OT: Over At the Key(bored) Forum

[Jedi]

[quote]Originally posted by Quizel And I don't think that reading has compromised my improvisational technique. [/quote]I agree with this as well. Improvisation is probably one of my more natural gifts and I in no way feel that sight reading would hamper my improv. Most of the bebop Jazz cats I know through my father can read, and improv is one of essential elements of the music.

[coyote]

It has nothing to do with 'huffy'. Or maybe it does; read what follows (if you've bothered to learn to read the English language lol) and decide for yourself. I used to play sessions many years ago. I was expected to be able to read a chart which included a melody line on staff and chords typically written alphabetically (though sometimes also on staff). It would include dynamic markings, repeats, codas, all the usual musical indicators - the ROAD MAP to the music. Nowadays when I present something to my band, I present it in the same fashion I described above. They struggle with it sometimes, but they get through it. And it beats the heck out of sitting there and explaining it to them, and hoping they remember when we reconvene a week later - they can pull out a sheet of music and sit there with their instruments whenever they get a few free moments. The sheet music then serves merely as a road map, triggering their memory for not only the notes but HOW TO PLAY the notes. By the time we get together again, they've [i]GOT IT[/i]. None of them are sightreaders, btw. Yet I'm not having to cram it down any of their throats. We are all enjoying the learning process, and we get the music down faster than in ANY band I've ever been which used other methods of learning new material. [quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound: [b]it's because of that arrogant attitude taken by many who believe reading standard notation is necessary to be a great musician.[/b][/quote]

[Tusker]

[quote]Originally posted by Jedi: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Quizel And I don't think that reading has compromised my improvisational technique. [/quote]I agree with this as well. Improvisation is probably one of my more natural gifts and I in no way feel that sight reading would hamper my improv. Most of the bebop Jazz cats I know through my father can read, and improv is one of essential elements of the music.[/b][/quote]Your father sounds really interesting. I agree, even though my experience is different. For me, sight reading came before improv. And improv damaged sight reading. I used to play a lot of the classical piano repertoire and could not play a note by ear. I kid you not. :o One day my dad bought a home organ with a chord chart. Armed with that chart I spent the next couple of years deciphering every song on the radio and the next couple of years after that learning improv. My piano teachers hated the fact that I got sloppy in my reading. I would say to myself "oh that's a C# minor chord" and grab a fistful of notes in that chord instead of the specific notes that Chopin had written. So my voicings were all over the place. :rolleyes: As in all fields there are tensions between approaches. The real rewards are for those who can synthesize (bring together) different approaches. Being aware of the possible pitfalls can help anybody avoid them. I don't blame the hammer just because I used it when I shoulda been using the saw. Jerry

[Ouizel]

[quote]Originally posted by Tusker: [b] I don't blame the hammer just because I used it when I shoulda been using the saw. Jerry[/b][/quote]Well put, Jerry. Nicely done. :D

[fantasticsound]

[quote]Originally posted by Dan South: [QB...I think that my analogy was right on the money. As a photographer, I spend time in wilderness areas. Sometimes I used trail maps if I want to get to a specific place by a specific time. Sometimes I wander around, watch the sky, consult a compass, and follow my instincts until I find something interesting. Sometimes I combine the two methodologies. Similarly, I'll use one or both approaches to music depending on my objective. Sometimes reading is a must for a rehearsal, a gig, or for getting to know a piece in a reading-oriented genre. Sometimes playing by ear is a must (virtually all of my band experience). On occasion I have learned parts by ear and transcribed them for horn players who had limited ear training skills. Sometimes writing notes on a staff helps me with composition. Sometimes jamming on in instrument is better. If I have an idea in my head, I can quickly jot it down using standard notation, and I don't have to worry about forgetting it. The point is that the more tools that you have, the more you can do. If I only read or only played by ear, I could only do a fraction of the things that I can do by employing both skills.[/QB][/quote]I agree with your methodology, and the conclusion. Different tools for different tasks. And I would never argue that for certain areas of the music business reading standard notation is absoutely neccesary. [b]Ouizel[/b] - Your oversimplification of the "camps" is exactly what I rail against. I absolutely do not believe it's on par with sin to learn standard notation. I just don't accept that I'm less a musician for my rudimentary knowledge of standard. Less a studio musician, less a show band musician, etc. perhaps.

[doc taz]

[quote]Originally posted by TheWewus: [b]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. [/b][/quote]I realize you're entitled to your opinion, but consider this: watch the Deep Purple video from Royal Albert Hall in 1999, and listen to the Concerto with its three movements. I highly doubt you'll find that to be clinical. (Steve Morse's solo section on that had the string sections looking at him in awe! He's right up there with them!) Also, the two songs that start this fine performance are quite the emotional stirrers, especially "Wait A While", which was sung by the wonderful Sam Brown. Heh, don't talk about being clinical to either Jens Johansson or Derek Sherinian. ;)

[Dylan]

Reading music and understanding theory wil kill your creativity. Just look at Queen :rolleyes: :D .

[Wewus432]

[quote]Originally posted by tazzola: [b] [quote]Originally posted by TheWewus: [b]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. [/b][/quote]I realize you're entitled to your opinion, but consider this: watch the Deep Purple video from Royal Albert Hall in 1999, and listen to the Concerto with its three movements. I highly doubt you'll find that to be clinical. (Steve Morse's solo section on that had the string sections looking at him in awe! He's right up there with them!) Also, the two songs that start this fine performance are quite the emotional stirrers, especially "Wait A While", which was sung by the wonderful Sam Brown. Heh, don't talk about being clinical to either Jens Johansson or Derek Sherinian. ;) [/b][/quote]Oh yeah, I agree, the best music comes when the worlds of intelligence, and intuition are combined. It just doesn't seem to happen that much, and this thread illuminates that diversion. The element I look for, and that inspires me the most in music is [b]PASSION[/b]. When that element is missing in whatever kind of music presented, I find the experience lacking.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Me like happy sound noise. - Jeff (BA/Music, 1992)

[alcohol]

If someone's playing sounds sterile it ain't because they're reading music. It's more like that don't understand how to play the music or it oculd you be that you don't understand their interpretation. Sometimes understatement is necessary to avoid the cliches. If you're not really familiar with a style or the latest trends you might not understand what a player is doing.

[Ouizel]

[quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound: [b] [b]Ouizel[/b] - Your oversimplification of the "camps" is exactly what I rail against. I absolutely do not believe it's on par with sin to learn standard notation. I just don't accept that I'm less a musician for my rudimentary knowledge of standard. Less a studio musician, less a show band musician, etc. perhaps.[/b][/quote]Gee, Neil, I never said that not being able to read made anyone less of a musician. What I'm curious about is: Why do some non-readers so vehemently rail against even trying to learn. It just isn't that hard, and it's another tool in the box to help a musician on his or her way. I probably way oversimplified, but that was just to make a point. I certainly didn't mean to offend, I'm genuinely curious.

[Griffinator]

Look. All I'm saying is that in every single one of these debates I've seen mountains of people who are musically illiterate (not just "can't read notation", but don't understand basic chord structures, scales, etc) proclaim how many all-time greats couldn't read music. Well, guess what. Jimi Hendrix may be a legend, but even [b]he[/b] would tell you he couldn't hold a candle to a lot of his contemporaries. Why? Because people like Steve Howe, Frank Zappa, Robert Fripp, etc, etc were well schooled in the foundations of music theory, and were then able to build off those foundations into realms Jimi could only dream of reaching. Kinda like my music theory instructor said to me after I tried to go Bartok on one of my first harmony assignments. [b]You must learn to walk before you can run, and you must learn to run before you can fly.[/b] Think about it. Do you want to crawl the rest of your life? Stay illiterate. You want to fly? Learn. [b]You can't break the rules if you don't know what the rules are[/b].

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Happy sound noise good. - Jeff

[schmoron13]

[quote]Originally posted by Griffinator: [b]Look. All I'm saying is that in every single one of these debates I've seen mountains of people who are musically illiterate (not just "can't read notation", but don't understand basic chord structures, scales, etc) proclaim how many all-time greats couldn't read music. Well, guess what. Jimi Hendrix may be a legend, but even [b]he[/b] would tell you he couldn't hold a candle to a lot of his contemporaries. Why? Because people like Steve Howe, Frank Zappa, Robert Fripp, etc, etc were well schooled in the foundations of music theory, and were then able to build off those foundations into realms Jimi could only dream of reaching. Kinda like my music theory instructor said to me after I tried to go Bartok on one of my first harmony assignments. [b]You must learn to walk before you can run, and you must learn to run before you can fly.[/b] Think about it. Do you want to crawl the rest of your life? Stay illiterate. You want to fly? Learn. [b]You can't break the rules if you don't know what the rules are[/b].[/b][/quote]ok now we're getting off on tangents!!! Bad enough we use examples as the norm, but now we're up to alledging what said examples would say/think? :rolleyes: Since I'm usually found at the keyboard thread, I'll note that I have a degree in jazz theory and composition so I know how to read, but I don't remember that helping me one bit when I learned Javansese Gamelon...in fact, I based my thesis on "cultural baggage" and one negative aspect was in percieving cultures and musics completely out of my realm and trying to impose my western methodology on them. wes montgomery is 10 times nay 1000 times the jazz musician I am and I have a degree in it; he couldn't read. YES YES, he's an exception, but my point is that a musical education helps, but doesn't intrinsically make you better. I don't know how wes percieved notation, chords, etc, but just cause he didn't fit in to the classical model didn't make him worse. And as for that ridiculous notion that it couldn't hurt, that's a naive statement. It was a pain in the ass for me to stop putting in altered chords when I did pop covers, so in a way, my musical understanding hindered me...

[Griffinator]

The problem is, Wes (and people like him) are [b]always[/b] the exception! If people like him are the exception, one must be awfully conceited to believe that somehow their name belongs amongst this list of legendary "exceptions". As far as allowing your theory understanding to get in your way, I suggest you experiment with deliberately breaking the rules you spent 4 years learning. That's the first thing I did once I started learning harmonics, chord progressions, etc - I went out and started writing material that flew directly in the face of the accepted standards I had been taught. And you know what? It worked - only because I had an understanding of how I could make it work. The biggest problem I see with this whole idea that understanding theory is a hindrance rather than a benefit is that too many songwriters that don't know how things work end up cranking out the exact same chord progressions and melodic structures we've heard for 50 years. And they think they're doing something original. :rolleyes:

[schmoron13]

good point griff, but i'm not referring to rule breakers who don't know anything..I'm referring musics that don't fit in the western pardigm. WHen I heard javanese gamelon, i immidiately thought of how to notate it in a western idiom, but whereas western music reads from start to end, gamelon is cyclical...

[Raymar]

Reading music can definately make you a better and more knowlegeable musician in a conventional sense especially if you're doing jazz, classical, orchestral film music or any music that has an excessive amount of notes, chords, tempo and key changes, and so on. It helps you keep track of it all, and also play new music live or in a studio situation that you're unfamiliar with. I'm doing more abstract music that's spaced out and is open to improvisation so its not really a must in my case.

[alcohol]

Like reading and writing words, music is an undeniable aid to your musicianship. When reading words, no one complains about the fact that the words don't represent the totality of the sound. From reading prose to poetry, you need to have a familiarity with the content and context the words are referring to, in order to hear it in your head. When you read, you hear the words in your head. When you write, you hear the words in your head prior to writing them down. There is no complaint that the words on the paper do not catch all that is intended. The limits of words on paper are understood, and those limitation are never used to denigrate the skills of literacy. Now what is really good about the practice of reading and writing music, especially in the absence of a musical instrument, is that the process trains, and develops your mind to hear music within your imagination with the facility that you can hear words within your imagination. Now while the talent of a poet might not require him to read or write words, anyone who can read and write can understand how having that ability can enhance the poet's skill and output. Likewise a poet being enhanced by the ablity to read and write the musician is likewise enhanced in skill by the ability to read and write music, especially independent of an instrument. Give Beethoven's Ninth symphony a listen to check out what I mean. He wrote that when he was completely deaf.

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by schmoron13: [b]good point griff, but i'm not referring to rule breakers who don't know anything..I'm referring musics that don't fit in the western pardigm. WHen I heard javanese gamelon, i immidiately thought of how to notate it in a western idiom, but whereas western music reads from start to end, gamelon is cyclical...[/b][/quote]Ah, but you make my point again - gamelon has its own set of rules to be learned, and its own form of notation to be understood. Certainly there are more paradigms out there than the twelve-note Western system, but they all have their own structures and definitions, and learning those structures is crucial to executing the style.

[schmoron13]

[quote]Originally posted by Griffinator: [b] [quote]Originally posted by schmoron13: [b]good point griff, but i'm not referring to rule breakers who don't know anything..I'm referring musics that don't fit in the western pardigm. WHen I heard javanese gamelon, i immidiately thought of how to notate it in a western idiom, but whereas western music reads from start to end, gamelon is cyclical...[/b][/quote]Ah, but you make my point again - gamelon has its own set of rules to be learned, and its own form of notation to be understood. Certainly there are more paradigms out there than the twelve-note Western system, but they all have their own structures and definitions, and learning those structures is crucial to executing the style.[/b][/quote]this is getting redundant...in actuality, gamelon notation has been devised as a way of teaching westerners how to fake it ERR play. The masters didn't learn Gamelon through notation, rather through oral dictation. My whole point is that westerm 12-tone music relies on written rules, which I won't deny are much eaier to grasp as a whole through musical literacy, but we can't take this approach and slap it on to every genre of music in existance. Fact is, there are numerous musics (hate that ethnomusicology term, but it works) which have evolved sans literacy. Even some western styles (punk?) have done so if I'm not mistaken. In deep blues, the author remarks how difficult it was for white "ethnomusicologists" to transcribe slave music, and its offspring, the blues. Sure today we can write in that idiom, but the literacy, especially in blues is much less important than a thorugh understanding of the context of the music and the implications of note relationships. THe fact that someone crudely transcribes something doesn't make it automatically learnable.

[Wow]

Jimi had something that that was special literate/illiterate I don't think you can teach what made him standout

[Steve LeBlanc]

Jimi was a teacher...I learned at least as much from him as I did from any school. Griff...you should quit while you're, er, ahead(?)...there's no point in trying to argue that music education makes someone a better composer/artist...sometimes it does but it isn't necessary at all. I do believe some knowledge of musical theories and notation is necessary to be able to discuss certain aspects of music but none is needed to make music. Notation/Ear Training has helped me to convey a lot of musical ideas and I use it a lot but everyone isn't the same...and that's a very good thing.

[Steve LeBlanc]

[quote]You can't break the rules if you don't know what the rules are[/quote]I HATE that saying...it's too simple. It can be more fun to break the rules when you know them which can translate to more inspired/fun music, sometimes, but the rules aren't rules really, they're attempts at explanation.

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by Griffinator: [b] [quote]Originally posted by schmoron13: [b]good point griff, but i'm not referring to rule breakers who don't know anything..I'm referring musics that don't fit in the western pardigm. WHen I heard javanese gamelon, i immidiately thought of how to notate it in a western idiom, but whereas western music reads from start to end, gamelon is cyclical...[/b][/quote]Ah, but you make my point again - gamelon has its own set of rules to be learned, and its own form of notation to be understood. Certainly there are more paradigms out there than the twelve-note Western system, but they all have their own structures and definitions, and learning those structures is crucial to executing the style.[/b][/quote]Good point. Every style of music from classical to Mississippi backwater blues to Brazilian samba to Navajo tribal chants has a set of rules. Those rules aren't always followed to the letter, but they create a framework that gives that style it's particular sound. If a musician is accomplished in one of these styles, he understands the rules of the style. Maybe he learned the rules from an instructor or a mentor. Maybe he learned from other musicians. Maybe he learned the rules by listening to a lot of music. Maybe he gained his knowledge from a combination of experiences. The point is that the rules exist and he knows them regardless of what method he used to learn them. Music theory is not distict from music itself. It's right there, and all of us understand SOME of it, even if we can't read notes or have never taken a class. By taking a class or lessons, we can potentially learn MORE and expand our understanding. By the way, some Western music is cyclical - rounds, rondos, canons, etc.