Do you agree with this video?

[Joe Nerve]

Jeff likes to talk. Jeff likes to state things that people will argue with. That's what he's doing here. If he wasn't Jeff Berlin, he'd have 16 views on that video, and nobody would even consider discussing what he's saying.

I say, never listen when you're playing. Yeah... that's what Joe Nerve says!

 

[Fergie Fulton]

it makes me furious how incorrect jeff usually is when he talks about stuff.

i acknowledge that he's an excellent player and his advice may have worked for him. however...

There is no point getting angry, Jeff is not qualified to make the comments that anger others. Yes in given situations what Jeff says is true, but it's a half truth.
It has certain grain of truth, but only in a particular situation.....that it seems is all Jeff needs, allied to his reputation, to make such falsehoods seem plausible.
Add to the vague broad way in which he uses it and he confuses, rather than educates more than he enlightens, but will highlight those enlightened moments and ignore the rest.
This is not the way to educate and teach because it is speculative, and that is a shame because Jeff has so much to offer, but is marginalising his ideas and teachings by being Jeff Berlin.

But as for listening, i know for a fact that a player that listens to a song for a few hours, working out what they are hearing, then learn to apply that information to the arrangement of the song...all without a bass or even using any other instrument, will learn that song better than trying to workout out on the bass.
This is because the brain is involved from the start and it is ultimately what the brain understands and how what you think, is what you will play.
As has been pointed out, it is learning to concentrate, learning to focus on what you're listen to that will be reflected in your interpretation of what you play.

Player that work with their ear in learning music, songs or parts, never really play anything wrong, because they are playing what they think they have heard. There is a big difference in playing wrong notes and not being aware of it, to playing wrong notes and knowing they were wrong.
This is a point that myself and many other recognise in students playing and let it go, and tell them to "let it go", if they know they have made a mistake that is what matters, the fact they have heard it is wrong and it was just a mistake is what matters.....but that need the player to listen first.

 

[SactoBass]

0:12 "Make sure you listen, we've all heard this".

Uh...well...I sure hope so! If not, we weren't listening.


1:28 "You play better if you learn how to play better".

Well how about that! And to think that I have missed out on this insightful guidance over the past 40 years of playing bass. I can now move forward! What an eye opener!! It's going to be a whole new world for me!

 

[smeet]

As usual, there is a grain of truth in everything Jeff says, but he generalizes and simplifies to the point that what he says can be very damaging to *some* budding players. If Jeff had just done book learning and neither he nor his bandmates had ever listened to jazz, could he really play it??? I think not. There is a reason that Jeff is a lackluster rock player.

A counter-example: My 13 year old daughter plays tenor sax in her middle school jazz band. Her technique and sight-reading is very good. Her soloing has tended to be a bit robotic and low-energy (although she can play over changes quite well in a technical sense). She doesn't listen to jazz. I told her she needs to listen to the style, immerse herself in it and then certain things (stylistically correct phrasing) will emerge from her playing. For three days she listened to some classic jazz from my iTunes playlists (Miles, Coltrane, Cannonball Adderly, Clifford Brown, etc.). She's also starting to transcribe Miles' solo from "So What?", I'm so proud!! Yesterday we did some playing together and she (for the first time) really grasped how to make a solo sound like JAZZ, how to make space and build energy, etc. This because she HEARD it being done and absorbed it.

Another counter-example: Jeff Berlin, a well-known bassist, can technically play most things better than most other people on the planet, on any instrument. Yet, I don't usually enjoy listening to him for musical reasons. His playing is technically beautiful and I love it as instructional/technical exercises. Yet I don't like his timing or tone, and the way he plays is not always appropriate to the style. This IMO could all be corrected by a bit of listening to the styles he plays, to the people who do it best. Jeff playing with Bill Bruford was clean and perfect, and made for great tunes to learn. John Wetton playing with Bill Bruford makes for an orgasmic listening experience. Could it be that Wetton understood the style better because he listened more? Maybe not, but maybe...

It's the same as his arguments about rhythm and metronomes. He doesn't think rhythm warrants dedicated study, because it's so "easy and natural". Sure, his timing is accurate. But his rhythmic FEEL lags behind the level of the rest of his playing, to my ear.

 

[unclejane]

Okay, this might be the answer I'm looking for. Just to clarify, are you saying that listening is only bad if a teacher provides it as a lesson, but it's okay if you incorporate listening in your practice routine? Sometimes I dedicate 15 minutes of my time on listening to intervals. Is that a good way to practice listening? Or do you think musicians will be able to develop a better ear passively?

What he's saying is listening is another thing like good time or the capacity to enjoy music, etc. In it's most basic form, it's just inherent in making music anyway, so the lesson "listen" doesn't really offer the student anything novel or reveal something you don't already know.

For example, listening to intervals and training your "ear" in doing so would not, in my view, be what he's talking about when he's criticizing "listening". Notice that listening itself is just inherent in that exercise - that part you don't need explicit instruction to do. So, unlike interval study itself, "listen" is just a reflexively contentless thing to instruct you to do.

I'm now a JB devotee, though I used to oppose him pretty vigorously. I later realized, hmmm... oh he's right about this... oh yeah he's right about that.... and.. uh oh...I"m FOS...hmm.. interesting...maybe I should read some more... .

So I now "listen" to JB pretty religiously... That doesn't mean I agree with everything, but I now think on the whole he's right most of the time.

LS

 

[unclejane]

Another counter-example: Jeff Berlin, a well-known bassist, can technically play most things better than most other people on the planet, on any instrument. Yet, I don't usually enjoy listening to him for musical reasons. His playing is technically beautiful and I love it as instructional/technical exercises. Yet I don't like his timing or tone, and the way he plays is not always appropriate to the style. This IMO could all be corrected by a bit of listening to the styles he plays, to the people who do it best. Jeff playing with Bill Bruford was clean and perfect, and made for great tunes to learn. John Wetton playing with Bill Bruford makes for an orgasmic listening experience. Could it be that Wetton understood the style better because he listened more? Maybe not, but maybe...

It's the same as his arguments about rhythm and metronomes. He doesn't think rhythm warrants dedicated study, because it's so "easy and natural". Sure, his timing is accurate. But his rhythmic FEEL lags behind the level of the rest of his playing, to my ear.

I think this is a great criticism, but I don't think it quite addresses the claim JB is making in his video. What you're talking about here intrudes onto the issue of taste, or to put it in JB terms "art".

Specifically, these are artistic judgements that you're talking about here, not what JB calls "academics" of music. JB does clearly distinguish these and in fact it's probably the main spine of what he says.

So really, your remarks here would belong more in an argument on the "art" vs "academia" platform, which JB has written and spoken very extensively about and, in my view, is actually very clear on.

Here he's simply talking about "listening" as an empty platitude; again that's distinguished from things you do that _involve_ listening, which definitely are not empty platitudes.

From what I can see, he's more reacting to the platitudinal usage of the term "listen" here. And I agree with this - we got this all the time in band when I was in HS, for instance, and our reaction was always... er, we _are_ listening, we just can't _play_ it! lol...

LS

 

[sammyp]

"listening", especially in jazz circles, can be made to sound like a mystical black art ......i think this is what he is trying to counteract

if you get too caught up in how or what you are listening to, you will loose focus on your instrument ...

i'm not sure how Berlin is so controversial, i guess any lesson can be argued or dismissed!

 

[smeet]

Unclejane, you are probably right about Jeff's intent. My problem is that if that's what he means, he needs to be clear about it. As a respected educator, he is giving a lot of people the wrong idea by being vague and painting all things with a big brush: "Metronomes are bad", "listening is not needed", etc.

 

[winegamd]

And I agree with this - we got this all the time in band when I was in HS, for instance, and our reaction was always... er, we _are_ listening, we just can't _play_ it! lol...

I think this is the exact point Jeff is talking about. Once you can play and dont have to think about that, you are free to listen, and it comes rather naturally. It is not something you need to practice. You just do it.

When you were learning to talk, did you practice listening to what people said, or did you just do it?

 

[backup]

where i live most bass players are technically wonderful and sound amazing if you just listen to the bass. but they lack the feel, the dynamics and the communication with the other musicians. this is why i get their gigs. and i know i didn't learn it from any teacher or book. but through listening to music and always listening to the band and a given song as a whole. you can't obtain this from technical practise and theory. listening to music, listening to the band and being able to understand what you hear is more important than any technical or theoretical thing. especially an instrument like electric bass requires very little skill to able to play in any situation. all you need is time keeping.

 

[unclejane]

I think Jeff Berlin is saying that we can develop into better listeners passively. To give an example, if we try to memorize major 7th inversion in all 12 keys, then we'll passively recognize the sound of the major 7th inversion after a certain amount of time. I don't think he's saying that any non-musician can automatically recognize, say, a minor 7th chord.

Think of it like this, using your example. Take these two lessons:

"memorize the major 7th inversion in all 12 keys"
and
"memorize the major 7th inversion in all 12 keys and listen".

Does the "and listen" part in the second lesson add any content to the lesson? I believe JB would say no, it doesn't and that that's what he's reacting to. The "listen" admonition simply doesn't convey anything extra at all.

I don't think he's saying _refuse_ to listen; he's just saying that, by itself, "listen" doesn't mean anything and therefore won't help you learn to play better.

LS

 

[unclejane]

Unclejane, you are probably right about Jeff's intent. My problem is that if that's what he means, he needs to be clear about it. As a respected educator, he is giving a lot of people the wrong idea by being vague and painting all things with a big brush: "Metronomes are bad", "listening is not needed", etc.

Well that's the problem with having to convey a complicated topic in a short video. I'm sure the extra context of his statement would be a lot clearer if we were there with him and it was A Bunch Of Dudes Sittin Around Talkin about playing bass.

It seemed fairly clear to me, but that may be because I got the reflexively vacuous and useless "listen! listen!" all the time as a kid when I was in school band. So I instantly recognized what he's criticizing lol...

LS

 

[unclejane]

I think this is the exact point Jeff is talking about. Once you can play and dont have to think about that, you are free to listen, and it comes rather naturally. It is not something you need to practice. You just do it.

When you were learning to talk, did you practice listening to what people said, or did you just do it?

Yep, JB uses the language analogy a lot to illustrate sort of where he's coming from. He makes the point about needing to know the words of a language in order to speak that language. And that's appropriate for what he's advocating (the "academics" of music, such as learning to read, how music is structured, etc).

On the other hand, you don't have to be taught:
- "I go" expresses the present active indicative
- "I am going", present active progressive/habitual
- "I went", simple past/preterite active indicative
- "I have gone", present perfect active indicative
- "I would go", present active subjunctive
....
and so on... in order to speak English. This is simply auxiliary information that _describes_ something you already know. So teaching you that the sentence "I would have gone" expresses the perfect subjunctive active in English only teaches you an aspect of the subject of English grammar. It doesn't help you learn to speak English any better or worse.

This isn't a perfect analogy, because grammatical information like this does have its uses in many subjects. But hopefully it gets the point across. The "listen" admonition is similar to teaching English to people who already know how to speak English.

So again, JB's comments are pretty confined in this case and maybe without more context maybe a little confusing. But I think he's just addressing the platitude form of the term "listen" and not saying you shouldn't learn things where listening is an inherent part, or anything like that.

LS

 

[Snarf]

I need a consensus so that I can formulate my own opinion. I've only been practicing bass for 13 months in case you want to know.

I disagree with this video. Critical listening involves: When does the dynamic change? Am I playing with the kick? Should I be playing more or fewer notes? Is my tone sitting well? Should I be playing near the neck or toward the back pickups? When should I play in a lower/higher octave? All these things go into being a good bassist. Most of these are things that Jeff doesn't have to consider because he plays bass as if it were four saxophones playing at the same time.

 

[bigmoosepi]

beethoven was deaf.

/thread

 

[unclejane]

Most of these are things that Jeff doesn't have to consider because he plays bass as if it were four saxophones playing at the same time.

c'mon TB we need that "like" button, let's get with the program here....

LS

 

[Jeff Bonny]

Unclejane, you are probably right about Jeff's intent. My problem is that if that's what he means, he needs to be clear about it. As a respected educator, he is giving a lot of people the wrong idea by being vague and painting all things with a big brush: "Metronomes are bad", "listening is not needed", etc.

His apparent lack of clarity hasn't hurt me. After I first heard Jeff talking about the evils of the metronome I spent about ten years thinking about it inventing different ways of using click and not using it trying to figure out what in the great wide **** this lunatic was talking about. Eventually I came to the conclusion that practice with a metronome for me has been useful in some very specific ways but not in the non-specific "always practice with click" way I was taught as a beginner. So if you wanted to badly oversimplify my position you'd say I disagree with him. Even if that were true (which it mostly isn't) what I learned through the long effort of trying to understand his perspective of time is a significant part of the player I am now. I have great time and feel.

When you say he's "painting all things with a big brush" and misquote him saying, "listening is not needed" I wonder what distracted you when you were watching that video? I'm not intending to be at all snide here...I just don't understand what you actually heard him saying. And although I'm quoting you I could be asking this of several posters here. A few things I clearly heard were:

"Listening is overstated in one particular respect: it does not solve your musical problems."

"Listening to your fellow musician does not fix the difficulties that we have as players."

"Built into the learning how to play better format is listening."

"Make sure you listen to your musicians when you play."

"Don't forget to listen."

I certainly did not hear him saying in any way shape or form "don't listen". Far from it. What I heard was that listening is extremely important but not something you need to "work" on much less obsess over. That listening is not the "lesson" that some pedagogists would like to sell you.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Unclejane, you are probably right about Jeff's intent. My problem is that if that's what he means, he needs to be clear about it. As a respected educator, he is giving a lot of people the wrong idea by being vague and painting all things with a big brush: "Metronomes are bad", "listening is not needed", etc.

You can say that again!

========================

One of the most important things I learned, about learning, is that you need to be able to decipher what is and isn't important to you. Take what you can use and discard the rest, but always keep an open ear and open mind to ideas you come across (including the ones you don't agree with initially).

Personally, I can see what Mr. Berlin is saying, but I likewise think he's painting with far too broad a brush. Before I ever picked up a bass I had listened to basslines in songs. I had, unintentionally, been studying them and figuring out their role in the context of a whole band. While this didn't help my technical proficiency on the instrument initially after picking it up, it did help me understand what I needed to be able to do if I were to become a successful bass player within a group. Had I not listened to bassists before then and were given a bass at random and asked to make something of any real musical worth or merit I can't say I would have been able to, but because I had something to go off of and work towards I was able to play in my first band as a bassist within (no joke) 4 months of picking up the instruments. I can't say I was any good or that the band ever did anything even slightly noteworthy, but I was still in a band and was fulfilling the function of a bassist as well as my technical limits would let me. And you know what, I had a lot of fun doing it Again, I get what Mr. Berlin is saying, but I think his statement will only confuse novice players and make them think that there is little need to listen to what is truly musical and focus far too much on the technicality of the instrument.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Since these are Mr. Berlin's quotes I hope you don't take personal offense towards any retorts I make in regards to them

"Listening is overstated in one particular respect: it does not solve your musical problems."

But it very well can. If I'm beginning to learn how to solo and I find myself not creating anything musical, despite having a decent enough grasp on theory (this happened to me), it would be VERY beneficial to listen to players who I'd like to solo like, transcribe what they're playing, and then study what they've done. That first step depends upon listening.

"Listening to your fellow musician does not fix the difficulties that we have as players."

From a physical or technical standpoint this is right, but from a musical standpoint this is far from true. For example, let's say I've been recruited to play in a reggae band. I go to the first rehearsal and fall flat on my face because I'm not positive how exactly reggae bass is played. Would it not be beneficial to listen to some reggae band so that I better understand the style? Furthermore, would listening to your fellow players not help you figure out where you fit in in the musical context?

*note that quotes 1 and 2 are very similar and can be tackled by rather similar answers*

"Built into the learning how to play better format is listening."

That's what my arguments were to the first two quotes.

"Make sure you listen to your musicians when you play."

Let's tie these last two together.

"Don't forget to listen."

So listening is overrated as a problem solver to any musical difficulty a player comes across, but a musician still needs to listen. I think that's a fair summary of what he's trying to say, but like other members I think he states his argument in a way that will confuse a less experienced musician.

I certainly did not hear him saying in any way shape or form "don't listen". Far from it. What I heard was that listening is extremely important but not something you need to "work" on much less obsess over. That listening is not the "lesson" that some pedagogists would like to sell you.

I guess we have different ears. We can listen to the same piece of music and walk away with different thoughts and feelings on it, just like we can listen to a person's perspective and walk away with different thoughts and feelings on it

 

[unclejane]

From a physical or technical standpoint this is right, but from a musical standpoint this is far from true. For example, let's say I've been recruited to play in a reggae band. I go to the first rehearsal and fall flat on my face because I'm not positive how exactly reggae bass is played. Would it not be beneficial to listen to some reggae band so that I better understand the style? Furthermore, would listening to your fellow players not help you figure out where you fit in in the musical context?

To jump in one more time, IMO this is also a very good criticism; if we were all together in the room, this would be a good point to raise.

One thing JB does write from time to time that may explain his POV on this is his general opposition to DIY. That is, he tends to discourage teaching yourself how to play and instead encourages working with a teacher/instructor instead. Not surprising, being devoted to music education as he is.

But under this more traditional attitude, getting good instruction is generally superior to DIY when it comes to the "academics" of music (I think of it as the "craft" of music). Again, that's totally distinct from "art", which basically can't be taught - the subject is the craft, or academics, of music only. So it's not strange to hear him say that simply "listening" in the banal sense he's reacting to won't help you learn to play better.

I've been on the opposite end of education my entire adult life - the learning business rather than teaching - and I can definitely report that formal instruction from qualified persons definitely trumps DIY in many cases. Learning to fly an airplane, for example, basically requires formal instruction rather than DIY (for obvious reasons).

Looking at my bass playing, all of it acquired through DIY, the results are clearly a mixed bag. I don't gig anymore due to injuries and hearing damage, but if I did have professional aspirations, getting formal instruction to round off the edges would pretty much be mandatory for me. Some things I can do ok, but a lot of what I do is a real mess - eg. playing with facility over chord changes? FAIL.. lol....

OTOH, you have POV's like Billy Sheehan - he actually won't show guys how to play many of his parts because in his view that deprives them of the experience of learning them themselves. So to him, DIY is actually critical and a desirable experience in learning how to play.

So JB would probably have a better explanation for his remarks here, but that's how I interpret them based on what else I've studied of what he says.

LS