# Can Important Classical Works be done by People Who Cannot Read Music?



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

A lot has been said lately about Paul McCartney and others creating great compositions without the ability to read and write music notation.

Could an important serious classical music composition be written by someone who did not read and write music notation?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

No.
Western classical music has had notation for about a millennium and while there were far more improvisational extemporizing elements and passages in a lot of CM until the early 19th century, this extemporizing was all done by players who also read and wrote music. 
As classical music is bound up within and defined by these centuries of tradition of written music, I'd say that anyone who creates music without being able to read/write it, is not really a part of this tradition. 
It might be good music but it just could not be an important part of the classical tradition.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

I think this depends. In experimental electronic music, for instance, it could definitely be possible to create something without the ability to create music. If we're also dealing with synthesized music, that could be done without actually reading music. 

And how would we characterize certain things like graphic scores? If someone hasn't learned how to read music in a traditional way, who's to say they can't create graphic scores? Look at something like Cardew's Treatise, for example, or some movements from Cage's Songbooks (although that include traditional notation in some places). There's also text pieces by people like Stockhausen, and pieces like Pauline Olivieros' Sonic Meditations. Neither of these incorporate traditional notation. 

Another interesting example that comes to mind is Giacinto Scelsi. While he did write music in the traditional way for a long time, after a nervous breakdown, he worked with another composer, Vieri Tosatti – Scelsi would improvise and record his works, and Tosatti and others would actually notate these works.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

What Kreisler jr said above is correct. One needs to read music in order to truly become competent at the compositional craft the style demands.

Here's my take on whether theory is needed to compose great music: obviously not, because Jimi Hendrix, Chuck Schuldiner, Tom Petty and The Beatles couldn't read a note. However, it's a bit more nuanced than that. While all of these people, not to mention countless others, lacked a formal knowledge of theory, they still grasped it intuitively. One could even argue that knowing scales and chord progressions is knowing theory. Hendrix might not have known how to resolve parallel fifths emerging from a German Augmented 6th Chord, but why would he? It has no relevance to the style he wrote in.

Also I think one's ear is truly the best guide because it's a foolproof litmus test. Does it sound good or does it fit? It's good. Does it sound bad or not fit or does something else sound better? Toss it. Unless you have really poor judgement, the ear test never fails.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

Blind composers such as Francesco Landini, John Stanley and Maria Theresia Paradis who lived prior to a Braille format or equivalent composed entirely without reading or writing and had to develop their own systems of musical communication. In Stanley's case, there was a complex web of memory, improvisation, and sighted assistance that came together to help make his career a success. Stanley’s sister-in-law and long-term amanuensis, Anne Arlond, took musical dictation for Stanley. But she also read music for Stanley; that is, she played through scores of oratorios and works by other composers that Stanley was to conduct.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I don't think it's absolutely necessary to read music in order to create original and relevant contemporary classical music, but I fail to see why any serious and self-respecting classical composer would deprive themselves in this fashion.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I don't think it's absolutely necessary to read music in order to create original and relevant contemporary classical music, but I fail to see why any serious and self-respecting classical composer would deprive themselves in this fashion.


I don't see the advantage of it or why people go out of their way NOT to learn it. It's not even that hard. It's makes things way harder on yourself not to. To be fair, it's different if you're a guitarist and have been using chords and tabs or learning things by ear all your life and don't have much incentive to learn, but when you're serious about composing it seems pretty willfully ignorant and luddite-like to eschew theory.

I saw an amateur cellist on a cello related message board say they've been playing for 5 years and can't read a note. Like what? What have they even been doing this whole time? :lol:


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

*Can Important Classical Works be done by People Who Cannot Read Music?*

Who decides if a work is important or not? What is a new Classical work? Why stress "reading music" which biases the question toward Western European tradition as opposed to other "important" world musical cultures?

I think you are asking the wrong question. A more interesting search, IMO, is what music is being created which is involved with more than instant gratification as a goal?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

The key word for me is "important", as in something substantial to offer on the table, presumably in the past or in the present. I'd say generally no, but not definitely. The great Classical composers studied the scores of others, where they obtained crucial training, even if it is outside of a conservatory. It's not the ability to read that is directly important, but to envision or visualize the essence of the music in their minds. Unless someone can envision in their heads and translate into practice alone without creating a score which is the most important form of communication to the players, then it can be done but hasn't been done so far, as far as I know. 

Highly graphical scores are basically leaving things to the performer, who then has to have the training or previous immersion in the style of the music. And it can be said that music is or can be done this way can't be all that important, at least now after it's already been done before.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Who decides if a work is important or not? What is a new Classical work? Why stress "reading music" which biases the question toward Western European tradition as opposed to other "important" world musical cultures?


What is usually meant with "Classical music" is precisely "Music from or in the Western European Tradition." Any music not in some plausible way "biased" toward this tradition would not be Classical Music.

You are simply changing the question. At least you admit it.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

According to the myth, Pavarotti couldn't read music. Wek he covered that up with flair and style. 
Plus we have a beautiful collection of his recordings.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> What is usually meant with "Classical music" is precisely "Music from or in the Western European Tradition." Any music not in some plausible way "biased" toward this tradition would not be Classical Music.
> 
> You are simply changing the question. At least you admit it.


Yeah. But I am interested in *music*, not just _Classical_ music.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Phil loves classical said:


> Highly graphical scores are basically leaving things to the performer, who then has to have the training or previous immersion in the style of the music. And it can be said that music is or can be done this way can't be all that important, at least now after it's already been done before.


I agree with your point about having training and being able to read music - if you have training and can read music, then that's definitely an advantage (at least in most cases). However, I don't want to say that it's not possible to create something important without that, especially in areas such as electronic music or graphic scores.

However, I disagree with what you've said about graphic scores - it's true that they leave a lot of freedom to the performer, but saying they can't be that important as a result of this... well, I disagree there. I personally don't really use graphic notation in my music; the main reason for this is that I want to create something where I have more precise control over the sounds that are being made. That aside, I can understand that someone would prefer to express something with graphic notation. Also, saying that music that is or can be done this way can't be that important - I disagree with that statement, especially since I can't see where music is going to evolve in the future. Perhaps there may be ways that graphic notation can and will evolve; I don't know.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

composingmusic said:


> I agree with your point about having training and being able to read music - if you have training and can read music, then that's definitely an advantage (at least in most cases). However, I don't want to say that it's not possible to create something important without that, especially in areas such as electronic music or graphic scores.
> 
> However, I disagree with what you've said about graphic scores - it's true that they leave a lot of freedom to the performer, but saying they can't be that important as a result of this... well, I disagree there. I personally don't really use graphic notation in my music; the main reason for this is that I want to create something where I have more precise control over the sounds that are being made. That aside, I can understand that someone would prefer to express something with graphic notation. Also, saying that music that is or can be done this way can't be that important - I disagree with that statement, especially since I can't see where music is going to evolve in the future. Perhaps there may be ways that graphic notation can and will evolve; I don't know.


I don't have an opinion on the worth of music based on graphical scores, actually. I'm just contemplating for the highly graphical (more ambiguous) ones like Cardew's Treatise, why not have more precise ideas on paper, rather leaving a big part of the composition to the performer? If there was some amazing and great idea either on the part of the composer or the performer, wouldn't someone want to depict or capture it more accurately?

I understand its importance granting the performer greater autonomy, but at that extent, musically it could be a zero-sum gain.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't have an opinion on the worth of music based on graphical scores, actually. I'm just contemplating for the highly graphical (more ambiguous) ones like Cardew's Treatise, why not have more precise ideas on paper, rather leaving a big part of the composition to the performer? If there was some amazing and great idea either on the part of the composer or the performer, wouldn't someone want to depict or capture it more accurately?


I think a lot of it had to do with the philosophy of the composer, and there may be various reasons for wanting to express oneself through a graphic score. One reason is to give performers more freedom, or if a composer specifically wants more room for interpretation in their work. In any case, if a composer has thought through their decisions, and has come to the conclusion that a graphic score is the best way to achieve some sort of mode of expression, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Again, it's not what I personally do - I prefer to notate things precisely.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I know Harvard recently updated their curriculum such that music majors need not know how to read music; probably other schools preceded them or have followed suit.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I know Harvard recently updated their curriculum such that music majors need not know how to read music; probably other schools preceded them or have followed suit.


That's seems ridiculous. But I've heard evolutionary biologists say their students can't be bothered reading Darwin. Maybe theological seminaries will follow suit and dispense with the bible?


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I know Harvard recently updated their curriculum such that music majors need not know how to read music; probably other schools preceded them or have followed suit.


That sounds like a kneejerk reaction to woke culture, probably along the lines of standard theory and notation being westerncentric (which it is) and trying to appear woke by not excluding other musical traditions. I'm all for inclusivity because the way theory is taught is indeed westerncentric, but to forcibly exclude western theory in the process just seems asinine to me.


----------



## verandai (Dec 10, 2021)

I think it would be possible to compose classical music without writing scores. But this would either have to be electronical, or restricted to 1-2 instruments. I can't imagine a chamber music group playing together only using a leadsheet (or even an orchestra).

So the composers would either have to play everything by themselves, or find someone who translates their audio recordings to a score.

Musical scores just make the part of collaborating much easier. I don't know why a composer should pass on that advantage willingly. Of course for non-classical music this works, because everyone can bring his/her own ideas on top of the leadsheets. But then the music isn't exactly played as the composer intended, which is normally not favourable for classical music (but often fine for non-classical music).


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

verandai said:


> I think it would be possible to compose classical music without writing scores. But this would either have to be electronical, or restricted to 1-2 instruments. I can't imagine a chamber music group playing together only using a leadsheet (or even an orchestra).
> 
> So the composers would either have to play everything by themselves, or find someone who translates their audio recordings to a score.
> 
> Musical scores just make the part of collaborating much easier. I don't know why a composer should pass on that advantage willingly. Of course for non-classical music this works, because everyone can bring his/her own ideas on top of the leadsheets. But then the music isn't exactly played as the composer intended, which is normally not favourable for classical music (but often fine for non-classical music).


Agreed, being able to read music is an advantage, at least for most types of composing, and if you want to ask for something very precise from performers. I'm not sure how I'd get along without it. However, as you said, for electronic composition, or music with 1-2 instruments, something like a lead sheet would work perfectly well. As we know, this also works for jazz - and nowadays, we have a lot of work that crosses between genres, so there could be very jazz-influenced composition that uses lead sheets for a larger group. I recently went to a performance that involved both jazz musicians and the London Sinfonietta, and there were many compositions there that wouldn't have fit neatly into a genre. I'm not sure how they were notated, but I'm fairly sure there were extensive improvisational sections (at least based on speaking to performers and composers involved with this project).

There's other ways of creating a score without being able to read music, other than leadsheets. Graphic scores and text scores come to mind, and those can also work for a larger group of people. It's true that it's hard to find the level of precision that you can get with traditional notation, but that's not to say you can't create something meaningful with graphic scores or text scores.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

starthrower said:


> That's seems ridiculous. But I've heard evolutionary biologists say their students can't be bothered reading Darwin. Maybe theological seminaries will follow suit and dispense with the bible?


I don't see why you couldn't do a theology degree and dispense with the bible. I mean, when I was an undergraduate there were tons of theology students who dispensed with the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita - same idea.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> That sounds like a kneejerk reaction to woke culture, probably along the lines of standard theory and notation being westerncentric (which it is) and trying to appear woke by not excluding other musical traditions. I'm all for inclusivity because the way theory is taught is indeed westerncentric, but to forcibly exclude western theory in the process just seems asinine to me.


It probably reflects the idea that the traditional view of what a composer is supposed to be and do is becoming less and less significant.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I don't see why you couldn't do a theology degree and dispense with the bible. I mean, when I was an undergraduate there were tons of theology students who dispensed with the Koran of the Bhagavad Gita - same idea.


Not to get too religious here, but I felt the strange need to say something on Christian theology (maybe because it's Christmas). Most sects of Christianity believe the Bible to be the purest source of all their beliefs, directly inspired by God, or God-breathed. "Christian theology is the theology of Christian belief and practice. Such study concentrates *primarily *upon the texts of the Old Testament and of the New Testament, as well as on Christian tradition." from Wikipedia


----------



## Beeps (Jul 28, 2020)

I'm curious about this. Taking the question as stated: "Can Important Classical Works be done by People Who Cannot Read Music?"

Sure, you can. Joaquin Rodrigo wrote Concierto de Aranjuez and he was blind. Emphasis on the term '_wrote_'.

If the question is to determine if one can avoid learning the system of written music, I would ask why would you want to? How could one transmit the music without recording? Sure, it's difficult to sight-read, but it's worth the work.

Plenty of blind musicians 'don't read' music, but learn scores by braille, such as Nobuyuki Tsujii (who is also a composer)

What about Art Tatum, Andrea Bocelli, Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Alternatively, have there been compositons in the classical repertoire which didn't/don't actually require a conventional written score?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Forster said:


> Alternatively, have there been compositons in the classical repertoire which didn't/don't actually require a conventional written score?


Yes, absolutely, there's tons of early music written in tablature. Just basically pictures showing you where to put your hands on a lute.


----------

