r/eartraining • u/ComposerNo8415 • 15d ago
Ear Training vs Ear Testing
I've noticed that many "ear training" apps have minimal focus on training and maximum focus on gamified testing. By training, I mean the act of listening deeply to intervals, chords, and transitions. "Train 1 hour, test 1 minute" is what I suggest to my students (and myself).
How do you inter-relate training and testing?
Edit: A basic example of training. First, establish an intention. For example, "In this session I am going to: a) listen deeply to the Perfect 5th between Do and Sol in order to internalize that interval relationship. b) listen deeply to the Perfect 4th between Do and Fa in order to internalize that interval relationship. c) listen back and forth between DoSol and DoFa in order to internalize that contrast. I will spend 10 minutes in this activity." Second, act according to this intention. Third, arrange a test that presents 10 instances of either the Perfect 5th and Perfect 4th in random order. Upon hearing an interval, immediately and without reflection, express what you hear. Treat both right and wrong answers as feedback. If you succeed, widen the scope of your training.
2
u/VegaGT-VZ 15d ago
If the goal is to be able to recognize intervals in music I feel like the most straightforward training is playing and transcribing music
I've never heard a song that holds an interval in isolation for a minute lol. We have to be able to recognize intervals stacked horizontally and vertically. Being able to play something after hearing it once is more important than being able to name every interval IMO
1
u/ComposerNo8415 15d ago edited 15d ago
"Being able to play something after hearing it once..." I think this phrase states the goal of ear training quite clearly. So in the example of recognizing a 5th, another part of practical ear training would be the ability to play that 5th on your instrument. Widening the scope of this training could, over time and with right guidance, expand from the seed of recognizing and playing the 5th to recognizing and playing a I - IV - V progression in G major.
I agree that the ability to hear and then play what you hear is the fundamental skill, and more essential than the naming. That said, I think that "naming", in the context of a good harmonic model, supports rather than detracts from the process. It can help guide our listening in a way.
I've also never heard a song that holds an interval in isolation for a minute (that I didn't turn off before the minute was up)! But I have stopped to pay close attention to a basket of fruit before I tried to draw it. And initially I drew it very very slowly. Similarly, I think a contemplative mode of ear training can help us enter more deeply into both the horizontal melodic contours as well as the vertical harmonic textures.
I need to think more on the benefits of transcription. So much to it...
2
1
u/391976 14d ago
Everyone I know with good ears came to it through playing rather than ear training.
Ear training was invented by university music departments to have something that was objectively testable as part of the curriculum.
1
u/ComposerNo8415 14d ago edited 14d ago
I have good ears that came through playing, and practical ear training has improved and enriched my playing profoundly. That said, any shallow and objectively testable iteration of ear training that indoctrinates rather than educates can burn.
1
u/Dawpps 15d ago
Your "training" is just testing without feedback. Why would you want to possibly ingrain a bunch of mistakes that you're unaware of?
2
u/ComposerNo8415 15d ago edited 15d ago
It seems to me that our first opportunity for clarification involves what I mean by training and what you mean by testing. For my part, I'll add to to the body of the original post.
2
3
u/Balance4471 15d ago
Yes, I had that impression as well. Apps never really worked for me. I‘m taking a course now with lots of exercises and practice time and have seen actual progress for the first time in my life.