Improvisation and Memory; The Ear and The Theory

[escort]

This is a topic of thought of for a long time, and have never fully understood.  I understand the purpose of theory in improvisation and memory, especially in its most basic ideas.  Ex. 'Passage A has a 1-octave C-major scale in the right hand' is an easy thought to remember.  Starting with the ideas of theory in memory, it seems to me that after a certain point the complexity defeats one of the purposes of memorizing by theory; simplifying notes into blocks.  It still gives us a sense of the direction of the piece, and an awareness of our position within the piece, which is important, but we lose the direct functionality.  

Or so it seems to me, at least.  With so many different ways to voice chords, the vast amount of passages based on scales but not following simple linear directions, secondary key areas, etc...  it seems that the mind would have an easier time reproducing a visual of the score rather than trying to process all the information as it comes through during our playing.  How are we supposed to concentrate on the subtleties of music if all we're thinking is of the key areas and chords and how they are set up in each particular example?

The same issue comes up in improvisation.  I see so much material based on teaching how to improvise strictly through theory.  But how can we listen if we're just concentrating on plucking notes out of a scale?  I've found I improvise at my best when I just free my mind of the theory, read off the chord changes, and just play a melody line.  I let my ear guide me, and I find that I naturally slip in to playing out of scales, though I'm not thinking about scales at all!  As soon as I concentrate on the theory, my mind 'locks up' and I either just get stuck, or I will end up with terrible improvs, completely devoid of any colour or 'outside' notes.  

I've found, in my personal experience, that playing scales, messing around with scales, yet all the while LISTENING, and perceiving the sound before I play it gives me an ear 'based on theory.'  I may not think of the theory while I'm playing, but after practicing like this my ears now give my hands a bit of guidance.  Instead of thinking theory first, I recognize that I'm playing out of a certain scale or chord after I've played it and I am instead hearing it first (rather than thinking of the scale or chord first, and hearing it after the note has been struck).  This is to say that while the theory has been incredibly important to the development of my playing, it's NOT what I consciously think of during my playing.  

What are some of your opinions on this?  Is theory something to concentrate on when playing all of the time, or just when it's basic enough to process naturally (just like notes; we may think note-names when we're playing 3-4 slow notes in a row, but in a large flourish, individual note-names become impossible)?  Or is an ear that's been trained to instinctively recognize and play back the ideas of theory possibly the way to go?  Possibly the lines between theory and ear blur more than we might expect, making this question more difficult than what it would first appear?

What do YOU think of when you play?

I hope this is somewhat understandable and not too confusing!

[mousekowski]

I use theory to help me memorise. Quite often I try to work out what is going on harmonically, learn the left hand and then try to play the right hand by ear. When I was at school I was in a couple of school plays and I had to learn my lines for the play. I think the effort you have to put in to memorise music is very similar to actors learning their lines.

When I improvise I sometimes get the distinct feeling that my right hand 'knows' where to go because it is following scale and arpeggio patterns.

One problem is that when I perform, 101 other things come into my mind. Usually silly, banal, day-to-day things. I wish I could train myself not to do this! Perhaps I need a psychaitrist or a personal trainer!

[ted]

I use no theory at all in the constructive sense of the word when I improvise. I have never studied it and know little about it. I play the sounds I enjoy hearing and that is all there is to it. After the event it is quite possible to analyse an improvisation in a descriptive manner. If the sounds are more or less conventional, then I suppose this analysis might coincide with common theory; I neither know nor care. Perhaps there is a difference between what might be called a "descriptive" theory and a "constructive" theory. A descriptive theory would be the sort of thing Tovey and other academics do with classical pieces - mostly concerning harmony and form. A constructive theory, in its most advanced state, would presumably be an algorithm or computer programme capable of generating compositions in a given idiom.

Some people improvise with these things in mind and others have no "theory" except their ears. I belong to the latter group but everything in music is a choice, an option to use or reject according to the quality of resulting sound. If it sounds good it can't be wrong, however it was created. Interesting improvisation is all that matters in the end, whether a theory is used or not.

[c4rem]

theory, in many sense...r just labels for the sounds.

its just like if u have a shoe and u call it nike....it still doesn make much of a difference as long as u understand that its a shoe

theory, r just labels to sounds...some pple r very good at hearing the labels but have absolutely no idea what a shoe is.

but of course, mere mortals like me, need the labels. but to learn it, we probably have to learn the labels but at the same time still rmb, 'its just a shoe'.

basically, it all boils down to.. 'do u know that sound?'

i guess it still depends on the individual...

[escort]

theory, in many sense...r just labels for the sounds.

Exactly; if we take note-names, eventually as music gets more and more complex we lose the ability to recognize individual note-names.  When we read music, we start to recognize something like the shape of the notes on the page, rather than thinking "D..  A...  ummm F#...  and D!".  We can then label these groupings, and so forth.  What we end up with is something for our brain to create references to; they may not be an immediate thought as we are playing, but if we slow it down we can recognize all the separate notes and how they work together, and I think this helps make the end result 'clearer' in the mind.  

Some people improvise with these things in mind and others have no "theory" except their ears. I belong to the latter group but everything in music is a choice, an option to use or reject according to the quality of resulting sound. If it sounds good it can't be wrong, however it was created. Interesting improvisation is all that matters in the end, whether a theory is used or not.

 

I've only included the last part of this post here, but I found the post in its entirety very good!  I'm in a rural area, and there are an awful lot of 'polka' players, and the vast majority of them can't read a single NOTE of music.  However, they can play back hours upon hours of music, and it doesn't matter what key you may start in; most of them will follow you, despite not knowing anything about theory.  It just shows the power of a well developed ear.  Of course, polka's generally aren't exactly the most complex forms of music, but it's still an impressive feat, though one that I feel is more attainable than people like to believe.  

University programs push both aural skills and theory, but there's a lack of displaying how they can work together on an instrument to maximize your potential.  Being able to pass an aural skills class doesn't mean you can successfully demonstrate it's usage on an instrument.  Practicing theory and aural skills ON the instrument of your choice also brings in the ability to reference these things to physical feeling, the visual, etc...  My experience with the classes was that it taught with good intention, but what 90% of the students got out of it wasn't helpful, because they never learned to apply any of it to their playing.  On the other side you get many people that have never taken an aural skills class in their life that can play wonderfully by ear because they focused on applying it to their instrument.  

When I improvise I sometimes get the distinct feeling that my right hand 'knows' where to go because it is following scale and arpeggio patterns.

One problem is that when I perform, 101 other things come into my mind. Usually silly, banal, day-to-day things. I wish I could train myself not to do this! Perhaps I need a psychaitrist or a personal trainer!

This is my main experience with theory in improv; my hands (especially the right hand) seem to 'know' where to go based on my practicing scale patterns, though the actual break-down of the scale, or even the scale's name may never enter my mind.  I feel as though I let my ear take over to navigate the scale even though I may never realize what scale I'm playing in.  

On the second point, performance gets to be a nightmare with all the 'chatter' that comes in to play before and during your playing!  It gets to be exhausting as all these things continuously run through the mind.  I've found that if you can find something in the music you can confidently concentrate on, it allows you to center in on that and everything else seems to get pushed to the back of your mind.  It also boosts your confidence and lets you feel as though you can better express yourself to the audience, making performance a more fun experience.  This may sound redundant, but I've recently made a push for concentrating on phrasing and sounds within the music rather than the fingerings, feelings of playing, etc... as it's something I feel more confident in remembering.  The fingerings and such come naturally as they're all referenced to the music anyhow, and you won't be so nervous about forgetting individual notes, why the piano looks different with the music stand down, etc...   Too much stress is not good for memory recall!



This may also open up the discussion to further things related to playing with the ear.  Connecting the ear to the physical isn't just limited to being able to recognize pitches and where they are on the keyboard.  The idea of using your ear to control fine motor movements isn't new; Abby Whiteside made a case for it with her idea of a 'central rhythm' (just an example).  Building technique based on referencing motions to the ear and your sense of rhythm may be very useful for opening up new doors to people that are stuck, having explored many other areas in trying to develop their technique.  

[ramseytheii]

This is a topic of thought of for a long time, and have never fully understood.  I understand the purpose of theory in improvisation and memory, especially in its most basic ideas.  Ex. 'Passage A has a 1-octave C-major scale in the right hand' is an easy thought to remember.  Starting with the ideas of theory in memory, it seems to me that after a certain point the complexity defeats one of the purposes of memorizing by theory; simplifying notes into blocks.  It still gives us a sense of the direction of the piece, and an awareness of our position within the piece, which is important, but we lose the direct functionality.  

Or so it seems to me, at least.  With so many different ways to voice chords, the vast amount of passages based on scales but not following simple linear directions, secondary key areas, etc...  it seems that the mind would have an easier time reproducing a visual of the score rather than trying to process all the information as it comes through during our playing.  How are we supposed to concentrate on the subtleties of music if all we're thinking is of the key areas and chords and how they are set up in each particular example?

I personally think you have this backwards.  Theory came along after the music was composed, as a way to explain the wonderful things that the theorists were hearing, and wanted to understand.  There was no theory of sonata form, when Beethoven was writing.  There was a vernacular approach that was passed down, but there wasn't anything like Rosen's "Sonata Forms."

One should use theory to improve one's understanding of special moments.  No magician can perform a trick without knowing how it is done.  We also have to know what we are playing.


Walter Ramsey

[Derek]

I don't think anyone uses theory to improvise. That's like saying someone thinks carefully about grammar while speaking. Who thinks about subject: verb and all that while talking? Nobody. Similarly, I may have learned that lots of baroque composers used the circle of fifths progression at one point, and I may have practiced it in multiple inversions for a lark, but I never think: "AH, I think I shall use a circle of fifths progression riiiighhht....NOW!"  it just happens, intuitively, when I feel it is musically poignant. And not so much anymore actually, my ear seems to like a wider variety of sounds now.

Theory's just a way to put labels on something that sounds good in more than one place...nothing more nothing less. Theory as far as I can tell cannot explain why such mind boggling variety is possible within a rather constrained set of tones. It can't explain what makes melodies good. (it might find common characteristics of common practice, though, I suppose). It's pretty much useless, except as a starting point for beginners, or for people who think it is amusing to apply labels to something which is inherently unexplainable.

If theory were really that useful, I'd expect there to be volumes and volumes of books about it by my favorite composers...but...there aren't. I do however read little bits here and there saying those composers improvised like mad fiends so...that persuaded me to put improv at a much higher priority than reading about/thinking about music theory. My ear is the ultimate music theory for me.

[escort]

I personally think you have this backwards.  Theory came along after the music was composed, as a way to explain the wonderful things that the theorists were hearing, and wanted to understand.  There was no theory of sonata form, when Beethoven was writing.  There was a vernacular approach that was passed down, but there wasn't anything like Rosen's "Sonata Forms."

One should use theory to improve one's understanding of special moments.  No magician can perform a trick without knowing how it is done.  We also have to know what we are playing.


Walter Ramsey

That's correct, we use theory to understand the music we hear.  We use our knowledge of grammar to speak our clearest, despite the fact that we could get our points across with just a basic vocabulary and what we've learned through imitation.  

But then you're supporting what I'm talking about.  I don't think "I'm going to speak in past tense, so I shall conjugate this verb differently" when I'm talking; I recognize it and let it happen.  My knowledge of grammar has clarified my usage of the language, but it's not something at the forefront of my thinking.  

What I'm trying to get across is that theory seems to be pushed for usage in a more immediate setting in music, rather than its use of expanding our knowledge through analysis (and thereby making recognition a natural thing, rather than a conscious burden).  I've been told "Well, you must know each and every chord of a piece by name, and memorize these progressions to be able to memorize (or improvise) this piece correctly" and wild claims similar to this.  But shouldn't we be using analysis, so that we expand our knowledge of theory and recognize these things naturally, rather than use them in such a manner as I quoted?  Sure, we 'memorize' all the little bits of grammar, but we don't try and think about them consciously when we speak.  Even in learning a new language we strive to get the grammar into the back of our minds so that we can free up our immediate thoughts to communicate more fluently.  I recognize that the idea of memorizing progressions and such in music is a sure-fire way to become more fluent in theory, but I don't believe that memorizing progressions is the ultimate goal of theory, though it seems often to be taught that way.

I'm edging this discussion a bit towards the pedagogical side and how things such as theory and aural skills are currently thought of and taught (at least through my experiences in University) to see if anyone has any opinions.  Please feel free to continue adding to this discussion!

[escort]

I don't think anyone uses theory to improvise. That's like saying someone thinks carefully about grammar while speaking. Who thinks about subject: verb and all that while talking? Nobody. Similarly, I may have learned that lots of baroque composers used the circle of fifths progression at one point, and I may have practiced it in multiple inversions for a lark, but I never think: "AH, I think I shall use a circle of fifths progression riiiighhht....NOW!"  it just happens, intuitively, when I feel it is musically poignant. And not so much anymore actually, my ear seems to like a wider variety of sounds now.

Theory's just a way to put labels on something that sounds good in more than one place...nothing more nothing less. Theory as far as I can tell cannot explain why such mind boggling variety is possible within a rather constrained set of tones. It can't explain what makes melodies good. (it might find common characteristics of common practice, though, I suppose). It's pretty much useless, except as a starting point for beginners, or for people who think it is amusing to apply labels to something which is inherently unexplainable.

If theory were really that useful, I'd expect there to be volumes and volumes of books about it by my favorite composers...but...there aren't. I do however read little bits here and there saying those composers improvised like mad fiends so...that persuaded me to put improv at a much higher priority than reading about/thinking about music theory. My ear is the ultimate music theory for me.

Haha, we posted very similar statements back to back.  Nice!  I was in the process of writing a reply when you posted.  However, you said much of what I wanted to say, and in a much more understandable manner.  I do apologize to any if what I'm trying to say is horridly confusing to read.  I feel that I'm quite terrible at explaining my views, aha. 

I agree very much with what you have written, and what ramsey has said.  For one, we introduced many of the ideas of modern theory AFTER much of the repertoire had been written, yet we have all heard about how great of improvisers many of the past composers were.  Did they use a system of labels?  Did they just KNOW what they were doing, having a natural usage of musical 'grammar' built into them after listening to much music?

[Derek]

Haha, we posted very similar statements back to back.  Nice!  I was in the process of writing a reply when you posted.  However, you said much of what I wanted to say, and in a much more understandable manner.  I do apologize to any if what I'm trying to say is horridly confusing to read.  I feel that I'm quite terrible at explaining my views, aha.  

I agree very much with what you have written, and what ramsey has said.  For one, we introduced many of the ideas of modern theory AFTER much of the repertoire had been written, yet we have all heard about how great of improvisers many of the past composers were.  Did they use a system of labels?  Did they just KNOW what they were doing, having a natural usage of musical 'grammar' built into them after listening to much music?

This isn't quite a response to the above post just rambling on more or less the same topic:

I think the writing analogy works pretty well in this discussion because, I imagine the very best of authors are both voracious readers and prolific writers. I doubt many of them bother to study grammar books. In fact, if you think of Shakespeare (for a clicheed example) and how he played with grammar in odd but poignant ways, I don't think you'd find that in a grammar book, just as you might not find every "mystic chord" that Scriabin used in a theory book. For all I know someone has documented them, but I highly doubt that such documentation could possibly "explain" why a mystic chord sounds so great. It just does.

It almost seems like the music world is trying to be scientific. Science can't explain "what" an electron is any better than music theory can explain "why" a melody sounds good. However, it is more useful to study the physical world because we can use the patterns we find to develop chemicals, machines, and other useful things, and because it is just fascinating. But you can't do any of that with music theory. Name me one composition that was written from beginning to end, with intense attention to theoretical "results" found in a textbook, that is well loved. Not that popularity = good, but usually there's a grain of truth to that...

[lostinidlewonder]

....  Starting with the ideas of theory in memory, it seems to me that after a certain point the complexity defeats one of the purposes of memorizing by theory; simplifying notes into blocks.  It still gives us a sense of the direction of the piece, and an awareness of our position within the piece, which is important, but we lose the direct functionality.

At higher levels of piano playing we still consider notes in terms of a structure we have come across before. We may not consider the chord consciously because our muscular memory associates with the pattern more closely.

However when we identify groups of notes in the score and pattern in the score we use theory all the time to intelligently disect the music into manageable chunks. Decision making in fingering is also controlled by theory, if we understand the structure of the music sometimes the fingering is more easily revealed. The musical expression is also aided by undertanding theory, if we are consciously aware of the shades of chords and arpeggios used in a progression for instance we may more readily understand the expression behind it (eg: A minor sound is more sad than a major sound).

It is useless when practicing on a keyboard to seperate theory from practice. That is, we do not identify that a chord used is C major for instance and simply label it and leave it at that. We label it but we also feel what this is like in our own hands and hear what it sounds like. We make that muscular, sound and conscious memory association of what we read. We must have all three working in order to maintain high efficiency with regard to our learning rate. Theory enhances our conscious memory of pieces, it thus also aids our muscular memory and sound memory, as these two derive an understanding of their own from the theory.

....it seems that the mind would have an easier time reproducing a visual of the score rather than trying to process all the information as it comes through during our playing.  

How one uses the visual information (sight reading of the score) is important. If we seperate it from playing the piano, of course it is very easy to simply section up the music, identify key, chords, scales etc used. But how do we actually use this information to aid our muscular memory? How is processing this sight read information making our fingers know more readily what to play on the keyboard? There is a key point of fingering which stumps most peoples accociation with sightreading to muscular memory. That is they do not understand how to use the fingers to play the desired notes. They might have say a 80% idea, but the 20% that stumps them causes them to stop, have to look at their hands, it breaks the connection with the music thus the muscular memory suffers. If we can sightread a piece AND understand exactly which fingering to use, then a lot of our problems of sightreading to muscular memory are eliminated.

How are we supposed to concentrate on the subtleties of music if all we're thinking is of the key areas and chords and how they are set up in each particular example?

We are to consciously focus on the point, physically play it and make a muscular memory association. We may not completely understand the muscular memory however what ever baby steps towards acquiring the correct muscular memory to produce a phrase will reduce the amount one will have to consciously sight read. So it is not as if we are constantly saying this chord that scale, this key etc, we do say it one maybe two times, then a more efficient form of memory (muscular and sound) takes more and more responsibility over it making our conscious requirements less and less.

[ramseytheii]

At higher levels of piano playing we still consider notes in terms of a structure we have come across before. We may not consider the chord consciously because our muscular memory associates with the pattern more closely.

However when we identify groups of notes in the score and pattern in the score we use theory all the time to intelligently disect the music into manageable chunks. Decision making in fingering is also controlled by theory, if we understand the structure of the music sometimes the fingering is more easily revealed. The musical expression is also aided by undertanding theory, if we are consciously aware of the shades of chords and arpeggios used in a progression for instance we may more readily understand the expression behind it (eg: A minor sound is more sad than a major sound).

It is useless when practicing on a keyboard to seperate theory from practice. That is, we do not identify that a chord used is C major for instance and simply label it and leave it at that. We label it but we also feel what this is like in our own hands and hear what it sounds like. We make that muscular, sound and conscious memory association of what we read. We must have all three working in order to maintain high efficiency with regard to our learning rate. Theory enhances our conscious memory of pieces, it thus also aids our muscular memory and sound memory, as these two derive and understanding of their own from the theory.

How one uses the visual information (sight reading of the score) is important. If we seperate it from playing the piano, of course it is very easy to simply section up the music, identify key, chords, scales etc used. But how do we actually use this information to aid our muscular memory? How is processing this sight read information making our fingers know more readily what to play on the keyboard? There is a key point of fingering which stumps most peoples accociation with sightreading to muscular memory. That is they do not understand how to use the fingers to play the desired notes. They might have say a 80% idea, but the 20% that stumps them causes them to stop, have to look at their hands, it breaks the connection with the music thus the muscular memory suffers. If we can sightread a piece AND understand exactly which fingering to use, then a lot of our problems of sightreading to muscular memory are eliminated.
We are to consciously focus on the point, physically play it and make a muscular memory association. We may not completely understand the muscular memory however what ever baby steps towards acquiring the correct muscular memory to produce a phrase will reduce the amount one will have to consciously sight read. So it is not as if we are constantly saying this chord that scale, this key etc, we do say it one maybe two times, then a more efficient form of memory (muscular and sound) takes more and more responsibility over it making our conscious requirements less and less.

Brilliant posting!

I am cursed with loving music theory.  That means that I really cannot explain to others, what good it does for them.  But it means so much to me, so much that I can see reflected in this wonderful post!

Walter Ramsey