Bagoas (imported) wrote: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:12 pm I was 40 before I learned to read music. Within a year, I was writing rather bad chamber music. At 47, I built a clavichord from a kit, took lessons, and became fairly competent at playing it. At the university where I taught, I had access to a Challis harpsichord on which I practised at every opportunity. I longed to own one, but they are terribly expensive.
When I was 68, I inherited enough money to buy a harpsichord and took lessons for several years. I don't play it any better than I do the clavichord, but I get great satisfaction out of it. I confess to being a better listener than a performer. I have literally thousands of recordings, including Edison cylinders, over 3,000 78-rpm recordings, about as many LP's and somewhat under 1000 CD's.
Music, as you might guess, has always been an important part of my life, yet, as I said at the outset, I didn't learn to read music until I was 40. To this very day, I can't sight-sing. I have no idea how a score sounds until I play it . Unfortunately, the public school system when I was a child (1930's and 1940's) emphasized sight-singing above everything else, and I couldn't do it. I grew up loving music but unable to read it or perform it.
I taught myself to read music with the aid of an old Auto-Harp. As the foregoing reveals one can begin to study music in middle age and learn it well enough to get great satisfaction out of it.
Interesting how you talk about the public school systems forcing sight-singing. A doctoral dissertation came out about that time that talked of how unnecessary it was to sight-sing. Since that time it is barely taught and the solfeggio system has gone down the tubes. Today, in music education the kids get more of an appreciation course. But most school only give music to elementary once a week for 30 minutes. It's almost borders on criminal.
Glad to see you took the initiative to learn music.
Studlover