Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Teaching Ear Training

Its flawed if you want to show how to make just major chords, as Tim was alluding to, I think.

It is a good plan to show other things, such as you describe.

Assuming that these are not rhetorical questions, the answer is that I introduce these and other concepts when the student is ready.

With diminished triads I give them repertoire that has that, and use that as a teaching opportunity.

No, they're not rhetorical questions at all. Thank you for your answer.

I agree that the sound is the most important thing to teach right now. I've thought about breaking down the triad into M3 and m3, but that will just confuse the kid some more.

I must mention that the student in question plays piano very well. Obviously fine-motor skills in the fingers triumph over the ears.

In my experience, there is no correlation between the student's ears/hearing ability and the student's playing skills. I almost hesitate to use the term "tone deaf," but I've dealt with students with absolutely no sensitivity to pitch, yet they can play the piano with amazing virtuosity.

Glad to hear that others see this too. I have had kids who can play and will start one hand on the wrong key, and carry on with the piece as if nothing were wrong, but it is horrendous.

When I ask them if they hear something amiss, they sometimes say yes, but apparently it was not amiss enough to do anything about it. Or perhaps they are so focused on the arena of fine motor playing that the actual sound produced is far back in the background.

But then again, I have found that careful listening to the sounds produced as one plays is often the last skill to be added and strengthened, regardless of age of the student, because reading/playing takes so much focus, and obviously must come first in order for sounds to occur.

I was diplomatic when Peter's answer came up so I asked how his method would lead to a student recognizing chords by ear, in case that was the goal. But in all honesty it sounded like a trick for passing tests or giving teachers the expected answer with no learning taking place. The answer bothered me for two reasons. 1. AZN was asking a real question, and I don't think he wants his student to read his face for the right answer, or to guess. 2. As students (any subject) we get too much in the way of tricks for test results, and as teachers when we get a student in trouble we have to undo the nonsense. Either ear training is worthwhile for pianists, whose instruments are already pretuned, and who can get the right sounds simply by pressing the keys indicated in the notation. Or it is not worthwhile, since they can already do that. If it's not worthwhile, why go through the motions?

I encountered the attitude both as parent and as student, in music and in other subjects. I didn't realize how fascinating some subjects were that had bored me to tears at school, until I was into my fifties. This discovery came about because of my first lessons in music, and the realization at some point that something was missing. The thing is, maybe it doesn't matter that geography or history can be interesting. But when it comes to music, this does matter to me personally.

Music is sound. A musician playing music without hearing it? The beauty in music is the sound that is produced; the soundscape of its changing colors. I suggest no ear training at all, rather than the guess-an-answer type for tests. If a student learns that it is meaningless and that he can't hear, he may never be open to it later. If it is a torture for getting right answer, then he will learn to hate it. If it goes only as far as statistics, and if he never goes past that to real hearing, then he has the wrong idea.

These were my instant thoughts when I read that answer - the ones I didn't write.

Sure it's funny as a joke, but it hit a nerve when I read it.

When I began to study piano with a teacher, I learned to listen for things that I was barely aware of before. There is the quality of the sound from one note to the next, with none fading or booming through lack of control or intent; the space given between notes (articulation); the rhythm of meter and something more nuanced in timing. These are similar to the skills of the drummer. If you get this at the piano, it carries back to other instruments and makes the playing more refined, but it's at the piano that they really matter. So maybe pianists listen for other things first, and pitch second? Of course physical control to bring this about is another thing.

Btw, is recognizing intervals and chords, and being able to name them, the same thing? Can some of this be at least in part subconscious? When someone makes a cadence swell and settle, can that happen from a subconscious hearing of the harmony which meshes into the whole?

I think "recognizing" and "naming" are the same things. I assumed everyone could at the very least tell if two chords are the same or different. I'm probably wrong. To some of these tone-deaf people, a major triad sounds exactly the same as a minor triad, even you play the two chords back to back.

Perhaps there are degrees of tone deafness just as there are degrees of perfect pitch? It might be an interesting topic for scientific research.

I may recognize something without being able to give it a name. I might be able to imitate in a playback; or maybe you play a minor third and I play other minor thirds - so I'm recognizing something. But I may not know the name of it. I can also learn names, but not be able to attach them to what I recognize, or say the wrong name even if I recognize the right thing. That's partly what I was thinking of.

I think there is a danger that someone doing "ear training" may think he cannot hear, when in fact he cannot label.


It sounds as if you think of this kind of hearing as something that preexists, rather than something that gets developed. (?) When I was teaching theory the first time and wanted to get some listening things going, a senior teacher friend suggested that hearing develops. She described something where at first the student will have some vague impressions - different/same - like a blurry out of focus landscape. Over time things come into focus, and to let it happen. That is exactly what did happen with that particular student.

For myself, without having had musical training for decades, there were things that I heard naturally because of what I played and listened to, but other things I was not aware of. Now I am, and cannot imagine what it's like not to hear them. This growth is still happening. There are things I am trying to hear which are vague, fuzzy things - sometimes I have snatches and then they're gone. With practice, exposure and guidance it grows.

Subjectively from the student side, you notice that orchestras on the radio have developed good timing, or choirs sing out of tune. They always did, but you didn't hear it before. This suggests that while we may have natural abilities, they also develop.

A very simple question - does the student practice on a tuned piano?

I grew up playing on a piano that was never tuned, and learned to "tune out" (so to speak) the odd half-step here and there.

yes

No, that's not what I was getting at. I think inside the scale mostly. When someone first showed me that every other triad witin one scale made a major or minor chord, a light bulb went off and a lot of confusion disappeared. Might not work for anybody else, but all of a sudden things made sense that hadn't.

I was trying with some humor to point out that this system breaks down when you get to that one diminished chord. It probably just sounds minor to the beginner though.

I have a wacko theory. Playing is a feedback loop. We form a mental concept, we play and listen, we compare the two, calculate the error, and make a correction. (kind of like how your thermostat compares the setpoint to the actual room temperature, subtracts the two, and makes a decision whether to increase the heat or not)

It isn't easy to form the mental concept (hear in our head what we want to sound like) but it is much harder to accurately hear what we play. It is almost like there is a harwired protective mechanism in the brain that keeps us from hearing how bad we are, so we don't quit. We have to learn how to hear. Gieseking wrote quite extensively on this subject and said one of the prime teacher's tasks was to teach how to listen. I've long suspected the difference between the prodigy and the rest of us is they master that skill faster - or maybe are just born with it.

I also think the mental concept can override what we actually play - we hear what is in our brain rather than what we played.

Tim, I loved the "uh-oh" chord! And I agree, it sounds to most untrained pianists like a minor chord.

Tim, if this is wacko, don't hold back, but give us more such wacko theories. Very insightful and helpful!

Sorry, no can do. I buy them from gyro and he isn't hanging out here anymore. <humor>