Is reading important

[wateroftyne]

I depends on context, I suppose.

I don't read, but I don't really knock around with musicians who rely on it, so it's never been a problem.

[petebassist]

Is it important? Not necessarily, but I think it's a great skill to have, and the bass clef is usually much easier to scan than the treble clef where you have chords and more complex note arrangements, providing you're not up the dusty end a lot. I find it strangely relaxing & engrossing to read a walking bass line that someone else has written instead of making one up on the spot myself or playing from memory.  

[mikel]

3 minutes ago, petebassist said:

Is it important? Not necessarily, but I think it's a great skill to have, and the bass clef is usually much easier to scan than the treble clef where you have chords and more complex note arrangements, providing you're not up the dusty end a lot. I find it strangely relaxing & engrossing to read a walking bass line that someone else has written instead of making one up on the spot myself or playing from memory.  

That's fine but would you not rather make up your own bass line than simply copy another note for note?  Not that being able to read rules out creativity at all but I find it odd a musician would rather copy than create if the situation allows.

[mic mac moe]

1 minute ago, mikel said:

That's fine but would you not rather make up your own bass line than simply copy another note for note?  Not that being able to read rules out creativity at all but I find it odd a musician would rather copy than create if the situation allows.

Same goes for ear learners, though. Depends on the musician, the creativity and the situation 

[chris_b]

Understanding music theory benefits every player. Being able to read is a skill that can be useful in many playing and learning situations.

[JBP]

18 minutes ago, mikel said:

That's fine but would you not rather make up your own bass line than simply copy another note for note?  Not that being able to read rules out creativity at all but I find it odd a musician would rather copy than create if the situation allows.

Musical notation is just another form of communication, from a quick glance you know the key and time signatures, and the rhythmic and harmonic structure of a piece of music you may have never heard. As you play it you begin to commit it to memory and put your own stamp on it. I still learn stuff by ear, but if I am being paid to turn up and play the dots that what I do.

I teach for a living so I use my reading skills everyday, but not everyday in my playing that's very situational. I play in a rock covers band, I don't read for that, but If I'm doing a theatre gig, or reading charts for a jazz gig that bit of music theory really helps. It just opens more doors for you. But there are plenty of great players out there who don't read or know a lot about music theory who are still great players.

[Dad3353]

8 minutes ago, chris_b said:

Understanding music theory benefits every player. Being able to read is a skill that can be useful in many playing and learning situations.

These two notions are often lumped together (maybe rightly so..?), but are, in fact, quite distinct. One's prowess at reading does not impart knowledge of theory, harmony, musical styles (although helps considerably when studying those...), any more than the inverse; the study of music theory does not automatically make one a good reader, even less a good sight reader. Both skills, plus, of course, a degree of playing ability, are very useful indeed, but separate notions. Just sayin'.

[JBP]

1 minute ago, Dad3353 said:

These two notions are often lumped together (maybe rightly so..?), but are, in fact, quite distinct. One's prowess at reading does not impart knowledge of theory, harmony, musical styles (although helps considerably when studying those...), any more than the inverse; the study of music theory does not automatically make one a good reader, even less a good sight reader. Both skills, plus, of course, a degree of playing ability, are very useful indeed, but separate notions. Just sayin'.

Thats very true.

[petebassist]

32 minutes ago, mikel said:

That's fine but would you not rather make up your own bass line than simply copy another note for note?  Not that being able to read rules out creativity at all but I find it odd a musician would rather copy than create if the situation allows.

I guess it's like reading a novel written by somebody else. It's a nice change if you're used to writing your own novels. I don't think of it as just copying either, you're playing music that someone else has written, you can still be creative in the way you interpret, if that's what you like doing of course. 

[Sibob]

I've been interested in this concept for a little while, whether reading dots is necessary to growing your musical knowledge.

I'm not necessarily convinced (and willing to have my mind changed) that the ability to read actually adds to a theoretical knowledge-base, I feel it's largely an alternative to playing by ear, be that for purpose of training or learning etc.
There's certainly an argument that if you can't hear a recording of the piece of music, or no-one is around to show you a particular musical concept, then it is clearly helpful/necessary should you want to play that same music, but in a modern-day context, I don't think it's needed for furthering other theoretical learning.

Now, of course, it is of massive importance if you want certain gigs, or to teach to a certain level, but that's performance, not learning. And of course, those who embark on a more academic musical journey will likely be able to read as it's part of the syllabus along with all other theory. But that is simply the western academic musical tradition.

So do I think people should learn to read music? Yes of course, it will open doors to you no-doubt. But I do think you can achieve an extensive harmonic understanding and wider theoretical knowledge of music without reading dots, I don't believe them to be mutually exclusive.

Take language, it is quite possible for someone to talk well, to understand the words and how to manipulate them without being able to read or write. Of course, most people who are good at one are good at the other because that is our academic tradition, but they are quite independent skills assuming the appropriate learning structure is in place (demonstration over reading text books etc etc).

Interesting topic!

Si

Edited August 31, 2018 by Sibob

[mic mac moe]

48 minutes ago, chris_b said:

Understanding music theory benefits every player. Being able to read is a skill that can be useful in many playing and learning situations.

Oh, I hear that. My band are all self taught amateurs. I find myself having to explain basic things all the time. In fact I end up being mocked as a nerd

[mic mac moe]

15 minutes ago, Sibob said:

I've been interested in this concept for a little while, whether reading dots is necessary to growing your musical knowledge.

I'm not necessarily convinced (and willing to have my mind changed) that the ability to read actually adds to a theoretical knowledge-base, I feel it's largely an alternative to playing by ear, be that for purpose of training or learning etc.
There's certainly an argument that if you can't hear a recording of the piece of music, or no-one is around to show you a particular musical concept, then it is clearly helpful/necessary should you want to play that same music, but in a modern-day context, I don't think it's needed for furthering other theoretical learning.

Now, of course, it is of massive importance if you want certain gigs, or to teach to a certain level, but that's performance, not learning. And of course, those who embark on a more academic musical journey will likely be able to read as it's part of the syllabus along with all other theory. But that is simply the western academic musical tradition.

So do I think people should learn to read music? Yes of course, it will open doors to you no-doubt. But I do think you can achieve an extensive harmonic understanding and wider theoretical knowledge of music without reading dots, I don't believe them to be mutually exclusive.

Take language, it is quite possible for someone to talk well, to understand the words and how to manipulate them without being able to read or write. Of course, most people who are good at one are good at the other because that is our academic tradition, but they are quite independent skills assuming the appropriate learning structure is in place (demonstration over reading text books etc etc).

Interesting topic!

Si

Learning to read isn't going to impart mystical musical wisdom. Nor will it get the girls, but what it does do is put you in a stronger position. As does learning a bit of theory. I have a bass player pal who almost falls asleep at the word "mode". That's a normal human reaction to an unknown quantity, to switch off. If only he would listen a little, he would realise that he's possibly already doing this stuff. If he could read, it would be an altogether quicker learning process

[Coilte]

Anything  you learn that enhances your knowledge and appreciation of music is important. I would place reading very high on the list. 

[mic mac moe]

14 minutes ago, Coilte said:

Anything  you learn that enhances your knowledge and appreciation of music is important. I would place reading very high on the list. 

Well said

[ambient]

1 hour ago, mikel said:

That's fine but would you not rather make up your own bass line than simply copy another note for note?  Not that being able to read rules out creativity at all but I find it odd a musician would rather copy than create if the situation allows.

It's a good way to improve your own lines though, it moves you away from playing what you feel comfortable with, playing the riffs or patterns that you'd generally play.

[BigRedX]

Can we define what "reading" music actually means? There seems to be an implication from many of the replies that "reading" = sight reading. Is that the case?

However if reading simply means being able to get a musical performance out of written notation no matter how long it takes, then pretty much anyone should be able to read music. Work your way through the notation for a simple bass line one note at a time and you'll quickly learn where the notes are on the stave and what all the timing values are. All the less common symbols can be looked up as and when required. You might not be able to play something the moment it is set in front of you, but at least it won't appear to be a load of incomprehensible gibberish. Does that count as "reading"?

In 45 years of playing music I have never needed to be able to read to any standard - either sight reading or working my way through a score one note at a time. For music I'm composing myself I'm creating the parts I'm working out the composition and arrangement. For songs written by other people, I either learn the part by ear from a recording or compose my own part from scratch depending on what is required. While I know that many of the musicians I have worked with over the years could read (and probably sight read to a high standard) for the music that I have played with them, it has never been required, or even mentioned.

My very limited abilities come not from needing it to get a gig or even from learning for my own interest or amusement. I had to learn to write because back in the early 80s when I joined the PRS the only way they would accept song registrations that had not been released on a record, was to score out the main musical themes - the vocal melody along with the lyrics and any important instrumental parts onto blank manuscript that they supplied for this purpose. It took me several days for each song working out the notes for the vocal melodies and tapping out the rhythms, so I could write the parts down. Sometimes when I was really stuck with the timing I'd cheat by tapping it into the drum machine and see where the notes appeared on the display.

Because I learnt this way dealing with vocals and multiple instruments, my knowledge isn't tied to a single instrument, and so I am always a little surprised when I come across musicians who can sight read for one instrument (usually something they learnt at school playing classical music) but seemingly can't transfer that skill to being able to read for another instrument that they can play but haven't learnt by reading music. It makes me suspect that in order to be able to sight read competently you need to be able to bypass some of the information. So instead of looking at a part that has been scored out and thinking: that is a C, in order to play C I need to put my fingers here on the instrument. Instead you think: note on that position of the stave = put my fingers here.

[dmccombe7]

I don't sight read. I probably could if it was a pretty simple bass line tho but its not what i use it for.

My use of music is when learning a song i can either use my ears, bass tab or manuscript to quickly work out the tricky parts. I still have to sit and work out the notes if its anything more than a few notes in a bar. 

I take that learning from whichever source i can find and i'll write it out myself on A4 paper but instead of dots and lines i'll just write the note and mark the timing as a manuscript does. Basically i do away with the lines on the page and just write the note in place of the dot. That way i've remembered the song in my head and i also remember what i've written down. I may abbreviate a bar or 2 if they are straight 8ths kind of thing like many rock songs or if a song has the same hand pattern but played on different notes i'll write out the first bar and then just put the Root note in each bar.

It might sound over complicated for most but it works for me. Been doing this for quite a few years probably more so since TABS appeared on line. 

The one item i did forget to add was Youtube VID clips. I find them a very useful learning tool.

Dave

[mic mac moe]

11 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

Can we define what "reading" music actually means? There seems to be an implication from many of the replies that "reading" = sight reading. Is that the case?

However if reading simply means being able to get a musical performance out of written notation no matter how long it takes, then pretty much anyone should be able to read music. Work your way through the notation for a simple bass line one note at a time and you'll quickly learn where the notes are on the stave and what all the timing values are. All the less common symbols can be looked up as and when required. You might not be able to play something the moment it is set in front of you, but at least it won't appear to be a load of incomprehensible gibberish. Does that count as "reading"?

In 45 years of playing music I have never needed to be able to read to any standard - either sight reading or working my way through a score one note at a time. For music I'm composing myself I'm creating the parts I'm working out the composition and arrangement. For songs written by other people, I either learn the part by ear from a recording or compose my own part from scratch depending on what is required. While I know that many of the musicians I have worked with over the years could read (and probably sight read to a high standard) for the music that I have played with them, it has never been required, or even mentioned.

My very limited abilities come not from needing it to get a gig or even from learning for my own interest or amusement. I had to learn to write because back in the early 80s when I joined the PRS the only way they would accept song registrations that had not been released on a record, was to score out the main musical themes - the vocal melody along with the lyrics and any important instrumental parts onto blank manuscript that they supplied for this purpose. It took me several days for each song working out the notes for the vocal melodies and tapping out the rhythms, so I could write the parts down. Sometimes when I was really stuck with the timing I'd cheat by tapping it into the drum machine and see where the notes appeared on the display.

Because I learnt this way dealing with vocals and multiple instruments, my knowledge isn't tied to a single instrument, and so I am always a little surprised when I come across musicians who can sight read for one instrument (usually something they learnt at school playing classical music) but seemingly can't transfer that skill to being able to read for another instrument that they can play but haven't learnt by reading music. It makes me suspect that in order to be able to sight read competently you need to be able to bypass some of the information. So instead of looking at a part that has been scored out and thinking: that is a C, in order to play C I need to put my fingers here on the instrument. Instead you think: note on that position of the stave = put my fingers here.

It's a broad subject, this. Reading as a topic covers such a basic grasp as picking up licks, lessons and basic arps and scales from books and magazines all the way up to a full on chick corea score and beyond. For my money, I'm glad that I learned to read, because I'd like to know rather than be ignorant. Can you imagine not bothering learning to reverse in your car? 

[dmccombe7]

Just now, mic mac moe said:

It's a broad subject, this. Reading as a topic covers such a basic grasp as picking up licks, lessons and basic arps and scales from books and magazines all the way up to a full on chick corea score and beyond. For my money, I'm glad that I learned to read, because I'd like to know rather than be ignorant. Can you imagine not bothering learning to reverse in your car? 

My car has a reverse ???

Couldn't resist that one - i'll get me jacket on way out 

[discreet]

3 hours ago, wateroftyne said:

I depends on context, I suppose. I don't read, but I don't really knock around with musicians who rely on it, so it's never been a problem.

Plus one. I'm not saying it's not worth learning, but in forty-odd years I've really not found it necessary.

[mic mac moe]

4 minutes ago, dmccombe7 said:

My car has a reverse ???

Couldn't resist that one - i'll get me jacket on way out 

Lol! Mine barely goes forward!! Grab my coat, too

[discreet]

What is this... 'CAR' you speak of..?

[mikel]

40 minutes ago, ambient said:

It's a good way to improve your own lines though, it moves you away from playing what you feel comfortable with, playing the riffs or patterns that you'd generally play.

Not quite, If you are being creative you are by default coming up with something new, to you at least. Not simply playing lines you have played hundreds of times before.

[mic mac moe]

2 minutes ago, mikel said:

Not quite, If you are being creative you are by default coming up with something new, to you at least. Not simply playing lines you have played hundreds of times before.

Maybe sometimes it serves to restrain the more adventurous bass player? The purpose of playing parts is to reproduce how the writer created a piece. If you are going to improvise parts, you play off chord charts. 

[mikel]

17 minutes ago, mic mac moe said:

It's a broad subject, this. Reading as a topic covers such a basic grasp as picking up licks, lessons and basic arps and scales from books and magazines all the way up to a full on chick corea score and beyond. For my money, I'm glad that I learned to read, because I'd like to know rather than be ignorant. Can you imagine not bothering learning to reverse in your car? 

Seems to be two distinct camps here so I will just add this. If it is important to you then the answer is yes, If it is not important and you have never bothered with reading and still play and gig, then the answer is no. Its quite simple really. A bit of a strange question If its important to you, so you answered your own question in that regard.