Playing the saxophone Learn to play by ear or by reading music

[turf3]

...This idea of playing by ear vs playing written music is a false dichotomy. If one pays attention to the sounds one makes, then it’s no different reading a part or improvising. But you have to pay attention. And you have to work at it....

Exactly!

Here's something I do all the time.

There's a lead sheet in front of me, notes and chord symbols, and it's in a key different than what we're playing the tune in. Bandleader counts the tune off, I start playing it, transposing at sight. Full chorus through, melody exactly as written. Next few guys take -say - six choruses; and during those choruses I make up background riffs here and there. Sometimes they're just variations on the melody; sometimes they're based on the chords written above the staff (which I'm transposing at sight for the first couple times through, but then after that I'm not looking at the music, I'm continuing to play backgrounds while I watch the bandleader to find out when my solo's starting). Then my solo comes up. First chorus I base on the melody, glancing at it off and on to refresh my memory, but introducing ornamentations and deviations both rhythmic and melodic. Second chorus I look at the chords (transposing them as I go to the correct key) and play lines that are completely separated from the melody. Third chorus I shut my eyes and play a chorus of mostly repetitive highly rhythmic figures, ending with a bunch of high notes. Then the drummer takes four, and we all play the last four bars of the tune and hit a chord where each of us chooses a note based on what we were playing during the tune.

None of this is exotic, I'm no fantastic musical genius, I could write down two dozen names of guys right now who do it better than me and not a one of them a full time professional musician.

Now tell me which part of this is "eye" and which part of it is "ear" playing?

False dichotomy. It's all the same thing. You approach each instant in playing music with a constantly varying set of inputs.

Do you really think that the bass players in the pit for Carmen are assiduously staring at each individual quarter note as they play "wump, wump, wump, wump" all through the Toreador Song? Ha ha. They're trying to see if they can see up the soprano's dress.

 

[skeller047]

I remember the exact time and place that I truly became a professional. In high school and college, I played in the school big band, in one case more than one big band, often as lead alto. When I stopped going to school (never graduated) I started gigging in funk bands, doing small jazz gigs, teaching some students, you know the usual musician survival grind stuff. And played lead in a couple of local big bands, one on Monday night and one on Sunday afternoon.

One day at a rehearsal for the Sunday band, the leader had some new charts. At one point, he wanted more from the saxes, he looked at me and said “Play it like you’re playing a solo”.

It was like a light switch was flicked. I got it. You don’t just read the notes, you play them. One of the best lessons I ever had, and I’ve never forgotten it.

 

[LostCircuits]

This whole long post is about playing by ear, however it does cross over to issues of teaching. The majority of people are visual learners, so respond best to visual stimuli. Music is an auditory medium, so you're starting off with a difficult fit, yet how else do we impart information and make it available for others to copy/follow? Auditory or (even rarer) tactile learners can have difficulty following a strictly visual way to play. Many of us are mixtures or percentages of each type rather than just one (a spectrum). It's obvious which types will gravitate towards playing visually as compared to by ear.

Coordinating/syncing an ear player's musical thoughts to an instrument takes a lot of effort compared to a visual learner being able to play written music. It's certainly not an easy option, and academia has no answers/programs, and for that matter can't teach creativity either. One learns what they can of the basics, then chooses (or is led down) a path. If it's improvisation and you can't play by ear, then the result is predictable. The ear player has all options open in terms of improvisational creativity and is only limited by their technique, mental library, and stylistic choices.

One should still learn whatever they can about music and certainly experience as wide a variety as possible. Know your strengths and "play" to them.

That's where I disagree. The majority of people are multimodal learners and and visual learning comes in pretty late in the game. That goes for music or language. Infants don't learn how to speak a language by reading but by listening and the comprehension of written language comes in much later, let's say ages 5-6 years or even later (when I grew up). But it was prioritized as the primary method of communication, if you could not read you were left behind.
Nobody did anything like that for another language, that is written music but if they had done just that, more people would be proficient in reading sheet music.

Now you say this thread is about playing by ear, and again, you can read a book aloud and verbatim or you can read the book aloud and improvise. It is not a very common thing in the Western World but a lot of standup comedy is based on that. I briefly attended the Aganxia School for Narrators in Yogjakarta back in '83 and it was all about improvising or playing by "ear". You got an outline of the story and had to improvise using Wayang Kulit shadow puppets to tell the story. And trust me, you were rated.

My point is that we are trained to become visual learners but it is an acquired talent

 

[LostCircuits]

The challenge of the eye/ear connection underscores the folly of late beginners taking on more than one horn before they gain any semblance of mastery. How does the mind process several different sonic answers (ex. sop/alto/tenor/bari) for a single fingering?

If you play intervals rather than fixed pitch notes, then that problem goes away.

 

[LostCircuits]

I remember the exact time and place that I truly became a professional. In high school and college, I played in the school big band, in one case more than one big band, often as lead alto. When I stopped going to school (never graduated) I started gigging in funk bands, doing small jazz gigs, teaching some students, you know the usual musician survival grind stuff. And played lead in a couple of local big bands, one on Monday night and one on Sunday afternoon.

One day at a rehearsal for the Sunday band, the leader had some new charts. At one point, he wanted more from the saxes, he looked at me and said “Play it like you’re playing a solo”.

It was like a light switch was flicked. I got it. You don’t just read the notes, you play them. One of the best lessons I ever had, and I’ve never forgotten it.

I had a similar experience on one of the first gigs I ever played. Except it wasn't me but the guitar player who had been dabbling covers forever - and nobody really paid attention. The gig came, we started to "find each other" and all of a sudden somebody said "play that song" (it was all improvised, there wasn't even a song). And "Reinhart" took off and played like nobody ever had heard or seen him play before. It was an "awakening" for him and he never went back after that. We had only met once before but we became good friends after that night (9;00 pm - 4:00 am show).

Reinhart (Reini) passed away last year, way too young

 

[Wade Cornell]

That's where I disagree. The majority of people are multimodal learners and and visual learning comes in pretty late in the game. That goes for music or language. Infants don't learn how to speak a language by reading but by listening and the comprehension of written language comes in much later, let's say ages 5-6 years or even later (when I grew up). But it was prioritized as the primary method of communication, if you could not read you were left behind.
Nobody did anything like that for another language, that is written music but if they had done just that, more people would be proficient in reading sheet music.

Now you say this thread is about playing by ear, and again, you can read a book aloud and verbatim or you can read the book aloud and improvise. It is not a very common thing in the Western World but a lot of standup comedy is based on that. I briefly attended the Aganxia School for Narrators in Yogjakarta back in '83 and it was all about improvising or playing by "ear". You got an outline of the story and had to improvise using Wayang Kulit shadow puppets to tell the story. And trust me, you were rated.

My point is that we are trained to become visual learners but it is an acquired talent

Here's a google science review page with a huge number of articles that discuss this in great detail. :
Google Scholar

Not sure why you are having an adversarial attitude about this. Re-read what I've written and please be specific you're (for some unknowable reason) disagreeing with. The key term is "plasticity". This is also a key term used extensively in the research. The reference to the Suzuki method also is about the plasticity of children's minds and why it can work.

We are addressing our peers here who are reading adults. Regardless of when, why or how people become mostly visual learners it remains a fact that the people who are reading this are likely in that majority. Some are interested in playing by ear, some not, some just want to debate.

 

[LostCircuits]

Oh dear, I am not interested in debating so I give up.

 

[Wade Cornell]

Oh dear, I am not interested in debating so I give up.

We're in an unfortunate era where science is ignored and replaced with tweets.

Sorry about all this. My "day job" is science, so this gets dragged along to forums like this where information can be tossed out that are opinions stated as facts. We indeed don't need to debate as there is a large solid body of evidence for a spectrum of different types of learners and brain plasticity.

 

[LostCircuits]

It's all good, I have been a neuroscientist for 40 years and I know all about tweets replacing science.

 

[turf3]

Here's a google science review page with a huge number of articles that discuss this in great detail. :
Google Scholar

Not sure why you are having an adversarial attitude about this. Re-read what I've written and please be specific you're (for some unknowable reason) disagreeing with. The key term is "plasticity". This is also a key term used extensively in the research. The reference to the Suzuki method also is about the plasticity of children's minds and why it can work.

We are addressing our peers here who are reading adults. Regardless of when, why or how people become mostly visual learners it remains a fact that the people who are reading this are likely in that majority. Some are interested in playing by ear, some not, some just want to debate.

Well, what I'm challenging is the false dichotomy between "reading" and "ear" players. It's like trying to define exactly where "mind" ends and "body" begins. All those arguments just blow away in the air if you realize there IS no "mind" and there IS no "body", that they're just different aspects of the same one indivisible thing.

 

[Wade Cornell]

Well, what I'm challenging is the false dichotomy between "reading" and "ear" players. It's like trying to define exactly where "mind" ends and "body" begins. All those arguments just blow away in the air if you realize there IS no "mind" and there IS no "body", that they're just different aspects of the same one indivisible thing.

You can think in this way if you wish in making spiritual or philosophical statements. Unfortunately most aren't likely to accept this as a universal truth or anything that is backed by fact. We use a part of our mind to do tasks. It can be either conscious or subconscious. Tasks that are familiar e.g. driving can be relegated to our subconscious. If one is a prolific music reader and has developed this pathway (eye to hand), then that can become subconscious as well. The same is true for playing by ear, which is leading by thinking of a phrase or melody and being able to play that accurately with no reference to dots or simply repeating something well practiced. These are not the same mental pathways. Each takes development and continual practice, yet are fortunately not necessarily mutually exclusive.

If you think this isn't true take a poll of the members here. I think you'll find that they gravitate towards one pathway or the other. Some (myself included) can read and play by ear but it takes specific and separate time and practice to achieve both. One does not = the other. They are separate mental pathways... both playable by any one individual with time and effort dedicated.

 

[LostCircuits]

You can think in this way if you wish in making spiritual or philosophical statements. Unfortunately most aren't likely to accept this as a universal truth or anything that is backed by fact. We use a part of our mind to do tasks. It can be either conscious or subconscious. Tasks that are familiar e.g. driving can be relegated to our subconscious. If one is a prolific music reader and has developed this pathway (eye to hand), then that can become subconscious as well. The same is true for playing by ear, which is leading by thinking of a phrase or melody and being able to play that accurately with no reference to dots or simply repeating something well practiced. These are not the same mental pathways. Each takes development and continual practice, yet are fortunately not necessarily mutually exclusive.

If you think this isn't true take a poll of the members here. I think you'll find that they gravitate towards one pathway or the other. Some (myself included) can read and play by ear but it takes specific and separate time and practice to achieve both. One does not = the other. They are separate mental pathways... both playable by any one individual with time and effort dedicated.

But again, visual learning is an acquired skill, fostered by the preponderance of written material because there were no audiobooks for hundreds of years. Exactly what you say is the strongest point of the plasticity of the nervous system. I am with @turf3 on that you can't separate the mind from the body.

That old joke comes to mind:

Poland (or any other country) sends a new ambassador to Paris (France) and the guy doesn't speak any French. He is worried but when he gets on the plane, the flight attendant hands him a headset and tells him to just fall asleep and he'll learn French in his sleep during the flight.

He wakes up, just slightly confused, but steps off the plane to meet the French Prime Minister. The Prime Minister greets him with the words: Bonjour Monsieur Ambassadeur! And the Ambassadeur answers "ouierou ..ouierrou (static noise) ....

 

[mizmar]

I am with @turf3 on that you can't separate the mind from the body.

There seems to be some other dulisam in play here (now) "conscious" vs unconscious?

driving can be relegated to our subconscious

I'm pretty sure no one drives - far - Purley "subconscious"ly!

As I understand it the conscious does nothing. There's a scale of doing where some stuff is very autonomous at one end and some stuff is deliberative (frontal lobes etc) - and that's stuff we're more conscious of. Autonomous actions can be quite complex patterns of other autonomous actions. The job of learning do to something; is to stuff useful bits into the autonomous region leaving the - slow, deliberative - higher brain to look after interesting or exceptional things.

We learn to drive, deliberatively changing gear, pressing peddles etc. Eventually we control the car autonomically leaving the deliberative bits to worry about danger - and sometimes get so habituated that our minds wander around and miss danger.

On sax, A beginner deliberatively fingers C or D , after a while deliberatively plays a scale and automatically fingers C, D, E... and eventually is autonomously playing Giant Steps at speed while deliberatively planning dinner.

That, to my understanding, is a potted version of how it, the brain, works. Visual, audio, smell, feel... all together. Over the last few hundred years "we've" moved from teaching purely by ear to using printed material - without changing one thing about how the brain works.

 

[skeller047]

Ran across this as I was getting my evening dose of YouTube. By about the 14th lick I had to pull out my Travel Sax 2 and play along. I did a little better than he did but there were still 2 or 3 where I missed a bit. Lack of concentration. Listening takes focus and attention.

Repetition is mastery. I’ll try this again tomorrow. He says it’s the start of a series, I look forward to the next one.

View: https://youtu.be/kOQ1lA8ijTo

 

[Wade Cornell]

But again, visual learning is an acquired skill, fostered by the preponderance of written material because there were no audiobooks for hundreds of years. Exactly what you say is the strongest point of the plasticity of the nervous system. I am with @turf3 on that you can't separate the mind from the body.

That old joke comes to mind:

Poland (or any other country) sends a new ambassador to Paris (France) and the guy doesn't speak any French. He is worried but when he gets on the plane, the flight attendant hands him a headset and tells him to just fall asleep and he'll learn French in his sleep during the flight.

He wakes up, just slightly confused, but steps off the plane to meet the French Prime Minister. The Prime Minister greets him with the words: Bonjour Monsieur Ambassadeur! And the Ambassadeur answers "ouierou ..ouierrou (static noise) ....

Well then, I guess under not being able to separate mind from body becoming a basketball star is the same as becoming a potter and becoming a dancer is the same as being a hunter. All require a mind and body, but are they all the same thing? I don't think so any more than playing drums is the same as singing. Each is a separate skill set that takes time and dedication to develop. Just because it's the same instrument (sax) doesn't mean that one is developing a single means of thinking and playing. If you've trained as a "Classical" sax player you're not gong to be much of a Rock and Roll player unless you've given time and pursued that goal. Likewise a Rock and Roller isn't likely to be able to suddenly play concertos unless they have given it a considerable amount of time.

There is no argument about the plasticity of the human mind, and yet there is also a spectrum of abilities that is obvious in humans. Children from the same parents are not identical in their abilities although they (more or less) share an identical environment. We are a genetically heterozygous species, which means that even with the same parents we are not the same. One would hope that we all have the same opportunities, yet it's simply nonsense to think we all have the same aptitudes any more than we have the exact same body shapes.

The point of all of this is in defining and understanding differences that may be inherent in the way one most easily learns, their tendencies (what comes easy), and how playing by ear is different to reading. It's a mix of things for sure. If one accepts that playing by ear is not the same as playing by reading (can this be denied?) then it's about how one learns and dedicates themselves to using their body for a defined purpose.

 

[Wade Cornell]

Ran across this as I was getting my evening dose of YouTube. By about the 14th lick I had to pull out my Travel Sax 2 and play along. I did a little better than he did but there were still 2 or 3 where I missed a bit. Lack of concentration. Listening takes focus and attention.

Repetition is mastery. I’ll try this again tomorrow. He says it’s the start of a series, I look forward to the next one.

View: https://youtu.be/kOQ1lA8ijTo

This is an excellent preliminary exercise as it embodies the goals of listening and and having to sync what your hearing with what you're playing without necessarily thinking about the key, intervals or any "translating". You hear and you attempt to play directly. It's limited to being in one key and doesn't require the player to develop any thoughts, melodies or other creative aspects.

Given time and practice this can certainly help sync one's hearing to their playing.

Eventually I'd recommend that once players have some "hearing to playing ability" they try to play along with random tracks on the radio that are NOT familiar tunes. This also requires hearing accurately, but also requires anticipating what's happening musically so that you are not playing "after" the track, but instead playing with it. Other pointed exercises for playing along would be to play harmonies, counterpoint, alternative melodies, and rhythmic phrases to fit.

 

[eb424]

Can this be learnt..or can some do it and some not..discuss.. lol

 

[Jeanette]

Can this be learnt..or can some do it and some not..discuss.. lol

I've merged your thread with this older one be great to have our newer members Input 🙂

Jx

 

[Wade Cornell]

Can this be learnt..or can some do it and some not..discuss.. lol

It's an individual thing. If one is very visual and not very auditory, then it's going to take more time and effort. The other aspect to learning is to have someone who can teach effectively. The video (several steps above) is one attempt to teach playing by ear. It's obvious that his is an experimental technique, as there isn't a "standard" teaching routine.

I recommend starting out playing simple tunes one knows with random start notes. In the video its a matter of repeating what you've heard. The process of playing a simple tune you know draws on your mental capacity to hear a tune (in your head) and then attempt to play that accurately on the instrument. The twist to the exercise of playing a tune you know is to use a random start note. This means that you need to hear all of the notes that follow and play them accurately, which also means that you are working in all keys and making a connection between what you hear and what you play. Both exercises have the same goal of playing what you hear without thinking about visualizing a note or "translating". It's a brain/ear to hand pathway rather than eye (or repeated concept) to hand pathway.

As argued by a few respondents, some players can (usually after many years playing as readers) develop this ability when they are sensitive to the connection between hearing a note they wish to play and being able to play it. Some very experienced readers can also hear the note the dot represents rather than just mechanically hit the right key.

The way improvisation is currently taught pretty much ignores the individual being able to play by ear and instead uses an academic approach to playing according to the chord structure and using that to play riffs and arpeggios in a cut and paste fashion. The result is a technical display lacking in melody and generally only communicates the player's technical abilities (not necessarily saying much musically to an audience).

IMHO the ideal way to improvise is the individual playing/creating lines they hear rather than mechanically playing riffs and arpeggios that are more akin to "cut and paste".

Nobody I know of starts playing well by ear immediately. It takes a lot of time to make the instrument "your voice".

 

[Pete Thomas]

Can this be learnt..or can some do it and some not..discuss.. lol

I think anyone can play by ear, just as anyone can play by reading. Both are valid, both may appear either intuitive or subject to a mental block. I’d recommend doing both.