Poor Sight Reading.

[mohab95]

Any hope for naturally poor sight readers? I started learning music notation when I was 15 so I might as well give it up entirely.

[timothy42b]

Any hope for naturally poor sight readers? I started learning music notation when I was 15 so I might as well give it up entirely.

Yes but you must identify what your specific deficits really are and work on them individually.  Sight reading is not a monolithic skill but a collection of related processes.

[dumkagal]

One thing I do is very slowly read through pieces that are extremely complex--Prokofiev 3rd Concerto, Barber Sonata, Schostakovich Preludes and Fugues--I'll work with various passages and transitions between passages, make finger marks, etc. Then when I turn to simpler pieces, I find that my reading has improved, that pieces with more predictable phrasing and construction come quicker.

[iansinclair]

Yes -- time and practice.  Which is sort of a flip answer and not at all helpful.  Perhaps the thing which has helped me most is developing the ability to look and see chunks of music as wholes, rather than individual notes.  This does take time, and is best done simply by doing it.  Dumkagal's idea of working on complex pieces slowly is helpful, I think.

Another point, though.  Various people can sight read with varying degrees of skill, just as various people can read writing or print with varying degrees of skill.  I had an organ teacher once who was incredibly good at it, and it was rather discouraging to us ordinary mortals!  (The fact that she was one of the very best organists in the world at the time probably helped her...)

[quantum]

Another point I've found that is helpful is to not relegate sight-reading improvement to exercises alone.  We must not forget that the end goal is to produce music with our sight reading.  Work on sight reading with other musicians: make music together as opposed to locking yourself in a practice room in hopes you will improve.  Ensemble work such as duets, chamber, vocal, and choral all contribute to one's sight-reading skill.

[goldentone]

Don't give up hope for becoming an accomplished sightreader.  I started piano at 14 and not until 'modern' times has my ability begun to blossom.  Devote just 10-15 minutes in your practice time, and be looking for a confirmation from the silent home sprouts that will register into a prophetic output from that once a day price on the filming ivories.  Discipline is key for the piano, the panacea shot, and it is easy to wish for many days in between its work before it becomes part of our nature.

Then you can venture "all at sea" to lipreading!  

[002517]

My music teacher (she's a very good piano accompanist and a godly sight-reader) once made an excellent point about sight-reading: it's all about looking for patterns.

Use all opportunities during your practice when you learn new material to naturalise yourself to interpreting the arrangement of notes on sheet music. In other words, learn all familiar patterns of notes. For example, as soon as you see a block of notes stacked on top of each other, equally spaced, you should be able to immediately recognise it as: a triad! If you see a string of notes, one after another, separated by lines and spaces, you should be able to immediately see it as: a scale! And it is easy to see where the triad or scale is placed, because all you have to do is look at the bottom or top note.

So to conclude, never waste time reading every single note on the page. Look at one note, look at it in relation to other notes, immediately recognise the pattern of notes (how they are arranged) and sight-read away!  

[slobone]

One thing I do is very slowly read through pieces that are extremely complex--Prokofiev 3rd Concerto, Barber Sonata, Schostakovich Preludes and Fugues--I'll work with various passages and transitions between passages, make finger marks, etc. Then when I turn to simpler pieces, I find that my reading has improved, that pieces with more predictable phrasing and construction come quicker.

I've become fearless about reading through anything that appeals to me. Rachmaninoff, Bartok, hard Schumann pieces -- f*** it, I'll read through them all.

And I've also been reading the Shosty Preludes and Fugues. But I made an amazing discovery -- some of the are actually quite do-able for me. So I'm working on one (the A major) as an official piece.

[justharmony]

Don't know if this will help... but my piano teacher from younger days used to "force" us to look ahead and quickly take in music when sight-reading by progressively covering the music as it came...  it was pretty effective as I recall... kept us in the habit of not getting "stuck" anywhere... keeping moving always looking just ahead.  It does require the participation of a second person who kinda knows what they're doing though.  For what it's worth. 
JH

[awesom_o]

Don't know if this will help... but my piano teacher from younger days used to "force" us to look ahead and quickly take in music when sight-reading by progressively covering the music as it came...  it was pretty effective as I recall... kept us in the habit of not getting "stuck" anywhere... keeping moving always looking just ahead. 

I also had a teacher who did this! It was quite helpful.

Ultimately though, it was really just playing a ton of duets that made the biggest difference for me.

[dima_76557]

Any hope for naturally poor sight readers? I started learning music notation when I was 15 so I might as well give it up entirely.

Reading itself is not the difficulty. This can be learned pretty quickly on the sofa without even touching the instrument.

It's the fight against yourself and the instrument that you have to stop to be successful:
1) weak perception of keyboard topography (do something about it outside the context of sightreading so the instrument can become an extension of yourself)
2) fear of making mistakes.

[nyiregyhazi]

Reading itself is not the difficulty. This can be learned pretty quickly on the sofa without even touching the instrument.

Don't be so sure. It can be but there are students who simply haven't done this right and they are not uncommon. Also, when the intellectual process has not been connected to the execution side, it's arguably a part of the mental side still. For example, some students simply don't think enough by interval which why it's not a simple process for the hand to feel it's way between notes.

[dima_76557]

Don't be so sure. It can be but there are students who simply haven't done this right and they are not uncommon. Also, when the intellectual process has not been connected to the execution side, it's arguably a part of the mental side still. For example, some students simply don't think enough by interval which why it's not a simple process for the hand to feel it's way between notes.

Even if that is the case, doesn't it make sense to train CORRECT reading (in intervals) in itself away from the instrument, and the (blind) execution of intervals on the piano separately first? It seems to me that it is the complex of insufficiently separately trained skills that cause the fear, confusion and tension that usually spoil the fun for many.

[jesc]

From my experience my sight reading ability is greatly influenced by ear. For example I find Beethoven's pieces a lot easier to sight read because for some reason, the way it's written, the changes in key feels more intuitive for me.

[nyiregyhazi]

Even if that is the case, doesn't it make sense to train CORRECT reading (in intervals) in itself away from the instrument, and the (blind) execution of intervals on the piano separately first? It seems to me that it is the complex of insufficiently separately trained skills that cause the fear, confusion and tension that usually spoil the fun for many.

I'm not sure. Isn't it easier to associate immediately? What does a 5th even mean if you can't measure it in appreciaton that it signifies a distance that can be viewed visually between two keys and then felt physically? A fifth only means something to me because of the association to the look and feel of a distance between associated piano keys. Without that, it's merely a word. It has to be linked to either a visual or sensory imagination of pianistic distances to mean anything worthy- not simply to the term. I have no problem with learning to feel intervals first, but the sooner they are linked to a sense of visual distances, the better.

However,  part of the problem in many readers is that you must also have a sense of what any individual note means as an absolute. Many readers really are very bad at this. This is the part where I feel the most work should be done away from the instrument. Intervals are primarily a basis for feeling things more instinctively, but the ability to isolate the specific meaning of any individual symbol at the very first glance (WITHOUT reference to the feel of an interval) is where a lot of people are badly lacking. It's easy to explain these things, but many pianists are so lost in "feel" that they have relatively poor ability to read fluently in absolutes- no matter how easy it is to explain the basics of reading. I think most people are geared to one mindset- feel distances or read every note separately. Success requires merging of both viewpoints. Playing a passage with only one finger is one of the ultimate tests. Some people are so bad at separating the analytical from the sensory, that they fall apart when they no longer feel intervals between fingers and instead have to perceive each note as an absolute. To be able to link sight and feel, you must also be able to separate the skill-sets of absolute and relative reading.

[outin]

Reading itself is not the difficulty. This can be learned pretty quickly on the sofa without even touching the instrument.

Except sometimes the reading itself IS the difficulty. I have recently met another person like me, who simply cannot make sense of the lines and spaces correctly. There must be others like us.

I've spent quite a lot of time on my sofa but it doesn't seem to make it any more fluent or faster for me to make sense of the scores.

Reading intervals is good as long as one can see the difference between them fast and securely enough...practicing reading easier music also is good but doesn't really make it less stressing to read.

[dima_76557]

I'm not sure. Isn't it easier to associate immediately? What does a 5th even mean if you can't measure it in appreciaton that it signifies a distance that can be viewed visually between two keys and then felt physically? A fifth only means something to me because of the association to the look and feel of a distance between associated piano keys. Without that, it's merely a word. It has to be linked to either a visual or sensory imagination of pianistic distances to mean anything worthy- not simply to the term. I have no problem with learning to feel intervals first, but the sooner they are linked to a sense of visual distances, the better.

You mentioned "looking" (the visual aspect) and "feeling" (proprioception), but what about pre-hearing what they see, expecting at least something in terms of sound?

[dima_76557]

Except sometimes the reading itself IS the difficulty. I have recently met another person like me, who simply cannot make sense of the lines and spaces correctly. There must be others like us.

I've spent quite a lot of time on my sofa but it doesn't seem to make it any more fluent or faster for me to make sense of the scores.

If that is really the case, why do sight reading at all? Without the ability to decypher the code properly, the activity itself doesn't seem to make much sense, does it? Wouldn't you be better off improvising something?

[outin]

If that is really the case, why do sight reading at all?

My teacher wants me to?  

Seriously...even if reading itself is a pain, I really love to pick up an unfamiliar score and hear what it is about... Sight reading is also a good way to figure out if something is manageable for my hands.

There's too much music around to just let go...

Without the ability to decypher the code properly, the activity itself doesn't seem to make much sense, does it?

Maybe it doesn't. Just as little as it makes sense for dyslexic people to read poetry. But one can still enjoy the parts that do not cause problems  

[nyiregyhazi]

You mentioned "looking" (the visual aspect) and "feeling" (proprioception), but what about pre-hearing what they see, expecting at least something in terms of sound?

Sure, the more links that are made, the better. However, I suspect that in the early stages most people won't have developed skills for relative pitch. Personally I'd be more inclined to let that evolve by observation of the results, plus singing along, than to make it a primary focus to try to hear the exact pitch in advance from the very start.

[nyiregyhazi]

Except sometimes the reading itself IS the difficulty. I have recently met another person like me, who simply cannot make sense of the lines and spaces correctly. There must be others like us.

I've spent quite a lot of time on my sofa but it doesn't seem to make it any more fluent or faster for me to make sense of the scores.

Reading intervals is good as long as one can see the difference between them fast and securely enough...practicing reading easier music also is good but doesn't really make it less stressing to read.

What is your method? What tells you what each symbol means and what do you do to reach 100% certainty if you feel unsure of a note? For those who struggle, it's extremely important to analyse what processes you are actually using for identification. If the conscious processes are inefficient it's very hard to make unconscious reading efficient.

Merely by learning the spaces to the point of true certainty, anyone can quickly become fluent.

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

The problem with most approaches is that they are too intuitive (which means that clear references are not set in stone, allowing mistakes to pass by without advance verification to expose them) or that they give too much information at once, rather than a simpler skeleton that can be properly memorised.

Although I make mistakes in execution, the only mistakes I make in actual identification would be down to forgetting to carry accidentals- because I'm constantly referencing written notes to that skeleton and not simply breaking a code for an isolated event. Every note is linked to many other imaginary notes and checked for consistency with them, by interval. If it doesn't fit the rest of the map, I notice in advance and rethink contextually- so my brain is never allowed to retain the confusion of a false positive that slides by unnoticed. The classic mistake is to be treating notes separately from other references rather than seeing their place among many. You simply can't go wrong when you are verifying notes contextually in the skeleton. Only when false positives are instantly exposed like this can unconscious reading ever go on to be easy or fluent.

[outin]

What is your method? What tells you what each symbol means and what do you do to reach 100% certainty if you feel unsure of a note? For those who struggle, it's extremely important to analyse what processes you are actually using for identification. If the conscious processes are inefficient it's very hard to make unconscious reading efficient.

Merely by learning the spaces to the point of true certainty, anyone can quickly become fluent.

I am seldom uncertain of the notes. I see them the way I do, unfortunately what I see is not always what is written on the page. i only notice the mistake when I hear the sound. I see two spaces when there is three or two lines when there's only one...

Edit: It is also highly depended on the style of the print, the contrast and the size and clarity of the score. I might be able to read a piece from one edition while another one does not work. Luckily I only seldom suffer from moving notes, but when that happens, reading becomes intolrable.

[nyiregyhazi]

I am seldom uncertain of the notes. I see them the way I do, unfortunately what I see is not always what is written on the page. i only notice the mistake when I hear the sound. I see two spaces when there is three or two lines when there's only one...

? If you misread this way you're uncertain by definition. "Certainty" does not exist unless what you intended to do was what it said to do, or at least not the kind of certainty that we ever want. Anyway, as I stated in my post, learning to use more verifications will make such things impossible. If you only look at an interval, there is nothing to expose a contradiction if you make an error. If you are also seeing each note against the context of the spaces (whether these notes are spaces themselves or adjacent lines), and checking that they fit that context, you have to go wrong twice in two separate ways (which would have to be matched to each other in a highly improbable coincidence) in order to actually intend the wrong note. This is very unlikely to happen. The finest readers aren't immune to misjudgements altogether. It's just that seeing things in more than way than exposes misjudgements and allows self-correction before you even make an error.

PS. I know the above is true with objective certainty, for the simple reason that I'm a poor reader of alto clef. Intervallic reading isn't enough to make it easy for me, because I have no references set in stone to compare my reading against. A single mistake and I'm thrown. With treble clef or bass clef I wouldn't simply never misjudge a note unless put under extreme time pressure (and even then I would never think I was sure and then find I was wrong- I'd know both that I was "having a go"). It's because absolute references and intervallic reading work together. In alto clef, I don't have enough absolute references to have that same reliable certainty of every note.

[dima_76557]

Merely by learning the spaces to the point of true certainty, anyone can quickly become fluent.

That is: if they don't suffer from musical dyslexia.

[outin]

? If you misread this way you're uncertain by definition. "Certainty" does not exist unless what you intended to do was what it said to do, or at least not the kind of certainty that we ever want. Anyway, as I stated in my post, learning to use more verifications will make such things impossible. If you only look at an interval, there is nothing to expose a contradiction if you make an error. If you are also seeing each note against the context of the spaces (whether these notes are spaces themselves or adjacent lines), and checking that they fit that context, you have to go wrong twice in two separate ways (which would have to be matched to each other in a highly improbable coincidence) in order to actually intend the wrong note. This is very unlikely to happen. The finest readers aren't immune to misjudgements altogether. It's just that seeing things in more than way than exposes misjudgements and allows self-correction before you even make an error.

I edited mu post, very difficult to write with this device...
You don't get it because you don't understand the kind of cognitive defect I have. It feels weird to me as well when it happens, because I am fully aware that it doesn't make any sense.

[nyiregyhazi]

That is: if they don't suffer from musical dyslexia.

I appreciate that it's more difficult but it's always possible to learn how to read. Unless someone with dyslexia wants to just quit on the idea of reading music altogether, it's only more important for them to have rigorous procedures for verifying what they are seeing. Going slow is obviously more important, but it only becomes all the more important to have a methodology. Leaving someone with dyslexia to go intuitively would be the biggest disaster of all.

[nyiregyhazi]

I edited mu post, very difficult to write with this device...
You don't get it because you don't understand the kind of cognitive defect I have. It feels weird to me as well when it happens, because I am fully aware that it doesn't make any sense.

I appreciate that you have a cognitive issue. But it's still a fact that if you strive to verify something with not just one method but two, you will expose mistakes made within one viewpoint by verifying with the other viewpoint. You may take longer to do this than some people. But if you want to do things reliably and accurately, you should use the same principle. Verification prevents mistakes before they happen. You can either make a self-fulfilling prophecy of going wrong loads or you can be patient and develop a method for verifying things so you don't have to go wrong. Nobody said it's a speed challenge. But it's quicker to be certain first time by using two methods than to have to correct mistakes later.

[outin]

I appreciate that you have a cognitive issue. But it's still a fact that if you strive to verify something with not just one method but two, you will expose mistakes made within one viewpoint by verifying with the other viewpoint. You may take longer to do this than some people. But if you want to do things reliably and accurately, you should use the same principle. Verification prevents mistakes before they happen. You can either make a self-fulfilling prophecy of going wrong loads or you can be patient and develop a method for verifying things so you don't have to go wrong. Nobody said it's a speed challenge. But it's quicker to be certain first time by using two methods than to have to correct mistakes later.

But aren't we talking about pure sight reading here?. Verifying by sevral methods may work when I practice, but sight reading is about making quick judgements. How does that make it possible to make such verifications when they themselves can be very slow processes?

Another problem is how to know what to verify when it's so random that the problem arises?

[outin]

That is: if they don't suffer from musical dyslexia.

The article is not really comprehensive. Having dyslexia AND having trouble reading notes can happen, but it is also possible to not have dyslexia but to have trouble reading notes due to their graphic and spatial nature.

So the concept of musical dyslexia is problematic because dyslexia is related to text. There's a concept more accurate in my language but don't know if there's an established word in english.

[dima_76557]

@ outin

My link was just a way to show N. that there may be problems (not only this particular one) that prevent people from following established methods.

[nyiregyhazi]

But aren't we talking about pure sight reading here?. Verifying by sevral methods may work when I practice, but sight reading is about making quick judgements. How does that make it possible to make such verifications when they themselves can be very slow processes?

Another problem is how to know what to verify when it's so random that the problem arises?

It's illogical to separate them. One is the skillset for the other. The reason I can also sightread well under pressure is because I NEVER allow false positives when not under pressure. The odds of two perspectives suggesting the same mistaken reading are close to zero. If I wanted to learn to read alto clef fluently under pressure I'd have to acquire the background skillset by working slowly and with certainty- not by placing pressure on to work quicker, or by allowing a partial inkling about what a note might be to suffice, based on intervals alone (without checking it's place among memorised spaces). That doesn't breed the certainty required for success under pressure. Once acquired, the ability to continue having a background association between many notes does not disappear under pressure (why would it disappear rather than be ingrained?)- but neither can it help keep you on track if you haven't made a point of being sure to think this way in the first place, without pressure.

It doesn't matter how random it is. Simply use a dualistic method and you'll never make mental mistakes without exposing them early enough. It's not about analysing mistakes but a matter of analysing how many different viewpoints of something will ALL point towards what note you are reading and help expose the impossibility of a misreading before you mistake it for an accurate reading.

[nyiregyhazi]

@ outin

My link was just a way to show N. that there may be problems (not only this particular one) that prevent people from following established methods.

What other method is there? A note can be read in two ways- as an absolute (based on the identification of which line/space it falls on, plus memory of what that signifies) or by comparison to other notes that are known. If one of those goes wrong, the other viewpoint stops you before you allow a false positive to create confusions that will easily be retained in the brain. It doesn't make sense to think that learning disabilities would make the perils of false positives less dangerous. If anything, it would make them even more dangerous. The only logical way to help people with difficulties is to instill in them the importance of not just accepting first instincts but to show them how to make verifications, for the sake of certainty. If something has to match two different things, you don't allow internal confusions caused by one-off mistakes.

Ultimately, the only way to read well is to have consistent beliefs about what means what. Thinking that a symbol means something it doesn't will always lead to confusion. Having verification methods that never allow this is the only way to help stop someone with learning difficulties making life even harder still. There's no special alternative information source for people with learning problems. Unless they want to abandon notated scores and learn by ear, they have to learn to work accurately with the exact same information every else has to work from. I'm not saying it's as easy for them- but for success they need to be more careful about methods for certainty about what they are seeing, not less so.

[dima_76557]

What other method is there?

I am not trying to be funny, but if the eyes don't cooperate too well, then there are ways of reading that don't use the eyes, for example you can learn to play Rachmaninoff 2 or 3 or whatever by using braille, a system that can also be used by the sighted:
https://www.loc.gov/nls/music/pianoscores/r-z.html

[nyiregyhazi]

I am not trying to be funny, but if the eyes don't cooperate too well, then there are ways of reading that don't use the eyes, for example you can learn to play Rachmaninoff 2 or 3 or whatever by using braille, a system that can also be used by the sighted:
https://www.loc.gov/nls/music/pianoscores/r-z.html

Sure, for blindness. But if problems are spatial, braille is likely to be even more difficult. The whole picture has to be done internally. With printed music, you can keep your eyes fixed on the printed information, rather than do it all by visualising. I can very easily turn written instructions into awareness of how to play notes on the piano. But if I had to construct the same picture by feeling dots, I'd have a pretty hard time. It would be less direct than seeing visual distances that directly relate to pianistic distances.

Really, aside from playing by ear (which requires phenomenal genius to be a practical solution, if a pianist wants to play anything of notable complexity) the only thing those with difficulties can do is either allow plenty of mistakes (allowing untold inner confusion) or learn methodologies that expose them before they have the chance to happen. It's still the same visual information and it still needs to be processed accurately for anyone to thrive. The only difference is that people who don't have learning difficulties are more likely to find a reliable method intuitively, whereas those with difficulties will probably need something slower and more methodical to achieve reliable success.

[outin]

What other method is there? A note can be read in two ways- as an absolute (based on the identification of which line/space it falls on, plus memory of what that signifies) or by comparison to other notes that are known. If one of those goes wrong, the other viewpoint stops you before you allow a false positive to create confusions that will easily be retained in the brain. It doesn't make sense to think that learning disabilities would make the perils of false positives less dangerous. If anything, it would make them even more dangerous. The only logical way to help people with difficulties is to instill in them the importance of not just accepting first instincts but to show them how to make verifications, for the sake of certainty. If something has to match two different things, you don't allow internal confusions caused by one-off mistakes.

Ultimately, the only way to read well is to have consistent beliefs about what means what. Thinking that a symbol means something it doesn't will always lead to confusion. Having verification methods that never allow this is the only way to help stop someone with learning difficulties making life even harder still.

Ok, so by dualistic method you mean reading the note alone plus checking it's position in relation to other notes?

This is essential in reading and I wouldn't think of not doing it.

But sometimes when my eyes are fooling me the only verification method that works 100% is to use some aid such as my finger to help decipher where exactly the note is in relation to spaces and lines and other notes. Two consecutive notes may be in the same space but I don't see it at all. The spaces and lines seem to be similarly moved in space when that happens, because there's no contradiction really with the two approaches. Which does not make any sense, but my brain just won't accept that. When the dualistic method also fails it may be because my working memory has to switch between the two different information and something goes wrong there. As you know our brain is wired to "correct" things automatically with unconscious prosesses.

[outin]

I am not trying to be funny, but if the eyes don't cooperate too well, then there are ways of reading that don't use the eyes, for example you can learn to play Rachmaninoff 2 or 3 or whatever by using braille, a system that can also be used by the sighted:
https://www.loc.gov/nls/music/pianoscores/r-z.html

Braille is extremely slow and tedious in music reading, because the information on the score is divided and cannot be presented simultaneously. Even the finger pointing method works better

[nyiregyhazi]

Ok, so by dualistic method you mean reading the note alone plus checking it's position in relation to other notes?

This is essential in reading and I wouldn't think of not doing it.

But sometimes when my eyes are fooling me the only verification method that works 100% is to use some aid such as my finger to help decipher where exactly the note is in relation to spaces and lines and other notes. Two consecutive notes may be in the same space but I don't see it at all. The spaces and lines seem to be similarly moved in space when that happens, because there's no contradiction really with the two approaches. Which does not make any sense, but my brain just won't accept that. When the dualistic method also fails it may be because my working memory has to switch between the two different information and something goes wrong there. As you know our brain is wired to "correct" things automatically with unconscious prosesses.

Have you tried visually following the line/space (for the first note that you are looking at) horizontally- and then counting lines or spaces from there (rather than taking the eyes more directly from note to note)? It should make it close to impossible to mistakenly perceive the distance. How about counting lines or spaces other than the note itself on both sides? For example a note on the middle line has two spaces on both sides. I always perceive that within my basis for identification, no matter how small a part of the conscious perception it might be. Also, with acute awareness of FACE, I'd be as aware that it falls between A and C and that it's a B. I'm sure it's genuinely harder for you, but the answer must surely be in finding additional ways to verify the context- so a or space line can no longer be mistaken for one that it has different features to? Even if the working memory thing is an issue, remember that you can always go back and reference the preceding note again. If need be, verify an interval by reading it backwards as well as forwards and any misapprehensions are likely to be noticed. Surely the same mistake can't occur both backwards and forwards? If there's not clarity in these comparisons, you are always allowed to pause and do what it takes to verify. I suspect that looking more at seemingly secondary features of the rest of the stave and less at the note itself would actually bring greater clarity to the distinguishing features of each note.

[outin]

Have you tried visually following the line/space (for the first note that you are looking at) horizontally-

That I find really difficult. If I try too hard the lines start moving around.

and then counting lines or spaces from there (rather than taking the eyes more directly from note to note)? It should make it close to impossible to mistakenly perceive the distance. How about counting lines or spaces other than the note itself on both sides? For example a note on the middle line has two spaces on both sides.

The counting is part of the problem really...I often recount the same lines or skip some. I cannot do simple numerical operations very well.

I always perceive that within my basis for identification, no matter how small a part of the conscious perception it might be. Also, with acute awareness of FACE, I'd be as aware that it falls between A and C and that it's a B. I'm sure it's genuinely harder for you, but the answer must surely be in finding additional ways to verify the context- so a or space line can no longer be mistaken for one that it has different features to? Even if the working memory thing is an issue, remember that you can always go back and reference the preceding note again. If need be, verify an interval by reading it backwards as well as forwards and any misapprehensions are likely to be noticed. Surely the same mistake can't occur both backwards and forwards? If there's not clarity in these comparisons, you are always allowed to pause and do what it takes to verify. I suspect that looking more at seemingly secondary features of the rest of the stave and less at the note itself would actually bring greater clarity to the distinguishing features of each note.

Mostly it does of course...otherwise I couldn't read at all?

All those verification suggestions sound fine, but to do all that and still remember what I am trying to do and which note it is that I am reading (while still having to keep in mind the other things that are required for playing) may be just too much for my working memory... I almost feel I would need to write down some of the information before going to the next part...

I think the reason why reading is so tiresome for me is because the constant overload on my working memory gets too much after a while.

[nyiregyhazi]

The counting is part of the problem really...I often recount the same lines or skip some. I cannot do simple numerical operations very well.

I'm just curious- would you also miscount lines when looking at a tally, up to 4? That would be the maximum amount to count in normal stave notes. If so then clearly it would be difficult in music but if not, are you totally sure it's due to innate inability rather than about the level of verification/practise of methods?

Also, I should stress that I never count both lines and spaces but only one or the other. If all spaces are known, this means you rarely have to count up to more than 4 at the very maximum. Most mistakes in counting occur when trying to keep flipping back and forth with lines and spaces. It's very important to count distances in thirds, with the only the first or last step as a single note, if needed.

[louispodesta]

Any hope for naturally poor sight readers? I started learning music notation when I was 15 so I might as well give it up entirely.

I will share with you my thoughts from a prior post.  If you desire further information, please do not hesitate to contact my by personal message.

You should be commended for taking the very brave step of exposing your problem.  Only complete idiots keep their problems to themselves.

["When I was young, I could memorize any new piece for my next lesson, so I never learned how to properly sight read.  In university 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 first 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 I suggest you get is "You Can Sight Read Vol.I," by Lorina Havill, who taught this course 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 about 15-20 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. This is the text they have used at the Royal College of Music forever because it works!

They are very thin/short books that contain very small pieces at various levels of sight reading.  And, 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.  And, 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 go 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.

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 again.

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 any Mozart or Haydn piano sonata at a moderate tempo.  From there on, you can decide on whether you want to study accompanying and/or increase your ability.

So, practice the first book to develop your ability to get around the keyboard without looking down, and then the Four Star series to practice actual reading.

Good luck to you, and remember, if I could do it, anybody can do it."]

[outin]

I'm just curious- would you also miscount lines when looking at a tally, up to 4? That would be the maximum amount to count in normal stave notes. If so then clearly it would be difficult in music but if not, are you totally sure it's due to innate inability rather than about the level of verification/practise of methods?

I guess one can never be 100% sure about anything when it comes to one's own mind...it has a habit of playing tricks with us.

What's a tally?

Sometimes I do get it wrong even when only counting to 2, 3 or 4. Intellectually I know of course that after 1 comes 2 and then 3 and so on, but it doesn't seem to help, especially if there's something else to do the same time and I cannot focus only on the task on counting.

The theory is that with some people there is a fundamental problem in handling and understanding numerical information. From what I've read they have even managed to localize the area of the brain that does this.

Also, I should stress that I never count both lines and spaces but only one or the other. If all spaces are known, this means you rarely have to count up to more than 4 at the very maximum. Most mistakes in counting occur when trying to keep flipping back and forth with lines and spaces. It's very important to count distances in thirds, with the only the first or last step as a single note, if needed.

Since notes are normally identified without conscious counting of either spaces or lines, it's a bit hard to say what happens really...

But clearly most mistakes are triggered by some visual confusion. It can be something in the score, like beams or ledger lines of other notes. Or simply the grouping of the notes is such that it triggers a mental picture that is not consistent with reality.

[nyiregyhazi]

What's a tally?

A series of lines to show a number.

Sometimes I do get it wrong even when only counting to 2, 3 or 4. Intellectually I know of course that after 1 comes 2 and then 3 and so on, but it doesn't seem to help, especially if there's something else to do the same time and I cannot focus only on the task on counting.

Would you need to count though? when looking at III or IIII I just see three or four, I don't consciously add things to get there. Do you have to count the slashes? This is an integral part of reading without confusion. It's the number of lines/spaces both above and below a note that make its meaning utterly unmistakable to me. I don't consciously count them, but it's because I perceive them with certainty that I would never make a false positive. The worst that can I happen is that I would be conscious of uncertainty, if reading many notes under pressure. So I'd stop to verify in accordance with these issues. In situations where you make false identifications, I'm quite sure that you could learn to expose them via greater awareness of the stave as a whole. Exposing the error never demands anything more than counting to 3. Even if a note is on the fourth line up, it's also just two lines down. The most rigourous approach would check both sides, but even just checking one side is enough to expose a mistake before it happens. If a mistake occurs, it shows that there is simply no verification of how many lines/spaces can be observed on either side of a note, in order to form a positive identifcation. This is the barest root of what permits absolute reading, so it shouldn't be allowed to pass by without verifications that would reveal the error. You could go as far as to say that if the number of lines/spaces on each side has not been verified, it's an outright guess. Sure, good readers do this unconsciously, but the important thing is that they constantly do it. Other things could cause confusion, but these issues ought to give scope for alarm bells to ring before it goes wrong. If not, they simply haven't been processed to the extent that they need to be.

Since notes are normally identified without conscious counting of either spaces or lines, it's a bit hard to say what happens really...

Sure, but if you make errors you need to analyse these things. It's fine when the unconscious is reliable, but if not it may be missing out on some of the most important procedures that reliable intuitive success is founded upon. If so, only learning to be fully conscious about how to perform these procedures can make them part of an effortless unconscious procedure.

But clearly most mistakes are triggered by some visual confusion. It can be something in the score, like beams or ledger lines of other notes. Or simply the grouping of the notes is such that it triggers a mental picture that is not consistent with reality.

True, but if you perform the kind of verifications based on awareness of how many lines/spaces should be above and below a note for identification to have been made with certainty, these confusions will cease at once. The only time I recall having ever made a false positive in recent years was when a very carelessly notated quaver beam was put completely horizontally above a stave- making it appear to represent the top line F. Other than that, I simply cannot get into a situation where I thought I'd identified something correctly and then realised I misread the information (except with carried accidentals). To actually execute that information is a whole lot harder, especially at speed.  However, to read with high accuracy you have to learn never to go on a mere inkling but to expect multiple verifications before you decide that you know what it is asking for. When you get used to doing this in careful playing, you'll also get better in more instinctive pressured reading.

[outin]

A series of lines to show a number.

Had to google...that is a rather unreliable way to count for me, because mine tend to have a randon number of vertical lines between 3 and 5. I always need to go back and double check.

Would you need to count though? when looking at III or IIII I just see three or four, I don't consciously add things to get there.

I don't actually see three or four lines (but I can figure it out after you told me), I only see a short shape and a longer shape.

People with dyscalculia do not process numerical information in the way normal people do and this seems to be due to an impairment of numerical magnitude presentation which happens in a specific part of the brain. Too complicated to explain here, but you can read about it yourself:
https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/19232/9789513934408.pdf?sequence=1
A very enlightening article.

Do you have to count the slashes? This is an integral part of reading without confusion. It's the number of lines/spaces both above and below a note that make its meaning utterly unmistakable to me. I don't consciously count them, but it's because I perceive them with certainty that I would never make a false positive. The worst that can I happen is that I would be conscious of uncertainty, if reading many notes under pressure. So I'd stop to verify in accordance with these issues. In situations where you make false identifications, I'm quite sure that you could learn to expose them via greater awareness of the stave as a whole. Exposing the error never demands anything more than counting to 3. Even if a note is on the fourth line up, it's also just two lines down. If a mistake occurs, it shows that there is no prior verification of how many lines/spaces should be observed on either side of a note, in order to form a positive identifcation. Other things could cause confusion, but these issues ought to give scope for alarm bells to ring before it goes wrong.

I can only say that when I use a note indentification software where the notes are in the same form and the lines and spaces are all similar and appear on the same spot on the screen I don't make mistakes in identifying the notes even when I am not doing any (conscious) counting of spaces and lines.

So what kind of practice would you recommend then?

Sure, but if you make errors you need to analyse these things. It's fine when the unconscious is reliable, but if not it may be missing out on some of the most important procedures. If so, only learning to be fully conscious about how to perform these procedures can make them part of an effortless unconscious procedure.

True, but if you perform the kind of verifications based on awarness of how many lines/spaces should be above and below a note for identification to have been made with certainty, these confusions will cease.

...

To actually execute that information is a whole lot harder, especially at speed.  However, to read with high accuracy you have to learn never to go on a mere inkling but to expect multiple verifications before you decide that you know what it is asking for.

I would need some evidence to believe that. It just seems impossible to read with any kind of fluency if one needs to make all these extra steps for each note. Not saying doing this in practice situations would not work, but I don't see how you can claim for sure it will tranfer into the actual reading situation without first experimenting on a suitable subject. And we would also need to create a more exact practice plan, it's too vague to just say "multiple verifications". How exactly?

EDIT:
Since sight reading also means you are reading ahead, how do you avoid making quick judgements of the notes before you actually are at the point when you are supposed to execute them? That would mean performing so many simultaneous thought processes that it just seems too much even for a normal person, let alone for someone with a very limited working memory capacity?

[nyiregyhazi]

I can only say that when I use a note indentification software where the notes are in the same form and the lines and spaces are all similar and appear on the same spot on the screen I don't make mistakes in identifying the notes even when I am not doing any (conscious) counting of spaces and lines.

So what kind of practice would you recommend then?

That does seem very consistent with the idea that you can process these things, but don't always verify to the extent required for consistent certainty. It's matter of verifying the context on the stave, so additional information doesn't distort the perception of the orientation.

It's very difficult to self analyse, but I think the important thing is to be sure you practise multiple viewpoints constantly. I can't be 100% sure what process I read a chord by but the fact I'm less than fluent with alto clef gave me many clues about the process. In a chord, I know that intervallic appearances are a huge issue- but I think it's very important to always be especially aware of either the highest or lowest note or even both. If you can spot any individual note, placing extra focus on one or both of these would give you an anchor that has complete certainty. Even if other notes may make a subjctively different impression, coming back to verification (of whether the number of additional lines or spaces above or below matches to what you think you have identified) would be your means of certainty.

I would need some evidence to believe that. It just seems impossible to read with any kind of fluency if one needs to make all these extra steps for each note. Not saying doing this in practice situations would not work, but I don't see how you can claim for sure it will tranfer into the actual reading situation without first experimenting on a suitable subject. And we would also need to create a more exact practice plan, it's too vague to just say "multiple verifications". How exactly?

EDIT:
Since sight reading also means you are reading ahead, how do you avoid making quick judgements of the notes before you actually are at the point when you are supposed to execute them? That would mean performing so many simultaneous thought processes that it just seems too much even for a normal person, let alone for someone with a very limited working memory capacity?

You shouldn't concern yourself with the notion of pressured sightreading. It's not where a solid foundation starts. When I read faster, what I can say for sure is that I'm not taking a whole lot of lucky guesses. If there's enough pressure in the tempo then I might start taking a few. But that's not where my skill set for doing relatively difficult things with minimal guessing grew. I have no doubt that there are all kinds of different logical procedures that my brain uses to reveal what a note is. But the fact I don't make false positives tells me that I'm not overly dependent on any single means of identification. If I made casual mistakes of reading in a slow tempo, the first thing I would do is branch out into as many different viewpoints as I could find. The important thing really it to know when you don't know. Only multiple viewpoints can  make thinking you know what a note is a case of actually being sure you know what a note is. When building the skill set, much of the necessary training is staying in your limit for self-verification. People push the strict tempo thing far too singlemindedly. It's only one part of the training.

If a piece is note perfect first time, rigour about verifications is a certainty. The only way to get to there is to get used to never going wrong, in free tempo. The more viewpoints you are accustomed to searching out, the more likely it is that the unconscious mind can pick and choose whatever needs to be certain about every note, with less work to get there. But the first step really is to be capable of completely eradicating false positives, by whatever means it takes. No accomplished sightreader guesses except when under phenomenal pressure. The primary distinguishing feature of a good sightreader is that the number of notes that they are certain of would only fall notably below 100% if the piece contained extreme difficulty. Deciding that you should not stop at any costs if in sightreading mode is not where that foundation is acquired. People give too much attention to the end product and not enough to the foundation skills underneath.

[outin]

That does seem very consistent with the idea that you can process these things, but don't always verify to the extent required for consistent certainty. It's matter of verifying the context on the stave, so additional information doesn't distort the perception of the orientation.

It's very difficult to self analyse, but I think the important thing is to be sure you practise multiple viewpoints constantly. I can't be 100% sure what process I read a chord by but the fact I'm less than fluent with alto clef gave me many clues about the process. In a chord, I know that intervallic appearances are a huge issue- but I think it's very important to always be especially aware of either the highest or lowest note or even both. If you can spot any individual note, placing extra focus on one or both of these would give you an anchor that has complete certainty. Even if other notes may make a subjctively different impression, coming back to verification (of whether the number of additional lines or spaces above or below matches to what you think you have identified) would be your means of certainty.

I'm afraid you didn't give an adequate answer to my question. What exactly do you suggest I should do? What kind of exercise do you think will change the results in my reading?

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm afraid you didn't give an adequate answer to my question. What exactly do you suggest I should do? What kind of exercise do you think will change the results in my reading?

As I said, even if other issues have confused you, coming back to how many lines or spaces lie above or below a note will expose a false assumption- except where these issues simply haven't been processed. A note that hasn't been confirmed this way should be treated a guess for now, that still requires contextual confirmation. You have to eliminate all possibility of false positives in free time, by whatever means it takes. The more perspectives you have, the better. When you think you know what a note is, verify by multiple means to be sure that you really do know that and ensure that all other possible viewpoints confirm rather than contradict the first thought. If it doesn't match, rethink with all the time you need. If instincts are prone to error, you must relieve yourself of pressure and have a 100 percent reliable means of stopping such errors through better confirmation in multiple contexts. Only that level of foundation allows things to be done effectively when you have to throw caution to the wind. If things go wrong with no pressure it goes without saying that the brain will not process accurately under pressure. If things are reliable with no pressure, there's a likelihood that they will also begin to work on instincts with less thinking time.

As to how far you can go in the long run, I can only speculate. But anyone who allows false positives in freer time needs to use a wider range of confirmation methods if they are to fulfill potential. This is where practise on the sofa is useful. It's not about putting it into the piano but about seeing each note in relation to every other note and even in relation to adjacent notes that are not even being played. It's impossible to make errors without realising, when you make confirmations. When slow reading becomes 100 percent reliable due to breadth of perspective , it would be plain bizarre to think that pressured reading would not notably improve.

You wouldn't expect a kid who's given time to count on his fingers yet who makes errors to do correct mental arithmetic in a flash. There's simply no way to know what a person's potential is until they start doing whatever it takes not to make errors, so their brain contains nothing but accurate associations.

[outin]

As I said, even if other issues have confused you, coming back to how many lines or spaces lie above or below a note will expose a false assumption- except where these issues simply haven't been processed.
A note that hasn't been confirmed this way should be treated a guess for now, that still requires contextual confirmation. You have to eliminate all possibility of false positives in free time, by whatever means it takes. The more perspectives you have, the better. When you think you know what a note is, verify by multiple means to be sure that you really do know that and ensure that all other possible viewpoints confirm rather than contradict the first thought. If it doesn't match, rethink with all the time you need.

You would still need to be more specific to actually create an experiment...

If I understand you correctly, you believe that just as with normal practicing, reading the notes right long enough will change the brain and make this the norm and so prevent going wrong in the future?

Since the confusion usually comes only after playing a note, not before, would it mean going through every note on the score, first reading the way it's normally done (which presumably includes both intervallic reading and some sort or instant and unconscious counting of the spaces and lines). Then verify this again by counting? And in case I miscount how would I know that the process of confirming is not finished until I play the note?

How many scores, how often and how long should I do this? How would we determine what kind of scores I should work on this way to ensure that it's the most effective?

If instincts are prone to error, you must relieve yourself of pressure and have a 100 percent reliable means of stopping such errors through better confirmation in multiple contexts.

Please clarify, what is your definition of instinct? When someone reads a note and plays it when is it instinctive and when is it something else? When you say instinct do you mean any mostly unconsciouss mental process (which means quite a lot of things are done by instinct)?
Assuming the mental processes are actually the same in my case and someone elses case, the only difference is that my processes are error prone. Are these processes what you are referring as instinct?

[nyiregyhazi]

If I understand you correctly, you believe that just as with normal practicing, reading the notes right long enough will change the brain and make this the norm and so prevent going wrong in the future?

indeed, that's the idea.

Since the confusion usually comes only after playing a note, not before, would it mean going through every note on the score, first reading the way it's normally done (which presumably includes both intervallic reading and some sort or instant and unconscious counting of the spaces and lines). Then verify this again by counting? And in case I miscount how would I know that the process of confirming is not finished until I play the note?

If need be, yes. Don't play until you are literally sure. You can verify a note by interval with another note, read it on its own merits and also use awareness of the four spaces to check it fits in the context of those. To be honest, I'd use those more than lines for the simple reason that there are fewer and miscounting is less likely- but obviously it's still tied into awarness of relativity to lines. Even if you miscount, you'd have to coincidentally miscount in a very specific way and you'd also have to misread the absolute note and misread the interval- all in the exact same way. The odds of a false positive are virtually zero with this level of confirmation.

How many scores, how often and how long should I do this? How would we determine what kind of scores I should work on this way to ensure that it's the most effective?

Well, the first time matters most. But rememer that the goal is to become so used to noticing contextual information that your instinctive reading is informed without needing to try so willfully.

Please clarify, what is your definition of instinct? When someone reads a note and plays it when is it instinctive and when is it something else? When you say instinct do you mean any mostly unconsciouss mental process (which means quite a lot of things are done by instinct)?
Assuming the mental processes are actually the same in my case and someone elses case, the only difference is that my processes are error prone. Are these processes what you are referring as instinct?

Anything non-analytical, done unconsciously. I'm quite sure that the reason I don't make errors even on instinctive reading is because I am able to analyse in so many different ways. My fingers may not always follow, but I never think I've read a note correctly and then realise I hadn't after all. Even instincts become so informed by procedures of confirmation that they can start to encompass the self-correction process even when you are no longer trying. There are too many different levels of contextual awareness for a slip in judgement not to be exposed BEFORE I think I've identified a note. The worst thing that can happen is that I expose a contradiction and realise I need to rethink. I simply cannot be in a position where I thought I'd read the note correctly and only later realised I hadn't after all.

[outin]

indeed, that's the idea.

If need be, yes. Don't play until you are literally sure. You can verify a note by interval with another note, read it on its own merits and also use awareness of the four spaces to check it fits in the context of those. To be honest, I'd use those more than lines for the simple reason that there are fewer and miscounting is less likely- but obviously it's still tied into awarness of relativity to lines. Even if you miscount, you'd have to coincidentally miscount in a very specific way and you'd also have to misread the absolute note and misread the interval- all in the exact same way. The odds of a false positive are virtually zero with this level of confirmation.

Well, the first time matters most. But rememer that the goal is to become so used to noticing contextual information that your instinctive reading is informed without needing to try so willfully.

This kind of experiment would certainly be very time consuming...we will have to see how that could be arranged.

I would still need to figure out which scores are the most error prone to make the most of the exercise. Probably not much use to keep confirming things that would have been correct anyway. Except of course if I wanted to practice the act of confirming itself...

Anything non-analytical in the conscious. I'm quite sure that the reason I don't make errors even on instinctive reading is because I am able to analyse in so many different ways.

Judging from some other conversations here not every pianists that does a lot of sight-reading agrees on that issue. But lets leave that for now.

[nyiregyhazi]

This kind of experiment would certainly be very time consuming...we will have to see how that could be arranged.

Maybe, but ultimately it's far quicker to read things correctly first time than it is to make casual errors and then have to correct them. I've saved myself huge amounts of time by learning to discipline myself into stopping guesswork early on when learning new material.

I would still need to figure out which scores are the most error prone to make the most of the exercise. Probably not much use to keep confirming things that would have been correct anyway. Except of course if I wanted to practice the act of confirming itself...

Yes, it's worth it-even when you already know what a note is. How many new ways can you find to verify that is indeed just what you expect, rather than just go on existing habit? You have to be used to doing it in full, before you can get used to doing it specifically to prevent errors rather than for it's own sake. The level of effort behind confirmations will fall further and further, the more time you spend on it. You don't have to literally count all the lines or spaces every time.  That's just a test that you're actually observing the necessary information. As you get used to doing so, you can switch to merely looking at them and gauging the distances- as long as you're still using the information for verification. However you spot the distinguishing features, what matters is that you get used to spotting them and using them for confirmation (rather than drawing assumptions that surrounding issues should clearly contradict, were they being observed).

Ultimately it's a matter of learning to appreciate where you're simply going on an inkling and not on certainty. Once that comes, you can reduce the amount of severity involved and save it for the moments where something doesn't feel right. But until you come to know the difference between an estimate about what a note might be compared to genuine justified certainty about what it is, you have to keep being rigorous for it's own sake until you start to perceive the difference. You should never allow yourself to think you were sure and then realise that you actually weren't after all. However much patience it takes, eliminating this is the first step of becoming consistent.

Judging from some other conversations here not every pianists that does a lot of sight-reading agrees on that issue. But lets leave that for now.

People are very bad at self-analysis. I only changed my mind on a lot of popular myths when I realised that my lack of fluency in alto clef completely contradicts my prior impression of how I read music. It showed me that my intervallic reading is not as flawless as I thought, under pressure- and that absolute reading skill is a big part of why I don't make mistakes when reading intervals in treble or bass clef. Knowledge of absolute notes is part of confirming the intervals and much as intervals are a part of confiming what individual notes are. The two issues work together in two-way process- just not in alto clef, because I don't have proper familiarity with all the individual notes. Having intervals alone to base reading on slows me hugely and even mild pressure would start me making errors. In a familiar clef, I can take a rather fair amount of pressure without mistaking a single interval. So clearly using two skills in combination (which have capacity to confirm each other) actively enhances speed and assurance, compared to reliance on only one viewpoint without scope for extra confirmations.

I base my theories primarily on logical probability over self-perception. However, I know with objective certainty that I can read any individual note or interval between any two notes within a fraction of a second and that I never lose track of the stave as a whole- in familiar clefs. I couldn't turn off any one of those abilities simply by not using them consciously. They are always working together in a way that wouldn't be possible if I hadn't developed all aspects to a good level. I cannot merely read separate notes, without seeing the place of notes within other lines and spaces, even if I try. So it's definitely true that multiple viewpoints are being used to confirm the same information and I have no doubt that this is a huge part of why I read fluently in treble and bass clef yet not in alto clef (where only intervals can help me). In alto clef I don't have the same awareness of the stave as a whole but have to see things on a smaller scale- which means a lot more conscious effort and greater risk of error. Take away just one means of verification and my fluency and ease is reduced drastically- which tells me that it's because different skills complement each other on a constant basis, that I read with little effort in other clefs.