why do some musicians who read music discriminate the play-by-ear method? are they superior to us?

Answer 1

There are weaknesses in both methods and both show their shortcomings in a live performance. Someone knowing how to read can more than likely play by ear. I used to see Return to Forever onstage and reading their music off of paper. As long as is sounds good that is all that matters but reading music in complex situations can sometimes be 100% necessary. People that play by ear sound like a succession of noises that are combined together at times even though it takes alot of talent. Al DiMeola vs. Van Halen. I see the weaknesses in both of these artists playing in both techniques even though they are both phenomenal. A sad part of this is there are alot of people that transcribe both types of music from both types of these musicians and transcribing to paper does not always translate the music very well. Think of how much music is altered sometimes badly by poor transcription or a transcriber not being able to accurately write the music in the transcription language if you will. Like people who speak a language and tell you it does not translate very well in another language.

Answer 2

The play by ear method is a wonderful ability to have. However, it's my recommendation that people who can play by ear still learn the inner workings of music theory. While there are a few stand out musicians that have proven to be brilliant playing only by ear (ie. Jimi Hendrix), these geniuses are few and far between

I have found that for the most part, play by ear musicians are, whilst showing an uncanny ability to emulate music, less likely to create.

Answer 3

Readers and play-by-earers have different talents.

A reader can sit down in front of a piece of music, without having heard it, and pull it off. It is easier to have a larger repertoire of music, if you can simply pull out a sheet of paper.

On the other hand, ear people have a larger theoretical repertoire, but they are at a disadvantage in that they have to know what they want something to sound like. Ear-people tend to have better pitch, creativity, and versatility.

Readers (like myself) can be tightwads. They tend to underestimate ear-folk, and worry that the ear-folk will forget what comes next, or what it sounds like, or heaven forbid they make a mistake and play a wrong note. (As if that never happens to us readers...)

Are they superior? Well, ear-folk are never gonna make $100K playing with the Chicago symphony, but that doesn't mean that they can't be successful. I, personally, see no reason why somebody can't do both. Reading is not too hard of a talent to develop, but readers also need to have the musical awareness that earfolk have.

Answer 4

somewhat because if they can read music they probably can play by ear as well. I play keyboard by ear and I know the basic notes(who doesnt) but I couldnt follow sheet music. Maybe superior isnt the right word..lets just say they have an advantage

Answer 5

That would be quite ironic. Usually I think that musicians who can play by hearing are talented. Not everyone can play by ear. You can teach a person to read music but you can't teach him to play by hearing.

Answer 6

what are you talking about? It is actually the other way around...people that can just play by ear have a better way of hearing music, and capturing it in their minds..a photo graphic memory...last time I checked, it was more amazing to hear people play be ear then to read the music

Answer 7

I know!!!! I'm a singer and I don't read music but learn notes by ear. Seems like they have something against us not studying their way. But if we can get it by ear why does it matter? whatever.

Answer 8

personally, i think they're jealous of your natural talent. they have to learn music notes to play them, and all u have to do is hear it. and no,they're not superior. Elvis was a "play by ear" musician.

Answer 9

1

Answer 10

Yeah, much more superior....what happens when you get old and lose your hear? hahaha