[jader201]

> Just mentioning this because sometimes it seems that people think the way you learn to play an instrument is by learning to play a score.

I think this is what can be a little misleading, depending on what “learn to play” means.

Yes, anyone can “play” an instrument without formal instruction/training, but it will definitely limit your abilities and potential (for the average person and most above average people).

As someone that took very little formal training and can play piano by ear relatively well and can pick out and play many tunes, my abilities and potential are quite limited. I can also read music (I’m more formally trained as a trombonist), but I’m super slow at reading and playing piano music.

Looking back, I now wish I had learned more formally.

I’m speculating this was one of the points the GP was trying to point out.

[NikolaNovak]

Per my bigger post, a lot of people are conflating "music theory" or "formal training", with "sheet notation". You will be limited performer if you don't develop an understanding of music theory at some level yes. But I've successfully challenged my music Instructor to teach me music theory without sheet music for the last year... They really aren't as inseparable as sometimes people assume :)

[palimpsests]

Are you learning music theory without learning how to read music at all?

If so, how, for example, are you talking about the concept of a dominant 7th chord? Or a ii-V-I?

[NikolaNovak]

For example, here is a music theory author that recognizes that two are separate, and therefore has two books:

Music Theory - which explicitly does not require nor teach sheet music: https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/1986061833/

How to read music https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/1546933301/

I have half a dozen other "music theory" books which in actuality spend 70% of the time on "reading music"; worse, this boring, discouraging, counter-intuitive cluttered part is typically first in the book (which means that interested minds will give up before ever getting to "the good stuff" :( ).

Basically I had to fight uphill battle with majority of professionals to actually learn something interesting and useful and insightful, as opposed to memorize sheet music (or memorize music theory terms without understanding / reasons why). I may one day decide to come back to sheet music, for many valid reasons; but reading sheet music is 100% not needed to discuss music theory - at least for me!

Edit: I noticed you had similar conversations in the past; it seems I had similar needs/perspective/experience as "jeofken" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25812227).

I'd be eager to continue conversation via email / chat to obtain your further perspective, if you'd be willing:)

[palimpsests]

interesting, I wish amazon would let me see inside the music theory book.

I'm just curious if they are still using note names and how this teacher is going about things... Because yes it's totally true you don't need to be able to read sheet music in order to understand theory well

Look at a jazz lead sheet for example, where chord voicings aren't usually spelled out (big band being an exception sometimes). Or in analysis e.g I - V7 - iv

[NikolaNovak]

>>how, for example, are you talking about the concept of a dominant 7th chord? Or a ii-V-I?

I mean, exactly like that :).

You don't need sheet music specifically to talk about notes and chords and scales and modes. It's just an ingrained unquestioned assumption that we do. And personally, I found it getting in the way of music theory.

There are 12 notes in Western equal temperament and you can wonderfully beautifully transpose and move things back and forth; sheet music locks you into a seeming 7 notes on a seemingly privileged scale, and makes it far far harder to develop an intuitive understanding between notes, intervals, chords, etc. I find most of my music teachers learned these things by rote, unfortunately, rather than method or relationships :-/

[palimpsests]

happy to continue the conversations.

I don't hold this assumption that you name, and it's not a part of formalized music education. which actually does emphasize method and relationships, versus rote learning. I'm curious why you think anything else would be the case. how much exposure do you have to this world? I hear that you have worked with music teachers - in what context?

also, curious to understand how many of them were coming from a jazz background?

learning to read music on the staff has no relationship to 7 notes on a privileged scale, so I'm not sure what you mean here. no note is given priority over any other note, in any clef. what makes you think that sheet music locks someone into 7 notes?

I don't intend for this to sound condescending - how well can you read music? are you speaking about all of this from the perspective of someone who has read about reading music or someone who actually understands how to read?

your comments (and those that you refer to) seem to sound like those that deride reading music as some kind of crutch or limitation in music education. I see these amusing comments a fair amount on this website.

being able to read music is having an ability to speak a shared language. like English, but with a lot smaller alphabet and an incredibly smaller set of rules. it's funny to me the degree of resistance I hear to this from people who often want to "disrupt" this language without actually understanding why it exists in the first place.

to use an analogy from mathematics, students usually benefit from learning multiplication before learning algebra as a way to see examples of logic based symbol manipulation. theory is the algebra, reading music is multiplication. that's why theory is usually taught to people who have a rudimentary understanding of the language of music.

[tobr]

Learning to play by a score is very different from getting instructions or training.