Three ear training programs

In the last couple of days I've come across 3 ear training programs that I thought I'd share with those of you who might have some interest. I know there are lots of them out there and I've seen quite a few. These three are new to me however.

I know that there's a lot of strong beliefs about ear training and I'm not trying to be controversial I just want to share what seems to me like some potentially useful opportunities for those of us who are interested in developing our ears.

I have absolutely no affiliation with any of these programs.


The first two are software downloads.

1. http://reelear.com/
This one has a free trial download and I like it a lot. It's a user controlled melody generator where the user gets to set all sorts of parameters. Essenstially you use it for call and response practice either vocally or with your instrument. I can see this simple program having a real fast and useful impact on someones ear. Only $12.95.

Here's a basic rundown of it.
sVmaa4W9Ntw



2. http://www.brycealexandermusic.com/

This one addresses perfect pitch. It's an interesting approach that he uses and it's worth at least reading what the guy has to say. If you sign up he will email you some example lessons. It was pretty easy for me to hear what he's pointing out as the character of each pitch. Essentially he's saying that each pitch is recognizable by it's unique emphasis of certain harmonics (upper partials). The software teaches you to hear the definitive harmonics in each of the twelve pitches. At least that's what I've got out of it so far. I haven't bought it but it's somewhat enticing.

I assume this is what David Lucas Burge refers as hearing the 'color' of each note although Burge doesn't relate it to specific harmonics that are emphasised in each note.




3. http://www.eartraininghq.com/the-progressive-ear-training-course/

I may wind up signing up for this one at least to initially check it out. I can spare the $2. I've really given this one a good look over and it seems like a very legitimate and well designed course. He's got some YT vids up as well.

EhxdO51DHks

THANK YOU! :mrgreen:

These look great!

I will post back later when I've had a chance to play with and compare them. I've got a lot going on so it might not be till next week... But seriously, thank you! I know I will enjoy checking these out!

You're welcome Jay. I think you'll very quickly see the value of the first one, ReelEar. I've been playing around with that one a little bit. I've only got the trial version, which is fully functional, but only lasts 10 days. I absolutley think that if you used that program for even just 10 minutes a day you would very likely notice an obvious improvement in your ear in a couple weeks if not sooner. Most obviously, I think it would be really useful for improving a person's improvising skills and creating call and response lines in a group setting. I'll probably wind up buying that one for sure since it's only $12.95.

Well organized and very simple. You can start at Beginner and work your way up at your own pace:

http://www.good-ear.com/servlet/EarTrainer

Enjoy. :-) CS

Well organized and very simple. You can start at Beginner and work your way up at your own pace:

http://www.good-ear.com/servlet/EarTrainer

Enjoy. :-) CS

Thanks Chris. I've seen that one before. I think there are a number of those online that are all very similar. I was introduced to formal ear training in 1981 or so and it seems very little has been done to improve and enhance the approach to teaching it. And personally I think there's lots of room for improvement.

Of the free programs online that I'm aware of my favourite by far is the Functional Ear Trainer I and II. I think that's a pretty well thought out program where you're asked to identify intervals within an actual musical context rather than just hearing an interval on it's own. It looks like there's a v2 now which I haven't used. http://www.miles.be/software/34-functional-ear-trainer-v2
Here's the original. http://www.miles.be/software/4-functional-ear-trainer-basic


The thing that interests me about the three programs in my OP is that they each have some unique aspects that go beyond the typical offerings available online. I think any ear training is better than none at all but I also think that there have been some important improvements and better designed approaches to teaching ear training that I see are starting to make there way onto the scene. The goal of these approaches is to significantly improve the success of the student which is a good goal. I'd say that by and large the 'tried and true' approaches have failed miserably at providing the majority of students with an effective method of getting good results within a reasonable time frame.

For example Bruce Arnold who teaches music and guitar at NYU and Princeton has some unique and I think advanced approaches to teaching ear training. If you scroll down this page (http://muse-eek.com/digital/digital.html) you will see the materials he offers for ear training. Good stuff.

Because of my mother, who always turns these things this way, I had to wonder what kind of training this thread would offer, and who has three ears, anyway?

Mom has a package label tacked on her bulletin board, that says, "38 Meat Ravioli." Let's see, now: beef, chicken, lamb, pork, squid, kangaroo. . . .

Anyway, these look great, and my ears will get after them. Thanks for posting them.

Because of my mother, who always turns these things this way, I had to wonder what kind of training this thread would offer, and who has three ears, anyway?

Mom has a package label tacked on her bulletin board, that says, "38 Meat Ravioli." Let's see, now: beef, chicken, lamb, pork, squid, kangaroo. . . .

Anyway, these look great, and my ears will get after them. Thanks for posting them.

Just like mystics speak of the 'third eye', most people don't realize that they also have a third ear. It's much harder to keep clean than the other two however.

Your welcome. I think there's some good learnin' in there.

... most people don't realize that they also have a third ear. It's much harder to keep clean than the other two however.

:mrgreen::lol:

While I have always been pretty good at playing, composing, improvising, teach theory and analysis, doing theory research, etc., my Achilles heel is my ear. I am very good at picking things out and "seeing" music that I hear and walking around in it. After being paralyzed for two months, when I got back home, I found that music had become physical and concrete in the manner I just described. But as a college student, and even grad, I was not the best ear student.

As a grad student, I had to take 6 practicum exams in dictation, sight-singing, figured bass realization, reading 4-part counterpoint in treble, alto, tenor, and bass clefs, score reduction, and piano sight-reading at the Chopin level. Dictation wasn't so bad, just a Bach chorale. I had a little trouble at first, but then worked with a classmate severals nights a week. He would play a phrase, and I would write it down. The trick was that eventually, you find that Bach only has a limited number of moves he can make at any point. I am very grateful for my friend for playing those for me. Just doing it really helped. Also, doing it on a Steinway grand with a former piano major seemed to elevate the process. In a trade off, I would play at the piano selected passages from David Burge's perfect pitch book. Over two months, I was able to transcribe a Bach chorale with ease and confidence. My friend, however, didn't seem any better at perfect pitch than when he started. The structure of the exercises looked good and seemed reasonable, but, again, the outcome was not encouraging at all. Remember that my friend had great piano skills and was very dedicated to this process.

I forget to mention sight-singing. That was really rough for me, as I always felt like I just couldn't sing, period. In college, I was required to sing in a choir, and that was an enormous help. It felt great to singing and have my pitch lock in with the others in my section. I had one thing I could do well in the choir, and that was to sight sing a new piece. It was funny to find that when we were learning a new piece, the guys in my section would huddle around me. But once they knew the material, they kept their distance.

When I first took the sight singing exam in grad school, I could actually sing the first couple of phrases of an opera aria, usually by Wagner in these exams. However, Wagner loved to change keys and use ambiguous notes. As a result, I would start modulating but immediately lose sight of the tonic. Once out there, I couldn't make my way back.

I tried practicing singing scale degrees, which helped a little, but not a lot. However, another classmate introduced me to the solfege system. Basically, it is do re mi fa sol la ti do for a major scale. If you raise a note, the syllable is modified. For example, fa becomes fi when sharped. When flatted, fa becomes fe. Within days, I would sing the syllables in the shower, walking down the street, etc. A couple of months later, I sang one of those modulating Wagner arias well enough to pass.

In short, based on my experience, I cannot recommend the Burge system for learning perfect pitch (this was in 1992, I think). I can recommend most highly the solfege system. It was practically a miracle for me. At the university where I teach, solfege is what we use. I strongly urge others to try it.

BTW, the solfege system teaches relative pitch, not perfect. In the US, we generally use the moveable do system. In this, do is the note C in the C major or minor scale. In the key of G, do is the note G. In Europe and South America, I have found, students use fixed do. In this system, do is always C, no matter what the key is.

I think any ear training is better than none at all but I also think that there have been some important improvements and better designed approaches to teaching ear training that I see are starting to make there way onto the scene.


Definitely - but then again, its hard to say whether the general level of that type of perception has just deteriorated so much over the last half a century or so; that the approaches themselves have 'dumbed down' to accomodate that - and now we are seeing a Renaissance of ideas that were around in music education a long time ago. Ear training around pitch perception has to have singing as a first principle - and this has gradually disappeared out of schooling (especially in the State system in Australasia).
Hindemith still has some of the best ideas for actual ear training in a class level - I've developed many ideas from his book which was written in the 1940's. Getting students to perform two simple actions simultaneously - a melody and a rhythm for instance - so that peception is modelled around action rather than abstraction - is vital.


and er ...just sayin'.....:wink:

Well this is interesting although I admit it doesn't really prove anything conclusive, BUT.....

Yesterday I signed up for the few free lessons from http://www.brycealexandermusic.com/ That's the absolute pitch program. (Oh by the way I've now read that the term 'perfect pitch' has been copyrighted by Burge apparently!!!)

Today I recieved lesson #2. It was the same as lesson #1 except that today's note is Eb and yesterday's note was F#. It's a very interesting idea that they are using whereby they give you a note to listen to via mp3 and then they have an mp3 where they accentuate the harmonic (upper partial) that gives the note it's characteristic 'colour' or timbre. So you go back and forth listening for that harmonic in the full version of the note.

Well I listened to the Eb and it's accentuated harmonic this morning for maybe 2 minutes. I had also done this with the F# yesterday. Anyway, I went out grocery shopping and was gone for maybe an hour and a half. I hadn't given any thought to the 'Eb' or ear training at all. When I got in I went to the computer and saw the Eb lesson on the screen so I decided to test myself and......bang on. I mean dead on. I laughed out loud. And just now I was working around the house for an hour and repeated the same test and again I was absolutely bang on. I don't mean close. I mean bang on. So.....

Interesting.

Just sayin'.....

Oh come on.... come right out and say it. I want to hear your thoughts on this Geoff.

Oh come on.... come right out and say it.

I wont (or at least Ive said enough) because Im just a thread killer when it comes to this stuff - and as you say any ear training is a good thing and thats the important bit - the good thing is that there seems to be more awareness of how important 'responding' is in the process - but there are real limitations with computer based stuff.
One day I'll get a head of steam up and start my own thread be-moaning the state of the contemporary ear - but you'll just have to wait in trepidation for that!::lol:

I wont (or at least Ive said enough) because Im just a thread killer when it comes to this stuff - and as you say any ear training is a good thing and thats the important bit - the good thing is that there seems to be more awareness of how important 'responding' is in the process - but there are real limitations with computer based stuff.
One day I'll get a head of steam up and start my own thread be-moaning the state of the contemporary ear - but you'll just have to wait in trepidation for that!::lol:

With baited breath.....:mrgreen:

Well organized and very simple. You can start at Beginner and work your way up at your own pace:

http://www.good-ear.com/servlet/EarTrainer

Enjoy. :-) CS


WINNER! that site helped me pass my ear training classes!!:razz:

BTW, the solfege system teaches relative pitch, not perfect. In the US, we generally use the moveable do system. In this, do is the note C in the C major or minor scale. In the key of G, do is the note G. In Europe and South America, I have found, students use fixed do. In this system, do is always C, no matter what the key is.

Canada too. Im a music student at Lakehead (yes a small school) and we use fixed do. Our dictation/musicianship teach is from Russia and he preaches fixed do. It seems harder at first, but, with practice really helps the ear to gain perfect pitch. I personally can hear A440 - from memorization with a tuner- so I have pretty good relative pitch.

also, once you have good ear skills with fixed do moveable do becomes a cinch.....

also I agree - the Hindemith method is fantastic. Just not for beginners. It was designed with 12 tone music in mind - so one could read a Schoenberg score or Webern score at sight. The rhythmic work alone is a workout!

Downloaded the 10 day free trial of Reel Ear, and it looks very interesting and useable. I like the call-and-response method. I'm an "ear musician" from the start, who learned a bit of notation and theory later in life.

I think I'm going to start working on the moveable solfege method, and probably purchase the Reel Ear software too.

Thanks for the tips, boneyguy & Larry F! :grin:

/ Tony

My 'relative' pitch has always been pretty good and I completely chalk it up to jamming at a very early stage in my musical development. My dad is a musician, my brother played trumpet and I had a cousin who lived with us for awhile that played French horn. My pops showed us an F blues scale and we jammed every day (which explains my affinity for flat keys I guess). No substitute for doing it 'under fire' shall we say.

Having said that I have have seen computer based ear training (musica practica - ars nova) get results, though I will say it has to be done in conjunction with live ear training/testing/playing/jamming. And this is mostly with kids (high school/college) but it needs to be taken away from the console and put in to real time practice or it turns into the difference between a real fighter pilot and single shooter 'game' player.
I would say in Glenn's (boneyguy's) case he understands that and anything that intrigues you as a learner is probably going to help somewhat. My only real advice is to apply the techniques immediately and document your progress.

Downloaded the 10 day free trial of Reel Ear, and it looks very interesting and useable. I like the call-and-response method. I'm an "ear musician" from the start, who learned a bit of notation and theory later in life.

I think I'm going to start working on the moveable solfege method, and probably purchase the Reel Ear software too.

Thanks for the tips, boneyguy & Larry F! :grin:

/ Tony

You're welcome Big T. It's a cool program isn't it. I haven't really taken the time to use the trial version much but it quckly became obvious just how useful this will be. I'm probably going to purchase this one too.

...........Having said that I have have seen computer based ear training (musica practica - ars nova) get results, though I will say it has to be done in conjunction with live ear training/testing/playing/jamming. And this is mostly with kids (high school/college) but it needs to be taken away from the console and put in to real time practice or it turns into the difference between a real fighter pilot and single shooter 'game' player.
I would say in Glenn's (boneyguy's) case he understands that and anything that intrigues you as a learner is probably going to help somewhat. My only real advice is to apply the techniques immediately and document your progress.

Yes. ^^^

The last thing the world needs is another computer game. This stuff is only useful if it's taken into the real world... the world where people get together and play music.

also I agree - the Hindemith method is fantastic. Just not for beginners. It was designed with 12 tone music in mind - so one could read a Schoenberg score or Webern score at sight. The rhythmic work alone is a workout!

Yes it gets hard very quickly - so I've had to adapt the ideas to undergrad levels at Uni level and also for Jazz harmony - but I also keep the atonal apsect alive in second semester in Year 2 - material from a great book called "Modus Novus".
Developing perception is exploratory - proprioceptive and temporal - and to a lesser extent cerebral. The best thing about the Hindemith approach is that it shapes perception with immediate action - instead of just providing micro solutions to disparate issues in one's perception.

the world where people get together and play music.

That world is what worries me about computer based learning -and so many of them purport to be 'complete systems' or ' comprehensive methods' - those of us who have kids can equate this with the way the computer game or facebook has supplanted the playground and actual social contact. The hard part for youngsters is keeping perspective on it all.

What'd I tell ya? Stone dead!

Suffice to say that at least 2 of these programmes that Glenn has singled out here are actual courses - not just push button software packages...theres a big difference between programmes that lead the student back to the music and the ones that keep their noses to the screen.

I guided some students (who took it up independently) through the Burge method some years ago. It was like a recharge for the ears in many ways - mainly because there is a specific strategy for listening to actual music and to the world in general. This is a feature of some the best contemporary approaches. My own recommendations would go to WA Mathieu's Harmonic Experience - which is a book that explores in great depth , the harmonic content of natural sound - and really gives the ears a good purging!

Solfege - I was taught this as a 5 year old (in the last years of compulsory music education in state schools in this part of the world)... undeniably a great way of teaching people to sing - and by association a great ear trainer in both forms.

This is not in any way directed at anyone here, just a personal reminiscence.

In some ways this is all totally ridiculous to me ... a computer program to learn how to hear music? Listen, find it, repeat ...

I'll be 50 in a month and when I was figuring out how to play a 1/2 speed tape machine cost at least $350.00 - in 1977. What would that be in today's dollars? Consequentially - totally out of the question. Also there were no TABS to speak of and certainly no youtube vids. So you just listened and attempted over and over again till you got it (I used to put a quarter on the tone arm to slow it down a bit). The first few transcriptions are the hardest. It gets easier after that until you can just do it without an instrument in your hand. And it's also something you don't lose - you only get better at it.

Anyway, carry on.

(I used to put a quarter on the tone arm to slow it down a bit).

You had quarters!! I'll tell you what sonny boy, in my day we would have done anything to get some quarters to slow down the Victrola. That would have made it so much easier. You kids and and your quarters!! You don't know the meaning of an honest days ear training. Pffffffff.....

I get where you're coming from Ken and I can find arguments to support both sides of the....wait for it...coin. (Oh no you di'int!.)

I'm sure that the musician's who learned on the bandstand without the benefit of the modern Victrola as a teaching tool would consider using and slowing down a record as 'cheating' or at least missing out on a significant part of the learning experience. Would they be right? The process of learning how to make music has been around many times longer than record players and electronic recording have been. Those guys had to put quarters on the actual musicians to get them to slow down I reckon.

So....if Miles and Trane and Parker etc had had access to the technology that we take for granted today when they were learning their trade would they have purposfully avoided it or would they have embraced it and used it to it's fullest benefit. If they had would they still have evolved into the musicians we know today?

If they had would they still have evolved into the musicians we know today?

I'll put a brick on the tone arm and be a stuck record - when did it become notionally acceptable for Western musicians to actually be unable to sing? I dont mean having to sound like Donny Hathaway or Pavarotti - just hold a pitch - hear another one and sing that - in a 'ball park' type fashion? Because that's happening right now... there are a disturbing number of(I teach some of them:confused:) students of the guitar , drums and bass in particular who cannot sing at all - And that has a profound effect on the way all musicians evolve - and as importantly the way people listen as well. So I don't think these guys would have evolved this way in today's world. I wont vilify technology because we have always had it in some form or other - but the way it is used to create virtual realities does create issues;when actual experience is called for.

Lol!
As I said it was reminiscence not a criticism at all. I wished I'd had a 1/2 speed machine!
The computer 'learning' thing is funny. I generally score low on those ear training 'tests' on-line. A console is not an instrument (OK, it's not my instrument). On a band stand ... not much throws me anymore.

I'll put a brick on the tone arm and be a stuck record - when did it become notionally acceptable for Western musicians to actually be unable to sing? I dont mean having to sound like Donny Hathaway or Pavarotti - just hold a pitch - hear another one and sing that - in a 'ball park' type fashion? Because that's happening right now... there are a disturbing number of(I teach some of them:confused:) students of the guitar , drums and bass in particular who cannot sing at all - And that has a profound effect on the way all musicians evolve - and as importantly the way people listen as well. So I don't think these guys would have evolved this way in today's world. I wont vilify technology because we have always had it in some form or other - but the way it is used to create virtual realities does create issues;when actual experience is called for.

I was fortunate in that I grew up in a house with singing parents. My dad sang and played the uke and my mom had a really beautiful voice and a natural gift for harmonizing. I don't have a great voice but I still sing publicly and people seem to enjoy it. I choose my material carefully because I totally suck at melodies that are intricate in any way. The bigger the intervals the better for me (3rds, 4ths, 5ths, 6ths) and the fewer pitch changes the better. And that's why I sing the Blues.:mrgreen: Despite what my voice is capable of my ear is pretty finely tuned and that's why I'm cautious about what I choose to sing because I have no trouble hearing when I'm sucking. :lol: I'd love to bring my voice up to speed but I already have enough of a challenge just trying to improve my guitar playing.

It's interesting to me Geoff that you don't think that a guy like Miles would have evolved into the musician he did if he had been able to immerse himself in today's technology. I'm not arguing against your viewpoint but it simply provokes me to wonder are there not any current examples of musical equivalents of Miles, Trane, Parker, Montgomerey etc., not necessarily in the Jazz genre, who have developed an equal level of musicianship without going through the same process that the old guys went through?

I don't think my question is all that well formed but I trust you know what I'm getting at.

Lol!
As I said it was reminiscence not a criticism at all. I wished I'd had a 1/2 speed machine!

I know you arent bagging the technology either Ken - but the fact is that you developed without the 1/2 speed machine - and that changes things - demands a different depth of understanding. One example and something I find interesting in regard to this generation of students, is the exactitude with which things seem to need to be notated. I guess because now you can practically audition a phrase' rhythm and pitch using Sibelius . I bought in a 6 page transcription of Scofields solo on Dr Jackle to a class - one I was really proud of - had spent hours and hours learning to play and writing by hand back in the mid 80's - and had at some point told myself- "well I cant write that anymore clearly - its the playing that counts" But sure enough - a student will take it home -put the thing into Sibelius - and bring it back corrected - because they can. No judgement there - its just interesting...

it simply provokes me to wonder are there not any current examples of musical equivalents of Miles, Trane, Parker, Montgomerey etc., not necessarily in the Jazz genre, who have developed an equal level of musicianship without going through the same process that the old guys went through?

Ok - got this thread squarely under the 16 ton weight now..here it goes..:mrgreen:

Its so hard to second guess and Im really just guessing - but the question is clear for sure. The interesting thing is that as far as jazz goes - with all of the great advances in the delivery of, and access to knowledge, tools etc - most of us (and I mean guys my - and yours and Ken's vintage - 40's , 50's) - still seem to hold an earlier generation in a special place of reverence. I happen to like Prince, Bjork, Radiohead,the Bad Plus and other stuff - but my development took place around the music of another era - the 50's to the 70's.

I think that stamps a cultural imprint on your aesthetic - its inescapable. At the same time its kind of sad to bollock everything or really anything that comes after that's purely based on that aesthetic - so I try not to, even when I hear some band that sounds like a weak imitation of Led Zep or Sly Stone - because that's happened before too - and will keep happening regardless of what I think. So I'm the first to admit that I may not recognize the modern genius - because the concept is so subjective. Do I hear mastery? Yes of course - but what we become masters of - what matters to people, that's a wide net to cast nowadays - and an ephemeral one. Which is why I come back to singing as an essential social and educational activity - because it lies irrevocably at the heart of all traditions of music. When I see it disappearing I cant help but think that the environment has lost some essential nutrient for growth - real growth - but I may be wrong...

I use Earmaster Pro 5. It was expensive but it's really helped me develop my ear. I can instantly identity all intervals in a 3 octave range.

http://www.earmaster.com/products/

It's interesting to me Geoff that you don't think that a guy like Miles would have evolved into the musician he did if he had been able to immerse himself in today's technology. I'm not arguing against your viewpoint but it simply provokes me to wonder are there not any current examples of musical equivalents of Miles, Trane, Parker, Montgomerey etc., not necessarily in the Jazz genre, who have developed an equal level of musicianship without going through the same process that the old guys went through?

I don't think my question is all that well formed but I trust you know what I'm getting at.

At the risk of invoking and incurring wrath ... IMO no, not at all not even close harmonically and melodically. Maybe rhythmically - there's some pretty cool hip-hop as well as non-western music that stretches those boundaries (rhythmic). And I really like (maybe even more than I like jazz) a TON of pop music but very little of it (including today's nu jazzerz) can match a mid 60's Wayne Shorter record for shear innovation contained in literally every 8 bars of music.
I also feel that the 'ease of access' is making it too easy. The real work, the work beyond just copying the notes, is not getting done. The 'why' as opposed to the what. Actually writing it out yourself reveals SO MUCH of the why and gives you the ability to extrapolate and then know how to use said lick somewhere else.
Just because you can put together an IKEA dresser - a 'cabinet maker' you do not become.

Having said that I do know plenty of young players (guys and gals in their 20's) that are great players and will possibly make a statement someday. they use a bit of 'new' technology but for the most part they all do it the old fashioned way - figure it out themselves and then try it with the band.
*Like I said, my opinion ... but you asked and that's what I think.

At the risk of invoking and incurring wrath ... IMO no, not at all not even close harmonically and melodically. Maybe rhythmically - there's some pretty cool hip-hop as well as non-western music that stretches those boundaries (rhythmic). And I really like (maybe even more than I like jazz) a TON of pop music but very little of it (including today's nu jazzerz) can match a mid 60's Wayne Shorter record for shear innovation contained in literally every 8 bars of music.
I also feel that the 'ease of access' is making it too easy. The real work, the work beyond just copying the notes, is not getting done. The 'why' as opposed to the what. Actually writing it out yourself reveals SO MUCH of the why and gives you the ability to extrapolate and then know how to use said lick somewhere else.
Having said that I do know plenty of young players (guys and gals in their 20's) that are great players and will possibly make a statement someday. they use a bit of 'new' technology but for the most part they all do it the old fashioned way - figure it out themselves and then try it with the band.
*Like I said, my opinion ... but you asked and that's what I think.

That makes sense to me.

It makes me consider the distinction between music as a profession and music as a way of life. Those two contexts may have a lot of overlap at times and superficial similarities but the actual experience of each is a very different thing. When I think of those people that have been mentioned, Miles, Trane, Wes etc. they were living a life of music not just piecing together a career in music. And maybe that's what this is at least partly about with respect to ear training and computers and so forth. I mean it might be a nice parlour trick to be able to flawlessly name intervals in the privacy and comfort of your computer room but what real world skills does that actually give you on a gig?

As a supplement I think it helps. It isn't an either/or thing.
When I was in school we had our friends play notes or chords and we'd compete to see who 'got it' fastest and most consistently. It's also what the teachers in ear-training classes and harmony classes did (hopefully still do) too. Basically the same thing as the computer but there's outside distractions and no real volume or dynamic consistency (again, a little more real world).

'Functional' ear training works like any other type of music practice ...

You do it at home until you get it.
You 'rehearse' it with the band ... until you get it.
You try it on a gig - F it up and then really realize what it's all about, go back to the woodshed, stir and repeat.

*I know and have known over the years several musicians with absolute (perfect) pitch. None of them are any better at actually 'making' music than any of the other good musicians I know. Some aren't as good - as in they don't necessarily make good 'musical' choices.

I mean it might be a nice parlour trick to be able to flawlessly name intervals in the privacy and comfort of your computer room but what real world skills does that actually give you on a gig?

As a supplement I think it helps. It isn't an either/or thing.

This is territory I understand - and wrath may still be invoked /incurred. But the notion of ear training away from musical action (singing ,playing or even dancing) is contemporaneous with the disappearance of improvisation as a common practice in Western Music (classical music that is).

Identifying musical objects that have no context - hamstringing perception so that the object is just defined by a name or notation has limited application in actual music making.

The abstraction, replacement (through technology - i.e bland computer generated sound) and homogenisation of musical phenomena within many typical ear training programmes is aimed at abstracting, replacing and homogenising perception itself to make assessing 'musicianship' easier - thats it...
This ‘way’ just ensures that individuals model perception on the object and train perception around its abstract definitions unless a musician puts their voice or instrument directly in the path of the process.

It surprises me that the legitimacy of ear training in institutions isnt questioned more often - because I reckon it should integrate more into practice - not just as a sideline...

I have students who are good at this stuff, really good, who dont play that well - whereas every student I have who plays or sings well - really well , has great ears - even if not all have a super- quick grasp of the terminology for what they are doing.

The 'perception' aspect of hearing is a very interesting subject.

One day after my kid was born they 'tested' his hearing. Since I know that most of one's auditory ability (in a normal human) is learned I asked how they did that?. The doc said that they just test to see that the 'parts' (cochlea, drum) are all working w/in certain parameters.
It was really cool to watch junior develop auditory perception.
From not knowing what direction a sound emanates to pointing at a stereo speaker with Lee Morgan blasting out of it and exclaiming, "la tromba!"

As a musically trained adult - meaning that even w/o formal ear-training your hearing is pretty refined - we've all been fooled as to where a sound in our house/car comes from, how far away it is and even what it is.

My ears are pretty good but sometimes I get 'fooled'. I can think of several times on jazz pick up gigs in particular where I didn't hear the tune or key called - and together with the ride cymbal, not being able to clearly hear the bass and the piano player never hitting a voicing with a root or a 3rd - I hear it as a fourth up from the actual key.
Or what about being so friggin loud you can't hear pitch accurately? I've been there too often. It's a fact that with high DB levels we perceive pitch flat. And conversely sharp with very low DB levels. That's why it's referred to as sound pressure level.

As a supplement I think it helps. It isn't an either/or thing.

I agree. I just know from experience that hearing computer generated intervals that are never phrased with different rhythmic dynamics or volume changes etc. but always have the same volume and equal rhythmic spacing is not easily translated to real situations of making music. In fact I'll bet I can probably trip someone up quite easily who can ace a computer generated ear training test just by adding some rhythmic diversity to playing the intervals.


It surprises me that the legitimacy of ear training in institutions isnt questioned more often - because I reckon it should integrate more into practice - not just as a sideline...


Some really good observations and points Geoff. I've read through your post several times now because I want to clearly get what you're saying. I don't know why the typical methods of ear training are not challenged on the baisis of their usefulness and viability but your suggestion that it's a tidy and homogenous way to asign a level of musicianship to someone is probably the key.

I studied music in college for only one year and of course did the ear training thing. I definitely learned some stuff but I can't say it was directly applicable to making music outside of the class. And strangely enough I don't think there was any real attempt on the part of the 'method' or the instructor to include it into the role of making music. It was simply another subject I had to take. :confused:


The 'perception' aspect of hearing is a very interesting subject.

Oh yeah! Now we're getting into the good stuff. :lol:

When you pull apart the physics and physiology of hearing at a certain point it becomes aparent that what we actually 'hear' is our own ear. Right? We don't actually hear things outside of ourselves but we hear the mechanisms in our ears vibrating. And since we know all 'things' have a resonant frequency we can assume that so do the various things that vibrate in our ears. So our ears are much more sensitive to certain frequencies that 'tickle' our ear.


When a person hears the 'colour' or timbre of a note as a way of identifying it with perfect pitch they are making the determination based on particular harmonics of that pitch that stand out in volume from the other harmonics.

However, the actual truth is that all harmonics above a fundamental have equal volume and presence. It's just that our ear is more resonant to some frequencies than others. So the note itself actually doesn't have any distinctive sound character in and of itself. All the various harmonics hit our ears at an equal volume but the mechanisms in our ears dont' vibrate equally in response to each frequency giving the illusion that each note has a distinctive harmonic overtone character.

The perfect pitch course that I linked to in my OP is based on this understanding and uses a very interesting method to develop PP. I think it's worth at least reading about the guy's approach because it's very unique and to me at least it makes sense based on the physics of hearing. http://www.brycealexandermusic.com/what-is-perfect-pitch.html

As a musically trained adult - meaning that even w/o formal ear-training your hearing is pretty refined - we've all been fooled as to where a sound in our house/car comes from, how far away it is and even what it is.

Yeah! - So much of that stuff happens because perception isnt just about the 'ears' - or rather perception is 'all around the ears' - perception is always multimodal - we have a sensory array - touch, sight, smell, taste - all of which are physiologically 'hardwired' to the ears. If all of those things are operational - then at 'stage one' of perception - they all work together - we cant help it. If, however we have a disability in one area - the multimodality shifts its focus to those areas which are operational.

That will affect the way we interpret the raw data of perception. My youngest daughter was diagnosed with the same stigmatism in her right eye - as I have in my left. Of course in the 60's a lot of that stuff went under the radar - so mine went unnoticed until I started to suffer eyestrain in my late 20's - but these days they are onto it straight away. The doc told me it wasnt so much a matter of what you see - because the condition isnt actually impairing basic vision - but it is compromising the brains perception of the visual world - and research shows that it affects subsequent perception and in turn all facets of behaviour affected by vision - fascinating. She wore an eye patch for a few months - then glasses for a few years - and was then given the all clear with 20/20 vision - she doesnt wear them any more...


When you pull apart the physics and physiology of hearing at a certain point it becomes aparent that what we actually 'hear' is our own ear. Right? We don't actually hear things outside of ourselves but we hear the mechanisms in our ears vibrating. And since we know all 'things' have a resonant frequency we can assume that so do the various things that vibrate in our ears. So our ears are much more sensitive to certain frequencies that 'tickle' our ear.

To be fair - I guess 'ear training' has a legitimate purpose in that it is attempting to centralise perception on what we hear - language for objects - working out the ear 'muscle' around some 'norms' so to speak. The problem with the method is that the ear is not just a mechanism - and that while we do indeed 'hear ourselves' in the world - we also 'create' what we hear in it. It's the stage of perception no one talks about - although we all know about it. I understand what Ken's talking about when he mentions being 'fooled' - because occasionally even the most well trained ear will create another scenario - and sound pressure around drums and loud instruments can exacerpate those peceptions for sure - recording gigs is a great way of capturing those moments too . But to model perception away from that - is to not understand how it also works for you - which is why Im so critical of orthodox methods of ear training.

Its the human end of perception - the organs of perception are powered by the engine of creation - learning , imagination, what you had for breakfast..:mrgreen: i.e. "what tickles your ear" may well be what 'floats your boat". Its a case of the old "you are what you do" -but more precisely- you define what you hear by what you create in response to it. Its a profound paradigm change in the current norms of training and a lot of teachers (and some students) dont want to know about it.

If I re- frame Boney's question about whether the likes of Coltrane or Parker could emerge from todays musical environment - I would say that todays formal musical education certainly isnt fertile ground for that to happen - so no.
Musically ,those guys were empowered by an envrionment that was informed by some cool abstract concepts - but not founded on them. The bottom line was how you knew music by how you did it.