Players that won't learn a note

[MCF]

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.

Yep. It is standard notation.

 

[turf3]

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.

Yeah, yeah, go back to Mingus and Ellington. For that matter, Debussy - who the hell writes something that's just going along and suddenly modulates DOWN a half step?

I find that a lot of the people who post on this forum seem to have the idea that the vast majority of music sprang fully grown from the foreheads of the Beatles and that there are also these oddball subsidiary threads of music called "classical" and "jazz" that are the exclusive preserve of a tiny inconsequential number of eggheads.

Those rock musicians you admire so much (and I do too!) - THEY had big big ears. Remember what someone once said "If you study what I do, you're my student, but if you study the guys I studied, you're my peer."

Amazingly enough, the idea of unusual chord progressions did not originate with Kurt Cobain, not even in rock and roll. Ever hearrd of a little outfit called King Crimson? Or the Soft Machine? And I"m sure there are a lot of other examples I'm either not thinking of or unaware.

 

[LBS-bass]

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.

Yep, I get that. But I think it's a little disingenuous to classify him as a classical player when he went far beyond what most strictly classical players do with improvisation and is primarily known as a giant in the jazz world, especially in a conversation about how classical players generally don't make good jam partners. It's kind of a red herring.

I'm sure there are many other people with classical training who also learned how to improvise, but most of the true classical players I've tried to jam with who came into sessions from orchestral situations just couldn't do anything without sheet music. I'm just one person, but I've had at least five experiences like this that I can think of.

 

[turf3]

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..

This makes a lot of sense - McCartney was writing to communicate and document lead sheets for himself and the other members of his bands. Writing and reading rhythms is the most complex aspect of standard musical notation and also the one where it's hardest to communicate African-American-derived rhythms ("Swing eighths") As far as stuff like barring flagged notes together, that's what I would call "spelling and handwriting" conventions, which while useful especially if strangers are going to sightread your chart, aren't as important as the pitches.

 

[Core Creek]

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

In that instance, yeah, I might agree. But it’s a common problem. How many famous artists have put out songs that sound similar to one’s they already wrote. I’ve heard it argued here that it’s done to sell records… I’d argue when you like the way a certain progression sounds it’s really hard to walk away from it. I follow the same chord changes not so much because “theory tells me to”, but because I like it!

 

[gln1955]

Yep, I get that. But I think it's a little disingenuous to classify him as a classical player when he went far beyond what most strictly classical players do with improvisation and is primarily known as a giant in the jazz world, especially in a conversation about how classical players generally don't make good jam partners. It's kind of a red herring.

I'm sure there are many other people with classical training who also learned how to improvise, but most of the true classical players I've tried to jam with who came into sessions from orchestral situations just couldn't do anything without sheet music. I'm just one person, but I've had at least five experiences like this that I can think of.

Back when I was in college, I was into bluegrass and played guitar with others in jam settings. There was this other student, a violin major, who wanted to try something different, so she sat in on the jams. At first she was a fish out of water when we'd play songs with improved solos using at most chord sheets. But, she definitely had the chops to play anything and once she understood how we approached things, she got pretty damned good, very quickly.

 

[LBS-bass]

Back when I was in college, I was into bluegrass and played guitar with others in jam settings. There was this other student, a violin major, who wanted to try something different, so she sat in on the jams. At first she was a fish out of water when we'd play songs with improved solos using at most chord sheets. But, she definitely had the chops to play anything and once she understood how we approached things, she got pretty damned good, very quickly.

That's great. I think most people can learn to improvise if they're given the chance to figure it out. The people I knew just popped into a jam or (in one case) a rehearsal, found themselves in over their heads, and I never saw them again

 

[dkelley]

I suspect a very large number of supposedly non-reading professional musicians actually know the staff, and they say "I can't read music" either because they can't sit down and sightread Don Ellis charts at tempo, 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'm positive that if you told any of the three examples above "We're doing a 16 bar blues with a bridge in Eb, the bridge is Rhythm changes" that they would immediately grasp what was needed. No, those three guitarists might not be able to sit down and read Charlie Parker solos at sight, but we're not talking about "superior sightreading' here.

very well said, I'm certain that is true.

 

[White Beard]

Warning! The following is satire and intended as such. Any attempt to take these words seriously could result in elevated blood pressure, excessive eyerolling leading to migraine headaches, fits of rage, and/or impacted bowel syndrome. Reader discretion is advised.

Ol' Dickey Wagner didn't know anything about music theory. That's why he put those inverted half-diminished chords spelled enharmonically all over the place.

Seriously though, I don't think this is anything new. People want there to be a sense of anyone can just pick up a guitar and be half-as-good-as (insert name here) with as little work as possible. My brother is an extremely talented artist, he has a BA in painting and sculpture and Masters from the KU School of Architecture and Design. He decided that he was going to learn guitar at age 40 with no formal instruction. The first song he decided to learn was "More Than Words" by Extreme, and was so frustrated that Nuno Bettencourt had written a guitar part that was "needlessly complicated" and "harder than it should be." I chose not to engage in that conversation. I did think to myself though, "the balls on this guy telling Nuno Bettencourt he should play less good."

We used to have Horatio Alger novels that gave people the fantasy of just magically being swept into fame and fortune through sheer luck or craze... And without going through all the in-betweens we now have TikTok, YouTube, et al. to popularize those fantasies.

 

[dkelley]

I used to not know any of my notes. I'm still not the most proficient with keys and modes as a self taught bassist. I did use studybass and hope to keep getting better. With that lack of knowledge I was still able to fund a van purchase and a record being recorded at a notable studio with band money alone, while playing a lot of shows.

All that said, if someone sent me charts or told me I needed to be on a particular note, I'd look it up. We quite literally have the pantheon of human knowledge in our pockets. Thankfully it never happened in person. By then I'd learned my neck.



Agreed, the more I learn the more I realize I need to learn but it's liberating. I've known musicians who outright think learning theory will sterilize their creativity which I've just never understood. I think maybe they, like me, have tried jamming with classically trained musicians (for me a flautist) and they couldn't jam. That's not an indictment of theory knowledge, it's that they don't teach you to "jam" aimlessly in music school to my understanding.

I concur about classical musicians, as one myself, as a generalization of course. Knowing how to read music, play brilliantly, have incredible chops, and understanding advanced music theory, do not teach you how to improvise. But that is mostly, as you probably agree as a flautist yourself, because there is no NEED or EXPOSURE to improv in most classical music. It just isn't a thing, and in fact is looked down upon because doing so generally is deemed disrespectful to the composer.

Of course, this is more and more changing.... Bach is pretty much built to be improvised upon, as it was frequently based upon keyboard (or violin) improvisations that Bach was creating that he then transcribed into his published music. And some performers improvise beautifully over it in classical concerts while respecting the genre. But my point is that yes, there are classical players who are amazing at improv (Steve Howe, for example), while most don't really do much of it because it isn't part of the music they play. It isn't lack of talent, and it isn't because their training teaches improv OUT of their skillset (rather it was never something they had every tried!) - it's lack of need and exposure and experience and the tools to do so.

 

[dkelley]

Bach was an improviser.

as were the Mozart kids (Wolfgang and his sister (who we unfortunately never hear about due to those times and sexist standards))

 

[dkelley]

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.

I totally understand what you are saying about the downside.... however (as I've dealt with this in music teaching my entire life) I can say that's solved with an understanding of, or at least recognizing the existence of, 20th/21st century classical composers and their notation and their adept skill at working within the rules or even modifying the rules for efficiency. You could go whole hog and learn how they did it. Or you could take on their philosophy, which is where I'm heading with this, and where I think you already went with it... which is totally fine!

My point isn't to say "you didn't know this!" LoL... my point is to say that you are totally correct, but you don't need to feel like you are throwing out the rules to do what you are doing. It's music.... transcribe it so that it works. For standards of musicians reading the music, key changing and how to document accidentals and time signature changes are very important, but anything that you need to write that is way outside of the box can be documented how ever you like. Just make sure it makes sense to you and to who you are writing for.... done deal. Totally acceptable!

But I will suggest that knowing a certain level of music theory can make one think that doing things outside of those rules is bad.... when as you advance in music theory knowledge you learn that there are actually very logical ways to describe, in theory, literally everything you can do in music. But it's intense learning, so yea just make sure it's clear and have fun!

 

[LBS-bass]

It's not just the amateurs. Who hasn't read articles/ interviews where a well known musician will say something to the effect, "I don't know scales, I just play over patterns I've learned and used in the past". It 's laziness that causes people who gain what is to them an exceptable level of mechanical proficiency to not take the next step and work at understanding why some things make musical sense and to allow them to advance their musical ideas.

I don't think there's anything lazy about not doing something until you find a need to do it. I've lived my whole life this way and I also work my butt off to make sure I'm prepared for rehearsals, shows, auditions, you name it. Nobody's ever accused me of laziness because I didn't do esoteric study of things that I would never apply.

But here's the thing - everyone learns differently. I learn based on motivation. During the lockdown I tried, twice, to sit down with an instructional book and brush up my reading in the bass clef. But because I had no practical application for that at the time, I was not motivated to continue.

Right now I'm doing that same study in that same book because I do have motivation - I'm starting a new course of study and I want to be able to read efficiently enough to not waste too much time. So when I have a good enough reason, I do things.

Now, one could say that being able to read can help me learn music that I want to play, which is a practical application, but my ear will always be faster than my eyes on this so for a lot of people that's probably true, but it's not true for me. I can already read well enough to know that a lot of the transcriptions I do look at are wrong, though.

 

[turf3]

[QUOTE="LBS-bass, post: 27626339, member: 317378"... I learn based on motivation. During the lockdown I tried, twice, to sit down with an instructional book and brush up my reading in the bass clef. But because I had no practical application for that at the time, I was not motivated to continue.

Right now I'm doing that same study in that same book because I do have motivation - I'm starting a new course of study and I want to be able to read efficiently enough to not waste too much time. So when I have a good enough reason, I do things.

Now, one could say that being able to read can help me learn music that I want to play, which is a practical application, but my ear will always be faster than my eyes on this so for a lot of people that's probably true, but it's not true for me. I can already read well enough to know that a lot of the transcriptions I do look at are wrong, though.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm certainly not willing to die on the hill of music notation, but I'll point out that you already know how to read music; you're working on your SIGHTREADING which is a different, but related, ball of wax.

Heck, I'm a pretty strong reader (in North Texas I'm considered only mediocre, but in Boston I'm considered a very good reader - those guys out of NTSU set a hell of a standard), but if I get a call for a job that I think's going to involve difficult sightreading, I pull out the books and set up the gnome and start plowing my way through, yet again, just to hone that skill for the upcoming gig.

I bet right now that if I ask you what's the note on the highest space in the bass clef, you'd get "G" pretty much right off. Maybe you'd scuffle if I handed you an Oscar Pettiford solo transcription - like 99% of all bass players. But again that's orders of magnitudes away from the person who insists on not learning even the basics of what notes go where and what they're called, or what the 1, 4, and 5 are in the key of B.

 

[LBS-bass]

... I learn based on motivation. During the lockdown I tried, twice, to sit down with an instructional book and brush up my reading in the bass clef. But because I had no practical application for that at the time, I was not motivated to continue.

Right now I'm doing that same study in that same book because I do have motivation - I'm starting a new course of study and I want to be able to read efficiently enough to not waste too much time. So when I have a good enough reason, I do things.

Now, one could say that being able to read can help me learn music that I want to play, which is a practical application, but my ear will always be faster than my eyes on this so for a lot of people that's probably true, but it's not true for me. I can already read well enough to know that a lot of the transcriptions I do look at are wrong, though.

Well, I'm certainly not willing to die on the hill of music notation, but I'll point out that you already know how to read music; you're working on your SIGHTREADING which is a different, but related, ball of wax.

Heck, I'm a pretty strong reader (in North Texas I'm considered only mediocre, but in Boston I'm considered a very good reader - those guys out of NTSU set a hell of a standard), but if I get a call for a job that I think's going to involve difficult sightreading, I pull out the books and set up the gnome and start plowing my way through, yet again, just to hone that skill for the upcoming gig.

I bet right now that if I ask you what's the note on the highest space in the bass clef, you'd get "G" pretty much right off. Maybe you'd scuffle if I handed you an Oscar Pettiford solo transcription - like 99% of all bass players. But again that's orders of magnitudes away from the person who insists on not learning even the basics of what notes go where and what they're called, or what the 1, 4, and 5 are in the key of B.

That's all true, and I don't mean to hold myself up as the best, worst, or most typical example of anything. Just pointing out that "laziness" isn't always the barrier to learning more. Sometimes, and for some types of learners, it's just a matter of practicality.

I learned more than I usually give myself credit for in grade school, but I haven't really used all that much of it.

 

[turf3]

Well, again, there are fundamentals and there are refinements.

Even a pitcher knows how to swing a bat and run bases. Linebackers practice throwing and catching footballs, too.

I'd say knowing the names of musical notes and where they are on one's instrument is hardly a refinement. It's a fundamental. Knowing the difference between the Locrian and super-Locrian scales, that's a refinement.

It's like if someone said they were going to learn how to speak Spanish but they weren't willing to say any words that involved the rolled "r". No, how to pronounce words is kind of a fundamental in learning a language (one's pronunciation may not be excellent, but you learn how to do it).

 

[legalbass]

It's like if someone said they were going to learn how to speak Spanish but they weren't willing to say any words that involved the rolled "r". No, how to pronounce words is kind of a fundamental in learning a language (one's pronunciation may not be excellent, but you learn how to do it).

Agree completely (and especially as long as we don't have to learn how to do the French "r"!)

 

[turf3]

...
But here's the thing - everyone learns differently. I learn based on motivation. During the lockdown I tried, twice, to sit down with an instructional book and brush up my reading in the bass clef. But because I had no practical application for that at the time, I was not motivated to continue.....

I'd suggest that what you're describing here is not that you "learn differently", but that you MOTIVATE differently. Well, differently than some people. You don't get motivated till there's a visible application. I think most of us are like that, and it's only a few that pursue hard stuff with discipline that they don't see an upcoming application for. That's why it's so hard to motivate kids to study school subjects they don't like.

 

[stringthrough]

I don't think there's anything lazy about not doing something until you find a need to do it. I've lived my whole life this way and I also work my butt off to make sure I'm prepared for rehearsals, shows, auditions, you name it. Nobody's ever accused me of laziness because I didn't do esoteric study of things that I would never apply.

But here's the thing - everyone learns differently. I learn based on motivation. During the lockdown I tried, twice, to sit down with an instructional book and brush up my reading in the bass clef. But because I had no practical application for that at the time, I was not motivated to continue.

Right now I'm doing that same study in that same book because I do have motivation - I'm starting a new course of study and I want to be able to read efficiently enough to not waste too much time. So when I have a good enough reason, I do things.

Now, one could say that being able to read can help me learn music that I want to play, which is a practical application, but my ear will always be faster than my eyes on this so for a lot of people that's probably true, but it's not true for me. I can already read well enough to know that a lot of the transcriptions I do look at are wrong, though.

I'm focused on the pro's, people who make their living performing music... Most people put in 40 hours per week at their job. I'm fairly certain many/ most musicians don't. My point is, don't settle for your current playing proficiency AND understanding of music theory. Take time and master to the extent you can your chosen trade... I have the most respect for older musicians who state that they're still working to improve at their craft.

 

[Al Rivera]

It's always guitarists. I have thankfully never met a keys player who didn't know the notes on their instrument or how to talk in chords, intervals, etc. I'm sure they are out there, but I can't imagine working with one who couldn't explain what they're playing in standard musical terms.

I met a keyboard player about 20 years ago,he wanted to form a band but didn't know any notes or chords! I was blown away by his attitude,luckily I passed on his band.