<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: mental representation of music</title>
	<atom:link href="http://music.linear1.org/2006/10/23/mental-representation-of-music/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://music.linear1.org/2006/10/23/mental-representation-of-music/</link>
	<description>transfusing emptiness into vacancy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:08:00 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://music.linear1.org/2006/10/23/mental-representation-of-music/comment-page-1/#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:05:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://music.linear1.org/2006/10/23/mental-representation-of-music/#comment-16</guid>
		<description>Let me come back to the voice leading question--that deserves its own post really.

The issue I have with your B analysis is that ii#o7 isn&#039;t a functionally meaningful symbol. change that to VI and we&#039;re on to something. iii-VI-ii-V is a &lt;strong&gt;turnaround&lt;/strong&gt;. This is a fundamental building block of music, and jazz standards especially. It is another form of dominant prolongation, yes. You can look at iii-VI as the (ii-V) of ii: ii/ii-V/ii. Note how these relate to the circle of fifths--they are adjacent. Each root movement is by a fifth.

I have two issues with your analysis of C. Here&#039;s where I remind you of my earlier comment that it&#039;s not as important to relate every chord to the tonic. We are driving toward a landing point, which is the IV chord. The prior two chords are just &lt;strong&gt;its&lt;/strong&gt; ii-V. The chord that follows IV functions as a secondary dominant (V of V) so the first phrase of C is (ii/IV)-(V/IV)-(IV)-(V/V). Then a slightly modified turnaround: (V)(VI)(ii)(V).

The takeaway here is that the dominant-functioning chords are setting up your &lt;strong&gt;anticipation&lt;/strong&gt; of the subsequent chord. That&#039;s why I&#039;m going to such trouble to point them out and make the distinction between V of something and the various symbols like ii#o7 or #IVo7. Diminished 7 chords are dominant chords. You need to interpret them in the context of how they resolve.

When you do that, they will stick in your brain a lot better.

The other thing that&#039;s nice about reducing things to these bite-size chunks is that it makes it a lot easier to do the all 12 keys thing. If I have you work on a iii-IV-ii-V in all 12 keys you wouldn&#039;t be too upset about it. But look, that&#039;s more than half of this tune. There are really only two non-turnaround phrases--the first phrase of A and the first phrase of C. So really--there&#039;s only 8 bars of material out of 32 in this tune that isn&#039;t a stock turnaround.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let me come back to the voice leading question&#8211;that deserves its own post really.</p>
<p>The issue I have with your B analysis is that ii#o7 isn&#8217;t a functionally meaningful symbol. change that to VI and we&#8217;re on to something. iii-VI-ii-V is a <strong>turnaround</strong>. This is a fundamental building block of music, and jazz standards especially. It is another form of dominant prolongation, yes. You can look at iii-VI as the (ii-V) of ii: ii/ii-V/ii. Note how these relate to the circle of fifths&#8211;they are adjacent. Each root movement is by a fifth.</p>
<p>I have two issues with your analysis of C. Here&#8217;s where I remind you of my earlier comment that it&#8217;s not as important to relate every chord to the tonic. We are driving toward a landing point, which is the IV chord. The prior two chords are just <strong>its</strong> ii-V. The chord that follows IV functions as a secondary dominant (V of V) so the first phrase of C is (ii/IV)-(V/IV)-(IV)-(V/V). Then a slightly modified turnaround: (V)(VI)(ii)(V).</p>
<p>The takeaway here is that the dominant-functioning chords are setting up your <strong>anticipation</strong> of the subsequent chord. That&#8217;s why I&#8217;m going to such trouble to point them out and make the distinction between V of something and the various symbols like ii#o7 or #IVo7. Diminished 7 chords are dominant chords. You need to interpret them in the context of how they resolve.</p>
<p>When you do that, they will stick in your brain a lot better.</p>
<p>The other thing that&#8217;s nice about reducing things to these bite-size chunks is that it makes it a lot easier to do the all 12 keys thing. If I have you work on a iii-IV-ii-V in all 12 keys you wouldn&#8217;t be too upset about it. But look, that&#8217;s more than half of this tune. There are really only two non-turnaround phrases&#8211;the first phrase of A and the first phrase of C. So really&#8211;there&#8217;s only 8 bars of material out of 32 in this tune that isn&#8217;t a stock turnaround.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whitecraneboxing</title>
		<link>http://music.linear1.org/2006/10/23/mental-representation-of-music/comment-page-1/#comment-14</link>
		<dc:creator>whitecraneboxing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 02:18:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://music.linear1.org/2006/10/23/mental-representation-of-music/#comment-14</guid>
		<description>B Section:
(iii)(ii#o7)(ii)(V)(iii)(ii#o7)(ii)(V)
Chromatic movement for the first three measures, then goes up to the fifth. Is it a giant v chord that leads back to the tonic chord?  Could I think of the whole thing as a ii-V?  

C Section:
(I)(III7#5)(IV)(#IVo7)(V)(VI)(ii)(V)
More chromatic bassline movement from iii7#5 to the VI.  And then goes to the ii V, Could I think of the whole thing as a giant I-VI-II-V ?  If this is the case, how would change the way that one approached playing the song?  

Why is it so important to look for voice leading opportunities?  For that matter, why does good voice leading matter?  And what defines it a &#039;good&#039; voice lead?  Just a the least movement possible in the highest voice, ie: smooth voice leading?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>B Section:<br />
(iii)(ii#o7)(ii)(V)(iii)(ii#o7)(ii)(V)<br />
Chromatic movement for the first three measures, then goes up to the fifth. Is it a giant v chord that leads back to the tonic chord?  Could I think of the whole thing as a ii-V?  </p>
<p>C Section:<br />
(I)(III7#5)(IV)(#IVo7)(V)(VI)(ii)(V)<br />
More chromatic bassline movement from iii7#5 to the VI.  And then goes to the ii V, Could I think of the whole thing as a giant I-VI-II-V ?  If this is the case, how would change the way that one approached playing the song?  </p>
<p>Why is it so important to look for voice leading opportunities?  For that matter, why does good voice leading matter?  And what defines it a &#8216;good&#8217; voice lead?  Just a the least movement possible in the highest voice, ie: smooth voice leading?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://music.linear1.org/2006/10/23/mental-representation-of-music/comment-page-1/#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 02:25:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://music.linear1.org/2006/10/23/mental-representation-of-music/#comment-13</guid>
		<description>Yeah, I don&#039;t see anything like an image of the chart. Instad, I access a representation of the functional units of the song. So a nice compact one is the second four-bar phrase there, it&#039;s a prolonged dominant. Writing it as (ii)(VI7#5)(ii)(V) is correct, but also is being slavish to the notation. Inside my head, it&#039;s stored more like &lt;strong&gt;ii-V of Bb, but you walk chromatically down to V from ii&lt;/strong&gt;. And the words are just a description of the pattern, I&#039;ve seen that pattern so many times that I have a &quot;handle&quot; for it.

So if you can get to where you see the larger structural pieces like that, you learn a tune &lt;b&gt;way faster&lt;/b&gt;. At best, in on elistening. If you were playing this tune at me, and I&#039;d never heard it before, by the time you got the ii chord with the major 7 (Bar 6) I&#039;d be anticipating at least the next three bars.

And yeah, a great way to learn is to copy charts. When I do it, I use 4 bar phrases (except those rare cases where something else is &quot;right&quot;), and I don&#039;t use first and second endings. I always recopy the chart so you can play it straight down. Then the form reaches out and smacks you. In this case, the form is 32 bars, ABAC.

Your experiment sounds a lot like playing &quot;drop the needle.&quot; That&#039;s an awesome training technique that is a relic of the days of the phonograph. Just like you said, you enter in the middle and try to orient as fast as you can to where you are in the form. A fantastic drill. Jamey Aebersold used to teach that.

Here&#039;s the &quot;big idea&quot; for you to take home from this: &lt;strong&gt;Once you&#039;ve learned a few dozen songs, you&#039;ll start to see more similarities than differences&lt;/strong&gt;. It&#039;s like a compression algorithm for your brain. Right now, you just can&#039;t access the most efficient internal auditory image for what I described above. But it&#039;s not far out of reach either.

Just the act of going through your favorite fake book and documenting the form (32 bar ABAC) is a good start. That&#039;s kind of the root node of the hierarchy of cognitive stuff that is the mental representation. It decomposes into four parts, three of which are unique (wow, already we&#039;re achieving compression). A is built of two four-bar phrases. The first is a fairly idiosyncratic progression (you won&#039;t see it reused a lot) that builds tension by ascending root motion: up a Major third, up a semitone, up a Major third. The second phrase is the prolonged V chord mentioned above. Notice how the last chord of the first phrase is the dominiant of the first chord of the second phrase.

Now, that&#039;s analysis, but it really will help you to understand the progression in terms of what&#039;s going on, rather than what symbols the guy who engraved the chart selects. It&#039;s also a hierarchy. Wholes are built of parts, which are built of parts. Those parts are quite well-used! You don&#039;t run into many chord progressions that are truly distinctive. At the phrase level,it&#039;s all been done.

Look for voice leading opportunities in the harmony. The descending chromatic line in the second phrase of A is reasonably obvious, but there&#039;s a more subtle ascending one in the first phrase of A. (F-&gt; F#-&gt; G-&gt; G).

Okay, your job is to analyze B and C for me in similar terms to how I presented A for you. I did  half the tune, now you do the other half. :D Big hint: turnarounds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I don&#8217;t see anything like an image of the chart. Instad, I access a representation of the functional units of the song. So a nice compact one is the second four-bar phrase there, it&#8217;s a prolonged dominant. Writing it as (ii)(VI7#5)(ii)(V) is correct, but also is being slavish to the notation. Inside my head, it&#8217;s stored more like <strong>ii-V of Bb, but you walk chromatically down to V from ii</strong>. And the words are just a description of the pattern, I&#8217;ve seen that pattern so many times that I have a &#8220;handle&#8221; for it.</p>
<p>So if you can get to where you see the larger structural pieces like that, you learn a tune <b>way faster</b>. At best, in on elistening. If you were playing this tune at me, and I&#8217;d never heard it before, by the time you got the ii chord with the major 7 (Bar 6) I&#8217;d be anticipating at least the next three bars.</p>
<p>And yeah, a great way to learn is to copy charts. When I do it, I use 4 bar phrases (except those rare cases where something else is &#8220;right&#8221;), and I don&#8217;t use first and second endings. I always recopy the chart so you can play it straight down. Then the form reaches out and smacks you. In this case, the form is 32 bars, ABAC.</p>
<p>Your experiment sounds a lot like playing &#8220;drop the needle.&#8221; That&#8217;s an awesome training technique that is a relic of the days of the phonograph. Just like you said, you enter in the middle and try to orient as fast as you can to where you are in the form. A fantastic drill. Jamey Aebersold used to teach that.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the &#8220;big idea&#8221; for you to take home from this: <strong>Once you&#8217;ve learned a few dozen songs, you&#8217;ll start to see more similarities than differences</strong>. It&#8217;s like a compression algorithm for your brain. Right now, you just can&#8217;t access the most efficient internal auditory image for what I described above. But it&#8217;s not far out of reach either.</p>
<p>Just the act of going through your favorite fake book and documenting the form (32 bar ABAC) is a good start. That&#8217;s kind of the root node of the hierarchy of cognitive stuff that is the mental representation. It decomposes into four parts, three of which are unique (wow, already we&#8217;re achieving compression). A is built of two four-bar phrases. The first is a fairly idiosyncratic progression (you won&#8217;t see it reused a lot) that builds tension by ascending root motion: up a Major third, up a semitone, up a Major third. The second phrase is the prolonged V chord mentioned above. Notice how the last chord of the first phrase is the dominiant of the first chord of the second phrase.</p>
<p>Now, that&#8217;s analysis, but it really will help you to understand the progression in terms of what&#8217;s going on, rather than what symbols the guy who engraved the chart selects. It&#8217;s also a hierarchy. Wholes are built of parts, which are built of parts. Those parts are quite well-used! You don&#8217;t run into many chord progressions that are truly distinctive. At the phrase level,it&#8217;s all been done.</p>
<p>Look for voice leading opportunities in the harmony. The descending chromatic line in the second phrase of A is reasonably obvious, but there&#8217;s a more subtle ascending one in the first phrase of A. (F-> F#-> G-> G).</p>
<p>Okay, your job is to analyze B and C for me in similar terms to how I presented A for you. I did  half the tune, now you do the other half. :D Big hint: turnarounds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whitecraneboxing</title>
		<link>http://music.linear1.org/2006/10/23/mental-representation-of-music/comment-page-1/#comment-12</link>
		<dc:creator>whitecraneboxing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:57:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://music.linear1.org/2006/10/23/mental-representation-of-music/#comment-12</guid>
		<description>When learning new heads, what do you mean by having a &#039;well-developed mental representation&#039; ?  Are you referring to the abstract structure?

ie: (I )(iii7#5)(IV)(VI7#5)(ii)(VI7#5)(ii)(V) 
[first 8 bars of &#039;Someday My Prince Will Come&#039;]

Do you see some sort of image of the &#039;chart&#039; in your head?  Lately, when I&#039;m listening to or playing a song, I&#039;ve been experimenting with organizing the charts in a 4 or 8 bar/ line image system in my head so that I can have some sort of visual picture to follow when I&#039;m counting along and/or trying to keep up with the harmonic changes. Interesting how you commented on how some fake books don&#039;t always print them out in a way that makes it easier to see the parallelism of the form; I was just starting to notice that.  

 Another thing I&#039;ve been experimenting with, is when I&#039;m listening to someone play a song I&#039;ve &#039;memorized&#039; the changes to, I try to deliberately lose track of time and then &#039;feel&#039; my way back into the structure of the song by listening to the bass notes that are being played on the 1-beat of the each measure.  This is somewhat easier for song forms like the 12-bar blues where there are only 3 major chords most of the time and I can &#039;feel&#039; a shift to and from the V or IV chord or back to the I.  RIght now it&#039;s almost impossible for me to do with any consistency on any other kind of song.  In the case of Someday My Prince Will Come, sometimes I can hear the Tonic note being played (Bb) and then I can listen for something that might sound like the 3rd and then I can tell that I might be on the 2nd measure of one of the sections, but then I have to decide if its the A section or the B section which means I need to listen for the (#IV) root.  When I&#039;m listening for the root movement, I&#039;m listening to the bass note&#039;s relationship to the Bb, not really listening for the interval relationship between the previous note and the new one.  So my &#039;method&#039; for &#039;memorizing&#039; a song&#039;s root movement is really just singing the root notes along with the melody and just trying to get a &#039;feel&#039; for what sounds right, similar to how one might learn a the melody to a children&#039;s song: just keep repeating it until the sound is in my head.  The next trick is getting my fingers in the left hand (playing the bass notes) to &#039;feel&#039; their way along with the root movement in my head without requiring an actual intellectualized command from my brain (ie: &quot;the next root sounds like it&#039;s the 6th of the of tonic, therefore its going to be the G and so I need to move my index finger from the Eb up a major third or down a minor 6th.&quot; etc.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When learning new heads, what do you mean by having a &#8216;well-developed mental representation&#8217; ?  Are you referring to the abstract structure?</p>
<p>ie: (I )(iii7#5)(IV)(VI7#5)(ii)(VI7#5)(ii)(V)<br />
[first 8 bars of 'Someday My Prince Will Come']</p>
<p>Do you see some sort of image of the &#8216;chart&#8217; in your head?  Lately, when I&#8217;m listening to or playing a song, I&#8217;ve been experimenting with organizing the charts in a 4 or 8 bar/ line image system in my head so that I can have some sort of visual picture to follow when I&#8217;m counting along and/or trying to keep up with the harmonic changes. Interesting how you commented on how some fake books don&#8217;t always print them out in a way that makes it easier to see the parallelism of the form; I was just starting to notice that.  </p>
<p> Another thing I&#8217;ve been experimenting with, is when I&#8217;m listening to someone play a song I&#8217;ve &#8216;memorized&#8217; the changes to, I try to deliberately lose track of time and then &#8216;feel&#8217; my way back into the structure of the song by listening to the bass notes that are being played on the 1-beat of the each measure.  This is somewhat easier for song forms like the 12-bar blues where there are only 3 major chords most of the time and I can &#8216;feel&#8217; a shift to and from the V or IV chord or back to the I.  RIght now it&#8217;s almost impossible for me to do with any consistency on any other kind of song.  In the case of Someday My Prince Will Come, sometimes I can hear the Tonic note being played (Bb) and then I can listen for something that might sound like the 3rd and then I can tell that I might be on the 2nd measure of one of the sections, but then I have to decide if its the A section or the B section which means I need to listen for the (#IV) root.  When I&#8217;m listening for the root movement, I&#8217;m listening to the bass note&#8217;s relationship to the Bb, not really listening for the interval relationship between the previous note and the new one.  So my &#8216;method&#8217; for &#8216;memorizing&#8217; a song&#8217;s root movement is really just singing the root notes along with the melody and just trying to get a &#8216;feel&#8217; for what sounds right, similar to how one might learn a the melody to a children&#8217;s song: just keep repeating it until the sound is in my head.  The next trick is getting my fingers in the left hand (playing the bass notes) to &#8216;feel&#8217; their way along with the root movement in my head without requiring an actual intellectualized command from my brain (ie: &#8220;the next root sounds like it&#8217;s the 6th of the of tonic, therefore its going to be the G and so I need to move my index finger from the Eb up a major third or down a minor 6th.&#8221; etc.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://music.linear1.org/2006/10/23/mental-representation-of-music/comment-page-1/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 00:49:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://music.linear1.org/2006/10/23/mental-representation-of-music/#comment-11</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t take any issue with accessing a kinesthetic image--if you can reliably do that now you should be real happy about it. Eventually you wnat to get those so connected to your muscles that you just &quot;intend&quot; the image and it happens without conscious initiative.

But, you asked about how to get to that point. Ear training is a whole different subject, and I have some concrete tips there (which I&#039;ll save for a future post). Right now, what I&#039;ll offer you is that you are absolutely confronting the right skill. It&#039;s hard at this point, but it&#039;s really productive when you get it. Here&#039;s why: if you get the ear trained well enough to do transcriptions with some degree of ease, you suddenly have access to &lt;b&gt;a lot more teachers&lt;/b&gt;. Plus, it&#039;s a really commercially valuable skill. Dudes who can whip out charts are &quot;music directors&quot; not sidemen.

So, I would urge you to try for hearing the relationships between consecutive bass notes first. It&#039;s a little easier than hearing the relation to the key center, because key centers can move. But if you can notate the bass line, you can then derive the functional relationships (dominant, supertonic, whatever) easily enough. And you&#039;ll quickly fall into that habit. You&#039;ll get to be able to spot a ii-V-I before it even completes. 

I suppose you know about ii-V-I. It&#039;s a fundamental building block, and it gets a lot of love from writers/composers. If you can spot it, you&#039;re well on the way.

Now you also asked how I approach learning a new head. In most cases, I&#039;ve heard the tune enough to have a well-developed mental representation. I have tried lately to work just from that, not a chart at all. Charts are loaded with mistakes and unfortunate notation choices. I&#039;ll usually go back to a source recording if I have doubts, and I try to do it early enough that I haven&#039;t cemented a mistake if I have a doubt. By doing it like this I feel a lot more comfortable playing subs or reharmonizing passages.

Give me an example of a song you&#039;re working up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t take any issue with accessing a kinesthetic image&#8211;if you can reliably do that now you should be real happy about it. Eventually you wnat to get those so connected to your muscles that you just &#8220;intend&#8221; the image and it happens without conscious initiative.</p>
<p>But, you asked about how to get to that point. Ear training is a whole different subject, and I have some concrete tips there (which I&#8217;ll save for a future post). Right now, what I&#8217;ll offer you is that you are absolutely confronting the right skill. It&#8217;s hard at this point, but it&#8217;s really productive when you get it. Here&#8217;s why: if you get the ear trained well enough to do transcriptions with some degree of ease, you suddenly have access to <b>a lot more teachers</b>. Plus, it&#8217;s a really commercially valuable skill. Dudes who can whip out charts are &#8220;music directors&#8221; not sidemen.</p>
<p>So, I would urge you to try for hearing the relationships between consecutive bass notes first. It&#8217;s a little easier than hearing the relation to the key center, because key centers can move. But if you can notate the bass line, you can then derive the functional relationships (dominant, supertonic, whatever) easily enough. And you&#8217;ll quickly fall into that habit. You&#8217;ll get to be able to spot a ii-V-I before it even completes. </p>
<p>I suppose you know about ii-V-I. It&#8217;s a fundamental building block, and it gets a lot of love from writers/composers. If you can spot it, you&#8217;re well on the way.</p>
<p>Now you also asked how I approach learning a new head. In most cases, I&#8217;ve heard the tune enough to have a well-developed mental representation. I have tried lately to work just from that, not a chart at all. Charts are loaded with mistakes and unfortunate notation choices. I&#8217;ll usually go back to a source recording if I have doubts, and I try to do it early enough that I haven&#8217;t cemented a mistake if I have a doubt. By doing it like this I feel a lot more comfortable playing subs or reharmonizing passages.</p>
<p>Give me an example of a song you&#8217;re working up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whitecraneboxing</title>
		<link>http://music.linear1.org/2006/10/23/mental-representation-of-music/comment-page-1/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>whitecraneboxing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://music.linear1.org/2006/10/23/mental-representation-of-music/#comment-10</guid>
		<description>Rob, these recent posts have been great.  As a relative newcomer to the music scene, I&#039;ve been struggling with my ear training more than anything else.  Right now, when I&#039;m listening to music or learning a new piece, I&#039;ve been trying to improve my ability to hear a note&#039;s relation to the key center.  This has a been a monumental task for me as I&#039;ve been very used to simply playing by rote, or sight-reading without really using my ear to pay attention to what was going on.  When I&#039;m trying to &#039;remember&#039; a song without a keyboard onhand, I often still find myself having to visualize the keyboard and recalling  actual kinesthetic experience of striking the keys in order to recall which notes were in the song.  I suppose it means that I&#039;m still not really hearing the notes clearly in my head.  It&#039;s frustrating but I think that learning a song in terms of its scale degrees is the only way to really get the music into my ears.  Is this similar to how you would approach learning a new head?  Or have you already internalized the sounds that you don&#039;t even really process it on such a conscious level?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rob, these recent posts have been great.  As a relative newcomer to the music scene, I&#8217;ve been struggling with my ear training more than anything else.  Right now, when I&#8217;m listening to music or learning a new piece, I&#8217;ve been trying to improve my ability to hear a note&#8217;s relation to the key center.  This has a been a monumental task for me as I&#8217;ve been very used to simply playing by rote, or sight-reading without really using my ear to pay attention to what was going on.  When I&#8217;m trying to &#8216;remember&#8217; a song without a keyboard onhand, I often still find myself having to visualize the keyboard and recalling  actual kinesthetic experience of striking the keys in order to recall which notes were in the song.  I suppose it means that I&#8217;m still not really hearing the notes clearly in my head.  It&#8217;s frustrating but I think that learning a song in terms of its scale degrees is the only way to really get the music into my ears.  Is this similar to how you would approach learning a new head?  Or have you already internalized the sounds that you don&#8217;t even really process it on such a conscious level?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
