[Harp-L] How important is it to be able to read music?

[Barry Bean]

On 12/9/2016 8:05 AM, Richard Hunter wrote:
> Either way, make your choice and take your chances.  If you refuse to learn
> to read, I'm glad to take the gigs that you can't. That's why I up-skilled
> myself in the first place--so I could someday handle more gigs better than
> anyone else.  I'm still working on it.

This. It is entirely possible to be an outstanding player and never read 
a note of music. That said, if you want to survive in a professional 
environment, you'll find the ability to read somewhere between helpful 
and essential.
In my limited experience, if you want to be respected as a peer in the 
studio, being able to read is a bare minimum requirement. You can still 
get gigs as a "talented amateur," but you'd be far better off to simply 
learn to learn to read.
A million years ago when I was one of a handful of "serious" harp 
players in Memphis, I lost a studio gig to Pete Pedersen because he 
could sight read on harp and I couldn't. The producers were looking for 
a bluesier sound than Pete played, but they didn't want to take the time 
to walk me through learning my part by ear. I went back to the woodshed, 
spent a few months reading charts on harp (I took piano as a kid, and 
had played sax on and off up to that point, so I was a decent reader on 
those instruments), and started picking up better gigs, including at 
least one gig where I replaced a player who couldn't read.
I haven't done any serious work for several years, so it's entirely 
possible no one should consider me a credible source for professional 
advice. But if I had any interest at all in playing harmonica 
professionally, I'd take the time to learn to read music. As noted 
elsewhere, I'd spend a little time with scales and theory, as well.
But that's just me. C'est la harp.