My intent was not to place theory over the ability to listen and hear the music and I am sorry if I left that impression. My intent was first to show that theory and ear are not mutually exclusive, that in fact they are not necessarily two sides of the same coin. I think that what is most unfortunate is that most theory has been taught as paper work with only abstract moments of actual sound involved. Theory is more than just writing isolated notes on a staff or knowing "Every Good Boy Does Fine" or how to build a C7 b5 #9 or making a scale.
Theory involves Harmony - how chords are or have been put together and the various common patterns used. It involves Melody - how notes are put into patterns to create motives and themes and phrases and periods and entire compositions. Melody is about hearing a shape, hearing patterns that are repeated or varied by changing modes or repeated in sequence on different pitches. Its about Counterpoint -- how different melodies are put together, not just in fugues but even simple counter melodies. Theory is about Form -- not just the study of Sonata Form or Fugue or Opera, but hearing the form and structure of any piece, whether traditional or newly created by the composer. Theory is overall about sound, not written music, therefore even ear players can learn it without reference to the printed note.
And to be honest, I think that for over a century, music has been incorrectly taught -- particularly piano and organ. I say this because the methods that most teachers have used have dealt with both reading and playing at the same time. That is tantamount to expecting a baby who is just learning the language to only say the words that he/she can read. I did say that the "printed page is not music". Music only exists in sound. Granted, that sound may be in your head as you look at a score, but it still is a form of sound.
Nor was my intent to denigrate those who have exceptional ears. That is a blessing not to be taken lightly. And I would add that those who do acquire their music by ear with great ease actually know a substantial amount of theory (though they do not realize it.) They may not know all of the terminology, but they inately understand the of music. They know the common patterns and vocabulary of various styles. They know that there are forms and structures -- they may not know if it is a Sonata or a Toccata, but they do hear how the material is put together.
As I stated, Music is a language. Just as an isolated letter of the alphabet (say "C" or "G") has no meaning other than a representation of a particular sound(s), an isolated note (say "A") has no meaning other than to represent a frequencey of 440 hertz or one halves or doubles. It only gains its meaning in relationship to the notes around it. In language "C" only does anything when we put it with other letters. Heck we don't even know for sure what it sounds like until it has other letters -- "Car" or "Receive" In music, the "A" has a different meaning in a motive like "C - A - F" (the old NBC theme) than in a pattern "G - A - B - C" where it is only passing a passing tone filling in the space between G and C.
Those who have more theory than ear practice and get your music mostly through the printed page, you can develop your ear and you can use your theory to help. As it has been stated "listen and hear deeply" Here are some ideas to try. Pick a favorite piece of music -- something not too long at first (a symphony can be daunting). First listen to the overall piece. Listen for the parts that are similar and the parts that are different -- i.e. Listen for the overall form. Create a map of it -- you can do the "A A B A C..." bit or name them as colors or animals (this song was Duck Duck Goose Duck Fox). Store that pattern away in your mind or in a notebook. (As you listen to more different pieces, you will find some patterns are repeated).
Now listen carefully to the melody of the first section. What is its shape -- does it start high and descend, start low an ascend, does it go up and down, does it end higher than it started, lower than it started, between the high and low notes? Does the melody have a lot of leaps or is it fairly smooth and stepwise? Draw a map of the shape. Are there repeated parts within or does it constantly change from beginning to end? Now compare this map to the next part(s) that you determined was the same or similar. Is the melody the exact same or does it vary? Then do the same with the sections that are different. How different? Does it use some of the same patterns or is it completely different?
Next you can start picking out the melody at your instrument using your map as a guide. If your map showed fairly flowing almost stepwise motion, you are not going to pick out huge leaps and vice versa. If your map showed patterns that were repeated on the same pitch or different, once you have determined the first pattern, you only need to determine the starting pitch for the next ones -- you don't have to pick out individual notes.
You can then do similar ideas for the bass line, the harmonies, any counter melodies etc. And this can be done without even using one bit of musical jargon. Then try the same on another piece and not only relate the parts within the piece but determine if there are any similarities between Piece A and Piece B. For the "theory trained" that rely on printed music, it is a good means to truly apply those isolated bits of "text book" stuff. What we are doing is a kind of "reverse engineering" of what the composer has done.
Let me give y'all a quick example. I'll use "Over the Rainbow" The main melody has 23 notes.:
Listening for the overall form. If you listen carefully, you will hear "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" Section and then repeated, then the "Someday I'll Wish" section followed by a "Somewhere" section and then ending with the "Someday" section (though the words change) A A B A B.
The first melody -- "Somewhere Ov-" is a leap followed by a step down and then the Pattern "(Ov)-er the rainbow" which goes down (its a third) from "Ov-"then up fairly stepwise. Next is "Way Up High" -- Leap then step down -- similar to "Somewhere Ov-". Next "There's A Land" -- that leap then step (pattern 1 again) "(Land) that I heard of" (pattern two), "once in a lulla-" pattern 2, "-by" the grand finale.
In listening, you may note that the after the initial leap, the melody descends basically in a scale. Now, rather than having to pick out 23 notes, you only have to determine the size of the leaps (two sizes) and their starting pitches (just two different starting pitches) and add the appropriate pattern 2 after each one.
I'm sorry if this post has been a bit lengthy. It is sometimes difficult to get out certain ideas in a post without leaving things out (which I probably have anyway). As before, I don't mean to indicate that there is a right way and a wrong way to learn and perform music.
