It seems like in music education we’re often talking about the two ways of learning music – by reading and by rote. We tend to denigrate rote learning in favor of gaining the musical skills to be able to read; this piece isn’t meant to disagree with that.
But it will disagree with the description of two ways of learning new music. There are three.
First, reading. Reading is great, and building musical literacy skills is a way to develop an ensemble capable of singing the most challenging and intricate music, and processing it quickly.
Second, rote. Rote learning can be as fast or faster than reading. With an acutely tuned musical ear and practice, a strong musician can sing music accurately after one listen. This is how Take 6 tends to learn new music, and it certainly works for them. Rote learning can be especially helpful for idiomatic lines or things that get beyond standard notation.
Third, osmosis. This, I think, is what people are actually thinking of when they refer to rote learning. Learning by osmosis requires endless repetitions, as the learner is only minimally engaged in processing and comprehending the music. They eventually get there, but it can be painful, particularly for the conductor but also for fellow singers who don’t require this kind of learning.
Perhaps a better way to think of these three learning methods in choir is as ladder rungs. At first, we learn through osmosis, but we can be trained through high expectations, fast pacing, and specific coaching, to begin to have rapid rote learning. Once the rote learning is rapid, it can be effective to associate the aural experience with the visual one, and then develop the literacy skills to match.