Music notation: its limits—and potential ill effects

Can we notate in music a Stephane Grappelli solo accurately?( http://bit.ly/StephGrap ) The notes? Mostly. The rhythm? Partially. The style? Less likely. The tiny slides between notes, the rhythmic feel, and subtle expressive elements? Impossible. Absolutely impossible. The best anyone can do with notation would be to put something down that would remind the music reader of some of the basic elements mentioned above. All of he rest must come from audiation—the part that is in your head that cannot be well represented in notation: subtleties such as tonal nuances, phrasing, and most expressive elements. These would be just a few of the differences between your interpretation and mine, say, of a beautiful ballad. What you bring to the party—from all your past listening experiences that inform your choices—will be different from what I bring. Given this, notation falls horrendously short of representing music—that is with the exception of tones and some rhythm. If you never heard Stephane Grappelli play, your rendition wouldn’t match up much. Besides, what would be the point of putting into notation something Mr. Grappelli never had to read in the first place? If you can’t play it first by ear, then the notation serves only as a shortcut—a detour, actually—for you to develop your own musicianship.

Let’s look at this a different way: When you read a book, do you hear the author’s voice in your head? Is it different than my interpretation of the author’s voice? Do the letters and words actually convey all of the intention of the author? 

Consider most elementary school bands and your experience of listening to them. Their intonation is not well developed to put it nicely. The children have been taught to play notes, push buttons and blow air. Does their rendition of the piece of music groove? Or does it sit lifelessly? I believe we have taught them to count the beats and not feel what’s in between—where the music really lives.

Some adults say of themselves that they are not musical, but then I hear them perform. “Wow, that was really moving and beautiful. How can you say you’re not musical?” They answer that they don’t know the notes (names of notes) or the theory (like how many verbs did you just read in the last paragraph), or, more often than not, they don’t know how to read the notation. To me, this is simply absurd. Listen to Erroll Garner ( http://bit.ly/ErrollGarner ), and tell me why he should need to read what he’s playing. The truth is that he doesn’t know how to read and write music. Yet, many fine jazz musicians call him a musical genius.

Now, this is not to say that reading notation—with understanding—is not valuable. We would not have symphony orchestras to play some of the world’s finest music. Many rock and jazz bands rely on written music. Most probably do not. When they do, the notation reminds them of what it is they can already audiate. They can “think the music” in their minds. If you can do that, then I say that you are musical—whether you can play, sing or read music or not! And think about this for a bit: Musical listeners are actually half of the equation. Otherwise, for whom are musicians performing?

 Please leave your thoughts and share as you wish.

Comments

[Marek Runowski]

Hi Eric, another great article!!! I agree with everything you wrote. And decoding without audiation is nonsense. But I think we MLT teachers should be able to explain the difference between decoding and notational audiation in a more convincing way. Whenever I talk to excellent sight readers they say they can read - it doesn't matter they decode. Whenever I talk to academic teachers they can't believe when I tell them they decode and not read. The other thing is that we MLT teachers sometimes exaggerate and say that audiation (and playing by ear) is more important than reading and playing notated music. We forget that there are distinct differences between improvisation and composition. There are great improvisers (instrumentalists) and at the same time it doesn't mean they are great composers too. It may be subjective but I consider Keith Jarrett one of the best improvisers who ever wlked this Earth but at the same time I don't consider him to be the great composer at all. And vice versa, there are probably many great composers who can't play piano like Jarrett. Best, Marek

[Dr. RizzRazz]

Thanks, Marek. I agree. Art Tatum comes to mind. Obviously, he was blind and couldn't read. Garner never had the inclination. Monk played and composed but people argue which was better. Both were out of the mainstream. Gordon didn't care as much for Jarrett as others. I was surprised when I heard him say as much. Oscar Peterson may have been more to his liking—standards interpreted traditionally. He certainly was more old school. Bill Evans tickles me no matter how many times I hear his Vanguard recordings. Jarrett with Peacock and Jack DeJohnette was my cup of tea for a long time. I think I'll go back to hear that again with my ears of today. Best to you, Eric

[Marek Runowski]

Eric, all I wanted to say is that for playing and improvisation reading skills are probably not so important. It is different with composition. Don't you think that to compose you need to develop excellent reading and writing skills too? There are many examples of great improvisers whose compositions lack something essential - at least for me. Their compositions are never as great as their improvisations. Keith Jarrett is one of many example (I thought about his "In the Light" album) but there are many others in jazz and rock genres. Maybe in classical music it was different. Bach was great improviser and composer. The same was Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin and many more. And I don't think improvisations are the same as written compositions.

[Dr. RizzRazz]

for playing and improvisation reading skills are probably not so important.
** probably not. Yes, I agree.

Don't you think that to compose you need to develop excellent reading and writing skills too?
** Usually, yes.

Perhaps in classical music, those folks had to have it all, back then.

I think you and I are on the same page. I appreciate your comments.

[Marek Runowski]

Yes, I'm sure we are on the same page! Best, Marek