Playing by ear vs. singing by ear

In this study all the participants had to play an instrument rather than sing during the process of playing by ear, group experimentation and improvisation. There were several reasons for this decision. Firstly, all instrumentalists and singers played more than one instrument; the second usually at an intermediate level. Given that the audio material was simple enough for such advanced musiciansFootnote ² to work with, and that the task was to produce freer renditions of the pieces copied it was considered appropriate to ask all musicians to play an instrument and experience the process of GEP under the same terms. Secondly, the process of singing by ear poses fewer challenges to HE musicians than playing. This was highlighted in Woody and Lehmann's study (Reference WOODY and LEHMANN2010) when singing short melodies back correctly required fewer trials in contrast to playing short melodies of the same levels of difficulty. Thirdly, with reference to improvisation, Hargreaves (Reference HARGREAVES2012) and Pressing (Reference PRESSING and Sloboda1988) explain that improvising instrumentalists have more sources of feedback (aural, visual, proprioceptive and tactile) compared to vocalists who only use hearing and proprioception. This allows instrumentalists to generate creative ideas faster than vocalists. Fourthly, Priest (Reference PRIEST1989) advocates that creativity, contrary to most instrumental teachers’ assumption, does not necessarily require technical competence or proficiency with specific repertoire. Due to the fact that facility with an instrument and the voice are taken as given in professional musicians’ careers as educators, performers, composers and therapists, it was considered appropriate to ask all participant musicians to play an instrument regardless of whether they were first study instrumentalists or vocalists.

GEP strategies

The students explored a variety of strategies whilst copying music by ear from recordings within each group. These strategies developed over time as the learners gained greater experience of playing by ear through practice (Varvarigou & Green, Reference VARVARIGOU and GREEN2015) and through observing and interacting with their peers. As demonstrated by the quotes provided in Table 1, the musicians engaged in creative musical interactions that allowed them to use their existing musical knowledge and skills whilst imitating musical material from different musical genres and by responding to fellow musicians’ ideas and ‘moment-by-moment novelty’ (Davidson & King, Reference DAVIDSON, KING and Williamon2004, p. 105). The framework used for the analysis of the learning strategies in GEP has also been used by Blix (Reference BLIX, Reitan, Bergby, Jakhelln, Shetelig and Øye2013) in her study on the learning strategies in ear training adopted by young instrumentalists.

Table 1.

Examples of GEP learning strategies reported by the students aligned with the concepts of imitation and invention by ear in groups (Priest, Reference PRIEST1989)

To begin with, for some of the western classical musicians of the study GEP seemed to involve a great deal of thinking. Cognitive strategies were employed when trying to combine existing musical knowledge with listening in order to identify the notes or the key of the riffs and the melodic lines of the pieces copied (See Table 1). Some groups also reported taking a cognitive approach to invention that led to improvisation (see Figure 1). In other words, the musicians sought after ‘clear temporal boundaries’ that ‘rendered the pieces memorable’ (Burnard, Reference BURNARD2000, p. 239). After the members of three groups had learned each part, the musicians started improvising by altering the structure of the pieces – different riffs or melodic lines comprised the introduction, ending and improvisation sections. This was achieved through switching different melodic lines around. Metacognitive strategies refer to strategies identified by the students as salient in improving their practice and performance of aural tasks. For example, some students made a practice plan before the next session that included breaking the melodies into sections and focusing on each section separately. Some students also reported playing without the recording or writing down the notes of the pieces played, as a way of memorising the music (memory strategies). In addition, the last session of GEP was referred to as a ‘clean up’ session where the students memorised their part and contributed more confidently to the musical experimentation through improvisation.

Figure 1.

From group ear playing to group improvisation

Another approach to engaging in imitation was the auditory approach. This involved listening to the recording and playing extensively along with the recording. Individual strategies for finding the first note included playing a scale or playing random notes until they found one of the notes of the riff, which they then used as an anchor to develop the riff. Some musicians focused on imitating the rhythm first, some imitated the pitch and rhythm simultaneously, and one sang a scale to find the first note. During the process of invention that led to improvisation the musicians in five out of the eight groups listened to the pieces and allocated the different parts according to what they thought was the appropriate instrument. They then started harmonising the melodies played by their colleagues. Imitation and invention also encompassed guessing. This enabled them to compensate for limitations in understanding harmonic or melodic relations in the music or for limitations of experience of playing by ear (compensatory strategies).

Given that playing by ear took place in groups, social strategies were adopted from the beginning of the process of imitation and invention. The most powerful strategy was peer learning, which supported problem solving on harder parts, encouraged mentoring and co-teaching for less confident students, and nurtured a general atmosphere of playfulness and experimentation that was reportedly highly enjoyable. Many students talked about enjoying ‘playing with others and playing with music’ (Lindsay, clarinet, RL 5) and working as a team to ‘work out notes’. They also emphasised how through this group interaction they developed interpersonal and leadership skills such as taking others’ opinions on board, communicating within a group and building awareness in playing with others. Affective strategies were closely linked with social strategies and they described ways of projecting ‘positive feelings of musical flow or actively using music one likes’ (Blix, Reference BLIX, Reitan, Bergby, Jakhelln, Shetelig and Øye2013, p. 111). These strategies increased enjoyment and boosted students’ confidence in playing by ear and improvising.

Group imitation, invention and improvisation

• • I've learnt that with a small group of musicians doing a task like this you can produce good, fast results whilst having lots of fun (Joshua, xylophone, FF).

• • I most enjoyed putting all the parts together as a group and discussing how to change it (Dylan, euphonium, FF).

Group improvisation was instigated by the group members to ‘make the pieces sound more interesting’ (Eva, flute, RL 1). Jonathan's group initially followed the cognitive route to improvisation and in the quote below he talks about how altering the pieces’ structure was part of the group's creative experimentation with the given material, which made the pieces their own:

Lucy's group followed the auditory route to group improvisation. In the quote below she describes how during the first week of GEP the group members used improvisation in order not only to play together but also to complement each other:

Both the ‘cognitive’ and the ‘auditory’ routes enabled the groups to progress from purely imitating the musical phrases to inventing answering phrases, extemporising new phrases, improvising by embellishing the melodic lines to creating new melodic lines that were added as different sections to the pieces copied. Each group's final performance after five weeks of GEP comprised variations of the pieces copied that were created on the spot and ‘new’ sections that were pre-composed but embellished on the spot. This suggests that GEP not only allowed the classical musicians to engage in spontaneous improvisation but also to explore ways of composing their own sections to the music copied by ear.

The challenges of group imitation and invention

Megan, a mature first-study singer, found playing by ear ‘out of her comfort zone’ and reported experiencing GEP like having gone to ‘the wrong party’. During her interview, she attributed the discomfort with GEP to two reasons: not having written notation in front of her and having to use her second study instrument, the violin, instead of her voice. Although, the lack of written notation caused Megan fear of the task, she advocated that playing by ear should start early in learners’ instrumental tuition.

What is more, Megan, recognised that peer learning and peer support offered her a way forward through GEP:

Other challenges expressed by the students were related to the repertoire copied. The classical pieces were considered technically tricky to copy by ear because they had ‘complex harmony’ (Eva, xylophone, RL 2); ‘the extracts . . . were longer’ (Lindsay, clarinet, RL 2) and difficult to remember as opposed to the shorter riffs of the popular music track; ‘there wasn't as much to split out to’ (Esther, flute, RL 3), and because ‘it was difficult to improvise around famous [classical] melodies’ (Max, piano, RL 3). Some students talked about feeling uncomfortable playing and improvising in front of others. Others talked about the challenges of ‘get[ting] the group to focus’ (Veronica, guitar, FF); and of ‘trying to explain what you want from them but then allowing them to be natural, as well’ (Heather, cello, I). Finally, students recognised the challenge of working in mixed ability groups (‘It was also very difficult because we all have different starting points thus communication between one another is difficult’ (Nina, piano, RL 4). Many also recognised the challenge of arranging the pieces for the instruments available (‘the different instruments are difficult to put together due to the varying pitches and tones’ [Dylan, euphonium, RL 2]); ‘Because of the varied instruments in our group it did mean some such as the guitar may have been out of their “comfort zone” but everyone tackled the challenge positively and effectively’ (Billy, violin, RL 2).

In summary, although copying musical repertoire by ear in small groups posed several challenges for the classical musicians, it allowed them to develop their aural skills whilst imitating musical pieces, and whilst arranging them by altering their harmonies and musical structures. Furthermore, through GEP the musicians engaged in improvisation and the invention of new material through collaborative group processes that legitimated individual creativity and that nurtured group creativity (Hallam & Gaunt, Reference HALLAM and GAUNT2012). This was facilitated by peer support and playful experimentation and by repertoire in a variety of musical genres.

Encouraging imitation and invention through playing by ear in HE

The adoption of and experimentation with the Cognitive, Metacognitive, Compensatory, Memory, Auditory, Social and Affective strategies presented above allowed the eight groups of western classical musicians who participated in this study to progress from imitating the riffs and classical melodies by ear to inventing answering phrases, improvising embellishments to existing melodies and to creating their own renditions of the pieces copied. As the students reported, the process of moving from GEP to Group Improvisation was characterised by collaborative and peer learning and support, opportunities for exploration and ‘working up’ the pieces, all of which made the process both challenging and highly enjoyable.

Despite the fact that these musicians were technically advanced some groups appeared to experience the need to ‘understand’ the music through the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Cognitive route) (see Figure 1) before responding to it in a more spontaneous fashion. This lack of spontaneity from some groups when asked to imitate musical material and to improvise, points to a lack of experience in playing by ear during the students’ instrumental tuition, which led Megan to feel ‘out of her comfort zone’ and like having ‘gone to the wrong party’. Megan stressed several times how salient it is for instrumental learners across all levels of training to be given ‘permission’ and encouragement to imitate musical material by ear during their instrumental lessons. This argument is supported by the literature cited earlier. Moreover, Burnard (Reference BURNARD2002, p. 169) underscores that ‘enabling participation that embraces individual spontaneity at all levels of skill and aptitude’ is vital in fostering young music learners’ engagement in creative activities such as improvisation.

In line with Priest's (Reference PRIEST1989) article, this study argues that playing by ear should be part of one-to-one instrumental tuition from the very early stages of one's instrumental learning (Harris, Reference HARRIS2008; Varvarigou, Reference VARVARIGOU2014) not least because it allows musicians to engage in imitation and experimentation with confidence. Within HE, imitation plays a significant role in classical musicians’ training in one-to-one lessons (Hallam & Gaunt, Reference HALLAM and GAUNT2012; Smilde, Reference SMILDE2009) often through the students’ imitation of ‘minute details [of] what the teacher does, how they play, sing, compose, even when this cannot all be physically seen or described in words’ (Hallam & Gaunt, Reference HALLAM and GAUNT2012, p. 76). Hence, it is paradoxical (and slightly disheartening), that such refined abilities to imitate someone else's performance have not been regularly utilised in activities such as playing by ear. GEP was used here to help undergraduate music students most of whom were pursuing a trajectory towards professional careers in music to develop aural, creative and improvisation skills through performance and exploration of musical repertoire from difference musical genres. These skills have been identified as essential in ‘just about any career in music’ (Hallam & Gaunt, Reference HALLAM and GAUNT2012, p. 178).

This approach to GEP based on Lucy Green's (Reference GREEN2008, Reference GREEN, Vakeva and Karlsen2012a, Reference GREEN2012b) work facilitated the students’ engagement in imitation and invention by providing them with real, whole pieces of musical repertoire in a variety of musical genres. The learners were encouraged initially to reproduce this material, which acted as a scaffold for the invention of answering phrases, embellishments and improvised new sections. Playing by ear activities with western classical musicians in HE could start with material that is organised in separate riffs and melodies that allows the musicians who are unfamiliar with the process of aural learning to create a bridge between cognitive strategies to auditory strategies that could lead to more spontaneous responses to music making.

Playing by ear in groups

Playing in small groups in the absence of a tutor granted the musicians autonomy in the way and the frequency of interaction with each other. GEP was facilitated through peer learning, which helped the musicians develop and refine their leadership, social awareness, teamwork and communication skills (Varvarigou, Reference VARVARIGOU2017) and to work for part of the programme on music that they chose as a group. This approach to facilitating creative interactions amongst groups of music learners resonates with Burnard's (Reference BURNARD2002) belief that the developmental value of group creative activities such as improvisation lies with supporting music learners’ collective decision-making; identity and relationship development; participation over competition; celebrating group risk-taking; and valuing musical collaboration and experimentation. Despite some technical challenges that emerged related to combining different instruments together as well as the challenge of fitting with everyone else musically and socially, GEP was reportedly hugely beneficial to the musicians’ aural skills, repertoire appreciation, ability to harmonise other melodies and their creativity during imitation, invention and improvisation that was not idiomatic to a particular genre.