Learning by ear

[dividednomore]

I've been playing mandolin for about 3 years. The instructor I had for the first couple of years taught me to read music. He know longer is available, so I am looking for a new teacher. One person that I have found only teaches by ear (uses tape recorders, etc. and no written music). I am interested because I currently feel very dependent on the written music. What is your take on this?

[dividednomore]

Ooops, I mean he is NO longer available. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Mandobar]

try and divorce yourself from the sheet music dependancy for a while. i think there is a delicate balance between playing by ear and using tab or sheet music.

learning the fundamentals is good for learning to improvise and chords. playing by ear builds "musicality". (i know that's not a real word). i've heard people who can play note for note who sound very mechanical. learning to play by ear will help you out a jam session and whenever you play with another person or other people.

my 2 cents.... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[mandofiddle]

I'd say "GO FOR IT!" The more methods you can learn to use well, the better for your playing and musicianship. It'll likely prove difficult and frustrating at first, but don't let that bring you down.

[Bruce Evans]

Me too. I really believe BOTH skills are important. You know how to speak English without reading it, and you know how to read. Would you want to do without one or the other?

[Chris Baird]

I started working on playing by ear a while back and find it to be very helpful. The foundation for me had to be layed out first though. That being that I had to learn all the scales and a good many of the chords before I could hope to learn much by ear. Now if the tune is easy enough and I know what key it is in I can usually figure it out by ear. It is hard at first and amounts to a lot of trial and error type learning but after awhile the brain picks up and just starts to work out where to put the fingers when it hears each note/interval.

[GTison]

divided. what kind of music do you wish to play on the mandolin?
if bluegrass, then it's time to try the by ear method. because almost no one reads music for bluegrass in a jam or band situation. BUT if you want classical or something that requires it you need the music approach. I like the read vs. speak illustration above.

[RobP]

Learning by ear really keeps you on your toes -- I find it very challenging but super rewarding.

I also read music. It is fun to sit down with, say, the Fiddler's Fakebook and read/play some tunes I have never heard recorded.

Being able to do both opens up more learning possibilities.

Cheers,

Rob

[Mike Bullard]

I was told by a lady in church that being able to read music gives the musician the opportunity to hear the song in their head without playing it. Chet Atkins said that he could read music but did not let it get in the way of his playing. As for myself, I learned to play guitar by ear as a kid. Then Mandolin and Fiddle as an adult. My only lessons were from my peers in jam sessions. My brother can read music and is an excellant musician but can't improvise in a jam. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif

[John Flynn]

To me, it's a no-brainer. Music is sound. It is meant for the ear, not the eyes. Notation is a tool for music, but it is not music. Music existed for millenia before notation was invented and when notation was invented, it was not universally embraced by many musicians. It had to be mandated by the musical bureacrats of the courts of kings. Lutists (mandolinists' musical forefathers) were some of the last holdouts against notation. They felt thier system of ear training and tablature allowed for more versatility on the instrument. Another arguement for ear training is the observation that there have been great musicians who cannot read music. There has never been a great musician without a great ear. OK, Beethoven in his later years may be an exception, but that would be a cheap shot! #

I read music, but my conclusion is that learning by ear should be primary. My personal experience is that music I have learned to play by ear has brought me a lot more enjoyment and satisfaction and I have remembered it a lot longer than music I learned from sheet music. I use notation just as a reference and only when I need to. Just MHO.

I've never heard anyone who can read music say they wished they couldn't. #The Chet Atkins quote (which has been attributed to others also) seems to me to be more of a joke than a concern over the impact of reading on playing. #On the other hand, I've never heard anyone who learns by ear wishing they didn't have that skill. #

My only concern about this thread is the idea that one method of learning songs is somehow the "best". #What works for some, won't work for others. #I have tinnitus and have lots of trouble distinguishing slight differences in tone and reading (whether tab or standard notation) allows me to learn songs.

The fact that someone who reads music can't improvise doesn't mean that the reason they can't improvise is that they read music.

[blammo]

To me, it's a no-brainer. Music is sound. It is meant for the ear, not the eyes. Notation is a tool for music, but it is not music. Music existed for millenia before notation was invented and when notation was invented, it was not universally embraced by many musicians. It had to be mandated by the musical bureacrats of the courts of kings.

Of course, we should be thankful that notation was invented…without it, all music ever composed before recording technology would be lost to us. Wouldn't it be great if you could hear what music sounded like 1000 years ago? Unless someone wrote it down, it's not gonna happen. I used to run an 8-piece jazz/improv band & knowing how to translate my musical ideas into charts was a valuable asset, and a great time-saver. I'd write out all the charts, hand them out at rehearsal, & listen to it come to life.

Obviously the oral/aural tradition is just as important, as it lets songs evolve through the years as they are handed down & passed on. But sitting down with the Fiddlers Fakebook and a cup of coffee on a rainy Sunday & running through some classic melodies that I've never heard before is a pleasure I wouldn't want to deny myself. Learning to read music is only a hinderance if you lack the creativity to see it as a tool, not a means to an end.

(Much respect to those with differing opinions on this topic…I spent 4 years as a teacher & I was always excited when my students would start reading music)

[JimD]

Ok, it's time for me to offend folks on both sides of this debate...

The only complete musicians are those who can both read music and play by ear (that includes learning tunes by ear AND improvising.).

These approaches are within the grasp of anyone who has the intestinal fortitude to take them on.
All of my students learn to read note, to play by ear, and to improvise--all right from the start.

Also, you are never "done" learning either approach. The ear can always be improved and the note reading ability can always be improved. If you are serious about being a musician, both approaches will be part of your daily routine. If they aren't... well, there will always be something that is out of your grasp.

It is a simple matter of musical literacy and what used to be called "musicianship".

Jim

P.S. (to Mando Johnny) Lute players were far from being holdouts against notation. The lutenists tablature was the standard notation for that instrument at that time and there is some evidence that composers who wrote in the standard vocal music notation (such as Palestrina) #of the time also used lute tablature as a way of working out their compositions. (Composers at Work:The Craft of Musical Composition 1450-1600, Jessie Ann Owens, Oxford Press). Modern Lutenists will typically learn at least three different types of lute tablature (regional styles) and standard notation (on a grand staff--treble and bass clef like a piano score) and how to improvise accompaniments from figured bass (a bass line in standard notation, bass clef with a set of numbers or figures indicating the chords and non-harmonic tones used to accompany a piece--this has many regional and "time-period varients as well). I just don't think lute players make a good example against note reading...

[Hondo]

Seems to me that both approaches are valid and certainly not mutually exclusive. Knowledge is the key - the more you know, the better off you are.

[Bruce Evans]

Ok, it's time for me to offend folks on both sides of this debate...
Sorry, Jim. You have completely failed to offend me. I agree with you in every point.

[JimD]

Glad to hear it. Though--I usually do offend when I take a position like that.

Jim

[blammo]

Ok, it's time for me to offend folks on both sides of this debate...
Sorry, Jim. You have completely failed to offend me. I agree with you in every point.
Agreed. (although I know nothing about the history of lute notation) You don't want to be:

A: one of those pickers that can only play what is written for them

or

B: someone who grinds to a halt when a chart is set in front of them

Learning music takes time…but that shouldn't be a deterrent if you're planning on playing for the rest of your life! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

And here's another exercise just to work the whole thing backwards…Try improvising a solo to your favorite tune by "scatting" onto a tape recorder. Just make something up by whistling or singing it! Then learn it on your instrument. Sometimes your brain can take you outside of your usual fingering patterns. (for bonus points, transcribe this solo into standard notation)

[CapnScarlett]

I always like to read sheet music the first time I play a tune; then it's in my head and I can fool around with it when I actually play. If I can't find sheet music, though, I do fine with a simple enough recording. I think it's a much better idea to use both approaches; I agree that the reading vs. speaking analogy is very accurate.

[mandodebbie]

I'm teaching myself to play through tapes and books. Most of the time I can pick out a tune I've heard either on a recording, or one that I can remember singing when I was a child. I have been finding that I need some written material, as I am not experienced enough to figure out which chords would be suitable for some songs. Also, there are some classical, jazz, Broadway, or old time tunes I have never heard before. ( And I have been playing mando for only four- going on five- months.) Anyways, we all have the rest of our lives to learn this beautiful instrument, so use all the techniques you can possibly find and do experiment! It will make your playing much more interesting and unique.

[John Flynn]

Jim D:

Good info. My point was not to argue against notation, but only point out that music is a medium of sound, not sight, that ear training came first and that the institution of standard notation was more of a bureacratic exercise than some great leap forward. The fact that lute tablature still exists shows that standard notation has its limitations. (The History of Transcriptions of Lute Tablature —1679 to the Present, by Matanya Ophee) also (The Music Notation exhibit at the Cité de la Musique, Paris) But again, my intent was not to argue against notation at all, but more to encourage ear training.

[High Lonesome]

dividednomore, Ill tell you I don't read music anymore because I know how to create scales and from the scales I know how to build chords.

So once you can do that reading music is a waste of time, that is for me anyway.

IMHO # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[JimD]

Mando Johnny,

I agree with you about ear training (about its importance as a study and about it coming before notation). I teach Ear Training classes (among other things) and feel that it is the most important work I do as an educator. But I disagree about it being (even historically) a bureaucratic exercise.

It most certainly was a leap forward in the way that western music developed. It was mensural notation (different notes having differing rhythmic values) that allowed for the developement of polyphony and then the system of harmonic progression that has led to everything from Beethoven to Blues and Bluegrass. If it wasn't for notation music would have developed in a very different way. Notation, in a general way, is one of the three great technological events in the history of music.

I consider the major technological advances in music to be as follows: 1) Instruments--when music was first made outside the human body. #2) Notation -for the reasons described above and for the ability to transmit compositions over time and distance. 3)Recording-music can be preserved in individual performances.

Most other technological advances to our art fall into one (or more) of these categories. Note that we haven't had an advance of this magnitude since Edison.

[kebmando]

There is no such thing as a "complete" musician.

You don't get Leadbellies and Bill Monroes by sending them to conservatories.

That said, learning to read standard notation will open worlds of music to you.

[JimD]

OK, point taken on the "complete musician" statement. "Well-rounded" would have been a better choice of words.

However, I stand firm on training the ear, learning to read music and learning to improvise. My point is more that we all have plenty to learn and the responsible choice is to work on ALL important skills.

[Rroyd]

Far too often, those who have learned to play by notation forget about those things sticking out of each side of their heads, and those black dots on the paper just have a physical relationship to the instrument they are playing. #Playing by ear creates an awareness of what is happening musically in relation to what they are doing physically. #I tell my students to memorize tunes they are learning from notation or tablature, as quickly as possible; then they can think about technique, tone, and other things that seem to be forgotten when they are staring at a piece of paper. #When they start playing by ear, they teach themselves to play simple songs they have known all their lives, then gradually learn more elaborate arrangements of those tunes, and more difficult and involved songs. #The suggestion about "scatting" a song and then working it out on an instrument is a technique we use regularly, and is also a great way of learning to add in some improvisational ideas along with the basic tune. # A great aid in learning by ear is software allowing the slowdown of tunes without altering the pitch, coupled with the other things the software can do, like looping any length of phrase. #One of my students just finished learning Alan Bibey's version of "Wild Fiddler's Rag" by ear, using the program called "Slowblast," which is less than $20 from Elderly. #There is also some shareware out there that will do about the same things that you can get for free. #Once you work out a few tunes
you will be amazed at how much easier it becomes
to learn new ones, as you start recognizing ideas, licks, #and phrases that you already know how to play.

[Steve L]

I've found the best way for me to learn tunes is to get the tune by ear, and then transcribe it into notation. This enables me to not only check the accuracy over periods of time (49 year old memory banks), but to see patterns and function in the music. Knowing that "that's an E natural" is one thing, but seeing the note change function from the third of a C major chord to the 5th of an A minor to the major 7th of an F maj 7 helps the eye to train the ear. But reading without hearing is a bit like walking on one leg in the types of music most of us play.