kickingtone

AUDIATION: the ignored skill?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, MDEW said:

That is why I drove around for half an hour. Trying get this into muscle memory. I could not record it at the time. It was reproducible as a muscle movement during that half hour. I was not following the sound. I was letting the sound come out as a product of the coordination.

Personally, I've never really understood the muscle memory thing. I tend to view it as a gimmicky buzzword, to be honest, or maybe one that is oversubscribed.

My opinion is that you can train a muscle, through repetition, to not feel awkward or unfamiliar in a coordination -- so it doesn't get in the way. But I think that there still needs to be a trigger or motive (which can be subconscious) learned to sew all the motions together -- a conceptualization of the action that repetition does not deliver. So muscle memory says "you are able to do it", not that "you will do it". Only my gut feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May as well post this here as it says some interesting things about audiation, (rather bold assertions) like...

"According to this pedagogical approach, performing musically on an instrument cannot occur effectively without audiation, as there is an enormous emphasis on the connection between the physical and the mental aspects of performing. Because of this philosophical outline, ear training is a key aspect of the Jacques-Dalcroze Method. Practically, an orchestral Jacques-Dalcroze Method enthusiast may incorporate singing into all classrooms, including orchestra classrooms, as they would argue that a string player will not phrase effectively on an instrument if they cannot internally audiate effective musical phrasing."

WOW!

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1326&context=honors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

My opinion is that you can train a muscle, through repetition, to not feel awkward or unfamiliar in a coordination -- so it doesn't get in the way. But I think that there still needs to be a trigger or motive (which can be subconscious) learned to sew all the motions together -- a conceptualization of the action that repetition does not deliver. So muscle memory says "you are able to do it", not that "you will do it". Only my gut feel.

   Yes, a trigger, a thought that sparks the coordination.  Just as I speak on the other topics of support, cord closure and all of that, sensations, feelings emotions and audiation are part of the whole. Especially in music. But if you are Audiating and visualizing the wrong sound to the wrong coordination you are screwed. I could not audiate and visualize that coordination because I had NEVER made the sound before. If you want to use a sound you have to learn how to make it and how to use it. You tend to "Audiate" on what you imagine is making the sound not what actually is. Until you make it of course.

    just as in any musical instrument "learned by ear" you are marrying coordinations to sounds. When learning to read sheet music you are marrying muscle movement to sight reading. Stressing the importance of Audiating in a sight reading course or an orchestra instrument setting is more important than stressing it in Vocal Training or learning by ear because it is already a part of it. You cannot get away from it.

   But yes in some formal training of the voice coordinations or sensations become more of a focus than the emotional "feel" or "vibe" or "Sound" just as reading music tends to keep you stuck to the written notes and comes out stale and unmoving. But then again...in an orchestra the Conductor is the one that is providing the emotional feel and the instruments  are his voice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kickingtone said:

May as well post this here as it says some interesting things about audiation, (rather bold assertions) like...

"According to this pedagogical approach, performing musically on an instrument cannot occur effectively without audiation, as there is an enormous emphasis on the connection between the physical and the mental aspects of performing. Because of this philosophical outline, ear training is a key aspect of the Jacques-Dalcroze Method. Practically, an orchestral Jacques-Dalcroze Method enthusiast may incorporate singing into all classrooms, including orchestra classrooms, as they would argue that a string player will not phrase effectively on an instrument if they cannot internally audiate effective musical phrasing."

WOW!

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1326&context=honors

This writing is on different philosophies on music. My own philosophy is that music is an expression of emotion. Without emotional influence on tempo, wording, instrument choice, phrasing....on and on there is no point to it.

There are a lot of musical genres out there that I do not get the point to. That is fine others do "Get it". But even to them there is some sort of emotional point to the music ,words and phrases etc.

The formal training is to help you express the emotions not stifle them. You cannot express the emotions if you yourself do not feel them or recall them at some point in your life. Pretty much the same thing as in this paper.

    I mention finding an emotional standpoint to the words you are singing. You cannot find an emotional standpoint until you actually read the words, know what the story is, and IMAGINE how you would react in a similar situation. Even if you are just relating the story of the song, you have to imagine the story to relate it. The audiating comes into play from "hearing in your mind" how the characters in the story would sound in that situation..... soft and depressed sounding, Happy and elated, Angry and shouting..... Still you are audiating. Imagining the sounds related to the story and the characters in it, whether you are one of them or observing, you should still be able to hear the emotions that the CHARACTERS would be expressing in that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3:20

"...the concentration must be so strong. Before you begin to sing...you have to one second before...you have to HEAR the note, and then, you will not make a mistake. But, if you think, at the last moment, to invent the note, I think it's not going to be good..."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Did you listen to what he said after that? The Singer he went to see vocalized for 40 minutes. In this instance "Vocalize" does not mean just singing. It means Vocal exercises. He is still a student and will always be. 

Hearing the note before you sing it works AFTER you have conditioned the voice to make the note. In other words you do not reinvent the note while singing, you sing the note you have trained.

Another one of those things that work together instead of being separated and one thing being more important than another. They work together and reinforce each other. If you are audiating a C# but keep producing a C either you need to train the voice to sing the C# to match the imagined sound or Change the imagined sound to reflect the C.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MDEW said:

 Did you listen to what he said after that?

I did watch the whole video.

1 hour ago, MDEW said:

Hearing the note before you sing it works AFTER you have conditioned the voice to make the note. In other words you do not reinvent the note while singing, you sing the note you have trained.

Of course, there is no suggestion that merely audiating is sufficient, or could replace training.

But he is saying that audiating is necessary and essential.

What I understand Pavarotti to be saying is that if you get to the note before audiating ("hearing") it, then mere memory/muscle memory won't work.

I said something similar earlier -- that trained muscle memory says that you CAN sing the note, not that you WILLl sing it. The coordination will feel familiar and easy if you trigger it, but you need to audiate to trigger the right responses.

(I wonder if people who talk or sing in their sleep talk/sing flat?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kickingtone said:

I did watch the whole video.

Of course, there is no suggestion that merely audiating is sufficient, or could replace training.

But he is saying that audiating is necessary and essential.

What I understand Pavarotti to be saying is that if you get to the note before audiating ("hearing") it, then mere memory/muscle memory won't work.

I said something similar earlier -- that trained muscle memory says that you CAN sing the note, not that you WILLl sing it. The coordination will feel familiar and easy if you trigger it, but you need to audiate to trigger the right responses.

(I wonder if people who talk or sing in their sleep talk/sing flat?)

I am not saying anything against audiating. It just seems like a natural part of the process to me. But the audiating without the action may help in learning the action while learning it, but it cannot take the place of learning the action. After the action is set then ,Yes, audiating helps in solidifying the action to the thought.

If I am learning a guitar lead I can hear the notes in my head but until I get the guitar and pratice putting the fingers where they go they may still miss the mark. The fingers may land a little higher or lower on the strings until both the thought and the action are unified. 

"(I wonder if people who talk or sing in their sleep talk/sing flat?)"

I used to sleep in a room next to my nephew. He said I sang in my sleep..........at that time I sounded better while sleeping than I did when awake.  Go figure:)

To be clear, I do agree that muscle memory alone will not guarantee a good outcome. As I said before it seems to me as a natural part of the process and cannot understand why people would not use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MDEW said:

To be clear, I do agree that muscle memory alone will not guarantee a good outcome. As I said before it seems to me as a natural part of the process and cannot understand why people would not use it.

I just think that a lot of people expect "muscle memory" to take care of things that it won't. You hear people say things like, "you've just got to keep practising until the muscle memory kicks in, and you are able to do X". You don't hear that many people say, "practise hearing the note just before you sing it". People know (or quickly get to know) that training the physical coordination is necessary, even though is is not sufficient. Audiating, on the other hand, doesn't get that much of a mention.

Talking about "hearing the note"...

I can "lucid hear" when I am asleep and about to wake up. So, I would be asleep and know that I am asleep, but be able to hear what is going on around me. The most notable sound is usually the dawn chorus -- birds singing in the morning. I can listen to that for a while when I am asleep, and I can choose the precise moment I want to wake up. The funny thing is that there is a change in timbre of the sound, as soon as I awaken. It's the same timbral change every time. My "sleeping ears" and my "awake ears" hear the sound differently!. Both are equally clear, but timbre is distinctly different. While I am "sleep listening" I even remember, and am aware, that the timbre will change when I wake up. So I deliberately delay waking up so that I can enjoy the unusual timbre. Then, when I decide to wake up, I wonder at the inevitable change in timbre. That kind of convinces me that we all hear differently. What if there are people whose "awake ears" hear like my "asleep ears", etc.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

My "sleeping ears" and my "awake ears" hear the sound differently!. Both are equally clear, but timbre is distinctly different. While I am "sleep listening" I even remember, and am aware, that the timbre will change when I wake up. So I deliberately delay waking up so that I can enjoy the unusual timbre. Then, when I decide to wake up, I wonder at the inevitable change in timbre. That kind of convinces me that we all hear differently. What if there are people whose "awake ears" hear like my "asleep ears", etc.?

I know what you mean. For me the sound is like being underwater and the focus could be on one sound. As I wake up the sound gets brighter and the rest of the sounds around me start to drown out what I was listening to before.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mysteries of the mind! That is why I think that much of the consensus about sound quality is contrived.

Here's another strange phenomenon I experienced as I woke up one day...

At the point of waking up, I heard tack-tack-tack-tack-tack-tack-tack-tack-tack-tack-tack-tack -- just like that...a series of sharp sounds in rapid succession.

Three seconds later, I was fully awake, wondering what the sound could possibly be. It was early morning and there was only silence! I lay awake, wondering if I had dreamed the sound.

Then, I heard, "tack". Then ten or fifteen seconds later another "tack", and so forth, very slowly and intermittent, like that. What was happening was that a window was open and the door was slightly ajar, and a wind had sprung up and was blowing the door to every ten or twenty seconds. But the noise I had heard as I woke up was as rapid as automatic gun fire! There was no way the wind could have done that with the door (and once closed, the wind cannot open the door, so it wasn't the wind rattling the door open). It was as if my mind had stored up all the intermittent "tack" sounds and "downloaded" them in an instant.

It was like a time warp...a different sense of time. I've heard that dreams can work that way. Researchers think that REM sleep is the dreaming phase, but when they interview the subject, the subject reports experiencing a dream that seems to have taken much longer. Anyway, even when we are awake, our sense of time can go haywire.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328573826_Covert_singing_in_anticipatory_auditory_imagery

Here is a paper on "subvocalization" or "covert singing". This refers to silent movements of muscles used for vocalization made in response to listening to music, or in preparation for vocalizing.

I tend to take a lot of these research papers with a huge pinch of salt, because there is a widespread bias toward "finding results" (usually to get more funding or references). So, even though they claim not to know what to expect, it often appears rather obvious to me that results or interpretations have been fitted to expectations.

In this experiment, 46 inexperienced singers (drawn from a narrow population) were hooked up to surface electromyography equipment to detect subtle movements in muscles involved in singing, while the subjects were only listening to music. This was compared against results for visual stimulation.

The paper goes on to suggest that audiation and subvocalization are symbiotic, and that improvements in subvocalization can improve audiation. This ties in with what I said earlier, about people audiating better in the range that they can actually sing, and that some people may even have tone deaf audiation in a range that they cannot sing.

""Furthermore, less accurate singers exhibited greater laryngeal activity during auditory imagery than did more accurate singers."

That was interesting!

What I found suspicious was this...

"Although it is not surprising that the bicep muscle was not active during auditory imagery, it seems plausible that we might have found differing activity of the corrugator muscle"

They had selected the bicep muscle as the control area, and bingo! it proved relatively stationery, even among subjects with an average of 2.5 years of experience playing a musical instrument. They did ask the subjects to keep as still as possible (itself a rather biasing factor), but they were measuring small subconscious movements. Why wouldn't a drummer or pianist or guitarist subconsciously be twitching arm muscles in response to the music? Even a dancer may be expected to register subconscious movement in the biceps. I think that the whole body responds to music, and, just as some people find it difficult to talk without waving their arms about, some people will register some for of dance movement when listening to music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kickingtone said:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328573826_Covert_singing_in_anticipatory_auditory_imagery

Here is a paper on "subvocalization" or "covert singing". This refers to silent movements of muscles used for vocalization made in response to listening to music, or in preparation for vocalizing.

I tend to take a lot of these research papers with a huge pinch of salt, because there is a widespread bias toward "finding results" (usually to get more funding or references). So, even though they claim not to know what to expect, it often appears rather obvious to me that results or interpretations have been fitted to expectations.

In this experiment, 46 inexperienced singers (drawn from a narrow population) were hooked up to surface electromyography equipment to detect subtle movements in muscles involved in singing, while the subjects were only listening to music. This was compared against results for visual stimulation.

The paper goes on to suggest that audiation and subvocalization are symbiotic, and that improvements in subvocalization can improve audiation. This ties in with what I said earlier, about people audiating better in the range that they can actually sing, and that some people may even have tone deaf audiation in a range that they cannot sing.

""Furthermore, less accurate singers exhibited greater laryngeal activity during auditory imagery than did more accurate singers."

That was interesting!

What I found suspicious was this...

"Although it is not surprising that the bicep muscle was not active during auditory imagery, it seems plausible that we might have found differing activity of the corrugator muscle"

They had selected the bicep muscle as the control area, and bingo! it proved relatively stationery, even among subjects with an average of 2.5 years of experience playing a musical instrument. They did ask the subjects to keep as still as possible (itself a rather biasing factor), but they were measuring small subconscious movements. Why wouldn't a drummer or pianist or guitarist subconsciously be twitching arm muscles in response to the music? Even a dancer may be expected to register subconscious movement in the biceps. I think that the whole body responds to music, and, just as some people find it difficult to talk without waving their arms about, some people will register some for of dance movement when listening to music.

    This is why I have advocated at least some type of training along with the  audiating or before. As we "subvocalize" we are using muscles we believe are causing the sound not the muscles that are causing the sound. The subvocalizing is reinforcing the bad habits not the good ones.  Now, audiating and visualizing and subvocalizing  AFTER we learned the coordinations is of a great benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MDEW said:

    This is why I have advocated at least some type of training along with the  audiating or before. As we "subvocalize" we are using muscles we believe are causing the sound not the muscles that are causing the sound. The subvocalizing is reinforcing the bad habits not the good ones.  Now, audiating and visualizing and subvocalizing  AFTER we learned the coordinations is of a great benefit.

You are assuming that belief is guaranteed to be wrong. That is not true. People are capable of subvocalizing accurately at any point. The two things are probably inextricably intertwined.

You are also oversimplifying and overrating "actual causation". There are many coordinations that are sympathetic, and maybe would be redundant if we were robots. But we are not robots. Our biology is complex and what matters is what facilitates correct vocalization, not just the immediate physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kickingtone said:

Our biology is complex and what matters is what facilitates correct vocalization,

    Correct vocalization depends on its purpose  and the desired outcome. Pitch and tone are related in the muscles or coordinations used but they are also effected by each other. A persons accent and environment and personality effect the way they use their voice on a daily basis. It is unlikely that it would end up being a  "Correct vocalization" on a sung pitch with a desired tone from audiating or imagining the sound. Not without the experimenting with making different sounds with your voice either before the audiating or adjusting things after the pitch and tone has started. Sometimes the coordination needed is opposite of the imagined coordination or a persons natural tendencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, MDEW said:

Pitch and tone are related in the muscles or coordinations used but they are also effected by each other....

Pitch and tone are abstractions that help us try to describe sound. Muscles and coordinations manage sound. Humans talk in abstractions. We are capable of going directly to making a sound without having to abstract it into pitch/tone/intensity etc. It is when we talk about the sound that we need these categories for language.

55 minutes ago, MDEW said:

Not without the experimenting with making different sounds with your voice either before the audiating or adjusting things after the pitch and tone has started...

Experimenting is not the same as training. We experiment instinctively from the day we are born, and much of it is subconscious. That way we can audiate and often realize the feel for what may or may not work. (cf that basketball pitch video I posted earlier. We do develop an understanding of the capability of our motor skills without dedicated training.) That is not to say that training is not desirable, or is useless.

55 minutes ago, MDEW said:

Sometimes the coordination needed is opposite of the imagined coordination or a persons natural tendencies.

As I said, we are talking biology, and we don't fully understand the "coordinations needed" from that perspective. What may seem to be redundant from the standpoint of physics may turn out to be helpful from a biological angle.

I was reading recently about reasons why a snooker player will often tap a finger of his bridge hand prior to cuing the ball. Most snooker players do it, but I have not come across any definitive physics supporting the relevance of such an action. In fact, it seems to run counter to the general principle of keeping everything as still as possible. So, following what looks mechanically correct may end up being biologically sub-optimal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

Pitch and tone are abstractions that help us try to describe sound. Muscles and coordinations manage sound. Humans talk in abstractions. We are capable of going directly to making a sound without having to abstract it into pitch/tone/intensity etc. It is when we talk about the sound that we need these categories for language.

    Singing is purposely using and managing sound. A desired pitch is expected and a desired melody in a controlled manor. In different genres a desired tone is expected. Yes, in some cases whatever sound and volume  that comes out is or can be acceptable. And yes it is perfectly fine to have a tone in the manor of "Willy Nelson" as opposed to someone like "Waylon Jennings" or "Elvis Presley" on some contemporary songs but would not be acceptable in Classical singing and would not have the strength and carrying power needed for the venue.

     And for the purposes of singing the taste of your audience is also taken into account.

     The usual question of new singers is "Do I sound good?" If it was just a matter of audiating and reproducing the actions you felt while audiating the question would not need to be asked and the answer would always be "You sounded fine, please record more." That is not the case. There are basic things that are usually overlooked by new singers and certain ranges cause difficulty because they are not produced by instinctive coordinations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, MDEW said:

The usual question of new singers is "Do I sound good?"

And it is not a particularly meaningful question. "Do you like the way I sound", is a more meaningful question.

Things get distorted when you take the listener out of the picture. It bypasses the fact that sound quality can be quite subjective.

There is not really anything like "a desired pitch". That would be to assume that everyone desires the same pitch. But there are all manner of subtle variations in sound which mean different things to different people. We may even have to be taught to abstract out pitch accurately, because that is not the way we naturally apprehend sound.

The voice is very expressive and our pitch perception is more subtle than the crude abstractions we have developed -- keys and scales. They may make decent guidelines, and really it is that way round. We fit our abstractions to vocal production, more than the other way round. Yes, we have discovered approximate patterns for what people may generally find to be musical, but it is not the patterns that are correct. It is the original natural production. The patterns are only inexact descriptions to help us discuss the music.

We wouldn't do the same thing for a painting. A painting is not supposed to be a photograph. An artist will not measure out quantities of paint for mixing, and declare one colour to be the correct one because of some ratio of wavelength. The artist paints the picture and then theorist come and theorize about how and why the painting "works" or is of interest to them. Those theories don't become absolute fact. The creation of the artist remains paramount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kickingtone said:

There is not really anything like "a desired pitch". That would be to assume that everyone desires the same pitch. But there are all manner of subtle variations in sound which mean different things to different people. We may even have to be taught to abstract out pitch accurately, because that is not the way we naturally apprehend sound.

The desired pitch as in the pitch of the note in the melody of the song that they intend to sing as opposed to being sharp or flat or not in the same key as the instruments are playing. And yes, there is fluctuation and a range of degrees above or below a pitch that would be acceptable. I am not talking about individual poetic licence but the basic accepted standards.

Also Yes, there are times when an artist means to be singing a note or phrase that is particularly dissonant against the background for effect. That too is usually done on purpose by an artist and not a random glitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MDEW said:

The desired pitch as in the pitch of the note in the melody of the song that they intend to sing as opposed to being sharp or flat or not in the same key as the instruments are playing. And yes, there is fluctuation and a range of degrees above or below a pitch that would be acceptable. I am not talking about individual poetic licence but the basic accepted standards.

Art and standards don't mix well. Music existed long before notation was developed to describe it. Notation helps as one way of describing or recording music, as a guideline to the music. The description is not the music, but, if you enforce the description as a standard, then you mistake it as the music.

Conventions and established standards are fine, but they do not define music. They do not define or validate our biology or our psychology or the way we apprehend music -- our psychoacoustics. A natural = 440Hz can be a standard, and there are people who hear "dissonance" even if an instrument is in relative tune, but tuned slightly sharp or flat. Someone recently mentioned the story of a pianist who could not be in the same room as a piano playing uniformly sharp or flat by a tiny amount. That doesn't reflect anything real, any material fact, about the music that we can call "dissonance". It reflects the fact that the pianist had an arbitrary frequency drilled into his memory and psyche by arbitrary standards. A natural = 440Hz gives us no insight into what music is. We may discover some logic to intervals, but the logic is not paramount over the music. We do not necessarily "tolerate inaccuracies" as being departures from "logic". Often it is the so-called "inaccurate note" that a person perceives as the correct expression, showing the logic to be only approximate. But you can always reprogram people to believe in the logic.

Much of precise theory is only about standards, not music in general. And calling anything outside the standard "dissonance" is only a psychological way of trying to enforce the standards. Discovering patterns in what we like is interesting, of course. Making it absolute is a mistake.

I have heard various genres of music that initially sounded dissonant TO ME. For some of them, I acclimatized after a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2019 at 6:54 AM, kickingtone said:

Discovering patterns in what we like is interesting, of course. Making it absolute is a mistake.

@mdew did not argue that it is absolute, but that it was elementary/basic. Which is not absolute, but is more than just interesting.

It's elementary not because the musician likes it, but because it's the very language the audience that will be targeted knows. A very subjective meta-language, in the sense that meaning and interpretation  will be personal for those that hear, but there are structures that even if you intend to break with it's necessary to know, otherwise instead of doing something different it's likely you will do the same old stuff poorly.

And poorly executed basics is not innovation. No amount of sophism/relativism will change it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Felipe Carvalho said:

... there are structures that even if you intend to break with it's necessary to know, otherwise instead of doing something different it's likely you will do the same old stuff poorly...

Regardless of the fact that your assertion is wildly presumptuous...

Music has been evolving long before there was any notation or language to describe it. That did not make the music deteriorate. Structure in music can be appreciated independently of psychoacoustics and its emergent languages. It has been so since prehistoric times.

2 hours ago, Felipe Carvalho said:

It's elementary not because the musician likes it, but because it's the very language the audience that will be targeted knows. A very subjective meta-language, in the sense that meaning and interpretation  will be personal for those that hear...

"IT", meaning the patterns, is not dependent on language. IT is NOT the language. The language only seeks to describe or capture IT -- the patterns. Where there is discrepancy, we must defer to IT -- the music, the actual patterns (subjectivity and all)  -- NOT the current state of the language, and its stated approximate "rules".

Making description (the current state of language) your reference point is to inadvertently make it absolute. You have inverted the order of precedence. The description was supposed to an attempt to conform to the nature of music. Now you are making music conform to description, elevating the description to something that it isn't.

It reminds me of those weather reporters who torture the word, SHOULD. They say something like, "tomorrow SHOULD be warm and cloudy, with spells of drizzle". When it isn't, then what? Nature got it wrong, I suppose?

The model should remain the model, seeking to explain the phenomenon, not the other way round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2019 at 11:00 AM, MDEW said:

       It always amazed me that generally the people who can play from sheet music cannot play by ear. 

 

Dont fool ya self boys, because a while back good old natural on the harmony forum posted a 10 second clip of him singing I want to hold your hand by the Beatals, then claimed he has discovered 2 valves in the word hand! I pointed out to him that he had discovered 2 notes in the valve hand. But I knew this by ear and never seeing the score myself! so how dose that one work then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, sideshow said:

10 second clip of him singing I want to hold your hand by the Beatals, then claimed he has discovered 2 valves in the word hand!

They are Beatles not Beatals and it is not Valves it is vowels. The training and tips will make more sense when you can use the correct words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now