On sight-reading

[dcstudio]

Hello

Those of you who have read my posts--know of my issues with forcing students to be good sight-readers.  Well, I am about to eat my words on that one.  Read on--

Well folks--it finally happened.  I was actually presented with a piece of music the other day--that I had never seen or heard, and I was asked to play it. 

    I was visiting the home of a well-known local artist recently--in an effort to pick up pointers on my painting skills. (My new hobby   Anyway, I walked into the back of her home--and there--in her art room was a beautiful old upright piano.  It looked like it had been maintained quite well except for the fact that it was covered with stacks of paintings. 
    Well, I can't stand to see a perfectly good piano going to waste, so I offered to remove the stacks and see if the piano was in tune.  To my surprise, it was.   The woman I was visiting listened to me play for a few moments and then asked if I would play something for her.  She handed me a handwritten score that had been sitting on the shelf.  It was an original piece written for 2 violins and piano.  Across the top was scrawled--"work in progress"--by the composer.  It was not incredibly difficult, and without complaining about the notation--I sat down and played it for her to the best of my abilities. As I was playing, the woman I was visiting began to cry.

She then explained to me that the piece had been composed by her daughter -- most of it--she had composed right there at the piano I was playing.  She then went on to tell me how her daughter had died unexpectedly three years earlier.  Yeah, it was pretty heavy for me, too. Her daughter had received a degree in music and had also been published composer.  The woman I was visiting told me that, since her daughter's death--she had no desire to play the piano--yet couldn't bear to part with it, and always had it tuned.  She then asked me if I would be willing to "give her a few pointers" at the piano--especially on how to be a better "sight-reader." Of course I said yes--and we arranged a time for me to come and give her a lesson. 

 As I was leaving I could hear her "tinkering" at the piano for the first time since her daughter's death. 

Never again, will I profess that sight-reading is not that important of a skill, guys...guess I was wrong on that -- oh well, live and learn...

[pianoplayjl]

That is such a touching story! yes now you mention it, sight reading is an important skill, when you might be asked to play a piece of music at an important occasion or when asked to play because the music has meaning for them. So yes, sight reading is just as important of any skill. 

[dcstudio]

yes, to you pianoplayjl--I concede on this one.  You were right   it was pretty amazing to be able to do that for that person.  Guess I must credit my teachers here for forcing me to learn to sight read pretty much any music.  Lord knows I fought them on that!  maybe sometimes being a tough teacher is necessary...lol..

[pianowolfi]

Since a while I'm in the process of getting pretty tough at this, for sure. People who refuse to learn reading will quite rapidly be fired from my studio. I'm not longer willing to waste my life-time and energy to fight against unsurmountable prejudices and stupid resistance.

[benechan]

Here are some sight reading tips from the Piano Sage Blog:

8 Essential Piano Sight Reading Tips: for exams, or learning a new piece
https://pianosage.blogspot.com/2011/11/8-essential-piano-for-sight-reading.html

Advanced Piano Sight Reading Tips: for exams, playing, or learning a new piece
https://pianosage.blogspot.com/2011/11/advanced-piano-sight-reading-tips-for.html

[nyiregyhazi]

Here are some sight reading tips from the Piano Sage Blog:

8 Essential Piano Sight Reading Tips: for exams, or learning a new piece
https://pianosage.blogspot.com/2011/11/8-essential-piano-for-sight-reading.html

Advanced Piano Sight Reading Tips: for exams, playing, or learning a new piece
https://pianosage.blogspot.com/2011/11/advanced-piano-sight-reading-tips-for.html

While those are reasonable enough tips, I have to say that very few deal with the important "hows" of sightreading. Most of these are just reminders of what you are supposed to be aiming for.

[keypeg]

While those are reasonable enough tips, I have to say that very few deal with the important "hows" of sightreading. Most of these are just reminders of what you are supposed to be aiming for.

I'm also wondering about this one:
"Sight reading is basically looking ahead and memorising a short chunk, then playing this while memorising the next chunk."

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm also wondering about this one:
"Sight reading is basically looking ahead and memorising a short chunk, then playing this while memorising the next chunk."

I think that's very much what the best sight-readers do. It's just that mentioning it isn't going to help anybody get so much as a shred closer to being able to do it. Anyone who has what it takes to do so, will likely be inclined to slip into this way of thinking anyway. It's what enables such behaviour to take place that matters.

[dcstudio]

How I do it? 

Well, though I passed sight-reading exams in college I was not truly comfortable with it until I began a full time teaching schedule and worked on the side as an accompanist.  It was really a matter of having to do it on a daily basis. I tend to use my ear even when I "sight-read."  Yes, I am reading the music--but my ear plays a big part in the process as well.  Being able to sacrifice a note or two here and there in order to maintain the rhythm and tempo is really key.
 I had a teacher in college who told me that to truly sight-read it has to be a piece of music you have never heard.  At my age that does not happen too much.   

[keypeg]

I was thinking about this beautiful story, and then the post a little bit afterward that coupled the importance of being able to read with a rather harsh attitude toward anyone who resisted learning to read.  I'm thinking that in general any of the skills in music are important.  That is: being able to listen and hear, to play, good technique, theory and history to help with interpretation.   There is often aversion to some of those things - they have been forced down our throats and we have come to hate them.  It makes me think - what if anything that people are forced to learn and tend to dislike: what if those things were taught differently?    Can it be made more meaningful?

The thing I got out of the story is that the ability to read allows someone to unlock the secret music written by another person.  This mother could not reach her daughter's music because she could not read it.  All these composers had all these musical ideas and feelings which they stored on paper for all times.    We get the idea in the raw.  If we hear someone else playing it, then it is that person's interpretation of it.

I am passionate about reading and theory because for a lifetime I had none of that knowledge.  It was also not spoiled for me.  I see explanations about these things that are so empty and mechanical, so divorced from music, that I can easily see why they would be a turn-off.

So is it a case where students get forced to do what they will later appreciate?  Or where they are naturally motivated by how it is presented?  Or maybe a bit of both?

[keypeg]

I think that's very much what the best sight-readers do. It's just that mentioning it isn't going to help anybody get so much as a shred closer to being able to do it. Anyone who has what it takes to do so, will likely be inclined to slip into this way of thinking anyway. It's what enables such behaviour to take place that matters.

I think we can't really know what the internal process of the best sight-readers is, unless they all tell us.  I like your last part: "It's what enables such behaviour to take place that matters." This suggests to me getting skills and strategies toward those skills.  If "memorizing as you go along" is an end result, then it can also be a poor strategy.  How do we go about learning (or teaching) something so that those results happen?

[nyiregyhazi]

I think we can't really know what the internal process of the best sight-readers is, unless they all tell us. 

I don't think it's too hard to get a good idea- if you consider page turns. Of course, pianists are often playing things that they virtually know from memory anyway, but genuine sightreading typically involves page turns at least a couple of bars before getting to the end of the page. I've heard that John Ogdon like his pages turned before he was even halfway down the page.

Also, while I don't speak as any kind of superhuman sightreader (of the kind who can deal with fugues or twentieth century music with ease) I definitely work this way myself within most music (although if gets extremely dense with counterpoint I struggle to look too far ahead. I have many theories on what is required to develop good sightreading- many of them linked to the issues discussed in the other thread recently. It would take too long to go into it here, but I want to write them up on my blog at some point.

[keypeg]

I don't think it's too hard to get a good idea- if you consider page turns.

This suggests to me that you also don't really know what the process for most sight readers is, but that you are hypothesizing that this might be what they do.  I prefer to know what is hypothesis and what is established fact, because we can be boxed in by hypotheses if we don't know them as such.

In the case of page turns, this is not prima vista sight reading and also, the performer has planned how to deal with page turns.  For example, I have been taught to deliberately memorize the last bit of music for performance precisely for dealing with page turns as a strategy.  If so, then it is not part of my natural reading (or that of whoever is teaching me), but a deliberate device.

I have adopted about 4 approaches to reading in recent years, each time from things learned.  Some are directly contrary to the idea of memorizing.  I can add ANTICIPATION to the list.  Before I had any formal training and did not really know my note names, I was able to anticipate how the music would probably go, form a pattern in my mind, scan key places in the score, and then play in part via what I was anticipating.  "Music theory" and similar would play a role here.  It doesn't have to be learned formally necessarily.

I liked your first statement that talked about the approaches of getting there because that is very practical.

[nyiregyhazi]

I've got a violinist coming over soon, who I'm accompanying for a grade 6 exam. I've played through the pieces already in one rehearsal, but I certainly wouldn't say I "know" the pieces in any real way. I was just having a brief play through them now and realised that after one very brief glance at a bar (literally just an instantaneous glimpse), I can look away while playing it and it's every bit as clear in my mind as if I'm watching each note on the page. It's interesting, as I've never really thought of myself as having any kind of photographic memory. None of this is retained by memory, certainly, after the instant in which I've played the bar- but it's very clear indeed at the time.

[keypeg]

What reason is there to suspect that a greater sight-reader than myself would plan ahead less than I do, rather than anticipate even more?

I do not suspect ANYTHING and that is the point.  I will not hold any theory on what people do unless I know for certain they do it.  I keep the stance that I do not know.  If someone tells me that people do things a certain way, then I have to know whether they actually know this for certain, because I can get stuck believing that this is absolutely true and then basing myself on it.    I am concluding that it's not known, and that it is an hypothesis.

[nyiregyhazi]

I do not suspect ANYTHING and that is the point.  I will not hold any theory on what people do unless I know for certain they do it.  I keep the stance that I do not know.  If someone tells me that people do things a certain way, then I have to know whether they actually know this for certain, because I can get stuck believing that this is absolutely true and then basing myself on it.    I am concluding that it's not known, and that it is an hypothesis.

Well, there's a certain point where common sense has to point in one direction, unless there's a good reason to think otherwise. Do good readers of prose look at individual words as they say them one by one, or do they grasp a whole sentence at before speaking- in order to inflect it with meaningful intonation? I'd need an EXTREMELY good reason, if I were going to question the idea that the finest sightreaders think ahead further still than myself.

Also, bear in mind that while I would never call myself a fantastic sightreader (compared to professional accompanists who can do a perfectly creditable job with even Beethoven or Brahms sonatas, at first sight) I think it would reasonable enough to say that I do speak as a good sight-reader.

[dcstudio]

would it be logical to assume that each "super sight-reader" has their own uique method?


Though I am no wunderkind at it-- I also use a bit of "photographic" memory in sight-reading especially at the page turns.  This can crash at times, so I use my ear as well.  I also "predict" according to logical patterns and the anticipation of cadences--but this is also not infallible obviously.  Sacrificing a few notes for the good of the whole--or trimming away a bit of the arrangement without it being too noticeable is really key to my process, too.
For the record--I also have difficulty sight-reading fugues...they are a bit less predictable and a lot to think about.    Right now--I read what I can

[nyiregyhazi]

would it be logical to assume that each "super sight-reader" has their own uique method?

Obviously everyone has their own approach, when it comes to fine details, but I think it's safe to say both that all of the best at it take in large amounts of information as a single entity and that they have developed many different aspects of reading to a very high level- all of which fuse together as one thing. It's not so much finding their own thing that works, but mastering ALL of the things that work.

To be honest, when we're talking about the absolute elite, I really doubt whether there's all that much room for hugely different approaches. Without rounded mastery, they wouldn't be in the elite. For example, expectation can help get out of emergencies, but a great sight-reader wouldn't be a great sight-reader if they depended too much on it. You have read well enough not to take wrong turns, that expectation might imply. Also, in many composers, it's not good enough to sketch out some sort of C major- rather than to play the exact spelling the composer writes. I think one of the things about the finest readers is that expectation rarely has to replace actual reading. At lower levels, I think it's essential to have ways of getting out of scrapes, but I think true masters actually depend on guesswork the least. I think this aspect of sightreading is essential, but it can actually be very limiting to development, when great emphasis is placed on this.

[dcstudio]

...mastering all of the things that work--hmmm--sounds right to me.  Just curious why you would think that great sight-readers do no trimming or guess-work?  Not that they do--just wondering why you believe that they don't.  wouldn't "rounded mastery" include more than just actual reading? or perhaps our definitions of actual reading differ in some way.
Are you certain that every great "sight-reader" you have witnessed is reading the way you perceive them to be?  How would you really know if they were truly sight-reading?

used to play with a sax player who would improvise these awesome solos and then claim they were his--one day we found a book of transcribed Charlie Parker solos in his gig bag.  It contained published transcriptions for what we all thought he had improvised. 

flip side of the coin--but something to think about...

[nyiregyhazi]

"mastering all of the things that work--hmmm--sounds right to me.  Just curious why you would think that great sight-readers do no trimming or guess-work? "

Well, some composers just don't take it very well. It's all very well to skim over general harmony in Liszt say, but a Beethoven accompaniment requires detail.  I wouldn't say there's ever none- but the ability to minimise it would be what separates a great sight-reader from one who's just good at getting scraping through without full-on disaster. If you hear a Beethoven sonata with washes of accompaniment, you don't tend to think- wow, what a sightreader!

"Are you certain that every great "sight-reader" you have witnessed is reading the way you perceive them to be?  How would you really know if they were truly sight-reading?"

Well, from personal experience, the more comfortable I am with what I'm playing, the more I can afford to look ahead and plan. In dense music, I'm more likely to be rapidly processing small chunks- but that's why I'm not an elite sightreader. In music at a slower rate, I may be thinking way ahead of what I'm actually doing, in order to be prepared. I'm not saying that a great sightreader always looks two bars ahead. However, what they certainly are not doing is taking very small pieces of information one at a time. Simply to know what note to play in time to play, means you are thinking SOME distance ahead. The only debate is about how far.

I think it's self evident that the ability to process larger amounts in one go is what distinguishes between good sight-readers and fantastic ones. How big the chunk is at any one time is anybody's guess. But I think it goes without saying that those who can process more at once and who see further ahead are going to cope better than those who only begin to think about each note for the first time, just before they play it. Oh, and I once heard a friend sightread some of the fastest bars from the Horowitz version of Dance Macabre- a long time before these scores were wildly available.
 

[fleetfingers]

I usually read 1-3 bars ahead, and it's amazing to think that people can read a half page or more ahead. Having a good memory myself, I am not so fascinated by the fact that so much can be taken in and remembered. What is fascinating to me is that our brains can be trained to take in one part of the music at the same time the fingers are playing a previous part that was memorized seconds ago. And even still, there is that chunk in between the two parts that is just sitting there in the brain somewhere.

Obviously, part of sight reading is being able to read music and having your fingers react instinctively, according to what the brain takes in. But, it's the time lag between when something is read and when it is actually played that I find amazing.

I think that nyiregyhazi is right that "super-sight readers" are taking in large chunks at once, much like when we read words and sentences. The reason I think it's true is that when I read a piece that is extrememly easy for me, I can look at the whole page and be able to play it after a short scan. I will still look at the music, but I have already "memorized" what's going to happen and the whole picture of the music is in my brain, so I can read ahead much further than I normally would. For people who are in that elite group of sight readers, advanced music has become so familiar to them that it's easier to take in and remember large chunks; hence, reading a half page ahead.

[pianowolfi]

I was thinking about this beautiful story, and then the post a little bit afterward that coupled the importance of being able to read with a rather harsh attitude toward anyone who resisted learning to read.  

I also find this a very beautiful story
Yeah actually it was perhaps my fault to link the sheer ability to read music with a sight-reading thread. I was rather talking about the former. Of course I don't request any sort of extraordinary sightreading studies from my students. But of course they are supposed to learn reading music because without it there's no real progress in piano playing at all.

[dcstudio]

"having your fingers react instinctively"  --- really-- that is a cool description.  not to be confused with muscle memory.  The eyes read the notes triggering the fingers--and the ear--triggers the instinct or reaction.  Kinda that mind's eye thing going on too.  There is an element of sensing the location of the notes by touch as well--for me--that seems to also be related to both the visual and aural elements..  Whole lotta stuff going on there---I only know what works for me... Instinctive Finger Reaction--IFR--lol... I like that.

[flyinfingers]

Wow!  You two were brought together for a reason.  Touching story.

[dcstudio]

Wow!  You two were brought together for a reason.  Touching story.

...of that I have no doubt Thanks!

[_achilles_]

Thanks for taking the time to share this.. it will motivate me to practice sight reading more often as I'm often leaving that out after practicing other stuff

Edit: I just read those articles and I found it a little amusing that they could have just have easily been articles on how to play the piano if the title was different.

[pianoplayjl]

The best tip I've ever recieved from anyone is to look ahead and ignore mistakes, and to play it at a comfortable tempo. It worked every time for me. Probably the quality of your sight reading also has to do with hand position. I've noticed that if there are a wider variety of notes then the sight reading level will be harder, but probably alot of people have noticed this.

[dcstudio]

look ahead and ignore mistakes--

that works for everything in life!!  GREAT ADVICE  IMO