Ear Training...Getting a trained ear.

[Nanakai]

I wouldn't necessarily not shell out for software. I've had great results with Earmaster and Do-Re-Mi. Earmaster generates melodies to transcribe and gives immediate feedback while Do-Re-Mi lets me do functional ear training on the can. It's easier to be motivated when ear training is fun, and software can turn it into a game. Maybe GNU Solfege has a Windows or Mac binary by now?

www.solfege.org

I haven't checked in a while and my sh*thole mobile Internet isn't loading the page. I swear that VirginMobile just likes to block access to FOSS software....

Paying attention to that home in a chord progression is great advice. In fact, listening for that tension and release in tonal harmony is the single most important thing one can do when ear training, IMHO.

[coincidental]

Maybe GNU Solfege has a Windows or Mac binary by now?

It does! http://www.solfege.org/download/ And, yes, I spoke too soon - I can definitely see the potential in an application like this. Having said that, we should never forget to use our ears when we're out and about away from the computer. Even if you don't play an instrument, there's pitched noise everywhere...

[jopy]

for people who are dismissing some of this software, i'd recommend checking out what it involves before being so sure it's a "shortcut." i have had on again-off again ear training with a variety of teachers (one from berklee, one from oberlin), but thought i could use a brush up and improvement so i bought the program ear trainer 5 recently. i've found it very helpful and rigorous. you do have to spend hours and hours with it listening to and identifying intervals both ascending and descending, and then working your way up to more complex melodies, and it rewards that type of practice by improved ability to hear intervals, chords, and melodies accurately both at and away from the computer. it's not a shortcut, it's the exact same sort of exercises that i was given by trained instructors except that with the software there's no instructor getting bored by playing for hours on end while you learn.

[jancivil]

what people did that? I would advise generally to watch out for marketing hype. But it's good for the economy, somebody's economy anyway, spend what you can bear, no skin off me. I wouldn't. I didn't. I don't feel like I missed anything. I spent hours and hours copping things off records. I didn't get tired of it like ever.

I am a proponent of applying say interval recognition to tunes, where it means something right away. I think it sticks better that way.

"Earmaster generates melodies to transcribe". Great. I guess there wouldn't be melodies if there wasn't software to generate them.

[Nanakai]

The generation of melodies is only important so far as it offers instant feedback. Learning is a function of correction. The point isn't to use software instead of music, but in addition to, and so making the learning process more efficient.

[jopy]

I wouldn't. I didn't. I don't feel like I missed anything.

glad to hear that you found something that worked for you. different methods work for different people.

[jopy]

The generation of melodies is only important so far as it offers instant feedback. Learning is a function of correction. The point isn't to use software instead of music, but in addition to, and so making the learning process more efficient.

+1.

the software i bought, at $60, is also only about the price of two or three half hour lessons with a decent teacher, so it's not like the price is highway robbery.

[jancivil]

I wouldn't. I didn't. I don't feel like I missed anything.

glad to hear that you found something that worked for you. different methods work for different people.

that is a condescending enough way to say it isn't it. but you showed me!

disregard the usefulness of this idea then: apply it to tunes and you might not have this idea of '45 minutes a day' which smacks of 'it's so dry you must prescribe this time for yourself' which kind of moots 'let's be more efficient then'. For me. YMMV.

[jancivil]

the software i bought, at $60, is also only about the price of two or three half hour lessons with a decent teacher

that's another thing, teachers can provide context and wisdom and convey the lesson with the fullness of their *knowledge*. Yours just seems to be an atomistic way of looking at things to me. Unsurprisingly.

[jopy]

the software i bought, at $60, is also only about the price of two or three half hour lessons with a decent teacher

that's another thing, teachers can provide context and wisdom and convey the lesson with the fullness of their *knowledge*. Yours just seems to be an atomistic way of looking at things to me. Unsurprisingly.

i have taken lots of lessons already and found them very useful, so you're taking me the wrong way here. i'm not saying your method isn't good, because i've used it and will continue to use it. i'm not saying getting formal lessons aren't good, because i've used that technique frequently in the past (over 8 years of lessons for piano, 2 years for guitar, 4 years for trumpet, and additional lessons dedicated to jazz combo and a ghanian music ensemble).

still and all, there's also something good about using software as an adjunct to either lessons or studying off records for some people.

[Nanakai]

the software i bought, at $60, is also only about the price of two or three half hour lessons with a decent teacher

that's another thing, teachers can provide context and wisdom and convey the lesson with the fullness of their *knowledge*. Yours just seems to be an atomistic way of looking at things to me. Unsurprisingly.

You keep assuming that using one tool precludes the use of another. I don't understand this mentality or why you feel the urge to be so condescending with it.

[Panphobia]

imo:

1. Pick an instrument (guitar, piano, a vsti, whatever) and practice a lot.

2. Practice some more, and play with others when you can find the time. Try to find a group with a range of players, both beginning and advanced so you can feel at home no matter what your level.

3. Use some sort of ear training as a supplement to other musical activities. It can help quite a bit but is not a good replacement for actually playing an instrument. Your ear will develop with experience whether or not you use the software. However some tools may be of great benefit.

4. Perfect pitch may be limited by genetics. While this is not known for sure, it is a fact that someone who does not have it will need to spend a great deal of time and effort to get it (if they can at all). Your time would be better spent making music. It has been my experience that eventually one develops such a good sense of relative pitch, that you can kind of fake perfect pitch.

5. Different methods work for everyone, so try out many ways to improve your skills, not just one program.

6. Focus on the journey, not the destination.


Good luck I hope this helps!

[sammy24]

however I never got how it's supposed to good for minor key.

There's chromatic solfege syllables as well, so that's how it works for minor keys. Natural minor is Do Re Me Fa So Le Te DO.

[Sascha Franck]

3. Use some sort of ear training as a supplement to other musical activities. It can help quite a bit but is not a good replacement for actually playing an instrument. Your ear will develop with experience whether or not you use the software. However some tools may be of great benefit.

I can only second that. Playing an instrument IMO is the key thing to improve your ear.
Ear training methods can indeed be a good supplement, but I know people with incredible relative pitch skills who can instantly write down chords, notes and a mixture of both once they know the starting chord - yet, some of them don't get much done on their instruments. The same is true vice versa, there's quite some folks who play brilliantly and couldn't tell a minor from a major chord without being with their instrument.

The key thing IMO is "musical relevance" or "in context hearing" - whatever you may call it.
Just as one more or less stupid example of one of my personal experiences: In ear training programs, I often mess it up once it comes to min7b5 chords. But well, as soon as I found out why that is, I stopped worrying about it any longer. I simply confuse them with dom7/9 chords without a bass - and that's one of the most typical voicings anyway. I do however almost never confuse them once I'm actually playing (or hearing them) in a musical context. So, why would I worry about satisfying results in an ear training program?
Similar things are true for melody detection. Once I'm on my instrument (guitar in my case), as long as no technical difficulties get in the way, I can almost instantly play most melodies I hear. But in case I have to write them down without my instrument, I'm sometimes having a really tough time - that's why I often try to imagine my fretboard when transcribing slightly more difficult passages.

And fwiw, there's quite some good methods to improve both your ear and your playing skills at the same time.

- Sascha

[softska]

however I never got how it's supposed to good for minor key.

There's chromatic solfege syllables as well, so that's how it works for minor keys. Natural minor is Do Re Me Fa So Le Te DO.

Never get why people like Do based minor. Just start with the first pitch with La and everything works just fine. Only good thing I can think of is if you must use it to sing atonal music, but for minor?