Which would you choose?

[capnsandwich]

If you could only choose one way to play which would you choose?

A. Someone who can sight read sheet music like the back of their hand and play it like they've played it all their life.


or....


B. Someone who has an incredible ear and can play along with anyone and any style simply by getting upon stage and listening to what they're doing and fit right in the groove?

[bassman03]

Born with natual ear. Then i wouldn't have to print off soo much stuff to help me figure out some stuff. Plus it'd just be plain awesome.

[gotmule?]

I would rather play with someone with a natural ear. I always felt that anyone can learn to read notes or tabs and play along, but it takes a special player to be able to pick up a song by ear and then groove along with it.

[mutedeity]

I wouldn't choose either.

Being able to sight read isn't the be all and end all. Then again that will get you work. Also at least you know that someone who can read can play what you put in front of them properly without a lot of nonsense about how they have to play it "their own way".

B doesn't exist. There is no such thing as a "natural" ear. Western tonality is not a "natural" phenomenon it was developed over time to accommodate the diatonic paradigm. So anyone that adapts their musical sense to it has done so through conditioning.

This whole "play by feel" thing, as I have said many times on talkbass, I am sure, is just code for "too lazy to really learn what you are actually doing".

I would choose to be what I am, someone who has a good sense of relative pitch, that can adapt the theory I know into practical applications.

[Deacon_Blues]

I kind of agree with mutedeity, there isn't really a thing called "natural ear". However, some people's ears seem to develop faster and easier than others.

If I'd put together a band that plays my own composed music and I wouldn't be the bassist, I'd rather have a guy who is an excellent sight reader. In any other cases, I think that a well developed ear is more important.

[fullrangebass]

Even though, 99% of the time I play by ear, in cases of music that it's not familiar to my playing experience (or composer idiosyncrasies beyond my poor understanding), some sight-reading cannot hurt. Thus, "why to choose?"

[capnsandwich]

Originally Posted by mutedeity

B doesn't exist. There is no such thing as a "natural" ear. Western tonality is not a "natural" phenomenon it was developed over time to accommodate the diatonic paradigm. So anyone that adapts their musical sense to it has done so through conditioning.

When I say "natural ear" I mean someone who is born with a natural inclination towards playing music. I was of those kids who was playing piano at 3 years old and learned everything I know about guitar and bass by myself. I realize that yes, you do have to train your ear and train your mind to understand music and where the notes are but to some people this comes "naturally" as if they don't need to work on it as hard to get the same result as someone who doesn't have that gift. Kind of like an athlete. Some people are just better at sports than others and develop faster than others, even with the same amount of effort put into practice an development.

That's what I mean by "natural ear." Sorry for the confusion.

[mambo4]

It's a false choice.

I would put forth the idea that nobody consummately developed in one of those areas would be lacking completely in the other. You need a good ear to interpret written music well, and anybody who invests the time to be come a rock solid ear player will have absorbed something of notation reading along the way.

[onlyclave]

Originally Posted by mutedeity

I wouldn't choose either.

Being able to sight read isn't the be all and end all. Then again that will get you work. Also at least you know that someone who can read can play what you put in front of them properly without a lot of nonsense about how they have to play it "their own way".

B doesn't exist. There is no such thing as a "natural" ear. Western tonality is not a "natural" phenomenon it was developed over time to accommodate the diatonic paradigm. So anyone that adapts their musical sense to it has done so through conditioning.

This whole "play by feel" thing, as I have said many times on talkbass, I am sure, is just code for "too lazy to really learn what you are actually doing".

I would choose to be what I am, someone who has a good sense of relative pitch, that can adapt the theory I know into practical applications.

I never say this but Mutedeity is right. Sight Reading Guru and Great Ears are not mutually exclusive. Both are critical to ensemble playing.

[MysticMichael]

Originally Posted by onlyclave

I never say this but Mutedeity is right. Sight Reading Guru and Great Ears are not mutually exclusive. Both are critical to ensemble playing.

Ultimately, this is true. But if one follows the premise of the original question, then IF one had to choose, I would choose having a great ear over being a great sight reader.

For one thing, a player with a great ear can generally improvise well in the moment, taking creative liberties with the music that generally work well - while a good reader who doesn't have the ear can only play what's on the page. That's fine for most classical music. But it doesn't work for most rock or pop...and most definitely not for jazz.

I know a number of well-trained classical musicians who can read and play almost anything you put in front of them. But virtually none of them can improvise to save their lives.

MM

[mutedeity]

Originally Posted by capnsandwich

When I say "natural ear" I mean someone who is born with a natural inclination towards playing music. I was of those kids who was playing piano at 3 years old and learned everything I know about guitar and bass by myself. I realize that yes, you do have to train your ear and train your mind to understand music and where the notes are but to some people this comes "naturally" as if they don't need to work on it as hard to get the same result as someone who doesn't have that gift. Kind of like an athlete. Some people are just better at sports than others and develop faster than others, even with the same amount of effort put into practice an development.

That's what I mean by "natural ear." Sorry for the confusion.

Yeah, I know what you mean and I still say it doesn't exist.

I bet I could find an example of a set of twins where one was better at sport and the other was better at music. That would throw your hypothesis about natural inclinations right out the door. It's human, all too human.

[mutedeity]

Originally Posted by MysticMichael

Ultimately, this is true. But if one follows the premise of the original question, then IF one had to choose, I would choose having a great ear over being a great sight reader.

For one thing, a player with a great ear can generally improvise well in the moment, taking creative liberties with the music that generally work well - while a good reader who doesn't have the ear can only play what's on the page. That's fine for most classical music. But it doesn't work for most rock or pop...and most definitely not for jazz.

I know a number of well-trained classical musicians who can read and play almost anything you put in front of them. But virtually none of them can improvise to save their lives.

MM

Yes, but neither example necessarily knows a thing about theory, which, if you are going to start talking about improvising and especially when talking about things like jazz, it definitely benefits you to know some. Even to the extent that I would say if you don't have a good understanding of theory you wouldn't be much of a "jazz" musician.

Band leader - "Ok boys, now this is a II7 V7 I progression, try an altered scale over the V and a 6 chord on the tonic".

Mr Playbyfeel - "Uh, I'll just use my "natural ear" to sort it out"

[AlembicPlayer]

I can learn to read.
can I learn to feel and groove?

mama said I was born with a back beat

[capnsandwich]

Originally Posted by AlembicPlayer

I can learn to read.
can I learn to feel and groove?

mama said I was born with a back beat

Nicely stated.

[mutedeity]

Originally Posted by MotownBass

You're kiddin right? Been on youtube in the past 5 years? There's 8 year olds who groove like they been playing for 30 years. This isn't developped.

I know cats who've been playing for decades and can barely get a good groove going in comparison.



Damn, and me who was sure all along it was a way to actually enjoy the music more than the theory behind it. I've been wasting my time, bein a lazy bum all the while!

See my signature, then think real hard about your theory on playin by feel. Jamerson cut that track without having heard it before, drunk, layin down, in ONE take, by feel, so drunk in fact he couldn't play sittin down, you think he said to himself "ah yeah definitely see the progression behind this, imna do this and this and that"? This is probably one of the most famous basslines ever played, one of the best as well.

Opinions opinions. Opinions are not absolutes. Furthermore what you think is the best this or that thing has nothing to do with the objective set of principals governing the way a person learns to do something.

Age has nothing to do with anything. An 8 year old can learn to play patterns as well as any play by feeler. In fact an 8 year old can also learn the basic principals of diatonic harmony, and probably more given the right set of pedagogical and didactic conditions. I know one child who at six, could have apparently put your knowledge of theory to shame.

Also don't insult me with this nonsense that enjoying music is about ignoring theory. I personally find more pleasure in the fact that I have a theoretical outlook on music when I want to apply it, than I would if I had to spend all my time justifying why I don't need it in order to also justify my own laziness at not knowing it.

No, don't give me these arbitrary rants about what 8 year olds can do. It doesn't wash when the band leader calls out what I posted above and mr play by feel is standing there looking like a turkey sandwich.

[mutedeity]

Originally Posted by AlembicPlayer

I can learn to read.
can I learn to feel and groove?

mama said I was born with a back beat

Yes you can. In fact you did. Groove is an arbitrary concept anyway, but you certainly did learn your version of it. So did everyone else.

THE END

[mutedeity]

Originally Posted by MotownBass

Something about "opinions aren't absolutes" was it?

Hey man, I'm sorry if I came across as rude or patronizing. That wasn't my intention. My post was meant as my opinion, nothing more.

I'm not insulting you. I'm disagreeing with you. I didn't call you lazy did I? Now. In no way do I feel the need to justify anything to anyone here, or anywhere in fact. I get the gigs I want playing the music I love and enjoying every minute of it, that's all that matters.

And when the bandleader calls something like what you said above, I come in 4 seconds late but I still bring what's needed and no one is complaining.

It washes fine if you bring home the funk. Jamerson proved it and still does everytime someone listens to Whats Going On.

No hard feelings!

I'm not offering an opinion there I am stating a didactic fact. It's a fact that you are not born with a sense of anything other than how to eat sleep and excrete. The way you apply yourself to learning to do anything is a matter of didactic development. There is no opinion there, whatsoever.

Also this "Damn, and me who was sure all along it was a way to actually enjoy the music more than the theory behind it. I've been wasting my time, bein a lazy bum all the while!". Is not disagreeing with me. It's justifying yourself by devaluing something I said. That to me is an insult.

And when you come in 4 seconds late, if I was the bandleader you would be walking out the door 4 seconds later still. You still wouldn't know what to play.

Sorry.

[vlxyooper]

IMO, I'd prefer both. I can't say that I have both, though I can read reasonably well ...as long as they're all whole notes with no accidentals ....I can read multiple measures of rests even better!

I can't say that I was born with the "music gene," but I'm the only sibling of six who never took piano lessons ...and the only one who is currently an active musician. I would say that I've got a great ear (it's huge, actually) and feel fairly comfortable sitting in with most genres of music, short of jazz.

I've played in stage bands and orchestra pits (for community theater and musicals) and felt comfortable with my reading skills. The greatest challenge I had reading was for a gig with the North Indiana Annual Conference of the UMC. In spite of the half-dozen rehearsals we had, there were several score and song changes during the weekend. Though the changes were fairly easy to keep track of with pencil, sight reading a new piece was a bit more of a challenge ...though survivable, nonetheless.

In any event, except for hypothetical questions and discussions, I don't see the need for a choice between the two ...oh, and I'd include a third: someone with a fantastic sense of rhythm, tempo, and groove!

A great ear, fantastic groove, and the ability to sight read would be an awesome combination ....oh, and humility and a good sense of humor as well.

[tobie]

I've listened to a radio talk a few days ago as they discussed the selection criteria for compiling a band to support an 'idols' type show. At some time the selector said 'I'd rather play with great people than with great musicians'. Makes you think, doesn't it?

[EBBassMan]

Originally Posted by mutedeity

I'm not offering an opinion there I am stating a didactic fact. It's a fact that you are not born with a sense of anything other than how to eat sleep and excrete. The way you apply yourself to learning to do anything is a matter of didactic development. There is no opinion there, whatsoever.

So what you're saying is there is no such thing as God given talent?? I'm sorry to disagree with you, but talent and ability cannot be learned. I think you need to doublecheck your facts.

Anything can be learned, but the degree to which it can be learned varies. Just like genetics plays a role in physical abilities of people (are the rest of us not pro athletes because we're too lazy???), it also plays a role in the intellectual abilities of people. The ability to understand music is a type of intelligence. Although anyone can learn to play, one's intellectual ability to really comprehend the music is what differentiates a player from a virtuoso, or a sight reader from a composer.

As for me, I'd rather have the ability so that my hard work will have better results.