A bit of bed time reading

[Richard R]

4 hours ago, zbd1960 said:

Some classical musicians do improvise, it's just that in many of the genres they play, it is not a requirement. For example, organists are trained to improvise from day 1 and it's a fundamental part of getting your ARCO or FRCO (Associate/Fellow of Royal College of Organists). Baroque soloists are also expected to improvise, but it's mostly decorative improvisation. The cadenzas in classical concertos were originally improvised, and some players do, but often they learn a cadenza created by another soloist from the past.  

True, and I'm sure my friend would agree. Clearly in his case he just wasn't taught improvisation and now struggles.  

[zbd1960]

I've done the odd sax workshop where there's been an expectation of some improv and i'm not much good at it - purely because it's not something I do on a regular basis. It's another skill that can be learnt

[LITTLEWING]

Why would I want to? I’d just be playing someone else’s tune note for note with no individual expression. It’s like painting the colours you’re told to inside the lined shapes that someone has drawn on a piece of art paper.

 

It makes me sometimes wonder if you took away the music sheets from in front of a violinist and asked them to play something from the heart, could they actually do it with actual feeling from inside?

[Dad3353]

13 minutes ago, LITTLEWING said:

Why would I want to? I’d just be playing someone else’s tune note for note with no individual expression. It’s like painting the colours you’re told to inside the lined shapes that someone has drawn on a piece of art paper.

 

It makes me sometimes wonder if you took away the music sheets from in front of a violinist and asked them to play something from the heart, could they actually do it with actual feeling from inside?

 

Following the same ''logic', one wouldn't read a book, but write one's own..? Poems, too..? One can learn much from that which others have written, be it on prose, poetry, lyrics or musical notation. There's no shame in reading books, so why music..? It doesn't stop one from creating at all, quite the opposite. It can (if one has the will...) provide stimulus to further one's own creations. That's what I've always found, anyway.
Disclaimer : I play drums. I play what comes into my head much of the time, but also know how to play a wide variety of styles others have established. When I'm playing calypso-style, for instance, I'm not simply copying what I learned by reading, but my own version, adapted to the piece being performed. It makes complete sense to me. 

Edited August 25, 2022 by Dad3353

[JapanAxe]

I can sight read quite well on bass but not so well on guitar - for guitar I can work out what the dots mean, but not in real time as it were. It’s something that needs regular practice to maintain at a working level.

[Downunderwonder]

My jazz charts are all written 4 on the floor. Listen to them being played and you would think they had mucho flyshit even though ostensibly the bass is 4 on the floor. Exact same goes for classical soloists. Even though a lot more is written out the nuances are on the performer, nothing robotic about it. Sheesh.

 

[tauzero]

6 hours ago, LITTLEWING said:

Why would I want to? I’d just be playing someone else’s tune note for note with no individual expression. It’s like painting the colours you’re told to inside the lined shapes that someone has drawn on a piece of art paper.

 

It makes me sometimes wonder if you took away the music sheets from in front of a violinist and asked them to play something from the heart, could they actually do it with actual feeling from inside?

 

If a solo violinist was playing a piece, they would put a certain interpretation on it - it wouldn't be what you would hear if you put the same piece of music through a sequencer and synth. That's why Nigel Kennedy and André Rieu get paid lots and lots of money.

[Dad3353]

When I play 'Misty', it certainly doesn't sound like Errol Gardner..! 

[lowdown]

5 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

When I play 'Misty', it certainly doesn't sound like Errol Gardner..! 

 

Although, Errol Gardner did a great cover of a Siouxsie and the Banshees tune called 'Green Fingers'.

😁

 

[BassTractor]

5 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

When I play 'Misty', it certainly doesn't sound like Errol Gardner..! 

No, using the same written notes, you make it sound exactly like Errol Gardner.
That's the very point: it's individual expression!

it certainly doesn't sound like Erroll Garner though (and as indicated, that's a good thing).
😐

 

 

 

😉

[Kraken]

once upon a time I could, it would appear that skill has degraded with neglect. 

 

i've recently, for the first time, taken up the bass seat for a local musical production.   that is prooving both the point that my skills for reading have degraded and has/is bringing them back quite quickly. 

 

just need to improve my sightreading a lot. - overall a good experience and one I'm enjoying (being tucked out of sight of the audience was something I didn't think I would like as much)  

[TKenrick]

On 25/08/2022 at 18:54, LITTLEWING said:

Why would I want to? I’d just be playing someone else’s tune note for note with no individual expression. It’s like painting the colours you’re told to inside the lined shapes that someone has drawn on a piece of art paper.

 

It makes me sometimes wonder if you took away the music sheets from in front of a violinist and asked them to play something from the heart, could they actually do it with actual feeling from inside?

 

There seems to be a pervasive belief that learning to read music robs you of any musicality and turns you into a note-reading robot who has no other skills and no 'feel' for the music (ditto for learning music theory).

 

Here's the thing: there are plenty of awful musicians out there churning out awful interpretations of the dots, but I'm willing to bet there's an even greater number of people who can't read that are out there butchering the classics. Correlation is not causation.

 

Reading music is not a guarantee of good musicianship, but it does encourage certain skills that TAB doesn't (namely fretboard knowledge and rhythmic awareness).

 

If you don't want to read because it holds no value for you then don't, it's as simple as that. Plenty of people out there parrot the tired 'music is a language' analogy but then aren't willing to put the effort in to actually learn the language.

 

And yes, learning to read once you can already play is a massive pain (it certainly was for me!), but that doesn't mean that you should avoid it if you're interested in becoming an independent and musically aware bassist.

[Nail Soup]

A comment on the "if you read music then you not using emotions or expression" etc.

BTW I can't read music, so I've no vested interest.

 

I read an article in a musician magazine (may have been One-Two-Testing or something) and there was a comment: "Classical musicians use their emotions to express the music, and rock musicians use music to express their emotions".

Or something like that!

 

 

[dclaassen]

29 minutes ago, Nail Soup said:

A comment on the "if you read music then you not using emotions or expression" etc.

BTW I can't read music, so I've no vested interest.

 

I read an article in a musician magazine (may have been One-Two-Testing or something) and there was a comment: "Classical musicians use their emotions to express the music, and rock musicians use music to express their emotions".

Or something like that!

 

 

I think this certainly applies to sight reading, but would disagree in general. I like to believe that I can play with lots of expression and emotion with sheet music in front of me.

[Eric.C.Lapton]

There should be a ‘sort of’ option, I can read music but it’s a slow process I couldn’t be given a sheet of music and play it, but I can muddle through given enough time, I’m still learning.

so yes I can read music 

but no I can’t read it proficiently.

 

[Nail Soup]

30 minutes ago, dclaassen said:

I think this certainly applies to sight reading, but would disagree in general. I like to believe that I can play with lots of expression and emotion with sheet music in front of me.

I think your point is the same as the author of that quote???

Sorry if I’m missing something.

[dclaassen]

1 hour ago, Nail Soup said:

I think your point is the same as the author of that quote???

Sorry if I’m missing something.

For me, the original post seemed to imply a lack of creativity when reading music. I think that, if I’m reading something I know, or don’t really have to struggle with too much, I use the music to express emotions. You kinda just forget the printed music is there.

[BassTractor]

.

Edited September 8, 2022 by BassTractor
Said much better by others

[Downunderwonder]

4 hours ago, Eric.C.Lapton said:

There should be a ‘sort of’ option, I can read music but it’s a slow process I couldn’t be given a sheet of music and play it, but I can muddle through given enough time, I’m still learning.

so yes I can read music 

but no I can’t read it proficiently.

 

It's more like ''can you cook''. Sure I can cook. Your'e never going to pay me to cook in your restaurant but I can follow a recipe.

 

So in my book you can read music, you just need more time at it to be able to sight read to time.

[Ed_S]

3 hours ago, Nail Soup said:

"Classical musicians use their emotions to express the music, and rock musicians use music to express their emotions".

Or something like that!

 

I used to use whatever music I could read to play an instrument, whereas now I use an instrument to play whatever music I can hear. Maybe that's similar. Or not! 🙂 

 

9 hours ago, TKenrick said:

There seems to be a pervasive belief that learning to read music robs you of any musicality and turns you into a note-reading robot who has no other skills and no 'feel' for the music (ditto for learning music theory).

 

I wonder whether any of that stems from comments made by people who've conflated their experience of learning theory and reading, with a parallel experience of learning an instrument and being persistently told by an authority figure that they're wrong for playing anything other than what's on the page, exactly as it's written.

 

9 hours ago, TKenrick said:

If you don't want to read because it holds no value for you then don't, it's as simple as that.

 

Absolutely, but I think a lot depends on how you get started. I learned to read music as a kid because it was presented as a mandatory part of playing violin, and whilst I won't say it did me no good, I would much prefer to see aspiring learners of all ages told by their would-be teachers that it can actually be optional depending on their aims. A lot of people who started sawing a fiddle in half at the same time I did ended up quitting completely because they didn't get on with reading but had been led to believe that you can't have one without the other.

[nekomatic]

10 hours ago, TKenrick said:

There seems to be a pervasive belief that learning to read music robs you of any musicality and turns you into a note-reading robot who has no other skills and no 'feel' for the music (ditto for learning music theory).

‘Craft facility liberates expression, and I am constantly amazed how many artists think the opposite to be true.’ 

- Ansel Adams

[BigRedX]

It's not that being able to read "stifles creativity", it's that a lot of musicians who read have never also learnt to play by ear or improvise.

 

Nothing wrong with that. If all the musician wants to to be able to play from a written score then they don't need those other skills. In the same way, that if you are never in a musical situation where you will be presented with music in written notation and expected to be able to play it, then you don't really need to be able to read.

 

I think that sometimes people in the "you need to be able to read music" camp fail to realise that there is a perfectly viable musical life for those who can't read. It might not suit them, but there are thousands of musicians playing in bands who mange quite well without being able to read.

 

Given that most of us on here play primarily for fun or as a hobby that generates some extra income, we generally only have time learn the skills that we actually need, and if being able to sight read isn't one of them, why spend time working on it when there are other musical things you could learn that are of more immediate value?

 

There's also the mistaken idea that being able to sight read is an essential part of understanding music. I can't sight read but I know enough musical theory (and remember that's only theory and not absolute rules) to be able to compose and listen to what someone else's musical ideas and create my own guitar/bass/synthesiser part to go with it.

[Doddy]

19 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

 

Nothing wrong with that. If all the musician wants to to be able to play from a written score then they don't need those other skills. In the same way, that if you are never in a musical situation where you will be presented with music in written notation and expected to be able to play it, then you don't really need to be able to read.

 

I'm just going to pull up on this bit, because it's a line that gets used quite often in arguments against reading. 

I agree that you (general you, not personal) might never have been in a situation where you have needed to read. But if you put yourself out as a non reader then of course you will never be in a situation where you will be expected to read, because you will never get a call for a gig that might require it.

For balance, it works the other way too. You wouldn't call a non improvising player to busk a jazz gig (for example).

 

 

 

 

[Dad3353]

I'd suggest that, in the same way as reading literature gives opportunity for enlarging one's vocabulary, so reading music (dots, Tab, whatever...) allows expansion of one's musical vocabulary. Listening to stuff does this, too, of course, but once past the 'Janet and John' stage of reading music (without necessarilly being able to play what is being read; just understanding it is enough, hearing it in the head...) a whole shoal of new worlds can open up.
I'd certainly differentiate between 'reading' and 'sight reading'. The first is available to all, without too much study. Not so the latter, which requires (and rewards...) much more practice.

[BigRedX]

55 minutes ago, Doddy said:

I'm just going to pull up on this bit, because it's a line that gets used quite often in arguments against reading. 

I agree that you (general you, not personal) might never have been in a situation where you have needed to read. But if you put yourself out as a non reader then of course you will never be in a situation where you will be expected to read, because you will never get a call for a gig that might require it.

For balance, it works the other way too. You wouldn't call a non improvising player to busk a jazz gig (for example).

 

In my personal situation, I can't ever see myself wanting to do a reading gig. It's simply not where my musical interests lie. I'm an originals band player and composer, and this is all that really interests me. I would always consider my time is better spent writing more songs than learning a skill I'm unlikely to need. I understand musical notation well enough to be able to write down what I have composed, but even this is a redundant skill since PRS no longer requires composers to submit their works in writing in order to register them.

 

On the occasions where I have been asked to play on other people's compositions, I have either been chosen to produce something in my own style or have been presented with a recording to learn from a sufficient time to prepare before the gig or session (and usually with at least one rehearsal beforehand).

 

If I was making my living as a musician then I completely agree that bing able to sight read would be an almost essential skill. But I don't. As a composer I make more money from performance and mechanical royalties of the songs I have written then I do from playing the bass.