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

[thomsax]

Wide variability.

People don't just learn stuff, better or worse; they learn to learn. And enforcement means they learn different learning techniques better or worse ... So, it's nonlinear and you can get a wide variety.

To learn how learn to play a song, solo, riff by ear to speed up the learning process needs some input; teacher, book, computer .... .

To do learn this take lots of hours (theory) and even longer for me because I must translate ....

... learn the key
... learn the "meter" (versmått on swedish)
... learn the length
... learn the format
... learn the harmonic form
... learn the melody (no short-cuts)
... learn the lyrics/words and the meaning of the lyrics.

 

[Tenor Viol]

I've said it before - there is no single, simple answer to this question. What Wade said above is correct: children up to the age of about 6 have a huge advantage to learning as until then their brains are very plastic and work very differently to adult ones.

Adult learners are in a different space. We struggle with unrealistic expectations of competency... "I'm xx years old, I should be able to do that". I certainly struggle with that at times.

People's learning styles vary a lot. Some want to read everything, understand everything. Some need to see things demonstrated. Some want to go away and experiment for themselves. Some do bits of everything.

If you want to walk into wind band or big band set-up and play, then you're going to need to read music, and depending on the standard of the group you will need an appropriate level of sight-reading capability.

If you are playing covers in a function band, or jazz standards with a group, your requirements are different.

 

[Zasterz]

I find this question is something like “learn language with or without reading?” You already know what it’s like to speak, to read internally, to read out loud, to hear words in your head without any text on hand. It’s all the same.

If you had to stand up and reenact the Gettysburg Address, you’d probably want to have a written copy to at least refer to in case you forgot. Learning it by listening to it over and over may not be your first choice.

If you wanted to imitate Brando’s Corleone, then you’re going to want to hear the performance and get all manner of inflection, phrasing, etc. No amount of reading could possibly get you there.

Why do you write your To Do List out in words rather than as a Voice Memo? Because glancing at words on a page is much faster than listening to speech in real time. You don’t read out “Pick up dry cleaning” in your head in real time. You see the shape of those words and instantly remember what it means. (That’s why they tell you not to pass out copies of a talk that you’re giving- the audience will have finished reading it way before you’re done speaking and you’ll still be talking.)

Why are you glad you can read? The number one thing is how much literature it opened you up to, across time and distance.

If you were doing something improvisational, spontaneous, riffing with friends or comedy improv and one person said they could only participate if they wrote out what they were going to say in advance…? Well that wouldn’t work, right? You might say that person doesn’t understand how riffing works.

We already use all these skills, all the time, in varying degrees specific to the task.

 

[turf3]

False dichotomy is set up in the title.

Very many of us read music fluently and are capable of playing fluently by ear also.

It's not "either-or". But the oral-tradition fallacy limits you to what you can remember, whereas learning to read (whether musical notation, or written language) opens up to you everything that's been written. How many of us can realistically hope to get all the Odyssey and Iliad by memory? Yet I can take in both of them, plus all the collected works of Shakespeare, Dickens, the Bible, Faulkner, Joyce, etc., etc., etc., by simply READING.

I might, by assiduous practice, master 200 tunes by ear, melodies and chord progressions. If we're talking about complete arrangements as you would see in a big band, I could probably memorize fewer than that, the whole chart, all the notes.

A few years ago I was playing in three jazz big bands simultaneously, each one with a book of more than 200 charts, with only a modest degree of overlap. Then I was asked to join an amateur group gathered together to play the complete Brandenburg Concertos. At the same time I regularly attended a jazz jam session where the Real Books were used as source material. At that point I probably had more than 500 individual pieces of music in my working stack - each and every note of complex arrangements. It would be impossible for anyone other than a few musical geniuses with eidetic memories to be able to play, accurately, that size of repertoire without written music. Furthermore, in the big-bands, made up of fluent readers (almost all of whom were also strong soloists and improvisers), introducing a new piece of music involved nothing more than passing out the charts and letting everyone have five minutes to look them over and understand the road map.

But none of that hinders the ability to play things "by ear" or to improvise over changes. Why would it? Reading only hampers your ear playing and improvisation if you let it.

 

[Wade Cornell]

I find Turf3's views amusing, in a condescending way. There is a presumption that everyone in the world is a visually acute person who thinks, learns, reacts, and navigates the world in the same way that he does. Well, it's just not true. I started to learn to read and play music (piano) at 6 years old and continued to learn to play woodwind instruments for many years after that. However I was never a great reader. It was only when I took up singing (and was a professional) that I found that I could make music come alive. This translated back to the woodwinds and being able to play by ear (as one always sings by ear, even if you're reading music). If you can't hear the note you can't sing it! I play sax the same way, I hear what I want to play and it comes out of the horn, no reading or theory required. Can I read music? Yes, but struggle and don't play effectively. It's the opposite of what Turf3 says. Reading hampers my ability to play. It's stiff and lifeless. I spent more than a decade trying to master reading so that I could be proficient, but was only able to be barely adequate. However playing by ear comes easily. There is no visually remembering notes, I can hear what I'm playing. When I was a singer I remembered heaps of songs and could hum all of them. What I needed the sheet music for was the words!

Here's a test: How many songs can you hum or sing? Probably hundreds if hearing them on the radio (sing along). Could you after a few notes turn off the radio and continue singing the whole thing? Maybe? Could you play all of those on your horn even if given the first few notes? Not likely, however an experienced ear player can and in any key. If you can hear it you can play it. What's more you could improvise on it as it's still just a matter of what you hear, not what you see or are tying to interpret visually or mentally via chords/changes and then translate into sound. You're connected to your instrument and can play what you hear. The creativity of your improvisation is a matter of individuality and one's internal library of sound.

Can some visual players develop this ability? Sure, but an extremely visual learner may find it very difficult. They want/need to have a visual or conceptual clue that works as the pathway for their fingers to play the right notes. Does jazz theory teach one how to become one with their instrument where you play what you hear? Nope! The sad reality is that the people who are very auditory learners/thinkers have to find this for themselves as the majority (like Tur3) happily promote strictly visual learning and playing as the only way to master an instrument.

We are not all the same. The projections of a majority who are visual learners is not an absolute. I'm very happy to be in the minority who don't need to play cut and paste riffs and arpeggios and call it improvisation. The world of music is big enough for all sorts. Is there only one way to learn or make music? The dichotomy or multifaceted ways of learning and expressing ourselves is a reality.

 

[turf3]

Where did I say that reading music is the only way to master an instrument?

If you're going to argue with me at least give me the respect to argue against things I've actually written.

What I DID say is that using writing (whether music notation or written language) allows one to access a breadth and depth of information that simply isn't available to the non-reading learner. As I noted, a few people in a generation would be able to memorize all of Homer; no one but a once in a milennium savant would be able to memorize all of Homer, Dickens, Shakespeare, Pynchon, etc.; but anyone who can read English can access all of these for an almost trivial investment of time and effort. Same thing with music.

 

[Wade Cornell]

And what I said was that it's possible to remember a huge amount of music and play this without visual clues. Which you seem to be ignoring. An Auditory person with many years of experience on their instrument can also improvise and create music rather than relying on charts and technical interpretations of music. Since this is about music and not Homer or Shakespeare your analogies are irrelevant. You've defined what you can do. That is not a universal, it's relating to your limitations, nothing more.

Singers can often come up with many hundreds of tunes they sing accurately. They (of course) don't have the impediment of a physical instrument that must become their voice. They can also automatically sing in any key that is within their range... the same as an ear payer can do. Visual people who are primarily readers of music can not do this. For them music is always translation or an eye to fingers mental pathway without owning or being part of the music.

To repeat your statement: "False dichotomy is set up in the title." It is not a false dichotomy as there are millions of people who learn and play music without utilizing visual or academic means of playing. You are demonstrably wrong. There is no doubt that a person who can do both has the best of both worlds, yet your contention is not universal. There are many cultures in which written music is not utilized at all. Trying to espouse universals about music is frankly laughable when cultures like Indonesia, India, and much of Africa are primarily aural traditions. Your view is ignorant of the millions of auditory learners as well as ethnocentric in inferring that billions of people in those cultures either don't know what they doing or somehow not conforming to your prejudice. Sorry you're just plain wrong. Writing that tries to be a good retort without discussing the primary focus MUSIC fails in it's contention. Dismissing so much of the world that uses aural traditions is laughably fatuous. Wake up. The world of music is much larger than your limited notions of how to become a musician.

 

[Bisaxual]

In an earlier post, Turf3 said: “ I’ve played in wind bands….”. How does that not surprise me? 😉

 

[Dr G]

I find Turf3's views amusing, in a condescending way. There is a presumption that everyone in the world is a visually acute person who thinks, learns, reacts, and navigates the world in the same way that he does. Well, it's just not true. I started to learn to read and play music (piano) at 6 years old and continued to learn to play woodwind instruments for many years after that. However I was never a great reader. It was only when I took up singing (and was a professional) that I found that I could make music come alive. This translated back to the woodwinds and being able to play by ear (as one always sings by ear, even if you're reading music). If you can't hear the note you can't sing it! I play sax the same way, I hear what I want to play and it comes out of the horn, no reading or theory required. Can I read music? Yes, but struggle and don't play effectively. It's the opposite of what Turf3 says. Reading hampers my ability to play. It's stiff and lifeless. I spent more than a decade trying to master reading so that I could be proficient, but was only able to be barely adequate. However playing by ear comes easily. There is no visually remembering notes, I can hear what I'm playing. When I was a singer I remembered heaps of songs and could hum all of them. What I needed the sheet music for was the words!

Here's a test: How many songs can you hum or sing? Probably hundreds if hearing them on the radio (sing along). Could you after a few notes turn off the radio and continue singing the whole thing? Maybe? Could you play all of those on your horn even if given the first few notes? Not likely, however an experienced ear player can and in any key. If you can hear it you can play it. What's more you could improvise on it as it's still just a matter of what you hear, not what you see or are tying to interpret visually or mentally via chords/changes and then translate into sound. You're connected to your instrument and can play what you hear. The creativity of your improvisation is a matter of individuality and one's internal library of sound.

Can some visual players develop this ability? Sure, but an extremely visual learner may find it very difficult. They want/need to have a visual or conceptual clue that works as the pathway for their fingers to play the right notes. Does jazz theory teach one how to become one with their instrument where you play what you hear? Nope! The sad reality is that the people who are very auditory learners/thinkers have to find this for themselves as the majority (like Tur3) happily promote strictly visual learning and playing as the only way to master an instrument.

We are not all the same. The projections of a majority who are visual learners is not an absolute. I'm very happy to be in the minority who don't need to play cut and paste riffs and arpeggios and call it improvisation. The world of music is big enough for all sorts. Is there only one way to learn or make music? The dichotomy or multifaceted ways of learning and expressing ourselves is a reality.

And how is this post NOT condescending?

 

[Dr G]

In an earlier post, Turf3 said: “ I’ve played in wind bands….”. How does that not surprise me? 😉

Not amusing either.

We need another thread about nose hair and hats.

 

[Wade Cornell]

And how is this post NOT condescending?

You're right Dr G. I just get mad when hearing people who seem well educated espousing that whatever way they play or learned to play is the only way. My apologies for the lack of diplomacy.

 

[lydian]

You're right Dr G. I just get mad when hearing people who seem well educated espousing that whatever way they play or learned to play is the only way. My apologies for the lack of diplomacy.

Thing is, he didn't say it was the ONLY way. He simply said, learning to read gives you access to all of written music in history, even if you've never heard it or can't listen to it to learn it by ear. Ear playing certainly gives you access to all of recorded music, provided it isn't to complex. Even Jacob Collier isn't going to figure out the 3rd clarinet part of Mahler's 6th by ear in a reasonable amount of time. I haven't seen anybody in this thread throwing shade on ear players or readers. They're just pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of each skillset.

In some situations, it's simply impossible to memorize the volume of tunes in the time required for the job. I do a lot of sub work and often have to sightread an entire 2 hour show, possibly tunes I've never heard before and often unfamiliar arrangements and weird, illogical inner harmony parts with bizarre lines and tricky rhythms. Doing something like that by ear is impossible. But I have to do it and make it sound like I've played the tune a million times. On the other side, I may do a jazz combo or rock/pop gig entirely by ear, if I've heard the tunes before. Otherwise I'd be floundering, making guesses and lots of mistakes. Supplementing that with basic written lead sheets gives me the tools I need to succeed. I'm sure the pros in this forum need a similar set of skills for studio work, pit work, pickup work.

Some have a gift for one or the other. And some couldn't play by ear if they wanted to, or read if they wanted to. There's no shame in that. Ultimately you have to make do with whatever abilities you have and hopefully enjoy making music regardless. Personally, I'll never be great at either. But I can do both well enough to get by and enjoy the benefits of both worlds. And I'll continue to encourage beginners to at least try to do both. I know from experience it's easier to learn to read as you first learn to play than try to do it afterwards.

 

[Wade Cornell]

Thing is, he didn't say it was the ONLY way. He simply said, learning to read gives you access to all of written music in history, even if you've never heard it or can't listen to it to learn it by ear. Ear playing certainly gives you access to all of recorded music, provided it isn't to complex. Even Jacob Collier isn't going to figure out the 3rd clarinet part of Mahler's 6th by ear in a reasonable amount of time. I haven't seen anybody in this thread throwing shade on ear players or readers. They're just pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of each skillset.

In some situations, it's simply impossible to memorize the volume of tunes in the time required for the job. I do a lot of sub work and often have to sightread an entire 2 hour show, possibly tunes I've never heard before and often unfamiliar arrangements and weird, illogical inner harmony parts with bizarre lines and tricky rhythms. Doing something like that by ear is impossible. But I have to do it and make it sound like I've played the tune a million times. On the other side, I may do a jazz combo or rock/pop gig entirely by ear, if I've heard the tunes before. Otherwise I'd be floundering, making guesses and lots of mistakes. Supplementing that with basic written lead sheets gives me the tools I need to succeed. I'm sure the pros in this forum need a similar set of skills for studio work, pit work, pickup work.

Some have a gift for one or the other. And some couldn't play by ear if they wanted to, or read if they wanted to. There's no shame in that. Ultimately you have to make do with whatever abilities you have and hopefully enjoy making music regardless. Personally, I'll never be great at either. But I can do both well enough to get by and enjoy the benefits of both worlds. And I'll continue to encourage beginners to at least try to do both. I know from experience it's easier to learn to read as you first learn to play than try to do it afterwards.

I'll repeat his headline "False dichotomy is set up in the title". That title is specifically:

Learn to play by ear or by reading music​

His contention is that that's false. It should be obvious that there is a dichotomy as there are millions of people who learn one way or the other. Saying one is best, so therefore the other doesn't rate (paraphrased) and using written literature as your reference is not describing music, and instead trying to sell the idea of "the way I do it is best". Am I reading between the lines here? Well the title and intent seems clear to me and I thought it needed a rebuttal. We are not all the same in the way we learn, and the world has lots of other musical cultures besides European music notation. That's realty.

 

[PigSquealer]

Ten year anniversary of this thread. Only 49 pages and 973 posts.
Please keep posting.

 

[Dr G]

How is it that so many learn to play the notes, either by ear or by “reading the dots”, yet never make music?

 

[PigSquealer]

How is it that so many learn to play the notes, either by ear or by “reading the dots”, yet never make music?

I don’t know. I’m a mechanic.

 

[Pete Effamy]

Not amusing either.

We need another thread about nose hair and hats.

I can do that..

 

[skeller047]

Warning - incoming long rant.

I agree with @turf3. The title of this thread is a false dichotomy. It has arisen in our culture for two reasons. One, the rise of rock ‘n roll, which encouraged the attitude that you had to hear it to play it (not a bad idea), but also that learning theory and notation and all the traditional skills was antithetical to the rock ethos. Two, the slow but inexorable removal of musical training from public schools.

Today, young people who want to play music either have to live in an area where there is good musical training readily available, or join a band and learn by ear. (Or get a DJ rig and push buttons…) Thus, there are those lucky few who learn at an early age to read music, Or those who have to figure it out on their own.

This is the source of this dichotomy - a lack of a cultural stress on schooling in the arts.

@Wade Cornell, no disrespect to you, you are a fine musician, but your rather incessant emphasis on the superiority of learning by ear vs learning by reading music is nonsense.

When we were both kids, back in the ‘50s and ‘60s, every child in the US was presented with the opportunity to study music in school. This was also true in some other countries (still is in some cases). We were taught the traditional way, learning to read music while learning to play an instrument or sing. The two went hand in hand.

I do not believe that this had any ill effects on those folks who ended up wanting to play music which did not depend entirely on notation. For example, jazz and its derivatives, such as blues, rock and pop. ( Well maybe the blues is a cousin rather than a derivative.) Skilled musicians, both professional and amateur, could read music AND improvise / play by ear. Almost every working professional in the jazz age was able to read music.

I do know a few self-taught musicians who cannot read, some of them quite successful. All of them consider it a lack in their training. Some end up learning to read to improve their employability; a notable example is Glenn Campbell, who came up as a back woods country guitarist, learned to read so he could get studio work, and ended up as a big star because producers and recording industry bigwigs heard him singing while he was just a grunt studio guy. (Not really just a grunt of course, he was a member of the famous Wrecking Crew.)

Reading music notation is just part of being a musician. For some styles of music, and particularly for us saxophonists, being able to improvise and learn tunes and lines by ear is just part of the deal. It is a bad idea to rely on just one of these approaches to playing music. Doing so places limits on your ability to fully experience the joys of making music.

Bottom line - learning music by learning to read is not an impediment to becoming a good “ear player”. Or vice versa. Like any skill, both require aptitude and hard work. Yes, there are great musicians who can’t read. Yes, there are great musicians who cannot play by ear. But there are way more that are skilled in both categories. Learning both approaches only widens one’s horizons and opportunities.

 

[turf3]

You're right Dr G. I just get mad when hearing people who seem well educated espousing that whatever way they play or learned to play is the only way. My apologies for the lack of diplomacy.

And again, you are arguing against something I never said.

Again, I will ask you to give me the respect to argue against things I actually did say, rather than making stuff up, claiming I said it, and then making me look bad by arguing against that stuff that I never said.

 

[turf3]

I'll repeat his headline "False dichotomy is set up in the title". That title is specifically:

Learn to play by ear or by reading music​

His contention is that that's false. It should be obvious that there is a dichotomy as there are millions of people who learn one way or the other. Saying one is best, so therefore the other doesn't rate (paraphrased) and using written literature as your reference is not describing music, and instead trying to sell the idea of "the way I do it is best". Am I reading between the lines here? Well the title and intent seems clear to me and I thought it needed a rebuttal. We are not all the same in the way we learn, and the world has lots of other musical cultures besides European music notation. That's realty.

Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "False Dichotomy"?

What it means is that the title implies that you have to choose to do one, or the other. If you read, you can't play by ear. Or if you play by ear, you can't read. This is simply not true. I won't bore the readers with even a brief list of players who can/could play by ear and sight read fluently. Both.

For that matter, "reading" has a whole range of meanings. Certainly if I sit down in an orchestra and play a written part of an orchestral composition, that's purely reading. But what if I climb on stage at a jam session, look over at the leader's Real Book for the first two choruses, then step away and play without looking at it again? What if I ask someone "how does this thing go?" and he writes out the changes on a napkin? What if I simply read the words "Rhythm Changes in Eb" from a piece of paper?

Like I said, it's a false dichotomy to imply that there are "ear players" and "dots players" and never the twain shall co-exist. In truth, the vast majority of professional musicians in all types of music derived from or related to African American improvised music (pop, rock, jazz, blues, country) can do BOTH fluently.