practicing sight reading

[pianoplayer51]

I want to do better at sight reading.   My sight reading is pretty awful to be honest.   I have a six weeks summer break from my music studies whilst my school is closed for the summer break.  My teacher has given me some light pieces to play over the holidays.   What I want to do is take this 6 weeks and just do sight reading exercises because I want to become a fluent sight reader. 

Is it a mistake to spend the 6 weeks doing sight reading only or do some sight reading and some playing of pieces?   Sight reading is my downfall so the sooner I master it the better and here is my golden opportunity.

What do you guys think?    thanks

[j_menz]

Don't do sight reading exercises, sight read through repertoire, then it's not a waste on two counts - your sight reading improves and your exposure to works by various composers broadens.

If your sight reading is poor, start with pieces about three grades below your current grade.

[awesom_o]

Don't do sight reading exercises, sight read through repertoire, then it's not a waste on two counts - your sight reading improves and your exposure to works by various composers broadens.

If your sight reading is poor, start with pieces about three grades below your current grade.

Very well said!

[quantum]

Agreed with the sightread repertoire suggestion above. 

Get any hymn book with 4 part writing, and read through it.  Hymns will enforce your understanding of harmonic progressions, voice leading, and intervalic relationships played with your fingers.  If you want a further challenge, pick up a book on Bach chorales.  Once you are familiar with these things you will be able to more easily pick up these patterns in more pianistic music, and be able to sort out the pianisms from the musical structure.

Play duets with a partner, or do some small ensemble work.  Sight read with your ensemble partner.  By working with another musician you will learn to prioritize tasks in the sight reading process. 

[zerozero]

 I have a problem with sight reading for the piano. I often think that there should be some software to help you tackle this problem, something that can present notes and can adjust tempo not type selection, key, etc.

 I have never come across anything that I would recommend though...

Z

[timothy42b]

Is it a mistake to spend the 6 weeks doing sight reading only or do some sight reading and some playing of pieces?   

It could be a mistake.  I think it depends a lot on your state of development.  And this is all IMO of course. 

Sightreading is not a single discrete skill that can be improved in isolation.  It is a combination of functions.  One of them, sometimes called prima facie sightreading, is probably what you're thinking of, where you see a note on the page and your finger flies to the right spot.  That does need to be practiced, but it is a small part of what good sightreaders do.  Most of what they do is pattern retrieval from the memory banks, and that requires the memory banks to be loaded first. 

Sightreading is harder than preparing a piece, so you can only sightread a couple levels below your prepared piece skill.  If you are a beginner, your skill is level 0 or 1.  You can't effectively practice sightreading because you don't HAVE two levels to drop. 

You need to get a couple levels up first.  But then, you don't have enough patterns memorized.  If you spent all your time sightreading you would not be loading your memory banks.  So you need a balance. 

Also, sightreading skill tends to be specific to the style you practice.  Playing a lot of hymns will make you a great hymn sightreader.  (and if you can play hymns, you are not a beginner anymore)  It will not transfer very well to other types of music particularly those with less straighforward rhythms.  Conversely, I've seen some fairly skilled players crash and burn trying to play hymns, because they haven't spent the time learning how to play that style at sight. 

[awesom_o]

There is some very good advice here.

In particular, I like what timothy42b said about sight-reading being not a single, discrete skill, but rather a combination of functions. What he said about the loaded memory banks and the rapid retrieval of information from them is also golden.


What quantum mentioned about hymns/Bach chorals, and sight-reading with a duet partner (whether another pianist, a singer, or other instrumentalist) in order to prioritize tasks, is also excellent advice.

I must add that developing excellence in reading takes quite a bit of time. There was a time in my life, around age 20, when I had already learned Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto in its entirety to a fairly high performance standard. Despite having this level of repertoire under my belt at that time, I still lacked sufficient reading ability to play hymns at sight like any decent church musician.

Two or three years of near-constant work on 4 hands duets with my partner has changed that completely, and I am now quite a literate musician.     

[dancook]

I'm a beginner, but I'll throw in my 2 cents worth.

I bought 6 of the 'Really Easy Piano' series, ones which had a lot of songs I know of.

I have been going from song to song, just playing with the right hand mostly. Once I've gotten to the end, I move onto the next song.

Having gone through the books several times in one evening, I feel my ability to find the notes quickly, and playing the notes on (in particular) 2 finger chords have increased dramatically.

My logic is, by not spending too much time on one song, I am not memorising it and have to play as I read. I am picking out songs I'd like to play more fully in the future, but it seems like a good exercise for me at the moment, and best of all - fun!

[timothy42b]

My logic is, by not spending too much time on one song, I am not memorising it and have to play as I read. I am picking out songs I'd like to play more fully in the future, but it seems like a good exercise for me at the moment, and best of all - fun!

That's good for learning keyboard geography, which seems to be what you need at this stage in your development. 

But by not spending too much time on any one song, you are not storing any patterns for retrieval.  At some point you have to start doing that.

[louispodesta]

I want to do better at sight reading.   My sight reading is pretty awful to be honest.   I have a six weeks summer break from my music studies whilst my school is closed for the summer break.  My teacher has given me some light pieces to play over the holidays.   What I want to do is take this 6 weeks and just do sight reading exercises because I want to become a fluent sight reader. 

Is it a mistake to spend the 6 weeks doing sight reading only or do some sight reading and some playing of pieces?   Sight reading is my downfall so the sooner I master it the better and here is my golden opportunity.

What do you guys think?    thanks

From a prior post of March 14th:

["When I was young, I could memorize any new piece for my next lesson, so I never learned how to properly sight read.  When I was in music school, the very best accompanist in the U.S. could not teach me how to read.

So, at the age of 50, I made up my mind that I could do it, and I did.  Mind you, I am not a great sight reader, but I improved well enough to read through 44 piano concertos in 5 years.

Therefore, you need to realize that the physical skill of basic sight reading is exactly the same as learning how to type.  It is familiarity with the keyboard, so you can get around without looking down.

The first book you get is "You Can Sight Read Vol.I," by Lorina Havill who taught it at Juilliard for years.  It has exercises where you play single notes, double notes, triads, and then seventh chords up and down the piano in octave sections.  You start out as slow as you can in order to obtain accuracy.  Even though it doesn't seem possible at first, if you practice this every day for just a few minutes, you eventually get to where you can feel your way around.

Next, there is a ten book series entitled "Four Star Sight Reading and Ear Tests, Daily Exercises For Piano Students," by Boris Berlin.  These are very short paperback books that contain very short pieces at various levels of sight reading.  They have a mixture of all genres, including church hymnal scores.  Also, they have sight singing drills and rhythmic practice sections, which are essential to sight reading. 

I recommend that you get volumes 7-10.  They are very inexpensive.

Set the metronome at the lowest possible setting where you can read without stopping, and then read for about 20 minutes a day, and no more.  If you do more than that, it will turn into drudgery and you will hate it.  A great idea is start every practice session by practicing your sight reading.

(That means:  DO NOT PRACTICE SIGHT READING, EXCLUSIVELY, FOR THE NEXT SIX WEEKS!!)

Then, after you have read through to volume 10 at a slow and steady speed, then you go back to volume number seven, slightly increase the tempo, and then read through to volume 10. 

This is the text they have used at the Royal College of Music, forever, because it works!

In about a year or two, your sight reading will have improved by about 300%.

A good basic yardstick is being able to sight read through Mozart or Haydn piano sonatas at a moderate tempo.  From there, you can decide on whether you want to study accompanying and increase your ability, accordingly."]


The point is, which has never been discussed, is that when you learn any brain-based skill as a child, it is one thing.  When you do not, as is your case, it is an entirely different set of circumstances which requires a specific set of remedies.

Good luck to you, and you may contact me by private message if you so desire.

[j_menz]

From a prior post of March 14th:

Rather than rehash the discussion about various aspects of this, I provide a link to the original.

[timothy42b]

Therefore, you need to realize that the physical skill of basic sight reading is exactly the same as learning how to type.  It is familiarity with the keyboard, so you can get around without looking down.

No.  That's a necessary but not sufficient condition for good sightreading.  Beginners do have to work on that, but complete mastery of it does not make one a good sightreader.  Good sightreading is maybe 10% that and 90% more complex skills.

The point is, which has never been discussed, is that when you learn any brain-based skill as a child, it is one thing.  When you do not, as is your case, it is an entirely different set of circumstances which requires a specific set of remedies.

That, I agree with, and we have not really figured out the best ways to teach some things to adults. 

[louispodesta]

That, I agree with, and we have not really figured out the best ways to teach some things to adults. 

I have, because I had no other alternative.

[kevin69]

Sightreading is harder than preparing a piece, so you can only sightread a couple levels below your prepared piece skill.  If you are a beginner, your skill is level 0 or 1.  You can't effectively practice sightreading because you don't HAVE two levels to drop.  

This is true, but as a novice i can sight read a single hand, and drop a couple of levels that way.
And sight reading the left hand of simple pieces may not be very challenging but does help with confidence and getting the feel of what successful sight reading should be like.

[timothy42b]

This is true, but as a novice i can sight read a single hand, and drop a couple of levels that way.
And sight reading the left hand of simple pieces may not be very challenging but does help with confidence and getting the feel of what successful sight reading should be like.

Actually, sightreading the left hand of some common pattern like an Alberti bass is exactly what the feel of successful sightreading should be, IMO.

[louispodesta]

My point is that "Sight Reading" is a skill.  And, it is not some magical musical talent!

My late father, who could transpose anything at sight (in all twelve keys), could not successfully memorize anything!

For the record, the following pianists, who won the sight reading prizes at their respective Conservatories, were Claude Debussy, Philippe Entremont, and Sviatoslav Richter.

Does that not tell you something in term of their skill set s concert pianists? No, it does not.

It just means that they could learn a whole bunch of notes in a short period  of time.

[pianoplayer51]

Some useful comments here 

[timothy42b]

Two or three years of near-constant work on 4 hands duets with my partner has changed that completely, and I am now quite a literate musician.     

Returning to this idea for a moment

Are you familiar at all with the ideas of Carmine Caruso, famous New York teacher of several instruments?  he believed strongly in "timing in." 

Some things are learned more efficiently when you are forced to play them in real time.  I have some theories on why, and they differ a bit from Caruso's, but regardless it seems to work

Playing duets is an ideal way of playing in "real time"

[awesom_o]

Playing duets is an ideal way of playing in "real time"

+100!

[timothy42b]

My late father, who could transpose anything at sight (in all twelve keys), could not successfully memorize anything!

You are mistaken.

He may not have been able to play a piece without sheet music.  That is one kind of memory.  But he played fluently, therefore he had learned and memorized patterns.  That is another kind of memory, a more important kind, especially for sightreading.

[nyiregyhazi]

You are mistaken.

He may not have been able to play a piece without sheet music.  That is one kind of memory.  But he played fluently, therefore he had learned and memorized patterns.  That is another kind of memory, a more important kind, especially for sightreading.

No doubt he had indeed memorised some patterns. But the importance of memory in sightreading is greatly overstated. It's like suggesting that Shakespeare would be easier to read because you've memorised a lot of orders in which words might come from other reading. With original writing, the expected bits are the tip of the iceberg. Most of it cannot be predicted and will simply be read. In music there are even more combinations that are possible than with letters and words and literally anything that you might come to expect might prove to actually lead somewhere different in a way that memory will not help with. You must simply read what it says and process that. Once processed it may match something you did exactly that way before or it may not. But processing goes first and comparison to memory next.

Good readers are just good at reading detail. Only mediocre fakers and the error prone depend much on memory. Good readers read the exact details and execute them as such without being misled by memory of something vaguely similar which isn't actually quite the same. Those who depend on memory notably are the BAD readers who are regularly fooled by the slightest divergence from what they thought would happen.

Obviously it's easier to PLAY a pattern that is identified as identical to something you've practised, notably a standard scale or arpeggio. But the reading is from speed of processing information accurately and virtually nothing to do with memory. Aside from memory of what symbols actually mean, it's all about how quickly and accurately your brain decodes information. Any expectations from memory must be confirmed by processing each detail, or you go wrong whenever expectation is not met.

[timothy42b]

If n were correct, then a good sightreader would handle different styles and genres equally well.

But that is not what we find in real life.  The ease of sightreading is very dependent on the familiarity with the style, regardless of difficulty level. 

[nyiregyhazi]

If n were correct, then a good sightreader would handle different styles and genres equally well.

But that is not what we find in real life.  The ease of sightreading is very dependent on the familiarity with the style, regardless of difficulty level.  

It's interesting that you present such utter nonsense as if it's a self evident truth, that would just end the debate.

Having learned more than half of the first volume of the wtc, unfamiliar fugues continue to be what I would be least confident at sightreading. It's nothing to do with familiarity. Fugues are just a lot harder both to decode and execute at first glance and also harder to fake in case of emergency. Likewise, pieces with extremely complex rhythms are one of my weaker areas. But it is really nothing to do with style. It's because they are inherently difficult and thus I need more time to think what I'm trying to do. It's not about about memorising a specific shift between 5/4 and 7/4 with a specific type of off beat syncopation going. It's about decoding such individual difficulties, on their own terms, quick enough to realise them. The only issue is that people who widely work with such complexity become sharper at deciphering. The idea that memory is the big issue in reading difficult repertoire is just a load of old guff. I have no problem with any style, but only with levels of difficulty. Memory of other pieces doesn't make works of great difficulty any easier in anything but a slender handful of respects- just as knowing many Shakespeare plays doesn't have you predicting anything but the most minor details, from an unfamiliar one. Becoming more adept at figuring out what the score asks for (and more adept at executing whatever you can visualise at once, no matter how hard) are what makes sightreading easier. You're confusing the ability to get the hands to do what has been accurately deciphered with memory in reading itself. A good sightreader simply decodes scores better and sends intentions to their hands better.

[timothy42b]

I think you have failed to appreciate the complexity of the sightreading process. 

[nyiregyhazi]

I think you have failed to appreciate the complexity of the sightreading process.  

Actually, it's an understanding of the complexity of the process that reveals how irrational and implausible the idea that's it's all about memory is. The most basic of issues of reading are down to memory of what note is what and how long they last for. The rest is all about precision of reading and capability of executing what you visualise. The idea that reading a five part fugue means looking for little bits that look familiar is just comical. It's based on accurate decoding of what the score says and a good enough connection between fingers and intentions  for that to be done.

Remember that music has MORE permutations than language- which is greatly limited in terms of how many different ways letters can be aligned into a word. Are you seriously thinking that being a good sightreader means memorising what any spelling of every harmony looks like? And then memorising every spelling that has one rogue chromatic note? It's absurd. I can read any such chord instantly for the simple reason I quickly read chords in full detail. I have no need for memory, as I can simply read the notes in an instant. Even if memory is an issue, it can only be referenced against  if you actually know what the whole chord is by reading all details. Without processing information first there is no basis for comparing with memory. So it offers no hope unless speed of basic reading starts first.

If you look beneath the surface it's abundantly clear what a big red Herring this memory theory is.  The memory illusion starts when you learn to read quickly and accurately and not before. The only result from hoping to use put memory before rapid information processing is a drastically increased chance of getting false positives and making casual errors due to false expectations of similarity where there are actually some differences. In reality, illusions of memory are a case of reading a chord in full detail and THEN comparing to past experience.

[timothy42b]

 The idea that reading a five part fugue means looking for little bits that look familiar is just comical.

As is typical, n wilfully attributes to me something I've never said, and in the process reveals he's made no attempt to understand my posts.  But then, there's no point, nobody but n knows anything anyway.   

As is typical, n types 10,000 words to my 1.  I can't find the interest to continue this discussion, carry on without me. 

[nyiregyhazi]

As is typical, n wilfully attributes to me something I've never said, and in the process reveals he's made no attempt to understand my posts.  But then, there's no point, nobody but n knows anything anyway.    

As is typical, n types 10,000 words to my 1.  I can't find the interest to continue this discussion, carry on without me.  

No I insist that you man up enough to support your stance- rather than flee from inconvenient counterarguments.

"Most of what they do is pattern retrieval from the memory banks, and that requires the memory banks to be loaded first."


I didn't put words in your mouth. If memory is the big issue, it follows that memory is what is used to sort out the detail of a five part fugue (in spite of minimal association to any memory). If it's doesn't work there (in an ultimate test of a truly accomplished sightreader) the theory that good sightreading operates based on a repertoire of memories is a load of old balls. If you don't feel as the logical continuation of your view would suggest you do, then explain in you own words how memories can be behind accurate reading of a 5 part fugue- rather than the rapid eye for decoding the specific details that I attribute.

[j_menz]

Aside from memory of what symbols actually mean, it's all about how quickly and accurately your brain decodes information. Any expectations from memory must be confirmed by processing each detail, or you go wrong whenever expectation is not met.

I doubt that. I don't think our brains get faster at processing so they cope with more detail faster, they change the way they process so it can cope with more.  Part of that is the ability to recognise patterns, but also to process divergences from patterns, not building anything with such a divergence up from scratch again, but recognising both that and how it is different.

For example, a standard scale with an additional chromatic note won't need to go back to processing a new series of notes, it will appear as a scale (pattern) with an additional note (exception) - two items to process, not 9.

[nyiregyhazi]

I doubt that. I don't think our brains get faster at processing so they cope with more detail faster, they change the way they process so it can cope with more.  Part of that is the ability to recognise patterns, but also to process divergences from patterns, not building anything with such a divergence up from scratch again, but recognising both that and how it is different.

For example, a standard scale with an additional chromatic note won't need to go back to processing a new series of notes, it will appear as a scale (pattern) with an additional note (exception) - two items to process, not 9.

I agree entirely that it's probably easier to spot divergence from a largely expected pattern than something that fits no standard pattern at all. But the brain processed it all. Or it couldn't know that only one note diverged. It is indeed 9 items not 2, because otherwise there was no basis to isolate the surprise as being just that compared to the other notes. There's is no rationally credible possibility that the brain can zone in on subverted expectations with reliability unless it also verifies whenever expectation is met. It's an outright statistical impossibility to reliably process surprises unless you ALSO process enough detail to affirm where expectations are indeed met. Luck won't do it. Only comprehensive processing of information will. You're confusing the subjective experience in the conscious mind. The unconscious mind was using the basic reading skills to process all 9 pieces of information, even if the conscious mind chose to zone in on the two most significant points of interest. If it didn't, the odds of success would have been minimal. Consistently good sight readers are not on some outrageous lucky streak.

Anyway, that's a chromatic scale. If we're trying to explain advanced skills then we must look at what is behind advanced attainments. If we were assuming it's humanly impossible for any pianist to sight read bachs c sharp minor fugue then the above could stand up. However if any pianist in history ever did a half decent job first time, they did so with minimal aid from expectation or memory. The five voices are not predictable enough for anything but advanced rapid processing to allow them to get what is going on. The only way is to actually process the overwhelming majority of the information and to leave educated guesses as exceptions rather than rules. Memory is virtually nowhere except in terms of remembering how to read in general. In a fugue,  a good reader doesn't "vamp" an expected arrival to the tonic that contradicts voice leading, in favour of any old tonic chord. They read every voice accurately and play what the score asks for- primarily band on awareness of the unique way in which voice leading creates the chord, rather than as a memory of a blocked chord. Even common distributions of chords must be accurately processed visually, in order to be set against things in memory banks. Little of what is in the fugue even matches likely experience in terms of exact detail, after being processed. The memory thing is just complete balls. Reliable readers process detail quickly and accurately with their eyes and then figure out how to execute it, whether it's new or familiar.

I never suggested that the process wouldn't be ultra efficient. The point is that theories about memory fall at the first hurdle. It's down to seeing and processing information above all.

[j_menz]

There's is no rationally credible possibility that the brain can zone in on subverted expectations with reliability 

It seems to me that the brain is expert at doing precisely that.

Consistently good sight readers are not on some outrageous lucky streak.

On that we agree.

If we were assuming it's humanly impossible for any pianist to sight read bachs c sharp minor fugue then the above could stand up.

I would assume that to be the case. I can't really test it as I've played that fugue many times over the years and so can't really see it with fresh eyes, but it doesn't seem any more formidable than any other five parter, and indeed quite a bit easier than some.

[nyiregyhazi]

It seems to me that the brain is expert at doing precisely that.

On that we agree.


I would assume that to be the case. I can't really test it as I've played that fugue many times over the years and so can't really see it with fresh eyes, but it doesn't seem any more formidable than any other five parter, and indeed quite a bit easier than some.

You're simply defying the laws of probability. There's one way and only one way to confirm that 8 out of 9 notes fit a familiar pattern and that one and only one doesn't. That is to process them all. Forget your subjective experience and think rationally about the probabilities of success if any less than all 9 pieces of information are internally verified. They are too low to even even be seriously considered.

When I sight read a piece, I'm constantly arriving on distributions of familiar chords that I might never have played in that precise configuration before. I don't accidentally revoice them out of memory of how another perfect cadence worked in that key unless I'm playing like a lazy arse who has no eye for detail. In Beethoven that would be unforgivable. If I'm playing so much as semi competently I read what it actually says and I play that. The chord is formed by eye for detail, not by remembering how another version of the cadence went- that might not be remotely similar in fine details (which I can only verify by reading the score properly) . The idea that simply because I'd never encountered that specific voicing of that chord before, it might be even slightly harder than a very familiar one is just nonsense. Memory banks analyse what the brain already processed via accuracy reading and do little more (except when a pianist is scraping by in a very wild and slipshod fasion). Of they are allowed to replace processing of information, they create at least as many errors as they fill in for. Reading is not limited by memory but by processing skill.

[j_menz]

You're simply defying the laws of probability. There's one way and only one way to confirm that 8 out of 9 notes fit a familiar pattern and that one and only one doesn't. That to process them all.

Probability has nothing to do with it. You know what a c major scale (say) looks like. It forms a pattern template - one chunk of information. You overlay that with what you see (that scale plus a Gb (say). The Gb sticks out like a sore thumb. No lucking it - its there in plain view, unmissable. And no need to check the rest individually - they match the pattern.

[nyiregyhazi]

Probability has nothing to do with it. You know what a c major scale (say) looks like. It forms a pattern template - one chunk of information. You overlay that with what you see (that scale plus a Gb (say). The Gb sticks out like a sore thumb. No lucking it - its there in plain view, unmissable. And no need to check the rest individually - they match the pattern.

All subjective. You're not appreciating the difference between experience and reality. You might as well claim not to have a subconscious.

To identify it's a c major scale I must process each note. The score doesn't say "play c major scale". It's deduced by reading every constituent note of those 9 and realising that makes a c major scale plus an added note. Those who assume c major plus g flat from any less than a complete processing of each note cannot know that it actually is c major plus g flat with certainty. They may survive here on a lucky guess but it won't be long before they make an arse of themself due to some outrageously false assumption, unless they really did process the lot and confirm exactly what was written.

I wouldn't miss a D flat scale either, even without a written key signature, with loads of accidentals and with an added A double flat. Like any half decent sightreader, that's because processing detail is simply my basis for how I operate. That's what tell me what pattern to play, not the casual assumption that anything just might fit a memory that has not been verified against all notes is probably fine. You have it in reverse. Processing detail in full triggers memory of what pattern the detail makes up, in good readers (at least, if it is a standard pattern). Memory doesn't trigger knowledge of unverified detail. Bad readers think they are seeing something they remember far too quickly and casually and regularly fall into a trap before they've processed enough detail to realise that they have been fooled. Good readers read first and then assimilate the information into patterns, from a place of certainty. It's how they avoid casual errors.


The reason this is important is that lesser readers cannot access the illusion of seeing just one thing at once until they have learned to process large amounts of detail quickly and unconsciously- which is the reality of how good readers are able to to think that they can see a whole scale as just one thing that is from memory. Nobody can actually do that without a rapid eye for detail.

[j_menz]

All subjective. You're not appreciating the difference between experience and reality. You might as well claim not to have a subconscious.

Not at all subjective. What we are discussing, I presume, is the workings of the subconscious, or unconscious, mind. I'm assuming you don't mean you actually consciously look at each individual note and do a conscious check off that it's part of the scale or not. My speculations about how that works are about the underlying reality just as much as yours are, though as ever your inclination to regard your own experience as both universal and objective is evident.

To identify it's a c major scale I must process each note.

That may be true in your case (though I express surprise).

Good readers read first and then assimilate the information into patterns, from a place of certainty. It's how they avoid casual errors.

Merely repeating it does not make it true. I say that good readers read patterns and assimilate variations on those patterns.

The reason this is important is that lesser readers cannot access the illusion of seeing just one thing at once until they have learned to process large amounts of detail quickly and unconsciously- which is the reality of how good readers are able to to think that they can see a whole scale as just one thing that is from memory. Nobody can actually do that without a rapid eye for detail.

When you read, do you claim to process each letter to verify that's it's really a particular word? Good readers read words, or groups of words and the same is true of good sight readers.

[nyiregyhazi]

Not at all subjective. What we are discussing, I presume, is the workings of the subconscious, or unconscious, mind. I'm assuming you don't mean you actually consciously look at each individual note and do a conscious check off that it's part of the scale or not. My speculations about how that works are about the underlying reality just as much as yours are, though as ever your inclination to regard your own experience as both universal and objective is evident.

That may be true in your case (though I express surprise).

Merely repeating it does not make it true. I say that good readers read patterns and assimilate variations on those patterns.

When you read, do you claim to process each letter to verify that's it's really a particular word? Good readers read words, or groups of words and the same is true of good sight readers.

Of course I process each letter. It's why I have never once misread the word dad as bab, in spite of visual similarities. And it's why I would always spot a slight misspelling of a word I know well. To spot the surprises in music, you must have such an eye for detail.

I'm not interested in the subjective conscious process. It's a sea of red herrings. I'm interested in what the brain must be capable of doing for success to be possible. Speaking of the subjective experience offers no useful information about the foundations that enable good sightreading. To think that you can identify any scale plus an extra chromatic note with certainty, yet fail to first process every constituent note, is a rational and statistical impossibility- unless highly prone to casual error. Music is too diverse for even 7/8 notes to verify a complete 8 pattern. And the eye is only drawn to rogue notes if it has verified the normality of all other notes by processing them all for purposes of comparison. It only by knowing the other notes via certainty of reading that a rogue note becomes a singular rogue note in the mind. You're dealing in completely implausible subjective illusions.

It's far more true that excellent reading triggers memories of patterns than that memory contributes to good reading.

[j_menz]

Of course I process each letter. It's why I have never once misread the word dad as bab, in spite of visual similarities. And it's why I would always spot a slight misspelling of a word I know well. To spot the surprises in music, you must have such an eye for detail.

I'm not interested in the subjective conscious process. It's a sea of red herrings. I'm interested in what the brain must be capable of doing for success to be possible.

Try this :

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Or this:

Cocadgnir to schreeharc at mabCreigd iUnervytis, it eodtsn' trtame in awth rreod the tsteerl in a rodw are, the lnyo pirmoettn ihntg is ttah the trisf and stal tterle be at the grhti eclap. The ster can be a olaty sesm and you can litls drae it outtwhi a morbpel. ihsT is cubesea the uamnh ndim esod not daer yerve rltete by fistle, but the drow as a ewloh.

You keep asserting, against my protestations to the contrary, that I am talking about the subjective conscious experience. Please consider for a moment the possibility that I do in fact know the difference and am talking about the underlying unconscious .

[nyiregyhazi]

Try this :

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Or this:

Cocadgnir to schreeharc at mabCreigd iUnervytis, it eodtsn' trtame in awth rreod the tsteerl in a rodw are, the lnyo pirmoettn ihntg is ttah the trisf and stal tterle be at the grhti eclap. The ster can be a olaty sesm and you can litls drae it outtwhi a morbpel. ihsT is cubesea the uamnh ndim esod not daer yerve rltete by fistle, but the drow as a ewloh.

You keep asserting, against my protestations to the contrary, that I am talking about the subjective conscious experience. Please consider for a moment the possibility that I do in fact know the difference and am talking about the underlying unconscious .

You are mistaken. As I said earlier music has more valid permutations. Try reordering the order in which melody notes come in a Chopin Nocturne and see if anyone can deduce the "right order" at a glance. They won't. What the above shows is that processing every letter (which is exactly what makes it easily readable) is enough to deduce the word due to the limited number of possibilities for those letters. In musical equivalence each of those words could be spelt in multiple ways and have equal validity to the musical "sentence". The right order will not reveal itself in the simple way. Composers make their own musical "words". They are not limited to the extent that English is. Only in language are possibilities so limited that concrete deduction is possible. far from showing that we don't process letters it shows that reading is so heavily grounded in them that they are enough to deduce the word, even in the wrong order. Try giving the wrong letters and seeing how well we deduce the word, without the necessary raw information that those particular letters carry, once they are processed...

No matter what you claim about supposed objectivity, it is transparently impossible to deduce any 9 note scale without reading every one of those notes or taking a casual guess. If any one is a rogue note, any other can be too. No note is certain unless verified by actual reading and you're not in the realms of reality if you sincerely feel otherwise. If you  are talking reality and not subjective experience, you're talking about sloppy procedures that will reliably give mistaken assumptions in anything if moderate complexity and beyond. That's the secret to shoddy sightreading, not ability to play difficult music accurately at once. Your unconscious does far more than you realise, for what you suggest is utterly implausible, based on probabilities alone.

[j_menz]

You are mistaken.

Once again you make the error of thinking that your own view of what you do is objective reality and that anyone who disagrees with you is either (a) a complete idiot or (b) talking about their own subjective experience rather than reality and confusing the two. I probably should be grateful you did not immediately jump to option (a). Nonetheless, the option that someone may not agree with you and yet be talking about the same thing seems something you are incapable of fathoming.

I offered the above example not as a means of demonstrating that music could be read that way, merely to show that the brain works in more complex ways than you allow. It attempts to be efficient, and in doing so adopts strategies more complex than simple brute processing, which is all you allow for it. One of those strategies is to allow it to see groups as a whole. A scale may be such a group. It would not be for a beginner, but should be for any advanced reader. Any deviations from that will be immediately obvious on the "same/different" processing level. Not a matter of chance, not a matter of guesswork, but basically obvious at the level of initial processing. That may seem "transparently impossible" to you, but that is merely your opinion, not objective fact, and is a deduction from your own experience.

If we are to advance this discussion, we will need to point to research supporting our respective positions. Whether that is a more generally interesting pursuit is a matter I doubt, though it may be. In the absence of such, though, it seems pointless to continue.

[nyiregyhazi]

Once again you make the error of thinking that your own view of what you do is objective reality and that anyone who disagrees with you is either (a) a complete idiot or (b) talking about their own subjective experience rather than reality and confusing the two. I probably should be grateful you did not immediately jump to option (a). Nonetheless, the option that someone may not agree with you and yet be talking about the same thing seems something you are incapable of fathoming.

I offered the above example not as a means of demonstrating that music could be read that way, merely to show that the brain works in more complex ways than you allow. It attempts to be efficient, and in doing so adopts strategies more complex than simple brute processing, which is all you allow for it. One of those strategies is to allow it to see groups as a whole. A scale may be such a group. It would not be for a beginner, but should be for any advanced reader. Any deviations from that will be immediately obvious on the "same/different" processing level. Not a matter of chance, not a matter of guesswork, but basically obvious at the level of initial processing. That may seem "transparently impossible" to you, but that is merely your opinion, not objective fact, and is a deduction from your own experience.

If we are to advance this discussion, we will need to point to research supporting our respective positions. Whether that is a more generally interesting pursuit is a matter I doubt, though it may be. In the absence of such, though, it seems pointless to continue.

Probability is all it takes. If advanced readers almost never casually mistake an adapted scale for the basic version, you have your proof that they processed all details in order to know specifically what matched expectation and what didn't. If they also reliably read scales that are so far gone fron any traditional pattern that memory issues aren't even on the radar, you have further proof as to what genuinely good readers can do ie read what it says and then do it- regardless of whether it's similar to anything else in experience or not.

I have no idea what makes you think the latter is possible without the brain processing each constituent note. The way you're arguing, you'd think I claimed they stop and say all the letters out loud or something. I didn't. I said that reliability of success conclusively proves to 99.99999 percent certain that details are not guessed based on flimsy expectations of a pattern (that does not even exist in a form that would be subject to worthy comparison with anything in memory). They have necessarily been processed, or all kinds of mistakes would have resulted. Nothing you have theorised can account for any single pianist having the capability to do this without actually processing all the notes. I really don't know where you're trying to go here.


To understand a whole and be certain you haven't mistaken it for another whole while you must observe its details in full. Any one different detail equals a different whole altogether and thus all detail must be observed, no matter how little the conscious should perceive this process. Nothing you can say will override this simple irrefutable truth.

Information is PROCESSED into a whole after being received. It's not received as an instant whole, no matter how quickly the brain might create something bigger from it. All you are offering is subjective experience.

[j_menz]

Information is PROCESSED into a whole after being received. It's not received as an instant whole, no matter how quickly the brain might create something bigger from it. All you are offering is subjective experience.

I repeat:

If we are to advance this discussion, we will need to point to research supporting our respective positions. Whether that is a more generally interesting pursuit is a matter I doubt, though it may be. In the absence of such, though, it seems pointless to continue.

In the absence of such, we are at an end.

[nyiregyhazi]

I repeat:

In the absence of such, we are at an end.

You haven't earned a strong enough position to demand research. Your argument hinges on a note perfect performance of a piece featuring non-standard scales being possible without the unconscious mind actually needing to process precisely which notes they are formed from ie guesswork that is not informed by accuracy of reading. If you sincerely don't appreciate how ludicrous that position is, I don't think any scientific papers are going to make you see the transparent fallacy of your logic.

If a forest is a completely different forest when just a single tree is moved a few inches, then it's impossible to accurately perceive that forest without correctly observing every individual tree. In music of any complexity, that's the situation. A whole is merely a composite of detail and by definition it is not a whole anymore without all of its detail. Any unconfirmed detail means an unconfirmed whole. Such absolute logic should really not be a matter for debate.

[awesom_o]

Where is the "yawn" smiley when you need it??

[nyiregyhazi]

Where is the "yawn" smiley when you need it??

These are important issues in a thread about sightreading. The biggest fallacy in training sightreading is to tell students that they are supposed to be able to just see some big whole at once (be it a harmony or a scale or whatever else), without first learning a flawless and instant eye for any detail. Students who can't read detail at once can't assemble broader pictures until they can deal with detail properly. I can't overstate how much I improved when I started consciously forcing myself to process EVERY detail during sightreading practise, no matter how slow I had to go not to fake anything. Now I also process a massively improved amount of detail when just doing it without much conscious thought and I fake far less when sightreading difficult pieces at speed. Precise execution come from precise perception of detail, not from hoping to accurately see a complex pattern as a whole, at the very first glance. That takes training through attention to detail and is almost certainly a subjective illusion that can only be created by reading details quicker. Thanks to realising this, my sight reading skills are still improving a lot and there's very little that I'd be at all ashamed to have a go at, if a student brought it unannounced to a lesson.

[awesom_o]

I agree with you, but I also agree with many other posters in this thread.

I HATE seeing people talk over each other/past each other.

Discussions are NOT duels-to-the-death, where one person is 'right' and the other is 'wrong'.

You don't have to 'win' an argument every time you get into one! Make your points, support them, and retreat gracefully! That way, everyone wins! 

[nyiregyhazi]

I agree with you, but I also agree with many other posters in this thread.

I HATE seeing people talk over each other/past each other.

Discussions are NOT duels-to-the-death, where one person is 'right' and the other is 'wrong'.

You don't have to 'win' an argument every time you get into one! Make your points, support them, and retreat gracefully! That way, everyone wins!  

I'm willing to accept opinion. However the problem here is that denying that it's necessary to process details in order to accurately see a whole leaves no rational explanation as to how anyone actually sightreads accurately. If there were an interesting point to fill in that hole, I'd gladly hear it. All it would take to move on would be for him to appreciate that simply because you don't consciously decode all separate details, it doesn't mean that your brain magically stops being required to process them all from the score, in order for accurate perception of the bigger pattern to be faintly possible.

[j_menz]

You haven't earned a strong enough position to demand research.

Since the only alternative it to put up with an increasingly hysterical repetition of the same thing from you, I did not demand it, merely indicated that further discussion was pointless without it.

[nyiregyhazi]

Since the only alternative it to put up with an increasingly hysterical repetition of the same thing from you, I did not demand it, merely indicated that further discussion was pointless without it.

Discussion was already pointless. You are essentially advocating clairvoyance, when you claim it's not necessary for the unconscious to process details in order to accurately create a composite whole from them.

By the way, much of the what is claimed by the popular meme you quoted is plain wrong.

See here:

https://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/

Letters are very important in words too. In particular note the incomprehensible bit at the end, where the scrambled words have multiple possibilities and do not readily imply a whole word. Given how many musical possibilities can be used, it's a far better analogy to use that sentence than the meme itself, with its erroneous claims.

[j_menz]

Discussion was already pointless. You are essentially advocating clairvoyance, when you claim it's not necessary for the unconscious to process details in order to accurately create a composite whole from them.

You really don't pay attention, do you?

By the way, much of the what is claimed by the popular meme you quoted is plain wrong.

See here:

https://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/

Letters are very important in words too. In particular note the incomprehensible bit at the end, where the scrambled words have multiple possibilities and do not readily imply a whole word. Given how many musical possibilities can be used, it's a far better analogy to use that sentence than the meme itself, with its erroneous claims.

The bit at the end is done differently to show the validity of the idea. I'm sorry for not being as bluntly clear about that as must have been necessary.

It is true that the attribution to Cambridge University is spurious, but are you suggesting that the first paragraph is not quite readable, and the second largely incomprehensible?  I would think that was true of everyone, with the possible exception of those who do not have English as a first (or at least well developed) language, and almost certainly the case for those who do not natively use roman characters.

[nyiregyhazi]

You really don't pay attention, do you?

The bit at the end is done differently to show the validity of the idea. I'm sorry for not being as bluntly clear about that as must have been necessary.

It is true that the attribution to Cambridge University is spurious, but are you suggesting that the first paragraph is not quite readable, and the second largely incomprehensible?  I would think that was true of everyone, with the possible exception of those who do not have English as a first (or at least well developed) language, and almost certainly the case for those who do not natively use roman characters.

Are you sure you read to the very end? I referred to the end of the article, not to your post. It is to the same formula and incomprehensible. Clearly from your second paragraph, you didn't read much of the article-as you're barking up the wrong tree. In the middle, three sentences that followed the formula exactly as portrayed are actually rather hard to read. The meme itself is very readable but if you actually read the article I linked in full, you'll see what about it is a load of cobblers. And the bit at the end reveals that, when there are multiple possibilities the exact order of letters is quite hugely vital to the meaning (just like in music, where multiple permutations of notes could make sense).

[j_menz]

Are you sure you read to the very end? It was done to the same formula and incomprehensible. Clearly from your second paragraph, you didn't read much of the article-as you're barking up the wrong tree. In the middle, three sentences that followed the formula exactly as portrayed are actually rather hard to read. The meme itself is very readable but if you actually read the article I linked in full, you'll see what about it is a load of cobblers. And the bit at the end reveals that, when there are multiple possibilities the exact order of letters is quite hugely vital to the meaning (just like in music, where multiple permutations of notes could make sense).

Not quite. My second paragraph was to demonstrate that the first and last positions do in fact have a special role. 

The paragraph in the article serves a different purpose. It shows that there are times when it doesn't work. That in some instances, the word remains ambiguous, and the words chosen by them are actually carefully chosen to demonstrate this. A random paragraph converted to this rule will in most cases be legible.

Now, I did not use this as an example of what happens when we sight read. I used it as an example of where the way we actually process information is not as straightforward as might appear at first glance.  In cognitive sciences, the oddities - things that fail (such as optical illusions) and things which surprisingly work (such as the word example) are often useful tools in understanding what's going on under the hood.

Applying that latter point to sight reading might prove a useful starting point. The things we cannot read, or the points where we make reading errors may prove a useful insight into the underlying mechanism. And, being a complex task, the underlying mechanism may work differently at different stages of its development and possibly differently in different people anyway.

In my experience - subjective entirely, here - there are things I can read easily, where I am completely oblivious to what's going on, and then a range of various elements that, when introduced,  increasingly make the task more complex, slower and more conscious.

It also seems to me that part of the sight reading process also involves the brain in forming an auditory expectation, and a mechanical strategy for execution. I suspect that the better the sight reader, the more intertwined all of that is, and that also serves to complicate the picture.