Reading Is Fundamental

[robcat2075]

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

Yes, this discussion has gotten side-boggled with assertions of one standard for many levels of player.

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...

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...

I suspect the expectations for exactness on these matters back then was far less demanding than today. I suspect that, absent a specific indication in the notation or rehearsal, performers did as they pleased or stuck to basic conventions.

I note that music publishing was a big thing at least as early as the 1700s. The major portion of Beethoven's income was sales of sheet music. So quite early on, people were buying music, taking it home and putting it together on their clavecin or lute without benefit of recordings or radio.

Many classic paintings attest to this activity...
.

lute.jpg

vlnflt.jpg

company.jpg

.
.
.
Even the angels were reading music...

angel.jpg

.
However, working out a piece on one's keyboard is rather different than sight-reading and keeping up in an ensemble, although both are "reading music".

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...

Very much so. Everything in Texas is about a competition at the end of the year.

When I said we were going to do a Christmas concert in December, everyone was baffled.

"No, no, no... Contest is in April!"

The competitions are needed to validate that some goal has been accomplished and yet, many things are never accomplished because of them.

I'm glad I don't need to worry about it anymore.

[Cmillar]

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.

Yes... I've often told younger musicians, or students, when they say they don't 'need' to know how to read music:

..."Why limit yourself? You want to be a musician and be able to fit into all kinds of different musical situations? Or do only want to limit yourself to playing with other musicians that have placed limitations on themselves by being unable to read music and aren't even able to understand how to follow a simple lead/rhythm sheet?"

..."If you're only going to play in a blues band your whole life, or just want to be in blues bands, then sure...you probably don't need to read music. Just don't expect to get called for any gigs where you might have a chance to make more money where you just might have to read a lead sheet, like in a wedding band, a show band, or some other band that might pay you more."

..."So you're in a garage band now with your friends, and none of you read music. OK. Are you guys going to be friends forever and never move away from each other forever? You better like these friends, because if your band of 'non-readers' ever breaks up or quits, what are you going to do? Who are you going to play with?"

..."Ever heard of the great rock/pop guitarist Steve Lukather? Ever heard of bassist Will Lee? Keyboardist Paul Shaffer? Heard of drummer Peter Erskine? Vinnie Coliuta? These guys could go and play any music with any band in the world on a moments notice! Do you why they're all filthy rich from playing music? They can read, write, play any style of music, and probably play better than anyone you can imagine. Not a bad life, right? Being able to read music in any style and get paid well for it?"

..."You're a horn player and you don't think you need to know how to read music? What are going to do? Be just another blues player? Try to find bands that might need a horn player that doesn't read charts? Good luck. Well, you better start your own band, because no one will hire you for anything if you can't read any music!"

It all comes back to: WHY LIMIT YOURSELF?

[harrisonreed]

Rob, 100% agree with everything in your post.

But...

vlnflt.jpg

You can almost hear how bad these guys are through the paint..

[LeTromboniste]

I agree with Aidan here, both are equally important.

There is a music theorist and ear training professor who is legendary in Montreal who created, developed and taught an analysis modem that works for any piece of tonal music. Fascinating theory. Beyond that, her teaching included as much listening as reading, a she very aptly described to overarching principle (and goal) of her approach "The eye that ears and the ear that sees", the idea being that you should be able to know and understand exactly what's going on just when hearing tonal music, and at the same time be able to know how the music would sound just by glancing at the page.

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.

It's not really a mystery, that's just how music was back then. There were conventions on how to do things, but also a lot more freedom for the performer. It was expected that the musician would come up with their own ideas about articulation, phrasing, dynamics, etc (in respect of the conventions and rules of "good taste", which of course not everyone agreed on!), and also add quite a bit of ornamentation. You need to train the ear to do all of this. You also do need to know how to read what's on the page in order to add what's not on the page, and access a vocabulary of ornaments and expressive devices that you've both heard and seen before. Both skills are essential and fundamental.

If you go further back in time there is even less on the page. If you go back far enough (not that much further back than Bach), some (and far back enough, most) accidentals are missing.

An interesting story: in the Sistine chapel, there was a big argument between singers about whether the sopranists should add a G# or the basses a Bb at a cadence to A that was in whatever piece they were working on. They bitterly argued for hours and had to bring in an arbiter to decide who was right. The funny part of that story is that the composer was one of the members of the chapel, and in the room the entire time. Nobody asked them what was correct, because this was not a compositional problem, it was a performance decision.

You go far enough back, and all you have on the page is monophonic chant. No rhythm. But that doesn't mean they were only singing in unison until someone starting writing down polyphony. They could improvise polyphonic music (that respected the rules of counterpoint!) from just one staff of monophonic and rhythm-less notation. Some people could individually improvise 4-part music, by singing one part while using the syllables corresponding to a second part, and showing two more voices using the Guidonian hand. You can't do that unless you have both a very well trained and learned ear, and a complete mastery of the theory.

You can almost hear how bad these guys are through the paint..

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I'm curious what you see that makes you think that.

[harrisonreed]

You can almost hear how bad these guys are through the paint..

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I'm curious what you see that makes you think that.

I think it is because it looks like they are reading that sheet music so intently! They don't look like they are having fun at all.

[elmsandr]

To go a slightly different direction.. Reading is fundamental, but also completely unnecessary. It is a visual solution to an auditory problem. There have been many professional bands that didn’t use a lick of printed music. Raymond Scott comes to mind (CBS orchestra, composed a lot of the songs later used in cartoons). Would it have saved him time to simply write things down and hire people who read well? Probably. But his band was pretty darned tight.

For a quite random diversion on him and especially his later years:
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode ... ranscript/

Cheers,
Andy

[timothy42b]

When I was in high school, graduated 1971, reading was considered standard. I sang in a small ensemble that could sightread madrigals.

When my younger daughter was in high school, 2008 or so, they learned all their choir music by rote. I was initially a little skeptical about the instruction, but had to admit that their performances (all memorized) were at a very high level musically.

On trombone I always needed sheet music and assumed I could never play by ear, until in my 50s when I started to understand it a little. (and since I can no longer memorize, it becomes more important)

Not sure what the point is beyond maybe the approach you get locked into when young is hard to shift out of.

[BGuttman]

Most of the groups I have played in for the last 30 years have required me to be able to read. Often the show goes on either after one rehearsal or with maybe a rundown of tough spots just before the gig. Without being able to read I'd be toast.

Reading is also how I prepare things like solos (with concert band).

I often run into players who can't read music and in the genres I play they are at a severe disadvantage.

Note that there were many players in the Bad Old Days who didn't read music. But they had a very strong understanding of the type of music they were playing and could improvise their parts on the fly. That kind of knowledge comes from a lot of training.

[robcat2075]

Printed music and the reading of it is an organizing tool, much like a conductor.

The need for it rises as...

• the number of performers increases

• the number of distinct parts increases

• the complexity of the music increases

• the length of the music increases

• the rehearsal time decreases

• the opportunity to previously hear the music decreases

None of those factors incorporates a clear boundary line.

Yes, you can issue sheet music around the campfire for Kumbayah, but probably not necessary.
Yes, you could rehearse and perform Mahler's Symphony of a Thousand without music, but... ouch.


I recall going to a chamber orchestra concert in NYC. Everything was memorized, they had no stands, no chairs (except for the cellos), no conductor. They were directly engaged with the audience in a way most ensembles are not. BAM!

But... they were playing Baroque and early Classical standards. It wasn't a heavy lift to commit those to memory and do the same song list at every stop on their tour.

[sf105]

The Aurora orchestra just did the Rite of Spring at the BBC Proms from memory. I believe there was a pre-concert where they spread the players out in the audience. Sounds fantastic.

[tbdana]

Reading is...completely unnecessary.

In extremely limited situations, perhaps. But try telling that to the conductor of a symphony orchestra. Or even a high school band.

There have been many professional bands that didn’t use a lick of printed music. Raymond Scott comes to mind (CBS orchestra, composed a lot of the songs later used in cartoons). Would it have saved him time to simply write things down and hire people who read well? Probably. But his band was pretty darned tight.

Perhaps. But Raymond Scott had a sextet, not the CBS Orchestra. And he never actually created any cartoon soundtracks. Carl Stalling adapted Scott's tunes for Warner Bros. Looney Tunes, and you can be sure he did it by writing them down, and every player in the recording orchestras read music extremely well. As one who has recorded cartoon music for Warner Bros (Tiny Toons, not the old Looney Tunes), I can tell you that reading extremely well is a prerequisite to doing that kind of work. It is misleading and unfair to use Raymond Scott's music existing in cartoons as an example of reading being "completely unnecessary."

Like all of us who have recorded music for TV including those who recorded Scott's music for Looney Tunes, the folks recording cartoon music in the videos below had no idea what music they would be playing when they woke up that morning, nor what style(s). Studio time cost thousands of dollars a minute. They had to sight read the music when they showed up to the 3-hour recording session. Imagine showing up to play this if you can't read music well! Anyone who wants to do this kind of work must be able to read flies on flypaper, and play it perfectly the first time through and exactly the same every time.

[Burgerbob]

In studio work now, though, most of the time the parts are sent out via PDF expressly so they don't have to sight read on the soundstage.

[tbdana]

In studio work now, though, most of the time the parts are sent out via PDF expressly so they don't have to sight read on the soundstage.

Sometimes they are. And increasingly, but not always. And still, when you open the PDF file you'd better be able to read them!

I posted those examples because of the Raymond Scott narrative. And PDFs were far less common when this was recorded. But even today, most musicians might open the PDFs and look them over for anything weird or challenging, and they might run those passages by themselves a couple times, but for the most part in practicality they still sight read them on the gig. It's not as if they sit at home and woodshed the parts on their own time, like an unpaid rehearsal, unless they know there is something unusual that they've been told to watch out for. They play it when they are being paid to play it.

[Posaunus]

In studio work now, though, most of the time the parts are sent out via PDF expressly so they don't have to sight read on the soundstage.

And the contents of the PDFs are ... READ by the players!
And then they all have their PDFs in front of them as they record on the soundstage.
Can't happen without music reading skills.

[GGJazz]

Hi all .

I think that a musician have to be able to play both by memory and sight reading .

If you are performing solo works ( like the Tomasi Concerto) , or playing improvised solo with a jazz 4et ( in which you choose the tunes you want to perform) , I think playing by memory is the best choice.

If you play in Symphony Orchestra , or in a Big Band , ecc , a prerequisite is that you have to be a very very good reader .

Sometimes you have to play in some last-minute substitution , so you arrive on stage , open the book , and the show starts . People call you for this kind of work only if you are very very very good at sight reading music charts ...

So , I think that both things , reading music and playing by memory , have to be developed at the high level you can .

Regards
Giancarlo

[Burgerbob]

well... yes. As I said already, you have to be able to read, and you have to listen a lot. You're not going to play any style correctly if you can read everything but don't listen a ton too. The reason the Incredibles soundtrack sounds so great is because everyone recording it knows what to do to the music instinctively, because they are so aware of the styles they are asked to emulate.

[tbdana]

well... yes. As I said already, you have to be able to read, and you have to listen a lot. You're not going to play any style correctly if you can read everything but don't listen a ton too. The reason the Incredibles soundtrack sounds so great is because everyone recording it knows what to do to the music instinctively, because they are so aware of the styles they are asked to emulate.

Of course this is true. You have to understand whether you're playing a Bach chorale, a 1040s swing tune, a polka, or a funk chart, and you have to know what the musical differences are between them. Aside from being able to read the notes on the page, we always have to know what universe we're playing in.

But to me, this is separate from being able to read music, and we should not conflate the two. Knowing how to read and knowing how to play a style are two different things which, like being able to play the notes and knowing the keys, are ingredients for the finished musical stew.

[Burgerbob]

Yup! That's why i want kids to do both.

To be clear, it also weirds me out when advanced high school students ask for recordings for etudes they are working on for all-state, etc. This happens ALL the time on the trombone reddit and the trombone discord.

But I can't say that I would probably be a better player now if I had heard a professional playing through it a few times, if not for the notes, then for the style and sound.

[ithinknot]

a 1040s swing tune

Is that when you tripletize your tax return?

[elmsandr]

In extremely limited situations, perhaps. But try telling that to the conductor of a symphony orchestra. Or even a high school band.

Would work just fine with the right band leader.. perhaps if we had more that worked this way we would still be a dominant music form. Try sitting in a jam session and asking for lead sheets for everything. I agree that you need the right tools for the right situation in reality, but when discussing the way the world “should be”, I reject that constraint.

Perhaps. But Raymond Scott had a sextet, not the CBS Orchestra. And he never actually created any cartoon soundtracks. Carl Stalling adapted Scott's tunes for Warner Bros. Looney Tunes, and you can be sure he did it by writing them down, and every player in the recording orchestras read music extremely well. As one who has recorded cartoon music for Warner Bros (Tiny Toons, not the old Looney Tunes), I can tell you that reading extremely well is a prerequisite to doing that kind of work. It is misleading and unfair to use Raymond Scott's music existing in cartoons as an example of reading being "completely unnecessary."

Might want to look up Scott…. He had a a weekly radio show with the CBS Orchestra (a big band) for MANY years. It was a thing. Really. The whole thing about not writing it down gets a paragraph in his wiki! His tunes were made to be popular, and they were. The band was tight and the sound is good to this day. The cartoon reference was just so you knew that this was a real person and a real band. Sure, Stalling transcribed them for use by Warner Bros, but others used Scott’s own recordings. I think the example of leading one of the premier gigs in all of music at the height of the big band era is a decent example.

Like all of us who have recorded music for TV including those who recorded Scott's music for Looney Tunes, the folks recording cartoon music in the videos below had no idea what music they would be playing when they woke up that morning, nor what style(s). Studio time cost thousands of dollars a minute. They had to sight read the music when they showed up to the 3-hour recording session. Imagine showing up to play this if you can't read music well! Anyone who wants to do this kind of work must be able to read flies on flypaper, and play it perfectly the first time through and exactly the same every time.

…

Dunno, he did his way… got away with it for years and recorded the living daylights out of his life and rehearsals to boot…. There are different ways to get to the same thing. There are millions of folks who can pick up a guitar and improvise and pick their way around folk songs and pop tunes for hours at a campfire. Many of them can’t read printed music at all. Heck, as a species we’ve made music for eons with the vast majority of that time where virtually all of the population was completely illiterate. Reading a common notation makes it easier, but it isn’t the only way to get to our ends.

FWIW, I’m a great reader. I also think that an overemphasis on the reading part gets in the way of making an auditory experience for others part sometimes. People are particularly interested in watching others read. There’s a reason most theatrical performances don’t involve the actors reading from the script onstage. Getting a bit far over my skis here on how far I want to defend this position. In general, one must be able to read quickly and proficiently to have any success on the trombone…. But perhaps not always and I think we could learn from the examples that succeed other ways.

Cheers,
Andy

[brassmedic]

In studio work now, though, most of the time the parts are sent out via PDF expressly so they don't have to sight read on the soundstage.

If you're lucky.

[LeTromboniste]

Playing from memory doesn't contradict the premise that being able to read music is fundamental. I guarantee you that anyone playing a concerto in front of an orchestra has learned the piece from a score and not by ear...

[harrisonreed]

As if you can't study the score WITH a recording.

The whole reason I took issue with the premise of this thread is that it is pretentious to look down on a young kid asking how a piece of music goes and expecting them to immediately be able to deduce that from looking at the solo part or their individual "Trombone 2" part . For those All State competitions you usually don't get the piano part. And I guarantee you that 9/10 high school trombone players don't play the piano anyways.

You can do both.

For example, the exact same situation as the OP -- I often go and work with kids for this sort of thing, doing a basic un-masterclass on the District solo piece. Maybe it's Barat, Andante/Allegro. Well, the first thing I'm going to do is hear what they've worked on, especially if it's a small class. Then after we've heard some of the kids playing, I'll run the piece myself with piano accompaniment (if I've sequenced it).

This is usually eye opening for the kids. Ohhh that's how it goes! It's not just that the kids can't read the solo part notes. They usually can. They just have no idea how the piece goes because they don't play piano, and the piano part (or band score) is 90% of "how the piece goes". You guys seriously can't be suggesting that the average high school kid is supposed to read the conductor's score or piano reduction without listening to the piece somehow.

Some here are talking about how acoustic or band music is diminishing. Yet when a young kid reaches out for help on how to play something, because they are interested in getting better, we look down on them. What the heck.

(Edits are for dumb typos, only)

[BGuttman]

Listening to a piece for interpretation is one thing. Great classical soloists listen to other interpretations of a piece for ideas for their own interpretation.

On the other hand, if you can't work out 'how the piece goes" from the sheet you will be at a disadvantage for times where you are not told in advance what is to be played.

[AndrewMeronek]

What's going on in our schools?

To circle around to the OP, the question is not just about being able to read music. It's about what should be taught in our school music programs, which is a bit different from what people would have to deal with on gigs.

Imagine an algebra class that is entirely spoken, where students don't write down the formulas or even the Arabic numerals. Or a science class where students talk about trends and patterns but never have to actually draw or read a plot.

[Ozzlefinch]

Playing from memory doesn't contradict the premise that being able to read music is fundamental. I guarantee you that anyone playing a concerto in front of an orchestra has learned the piece from a score and not by ear...

Say that again and a little louder so that the people in the back can hear it.

[tbdana]

As if you can't study the score WITH a recording.

The whole reason I took issue with the premise of this thread is that it is pretentious to look down on a young kid asking how a piece of music goes and expecting them to immediately be able to deduce that from looking at the solo part or their individual "Trombone 2" part . For those All State competitions you usually don't get the piano part. And I guarantee you that 9/10 high school trombone players don't play the piano anyways.

You can do both.

...

Some here are talking about how acoustic or band music is diminishing. Yet when a young kid reaches out for help on how to play something, because they are interested in getting better, we look down on them. What the heck.

I'm in 100% agreement with this post.

I don't think anyone is saying don't listen to recordings, don't use recordings to understand a piece. My understanding of this thread is that it began with lamenting the inability to read, with people then saying that reading music is unnecessary and even that school bands would be better off if taught their parts by ear, and then others came in to push back against that notion.

In case I've mislead anyone in my rather strong opinions on reading, let me be clear: We need to use every appropriate tool in the tool box to help students make good music and become good musicians. Reading is fundamental to that. But so is learning styles, understanding context, hearing other people interpret the same or similar things, etc.

I don't think anyone is saying that reading is the only skill students should have. Reading is vital, but I can make the argument that learning to play by ear is also vital. These skills must all be learned; we don't learn one to the exclusion of the others.

I've always believed that to be a good musician you have to be good at everything your instrument does. You have to play the entire horn well, you have to read, you have to play by ear, you have to know every style, etc. You're not a good musician if you can only do one thing.

[Ozzlefinch]

If you can't "figure out how it goes" from a written score, then that means you need more training and education on the basics of rhythm, chords and scales.. The entire purpose of a written score is to communicate "how it goes" without having to listen to it first - same as any other written language. How you end up performing the piece is open to interpretation.

And with that, I've said everything I'm going to on the subject. But remember, none of you had someone tell you how my words "go", you read and understood them all by yourself. Pretty cool, isn't it?

[Doug Elliott]

^^^^^^^^^^

[Bach5G]

I have to admit that, on occasion, such as reading 16th note phrases à la Tower Of Power, it is easier to play a phrase once you’ve heard it, than trying to suss it out based on what is written.

[Doug Elliott]

A lot depends on the notation that was chosen by the arranger... There are ways to write rhythms clearly so they CAN be read easily. Note spacing, flags or bars, articulations...

Anybody remember the Andre LaFosse School of Sightreading books? Messy manuscript with lots of clef changes. That taught you how to sightread anything.

[Cmillar]

A lot depends on the notation that was chosen by the arranger... There are ways to write rhythms clearly so they CAN be read easily. Note spacing, flags or bars, articulations...

- For sure, plus a big factor can be the actual music notation font that is used for the genre of music.

Music note fonts and the history of music copying is a fascinating study all to itself. Classical fonts versus commercial 'hand-written' fonts, etc. etc.

NY trombone players will know a friend of mine, music copyist Russ Anixter (part of Rice/Anixter Music Services).
Those guys developed their own font I believe back in the '90's to use with Finale for all their Broadway and other work. I think their font has obtained 'cult status' and is hard to get hold of.

(I like the 'Rhapsody' font for Sibelius. You can get it from Philip Rothman and NotationCentral. A nice 'hand-written' old-school LA/NY studio /Broadway / Clinton Roemer type look to it; as if the music was copied and the text written with a Pelikan fountain pen (Remember those?)


Anybody remember the Andre LaFosse School of Sightreading books? Messy manuscript with lots of clef changes. That taught you how to sightread anything.

- Yeah! Love the etudes where he'll write the same note on different clefs within the same bar! Those pieces are eye/brain twisters.

[robcat2075]

It is interesting, yet unsurprising, that the credibility of a piece of music can depend on the notation font it is in.

A jazz "chart" needs to have the hip, hand-copied look but if you're wanting the philharmonic to perform your new concerto for garden implements and orchestra it needs to have the most prestigious-publishing-house-engraved appearance to it possible.

It shouldn't matter but it does.

Someone should make a font for fake books that looks like a tenth-generation photo-copy.

[LeTromboniste]

It is interesting, yet unsurprising, that the credibility of a piece of music can depend on the notation font it is in.

A jazz "chart" needs to have the hip, hand-copied look but if you're wanting the philharmonic to perform your new concerto for garden implements and orchestra it needs to have the most prestigious-publishing-house-engraved appearance to it possible.

It shouldn't matter but it does.

Someone should make a font for fake books that looks like a tenth-generation photo-copy.

In my experience this isn't true. The "manuscript look" for Jazz scores is disliked by many and not a recommended practice anymore for new charts.
Yes, if you want the philharmonic to play your piece, it needs to be well-engraved, to a professional standard. Nothing elitist about it, it's for practical reasons. Well-engraved material is easier to read without making mistakes, the information is conveyed more accurately, clearly and efficiently. It should matter, and that's why it does.

The availability of Sibelius, Finale and now MuseScore gave everyone the tools to make good editions, but the software being so good now sadly also gives everyone the wrong idea that merely inputing notes into the software is what making an edition is about. Preparing material at a professional level is an artform in itself, with its own set of good practices and conventions.

[Doug Elliott]

I have known some copyist manuscript that is far easier to read than any computer font, unless it is meticulously edited and well spaced. Which is rarely done.

Incidentally, "Jazz Font" was written and developed by Rich Sigler, one of the trumpeters in the Airmen of Note during the first year or two we were both in the band. At the time, big band and jazz players were totally accustomed to reading manuscript much more that engraved music. Mike Crotty, the arranger for the Note at the time, would frequently be hand copying his new charts immediately before a recording session or during breaks on gigs. Mike's manuscript was so good you almost couldn't make reading mistakes.

[officermayo]

Sat in with the Coosa Phat Katz Saturday - because I was taught to read.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/u4e8p266 ... 15x51&dl=0

[harrisonreed]

I think the font is extremely important -- if well-engraved in the right font, you are getting a ton of information about how you are supposed to play the chart. A BQ I play in just had some "professional" arrangements come in for "jazz" charts. All engraved in the standard Finale font. It's hard to read. If it says "swing" or "bop", use an appropriate font and size. We saw this in Japan, too. The bands there love big band stuff arranged for wind ensemble, and they also love the lame Finale font. Somehow our joint group would always swing better on our charts, which were in jazz font and engraved properly. The Japanese charts sounded square, because you were missing the tiny details you get from the spacing and use of flags in well engraved jazz font charts.

The new style NOLO brass band charts don't use "jazz font", but that doesn't bother me because that style of music isn't played like big band music. It's not pretending to swing.

[Jimprindle]

Probably been said, but lots of practice and lots of methods, etudes, solos, ensembles, and a solid grasp of music theory. When I was at Cal State Northridge the jazz band director (Joel Leach) was chair of the NAJE new music committee. We would start each rehearsal sight reading 20 or so charts he had been been sent by publishers. We would read 25-50% of each tune while he recorded to send to the rest of the committee. By the end of that semester that band could read anything and make it sound like it had been rehearsed. Word got out and LA arrangers (Nestico, Menza, Bellson and others) would bring in their new things to hear how they sounded. Savvy Joel Leach would say, “Sure, as long as as you give it to us for our book.” That and other experiences sharpened my reading and helped to make me 1st call in my area (all styles) in my 50 year career.

BYW, Gordon Goodwin was an undergrad in that band and always bringing in his “experiments” as well as full charts.

[tbdana]

Probably been said, but lots of practice and lots of methods, etudes, solos, ensembles, and a solid grasp of music theory. When I was at Cal State Northridge the jazz band director (Joel Leach) was chair of the NAJE new music committee. We would start each rehearsal sight reading 20 or so charts he had been been sent by publishers. We would read 25-50% of each tune while he recorded to send to the rest of the committee. By the end of that semester that band could read anything and make it sound like it had been rehearsed. Word got out and LA arrangers (Nestico, Menza, Bellson and others) would bring in their new things to hear how they sounded. Savvy Joel Leach would say, “Sure, as long as as you give it to us for our book.” That and other experiences sharpened my reading and helped to make me 1st call in my area (all styles) in my 50 year career.

BYW, Gordon Goodwin was an undergrad in that band and always bringing in his “experiments” as well as full charts.

Blast from the past! I remember Joel Leach. He was at CSUN when it was still called Valley College. Lotta good players went through that band. (I was recently gifted with a music stand stamped CSUN, which I'm told found its way off campus 35+ years ago when Joel Leach was still there.)

[robcat2075]

I agree the font shouldn't matter. I'm going to set the text for my next sacred oratorio in Comic Sans.


I'd be curious to hear from people who are playing very recently-composed musicals.

When I was playing in pit ensembles for musicals the parts all had the same hand-scribed look. It was not easier to read but you felt like you were touching a piece of Broadway every time you turned a page.

Those were all old warhorses, like "Oklahoma" and "Music Man", that had been around for decades, however.

What does modern "Broadway musical" music look like now? Surely they are setting it on computer now. Are they still keeping the "pit orchestra" look?

[Wilktone]

It seems as if everyone here agrees that reading is a fundamental skill that needs to be learned. Of course, there are some fine musicians who never learned to read and get by very well. By and large, however, you will severely limit your abilities if you go that route. Again, that doesn't seem to be controversial.

Teaching sound before sight is the standard for working with young students, for what it's worth. That doesn't mean that elementary school students don't learn how to read music, just that it comes after they learn how to mimic the sounds.

Sight reading skills can be developed by simply sight reading a lot, but if you target the component parts of sight reading you can develop sight reading abilities faster.

Learning scales and chord arpeggios solidly is extremely helpful. Sure, there's atonal music, but by and large music is made up of scale and chord fragments. Having scales and chord memorized is great, of course, but in order to recognize the patterns by sight you should also practice reading them from time to time.

Learning rhythmic patterns is the other side of sight reading. There are some books and etudes that are designed to practice rhythmic patterns (and other sight reading skills). Learning a lot of different pieces is also a good way to practice reading. If you're just sight reading them, you need to go back and work on fixing your mistakes too. Sight reading in a rehearsal or on a gig is good practice, but if you're making mistakes you don't get the chance to fix them. That's what individual practice time is for.

I don't think anyone has yet mentioned transcribing as good practice for learning to sight read. If you spend a lot of time working out how to notate something from sound to paper then you're going to assimilate those patterns faster than simply trying to learn to read them first. It goes back to sound before sight. It's not just a good way to practice for young students, but it does need to be balanced with reading and writing music.

Personally I don't care what the font is, as long as it is notated appropriately with a good layout. To me, making sure that the rhythms are correctly beamed and notes are spaced appropriately is more important than if the font looks handwritten or engraved or whatever.

Dave

[tbdana]

To follow Dave on learning to sight read well, a good thing to do is to practice (1) reading as many notes at once as possible, and (2) reading as far ahead as possible.

1. Reading as many notes at once as possible.

Lots of folks, especially students, tend to read one note at a time. That's like reading a book one letter at a time. The more info we can understand at once, the easier it will be. With English, we start learning words by sounding out each letter, but we graduate to reading entire words at once, then entire phrases. We can do the same thing with music. And like Dave alluded to, recognizing patterns and fragments of scales and arpeggios can take us a long way in the journey to read big clumps of notes at once rather than one note at a time.

2. Reading as far ahead as possible.

We're at a reading advantage if we can read ahead of where we are playing. And it's really not that hard, once we kind of get the hang of it. We can practice this progressively. Start by reading one note ahead, then two beats, then one measure, two measures, four measures... Learning to read ahead lets us get passages in our head before we have to actually play them. No surprises! And it expands our view so that we're understanding and "hearing" multi-bar phrases rather than just the note or couple notes we're playing, and that enhances our context and understanding. It gives us time to figure out hard passages before we get to them. Also helps with page turns, finding signs and codas, watching the conductor for cues, etc. Reading ahead takes away the "tight rope" experience of sight reading and makes the experience much more relaxed.

These two techniques work in tandem to enhance the whole sight reading experience. Each technique makes the other easier, and a gestalt is attained.

[dbwhitaker]

This topic made it into the NY Times today in an opinion piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/opin ... =url-share

Excerpts:

We need to abandon that approach and bring play back into the classroom by instructing students how to hear a melody on the radio and learn to play it back by ear...

...we need to let kids be terrible. In fact, we should encourage it.

[GGJazz]

Hello all.

I think ( and hope) this thread' topic " Reading is Fundamental" was referred to serious intermediate/ advanced students , and to who want to become a professional musician . For these players , reading ( very well) is a must , in my opinion . Regardless the Music' style they perform .

To me , with absolute beginners , is much better to start without sheet for some months , then gradually introduce them to reading . Also in theory class , a better start could be singing , clap hands on simple rhythms by ear , listen basic chord' quality and recognize it , listen different kind of music , ecc , then introducing the written music very slowly .

About the NY Times article , I do not much agree with it , because it seems to me that the writer want to find a guilty in a supposed "common wrong way to teach music" . There were teachers that also 60 years ago was teaching a play-by-ear approach as a fundamental thing , also in classical music . To me , the main problem is the TEACHERS' quality ! I sadly can say that quite a few teachers are people that can barely strum their instrument , or fresh graduated students , with no experience at all . So , these people can just put a sheet in front of the student , and good luck..

Also , i do not agree with the statement " we need to let kids be terrible" ...

Regards
Giancarlo

[robcat2075]

This topic made it into the NY Times today in an opinion piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/opin ... =url-share

Excerpts:

We need to abandon that approach and bring play back into the classroom by instructing students how to hear a melody on the radio and learn to play it back by ear...

...we need to let kids be terrible. In fact, we should encourage it.

How does that work in any other subject. Math? Science? Reading?

But if you had heard my beginner band or just about any other in this country you wouldn't worry that there was some shortage of freedom to be terrible for kids.

I read that op-ed. I think we could go through every paragraph of it and point out an assertion that is either inaccurate, misleading or impractical.

Kids learn best when they’re part of communities filled with people of all skill levels for them to play along with, listen to music with, mess up with and just be silly with. Parents, this means you. Don’t let instrument instruction simply be something you nag your kids to endure. Music was never meant to be a lonely vigil. Play together. Make noise together. Find joy together. Take out an instrument and learn a song that you and your child both love.

He's invented the Suzuki Method! But impractical in a school band program.

I wonder if the writer is aware that he's regurgitating notions from an (unfortunately) influential 1970s book "Schools Without Failure". Whatever its good intentions, it tended to get implemented as classes without grades and assignments without goals. Exploring and experiencing was good enough somehow.

The recurring aspect of these discussions about how to better-do Music Education is a lack of certainty as to what it is for. Is it for...

Awareness?
Enjoyment?
Participation?
Discipline?
Self-expression?
Mental development?
Physical fitness?
Performance skill?
Public exposure?
Individual empowerment?
Team thinking?
Diversion from idleness?
Rehabilitation?
School spirit?
Community service?
Travel?
Contests?

Any of those, in various combinations, have been touted as reasons for a school band program. Some music educators would have you think that they will all be accomplished.

[robcat2075]

Apropos of the above discussion... learning by ear v. learning by music... is this letter/horror story to the Slippedisc blog from a university teacher of a string instrument:

Dear Alma, The college wants me to give a concert and I can’t. Just can’t

... I grew up in the Suzuki Method, and my teacher was very specific. She would keep me on pieces for a very long time, meticulously working on details. I moved away from Suzuki when I was 16. I got into a solid music school for college but was absolutely overwhelmed by learning any new repertoire. Orchestra was a nightmare. I just sat in the back and faked it...

The whole tale is so extreme I find it implausible, but there it is.

[officermayo]

Another request from a high school student asking "Can you play this for me?" on this audition prepared piece.

Bet his band got all "ones" at last month's marching band contest.

[BrassSection]

As most of my “Music” is a chord chart, reading actual music for me is rare, maybe an occasional ensemble or piano/euph duet with my daughter. During Covid when most schools and churches were closed, my trumpet playing high school grandson and I would practice his band music several times a week together here at home to keep our chops in shape. 99% of my actual music reading is bass clef, so here I am sight reading treble clef trumpet music. Ok, not too bad first day, but after a few days it all came back to me. Point: At least for me, use it or lose it, just like your chops. Daughter playing in her old high school alumni band soon,French horn. Took a look at her music, figured it right out. Practice I use various studies and scales, mostly memorized from repetition. Usually I practice on trumpet, if trumpet works everything else seems easy…since I’m mostly using chord music, practice is generally in bass clef even on trumpet, so a Bb is truly a Bb to my ears. If I haven’t played TC for awhile, within the first measure it easily comes back, even for trombone. Joked with my trumpet buddy that I use the same practice music for trumpet and tuba, I just turn trumpet music upside down!

[AndrewMeronek]

On a slightly different take:

Who has invited friends over to sight-read trombone quartet charts? That can be tons of fun, and the more ridiculous the parts, the more fun!

It's a bit of work to set up for a large ensemble, but more school bands/orchestras should have a sight-reading session every once in a while, just to have fun.

[BGuttman]

You know you are in trouble when they have problems reading the Bach Chorales.

I remember in High School we had a day with individual rehearsals and I had a copy of the Peeters quartet borrowed from the library. I invited 3 section mates to sit and read with me. All of a sudden the sound got weird. I had the 1st part that was all in tenor clef (which I could read), but the guy on 2nd didn't read tenor clef and when the part went into tenor clef he was still reading it as bass clef! There's a problem when you don't have people skilled enough to play the parts they have.