Question about Oscar Peterson’s Humming

[Matthew_84]

So, anyone who's listened to the jazz pianist, Oscar Peterson, is probably well aware of him dee-dee-dee'ing aloud while soloing (and this isn't a knock at OP - the OP Trio is by far my favourite jazz group).

I always understood this was sort of a way to help him convert his musical thoughts to his playing. I have also seen it recommended to new students of jazz or soloing, as well as to just sing along to the notes you are playing so you can help enforce this bond.

my assumption though (and I'm pretty sure how the advice goes) is that you're supposed to be singing/humming along in tune, as accurately as possible...

I was listening to a new-to-me OP recording today and the mic was picking up his humming much louder than usual and it occurred to me that (on this recording anyway) a lot of his vocalizations weren't the same notes.

I have a terrible voice (or control over my voice) and abysmal range - like, maybe 15 notes, just a few notes more than an octave, in the bass range; so I've never hummed along because I thought I would be making matters worse by not humming along perfectly (like I was crossing the wires or something).

Obviously that's not the case for OP because he was no slouch, but would humming along inaccurately be harmful or is still better than not humming at all?

 

[AGCurry]

I suspect that Peterson was not conscious of his humming - that it was a "side effect," a kind of tic, of his playing. The fingers come first, then the vocal sounds.

 

[bass12]

That kind of vocalizing is not uncommon. I haven't listened to a lot of Oscar Peterson but I never noticed the humming on what I have listened to. I have noticed it on Ahmad Jamal recordings and with Glen Gould (for example). A little bit is unlikely to bother me but at a certain point I find it very distracting. I can also accept it a bit more within jazz than I can within classical music.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Keith Jarrett was known for making insanely weird sounds while he played. Sort of like the Tasmanian devil in the Looney tunes cartoon. I don't think it has much to do with actually vocalizing what he's playing, in the way that George Benson tends to. It's more like just an artifact.

 

[BrotherMister]

It helps with phrasing. Piano players, like bass and guitar players, can just hit note after note after note after note after note after note after note after note after note after note after note are you bored yet? after note after note after note after note after note after note I'm bored myself after note after note after note after note because out instruments don't require our breath to actually produce the sound. We can basically just keeping wiggling our fingers which have a lot more stamina in them than our lungs. But as a result the music isn't particularly great to listen to for the majority of people.

Now listen to a Trumpet, Sax, Clarinet, Trombone or any instrument where the musician produces the sound with their breathing and listen to how they phrase things. They are forced to take breathes and as a result play more phrases, even sax players like Sonny Rollins or John Coltrane who can take really lengthy solos and have chops for days still balance it out by the fact they are limited by lung capacity.

 

[consectaneus]

This thread reminds me of something I read in "Metaphors For The Musician--Perspectives From A Jazz Pianist" by Randy Halberstadt (Sher Music Co.) I'm just throwing it out there for another viewpoint.

Don't Sing While You Play.

I've heard the rationales several times: Singing while you improvise will develop your melodic sensibilities. Because you have to breathe, you'll develop a natural sense of phrasing. You'll play more natural lines, like a scat singer. Not to mention, a lot of people think it's cool. (After all, George Benson was a big hit when he did it.) Even Keith Jarrett does it.

Well, sorry, but I don't buy it. I find that someone who sings while he improvises is playing first and singing second ; that is, the notes are coming out just as they would without the singing. The voice is simply getting pulled along. In many cases, the player is not even singing coherent pitches but only the general outline of what he's playing more clearly on his instrument. So singing doesn't develop your melodic concept because it doesn't change what you play in the first place. It's an add-on.

But what if I'm wrong? What if you decide that you really are singing first and playing second and that you really can improve your phrasing by singing? Then I need to warn you that if you sing and play at the same time the two behaviors will become permanently linked. You won't be able to play your instrument without singing along. You may have originally intended to sing only as a practice method , but suddenly you 'll find it showing up on your gigs, in your recording sessions, as you accompany singers-everywhere!

The solution is simple. When you practice, sing the sound first. Then go back and play it. This way you know that your voice is leading your instrument and not the other way around. You'll reap in all the benefits to your note choice and phrasing, and since you never sing and play at the same time there's no threat of linkage.

Are you wondering why I am so adamant about this, why I feel so strongly? Because I sing when I play. I've tried to stop, but my best efforts have met with only partial success. It's a bad habit, and I'd get rid of it in a second if I could. Don't do what I did.

 

[Rhythmman535]

If you can sing it you can play it. This just helps to validate that the music is internalized.

 

[LBS-bass]

It's a bad habit that's taught by some instructors to get players to conceptualize the notes they want to hear come out of their instruments. I don't know if it's taught so much nowadays, but some people seem to take it on subconsciously as a sort of accompaniment to their playing and never stop doing it. I find it incredibly annoying.