Question for Serious/Professional Musicians

Regarding Billy Joel, I’m just going by what he said himself in his interview with James Lipton. He took no interest in his piano lessons. They bored him. He couldn’t bear tapping out someone else’s interpretation of hundred-year-old folk tunes and being told in preachy tones to sit up straight, curl your fingers just so, don’t rest your foot on the sustain pedal, and other such things that, in his mind, interfered with the music. He wanted to lean forward and backward, to sway, to shape his fingers according to how the music made him feel. He felt that his lessons were restrictive and pointless. What music lessons were trying to teach him was how to move his fingers to match dots on a sheet of paper, but what he wanted to learn was how to create. He demonstrated with a piano on Lipton’s stage how, as a youngster, he would play major seventh chords and fancy himself sitting in a piano bar. On his own, he learned that “dinner music” is nothing more than major sevenths in some variation of I, IV, VI, and VI. Blues are just I, IV, and V in a dominant seventh. And so on. He has retained almost nothing from those excruciating years.

Regarding Elton John as a mere pop idol, the notion is simply wrong. Paul Buckmaster, a graduate of the Royal Academy of Music and a celebrated and accomplished composer in his own right, who has arranged music for everyone from the Rolling Stones to Patti LaBelle, worked with Elton early in his career, and said of his music that it was “an inspiration, a real turn on”. His first two successful albums, Elton John and 11-17-70, contain pieces with incredibly rich and complex scores in unusual keys for rock music, like F# minor. They are deeply classical. Even the hard-rocking Take Me to the Pilot breaks suddenly into a key-change from C to E-flat. These are not things that pop music idols were doing in the late 60s. Over the years, he did indeed seize on and profit from a certain pop idol status, even composing the self-parody, I’m Gonna Be a Teenage Idol, in which he and Bernie made fun of themselves. But his amazing discography covers every conceivable style of music, from the tin-pan alley madness of Social Disease to the wailing, steel guitar strains of Country Comfort. From the delicate and pensive harpsichord fugues in I Need You to Turn To to the gutter rock loudness of Saturday Night’s Alright for Fighting.

As a young man, I managed to get my hands on a copy of Del Newman’s score of Funeral for a Friend. I could read very simple arrangements, but nothing like this, and so I took it to a local college where a grand piano was available, with the intention of figuring it out. As I struggled with it, a man walked in, and thinking that I would be asked to leave, I gathered the sheets with a sigh and stood up.

“What is that?” he asked.

“Elton John,” I said, “Funeral for a Friend”.

He took it from my hands and began to examine it. “It looks quite lovely,” he said, “Would you mind?”

I was thinking, ‘Mind? Hell, no. You mean you’ll play it? I’d love to hear how it’s supposed to sound.’

“Please,” I said, motioning to the bench.

He sat down, spread out the music, and began to play. Instantly, I recognized the familiar and haunting melody. The gentleman, an excellent pianist, constantly interspersed his play with eclamations of, “Oh, my!”, and “Wonderful!” When he got to the segue from C-minor to A via an F-minor-eleven with diminished 5, he gasped audibly. “Oh, gorgeous!” he cried out. When he finished, he and I competed over who could thank the other more profusely. As he walked away, I wondered whether I was dreaming.

“Who are you?” I blurted out.

“I’m the dean of the department.” His deep voice echoed in the large hall.

“I’m not a student here,” I said, “Is it okay if I stay and work on this?”

“Oh, yes, you simply must,” he declared with a polite smile, and disappeared out the door.

I sat down more determined than ever, and worked with the song ever so slowly and carefully, returning almost every day for several weeks until I had it all worked out. I never saw the dean again, but I can still play it to this day from Newman’s own score of Elton’s recording. I suppose, in looking this story over, that it is apropros of pretty much nothing except to provide just a bit of context of what I admit is a very longstanding bias and love for Elton John.

I didn’t say that it was, and in fact went to great pains (repeatedly) to distinguish the two, your nit-picking over the choice of terms notwithstanding. But since you’ve brought us there, Websters gives one definition of “talent” as “Intellectual ability, natural or acquired; mental endowment or capacity; skill in accomplishing” — emphasis mine.

I cannot imagine what you are disagreeing with. You have even just finished quoting me as saying, “The talent to read notes and the talent to create music are completely separate things.” Perhaps by riveting on the semantics of “talent”, you somehow lost the essence of the statement.

What the…? I’m beginning to think you have conflated me and someone else. I have made that very point. Regarding Joel, I’ve covered that above.

I don’t know that I would call them “complex”. I heard one of them performed by his pianist on Lipton’s show, and it is quite much like Joel’s Salieri to Elton’s Mozart. And yes, I know that the movie’s portrayal of Salieri is a caricature; I’m just making a point with a familiar image.

Be that as it may, I hardly see the need to descend into the thread like Superman and beat me about the head and shoulders. Quite many of my views on quite many topics are “interesting”, but I respect the views of others, so long as they are honestly held, even when I disagree. This is neither General Questions nor Great Debats, and so I believe that my own opinions might merit more than your summary dismissal of them, particularly since some of the ones you’ve mocked exactly match your own.

[QUOTE=Liberal His first two successful albums, Elton John and 11-17-70, contain pieces with incredibly rich and complex scores in unusual keys for rock music, like F# minor. They are deeply classical. Even the hard-rocking Take Me to the Pilot breaks suddenly into a key-change from C to E-flat. These are not things that pop music idols were doing in the late 60s. [/QUOTE]

F# minor is a weird key for rock because it’s not a natural key for guitar.

Changing from C to E-Flat? So what? Pop musicians have played with key changes for awhile. Try the Beatles, for instance. “Something” goes from C to A. “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” alternates A-minor and A-major. As for the minor third you mentioned, the Beatles loved this modulatin in particular. Lady Madonna? Another Girl? Here, There, Everywhere? Birthday? Or Roy Orbison’s “Pretty Woman,” which also does the minor third, going from A major to C major?

Need I go on?

Listen, I don’t doubt Elton’s skills and I’m not knocking him as a musician. He is a fabulous musician. I just don’t find these key modulations as evidence of this. And the fact that somebody wrote a rock song in F# minor…what’s the big deal? It’s just another key, after all…doesn’t take any special skill to write in F# minor.

Hmm…sounds like maybe you actually can read music, you just can’t sight read? I’ve always figured that if you can look at sheet music and know that the little dot with a flag on it means an F, you can read music. I may be picking nits to distinguish sight-reading from reading, but I think there’s a difference.

Liberal: Down, boy! :wink: Nearly every point of yours that I disagreed with was based on your ‘knowledge’ of the fact that Billy Joel cannot read music. Yes, I saw the very same Inside the Actor’s Studio episode that you (and thousands of others) did; I am as big a fan of Joel as you are of Elton John. However, just because Joel despised his lessons does not mean that he did not learn how to read music! And while his skill at sight-reading may have deteriorated over the years, I think he still knows that the little dot with a flag on it means an F. Also, he may not have liked his lessons (who did??), but he developed a love and appreciation for playing classical music – a fact that came out in the very same interview with James Lipton. You simply cannot be a pianist with an appreciation of playing classical music without being able to read music to some degree.

On the whole I disagreed with your facts, not your opinions. Tucking your tail between your legs and calling me a bully (albeit one with a red cape) seems unusually thin-skinned for you, from what I’ve seen elsewhere on the boards. I wouldn’t have bothered if I hadn’t thought you were capable of understanding that " :wink: " means “This comment is meant light-heartedly.”

I wasn’t aware that people were only allowed to disagree in Great Debates or General Questions, not Cafe Society… :rolleyes:

It’s a simple matter. Google “Billy Joel” and “classically trained” and you will get a large number of links showing that he was, indeed, given classical lessons from an early age. He is also fond of saying “learn as much about music as you can, then throw the whole pile away.” Whether he thinks that retaining that precise, classical feel for the kind of music that he does is unimportant. And yes, he’s known for being a rock musician, so it’s okay if he plays piano like a gorilla.

I am also a huge Elton John fan, and I think at times that his large classical background sometimes stands in his way of really gettin’ it onnn. Elton John would never write a song like Christie Lee, for instance. I admit that Elton John’s music does have more unusual elements and chord changes in it than Billy Joel’s: the B-double-flat C-flat B-flat-minor change in “All The Girls Love Alice” is brilliant. That doesn’t take anything away from Billy Joel, who writes a different kind of music. Billy would never write “Tonight.”

And the key change up a minor third from C to Eb? Sorry, Billy Joel did that too, from A major to C major in “If I Only Had The Words To Tell You.”

Anyway, back to the OP.

I have a feeling that some musicians read more than they let on, too. I like to say that I cannot read a note. This is to prevent people from handing me sheet music and saying “play this.”

In truth, I can sight-read a melody line without much problem, either playing or sight-singing. I can easy recognize complicated chords as they are written on the staff. I cannot sight-read two-handed piano. I don’t practice it so I’m not good at it. I admit it. To save time explaining all of this to musical novices (whose idea of playing by ear is to hit the Seek button on the radio until a country song comes on) I just say I can’t read.

I’m very well aware that the musical training I do have shaped my skills immensely.

Most of the time in rock and pop music, the chord changes are so simple that it a minimum of musical theory is adequate to knowing how to perform. Guitar, for instance, has two basic power-chord fingerings: 6th string position and 5th string position. You memorize those fingerings and follow the dots on the side of the guitar neck (dot #3 is G, dot #5 is A) and you can play pretty much everything AC/DC ever wrote.

Country music can be much the same; like mainstream rock, the number of two-chord and three-chord songs comprises a surprisingly large portion of the genre. In country, if you memorize C, G, A, D, E, B7, and a few barre chords, you’re in. Maybe learn the easy minor chords: Dm, Em, Am. Now you can play 60% or more of what you hear on the country music station.

Piano, too. If you learn to play in the keys with a minimum of black notes (keys of C, G, F, D) or a minimum of white notes (Gb) then you’re good. Learn to find the basic chords by rote and fiddle around with them until they lump together into a song. No problem.

Could you be a studio musician with that skill set? Not likely. Could you play with an orchestra? Hardly.

But on the other hand, if the only thing you know is how to sight-read what you’re given, what do you do when someone hands you a chord chart that says “twelve-bar blues riff in A?”

Oh, no…sight-reading and reading music are certainly two different things.

I can read music all fine and dandy, but my sight reading skills have deteriorated over the years. Sight reading is the ability to play music on first sight. This is especially important for accompanists who deal with a wide range of music and have to play songs they’ve never practiced on the fly.

Some musicians are tremendous sight readers. My old jazz piano teacher was able to parse through a complicated Thelonius Monk transcription I put down in front of him with not much bother. Sure, I could read and play that, but it would take me hours upon hours of practice. He could do it on the fly. I can’t sight read anything more than a lower intermediate Beethoven sonatina.

Sight-reading is a performance based, immediate skill. It’s the ability to play unfamiliar music at the drop of a hat by being given the music.

Just to pour a little more oil into the ointment :slight_smile:

Some musicians want it to be known that they don’t read. They avoid learning to read music for some unstated reason…somehow it means that they have more talent, or they’re not constrained by what they’ve been taught, or that their accomplishments mean more, or something.

Hogwash, of course. There are many talented musicians who can read, even sight read. Everyone is constrained by what they’ve been taught. I suppose there’s a bit extra admiration for someone who has impressive accomplishments despite a handicap, but intentionally handicapped? Ptooie.

pulykamell (and anyone else who might be interested), as further thanks for your post re Donald Fagen, and since you haven’t heard much of Steely Dan, I thought you might like to listen to their newest album, Everything Must Go. To be honest, this is IMHO the only Steely Dan album that doesn’t break new ground, but it’s excellent nonetheless. It also contains the only Steely Dan track that features Walter Becker on vocals (Slang of Ages).

It’s available to listen to for free (and over and over again, if you wish) at Reprise Records’ website. (I hope I’m not committing a faux pas by evangelizing for them like this, but damn, these guys are good! If so, please excuse.) Anyway, here it is. Enjoy!

http://www.repriserecords.com/steelydan/player/player.html

I’m not a boy, Kimosabe. I’m one-eighth white, so at the very least, I should merit a “little man”.

That is not the case. The only point you actually disagreed with me on and that was different from mine was one that I countered with a citation from Websters, proving that “talent” and “skill” were synonyms in the context that I used “talent”. With everything else, you have echoed my own opinions and presented them as rebuttal. I said, for example, that “The talent to read notes and the talent to create music are completely separate things.” You then, um, countered me by saying that “knowing how to read music has nothing to do with one’s ability to express themself musically”. What’s the freaking difference? I said they’re not the same; you said they’re not the same. But you’re implying that what you say contradicts what I say. That’s just… bizaree.

Yet again, we find you arguing with yourself. That was exactly how I described Joel, having the ability to figure out the notes but not the ability to play them extemporaneously. I’ve never encountered someone who used me as the Critias for his Socrates. I think Piano Man is a lovely song. What are you going to do now, disagree with me and say that Piano Man is a lovely song?

Yes, that is a much better example, thank you. And there are many more.

I agree, and as I said before: “Billy Joel is a great piano player, don’t misunderstand me.”

Ok, then: Down, little man!

Better? :wink:

“Um,” no, I countered that statement by saying that reading music isn’t a ‘talent.’ You feel that your dictionary defense took care of that disagreement, though, so why quote me out of context?

I responded to three separate and distinct things that you wrote. The quote of mine that you mention above was in response to your assertion that “a discerning ear can tell the difference between the play itself of music by a classically trained player and a self-taught player.” Now, it’s possible that I misunderstood what you meant by that, but at the time I replied it seemed pretty clear and I did, indeed, disagree.

I’m not a ‘his,’ Kimosabe. You may only be 1/8 white, but I am 8/8 female (well, except for the parts that don’t like wine and have no idea how to use a broiler…but that’s neither here nor there).

Look, I’m sorry if you completely missed my points, or if I might have misunderstood one of yours. But there’s no reason for you to effectively call me a bully, whine that you didn’t expect to be disagreed with because this is Cafe Society, quote me out of context to support your warped belief that I am somehow agreeing with you but just pretending not to, and then figuratively stand back and scratch your head at me. :rolleyes:

BTW, if anyone’s interested, the Inside the Actor’s Studio with Billy Joel is being shown on the Bravo channel today at 11am (EDT). :slight_smile:

This is the most ridiculous conversation I’ve seen on these boards in quite a while. “Billy Joel is great but he could never write a song like Elton John”??!?! What the hell? Look, you will not find a bigger fan of both Billy Joel and Elton John than myself, and I am a piano player, I am a composer, I read music, and guess what, I’ve never had a lesson.

And, so what? Picasso could never paint the Mona Lisa… so do we want our artforms to all look and sound the same now? The fact that “Billy Joel could never write “Tonight”” is absurd… Don’t you think Elton, with all his classical training, could release a classical CD like Billy? He just chooses not to. And you can’t write stuff like Billy’s classical pieces without being able to read music. You just can’t.

Liberal, you obviously know a lot about music, but try to understand that when someone has such a fine grasp on something, whether it’s music or art or whatever, they can do whatever they want. It’s like when you’re learning a foreign language and at first, you have to “translate” the word in your head before you eventually just go with the word and know what it means without that extra step. Both Billy, Elton, and thousands of other people are at that point in their lives. They hear the music and know how to make it sound before they need to play it.

To answer the OP’s question: the style of music has a lot to do with whether or not the musicians have to read music. Lots of band members don’t need to… they’re simply improvising on the chord progressions. Orchestra members obviously need to, as the songs need to be played exactly as they were written. Do you have to read music to write music? Of course not. People make their living taking melodies from non-music reading people and transcribing it. Mel Brooks doesn’t read music, but he “wrote” The Producers with the help of arrangers and orchestrators.

I know I’m kind of late to this thread… (it’s mainly because it deteriorated into a Billy vs. Elton thing, of which they are both my children and I love them equally) and I’ll admit right now I did not read each and every post, so forgive me if some things have been mentioned before. What caught my eye was people saying “person X could never write what person Y wrote”. Yeah, and?

Is that supposed to explain your passive-aggressive approach? In any case, if you wish to continue with the vague racial taunts like “boy”, you should call me Tonto, not Kimosabe.

I agree completely, and that is substantially what I’ve been saying. Elton’s only advantage over Billy is that he loved his music lessons, and it shows in his very sophisticated body of work. But Billy, as I said, has an intuitive grasp of music theory almost equal to Elton’s.

You didn’t read. I didn’t see Elton John couldn’t write a song like Christie Lee, I said he wouldn’t. I didn’t say that Billy Joel couldn’t write a song like Tonight, I said he wouldn’t.

I am a huge fan of both of them. Like you, I play the piano. I also compose and sing. And yet that gives neither of us the “advantage” when it comes to discussing what musicians have done in the past. We’ve seen enough music from both of them that it’s pretty safe to say that EJ wouldn’t write a blistering nightclub song like Christie Lee because, well, he didn’t. And Billy never released a song remotely like Tonight.

Billy Joel demonstrates a fundamental understanding of music and has even borrowed from classical phrases (“This Night” in particular) to use in his music. Elton John also demonstrates a fundamental understanding of music. But when they write, they write music that they’re good at, for one, and also music that they like to play. They write to their strengths, and Billy demonstrates a love for irreverently blending blues and funk and rock because that’s what his heroes did (Ray Charles and Paul McCartney, to name a few). Elton’s compositions demonstrate why he won a scholarship to the Royal Academy of Music at 11, but he still shows how John Lennon’s writing influenced him.

I went to the Billy Joel/Elton John concert two years ago or so and I got to watch Elton John play “Uptown Girl” and Billy Joel play… damn, I can’t remember which tune of Elton’s he did. I watched them do a duet of “Don’t Let The Sun Go Down On Me.” They’re both brilliant players who have been shaped by the kind of music they listened to and practiced as kids.

I didn’t, and wouldn’t say that one of them is a “better” musician for it. Both of them have a list of gold albums as long as my arm.

:smack:

“Down boy” is what one says to an over-eager dog, and I took it in this thread as a lighthearted, non-insulting variation on “Take it easy, Big Fella.” To perceive it as even vaguely racist strikes me as going out of one’s way to take offense where none was stated, intended, or implied.

Okay, my mistake. I (obviously) thought you were saying that Billy would never be able to come up with something like “Tonight” (in which case I would point out that that song is not nearly as technically demanding as most of Elton’s stuff). Like I said, I am an equally huge fan of both (I have every CD they both put out, and then some, i.e. demos, rare masters, etc…), and I did mention in my disclaimer that I breezed through the many posts in this thread.

In any case, I agree with what you’ve said, and it is unfortunate that people are constantly comparing their music because except for maybe a couple of songs, their styles are quite unique.

Don’t believe everything the sycophantic biographers write. He won a scholarship to the Junior Academy at the RAM. For which 11 is the normal age. So that doesn’t demonstrate that he was an exceptional musician, just a good one.

Do you mean he couldn’t paint it, or that he wouldn’t paint it? If, like many, you think Picasso couldn’t paint realistically, please see the following, completed when he was 15 years old!

http://www.abcgallery.com/P/picasso/picasso172.html

(Sorry for the hijack, but I gotta take up for my man here.)

Thank you for the correction. I wasn’t trying to demonstrate that he was a better musician by that factoid, though, but that he showed an early interest in pursuing music in a rigid and structured world (whereas Billy preferred to make up jazz riffs based on classical themes).