Sight Reading- Not stopping to correct mistakes?

[nyiregyhazi]

In recent years, through observation and discussion with musicians more advanced than I, I have changed my mind.  I have come to think that the skill based portion is far less important than the memory retrieval function (after the pure beginner stage of course.)  

How do you explain people who read atonal music? Without wishing to sound boastful, I can do a half-decent job of playing music that contains chromatic configurations I have never encountered before. How can you say sight-reading is all about something that provides no rational means of supporting such skills (which countless pianists have to a far greater level than myself)?

If you wish to imply my stance is the one that comes from a closed-mind, I think you'll need to have a pretty strong answer to that question. If sightreading were all about only playing hymns with simplistic chord structures in C major, your memory recollection theory might stand up. Good sightreaders go a world beyond that, however, and there is no plausible explanation other than having adequate foundation skills to reliably derive unfamiliar components from their constituent parts.

It only takes a single counter-example to disprove a theory. Seeing as a pianist who is lost with atonal music cannot be classified as a "good" sightreader, it's fair to say that all good sightreaders must necessarily be capable of rapidly deriving things by processing details- not merely by remembering things. The latter depicts an average but very limited sightreader- who needs to develop better fundamentals (that will enable unfamiliar patterns to be instantly deduced) in order to become more versatile.

[p2u_]

I didn't get the impression that he was talking about depth of interpretation. If so, we're talking about issues that are not specific to sight-reading, but rather to interpretation in general.

That's actually one of the things I implied when I wrote "One can never sight-read beyond the level of rehearsed performance". To my mind, this is indeed one of the factors that may limit the fluent sight-reading experience. Put something in classic or romantic style before me and I play it fluently and with style. Put something contemporary or atonal before me, and I paralyze to such level, that even "twinkle twinkle little star" becomes a challenge. I have great difficulty accepting that idiom with my ears. "Must be wrong" associations. Besides, being a perfectionist by nature works against me as an extra factor.

How do you explain people who read atonal music? Without wishing to sound boastful, I can do a half-decent job of playing music that contains chromatic configurations I have never encountered before. How can you say sight-reading is all about something that provides no rational means of supporting such skills (which countless pianists have to a far greater level than myself)?

So, if I understand the expression "a half-decent job" correctly, how would you characterize the difference between you and those who are better at reading that kind of music? Are you worse with the details than they are (weaker fundamental skills), or have you not played as much atonal music as they have?

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

So, if I understand the expression "a half-decent job" correctly, how would you characterize the difference between you and those who are better at reading that kind of music? Are you worse with the details than they are, or have you not played as much atonal music as they have?

Well, I'm not among those who can happily rattle off dense 20th century music, either at sight after just a few hours of work. However, I can read totally unfamiliar harmonies with accuracy and relatively quickly- just not to the level some people can. I don't perceive myself calculating detail when I do so- but there's no other rational explanation for how I could have done it. If I didn't have the ability to derive things rapidly from scratch (without recourse to memory of similar chunks) I wouldn't be playing them straight off.

In fairness, even the experts tend to do a lot more faking here than in tonal music. However, how much are they really guessing? Would Messiaen (who could hear even the smallest errors) have accepted 70% accuracy? To get even 50%, you have to process enormous levels of detail. To get 100%, you have to miss virtually nothing. I know that there are pianists who can easily do that at sight (in advanced atonal music, if not in sorabji levels of difficulty) , so to put all sight-reading down to mere recollection of chunks is to grossly miss the point. Chunks are perceived due to an eye for detail. It's not recollection of chunks that implies detail, but the very opposite. Those who perceive chunks are masters of reading detail.

I'm certainly not among those like John Ogdon, who could play insane things fantastically at first sight. However, my point is that memory retrieval INSTEAD of ultra-advanced foundation principles of reading is a rational impossibility. Even in Liszt's consolations, you need to perceive every note of most chords to play with proper accuracy. They're not going to look familiar enough to remember from elsewhere, if you've never seen the piece before.

Regarding interpretation- I think it's a very interesting issue, but I think it's too complex for detailed rational analysis. I'm interested in the nuts and bolts side of things, largely because I think it's so extraordinarily open to productive analysis. While there's nothing I hate more than hearing notes just read off in a dead way, I think there's less room for using objective principles to understand how to better develop this area.

[j_menz]

I think that there is probably a combination of pattern recognition and reading the details. In my own case, there are composers who I simply find easier to read than others even though I would not class their pieces as actually easier to play after a bit of practice.  That is even true of composers I am tackling for the first time, though generally new composers are more difficult to start with (until I get a bit of a handle on the way they think). That would suggest that the patterns are not simply notational, but also musical - a certain predictability for want of a better expression.

For atonal pieces, I have to say I struggle more for most of them, though not always. I'm not generally a great fan of atonal stuff (though there are plenty of exceptions to that), and some of it makes no sense at all to me. If it makes no sense, I find it quite difficult to read, not least because the sounds coming from the keyboard give little guide to me as to whether they are correct, and there is no musical flow to guide me as to what might be coming up.

[nyiregyhazi]

I think that there is probably a combination of pattern recognition and reading the details.

Absolutely agreed- but I'd just add that pattern recognition is rarely less than 100% dependent on processing the details- assuming that the pianist plays the chords as spelled out to them, as opposed to merely vamping on the right harmony. In that sense, pattern recognition is what comes BECAUSE of reading details- not an alternative. Although the hand will be more used to finding certain chords than others, the eyes still have to process the information. Any single change to the chord makes would have made a totally different pattern, so every individual note must have registered to identify it. I think the difference is merely that a simple chord is a lot easier to decode than one that is comprised of various intervals and which contains unpredictable accidentals. For a good reader this makes familiar chords seem like mere recognition of big unit at once- but such ease of access is only available to those with sound enough fundamentals to rapidly (and usually unknowingly) process the intervals that create it in the very first instant of looking.

[nickadams]

Hi Everyone, OP here!

The lively debate ITT is very interesting-- if a little above my music level. Thanks to the following people for directly applicable tips. I would love to get some more of this type of advice that is understandable to a beginner and can be immediately  put into practice.

Timothy42b gave the tip of:
Keep the pulse absolutely steady (use a metronome) and repeat the mistake as many times a s necessary.  Say you're playing along quarter notes in 4/4 and you hit a wrong note or chord.  You hit the F instead of the E, in the example you mentioned.  Play that F four times in strict rhythm while you prepare to correct it, play the E correctly on the right beat and move on.  Don't let ANYTHING interrupt the flow or slow the beat.

Theodore recommended:
When sight reading with both hands, and upon making a mistake, say on beat one, I stop and then count out (silently) the remainder of the measure.  I immediately repeat the measure where I made the mistake, continue on with the next measure.

Pianoplayjl endorses:
Whenever I get stuck or make a mistake I just simply skip 2 or 3 notes.

[nickadams]

I asked the question of the OP, because only when we know what he is after - which starts with him knowing what he is after - can his question be answered in a sensible way.  But in this whole thread, the person asking the question has not popped up once.  Did anyone notice?

Sorry about that keypeg! My goal is to be able to haul out any score, look at it, and play something instantly that the soloist or a choir can play/sing with. Although I probably won't reach that goal, it's still the direction I want to go.

I don't care much about perfecting pieces; I just want to have great internal rhythm and the ability to play new music prima vista. Currently I am horrible at both those things.

[mcdiddy1]

Sorry about that keypeg! My goal is to be able to haul out any score, look at it, and play something instantly that the soloist or a choir can play/sing with. Although I probably won't reach that goal, it's still the direction I want to go.

I don't care much about perfecting pieces; I just want to have great internal rhythm and the ability to play new music prima vista. Currently I am horrible at both those things.

You shouldn't be so pessimistic about reaching your goal. I think sight-reading is skill that can be learned by anyone with reasonable mental coordination. My advice is just to broaden your perspective and and work on creating reasonable goals. Sometimes we can achieve goals not by going after it directly but my developing a host of other skills that feed into it. For example learning to perfect pieces is skill that will raise your overall skill level. When you learn things half way or incomplete your playing becomes unclear and unrefined and not reaching your potential. Having mental fortitute to finish a piece completely and playing at a high level is an important part of performance and sight-reading is an instant performance.

People who say you do not need listening skills when you are playing are mistaken. Sight-reading is as much a listening skill as well as a visual one. Pianist who sight read are looking ahead and anticipating sounds and evaluating all the time. For example if you see a G major scale and play an F natural the first time, you hear the error ( you certainly generally do not have the time to look back or look at your hands to see what you missed) and then you correct the error the next time you may have to play it. Like nyiregyhazi said, you also need to have fundamental skills developed in your playing to be successful at sight reading. Playing with a stead beat is a skill you either have or you do not. You can build that by working with your repertoire pieces but you need to have a source of reference to play music with correct timing.

My point is you want to develop your musicianship skills to eventually get to the goal of sight-reading. It is not practical to want to learn how to correctly sight-read  without trying to improve in all aspects of being a musician like keeping a stead-beat, listening skills, technical skill etc. If you increase your skill level then music on a lower level becomes much easier to sight read. If you can play through Beethoven Sonatas then Czerny etudes become easier to sight read. When you can play through Chopin etudes , then most choral pieces and hymns become fairly easy to play. There is no short-cut to sight-reading just a gradual of build up of skills and pattern recognition until most pieces are fair easy read from practice

[nyiregyhazi]

My point is you want to develop your musicianship skills to eventually get to the goal of sight-reading. It is not practical to want to learn how to correctly sight-read  without trying to improve in all aspects of being a musician like keeping a stead-beat, listening skills, technical skill etc. If you increase your skill level then music on a lower level becomes much easier to sight read. If you can play through Beethoven Sonatas then Czerny etudes become easier to sight read. When you can play through Chopin etudes , then most choral pieces and hymns become fairly easy to play. There is no short-cut to sight-reading just a gradual of build up of skills and pattern recognition until most pieces are fair easy read from practice

This ought to be true (and usually is to at least some extent), but it's really not a given. I used to know a guy who could play Ondine, yet could barely sightread grade 1 pieces. It's all about whether a pianist routinely uses reading skills in his practise, or simply memorises and then neglects them.  

Personally, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the foundations skills for sightreading should be developed largely in the most standard day to day practise- not merely as a separate exercise. If the right thought processes occur during learning of pieces, I think that sightreading really will develop significantly simply due to the natural process of becoming a better pianist. The problem is that many people do not read carefully or base their thinking processes on it during regular practise, but instead ride on habits. This can be addressed with exercises such as playing with one finger, playing passages with the wrong hand or saying every letter out loud. You have to force yourself to actually process the information on the page, rather than remember it from before. For me, the first thing to do is to understand learned pieces properly in relation to the score- not merely to play them via physical habit. When "sightreading", it's different in that you have to let go and fake a few more bits. However, the fundamental procedures of reading and associating a movement to the requirements should not feel any different to when you read a piece that has been learned.

[nyiregyhazi]

In fact, this might sound odd, but I'd even say that you can learn core skills BETTER by learning to think the right way in pieces that are being learned, than in unfamiliar material. At first sight, you must drop below your level of technique- or do a lot of guesswork (that weaken the opportunity to form strong associations between a notation and the corresponding execution). When playing more difficult stuff that you have some prior memory of, if you force yourself to make associations between all the individual details on a score and all the individual fingers, you can learn more than by either faking something hard or playing something easy.

An interesting exercise is to stop on every chord and try to perceive every individual note. Look at each note on the score and say what letter it is then say what finger has played it and associate between all of these things. Then go to the next note in the same chord and do the same until you've done every note. There's often way more to gained from this kind of work (if you want to prepare for advanced sightreading) than either scraping through pieces that are too hard to read well, or playing pieces that are exceedingly easy. It's easier to train yourself to truly comprehend dense textures as one entity this way, than by either rushing into them unprepared or avoiding them. First they are perceived in clear steps, then you can grow to perceive them as just one thing.

Basically, it matters nothing whether you are doing something at first sight or not. It's about making solid associations that are deeply cemented into the brain.

[mcdiddy1]

This ought to be true (and usually is to at least some extent), but it's really not a given. I used to know a guy who could play Ondine, yet could barely sightread grade 1 pieces. It's all about whether a pianist routinely uses reading skills in his practise, or simply memorises and then neglects them.  

That is true I have had some pianist who could play at a high level but read very poorly. By playing through I assume they are accurately readying the music rather than memorizing the physical action or relying on just the sound.

[nickadams]

Hi everyone, OP here. I have tried to implement these suggestions:

Whenever I get stuck or make a mistake I just simply skip 2 or 3 notes.

It takes me way longer than 3 notes to get back on track once I'm off. It probably takes me 5 or 10 seconds for my feeble brain to digest...
1.) I've made a mistake.
2.) where the mistake occured.
3.) where both my hands are currently located.
4.) what keys the notes 2 to 3 notes ahead correspond to.
5.) how to get my hands to those notes.

Keep the pulse absolutely steady (use a metronome) and repeat the mistake as many times a s necessary.  Say you're playing along quarter notes in 4/4 and you hit a wrong note or chord.  You hit the F instead of the E, in the example you mentioned.  Play that F four times in strict rhythm while you prepare to correct it, play the E correctly on the right beat and move on.  Don't let ANYTHING interrupt the flow or slow the beat.

I like this suggestion but like I said, it takes my brain a long time to realize I've made a mistake and where the mistake occurred. So usually by the time I collect my wits to implement your suggestion, the whole flow of the piece has already been broken.  

When sight reading with both hands, and upon making a mistake, say on beat one, I stop and then count out (silently) the remainder of the measure.  I immediately repeat the measure where I made the mistake, continue on with the next measure.

This seems the most practical for me to do. Do I have to silently count out the remainder of the measure after the very first mistake or could I do it on the 3rd consecutive mistake cuz that's how long it may take me to realize I've gone astray. Also if I make a mistake on beat 3 of 4, do I count out *4, 1, 2* then start playing correctly from 3?






It is extremely frustrating to me that I can't seem to help aborting the whole piece the instant a tiny mistake is made.   I wish I could just jump right back on track but my reading is so precarious that if I mess up my eyes start darting back in the music looking for where exactly I was and where my hands are and where they should have been etc. and then the flow gets destroyed.   I even say to myself do not stop the flow, do not stop the flow and even when I make a heroic effort to keep the piece alive, I end up just finishing the piece in a frenzy of 100% wrong notes with wrong rhythm too!



Thanks for the help
Nickadams

[nyiregyhazi]

It is extremely frustrating to me that I can't seem to help aborting the whole piece the instant a tiny mistake is made.   I wish I could just jump right back on track but my reading is so precarious that if I mess up my eyes start darting back in the music looking for where exactly I was and where my hands are and where they should have been etc. and then the flow gets destroyed.   I even say to myself do not stop the flow, do not stop the flow and even when I make a heroic effort to keep the piece alive, I end up just finishing the piece in a frenzy of 100% wrong notes with wrong rhythm too!

From what you describe, it's clear that you urgently need to find a way to address the barest fundamentals of your reading. Quite honestly, it's a complete waste of time trying to force yourself to press onward, if it simply throws you into dissarray. Try practising pieces leaving out different notes completely randomly every time. I mean a lot of notes. Miss out a whole bar sometimes and then find the next chord from nothing (but not in a panic or hurry!  Consider the whole process to be done in free time for now.). You need to be much better at finding something from nowhere. Doing it in a panic will not help such a skill. Only when that skill is developed can you put yourself in a position to start making emergency recoveries as quick as a flash. The more you try to force yourself to do so now, the less you'll develop those fundamentals that will later permit it.

[timothy42b]

Maybe it is time to take a step back and identify why you make the mistakes in the first place, and fix that problem.

I'm starting to think your problem is not sightreading per se, but some fundamental skill that precedes it, perhaps keyboard geography. 

I've been telling you to keep going no matter what.  And that's usually good advice, when you have some of the basics down, you are reading music within your abilities, and you are specifically working on sightreading. 

But it's not good advice if you are already over your head, it's probably counterproductive instead.

I'd normally hesitate to suggest it, but maybe you ought to stop on your next mistake, analyze it, and play it correctly 100 times. 

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm starting to think your problem is not sightreading per se, but some fundamental skill that precedes it, perhaps keyboard geography.  

I've been telling you to keep going no matter what.  And that's usually good advice, when you have some of the basics down, you are reading music within your abilities, and you are specifically working on sightreading.  

I see where you're coming from, but personally I'd reverse it. I'd say "sightreading" is exactly where the problem is- but in the foundation stage. It can mean different things in different contexts, but I'd say the foundation of sightreading as the ability to read things and then feel exactly how to execute them- so there is total confidence BEFORE every note sounds. Only from here can a pianist progress to doing what is typically viewed as "sightreading" to a high standard- where you must keep up the rhythm and never stop.  

But it's not good advice if you are already over your head, it's probably counterproductive instead.

I'd normally hesitate to suggest it, but maybe you ought to stop on your next mistake, analyze it, and play it correctly 100 times.  

Personally, I'd work on going slowly enough that mistakes scarcely even occur AT ALL- for a number of weeks. In theory, if you are in tune with the "feel" of your fingers and how they fit to the keyboard, you need never go wrong at all. Before you start to do the "letting go" stage, it pays to always give yourself enough time never to have to play a single note under pressure, or without already feeling nearly 100% confident of success. This is often means being willing to ignore rhythm, in favour of comfort. Once comfort evolves, you can later return to rhythm. Early on, I find it way more troubling to see students making wild and uncoordinated movements in panic, than to see students who are willing to let go of the rhythm in order to feel the notes with more certainty. Rhythm can be added later (as long as the student can understand it mentally) and is easily developed in tapping exercises, but movements that occur without sureness and comfort will never add to the sense of "feel" for the keyboard.

Mistakes should be viewed as having occurred BEFORE the finger actually played the wrong note- not in the moment where it actually sounded the key. The mistake is in the lack of awareness that allowed an unprepared finger to come flying into the piano, before the brain had time to feel certain that it corresponded correctly to the notated instruction.

[fleetfingers]

I feel that it's important to distinguish between different methods of practicing, and how the music we choose differs depending on what we're trying to achieve. If you are attempting to sight read at the level of your current technical abilities, then it would be unwise to "plow through" and not stop to correct mistakes. When learning a new piece, it is better to emphasize accuracy of notes and articulation and, as mentioned by others, take the time to play everything correctly.

That is why it is advised, when practicing sight reading, that you choose music well below your current level. Everyone essentially has a "sightreading level", independent of where they're at in repertoire study. If you plow through the music and are getting most of the notes wrong, then it is way above your sight reading level, and you shouldn't be sight reading it! If anyone is reading this thread and thinking that we mean to play crap just to keep a "flow", that doesn't make any sense and is not what's suggested. IF you are playing at your sight reading level, there should be no frantic movements, you should feel confident with the notes that are ahead, and accuracy should be in the 90-95% range. Otherwise, stop sight reading and just figure out the darn piece however you normally would.

I personally feel that sight reading - at an appropriate level - and learning to play with a steady tempo, staying calm and confident and smooth, is a skill that should be practiced even at the beginning stages. It carries over to playing smoothly in performance pieces. Also, I believe that the easier pieces we sight read help in our reading at higher levels . . . and the laborious reading/deciphering through difficult works helps to raise our smooth/flowing sight reading at lower levels. It doesn't need to be either/or . . . you just need to understand the purpose behind what you're doing and ensure that however you're practicing is actually helping you achieve what you set out to achieve.

So, to nickadams (OP), I would say that I agree with others that you should take the time you need to play all of the notes correctly. But, I just wanted to make sure that we aren't writing off sight reading altogether and forgetting that it can be practiced in an appropriate way. Especially since you mentioned that you DO want to be able to learn it . . .

My goal is to be able to haul out any score, look at it, and play something instantly that the soloist or a choir can play/sing with. Although I probably won't reach that goal, it's still the direction I want to go.

I don't care much about perfecting pieces; I just want to have great internal rhythm and the ability to play new music prima vista. Currently I am horrible at both those things.