• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING

I'm so glad that quite a few TB members were able to decipher that very long and emotional OP's posting.
It's about bashing Classical Music, you stup... WUTP.

Not at all bashing classical music or classical musicians. I even said that they "allegedly" can't improvise ("allegedly" in quotes because that is what OTHER, many other people, say and I don't agree). I gave many other props to them. Maybe they can't improvise jazz but they can improvise. Decipher again.

My emotional posting comes from my experience in learning to follow the dots as a kid, and my subsequent learning of popular music on bass without really developing my ear and that neglect of ear has been a huge handicap.
 
I love everything from rock/punk to free jazz to opera to Harry Partch to what-have-you; I don't expect the same things from each type of music. I believe that jazz players that aren't improvising aren't taking enough chances, but in the context of an orchestra, if several dozen musicians are playing their interpretations of a score it's going to be chaos (which in a different context might be fine). I've never been an orchestra member, but from an audience member's point of view, the only person that has the right to interpret the score is the conductor, and every other musician has the duty to follow his/her direction. A good conductor will make the orchestra breathe and perform as one entity, and support the singers that are themselves putting their all into what Puccini or Verdi has put in front of them (often leaving me in tears). The magic would be destroyed if in the middle of "Un bel di" one of the trumpet players decided to improvise for eight measures.

As for classical music being dead, I invite anyone to examine some of the recordings by one of my current faves, cellist Maya Beiser, who gleefully ignores genre boundaries and moves effortlessly between classical, experimental, ethnic, rock, etc. She at times commissions new compositions. She has an amazing TED Talk performance (my introduction to her) that is well worth looking up, where she plays along with multi-tracked recordings of herself, one being a Steve Reich composition.

Invalid Link Removed
 
I was lucky enough to be born into a very musical family and have pretty good ears....I would agree that its a pretty important skill to have in a diverse local scene. I am not a full time musician, nor can i really read written notes(Chord charts yes). However I am regularly called upon to do fill in work in my area because most folks know that Im prepared, show up on time/early, have a good sound and can learn on the spot and/or adapt quickly to whatever they are doing.....it also helps to have a good singing voice:).
 
It's one thing to not prefer classical (or any other genre) relative to others, but to denigrate music history, especially the lineage from which our modern forms of Western music emerged, is a bit dangerous to proper thinking and respect for the music one does enjoy.

Classical music had its zenith, and was a product of its times and place in history. Imagine when the pianoforte and related period string instruments were the cutting edge music tech of the time!

IMO the western music composers of the last few hundred years have left some enduring examples of sonic beauty. They are very much open to interpretation - not necessarily with notes and rhythms (although that exists) but more with phrasing, dynamics, articulation, tempo, and other expressive elements.

I'm fine with differing aesthetic opinions. Our culture needs them! But please, have respect for history and ones musical ancestors.
 
Last edited:
not readily able to recognize that there are many similarities in so many songs. A good ear fixes all of that.

It's not your ear but your ability to recognize patterns that allows you to "memorize" music. You're confusing "a good ear" with certain cognitive processes that are used for things beyond music. Pattern recognition and a process known as "chunking" is what most musicians use. Learn once - use for many, assuming you're able to recognize it.

I don't know of any musician who remembers a piece of music by thinking: "first play an A and then a D and then an E..." the way you seem to be implying people memorize music. Human memory doesn't work in a neat linear fashion like that. It's more like a sports playbook. There are there are overarching or meta strategies combined with groups of easily memorized sequences which can be combined in a large number of different combinations, recalled by certain markers or keyphrases. That's why when a bandleader signals "bring it down" or says "take it home guys!" a good band knows exactly what to do as well as what they can expect other band members to do. They don't take out a piano roll and plug it into their heads first.
 
It's one thing to not prefer classical (or any other genre) relative to others, but to denigrate music history, especially the lineage from which our modern forms of Western music emerged, is a bit dangerous to proper thinking and respect for the music one does enjoy.

Classical music had its zenith, and was a product of its times and place in history. Imagine when the pianoforte and related period string instruments were the cutting edge music tech of the time!

IMO the western music composers of the last few hundred years have left some enduring examples of sonic beauty. They are very much open to interpretation - not necessarily with notes and rhythms (although that exists) but more with phrasing, dynamics, articulation, tempo, and other expressive elements.

I'm fine with differing aesthetic opinions. Our culture needs them! But please, have respect for history and ones musical ancestors.

If you grew up in the '60s you'd have been treated to people like Yehudi Menuhin and Isaac Stern getting their share of shots in on jazz and rock music. Or later on, when it became clear it wasn't just a passing phenomenon (in their own minds), you'd get the occasional condescending faint praise such as: "You know...some of these guitarists are actual musicians - who can read music!"

It took people like Arthur Fiedler, Yo-Yo Ma, and Andre Rieu (and maybe Leonard Bernstein) to bring classical music to the masses and attempt to strip away some of the clubby elitism that's plagued that genre since the late 1800's when it was co-opted as the music of the self-proclaimed educated, privileged and monied. So if people are not inclined to listen to classical music, a part of that was brought on by the classical music establishment (and it is an establishment, which you probably already know if you've ever performed any) itself. It was virtually a private club in many places. It's only been fairly recently that the classical world has made a much more serious and genuine effort (as opposed to the previous noblesse oblige) to reach out and become a more inclusive and welcoming music genre.

I happen to really like classical music and was in a few classical ensembles in the past. But I don't generally like most of the self-nominated "classical music" crowd. Or many of the organizations that promote it.

But that's me, eternally a Child of the Counterculture. :cool:;):rolleyes: I'm sure there are others who see it differently. :thumbsup:
 
It's not your ear but your ability to recognize patterns that allows you to "memorize" music. You're confusing "a good ear" with certain cognitive processes that are used for things beyond music. Pattern recognition and a process known as "chunking" is what most musicians use. Learn once - use for many, assuming you're able to recognize it.

I don't know of any musician who remembers a piece of music by thinking: "first play an A and then a D and then an E..." the way you seem to be implying people memorize music. Human memory doesn't work in a neat linear fashion like that. It's more like a sports playbook. There are there are overarching or meta strategies combined with groups of easily memorized sequences which can be combined in a large number of different combinations, recalled by certain markers or keyphrases. That's why when a bandleader signals "bring it down" or says "take it home guys!" a good band knows exactly what to do as well as what they can expect other band members to do. They don't take out a piano roll and plug it into their heads first.

I am familiar with that of which you speak and I chunk stuff all of the time. Unfortunately for the musician in me it is numbers and visual things and not pitch.

I didn't say anything akin to any good musician thinking "first play an A and then a D..." Of course you are right, no great musician does that. What they do, however, is hear a pitch or series of pitches in their mind and then translate that to their instrument (so I must add, lest I be misinterpreted again, that the physical aspect of learning an instrument and where the pitches are is a really good idea, to say the least). Yes, even some/most good musicians "cheat" and fall back on common patterns that they might have physically chunked but the truly creative stuff that comes out is that which they first hear in their minds and then play it.

If I can't hear/identify a 5th below the root in my mind then each time I am learning a song by ear, each occurring 5th is a new thing to figure out as if I've never heard it before. The extreme of this would be tone-deafness. The milder version which I am addressing is simply and undeveloped or "not good" ear. Is the bassist approaching the root from a 5th below? a minor third below? a M2 below? A m2 below? This happens to me all of the time. If one has a good ear, one doesn't guess, one knows/can hear that it's a fifth below. Sure, I can find and play an approach note that works anytime but I frequently hear things wrong or akin to dyslexia- I'll think it's a P5 below but it's really a m3 below or I will reverse the notes. That's not a good ear. Now how is one supposed to be truly creative if their mind's ear can't even feed him/her pitches correctly? Just like some genius said something like "if you can't hear it then don't play it" [because then it's just BS]. Even I can disagree with that because there are a lot of people who have made great music with patterns that they can't even sing back because they don't truly hear the notes in their mind. I'm no purist, I don't care. But if one can hear and hear with the mind's ear accurately then one is much better off for it. I don't care what you call it but everyb great musician that I know personally, and most of the guys who talk about such stuff, calls that a good or developed ear. Now, before you fight back with further hair-splitting tactics, remember that all of this post was in reply to your false premise that I suggested that anybody with any skill is thinking "first play an A and then a D..." and/or that I was addressing only memorization. Before memorization of cover tunes comes hearing the notes accurately and, if you want to be efficient, quickly. A good ear helps greatly.
 
If you grew up in the '60s you'd have been treated to people like Yehudi Menuhin and Isaac Stern getting their share of shots in on jazz and rock music. Or later on, when it became clear it wasn't just a passing phenomenon (in their own minds), you'd get the occasional condescending faint praise such as: "You know...some of these guitarists are actual musicians - who can read music!"

It took people like Arthur Fiedler, Yo-Yo Ma, and Andre Rieu (and maybe Leonard Bernstein) to bring classical music to the masses and attempt to strip away some of the clubby elitism that's plagued that genre since the late 1800's when it was co-opted as the music of the self-proclaimed educated, privileged and monied. So if people are not inclined to listen to classical music, a part of that was brought on by the classical music establishment (and it is an establishment, which you probably already know if you've ever performed any) itself. It was virtually a private club in many places. It's only been fairly recently that the classical world has made a much more serious and genuine effort (as opposed to the previous noblesse oblige) to reach out and become a more inclusive and welcoming music genre.

I happen to really like classical music and was in a few classical ensembles in the past. But I don't generally like most of the self-nominated "classical music" crowd. Or many of the organizations that promote it.

But that's me, eternally a Child of the Counterculture. :cool:;):rolleyes: I'm sure there are others who see it differently. :thumbsup:

I agree that that the 'stuffiness' and reactionary attitude present in some the classical music world is problematic. It's certainly evident in the number of orchestras that have gone bankrupt recently, which pains me to see happening.

I was not familiar with Stern's and Menuhin's takes on contemporary music but I certainly have encountered others who feel superior because they are self-proclaimed 'classical' musicians. Such a reactionary slant seems counterpoint (no pun intended) to those who eschew the establishment in the name of innovation. Both attitudes smack self-servingly and closed-mindedly to me and neither seem ideal.

But that is just me. I was lucky to receive a pretty well rounded music education than ran from classical to jazz to contemporary music and I see the connections between all of these genres. Down in the 'engine room' so to speak I see and especially hear lot more in common than not.

Classical harmony to me is the foundation to understanding jazz harmony. To return to the OPs statement about the importance of having a good ear as an invaluable asset - I built my ear on classical training before applying it to jazz and contemporary music. Perhaps there is a better way to learn fundamentals, but personally, the aural and theoretical, not to mention technical foundation I got was thorough and crucial in helping me understand how to walk and solo on changes.

Again, I don't take issue with with anyone who wants to evolve beyond that, but to put it another way - let us not forget where we came from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whousedtoplay
How did "you've gotta have good ears" end up in a discussion about classical music?

I had the pleasure of playing a church service a few weeks ago with acoustic guitar, trumpet, cajon, Cello, keyboards, and me on bass. A mishmash if I ever I ran into one, and...it worked.

The cellist could play classical music (memorized -his warm up was decidedly clasical and defintely memorized), and he also had great ears, and improvised well. So there - classical and creativity can co-exist, and thrive, and have good ears. Did I miss anything?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killed_by_Death
Again, I don't take issue with with anyone who wants to evolve beyond that, but to put it another way - let us not forget where we came from.

No argument from me on that or any of the other points you've made. I've got a fairly well rounded self-education in world music history. Something that came easy for me because I simply like music. Pretty much all of it. I'm at home with everything from Early Renaissance and Medieval consorts to Harry Partch's self-invented musical universe. Bulgarian women's choir, Balinese Gamelan, Ragas, Plain Chant, the Beatles, Moondog, Motown, Bebop - I love it all.

And I will agree with you that those with narrower tastes and very specific likes aren't the the problem. What is a problem are the narrow-minded sectarians - no matter which musical altar and creed they subscribe to.

And to be fair, the more popular music genres have their share of those, just as much as the classical music world does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scott Lynch
How did "you've gotta have good ears" end up in a discussion about classical music?
.
.
So there - classical and creativity can co-exist, and thrive, and have good ears. Did I miss anything?

Nope. You didn't miss anything.

You just avoided getting bogged down in semantic hairsplitting and clarfications and re-clarifications as a few people gradually come to the realization they're saying much the same thing - only expressing it using different terms and conceptual frameworks.

In short, the typical sort of music discussion that goes on at TB. ;):roflmao:
 
Oh, but many classically trained musicians can improvise. I can, as well as my buds I studied with in college. Some can blow your socks off. Many of us are in jazz groups, rock bands, bar bands, etc. However, at least one of my professors could not. Inexplicable to me.

Ear training is important, yes. But also learning basic theory on top of having a good ear is where it's really at.
 
The best ear training comes when you are a child. Mine began as soon as I could sit in my mother's lap and mess with the piano. There is a place in the brain that develops according to exposure to lots of music. As we age it gets harder to develop. I spent hours as kid messing with the piano for the love of it. No lessons. By age eight I could pick out songs I had heard on the radio or my mother's records. I knew major from minor, and the like, although I had no names for them. The keyboard also gave me a visual reference by which to recognize patterns. By age thirteen I taught myself guitar, purely by ear based on what my ear had learned. It was then that I started learning basic theory, including reading. No lessons, just own my own. That resulted in an explosion of my musical learning curve. It's all the reason I can ride around in my truck listening to a song and then go home and just play it.

To those of you having a tough time with ear training I say just keep at it. The more time you put into it, the better it will get. Whether some folks have a better propensity for it, I cannot say. But it can be learned. I was fortunate that at an early age I was obsessed with playing and listening intensely. I eventually went on to major in music in college, playing classical upright bass. I played six years in an orchestra later while also playing guitar professionally full time for awhile and semi-pro ever since, including as an electric bassist in many diverse bands.

You can do it. Don't give up. And do learn some theory basics. You'll be surprised.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ant Illington
How did "you've gotta have good ears" end up in a discussion about classical music?

I had the pleasure of playing a church service a few weeks ago with acoustic guitar, trumpet, cajon, Cello, keyboards, and me on bass. A mishmash if I ever I ran into one, and...it worked.

The cellist could play classical music (memorized -his warm up was decidedly clasical and defintely memorized), and he also had great ears, and improvised well. So there - classical and creativity can co-exist, and thrive, and have good ears. Did I miss anything?

Yes, you missed something important. The original post was about not neglecting ear development. Classical music was later inserted into discussion when somebody misinterpreted my post, in some state of delusion, as a bash against classical music. I think it was whousedtoplay.
 
Most of the harmony we use in Western Civilization comes from classical music. When I was a kid I would get out mama's classical records and listen with my eyes closed, and imagine. It would take me places. I don't like it all, but works like these would really take me away:

Adagio For Strings, Samuel Barber
From the New World, Antonin Dvorak
Scheherazade, Rimsky-Korsakov
The Firebird Suite, Igor Stravinsky

And more. Adagio For Strings is the very slow music used in the movie, Platoon. Ever really listened to the Nutcracker, by Tchaikovsky, when you were young?

Try listening sometime. The beautiful stuff from the Romantic Period can touch your heart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scott Lynch
As usual, it's WUTP's fault. :banghead: :roflmao:

Let's look in this thread and find WUTP's fault about starting that "bashing Classical Music" stuff. drool :hyper:


Post#:4


Post#:6


Post#:7


Post#:8


Post#:13


Post#:14


Dear Ant Illington,

It's all good at TB.

You conveniently left out your post (#16) where you imply that the original post is bashing classical music once it is "decipher[ed]." Again, it absolutely was not. I was trained classically on another instrument. I like classical. In my post I even call out the "can't improvise" myth so often hung on classical musicians. You're just a pot stirrer here. If people want to disagree with the value of the ear, fine. But to just pot stir with misrepresentations and trolling, I don't know how TB turns a blind eye to you.

See below for your trolling post:

I'm so glad that quite a few TB members were able to decipher that very long and emotional OP's posting.
It's about bashing Classical Music, you stup... WUTP.