Can you read music? Important or not, what say you?

[Beck]

Yours is a logical fallacy.

 

Ummm... no, my arguments are quite reasonable and logical. You used that term because it sounds cool, but you don't appear to know what a logical fallacy is in logical argumentation. A point of view that is simply contrary to your own is not logical fallacy.

 

There's absolutely NO good reason not to learn how to read music. NONE.

 

There are many.

 

Perhaps you would be surprised to learn how many {censored}ty, failed, and frustrated musicians who aren't even on your radar never took a lesson and can't read a note.

 

Most of the {censored}ty, failed, and frustrated musicians I know were classically trained and can read music quite well.

 

There's no great musician on the planet who says "I wish I knew less about music." Most want to know more.

 

There are many directions to go in music. Written muisc is not music. It is a common system that has evolved over time to represent certain limited aspects of music with written symbols. I don't need it. Nor do countless others who do what they do without it.

 

Are you going to argue next that to be a great musician you shouldn't even play a musical instrument because playing a musical instrument changes how you think about music?

 

No.

[Lee Knight]

Most of the {censored}ty, failed, and frustrated musicians I know were classically trained and can read music quite well.

 

You're making this up as you go along!

[Beck]

Funny someone eventually mentioned algebra because I was going to mention earlier how much advanced calculus and statistics did for me musically. Math and music are very much related as for which parts of the brain are being stimulated/activated. I can still remember the directions my music went when I was taking an intense statistics class... lots of algebra. That class gave me a headache when I started it, but my mind opened with new musical direction. I was composing in ways I wouldn

[Goobers]

 

I don't need it. Nor do countless others who do what they do without it.

 

 

So how's that new song you're working on with with C, G, and Am chords played in the way you always play them coming along?

[Beck]

You're making this up as you go along!

 

No, I know a lot of classically trained musicians. If you do you know I I'm right.

[Beck]

 

So how's that new song you're working on with with C, G, and Am chords played in the way you always play them coming along?

 

 

You don't sound like you've been in music very long and/or very deeply. You strike me as someone in the pre-socialization phase. That is, you

[Goobers]

You don't sound like you've been in music very long and/or very deeply. You strike me as someone in the pre-socialization phase. That is, you

[UstadKhanAli]

 

But that person may have a creative advantage for the things they do and the results they desire.

 

 

Look, we're talking in circles here. What you just said is entirely different from saying "I don't want to read because it will blunt my creativity." And that's what some people say.

 

So yes, I agree with what you're saying. In fact, I not only agree with it, I've said it several times in this thread.

 

I'm the first person to say that reading is not for everyone, and you should play to your strengths and seek your creativity in your own individual way. Again, I've said this several times in this thread.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

I took lessons when I was much younger from a piano teacher who had her doctorate in performance from Juilliard. All I could do back then was read music, I couldn't improvise to save my life. Now I'm the exact opposite. I can hardly read music anymore and all I do is improvise.

 

 

I feel like I am going down this path as well! Totally relate! Improvisation is a skill I really value, so I've worked on that quite a bit. The ability to read and improvisation skills together are a powerful, complementary combination. Even if you're not literally using sheet music or reading at that moment, to be able to quickly conceptualize and communicate and think about music in a variety of ways helps improvisation such a huge amount.

 

Again, the disclaimers: I am not advocating that it's important for everyone to read or know how to improvise. I am not a music snob. I do not look down on people who cannot improvise or read music. They're just all useful tools. No garden gnomes were harmed in this post. That was not any forumite's daughter I was with last night.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Originally posted by Lee Flier: Not to keep repeating myself, but this never seems to get through: I don't know anyone who actually says this. This is a misinterpretation of what people usually mean. When someone says they feel it would be a detriment for them to learn one specific set of skills, it does not mean they actually want to know less about music. It usually means they want to focus their study and effort on some other method or skill set that they feel is more relevant to them.

 

 

 

99.998% of teachers are there, whether purposefully or not, to stifle creative thinking by mind numbing drill and repetition. That is what they do - - narrow the field of focus to one specific direction, to what is on the lesson plan for that day. It is their job. This is not to say it is without value; the discipline of narrowing focus has benefits as well as costs. Like any excess, it focuses one into honing a specific skill at the expense of the other directions one might have pursued had they not been thus focused.

 

 

And a general condemnation of music education in general, including reading music, as this is the topic at hand. But this is where I disagree. It's NOT at the expense of other directions. Learning to read doesn't inhibit the ability to improvise, play by feel, by ear, by texture, by divine intervention, to invite the sacred and channel it through you, to make noise, to play creatively, or anything else. Taking lessons in one thing doesn't prevent you from doing anything. Sure, there's bad teachers, but 99.998%?

 

As I mentioned before, I learned to read from classical piano teachers who went to the same church. Very conservative. Hardly rabble-rousers, right? But not once did I ever get told, "Oh, you have to do it this way" or "these are the rules". I was simply taught to read music. I was simply taught to read scales. I played Bartok, Stravinsky, Satie, who are considerably more adventurous than many. And again, these weren't rabble-rousers or "outside thinkers", but conservative classical piano teachers who went to my church. But still, hardly stifling creativity! In fact, they encouraged me to put my personality in to playing classical pieces so it didn't sound like rote memorization. I had four teachers in all, three from church, and later, one 85-year old lady from down the street.

 

Again, I agree with Beck and Lee in that not everyone needs to learn to read (or should). I'm a firm proponent in that. I've said it a billion times. We as creative musicians need to take different paths and follow our strengths and interests and passions. No argument there. No, where I diverge is when people say that reading music inhibits creativity. Lee says: "Not to keep repeating myself, but this never seems to get through: I don't know anyone who actually says this." I've just shown a bunch of quotes, all from this thread. And there's many others as well. I hear it all the time.

 

I hope you can see that people do in fact say "reading music stifles creativity". And hopefully you understand my extremely non-judgmental, non-snobby, "let's forge our own paths and explore music" position.

[Goobers]

What I don't understand is how someone with any real interest in doing music can say "I have absolutely no interest in learning how to read it."

 

Maybe it's generational.

 

Most of the people I know learning music are in their 20's. And ALL of them want to learn how to read music.

 

It seems like the only people on here advocating notational illiteracy are older people. For whatever reason, that's true, isn't it?

[RockViolin]

 

I don't know why either of you feel that I don't "get it", which is a bit insulting in itself, but hey, fire away. But you mean to tell me that the many people who have said that it would be stifling creatively to learn to read music really think they want to focus their effort elsewhere? Or are they simply saying that reading would stifle creativity? See, because there's a lot of people saying the latter: So reading music stifles rhythm. No mention here about exploring other avenues, are there? This hasn't bothered the Funk Brothers from Motown, Steve Gadd, Omar Hakim, Manu Katche, James Jameson, Stax/Volt musicians, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles.... We're saying here that learning to read is controlling ? Does this mention focus on other methods or skill sets? No indication here either. This person used to feel this way but no longer. But he did feel unequivocally that reading music would somehow ruin his creativity at one point, so there's another person who has since changed. Need I say more? That's fairly plainly stated, and doesn't sound like he wants to focus on other skill sets. Another vote for reading stifling creativity, it would appear. And a general condemnation of music education in general, including reading music, as this is the topic at hand. But this is where I disagree. It's NOT at the expense of other directions. Learning to read doesn't inhibit the ability to improvise, play by feel, by ear, by texture, by divine intervention, to invite the sacred and channel it through you, to make noise, to play creatively, or anything else. Taking lessons in one thing doesn't prevent you from doing anything. Sure, there's bad teachers, but 99.998% ? As I mentioned before, I learned to read from classical piano teachers who went to the same church. Very conservative. Hardly rabble-rousers, right? But not once did I ever get told, "Oh, you have to do it this way" or "these are the rules". I was simply taught to read music. I was simply taught to read scales. I played Bartok, Stravinsky, Satie, who are considerably more adventurous than many. And again, these weren't rabble-rousers or "outside thinkers", but conservative classical piano teachers who went to my church. But still, hardly stifling creativity! In fact, they encouraged me to put my personality in to playing classical pieces so it didn't sound like rote memorization. I had four teachers in all, three from church, and later, one 85-year old lady from down the street. Again, I agree with Beck and Lee in that not everyone needs to learn to read (or should). I'm a firm proponent in that. I've said it a billion times. We as creative musicians need to take different paths and follow our strengths and interests and passions. No argument there. No, where I diverge is when people say that reading music inhibits creativity . Lee says: "Not to keep repeating myself, but this never seems to get through: I don't know anyone who actually says this." I've just shown a bunch of quotes, all from this thread. And there's many others as well. I hear it all the time. I hope you can see that people do in fact say "reading music stifles creativity". And hopefully you understand my extremely non-judgmental, non-snobby, "let's forge our own paths and explore music" position.

 

 

If I could keep up I'd like to have gotten to some of those fine points you make. Thanks for bringing that together!

[RockViolin]

 

I suppose the question one should be asking themselves in considering whether or not to learn music notation is: 1. How long will it take to learn?, and 2. Is it time that could be better spend focusing on other things?, and 3. Am I already doing fine without it? In my opinion, the ability to read musical notation is far less important than a fundamental understanding of how music works (i.e. theory), unless you aspire to play in an orchestra (in which case it's a requirement). It is also not a prerequisite for understanding how music works; it's simply a tool that's available for remembering an idea, and communicating said idea. Knowing/not knowing how to read dots on a page is rather irrelevant to what music you wind up making. But if you don't know the difference between a major and minor, diatonic and non-diatonic harmony, etc, that likely will have an effect on your music; I think this is the relevant argument, really. The reading and writing aspect is rather arbitrary, IMO.

 

 

I've never said anything to the contrary. As I've pointed out already, someone that is doing a Cobain thing for instance has practically no need for notation, or the abilty to read it. It's the idea that learning to read music is some major drain on energy, or onnerous, or that it'll screw up perfection that I disagree with.

There are indeed uses for reading music other than playing in an orchestra. There are lots of other interactive possibilities. How'd you like to learn to play something that's not just whatever you can manage to pick up by ear? I learned to play "Donna Lee" that way. Or maybe study the works of others via the notation, while you listen, as EB mentioned.

 

I think some people think that if you can read, it means you have to write all your songs down and then stare at the page while you play them. Or they confuse sight reading with being able to read well enough to learn "Downtown" from a book of songs...in case they don't quite have the ears to get it totally as it was 'written', as was the case with "Donna Lee" for me.

 

Songwriters...interesting word.

[yanktar]

How did the question of whether you can read music turn into one about whether you SHOULD?????

Plenty of musicians never learn to read music, plenty of fine ones. Granted.

But I've never heard of any musician being hurt by learning to read music. It's just a form of literacy, like learning to read. Ideas can be put down on paper and transported across years, decades, centuries and distance. We have insight into Henry VIII and Martin Luther because they composed music and wrote it down--and we can hear it 500 years later. Nor have I ever even heard of a classical musician who cannot read music. I cannot even imagine it.

 

It's funny, if I sit down at the piano, I can read the music instantly (not sight-read, but just read it). No need for anything like tab. Yet with the guitar, because it's new, I have to use both tab and the score because I haven't burned the score-connected-to-the-strings into my brain yet, but it's the source of rhythm.

[JeffLearman]

Err

[JeffLearman]

You know, this is what's Kafka-esque about it all. How long does it take to friggin learn how to read music? Really, what's the biggy? There's like two staffs and 12 notes. In the time it takes someone to read through this thread, they could learn to read music.

That's like saying learning to read English is only a matter of learning 26 letters and a few punctuation marks.

 

I know the rules, but I can't sight read. For me, pulling music from notation takes an exhaustive and time-consuming effort. In addition, to sight read, one has to learn to play without looking at one's hands much at all, something we who play by ear don't need to develop (much). Just because something is easy for you doesn't mean it's easy for everyone, and I suspect that if you hadn't spent years practicing it, you wouldn't be very good either.

 

For me, the hardest part of reading is reading the timing. Fortunately that's not necessary when I already know the tune. Reading is a LOT easier then. But I hardly call that reading: it's using clues from the sheet.

 

There's a huge difference between learning to sight read and being able to communicate musical ideas. I play a lot of blues; one needs to know the scales and chord colors in order not to waste time at practice. I don't call that being able to read. I remember in high school jamming with my best friend and I'd say "Play an E" and he'd shout that he didn't know any damn letters. I busted his chops for not even taking the few minutes it takes to learn that, showing him how clumsy it is having to point to a fret or play a note and say "THIS ONE, DUMMY!" Eventually, he relented, and we got along even better after that!

[JeffLearman]

 

Yours is a logical fallacy.

Really, which one? When claiming a logical fallacy, you have to cite which one to have any credibility.

 

I agree with your general point that learning to read is a useful skill that's helpful to most musicians. I doubt anyone here would object to such a statement.

[kurdy]

 

Songwriters...interesting word.

 

 

I actually don't mind that word. Songs do have words, so it pretty accurately describes what they do. I'm much more comfortable with it than "composer". Even though technically, there is some composing involved in songwritng, seems pretty different to me than what Bach or Beethoven did, or what John Williams or Hanz Zimmer do.

[Lee Flier]

Alright. But I submit that anyone that calls himself a musician/composer/writer etc. has context. Particularly anyone that 'composes'. The notation is to those things a much more applicable thing than algebra is to guitar, it seems to me.

 

I didn't say that algebra was relevant to guitar! I said it's relevant to computer programming.

 

But anyway, I don't agree that anyone who calls him/herself a musician or a composer has "context." I don't find notation to be adequate to communicate my ideas as a songwriter or musician, which is why I don't use it. I don't have any trouble understanding how it's useful to other people, but I disagree that just because you're a musician or songwriter you would therefore have a context for learning notation. That's been my entire point all along: different musicians and different individuals have different musical contexts and notation isn't the most appropriate method of communication for all of them. If it were, then we wouldn't have so many people complaining about it or so many very talented musicians who just don't bother to learn it.

 

Countless people that consider themselves musician composer writers have managed the commit their work to paper and I've never heard a solitary claim from any of them about it having destroyed it for them. It just an unfounded, presumptuous, fear. Fear of the unknown, IMO.

 

No, it really isn't "fear of the unknown", but if you don't understand what it is after reading everything in this thread, I don't reckon you're ever going to. That's OK, because I understand there's nothing in your personal experience with which to relate to that sentiment, but at least perhaps you can recognize that other people's experience may be different from yours and that it isn't necessarily rooted in laziness or incompetence or closed mindedness.

 

The notation is neutral.

 

I don't agree with that. I don't think there is such a thing as a neutral medium.

 

I'm as capable of playing by ear and going with my flow as I ever was, it's just that now I can read too.

 

I understand that, and I believe you. I also understand people who say it messes them up, and I believe them.

[Goobers]

 

I agree with your general point that learning to read is a useful skill that's helpful to most musicians. I doubt anyone here would object to such a statement.

 

 

People do seem to be arguing against that tho.

[Lee Flier]

What I don't understand is how someone with any real interest in doing music can say "I have absolutely no interest in learning how to read it." Maybe it's generational. Most of the people I know learning music are in their 20's. And ALL of them want to learn how to read music. It seems like the only people on here advocating notational illiteracy are older people. For whatever reason, that's true, isn't it?

 

No, it isn't. In fact I was very surprised to read your post because I know loads of twenty-something indie rockers who wear their lack of musical training on their sleeves. People who don't bother to tune their instruments or learn to hold a basic rhythm, and can't get through a complete take in the studio - let alone wanting to learn to read music. In fact, if you to to the "Backstage With the Band" forum you'll find loads of middle aged guys in cover bands who lament the younger generation's refusal to play "other people's music" because it might mess up the "purity" of their original vision, etc. It ALL gets pretty tiresome. Why not play what you want to play and study what you want to study, and let other people do the same without calling all of their motivations or their entire generation into question.

[Lee Knight]

I got to take my 15 year old girl and her date to her formal last night. Oh man... these are the nights I live for. When did she grow up. Beautiful and smart. I'm lucky.

 

Anyway, the formal was 30 minutes away, downtown at the San Diego Zoo. That gave me 4 hours to kill alone. Movie at 8:15, but what to do with this hour and a half before the flick. So I walked through uptown and found a cool used book store. In it I found a book of 17th and 18th century Italian Songs and Arias. Piano and voice. Cool...

 

Now I was sipping a Kirin, eating Spicy Tuna Roll, and hearing these awesome Italian melodies. Simple harmonic structure but... those accidentals. It's an Italian thing. I love it and when it was time to go to my flick, I felt cheated. I wanted more time.

 

Reading, for me personally, has been a wonderful tool. I walked from that sushi place with a whole new palette of ideas to try in some new songs. And it won't sound like an 18th century Italian song. Reading helps me pull the mechanics of this beautiful music I'm playing back in my head and I can see how, clearly on the page, how far from tonic any given note is, and how this effects the emotion of the line.

 

Note: And I still haven't lost my aural perception. That's working hand in hand as I enjoy and analyze this cool music. I gotta a pretty good ear. Pretty good. Reading hasn't hurt that.

 

I'm not suggesting anyone should read, don't throw me in that camp, but I am saying, if you get a chance it just might something fun as hell to try. It pays big dividends all the time. For me.

 

And I am saying, reading music does not somehow rewire your brain forever and for the worse. I'm just going to say it, that's an uniformed opinion, Beck. I don't care about studies as much as personal experience. Reading does not make a crappy musician. As if somehow we are spineless wobbly jellyfish without will. Waiting to be rewired for the worse.

 

Silly.

 

Silly.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Originally Posted by RockViolin: I've never said anything to the contrary. As I've pointed out already, someone that is doing a Cobain thing for instance has practically no need for notation, or the abilty to read it. It's the idea that learning to read music is some major drain on energy, or onnerous, or that it'll screw up perfection that I disagree with.

 

 

 

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. Wasn't trying to argue--just expanding on some of your points. I also largely agree with Lee Flier, in that if it isn't a skill you possess, sometimes it may not be worth it, if it takes a lot of time away from pursuing other goals that are more important to you. I'm horrible at reading music, but my free time is limited, and there are only so many hours in a day, so it's a skill I choose to do without. But I do have a pretty good understanding of music theory, so I don't feel like it has much of an effect on the music I make. There's no rule that one must learn to read music in order to be a good musician. But what I do disagree with is what other people have said...that it harms the creativity of those that do decide to learn it. That just sounds silly to me.

 

 

It really is quite silly to the extent that I don't know why it keeps coming up. But anyway, I agree with your post above. (and RockViolin's quote as well). You really do have to pick and choose what's best for you. In many kinds of folk music (and I'm using "folk music" in a broader context of meaning that it's "music of the people"), reading music may not even be necessary, as one is learning it through communal means or are otherwise thinking of their music in terms or shapes or colors different from reading music (although they may be learning a type of reading music that is quite different from Western notation, such as those used in Indian rhythm or music or the slendro/pelog gamelan music of Indonesia, I'll give you that).

[Goobers]

Why not play what you want to play and study what you want to study, and let other people do the same without calling all of their motivations or their entire generation into question.

 

But you can voice your opinion and that's somehow different?

 

I think I read in this forum (from you) about how you thought young people were once again embracing classic rock from the 70's. So this is an observation along those lines. Of the guys I know doing music in their 20s, everyone is eager to learn as much as possible, including notation. I'm just throwing that out there!

[UstadKhanAli]

 

If I could keep up I'd like to have gotten to some of those fine points you make. Thanks for bringing that together!

 

 

You're welcome. It's an overwhelming thread, isn't it?

 

It isn't often that I hope people read a post of mine carefully. I'm not full of myself that way at all. But in this case, I really hope that someone who is concerned that learning to read music will stifle creativity will read my thread and come away with a kernel of an idea that it is not something that will stifle creativity or somehow make someone a worse musician.

 

I would love it if someone like this even just read this:

 

I learned to read from classical piano teachers who went to the same church. Very conservative. Hardly rabble-rousers, right? But not once did I ever get told, "Oh, you have to do it this way" or "these are the rules". I was simply taught to read music. I was simply taught to read scales. I played Bartok, Stravinsky, Satie, who are considerably more adventurous than many. And again, these weren't rabble-rousers or "outside thinkers", but conservative classical piano teachers who went to my church. But still, hardly stifling creativity! In fact, they encouraged me to put my personality in to playing classical pieces so it didn't sound like rote memorization. I had four teachers in all, three from church, and later, one 85-year old lady from down the street.

 

 

And if they still decided that they didn't want to learn music, that'd be okay. No big deal. Not everyone should read. Or should feel they even need to. We need to take different paths and follow our strengths and interests and passions. But just if they know that even ultra-conservative piano teachers from churches in the Midwest aren't going to say "Oh, you have to do it this way" or "these are the rules", it may set them at ease with respect to learning notes, learning from a "formal teacher", or perhaps just learning about music in general. Reading music does not interfere with creativity, rhythm, improvisation, or anything else.

 

Learning to read doesn't inhibit the ability to improvise, play by feel, by ear, by texture, by divine intervention, to invite the sacred and channel it through you, to make noise, to play creatively, or anything else. Taking lessons in one thing doesn't prevent you from doing anything.

 

It aids in conceptualization of music and communication and understanding. It's not the ONLY way to that, of course!!

 

The idea of people - anyone - who feels that reading music stifles creativity really hits a nerve with me. Not because I have to "prove I'm right", but that this very notion will forever color the way they approach music, the way they approach creativity, the way they approach learning.

 

It hits a nerve with me in part because I'm a teacher, and this is so anathema to how I teach, which is to coax creativity and self-expression from my students, to give voice to what they do, to give them independence.

 

So when I hear musicians saying or posting in the most fervent terms, "I don't want to learn to read music because it may stifle my creativity" or "I don't want to be forced into doing things one way", it pains me. It's so not true.

 

insert usual disclaimer here - see previous posts