What do you think of the notion that reading music should not be a requirement or a basis for assessment for applicants to music school? How important do you think it is for a musician to be able to read? Share your thoughts and please make sure to LIKE the video so others can do the same.
In conservatoires? Absolutely, and not just reading music, any applicant should at least have a basic knowledge of solfège, harmony, analysis etc. These were the requirements in order to get into the Maastricht conservatoire when I was in my late teens and it required only a couple of hours of study each week for a couple of years to students of somewhat above average IQ (probably around the 70th percentile and up, although most of them were more intelligent than that) in conservatoire prep school to learn to meet these demands. Someone not going to such a prep school could learn it within a few months of intensive study. I learned them myself in a couple of months aged 34 by doing 8 hours of work each week and 2 hours of private lessons, but had the advantage of having 12 years of experience producing electronic music, so trained many of the underlying skills. And composition students should also know about voice leading and be able and re-harmonise the melody of a Bach choral or how to compose a melody on top of a chord progression using the rules of common practice period tonality, so standard tonic-dominant-dominant7-tonic type progressions, no parallel fifths, no parallel octaves, they should know about counterpoint, how to write variations on a simple theme, etc. One can only build on a solid foundation. Music notation is required to communicate the exact contents of a piece of music to those who don't know it, and is an absolute must in order to be able and analyse the artistry of previous generations of musicians. One can appreciate a piece of music via recordings perfectly fine, but not learn about its inner workings. The goal of formal music education is to elevate the level at which the art is practiced. Is this gatekeeping? Absolutely. So is any form of entrance requirements. Nothing wrong with that. We should try and keep the level of musicianship as high as possible. Society has been polluted by cultural relativism way too much already and lowering the bar for people to get professional training in the fine arts is a way to speed up the resulting decay process even more. You can have all the freedom to take an improvisational approach in your own time and apply the academically acquired knowledge there. But the approach of music education at an academic level should be academic. Now my perspective is that of a classical pianist (the electronic music I dabbled in isn't art music so irrelevant IMHO) but the same can be applied to jazz, because in its foundation it's still largely based on an extension of common practice period tonality and modality (and arguably it's the genuine successor of Romantic and Impressionist classical music). The requirements for composers would just be different based on the differences between the two genres.
"The goal of formal music education is to elevate the level at which the art is practiced." Well said. Many of the students who attend our jazz program do so not with the intention of becoming jazz musicians per se, but to acquire a broad skill base that will serve them in multiple genres. Let's face it, the real world is gate kept in that only those with the skills get the jobs that require those skills. In my many years of teaching university students I've tried to get across the point (more successfully with some students than others) that they need to look beyond the protective bubble that comes with paid tuition to what lies ahead. Requirements for admission to and graduation from music school are only a hint of what is required of a professional musician. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Perhaps there is a difference between being able to read music and being able to sight read music well. Some of the very best jazz players are exclusively ear players. Some ear players just parrot and lack creativity. I started out as a drummer, but switched to piano as the instrument I work on now. At 81 I'm still working to develop my sight reading ability on piano. As you get older, reading becomes more important because memorizing becomes increasingly difficult. I wish I had learned to sight read piano music better at an earlier age. Nowadays there are a lot of resources on TH-cam, such as yourself. I just discovered you today, but consider you one of the absolute best. I love your trumpet sound. As a drummer I sat next to Lee Vodack for about a year. He was said to have been the lead trumpeter on Harry James's band for about 10 years. He used to say, "You have be be able to sight read 16 bars ahead of where you are in the music, because something might be crossed out." Reading a horn line is a lot easier than reading piano music. I can play a bit of Soprano Sax too and reading on that instrument is not comparable to reading piano music. Fingerings always differ on piano., plus the left hand is generally doing something different from the right hand. Yuja Wang apparently is a very good reader. Some people are able to read very musically.
Well thought out. Thank you. On a side note, I have taught many beginner trumpet students as a music educator for 25 years. Many of my most successful and highest achieving students on the trumpet were not taught to read music in the beginning. Simple…copy me. Taught by “Rote” if you will. Students were shown what they were playing on the page after they were already playing it. It seems to uncloud the thought process. Sharps, Flats, Range, etc are not getting in the way of the actual act of playing the trumpet. Of course, students were not left without the information of notation. It was just taught to them after they could play the horn.
That approach makes sense for a beginner trumpet student and also for a beginner improviser. When I'm discussing theory with a student, it is with the emphasis that their ear already understands this stuff. It's easier to apply a label to a sound than to extract a sound from a label.
Interesting, well thought out comments. A good friend of mine went to Juilliard for bassoon. As you note not everybody who goes to famous programs like Berklee, Curtis, Julliard is an advanced player, though my friend was. One guy he knew didn’t play all that well but he was great at reed shaving! Anyway in 2023 it’s hard to imagine not having or developing strong sight reading skills. There’s that story about Jimmy Ford who played alto sax in Maynard Ferguson’s band (late 50’s) who was a killer soloist but couldn’t read. Willie Maiden (arranger/tenor sax) taught him the lead alto parts note by note. That’s not going to happen today.
You are right about that. This harkens to Patrick Bartley's video (and my response) about the difference between being an artist and a working musician. Even though he was used as an example in Adam's video as not needing to read when playing on Stephen Colbert's show, I'm sure he would say that reading has been an essential skill in other situations. th-cam.com/video/lBy_DRb7Gf0/w-d-xo.html
My son is a very good ear player. The first year he failed the audition because he couldn't sight read. The next year he was the lead Alto.in the band I''m prejudiced, but I think they messed up a bit the first year. On the other hand it was a good lesson for him. He eventually graduated Magna Cum Laude from SUNY Purchase.
I’m sorry, but our education system has been “dumbed down” enough. Music is like mathematics…..there are no shortcuts. Two plus two will always be four. I was an acceptable albeit “weak” reader upon entering music school. My trumpet instructor, himself an excellent Jazz player, drilled me for my entire first year in school to sharpen those critical musical skills. I ended up playing in orchestra my junior and senior years…..something I never realized I would ever be able to do. Another outstanding observation Mr. Chase…..
Really good discussion, thank you. As a self-taught amateur playing occasionally at home with other self-taught amateurs, I see it this way: at the start of my musical journey, I focused on and learned how to 'read' -- but then have struggled ever since to play & improvise 'by ear'. Conversely, the people in my circle who, at the start, played 'by ear' later on had very little trouble learning how 'to read' -- and in that learning never lost their original ability & desire to play and improvise 'by ear.' Which is to say: my experience/lesson is to start your musical journey playing and improvising by ear, because if/when you want to learn to 'read music' it'll take you less than a week to do so. There is an 'asterisk' to that, however, and it's this: I think when a musician of Chase's abilities says, for example, that being able 'to read' is essential for getting Broadway gigs, I think it might be easy for us (and even Chase himself) to forget that you still have to be able to really PLAY, i.e., you need excellent technique and exemplary ability and talent to 'sight read' complex/difficult musical passages. For my level of skill/ability I can sight read music pretty well, relatively speaking: I can look at a transcribed solo by a tenor sax player (say, Lester Young) or a clarinetist (say Pee Wee Russell) or a trumpeter (say Buck Clayton) and get through it okay the first time -- but ONLY if it's in the easiest of keys (C, F, G, Bflat, D) and only if it's a slow ballad or blues at around 60-90 bpm. In other words, I can 'read music', but I certainly don't have anywhere near the talent to read and play ANY/ALL music, especially if it's full of 16th notes and complex runs that require that one already has all the important scales and arpeggios etc under their fingers. For that, you need the kind of foundational training and years of study that musicians like Chase have had -- or at least, I've certainly come to realize that I needed that. In short: my advice to my much younger self would've been: 'Learn to play by ear -- and then practice like hell!"
It is true that being able to read a part but not to play it would place you somewhat at the back of the line when it comes to being hired...:) You can learn the principles of reading music in a week, as you could chess or basketball, but it will take a good deal longer to develop the skill. It's possible to be a fine musician without the ability to read music, but not without the ability to hear it or produce it on your instrument.
@@chasesanborn Thanks, Chase. You know, as I was writing my post I was thinking that you and others might be using the term 'read music' to mean that a player could actually execute-play whatever they were reading. But then, under that assumption, I could not quite understand what Dr. Socolofsky was saying in that quote. I mean: if we're talking not about high schools but college-and-university level music programs, how is it 'gatekeeping' to require that those entering such programs -- which are intended to broaden and deepen a student's theoretical and practical understanding of music- making and performance -- already have the level of technique/technical facility on their instruments needed to allow them to take advantage of that learning, and participate and make music with their classmates? If she means that music programs shouldn't unduly 'preference' technique or have too high a bar for that pre-existing level of technique, I can understand; but I find it hard to imagine a truly useful music program turning out performance-ready musicians if half the time spent there is focused on getting half the students 'up to speed' on the fundamentals.
WHOAH! You open up Pandora’s box in this one! I would prefer to write you a letter to discuss this, but being as things are as they are now I’ll keep it short…what was that? Ah, right, Bix B. going to a teacher and the teacher saying something along the lines of, I can’t teach you anything and if I did it would probably hurt your playing more than it would help…OK, yes he did eventually learn how to read but to what extant? I don’t know. Maybe you do? What about skill and or virtuosity depending on the style of music? Basically, in my opinion, the bottom lines is you can know all the chords / chord changes, but in the end it just has to sound good, it’ss just that simple. “If it don’t mean a thing if don’t ain’t got swing….no?
It wasn't me that opened the box, but I added my two cents, and I'm always happy to spark dialogue. I agree that the goal is to sound good. The question many people have is how. University is a good place to acquire tools and hone skills; what one does with them is up to the individual.
@@chasesanborn When I went to the University of Colorado (1960's) they despised jazz. It was tragic. They were also heavily into the "Avant-Guarde". Presently I'm a huge fan of Beegie Adair. She said, "What's most important is to develop musicianship." Luckily several people have been transcribing her performances which I can "read."
I would love for every one of my students, and my fellow teachers, to hear 3:28-4:30. After years of instruction as a kid, I never really learned to be musical on an instrument until started playing an instrument “casually”, without written music. It doesn’t have to be this way, but all too often I think the paper-eyes-fingers route short circuits ears and even the brain. I reckon the old way of teaching Sol-Fa sight singing prevented this, if you can’t hum it from the page you’re probably not understanding it
There's an easy way for your students to hear it...:) Aside from its value as a way to communicate musical information, written music could be thought of as a tool in the same vein as tuners and metronomes. They should be used to inform or train our ears, not replace them.
I fully agree. Very amateur musician here but having spent lots of time stuck to music sheets to play piano and then learning Irish flute, which was all by ear, I'd say you absolutely are right about learning, playing, retaining and performing by ear. My husband, his brother and 2 of my sons have reading difficulties - eye tracking problems. Phenomenal musicians, highly developed ears have resulted. I'm actually jealous of them because i am there in mediocrity stuck to sheet music, despite having played the same songs over and over. Fuck university anyway. Bunch of smug fucks largely who don't connect. Sorry, I just said that for the hell of it.
As one who has enjoyed engaging with thousands of talented and motivated university jazz students, and who hopes I've given them as much as they've given me, I would hope not to be cast as a smug f who doesn't connect. But I'm glad you enjoyed the video and thanks for your comment.
@@chasesanborn You are not the average "classical" player. I have learned the most over the years from performing musicians. Today it's all about digging it out from the goldmine of musical resources on TH-cam. You can learn a lot about Horsemanship on TH-cam too: www.youtube.com/@steveyounghorsemanship/videos
I, too, first experienced real musical immersion via Irish traditional music on flute, after years of reading-based study. This transformed my relationship with all instruments and for that matter, all music
I have seen that quote on Chet before which is not quite accurate; it was Chet Atkins rolling into some heavy studio work early on..... and was asked that question by a producer. Yes, he could read, but was uncertain if they were looking for a player who had a great ear, or one that could accomplish the session on the spot, therefore he answered "Sure, but not enough to do any harm." Baker on the other hand, another true artist could not, even after a small stint in a military post band. Moving on to current times.......it is unfortunate that solid reading is not something correctly taught in the primary or even university level......by that time you are on the path that you can either "play" or simply turn to enjoy it as a hobby. University for years, has pushed profit above teaching and it is the students that come out of school in great debt, often selling their instruments and working at Sarbucks. Sightreading is and essential skill if you are going to get anywhere, or do anything now, and it should be taken seriously. It is just not that big of a deal to help them learn to read proficiently, and hold that standard, not to haze or hinder from music schools, rather to help them not waste their time and many years of debt! I see both sides, and thanks Chase Sanborn for some nice content in your videos.
Whichever Chet it was, it's a great line. There is truth to the profit motive of universities, and faculty is expected to recruit as part of the gig. That said, every university professor I know is devoted to teaching first and foremost. In general terms, teaching is too hard a job to do it for the money. (Says a TH-cam music educator who earns far less than minimum wage for the hours devoted to making videos for this channel. Thanks to you for the kudos!)
@@chasesanborn At the University of Colorado in the 60's they forced people who wanted to take just a few music courses into the College of Music in order to be able to buy more grand pianos.
All universities deal with the reality of taking in income, which is at at odds with the mandate of education. That said, a full time music program may not be equipped to offer courses piecemeal.
I saw a tremendous natural guitarist denied admission into Jazz class coz he couldn't read a note of music, despite being ten times the guitarist than the guy they had. What a loss for music.
I recall auditioning a particular student who demonstrated significant musical ability with minimal understanding of what he was doing. Although I was unsure, we accepted him into the program and he excelled, picking up quickly on things he had not learned previously and inspiring classmates not only with his innate grasp of jazz music but with boundless positive energy. That would not be the case for every 'natural talent'. Music school is an academic environment which is not suitable for everyone, but it does not guarantee or preclude a successful musical career.
Yeah, I understand the situation. By the way, I took private guitar lessons and learned how to read from the Alfred books. Same with piano. I do wish I was a natural player though. It seems quicker to get there...
Music, like anything else, comes more naturally and quicker to some than others. But anyone who is willing to work for it can reach a point where they are able to express something from within. On an artistic level, that's all that matters, that it is a reflection of the artist.
Playing Othello or Princess Leia does not actually require reading, yet every actor on the planet can read a script and analyze their part without it being spoken to them. Reading music isn't required to play it, but there are entire concepts and conversation that simply cannot be engaged with without the skill of reading written music. It's clearly possible to be a musician who can't play by ear or who can't read music. I'm just not convinced you can be a COMPLETE musician and reach your potential without both. Every blind musician I've ever known can still have a conversation about the concepts of written music. They just experienced it a different way.
I note that Adam Neely made the comparison between reading music on stage and watching actors with scripts in their hands. We all do well to go 'off book'. Interesting thoughts about blind people experiencing visual stimuli in a different way. Thanks for sharing!
I attended a piano seminar conducted by George Shearing. He's obviously no slouch. What's held me back the most musically is the lack of a good ear. I'm also color blind and as far as I know that can't be fixed either. That said people have responded well over the years to my musical abilities. There's a difference between playing at a local level, a national level, and an international level. Some people criticize Yuja Wang's costuming, but they don't realize musical performance is actually entertainment. Colleges should have at least one course on developing your entertainment persona. For example Sanborn's cap tells me he's the real deal. He's not one of these baseball cap type of guys. Miles Davis said, "I don't have to hear a guy play, I can just tell from the way he's dressed."
Students waste too much time on reading and sight reading. They just want to meet the metric for the auditions. Guys who don't read end up making it sometimes.
A few thoughts in response. I suggest to potential university applicants that they think of audition prep not in terms of admission, but as steps towards an eventual career. It’s not a waste of time if it benefits you down the road, let alone in the immediate future. The fact that some people do ‘make it’ without the ability to read music doesn’t eliminate the fact that opportunities exist for those who do. I equate it somewhat to instrumental/vocal technique and improvising. There have been great improvisers who are not necessarily virtuosos, but I think it unwise to count on improvisatory genius as a way to compensate for flawed technique. Give yourself every advantage. Thanks for your comment!
I can respectfully disagree. Only because my kids come to me with skills subpar coming into high school from 1,2, and rarely 3 years of middle school band. Sooo of course band needs to be fun And engaging and I know majority of people will 💩 on pop music but if it's arranged correctly and playable, there's your sight reading/ music notation right there. With pop charts, we'll listen to the audio 1st time, then 2nd play alpng with audio, 3rd time w/ met. And i check the kids 🤓 to make sure they're reading their part. We got roughly over dozen charts that we can play pretty well.
If I had not learned to SIGHT read at a PROFESSIONAL level, I would not have earned the money to finance my jazz career. Or to be able to write my own compositions so others could play them . I can also look at a score by Stravinsky and hear it and analyse it. Nuff said? I was able to play and tour with Thad and Mel, Tito Puente, Gladys Knight, Lou Rawls, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughn, etc. including a plethora of stuff that was so square it was funny- Trained animals, good and lame comedians, circuses and circus acts. PAID MONEY!!!!! Made contacts. Made residuals from jingle dates. There is no knowledge that is a waste of time
There can be no disagreement with your last sentence, IMO. As Adam said, opportunities exist for musicians who can read. The core question seems to be not whether it's helpful to be able to read music, but whether it is relevant enough today for university music programs to require it for admission. Adam waded into the topic of what is the purpose of music schools overall. I stayed out of that question on this one, as I've made videos about it in the past, but I'll give it current thought. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, BB!
@@chasesanborn I said before there is difference between being able to read, and being able to sight read well. It's clear some of the very best players can't read at all. They aren't going to be hired to read circus music, although they might be great clowns with their instrument.
What do you think of the notion that reading music should not be a requirement or a basis for assessment for applicants to music school? How important do you think it is for a musician to be able to read? Share your thoughts and please make sure to LIKE the video so others can do the same.
In conservatoires? Absolutely, and not just reading music, any applicant should at least have a basic knowledge of solfège, harmony, analysis etc. These were the requirements in order to get into the Maastricht conservatoire when I was in my late teens and it required only a couple of hours of study each week for a couple of years to students of somewhat above average IQ (probably around the 70th percentile and up, although most of them were more intelligent than that) in conservatoire prep school to learn to meet these demands. Someone not going to such a prep school could learn it within a few months of intensive study. I learned them myself in a couple of months aged 34 by doing 8 hours of work each week and 2 hours of private lessons, but had the advantage of having 12 years of experience producing electronic music, so trained many of the underlying skills.
And composition students should also know about voice leading and be able and re-harmonise the melody of a Bach choral or how to compose a melody on top of a chord progression using the rules of common practice period tonality, so standard tonic-dominant-dominant7-tonic type progressions, no parallel fifths, no parallel octaves, they should know about counterpoint, how to write variations on a simple theme, etc.
One can only build on a solid foundation. Music notation is required to communicate the exact contents of a piece of music to those who don't know it, and is an absolute must in order to be able and analyse the artistry of previous generations of musicians. One can appreciate a piece of music via recordings perfectly fine, but not learn about its inner workings.
The goal of formal music education is to elevate the level at which the art is practiced.
Is this gatekeeping? Absolutely. So is any form of entrance requirements. Nothing wrong with that. We should try and keep the level of musicianship as high as possible.
Society has been polluted by cultural relativism way too much already and lowering the bar for people to get professional training in the fine arts is a way to speed up the resulting decay process even more.
You can have all the freedom to take an improvisational approach in your own time and apply the academically acquired knowledge there. But the approach of music education at an academic level should be academic.
Now my perspective is that of a classical pianist (the electronic music I dabbled in isn't art music so irrelevant IMHO) but the same can be applied to jazz, because in its foundation it's still largely based on an extension of common practice period tonality and modality (and arguably it's the genuine successor of Romantic and Impressionist classical music). The requirements for composers would just be different based on the differences between the two genres.
"The goal of formal music education is to elevate the level at which the art is practiced." Well said. Many of the students who attend our jazz program do so not with the intention of becoming jazz musicians per se, but to acquire a broad skill base that will serve them in multiple genres.
Let's face it, the real world is gate kept in that only those with the skills get the jobs that require those skills. In my many years of teaching university students I've tried to get across the point (more successfully with some students than others) that they need to look beyond the protective bubble that comes with paid tuition to what lies ahead. Requirements for admission to and graduation from music school are only a hint of what is required of a professional musician. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Perhaps there is a difference between being able to read music and being able to sight read music well. Some of the very best jazz players are exclusively ear players. Some ear players just parrot and lack creativity. I started out as a drummer, but switched to piano as the instrument I work on now. At 81 I'm still working to develop my sight reading ability on piano. As you get older, reading becomes more important because memorizing becomes increasingly difficult. I wish I had learned to sight read piano music better at an earlier age.
Nowadays there are a lot of resources on TH-cam, such as yourself. I just discovered you today, but consider you one of the absolute best. I love your trumpet sound. As a drummer I sat next to Lee Vodack for about a year. He was said to have been the lead trumpeter on Harry James's band for about 10 years. He used to say, "You have be be able to sight read 16 bars ahead of where you are in the music, because something might be crossed out." Reading a horn line is a lot easier than reading piano music. I can play a bit of Soprano Sax too and reading on that instrument is not comparable to reading piano music. Fingerings always differ on piano., plus the left hand is generally doing something different from the right hand. Yuja Wang apparently is a very good reader. Some people are able to read very musically.
No argument with any of that, other than reading ahead 16 bars is perhaps a little extreme, however an overview scan is always in order.
Well thought out. Thank you. On a side note, I have taught many beginner trumpet students as a music educator for 25 years. Many of my most successful and highest achieving students on the trumpet were not taught to read music in the beginning. Simple…copy me. Taught by “Rote” if you will. Students were shown what they were playing on the page after they were already playing it. It seems to uncloud the thought process. Sharps, Flats, Range, etc are not getting in the way of the actual act of playing the trumpet. Of course, students were not left without the information of notation. It was just taught to them after they could play the horn.
That approach makes sense for a beginner trumpet student and also for a beginner improviser. When I'm discussing theory with a student, it is with the emphasis that their ear already understands this stuff. It's easier to apply a label to a sound than to extract a sound from a label.
It's a lot easier to read music you already know.
Interesting, well thought out comments.
A good friend of mine went to Juilliard for bassoon. As you note not everybody who goes to famous programs like Berklee, Curtis, Julliard is an advanced player, though my friend was. One guy he knew didn’t play all that well but he was great at reed shaving!
Anyway in 2023 it’s hard to imagine not having or developing strong sight reading skills. There’s that story about Jimmy Ford who played alto sax in Maynard Ferguson’s band (late 50’s) who was a killer soloist but couldn’t read. Willie Maiden (arranger/tenor sax) taught him the lead alto parts note by note. That’s not going to happen today.
You are right about that. This harkens to Patrick Bartley's video (and my response) about the difference between being an artist and a working musician. Even though he was used as an example in Adam's video as not needing to read when playing on Stephen Colbert's show, I'm sure he would say that reading has been an essential skill in other situations. th-cam.com/video/lBy_DRb7Gf0/w-d-xo.html
My son is a very good ear player. The first year he failed the audition because he couldn't sight read. The next year he was the lead Alto.in the band I''m prejudiced, but I think they messed up a bit the first year. On the other hand it was a good lesson for him. He eventually graduated Magna Cum Laude from SUNY Purchase.
I’m sorry, but our education system has been “dumbed down” enough. Music is like mathematics…..there are no shortcuts. Two plus two will always be four. I was an acceptable albeit “weak” reader upon entering music school. My trumpet instructor, himself an excellent Jazz player, drilled me for my entire first year in school to sharpen those critical musical skills. I ended up playing in orchestra my junior and senior years…..something I never realized I would ever be able to do. Another outstanding observation Mr. Chase…..
It seems pretty clear that nobody who can read music regrets that.
Really good discussion, thank you. As a self-taught amateur playing occasionally at home with other self-taught amateurs, I see it this way: at the start of my musical journey, I focused on and learned how to 'read' -- but then have struggled ever since to play & improvise 'by ear'. Conversely, the people in my circle who, at the start, played 'by ear' later on had very little trouble learning how 'to read' -- and in that learning never lost their original ability & desire to play and improvise 'by ear.' Which is to say: my experience/lesson is to start your musical journey playing and improvising by ear, because if/when you want to learn to 'read music' it'll take you less than a week to do so.
There is an 'asterisk' to that, however, and it's this: I think when a musician of Chase's abilities says, for example, that being able 'to read' is essential for getting Broadway gigs, I think it might be easy for us (and even Chase himself) to forget that you still have to be able to really PLAY, i.e., you need excellent technique and exemplary ability and talent to 'sight read' complex/difficult musical passages. For my level of skill/ability I can sight read music pretty well, relatively speaking: I can look at a transcribed solo by a tenor sax player (say, Lester Young) or a clarinetist (say Pee Wee Russell) or a trumpeter (say Buck Clayton) and get through it okay the first time -- but ONLY if it's in the easiest of keys (C, F, G, Bflat, D) and only if it's a slow ballad or blues at around 60-90 bpm. In other words, I can 'read music', but I certainly don't have anywhere near the talent to read and play ANY/ALL music, especially if it's full of 16th notes and complex runs that require that one already has all the important scales and arpeggios etc under their fingers. For that, you need the kind of foundational training and years of study that musicians like Chase have had -- or at least, I've certainly come to realize that I needed that.
In short: my advice to my much younger self would've been: 'Learn to play by ear -- and then practice like hell!"
It is true that being able to read a part but not to play it would place you somewhat at the back of the line when it comes to being hired...:) You can learn the principles of reading music in a week, as you could chess or basketball, but it will take a good deal longer to develop the skill. It's possible to be a fine musician without the ability to read music, but not without the ability to hear it or produce it on your instrument.
@@chasesanborn Thanks, Chase. You know, as I was writing my post I was thinking that you and others might be using the term 'read music' to mean that a player could actually execute-play whatever they were reading. But then, under that assumption, I could not quite understand what Dr. Socolofsky was saying in that quote. I mean: if we're talking not about high schools but college-and-university level music programs, how is it 'gatekeeping' to require that those entering such programs -- which are intended to broaden and deepen a student's theoretical and practical understanding of music- making and performance -- already have the level of technique/technical facility on their instruments needed to allow them to take advantage of that learning, and participate and make music with their classmates? If she means that music programs shouldn't unduly 'preference' technique or have too high a bar for that pre-existing level of technique, I can understand; but I find it hard to imagine a truly useful music program turning out performance-ready musicians if half the time spent there is focused on getting half the students 'up to speed' on the fundamentals.
WHOAH! You open up Pandora’s box in this one! I would prefer to write you a letter to discuss this, but being as things are as they are now I’ll keep it short…what was that? Ah, right, Bix B. going to a teacher and the teacher saying something along the lines of, I can’t teach you anything and if I did it would probably hurt your playing more than it would help…OK, yes he did eventually learn how to read but to what extant? I don’t know. Maybe you do? What about skill and or virtuosity depending on the style of music? Basically, in my opinion, the bottom lines is you can know all the chords / chord changes, but in the end it just has to sound good, it’ss just that simple. “If it don’t mean a thing if don’t ain’t got swing….no?
It wasn't me that opened the box, but I added my two cents, and I'm always happy to spark dialogue. I agree that the goal is to sound good. The question many people have is how. University is a good place to acquire tools and hone skills; what one does with them is up to the individual.
@@chasesanborn When I went to the University of Colorado (1960's) they despised jazz. It was tragic. They were also heavily into the "Avant-Guarde". Presently I'm a huge fan of Beegie Adair. She said, "What's most important is to develop musicianship." Luckily several people have been transcribing her performances which I can "read."
I would love for every one of my students, and my fellow teachers, to hear 3:28-4:30. After years of instruction as a kid, I never really learned to be musical on an instrument until started playing an instrument “casually”, without written music. It doesn’t have to be this way, but all too often I think the paper-eyes-fingers route short circuits ears and even the brain. I reckon the old way of teaching Sol-Fa sight singing prevented this, if you can’t hum it from the page you’re probably not understanding it
There's an easy way for your students to hear it...:) Aside from its value as a way to communicate musical information, written music could be thought of as a tool in the same vein as tuners and metronomes. They should be used to inform or train our ears, not replace them.
Thank you! Great video.
And thank you for the comments!
I fully agree. Very amateur musician here but having spent lots of time stuck to music sheets to play piano and then learning Irish flute, which was all by ear, I'd say you absolutely are right about learning, playing, retaining and performing by ear. My husband, his brother and 2 of my sons have reading difficulties - eye tracking problems. Phenomenal musicians, highly developed ears have resulted. I'm actually jealous of them because i am there in mediocrity stuck to sheet music, despite having played the same songs over and over. Fuck university anyway. Bunch of smug fucks largely who don't connect. Sorry, I just said that for the hell of it.
As one who has enjoyed engaging with thousands of talented and motivated university jazz students, and who hopes I've given them as much as they've given me, I would hope not to be cast as a smug f who doesn't connect. But I'm glad you enjoyed the video and thanks for your comment.
@@chasesanborn You are not the average "classical" player. I have learned the most over the years from performing musicians. Today it's all about digging it out from the goldmine of musical resources on TH-cam. You can learn a lot about Horsemanship on TH-cam too:
www.youtube.com/@steveyounghorsemanship/videos
I, too, first experienced real musical immersion via Irish traditional music on flute, after years of reading-based study. This transformed my relationship with all instruments and for that matter, all music
I'm from Brazil thanks!!!!!!
Thanks for checking in!
I have seen that quote on Chet before which is not quite accurate; it was Chet Atkins rolling into some heavy studio work early on..... and was asked that question by a producer. Yes, he could read, but was uncertain if they were looking for a player who had a great ear, or one that could accomplish the session on the spot, therefore he answered "Sure, but not enough to do any harm." Baker on the other hand, another true artist could not, even after a small stint in a military post band. Moving on to current times.......it is unfortunate that solid reading is not something correctly taught in the primary or even university level......by that time you are on the path that you can either "play" or simply turn to enjoy it as a hobby. University for years, has pushed profit above teaching and it is the students that come out of school in great debt, often selling their instruments and working at Sarbucks. Sightreading is and essential skill if you are going to get anywhere, or do anything now, and it should be taken seriously. It is just not that big of a deal to help them learn to read proficiently, and hold that standard, not to haze or hinder from music schools, rather to help them not waste their time and many years of debt! I see both sides, and thanks Chase Sanborn for some nice content in your videos.
Whichever Chet it was, it's a great line. There is truth to the profit motive of universities, and faculty is expected to recruit as part of the gig. That said, every university professor I know is devoted to teaching first and foremost. In general terms, teaching is too hard a job to do it for the money. (Says a TH-cam music educator who earns far less than minimum wage for the hours devoted to making videos for this channel. Thanks to you for the kudos!)
@@chasesanborn At the University of Colorado in the 60's they forced people who wanted to take just a few music courses into the College of Music in order to be able to buy more grand pianos.
All universities deal with the reality of taking in income, which is at at odds with the mandate of education. That said, a full time music program may not be equipped to offer courses piecemeal.
I saw a tremendous natural guitarist denied admission into Jazz class coz he couldn't read a note of music, despite being ten times the guitarist than the guy they had. What a loss for music.
I recall auditioning a particular student who demonstrated significant musical ability with minimal understanding of what he was doing. Although I was unsure, we accepted him into the program and he excelled, picking up quickly on things he had not learned previously and inspiring classmates not only with his innate grasp of jazz music but with boundless positive energy. That would not be the case for every 'natural talent'. Music school is an academic environment which is not suitable for everyone, but it does not guarantee or preclude a successful musical career.
Yeah, I understand the situation. By the way, I took private guitar lessons and learned how to read from the Alfred books. Same with piano. I do wish I was a natural player though. It seems quicker to get there...
Music, like anything else, comes more naturally and quicker to some than others. But anyone who is willing to work for it can reach a point where they are able to express something from within. On an artistic level, that's all that matters, that it is a reflection of the artist.
Good one!
Thanks, sir!
Playing Othello or Princess Leia does not actually require reading, yet every actor on the planet can read a script and analyze their part without it being spoken to them. Reading music isn't required to play it, but there are entire concepts and conversation that simply cannot be engaged with without the skill of reading written music. It's clearly possible to be a musician who can't play by ear or who can't read music. I'm just not convinced you can be a COMPLETE musician and reach your potential without both. Every blind musician I've ever known can still have a conversation about the concepts of written music. They just experienced it a different way.
I note that Adam Neely made the comparison between reading music on stage and watching actors with scripts in their hands. We all do well to go 'off book'. Interesting thoughts about blind people experiencing visual stimuli in a different way. Thanks for sharing!
I attended a piano seminar conducted by George Shearing. He's obviously no slouch. What's held me back the most musically is the lack of a good ear. I'm also color blind and as far as I know that can't be fixed either. That said people have responded well over the years to my musical abilities. There's a difference between playing at a local level, a national level, and an international level. Some people criticize Yuja Wang's costuming, but they don't realize musical performance is actually entertainment. Colleges should have at least one course on developing your entertainment persona. For example Sanborn's cap tells me he's the real deal. He's not one of these baseball cap type of guys. Miles Davis said, "I don't have to hear a guy play, I can just tell from the way he's dressed."
Regrettably, I think I would need more than a cap to impress Miles. :)
Students waste too much time on reading and sight reading. They just want to meet the metric for the auditions. Guys who don't read end up making it sometimes.
A few thoughts in response. I suggest to potential university applicants that they think of audition prep not in terms of admission, but as steps towards an eventual career. It’s not a waste of time if it benefits you down the road, let alone in the immediate future.
The fact that some people do ‘make it’ without the ability to read music doesn’t eliminate the fact that opportunities exist for those who do. I equate it somewhat to instrumental/vocal technique and improvising. There have been great improvisers who are not necessarily virtuosos, but I think it unwise to count on improvisatory genius as a way to compensate for flawed technique. Give yourself every advantage. Thanks for your comment!
I can respectfully disagree. Only because my kids come to me with skills subpar coming into high school from 1,2, and rarely 3 years of middle school band.
Sooo of course band needs to be fun And engaging and I know majority of people will 💩 on pop music but if it's arranged correctly and playable, there's your sight reading/ music notation right there.
With pop charts, we'll listen to the audio 1st time, then 2nd play alpng with audio, 3rd time w/ met. And i check the kids 🤓 to make sure they're reading their part. We got roughly over dozen charts that we can play pretty well.
@@phillyb.4682 Public school music in the US is dismal.
@@JoeLinux2000 Agree, but it needs to be fixed and supported
If I had not learned to SIGHT read at a PROFESSIONAL level, I would not have earned the money to finance my jazz career. Or to be able to write my own compositions so others could play them . I can also look at a score by Stravinsky and hear it and analyse it. Nuff said? I was able to play and tour with Thad and Mel, Tito Puente, Gladys Knight, Lou Rawls, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughn,
etc. including a plethora of stuff that was so square it was funny- Trained animals, good and lame comedians, circuses and circus acts. PAID MONEY!!!!! Made contacts. Made residuals from jingle dates. There is no knowledge that is a waste of time
There can be no disagreement with your last sentence, IMO. As Adam said, opportunities exist for musicians who can read. The core question seems to be not whether it's helpful to be able to read music, but whether it is relevant enough today for university music programs to require it for admission. Adam waded into the topic of what is the purpose of music schools overall. I stayed out of that question on this one, as I've made videos about it in the past, but I'll give it current thought. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, BB!
@@chasesanborn I said before there is difference between being able to read, and being able to sight read well. It's clear some of the very best players can't read at all. They aren't going to be hired to read circus music, although they might be great clowns with their instrument.
Fortunately, the very best players can probably forgo the circus gigs. :)
Are you related to David Sanborn
Probably only if you go back a few centuries.