Playing by ear Vs. reading music

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='480334' date='May 5 2009, 08:17 PM']Sorry, what part of this are you not getting?

I don't have a problem with your opinions or your theories on how reading music is a benefit. I have a problem with you using that as a platform to slag off people who don't read music. If you don't think you've been doing that, I invite you to check back through your own posts in this thread.[/quote]
I think the sooner we accept that he doesn't care, the better.

I certainly don't feel the need to try justify myself anymore on here - I'm just going to let my music take care of that.

[Eight]

[quote name='rslaing' post='480323' date='May 5 2009, 08:03 PM']It is much EASIER to learn aurally, which IMO is why most people (as I mentioned earlier) take the course of least resistance and don't bother to learn to read or write music.[/quote]
That's harsh and a bit unrealistic.

I agree with your fundamental points about reading/writing music, but you have to careful when you make calls based on what "people" find easier to do or how they learn things. Any teacher (of any subject) will most likely tell you that different people learn things in different ways, and adopting a wide range of teaching methods will often produce the best results.

As it happens, I suck at learning things when shown. In music and language (traditionally things I am quite good at) I struggle to learn aurally (even when my ear was good). In fact, the way that reliably works for me in just about everything I've tried to do (from sports to music) is dealing with some kind of orthography (even if that's reading the subject from a book) or notation.

It's one of the reasons I think a balanced approach to teaching music should include notation. There are (and will always be) people with similar preferences, and to exclude them is no better than excluding those that do not do so well learning that way.

[dlloyd]

[quote name='rslaing' post='480329' date='May 5 2009, 08:08 PM']Many great musicians and artists produced their best work (and their worst) because they were mentally ill - particularly if bipolar II (as we know it now).[/quote]

Bipolar I. Jaco went full blown on a number of occassions.

[quote]Not least because when hypomanic, they slept less and were able to produce an inordinate amount of work as a result of their "abnormal" creative instinct.[/quote]

There is that, plus hypomania can make you compulsively driven to achieve particular goals. Some of which can be infuriatingly stupid.

[rslaing]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='480334' date='May 5 2009, 08:17 PM']Sorry, what part of this are you not getting?

I don't have a problem with your opinions or your theories on how reading music is a benefit. I have a problem with you using that as a platform to slag off people who don't read music. If you don't think you've been doing that, I invite you to check back through your own posts in this thread.[/quote]

Can I suggest that you try to stay on topic here? I really do not have to respond to personal stuff. But I will opinionate/debate with you forever about the topic if you want.

If you want to start a topic off about the subject you seem to be mostly interested in, which is me and my opinions about why I think learning to read music is critical, then go ahead. I have already stated my case about musicians and their lack of all roundedness because they can't read music. And I think I have given a valid justification in a large % of my postings as to why I think that. I have read the replies from people who can't read music and so far, have not read anything to change my mind.

[rslaing]

[quote name='dlloyd' post='480343' date='May 5 2009, 08:24 PM']Bipolar I. Jaco went full blown on a number of occassions.



There is that, plus hypomania can make you compulsively driven to achieve particular goals. Some of which can be infuriatingly stupid.[/quote]

Apologies, I should have made myself a little clearer.

When artistic bipolar individuals are at their most productive, it is normally because they are hypomanic ( a bipolar II effect) , and have a semblance of reason to varying degrees. Hypomania can produce extensive periods of heightened creativity, and so can not so serious episodes of mild to moderate depression.

An episode of bipolar I is not normally very productive, because as you suggest being "full blown" is generally when ALL reason and sensibility disappears and the sufferer tends to go on a course of self destruction.

Edited May 5, 2009 by rslaing

[dlloyd]

[quote name='rslaing' post='480349' date='May 5 2009, 08:31 PM']Apologies, I should have made myself a little clearer.

When artistic bipolar individuals are at their most productive, it is normally because they are hypomanic ( a bipolar II effect) , and have a semblance of reason to varying degrees. Hypomania can produce extensive periods of heightened creativity, and so can not so serious episodes of mild to moderate depression.

An episode of bipolar I is not normally very productive, because as you suggest being "full blown" is generally when ALL reason and sensibility disappears and the sufferer tends to go on a course of self destruction.[/quote]

Bipolar I and II are diagnoses rather than symptoms, but yeah... mania is much like hypomania but with the added benefit of full blown psychosis. Not nice. Most Bipolar I 'sufferers' usually experience hypomanic episodes, but get the odd manic episode (which Bipolar II doesn't involve).

And of course, you get the flip side as well. Crappy illness, even if it has moments of brilliance.

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='rslaing' post='480298' date='May 5 2009, 07:39 PM']Why bother to learn to read at all when you always hum, whistle or sing your ideas to your band mates, and they can then spend an inordinate amount of time trying to interpret what you are going on about? Then you can build a library of stale numbers (well they will be by the time you have learned them via the humming, la-la-la, "let's listen to the cd again lads" method) that everyone in the band will be bored with and then you can start on the cycle again [/quote]

I play in an originals band, so there's no CD to learn from. No one in my band reads. All music is communicated aurally.

[quote name='rslaing' post='480298' date='May 5 2009, 07:39 PM']Hopefully I won't start off another war here, but SIGHT reading is an essential skill too. If not just for the purpose of learning music that is important to you - very quickly. It's also cheaper than having to source the number you are trying to learn, maybe by buying the cd, or more than likely pirating it and copying it to all your band-mates and thereby scoring a double whammy by depriving the copyright owners/record company - who have provided the facility and financing - of any income?[/quote]

I play in an originals band.

[quote name='rslaing' post='480298' date='May 5 2009, 07:39 PM']"However, a side-effect will be a hideously self-indulgent originals side project churning out jazz muzak." What is that supposed to mean?[/quote]

People who study theory to a high level usually churn out crap music that only appeals to other musicians.

[quote name='rslaing' post='480298' date='May 5 2009, 07:39 PM']If it wasn't for people producing original music and sounds (whatever the genre), and having the ability to transmit their ideas by either technology, or more importantly by the WRITTEN element (for posterity and accurate reproduction of their ingenuity) you wouldn't even have heard anywhere near the amount of music you might have listened to.[/quote]

I play in an originals band. It's great that people can read and transcribe music. I'm all for. I'm glad people like you exist. Its not neccessary for everyone. We do a couple of covers. We learnt them by ear. Obviously to you this isn't a valid form of learning music. I'm sorry.


[quote name='rslaing' post='480298' date='May 5 2009, 07:39 PM']Maybe you could give us an idea of your preferred choice of music, and reasons for it, so we can have a greater understanding of your critical posts? That would be very interesting.[/quote]

I like all sorts. Feel free to check out our myspace site: www.myspace.com/gimmeshelta. I apologies for the bass playing in advance. You probably won't like it, so feel free to sling me in the bargain bucket with Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles.

[dlloyd]

I really enjoyed listening to Sean's band.

He's got a skewed view of what jazz is from reading about it on bass players' forums.

Jazz used to be fun, it used to be dance music. It became more of an intellectual pursuit during the 1940s/50s when bebop musicians realised there were some neat theoretical tools to add dissonance to dominant chords. That in itself wasn't a bad thing... But when rock and roll appeared and people stopped listening to jazz, lots of people found themselves out of work and it (the first real 'American' artform) got preserved as a university course. One that was largely taught by those who never got bebop in the first place.

We've ended up with a formulaic, paint by numbers approach to jazz that's pretty convenient to describe in magazines and on discussion forums, but which does indeed lead to worthless music.

[rslaing]

[quote name='dlloyd' post='480486' date='May 5 2009, 10:52 PM']We've ended up with a formulaic, paint by numbers approach to jazz that's pretty convenient to describe in magazines and on discussion forums, but which does indeed lead to worthless music.[/quote]

Would you tell me which present day jazz artists have a "paint by numbers" approach leading to worthless music? Thanks

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='rslaing' post='480506' date='May 5 2009, 11:07 PM']Would you tell me which present day jazz artists have a "paint by numbers" approach leading to worthless music? Thanks[/quote]

How about Pepe Shuckles, Milton Jones, Art Stilton, LeRoy Oxbow, The Catscan Trio, Lenny Bernstein....



The list goes on.

[rslaing]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='480516' date='May 5 2009, 11:17 PM']How about Pepe Shuckles, Milton Jones, Art Stilton, LeRoy Oxbow, The Catscan Trio, Lenny Bernstein....



The list goes on.[/quote]

That was the sort of answer I expected, glad you didn't let me down...................

[dlloyd]

[quote name='rslaing' post='480506' date='May 5 2009, 11:07 PM']Would you tell me which present day jazz artists have a "paint by numbers" approach leading to worthless music? Thanks[/quote]

I'm talking more about an educational approach. An example would be the Aebersold chord/scale method. It's attractive specifically because it breaks music down into a formula that is, initially at least, simple to understand. But the temptation is to take the initial concept and develop it by learning more and more scales rather than by developing a strong melodic sense. Probably inevitable given the limitations of learning jazz from a book.

[maxrossell]

[quote name='rslaing' post='480344' date='May 5 2009, 08:24 PM']Can I suggest that you try to stay on topic here? I really do not have to respond to personal stuff. But I will opinionate/debate with you forever about the topic if you want.

If you want to start a topic off about the subject you seem to be mostly interested in, which is me and my opinions about why I think learning to read music is critical, then go ahead. I have already stated my case about musicians and their lack of all roundedness because they can't read music. And I think I have given a valid justification in a large % of my postings as to why I think that. I have read the replies from people who can't read music and so far, have not read anything to change my mind.[/quote]

I'm only reacting to what you say. If what you say is off-topic, then I can't do anything about that.

And I understand perfectly your opinions about the value of reading music, since you've stated them over and over again. But every time I've asked the following question (which is a different question), you've consistently sidestepped it:

[b]What is is that makes you feel entitled to heap insults, criticism and derision on non-readers as you have done in this thread?[/b]

If you'd like me to provide examples, I will. And feel free to say that you outright refuse to answer it, but don't pretend it's a different question or start banging on about staying on topic or not getting personal or whatever. It's a straightforward question, I want to know why you feel you should be permitted to heap abuse on people who don't feel the same way as you about reading music?

Edited May 6, 2009 by maxrossell

[maxrossell]

Actually, here, for the sake of clarity. These are some of the things you've said which don't make any kind of useful point about learning to read music, but do, however, put down people who don't:

[quote]There are not many top musicians who can't read music. And I am not talking about the type of musician who plays something that any 6 year old could manage after 2 months tuition.
---
I do know however, as a bass tutor originally before my day job ate up my time and I became too old to be bothered any more, that most of my students that did not want to learn to read music did not do so for two main reasons. They either thought it had no relevance to what they wanted to play (mostly commercial or blues/metal stuff that did not necessitate any real musical skill anyway) or they were just too lazy to learn.
---
I will make one further point about non reading players which I do hope will not cause you any further stress. I believe they are also limited in their creative abilities and tend to stick to one type of music. And very opinionated they are about that too, just as I am being now - but this is my personal experience. Just because they like a certain type of music or musician, they think it is "good". There is a huge difference between something being played well by a talented musician than an average joe playing some banal 3 chord tripe (and even then, on most of the produced albums, not only do they use auto vocal tuners for the untalented/untrained vocalists, but on many occasions, studios have to hire external musicians who can actually read music for the backing tracks).
---
and it sounds like your music degree has all the authenticity of a first class honours in knitting.
---
I stick to my original belief - people that can't read music are lazy, and somewhere early on in their musical aspirations decided that they could get where they wanted to be without bothering. It might work for manufactured sh*te in the music industry, but not for REAL musicians.
---
If someone is happy toddling along learning bass patterns "off pat" and by copying other players, thats fine too.
---
However, I also have my own musical opinions, and pop/commercial music has about the same value as nursery rhymes to me. I don't castigate people that like it though. It is their choice. (...) I would use the cliche that most of the stuff around now is just "bubble gum for the brain". And performed by a lot of talentless, mass produced drones. And not very well. Unfortunately, this sort of crap is all the kids want to aspire to,
---
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).
---
Why bother to learn to read at all when you always hum, whistle or sing your ideas to your band mates, and they can then spend an inordinate amount of time trying to interpret what you are going on about? Then you can build a library of stale numbers (well they will be by the time you have learned them via the humming, la-la-la, "let's listen to the cd again lads" method) that everyone in the band will be bored with and then you can start on the cycle again [/quote]

There you go, a series of dismissive generalisations, put-downs, insults and general mockery that do absolutely sod-all to advance the case that reading music is an advantage, but on the other hand serve to hammer home just how superior you personally feel to every single person who doesn't read music.

I'd like to know what makes you feel entitled to say this kind of thing, and then claim that it's just your opinion and people shouldn't be offended by it. And then hypocritically accuse me of getting personal and insulting when I ask you about it.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='480688' date='May 6 2009, 09:46 AM']Actually, here, for the sake of clarity. These are some of the things you've said which don't make any kind of useful point about learning to read music, but do, however, put down people who don't:



There you go, a series of dismissive generalisations, put-downs, insults and general mockery that do absolutely sod-all to advance the case that reading music is an advantage, but on the other hand serve to hammer home just how superior you personally feel to every single person who doesn't read music.

I'd like to know what makes you feel entitled to say this kind of thing, and then claim that it's just your opinion and people shouldn't be offended by it. And then hypocritically accuse me of getting personal and insulting when I ask you about it.[/quote]
Seriously - let it go. He doesn't care what other people think, and he's probably into music for different reasons than the likes of you and I.

[maxrossell]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='480689' date='May 6 2009, 09:48 AM']Seriously - let it go. He doesn't care what other people think, and he's probably into music for different reasons than the likes of you and I.[/quote]

I guess. I'm just intrigued by the psychology of this sort of behaviour. In a roundabout way I even find it relevant to the point of the thread.

[mcgraham]

I have to be honest, not being able to sight read fluently (I can get by) has not been a hindrance to me in 99% of all musical situations I've been in. And a great deal of these have been dealt with difficult material, such as gospel, jazz (standards and originals). Using my ear and my sense of musical direction has served me well. And I could have made a living out of a number of these groups. So, Max, I totally see and agree with your viewpoint that it isn't necessary to be able to read to be a great and/or successful musician.

However, not being able to sight read does leave me annoyed when I hear pieces that I simply want to be able to play note for note instantly upon viewing or with little preparation. For my own personal satisfaction, I want to develop that skill. And once I have that skill up to scratch, I'm sure that further opportunities will present themselves.

In short, it's my opinion that there are opportunities for those who can read, and opportunities for those who can't. Neither being more or less valid than the other. I would suggest that a number of those who can read and have come from a reading background may not have experienced a 'playing' life in bands that have no reading requirement, or perhaps they struggle in/do not enjoy/dislike such environments, and as such they may lack a strong realisation there is clear musical fruit to be borne out of such scenarios. The same can be said (vice versa) for those who do not read. Those who read well have little reason in organised (i.e. non-improvised) music to develop such skills as they rely on their reading skills to get by. The same can be said (vice versa) of those who do not read. Unless you have some kind of reason or driving purpose to develop one set of skills or the other, I can totally see why one would end up advocating one over the other depending on their life/playing experience.

I for one don't need it and have never needed it, but I want it, because I know I'll use it more and more, until I eventually need it.

Mark

[wateroftyne]

Good post.

[quote name='mcgraham' post='480745' date='May 6 2009, 10:55 AM']Unless you have some kind of reason or driving purpose to develop one set of skills or the other, I can totally see why one would end up advocating one over the other depending on their life/playing experience.[/quote]

There's the rub, though...

With maybe one or two exceptions (maybe serious, maybe mischievous), I don't see any non-readers here suggesting that their approach is [i]better[/i].

[Eight]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='480745' date='May 6 2009, 10:55 AM']In short, it's my opinion that there are opportunities for those who can read, and opportunities for those who can't.[/quote]
Except all things being equal - someone who can read has access to all of the opportunities reading brings, and all of the opportunities reading isn't required for.

I have no comment to make on exactly what those opportunities are or how valuable they might be to someone. That's too subjective for me personally to get involved in.

[Eight]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='480745' date='May 6 2009, 10:55 AM']Those who read well have little reason in organised (i.e. non-improvised) music to develop such skills as they rely on their reading skills to get by.[/quote]
Missed this.

Outside of orchestral (and arguably some session playing) - can you honestly say this is true? Are you suggesting readers have no reason to develop skills in improvisation (which is basically playing by ear) etc? I don't think many modern musicians *rely* on their reading at the expense of anything else - its a technique that is extremely useful but is not the only thing we can do.

Classical training may have traditionally ignored improv etc. but that is not to the detriment of reading, it just showed a certain short sightedness or narrow focus in the systems of musical education.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Eight

[mcgraham]

[quote]Outside of orchestral (and arguably some session playing) - can you honestly say this is true? Are you suggesting readers have no reason to develop skills in improvisation (which is basically playing by ear) etc? I don't think many modern musicians *rely* on their reading at the expense of anything else - its a technique that is extremely useful but is not the only thing we can do.[/quote]

Fair question - I have played with such people. I'm not saying that ALL readers do NOT develop skills, I'm saying that often there is no driving force or necessary imperative to develop such skills as they are not needed outside of their usual sphere of playing. IME, such people are usually classically trained musicians who 'get into jazz' or branch out into some other styles, and because they have the technique, and perhaps a memory that allows them to throw out licks they learned from reading, they do a passable imitation of such styles. I played with a jazz group that was like this (see a previous post by me in this thread) and they were shocking. No dynamics, no understanding of variations, colouring the music with different ideas, and just random fast streams of notes in their solos. They could play difficult stuff, had solid rhythm, presented solos with confidence, but really had no depth to it. It was the academic version of what I would do if I had to bluff my way through a reading set by ear.

Mark

[Eight]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='480796' date='May 6 2009, 11:38 AM']Fair question - I have played with such people. I'm not saying that ALL readers do NOT develop skills, I'm saying that often there is no driving force or necessary imperative to develop such skills as they are not needed outside of their usual sphere of playing. IME, such people are usually classically trained musicians who 'get into jazz' or branch out into some other styles, and because they have the technique, and perhaps a memory that allows them to throw out licks they learned from reading, they do a passable imitation of such styles. I played with a jazz group that was like this (see a previous post by me in this thread) and they were shocking. No dynamics, no understanding of variations, colouring the music with different ideas, and just random fast streams of notes in their solos. They could play difficult stuff, had solid rhythm, presented solos with confidence, but really had no depth to it. It was the academic version of what I would do if I had to bluff my way through a reading set by ear.[/quote]
I can see what you're saying - and have seen similar. That's the fault of the training (especially classical) or individual at work. Although I wonder if they were simply a bit useless - since dynamics etc. in classical training/music are typically very important and they should have had this.

Whether you read or not, in music there are always reasons to develop skills such as ear training and improvisation. I think the nature of some performers who read does reading a disservice and presents it in the wrong light.

Readers love our ears too; and a good jam.

[mcgraham]

[quote]Except all things being equal - someone who can read has access to all of the opportunities reading brings, and all of the opportunities reading isn't required for.[/quote]

Both camps have access to both types of opportunities; it just requires one camp to learn the skills of the other. I appreciate that 'listening' skills and 'playing by ear' is less obviously an academic skill when compared to reading, but I think it is just as valid a skill, and requires just as much dedication to get it up to scratch (if not more depending on the nature/personality of the player). Don't make the mistake of thinking that developing a strong ear is automatic just because one can read. I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that it isn't a given.

Mark

[mcgraham]

[quote]Whether you read or not, in music there are always reasons to develop skills such as ear training and improvisation. I think the nature of some performers who read does reading a disservice and presents it in the wrong light.[/quote]

It can be presented in the wrong light when those skills are presented in the wrong context. Orchestras are an amazing example of what is possible with written music - hundreds of people playing complex interweaving parts with relatively little amounts of preparation, with flowing dynamics controlled simply by the movement of one man's hands, all culminating in one complete beautiful piece. On the other hand, good jazz groups are a great example of what is possible with highly developed ears and a musically attuned mind - a small group of people playing completely unwritten and undecided parts, with no absolute rights or wrongs or directions/preconceptions that must be followed, but parts being composed on the fly that serve the song, and dynamics decided and directed purely by the sum of the parts provided by the individuals.

However, very little is more painful or bland than a person with a highly attuned ear trying to bluff their way through a piece that would normally require strong reading skills, or a reader attempting to muddle along with improvisers. Different skill sets entirely.

Mark

[Eight]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='480819' date='May 6 2009, 10:55 AM']Don't make the mistake of thinking that developing a strong ear is automatic just because one can read. I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that it isn't a given.[/quote]
I think you'll find I already just said ear training was important.

Ear training and reading are completely separate skills - just because you can read doesn't mean you can or can't play by ear. And just because you can't read doesn't mean you can actually play by ear either.

The point is, surely everyone needs effective ears... so everyone can go for opportunities where reading is not required (but ears are). But only readers can go for opportunities where reading *is* required.

You're perhaps coloured by meeting too many readers who had underdeveloped ears, but that is basically irrelevant to the issue.