Re: [Harp-L] Reading Music

[michael rubin <michaelrubinharmonica@xxxxxxxxx>]

I also do not think you need to read to understand and use theory.
Reading is just an advanced form of tablature.  Theory teaches you how
to choose good sounding notes when playing music.
Michael Rubin
Michaelrubinharmonica.com

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:53 AM, The Iceman <icemanle@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> clarification
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Iceman <icemanle@xxxxxxx>
> To: sheltraw <sheltraw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; harp-l <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 2:28 am
> Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Reading Music
>
>
> am curious. how may this be accomplished?
>
>
> <<One need not read music to understand music theory.>> sayeth Bob Cohen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sheltraw <sheltraw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Bob Cohen <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: List Harp <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thu, Feb 3, 2011 8:34 pm
> Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Reading Music
>
>
> Hi Bob
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong but it appears to me that you are
> conflating reading music notation and music theory. They are two
> different things. One need not read music to understand music theory.
>
> I am not asserting that the ability to read music isn't useful. It is.
> I am asserting that it is often emphasized to an extent which is
> disproportionate to its usefulness.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:49 PM, sheltraw@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>> not available. In the future (due to better data storage and portability
>>> of communication devices) textual communication may wane in favor of
>>> audio and visual communication.
>>
>> Maybe, I guess.  The thing is reading words is an entirely different
>> experience from hearing.  Indeed, I've read that the human brain has
>> changed significantly with the advent of the written word. I'm not sure of
>> the implications of swinging the pendulum back to a strictly oral
>> tradition.  Experience has taught me that something in the middle is
>> usually the best.  --Shrug.
>>
>>> One who places priority upon training his ear and ear-to-instrument
>>> connection does not "celebrate ignorance". IMO he has recognized the
>>> essential nature of music and is using and developing his best tool
>>> (the ear) for the analysis and synthesis of music.
>>
>> This is probably a religious issue for you so perhaps, we'll agree to
>> disagree.  But as I see it, the cat's already out of the bag. Reading
>> exists.  It's a very useful tool for understanding and contemplating the
>> music and even more useful when playing with others.
>>
>>> Listen to a piece of music and try to scat sing over it. If you can do
>>> that then you have all the ears you need. In my experience most of us
>>> can scat without knowing the harmonic structure of the tune and without
>>> knowing the notes or intervals that we are using in our scat. The ear
>>> and ear-to-vocalization connection is just that good and by the time we
>>> are 10 years old we have recorded in our musical brains lots of musical
>>> ideas to draw upon.
>>
>> To a point that's true.  But understanding the theory opens up
>> possibilities that don't naturally occur to most of us--at least to me. I
>> can scat changes with the best of them but my ear will never be good
>> enough for the subtleties without the intellectual bulwark of formal music
>> training.  But, of course, that's my shortcoming, and perhaps not others.
>> I will say that my ears have gotten better since undertaking the
>> discipline of learning to read and of studying harmony.  My playing is
>> starting to change as well.
>>
>> I think I misspoke when I said, celebrate ignorance. Rather I meant
>> illiteracy.  Music isn't a magical mystical form of expression. It's a
>> language. And while there is certainly an absolute necessity to get to the
>> point where we are no longer conscious of the scaffolding, the grammar and
>> syntax as it were, to convey meaning, literacy is assumed as part of the
>> conversation between creator and recipient.
>>
>> It's not my intention to convince you or anyone else of my opinion but
>> that's my two cents for what it's worth.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>