where he lays out the scales he uses and he clearly understands the nomenclature, even though his name for some things is different. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
He doesn't read sheet music and he way he draws out a chart for a song is incomprehensible to anyone but himself. It looks more like sudoku than sheet music. He teaches his songs to the band by playing it for them and they write their own charts.
i don't think that I can tell by listening whether a player is an "ear" player or not.
-
That is very nicely put. The giveaway is whether the look on the player's face at the end of the solo is one of relief or satisfaction. Originally Posted by TruthHertz
My best playing happens when I don't think about theory and essentially sing with my guitar. My knowledge of scales and harmony is certainly at work unconsciously, but my attention is on the musical expression.
-
I know a pianist/sax player who has perfect pitch. Play him a line or a chord and he can tell you what notes are in it and he can probably duplicate it. He can play great jazz but doesn't know all that much formally about harmony theory- as he said, "I've never had to." He can just hear it. But even he has to have an implicit, if not explicit, organization of how music works. Ad of course he also knows a lot of tunes by heart. Originally Posted by ColinO
Reply With Quote
Tour of Gibson Custom Shop
Today, 06:04 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos