"Musicians who cannot read music play better than those that can"

[gusmahler]

I was reading about the Beatles once and the article theorized that one of the reasons for their success was because none of the Beatles were formally trained. Therefore, they had no preconceived notions of what music "should" be; they just made music that sounded good to them.

That theory is the crux of the quote that began this thread.

But the quote is vague. What does it mean to "play better"? Mentioned in this thread include Nirvana and Dream Theater. There is no doubt to anyone that John Petrucci plays "better" in a technical sense than Kurt Cobain does. But I don't think that's what you mean. You probably mean from a songwriting perspective. And that's really a matter of opinion.

[Dan BRIGHT]

petrucci's sense of melody and structure absolutely kills anything nirvana has put out. Dont get me wrong, Nirvana blah blah blah fun to listen to, but the stuff they wrote doesnt hold a candle to tons of other bands.

[Wynton]

Classical, traditional instruction can hinder people from thinking out of the box. But an absence of proper technique, and full understanding of history and theory, can also be a major hinderance.

[The Glidd]

What do you mean by better?

Which instruments? Vocalists can very easily get away with never reading a note in their lives. Viola players would have a tough time, though.

[Duke]

The problem is that the act of being able to read music doesn't necessarily imply a formal training, or that all you can do is repeat what you're reading. A good musician doesn't necessarily have to read music, but it's not a question of mutual exclusivity.

[The Glidd]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an interesting question. There are two different methods for teaching classical musicians at a young age. In orchestral strings it is very common to use the Suzuki method which starts kids at a very young age (like 3) and focuses all of the early stages on just holding the instrument correctly and producing sound, and then moves directly on to listening to music and picking it up by ear. The players learn some pretty difficult music pretty young and don't learn to read music until much later.

The opposite approach is taken in the school band programs. These generally don't begin until the kids are around 10 or so. This method teaches one note and one rhythm at a time. Therefore, the first concert consists of the entire band playing one note for really long intervals. It takes quite a while to play anything difficult, but the ability to read music is considered to be the most important aspect. Listening is very much secondary.

Which method do you think produces better musicians more often?

[/ QUOTE ]

Among other things, I'm a 4th grade band director. My first concert incorporates variations on Hot Cross Buns, soli features on Mary Had Little Lamb and London Bridge is Falling Down, and a setting for the Finale of Beethoven's 9th.

Once the kids develop some technical proficiency on their instruments (it takes as several months to learn how to hold it and learn fingerings, etc.) we start each rehearsal using Kodaly hand signals and doing call and response singing and playing toward the goal of aural recognition of simple melodic patterns.

Naturally, I reject your characterization of what a beginning band is.

Besides, a more instructive comparison would be to examine a Suzuki violin class with another group learning through a different method. Band and string instruments are completely different animals, especially to a ten year old. But a thought:

The violin players I went to conservatory with were all excellent, but often, the Suzuki trained players had a harder time fitting into the total violin section sound. As soloists they were terrific, but blending within a section was not their strength.

[The Glidd]

[ QUOTE ]

I think most highschool bands suffer because all of the students are just playing whats on the paper and not listening to see how it all fits together. This is also why it is so difficult to teach jazz improvization in high school.

i'll get off the soapbox now.

[/ QUOTE ]

My results teaching HS jazz improv would suggest otherwise. Most of the issues are scheduling challenges and competency of the teacher.

[Fatt Albert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think most highschool bands suffer because all of the students are just playing whats on the paper and not listening to see how it all fits together. This is also why it is so difficult to teach jazz improvization in high school.

i'll get off the soapbox now.

[/ QUOTE ]

My results teaching HS jazz improv would suggest otherwise. Most of the issues are scheduling challenges and competency of the teacher.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course the competency of the teacher will improve the group. The teacher should be able to identify where the gaps in learning are. If they sense that the students aren't listening well enough, then thats what they work on. If its another area, the they work on different stuff... and the group gets better.

Also, I am not saying that high school kids can't learn to improvise, just that it could be a lot easier if they had been learning by ear more often.

In reference to somebody else, I learned about Kodaly in college but my particular school never used any of that. My general music class in Elementary school used some Orff stuff, but not very often. When I was in beginning band in 5th grade, our first concert was out of a book. The first piece was like eight measures long and alternated whole notes and whole rests. I think the finale of the concert was something along the lines of Mary Had a Little Lamb. However, I think that we were all capable of much more, especially rhythmically. Kids that age can understand and mimic pretty complicated rhythms, if only they weren't stressed to read them.

[daveT]

I began Piano Lessons at a very early age. I was taught how to read music from the very first day, but my teacher was also reluctant to teach me anything more until I mastered each song. She was very adamant that I listen to myself play and follow her melody.

If I was to start teaching guitar or piano tommorrow, I would be equally as thorough as she was. While I may not be the best musician in the world, any instrument I pick up is learned fairly fast. I think that this is a result of her teaching style. I think that one thing many note-readers fail to realize is that they have to sort of "forget" how to read, and just play. I think that if a suzuki-trained musician was able to master this part, s/he would be phenominal. I would be willing to bet that many of our best musicians are as I just described.

What really gets my skin is that there are several "self-taught" musicians that use the suzuki method as an excuse to not learn anything useful in their own music. They refuse to play other musician's music because they are afraid that doing this will cramp their style. They even cite Kurt Cobain, but have no idea that he started out in a Credence Clear Water cover band. They like to cite the blues, when I can guarantee they never listed to blues for a full day, and I have never met one that could name ten blues musicians. They also fail to realize that the blues is based on aproxamatly 75 progressions, and seldomly leaves this mold.

The beatles do have influence. They did not play common chords, and surely after returning from India, they had a different sound. Isn't this the sound that is blamed on Yoko Ono?

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
The beatles do have influence. They did not play common chords, and surely after returning from India, they had a different sound. Isn't this the sound that is blamed on Yoko Ono?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lennon was self taught. I believe McCartney's father was a musician, so he probably taught his son how to play. IIRC, one of the reasons Lennon recruited McCartney was so he could learn how to play better.

Sort of OT, but I remember seeing a video of Opeth describing how to play a song of theirs. The guitarist was demonstrating the starting chord and progression. The host asked the guitarist what chord he was playing. The guitarist didn't know the name of the chord! That was pretty amazing to me, considering Opeth's music isn't really that simple.