If you can't sing it, you can't play it?

[netzow]

I am reminded of my old piano teacher saying this to me. She would make me sing something if I couldn't get it. I was wondering if others were farmiliar with this and if they used it. Do you see this as a reason to take singing lessons? Thanks!

[pianistimo]

the reason i play is that i don't sing.  whenever i have been in choral situations - i always tell them 'i can play the piano.'  then, the pressure is off.  church might be different.  i like to sing harmony and make it up as i go.  there's something fun about that.  but, if i had to sing ALL the difficult spots in my piano music - i'd probably end up lacking the very high range.  when singing hymns i switch registers at a high D to low E. 

[nolan]

I wouldn't necessarily take up singing lessons, however being able to sing a melody has many benefits to piano players. For example, start with the most obvious voice: the melody. Singing the melody on solfege syllables or even "la" helps engrain the contour of the line in your head. Once you are able to sing it, playing it becomes easier. When you are playing from memory and "get lost," you will atleast know what it is supposed to sound like.

It works with other not-so-obvious voices as well. Take the bass line and try singing it (in a comfortable octave). Singing out loud increases your familiarity with a piece. Combined with other techniques, singing can really help solidify your memory.

[netzow]

the reason i play is that i don't sing.  whenever i have been in choral situations - i always tell them 'i can play the piano.'  then, the pressure is off.  church might be different.  i like to sing harmony and make it up as i go.  there's something fun about that.  but, if i had to sing ALL the difficult spots in my piano music - i'd probably end up lacking the very high range.  when singing hymns i switch registers at a high D to low E. 

Hey, that's how I got out of singing in choir. I said I'll play I won't sing and Vuala!!!!!!!!!!!

[leucippus]

I can hear the music in my head.  No need to actually make it audible.

I'm a big fan of MIDI files.  I use them all the time for learning both piano and violin pieces.  I actually prefer them over real recordings because they are unbiased.  In other words, they don't contain anyone's personal interpretation.

In any case, people often ask me how I can stand to listen to the MIDI files.  But in my mind I don't actually hear the MIDI file, I simply use it as a basis.  In my mind I'm hearing a lot more that isn't in the MIDI file.  In other words, in my mind I'm putting my own interpretation on it.

I can listen to a MIDI file of violin music and actually hear in my mind what it would really sound like being played by a real violin.  But I think when most people listen to a MIDI file they actually just hear what they are listening to.  No wonder they don't like them.  The bare-bones MIDI sound is pretty pathetic.

I guess I just have a wild imagination and a very creative mind to be able to do that.

[iumonito]

If you don't have an artistic image, you shouldn't play it.

Some stuff is not really singable (other than boom boom chin, like Boulez 2nd sonata).

I mean, do you really need to be able to sing the right hand of Chopin Op. 25 # 11?  I mean all the notes, not just the countour.

Singing, though, certainly helps form an artistic image very easily.

[timothy42b]

I can hear the music in my head.  No need to actually make it audible.

I'm a big fan of MIDI files.  I use them all the time for learning both piano and violin pieces.  I actually prefer them over real recordings because they are unbiased.  In other words, they don't contain anyone's personal interpretation.

In any case, people often ask me how I can stand to listen to the MIDI files.  But in my mind I don't actually hear the MIDI file, I simply use it as a basis.  In my mind I'm hearing a lot more that isn't in the MIDI file.  In other words, in my mind I'm putting my own interpretation on it.

I can listen to a MIDI file of violin music and actually hear in my mind what it would really sound like being played by a real violin.  But I think when most people listen to a MIDI file they actually just hear what they are listening to.  No wonder they don't like them.  The bare-bones MIDI sound is pretty pathetic.

I guess I just have a wild imagination and a very creative mind to be able to do that.

That's a really intriguing perspective.  I've never heard it expressed before, you may be original with this one.

Let me ask your thoughts on this aspect of it.  As a brass player, and to a lesser extent perhaps on piano, the process of developing tone is by feedback.  The first requirement is the internal concept - the imagination you speak of.  This is normally developed by listening to performers you admire.  Eventually you personalize it to yourself. 

The second problem is learning to hear yourself.  This sounds easy but it is not.  Beginners are unable to hear gross mistakes in pitch or rhythm;  even advanced players have to learn to hear their own tone, though they can recognize fine distinctions in others or on recordings.  I suspect a protective brain mechanism at work.  Otherwise we'd give up in disgust at our early efforts. 

Then the third problem is making the adjustment to move your real tone closer and closer to your desired mental concept - an effort that may take a lifetime.

There is an inherent difficulty.  For me, the stronger my mental concept, the harder it is to hear my output realistically, and vice versa.  With your strength of imagination, do you have the same problem? 

[ada]

I can hear the music in my head.  No need to actually make it audible.

I'm a big fan of MIDI files.  I use them all the time for learning both piano and violin pieces.  I actually prefer them over real recordings because they are unbiased.  In other words, they don't contain anyone's personal interpretation.

If you rely on MIDI you end up playing like a robot. It might work for you but personally I think it's a terrible mistake. I wouldn't recommend it in general.

I find it most rewarding to learn a piece from scratch with no preconceptions and as little idea as possible about how it sounds. That way it slowly reveals itself to you and it's like you have a sort of evolving relationship with the piece. You can sort of "release" the music like Michelangelo supposedly "released" figures from lumps of marble.

I think that approach also keeps you from losing interest. I've loved some pieces to death but when I go to learn them I get sick of them by the time I'm only half proficient because I'm already familiar with every note and nuance from listening to them too much.

But once I start getting a handle on a piece I'll begin listening to masterful performances of it to plunder ideas for phrasing and expression etc.

[leucippus]

Let me ask your thoughts on this aspect of it.  As a brass player, and to a lesser extent perhaps on piano, the process of developing tone is by feedback.  The first requirement is the internal concept - the imagination you speak of.  This is normally developed by listening to performers you admire.  Eventually you personalize it to yourself. 

I absolutely agree with what you say here.  I never meant to imply that I won't listen to live or recorded performers.  That is a very important part of it.  What I really meant is that after listening to a wide range of artists I actually prefer to listen to a MIDI file of the piece during or right before a practice session.   The reason I do this is because I don't want to be tainted or influenced by the style of any one particular performer.

On the violin I make an exception to this rule when I listen to Hilary Hahn.  If I were to somehow accidentally sound just like her that would be perfectly alright with me. 

The second problem is learning to hear yourself.  This sounds easy but it is not.  Beginners are unable to hear gross mistakes in pitch or rhythm;  even advanced players have to learn to hear their own tone, though they can recognize fine distinctions in others or on recordings.  I suspect a protective brain mechanism at work.  Otherwise we'd give up in disgust at our early efforts. 

Well, I don't know about that.  I can pretty much hear that I'm not good.

I mean, I do recording myself and listen to my own recordings.  But I'm not surprised by what I hear.  To me it sounds pretty much the same as it did while I was playing it live.  And it's never very good.   I think I'm a bit of a perfectionist and that can be a real pain sometimes because it often makes me want to throw my hands up and quit because I know that I'll never be able to make the music I have in my imagination.  But fortunately I keep plugging along.  I do make significant strides from disgustingly terrible playing to playing that I sometimes think, "Hmmm?  That only needs to be refined"

Then the third problem is making the adjustment to move your real tone closer and closer to your desired mental concept - an effort that may take a lifetime.

Well, that's the problem.  Does the refinement process ever end?  I think if the musician is a true artist it never ends.  Can you ever say that you've really played a piece that sounds precisely what you had in mind before you set out to play it?  Usually we just settle for a feeling that it's probably about the best we're going to do with our current instruments etc.  And the fact that we are mere imperfect creatures.  In fact, when you get to a point where you feel that the quality of your instrument is holding you back that's a good place to be really.  I think I'm there on the violin (because I have a pretty inexpensive violin).  I would love to have a new piano too, but I can't really say I'm at a point where I'm seriously out-playing the capacity of the instrument yet (and I have a really crappy antique upright piano that I restored and tuned myself).

There is an inherent difficulty.  For me, the stronger my mental concept, the harder it is to hear my output realistically, and vice versa.  With your strength of imagination, do you have the same problem? 

I don't think it's a problem.  I can allow myself to imagine that I'm playing better than I am.  I actually do that sometimes just for the satisfaction of it.  I think those are the times that If I actually recorded myself and played it back I'd hear a huge difference because I was in fact fantasying in my mind that I was playing a lot better than I really was.  I think that's good to do sometimes just for pure enjoyment.

But I also have the serious ability to "observe myself" almost like a unbiased second person.  And when I listen to myself playing that way I hear all the mistakes that show up on the recording.

So I think I'm able to consciously chose which mental world I like to perceive.   I think that when practicing its best to observe myself from the second-person perspective (where I can hear all the terrible things).  But I think when it actually comes time to perform, I'm better off letting my imagination take over.  The final result won't actually be as good as it sounds to me, but at least I won't have heard all the terrible things that the audience hears.

I think the real key is to be able to consciously choose your mental perspective.  If your playing sounds better to you when you're actually playing it than it does when you here yourself on a recording then you are locked into a fantasy-reality.  If you can get to a point where you can hear a recording of yourself and honestly (honest with yourself) say that it doesn't sound any different from what you heard when you actually played it, then you're able to face reality head-on.

Actually I think a person seriously needs to be able to hear all their mistakes live.  If they genuinely can't here them when they are producing them it's going to be very difficult to deal with them properly.

I'm sure everyone has the ability to consciously choose between these perspectives.  The question is whether they've actually even tried or practiced viewing their own existence from these two different perspectives.  Many people honestly don't want to see or know about their own flaws.  These two vantage points in life go far beyond playing musical instruments.  How often to people really stop and think about how other people are perceiving their actions in anything they do?  They can actually pretty much see that if they just step outside of themselves and view themselves from that (unbiased) second-person perspective.  It can be hard to do for some people because they aren't willing to accept what they might see.

Well, that turned into a ramble for sure.

[leucippus]

If you rely on MIDI you end up playing like a robot. It might work for you but personally I think it's a terrible mistake. I wouldn't recommend it in general.

If you think that I'm in any way attempting to duplicate the sound of a MIDI player you're totally misunderstanding what I meant.

I find it most rewarding to learn a piece from scratch with no preconceptions and as little idea as possible about how it sounds. That way it slowly reveals itself to you and it's like you have a sort of evolving relationship with the piece. You can sort of "release" the music like Michelangelo supposedly "released" figures from lumps of marble.

I totally agree with you 100%.

The problem is that I never learned how to read time well.  And at this point in my life I'm seriously not interested in even trying to learn that skill.  I'm 57 years old. 

I'm not saying that I can't read time at all.  I can.  But I'm lazy.   

I have a sheet music program that will play the timing of the notes precisely as they are written on the score.  So in other words, I have a computer that will read the written timing for me. 

However, having said that, I'm also fully aware that no one plays any piece precisely as it is written on score.  In fact, if they actually did that they would sound precisely like a MIDI file.

The thing that I like about the MIDI file is just that.  It is actually reading the timing from the score precisely how it is written so I can get some idea of how what the timing on the sore is actually saying.  So in a very real sense I'm actually doing the very same thing that you are doing.  The only different between us is that you are reading the timing from the score, and then deciding how you REALLY want to play it.  I am listening to that same timing from a MIDI file and then deciding how I REALLY want to play it.

The very reason that I choose to use MIDI files is because they actually represent the timing written in the score.  If I were to listen to a recording of a performing I would actually be hearing the timing of the piece they way they REALLY wanted to play it.

So in the end, I'm actually agree with you and I'm basically saying precisely the same thing you are saying.  The only difference is that I "read" the timing from the MIDI file, and you read the timing directly from the score.  But we are both reading the same timings because a MIDI file plays the score precisely how it is written.  (Assuming that the MIDI file is being generated by the same sheet music that you are working with, which is how I use it).  I don't just use arbitrary MIDI files, I'm actually talking about a sheet music program that plays the score I'm working from as though it is a MIDI file.

So the bottom line is that I'm doing the same thing you're doing.  I'm just using a computer to help me to it.

[dnephi]

My teacher has me sing the line to give it a singing tone, and even Bach's inventions are prefaced with the design to teach "singing."

[timothy42b]

I'm sure everyone has the ability to consciously choose between these perspectives.  The question is whether they've actually even tried or practiced viewing their own existence from these two different perspectives.  Many people honestly don't want to see or know about their own flaws. 

I appreciate your opinion and your response.

I agree with most of it but here I think I differ.  I see the ability to hear one's self accurately as not inherent, in fact inherently blocked at first by some hardwired brain mechanism.  I think it is learned, at the same time we are struggling to master all the other elements of music. 

I have come to suspect that this is THE essential problem in pedagogy.  I believe the biggest separation between the prodigy and the rest of us hacks <grin> is simply that they learn this faster, or maybe even are born less blocked.  However, this concept is completely absent from the texts, so either I've discovered it, or I'm wrong. 

Piano may differ from other instruments.  I have spent most of my time on trombone, and it is pretty obvious beginners don't have a clue what they sound like, often for the first couple of years. They also hear themselves as wildly different when they've made some minor mechanical change that in fact did nothing at all. 

I think you are correct that once you learn to hear accurately, personality factors may still prevent you from hearing honestly.