Playing by ear Vs. reading music

[AM1]

[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]

For some people, improving musicianship is THE primary fun and joy of music. That's what I get out of it and the more effort you put in, the more reward you get out.

I just don't see the point of standing still when you can keep striving for improvment. I don't consider that as me "getting it dead wrong" - progress is a great thing, it keeps the passion for music alive.

[rslaing]

[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

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='AM1' post='479383' date='May 4 2009, 09:04 PM']For musicians to become more learned, half the battle is overcoming this increasingly prevalent mentality that shunning the rudiments of music in favour of playing by ear, is the way forward. It is not, for many musicians who ignore the basic building blocks available, they will hit a wall and the difference between being average, or being outstanding is partly determined by mental attitude and how one progresses through those walls.[/quote]

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 it became clear that 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...

Edited May 4, 2009 by jakesbass

[rslaing]

[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?

Edited May 4, 2009 by rslaing

[Johngh]

At the end of the day some of it must be down to what level a musician wants to play at. Nowdays I'm quite happy to plod along in cover/tribute bands.
I did the whole originals thing years ago, had the record deal, the band had some success, did a session with Tommy Vance on the Friday Rock Show, supported Def Leppard, you know, that kinda stuff. And before anyone asks, no I'm not going to name drop the band. I've never been able to read a note, so what ! I've had a ball.
If I was aiming to score music, compose my own tunes, apply for orchestra/theatre gigs, then reading would be of benefit. As things stand, reading is not of benefit to me, so I'm not going to waste my time learning. Not that I have much time for anything nowdays anyway.
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.

[AM1]

Jake

Thanks for the measured reply. It is nice to see that someone can still conduct themselves in a civilised manner here, whilst offering an alternative perspective.


[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.[/quote]

I think this is a good point, well made. It is true what you say about the work ethic. But define "talent" - the way I define "talent" is that some people simply have more natural musicality than others and this was what I was referring to in my opening post here.


[quote name='jakesbass' post='479510' date='May 4 2009, 10:46 PM']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.[/quote]

I absolutely agree that spending years and years obsessively absorbing repertoire definitely has merit. However, as you state, there was also talent there, as well as the work ethic. My point was that for those musicians whom do have to work hard at it, there are multiple avenues to assist progress and therefore the mentality that ear playing on it's own is "adequate" is just a bit disappointing. It seems that the bass is an instrument where this mentality is very prevalent and in fact I have already encountered reverse "snobbery" from pure ear players when they ask if I read music, it is met with derision when I say yes, as if somehow that is "cheating". I will use every method available as and when I feel that it will assist constructive progress and do not feel that this approach should be denigrated by those whom simply lack the same motivation and application.


[quote name='jakesbass' post='479510' date='May 4 2009, 10:46 PM']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]

Different conductors interpret music differently - but the point this, they all start from the same written music but can offer varying creative input to an ensemble, - [b]because[/b] they can read.

[rslaing]

"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?

[MythSte]

Crap, Rslaing, I didnt mean to edit your post. This is why i shouldnt be a moderator...

I'll see if i can dig out what you put, but he made a very valid point ladies and gentlemen and i was trying to emphasize this!

Edit - Sorted.

[Johngh]

[quote name='rslaing' post='479535' date='May 4 2009, 11:10 PM']"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]

I have often thought about learning theory more, but I don't have enough time to devote to it. I've only just about found enough time to devote to my latest project. Your reply to my post was just about spot on.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='rslaing' post='479512' date='May 4 2009, 10:50 PM']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]

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.

Edited May 4, 2009 by jakesbass

[dlloyd]

[quote name='rslaing' post='479506' date='May 4 2009, 10:44 PM']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?[/quote]

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?

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='AM1' post='479534' date='May 4 2009, 11:10 PM']Jake

Thanks for the measured reply. It is nice to see that someone can still conduct themselves in a civilised manner here, whilst offering an alternative perspective.[/quote]
You're welcome, I seriously enjoy this kind of interesting enlightening and informed debate. I will always find in others, however rancourously put, material to which I have hitherto not been party.

[quote name='AM1' post='479534' date='May 4 2009, 11:10 PM']Different conductors interpret music differently - but the point this, they all start from the same written music but can offer varying creative input to an ensemble, - [b]because[/b] they can read.[/quote]

Of course you are right and my earlier posts confirm that I feel this way, I am simply saying that there is more besides, and that is not on paper generally, it's in our hearts and souls.

Edited May 4, 2009 by jakesbass

[rslaing]

[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.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='rslaing' post='479571' date='May 5 2009, 12:05 AM']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.[/quote]
I couldn't take it personally I am a reader, and I agree with most of your points regarding it's value.
[quote name='rslaing' post='479571' date='May 5 2009, 12:05 AM']Luck............is preparation meeting opportunity. Be prepared by being the best you can be, and create your own opportunities.[/quote]
Totally agree.

One final point, Ike ate music in a way that had to be experienced to be believed, he was no slouch in rehearsal and it would never have impacted on the efficiency.
The other Zappa guy was Bobby Martin.
He could read anything on five different instruments.

evidence for both sides eh?

[rslaing]

[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.

Edited May 4, 2009 by rslaing

[jakenewmanbass]

I like it now it's calmer. There's a lot to be gleaned from the experience that resides in this debate

[dlloyd]

[quote name='rslaing' post='479581' date='May 5 2009, 12:24 AM']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.[/quote]

It's interesting that you brought up Miles Davis. The only quote I've ever found from him about Hendrix is this one, in which he talks about other musicians he considers 'great' despite the fact they can't read...

[quote]I first met Jimi when his manager called up and wanted me to introduce
him to the way I was playing and putting my music together. Jimi liked
what I had done on Kind of Blue and some other stuff and wanted to add
more jazz elements to what he was doing. He liked the way Coltrane
played with all those other sheets of sound, and he played the guitar
in a similar way. Plus, he said that he heard the guitar voicing that
I used in the way I played the trumpet. So we started getting
together...


He was a real nice guy, quiet but intense, and was nothing like people
thought he was. He was just the opposite of the wild and crazy image
he presented on the stage. When we started getting together and
talking about music, I found out that he couldn't read music. Betty
(Mabry) had a party for him sometime in 1969 at my house on West 77th.
I couldn't be there because I had to be in the studio that night
recording, so I left some music for him to read and then we'd talk
about it later. (Some people wrote some sh*t that I didn't come to the
party for him because I didn't like having a party for a man in my
house. That's a lot of bullshit.)


When I called back home from the studio to speak to Jimi about the
music I had left him, I found out he didn't read music. There are a
lot of great musicians who don't read music - black and white - that I
have known and respected and played with. So I didn't think less of
Jimi because of that. Jimi was just a great, natural musician - self
taught. He would pick up things from whoever he was around, and he
picked up things quick. Once he heard it he really had it down. We
would be talking, and I would be telling him technical sh*t like,
"Jimi, you know, when you play the diminished chord..." I would see
this lost look come into his face and I would say, "Okay, okay, I
forgot." I would just play it for him on the piano or on the horn, and
he would get it faster than a m*****f***er. He had a natural ear for
hearing music. So I'd play different sh*t for him, show him that way.
Or I'd play him a record of mine or Trane's and explain to him what we
were doing. The he started incorporating things I told him into his
albums. It was great. He influenced me, and I influenced him, and
that's the way great music is always made. Everybody showing everybody
else something and then moving on from there.


But Jimi was also close to hillbilly, country music played by them
mountain white people. That's why he had those two English guys in his
band, because a lot of white English musicians liked that American
hillbilly music. The best he sounded to me was when he had Buddy Miles
on drums and Billy Cox on bass. Jimi was playing that Indian kind of
sh*t, or he'd play those funny little melodies he doubled up on his
guitar. I loved it when he doubled up sh*t like that. He used to play
6/8 all the time when he was with them white English guys and that's
what made him sound like a hillbilly to me. Just that concept he was
doing with that. But when he started playing with Buddy and Billy in
the Band of Gypsys, I think he brought what he was doing all the way
out. But the record companies and white people liked him better when
he had the white guys in his band, just like a lot of white people
like to talk about me when I was doing the nonet thing - the Birth Of
The Cool thing, or when I did those other albums with Gil Evans or
Bill Evans because they always like to see white people up in black
sh*t, so that they can say they had something to do with it. But Jimi
Hendrix came from the blues, like me. We understood each other right
away because of that. He was a great blues guitarist.[/quote]

[dlloyd]

As an interesting side note, here's part of a BB King interview, where he talks about the importance of reading music...

[quote]S Do you read music?
BB Yes...

S Do you think it's important to read music in the latest...
BB Of course, of course I'll tell you to give you a little for instance, I'm not a fast sight reader, I read, ah to give you my little for instance I was in France a few years ago and I met a lady, a very pretty lady, and I didn't speak French, she didn't speak English so I had a friend that spoke French. So I would tell him what to tell the lady and then she would reply and he would tell me. And I went back the next year and she was married. So today parlay vu Franca. Yeah I do understand some words and I speak too, but I'm trying to say the same thing about the music. One should learn to...it took me a long time because I had no formal music education. Everything I've learned I'm self-taught, so I'm still...its very important that one should learn to read. If not sight read fast, at least read, and if you are able to do so, for instance I usually tell the guys I've made records with various people you know as a back ground musician from time to time, so I usually say give me my thought tonight,______________ But all of my guys, all the guys they can, their sight-readers, everybody is a good written musician except me.

S Now you were ______________ probably about my age and...
BB No I wasn' t______________ and I'm sixty-one.

S Well when I was a kid we at that time too we didn't think we needed to read music. We learned to read later on
BB but I think its kind of weird, people usually will say to you as a blues musician, they will say oh man you don't need to read music, then they talk about you if you don't. No they really do and I got angry about that, ah people used to tell me, oh man the blues, you don't have to do that for the blues, and they when I would play a theater, like the Michigan Theater here, oh man its B.B. King man that's blues man you ought to be able to play so you can cut the smoke with a knife. I don't even smoke, so I don't want nobody cutting smoke out, so to me it seemed a downer, they put you down, so I say to me B.B. King maybe you won't have to read but learn anyway.

S That's the strange thing about young people, and you could also qualify for those big jobs where you would have to read and write or get dumped.
BB I know I probably wouldn't even be able to get those. But I think that it's important, I think the one thing that I've thought about a lot since I've had a band, I've been carrying my own band since 56. And before that I worked with various and luckily from the beginning I've always had a hit record and most times I was always featured, I've always been featured I've never worked in the rhythm section, never have and I've wanted to so much. And every time I get in the rhythm section because I usually have a record out, somebody will say play Three O'clock Blues, play Sweet Sixteen or something like this and a fear of me playing the rhythm section, today I'm a horrible, horrible rhythm player, I just cannot play very well.[/quote]

[rslaing]

" 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."

[rslaing]

[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.

[maxrossell]

So basically what we've established here is that there are people who don't read music, see no reason for them personally to read music and enjoy themselves fine, progress, even have decent (sometimes brilliant) careers without reading music.

And on the other hand, we have people who do read music and think that you can't ever progress beyond mediocrity without reading music. And who illustrate this point by dismissing everything that non-readers have ever achieved as mediocre, in one case dismissing entire genres as not requiring any musical skill.

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

[dlloyd]

I agree 100% that the ability to read is crucial if you want to pursue a course of academic study in music. I think it's bizarre that there are Universities that are offering degrees in music where reading is not compulsary... again, no personal slight intended towards Max.

But I cannot regard reading music as an absolutely necessary tool for a popular musician, nor a fundamental requirement for being a 'great musician'. There's too many examples of musical greats who could not read or who had limited reading skills, particularly amongst guitarists and bass guitarists, even those famous for playing jazz (since jazz almost inevitably gets dragged into any discussion of theory on popular music forums).

Django Reinhardt, Wes Montgomery and Charlie Christian were all musically illiterate, and I can't imagine any way you could question their greatness as musicians and retain credibility.

[dlloyd]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479750' date='May 5 2009, 11:15 AM']So basically what we've established here is that there are people who don't read music, see no reason for them personally to read music and enjoy themselves fine, progress, even have decent (sometimes brilliant) careers without reading music.

And on the other hand, we have people who do read music and think that you can't ever progress beyond mediocrity without reading music. And who illustrate this point by dismissing everything that non-readers have ever achieved as mediocre, in one case dismissing entire genres as not requiring any musical skill.

Correct me if I'm wrong here.[/quote]

You're wrong, as is anyone who presents this as a polarised issue.

I'm pretty comfortable at reading. My sight reading for bass isn't stunning, as I don't use it often enough, but it's not terrible, and I'm pretty good at sight reading on other instruments. But far too many of the musicians who I consider 'great' were non-readers for me to dismiss non-readers out of hand.

But I don't think any convincing argument can be made that they were 'great' [i]because[/i] they couldn't read, or that their 'greatness' is reasonable justification for having illiteracy as an aspiration.

[maxrossell]

Also, here are a few things that I have personally done and believe can make people improve [i]considerably[/i] as musicians, for fairly obvious reasons

- Engineering, mixing and mastering multitrack recordings
- Scoring films
- Building instruments out of found objects
- Arranging pieces for non-instruments
- Arranging classical pieces for modern instruments
- Writing and performing pieces on instruments you haven't learned to play
- Sound designing

As I said, all of these things have obvious musical benefits that I probably don't need to go into. Does it mean I think everyone should have to do them, and is doomed to mediocrity if they don't? Of course not. There are far better musicians than me out there who have done none of these things.

[maxrossell]

[quote name='dlloyd' post='479770' date='May 5 2009, 11:33 AM']You're wrong, as is anyone who presents this as a polarised issue.

I'm pretty comfortable at reading. My sight reading for bass isn't stunning, as I don't use it often enough, but it's not terrible, and I'm pretty good at sight reading on other instruments. But far too many of the musicians who I consider 'great' were non-readers for me to dismiss non-readers out of hand.

But I don't think any convincing argument can be made that they were 'great' [i]because[/i] they couldn't read, or that their 'greatness' is reasonable justification for having illiteracy as an aspiration.[/quote]

But you've not contradicted what I've said.

I'm not claiming that ALL readers think that everyone should have to read, and similarly I don't think [i]anyone[/i] genuinely has the viewpoint that there is some sort of [i]benefit[/i] to not reading.

What I'm saying is that some of the non-readers are saying that it doesn't bother them that they don't read, and some of the most vociferious advocates of reading have made comments along the lines of you can't be a genuinely good musician if you don't read. That's what I seem to be getting from this argument.