Ok, Here is my situation:

I have been playing for like 15 years,
Play a bunch of crummy gigs, have been doing so for years,

I second guess what notes I am playing all the time, I can name any chord with all tones and play it in seconds.

It is just connecting the dots that I have trouble with. Maybe from playing too many crummy gigs or just wasting all my practice time playing gigs, I don't know.

Any suggestions?

piano lessons, quitting a bunch of groups for a practice hiatus?

thanks

what is your goal exactly ? when you say "connecting the dots" do you mean that literally as in your having trouble reading music ? not sure I understand your dilemma...

I mean smoothly getting between chords, constructing more engaging basslines, becoming a more authoritative presence in a band harmonically, for this forum, although I could say the same rythmically in another.

I guess the dilemna is:

How can I play more like Ray Brown, with his ultimate sense of what notes are perfect.

I'm just tired of playing wanker notes that look good on paper but don't sound that great or authoritative

Please say something besides stop everything and transcribe as many of Ray's Basslines as possible, because that is all I could come up with. Thanks

I mean smoothly getting between chords, constructing more engaging basslines, becoming a more authoritative presence in a band harmonically, for this forum, although I could say the same rythmically in another.

I guess the dilemna is:

How can I play more like Ray Brown, with his ultimate sense of what notes are perfect.

I'm just tired of playing wanker notes that look good on paper but don't sound that great or authoritative

Please say something besides stop everything and transcribe as many of Ray's Basslines as possible, because that is all I could come up with. Thanks

The ultimate goal of many great players is to get the sounds they are hearing in their heads to come out of their instruments without interruption or loss of clarity. If I were you, I would practice singing both bass lines and melodic solos over the material you are working on, then make an assessment of whether what you are seeking to improve lies more between your ears or at the ends of your arms. If you can sing something but can't get it out of your bass, then work on technique. If you can't sing anything that you think is worthwhile, then I would focus my energy in that area until the sung ideas get to the level where you want to play them.

Alex:

I share your pain, except I've been playing for better than twenty years with varying degrees of commitment and intensity.

Especially when I'm on the bandstand with guys who are great soloists, I become painfully aware that much of what I do solo-wise amounts to nothing more than extravagant finger-wiggling. Once in a while I'll play a chorus that makes me feel like I know what I'm doing, but that feeling is short-lived, usually gone by the end of the next chorus.

My aim is to build my vocabulary via transcribing solos from CDs as well as my own sung musical ideas, as Chris mentioned. I'm also going to try to work my way through the "Woodshedder's Sourcebook" by Emile DiCosmo to build my technical skills. A world-class guitarist I know says he practices from this book each day and that it's the foundation of his entire technique. I'll get back to you in about a year to let you know how its going. As Chris also alluded to, its no good having ideas if you don't have the ability to reproduce them.

Alex, what a great question. Who the heck am I to even dare to respond to it? When did that ever shut me up, though?

First of all, as Yogi Berra said, "90 percent of this game is half mental." Looking at your profile, it seems that you have already gone to some places most of us can only dream of! And you've been at it for long enough to know that there are ruts and there are spurts. Look up, hombre, it's a tunnel, not a hole.

Second: Yep, "Bad Jazz" is a real phenomenon. There are those Same Old gigs, playing the same old tunes in the same old keys at the same old tempos while The Guys In Ties play the same **** solos they've played since the advent of the long-playing record. If you're stuck in a loop of Bad Jazz gigs, you don't have too many options if you're gonna stick around. They would be a) lump it; b) elevate your own playing; and c) shake up the group. For the latter, maybe the fellas will take some small chances -- a new tempo, a new key, a different standard. But as for your own playing, here's a quick check: "How would you play differently if you thought that Ray Brown was in the audience?"

Or, of course, you can elevate your playing by elevating your surroundings. Book a gig. I know, it's easy to say and hard to do, but book a blinkin' session if you really can't book a gig. Call the best players you know. Call great players you DON'T know. You would be amazed who you can talk to -- man, it's an honor to be told "no" by some folks! And for better or worse, you would be amazed who will say "yes," and for how little.

Finally, I know it's a frequent refrain around here, but studying with a teacher can have an invigorating effect on your playing. I went between lessons for a LONG time. Last summer I started up again. And guess what, I started practicing more, and playing less badly.

And now for a more informed perspective . . . .

The only dots I've ever been able to connect are the ones I can see. If increasing the chance of connecting the chords is your goal, your best first step may be to know the progression so that you can think ahead and work your way there with your note choices.

If you want to connect the dots every time dead-on, stop improvising and plan ahead - just like plenty of really, really great painters do.

Thanks guys, very helpful

Some more info-
This is mental, and perhaps real book induced, I just don't always use my ears, also I spent about 13 of the last 15 years listening to mostly free jazz, although I don't know how that affects things, except that now I really want to investigate some more "establishment" based styles of the tradition, or allow me to attempt a paraphrase- I want to be a more active participant in the jazz tradition, understanding the past more, listen to more pre-post bop, if that makes sense.

So my ears are perhaps over-extended. A ton of subs or complicated structures sort of takes away from my ability to be a well-rounded musician. I just never thought playing 1 5 1 was very cool, and missed out on a great deal of subtlety because of that- my first jazz album was the shape of jazz to come by ornette.

Now I want to learn all the cliches, but in a more meaningful way, like when Ray Brown played them, they weren't cheesy, and I avoid cliches because they do sound like cheese.

Good point on getting some of my own gigs, I don't think I am quite ready, but maybe a year out.

So what does anyone suggest about relearning basic changes and harmonies? Thanks

First you say "I just don't always use my ears" and then you say "also I spent about 13 of the last 15 years listening to mostly free jazz". Like it's two different things. If you are not playing what you are hearing, you are not playing music. If you are not listening to the people you are playing with (generally) you don't have a chance of creating a musical moment.

There are a couple of threads going you might want to check out, Mike Da Mook's thread on soloing and walking and the thread on memorizong standards (although I don't really agree with a lot that's been said in that thread)

Believe me, I've been EXACTLY where you are. Your playing has gotten to a point where you sound like you can play and people call you for gigs, but you can't seem to make the conceptual leap to get where people you hear on records are playing. There are some things that have been said here that I have NOT found to work, in my own personal experience.

My aim is to build my vocabulary - it's not about vocabulary. That was my big revelation after coming north. I would paly duo or trio with all of these players who had great ideas, tune after tune, night after night. And then I would be hard pressed to come up with a chorus or two that didn't sound like gibberish. So I thought " Must learn more vocabulary". So I studied with a great player, we learned all sorts of scales, modes, chordscales for altered chords, modes of the melodic minor scale, blah, blah, blah. What it gave me was more notes to choose from but no real clear way to determine what notes I really wanted to play. It's not about vocabulary, it's about meaning and intent. You can pick all the notes that are supposed to work over a dominant chord you want to, if you are not clearly hearing what you want to play it is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a coherent and intelligible line (bearing in mind the monkeys/typewriter/Shakespeare scenario. But do you really want to wait for happenstance or do you want to be self directed?). If all you can clearly hear is a limited vocabulary, but you REALLY hear how the chords move and REALLY hear the notes in your limited vocabulary within the harmonic progression and have the wherewithal to play those notes you clearly hear and know (can identify with clarity) on your instrument, the suddenly what you can play communicates to the other musicians and to the audience WHAT YOU ARE HEARING when you are playing say OUT OF NOWHERE. You're not stumbling blindly through the woods, you are exploring a path that is taking you towards the destination (whose location you know). It may not be the most complex path at the beginning, but it will be evident for anyone who is watching (AKA listening) "Oh, he's going there and that's how he's getting there".

its no good having ideas if you don't have the ability to reproduce them. - learning technique is not going to give you ideas. If you hear something clearly enough, you are going to do WHATEVER it takes to get that idea out, even if it means playing it on one string. Charlie Haden is a great example, his technique is fairly atrocious. But he gets the ideas out. Sure, if you come up against your technique on a gig (you don't have the chops to play the idea at tempo, your fingering was a mess cause you haven't spent enough time on two octave harmonic minor scales with string crossing descending etc.) you shed what gave you a problem until it is no longer a problem. But the idea came first. Because you heard something clearly that you wanted to play.


So my ears are perhaps over-extended. A ton of subs or complicated structures sort of takes away from my ability to be a well-rounded musician. I just never thought playing 1 5 1 was very cool, and missed out on a great deal of subtlety because of that- my first jazz album was the shape of jazz to come by ornette.

I'm not sure what you're really saying here. If you are really really hearing subs or "complicated structures" you will use them in the way you are hearing them. If all you are doing is dropping subs in because you think you are supposed to or because somebody told you it was hip, it sounds like you're just not listening. The only reason you should play a note is because that is the note you are hearing in the context of what you are doing.
Think of it like a conversation. Not just a "hey how ya doing how's the weather what did you see on TV last night" but a conversation with somebody that is involving and deep and you really want to hear what they have to say cause it's just interesting as all get out and they want to hear what you have to say because you have some points that they really haven't thought about in this context but now that you mention it that really is true. A true and honest exchange of thought and feeling. When you're in that kind of conversation, what you bring to it is the things that you have thought about a lot, that you express in the EXACT and SPECIFIC words that express that thought in your own true voice.
So you can't bring a lot of words that you don't really use in your everday conversation, you can't drop in phrases you read in a book recently or something that somebody else said. Yuo play a sub because that's where you heard the tune going, either in something the soloist did or the accompanist did.

Anyway, I gotta run and meet my girlfriend, I'll try to finish up in a couple of days or something.

But this is exactly where I was a few years back, and the thing that got me on the other side of that brick wall wasn't learning more vocabulary.

later.

Wow the Ed Fuqua resemblance is stunning here! Hehe...

/lovebown

Wow the Ed Fuqua resemblance is stunning here!

I was thinking much the same. Why don't we just force the issue?

Peter Dalla IS Ed Fuqua! If he isn't, he might as well be.

"Nice piano player", indeed.

;)

Yes, fuquatic

Alex, I totally hear what you're saying. My first jazz album was also Shape of Jazz to Come, and my approach into jazz has also been down the back slope first, so to speak. For me, it was just the degeneration of instrumental punk as odd musical shapes and colors that drew me toward jazz, and I think Ornette COleman is such an approriate introduction, since it was said (this may be apocryphal) that he was studying theory and that the day he really realized how backwards he had come into it, there was a look of terror in his eyes. This isn't to say there is a 'right' way or 'wrong' way of learning about jazz, but...

For me, I am having trouble reconciling the theory with what's in my ears, and its a stumbling, often wrong path forward. I know I could 'wow them' alot better if I just went for a more formulaic way of thinking about stuff, but it wouldn't fool other musicians, it wouldn't fool true listeners. Sometimes I get there, and its definitely not by having vocabulary as per the last post. But I am probably about where you are in this journey - I just wanted to let you know, you ain't alone!

Peter Dalla IS Ed Fuqua!
No way.

I think some points need to be clarified here. First of all, Alex, you have taken an important step in your desire to be more grounded in the tradition. I feel strongly about the necessity to learn conventions first, then deviate from them later if you are inclined.

By "connecting the dots" I think what you are referring to is voice leading, yes? In other words, you want to move beyond the "station-to-station" mindset of this scale goes with this chord, then this other scale with the next, etc. You want to understand how the inner voices move when the chords change. Then you want to illustrate that movement (or lack thereof, if a note holds as a common tone) over the barline by incorporating it into a melody.

First, try this exercise. Start on a chord tone. It can be a basic chord tone or an upper extension. When the chord changes, move to a note that is a step away in either direction. Then string together a series of steps in the same direction on successive chords. This way you will start to think more linearly/horizontally and less vertically. For example, on the first 8 bars of Stella, play the following whole notes: Bb,A,G,F,Eb,D,C,Bb. Then concoct a melody in which those notes are the focal point of each measure. Here is another example using more upper extensions: D (7th of E-7b5), Eb (#11 of A7), F (11th of C-7), Gb (b9 of F7), G (9th of F-7), Ab (7th of Bb7), A (#11 of EbMA7), Bb (9th of Ab9).

Next point to clarify: the development of vocabulary is a good thing. Peter Dalla seems to have suggested that "vocabulary" consists of scales and arpeggios. I would submit that this is not what Alex was referring to. When I think of "vocabulary" as it relates to jazz improvisation, what comes to mind is melodic phrases, with varying degrees of cliche, and varying in length anywhere from 2 beats to 4 bars. All of the jazz greats, past and present, have contributed to the wealth of vocabulary which is its language. When you transcribe a solo, then steal some of the licks or melodic phrases, you are amassing your own collection of vocablary. IMHO, this is a big piece of the puzzle.

Back.

There are some very good points made early on when people (Chris Fitzgerald, Sam Sherry, et al) start talking about listening and singing, about playing in situations that stretch you, about moving around familiar things to stretch your ears. My own personal experience though is that what started to change things for me was working on improvisation in some very specific ways (some of which are outlined in Mike Da Mook's WALKING AND SOLOING thread) and by really working on specific ear training exercises ( the suggestion about finding someone to study with is a very good one, they will be able to listen objectively to you and suggest ways to work on what is concerning you) so that what I am hearing internally is clear and understandable and can be played.

I understand where T-BAL is coming from. Transcribing is a wonderful tool and can be very helpful in a number of ways. My own experience has been that to merely use it as a "mine" for ideas or borrowed vocabulary (which can be thought of as scales or notes or arpeggios or phrases) can lead down some dead ends, in the long run.
There was a great short film on SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE many years back. It had Bill Murray, who was a drunken bum/street person who, lying on his back in the gutter, had the delusion/dream of being a great Shakespearean actor on stage doing a soliloquiy(sp?). You know, if only, I coulda been a contender, that sort of thing. But the speech he was giving was not one the great solo speeches (I'll just dodge the bullet), it was just a pastiche of lines from various Shakespearean plays (Oh, for a muse of fire that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention. My kingdom for a horse, oh you band of brothers. Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow and never the twain shall meet. Etc.)
Point being, it takes more than pulling phrases or notes or whatever off of a recording to get to the point where you are making a cogent statement. And, unless I am totally misunderstanding your point Alex, that's kind of where you are now.

It is my experience so far (and is the methodology put forth by my teacher who has had his own experience with this method) that internalising someone else's solo (or line) is productive in mny other ways, perhaps the most important of which is making that connect between hearing a note/line/phrase in a specific harmonic situation, clearly identifying what you are hearing and then playing what you have identified. Because when you can do that with a Sonny Rollins solo, you can do that for your own line that you are hearing internally.

But for whatever reason you are doing it, the mere act of transcribing does work on your ear and execution and some very powerful ways.
T-BAL's suggestion to work on voice leading is a good one, in addition to helping you hear lines through harmony, it helps to work on understanding what it is you are hearing.

As far as what I am saying sounding like someone else. I don't have a copyright, nobody does. This is information that people who have played this music have found to be a viable and productive approach. For all the intellectual understanding, theoretical insight, technical ability playing jazz demands of a player, the bottom line remains the ability of the player to communicate in a meaningful fashion what it is they are hearing. That was as true for Louis Armstrong as it is for Dave Douglas.
As it is for you and me.

This is a fascinating discussion and very informative especially for those of us that haven't been playing for a long time. Alex Scott, I think it would be beneficial if you could post a sample of your playing that illustrates your notion of being stuck. I would think that after 15 years of playing and gigging that you are already doing some voice leading and your lines fit in with the tune. Is it possible that you could post something?

I think transcription is an extraordinarily powerful tool IF you take the time and effort to go about it correctly. While the notion of "correctly" is subjective, here are some of my thoughts:

1) Choose a player whose solo concept you admire as a whole, or whose work exemplifies "the next level" in concept from where you are. Don't choose a solo because it "has a coupla cool licks in it".

2) Write your transcription down in notation. Be as specific as you can, especially as regards rhythm, which is often the most overlooked aspect of any player's concept.

3) While transcribing, DON'T USE YOUR CRUTCHES (instrument) UNTIL YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO. A big part of the game is about training your ears to hear more specific things more quickly. If you are always hunting and pecking on some axe or other to try to find out what note you just heard, you aren't training your ear. Write out the rhythmic gesture first, then by knowing the changes and perhaps key notes in the line, try and fill in the rest by singing and educated guesswork. This will be a lot more beneficial to your ear than banging away on an instrument for every pitch, and will eventually be a lot faster. These days, I transcribe directly from the record into Sibelius, which is a pretty quick process. Once it's in the program, I can play it back, which lets me know any errors I might have made along the way - at which point adjusting them is simple. But by going with the ear/singing approach, I feel my ear has grown by leaps and bounds, whereas before (when I used to hunt and peck), it was a slow crawl at best. This step takes a great deal of discipline, so stick with it - IT PAYS!

4) Once you are finished, analyze what you have transcribed for different aspects of construction, especially motivic development over the entire solo (which indicates closer than anything else I can think of how a player put his or her solo together in the first place), and tonality. When looking at tonality, pay special attention to when a player seems to be "outlining the changes" as opposed to when they are "playing across" the large-scale tonality of the moment. This is incredibly instructive, at least for me.

5) Last, play the solo along with the recording in an effort to try and cop the feel of the player in question. When you can play along and not hear yourself because you are blending with the recording, you'll know that you've learned something about the player's feel. Pay attention to everything - volume, dynamics, attack, decay, release, timbre - along the way.

I know that some disagree with this type of method, but I've found it to be extremely useful, and can only recommend it to others as such.

GREAT post, Chris. the only thing that I would add, that is the approach that I am working with is that before you put pen to paper (or hand to instrument) internalise the solo or line by singing it until you reach that point that Chris talks about, where your "voice" disappears and all you hear/sing is the solo or line. You get to the point where you are singing the solo as if it is coming out of your own head (which it really is by this point) finding the notes is easy.

GREAT post, Chris. the only thing that I would add, that is the approach that I am working with is that before you put pen to paper (or hand to instrument) internalise the solo or line by singing it until you reach that point that Chris talks about, where your "voice" disappears and all you hear/sing is the solo or line.

Thanks, and excellent point. That's kind of what I meant when I was talking about choosing a solo to start with, but you put it much better than I did. Right now, I am really digging on a bunch of lines/solos from Drew Gress, singing them in the car, etc.....so I guess I know what my next couple of transcription projects will be!

You get to the point where you are singing the solo as if it is coming out of your own head (which it really is by this point) finding the notes is easy.

And conversely, when the transcribing is done, I notice a lot of the material from the transcription (more concepts than anything) coming out in my own playing, especially when I have the chance to record myself and listen back in depth later. That's probably the biggest payoff of all, especially when it happens subconsciously.

Great thread.

thanks guys, lots of helpful stuff. I guess I just need to make a laundry list of everything I want to get better at and get with some material and a teacher. Gave my old teacher a call during lunch.

Here is a link to my first CD, out about 6 months and pretty recent. I take a solo on don't know which is almost Beatrice Changes. I can't say that I was thinking too hard about the harmoy.

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/chenuquartet

tell me what you think of these songs too, most are originals, some are contrafacts? I don't feel like I learn a lot of stuff from some of these tunes. Thanks.

thanks guys, lots of helpful stuff. I guess I just need to make a laundry list of everything I want to get better at and get with some material and a teacher. Gave my old teacher a call during lunch.

Here is a link to my first CD, out about 6 months and pretty recent. I take a solo on don't know which is almost Beatrice Changes. I can't say that I was thinking too hard about the harmoy.

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/chenuquartet

tell me what you think of these songs too, most are originals, some are contrafacts? I don't feel like I learn a lot of stuff from some of these tunes. Thanks.


Getting an error message at the cdbaby site.

OK, it's up now.

DON'T KNOW is unfortunately one of the tunes that is not excerpted. So it's a little hard to evaluate.

OK, it's up now.

DON'T KNOW is unfortunately one of the tunes that is not excerpted. So it's a little hard to evaluate.


thanks for trying, that's probablybecause it has a bass solo. I can't remember too much, and apparently have a raging case of ADD. Thanks for your numerous posts. The other info I can tell you is two pairs is not very indicative of the way I play and that February 23rd I thought was pretty good, I don't remember if a cut with my solo made it on the album. thanks for trying, anyone know anyother place I can put something up? Thanks

www.angelfire.com offers free web hosting.

On the positive side, nothing I heard made me want to run from the room, screaming and clutching my ears.

from what I can tell on my cheap computer speakers you get a nice sound. I didn't hear anything with tempos (I mean uptempos) or with what I would say was a walking part. What I could hear in the excerpts has pretty static bass parts, is there anything that moves the harmony around and opens things up a little?

man, thanks for being so nice, I will see what I can find and get up somewhere

man, thanks for being so nice, I will see what I can find and get up somewhere

There's always the TB Sampler and/or XavierG was looking to put together a compilation of TB jazz players.

I understand where T-BAL is coming from. Transcribing is a wonderful tool and can be very helpful in a number of ways. My own experience has been that to merely use it as a "mine" for ideas or borrowed vocabulary (which can be thought of as scales or notes or arpeggios or phrases) can lead down some dead ends, in the long run.
There was a great short film on SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE many years back. It had Bill Murray, who was a drunken bum/street person who, lying on his back in the gutter, had the delusion/dream of being a great Shakespearean actor on stage doing a soliloquiy(sp?). You know, if only, I coulda been a contender, that sort of thing. But the speech he was giving was not one the great solo speeches (I'll just dodge the bullet), it was just a pastiche of lines from various Shakespearean plays (Oh, for a muse of fire that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention. My kingdom for a horse, oh you band of brothers. Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow and never the twain shall meet. Etc.)
Point being, it takes more than pulling phrases or notes or whatever off of a recording to get to the point where you are making a cogent statement.

I always enjoy making analogies between spoken language and the language of music. So let me counter your Bill Murray story with this. 1. Charlie Parker, for example, is to Jazz what Shakespeare is to English Literature. 2. Musical phrases have far less specificity of meaning than do spoken or written words. No less meaningful, however. 3. Now if I were to construct a solo of a pastiche of Bird lines (melodies, solo excerpts, etc. and assuming they made sense regarding the changes of the tune they were being played over), I would argue it would be far more of a cogent statement than the one Bill Murray made.

Until you get to the point where you're inventing your own language, all of your vocabulary IS borrowed. The point is, borrow it from as many different sources as you can. When you find yourself in a rut playing the same things over and over, change a note or the direction of a phrase on the fly. Or take the fist part of one phrase and combine it with part of another. This way you are beginning to create your own stuff. But you've got to take bits and pieces of other people's stuff as raw material so you have something to combine to make your own. As others have mentioned, of course hear everything first.

Benny Green's teacher (can't remember his name) told him there are 3 stages in the evolution of an improviser. Imitation, Emulation, Innovation. Few actually get to the 3rd stage, but it is the effort to get ther that (hopefully) keeps us growing.

Also, I did not intend to imply that harvesting ideas was the only benefit to be had from transcribing. Among others, there is a deeper understanding of stylistic elements, expressive nuances, feel, etc. Nor did I mean to suggest that this was the only path to acheiving one's goals. It is a vital component, however.

Alex, more for you later.

Benny Green's teacher (can't remember his name) told him there are 3 stages in the evolution of an improviser. Imitation, Emulation, Innovation. Few actually get to the 3rd stage, but it is the effort to get ther that (hopefully) keeps us growing.


Yes I've heard of those stages too, and they make perfect sense to me. Most serious jazz artists end up in the 2nd category, the Stylization plateau where you have your own style within a particular tradition...and a few go on to be innovators and truly make out their own paths.

/lovebown

T - I've listened to your contributions to the TB/DB and you have certainly gotten to a place where you communicate effectively, through your instrument and composition. And if following the path you outline got you there, then it got you there. All I am saying is that it did not get ME there, what did is the path I outlined. And now Alex has a Column A and a Column B to choose from, and that's a Good Thing (Martha says from the pokey).

But I still have problems with this approach. I don't think Alex has any trouble sounding like he can play, I think what he has been playing is very akin to what you are talking about and that's why it doesn't sound connected. Not because the notes don't work, but because he's just puttingh his fingers on them, not because he hears that specific note in the context of the harmony of the moment, in the context of the line he is trying to create in the overall harmonic motion of the piece. The reason Ray sounds the way he does is because he means every single note he plays. And he can mean it becasue he hears (well, heard) it and he can make everybody listening hear it, too.

By way of your example, Alex can take off all the Bird solos he wants to get phrases to play over certain harmonies, he can mix and match phrases so he's not just playing a transcription or even the phrases over the changes to the tune that it's from. But it's still just a way of sounding like you can play rather than actually playing. He's still going to feel like he's not in the driver's seat. Because what he played doesn't MEAN anything to him. Any more than listening to a tape of Chinese people speaking to each other and learning to pronounce the phrases and putting those phrases together in an order other than they were on the tape means that you are speaking Chinese.

Remember Alex isn't a raw beginner here. He's already listened to the Chinese tapes, he's even looked at some phrase books to learn how to say a few things that actually mean something. What he really needs to work on now is connecting vocabulary to "what do I really want to say". Personally, I've found it more fruitful to work on the "what I want to say" part than the vocabulary part. Because I can communicate meaningfully with the limited vocabulary I have. The deeper understanding I have, the more I work on expanding not just my vocabulary but my understanding, the deeper and richer are the things I can communicate. But "It's funny watching that kitten play" and " I am enjoying infinite amusement observing the antics of that juvenile feline" don't really mean anything different. But either means more than "Funny cats are juvenile play antics", right?

Well, there you have it. Different strokes for different folks. But you still feel the need to tell everyone why the suggestion I made for Alex does not work for you. So we could go back and forth like this indefinately, where I defend this part of my approach, and remind you that it is one aspect of the big picture, and then you disagree with it again, etc. So let's just make our own suggestions, and let Alex decide for himself what he thinks is valid. Although I think it's all valid. I never took issue with any of your comments, except the notion of what vocabulary is.

Alex, to paraphrase from your earlier posts, you wrote that you endeavor to get away from free jazz, to play in more straight-ahead settings, and that in order to sound convincing doing this you want to play more like Ray Brown, as well as draw more from the tradition overall. I would say this: immerse yourself in recordings that you think represent that tradition. Don't listen to Ornette for a while. You may find it interesting to try and recognise how certain strains existed which fed into the music that you listen to now, as you'll always gain a better understanding of something when you know where it came from. But even if you don't transcribe a note of the "earlier" stuff, it's bound to sink in trough osmosis if you really saturate yourself with it. Also, look for more current stuff that's coming from the tradition, like Scott Hamilton is one who comes to mind.

You mention that you want to learn cliches, but in a more meaningful manner, like when Ray played them. I don't know if you ever saw him live, but if you did you'll probably understand what I felt when I saw him. Ray had an overwhelming sense of joy (almost euphoria), and pride when he played. He felt it, and he made the audience feel it. I think it stemmed from the fact that he just loved to play, the music was swingin', dynamic, the best s**t on earth. I think it was this attitude that allowed him to play cliches in a way that sounded meaningful. I think all great jazz is infused with that kind of spirit. If you can experience it yourself, on a regular basis, by attending performances of artists you hold in the highest regard, some of that spirit may begin to show up in your own work. It's definately something you can't get from records alone.

On the other hand, if you're not infatuated with a style or period of jazz, there is no way you're going to perform it with conviction, because it has no meaning to you. Are you on this path because you love it, or because you think you should? Does the mainstream really interest you, or are you just hoping to be more versatile so you can get more gigs?

If you truly embrace it, all of the other stuff will fall into place. Just think to yourself, "This is what I love, this is what I do, this is who I am". Also, the music is a force of its own. No one person is bigger than the music. I am lucky just to be a relatvely anonymous participant.

But I ramble.

Ramblin' - now there's a nice tune.

T- Come on now, I never got the sense that we was arguing for no good reason about something. Being as clear as you can possibly be about something and back and forthing til you are sure that somebody is disagreeing with you because they truly do and not because they are misunderstanding what you are saying is a good thing. And I don't think anybody here is skipping over these exchanges to get to the "really good stuff". You have an informed opinion, I have an informed opinion, Chris and Sam and Paul have informed opinions. And now Alex has the benefit of alla those.

But don't be so quick to close the dialogue. Because if you don't think I've stated (or re-stated) something clearly, you should be able to push that concept forward with different language til I do at least get what you're talking about. even if I still disagree.

If you got something more to say on the changes, you get to play another chorus.

Come on now, I never got the sense that we was arguing for no good reason about something.

Whatever...I still say your guys are BOTH dead wrong: It's all about SINGING, dammit, SINGING, I say!

Seriously, I think the two "sides" are not nearly as far apart as they may seem. If, in the course of doing all of the transcribing and absorbing from the masters, you start to absorb not only their lines and cliches but also some of their concept, then you get the best of both worlds. And I couldn't agree more on the notion of Ray Brown's musical joy - it was and is very real. Capture a little of that, and you will have learned more than any book can teach you.

Wow - I'm in a dialogue with Ed! Ain't the beer cold! (that's a Baltimore thing). Anyway, I'm happy to continue, I just didn't want to leave Alex feeling like it wasn't about him anymore. I'd love to do this all day, but other obligations intervene.

Chow for now.

Ray had an overwhelming sense of joy (almost euphoria), and pride when he played. He felt it, and he made the audience feel it. I think it stemmed from the fact that he just loved to play, the music was swingin', dynamic, the best s**t on earth. I think it was this attitude that allowed him to play cliches in a way that sounded meaningful. I think all great jazz is infused with that kind of spirit.

Yeah! Yeah!

Thomas Conrad's review/critique of Wyton Marsalis' and Dave Douglas' new discs, from thee April, 2004 JazzTimes, talks about “the quality of immediacy [which is] essential to jazz. That quality originates, not from the assumption that the notes have never been played before, but from a sense that they have come into being, in real time, as urgent creative impulses.”

That's the ****. That's the foundation. That's the goal. That's the whole friggin' kit & kaboodle.

Perhaps we need to start a thread about a musician's psychological relationship to their playing i.e. how that affects their sound, content of the solos etc.

or even a thread on how to do ear training, transcriptions and other "jazz related" stuff on a better level... not just "banging the bass" as someone putted earlier. I would find that off a much bigger help than this thread already is!

(sorry for the english. I'm really not sure about all the words... fell free to corect me)

Perhaps we need to start a thread about a musician's psychological relationship to their playing i.e. how that affects their sound, content of the solos etc.

That's cool, but maybe this already is that thread? I mean, if in the course of the discussion about "elevating" your playing, the thought comes up that perhaps it's maybe less about the notes and ideas themselves and more the notion of the spirit of the thing, then isn't that still on topic?

FWIW, I think that this is a great topic, but a difficult one to discuss, as it tends to transcend words. In Aikido, the true masters are always talking about "from the center" and "being centered" when the subject of "elevating one's art" comes up. I used to wonder why the discussion always tended toward Zen Haiku at that point, but now I think it's only because there are no real words to describe that feeling adequately. In music, the only things I can cite that tend to lead me toward making better music are "Openness" and "Getting out of the way" of the music. For me, the more I try to impose on the music, the more I tend to **** it up. The real "joy" for me is allowing myself to be swept up in the moment and accepting what comes out at the moment it comes out as where I was right then and there. Which sounds incredibly stupid and "new age" until you factor in what it takes to get to the point where the aforementioned things can actually happen...

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald: For me, the more I try to impose on the music, the more I tend to **** it up. The real "joy" for me is allowing myself to be swept up in the moment and accepting what comes out at the moment it comes out as where I was right then and there. Which sounds incredibly stupid and "new age" until you factor in what it takes to get to the point where the aforementioned things can actually happen...
I agree with this 100%, despite my endless posting about not playing on the level I want to, I do have moments where I shut up and let the music happen and it's great. IMHO attittude is not discussed enough ANYWHERE!

Thanks guys, this is a very nice dialogue. I have been kind of in a void as to how to get out of this barrier that I have come up against and I appreciate all the dialogue. It is nice to have so many valid viewpoints and I will see what I can do about participating in the next sampler so I can get some more feedback.

I had a very good 5 minute conversation with my old teacher the other day too, and I think watching him for years has influenced me quite a bit, he has a self-proclaimed potluck approach and is very creative, and we discussed what standards are and why we play them, and you have many different ways to play things based on the same structure and within or around the tradition are both options, and don't have to be mutually exclusive. I see myself craving listening to lots of recordings of standards, and listening more to the way different people play them. My posting in this forum was an attempt to get some deeper harmonic understanding because I am increasingly becoming resistant to faking my way through changes. I did have probably the best gig of my life the other day and I only took one solo and it totally sucked, but I really tried to listen to what everyone else was doing, and that made it great. I didn't really miss playing solos in that context.

As far as my two cents on transcribing, for everyone else's benefit, I tend to want to figure out things I really like, just for the sake of doing that, because I really love the way something sounds and want to play like that.

All through college I was hating transcribing, because my ears really sucked back then, where as now they just suck, but I can kind of get things. Also, I was drawn to listen to stuff I really had no chance of transcribing, like gary peacock solos and charlie haden basslines, just stuff that was really above my level of hearing.

On the other hand, I had some friends who would figure everything out. Some internalized what was going on and what they liked, or maybe they liked everything, and some worked out how many licks they could play over ii V's, in a mathmatical way, or tried to copy all of Cannonball's solo licks or whatever, some that just gigged all the time.

I really don't think any of that matters at all. I know guys who are great players through all sorts of combinations of those ways, and people I hate to play with who learned how to play all those different ways. It really just comes down to what are you hearing, how much are you listening.

So for me that means I am going to do a lot of ear training, keyboard work and transcribing stuff I like. Right now I need to get my ears and my functional harmonic language solid, and then maybe I will wait to hear what I want to play, and will be able to know what I am hearing and play it.
Please continue the dialogue and I would love info on what others have done to get their ears in shape

Thanks

P.s. I would love to see more of these upper level posts out there, it is very refreshing.

Hey Alex...
I use a great software called EarMaster Pro 4. It's a great program with interval comparison, interval identification, chord identification, chord inversion, chord progressions, scales, rhythm reading, rhythm imitaion, rhythm correction and melodic dictation. I've been using it for about one month now and I think it's great. Probably you should take a look at it.

I'd say, find a guitar or piano player to play duets with. Just run through turnarounds, ii-V-I progressions, and tunes. Eventhough it goes against what most here say, I'd also recommend getting the Omnibook in bass clef. For me, it is helping to be able to play examples of the vocabulary as melody. I'm in a similar spot, when I solo I either do a walking bassline with rhythmic embelishment or lines that sound like scales. I have taken some motifs from it and am trying to play them in 12 keys. As far as transcribng goes, it has opened my ears so much more, I practice the transcriptions, but mostly try to take motifs just like the omnibook. I can't say I'm hearing great ideas yet, but I have a better idea of how to make the transition from scales to music.
Plus if you look through my thread on walking, soloing, and pratice in technique you'll see great suggestions from Peter Dalla AKA Ed Fuqua and others.

I think it's essential to have a good sense of what some call "relative pitch", in other words the ability to instantly recognise intervallic relationships between notes. So before you start trying to analyse complex chord structures, you must make sure you know how to take a simple diatonic melody that you know, sing it first, either with solfege or note numbers (1 through 8 for each note in the scale) and play it in any key. Like Mary Had a Little Lamb in Db, Happy Birthday in E, Auld Lang Syne in Eb, Christmas tunes, etc. This gives you practice transferring what you hear in your head to your instrument.

If you know the interval by name but can't find it on the bass, you also need to spend some time learning the fingerboad some more. Scales and arpeggios in all keys, the latter especially since it helps you connect different regions of the bass, and to "see" the whole thing all at once. Also scales in broken 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, etc.

If you can play those melodies without mistake, move on to some a little more challenging. Take a standard that you know but have never played the melody on. It may sound elementary, but I'm frequently amazed at how many musicians I come acrss who can't do this well. The idea is to hear what you're going to play before you play it, and to be able to play what you hear. It's been said before, but I'll repeat it again, because the whole process hinges on this concept. Hear the idea before you play it, and be able to play what you hear.

Sorry if I'm too verbose.

The idea is to hear what you're going to play before you play it, and to be able to play what you hear. It's been said before, but I'll repeat it again, because the whole process hinges on this concept. Hear the idea before you play it, and be able to play what you hear.

Sorry if I'm too verbose.

Not at all - this can't be said too many times as far as I'm concerned. This has been my mantra as regards both reading and improvising for years now, and is at the heart of what I mean by "singing" your solos. In other words, don't play anything you can't sing. If you can't sing something but still want to play it, learn to sing it first, then play it. We're back to the language analogy with this point, but imagine you were taking part in a radio play that was being broadcast live on the air. You have some of your parts memorized, but not others. However, you have the advantage of being able to read the parts you don't have internalized. Which parts do you think will sound more organic and "real" to the listener - the ones you really have internalized, or the ones you are "reading" and plugging in"? It's no contest.

At a recent jazz area meeting at the U, we had an impromptu group discussion after a student performance on an up-tempo tune about how to play on tempos. After a lot of the usual advice, several people started talking about "playing within yourself" at tempos, and that's when I started to get interested. What that means is only playing what you can hear and execute in the manner mentioned above, even if it means that you might not be able to show off your blazing bop chops. It means accepting and being who you are in any musical situation, and not trying to bull**** anybody (including yourself) into thinking that you are a different or better player than that. This doesn't mean don't take chances - rather, it means be yourself and accept where you are...you can still take chances within that context. If you try to play a lot of stuff you can't hear yet, you're trying to be someone else (IMO, of course), and where does that get you?

Caveat: all of the above applies to what to do on the bandstand. The woodshed is a completely different animal - that's where you are trying to learn to hear new sounds and figure out how to play them.

ALEX - What's an "upper level post"?

My naivety shows. I was willing to accept that there might be one more great bassist out there posting. I have some other questions for you, and will think them out and get in touch. I went through a brief playing without an amp phase, which ultimately died due to the overwhelming amount of players and average volume of the austin jazz guitar scene. Welcome back Ed

Upper level post: apparently, just one where ED is involved, although I thought the world was becoming a better place there for a minute

Not at all - this can't be said too many times as far as I'm concerned. This has been my mantra as regards both reading and improvising for years now, and is at the heart of what I mean by "singing" your solos. In other words, don't play anything you can't sing. If you can't sing something but still want to play it, learn to sing it first, then play it. We're back to the language analogy with this point, but imagine you were taking part in a radio play that was being broadcast live on the air. You have some of your parts memorized, but not others. However, you have the advantage of being able to read the parts you don't have internalized. Which parts do you think will sound more organic and "real" to the listener - the ones you really have internalized, or the ones you are "reading" and plugging in"? It's no contest.


I would say the parts that the reader would normally say in a similiar situation and/or has a personal attachment to so that they can bring forth the emotion and transmit it to the listener.

Originally Posted by Chris Fitzgerald
In other words, don't play anything you can't sing. If you can't sing something but still want to play it, learn to sing it first, then play it

This brings up a few questions for me, would it be a good starting off point to sing scales and arpeggios? And if I'm practicing a tune, should I try to sing ideas over the changes then play them? Would it be a good idea to try to sing and play licks in a practice situation too?
Sorry for all the questions, I just really want to reach a new level in my playing too and know that it takes more than just learning vocabulary.
Mike
I almost forgot, would the keyboard be a good tool in this work?

I'm sure everybody is going to have a different methodology for getting to this. But let's really analyse what we're looking at here.

If the problem is knowing where the notes you are hearing are on your instrument, then an exercise that starts with you singing a phrase and then finding the notes you sang (basically transcribing yourself) is a good one. That, coupled with the technical work of playing arpeggios of 4 parts in all inversions in all keys to help get basic sounds and where those sounds are on the fingerboard in your ear as well. So that you hear yourself sing an idea that starts on the b9 of the chord, ascends stepwise by these intervals and then aprpeggiates a second inversion dominant chord you kind of hear it doing that and can "see" where that is.

But my problem wasn't really that, it was actually clearly hearing something to sing. I talked to Joe about this a few years back (cause I would get uinto a thing where I would "sing" along with my solo like in an effort to get a more musical line). His feeling was that it was getting in the way of actually hearing what I wanted to play and that the way to be more musical was to just shut up until a line emerged that was insistent enough that I just had to play it. But he had to prove that tome. So we took my little minidisc and recorder me playing a couple of choruses on I REMEMBER YOU and then singing a couple of choruses of solo. And then a couple of choruses where I'd play 8 bars and then sing 8 bars. And the result was - when I was clearly hearing a line it didn't matter if I was singing or playing, it really sounded like something. And if I wasn't hearing anything (hearing he change clearly, hearing what notes in my everyday vocabulary would work with what I was hearing) then it didn't matter if I was playing or singing. I would sing with same imprecision of pitch or placement that I would play with. Point being, my problem wasn't with PLAYING it was with HEARING.

Joe has a methodology for ear training (as do many other people), again it's a LOT easier to do this with an objective ear that is not going to let ALMOST getting something down pass. You start with identfying intervals, from the bottom up. First in one octave. Then you sing those with a constant bass note (the comfortable bottom of your range). First with a keyboard - you play the bass note, sing the bass note and then sing the interval, then play the interval. Then you sing the bass note, play the bass note (listening for those minute "corrections" you make when the pitch was a little faulty), sing the top note and play the top note.
Next somebody else plays the interval, you get to hear it twice, the second playing they sustain the notes. You sing the interval twice. Then you move to the extensions (second octave). This goes on (i'm singing triads in inversions with a moving bass note) til you are singing 6 part chords.It is a function of time put in, but this is not something that will happen over a couple of weeks.

So you are working on some things concurrently here, all of which will affect your walking line and your solo line.
1. SCALES and ARPEGGIOS - 2 octave major, natural minor, melodic minor and harmonic minor, 4 part arpeggios in all inversions. There are rhythmic variations, melodic fragment etc exercises within scale work
2. IMPROV - some of the exercises already outlined to help reinforce the sound of the tune in your head so that you can hear melody, harmony , rhythm/time and your own line all at the same time.
3. EAR TRAINING - to help identify aurally, intellectually and viscerally what you are hearing both around you and in your head.
4.TRANSCRIBING - at half speed, singing and internalising all aspects of the solo line - slurs, vibrato, dynamics, articulations. Sing it at half speed, then at full speed. In addition to just getting the notes, you are hearing and internalising how phrase placement affects line development, you are actually doing work on hearing a line internally, identifying what you are hearing and then playing what you are hearing. Transcribing has you doing it with say Oscar Pettiford. When you are playing a tune with your group, then you are doing exactly the same thing with your own internal line.


So yes, keyboard acquistion is a Good Thing. But you have to approach work there in a focused way. Sean knows what he is about, if you have concerns about ear training bring them up. I think you are ultimately going to get more out of whatever methodology he uses, becaseu he will BE THERE to guide you through its usage.

I'm sure everybody is going to have a different methodology for getting to this. But let's really analyse what we're looking at here.

If the problem is knowing where the notes you are hearing are on your instrument, then an exercise that starts with you singing a phrase and then finding the notes you sang (basically transcribing yourself) is a good one. That, coupled with the technical work of playing arpeggios of 4 parts in all inversions in all keys to help get basic sounds and where those sounds are on the fingerboard in your ear as well. So that you hear yourself sing an idea that starts on the b9 of the chord, ascends stepwise by these intervals and then aprpeggiates a second inversion dominant chord you kind of hear it doing that and can "see" where that is.

But my problem wasn't really that, it was actually clearly hearing something to sing. I talked to Joe about this a few years back (cause I would get uinto a thing where I would "sing" along with my solo like in an effort to get a more musical line). His feeling was that it was getting in the way of actually hearing what I wanted to play and that the way to be more musical was to just shut up until a line emerged that was insistent enough that I just had to play it. But he had to prove that tome. So we took my little minidisc and recorder me playing a couple of choruses on I REMEMBER YOU and then singing a couple of choruses of solo. And then a couple of choruses where I'd play 8 bars and then sing 8 bars. And the result was - when I was clearly hearing a line it didn't matter if I was singing or playing, it really sounded like something. And if I wasn't hearing anything (hearing he change clearly, hearing what notes in my everyday vocabulary would work with what I was hearing) then it didn't matter if I was playing or singing. I would sing with same imprecision of pitch or placement that I would play with. Point being, my problem wasn't with PLAYING it was with HEARING.

Joe has a methodology for ear training (as do many other people), again it's a LOT easier to do this with an objective ear that is not going to let ALMOST getting something down pass. You start with identfying intervals, from the bottom up. First in one octave. Then you sing those with a constant bass note (the comfortable bottom of your range). First with a keyboard - you play the bass note, sing the bass note and then sing the interval, then play the interval. Then you sing the bass note, play the bass note (listening for those minute "corrections" you make when the pitch was a little faulty), sing the top note and play the top note.
Next somebody else plays the interval, you get to hear it twice, the second playing they sustain the notes. You sing the interval twice. Then you move to the extensions (second octave). This goes on (i'm singing triads in inversions with a moving bass note) til you are singing 6 part chords.It is a function of time put in, but this is not something that will happen over a couple of weeks.

So you are working on some things concurrently here, all of which will affect your walking line and your solo line.
1. SCALES and ARPEGGIOS - 2 octave major, natural minor, melodic minor and harmonic minor, 4 part arpeggios in all inversions. There are rhythmic variations, melodic fragment etc exercises within scale work
2. IMPROV - some of the exercises already outlined to help reinforce the sound of the tune in your head so that you can hear melody, harmony , rhythm/time and your own line all at the same time.
3. EAR TRAINING - to help identify aurally, intellectually and viscerally what you are hearing both around you and in your head.
4.TRANSCRIBING - at half speed, singing and internalising all aspects of the solo line - slurs, vibrato, dynamics, articulations. Sing it at half speed, then at full speed. In addition to just getting the notes, you are hearing and internalising how phrase placement affects line development, you are actually doing work on hearing a line internally, identifying what you are hearing and then playing what you are hearing. Transcribing has you doing it with say Oscar Pettiford. When you are playing a tune with your group, then you are doing exactly the same thing with your own internal line.


So yes, keyboard acquistion is a Good Thing. But you have to approach work there in a focused way. Sean knows what he is about, if you have concerns about ear training bring them up. I think you are ultimately going to get more out of whatever methodology he uses, becaseu he will BE THERE to guide you through its usage.
Very well said. The teacher as coach, or facilitator. Excellent.

Usually I just use a footstool to elevate myself. Buh de de che!

Anyway, seriously, all this stuff you guys are talking about sounds great, but singing a solo is beyond me. I am just working on singing the d**n melody while playing the roots! I figure if I can get those sounds in my head, that's the 'song'. Then maybe the solo will come. I guess I'm trying to learn how to sing at all too, since I suck at it, and if I can improve hearing and singing notes, I KNOW my ear is going to take 80 leaps forward.

Hey we all been there. If it was easy, everybody would do it.

I don't remember, LERM, has you all got a teacher? What are they working on with you?

If not, have you tried some of the exercises in PAC's thing, or that we been suggesting around here? Instead singing the melody against the roots, try playing the melody with the nome, then arpeggiate the chords in time, then walk a chorus. See if that don't help get the tune in your ear a little more. Check out Mike da Mooks WALKIND SOLOING AND PRACTICE thread for some other stuff too.

I was just sprayin that I'm not a very good singer, and I am working on it. I do lots of stuff beyond just that.... I've got a stack of ways of approaching this stuff, and you guys keep adding to it! Yeah, I've got a teacher, we're working on my bow work and also on jazz stuff (currently transcribing tunes from "We Get Requests", as well as learning changes/melodies to a variety of standards using lots of the techniques that have been mentioned here). Jazz isn't really my main gig, so its a bit tough for me, since I'm not gigging on it (at the moment) but plan to go that direction, probably in a year or so....

Re: Singing - you don't have to sound like Johnny Hartman, you just need to be able to externalize what's in your head. In other words, it doesn't need to be pretty, it just needs to get out!

I'll repeat one of my favorite mantras from the ear-training portion of my theory classes at the U: If you can't sing it, don't tell me that you're hearing it, 'cause I'm not buying it.


Needless to say, this is a favorite of mine, not so much a favorite of the students I repeatedly bust with it. :D

I have a vocal range of a minor 2nd, could make for some interesting ideas!

Very well said. The teacher as coach, or facilitator. Excellent.

See how easy it is to archive Fugquatic pearls! Ya never know. ;)

See how easy it is to archive Fugquatic pearls! Ya never know. ;)

Hey me and Ray wanna come out as SOON AS IT STOPS BEING COLD, f**king winter. What kinda beer you like?

I've got a singing problem. My voice doesn't seem to know the difference between 5ths. Like I will supposed to be singing Bb and I will sing the Eb above it, or the F (depending on if its the root of the V7). Does anyone else have this issue? I think its not just a singing problem - its a hearing thing - its often hard for me to distinguish between a note and its fifth when transcribing or listening. Obviously, once I realize it, I'm like "duh" and I completely hear the difference in that particular context. Should I work on singing chords? Or just continue down the road I am on (transcriptions, singing melodies over chords, singing lines and writing them down) with the idea that problems like this will resolve themselves? Its so much easier to hear/sing a minor third or a ninth or something because its a more distinctive harmony against the root....

I've got a singing problem. My voice doesn't seem to know the difference between 5ths. Like I will supposed to be singing Bb and I will sing the Eb above it, or the F (depending on if its the root of the V7). Does anyone else have this issue? I think its not just a singing problem - its a hearing thing - its often hard for me to distinguish between a note and its fifth when transcribing or listening. Obviously, once I realize it, I'm like "duh" and I completely hear the difference in that particular context. Should I work on singing chords? Or just continue down the road I am on (transcriptions, singing melodies over chords, singing lines and writing them down) with the idea that problems like this will resolve themselves? Its so much easier to hear/sing a minor third or a ninth or something because its a more distinctive harmony against the root....


They say the first step is admitting you have a problem.

A lotta things I used to hear a 4th away, but again that's the thing I work on. Recognising the interval is recognising the interval, and that's what you gotta work on and nail before you move on. Just like building a house, you don't want to start on the walls until the foundation is solid. The problem doesn't "resolve itself", you work on it until it's not a problem anymore.

I said resolve itself through working on intervallic relationships and harmony overall. I don't suffer under the delusion that it will just go away.

I said resolve itself through working on intervallic relationships and harmony overall. I don't suffer under the delusion that it will just go away.

I still think it's the other way around, working out the problem (I don't hear the difference between the tonic and the 4th or the 5th, Eb or Bb or F) by singing the intervals ( tonic to 4th, tonic to 5th, tonic to 11th , tonic to 12th) BEFORE you move on to singing the chords (F in root FAC, in 1st inversion ACF
in 2nd inversion CFA) is what's going to "resolve" it. You're not going to successfully hear and sing a 3rd inversion dominant b9 chord without being able to hear and sing tonic to fifth or fifth to tonic.

Slow and steady is what gets you there. No foundation, house falls down.

Right, but by working on melodies against root notes of a chord progression, that's exactly what I am doing....right? Or am I missing something in what you're saying?

Addition: Ed, crap, I realized you are right. I said "chords" in my first post but what I really meant was two note intervals/harmonies, but I didn't really mean chords - I just play those, I don't sing those as of yet.

I've got a singing problem. My voice doesn't seem to know the difference between 5ths. Like I will supposed to be singing Bb and I will sing the Eb above it, or the F (depending on if its the root of the V7). Does anyone else have this issue? I think its not just a singing problem - its a hearing thing - its often hard for me to distinguish between a note and its fifth when transcribing or listening. Its so much easier to hear/sing a minor third or a ninth or something because its a more distinctive harmony against the root....

You said it yourself. You don't have a singing problem, you have a hearing problem. I can remember experiencing the same thing - I would be improvising over a tune, either in my head or on my instrument, and by and by I would find myself in a key center a 4th or 5th away from where I should have been. It seems to me you should first make sure you are hearing the root motion correctly. See if you can identify the interval between each root, then hum or sing them in succession. Once that is solidified, you can add the other chord tones, but even if you're singing the third of a chord, you should still be hearing its root, so you maintain the integrity of the progression in your head. As you alluded to, the fifth of a chord does nothing to define its quality (except in the case of a flat five) so I would focus more on thirds and sevenths. Two tunes which are excellent studies for this are All The Things and Fly Me to the Moon, as they both have an abundance of thirds and sevenths in the melody.

Right, but by working on melodies against root notes of a chord progression, that's exactly what I am doing....right? Or am I missing something in what you're saying?

Yes you are missing something, I'm not talking about singing melodies or melodic lines here, I'm talking about ear training. You know "here's F, sing a perfect 12th. OK do it with a different bass note. OK, you hear how you are pulling a little flat on the top pitch OR OK, you hear how when you sing it the second time you are letting the bass note move around?"

So that when you hear a series of notes/pitches, it locks into a structure, in your mind's ear. Like seeing a constellation form out of a chaos of stars. or maybe more like recognizing a molecule, even though you are looking at it from a different angle, because you immediately recognize its unique construction. Your ear training/singing work gets you to the point that you don't make the mistake/mis-hearing of the tonic/4th/5th when transcribing or singing a melodic line against the harmony. You don't have to stop and read it, or figure out what color it is or shape, you stop at the STOP sign because you know it's a STOP sign. You don't pause for thought, it happens because the meaning has been absorbed.

In that each interval has a distinct quality to it, it may be helpful to associate a familiar melody with each one, as a mnemonic device. Example: Theme form Star Trek = minor 7th, Here Comes the Bride = P4th, the NBC signature = M6TH, etc.

I'm doing what my teacher suggested and thinks is appropriate for ear training. And I still don't really see how singing a set of intervals (melody note over root note) is different from singing a set of intervals (interval note over root note).

I'm doing what my teacher suggested and thinks is appropriate for ear training. And I still don't really see how singing a set of intervals (melody note over root note) is different from singing a set of intervals (interval note over root note).

Sigh.
There's the SLIMGALLITOE I know and love.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. As I said earlier to MOOK, working with your teacher with their methodology is going to be more productive in many ways than trying to apply suggestions in absentia from strangers on the web. However, in an effort to get you to shut up and pay attention to me, please ponder the following analogy. Not to see if it is a good analogy, not to critique as to whether or not it is the best analogy that cold be used in the situation, merely to see if it communicates my point any further.

Singing a melody note (really more specifcially LINE, intervallic work is point to point, melodic work is points in a line) is much like Our Hero Larry Bird drilling plays with the team. He's out there in a somewhat artificial situation, but one that mimics actual game play as closely as it can while still maintaining the idea that you are working on/practicing concepts or ideas.

Intervallic ear training is Our Hero Larry Bird standing 3 point distance about 4:30 from the board practicing left handed jump shots. Over and over again. Then moving over a foot and practicing them. etc.


Concrete. Abstract. Concrete. Abstract. Concrete. Abstract. Till the abstract starts informing the concrete.


I do this a lot. Ray does this a lot. Tom Baldwin does this a lot. Chris Fitzgerald does this a lot. You don't do this a lot. Maybe you want to do a little more listening and a lot less picking at nits.

Ed, I AM listening to you. I basically end up working on about one bar of a melody at a time, though, which I just think is really similar. I wouldn't have asked if I didn't want to know, and when I say "I don't understand" something, that's what I *really* mean, I am not patronizing you, picking nits, or anything. If you were standing right here, or if you were my teacher, I would ask the same thing. I don't trust you because you are an Authority, I trust you because I understand you and your ideas make sense. So I am just trying to ask why A and not B.

OK? I'll "shut up" as you suggest, now.

I'm doing what my teacher suggested and thinks is appropriate for ear training. And I still don't really see how singing a set of intervals (melody note over root note) is different from singing a set of intervals (interval note over root note).
I don't know if you're already doing this, so just tell me to shuddup if you are, but it sounds to me like you need to be singing both notes of the interval. This may allow you to lock in to the distance between the two notes. Also, the exercise you describe can be learned by rote. Instead, or in addition, have someone (or a computer) quiz you by playing random intervals for you to identify. In school, we would be quizzed first with melodic intervals (the two notes played separately), then harmonic intervals (played together). In either case, sing to yourself first the bottom note and then the top note. Get away from the idea that either one has to be the root. Could be the 3rd and b9, doesn't matter. You just want to be able to recognise the distance. So sing both pitces in succession. Sing the note names as you sing the pitches. "A,F#" then sing the name of the interval - the word "Major" on the bottom note, the word "sixth" on top. As you sing the notes, picture them in the staff, on the keyboard, and on your bass. Eventually it should start to sink in. If you can find someone else who wants to work on it with you, you can quiz each other. Then go paint each other up. Paint the town. Night out on the town, right? Sizzlechest?

Ed, I AM listening to you. I basically end up working on about one bar of a melody at a time, though, which I just think is really similar. I wouldn't have asked if I didn't want to know, and when I say "I don't understand" something, that's what I *really* mean, I am not patronizing you, picking nits, or anything. If you were standing right here, or if you were my teacher, I would ask the same thing. I don't trust you because you are an Authority, I trust you because I understand you and your ideas make sense. So I am just trying to ask why A and not B.

OK? I'll "shut up" as you suggest, now.

Well damn now SLIM, it sure don't come across that way. But if I caught a huff, I apologize. But a lotta the time it sounds like "Why are you telling me that, I don't find it to be so" and I'm just saying you don't find it to be so because you don't have the same range of experience. If that's not what you mean, I'll try to be less tender and sensitive and snivelling.

We cool?

But does what I said make it any clearer? Does what Tom said make it any clearer? Is it clearer?

It is much clearer, thank you. I know I can be infuriating in that respect, but honestly all I need is to understand it. I obviously respect all of your guys ranges of expereince, and that's why I hang out here for free advice. But I can't do something (nor would you advocate, I am sure) just 'because', only because it does me more good to understand its context. I understood mechanically the difference between the two, but not really *why* they are different in their results/intention. Your basketball analogy helped with that, although I would counter that it definitely ain't Larry Bird that's doing the practicing in my case ;-)

Remember that anytime you play something "by ear", you are really playing a series of intervals intuitively. It might help you to do some formal or informal "testing" on yourself to see which intervals consistently give you the most trouble, then focus on clearing those up. Like I always tell my classes, the 12 intervals are our alphabet (in terms of pitch, anyway). If we want to be good writers (or even readers), we damn well ought to know them. Most people have real trouble with only a few of the intervals, but few actually take the trouble to try to quantify which are "easy" for them and which are hard. This in itself can shed a lot of light on the subject.