Musical Illiteracy

Paco de Lucia didn't know how to read notation until he was asked to perform Rodrigo's "Concerto de Aranjuez", and he had to learn how to read notation in order to perform it. He was 45 years old.

And Paco de Lucia has been a performer of a lot of kinds of music, from flamenco to jazz to classical. And I don't think anyone could have claimed that Paco de Lucia was not a "professional" guitarist until the age of 45.

And it's worth remembering that Rodrigo himself couldn't read notation since he was blind.

Oh, yeah! Blind people!

I bet Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder were not professional musicians. Neither was Art Tatum. Yeah... Or Jacob van Eyck or John Stanley (classical composers).

Well, there's braille based music notation, but of course it can't really be said to be "traditional western music notation", as it doesn't have lines with noteheads and stems on it etc.

I know a blind pianist who learns music like this. Well, first he tends to learn it by ear to get the general idea, then he takes the score for the details (and in order not to be confused by any abnomalities that the performer has added to the music). It can't really be compared to how seeing people read music though, since you can't read and play at the same time, since you need your fingers to read. So you first have to read a bit, learn it by heart, then play it.

Helmut Walcha, for those who are fans of organ music (Bach specially) was blind... yet he recorded pretty much the entire work of Bach for organ. Not only that but he made his own finished version of the last counterpoint from the art of the fugue!

sounds very unprofessjanal

scraggy, my computer knows how to read music better than I do, but it can't write anything worth a damn.

Oh I wouldn't know about that

YouTube - Microsoft Songsmith Commercial

[/sarcasm]

Brilliant!

Oh I wouldn't know about that

YouTube - Microsoft Songsmith Commercial

[/sarcasm]

this is too good to be true.

need download and crack one :blush:

Oh I wouldn't know about that

YouTube - Microsoft Songsmith Commercial

[/sarcasm]

I was almost worried by the title... then I watched the commercial.

It's good to know that composers still have their jobs secure for a few more years. ;)

No, but the analogy doesn't follow; the latter can objectively be said to be inferior to modern medicine as we have science to back it up, but there is no way to objectively gauge musical quality, and as such in a discussion about what constitutes "musicianship" all cultural differentiations need to be taken into account. I wasn't actually making a point about world music, it was merely figurative, as the same argument still applies within the Western world: more music is made that is not notated than is (and regardless of whether you enjoy it, it is still music), so how can the ability with which one reads notation constitute an effective measurement of musicianship? it'd be like measuring how good someone was at their job based on the quality of their suit; it may be an indicator of their success of a businessman, but is incredibly inspecific, and disregards the fact that for many many people suits are of no use to them.

Sorry for the delay, but I don't have much time to hang around.

Science is born from the fact that concrete methods of conducting it exist. If you try to publish your research in a scientific journal, it has to fulfill some requirements, even if your're the brightest mind in the neighbourhood. Hearth wisdom is born from somebody finding (or believing) that something works (even though the reason behind the improvement may be a random variable) and the deduction that if something works now, it will work tomorrow as well.

It's the same with music. Some guy picks up a guitar (or whatever), plays something that sounds good (to him) and that's it. Positive reinforcement sometimes creates horrid results.

As far as the 'cultural differentiations' are concerned, there's a definite limit to what you can do with traditional music. You've listened to a couple of things, you've listened to them all. 'Rumination' is the keyword.

I cooperate routinely with professional musicians. I don't have the time to sit with them and sing the tune for a few hours, until they are ready to go record. I gotta give them the sheet music and I want them ready for the studio afterwards, spending time on interpretation issues instead.

Using the suit metaphor, the suit is not an indicator, but at least the presence of clothes is.

The main reason for music illiteracy is basically the same as for math illiteracy. It simply isn’t taught well by educational institutions. The formalistic approach scares people away from it.

Both math and music could be made much more attractive by simply presenting the topics in a way that is less threatening. Most people who are turned off to learning to read music or music theory were most likely turned of to it by stuffy teachers who genuinely had no clue about how to teach.

One bad thing about educational institutions is that they tend to hire teachers who are very knowledgeable in the field in which they teach. Unfortunately, those highly educated teachers are more often than not really lousy at the actual art of teaching. Students could learn much more from less educated teachers who know how to teach!

Also, the traditional pedagogical methods of teaching do not work equally well for all students. Many students would benefit from andragogical methods, even sometimes younger students. This really isn’t as much of an age thing as people often make it out to be. Some people just learn better with andragogical methods than with pedagogical methods at any age.

This is a HUMUNGOUS issue for me. I have fought with educational institutions over this basically all my life. Both as a student later as a teacher. I would have personally greatly benefited from andragogical teaching methods even at a very young age.

Here’s a brief synopsis for those who have no clue what I’m talking about:

Pedagogical and Andragogical Learning (article) by Lloydene F Hill on AuthorsDen

There’s a lot more to it than just that, but that give a ball-park idea of some of the major differences.

Here’s a quote from that article:

However, I have come to realize that this is not as dependent on age as one might think. Some younger individuals would benefit from andragogical methods, and some adults actually prefer the traditional pedagogical methods. I have come to realize that different people simply learn in differnet ways and the traditional pedagogical methods are simply not well-suited to a large part of the population. I think this is especially true for subjects such as math and music.

I’m a huge advocate of andragogical methods. So this is a really hot topic for me. And I seriously believe that it’s the ineffective traditional pedagogical methods that are responsible for the vast illiteracy of both music and mathematics. Even colleges employ pedagogical methods, yet many college students are clearly adults (some are obviously not).

I could rant on this topic forever. I’m extremely upset with educational institutions and their strict adherence to pedagogical methods. Some colleges are slowly waking up to the benefits of andragogical methods, but it’s a slow process, and I personally believe that andragogical methods would actually do well in grade schools.

So I put the blame high-schools and grade schools for simply failing to implement good teaching methods. Period.

Yes, those methods work well for SOME students, but obviously NOT for the MAJORITY. And that’s the sad part.

Clearly you haven't tried teaching in public schools in the US. Put yourself in the situation I was in while I was a teacher:

*Sports rules everything. Half of my band would leave for sports practices that happened every day before AND after school. When I brought this up to my principal he said "Get over it."

*While teaching over 500 students grades K-6 I had no curriculum for half of the year. (There was some kind of hold up down in the state capitol.) Also my budget for the year was $300. Yes, that is for ALL of my classes.

*Also while teaching at the elementary school, my subject was classified as a "specials" course just like the P.E. and Art classes were. This means that regardless if the students flunked every 6 weeks in my class, they would still advance. The students and parents knew this. So this means even if I did threaten to flunk a student for doing NO work- in the end it was meaningless. It didn't affect their academic career.

*During all of my years as a teacher I was forced to attend numerous clients and meetings that, in all reality, dealt very little with my subject or teaching experiences. This took away time that could have been spent creating lesson plans, rehearsing a special student ensemble and enriching my subject area as well as my students.

*I was also forced to assist in reading and math tutoring after hours as well as teach a rudimentary reading class on top of my music classes.

*While at a private school I was forced to teach two Bible classes (the church wasn't part of my religion by the way and I was bound by contract not to "preach against them") as well as be a JR class sponsor. By the way, this wasn't brought to my attention until my first day on the job. That was after 5 interviews.... VERY unprofessional.

*Most art-related programs (music, art, etc) are the first to be cut or replaced. They also typically get the least amount of funding, resources and time. A few districts might be different and that is truly rare and very lucky for those teachers and students involved in the fine arts.

What does all of this mean? No it isn't a scallop fest. (well...... maybe a little bit! ;) ) It's to show that a teacher can try really, really hard but the SYSTEM and NOT the teachers is broken. Sure there are crappy teachers. Get rid of them. But when the system is so broken that even great teachers (especially those outside of the reading-math-science) fields are inhibited.... then it's really bad.

I agree with Nathan about education in America. My district is comparatively strong in the arts, but only because we have amazing art, theater, and music teachers who've been pushing for years for adequate funding. I can't imagine how bad it is in some other districts.

I've never seen/heard sweeping in Maiden, what song? And which guitarist?

I'm not the biggest Maiden fan, but as far as I know they never have, and I know that Adrian Smith is against the concept of sweep picking.

more onto topic, though.

The problem is all stereotype.

It's like saying that all lawyers are bad people.

Saying all guitar players are musically illiterate.

and then you have to define Illiterate.

Because if not being able to read sheet music makes you illiterate then some of the greatest guitar players of all time (not to mention countless jazz artists, including the likes of Luis Armstrong) were all "illiterate".

However, here is what separates them from the shredder kids in your local Guitar Center.

They could not read music, but they still knew where they were.

For example let's use guitar player Stevie Ray Vaughen.

When playing over a certain chord progression he knew where he was in the progression, and what frets and patterns he could use. The rest was all based on feel and ear. He knew what sound was going to come out before he hit a note.

If you were to have stopped him and said "what note is that?" there is no guarentee he would know.

He would have been able to tell you, however, that it fit into the chord under him.

If that is not being a musician, then I don't know what is.

Really, if you ask me, this thread can be renamed.

Musical Bigotry

Everyone (I use this term loosely. I mean as a general rule, or at least the people who stand out so strongly. even if it is not a majority of each group, these are the people who are loud and you always hear talking)

Everyone from every genre of music thinks that their music is the best, most difficult, most technical, most appealing, and overall most MUSICAL.

Jazz players have the stereotype of "Improvisation is what music is really all about. If you can not improv then you are not a musician"

The cliche Rock musician will rant about how knowing music theory will limit you, and that Hendrix and Cobain did not know any music theory and look what happened to them?!

(they died of drug overdoses?)

Enough of my rambling.

My point is this:

Everyone has their idea of what is musical, what is illiterate.

You can create great things and not even know what note your playing.

Take your strengths and make them count.

and most importantly.

Learn to appreciate music for what it is worth.

Even if you do not understand it try to remember that someone else does, and it means alot to the person who made it.

Case and point.

(considering I'm very new here, literally only a few hours, I'm wondering if this is going to ruin me or not, haha)

Did you really just revive this?

You missed this conversation by a couple months, try the newer stuff for a more satisfying forum experience.

Since it's back and alive, I would like to respond to Nathan - it's all depending on the district you are in. There's no way anyone can make a generalization about the state of the school system because school districts are all different.