Is the term "by ear" being misused in composition?

[Dankk]

I have said it... most all of us have at some point. It is used mainly as a way to say that one hasn't learned the theory, etc., etc... behind the music that has been composed. But upon my own further analysis of the subject; Is it really "by ear" for only some of us , or is it "by ear" that ALL of us actually compose music.

We all use our ears to receive tones (among other things like balance and spacial positioning - which is not part of this topic please) and then through a set of conditions set by what we have listened to in the past and other parameters not fully understood, we compose what we like to call "music." Many many different genres, styles, and such are available for all of us to enjoy.

I have seen over the last 6 months or more that people (including myself) say they compose music "by ear." Don't all composers do that? Beethoven after losing his hearing is the only person I know of that composed music that well without it being strictly "by ear."

My question is simply.. Don't we all write "by ear" regardless of the amount of training or theoretical knowledge that one might have been privied to?

(reworded to avoid confusion) :: Don't we all compose "by ear" regardless of the amount of training or theoretical knowledge that one might have been privied to?

Comments certainly welcome. This is something I would like to get others' opinions on.

Thank you.

[Anne Goodwin]

Interesting question Dankk, because I would be willing to place a bet that of all the composers on this forum I probably have the least 'ear' ability that you could possibly find. Nonetheless, I have enough musical innateness that I am willing to put myself on the line to 'critique' the music of others and of course, I actually have music on my page that proves I have 'composed.' Strictly speaking, of course I have had to use my ears to put the notes together and to actually form something that could be called a composition. However, if you were to ask me 'can I play by ear?', the answer would emphatically be "NO." Can I write by ear? Well, put a pencil and paper in front of me without an instrument and I am sure the results would be amusing. Put the instrument there and give me lots of quiet, reflective time and I will write a piece of music. In fact, I cannot wait until I can do this again. It has been awhile. :) Oh, and training and theoretical knowledge, I can tell you that without it, I would never have composed, not ever.

[Adrian Allan]

Combination of the two. Mental and intuitive.

So when I write a piano piece I basically improvise a tune. I do write it down though, I'm aware of the key it's in, and an awarness of such features gives me a mental option for the next stage. So I might think - perhaps I want this A minor tune to move E major. Or "perhaps these eigth notes should move to the bass next bar".

You will compose in such a way too and make such decisions. I suppose that for people that use music notation the options for progression are more clearly laid out due to a greater theoretical awareness of what's happening in the music. Having said all of that, sometimes the best ideas, eg key changes are arrived at purely by accident and experimentation. But there is no doubt that classical combination involves both rational and intuitive (by ear alone) decision making.

[Ray Kemp]

It's simples! when composing.
If one can use notation to score a piece of music that has never been played then that is definitely not done by ear.
Whereas if one records the notes, phrases, etc after playing them then that is composing by ear.

"by ear" is by definition connected to performance.
If not performing when writing but imagining the sound in ones head, that has nothing to do with ears. (at the time of writing)

My conclusion is partly drawn from the fact that many obviously highly educated music scholars here in the forum praise a piece of music where the recording is terrible because they aren't really listening to it as a recording but rather dissecting the music by shape, form and influences. They are imagining what the piece could or should sound like not the reality of "does" sound like. I am not saying one way is better than the other, they're just different.
Relying on ear as I do can be a curse.

[AndrewG]

What I do is almost purely improvised, that is, "by ear". Actually, this is not "writing", although I get a MIDI score which can be viewed and edited. My paradox is, the less I think of the form, keys, harmonies, series, themes etc, the better results are from the improvisation session. To make it more productive, I use simultaneously several piano keyboards and change up to 20 pre-set instruments "on the fly", getting sometimes a polyphony of 4 or 5 different instruments. Of course, some post-processing is necessary, which is mainly erasing what I do not like, adding accents and sometimes repeating something, e.g. in recapitulations.

[Ray Kemp]

AndrewG said:

Actually, this is not "writing", .

Yes Andrew,
Perhaps this discussion is more about defining the word "writing" rather than using ears.
Replacing writing with creating may be get us back on the "ear" thing.

[Anne Goodwin]

Well, Dankk used the word 'writing.' Being the literal person that I am, I responded. Dankk, do you want us to talk about 'writing' music or about 'creating' music?

Ray Kemp said:

AndrewG said:

Actually, this is not "writing", .

Yes Andrew,
Perhaps this discussion is more about defining the word "writing" rather than using ears.
Replacing writing with creating may be get us back on the "ear" thing.

[AndrewG]

I always find a good analogy between musical writing and natural language writing. During the writing, the author thinks and rethinks his thoughts, finds mental associations, subconsciously modeling the readers' minds, rereads his own text, finds new associations, corrects the text etc. He does not need audio rehearsals for completing and publishing his text. Then, his creation is accessible for millions of those who can read; they also do not need audio rehearsals.

The difference begins after the composition is ready. Only musicians are trained to read musical texts. So we cannot make our music accessible to non-musicians only by publishing musical texts; they need rehearsal/performance/audition etc.

[Anne Goodwin]

I suppose I jumped in too quickly here. I didn't understand earlier Ray what you meant by defining the word 'writing.' However, I am now recalling some conversations on this forum involving technology - which, as everyone knows - is not my subject and where there were discussions regarding musical 'language', I think involving MIDI. So, please just ignore me. I didn't mean to be rude - argumentative perhaps, but not rude. :)

EA Goodwin said:

Well, Dankk used the word 'writing.' Being the literal person that I am, I responded. Dankk, do you want us to talk about 'writing' music or about 'creating' music?

Ray Kemp said:

AndrewG said:

Actually, this is not "writing", .

Yes Andrew,
Perhaps this discussion is more about defining the word "writing" rather than using ears.
Replacing writing with creating may be get us back on the "ear" thing.

[Dankk]

I think that compose rather than write or create should be used. Write does imply literally scoring onto paper or by electronic means. When people ask if I write music I naturally say yes, not wanting to correct them at the risk of sounding hypercritical. Create is too broad a term IMO.

So the question now is: Don't we all compose "by ear" regardless of the amount of training or theoretical knowledge that one might have been privied to?

Thank you for your replies, interesting to read.

[Chris Alpiar]

well most use 'inner hearing' to hear melody, harmony, etc - even beethoven im sure. Some people who have a lot of theory but arent able to hear music can just write notes on paper (or in a notation prog) based on the harmony they learned and NOT from hearing it. I have heard several people on this forum that I could accuse this of. People who neglected ear training while excelling at theory. And you can generally hear the coldness in their music. But ultimitely they still 'composed' something, just thinking of it as a math equation or whatnot, didnt they? It may not be really musical but its still valid because when can you accuse someone of something that only they can know truly happened inside their head? ;-)

Dankk said:

I think that compose rather than write or create should be used. Write does imply literally scoring onto paper or by electronic means. When people ask if I write music I naturally say yes, not wanting to correct them at the risk of sounding hypercritical. Create is too broad a term IMO.

So the question now is: Don't we all compose "by ear" regardless of the amount of training or theoretical knowledge that one might have been privied to?

Thank you for your replies, interesting to read.

[Kristofer Emerig]

I think this is the most accurate and cogent answer I've read Adrian. It's almost invariably a admixture of varying proportions of the two.

Let's also not forget that some instrumentalists compose compelling works through an intimate, applied knowledge of their particular instrument, in the absence of theory or notation, by direct probing and exploration via performance. For those, the intermediate steps of writing, notation, or any abstract representation of music is void- performance is music. Even this type of musician-composer is undoubtedly applying unconscious theoretical principles of part writing and structural elements, although they may be more understood as patterns on a keyboard or fretboard which "work", rather than understood as abstract, notational theory.

This is why I wholeheartedly reject the notation that some, like Dankk says of himself, "lack theory", yet still manage to write compelling music. It is perhaps more accurate to say they lack knowledge of notation and abstract analysis.

Adrian Allan said:

Combination of the two. Mental and intuitive.
. But there is no doubt that classical combination involves both rational and intuitive (by ear alone) decision making.

[Albert De La Vega]

That is funny that you mention this. The only way to write or play by ear is to stick a pencil in your ear (and I don't recommend this) and write music down or press your lobe on a piano key and play!!! I see EA Goodwin wrote something very similar below.
Essentially, I agree that we ALL write or play by ear. For example, I play guitar fairly well and even though I have a decent grasp of guitar and music theory and I can sight read, I still sometimes stumble across a "bum" note that although unintentional, I actually like it and decide to keep it. I wouldn't be able to do that if I only used music theory for composition.
When I compose for piano or orchestra, I physically draw in the notes onto the staff and have SONAR play it back for me to listen. This is largely due to my limitations as a performer and piano player, but not only have I gotten used to it all of these years, I can HEAR what I just wrote and then add other parts I hear in my head.
And regarding Beethoven, he probably couldnt hear the notes playing in front of him, but my guess is that he heard every single note within the confines of his skull