To read or not to read...

[Doc Ivory]

I had an discussion this week that set me back on my heels a bit.
I met a gentleman who is a guitar, mandolin teacher that doesn't teach a student how to read music.

It actually stopped me in my tracks for a moment.

In forty plus years of playing and interacting with other teachers, he's the very first I've ever encountered who was adamant about "not needing" to know how to read.

It's very true, one doesn't need to know how to ready music in order to play well. History is rife with greats who never learned.

I would think reading musical notation and or tabs would be basic, no?

It just seemed a little off putting to me.

I started out NOT reading music but once i did, a whole world opened up for me and isn't that the point?

Perhaps I'm just being narrow.

[F-2 Dave]

Different strokes.

[Relio]

I know how to read music notation and of course tab, but I made the most progress in my ability when I stopped using written material and learned everything by ear. However, I do believe there is a lot to be gained by knowing how to read music notation.

[Tobin]

There's a long aural tradition in music, and many believe that it's the best way to learn. I can see that point of view, and even agree with it. Music is all about hearing and feeling it, and I've seen more than one player who can't truly engage with what they're playing because they are so tied up in reading the music. This is a common criticism of classical players, for example. Not to say that they don't feel the music they're playing, but by being tied to sheet music, many of them are sort of helpless when you take the paper away. It quickly becomes apparent that their musical ability is limited to translating from their eyes to their hands, and their brains and ears are not fully committed. The notation has become a crutch, in many ways.

Personally, I think the ability to read music is very important for learning, especially when you're trying to learn a new piece that you haven't ever heard before. And even when you have the music in your head, seeing the durations of the notes and other mechanics of the music can help with comprehension. But in the end, written music is only a tool to aid what needs to happen in your head and in your ears.

So by focusing on listening, and teaching people to play what they hear in their head, I can see it being more important than learning to read music. That's where the magic happens anyway, and it really should be the prime focus. For obvious reasons, though, it can be a longer learning curve for new players who are unfamiliar with music theory and who aren't overly familiar with their instruments. Learning to play by ear does require some level of proficiency on the instrument first. And that proficiency can be aided by tablature and notation.

[Steve Ostrander]

There are lots of classically-trained musicians who can read but can't improvise. I'd much rather be able to improvise.

[DavidKOS]

There's a long aural tradition in music, and many believe that it's the best way to learn. I can see that point of view, and even agree with it.

I agree to a point.

For some styles like classical music, reading is a must.

For many others, it is useful but certainly NOT needed, as so many country, rock, blues, etc. musicians have proved.

For example, when I play in jazz and show bands reading is assumed - but all the rock bands I played in all played by ear.

My teachers said that a "complete musician" can play by ear and read.

[Hany Hayek]

I am one of the classical players that feel helpless without the music sheet. I even don't memorize many pieces. Had the same problem when I was studying violin 20 years ago.
But I can read music so well that I also feel that there is no music I will not be able to read and execute at a certain point (after some training). whenever I hear something I like, I search for scores et voila.
When it comes to teaching, however, the teacher has to read and has to know the basic of music theory.
We have such an example here in Egypt. The one good mandolin player I know of, playing with an Arabic ensemble, always performing on stage, teaches mandolin and cannot read music. However she can't play classical because she can't read.

[Shelagh Moore]

I've been teaching mandolin and guitar for some time and have never required a student to be able to read music, nor taught them to. I am not a great sight reader myself and have been playing primarily by ear for more than 50 years so it seems natural to me to teach that way too. Of course, it's best to be able to do both so maybe when I've more time I'll attend to improving my own reading...

[JeffD]

A musician not reading is different than a musician that can't read.

[Beardog]

I can read music perfectly, and have a good understanding of music theory.

For bluegrass/folk music, I play 100% by ear.

There is no way that I could learn a complex classical piano piece by ear, however. I could get the melody by ear, but not all the vast myriad of notes as originally written. I am sure there are musical geniuses (like Mozart) who can do this, but they are very rare.

Reading music is essential for some types of music, but not all. I can't imagine that it would ever be a hindrance, though!

[JeffD]

There are lots of classically-trained musicians who can read but can't improvise. I'd much rather be able to improvise.

It is not a trade off. There are no "rathers". Everything you don't know or can't do will limit you as a musician, and those limits can't be made up by working on something else. To be a complete musician one needs to be able to improvise, and one needs to be able to read, and learning one does not subtract from doing the other.

Yes there are many classically trained musicians who can read but can't improvise. But its because they haven't learned to improvise and don't practice it. It has nothing to do with their learning to read.

Just as there are many who can improvise but can't read. Well learning to read and practicing sight reading will in no way affect their ability to improvise.

[EdHanrahan]

Tobin said all the important stuff I was thinking, so this must be less important...

Personally:
- l learned to read as my (uninformed) first step in self-learning guitar as a teenager.
- Progressed thru folk music and rock bands without ever needing to read, but it certainly helped on occasion.
- Am currently reading more than ever as "the new kid" in the Bloomfield (NJ) Mandolin Orchestra. (And age 69 still makes me somewhat of a "kid" there!)

Interestingly, the orchestra put on a series of mandolin lessons over the summer with NJ's Barry Mitterhoff, open to all. (He's lately been touring as part of Hot Tuna, with Jefferson Airplane's Jorma Kaukonen & Jack Cassidy). When Barry realized that not everyone was classical-intensive, he added a bit of "bluegrass-by-ear" that generated interesting results. Funny how "the first shall be last", and vice versa.

[JeffD]

I have no comment about the teaching approach. There are lots of skills needed to be a complete musician, and the order in which they are taught and the emphasis given each one - I am not qualified to comment.

It is important to be able to chat up the jam leader and cop a set list and the location of other jams. This is not traditionally taught either. But it is an essential skill.

[yankees1]

I think it would be beneficial to be able to read music and play by ear but I also think that in playing Bluegrass it is more important to play by ear and improvise.

[Ky Slim]

I had an discussion this week that set me back on my heels a bit.
I met a gentleman who is a guitar, mandolin teacher that doesn't teach a student how to read music.

What style or genre of music does he primarily teach/play? What are his students interested in learning? Are his students mostly beginners?

[Bob A]

Notes on a page, or words in a script, for example, are a starting point. They enable you to get the idea of the composer or writer, but the final product is filtered through the experience and sensibilities of the artist.

An actor bringing Shakespeare to life doesn't have a copy of the play in front of him, nor does a classical soloist, who must memorise and interpret the music until it can be performed on stage, note-perfect (more or less) and given a life of its own through the hands, ear and insight of the artist.

Once you've achieved the ability to play a piece of written music, you then have the luxury of interpreting it to your satisfaction, without being bothered by the process of staring at a pageful of notes. This process is accessible to anyone willing to spend the time and effort. It is a worthwhile endeavor, I believe.

I have no problem with people learning to play by ear; it's how we learn to speak, after all. But most children learn to read, as well, and that opens the world to them.

[Jeff Mando]

True story, I started in the 1960's, 9 years old, taking guitar lessons and learning to read music. One of the first pieces of sheet music I got was Jimi Hendrix. I learned the notes, plink, plink, plink, but of course it sounded NOTHING like Jimi's version....and in my inexperience, felt quite ripped off....I didn't know at the time 99 percent of what Hendrix (or any artist) does is showmanship, which is a harder concept to grasp and comes over time with experience. I lost interest for a few years then bought a Doc Watson record and tried to imitate what he was doing (without sheet music), I just figured the notes had to be contained within the chords (or at least somewhere on the fingerboard....) And I got a lot closer that time around.

[bobby bill]

There are lots of classically-trained musicians who can read but can't improvise. I'd much rather be able to improvise.

I know lots of car mechanics who can't improvise. The inability does not arise out of what they know - classical music and cars. The common thread is what they do not know - neither were trained to improvise. This should not really be a surprise.

Whenever these discussions pop up, I'm reminded of the movie Fahrenheit 451 where everyone memorizes a book because all the books were burned. Sure, we don't need no stinkin' music. Let's just each memorize a piece of music and we can teach them to each other.

[farmerjones]

What I find difficult are instructors that only know one side of the coin, and try to convince the unknowing, their side of the coin is best. We're obviously discussing this objectively, and peacefully. Why can't some instructors simply admit, they don't know about the other side of the coin? Maybe offer the prospect another path? Sorry for the rant

[Timbofood]

I was once at a party with a bunch of the local mandolin orchestra and was introduced as "He can't read". I corrected him by saying I do not read, I have the ability but, not the training. I left feeling very sorry for the snobbish attitude displayed. Peeved in fact!
Lacking the knowledge of reading "the dots" has not impeded my learning or appreciation on the mandolin.

[DavidKOS]

I can read music perfectly, and have a good understanding of music theory.

For bluegrass/folk music, I play 100% by ear.
.......
Reading music is essential for some types of music, but not all. I can't imagine that it would ever be a hindrance, though!

It is not a trade off. There are no "rathers". Everything you don't know or can't do will limit you as a musician, and those limits can't be made up by working on something else. To be a complete musician one needs to be able to improvise, and one needs to be able to read, and learning one does not subtract from doing the other.

I'm with both of you guys.

Sure I can play by ear, but not enough to hurt my sight reading.

I was once at a party with a bunch of the local mandolin orchestra and was introduced as "He can't read". I corrected him by saying I do not read, I have the ability but, not the training.

Does that mean you sat down in the first mandolin chair and sight read a piece with them, even without training? Or can you hear a mandolin orchestra piece and play it back by ear first time?

I'm not picking on you nor other ear players - just using an example of where reading is useful.

However there is also no excuse for a snobbish attitude from readers. I would have said "hey, this guy's a mandolinist and maybe is interested in playing with us, but he hasn't been reading charts. How can we help?"

It would be interesting to see how those snobby guys would react at an all-ear Bluegrass session!

[Mandoplumb]

I agree with farmerjones, someone that says it's bad to read music is as much a snob ( a snob not a reverse snob) as someone who says you can't really play if you can't read music. My Dad was the best musician I have ever known and he couldn't read music and knew no theory, he played what he heard in his head just because that was what he thought it should sound like. I've often wondered what he would have accomplished if he could read and understand written music. I can't see how it could possibly have hurt him. If I was going to a teacher that told me reading music was detrimental I would find another teacher. There are some good teachers especially teaching bluegrass that don't read music but if they are snobbish about it I would not use them

[T.D.Nydn]

I can read music for guitar and mandolin,,but certainly not very good.im not illiterate, but far from a instant sight reader.id say at least 90 percent of my practicing is centered around learning to improvise,but eventually at one point or another,just about everybody wants to play something classical, and for that you have to figure out how to read music....

[foldedpath]

For my $.02, I think it's self-evident that reading vs. not reading is very genre dependent. Obviously you need it for Classical, and you'll get along much faster in Jazz if you can read. I don't think it's much help for Blues or Bluegrass, unless you want to get into the more academic studies of improv.

I learned to read piano music as a kid, but then spent 30-odd years playing guitar in genres like "American fingerstyle" and Blues, where I didn't read at all and just learned by ear off recordings.

There are genres where facility in both is helpful, like Irish/Scottish traditional music, and "fiddle tunes" in general. Mainly for access to a huge repertoire that goes beyond what's easily available in recordings or YouTube. That's why I've started reading again in the last year or two, although I'll never be a sight reader.

But in genres like these, I think the order in which one learns either method is important. The ear has to come first, in any of these "folk" music styles. If you start as a newcomer who reads reasonably well and focus on the sheet music, it's possible to get trapped in the paper. I've seen it happen with a local fiddle class. They've been together for years, and have never been able to get off the paper. They play Irish trad together using sheet music and music stands, and it sounds horrible. Deadly slow and mechanical, with no life or lift.

If I was teaching, that's one big reason I'd be careful about emphasizing reading in a genre like Irish/Scottish trad or OldTime. These are styles where many great players -- especially fiddlers -- do read music well. But the traditional form of transmission and learning is primarily by ear. If you can't hear it, you can't play it.

[Mandobart]

Lots of good points, and I appreciate the civil discussion on this sometimes touchy subject. I started out on violin in grade school and am classically trained including sight reading standard notation. Later in junior high I added bass guitar in jazz band, where the conductor had us read but also stressed improvisation. At the same time I took bluegrass fiddle lessons from a man who taught completely by the watch-listen-do method and I still know most of those tunes. Like many I also took up six string guitar and got into some garage bands where we learned aurally. One thing I never learned is tablature. I have nothing against it but I haven't learned it for any instrument out of my own choice.

I continue today to use both notation and ear to learn new songs. I believe the majority of the comments about classically trained music readers not having any soul or feeling, or not being able to improvise are simply sour grapes on the part of some who have chosen not to read music and feel that it somehow lessens their own musical ability. I know many musicians who do not know how to improvise and most of them can't read music. I know many who also play with no dynamic variation or emotion and again most of them cannot read music. Yet many continue to say it is the classical training that impedes improvisation and passion. It is simply a conscious decision on the part of many musicians not to learn these skills.

One of the best musicians I know in my area teaches guitar, mandolin and fiddle. He does not read music and has so far chosen not to learn. I don't know his students or what their expectations are. Learning to read music is not necessary to make music and most beginners want to start playing songs right away. Learning to read, learning theory, doing exercises, etc. is tedious. However, lacking any particular skill limits anyone's ability, and experience shows that most of those who reach a measure of competence without reading music are unlikely to "go back" and pick it up later. Beginning students should be aware of this and choose their teachers accordingly.