Playing by ear Vs. reading music

[rslaing]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='478555' date='May 3 2009, 09:25 PM']I give up. For someone who reckons he's so clever, you're spectacularly obtuse. Not that my point needs making any more clearly. You're on your own here, pal. Well, you and the rest of the guys down at the REAL Musicians' club.

[/quote]

Thanks for the compliment (or have I read that incorrectly.........like I give a toss )

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='478565' date='May 3 2009, 09:31 PM']We're not REAL musicians.[/quote]


But in my case, that really is true! I'm dreadful!

[ARGH]

Shall I just get the tape measure lads.....

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='ARGH' post='478569' date='May 3 2009, 09:33 PM']Shall I just get the tape measure lads.....[/quote]


Christ, I'd do badly at that as well.

[rslaing]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='478567' date='May 3 2009, 09:33 PM']But in my case, that really is true! I'm dreadful![/quote]

That's great, and you are such happy well balanced chappy too...I just love your humorous posts on here, I think you should be president of the basschat forum, with an override on the mods decisions. That would make this place much more interesting. I am being serious............

[maxrossell]

[quote name='rslaing' post='478566' date='May 3 2009, 09:32 PM']Thanks for the compliment (or have I read that incorrectly.........like I give a toss )[/quote]

Man, I [i]wish[/i] you didn't give a toss what we think of you. Maybe you'd have actually flounced out when you said you were going to.

[rslaing]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='478575' date='May 3 2009, 09:36 PM']Man, I [i]wish[/i] you didn't give a toss what we think of you. Maybe you'd have actually flounced out when you said you were going to.[/quote]

A witty reply will do..don't lower the tone by getting personal please

[maxrossell]

[quote name='rslaing' post='478579' date='May 3 2009, 09:39 PM']A witty reply will do..don't lower the tone by getting personal please [/quote]

Do you even understand what "getting personal" means? Or is it just that you think it's okay for you to do it but not others?

[BigBeefChief]

you are.

[BigBeefChief]

your mum is.

[BigBeefChief]

my dad could have your dad.

[BigBeefChief]

Do I win?



God I miss drinking.

[jakenewmanbass]

My earlier post in this debate was regarding the commercial value of reading musicians and how merit of method is irrelevant when the music has to be down on tape.... NOW...

In the earlier debate on this subject I remember saying (and I think it's worth remembering) that music as a means of entertainment, courtship, memory, nostalgia, feeling, excitement and whatever else it has done for mankind has existed for a very long time, probably started with banging stones together. On the other hand a written system of notation has existed for about four hundred years, so I would say that I disagree that higher standards of musicianhip can be attained by learning to read (and I am a reader) more music is available to you, thats true, more diversity is available to you, more immediacy is available to you.... [b]A better musician[/b]??? [b]Nah[/b]... no chance.... the integrity invoved in the aural tradition of music making has a pedigree probably going back tens of thousands of years and if neuro scientists are to be believed, our very evolution alongside music making has meant that music is actually embedded in our make up, and chimes with our core. Written music on the other hand is a convenient and (relatively) modern cerebral system to represent something much deeper than the notes on the page can ever convey.

Listen chaps lets not denigrate one anothers points by assuming that we each of us have the definitive answer to this, which should be an interesting debate, rather we each of us have nuggets of info and experiences that open minds would allow us to find interesting in one another.

Music goes beyond reading, but reading is a seriously useful and highly developed tool which can be used to create some wonderful things (and some sh*te), go to the south bank and see an orchestra, whatever you think of the music, you'll be impressed by the animal (the orchestra) that makes it....

Edited May 3, 2009 by jakesbass

[rslaing]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='478586' date='May 3 2009, 09:44 PM']my dad could have your dad.[/quote]

Probably, but only if he had a shovel and knew where his grave is.

[BigBeefChief]

I PM'd that post to Jake 10 minutes ago and he nicked it off me.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='478591' date='May 3 2009, 09:50 PM']I PM'd that post to Jake 10 minutes ago and he nicked it off me.[/quote]

I hang on your every word... I would wear a dress if I thought you'd notice me...

Oh Beefy... sigh...

[rslaing]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='478591' date='May 3 2009, 09:50 PM']I PM'd that post to Jake 10 minutes ago and he nicked it off me.[/quote]

[jakenewmanbass]

and another thing..... playing by ear is a bad idea as ears are not as hard wearing as fingers... ta bum tish


bleedin 'ell talk about a tumbleweed moment.... where's everyone gone

Edited May 3, 2009 by jakesbass

[Lemuel Beam]

I can read and have done plenty of reading jobs in my time, but I much prefer to get "off the page" ASAP. Unless I know the music, I can't really "feel" it.
I wouldn't expect to go to a theatre play and watch a load of actors reading their scripts!

[OutToPlayJazz]

Blimey, there's 14 pages of this! I just skimmed the first 5 & was losing the will to live, so here's the SP...

Yes, both reading and playing by ear are important. Reading is great from the educational sense, as it gives the player not only a skill for life, but also makes learning new material much faster. I mean, try sight-reading tablature!

In another way, the two are intertwined - Often you do end up playing by ear in many situtations, either because there isn't any sheet music, or you're creating it in the first place! Once you're experienced in both areas, the two skills combined mean you can take down the bass line of a song & write it down in notation form in about 5 minutes.

Don't think of reading music being an alien or high-brow thing that's for someone else. It's a very special tool which makes not only playing, but working with other musicians so much easier and pleasurable.

Music is a language, rather like English. The English language has an alphabet consisting of 26 letters in infinite combinations & I'll bet that everyone who can make a post for this server can read that complex beast. The musical alphabet has only 7 letters to contend with. Don't be daunted!

Rich.

[lowdown]

[quote name='Lemuel Beam' post='478827' date='May 4 2009, 11:02 AM']I wouldn't expect to go to a theatre play and watch a load of actors reading their scripts! [/quote]

Thats what the pit is for for, so you cant see them...
Also to keep the smell of the band away from the audience...
well in theory anyway.


Garry

[maxrossell]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='478589' date='May 3 2009, 09:46 PM']the integrity invoved in the aural tradition of music making has a pedigree probably going back tens of thousands of years and if neuro scientists are to be believed, our very evolution alongside music making has meant that music is actually embedded in our make up, and chimes with our core.[/quote]

Nah mate, clearly people who played music before standard notation was invented were nothing but lazy mediocre hacks who wouldn't recognise musical inspiration if it walked up and smacked them in the face. It's only when some guys decided to put it together on paper that REAL musicians began to appear.

[AM1]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='478241' date='May 3 2009, 02:43 PM']In response to this, the people who ran the degree course I did come from a school of thought where standard notation, although not dismissed and still thought of as a very valuable tool (and also taught and supported where desired), is not considered to be an absolute prerequisite in order to be a successful musician.

And you're absolutely right that in the more traditional world of music it is taken for granted that you should be able to read standard notation. However outside of that field there is an entire industry within which you can operate in many roles with a great deal of success without knowing how to read music.[/quote]

Max - I would like to make a point, as a neutral party here whom is not going to advocate one approach with the exclusion of the other.

I use both methods of playing by ear and reading music. The combination of both together opens many doors. The insistence on using only one method, to the exclusion of others, is a fundamental example of how a closed mind can rob of you the opportunity to improve your own skillset and musicianship.

I have read all of your comments carefully and it does seem that you feel you have to defend the music course. In my opinion, your entire issue with reading standard notation has been cultivated by the fact that you have done a music degree and walked away from it, certified, but you haven't been taught a basic building block of music.

This course has validated, in your mind, the mentality that playing by ear ONLY is adequate enough for your needs.

The means by which you undertake, communicate and develop composition change completely when you can read and write standard notation. Just one example, a long time ago, I arranged Pachelbel's Canon in D for string quartet, by transcribing out all the harmony for each instrument. When you can read music, you can look at a sheet of music and "hear" it in your head, because you recognise intervals on the music, you can see elements of harmony, such as 3rds, 5ths for example. I could not have done that without being able to read music because I simply could not sit down and play the four instruments together and hear how the harmony would sound. Arranging and composing are infinitely easier and the creative potential higher, when using BOTH methods of using your ears and reading notation. When you are composing for multiple instruments, the ability to read and write proper notation IN COMBINATION WITH a very good ear, opens many, many doors. You can SEE on the page, what the music will sound like and there is an almost scientific element of knowing that certain note combinations will work or will not work together.

Being able to read music improves your musicality in a way that it is simply very difficult to elucidate the full benefits on an internet forum.

In the context of working with a group of musicians to teach them your compositions - if the music is very simple then a few chords written down and you teaching it by ear is workable - but when the complexity of your music begins to increase, the task of working with those musicians, is going to increase exponentially and become difficult, frustrating, inefficient and constrained. The converse is that when you learn to read, your composition is likely to increase in complexity. The reason for this is that when you are transcribing your own composition, you are essentially writing down, what you can hear in your head. Once you can write it down in a certain key and communicate it to others, the door is suddenly opened in terms of how much harmony you build in, the kind of harmony, rhythm etc. That way of working with musical composition simply cannot be replicated purely by playing by ear on it's own, because you can only play one instrument at a time. When you can translate the music in your head into a readable format, universally understood by a group of musicians, then and only then are you going to truly understand the benefits of learning to read. Reading music is very mathematical - it WILL change the way you compose music and enhance your whole musical capability.

The fact that you paid for and undertook a music degree course, particularly with composition as a key element - and were not taught how to read and transcribe standard notation is utterly scandalous, an outrage. Rather than accept that you should have been taught properly, by THE TEACHING OF [b]BOTH[/b] METHODS, you are defending that course and your subsequent decision to use only one of the two musical methods available that will enhance your musicianship.

It is deeply saddening that this course has somehow "validated" your belief that using one method and excluding another will not deprive you of a huge opportunity to improve your own musicianship. Sometimes we have to remove the blinkers and keep an open mind even when the natural instinct might be to automatically dismiss something without even trying it.

Don't dismiss learning to read - you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Edited May 4, 2009 by AM1

[maxrossell]

[quote name='AM1' post='479016' date='May 4 2009, 02:41 PM']Max - I would like to make a point, as a neutral party here whom is not going to advocate one approach with the exclusion of the other.

I use both methods of playing by ear and reading music. The combination of both together opens many doors. The insistence on using only one method, to the exclusion of others, is a fundamental example of how a closed mind can rob of you the opportunity to improve your own skillset and musicianship.[/quote]

I don't, and if you think that I do then you've misread me. My approach has nothing to do with exclusion. It has to do with getting hold of the appropriate tools for the job.

[quote]I have read all of your comments carefully and it does seem that you feel you have to defend the music course. In my opinion, your entire issue with reading standard notation has been cultivated by the fact that you have done a music degree and walked away from it, certified, but you haven't been taught a basic building block of music.[/quote]

Of course I have to defend my music course, when there are stuck-up nerds who know nothing about it and yet are prepared to write it off as fundamentally worthless on the basis that it didn't impose upon me to learn one aspect of music theory.

[quote]This course has validated, in your mind, the mentality that playing by ear ONLY is adequate enough for your needs.[/quote]

You're obviously not a mind-reader, because it wasn't the course that validated that. What validated that is that playing by ear [i]is[/i] currently adequate for my needs. If my needs change I'll take the appropriate measures.

[quote]The means by which you undertake, communicate and develop composition change completely when you can read and write standard notation. A long time ago, I arranged Pachelbel's Canon in D for string quartet, by transcribing out all the harmony for each instrument. When you can read music, you can look at a sheet of music and "hear" it in your head, because you recognise intervals on the music, you can see elements of harmony, such as 3rds, 5ths for example. When you are composing for multiple instruments, the ability to read and write proper notation IN COMBINATION WITH a very good ear, opens many, many doors.

Being able to read music improves your musicality in a way that it is simply very difficult to elucidate the full benefits on an internet forum.[/quote]

Sure, and there are a bunch of other things that you've probably not done that would improve your musicality, and yet I'm not telling you that you [i]have[/i] to do them.

[quote]In the context of working with a group of musicians to teach them your compositions - if the music is very simple then a few chords written down and you teaching it by ear is workable - but when the complexity of your music begins to increase, the task of working with those musicans, is going to increase exponentially and become difficult, frustrating, inefficient and constrained.[/quote]

Yeah, quite, and as I said, if I start doing that I'll learn to read standard notation.

[quote]The fact that you paid for and undertook a music degree course, particularly with composition as a key element - and were not taught how to read and transcribe standard notation is utterly scandalous, an outrage. Rather than accept that you should have been taught properly, by THE TEACHING OF [b]BOTH[/b] METHODS, you are defending that course and your subsequent decision to use only one of the two musical methods available that will enhance your musicianship.[/quote]

Two methods? [i]Two?[/i] Jesus, are you [i]nuts?[/i] There's literally [i]hundreds[/i] of methods to enhance musicianship.

[quote]It is deeply saddening that this course has somehow "validated" your belief that using one method and excluding another will not deprive you of a huge opportunity to improve your own musicianship. Sometimes we have to remove the blinkers and keep an open mind even when the natural instinct might be to automatically dismiss something without even trying it.

Don't dismiss learning to read - you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.[/quote]

You're telling [i]me[/i] to remove my blinkers, and yet you're making assumptions about me based on a few posts I've made (which you've clearly misread), and like our friend rslaing writing off a degree course because it doesn't happen to require something you mistakenly believe to be one of only two ways to improve as a musician.

And you've also contradicted yourself - you opened your post by saying that you weren't going to advocate one position with the exclusion of the other, and yet what you've done here, granted in a more civil way than rslaing, but just as obtusely - is to claim that it's not possible to run a respectable degree course in music without forcing people to learn standard notation, and implied rather directly that non-readers are missing out on some kind of higher level of musicianship that you of course have access to because you know what the dots mean.

So kudos for being more civil than rslaing, but you've been just as condescending and conservative about reading music as he has.

What you guys are forgetting is that music's about art and entertainment, not about pitching skill levels against each other. I'm a successful musician because I'm good enough at what I do to write and play what I want and need, and apparently well enough that other people enjoy hearing it. Crucially, the people that I [i]want[/i] to enjoy hearing it. They don't give two wet sh*ts whether or not I can read music. neither do the guys in my band, neither do the writers and engineers I work with when I'm doing production, neither do any of the hundreds of musicians I've worked with, many of whom were classically trained to a very high standard. You can tell me until you're blue in the face that I'd be a far better musician if I learned to read music, but that doesn't mean anything to me because you haven't even heard what I do. You've belittled the course I did based on what it didn't impose, without asking a [i]single question[/i] about what else it had to offer. And you're telling [i]me[/i] that I'm missing out because I'm blinkered?

I've never heard what you play, so I won't be arrogant enough to presume to tell you what would make you a better musician, but I will say this: Without exception, of all the musicians I've ever known, by far the best were the people who, regardless of whether or not they could read or write music or whatever else, believed that the quality of the music that people produce comes from their integrity and experience, not how knowledgeable they are about techniques and theory.

Edited May 4, 2009 by maxrossell

[AM1]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479045' date='May 4 2009, 03:30 PM']I don't, and if you think that I do then you've misread me. My approach has nothing to do with exclusion. It has to do with getting hold of the appropriate tools for the job.[/quote]

Sometimes the appropriate tools for the job are not limited to just the tools you have to hand. It is sufficiency versus efficiency.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479045' date='May 4 2009, 03:30 PM']Of course I have to defend my music course, when there are stuck-up nerds who know nothing about it and yet are prepared to write it off as fundamentally worthless on the basis that it didn't impose upon me to learn one aspect of music theory.[/quote]

The validity of the course is a different debate. However, any music degree course with composition as a key element, which does not teach the basic building blocks of musical communication, is an extremely poorly structured course. There is no valid reason not to have included the teaching of notation and transcription. A composer for multiple instruments, whom cannot read or write down music is constrained in the ways I explained above. It is patently unacceptable in my view for a professional educational institution to omit fundamental basics from courses.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479045' date='May 4 2009, 03:30 PM']You're obviously not a mind-reader, because it wasn't the course that validated that. What validated that is that playing by ear [i]is[/i] currently adequate for my needs. If my needs change I'll take the appropriate measures.[/quote]

Again, we are back at "adequate" - that, in itself, is a subjective entity. Is it more adequate to lack the building blocks to communicate your music to others, than to simply learn to read and write notation, which may just make your life easier and enhance your all around musical capability?

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479045' date='May 4 2009, 03:30 PM']Sure, and there are a bunch of other things that you've probably not done that would improve your musicality, and yet I'm not telling you that you [i]have[/i] to do them.[/quote]

I did not "tell" you to do anything. I have explained in detail, what I perceive as some benefits of reading notation and suggested that learning to read would be a positive for someone in your position.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479045' date='May 4 2009, 03:30 PM']Two methods? [i]Two?[/i] Jesus, are you [i]nuts?[/i] There's literally [i]hundreds[/i] of methods to enhance musicianship.[/quote]

The discussion is specifically about how one communicates musically. Notation is the fundamental language of music. Playing by ear is a means by which to communicate musical ideas, but it relies to an extent on the other musicians having a similar level of ear development. In an ensemble, a coherent, efficient communication means is of paramount importance and as musical complexity increases, so does the need for a universally understood musical communication tool. Reading music removes the constraints and frustrations inherently associated with trying to communicate complex musical ideas to multiple musicians.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479045' date='May 4 2009, 03:30 PM']You're telling [i]me[/i] to remove my blinkers, and yet you're making assumptions about me based on a few posts I've made (which you've clearly misread), and like our friend rslaing writing off a degree course because it doesn't happen to require something you mistakenly believe to be one of only two ways to improve as a musician.[/quote]

A composition course should equip you with both of the main methods available for communicating musical ideas effectively and efficiently, which are playing by ear and learning the universal language of music, standard notation.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479045' date='May 4 2009, 03:30 PM']And you've also contradicted yourself - you opened your post by saying that you weren't going to advocate one position with the exclusion of the other, and yet what you've done here, granted in a more civil way than rslaing, but just as obtusely - is to claim that it's not possible to run a respectable degree course in music without forcing people to learn standard notation, and implied rather directly that non-readers are missing out on some kind of higher level of musicianship that you of course have access to because you know what the dots mean.[/quote]

What I actually said is that it is scandalous that a music degree course, with a key focus on composition, has not taught you a fundamental basic building block of musical communication.

Your interpretation of my advocacy for the deployment of BOTH methods is rather erroneous - I have explained in considerable detail, the benefits of reading music, particularly in a composition context and specifically why, reading music and playing by ear in combination make the job easier, more efficient and can alter the way in which music is conceived and communicated.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479045' date='May 4 2009, 03:30 PM']So kudos for being more civil than rslaing, but you've been just as condescending and conservative about reading music as he has.[/quote]

I have outlined the benefits. It is unfortunate that you see it as condescending when someone takes the time and effort to explain in detail, the benefits they have found of using two tools for the job, as opposed to one.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479045' date='May 4 2009, 03:30 PM']What you guys are forgetting is that music's about art and entertainment, not about pitching skill levels against each other. I'm a successful musician because I'm good enough at what I do to write and play what I want and need, and apparently well enough that other people enjoy hearing it. Crucially, the people that I [i]want[/i] to enjoy hearing it. They don't give two wet sh*ts whether or not I can read music. neither do the guys in my band, neither do the writers and engineers I work with when I'm doing production, neither do any of the hundreds of musicians I've worked with, many of whom were classically trained to a very high standard. You can tell me until you're blue in the face that I'd be a far better musician if I learned to read music, but that doesn't mean anything to me because you haven't even heard what I do. You've belittled the course I did based on what it didn't impose, without asking a [i]single question[/i] about what else it had to offer. And you're telling [i]me[/i] that I'm missing out because I'm blinkered?[/quote]

Music is not a competition. Again, I respectfully suggest that it is issues at the core of your degree education which have resulted in a failure to include another method, which might enhance your musical life. Rather than "belittle" your course, I have expressed the opinion that a course focussing on composition, should also teach the fundamental rudiments of reading and writing music, in order to equip you with the efficient tools by which to communicate compositions to musicians, with the scaleability to increase complexity.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479045' date='May 4 2009, 03:30 PM']I've never heard what you play, so I won't be arrogant enough to presume to tell you what would make you a better musician, but I will say this: Without exception, of all the musicians I've ever known, by far the best were the people who, regardless of whether or not they could read or write music or whatever else, believed that the quality of the music that people produce comes from their integrity and experience, not how knowledgeable they are about techniques and theory.[/quote]

I have outlined the benefits of reading music. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain. It is not about being "better," it is about the personal enrichment that comes with reading music. For you, there is a potential personal gain, it is not a competition, nor is there any need for the defensive manner in which you position your arguments. I didn't say I'm any better than you because I can read. What I said is, the ability to read opens up new possibilities and enhances musicianship. It is unfortunate that you choose to interpret contextual insight, as "competitiveness". It would a shame for you to miss out on the joys of reading music - that's my key point.

Edited May 4, 2009 by AM1