Why you can't play what you hear....

[christianm77]

Btw I find people singing I my lessons tend to have better pitch than they think. Often the voice itself is not attractive/well produced, but that is not to say it's out of tune... People can have great voices and be completely out and somehow get away with it:-)

Anyway I find that using singing in my lessons can be helpful. Plus i think everyone should learn to sing the standards they play if only in the privacy of their own home...

[Reg]

Yea Doc... wouldn't that be relative pitch. Absolute pitch with relationship to a reference.
Many musicians... and there are more than a few.... have absolute pitch. And most of the rest have absolute...I was in one ensemble years ago that played lots of gigs... three of the musicians had absolute pitch... it was fun trying to make them hear with relationships as compared to just hearing a note and knowing it's name etc...

It's an interesting subject... somewhat beyond music. at least the physical aspects. There's an post grad group of neurologist at Cal. Berk. that has been doing studies with all kinds of aspects related to hearing and the brain etc. I think I posted a few articles a while back.

[christianm77]

I have very good relative pitch, but would not absolute pitch drive you crazy if the acoustic piano was off a few cents? I know it drives me batty on YT when someone speeds up a tempo rendering the song off 440.

There's an interesting hinterland between perfect and relative pitch. My missus (there I go again) can pitch an e say, but doesn't have perfect pitch. Absolute pitch is not necessarily the same thing...

[docbop]

I know a PhD student (in that field) who would say that's impossible. Insomuch as that's the way that scientific research points. Don't know myself.

Would be interested to find out more. Bruce arnold (naturally!) also has a course on that....

During the conversation Steve was talking about in beginning using songs we know as way to remember a pitch.

I notice I do tend to remember songs in certain key they became popular in or we first learned them in so it would be a point of reference for remembering a specific pitch. I know I remember timbre and friends would be amazed how I could hear a note or even a sound bite and identify a record. Maybe because I worked in a record store for many years and was constantly listening to music.

Back to Steve conversation I got a tuning fork so going see how I do in a month to remember pitch.

[Vladan]

...That is the oral tradition of learning music, but he say today too many are trying to skip the oral tradition and read music and study music instead of spending the time listening and experiencing the feel of the music. that the oral tradition has become an after thought.

Sorry docbop, this is not to mock you, I just remembered Beavis and Burhead and wanted to share a funny moment ...

[christianm77]

During the conversation Steve was talking about in beginning using songs we know as way to remember a pitch.

I notice I do tend to remember songs in certain key they became popular in or we first learned them in so it would be a point of reference for remembering a specific pitch. I know I remember timbre and friends would be amazed how I could hear a note or even a sound bite and identify a record. Maybe because I worked in a record store for many years and was constantly listening to music.

Back to Steve conversation I got a tuning fork so going see how I do in a month to remember pitch.

Sure, I do the same, my wife calls me the Human Shazam. I find this insulting. Shazam takes way longer :-)

So, yes maybe it is possible... I think this may be something different to perfect pitch per se, I suppose (I notice you used the term absolute pitch instead....)

EDIT: wot reg said.

[Jonah]

I remember a story told by the great poet Boris Pasternak - in his teens he dreamt to become a composer - he was from artistic family and they recieved many great artist of those days.. and on of them was Skryabin.. who became his idol.

Pasternak was obsessed with the problem he did not have an absolute pitch... he tried to find out who of the great composers did not have absolute pistch and even made a list (Tchaikovski had very good but raltive by the way)))...

Once he had a chance to play hi Sonata to Skryabin - I know this Sonata it's complex enough and compsed imitating late Skryabin style..

When he finished.. Skrybin tarted to discuss some episodes and during discussion came up to the piano and played some fragmentes from memory.. but he played not in the original.. so young Pasternak got it that Skryabin did not have absolute pitch...

Paradoxally as it may see.. but this finally led him to the idea to quit music completely (turned out to be good decision for literature)...

he did not explain but.. I believe that he suddely saw what real musical talent was... Skryabin just did not care about absolute pitch or note.. he cared about music.

People often mistake 'sounds' for 'music'... music is organization of sounds.

That's why Skryabin could repeat these fragment - because he could hear the concept.. and this what memory also is.. we remember things we can realte...

[JazzMuzak]

Sure, I do the same, my wife calls me the Human Shazam. I find this insulting. Shazam takes way longer :-)

So, yes maybe it is possible... I think this may be something different to perfect pitch per se, I suppose (I notice you used the term absolute pitch instead....)

EDIT: wot reg said.

For what it's worth I have two friends that taught themselves to have workable "perfect pitch." They used a similar method by using tunes that they know fairly well that have a long sustained note in the beginning. I.E. Moment's notice by coltrane has that sustained Bb for the second new pitch. It's similar to learning to recognize intervals with songs if you ever had to do that in school or elsewhere.

From there, similar to the interval method, they say the tunes just started to fall off and they began to recognize the pitch for the pitch.

The first friend can recall all 12 pitches with almost perfect accuracy and is able to transcribe or dictate very well etc.

The second friend can also recall all 12 pitches, but says he hasn't worked it up to the point of musical usefulness.

For what it's worth both of them said that they think their time would have been better spent just working on relative pitch.

[eh6794]

I am not sure we sing what we hear. Besides the very best of the best, we get close, then raise or lower to get in key.

[princeplanet]

Why are we discussing perfect pitch? Absolute or Relative pitch won't help you find the notes on the guitar on it's own! I wanted this thread to be about the mechanical limitations of our instrument and how that impedes our ability to easily express what we hear in our minds.

The language metaphor (which I always have reservations about) can serve us well here. When we speak, we improvise in sentences and words, not individual letters. If we do the same in Jazz, then every "word" we speak has been spoken before, so we know how to prepare for their execution. Sometimes in speech we stumble and stutter (peter piper pick a peck of ...). But in music we will stumble more often, the fingers are not as quick to express as are the lips and tongue. Further, some instruments are even further removed from the initial musical thought because of their mechanics and in our case the requisite synchronisation issues.

Does anyone ever feel as though they could express what they're hearing better on another instrument?

[39cord]

No. Because guitar is the only instrument, not counting voice, I use to play music.

I've reconciled myself with no trace of regret to forever not being able to play everything I hear and I'm comfortable with that without being a quitter. What I want is near perfect rhythmic translation of what I "hear" against the bass and drums swinging the beat and good story telling skills. The content, organization and development skills or CODE. My vocabulary will be limited both by physical speed (Kenny Burrell in 2015 is still faster than I will ever be) and mental melodic ability. You bring up McCoy and he's a good example of melodic ability, a power puncher with the best left hand to ever enter the ring. Being the fastest talker or having the largest vocabulary does not necessarily correlate with being a good story teller or improviser. I'll take someone who understands cymatics every day over someone delivering high speed technically correct notes that sound like an overworked etude.

[cosmic gumbo]

I find the premise somewhat moot, because all instruments have their physical limitations, including the voice, which encumber the ability to play what you hear. Picking the guitar as some specially troublesome instrument is invalid, IMO.

[jazzguy100]

the end result is what matters, so does it matter if you play what you hear? as long as it gets you what you want out of it, who cares?

[Vladan]

"Hearing in the head" is just an imagination anyway. Nobody can tell if anybody is hearing anything. Those who do "hear in their heads" what is the timbre playing the notes? I can imagine my won voice humming, some instruments less vaguely than others, but it's not even close to hearing, is it?
I'm much more comfortable thinking about it as of imaginary producing sounds, imagining I'm playing/ singing ..., then I'm with "hearing" imaginary sounds/ music.

Though, I did have couple auditory hallucinations, whole arrangements playing loud, sense of eardrums moving ..., and the music was quite good. One, I remember the most, was some techno trance back beat with wailing guitars over it ... Not sure if I'd to experience that again. On one hand, why not, it was pleasant at the time. On other hand, I tend to stay sober last couple of decades ...

[Jonah]

"Does anyone ever feel as though they could express what they're hearing better on another instrument?" probably horns or any wind instruments in general... because they are closer to vocals... only in context oif we speak about physical closeness to singing, to voice... but brass especially... I played trombone and trumpet in the army band... I believe that due to some construction specifications bass instruments could be - well... I call it... more naturally disposed for ''playing what you hear'' just because sound production depends very much on embouchure andis so subtle that it is much more intuative than on guitar and piano... for example if you think of 'e' and put slide for 'd' on trombone - you'll get neither.. because embouchure will instinctively try to get 'e' in the position where it is impossible.. as a result it will be moaning and whining... so you really have to hear what you play in most cases... But again if we speak about music - it's not only vocals.. it can be expressed in much more complex tools.. even voice can be express on piano if you really express it not imitate

[targuit]

Can we define something here? If you can play a chord melody style solo version of a common standard, is that consistent with "playing what you hear in your head" or not? Are you referring to some phantasmagoric trance music? What is playing what you hear in your head? If playing a standard well and recognizably is not that, then what is it?

[Jonah]

it's hard to define...

I would define it as

'if you do not have these questions - then you play what you hear'

[princeplanet]

"Does anyone ever feel as though they could express what they're hearing better on another instrument?" probably horns or any wind instruments in general... because they are closer to vocals... only in context oif we speak about physical closeness to singing, to voice... but brass especially... I played trombone and trumpet in the army band... I believe that due to some construction specifications bass instruments could be - well... I call it... more naturally disposed for ''playing what you hear'' just because sound production depends very much on embouchure andis so subtle that it is much more intuative than on guitar and piano... for example if you think of 'e' and put slide for 'd' on trombone - you'll get neither.. because embouchure will instinctively try to get 'e' in the position where it is impossible.. as a result it will be moaning and whining... so you really have to hear what you play in most cases... But again if we speak about music - it's not only vocals.. it can be expressed in much more complex tools.. even voice can be express on piano if you really express it not imitate

Excellent point made here about how embouchure is forced by what you hear in your head. Very different for guitarists!
I agree that horns are closer to the voice as regards expressing musical thoughts, that's obviously why so many horn players have that singing quality to their lines. What is Jazz guitar's equivalent of Sonny Rollins? Charlie Parker? Eric Dolphy? .....

[princeplanet]

Can we define something here? If you can play a chord melody style solo version of a common standard, is that consistent with "playing what you hear in your head" or not? Are you referring to some phantasmagoric trance music? What is playing what you hear in your head? If playing a standard well and recognizably is not that, then what is it?

Well, specifically, I was referring to single line improv at fast tempos. When great horn players do it, it seems unemcumbered. Are they "hearing" better lines (in their head) than guitarists? Or are they just able to express them more readily?

I'll even put it another way; You have a 2 top sax players and a top guitarist in a room. One of the horn players says "play this" and rips out a 5 second line at breakneck speed. The horn guy sings it back to himself and then plays it on the horn. The guitarist sings it to himself, and spends a minute trying to work out where to play it, which fingers to use, and how to pick it.

If you guys don't think that is a likely scenario, then I must be living on another planet.....

[Reg]

Ha ha... i just takes practice realizing what you can do...

I trade lines with saxes all the time... both sides, I can lose a sax just as well as I can get lost... You don't really get lost... you just make mistakes. Part of what creates that excitement when trading 4's etc... is the pushing ideas live back and forth.
I mean your still playing within the form, and the melodic and harmonic references don't go away... the rhythm is easy, actually we as rhythm section players usually lock in better...

Sax players do work on different melodically developed patterns which can be tricky... but the pattern is usually still in a simple rhythmic patterns.... I know there are guitar patterns that just don't work on a sax...

I mean saxes are single line players... they should have their couple of octaves down right... your not going to trade chord solos.

Jay... playing what you hear is just that. Playing what someone else hears is usually more difficult.

When you look at a tune you don't know... can you hear anything. That vid I posted above was just sight reading through the tune... I just played what I was hearing looking at the music... I didnt have anything in my head preplaned. That's why it was not very good or polished etc... it was rough, my 1st hearing. Once I get to know tunes... my hearing expands.

[christianm77]

"Hearing in the head" is just an imagination anyway. Nobody can tell if anybody is hearing anything. Those who do "hear in their heads" what is the timbre playing the notes? I can imagine my won voice humming, some instruments less vaguely than others, but it's not even close to hearing, is it?
I'm much more comfortable thinking about it as of imaginary producing sounds, imagining I'm playing/ singing ..., then I'm with "hearing" imaginary sounds/ music.

Though, I did have couple auditory hallucinations, whole arrangements playing loud, sense of eardrums moving ..., and the music was quite good. One, I remember the most, was some techno trance back beat with wailing guitars over it ... Not sure if I'd to experience that again. On one hand, why not, it was pleasant at the time. On other hand, I tend to stay sober last couple of decades ...

I think you can tell if the musician can hear their lines. I think it's the thing that breathes life into music and makes it sound good, beyond the note choices.

Hal Galper has some interesting thoughts on it.

He says that everyone plays what they hear. It's more that you need to develop the intensity of your internal hearing.

Bear in mind that in jazz it permissible to a bit vague about some pitches (ghost notes) but the only way to improvise jazz well is to hear and feel rhythmic phrases. The only way.

[Vladan]

...

Thank you, but I still don't get it.

What is the sound I should hear? Sound of guitar, of my own voice, ...?

How far ahead should I hear?
If I hear way ahead, would not listening to two lines of music simultaneously make it more difficult to play? I know, when I want to play over something, if at the same time my wife is playing something else on here tablet ... or at rehearsal, If I and bass player play completely different songs at the same time, it is much harder for eaach of us to play something that really fit te mood, or if sax player is playing couple of bars in advance, ...

It does not have to involve playing at all. Sitting in a cafee with some music on and hearing music from the neighbouring one mix, even if it is same song delaayed for a beat, or two ... At concert venue, being at such place where of the wall echo is almost as loud as PA ...

So how can I hear it and not hurt my self?

Or, is it just having an idea about what you could play, anticipating following bars of music, all in more, or lesss detail, depending on experience and ear development, as oposed to playing scales and prefab licks?

Or, is it recognizing the place where some prefab lick, or variation on it, or scale would fit just nice?

So, what is the "hearing" we discuss here, how does it sound, if it sounds at all?

[matt.guitarteacher]

Thank you, but I still don't get it.

What is the sound I should hear? Sound of guitar, of my own voice, ...?

How far ahead should I hear?
If I hear way ahead, would not listening to two lines of music simultaneously make it more difficult to play? I know, when I want to play over something, if at the same time my wife is playing something else on here tablet ... or at rehearsal, If I and bass player play completely different songs at the same time, it is much harder for eaach of us to play something that really fit te mood, or if sax player is playing couple of bars in advance, ...

It does not have to involve playing at all. Sitting in a cafee with some music on and hearing music from the neighbouring one mix, even if it is same song delaayed for a beat, or two ... At concert venue, being at such place where of the wall echo is almost as loud as PA ...

So how can I hear it and not hurt my self?

Or, is it just having an idea about what you could play, anticipating following bars of music, all in more, or lesss detail, depending on experience and ear development, as oposed to playing scales and prefab licks?

Or, is it recognizing the place where some prefab lick, or variation on it, or scale would fit just nice?

So, what is the "hearing" we discuss here, how does it sound, if it sounds at all?

I wouldn't make it overly complicated. Everything isn't linear. I find myself thinking about the craziest non-musical things while playing music I know. It's not all linear either. The mind isn't that simple. You experience it every time you take a 10 minute nap which feels more like an hour. Almost like time travel. Can you figure out 2 or 3-chord songs by ear? That's prehearing. You don't really think about it or worry about it. It's not necessarily verbal, symbolic or relegated to time. You may not even quite be aware of how you're thinking about it, and it doesn't really matter. But that's pre-hearing. I'd imagine better musicians are just doing it all at higher levels.

"Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" is an art book, but has a lot to say about "flow". I'm sure there are similar music-specific books as well. I found the concept very enlightening. If you're worrying about the process it's not going to happen. It's a different thought process.

[docbop]

"Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" is an art book, but has a lot to say about "flow". I'm sure there are similar music-specific books as well. I found the concept very enlightening. If you're worrying about the process it's not going to happen. It's a different thought process.

That's a book Joe Diorio has recommended for many years.

[Vladan]

Ok, so it seem to be, to build on quoting my self and join two ideas together:

"Hearing", or "pre - hearing", we discuss here, is not an aaudiable, or even quasi audiable experience. It is an idea about what you could play, anticipating following bars of music, all in more, or lesss detail, depending on experience and ear development, together with recognizing the place where some prefab lick, or variation on it, or scale, or whatever, would fit just nice.