Ear Training...Getting a trained ear.

[Mogular]

That is the actual selling point of the course you have to follow thru. Because the course doesn't give you everything at once it gives you a chance to develop slowly and practicly. I will say I did learn from it. I won't say it's the best approach.

What would you suggest are better approaches?

[Nanakai]

Fixed Do works in some contexts, but in terms of what I am hearing, C is only Do when it's the tonic.

One I'm talking about is not fixed do. Still a movable Do, just tonic syllable is transposed depends on the scale used. Sammy thinks Do should always be tonic and I think that makes solfege PITA to sing, and that's that.

Well, I apologize for misunderstanding your post. All I was trying to get across is that I think of Do as not just the tonic of the Ionian, but the ultimate point of resolution for what I'm hearing in any mode. It's harder for me to think of the Bb in Bb minor as La than it is for me to think of it as Do and the third as Me. I don't sing, so perhaps if I did I would be more in line with what you're saying.

[sammy24]

Still don't see the reason why Do HAS to be the tonic.

It doesn't. It can be whatever you want. I've seen recommendation to sing Doo to every single note, with the focus being to just sing a lot, and do your best to identify the notes. And that's fine. Point is to hear the notes in a musically accurate fashion. Do doesn't have to sound like tonic--but tonic has to sound like tonic. having a consistent syllable to sing helps one learn this sound, but no one is forcing you to try this approach if you find it too difficult to unlearn/alter your current approach.

Just curious-- How do you deal with melodic minor, and its modes of phrygian nat6, Lydian aug5, Lydian b7, Mixolydian b6, Aeolian nat2, and altered scales? Or harmonic minor and its modes? (Or any scales that aren't major and its six modes?) Also, how do you deal with chromatic notes, even in major? For instance, song is in C major, but there are chromatic notes in melody or harmony, C#, Db, D#, Eb, etc.?

Anyway I don't intend on continuing this discussion further (although feel free to respond, obviously), scintillating as it's been, cuz I don't get the impression that you are actually debating the validity and pros/cons of the different approaches so much as defending what you do and saying it works for you and that it is simpler compared to the approach I espoused. I agree, learning 7 is much simpler than learning the 17 sounds that make up chromatic solfege (including enharmonic syllables depending on direction). But like I said, those sounds exist in music, nothing we can do about it? Anyhow personally I'm glad I learned this approach, which has proven to be complete as well as musical, which is what it's all about, IMO.

[Sascha Franck]

I have just been at some colleague (to pick up some notes for a job, whatever), and guess what? That dude actually *has* the relative pitch courses by Mr. Burge.
Of course I didn't have much time to go through it (fortunately my mate already MP3-ed the CDs), but I'm almost 100% sure that it was more than enough time to tell you one thing: What an overpriced joke! Half of the material seems to be some hype-talking, the actual "lessons" (or tests, or whatever they might be called) seem to be nothing you couldn't as well get from even the cheapest ear training program - just that you could then configure it so it'd only do things you're interested in, something impossible with Mr. Burge.
Really, even if my time was very short, I couldn't believe it.
I just went to his website again, looking at all the praise and quotes - how comes, NONE of the persons quoted offers their full name?
I think I'll be at my mates place again in some days, perhaps I can give it another listen (I almost copied the MP3s, but well, it's not worth breaching any copyright for such an obvious amount of BS).

- Sascha

[tapper mike]

I have just been at some colleague (to pick up some notes for a job, whatever), and guess what? That dude actually *has* the relative pitch courses by Mr. Burge.
Of course I didn't have much time to go through it (fortunately my mate already MP3-ed the CDs), but I'm almost 100% sure that it was more than enough time to tell you one thing: What an overpriced joke! Half of the material seems to be some hype-talking, the actual "lessons" (or tests, or whatever they might be called) seem to be nothing you couldn't as well get from even the cheapest ear training program - just that you could then configure it so it'd only do things you're interested in, something impossible with Mr. Burge.
Really, even if my time was very short, I couldn't believe it.
I just went to his website again, looking at all the praise and quotes - how comes, NONE of the persons quoted offers their full name?
I think I'll be at my mates place again in some days, perhaps I can give it another listen (I almost copied the MP3s, but well, it's not worth breaching any copyright for such an obvious amount of BS).

- Sascha

- Sascha
Your're right. the perfect pitch course is a joke from a pricing standpoint. And it's a joke that they claim perfect pitch. I've already stated that. The same things you've described doing they offer in course form. You are a professional. I'm not. I don't have your interaction with musicians You may know more of them with perfect pitch/near perfect pitch then me. However I have been a professional and I've seen the ones who fake by claiming they have it and those who actually do.


But your also disagreeing with yourself because you accept that it takes time and dilligence which is why the course is laid out as it is. I too wanted to play/sing similar to George Benson and before I started the course there was no hope of ever doing that. About six months later I could. Some might call it short others long. I call it what it was because that was the timespan for me. I agree the later exercises were a waste of time. I don't agree that the course was a waste because there was no way I could have taken ear training classes at that time.

I'll also go on record and say. If anyone simply follows Sascha's instructions that he's laid out in the proper direction they won't need to buy that or any other course. But you have to do it as part of a daily regiment and not at the same time as your regular practice because you will defeat it's purpose. You'll also need to do it in more then one key. The more the better. But not more then one key a day.

[Sascha Franck]

tapper mike, I'm not saying that Burges courses are completely senseless at all, but well, I think you can get to the same results a *lot* quicker and cheaper. Even the ear training classes I had to absolve during studying - which I thought of as being pretty bad - were a lot more productive than what Burge seems to provide. But as said, I'll give it another look during the next days.

- Sascha

[tapper mike]

I agree on a third of your above statement. Not completely sensless and can be done cheaper. I don't know about faster as I have nothing to compare it to. I will say that before taking the course My singing was for the dogs and my understanding came from sheet music. I couldn't sing to save my life let alone harmonixe with something or someone. At best I could get lucky transcribing off of records on very very rare occasions. After taking and then course I did notice quite a number of improvements. I was jamming better with keyboard players with out looking over their shoulders to see the keys. I could build harmonies and chord progressions on someone elses solo work (but that also was attributed to learning theory as well) And I could fight my way through getting ideas in my head on to my guitar.

Honestly I just see it as practice now. You have to practice ear training separately then you would practice other things. Usually peoples physical abilites exceed the requirements for studying ear training properly. So they get board and try to mix them up which works against one.

[jopy]

tapper mike, I'm not saying that Burges courses are completely senseless at all, but well, I think you can get to the same results a *lot* quicker and cheaper.

can you provide any more specifics here? i've been trying to really focus on ear training lately by a) learning jazz heads and chord progressions in all 12 keys, b) copping licks and riffs off records, c) playing simple folk songs and christmas type tunes from memory without ever seeing sheet music, and d) using ear trainer software which does intervals, chord progressions, brief melodic and rhythmic transposition exercises, and identifying notes in a key (i.e. it plays a cadence and then you have to name the note).

does this seem like a good comprehensive package of exercises in your experience, and if not, what would you say is a good way to really get one's aural skills in high gear?

[softska]

Just curious-- How do you deal with melodic minor, and its modes of phrygian nat6, Lydian aug5, Lydian b7, Mixolydian b6, Aeolian nat2, and altered scales? Or harmonic minor and its modes? (Or any scales that aren't major and its six modes?) Also, how do you deal with chromatic notes, even in major? For instance, song is in C major, but there are chromatic notes in melody or harmony, C#, Db, D#, Eb, etc.?

Don't recall saying one must not use any syllables outside of the 7. Melodic minor, fi-si-la going up and la-so-fa going down. If there's a G# in D major then you sing fi. Lydian aug 5: Di, b7: Me.

Melodic minor modes I probably just start with Do. It's more practical. But like I said earlier, if it's so different from norm I probably won't be using solfege at all.

Anyway I don't intend on continuing this discussion further . . .

We derived from the thread title title long enough, but I want to respond to this 1 last thing since I get the impression you think I'm proposing to switch syllables every time tonal center changes which is not true.

[Mogular]

There is a lot of twaddle in the burge relative pitch course (people should stop talking about the perfect pitch course, they are two completely different things and the perfect pitch course is rather useless imo).

The things to listen to are the exercises and lightning rounds and listen to some of the specific lessons he refers to occasionally (grand round, sound round, keys to unlocking chords etc).
Sascha, when you get a chance try doing some of the lightning rounds - perfect 4ths and 5ths, also the major and minor thirds (make sure you do the ones that are both harmonic and melodic). Obviously if these are easy for you, look for some of the harder ones (min/maj 6ths, 7ths or 9ths)
I think his suggested rule is three strikes and you are out - ie if you make three mistakes you go back to the start and do the rounds again (or go away and practice a bit) until you can do the whole round with less than three mistakes. This way you can be sure that you have ironed out any weaknesses in how you are hearing the intervals

For me at least, having this kind of regimented approach meant that I made very rapid development where other methods had not worked for me.
Intervals pop out to me when I listen to music now - and they never did this before I did the course. I also find myself able to follow the chord progressions (in my head) of music with relative ease now - before the course I was forever beholden to sheet music to help me along.
Obviously the things I am talking about are the benefits of relative pitch but it was all because I worked so hard on the burge lessons that I gained what I have now.

[Sascha Franck]

I think his suggested rule is three strikes and you are out - ie if you make three mistakes you go back to the start and do the rounds again (or go away and practice a bit) until you can do the whole round with less than three mistakes. This way you can be sure that you have ironed out any weaknesses in how you are hearing the intervals

Well, that's not a too great method. If you repeat the same round again and again, it only means you remembered those certain intervals, chords and what not. Ear training software allows you to bring the problem(s) down to specified issues. You could for example just select augmented and dimished triads if you're having problems with those too. And that's a lot more efficient.

- Sascha

[Mogular]

no, the rounds are way too long to remember them. and they get very confusing if you don't know the sounds of the intervals/chords properly.

But if you are trying to remember them then that is rather self defeating.

Who knows, many musicians have a much better musical memory than I do so you might be right.

He does however repeat the focus of the drills in other drills. eg - once you have mastered perfect fifths and fourth he will then incorporate them with thirds and so on. So if you remember a drill and pass it just with memory you will be pulled up on a later test.

[Sascha Franck]

can you provide any more specifics here?

Well, I'll try.

[...]

does this seem like a good comprehensive package of exercises in your experience, and if not, what would you say is a good way to really get one's aural skills in high gear?

If you really do that stuff regulary, I can only applaud you. I'd be way too lazy for such a schedule.

However, seriously, I find that most "traditional" ear training methods could do with an overhaul.
What you usually get is like a scientific approach, rather than a musical one. I can actually sort of understand that scientific stuff, as it's, hm, let's say "without stilistic borders", but yet, something more tailored to actually suit the music most of us seem to produce/play, could lead to WAY faster results. Including a little synergetic effect as you may as well improve your instrument skills (something traditional ear training isn't exactly focusing on).

I'll try to give you a little more detailed view of how I think about ear training (or let's better say "development").

IMO the ways "traditional" ear training methods are presented are taking too long until it really takes you to "musical working ground". Typical lessons seem to include intervals at first, then probably some scalar stuff, then some chords (starting with triads and slowly working up), along with some melody dicates and possibly even some chord dictates.
These approaches *do* work more or less ok-ish, but they usually take too long to give you musically useful results.

For instance, most interval ear training lessons will present you with a collection of almost completely unrelated intervals that are randomly thrown at you. The same goes for chords.
Now, this is ok when you really want to know how to identify each and every interval under each and every circumstance.
But, the big question is: Do we *really* need to do that? My point is that most of us which grew up in what I might call a "western culture based musical environment" may not need to do so at all.
Ok, admittedly, if you really wanted to get into music that has no relation to what is our typical (somewhat western) combination of harmonic and melodic "settings" (such as atonal stuff, 12 tone music and the likes), you may better be off to put some effort into learning each interval and chord in an "absolute" manner. For anybody else, that shouldn't be necessary. Apart from that, if on one day, your musical preferences change from, say, playing more or less bog standard chord progressions and melodies to whatever more "outside" things, one could still expand things.

Now let me give you an example why it's not exactly the best way to just learn everything, regardless of musical relationship.
Some posts before, I mentioned that I'm sometimes having a hard time identifying a min7b5 chord in a row of unrelated chords. I sometimes hear it as a dominant chord. But well, it actually *is* a very valid way to voice a dom7/9 chord (without the root) in a 4-part voicing. Each piano player and most guitar players just use that very voicing every day. And as soon as that very min7b5 chord comes in a typical context for exactly that chord (such as in a II-V-I progression, as the II chord), I won't confuse it anymore.
And it's not exactly as if a min7b5 chord would show up completely unrelated in music all day long - in fact, in most music I know it rarely ever does. So why would I learn to spot this very chord in a completely unrelated fashion as the first step? But that's precisely what many ear training courses try to teach you...

So, IMO it's all about the context.

Next: Most of us surely will be able to sing whatever kids tunes ("Old Mac Donald..." and the likes) in seconds or minutes after listening to them. Even most kids can do that. And that's ear traing already!
Now, compare the melodies of such kids tunes to what are the most common starter lessons in most ear training programs. In comparison, the kids tunes are REALLY hard. We often find mixtures of min/maj seconds, min/maj thirds, perfect and augmented fourths, perfect, augmented and diminished fifths and even min/maj sixths. And each and every kid is able to both identify and sing them (note: by "identify" I don't mean kids can name those intervals, that's something entirely different). But your ear training course will take you to lesson 73 until you can do something even remotely as complexed.
Why is that?
I already said so, it's because the intervals (and chords) found in kids tunes are following a certain musical context that we are familiar with.

Now, as this thread is about "real" ear training, we do obviously want to be able to do a few more things than just sing kids tunes.
For a start, you may want to be able to name the used notes and intervals. This is when our instruments come in handy. Once you are familiar with the major scale on your main instrument, you can play those kids tunes almost as easily as you can sing thme (in case you can't, it's probably time to look for a different hobby...). And once you can play them on your instrument, you can name all notes and intervals.
The next thing that might come in handy is a little practice that I already mentioned some posts before: Learn how to sing along with your instrument and learn how to play along with your singing - the latter being the more interesting part. Once you can play what you sing, you don't need your instrument any longer to name notes, intervals and perhaps even chords. All it takes is to have your instrument in mind and imagine how you'd play things.
As soon as you're getting good with these approaches, you will:
A) probably find out that even things that aren't in your vocal or instrumental range anymore will still become identifyable.
B) also be able to spot things that aren't as familiar as kids tunes anymore. A la "whoops, there's a note that is between my perfect fourth and fifth". Or "Uhh, that chord isn't in the same key anymore".

I hope you already get the idea.

I already have a very practical example in mind that I could continue with, but it's too late for now, so I need to post that tomorrow (in case you're not bored already).

- Sascha

[tapper mike]

You wouldn't believe how hard it was for me not to post in this thread Untill you had a chance to respond.

I really agree with you about singing and playing. I can but I hate singing publicly. I do sing privately as part of my practice

[sammy24]

softska--
I just wanna add btw that I respect anyone who cares enough to stick to something long enough to actually get good at it. Specific methods and techniques are important details, but the main thing is the passion and consistency. So I think we have a lot in common. Plus we sing many of the same syllables .

I sort of get your method, for the most part. Wasn't sure exactly why lydian aug5 would be DI, though. Do you mean like F lydian aug 5, with the notes F G A B C# D E, so that aug5 note, C# would be DI, using C as a reference since regular Lydian is a mode of C? There is validity to this idea, I agree, that "altered" modes like Lydian aug 5 are kind of like offshoots of the basic mode, in this case Lydian. Certainly they share those very important "character tones" or distinctive notes, like #4 and maj7, the defining notes of any Lydian scale, and then you just have a couple of alterations such as +5, or #2, etc.

As I see it after some reflection, we do not have two different approaches, so much as we use the solfege syllables with different goals in mind, in the first place. Meaning, two people can be using a knife, one is wounding somebody, and one is cutting up some material to make a bandage. They may be using the same materials, but for totally different purposes. One would not say, "they are using different methods."--

This thread talks all about ear-training. But ear-training is not just one skill, not by a long stretch-- there is rhythmic ear-training, for example, "orchestral" ear-training, hearing dynamics, hearing articulations (trills, glisses, staccato vs. legato, tremolo, etc.), learning to understand styles, and many other aspects. It is possible to be great at one aspect but terrible at another. The goal of the method of solfege that I learned, from the excellent distance learning course from Dick Grove (the great Hollywood arranger/composer and dean of the Grove School of Music in LA) is specifically to learn the aspect of music known as scale degrees-- to ability hear the unique "sound" of a tone in relationship to the current tonality. That's why it took a while for me to adjust to the concept that the solfege syllables are flexible materials that can be used for more than just one particular goal.

Using solfege differently is absolutely fine. It is a strong way of learning some musical relationships, helps promote singing, listening, and is a good organizational tool. It's just, our two uses of solfege are focused on two different aspects of ear training. There is some obvious overlap, in that the Grove method also helps w musical organization, and your method still promotes the hearing of tonality, etc. It's just they focus mainly on different aspects. (since Dick Grove likes the use of keyboard visualization for organizational purposes, this has sufficed for me regarding that aspect. So even though I sing DO for a switch to natural minor, I can still see in my mind's eye, the keyboard, and thus do not lose sight of the natural relationships between relative major and minor, for example).

Unlike with rhythmic ear-training, which is totally separate and would not get in the way of harmonic/melodic training, I can see how it would be extremely unpleasant to use solfege syllables in a different way than one is used to. I don't think I'd be keen on something like that. But I would still promote the idea of focusing on scale degrees (as a completely separate ear-training exercise), maybe by just singing the notes without any syllables but concentrating on the sound of its tonal relationship. The great musicians all excel at this trait, it is an essential part of being a spontaneous musician (meaning one who can pre-hear a stream of musical ideas in his/her head and can execute it spontaneously, as in improvisation--just like talking), which is a worthy goal.