• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

The reading of music

R

riti

Guest
Apr 14, 2012
34
0
#1
Hi Justin

How do you normally learn new music?
Do you find that you're usually given a score, a tab or are asked to learn by ear?
And when you write music which of these do you use?
Do you find that 'industry' has a set way of approaching this, or does it just depend on who you're dealing with?
What's your preference?

Thanks
Rich
 
#4
I usually just do a takedown from a recording I receive beforehand, or I do it in one or two passes of listening at the session. My takedowns are chords, with just a few little rhythm and/or melody notations.

That seems to be the standard in my world.
 
#6
riti said:
Cool
Good to know
I've been stressing about not being able sight read score
I appreciate that the more you know the better, but maybe it's not the end of the world :)
Thanks
Rich
Click to expand...

You should stress a bit if you want to make money playing bass. Not being able to read well (and I speak from experience, unfortunately) will limit the kinds of gigs you get called for. The silly thing is that reading bass is really not that difficult. It just takes regular practice - even ten minutes a day will help enormously. Trust me, man, it will be worth the time you put in. :)
 
#7
I'm a bit torn on this one. Being able to both read and play by ear provides me with a neutral perspective. This is going to sound ridiculous, but 'channeling' or playing from the heart is where it's at. It's hard to properly explain, but it's the runner's high of music and it's transcendent capabilities. Reading score is great for technique and to get everyone on the same page, but like with anything, most people stop before they get good.

I don't think JMJ was reading score when he developed or tracked I Can't See New York, as an example.

I know I'll get flamed for this, so I'll apologize in advance, but having an original ear tied directly to your heart will not only land you a gig, but you might even end up being a lot more than a hyphen between a birth date and a death date.

At the end of a gig, or your life, that's what really counts, right?

Music is one of the few forms of artistic expression that transcends cultural differences, language barriers, religious ideology, etc.

The bass line is the heartbeat of a tune......kind of transforming potential energy into a sort of perpetual motion of sound that binds everything else to it. It has the meat that the frequency range of a guitar will never hit, you know?

One has to work really hard to get excellent at it, even if you have innate ability.
 
#8
c0nsilience said:
I'm a bit torn on this one. Being able to both read and play by ear provides me with a neutral perspective. This is going to sound ridiculous, but 'channeling' or playing from the heart is where it's at. It's hard to properly explain, but it's the runner's high of music and it's transcendent capabilities. Reading score is great for technique and to get everyone on the same page, but like with anything, most people stop before they get good.

I don't think JMJ was reading score when he developed or tracked I Can't See New York, as an example.

I know I'll get flamed for this, so I'll apologize in advance, but having an original ear tied directly to your heart will not only land you a gig, but you might even end up being a lot more than a hyphen between a birth date and a death date.

At the end of a gig, or your life, that's what really counts, right?

Music is one of the few forms of artistic expression that transcends cultural differences, language barriers, religious ideology, etc.
Click to expand...
It really comes down to "stacking the deck" in one's favour. To look at certain studio musicians who may not need to be able to read to get work as some kind of example to go by is not, I would say, a very wise approach. You'd be better off looking at the guys who wouldn't have gotten the work they did had they not been able to read. Of course, it depends on what kind of musician you want to be, but if you want to make a living playing bass - well, you'll have a much better chance of doing that if you can sight read well.
 
#9
I (think I) totally get where both of you are coming from. On one hand 'success' means different things to different people. Also, you can look at someone like Justin, or Nathan East, or Roscoe Beck (etc etc) who I don't suppose would be where they are without being able to read. But then you could have someone well known for being a heartfelt player that can't read. I have always thought of being able to read as widening the field in terms of available material, but I guess the difference between good and great is the emotional aspect.
 
#10
Ya, whether you read or you don't, the idea is to make people feel something with your playing. If you don't read but you can deliver otherwise, you can get work with your music, but if you can read AND deliver, it definitely opens up opportunities you might not have had otherwise. Very few people can become rock stars, but I know a lot of folks who manage to have pretty decent careers and make a nice middle class living because they're good readers who make it sound fresh.
 
#11
I agree with you, for most people. But, Adrian Belew, Hendrix, Clapton, Dylan, Stevie Wonder and Irving Berlin aren't most people. Essentially, if you can play it, what's the significance of being able to name it? Practice makes permanent and for some, the hands can just do it. Does that make sense?

Theory is great, but can have a stifling affect on some...unlearning someone else's voice to find your own.

Reading isn't going to teach you how to mute with your fret hand or how to use your volume and tone controls properly, no more than having a 1960 fretless jazz and a delay is going to make you Jaco. Tone is in the fingers, period. If you want to make money playing music, you'll have to be able to make someone else more money...to become a commodity, which has less to do with genius than having mainstream market appeal. For that reason alone, Taylor Swift is more well known than Michael Manring or Victor Wooten. I think there is a fine line between art and commerce; creative expression and organically advertising a product or products or becoming said product.

The music business is just that, a business. Business is about turning a hefty profit with massive margins. Usually, any kind of integrity is laid waste to....record advances alone destroyed many great talents.

There's a freedom in owning your own art, without the dilemma of 'doing things a certain way to get more points on an album.'

Not many pro musicians get a chance to have complete creative freedom ala Radiohead or JMJ. That's really unique in an industry that is overly commercialized and pretty superficial, oftentimes downright petty. I'm speaking from the perspective of having worked in the industry, dropping the veil a bit. Harsh but entirely true.

Talent is hitting what others can't hit; genius is hitting what others can't see ( or hear).
 
#12
JimmyM said:
Ya, whether you read or you don't, the idea is to make people feel something with your playing. If you don't read but you can deliver otherwise, you can get work with your music, but if you can read AND deliver, it definitely opens up opportunities you might not have had otherwise. Very few people can become rock stars, but I know a lot of folks who manage to have pretty decent careers and make a nice middle class living because they're good readers who make it sound fresh.
Click to expand...

+1
 
#13
c0nsilience said:
I agree with you, for most people. But, Adrian Belew, Hendrix, Clapton, Dylan, Stevie Wonder and Irving Berlin aren't most people. Essentially, if you can play it, what's the significance of being able to name it? Practice makes permanent and for some, the hands can just do it. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
It does as long as you put in perspective and realize that for every Clapton who understands music without reading, there are 1000 people who can't make sense of it and get fristrated and quit playing. I would have been one of those people if not for knowing how to read music and knowing how chords are formed and all that. I always have to remind people when they bring up famous musicians who can't read that they're not those famous musicians ;)

Theory is great, but can have a stifling affect on some...unlearning someone else's voice to find your own.
Click to expand...
Now that I 100% disagree with. If you are a creative person, you will be creative no matter how much book knowledge you learn. The mechanics of reading and music theory have no style...they just are, and it's up to you to do something with it. To this day, I have never met a musician who knows how to read music who feels like their creativity would have been higher had they not read music. Only non-readers believe that reading music stifles creativity. If anything, reading expands creativity because if gives you ideas many non-readers wouldn't have thought about doing otherwise.

Reading isn't going to teach you how to mute with your fret hand or how to use your volume and tone controls properly, no more than having a 1960 fretless jazz and a delay is going to make you Jaco.
Click to expand...
Any decent player can show you that stuff in 5 seconds.

Tone is in the fingers, period. If you want to make money playing music, you'll have to be able to make someone else more money...to become a commodity, which has less to do with genius than having mainstream market appeal. For that reason alone, Taylor Swift is more well known than Michael Manring or Victor Wooten. I think there is a fine line between art and commerce; creative expression and organically advertising a product or products or becoming said product.
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight, bro...to have a career like Taylor Swift's, you can't read music? Hate to break it to you, but having a career like Taylor Swift's is harder than winning the lotto and getting struck by lightning at the same time, so I don't even think it applies to this discussion.

Not many pro musicians get a chance to have complete creative freedom ala Radiohead or JMJ. That's really unique in an industry that is overly commercialized and pretty superficial, oftentimes downright petty. I'm speaking from the perspective of having worked in the industry, dropping the veil a bit. Harsh but entirely true.
Click to expand...
Not sure what this has to do with the topic of reading music, but I'll go with it because I like a spirited discussion that goes off on tangents ;)

But really, you think the drummer in Radiohead gets complete autonomy to play what he wants? There's always someone not getting their way when it comes to music. Might get to contribute ideas freely, but in the end, there's someone making the final decisions, whether a bandleader or a producer. Even bandleaders with hit albums don't always get to call their own shots right down the line. And I'm positive Justin wouldn't go to a Beck session and say to Beck, "I'm going to play what I want and screw what you want." And if Taylor Swift all of a sudden decides she wants to record Gregorian chants set to metal, I'm sure someone at her label is going to step in and nip that crap in the bud ;)
 
#15
JimmyM said:
Ya, whether you read or you don't, the idea is to make people feel something with your playing. If you don't read but you can deliver otherwise, you can get work with your music, but if you can read AND deliver, it definitely opens up opportunities you might not have had otherwise. Very few people can become rock stars, but I know a lot of folks who manage to have pretty decent careers and make a nice middle class living because they're good readers who make it sound fresh.
Click to expand...

I agree with that and I would never discourage someone from learning to read. But, I have never been handed a bass chart. Granted I'm at the low end of the food chain. What would be more useful to me would be grand staff. I've been stumped by having to read over the piano player's ear a few times. You'd think it would be pretty much the same thing and it is except that the rate by which a page goes by is twice as fast, all those staves can catch you off guard and you might not want to play that bass clef part exactly anyway, so it's good to know a bit of theory and the treble clef to verify the quality of the chord as well.

I guess if I'm going to put in the time to read at this point I should focus on piano parts (and learning piano), not bass parts.

KO
 
#16
Piano is the all-around best instrument to double on for sure, partly because it's treble and bass clef, partly because it's a graphical representation of all the notes, and partly because it makes arranging a lot easier to know at least a little bit. Just wish I could play it better ;)
 
#17
JimmyM,

I don't disagree with you man, and I too like a spirited discussion. : )

The Taylor Swift comment was intended as a marketing reference. ; ). What I'm getting at is that nearly anyone can learn the mechanics, but it is the passion and creativity that breathes life into a piece. We agree that what you play should move someone, should make them feel something. Like the late Bill Hicks said, "play from your heart".

I don't fault any musician who wants to dig deeper into theory or scales or semitones. If it floats their boat, more power to them. But I don't think Hendrix would've been a better player if he could've told you the precise name of the chord inversion he hit.....he can hit it, who cares if he can name it? Had he been able to name it, he probably wouldn't have played it because it wasn't 'proper'. He played 100% from his heart. That is why he sounded like no one else and stratocasters are an investors dream. That is more impressive to me than a Juilliard graduate.

How can innovators innovate if they are constrained by a system adopted by their contemporaries?

That is the entire point I'm trying to make. ; - )
 
#19
c0nsilience said:
JimmyM,

I don't disagree with you man, and I too like a spirited discussion. : )

The Taylor Swift comment was intended as a marketing reference. ; ). What I'm getting at is that nearly anyone can learn the mechanics, but it is the passion and creativity that breathes life into a piece. We agree that what you play should move someone, should make them feel something. Like the late Bill Hicks said, "play from your heart".

I don't fault any musician who wants to dig deeper into theory or scales or semitones. If it floats their boat, more power to them. But I don't think Hendrix would've been a better player if he could've told you the precise name of the chord inversion he hit.....he can hit it, who cares if he can name it? Had he been able to name it, he probably wouldn't have played it because it wasn't 'proper'. He played 100% from his heart. That is why he sounded like no one else and stratocasters are an investors dream. That is more impressive to me than a Juilliard graduate.

How can innovators innovate if they are constrained by a system adopted by their contemporaries?

That is the entire point I'm trying to make. ; - )
Click to expand...

Most of the innovator where classical musician/composer who knew theory and much more.
 
#20
JimmyM said:
It does as long as you put in perspective and realize that for every Clapton who understands music without reading, there are 1000 people who can't make sense of it and get fristrated and quit playing. I would have been one of those people if not for knowing how to read music and knowing how chords are formed and all that. I always have to remind people when they bring up famous musicians who can't read that they're not those famous musicians ;)


Now that I 100% disagree with. If you are a creative person, you will be creative no matter how much book knowledge you learn. The mechanics of reading and music theory have no style...they just are, and it's up to you to do something with it. To this day, I have never met a musician who knows how to read music who feels like their creativity would have been higher had they not read music. Only non-readers believe that reading music stifles creativity. If anything, reading expands creativity because if gives you ideas many non-readers wouldn't have thought about doing otherwise.


Any decent player can show you that stuff in 5 seconds.


So let me get this straight, bro...to have a career like Taylor Swift's, you can't read music? Hate to break it to you, but having a career like Taylor Swift's is harder than winning the lotto and getting struck by lightning at the same time, so I don't even think it applies to this discussion.


Not sure what this has to do with the topic of reading music, but I'll go with it because I like a spirited discussion that goes off on tangents ;)

But really, you think the drummer in Radiohead gets complete autonomy to play what he wants? There's always someone not getting their way when it comes to music. Might get to contribute ideas freely, but in the end, there's someone making the final decisions, whether a bandleader or a producer. Even bandleaders with hit albums don't always get to call their own shots right down the line. And I'm positive Justin wouldn't go to a Beck session and say to Beck, "I'm going to play what I want and screw what you want." And if Taylor Swift all of a sudden decides she wants to record Gregorian chants set to metal, I'm sure someone at her label is going to step in and nip that crap in the bud ;)
Click to expand...

wow, I couldn't said it better, we think alike.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back