RE: Reading music

[Richard Hunter <turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The reading debate has degenerated to the point where people are being
told that non-readers are kiddie punks.  This is untrue.  Non-readers
are musicians -- sometimes very talented -- who lack a certain skill. 
That's all.  The issue isn't about who can play and who can't.  The
issue is that the lack of this skill in particular can have big
professional consequences.

If you want to get as much work playing your instrument as you can, in
as many different styles of music as possible, learn to read.  You're
not going to get called as frequently for studio gigs in particular if
you can't read.  Rob Papparozzi says that 30% of his studio work
involves reading.  Do you want to give up 30% of your gigs?

If you only want to play one style, and all the people you're ever going
to work with in that style don't care if you can read or not, then maybe
you don't need to read.  But be careful; you never know when the big gig
with the big player is only available to someone who can read.  Big
players don't like to waste time in rehearsals, and it's a waste of time
and money to teach the harp player all the parts, note by note, while
everybody else stands around collecting their salaries.

I prefer to get as much work as I can, to do the job quickly and well,
whatever it is (so I get called back for the next job), and to play as
many different kinds of music in my lifetime as I can.  That's why I
read.  
Ask yourself what your goals are, and act accordingly.

Thanks, Richard Hunter
http://www.hunterharp.com
Turtle Hill Productions
turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx