Do I "NEED" To Learn To How To read Music In Order To Learn The Piano?

[daza152]

Hey guys I got my Piano For Dummies Book which gives you a comprehensive in depth look at reading music, I don't want to spend all my time learning that when I already know and understand chords of the piano and just want to play songs from You Tube....Your Thoughts..

[andreslr6]

If you are considering learning or not learning to read music in order to play piano, then you must be very lazy... seriously, it won't take you longer than 1 hour to understand and decipher it, and you'll get used to it in less than a week, in 2 weeks you'll be able to read anything... You don't have to memorize anything really besides the names of the notes (7), 2 clefs (if you're only focusing on piano reading of course) and what does flat and sharp mean.

EDIT: Sorry! I did not answer your question, NO, you do not NEED to read music, but you'll save like 3 times the amount of time to learn a piece if you learn, so, after reading what I mentioned earlier, choose:

1. spending 1 hour 1 day in your life just to understand and decipher, or

2. spend a whole lot more time on learning each piece you want to play for the rest of your life because you don't want to learn how to read music.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Well, technically you don't NEED to be able to read music to be able to play the piano, similar to how you don't NEED to go to college and get a degree in astrophysics to work for NASA, but it's soo outrageously important that you might as well learn how. 

LEARN HOW TO READ MUSIC!!!

[lostinidlewonder]

Hey guys I got my Piano For Dummies Book which gives you a comprehensive in depth look at reading music, I don't want to spend all my time learning that when I already know and understand chords of the piano and just want to play songs from You Tube....Your Thoughts..

I would suggest learning all the pieces you want to learn from youtube without focusing on reading. After a few years you should have a number of pieces under your belt and you should be somewhat familiar with how to read. It is difficult to learn how to read properly without being able to play many pieces. It is like learning how to read a language before you even know how to speak it. You may read it but you will not understand it appropriately.

Many of my beginners students learn how to read basic music, but we focus on "how to play" rather than getting bogged down with improving reading skills. Most people learn to read a lot better once they can play many pieces because they have experience to draw from. Reading is very much experience based. If you read new technical movements you have little experience with, it is difficult to read for anyone at any level.

[daza152]

I would suggest learning all the pieces you want to learn from youtube without focusing on reading. After a few years you should have a number of pieces under your belt and you should be somewhat familiar with how to read. It is difficult to learn how to read properly without being able to play many pieces. It is like learning how to read a language before you even know how to speak it. You may read it but you will not understand it appropriately.

Many of my beginners students learn how to read basic music, but we focus on "how to play" rather than getting bogged down with improving reading skills. Most people learn to read a lot better once they can play many pieces because they have experience to draw from. Reading is very much experience based. If you read new technical movements you have little experience with, it is difficult to read for anyone at any level.

Hey thanks for your more constructive opinion, You know I am not against learnin g it and I'm sure it will take a lot longer than 1 hour, however now I have a couple of tunes to memory now..just intro's but my thought is now if I was to see how those pieces are written, that may help me figure out what it means? just an idea...might go and google the scores right now. Thanks.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

and I'm sure it will take a lot longer than 1 hour,

It will probably take you an hour or less to learn to actually read music.

But it will take quite a bit longer to get good at it.

[daza152]

It will probably take you an hour or less to learn to actually read music.

But it will take quite a bit longer to get good at it.

That's the truth. I am staring blankly at the score I printed out and in no way is it as simple as explained in the Dummies book.  I will take another look at the book and try to decipher my score.

[dmauney]

You might try using Synthesia, as it will show you the notes as it plays the piece.

There are many tutorials on You Tube based on Synthesia, but it is much more common to see the dropping/colored notes rather than the notation displayed when viewing You Tube tutorials.

Here are some You Tube tutorials with notes shown that look similar to what you would get using Synthesia:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x92ce88njM/youtube]

There are many great resources on the internet to help with learning to read music, especially when you hit notation you have never seen before, like this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_symbols

I believe it takes years of experience to really read music well, but it is worth the effort to learn to decypher it so you can learn pieces faster and with more insight into the composer's intent.

[augustpasimio]

Hi,

I think it is really important to be able to read music.  There are so many beautiful piano pieces, but if you can't read music you won't be able to play them.  Also, if you decide to compose your own songs, you will have to put your song on the treble and bass clef, so other musicians can play it. 

Learning the basics is pretty easy.  But to read music fluently like you read English is more difficult.  There are apps for the iphone so you can exercise your music reading.  I use these apps when I'm in the metro train, or waiting in the doctor's office.

August

[chopin2015]

Just like piano, once you get good at reading, it is really fun!

[nyiregyhazi]

That's the truth. I am staring blankly at the score I printed out and in no way is it as simple as explained in the Dummies book.  I will take another look at the book and try to decipher my score.

What score did you print out? If you want a magic short-cut, forget it. There's no special pill. You need to build up slowly and with thought. If you're not willing to put that simple investment in, don't expect a return. Reading is as simple as this:

https://pianoscience.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/solid-foundation-reading-skills-lifting.html

[nyiregyhazi]

I would suggest learning all the pieces you want to learn from youtube without focusing on reading. After a few years you should have a number of pieces under your belt and you should be somewhat familiar with how to read. It is difficult to learn how to read properly without being able to play many pieces. It is like learning how to read a language before you even know how to speak it. You may read it but you will not understand it appropriately.

I don't see that the analogy works. When people want to play difficult pieces of classical music that were specifically composed in a particular form (without learning the basics of reading) it's like memorising Shakespeare plays before learning how to reliably recognise individual letters- never mind the full words or associated meanings. Musical improvisation is the equivalent of everyday speaking prior to learning reading- where you choose the order of words yourself. As soon as were talking about composed music (rather than scales or chord types) the natural analogy is to a poem/story/play etc. All but the slightest minority of kids learn to read for themself before they tackle such things beyond the most simplistic level. They definitely don't memorise long stories by rote and then go back and learn how to read words by comparing unfamiliar symbols to what they memorised. Only in the simplest foundation levels of learning is reading skill done that way around. When people use tutorials, they are rarely looking at something analogous to these foundation levels but are instead trying to do the equivalent of memorising Dickens by ear and learning to read later. You can approach a problem from two ends in earlier stages, but if you leap in at the deep end (without mastering basics) then you almost certainly end up learning minimal reading skill, with little ability to associate what you have learned to play to the notation.

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't see that the analogy works.

This is not surprising because you don't understand a lot of things throughout this website.

When people want to play difficult pieces of classical music that were specifically composed in a particular form (without learning the basics of reading) it's like memorising Shakespeare plays before learning how to reliably recognise individual letters- never mind the full words or associated meanings.

And here we start again, you have created the platform for your imaginary arguments. I did not write about wanting to play difficult pieces thus everything you write here is useless.

Musical improvisation is the equivalent of everyday speaking prior to learning reading- where you choose the order of words yourself.

This sentence seems to have been cut pasted in with no relevance to anything, even your own writing!

As soon as were talking about composed music (rather than scales or chord types) the natural analogy is to a poem/story/play etc.

Is it really a natural analogy? Give me examples of academics stating this since I have never heard of it.

All but the slightest minority of kids learn to read for themself before they tackle such things beyond the most simplistic level.

You are putting up smokes and mirrors, what is "the most simplistic level"? This sentence is saying nothing at all.

Only in the simplest foundation levels of learning is reading skill done that way around. When people use tutorials, they are rarely looking at something analogous to these foundation levels but are instead trying to do the equivalent of memorising Dickens by ear and learning to read later. You can approach a problem from two ends in earlier stages, but if you leap in at the deep end (without mastering basics) then you almost certainly end up learning minimal reading skill, with little ability to associate what you have learned to play to the notation.

You are severely underestimating the power of muscular memory standing alone, as opposed to using sight reading to queue muscular movement. There are plenty of students I have taught who just want to learn pieces, the reading side is extremely inefficient for them. However after several years of learning many pieces the reading becomes more familiar as you can compare the pattern in the sheet music to a routine on the keyboard you have experience with.

[jogoeshome]

Hey guys I got my Piano For Dummies Book which gives you a comprehensive in depth look at reading music, I don't want to spend all my time learning that when I already know and understand chords of the piano and just want to play songs from You Tube....Your Thoughts..

You dont if you have someone telling what to do, but if you want to learn a piece on your own you have to be able to read the notes in some way. 

[sucom]

Hey guys I got my Piano For Dummies Book which gives you a comprehensive in depth look at reading music, I don't want to spend all my time learning that when I already know and understand chords of the piano and just want to play songs from You Tube....Your Thoughts..

The fact that you have asked this question at all suggests to me that there may be something niggling at you that you 'should' be reading music but would really prefer to miss out all that dreary stuff.  It suggests that you would like to be able to play without all the hard work that some others may devote to their study but still, somehow, get similar results.  Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but this is what your question suggests to me at a deeper level.

The truth is, yes, of course you can learn to play the piano without reading music and get quite a lot of enjoyment from it.  But... and actually this is quite a big but.......basically what you are doing, through your desire to miss out 'boring' stuff, is imposing a limit on your own capability.  It's a self induced limitation.

If you are truly happy learning from others on youtube, why did you buy the book?  Is there something inside you that says, hey, I'd like to get better at this?  But at the same time, is there something inside you that is saying, I would like to get better but am searching for a short cut? 

I was always jealous of my mother's garden.  It was beautiful and I so wished my garden was as nice as hers.  But, the problem was my own.  I was thinking how hard done to I was because my garden wasn't like hers, when the fact was that she was prepared to prioritise her time, and push herself to creating that garden, which took her real effort to do.  Me, on the other hand, wanted that garden without the effort.  So how could I possibly have the right to be jealous?

I think you know deep down that learning to read music would be ultimately be more helpful to you.  I feel you are hoping others will agree that you don't need to read music because then you can relax and not have to push yourself to make that effort to read it. 

The problem is, you are asking a lot of people here who 'have' made that effort, so basically I don't think they are going to agree with you that it wouldn't be helpful.  Of course it's helpful!

It all comes down to how devoted you are yourself to reaching your full potential.  The choice is yours and yours alone.  How strong is your desire to make the best of playing the piano?  Your choice......

[matt_walker]

It will probably take you an hour or less to learn to actually read music.

But it will take quite a bit longer to get good at it.

YES! Studies have shown that students don't actually get proficient in reading and then playing notes with accuracy and speed until around grade 4. So you can remember 'FACE in the space' and 'every good boy deserves football' and 'all cows eat grass' and 'green buses drive fast always' but it will literally take years to get really good at it.

As others have recommended, do your Youtube playing, but work on learning your notes at the same time. There will come a time, I guarantee, where you want to play a piece you can't find on youtube

[muleski]

myiregyhazy: Only in the simplest foundation levels of learning is reading skill done that way around. When people use tutorials, they are rarely looking at something analogous to these foundation levels but are instead trying to do the equivalent of memorising Dickens by ear and learning to read later. You can approach a problem from two ends in earlier stages, but if you leap in at the deep end (without mastering basics) then you almost certainly end up learning minimal reading skill, with little ability to associate what you have learned to play to the notation.


Lostinidlewonder: You are severely underestimating the power of muscular memory standing alone, as opposed to using sight reading to queue muscular movement. There are plenty of students I have taught who just want to learn pieces, the reading side is extremely inefficient for them. However after several years of learning many pieces the reading becomes more familiar as you can compare the pattern in the sheet music to a routine on the keyboard you have experience with.

I'm inclined to agree with the quote from lostinidlewonder above.  I can read music at a basic level.  I'm not doing music exams or 'self teaching' music theory as such but am able to learn complex pieces that I would never be able to sight read.  I learn bit by bit & commit it to memory & how I do that is by familiarising myself with the piece by listening to it over & over, reading the notes & lots of repetition on the keyboard & it sinks in.  So I am just one example (no doubt there are plenty more) of someone who can indeed play complex pieces with no score in front of them at all.  In fact if I tried to follow the score whilst playing once I've learned it, it would utterly confuse & distract me.  

Having said that, I am actually considering going through the exam route to improve my music theory, as learning that side of things cannot be a bad thing & would indeed aid my progress.  I do though, think having at least a basic understanding of it IS necessary, unless the pieces you want to learn are pretty basic.  I can't imagine trying to learn Hungarian Rhapsody No.2 purely from a Youtube tutorial (well maybe the first few bars would be ok).  

[matt_walker]

 I can't imagine trying to learn Hungarian Rhapsody No.2 purely from a Youtube tutorial (well maybe the first few bars would be ok).  

I can't imagine learning it from the sheet music!

[muleski]

I can't imagine learning it from the sheet music!

It's slow & painful.  I'm not holding out much hope of ever being able to play it in its entirety to be honest!

[nyiregyhazi]

This is not surprising because you don't understand a lot of things throughout this website.
And here we start again, you have created the platform for your imaginary arguments. I did not write about wanting to play difficult pieces thus everything you write here is useless.

I'm not interested in your perceived feud, so I'll stick to the relevant issues. What you failed to do is EXCLUDE this from your point. If you talk generally and with language that suggests universal applicability, a point will be read that way. Either you need to define what your point applies to, or provide a warning about very important issues that it cannot reasonably be applied to. If a rich person states that money is actually unimportant and someone points out how vital it is to those who only have pennies to scrape together to buy food, you cannot then say- "but I wasn't talking about poor people". If a point is not universally applicable, it's down to the person making it to specify the conditions under which it is applicable. It's no use expecting everyone to divine what exclusions you had in mind.

Is it really a natural analogy? Give me examples of academics stating this since I have never heard of it.

You don't need an academic source, to illustrate simple logical reasoning. Children do not learn to speak merely by learning to recite large scale collections of words in specific order- as with the large scale collections of specifically ordered notes that exist in musical compositions. Therefore, it does not work to compare the youtube tutorial as a means of entry to how language is learned before reading. It would only work if we learned to speak and then read by learning to recite advanced literature, before figuring out how to read by looking at the printed text. We don't. The analogy is not at all applicable to the what people expect to do with youtube tutorials. They're out to learn things like the Moonlight Sonata straight off. In the case of adult who is not literate but who can speak, would you get him to memorise the Tempest by ear and then compare it to the text of the play, to learn to read? Would that be a natural start to reading? Only at extremely basic levels does working backwards function usefully (in either form of reading). Youtube tutorials for serious repertoire are not part of this.
 

You are severely underestimating the power of muscular memory standing alone, as opposed to using sight reading to queue muscular movement. There are plenty of students I have taught who just want to learn pieces, the reading side is extremely inefficient for them. However after several years of learning many pieces the reading becomes more familiar as you can compare the pattern in the sheet music to a routine on the keyboard you have experience with.

You CAN. In my experience they don't though. They stick to what they know. I've taught a number of people who came along having learned to get through a few pieces by tutorials. I would never be harsh to a person in such circumstances, but speaking here I'd have to be totally honest and say that the pieces were learned poorly, with unhealthy technique, poor rhythm and minimal control over sound. When trying to teach them to deal with these major issues, there was virtually nothing that I could achieve with them- for the specific reason that muscle memory is indeed so powerful. They didn't understand what they were actually do but instead relied on muscle memory that was almost impossible to change- as it was virtually the only thing involved in producing the results. Each week they came back and played what they'd learned the exact same way as the previous week.

If a student cannot (or WILL not take the time to learn to) read music, I'd be more inclined to send them to a jazz teacher- so they actually learn to improvise- rather than force out a string of learned movements, that they are usually unable to break down into smaller units, for the sake of understanding.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm inclined to agree with the quote from lostinidlewonder above.  

I'm sure you'd like to agree with it.

The problem is that you then said this:

In fact if I tried to follow the score whilst playing once I've learned it, it would utterly confuse & distract me.  

So how do you expect your reading to improve- if you can't even begin to understand what the score says? You can learn reading by playing something first and then taking the time to associate what you are doing with the symbols. Unfortunately, you cannot learn a thing about reading by deciding that a score that you cannot understand will confuse and distract you and that you'll avoid it for that reason. You've made my point about as well as anyone could. When people learn outside of music, they rarely go back and learn from the experience. They just get all the more distanced and alienated from notation.

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm not interested in your perceived feud, so I'll stick to the relevant issues. What you failed to do is EXCLUDE this from your point. If you talk generally and with language that suggests universal applicability, a point will be read that way. Either you need to define what your point applies to, or provide a warning about very important issues that it cannot reasonably be applied to. If a rich person states that money is actually unimportant and someone points out how vital it is to those who only have pennies to scrape together to buy food, you cannot then say- "but I wasn't talking about poor people". If a point is not universally applicable, it's down to the person making it to specify the conditions under which it is applicable. It's no use expecting everyone to divine what exclusions you had in mind.

I don't have to do anything that you have said in this paragraph. Maybe you need to talk to doctor about your crazy thoughts.

Go away and stop quoting me and pretend you have any idea about what I am talking about.

You are really have too much time to waste with your incessant babble.

 

You don't need an academic source, to illustrate simple logical reasoning.

Wow I want to join the school of coolness you went to.

Children do not learn to speak merely by learning to recite large scale collections of words in specific order- as with the large scale collections of specifically ordered notes that exist in musical compositions.

Who cares? Certainly not me, why are you quoting me then spewing forth information that I am not interested in or even relevant to anything I wrote?

Therefore, it does not work to compare the youtube tutorial as a means of entry to how language is learned before reading.

This is your own argument.

It would only work if we learned to speak and then read by learning to recite advanced literature, before figuring out how to read by looking at the printed text. We don't. The analogy is not at all applicable to the what people expect to do with youtube tutorials. They're out to learn things like the Moonlight Sonata straight off. In the case of adult who is not literate but who can speak, would you get him to memorise the Tempest by ear and then compare it to the text of the play, to learn to read? Would that be a natural start to reading? Only at extremely basic levels does working backwards function usefully (in either form of reading). Youtube tutorials for serious repertoire are not part of this.

All of this text is incessant babble, talking to yourself and not addressing anything I wrote.

Why are you continually so interested to tangent so far into the realms of obscurity and quoting me as if anything you say has anything to do with what I wrote?

You CAN. In my experience they don't though. They stick to what they know. I've taught a number of people who came along having learned to get through a few pieces by tutorials. I would never be harsh to a person in such circumstances, but speaking here I'd have to be totally honest and say that the pieces were learned poorly, with unhealthy technique, poor rhythm and minimal control over sound. When trying to teach them to deal with these major issues, there was virtually nothing that I could achieve with them- for the specific reason that muscle memory is indeed so powerful. They didn't understand what they were actually do but instead relied on muscle memory that was almost impossible to change- as it was virtually the only thing involved in producing the results. Each week they came back and played what they'd learned the exact same way as the previous week.

Why do you make up stories?

If a student cannot (or WILL not take the time to learn to) read music, I'd be more inclined to send them to a jazz teacher- so they actually learn to improvise- rather than force out a string of learned movements, that they are usually unable to break down into smaller units, for the sake of understanding.

I really couldn't care less.... What has this got to do with anything? We don't care how you refer students, why do you think we care? How does that help anyone?

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm sure you'd like to agree with it.

The problem is that you then said this:

This is really arrogant. He says he agrees most probably because he can test what we both said and relate it to his experiences, he certainly does not have to fit your model to know what he agrees with! You throw it back in his face because you lost.

[muleski]

Quote from nyiregyhazi

So how do you expect your reading to improve- if you can't even begin to understand what the score says? You can learn reading by playing something first and then taking the time to associate what you are doing with the symbols. Unfortunately, you cannot learn a thing about reading by deciding that a score that you cannot understand will confuse and distract you and that you'll avoid it for that reason. You've made my point about as well as anyone could. When people learn outside of music, they rarely go back and learn from the experience. They just get all the more distanced and alienated from notation.

Your suggestion that I cannot 'begin to understand' the score is a nonsense.  I can read music, which if you'd read my post thoroughly you'd have read that I never claimed I can play complex pieces whilst not being able to read the score.  It's a slow process for me as I never worked through the grades & never sat a music exam in my life.  As such, my ability to sight read is dreadful, unless the piece is VERY simple.  As far as everything else on the score aside from the actual notes, my understanding is limited.  I do in fact have a tutor, but still am not pursuing exams (though as I said I'm starting to think whether I ought to).  So in answer to your later point of muscle memory being strong (which is one thing I think we all agree on), I am not blindly learning these pieces alone with no help on the theory side of things.   My thoughts on 'going through the motions' as it were, are to aid my learning.  As it stand, yes once I've learned from the score (not from a tutorial), to then use the score whilst playing would confuse me.  This will always & always has been the case with me.  I naturally find memorising music easy.  As much as other people who perhaps are fabulous at sight reading but find memorising music difficult, I would love to be able to sight read.  I never could grasp that as a child, but instead memorised.  I'd also say that to claim anyone who plays in such a way is incapable of playing the piece any differently is just not the case.  Maybe for some it is, but to make sweeping statements, are, on probability alone not true to everyone your comments are aimed at.

[nyiregyhazi]

This is really arrogant. He says he agrees most probably because he can test what we both said and relate it to his experiences, he certainly does not have to fit your model to know what he agrees with! You throw it back in his face because you lost.

He detailed his experiences- ie that he cannot understand the score and hence is not using it. It's objectively impossible for him to magically divine reading skills by learning pieces, UNLESS he references what he has learned to play with the notation for it. There is no possibility that learning pieces will lead to reading skills, as you claim, unless such referencing and learning is taking place.  Your claim that learning pieces will lead to reading skills might be tempting to believe, but it's a red herring, sorry. The information he gave us shows exactly why your theory about reading skills coming by avoiding reading is so dubious.

[nyiregyhazi]

Go away and stop quoting me and pretend you have any idea about what I am talking about.

You are really have too much time to waste with your incessant babble.

As you cannot keep a civil and objective tone (and favour off-topic personal attacks to on topic points) I didn't read the rest. You're the only one in this personal feud. I made my point against an argument, not against you. If you can only reciprocate on a personal level (rather than details reasons for disagreement with points made) I'm not interested in taking this further.

If you cannot accept the right of others to provide an alternative side to the story, post in a blog and ban comments. This is a forum that comes complete with free speech- not a soapbox from which people can ban others from reciprocating.

[lostinidlewonder]

As you cannot keep a civil and objective tone (and favour off-topic personal attacks to on topic points) I didn't read the rest.

Why don't you make it a habit not to read my posts. You know I will NEVER have a proper discussion with you because I KNOW how you act online. You have even been banned from other piano forums for your stupid attempts to try and undermine everything people say. Just move on and do something different for once in your life. You are welcome to free speech but don't quote me and think like you are saying anything which adds or subtracts from what I say, you have a problem to even understand what I say and then go off talking foolishly like I care.

muleskyi I wouldn't try to make yourself clear you will end up writing 100 pages trying to make yourself heard and have to deal with pages upon pages of irrelevance. Merely look at the history of posts and you will see pattern in his disagreeing and arguing with people.

[muleski]

Where exactly did I say I am not using the score?!

No-where!  If you're going to respond to posts, actually read them first.

I use the score to learn, once learned I cannot then use it as a playing guide/sight read from it.  How difficult is that to understand?

[nyiregyhazi]

Your suggestion that I cannot 'begin to understand' the score is a nonsense.  I can read music, which if you'd read my post thoroughly you'd have read that I never claimed I can play complex pieces whilst not being able to read the score.  It's a slow process for me as I never worked through the grades & never sat a music exam in my life.

You've missed my point. I'm not attacking you. I'm explaining the impossibility of getting better at reading by playing memorised stuff that you cannot play via the score. Anyone can decode music slowly. True reading is when you follow the score throughout and can associate ANY note you are playing to the exact notation on the score. To make progress, you need to deal with this, not duck away from it. I'm going on what you said, about the fact that this confuses you- not attacking you. You either have to face up to the fact that you need to deal with this issue, or you impose a limit on yourself.

My thoughts on 'going through the motions' as it were, are to  As it stand, yes once I've learned from the score (not from a tutorial), to then use the score whilst playing would confuse me.  This will always & always has been the case with me.  iI naturally find memorising music easy.  

This is precisely where the problem lies. Those who cannot read while playing are not developing any associations between notation and execution. You stop developing the skill the moment you memorised the piece. Don't take this is an attack on you. I'm simply getting straight to the heart of the issue. If you aren't practising reading in a high percentage of your playing, you don't get better at it. It's just common sense. Reading is not a one-off act for new material- at least, not if you want to become able to read fluently.

[muleski]

Yes, sorry, my last post was directed at nyiregyhazi.  Just to be clear!

[lostinidlewonder]

Your claim that learning pieces will lead to reading skills might be tempting to believe, but it's a red herring, sorry.

Oh Mr Guru, I am sure you know how to REALLY learn sight reading. LOL LOL LOL. Yeah I have been taught by some of the most respected pianists/teachers in the world, they knew nothing right! It is all so clear now! Lets believe piano science!

[nyiregyhazi]

Oh Mr Guru, I am sure you know how to REALLY learn sight reading. LOL LOL LOL. Yeah I have been taught by some of the most respected pianists/teachers in the world  knew nothing. Lets believe piano science!

I'm not a "guru". Unlike some in this forum, I'm perfectly comfortable with the right of anybody to dispute anything that I have to say- without taking that as a personal affront. 

[muleski]

Whether or not I do exams is irrelevant really, as I could sit in the house practising sight reading all day long & possibly become proficient (perhaps not al day as I work full time).  I have a mixture of music here, ranging from simple to mid range, to complex & challenging.  By learning what I'm learning, does that not involve reading the music?  Of course it does.  

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm not a "guru". Unlike some in this forum, I'm perfectly comfortable with the right of anybody to dispute anything that I have to say- without taking that as a personal affront. 

I hope you realize that how you behave causes these responses. Maybe you want to rethink your approach in sharing information. Instead of quoting someone and saying what they say is wrong and ridiculous, ignore that quoting stage and just say what you want. It's that simple. But no, you like to provoke people and then throw your hands up like you are an innocent bystander. lol

[nyiregyhazi]

I hope you realize that how you behave causes these responses. Maybe you want to rethink your approach in sharing information. Instead of quoting someone and saying what they say is wrong and ridiculous, ignore that quoting stage and just say what you want. It's that simple. But no, you like to provoke people and then throw your hands up like you are an innocent bystander. lol

If a point is provoked by disagreement with another party (that can potentially give an extremely one-sided view of a story, to anybody reading), the proper procedure is to reference that being disagreed with- in order to illustrate that there is another side to be considered, before any statement is taken as gospel.

Anyway, I'm not wasting any more time on this off-topic issue. Write whatever you wish about me. I do not greatly care as to whether you appreciate the reasoning for providing different sides to an argument, for consideration of other readers. You're not going to gain exemption for the right of response, so you're wasting your time complaining about me replying to you. If you want to respond with personal attacks whenever I do reply to you, I'll just accept that and ignore any future ones.

[nyiregyhazi]

Whether or not I do exams is irrelevant really, as I could sit in the house practising sight reading all day long & possibly become proficient (perhaps not al day as I work full time).  I have a mixture of music here, ranging from simple to mid range, to complex & challenging.  By learning what I'm learning, does that not involve reading the music?  Of course it does.  

Sincere apologies, I mistook your post as coming from the OP- in reference to pieces learned from youtube. If you're already a fluent reader, obviously it's a different matter as to whether you use the score after having learned it. However, I would add that even good readers can continue to improve their sightreading skills by continuing to spend some of the time thinking about the exact details via the score (rather than putting it away for good once the notes are memorised). I do still feel that it's something of a warning signal if following the score causes confusion, after having learned a work.

[lostinidlewonder]

If a point is provoked by disagreement with another party (that can potentially give a one-sided view of a story), the proper procedure is to reference it alongside that being disagreed with- in order to illustrate that there is another side to be considered...

The problem is that you are disagreeing with something I am not even interested in talking about. Just look at how you create situations and argue about it. You do it all the time. Maybe you don't realize it.

[nyiregyhazi]

The problem is that you are disagreeing with something I am not even interested in talking about.

Great. Then let's agree that you don't talk about it. I'm not posting to you personally when I disagree with either you or anyone.  If I were, I'd PM. I'm offering another side of the story to forum readers- who have a right to read things from a variety of angles. I'm happy to engage in on-topic discussion with anybody. However, if you are not interested in the issues I raise you are more than welcome not to reply about them- rather than start yet another attempt to ban free speech and open discussion.

This is definitely my last post and I won't respond to these issues again in other threads. I hope that you'll ignore things that don't interest you- just as I will continue to reply on any issues that DO interest me. If you don't, I'll ignore any future posts about whether I'm allowed to reply to you. I'm not going over how free speech works again.

[lostinidlewonder]

Great. Then let's agree that you don't talk about it. I'm not posting to you personally when I disagree with either you or anyone.  If I were, I'd PM. I'm offering another side of the story to forum readers- who have a right to read things from a variety of angles. I'm happy to engage in on-topic discussion with anybody. However, if you are not interested in the issues I raise you are more than welcome not to reply about them- rather than start yet another attempt to ban free speech and open discussion.

Good then stop quoting me. You tend to quote me when you disagree and try to create this shadow of doubt as if what I say is incorrect and what you say must be more to the truth. This is arrogant and is not a friendly way to communicate with others. You still have not learned this lesson thus miss out from opinions from people who might otherwise give you a lot more.

[nyiregyhazi]

Good then stop quoting me. You tend to quote me when you disagree and create this pseudo shadow of doubt as if what I say is incorrect and what you say must be more to the truth. This is arrogant and is not a friendly way to communicate with others. You still have not learned this lesson thus miss out from opinions from people who might otherwise give you a lot more.

Jesus! I can scarcely believe I'm reading this. This is DEFINITELY my last post on the issue, but I'll repeat one final time-

THIS IS AN OPEN FORUM!!!!!! IT IS NOT A SOAPBOX WHERE USERS CAN BAN COUNTER-OPINIONS FROM BEING DIRECTLY PROVIDED TO THEIR OWN!!!!!

I am not going to stop quoting any opinions that I have cause to disagree with, be they yours or those of Leschetizky, even. I am also not going to state this ever again. If you bring up your desire to impose censorship in future, I'll link to this post and ignore anything that falls outside of the topic. Perhaps you're not used to anyone daring to disagree with you, but if you are not secure enough to take objectively reasoned disagreement with an OPINION as being anything other than a personal attack upon yourself, forums are not a good place for you to espouse views.

[lostinidlewonder]

I am not going to stop quoting any opinions that I have cause to disagree with,

Then hopefully you will learn to quote and then talk about what the person you have quoted is discussing, not create your own platform with the quote merely as ornamentation to head your ramblings.

Why don't you ask a question instead of spewing forth statements which aim to discredit what you are quoting?  

You might actually find you have nothing to contribute if your aim is NOT to discredit what someone says.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm not posting to you personally when I disagree with either you or anyone.  If I were, I'd PM. I'm offering another side of the story to forum readers- who have a right to read things from a variety of angles.

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm not posting to you personally when I disagree with either you or anyone.  If I were, I'd PM. I'm offering another side of the story to forum readers- who have a right to read things from a variety of angles.

I really don't take it personally, I really don't care who you are to care that much!
 
But you are quoting me so you are throwing down the gauntlet and challenging me to comment. What do you expect from the person you are quoting? I have people quoting me and asking valid questions and our discussion is very constructive. You on the other hand quote and then try to pull down the quote saying they are mistaken, unclear, wrong etc.

[nyiregyhazi]

I really don't take it personally, I really don't care who you are to care that much!
 
But you are quoting me so you are throwing down the gauntlet and challenging me to comment. What do you expect from the person you are quoting? I have people quoting me and asking valid questions and our discussion is very constructive. You on the other hand quote and then try to pull down the quote saying they are mistaken, unclear, wrong etc.

I'm palming my face for replying, but you don't appear to have even read what I quoted from myself or any of the previous responses. The very quote you posted that question beneath contains the answer to that question namely the fact that this forum is for OTHER readers. It's not solely about you. Do you honestly not understand that in free speech anyone has the right to make a counterpoint to a point that they disagree with- so that others can decide for themself which of the two stances they are to side with. If you object to this basic concept, setup a blog and ban comments. How many times can I remind you how forums and free speech work, before you stop asking questions that are based on continued failure to understand that forums are not based exclusively on your own convenience?

If you want to ask any further questions that I have already answered, I'll definitely not post any further clarifications. I'd already answered the question you asked for you, and it' tiresome to keep repeating the fact that this forum does not revolve around a lone individual, be it me or you. Nobody has a right to put a box around their stance and ban responses. OTHER READERS have a right to see an alternative view and it's rather saddening that you only see it from your own perspective.

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm palming my face for replying, but you don't appear to have even read what I quoted from myself or any of the previous responses.

The problem is that when you discuss someones quote you talk about something that has nothing to do with the quote, but you sprinkle little snide remarks saying what the person does is wrong (with zero evidence or practical knowledge as to why). Look at your "red herring" comment for example. There are plenty more. You think you can get away with it? No you can't, and it will always be highlighted how much you simply do not know how to discuss what others are talking about, especially when you have little knowledge on the topic yourself.

[kriatina]

Hey guys I got my Piano For Dummies Book which gives you a comprehensive in depth look at reading music, I don't want to spend all my time learning that when I already know and understand chords of the piano and just want to play songs from You Tube....Your Thoughts..

Hello,
like yourself I am in the process to learn and play the piano,
in my case I have started in my middle-life and I am learning from scratch.
Of course it is very very difficult for me to try and read a score.

But I find it very exciting because "in the old days" I was always a bookworm until I became a little "bored" because books are very limited, sooner or later I started to know many of my classics and I don't even know if a writer is telling me the truth or not.

But learning to read a score gives me a feeling that I can learn more about
the most private thoughts/feelings and mood of a composer, sometimes even his/her character "comes to the surface" and I find this very fascinating because I am very interested in people.
 
I also think it is "very good for my little grey cells" to become able and read a score
and I always feel very happy when I feel I am finally able to understand a score.

Perhaps it depends on what made you start and learn the piano.

Good luck from Kristina.

[gsmile]

Do you "NEED" to learn how to read words in order to learn a language?

>>> Depends on how you see it.

[sucom]

Do you "NEED" to learn how to read words in order to learn a language?

>>> Depends on how you see it.

Well, this is true, you don't really need to be able to read in order to learn a language, but you would be limited to only what you could physically hear around you or those words you have access to.  Also you wouldn't be able to learn any new words if people around you never used them.  I would think this could be very limiting because the more words you learn, the more easily you are able to express yourself more clearly and accurately, leaving no room for misinterpretation.

In terms of music, you would only be able to express music that you could retain in your memory or music which other people offered in front of you to allow you to remember it, such as youtube tutorials for example.  Basically, it would be limiting and my belief is, why impose these limitations on ourselves when we could have access to ......the world, past, present and future?

How easy would it be to learn the words from a whole book? 

[nyiregyhazi]

Well, this is true, you don't really need to be able to read in order to learn a language, but you would be limited to only what you could physically hear around you or those words you have access to.  Also you wouldn't be able to learn any new words if people around you never used them.  I would think this could be very limiting because the more words you learn, the more easily you are able to express yourself more clearly and accurately, leaving no room for misinterpretation.

In terms of music, you would only be able to express music that you could retain in your memory or music which other people offered in front of you to allow you to remember it, such as youtube tutorials for example.  Basically, it would be limiting and my belief is, why impose these limitations on ourselves when we could have access to ......the world, past, present and future?

How easy would it be to learn the words from a whole book?  

Yeah, it's easy to use an analogy to create an impression that does not hold up to scrutiny. The problem with analogies is that they cannot "prove" anything. They only reflect on that being compared to if chosen well enough. Choose one without seeing the full picture (based on superficial and mild resemblance that does not carry across into the most important issues) and it only serves to create a false impression.

Given that not everyone is improvising/playing short pieces by ear on to a high level before starting to read compositions (which would be the equivalent to how we all learn language- not by memorising long speeches or novels away from written words, but by making up our own combinations) the analogy neither works nor proves anything- when misapplied to classical compositions.

[gsmile]

Yeah, it's easy to use an analogy to create an impression that does not hold up to scrutiny. The problem with analogies is that they cannot "prove" anything. They only reflect on that being compared to if chosen well enough. Choose one without seeing the full picture (based on superficial and mild resemblance that does not carry across into the most important issues) and it only serves to create a false impression.

Given that not everyone is improvising/playing short pieces by ear on to a high level before starting to read compositions (which would be the equivalent to how we all learn language- not by memorising long speeches or novels away from written words, but by making up our own combinations) the analogy neither works nor proves anything- when misapplied to classical compositions.

First of all, analogies do not prove anything, nor are they supposed to prove anything.

Secondly, this analogy holds true in many ways; have you ever tried learning a new language?

If your vocabulary is limited in a language, then your speech will also be limited.

Also, you won't be able to write anything down.

Given that not everyone is improvising/playing short pieces by ear on to a high level before starting to read compositions (which would be the equivalent to how we all learn language- not by memorising long speeches or novels away from written words, but by making up our own combinations) the analogy neither works nor proves anything- when misapplied to classical compositions.

Again, you can start banging on the piano, just like you can start yelling jibberish and call it Spanish, but the analogy works.

There are different ways to learn both piano and language.

Plus, "improvising on a high level" doesn't mean anything.

With a language, you start with the bits and pieces first; if you're an infant, then you'll become attuned to the sounds of the language first, and you'll learn how to read and write later on in school.

If you're learning a second language (like music) in school, then you'll speak, read, and write, learning in small steps. People don't combine words right away; you have to learn the words before you can combine them.

You don't memorize long speeches when you first learn a language, and you don't memorize long pieces when you first learn piano.

If you don't know many words at all, you don't have a lot to work with. However, you can start speaking jibberish and pretend it's a language, just like you can press ten keys on the piano and pretend it's a composition.

Just as a side note, it's nice to see you again, nyiregyhazi-- I haven't been here for quite a while, and I see that you're still engaged in debate.