Ear Training

[superblonde]

I have worked on ear training exercises for over 2 years now with not great results, that means dedicated 1 hour two or three times a week, plus dedicated months of 10-15 mins ever day of every week during heavy practice times. A masters degree requires 4 full years of ear training, (or the genetic ability to test-out of it), that is two years at lower level and two years at masters level. That is a lot of time working on drills with questionable ability to pass. I have to conclude that "if it was going to happen, it should have already happened" (that is genetics, and science shows that) and that it is just not going to happen. Yet both the general and professional advice I receive is always the same: "just keep working at it, some just take longer." (Rather stupid advice, to repeat the same failing exercises.)

In comparison 2-3 years of the same amount of time working on creating industry-saleable tracks would have been 1,000x more productive. My feeling is that ear training is worse than a waste of time, it is misdirection at the expense of obtaining a paying musical career. It is bizarre that a "degree in music" requires this artificial hurdle.

[Telefunkin]

I have worked on ear training exercises for over 2 years now with not great results, ........Yet both the general and professional advice I receive is always the same: "just keep working at it, some just take longer." (Rather stupid advice, to repeat the same failing exercises.)

Only if you're not improving. If you compare your ability with where you started I'd bet you've improved and are probably still improving, even if its only slowly. That's not to say I advocate carrying on, it depends on what you want to achieve.

In comparison 2-3 years of the same amount of time working on creating industry-saleable tracks would have been 1,000x more productive. My feeling is that ear training is worse than a waste of time, it is misdirection at the expense of obtaining a paying musical career. It is bizarre that a "degree in music" requires this artificial hurdle.

Well, just to play devil's advocate on this too, the results of many after 2-3 years are much the same as the ear training. Let us know whether you wish to revise that x1,000 factor in a 2-3 years time .

Basically, no two of us are the same, and neither are our abilities, attitudes, successes or failures. We can all measure ourselves against the best and come up a long way short, or against lesser standards and look like stars. Again, you could ask yourself what is it you really want to achieve, and is the path you're on going to help or hinder that? No, you don't 'need' a music degree to make sync music or play in a band, but you probably do if you want to be a college music professor. You certainly don't need a highly trained 'ear', but it does help a lot when conveying ideas or understanding the mechanics what's going on inside ref tracks (for example). What do you want, improved ability to do something else or a badge of merit?

My take on life.....learn what you can, take every opportunity to grab knowledge and skills. Its never wasted. However, every serious endeavour demands time and commitment, and therefore sacrifices. Choose wisely, but never regret education, just the lack of it. YMMV.

[superblonde]

Since it is agreed that it is not necessary to have "exam-passing skill level" ear training to produce sale-able music, that means it is a relative waste of time and an artificial obstacle harming musical development. One of several huge disconnects between academia and industry. That is the bewildering aspect of it. One would think that academia would, in general, enforce studies which improve "musical career" success but that assumption is false.

[Telefunkin]

Since it is agreed that it is not necessary to have "exam-passing skill level" ear training to produce sale-able music, that means it is a relative waste of time and an artificial obstacle harming musical development. One of several huge disconnects between academia and industry. That is the bewildering aspect of it. One would think that academia would, in general, enforce studies which improve "musical career" success but that assumption is false.

Yes, I think we all agree that it isn't necessary. I can't agree that its a waste of time though. I don't see how having a greater ability to understand the mechanics of music can 'harm' musical development. Quite the opposite. Again, I'm not advocating that anyone interested in making sync music should study for a music degree, but the more you know and understand, the easier it is to put those tools to work and to apply and communicate your musical ideas effectively.

You mention "musical career". What career though? Pro orchestral player, street busker on acoustic guitar, computer tune dabbler, rock band member? Their paths and educational 'needs' are probably quite different, but don't they all 'need' to know something about music? How much? Where's the line? At what point does the 'disconnect' begin? How can you provide specific education for everyone without going over the top for some but not providing enough for others?

I'm pretty slow at reading music, but I don't feel that I would call on that ability very much if I was better. That's because I'm a lazy rock/blues based guitarist, not an orchestral player. Therefore, I choose not to use my time to get better at it. However, I'd never claim that its a waste of time for everyone. That doesn't make sense to me, its too broad a generalisation.

I still say choose your tools for the job you want to do, and keep 'em sharp. You never know though, one day you might be glad you've got a left-handed screwdriver in your box .

[superblonde]

The idea of 'orchestral player career' is laughable even for those focused on attaining it. Stories of auditions for just 1 seat say there are 300 applicants and after screening, 80 of those go for live audition, competing with other players who started private classical training at age 5. Academics is supposed to be focused on training for the general outcome. Less than 1% of the music industry by employment or by sales is made up of classical/orchestral playing skill level. Even Jazz is not more than what, 5-6%. "Rock band member?" - that is the bulk of music industry jobs: production/distribution of consumer music.

"I don't see how having a greater ability to understand the mechanics of music can 'harm' musical development. "

A music degree program requires passing the entry-level/exit-level ear training tests. If failing, the requirement is to re-take the tests again, continue drilling for months, until passing, with maybe a max of 3 attempts allowed, one retest taken every 6 mos. So regardless of whether there is a desire to "put those tools to work and to apply and communicate your musical ideas effectively" it is not possible to finish formally without passing the obstacle. Conversely the time could be invested in writing & publishing music and hopefully getting on the clock for incoming royalties, earning real money, building a real career. "Real career" means music is out in the world and being played and listened to and as a result of that, earning a living from the industry.

Overall still trying to make sense of it. Several years down the drain apparently.

[superblonde]

There is an additional gotcha to ear training. Sure, it might be worth training in any skill, if it sticks. Yet musicians with masters degrees say that they no longer have the skill, because it faded, as they haven't kept drilling it. So not only does it require ridiculous time commitment with ambiguous results, but the skill is also lost when not continually exercised. As far as I have heard.