Is it a bonus to be able to read music ??

Rigsby

I thought this would make for an interesting debate. The idea came from this thread (see post # 22) http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055778947&page=2

I can not believe that someone would be proud not to be able to read music.

I know it depends on the type of music being played, and how far you want to go with it, as in making a living from it, like a session musician. I agree that you will get by, without being able to read, playing certain music. Nonetheless, I think it is definitely worth a person's while to be able to read music, not necessarily "on the fly", but to be able to figure it out from looking at a chart.

FWIW, I cant read myself at present, but I'm learning.

Owen

Reading music is fine for me when I'm playing classical on the violin, but I never really think to do it when playing guitar. I just listen to what I'm supposed to play, learn it, regurgitate it. It doesn't seem to be a pre-requisite for being a guitar player, and I've only ever had to read sheet music once.

trad

I play ITM with a group learning sets as a session group. Some read music, some read ABc's and some just play by ear. The problem with some of those who read music is that they do not learn the tunes and are lost if they haven't got the right page open in front of them.

Rigsby

PaintDoctor wrote: »

It doesn't seem to be a pre-requisite for being a guitar player,

What happens if you are a session musician on a recording date, presented with a chart for a piece of music (jazz say) that you have never heard before ?

Rigsby

trad wrote: »

The problem with some of those who read music is that they do not learn the tunes and are lost if they haven't got the right page open in front of them.

"Some" .. I agree. Jazz musicians generally dont have this problem.

Libertine2002

Well obviously its a bonus to be able to read music. Its a bonus to have any skill whatsoever. I suppose a better way to put it would be is it necessary to be able. Definitely not in my opinion. I teach drums so I suppose I have to but for pure performance purposes all you need to able to do is entertain. You don't even need to be able to play to entertain! Music is subjective, so are the skills required.

I read that other post, about the guys "proud not to be able to read music". I've come across people who are proud that they have made a successful music career without being able to read music, but to be proud of ignorance is absolutely absurd.

novarock

As a guitarist/Bassist the only reason you would "need" to be able to read would be as a session musician. Otherwise its just a personal accomplishment. It wont make you a better player by any means.

DerKaiser

It's a necessity if you want to be a pro, certain gigs you get will be drop of the hat and they will just plonk the dots down in front of you

I myself have gotten lazy, used to be able to read, I still can but very slowly...

Rigsby

novarock wrote: »

As a guitarist/Bassist the only reason you would "need" to be able to read would be as a session musician. Otherwise its just a personal accomplishment. It wont make you a better player by any means.

True to a certain extant. Though if you were in a jazz band and wanted to write a new piece of music, how would you convey this to the rest of the band, if none of you could read ?

novarock

Rigsby wrote: »

True to a certain extant. Though if you were in a jazz band and wanted to write a new piece of music, how would you convey this to the rest of the band, if none of you could read ?

Touché.. But again I would consider Jazz to be session music.. (Ducks!)

all the stars

Rigsby wrote: »

I thought this would make for an interesting debate. The idea came from this thread (see post # 22) http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055778947&page=2

I can not believe that someone would be proud not to be able to read music.

I know it depends on the type of music being played, and how far you want to go with it, as in making a living from it, like a session musician. I agree that you will get by, without being able to read, playing certain music. Nonetheless, I think it is definitely worth a person's while to be able to read music, not necessarily "on the fly", but to be able to figure it out from looking at a chart.

FWIW, I cant read myself at present, but I'm learning.

Yeah, reading music has been something of an obstacle for me. Many things i could not apply for, as recent as yesterday - looking for female saprano, reading sheet music essential. While i can somewhat follow it, i'm not competant it it.
Have only started learning in space of the last year.
Its so very helpful to be able to read it- but most of what i have been part of so far has been by ear.
Seems to vary a lot opinion on it... i've heard of some musicians 'looking down' on others for not being able to sheet read.

Rigsby

novarock wrote: »

Touché.. But again I would consider Jazz to be session music.. (Ducks!)

You said you played bass, so I'm sure you are aware of the famous session bassist Carol Kaye. She played on lots of famous songs including the "Beach Boys" (that's her on the intro to "Good Vibrations" ). Do you think she would have been so successful if she could not read ?

Dr Gradus

There's plenty of great musicians who have made successful careers for themselves without having learned to read music. Some people can just play by ear well enough that they don't feel they need it as a requirement. But I don't why anyone would be proud of 'not' being able to read it. It's infinitely helpful for sharing your musical ideas, for writing four part vocal parts or pieces for multiple instruments or anything really. It's better to know than to ignore, and anyone can learn it, it's the same as learning a new language i guess.

novarock

Rigsby wrote: »

You said you played bass, so I'm sure you are aware of the famous session bassist Carol Kaye. She played on lots of famous songs including the "Beach Boys" (that's her on the intro to "Good Vibrations" ). Do you think she would have been so successful if she could not read ?

You've picked me up wrong. I myself can read, I would be a bit rusty now, but as a song writing musician in a band being able to read is of no benefit to me now. My point is if you are going down the road of a session player you should absolutely be able to read. Otherwise it is just another facet of your hobby to enjoy. My other point is that it wont make you a better bass player in the physical sense, but you will have a better understanding of the instrument..

edit: Also sight reading took me so long to accomplish that I was definitely proud to be able to do it. I have only played through one piece blindly and with no accompanying instruments ever, and it was very difficult. (while getting lessons from Bill Bergin) It turned out that I had never heard the song before.

Im rambling here. Definitely no reason you shouldnt be proud, but unless its necessary for your music career choice it is about self accomplishment, and there is nothing wrong with that

Rigsby

novarock wrote: »

You've picked me up wrong. I myself can read, I would be a bit rusty now, but as a song writing musician in a band being able to read is of no benefit to me now. My point is if you are going down the road of a session player you should absolutely be able to read. Otherwise it is just another facet of your hobby to enjoy. My other point is that it wont make you a better bass player in the physical sense, but you will have a better understanding of the instrument..

edit: Also sight reading took me so long to accomplish that I was definitely proud to be able to do it. I have only played through one piece blindly and with no accompanying instruments ever, and it was very difficult. (while getting lessons from Bill Bergin) It turned out that I had never heard the song before.

Im rambling here. Definitely no reason you shouldnt be proud, but unless its necessary for your music career choice it is about self accomplishment, and there is nothing wrong with that

Fair play to you for sticking with it and learning to read. I do realise that it is not necessary to read in order to enjoy and play music. Nonetheless, it does add to your knowledge and understanding of it. I guess I was so taken aback by the "proud not to be able to read" quote in the other thread, that I had to see if this was the norm. Thankfully, so far, according to this thread, it's not.

Savman

Rigsby wrote: »

"Some" .. I agree. Jazz musicians generally dont have this problem.

I beg to differ. I often wonder where this notion comes from that jazz muso's are some supreme beings who know the theory of music inside out. I've met a few jazz heads who would struggle with the most basic of three chord pop tunes if it wasn't charted out in minute detail.

As for the quintessential jazz "solos"...pfft. In the good old days, they were known as "bum notes". :rolleyes:

sceptre

<temp test - please ignore>

Rigsby

Savman wrote: »

I beg to differ. I often wonder where this notion comes from that jazz muso's are some supreme beings who know the theory of music inside out. I've met a few jazz heads who would struggle with the most basic of three chord pop tunes if it wasn't charted out in minute detail.

As for the quintessential jazz "solos"...pfft. In the good old days, they were known as "bum notes". :rolleyes:

I dont know where you heard that jazz musos were superior beings. You are right, there is always the exception to the rule, but by and large, I'm sure you will find that the vast majority of jazz musicians are able to both improvise and read. It is almost a prerequisite for this type of music. Again, there will always be the odd exception.

Malice

Rigsby wrote: »

I can not believe that someone would be proud not to be able to read music.

I don't understand that myself but people can take pride in the oddest things .

Rigsby wrote:

I think it is definitely worth a person's while to be able to read music, not necessarily "on the fly", but to be able to figure it out from looking at a chart.

What do you mean by a chart?

I can't read standard notation and while it's not something I'm proud, I'm certainly not ashamed of it either. It brings back memories of hated piano lessons as a kid.

Reading standard notation is not something I've ever needed to do in a band situation. If I'm playing a cover song with a band it's pretty straightforward to get the tab or, worst case scenario, tab it out myself. For originals, I'd either jam it out as a band or take a recording of the other instruments and tab out a guitar or bass part to it as necessary.

Software such as Guitar Pro also makes it very simple to write something using tab notation and automatically get the standard notation generated. You can write something for the guitar and immediately print it off and hand it to someone to play on the piano.

Rigsby

Malice_ wrote: »

I don't understand that myself but people can take pride in the oddest things .

What do you mean by a chart?

I can't read standard notation and while it's not something I'm proud, I'm certainly not ashamed of it either. It brings back memories of hated piano lessons as a kid.

Reading standard notation is not something I've ever needed to do in a band situation. If I'm playing a cover song with a band it's pretty straightforward to get the tab or, worst case scenario, tab it out myself. For originals, I'd either jam it out as a band or take a recording of the other instruments and tab out a guitar or bass part to it as necessary.

Software such as Guitar Pro also makes it very simple to write something using tab notation and automatically get the standard notation generated. You can write something for the guitar and immediately print it off and hand it to someone to play on the piano.

Chart.. as in sheet music. It all depends on the type of music you play, whether you need to read or not. In some of the more complex music ( I wont mention Jazz again in order not to annoy "Savman" ), it can save both time and frustration. Case in point are the band "Steely Dan". Most of their material is written down initially. Then when the musicians have the framework of the song nailed, it's left to them to put their personal stamp on it.

Savman

Rigsby wrote: »

I'm sure you will find that the vast majority of jazz musicians are able to both improvise and read.

Most definitely not, just because someone says they play jazz does not exclude them from the basic human/musician principle that you still have to be able to do it well. It's an art form in itself, however there are many weak players who try to cover up their mistakes by simply calling themselves jazz players. It's insulting to the genre.

If you really want to believe that jazz musicians are excellent improvisers by default...well I think you are either being very naive or have been sold a dummy.

Improvisation is not genre specific.

Malice

Rigsby wrote: »

Chart.. as in sheet music.

Ah okay, I thought you meant something like a chord chart.

Rigsby

Savman wrote: »

If you really want to believe that jazz musicians are excellent improvisers by default...well I think you are either being very naive or have been sold a dummy.

I'm not talking here about a jazz band that you might find playing on a park band stand on a sunny afternoon. I'm talking about the big names in jazz, Davis, Mingus, Powell, Evans, Coleman, Coltrane etc. or the pro. If you say these are not good improvisers, then I give up.

Again, I admit that there are weak players in jazz as there are in all genres. Why do you keep highlighting the exceptions ? It's not a perfect world. All I'm basically saying is that in order to play jazz to a reasonable standard, you have to have a fairly good handle on reading music. The improvisation skill is a separate one that also has to be mastered. IMO most jazz players ( NOT ALL I emphasise,) have mastered both.

Out of curiosity, name me some jazz players that you consider to be weak.

Magic Eight Ball

I'm a drummer and personally couldn't imagine not being able to read or write music.
I find it so much easier to be able to write down ideas I have floating about in my head in a tanagable form.

Savman

Rigsby wrote: »

I'm not talking here about a jazz band that you might find playing on a park band stand on a sunny afternoon. I'm talking about the big names in jazz, Davis, Mingus, Powell, Evans, Coleman, Coltrane etc. or the pro.

Ah right. In that case forget everything I've just posted :D

Sorry didn't realise you was on about the masters

raindog.promo

I think reading music gives a better appreciation for rhythms in music (imho), where bass and drums are concerned.
There is also a danger of getting too caught up in the theory over making good noise.

Rigsby

raindog.promo wrote: »

I think reading music gives a better appreciation for rhythms in music (imho), where bass and drums are concerned.

Very true. A lot of people say they get by OK with tab, and they are possibly right. Tab is OK to a point, but it does not give you the tempo, whether the notes are whole, quarter, eight, or sixteenths etc. All tab shows is the position of notes on the fretboard.

odonopenmic

I agree that I don't know why anyone would be proud not to be able to read however, I would wholeheartedly be proud that I don't have to rely on reading.

I've done gigs with people who literally can't play a note unless there's sheet music in front of them. Once it's down they can play anything you throw at them but I find this absurd and if this were my affliction, I would not be at all proud (courting controversy here, I know ). Even in terms of dynamics, I think it's terrible that someone needs an ff to know to play loud - a good musician, irrespective of methods, should know by the feel of the piece.

I think maybe the whole argument goes back to whether you'd rather be able to play by ear or read. If you can do both, that's obviously the best situation and I envy those who can do both equally well. But if you believe that playing by ear is best, I could see why someone would (although badly put, in my opinion) be 'proud' not to be able to read, especially if they are playing with a band (i.e. not some types of session work, not jazz, not classical). Hope that makes sense!

Rigsby

odonopenmic wrote: »

I agree that I don't know why anyone would be proud not to be able to read however, I would wholeheartedly be proud that I don't have to rely on reading.

I've done gigs with people who literally can't play a note unless there's sheet music in front of them. Once it's down they can play anything you throw at them but I find this absurd and if this were my affliction, I would not be at all proud (courting controversy here, I know ). Even in terms of dynamics, I think it's terrible that someone needs an ff to know to play loud - a good musician, irrespective of methods, should know by the feel of the piece.

I think maybe the whole argument goes back to whether you'd rather be able to play by ear or read. If you can do both, that's obviously the best situation and I envy those who can do both equally well. But if you believe that playing by ear is best, I could see why someone would (although badly put, in my opinion) be 'proud' not to be able to read, especially if they are playing with a band (i.e. not some types of session work, not jazz, not classical). Hope that makes sense!

I agree with most of this. The ideal thing is to be able to both read and play by ear. I know there are lots of people who cant play a note unless it's written down in front of them. In this case the fault/weakness lies with the person, and not the reading itself.

raindog.promo

A musician being someone who plays music. It's not necessarily a fault that they can't play something unless it's in notation on front of them.

The same as a speaker only being able to read from autocue, no ad libs.

All depends on your point of view and joy you get from playing.

Rigsby

raindog.promo wrote: »

A musician being someone who plays music. It's not necessarily a fault that they can't play something unless it's in notation on front of them.

The same as a speaker only being able to read from autocue, no ad libs.

All depends on your point of view and joy you get from playing.

I agree to an extant. But music is also supposed to be a form of self expression. Hard to do that, when you are regurgitating something note for note that someone else has written.

raindog.promo

But music is also supposed to be a form of self expression. Hard to do that, when you are regurgitating something note for note that someone else has written.

Take (for the sake of argument) someone who plays a violin, is in love with the sound of it. They play only classical music on it and are quite happy to do so. I would consider them a musician. Not a composer, perhaps.

when you are regurgitating something note for note that someone else has written.

That's a bit harsh, I would say:

when you are performing something note for note that someone else has written.

Their self expression may also be evident in how they perform the piece, possibly uptempo or their syncopations.


Back to the OP, Being able to read, write or understand written music to any degree makes it easier to communicate your ideas to other musicians I think. Drummer from Pink Floyd once remarked that it's the only profession which people can go into with little or no training (ie - ability to read music, etc) and be mega successful. (or words to that effect)

Rigsby

raindog.promo wrote: »

Their self expression may also be evident in how they perform the piece, possibly uptempo or their syncopations.

It depends on the situation in which the music is being played. For example, in an orchestra, not only is your self expression dampened by reading some one else's music, but the conductor is also dictating the tempo and syncopations.

Rigsby

Rigsby wrote: »

It depends on the situation in which the music is being played. For example, in an orchestra, not only is your self expression dampened by reading some one else's music, but the conductor is also dictating the tempo and syncopations.

You wouldn't call a classical violinist a musician then?

raindog.promo

Everything everywhere depends on the situation in which it is happening though. I don't know enough about the workings of an orchestra to comment.

I would imagine though, as with most things you (not you personally ) can make generalisations on any subject off hand and only when you get in close to it do you see the little intricacies which make all the difference.

mr biazzi

Whatswith this debate, off course it would be a bonus to read music. Some times you wont have to sometimes you might.
An advantage off course.

Rigsby

Papa Smut wrote: »

You wouldn't call a classical violinist a musician then?

From the point of view of music as entertainment, yes, for music as self expression, no, unless he/she is playing a self composed piece.

raindog.promo

Music can be used as a form of self expression. It isn't it's be all and end all.

Paint can be used as a form of self expression. It can also be used to add a splash of colour to a room. The person with the brush in both situations is a painter.

(I knew I shouldn't have eaten that packet of powdered Philosophers Stone I found in the parking lot.)

Rigsby

raindog.promo wrote: »

Music can be used as a form of self expression. It isn't it's be all and end all.

Paint can be used as a form of self expression. It can also be used to add a splash of colour to a room. The person with the brush in both situations is a painter.

I thought the picture painter was an artist !!

Rigsby

raindog.promo wrote: »

Music can be used as a form of self expression. It isn't it's be all and end all.

Why do you think everyone from Bach to Bono writes music ? OK apart from trying to become rich that is ?

raindog.promo

Rigsby wrote: »

I thought the picture painter was an artist !!

Con-artist more like

I think the equivalent in the music world is "composer/song-writer" not musician.

Or the term "musician" is broad and encompasses a lot of different ideas as to what it means.

I think it's a bonus to be able to read music as it gives you another angle to look at and breakdown a piece, understand the piece, and can give you ideas you perhaps may not have had otherwise, amongst many other things.

In learning theory, there is the danger of getting trapped more in the theory of a piece when writing as opposed to wether it sounds good or not. Without being able to read music there may also be the danger of getting trapped into playing the same "box patterns" on the fret board again and again.

The more you know about something, the better I would imagine.

raindog.promo

Rigsby wrote: »

Why do you think everyone from Bach to Bono writes music ? OK apart from trying to become rich that is ?

My point was that playing the music could be self expression in itself as opposed to writing music being the only form of self expression. Again, broad terms encompassing many different perceptions.

Rigsby

Yeah, I basically agree with both your previous posts. Music is very broad, and in some cases putting your own stamp on some one else's music can be a form of self expression.

raindog.promo

Rigsby wrote: »

Yeah, I basically agree with both your previous posts. Music is very broad, and in some cases putting your own stamp on some one else's music can be a form of self expression.

Cool, now paint my room.

(BTW, I do realise I've contradicted myself a bit in my varying posts)

Rigsby

raindog.promo wrote: »

(BTW, I do realise I've contradicted myself a bit in my varying posts)

Comes with the territory in a prolonged debate like this

OK-Cancel-Apply

Reading music can only ever be a bonus. There's no way it can be a bad thing, especially if you want to make music your profession. Even if you don't need it while playing in your own band, you may find yourself doing session work at some point, which certainly beats sitting behind a desk, right?

DerKaiser

Right, I'm reading some b@ll@cks here now, people are talking about orchestral musicians not being musicians when in fact they are the cream of musicianship? This thread has gone over the cuckoos nest

Classical music is a discipline, writing songs that sound like U2 is not, time to get real here people

odonopenmic

Bit offended with the classical violinist jibe! as I was trying to get at before, you put your self-expressive stamp on things by having a feel of the music.

Anyway, I think the main point I'd make is that someone who can only play music with the music in front of them is a bad thing. Same way some doolally singer songwriter without a sensible concept of theory or musicianship, 'just doin their thing man' is equally crap.

As with everything, it's not a simple dichotomy - one thing or the other. A good musician, in any genre, at any level, will understand what they're playing to some degree and at the same time, will play by feel and what they think it ought to go like. That to me is a good musician and you can't be a good musician relying solely on ear or on sight.

I do think the point about how classically trained musicians are perceived is correct though. There is a bit of reverse snobbery, especially if you wind up playing with bands and classical becomes a dirty word. I suppose out of that then, some people will wear it like a badge that they can't read music and that they weren't trained and that despite it all, are still great musicians. Fair play! Just lose the attitude :cool:

Aridstarling

I wish I had the patience to get better at reading music. I can read but very slowly and my knowledge of musical theory is I suppose only a little above average. I tend to figure things out, but I always wish I could have done it a little faster, a little easier and I think that would come with a greater knowledge of classical training.

I recently had the pleasure of attending a rehearsal with some top notch jazz musicians. They really showed me how far above the average rock/indie/pop musician they are. Chopping and changing songs, making adjustments to their scores as they went, eral casual musicianship which was a real insight into a more skilled area.

All that being said, its something that rarely gets in my way, for the way that I work. And it would be the same for most musicians I know, or play in most of the bands that I like. Its a different set of priorities really. Ability to connect with an audience really is top of the list for me. Of course its an advantage though, quite a big one too in my opinon, no matter what facet of music you're in.

Fabo

totally irrelevant. what you need to write good music is be able to play good (dont have to be jimi hendrix), have a good imagination, know how to create good hooks, how chords link together and also be able to experiment. the guys who wrote day in the life and fairytale of ny could not read music....

DerKaiser

Like someone said earlier, composers and musicians are being confused here.........