Do I "NEED" To Learn To How To read Music In Order To Learn The Piano?

[daza152]

Hey guys I got my Piano For Dummies Book which gives you a comprehensive in depth look at reading music, I don't want to spend all my time learning that when I already know and understand chords of the piano and just want to play songs from You Tube....Your Thoughts..

[andreslr6]

If you are considering learning or not learning to read music in order to play piano, then you must be very lazy... seriously, it won't take you longer than 1 hour to understand and decipher it, and you'll get used to it in less than a week, in 2 weeks you'll be able to read anything... You don't have to memorize anything really besides the names of the notes (7), 2 clefs (if you're only focusing on piano reading of course) and what does flat and sharp mean.

EDIT: Sorry! I did not answer your question, NO, you do not NEED to read music, but you'll save like 3 times the amount of time to learn a piece if you learn, so, after reading what I mentioned earlier, choose:

1. spending 1 hour 1 day in your life just to understand and decipher, or

2. spend a whole lot more time on learning each piece you want to play for the rest of your life because you don't want to learn how to read music.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Well, technically you don't NEED to be able to read music to be able to play the piano, similar to how you don't NEED to go to college and get a degree in astrophysics to work for NASA, but it's soo outrageously important that you might as well learn how. 

LEARN HOW TO READ MUSIC!!!

[lostinidlewonder]

Hey guys I got my Piano For Dummies Book which gives you a comprehensive in depth look at reading music, I don't want to spend all my time learning that when I already know and understand chords of the piano and just want to play songs from You Tube....Your Thoughts..

I would suggest learning all the pieces you want to learn from youtube without focusing on reading. After a few years you should have a number of pieces under your belt and you should be somewhat familiar with how to read. It is difficult to learn how to read properly without being able to play many pieces. It is like learning how to read a language before you even know how to speak it. You may read it but you will not understand it appropriately.

Many of my beginners students learn how to read basic music, but we focus on "how to play" rather than getting bogged down with improving reading skills. Most people learn to read a lot better once they can play many pieces because they have experience to draw from. Reading is very much experience based. If you read new technical movements you have little experience with, it is difficult to read for anyone at any level.

[daza152]

I would suggest learning all the pieces you want to learn from youtube without focusing on reading. After a few years you should have a number of pieces under your belt and you should be somewhat familiar with how to read. It is difficult to learn how to read properly without being able to play many pieces. It is like learning how to read a language before you even know how to speak it. You may read it but you will not understand it appropriately.

Many of my beginners students learn how to read basic music, but we focus on "how to play" rather than getting bogged down with improving reading skills. Most people learn to read a lot better once they can play many pieces because they have experience to draw from. Reading is very much experience based. If you read new technical movements you have little experience with, it is difficult to read for anyone at any level.

Hey thanks for your more constructive opinion, You know I am not against learnin g it and I'm sure it will take a lot longer than 1 hour, however now I have a couple of tunes to memory now..just intro's but my thought is now if I was to see how those pieces are written, that may help me figure out what it means? just an idea...might go and google the scores right now. Thanks.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

and I'm sure it will take a lot longer than 1 hour,

It will probably take you an hour or less to learn to actually read music.

But it will take quite a bit longer to get good at it.

[daza152]

It will probably take you an hour or less to learn to actually read music.

But it will take quite a bit longer to get good at it.

That's the truth. I am staring blankly at the score I printed out and in no way is it as simple as explained in the Dummies book.  I will take another look at the book and try to decipher my score.

[dmauney]

You might try using Synthesia, as it will show you the notes as it plays the piece.

There are many tutorials on You Tube based on Synthesia, but it is much more common to see the dropping/colored notes rather than the notation displayed when viewing You Tube tutorials.

Here are some You Tube tutorials with notes shown that look similar to what you would get using Synthesia:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x92ce88njM/youtube]

There are many great resources on the internet to help with learning to read music, especially when you hit notation you have never seen before, like this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_symbols

I believe it takes years of experience to really read music well, but it is worth the effort to learn to decypher it so you can learn pieces faster and with more insight into the composer's intent.

[augustpasimio]

Hi,

I think it is really important to be able to read music.  There are so many beautiful piano pieces, but if you can't read music you won't be able to play them.  Also, if you decide to compose your own songs, you will have to put your song on the treble and bass clef, so other musicians can play it. 

Learning the basics is pretty easy.  But to read music fluently like you read English is more difficult.  There are apps for the iphone so you can exercise your music reading.  I use these apps when I'm in the metro train, or waiting in the doctor's office.

August

[chopin2015]

Just like piano, once you get good at reading, it is really fun!

[nyiregyhazi]

That's the truth. I am staring blankly at the score I printed out and in no way is it as simple as explained in the Dummies book.  I will take another look at the book and try to decipher my score.

What score did you print out? If you want a magic short-cut, forget it. There's no special pill. You need to build up slowly and with thought. If you're not willing to put that simple investment in, don't expect a return. Reading is as simple as this:

https://pianoscience.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/solid-foundation-reading-skills-lifting.html

[nyiregyhazi]

I would suggest learning all the pieces you want to learn from youtube without focusing on reading. After a few years you should have a number of pieces under your belt and you should be somewhat familiar with how to read. It is difficult to learn how to read properly without being able to play many pieces. It is like learning how to read a language before you even know how to speak it. You may read it but you will not understand it appropriately.

I don't see that the analogy works. When people want to play difficult pieces of classical music that were specifically composed in a particular form (without learning the basics of reading) it's like memorising Shakespeare plays before learning how to reliably recognise individual letters- never mind the full words or associated meanings. Musical improvisation is the equivalent of everyday speaking prior to learning reading- where you choose the order of words yourself. As soon as were talking about composed music (rather than scales or chord types) the natural analogy is to a poem/story/play etc. All but the slightest minority of kids learn to read for themself before they tackle such things beyond the most simplistic level. They definitely don't memorise long stories by rote and then go back and learn how to read words by comparing unfamiliar symbols to what they memorised. Only in the simplest foundation levels of learning is reading skill done that way around. When people use tutorials, they are rarely looking at something analogous to these foundation levels but are instead trying to do the equivalent of memorising Dickens by ear and learning to read later. You can approach a problem from two ends in earlier stages, but if you leap in at the deep end (without mastering basics) then you almost certainly end up learning minimal reading skill, with little ability to associate what you have learned to play to the notation.

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't see that the analogy works.

This is not surprising because you don't understand a lot of things throughout this website.

When people want to play difficult pieces of classical music that were specifically composed in a particular form (without learning the basics of reading) it's like memorising Shakespeare plays before learning how to reliably recognise individual letters- never mind the full words or associated meanings.

And here we start again, you have created the platform for your imaginary arguments. I did not write about wanting to play difficult pieces thus everything you write here is useless.

Musical improvisation is the equivalent of everyday speaking prior to learning reading- where you choose the order of words yourself.

This sentence seems to have been cut pasted in with no relevance to anything, even your own writing!

As soon as were talking about composed music (rather than scales or chord types) the natural analogy is to a poem/story/play etc.

Is it really a natural analogy? Give me examples of academics stating this since I have never heard of it.

All but the slightest minority of kids learn to read for themself before they tackle such things beyond the most simplistic level.

You are putting up smokes and mirrors, what is "the most simplistic level"? This sentence is saying nothing at all.

Only in the simplest foundation levels of learning is reading skill done that way around. When people use tutorials, they are rarely looking at something analogous to these foundation levels but are instead trying to do the equivalent of memorising Dickens by ear and learning to read later. You can approach a problem from two ends in earlier stages, but if you leap in at the deep end (without mastering basics) then you almost certainly end up learning minimal reading skill, with little ability to associate what you have learned to play to the notation.

You are severely underestimating the power of muscular memory standing alone, as opposed to using sight reading to queue muscular movement. There are plenty of students I have taught who just want to learn pieces, the reading side is extremely inefficient for them. However after several years of learning many pieces the reading becomes more familiar as you can compare the pattern in the sheet music to a routine on the keyboard you have experience with.

[jogoeshome]

Hey guys I got my Piano For Dummies Book which gives you a comprehensive in depth look at reading music, I don't want to spend all my time learning that when I already know and understand chords of the piano and just want to play songs from You Tube....Your Thoughts..

You dont if you have someone telling what to do, but if you want to learn a piece on your own you have to be able to read the notes in some way. 

[sucom]

Hey guys I got my Piano For Dummies Book which gives you a comprehensive in depth look at reading music, I don't want to spend all my time learning that when I already know and understand chords of the piano and just want to play songs from You Tube....Your Thoughts..

The fact that you have asked this question at all suggests to me that there may be something niggling at you that you 'should' be reading music but would really prefer to miss out all that dreary stuff.  It suggests that you would like to be able to play without all the hard work that some others may devote to their study but still, somehow, get similar results.  Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but this is what your question suggests to me at a deeper level.

The truth is, yes, of course you can learn to play the piano without reading music and get quite a lot of enjoyment from it.  But... and actually this is quite a big but.......basically what you are doing, through your desire to miss out 'boring' stuff, is imposing a limit on your own capability.  It's a self induced limitation.

If you are truly happy learning from others on youtube, why did you buy the book?  Is there something inside you that says, hey, I'd like to get better at this?  But at the same time, is there something inside you that is saying, I would like to get better but am searching for a short cut? 

I was always jealous of my mother's garden.  It was beautiful and I so wished my garden was as nice as hers.  But, the problem was my own.  I was thinking how hard done to I was because my garden wasn't like hers, when the fact was that she was prepared to prioritise her time, and push herself to creating that garden, which took her real effort to do.  Me, on the other hand, wanted that garden without the effort.  So how could I possibly have the right to be jealous?

I think you know deep down that learning to read music would be ultimately be more helpful to you.  I feel you are hoping others will agree that you don't need to read music because then you can relax and not have to push yourself to make that effort to read it. 

The problem is, you are asking a lot of people here who 'have' made that effort, so basically I don't think they are going to agree with you that it wouldn't be helpful.  Of course it's helpful!

It all comes down to how devoted you are yourself to reaching your full potential.  The choice is yours and yours alone.  How strong is your desire to make the best of playing the piano?  Your choice......

[matt_walker]

It will probably take you an hour or less to learn to actually read music.

But it will take quite a bit longer to get good at it.

YES! Studies have shown that students don't actually get proficient in reading and then playing notes with accuracy and speed until around grade 4. So you can remember 'FACE in the space' and 'every good boy deserves football' and 'all cows eat grass' and 'green buses drive fast always' but it will literally take years to get really good at it.

As others have recommended, do your Youtube playing, but work on learning your notes at the same time. There will come a time, I guarantee, where you want to play a piece you can't find on youtube

[muleski]

myiregyhazy: Only in the simplest foundation levels of learning is reading skill done that way around. When people use tutorials, they are rarely looking at something analogous to these foundation levels but are instead trying to do the equivalent of memorising Dickens by ear and learning to read later. You can approach a problem from two ends in earlier stages, but if you leap in at the deep end (without mastering basics) then you almost certainly end up learning minimal reading skill, with little ability to associate what you have learned to play to the notation.


Lostinidlewonder: You are severely underestimating the power of muscular memory standing alone, as opposed to using sight reading to queue muscular movement. There are plenty of students I have taught who just want to learn pieces, the reading side is extremely inefficient for them. However after several years of learning many pieces the reading becomes more familiar as you can compare the pattern in the sheet music to a routine on the keyboard you have experience with.

I'm inclined to agree with the quote from lostinidlewonder above.  I can read music at a basic level.  I'm not doing music exams or 'self teaching' music theory as such but am able to learn complex pieces that I would never be able to sight read.  I learn bit by bit & commit it to memory & how I do that is by familiarising myself with the piece by listening to it over & over, reading the notes & lots of repetition on the keyboard & it sinks in.  So I am just one example (no doubt there are plenty more) of someone who can indeed play complex pieces with no score in front of them at all.  In fact if I tried to follow the score whilst playing once I've learned it, it would utterly confuse & distract me.  

Having said that, I am actually considering going through the exam route to improve my music theory, as learning that side of things cannot be a bad thing & would indeed aid my progress.  I do though, think having at least a basic understanding of it IS necessary, unless the pieces you want to learn are pretty basic.  I can't imagine trying to learn Hungarian Rhapsody No.2 purely from a Youtube tutorial (well maybe the first few bars would be ok).  

[matt_walker]

 I can't imagine trying to learn Hungarian Rhapsody No.2 purely from a Youtube tutorial (well maybe the first few bars would be ok).  

I can't imagine learning it from the sheet music!

[muleski]

I can't imagine learning it from the sheet music!

It's slow & painful.  I'm not holding out much hope of ever being able to play it in its entirety to be honest!

[nyiregyhazi]

This is not surprising because you don't understand a lot of things throughout this website.
And here we start again, you have created the platform for your imaginary arguments. I did not write about wanting to play difficult pieces thus everything you write here is useless.

I'm not interested in your perceived feud, so I'll stick to the relevant issues. What you failed to do is EXCLUDE this from your point. If you talk generally and with language that suggests universal applicability, a point will be read that way. Either you need to define what your point applies to, or provide a warning about very important issues that it cannot reasonably be applied to. If a rich person states that money is actually unimportant and someone points out how vital it is to those who only have pennies to scrape together to buy food, you cannot then say- "but I wasn't talking about poor people". If a point is not universally applicable, it's down to the person making it to specify the conditions under which it is applicable. It's no use expecting everyone to divine what exclusions you had in mind.

Is it really a natural analogy? Give me examples of academics stating this since I have never heard of it.

You don't need an academic source, to illustrate simple logical reasoning. Children do not learn to speak merely by learning to recite large scale collections of words in specific order- as with the large scale collections of specifically ordered notes that exist in musical compositions. Therefore, it does not work to compare the youtube tutorial as a means of entry to how language is learned before reading. It would only work if we learned to speak and then read by learning to recite advanced literature, before figuring out how to read by looking at the printed text. We don't. The analogy is not at all applicable to the what people expect to do with youtube tutorials. They're out to learn things like the Moonlight Sonata straight off. In the case of adult who is not literate but who can speak, would you get him to memorise the Tempest by ear and then compare it to the text of the play, to learn to read? Would that be a natural start to reading? Only at extremely basic levels does working backwards function usefully (in either form of reading). Youtube tutorials for serious repertoire are not part of this.
 

You are severely underestimating the power of muscular memory standing alone, as opposed to using sight reading to queue muscular movement. There are plenty of students I have taught who just want to learn pieces, the reading side is extremely inefficient for them. However after several years of learning many pieces the reading becomes more familiar as you can compare the pattern in the sheet music to a routine on the keyboard you have experience with.

You CAN. In my experience they don't though. They stick to what they know. I've taught a number of people who came along having learned to get through a few pieces by tutorials. I would never be harsh to a person in such circumstances, but speaking here I'd have to be totally honest and say that the pieces were learned poorly, with unhealthy technique, poor rhythm and minimal control over sound. When trying to teach them to deal with these major issues, there was virtually nothing that I could achieve with them- for the specific reason that muscle memory is indeed so powerful. They didn't understand what they were actually do but instead relied on muscle memory that was almost impossible to change- as it was virtually the only thing involved in producing the results. Each week they came back and played what they'd learned the exact same way as the previous week.

If a student cannot (or WILL not take the time to learn to) read music, I'd be more inclined to send them to a jazz teacher- so they actually learn to improvise- rather than force out a string of learned movements, that they are usually unable to break down into smaller units, for the sake of understanding.