Reading Is Fundamental

[officermayo]

I see posts in other trombone forums at least once a week where someone posts a photo of a piece of music asking "How does this go?".

Other experienced players will respond with links to videos. Are kids not being taught the basics of reading music? I ran into this while working at a community college. Folks with four years of high school band who cannot read.

What's going on in our schools?

[JohnL]

I see posts in other trombone forums at least once a week where someone posts a photo of a piece of music asking "How does this go?".

Other experienced players will respond with links to videos. Are kids not being taught the basics of reading music? I ran into this while working at a community college. Folks with four years of high school band who cannot read.

What's going on in our schools?

Some (not I said "some", not "most" or even "many") school music programs don't do a whole lot of reading. Rhythms are learned by rote.

[Crazy4Tbone86]

The rhythm problems have always been there. As a teacher of 38 years, I can assure you that there has been and always will be a certain percentage of the population that struggles tremendously with rhythm. This includes people who participate passionately and regularly in music ensembles.

Rhythm issues are as wide and varied as a large buffet. Some have no internal metronome, others have an internal metronome but it can never synchronize with the people around them. Many, many people never understand the mathematics of rhythmic values (example: no matter what the meter or tempo, a quarter note is ALWAYS twice as long as an eighth note). Many don’t understand how a time signature works. For so many, there are mysteries that don’t ever make sense…..for example, why is a dotted half note worth 1 beat in fast 3/4, 2 beats in fast 6/8, 3 beats in 3/4 and 6 beats in slow 6/8?

Yes, rhythm and rhythmic accuracy can be taught. I have a system of subdividing that I use with all of my students. It is effective for the majority, but there are some that cannot understand it. I have found that a person who struggles with the fundamentals (holding half notes and whole notes full value in 4/4 time) as a teenager within the first few years of experience, will usually struggle with rhythm for most of their life. However, these musicians can still be taught and will improve.

I don’t believe a struggle with rhythm is an indicator of overall intelligence. I have had college students who really struggled with “fundamental rhythmic material” like the syncopation section of the Arban’s book. However, a couple of these students graduated with highest honors and went on to Ivy League grad schools for sciences.

I had a couple of students in my studio the last few years who really struggled with rhythm. These kids were highly intelligent and they worked hard…..it’s just that rhythm was tricky for them. With both of them, I kept going back and reviewing the material that was tough for them. It was not until the 4th or 5th time of reviewing syncopation and dotted rhythms that they were able to play them comfortably. That’s just the way some musicians are!

As an educator, I have seen many cycles of ebb and flow with rhythm…….both in my lesson teaching and my ensembles. When the sailing is easy and my students understand rhythm well, I enjoy the ride and try to give them rhythm challenges to make things interesting. When I have students who struggle with rhythm, I try to be patient and do exercises to help them understand the logic and mathematics. As long as the level of their playing improves, it is all good.

As far as the question…..”what’s going on in our schools?” Well…….there is a lot going on! Just like at any other time in history, there are highly effective teachers out there and rather ineffective teachers out there (and the entire spectrum between those). No matter how effective they are, the teachers are at the mercy of the students they teach (especially concerning rhythmic ability). Another thing to consider is that bands and orchestras were some of the hardest hit classes during the pandemic. Chances are that the students you are seeing have been shortchanged in their rhythmic education by a year or two…..that’s huge. Be patient with them and encourage them to practice and try to give them some tips to improve their rhythm.

[Burgerbob]

It's always been this way. It'd a hard skill to teach and learn.

[GabrielRice]

I agree this is nothing new.

Quite frankly, I would rather students learn to hear clearly and reproduce what they hear FIRST, and THEN learn how to notate and read the notation of what they are hearing.

I would rather students sing and dance and play percussion instruments FIRST, and THEN choose the instrument they would like to play in band or orchestra.

All that said, there is a book I use - sometimes even with college students - that practices the essential fundamentals of reading rhythmic notation and translating it into instrumental sound: https://www.jwpepper.com/101-Rhythmic-R ... 09725.item

[tbdana]

The "think system" is finally blossoming!

[tbdana]

I see posts in other trombone forums at least once a week where someone posts a photo of a piece of music asking "How does this go?".

Other experienced players will respond with links to videos. Are kids not being taught the basics of reading music? I ran into this while working at a community college. Folks with four years of high school band who cannot read.

What's going on in our schools?

It might be schools, but really I think it's just people and isn't really a new problem.

I agree with Gabriel Rice that playing by ear is fundamental and should be learned (first?), and think it may actually be more important to overall musicianship than reading well. But in practice we need to do both well.

However, I played with Buddy Rich back in the day, and that rat bastard couldn't tell a quarter note from a pickup truck, but he was still an incredible instrumentalist. Being unable to read music didn't hold him back. Whenever we got a new chart, Buddy would have his roadie play the drums the first time through in rehearsal, then Buddy would play after that, and he never missed a beat, cue, setup, fill, or accent. As terrible a human being as he was, his playing by ear was infallible. But for most of us, we need to read well.

And I also agree with Brian Hinkley that reading rhythms is just tough for some people, and also agree that some lack an inner metronome. I keep harping on this, but the most important element of music is time, not notes, and you have to be able to read rhythms and feel them in your soul to play any kind of music.

One problem is that we have to learn to walk and chew gum, in the sense when we are learning we need to juggle reading notes and rhythms at the same time. Students and amateurs focus first on notes and will sacrifice rhythm and time to get the notes right, but when reading something professionals focus first on time (which includes rhythm), even if it means missing some of the notes. Students are often struggling so hard to get the notes right that they don't learn to read and feel rhythm at the same rate, and that element falls behind. For some, it's so hard to learn both, they direct their entire focus to pitch (often spurred on by their teachers), and might even mentally give up trying to learn rhythm.

Humans have a tendency to want to practice what they do well rather than what they suck at most, so if reading is too hard, it often goes by the wayside. One of the hardest things I had to learn when I was a student was to practice the stuff I was terrible at (which was frustrating) rather than the stuff I was good at (which was fun). I don't think students today are any different. We all like to do what's fun and avoid what's frustrating.

[Crazy4Tbone86]

I agree this is nothing new.

Quite frankly, I would rather students learn to hear clearly and reproduce what they hear FIRST, and THEN learn how to notate and read the notation of what they are hearing.

I would rather students sing and dance and play percussion instruments FIRST, and THEN choose the instrument they would like to play in band or orchestra.

You bring up some very interesting points Gabe. When I think about my own upbringing, my interest in rhythm and performing rhythms accurately began with listening. As a middle schooler in the mid to late 1970s, there was a wealth of syncopated and interesting rhythms in the pop music of the time. I found myself figuring them out, writing them down and playing them on my horn all of the time. The interest in rhythm developed through listening and curiosity.

Another topic that you brought up was movement and dance. Several years ago, a middle school teacher friend of mine was frustrated because his 6th, 7th and 8th graders could not play simple rhythms like quarter notes together. He took several workshops to brainstorm solutions and figured out that dancing and body percussion was the best solution. Thus, almost all of his rehearsals start with some type of dance/movement activity. His students love it and rhythm is now a strong skill at his school.

[GabrielRice]

Another topic that you brought up was movement and dance. Several years ago, a middle school teacher friend of mine was frustrated because his 6th, 7th and 8th graders could not play simple rhythms like quarter notes together. He took several workshops to brainstorm solutions and figured out that dancing and body percussion was the best solution. Thus, almost all of his rehearsals start with some type of dance/movement activity. His students love it and rhythm is now a strong skill at his school.

There is an entire music education system based on principles of body movement, pioneered by a Swiss educator named Emile Dalcroze. I took a Dalcroze workshop in college that helped me tremendously. There are pockets around the US of schools with Dalcroze teachers: Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh, Longy School of Music in Cambridge, MA, I think Cleveland Institute of Music. At Oberlin we had a music education teacher, now passed away, who taught the workshop I took. Not sure what Oberlin does now.

[Doug Elliott]

I haven't taught much recently besides the mechanics of playing and coaching musical interpretation, but years ago when I did work with beginners and high schoolers, I had good success teaching conducting (relating to the movement idea) and counting.

I think dance is taught the same way, counting steps in rhythm. Of course some people get it and some don't.

Sort of the way solfege relates pitches (or scale degrees) to specific syllables, conducting relates specific numbers to specific movements.

Does anybody else use that?

[GabrielRice]

My trumpet colleague at Kinhaven recently started using conducting a lot to help sort out rhythmic issues and help students navigate complex rhythms. I noticed him doing it a lot more this summer, and I think it's no coincidence that the previous school year he started a beginning and middle school band program and had to do a lot of conducting himself. I think he gets classes full of kids working this way as well.

[harrisonreed]

It depends on the piece, I guess. If you're taking about certain big band charts with really interesting rhythms, even if you can read the music on the page you won't be able to play it until you listen to the recording and get the tune in your head. You can play the rhythm "right" and it will still be "wrong".

The is nothing wrong with supplementing a preliminary reading with a preliminary listen.

[Crazy4Tbone86]

The Kodaly system of learning rhythms is everywhere and our school district chose to implement it in the elementary schools decades ago. The problem is that the “Ta, Ta, ti-ti Ta” method of learning rhythms reaches its limits very quickly. For example, how does a student versed in Kodaly perform an accent on the and of three? Well, they usually struggle with it.

For this reason, another instrumental music teacher and I proposed that the 4th and 5th graders learn to count rhythms in general music classes saying “1 and 2 and 3,” etc…. In addition to the Kodaly method. It works well if students whisper the pulse and accent the counts that have notes beginnings on them. This has helped tremendously in our band and orchestra classes.

I don’t think that any singular method is the complete solution for rhythm or any aspect of music. True understanding comes from being able to demonstrate or explain a concept in numerous ways. The same is true of our students.

[Crazy4Tbone86]

Another topic that you brought up was movement and dance. Several years ago, a middle school teacher friend of mine was frustrated because his 6th, 7th and 8th graders could not play simple rhythms like quarter notes together. He took several workshops to brainstorm solutions and figured out that dancing and body percussion was the best solution. Thus, almost all of his rehearsals start with some type of dance/movement activity. His students love it and rhythm is now a strong skill at his school.

There is an entire music education system based on principles of body movement, pioneered by a Swiss educator named Emile Dalcroze. I took a Dalcroze workshop in college that helped me tremendously. There are pockets around the US of schools with Dalcroze teachers: Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh, Longy School of Music in Cambridge, MA, I think Cleveland Institute of Music. At Oberlin we had a music education teacher, now passed away, who taught the workshop I took. Not sure what Oberlin does now.

Hey Gabe,

Was that Herb Henke, or was he retired by the time you got to Oberlin? If it was Herb, he was one of my teachers as well.

I enjoyed his classes and felt that the Dalcroze system was a great way to outwardly feel and show the expression in music. I guess that’s why I don’t get too worried when I see a student start busting some dance moves in the middle of a rehearsal. Unlocking that joy is part of the Dalcroze system.

[AndrewMeronek]

With what little teaching I've done, I've had success getting students to understand accidentals better by forcing them to learn the piano keyboard layout. But reading rhythms - I've had less success when a student comes from having problems already.

[Cmillar]

A book such as Robert Starer's "Rhythmic Training' can take students from the pure basics all the way to being ready to play something by Stravinsky.

Catch is, the teacher better really know they're doing. But, a student can work through it themselves if they have patience and are serious about music.

His method is all about subdivisions of the mean beats ('pulses') and how it's notated.

It involves tapping or clapping the 'pulse' (which is notated and shown) and then the student should try to vocalize or sing the upper line of rhythm which is notated above the basic 'pulse' notes.

From what teaching I've done, and lucky enough to have been exposed to, you have to get students 'physically involved' in music and learning rhythms'.....clapping, playing a pencil like a drumstick, singing, moving, tapping their toes.....anything physical!!!.....in order to get some kind of kinesthetic response and awareness to rhythms.

Getting students to be 'extroverted' is the challenge as well.

It helps that my wife is a seriously trained dancer! As a student, she had to take drumming lessons as well as classes as to how music is counted and notated. Dancers have been well taught. They get the music 'in their bodies'.

We should all take dance lessons at some point in school, beginning at the elementary school level.

We're humans! We move, we dance, we tap our toes, we walk, we run. We're meant to move.

And many people in different cultures sing and move at the same time while performing much more complicated rhythmic concepts than is being created in most Western music these days.

Anyways, rhythms and reading CAN be taught and learnt by most people. And for sure, some people just aren't innately musical and won't get it.

But, the methods are there to be used.

[robcat2075]

Folks with four years of high school band who cannot read.

What's going on in our schools?

I believe that to be the norm in public schools.

I recall getting to my first (and only) band directing job, handing out some music, giving a downbeat and... not much happened! A few got started but after about four measures all had dropped out... baffled, confused, or not able to keep up.

Ha, ha, ha... I know you're all rusty... lets start again... 1, 2, 3, 4... same result.

Everything we played that year had to be taught about two measures at a time to every section part.

Consider that a substantial fraction of of high schoolers can't read... regular text! Estimates range from 15-25% are illiterate for any useful purpose and that is for a skill that has been in play all day, every day since kindergarten.

Reading music won't get a tenth of that time devoted to it.

I hear some voices above saying that rote learning music is really better anyway.

That may work adequately for an SATB church choir but even a simple high school band arrangement will have 20+ distinct parts. While you are teaching one out of twenty their part, the other 19 out of twenty have to politely sit idle... which doesn't happen. It is a recipe for distraction and disorder and disaffection.

BORING!

It is an unworkable situation except that... It's all you've got since none can really read music and there's a performance at a football game at the end of next week.

[officermayo]

I guess. If you're taking about certain big band charts with really interesting rhythms, even if you can read the music on the page you won't be able to play it until you listen to the recording and get the tune in your head. You can play the rhythm "right" and it will still be wrong

I totally disagree.

I was introduced to swing charts in 8th grade. We learned to play straight eighths as dotted eighth - 16th notes on day one. This was 1974 in a small town. No local record stores carried these recordings and of course this was pre internet days. We learned how to count by playing the charts repeatedly.

At 64 I can sight-read anything because I was taught how to read and the different interpretations based on style (classical, Swing, Rock, etc).

BTW - the very first chart our band director passed out was "Everything's Alright" from Jesus Christ Superstar - in 5/4 no less. We learned it in one rehearsal. Not because we were child prodigies, but because our band director took the time to teach us and broaden our musical horizon.

[harrisonreed]

You're either really advanced or we're talking about different things.

Not being able to read music at all is definitely bad, but I dunno, there are some charts or styles within the dance band genre or even some rock tunes where you gotta listen to the chart to know what was going on with it. Not how to read the rhythms, but the rest of it.

Count Basie and Stan Kenton wrote with the same ink but they aren't the same thing. I didn't know that until I really got smacked over the head with it by someone really passionate about dance band and big band music. Lil Darlin, is a great example. I could never play that "easy" chart in a million years without digging into recordings of it.

[hyperbolica]

The rhythm problems have always been there. As a teacher of 38 years, I can assure you that there has been and always will be a certain percentage of the population that struggles tremendously with rhythm. This includes people who participate passionately and regularly in music ensembles.

This is really interesting to hear someone say this out loud. I've had a lot of problems with rhythm. My teacher in 2nd year of music school drilled me in Bitsch, which is a rhythmic wonderland. I never totally overcame my troubles, but I learned how work through rhythmic issues. My high school music program (35 years ago) never really emphasized sight reading, and unfortunately I learned most of my musicianship in church, which meant everything was easy and rubato.

One of the most effective things that combines the rhythm and reading problems are all of the patterns in Arbans or Mantia. Once you learn to look ahead and recognize those rhythmic and scale patterns visually, reading becomes reading words and phrases instead of individual letters.

Rhythm issues are as wide and varied as a large buffet. Some have no internal metronome, others have an internal metronome but it can never synchronize with the people around them. ...

This is also interesting. I have an internal metronome, but it is variable - I was always taught to follow what was going on around me, so I often wind up waiting for others to do whatever, so the tempo ALWAYS slows down. I was never really taught to lead or to keep the music steady. Slowing down to read the key signature, slowing down to figure out the rhythm, etc, practicing never focused on keeping time steady. It took me a long time to learn this.

[officermayo]

To those who claim they must hear a recording before being able to play a chart, what would you have done if you were in a band in the 1940s and they handed out an original tune arrangement? What did orchestra players do in the 17th century?

Do you watch a movie so you can read the book it was based on? Of course not. Reading music is the same as reading words. You translate the symbols in your mind as you read them. I'm no genius and if I can do it, anyone can. The problem is that it's become acceptable in modern times to play by rote. That's great if you're a solo act, but what happens when playing with an ensemble?

[Posaunus]

There is an entire music education system based on principles of body movement, pioneered by a Swiss educator named Emile Dalcroze. I took a Dalcroze workshop in college that helped me tremendously. At Oberlin we had a music education teacher, now passed away, who taught the workshop I took. Not sure what Oberlin does now.

Would that have been Inda Howland? My wife adored her and her teaching (long ago)! She knew Herb Hanke, who also taught Dalcroze at Oberlin after Inda, but she says Howland was the best! This helped to inspire her (and give her some of the skills) to become a very successful elementary school music teacher. She was lucky enough to teach alongside some other very wonderful music educators. It still gives me goosebumps to remember some of their successes with their students.

[harrisonreed]

The Bach Cello suites are another great example I think. I think anyone would be hard pressed to play this:



If there was not a huge number of performances, recordings, pedagogy, etc, about 'how that piece goes '.

If no one had ever heard of Bach and that sheet music was magicked into existence, we probably would not play it that way. You can't just learn the style from a sheet. The sheet is there to tell you what to play and sometimes how to play it, and if you delve in and do a serious study everything is in the score. But I don't think you can just find it doing a sight reading.

Listening is so important. You could almost say that listening is fundamental, not reading.

[Posaunus]

The Bach Cello suites are another great example I think.

If there was not a huge number of performances, recordings, pedagogy, etc, about 'how that piece goes ...

Johann Sebastian Bach wrote those pieces on a piece of paper. And handed that paper to a cellist - who was (somehow) expected to play those pieces without ever having heard them, listened to them, or imagined them. The first time through certainly didn't sound like the amazing Mischa Maisky, but I expect the cellist had a pretty good idea of what Bach expected him to play, just from what was printed on the pages. Just as you could read aloud a Shakespeare sonnet and a listener could (more or less) comprehend it. The better the player of the written music / reader of the sonnet, the more you would comprehend and appreciate the composition.

[robcat2075]

To those who claim they must hear a recording before being able to play a chart, what would you have done if you were in a band in the 1940s and they handed out an original tune arrangement? What did orchestra players do in the 17th century?

I presume recording-only players weren't getting hired but... that's what rehearsals are for and what conductors do at them... bridge the gap, if any, between what is read (or misread) on the page and what needs to come out in performance.

what would you have done if you were in a band in the 1940s and they handed out an original tune arrangement?

Those bands must have had some rehearsal, even if it might just be time stolen from warmup before the show.

I recall a newspaper interview with Jack Benny at a stop with some of his crew on an entertain-the-troops tour near the end of WWII. They're using some subset of the military band at this camp as "the band" for their stage show and the reporter observes that Jack's bandleader (Phil Harris!) was having to do quite a bit of detail work on the music they were preparing.

"They're good, but it's a tricky arrangement", Jack explains diplomatically.

So there was a band of some competence... I hope they didn't need every two measures spooned out to them... but a new tune still needed, and got, rehearsal and got lines sung out to them

To those who claim they must hear a recording before being able to play a chart...

OTOH, that's kind of how the Beatles worked at the outset. One of them would bare-bones demo his new song for the others to hear, they'd all figure out what everyone's role was going to be and then they'd hit "record". No written music among the four of them and yet even their simplest songs have peculiar details that needed to be done just right.

But, of course, those were four unusually talented people who managed to find each other at the right time and place.

[Doug Elliott]

I have played lots of gigs with my own band where most of the players were totally sightreading on the gig. I hire people who can do that. And I don't hire people who can't.

[baileyman]

The Bach Cello suites are another great example I think.

If there was not a huge number of performances, recordings, pedagogy, etc, about 'how that piece goes ...

Johann Sebastian Bach wrote those pieces on a piece of paper. And handed that paper to a cellist - who was (somehow) expected to play those pieces without ever having heard them, listened to them, or imagined them. The first time through certainly didn't sound like the amazing Mischa Maisky, but I expect the cellist had a pretty good idea of what Bach expected him to play, just from what was printed on the pages. Just as you could read aloud a Shakespeare sonnet and a listener could (more or less) comprehend it. The better the player of the written music / reader of the sonnet, the more you would comprehend and appreciate the composition.

All the tunes in the Suites are dances, aren't they? How does one dance to this man's interpretation? Did he not read on the page the dance styles? At the time, the dance rhythms were "in the air" and well-known, just as the 1940 swing style someone else mentioned. Anyone familiar with dance at both times could have sorted out the spots on the page. Those who no longer know the dance, well that's a problem.

[Cmillar]

If anyone is going to play music from the Western musical traditions, then...

READING IS FUNDAMENTAL

I have a huge complaint about how the schools in the USA and Canada 'train' their band and orchestra students from ages 12-18.

Due to such an intense focus on entering band competitions, festivals, and other time/money wasting events such as marching band competitions, most band directors spend 90% of the school year getting the students to learn only a handful of pieces of music. They don't see much music at all, and certainly don't get any practice in reading any music except what they're expected to play 'perfectly' for a competition.

They rehearse these pieces to death, or in the case of marching bands, half the kids won't even bother to learn how to read music. They just learn the music by ear by listening to a music link on the internet their band director posts for them. And then, once they can play it, they think that they're geniuses or something.

But then, stick an easy to read piece of music in front this typical USA/Canadian high school band, (say, some piece of music that a Japanese elementary school band could sight-read perfectly) and the North American bands 'fall all over their faces'.

That's my factual observation from having been a guest clinician, master-class teacher, guest conductor, and sub-band teacher in both countries over many years.

[harrisonreed]

I thought we were talking about kids, not pros with decades of experience showing up and getting paid.

Johann Sebastian Bach wrote those pieces on a piece of paper. And handed that paper to a cellist - who was (somehow) expected to play those pieces without ever having heard them, listened to them, or imagined them. The first time through certainly didn't sound like the amazing Mischa Maisky, but I expect the cellist had a pretty good idea of what Bach expected him to play, just from what was printed on the pages. Just as you could read aloud a Shakespeare sonnet and a listener could (more or less) comprehend it. The better the player of the written music / reader of the sonnet, the more you would comprehend and appreciate the composition.

Interestingly, the major mystery of these pieces is that there are no markings or indications on how to play the pieces, no bowings, minimal slurs and accents. When they reemerged in the late 1800s, it took Pablo Casals 13 years before he was comfortable recording them and did not often play them in public. No one was playing them until the recordings came out. That isn't sight reading.

If people could do it in the 1700s, it's only because they listened to similar pieces and styles to help them interpret what was on the page. But there is very little evidence that anyone performed them even in the 1720s, besides possibly the composer.


Look I totally get that I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Learning your band concert by rote is probably a terrible idea and kids need to learn music. But comparing kids with seasoned pros or getting upset if they want to hear how something goes first before they dig into it is silly. Especially in light of the fact that it took thirteen years for a seasoned pro to learn to perform a piece that is now seen as standard rep, and literally no one would play it until they could hear his interpretation of it.

[afugate]

You're either really advanced or we're talking about different things.

Not being able to read music at all is definitely bad, but I dunno, there are some charts or styles within the dance band genre or even some rock tunes where you gotta listen to the chart to know what was going on with it. Not how to read the rhythms, but the rest of it.

Count Basie and Stan Kenton wrote with the same ink but they aren't the same thing. I didn't know that until I really got smacked over the head with it by someone really passionate about dance band and big band music. Lil Darlin, is a great example. I could never play that "easy" chart in a million years without digging into recordings of it.

Interesting discussion.

Reading rhythms is vastly different from interpretation.

For better or worse, modern big band writing is filled with articulations and extraneous info for this very reason. But even so, the nuance isn't there on the printed page.

--Andy in OKC

[harrisonreed]

(My error, it took Pasals 13 years before he was performing them publicly and about 40 to record them)

[GabrielRice]

Was that Herb Henke

It was. What a great spirit. I learned so much, and I use the basic principles often.

[tbdana]

I'm probably gonna make people mad (again), but if you can't read music and read it well, then go home and practice until you can, and let someone who can read it have that chair.

As for not being able to play things without hearing a recording first, my goodness but that strikes me wrong. It's the wrong ethic, and everything about it is wrong. Students should never, ever be given that message. The message they should be given is to learn to read or they don't get to play with others until they can. That's like not being able to play your instrument. The place to learn is at home and with your teacher, not in an ensemble.

Almost everything I play I've never heard before (except in symphony orchestras). Just last Friday I had a big band gig with all original charts. The band showed up to the "sound check," ran through some transitions and a few tricky passages, then we broke for dinner. The whole thing took less than an hour and we never even saw all the tunes we would play that night.

Then the band went on stage and freaking nailed every chart. Started with a blazing fast tune and it just got more intense from there. And it was pretty close to perfect with the whole band sight reading brand new, original material of varying styles. There was swing, funk, rock, ballads, and Latin tunes, with many of the tunes switching styles, meters and tempos in the middle of them. One tune was Latin, and started rubato, went to a samba, changed to a songo, returned to samba, and finished out rubato again. And it was perfection. Tight. Accurate. In tune. Tremendous musicality. All on charts that had never been played before. How were we able to do that? Because everyone could read music well. Part of reading music is learning styles. You can listen to recordings to learn styles, but you had better learn them and be able to translate them to music you've never seen before.

This is especially true in the recording world, where you almost never see the music before walking into the studio. And the music can be any style, and you've got to be able to sight read it perfectly and play it perfectly the first time, and exactly the same every time, in the right style, without ever having heard a recording of it (you are the recording of it!).

No, in the gigs I mention above we aren't students, we are all professionals. But reading is fundamental; as fundamental as pitch and time and technique. And anyone who professes to play in an ensemble at any level needs to be able to read at a level commensurate with the level of music being played. Anything less is failure, and as I said at the top of this if you can play it, then just play it. But if you can't, then go home and practice until you can, and let someone who learned how to read have the chair.

All these excuses are super annoying. No participation trophies in music. You gotta play what's in front of you, even if it's a middle school band. Learning to read music is part of learning to play the instrument.

[Posaunus]

There is an entire music education system based on principles of body movement, pioneered by a Swiss educator named Emile Dalcroze. I took a Dalcroze workshop in college that helped me tremendously. Oberlin we had a music education teacher, now passed away, who taught the workshop I took. Not sure what Oberlin does now.

My wife (older than Gabe and Brian Hinkley) also attended Oberlin as a Music Education major/oboe Performance minor, and loved the Dalcroze classes she took from an inspiring woman named Inda Howland. She also knew Howland's successor, Herb Henke. They had a profound influence on her, and I'm sure contributed to her success as an outstanding elementary school music educator (even though she mostly taught instrumental music!). Every time I watched her teach, and communicate with her students, it brought tears to my eyes.

[Ozzlefinch]

I'm probably gonna make people mad (again), but if you can't read music and read it well, then go home and practice until you can, and let someone who can read it have that chair.

As for not being able to play things without hearing a recording first, my goodness but that strikes me wrong. It's the wrong ethic, and everything about it is wrong. Students should never, ever be given that message. The message they should be given is to learn to read or they don't get to play with others until they can. That's like not being able to play your instrument. The place to learn is at home and with your teacher, not in an ensemble.

....

All these excuses are super annoying. No participation trophies in music. You gotta play what's in front of you, even if it's a middle school band. Learning to read music is part of learning to play the instrument.

Words of the Prophet. There is no daylight between us on this matter.

The biggest lies I was ever told was that "you don't need music theory", "music theory is hard to teach and hard to learn" and "learning music theory will ruin your creativity". All lies, and I believed them over 40 years. All that toxic message did was hold me back for decades. When I finally decided to unlock the mystery of theory, I discovered that it WAS music, and it made everything EASIER for me since I was now able to understand HOW music worked- it made learning new pieces far easier and advanced my skills immeasurably in a very short time. I struggled for years because of people who lauded themselves for being ignorant and proudly wore it like some kind of badge of honor.

Look at it this way, you are reading my post. Did you have somebody read it to you first, or did you read it on your own using your knowledge of the alphabet and a few grammar rules? Did you read it in your own voice, or in Morgan Freeman's? Since I mentioned Morgan Freeman, are you now reading it in his voice? That, my friends, is what music is. The notes on the page are the writings of the composer on how the music should be: the tempo, the accents, inflections, and rhythm etc. If you play what is on the page accurately, then you are indeed playing the music as the composer intended. But you can still give it your own interpretation (or voice) if you desire, there is nothing saying that you can't.

It's not just about the dots and footballs on the page, it's about the relationship between the chords and the keys and then the notes. It's about reading in another language: the language of music. It has an alphabet, and it has grammar rules. From that you can "read" any story, write your own, or do whatever you want. Music is just another form of communication. Having the knowledge of how music theory works doesn't "stifle creativity", it enables it.

Never tell anybody that they should stay ignorant because the knowledge is too hard to learn. That is utter, complete, and absolute nonsense and nobody will ever convince me otherwise.

Ok, rant over.

[Kbiggs]

^^^this^^^

[Ozzlefinch]

........ I have found that a person who struggles with the fundamentals (holding half notes and whole notes full value in 4/4 time) as a teenager within the first few years of experience, will usually struggle with rhythm for most of their life. However, these musicians can still be taught and will improve.

Finding the right pedagogy or andragogy is key to the learning process. I struggled with my timing until I bought a drum machine. As it turns out, the click of the metronome did nothing of value for me, but an actual drum rhythm made everything fall into place in my brain. I could "feel" where I should be in the music rather than guessing like I was doing with the metronome. I think it's because it felt more "musical" with the drums.

Whatever works at the end of the day, I guess.

[timothy42b]

No, in the gigs I mention above we aren't students, we are all professionals. But reading is fundamental; as fundamental as pitch and time and technique. And anyone who professes to play in an ensemble at any level needs to be able to read at a level commensurate with the level of music being played. Anything less is failure, and as I said at the top of this if you can play it, then just play it. But if you can't, then go home and practice until you can, and let someone who learned how to read have the chair.

Aren't you mixing a couple of different skill sets there?

You spent a lifetime learning the nuances of style that aren't completely in the notation. I'm not sure someone can go home and practice any of that. Yes they can and should get very good at playing the notes on the page, but at your level that's probably almost trivial.

[timothy42b]

Finding the right pedagogy or andragogy is key to the learning process. I struggled with my timing until I bought a drum machine. As it turns out, the click of the metronome did nothing of value for me, but an actual drum rhythm made everything fall into place in my brain. I could "feel" where I should be in the music rather than guessing like I was doing with the metronome. I think it's because it felt more "musical" with the drums.

Maybe this will help <smiley>

[Posaunus]

Finding the right pedagogy or andragogy is key to the learning process.

Wow! I just learned a new word! Out with pedagogy, and in with andragogy for us older students.

Thanks, Ozzie.

[Bach5G]

“Pedagogy is the teaching of children, or dependent personalities. Andragogy is the facilitation learning for adults, who are self-directed learners. Heutagogy is the management of learning for self-managed learners.”

[Posaunus]

“Pedagogy is the teaching of children, or dependent personalities. Andragogy is the facilitation learning for adults, who are self-directed learners. Heutagogy is the management of learning for self-managed learners.”

How about gerontagogy for us slow-learning really old folks?

[Ozzlefinch]

Finding the right pedagogy or andragogy is key to the learning process.

Wow! I just learned a new word! Out with pedagogy, and in with andragogy for us older students.

Thanks, Ozzie.

You're welcome. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when the word "pedagogy" is used in the context of teaching adults, but I can understand why it's used that way. For the most part our learning experiences have all been when were children, so when we grow into adults, we just assume that those teaching methods are the only ones and that they naturally work in all circumstances. Using a pedagogical approach to teaching adults is generally counterproductive and won't yield the results you expect. Adults (mostly) don't think as children or experience the world as children; therefore, they don't learn and retain information as a child does either. The learning outcome that an adult expects to achieve from the learning process is also radically different, therefore the teaching methods must be altered to fit.

I could go on, but I'll leave it there. No need to sidetrack the thread more than it is already.

(My other big pet peeve is when people call a lectern a podium. )

[timothy42b]

Finding the right pedagogy or andragogy is key to the learning process.

Wow! I just learned a new word! Out with pedagogy, and in with andragogy for us older students.

Thanks, Ozzie.

New to me too, and that's the kind of nitpick I obsess over. Kudos!!!!!

[harrisonreed]

Last try on this one. Again playing devil's advocate:

I don't think that Alessi is really "reading" music much during a concert. Lindberg definitely is not reading music when he plays a recital. No one is reading music on the stage for an opera. Jon Anderson wasn't reading music playing "Close to the Edge" back in the 70's, and neither was anyone else on the stage.



Reading is great. But I don't think it's the best way to arrive at a great performance. Memorization is.

[Ozzlefinch]

You think that because you are judging by the performance only. You don't see the hours of practicing from written scripts that went on behind the scenes, you are seeing the end result.

Nobody is trying to imply that memorization is bad, not in the least. What the discussion is about is the ability to read and understand fundamental concepts of music. Do opera performers read and memorize a script, or do the have somebody who knows the play tell them the words to say over and over again until its been memorized?

Reading is fundamental. Literally. Learn to read music and understand basic music theory if you don't already. It will open up a glorious new world to you.

[harrisonreed]

Do opera performers read and memorize a script, or do the have somebody who knows the play tell them the words to say over and over again until its been memorized?

Highly doubt they go into an opera for the first time blind unless it's a new work. How many people have memorized whole movie scripts just by watching their favorite movie.

I might be pinching a nerve, lol. I definitely do know how to read music to a high level, but I do a lot of listening too. I don't think you can have reading down without being a good listener first. The ink is just ink

[Redthunder]

Harrison is 100% correct in what he's trying to get at. There has been a decent amount of research into how children best learn music, and much of that is synthesized on this page.

https://giml.org/mlt/skilllearningsequence/

The comparison between learning to read language and reading music is apt, but what really needs to be emphasized is that reading written words is not "Translating" or any kind of active process where you have to think of the words as you read. Once you know how to read, you are recalling words that you recognize by sight. But you can't start with reading words, you need to be exposed to a ton of language by listening others speak, then imitating, then forming your own thoughts and phrases that have meaning. Then you can start the process of building a symbolic association with words that YOU ALREADY KNOW first. Reading music is the same way. And you can't learn how to read symbols or patterns until you have repeated exposure to them aurally, and then performing them some way yourself first.

This process starts wayyyyy before high school band, which is not geared towards teaching these skills.

Additionally, the best sightreaders are NOT the ones that can instantly decode brand new rhythms or tonal patterns. They are the ones that have been exposed to so many different combinations of these patterns before that they recall them by sight immediately. They may be sightreading a brand new piece or composition or arrangement, but they absolutely will have seen most of the smaller combinations of notes and rhythms before.

[Burgerbob]

Both sides are right here. In order to read well, you need to read a lot... but also listen a lot.

[Redthunder]

Both sides are right here. In order to read well, you need to read a lot... but also listen a lot.

I think the rub here is that both things are true, but the order in which you do things matters a lot. Once you know how to read it's easy to get better at it by doing it more. But if you don't...? The process of how matters a ton. A lot of kids get frustrated and quit because they are often expected to just know how to do it even if they haven't had great instruction in it.

Also worth considering in the case of more advanced musicians who have a ton of experience playing their instrument but aren't great readers... they are probably developmentally at a mismatched level of skill between the music they are capable of performing once learned vs. their ability to read the notation of that music.... in which case they need to back up and read simpler things first. Not many HS or college band directors are willing to do that because of the things they are expected to do musically with ensembles.