Playing by ear Vs. reading music

[lowdown]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='477548' date='May 2 2009, 09:39 AM']Yeah, and I wouldn't presume to if I couldn't read it, and never claimed I would, so I don't know what the point that you're failing to make is.[/quote]

Re read back over nine pages of this post.
The penny might drop.


Garry

[maxrossell]

[quote name='lowdown' post='477552' date='May 2 2009, 09:47 AM']Re read back over nine pages of this post.
The penny might drop.


Garry[/quote]

No no, I get it, you think you're entitled to rubbish my achievements because you've learned something that I have no need for. I just don't see why you think it's okay to do that.

[XB26354]

Probably because you come across as an arrogant self-satisfied knob bragging about your many achievements (which I suspect most people couldn't give a toss about), and I'm at a loss as to what your pompous posturing has got to do with both this thread and this forum.

[maxrossell]

[quote name='XB26354' post='476555' date='Apr 30 2009, 11:53 PM']I'm sure resorting to insults is very noble [/quote]


[quote name='XB26354' post='477567' date='May 2 2009, 10:07 AM']Probably because you come across as an arrogant self-satisfied knob[/quote]

I'm sorry, you were saying?

[wateroftyne]

Play nicely, ladies and gentlemen.

Let's a have a bit of restaint, and respect for each other's approaches.

[wateroftyne]

FWIW, the main thing that gets my goat about this whole argument is the reluctance by some people to accept that an approach that differs to theirs could possibly be legitimate.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='477584' date='May 2 2009, 10:38 AM']FWIW, the main thing that gets my goat about this whole argument is the reluctance by some people to accept that an approach that differs to theirs could possibly be legitimate.[/quote]

Big +1 on that - on both sides of the argument in some cases

(PS hey WoT, that Tony Franklin P bass is giving me labour pains )

[Prosebass]

I've just read most of this and don't get why there is an argument !

Many respected bassists have no reading skills and many have who are also arrangers, writers etc.
As an example my brother is a qualified piano teacher who does recitals and is honing his skills to become a concert pianist.
Put a bass in his hands and he is useless. Indeed he knows where all the notes are but there is more to playing bass than just that. I play bass for fun and he is amazed at what I play without me even thinking what notes I am stringing together.
Surely there is room for what I would call technical players and the alternative feel / groove players. As long as you are happy in what you do does it matter how you achieve it ?

Edited May 2, 2009 by Prosebass

[maxrossell]

[quote name='Prosebass' post='477601' date='May 2 2009, 11:02 AM']I've just read most of this and don't get why there is an argument ![/quote]

There's an argument because on the one hand some readers are advancing the preposterous notion that non-readers are all missing out on an untold wealth of creative and professional opportunities that only readers have access to, and on the other hand some non-readers are advancing the equally preposterous notion that knowing how to read somehow makes you a worse musician. So basically you have a group of people who claim that their approach is the [i]only[/i] valid approach and as a reaction to that you have another group of people who are completely rejecting that approach as insular. The first group is coming off as elitist and the second is coming across as deliberately obtuse.

Edited May 2, 2009 by maxrossell

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='477610' date='May 2 2009, 11:14 AM']There's an argument because on the one hand some readers are advancing the preposterous notion that non-readers are all missing out on an untold wealth of creative and professional opportunities that only readers have access to, and on the other hand some non-readers are advancing the equally preposterous notion that knowing how to read somehow makes you a worse musician. So basically you have a group of people who claim that their approach is the [i]only[/i] valid approach and as a reaction to that you have another group of people who are completely rejecting that approach as insular. The first group is coming off as elitist and the second is coming across as deliberately obtuse.[/quote]

At some points I've suspected that you have been making points allied to covering for what [i]you[/i] feel is an inadequecy within [i]yourself[/i] and are then going on to be over archingly defensive of your position, which I do think does take place amongst the non reading lobby. That said I think the post I have quoted above is the most even handed representation of the argument thus far, possibly your arguments were a little mis-understood.

For the record I am a reading player with quick ears too. My sight reading skills are not brilliant so I would always check the severity of the parts with a fixer before accepting a job. I can get by with standard fayre perfectly well and if a reading gig (e.g theatre) has rehearsal, I'm fine. I can busk very well and learn things very quickly.

BUT... this is the main point about reading work: Sometimes you are called to do sessions in studios that cost £1500 for a morning, add a full orchestra and rhythm section at standard rates and you have a very expensive prospect, and if it's TV themes or incidental music you may be called to read some really difficult music. if you don't read the parts right, first time with very little rehearsal you won't get called again.... what drives that is commerce. So merit of method does not even enter the fray when those are the stakes. The same is true for orchestral gigs, theatre deps etc etc. It has to be right... end of.

So it has to be said as a non reader one is not going to be involved in that sector of music production. A sector which is filled with excellence and more importantly good music. Now that statement, however difficult for non readers to swallow, does not constitute an attack on music created by non readers. It's just different.

None of the above will necessarily (although it's possible) have a bearing on how good or successful a bass player you are as there is evidence for people doing well on both sides of the field. If you want to decide how good a bass player you think I am have a listen [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=47877"]here[/url]

Edited May 2, 2009 by jakesbass

[MacDaddy]

not sure why people think the 2 are exclusive?

+1 on Jakeys comments.

[lowdown]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='477629' date='May 2 2009, 12:01 PM']At some points I've suspected that you have been making points allied to covering for what [i]you[/i] feel is an inadequecy within [i]yourself[/i] and are then going on to be over archingly defensive of your position, which I do think does take place amongst the non reading lobby. That said I think the post I have quoted above is the most even handed representation of the argument thus far, possibly your arguments were a little mis-understood.

For the record I am a reading player with quick ears too. My sight reading skills are not brilliant so I would always check the severity of the parts with a fixer before accepting a job. I can get by with standard fayre perfectly well and if a reading gig (e.g theatre) has rehearsal, I'm fine. I can busk very well and learn things very quickly.

BUT... this is the main point about reading work: Sometimes you are called to do sessions in studios that cost £1500 for a morning, add a full orchestra and rhythm section at standard rates and you have a very expensive prospect, and if it's TV themes or incidental music you may be called to read some really difficult music. if you don't read the parts right, first time with very little rehearsal you won't get called again.... what drives that is commerce. So merit of method does not even enter the fray when those are the stakes. The same is true for orchestral gigs, theatre deps etc etc. It has to be right... end of.

So it has to be said as a non reader one is not going to be involved in that sector of music production. A sector which is filled with excellence and more importantly good music. Now that statement, however difficult for non readers to swallow, does not constitute an attack on music created by non readers. It's just different.

None of the above will necessarily (although it's possible) have a bearing on how good or successful a bass player you are as there is evidence for people doing well on both sides of the field. If you want to decide how good a bass player you think I am have a listen [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=47877"]here[/url][/quote]


Good one Jake..
As always.
How was the middle East?
Was the 7 star food in the bins at the back of 7 star hotel to your liking, sir?

Garry

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='lowdown' post='477685' date='May 2 2009, 01:43 PM']Good one Jake..
As always.
How was the middle East?
Was the 7 star food in the bins at the back of 7 star hotel to your liking, sir?

Garry[/quote]

Cheers Garry
The trip was great, we had hotel rooms bigger than the ground floor of my house. Pool and gym on top of the hotel, fantastic food, as you can tell it was.... hell .
Bahrain is much quieter than Dubai, nice people and lovely weather (bit of a breeze as it's an Island so not killing heat)
Should be going back early next year the fixer likes us.
Jake

[rslaing]

One thing is for sure - the quickest way to learn a song is by being able to read music. And, by being able to read music, you will develop your ear to a better degree MORE QUICKLY, not necessarily to a higher level. A good musician will work to become proficient in both areas.

In my opinion, the reason that your ear develops better by being able to read music is because you translate the dots into sounds that you can reproduce more quickly and accurately. And music as you know is mostly about sound - plus harmony, rhythm, expression, the spaces in between the sounds, and many other factors that determine the end result. The other main advantage of being able to read music is that you can develop your ear greatly by being able to sit down with a CD tune and transcribe it - many of the great creative musicians in history state that transcription skill developed their ear better than any other method. Who are we to argue?

Historically most of the great musicians from different genres acquired both skills. In (for example) the modern jazz field, (which exemplifies some truly amazing skill levels aurally - even if you don't like that type of music) there were and are many musicians who were initially trained in classical music and then branched in to other areas. Once they used their reading skills to learn the "changes" and structure of a song, they then used that blueprint as a springboard to enable them to go to another level by using their aural skills. They don't actually read the music when they are in concert, it is just a means to an end. So I think it is very important that musicians have a broad spectrum of abilities - otherwise you are going to limit your potential. 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.

The thing that surprises me in some of the comments I have read in this thread is that it seems to be the non-readers that are trying to justify their inability to interpret the written element of music. It appears that the majority of the "readers" have both skills to one degree or another and are not trying to favour one method over another.

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. Most of these ended up playing uncreative cliched bass lines or mechanically reproducing original bass parts in covers bands and did not develop beyond the skill level they had after 1 or two years of playing.

So it really is a matter of choice, but my advice would always be that if you want a greater understanding of music and how certain sounds are created, learn to read music and study the other elements that make music the thing we all like - it is the quickest way to get you where you want to be.

I have never encountered anyone who wished they had never learned to read music, but I have met lots of players who wished they had.

[maxrossell]

[quote name='rslaing' post='477737' date='May 2 2009, 02:58 PM']One thing is for sure - the quickest way to learn a song is by being able to read music. And, by being able to read music, you will develop your ear to a better degree MORE QUICKLY, not necessarily to a higher level. A good musician will work to become proficient in both areas.

In my opinion, the reason that your ear develops better by being able to read music is because you translate the dots into sounds that you can reproduce more quickly and accurately. And music as you know is mostly about sound - plus harmony, rhythm, expression, the spaces in between the sounds, and many other factors that determine the end result. The other main advantage of being able to read music is that you can develop your ear greatly by being able to sit down with a CD tune and transcribe it - many of the great creative musicians in history state that transcription skill developed their ear better than any other method. Who are we to argue?

Historically most of the great musicians from different genres acquired both skills. In (for example) the modern jazz field, (which exemplifies some truly amazing skill levels aurally - even if you don't like that type of music) there were and are many musicians who were initially trained in classical music and then branched in to other areas. Once they used their reading skills to learn the "changes" and structure of a song, they then used that blueprint as a springboard to enable them to go to another level by using their aural skills. They don't actually read the music when they are in concert, it is just a means to an end. So I think it is very important that musicians have a broad spectrum of abilities - otherwise you are going to limit your potential. 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.

The thing that surprises me in some of the comments I have read in this thread is that it seems to be the non-readers that are trying to justify their inability to interpret the written element of music. It appears that the majority of the "readers" have both skills to one degree or another and are not trying to favour one method over another.

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. Most of these ended up playing uncreative cliched bass lines or mechanically reproducing original bass parts in covers bands and did not develop beyond the skill level they had after 1 or two years of playing.

So it really is a matter of choice, but my advice would always be that if you want a greater understanding of music and how certain sounds are created, learn to read music and study the other elements that make music the thing we all like - it is the quickest way to get you where you want to be.

I have never encountered anyone who wished they had never learned to read music, but I have met lots of players who wished they had.[/quote]

See, it's this kind of stuff I have a problem with.

[b]"A good musician will work to become proficient in both areas."[/b] Really? So does that mean that people who don't aren't good musicians?

[b]"many of the great creative musicians in history state that transcription skill developed their ear better than any other method. Who are we to argue?"[/b] Many others state that they learned everything they know by figuring stuff out by ear from their favourite records. So who are we to argue with [i]that[/i]?

[b]"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." [/b]That depends on what you mean by "top musician", doesn't it. The [i]large majority[/i] of people I and many others consider to be top musicians and listen to every day have very little knowledge of music theory. So I assume that you're dismissing them as nothing more than rank amateurs with the skill level of untrained children?

[b]"it seems to be the non-readers that are trying to justify their inability to interpret the written element of music"[/b] - I'm sorry, but standard notation is not THE written element of music. It is ONE OF the written elements of music.

[b]"mostly commercial or blues/metal stuff that did not necessitate any real musical skill anyway"[/b] Doesn't it? [i]Really?[/i] Or is it just that you don't personally rate any of those kinds of genres so you're not interested in what they have to offer?

I'm sorry, but all you're doing is coming across as elitist. You're dismissing the aspirations and goals of other people - and even worse, your own students - because they don't align with your own. Everything you've said above demonstrates how much you look down on people who can't read music as automatically inferior to those who can.

Learning to read music clearly has a value, but I can see what some people mean when they say that they don't want to get into that if it's gonna turn them into snobs.

[Bilbo]

Why do people who know stuff always get called elitist by people who don't? People who can read generally value it (me included). But why, if I value something, am I accused of being elitist if I advocate for it? Its no different than advocating for Wal basses or Eden amps. It works for me.

This is my fundamental position.

I can read. It helps me learn and get better - I wish I could do it better (my skill level is probably about the same as Jake's). I think its a good idea to do it for reasons already stated. If you agree with the arguments presented by the readers represented here, go for it. If I can help in any way, I will. If you don't want to, fine. Like I give a rat's

For the record, the person who got me to read by telling me 'you've got to' (in an enabling way) was saxophonist Iain Ballamy, one of the UK's finest improvising musicians. Ironic, eh?

[url="http://www.ballamy.com/free.html"]http://www.ballamy.com/free.html[/url]

[rslaing]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='477801' date='May 2 2009, 04:53 PM']See, it's this kind of stuff I have a problem with.[/quote]

I can see that.

Another example of what appears to be someone justifying their decision not to learn to read music. And not accept someone elses point of view because it is contradictory.

Maybe you should try to re-read the whole thing again - impartially. It is only my opinion and you should not take it personally, but it appears to have struck a raw nerve. It does not denigrate people who can't read music. My point of view was that I think a musican benefits from both, and reading music can help develop a good ear. Don't take my word for it, ask any pro musician. And then let us know the outcome.

Don't let my point of view aggravate you, it's just a point of view. I can accept yours, but not when you don't appear to have read my points and not answered them in a relevant way. For example, my comment:-

[b]"it seems to be the non-readers that are trying to justify their inability to interpret the written element of music" [/b]- Your response - "I'm sorry, but standard notation is not THE written element of music. It is ONE OF the written elements of music." Where did I mention standard notation? If you are talking about tab notation as an alternative (I will assume) it is a waste of time and a lazy alternative for people who don't want to learn to read music. It is actually quicker to learn to read STANDARD NOTATION than use a "join the dots" type of primitive notation. Tab notation was developed to help sell sheet music to people who couldn't read STANDARD NOTATION. Check it out.

It seems to be a waste of time trying to make any point of view on here if it contradicts the majority, because as in the other responses to the people who can read music, the hostility is absurd. I note that readers with difering opinions who have contributed their 2p to this have basically given up on it.

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).

The mods really should start to crack down on personal attacks on people who make opinions in a general non specific manner. I appreciate your point of view, and certainly do not take it personally. I am also certainly not elitist, just a very experienced musician of 40 years standing who really has seen it all and am expressing my viewpoint. I also listen to all types of music, but I also know the difference between a great musician, regardless of the genre of music, and someone who has lesser talent. But that doesn't mean to say I can't listen to both and appreciate differing elements of ability or the musical content.

I have learned my lesson today though, I certainly won't make any more comments unless it agrees with the majority, then we can all be smug in the knowledge that we must be correct because everyone agrees with each other (at least superficially), and we don't have anyone with any individualistic responses. But then again, we can all rise up, tell them they are talking a load of sh*te and then they won't contribute any more anyway? Job well done!!

EDIT: After thought:- I don't know who said it but it's true - no one can make you feel inferior without your own consent. Think about it.

Edited May 2, 2009 by rslaing

[Bilbo]

[quote name='rslaing' post='477834' date='May 2 2009, 05:42 PM']I have learned my lesson today though, I certainly won't make any more comments unless it agrees with the majority,[/quote]

Don't be doing that, mate. We need erudite and considered posts here to counter the general trends. I am often a minority opinion here but, as a jazzer, I know what its like to have no friends so no sweat!!

[rslaing]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='477839' date='May 2 2009, 05:46 PM']Don't be doing that, mate. We need erudite and considered posts here to counter the general trends. I am often a minority opinion here but, as a jazzer, I know what its like to have no friends so no sweat!! [/quote]

Well............ok then

[lowdown]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='477839' date='May 2 2009, 05:46 PM']Don't be doing that, mate. We need erudite and considered posts here to counter the general trends.[/quote]

συμφωνήθηκε


Garry

[BigBeefChief]

Trouble is, you study music for too long, you end up playing rubbish. Simple, melodic basslines start to bore you, you start analysing everything you play, next thing you know, you're churning out suff like Jeff Berlin.

I always try and listen to the soundclips from various BC members, 'fraid to say (and I know you all really care what I think), the majority of you readers are playing music that only other readers and jazz perverts appreciate. Listen to WoT on the other hand, sounds great.

Now I'm sure some of you readers could keep in simple, but it seems that you lack a bit of discipline. If any of you are either near Tonbridge or London, I charge £50 an hour. Just because you can play it, doesn't mean you have to.

And before you all come back and say "I know exactly when to keep it simple thank you very much Mr Chief". No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be playing all this "interesting" music which should really place you on the sex offenders register.


Well, I hope this all makes sense. I've just downed a bottle of TixyLix that I found in my cupboard. It went off in 1994 and tasted like chlorine.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='477900' date='May 2 2009, 06:47 PM']Listen to WoT on the other hand, sounds great.[/quote]

So... are we all agreed that this is a great final point, and the ideal time to close this thread?

[rslaing]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='477900' date='May 2 2009, 06:47 PM']Trouble is, you study music for too long, you end up playing rubbish. Simple, melodic basslines start to bore you, you start analysing everything you play, next thing you know, you're churning out suff like Jeff Berlin.

[b]Nah.....The more you study - and the more you practice, the better you play the simple stuff[/b]

I always try and listen to the soundclips from various BC members, 'fraid to say (and I know you all really care what I think), the majority of you readers are playing music that only other readers and jazz perverts appreciate. Listen to WoT on the other hand, sounds great.

[b]
Was that before the Tixylix? Or after? Sucking up to the mods does not guarantee not getting banned[/b]

Now I'm sure some of you readers could keep in simple, but it seems that you lack a bit of discipline. If any of you are either near Tonbridge or London, I charge £50 an hour. Just because you can play it, doesn't mean you have to.

[b]I have heard about your £50 an hour sessions..............and apparently they aren't musical[/b]

And before you all come back and say "I know exactly when to keep it simple thank you very much Mr Chief". No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be playing all this "interesting" music which should really place you on the sex offenders register.

[b]If you read my post, you will see that I do mention a very important thing about music is the space in between the notes. Which is just as well.because of the time it takes non readers to think about the next note

I am thinking about asking my local MP to lobby for a "Bass offenders" register for people who buy instruments that can't read music.[/b]

Well, I hope this all makes sense. I've just downed a bottle of TixyLix that I found in my cupboard. It went off in 1994 and tasted like chlorine.

[b]Well then, it will have been better than the usual pint you get in your town. and will account for the unusual posting ona Saturday at this time.

Hilarious as usual, thanks for the laugh [/b][/quote]

Edited May 2, 2009 by rslaing

[alexclaber]

I'm gradually learning to read music. However it has essentially no bearing on the music I write and play and record or the gigs I do. When I have some time I'd like to get into playing jazz and for that it's very handy but for the original alternative rock-ish scene I inhabit it remains irrelevant. And whilst there are a lot of great players that read music well there are so many that don't, and the same is true for songwriters. It's a very useful tool but that's all it is - and just as when doing DIY a certain tool can be essential, helpful or unnecessary then so too can reading.

(I do know what notes I'm playing, I know what the rhythms are, I generally know what's going on chordally, and I'm very happy with charts, it's just those funny little dots and squiggles I've never got to grips with).

Alex

[The Funk]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='477908' date='May 2 2009, 06:56 PM']So... are we all agreed that this is a great final point, and the ideal time to close this thread?[/quote]

I'm in agreement.