Re: [Harp-L] Subject: diatonic vs. chromatic

[Richard Hunter <turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

NOTE: What follows is no way intended as a personal attack, however
strongly I disagree with the opinions expressed.

"Smith, Richard" wrote:
<I object to the implication that one must be able to "read"
<music, in order to be a "serious" musician.  Who really 
<cares what "other people" think?  If you can make them 
<feel and smile when you play, do you think they are sitting
<there wondering whether or not you can read music?  

Agreed that plenty of real musicians don't read.

<Is someone who does "paint-by-numbers" really an artist?
<They are only putting the specified colors in the specified
<locations, made up by someone else.  The art comes when 
<YOU decide where to put the colors, when there ARE no numbers.

This argument can't be taken seriously. In effect, you're arguing that a
concert pianist who plays Beethoven is not a real artist. Playing
composed music is very artistically demanding, it's expressive of the
player as well as the composer, and when it's done well the results are
real art, beyond question.  If playing Beethoven was like
"paint-by-numbers", everyone who played Beethoven would sound exactly
the same. Believe me, they don't.  Maybe you've just never heard anybody
play that stuff well. When it's played well, it blows your mind.

<Likewise, I think that "musicianship", or lack thereof, is 
<determined by what you play when nothing is written - - when
<it comes from your own head, from your own heart, when you
<are in the moment.

So only improvised music is real music?  I don't buy that for a second.
And what happens if you play something great, and then decide to write
it down so you can play it again sometime?  Does it stop being real
music when you do that?  

<If you are a "classical" musician, then of course reading is
<pretty much required, but I don't think that applies to the vast 
<majority of harp players.  You guys out there who play in blues 
<bands, or rock bands, or bluegrass bands,how often have you been 
<in a situation that required you to read music?  

Lots of rockers read music, e.g. Sting and Carlos Santana, and all of
the guys in Paul Schaeffer's band on the Dave Letterman show, but
whatever.  You didn't mention country bands, but the fact is that the
pros in Nashville have a very useful system for notating music that they
all know and use, which is built on top of standard notation.  But those
are the pros.  What you're really arguing is that people playing at the
lowest level of the profession -- like rock bands working clubs for very
little money -- don't need to know how to read.  Well, sure, but those
are not the best gigs in the world, are they?  As a rule, the pros
working the best-paid gigs know how to read.
  
<I certainly have nothing *against* reading music, but I don't think
<that it is the demising line determining who is a real musician.

Correct.  It's the dividing line between the people who get offered all 
the gigs, including the best-paying gigs, and the people who get less
than half the gigs, and almost never the best-paying gigs.  

Bottom line: learning to read doesn't make you a real musician, and not
knowing how to read doesn't mean you're not a musician.  But if you want
to get the best work, you're a lot better off learning to read, and
learning theory, and learning all the other stuff that pro musicians
learn. 

If you don't want or need the best work, then just have fun.  Nothing
wrong with having fun.

Regards, Richard Hunter
hunterharp.com