How many of you read music?

Lavallee
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:48 am
Status: Offline

Sat Dec 01, 2012 3:53 pm

It does not hurt at all to have the information available. When I joined TG at did not know zit about theory, I have a better understanding now, because the information was available and I could have a peak every now and then. Not everything needs to be a priority, it does not mean the horizon cannot be spread a bit for that. If there is a new approach to learn reading standard notation, bring it on, but I have no deadline.

Marc


unclewalt
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 11:14 am
Status: Offline

Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:59 pm

wrench wrote:
unclewalt wrote:
That's great, I'll check it out for sure, but my learning missions are pretty well mapped out, and I just don't have the time or brainspace for it. I certainly don't begrudge you putting some music-only lessons here for those whom it can help. It just made me curious, is all.

I took organ and cornet lessons as a kid, and had a very tough time of it. I tried Mel Bay for guitar when I was about 12, too, and I couldn't get my head around it. I regret not having tried harder at the time. One thing I might get out of elementary lessons, though, is some better knowledge of rhythm. I have natural rhythm, but I don't understand it intellectually at all. I can't count off a song, for example, but I can keep a beat with just about anything.

I have learned more theory here than I ever knew, and it's helped a lot, but actually learning to read would be a whole different thing for me than what I'm doing now.
Walt, I am curious about why you are not more open to learning notation. With all we have learned here about music, it seems to me the quantity of information necessary to learn notation is far less than music theory. I think an analogy might be learning calculus without learning mathematical symbols.

I'm not being argumentative, just curious.
I'm not sure what more to add by way of explanation, but I'll try. For me, at least, learning music notation (which as I noted, I tried to do as a kid, though probably not hard enough) means taking a whole different approach to playing, basically starting from scratch in some ways. As I said above, knowledge of notation has to be mapped to playing (on the fly if you sight-read). It's a superior way to learn music, but it's just not one I took to when I started playing nearly 40 years ago, and it would be a major undertaking for me now. It's like learning a new language.

Your calculus analogy doesn't really work though, since doing calculus would be impossible without knowing mathematical symbols. But I play music without knowing notation - in fact, I might be considered an advanced guitar player, or at least high-intermediate. And there are lots of true masters who can't read music.

But to use calculus as an example for a different analogue: I'm an economics journalist. I'm still learning all kinds of stuff about that topic all the time, of course. If I knew calculus, it would be a huge help. But I simply don't have the time or the brainspace to take on such a thing, so I work my strengths and shore up my weaknesses where I can. I understand statistics well enough to do my job. It would be easier if I knew calculus, but learning calculus would take too many resources away from other things I need to do and know.

Musically, I'm doing just fine with what I have for what my goals are -- for example, making serious progress as a fingerpicker, which was my goal when I joined the site. As for theory - I'm still learning, of course. I know the basics and am continuing to just pick things up as I go. I don't study it in any kind of formal way, and I don't think I need to know how to sight-read to understand what I need to understand about theory.

All this said, I'm sure I'll be able to get *something* out of Neil's forthcoming lessons on notation. As I noted above, I'd like to understand rhythm better on an intellectual level.


User avatar
neverfoundthetime
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:14 pm
Status: Offline

Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:36 pm

Unfortunately I was traumatised by the first attempts at reading music at a too early age and have resisted ever since.
It's possible I could be dragged to a state of understanding by a teacher of Neil's quality... but I probably won't go quietly! ;-)


kelemenj
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:40 pm
Status: Offline

Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:29 pm

unclewalt wrote:
kelemenj wrote:
when you get down to it, note reading is just another form of tablature. Most of the time, the sheet music will even tell you what position and string the tone is to be played on. Don't be discouraged.
John

Well.... not really. It contains a lot more information, for one thing. Such as rhythm. And it's another step, knowing the notes on sight, and mapping that instantly to the guitar (I'm not sure what you're referring to re: position/string, unless you mean notation with tab under it, which is what Neil already does.) Also, I don't sight-read tab, generally - I use it to learn and memorize the song.

There is, after all, a reason tab exists - because it's hard to learn to read music. It's certainly a worthy skill, and one I wish I had developed, but it's a skill all its own.
Walt,
Is there not rhythm in tab? I learn the rhythm by ear. So why should sight reading be any different. Who says you have to instantly know and map the notes anyway? I usually take a measure or 2 at a time, figure out the fingering, and practice that. Break it down into small bites. The guitar is a little more challenging because unlike a piano where 1 note corresponds to one key. There can be 3 or 4 places to play a note, depending on what string you use. More often than not the sheet music will indicate what string to use.


thereshopeyet
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:19 pm
Status: Offline

Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Thanks.


Catman
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:51 pm
Status: Offline

Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:57 am

I read standard notation, although I'm a bit rusty. But I learned as a child (violin lessons).

I actually sometimes find text-based tab harder to read than standard notation because of the way the timing is handled. On the other hand, tab does make it easier to map to the actual strings and frets, and sheet music is sometimes lacking in some of this basic information.

What I do nowadays is use them both together in the nice format that you get from software such as Guitar Pro. If I get a text-based tab that is difficult for me to parse, I will transcribe it to GPro.

I think learning to read music is a bit like learning any language, and learning it at a young age makes it more permanent. The treble clef that I learned as a young'un comes back to me when I need it. But the bass clef is a different kettle of fish, and I will always use tab for that.

Reading standard notation is a useful skill, but it doesn't actually make you a better musician. Tommy Emmanuel doesn't read music.

Cheers,
David


BobR
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:18 am
Status: Offline

Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:33 pm

Well the longer I play music, the more grateful I am for being able to read standard notation (also bassclef). I find it extremely handy, helpful, useful, beneficial and so on.

So yeah, I'm all for it!!

Age, well I know a guy who learned to play guitar (and piano) ánd read music when he was 69, he's now 73. And yes, his hands let him down here and ther because of age, still not his head. So I'd say, you're never too old to learn it. Could you call him an execption? Maybe......but so is TE for nót reading music.

To me learning to read music is kinda comparable to learning typing blind with ten fingers. Ever did such a course? When you start you'll type single letters like:

ssssssssssssss tttttttttttttt vvvvvvvvvvvvv

next step would be adding a letter to it like: stststststststststst klklklklklklklklklklkl ioioioioioioioioioio

and another letter like: and and and and and and and fal fal fal fal fal fal fal two two two two two

and so on.

So page one of a guitarbook would be something like (in standard notation) E E E E E E E E E E rest rest, A A A A A A rest rest, D D D D D D rest rest. Then you add close notes like on the same string like E F E F E F E F, then E F G E F G E F G. until your brain makes the connection.

So it's indeed a brain thing. (If you already play the guitar you're already don't need to learn to actually play it). Your brain needs to make the connection between the eyes, brain and fingers. You start with little combinations.

Also it's like learning a technique. Maybe you use song for that and it takes a while, but once learned, you can apply it to many other songs.

Alright, gonna quit my ramblings now...! Sooooooo much to say about this...! :S

Ness


User avatar
neverfoundthetime
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:14 pm
Status: Offline

Sun Dec 02, 2012 2:32 pm

Yeo, that's pretty much how it'll have to be Dermot! ;-)

thereshopeyet wrote:
Chris Wrote:
I could be dragged to a state of understanding by a teacher of Neil's quality... but I probably won't go quietly!
It's a scary thought Chris........ :ohmy:

Click To Enlarge Image:
Image


suziko
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:37 am
Status: Offline

Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:20 pm

I have a very rusty knowledge of standard notation, from the few years that I did piano. I don't instantly process what note I'm seeing when I look at standard, and still have to rely on my mnemonic to figure out what it is. When I was playing piano regularly, it was much easier for me to read standard. You don't use it, you lose it. I'm very interested in learning more about what Neil's got in store regarding classical guitar and standard notation. I'm definitely very open to learning new things. And, heck, I just turned 40! :)

Suzi


RicksPick
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 2:18 pm
Status: Offline

Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:48 pm

It is a big NO from me

Always seemed way out of my league
so Im looking forward to it
Always willing to try something new as it gives me inspiration
Unless I suck at it, :side:

RicksPick


Post Reply Previous topicNext topic