• FAQ  • Search  • Memberlist  • Usergroups   • Register   • Profile  • Log in to check your private messages  • Log in 

Learning Jazz by Ear


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> Jazz/Commercial
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Benge.nut
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 18 Mar 2017
Posts: 695

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hugh Anderson wrote:
It takes a long time to learn to read music, an equally long time to learn to play by ear.


And it takes even longer to learn all that's involved to really improvise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Anderson
Veteran Member


Joined: 22 Sep 2011
Posts: 398

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Composition is selective improv.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
markp
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 2814
Location: Coarsegold, CA

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It doesn't have to be an either/or thing. Do lots of reading and studying music AND playing by ear.

They complement one another.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HERMOKIWI
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 2578

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Learning Jazz by Ear Reply with quote

Benge.nut wrote:
HERMOKIWI wrote:


Which brings me to this question: Why is it so difficult for you to conceptualize this and acknowledge that a player with this ability who also possesses a strong jazz vocabulary can be an extremely strong jazz improviser, the exact person you'd want to hire?


I want to play, work with and hire guys that possess all those things.

Guys who "play by ear" and can't tell you the form of a tune, and just swim around the changes hoping to find a right note here and there....I don't want anywhere near the bandstand I'm playing on.

I'm very pragmatic in my idea of musicality and my thoughts on playing in a jazz setting. This comes from playing with all kinds of players. Some great, some not, some THINK they are great, but really are quite jive.

The straight ahead jobs I do are mostly for corporate work, weddings, cocktail parties, some times restaurants for brunches. We aren't into esoteric free ambiguous extended solos. Somebody calls a tune, 90% of the time we all know it. Play it, keep solos short and sweet, melodic as not to bore the room to death and move on to the next tune. No long discussions or planning about a tune or form...because we all know it and have played hem 1000s of times. Most of the communication is done with a nod, or eye contact. It's very organic and easy. Lots of listening and playful games between rhythm section guys and the soloist at the time, lots of funny quotes and references...just a good time.

Some "ear player" that doesn't know the tunes, or the forms, or how to solo over them would be a drag to work with.

In conclusion; if you say there are cats that just use their ear, and don't know fundamentals, or think they are stifling, and are superstars...that's fine. But I don't know any, and they don't show up on gigs I work, and I don't call those guys to jobs.

And if that's the kind of player you aspire to me...good luck finding work and to find people who want play that way I guess. I'm not omnipotent and I may be well off base, but I don't think so.

Best of luck to all!


No one admires, wants to emulate, wants to play with or wants to hire an incompetent player. You are apparently classifying all players who play primarily by ear as incompetent players.

It would be extremely unusual for a player to develop proficiency in jazz improvisation without a solid foundation in ear playing. Although many great jazz soloists have a strong background in music theory almost all of them are playing primarily by ear during their performances. They don't have time to do math or analyze theory while they're performing. They rely on their ear training. You've heard them do it. You just don't realize that's what's actually happening.

In your commentary you are not talking about proficient ear players. You are talking about players who are incompetent. A proficient ear player can certainly tell you the form of the tune, they don't swim around the changes hoping to find a right note here and there, they don't play esoteric free ambiguous extended solos, they don't need long discussions about the tune or its form, they communicate very well with the other players by the methods you describe, they know the tunes and the forms and they are extremely competent at soloing over them.

I work with many university level students who are very well versed in music theory but who demonstrate only elementary skill in jazz improvisation. Their deficiencies are uniformly two-fold: They are unable to instinctively play what they hear and they do not possess an adequate jazz vocabulary.

It can take a long time to develop the ability to instinctively play what you hear and to acquire an adequate jazz vocabulary. However, it is these characteristics, not knowledge of theory, which the great jazz players all have in common.
_________________
HERMOKIWI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
etc-etc
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 6157

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Adding to what has been so eloquently said by HERMOKIWI, theory - in music - is only a summation of the achievements of genial players and composers. Where and how did theory predict music of Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Sun Ra or Ornette Coleman? Sure, it can explain what they did - after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20, too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Benge.nut
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 18 Mar 2017
Posts: 695

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Playing with an "ear player" that is ignorant to changes, form, and can only react to what he hears is almost as bad as dealing with a chick singer in a jazz setting.

It's like playing darts with a blindfold on.

And to say that Charlie Parker and Miles Davis were oblivious to theory and form when executing their solos?? Did I read that right??

I'm not going to respond to any "free jazz" references or players, because I don't consider that a legitimate form of jazz for these discussions, as we are talking about playing tunes. Nor do I have much knowledge in that "music" or really enjoy listening to it. So any Sun Ra, Ornette Coleman, Don Cherry...anything from the electric Bitches Brew Miles era etc are moot to these discussions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crazy Finn
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 27 Dec 2001
Posts: 8331
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's the jazz police! Run for your lives!
_________________
LA Benge 3X Bb Trumpet
Selmer Radial Bb Trumpet
Yamaha 6335S Bb Trumpet
Besson 709 Bb Trumpet
Bach 184L Bb Cornet
Yamaha 731 Bb Flugelhorn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tptguy
Jerome Callet Forum Moderator


Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 3380
Location: Philadelphia, Pa

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A player with intermediate jazz technique can 'fake it' with intermediate knowledge of harmony, scales, and form while he (she) develops more musical ears that will, in time, allow him to hear where his knowledge is leading him.

And, an intermediate player with more naturally talented ears will, in time, use his natural talent to more intellectually comprehend the whys and wheres of the path his ears have already laid before him.

In either case, the end goal should be full absorption of the genre. A good teacher will direct each player along their most efficient path. But as Herm pointed out, a player just pecking along has yet to move beyond the intermediate step. That's not a bad thing, it's merely part of individual progression - unless the player lacks the will to move beyond the intermediate level. IMO, it's the amount of passion that dictates the end result, not the path one takes.

Along the way, gigs depend on the leader's evaluation of available talent, per Benge.Nut, or personal networking. To me, the end result is well expressed by a Charlie Parker paraphrase - work your tail off in the woodshed, but on the bandstand play what sounds good to you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brassmusician
Veteran Member


Joined: 25 Feb 2016
Posts: 273

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Benge.nut wrote:
Playing with an "ear player" that is ignorant to changes, form, and can only react to what he hears is almost as bad as dealing with a chick singer in a jazz setting.


really? this is very misogynistic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HERMOKIWI
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 2578

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Benge.nut wrote:
Playing with an "ear player" that is ignorant to changes, form, and can only react to what he hears is almost as bad as dealing with a chick singer in a jazz setting.

It's like playing darts with a blindfold on.

And to say that Charlie Parker and Miles Davis were oblivious to theory and form when executing their solos?? Did I read that right??

I'm not going to respond to any "free jazz" references or players, because I don't consider that a legitimate form of jazz for these discussions, as we are talking about playing tunes. Nor do I have much knowledge in that "music" or really enjoy listening to it. So any Sun Ra, Ornette Coleman, Don Cherry...anything from the electric Bitches Brew Miles era etc are moot to these discussions.


I agree that playing with any player, whether an ear player, theory player or combination of both, who is ignorant to changes and form is a negative experience (although I wouldn't automatically compare it to "dealing with a chick singer in a jazz setting" - there are many female singers who are superb in a jazz setting).

In terms of "reacting to what he hears", all great jazz artists are adept at reacting to what they hear.

A proficient ear player is not "shooting darts with a blindfold on." A proficient ear player knows exactly what he or she is doing and does it proficiently.

"And to say that Charlie Parker and Miles Davis were oblivious to theory and form when executing their solos?? Did I read that right??"

Inasmuch as no one has said that, or anything even close to that, it's apparent that you're intentionally ignoring the point. Why is that?

Charlie Parker and Miles Davis were well versed in theory and form, something that was very beneficial to them. However, it was not their knowledge of theory or form which made them great jazz artists (lots of people have an equal or greater command of the academic aspects of theory and form). What made them great jazz artists was their ability to instinctively, naturally and spontaneously express their musicality in brilliant ways based on how they individually heard the music.

Two players can play the same tune much differently yet both interpretations can be brilliant. How can this be so when both players are working with the same theory, form and chord changes? The answer is that each player hears the music in different, yet equally brilliant, ways.

It's all about how they react to what they hear, the very thing you say is "almost as bad as dealing with a chick singer in a jazz setting." Charlie Parker and Miles Davis were masters at reacting to what they heard and expressing their reactions in the form of brilliant jazz improvisation. At the end of the day jazz improvisation is just a player's individual reaction to theory, form and chords, an expression of how the player individually hears and employs these components. The ability to academically lecture on these topics is not, nor has it ever been, a prerequisite to being a brilliant improvisational jazz artist.
_________________
HERMOKIWI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbo
Regular Member


Joined: 27 May 2016
Posts: 90
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

trumpethead wrote:
Whatever it takes to music work for you...

My experience amongst Pro players is that the better ones play by ear, with the majority having very little or no idea what they're playing.., but they make beautiful music nonetheless. (I'm talking HORN players here)

The world is full of musicians who play modally, relying on chords, scales and the like, and to me, they all sound the same. Doesn't make them bad, just interchangeable.

I firmly believe that you're born with the ability to improvise and in my experience, the best ones possess a natural ability that transcends any formal theoretical training. Some just never get it, regardless of how much theory they know.


I so much agree with the last bit!
I was thinking of writing a post on it to get some reactions (and probably will as I don't think ppl read other's reply's much )
Whether it be music, sport, science, unfortunately I believe that people have a certain amount of natural ability. Obviously environment etc can determine how far they go with it, but they will advance further than the poor guy working as hard next to him/she with less natural ability.

Rob
_________________
Currently staff arranger for the band of the South Australia Police.
Berklee College of Music, Elder Conservatorium Adelaide, Australia.
For some great trumpet and band music please visit piglet music.com. Grab some free music there!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mm55
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2013
Posts: 1410

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Benge.nut wrote:
And to say that Charlie Parker and Miles Davis were oblivious to theory and form when executing their solos?? Did I read that right??

No, you didn't read that, at least not on this thread. Maybe you read it in your "Trumpet Sanity's Big Book Of Straw Men".
_________________
'75 Bach Strad 180ML/37
'79 King Silver Flair
'07 Flip Oakes Wild Thing
'42 Selmer US
'90 Yamaha YTR6450S(C)
'12 Eastman ETR-540S (D/Eb)
'10 Carol CPT-300LR pkt
'89 Yamaha YCR2330S crnt
'13 CarolBrass CFL-6200-GSS-BG flg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Benge.nut
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 18 Mar 2017
Posts: 695

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

etc-etc wrote:
Where and how did theory predict music of Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Sun Ra or Ornette Coleman? Sure, it can explain what they did - after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20, too.


His is what I was confused about. Is this quote saying Miles and Bird didn't use theory, but were ear players?

I can't think of anybody that defined changes through solos as much as Charlie Parker. His solos are industry standard, text book examples of playing changes, and using bebop theory and vocab....measure to measure. Hardly an example of an "ear player"

So I guess I misread the quote, or misunderstood the wording and point?

I use my ear to listen to the band, and decide what sort of melody and direction my solo will have. I use my mind to do the math, think ahead, be creative using the guidelines of the form and substitutions to add color.

The math is where the options come from. Sometimes I stay in the pocket, sometimes I step out. Tension and resolution. But these choices are made consciously and with intent. It's not a free-for-all, just arbitrarily playing notes. Jazz is an art AND a discipline.

Maybe we still have a disagreement on the term "ear player". But when you guys say "theory is stifling " or "chord changes are obsolete", or "using you ear is thinking outside the box" implies that the math is unnecessary. And again I go back to saying, what if the bass player and piano player had that mentality. How could a band play a song?!?! They HAVE to define correct changes, know the form, understand theory....why should a horn player be any different? Just seems lazy to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
djpearlman
Veteran Member


Joined: 30 Aug 2002
Posts: 461
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sr. Benge - I guess I missed the post where someone said "chord changes are obsolete" ...
_________________
Dan Pearlman
Santa Fe, NM

- Monette Cornette
- Andalusia Cornet
- Carolbrass Pocket Trumpet
- Monette mouthpieces

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5NafoVeXrsRm-fOhKaIpnA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Benge.nut
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 18 Mar 2017
Posts: 695

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

djpearlman wrote:
Sr. Benge - I guess I missed the post where someone said "chord changes are obsolete" ...


"The names of the notes are irrelevant to them. Similarly the names of the chords are irrelevant to them because they can hear the components of the chords and can respond automatically inside or outside the chords as they choose. Such players might not be able to name the changes but they certainly "know the changes." "

"Proficient ear players know the form and they know what's coming next if they're familiar with the tune. They hear it in their heads and, for them, hearing it that way is an adequate (if not superior) substitute for being able to name notes and chords. "

These are quotes from HERMOKIWI in this thread.

If I said obsolete instead of quoted the term "irrelevant" confused you, I apologize.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Anderson
Veteran Member


Joined: 22 Sep 2011
Posts: 398

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Miles said you have to learn the theory and then forget it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HERMOKIWI
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 2578

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Benge.nut wrote:
djpearlman wrote:
Sr. Benge - I guess I missed the post where someone said "chord changes are obsolete" ...


"The names of the notes are irrelevant to them. Similarly the names of the chords are irrelevant to them because they can hear the components of the chords and can respond automatically inside or outside the chords as they choose. Such players might not be able to name the changes but they certainly "know the changes." "

"Proficient ear players know the form and they know what's coming next if they're familiar with the tune. They hear it in their heads and, for them, hearing it that way is an adequate (if not superior) substitute for being able to name notes and chords. "

These are quotes from HERMOKIWI in this thread.

If I said obsolete instead of quoted the term "irrelevant" confused you, I apologize.


If you're going to quote me why don't you quote me completely? Why do you omit things? The quote is specifically limited to proficient ear players. It specifically says that the names of the notes and the names of the chords are irrelevant to such players. It does not say that the notes are irrelevant or that the chords are irrelevant.

Of course the notes and chords are relevant. The point is that a proficient ear player regards notes as pitches and chords as clusters of pitches. A proficient ear player is not focused on the names of the notes and chords. The names are irrelevant to the proficient ear player. The proficient ear player is focused on the sounds of the notes and chords. It is those sounds which are relevant to the proficient ear player.

Here's the whole quote including the part you left out:

Players who can "play by ear" proficiently are not hunting and pecking and guessing about what they're playing. They don't think of the notes as "notes." They think of the notes as "pitches" they have trained themselves to play automatically by ear. The names of the notes are irrelevant to them. Similarly the names of the chords are irrelevant to them because they can hear the components of the chords and can respond automatically inside or outside the chords as they choose. Such players might not be able to name the changes but they certainly "know the changes."
_________________
HERMOKIWI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JoseLindE4
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 791

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also double on bass. Last weekend, my wife (piano) and I were playing a gig where the singer started singing a tune neither one of us had heard before. We were able to accompany the singer well and improvise some chord changes that made sense.

If someone had asked me to speak the chord names while I was playing this new song, I would have struggled. Not because I don't know what notes I'm playing or chords I was playing and not because I don't know theory, but because my focus was on sound - the sound of chord that made sense with the melody rather than the name.

In fact, if someone were to ask me to name the chords as I play a tune I know well, it would still take quite a bit of mental work.

Sound in the imagination -> sound on the instrument
is often simpler than
notes describing sound -> sound in the imagination -> technique describing sound on the instrument -> sound on the instrument.

While theory is a useful way to get to the point of thinking in sound and it certainly lowers the mental overhead (it can simplify complex concepts) and can open up new ways of thinking, it doesn't have to be the only way.

Music theory is ultimately backwards looking - for the most part it describes what happened. This is extremely useful in having a coherent way of understanding what happened and reproducing and building upon it, but it still mostly looks backwards.

There's no reason a player can't have a collection of sounds in their head without a coherent naming system. It seems overly complex, but it's possible and certainly exists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Benge.nut
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 18 Mar 2017
Posts: 695

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HERMOKIWI wrote:
Benge.nut wrote:
djpearlman wrote:
Sr. Benge - I guess I missed the post where someone said "chord changes are obsolete" ...


"The names of the notes are irrelevant to them. Similarly the names of the chords are irrelevant to them because they can hear the components of the chords and can respond automatically inside or outside the chords as they choose. Such players might not be able to name the changes but they certainly "know the changes." "

"Proficient ear players know the form and they know what's coming next if they're familiar with the tune. They hear it in their heads and, for them, hearing it that way is an adequate (if not superior) substitute for being able to name notes and chords. "

These are quotes from HERMOKIWI in this thread.

If I said obsolete instead of quoted the term "irrelevant" confused you, I apologize.


If you're going to quote me why don't you quote me completely? Why do you omit things? The quote is specifically limited to proficient ear players. It specifically says that the names of the notes and the names of the chords are irrelevant to such players. It does not say that the notes are irrelevant or that the chords are irrelevant.

Of course the notes and chords are relevant. The point is that a proficient ear player regards notes as pitches and chords as clusters of pitches. A proficient ear player is not focused on the names of the notes and chords. The names are irrelevant to the proficient ear player. The proficient ear player is focused on the sounds of the notes and chords. It is those sounds which are relevant to the proficient ear player.

Here's the whole quote including the part you left out:

Players who can "play by ear" proficiently are not hunting and pecking and guessing about what they're playing. They don't think of the notes as "notes." They think of the notes as "pitches" they have trained themselves to play automatically by ear. The names of the notes are irrelevant to them. Similarly the names of the chords are irrelevant to them because they can hear the components of the chords and can respond automatically inside or outside the chords as they choose. Such players might not be able to name the changes but they certainly "know the changes."


Okay!! Sorry I used your own argument and quoted words to make a point to another poster. I can see how that was deceptive somehow??

Anyway, I am a nuts and bolts, black and white musician. Clearly we have a different view on how to improvise and what is important and what is not.

Neither of us are going to change how we think, and this dead horse has been beaten enough as far as I'm concerned.

The last point I'm going to reinforce is the piano player and bass player in a unit. Just imagine if they approached "playing by ear" the way you described. By thinking of "pitch clusters and sound" and not worrying about "irrelevant chords or theory"....it'd be a train wreck. So why is it ok for the horn player to approach his solos that way??

Anyway, good discussion. I think most of our points were all lost in translation and we're probably closer to the same page of agreement than either of us realizes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arjuna
Veteran Member


Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Posts: 240
Location: So Cal

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

+1



dstdenis wrote:
"Chords? We don't play chords, we play sound." -- Miles Davis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> Jazz/Commercial All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group