rslaing

[quote name='dlloyd' post='480343' date='May 5 2009, 08:24 PM']Bipolar I. Jaco went full blown on a number of occassions. There is that, plus hypomania can make you compulsively driven to achieve particular goals. Some of which can be infuriatingly stupid.[/quote] Apologies, I should have made myself a little clearer. When artistic bipolar individuals are at their most productive, it is normally because they are hypomanic ( a bipolar II effect) , and have a semblance of reason to varying degrees. Hypomania can produce extensive periods of heightened creativity, and so can not so serious episodes of mild to moderate depression. An episode of bipolar I is not normally very productive, because as you suggest being "full blown" is generally when ALL reason and sensibility disappears and the sufferer tends to go on a course of self destruction.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='480334' date='May 5 2009, 08:17 PM']Sorry, what part of this are you not getting? I don't have a problem with your opinions or your theories on how reading music is a benefit. I have a problem with you using that as a platform to slag off people who don't read music. If you don't think you've been doing that, I invite you to check back through your own posts in this thread.[/quote] Can I suggest that you try to stay on topic here? I really do not have to respond to personal stuff. But I will opinionate/debate with you forever about the topic if you want. If you want to start a topic off about the subject you seem to be mostly interested in, which is me and my opinions about why I think learning to read music is critical, then go ahead. I have already stated my case about musicians and their lack of all roundedness because they can't read music. And I think I have given a valid justification in a large % of my postings as to why I think that. I have read the replies from people who can't read music and so far, have not read anything to change my mind.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='480328' date='May 5 2009, 08:08 PM']You still haven't clarified why you feel your opinion licences you to openly criticise large sections of the musical community. It's one thing to advance that you think yours is the superior method. It's quite another to take the piss out of those who don't follow it.[/quote] I have the right to express my beliefs and opinions, as do you. I don't make them personal or offensive. Get over it please and just give constructive argument. And take the p**s if you like............as I said (paraphrase) earlier, no one can make you you feel inferior/insulted/whatever without your consent. If you have a problem with my opinons/theories... just ignore them. I won't feel offended.

[quote name='dlloyd' post='480319' date='May 5 2009, 08:00 PM']He probably would... vastly inflated self esteem/delusions of grandeur are part and parcel of hypomanic episodes. The guy was ill. [url="http://www.webmd.com/bipolar-disorder/guide/hypomania-mania-symptoms"]http://www.webmd.com/bipolar-disorder/guid...-mania-symptoms[/url][/quote] Many great musicians and artists produced their best work (and their worst) because they were mentally ill - particularly if bipolar II (as we know it now). Not least because when hypomanic, they slept less and were able to produce an inordinate amount of work as a result of their "abnormal" creative instinct.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='480316' date='May 5 2009, 07:56 PM']I don't get it. If you don't want to start stuff, then why make comments like that? You KNOW there are people on here who primarily transmit their musical ideas aurally (and have no problem doing it), so why belittle it or make fun of it? Or maybe [i]you[/i] find it really hard to work that way, so you genuinely think it's that hard for other people?[/quote] Sorry to disappoint..........I spend a huge amount of time transcribing, for ongoing personal developmental purposes as well as occasionally to earn a crust - so I do have a very good ear. It is much EASIER to learn aurally, which IMO is why most people (as I mentioned earlier) take the course of least resistance and don't bother to learn to read or write music. However, it is a major benefit to any musician to be able to read music..period. And I have not seen an argument yet in this thread that could convince me otherwise. Don't take it personally please, or get abusive. It is just my opinion.

[quote name='endorka' post='480268' date='May 5 2009, 07:07 PM']Are they not the same thing, just to different degrees? For example, one may be able to sight read a gig where the music is relatively simple (or familiar in style), but have to prepare more complex music (or music in an unfamiliar style) in advance? Jennifer[/quote] Yes, they are the same thing but to differing degrees. Good point IMO. I suppose the analogy would be that the complex stuff is not as easily interpreted because you don't come across it as often so when the sheet music it stares you in the face it takes a bit more working out. I did mention earlier, and was ridiculed accordingly, that a musician should really stretch themselves as much as possible in all areas of the craft, if not only for the purpose if making the easy stuff even easier. But that would depend on how much you want to develop yourself. Learn to sight read difficult stuff and the not-so-difficult stuff becomes easier???.................. Pastorius, for example, reckons that his superior skill (and he wasn't shy in mentioning consistently that he was the "greatest bass player in the world" - perhaps he wouldn't think so if he was around today) was because he studied Simandl, books 1 and 2, and made a habit of sitting down regularly and transcribing the most difficult pieces music that he heard. His abilities from these studies led him to studying Bach and other classical composers, which greatly influenced his playing and style. A great example of the benefits of being able to read and write music if ever there was one. Transcribing improves your aural skills no end. If the music of the classical greats was not written down, we would not have been blessed with Jaco's contribution to musical history, as brief as it was. His interpretation of Bach is unique, yet the parts he studied before applying his individualism were only available because they were written in standard musical notation. Without doubt, and in spite of the protestations of people who don't read music, this approach produced a very innovative and brilliant musician. And the present standard of many of the great players we listen to today is in no small way due to how Pastorius educated himself and made the bass more than just a backing instrument. Of course, this is just my humble opinion.................

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='480102' date='May 5 2009, 05:10 PM']Don't get me wrong, learning too much theory (and I include learning to read in this) sends you down a path of jazz-w***ery. However, if you want to make money out of playing bass, the most likely avenue is session work. I've never disagreed that learning to read is great for a session musician. However, a side-effect will be a hideously self-indulgent originals side project churning out jazz muzak. Personally, I have no desire to be a session musician, but if that's your bag, then learn to [s]site[/s] YOU MEAN SIGHT read.[/quote] Why bother to learn to read at all when you always hum, whistle or sing your ideas to your band mates, and they can then spend an inordinate amount of time trying to interpret what you are going on about? Then you can build a library of stale numbers (well they will be by the time you have learned them via the humming, la-la-la, "let's listen to the cd again lads" method) that everyone in the band will be bored with and then you can start on the cycle again Hopefully I won't start off another war here, but SIGHT reading is an essential skill too. If not just for the purpose of learning music that is important to you - very quickly. It's also cheaper than having to source the number you are trying to learn, maybe by buying the cd, or more than likely pirating it and copying it to all your band-mates and thereby scoring a double whammy by depriving the copyright owners/record company - who have provided the facility and financing - of any income? "However, a side-effect will be a hideously self-indulgent originals side project churning out jazz muzak." What is that supposed to mean? If it wasn't for people producing original music and sounds (whatever the genre), and having the ability to transmit their ideas by either technology, or more importantly by the WRITTEN element (for posterity and accurate reproduction of their ingenuity) you wouldn't even have heard anywhere near the amount of music you might have listened to. Maybe you could give us an idea of your preferred choice of music, and reasons for it, so we can have a greater understanding of your critical posts? That would be very interesting.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479169' date='May 4 2009, 05:57 PM']Yeah, him and Ray Charles. Creatively limited no-marks they are. Didn't have access to the universal language of music. It's suprising they got [i]anything[/i] done, really.[/quote] Both Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles (along with George Shearing) apparently used a special form of braille notation developed specially for the purpose. It was developed by Louis Braille because allegedly, he was no slouch musically either, and saw the importance of being able to communicate ideas non-aurally even when visually impaired.

" You would not study a language without studying the alphabet. "It's leaving anyone who wants to do music in the future with a severe disadvantage - a handicap." From the [url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2517271/Pupils-can-get-A-in-GCSE-music-without-reading-a-note.html"]Daily Telegraph[/url] 09 Aug 2008 Pupils can get an A grade in GCSE music without being able to read a note, a study has found, leading to accusations the subject was being made easier. By Stephen Adams, Arts Correspondent Last Updated: 9:40AM BST 09 Aug 2008 Only a low proportion of marks are now dedicated to being able to read or write sheet music. None of the main examination boards awards more than 20 per cent of its total marks to being able to read sheet music, BBC Music Magazine discovered. In the past students would not have been able to gain top marks without being able to read sheet music, with questions requiring an explicit knowledge of the system, such as being able to set a verse to music on a page of empty staves. Leading musicians have criticised the apparent dumbing-down. Julian Lloyd Webber, the cellist, said it was like trying to "study a language without studying the alphabet". The main exam boards - Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations (OCR), Edexcel and the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) - all require pupils to sit papers in composition, performance and listening. Compositions submitted to the OCR can be recorded and require no score, the study found. The other two main boards do require a score or sorts, but Edexcel does not mark it, and scores submitted to the AQA do not have to take the form of sheet music. None of the exam boards require performances to be made from sheet music. A knowledge of sheet music is needed for the listening papers, but to such a small extent that pupils can afford to ignore those questions and still get a top mark, the magazine concluded. Lloyd Webber said GCSE music was now failing to equip young musicians with the basics of the trade. Describing the situation as "ridiculous", he said: "It makes no sense at all. You would not study a language without studying the alphabet. "It's leaving anyone who wants to do music in the future with a severe disadvantage - a handicap." He said "a system of notation that has been developed over hundreds and hundreds of years and has stood the test of time" was being ignored because of "a move to make things easier". He commented: "But unfortunately life is not easy. You have got to learn the basics. You have got to learn to walk before you can run. This is the very basics of learning music." Pupils are now struggling to make the step up from GCSE to AS level music, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) admitted in a report last year. Figures show that almost five out of six students who take GCSE music have dropped it by the time they reach the second year of A-levels. Lloyd Webber said: "They go out because suddenly it gets tough. If they had learnt it naturally at the beginning they would find it much easier to go on to A-level." Damon Albarn, the classically trained pop star and former lead singer with 'Britpop' group Blur, told BBC Music Magazine: "I think anyone interested in music should be forced to learn the discipline." Ofqual, the examinations regulator, defended GCSE music, saying it was "designed to assess a broad range of skills and abilities." The spokesman said: "A GCSE in music requires students to demonstrate their learning in a number of key areas and the subject criteria states that staff notation must be included in all specifications."

[quote name='dlloyd' post='479551' date='May 4 2009, 11:36 PM']Because you're missing the wood for the trees. Don't get me wrong... I'm probably more obsessed by music theory than any other person on this forum, but there's a point where you have to admit that some of it is entirely unnecessary for most of our purposes. I mean, I've yet to find a use for enigmatic scale, or the petrushka chord, or the neapolitan sixth... it's there if I ever need it, but I've never needed it. They're as relevant to popular music as Klezmer modes or Indian Ragas are to Blues players. Would Django Reinhardt have been a better musician if he had a full understanding of Gamelan? Would Hendrix have been a better musician if he could have read?[/quote] I am not obsessed with music theory. There has to be a balance. And some of it being unnecessary is not the point in my opinion. You have to understand as much as possible so you know what to discard, and retain what is relevant to what you want to do. Hendrix - innovative different, and talented, but not necessarily a great musician. Big difference. It's also a question of taste. Miles Davis actually said he once wasted a whole afternoon with Hendrix talking about varying aspects of his musicality because Hendrix could not translate his musical attributes in to words or the written detail. Hendrix admitted after this that he wished he had a greater understanding of what he was able to produce so that he could explain himself in a better way instead of having to sing or play his ideas to get the message over in a non playing scenario. Miles Davis (not one of my favourites by the way) was a huge innovator along with Bill Evans and Charlie Parker, Sonny Rollins etc etc. All of these guys could turn up anywhere and play anything, such was their musicality and understanding of music. They could all read music too. But didn't have to when playing live - it was a handy tool, that's all.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='479549' date='May 4 2009, 11:33 PM']If you read my posts you'll find that at times and for certain reasons I have been as strong an advocate for the necessity in music for reading skills as you have, so I wonder why you find it necessary to reiterate points that you have already made. I'm asking no more of this debate than that people find merit in what others have to say. I wholeheartedly agree with your points on convenience but having been as close to Zappas music as I have (played with 2 of his band members and toured a show of his music, and an orchestral premier of new music in homage to his classical side) But since you ask "why did Zappa orchestrate" you know I know the answer (unless you don't read my posts) I would answer with another question: Why through the history of his output did he employ non readers like Ike? Do you think it's because even someone of his standing ability and genius didn't consider non formally trained musicians to be "lazy, can't be arsed" and all the other extremely denigrating remarks you've made about non readers. Many of your points carry weight, some of your terminology is uncalled for. As for the conductor reading from a score, yes he does but the variety of performances emanating from the myriad recordings that have been made suggest that the score is not quite enough.... Why because humanity, expression, personality is required... none of which is captured on the page.[/quote] Don't take this personally. I have always found that if a "non reader" has talent, they can fit in ok in to an organised band of people who can follow the dots. I have worked with many singers (vocalists?) who have a superb ear and are brilliant performers, as long as there is a structured and disciplined back line for them to work off. But take the same people and try to integrate them in to a band where the members are non readers, not only does the rehearsal take a lifetime (comparatively) but the on the night performances tend to be extremely variable. So I guess my answer is, Zappa must have employed him for his overall talent, knowing that that he could be supported by the rest of the band, and that his lack of academic ability would not detract from what he was trying to achieve. At the same time, if "Ike" did have greater academic ability, it might have POSSIBLY made things a little easier. Although having absorbed a fair bit of Zappa history, that may be questionable And I come back to my original statement that you have kindly repeated, and will not detract from my theory. The majority of musicians that I have come across over the last 35 years have admitted (sometimes with a degree of assumed superiority complex) that they have not bothered to learn to read either because "there was no need" or they "could not be arsed" (which basically means they could get away with it). Regardless, my opinion is that if they could be arsed, it could have opened up a greater understanding and therefore improved their musicianship, and more importantly, their enjoyment and understanding of what they do. Most, if not all, of the best musicians I have either worked with or come across, can read music - excluding vocalists who don't play an instrument, and the odd drummer. Learning to read music can only add to a musicians potential - just my opinion, but fairly logical I think. There is nothing advantageous about not being able to read music, but the same can't be said for the opposite. Finally, what is the difference between being able to read dots on a page and knowing that you can use a certain mode to improvise on a definitive chord? Most non reading guitarists/bass players learn shapes (e.g. pentatonics) for chordal improvisation. Why not extend their knowledge a little further and become really innovative by learning to read so they can get out of the "average joe" bin, and get on to the next level? Because they have to really want to, and that is the difference between the people that make it and those who don't. If they don't want to become truly proficient, that's ok. But if they want to get up with "the best", they are going to have to sacrifice a bit of time and brain space. Which is normally where they fail, in my experience. And then try to justify their inability to (for example) read music by saying there is no need for it, and if they get that "lucky break" it is irrelevant. Luck............is preparation meeting opportunity. Be prepared by being the best you can be, and create your own opportunities.

"At the end of the day some of it must be down to what level a musician wants to play at." Exactly. And if any musician wants to develop themselves, then they will educate themselves in all aspects of the musical arena. If they don't, thats ok too, as long as they are happy about it. "Nowdays I'm quite happy to plod along in cover/tribute bands." Then there is no need to learn to read music. "I still don't like the idea of sitting there playing and reading it all of sheet music, it just ain't rock and roll is it." Maybe not, but I would rather have a sheet of music in front of when I have to learn a tune, than have to listen to the original over and over while I am trying to pick out a decent bass line. And I would also want to know the tonal centres and chord patterns etc so perhaps it could be improved and make it more interesting both to me and the other musicians and audience. Having the ability to read makes things so much easier. But if you are happy enough doing what you do, thats great. Personally, I just want to learn more and have a better understanding of what I am doing. Each to their own eh?

[quote name='jakesbass' post='479510' date='May 4 2009, 10:46 PM']I don't see the evidence for this. In a professional career spanning 20yrs and most genres, I have encountered music and musicians from all denominations and paths of learning, the people who are sufficiantly motivated to become brilliant (and I've had the joy of performing with some truly world class musicians) will become brilliant through talent first and method second. The talent exists, the learning is a means to an end. I know many musicians who are trained to the very highest standards that are available in the entire world of music education, and they themselves in my experience have a reverence for sheer talent trained or not. Talent is understood and accepted by the very highest authorities. The people who lack talent but have a great work ethic will also do well but are generally not top flight performers in the same way. Talent and energy for work ethic combined is the most formidable category of musician, in my experience these people have a seemingly endless capacity for absorbing and reproducing music, Interestingly the work ethic is not necassarily a formal, training it might be years learning repertoire or simply gobbling up (very quickly) all music available. An example: I had the great good fortune to tour Europe with Ike Willis singer with Frank Zappa for 12 yrs, Ike was and is a ferocious talent. His methods of learning were not formal but on evenings off we would listen to music and his knowledge is encyclopaedic, he sang every part from hundreds of albums, he knew all instrumentation, all drum fills, this guy was a gigantic musical sponge, I would say without hesitation he is likely more talented than any one person that has ever posted on Basschat, he had not a scrap of formality in his method, however he was as formidable a musician as you could meet. His tradition (the aural tradition) as I pointed out in my earlier post has every bit of equal integrity to the relatively nascent formal music training that western Europe has given to the world in recent centuries. His tradition (one which I hold myself and give great store to is handed down from thousands of years of hearing and re creating music. That my friends carries every bit as much, if not more value, depth, integrity as any system of notation. The best evidence for which lies in the question: Why does an orchestra need a conductor? The answer: cos there's not enough on the page to go off. A conductor brings the music to life. Check out five different recordings of a classical composition and you will hear that the aural tradition of hearing, feeling and interpreting music is very much alive...[/quote] And the conductor reads from a score, specifically in rehearsals, and as a reference in the live concert performance. And all of the musicians in the performance read music. They certainly aren't busking................so why doesn't the orchestra employ people who can't read music? And why did Frank Zappa orchestrate all of his music? At least for initial rehearsals? Its fairly obvious, isn't it?

[quote name='dlloyd' post='479496' date='May 4 2009, 10:36 PM']Single most intelligent post in this thread. If you're approaching music as a means to 'improve yourself' at the expense of 'having fun', you are getting it dead wrong. Take up bridge or judo or something.[/quote] Who said you can't have fun? Where is that mentioned? And what the hell is wrong with trying to be a good musician (and become a better one) by improving yourself? If your logic is correct, humans would never learn to walk - cos it isn't fun falling over all the time, but eventually we learn to master it. A bit like learning an instrument. "Single most intelligent post in this thread." Yeah..........it's from BBC, which means it must be

I've got one...still can't play it though. The original guy who inspired me to buy it (the 6 string bass plus 6 string guitar version) is brilliant. Here he is with it midi'd up - no tracking delays or any of the usual probs associated with midi etc. Or you can play it as a "tapping instrument" - like Trey Gunn of King Crimson fame......

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='479376' date='May 4 2009, 08:54 PM']Maybe I'm missing the point here. Everytime i practice am I supposed to be aiming to play things that others can't? I've been concentrating on playing things that sound good! What a fool I've been![/quote] The idea of being able to master the difficult stuff (that sounds good) is so that you can play the other stuff with ease. Both technically and by applying your own "feel/groove/whatever". You are not missing the point, I just didn't explain myself properly. And to keep this on topic, being able to read makes this easier to do.

[quote name='AM1' post='479367' date='May 4 2009, 08:45 PM']Before I make any further responses on the actual subject matter of the thread, I believe that there are some serious moderation issues here, which need to be rectified. When a potentially useful discussion has descended to the level that we see here, with very late intervention by moderators, the interests of the membership of this forum are not being served appropriately. The commentators whom are unable to calmly discuss the merits of music methodology and whom have to result to personal insults should be penalised when they descend to this level, not moderators simply threatening to close threads. Why should the majority be deprived of useful debate because of the actions of a few? Furthermore, any moderator who gets involved in a thread debate, cannot and should not then, moderate in the same thread. It is simply not impartial use of moderation. A moderator who is not involved in the discussion, is the appropriate person to moderate and that rule should be applied across the board here because this theme of discussions descending into insulting chaos is all too common, to the detriment of this forum.[/quote] Excellent news. Thank you.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='479307' date='May 4 2009, 07:48 PM']Opinion it may be but as a *one time music education professional to another (Bass tutor and ensemble musicianship tutor Salford university. Bass, theory, business studies lecturer 'The Arts Centre' Liverpool) I'm challenging your positioning on impartiality in delivering material to the young musicians of this country, I feel it's more than a little 'Ivory Tower' to talk about the merits of a Jazz Guitarists output whilst feeling the need to place 'POP' music in capitals and quotation marks as though you feel dirty handling them, and describing Ray Charles as cornball and intimating that Stevie Wonders' worth is simply as a "good POP writer" these are serious and valid contributions to the history of music and in my mind carry a similar import to Bach, through Gerswin and into contemporary modern music. I am remembering that this is a forum for debate so please see this as an intellectual challenge, I am in no way wishing to descend into the insulting foray we have seen earlier, however my points are very seriously put to you for consideration. *I say 'one time music education professional' as I only had a teaching career while my kids were young I am now a full time bass player, producer, and MD.[/quote] I accept your opinion entirely, and respect your answer. I also agree with a number of your points, but that is probably not important to the"baiters" who might be following the thread. However, I also have my own musical opinions, and pop/commercial music has about the same value as nursery rhymes to me. I don't castigate people that like it though. It is their choice. Just my opinion and preference. I listen to a diverse catalogue of music and musicians. I prefer classical music, and modern jazz but don't expect anyone else to do so. The reason I listen to my preferences is because not only is it more challenging to play, , and to me, fulfilling but (sorry for the inference before I get shot down in flames again) I would use the cliche that most of the stuff around now is just "bubble gum for the brain". And performed by a lot of talentless, mass produced drones. And not very well. Unfortunately, this sort of crap is all the kids want to aspire to, and my theory is backed up by what we see and hear on MTV etc. Countries that hold high levels of all round, quality musicians with unbelievable skill (who can probably all read music) do exist. But you have to go to Japan for classical, and Italy, for "proper" jazz, if that is your preference. I am not alone in my belief that there is a lack of development of young musicians in this country. The quality of live music has drastically deteriorated in the last 20 years due to too many factors to attempt to mention here. The inability of the educators to encourage potential is in no small way due to the lack of funding, foresight, and not the benefits of musicianship (to those that are inclined towards a musical career). One thing is for sure, unless a musician aspires to be able to play stuff that others can't (unless he is intent on being an average amateur - which is fine too) he will not improve his potential. And I also believe that unless"we" try to elevate standards, we will see in our lifetime, a severe deterioration of capable musicians performing live. Sad. Hence my stand on suggesting that musicians do whatever they can to become more learned, and not just to take the course of least resistance - which is unfortunately human nature - when it comes to developing musicianship. And that includes learning to read and write music, whether or not it APPEARS to be important. It is.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479296' date='May 4 2009, 07:44 PM']Okay, deep breath: NO ONE. Is. Trying. To. Convince. You. That. Not. Being. Able. To. Read. Music. Is. An. Advantage. Seriously, you made that up all by yourself. And if believing that your membership to a certain group of people (e.g. people who read music) automatically makes you superior to another group (e.g. people who don't read music) isn't elitism, then I don't know what is.[/quote] Having the ability to read and write music is a distinct advantage for a musician. As is being able to be able to read and write in any language. The non music readers don't appear to think so. For various reasons, varying from they have had other things to do to they have had no need to bother. I will continue for as long as I live, to preach the benefits of a well rounded musical education and unless someone can convince me otherwise, I will retain my opinion. And I expect that whilst I do that, there will be many who will try to justify their own reasons not to advance their abilities. No problem. I certainly do not consider the ability to read music as making me superior to anyone, as you are trying to infer. It really is not that important. But as you can see, (without getting personal, or typing with full stops in between words to attempt to make my point), I feel very strongly about it, and will never understand why anyone who is a musician would not want to learn to read and have the ability to write music. Please do not attempt to ridicule people's opinions, just give your own.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479270' date='May 4 2009, 07:32 PM']... Which makes you an elitist, man. Sorry, but there it is, right there. You're a massive, massive elitist. At least admit it, so it's perfectly clear to everyone that you're convinced you're better than the rest of us, and we can all get on with our lives.[/quote] No, not elitist, just very opinionated, and those opinions are based on personal experience of many years. And no matter how you attempt to undermine my beliefs with irrelevant aspersions and personal attacks, you will not convince me (as others who have also commented) that not being able to read music is an advantage to a musician. I respect your opinion, but not your abuse.

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='479262' date='May 4 2009, 07:25 PM']Ah - I see what you did there. You looked up 'moderate'. Look closely at the word.. it's actually 'moderator': [i]n. One who presides over a meeting, forum, or debate.[/i] PM is the place for this - by all means speak to another mod if you wish.[/quote] Moderate, moderator, moderation...forget the semantics. In plain english, anyone who is given the task of moderation should do just that. Otherwise it is not moderation, it's casting opinion and potentially an influence, and certainly not impartial "moderation"

[quote name='jakesbass' post='479258' date='May 4 2009, 07:23 PM']I think the fact that John Schofield chose to re interpret those classics suggests he holds Ray Charles in higher regard than to call him cornball, and your 'POP' music description suggests that you seem to think you're thinking somewhere higher than all that, if thats the case then as a person employed in music education I think you should possibly re visit your reasoning. Music for people (indeed the populous) is valid. Cornball is your judgement only, and despite feeling your advocacy for reading has at times been well placed I'm beginning to see you more in an elitist light. You're welcome to your position on the integrity of types of music but you have no place being high minded about the value of music in the eyes or ears of the listener.[/quote] Just my opinion................

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='479232' date='May 4 2009, 07:02 PM']No.. I should be perusing BC as I wish, stating my opinion... and impartially moderating when required. If you would like clarification on the role of a moderator, feel free to PM me.[/quote] Definition:- "a moderate is an individual who holds an intermediate position between two viewpoints, neither to be extreme or radical by those applying the term" Maybe your "job" title should be changed, because your contributions certainly aren't impartial.

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='479224' date='May 4 2009, 06:54 PM']At least puerile humour is occasionally funny. Unlike belittling scores of people who haven't done things your way.[/quote] Puerile humour is only funny to children.........and as a mod, shouldn't you be moderating instead of appearing to "take sides?"

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479195' date='May 4 2009, 06:25 PM']It ain't fence-sitting, man. There's nothing wishy-washy about the belief that people should be welcome to choose their own musical path without being judged or looked down upon by people who make different choices.[/quote] I get the impression there is some inverted snobbery here - and it appears that it is you that is being judgemental. The contributions from people who can read music have given valid reasons for learning to do so. And have also clearly stated that there is a definite case for having the ability to play "by ear". But it is preferable to be be capable of doing both. Unless of course you can convince to the contrary? (Not holding my breath)