Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner - Non Classical Harmonization and playing by ear, intermediate level

Gyro, if I'm about anything, it's an intuitive approach to piano playing. But I'm not sure what you're talking about here. When you say 'dig in' are you referring to chords or anything that comes to mind?

I don't think it's necessary to read through a lot of books, either, but I think knowing something about basic theory/chords is helpful for improvising and also for playing from any type of written music, lead sheets, etc. For example, a lot of songs follow a Circle progression/pattern of chords in some way:

http://www.angelfire.com/fl4/moneychords/circle.html

You can also be creative and reharmonize the chords of a song in a lot of different ways:

http://www.angelfire.com/fl4/moneychords/substitutions.html

I think it's good to be aware of the Circle, etc, not just because it's used a lot in traditional and pop/jazz music but because it really sounds good. That's exactly why it's used so much.

What is silly is that some people think learning by ear and learning by theory is mutually exclusive.. it isn't. When you are learning/playing by ear, you are using your theory to guide you thorough your playing. To think you have to do one way or the other shows much ignorance about music.

The thing is, Gyro already has some knowledge of chords and scale, which allows him to improvise with chords/scales form the C major scale. If an absolute beginner with no piano experience did the same thing... well I've seen drunk people do it at a bar, and it makes me want to puke. it's really not different than me typing ijafr;nidaiog

I read that Classical Indian music was taught by ear and through 1vs1 instruction, and they never had written music up until the 20th century. It doesn't mean that classical indian music has no theory... but that the theory was learned aurally through imitation and verbal communication.. and the bottom line is, every serious classical indian music has enough body of knowledge to be able to write a book about it.

Like anything else, theory is only helpful when you learn it progressively. Advanced harmonic/rhythmic concepts won't help your improvisation if you are having trouble constructing simple melodic phrases in time. But as you practice more, you should be able to absorb more theory and apply it as part of your vocabulary, and improve as an improviser. Without that process, you are like a classical piano player who is stuck playing the same beginner pieces after playing for years.

I agree.. The best and easiest way to play by ear that I know of is to "match" long melody tones with chords (IOW harmonize), so you have to know at least the basic chords to do that.

Music isn't intuitive, if it is, it's just as intuitive as martial arts. We make it intuitive through our training. We don't think about how we walk a because at one point you had to learn it, and you use that skill all the time.

If you are doing martial arts, the first thing you should worry about is how to properly block and punch.. if you can't do that there is no point in developing your style, because you will just get your butt kicked. Same thing with music, there is no point is talking about your own style if you haven't got your fundamentals together. And that fundamental talks years to develop.

Just a little tease etcetra - so are you going to be talking for years before developing your style and fundamentals

Congrats on your 1000th posting earlier today.

opps I didn't realize the typo...

haha thanks, I think I am going to get my style from taunting Gyro for coupe of more years

Gyro: You're skeptical of my playing because of what you hear on YouTube?

Do you listen to Oscar Peterson? Do you listen to Bill Evans? Do you listen to Chick Corea, Keith Jarrett, Wynton Kelly, Herbie Hancock? Do you like any of these folks. If you don't like their music, let us know. If simply means you inhabit a different aural world. On the other hand, if you like their music, why would you not want to study what they do and incorporate some of their genius into your playing?

Thanks for the video and website recommendations. I'll take a look at those.

JJO,

Gryo actually thinks, Bill Evans, Chick Corea, Keith Jarrett, Wynton Kelly, Herbie Hancock are all unoriginal and they are just playing the same patterns, and what they are doing is not what jazz is really about....



hmmm.. gyro played jazz in front of an live audience??

Eweiss, I mean just dig in, without consciously trying to hit any specific chord or note or scale. I might happen to hit specific chords when I play, but if I do, it is not deliberate. I'm hitting either single notes (one note, a scalelike run, an appegiolike run, etc.--but not trying to consciously identify what notes I'm actually hitting), or bunches of notes (intervals, chords--but again, I'm not consciously identifying them). For example, and this is just one of many possibilities, I sometimes like to use stridelike techniques to play a jazzy type waltz. I hit a low bass note (any note; I'm not even trying to identify it), and then I hit two higher chords (any chords, just bunches of notes that I don't try to consciously identify). Thus, you have your basic waltz type pattern which you add the r.h. to: anything, single notes, scalelike runs, arpeggiolike runs, intervals, chords, etc., none of them consciously identified by me.

Jjo, all those big-time jazz players you mention have their own way of playing, that suits their individual abilities, experience, and musical tastes, which are not yours, nor mine. I have my own individual abilities, experience, and musical tastes, and I prefer to fit my playing to them, not to someone else's.

Thanks for responding Gyro. I've always admired your playing philosophy and your restraint and tolerance when others attack you on this forum.

Those big time jazz players learned tons of theory and copied others too.. so what do you say to that?

some Bill Evans quote

"I had eleven piano students, and I would say eight of them didn't even want to know about chords or anything - they didn't’ even want to do anything that anybody had ever done, because they didn't want to be imitators. Well, of course, this is pretty naive"

"First of all, I never strive for identity. That's something that just has happened automatically as a result, I think, of just putting things together, tearing things apart and putting it together my own way, and somehow I guess the individual comes through eventually."

So you see, what you are suggesting accoring to Bill Evan is rather naive..

ewiss,

the problem wit the "stride" Gyro mentioned above is, well, if you aren't even somehow aware of what notes you are playing, then what in the world are you playing then? how is that any different than someone who's never played the piano smacking random keys in the left hand and playing blocks of sound in the right hand?

And btw that's not how stride music is played, most if not all stride music is played by using a pre-determined harmonic progression. To Gyro to say he is playing stride, without understanding the music, is a totally misrepresentation of the music style. It's like you saying I speak french even though the only thing you can do is speak couple of french phrases in bad accent.

What Gyro is doing is something that is like 'stride' but has nothing to do with jazz, just like how his idea of improvisation has very little to do with jazz, which is defined by style. One thing that Gyro needs to understand is that JAZZ IS A FORM OF IMPROVISED MUSIC, and NOT ALL IMPROVISED MUSIC is jazz. and he also need to think about how RELEVANT his advice is to what OP wants to do, which is to be able to harmonize a pre-existing melody. for that "just digging in with no regards to what you play" is not going to help you much.

I would guess Gyro likes Cecil Taylor and other in the free jazz school. I think that style might be funner to play than to have to listen to soemwbody else playing it.

Few things to consider,

Bill Evans, Chick Corea, Herbie Hancock.. they all went to music school and have studied theory extensively. In fact in Bill Evan's biography, he talks about how his theory teacher was a big influence on him

Every great player mentioned above have copied others and openly admits to their influence. Herbie Hancock talks about how Clare Fischer's harmony was a big influence on him, and Oscar Peterson openly admits imitating Art Tatum. If you watch Chick coreas "piano workshop DVD you realize he can play just like Bud Powell. I saw this one clip, this piano player was talking about how he heard Thelonius Monk playing just like Art Tatum.. and saying how he doesn't play like that, because "it's already been done"

BTW I had a gig yesterday.. and this guy wanted to sit in... I guess he had like a Gyrp-type approach to music. He didn't know anything about theory, he couldn't even tell me what key he is playing, he just "plays by ear" 'digs in' and play... and he wanted to somehow play with us. I gave him a chance and we did that for like 5 min and eventually I had to kindly ask him to get off the stage because this was at a club and he didn't know what he was doing.

He insisted that he wanted to continue and said he can play autumn leaves "by ear".. not only couldn't he play the melody in time, he was so tone-deaf that whatever he played "by ear" did not resemble anything like autumn leaves. But at that point the store manager intervened.

So you see, I am very skeptical of anyone that says they play completely by ear.

What I can never figure out is when I read that greats like Erroll Garner and Irving Berlin played by ear.

Elssa,

Learning by ear doesn't mean they didn't internalize the music theory and the musical vocabulary. Indian Classical music is all taught aurally by imitation, or in other words it's learned by ear with no written music. But they don't have any problem playing music with other people because they have internalized the vocabulary and the theory behind it. So they can actually write a book on what they do if they wanted to.

Ray charles was blind but he could play the piano because he had teachers who showed him how to play. They do have all the theory in their mind, just not with the convention and notation we use in music. So I am guessing anybody who learned by ear did so through apprenticeship, and not out of vacum, by somehow digging in.

so what's really missing in Gyro's idea is that "learning by ear "was done through APPRENTICESHIP. And in reality it's not learning 100% by ear since you are rely your visual information too, (like what the chord looks like)

Gyro ... thanks for the explanation.

Just tuff to wrap my mind/ear around what that would sound like.
That's why I asked for an example.

Erroll Garner was hearing music from the day he was born and was learning music and piano by the time he was three years old. At that age you don't need to learn any formal theory to learn the "language." Adults do not have the same type of learning capacity as a toddler.