Link between sight reading and performance

[cjp_piano]

Today I judged a local piano event in which the students play a prepared piece or 2 and then sight read. I noticed that I could predict what the sight reading was going to be like based on the performance of their prepared piece!

Students who performed with some hesitations, stutters, and stops/starts also stuttered, hesitated and stopped and started with the sight reading. They usually went too fast and didn't keep the tempo.

But students who played more fluidly with a steady tempo and played through missed notes easily did much better at sight reading, keeping the tempo, going slow, etc.

Is this an obvious correlation? Or Coincidence? I used to think that a good sight reader didn't necessarily mean they would be a better performer, and a poor sight reader didn't necessarily perform badly. But now I'm not so sure . . . thoughts?

[mcdiddy1]

Sight-reading is the generalization of all music concepts the performer knows and is really and indication of good foundation of musical knowledge. While there may be some performers who do know understand how to perform the correlation may simply be the ones who stumble are the ones who are nervous and is not really an indication of what they know.  Knowing how to perform ( choosing the right tempo, keeping steady beat, focusing on rhythm more than notes etc) and dealing with nerves are the challenges of performing regardless of whether it is sight-reading or performing a prepared piece. I do think a good sight-reader is someone who understands the concept of how to perform. However a good performer does not necessarily mean a good sight reader because you must be able to a large background of experience just developing the ability to spot what is important, what isn't, notational markings, rhythms, etc. In other words sight-reading is a better indication of musical sophistication rather than one single performance.

[lukebar]

A good friend of mine teaches at one of the universities here in Chicago, and he has confided in me that he is often surprised at how students who gave outstanding auditions would then take FOREVER to learn new repertoire because of poor reading skills.

I don't think there is a correlation between sight-reading ability and performance excellence. They are both important skills, and it is our job to nurture each student's strengths and improve on their weakness.

[cjp_piano]

A good friend of mine teaches at one of the universities here in Chicago, and he has confided in me that he is often surprised at how students who gave outstanding auditions would then take FOREVER to learn new repertoire because of poor reading skills.

I don't think there is a correlation between sight-reading ability and performance excellence. They are both important skills, and it is our job to nurture each student's strengths and improve on their weakness.

Yes, this is true of many upper level performers. They play wonderfully because they practiced forever and worked on their pieces bit by bit with their teachers, but they can't learn new rep quickly. BUT for most of the students I saw the other day, they were all beginners through intermediate, ages 6-13. There indeed WAS a correlation between their sight-reading and their performance.

[lostinidlewonder]

Good performers who perform by memory can be either poor sight readers or good sight readers. There is no real correlation between sight- reading and good performance. However, if you start looking at the amount of music that the pianist can play, then sight reading comes up as a commanding factor. Good sight readers can learn their music much more efficiently than those who merely muscular memorize everything immediately. Also good sight readers tend to be much more accurate when performing with the score and tend to do a lot less mistakes than those who rely completely on memory, those who rely completely on memory can often stutter and lose their place especially if they get distracted or lose the "feeling" in their hands while playing a sequence.

[mcdiddy1]

Good performers who perform by memory can be either poor sight readers or good sight readers. There is no real correlation between sight- reading and good performance. However, if you start looking at the amount of music that the pianist can play, then sight reading comes up as a commanding factor. Good sight readers can learn their music much more efficiently than those who merely muscular memorize everything immediately. Also good sight readers tend to be much more accurate when performing with the score and tend to do a lot less mistakes than those who rely completely on memory, those who rely completely on memory can often stutter and lose their place especially if they get distracted or lose the "feeling" in their hands while playing a sequence.

This is very so true. I had an adult student who could play the maple leaf rag with a great amount of speed and dexterity but beyond the performance of the one piece he had a very limited repertoire and was a poor reader.  The simple truth is the performers you observed may just not be well rounded enough musically to be good piano players.

[cjp_piano]

I don't think anyone is actually reading my original post, haha! I'm not talking about just sight reading and performing in general. I'm talking about hesitations, stutters, stopping/starting, basically the flow. The other day at the event I judged, it seemed like the ones who stuttered and hesitated during sight-reading also stuttered/hesitated during performing, but the ones who played more fluently also sight read more fluently.

[mcdiddy1]

I don't think anyone is actually reading my original post, haha! I'm not talking about just sight reading and performing in general. I'm talking about hesitations, stutters, stopping/starting, basically the flow. The other day at the event I judged, it seemed like the ones who stuttered and hesitated during sight-reading also stuttered/hesitated during performing, but the ones who played more fluently also sight read more fluently.

Well you brought up the corrolation between sight-reading and performing right? Thats pretty much what the post have been around. Hesitations, stutters, and flow problems are basic performance problems. Performers who have performance problems like that tend to have appear in everything they play in general especially if they have not prepared for it. I think regarding your specific experience the students were a) were nervous, b) inexperienced performers, c) or a combination of both and did not prepare for how to handle the situation. I don't think it is fair to say because they did not play well in that moment means they cannot sight read well or perform well. But knowing how to perform well does translate into better sight-reading because it is an art and there is an element of knowing how to perform and "fake it" on some level.

[cjp_piano]

I think regarding your specific experience the students were a) were nervous, b) inexperienced performers, c) or a combination of both and did not prepare for how to handle the situation.

Yes I know some of them were nervous and inexperienced, or both, but some of them were nervous and inexperienced but still performed and sight read well! What I noticed was a correlation between the sight reading and the performing, as far as hesitations and flow.

I don't think it is fair to say because they did not play well in that moment means they cannot sight read well or perform well.

I wasn't saying that a poor performance means they can't sight read. I noticed that the ones who played with hesitations and flow problems ALSO sight read (past tense) with hesitations and flow problems. I wasn't making an assumption, I was actually there and witnessed the performing AND the sight-reading because they did both for this event.

But knowing how to perform well does translate into better sight-reading because it is an art and there is an element of knowing how to perform and "fake it" on some level.

Yes, exactly! But I was going to say it the other way around: knowing how to sight-read well translates into better performing because you practice keeping the flow 

[mcdiddy1]

Yes, exactly! But I was going to say it the other way around: knowing how to sight-read well translates into better performing because you practice keeping the flow 

Well actually you have to know how to perform well in order to sight read well. You cannot sight read patterns you have never seen or performed correctly before.

[cjp_piano]

Well actually you have to know how to perform well in order to sight read well. You cannot sight read patterns you have never seen or performed correctly before.

Really? I disagree. I've known people who don't perform very well but sight read very well, how do you explain that? Sure, it's more difficult to sight read a pattern you've never seen before, but that doesn't mean you had to have played that exact pattern in a performance before in order to sight read it.

[mcdiddy1]

Really? I disagree. I've known people who don't perform very well but sight read very well, how do you explain that? Sure, it's more difficult to sight read a pattern you've never seen before, but that doesn't mean you had to have played that exact pattern in a performance before in order to sight read it.

Well, it is simple. How do you play a rhythm pattern you have never played for. If I ask you to playa term you have never seen before, it is impossible. Same way you put a sheet of music in front of someone with no musical experience they wil have a blank look and not know what to do. After a year or so after music lessons they should have the tools to sight read because they develop the experience of performing a variety of rhythm and tonal patterns. The patterns do not have to be exact but the concept of playing eight notes vs quarters and high notes vs low notes should be understood so the player can figure it out in situations they are unfamiliar with.

Sight reading is a type of performance so I think the people you are talking about may underestimate their performing ability.You also have to taken account what level of difficult the music their sight reading vs performing. If you are performing something at a grade eight but sight read at a grade two or three its not logical to say your sight reading is better than your performance because they are at different levels. Also the level of which people judge performances then to be different.For most people missing a coupld notes maybe three or four is considered a poor performance while a sight reading people tend to be far more forgiving of errors considering they never played it before.

[cjp_piano]

Well, it is simple. How do you play a rhythm pattern you have never played for. If I ask you to playa term you have never seen before, it is impossible. Same way you put a sheet of music in front of someone with no musical experience they wil have a blank look and not know what to do. After a year or so after music lessons they should have the tools to sight read because they develop the experience of performing a variety of rhythm and tonal patterns. The patterns do not have to be exact but the concept of playing eight notes vs quarters and high notes vs low notes should be understood so the player can figure it out in situations they are unfamiliar with.

Yes, you're right. I agree that you can't really read patterns and things that you haven't learned yet, but that's why you practice sight reading and you learn terms and rhythms and notes and fingerings and patterns. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with PERFORMING. Someone might not EVER perform a piece but they can play fluidly and they can read lots of patterns and rhythms perfectly. What I meant was that I have students who don't perform very well (because of nerves or whatever) but they sight read pretty well, meaning that they keep the flow, get most of the notes, rhythms, etc.

Sight reading is a type of performance so I think the people you are talking about may underestimate their performing ability.You also have to taken account what level of difficult the music their sight reading vs performing. If you are performing something at a grade eight but sight read at a grade two or three its not logical to say your sight reading is better than your performance because they are at different levels.

Really? So you have your students who are a grade 8 performers sight read grade 8 pieces?! I thought it was well accepted that you practice sight reading BELOW your grade level. In fact, in our exams in the US they test sight reading 2 or 3 levels BELOW your performance level.

[mcdiddy1]

Yes, you're right. I agree that you can't really read patterns and things that you haven't learned yet, but that's why you practice sight reading and you learn terms and rhythms and notes and fingerings and patterns. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with PERFORMING. Someone might not EVER perform a piece but they can play fluidly and they can read lots of patterns and rhythms perfectly. What I meant was that I have students who don't perform very well (because of nerves or whatever) but they sight read pretty well, meaning that they keep the flow, get most of the notes, rhythms, etc.

Really? So you have your students who are a grade 8 performers sight read grade 8 pieces?! I thought it was well accepted that you practice sight reading BELOW your grade level. In fact, in our exams in the US they test sight reading 2 or 3 levels BELOW your performance level.

I agree with you except to me when you play infront of a teacher you are performing. Performing is merely executing an action. If you are talking about performing in the sense of playing in front of a large group of people then yes you are right you do not have to perform those patterns before in order to play it correctly. But the point is you have to have executed/performed the musical concepts in some aspect before you will be able to sight read it.

As far as sigh-treading grade levels, I make no claim my student sight read at that level or that most students necessarily should. I think it takes many years and very high level of skill to sight read at that level. My point was that students perception of how their performance compares to their sight reading skills often does not taken consideration difficulty level. Yes, you should sight read a level below you're playing level where you are performing but what I question is how objective they are being in sight-reading especially when there are different levels and different standards of acceptable or good. For example an inability to perform well  may reflect problems in reading or memory while students who are sight reading are aided by having the visual in front of them. Some students simply perform sight-reading better just because the notes are in front of them and they are not strong memorizers .

[timothy42b]

I don't think anyone is actually reading my original post, haha! I'm not talking about just sight reading and performing in general. I'm talking about hesitations, stutters, stopping/starting, basically the flow. 

I think you're on to something the others have missed, because of the nature of much beginning piano teaching.

What you're pointing out is that the act of playing, practicing, or sightreading in "real time" has significant benefits. 

The famous brass pedagog Carmen Caruso based much of his teaching theory on the idea of "timing it in."  Keeping a strict subdivided beat was his basis for teaching things as dissimilar as embouchure and breathing. 

Many other instruments - guitar for sure - spend more time in the beginning stages playing with others, playing with CDs, playing with metronomes, etc., and have a head start on really connecting music with time. 

[keypeg]

.....  to me when you play infront of a teacher you are performing. Performing is merely executing an action.

I know that I am taking this out of context, and I am also going off topic and into a new topic, but as a student this is very important.

When we play in front of a teacher, then we are working on our skills, or what we are doing with the piece, or a component of that piece, with that teacher.  It is a very important thing that I had to learn, and it is something that trips up older students especially.  If we think that we are performing and should create a beautiful work before the teacher, then it can create anxiety or frustration.  It also takes away from the purpose of working with a teacher.  I would like to have a different word for performing, and the type of thing you do when you play anything in front of a teacher.  I do understand what you have written in the present context.

[timothy42b]

When we play in front of a teacher, then we are working on our skills, or what we are doing with the piece, or a component of that piece, with that teacher.  It is a very important thing that I had to learn, and it is something that trips up older students especially.  If we think that we are performing and should create a beautiful work before the teacher, then it can create anxiety or frustration. 

"but I played it fine at home."

Anybody ever heard (or said) that?

And it's true.  Because you weren't performing (attempting to play with musicality) at home, and when you tried in front of the teacher, you couldn't do what you hadn't practiced.

Playing for the teacher SHOULD be performing, and so should practice at home.  And then this problem disappears. 

[cjp_piano]

"but I played it fine at home."

Anybody ever heard (or said) that?

And it's true.  Because you weren't performing (attempting to play with musicality) at home, and when you tried in front of the teacher, you couldn't do what you hadn't practiced.

Playing for the teacher SHOULD be performing, and so should practice at home.  And then this problem disappears. 

Playing for a teacher isn't necessarily performing. Most of the time, my students' pieces are works in progress, so they aren't really performing them for me, they're just practicing in front of me.

[keypeg]

Playing for a teacher isn't necessarily performing. Most of the time, my students' pieces are works in progress, so they aren't really performing them for me, they're just practicing in front of me.

I would not want to practice in front of a teacher either.  I want to work intelligently and with thought on what needs to be done next, where problems lie, what the root of the problem and solution is etc.  What I do in lessons does not resemble what I do when I perform, and it does not resemble what I do when I practice.  But what I practice is closely related to what has happened in a lesson.  I hope this makes sense.

[nyiregyhazi]

I know that I am taking this out of context, and I am also going off topic and into a new topic, but as a student this is very important.

When we play in front of a teacher, then we are working on our skills, or what we are doing with the piece, or a component of that piece, with that teacher.  It is a very important thing that I had to learn, and it is something that trips up older students especially.  If we think that we are performing and should create a beautiful work before the teacher, then it can create anxiety or frustration. 

But that's part of the basic necessity. If you can't perform well under pressure, something is wrong. That needs to be exposed and improved upon. If a piece is being worked on in segments it's different. But there's simply no purpose in even playing through a whole piece, unless it's treated as an attempt at a performance. If that's not yet ready, it would be wasting time to play right through, rather than work on smaller sections.

[nyiregyhazi]

"but I played it fine at home."

Anybody ever heard (or said) that?

And it's true.  Because you weren't performing (attempting to play with musicality) at home, and when you tried in front of the teacher, you couldn't do what you hadn't practiced.

Playing for the teacher SHOULD be performing, and so should practice at home.  And then this problem disappears. 

I don't think it's about musicality. It's just that doing something to an acceptable standard occasionally doesn't mean you truly know it yet. If they don't care about musicality at home, there's no reason why they should suddenly care when playing it through in the lesson, or why that would be the issue. Personally, I'd say that treating practise as performance is the biggest problem- not the solution. Students typically spend way too much time playing through pieces and not anywhere near enough time actually stopping to improve upon things.

[keypeg]

But that's part of the basic necessity. If you can't perform well under pressure, something is wrong. That needs to be exposed and improved upon. If a piece is being worked on in segments it's different. But there's simply no purpose in even playing through a whole piece, unless it's treated as an attempt at a performance. If that's not yet ready, it would be wasting time to play right through, rather than work on smaller sections.

When we are supposed to be working on a piece with a teacher, which is separate from performing it in front of the teacher, that is a different mode of working.  When we are learning a piece for the first time it will not be polished.  Trying to make it polished while working on it is counter-productive. Obviously if we are performing as in performing, even in front of a teacher, that is something else.

[timothy42b]

But that's part of the basic necessity. If you can't perform well under pressure, something is wrong. That needs to be exposed and improved upon. If a piece is being worked on in segments it's different. But there's simply no purpose in even playing through a whole piece, unless it's treated as an attempt at a performance. If that's not yet ready, it would be wasting time to play right through, rather than work on smaller sections.

Very well said. 

[keypeg]

Very well said. 

It does not address what I wrote, which is important.  If we practice each time as if it is a performance, instead of working on isolated things - whether problem areas or skills - then we will not be able to work out the piece TO  a good performance level.  If in lessons we think that every playing at a lesson must be an impressive performance, then we are not able to work effectively with a teacher.  This is a major misconception that many older students have, and it seriously hampers the ability to practice effectively, work with a teacher in the studio, and progress in a real way.

** Of course ** we have to also be able to perform, in the real sense of the word, in front of a teacher and in front of an audience.  But this is a different thing than working on a piece with a teacher, or working on skills with a teacher.  I don't think that what I wrote was understood.  The one is not related to the other.

If I perform in front of an audience and if I flub somewhere, I keep going, maybe even inventing notes if I have to in order to bridge back into the music.  If I notice a technical weakness in the middle of my playing, I let go of it and get through the piece however I know how.  I perform with the abilities that I have at that moment.  If I am *performing* in front of my teacher, especially if it is shortly before a performance, then I am also in "performance mode" and I try to make it sound good.

If I am working on a piece, for example, I might work on it in layers, first getting in the right notes and checking whether the fingering works.  I might get at a technique in stages.  While I am learning it doesn't matter that it sounds mechanical or unfinished - including during a lesson.  If I do the things I described above for performing, then it is not sound practicing or sound workng with a teacher in lessons.  If I notice a technical weakness, it SHOULD be addressed.  Inventing notes and going through the whole piece is NOT what I should do in practicing or working on a piece in a lesson.  There is a difference between performing, and even practicing a performance, and working on music and on skills.  Is that more clear?

[nyiregyhazi]

When we are supposed to be working on a piece with a teacher, which is separate from performing it in front of the teacher, that is a different mode of working.  When we are learning a piece for the first time it will not be polished.  Trying to make it polished while working on it is counter-productive. Obviously if we are performing as in performing, even in front of a teacher, that is something else.

I'm not sure if we have a very different definition of polishing, but this is exactly what good practice should lead towards, in my opinion. If no such process is taking place, I cannot see what is being achieved. Problems occur when attempting immediate performance without adequate preparation for it. But virtually 100% of practice should be geared towards polishing. The fact that this does not immediately happen by magic is exactly why it should be worked at from the very beginning. The best learners polish very quickly. They don't settle for doing things wrong, simply because they are not performing yet.

There are different levels of performance. There is full-on performance with extreme dynamic levels and shapes etc. and then there is "performance" that may be under tempo and with less exaggerated contours. It must have some sense of performance, or it typically involves tentatively prodding at notes that simply have not been genuinely learned. If a student plays to any less than that, they are not preparing properly. This is due to inadequate sense of how to prepare for performance. Such qualities should be there as early as possible- it's just important to be clear how to assemble them. If the student is not going about polishing such things in their practice, they do not have anything terribly worthwhile to show to their teacher. It's no use stopping and starting all over the place and thinking "it's okay, this is a work in progress". Far better to learn a single phrase well than stop and start everywhere. From the very beginning good learning is geared towards generating the capability to put together some sense of performance. When students lose sight of this, they allow flaws to stay that ought to have been fixed at once. Equally, if they practice as they perform, however, they are unlikely to be developing much. Practice is what prepares for performance- but if there's no sense of performance in the lesson, there's something badly wrong with what is happening in the practice.

The simplest way to summarise is to say that if something is unforgivable in performance, it's equally (if not more) unforgivable in proper practising. If a week cannot lead to an under-tempo dynamically understated performance (be it of a separate hand for four bars or of a whole piece), the student is being too forgiving in practice and ought to be aiming higher. A student should be proudly displaying what they have achieved, with confidence- not tentatively scraping through notes that they have not properly assembled.

[timothy42b]

A student should be proudly displaying what they have achieved, with confidence- not tentatively scraping through notes that they have not properly assembled.

Yes, exactly.

And the student who does not becomes the perpetual learner - the person who derives enormous satisfaction from the hard work he does in private, but will never play Happy Birthday in public. 

[cjp_piano]

I would not want to practice in front of a teacher either. 

Really? Wow. To me, this is one of the most important things I do with my students in our lessons together: practicing.

I want to work intelligently and with thought on what needs to be done next, where problems lie, what the root of the problem and solution is etc. 

Ok, so that's "practicing"

What I do in lessons does not resemble what I do when I perform, and it does not resemble what I do when I practice.  But what I practice is closely related to what has happened in a lesson.  I hope this makes sense.

No it doesn't make sense. So you have 3 different things: lessons, perform, practice. You said they don't resemble each other, but yet what you practice is related to the lesson? Confused I am.

[cjp_piano]

It's no use stopping and starting all over the place and thinking "it's okay, this is a work in progress". Far better to learn a single phrase well than stop and start everywhere.

Yes! Please tell my students, haha.

[mcdiddy1]

Really? Wow. To me, this is one of the most important things I do with my students in our lessons together: practicing.

Ok, so that's "practicing"

No it doesn't make sense. So you have 3 different things: lessons, perform, practice. You said they don't resemble each other, but yet what you practice is related to the lesson? Confused I am.

I think in piano lessons you have to learn elements of how to perform and practice. Ideally your teacher should show you how to practice effectively but not necessarily sit down and spend the lesson watching your practice. Once you know what to practice and how, it is the students job to apply that to their practice routine and observe the results and if the concepts have been learned. I think it may be a problem, although it depends on the level of student, to have an entire lesson devoted to only performing because you never learn to problem solve, isolate, identify errors etc. I think it is also a mistake to always practice in the lesson, because you are not able to see the piece in the big picture or practice " performing" the whole piece in its entirety. If you only practice a piece and you never perform it there is likely to be starts and stops because of a lack of continutty in the piece.

[cjp_piano]

I think in piano lessons you have to learn elements of how to perform and practice. Ideally your teacher should show you how to practice effectively but not necessarily sit down and spend the lesson watching your practice. Once you know what to practice and how, it is the students job to apply that to their practice routine and observe the results and if the concepts have been learned.

Yes, absolutely. I was really addressing keypeg's comment though, hence the quote.

And I never said the teacher should just watch the student practice, although, this is not a bad idea to do every once in a while. Or have them record their practice =)

I meant that most of what I do in lessons is practice WITH them. Then they know how to practice, and it becomes a habit for them. 

[keypeg]

It is important when discussing concepts to make sure both people are picturing the same thing.  What I perceive as "practice" may be different than what you perceive, CJP, and I don't know what happens in the lessons you teach, just like you don't know what happens in my lessons.  That should be straightened out before talking past each other.

Some examples:
In a recent lesson we worked on a technical issue.  I was feeling uncomfortable in the way I was trying to play certain chords in the lower register of the keyboard, and a there was a figure in the third beat of each measure that was a strain to play.  My teacher worked with me, saw what I was doing, suggested some other things, and guided me in how I was leaning on the bench, what I was doing with my hands, wrists, fingers.  When I got where I needed to be, he had me do this for long enough under his observation that we were both sure that I could do this at home.  We did some other things, but this was the main part.  It depends on what I'm learning.

In my practice at home, one of the things that I did was to work on these technicalities in the way I had been shown.  I did them separately, and then I applied them to that passage.  I break my practising into mini-sessions, each time focusing on something else.  It might be particular passages of the music, but it will also be an aspect: smooth fingering, or dynamics, or whatever.  Maybe 20 minutes on one thing, 40 minutes on another.  I'll be studying the music.  I'll be working with chords and inversions.  I may invent a mini-exercise to help with a difficult spot.   

The practicing does not resemble what I described in the lesson.  When you practice you have to do a thing long enough, and you vary the angles.  In a lesson you couldn't get at much if you went at it for as long as you do in practicing.  You are working with a teacher and learning how to do new things, or how to do things in a better way. Sometimes you are problem-solving.  In practicing you then spend time doing these things.  It is not the same activity.

About performance and practicing toward performance.  I am learning how to play the instrument and I am learning about music.  So in my learning phase, I may study chords, analyze the music, learn about the composer and the genre.  I may spend time learning how to do a good staccato.  I may take sections of music that are difficult and work only on them.  Obviously I won't perform that way.  I will not perform measures 25-27 played backward, followed by measures 2 - 7, with a break in between, with some time in between playing arpeggios in D major.  If I am practicing toward performance then I WILL play my piece from start to finish.  At this point I have whatever abilities that I have gained, and now I'm consolidating the piece.

I don't know if anyone else does things this way, but this is the kind of thing that I mean.  I don't think that I am alone, though I also think that there are at least a dozen variations of what people do.

** When you say the practicing is done in lessons and then at home, can you give an example of what kind of practicing you mean?

[keypeg]

I think in piano lessons you have to learn elements of how to perform and practice. Ideally your teacher should show you how to practice effectively but not necessarily sit down and spend the lesson watching your practice. Once you know what to practice and how, it is the students job to apply that to their practice routine and observe the results and if the concepts have been learned. I think it may be a problem, although it depends on the level of student, to have an entire lesson devoted to only performing because you never learn to problem solve, isolate, identify errors etc. I think it is also a mistake to always practice in the lesson, because you are not able to see the piece in the big picture or practice " performing" the whole piece in its entirety. If you only practice a piece and you never perform it there is likely to be starts and stops because of a lack of continutty in the piece.

Essentially that is where my thinking was going.

[matmilne]

Students that stumble their way through pieces and the sight reading probably did that because they were nervous about being examined.
it's important while both examining and tutoring a student to remember the disruptive effects that nerves have.

people who claim they're very good sight readers, are usually completely lost if you put a blank sheet of paper in front of them, or ask them to play a piece by ear.
playing what you see demands minimal connections between the eyes and hands. 
Doing anything else, such as improvising, writing music etc requires a whole memorization, music analysis and interpretation system, that tends to get in the way.

[nyiregyhazi]

Students that stumble their way through pieces and the sight reading probably did that because they were nervous about being examined.

In my experience, this is the exception, not the rule. I certainly don't discount these issues, but it's far truer to say that these things exaggerate the effects of insufficient familiarity, than to say that they cause a false impression of it.

people who claim they're very good sight readers, are usually completely lost if you put a blank sheet of paper in front of them, or ask them to play a piece by ear.

The implication being that nobody who can play by ear would ever claim themself to be a good sight-reader? Reading well does not prevent other skills developing and neither does good aural skill prevent good reading skills.

[cjp_piano]

When I got where I needed to be, he had me do this for long enough under his observation that we were both sure that I could do this at home.  . . .

In my practice at home, one of the things that I did was to work on these technicalities in the way I had been shown. 

Yes, that is what I mean when I say I practice with my students in the lesson so they know what to do at home.

** When you say the practicing is done in lessons and then at home, can you give an example of what kind of practicing you mean?

Your example would be similar, actually. We work on a section together so they know how to practice it at home. Obviously we don't do it with the whole piece, but they will end up doing the whole piece at home. So in that sense, the lesson is different than the practice. But it's mostly the same. For example, here's how we might practice a section together in the lesson:
 
1. figure out the RH melody
2. find the LH chords blocked slowly with no tempo or rhythm
3. combine the hands with LH blocked still
4. be able to play it in a steady tempo
5. work on the LH broken chord pattern by itself
6. put it back with the RH
7. be able to play it in a steady tempo comfortably

They will repeat this process at home when they practice. But not just for this section, for all the sections. I teach mostly children and mostly beginners to intermediate. Obviously if I had a student like you, KEYPEG, it would be more like how YOU described, where you would do more different things at home 

[pianoplayjl]

Students who performed with some hesitations, stutters, and stops/starts also stuttered, hesitated and stopped and started with the sight reading. They usually went too fast and didn't keep the tempo.

But students who played more fluidly with a steady tempo and played through missed notes easily did much better at sight reading, keeping the tempo, going slow, etc.

I noticed that pattern during my examination. Or kind of. I htink there is no pattern between goood pianists/bad pianists and good/bad sight-readers. It is all just coincidence and just a phenomena.

JL

[peddidle]

I was just thinking about this the other day while I was playing. I've only very recently started playing again (less than a week ago). The music books I have are ones I had when I stopped taking lessons over 20 years ago and ones I had when I briefly tinkered with the piano about 10 years ago. In an effort to figure out what I remember or don't remember and what my comfort level is, I've been sight reading a lot of music. Right away I noticed that I was hesitating and stuttering. Not because I had the wrong note--90% of the time I did--but because I didn't have the confidence to hit it. I think confidence would have a lot to do with how someone performed, both with a piece they knew and with one they had to sight read.

[timothy42b]

I noticed that pattern during my examination. Or kind of. I htink there is no pattern between goood pianists/bad pianists and good/bad sight-readers. It is all just coincidence and just a phenomena.

JL

I disagree.  I think the phenomenon noticed by the OP is real, and the connecting factor is time.  Those who practice, play, and perform (whew!) in strict rhythm, in "real time" at all times even if it is a very slow tempo, are able to both perform and sightread with fluidity.

The other 99% of students do not and will not succeed. 

Hesitation destroys learning.  Hesitation is easily learned and constantly reinforced.  The earlier a student can get past it the better.  Maybe they should all start as instrumentalists playing in an ensemble before being allowed to touch a piano. 

[nyiregyhazi]

I disagree.  I think the phenomenon noticed by the OP is real, and the connecting factor is time.  Those who practice, play, and perform (whew!) in strict rhythm, in "real time" at all times even if it is a very slow tempo, are able to both perform and sightread with fluidity.

The other 99% of students do not and will not succeed.  

Hesitation destroys learning.  Hesitation is easily learned and constantly reinforced.  The earlier a student can get past it the better.  Maybe they should all start as instrumentalists playing in an ensemble before being allowed to touch a piano.  

It's really not that simple. I encounter a wealth of students who are so stuck in forcing things onward, that they never really notice what they are doing (hence very little listening or musical control) and who frequently take wild guesses at notes. I often encourage students to play with no rhythm whatsoever- sometimes to begin with and especially to deal with a passage where something is not working. When practising it's better to take as long as desired, than to have a tiny pause followed by a sense of trying to catch up. However, I insist that as soon as they have understood and felt what is going on, the rhythm must be reinstated at once- not as a gradual addition.

Good students have the choice between feeling their way around independently of metre and playing in good rhythm. They don't get stuck in a single way of thinking. Continually working without rhythm leaves no sense of pulse, but obsessing over meter often leads to little attention being paid to phrase or sound. There's a sense of physical continuity that is most easily achieved in free time, but should also be passed over into stricter playing. Students who do not make the most of freer styles of practise often end up with less sense of physical flow and continuity. Feeling permanently bound to going onwards often results in many poor quality emergency movements- unless balanced with freer practise to develop the "feel" for smooth physical connections. Ironically, I'd even say that inability to let go and thoughtfully feel your way around (separately from meter) contributes to the uncertainty that causes stuttering. Those who are too concerned with going onwards cause their inability to do so.

[timothy42b]

Good students have the choice between feeling their way around independently of metre and playing in good rhythm. They don't get stuck in a single way of thinking. Continually working without rhythm leaves no sense of pulse, but obsessing over meter often leads to little attention being paid to phrase or sound.

Perhaps so for good students on piano.  I don't have the experience to contradict you.  (on wind instruments I would have to differ)

I do think for beginners it is disastrous to work freely, and these are the people most likely to do so.

then we come to organists.  Sigh.   

[nyiregyhazi]

Perhaps so for good students on piano.  I don't have the experience to contradict you.  (on wind instruments I would have to differ)

I do think for beginners it is disastrous to work freely, and these are the people most likely to do so.

I think the enemy is to be almost in rhythm- but not. Especially if it involves rushing easy bits. However, to play every note long and concentrate on connections is always useful. It's about differentiating between doing a rhythm wrongly and simply not having any rhythm whatsoever. Only the former is a bad thing. The latter gives the preparation that enables rhythm to be executed with confidence, rather than with sudden emergency movements.

[flyinfingers]

I would love to practice for my teacher!  Hope it happens SOON!  AND I'm going to be addressing this sight-reading issue with my new teacher, as I would like to become more educated about this.

[cjp_piano]

I noticed that pattern during my examination. Or kind of. I htink there is no pattern between goood pianists/bad pianists and good/bad sight-readers. It is all just coincidence and just a phenomena.

JL

Just coincidence? So you think there is NO correlation between how you sight read and how you perform? Those who sight reading slowly and steadily keeping it fluent and getting all the rhythms, that's not going to help them perform steadily and fluently?

Students who perform steadily and fluently, not letting tiny mistakes stop them, they aren't going to sight read steadily and fluently?

[pianoplayjl]

Just coincidence? So you think there is NO correlation between how you sight read and how you perform? Those who sight reading slowly and steadily keeping it fluent and getting all the rhythms, that's not going to help them perform steadily and fluently?

Students who perform steadily and fluently, not letting tiny mistakes stop them, they aren't going to sight read steadily and fluently?

Yes I think it is just coincidence. Maybe the poor performers in other Piano competitions may do so well in sight reading because they practice mainly sight reading instead of practicing and good performers who did bad at sight reading because of spending endless hours with pieces. But perhaps at your piano competition, a good performer may be bolstered by her good performance and has confidence? I dunno. Maybe the piano competition you judged did not have enough people with diverse skills.

JL

[cjp_piano]

Yes I think it is just coincidence. Maybe the poor performers in other Piano competitions may do so well in sight reading because they practice mainly sight reading instead of practicing and good performers who did bad at sight reading because of spending endless hours with pieces. But perhaps at your piano competition, a good performer may be bolstered by her good performance and has confidence? I dunno. Maybe the piano competition you judged did not have enough people with diverse skills.

JL

No, I think you misunderstood, I wasn't saying that the bad performers sight read well and the good performers did poorly at sight reading, I was saying there WAS a correlation. The ones who performed fluently and kept the pulse, also did so with sight reading. The ones who had hiccups and hesitations also did so with the sight reading. I don't think this was a coincidence.

[pianoplayjl]

No I think you misunderstood. I wasn't saying that bad performers sight read well, I was saying that maybe they do, maybe they don't. I was saying MAYBE in other piano competitions the bad performers may do good in sight reading. I think it is just coincidence. When I did my exam I did REALLY well in my pieces but stuffed up the sight reading that led my marks reduced. How do explain that? Certainly in my opinion the examiner was very menacing when I first looked at him.

JL

[keypeg]

Yes, that is what I mean when I say I practice with my students in the lesson so they know what to do at home.

Your example would be similar, actually. We work on a section together so they know how to practice it at home. Obviously we don't do it with the whole piece, but they will end up doing the whole piece at home. So in that sense, the lesson is different than the practice. But it's mostly the same. For example, here's how we might practice a section together in the lesson:
 
1. figure out the RH melody
2. find the LH chords blocked slowly with no tempo or rhythm
3. combine the hands with LH blocked still
4. be able to play it in a steady tempo
5. work on the LH broken chord pattern by itself
6. put it back with the RH
7. be able to play it in a steady tempo comfortably

They will repeat this process at home when they practice. But not just for this section, for all the sections. I teach mostly children and mostly beginners to intermediate. Obviously if I had a student like you, KEYPEG, it would be more like how YOU described, where you would do more different things at home 

Sorry, I meant to reply earlier but got snowed under with work.  Well, I suspected that we only had a difference in the meaning of words, and that turned out to be the case.  For what you described, when I had lessons as a beginner they were similar to this though there were difference simply from it being a different instrument.  Later when I learned more about practicing and setting goals, that changed so that a little bit in lesson time went a long time in practicing at home.