OT: Over At the Key(bored) Forum

[Nawledge]

http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=008104 why is it that some people think that discriminating is some kind of path that leads to enlightenment. I had to list this thread as offtopic because it clearly doesn't have sh*t to do with music. I can't believe someone would suggest that being able to read music makes you more musical, more of a musician, or more expressive that's just nonsense. and the analogy of reading literature to reading music makes even less sense I'm suprised nobodys called it, it's like making an analogy between kool-aid and milk. I guess people are running out of reasons to masterbate but there are people all over the world from centuries ago to today in every country making wonderful rich music that don't read a note not only of music but that can't read anything at all, after wading through that thread I've come to the conclusion that there are an awful lot of people living inside a very small box and Damn! it looks crowded in there. but what do I know I'm just a rapper. :(

[Super 8]

Ah don't take it hard, man... You know how keyboard players can get... :rolleyes: They always have to prove they can stick their intellectual noses up a little higher than everyone elses. Sheesh! Keyboard players... :freak: Come hang with the drummers! We don't even know what reading is! :cool:

[Dan South]

How about learning to drive without learning how to read a roadmap? You can probably still find all of the same places if you can't, but it will take longer, and you'll have to waste a lot of time driving down dead ends and/or rely on other people for directions all the time. Why does this one small issue leave so many people feeling inferior? It's like weight, hair loss, and penis size all rolled into one. I'm going to start a Jenny Craig-style business where non-reading musicians can come in and have a nice, friendly, smiling person prepare a plan for them to learn to read notation. We'll promise to cheer them on every step of the way. Of course, we'll charge a lot of money for something that you could do on your own if you put your mind to it, but that's okay, I want to become filthy stinking rich, so what the heck? ;)

[fantasticsound]

[quote]Originally posted by Dan South: [b]How about learning to drive without learning how to read a roadmap? You can probably still find all of the same places if you can't, but it will take longer, and you'll have to waste a lot of time driving down dead ends and/or rely on other people for directions all the time...[/b][/quote]Not at all the same, Dan. I don't know anyone who can navigate unknown areas by "feel". Long before I knew how to read any music I could feel the music and figure it out. No dead ends. No wasted time. I simply applied what I wanted to hear in my head to the guitar. Unlike your analogy, you can see the movement on the fretboard without knowing how to read it off a page. To be more accurate, your analogy would look like someone attempting to get from point A to point B using a map, where one person's map has all the street names and the other only lines. Regardless of whether you know the names, if you can follow the lines you can get where you want to go. ;) I have nothing against reading music notation. But I'll be damned if I tell my little girl she's inherently flawed, or can't be musical, just because she can't read standard notation. That tool may make the performance of music easier, or it may not. I know lots of musicians that read music and understand theory who can't write music and many who don't read a lick and create some of the most wonderful and interesting music around. They intuitively know how to accomplish what they want to hear. All the educated musicians in the world won't change the fact that these "uneducated" musicians are just as good, if not better at music then the scholarly musicians. Education can be very powerful. But it's appalling when the educated pretend that others don't know things just because they learned on their own.

[Bill Heins]

I hate to tell you, but the people who knowingly remain ignorant are the ones in the little boxes :( Your nick is a misspelling of "knowledge"...that's a powerful word, why do so many avoid it at all costs! Don't be afraid to learn, to share, to strive to be better than you are, shoot for the ceiling and you'll reach a few feet, reach for the stars and you ever know where you might end up :) Darkon the Incandescent

[Mister Perfect]

[quote]Originally posted by Darkon the Incandescent: [QB]Your nick is a misspelling of "knowledge"...that's a powerful word, why do so many avoid it at all costs! Don't be afraid to learn, to share, to strive to be better than you are, shoot for the ceiling and you'll reach a few feet, reach for the stars and you ever know where you might end up :) /QB][/quote]Yout nick is a misspelling of "Dacron" so what's your point? Only one of us is perfect and it isn't you.

[Salyphus]

Yout?

[Bill Heins]

Mister Perfect needs to learn to spell ;) Darkon the Incandescent

[Rog]

Western music was (is?) centred around notation. It's kinda arrogant to assume that Western music = music. Notation can be important and I prefer it to looking at a piano roll but it's simply not neccessary to be able read music anymore.

[Nawledge]

actualy I can read a little, I always say I'm just a rapper because it gets on so many peoples nerves like moving into their neighborhood, btw my nick is a cross between naw and knowledge meaning I eat what I learn or to consume knowledge which is why I first came to musicplayer. I think any knowledge is great to have, I believe learning to read music is a wonderful thing, but two things the original poster of that thread implied are simply un-truths and that's that 1. knowing how to read western music notation (i'm assuming) make you better or a musician and that not knowing how to means you're not a musician or a worse musician and 2. that a djs purpose is to take something away from other musicians. what a farse! now I don't know about you but I can see what the problem really is.

[Nawledge]

oh and for the Incandescent ones sake I know that naw is suppose to be 'gnaw' but don't tell anybody. :D

[Bill Heins]

I half agree with you on 1. I do think learning notation and the language of music makes you a better musician, but isn't a prerequisite to being one at all :) And for 2, I agee completely, dj's fill a gap, I don't see them as competition at all, but then again I do prog rock/classical/new age/hard rock/jazz type stuff ;) Your secret is safe with me, just make sure you don't post it ;) Darkon the Incandescent

[G. Ratte]

Yeah, I don't get this attitude. So busting your ass to learn a bunch of Chopin, that might be fun and swell and be good chops practice, but what does it have to do with being a musician? Maybe you'd rather spend the time and effort playing your own tunes, which you've never notated? What does playing other peoples' stuff have to do with anything? Maybe being able to save your own things as MIDI files will suffice just fine, or audio recordings. If you're planning on your big career move being to sell sheet music of your mega-awesome hitz, good luck. I don't see the practical necessity, unless you wanna be a session cat or play in a symphony. Anyways. Learning notation is great, but I think it has its own hobby value, and isn't necessary for "being a musician."

[lrossmusic]

I remember a debate like this one time when two young musicians were kind of at each other - one saying he'd rather have a good tone above all else while the other insisted that proper technique was superior. Well they decided they would ask an older musician who had played with a lot of famous artists and who was well known locally and who they both looked up to - they asked him to decide who was right. The older fellow said something to the effect that it's really nice to have both and that neither was more important than the other. Although the reading/non-reading debate is not exactly like the tone/technique one they are similar in that they both seem more like intellectual exercises that are interesting but not really very useful outside of that. Just my opinion of course. Not all blind musicians use braille notation. Whether or not they should or not is dependant I would guess on each personal situation. Many sighted musicians are in situations where readind music is absolutely required and many are not. Some musicians find themselves going from one situation to the next. (Like the Chicago Symphony's percussionist Ted Atkatz who also plays in a rock band) I guess I'm saying that; if you can improvise only - great if you can read only - great if you can do both - better still if you can do all of the above, have good tone and technique, and write and sing your ass off too - more power to you. :D

[Geoff Grace]

quote:

---

[i]Originally posted by Super 8:[/i] Ah don't take it hard, man... You know how keyboard players can get... :rolleyes: They always have to prove they can stick their intellectual noses up a little higher than everyone elses. Sheesh! Keyboard players... :wave: --- But seriously, Benjamin Franklin wrote, [i]"Genius without education is like silver in the mine."[/i] With or without education, a genius is a genius. However, it seems that Franklin believed that education unleashes a genius' power. Applying that concept, a talented musician is a talented musician. However an educated, talented musician has options that an uneducated, talented musician lacks. Now knowing how to read sheet music is only one element of many in a complete musical education; but it's a skill I'm glad I developed, both as a keyboard player and as a drummer. None of us will ever have a complete education; there just isn't enough time. However, it's hard to know what value to put on the missing pieces until we've acquired them. For instance, I didn't want [i]at all[/i] to take the required conducting class when I was in college. I only wanted to write, and I thought that learning to conduct would be a waste of time. However, conducting a symphony orchestra turned out to be one of the biggest thrills I have [i]ever[/i] experienced. I mean [i]really[/i] [b]BIG[/b]! In fact, it inspired me to assemble my own symphony orchestra and to compose and conduct my own orchestral compositions. Later on, this directly lead to much of my success in the record industry. (I'll save how this happened for another time.) Even though this experience was one of the highlights of my life, I don't imagine that everyone who took a conducting class would have the same reaction or result. I only know that I was forced to take this class, and it turned out to enrich my life fantastically. Did it make me a more talented person? No. Could I have functioned well as a musician without ever having had this experience? Yes. [b]But[/b], did this experience enrich my life, improve my career, and make me a happier person? Yes. Could I have had this experience in the first place without knowing how to read music? No. What impact would reading music have on your life? I believe you'll never know until you try! Best, Geoff

[the stranger]

"Music Theory" There is a reason it's called a "theory". A reasonable one, but still just a theory. I'd much rather follow no system at all. Being able to communicate in musical terms is important, so theory does have a place. I think theory has it's place, depending on the genre. I would have to say that the majority of stale crap that passes for music in the mainstream is due to the following of theory. Of course, this is usually called going by a formula.

[Franknputer]

Reading & writing music is a great skill - but it doesn't neccessarily make you a great (or even good) musician. If it were so, then we would all be listening to the music of academics. Same as reading & writing does not make you able to tell good stories, nor the lack of either prevent it. It's simply a different skill. They say 'you have to know the rules in order to break them' - which is silly, because knowing the rules only means that you know that you broke them. (And incidentally, the big thing that I learned from music school is that, given enough knowledge, you can justify everything that you ignorantly did 'wrong'...) :freak:

[Wewus432]

Reading music and playing music require conflicting parts of your mind, the logical, and the intuitive. Reading music is of course a logical, quite mathematical thing, whereas playing music well is highly intuitive. The player [b]feels[/b] the changing tempos, dynamics, chord changes, and other properties of the piece of music being played. Listening to a lot of classical music, it sounds very clinical to me, all the players are reading note for note, and you get preciseness, but also a loss of the passion. That's also why talking to a lot of keyboard players their definition of music seems very clinical to me. The pieces of paper have become the music to them. Music is first and foremost, sounds in the air and any graphical representation can never be more than an approximation.

[coyote]

Instead, we're listening to Limp Bizkit. Not only can they not read - they can't spell either. :D [quote]Originally posted by ChristopherKemp: [b]Reading & writing music is a great skill - but it doesn't neccessarily make you a great (or even good) musician. If it were so, then we would all be listening to the music of academics.[/b][/quote]Seriously, it ain't about telling someone they are inferior because they cannot read. There are indeed plenty of great music creators who cannot read music. But music isn't all about creation! Once the music's been created, someone has to play it. And the literature analogy is absolutely relevant here - could you stage a production of Shakespeare's 'Hamlet' without being able to read the play? OF COURSE NOT. Likewise, if you want to stage a performance of Beethoven's 3rd Symphony you need to be able to read the score. "But today's music doesn't require that level of proficiency." True enough. You need not read to play LimpBizkit, or even plenty of jazz standards. But it [i]helps[/i], it makes you more fluent in the LANGUAGE of music. If you're a creator it might not be quite so important. But if you are a musical craftsperson, it adds mightily to your skill set. I read well on a couple of instruments, and not so well on others - I know exactly how much a handicap it can be to not read fluently. So yes, it's elitist. And it's an elite ANYONE can join! It's limited only by your own initiative.

[Ouizel]

I think I said this twice in the other thread, but no one listened. Being a musician doesn't require reading, but it is an easily added skill. I, for one, will take any tool that will help me. It just isn't that hard to learn. I just don't understand why some musicians are so adamantly against a tool that will help them communicate with other musicians. :confused:

[BP3]

I don't read music, wish I did, if for no other reason than to see if this is correct - [img]http://www.tinderarts.com/images/BirdsOfFire01.jpg[/img]

[Wewus432]

[quote]Originally posted by Ouizel: [b]I think I said this twice in the other thread, but no one listened. Being a musician doesn't require reading, but it is an easily added skill. I, for one, will take any tool that will help me. It just isn't that hard to learn. I just don't understand why some musicians are so adamantly against a tool that will help them communicate with other musicians. :confused: [/b][/quote]I think part of the resistance of many musicians to learn to read is the FEAR that the logical perception, of music WILL somehow take away from the intuitive reprensentation, of music. This may not be an ungrounded fear.

[shniggens]

You can also learn to speak the English language without reading. Of course you wouldn't be able to speak as well as the others that do read.

[BP3]

Sorry my link blew the width of the page out. It'll be fixed shortly.

[Sylver]

Did Hendrix know how to read notation? I mean, I know he had to be knowledgable about theory and had to know how to read charts from his chitlin circuit days, but could he have sight read a Bach Invention? I seriously doubt it. How about the Beatles? Did Lennnon read? How about Harrison? It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't, though I have a feeling that Paul does. Most of the blues greats didn't/don't read. Now, don't get me wrong, I do read(badly, I don't practice it much anymore), and I think it can be a great tool for a professional, I just don't think it's absolutely nessicary, which I think is Nawl's point.

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound: [b]I don't know anyone who can navigate unknown areas by "feel".[/b][/quote]Lewis and Clark didn't have any maps, yet they covered a lot of territory. But they paid the price of encountering the unknown on several occasions. I find my way around without maps all the time, especially when I'm exploring an area for the first time. My "dead ends" lead me to new places. But if I have to get somewhere efficiently (i.e. on time), I need a map. Two approaches. Each has its own merits and its own weaknesses. Neither detracts from the other, but being able to do both makes you a better navigator/musician/whatever.

[Ouizel]

You might be right, Wewus, but do you really think that there's basis to the fear? I just don't see it. Maybe its because I started learning to read at such a young age (5). I did reach a plateau in my piano playing, but I've since broken loose and am improving well. The ability to read has helped dramatically. Could I have done it without reading music? Probably, but it would have much more difficult. It also helps when talking to musicians, and saves valuable time.

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by the stranger: [b]"Music Theory" There is a reason it's called a "theory". A reasonable one, but still just a theory. I'd much rather follow no system at all. Being able to communicate in musical terms is important, so theory does have a place. I think theory has it's place, depending on the genre. I would have to say that the majority of stale crap that passes for music in the mainstream is due to the following of theory. Of course, this is usually called going by a formula.[/b][/quote]You already KNOW some music theory, if you can play a song by ear, which I'm sure you can. We learn theory rules intuitively by listening to/mimicking the music of others. There's a reason why a song in A has a lot of D and E chords in it. You may not know the reason, but you've no doubt noticed the close relationship between these chords. I'd bet that if you were trying to figure out a song in A, you'd try some D and E chords along the way without thinking about it. Music theory is not some academic idea that's separate and distinct from the realm of working musicians. Music theory is in every note that we play or hear, just as geometry is in every room of our homes whether we notice it or not.

[Franknputer]

[quote]Originally posted by TheWewus: [b]I think part of the resistance of many musicians to learn to read is the FEAR that the logical perception, of music WILL somehow take away from the intuitive reprensentation, of music. This may not be an ungrounded fear.[/b][/quote]I think there's some truth to that. One of the hardest things to do after going through formal training is to be able to NOT do what is "correct".

[Magpel]

[quote]Originally posted by ChristopherKemp: [b] [quote]Originally posted by TheWewus: [b]I think part of the resistance of many musicians to learn to read is the FEAR that the logical perception, of music WILL somehow take away from the intuitive reprensentation, of music. This may not be an ungrounded fear.[/b][/quote]I think there's some truth to that. One of the hardest things to do after going through formal training is to be able to NOT do what is "correct".[/b][/quote]Right, I think the fear is ungrounded. Fear not knowledge. More is better, and your muse will find her way around the nefarious influence of pedants. But there is some weight to the fear of "correctness." For an example, I've known a bunch of Berklee trained players who were so schooled to master the fretboard vertically--to be able to play most things in virtually any position--that it took them years to realize that the more [i]uneducated[/i] "rock and roll" horizontal perception of the fretboard (i.e., moving up and down on a single string) was the only [i]technique[/i] for producing certain desirable sounds. Which was correct? That was irrelevant. The problem is that we're speaking of "technique" and "theory" in the singular. That's pure dogmatism.