Quote:
Originally Posted by Stratcat77
c.
Given the choice between the two, I'd choose only being able to play by ear vs only being a proficient reader. As been pointed out, one who can only read music does not have the ability to improvise. I see that as a big handicap for live performance which is what I love doing.
I don't know this for certain, but I believe that most of the music I enjoy was probably written by someone who wasn't proficient at reading music.
All that said, some day I'd love to develop that skill. I do think it would make me a better overall musician. And similarly, I think those who can only read (and cannot play by ear) would be better musicians if they could do both well. Interestingly, it seems some in the latter camp look down on those who can only play by ear? While I hold great respect for the skill some have to read on the fly with great accuracy and execution, it's always struck me as odd that if you pull the sheet music away, some are unable to make music.
|
I can understand that some people do just fine without learning to read music. Some of the finest guitarist that ever played I'm sure couldn't read music. I'm thinking about just about every rock and blues player that was ever recorded but some could. John McLaughlin, Frank Zappa to name a couple. My point is that the the ability to improvise and play by ear and the ability to read music are not mutually exclusive. I'll admit to having just a basic knowledge of it and I wasn't born with a great ear for music but that's something that can be learned just like the ability to improvise. In other words if somebody tells me they can read music I don't think well then they can't 'play by ear' or improvise. I'm impressed that the person was so interested in the subject that they invested the time and effort to learn.