# For people who play more than 8 instruments like pros but....



## MEDIEVAL MIAMI

... don't know how to read or write music on paper.

Are we musically inferior??


----------



## Gladiator

it's mutually exclusive. For people who are writers but don't know....the alphabet. Hope it's a joke...
Music is not playing a tune by ear wholeheartedly. Music is science of sort, which should be thoroughly studied, only to be topped with God's given natural talent, which hopefully is present.

I am talking about serious music of course, folk and other non-classical music can be performed by talented craftsman as well.


----------



## PostMinimalist

This is a nice thread hich I'm sure will develop into some nice discussions.
My own particular view of the matter is this:
In many cultures musicians are trained exclusively aurally. When I learn a solo piece I learn it by heart and the fact that I get the information form printed sheet music makes it no more important than the music learned by heart by muisicians in the cultures mentioned above. Aural tradition is one of many ways that music is passed on from one musician to another, be it teacher, friend or idol. I know and work with many fine musicians who have to learn things aurally and it is annoying in rehearsals to have to wait for half an hour for them to learn a page of music which you would sight read. But the point is, when they learn it they play it as well as you and in concerts it is you has a silly piece of paper in front of you and not the other guy! So when I play folk music I always try to learn things aurally and in the manner traditionally associated with that style. When I learn a jazz piece I will read from chord symbols and when I play Mozart I have the score in front of me and my glasses on! There is no inferiority inherant in the system, only inferior musicians, many of which can be found in the printed music tradition of classical orchestral music. in fact just as often as in traditionally aural musical environments.

I doubt, however that someone who plays 8 'classical' intruments at a 'professional' level will have omitted to learn how to deciypher the bulk of the repertoire for these instruments. On the other hand a folk multi instrumentalist like Ross Daly might play 20 instruments and never need to read a note in his life because the bulk of the repertoire is handed down aurally anyway.

FC


----------



## World Violist

I agree here with Post-minimalist. I don't see at all why not being able to read sheet music has anything at all to do with inherent musicality. Sheet music is just a way to learn music, and if you can learn music in different ways than sheet music, to the point where you don't need it... all the more power to you.


----------



## Edward Elgar

The thing is, if a person who played 8 instruments was interested in music, they would learn, at least, to read music. It might make them better musicians, I'm not saying better performers, but it would certainly allow them to play more material. Sheet music was invented for a reason, and if people don't take advantage of it that's their loss. During the learning process of a particular piece, the notes should be discarded as early as possible, but without them I can't really see many ways in which you could learn a sonata or concerto.


----------



## Herzeleide

Probably best to start learning to read music. I'm not a fan of illiteracy. I mean, poetry used to be a primarily oral/aural art, passed on through generations purely by word of mouth, and the ability to read (especially silently - 'in the head') and write was looked upon perhaps in the same way that the ability to read and write music is now! (This is the middle ages we're talking about.)

Anyway, any good, self-respecting musician ought to be able to read music, as well as play an instrument and improvise. Bach could do all of these things, as could Duke Ellington.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Exactly, you may be able to speak 8 different languages fluently, but if you can't read or write, you can imagine the inevitable egg on your face.


----------



## MEDIEVAL MIAMI

You guys have good points, I'm taking them in consideration.


----------



## PostMinimalist

Edward Elgar said:


> but without them I can't really see many ways in which you could learn a sonata or concerto.


I have a collegue who doesn't read music but he regularly suprises me by playing Bach whic he lears from records and other players. He plays the Canun which is a traditional Byzantine instrument with a stron aural tradition. Remember that the Iliad and the Odessy were supposedly both recitied in full, from memory by Homer himself. At the moment I have a repertoire of about one and a half hours of complex solo music, some of it modern atonal stuff. The point is that the human memory is a powerful machine; how we 'upload' things is a matter of choice.


----------



## MEDIEVAL MIAMI

I actually can remember my own compositions, and many of them are over 45 minutes. And they aren't drone.


----------



## Edward Elgar

The memory is the most powerful and infinite tool we have, I totally agree. Yes, people with natural gifts may be able to memorise a few Bach preludes by listening to them repeatedly, and power to them.

However, anything that is worth doing takes effort, and so people will always be reliant on their natural talent. I suppose a lot of concert solo performers are thankful of this arrangement, otherwise everyone would be concert soloists.


----------



## Herzeleide

Probably the most amazing instance of a musician overcoming his inability to read music is Shawn Lane. He taught himself to play Liszt and Chopin without lessons, just from listening to the records! 

Here's a video - it's very poor quality, but extremely impressive nonetheless:






Check out 2:33!


----------



## Lisztfreak

Herzeleide said:


> Probably the most amazing instance of a musician overcoming his inability to read music is Shawn Lane. He taught himself to play Liszt and Chopin without lessons, just from listening to the records!
> 
> Here's a video - it's very poor quality, but extremely impressive nonetheless:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out 2:33!


Nice, but what a massacre of the Piano Sonata in B minor he's making at the start!


----------



## Guest

It would be interesting to see 130 players that can not read get together as an orchestra and perform The Bolero, I do believe that to be a more complete musician you must read.


----------



## Rasa

The ability to read music doesn't have anything to do with your technicall prowess or your capability to express yourself with music.

In Renaissance music, it was common practice to have the Tenor line written, and 3-5 people improvising additional voices in counterpoint.

It does however makes it easier to transmit music exactly. I wonder though where our obsession with the exact transmission began. Medievel clerical chanting: nothing written up until a certain point. Rennaisance: sometimes written, Baroque music often a figured bass leaving room for improvisiation (especially in solo-sonatas), up to early classical cadenzas could be improvised. After that, pretty much everything of the art/intellectual music was written


----------



## danae

Andante said:


> It would be interesting to see 130 players that can not read get together as an orchestra and perform The Bolero, I do believe that to be a more complete musician you must read.


Why do you all insist on talking ONLY about classical musicians? There are so many musicians, COMPLETE musicians in non-western cultures, that cannot read one note. Because they don't have to. The music they play, and have been playing for centuries in many cases, is based on aural tradition and in many cases, such as Iran or Bulgaria, it is extremely complex.

So, please, try to consider other traditions besides the classical one...


----------



## Edward Elgar

To be fair we are on a classical music forum! There is much music making that doesn't require any knowledge of notation. Do rappers really need to study the circle of fifths? I doubt they would know what a fifth was! To be a successful performer of classical (i.e. good) music, notation skills matter.


----------



## Herzeleide

danae said:


> Why do you all insist on talking ONLY about classical musicians? There are so many musicians, COMPLETE musicians in non-western cultures, that cannot read one note. Because they don't have to. The music they play, and have been playing for centuries in many cases, is based on aural tradition and in many cases, such as Iran or Bulgaria, it is extremely complex.
> 
> So, please, try to consider other traditions besides the classical one...


I think it's generally understood that the 'classical' of this forum's title refers to *Western* Classical music.


----------



## Guest

danae said:


> Why do you all insist on talking ONLY about classical musicians? There are so many musicians, COMPLETE musicians in non-western cultures, that cannot read one note. Because they don't have to. The music they play, and have been playing for centuries in many cases, is based on aural tradition and in many cases, such as Iran or Bulgaria, it is extremely complex.
> 
> So, please, try to consider other traditions besides the classical one...


Any thing passed from one generation to another by memory only, suffers from embellishment and omissions. More complex - more deviations! 
If the countries that you mention could have passed on the music via written notation I am sure that they would have done so, this ensures that nothing is lost or added providing the original manuscript is available. So we come back to Folk music which I assume you are talking about, now the Folk music that I am familiar with is very basic and simple and does not need to be any thing else so is easy to pass on and gathers and looses bits on the journey, so what? 
Now, back to my comment, could you assemble 130 musicians, none readers aka buskers etc, and even if they knew the Bolero, would they be able to play it, I can guarantee they would not be able to. So to be a complete musician reading is essential even if you play [after a fashion] 8 or more instruments


----------



## Mirror Image

Not being able to read music doesn't make you musically inferior, but if you have any interest in music, then the least you could do is learn how to read. Perhaps when you become a proficient reader, you can start working on your writing chops. Writing music has it's rewards just like playing it does.

You can be a super talented improviser, but learning to read music will make you a more capable and well-rounded musician. Not just in classical music, but in any genre.


----------



## Herzeleide

Mirror Image said:


> Not just in classical music, but in any genre.


Yes. Improvisation is an integral part of jazz and Indian classical, and yet most jazzers can read music, and Indian classical music has its own method of notation.


----------



## Mirror Image

Herzeleide said:


> Yes. Improvisation is an integral part of jazz and Indian classical, and yet most jazzers can read music, and Indian classical music has its own method of notation.


In jazz, you have to be able to read music in order to determine what to play over the chord changes that are happening right in front of you. Also, most bebop tunes, as you know, have a main theme and then chorus that, in most cases, is sight-read unless you remember the melody and chorus.

In jazz big band, you must be a great sight-reader period. All musicians are required to read.


----------



## sam richards

It wouldn't hurt to learn, it's isn't very hard to read music (not talking about sight-reading music which will take sometime to master) and it'll open many new musical doors for you. Take from someone who was once in a same position as you (although I only play one instrument properly).

Good luck! 

Sam


----------



## Guest

Mirror Image said:


> In jazz, you have to be able to read music in order to determine what to play over the chord changes that are happening right in front of you. Also, most bebop tunes, as you know, have a main theme and then chorus that, in most cases, is sight-read unless you remember the melody and chorus.


M I can I just make a comment, not wishing to argue
In Jazz groups there were a lot of instrumentalists that could not read,[Django Reinhardt springs to mind] they new the tunes so well it really did not matter, and chord sequences were felt inside, these players just had a natural affinity with music, I agree that an ability to read was required in the Big Bands "Kenton" "Ellington" Herman" Heath" etc but the small groups say 3 to 8 players it was not a prerequisite. at least in the groups that I was with


----------



## Mirror Image

Andante said:


> M I can I just make a comment, not wishing to argue
> In Jazz groups there were a lot of instrumentalists that could not read,[Django Reinhardt springs to mind] they new the tunes so well it really did not matter, and chord sequences were felt inside, these players just had a natural affinity with music, I agree that an ability to read was required in the Big Bands "Kenton" "Ellington" Herman" Heath" etc but the small groups say 3 to 8 players it was not a prerequisite. at least in the groups that I was with


Well that's certainly true, Andante, you will receive no argument from me. I agree, in the past, jazz musicians, especially around the time of Reinhardt up to Art Blakey to Oscar Peterson, etc. didn't need sheet music. They could play over those changes in their sleep, but since the inception of ECM and musicians like Kenny Wheeler, Jan Garbarek, John Abercrombie, Ralph Towner, etc where the harmonies became much more intricate, sheet music, for some improvisers, became absolutely necessary, otherwise, the musician could get lost very quickly.


----------



## Guest

Well sheet music for improvisers is a bit of a oxymoron but I understand, I still think that the best Jazz is woven around very simple melodies (as in Pop, folk and Show tunes) by this I am meaning real Jazz where a few musicians get together for a jam session. What you are referring to is arranged music played in a jazzy fashion which among other things used to be called Swing.


----------



## PostMinimalist

danae said:


> Why do you all insist on talking ONLY about classical musicians? There are so many musicians, COMPLETE musicians in non-western cultures, that cannot read one note. Because they don't have to. The music they play, and have been playing for centuries in many cases, is based on aural tradition and in many cases, such as Iran or Bulgaria, it is extremely complex.
> 
> So, please, try to consider other traditions besides the classical one...


Please go back and read my first responses to this thread.

FC


----------



## PostMinimalist

Mirror Image said:


> Well that's certainly true, Andante, you will receive no argument from me. I agree, in the past, jazz musicians, especially around the time of Reinhardt up to Art Blakey to Oscar Peterson, etc. didn't need sheet music. They could play over those changes in their sleep, but since the inception of ECM and musicians like Kenny Wheeler, Jan Garbarek, John Abercrombie, Ralph Towner, etc where the harmonies became much more intricate, sheet music, for some improvisers, became absolutely necessary, otherwise, the musician could get lost very quickly.


I think with ECM we see a gray are between jazz and classical music. The more it becomes essential for the musicians to adhere to strict harmonic progressions (always a major seventh and never a sixth, for example - something that a jazz musician in improv would substitute instinctively at will) the more the music approaches 'classical' terrain.
FC


----------



## Guest

I think the spirit of Jazz is being kept alive in certain small clubs [and private] by dedicated musicians but there does seem to be a move away from this, as an oldie I am disappointed. At a local Jazz festival that I have just been to there was not one true jazz band, a few groups were playing by ear but it was so obviously rehearsed and more like pop.


----------



## danae

Edward Elgar said:


> To be fair we are on a classical music forum!


I guess you didn't pay attention to the OP. He didn't specify classical music. He referred to "people who play instruments", which I understand as "musicians" in general.



Edward Elgar said:


> There is much music making that doesn't require any knowledge of notation. Do rappers really need to study the circle of fifths? I doubt they would know what a fifth was! To be a successful performer of classical (i.e. good) music, notation skills matter.


I'm sorry, what do you mean by "classical (i.e good) music"? I hope you're not saying that all classical music is good, or that only classical music is good, because there are only two ways to read what you've said...


----------



## danae

Herzeleide said:


> I think it's generally understood that the 'classical' of this forum's title refers to *Western* Classical music.


Nowhere did I state otherwise. Classical music refers to western classical music. I was talking about learning music and repertoire in non-western cultures.



Andante said:


> If the countries that you mention could have passed on the music via written notation I am sure that they would have done so, this ensures that nothing is lost or added providing the original manuscript is available.


Well... not exactly. It's part of the tradition not relying on notation to be able to learn music and perform it. Embellishments and additions are also part of the tradition. So, I don't think that the "primitives" (i.e Iranians, Bulgarians etc...) lack the intellectual capacity to develop a useful notational system (which, by the way, they have done). They just choose not to use it since it's almost impossible to notate exactly what their playing.


----------



## Herzeleide

danae said:


> They just choose not to use it since it's almost impossible to notate exactly what their playing.


In what way?


----------



## danae

Herzeleide said:


> In what way?


Because if one would sit down and notate in detail all the ornamentation used in i.e bulgarian gaida playing, then the score would look more like a Ligeti, Berio or Xenakis score than anything else. Thus, it would be quite difficult to read, and still it wouldn't contain all that one hears when listening to that kind of music.


----------



## Herzeleide

danae said:


> Because if one would sit down and notate in detail all the ornamentation used in i.e bulgarian gaida playing, then the score would look more like a Ligeti, Berio or Xenakis score than anything else. Thus, it would be quite difficult to read, and still it wouldn't contain all that one hears when listening to that kind of music.


Well, no notation system describes _exactly_ what ones hears.


----------



## danae

Herzeleide said:


> Well, no notation system describes _exactly_ what ones hears.


Have you even heard the music I'm talking about? And actually no, western notation still hasn't found a satisfying way of decyphering certain non-western musical idioms.


----------



## Herzeleide

danae said:


> Have you even heard the music I'm talking about? And actually no, western notation still hasn't found a satisfying way of decyphering certain non-western musical idioms.


Yes, I have.

Western notation may fail: if at some point during the history of Bulgarian music they needed to notate their music, I'm sure they could have found a way.


----------



## danae

Herzeleide said:


> Western notation may fail: if at some point during the history of Bulgarian music they needed to notate their music, I'm sure they could have found a way.


Yeah, sure... And who in their right mind would sit down to read an extremelly complex score when they can reproduce everything by ear? That brings us to the original issue which is: there are musicians, COMPLETE musicians that can't read notes. That's the only thing I was trying to say.


----------



## Herzeleide

danae said:


> Yeah, sure... And who in their right mind would sit down to read an extremelly complex score when they can reproduce everything by ear?


Simple notation can be used for complex music. Notation, until the likes of Boulez, Stockhausen and Ferneyhough came along, never was a literal transcription of what was to be heard. If someone were to try and actually write rubato into the music it ends up looking very complex, like Elliott Carter's scores. Notation in some non-Occidental music cultures doesn't aim at an exact transcription: it's used as an _aide-memoire_. Similarly, musicians of the middle ages in the west were expected to elaborate on the given notation (as we know from treatises written at the time).



danae said:


> That brings us to the original issue which is: there are musicians, COMPLETE musicians that can't read notes. That's the only thing I was trying to say.


Well, yes of course. Things are relative to a person's culture. But since this forum is about classical music (with the exception of one section) I'm not going to frame everything I say with 'in our western culture'.

Similarly, when the clock strikes midnight and we enter the new year, I don't exclaim to my friends 'Happy Gregorian New Year!'


----------



## danae

May I just remind you your own words?



Herzeleide said:


> Well, no notation system describes _exactly_ what ones hears.


----------



## danae

And then you say


Herzeleide said:


> Simple notation can be used for complex music. Notation, until the likes of Boulez, Stockhausen and Ferneyhough came along, never was a literal transcription of what was to be heard. If someone were to try and actually write rubato into the music it ends up looking very complex, like Elliott Carter's scores. Notation in some non-Occidental music cultures doesn't aim at an exact transcription: it's used as an _aide-memoire_. Similarly, musicians of the middle ages in the west were expected to elaborate on the given notation (as we know from treatises written at the time).


So, if I understand correctly, you agree that there are things that can't or needn't be writen in detail? Maybe we 're getting somwhere.


----------



## Herzeleide

Sorry danae, but I see no contradiction in the the two passages of mine you've quoted. My point apropos Boulez, Stockhausen and Fernyhough is that their notation is deliberately literal: it is a much more literal kind of notation. In the case of Ferneyhough, he accepts in some instances that there is more detail in the score that can be reasonably expected to be realised by a performer in this day and age!

And yes - no notation system describes exactly what one hears because performers are human. Of course I suppose I have to concede that acousmatic notation or notation for computer software does describe literally what one hears coming from the computer!


----------



## Herzeleide

danae said:


> So, if I understand correctly, you agree that there are things that can't or needn't be writen in detail? Maybe we 're getting somwhere.


Well yes. If I write a string quartet, I know that the human performers will have their own idiosyncracies, and that I can load the score with a myriad of detail but that the performers' idiosyncracies will still come through no matter what.

So yes, notation, in this respect, is limited.


----------



## sam richards

Herzeleide said:


> Yes. Improvisation is an integral part of jazz and Indian classical, and yet most jazzers can read music, and *Indian classical music has its own method of notation*.


No.

Indian music does not employ notations as the primary media of instruction/understanding/transmission. The rules of Indian music and compositions themselves are taught from a Maestro to a disciple. Their method of learning is mostly aural.

Here's a link: http://www.itcsra.org/sra_hcm/sra_hcm_index.asp


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> No.
> 
> Indian music does not employ notations as the primary media of instruction/understanding/transmission. The rules of Indian music and compositions themselves are taught from a Maestro to a disciple. Their method of learning is mostly aural.
> 
> Here's a link: http://www.itcsra.org/sra_hcm/sra_hcm_index.asp


Sorry Sam, but I never specified that notation was used as the primary mode of instruction, transmission etc.

From the _Grove_:

'Although notation is generally considered to be of little importance in what are predominantly oral traditions, it is widely used as an aid to memory or as a learning tool. This is particularly true of Karnatak music, which relies to a much greater extent on a body of compositions than does Hindustani music. The syllables themselves may describe the duration of a pitch through the use of a short or long vowel: usually a short vowel stands for a pitch of one mātrā ('beat') or less and a long vowel for two beats or more. Symbols modifying the pitches vary from system to system but common devices include a short vertical line above the syllable denoting a sharpened pitch, or a short horizontal line below the syllable showing a flattened pitch. The syllables are arranged on a framework which shows the rhythmic cycle (tāla), one line of notation being equal to one cycle of the tāla'

Ian D. Bent, et al. "Notation." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. 15 May. 2009 <http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/20114pg2>.

In other words, the system is similar to early western notation; neumes etc.

I would appreciate it if you were to stop trying to prove me wrong when I'm not, and in the process telling me information that I already know.


----------



## sam richards

^^
Wow, I shall advise you to keep you ego in check, Mr. Better-than-you.


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> ^^
> Wow, I shall advise you to keep you ego in check, Mr. Better-than-you.


You've taken to putting words in my mouth now, I see.


----------



## Yunus

Of coures not!!! we are not inferior! Its all about tasting Music and feel it flows inside your veins and rubs your skin when its playing


----------



## LuvRavel

Sorry for being harsh but this thread doesn't make sense in the following ways:

1 As someone point out before, being able to play multiple instruments like pros and not being able to read music is really mutually exclusive. I take "play like a pro" as to mean being able to play pieces of considerable difficulty with reasonable fluency, accuracy and good musical understanding. Now how does one do that when he/she has absolutely no idea what the music sheet means when he/she is given the music to practise? Playing just by ear? Even if assuming someone such extraordinary talent and memory does exist, that person can only IMITATE what he/she hears, and that is mildly different to understanding what's written on the sheet and thus the composer's intention and excute it, no matter if he can imitate exactly the playing of a great master, it's still merely an imitation.

2 Musical literacy is taught at a very early stage(though not at the very start) in any instrumental lessons. The reason is simple, the teacher will have no way of advancing the student's progress beyond the very early stage without the student being able to read music. For other people who have very good natural musical ability but havent taken any serious lessons, he/she would be compelled to learn to read music in a later stage anyway. So I don't think the kind of person described by the original post would actually exist.

3 What is actually meant by "inferior"? Subjective creation of human's mind? Or objective discrimanacy? The former meaning you are only "inferior" because you think you are, its existence is arbitary, no one is forcing you to think that way. In this case asking if one is inferior really has no meaning. The latter meaning denying these "inferior" people rights that are accessible to others. But as far as im concerned, the kind of people discribed by the original post have had no such right taken away from them by the government or whatever, they are still average citizens with all their normal rights.


----------



## LuvRavel

danae said:


> Yeah, sure... And who in their right mind would sit down to read an extremelly complex score when they can reproduce everything by ear? That brings us to the original issue which is: there are musicians, COMPLETE musicians that can't read notes. That's the only thing I was trying to say.


Reproduce everything by ear? Don't you mean reproduce another's one's playing by ear? Ha, a human recorder, that's something.
Is playing classical music not about understanding the composer's intention and reflecting them in performance? Is that not the point of musical notation? One would surely miss out on subtle points the composer would like to be noticed if he never bothered to look at the score but only uses his ear instead. Perhaps jazz would tolerate such practice since freedom and improvisation is essential to jazz.
Had musical notation not been invented and the only means of transmitting music was ear, then i assure you, a performance of any piece from any long dead composer would be WILDLY different to what the composer had originally composed(beethoven, say) and beethoven would surely cry if he ever hears it.
They are musicians(if you define the term as anyone who plays music), but certainly not classical musicans.


----------



## Guest

LuvRavel said:


> Sorry for being harsh but this thread doesn't make sense


You're spot on there Luv, but it can be amusing


----------



## Drew97

Interesting. I think that you need to be able to read sheet music to become a proper professional player, but this thread reminded me of a friend of my father's who apparently couldn't read any music but still played with a folk band exceptionally well. It would probably help to learn to read sheet music, though.


----------



## Guest

Oh yes a lot play by ear but they have no idea what they are doing "technically" There was a poster quite a while ago who said she had picked up a Flute and had mastered it in 30min + a few other instruments, some people eh


----------



## Tapkaara

I know this guy created this thread a while back, but where was the proof that he can play 8 instruments "like a pro." Somehow this statement seems unlikely.


----------



## Guest

Tapkaara said:


> I know this guy created this thread a while back, but where was the proof that he can play 8 instruments "like a pro." Somehow this statement seems unlikely.


A massive ego eh probably means he can play a few tunes on 8 which is a completely different thing, and most musically inclined people would easily equal or better that


----------



## Tapkaara

Andante said:


> A massive ego eh probably means he can play a few tunes on 8 which is a completely different thing, and most musically inclined people would easily equal or better that


Yeah, I agree. But then again, maybe he really is uber-talented, but I remember when I first saw this thread I thought...."uuuuh huuuuuh!"


----------



## Guest

Well he/she is a metal head and shows location as "guess"!! that is enough for me to pigeon hole him/her


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> I know this guy created this thread a while back, but where was the proof that he can play 8 instruments "like a pro." Somehow this statement seems unlikely.


People who brag about how well they can play an instrument, in my experience, usually can't play that well. I remember when I was studying guitar there was one guy who thought he didn't have to study, because studying was somehow "above him." When it came time to perform an arrangement of an old standard that's been done to death called "Stella By Starlight" he feel flat on his face trying to improvise over the chord changes, but he didn't need to study did he?  It's not wise of anyone to assume they can play well. We're all students still learning.


----------



## Guest

Mirror Image said:


> he feel flat on his face .


 do you mean he had no nose, you know flaat


----------



## danae

LuvRavel said:


> Reproduce everything by ear? Don't you mean reproduce another's one's playing by ear? Ha, a human recorder, that's something.
> Is playing classical music not about understanding the composer's intention and reflecting them in performance? Is that not the point of musical notation? One would surely miss out on subtle points the composer would like to be noticed if he never bothered to look at the score but only uses his ear instead. Perhaps jazz would tolerate such practice since freedom and improvisation is essential to jazz.
> Had musical notation not been invented and the only means of transmitting music was ear, then i assure you, a performance of any piece from any long dead composer would be WILDLY different to what the composer had originally composed(beethoven, say) and beethoven would surely cry if he ever hears it.
> They are musicians(if you define the term as anyone who plays music), but certainly not classical musicans.


It's obvious that you didn't bother to read my previous posts on the subject. 
I repeat once again: there are COMPLETE musicians that can't read notes. Maybe that's too difficult a concept for you to grasp, since you probably assume that the word "musician" refers only to "a person performing western classical music". Well I'm not talking about classical music here. Please pay more attention to what you read. And BTW, the OP didn't narrow the subject down to classical musician either, and that's where my starting point was.


----------



## danae

And, LuvRavel, only in your last sentence do you acknowledge what I was talking about. Why the attack then?


----------



## LuvRavel

^^ Oh I see...... my attack was unnecessary indeed, excuse my being too lazy to read your previous posts.....


----------

