When I first started playing the whistle about 2 years ago I made a conscious decision not to learn to read music.
I was told that Celtic music was traditionally learned by listening and playing, not by reading. This seemed to work pretty well for me. After a while I could usually figure out simple tunes pretty quickly. Learning by ear also seems to work well when you’re teaching yourself.
However this approach has it’s limitations. One of the tunes I wanted to play from early one was “The Lament of the Spalpeen”, but no matter how many times I listened to it I just could not get it to “click” in my head in the way most tunes would. Anything with lots of big jumps in it seems to be hard to learn by ear. A 1 or 2 note shift is easy to hear, but it is harder to identify a 4+ note shift with any accuracy (for me at least). Also, anything with a lot of grace-notes added in confuses the basic melody for me.
Eventually I downloaded the sheet music and painstakingly wrote out the notes so I could play it. I had it pretty much figured out in a few hours.
I’m starting to wonder if learning to read music might be a good idea, if only for opening up more avenues for expanding my repertoire.
I’ve always had some distaste for sheet music since it cannot convey the passion and intent of a “living” piece of music.
I’m always reminded of what Pete Seeger used to say in answer to the question “Do you read music?”. He’d grin and reply, “Not well enough to hurt my playing!”
Learning tunes by ear is a matter of experience, IMO. And of course we all have different degrees of the gift of music. The more you work at it, the better you become at sorting things out. The more tunes you learn, the more likely you are to hear what is being played. The more familiar you become with your instrument(s), the more likely you are to suss out what another player is doing.
Twenty years on down the road you’ll be giggling and wonder what other folks think is so hard about it.
Regardless of the type of music or instrument, reading music cannot possibly hurt your playing PROVIDED that you use your ears often. As was stated, written music never fully conveys the experience of playing or hearing the music. It can be a very close representation or it can be a vague sketch.
But I fully believe it enhances the experience of learning and of playing music. And, again, if you prioritize what your ears are telling you, then it certainly isn’t going to hurt.
Reading music is just another tool you can add to your arsenal, IMHO. I don’t know how many times my group has been playing and one of us says, “how does XXXXX go?” and nobody can remember! Usually, I just whip out “the book” or one of my electronic devices (with lots of PDFs), look up the tune, and play the first few notes. That’s usually all that’s needed to get the ball rolling. As stated above, reading music can’t hurt, but it can also be a benefit when trying to learn tunes on your own. I’ve been “into” ITM for about 5 years now (coming from a “read the dots” background) and my ear has improved immensely by trying to pick up tunes without the “dots”. Another thing that’s helped me a lot is singing - I joined a choir (Catholic) about 10 years ago and the voice matching skills acquired there have also added to my ability. I’m still no good, but I’m a much better no good! I think that people who refuse to learn to read music are limiting themselves much more than they are keeping themselves “pure”.
Since I agree with both of you, it follows that I see ‘consciously deciding not to learn to read music’ and ‘having some distaste for sheet music’ as a bit wacky!
Take away the ‘music’ and ask ‘how important is reading?’ And then ask yourself what’s different about music…
For sure there are/have been/always will be great musicians (as well as great literary figures and whole oral traditions) without the respective reading and writing skills, so of course it’s possible. But how many of you would really ask that modified question ‘how important is reading?’ in the same way, wish you’d never been taught to read (words) and/or regard that kind of illiteracy as a badge of honour?
I’m totally against reading music. Why on earth would you want easy access to thousands of old and new tunes? Why would you want to learn a way to write down your own spur of the moment tunes so that you can remember them at a later date, or share them with other musicians? What the heck is wrong with learning tunes by looking at little pictures of the finger holes? Clearly, all of the millions of musicians who have used this so called “useful tool” are grossly mistaken.
Clearly there are musical genres which are more aurally based, such as ITM (or Hindustani classical). But being able to read music is a basic tool for any musician. And the mere fact that someone can read music doesn’t mean he is slavishly following the written indications.
Don’t forget that classical, baroque and so on all have their own traditions of performance and interpretation which can only be learned by playing the music with other musicians over many years. Ornamentation is a particularly good example: slides and cuts are mere technical tricks in comparison to the rule-based but improvised ornamentations of baroque music, for instance. Composers like Telemann and Handel regarded the score as the mere skeleton of the music, to be filled in with improvisations by the performer. Folk music isn’t the only “traditional” music.
So - you like O’Carolan’s pieces? Don’t forget he was very influenced by the salon music of his time, which was what we now call the baroque. Are we really sure that today’s ITM style is the most authentic way to play this music?
My point being that the more you understand western musical traditions in general, the better you’ll understand the tradition you’ve chosen to specialise in, and being able to read music is pretty much an essential tool for that.
I fully agree with the person above that said that sightreading is merely another tool to add to the musician’s toolbox.
But to be clear, I mean ANOTHER tool, in addition to a good ear! Because somebody wanting to play ITM is utterly handicapped if they try to rely ONLY on printed music.
Printed music can become a crutch which limits a person’s playing. Learning by ear is by far the best way to learn ITM and cannot be replaced by the white page.
On the flip side, a person who can ONLY play by ear is likewise limited. Hundreds of gigs over the years have depended on me being able to sightread, especially studio gigs.
I would like to add the following. I was trained as a choirester and had great trouble reading musical scores. I eventually gave up and did not get back into music for a number of years.
I have a good ear for music and am able to play most pieces within a few minutes if I can hear a piece at least twice/three times. What I can’t do is play a piece if I hear only once. If I could read music I would be able to play a piece without the need to hear it more than once. The other problem with learning by ear is that the length of notes and pauses have to be learned and also the time signature, this can cause irritation if playing with others. This can be difficult with Celtic music, especially Jigs and reels.
By the way I have tried to learn to read music by I have a problem with a deformed Iris in my left eye and the notations on a staff appear to move not only vertically but horazontally.
So I would say reading music gives one an advantage, how much would depend on the individual.
When I began to read C&F posts - a whole lot of years, and over 1000 personal posts ago, I found a kind of reverse snobbery rampant, usually promulgated by those of strict iTrad (I think they called it ‘pure drop’) leanings. As a teacher of music theory and composition, and an old guy who makes a significant part of his living through live performance and published choral compositions, I was astounded at the vehemence in which ‘traditional musical notation’ (I think they called it ‘dots’) was openly denigrated. Yes, I fully understood the lack of a precise and repeatable notation methodology for traditional Irish whistle ornamentation, but the prejudice against the actual written music itself, was a total surprise.
Ergo, this thread is a true pleasure for me. While there remain those who continue to put forth the mantra concerning the inadequacies of properly formulated written music, there have been many eloquent defenders of same. There is hope…
No. Traditional written music is not going to give one the precise methodology for the placement and execution of iTrad ornamentation and rhythmic anomalies. One must ‘learn’ those things through practice and experience, as with so many other worthwhile intricacies in life. However, notationally correct written music is a truly wonderful starting place for those musical adventures.
Friend Paul: Brilliant post. It has been a tough week, and your words brought a smile. Denny is correct: ‘Convincing, as always…’ And by the way, your re-voicing of my treasured dragon-bone C Busman whistle is superb. Thank you.
When I began to read C&F posts - a whole lot of years, and over 1000 personal posts ago, I found a kind of reverse snobbery rampant, usually promulgated by those of strict iTrad (I think they called it ‘pure drop’) leanings. As a teacher of music theory and composition, and an old guy who makes a significant part of his living through live performance and published choral compositions, I was astounded at the vehemence in which ‘traditional musical notation’ (I think they called it ‘dots’) was openly denigrated. Yes, I fully understood the lack of a precise and repeatable notation methodology for traditional Irish whistle ornamentation, but the prejudice against the actual written music itself, was a total surprise.
I think this not only reveals you have failed to grasp the argument made, your phrasing, in effect a cheap dig at those participating in previous discussions, shows a disdain not quite befitting the persona you try to project in your posts.
