Big River and Reading Music

[Winslow Yerxa <76450.3230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

TO: internet:harp-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To reply to George Miklas -

Yes, I have played the harmonica part to Big River, and I
couldn't have done it without reading (and knowing how to follow
a baton, and avoid flying bits of chewed fried chicken, but
that's another story). It was two dress rehearsals followed by a
week's engagement, and NO free time to woodshed with the part.
Some other parts were also transcribed for me to take over, in
the orchestra pit - not because anything was missing, but because
they liked my playing.

One interesting thing is that the part throughout (except for
some bass harmonica parts and a bit of jaw harp) is clearly meant
for diatonic, played crossharp in various keys, with chords and
bends that only work on that particular key of harp. In fact, it
is extremely well written for the idiosyncracies of the
instrument (nonetheless, I chose to play some non-idiomatic bits
on chromatic because I liked them better that way). Some of it
even sounds like it was transcribed from a player's
improvisations - probably Don Brooks, who originated the part on
Broadway.

Yet there is never any indication of what harp to use (except the
bass and jaw harp), and all the parts are written at actual pitch
(i.e. Hole 1 on a D harp is written as middle D), instead of
being written in transposed key (i.e. Hole 1 blow always being
written as middle C, no matter what key the harp is in). So,
essentially, the player has to first figure out which harp is
right for the part (easy, subtract a sharp from the key
signature) then either mentally transpose his part, or just think
in actual pitch on the instrument.

That being said, I do know players who have toured with the show
without reading, and managed to improvise quite well along the
main lines (I heard recordings that one guy sent me), and to
overcome what they characterized as the conductor's prejudice
against non-readers. ("All right, let's take it from Letter D,
but vamp on the last four bars to my cue, and cross out the first
eight bars of Letter E. Cut Numbers 34 and 36 and go straight
into 36." "Huh?") Mind you, they had plenty of time on the bus
and in podunk towns to work everything out. If you have to come
up with the goods RIGHT NOW from a cold start, reading is the
only way to go - there's no time to listen and memorize. And, as
George points out, this kind of skill commands a $$$$ premium.

The whole debate over reading - not just here but ongoing in the
world at large - often takes on silly overtones.

Reading is a useful skill, plain and simple, yet both its
advocates and its detractors bring all kinds of foolishness to
the debate.

On the one hand there is a group who seems resistant to learning
to read - as if their ignorance were their strength and the
pro-reading forces were some kind of Delilah trying to cut off
the hair in front of their eyes. Their defensiveness sometimes
smacks of a cover for a feeling of inferiority.

On the other hand, the pro-reading guys sometimes come off like
"How dare you pretend you even know what music *is* if you can't
read it? Anyone who can't read might as well be retarded."

The simple truth is that some musical activities require reading,
and others don't. The person who can read has access to *all* of
them. The person who doesn't is more limited - fewer avenues of
expressions, and fewer employment opportunitites. If he or she is
willing to accept that limitation, so be it - many great (and
not-so-great) musicians have. And the ability to read does not
stifle creativity or spontaneity. Only a bad attitude can do
that.

My position is to be open to possibilities. Reading is an avenue
to some of those possibilities, while learning orally or
improvising in a known framework offer other possibilities.

Winslow