Learning by ear

[bogman]

I would have to suggest it's the opposite. In normal circumstances someone who can pick up a tune in 10 minutes is hearing the subtleties more than most, partly because of the amount of listening that got them to that stage in the first place. It's one of the main reasons I think slow down software is ultimately a handicap. I can see how it would be handy for having a close listen to ornaments etc but most players at that who pick up tunes quickly have got their ornaments and style sorted long ago.

[Denny]

I have friends who memorise by ear on the fly pretty well, but they also like to get down to what's going on at the "submolecular" level with recordings of a particular person's playing, so they use slowdowners for that. But for them, it's more of an adjunct for learning someone else's technical approaches rather than an adjunct for general memory.

nuances? ya want to let those nuances in?



talk about slippery slopes

[Nanohedron]

I would have to suggest it's the opposite. In normal circumstances someone who can pick up a tune in 10 minutes is hearing the subtleties more than most, partly because of the amount of listening that got them to that stage in the first place. It's one of the main reasons I think slow down software is ultimately a handicap. I can see how it would be handy for having a close listen to ornaments etc but most players at that who pick up tunes quickly have got their ornaments and style sorted long ago.

I get your point.

[Ted]

Ear training can be very good. In singing lessons, one learns to hear the intervals. What takes years is the ability to hear an unfamiliar tune in a session, and play (mostly) along with it at full speed by the third time through. The unconscious thing is the muscle memory to play the note(s) you hear in your head. This happens without reference to the name of the pitch or the dots on the page. Reading music requires that your fingers respond immediately to the queue on the page. You don't add a mental name for the note when you see it written, your fingers go immediately to the formation which plays the note. The same thing happens when playing by ear. Your fingers will automatically respond to the note in your head, no differently than it does to the written note. It is just that you are not responding to a visual queue when playing by ear, you are responding to the flow of the tune in your head. Initially, you must get used to the fingering of the instrument, whether learning by the dots or by ear. That is basic mastery. Learning tunes by the dots or the ear is only possible once you have practiced enough for accuracy, which can take a while. Learning by ear is a skill, which when developed, will allow you to pick up new tunes rapidly. I read music, but have almost never learned an ITM tune by the dots, except it is handy to read through tune collections to see what a tune sounds like. When I can lilt in my head to the dots on the page, then I transfer it to the instrument. Practice and time will get you there. You don't see music stands and manuscripts at any sessions I attend.

Initially, you will have to play slowly for accuracy, but speed up as soon as possible. Slow sessions will make you good at playing slowly. Some never outgrow playing slowly, even after years. I favor learning at proper tempo as soon as possible. A reel played slowly is not a reel. It has a different lift. It is best to stay away from slow sessions. They will harm rather than help. They must be left behind in order to progress as an ITM musician.

[Peter Duggan]

A reel played slowly is not a reel.

A reel played slowly is a slow reel. Or just a reel played slowly if you prefer...

It has a different lift.

Granted. But there's still a time and a place for it.

[Steve Bliven]

ya want to let those nuances in?

Sure, if they bring the beer...

Best wishes.

Steve

[Nanohedron]

I have friends who memorise by ear on the fly pretty well, but they also like to get down to what's going on at the "submolecular" level with recordings of a particular person's playing, so they use slowdowners for that. But for them, it's more of an adjunct for learning someone else's technical approaches rather than an adjunct for general memory.

nuances? ya want to let those nuances in?



talk about slippery slopes

I dunno; there's a time when the question of nuance should enter into the discussion, but it's nothing to do with memorization as such. I understand the best reasons for the above practice, which are to learn and thereby add refinements to your grab-bag of technical basics, and as an exercise; the worst reason is to merely rote-copy a tune so you can play it just like so-and-so does, which means you're not part of the picture aside from being a thing that carries your fingers around.

The guys who use the refinement-learning approach to slowdowners generally wind up pretty good and subtle technicians. I'm a bit more basic, I'm afraid.

[ytliek]

I would like to know if there are any books or workshops or places (US, RI, or UK) that give lessons in learning tunes by ear.
Unfortunately I do not live near a sessions group, nor any other players and so I must go it alone or on vacation.
I have browsed the web and found some interesting and helpful advice (SCTLS) but I would like even more help.

Grey, I hope you are following along to your thread. Nice thread, and you are not alone in learning to learn ear training. Just follow along to the 'perts here and glean as many of the little gems as you can, and eventually something will work for you.

Thanks for getting this thread going.

[MTGuru]

I would have to suggest it's the opposite. In normal circumstances someone who can pick up a tune in 10 minutes is hearing the subtleties more than most, partly because of the amount of listening that got them to that stage in the first place. It's one of the main reasons I think slow down software is ultimately a handicap. I can see how it would be handy for having a close listen to ornaments etc but most players at that who pick up tunes quickly have got their ornaments and style sorted long ago.

But what you're suggesting is not really the opposite. You and Nano are talking about slightly different things, or maybe just a matter of degree.

A transcription I just posted here is a good example. First I gave a basic version, then a detailed one.

Basic: viewtopic.php?p=1085592#p1085592
Detailed: viewtopic.php?p=1085651#p1085651

The first one took me about 3 minutes. Once through to listen (at normal speed) and write it down, and once through to double check it. Easy. If this were at a session, by the third time through I'd be playing along.

The second detailed one took me about an hour. And it required slowing the recording down as low as 10% at times to catch a few of the exact details.

My ornaments and style are sorted just fine, and my ear training is fine, too. But if I were to play the tune after the basic listening, the details I'd play would be a mix of my own and the original player's. Because that's how it works, putting your own stamp on a particular setting.

OTOH, there's no way I'd hear some of the very fine recorded details even after 200 listenings at normal speed. Maybe close, but not exact, if that's the learning goal. In normal playing, some of the details are literally on the order of tens of milliseconds, and below the threshold of normal human perception.

There's nothing novel about slowing tunes down to learn them. People have been doing that for thousands of years. "Hey, Demitrios, play that phrase slower for me again, so I can figure out the exact fingering on my lyre. Eucharistó!"

The software is just a substitute for that. Because you can't talk to a recording (at least I hope you can't). And you lack the visual element of observing the performer to support the aural input. People have been slowing down recording devices for years, as long as there have been recording devices. It used to be you'd brake the reel or spool with your hand, or play back at a slower speed. Now you use the software.

It's really not either/or. If you don't have the basic ear skills in the first place, slowing a track to half speed isn't going to help. And if you do have the skills, then using a slowdowner isn't going to hurt, and might even help to build confidence. It's certainly not a substitute for live learning skills, and it won't by itself teach you ear skills. But it can be an adjunct.

I also agree with the whole of Ted's post above.

[Denny]

I understand the best reasons for the above practice, which are to learn and thereby add refinements to your grab-bag of technical basics, and as an exercise; the worst reason is to merely rote-copy a tune so you can play it just like so-and-so does, which means you're not part of the picture aside from being a thing that carries your fingers around.

ah... back in me childhood that's how I learned everything. Note for note, nuance for nuance so that I could mimic the player on tunes that I hadn't heard them do.
Then I'd work on a different player...

After 5 years or so I'd learned enough technique to do just about anything that could be done and it was time to find me own voice.

[bogman]

To be fair, transcriptions of that detail are not the norm and I can see how the slow downer would be handy for that. I was interested to read in the Harry Bradley thread that on one hand he seemed to condemn the slow downer but on the other he used it to look at the finer details of a pipers playing. Because I was taught Scottish pipes from an earlier age all the ornaments and gracenotes are easy to recognise but because I taught myself uilleann pipes (not that I've played them much for the last few years) I'd struggle to copy the exact gracenotes etc that another uilleann piper would play, so I can understand the use of aids in these circumstances.

The thing is though that people use it to learn the basic tune, I can understand that too - they just want to learn tunes and don't want to wait, but ultimately it's a crutch that many people don't bother to through away. In my opinion they're missing out, for the reasons I've already posted.

[Zabava77]

I teach in elementary (grammar) school, and we use "multiple intelligences" approch. In a nutshell, everyone learns differently: some kids are visual learners, some respond better to audio, some learn best by the combination of the two, or some other way entirely.
As a student of ITM I learn best by initially using sheet music to learn a tune, listening to it many times, and learning to make it sound the way I want it to sound. I am always cautious about rigidity in learning methods. Things that may work fine for some may not work well for others. At the end, it is all about finding your own set of tools that would lead you to success. In my experience, it appears to be true in any field of learning.

[Nanohedron]

I understand the best reasons for the above practice, which are to learn and thereby add refinements to your grab-bag of technical basics, and as an exercise; the worst reason is to merely rote-copy a tune so you can play it just like so-and-so does, which means you're not part of the picture aside from being a thing that carries your fingers around.

ah... back in me childhood that's how I learned everything. Note for note, nuance for nuance so that I could mimic the player on tunes that I hadn't heard them do.
Then I'd work on a different player...

After 5 years or so I'd learned enough technique to do just about anything that could be done and it was time to find me own voice.

Right, and since you did find your own voice, your learning in that way was exercise preparatory to it. In traditional martial arts, forms have much the same purpose as can be had in learning to play a tune exactly so; but you're supposed to look at a form as a compressed textbook of principles that suggest greater possibilities, and expand your knowledge, tactics, and strategy from there. After a time it's no good to simply and mindlessly perform the same thing over and over with no other purpose than to get through it, or even - merely - do it well enough for trophies. You're supposed to learn from it, and it can give you a lifetime of study, and what you learn is going to show as greater depth whenever you perform it.

So if learning a particular person's version note-for-note is taken in much the same spirit as a form, I think that's a good reason to do it. But one must put it aside at some point and set out on one's own to where the music really lives free, as you did.

[ytliek]

ah... back in me childhood that's how I learned everything. Note for note, nuance for nuance so that I could mimic the player on tunes that I hadn't heard them do.
Then I'd work on a different player...

After 5 years or so I'd learned enough technique to do just about anything that could be done and it was time to find me own voice.

there ya have it, in my childhood days learning was all about "facts" and "absolutes" and then when I got a little older, I'm taught/I realize that everything isn't facts and absolutes, and in music especially, the original composer's notation is now open for "interpretation" by the many and with my own voice no less! Scary! No wonder the world is confused. The gatekeepers need to just give up them "techniques", the ones that enable anything to be done. I'm listening both ears

[bogman]

Sorry for crossing over posts but Zabava, all the best bits of traditional music are the bits you can't write down. How many accomplished traditional musicians can't learn a tune by ear at it's normal speed?