Can anyone tell if this is in A notation?

[Austin]

I'm curious because it's a piece by Gershwin that Bela Fleck recorded. The picture is not the best quality (it was taken from Bela's Instagram), but I think I'm seeing an A below middle C. Am I wrong? Gershwin surely would have at least known about A notation because he was American, and he was writing for banjo.

[Austin]

No. And I wouldn't call all composers musicians. Closer to architects drawing up plans that the conductor and the orchestra are responsible for constructing.

Jody Stecher said:

Where did this unfortunate conversation take place? You may be dealing with a haughty "stuck up" individual who has no business accusing others of being insulting. However there is a context to the perception common to non-readers that those who suggest reading are looking down upon them.  It has been common for my entire life to find  note readers who think they are superior to ear players. This is outside the world of banjo. And this is in blatant contradiction of the aural evidence. Being able to read gives one access to repertoire. It broadens the mind. It affects how one perceives musical structure. It positively affects the ability to compose. But it does not make one's music sound better. 

Listen to the musically literate lute player Evangelina Moscardi. She's the 8th wonder of the world. She's plays Bach with deep feeling as well as understanding.   Listen to the musically illiterate sarod player Ali Akbar Khan whom the literate Yehudi Menuhin called "the greatest musician of the 20th century" (or words to that effect) and who was held in awe and deep respect by Julian Bream.  His music is deeply affecting and very subtle in the slow sections and highly intelligent in the structure of his compositions. 

Then I could name (but won't) both literate and illiterate whose music is not good to listen to.

Making music, unlike structural engineering does not require literacy.  Music is about the ears, not the eyes. Staff notation is a marvelous storage medium. I am glad I learned to read and write music. But it is a secondary skill, not a primary one. 

One more point: the idea that banjo music should not be rendered in staff notation implies that the banjo is not a musical instrument.  It seems to be rooted in romanticism and the notion of noble savages.  So of course it can be written and read and in some cases it should be. But the page is not the music. The music is what is heard. 

Recently a singer/fiddle player who also plays a Hartel "minstrel" banjo made a post showing tab (evidently working on a book that will be released soon on "early banjo music").  The post was about her working on "early banjo" pieces, such as Briggs and Converse.  I posted "you are a role model for many people, please promote the original notation for the banjo"

Her reply... "nope! I don't read classical notation on the banjo" and then she said I was insulting people.  Then added that lute music was in tab.   This is someone who attended a conservatory for singing saying that I was "insulting" people for even recommending the concept of reading notation!

So, yeah this is a thing. 

I can't think of another profession that this would work for.  Imagine a structural engineer applying for a job designing bridges "no I can't read or write math, I only build by ear"

[Jody Stecher]

You cannot "write" it but you can compose with full understanding of how the orchestral instruments work. All you need is an assistant or even a computer program to write down what you sing or play.  You may not like it but that is how it actually is.  

Austin said:

You cannot write for orchestra without some understanding of sheet music at least to some degree.

Joel Hooks said:

Austin, did you miss the quotes from Bela that I posted above?

His words, not mine. 

[Jody Stecher]

I asked no questions in the post to which you are replying,  so "No" is a curious response. 

Austin said:

No. And I wouldn't call all composers musicians. Closer to architects drawing up plans that the conductor and the orchestra are responsible for constructing.

Jody Stecher said:

Where did this unfortunate conversation take place? You may be dealing with a haughty "stuck up" individual who has no business accusing others of being insulting. However there is a context to the perception common to non-readers that those who suggest reading are looking down upon them.  It has been common for my entire life to find  note readers who think they are superior to ear players. This is outside the world of banjo. And this is in blatant contradiction of the aural evidence. Being able to read gives one access to repertoire. It broadens the mind. It affects how one perceives musical structure. It positively affects the ability to compose. But it does not make one's music sound better. 

Listen to the musically literate lute player Evangelina Moscardi. She's the 8th wonder of the world. She's plays Bach with deep feeling as well as understanding.   Listen to the musically illiterate sarod player Ali Akbar Khan whom the literate Yehudi Menuhin called "the greatest musician of the 20th century" (or words to that effect) and who was held in awe and deep respect by Julian Bream.  His music is deeply affecting and very subtle in the slow sections and highly intelligent in the structure of his compositions. 

Then I could name (but won't) both literate and illiterate whose music is not good to listen to.

Making music, unlike structural engineering does not require literacy.  Music is about the ears, not the eyes. Staff notation is a marvelous storage medium. I am glad I learned to read and write music. But it is a secondary skill, not a primary one. 

One more point: the idea that banjo music should not be rendered in staff notation implies that the banjo is not a musical instrument.  It seems to be rooted in romanticism and the notion of noble savages.  So of course it can be written and read and in some cases it should be. But the page is not the music. The music is what is heard. 

Recently a singer/fiddle player who also plays a Hartel "minstrel" banjo made a post showing tab (evidently working on a book that will be released soon on "early banjo music").  The post was about her working on "early banjo" pieces, such as Briggs and Converse.  I posted "you are a role model for many people, please promote the original notation for the banjo"

Her reply... "nope! I don't read classical notation on the banjo" and then she said I was insulting people.  Then added that lute music was in tab.   This is someone who attended a conservatory for singing saying that I was "insulting" people for even recommending the concept of reading notation!

So, yeah this is a thing. 

I can't think of another profession that this would work for.  Imagine a structural engineer applying for a job designing bridges "no I can't read or write math, I only build by ear"

[Joel Hooks]

Austin, Bela explains how he did it in one of the interviews I posted.

[Austin]

I was agreeing that the page is not music. But the other side of that is that composers aren't musicians most of the time, although they usually have piano skills at the very least. 

Jody Stecher said:

I asked no questions in the post to which you are replying,  so "No" is a curious response. 

Austin said:

No. And I wouldn't call all composers musicians. Closer to architects drawing up plans that the conductor and the orchestra are responsible for constructing.

Jody Stecher said:

Where did this unfortunate conversation take place? You may be dealing with a haughty "stuck up" individual who has no business accusing others of being insulting. However there is a context to the perception common to non-readers that those who suggest reading are looking down upon them.  It has been common for my entire life to find  note readers who think they are superior to ear players. This is outside the world of banjo. And this is in blatant contradiction of the aural evidence. Being able to read gives one access to repertoire. It broadens the mind. It affects how one perceives musical structure. It positively affects the ability to compose. But it does not make one's music sound better. 

Listen to the musically literate lute player Evangelina Moscardi. She's the 8th wonder of the world. She's plays Bach with deep feeling as well as understanding.   Listen to the musically illiterate sarod player Ali Akbar Khan whom the literate Yehudi Menuhin called "the greatest musician of the 20th century" (or words to that effect) and who was held in awe and deep respect by Julian Bream.  His music is deeply affecting and very subtle in the slow sections and highly intelligent in the structure of his compositions. 

Then I could name (but won't) both literate and illiterate whose music is not good to listen to.

Making music, unlike structural engineering does not require literacy.  Music is about the ears, not the eyes. Staff notation is a marvelous storage medium. I am glad I learned to read and write music. But it is a secondary skill, not a primary one. 

One more point: the idea that banjo music should not be rendered in staff notation implies that the banjo is not a musical instrument.  It seems to be rooted in romanticism and the notion of noble savages.  So of course it can be written and read and in some cases it should be. But the page is not the music. The music is what is heard. 

Recently a singer/fiddle player who also plays a Hartel "minstrel" banjo made a post showing tab (evidently working on a book that will be released soon on "early banjo music").  The post was about her working on "early banjo" pieces, such as Briggs and Converse.  I posted "you are a role model for many people, please promote the original notation for the banjo"

Her reply... "nope! I don't read classical notation on the banjo" and then she said I was insulting people.  Then added that lute music was in tab.   This is someone who attended a conservatory for singing saying that I was "insulting" people for even recommending the concept of reading notation!

So, yeah this is a thing. 

I can't think of another profession that this would work for.  Imagine a structural engineer applying for a job designing bridges "no I can't read or write math, I only build by ear"

[Ethan Schwartz]

That hasn't been my experience at all. Most serious composers have basic proficiency on at least one instrument (the notable exception being composers who work entirely in a DAW; the DAW, in effect, becomes a digital instrument). The problems arise when people compose for instruments they don't play--which, for most people, is most instruments. That's what orchestration and arranging lessons/classes attempt to address. 

Composition is a broad field, and composing doesn't always entail writing things down in standard notation. 

Austin said:

I was agreeing that the page is not music. But the other side of that is that composers aren't musicians most of the time, although they usually have piano skills at the very least.