DATE: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 11:30:22 CST From: Winslow Yerxa <76450.32~ompuServe.COM> Subject: Big River and Reading Music
To reply to George Miklas -
Yes, I have played the harmonica part to Big River, and I couldn't have done it without reading (and knowing how to follow a baton, and avoid flying bits of chewed fried chicken, but that's another story). It was two dress rehearsals followed by a week's engagement, and NO free time to woodshed with the part. Some other parts were also transcribed for me to take over, in the orchestra pit - not because anything was missing, but because they liked my playing.
One interesting thing is that the part throughout (except for some bass harmonica parts and a bit of jaw harp) is clearly meant for diatonic, played crossharp in various keys, with chords and bends that only work on that particular key of harp. In fact, it is extremely well written for the idiosyncracies of the instrument (nonetheless, I chose to play some non-idiomatic bits on chromatic because I liked them better that way). Some of it even sounds like it was transcribed from a player's improvisations - probably Don Brooks, who originated the part on Broadway.
Yet there is never any indication of what harp to use (except the bass and jaw harp), and all the parts are written at actual pitch (i.e. Hole 1 on a D harp is written as middle D), instead of being written in transposed key (i.e. Hole 1 blow always being written as middle C, no matter what key the harp is in). So, essentially, the player has to first figure out which harp is right for the part (easy, subtract a sharp from the key signature) then either mentally transpose his part, or just think in actual pitch on the instrument.
That being said, I do know players who have toured with the show without reading, and managed to improvise quite well along the main lines (I heard recordings that one guy sent me), and to overcome what they characterized as the conductor's prejudice against non-readers. ("All right, let's take it from Letter D, but vamp on the last four bars to my cue, and cross out the first eight bars of Letter E. Cut Numbers 34 and 36 and go straight into 36." "Huh?") Mind you, they had plenty of time on the bus and in podunk towns to work everything out. If you have to come up with the goods RIGHT NOW from a cold start, reading is the only way to go - there's no time to listen and memorize. And, as George points out, this kind of skill commands a $$$$ premium.
The whole debate over reading - not just here but ongoing in the world at large - often takes on silly overtones.
Reading is a useful skill, plain and simple, yet both its advocates and its detractors bring all kinds of foolishness to the debate.
On the one hand there is a group who seems resistant to learning to read - as if their ignorance were their strength and the pro-reading forces were some kind of Delilah trying to cut off the hair in front of their eyes. Their defensiveness sometimes smacks of a cover for a feeling of inferiority.
On the other hand, the pro-reading guys sometimes come off like "How dare you pretend you even know what music *is* if you can't read it? Anyone who can't read might as well be retarded."
The simple truth is that some musical activities require reading, and others don't. The person who can read has access to *all* of them. The person who doesn't is more limited - fewer avenues of expressions, and fewer employment opportunitites. If he or she is willing to accept that limitation, so be it - many great (and not-so-great) musicians have. And the ability to read does not stifle creativity or spontaneity. Only a bad attitude can do that.
My position is to be open to possibilities. Reading is an avenue to some of those possibilities, while learning orally or improvising in a known framework offer other possibilities.