-
This is in response to Targuit's post.
That is not hearing. Recalling melodies and sounds from memory is not hearing, just as imagining is not.
Proof of playing own ideas is recognizing "mistakes", hearing it does not come out the wa you thought it would, which all equals to not being surprised by what comes out of the instrument. You may call it hearing, but I will not, because it is not.
The only way to hear something without external stimuli of the ear are auditory/ music hallucinations. Would you be so eager to hear some voices? Right. Music is no different. We aall have some internal monologue, but it is very different from "hearing voices".
What you call "hearing" is inner monologue, only not verbal, but musical. It is just a thoughht process. Thoughts can not be heard. Only sounds caan be heard. Sound is mechanical wave of frequency within certain range propaagaation through some material medium.
I know we are all aware of this, but when we say "hear", we automatically and subconciously put our selves in state of expectation, expecting something that will never happen. We know it is not hearing, but we call it so, therefore our brain engages wrong processing center, therefore we can not do what we intended to.
So, that would be it. I'm done with this sub topic.Last edited by Vladan; 01-16-2016 at 11:35 AM.
-
01-16-2016 11:31 AM
-
Aren't you being a little pedantic? Of course you don't hear real sound in your head, but you know what we mean. Imagine a tune, say twinkle twinkle little star. Right, you just "heard" a melody in your mind. Substitute the word "imagined" if you must...
Originally Posted by Vladan
-
Nah. Don't have horn envy. I used to play the alto and wasn't too bad seeing as it was my second instrument. I did some pro gigs. And it is better for single line stuff and hearing stuff in your head. I mean the thing is plugged into your face. Right? But for me the weird and wonderful guitar with all of it's quirks and difficulties is where it's at. It's potential Originally Posted by princeplanet
Of course you're right. I think the best way to shut me up about all this is to tell me to go learn to play the damn sax already!
See, I absolutely do have horn envy, but I feel to committed (actually addicted) to our chosen weird but wonderful instrument...
I know that if I listen to more Jazz guitar recordings I might start to hear "guitar" in my head. Been listening to early Martino last coupla days, I dig how it's right between Wes and Benson (my two faves). Reckon that if that's all I listened to for a week, I'd start to really "hear" it, y'know?....
is vast and, with all respect to all the great players, largely untapped.
-
Cool... I've never heard you really post anything... can you play? I'll be in NY in the Fall. Maybe hook up in some dive... my favorite. Your in NY right. I might be in NO's in march... lost of places to play there. Originally Posted by Irez87
The times when we see eye to eye are the good moments. So when are we gonna play together, already?
This is what I realized in the last 2 years of my playing. Comping can be a beautiful experience if you actually take the word to heart: accompaniment--playing WITH someone instead of playing pre-rehearsed chord voicings. Something clicks and all of a sudden: comping is more fun than soloing.
Odd epiphany.
Ever on the west coast...
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
great question
the thing is we've got to learn how to play something very like what we hear - and we've got to learn to hear appropriate things to play at appropriate times
i think learning to hear the ideas in that sense is a matter of immersing oneself in music one loves and then trying to play that sort of music oneself
if you listen enough to the stuff you really like - and that's the sort of stuff you're trying to play - and you're trying to play it often enough - you start to hear it
i think you can accelerate this hugely by singing along with the bill evans or sonny rollins (etc.) that you are loving at any time.
but starting to hear really good or fresh or unusual stuff - i've no idea how to make that happen at all. probably just more of the same and hope...
-
I think you might be trying to approach this from an objective/scientific point of view, which is a mistake IMO. You are a musician, not a scientist. I'm a trained scientist to US graduate school level (with a background in astrophysics), so I have some respect for the objective/positivist viewpoint, but also a sharp appreciation of the scientific worldview's limitations. Originally Posted by Vladan
In order to play music you must subject yourself to an internal experience. What other musicians and teachers try to communicate (beyond the baby stuff like - put your fingers there, play this scale, use these positions etc) is a subjective experience of how it feels like to play music for them.
These experiences turn out to be very consistent from musician to musician.
Not convinced? Well, here's a logical argument:
Most musicians understand the concept of the inner ear, or the aural imagination.
If you didn't have this ability, we wouldn't be able to learn to sing songs, by memory, would we?
Since people sing songs from memory all the time, we manifestly possess this ability, so we must have a musical imagination/memory which we refer to for want of a better description as the 'inner ear.'
Now the process of improvised music is this:
1) be able to make up and hold new melodies in the inner ear
2) be able to transfer them to our instrument.
The 1st thing could be a lot less conscious than I make it sound, but some conscious ability to imagine what music will sound like in your head and be able to shape it to some degree would be a useful skill too.
Can this be done? I believe so, but it takes practice. Composers are able to do this.
The 2nd thing, is to my mind is relatively straightforward once you go the first thing working for you. If your imagination pictures something vividly enough, it's just a matter of time before you can play it. Practice can make that connection more accurate.
I'm only putting time into this line of argument, because I would hate to see you close your mind to something terribly important.Last edited by christianm77; 01-16-2016 at 03:12 PM.
-
I do find after an hour of listening to and trying to imitate phrases of a jazz musician (singing, repeating or even just improvising) I have a lot more ideas in my head... Originally Posted by Groyniad
Hal Galper has said some interesting stuff to say about the subject in question:
-
I admit I have not yet listened to Hal Galper's vid yet. But, Vladan - I just voice my opinion and appeal to common sense. Of course, just because I "hear" a song in my mind does not mean I expect others to hear it as well unless....unless I can play what I hear and make that music manifest. That is the whole point.
This may be a generational thing but the Beatles' And I Love Her. Can you hear the opening strains of the song? A classical nylon string guitar, Paul's voice, a gentle percussion? I hear that. Do I claim that others hear my thoughts? Of course not. Unless I make that music manifest by playing what I hear. I may not play it note for note, but the sound track in my mind is what I both listen to and anticipate in terms of destination or targets.
If you don't share that experience, don't try to invalidate it. You are entitled to your opinion of course. But I would be interested to know how many experienced musicians do not "hear'' the music in their heads. Like a musical jukebox. Or maybe we are just lucky. By the way I believe Martin Taylor has said much the same thing, though no direct comparison to Martin is implied.
Or to put it another way - if you are not "playing what you hear", what are you doing? Guessing?Last edited by targuit; 01-16-2016 at 04:33 PM.
-
I think it is really important point that puts solid basis for this discusiion from point of view of philosophy of art.My stance is - there's no sound of music in the head to be heaard. It's all imagination and auto-suggestion.
There's only the idea of what is to be played and there is experience and ear to guide us through.
(However abstract it may seem - it reflects how we see and undestand thing).
In my huble opinion Vladan in these view words actually expressed the concept of creative process (ok - one of the concepts maybe)... that whatever is not completed and realized with the material means of art is only the idea...
whatever a musician says .. that he 'hears' the score in his head in details etc. it stays an idea...
However detailed is the image of music we have.. hwen it is played or written down it is much more certain...
I would say one of the basic principles of his concept is transition.. there's always a moment of transition from one reality to another - but it cannot be both...
It's very close to notion of embodiment in religion - like soul and body...
In general, Jay, from this point of you it does not matter how clear and detailed is the image of the song you have because in comparison to real playing it is always only an image.. an unrealized idea..
-
I've posted quite a few samples of my playing. Look at my posts on stella. I am moving out West soon (I'm an Old Cowhand and such), but I am in NYC for now. Home to high rents and jam sessions galore. Originally Posted by Reg
-
Hey Irez's... yea checked out your stella's... cool...but you don't sound like you get out much... playing at the speed of jazz... is live and if your performing with me... the tempos are up. There's no time to figure things out... I generally fly through tunes... But if you get out west... we can hook up, your more than welcome to sit in on some of my gigs.... but be ready, I'm not in slow motion...
-
I played with the play along that wiz had up to show what I could do with it...
By the way, that's not me at slow motion...
This is me at slow motion:
No... that's not me in slow motion either.
I play out, but I don't live with a band on demand...
That would be... interesting?
But that would also be... annoying?
Maybe...
COLTRANE: hey Monk, wake up! I wanna go over those changes to Ruby, My Dear...
MONK: COLTRANE, Coltrane... You almost missed your solo and now you're waking me up. Go and play with Sonny under that bridge.
COLTRANE: Yeah, well... you wear stupid hats
**CUE THE THEME SONG** "It's Monk And Trane, Living is a Pain, No One to Blame, Gotta get the Fame cause you're a musician.... Gotta make money to your physician... Monk and Trane"**
**CUE LAUGH TRACK**
-
Dude, you OK? Originally Posted by Irez87
-
Yeah, I can be a little goofy sometimes. Originally Posted by princeplanet
I was thinking of living with a band and that idea for a sitcom about Monk and Coltrane came into my head. I'd watch that. Who'd play Monk?
-
Jonah - I understand the 'technical' point. But it is like the analogy that an atom is mostly space and very little mass. Yet, if you kick a large rock hard as you can with your bare foot, it will hurt like hell. Originally Posted by Jonah
I ask you this. If you are capable of playing a set of jazz tunes on solo guitar, how do you do it? What is your subjective experience? How do you make manifest the music inside your mind and body? What impels you to play My Foolish Heart such that it is recognizable as such to another person?
Subjectively, I hear the music in my mind rather like a jukebox. Even old Beatles tunes that I heard mainly in the Sixties and early Seventies. Some music I hear with the texture of original voices and orchestration. On the other hand, most of the standards that I know I commit to transcriptions with Sibelius that ...imagine this...sound like the real thing. So I "know" the tunes in that sense. I also record them to digital with a Korg. I also play piano so I play songs on keys and guitar. And I sing.
My subjective experience when I record. After I set the microphone and recorder settings including click track tempo, music stand and transcription sheet music with lyrics, I hit the record start button. I hear the first measure or two of the click track, and then I begin playing. I can read the music as notation as well as "Cm7b5", for example, plus the melody, but I mostly use that for keeping track of verses and lyrics. Essentially what happens is I listen as I play. There is a kind of "feedback" loop between the click track in my headphones and the sound I hear in my head as well as the sound I hear in my phones. Occasionally I make a mistake, usually dropping my concentration or being distracted. Otherwise the sound I make manifest is quite recognizable as the song in terms of structure and harmonic integrity.
Whatever it is, I'm not guessing. And I am capable of scatting rather well. As a physician by training, I think there is much to the aural hologram theorem with the advantage that it is malleable in terms of tempo, pitch, and style. But the heart of it is the synergy between the motor cortex and afferent and efferent connections within the brain and peripheral muscles as well as their being a thing where your singing voice and instrument become synergistically entwined. Much like that quantum entanglement thing in quantum mechanics.
-
01-17-2016, 05:30 PM #116destinytot Guest
Other factors come into play, but I find the environment to be an important one in getting beyond memorised lines and to intuitive responses with regard to playing what you hear.
An environment that's even mildly hostile is reason enough to have enough lines on tap to get you started - if not through - when a gig is tough.
On the other hand, provided the challenge isn't completely overwhelming, tough gigs force you to stay focused - and singing what you're playing really helps with that.
What helps me most when I feel like I'm under pressure is to focus on coherence.
Tuning the guitar properly helps too... (ouch!). From two days ago:
Last edited by destinytot; 01-17-2016 at 06:23 PM. Reason: clarity
-
The more you can prehear before you touch the instrument, the more connected you will be with the music and not with the guitar.
This is not to say that the guitar is an instrument not worthy of hearing. I mean, listen to Robert Johnson, or Wes Montgomery. Beauty, defined.
But, let me pose an impossible hypothetical. Do you think both of these geniuses were thinking of the mechanisms of the guitar when they played, or were they thinking of the music itself?
What of Mozart, or Beethoven, or Ellington?
What of Ahmed Jamal?
Things get really interesting when you start thinking beyond the instrument. Look at what Gilad Hekselman and Rotem Sivan are doing with music these days. Those guys don't sound like guitar players, yet they have all the beautiful guitar inflections in their playing. They sound like they are channeling something else...
A kora? A Fender Rhodes? Coltrane? A string quartet?
The guitar is the tool, not the means to an end. I believe Hal Galper when he speaks of the instrument. Remember that Joe Pass played some pretty shit guitars. His tone was sometimes sacrificed, but his musical vision stayed solid.
Reply With Quote
Ibanez AF207 7-string on reverb
Yesterday, 11:54 PM in For Sale