Aural curriculum

[hyrst]

I know this topic comes up regularly, with questions that are probably repeated.  Anyway,....

I have been thinking about the aural side of learning music and it value to student progress.  Although I have little 'games' that I easily incorporate into beginner lessons - I must confess usually at times when the lessons slow down or need some variety to keep the student focused - there is far more depth to aural training than I know I am utilising, especially with more advanced students.

Thus, I am wondering how to include this skill training into lessons.  Do people usually include this work regualry for later students, or is it something that  tends to get added on impulsively?  If you have a programme / curriculum of development, do you make time in lessons when you focus on this type of training or do you take opportunity from pieces to do things such as have the student listen to and identify modes and cadences and such?  Is it important to have a structured curriculum at this level?  I feel like I neglect this area somewhat.  How do others manage this work?

Your ideas are much appreciated.  :-)

[m19834]

Honestly, I am currently in a bit of a limbo with ear training.  It seems that there are myriads of "types" of ear training, and honestly I think I have been confused about how to approach ear training as something official for music.  Firstly, what are people really supposed to be learning ?  What are people actually supposed to be listening for -- what, exactly, are we trying to hear ?

There is an element of pitch training that seems absolutely absurd to me.  For example, what, exactly, is the point of having "perfect pitch" ?  And what is it really ?  The smallest interval our ears can hear is supposedly 2 cents.  The idea of hearing a single tone as a single tone is ludicrous to me because it's actually a never-ending mixture of sounds creating something that we call a tone.  And, all of that can be out of (what we call) "tune" -- but why do we call certain vibrations by names ?  What makes them those names ?  The out of tune versions of intervals and of tones are something of themselves, too.  A unique pitch, a unique sound -- right ?  Or are out of tune notes just some other version of something that is supposed to be called another name ... like "A" ?  Maybe it's like dialects within languages ?

The most sense anything makes to me regarding ear training is how pitches relate to each other, because no matter what, there is always more than one.

But, if a perfect 5th is 2 cents off on one side, is it still a perfect 5th ? 

I suppose where I am currently at with it all is, is there really anything absolute about pitch ? 

Okay, I guess I have put a bunch of my frustrations out and I don't mean to take over the thread with those questions.

If I were to just answer your question, I would say that my students can hear a scale and they practice hearing this by singing solfege as they play.  Sometimes we do rhythmic dictation.  The most fun thing though is having rhythmic conversations back and forth on the drum ...

Anyway, I think ear training is important, but I am honestly not sure how to go about it as a course.  I have taken aural skills classes and I did fine in those, but like most things, something just never sat right with me about it.  At this point I am not going to take my students through a similar course to what I went through, just because that's how I went through it.  I just think there is way more to it than all of that.

[mike_lang]

They have got it figured out over in Paris - have a look at this:

https://www.patphil.com/dieudonnee_english.htm

Best,

ML

[m19834]

I have started reading that twice.  It doesn't answer my questions .

I think part of my problem is that I still cannot seem to separate out this idea of time and space.  Where does one stop and the other one end ?

Music exists in time not space.  I try to wrap my head around that but I can't.  I don't understand it as such.

[hyrst]

Hi Karli,
Some very interesting ponderings - very stimulating and thought provoking.  You'll have me busy thinking for a while! :-)

At first response, I think that part of the answer must be in the relationship between sounds - rather than developing perfect pitch just for the sake of being able to name and recognise what has been nominally labelled as C / do, etc.  Certainly there must be a place for perfect pitch, say if you were a piano tuner (although these days much of the work is done using electronic gadgets rather than tuning forks).  Yet, very few of us actually have use for this ability (maybe it would be more significant playing strings, though.)

It makes me think about measurement.  Internationally, we have a unit labelled a metre.  Although it is more precise in defintion these days, using atomic sciences, it really is nominally labelled a metre (maybe much of our language fits this, but that's getting rather philosophical).  It is not a self-defined unit, but like C, it is something we can measure and use as comparison and for communication.  Now, we don't spend time trying to teach children to recognise a metre by sight.  That would indeed be pointless.  But, we do need to understand the approximate relationships between distances.  (Otherwise, we might send someone 1 kilometre to the shops, and they board a jet because they have a different concept of distance - a rather extreme example, but it makes a point.)

So, applyingg this to music - we do have fairly agreed upon labels for certain wave lengths of sound.  This allows us to communicate and to replicate sounds that together become 'music'.  Perhaps there is little value in teaching students to recognise isolated 'tones' - but understanding the relationships between sounds must better our use of sound.  I believe it is difficult to make one note alone carry something of meaning.  Even two notes together - a major or minor 3rd - don't seem to say a lot, although they suggest a certain feeling. 

However, if you put together two consecutive groups of notes, much more is suggested.  For example, a dominant 7th chord to a 1st chord is enough to establish temperament, tempo, key, anticipation, etc.  I am not sure that it is worth being able to identify the notes that make up each group.  Is there value in labelling these sound groups?  I am not sure.  I do think that being able to 'hear' them, which I have found myself is improved with practice, enable the musician to anticipate, interpret and express sound more fully. 

It makes me sympathise with school kids, actually.  Do we assume so much of our mental analyses are valuable?  I agree that we take a lot for granted, expecting things without really thinking about if the effort is worthwhile for everyone we expect it of. 

Yet, I come back to thinking there must be something important in aural training.  It is so obvious that there are students who can 'hear' the music and pitch direction better than others.  Although my students who are good readers seem to make the best progress, those who listen well seem to produce better tone, remember more easily and are more creative in improvising.  The best students are those who read fluently and hear / anticipate well.

I am really challenged by the thoughts you have raised, Karli.  I don't know that I have understood all (or really followed what) you were saying.  I hope I have.  I hope my initial thoughts make sense.  I'd love to discuss it more - it's very stimulating.  I am sure you have far more to say :-)

Annah

[m19834]

hee hee ... well, thanks for replying.  I didn't necessarily actually expect for you (or anybody) to take all of those questions seriously.  I mean, they are serious, but I realize it's a little overboard. 

However  ,

What baffles me is that pitch didn't even used to be what it is now.  That is why, for example, we now specify the particular HRZ that a wavelength is traveling in order to specify what the actual "pitch" is -- "A 440" for example.  440 didn't used to be the standard "A".  So, what is "A" then ?  How far away does something need to get before it can be called another pitch entirely (at what point does it become A#, for example) ?

Tuning is a strange animal to me because the piano is out of the tune with the rest of the world of music.  Choirs, for example, tune differently to each other and within chords, based on the chord structure, than what the piano is tuned.

I do know that there is a purpose in ear training.  Instinctively I know it, and I know that I use whatever "ear" that I have in many of the things that I do.  I would just like to better define what the purpose is and how to go about fulfilling that particular purpose and honing the skills required in order to fulfill it.

Now, one thing that I have been thinking about is the idea of musical memory.  I have been considering the concept of the existence of music within a person's mind, depending on a musical memory.  So, for example, whatever pitch(es) we are currently hearing at a given moment in a piece of music, it only means to us as much as we can remember as having come before it.  And, you may sense that your listening experience is enhanced when you listen to a loved piece more than once.  Why is that ?  Because we start to develop a context (memory) within which each note, each phrase, each rhythm develops more meaning to us.  I do understand, to some extent, the need to develop a musical memory.  I just don't think that I do this with my ears -- or at least my ears are not limited to the flaps of skin that are sitting on the sides of my head !

[hyrst]

Hi again 

Karli, I think you have pointed to a far more fundamental and significant question than the ones I was asking.  What is the purpose of ear training?  I think this question must be answered before my questions regarding how and when.  If we can determine the purpose, we can draw from that how to go about it and when it is happening or needs to be made to happen. 

Maybe all attentive musical training is actually ear training.  Perhaps the function of aural instruction is to provide labels for the sounds we have heard so that we can then classify and remember them in meaningful ways?  Perhaps what we need to do is apply new knowledge to what we already hear, rather than seek to hear new things?  If we operate our aural training as exposure to new sound sets without a context to remember them in, we might gradually increase the data base of sound knowledge, but maybe we fail to give meaning to this information? 

I am trying to think through all this.  Every now and then I think I have made sense of it, but then it alludes me again when I try to explain it. 

I think that pitch and tuning are simply measurements that perhaps do not have much to do with the original 'object'.  Measurement allows us to communicate something that will be understood by others.  (Like one pound of butter, or one metre of licorice.)  By labelling and applying symbols to a sound wavelength, others know approximately what we  mean when we write or name that symbol.  They can produce a sound that measures about what we meant for it to be. 

One apparent difficulty does lie with the labelling.  We don't tend to say A.27 if it is a little sharper than 440.  Instruments tend to be tuned relative to themselves, unless they are played as a group and then tuned relative to the group.  This is where the unique tuning and tempering systems probably play their roll - an issue that Bach apparently was concerned with. Tuning becomes a means of relating one pitch to others in its given context to achieve a particular purpose - such as transposition.  Pitch is nominal.

I agree that our musical ears are more than the flaps of skin on the outside.    I think they are the combination of many parts of our brains and of our souls.  I believe then that all sound, in our minds and that we receive through our ears, builds our memory if we attend to it and it is meaningful to us. 

I cannot define music or musical memory.  I think it must be closer to our emotions than language, that it involves expressing something that can be understood by others without visual or phonetic symbols, that it has the power to evoke images and feelings - but I am at a loss beyond that.

However, for attention and meaning, it seems that aural training must require more than random exposure to and labelling of sounds.

I need to think some more ...

[keypeg]

In fretless string playing and vocal music, ear training is important because you must create the pitch, therefore you have to be able to perceive the pitch that you want to create, and it has to remain in tune.  I was taught to hear in my head what I want to play before I play it, and then listen to make certain that I have played as I intended.  That needs an awareness of both pitch and interval.  I sometimes get the impression when I read the piano boards that pianists go from the visual written music to the visual keyboard and discover the note that they play after they have played it - that seems to be the process as it is discussed, but I don't know if it is really so.  I would want to hear the sequence of notes in my head before I play it, or in the least know what to expect, on the piano as well.  Can that be done without some kind of aural perception?  Is that what an aural curriculum would be about?  But separate - or integrated in the course of learning to play?

For absolute pitch in the sense of 440 vs. 440.2 or 441 or 438, I couldn't see it applying to the piano.  Too fine a sense of pitch might almost be a detriment because the equal temperament can really grate on the ear.  But especially if you sing a capella, you have to make certain that you are not gradually drifting downward while remaining true relatively.  If not a capella, that is where the important role of the piano accompanist comes in.  In some manner, however, the singer has to be able to fix that A to make certain that three lines down it's still the same A.

It gets even more complicated if you get into solfeggo, and you are bringing fa closer than a semitone to mi, ditto for ti and do.  Your F# might be a very sharp F# if it is the subtonic of G major, but you may also be modulating into other keys in which certain relative notes take on different pitch flavours.  Yet you must not lose the pitch in the overall context.  Thus there has to be an awareness of both relative and absolute pitch.  I also suppose that while working relatively, one is working with pitch itself (frequency) and it is good to be aware of it as pitch.

I have been taught that music is movement both harmonically and melodically and the two are also intertwined.  There is the concept of resolution in cadences - people on this board would know more than I do at this point.  But the strings player and possibly the vocal player may use pitch itself in that context.  This is something that is lost on the piano.  The reason that your subtonic is extra sharp is because it guides the movement toward the tonic even more so.  In harmony the flavour of the major, minor, etc. chords is brought out by slightly sharping or flattening a note.

These are the reasons I have learned for both relative and absolute pitch and how they interrelate.  How does this apply to the piano?  I've wondered that myself.  Absolute pitch is not that absolute because the piano imposes its tuning.  But what remains for me is the fact that absolute is the identity of the pitch regardless of its place in a harmony, key, or melodic progression.  We have to know in the least that an A is an A and will always be an A.  Relative pitch regards the relationship between notes, and that relationship governs matters of musicality.  Would that be a good distinction for piano?

[musicrebel4u]

Here what I found from my research (this is from the article published by Moscow conservatory):

Where do the people who sing out of tune come from?
 
Scientists of the Moscow State University guided by A.N.Leontiev* along with English scholars have discovered an interesting fact There are two main mechanisms of sound perception: tonal perception – which basically allows us to differentiate between sound pitch and timbre perception which lets us determine sounds timbre.

They tested a non-musician audience on perception of two sounds of the same frequency but different timbre. For English speaking audience they used “u” as in “boot” and long “ee” as in “beet”. Amazingly, 30% of people could always answered that “u” is a lower sound even though in reality it was sometimes an octave higher that the corresponding “ee”. Taking the tone-deaf group and making them do simple exercises on tonal perception then continued experiment. For 10-15 minutes a day that group practiced vocalizing a given sound produced by an electric device (in order to take timbre out of the picture). The outcome of the experiment was sensational – previously tone-deaf group showed highly significant improvement. That lead to a hypothesis about the way our perception is developed. Early on, most of the interaction that child is involved in comes through speech. Perception that is being developed is mostly timbre based, rather than tone-based, particularly in Indo-European languages. The development of tone-differentiating apparatus is very minimal. This is also supported by the fact that individuals from cultures whose languages use tone modulations in their speech (like Chinese Mandarin) have better ability for tone recognition.

(https://yurpsy.by.ru/biblio/leontev/25.htm Leontiev A.N. Lectures on general psychology. Moscow, 2000. Lection 25. Pitch hearing).

Thus, human voice is not only an organ of perception but also an important instrument for the development of an ear for music. Even D.E.Ogorodnov (famous Russian music teacher) argued that the human larynx is as sensitive to sounds as human hearing. By improving the voice with the help of a music instrument, we can infinitely perfect the learners’ capacity to perceive absolute pitch. It is impossible to cultivate music memory and music thinking without this ability.

Singing without notes does not help in developing music literacy. It does not assign any constant “names” to sounds and does not stimulate association between perceived sounds and music written language. Solfeggio is the basis of music literacy of children. Without it, further rigorous music development is impossible.

However, in the present day world Solfeggio is not generally used either at public schools or at private professional music studios. These words refer particularly to the countries with so-called “literal” system of teaching.

[musicrebel4u]

“Solfeggio”? But what is it? (from the same article)

The majority of people of the USA do not know what the term “Solfeggio” means in its first, classical meaning. Even modern English-American dictionaries spell this word differently: some of them with a single “g”, others – with double “g”. Music teachers are still discussing if one should say “Solfeggio” or “solfege”. Solfeggio is not a compulsory subject at American music studios and schools; Solfeggio training is not used in the classes of most private music teachers. One can attend a Solfeggio class officially only at music colleges and universities.

However, the level of such classes is barely adequate. For example, students from the former USSR who have come to the USA by exchange complain regularly that the level of teaching Solfeggio at the universities is extremely low. Professors usually select repertoire for individual lessons in accordance to student’s proficiency. At the same time during group studies at music colleges and conservatories students are forced to write dictations of complexity level corresponding to what 10-year-old third-graders of average Russian music school have to deal with. Even understanding of “Solfeggio” itself is different in Russia and USA.

In Russia, Solfeggio is an important part of work with a student not only in the area of ear development and perfection of intonation but also in the acquisition of skills of music writing and sight-reading. In the USA and other countries with “literal” system “Solfeggio” is mostly based on the system developed by Zoltan Kodaly. That system amounts to nothing more than to training students skills of singing in a chorus and using seven Italian syllables and seven hand signs.

Thus, sometimes during the first years of music study at grade schools in the USA children are taught to sing simple melodies using the names of notes of Solfeggio. The first sound of any key can be called “Do”. Kodaly used slightly modified syllables for his relative system (Jo, Le, Mi, Na, So, Ra, Ti) to separate it from the traditional notation but this is regarded as inessential in the countries with the “literal” system.

Using so-called “movable Do” has become alpha and omega of Solfeggio training at American public schools. It is considered that relative usage of “Do” of the major stop to all the other major keys would lead to the development of stop-harmonic hearing. But at the same time one’s ear for music is connected in no way with the inexhaustible source of music information – music written language. Students are limited to the repertoire learnt from teacher’s voice or hand signs. Without the ability to read aloud or to oneself new music material, learners’ music thinking is not developed properly, it is closed in the frame of a limited repertoire.

Unification of Kodaly’s system with Solfeggio into a single whole did not improve either one but it definitely had a detrimental effect on Solfeggio as a training system.
Since music singing and intonating are part and parcel of training, teachers at music studios of the “literal” system try to sing music using alphabet letters. It is inconvenient but they do not see another way to go about it. Professionals got used to believing that Solfeggio with “absolute Do” is excessively difficult for students to understand because there are no mnemonic associations connected with verbal language logic. They think that it is more difficult to keep in mind names “Fa, La, Do, Mi” than the abbreviation “FACE”, because it is generally accepted that we can build words of letters but Solfeggio syllables are no more than an abracadabra for human memory. I will discuss the validity of such speculations further in this article.

During our presentations of the latest achievements in music education, music teachers often ask me questions concerning “fixed Do”. Many music teachers consider that the aim of using traditional, classical Solfeggio with different keys does not go beyond development of perfect ear. The majority of teachers in the USA know little about the vocal nature of music language and about the intonation basis of music perception. Very few of them are able to cope with music dictations or singing music fragments at sight.

Literal naming of notes, popular in the USA, has divided music training into “singing” and “playing an instrument”. As a rule, those who play an instrument read music texts using the above-mentioned mnemonic techniques of visual-logical learning. For example, to memorize the notes of the treble clef they use the phrase “Every Good Boy Does Fine”; to learn the notes between the staves they employ the abbreviation “FACE”. The notes on the staves in the bass clef are learnt with the phrase “Goofy Babies Do Funny Acts” and the notes in between – with “All Cows Eat Grass”.

Many “innovative teachers” in the USA create more and more fairy-tales and manuals, as though they are competing with each other in inventing stories, which could draw a parallel between the world of notes and the world of letters. They believe that such linguistic discoveries can help beginners to learn note reading and writing. All these attempts look like works by medieval alchemists who were trying to find formula for transformation stone into gold.

Music pedagogy restrains development of note reading while trying to interpret music language by means of logic of verbal language. Although these devices seem to be attractive, simple and suitable for memorizing of separate notes on the staff, this approach is one of the main reasons for the ineffectiveness of music reading training. It also delays children’s music development overall. This situation is caused by the following facts:

1.   First of all, literal note naming makes it impossible to teach children of younger preschool age music reading and writing. Children’s ability to recognize letters and to read is considered to be a necessary condition for music study. It follows that it is not music that prepares a child’s brain for successful studies of other sciences, but quite the contrary.
2.   Secondly, sounds [ei, bi:, si:, di:, i:, ef, dзi:] are very unsuitable for singing and hardly help to develop the ear and voice while training to play an instrument. Singing a music fragment using letters is inconvenient for the voice and does not contribute to the connection between “singing – hearing – remembering”.
3.   All the other syllables in the literal system lean on the vowel [i:]. Though it is one of the basic speech tones, it is also one of the tensest. While pronouncing the vowel [i:], singer opens his jaws only for 15 %. A voice, trying to sing alphabet letters, cannot “rest” on any one of the syllables, five of which are [i:] and two – [e]. It is no wonder that teachers stay away from singing music texts and prefer regular music performance

From the standpoint of comfort for vocal organs, the sounds of Solfeggio are more suitable for the larynx. They include different basic vowels –

• (50 % of jaw opening), [e] (50 % of jaw opening), [a] (100 %). The vowels alternate with each other provide a strong phonetic basis for vocal cords. They require using different muscles of the larynx when singing. Uniqueness of pronunciation of each sound “name” helps to remember the sound pitch both on the hearing, timbre level and on the muscular one.

* Linguists consider the vowels [a, o, e, i:] to be fundamental and basic for human speech organs and the main vowels in all the languages. The sound [є] is regarded like a secondary one. Usage of the vowel [e] in the syllables [ei] and [ef] is unsuitable for singing not only because of the tension that pronunciation of the sound [e] creates in the vocal cords and only partial opening of the jaws but also because the syllable itself is cut short by the consonant endings [j] or [f].

Studying of music language in literal system neglects tonal nature of music and excludes human larynx from the process of development. Such disregard can be considered among the greatest and the most destructive mistakes of the modern music education in the countries adhering to literal music system.

Literal system does not stimulate development of music thinking and music memory. Sounds do not correspond to signs due to “translation difficulties”, because signs are perceived with eyes and sounds – with ears and larynx.

People’s speech memory is much more advanced than the logical one. Every child begins to assimilate and memorize his/her mother’s speech from his/her birth. Free command of Solfeggio language on speech level – solmisation – allows beginners to read note texts easily. Attachment of notes to some artificially invented words and phrases minimizes development of music thinking.

To render justice it should be said that Solfeggio in its full variant, which is adopted at music schools, colleges and conservatories in the republics of the former USSR, is not a rule but an exception in the world of music pedagogy. Up until today music is taught at public schools of the whole world as a superficially informative subject. For the most part, it is lessons ABOUT music, during which they do not usually train the command of music language.

However, even is lessons of Solfeggio or piano would be introduced as general classes in public schools it is unlikely to improve something today. Nowadays, popular methods of teaching music are not able to effectively teach beginners with varying levels of music aptitude

[m19834]

I have posted a link to an interesting new york public broadcast regarding relations of language and music, sound memory, sound impressions/perception and much more :

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,29084.msg335232.html#msg335232

I think this is related to ear training and exploring the concept of what it is that we are listening for.  I find this broadcast quite interesting and perhaps you will, too !

[keypeg]

Ironically, this broadcast on sound is inaccessible to me because currently my computer has no sound.   

[musicrebel4u]

I have posted a link to an interesting new york public broadcast regarding relations of language and music, sound memory, sound impressions/perception and much more :

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,29084.msg335232.html#msg335232

I think this is related to ear training and exploring the concept of what it is that we are listening for.  I find this broadcast quite interesting and perhaps you will, too !

Karli, thank you for the link, but for some reason it is not working. Page is opening, there is an empty squre with no link. Any advice?

[m19834]

Karli, thank you for the link, but for some reason it is not working. Page is opening, there is an empty squre with no link. Any advice?

You're welcome.  The link I have posted here is a link to another thread on the forum in the "miscellaneous" board, and that post has a link to the web page in it.  If you click on the link here in this thread, it should take you to my other post in forum (not straight to the webpage).  If that is just blank, then I have no advice for you, unfortunately, because it is working fine for me (so, it's either the forum as it is fed on your computer, or it is just your computer).  So, try it again is all I could say  .

[m19834]

Okay, I will go through a little more of what my "aural curriculum" is, though it's not a rigid program.  I use "moveable do" as a means for ear training, but it goes beyond ear training (if you could really say that about this).  One of the very important factors in this training is to better grasp what the topography of the piano is, how the keys are arranged and how they create patterns of whole steps and half steps (scales). 

We learn all 7 modes and sing solfege with each mode.

One of the things I have them do as a first step in learning scales (and chords), is to have them play a single octave scale with one hand while playing the I, IV, V chords as harmony to the scales degrees.  We go through the entire circle of 5ths like this (which they learn can be done in any mode), using at first only the major chords found within each scale (we start with Ionian/Major mode and then venture on to aeolian -- the chords learned first will vary within modes).  They not only learn to play these chords and scales (as well as just plain knowing what they are), they also learn what they sound like, how they function together, and they are learning to transpose as well as basic elements of harmony, while they sing solfege with what they are playing.  They also switch hands and play the scale now with the hand that was playing the chords before, and the chords now with the hand that was playing the scale before.

Through this process, they learn patterns that translate through every scale and begin to realize that chords found in one register can still harmonize with the scale degrees in any register, and vice versa.

Once they have mastered the major chords, they explore the minor chords and the diminished chords found in each scale -- their repertoire of pianistic wording increases with each 5th they venture through in the harmonic circle (they also memorize the order of sharps and flats as discovered when traveling through the circle of 5ths).

As they begin to master this skill, I introduce the concept of improvisation, which I encourage each of them to do as they desire (and they love it).  They use the same basic principles for improvisation that they learn in their scale experiences.  At first, they only officially have the major chords as harmonic possibilities to their melodies, but as they master this aspect, they learn to use the minor/diminished, and then mix them together as well -- they eventually learn what harmonic choices they have within a single scale, and they begin with just triads (so it branches out from there).

Along with this, we practice composing, using finale notepad (a free download), and using the chord structures they are learning at the time.  This way, the pieces always sound like music, and they always sound good.  At this point, as they develop a sense of harmonic function, they begin to aurally understand cadences.

Not only do they learn how to compose and improvise, as well as the aural aspects of each scale, they are being set up to be capable of analyzing the major harmonic schemes within most tonal music in the classics (it's a start anyway) -- they begin to learn how music is structured, and they begin to recognize it intellectually, visually, kinesthetically, as well as aurally.

Sometimes during studio classes, one student will play the scales and chords in accompaniment to the "choir" of solfege singers, in this respect the performer begins to experience the ear of an accompanist, even at young ages.

Another element to this, taken from the same basic structure and harmonic principles, is learning how to do basic harmonizations with any tune they can pick out on the piano by ear.  In my mind, they are learning to use the instrument as a tool for their expression of complete musicianship.  They are learning about musical articulation.  They are learning a physical language as well as aural and visual.

[timothy42b]

Hi again 

Karli, I think you have pointed to a far more fundamental and significant question than the ones I was asking.  What is the purpose of ear training? 

Perhaps an even more fundamental question would be:  What is the purpose of piano lessons? 

I have often noticed an apparent disconnect between the perceptions of parents and some teachers.  Parents often send their children to a piano teacher not expecting them to become a fluent pianist, but to absorb general musical education that has been dropped from most public school education.  Some teachers address those needs while others teach pure piano playing.  (It would appear karli is the complete type of teacher most parents are looking for) 

It seems to me that if you're teaching piano as piano, ear training has very little relevance, and solfege none.  But as part of a general musical education they would be valuable, and perhaps the style of teaching would follow from the intent. 

[keypeg]

Karli, those are dream lessons!   

[hyrst]

Karli,
Those lessons do sound brilliant!  Is it easier to work through all this with singers and classes?  This is the sort of thing I want to do with my older students, but they don't seem so receptive.  The younger ones don't seem to follow the process, even if they can read at an intermediate level. 

Timothy,
I have actually been very surprised by parent and student approaches to piano lessons.  Whereas I have tried to include a broader approach to musical development, because I think it is important, they will often wonder what we are doing if it is not working on a piece at the piano.  If they understand the purpose of a particular exercise, they will mostly comply, although sometimes reluctantly.  Most students do come to me to learn piano - but maybe that is because we do have reasonable school music programmes.

[timothy42b]

Timothy,
I have actually been very surprised by parent and student approaches to piano lessons.  Whereas I have tried to include a broader approach to musical development, because I think it is important,

It sounds like you've made the effort to find out what those goals are instead of making an assumption.  If more people did that there would be fewer disconnects, I suspect.  I've always thought lack of shared goals leads to a lot of the discontent on all sides of the parent-teacher-student equation. 

[keypeg]

This blew me away last night as an "older student" because where I'm at.  This is the perspective I'm coming from.   I started understanding a bit what music is about last year.  Piano is my second instrument and I will only be having monthly lessons via an arrangement because I cannot afford two sets of lessons.  I started studying theory last year, completing all levels of rudiments, and have just touched the tip of harmony - but I didn't want it all to be just on paper.  I've patched together a preliminary routine on the piano.

I learned about covering the circle of fifths as chords.  I've started scales, discovered the scale book by Francis Cooke, and in that book the one-octave version ends in I IV I V I.  I saw as advice about chords from the jazz corner that all the notes of the scale can be covered by I, IV and V, which I'd also noticed in my theory work but had not thought further on it.  At that point I invented an exercise where I would play the notes of a scale and play whichever one of these chords went with it, also telling myself which it was.  I started doing that with each scale in the circle of fifths but so far have only gone up to G major.

So essentially I ended up doing an exercise similar to what K described.  I've also started forming the minor, diminished and augmented chords in each position (root, 1st & 2nd inviersion).

I am blown away because this is the portrait of lessons that will give a student a true comprehension of music in body, ear, and mind, and a kind of "cross referencing" from theory to practice to specific instrument.  To have this coming to students by the design of a teacher who has full knowledge of all areas of music and and so knows exactly how to apply it, it leaves me breathless - pardon the hyperbole.  How common is this or similar?

In regards to resistance to this:  As students we tend to see music as a final product and direct results.  Anything indirect like posture, those exercises, don't seem real.  A complete piece of music, some louds and softs and dramatic ritardandos - those are comprehensible.  That the real essence lies beneath all of that, and that music can't really be played or developed unless understanding is there in body and mind - this is not a reality.  So those lessons don't seem to be "real".  Yet maybe they are more real than the other things, and they permete everything in musicc.

In the forums I see people having trouble with sight reading and/or memorizing music.  It seems that when you have an understanding, then a lot of the patterns written into music are there to help and comes into the process of both skills.  But that understanding cannot only be intellectual.  It has to permete the body and the ear as well as the mind, and body, ear, and mind have to be talking to each other.  This is what I've been seeking at my end as a student.  Piano is a different kind of instrument because it is a one-person orchestra, and it seems to embody the structure of music itself.  Probably that's why all serious musicians also have to learn piano as a second instrument, and not, say, French horn.

I should bow out of the discussion since I'm a student, but I did want to express my appreciation.

[m19834]

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate the feedback !  Keypeg, I actually really wish you wouldn't feel the need to butt out, your contributions are very helpful !

I wanted to comment briefly on this idea of parents/students setting goals for themselves regarding their music education.  In short, most of them have a very small idea on what is actually possible, so their concept of goals is limited to particulars about the music world that they already know (individual pieces and so on).  Most people have no idea what they can actually do with music, in terms of expression of this quality of life.

While I think it's important to listen to what parents and students are saying, I have to say that I also feel it is my responsibility to see the bigger picture and help all of them reach beyond their (limited) expectations.  Where I live, music education is definitely not a first priority -- and my particular local area is actually more aware, probably, about how the arts effect our lives than many places are in the extended area.  In general, there are murmurings of art/music being a good thing, but many people have no idea why it's good.  I think that some people "get" the idea of being "well-rounded" and that doing *something* with the arts helps with this, but it stops there, I think.  There are variations in desires, of course, but in general, most people don't really "get" what it means to be musically literate.

That is where I step in.  I do know that parents are often impressed with what they see their children being capable of doing at the instrument, and parents can mentally grasp that their children are learning about music, but lots of what they see their children doing, they didn't even know it existed and didn't know to ask for it !

I will also remark on this idea of incorporating all of this into the lessons.  For one, I think the basic format of meeting once a week (most times for half an hour) is not conducive to music literacy.  This is why I am adopting the model of meeting 5 days a week with beginners, and then graduating into less often as they become more independent.  And, I have to make a remark at this point regarding the idea of musical independence.  Being alone with one's tasks does not necessarily equal musical independence, and being guided with one's musical tasks does not necessarily equal musical dependence either.  My aim in meeting with students everyday is that of instilling within them, musical/practice-values; they learn how to learn, and this way when they *are* alone, they actually know what to do with themselves.  I think that people either "get" these concepts regarding education, or they don't. 

In terms of what parents/students think they are expecting and wanting out of their music/piano lessons, I realize that what I have described in this post will not suit the concepts of what every parent wants for their child's music/piano experience.  That is fine because this is why there are more teachers than just me around here.  If people want the standard half an hour a week, they have other people to choose from for this.  In a sense, what I offer is not about what parents/students want, it's just about what I offer.  People either agree with it or disagree with it.  They either sign up for it or they don't.  If they believe they are signing up for something different and get part way through the program, becoming disillusioned, they leave by either my recommendation, their own desire, or both (though I have never formally kicked a student out).   Also, I want to note that even if parents have particular goals in mind for their children, they don't necessarily know what it takes to actually get them there.

I used to feel badly about that as though I were responsible for giving every individual their musical experience.  I used to think that if I weren't bending over backwards to adjust what I offered to what they think they want, that somehow I was/am depriving this person of exposure to music should they decide to quit.  I just don't see it that way anymore.  I now aim to attract a particular "type" of student and the only way I can do this is by being exactly as I am -- this does not mean that I don't change things and grow and learn in the process (nor does it mean that I am entirely fearless about all of this), but in general, I feel I know better what people *actually* want/need in their musical experience, and I make it my responsibility to get them there.  I always feel the need for improvement with all of this, and I am always looking for ways to have all of this be clearly pertinent to their lives -- most of what we learn is centered around the music they are playing, so there are not really any out-of-context-seeming exercises.

Regarding their class experience with these concepts, they do enjoy having the opportunity to be the accompanying person to the choir of solfegerators.  I also want to add that this even gives them a very small taste of being in the position of a conductor.

At this point, the kids actually quite enjoy learning what they learn here and the myriad of ways to teach these basic things are actually endless -- it can be a very personal and creative process. 

[musicrebel4u]

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate the feedback !  Keypeg, I actually really wish you wouldn't feel the need to butt out, your contributions are very helpful !

I wanted to comment briefly on this idea of parents/students setting goals for themselves regarding their music education.  In short, most of them have a very small idea on what is actually possible, so their concept of goals is limited to particulars about the music world that they already know (individual pieces and so on).  Most people have no idea what they can actually do with music, in terms of expression of this quality of life.

While I think it's important to listen to what parents and students are saying, I have to say that I also feel it is my responsibility to see the bigger picture and help all of them reach beyond their (limited) expectations.  Where I live, music education is definitely not a first priority -- and my particular local area is actually more aware, probably, about how the arts effect our lives than many places are in the extended area.  In general, there are murmurings of art/music being a good thing, but many people have no idea why it's good.  I think that some people "get" the idea of being "well-rounded" and that doing *something* with the arts helps with this, but it stops there, I think.  There are variations in desires, of course, but in general, most people don't really "get" what it means to be musically literate.

That is where I step in.  I do know that parents are often impressed with what they see their children being capable of doing at the instrument, and parents can mentally grasp that their children are learning about music, but lots of what they see their children doing, they didn't even know it existed and didn't know to ask for it !

I will also remark on this idea of incorporating all of this into the lessons.  For one, I think the basic format of meeting once a week (most times for half an hour) is not conducive to music literacy.  This is why I am adopting the model of meeting 5 days a week with beginners, and then graduating into less often as they become more independent.  And, I have to make a remark at this point regarding the idea of musical independence.  Being alone with one's tasks does not necessarily equal musical independence, and being guided with one's musical tasks does not necessarily equal musical dependence either.  My aim in meeting with students everyday is that of instilling within them, musical/practice-values; they learn how to learn, and this way when they *are* alone, they actually know what to do with themselves.  I think that people either "get" these concepts regarding education, or they don't. 

In terms of what parents/students think they are expecting and wanting out of their music/piano lessons, I realize that what I have described in this post will not suit the concepts of what every parent wants for their child's music/piano experience.  That is fine because this is why there are more teachers than just me around here.  If people want the standard half an hour a week, they have other people to choose from for this.  In a sense, what I offer is not about what parents/students want, it's just about what I offer.  People either agree with it or disagree with it.  They either sign up for it or they don't.  If they believe they are signing up for something different and get part way through the program, becoming disillusioned, they leave by either my recommendation, their own desire, or both (though I have never formally kicked a student out).   Also, I want to note that even if parents have particular goals in mind for their children, they don't necessarily know what it takes to actually get them there.

I used to feel badly about that as though I were responsible for giving every individual their musical experience.  I used to think that if I weren't bending over backwards to adjust what I offered to what they think they want, that somehow I was/am depriving this person of exposure to music should they decide to quit.  I just don't see it that way anymore.  I now aim to attract a particular "type" of student and the only way I can do this is by being exactly as I am -- this does not mean that I don't change things and grow and learn in the process (nor does it mean that I am entirely fearless about all of this), but in general, I feel I know better what people *actually* want/need in their musical experience, and I make it my responsibility to get them there.  I always feel the need for improvement with all of this, and I am always looking for ways to have all of this be clearly pertinent to their lives -- most of what we learn is centered around the music they are playing, so there are not really any out-of-context-seeming exercises.

Regarding their class experience with these concepts, they do enjoy having the opportunity to be the accompanying person to the choir of solfegerators.  I also want to add that this even gives them a very small taste of being in the position of a conductor.

At this point, the kids actually quite enjoy learning what they learn here and the myriad of ways to teach these basic things are actually endless -- it can be a very personal and creative process. 

Dear Karli,

I admire your passion for music teaching and ideas of being with your young beginners as many times as possible.

But this approach is too teacher intensive and have no future.

I was the same way before we invented the software. Now I see that the interactivity between student and piano keys/music notes most of the time is suffering when a teacher is sitting between and talkingtalkingtalking.

I understand: you believe that every student (parent) is ignorant and only if you would come into the picture everything will change for the better. Well, it is not so. People come to you with collected music experience and they need to be developed not from the point zero.

If you had a chance to watch, for example, my 3 year old students learning Petzold, you would notice, that even though her fingering is not perfect, but she figure it out all on her own.

My point is: people are not stupid and they have their own love for music and sometimes more understanding and knowledge then some teacher. I don't like the idea that All in hands of 'master'.

[m19834]

But this approach is too teacher intensive

No, it is music and student-intensive.

and have no future.

All I need is the present .
 

I was the same way

No, you weren't.

Now I see that the interactivity between student and piano keys/music notes most of the time is suffering when a teacher is sitting between and talkingtalkingtalking.

I agree.

I understand:

Clearly, you do not .

People come to you with collected music experience and they need to be developed not from the point zero.

I agree.

If you had a chance to watch, for example, my 3 year old students learning Petzold, you would notice, that even though her fingering is not perfect, but she figure it out all on her own.

I have watched.

My point is: people are not stupid and they have their own love for music and sometimes more understanding and knowledge then some teacher.

All the better .

I don't like the idea that All in hands of 'master'.

I like it very much, actually.  However, I see each individual as their own master  .

[musicrebel4u]

 

No, you weren't.

-https://www.doremifasoft.com/abhehi.html

She invented a unique system of ear training and writing musical dictations. She also developed a system of teaching young students music improvisations and creating music. In 1991, her students composed an opera, "Kolobok," and one of her pupils received a medal in the regional contest of young composers.

[keypeg]

when a teacher is sitting between and talkingtalkingtalking.

I don't know whether this is veering off-topic, but ........ do lessons necessarily involve words?  Some of my best lessons have been carried out in virtual silence, with body language, waiting while the scratch of a pencil hastily throws in some fingerings.  There have been lessons of an intensity in which you dare not talk.  You glance, eye contact, a nod, or a shake of the head, and you continue.  You play, a hand cups an elbow and gently lifts it, a pencil taps a rhythm, an eyebrow raises.

Does this happen only in my corner?

[musicrebel4u]

I don't know whether this is veering off-topic, but ........ do lessons necessarily involve words?  Some of my best lessons have been carried out in virtual silence, with body language, waiting while the scratch of a pencil hastily throws in some fingerings.  There have been lessons of an intensity in which you dare not talk.  You glance, eye contact, a nod, or a shake of the head, and you continue.  You play, a hand cups an elbow and gently lifts it, a pencil taps a rhythm, an eyebrow raises.

Does this happen only in my corner?

Unfortunately, it is not common 
First, majority of music educators don't respect the fact that where the music talk should be silence
Second, not many educators no the essential rul of cognitive perception: 3/4 have to be done on personal experience and 1/4 added to it.
This is why talktalktalktalk and honest believe that without this talk student is unable to find anything.
With current ways of teaching, though, student most of the time is handycapped without a teacher.
This is why the most caring and dedicated would schedule lessons 6 days a week

[keypeg]

In that case, I count myself fortunate.  I won't continue the question since it is straying off topic.

[m19834]

There is something interesting about this idea of "talking" in a lesson, actually.  This is related to the public broadcast about "Musical Language" (which I posted about in the miscellaneous section of the forum) in that, if a teacher chooses to talk, the teacher can control their speech in such a way that it actually fits right in with musical ear/perception training.  There are common, fundamental values (common denominators) between speech and music and the two are never entirely separated out.  There is a lot that can be unconsciously communicated in this way (especially if the teacher is aware of what they are doing) -- actually, speech within lessons has got infinite musically-effective possibilities . 

[musicrebel4u]

There is something interesting about this idea of "talking" in a lesson, actually.  This is related to the public broadcast about "Musical Language" (which I posted about in the miscellaneous section of the forum) in that, if a teacher chooses to talk, the teacher can control their speech in such a way that it actually fits right in with musical ear/perception training.  There are common, fundamental values (common denominators) between speech and music and the two are never entirely separated out.  There is a lot that can be unconsciously communicated in this way (especially if the teacher is aware of what they are doing) -- actually, speech within lessons has got infinite musically-effective possibilities . 

I think, you mixed together completely different things
Yes, there is a fundamental values between music and speech: music was born from speech and human throut.
Yes, there is Solfeggio based on solmisation (speeking the sounds with syllables)
But when you're speeking during the time when a student have to coop with coordination and reading problems - this is not good: human's mind already occupied with different tasks and percepts such speech as a SPAM or abuse.

[m19834]

percepts (...) SPAM or abuse.

hmmmmm ..... 

[musicrebel4u]

hmmmmm ..... 

Karli, you're awsome! 

[keypeg]

Karli, I've been at the exercise of playing a scale and adding the appropriate chord from I, IV or V, doing it inthe first four keys with sharps.  I don't think that I would put it into ear training in the way I have learned to understand it.  Let me explain, and I'm curious what you will think of it.

In the ear training that I got, there is awareness of pitch as a separate entity, and awareness of relativity as a different entity, and there is also the awareness of both at the same time.  This is an awareness that exists first and one sings or plays toward that sound which is already perceived.  One also knows after the fact that one has done so.  Or, for this second statement, we can recognize that what we have played is an interval of a fourth, going from a major chord to a major chord (relative pitch) with the root note being C and F (absolute pitch ..... maybe for the amount of pitch recognition needed with piano, it should be called absolutish pitch  )

In the exercise that I did on the piano, my ear did not lead me.  It was more of a mind knowledge that led, then kinesthetic and visual; even when I closed my eyes I could visualize the pairings of black keys.

As I went up the notes of the G major scale, I would play the I or IV chord for G, then the V chord for A, the I chord for C etc.  I needed to know that I was GBE (or since every 2nd note was skipped, that it started with G and fit in the scale of G major), that IV was CEG and V was DF#A.  Or I could get it visually since "5 over from G" isn't hard to find, and which one of the three chords the single scale note I was playing had to fit into one of the three like a puzzle piece of the right shape.

Nothing that guided me was by ear, however.  So my ear-guidance that I would have on violin or voice wasn't there.  My ear guided me insofar as it sounding right or wrong after the fact.

What slowed me down in the beginning was thinking that I needed to memorize what IV and V were for the other keys, since I've been at any form of scale and chord work for only a few weeks.  Or alternatively, that I would have to figure it out, even if "figuring out" took seconds - it wasn't automatic at the tip of my mind, so to say.

But then I started to half see and half remember patterns.  I don't know which came first.  IV was always the key name of the previous key in the circle of fifths, and V was always the next one.  So if I was playing in the key of D, then IV was G, and G+ is the key with one sharp preceding D in the circle, and V was A, and A+ is the key with three sharps. After that the chords just flowed from my fingers and I went right up to C# major.

It made the theory that I studied real.  It allowed me to navigate over the keyboard with ease and will probably help me read and play music.  I've already discovered that I can transpose simple two-handed music with patterns such as the Alberti bass with ease by ear by memory, and more slowly sight reading and doing it on the spot if it's predictable music.

I'm asking myself where the ear or hearing comes into it.  My experience right now tells me that the exercises use the mind, kinetiks (a feeling of intervals in space, shape in the fingers), and visioon.  Sound comes after the fact.  Sound is trained by the exercise.

After that I am no longer neutral because I already have an aural vision of what I expect to hear, and I don't know how much of that is being trained and what pre-exists.  If I played a wrong chord in which the note still "fit" - say DFA instead of DF#A to go with A in the scale of G major, it would "sound wrong" so my ear is guiding me.  Also, if while playing the notes of the scale I played F instead of F#, my ear would tell me that this is a wrong note.  That's also the old movable do solfege (sorry M4U  )

Sitting at the computer keyboard I still have all those chords ringing in my ears for each of the scales, and the sound of how they relate for any scale is probably deep in my aural memory now.  But it doesn't feel like ear training.  If feels like the ear absorbing what it has heard after the fact of playing.  If so, might that be a characteristic of the piano?  I think the original question posed was what role both kinds of ear training have for the piano.

[musicrebel4u]

I just don't understand how ear training, improvising, composing and theorizing could come without LOTS of playing, singing, writing music down and sight-reading!
It is like to teach someone to swim in a pool with no water!
 

[keypeg]

Which is easier - to swim in a pool without water, or in water without a pool?  I see two teachers who have worked hard to create great methods from different angles and backgrounds.  Karli, might I imagine that you include the playing, writing, and sight reading? 

So I've got these two neighbours on either side of me.  The one is digging a hole in the ground, and then a big truck pulls up and it has the word "water" written on it.  The other one has a truck with the word "water" waiting, and then a hole is being dug in the ground.  Both will end up with a pool and water.  One has a pink pool and the other has  a green pool.  Are they supposed to argue about whether you should have a pool full of water, or a pool full of water?  If so, argue away.  I'm going swimming in my pink and green striped pool.   

[m19834]

I just don't understand how ear training, improvising, composing and theorizing could come without LOTS of playing, singing, writing music down and sight-reading!

It's called interactivity with the instrument and with music itself . 

Are they supposed to argue (...) ?

Well, actually, I think you will see that I am in no way arguing with 4u.  I read her articles, I listen to her ideas, I agree with much of what she says and learn from her, I have downloaded her free software and have used it with many of my students ... I have even considered purchasing her full-fledged software !  I do have opinions and experiences that I choose not to share.  I have said from the beginning that I appreciate what she "does" in terms of her teaching (and I honestly do), my only difficulty is how she uses the forum in general -- but that's really got nothing to do with me.  And, just when I think we are starting to have a real discussion, it is not a discussion at all !

I have placed a small description of one of the activities that I do with my students in this thread, and I have thought it was related to the topic that hyrst has brought up.  I am not trying to sell anything nor convince anybody of anything, I am simply responding to the thread with an actual hope to grow from the communication with other teachers.  It seems, however, that the thread has been side-tracked by unnecessary talkingtalkingtalking.  If this is going to all become somehow a competition, well, have fun I guess !  I am not interested, I would simply like to get better at what I do.  If that means that I remain quiet and just work with my students and my own thoughts by myself, fine !

Cheers !

[musicrebel4u]

It's called interactivity with the instrument and with music itself . 

Well, actually, I think you will see that I am in no way arguing with 4u.  I read her articles, I listen to her ideas, I agree with much of what she says and learn from her, I have downloaded her free software and have used it with many of my students ... I have even considered purchasing her full-fledged software !  I do have opinions and experiences that I choose not to share.  I have said from the beginning that I appreciate what she "does" in terms of her teaching (and I honestly do), my only difficulty is how she uses the forum in general -- but that's really got nothing to do with me.  And, just when I think we are starting to have a real discussion, it is not a discussion at all !

I have placed a small description of one of the activities that I do with my students in this thread, and I have thought it was related to the topic that hyrst has brought up.  I am not trying to sell anything nor convince anybody of anything, I am simply responding to the thread with an actual hope to grow from the communication with other teachers.  It seems, however, that the thread has been side-tracked by unnecessary talkingtalkingtalking.  If this is going to all become somehow a competition, well, have fun I guess !  I am not interested, I would simply like to get better at what I do.  If that means that I remain quiet and just work with my students and my own thoughts by myself, fine !

Cheers !

Karli, I am sorry!

It is complete miscommunication ( and part of this is my English problems)

You described an excellent idea of singing in different modes with Solfeggio and picking up TSD chords.  I wrote that I done that before, because wanted to let you know that it worked with my students pretty good! When they understood how different melodies match with chords, they started to compose and loved it just the way you described.

But then I was a teacher in former Soviet Union and it was theory-solfeggio lessons (once a week, 1 hour and a half) in addition to 2 private 45 minutes lessons per week, 1 hour of theory, 1 hour of music history and choir.

To be able to teach like this in the USA is practically impossible! This is why I developed computerized way to do it and now have time for aural training during my 30 minutes lessons with children.

As for the purchasing the software, I can send a copy for you absolutely free. I am here to make friends and overcome my communication problems.

[keypeg]

Karli, I know that this section of the forum is reserved for teachers, and so as a student I'm a guest even if I also have a teaching degree - but not as a music teacher.    As a student I find these discussions can be enormously beneficial in a number of ways, and I have certainly gained from this one.  

For one, some of us are not able to get together with a teacher, or maybe not for the time being, but have some rudiments in playing even if not enough.  We may be forced to patch things together as we can for the time being.

But we may also have teachers or be preparing to find a teacher, in which case it is good to have an inkling of what is involved.  Adult students especially may encounter the expectation "They're not serious, will never get anywhere, let them have fun." (I've seen this written so often, and have seen it beneath lessons perplexed acquaintances describe) and since they themselves don't know what is involved it's a vicious circle.

On a personal note, I am quite serious, but I am also at an age where I would be expected not to expect much, nor do I have a prior formal musical background of any kind.  Almost all my knowledge is about two years old or less.  The rest comes from whatever filtered in by interacting with music by hearing it or playing it instinctively.  There are patterns in music, and they can become visible.

I had already concluded that to really be able to play I need not only understand the physicality of playing and the nature of my instrument, not only read music one note at a time and in groups, but that there had to be an understanding of music itself.  That led me to theory, and applying the theory to music.  From there I began to understand that the act of making music introduces the theory, but at this point it is mostly a guided experience by someone who knows the way.  In any case, at that point I encountered the words "book knowledge" and understood what that implied.

In my own journey at this point I was learning the circle of fifths physically that I had studied mentally, and allowed that physical knowledge to move back into my mental understanding.  I had begun to play scales and add I, IV and V as a way to truly comprehend both music and the piano.  In what you describe I can see that at least I was on the right track, and now I have added reversing the process so that the chord comes into the right hand.

But at this juncture I have moved into a borrowed lesson that I have altered to my purposes, which is not what you intended in posting this.

But I have also moved into an understanding of what some teachers teach and how broad the goals can be.  This will help me (and anyone else) when interviewing teachers in trying to choose.  It helps in stating my own goals.  That is, I would not go to a teacher and say "I want you to teach me .... " and then list the method of either of you.  But I would say something along the lines of wanting to learn to play the piano in a complete way that covers all the necessary aspects, and then listen to what that teacher has to say.  Secondly I will be able to listen to what such teachers have to say with at least some discernment.  We go to these interviews or talk over the phone knowing vaguely that we want to learn to play the piano, some people thinking their goal is to play certain pieces or that being "able" to play a certain piece constitutes reaching the "level" they want to reach.

There is still another benefit: as a student one is more ready to accept lessons that seem to meander from the "main point" when in fact these meanderings are the main point.  Reading these things discussed with an open mind may make some student somewhere more accepting of whatever their teacher wants to do with them.  You, and others, have expressed a frustration at the unwillingness of many to do just that.  If not enough are willing to learn this way, or give support as parents, will it become dying knowledge held by only a few, with the popular path the one that spreads?  If so, it becomes lost to those of us who seek it, because there won't be enough who can and will teach it.

The adult student is a perplexing position, and can be perplexing to teachers as well.  There are so many of us with such different backgrounds and aspirations.  The teacher has to decide which path to take us on, and many will actually choose one of several paths depending on how we describe our wishes and how we present ourselves.  Many have had negative experiences and will expect the same, the course of lessons then going a certain direction because of it.  Those who do try to teach more seriously may find a non-compliance or a pick-and-choose reinterpretation of their instructions as the intellectual nature of the adult takes over because we don't know how to follow even when we think we are, especially if we have never been taught before .......... or maybe worse, taught badly and carelessly as our template.  If there is some understanding and acceptance, maybe that gap can be bridged somewhat.  In fact, maybe that will help with the conundrum of the child learner who has parents who, I read, become the source of frustration among some teachers.

I have drifted off my paragraph.  I have a few friends and acquaintances who I would call serious adult learners.  Each of them has had a variation of the same story: At some point in their lessons they get uneasy because something seems wrong, and they cannot put their finger on it.  They themselves started off wrong by asking for the wrong thing, seeking the wrong thing, and their teachers have also geared their lessons toward these limitations rather than beating their heads against the wall trying to get compliance where there won't be any.  There is a certain harmony in that since there is no conflict.  But it also doesn't go anywhere.  You hit a wall.  

But secondly these acquaintances have also been taught along shallower goals: play music which gets harder and fancier, learn a bit about dynamics - they stay on the surface and the superficial.  Most of us as adults or as parents won't accept the abstract so it's not offered.  Not knowing any different, we think that this is all there is.  This is what music lessons and learning are all about.  The teacher doesn't offer anything different, and we don't ask for anything different because we don't know what exists.  Some teachers probably are also not capable of more since teachers come in all stripes.  But this has not been the case in these three or four instances.  Once they had an inkling, each of these people had a talk with his or her teacher, in some manner or other stated that they believed that there was something else out there and that they were willing to follow their teacher on whatever path they would give.  In every case but one, there was a major change in lessons, with relief on the teacher's part at not needing to restrict things.  Sometimes there was initial shock when the new kind of lessons kicked in, because some of us (maybe all of us) did not realize what was actually involved and how little we knew.

It begins, however, by becoming informed and having just a bit of an inkling instead of drifting blindly along whatever perceptions we have initially.  Even if the people addressing each other cannot reach each other, you don't know what other effects your posts may have - positive and negative I suppose - on which people, and how wide the spin-off may be.

[keypeg]

But then I was a teacher in former Soviet Union and it was theory-solfeggio lessons (once a week, 1 hour and a half) in addition to 2 private 45 minutes lessons per week, 1 hour of theory, 1 hour of music history and choir.

I'm putting salt and pepper on my three beans, and you show me a three-course meal.  But Musicrebel4U, was that for everyone or just for some?

[musicrebel4u]

I'm putting salt and pepper on my three beans, and you show me a three-course meal.  But Musicrebel4U, was that for everyone or just for some?

For all of the students of music school, but... not every child could attend music schools.
I wish every child would be exposed to such training...

[m19834]

Thanks for the post, keypeg.  At this point I am finding it difficult to actually "address" things.  For one, what I have described as a way to learn some particular things about music and the piano is just one aspect of what we do.  And, I realize now that perhaps I should not have posted it because it can easily give the wrong impression -- and it's this sort of thing that makes me stay rather silent and keep my thoughts and experiences to myself. 

I do have a collection of things to say in response to all of this, but I have to ask myself what I would be aiming to accomplish by expending the energy to do so ?  Perhaps at some point it will be the right time.

In general though, I have to remark that what I have described in my post about the circle of 5ths and so on up above, it is only one path within a forest.  Ideally, lessons are not run by a single path and my main goal as a teacher is not to have my students memorizing only one particular path or so (though there may be a place for that in other ways related to practice and so on), my goal is help them become aware of when they are learning, regardless of the process being used.  When they can start to recognize different particulars about music within varying contexts, then they are walking a golden pathway that is not shown on any particular map (and which I think cannot be shown on any particular map).  At this point I have shelves of aids to help us along these lines -- this keeps the learning fresh and exciting, I believe.  And, it's this type of desire that makes me interested in something like what 4u has brought to the world, though I view it as an aid and one that we would not use religiously.  I think there is a danger in religious use of these things, but that is probably an entirely different subject.

Ultimately, as the beings that we all are, I think we have to face that there is no way around a kind of dependence on each other.  Eventually there will be computer programs and robots which are capable of helping a person to walk down any path that a human being could assist with, and aside from the fact that I believe it is futile to try to stop this movement, I think there would come a price if we believe these things will actually replace the quality that human interaction brings to each of our existence.

I am not afraid of tradition being lost -- it will happen !  The fact is, we have within each of us what is true and essential about our existence and if music is not part of that, then I would rather not be wasting my time with it anyway !  Really, if bell-bottoms could be fashionable and then not, and then make a comeback a couple of decades later, how could the essence of our being/music be lost forever ?  I don't think it can be ever truly lost.

What is essential about music and what is essential about our beings and our interactions, well these are irreplaceable and always present -- if it were not so, we would cease to exist.  However, we as a race often feel blind and dumb when it comes to our perception of these things.

Now, since I am pretty sure that most of what I have said  -- which are the types of rolling audio-tapes passing through my mind since birth -- is along the lines of just filling up cyber-space, I will put a close for now and soon go back to my private study.  Ultimately, all perception is linked and as well it should be (at least isn't that what we are aiming for in our pianistic experiences, or if not that, isn't that what this thread is "about" ?).  So if I were going to comment further on the concept of "ear training," I would direct myself and any readers of me back to the concept of what our "ear" actually is -- it is not a seemingly isolated sense.  It is a sense of perception, though perception being the important factor behind any sense !  If I were aiming to perfect anything as it relates with music (and life), it would be that of my perception of what is essential and true.  I don't want just perfect pitch or a perfect "ear," I want perfect perception.

[musicrebel4u]

And, it's this type of desire that makes me interested in something like what 4u has brought to the world, though I view it as an aid and one that we would not use religiously.  I think there is a danger in religious use of these things, but that is probably an entirely different subject.

Did you watch this?
I was teaching this girl's 5-year-old sister and asked my partner to videotape her. Unfortunately,
we placed on youtube just little part of her learning:

Here the same program used with a teacher:

We have many other recording of autal training of students, but didn't put them on the Internet yet.

Computer or robot can't completely replace a teacher, but it can make teacher's work more productive and less stressful.

And you are absolutely right: it is just an aid and every teacher use it as a tool.

[keypeg]

Thanks for the post, keypeg.  At this point I am finding it difficult to actually "address" things.  For one, what I have described as a way to learn some particular things about music and the piano is just one aspect of what we do.  And, I realize now that perhaps I should not have posted it because it can easily give the wrong impression -- and it's this sort of thing that makes me stay rather silent and keep my thoughts and experiences to myself.  

Because of the path that I have been on these last two years I understand this very well.  If we follow the story to the end it leads to a simple conclusion:

- There is a lot more to learning music than we might first expect.
- We would tend to expand and change our thinking along the way
- That cannot occur without a teacher who is capable of leading the way.

Additionally I suspect that getting any one part of the picture might lead a self-learner on going off on unbalanced tangents.  It is a guided process.  This observation goes beyond what is contained in this thread.

Nonetheless I blieve that an awareness that there is more than meets the eye, and that a good teacher is a specialist, is something important that may be missing.

Bell bottoms are out, but design endures.

[keypeg]

It is a sense of perception, though perception being the important factor behind any sense !  If I were aiming to perfect anything as it relates with music (and life), it would be that of my perception of what is essential and true.  I don't want just perfect pitch or a perfect "ear," I want perfect perception

   Yes!  Thank you!

[m19834]

With regard to some of the subjects contained within this thread, I will throw out another comment, stemming from a concept that has just occurred to me moments ago, after having read these posts and ponderd them.

Earlier in my life, my main abilities at the instrument were that of playing pieces, or at least this was the focus of my study.  I suppose that to have this be the focus of a person's study is fine, so long as there are all of the rudiments coming along with it. 

The reason I think all of these rudiments are important is this :  If your study consists solely of pieces, when those pieces have been forgotten, a person will essentially feel as though they have forgotten how to play the piano and as though they cannot play anymore at all.  In my case, I always felt as though I couldn't play, even when I could play pieces, largely in part because I didn't understand the rudiments of music and how they applied to the piano (though, I definitely wanted to, mind you !).  Basically a person's concept of playing the piano is limited to pieces.

In my mind, knowing how the instrument works, how to listen to it, how it functions with regard to the fundamentals of music, this is learning and knowing how to play the piano.  I want my concept of pieces to have this fundamental understanding of the piano always backing it.  I have always wanted that !

[hyrst]

I am drawing the conclusion that the purpose of aural training has several facets, and therefore what it is includes a lot of things beyond 'tests and exercises'.

It seems that everything we hear, that has musical qualities, has the potential to increase our aural memory and recognition.  Therefore, in some ways, during all time spent listening properly when practicing and whenever we listen to recordings and performances, we are developing aural memory and skills.  Plus, we make choices about sound qualities we like and this helps to reproduce them.

Aural 'training', I think, is then the process of isolating sounds and identifying them so that we can classify them.  Psych theory says that we increase our capacity to learn and to take in new details when we have labelled and classified something mentally.  If we assist students to recognise certain rhythms, modes, cadences, pitch movements, etc, that are relevant to their study of music, they will be able to hear these things when they come across them.  'Feeling' is turned into conscious knowledge, which is transformed in part into automatic recreation and use of knowledge.  This might lead to increased comfort, musical understanding, greater expression and even creative use of music. 

The training then must be in the context of the music the student is learning - not random information, although I am sure this would gradually become meaningful as it becomes relevant and incorporated into the 'whole body of knowledge'.  Therefore, it seems that really teaching a peice of music is a good opportunity for aural training.  We can suggest students stop and repeat progressions, analyse them, listen to them.  We could play them for the student - and play similar examples for them so they are able to hear the harmony, etc within context but also beyond context. 

Thus, aural curriculum should fit within the lesson as part of the learning of study pieces, not really as an isolated 15 minutes put into every hour or so.  It should progress, in the same way as understanding of lesson pieces should continue - with growing knowledge that allows for the wise performance of pieces, which in turn leads to easier learning of new pieces.

This does not mean that aural training should never be seperate to study pieces.  We do learn scales that are not necessarily the scales needed in the pieces we are currently playing.  This helps many students read and learn new pieces that relate to scales and key signatures they have learnt.  However, not all students can grasp and use this 'random' information and do find learning things like scales much easier when they are learning the ones from their pieces - the two exercisese reinforce one another. 

We need to get certain sounds into our brains, somehow at sometime in some way.  Perhaps there then exists a data-base that is drawn on when we consciously attend to and use them.

On the other hand, certain exposure probably teaches students to listen more carefully.  I would see this as part of the job of aural training for young and beginning students - that there is some difference between the role of aural training for beginners and more advanced students.

Also, for aural learners, I am sure that hearing musical sounds would help with learning theory - just as exposure to keyboard patterns would help visual learners grasp theory.

Hope this makes some sense.

[musicrebel4u]

I am drawing the conclusion that the purpose of aural training has several facets, and therefore what it is includes a lot of things beyond 'tests and exercises'.

It seems that everything we hear, that has musical qualities, has the potential to increase our aural memory and recognition.  Therefore, in some ways, during all time spent listening properly when practicing and whenever we listen to recordings and performances, we are developing aural memory and skills.  Plus, we make choices about sound qualities we like and this helps to reproduce them.

Aural 'training', I think, is then the process of isolating sounds and identifying them so that we can classify them.  Psych theory says that we increase our capacity to learn and to take in new details when we have labelled and classified something mentally.  If we assist students to recognise certain rhythms, modes, cadences, pitch movements, etc, that are relevant to their study of music, they will be able to hear these things when they come across them.  'Feeling' is turned into conscious knowledge, which is transformed in part into automatic recreation and use of knowledge.  This might lead to increased comfort, musical understanding, greater expression and even creative use of music. 

The training then must be in the context of the music the student is learning - not random information, although I am sure this would gradually become meaningful as it becomes relevant and incorporated into the 'whole body of knowledge'.  Therefore, it seems that really teaching a peice of music is a good opportunity for aural training.  We can suggest students stop and repeat progressions, analyse them, listen to them.  We could play them for the student - and play similar examples for them so they are able to hear the harmony, etc within context but also beyond context. 

Thus, aural curriculum should fit within the lesson as part of the learning of study pieces, not really as an isolated 15 minutes put into every hour or so.  It should progress, in the same way as understanding of lesson pieces should continue - with growing knowledge that allows for the wise performance of pieces, which in turn leads to easier learning of new pieces.

This does not mean that aural training should never be seperate to study pieces.  We do learn scales that are not necessarily the scales needed in the pieces we are currently playing.  This helps many students read and learn new pieces that relate to scales and key signatures they have learnt.  However, not all students can grasp and use this 'random' information and do find learning things like scales much easier when they are learning the ones from their pieces - the two exercisese reinforce one another. 

We need to get certain sounds into our brains, somehow at sometime in some way.  Perhaps there then exists a data-base that is drawn on when we consciously attend to and use them.

On the other hand, certain exposure probably teaches students to listen more carefully.  I would see this as part of the job of aural training for young and beginning students - that there is some difference between the role of aural training for beginners and more advanced students.

Also, for aural learners, I am sure that hearing musical sounds would help with learning theory - just as exposure to keyboard patterns would help visual learners grasp theory.

Hope this makes some sense.

It makes perfect sense!

I just have to add to it, that in such training not only ear, but vocal ligaments always involved (whether a student singing or keeping quiet). This is scientifically proven fact discovered with special sensitive electronic devices, which researches were placing on the neck of music listeners. Interesting fact indeed! It means that human throat is a music's cradle.

Music theory, history, aural training, Solfeggio – everything has to go hand-in-hand especially at the beginner's stage.

For example, in our system we have a feature, which allows cutting a part of the music piece for mastering it. There are 2 different ways to do it: by ear (or to determine aurally the beginning and the end of certain music phrase, sentence or part) or only on originally presented music score by hearing it inside student's mind. Of cause, the very beginners chose to do it by ear and more advanced students by notation, but this task is teaching them music analysis, help them focus on patterns, cadences etc indirectly through their own practice at home.

Here, for example, an interesting video of my daughter's best friend. He came to visit us and I introduced him to the program. He got interested and started to learn his favorite piece of Bach. He was so fast as a learner that we asked his permission to make a video recording of his practicing. Being a banjo player, he was very accurate with cutting the fragments of the piece exactly as we learned this in college! Never cut any music in the middle of nowhere!

Unfortunately, we didn't place on youtube any 3,4,5 year old kids doing the same. It seems like most of them have inborn or developed ability to differentiate one music phrase or sentence from another and cut it precisely in right places.  Also they love to listen the pieces from different albums and if the piece is too advanced for them (we have repertoire from Introductory to University levels), but desirable to learn, they practice some fragments with one hand and listen to another.

More advanced students love such explanations as you described above. They want to KNOW what is going not just to do.

[pianodan]

An interesting take on aural curriculum...

https://www.listentoyourhands.com.au/

Any thoughts?

[m19834]

Sitting at the computer keyboard I still have all those chords ringing in my ears for each of the scales, and the sound of how they relate for any scale is probably deep in my aural memory now.  But it doesn't feel like ear training.  If feels like the ear absorbing what it has heard after the fact of playing.  If so, might that be a characteristic of the piano?  I think the original question posed was what role both kinds of ear training have for the piano.

I would like to try to address this idea of the ear absorbing what it has heard after the fact of playing.  Firstly, rather than whether or not this is a characteristic of the piano, I wonder, isn't it the nature of the ear?  When we are talking shallowly of sound and the ear, the only way I know for it to be "trained" is by it listening to something, hearing it, and absorbing/remembering that sound.  And, the only way for a sound to be meaningful for the ear is if we attach meaning to it.  So, in the case of these patterns on the piano that I have talked about doing with my students, these become very meaningful patterns to them (in a number of ways) as it relates specifically to the language and sound of music. 

Now, you are saying that this is not your concept of ear training.  Of course, I don't know what your particular concept is, nor do I know what your particular training is.  I am interested to find out, if you are willing to share.

I will say, this is all another aspect that I am not sure I understand completely.  I started playing the piano and singing at a very young age, and I am quite certain that I developed "perfect pitch" (whatever that really means).  At the time, I thought nothing of it.  I figured out how to do a lot of "fun" things at the instrument, like how to pick out melodies and harmonize with them, how to transpose them, and the circle of 5ths became apparent to me.  I started improvising at some point, based on the knowledge that I had gained from the piano itself, and I specifically recall hearing pitches in my ear before I played them, and knowing where to have my hands/arms go (playing toward the sound, as you have talked about before).  That wasn't strange to me then, and I sure wish it wasn't now (that's a different matter though).  I just thought of the piano, of pitch, and of the keys in a much different way back then.  It's difficult for me to comprehend a different way of learning about these things other than gathering information from the resources of sound around me.  Now, I see my students doing very similar things.

Honestly, I don't really understand how this is not ear training ?  And, I don't mean that in a "oh yeah ?!" type of way.  I simply don't understand.  So, please feel free to further elaborate, if you would wish to.

[keypeg]

I had to go back and read what I wrote so I could figure out what I was talking about in that quote.     I think that I was looking at ear training too narrowly.  In the passage I repeat that "my ear isn't leading" and that these sounds entered my mind passively.  However, even now I can hear the I IV I V I in my mind from the weeks that I have been practising this.  Obviously something got trained.

Initially when I wrote that I believed that ear training had to be passive and ear-led.  I.e. I had to decide that I wanted to train my ear, and I would begin by wanting to produce something and would first try to know how it sounds.  What bothered me about the exercise, and pure sight reading in general, is that one does not have to listen to anything and the sounds will produce themselves on the keyboard.  Possibly I tuned out sound for a while at those times that I was trying to get a handle on sight reading, so my older reflexes wouldn't take over.  If afterward my ears rangwith those chords, I discounted it because it was not actively and purposefully done, and I had not listened consciously.  Therefore it was not real, or at least, it was not training. That is silly thinking and I'm glad you caught me on it.  If I have learned, then I have learned.  In fact I think this is an old exercise, and it probably exists because it is effective.

Thank you for describing what you did in your childhood.  I had similar.  I had my little "Hohner organ" with the orange book with some rudimentary ideas about playing and I explored and fooled around with things too.  My favourite were sixths.  They are disappointing on other instrument.  Recently I got the old Hohner back: it's now close to 50 years old: Either it's the tuning or the vibrato that comes through the way the air is pumped - the 6ths are sweet and poignant.  In any case, for me too the sound leads the hand.

In fact, there was a weird after-effect from the official ear training I had last year.  I cannot name a pitch that I hear.  However, I can go to any instrument that I play and allow my fingers to find that pitch, then look at the fingering and say "Aha, that was a Bb."  The knowledge of that tone resides somewhere in my kinesthetic relationship to the instrument.  I do recognize pitch, but I can't get at it through my conscious mind: only fingertips.

In the same way early on with the violin when I was only playing in low positions I was interrupted by a high pitched beeping of a truck backing up.  Annoyed, my finger shot up to some high position and I mockingly imitated that truck's beeping accurately - but how did my hand know where to find that tone? Can we recognize pitch non-verbally in a physical manner or within the instrument so that we can produce it unfailingly?  Is that one aspect?

I still think that active listening is important.  I did my theory rudiments exams last year but it was all done with paper and pencil.  I sort of hear what I write, but not much for some of the things.  So this year I have determined to go through every exercise at the piano, try to visualize the sound before I play it, and then play it.  I've only gone through the intervals questions.  I know theoreticaly that an augmented 7th is an octave, but it is startling to hear it and it becomes real.  Or the tone of an interval and its inversion and trying to catch relationships in that.

But I think I'm running into the same thing that began this post.  Sometimes I'm mistaken and I play the wrong notes, and instantly I hear it, "No, that's not an augmented 5th." and I know the sound of something that I didn't think I knew, and that I had not tried to know.  I was told that everything had to be pursued consciously and captured consciously or it wasn't real, but I'm not sure that this is so.

[musicrebel4u]

I would like to try to address this idea of the ear absorbing what it has heard after the fact of playing.  Firstly, rather than whether or not this is a characteristic of the piano, I wonder, isn't it the nature of the ear?  When we are talking shallowly of sound and the ear, the only way I know for it to be "trained" is by it listening to something, hearing it, and absorbing/remembering that sound.  And, the only way for a sound to be meaningful for the ear is if we attach meaning to it.  So, in the case of these patterns on the piano that I have talked about doing with my students, these become very meaningful patterns to them (in a number of ways) as it relates specifically to the language and sound of music. 

Now, you are saying that this is not your concept of ear training.  Of course, I don't know what your particular concept is, nor do I know what your particular training is.  I am interested to find out, if you are willing to share.

I will say, this is all another aspect that I am not sure I understand completely.  I started playing the piano and singing at a very young age, and I am quite certain that I developed "perfect pitch" (whatever that really means).  At the time, I thought nothing of it.  I figured out how to do a lot of "fun" things at the instrument, like how to pick out melodies and harmonize with them, how to transpose them, and the circle of 5ths became apparent to me.  I started improvising at some point, based on the knowledge that I had gained from the piano itself, and I specifically recall hearing pitches in my ear before I played them, and knowing where to have my hands/arms go (playing toward the sound, as you have talked about before).  That wasn't strange to me then, and I sure wish it wasn't now (that's a different matter though).  I just thought of the piano, of pitch, and of the keys in a much different way back then.  It's difficult for me to comprehend a different way of learning about these things other than gathering information from the resources of sound around me.  Now, I see my students doing very similar things.

Honestly, I don't really understand how this is not ear training ?  And, I don't mean that in a "oh yeah ?!" type of way.  I simply don't understand.  So, please feel free to further elaborate, if you would wish to.

In Russian we use to say: what's genius is simple.

There is a simple rule in learning any abstract concept: through personal sensations to analysis – to short memory – to mind. Abstract is abstract 'till we touch, lick, hear, smell or say it.

Shorter way to say: through body to mind.