Learning by ear and making mistakes vs reading transcription

[nadroj]

I finally started transcribing a part of a well known section in a well known fusion piece that I've been meaning to do for years. When I say transcribing I really mean just slowing it down and learning it by ear - not writing it down.

 

The particular passage is filled with some tasty gospel/neo-soul chords, and as I tried to work it out I kept hearing new things after every loop.

 

I did the first little section then out of curiosity decided to look up the sheet music from a professional transcription, just to see how I did. I was way off. The professional one instantly sounded like the track. Mines did a bit until I played it the right way; now mines sounds nothing like the track.

 

So my dilemma; I'm learning this because I want to understand how he reharmed it, and how the notes work over the wider chord progression (which is actually very simple) and to train my ear.

 

My question to the wisdom of the forum: Which is better for the development of my ear and understanding:

 

Learn the professionally transcribed version by reading it and then examine it to understand what's going on behind the notes

 

OR

 

Continue to work it out slowly by ear all the while knowing I'm doing it wrong, but am nevertheless training my ear to work out what's being played?

[BbAltered]

Well, there are certainly advantages to the work of listening and trying to figure out by ear what the performer played. As you are finding out, this work can take a long time and be tedious, and that is why professionals can make a little money selling transcriptions of the work. I'm told our ability to do our own transcribing improves with practice, tho' I guess I have never done enough transcribing to see my own abilities improve.

 

The danger of course is when you fail to take the time or care to check your work against the original for mistakes. Then whatever training your ear gets is wrong.

 

For the purpose of "understand how he reharmed it, and how the notes work over the chord progression", a transcription will work fine.

 

For your own education, transcribing the work yourself is great if you have the patience, dedication, and take enough care to do it correctly.

[bennyray]

For me playing by ear is much more natural sounding and also gives you a sense of confidence that when you hear a song you can play the parts without having to depend on music or someone's help.

 

Sometimes a player that can only read music sounds very stale and mechanical sounding versus a player that depends on his ear is much more versatile and tends to flow with the music better. Being able to do both is really is the best alternative but it takes time.

 

Many times sheet music is just wrong and if you have the ear you can hear the difference but that is your choice ultimately. However some of the best players play only by ear. I know sometimes I overthink parts and in the end it's pretty simple if you play with your ears instead of your eyes.

[Losendoskeys]

For me playing by ear is much more natural sounding and also gives you a sense of confidence that when you hear a song you can play the parts without having to depend on music or someone's help.

 

Sometimes a player that can only read music sounds very stale and mechanical sounding versus a player that depends on his ear is much more versatile and tends to flow with the music better. Being able to do both is really is the best alternative but it takes time.

 

Many times sheet music is just wrong and if you have the ear you can hear the difference but that is your choice ultimately. However some of the best players play only by ear. I know sometimes I overthink parts and in the end it's pretty simple if you play with your ears instead of your eyes.

This ^^

Although I'm biased = I don't read music - I do find that when I watch bands reading music it often sounds "clunky" - they are not flowing as I would expect. It also depends on whether they have rehearsed I think!

[Song80s]

I am with Benny on this.

 

I have a good ear ( not great) for learning new music. 95% of my material

is original.

 

With a cover song( I will do a few), the key for me, in breaking it down , is to slow it down. I mean S-L-O-W. I use Audacity for this process.

 

I also found that having a sense of harmony is important.

 

I use sheet music only when I absolutely have to. Errors are common, and it does

not cover extended inversions or extended 6 to 8 note (chord) placement on 88 keys.

This important voicing seems to get squashed.

 

I think a keyboardist should identify his strengths and capitalize on that . Then lean on other resources to supplement in order to get a final result.

[Outkaster]

For me playing by ear is much more natural sounding and also gives you a sense of confidence that when you hear a song you can play the parts without having to depend on music or someone's help.

 

Sometimes a player that can only read music sounds very stale and mechanical sounding versus a player that depends on his ear is much more versatile and tends to flow with the music better. Being able to do both is really is the best alternative but it takes time.

 

Many times sheet music is just wrong and if you have the ear you can hear the difference but that is your choice ultimately. However some of the best players play only by ear. I know sometimes I overthink parts and in the end it's pretty simple if you play with your ears instead of your eyes.

 

I fall into this category as well. I think it depends on how good your ear is given what you are born with. I think also developing instincts helps.

[Al Quinn]

I've learned much more through transcribing by ear. It's a much more intimate experience than reading a transcription and there's so much that can't be notated (e.g, vibe, attitude, articulation, playing ahead of or behind the beat). Sometimes it take me a long time to accurately transcribe something seemingly simple because there's so much nuance to it. And the ear training is really beneficial.

 

Having said that I think written transcriptions are good for practicing sight reading, for learning performances that are too difficult to transcribe (e.g., I struggle with dense voicings), and to check your own transcriptions (as you did).

[Josh Paxton]

I think the best approach is to do exactly what you did: transcribe it yourself, and then check your work against an accurate transcription if one exists (and of course that's a big "if"). That way you learn the tune, and you learn what you did wrong, so your ear improves in the process.

 

BTW, a lot of professional, published sheet music transcriptions are done by guys just sitting at home working it out like you did, who have just done it enough to get good at it. I know this because I have been one of them.

[Theo Verelst]

Hi, there's another side to this: the production. A good fusion production most likely will contain a lot of tricks chosen from a palette of possibly stacked chords, multiple keyboard tracks of the same instrument, rock mic tricks like putting all notes in a scale except the played notes as a pattern on the limiter effect, preparation of keyboard parts for proper reverberation, which can have tuned elements that sound like a part of the chord, and also, some instruments favor certain chord elements by their nature, which makes it harder to distinguish played and intended notes.

 

T

[hardware]

If you write it out yourself youve saved thousands as thats whats taught in Theory & Comp.

I woodshedded Yes, Mahavishnu and ELP since there was no sheet music at that time.

Years later in college we did Charley Parker solos.

Both are equally important.

[Threadslayer]

Sometimes a player that can only read music sounds very stale and mechanical sounding versus a player that depends on his ear is much more versatile and tends to flow with the music better. Being able to do both is really is the best alternative but it takes time.

- I do find that when I watch bands reading music it often sounds "clunky" - they are not flowing as I would expect.

I think this, at least in part, is because it is so damned hard to capture rhythmic nuance and complex counterpoint in standard music notation. I know it is for me at least. I've always been pretty good at picking out harmony, but painstakingly subdividing the beat to get precisely the right timing relationships is a lot of work and usually ends up looking like flypaper - at least it does when I do it. The automated computer transcribing tools typically have a quantization variable that you can set to get rid of the dotted 64th notes and bizarre ties and rests, but if someone just sits down and plays to that score without being familiar with the song, it is going to sound off.

[JazzPiano88]

I think the best approach is to do exactly what you did: transcribe it yourself, and then check your work against an accurate transcription if one exists (and of course that's a big "if"). That way you learn the tune, and you learn what you did wrong, so your ear improves in the process.

That's exactly what I would recommend as well. Writing down the transcription is really tedious but it gets faster and easier with practice.

 

Another benefit from improving your ear is that if you venture into composition or doing your own reharms, your ability to play and write down what you hear in your mind comes easier.

[steve campito]

I play by ear, I can read but find most charts usually have mistakes. I work with musicians that can only read and when we get to a part that doesn't sound right I will stop playing and bring it to their attention (rehearsal only). Both sides have their pro's and con's especially if you're subbing and the leader gives you sheet music and you never heard the tune before. 70% of my gigs are fill-ins and most of the time they are playing the same tunes everyone does. All I ask is what song, and what key. The cats that don't play by ear would be lost. Just saying!

[timwat]

There are some things you never learn well without maintaining the discipline to write it down.

 

And if there is another transcription to gut-check your work, this is always useful...even if the other TX isn't 100% accurate either.

 

I would suggest keeping in mind (if you aren't already) that in many ways the work of TX is closely related to ear training, and theory. All three share in common the pursuit of the answer to "Why does this sound like this?" or "What is it about this that I dig?"

 

And those answers to those questions become fuel for growth in my own playing as I incorporate ways of approaching, methods of viewing (or however you want to put it) similar musical situations - ways that those ahead of us did.

 

Back to your original observation - when you say "I was way off" - in what ways were you way off? Is there a common denominator to most of your mistakes?

 

Did you misplace root movement? Chord quality? Important extensions that were prominent in the voicings? The answers to those questions help identify where you do better the next time, and a qualified teacher might be able to show good exercises to buttress up those areas quickly.

 

[Bobadohshe]

I think straining to learn it yourself even if you make errors is invaluable.

[ElmerJFudd]

I'm working on a set list today to accompany a singer. Need to bang out 15 tunes quick. I mainly focus on getting the bass line right, then the chords, and then the exact voicing of the chords (if unusual, I'll notate, if typical, not so much). It usually starts as a lead sheet with chord symbols, then if there are important lines/melodies/licks I want to make sure I memorize (or can read if we don't do the tune often enough), that gets notated too.

[bennyray]

I think straining to learn it yourself even if you make errors is invaluable.

 

Agree time and the straining to figure out parts will pay off in the long run.

[MathOfInsects]

I think straining to learn it yourself even if you make errors is invaluable.

 

^^^^

 

Though I think there are some situation-specific considerations. If you have to learn something ASAP for a gig, like, TONIGHT, there is something to be said for the cost-vs.-benefit of finding it already transcribed, then using your ear to confirm that it's correct. (So, an inversion of the process you did.)

 

I also think there's no downside to getting as close as you can and using sources for the "what the hell are those chords" chords (or notes), particularly if you were going to have to go trial and error to find it anyway. (That is, once you're not using your ear, but just poking stuff until you chance upon the right note, you are not learning anything more from doing that than you'd learn from someone just telling you the note. Either way you'll get to use that knowledge next time.)

 

There are also player-specific considerations. I'm not a fan of the one-size-fits-all, music-as-competitive-sport school of performance. Whatever helps you learn something or play something better is fair game in my opinion. Not everyone learns the same way, which means that one man's "ear all the way" is another man's "Now that I see it written out I understand what's happening."

[Paul Harrison]

I think straining to learn it yourself even if you make errors is invaluable.

 

Agree time and the straining to figure out parts will pay off in the long run.

 

+1

 

I use Transcribe! to analyse songs, and MuseScore to chart them.

 

Transcribe! has a free trial, and MuseScore is free. Both are powerful but easy to learn and use. Transcribe! not only makes it easy to slow down the music and to loop anything from a single note to a whole phrase but also has an EQ function for focusing in on particular instruments and also does quite well at guessing individual notes and chords.

 

The more transcribing you do, the more your "ear" develops and the faster and easier it becomes.

[I-missRichardTee]

Seems pretty unanimous. I would add; just the sheer fact of playing what you hear is the bulk of what I try to do since a boy.

Most people talk about harmony , but the ability to hear single lines, or dual lines, is a life long pursuit, that goes way beyond copying a famous fusion piece.

Ear all the way.

[bfields]

Transcribe! has a free trial, and MuseScore is free. Both are powerful but easy to learn and use.

 

Just curious--how has MuseScore worked out for you? How quickly can you get a transcription entered in? If you need it to use it on a gig, do you use MuseScore or export to pdf first (paper or tablet)? If you want to take notes in rehearsal, do you enter them directly into MuseScore, or write on a pdf copy, or something else?

 

I mostly use pencil and manuscript paper, but I've also been experimenting with stylus-and-tablet (but again just writing notation & stuff freehand, not using notation software). For some songs I end up with something that looks like a Realbook lead sheet, for most it's much rougher notes. (List of section names ("Verse; pre-chorus; chorus; Verse 2; Bridge; guitar solo on Verse structure...") with brief outline of chord progression of each section, interspersed with snippets of notation where I want to remember some signature keyboard part.)

[Paul Harrison]

Transcribe! has a free trial, and MuseScore is free. Both are powerful but easy to learn and use.

 

... how has MuseScore worked out for you? ...

 

MuseScore works great for me. Note entry can be done using MIDI keyboard, mouse, or PC keyboard (which is what I do). Simple one-page lead sheets with a melody line and chord symbols take only a few minutes to put together. Complex multi-page charts with multiple staves and lyrics take a bit longer.

 

I print my charts to both PDF and paper. I keep the PDF copies in MobileSheets (which makes them easy to organize into setlists) on a 10" Android tablet, which I use on gigs. I keep the paper copies in a plastic display folder as a backup in case the tablet fails (it hasn't so far) or for others to borrow during rehearsal. I also upload a copy to a folder on Google Drive as a backup and for others in the band to download.

 

For notes at a rehearsal, MobileSheets enables annotations, but I just jot them on paper, then later update the master in MuseScore and reprint/redistribute the PDF, paper, and online copies.

[bfields]

That's helpful, thanks!

[nadroj]

Thanks for the replies. I'll learn each section by ear and then compare it with the transcription.

 

Note by note melody based solos are fine for learning by ear, it's just the chordy filled-with-alterations-and-colour-notes parts that I suck at.

[Zalman Stern]

MuseScore is pretty good and really no hassle to try out. I haven't used Sibelius or Finale. I have no doubt that they are better, but in all of these apps, the fancy stuff is more targeted at very complex music. I find they all are a bit ill-suited to making reduced detail charts for use in rock and jazz. (And I gather there is some variability in how they handle drums. MuseScore is usable if not stellar for that.)

 

I'm actually using GNU Lilypond to do charts now as it makes it possible to get the overall form easily seeable while adding in bits of detail where it is useful for the entire band. (Noting that I really wouldn't recommend this for most people. It's a programming language not a GUI.) I'm kind of amazed there isn't already a perfect tool for doing great charts. (For drums, there is https://drumchartbuilder.com/ .) Then again, the standard in rock cover bands seems to be paper and pencil so...