Missing out by not being able to read music?

[TwangNBump]

If we think about reading music as simply a way to annotate or learn a specific composition on your instrument, I wouldn't much care. Learn it how you prefer, and in a way that makes sense regarding the context you find yourself playing in. For some that means having to sight-read, and doing so well. For others, not so much. To each their own.

But notation is so much more useful than that.

I love (and play) pop and rock music, so I'm not coming from an ivory tower, but there are ways of looking at music theory that are considerably more sophisticated than commonly found in that context. Note that I don't equate sophistication as being "better".

The compelling thing about it, is that which is seemingly abstract, is really just math. And while some have the capacity to manage a tremendous amount of abstract, mathematical information without having a visible way to express such abstractions, I'm not so lucky.

Music notation gives us a way to put all that math on a page. And as you examine it, you can see the patterns emerge and relationships shift as readily as you see patterns and relationships on a fretboard. All of a sudden...not so abstract.

For me, it isn't a question of being practical, or supporting a gigging career, or being right. Everyone has there own path, either as a pro or hobbyist. Everyone likes different things about music. Everyone has different goals, and certainly, everyone has at least a reasonable idea of how they prefer to spend the time they have on this planet.

I can say, in my experience, reading has helped me to further my understanding of music in a deeper and more meaningful way...to me. I realize my interest isn't shared by others, even exceptional musicians. That's cool. I like a lot of even geekier stuff, so no harm, no foul. It's like doing Sudoku. I love looking at tunes and seeing the forward motion. I love seeing how set-theory applies to composition. I love seeing the intervallic relationships spread out over a score. I love seeing visually why chord subs work. Flexing the old brain feels good! And all that stuff, for me, just makes more sense when I see it on the page.

My sight-reading is so-so at best. But being able to read opens up the world of musical literature and tuition to me. I don't have to look for a "bass" book, or "guitar" book, however good they might be, as musical ideas are universal, at least in the sense of western music.

So, from where I'm at...having slugged away at this stuff for the last thirty years...is that one can decide how much time they want to spend on perfecting their sight-reading as a tool for learning compostions or getting work. That's a matter of practical application. But if one is at all curious about how music "works" beyond one's instrument, and beyond the most rudimentary aspects that we regularly encounter (and no shame if they aren't) then reading is pretty hard to avoid.

YMMV, as it should and often will!

 

[jmclearnon]

I have taken many peoples gigs by being around playing something else or watching a show. The bassist can't read music pretty well and someone suggests me and i sit down and sight read all of it first time. Guess who gets asked to play....

Reading music takes a long time. Luckily i learned on cello and piano, so i can now read in the 4 main clefs and in every key.

BUT to get good at sight reading it takes ages. I would say about 30% of my cello practice is sight-reading (a lot).

Example of where this is useful, i end up going to this recording gig (band had got someone to write them string parts). After reading through it once with their ghost track i immediately told them that their string parts where wrong and wouldn't work. Could explain why and asked them what i they wanted. they sang it and i wrote it down for a quartet in the studio.

Then playing a gig with them 2 months later, i could turn up and play without a rehearsal at later notice because they had sheet music.... get the point, its pretty useful to know how to read.

 

[topo morto]

@ Twang: Thanks for the thoughtful post!

Just to pick up on the 'math' part from my own perspective - that's one thing that irks me about standard notation - it's like trying to use a number system where the numbers you have are 0, ½ (which is sometimes called 1-½), 1, 1½(which is sometimes called 2-½), 2, 3 (nothing between 2 and 3)... and so on, finishing back at 0 or 8 (i'm referring to the system of sharps and flats here). So to me it clouds as much as it enlightens.

As you say, all IME, YMMV, etc.

 

[Febs]

topo morto, you have this idea that standard notation favors C major and its diatonic modes and that anything else is a special case. I would urge you to try put aside that prejudice and to recognize that key signatures are not limitations of standard notations but rather features that provide valuable information to the reader.

Standard notation is equally effective at notating something in C as it is in G, D, A, E, B, F# (or Gb), C# (or Db), Ab, Eb, Bb, or F. It does not treat keys other than C as a special case. To the extent that it treats anything as a special case, it is notes that are not diatonic to the current key, which are reflected by the use of accidentals. Even so, accidentals are not some sort of limitation of standard notation, but rather a tool that provides meaningful information to the reader.

Take the following example:

To a proficient reader, these four bars convey a tremendous amount of information at a single glance:

• We know that we are in the key of F.*
  
• We know at a single glance that every single note in the example is diatonic to F major. I can't emphasize enough how important that is. There are 24 notes in this example. A proficient reader can glance at this example for literally a fraction of a second and know in that single glance that every single one of those 24 notes is a note in the F major scale. There is no way that tab can convey so much information about so many notes, so quickly.
  
• Similarly, we can also see at a single glance that most of the movement in this example is scalar in nature. It is easy to see that after the octave jump on the second note, the remainder of the example is a descending scale to the first note in the next measure, a jump up a fourth, and then a repetition of the same pattern. A proficient reader sight-reading this excerpt would not need to stop to think, for example, that the fourth note of the third bar is a "D." He would know what note to play merely from the context and shape of the line in conjunction with the information provided by the key signature. By the time it is time to play that "D," his fingers will know what note to play and his eyes will already be reading several bars ahead. And, if he sees an accidental while scanning ahead, he knows to be prepared to play one of the five notes that is not diatonic to the present key.
  
• We don't have the beginning of the music which shows the time signature, but even so, we can tell from the fact that there are two eighth note triplets in the measure that there are two beats per measure.
  
• We can also tell that there are six notes to be played across each of the two beats of each measure. We can tell that each of those six notes is the same length as each of the others.
  
• We can also tell that each of those notes is to be played staccato rather than being given its full value. This, by the way, is a specific example of timing information that is lacking in the grid based tab system that you and I discussed earlier. You never did respond to my question about whether you thought your tab example would allow a musician to play the melody of "America" accurately. I contend that there is not, but even if your example could allow a musician to play something close, what if we wanted to instruct the singer to sing the word "America" with each of the last three syllables short and clipped rather than with their full value? The grid-based tab system has no way of notating that. It is easy to show that in standard notation, as the staccato articulations in the example in this post demonstrate.
• We can tell that the beginning of the excerpt is to be played quietly, and then to increase in volume.

That is a lot of information, and it can all be communicated quickly and accurately with standard notation.

You've also suggested in some of your posts that standard notation is an inflexible grid in terms of tempo. That is simply not true. That are a variety of ways that standard notation can indicate variations in tempo. Changes in tempo can be indicated by expressly writing the beats per minute (i.e., quarter note = 120). Changes in tempo can also be indicated by use of phrases like ritard, rallentando, piu mosso, meno messo, accelerando., etc. Relaxation of the tempo can be indicated by phrases like colla voce or rubato. Changes in meter can also create the impression of a change in tempo, even when the actual beat stays the same.

All of these tools and many more are available in the standard notation toolbox. With all due respect, I get the impression that you are criticizing what you perceive as the limitations of standard notation without having a good understanding of what these tools are and how they can be used.

(*or D minor. Key signatures admittedly do not indicate a distinction between a major key and its relative minor. But while this may matter if you are analyzing a piece of music, it makes little practical difference in the performance of it.)

 

[topo morto]

That's a chunky ol' post Febs - will respond later when not at work!

 

[fdeck]

It's all well and good to point out the limitations of standard notation. Any notation is going to be "centric" in some way.

But if you write your music in a different notation system, nobody will ever play it.

 

[T-MOST]

I used to read treble clef back in the day when I played sax. So I am familiar with the mechanics. But, it's very weak. I'm used to playing R&B, Gospel and Smooth Jazz gigs that don't really require me to read anything. But there are gigs i can't get because I don't read. So, I am officially on a " learn to read bass clef " campaign! So, I'm devoting the next six months to establishing a firm reading foundation. I think it will open a few more doors that would otherwise be closed to me. It's also constructive and much more productive than watching TV!

 

[Roy Vogt]

topo morto, you have this idea that standard notation favors C major and its diatonic modes and that anything else is a special case. I would urge you to try put aside that prejudice and to recognize that key signatures are not limitations of standard notations but rather features that provide valuable information to the reader.

Standard notation is equally effective at notating something in C as it is in G, D, A, E, B, F# (or Gb), C# (or Db), Ab, Eb, Bb, or F. It does not treat keys other than C as a special case. To the extent that it treats anything as a special case, it is notes that are not diatonic to the current key, which are reflected by the use of accidentals. Even so, accidentals are not some sort of limitation of standard notation, but rather a tool that provides meaningful information to the reader.

Take the following example:

To a proficient reader, these four bars convey a tremendous amount of information at a single glance:

• We know that we are in the key of F.*
  
• We know at a single glance that every single note in the example is diatonic to F major. I can't emphasize enough how important that is. There are 24 notes in this example. A proficient reader can glance at this example for literally a fraction of a second and know in that single glance that every single one of those 24 notes is a note in the F major scale. There is no way that tab can convey so much information about so many notes, so quickly.
  
• Similarly, we can also see at a single glance that most of the movement in this example is scalar in nature. It is easy to see that after the octave jump on the second note, the remainder of the example is a descending scale to the first note in the next measure, a jump up a fourth, and then a repetition of the same pattern. A proficient reader sight-reading this excerpt would not need to stop to think, for example, that the fourth note of the third bar is a "D." He would know what note to play merely from the context and shape of the line in conjunction with the information provided by the key signature. By the time it is time to play that "D," his fingers will know what note to play and his eyes will already be reading several bars ahead. And, if he sees an accidental while scanning ahead, he knows to be prepared to play one of the five notes that is not diatonic to the present key.
  
• We don't have the beginning of the music which shows the time signature, but even so, we can tell from the fact that there are two eighth note triplets in the measure that there are two beats per measure.
  
• We can also tell that there are six notes to be played across each of the two beats of each measure. We can tell that each of those six notes is the same length as each of the others.
  
• We can also tell that each of those notes is to be played staccato rather than being given its full value. This, by the way, is a specific example of timing information that is lacking in the grid based tab system that you and I discussed earlier. You never did respond to my question about whether you thought your tab example would allow a musician to play the melody of "America" accurately. I contend that there is not, but even if your example could allow a musician to play something close, what if we wanted to instruct the singer to sing the word "America" with each of the last three syllables short and clipped rather than with their full value? The grid-based tab system has no way of notating that. It is easy to show that in standard notation, as the staccato articulations in the example in this post demonstrate.
• We can tell that the beginning of the excerpt is to be played quietly, and then to increase in volume.

That is a lot of information, and it can all be communicated quickly and accurately with standard notation.

You've also suggested in some of your posts that standard notation is an inflexible grid in terms of tempo. That is simply not true. That are a variety of ways that standard notation can indicate variations in tempo. Changes in tempo can be indicated by expressly writing the beats per minute (i.e., quarter note = 120). Changes in tempo can also be indicated by use of phrases like ritard, rallentando, piu mosso, meno messo, accelerando., etc. Relaxation of the tempo can be indicated by phrases like colla voce or rubato. Changes in meter can also create the impression of a change in tempo, even when the actual beat stays the same.

All of these tools and many more are available in the standard notation toolbox. With all due respect, I get the impression that you are criticizing what you perceive as the limitations of standard notation without having a good understanding of what these tools are and how they can be used.

(*or D minor. Key signatures admittedly do not indicate a distinction between a major key and its relative minor. But while this may matter if you are analyzing a piece of music, it makes little practical difference in the performance of it.)

Well done, or as I would say in Alpha-TAB W25 D8!
Seriously, almost every TAB system I've ever seen relies on the reader being able to listen to the Music as well. It tends to be on TAB sites (or even the TAB section in TB) or Guitar/Bass magazines where the reader can listen to the recordings and say "Oh, that's where I put my hands to get that sound". I can recall that the short-lived Bass Guitar (US) magazine that was a sister publication to Guitar World was TAB only. I found it very frustrating, since I couldn't really read the TABs for, say, Dragonforce as easily as notation. Interestingly, TAB systems like the Bass Guitar system still use conventional rhythmic notation so the reader is reading 1/2 of standard notation, just not the pitches. Combining TAB and written notation in a publication reaches the largest amount of people, but the truth is that I've never seen TAB used in a Professional Music situation in 40 years of gigging, while I have seen many, many charts in standard notation.

 

[Ric5]

Good Lord, what in the world are you basing this statement on?

Reality

 

[Pacman]

None of the Beatles read music fluently.

Nobody here is on the level of the Beatles. Seems obvious, but they succeeded in spite of not being able to read, not because of it.

Reading is good for learning a song ... but to play with feeling you get rid of the sheet music.

Or you can learn to read better. As someone else pointed out, to be able to read and play with feeling is just another level of reading ability.

 

[Timmy-Watts]

We learn to speak our language by listening and practicing speaking. Then we learn to read and write. Surely you can play without reading, provided your ear training and familiarity with your instrument is there. You can compose without writing it down. If that is all you need to do, more power to you!

I read SOMETHING on almost every gig I play. Whether it's a BL who brings a book, a big band gig, a church gig, a jazz gig where someone calls an obscure tune I don't know. Sometimes it's a tune I haven't played in a while so before we start it I glance at the bridge, then in 2 seconds I got it. Many times I read standard notation, like on the big band gigs and fusion and even jazz gigs where there is a specific part. Sometimes it's a chord chart or lead sheet. I am a first call sub in my area for just about every type of band around here. Everyone knows I can show up, they can plop a sheet or a book on the stand and I can nail it. And i can do it with an appropriate stylistic feel that is sometimes notated, sometimes felt. That keeps my phone ringing.

Reading standard notation is like a valuable tool in your toolbox that opens up possibilities on what you're able to do. You can see a piece of music for the first time at a gig without hearing it and read the part and nail the song. Like playing upright and electric, 5-string, being open and familiar with many styles of music and situations. They are all tools that open up possibilities in what I can do. And all those tools enhance each other and make me more versatile and marketable as a player.

Try that with tab. Try learning a song with standard tab, a song YOU HAVE NOT HEARD BEFORE. Tab is a tool for those who can't read good, who want or need to learn a song they have heard and don't want to or can't commit themselves to learning it by ear. I'm not knocking it, it works for some circumstances. But you'll never get a gig that I've ever heard of, that pays, and have a book full of tab on the stand when you show up.

 

[lustersilk]

Reality

You must live in a different world than I my friend. I regularly am brought to tears by people playing while reading music. I also perform with music so intensely that I am literally shaking when the number is over. No lack of feeling whatsoever.

 

[carl h.]

Some people who think reading music leads to dull music are listening with their eyes.

Ironic, huh?

 

[AngelCrusher]

Reality

The reality is yours only.

People who think you can't play with feel reading notes have no idea what they are saying.

Twang and Feb - amazing posts. Just so well said. I tried to explain how notes allow you to play with proper timing..etc but your posts pretty much nailed it down.

Twangs point is huge. Reading music is not really about sitting on stage and site reading. That is not what I am about at least. But I can grab pieces of music and slowly (because im still working on my reading) see phrasing and all kinds of harmonic substitution that I never would have thought of. I can learn horn lines..etc. It is all about exandin your musical vocabulary, its not just about sitting there and site reading sterile elevator music like some people like to insinuate.

 

[bassbully]

This is another stupid argument. It is fact you do not need to read to be a musician in most cases at any level. Learning to read/ theory will expand you musically where not having the training can hold you back and maybe cost you gigs or bands.

It's up to you, learn if you choose. Just do your thing and be done with it.

 

[BassChuck]

Every time we try to put a sound into written form there will be a some information assumed. And when we take a written form and make sound from it, again, some interpretation is present.

For instance. If I presented one of my coworkers with this sentence: "Eat each green bean", I might well hear something along the lines of " 8, H grain bane". We would all understand the message. I think most of us have had some experience with computers reading texts or phone messages being put into text form. Reading and writing is a human activity.

The point is that any system will have its faults. But standard music notation is, at present, the best system for presenting a form of communication in sound. Because there are things that are not notated (like micro-seconds..or micro tones) is not a reason to discard the system.

Excellent posts Febs and Ray.

What would this conversation be like if we were talking to a school administrator and asking if teaching reading and writing was a good idea? I mean, we can all talk without learning to read, right?

 

[carl h.]

micro-seconds..or micro tones

AKA

players with lousy time and bad fretwork/setups

 

[Roy Vogt]

What would this conversation be like if we were talking to a school administrator and asking if teaching reading and writing was a good idea? I mean, we can all talk without learning to read, right?

I1 S3 Y14 P35, Oh I'm sorry, I see your point! I take it for granted that everyone can read Alpha-TAB....
Still Alpha-TAB takes a whole lot less effort, you just have to use the code.

 

[Dieps17]

Well, although I am all for being able to read because it broadens my overall knowledge of music, the answer to your question is "it all depends". Now, if you play jazz and can't read you are all but screwed. But, if you play mainly rock, you'll be OK even though I still suggest learning to read. Honestly, I can read fine. But I haven't in years (other than pulling out my old Arban's trombone book and old sheet music just to keep my reading chops up). I have gotten faster at learning songs by ear and making simple charts than finding sheet music for songs. In fact, I wouldn't even know where to find sheet music for current pop or rock music.

Couple of question.....
1) What do you like to play?
2) What would you play if you could play anything?
3) How long have you been playing?
4) Do you want bass to be a career?
5) Have you ever seen anybody "rock the world" from behind a music stand?

I apologize for the delay, and im thankful for all of you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Now, i like to play music period, Ive never taken a lesson before n i feel like i should. I started out by playing at church mainly playing rock type music. Like you said playing rock/pop doesnt require much. But id love to play jazz, fusion, some funk/gospel. But simply because im not in that context, everytime i start practicing sightreading i get discouraged. Ive been playing for about 2 1/2 years now. And i kno i wont be able to follow a career for bass playing. And quite frankly i havent but in the studio at recordings ive seen some people saving time and effort by recording with sheet music. Idk i think after i learn whats on that sheet of music id try my best to memorize the piece and play by heart. My thoughts.

 

[Dieps17]

It's relative to what your goals and desires as a player are. If you want to do theater, you'll have to read. If you want to be in a successful rock band, it's not nearly as important to read.

I'm in the "learn to read" camp because it helps in making your a fast learner, a more valuable asset in many musical situations, and develops greater musicianship in the long run. If you want to work a lot in a wide variety of genres, it's a big help. That said, Pino Palladino is one of the most highly regarded and well-compensated bassists in the world, both live and in the studio. He can't read at all.

Whats this camp about? Like a reg music summer camp?