3 ms·
There's more to music than an "acoustic thing" because of processes such as composition, arrangement, rehearsal, and so forth. Whether those things are necessar
by analog31 3y ago
There's more to music than an "acoustic thing" because of processes such as composition, arrangement, rehearsal, and so forth. Whether those things are necessary or useful depends mostly on what genre you're interested in playing.
Some genres, like rock and folk music, involve little or no written material. There are certainly players who have never read music from a sheet. I attend a week-long folk music camp every summer, and there's no sheet music. I perform jazz "standards" in small ensemble settings entirely by ear.
But I also belong to a 19-piece jazz ensemble, that plays from sheet music. It's really not practical to expect the players to figure out their parts by ear and perform them from memory. Requiring that would greatly reduce the scope of our repertoire, and the band's ability to attract players. Sheet music literally expands the artistic palette of the composer, to the delight of both the performers and the audience.
Sheet music allows students to study and work through a large amount of literature, quickly. My kids are both studying music in college, and the amount of material they're exposed to every week is mind blowing, in lessons, class, rehearsals, and even getting together to play for fun.
Having been a part time working musician for a few decades, I've also noticed that sheet music is a band management tool. My band would be incapable of performing if we couldn't call in one or two substitutes per performance, some of whom are sight-reading on the bandstand. Same deal for a classical orchestra. In a smaller band that I play in, the bandleader is composing most of the material, and we scribble edits and rehearsal notes in our parts as we collaborate on refining each piece.
Up through the 1960s or 70s, the instrumental parts for most popular music was recorded by professional musicians who were working from written material, even if they made sometimes dramatic changes to the songs. This was just the most efficient way to manage a studio date. The touring musicians could always learn the songs by ear later on. There are stories of bands, where the first few dates of each tour still sounded rough as the band was coming up to speed on material that had already been professionally recorded.
- john61 3y agoI do not doubt the usefulness of written music, as I do not doubt the usefulness of written speech. But you have to walk before you run. Often people play music by eye before they can really hear. Written music is a useful tool, hearing is the essence of music.
- greffer 3y agoA difference may be that you start speaking around age 1/2 and then the written word follows about 5 years later. If you start learning to play the piano at age 8 and wait for 5 years to be introduced to any musical notation, then this will be very late and will have cost you 5 years of training and getting used to reading (and writing) said notation.
- analog31 3y agoIndeed, and this has been an area where music education has gone back and forth. Historically, the popular Suzuki teaching method started with playing by ear (and being told where to put your fingers) exclusively. Today, "Suzuki" teachers generally add reading to the curriculum, not right away, but fairly early. An amusing bit of reverse psychology, the kids who learn to read can begin to have more fun on their own than just playing the boring stuff from their lessons. This motivated both of my kids. These days, the person who is utterly helpless without a sheet in front of them is a rare exception, except maybe on piano. But there are two things "wrong" with the piano: Not just the notation, but the focus on playing it as a solo instrument. In my view, in addition to reading and ear training, the other component that needs to be started as young as possible is playing with other people. The Suzuki method does emphasize this quite heavily. It's hard to do with pianos.
- greffer 3y agoI fully agree. Compare to natural language: Monologues have their place, but speaking to others is essential to learn, and so is interacting musically with others. I do also think that some education philosophies focus too much on notation, but being illiterate (as in: not being able to read musical notation) is restricting quite a lot what you can do and how you can learn.