Playing by ear Vs. reading music

[maxrossell]

[quote name='AM1' post='479092' date='May 4 2009, 04:28 PM']Sometimes the appropriate tools for the job are not limited to just the tools you have to hand. It is sufficiency versus efficiency.[/quote]

I haven't needed to learn to read music because I have yet to be involved in a siutation that requires it. What part of that is unclear to you?

[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]

The basic building blocks of musical communication are sounds. Sounds made by instruments. Not dots on a piece of paper. And as I've pointed out, and you clearly didn't bother to remember, is that they offered teaching of standard notation and all that stuff to people who wanted it. They didn't [i]require[/i] it, however, because they don't think it's as crucial as you seem to.

[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]

Erm, I don't know how to break this to you, because I don't lack the basic building blocks to communicate my music to others. I've been doing it for years. Not in the way you do it, which you seem to think is the only acceptable way, but it works fine for me and I enjoy it.

[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]

You know sod-all about my position. You're just assuming that the way you do things is the best way because it's the way you do it, so everyone else should do it, and those who don't are missing out.

[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]

Holy crap. Notation isn't the fundamental language of music. Sound is. The way sounds associate is the universally understood musical communication tool. That what makes it possible for people who can't read music to make music with each other, and for people who aren't even musicians to enjoy it as well. They've been doing it for thousands of years. Oh, and just as an aside, standard notation is completely incapable of expressing some of the musical notions and principles I work with on a daily basis.

[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]

Again, with your "universal language of music" bollocks. It's just a code to translate the notes you want people to play, dude.

[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.[/quote]

Yeah, it omitted that one. Fortunately it taught me many others, which you don't seem even vaguely interested in. Your loss, I suppose.

[quote]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.

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]

What you've done is described standard notation as the superior way of approaching music. I find it condescending whenever anyone suggests that their preferred approach is beyond a doubt the superior one, when they can't even be bothered to ask if there might be others.

[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]

And I respectfully suggest that because you're so obviously uninterested in what else the course has to offer, you save your comments about what it doesn't impose.

[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.[/quote]

And seriously, it would be a shame for you to miss out on the joys of everything else I do to improve my musicianship. But something about your overall tone tells me you'd think that it's way beneath you.

[The Bass Doc]

I'm a tad surprised that no-one on the side opposite the 'should read' part of the discussion hasn't mentioned the talents of Stevie Wonder 'cos apparently he doesn't (read that is - unless there is a form of braille 'notation'? - Serious query that BTW)

[stevie]

[quote name='The Bass Doc' post='479160' date='May 4 2009, 05:49 PM']I'm a tad surprised that no-one on the side opposite the 'should read' part of the discussion hasn't mentioned the talents of Stevie Wonder 'cos apparently he doesn't (read that is - unless there is a form of braille 'notation'? - Serious query that BTW)[/quote]
BINGO! I was wondering how long it would take.

[maxrossell]

[quote name='The Bass Doc' post='479160' date='May 4 2009, 05:49 PM']I'm a tad surprised that no-one on the side opposite the 'should read' part of the discussion hasn't mentioned the talents of Stevie Wonder 'cos apparently he doesn't (read that is - unless there is a form of braille 'notation'? - Serious query that BTW)[/quote]


[quote name='stevie' post='479166' date='May 4 2009, 05:54 PM']BINGO! I was wondering how long it would take. [/quote]

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.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='The Bass Doc' post='479160' date='May 4 2009, 05:49 PM']I'm a tad surprised that no-one on the side opposite the 'should read' part of the discussion hasn't mentioned the talents of Stevie Wonder 'cos apparently he doesn't (read that is - unless there is a form of braille 'notation'? - Serious query that BTW)[/quote]
There are tons of great musicians that don't read, that however does not undermine nor suggest any lesser musical ability for the reader (which I feel that some people would like to believe) It's all valid, reading or not, music is music. if it sounds good, it is good thats the only test... whether it was brought to you by readers or non readers or the soup dragon (google 'the clangers')
If you want a career in music learning to read is and can be useful but it is not a pre-requisite to success.

[wateroftyne]

Stevie Wonder & Ray Charles are not REAL musicians. They're just manufactured crap. That's how they get/got away with it.

The bloke that scored & sequenced the pan-pipe stylee Bee Gees muzak that I heard in the garden centre today is a REAL musician.

[The Bass Doc]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='479170' date='May 4 2009, 05:57 PM']It's all valid, reading or not, music is music. if it sounds good, it is good thats the only test... whether it was brought to you by readers or non readers or the soup dragon[/quote]

Well said that man - there should be more of us who sit firmly on the fence with this one. I sit there so often that in the spelks department my bum looks like Desperate Dan's chin.

[maxrossell]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='479171' date='May 4 2009, 05:58 PM']Stevie Wonder & Ray Charles are not REAL musicians. They're just manufactured crap. That's how they get/got away with it.

The bloke that scored & sequenced the pan-pipe stylee Bee Gees muzak that I heard in the garden centre today is a REAL musician.[/quote]

And the fat balding guy who played cheesy lounge piano way too loud for two hours in this crappy restaurant I went to a month ago. He had all the sheet music and everything. Okay, he made a few mistakes here and there, and he'd just stop playing at random places right in the middle of a tune to turn the pages, but boy did I feel humbled to be in the preseence of a REAL musician.

[Eight]

Is there anyone over the age of five still participating in this thread?

[maxrossell]

[quote name='The Bass Doc' post='479180' date='May 4 2009, 06:07 PM']Well said that man - there should be more of us who sit firmly on the fence with this one. I sit there so often that in the spelks department my bum looks like Desperate Dan's chin.[/quote]

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.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Eight' post='479194' date='May 4 2009, 06:23 PM']Is there anyone over the age of five still participating in this thread?[/quote]

Well... you're three years older than that.

It's a start.

[maxrossell]

[quote name='Eight' post='479194' date='May 4 2009, 06:23 PM']Is there anyone over the age of five still participating in this thread?[/quote]

I'm five-and-a-half.

[Eight]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='479197' date='May 4 2009, 06:25 PM']Well... you're three years older than that.[/quote]
sh*te! LOL. Didn't think of that.

[stevie]

[quote name='Eight' post='479194' date='May 4 2009, 06:23 PM']Is there anyone over the age of five still participating in this thread?[/quote]
There are some over the age of five still reading it. There have actually been some very interesting posts from the less chippy contributors. It's been worth wading through, I think.

[rslaing]

[quote name='Eight' post='479194' date='May 4 2009, 06:23 PM']Is there anyone over the age of five still participating in this thread?[/quote]

Well said......................maybe it should be relisted as the kindergarten. Pathetic attempts at puerile humour do not qualify as logical alternative argument.

And I am still to be convinced that not being able to read music is an advantage. Especially with the latest contributions to this thread.

As for the Ray Charles/Stevie Wonder point - both of them created a lot of great POP songs,(neither are virtuosos on their instruments, but Stevie Wonder is a great POP song writer) but their songs had to be transcribed and arranged by players who could read and write music so they could be played by people (who could read music) on their instruments and subsequently be recorded. If anyone has seen the DVD of the recording of Songs In The Key of Life, you would have seen that. Using musicians that can read and write music saves a lot of time, and also MONEY, for the people that hire backing musicians. So who do you think they are going to call?

I also suggest that if you want to listen to an alternative and brilliant interpretation of some of Ray Charles stuff, you listen to Jon Scofield playing his own interpretation of Ray Charles songs on "John Scofield - That's What I Say - John Scofield Plays the Music of Ray Charles (2005)" Betas the pants off the cornball originals.

And if you don't have the talent (as I don't, and never will) to be able to create songs that result in million dollar selling album, but want to make a living out of music, then get educated. All of the big "stars" in most genres use musicians that have come through Berklee and similar, and can quickly apply their abilities to the job in question.

I reiterate, being able to read music is an ADVANTAGE, and all musicians should be able to do it to a reasonable degree. Not being able to read music is NOT an advantage. Work it out...................learn to read music, then use it if needed. But stop being so prejudiced against people who can do something that you can't be arsed about.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='rslaing' post='479217' date='May 4 2009, 06:50 PM']And I am still to be convinced that not being able to read music is an advantage.[/quote]
Who's saying that it is?

And no, BBC is not an admissable answer.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='rslaing' post='479217' date='May 4 2009, 06:50 PM']Pathetic attempts at puerile humour do not qualify as logical alternative argument.[/quote]
At least puerile humour is occasionally funny. Unlike belittling scores of people who haven't done things your way.

[rslaing]

[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)

[rslaing]

[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?"

Edited May 4, 2009 by rslaing

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='rslaing' post='479230' date='May 4 2009, 06:59 PM']As a mod, shouldn't you be moderating instead of appearing to "take sides?"[/quote]
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.

[maxrossell]

[quote name='rslaing' post='479229' date='May 4 2009, 06:57 PM']I get the impression there is some inverted snobbery here - and it appears that it is you that is being judgemental.[/quote]

Yeah, totally. I'm judging people who say that musicians who can't read are all lazy and creatively limited. How callous of me.

Seriously, keep it up man. You're too funny.

[rslaing]

[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.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='rslaing' post='479217' date='May 4 2009, 06:50 PM']I also suggest that if you want to listen to an alternative and brilliant interpretation of some of Ray Charles stuff, you listen to Jon Scofield playing his own interpretation of Ray Charles songs on "John Scofield - That's What I Say - John Scofield Plays the Music of Ray Charles (2005)" Betas the pants off the cornball originals.[/quote]

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.

[maxrossell]

[quote name='rslaing' post='479217' date='May 4 2009, 06:50 PM']But stop being so prejudiced against people who can do something that you can't be arsed about.[/quote]

Sorry, I missed this, this is classic. You got any more of this kind of thing?

[maxrossell]

[quote name='rslaing' post='479257' date='May 4 2009, 07:22 PM']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]

That's "moderate", not "moderator".

Amazing.