Dude says - I play what I hear

[Patrick2]

and every note I get 'wrong' (ie play a note
that wasn't the one i was hearing)
is a DOUBLE bad ie
1 it is not the right note ... aaargh
2 it IS the wrong note .... aaaargh 2

One wrong note (kinda two actually) can really eff up the flow ...

then I get into all the judgemental
head trip bs
anyone else get this ?

I like to know the notes I'm going for. But, sometimes at faster tempos my fingers are just working from memorized patterns, either harmonically or chromatically, to get to those targeted notes. I believe that this is true of every player regarless of who the player is or how knowledgeable and technically gifted they are.

I hear an idea . . I go for that idea. what happens between the two points of hearing the idea and executing it is not something mere mortals are capable of controlling to the absolute a fast tempos. Muscle memory (which many here denires even exists) and habits just take control, to a certain extent.

Think of guys like Pat Martino, McGlaughlin, Benson, Pass . . . anyone, you name them. Think of them burning at 180 bpm and then tell me that they actually hear every note they are playing . . or that every line is planned. Often times the line we are playing is derived from the previous line we just played. Can we hear it simultanious to the previous line? I guess to a certain extent we can (or, some can . . LOLOL) But, I just ain't going with the concept the we play what we hear to the absolute.

[princeplanet]

At slow tempos we can think at a speed of o-n-e n-o-t-e a-t a t-i-m-e, but at fast tempos we can think of groupsofnotesatthesametime andanothergroupofnoteshere andanotheroverhere. And yes, we can "hear" these groups of notes in our mind/ear because we have played them before. To use the language metaphor, they're like the sentences we utter every day.

I believe the monsters of Jazz hear these sentences, probably a lot of them, but can also morph them and link them in ways that always sound different. Being able to pre hear just how they're going to play a phrase a little differently than they may have in the past, and being able to spontaneously link phrases to others and resolve them convincingly is still an astonishing skill at the highest level, but at the fast tempos it's still mainly re-arranging previously ingrained chunks. Apparently (well, according to my wide reading of interviews with many of the greats n the subject...).

If you played Charlie Parker a 4 bar phrase of a lightning fast Coltrane passage, would Bird be able to reproduce it as fast as he "heard" it?

[christianm77]

I feel up tempo stuff is often more gestural.

Interestingly, I find with up tempo stuff I can be playing stuff at the same speed as at half the tempo, as I'll play double time phrases, but I find up tempo harder. So I can rattle off 16ths at 130 say, but when the rhythm section plays at 260, 1/8ths are somehow harder.

So I've tried to start thinking about uptempo stuff as double time and it seems to help. I find I've got more room somehow, and I can improvise more.

This seems to chime with what Joe Lovano and Hal Galper among others have talked about.

[mr. beaumont]

I've been treating faster stuff as 2/4 now since I watched that Hal Galper vid a year or so back, and it's REMARKABLE how good that works. Really calms you down.

[destinytot]

Think of guys like Pat Martino, McGlaughlin, Benson, Pass . . . anyone, you name them. Think of them burning at 180 bpm and then tell me that they actually hear every note they are playing . . or that every line is planned.

I'm forever thinking about how those guys burn, and I'm overawed by their technique.

However, I think I can get far enough past that paralysis to speculate about the role hearing - and planning - has in their playing.

I think that there's a useful similarity between music and language. Each has conventions for organising and communicating straightforward and complex concepts. It takes well-developed skills to perform this task with ease. The sophistication of those guys' output makes it plain that their musical skills are highly-developed.

My guess is that, like a fluent speaker, those guys don't (over)monitor. My speculation is that they don't think at all about what they're playing. I suspect that the shape/form taken by the expression of their ideas is guided - momentarily and spontaneously - by affective considerations, i.e. what they're feeling.

I believe this metaphor for language acquisition applies to developing musical skills: a combination of innate and external factors become essential Seeds of predisposition, and the process of problem-solving becomes the Soil of style. Effective practice strategies lead to Germination, to the sprouting of Roots of competence - and to the Fruit of performance.

I think hearing and planning are about cultivating the Soil.

[christianm77]

I'm forever thinking about how those guys burn, and I'm overawed by their technique.

However, I think I can get far enough past that paralysis to speculate about the role hearing - and planning - has in their playing.

I think that there's a useful similarity between music and language. Each has conventions for organising and communicating straightforward and complex concepts. It takes well-developed skills to perform this task with ease. The sophistication of those guys' output makes it plain that their musical skills are highly-developed.

My guess is that, like a fluent speaker, those guys don't (over)monitor. My speculation is that they don't think at all about what they're playing. I suspect that the shape/form taken by the expression of their ideas is guided - momentarily and spontaneously - by affective considerations, i.e. what they're feeling.

I believe this metaphor for language acquisition applies to developing musical skills: a combination of innate and external factors become essential Seeds of predisposition, and the process of problem-solving becomes the Soil of style. Effective practice strategies lead to Germination, to the sprouting of Roots of competence - and to the Fruit of performance.

I think hearing and planning are about cultivating the Soil.

Thinking is for practice, basically.

[pushkar000]

My take on the 180bpm burners is that they hear the resolution, the rhythm and the shape of the line, and their fingers fit in the notes from there.

[destinytot]

the rhythm and the shape of the line

Ah! The joy and exhilaration of prosodic elements in phrasing. That's something I can relate to from experience (singing while playing, and punctuating single-note lines with chords).

and their fingers fit in the notes from there.

I agree. But they're prepared. So the intention behind their playing always prevails - even at ridiculous tempos.

What I enjoy about Benson's fast playing - particularly on the recordings at Casa Caribe - is how lyrical it is (to my ears). I bet he heard what he was playing, because it seems to me that he'd played most of what he plays before. I've certainly heard it elsewhere since. That's fine, because the language speaks to my condition.

It sometimes gives me pause when I hear such phrases called 'clichés' or 'licks' in a dismissive or derogatory way. Overuse may be a turn-off, but frequent use is quite another matter. In the hands of a player who has attained mastery over form, they are an effective stylistic device. Few others' fast playing holds my attention like Sean Levitt's.

He taught me to scat what he played, regaling me with stories about Jimmy Forrest, Cht Baker and others. His precise words on this were, "You should try to sing it, before you write it down." (I took those words so literally that I concentrated on singing for years. Now I'm working on my guitar chops.)

[Patrick2]

Agreed, destinytot. And there-in, [i believe] lies the rift when I and other question the concept of "playing what you hear" at fast tempos. Would it be more appropriate to classify is as "playing what you've heard" . . or "playing what you've played before" . . . than it is to classify it as "playing what you hear in your head . . before you play it"?

[GuyBoden]

Personally, I think that there are different kinds of improvisation, some are more pre-composed that others, with varying degrees. Even the great Charlie Parker played his stock riffs during his improvisations, but they sound great.

[destinytot]

Agreed, destinytot. And there-in, [i believe] lies the rift when I and other question the concept of "playing what you hear" at fast tempos. Would it be more appropriate to classify is as "playing what you've heard" . . or "playing what you've played before" . . . than it is to classify it as "playing what you hear in your head . . before you play it"?

I think it would, Patrick2, just as we use old (i.e. familiar) vocabulary to convey new (i.e. impromptu) messages and hardly think - if at all - about how we construct them.

Also, I believe there's an important distinction between hearing as remembering and hearing as imagining.

And I think the finest improvisers achieve a balance between inner and outer-directed playing, because interaction requires listening to others and responding to what you hear.

[destinytot]

Speaking of sounding great, and with respect to the OP, I'm taking the liberty of posting these with full connaissance de cause. So much more than a bunch of notes and words:

[destinytot]

I've been treating faster stuff as 2/4 now since I watched that Hal Galper vid a year or so back, and it's REMARKABLE how good that works. Really calms you down.

Is this the one, Mr B?

[targuit]

At fast tempos Benson can scat what he plays, and likely he intends what he plays as well. While that may not seem too clear a proposition, what I'm saying is that sometimes when you are playing a phrase or melody, you are thinking about the key destination notes, such as the first note in the next measure or even just the shape of the melodic line (ascending, descending, stepwise or in leaps at certain points). In addition you are thinking (singing, scatting) in a rhythmic pattern. So if you know where you intend the melodic phrase to go from point A to point B (destination), you fill in the rhythmic pattern with relative ease even if you are playing up tempo. In addition, if you have played for years and have what might be called a kind of "total fret board positional awareness" (simply put, where the notes are at any point on the neck), your fingers work in concert with your subconscious mind which is "listening" to the music as it evolves.

As you listen to the musical phrase from within, your fingers, voice, and mental projection of where you intend to go are in sync. Although some players here insist that they make conscious decisions regarding theoretical evaluation of an improvised line even in the microseconds as they are playing it, to me it is more like "listening to the music" you are playing from within. Not so much is a mystical sense, but rather in concrete terms of the harmonic and melodic context. No such theoretical conscious decision making is required - if I'm improvising a melodic phrase over a C maj7 chord, I know what notes will sound good and just go there. If I "hear" a rhythm to a potential phrase, I play that melody and rhythm without "reflecting" on it. On the best nights I think it is almost as though any notes in a particular rhythmic pattern will sound fine because your experienced subconscious mind "knows" what notes will sound good in that harmonic context, and you can sing them as you play them. But obviously that skill is developed over years of experience in someone with some talent to begin with.

Scatting is more labor intensive surely than just "thinking" your melodic phrase. Even when you see guitarists like Herb Ellis "singing" his lines, I suspect that he is singing the target notes more than the entire phrase note-for-note. Not that he couldn't sing and phrase the melody in sync, but it is just tiring to do so all the time. Or to use another example of great melodic and soulful players like Stephane Grappelli or Julian Bream playing his classical guitar, they are not scatting the melodies and in Bream's case the interplay of multiple voices, but "listening" to the music as they play it. Some would say "well, Bream is not improvising but rather playing what he has memorized...." . True, but he still has to intone the notes with feeling and emotion in that moment.

Jay

[targuit]

I just listened to the Hal Galper piece in the video above. I love what he said around 11:00 or so paraphrasing, "Don't let this machine (the piano) fool you. You have to control your mind. Your mind, your body, and your emotions are the reality you are dealing with."

[Patrick2]

At fast tempos Benson can scat what he plays, and likely he intends what he plays as well. While that may not seem too clear a proposition, what I'm saying is that sometimes when you are playing a phrase or melody, you are thinking about the key destination notes, such as the first note in the next measure or even just the shape of the melodic line (ascending, descending, stepwise or in leaps at certain points). In addition you are thinking (singing, scatting) in a rhythmic pattern. So if you know where you intend the melodic phrase to go from point A to point B (destination), you fill in the rhythmic pattern with relative ease even if you are playing up tempo. In addition, if you have played for years and have what might be called a kind of "total fret board positional awareness" (simply put, where the notes are at any point on the neck), your fingers work in concert with your subconscious mind which is "listening" to the music as it evolves.

I totally agree with this paragraph. But, this is different than hearing a line or an idea in your mind and then transfering that to the mechanics of your fingerings. Simultaneously? Perhaps. Pretty much anyone can anticipate what the next note they're going to play will sound like and then vocalize that note. I can do this quite easily . . and I'm still just a wee bit short of George Benson's abilities.

"listening to the music as it evolves" is an excellent way of portraying it.

As you listen to the musical phrase from within, your fingers, voice, and mental projection of where you intend to go are in sync. Although some players here insist that they make conscious decisions regarding theoretical evaluation of an improvised line even in the microseconds as they are playing it, to me it is more like "listening to the music" you are playing from within. Not so much is a mystical sense, but rather in concrete terms of the harmonic and melodic context. No such theoretical conscious decision making is required - if I'm improvising a melodic phrase over a C maj7 chord, I know what notes will sound good and just go there. If I "hear" a rhythm to a potential phrase, I play that melody and rhythm without "reflecting" on it. On the best nights I think it is almost as though any notes in a particular rhythmic pattern will sound fine because your experienced subconscious mind "knows" what notes will sound good in that harmonic context, and you can sing them as you play them. But obviously that skill is developed over years of experience in someone with some talent to begin with.

Perfectly stated, IMO.

Scatting is more labor intensive surely than just "thinking" your melodic phrase. Even when you see guitarists like Herb Ellis "singing" his lines, I suspect that he is singing the target notes more than the entire phrase note-for-note. Not that he couldn't sing and phrase the melody in sync, but it is just tiring to do so all the time. Or to use another example of great melodic and soulful players like Stephane Grappelli or Julian Bream playing his classical guitar, they are not scatting the melodies and in Bream's case the interplay of multiple voices, but "listening" to the music as they play it. Some would say "well, Bream is not improvising but rather playing what he has memorized...." . True, but he still has to intone the notes with feeling and emotion in that moment.

Jay

Again I'm in totaly agreement here. Scatting without a guitar is indeed far more difficult than it is to scat in unison to the notes being played on the guitar.

[destinytot]

Scatting without a guitar is indeed far more difficult than it is to scat in unison to the notes being played on the guitar.

That's why I make it a rule that I only play what I can sing. Practice has become about overcoming physical and mechanical obstacles to playing what I hear.

[Patrick2]

That's why I make it a rule that I only play what I can sing. Practise has become about overcoming physical and mechanical obstacles to playing what I hear.

I guess the unanswered question remains; when do you hear it? Before you play it? As you're playing it? Or after you've played it. For me personally, it's an "all of the above" approach. There are time I do go for what I hear in my head prior to playing it. Other times, I'll hear it as I'm playing it and have it propel me into the next thought. Other times, I'l hear what I've just played and say to myself . . "holy shit!! That sounded pretty good!" Then, I'll go back to it (during a practice routine) and see what I played, harmonically and intervalically, to see why it worked so well. Then, groove it into my vocabulary.

[destinytot]

I guess the unanswered question remains; when do you hear it? Before you play it? As you're playing it? Or after you've played it.

On one level, it's way before; I won't pick up the guitar until I hear what I'm going to play - and if I need a reference note, I use a keyboard.

I need to be able to sing - correctly and unaccompanied - first the melody, then all chord tones. After that, still singing, I focus on rhythm and on phrasing lines through the harmony I hear clearly in my head.

As I write, I'm scatting the changes to You Stepped Out of a Dream, which I've just learned from this forum and have internalised without recourse to an instrument. This means I can pick up the guitar and at least try to play what I hear. And if I'm unable to do so, it's due to physical and mechanical obstacles.

Only when I've internalised the harmony can I can stop 'trying'. I do believe that playing music should be an effortless reflex response.

And I agree that hearing needs to occur in the context of

listening to the music as it evolves

i.e. in the present. Listening, and responding appropriately, you hear as you play.

[wolflen]

a paradox on this topic is hearing what you play..before AND after you play it..now as often happens hearing the melody line is one thing and the harmony another..and if the tune is re-harmonized..using substitutions, back-cycling etc..the sound of the progression may take on a much different feel even though the melody notes are still dominant .. the supporting chord structure can change the way you may hear it..even if you know that melody up and down..in essence it may resemble a "new" tune..it can be a good challenge to your improvisation..as you may have used a chord as a guide post..not necessarily playing the chord tones but using the chord as a reminder of where you are in the progression and working new ideas off that "location" as it were..but now the chord has been replaced with another chord that may be voiced completely different..and that guidepost sound is gone..and a very unfamiliar sound is in its place..depending on where the progression goes now may alter your approach..while always keeping the melody line in sight as the final guide..

I have found myself "lost" on some occasions where an established group knows the tune in every key and change key mid stream and the other players don't even blink..but seem to grin as I stumble to adjust..talk about taking the map away..

[destinytot]

The sounds I hear clearly are intelligible - to me and, by extension, to sympathetic listeners - because they are known and familiar.

Yet certain sounds take on new and unpredicted meanings, which can't be understood from their component parts alone. As with language, their value is not as overused "licks" but as "cognates", from which - in the right hands - Beauty is wrought.

Although my level of 'playing what I hear' is limited to the ABCs, I've formed the conviction that this road leads to competence and control of more subtle forms of musical inference. But I stick to the ABCs out of aesthetic and practical considerations.

Personally, I listen for pretty sounds. What we pursue in our playing can be as variegated as it is exciting and wonderful.

And there are times when I want to experience the thrill of a different kind of sound. That's usually when I listen to Woody Shaw. One day, I may hear that sound - then sing it, and play it too.

[destinytot]

I've never visited the US, but I'd very much like to. It occurs to me that the tradition of the music called jazz has arisen from Americans playing what they hear.

I thought of this during the writing of my previous post, on hearing the peal of the bells of my local church. They ring out with the melody of Schubert's Ave Maria, and months ago this inspired me to 'noodle' counterpoint daily at the keyboard - playing what I hear.

I was also reminded by the activity - pageantry and processions - happening on the streets of every neighbourhood of Valencia in preparation for next week's Fallas festivities. There are wind bands on every corner, playing folk songs.

The players are mostly children; they learn to sing what they play - in solfège syllables - before they play it. There are adults, too - many of whom play jazz in ensembles.

I love hearing Spanish musicians sing, for example, a Parker solo in solfège. I've seen some do this at sight.

I just remember the Tortoise and the Hare, and keep singing and playing my ABCs.

[OldGuitarPlayer]

Play what I hear? Geeze...I don't even want to hear what I play...

[DaveWoods]

In speaking,Your mouth forms the word simultaneously as you hear it within you. it's become an automatic thing. Of course, you've been speaking the language a long time. Your choice of words, the rhythm and intonation you use to emphasize them, comes from what you're feeling at that exact moment. You also have a vocabulary, acquired over time. In conversing with others, you are performing the process of interactive improvisation every day with your speech. The process is not a mystery. BUILDING A VOCABULARY, as in your speech. You will not remember a spoken word or phrase that means nothing to you emotionally, and therefor you will never use it. Learning music is NOT "I'll wear sack cloth and ashes, and a hair shirt until I'm worthy enough to hear this". Learning music is listening with a blank slate open mind to what you're trying to acquire. Feel your chest as you do. How does it make YOU FEEL. What you can't relate to emotionally in your own personal way, as you're trying to acquire it, you will never remember and never use. be it words or notes.

[destinytot]

Learning music is NOT "I'll wear sack cloth and ashes, and a hair shirt until I'm worthy enough to hear this". Learning music is listening with a blank slate open mind to what you're trying to acquire.

Love it!