So without fail, all the piano certificate programs I know of include an ear training component: ABRSM, RCM, Trinity, etc.

I'm sure all the piano teachers who made up these various exam boards all think ear training is important. But if it was so important, wouldn't it be taught more than it is when there is no exam in play? Why is it that ear training is often only taught when you are preparing for a piano exam, but almost never taught when you are being taught to play piano without an exam on the horizon.

To be blunt, what good is ear training, and why do most piano teachers only teach it for exams? If ear training really were important, wouldn't it be taught like piano teachers teach scales? All the time and not only for exams?

(Full Disclosure: I'm preparing for an RCM level 4 exam, took up aural training for the first time, and I range from - "wow, I'm getting this" to "man, do I suck!")

I was going to place a similar thread.... I really want to get good at playing melodies by ear and hearing chords and making my own arrangements ..
It seems like there is no systematic way that everyone agrees on .. I lile self teaching but I don’t know what approach to take

I feel that during the last year and a half, ever since I started with piano lessons, my aural skills have improved tremendously, though not necessarily those skills that are tested during an exam. When playing without a teacher, I would happily drop down on the last note of each phrase, just to name an example, and not hear the ugliness of the loud tone I had created. When playing staccato, I would not think about phrasing, and listening back to my playing, I would not pay attention to the evenness of the staccato notes - and thus I would not hear the unevenness. I could go on, but you may have your own examples, if you think about it.

However, I cannot and will never be able to hear a tone and tell its pitch. Or hear someone singing a tone and find it immediately on my piano. Or hear a melodic interval and tell the distance between the notes. But I am not bothered about this.

Tyrone
You have a very good teacher—have you asked her this question?

Who is Tyrone teacher?

At many universities and conservatories here, once at a certain level and/or to be accepted as a new student, you have to write down what the teacher is playing on a blank manuscript, of course without being able to see the piano/keyboard. You are just given the first note played. This is I think a very important aspect of music that should be taught more.

No, but I will on Monday.

She is teaching me ear training. In fact, I had two hours of ear training earlier this week and we agreed I would be doing some more ear training outside of the piano exam "regimen" after the December exam is behind me - maybe once or twice a month, I'm thinking. So I'm taking it seriously, I just don't really know what it is good for, practically speaking, unless I was going to play pop or something like that, maybe. If all I ever play is classical piano, what good would it be? (which is the point of this thread)


Morodiene.

PS (Too late to edit.) If I would want to compose, or play with others, or work with music in a professional way, I would have answered differently. But I just want to play the piano as beautifully and expressively as possible, and I can learn that without aural skills like note recognition.

Bosendorff, could you explain why you think this is so very important?

Apparently in Russia as well.


I know I'm sounding a bit like a child when I say, "but why?" It's just not obvious to me how this is so important, except to support certain activities: Playing music not written by dead composers, Composing one's own music, Improvisation, etc. None of which I'm particularly interested in doing.

I'm trying to find a reason for motivating myself that this is a good thing to learn, that is relevant to and resonates with me. And not just that it is for the exam.

I have nothing to do with ABRSM, RCM, Trinity, but the phrase gives the impression that some teachers descended to Earth from Mars. The music is not based on pressing the right button-keys in correct rhythms, but on the combination of pitches and intervals in a melody and pitches and intervals in chords; and they should all sound in your head before you press the first key. This is called "internal musical ear", and without this musician simply does not exist! The development of IME is the primary task of musical education, and it is carried out in two directions: 1. singing according to notes, or specific intervals and scales 2. transcription of heard music on paper (or comp) . This is called Solfeggio, and it is a must in any beginner's music course.

Yep, as you mention, invaluable for composition, improvisation and more. It is certainly not needed for many, sure, but could become very useful someday.

Some decades ago I was available as a pianist/keyboardist for progressive/rock/etc groups doing gigs. Sometimes I would be asked to replace someone at the last minute in a band I didn't even know some of the pieces they played. A couple of times, I had to listen to such unknown pieces a few hours in the car carrying me to the gig and learning them "by ear" as it was the only way/time before the performance. Certainly not recommended, but it was doable/needed sometimes.

Same if you go to a concert and hear something unknown that you find remarkable. How will you remember it if you can't figure out what's played. Or if ever while walking in the woods you suddenly hear a great melody in your head that could become a good composition.

I forgot to mention also that at our universities/conservatories, another mandatory test/task is to sing an unknown melody from a manuscript (solfege at its best !), regardless if you're in to learn piano, trumpet or percussion. This to me is even more difficult than writing down what someone is playing, because I am truly bad at singing. *LOL*

I do not want to answer your question by another question, but it sort of depends what are your end goals not only as a piano player but in general as a musician. All exam systems are built so that you receive a complete set of skills that are necessary assuming you would want to continue toward higher levels, possibly eventually make music your profession. And as you know it is always better to start right at the beginning. If the target is simply to be able to play some simple pieces of music at a lower grade is different than if you want to become a professional or a complete musician. Aural skills are mandatory in plenty of different situations, recognizing intervals, chords, rythmic patterns, ....

LOL, if you're good at it, it's important; if you're not, then what's the point.

I had three semesters of ear training, and I still suck at it. If you're going to compose or improvise, yes, it would be important to be able to instantly move back and forth between something you hear to something you play on an instrument, and between what you play and what you hear and store away in memory.

Maybe the answer is that it makes you a more well-rounded musician.* Just like knowing how to solve a quadratic equation might not be useful for me at this point in my life, but knowing how it's done informs my understanding of certain things in the physical world.


*Which is kicking the can down the road--why is it important to be well-rounded?

Imagine a situation when someone really wants to become a basketball player, but he has a problem: his right eye and a few fingers on his left hand are missing.
- "Sorry, but you cannot become a basketball player - you do not have one eye and several fingers on one hand!"
- "Why is it important to be well-rounded?"

Initial abilities are required to start doing something; and then develop them as much as possible. Without an inner ear, a pianist will not be able to play a country song with ensemble ...

I didn't know it's not often taught. It should be taught. My current teacher tested my ear training from day 1, but she then realized I already play the violin and have pitch. Also I could sightsing from childhood choir training. So my piano teacher didn't continue more with that. As someone who has some aural skills, I cannot imagine playing any instrument without it.

Here's some motivation for you ;-)

When your (acoustic) piano is out of tune, you know it. (you can tell if it's off by 2 herz)

Once you are familiar with the melody and the chords, you don't need to look at anything at all. Your hand reaches for the width representing the interval you hear.

If you play a wrong note, you know it. So you can self correct.

You can memorize pieces easier and retain it longer. You don't need to keep repeating to get muscle memory (which is quickly lost), so you can spend your practice time working on other stuff. Luckily most people have great long term memory of sound and can hum a familiar tune heard many years ago. You can rely on that memory to play pieces you learned last year.

If you are performing and you suddenly "forget", you can still fake it by playing through based on sound.

If you play in an ensemble, you can jam.

I've heard it said the piano is the easiest to learn in the beginning, and the hardest to play very well. It's easy in the beginning because you just press the key corresponding to the dot on the page. You can even do this with the digital piano's sound turned off. At that point is it still music? So you can see why the exams test you on aural skill so the pianist should have pitch no less than a violinist. In fact, I think better, because you need to hear more simultaneous pitches AND on multiple planes. And at an advanced level, there are more nuances. Everything you hear, including overtones, will affect your interpretation of a piece. So you need to have good aural skills.

I think maybe the biggest motivation you need is knowing that it can be learned. I don't have absolute pitch, only relative pitch. I think pitch can be learned at any age. I know an older woman who used to sing out of tune but she worked hard at ear training and now she sings fine.

PW member Dave Frank has a fantastic 30 minute Ear Training video. The video begins with motivation and demonstrates 3 approaches at the piano (Lenny Tristano, Charlie Banacos, and Dave's inner ear line methods). He has a written script so the video is focused:

Interesting. When I read this initial post I thought...hmm, my teacher has never mentioned this. Why? But I guess it's because I've already been playing various instruments for over 30 years. We must have had aural training in school and I just don't remember. I can tell when I've hit a wrong note, even if I don't know the piece well. I can currently tell that quite a few notes on my piano are out of tune. I guess I take that for granted. I do not think I would do well in an exam though. I imagine I just have 'practical' knowledge through years of experience.

But once one has plsyed a piece a few times one can hear the notes ahead of time in your head even one has had no ear training.

I grew up studying classical piano with a very good teacher. While I was not training for the concert stage, I became a decent classical player. We did zero ear training and I can't see that it held me back at all. And, to be honest, nothing I've read here so far convinces me you need ear training to play classical music from the written page. Seems to me at best it's part of become a well rounded musician. Just like you may never play atonal music if you hate it, part of being a well rounded musician would be to know something about it.

In later life I've switched to jazz piano and ear training is, of course, critical.

Of course this guy will never play basketball professionally, but hardly anyone does. If he likes to play basketball, I'm sure he can find a group to play with at the local rec. center and they can all have a great time playing together and get some exercise.

But that is not the type of ear training that is taught and tested. What is taught and tested is the ability to identify intervals, whether played as chords or as one pitch following another, and the ability to hear a fragment of music and write down the rhythm and the intervals (given a starting pitch). A solfege test might require the student to sight sing a phrase or two from notation that they haven't seen before.

I'm sure there are a wide variety of ear training tasks, but among the one's being tested in RCM at my level, or earlier, are:

• Clapping the rhythm of a melody just heard
• Playing on the piano, a melody just heard
• Determining if a chord just heard is major or minor
• Hearing an interval and identifying it's degree (i.e. 3rd, 4th, etc.), and if it is major, minor, or perfect.
• Identify whether note played after a chord is played is the root, third, or fifth.
• Hearing a melody and determining if its meter is triple or quadruple

Some of these are rather hard for me, but a few are pretty easy. For example, I find the listening to a melody and determining its meter to be insanely difficult!

Some posts above have connected this stuff to general "musicianship," but to be very specific to classical piano, I don't really see how they tie to playing classical piano. Love to hear more ideas about how this might be relevant in a specific sense, rather than just a very general sense.

The aural training in the exam generally I did not find of any use for piano playing. It was always the part I hated to learn. I think you need to specify what skill you are talking about as I think there is a range from useless to useful. I think there are some skills that were of some use such as tapping back a rhythm. Some such as singing I think it pointless. I think hearing a piece and being able to recognise a cadence may be useful. Then again I dont know what the point is on guessing the time signature when it is always on the piece. I am not particularly convinced that good pianist need to study these skill other than the exam. Perhaps at a higher level it is more useful.

Some of it sounds it can be useful. What is a perfect interval ?

I don't want to imply ear training is not important, but some of the reasons given so far seem to be a major stretch to me:

1. Most people who are serious about piano maintenance tune their pianos on a regular schedule of once or twice a year. So the ability to know your piano is out of tune seems not too important to me, But even more relevant, being out of tune is not a black and white state so there is no specific point where a piano goes from in tune to out of tune. If one has a very sensitive ear, even a slightly out of tune piano might sound worse to you vs. someone without a good ear. So, in a way, assuming one can't afford more than twice a year tunings, this could even be a negative.

2. I have had no formal ear training but I can hear when I make a mistake. I can see where ear training could help identify mistakes if one is playing extremely complex or contemporary music. Or if one is conducting one could hear mistakes by the musicians even if the piece has many parts. Over forty years ago I remember being very impressed when the conductor of some musical I was playing in turned to one of the instrumentalists and said something like "Isn't that an E flat and not an E natural at bar 27?"

If it was a question of motivation, then IMO is an ultimatum argument that is simply not mentioned anywhere; and the question is how many people here know about it: during the playing , a muscle memory is created for playing movements and their order - on the one hand; on the other hand, as Pianoloverus writes, the notes begin to sound in inner ear beforehand. Thus, such a correlation is created when, presenting one or another pitch in a head, the brain automatically sends the hand to the right place on the keyboard; what is the basis of playing without looking at the hands!
[/size] The clearer the internal representation, the more accurate the playing.

But you're assuming that not having had ear training or having a poor ear is the equivalent of a basketball player having major physical disabilities without having explained why that's the case.

I don't think anyone would argue that being a jazz musician at any level requires a very good ear, but for a classical musician at a non professional level I'm not convinced ear training is essential. Based on the responses so far I can see that it would be helpful but not in a major way.

For all the years I had only one student at the age of 11 who played 2 years on the piano with a completely undeveloped inner ear. It was a real disaster: he could not sing anything for sure: no pitches, no intervals, no songs. He was saved only by the memory of which keys should be pressed in accordance with printed notes and in what order. I advised him to leave the piano.

Possibly this is just a terminology issue. In RCM, 3rds are considered to be major or minor, but 4ths and 5ths are considered "perfect" because there is no major or minor version of them.

Haha, is it? I had no idea. I only remember one interval. The tritone! Here she is. The violin start with a tritone.

I would like to comment about the ability to sight sing. I was happy to learn that RCM did not test this, although I think ABRSM does. I am doing RCM exams. I originally thought sight singing was there to just torture the students. How embarrassing and nerve wracking it must be, but then...I joined a concert band where I played sax. As you know, every instrument plays a different part with different notes and different rhythms. Unlike a piano piece, where you can often Google it and find a pretty decent rendition of the piece on YT to get an idea of how it’s supposed to sound, for concert band pieces, you cannot find online a video of just your part (say, alto sax 1). Often, the whole piece is online, but individual instrument parts are not. It’s fine when the piece is simple, but when the piece is more difficult and different from your band mates, the ability to sight sing your particular part becomes very useful indeed when learning it. I realized this when trying to learn a particular piece for band. I kept asking myself, how is this supposed to sound anyway?

Then coincidentally, the next piano lesson I had, my teacher was teaching me a new piece. She broke out and sight sang the piece and I’m like, no, please, you’re not going to get me to sing it, are you? She didn’t (thank goodness) but she did say that it’s very important that a musician (any kind of musician) should be able to sing a piece just by looking at the sheet music, so one can know what the piece is supposed to sound like. In my mind, I thought, “Geesh, I could just Google it!” But I understood what she was saying, and my trying to learn that sax piece myself also proved to me, I really do need to learn to sight sing, if I wanted to become a well-rounded musician, and not just a person who could play classical piano music one piece after another. I do not know exactly how the other aural tests will benefit my real life playing in the future, but I trust that these are building blocks that will benefit me as a musician in my future. I don’t want any gaps in my learning.

I’m guessing that a lot of the RCM aural tests will help with future composition, improvisation, jamming, etc. Who knows what my future will hold. Maybe I will find these skills useful eventually.

I think in some RCM material I read that their goal is to develop musicians (the well-rounded kind), not instrumentalists. And yeah, it might be useless for some people, depending on your goals. That’s why many people choose not to do exams.

You can make any tritone by playing the middle note in between an octave. That is all the aural training you need ;O

Singing for me was torture. Especially the fact I had a teacher where we did it again, and again, and again. And I still could not do it. So we did it more. It really is put in the ARBSM for some teachers to torture their students. Torture I think has been banned in canada but singing torture still legal and widely practiced in the UK. ;p

Yes, it's all based on the number of steps/tones (whole/half):

• 1/2 step (half tone) - minor 2nd
• 1 step (whole tone) - major 2nd
• 1 1/2 steps - minor 3rd
• 2 steps - major 3rd
• 2 1/2 steps - perfect 4th
• 3 steps - the tritone that you mentioned
• 3 1/2 steps - perfect 5th
• 4 steps - minor 6th
• 4 1/2 steps - major 6th
• 5 steps - minor 7th
• 5 1/2 steps - major 7th
• 6 steps - perfect octave

Thankfully, by RCM level 4, I only have to recognize a few of these when I hear them, but already it is more than I can actually do!

Yes, RCM allows you to get through all 10 levels without any singing. And this is the main reason I opted for RCM over ABRSM. However, now I am wondering if I perhaps made a bigger deal of it than it is? I'm wondering if a bit of solfege singing is really the bogeyman that I pictured?

I had no ear training in my approximately 11 years of formal pianos study, but I have none of the problems your student had. I don't think my situation is unusual.

One more thing...even in RCM exams, the aural tests are only 10% of the whole mark, so even though they test it and think it important, it’s pretty obvious even they do not think it’s THAT important.

The bulk of the marks are, of course, allocated to repertoire and technical (total of 80%). Sight reading is 10%. I do believe this latter is extremely important.

In my opinion, from an exam strategy point of view, if you hate aural tests, or suck at them no matter how much you try, I would literally forget about them, wing ‘em, and compensate by aiming to do extremely well on all the other parts. This strategy might be controversial but has certainly worked for me in my many years of exam-taking (not music).

It shouldn’t consume you is all I’m saying.

I wasn't sure whether Moo was asking or making a point. (I was going to ask).

Actually, 3rds can be major, minor, diminished or augmented. 4ths can be Perfect or augmented. (next level, next theory exam.

I sort of figured out these patterns:
All intervals plus their inversions add up to 9. For example: CE vs. EC = M3 + m6; 3 + 6 = 9.

The ones with major are 2, 3, 6, 7
The ones with perfect are: 1, 4, 5, 8

Every inverted major is a minor, and ever inverted minor is a major. (see M3 + m6 above).
But every inverted perfect is another perfect. (though, can one really "invert" a unison or octave?). in any case, CF (P4) vs. FC (P5) ... 4+5 = 9 is still true, but the quality has not changed. So they are unique.

What if we threw out "perfect" and called them major.
Hm: CF is now major, so CFb would be minor. It is also the enharmonic equivalent of CE = M3. We'd also have a CFbb which is the enharmonic equivalent of CEb = m3. The other regular majors don't behave this way. No minor is the equivalent of another major or minor interval.

CG as "major" - CGb would be minor - is also the tritone - CGbb would be the new diminished = CF which is our P4 and also the inversion of a P5 FC.

It seems to get messy, unless we leave the Perfects with their special designation.

I also think (?) that in the harmonic series, the purest tones (depending on tuning) are the octaves, 4ths and 5ths. Does anyone know?

Of course it shouldn't consume one. I've already planned to just "wing it" and not worry about it. In this thread, I'm just wondering what the point is altogether.

And you mentioned sight reading. Aural is weighed just as heavily as sight reading on RCM, at least. I suspect it may not be that far off on the other exams. But why? Logically, sight-reading appears to be a much more important skill for a classical pianist than aural (as given in the examples earlier).

But for solo piano music I think you were correct about googling it.

I agree: sight reading is extremely important for a classical pianist and we recognize this early on. I suspect it’s because we can actually make use of sight reading skills NOW, whereas aural skills, we may not make use of them until later, but if we don’t start developing them now, it may be too late later. Depending on how far one goes, some people might never get to use them I think.

The frequency ratio between unison, 4th, 5th and Octave (perfect intervals) is 1:1, 4:3, 3:2, 2:1. Ratio of integers. I think it's why they use the word perfect.

Doesn't really matter. Ear training isn't something to cram. You should just try to do a little everyday if you can for the exam.

Sorta: For remembering the size of these intervals, this is one good way of doing it.
However, these absolute lengths of steps can also be represented by other letter names, due to "grammar", where you play exactly the same piano keys.

I hope I haven't goofed along the way.

[*] 1/2 step (half tone) - minor 2nd C Db. also C C# (aug unison)
[*] 1 step (whole tone) - major 2nd C D. also C Ebb (dim3) - don't think used much or ever.
[*] 1 1/2 steps - minor 3rd - C Eb. Also C D# (aug2) - frequent in music
[*] 2 steps - major 3rd - C E. Also C Fb (dim4)
[*] 2 1/2 steps - perfect 4th
[*] 3 steps - the tritone that you mentioned - CF# aug4, CGb dim5
[*] 3 1/2 steps - perfect 5th
[*] 4 steps - minor 6th - CAb, also CG# aug5
[*] 4 1/2 steps - major 6th - CA, also C Bbb (dim7 - found in a dim7 chord)
[*] 5 steps - minor 7th - CBb, also CA# (aug6, very common in certain chords)
[*] 5 1/2 steps - major 7th
[*] 6 steps - perfect octave

The terminology is the same with ABRS with regards to intervals. Moo has forgotten them.

With regards to the actual question, if all you're interested in is playing classical pieces from the score or from memory - and nothing else - then you don't need aural training. You don't even need to tell the difference between major and minor keys, let alone tell when a piano is out of tune, because in effect, all you're doing is akin to a secretary taking dictation, or reading a poem without understanding the meaning behind the words.

Another thing is: as I've said more than once before, the ABRSM exams are music exams, not piano exams. (It says that on the ABRSM website; I don't know about RCM or AMEB, but they're modelled on the ABRSM). The aural tests are the same for each grade regardless of which instrument you're learning, because they test for musicianship.

If you never want to accompany singing (Christmas carols, or Happy Birthday, or whatever) around the piano, or partner another instrumentalist, or play in an ensemble of any sort, or want to sing yourself, or conduct/beat time, or compose, or harmonize melodies......or "get" the rhythm and harmony in the music you're hearing (hence, enjoying more of its depths), or call yourself a real musician (as opposed to just being a 'pianist') - you don't need aural skills.

There's nothing - nothing - in the aural skills that I learnt as a student that I never ever used. (Which is a lot more than I can say for the many other subjects I had to study for my school state exams). I've sung in many choirs - everything from Bach motets to Beethoven's Ode to Joy with full orchestra to Schoenberg's Gurrelieder. I can sing by ear to accompany a melody in thirds (such as you find in some pop and folk songs), or the bass line to provide the harmony. I've conducted small ensembles and choirs. I've composed lots of pieces for various instruments, including voice. I've harmonized various tunes in order to play them in the manner of hymns or Bach chorales on the piano, or to accompany singing on the guitar. I play a lot of stuff entirely by ear - both classical as well as non-classical. Almost everything I play on the guitar is by ear, in fact. I have danced to complex rhythms in dance classes.

And - when I listen to music, I can concentrate on specific 'lines' because my ears have been trained. I can tap its beat, and conduct it. I can sing the bass part of a choral piece by listening to it, without having the score (and I often do, as I will again when the inevitable performance of Messiah is broadcast in the next few weeks, as well as carols, starting tomorrow in fact, from St John's College, Cambridge). When I listen to music, I also know what harmonies are used, and if I wish, reproduce the music on the piano - i.e., play it by ear.

In other words, my appreciation of music - all music - is greatly enhanced by having decent aural skills.

But if you have no interest in any of that.........you don't need aural skills.

Horror. Gasp. I hope this doesn't become part of the ear training at the higher levels.

It's a conspiracy to get you to sing more

Ear training reduces the workload when learning new music. Sometimes by 90% or more.

I can't imagine it being a part of ear training. If you're doing theory, it will be there, but as a scientist and mathematician you will just flow into it.

The idea I wanted to bring across is that your semitones and whole tones - the half steps are like absolute measuring units as your reference. Three half steps will always be three half steps. Your named intervals, the other ones, all come from what you learned first. If you lower M3 by a half step, you get m3, and you go one piano key to the left: If you lower M3 by two half steps, you go two piano keys to the left, and it's called diminished. down 1 = minor; down 2 = dim. And then you just play around with it and see how the other intervals mesh with that. For example: play C D# - then play C Eb - and you see instantly that you have the same piano keys. C D# is "some kind of 2nd", C Eb is "some kind of 3rd" If CE = M3, then CEb must be m3. If CD = M2, then C D# must be aug2. ......... The RCM theory builds each level on top of the next one so that everything slides smoothly into space.

It is good to know that the half steps view gives you a solid "what it is - always", while the named intervals which go by letters in the notation, is "what it's called". Is Charles, "the neighbour next door", "the fireman", or "the guy who mows his lawn Sunday mornings"?

Um: when you know the formula: Mx one half step lower = mx; two half steps lower = dimx, one half step higher = augx, then you've already got everything. You already know all your majors. Perfects only have two variants: half step higher = aug; half step lower = dim. Music is patterns. If you are good at finding and manipulating patterns, which I think you are, then you've got it.

I had always considered my ear pretty weak, so a few years ago I began using one of those ear training programs on the computer. I kept at it assiduously for months and ended up able to recognise many things. However, the improvements had no impact at all on my improvisation or the quality of its recorded results so I flagged it away. When I was young, my teacher had a phenomenal ear and short term memory. He could repeat something he heard after one hearing to a surprising complexity. For many years I wondered if I had any business playing the piano at all, but then I began to realise that my own creations far outnumbered his, seemed more interesting and pleased me more than the products of his superb professional musicianship. Why ? I honestly don't know, other than to conjecture that music and the brain are both so big that they admit of ways of interaction outside the scope of traditional, measurable musical skill.

Therefore I would never, in any circumstances, discourage anyone from playing the piano on the basis of lacking a particular assumed prerequisite, aural or otherwise.

I don’t know if it’s ear training but I think knowing chords by sight is a skill I was not taught. I can not tell complex chords so I use this skill only to help with a few chords. my teacher just looks and can work chord sequences in a phrase it out straight away / instantly. I don’t think this is taught but I think it would be useful. May help understand the music. Perhaps it’s very hard to learn but jazz musicians do it. I’m sure you need to know to write music. I also don’t think intervals was ever a test bennevis. I remembered the important chord , the Tritone !! Maybe this count as music theory but I’m not sure grade 5 taught me this.

How do jazz players get so good at chords? Maybe worth me looking into.

That's BS. There's endless aspects of musicianship and meaning that don't require aural training. Aural training may help many aspects of musicianship, but it's not a requirement.

I've done all of the above, some very extensively, except compose without aural training. (In my post I'm limiting aural training to mean things like solfege.)

If you mean sight sing or play Christmas Carols without the sheets than you are correct, but you didn't say that.

I think sight reading is generally more important than aural skills(solfege) but not as important as many say it is.

The really important skill is how quickly you can learn the notes of a piece.This is generally related to sight reading but definitely not the same thing.

Excellent sight reading is generally important only if one has to accompany a singer or play in an ensemble without any preparation.This is extremely useful for professional pianists but I don't think many amateurs do this very often and are generally not expected to do so. Good sight reading also allows one to play through scores without struggling which is fun. I do agree that good sight reading is an indicator of many other skills at the piano.

The most basic aspect of musicianship is aural skills.

If you think otherwise, you really haven't got a clue.



Of course I include sight-singing and playing by ear, when I wrote all the above. I elaborated in the next paragraph.

So would you say that after Beethoven went deaf, (no longer had aural skills) he was no longer a musician since he lacked the most basic aspect of musicianship?

He already had aural skills before he went deaf, and he still had it afterwards. He can hear the music he wrote in his 'head'.

How else do you think he can write something like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pewBRolWwjQ

I said by aural skills I was specifically referring to solfege(things like sight singing, singing intervals). I don't agree with your opinion that this is the most basic aspect of musicianship.

You didn't say sight singing in what I quoted. Why even argue about what I said since I said "if you meant... than you are correct"?

More importantly, you didn't comment on the main point I made that almost all of the things you said needed aural skills I've done extensively although I never was taught aural skills.

Ear-training is just a way of developing the ear. Nothing more. If you can play music well by ear, or accompany by ear etc. you have a well-developed ear and aural skills.

Ear training or aural skills is a skill by which musicians learn to identify, solely by hearing, pitches, intervals, melody, chords, rhythms, and other basic elements of music. Ear training is typically a component of formal musical training and is a fundamental, essential skill required in music schools.

Apparently he wept when he heard the Cavatina in his mind.

It's truly heavenly music.....

It is. I also love the "Hymn of Thanksgiving" from Op. 132.

Or perhaps, for those who do sing already, it's a conspiracy to improve the quality of your singing.

You don't want dictionary definitions, or definitions by written authorities, for ear training or whatever. You want what a person is actually doing, has done, and that is well nigh impossible, especially in fleeting forum discussions. An astute teacher will listen and observe his student over weeks to ascertain some of the things that seem to be known instantly in this forum, and then still be cautious in his judgment.

Things are much more complex and varied than can be set out in any definition, at a useful level.

The thing about aural skills is - you don't know what you don't know, and you never know what you miss until you need it.

For instance, you invite friends round for a Christmas dinner. They see your shiny new big Bösendorfer Imperial (Bosies are all shiny & new, as well as big) and the huge tome of Opus clavicembalisticum on the music rest and say: "I didn't know you play the piano! How about accompanying everyone singing some carols? Let's have Silent Night!" ........and you realize you've just given your Dan Coates volume of Easy Christmas Carols for duffers to your daughter, who lives 1,000 miles away, and you can't even play Silent Night by ear, let alone O Come All Ye Faithful. (Or anything else by ear, for that matter.) You even have no idea of what chords to use in C major, for Silent Night.

And your friends are astonished: "You play Sorabji and Gaspard and Islamey, but you can't play Silent Night??" But maybe you could sing the bass line to supply basic harmony, even if you can't play it by ear? Nope, you can't sing it for love or money either..........

Nahum: Children and adults will benefit from music education, he/she does not necessarily have to be good at singing or aural skills. Peer-reviewed literature suggests there are benefits for children who take music lessons, such as concentration, better memory, problem-solving, math ability, discipline to set goals and accomplish something, and communication skills. Maybe an instrument such as band/orchestra children become part of a social group. For example, an abstract posted for the Journal of Research Studies in Music Education article Piano Performance: Group classes for the life long learner by Elizabeth Haddon April 3, 2017 "The findings suggest that learning in a non-assessed semi-formal group not only informs individual practice, technique, musicianship, analytical and performance skills but also has a positive impact on other areas of the participants’ lives." I do not have access to the entire article, but I bet it would be an interesting read.

There is a Guitars for Vets program which helps Veterans work thought mental health issues https://guitars4vets.org/

I have written an article on the benefits of music lessons
https://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/article/106295/mental-health/prescription-music-lessons

I am 59 years old and have been taking lessons for a bit over 5 years. You would have fired me as your student as I fall in the category of the 11 year old. Music is a hobby I enjoy, I am not going to earn a living at it. I would imagine most children will select other professions than music, although some who are talented may be attracted to that field. Parents enroll children for personal growth and development, to expose children to the arts. Due to school budgets music education may not be supported, and that is unfortunate. If I did not take music lessons as a child, I may have never started again. Since my parents exposed me to the arts I developed a love for music and the theater. The children you teach, will take what they learn to adulthood and it may impact if they enroll their children in music programs and how he/she views arts later in life. The important thing is if the child is trying, the teacher should be supportive and encouraging.

Respectfully,

If the student enjoyed playing the piano, this is the saddest advice that a teacher can give.


Here is an important job for a good teacher: to teach this student to become the best basketball player he can be.


Maybe not all piano students wish to be able to play a country song with ensemble

Based on what did you decide? Judging by your story, I would love to engage with you for your advancement. I had an amateur workshop composed of senior citizens, the eldest of whom was 81 years old, and for the first time he began to take music lessons two years before. It was a great pleasure to hear them at a concert at the end of the year. Classes with adults are very different from lessons with children: you can also use logical thinking. I would say the opposite: it’s hard to make adults act like children, which can quickly solve some musical problems!))

There is no real scientific foundation for statement , that a pianist does not need to develop an internal ear. ; it is more like a belief. And here is the real fact: I am in the Aphantasia group, and someone wrote to me that his inner ear is deaf, and he never hears sounds in his head. He repeatedly tried to take piano lessons, but it turned out that his fingers and keys were constantly confused. This is what happens as a result of the lack of even a slightly developed inner ear!

All his attitude to the lessons showed a reluctance to practice on the piano, despite the fact that his parents sent him. The teacher must be able to assess the situation. This was probably my only case in 47 years.

There are two levels in this: To recognize and to be able to name. I have never been specifically taught aural skils, so I could not name what I hear. However I can easily recognize, tell apart and reproduce those things and I use this skill all the time. I believe it's the same with others who do not feel their musician skills are hindered by the lack of specific aural training.

To me Aural skills have more to do with how well you can listen and adjust then how well you can name an interval, chord or play by ear. Dedicated Aural training may advance you to these other levels too, but that still has little to do with the sound you produce, where as a well developed listening and adjusting has everything to do with the sound you produce.

Putting on my helmet now. It is for this reason that rote players will advance their aural skills sooner and faster then note readers as they must rely on this skill out of the gate, where as for note readers it is an extra and listening is not really a focus.

The better refined players that produce a better sound have well developed Aural skills even if they don't play by ear or any other fancy things. The sound is what it is really all about but only the notes are given on a score. Thus advancing your more subtle Aural skills is really vital and underlies everything else when it comes to sounding nice and this applies to all genres.

So yes, it really does matter but for less dramatic outcomes.

If you can recognize, you can name. It's just like identifying an eighth note as opposed to a quarter note. And with intervals and rhythms, it's just straight numbers.

For instance, I used to sing this tune as a kid, in 3rds with my cousin, long before I started piano lessons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXUfpme4H30

With solfège (which I "learnt" from The Sound of Music, of course), it's obvious they were thirds, so we called them thirds....(and I realized that thirds sounded richer than unisons, though I didn't know why).

And your neighbor's most famous musical export sing many of their songs in harmony, usually in thirds and sixths, like this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOAyOqi_KyE&list=RD_HMjOiHqE18&index=5

And then, rhythms - duples, triples, quadruples - are hardly rocket science to put names to, once you start tapping or clapping to the beats. Before I knew any better, I just called them by numbers: 2, 3, 4-time. Which also happens to be correct......

Those who play by ear do, but not rote players. The latter just copy the finger movements from someone else, or from Synthesia. They don't need to listen to what they're playing, as long as they're playing the right keys.


Lots and lots of listening to good performers and good music make a huge difference to the ability to listen with a discerning ear. When I hear someone (not just kids) playing robotically, it almost always transpires that person never spends time listening intently to good music (music that isn't electronic). When they hear music, it's just as background music, not intent listening.

I count myself lucky that at a time when I had no access to music (not just classical), my teacher played classical pieces on the piano for me after every lesson. I learnt so much from listening intently to the way she played as well as the music itself, with melodies & counter-melodies always riding above the accompaniment (no matter how busy), and always beautifully phrased, like a singer would, with touches of rubato. That taught me a lot more than any didactic teaching ever could about musicality - and training my ears.

Nope, cannot. First of all I have dyscalculia so "straight numbers" are far from straight with me. Secondly my memory does not work well with such things, so I can do things intuitively, but cannot put into words what I do or what happens with music. So I rely on my ear, but not on a very analytic or even conscious level.

I can play/sing an eighth note when I see it in context, but if you show me a note in isolation and ask me to name it might take some time or I say something wrong because I will have to go through some extra processing in my head. Automatic it won't get as lack of such automatization is exactly what is wrong with my cognitive functions.

Depends how they were taught. I don't think Suzuki teaches strictly copy this way and I know I was not taught this way. Also, I am not advocating rote learning forever, but in this regard it has this advantage and benefit that note readers don't get until much later.

On the contrary. Note readers have too much to worry about already and intensive listening to themselves is often neglected until they get to certain ability level. This is how you end up with advanced players that sound flat and boring. That is, until they advance their aural development

Most people would agree that you can only attain perfect pitch at a young age (before 10). After that the closest you can get is relative pitch. By knowing a reference note, you can figure out other notes. It is definitely easier for you to learn songs.

Most would agree that a pianist should not be concerned with a lack of perfect pitch. Wherever you strike a key, the pitch is the same.

All I can say is that it is "interesting" to read the different viewpoints/opinions above.

That's right - perfect pitch is totally different from relative pitch, and can even be a problem for musicians: those who perform with orchestras in different countries which adopt different pitches e.g. UK (A-440) v Germany (A=444 or more) or those who play in period instrument bands. Especially for singers......

A well-developed sense of relative pitch (not perfect pitch) is what makes for good aural skills. And unlike perfect pitch, it can be developed at any age.

Indeed, very interesting to read because this year, I started solfeggio with my teacher and she's really into it and wants me to do more solfeggio.

Aural training is important, we all agree but how important is it ?
For students in a college who study 8 hours a day, they have time to learn solfeggio, sight reading, counterpoint, music theory, the history of the great composers and practice piano. For us adults with only one or two hours a day and want to play piano, we can't learn all that. For me priority number one is learning new pieces, practice 2-5-1 in all keys, a little bit of scale and arpeggios, sight-reading and solfeggio but when time is short I give up solfeggio and sight-reading.

I think you mean solfège?


Aural training can be done at any time, not formally with a teacher, as I hinted at earlier. You can do it in the bath or shower - just practice singing intervals (after singing do-re-mi first, if you need to). Most people sing in the bath, don't they?

And you can also do it while listening to music - not even classical. Find a tune you know very well, like your national anthem, or a Christmas carol, and identify the interval between each of the adjacent notes of the melody, using solfége. If you know your harmony, try identifying the harmony and the harmonic progression too. Try to sing a third below the melody of a song.

And so on.....

(BTW, all the above was what I did when I was a student, often just for fun, when I was bored during school classes - I'd 'sing' stuff in my head (often the hymn that I sang in morning assembly earlier) and write it down on solfége, add on what I think was the harmony used, then later try it out on the piano to see how much I got right)

True not just for aural skills, isn't it?
Unless of course you do know everything about everything.
Still, it seems to me that would certainly be hard to know that you know everything about everything, wouldn't it? Your mileage may vary.

It's about time for the Alan Watts limerick, isn't it?

There was a young man who said though,
It seems that I know that I know,
But what I would like to see is the I that knows me
When I know that I know that I know.

The only question is what these different opinions are based on. If you ask the question: "How much is it necessary to read notes to an amateur pianist of jazz or pop", then it is easy to foresee the majority of answers, to which I can join. But on the basis of this, deny the need to develop musical ear (my guess)? These are two completely different categories!

Solfège and solfeggio are the same thing, one is French and the other Italian.

As a child, my teacher made me sing in solfeggio (solfege). I loved singing, but that was hard for me. And then I had to do it in choir, and then again for undergrad ear training classes. I was thankful when taking those classes that I had done that before, but it didn't really appear to serve any other purpose for me except something more to think about.

In the US, solfege isn't really used much except in choir. It's not in any method piano books, nor do you find it much in sightreading books out there except for ones used in college. But I do know in Europe and Asia it is used quite a bit more in piano. So why is it neglected in the States?

When Tyrone brought this up for the exams, I started to realize that there were things that I could do because of my singing background that were extremely helpful in learning pieces:

1) Audiation (looking at sheet music and being able to "sing" it in your head without playing)
2) Musicality (such as phrasing, identifying cadences or significant notes or chords in a passage)

I think this is where solfege really comes in handy, and sure, as a result I can play by ear very easily and write down what I hear. Those are great benefits, but not necessary for the average adult student. But audiation is extremely important, and being able to hear your mistakes because your reading and the sound that what you see should make helps you to self-regulate that (although no one is perfect).

As for musicality, I think when you physically sing notes, you can first of all, feel if the interval is close or far away. The human voice has to work harder for leaps larger than a 3rd, and the human ear hears higher notes as louder, so by learning solfege, one can better understand instinctively how to shape a phrase or find significant notes in a passage. Certainly one can do this as well by analyzing the score, but I do think feeling the important notes is much more helpful and faster.

edited to add: One last point I was thinking, is that what we do is an aural art, so we probably should be concerned with developing our relative pitch/aural skills, if anything so that we listen to ourselves.

So, not absolutely necessary, but probably worth putting some effort into it, IMO.

Yes but solfège is a french word, I didn't know it was also valid in english. I thought solfeggio was right word.

I heard that in France, solfeggio requirements are at a completely crazy level, including the singing and dictations of atonal music.

I got the strong impression that if Tyrone wasn't doing the RCM exam in which aural tests are a part, you would never bothered with teaching him aural skills.

If that's so, does that mean that you don't consider aural skills an important part of teaching students piano, and that you don't bother with them?

Music is an international language. Words, unfortunately, are not. Morodienne just answered that - Solfeggio is the Italian word, with an accent grave it's French, minus the accent, it's sort of English - I've seen it referred to in English with and without the accent, and as Solfege or Solfeggio. I think the former is more common.

What is much more important is how it's used, where it's used, and whether it is "movable Do" or "fixed Do" - that is ultra important. In French, the names of pitches are Do Re Mi - in English they are called C, D, E .... "fixed Do" replaces C with Do, etc. and the name is the pitch. In movable, Do is the Tonic, Sol is the Dominant note, Ti is the Subtonic etc., so that in the key of G major, G is called Do in movable, in the key of C major, G is called Sol. That is why it's ultra-important to know which is being meant.

The RCM - which Tyrone is studying - added movable Do solfege to the theory books a few years ago. I had to do a leap when I went to the 2nd level of harmony theory, because the new book was leaning on things that had not been taught. They added letter name (jazz) chords, and m.D. solfege. The jazz chords are there, because in a lot of music, the neat and tidy functional chords no longer are enough. The Solfege is for "voice leading" patterns in 4-part harmony. For example: G7 to C (V7-I), Ti likes to go to Do (B to C), Fa likes to go to Mi (F to E). You have your four notes: G, B, D, F going to three notes: C, E, G ... which are on the page in some order, with four voices going on - and it has to make sense harmonically as well as for each individual line.

"Singing" the piano music falls apart for me, esp. using movable Do solfege ---- which was my ONLY reference for decades so I do know this system well ----- when the music is not diatonic, where suddenly you have no Do, i.e. when it's atonal ----- and how on earth do you "sing" music which is all chords, esp. massive complicated chords? Even if you develop throat singing, you'll only manage a maximum of two notes at a time.

I do have use for this ability and still use it. At times when someone posts music here, I sing it off the page with my eyes and voice - and don't necessarily have to use my voice.

One DISadvantage this ability gave me is a certain "register deafness". Our voices do not have the range of a piano. My range is larger than for most untaught singers: 3 octaves; my pitch is pretty good. But I still had to switch to an octave lower or higher when singing from the page. As a result, when restarting and remediating piano, I might play in the wrong octave because they were "the same" for me. I had to develop a "feel for register" and it is still a weakness.

The movable Do part as it evolved for me? I can play a melody on my descant recorder, on the piano, on the guitar - flip over to the alto F recorder and play the same thing in F that was in C, without batting an eye. I can switch into any key and not even notice: if a recording has been slowed down on Youtube so that the piece in C# is playing in C, I won't notice and won't care. The "perfect pitch" folks are thrown for a loop. But I ALSO won't notice if I'm playing in the wrong key - until I end up with an implausible number of black keys that shouldn't be there. V7-I .... G7-C; Bb7-Eb; E7-A .... sounded the "same" to me. I had to work on it.

What bothers me ......... often ............ is this guessing about what other people are and aren't doing. It's for Morodiene to answer ofc. But you are asking this of someone whose absolute expertise is singing, at a mastery level ... whether the hearing part of music might be important. I'd find it implausible that it weren't.

My post was addressed to her, not you. Why are you presuming to answer for her?

Have you read through the numerous posts in the exam thread?

You are correct. This is why I mentioned that it's not stressed at all in the US except in choirs and when you are a music major. You don't find it talked about much at all among fellow teachers from the US. So really, this process of going through the RCM has got me thinking more about it. I had also unrelatedly been reading a book that discussed solfege for piano (fixed do), in helping students develop a picture of the keyboard in their head as they play.

I'm giving it a try with my private students (at least the ones that aren't only taking 30 minute lessons - not my choice but the school's), but even 45 minutes isn't enough time. I'm not quite sure how to work this in.

I expect it's difficult for learners of fixed-pitch instruments like the piano to see what's to be gained from learning aural skills (if they weren't required for exams etc) and I have to say that it wasn't until I discovered that I could start to 'hear' the music I was looking at in a score (without needing a piano), and later, joined a choir and realized I could sight-sing fairly easily that I understood how useful aural skills were, and not just for general musicianship.

As well as an enhanced appreciation of the music I was learning (on piano as well as singing) or listening to, when I could pick out and follow individual lines within textures (in chamber, orchestral and choral music), and hear how they relate to the general harmonic progression as well as to the actual melody. I also believe aural skills helped immensely with my rhythmic acuity very early on, because familiarity with beating time to music (after ascertaining the number of beats per bar) develops the sense of an ingrained regular beat.

But I can see why teachers who don't have much time to get through all the pieces in each lesson will think that teaching of aural skills is surplus to requirements, especially if their students don't see the point of them either.....

I had ear training as a child student but it was a second 45 minute weekly lesson. I wasn’t asked whether I wanted it, but honestly it just seemed like a puzzle to learn. ... not painful. The one suggestion I would have is to find a good ear training application and incorporate it into the lesson and assigned practice. I’m not a teacher, so I have zero experience in putting this together this way.... so just a thought for better or worse.

I have not gone through the entire thread yet, but my teacher teaches me technique, theory, aural, and even a little bit of history. I told her that I would never take the initiative to learn these on my own, so they have to be a good portion of my lessons. I have not taken any tests at all with any program and have no plans to do so at this time. I don't have official titles of what she teaches me, but just running through my head:

Major and Minor Intervals
Major and Minor Scales
Time Signatures
Key Signatures: what is the key of this piece? what other keys appear in this piece?
Recognizing a chord, melody, harmony, scale

I'm certain I'm missing some.

That's interesting...I was thinking back to my master's degree and there was nothing about solfege/ear training in my pedagogy course, nor is it mentioned in any of the pedagogy texts I own except in passing. I wonder why this is? Did it just fall out of fashion?

My teacher did not use a text book—- so I have no idea of her own personal history and, sadly, I never thought to ask her where she studied. I assume that it did go out of fashion at some point because it is so time consuming and there would not be much student interest. I was just addicted to anything piano and never questioned anything.

It's quite possible that nobody knows for sure how humans perceive pitch, and thus no one knows how to _teach_ it.

In my experience, students come in with all sorts of hearing abilities--some quite extensive, and others completely ZERO. Yet others I would contend have negative ability--meaning I have some hefty work to do with them just to get them to "normal" levels.

I think you need at least some rudimentary ear training so that you can hear wrong notes when you practice. For example, a note that is not in the major/minor scale should jump out at you, if you know the notes in the scale. And then you add chords and seventh chords if the student gets that far. Otherwise, I would only do ear training (such as interval ID) with the exam students. I save dictation for the AP students. Lesson time can be spent on other, more important things.

I think that piano teachers who are used to teaching aural skills as an essential part of piano teaching will find ways of incorporating them into normal lessons, as all my teachers did.

They never allocated 'special time' or devoted specific lessons towards aural skills: for the first four years, my weekly lessons were 30 minutes long; then a move to boarding school, where the lessons were 45 minutes. Aural skills were included from day 1: as I've mentioned frequently in previous posts, they were simply part of the 'counting beats', where my teacher sang them (one-and-two-and etc) in pitch with the actual notes being played, and got me to sing along with her. From counting-while-singing beats aloud to clapping the rhythm to beating time; and from singing intervals of major seconds to major thirds, perfect fourths and fifths as I learnt more notes.......it was a straightforward progression, all done together with learning the notes on the piano. One is complementary to the other.

When I was no longer required to count/sing beats aloud, my teacher would just - every now and then - play two-note chords, or two notes one after the other, and ask me to identify the interval between them (only intervals I'd already learnt, of course). And they were always notes I'd be learning as part of the new piece. Same for identifying time signatures and clapping rhythms.

No need to turn aural skills into something 'extra' or 'foreign' just because it's 'aurals' rather than practicals.

But of course, all teachers here in the UK (and my home country) have to teach aural skills to all students because of the exams, and they themselves too were taught them when they were students and doing the same exams. If it isn't part of a teacher's usual lessons - and it seems it isn't in the US -, it won't be an easy task to start doing it......

Tyrone, I never went to the original question. I'm thinking that to learn to play music on an instrument, this involves all kinds of things that interrelate. Music is held in notation when it is written down, the notation represents sounds, and the sounds create sequenced patterns which make sense to the listener. Ideally they are brought together in a way that they work together for the student, so he can use them. I don't think it always happens. When I first came on forums, I'd see students who had "studied theory", were advanced in it, hated it, saw no use for it, and did not use it in working on pieces of music. It has to all knit together and be useful.

In regard to the RCM program: I went through the theory you are doing right now, and beyond. At the moment you're doing the rudiments part, which comes in three overlapping levels. When I finished rudiments, I went on the harmony theory, which to a great degree went to four part harmony: the kind of music that Bach wrote for the chorales. You have four voices from bass to soprano, and the four voices had to make sense as individual melodies separately, yet also work as harmony. At this point I had to know the things I had studied in rudiments, because I had to use them and know what they are. It is not the only way to learn things, but it is one. It goes from the parts to the whole.

I would want to relate everything you are studying as much as you can to the music you are playing. If you are learning major thirds, find them in your music and on the piano, listen for the major or minor, seek out patterns that you hear and see. Listen on the radio and in your environment. The beeps in grocery store cash registers tend to be in unison but occasionally one is a semitone off. Music you hear - what mood does it create for you, and can you capture what you're hearing to make it so. You want to bring it from an abstract, intellectual thing, to something real.

I think for the most part this thread has not been convincing about the importance of solfege skills. This surprised me because I know most professionally trained pianists study this skill.

The major aural skills proponent on the thread(guess who) listed things like being able to sight sing in a choir or being able to hear the music before playing it as examples of the importance of aural skills. But sight singing in a choir is important for singers but not for pianists. While it might be fun to hear a piece without playing it first, one can either listen to a recording or play it if one wants to hear it.

Almost all of the musical activities he listed as requiring training in aural skills I have done, some of them very extensively, despite any aural skills training. It's certainly possible training in aural skills would have helped me in all those activities but saying those musical activities require aural training is simply not true.

Some other uses of aural skills mentioned(playing by ear, improvisation, help with sight reading, being more attuned to harmonic considerations) I found more useful but far from utterly convincing.

I wonder who that was. He must be a genius.


It's more than just fun.

Try thinking outside the confines of your own tiny little box, for once......


But we mustn't forget that you're a prodigy - almost as good as LL.


Who said that??

I hate to think this thread has been shut down due to intimidation or avoidance of unpleasantness. I'm looking at the post right above mine. "confines of little box", "prodigy" (immediately makes people think twice of stating any ability they may have gotten outside of the sanctioned one) etc.

I actually like the idea of learning new things, including music theory together with hearing, which I think belong together. But I don't like the tone this has taken.

People come with different natural abilities, and they also develop abilities along different paths. Some of the things that were mentioned: hearing different voices (lines) in polyphonic type music, singing along with someone else by harmonizing in thirds, are things that I did decades before I had any kind of training. It had to do with what I was exposed to, and what I was attracted to and thus listened for. Each of us will have a story like that. Anyone stating they have some such abilities should not be shut down with words like "prodigy" - mocking them - and probably shutting down everyone else - it is possible.

There are also things that didn't develop in my case. chord qualities beyond majors and minors stayed weak, especially if played harmonically rather than melodically. Everybody is different and there are many paths.

I think there are many ways that you can train your ear apart from the usual formal exercises. For example, listing to a piece while trying to sing the bass line, or listening to a string quartet and focussing on the viola part. For people who can follow a score, which many people find a lot easier than they first imagine (e.g. by following the pitch contour), try and pick out instrumental parts or lines. Sharpening up your ear like this can help you to hear more of what's going on in the music.

I agree, but many (probably most) students will have difficulty until they have practised solfège and done some basic ear training already - or preferably, joined a choir which sings in harmony (not unisons) and reads from the score, not learning by rote. In fact, singing in a choir is probably the quickest and most enjoyable route towards ear training.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBmCcSz6HWw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVW9GJrm9SU

I think without some training, most students won't be able to focus on even the cello part, let alone the viola part of the Emperor hymn, much less the tenor or bass part of the Bach chorale.....even with the score to hand, unless they're able to sight-sing (in which case their aural skills are already well up to snuff......).

Even picking out the bottom part of this duet from Hänsel und Gretel would be quite tricky for a novice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6Fr3I4fUAo

Whereas a teacher can play it several times on the piano while emphasising the lower part, starting forte (with upper part pp), then gradually levelling out the respective parts with each subsequent play-through while the student concentrates on listening to the same line. There is a lot of suitable stuff for training the ears, like this famous trio:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMY3Ou9L5xE

It seems that various people had wide ranging experiences... I can only add a short comment, based on my own. Quite a few years ago I joined a music school and asked the director (a scary Nadia Boulanger type) to assign a piano teacher to me. She told me “ you will work with Marie-Agnes, and YOU WILL BE a member of our choir” which I duly did, as a tenor. I thought it was crazy, at first, but quickly realized that I developed a slightly better sense of polyphonic works and counterpoint that I doubt I could have grasped otherwise.

I am unable to send a comment on this phrase. Why?

What means "what is the enjoyable route "? I remember how joyfully we sang popular songs at the school in this way, although this was not part of the curriculum (keine Jessmuzik!); and exactly the pianists were the most active in this (it’s understandable why).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is some kind of bug. The whole post is not sent, in parts, yes.

It's about barbershop harmonies.I don’t know if classical teachers are familiar with them.

When I moved to my new high school, I was able to practice ear training every weekday morning during school assembly, as the whole school always sang two hymns accompanied by the pipe organ.

Initially, I'd sing the melody like everyone else, then try to sing the bass line on the second or third verse - very softly, so that the kids around me wouldn't notice (By then, my voice had broken to something like a baritone). If I thought I got that, I'd try the tenor line next: much more tricky. I usually couldn't pick out the alto line, but when I got the chance later to write out the whole hymn on manuscript paper (just like Mozart wrote out Allegri's Miserere mei, Deus from memory after hearing it at the Sistine Chapel ), I'd fill out the whole hymn in four-part harmony as I thought the organ scholar played it, when the alto part would be quite easy to guess. Then, after school, I'd try it out on the piano, and make corrections if something obviously wasn't right, or wasn't the way I remember hearing it. As time went on, and I wrote out more and more hymns in this manner, I got better at it, as my ears got better at hearing the different parts, and how they fitted together, and my harmonic sense improved too.

The good thing is that the hymns that we sang were all straightforward harmonically as well as melodically, so even though I was only just grappling with basic harmonic progressions at the time (while learning music theory for my exams), by intent listening and trying to pick out and sing the respective parts and writing down the whole hymn later, I improved my aural skills day by day - all in the name of fun & games .

Here's a seasonal hymn that everyone knows - but can you pick out the bass part in this harmonization by David Willcocks (which is the standard one in the UK)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZYZEr3JtZY

This might be easier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FH-TnzLP4k

N.B. The organists don't play the complete bass part on the keyboard.

Choral singing in the church is an excellent school for the development of multi-voice hearing; however, most young people interested in contemporary popular songs, which, for example, can be heard on contests like "The Voice"; and the possibility of singing them in several voices, in the style of barbershop chords, rather than a traditional choral texture, adds another tool for motivation to the fact that in the end it develops hearing - in the process of pleasure. And again: are teachers with a classic background familiar with this type of multi-voice arrangement?

As there is a defining silence, I'll fill in the void .

My first attempt at singing in harmony was this barbershop-style song, Yellow Bird:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuyb7zhcxIg

.....which I tried to sing in thirds with a cousin (older than me by several years) who taught me to play chords on the guitar to accompany pop songs. I heard him sing it with his friend, and it sounded lovely. I was still a year or two from beginning piano lessons then, so I had no idea what I was doing. I just thought that if it sounded good, it was right.

Subsequently, of course, I discovered lots of other pop songs in which the performers (especially the likes of ABBA) sing in harmony, though not necessarily close harmony like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eEHx_a-XGQ

Just last week, I enjoyed listening to the radio 1 hour program with King Singers . And who would refuse to sing in a group Because ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIjNSYhNiI