Sight Reading

[mooticus]

I am studying for my grade 3 performance exam but I am not confident about my sight reading capabilities. It seems to be far behind my other skills. How much should I practice. Iam very frustrated at the moment

HELP

[melaladi]

I've found that reading ragtime, especially Joplin has really strengthened my sight-reading abilities. I have a book of all of his works, and I usually will play a piece for about a week and then move on. This has worked very well for me. The ones in unusual key signatures are quite helpful.

[mooticus]

Thanks for your reply. I really like Scott Joplin and I played a simplified version of the entertainer for my grade 2. I also have a couple of versions of maple leaf rag. I will give it a try.

[quantum]

Get a hymn book and start reading through it.  Work on the SATB hymns.  You can use different combinations of the voices to practice your sightreading:
Right: S, Left: B
Right solo: SA
Left solo: TB
Right: S, Left: AT (reading both staves with the single hand)
Right: SAB (modified), Left: T descant above Right (Hands crossed, tenor line is the highest)
Right: T, Left: SAB modified (Tenor descant in Right hand)
Right: SAT, Left: B (keyboard style with Bass in octaves)
Right: SA, Left: TB

[jayeckz]

My parents made me learn piano since I was 3ish.  I can remember absolutely hating the piano from age 8 and quitting multiple times.

When I first became interested in piano (the internet led me to recordings which kindled my interested), I was unable to read music even after 13 years of lessons on and off.  I was unable to read bass clef even though I was 16!  I learned everything by ear and by looking at the key patterns on the piano when my piano teacher would play.  Now, I can pretty much sight read many classical works near performance tempo (think Mozart/Beethoven/Schubert) if they don't challenge me technically.  If I'm very familiar with a classical piece that won't give me technical difficulties I can probably perform it at first sight.

I mention this so I can emphasize that I clearly remember how I developed my sight reading skills.

I'll only type my first suggestion (of many) because I'm lazy and I don't know how useful they'll be to you.  If you want more just speak up and I'll give you more suggestions .

Suggestion #1:  Pay utmost attention to rhythm; even more so than all the notes.

What initially attracted me to piano music was the beauty of the piano.  I was more interested in making good sounds rather than actually playing the pieces.  I completely disregarded rhythm.  In reality, hitting wrong notes or even leaving out notes can be forgiven if rhythm is maintained.  In fact most uninformed listeners probably won't even notice anything is missing/wrong if your rhythm is really good and you hit the notes that matter.

[jayeckz]

Wait, is your goal to actually learn to really sight read or learn to sight read for the exam?

I would approach these two goals very differently.

I actually scored perfect on my sight reading portion in NYSSMA level 6 although my sight reading was god awful (this was when I only knew 3-4 notes in the base clef) and I didn't know most musical notation.  I was just coached properly.

What music exam are you taking?  You should be able to get a sample of works that you'll be required to sight read.  There will probably be huge limitations on the rhythms, the range of notes, the number of incidentals, and the keys you may have to play in.

I've recently looked at the ABRSM syllabus to answer another post and here's my advice based on ABRSM's syllabus (this will apply to many graded music exams):
1) Look at the syllabus if you have one.
2) Study the rhythms you'll be expected to play.  The best practice for this is to count out loud while you pay.  Your goal is to get acquainted with the rhythmic patterns.
3) Study the keys you'll be responsible for knowing by practicing chords, scales, and arpeggios.

[quantum]

This book may be helpful:
https://www.amazon.com/Super-Sight-Reading-Secrets-Innovative-Step-By-Step/dp/0961596309

Also playing ensemble pieces is excellent for sight reading.  As this music occurs with multiple musicians, you are required to prioritize elements in the score and focus on keeping rhythm synced with all players. 

[jayeckz]

It seems that the book is out of print.

I would avoid buying it. 

Here's a link to a pdf of the book!

[nickadams]

I've been trying to learn sight reading for a while now and I find it really difficult to look ahead in the music. People always recommend to keep the rhythm going even if you mess up, but my mistakes caused by trying to look ahead always always result in me losing track of where I am in the music which makes it impossible to keep the rhythm going.


Any advice?

[j_menz]

Any advice?

Don't sweat the reading ahead too much. It's overrated, and will just happen anyway as your sightreading improves.

[wildman]

If I'm very familiar with a classical piece that won't give me technical difficulties I can probably perform it at first sight.

Sorry if this annoys you, but I can't imagine someone performing while just reading the notes. I know you can play it and all, but it takes a lot of time to turn a chart into a piece of art. 

[mooticus]

Firstly thanks to all of the replies to my initial cry for help. A lot,of what I have heard sounds familiar. It seems common sight reading problems are indeed COMMON.
To answer a few questions I want to be a proficient sight reader but not just for exams. I am not saying that sight reading is the upmost of piano technique but I hope it will broaden my repertoire as I get to retirement age (I'm 43). I am using a series of books by Paul Harris called improve your sight reading, level 3 at the moment. I do have trouble with counting when playing. Counting out loud helps but I still go wrong OFTEN. !!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks Again

[jayeckz]

Let's start with my original post.

If I'm very familiar with a classical piece that won't give me technical difficulties I can probably perform it at first sight.

Just to be clear:

1) "classical piece" means classical period as in Haydn/Mozart/etc.
2) "very familiar" means that I've at the very least followed the score while listening to the work many, many times (sometimes I obsess with a work and listen to a work played by every performer I can find, although this hasn't happened to a classical period piece for many years).

Sorry if this annoys you

Why would I be annoyed?  Like you, I come on these forums to have a discussion .

but I can't imagine someone performing while just reading the notes.

Well, I'm going to blow your mind!

I've seen my former teacher sight read Bach WTC fugues that he never played.  Sure, he used more pedal than I would have liked and had odd phrasing and voicing here and there, but his playing was still enjoyable.  I'm 100% positive he may have examined the scores and had prior exposure to the works, but he claimed to never have played a key of the works until that day.

Another day, for fun I printed out a bunch of random works. Surprisingly he claimed to have already studied and practiced all but one of the pieces I printed out - Prok's Op. 11.  He said he heard the piece in high school and was interested in looking at it.  He started reading; until the 4th page, minus a few breaks in tempo when his hands crossed over for relatively big leaps, I promise you that you would have thought he thoroughly studied the work.  For the record, I was extremely familiar with the work and he didn't fake anything until the 4th page where he started leaving out notes.

My former teacher probably is an exception especially since he's Juilliard trained and claimed to be an exceptional sight reader even amongst his classmates.

For me what's more surprising is that he claimed his teacher at Juilliard can pretty much perform anything in the standard repertoire at first sight if there's time to skim and analyze.  I would assume a Juilliard faculty member's repertoire is probably immense, so there's not much that's in the standard repertoire he hasn't played before.

I know you can play it and all

The number of different conceptions on what it means to "play" something exceeds the number of people in the world.

For me, when I say someone can "play" a piece, I mean that someone can give a performance that is or seems to be musically thought out regardless of whether or the performance conforms to accepted norms.

Going back to my former post, my definition of being very familiar implies that I have fully formed musical ideas of the works.  All I have to do is execute.  I already know how the work sounds, I know what I want to do, I stated there are no technical difficulties so therefore I can do everything required of me to perform the work, and I have the notes in front of me. How could anyone not give a convincing performance in situations like this?

but it takes a lot of time to turn a chart into a piece of art. 

A bit pretentious aren't we?

According to you, a vital factor for producing a piece of art is time.  I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with you...

What is objectively a piece of art?

According to Britannica Online, art is the "use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others."  Therefore, my performance no matter how repulsive it is to you, is still art.

My god I was really bored!