Can you read music? Do you follow along with a score?

[imperfection]

As a music major, I find listening to music with a score in hand more engaging, like I'm living every note in the music. 

[71 dB]

I can't read music scores (well enough that is). I haven't seen a score in my life! Music is all sounds for me. I suppose that's an approach of an acoustic engineer to music...

[springrite]

I can't read music scores (well enough that is). I haven't seen a score in my life! Music is all sounds for me. I suppose that's an approach of an acoustic engineer to music...

Can't read music well at all myself. But for some reason I have purchased quite a bit of score, from piano music to chamber music to song cycles to Mahler symphonies and Rite. I have read along a few times. I hope to improve on that a bit later in my life when I have a bit more time to learn to do this better.

[Sergeant Rock]

I can read a score, follow along with the musc.

Sarge

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

1. Yes.

2. Rarely. I don't keep piles of scores around the house. I have enjoyed listening to Mahler symphonies with score, but there's a complication: they have so many lines that I had to choose a single instrumental line or two and follow it rather than trying to keep track of the whole orchestra. And that's an interesting exercise in itself. I come away with a greater appreciation for what the hornist (or timpanist, or violist, or whatever) has to do over the duration of the piece.

[False_Dmitry]

I prefer to read the score by itself, without any recording.  Sometimes in my head, sometimes maybe playing it at the piano.   The music is the sound.  The score is a set of instructions for making the sound.  The two things shouldn't be confused

Frankly I am opposed to recordings anyhowm - they deny the essential spontaneous nature of music-making and live performance.  It's like having a video of a cat, instead of having a cat.

[Opus106]

It's like having a video of a cat, instead of having a cat.

That has its own set of advantages. For example, imagine a place where cats don't exist and where the conditions don't help them to thrive.

To answer the original question -- no, I don't know how to read music, but I'm hoping to learn to do so in the future.

[Renfield]

I can read an orchestral score with elementary competence, and can follow a piece of music with it as long as I'm acquainted with the piece.

But as I don't play an instrument, I own no scores to use. And even if I did own scores, much of my listening enjoyment derives from decoding sounds into patterns, and 'hearing them speak', if you'll excuse the vagueness of the explanation.

So, although I acknowledge that if I were to follow a score while listening I would have access to an amount of detail it would otherwise take me numerous repeat listenings to spot, I guess it's also part of the fun for me, that challenge.

[False_Dmitry]

Just in response to those who have mentioned that they don't have scores at home, but would enjoy reading them...  you may already know about it, but the IMSLP site has freely-downloadable scores of music which is in the Public Domain.  In practice this is a vast resource of music mainly pre-1900, including most "central repertoire" music.  Scores are usually in .pdf format. 

http://imslp.org/wiki/Main_Page

[Franco]

While I am comfortable reading a score I do not listen with one.  I have often studied a score if I wanted to see how the music was put together, but that is rare these days.  I prefer to listen without engaging my left brain as much as possible.

[imperfection]

Thanks for all your responses!

Just in response to those who have mentioned that they don't have scores at home, but would enjoy reading them...  you may already know about it, but the IMSLP site has freely-downloadable scores of music which is in the Public Domain.  In practice this is a vast resource of music mainly pre-1900, including most "central repertoire" music.  Scores are usually in .pdf format. 

http://imslp.org/wiki/Main_Page

Yeah, the Petrucci Library is a fantastic resource. Too bad their Mahler scores are all blocked due to copyright issues 

[karlhenning]

To follow the score while listening to the music, is not a substitute for listening to the music with undivided attention.

That said, I always discover insights about the piece through following the score in real time while listening.

Which is why I do both.

[Scarpia]

To follow the score while listening to the music, is not a substitute for listening to the music with undivided attention.

That said, I always discover insights about the piece through following the score in real time while listening.

Which is why I do both.

QFT. 

Highly trained people can read a score and hear the music in their head.  I do not fall into this catagory, so it is of little use to me to read a score unless I am listening to the music, or intimately familiar with it already.

[jochanaan]

Yes, and yes.

There's a difference, though, between following a score when you listen, and studying one.  When doing serious score study, I prefer not to have any music playing; too many things happening at once in most scores, especially the complex contemporary scores I like to study...

[karlhenning]

Yes, jo, that's the compliment to my divided-attention observation.  The shortcomings in the attention work in both directions.  Well said.

[bhodges]

Yes, and yes.

There's a difference, though, between following a score when you listen, and studying one.  When doing serious score study, I prefer not to have any music playing; too many things happening at once in most scores, especially the complex contemporary scores I like to study...

This is pretty close to my feeling, too.  I do read music, and do enjoy studying scores, but most of the time, if I'm listening, the music whizzes by too quickly to do both simultaneously.  By the time I've focused on a moment in the score, the recording has moved on and I have to play catch-up. 

I usually buy scores after I've heard pieces, to examine the music in greater detail.

--Bruce

[Scarpia]

This is pretty close to my feeling, too.  I do read music, and do enjoy studying scores, but most of the time, if I'm listening, the music whizzes by too quickly to do both simultaneously.  By the time I've focused on a moment in the score, the recording has moved on and I have to play catch-up. 

I usually buy scores after I've heard pieces, to examine the music in greater detail.

--Bruce

One thing I've found very useful is following a score when listening to a recording of a string quartet.  If you are at a live performance you can use your eyes as well as ears to appreciate the counterpoint.  In recordings, the imaging is rarely precise enough for me to always distinguish the first violin from second violin from viola from cello line.  Having the score in front of my eyes can help clarify things a lot.

[bhodges]

That could be quite interesting.  Most of the time I'm following full orchestral scores, but haven't tried a quartet (for some reason).  Good rec, thanks.

--Bruce

[hornteacher]

Yes, and yes.

There's a difference, though, between following a score when you listen, and studying one.  When doing serious score study, I prefer not to have any music playing; too many things happening at once in most scores, especially the complex contemporary scores I like to study...

Yes, totally agree.  I study scores all the time, marking themes, motivic development, forms, interesting chord structures, etc.  It helps me dig really deep into the compositional mind of the composer.  It opens up so many new levels of appreciation I feel like I'm hearing new things all the time.

[listener]

Following a score and listening is like writing a person's name down or repeating it after an introduction.  Two sets of senses are stimulated and memory reinforced.
I find scores at a concert a quick guide to how an orchestra is handling unusual instrumentation - hiring extras or doubling parts, for example.    And if there's light enough, they can be a road map for focusing one's attention.