I'm interested in musical education. I compare it to education generally. Here's my analogy.

Some educated people are not using their intelligence. Some uneducated people are extremely good at applying their intelligence.

Musical intelligence varies from one person to the next. Some are literate in music and may not apply their musical intelligence to their performance. Some are illiterate in music and have much musical intelligence in their performance.

Others can combine both. The obvious answer to the question for me is that there are both advantages to ear and note reading.

In folk music, musical literacy is not important because it is not the central aspect of the music for which you listen.

In classical music, jazz, art songs, some pop, show tunes, musical literacy may make a difference in performance.

There are different degrees of musical literacy. Harmonic theory is one. The ability to sight-read is another. Composition and arranging is another.

It's all relative to the job being done. Simple arranging in folk music doesn't require an extensive literacy in music.

In jazz, harmonic theory is usually essential. There are some musicians, however, such as Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong who "hear the changes" without extensive reading or theoretical skills. Ella didn't play the keyboard.

In classical music or art songs, you really have to know what the composer intended through the notes that he/she wrote. In musical composition and arranging, well that seems obvious but there are such composers who can arrange and compose on MIDI equipment who may not be able to read much music.

In Broadway or show music, a knowledge of music reading helps because the singers and performers need to learn new material quickly.

In pop music, it's up for grabs. Some are highly literate such as the Bachrachs or George Martins and some are intuitive entirely.

Answer, find out what you need to know. If you need to be musically literate, go for it.
Otherwise, forget it.

Frank Hamilton