# Is it essential to read music to be a genuine musician?



## Elaryad (Jul 29, 2008)

I found this article on http://www.medici.tv/#/magazine/archive/news/2008-08 and it increased my curiosity because recently I was discussing this subject on another forum and people had very different (sometimes opposite )opinions. Please read the article:
*
*
*«Is it essential to read music to be a genuine musician?*
August 12, 2008 3:00 PM


Can you learn a language without knowing its alphabet and grammar? It is now possible to gain an A grade in GCSE music without being able to read or write music. According to BBC Music Magazine, it has even been years already that the examination boards (including Oxford and Cambridge) gave no more than 20 per cent of its total marks to being able to read sheet music. Compositions submitted to be graduated require no scores and can be only recorded. No sheet music anymore for any performing exam too. During these last days, many musicians have criticized what they consider as a dumbing-down. What would have think Luciano Pavarotti who admitted in 1997 he could not read a score? And what would say Sir Paul McCartney, unable to read at sight a semiquavel on sheet music?

Among the crusaders, cellist Julian Lloyd Weber, the brother of composer and successful musicals (Jesus-Christ Superstar, Phantom of the Opera…) Andrew Lloyd Weber, estimates that educational change ridiculous "You have got to learn to walk before you can run. This is the basics of learning music", he said to The Independent. He also estimates that GCSE music "move to make things easier" is pure demagogy.

The opposition to such an evolution found a far more surprising spokesman: Damon Albarn, lead singer of BritPop band Blur, co-founder of Gorillaz and creator of The Good, The Bad & The Queen project when he says: "I think anyone interested in music should be forced to learn how to read and write it". And he recalls that he was classically trained and refers to his own experience: "I used to write for small orchestras when I was 15. I sold my soul to the devil and became a pop star and forgot about it, but in the past few years I have got back into orchestration after an almost 20-year hiatus. I'm so slow now…" But it is not his remaining ability in reading music - it is like the bicycle, you never forget - that lead him to write a whole opera Monkey that has been staged in great opera houses and even at the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden this late July?*»

*Do you think that we are gradually turning over an abandon of some practices considered the basic structure of music apprenticeship: to read and to write music? As I understood, there are educational institutions and individual (self-taught) musicians that only rely on technique and performance. 
I'm curious to read your opinions.
Are sheets becoming outdated? Think about the tabs on guitar/bass playing.

If you had already discussed this subject, I'm sorry, didn't find it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2008)

No.

(Hahaha. The system told me my message was too short. Well, now it's not.)


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6 (Dec 7, 2007)

Yes.

.......................................


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I'm puzzled at how it could be necessary... musicianship is about making music. And, if it's necessary to read music to be a musician, then you're degrading all these people in India and such areas who obviously play music, make music, yet you regard it as not being musical just because the player can't read it?

No, it seems blatantly obvious to me that one can be a musician without reading a note of music.


----------



## kiwipolish (May 2, 2008)

It is rude to read your score whilst playing your instrument.

At least that's the story reported to me by a violinist friend who went on holiday to a remote part of Greece (30 years ago). She befriended some local old violinists (who knew how to play their local folklore, but knew nothing about Mozart or Beethoven) and invited them to a chamber music concert. It's the first time these musicians went to such a performance. Their comment was: "It was very nice. But these classical musicians are so rude! Whilst their play on stage, they read books!!!"

It's not necessary to read music in order to be a musician. Music is a gift which can certainly be worked on, but it is a gift, and can come in a variety of forms.


----------



## Elaryad (Jul 29, 2008)

And about performing? Do you think soloists will start performing by ear? Or with alternative musical notation?
I think the answer to the main question is no, but there's always a "but". 
A genuine musician doesn't need to read/write music. But it's that the same with classical music performers? And about sharing ideas without a codified language, how can we do it? By recording? Or do you think that for classical music (only) the methods of learning will remain... classical?
http://www.talkclassical.com/members/ysayeop-27-6.htmlYsayeOp.27#6 please explain me your "Yes".


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

essential? no.
it sure does help to expand one's arsenal of musical tools, though.

dj


----------



## fox_druid (Feb 12, 2007)

I think it could be necessary for greater development, as it provides better means for analyzing (theme, structure harmony, etc)

Western classical music have grown rapidly since the 11th century because of the development of musical notation done by monks and with the great help of Church authority, as music was heavily influenced by Church till the baroque era. Before the invention of music notation, which is the era of Phytagoras and his contemporary till Pope Gregory I and his gregorian chant, there were only very slight progress on music.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2008)

We all learn to speak before we learn the grammar [if ever].
Being able to read music does not mean you will be even a *poor *musician. What is a musician??? Has the meaning changed?
I agree that if you are taking a course in music then reading must be included. 
What would you call a trumpeter who is an absolute master at playing but can not read. My reply of course to the OP is NO.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6 (Dec 7, 2007)

Elaryad said:


> And about performing? Do you think soloists will start performing by ear? Or with alternative musical notation?
> I think the answer to the main question is no, but there's always a "but".
> A genuine musician doesn't need to read/write music. But it's that the same with classical music performers? And about sharing ideas without a codified language, how can we do it? By recording? Or do you think that for classical music (only) the methods of learning will remain... classical?
> http://www.talkclassical.com/members/ysayeop-27-6.htmlYsayeOp.27#6 please explain me your "Yes".


I said "yes" having western classical music in mind, but I recognize that in other musical styles it may not be necessary.

Reading scores is the only way to access to western classical music, as a performer. Playing by ear is not an option for serious musicians. In fact, using a score is the only way in which you won't be "contaminated" by the personal imprints the recording/concert you listen to may have.

If you learn a Rubinstein Chopin nocturne by ear... are you learning THE nocturne, or Rubinstein's approach to the piece?

How do you plan to play an Intermezzo by Brahms just by ear? Do you guys think a Ligeti Etude can by successfully played if it's learned just by listening to it?


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

Yes it is essential for an overwhelming majority of Classical Music. Maybe not popular or folk music, but even then, if you want accuracy, some sort of notation would be needed.


----------



## marval (Oct 29, 2007)

I think yes, I know some musicians play without but, surely being able to read music helps. I can't read music, I found it very difficult, I can hear a piece of music and pick out the tune, but that isn't the same as reading a score and being able to play a full piece.

Margaret


----------



## Mark Harwood (Mar 5, 2007)

If you could not read words, would you be unable to compose and speak fine poetry?

The decline in the level of demand in national Music examinations goes much further than by-passing proper notation. If anyone wishes to be shocked, they may care to take a look at some recent Scottish Standard/Intermediate/Higher/Advanced Higher papers.


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

I reckon that if you're gifted enough to perform and even compose without reading a note of music, then go for it!. You can play or perform your composition in front of an electronic recorder of some description and it gets the public circulation.
I think that musical score was invented, in the first place, as a form of recording the composition before the days of tapes, videos and the rest.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2008)

Yes DCC without the written score we would not have the beautiful music that we all enjoy today, plus the fact that it would be just about impossible to have an Orchestra of 90+ playing a sym, improvised music is a different matter altogether. 
btw is Indian music written??


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Surely the folk music issue is important in this? The traditional passing-on of tunes and songs down through the generations is oral, not written, but it would be a brave person who said that traditional folk musicians are not 'genuine musicians'. (I fancy Vaughan Williams would have had a thing or two to say about the subject, too.)

My guess is that the problem lies with the phrase 'genuine musician', and that a more precisely descriptive label is needed for a musician who's able to read a score. I must say, though, that in the context of a _written_ music examination (which necessarily requires the candidate to read _words_), it would seem a bit perverse not to examine the ability to read _music_.


----------



## Mayerl (May 5, 2008)

I suppose the question is a bit like an aspiring professional footballer saying "Look, I know how to kick a ball, I know the object of the game, is it really necessary to know the rules and to train and practice on a regular basis?" If you want to be a master of the game instead of just a player, then the answer has to be "yes".
A lot of course depends on how, individually, we choose to define the word "musician". Being of western European background and steeped in the western European culture, I would define a musician as someone who has mastered ALL aspects of his art and is able, through that mastery, of communicating with a far greater audience than a "player of music".
Andrew Lloyd Webber and Paul McCartney; both described as musicians, and I am not particularly fond of the music of either but I know which of the two I would regard as a musician. Just to give a clue, the musician writes musicals and the other has relied on the talents of George Martin and Carl Davis, (both musicians).


----------



## Mark Harwood (Mar 5, 2007)

Andante said:


> btw is Indian music written??


The rhythms of Indian classical music can be written, but the scales are so complex and subtle that they, and the ragas, are passed on from teacher to pupil largely by example.
Deep topic, that; deep music, a world apart from Western Classical.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Mayerl said:


> I would define a musician as someone who has mastered ALL aspects of his art and is able, through that mastery, of communicating with a far greater audience than a "player of music".


This question of definition, though, is surely at the root of this whole discussion, isn't it? A grand old master of the traditional folk tradition, like, say, Martin Carthy, has, I suppose, mastered all aspects of his art in the way you describe - but I'm not sure that his particular kind of mastery necessarily requires him to read a score. (I don't know whether he can or not, actually.)

I think the point is though that you could either define 'musician' to include, or not to include, the ability to read a score; and if we all have different personal definitions of what we understand by the word, then much confusion will ensue!


----------



## Mayerl (May 5, 2008)

Exactly the point Elgarian, it is all about definition whether that be personal, national, cultural or whatever. I did state that my point was based on a Western cultural outlook since, cards on the table, I have little knowledge of, and even less interest in, the music of other cultures. At the risk of digressing, I find that more and more these days we (?) are actively encouraged, at least here in the UK, to explore and embrace other cultures whilst our own falls by the wayside.
So, based on that point of view, back to the topic.
I am old enough to recall a time when titles were earned, generally the hard way, and as a result valued highly. They were attained as a result of hard work and a desire for achievement and advancement. We seem too fond of the quick fix nowadays and any guitarist who can knock out a handful of chords in a 3rd rate rock band feels entitled to regard himself as a "musician" and expects to be regarded as such by others.
With no disrespect to the nursing profession, what would be the reaction to a nurse who called him/herself "Doctor" just because they practised in the field of medicine?
Just to show that I don't live completely in the past, I consider Elton John to be one of the most able musicians around and I am not over fond of his music but that doesn't mean it's not well crafted.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

i do believe there were 'genuine' musicians before the advent of notation.

dj


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6 (Dec 7, 2007)

david johnson said:


> i do believe there were 'genuine' musicians before the advent of notation.
> 
> dj


You just believe that or is it that you have some evidence?


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

there were no genuine musicians beofre notation, is that what you're getting at?
sure, man...

dj


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

Surely there were genuine musicians before the advent of notation!!. Music is as old as mankind itself. Notation has only been around since middle ages. Are you saying that there were no good folk musicians around in ancient Civiliastaions?...


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

maybe y will be more clear with his comment. i may not understand him accurately. 

dj


----------



## Elaryad (Jul 29, 2008)

Good musicians existed long long before musical notation. I think they worked based on an oral tradition. And that tradition really worked. Philosophical essays were "written" based on an oral communication, like a tale. Ancient tales or melodies passed between generations through oral tradition.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2008)

It is getting a bit confusing so we need to define what a Musician is, my view is = one that can *play* a musical instrument, and a genuine Musician as in the topic title is a bit misleading perhaps Complete Musician would make things easier but of course would elicit only one answer [Yes]


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

how about singers? they don't necessarily play.

dj


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6 (Dec 7, 2007)

david johnson said:


> there were no genuine musicians beofre notation, is that what you're getting at?


No, I'm not. Believing is not the same as knowing. So, I am asking if you actually have any information that can sustain your comment. Otherwise, it's just an unsupported one, an expression of hope and desire, but not real knowledge.

I am not saying anything about the existence of genuine musicians prior to the creation of music notation. But you are, so I'm asking you to give some background to your comments.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

music notation in any form, or as we understand it?
---------------------------
Genesis 4:20-24

20 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. 21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play the harp and flute.
---------------------------

this is very far back in human history. please consider what would entail in being the 'father of all who play the harp and flute.'
jubal would have been influential in his musical world...able to teach others the art of playing, construction/repairing instruments, improvisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphic_Hymn

here is a link for the delphic hymn with notation of a sort. the greek notation seems bare, but enough to jog the memory of a musician as to what is expected.

dj


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

david johnson said:


> how about singers? they don't necessarily play.
> 
> dj


You are quite correct, very remiss of me, also Conductors and composers although these last two would no doubt play an instrument.


----------



## Elaryad (Jul 29, 2008)

Sometimes I see some guitar teaching sites and in one of them there was a guy who had been asked to teach Stairway to Heaven. And the guy took a lot of work to tab the whole song. If people were used to sheets they wouldn't have that problem and that kind of work (by ear). Sometimes notation in music is golden.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Andante said:


> It is getting a bit confusing so we need to define what a Musician is, my view is = one that can *play* a musical instrument, and a genuine Musician as in the topic title is a bit misleading perhaps Complete Musician would make things easier but of course would elicit only one answer [Yes]


I think we still haven't resolved this basic issue in this thread, and the last point you make here really gives the game away. I suspect the only reason we have any disagreement at all is because we're all working with different personal definitions of what a 'musician' is, and what the word 'genuine' means.

Martin Carthy, Daniel Barenboim, Paul McCartney, Hector Berlioz, and Frederica von Stade are all 'musicians' who have spent their lives mastering their particular musical art and pushing its limits as far as it can go. But there's no escaping that they're all different _kinds_ of musicians, and to separate out some of them as 'genuine', and others as not, on the basis of their ability to read a score doesn't seem helpful, to me.


----------



## charles_arthur_bosch (Aug 18, 2008)

Some of the most brilliant musicians in history didn't know how to read music, but with today's access to information, I would say, why not learn it?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

As far as western classical genre goes, no matter how great a musician you may be, you are an _illiterate_ one if you do not know how to read and write.

Lack of knowing how to read and write is about as crippling as it might be for an actor or novelist...

You're seeing the butt-end result of an exaggerated adaption of Political Correctness - all social trends from the states, good or ill, manifest in the U.K. about a decade later -- 'Aww, do not stress or inhibit the wittle stoodent wiv bovering to learn to wead notes! "Just let them play."

Even within other genres such as Jazz, or the many genres and sub-genres of pop music, the illiterate musician is more likely to be isolated from over 99% of working musicians, communications about where and what in an ensemble piece get very long, imprecise and bothersome without some general parlance about notation, chord charts, etc.

The _illiterate_ will find themselves with very few people wanting or willing to work with them.

I've used the word _"Illiterate,"_ because that, unvarnished, is all you are asking really, *"Can one be illiterate and a still be a great musician?"* The answer is yes, there have been a tiny tiny handful of highly successful Illiterate Musicians... none of them in classical, at least none I can think of.

There are several genres within which there are famed and non-lettered improvising players.

For classical, "Great Musician" and "Musically Illiterate," are two phrases when standing side by side, the latter pretty much nullifies the former.

The fact that learning to read music notation is so simple that children between the ages of four and six routinely are successfully taught how to read music makes it that much greater a puzzle that a requirement for reading notation would be dropped from the syllabus or list of requirements.

[P.s. There are very few successful self-taught classical composers, and even fewer successful self-taught classical music performers.]


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

I'm sure that the best musicians of ancient times were extraordinary at improvising without any form of sheet music. Today it is an important tool for musicians and essential for recording music (before development of electronics) however throughout history it certainly wasn't always used. So I personally have no problem with universities testing less using sheet music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The standard notation is so easy to learn, there's really no reason not to know how to read music.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

science said:


> The standard notation is so easy to learn, there's really no reason not to know how to read music.


Indeed!. I think that the whole question does not have much sense, since it would be rather easy for that musician to learn to read music.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

McCartney did not read music. But what a handicap. You would never have the pleasure of playing music at sight.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2012)

Reading music is easy ???? depends on what level of music you are talking about but perhaps a harder thing is converting those dots to an acceptable level on an instrument, and as stomanek said McCartney did not read, but he produced an oratorio admittedly with a lot of help and (I may be wrong but) Pavarotti did not read.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Yes, learning to play an instrument is much harder.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Using the analogy of reading & writing a language - it is possible to communicate effectively without being literate. Similarly, the musician who cannot read & write music is also able to touch people with his/her talent as a musician. However, without being literate one is, as with language, restricted to an oral tradition. Think Gregorian chant. It was only the desire to unify the liturgy that led to the gradual evolution of notation in the West. The world of music for the musician who is able to read and communicate music in a literate fashion is infinately bigger and more sophisticated than that of a musician who cannot. I would think, particulary for classical musicians, it is a necessity. The parallel for jazz musicians would be an understanding of theory.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

science said:


> The standard notation is so easy to learn, there's really no reason not to know how to read music.


Do you mean it's easy to learn which line stands for a specific note? 
Yes, this is easy, but is it really reading? Because if you can't imagine in your mind how those notes sound, or if you can't play them on an instrument then I doubt you can say that you read music. It's like knowing the alphabet but not being to able to read words or sentences.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

* Is it essential to read music to be a genuine musician?*

In a simple word that is easy to understand: No.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

well many musicians cant and they can play music.

so the answer would be no.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2012)

Perhaps if the question had said (complete) then that would have been more to the point. IMO


----------



## AlainB (Nov 20, 2011)

Andante said:


> *Reading music is easy ????* depends on what level of music you are talking about but perhaps a harder thing is converting those dots to an acceptable level on an instrument, and as stomanek said McCartney did not read, but he produced an oratorio admittedly with a lot of help and (I may be wrong but) *Pavarotti did not read.*


You're wrong in Pavarotti's case. He could read music and has stated such several times in interviews. 

As for reading music: reading music is easy, @Science? Yeah sure, if you happen to have studied it and play an instrument for years. But reading it like one would sight-read would take years to learn.

I'm trying to learn (sight) reading for quite a while with daily practice, and I still have issues - many mistakes and "mistells" if I want to practice reading it out loud on a relatively quick speed. Especially on the bass clef.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

Musicians create music, whether from a score or from their minds. Reading music isn't essential to be a musician. An improvisational jazz pianist, for example, is a musician. Tell me - did Art Tatum read music? Was he a musician?

As for the topic presented, I believe it is necessary to teach music students to read music. It is in their best interest to know as much there is to know about their craft, as with any field of artistic study. It probably won't help a blind bassoonist, but there's not much alternative when studying theory.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

If one is a "composer" of "noise music", then who cares about notes and music training? There will always be some (limited) audience who will love it and say there is nothing wrong with the music itself in this case.


----------



## BeatOven (May 23, 2012)

I think the most clear way to think of written music notation or the ability to utilize it is that it is a tool. 

"Of course", you say. 

However, maybe there is an ingredient of romanticism in many peoples view of sheet music reading and writing? After all for the past few hundred years, what other method has been around longer? And musical notation has the validation of being the medium of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, or whoever you like. It almost can seem like the language of the music gods! 
But now, the music world - increasingly for the past 60 years - has been dealing with for the first time alternate methods of preserving and sharing a composer or performers intent. First and foremost audio recording. What you once could maybe only get through a keen cognitive ability to read and understand sheet music, you can get that nuance from a recording, or specific note orders from a guitar tab or what not. You can now even watch a close up of someone’s fingers at the speed you choose that can teach you the notes. And in the end, if the goal is achieved, what is the difference? 
I do not think that there is any better way yet to analyze music structure. But I am sure, that we are at the beginning of a profound transition in composition ability, that will shift musical thought father yet from reliance on paper music notation. Computers. If you think about it, music notation was one of the first programming codes humans invented. Sheet music was the programming that manipulated performers to perform exactly as wanted. But as computers advance and barriers of sounds and sound control fade, we will see the dawn of an even greater ability to achieve ever greater artistic realization through music. And not long from now there will be new Bachs or Mozarts burning up their mouse pads and hammering away at their midi interface reading a distant relative of sheet music on their monitors. Why should we doubt it? It is new, not fully explored, difficult, and even perhaps disrespected. But how many composers you might love can you count that were not considered scary, eccentric, resented, or distasteful during their time? I know there is validation in being able to read sheet well. But music is not dependent on it what so ever.

That’s a bit of what i think of the modern composer or musician and how they should be judged. 

But in the end, effect is all that counts.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2012)

AlainB said:


> You're wrong in Pavarotti's case. He could read music and has stated such several times in interviews.


Yes well he would, but from what I have since found out his understanding was pretty basic, but there you go LoL


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

You can be a musician in many different ways. Improvising is one of the purest forms of performing. Obviously you don't need to be able to read music for this. Being able to read music and to play while reading is a skill that has actually nothing to do with musicality. To make a comparison, I can read a part of Hamlet to you, perfectly saying what is written, without having a clue of what I'm saying.

If you want to play and study the classics, you have to be able to read music or you would have a very hard time.


----------



## realchanger (Sep 22, 2013)

You make some good points. It should be noted that it isn't NECESSARY to be able to read and/or write music to be a musician. As an experienced educator however, who deals with just about every style of music, I encourage everyone to learn the skills, if only that the more you know, the more doors are open to you, and the more power you have as a result of that increased knowledge.
I would also add that the our music notation system leaves a lot to be desired. It has definite faults that make learning more difficult than it should be - but that's another story.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

This is like sking , "Can you become an accomplished surgeon without knowing anything about human
anatomy ?" Would Dr. Oz have been able to do this without going to medical school ?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

superhorn said:


> This is like sking , "Can you become an accomplished surgeon without knowing anything about human
> anatomy ?" Would Dr. Oz have been able to do this without going to medical school ?


赤脚医生* managed quite well. You can provide basic medical care without medical school, you can make a pleasant noise without being able to read music as many folk fiddlers demonstrate. OK if you want to do brain surgery, you may need a bit of training as you would if you want to play Bach.

*barefoot doctors


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

I'll answer with two words:

Jimi
Hendrix

(P.S. Genuine is such a vague word)


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I've often wondered about this question myself.

I can read music as far as notes on a staff, but I can't just sight read and play something. I can hear something and play it though. I understand how to figure most things out when it comes to theory. Off the top of my head I don't have a clue what the 4th of Bb is, but if I picture a keyboard or fretboard in my head I can figure it out in a minute.

I've been able to perform live and record and write songs for 20 years and make money.

In regards to Classical music. I don't know how to score a symphony, but if I had some music software I could say "Ok, I want the violins to play this and the cello's to play this, etc. and I could write it with the help of software if it would play it back for me with all the parts together. I could say get louder here or get faster there and maybe figure out a time signature here and there but I'm don't know how to notate a lot of things on my own.

Now if we go by, Dictionary.com's definiton. It lists a musician as:
noun 1. a person who makes music a profession, especially as a performer of music.

2. any person, whether professional or not, skilled in music.

I guess I think I fall might fall under one of those definitions.


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2013)

niv said:


> I'll answer with two words:
> 
> Jimi
> Hendrix


Who//////////////////////////////////////////


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Andante said:


> Who//////////////////////////////////////////


No, Pete Townshend plays guitar for The Who.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Technicality is essential to both obtaining a deeper understanding of music as well as being able to write it down for others to play/perform.

*Imagine* a scientist. He has recently talked to somebody about a recently published article. The scientist finds that this experiment just may contribute to his current research, so he goes to replicate the experiment. 
Sadly, the scientist never learned how to properly go through a scientific article to be able to then follow the procedure accurately, and therefore the results are muddled.

How can the scientist become professional? Though he may have several innovative ideas, he does not know how to properly go about replicating experiments and reading journals.... He cannot become professional.

In the same way, *technicality, not only talent, is key* to being professional, as well as to being well-informed about music. There are several markings that can be interpreted in different ways in musical "text," and for deeper understanding of music than just listening, they must be understood as well as able to be applied by the learner/musician.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

It might work the other way. Beecham used to define musicologists as 'people who could read music but not hear it!'


----------



## kelseythepterodactyl (Sep 5, 2013)

I think for popular music that has an audio recording by the person who wrote it, notation isn't really necessary. There is still much classical music, however, that has never had a decent audio recording, or perhaps none at all. It is also impossible to guess at a (now dead) composer's intent from someone else's recording. The scores are as close as we have. So I would say that for the classical musician it is extremely important.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Why are people conflating music with physics and surgery?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

It is absolutely not necessary to be able to read music to be a "true" musician or even a "true" composer. Plenty of brilliant artists in the field didn't read music. Notation is only necessary when you want to make a good record of your ideas so that they can be replicated and/or studied, and so that communicating how to replicate those ideas is more practical. It is considerably more practical to give notation to musicians who can read than it is to try and teach everybody the material by ear and then try and get them to work together.

I think it is good for musicians to be literate, because it will only help them and other artists they work with, but its not necessary for them to be amazing at what they do, or to make music that is worth hearing.

I do however, if its correct that they're phasing reading out of academic musical studies, find that to be absolutely stupid. If anything, learning to read should be supplemented with learning how to play by ear and how to improvise, so that musicians are well-rounded and have a wide range of skills and tools on their instrument. Combine all the great ideas of classical music education and the traditions of rock, jazz, and folk musics.


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2013)

*BD*, I find it hard to believe that reading music is to be phased out of academic musical studies why on earth would that be? For none classical the ability to read is an asset not a necessity. but for a classical musician it is essential and sight reading is also a must if they are going to do anything other than practice alone,


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

It is indeed possible to be a "true musician" without reading music. But why on earth would you want to be?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I remember during a visit to South Africa meeting a couple of phenomenal pianists neither of whom could read music.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I remember during a visit to South Africa meeting a couple of phenomenal pianists neither of whom could read music.


Yes, this is perfectly possible. There has after all been music for thousands of years before notation was invented, and many of today's popular and folk musicians make do without reading music. Just as one can be a storyteller without being able to read, or a traditional healer without knowing human anatomy, or an artist without knowing perspective.

But the question is once again: why would one want that? For one thing, the phenomenally successful musicians who can't read music are very much the highly talented exceptions (and one has to wonder just how far they may have gone if they DID learn to read music). For another, while inability to read is not a problem in some genres of music, in classical music it puts severe constraints on performers and composers. It's one thing to learn to play Für Elise by ear from a recording; it's quite another to learn to play a Prokofiev concerto that way. It's one thing to compose a folk dance on a piano without being able to read music, and then simply memorize or record it. It's another to compose a six part fugue that way.

Still, if folk music is your main thing, then learning to read music may in fact be a waste of your time, and musicians do have to guard against losing their ear in the process of gaining the ability to read.


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2013)

Elaryad said:


> *«Is it essential to read music to be a genuine musician?*


5 years after this question was asked, the answer is still, "No!"

However, the ability to read music is, I'm sure, a help if you wish to compose in traditional ways.


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2013)

superhorn said:


> This is like sking , "Can you become an accomplished surgeon without knowing anything about human anatomy


No, it's not like saying that at all. A surgeon works with bodies which require handling in a specified way, or else death and injury occurs. A musician works with sound and may make a mess without anyone coming to harm: there is no requirement to handle sound in a particular way.


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> However, the ability to read music is, I'm sure, a help if you wish to compose in traditional ways.


Very true and it is essential for a career in classical music as a musician


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

brianvds said:


> It is indeed possible to be a "true musician" without reading music. But why on earth would you want to be?


I don't think its generally a conscious decision to avoid learning, its usually when somebody is teaching themselves music, and may have no interest in needing to study scores and instead they spend their time really developing skill with their ears (something that I can tell you is somewhat neglected in academic music; they do have ear-training classes, but they aren't really connected to instrumental skill). I come from a sort of hybrid musical background that includes classical education as well as the self-taught rock and folk background, so I can learn a piece of music simply by listening to it and figuring it out, or by finding a score and learning to play it that way. My self-study of music by ear has helped me in being able to understand what is going on in a piece simply by hearing it (but not in all cases, always more to learn ^_^) and my academic studies have helped to refine my hearing and help me better understand what is going on. When you have a vocabulary to describe various things, it makes it alot easier to form complex thoughts and analyses around those things ^_^

But yeah, many rock musicians just don't see the need for learning it. Often they're composing a piece collaboratively, so they don't need to worry about writing music out for other people. Somebody comes up with an idea, and they others come up with more ideas that fit with it, and then they develop it as a group into something. This doesn't lessen the quality or worth of their efforts though.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

niv said:


> I'll answer with two words:
> 
> Jimi
> Hendrix
> ...


Perfect example. 

........


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

No, Jimi Hendrix comes to mind.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Andante said:


> Who//////////////////////////////////////////


You've misspelled "Wow"


----------



## Fermat (Jul 26, 2013)

It's not necessary for the stars of popular music. However, most people will not be stars. Those who can sight read and possess a good ear will have an advantage when it comes to the jobs that keep food on the table. For example, session musicians should be able to play or sing anything from a variety of genres with no preparation. 

As for classical, it's essential for both composers and performers.

Re: the OP. I think it's absurd not to expect students taking an exam in music to be able to read.


----------



## Balhor (Sep 24, 2013)

Not essential but still important.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Essential is one of those absolute words one should never (another absolute) say, but, _yes!_

How are you going to write music, if you can't?
How will you know what to play, if you can't?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> Essential is one of those absolute words one should never (another absolute) say, but, _yes!_
> 
> How are you going to write music, if you can't?
> How will you know what to play, if you can't?


Jimi Hendrix had no problem with that. (most great rock artists for that matter). Crudblud doesn't have a problem writing great music without being able to read notation.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

No, I don't think you have to - you must hear the right music in your head and then be able to reproduce it on an instruments or on a group of them. Of course, to write things like symphonies, it's much easier to do it using notation, but great music can already be made using a single instrument.


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2013)

BurningDesire said:


> Crudblud doesn't have a problem writing great music without being able to read notation.


Really, what method does crudbud use to write this great music?


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2013)

Andante said:


> Really, what method does crudbud use to write this great music?


The OP was not asking about 'great' music, but 'genuine'. As usual, you might ask what 'genuine' means!


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

You don't need to be you are not very smart if you take the time it costs to learn it


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> The OP was not asking about 'great' music, but 'genuine'. As usual, you might ask what 'genuine' means!


BD stated that "Crudblud doesn't have a problem *writing* great music without being able to read notation" 
I simply asked what method he used to do this writing.


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2013)

Andante said:


> BD stated that "Crudblud doesn't have a problem *writing* great music without being able to read notation"
> I simply asked what method he used to do this writing.


I'm sure BD can speak for herself, but I took her use of the word 'writing' to mean 'composing'.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Andante said:


> Really, what method does crudbud use to write this great music?


Digital piano roll augmented with CC variables. I do have problems making music, but I imagine they are the same kinds of problems any composer has when writing a new piece. I will point out that I make no claims of greatness, so please don't take that part of the argument up with me if you wish to continue in this direction.


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2013)

What is "Digital piano roll augmented with CC variables" are you playing a keyboard and converting to a piano roll via computer to be later played on a piano which must be similar to playing a piece by ear and recording on tape or other recording device.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I don't think IA reads.
But he's a genius.


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

First of all I would like to point out - this discussion assumes that being able to read music is equivalent to being able to read staff notation, but there are other traditions of graphically representing sound. Tablature is prominent in the guitar community, and can trace it's history as far back as the renaissance. I was watching an interview with the Drum n Bass producer Goldie once, and he can't read staff notation, but he was explaining how he likes to map out his tracks visually on paper using a system of his own creation using lines to represent the progress of various instruments and climaxes in different places. Piano roll notation which Crudblud mentions is increasingly common among users of programs like Logic and Cubase. And there are the systems of graphical notation devised by 20th century composers. So it is misleading to equate an inability to read staff notation with an inability to read and represent musical ideas visually.

But to address the concept of reading music in general:



brotagonist said:


> How are you going to write music, if you can't?
> How will you know what to play, if you can't?


The problem is that you are thinking of music a bit like a novel or a written poem, or perhaps something like the plastic arts. But music is a performing art. Even western classical music, which has probably the closest relation to a written medium of any type of music, is consumed by and large through performances, live or recorded. Writing music without being able to write it down on paper isn't at all like the case of writing a novel without being able to read or write. It is more like the case of practicing for a speech without being able to read or write, you can remember the general content of what you want to say, and practice it until the details are mostly worked out. It might not contain a plethora of Shakespeare references due to the illiteracy, but it is still possible to form and practice a speech without being able to read.

In fact even this case is misleading, a person who can't read staff notation is not barred from the literacy in the same way as someone who can't read - popular music has a history of musicians who learned to play by listening to records and playing what they heard.

So I would like to say, categorically and without reservation, that being able to read staff notation is totally unnecessary to be a great musician, which is a musician who communicates something and not merely one who has a lot of technical know how.

But the task of a GCSE course in music is not to teach kids how to be great musicians, it is to give them a working technical foundation from which they can progress towards sixth form/college and university courses or careers. Part of that technical foundation when you are a musician in the western world, is reading staff notation. So I also strongly believe there should be some requirement at this level to get kids sight reading skills up to speed. It isn't as hard as some people seem to think it is.


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2013)

If you are going to compose and have performed a classical symphony as we know it you have to use the written score, and the method we have arrived at to day is the best method to date, OK there may be other ways of achieving this but definitely not playing by ear, as we have been saying the complexity of classical music makes this a necessity, as to other genres of music say Jazz, then a basic knowledge of music is a great help you just can not do it all by ear alone.








*
Graphic notation?????*


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

I personally hated the pianoroll notation, you just lose the clariry that a score gives you. A lotnof artists of electronic music could probably benifit from more traditional harmony lessons.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Andante said:


> What is "Digital piano roll augmented with CC variables" are you playing a keyboard and converting to a piano roll via computer to be later played on a piano which must be similar to playing a piece by ear and recording on tape or other recording device.


Most people do use a MIDI keyboard instrument to record the roll in realtime, I prefer to use the mouse and draw each note in the roll by hand. I only use a keyboard (as in a typing keyboard) to set numerical values for such things as tempo, signature and, when I'm in the finishing stages of the piece, the millisecond-precise placement of objects-the computer does not "interpret" but follows instructions literally, so I have to work on that level of detail in order to shape it properly. That's the bulk of it, the rest is determining which sounds should be triggered. So, within a library, which patch is the right one for the job? Normally you determine this first and write the roll to suit the instrument rather than the other way around, but there are some rare exceptions. When the notes are read in the sequencer the corresponding sound in whatever patch I loaded will be triggered.

CC (controller commands) variables are assignable and manipulable controls which augment the notes in the sequencer to modify the basic instructions the computer receives, thus modifying the end result or output. Some of them have generic assignments like velocity, attack, release, pitch bend, vibrato etc. while others are freely assignable and I tend to use them to control instrument specifics like the stops on a harpsichord or the pedals of a piano. No matter what each one does, advanced use of these variables allows for incredible complexity and affords the composer the ability to shape every detail of the performance.

That's a basic idea of the system I work with to compose my music. I haven't been awake for very long, so I apologise if this post appears at all incoherent. Any other questions you have, feel free to ask.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Back to the question in the thread title. Yes. In fact it is essential to read music, musician or no. Not to do so is to forfeit the right to speak - about anything other than survival essentials.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I think being able to read music is important but not essential. Really it depends on the style of music. In the western classical tradition you'd be pretty lost without it but this is not the case when it comes to folk music. As a keen amateur ethnomusicologist, I have read about different musical cultures that have derived their own highly sophisticated systems of notation, but at the same time there are other musical cultures that rely entirely on improvisation and memory.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Andante said:


> If you are going to compose and have performed a classical symphony as we know it you have to use the written score, and the method we have arrived at to day is the best method to date, OK there may be other ways of achieving this but definitely not playing by ear, as we have been saying the complexity of classical music makes this a necessity, as to other genres of music say Jazz, then a basic knowledge of music is a great help you just can not do it all by ear alone.
> 
> View attachment 25457
> 
> ...


Andante, the question was "musician" in general, not "classical musician". I think everyone agrees that classical does require reading.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Winterreisender said:


> I think being able to read music is important but not essential. Really it depends on the style of music. In the western classical tradition you'd be pretty lost without it but this is not the case when it comes to folk music. As a keen amateur ethnomusicologist, I have read about different musical cultures that have derived their own highly sophisticated systems of notation, but at the same time there are other musical cultures that rely entirely on improvisation and memory.


Not only that, folk music doesn't fit the standard patterns. Irish music is a case in point, if you look at say O'Neils Music of Ireland and try and work out what is happening in some of the rolls and slides you will be stymied. You need to be taught how to play them by example. The same thing applies to Irish folk singing because of the ornamentation and the use of (almost) quarter tones.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Helmet Walcha the celebrated organist was blind so he couldn't read the music. He apparently had someone play it him and from there he learned it from memory. Extraordinary!


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Now that you mention it, that reminds me of Steve Wonder, and I don't know about you guys, but I think he's a hell of a musician.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

I'm inclined to think that an understanding of music theory is more essential than reading - of course there is a big difference between the ability to read and the ability to sight read.


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2013)

niv said:


> Andante, the question was "musician" in general, not "classical musician". I think everyone agrees that classical does require reading.


The question asked by Elaryad was "Is it essential to read music to be a *genuine musician*?" so it depends on what you class as "genuine" perhaps another term should have been used, as far as I am concerned a musician should be proficient in the tools of the trade and reading is an important part of this as is the mastery of his/hers chosen instrument.
*@Crudbud * Thanks for your explanation some of it is over my head but I have never used a PC for that sort of thing.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

KRoad said:


> I'm inclined to think that an understanding of music theory is more essential than reading - of course there is a big difference between the ability to read and the ability to sight read.


True, of course. And let me introduce another variant. Normally, sight reading is the ability to play the music at the instrument while you are reading the score for the first time. That's very difficult and requires a lot of practice, an ability for quick decisions, and an impressive motor coordination. I must confess that my current piano sight reading ability is very rusty. Now, the ability to read a score for the first time and to imagine the music is a, related but, different thing in my opinion. The advantage is that you don't need to worry about the difficult motor part, which requires tons of actual physical practice, because it's all in your mind in this case!. For composers, I find this latter case to be the most useful, since it also allows you to concentrate in structural details also instead of being worried about playing the notes with your hands.
I do think that this ability ("mental" sight reading) is very important for any composer, since it allows you to really "catch" the sound and to have it at your disposition for a detailed analysis. Analytical methods based in the interaction between the mind and written systems are very powerful in general (i.e., not only in music; mathematics also operates in this way).
Of course, somebody with a very fine ear can analyze the music too, and equally well.
But I strongly recommend written systems, since in my experience I found them more useful than not useful.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Andante said:


> The question asked by Elaryad was "Is it essential to read music to be a *genuine musician*?" so it depends on what you class as "genuine" perhaps another term should have been used, as far as I am concerned a musician should be proficient in the tools of the trade and reading is an important part of this as is the mastery of his/hers chosen instrument.
> *@Crudbud * Thanks for your explanation some of it is over my head but I have never used a PC for that sort of thing.


So you're arguing that Stevie Wonder and Jimi Hendrix aren't genuine musicians?


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2013)

niv said:


> So you're arguing that Stevie Wonder and Jimi Hendrix aren't genuine musicians?


I have not mentioned the above and I am sure that their followers will consider them to be great musicians, but let me ask you 'what is a genuine musician' note there is a huge difference between a fiddle player and a Violinist or a Piano player and a Pianist. You can hear and see someone in a pub playing folk music on a Violin and it is wonderful but you cannot compare this to a concert Violinist, I am straying a bit off topic but am trying to show there is a difference, if we substitute 'complete' for 'genuine' it will make more sense.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

What means completeness?

A concert violinist isn't a "complete" musician in the sense that it hasn't mastered everything that there is to learn about music. No one is a "complete" musician in that sense. Stevie Wonder and Jimi Hendrix were musicians that did things no other musicians had done before them. So in many ways they were very complete. You're basically equating genuiness/completeness with all the skills of classical music, and ignoring the value in everything else.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2013)

niv said:


> What means completeness?
> 
> A concert violinist isn't a "complete" musician in the sense that it hasn't mastered everything that there is to learn about music. No one is a "complete" musician in that sense. Stevie Wonder and Jimi Hendrix were musicians that did things no other musicians had done before them. So in many ways they were very complete. You're basically equating genuiness/completeness with all the skills of classical music, and ignoring the value in everything else.


You are not reading what has been posted or are choosing to ignore it, I will not pass comments on the guys you keep referring to as I have no knowledge or interest in them, but if you think they are the pinnacle of your musical world who am I to judge. 
This is getting repetitious if you go back to the beginning of this thread and follow it through to the present you will find the same things being said over and over.


----------

