Why is Bach so difficult to sight read?

[larapool]

My professor has been trying to get me to sight-read the Well-Tempered Clavier Book 1 to practice my sight reading, as I haven't fully learned any pieces from the WTC (either book).  The only piece I can play with confidence is the Prelude No. 1 in C Major, which is incredibly simple.

But after attempting to sight read the Preludes in G, D, A, and E Major, I just become overwhelmed and exhausted and don't feel like it's doing me any good.  I tried sight reading First Lessons in Bach which wasn't a breeze but wasn't nearly this challenging, either.

I am practicing three Chopin pieces (Op. 34 No. 2 waltz in A minor, Op. 28 No. 15 Raindrop prelude, and constantly refining Op. 9 No. 2 nocturne in Eb major) as well as the first movement of Beethoven's Pathetique sonata.  Yet when I try to sight-read Bach, I feel hopeless and just want to give up.  I end up playing the pieces at such a slow tempo that it just feels robotic and monotonous (though I feel that about Bach's music most of the time anyway...  I think Scarlatti is 10x more musical and enjoyable).

Maybe I should just try to sight-read Scarlatti pieces instead?  He seems to be as technical and gifted as Bach, yet his music seems to be less mechanical and more musical/fun...

[worov]

Bach is robotic and monotonous ? You certainly haven't listen enough to him. It might be robotic when you play it, but certainly not when I hear his music played by favourite performers.

Clearly, you don't seem to know what Bach is about. It's very different from romantic music. Listen to his non keyboard music and you'll understand him better.

Check out this and tell if this is  robotic and monotonous :

Now, listen again to this G minor prelude (BWV 861) is monotonous :

Now, back to sight-reading. If you're at sight-reading chords, give a try to prelude in Eb minor (BWV 853). It's really beautiful and technically not that hard.

BWV 853 :

If you can't see the beauty in these works, I can't do anything for you.

[keyboardclass]

Why is Bach so difficult to sight read? Because much of the art is in the fingering and that takes a lot of consideration.

[quantum]

I think there is an element of cognitive and kinesthetic familiarity that comes with the territory of sight reading Bach.  Indeed both J.S. Bach and D. Scarlatti are both notable composers in the canon of keyboard music.  They were born the same year, yet lent their own unique voice to the keyboard and the development of its technique.  

The Beethoven and Chopin pieces you are studying are entirely a different style of writing.  Bach is more polyphonic, often focusing on the horizontal line.  Just as one becomes familiar with the Bass-chord-chord accompanimental idiom of Chopin waltzes, one can also become familiar with the keyboard idioms present in Bach's keyboard writing.  Sight reading Bach can be a challenge if one is also struggling to get the fingers to navigate the figuration of the music.

The WTC contains material that is of similar or greater playing difficulty than the pieces you are currently studying.  If you find this too difficult at the moment, try some easier pieces in similar style.  

See the works of Johann Kaspar Ferdinand Fischer.

The keyboard works of Pachelbel.

Get a book of the J.S. Bach chorales. These present you with Bach's treatment of harmony in a style with more vertical organization.  


When you are sight reading, don't just go for notes.  Make an attempt to understand what the music is saying, before you play with your fingers.  It is often our lack of understanding, not our inability to execute a task, that bogs down our playing.  

[larapool]

quantum, thank you very much for your input.  I will have to check those out.

worov, I understand Bach is completely different from Romantic era composers.  Baroque music is a whole different beast.  However, as musical preference varies from person to person, I feel a little insulted being told that I don't understand what he's about, or that I'm somehow helpless if I can't understand his music.  I have listened to more than just inventions or preludes -- his chorale music is truly beautiful, but his keyboard works particularly (I should have specified that at first) just strike me as robotic, mechanical pieces of music, even when performed by great pianists.  I have a much greater passion for Romantic era music, Chopin and Beethoven especially, so I gravitate towards that type of musical expression much more than Baroque's, although I absolutely respect and appreciate the technicality of it all.

[brogers70]

Larapol,

Bach is hard to sight read, no doubt. If you don't like his keyboard music, play something else, no problem. But if you have to play it you might enjoy it more if you think of it vocally or orchestrally. Chopin wrote piano music, Bach (and to a lesser extent Beethoven) just wrote music. So in the same way that you might think of Beethoven Sonata Op 14 in E major as feeling like a string quartet, you can think of different Bach keyboard pieces as vocal or orchestral. For example, the C# minor fugue from WTC I, seems really like a choral section of a Mass. When I start working on it in a few months, I'll break it down into individual voices and sing them all and think about it vocally. On the other hand, in the Ab P&F from WTC I, I hear a Baroque string orchestra, so when I work on the bass line I imagine I'm a Baroque cello with loosely strung, curved bow. There's no need for the keyboard music to sound mechanical and robotic just because a harpsichord cannot do crescendo and diminuendo. I'm sure that in Bach's mind he wasn't just hearing an even, measured tinkling sound.

[larapool]

brogers, that's food for thought - thank you!  I'll definitely have to approach it that way next time.

Last night I had my lesson and I asked my professor about this - he recommended Czerny's School of Velocity.  I took a stab at a couple pieces in there and it was *much* more manageable while still being a little challenging, definitely more on my level.  I will be picking up a copy of this to run through!

[worov]

worov, I understand Bach is completely different from Romantic era composers.  Baroque music is a whole different beast.  However, as musical preference varies from person to person, I feel a little insulted being told that I don't understand what he's about, or that I'm somehow helpless if I can't understand his music. I have listened to more than just inventions or preludes -- his chorale music is truly beautiful, but his keyboard works particularly (I should have specified that at first) just strike me as robotic, mechanical pieces of music, even when performed by great pianists.  I have a much greater passion for Romantic era music, Chopin and Beethoven especially, so I gravitate towards that type of musical expression much more than Baroque's, although I absolutely respect and appreciate the technicality of it all.



Thank you for your answer. First of all, I want to apologize. It was not my intention to offend you.

Let's see this from a different point of view.

I have listened to many works of Arnold Schoenberg, in many recordings by different performers. Though I don't get him, I don't see what  the composer is trying to say. When I listen to this music, it doesn't move me. I wouldn't call it robotic or monotonous, but I would say I don't know what the piece is about.

Does this make Schoenberg a lesser composer ? Certainly not. Hell, I'm not an authority. The man had a great influence of many of the composers of the 20th century (and some of them are among my favourite). So it is certainly a major composer.

This means that I am unable to appreciate the works of a very important composer. Does this make me less smarter ? No, because enjoying music is all about taste.

However I hope I will enjoy the music of Schoenberg someday. As I hope you will enjoy Bach's keyboard works someday. (Check out those Goldberg variations, it's incredible !)

In my younger years, I was in in the same shoes. I wasn't too fond of Bach. I didn't his chorale music back then. I only knew the WTC. But I was told that practicing Bach was very good for technique. So I did practiced his music. I was pretty reluctant to it, but i did it anyway. It was indeed good for technique. It did some marvels for my fingers, but it did so much more. By practicing it, I came to love this music. And today I 'm glad I did. I can't get enough of it. I always come back to it. In fact, he became my favourite composer.

Brogers70 has a very good advice. To study a Bach piece in this method is a very good idea. Check out this CD, it could help :

https://www.amazon.com/Bach-Fugues-Emerson-String-Quartet/dp/B0011WMWV6


his chorale music is truly beautiful

I'm glad you enjoy it. He composed lots of chorale music. You have plenty of music to listen there. Masses, cantatas, oratorios...

I encourage you to study the Scarlatti sonatas. He is a very underrated and underplayed composer. And his music, as Bach's music, happen to be very good for technique.

I don't know about Karl Czerny, I have never listened to his music or played it.

Again, sorry, I didn't mean to upset you.

[larapool]

No worries worov, I wasn't all that upset!  Thank you very much for the helpful post.