RE: Reading Music

RE: Reading Music (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - General: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=13
- - - RE: Reading Music: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=287415

Message

Sr. Martins -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 5 2016 3:34:54)
quote: It's sort of a silly argument right? You can play the guitar and not know theory, tab, notation, etc ... Or for that matter even know how to tune the guitar .... BUT the more you know, the more you can do. That was my point.. plus the fact that many people think that standard notation is music theory, which leads to them feeling that they know a piece better in a theoretical aspect if they read the actual dots on a piece of sheet music. In reality, it's an empty feeling of fullfilment. All they did was just look at a "countoured" version of a TAB because there's zero music theory on that procedure. Either way, whatever rocks everyone's boats. [:D]

Paul Magnussen -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 5 2016 20:48:33)
quote: You can play the guitar and not know theory You can not to how to read, nor any theory, and still be a musical genius (like Sabicas). The problem comes when you want to communicate with other musicians — especially ones that don’t play your instrument. Then you have no means of expressing what you want to say (and they’re left wondering why so many guitarists are illiterate).

El Kiko -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 5 2016 21:57:36)
I agree Paul .. the music notation is a universal system covering most instruments , as oppose to just guitar ... quote: dots on a piece of sheet music. In reality, it's an empty feeling of fullfilment. not strictly true actually ...you will find in the real world that many will almost not be able to help learning at least a certain amount of theory as they learn to read ... after all ..its the same thing .. its still music .. getting it all together in your head ,,your instrument , some theory , and a way to review and put it all together and read /write it .. And as Paul pointed out notation is universal and has developed in that way over the years as its the best way of doing it ...in this way it becomes a language ,..played ..and written that all people can use, understand and enjoy , no matter what country of language or instrument they play ...thats the beauty of music ,, anything less would surely be a detraction ... I think it would be difficult to learn to read without learning at least some of the basic stuff ,, like keys , and relative minors etc .. as this aids the reading process . Also by looking at a musical notation piece..even at a distant glance .. you can see that if ...for example .. a piece is in C Major .and on the second page you see o lot of sharps or flats suddenly appearing .. good bet youve just changed key .. and a good bet you know where it gone to ... I dont think TAB would give you such a good ''at a glance'' overview

Cervantes -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 5 2016 22:43:38)
I think speaking Espanol would do me more good than being able to read notation. I live only a few miles from Mexico so I have no excuse.

El Kiko -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 5 2016 23:28:38)
If you want to speak to the Spanish learn Spanish If you want to speak to the Musicians learn Music

Sr. Martins -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 5 2016 23:42:53)
I still don't understand what this is about. Are any of you trying to say that tab has to be extinguished? If not, then what are you talking about? And no, knowing key signatures is still not music theory, the same way that knowing about words and paragraphs isn't... it enables you to gather, write and communicate ideas but there's nothing theoretical about it.

Leñador -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 6 2016 0:17:33)
Theory is theory not fact. I have a jazz friend who goes nuts when students say "why do I have to learn theory??" " I'm not teaching you theory! I'm teaching you notes on your guitar and chord building, this is just music!!" Lol

Sr. Martins -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 6 2016 0:36:43)
quote: Theory is theory not fact. Yes, notation is a representation of the facts (the notes in a piece of music, how they are to be played, etc). By itself, it has no theoretical meaning.

withinity -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 6 2016 7:35:59)
quote: ORIGINAL: El Kiko If you want to speak to the Spanish learn Spanish If you want to speak to the Musicians learn Music Why is the consensus so often then to not go to Spain if you cant speak Spanish , especially those who are interested in Flamenco and or mixing with Gitanos. I mean why are Aficionados encouraged to learn Spanish if its really a musical aspect drawing them to Spain. Was your statement a bit black and white or do you stand by it? Does reading sheet music help with the accompany of Cante?

El Kiko -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 6 2016 22:16:35)
quote: I still don't understand what this is about. a bit worrying to someone has posted 10 posts on a thread and then declare they dont know what its about . This is about n85ae learning to read music and being refreshingly off TAB and I say well done to him and hope it opens up new avenues of thought.. quote: And no, knowing key signatures is still not music theory very wrong again .. key signatures can be one of the first and basic steps into a world of theory , how far you go is up to you . I shudder to think what , then, you believe music theory is if keys, scales etc are not , in your opinion , part of it . quote: Theory is theory not fact. This is one of the wierdest sentences I have read for a while ...Im still considering what it may mean ...theory is not fact? .. like, its just made up fiction and has no relation at all to the real world? ( of music) come on man ... quote: (the notes in a piece of music, how they are to be played, etc). By itself, it has no theoretical meaning. To you , perhaps this is true ,.. to others they can get a world of information from it of theory ideas even how a composer thinks as he writes his pieces and much more .. quote: Why is the consensus so often then to not go to Spain if you cant speak Spanish consesus !!!! good grief ..when did that happen ? i wasnt consulted ! who is this all powerful group that made this decision on our behalf ? and why does most of the population of the World go against it by continuing to visit countries that have differing languages. quote: why are Aficionados encouraged to learn Spanish well it wouldnt do you any harm if you did now would it? ,, understand ,perhaps what songs and cante were actually saying , why some are funny , some are sad and how they fit in to life in Spain ... would it make you better at playing? , probably not ..would it help you have a better understanding of the culture , probably would ...would it make your stay in Spain ,,despite this consensus , more interesting ..probably would .. It seems to be stated as if it were a chore or hardship..its not .. learning is fun ...people learn another language cos they want to , cos they are interested in it , and because they would like to travel to that country and make freinds ..not because they have to .. its the same reason people learn anything ..including music .. the interest gets them and they just cant really help it ... Reading music is very useful depending on what your doing .... I had , a long time ago at college , a guitar teacher called Charlie , (who was for a while teaching john Mclaughlin ..which has no relavance here , ) anyway .. he taught me only sight reading at that time .. and he told me ...and I still believe this holds true today ...if you work in music learn to sight read , because you will have another string to your bow .. many guitarists will play a million times faster and two hands and tricks and everything is great ,... then a piece of written music is put in front of them .....and thats when they phone me .... true story

Leñador -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 6 2016 23:50:16)
Theory, like theoretical. Not yet fact.

chester -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 7 2016 0:24:19)
quote: Theory, like theoretical. Not yet fact. Is that what you think a theory is? A theory is an explanation - like "I have a theory" is "I have an explanation for this phenomenon". You work in construction right? Think of how concrete dries up and becomes hard - how does that happen? Your explanation here would be the "theory" behind it (molecules binding yada yada yada). It never becomes fact (as you say it) because you can't really prove anything 100% except for what you originally observed (concrete became hard). So if you hear a D7 and then a G and the D7 sounds tense while the G sounds resolved -> the V - I "theory" explains why. Anyway, that's my theory as to what theory means. I'm sure there are smarter people here who are more versed in scientific terminology that can clarify it further. I haven't met many people who defend ignorance as fervently as amateur musicians trying to rationalize their laziness.

Sr. Martins -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 7 2016 0:53:54)
quote: I shudder to think what , then, you believe music theory is if keys, scales etc are not , in your opinion , part of it . I never said that. That's just stupid. Words can be part of a poem but words by themselves aren't a poem. Kiko, your ignorance is coming off very rude. Keep it to yourself or learn to ask about things in a polite way.

n85ae -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 7 2016 4:53:37)
This right here, is what it's about to me. :) Jeff quote: refreshingly off TAB

Leñador -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 7 2016 5:09:24)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theoretical

ToddK -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 7 2016 6:27:33)
Semantics. Change it from "Music theory" to "Music explanation". We know how music works. We dont just have a "Theory" about how it might work or what it might be. It can be explained. We might all be here because of The big bang theory, but we really have no idea. Its just a theory.

Estevan -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 7 2016 16:43:18)
quote: Semantics. Change it from "Music theory" to "Music explanation". Exactly. I've always said it's not theory, in the sense of something abstract and removed from practice, it's a description of practice. Anyone studying 'classical' music 'theory' will be introduced to 'common practice harmony', which is a description of what composers and performers usually did in the 18th and 19th centuries. Based on that, you can better appreciate the unusual bits too. If you study jazz 'theory', you learn about what the cats play.

Sr. Martins -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 7 2016 17:00:03)
It's a common misconception but it gets annoying. People tend to get all snobby about notation vs TAB when in reality it makes no difference to what they get out of it because they're just playing what's in there and they aren't analyzing or theorizing anything. It's like playing by colors like in Guitar Hero. If we get into a specific era/genre and read about voice-leading, counterpoint, form, etc... that's theory. Looking at notes.. sorry but no. Don't feel butthurt about it, just embrace it has something new to explore or at least put down the snobbery.

hamia -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 7 2016 17:06:17)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToddK Semantics. Change it from "Music theory" to "Music explanation". We know how music works. We dont just have a "Theory" about how it might work or what it might be. It can be explained. We might all be here because of The big bang theory, but we really have no idea. Its just a theory. I think music is pretty well understood. How the notes sound and harmonize is physics. Our reaction to that (whether we think it sounds good or not) is based on physics and physiology and cultural conditioning - shape of ear drum etc. No great mystery about it.

Paul Magnussen -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 7 2016 18:15:18)
quote: Our reaction to that (whether we think it sounds good or not) is based on physics and physiology and cultural conditioning - shape of ear drum etc. To a certain extent, clearly. quote: No great mystery about it. I disagree: why do I love Bach but get bored out of my brain by Haydn? It certainly isn’t cultural conditioning — conventional opinion says that Haydn was a genius. I remember a conversation about modern music with Lance Bosman, wherein he said quite strongly that learning to like it was a question of exposure, nothing else. I’m not convinced: few people who were adults when Rock ’n Roll came along in the mid-fifties ever seemed to learn to like it, despite its ubiquity. But even exposure at a young age didn’t make me like Max Bygraves. On the other hand, when I first came across Flamenco, I remember I used to wait for the singer to stop screaming so I could hear the guitar. Others like the singing straight away. So to return to the point, I think there remain many mysteries.

Richard Jernigan -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 7 2016 19:25:32)
quote: ORIGINAL: hamia I think music is pretty well understood. How the notes sound and harmonize is physics. Our reaction to that (whether we think it sounds good or not) is based on physics and physiology and cultural conditioning - shape of ear drum etc. No great mystery about it. I suppose they must have different physics in Bali, Java, North India, South India, Japan, Iran, West Africa..... RNJ

Paul Magnussen -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 7 2016 19:48:23)
quote: I suppose they must have different physics in Bali, Java, North India, South India, Japan, Iran, West Africa..... He did say physics and cultural conditioning.

estebanana -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 8 2016 0:05:53)
quote: I like to have both notation and tab when learning new piece, especially the difficult pieces like Paco Pena's En Las Cuevaos or La Romeria. I read notation but use tab to help with fingering. Without tab it would take me much longer. I also think they work well together in some cases. Even for learning Bach or transcriptions where the fingerings will be less intrinsic guitar fingerbaord logic/ Sor Guliani etc. are underpinned with a kind of logic where chords stack in a guitaristic manner, other music can be trickier locate good fingering while sight reading,consult a few measures of tab. The important result is to arrive at a good fingering as soon as possible and not confuse yourself by hesitating back and forth between fingerings. The versions of Bach for guitar that you can buy which have tab and notation are useful for learning to read notation- I you have to make leaps around the fretboard and the notes look like first position notes to you in the notation but are up the neck then the tab points to the area where the fingers really need to be. After a few weeks or months of regular work reading notation the paths and signs that tell you where on the neck you need to be become natural. But in the beginning notation can be confusing in terms of positions and tab can help speed up postion indication. Soon the tab will no longer be needed for that purpose and be used occasionally for a thorny fingering. Many new classical guitar method books give position indications as helpers to students to let the know where on the neck to play the music. Like an indication the A note should be played on the D string instead of the G string. So why not build on that logic and include a peek at tab. I think it is a mistake to be dependent only on tab, but as a tool to learn fingerings or other details it just another tool.

Ricardo -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 8 2016 2:49:01)
I have encountered students that can read standard notation, in fact rely on it to learn music. Some can sight read in time very well. Also these same folks tend to be at a loss with tabs. But when I ask them to play a "C#", they are totally lost. I mean they can play one if they SEE it on the page, but not as a NAME concept on the neck. Terminology is all music theory is. That is because a dot on the page is just a memorizing tool. See the dot on the line, and your finger goes to the one it knows. Tab has the same effect but more specific, and therefore easier for beginning guitar students to understand. Rui is correct, that notation is NOT music theory. And yes, some people seem to think knowing how to read standard notation is the same as having a deeper understanding of music, but it is not really. Reading music and "knowing" music is not the same thing. The irony is that many flamenco guitar players know more about music than majority that can read it. Same can be said for other music styles, as the guitar crosses many genres and disciplines. Finally, discipline is the key word. Learning to speak Spanish is not the same thing as knowing how to read and write.

chester -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 8 2016 3:09:46)
quote: many flamenco guitar players know more about music than majority that can read it If by 'many' you mean many famous flamenco guitar players (Gerardo, Tomatito, Vicente, etc) then sure, but if you think that most of the flamencos that can accompany some cante know 'more about music' (whatever that means) than let's say the majority of berklee, new school, or unt grads you can go back to sleep and I hope a nightmare doesn't wake you up. As far as fingerings go it's pretty personal. Some people have no trouble maintaining the same sound between the G and B strings so they can switch it up rather than keeping the melody on the same string, other people might have more of a reach between their fingers and can make longer stretches. Different strokes for different folks. The end result (ie what the listener hears) is what's important, not the players' fingering or technique (see jeff beck for some atrocious looking technique that sounds awesome). Kiko, your last post here was hilarious, I'm looking forward to the next one. :) Rui, to me it reads like you're the one who's butthurt over some people pooping on you for not knowing how to read. In the end -- if you're a professional who needs gigs it'll definitely help to know how to read but if you're just playing for fun there's no reason to force yourself to do anything you don't want to do. Just don't go convincing yourself that you're not doing it because it's somehow detrimental and make you sound like a harmonica player.

Ricardo -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 8 2016 3:43:48)
quote: but if you think that most of the flamencos that can accompany some cante know 'more about music' (whatever that means) than let's say the majority of berklee, new school, or unt grads you can go back to sleep and I hope a nightmare doesn't wake you up. Well, didn't realize that Berkeley new nu school (c)unt grads constitute the majority of fly poo readers...but yes that's what I think. quote: The end result (ie what the listener hears) is what's important, not the players' fingering or technique (see jeff beck for some atrocious looking technique that sounds awesome). Well, fingers are in fact making the end result...beck tech is most likely why he sounds like that vs a normal pick player. [8\|] Rui I am sure reads just fine, based on what he has been saying. Others, I have to wonder about.

estebanana -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 8 2016 13:55:50)
Chuscales for example said he does not really read notation or claim to know theory in a way he can explain it in terms of counterpoint or the names of stacked up chords. But you'll not find many guitar players who understand the fingerboard and how to construct music better then he does. I think Ricardo is correct and I sleep tonight awaiting a nightmare in which Chusco plays without notation and goes totally off the reservation of theory. Nino Ricardo was supposed to have been the same way. It was observed by a few students that you could place one of his fingers anywhere on the fingerboard and call out a palo and he would play a falseta off that note in the palo called. Or was it invent a whole new falseta? Either way kind of mind blowing.

Sr. Martins -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 8 2016 15:11:36)
quote: Rui, to me it reads like you're the one who's butthurt over some people pooping on you for not knowing how to read. You read that wrong. Go practice!

chester -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 8 2016 15:35:26)
quote: ORIGINAL: estebanana Chuscales for example said he does not really read notation or claim to know theory in a way he can explain it in terms of counterpoint or the names of stacked up chords. But you'll not find many guitar players who understand the fingerboard and how to construct music better then he does. I think Ricardo is correct and I sleep tonight awaiting a nightmare in which Chusco plays without notation and goes totally off the reservation of theory. Nino Ricardo was supposed to have been the same way. It was observed by a few students that you could place one of his fingers anywhere on the fingerboard and call out a palo and he would play a falseta off that note in the palo called. Or was it invent a whole new falseta? Either way kind of mind blowing. Funny that you should mention chuscales. I distinctly remember taking a lesson with jason mcguire where he was extolling the virtues of knowing theory for allowing him to play a buleria on any key while "guys like chuscales" can't understand how he does it. I'm not saying that one needs to formally know music theory in order to create good music, especially for a harmonically simple genre like flamenco, but you can bet that chuscales would have an easier time writing music if he could actually you know, write it down.

Paul Magnussen -> RE: Reading Music (Feb. 8 2016 16:06:18)
Descending from the general to the specific: • If Sabicas had known how to read, then we'd presumably have been spared those crappy transcriptions by pianists in the ’50s and ’60s. • If Lucía had, then the published transcriptions might not have had so many mistakes in them (always supposing he could have been bothered to check them, of course). • Juan Serrano told me, IIRC (in 1987, I don’t know if this is still the case) that to get 100% of your composer royalties in Spain, you have to be a member of the Sociedad de Autores; and to join that, you have to pass a test in music theory. Otherwise, you can only be a joint composer with someone who is a member. That’s why so many of the composer credits on the records say (for example) “Sánchez/Torregrosa”. So knowing theory seems to have (or have had) financial advantages in Spain at least.

Page: << < 1 [2] 3 > >>

Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET