# Do Most Of You Read Music?



## artomatic (Apr 10, 2017)

I know it's essential to know music theory to be a successful composer. I'm wondering how many of you here do not read music?
Count me in as one who play by ear. 
(I have produced radio ID jingles and other music production using VIs).


----------



## ghostnote (Apr 10, 2017)




----------



## artomatic (Apr 10, 2017)

Yes and I know Santana doesn't as well.


----------



## ghostnote (Apr 10, 2017)

It's just like in math. Why the F#@*K*! do I have to write down the process of calculation when I can come up with the answer straight away?


----------



## Iskra (Apr 10, 2017)

Honestly, quoting the successful examples of people that made a living as musicians without reading music it's not the point, imho. For every case like that, thwre are thousand of cases otherwise. 
Knowing music theory and reading music is knowing the basics of a language, everyone wanting to do good music should make the small effort of learning these things. Probably you can improvise a good poem without knowing anything about poetry metrics or without knowing how to read words, but I doubt the best writers cannot read. Learning how to read music, at a basic level, can be done in a month. It is not that hard, is it? No need to read first sight a complex orchestral score, just the basics will help anyone wanting to make music.
Sorry if this come harsh in tone, it is not meant like that.


----------



## Dear Villain (Apr 10, 2017)

I do read music and also can "play by ear". While not reading music doesn't mean you can't create a song, my arguments for reading are:
-you can do everything yourself...notate the tune/chart, orchestrate, etc.
-be a little more adventurous with your writing: I notate pieces for chamber/orchestral performance and also do straight in to Cubase "at the keyboard" sequences...you simply can't write music that's as well-structured, planned, and "sophisticated" (for lack of a better term) by just playing in, as you can by notating...at least in my experience.
-a combination of "seeing notes/chords" and using your ears leads to quicker problem solving and/or a greater variety of choices as you continue writing your music...of course, simply reading notes isn't enough: sound understanding of theoretical principles, such as chord functions, voice leading, counterpoint, etc. are all equally important.

Just my two cents,
Dave


----------



## d.healey (Apr 10, 2017)

Written music isn't necessary to create music, but it helps communicate it to others. I read it at about the same speed I can write it.


----------



## prodigalson (Apr 10, 2017)

ghostnote said:


> It's just like in math. Why the F#@*K*! do I have to write down the process of calculation when I can come up with the answer straight away?



you don't HAVE to do anything. but some people prefer to be ABLE to do something over NOT being able to do something.


----------



## ghostnote (Apr 10, 2017)

Iskra said:


> Sorry if this come harsh in tone, it is not meant like that.


Absolutely not. I think in times where samples are used 90+% of the time on TV/Radio it's a topic that sooner or later had to pop up.

Don't get me wrong: I actually could read notes when I was in high school, but I forgot everything after I didn't need it - just like the drivers test...


----------



## JJP (Apr 10, 2017)

I must read music for the orchestrating, arranging, transcribing, copying, and other music prep work I do. In my work it is an essential professional skill, and I can often recognize people who don't read music from listening to their compositions. All of the truly successful people with whom I work can read music.

Music notation is the way we communicate and collaborate with other musicians. It's also a very efficient way to codify and organize our musical thoughts. Reading music also enables you to understand how music works and deepens your overall knowledge. Without this skill, you are closing yourself of to a huge part of the experience of music in the Western world.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Apr 10, 2017)

I know music theory. But I avoid "reading music", or notating it, wherever I can, if I can. It's the most boring, soulless thing ever.


----------



## ghostnote (Apr 10, 2017)

Iskra said:


> Probably you can improvise a good poem without knowing anything about poetry metrics or without knowing how to read words, but I doubt the best writers cannot read.


Wrong. Knowing words is essential for writing peoms, more than knowing peom structures, which makes a better analogy IMO. Notation is just a way to communicate between musicians and a wacky way to write down your stuff.

For me a compromise. I prefer dealing with people who can follow me musically, but I can understand that it makes sense in a context like a real orchestra and complex/long pieces.


----------



## Iskra (Apr 10, 2017)

ghostnote said:


> It's just like in math. Why the F#@*K*! do I have to write down the process of calculation when I can come up with the answer straight away?


Because by writing down the calculation you understand the process and the reasoning behind it. It grows the neuronal connections.


----------



## ghostnote (Apr 10, 2017)

Iskra said:


> Because by writing down the calculation you understand the process and the reasoning behind it. It grows the neuronal connections.


Nope. It's just a process to verify that you are not cheating, something ridiculous to say about music.


----------



## toddkedwards (Apr 10, 2017)

I do not read music, but I'm currently trying to learn how. I've been playing/writing music by ear.


----------



## Iskra (Apr 10, 2017)

It's to verify you're not cheating the 100th you do it, in an exam. But not the first 20 times you do it. By doing the process you learn. That's why they taught us all basic math at school, they teach us the process of making an addition, or a multiplication for us to learn. Later you can just do it in your brain, because you learned the process.
Same goes for everything, not only music. I don't need to count the lines on a pentagram, but oh yes, I did it when I started learning how to read music.


----------



## Michael Antrum (Apr 10, 2017)

Was't it the case that Lionel Bart couldn't read music ? I understood that's why John Barry was asked to take over the music for 'From Russia With Love' when this was discovered. He didn't do too badly though...

If you are playing/composing for your own pleasure then who cares ? If you are looking for a musical career then you are really limiting your opporutinites, and they don't come round that often. 

And you know what, it's not even that hard. The difficult bit is the inspiration, not the mechanics of notation.


----------



## Vik (Apr 10, 2017)

Many pop (etc) artist don't write or read notation, but since you mention Beatles, Ghostnote: songs like Eleanor Rigby and Yesterday - and many others - wouldn't have had that Beatles sound without someone who did read and write music.


----------



## muk (Apr 10, 2017)

Would be interesting to know how many of the members here do not read music. Maybe we should make a poll to see a rough trend. With a DAW and sample libraries you can get by without. The question is, why would you want to? It's not terribly hard to learn, and it opens up a whole world of possibilities and knowledge.


----------



## Iskra (Apr 10, 2017)

Exactly.
I love music and been doing it for almost 25 years now. Everyday I learn new things and I find pleasure onot shrinking the 'don't know' part of music (it is always huge, the more you know, the more you discover you don't know). How not knowing can be better than knowing? Specially related with something you love.


----------



## ghostnote (Apr 10, 2017)

Iskra said:


> Same goes for everything, not only music. I don't need to count the lines on a pentagram, but oh yes, I did it when I started learning how to read music.


Yes, we all did... to a certain point in life. You're thinking very redundant here. No need to cover the basics. Starting from 0 everytime is stagnation if the process is always the same. That's not the case in music, but the case with notation.

Providing the process of calculation is a form of authority: Checking if you understood the topic. Studing and then perfoming stuff you have not written is not composing and always provides room for influence. Another step into the possibility of sounding derivative. Something that is contrary to the clash of generations, the reinvention by ignoring the rules.



Vik said:


> Ghostnote: songs like Eleanor Rigby and Yesterday - and many others - wouldn't have had that Beatles sound without someone who did read and write music.


Please explain.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 10, 2017)

Sure! I actually went backwards, listening to Wagner and Mahler had me interested in reading orchestral scores, so I actually started there lol! It wasn't exactly a great idea, and it took me longer via biting off more than I could chew. But once it clicked I felt so relieved; now I could relate my vision to so many more people.


----------



## Iskra (Apr 10, 2017)

ghostnote said:


> Please explain.


In two words?: George Martin


----------



## Iskra (Apr 10, 2017)

ghostnote said:


> Studing and then perfoming stuff you have not written is not composing and always provides room for influence. Another step into the possibility of sounding derivative. Something that is contrary to the clash of generations, the reinvention by ignoring the rules.


If you really think that learning how to read music is against originality, I can only say your post is intellectual masturbation. Same as learning the language of math was not against the originality of Einstein, so to speak. You are mixing many different things up, but if you are fine not reading music, good for you. 
Theory and learning how to read music is part of the fabric of music. All the greats of the past learned it, and it obviously didn't interfered with their originality. 
But as I said, if it works for you, then it works for you. It is fine.


----------



## mverta (Apr 10, 2017)

It takes less time to learn to read music than it takes to write these posts, and is infinitely more useful. We're all friends here; we're also competitors to one degree or another. So on that front let me please just ask you to not learn to read music, study theory, or do daily transcription exercises. Thank you!


----------



## Michael Antrum (Apr 10, 2017)

Hey, I'm not a competitor, in fact I'm sometimes a customer.

I write music for two reasons:

1). It really annoys the neighbours.

2). The noise downs out the voices in my head telling me to .......


----------



## tack (Apr 10, 2017)

mverta said:


> It takes less time to learn to read music than it takes to write these posts


While we can all learn "every good boy deserves fudge" in that amount of time, to actually _read_ music, to play something in front of you (even at a slow tempo), recognizing the patterns and shapes (chords and common phrases) to the point that you have internalized them, that's a different thing.

It's the difference between being able to recognize the shape of individual _letters_ and being able to see _words_.

I think the musicians who say they can't read music aren't saying that can't figure out the individual notes with mnemonics they learned in grade school, but rather I think they're saying they haven't quite learned to read music enough to "see words."


----------



## Vik (Apr 10, 2017)

tack said:


> I think the musicians who say they can't read music aren't saying that can't figure out the individual notes with mnemonics they learned in grade school, but rather I think they're saying they haven't quite learned to read music enough to "see words."


Which has to do with how much time they have spent with notation. Refusing to learn to read notation is IMO a little bit like refusing to learn the alphabet. There's so much to discover by playing through favourite compositions by others. And we are influenced anyway, but reading notation gives us more control of what/who we eant to be influenced by.


----------



## stigc56 (Apr 10, 2017)

I do read and write music. To me it's a language. I do play by the ear, I'm fluent in transposing by the ear an originally I learned to play by ear. I'm very in to math and I think there could be a connection between the "math part" of my brain and my ability to analyse music. So to me it's all very basic. I have heard composers "bragging" about their lacking knowledge of music theory, mention Paul McCartney in the same sentence. I love The Beatles but I'm also very enthusiastic about Fauré, Chopin and Brahms and then it's mandatory to be able to read music.


----------



## Allegro (Apr 10, 2017)

Yes and no! 4 NPM (notes per min) on avg. It has to be in 4/4 in the key of C. Also, don't use accidentals please!
PS. No one tells me when to slur and when not to slur!


----------



## NoamL (Apr 10, 2017)

"I don't NEED to learn mixing."

"I don't NEED to be a good keyboardist."

"I don't NEED to understand orchestration."

"I don't NEED to learn signal routing."

"I don't NEED to learn other DAWs."

"I don't NEED to read music."

"I don't NEED to be good at conducting."

"I don't NEED to be a good copyist."

"I don't NEED to understand synthesis."


Ideally, you NEED to learn everything.  Are there enough hours in a day? Nope! But a day where you don't learn something new is a day wasted... and every gig you have to turn down because you DIDN'T attain a skill is an opportunity wasted.

You'll never be as good at every little thing as any one expert in that subject domain, but that's a poor excuse for not learning.

I come from a classical background, always wrote my music until I discovered that wasn't how the music industry worked anymore, so I taught myself Logic (with a lot of help from mentors and Youtube of course!). If I can learn Logic, you can teach yourself music notation.

Music is a team effort and all the tasks need to get done, that means if you can't do it, you end up paying people to do it for you. Every time people bring up the "Paul couldn't read music" fable, they don't mention the ending: "And that's why George Martin had a comfortable retirement!"


----------



## karelpsota (Apr 10, 2017)

I can read MIDI.

I think it makes more sense, since its what's in front of our eyes 90% of the time.

I study midi scores too. I mentally transpose what I see to Aminor/Cmajor. It helps visualize the common theory between different pieces.


----------



## Karsten Vogt (Apr 10, 2017)

Allegro said:


> Yes and no! 4 NPM (notes per min) on avg. It has to be in 4/4 in the key of C. Also, don't use accidentals please!
> PS. No one tells me when to slur and when not to slur!


I think I can do 5 NPM. But seriously, I have a tough time relearning to read music after 30 years of not reading it. I currently learn it by reading a book from my piano lessons during coding breaks at work to get my mind somewhere else.


----------



## NoamL (Apr 10, 2017)

BTW Mike made a great point just now. Writing music is just an intermediary step between _hearing_ and _understanding_. Someone said earlier that if you transcribe other people's music then you will be influenced and not original, but it's actually the opposite, you are undoubtedly and unavoidably influenced by what you hear and if you just imbibe it without actually understanding the structures and gimmicks and tools that other composers use, then you will never know when you are regurgitating their work unconsciously. By contrast if you learn music, learn piano skills, and do a lot of transcription over several years, then you will develop the skill to be able to hear someone else's music and immediately leap to understanding "what they're doing." At that point you don't really need to write it down. If you've seen any of Mike's classes then you've seen how he can hear a piece once and leap immediately to replaying it on the piano.

Whatever skill you end up thinking of as your main musical language, whether it's notation, or piano roll, or harmony / Roman numeral analysis, or having a kind of piano sense / musical proprioception, you need to have that comprehension of music in real time as you listen to it. Because if you're just sitting back and thinking "Hey that's a cool track," and you can't recognize (for instance) a I-bVI when you hear it, that puts you no further ahead in the game than any layperson.


----------



## ghostnote (Apr 10, 2017)

Iskra said:


> good for you.
> Theory and learning how to read music is part of the fabric of music.


We're talking about notation here, not music theory. Two different things.

I drive a car almost everyday. Would I pass a another drivers license test? Probably not, because there are situations in it which are rare and tricky but on the other hand can be figured out in real life by context.

I'm not saying "don't learn it", but it's also not mandatory. McCartney didn't learn it, instead he had someone else who did it for him. I don't know what you guys are raving about. He didn't need to use notation and that's the point. In the end you decide wheter you'll need it or not. Personally (and again, I once used to read and write notes) find it annoying and redundant.


----------



## SchnookyPants (Apr 10, 2017)

*Do Most Of You Read Music?*

I would have to say, most of me doesn't.


----------



## Norbz (Apr 10, 2017)

When I was young I took piano up to grade 3 or so, then got out of music for a long time then came back as a teen hammering at it - and couldn't read a lick by then, and haven't since. I have tried a few times but it just slows me down. Having an ear for it, knowing what you want to hear, and actually executing it on the spot and scaling/expanding on it by ear is a special thing imo.

While I do think parts of music are like riding a bike, there are other elements that you're either born with (natural raw talent and a tuned ear..), or you master over time. 20 years in and I still learn new stuff that perhaps I should have learned years ago or learned a more efficient way of doing things . Also tech changes so fast, I still remember knocking on my DR-550 drum machine or Roland 307 hardware like it was yesterday.


----------



## JJP (Apr 10, 2017)

ghostnote said:


> We're talking about notation here, not music theory. Two different things.



Those two things are quite tangled together. You can only learn a limited amount of music theory without understanding notation. Part of learning theory in Western music has always been learning the basics of notation and how to read music.

You can make music without knowing how to read or write it. However unless you are a rare prodigy, your progress as a composer will most likely plateau without that knowledge. As I said before, keen ears can often tell which people are unable to read music simply by listening to their compositions. It does affect the depth of your writing.

Not knowing how to read music puts a ceiling over most people's development.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 10, 2017)

Is there anyone here who regrets being able to read and write notation?


----------



## jonathanprice (Apr 10, 2017)

I read/write music. As an organizational tool, I can use a DAW (and do, when under a harsh deadline), but I prefer pencil-to-paper, especially with orchestral music. It forces me to compose in my head before I commit to paper. If I'm composing at a DAW, I find my hands sometimes get ahead of my ear. As a learning tool, I found reading music invaluable when it came to studying dense textural orchestrations. I'm an advocate of listening and transcribing as a way of learning, but there are some techniques (Respighi comes to mind) that are true alchemy and the techniques are not immediately accessible to even a trained ear.


----------



## galactic orange (Apr 10, 2017)

When I read about the backgrounds of successful composers, including pop song writers, the common trend (75% of the time? just a guess) that I find is something along the lines of "Leopold began learning classical piano at age 5" and I think that fluency in reading notation is a huge advantage in the future for those people. 

I didn't learn to play piano at that age or read a piano piece, but I can read "monophonic" (Is that the right word?) instrument writing from playing horn in my school brass band days. For anyone who doesn't read music I think learning an instrument like horn, sax, flute, or even recorder would be a good step before getting into scores and piano pieces so you'll have something to build on.

Reading a multi-part piano piece is very slow going for me, but I'm learning how to do it, along with theory, in order to have that real-time comprehension ability that @NoamL mentioned. The goal is to be able to reverse the process into hearing and transcribing a piece so that I can either (1) play or (2) write the part I want to compose. In my view, being able to do one can only strengthen the other and the benefits of being able to do both are exponentially worth the relatively small effort.


----------



## thesteelydane (Apr 11, 2017)

ghostnote said:


> McCartney didn't learn it, instead he had someone else who did it for him. I don't know what you guys are raving about. He didn't need to use notation and that's the point. In the end you decide wheter you'll need it or not. Personally (and again, I once used to read and write notes) find it annoying and redundant.



In just the same way you can hire me to record your midi string parts for real, but if you if you don't supply me with a written part, I charge by the hour to turn your midi into notation that makes sense to a musician. So if you're fine with paying extra, then no, you don't need to learn to read music. Apart from the world of knowledge and inspiration being able to read scores opens up to you, it also boils boils down to whether you want to collaborate with professional musicians efficiently. And that extends to learning to write idiomatically for other instruments. I know from experience that people who work only in midi within the limitations of virtual instruments often write either unplayable or unimaginative parts - with exceptions of course. Understanding and working in notation is in a way the ultimate creative freedom, because you're not limited to writing only what you can hear your computer spit back out at you, you are only limited by what you can hear in your mind.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 11, 2017)

thesteelydane said:


> I know from experience that people who work only in midi within the limitations of virtual instruments often write either unplayable or unimaginative parts



so true 



thesteelydane said:


> Apart from the world of knowledge and inspiration being able to read scores opens up to you, it also boils boils down to whether you want to collaborate with professional musicians efficiently.



also -- very true

Good post @thesteelydane


----------



## Flaneurette (Apr 11, 2017)

Reading music is pretty easy, but many teachers make it much too complicated. I read music, but I don't sight-read because I don't need to play anything on demand/command. I have to prepare and study it first. Notating music is useful, but not necessary. Especially these days. I keep doing it because midi isn't the best way in writing something down. It also has a bit of nostalgia to it.

As far as theory goes, knowing chords and progressions and scales are useful for improvisation. With film, you hardly get a chance of writing something cohesive, structured and well thought-out. Scenes change too quickly for that. So you can get away with fooling around with a couple of chords and not know any music theory. A feeling for harmony is probably most essential. We're not writing a symphony, but music that supports film. So there is a lot of wiggle room. Almost impressionistic, in a way.


----------



## Jacob Cadmus (Apr 11, 2017)

I used to read music in high school, though I was better at reading rhythms than actual notes (drummer problems, heh). Nowadays I don't deal with notation unless I'm writing for other performers.


----------



## Chandler (Apr 11, 2017)

Of course you can do whatever you want, but reading music can save time and energy. If you are writing music by yourself and nobody else is involved of course it's fine, but when other musicians are involved it causes problems. If you've ever played with guitarists or singers, you know how much time is wasted trying to get stuff right. I say this as a guitarist and a singer. It's much quicker to read music than listen to it and figure it out. I can't tell you the number of times I've asked a guitarist/bassist what note or chord they want play and they show me their fingers.


----------



## jononotbono (Apr 11, 2017)

I've spent most of my life playing by ear but now I'm learning how to read. I recently just recorded my first piece with a live String Player (I know - Baby steps) on a piece I am writing for my Sister's wedding (because Samples are just not going to cut it for this kind of thing). He asked if I had the score. I said "No. I'm a musical toddler I'm afraid but I am learning so hopefully soon this can change if we collaborate in the future". Luckily he said he could help and took the Midi files and bounces. How on Earth is anyone supposed to write Orchestral music without knowing this stuff? Not being able to communicate with the players and such? Also, I can always tell when someone hasn't learn't Harmony and Counterpoint by listening to their Music. So I'm learning that now too (from someone I have met on my MA studies). Try and learn Everything you can. It feels so disabling not too. That's what I think.


----------



## alexballmusic (Apr 12, 2017)

I did a composition degree. You will never regret learning theory. It won't compose music for you, but it certainly helps understand the bigger picture of what you're doing. It just opens up things you wouldn't have thought of or known about.

I like learning new things all the time and I'll still barely scratch the surface in my lifetime. And that's the joy of it!


----------



## Joram (Apr 13, 2017)

Yes. I think as a recording and mix engineer is very very useful to be able to read scores. Not for every genre, but when mixing orchestral scores it is great help (and it saves valuable time). Conducting and arranging classes have been helpful too.


----------



## Babe (Apr 15, 2017)

Joaquin Rodrigo couldn't read music.


----------



## Joram (Apr 15, 2017)

Babe said:


> Joaquin Rodrigo couldn't read music.


Yes he could. He both wrote and read music in braille.


----------



## Rowy (Apr 25, 2017)

Musicians that did not study music theory usually like to hear that it's okay to stay in the dark. And they tend to search for examples of famous musicians who did quite well without being able to read and write music. Like Paul McCartney, who even wrote a Requiem, with a little help from Carl Davis, a trained composer 

If you want to write songs and accompany yourself on a guitar, then you can get away with hardly any knowledge at all. Are you going to write more 'serious' music for an orchestra, like film music, then you really should study harmony, at the least.

It's a funny thing with music theory. The classical masters, the best of the film composers, they all had to study music theory and they did, because being born a genius is just a start, nothing more. But I guess nowadays composers are so smart and they can use wonderful software, and fast computers, and they have the money to buy electronic stuff, perhaps music theory isn't that important anymore.

It is cruel to tell a talented composer that he doesn't need to study music. You might just as well hit him over the head with a herring.

...I'm going to find a way to use a spelling checker in my browser. I must have sad... said a lot of silly things by now. Maar waar godv... zit dat in Chrome?


----------



## Vik (Apr 25, 2017)

Rowy said:


> If you want to write songs and accompany yourself on a guitar, then you can get away with hardly any knowledge at all.


True, but you'll most likely have a limited repertoire of harmonies/voicings/inversions etc unless you spend a lot of time using your ears to find out things about how interesting harmonic solutions are done in songs you hear. It's so much easier to increase that repertoire if one spends time playing through others' compositions by sight reading them in any tempo. And even for the most stubborn ones out there, who refuse to copy anything anyone lese has done, knowing notation makes it easier to write down your ideas in a way that's easy to read back: easier than recording them as an audio file or to a phone.


----------



## Rowy (Apr 25, 2017)

I second that.


----------



## A3D2 (Apr 25, 2017)

I believe (note: this is highly subjective of course) that it all depends on how you create music: I tend to compose intuitively, and to me "writing it down in notes" just gets in the way of me 'feeling' the piece I am composing. So I tend not to use or think about any theory or about writing it down properly, but just record it while I 'feel' it in MIDI. It's all in the emotion/performance for me. Of course, if you do big budget movies and you get the chance to record with an orchestra you need notation: but at the same time, if you have that kind of budget, why not pay someone to translate your pieces from MIDI to notation... I don't know . For me personally, working out the correct notation has never been as interesting as coming up with the musical idea itself. And if you have a good ear, you can learn from just listening to great pieces of music.


----------



## sherief83 (Apr 25, 2017)

thesteelydane said:


> I know from experience that people who work only in midi within the limitations of virtual instruments often write either unplayable or unimaginative parts - with exceptions of course.



Part of me fully agrees with you, especially when the player of your music is suffering their way through music that isn't good for their instrument. The other Part of me feels though that I shouldn't always dismiss the unplayable/unimaginative music that is written by an outside perspective that does not understand the established rules. 

I started in midi but later got my theory/harmony composition school done. I sometimes Like to write within the rules, but also sometimes, I just want to accomplish a sound that you can't with a player. I don't want theory and harmony rules to get in the way of just trying something new (good or bad). But I agree with you over all, Just that part of me, always puts a Flag when I hear something like that.


----------



## Rowy (Apr 25, 2017)

If you compose music, you do not have to write every measure down at once. I usually start a composition by improvising a bit at the piano. If it's something I like, I write down the beginning, but I'm certainly not going to notate each tone right away.


----------



## Vik (Apr 25, 2017)

A3D2 said:


> I believe (note: this is highly subjective of course) that it all depends on how you create music: I tend to compose intuitively, and to me "writing it down in notes" just gets in the way of me 'feeling' the piece I am composing.


I completely respect and understand that. It's always good to just record things in real time, when that method is suitable for the kind of music you want to make. But even then I think it's useful to read others' music, and to look back at it two years later as notation and see what you actually did. Not only that, but unless you dislike all orchestral music etc, there's another aspect of this: if you record an idea as audio or MIDI; and then work on it in a DAW or notation program, it will in some cases become even better than the original idea you had.

If you translate what you write to something which is relevant for lyrics, it would be "I believe that it all depends on how you create lyrics: I tend to just record ideas to my tape/phone/disc, and to me "writing it down in with letters from the alphabet" just gets in the way of me 'feeling' the lyrics I am composing." 

It's just an alphabet, mate, with only 7 characters plus flats and sharps - so it takes a bit longer to learn. And it'1s more advances, since the musical alphabet allows for several characters simultaneous (harmonies/intervals). Learning it is a lot more rewarding than learning the the traditional alphabet. 


So I tend not to use or think about any theory or about writing it down properly, but just record it while I 'feel' it in MIDI. It's all in the emotion/performance for me.



> For me personally, working out the correct notation has never been as interesting as coming up with the musical idea itself.


Totall agree, so DAWs and notation programs should be better at getting things right automatically. But my main concern is that those who read/write music almost without exception has a much bigger repertoire of ideas/chords and so on. A *lot* of those who don't, have a strong tendency to make music based on the same few elements/harmonies for years.


----------



## muk (Apr 25, 2017)

A3D2 said:


> to me "writing it down in notes" just gets in the way of me 'feeling' the piece I am composing



The emotion is but one part of the music, though. Behind the masterpieces of music is a lot more than just emotion. As soon as a piece gets structurally complex you need some sort of notation to preserve the ideas, and shape them. Music notation has proven to be a good tool for that. But it can just as well be a piano roll if you are adept with it. In any case you won't write a proper fugue, nor a sonata form, by simply feeling it. For free flowing pieces (stream of consciousness) or simpler forms you can get by with more or less improvising it.

Another point where reading music is very helpful for me is voice leading. It's much easier for me to check the voice leading on paper than simply by ear. 




Rowy said:


> You might just as well hit him over the head with a herring.



Now that's a quote of the week


----------



## Vik (Apr 25, 2017)

muk said:


> As soon as a piece gets structurally complex you need some sort of notation to preserve the ideas, and shape them. Music notation has proven to be a good tool for that. But it can just as well be a piano roll if you are adept with it.


Some people record their ideas with a camera, so they can see what they have played. Piano Roll editing is OK; but is score makes it easer to get a quick glimpse of harmonies, and needs less screen real estate. Also easier if you want to print things out or have someone play it, and - as you say, when one needs to deal with voice leading. End result: many of those who refuse to learn notation think less in 'voices' and more in 'chords', one chord at a time.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 25, 2017)

I was a theory snob until relatively recently, when I realized that I was writing for midi instruments first. I've had orchestras record my music in the past, but working in the box allows me to simply write, write, write. I don't think too much about the being eventually recorded anymore, unless I'm paid to do so. Making music on computer leads to places so fascinating and outside the box, why should I constantly worry about things that are ultimately limiting?

That said, theory can save SO much time when you're dead stuck in a composition. Even if you're using LOTS of phrase samples, simply find out the progression, check your brain for what you've learned, and voila! You have something that will probably (due in large part to the theory you know) take you to a better place in your composition. It still happens to me, getting stuck and finding it out with theory. It's awesome to have.

Theory is kind of like a super-hammer: it's SO nice to have it around, because it's reliable, solid, with heavy repercussions.


----------



## A3D2 (Apr 25, 2017)

I understand what you're saying . But as with many things in life, one's preference for recording vs notation is always a subjective manner. There are undoubtedtly many advantages in being able to write and read notation: many others can perform, interpret and read your music,... For me personally though, it is just not important in terms of my 'composing flow'. With regards to the lyrics analogy: I believe even in that example (for me) it still stands. If I would write poetry, I would think of emotions instinctively and intuitively link words: the words would drift in my mind by themselves. I would not think about the letters or the words actively (or would not want to do that). For me notation just triggers a rational part of my thinking, which distracts from my emotional side of thinking. But that all has to do with how you approach composition in the end: I never approach it rationally or from a 'composition rules' perspective: there are no rules is my rule most of the time, although I always respect the range of traditional acoustic orchestral instruments. Notating a score afterwards when I have already sketched it out in MIDI is always an option of course. But for me, never while composing. It would be amazing if DAWs could be more accurate in their MIDI to notation transcription. Then this wouldn't be an issue anymore at all . It's all got to do with the question if (when you start your compositions in MIDI) it is worth my time to transcribe a certain composition to notation. If DAWs would do this better automatically, it would save a lot of time and then it would not have to be a question or option anymore. You would immediately have your MIDI and a notated score. Let's hope it will happen sometime in the future



Vik said:


> I completely respect and understand that. It's always good to just record things in real time, when that method is suitable for the kind of music you want to make. But even then I think it's useful to read others' music, and to look back at it two years later as notation and see what you actually did. Not only that, but unless you dislike all orchestral music etc, there's another aspect of this: if you record an idea as audio or MIDI; and then work on it in a DAW or notation program, it will in some cases become even better than the original idea you had.
> 
> If you translate what you write to something which is relevant for lyrics, it would be "I believe that it all depends on how you create lyrics: I tend to just record ideas to my tape/phone/disc, and to me "writing it down in with letters from the alphabet" just gets in the way of me 'feeling' the lyrics I am composing."
> 
> ...


----------



## A3D2 (Apr 25, 2017)

muk said:


> The emotion is but one part of the music, though. Behind the masterpieces of music is a lot more than just emotion. As soon as a piece gets structurally complex you need some sort of notation to preserve the ideas, and shape them. Music notation has proven to be a good tool for that. But it can just as well be a piano roll if you are adept with it. In any case you won't write a proper fugue, nor a sonata form, by simply feeling it. For free flowing pieces (stream of consciousness) or simpler forms you can get by with more or less improvising it.
> 
> Another point where reading music is very helpful for me is voice leading. It's much easier for me to check the voice leading on paper than simply by ear.
> 
> ...


You're definitely right: to convey the complexity of a grand musical structure, notation is indispensable. But for sketching the first 'idea' of a composition, the basic 'tune', I prefer just to record. That's just a personal choice I guess


----------



## JohnG (Apr 25, 2017)

To some extent, one's preference may depend on how easy it is to write down notation, how great one's experience / training / facility is with that. For me it's more efficient to write down a melody than to record it. 

Moreover, once it's on the page in front of me, I can think about it in a way that helps me extend, edit, elaborate, add a bass line (or melody as the case may be) -- or reject it!


----------



## GdT (Apr 25, 2017)

Why would anyone who aspires to be a musician of any sort not want to be able to read and write music and not make the effort to learn? Is this original question, which to me seems silly; is it trying to justify not reading music as some kind of virtue?


----------



## Arbee (Apr 25, 2017)

Sometimes I really appreciate my background. Yes, I "learnt to play classical piano from age 5", but then picked up a guitar no-one wanted at age 10 and learnt to play it by ear. Somehow that translated into a very fortunate few years as a session player, blessing me with the ability to sight read and play the part "like I'd thought of it". That in turn led to my start in arranging/orchestration. 

Being able to read is a blessing and a curse. Learn to read by all means but don't become a slave to it. Music theory can simultaneously feed your brain and steal your soul if you let it, so have it both ways. Just my 2 cents....


----------



## dcoscina (Apr 25, 2017)

My sight reading leaves a lot to be desired but, yeah, I can read music and prefer to compose in notation programs like Notion or Sibelius for orchestral works. When composing directly into DAWs, I need and use the notation editors- which is why Studio One was a deal breaker for me. No notation...no deal. Mind you I like Cubase 8.5 but don't like its notation editor. too busy and convoluted compared to DP or Logic X.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 25, 2017)

dcoscina said:


> My sight reading leaves a lot to be desired but, yeah, I can read music and prefer to compose in notation programs like Notion or Sibelius for orchestral works. When composing directly into DAWs, I need and use the notation editors- which is why Studio One was a deal breaker for me. No notation...no deal. Mind you I like Cubase 8.5 but don't like its notation editor. too busy and convoluted compared to DP or Logic X.



I feel your pain in regard to the notation in Cubase. I wrote Steinberg, telling them that I and everyone I know would pay extra if they seriously upped their notation game...I never heard back on it.

I'm guessing if Cubase had a notation system like Finale, a LOT of people would go crazy over it. I could be wrong.


----------



## Phryq (Apr 25, 2017)

Reaper notation is improving all the time. Reaper is the future!!


{edit}

Oh no. I've just turned into a fanboy...


----------



## sostenuto (Apr 25, 2017)

Playing music and creating music .... Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde _for me_ !! Pianist/Organist and sight-read fairly well.
Writing songs, chord progression skill _ words cannot describe 

Younger brother was pro entertainer, played several instruments, no lessons _ never read .... Oh well !


----------



## artomatic (Apr 25, 2017)

Thank you all for your comments! And yes, it's not too late to study theory. I've been encouraged by fellow musicians to do so recently, and in time, I will pursue that challenge as it is definitely essential!
Meanwhile, I posted my first orchestral composition a few days ago right here in this forum. Please chime in, if you will. I respectfully want to hear your critiques and comments. All the best!


----------



## Voider (Apr 26, 2017)

I've never learned how to read music in school, don't know I didn't spend much attention back in the days. But I had a keyboard for 2 years and I played so many impros on it. I also played on the pianos of every schools music room in the short pauses every day. That time I was never able to read notes or to even tell you where a specific key would be. But I learned to play chords and stuff, just because I recognized that it sounded well and I remembered how they're build up.

1,5 years ago I started to really dive into music production and started to learn how to read and write notes, about music theory, playing piano etc. and I definitely can tell anyone who didn't yet, that it is very rewarding. First of all, I noticed that what I was playing all the years as kid were chords. I learned to understand why they sound like they sound, why and how they work. Understanding a process means you have control about it. Means you can switch everything quickly because you know what, where and how. And if not, but somethings just randomly sounds good while you're jamming, you're instantly able to understand why and to remember the process.

Music theory, reading notes - that's all about communcation and memory. But not only communication with others, but with yourself. And memory in the end is everything we have. Imagine you talk with someone just with primitive keywords - you can understand each other, but deep conversations that expand your mind? Probably not. Reading music is just a translation of all the fragments of music, to translate them for ourselfes, to work with them, to reshape them.


----------



## TintoL (Apr 26, 2017)

This is a very interesting thread.

I learned how to read very late in my 30s... I had to learn it because of "HARMONY".
IT'S PRACTICALLY IMPOSIBLE TO LEARN HARMONY WITHOUT BEEN ABLE TO READ. Unless you get a teacher that only teaches you techniques in the piano or by videos, and you simply record all that in your mind.

No harmony book will teach by images or even words. You have to read the notes. Sure, people learn the I, IV, V, I And some permutations of that. And that's it. But, to learn proper modulations using bridged chords in inversions and stuff, you have to not only know how to read that information, you have to memorize every note of every chord in your head to be fully fluent.

I can not do that yet, and never will, but, I know, to be better I have to be able to explore new stuff by reading.


----------



## WindcryMusic (Apr 28, 2017)

I find it interesting that this thread has ended up mixing the topics of music notation and music theory as if they are tightly bound together. I personally believe that standard music notation is a woefully imperfect representation of music that tends to obscure the structure behind a set of rules, at least parts of which only serve to add needless complexity to what are otherwise simple and mathematically elegant structures.

Back in high school I could sight read music quite well, but my interest in music theory only reached a limited point before being choked to death by the weight of the often artificial rules around both it and music notation. After school I stopped reading music althogether for many years, and over that time my music theory knowledge actually began to grow again as I learned to rely upon my ears along with adopting more generic forms of notation (some used by session players, and some conjured up on my own) that, albeit not as precise, were in my view more efficient representations of the theory.

In the last few years I've started reading music again, although not nearly as fluently as in the past, mostly in order to be able to dig through printed orchestral scores on the odd occasion. I'm sure I'll never get back to sight reading like I could when I was young, and I'm completely fine with that. Meanwhile, my music theory knowledge is greater now than at any point previously in my life, and constantly advancing … and most of that improvement has nothing to do with my starting to occasionally read music again.

tl;dr: The ability to read music notation and having music theory knowledge aren't all that intertwined, and it's possible for one to actually impede the other.


----------



## robgb (Apr 28, 2017)

artomatic said:


> I know it's essential to know music theory to be a successful composer


I think there are many very successful composers who would disagree.


----------



## robgb (Apr 28, 2017)

You don't need to know theory to write brilliant music. Written music is a communication device, nothing more. To write brilliant music, you need to have an innate talent and the ability to listen/hear. Anyone who insists you can't compose without studying theory or the ability to read and write music is simply being idiotic. There are too many true music geniuses in the world who can't (couldn't) do either. Irving Berlin is a good example.


----------



## robgb (Apr 28, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> Probably not, but better safe than stupid


Nonsense. If you want to learn the math, learn the math. If you don't, don't. Your approach to music, like any artistic or creative endeavor, is yours and no one else's. And learning or not learning the math doesn't change your odds one bit. Talent is the only thing that makes a difference.


----------



## WindcryMusic (Apr 28, 2017)

I'm reminded of a oft-quoted phrase from an old rock group, and the response that always came to my mind whenever I heard someone paraphrasing them:

Them: "Who cares about the chords, man … it's only rock & roll."

Me: "But … it could be BETTER rock & roll!"


----------



## gregh (Apr 29, 2017)

Being able to follow and/or understand a score and/or jot down ideas is tremendously useful and the better you are at it the more useful it becomes.

However "reading" and "theory" are much broader than seems to be discussed here. For example this piece


has this score http://aaroncassidy.com/music/pleats.htm and there are all sorts of scores much further from standard western classical notation than Cassidy's. Going back many decades. And that is just in the western tradition. Similarly for theory (see Cassidy's notes on that score for a take on a theoretical position that is far removed from the sort of theory often talked about )

Also there are assumptions about performance from the score that are not notated but arise through practical experience of a tradition. (Cage is a great example of this - and naturally the less tightly constrained a score is the more it relies on an understanding of the appropriate tradition)

So what sort of notation you learn and what sort of theory you find important is something that your own musical interests should drive instead of being something you inherit and accept as being natural, timeless and universal, rather than understanding it as a construct of a particular tradition.


----------



## Voider (Apr 29, 2017)

robgb said:


> Talent is the only thing that makes a difference.



Talent as such doesn't exist. Talent means nothing else than that a person already came in touch with the topic in the past and thus has a headstart.


----------



## Leon Willett (Apr 29, 2017)

I read music because that way I can see how someone else did a thing that I liked. 

That way, I can now do that thing. 

My music is now better. 

Good luck folks


----------



## sinkd (Apr 29, 2017)

Has anyone ever heard a composer or musician that they admire say that they regretted learning to read music?, or studying music theory?, or mastering an instrument? Those who want to assert that these pursuits are unnecessary for success may be correct in a way, but it's kind of like me saying that I don't need any deep technical training to make a functional website, which is also true.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Apr 29, 2017)

artomatic said:


> I know it's essential to know music theory to be a successful composer. I'm wondering how many of you here do not read music?
> Count me in as one who play by ear.
> (I have produced radio ID jingles and other music production using VIs).



I've met excellent musicians who started by playing by ear first. Then complementing that later with a serious study of reading, orchestrating, arranging, etc.

Knowing how to read music - particular as a composer - is not optional. Its your communication gateway to all the musicians you're going to be working with. If the language of music is like italian, and they all speak italian, and you are going to be working with them, creating with them, recording with them, conducting them, but refuse to learn Italian, doesn't that simply say it all?

Knowing how to read and write music is essential for any composer planning to actually make a living at this. Not knowing may get you so far but everyone who has gone this path runs into a brick wall where this knowledge is expected - and if you don't have it in the time when you need it, guess what? They choose another and the gig is lost. And worse - the lack of confidence and hiding out because of something we're supposed to know but don't creates multiple issues not only in career but in our own personal growth.

So if any composer finds themselves in this predicament, I tell them to do themselves a favor and enroll in a course to learn the ropes of reading and writing music as soon as possible.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Apr 29, 2017)

I found that learning the craft of music gave me a gateway into discovering my own creative aesthetic. Intimate knowledge of what music can do has also provided a solid backdrop to support my imagination. When I was pro, I never had to think too hard about what I should be doing to fulfil a brief and often had more than one demo to hand in. That is one of the strengths of learning how to manipulate your material without hindrance.


----------



## mwarsell (Apr 29, 2017)

Imagine a scene where you happen to be working with a director who happens to read music (and you don't know this yet). You're discussing the direction of the music in the film and he picks up a Brahms symphony, points to a theme and says:"I really like this theme. Can you write something along these lines?'. You have no idea of what he is talking about. How would you reply?


----------



## Replicant (Apr 29, 2017)

sinkd said:


> Has anyone ever heard a composer or musician that they admire say that they regretted learning to read music?, or studying music theory?, or mastering an instrument? Those who want to assert that these pursuits are unnecessary for success may be correct in a way, but it's kind of like me saying that I don't need any deep technical training to make a functional website, which is also true.



I am always baffled that there is this pride among musicians in not knowing anything about music. I don't really see this in visual arts, acting, etc. I've never met an artist who felt that learning about light and shadow, perspective, anatomy, colour theory, etc. was a waste of time rather than essential knowledge.


----------



## gregh (Apr 29, 2017)

if you want to excel within any field you have to excel in knowledge of that field, the tools that are used and so on. Music is so diverse that it is impossible to excel across all types of music - but whatever tools the music you are drawn to needs you will have to learn. Reading and writing music is fundamental to communicating ideas in a lot of (but not all) areas of music just as improvising is for some (but not all). And within improvising, for example, there are many traditions. So you have to focus on what you want to do within music. And then if you have no desire to create music within a social setting - just at home by yourself as a composer or strictly as a solo performer there is much less of a need to learn a lot of the communication tools (like reading music)


----------



## Wes Antczak (Apr 29, 2017)

Being able to read and write music is like knowing a whole new language that opens up new avenues of communication between you and other musicians. Whether or not you need to speak that language depends also on which musicians you need to communicate with. In some cases it might not matter and not be necessary, in some cases it may. Personally, I think it can't hurt to expand your choices and options.


----------



## jonathanparham (Apr 29, 2017)

Phryq said:


> Reaper notation is improving all the time. Reaper is the future!!
> 
> 
> {edit}
> ...


Well the cleaness of notation but with the articulations of our sample libraries


----------



## Phryq (Apr 30, 2017)

jonathanparham said:


> Well the cleaness of notation but with the articulations of our sample libraries



I've created a hotkey system for Reaper Notation,

http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=177142

So you can input notes faster / more easily than in Sibelius.

For example, if you want to make selected notes staccato, press a key, and it will give the articulation, but also change notes to channel 2 (so you can set your short articulations to channel 2).

Keyswitches are also great, because you can load a keyswitch name file, and see which keys do what in the midi-view.

There are still a couple of things that Sibelius does better (export engraving) but for composing, I much prefer Reaper.


----------



## muk (Apr 30, 2017)

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet. If you can read music notation, suddenly you can not only hear with your ears, but with your eyes too. You can look at a score, and imagine the music behind/in it. Very, very important, this. If you listen to a live performance or a recording, you always listen to _someone elses interpretation _of the music.

If you read music, you can form your own interpretation of a piece even before having heard it. You could even argue that this it the purest form of music. It's just as with movie adaptations of books you love - even with the best ones - the movie will never be quite as exciting, pure, and overwhelming as the world you imagined while reading the book. The same with music. If you analyzed a score thoroughly, if you went through every tiny detail, and imagined precisely how it must sound. If you spent time exploring and imagining this world of music. Even the best interpretation of said score will never be exactly like that.


----------



## Phryq (Apr 30, 2017)

I can do that only with simple scores. Not with Stravinsky for sure.

But my imagination lacks all the beautiful imperfections of the instruments.


----------



## Voider (Apr 30, 2017)

muk said:


> One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet. If you can read music notation, suddenly you can not only hear with your ears, but with your eyes too. You can look at a score, and imagine the music behind/in it. Very, very important, this.



But to be honest to be able to do so requires years of intensive practice. Practice in a way an (electronic) composer may not often comes in touch with. I think this is found more often by people who play a classical instrument and spend the whole day just with notesheets and the sound of one instrument.


----------



## muk (Apr 30, 2017)

Voider said:


> But to be honest to be able to do so requires years of intensive practice.



If you want to perfect it, yes. If you play the piano you don't need to perfect it to have the expierence. You can play through the piano reduction to learn how the piece sounds overall. If you then preceed to the full score, it isn't too difficult to imagine the orchestral sound anymore.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Apr 30, 2017)

Here's another way of looking at it. Perhaps you will not realise your fullest potential if you choose not to learn. The more mastery you have, the more options.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 30, 2017)

You know...I had to study all kind of theory, learn how to read orchestral scores, advanced harmony, the whole deal. But after all these years I realize that my ear was by far the most important thing to build...it takes years and motivation to do so. But I think that trumps reading music, or even theory (beyond the basics of course).


----------



## mikeh-375 (Apr 30, 2017)

I agree that the ear is vital. Technique and ear training go hand in hand for me, both feeding off the other.


----------



## jonathanparham (Apr 30, 2017)

Phryq said:


> I've created a hotkey system for Reaper Notation,
> 
> http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=177142
> 
> ...


 Thanks for the link. Wasn't tyring to slam your DAW. I'm Still learning Sibelius but have watched the Reaper community grow. As others have said in this thread, some music I just play into the DAW, but others pencil/paper or notation program helps me organize my thoughts better


----------



## robgb (Apr 30, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> You sound upset.


Not in the least.


----------



## Vastman (Apr 30, 2017)

No... Most of me doesn't read music...


----------



## FriFlo (May 1, 2017)

Oh, no ... yet another one ... this forum seems to bear a lot of illiterate musicians who confuse a computer with an instrument and partly seem to think learning theory or even reading sheet music unnecessary for their musical development as a composer. And finally, with the number of people cheering to those thoughts having reached a majority, those folks are getting to the conclusion, they were right with this all along ... no wonder, there is such a decline in good film music being produced, when this is the new normal!
And again: I am not saying this with the purpose of upsetting anybody (although it certainly will upset some)! I am saying it for the few who might remain doubtful, so that they might reflect a little longer on the topic and hopefully come to the conclusion, there still is a purpose to learning all of those "ancient techniques" as reading score, harmony study, counterpoint, etc ...


----------



## DervishCapkiner (May 1, 2017)

I seriously don't understand why I haven't read a comment on the actual purpose for writing music and I'm not talking about translating to others though that's well and good...
It's for memory and speed. Simple as. If you want to recall a piece you wrote on piano last year , you read it so you can play it straight away. You would have recorded it yes but you can't read the articulations and expression first time without spending a few minutes at least relearning it and no matter what anyone says about 'reading' midi - it doesn't contain nearly enough info, as efficiently. Not for most of us anyway.
Personally I only notate the basic sections and voicings on piano as I'm not at the place where people need written music from me and I imagine many are in the same spot (though probably further down the line) but if you want to be truly great (not necessarily the most original though) then reading is an advantageous skill to have - unless your musical memory is like Jacob Collier or Mozart or Stevie Wonder(who wrote in braile by the way) or some other genius... 
I don't think it's necessary, there are many artists, composers and writers who never need to read because the ear is king but writing is undeniably an advantageous tool.

Just for the record , I've been reading since I was nine( im 35 and teach music for a living mostly) and I would say my reading is definitely very average if not below.


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 1, 2017)

_but if you want to be truly great (not necessarily the most original though)then reading is an advantageous skill to have..._

Does reading music and learning technique deprive you of originality in any way? I doubt it, blind copying of genre will though. Knowing your craft will surely help in finding any originality as much as not knowing and I'm betting you'll get there quicker with knowledge....


----------



## MatFluor (May 1, 2017)

I can read music - but my audiation skills are still not what I want them to be. I can't read full score in playing tempo.

For 15 years I pretty much neglected my reading skills ("Who needs notes in Metal anyway?) even though I made Symphonic and Power Metal, two styles that need a bit more musicality than just screaming around a bit (not that there's not an art to it, during my vocal training, I tell you, screaming without killing your vocal cords is tough).

Why do I re-learned reading/writing notation?

I want to be a "better" musician (in the sense of personal advancement, not in the sense of "more skill then you average-joe")
I want to be able to communicate with musicians
I want to analyze written music and gain knowledge through that
So - You don't _need _theory and notation to become successful. But for all the points above (and more) I mentioned, you need it. It makes it a lot easier to get somewhere.
In a metaphor maybe: The theory are the walls, note reading the light in the hallway, but creativity is the door. It's easier to walk through a hallway with light to see obstacles and plan your way and walls to get your directions right. But you need to open the door first through your creativity. And then you can grab the listener by the hand and walk through that door into the Hallway of music, taking turns, going up and down and through other creative doors and finally through the exit - leaving the listener with a journey of a lifetime. If you just stomp in the door and walk straight to the exit (let's just say straight I-IV-V-I without melody), you didn't use creativity and it's not as good as it could be. If you don't have light and walls but open the door gloriously, you might wander around aimlessly, falling down, walk in circles and somehow find your way through, but the listener might get lost of doesn't follow you into the abyss.
Yes, Theory was written after music was made, yes, it is descriptive and not prescriptive. That doesn't mean you should ignore it, you should "use" it - some composer do that willingly ("I'll modulate a minor fourth up, now we have a Abm7 chord there and now.......") some composers do that without their knowledge because they have heard, seen and analyzed that so many times, that they don't even know it. Like driving a car - you don't think of the pedals and the gears when driving, you just do - based on the knowledge ("Ah, that's the break pedal there") and the analyzing ("That's how my father drives!") and the implementation ("I'll drive myself"). And after that learning phase, you don't think these steps - you won't "bunny hop" when accelerating.

Sorry for that Wall of text here


----------



## ghostnote (May 1, 2017)

For the last time guys: This thread is about reading music, not about music theory. Music theory is speaking the language, the other one a form to make music visible for you and/or others. Don't mix them up.


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 1, 2017)

Ghost note,

Surely reading music requires theory too though. Giving a part straight from logics score page to a muso will inevitably lead to a barrage of time wasting questions. Notes have no life without slurs, accents, dynamics etc. Knowledge of these attributes is intricately bound up in theory because manipulating those parameters is part of composing. I for one can't separate them.


----------



## Vik (May 1, 2017)

Ghostnote, the thread started like this: "I know it's essential to know music theory to be a successful composer. I'm wondering how many of you here do not read music?", so discussing _why_ people read music isn't really irrelevant IMO.



mikeh-375 said:


> Surely reading music requires theory too though.


Reading music has a lot of benefits also for those who knows nothing about music theory. So while "reading music requires theory" to some degree is true, I mainly think the other way round: learning music theory without reading music = limitations.

OTOH: since pretty much all printed music is created using computers today, one could easily make a music theory book where each note head contained the name of the note, which would make music theory a lot more available for those who don't (yet) read music.


----------



## Leon Willett (May 1, 2017)

you can learn to read music in less time than it would take to read this thread :D

it's just like a DAW's piano roll except with different symbols


----------



## sinkd (May 1, 2017)

ghostnote said:


> For the last time guys: This thread is about reading music, not about music theory. Music theory is speaking the language, the other one a form to make music visible for you and/or others. Don't mix them up.


The invention of music notation is itself part of the historical foundation of (western) music theory. I'm not mixing anything up.


----------



## JJP (May 1, 2017)

FriFlo said:


> ...this forum seems to bear a lot of illiterate musicians who... partly seem to think learning theory or even reading sheet music unnecessary for their musical development as a composer. And finally, with the number of people cheering to those thoughts having reached a majority, those folks are getting to the conclusion, they were right with this all along...
> 
> I am saying it for the few who might remain doubtful, so that they might reflect a little longer on the topic and hopefully come to the conclusion, there still is a purpose to learning all of those "ancient techniques" as reading score, harmony study, counterpoint, etc ...



I'll add to this that most professionals I know who do read music and have a high level of theory understanding would look at this thread and think, "I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince people of something they don't even know they need." It's a bit like engaging in an argument with a group of people who think the world is flat. They don't know how much they don't know, and you're not going to educate them just to win a pointless argument.


----------



## JJP (May 1, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> :/ I'm pretty harsh sometimes - but I'd never call someone a flat earther that didn't deserve it...
> 
> dear non-music/theory/readers/whatever... I think you're alright. but you should learn instead of participating in this thread



Not calling anyone anything. It was an example of the the futility many see of an arguing a point that is based on a significant lack of knowledge. Many people would argue that it's not worth all the effort to try to educate someone who doesn't want or believes they need the education.

Many of us share our knowledge where it seems appropriate as I did earlier in this thread. But it's not worth constantly coming back to try and win a debate just because a point of view with which I agreed was outnumbered by others.


----------



## JJP (May 1, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> Well I like to think if you keep bashing it into them - they will eventually find out sooner or later, and then come back and yell at someone else who refuses to learn XD



True perhaps, but I usually can't devote that kind of time to a forum. Plus, if someone doesn't look me up, my views have little more clout than a person with no background or training who just bought a computer a few months back and is now a composer. I'm a just another fish in a big pond. That's the internet.


----------



## JJP (May 1, 2017)

However, you can look at someone's profile and click on the "Information" tab.

Like this:
JJP Profile


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 1, 2017)

I sort of agree with JJP here, but perhaps someone somewhere will take what the music readers are saying seriously and look into it. If that is a possibility then I'm with Anthraxsnax here and going to try one more "bashing" for those of you who want to score films with musicians/orchestras. Knowing your trade empowers you and opens the door to creative freedom. The more you know, the less you will rely on pure luck when you put your hands down on to the keyboard.


----------



## robgb (May 13, 2017)

WindcryMusic said:


> Me: "But … it could be BETTER rock & roll!"


Based on your own subjective view, sure. No one can objectively define what "better" means.


----------



## WindcryMusic (May 13, 2017)

robgb said:


> Based on your own subjective view, sure. No one can objectively define what "better" means.



Of course. But I tend to stand by my definition of "better" when it involves playing in time, or playing chords that don't actually clash with one another. Sometimes "it's only rock and roll" is not an artistic choice, but merely an excuse for being lazy about one's music.


----------



## robgb (May 13, 2017)

WindcryMusic said:


> Of course. But I tend to stand by my definition of "better" when it involves playing in time, or playing chords that don't actually clash with one another. Sometimes "it's only rock and roll" is not an artistic choice, but merely an excuse for being lazy about one's music.


Well, there's certainly a basic standard of quality in music as there is in anything (food, painting, moviemaking, etc.), but anything beyond that comes down to personal taste. And I doubt that anyone who is serious about making it in music, even if it's "just" rock and roll, has enough sense to play in time or play chords that don't clash. Then again, that could be the effect they're going for...


----------



## CT (May 13, 2017)

I feel kind of silly just answering the thread's question, seeing how far afield the discussion has gone, but... yes, I read music. 

However, I developed my ear a lot as a kid before I ever learned anything about theory or notation. I think that's why these days I prefer to compose in real time right into a DAW, playing in one part at a time, "live" (in quotes because the first take of a part is rarely a keeper, of course, just as on paper). 

There's a potentially steep learning curve to this if you are used to relying on notation to keep track of things, but it's very doable and I appreciate how much more intuitive composing seems working this way. It is overall much more satisfying to me than composing in the "old way" ever was. And once you adapt, I don't feel that there are any limits on the complexity and technical fluency of what you can do.

But, knowing how to notate still comes in handy, since I have to transcribe the music and prepare a score if I ever want something performed for real. If you're working with a decent budget and have a time crunch, that's when you call an orchestrator, I guess, whether or not you can do it yourself.


----------



## Vik (May 14, 2017)

Vik said:


> True, but you'll most likely have a limited repertoire of harmonies/voicings/inversions etc unless you spend a lot of time using your ears to find out things about how interesting harmonic solutions are done in songs you hear. It's so much easier to increase that repertoire if one spends time playing through others' compositions by sight reading them in any tempo. And even for the most stubborn ones out there, who refuse to copy anything anyone lese has done, knowing notation makes it easier to write down your ideas in a way that's easy to read back: easier than recording them as an audio file or to a phone.


Just to clarify what I wrote earlier: I also know that it's fully possible to be a rather lousy sight-reader and still know a lot more than average musicians about harmonies and voicings. Many keyboard players/guitarists belong to that category, especially if they have some experience with jazz or other 'harmony rich' traditions.


----------



## C.R. Rivera (May 14, 2017)

robgb said:


> Based on your own subjective view, sure. No one can objectively define what "better" means.



Does that mean then, objectively, we can't define Beethoven as better than Tiny Tim?


----------



## mac (May 14, 2017)

C.R. Rivera said:


> Does that mean then, objectively, we can't define Beethoven as better than Tiny Tim?



I know who my gran would say's 'best', and it wouldn't be Beethoven!


----------



## Quasar (May 14, 2017)

robgb said:


> Based on your own subjective view, sure. No one can objectively define what "better" means.


Not quite. Just as with morality, there are universal laws governing aesthetics, and some artistic expressions are objectively and absolutely "better" than others. The caveat is that none of us are perfect judges, and - as with morality - a great many nuanced situational contexts can come into play, potentially skewing one's interpretation of what is happening.

Beethoven is objectively better than Tiny Tim, at least musically (Maybe Tiny Tim's songs were better at _something_, such as humorously capturing a particular sub-cultural perspective of a certain time and place.) You may enjoy Tiny Tim's music more, and you can prefer it if you want to, but you won't have the same depth of musical experience if you do so at the expense of learning how to appreciate Beethoven. It's not "all relative, man"...

I wish I could sightread. I have basic knowledge of keys, chords and harmonic tonal relationships and can parse out the notes on a staff, but it's not fluent.


----------



## jonathanprice (May 14, 2017)

Tugboat said:


> It's not "all relative, man"...


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 14, 2017)

Beethoven's 9th is considered perhaps the greatest piece of music ever written. Though I push more for op. 132, I remain astounded at the accomplishment the 9th is, it's the musical gift that gives with each listen. It has such a wide range and depth of expression it makes most other compositions look, well, small (and I definitely don't just mean because of the heavy riffs...dude).

When people talk about art as subjective, subject to historical context, Beethoven's overrated: well, good luck making that argument about the 9th to anyone with any kind of graduate's degree in music (take it from one who learned the hard way: having all my somewhat similar Beethoven criticisms crushed in a high school debate class by the music staff). Luckily, I straightened out my act and went double time on my Beethoven studies after that and into college lol!.

Do I believe there's been some phenomenal music since? Sure! Do I hold any of it up against late-era Beethoven...not really, and you can see there's one composer in particular who I thought flew close to the sun, even he doesn't measure up to that.

I like to believe that people who truly know something about music (including how to really _listen_ to and thus appreciate music) already are in the know about LVB...if they aren't, maybe it's time to get some score books and listen to all the mid to late era works. It's never too late, and it's unlikely you can do better when studying music than to get on that Beethoven train.

But all my opinion, and that's the point the subjectivists are making anyway, right?


----------



## robgb (May 15, 2017)

Tugboat said:


> Just as with morality, there are universal laws governing aesthetics, and some artistic expressions are objectively and absolutely "better" than others.


And who decides these universal laws? There are, of course, baseline standards that we, as a society, accept as "correct," but after that, all bets are off. Put a hundred of us in a room and play three different performances of the same song (that all conform to those baseline standards), and you'll find disagreement over which of those three is "better." No one is right or wrong, it's just a matter of personal—or subjective—taste. And anyone who thinks he has better taste than the next person is full of crap (which means most of us). We simply have DIFFERENT tastes. One is not better than the other.

Now, if seventy of those hundred people prefer performance A, you can say that it's more popular, sure, but you can't say that it's objectively better. It just happens that those seventy people share the same subjective preference. Hence the saying, one man's treasure is another man's garbage.

Which is why, of course, we all argue over the "best" DAWs and the "best" sample libraries. For example, I'd argue that Adagietto sounds better than Cinematic Strings 2, because I personally prefer the sound. But there are many others who would disagree, and still others who would say, no, neither one holds a candle to Berlin Strings...


----------



## robgb (May 15, 2017)

C.R. Rivera said:


> Does that mean then, objectively, we can't define Beethoven as better than Tiny Tim?


They're two completely different things, so you'd be comparing apples and oranges. But I'm sure some people would rather listen to Tiny Tim than Beethoven.


----------



## Quasar (May 16, 2017)

robgb said:


> And who decides these universal laws? There are, of course, baseline standards that we, as a society, accept as "correct," but after that, all bets are off. Put a hundred of us in a room and play three different performances of the same song (that all conform to those baseline standards), and you'll find disagreement over which of those three is "better." No one is right or wrong, it's just a matter of personal—or subjective—taste. And anyone who thinks he has better taste than the next person is full of crap (which means most of us). We simply have DIFFERENT tastes. One is not better than the other.
> 
> Now, if seventy of those hundred people prefer performance A, you can say that it's more popular, sure, but you can't say that it's objectively better. It just happens that those seventy people share the same subjective preference. Hence the saying, one man's treasure is another man's garbage.
> 
> Which is why, of course, we all argue over the "best" DAWs and the "best" sample libraries. For example, I'd argue that Adagietto sounds better than Cinematic Strings 2, because I personally prefer the sound. But there are many others who would disagree, and still others who would say, no, neither one holds a candle to Berlin Strings...



What you assert may be the dominant view of the contemporary postmodern, developed world, but it's wrong. What do you mean by "baseline standards"? And whether correct or not, where do _they_ come from? If they are merely a socially-engineered or utilitarian agreement, then they are ultimately arbitrary and meaningless.

If one substitutes "morality" for "aesthetics", it's easier to see the problem. Are there universal standards for governing ethical behavior, or is there no real right and wrong, only what one chooses to believe? If morality is purely subjective (your baseline societal standard), then it could be right for me to pirate sample libraries or steal your wallet. You may believe that this theft is wrong, but (again Rob, to paraphrase you) to think that you have a better ethical standard than I do is full of crap. We simply have DIFFERENT standards, and one is not better than the other. If seventy out of a hundred agree with you, you can say that the belief that stealing is wrong is more popular, but you can't say that it's objectively better. It's just a matter of taste.

If you do not agree with my above hypothetical rationale for theft (and I hope you don't), then we must admit that there are inherent, universal and objective standards that come from _somewhere_. Standards that neither disappear just because people choose to ignore them nor change just because people choose to amend them. The phenomenon is trans-human, like gravity or something, existing independently of any attitudes we might hold towards it.

As to where this comes from, I would simply assert that aesthetics, like morality, come from God. But if that g-word doesn't work for you, Plato has this covered in his rap about the forms, the pure realm of ideas that exist as templates for the physical world, are more real than the physical world, and can never be realized by us materially, but only approximated.

Freud actually agreed with you. But that's only because he didn't read his Plato. Or if he did, (which is more likely) he didn't understand it.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 16, 2017)

Sorry, Beethoven is art music, and just look up the textbook definition if you need to (I doubt you do). Tiny Tim is novelty music. It doesn't mean you're a better person for preferring Tiny Tim, or vice versa. Novelty music is by necessity automatically dated, which means once a certain future generation dies out it will be looked upon as indicative of the Pop culture that (in terms of musical significance) pretty much began and ended in the sixties (I'll be a sport and defer possibly to stuff like "Dark Side of the Moon" and certain Zappa compositions for experimentation while remaining under the "Pop" banner).

Even the Beatles and albums like "Pet Sounds" will be a relative footnotes compared to Beethoven's mid to later eras. If you don't want to believe that, that's fine. Good luck making an argument against it in front of music graduates.

I believe in people liking what they like, I want people to know that what they like is good...for them. But to blow it up around anyone with an extensive musical education is to invite withering arguments, with plenty of both historical, musicologoical, and actual score evidence to back it up. Try it sometime, just be ready for a beet red face.

Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, Wagner, Mahler, Stravinsky...we're talking impact with ongoing permutations. And I'm forgetting more than a few (apologies). Tiny Tim, Bieber, Kanye, Skrillex, etc. is fun, get you smiling and foot tapping/bootay uh...bootaying (nothing wrong with any of that). But come _on _folks, there's nothing eventful in the Pop stuff besides as described above...besides probably the incredible advances in engineering, tools, production since the Beatles/Berry/Beach Boys/Wonder. Actually I feel a little foot-in-mouth, because many of the aforementioned techniques might be considered great musical advances in themselves. I'll let my fellow musicians work that one out, sounds like an interesting argument.

Even I'm not convinced completely of the "righteously elite"-seeming opinion of a music graduate, despite the fact that I am one (it wasn't exactly from a major (even really good) school though lol!). Obviously I don't need to defend the great composers, I'm just making sure newer members don't get wrong, potentially disastrous, embarrassing ideas.


----------



## TimCox (May 16, 2017)

I'm an ear guy. I always have been. I still am to an extent but I finally took it upon myself a couple years ago to REALLY learn to read music and study theory. The main thing I've found is that I simply hear music (my own, or others) differently. It's like reading a book when you're 6 versus 26, my comprehension of what's happening and my ability to process complex ideas is massively expanded. It just creates a better ear if you're an ear person


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 16, 2017)

TimCox said:


> I'm an ear guy. I always have been. I still am to an extent but I finally took it upon myself a couple years ago to REALLY learn to read music and study theory. The main thing I've found is that I simple hear music (my own, or others) differently. It's like reading a book when you're 6 versus 26, my comprehension of what's happening and my ability to process complex ideas is massively expanded. It just creates a better ear if you're an ear person



It's so important. Whenever I hear of a composer or musician telling me he or she mostly just trained the ear over studying scores, I have a really hard time arguing that. "Opening" my ears made such a profound difference.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 16, 2017)

Tugboat said:


> Freud actually agreed with you. But that's only because he didn't read his Plato. Or if he did, (which is more likely) he didn't understand it.



Then there's Nietzsche, who (had such been posed to him) would have spend every hour of the night and day until he came up with an impressive argument of how it was all a symptom of nihilism; or Sartre, who would provide a beyond-Hegelian overblow regarding how none of it mattered anyway.


----------



## Quasar (May 16, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> Then there's Nietzsche, who (had such been posed to him) would have spend every hour of the night and day until he came up with an impressive argument of how it was all a symptom of nihilism; or Sartre, who would provide a beyond-Hegelian overblow regarding how none of it mattered anyway.


Western philosophy peaked with the Socratic dialogues of Plato, and has been going downhill ever since.


----------



## gregh (May 16, 2017)

robgb said:


> Based on your own subjective view, sure. No one can objectively define what "better" means.


Comparative terms, like (good) better (best), assume some sort of objective measure that allows for the ordering. What they don't have is a regularly spaced scale against which they are ordered - it makes no sense to say best is 6 times better than better. It's just an order - but any order requires criteria. Thus it is quite reasonable to say the Tiny Tim is a better musician than Beethoven because I like Tiny Tim more. And vice versa. Most people would think that was a fairly self-centred view I would imagine. But it is objective - we can measure it.

Typically though we (where we is not a universal group of people at all) dont judge artists in that way - we judge them maybe in terms of historical significance with respect to a particular group of people (people we imagine are like us), or maybe for impact on technical innovation within a specific history of music, or maybe we make the judgement using a bundled set of criteria, where each criterion is weighted more or less intuitively.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 16, 2017)

Tugboat said:


> Western philosophy peaked with the Socratic dialogues of Plato, and has been going downhill ever since.



There are a LOT of scholars (and even philosophers) who would agree with this. The impact of that whole Platonic forms idea is very much evident even today. Kant and Hegel were certainly subservient to it.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 16, 2017)

My interest in debating whether in fact the incredible milestones make in production since the 50s does actually count for a groundbreaking musical development; i.e. something with enough impact to rival, say, the Eroica. I don't want to say yay or nay because I think the working out would be far more interesting.

I'd start a topic, but I'm afraid only preposterous boobs like myself would hang out there


----------



## Musicam (May 16, 2017)

The great argument is Tim Pam music. Cool?


----------



## robgb (May 16, 2017)

Tugboat said:


> If they are merely a socially-engineered or utilitarian agreement, then they are ultimately arbitrary and meaningless.


That's exactly what they are. Baseline standards that Western society has deemed "musical" to our ears, learned by osmosis. Different societies have different standards. But they're far from meaningless. They are the foundation upon which we judge a composition or performance. But from this basic foundation springs many different ideas of what is good and bad and becomes nothing more than a matter of opinion. You cannot objectively say that Beethoven is better than Bach, or the Beatles are better than the Stones, or Ginger is better than Maryanne, or whatever. You can only form a consensus of opinion, which, beyond that foundation, is entirely subjective.


----------



## robgb (May 16, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> My interest in debating whether in fact the incredible milestones make in production since the 50s does actually count for a groundbreaking musical development


The advances in technology are as important to musical development as the advances in orchestral (and other) instruments over the centuries.


----------



## afterlight82 (May 16, 2017)

One thing to bear in mind is it's pretty likely that the vast majority of "working musicians" throughout the centuries didn't read notated music. Including the 20th all the way back to prehistory. What we're talking about when we talk about written music is just the notation of one particular tradition. Gotta include the oral/aurally passed on traditions of ancient China, India...and many more beyond. In the taverns in Beethoven's time there was a thriving folk tradition, songs passed on by ear. What we know of as Western classical music was at least partially reserved for the wealthier end of society. The masses would have only heard it in church, certainly so in the 17th and early 18th centuries, but music and dance were as pervasive a pastime then for all classes as they were at any time. Which is why I'm always a bit skeptical when anybody wants to argue for the supremacy of certain pieces of the western classical canon without knowing other traditions, some of which are far older, known by a far greater number of people in terms of their historical impact, but just are uncommon in Europe or the US and the cultural significance less well known.


----------



## afterlight82 (May 16, 2017)

Or to put it another way...few of us read kunkunshi, gongche, systema teleion, byzantine music notation...even the forerunners of the Western classical system in neumes...and there are truckloads of others systems....


----------



## thesteelydane (May 16, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> One thing to bear in mind is it's pretty likely that the vast majority of "working musicians" throughout the centuries didn't read notated music. Including the 20th all the way back to prehistory. What we're talking about when we talk about written music is just the notation of one particular tradition. Gotta include the oral/aurally passed on traditions of ancient China, India...and many more beyond. In the taverns in Beethoven's time there was a thriving folk tradition, songs passed on by ear. What we know of as Western classical music was at least partially reserved for the wealthier end of society. The masses would have only heard it in church, certainly so in the 17th and early 18th centuries, but music and dance were as pervasive a pastime then for all classes as they were at any time. Which is why I'm always a bit skeptical when anybody wants to argue for the supremacy of certain pieces of the western classical canon without knowing other traditions, some of which are far older, known by a far greater number of people in terms of their historical impact, but just are uncommon in Europe or the US and the cultural significance less well known.



All true, but I used to live in Vietnam which certainly has its own musical culture, and yet everyone there reads standard western classical notation -and I do mean everyone, even people who don't play instruments. It's just something you have to learn the same way you have to learn the alphabet.


----------



## TimCox (May 16, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> Which is why I'm always a bit skeptical when anybody wants to argue for the supremacy of certain pieces of the western classical canon without knowing other traditions, some of which are far older, known by a far greater number of people in terms of their historical impact, but just are uncommon in Europe or the US and the cultural significance less well known.



I agree. You could argue the issue of complexity where a majority of western orchestral music probably takes the cake. But the supreme form of music? Sounds a bit aryan to me


----------



## David Hall (May 16, 2017)

JJP said:


> Music notation is the way we communicate and collaborate with other musicians. It's also a very efficient way to codify and organize our musical thoughts. Reading music also enables you to understand how music works and deepens your overall knowledge. Without this skill, you are closing yourself of to a huge part of the experience of music in the Western world.


I cannot stress what you just said.

the advantages of organizing your thoughts for once its so important, and music notation and music writing helps you do this... its funny because my parents force me to get a typist degree, and I can type 60 words per minute, without looking at the keyboard, and that took me roughly a year to type that fast among other stuff you can do with a keyboard.

now.. music its simpler because you only work with 8 letters of the alphabet, its just a matter of practicing till your eyes fall off lol.. 

I know this very well because when i was learning to type fast, you would just do the same thing again and again.. then your brain will make the connections and before you know it it all comes naturally and you can spot a note without even blinking, or a time signature..

its all practice guys.. its never impossible.


----------



## sinkd (May 16, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> One thing to bear in mind is it's pretty likely that the vast majority of "working musicians" throughout the centuries didn't read notated music.


What we are talking about is whether the vast majority of musicians _who write music_ need to read music.


----------



## afterlight82 (May 16, 2017)

sinkd said:


> What we are talking about is whether the vast majority of musicians _who write music_ need to read music.



To which the answer is clearly no, since so many traditions thrive, and have thrived over the years, and have vast complexity without any written system.

The thing is, there's really a difference between "writing" and "composing" music, in the literal sense. Oral traditions don't really have "writing" music as a "thing", since there's nothing written down...and the line between composing and performing is considerably more blurred. It's not to say that Beethoven isn't clearly insanely great art and stunning music, but one can clearly compose great music without the need to be able to represent it within one particular system of notation. Case in point - if someone knew nothing of western notation the way we know very little about the Ancient Greek method in terms of what it actually _sounded_ like, they might be hard pushed to figure out what a Beethoven symphony sounded like. Beethoven takes flight in performance, not as a visual medium.


----------



## Desire Inspires (May 16, 2017)

I don't.


----------



## Quasar (May 16, 2017)

robgb said:


> That's exactly what they are. Baseline standards that Western society has deemed "musical" to our ears, learned by osmosis. Different societies have different standards. But they're far from meaningless. They are the foundation upon which we judge a composition or performance. But from this basic foundation springs many different ideas of what is good and bad and becomes nothing more than a matter of opinion. You cannot objectively say that Beethoven is better than Bach, or the Beatles are better than the Stones, or Ginger is better than Maryanne, or whatever. You can only form a consensus of opinion, which, beyond that foundation, is entirely subjective.



LOL You're still wrong, and you didn't counter any of the points I made except to repeat the same drivel that is so popular in this Endarkened Age, a sort of reductionism that truncates everything to within the narrow realm of human invention and contrivance. But it's OK to be wrong. I've been wrong before, too.

Of course sensibilities vary from culture to culture, and there are many, many diverse approaches one can take for interpreting aesthetic truth that are valid. No one can interpret the aesthetic order perfectly, and certainly no person or culture of people have a monopoly... But that doesn't mean that laws and standards that lie quite outside and beyond the sphere of human cognition do not exist. It only means that you are not aware that they exist.


----------



## thesteelydane (May 16, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> Beethoven takes flight in performance, not as a visual medium.


Yes, but Beethoven could not have written his music without notation, nor can it be performed by real musicians without. In fact, Beethoven's music wouldn't even exist today without notation.

Esit: I may have missed your point there, but my point still stands.


----------



## afterlight82 (May 17, 2017)

Tugboat said:


> LOL You're still wrong, and you didn't counter any of the points I made except to repeat the same drivel that is so popular in this Endarkened Age, a sort of reductionism that truncates everything to within the narrow realm of human invention and contrivance. But it's OK to be wrong. I've been wrong before, too.
> 
> Of course sensibilities vary from culture to culture, and there are many, many diverse approaches one can take for interpreting aesthetic truth that are valid. No one can interpret the aesthetic order perfectly, and certainly no person or culture of people have a monopoly... But that doesn't mean that laws and standards that lie quite outside and beyond the sphere of human cognition do not exist. It only means that you are not aware that they exist.



Actually, he's much closer to right than you are, and that sort of gentle condescension to his personal knowledge or experience in an argument is usually a sign of a weak argument. The predominant flaw there is that isn't it convenient these supposed universal laws are allegedly in such good agreement with your particular morality/aesthetic? 

In your wallet example, if someone stole your wallet and used the contents to feed 100 homeless people, what objective measure of right and wrong do you have to say that is on balance morally unjustifiable? Or to take a bigger example, where does your universal law stand on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The idea that there is a universal basic morality that springs from beyond human consciousness is almost always used to prop up a particular thing, be it a religion ("god") or a set of aesthetics for which someone wishes to claim superiority, whereas there are usually perfectly good evolutionary reasons for why such things appear to be without appealing to the supernatural. (E.g. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" happens to be quite good for the survival of a species)


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 17, 2017)

TimCox said:


> I agree. You could argue the issue of complexity where a majority of western orchestral music probably takes the cake. But the supreme form of music? Sounds a bit aryan to me



Or maybe it was just the right time in the coincidentally right environment. Most people will think Mozart, Beethoven, and probably Bach when they think of great composers, all men who lived in relatively close proximity...within a relatively short amount of time. Seems to me it's possible it was simply a set of fitting contexts, and come Mozart's time the men before him had already accomplished so much in music that the surrounding areas they worked in were maniacally driven/pushed to live up to Handel and Bach.

Nothing Aryan sounding about it to me, and I'm part Jew. It could be argued that it was simply the Zeitgeist, an air of competition between men looking to continue raising the bar.


----------



## afterlight82 (May 17, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> Seems to me it's possible it was simply a set of fitting contexts, and come Mozart's time the men before him had already accomplished so much in music that the surrounding areas they worked in were maniacally driven/pushed to live up to Handel and Bach.



This is true, but of course it was Papa Haydn that was idolized in the latter half of the 18th century, even whilst he was still alive! But it's also no surprise that they all flourished predominantly around the centers of wealth and power in Europe at the time, be it royalty or the church or both.


----------



## afterlight82 (May 17, 2017)

Tugboat said:


> As to where this comes from, I would simply assert that aesthetics, like morality, come from God. But if that g-word doesn't work for you, Plato has this covered in his rap about the forms, the pure realm of ideas that exist as templates for the physical world, are more real than the physical world, and can never be realized by us materially, but only approximated.
> 
> Freud actually agreed with you. But that's only because he didn't read his Plato. Or if he did, (which is more likely) he didn't understand it.



Having read Plato - in the original Greek - this isn't entirely true. Depends which period you read and where you stand on the dating issues. The early Socratic dialogues certainly are rooted solely in humanism and such things springing solely from human thought.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 17, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> Having read Plato - in the original Greek - this isn't entirely true. Depends which period you read and where you stand on the dating issues. The early Socratic dialogues certainly are rooted solely in humanism and such things springing solely from human thought.



How cool to read that in the original language! I was just being silly with generalizations (you probably guessed that).


----------



## fritzmartinbass (May 17, 2017)

Do most of you read music? 

As a theory teacher, I deal with this question all the time.
Do you have to read to make good music? - I don't think so.
Does it speed things up? - Sometimes
Will it make you a better composer? - I think this is subjective.
Does reading help your communication skills? - Absolutely.

Personally, I write music in my head and through improvisation. I have known many composers in the academic world that write totally on paper, and to me, it sounds like it. I just think we should be careful saying everyone MUST do this or that.
Some of the most beautiful music I have heard was written by people that could not read.
Some of the most uninspiring music I have heard was written by academics.
But, I do believe reading is a discipline well worth pursuing and should be learned if at all possible. If you can physically see, do it! I think it is an important part of a musicians vocabulary. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Quasar (May 17, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> Actually, he's much closer to right than you are, and that sort of gentle condescension to his personal knowledge or experience in an argument is usually a sign of a weak argument. The predominant flaw there is that isn't it convenient these supposed universal laws are allegedly in such good agreement with your particular morality/aesthetic?
> 
> In your wallet example, if someone stole your wallet and used the contents to feed 100 homeless people, what objective measure of right and wrong do you have to say that is on balance morally unjustifiable? Or to take a bigger example, where does your universal law stand on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The idea that there is a universal basic morality that springs from beyond human consciousness is almost always used to prop up a particular thing, be it a religion ("god") or a set of aesthetics for which someone wishes to claim superiority, whereas there are usually perfectly good evolutionary reasons for why such things appear to be without appealing to the supernatural. (E.g. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" happens to be quite good for the survival of a species)



I admit to being snarky, as contemporary materialist reductionism (born out of empiricism and the scientific method), in which mind and consciousness are reduced to brain, morality to social agreement & aesthetics to personal taste has become the New Fundamentalism just as science has become the New Inquisition, and it needs to be debunked whenever and however possible. It's a pet peeve.

Your "predominant flaw" argument is ad hominem and thus can be easily dismissed. You are quite right that, historically, religious notions of absolute truth and cultural superiority (Medieval theocracy, Manifest Destiny, European colonialism etc.) have provided at-the-ready justifications for all manner of violence & oppression. Because any religion, _by definition_, purports to offer insight into the supernatural, religious constructs do lend themselves to exploitation and abuse by the power-seeking and the unscrupulous. But oppressive power structures are quite capable of borrowing from whatever rhetoric happens to to enjoy cultural currency, to be in vogue. So whereas Torquemada or Cortes may have been used Jesus, Stalin and Pol Pot used variants of the Marxist Dialectic. The ideology or philosophy doesn't matter. It's the human ego taking whatever ideology is handy and making it proprietary (the last refuge of the scoundrel and all of that...). Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. 

Do you remember the famous fried egg "this is your brain on drugs" commercial? This is a direct, if spurious, appeal to science, a faux empirically-derived assertion as to why you should not do x, and why we will throw you into security prison if you do. The USA does not lead the world in the incarceration of its own citizenry because of the fundamentalist religious right, whatever one might think of that. The War on Drugs, from its racist onset in Texas, has clearly been cloaked in humanistic language.

At any rate, this well-documented tendency for human beings to use "lofty" ideals to justify whatever says nothing about the truth or falsehood of the ideals themselves. And soulless, materialist reductionism as a vehicle for determining "truth" is still wrong, however widely believed.


----------



## Quasar (May 17, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> Having read Plato - in the original Greek - this isn't entirely true. Depends which period you read and where you stand on the dating issues. The early Socratic dialogues certainly are rooted solely in humanism and such things springing solely from human thought.


I can't read Greek, ancient or modern, so I obviously haven't done that. But the ideas as I read them stand on their own merit, so their exact point of origin is irrelevant except as an academic exercise.


----------



## TimCox (May 17, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> Or maybe it was just the right time in the coincidentally right environment. Most people will think Mozart, Beethoven, and probably Bach when they think of great composers, all men who lived in relatively close proximity...within a relatively short amount of time. Seems to me it's possible it was simply a set of fitting contexts, and come Mozart's time the men before him had already accomplished so much in music that the surrounding areas they worked in were maniacally driven/pushed to live up to Handel and Bach.
> 
> Nothing Aryan sounding about it to me, and I'm part Jew. It could be argued that it was simply the Zeitgeist, an air of competition between men looking to continue raising the bar.



Fair point. (Also I hope my Aryan comment didn't offend)



afterlight82 said:


> This is true, but of course it was Papa Haydn that was idolized in the latter half of the 18th century, even whilst he was still alive! But it's also no surprise that they all flourished predominantly around the centers of wealth and power in Europe at the time, be it royalty or the church or both.



Equally fair point.


fritzmartinbass said:


> Personally, I write music in my head and through improvisation. I have known many composers in the academic world that write totally on paper, and to me, it sounds like it. I just think we should be careful saying everyone MUST do this or that.
> Some of the most beautiful music I have heard was written by people that could not read.
> Some of the most uninspiring music I have heard was written by academics.
> But, I do believe reading is a discipline well worth pursuing and should be learned if at all possible. If you can physically see, do it! I think it is an important part of a musicians vocabulary. Just my 2 cents.



This is generally my process. Although I improvise and then write it down to organize my thoughts, blame it on my ADHD I suppose.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 17, 2017)

TimCox said:


> Fair point. (Also I hope my Aryan comment didn't offend)



Not in the least. As you can probably imagine, I can always throw people like Mahler, Stravinsky, Berg, Goldsmith, and Schoenberg (even our deservedly esteemed Mr. Zimmer) at people who try politically incorrect garbage. And that doesn't even cover many other undisputed masters like Copland, Glass. There are plenty of freakily terrific composers of every stripe and belief system imo.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 17, 2017)

And yes great point about Haydn, @afterlight82. One of the most tragic things about Mozart's death is the fact that (perhaps mostly due to the Emperial climate of the time) he never really broke from what Haydn had already done as far as templates go. Granted, he was probably commissioned quite a bit for Haydnesque stuff, but had he lived longer and gotten more ornery it's probable he'd have been more concerned with original structures and breakthrough stuff. Imagine how much more that would have pushed the trailblazers like LVB (whom early on was heavily indebted to both Haydn and Mozart...but lived long enough to grow out of it).

Of course, when we're talking about Mozart we might be talking about the greatest melodicist who ever lived, so there's that, too. Amazing guy.


----------



## robgb (May 17, 2017)

Tugboat said:


> LOL You're still wrong, and you didn't counter any of the points I made except to repeat the same drivel that is so popular in this Endarkened Age, a sort of reductionism that truncates everything to within the narrow realm of human invention and contrivance. But it's OK to be wrong. I've been wrong before, too.



I didn't counter them because they weren't worth countering. I've been around a long, long time and met a lot of guys who thought THEY were the arbiters of good taste in music, art, etc. None of them were right. Most of them were snobs.


----------



## TimCox (May 18, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> Of course, when we're talking about Mozart we might be talking about the greatest melodicist who ever lived



Good ol' Wolfy.


----------



## dcoscina (May 18, 2017)

I had a prof in university who said reading music was important but not as important as developing your ear. Everyone can "hear" but to "listen" takes practice and dedication. 

If you are dealing with musicians performing your work, then it's kind of a must. If you are working with other musicians in an environment that invites the language of written music, then it's also important. 

I think I said earlier that my sight reading ain't great. I recall a situation from my university days for 2nd year Harmony & Counterpoint Class. We were split off into 2 tutorial groups- pianists and non pianists. Stupid me said "yeah I play piano" so I got stuck with the piano majors who could sight read through a 4 part invention in their sleep. And it was painful when my turn would come up and I'd have to plod through some of the exercises. I heard a few audible groans. I eventually confronted the prof and asked to be transferred to the non pianist group. He said, if I really wanted to he would let me but added that while my sight reading wasn't as adept as the others, the keyboard mechanics I possessed were fine. I always felt this was a wonderful compliment and I ended up staying in the piano group. 

So the moral of the story is, make the attempt, push yourself, and you will improve.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 24, 2017)

My extent of reading music was in high school where I played Tuba (graduated in 87...yes, a long time ago); I'm a self taught musician with a TON of bad habits I'm sure. I'm committing to actually taking classical piano lessons, beginning this summer, in hopes it will improve my composition skills....my goal is to read/play piano in at least a grade 4 conservatory level. It's never too late to learn and improve.


----------



## Alatar (May 24, 2017)

Yes, I do.


----------

