Instructors: The value of playing by ear

[Scott McClellan]

I feel fortunate that from the start of my piping journey (25 years ago now), I've had an easy time picking out tunes by ear. Accuracy was reasonable from the start, and improved as I became more experienced.

To take it a step further, I developed the ability to create accurate musical notation for the tunes I learned by ear.

The notation part is something I feel can be taught to most students, but can the ability to learn tunes by ear be taught? My experience is that my students either can or cannot, and I've never tried to teach anyone this particular skill.

I am thinking about experimenting with this. I plan to give each of my students a recording of a simple tune, to learn by ear, then notate. The results should be interesting. I'm guessing that those who are able to sight read reasonably well will also be able to put things down on paper without too many errors, *if* they pick it up correctly from the recording.

Has anyone tried this?

[Iain Sherwood]

I would concentrate more on getting your students to correlate the two elements - by listening to a tune while reading the score, instead of the other way around.

'Learning by ear' can take years to attain; that's why canntaireachd was such a popular teaching tool, because students could learn to SING the music before they played it. Using a 'light-music canntaireachd' is helpful - you can make up your own.

I did, and it works!

[Lori Wilson-Gaudet]

Hi Scott,
Well you know.....Psychologists would like to neatly catagorize us all by saying we are either "auditory learners" "visual learners"
or "Kinesthetic learners"
But I believe that you are more open to learn one of these ways, but can be taught to hone the other learning styles as well.
I had a group of my students who were very music dependant...(meaning they just couldn't rely on their memories for the tunes but could sight read anything fast as lightening!)
So, I challenged them to learn a tune by ear....but I did it with simple repetition around the table........we started with a simple air
and graduated to harder tunes.....
I think what I accomplished from this was to "force them to trust their memories"
it gave them more self confidence in their memorizing skills for starts.....but more importantly, they learned over time what each note sounded like in their heads, rather than just sight read what was in front of them and mathematically disect the beats to play the tune.
They started "feeling" the music more
because they had nothing else to do but "listen" when the others were taking their turns playing round the table!
A great exercise indeed! Good Luck!

Cheers,
Lori :thumb: :lol:

Originally posted by Scott McClellan:
I feel fortunate that from the start of my piping journey (25 years ago now), I've had an easy time picking out tunes by ear. Accuracy was reasonable from the start, and improved as I became more experienced.

To take it a step further, I developed the ability to create accurate musical notation for the tunes I learned by ear.

The notation part is something I feel can be taught to most students, but can the ability to learn tunes by ear be taught? My experience is that my students either can or cannot, and I've never tried to teach anyone this particular skill.

I am thinking about experimenting with this. I plan to give each of my students a recording of a simple tune, to learn by ear, then notate. The results should be interesting. I'm guessing that those who are able to sight read reasonably well will also be able to put things down on paper without too many errors, *if* they pick it up correctly from the recording.

Has anyone tried this?

[Ian White]

I plan to give each of my students a recording of a simple tune, to learn by ear, then notate. The results should be interesting. I'm guessing that those who are able to sight read reasonably well will also be able to put things down on paper without too many errors, *if* they pick it up correctly from the recording.

Has anyone tried this? Scott McClellan

Good question... it reminds me of when learning my first tune... my instructor played the tune in phrases while I memorized it and played it back... at this time I was not very good at reading music so all I had was memory... weeks later he gave me quizes by playing a phrase and having me find it on the writen score or write it out... this taught a few things; note recognition, memory, and quick writing skills... all of them equally important early on.

As for using this technique of teaching today... I've not needed it lately, but after reading yours, Iain's, and Lori's posts; I can see that 30 years ago my instructor used a very good technique and I have failed to pass it on. :(

Thank you all for the reminder that we must pass on every great thing that was once taught to us!!!

Ian White

[mccrimmon]

I can't remember the name of the system but wasn't there a chap in Japan who tought hundreds of children the violin by getting them to listen and by imitate the movements of the teacher. Theory only came after the children had a few basic tunes weighed-off. Teaching this way had a number of positive outcomes including encouragement to listen (really listen) to the tunes and very rapid progress: I wonder if this encouraged the playing of the music with 'soul' as opposed to repetition. I'm sure that encouraging the children to listen to the music in a structured way helped them learn the tunes more rapidly.

Tom

[DVMPiper]

Yeah,

It was called the Suzuki method and worked well, if you got the children started early enough. It seems to have fallen off in popularity, but was very popular during the late 80's and 90's, if I remember right.

[Lori Wilson-Gaudet]

Bingo Bango!!! That's what i was after
for the students to "feel" the music rather than just follow the written scribe!!
It increases their confidence so much as well!!
Lori

Teaching this way had a number of positive outcomes including encouragement to listen (really listen) to the tunes and very rapid progress: I wonder if this encouraged the playing of the music with 'soul' as opposed to repetition. I'm sure that encouraging the children to listen to the music in a structured way helped them learn the tunes more rapidly.

Tom[/QB][/QUOTE]

[CalumII]

I never quite figured out the difference between the Suzuki method and what traditional musicians worldwide have been doing since the very dawn of music, but that's me. Still, it works.

I would certainly have appreciated a lot more of my early teaching being dedicated to ear-learning of one sort or another.

Cheers,
Calum

[Tim]

As far as I am concerned, ear training is a must for any competent musician. They are great exercises. But, be careful about using it as a primary means of instruction. As a primary means of instruction, it makes the student nothing more than a monkey with an accordian. They don't feel the music, they copy the teacher. They then have nothing when a score is placed in front of them, they can't recreate the music the composer created. Learning to read and play correctly enhances musicianship and allows a musician to accurately explain when they are doing. I am playing this way because.......... not because it feels better that way. The learned musician can take the score and interpret it, or move beyond it, with credibility.

Ear training does help memory, but if a student cannot memorize some music, it is because they have not bothered to try to memorize it. Playing a musical instrument actually activiates all three learning styles (if you want to boil it down to only the BIG three styles). The trap is the visual learners reliance on the score for memory. They are probably just being lazy about memorizing b/c it is work. I am primarily a visual learner (with almost an equal slant toward auditory) and this is the trap I avoid.

Singing a tune from a score will help memory much more so than without. The brain has two memory pathways, concept pathway and practice pathway. Build the concept by singing and looking at the notes, drawing a connection between note and vocal sound (concept), move to singing w/o the score (practice) with and move to the instrument. By practicing this way, you activate all three learning styles (visual with the score, auditory with the sound, and kinesthetic by producing the pitches or pairing it w/ movement). You also draw lots of connections in the brain, which enhances the learning. Canntaireachd and learning piobaireachd in a traditional manner had students learning much in the same way, minus the score (at least at first).

Another effective strategy, which is also brain compatable, is what is called Read-Cover-Remember. Its used to help struggling readers, but is also excellent for music. Read a phrase or two of music from the score. Cover and play it back, sing it back, etc. Looking back is allowed, but you cannot back up and repeat.

Listening and writing down was called dicatation in my music theory classes. I hated it, but it helped with composition.

The Suzuki method is evil. It made some headlines b/c of the spectacularly young age at which it could produce players. The really talented ones did okay and eventually had the training that professional musicians go through. But, for most, if left a bunch of incompetent players that could only mimic. Why bother learning something if you are not going to be able to speak and read the language? Most of the folks that I've met that learned this way are limited musicians. Little true learning took place for most, lots of practice but little concept=bad learning.

[Peter Walker]

Originally posted by Tim:
The Suzuki method is evil. It made some headlines b/c of the spectacularly young age at which it could produce players. [...] But, for most, if left a bunch of incompetent players that could only mimic. Why bother learning something if you are not going to be able to speak and read the language? Most of the folks that I've met that learned this way are limited musicians. Little true learning took place for most, lots of practice but little concept=bad learning.I've got to disagree here. I studied Suzuki for 10 years on violin, and find most of the criticisms of it off-base. Not to say it's a good method - but the problems you list are rather subtly different from the real problems.

First of all, most Suzuki students eventually learn to read music just fine - they just develop no *confidence* in reading music, or at least a strong risk of it. Which means when they see sheet music, they tend to panic. Happened to me when I started on the pipes. Turns out, once I got over the panic, I discovered that, much to my surprise, even though I hadn't played an instrument in 15 years, I could read music quite well.

The focus on learning by ear does not necessarily turn people into robots - though those do exist and occur under inferior instruction. But without additional training, it teaches musicality without a *language* to express it. That is, a student can't discuss the finer points on how to interpret a piece, not because he can't do it, but because he doesn't know the formal language to describe interpretation.

Second, the violinists I hung around were quite emotive, and were perfectly capable of interpretation. But I hung around the adolescents (since I was one), and we'd already begun the transition into more traditional forms of instruction, and that by our Suzuki instructors! I was a pretty good musician, but a failed student, because I steadfastly refused to make the transition (hence the 15 year hiatus).

The problem with Suzuki, a lot like other high-concept touchy-feely new-agey things Americans adopted from overseas (Montessori, IQ tests, and Indian philosophy) was not the approach in and of itself, but the extremes to which Americans took it. Suzuki was *supposed* to be for young children. Older students were *supposed* to be transitioned into traditional forms of learning. And despite the fact that a lot of Suzuki instructors were themselves traditionally trained, too many took the Suzuki approach as a "life-philosophy", and not a means to an end.

MHO.

[Lori Wilson-Gaudet]

We're getting a little off topic here but....

From a piping perspective of teaching young children
In my experience...Learning by ear very young and then transitioning them to written notation when they are old enough to understand math.....(because that's what makes them understand how long to hold each note in the measures etc)makes perfect sense!
Try describing to a 6 or 7 year old how to mathmatically add up bars of music and how to figure out time signatures before they have any concept of the math skills involved. (there are adults who don't get this and they have the skills! )
Try teaching them the difference between a dotted 8th note and a quarter note before they know what fractions are?!?!?!
You won't be successful until they are age appropriate for the skill!
and are you going to turn away someone because they are too young to understand written notation?
No, you'll find ways to teach them and gradually when they are ready integrate them into following the written music....
Cheers,
Lori

Originally posted by Peter Walker:
I've got to disagree here. it. Suzuki was *supposed* to be for young children. Older students were *supposed* to be transitioned into traditional forms of learning.
MHO.[/QB][/QUOTE]

[Matt Buckley_dup1]

Originally posted by Tim:

As a primary means of instruction, it [ear training] makes the student nothing more than a monkey with an accordian. They don't feel the music, they copy the teacher. This will be interesting news for the 1000s of incredibly fine traditional fiddlers, uillean pipers, flute players, button accordian players, etc. around the world playing beautiful, free, deeply emotive music. It would have been interesting news as well to the MacCrimmons, who relied on ear training for 100s of years.

Musicians taught only by written score often are unable to feel the music. The world of GHB is notorious for this.

The Vermont SSP School, has for several years now, taught primarily using ear training. The
resulting music can be amazing. Although we make the written music available later for students who have not yet mastered ear training, the instructors at the School, including Hamish Moore, Anna Murray, Iain MacInnes and Gary West have all experienced great success in teaching by ear.

Cheers. Matt

[michael gunn]

Originally posted by Tim:

The Suzuki method is evil. It made some headlines b/c of the spectacularly young age at which it could produce players. The really talented ones did okay and eventually had the training that professional musicians go through. But, for most, if left a bunch of incompetent players that could only mimic. Why bother learning something if you are not going to be able to speak and read the language? Most of the folks that I've met that learned this way are limited musicians. Little true learning took place for most, lots of practice but little concept=bad learning.tim--
do it take from this that your parents never spoke to you unless they first put a printed script of the proposed dialogue in front of you? :confused:
generalities=bad opinion.
not trying to bait you, sir, but i don't think the point was being made that "listening" or even "mimicry" were suitable as *complete* learning systems--only as an adjunct to instruction; and i think it is demonstrably an effective aid.

[Sean B]

I think this is a fascinating discussion. Lori, you said:

In my experience...Learning by ear very young and then transitioning them to written notation when they are
old enough to understand math.....(because that's what makes them understand how long to hold each note
in the measures etc)makes perfect sense!
Try describing to a 6 or 7 year old how to mathmatically add up bars of music and how to figure out time
signatures before they have any concept of the math skills involved. (there are adults who don't get this and
they have the skills! )
Try teaching them the difference between a dotted 8th note and a quarter note before they know what
fractions are?!?!?!

I think this is highly dependent on individual ability. I think we commonly underestimate the capacity of children to learn this kind of thing. My sons are learning this knid of detail right now on the piano at 6 and 4 and are developing a much better sense of rythn and timing than I think I will ever attain. It really does depend on your later comment that this will only happen when they are ready to learn it. My point is that they may be ready to learn earlier than we commonly give them credit for.

I agree with Matt on the issue of written music. Certainly having notes on a page is one avenue or language to make the interpretation of a tune possible but surely there are other highly evolved and equally valid oral or aural traditions through which we can discuss music. One doesn't need to look farther than the aboriginal languages from the world to discover a rich oral tradition of discussing equally, if not more complex, interpretations of ideas and philosophies. For me, at the early stage I am at right now, I find that I really can't get the flow of the music until I hear it played and can sing or whistle the tune to myself. That's how I work out the rythms and emphasis. Now, moving that to my fingers is another matter. Ultimately, the notes on the page are a rough guide but really the tune is coming out of my singing of it. If I have to sight read a tune, I am miserably slow at it.

Just my $0.02 (CDN)!

Sean

ps. Sorry if this looks like it runs on a bit. I can't seem to get my computer to format the reply properly.

[Lori Wilson-Gaudet]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sean B:
[QB]I think this is a fascinating discussion.
I think this is highly dependent on individual ability.

I really didn't want this to get into a discussion on how "bright" 6 year olds can indeed do math.... :)

What I "was" essentially saying is that there is no harm done...is easier ......and not so mind boggling for the "avg" 6 yr old.
Why present them with a whole lot of extra stuff if you don't have to? Not to mention teaching aurally/auditorily presents the music in a more interesting way than sitting trying to figure out mathematically where the beat falls in the music and where the emphasis is in that run of 3 notes....... :wink:
I knew how to make a 6/8 swing long before anyone taught me what made it play that way for me..I'd listened to my Dad hum those tunes to me for years before starting lessons....

I think we commonly underestimate the capacity of children to learn this kind of thing. My sons are learning this knid of detail right now on the piano at 6 and 4 and are developing a much better sense of rythn and timing than I think I will ever attain.

My experience with piano playing at a young age is limited...my sister took lessons very young
I found for years that her playing was very sterile sounding...on the beat, no variations...like she was not using her instincts at all to interpret the music...just following what was written with no deviations at all
She hated lessons and wondered how I could excel at piping being unable to read much music...hmmmm

It really does depend on your later comment that this will only happen when they are ready to learn it.

We're in total agreement here..... but unfortunately, not all kids who come to learn bagpipes are crackerjack students like your sons....

My point is that they may be ready to learn earlier than we commonly give them credit for.

Hence the reason for me saying you don't turn away any student regardless of their age Although in piping if you can't hold the chanter (fingers too small) then you can't learn the bagpipe
it has nothing to do with learning readiness!
.... but as long as they can reach the holes...you can teach them "something" and advance with them as they grow and mature intellectually...

I agree with Matt on the issue of written music. Certainly having notes on a page is one avenue or language to make the interpretation of a tune possible but surely there are other highly evolved and equally valid oral or aural traditions through which we can discuss music.

You're so right....our ancesters handed down music by singing! Well before the written scribe
and Matt Buckley is right....there are so many other folk disciplines that work entirely by ear that you can't ignore that it is an acceptable way of teaching in itself.

Ultimately, the notes on the page are a rough guide but really the tune is coming out of my singing of it. If I have to sight read a tune, I am miserably slow at it.

Sounds like you subscribe somewhat to my theory....you really need both to play well!!

Cheers,
Lori :D

[Sean B]

Jeez Lori. I didn't intend for my post to come out like bragging ... although after re-reading it, I can see how you could interpret it that way... Sorry about that! :shrug:

The age thing is definitely a challenge though particularily from the perspective of physical size. Both of my sons have said they would like to learn the bagpipes and so far we have resisted. They are both small guys and I have not been successful in finding some kind of chanter that would fit them. I think a "G" tin whistle is likely the closest fit for now.

I gotta admit though, I get a real chuckle when I hear one of them humming a tune that I am learning, complete with imitations of the ornamentation all in the right place. It frustrates me when They can sing it in a few minutes and it takes me hours and hours to get it right on the chanter. Sigh.