Yes, Ray Charles and also Stevie Wonder. My previous point has now been imasculated. :smack:
Still, Billy Joel can’t read music? I just need to be convinced, he is sighted after all.
I have to call BS on that one.
Can’t take 10 years of piano lessons without learning how to read music.
And I’m certain his classically trained father made sure of it.
I hope that music would not be “Freedom”!
Champion Jack Dupree was self-taught. I’m pretty sure Professor Longhair, as well. These are just off the top of my head, but (and I am a piano player), I’ve met plenty of accomplished piano players without any formal training.
Of course, these are the exception and not the rule, but almost every decent musician I’ve met plays at least some piano, and most of these musicians have not been formally taught.
As for Elton John vs Billy Joel, I prefer the former, but I don’t think Elton’s style is much more sophisticated than Billy’s at all. His style is pretty easy to cop if you’re used to playing pop piano.
Billy Joel fan checking in here. Yes, Billy could read music at one time, thanks to his piano lessons. But over the years he lost the ability. (Read this in an interview.) I imagine that he is not completely musically illiterate, but simply cannot put a piece of music on the stand and play it. I’m sure he knows what notes, sharps, and flats look like.
I’m not a professional musician by any means, but I’d like to chime in on the topic of note-reading vs. creativity. I had maybe seven years of piano lessons as a child and kept playing on my own from then onward, and while after some practice I can play fairly complicated pieces from sheet music, I have little to no improvisational skill. If I don’t have the music, I can’t play it. However, I sing by ear and improvise creative harmonies all the time. Yes, I can also sing from music, but I have to hear it to be sure I’m singing right, and the creativity goes out the window.
Before I jump in, let me establish my ‘street cred’ – for whatever it’s worth: I have been playing the piano for nearly 26 years. I started by taking piano lessons as a child, and was traditionally and classically trained. So I can read music (I also sing, and reading music is practically a requirement for that), and I still have halfway decent sight-reading skills. However, I have never come even close to being a concert pianist, but I have been in a handful of ‘garage’ bands and casual jam groups. So I’m not terribly experienced, but I do know a little bit of which I speak. 
This subject was hotly debated not too long ago on a forum associated with Keyboard magazine: at the extremes, the people who can read music swore that you can’t really call yourself a musician if you don’t read music, while the people who can’t read music swore that learning how to read music would cost them their creativity. To both wings I said: puh-leeze. :rolleyes:
My opinion comes down to this: being able to read music has nothing to do with a person’s ability to jam. Everyone has anecdotal evidence one way or the other, but people who say that classically-trained musicians don’t know how to loosen up are just as ridiculous as people who credit their creativity to the fact that they can’t read music. However, it is my thinking that knowing how to read music never – and I mean never – hurts. When it comes to famous folks who don’t read music, like Paul McCartney, I wonder things like, “wow, look at how great he is already…how much better might he have been if he had learned to read music??” It’s possible that reading music might not have positively affected McCartney at all, but I firmly believe it couldn’t have hurt.
There are some people – some classically-trained folks – who think that knowing how to read music is enough; they are the counterparts to the folks who believe that knowing how to play music is enough. In those cases, whatever the person is lacking is not the fault of what they already know: if you have the ability to create music, knowing how to read and write it cannot take that away. Likewise, knowing how to read and write music is no guarantee of creative talent. They are neither dependent nor mutually exclusive.
Reading music is not a “talent,” it is a skill – similar to learning a foreign language. Some people learn it more easily than others, and others find it so difficult that they never learn it at all, but it’s not comparable to creative talent.
I disagree, wholeheartedly, for the reasons I state above; and namely, that knowing how to read music has nothing to do with one’s ability to express themself musically.
Not only are you completely wrong about Billy Joel’s ability to read music (he studied classical music when he was young, and his first album contains an original classical piano work – written and played by Joel), but when you compare Elton John to Billy Joel you should be careful to not confuse their music with their playing.
Au contraire, mon Liberal: Billy Joel has written at least one entire album of complex classical pieces (and Paul McCartney, who truly does not read music, has composed an entire oratorio). Joel is not an accomplished enough pianist to play his compositions, and at least McCartney needed help with the notation, but they “conceived” the music just fine.
Lib, you have some – uh – ‘interesting’ views on what it means to be able to read music. 
Misnomer — I have to say I perfectly agree with everything you’ve stated.
Reading music certainly never hurts, but it’s not the end-all be-all of being a musician. The best players can jam and read music. It’s complete BS that people who know how to read music can’t jam. Like you, I started out with classical lessons, but I could improvise well. It DID take a lot of getting used to, at first, but once you got used to the fact of not playing with music in front of you, it’s easy. Music is music, whether there’s notes there or not.
But to say the ability to read music somehow hinders one’s creativity is patently absurd. I mean, look at Gonzalo Rubalcaba. He’s a classically-trained Cuban jazz pianist. He’s absolutely insane on the piano and is perhaps the most technically accomplished jazz pianist I’ve ever heard. And there is no loss of creativity and musicality with him.
I’m sure that this point will be beaten into the ground, but I have to say that one’s ability to improvise or “jam” is totally independent of their ability to read music.
True, many people that can only read have no real “jamming” abilities. Also true is the fact that many experienced nusicians that can gel with any act, simply cannot effectively read music. These abilities are obviously independent from one another.
Generalizations aside, being able to sight-read is always a benefit. The assumption that such knowledge hinders creativity is silly. The ability to improvise is also a desired trait. Certain people will be better at one aspect than another certainly, but I do not think that one ability influences the other. Unless of course you’re talking about the ability to sight-read helping an improvisational player expand on their improv skills.
Orchestral musicians usually can’t ad-lib very well, and garage band guys usually can’t sight read very well. Is that the point here? That’s apples and oranges.
I too am glad Misnomer said what he or she said so I don’t have to.
In regards to the OP, there are many many situations in non-classical music where it is essential for a pro to read music. If you’re going to walk into a studio or a gig with little to no lead time to practice, you’re going to be handed sheet music; someone isn’t going to sit there and play for you what they want. If that were the case, they wouldn’t need you.
Written music is the 100% most efficient way to communicate musical ideas. True, the ‘feel’ isn’t always explicit in written music, but one difference between a truly good musician and a not-so-good one is the ability to infer style and emotion from the notes on the page.
Well said. As a drummer, “feel” is only second to time in my world. I’d like to see a conductor get an orchestral percussion section into a “groove” without looking like an ass. I stress feel above all else when it comes to the way a song comes across to the audience.
Eh…not necessarily… a lot of times you’ll be handed a chart of chords, and that’s all. In Nashville, you might get something written in the “Nashville Number System,” which is a staple for country session players. For jazz, maybe a lead sheet and chords. For rock, something similar. Usually, when a rock/country/blues pianist gets hired for a session, it’s not to play a given part. It’s to make a part to go with the music.
I would say that the times the musician gets a fully notated part to play in popular forms of music is the exception, and not the rule.
Like I said, paid to play. If you’re laying a track for the new Pepsi commercial or auditioning for Britney Spears’ band next tour, you’d better know how to read music. Otherwise you’re fine.
More formal forms of musical performance tend to lean toward sight-reading also, i.e. marching bands (who rehearse), symphonies, jazz bands, big bands, etc. Studio musicians are the ones most taken to task with their reading abilities though.
When it comes up, I tell people I can’t read music and that I play by ear. But it is not strictly true. While I usually just hear something and then pick it up by ear, sometimes–especially with classical pieces–I have to refer to the sheet music. Now, I can’t really *read * it, it’s more like *decoding * it. But it’s enough to get me through a note or a chord I just can’t hear exactly right.
I imagine if Paul McCartney were trying to learn a Chopin piece, and he got stuck on a note, he too could refer to the notation, find the right measure, and look at the note in question and decipher it. Is that reading? I don’t really consider it that. At least not in my case.
I’ve been trying to think of an anaolgy to cooking and chefs, but I can’t quite come up with the right thing. Something like-- do you need to know how to read to recreate, create or cook a recipe? Most creative and talented chefs could cook something up just by tasting it. Some might need either a peek at the recipe, or some advice from someone, but I don’t think they usually cook line-by-line from recipes.
Once again, I’m saying I disagree somewhat. While most, if not all, session musicians can certainly read music, they are almost never given the exact part they are supposed to play. They’re given a chord sheet or a very basic idea. (Remember, I’m speaking only of pop music here.) Very rare is the time when sessionists for rock recordings have their parts completely written out for them. If I’m gonna spend the money to get Chuck Leavell (piano) or Eric Clapton or whoever to play on my recording, I’m not gonna write their part for them. That would completely defeat the point. I’ll give them a chord chart, maybe play through the song a couple of times so they get the idea, and then let them do their thing.
I wonder if I could introduce the name of one of my other favorite musicians here and see how he compares with the likes of Elton John and Billy Joel. That would be Donald Fagen. Pardon the slight hijack, but the reading music question seems to have been answered pretty thouroughly and I’d really like to hear from you knowledgeable types about how they compare.
I know his work from Steely Dan and his album The Nightfly, but I can’t say I’m overly familiar with him. From what I do know, I would say that Fagen is absoutely an accomplished keyboardist and songwriter. I don’t think he’s as good as crafting a pop song as either Elton or Billy but he’s probably more technically accomplished than either of these. But it’s apples an oranges for me. Fagen is great for that jazz-rock groove. John and Joel are there for the more straight-ahead pop rock. I don’t think they would do well in criss-crossing genres, so it’s a bit unfair to compare them.
Suffice to say, they’re all good pianists (although I have my reservations about Billy Joel.)
Point taken, but even a lead sheet and chords will require someone to read music (gotta read the melody off a lead sheet).
If you can’t read music to some degree, you’re going to have a hell of a time maintaining a career as a studio musician. I’ve worked with folks who have done just what you’ve said, played me a tune or just given me some chords and had me go with it, and other times I’ve had specific licks (hott lixx?) people have wanted me to play, or specific parts off of sheet music. If I couldn’t read notes on a page I’d have a hell of a time getting that sort of gig. Not that it would be impossible, but I’d have to ask every time, “do you need me to read music, 'cause if you do, I can’t,” and I can’t imagine trying to run a career that way.
I hire musicians for theatre, and I love it when my guitar players throw in their own stuff (usually), but if they can’t read the music to really know what’s supposed to be there, I can’t use them.
So, in the end, it definitely depends on the specific gig. But, you are immensely more versitile, and hence more desirable and more hirable, if you can read music.
Don’t forget that guitar players, especially rock, pop, country, etc. have tablature, which is nearly as expressive as sheet music and not nearly as difficult to master.
Thanks. I’m not a musician at all, but this is pretty much the way I saw it too. Your analysis is almost exactly what I would have guessed, apples and oranges and all. I just wanted to know what those of you in the know thought. Thanks again.
Snooooopy, why do you hate Freedom?
