Why do classical musicians need sheet music and conductors?

musicismylife78

It is considered okay and acceptable for classical musicians to have sheet music in front of them while playing live. Or to have a conductor.

However if you went to see a more modern sounding band and for every song to be reading from a piece of paper or during the guitar solo for the guitarist to have a tab sheet in front of them would be unreal basically and unprofessional.

Imagine, The Rolling Stones walking on stage tonight, and Keith, and Mick both have sheet music in front of them. Mick reads from his piece of paper for the entire show and Keith is continually looking at his sheet music when playing. They would be booed off the stage and most likely shunned from the music world!

why is this?

Obviously the lack of sheet music at a pearl jam show or a Mars volta show or Tool show means the musicians have memorized the song. But do classical musicians not memorize their parts?

And whats up with the conductor? Even for some of the most accomplished classical musicians in the world, they have conductors. Are these extremely talented musicians really paying attention to the conductor? Do they honestly need help in this way?

redrock

The role of the conductor is in a way similar to the role of the director for films. He/she is there to communicate, to what can be a great number of musicians, his artistic interpretation of the piece of music. So whereas a member of the orchestra may well know the piece they are playing, each conductor will see it in a different way.

You can't compare a classical musician with a rock band. The pieces they play can be VERY long and complex. They are not a collection of 5min songs or 1 minute solos, though a lot of classical musicans will know their piece as they have practiced for hours and hours. They will not be focussed on their sheets all the time (more for reference) but will also be keeping an eye on the conductor. The effort is incredible. Totally different league.

dunkman

musicismylife78 wrote:

It is considered okay and acceptable for classical musicians to have sheet music in front of them while playing live. Or to have a conductor.

However if you went to see a more modern sounding band and for every song to be reading from a piece of paper or during the guitar solo for the guitarist to have a tab sheet in front of them would be unreal basically and unprofessional.

Imagine, The Rolling Stones walking on stage tonight, and Keith, and Mick both have sheet music in front of them. Mick reads from his piece of paper for the entire show and Keith is continually looking at his sheet music when playing. They would be booed off the stage and most likely shunned from the music world!

why is this?

Obviously the lack of sheet music at a pearl jam show or a Mars volta show or Tool show means the musicians have memorized the song. But do classical musicians not memorize their parts?

And whats up with the conductor? Even for some of the most accomplished classical musicians in the world, they have conductors. Are these extremely talented musicians really paying attention to the conductor? Do they honestly need help in this way?

if you put sheet music down in front of 99% of rock musicians they wouldnt have a clue what it meant.

Paul McCartney can't read music. Stone cant, Jimmy Page cant....

so trying to equate them to classical musicians is kinda difficult as classical musicians can actually play by reading the music in front of them...

but nice question

redrock

dunkman wrote:

if you put sheet music down in front of 99% of rock musicians they wouldnt have a clue what it meant.

Paul McCartney can't read music. Stone cant, Jimmy Page cant....

so trying to equate them to classical musicians is kinda difficult as classical musicians can actually play by reading the music in front of them...

but nice question

True.. didn't even think of that. Most guitar players will work with 'tabs' as opposed to sheet music....

dunkman

redrock wrote:

dunkman wrote:

if you put sheet music down in front of 99% of rock musicians they wouldnt have a clue what it meant.

Paul McCartney can't read music. Stone cant, Jimmy Page cant....

so trying to equate them to classical musicians is kinda difficult as classical musicians can actually play by reading the music in front of them...

but nice question

True.. didn't even think of that. Most guitar players will work with 'tabs' as opposed to sheet music....

aye and even then thats a relatively new concept (well since internet sites made tab easier to both get and understand) and i'd guess people like PJ, White Stripes, Foo Fighters, *insert current band here* will not even use tabs... probably more simply they'll construct a song and just put chord sequences above the words in the verse where it changes?

redrock

Thus the reason I have a great respect for classical musicians (others too....). My 14yr old plays 3 instruments. For her exams, she needs to be able to play 3 pieces she has studied, a huge number of scales perfectly (and from memory), play ANY piece of music put in front of her (sight reading - pieces she has never seen before), she also needs to know any of the musical terms that could be thrown at her (could be types of music,etc.), and a lot more. She is preparing for her GCSE's in music and among other things she needs to to write several original compositions (for at least a quartet). Note, the music she plays/she needs to create is not just classical. It could also be jazz, blues, etc. A huge investment of her time.

Learning music the 'classical' way is very difficult. Not suprised many 'musicians' will not go through that to be in a rock band.

FinsburyParkCarrots

Simple answer. The conductor is a musician-par-excellence, both a technical virtuoso and and someone blessed with a musician's sense of composition and spontaneous musical expression. He or she is dictating an interpretative vision of a classical piece of music, and knows how the arrangement and orchestration of a classical piece - often involving a large orchestra playing different parts in various counterpoints and even time-signatures from one another - should sound. That baton is an instrument, commanding the dynamics and tempo of the piece with a sensitivity and skill your average rock musician couldn't begin to comprehend. The musicians are often just skilled technicians, reading the notes as a guide but following the baton.

The chordal arrangements and harmonic textures of many classical pieces are infinitely more difficult to conceptualise, let alone play, than even the most outlandish pseudo-classical excursions in prog-rock. You need to be trained to produce the right measure (or absence) of vibrato, of enunciation and phrasing. You're doing it within an academic context and have to be extremely self-critical. I wouldn't be surprised if the classical musician is using different parts of the brain from a jazz or rock improviser.

Now, an improvisational genius such as Charlie Parker or Jimi Hendrix had a gift for instant composition: Parker was to an extent classically trained, or at least cognizant (in a mainly autodidactic, "woodshedding" fashion) and understood how to extemporise melody using lightning-fast chordal progressions, whereas Jimi largely took the minor blues pentatonic and found a million and one ways to combine those notes, always driven by an almost supernatural passion. These musicians are exceptional: whereas there may have been superior technicians subsequent to them, they had a gift that came from within.

There's a subtle nuance of difference between the virtuoso technician and the virtuoso musician. A virtuoso technician can have a creative, personal touch and a virtuoso musician might know his or her chops and be able to keep up with the best technicians. Each has their place. Look at Stephane Grappelli and Yuhudi Menuhin. One was an improvisatory, jazz musician and the other was a classical virtuoso and not an improvisatory player as such. However, together they made fine music.

There are different types of music for saying different things, and they require different skills and approaches. That's all. Simple.

redrock

You do have a way with words Fins!

FinsburyParkCarrots

I'm fucked for the day, after writing that.

redrock

Fins - Do you read music?

dunkman

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Simple answer. The conductor is a musician-par-excellence, both a technical virtuoso and and someone blessed with a musician's sense of composition and spontaneous musical expression. He or she is dictating an interpretative vision of a classical piece of music, and knows how the arrangement and orchestration of a classical piece - often involving a large orchestra playing different parts in various counterpoints and even time-signatures from one another - should sound. That baton is an instrument, commanding the dynamics and tempo of the piece with a sensitivity and skill your average rock musician couldn't begin to comprehend. The musicians are often just skilled technicians, reading the notes as a guide but following the baton.

The chordal arrangements and harmonic textures of many classical pieces are infinitely more difficult to conceptualise, let alone play, than even the most outlandish pseudo-classical excursions in prog-rock. You need to be trained to produce the right measure (or absence) of vibrato, of enunciation and phrasing. You're doing it within an academic context and have to be extremely self-critical. I wouldn't be surprised if the classical musician is using different parts of the brain from a jazz or rock improviser.

Now, an improvisational genius such as Charlie Parker or Jimi Hendrix had a gift for instant composition: Parker was to an extent classically trained, or at least cognizant (in a mainly autodidactic, "woodshedding" fashion) and understood how to extemporise melody using lightning-fast chordal progressions, whereas Jimi largely took the minor blues pentatonic and found a million and one ways to combine those notes, always driven by an almost supernatural passion. These musicians are exceptional: whereas there may have been superior technicians subsequent to them, they had a gift that came from within.

There's a subtle nuance of difference between the virtuoso technician and the virtuoso musician. A virtuoso technician can have a creative, personal touch and a virtuoso musician might know his or her chops and be able to keep up with the best technicians. Each has their place. Look at Stephane Grappelli and Yuhudi Menuhin. One was an improvisatory, jazz musician and the other was a classical virtuoso and not an improvisatory player as such. However, together they made fine music.

There are different types of music for saying different things, and they require different skills and approaches. That's all. Simple.

yeah yeah, but are they as good as this lady!!!!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4suQIpihDY

FinsburyParkCarrots

redrock wrote:

Fins - Do you read music?

I do, but wish I was a faster sight reader.

JordyWordy

good auld Sue Perkins. watch her first attempt at it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYQwrJYx ... re=related

i agree with all the above. i studied classical music for piano in my teens, but i didnt listen to rock music at the time. nowadays, i dont really apply any of the theory to when i play music now (bass&guitar), except if im trying to figure a song out on piano. which is a shame, cos i was good at the stuff...i should be able to play some of that mental virtuoso bass but i cant do it properly, i get to a certain level (maybe the most difficult RHCP/average Primus stuff) and i just cant go any further cos i cant figure out the feckin timing changes and off notes...i can play it...but not exactly..which pisses me off). i should sit down and go through the theory applying it to a guitar instead of a keyboard....

anyways, the classical stuff was very mathsy & needed a lot of work....whereas as passionately playing rock music was something i could do by ear, and was fun. so i just ditched the theory, stopped practising it, and now i dont know it properly!! if I had blended the 2 (instead of taking totally separate approaches) id be a lot better now than i am. you can only get so far without it really

anyone ever hear the orchestra version of "Arpeggi" by Radiohead? of Johnny Greenwoods soundtracks & symphony-type stuff??

justam

musicismylife78 wrote:

It is considered okay and acceptable for classical musicians to have sheet music in front of them while playing live. Or to have a conductor.

However if you went to see a more modern sounding band and for every song to be reading from a piece of paper or during the guitar solo for the guitarist to have a tab sheet in front of them would be unreal basically and unprofessional.

Imagine, The Rolling Stones walking on stage tonight, and Keith, and Mick both have sheet music in front of them. Mick reads from his piece of paper for the entire show and Keith is continually looking at his sheet music when playing. They would be booed off the stage and most likely shunned from the music world!

why is this?

Obviously the lack of sheet music at a pearl jam show or a Mars volta show or Tool show means the musicians have memorized the song. But do classical musicians not memorize their parts?

And whats up with the conductor? Even for some of the most accomplished classical musicians in the world, they have conductors. Are these extremely talented musicians really paying attention to the conductor? Do they honestly need help in this way?

Yes, conductors are necessary. Imagine a large group of people all with their own ideas about how a piece should be expressed or even what tempos various sections ought to go. There'd be a lot of arguments and disagreements. Someone would try to change this part or that part up there on stage and force everyone else to go along with it. The conductor is up there to be the guy EVERYONE has to go with. If he slows down here, we all do, if he wants this part to have an accelerando, we have to go with it.

Having a leader is very helpful when there are a lot of people with their own ideas who might fight it out otherwise.

We use music because the pieces are often long and complicated and we can learn them a lot faster if we just have the music in front of us.

justam

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

redrock wrote:

Fins - Do you read music?

I do, but wish I was a faster sight reader.

Being a good sight-reader is both a blessing and a curse I think. I spend so much time with music in front of me, I envy the people that can just play whatever they hear without it.

redrock

justam wrote:

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

redrock wrote:

Fins - Do you read music?

I do, but wish I was a faster sight reader.

Being a good sight-reader is both a blessing and a curse I think. I spend so much time with music in front of me, I envy the people that can just play whatever they hear without it.

Two different bits of the brain! I am told that my daughter is gifted for both because of the way her brain works. She is as good 'creatively' as she is 'mathematically' (if these terms make sense). Not too sure if that is true because I was 'gifted' both ways too but I am crap at music.

Do you play in an orchestra justam? Which instrument?

justam

I'm a pianist, but I play a lot of music with two different large ensembles that require a conductor. I also play a lot of chamber music with smaller groups. (This is where the tendency for the fights is so obvious. Sometimes we can't even get four people to happily agree on things. :? )

redrock

justam wrote:

I'm a pianist, but I play a lot of music with two different large ensembles that require a conductor. I also play a lot of chamber music with smaller groups.

Nice....

DewieCox

dunkman wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

It is considered okay and acceptable for classical musicians to have sheet music in front of them while playing live. Or to have a conductor.

However if you went to see a more modern sounding band and for every song to be reading from a piece of paper or during the guitar solo for the guitarist to have a tab sheet in front of them would be unreal basically and unprofessional.

Imagine, The Rolling Stones walking on stage tonight, and Keith, and Mick both have sheet music in front of them. Mick reads from his piece of paper for the entire show and Keith is continually looking at his sheet music when playing. They would be booed off the stage and most likely shunned from the music world!

why is this?

Obviously the lack of sheet music at a pearl jam show or a Mars volta show or Tool show means the musicians have memorized the song. But do classical musicians not memorize their parts?

And whats up with the conductor? Even for some of the most accomplished classical musicians in the world, they have conductors. Are these extremely talented musicians really paying attention to the conductor? Do they honestly need help in this way?

if you put sheet music down in front of 99% of rock musicians they wouldnt have a clue what it meant.

Paul McCartney can't read music. Stone cant, Jimmy Page cant....

That's true, for the most part. Jimmy Page can definitely read music though unless he is a liar, and it's safe to say that alot of the people you mentioned have pretty awesome understanding of what works and what doesn't.

As far as the big boys writing songs.......... They write the music, then apply lyrics. I would think most of the time the liberties are taken with the lyrics as opposed to chaging the music.


There are alot of bands that use tele prompters. Not only for lyrics, but for chord changes and stuff. Gov't Mule is the one that comes to mind that I have read about