Players that won't learn a note

[Low End Scum]

Don't assume.

Ever hear of a guy named Wynton Marsalis?

I have not. I did room with a Sax major when I went to college though and his improv classes seemed to also not mesh well with the absolute maelstrom that comes from bringing strangers of different skillsets in from Craigslist. On re-reading what I posted, I don't mean to say that the classically trained as a group can't jam. The ones I met in school couldn't outside of improvisational exercises yet though. Outside of school they make me feel like a child with his grandma's guitar in his hands again.

In my flautist friends defense, he came up with a simple 4 note melody over my groove, but explained that since we didn't have anything defined that he didn't know where he could/wanted to go. I am looking up Wynton Marsalis though, at the moment

 

[LBS-bass]

Classical players study sightreading extensively. They're generally not spending much, if any time, in improvisational study. So most of them that I have attempted to jam with could not do a thing without paper in front of them.

Jazz players (which is where I would put Wynton Marsalis) study improv.

 

[80jazz]

or because they want to create an image of themselves as "feral" artists whose talent is so huge that they don't need to read.

I suspect this happens a lot.

 

[Pilgrim]

Throwing alternate tunings at a player who doesn't have a command of the fretboard and at least some theory is setting him up for failure.

That sums it up right there.

Reminds me of a Mark Twain quotation: "'If you want me to give you a two-hour presentation, I am ready today. If you want only a five-minute speech, it will take me two weeks to prepare."

Gotta give people time to work through new stuff.

 

[Sarge79]

When I was a kid into early adulthood I was like her. I just wanted to play by ear and didn't understand the point of knowing notes. Once I got my butt handed to me too many times for not knowing my notes on the fretboard, then I finally learned where the notes are. It actually helped me out a lot when I learned a little guitar too.

 

[Jefenator]

I find learning fast usually trumps playing fast - and not just on bass.

 

[legalbass]

Knowing what the notes are in music and in correlation with the strings and frets can help solve a lot of problems. Take for example, two people "hearing" something differently which, whatever, it happens. Nobody is perfect.

If you can sit down and say, hey, this is the key, these are the notes within that key, and literally spell it out you can move past those odd moments of incongruity awfully quickly and make sense of everything. Doing everything strictly "by ear" works until sometimes when it doesn't.

 

[turf3]

The vast majority of improvising players of high standing have a classical training. They have typically moved from classical music performance to improvised music performance in their adolescence, but the training from middle and high school band, choir, orchestra, piano lessons, etc., doesn't magically disappear.

Furthermore, the modern highly-trained improvising musician will generally have a deep understanding of functional harmony - in many cases a deeper understanding that that of the performing classical musician (not composers).

Yes, professional orchestra players, especially on instruments that have little or no presence in improvising music (double reeds, violin viola and cello, low brass) tend not to have strong improvisational skills, but if you've spent 20 years rehearsing and practicing the standard orchestral repertoire, you probably haven't spent a lot of time on the bandstand playing "Mustang Sally" or "Confirmation".

In my experience orchestra players on trumpet trombone single reeds double bass and a large fraction of pianists, tend to have spent a lot of time in improvising music as well - something about that pesky thing called "earning a living".

Of course all this discussion is really based on people whose skills are several orders of magnitude above "the player who doesn't know the names of the notes on the instrument".

 

[bigdaddybass12]

Sight reading and knowledge of music theory are related but one doesn't imply the other. I have a good understanding of theory. I know all the notes on the fret board, etc., etc. I struggle with sight reading. Not being able to read music doesn't imply you don't understand music theory.[/QUOTEYeh

It’s funny when people use these examples. “Paul McCartney can’t read music and doesn’t know theory!” Well, you and I are not Paul McCartney….

We Maybe better than Paul !!

 

[Smooth_bass88]

Back before there was an internet full of lies, misinformation and disinformation, you had no choice but to buy these things called “BOOKS” written by people known as “AUTHORS”. These books were thoroughly researched and the information was presented in a way for the reader to easily understand. Above is my personal favorite

edit: books combined with teachers equals educated!

 

[BassBrass]

I have not. I did room with a Sax major when I went to college though and his improv classes seemed to also not mesh well with the absolute maelstrom that comes from bringing strangers of different skillsets in from Craigslist. On re-reading what I posted, I don't mean to say that the classically trained as a group can't jam. The ones I met in school couldn't outside of improvisational exercises yet though. Outside of school they make me feel like a child with his grandma's guitar in his hands again.

In my flautist friends defense, he came up with a simple 4 note melody over my groove, but explained that since we didn't have anything defined that he didn't know where he could/wanted to go. I am looking up Wynton Marsalis though, at the moment

Here's Winton's dad Ellis. Winton now runs Lincoln Center Jazz.

 

[MoireBass]

It’s funny when people use these examples. “Paul McCartney can’t read music and doesn’t know theory!” Well, you and I are not Paul McCartney….

That legend is also exaggerated. I've seen a couple of examples of the pidgin notation system that Paul McCartney uses. It's not standard notation, but it uses elements of standard notation. He clearly knows the names of notes and chords and how they relate to each other. He writes melodies on a standard musical staff as a series of quarter-notes and eighth notes, but without bar lines and the eighth notes are all disconnected (♪♪♪♪ rather than ♫♫). Chords are notated by the number of beats rather than whole bars. At the end of one section of 4/4, he had a place where he specified holding a chord for 10 beats. Standard notation would make that two bars of 4/4 followed by a bar of 2/4.

There's 2-3 places in the big Beatles Anthology book that mention George Martin taking something that Paul wrote and turning it into standard notation for other players. Paul saw someone playing a Bach trumpet on the telly and George M. figured out what it was, found the guy, and hired him. Paul wrote a part for it that had a few notes that exceeded the normal range of the instrument - and the guy played it successfully.

 

[bigdaddybass12]

Sight reading and knowledge of music theory are related but one doesn't imply the other. I have a good understanding of theory. I know all the notes on the fret board, etc., etc. I struggle with sight reading. Not being able to read music doesn't imply you don't understand music theory.

yes on sight reading. I had years of music theory. But when I would try to sight read, I was like a deer in headlights! In high school we would go to a state wide individual musician competition, Scales & solo not a problem. Sight-reading I would crash & burn.

 

[MCF]

View attachment 5120559 Back before there was an internet full of lies, misinformation and disinformation, you had no choice but to buy these things called “BOOKS” written by people known as “AUTHORS”. These books were thoroughly researched and the information was presented in a way for the reader to easily understand. Above is my personal favorite

That is the book I started with at age 12. I spent hours with it. After seven years of piano lessons. I wonder where it is. It could still be in the piano stool for the piano which is now at my brother’s house. I’ll have to ask him…

 

[turf3]

I don't know who Roger Filiberto is/was, but I bet he is/was a studio guy who could play anything. Is that book written in standard notation?

I will point out that my great-grandmother's accordion came to me with an instruction book meant for the absolute beginner - written in standard notation, with several pages at the beginning dedicated to the notes on the staff, the basics of reading rhythm, a few other matters of that sort. Look through pretty much every beginning band book written since the early 1900s and you'll see the same. My point is that for the vast majority of people, acquiring a basic ability to read and parse standard notation is a matter that fifth-graders get a handle on in six weeks or so; for adult musicians to resist this really rather basic knowledge comes in most cases from internal resistance, not from the inherent difficulty of the skill.

Yeah, being able to read at sight like the cats in the One O'Clock Band - that takes years of practice. Being able to tell whether it's an E or an F - that takes only a modicum of intelligence and a little drill and not setting your back against learning it.

Of course there are those with learning disabilities who have difficulty processing printed information of all kinds - what I'm saying does not apply to them. That should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Jazz players (which is where I would put Wynton Marsalis) study improv.

Marsalis was mentioned because he went to Juilliard and did in fact have very strong classical training before he became known as a jazz prodigy. But yes, in general, classical musicians aren't taught to improvise or "jam." That wasn't always the case, though; Bach was an improviser.

 

[Core Creek]

You're right, but it goes both ways too though. Theory can explain music, but can also be used to generate music as well. It also allows collaborators to bat around ideas when creating music using a common lexicon that both should understand.

There's no downside to knowing theory.

I studied theory and understand a lot of it…

… but I can bring up one downside just to play devil’s advocate.

Sometimes, while writing a song, I’ll have a cool idea, and when I try to flesh it out, theory becomes a bit of a crutch and I find myself following the same old “rules”… like the V chord would be major in this key… etc.

The best way to break out of that is to just throw theory out the window and play something else… anything…. And see where my ear takes it.

I am generally a believer that one should know the rules before breaking them… but Kurt Cobain was a great example of someone who certainly didn’t follow expected chord changes, or chords that easily fit into any particular key. I’m not a huge fan of Nirvana, but his songwriting broke a lot of molds in Rock.

 

[Knavery]

View attachment 5120559 Back before there was an internet full of lies, misinformation and disinformation, you had no choice but to buy these things called “BOOKS” written by people known as “AUTHORS”. These books were thoroughly researched and the information was presented in a way for the reader to easily understand. Above is my personal favorite

edit: books combined with teachers equals educated!

There's a lot of videos on Youtube that teaches you the same thing, but in an easier format. Sure the internet is full of lies and misinformation, but I rarely found that the case with music theory. LOL...

 

[Richard Lindsey]

My point is that for the vast majority of people, acquiring a basic ability to read and parse standard notation is a matter that fifth-graders get a handle on in six weeks or so; for adult musicians to resist this really rather basic knowledge comes in most cases from internal resistance, not from the inherent difficulty of the skill.

Yep, It's been said a number of times on this site over the years, but anybody capable of writing an intelligible post in English on this site has already mastered a skill far more difficult than reading standard notation.

And as you suggest, reading music is not the same as sight-reading it, any more than reading a book is the same as speed-reading it. Maybe not everyone can be (or needs/wants to be) a sight-reader or speed-reader, but IMO most people--with the noted exception of those who have disabilities that get in the way--can become readers without a whole lot of difficulty.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

I studied theory and understand a lot of it…

… but I can bring up one downside just to play devil’s advocate.

Sometimes, while writing a song, I’ll have a cool idea, and when I try to flesh it out, theory becomes a bit of a crutch and I find myself following the same old “rules”… like the V chord would be major in this key… etc.

The best way to break out of that is to just throw theory out the window and play something else… anything…. And see where my ear takes it.

I am generally a believer that one should know the rules before breaking them… but Kurt Cobain was a great example of someone who certainly didn’t follow expected chord changes, or chords that easily fit into any particular key. I’m not a huge fan of Nirvana, but his songwriting broke a lot of molds in Rock.

With respect, that's mostly user error. You're taking theory for something more prescriptive and restrictive than it actually is.