How important is reading music?

[AbrasiveScotsman]

Because many of us would say that that's the thing that sheet music is not useful for.

Really? Because that is one thing sheet music has helped me with already.

I was listening to my Bríd O'Donohue CD the other day and couldn't for the life of me figure out one little section of a piece she was playing. A few too many ornamentations were hiding the notes from my (untrained) ears. I downloaded the sheet music and wrote out the notes and eventually I had a "Ohhh, that's what she is doing...." moment.

So in that regard it was helpful to me.

[benhall.1]

Because many of us would say that that's the thing that sheet music is not useful for.

Really, because that is one thing sheet music has helped me with already.

I was listening to my Bríd O'Donohue CD the other day and couldn't for the life of me figure out one little section of a piece she was playing. A few too many cuts and taps were hiding the notes from my ears. I downloaded the sheet music and wrote out the notes and eventually I had a "Ohhh, that's what she is doing...." moment.

So in that regard it was helpful to me.

If I have a recording that I want to copy (which is very rare) then I would probably not go to the sheet music (well, not until after I've learnt the tune, at any rate). Here's the reason: if you play the thing (the recording) over and over and really listen each time, eventually the tune itself will just stick. Then you can play it. And it won't leave you. Use the sheet music to 'fill in the gaps' and you'll have missed an opportunity to learn the tune that you were listening to. For instance, at its simplest level, how do you know that the sheet music is the same as what you're listening to? But, more importantly, you've then still got a whole extra level of work to do before you can, as some put it, 'internalise' the tune. Whereas, pick it up by ear and there you have it. No more work to do. Well, except maybe a bit of practice.

[Grizzle]

Is reading music important - yes - but at what proficiency level, for what purpose, at what cost and at what risk?

If your goal is to be able to "sight read" at session speed, with new music, and as a substitute for learning your tunes - its a fools errand. If you'd like to be able to clap out a rhthym, lilt a melody, and play it through in time as you are learning - its useful.

If your goal is to be able bring your music stand to the local hall or pub so you can play along at session speed while your brain checks out - I dont see that being too useful.

Developing "sight reading" skills may be a very significant effort depending your learning speed and music background. I have seen too many people struggle to break a tune off the dots and into their head. I've sat next to them and played a tune 100 times and they still cant look away and just play 4 phrases from memory.

The Risk - Several years ago I was giving Kevin Burke a lift to Limerick after a gig in Clifden and he gave me a great piece of advice. He said "no matter how fast you spell C-A-T it will never sound like "CAT". His point was playing slow sessions and reading off of music instead of going from ear to the instrument phrase by phrase wont get you the sound you're after.

The other risk I see is too often people new to ITM approach it with the same skills and learning styles they used in the highschool band. They usually get bored with the simple music, the repetition, and the frustrations with variations. Their enthusism wanes - ultimately because they couldnt be bothered to embrace an aural tradition and all the magic got stripped out of the endless pages of dots they slavishly embrace.

[Peter Duggan]

For instance, at its simplest level, how do you know that the sheet music is the same as what you're listening to?

Because you've got ears and eyes, Ben!

He said "no matter how fast you spell C-A-T it will never sound like "CAT".

But you don't read music note by note in the end any more than you read text letter by letter. It's all about shapes and patterns, your experience of them and that sort of thing!

Or are half of you sitting there reading H-o-w-i-m-p-o-r-t-a-n-t-i-s-r-e-a-d-i-n-g-m-u-s-i-c?

[benhall.1]

For instance, at its simplest level, how do you know that the sheet music is the same as what you're listening to?

Because you've got ears and eyes, Ben!

Yes, you have. I certainly have. But if you can't hear what the notes are, then you can't tell that what the sheet music says the notes are are the notes. What I'm saying is that if your ears aren't good enough to hear the notes, then you still won't be able to hear them just because you've got sheet music in front of you. A better bet would be to train your ears up so that you can hear the notes.

[Grizzle]

Well Peter you have a point there...then again long before I'd be looking for "shapes and patterns" in written music hopefully I'd have already listened to them.

I have been working through Donal O'Sullivan's "Carolan" and Petrie's "Complete..." - for those type efforts good reading skills have been and are essential.

[Nanohedron]

Or are half of you sitting there reading H-o-w-i-m-p-o-r-t-a-n-t-i-s-r-e-a-d-i-n-g-m-u-s-i-c?

Some of us are doing just that, by analogy. As I mentioned earlier, I can read music some, but with no ease.

[joconnor58]

benhall.1 wrote "Put simply: Whatever you do, you're not gonna hurt it. Whatever you do, you have a chance of affecting it."

I think this is a really poignant observation.

But for just a moment I want to take this conversation out of Trad. I want to use the Prelude to Bach Cello Suite No. 1. This is the first movement of the first of six cello suites that J.S. Bach wrote for unaccompanied cello. Whether you recognize it by its name or not - you have heard it. You Tube link below....

Every Cello player on the planet who has studied for longer than 9 months has learned this piece. So has nearly any string player, many classical guitarists and some wind players. I would estimate that 99.999999999999% of them learned it from the sheet music. They all *learned* it robotically at first (because it is written very robotically). Then as they became comfortable with the music, they made certain choices of musical expression. And as they grew as players they made new and different expressions. They also listened to others play the same piece, and play it differently. They emulate some of what they heard, or maybe they don't at all - but the piece is recognizable even with these choices.

We don't know how Bach himself would have expected it to be played. We can deduce from some bits of musicological study that he would certainly have expected some level of variation among those playing it. We don't know how the variations used today might compare with those used at the time of the creation of the piece. But IMHO it doesn't matter. Music is a living art. It is temporal and truly experienced in the moment. And even the same performer will make different choices in how to express themselves on each performance.

I chose this piece as my illustration for a couple of reasons. 1) it is from the baroque period - a time during which composition of music was expected to follow a litany of very strict rules about what was proper. 2) it is a very "straight" piece in terms of how it is written. The piece is nearly entirely constructed of running 16th notes with few rhythmic gaps or pauses - making expressive choice more obvious. 3) It comes from a "genre" of music that is considered by many to not leave much room for interpretation - and is dominated by written music - yet still there is truly much value to expression and... 4) Even light surfing of You Tube will provide LOTS of examples of how people play the piece.

All this is to say that none of what is being discussed here - IMHO - is entirely tied to ITM. This is a debate had by musicians in various forms in all manner of music.

If one learns to read music, they have one more (very useful) tool in the arsenal allowing them the opportunity to enjoy learning and playing music. If they employ ALL of the tools - reading, listening, experimenting, listening, performing, listening and listening - then they are best prepared to make the most of their experience and the experience of anyone listening to them.

Knowing how to read music does not cause one to play robotically. Playing robotically causes one to play robotically. Virtually all of the performers who play the cello suite mentioned have learned it from reading the music and play it with expression or robotically based on where they are in their study of their instrument, and where they are in their development as an artist - not based on the fact that they learned it from "the dots."

Here is Yo-Yo Ma playing it (widely considered a living master of the Cello)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JysJGTUA ... B5BC4FBDA2

And here is the first page of the piece:
http://www.8notes.com/scores/2792.asp?ftype=gif

You can hear right off the bat that Yo-Yo Ma slightly draws out the length of the first note of each measure. And even if you can only vaguely read music, you can see that it is not written that way. But it feels good, and feels right. I have heard him draw it out even longer at times. Some players will emulate, some others will not - and that is exactly the point.

Okay. I'm spent.

[Denny]

whoa there joconnor58...let's not be confuzzing 'em w/facts!
Besides we ain't got the patience for long posts...


Somewhere in the past I'd pressed enter on this, reply to Nano's post, right after joconnor58 got finished...

ah, feck


It's like singin' then!!


Sure I can do it. But I'm not deaf yet and it's painful!

[Grizzle]

joconnor - interesting thing is I looked at all the YouTube videos I could and I didnt see Yo Yo Ma using any sheet music to play from...

So hopefully we'll all take inspiration from your example and use sheet music as a learning tool and then put it away.

[joconnor58]

Its fair to say that it is expected of any professional musician to play without the music in front of them when performing formally.

Although it does happen, frequently with particularly long or complex pieces. However, it still does not dictate whether that performer plays it robotically or expressively.

[mutepointe]

I can see I've wandered into a C&F minefield with this one though.

And in less than 25 posts too. You're good.

As an aside, I want to say that some of us have difficulty memorizing anything. I couldn't memorize my prayers in school, my times tables, states and capitols, the preamble, math formulas. You name it, I can't memorize it. I can remember the content and concept, just not memorize. Only once I found out about mnenomic devices did I make any progress on this. Not all of us have the same brains folks. Not all of us walk in the same shoes. It's presumptuous to say what is better for someone else.

[JTC111]

joconnor - interesting thing is I looked at all the YouTube videos I could and I didnt see Yo Yo Ma using any sheet music to play from...

Ahem...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7JEUetg8lE
Not only does he have music in front of him, he's using two music stands to spread it out.

[Feadoggie]

Ahem...give the guy a break! You didn't pick a performance video but one taken in the recording studio.

Charts are common in the studio, eh? Still absorbing the music and the interactions with the other musicians!

If you've had a chance to see any of the recent Goat Rodeo performances, he plays without a net.

Feadoggie

[cboody]

Its fair to say that it is expected of any professional musician to play without the music in front of them when performing formally.

Just not so. What is so is that soloists (concerto or alone) will play without music. Frequently chamber groups and people playing one of multiple solo parts (Bach Two violins etc.) do use music. Probably this is true because of the possibility of train wrecks if "the other" player goes in the wrong direction. That, however, does not remove the second point: Whether music is there does not get in the way of fine performance IF the player uses it correctly. It is the robots of the world we need to get rid of.

One other point:

1) it is from the baroque period - a time during which composition of music was expected to follow a litany of very strict rules about what was proper.

Not necessarily so. Improvisation was a large part of baroque music. Consider, for just one example, the "improvised preludes." Chords are shown on the page (usually in whole notes) and the player expected to do something interesting with them. Again, this does not argue against the point: that interpretation is expected by players of almost all kinds of music (see my earlier post), and improvisation and/or variation are a big part of much of it.

Please understand the suggested corrections above do not bear on the topic under discussion. They only correct a bit of inaccuracy in the examples.

I agree that listening comes first and foremost, and that learning from a master is the best way to approach most traditional musics. But I'm sick and tired of hearing how ITM is so very special in that regard that it can't be approached any other way and that other kinds of music are somehow all lesser because they can use dots more easily. Poppycock! Neither half of that statement is accurate. So do listen, do learn to pick up tunes by ear (you already can do it. Try some simple nursery rhymes. They are in there somewhere). But do realize that the dots can also play a part as long as they are viewed as what they are: a rough guide.

Rats! I said I'd only post on this one once