# How important is it to be able to read the score, rather than just listen to it ?



## TheFeeling (Apr 19, 2013)

Until recently my only experience with classical music was those surreal moments during movies, or even some commercials, where something overtook me. I thought it was the acting, the production, the ideas behind the scene; but in fact it was the music. Now I am able to get that "feeling" in long spurts by listening to pieces on their own, a barrier was broken that allowed me to view the music as Art and it is quite great.

I cannot shake the feeling that I am missing something: I hear the melodies, feel the emotion, and I can recognize the themes as they are presented, but is there more to be admired that could only be understood by reading the score ?


----------



## schuberkovich (Apr 7, 2013)

TheFeeling said:


> Until recently my only experience with classical music was those surreal moments during movies, or even some commercials, where something overtook me. I thought it was the acting, the production, the ideas behind the scene; but in fact it was the music. Now I am able to get that "feeling" in long spurts by listening to pieces on their own, a barrier was broken that allowed me to view the music as Art and it is quite great.
> 
> I cannot shake the feeling that I am missing something: I hear the melodies, feel the emotion, and I can recognize the themes as they are presented, but is there more to be admired that could only be understood by reading the score ?


You do not need the score in any way to fully enjoy music - as you listen, you will hear all the key changes, harmonies, orchestration etc even if you don't see them or fully understand them. however reading a score, especially for a work like the Rite of Spring, can be sometimes very rewarding, as you can marvel at the intricacy of the composition. However this sometimes takes away from actually listening - for me anyway.

Score reading can also be helpful for approaching a piece for the first time - even if you are bored or confused, your brain has something to do - follow the notes. It does not take long to learn how to read rhythms or basic notes - enough to follow a score. Learning the theory behind takes much longer but is not necessary for pleasurable score reading. Good luck! Sorry about the incoherence of my post


----------



## TheFeeling (Apr 19, 2013)

I found your post post very clear, it seems that admiration of music as an art form could be best done by listening without having the brain try to interpret the complexity of what it's hearing. However, just as you, I am equally intrigued with the "science" behind the melodies. 

If you have any suggestions on where, or how, to begin I would really appreciate it; the most immediate question that comes to mind is if it would be necessary to purchase a keyboard?


----------



## schuberkovich (Apr 7, 2013)

It might not be necessary, but buying a piano or keyboard of any kind will give you many hours of enjoyment. If you want to really to get the most out of music theory (harmonies, melodies) and do your own composition having basic keyboard skills is probably a must. You can also be introduced to understanding and reading music through learning the piano. Most of the "guide to playing the piano" books will take you through the steps of learning how to read it, how scales and keys work etc.
I would suggest looking through textbooks for graded theory exams. In the UK there is an examining board called ABRSM and they have 8 grades to music theory. Things get properly complicated at around grade 6 level, but before that it is very easy to understand. There are workbooks like this (£1.16!) - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eric-Taylor-Practice-Revised-Edition/dp/B001ARSP5E/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1366547214&sr=8-12&keywords=music+theory+abrsm
and accompanying books like this http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Guide-Music-Theory-Vol/dp/1854724460/ref=pd_rhf_se_p_t_3_Q7N4 and of course there will be plenty of websites online which will probably explain everything - a very basic one is http://readsheetmusic.info/readingmusic.shtml

So, if you really want to "know" music I would strongly advise that you get a keyboard. It will let you see how notes actually interact together (through experimentation), will let you hear sounds properly, and learning the piano at even a very basic level will teach you about melody, keys, cadences (eg the chords at the end of a piece that make it sound finished).In addition, learning the piano (or any other instrument) is incredibly rewarding. You don't have to be a professional to enjoy making music! From then reading scores is easy - all you have to learn is where the instruments are on the page! 
There are also some very good youtube videos with score, which will "turn the pages" for you, and give you a good start. Moreover,there a videos like this which I found to be very well made and interesting - 



Have fun and good luck!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

If you intend to perform classical music, it would be quite beneficial to read the score. If you plan to enter discussions-in-_depth_ about classical music you have heard, you need some music theory in order to utilize the jargon. If listening to it is as far as you plan to go, with maybe some casual conversation about your experiences, you can get by without any music theory; the ostracism will (probably) be mild - at least I have found it so.


----------



## TwoFourPianist (Mar 28, 2013)

Score reading is an art in itself. It is very rewarding, but difficult if you are not familiar with reading music. I would suggest finding videos that analyse certain pieces of music (baroque or early classical is probably a good place to start). Look at the structure, the melodies and instrumentation - then you will be able to find the soucre of that 'feeling'.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> If you intend to perform classical music, it would be quite beneficial to read the score. If you plan to enter discussions-in-_depth_ about classical music you have heard, you need some music theory in order to utilize the jargon. If listening to it is as far as you plan to go, with maybe some casual conversation about your experiences, you can get by without any music theory; the ostracism will (probably) be mild - at least I have found it so.


I concur.

Being able to read a score is a tool. It is important even for an amateur musician to ba able to read a score. It helps a musician to better understand the music so they can do a better job of performing it. A person can be a perceptive listener without the ability to read a score.


----------



## Llyranor (Dec 20, 2010)

I think it is more important to learn to listen than it is to learn to read.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Llyranor said:


> I think it is more important to learn to listen than it is to learn to read.


But they can inform each other. Reading a score as one listens can help one to hear better what is there.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> But they can inform each other. Reading a score as one listens can help one to hear better what is there.


That's actually an interesting concept. Is it possible to 'read' the score without ratiocinating?


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

A lot of people find reading a score while listening to be valuable. I have always found it distracting. I don't bring a copy of the script to plays either.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> That's actually an interesting concept. Is it possible to 'read' the score without ratiocinating?


I think it is. You can switch on levels of awareness in play-watching, driving a car, walking along etc & the same with listening. You can just listen. You can just listen, sans score, and yet be analysing the music. You can 'just follow' but with a score & it's making you more aware of which instruments are doing what. Or you can be consciously analytical, reading the score in an almost mathematical ratiocinative way.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> That's actually an interesting concept. Is it possible to 'read' the score without ratiocinating?


All depends on what you mean by read (which is, presumably, why you put it in quotes). If you mean follow a piece of music on a score, then of course you can do this purely mechanically. Equally, it is possible to 'read' a score in isolation and hear the music.

Finally, as Mahlerian suggested, you can 'read' a score and use this to inform your ears. Again, this may not be totally conscious, you don't have to spot (across a score like a music theory exercise) that the various instruments at a particular point are playing a set of notes that gives you e.g. a V I cadence you may simply spot a "pretty pattern" on the score that sounds nice. If you are really good, you may be able to re-arrange \ re-instrument the piece to imagine the effect with the pattern in different voices \ instruments - that is (possibly) true ratiocination.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Taggart said:


> All depends on what you mean by read (which is, presumably, why you put it in quotes). If you mean follow a piece of music on a score, then of course you can do this purely mechanically. Equally, it is possible to 'read' a score in isolation and hear the music.
> 
> Finally, as Mahlerian suggested, you can 'read' a score and use this to inform your ears. Again, this may not be totally conscious, you don't have to spot (across a score like a music theory exercise) that the various instruments at a particular point are playing a set of notes that gives you e.g. a V I cadence you may simply spot a "pretty pattern" on the score that sounds nice. If you are really good, you may be able to re-arrange \ re-instrument the piece to imagine the effect with the pattern in different voices \ instruments - that is (possibly) true ratiocination.


Yeah, I thought of Grieg's experience with Liszt, who 'sight read' the score and played the music of a work Grieg had just handed him. Seems like there would have been no time for 'thinking about it'. While listening, there may be a way to 'stay with the bouncing ball' (as in the old Mitch Miller show), i.e. not reading ahead and so getting the fore-brain involved. Maybe?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Yeah, I thought of Grieg's experience with Liszt, who 'sight read' the score and played the music of a work Grieg had just handed him. Seems like there would have been no time for 'thinking about it'. While listening, there may be a way to 'stay with the bouncing ball' (as in the old Mitch Miller show), i.e. not reading ahead and so getting the fore-brain involved. Maybe?


Does 'reading ahead' mean you're not analysing?

I'll use an analogy most people should be familiar with. If you're reading an unfamiliar piece of text aloud for the first time before an audience, there are two distinct processes involved - one is speaking the words with the correct expression, the second is reading ahead and working out the sense of the passage in order to a) memorise the words and b) get the expression right. The first process becomes a sort of auto-pilot based on the second process - the analysis of reading ahead sets up the memory of the phrases and the mechanics of expression.

It's exactly the same with (good) sight reading - as you analyse ahead you are setting up the memory of the notes and the mechanics of the fingering, articulation, dynamics, tempo etc., etc. The better you are, the further ahead you get and the more you "chunk" the passage.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Taggart said:


> Does 'reading ahead' mean you're not analysing?


T'other way around; if you are reading ahead you are 'analyzing' (note correct spelling ) in the sense that you are processing the score. If you are 'following' while _listening_ that way you are actually leading, not following. Your mind is reading, then expecting. My suspicion is that the processing diminishes the listening.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I don't think it is necessary to read the score while listening to a piece. I like to be consumed by the imaginary that the piece brings to me. I'm not interested in the technical details at those moments. I find them as distracting.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> T'other way around; if you are reading ahead you are 'analyzing' (note correct spelling )


You mean, note the American spelling! Noted - but here in England, we use English rules... 
(Good point about the music, though!)


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

I remember an anecdote I heard. I don't know if it's true. I don't know if I dreamt it, because I can find no trace via Google.

I think it was Vaughan Williams who was rather scathing on the subject of score reading and someone saying they didn't need to hear the music because they could read the score.
He apparently gave them an ordnance survey map and said I'm off to the PH. You look it up in here while I go and have a pint.

For the non-english - a PH is a public house. We call them pubs in England. They are drinking establishments.

I don't know if it's a true anecdote but I hope it is.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

I find occaqsionally following along with a score in hand to a piece I already think I know well can be valuaable. Sometimes you see things you don't hear; or you see things you do hear and finally understand how they're done or how they work -- or sometimes you get so lost you really appreciate that the composer was somehow able (along with the performers) to pull it together at all.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

aleazk said:


> I don't think it is necessary to read the score while listening to a piece. I like to be consumed by the imaginary that the piece brings to me. I'm not interested in the technical details at those moments. I find them as distracting.


The distracting part is what I (obviously music score illiterate) am hoping do nail down. So far, I still don't know if the score can usefully be read _simultaneously_ with the music, that is seeing and hearing the note at the same time. If so, I'm guessing a potential for the senses augmenting each other, even to the point of 'bringing forward' an instrument or instrument choir in an orchestral work. That would seem to be a rather wonderful thing.


----------



## Kazaman (Apr 13, 2013)

I don't find reading scores while listening to be distracting at all. For music with dense textures, one listen with the score clears up confusion faster than ten listens without it in my experience. Of course, ideally our ears would be so well trained that we would not need the score and could peer into every depth of the music at first listen à la Nadia Boulanger, but alas ...


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm more visual than auditory. When I'm at lectures, I take copious notes. I don't remember as much just sitting and listening.

So for me, my ideal listening experience is to have a score which I've annotated so I'm aware of what is happening. This really helps in Romantic and Modern pieces. For example, Schoenberg is almost impossible to appreciate without an annotated score; so much is going on. And I've gotten more from Renaissance music because of being able to watch the independent lines' interaction. 

Then when I'm familiar enough with the annotated score, I can eventually listen without the score and hear the piece as it is. But with time, I'll forget the details, and I'll have the annotated score to bring out what I've heard before and also to enable me to highlight something I haven't heard before. I'm continually marking little discoveries each time I hear a piece again.

I can't do it as much as I would like to, and it's a lot of work at the beginning, but I've never regretted the efforts I've put in. 

That's just how it works for me.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Not important. I haven't read music since Grade 3.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Most music is obviously written with the idea that the audience will listen to it without a score. Reading a score is probably for if you want to take the perspective of the composer or performer. But most music can surely be well enough understood when a clear sounding and sympathetic interpretation can be heard.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

If you're willing to take the time and effort to learn how to read scores, and I don't think you'll regret it in the least bit, the best source for getting scores is Dover press , which has a wide variety of scores of all kinds of music, orchestral,operatic , you name it, at very reasonalble prices . Other publishers ar emuch more expensive . You can get the full scores of the complete Wagner operas which would otherwise cost you an arm and a leg . You wouldn't be able to read scores easily with one arm,anyway !
Reading scores of orchestral works and operas will make you aware of all kinds of intereting inner details of scoring which you would not have noticed otherwise .


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

I read the score to find out how he did that. With a score I can follow the inner voices that often get lost. This is very helpful when listening to a Bach fugue for example. The score helps to analyze the form and harmony of the work. The score shows how the composer got a particular effect either melodically or harmonically or instrumentally. Reading along with the performance is one of the best ways to really know the work. I would not recommend it for a concert setting.


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

I've wanted to start reading scores, but haven't read music since high school. Somebody here on TC offered some good advice; only download one instrument's part to follow, such as the melody. Looking at a complete score is very confusing for me, but if I
only follow one instrument, it 's not hard at all. I plan on adding more, taking it slowly.

Public domain scores.... http://imslp.org/


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

TwoFourPianist said:


> Score reading is an art in itself. It is very rewarding, but difficult if you are not familiar with reading music. I would suggest finding videos that analyse certain pieces of music (baroque or early classical is probably a good place to start). Look at the structure, the melodies and instrumentation - then you will be able to find the source of that 'feeling'.





Taggart said:


> Finally, as Mahlerian suggested, you can 'read' a score and use this to inform your ears. Again, this may not be totally conscious, you don't have to spot (across a score like a music theory exercise) that the various instruments at a particular point are playing a set of notes that gives you e.g. a V I cadence you may simply spot a "pretty pattern" on the score that sounds nice. If you are really good, you may be able to re-arrange \ re-instrument the piece to imagine the effect with the pattern in different voices \ instruments - that is (possibly) true ratiocination.





davinci said:


> I've wanted to start reading scores, but haven't read music since high school. Somebody here on TC offered some good advice; only download one instrument's part to follow, such as the melody. Looking at a complete score is very confusing for me, but if I
> only follow one instrument, it 's not hard at all. I plan on adding more, taking it slowly.


The point is that it's not the melodies, it's not the harmonies, it's not the instrumentation it's the whole combination. Starting with the melodies is a start. Somebody else pointed out that you need music theory as well. You then need to start looking at simple scores e.g. Bach fugues to be able to follow several distinct voices and then work up to major orchestral pieces. Enjoy the journey!


----------



## FLighT (Mar 7, 2013)

drpraetorus said:


> I read the score to find out how he did that. With a score I can follow the inner voices that often get lost. This is very helpful when listening to a Bach fugue for example. The score helps to analyze the form and harmony of the work. The score shows how the composer got a particular effect either melodically or harmonically or instrumentally. Reading along with the performance is one of the best ways to really know the work. I would not recommend it for a concert setting.


I agree. It can enhance your understanding of what the composer wanted and can clarify parts that get buried in dense textures that recordings can't unravel due to technical short comings or that even can get buried in a live performance depending on what the conductor wants to hear and the balances within the orchestra he wants.

The scores I own that I will actually sit with while listening (from time to time) at home are: The Mahler Symphonies (of course), all of Wagners operas, the Beethoven symphonies and piano sonatas, late Mozart symphonies, and a few one off's, Berlioz Fantastique, Korsakov's Sheherazade, Puccini's Tosca, and Stravinsky's Rite.

But I don't make a habit of it. The ultimate arbiter for me is my ears.


----------

