The Difference Between Sight-Reading And Music Theory

The last couple of weeks have been a bit of a blur. I’ve managed to keep a pretty full diary in terms of gigs and teaching, but I still got to spend time with family and friends in-between.

It was whilst I was out with friends (also musos and teachers) that the conversation turned to the topic of teaching methods and different students having different aims. Some people want a full and complete education on their chosen instrument; from foundational to advanced theory; the ability to sight-read; great technique; full understanding of gear/equipment; knowledge of different genres and their characteristics. Some people just want to learn a few basics so they can play along to their favourite songs. The majority of people fall somewhere between the two.

The thing I highlighted to my friends during the conversation the other night is that, sometimes people will enquire about music lessons, and they’ll say “oh, but I’m not bothered about music theory – I want to play along to Sam Smith, Ed Sheeran, John Legend etc., not read music”.

The fact is, the two things are different. Reading music is reading music. Believe it or not, you can study and work enough to acquire a good ability to sight-read, and not know the basic, fundamental theories of music – things like why we use certain notes or chords together with others and where they come from (If I had a penny for every time a muso has told me a story of how “I know someone who plays in orchestras around the world, but take the sheet music away from them and they’re useless” I’d be able to buy a plectrum by now).

I know some people who are musical snobs and deride the use of tablature (tab) for learning songs on the guitar because in their opinion it’s just “painting by numbers”. Well actually, so is being able to sight-read musical notation; it’s just that you have to learn more rules in order to be able do it. Think of it this way: if you’re reading this, then at some point in your life you spent a period of time learning how the letters of the alphabet sound when you put them together. If I gave you a speech to read out that was written in a language you don’t speak, to a room full of people who do, they’d understand what you were saying even though you wouldn’t. You learned the rules to enable you to read and speak the words, but you wouldn’t be able to hold a conversation with the audience afterwards.

Musical notation was invented in a time when there was no means of recording sound, so ink and paper was used to record the music instead. But music already existed, and composers had an awareness and understanding that certain notes worked together in more pleasing and complimentary ways than other notes. Music is arguably a kind of language that can be used to convey information, emotion, imagery even, if you understand how to speak it. We don’t need to be able to read in order to be able to speak.

Music theory is about convention. It’s about learning the established, common rules of rhythm, melody and harmony (like grammar and syntax in English language), which give you the ability to understand what another musician or composer is playing or saying, and gives you the means to compose something of your own; that’s the science bit. The subjectivity of music as an art-form means that once we know and understand these rules – even subconsciously – we can bend and even break them. Thus, new genres, instruments, techniques, and the audiences to appreciate them come along as part of either an evolution of a previous order or a 180° backlash.

So how do we define right and wrong when it comes to what a person needs to learn in their music lessons (the main topic of the conversation the other night)? As a teacher, my responsibility is to know what questions to ask in order to really understand what a student’s aim is. I don’t believe in teaching the same set curriculum to everyone who comes to me for lessons. My job is to teach people what they need to know in order to achieve their personal goal. And it can be a bit tricky because sometimes people don’t actually realise what their long-term aim will be when they start, so it’s an ongoing process of me introducing new aspects of musicianship at different stages and gauging their progress to see if it’s something that works for them or not. And what’s more, some people will come with the above attitude that they’re not bothered about learning music theory but don’t realise that to achieve their personal goal they’re going to have to, and others are open to learning anything and everything but find after a couple of months that they’ve learnt what they needed in order to progress under their own initiative.

So, I hope that this blog has gone some way in explaining my take on the matter, and that it’s of benefit to you whatever your relationship is with music. As always, I’ve added some more songs to my acoustic set: All The Kings Horses by Robert Plant and No Distance Left to Run by Blur; I’m continuing to practice the songs I’m playing in the working band and work is ongoing on the next Tim Green Band E.P., which we should begin to record by the end of next month.

Thanks for reading. Comment and discussion are welcome.