Poor Sight Reading.

[j_menz]

I've saved myself huge amounts of time by learning to discipline myself into stopping guesswork early on when learning new material.

That's only one purpose for which one might be sightreading, though, and is something of a special case. If you're going to be learning it, it's probably just as well not to start off learning it wrongly.

If, however, one is playing something just for the (private) fun of it, something one may never play again or study or learn, what's the harm in a few reading errors? Especially if they're in aid of better speed or rhythm. I'm not advocating sloppiness, but the odd wrong note is hardly the most serious error going.

I should also note that reading it right first time isn't always straightforward. Some printed scores manage to omit changes of clef, time signature and/or key. Others are sufficiently badly reproduced that lines are missing from staves, accidentals are so blurred that distinguishing a sharp from a natural sign is no easy task, and telling where a note was actually supposed to be amidst the blob it came out as (or if it is actually an extra note in a chord or a smudge) is not doable on the fly without a few leaps of faith. Three, four and more staves increase difficulty.

And mss scores are a whole other kettle of fish entirely!

[nyiregyhazi]

That's only one purpose for which one might be sightreading, though, and is something of a special case. If you're going to be learning it, it's probably just as well not to start off learning it wrongly.

If, however, one is playing something just for the (private) fun of it, something one may never play again or study or learn, what's the harm in a few reading errors? Especially if they're in aid of better speed or rhythm. I'm not advocating sloppiness, but the odd wrong note is hardly the most serious error going.

I should also note that reading it right first time isn't always straightforward. Some printed scores manage to omit changes of clef, time signature and/or key. Others are sufficiently badly reproduced that lines are missing from staves, accidentals are so blurred that distinguishing a sharp from a natural sign is no easy task, and telling where a note was actually supposed to be amidst the blob it came out as (or if it is actually an extra note in a chord or a smudge) is not doable on the fly without a few leaps of faith. Three, four and more staves increase difficulty.

And mss scores are a whole other kettle of fish entirely!

Sure, but I also tremendously developed my ability to tear through pieces at first sight from the approach of taking care over every note in new material. We hear over and over about the importance of plowing fowards at any cost and accepting errors. We hear far too little about the importance of being able to process information with flawless accuracy, in the first place. Various approaches are needed for maximum progress- one of which involves ploughing ahead whatever and one of which involves taking the utmost care not to make reading errors. No narrow approach is a good idea. The first stage of reading fast is learning to read with flawless accuracy. Skipping that is a really bad idea- and in my opinion it's directly what prevents many from becoming good sightreaders. They don't have the foundation in processing information accurately before they start trying to rush things.

Also, if the information is simply unclear or even wrong, that's a spectacularly different kettle of fish to failing to accurately process perfectly clear information.

[outin]

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.

Since sight reading is a very small part of what I do, the saving of time would not be that significant though

People are very bad at self-analysis.

I think generally that is true. But I am actually very good in self-analysis, probably due to having to work on specific problems myself from very young age and having been able to solve most of them as well. Or maybe it's just because I am naturally more rational than emotional.


When it comes to the subject matter we probably have a fundamental difference in thinking here. One view (which I agree with) is that conscious intellectual processes are simply too slow for fluent music making (and for any other activity of such complexity), one is mostly relying on what you call instinct and I would prefer to call intuition. Intuition is not guessing, it is a process which utilizes subconscious processes that can be extremely fast and reliable as well. Whatever cognitive defect I have, I do not usually have problems with the conscious processes, they are simply too slow for some activities. While my intuition is usually very effective and can work perfectly (as an example I never go wrong with rhythm even when not conscious of what I am doing), I have specific problems that present themselves in certain situations, causing the intuition to be consistently false.

IMO The answer cannot be in avoiding intuition, which is important in any activity on a higher level. So how and to what extend can we change the already formed unconscious processes (intuition) by working on the conscious level? I am sure it is possible at least to some level. But so far we don't really have proper evidence on what way to work will be most effective to correct this particular malfunction with intuition, all that would be purely experimental. Also we don't yet have evidence that all the problems can be removed to the level that everything works as it would with someone who's brain works in a "normal" way.

[j_menz]

Since sight reading is a very small part of what I do, the saving of time would not be that significant though

Over the course of 555 Sonatas, though.....

[outin]

Over the course of 555 Sonatas, though.....

Ok, true, but I might have to save the larger proportion to when I am retired anyway 

I've studied about 10 so far...read through maybe 20 more. About 525 left. Let assume (hope) I live at least 25 years more. That's only 22,2 per year. Should be doable even with less developed reading skills

[dima_76557]

IMO The answer cannot be in avoiding intuition, which is important in any activity on a higher level. So how and to what extend can we change the already formed unconscious processes (intuition) by working on the conscious level? I am sure it is possible at least to some level. But so far we don't really have proper evidence on what way to work will be most effective to correct this particular malfunction with intuition, all that would be purely experimental. Also we don't yet have evidence that all the problems can be removed to the level that everything works as it would with someone who's brain works in a "normal" way.

If I may. My intuition tells me that:

- the real underlying problem is that you know, but your fingers don't know (yet). This makes the system crash. Keyboard topography exercises of all kinds (basically scales, chords, simple improvisation patterns, etc. with both hands) should cure this.

- you may have to diverge from the idea that you should practise piano literature only to improve your sight-reading skills. There is lots of very beautiful cello stuff (left hand alone) waiting for you to be read, and there is even more violin, guitar, trumpet etc. stuff for your right hand alone. The only difficulty is to arrange a workable order.

[outin]

If I may. My intuition tells me that:

- the real underlying problem is that you know, but your fingers don't know (yet). This makes the system crash. Keyboard topography exercises of all kinds (basically scales, chords, simple improvisation patterns, etc. with both hands) should cure this.

- you may have to diverge from the idea that you should practise piano literature only to improve your sight-reading skills. There is lots of very beautiful cello stuff (left hand alone) waiting for you to be read, and there is even more violin, guitar, trumpet etc. stuff for your right hand alone. The only difficulty is to arrange a workable order.

I am not sure if you are referring to something else here, but I was still discussing an issue with reading, not playing. I think my ability to play after reading is quite normal for someone with my experience, maybe above average, since I do not need to look at my hands much and I also don't play that many wrong notes. I play the right notes as told me by my reading. They just sometimes happen to be different to what is written on the page. So it is clearly possible to separate the two issues: the ability to see (and comprehend) and the ability to execute.

Of course there is still a lot to work on in the conventional way, things as more complicated key signatures and complex chords. But those things seem to improve quite steadily. Also I do probably avoid as many or many more reading mistakes than those that actualize themselves,  simply by my hands "knowing" what comes next.

My left hand reading is really no worse than my right hand reading, seems the issues present themselves quite equally in both.

[dima_76557]

I am not sure if you are referring to something else here, but I was still discussing an issue with reading, not playing.

I am strictly referring to reading in the context of sight-reading, and I am trying to break a viscious circle in this topic.

On the one hand, you *can* read, probably even better than is required at your level.

On the other hand, you can also execute something as soon as you really understand what you have to execute. This is rational; it's not intuition.

Since you were asking about intuition, I made the link: your fingers aren't really capable yet of moving intuitively, subconsciously, that's why in a skill like sightreading, where both eyes and fingers *have to* work highly intuitively, something goes wrong with the balance between rational aspects and intuitive ones and the result is a crash. Is that correct?

[outin]

I am strictly referring to reading in the context of sight-reading, and I am trying to break a viscious circle in this topic.

On the one hand, you *can* read, probably even better than is required at your level.

On the other hand, you can also execute something as soon as you really understand what you have to execute. This is rational; it's not intuition.

What do you mean? Isn't much of the execution intuitive as well? It's not like I rationally think: That note is x and I need to move finger y to play it.

If we are at all on the same page what N is suggesting is that I should as an exercise try to break up all the processes, also the intuitive ones and try to make an intervention exactly where the actual problem arises. I would think that myself, I am only more sceptic about whether it is possible to isolate the exact part of the process precisely enough for the intervention to work and create a practical method that really changes the core process. Also it is questionable whether in a case of developmental disorder the results would be permament, cumulative and transfer to other processes than the current one that is being worked on.

Since you were asking about intuition, I made the link: your fingers aren't really capable yet of moving intuitively, subconsciously, that's why in a skill like sightreading, where both eyes and fingers *have to* work highly intuitively, something goes wrong with the balance between rational aspects and intuitive ones and the result is a crash. Is that correct?

I would think that in a case of actual "reading" disability, the crash would not originate so much in the process of synchronicing the mind and fingers or the inability of the fingers to do what they are supposed to do, but rather in the very beginning of the intuitive process, "naming" the note(s).

But in a way you are right that after the problems arise, the imbalance between the rational and the intuitive becomes very strong (the auditory feedback is very confusing) and this may cause a system "crash" and is a source of stress to the whole system. Stress is known to make cognitive problems worse, so there is a vicious cycle.

[dima_76557]

What do you mean? Isn't much of the execution intuitive as well? It's not like I rationally think: That note is x and I need to move finger y to play it.

If you did that, you wouldn't be able to sightread and make it sound anything even resembling music at all. No, I mean the idea of: "I have control because I know what I have to do" is in itself not intuitive; it's rational. If you were really a certain % more ready to let go, that would be the intuition you need. But somehow, you don't trust your fingers enough. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression of reading everything in context.

If we are at all on the same page what N is suggesting is that I should as an exercise try to break up all the processes, also the intuitive ones and try to make an intervention exactly where the actual problem arises.

Whether that will work will highly depend on your background. I'm moderately sceptical. I am sure that I myself would NOT be able to go to that level of rational control while sightreading.

I would think that in a case of actual "reading" disability, the crash would not originate so much in the process of synchronicing the mind and fingers or the inability of the fingers to do what they are supposed to do, but rather in the very beginning of the intuitive process, "naming" the note(s).

It's a chicken-or-egg dilemma, but I think that that kind of "paralysis" works irrationally. I find it conceivable that lack of finger intuition paralyses otherwise well-developed rational skills like reading notes.

[outin]

If you did that, you wouldn't be able to sightread and make it sound anything even resembling music at all. No, I mean the idea of: "I have control because I know what I have to do" is in itself not intuitive; it's rational. If you were really a certain % more ready to let go, that would be the intuition you need. But somehow, you don't trust your fingers enough. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression of reading everything in context.

If I understand both correctly I think this is a fascinating example of how differently you and N think about the issue

You think I don't have enough trust in what I do yet because of lack of experience, while N thinks I have too much trust in intuition and should even more question my actions.

I am not 100% ready to accept either view as such.

[dima_76557]

If I understand both correctly I think this is a fascinating example of how differently you and N think about the issue

You think I don't have enough trust in what I do yet because of lack of experience, while N thinks I have too much trust in intuition and should even more question my actions.

I am not 100% ready to accept either view as such.

I am not asking that from you.

Let's just recap:
When we want to sightread, we have different problems to solve, I think:
1) points in space on the piano (absolute)
2) points in space in the score (abstract)
3) translating 2) to 1) through our body.

Since 2) merely reprepresents 1), it seems only logical that 1) is the starting point that should be VERY well developed if we want to be successful. We highly depend on our body to be able to do that. That's how I see it.

P.S.: Liszt, probably the best sight reader ever, had the answer to that problem when he said that all music basically consists of patterns and ways around those patterns. If you know those (not only in your head but with your whole system), then the rest is a matter of fingering, which can be readily solved as a result of your training. Amen to that.

[nyiregyhazi]

Since sight reading is a very small part of what I do, the saving of time would not be that significant though

? Are you playing by ear? Or do you never wish to learn any new pieces?

When it comes to the subject matter we probably have a fundamental difference in thinking here. One view (which I agree with) is that conscious intellectual processes are simply too slow for fluent music making (and for any other activity of such complexity), one is mostly relying on what you call instinct and I would prefer to call intuition. Intuition is not guessing, it is a process which utilizes subconscious processes that can be extremely fast and reliable as well.

I never said intuition IS guessing. However, if it doesn't yield a correct result then, in that situation it was indeed guessing. Nobody said the final product should be conscious intellectual processes. The point is that if success isn't 100% certain in free time, it doesn't take a genius to appreciate that both intuition and the conscious processes are flawed in some way. How can intuition have a high success rate when things go wrong when there is time for conscious thought? This is why a  process for verification matter so much, in training the intuition. A person who never makes mistakes when using conscious processes will almost certainly be far better when working intuitively. The idea that this could possibly be untrue has a far greater onus of proof on it than the clear logical probability that it holds up.

But so far we don't really have proper evidence on what way to work will be most effective to correct this particular malfunction with intuition, all that would be purely experimental.

Indeed. But is it more probable that this couldn't help at all, than that it could provide the improvement that all logic would suggest it shouled be able to offer?

Can you identify any interval at first glance and name any single note in a score at first glance, within pieces you are playing (including any individual note within a thick chord)? Even in pieces they have learned, many pianists cannot do so. It's because intuition draws on such a slender part of the many viewpoints for the music. If you have limited perspective on the construction within your conscious limits, you will have the very same limits in your intuition. When you train your conscious to be capable of accurately observing from any viewpoint that is conceivably possible, it would absolutely staggering to think that intuitive approaches would not also be improved.

A friend once gave me an interesting exercise of going through a piece and saying EVERY individual note out loud by letter. It struck me as barmy as first. But I came to realise that forcing myself to perform conscious operations (where I would normally be using intuitive ones) forced me to perceive all kinds of details that I simply wasn't processing. I already got all the notes right before, but the procedure gave a far clearer mental picture of what was actually going on. Just getting something right doesn't mean you have the breadth of awareness that you should. Getting them wrong particularly means that the radar is not working properly. Intuition is something that needs to be fed, or it's little more than a set of personal limitations. When the results aren't amazing, conscious awareness is the way to improve on limits. Even when they are already good, finding new vantage points can make them even better still.

[nyiregyhazi]

I am not asking that from you.

Let's just recap:
When we want to sightread, we have different problems to solve, I think:
1) points in space on the piano (absolute)
2) points in space in the score (abstract)
3) translating 2) to 1) through our body.

Since 2) merely reprepresents 1), it seems only logical that 1) is the starting point that should be VERY well developed if we want to be successful. We highly depend on our body to be able to do that. That's how I see it.

P.S.: Liszt, probably the best sight reader ever, had the answer to that problem when he said that all music basically consists of patterns and ways around those patterns. If you know those (not only in your head but with your whole system), then the rest is a matter of fingering, which can be readily solved as a result of your training. Amen to that.

This is exactly where masters don't perceive what they are doing effectively- as he forgot to mention that you also need to read the score correctly. To process the information on the score to the point where it's actually possible to translate through the fingers is no small feat. Yes, the link is of paramount importance. But you cannot translate to the fingers what you have not processed with accuracy via the vision. In order to improve my sightreading to the point of being genuinely accurate with some relatively difficult material first time around, I actually had to learn to slow down and make extra sure I was processing the visual information first. Before, I'd just leave holes for guesses and sketch things out where there was no time for full detail. When I forced myself to expect every last detail to processed (by a process that is based on stretching of the tempo, that preserves a flow yet allows time for proper verifications without guesswork), I became far better at playing genuinely accurately at faster speeds too, with far less faking and sketching being needed.

This is actually fundamental to making the links you describe too. When faking like mad, the links are much more tenuous. It robs the brain of the deepest associations between reading and executing. When I read every separate note with care and then  do whatever it takes to ensure that my fingers will do precisely that, first time round, the strength of these links is precisely what I am developing- in preparation for being able to achieve comparable accuracy of both reading and execution when under greater pressures.

[outin]

? Are you playing by ear? Or do you never wish to learn any new pieces?

Sight reading in the strictest sense, having to play new music without preparation for audience. Reading I do a lot. Those little mistakes matter less then because the next time I will remember.

[dima_76557]

This is exactly where masters don't perceive what they are doing effectively- as he forgot to mention that you also need to read the score correctly.

I think Liszt used a Leimer-Gieseking visualisation kind of analysis. Are you familiar with that? You learn how to describe what you see in such a way that the execution follows as a logical result, provided you have a good enough command over the keyboard. Better even: the piece you analyze/"visualize" (for just a few seconds) will be in memory. Separate-note-naming has absolutely no place in that system if only to indicate the beginning or ending of a sequence or passage.
EDIT: I don't know how to link to a certain page on scribd.com, but please scroll down to page 21 (p.14 in the book):
https://www.scribd.com/doc/50869352/Gieseking-Leimer-Piano-Technique

[outin]

Indeed. But is it more probable that this couldn't help at all, than that it could provide the improvement that all logic would suggest it shouled be able to offer?

I'm not going to make any guesses on the probablity based on the information I have. I'm keeping an open mind.

But there's really no such thing as "all logic"

I think we have pretty much covered the subject to the point that the next step would be to actually gather some empirical evidence...

[nyiregyhazi]

Sight reading in the strictest sense, having to play new music without preparation for audience. Reading I do a lot. Those little mistakes matter less then because the next time I will remember.

You wouldn't want to be able to play things with high accuracy straight off? I don't normally do that for an audience, but I'm sure glad I can. The clearer the initial conception, the quicker the learning is.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm not going to make any guesses on the probablity based on the information I have. I'm keeping an open mind.

But there's really no such thing as "all logic"

I think we have pretty much covered the subject to the point that the next step would be to actually gather some empirical evidence...

Well, how many areas are there in everyday life where the ability to do something consistently rather than erratically when no pressure is on doesn't also contribute to ability to perform better under pressure? I sincerely know of no single piece of logic that would support that. If it's not true, the onus is far more on someone to disprove than to prove. You may need EXTRA things to perform under pressure, but reliable ability without pressure can only assist. Inconsistent results when no pressure is on cannot ever be positive. Anything that fixes that can only provide a springboard to greater possibilities.

[nyiregyhazi]

I think Liszt used a Leimer-Gieseking visualisation kind of analysis. Are you familiar with that? You learn how to describe what you see in such a way that the execution follows as a logical result, provided you have a good enough command over the keyboard. Better even: the piece you analyze/"visualize" (for just a few seconds) will be in memory. Separate-note-naming has absolutely no place in that system if only to indicate the beginning or ending of a sequence or passage.
EDIT: I don't know how to link to a certain page on scribd.com, but please scroll down to page 21 (p.14 in the book):
https://www.scribd.com/doc/50869352/Gieseking-Leimer-Piano-Technique

You misunderstand the concept. I was very cynical myself at first, but it's not about the note names but about the level of internal awareness that will follow as a result of going through the process. Obviously a series of letters means nothing itself. But if you are visualising the keys on the piano and making direct associations to each notated pitch with every letter you say, you are ensuring true detail in the associations.

For myself, a lot of stuff is just too easy for me when the score is in front of me. My fingers see the notes and my fingers go there without a shred of conscious thought. But that really can be a problem- especially when muscle memory starts kicking in before you even have any true conscious awarness of what you are playing. Playing every note twice is a very similar thing- forcing you to perceive details. Otherwise a purely instinctive part of the brain has fingers to do things that (even if they are done accurately) the conscious mind has inadequate awareness of and never had been fully aware of. Playing every note twice forces you to actually see what you are doing. Intuition goes for a lot of convenient links that may later prove to be unreliable, when the score is no longer in front of you. Conscious processes make the learning deeper and more meaningful through a greater amount of understanding and larger numbers of associations between complementary perspectives. Anything that forces deeper thought forces more links and awarenesses. Even if a habit works, if conscious awareness of what you are playing is not possible, it's not a good enough habit.

[dima_76557]

You misunderstand the concept. I was very cynical myself at first, but it's not about the note names but about the level of internal awareness that will follow as a result of going through the process. Obviously a series of letters means nothing itself. But if you are visualising the keys on the piano and making direct associations to each notated pitch with every letter you say, you are ensuring true detail in the associations.

Well, maybe, and I am not trying to argue against its value. If you say so, I'll just accept that.

It's just not the way I trained myself. As I see it, the music is not a series of notes to be played but rather a coherent musical structure to be understood. In such a system, note naming (we don't use letters, but solmization) has no function because that extra step takes precious processing time and energy.

After stalling in my development for some time in this area, I deduced that before I would continue sightreading at the instrument, I should be able to read 3 times faster than the speed needed during the average actual sight-reading performance (I read that norm somewhere in an article about scientific speed reading). That's what I developed a lot just sitting on the sofa with my books and it worked very well for me. It must be clear that alphabetisation (or solmization in my case) doesn't get you that kind of speed; you *have to* think in chunks. The surprising thing was that I missed far fewer details with a global approach than I used to with attention to minute details.

[nyiregyhazi]

Well, maybe, and I am not trying to argue against its value. If you say so, I'll just accept that.

It's just not the way I trained myself. As I see it, the music is not a series of notes to be played but rather a coherent musical structure to be understood. In such a system, note naming (we don't use letters, but solmization) has no function because that extra step takes precious processing time and energy.

Of course- but the problem is that every note has a place in a whole, yet it's all too easy to see a clump and to have an unconscious procedure that can execute it- simply by making the hand into a corresponding shape and putting it down. Yet there may be no true awareness of what details are involved on the level of understanding. By formulaically naming each note, you are drawing attention to it within the whole. Of course, a deeply advanced musician should be capable of such levels of attention without such a simplistic trick as naming each letter. But you might be surprised how much gets noticed when you force yourself to be quite so rigorous about perceving every detail in turn, rather than just go straight from vision to execution.

Another trick is to name every interval between every possible pair of notes in a chord. I was trained to look for chromatic intervals, so I'd never miss the significance of a minor 9th, where it fell in a chord. But a lot of pianists never perceive such detail nor even have such issues on their radar. They just have the integrated whole and the knowledge of how to press corresponding buttons- without perceiving the constituent parts that carry musical significance. This is why all kinds of viewpoints should be trained analytically before they are left to intuition. I don't need to consciously analyse to be able to voice interesting notes in a chord anymore, but I would have no intuition for it without the teacher who had trained me to analyse this way.

After stalling in my development for some time in this area, I deduced that before I would continue sightreading at the instrument, I should be able to read 3 times faster than the speed needed during the average actual sight-reading performance (I read that norm somewhere in an article about scientific speed reading). That's what I developed a lot just sitting on the sofa with my books and it worked very well for me. It must be clear that alphabetisation (or solmization in my case) doesn't get you that kind of speed; you *have to* think in chunks.

Of course. But can you truly perceive each and every interesting musical interval while doing so? If not, you need alternative ways of thinking too. The more variety of approach, the better. People are far too narrow when it comes to sightreading approaches. As well as looking to process enough to execute something at lightning speed, you could also take something simple and try to analyse every single possible thing about it while playing it slowly- so not a single possible viewpoint has been overlooked. Sometimes we need to find the simplest route to accuracy, but there is also value in finding the most intricate and detailed viewpoints for something that can already be executed without any difficulty. These can be the most interesting challenges. Just because the brain processes enough to play notes accurately, it doesn't mean it's processing all the points of interest that it could be.

[nyiregyhazi]

I think Liszt used a Leimer-Gieseking visualisation kind of analysis. Are you familiar with that? You learn how to describe what you see in such a way that the execution follows as a logical result, provided you have a good enough command over the keyboard. Better even: the piece you analyze/"visualize" (for just a few seconds) will be in memory. Separate-note-naming has absolutely no place in that system if only to indicate the beginning or ending of a sequence or passage.
EDIT: I don't know how to link to a certain page on scribd.com, but please scroll down to page 21 (p.14 in the book):
https://www.scribd.com/doc/50869352/Gieseking-Leimer-Piano-Technique

Actually, the example he gives there is interesting. He speaks in terms of key moments in the line, which is very sensible. But if I were only to visualise those, I might very well feel a slight surprise at some of the details. If I visualise in that manner, there's a fair chance I imagine moving without actually picturing the notes under my hands- particularly as they are all whites. The note naming idea is very useful here. Try picturing every one of those 6ths clearly enough to name each note. Anyone who wants to use visualisation to a high standard ought to be up that. I have no doubt Gieseking would have found this easy.

However, my personal visualisation is not on the level required for such depth of imagination to feel effortless, or as vivid as the process of actually playing it would be. I know I'd be fine if I played those notes on the piano, thanks to proprioception. I can also visualise clearly when reading the score. But when I imagine all those notes falling in my head (based solely on the start and end point, without looking at a score) I get lost very easily in my visualisation of all else. The picture of the notes I'd be on is not half as clear as my picture of generically moving down. The note naming method is a very good way of practising pieces that have already been learned and checking how vividly you can visualise them. To visualise this unfamiliar piece though, I'd have to start by imagining which notes I arrived at in my mind, with every individual step. If you really know a piece, you should be able to name every note by memory with nothing being physical alone. Becoming able to visualise learned pieces this clearly can be used as a springboard to starting to visualise unfamiliar material in a meaningful fashion- which really isn't easy. I visualise well from a score, but I find it far harder to imagine it vividly based on having a starter point and then needing to imagine every following note in the long line- especially with the same fingers repeating, leaving no unique distinguishing features. On intuition, I'd simply imagine my hand moving but have no imagination of exactly where my hand was arriving each time- grossly confusing the mental image to the point of being meaningless. Only conscious thought could make it better.

Of course, it makes tremendous sense to come back to what Leimer gives as a skeleton, in the end. But if you cannot first perceive the details that lie in between key turning points, your image is woefully incomplete. I'm quite sure that Gieseking could either see key moments or fine details, with equal ease. Otherwise he'd have been hopeless at music that simply doesn't have obvious patterns but instead relies on chaotic and unpredictable deviations. He had to do far harder things than visualise every 6th clearly- but for most pianists even that is a serious challenge.

[outin]

You wouldn't want to be able to play things with high accuracy straight off? I don't normally do that for an audience, but I'm sure glad I can. The clearer the initial conception, the quicker the learning is.

That's not really so important for me. It's more important for me personally to get an overview of the piece. That is the basic for all of my learning. Trying to concentrate on details until I have that does not make my learning quicker, it just becomes an endless struggle that does not go anywhere...

And because details simply don't stick to my memory easily or fast, I don't really have to worry about the mistakes getting permanent in the beginning of the learning process.

[outin]

Well, how many areas are there in everyday life where the ability to do something consistently rather than erratically when no pressure is on doesn't also contribute to ability to perform better under pressure? I sincerely know of no single piece of logic that would support that. If it's not true, the onus is far more on someone to disprove than to prove. You may need EXTRA things to perform under pressure, but reliable ability without pressure can only assist. Inconsistent results when no pressure is on cannot ever be positive. Anything that fixes that can only provide a springboard to greater possibilities.

But we do not have the evidence yet, that *I* can do it consistently in ANY circumstances after trying the proposed method, do we?

[dima_76557]

Of course- but the problem is that every note has a place in a whole, yet it's all too easy to see a clump and to have an unconscious procedure that can execute it- simply by making the hand into a corresponding shape and putting it down. Yet there may be no true awareness of what details are involved on the level of understanding. By formulaically naming each note, you are drawing attention to it within the whole.

I'll have to think a bit about how that can be true. I find the concept difficult to understand. Each tone alone doesn't seem to mean anything to me. It gets its function by what it does to the other tones around it, doesn't it? If you get that relationship with pre-hearing, shouldn't that be enough as a check of awareness?

[nyiregyhazi]

I'll have to think a bit about how that can be true. I find the concept difficult to understand. Each tone alone doesn't seem to mean anything to me. It gets its function by what it does to the other tones around it, doesn't it? If you get that relationship with pre-hearing, shouldn't that be enough as a check of awareness?

Maybe, but it depends how good someone is. How many pianists really hear EVERY note in a texture, rather than just an overall surface flavour? And for how many pianists is hearing so deeply linked to execution- to the extent that hearing automatically means imagining the executioin in detail? For Volodos or Gieseking maybe. But for anyone who doesn't have spectacularly advanced ability to play by ear, there's no guaranteed link. The more tools available for making links, the better.

Also, this method doesn't intrinsically separate notes from their place in the whole. It checks that they register in the whole- which is a very important part of checking that the whole really is a whole and not merely a superficial impression plus habits to fill in the rest. When I imagine playing some pieces, it's actually difficult to tell which points I really am imagining clearly and which I am not. And some of the imagination is more conscious and some more physical and abstract. So if I try to imagine executing a piece and expect myself to say every letter, I can objectify which bits are actually present in my mental rehearsal and which bits are simply absent from it due to inadequate clarity of perception. Merely imagining doesn't tell me where my holes lie.

PS. The method is more about picturing each key than the letter itself but the ability to say the letter adds an extra clarity to that. Merely reciting letters without picturing the keys certainly is meaningless.

[j_menz]

And for how many pianists is hearing so deeply linked to execution- to the extent that hearing automatically means imagining the executioin in detail?

I find, in my case at least, the operation is the other way round. The imagined execution generates the sound image.  I used to have to actually "perform" the movement, but that need seems to have receded over the years. 

This way round, it has no advantage for playing by ear whatsoever.

[nyiregyhazi]

That's not really so important for me. It's more important for me personally to get an overview of the piece. That is the basic for all of my learning. Trying to concentrate on details until I have that does not make my learning quicker, it just becomes an endless struggle that does not go anywhere...

And because details simply don't stick to my memory easily or fast, I don't really have to worry about the mistakes getting permanent in the beginning of the learning process.

If wrong things don't stick fast, why would correct things stick any quicker? If things don't stick fast, you need reliable reading more than anyone- as you'll have to depend on it for longer than a quicker memoriser. Don't just assume that skills aren't necessary or that they are beyond you. I don't honestly know what an overview would mean in learning, separate from details. You just vamp on the harmonies for a few days first before decoding and understanding the actual notes?

As for evidence- do you have specific evidence that ANY method in wide use works with your specific learning disability? It's far more sensible to assume that things MIGHT work for you than to assume they definitely would not and close your mind. In no conceivable situation would inability to get things consistently right in free time offer a basis to read well in general. You can either assume it's impossible to be any other way (and that you are operating at the absolute peak of your limits, with no room for improvement of any kind in your skillset) or you can strive to achieve a platform that could never be anything other than a positive. But none of the success stories I've heard of about disability are based on people drawing a line in the sand and saying they will never go further. The success stories start with people attempting to find out if they may be able to transcend current limits after all. Frequently they can and nobody ever died from at least trying first.

[nyiregyhazi]

I find, in my case at least, the operation is the other way round. The imagined execution generates the sound image.  I used to have to actually "perform" the movement, but that need seems to have receded over the years.  

This way round, it has no advantage for playing by ear whatsoever.

Yeah, it's a shame. Same for me. Although I have to have actually played it before this version is very accurate- which is doubtless why it doesn't go in reverse.

[outin]

If wrong things don't stick fast, why would correct things stick any quicker?

They don't. But it also means that it's not really that important what I do THE FIRST TIME I play through (=sight read) a new piece I am going to study.

If things don't stick fast, you need reliable reading more than anyone- as you'll have to depend on it for longer than a quicker memoriser.  Don't just assume that skills aren't necessary or that they are beyond you.

I never said I wouldn't benefit from better reading, it was the whole point of this discussion, wasn't it? So please don't assume I assume things I don't

But reading through something several times really does not help me properly memorise at all, I need to use other methods for that. What it does is create a very superficial memory that falls apart constantly. The faster I get rid of the score the faster I learn the piece. So the time saving (which you brought out) isn't as significant that it may be for someone else.

I don't honestly know what an overview would mean in learning, separate from details. You just vamp on the harmonies for a few days first before decoding and understanding the actual notes?

I am not sure I can explain it very well, since your ideal learning process seems so different. There are tons of material in the internet though about sequental versus global learning style.

The overview I need is the "musical" context that the details are filled in. It means I have both a sound image in my head of what I am aiming for with the piece AND a theoretical understanding of at least some level. (The "whole" is never completely fixed though, it is developed further in the learning process as well.) It's a frame of reference that all the details are connected to. I would not be able to remember those details without it. Just like I am unable to memorize a random list of words, letters or numbers. It can take me a week to memorize a simple short note pattern outside of musical context, while I can memorize a page of music in the same time.

I can learn the details as they are needed for the whole. I need to concentrate on the details that I feel interested in and that seem important at the specific time, even if that means jumping around in a seemingly random way, because then they are learned the most efficiently and fast.

I also learn faster by mistakes than by repeating something correctly. After I realize what I did wrong, I don't do that mistake again. That's how my memory works. In a way I need to have problems to remember the solutions, if that makes any sense to you?

It's really not that easy to explain these things in words, since they are clear to me but probably very unclear to someone who has different experience.

As for evidence- do you have specific evidence that ANY method in wide use works with your specific learning disability?

I have a lot of empirical evidence from about 40 years. In addition to that I have tried out many of the methods found in books and the internet and proposed by my teacher in the last 3 years.

With ANY learning disability the first thing to do is NOT assume there is a ready made method, but always be ready to create an individual solution. It is often trial and error. That's because learning disabilities are individual, while they are grouped under certain names, they are still not the same with everyone, there are different grades and different combinations of problems. But I guess I should also point out that the term disability can be slightly misguiding. What may cause problems in one area of learning might actually be very useful in another, especially if one has developed other areas of the mind more. Just like a blind person can have exceptional sense of touch or hearing ability. I would not change anything really even if I could, because I am fairly certain I would not have developed certain exceptional skills I have if I didn't have the cognitive limitations I have.

You seem to think I don't try out things before dismissing them. I do, always, unless I have specific proof from other areas of learning that they simply cannot work. I am quite willing to experiment with what you propose here after I get the details straight what exactly I am supposed to do (you haven't actually presented your method very clearly) and have the time for that. Right now I can barely spend half an hour on piano work a day and that I need to spend on preparing for my lessons.

[nyiregyhazi]

I never said I wouldn't benefit from better reading, it was the whole point of this discussion, wasn't it? So please don't assume I assume things I don't

Since sight reading is a very small part of what I do, the saving of time would not be that significant though

I appreciate you meant sightreading as seeing music for the first time. But I'm referring to anything that hinges on reading. It wouldn't make sense to polarise between first time ever and everything else. I'm talking about reading- which includes anything where a piece is not executed by memory alone, but requires a score for at least some or all of the cues.

But reading through something several times really does not help me properly memorise at all, I need to use other methods for that.

? I really don't follow. If you're not playing by ear, where are you learning those notes from if not by reading them? If it's slow to memorise as you say, how can you possibly be anything other than overwhelmingly dependent on reading skill? It's virtually your sole basis for what you said is the slow process of memorising no?

What it does is create a very superficial memory that falls apart constantly. The faster I get rid of the score the faster I learn the piece. So the time saving (which you brought out) isn't as significant that it may be for someone else.

? I simply don't follow your logic. How are you going to get rid of the score without correctly decoding and memorising what it says first, with complete certainty about the instructions? How can you not be hugely dependent on accuracy of reading skill?

The overview I need is the "musical" context that the details are filled in. It means I have both a sound image in my head of what I am aiming for with the piece AND a theoretical understanding of at least some level. (The "whole" is never completely fixed though, it is developed further in the learning process as well.)

Do you mean you only learn pieces you know the sound of? I'm presuming so as, again, the only other way to know what the whole is would be by reading the information and correctly understanding it. A whole is not a whole unless complete, by definition. Without knowing every single detail, you cannot be working with a whole but only with an incomplete picture of one, again by definition.

I also learn faster by mistakes than by repeating something correctly. After I realize what I did wrong, I don't do that mistake again. That's how my memory works. In a way I need to have problems to remember the solutions, if that makes any sense to you?

Not really, to be honest. Why would it be easier to go wrong and make corrections than to have never once intended anything other than what you are looking for? It's impossible to truly eliminate memory of a mistake outright. We don't control the brain to that level. The safest means is to focus solely on what you do want. It's easier if this has never been polluted. If you're extra attentive about checking what you do want in the aftermath of a mistake, if may be relatively insignificant (compared to someone who just ploughs on in and has multiple goes until luck takes them to what they wanted). But I don't think faulty intentions are likely to be quicker than clear intent from the outset, even when corrected on the very next execution. To reach the next level in my sightreading, I had to train myself to verify so rigorously that mistakes don't have to happen. I learn pieces much quicker and I sightread more accurately under pressure by having developed this capability. Putting clarity of intent before pressing on in strict tempo is not my only method, but learning to use it has saved me numerous hours compared to older ways.

I have a lot of empirical evidence from about 40 years. In addition to that I have tried out many of the methods found in books and the internet and proposed by my teacher in the last 3 years.

But have you trained yourself to play things perfectly first time round in free tempo, with no time pressure? If not, you haven't actually used the method I speak of. Nobody said it's easy or that you have to start with hard pieces even, but the whole distinguishing feature of this approach is that you don't have two goes. You learn to verify to the point where you don't need a second go, starting with easy music and building through increasingly difficult pieces. You can practise in strict time elsewhere, but the idea here is simply that you never guess about pitches and place certainty before all else. The whole thing that distinguishes the method is realising when you're not sure and not pressing on regardless. Every note is a choice, not something you steamroll into without being sure of.

If that doesn't happen, it's simply not the method I speak of. Either you're verifying assiduously or you're not. If a mistake creeps in, it wasn't verified first, so the method of using multiple viewpoints for verification has simply not been used. I appreciate it's easier to say this than to do it, but anything other than actually doing it doesn't count.

[outin]

? I really don't follow. If you're not playing by ear, where are you learning those notes from if not by reading them? If it's slow to memorise as you say, how can you possibly be anything other than overwhelmingly dependent on reading skill? It's virtually your sole basis for what you said is the slow process of memorising no?

What I meant is that I can play something through countless of times reading from the score, and I have to actually read less and less every time, but that only gives me a superficial and very unreliable memory. The only way for me to memorize properly is put away the score and try to play without it and when I can, start solidifying the memorizing with various methods with or without the score. The sooner I put the score away (just to take it out again occasionally to make sure I don't miss details) the faster the piece is really memorized.

? I simply don't follow your logic. How are you going to get rid of the score without correctly decoding and memorising what it says first, with complete certainty about the instructions? How can you not be hugely dependent on accuracy of reading skill?

You don't seem to understand... For me the decoding and solid memorizing are separate prosesses. The decoding itself isn't really difficult because I CAN interpret scores and I am very precise at it, I just cannot do it fast and reliably enough for sight reading (partly because my eyes, not only because of my mind). After the initial processing of the score I do KNOW what the score says even though I cannot follow it fluently with my eyes or cannot retrieve the information reliably from my memory. What I need is to enforce the memory retrieval process of the information that is already in my head. That is the slow and tedious part of the process.

Do you mean you only learn pieces you know the sound of? I'm presuming so as, again, the only other way to know what the whole is would be by reading the information and correctly understanding it. A whole is not a whole unless complete, by definition. Without knowing every single detail, you cannot be working with a whole but only with an incomplete picture of one, again by definition.

No, I learn also pieces I have never heard and enjoy it very much. But your idea of the whole is different to mine. For me it is an incomplete but descriptive enough a picture of the final product, like a sketch. The first times I read and play through a piece I listen to it and create a framework in my mind that consists of the most essential information about rhythm, melody and harmony and the other details (fingering, correct voicing, dynamics etc) are added to it later. Of course I also start working on smaller parts and specific details but that I do in random order, determined by what feels the most relevant at the moment for completing the whole.

Not really, to be honest. Why would it be easier to go wrong and make corrections than to have never once intended anything other than what you are looking for? It's impossible to truly eliminate memory of a mistake outright. We don't control the brain to that level. The safest means is to focus solely on what you do want. It's easier if this has never been polluted. If you're extra attentive about checking what you do want in the aftermath of a mistake, if may be relatively insignificant (compared to someone who just ploughs on in and has multiple goes until luck takes them to what they wanted). But I don't think faulty intentions are likely to be quicker than clear intent from the outset, even when corrected on the very next execution. To reach the next level in my sightreading, I had to train myself to verify so rigorously that mistakes don't have to happen. I learn pieces much quicker and I sightread more accurately under pressure by having developed this capability. Putting clarity of intent before pressing on in strict tempo is not my only method, but learning to use it has saved me numerous hours compared to older ways.

But have you trained yourself to play things perfectly first time round in free tempo, with no time pressure? If not, you haven't actually used the method I speak of. Nobody said it's easy or that you have to start with hard pieces even, but the whole distinguishing feature of this approach is that you don't have two goes. You learn to verify to the point where you don't need a second go, starting with easy music and building through increasingly difficult pieces. You can practise in strict time elsewhere, but the idea here is simply that you never guess about pitches and place certainty before all else. The whole thing that distinguishes the method is realising when you're not sure and not pressing on regardless. Every note is a choice, not something you steamroll into without being sure of.

If that doesn't happen, it's simply not the method I speak of. Either you're verifying assiduously or you're not. If a mistake creeps in, it wasn't verified first, so the method of using multiple viewpoints for verification has simply not been used. I appreciate it's easier to say this than to do it, but anything other than actually doing it doesn't count.
 

I can try to explain, but it seems impossible. First because there is no simple way to explain these things with words. Second because you have such an undertsanding of things that does not leave space for something that is so completely different to what your experience tells you. It's like basic physics versus quantum theory: Neither are wrong but they still do not go together.

Yes, I have studied pieces very slow (and often do). But I cannot play anything perfectly the first time because there are too many things to concentrate at the same time. My working memory cannot handle all the listening, reading and movements at the same time. I also have some issues with my short term memory. Going extremely slow won't make learning more efficient at this stage, because there's more time to forget what the last things processes in my mind were and things are not tied together in any way.

I can safely say that I have tried every method suggested to me to learn pieces, but many of them just won't work. And I do not avoid easy piece, in fact I often ask my teacher to work on VERY easy music just to see if it gets easier.

I want to clarify that when talking about learning better from mistakes I was talking about memorizing, not sight reading. In my case the problem of playing from memory is not so much that mistakes creep in. I  simply cannot remember what I am supposed to do every other time. Why do I learn from mistakes then? When I play some notes correctly it doesn't necessarily make a proper memory trace, not something I can reliably return to later. But when I have a problem to solve and solve it myself (a mistake is a problem that needs solving), those sticks to my mind in a different way, more permanently. 

[nyiregyhazi]

What I meant is that I can play something through countless of times reading from the score, and I have to actually read less and less every time, but that only gives me a superficial and very unreliable memory. The only way for me to memorize properly is put away the score and try to play without it and when I can, start solidifying the memorizing with various methods with or without the score.

? You're describing the most normal thing in the world. I don't just read through compositions from start to finish and suddenly have a perfect memory. There's nothing unusual about concentrating on chunks both from the score and without. That's just standard practise. By nature it's work on detail not the whole you spoke of. So you need to know what the details are with certainty.

You don't seem to understand... For me the decoding and solid memorizing are separate prosesses. The decoding itself isn't really difficult because I CAN interpret scores and I am very precise at it, I just cannot do it fast and reliably enough for sight reading (partly because my eyes, not only because of my mind).

But that's exactly how bad readers evolve, even without learning issues. If you don't reinforce links by coming back to the score, there will never be a link. One of the most important things in sound reading is not playing at first sight but linking what you can already do to what the score says. This is how you learn the verifications I speak of. The more you know something already, the easier it is see it from many angles. But you have to be willing to go very slow, despite knowing it already to allow thinking time for associations to form. Skip to memory alone and you skip the cementing of reading skills. I'm not unsympathetic to your situation, but it's important to realise that working this way is exactly what makes for a less than fluent reader. Unless you're working to the absolute peak possible for your condition, you could improve by looking at this. Few people do work to their potential peak, so rather than say you can't do it, I'd explore.

After the initial processing of the score I do KNOW what the score says even though I cannot follow it fluently with my eyes or cannot retrieve the information reliably from my memory.

? That's a contradiction. Either you know or you don't. This is exactly the type of thing that causes inner confusions and very slow learning. If I know I'm not sure. I check. It's about learning to perceive yourself well enough to know guesses from certainty.

What I need is to enforce the memory retrieval process of the information that is already in my head. That is the slow and tedious part of the process.

Of course. It would be for me too if I didn't use the score for long enough to be sure I wasn't guessing. If I'm not sure about something, I verify. I don't you'd be any less likely to benefit from coming to know the difference between being about to guess and truly knowing. It doesn't surprise me at all that it's a slow process. I need consistency to learn at any reasonable speed. It was a VERY slow process when I used to try to remember things too soon and stop using the score, due to the number of needless errors made out of lack of verification. Either your memory is there or it isn't. If it isn't, our one port of call that gives consistently sound advice is the score.

No, I learn also pieces I have never heard and enjoy it very much. But your idea of the whole is different to mine. For me it is an incomplete but descriptive enough a picture of the final product, like a sketch. The first times I read and play through a piece I listen to it and create a framework in my mind that consists of the most essential information about rhythm, melody and harmony and the other details (fingering, correct voicing, dynamics etc) are added to it later. Of course I also start working on smaller parts and specific details but that I do in random order, determined by what feels the most relevant at the moment for completing the whole.

Okay. But that's a classic example of assembling details. Again, nothing out of the ordinary or in conflict with the need to process details first.

First because there is no simple way to explain these things with words. Second because you have such an undertsanding of things that does not leave space for something that is so completely different to what your experience tells you.

I'm open minded, but everything you describe sounds like the typical trial and error method which so many students make slowish progress on. You say you learn slowly- implying that it means it won't matter if you go wrong a few times. But how do you know you don't learn slowly BECAUSE of making too many casual mistakes before things settle in? The human mind is very strongly inclined to try to protect what it does now. But it's actually by challenging habits that we are most likely to learn, not by rationalising ways to protect what we do.

Yes, I have studied pieces very slow (and often do). But I cannot play anything perfectly the first time because there are too many things to concentrate at the same time. My working memory cannot handle all the listening, reading and movements at the same time. I also have some issues with my short term memory. Going extremely slow won't make learning more efficient at this stage, because there's more time to forget what the last things processes in my mind were and things are not tied together in any way.

You're not seeing what I'm saying. It's fine to get confused. So you stop and think when there is ANY uncertainty. It's about learning to make the next note a choice rather than something that is unstoppable.

I'm trying to understand, but how would the above conflict with the methods you outlined above? The only difference I'm suggesting is being extra careful with the first execution and linking it back to the score some of the time, rather than only practising from memory. If you only practise from the score once, it's still better to get the clearest picture of what it says if you want to remember accurately, no?

I'm trying to see where you come from, but I'm really having a hard time. I'd simply ask you to open your mind to these things rather than try to protext existing beliefs. There's more to be gained by assuming that you may be capable of more than you can do write now, than assuming that your current methods have no room for improvements.

I can safely say that I have tried every method suggested to me to learn pieces, but many of them just won't work. And I do not avoid easy piece, in fact I often ask my teacher to work on VERY easy music just to see if it gets easier.

So what happens when you play a slow easy piece in free time- verifying every note by both letter and interval? Try doing so out loud.

I want to clarify that when talking about learning better from mistakes I was talking about memorizing, not sight reading. In my case the problem of playing from memory is not so much that mistakes creep in. I  simply cannot remember what I am supposed to do every other time.

? So you read the score, I hope? Or just have a go? If it's the latter, you really need to be open-minded enough to start trying address that. Of course you'll learn slowly if it's the latter. I'd be a very slow learner too, if I didn't verify from the score both while memorising and at least some of the time after.


 

[outin]

...

It's difficult to answer your questions now when the posts are split into so many different sections of quotes and questions... Also there are too many simultaneous issues discussed at the same time too, sometimes I am referring to sight reading and sometimes practicing and memorizing...

I don't think you still did not quite understand the nature of the whole or framework I am talking about. Maybe it's not so important in your own learning process or maybe you just don't use the same words to describe it.

You constantly talk about guessing. In practice when I don't remember I do not automatically guess, I stop. I sometimes will take out the score right away. But if it is something I already have been able to play from memory before, I'd rather first try to use a reasoning process to figure out what comes next. I've learned this way I will remember that specific thing better later. Don't you do the same yourself?

The thing about my memory is that I can know things with certainty 99% of time and have used the information countless of times before correctly and still at a specific moment be completely unable to remember them at all or they get mixed up. Things like names of familiar people or places. Or notes and fingerings. I know this happens to everyone occasionally, but for me it happens constantly. I just cannot retrieve the information from my long term memory in the way I should. It could be that this same issue is part of what is making sight reading difficult: I know the symbols and what they represent but at specific time that information is for some reason collected from a wrong place or gets confused with other information processed almost at the same time.

But I probably don't make quite that many mistakes as it may seem from what I wrote. Maybe one or two a page but I am not good at all in accepting such things and go on with it (which of course is a psychological, not cognitive problem).

I used mistakes as an example to try to explain how some memory traces are stronger than others and they are those that have been created by the initial process being somehow difficult and so required a reasoning process instead of just simple data processing. It's the things that are easy to understand/excute that are the most difficult to remember. Of course this would be the same for everyone, but it becomes much more significant for someone who struggles to remember ANY details.

So what happens when you play a slow easy piece in free time- verifying every note by both letter and interval? Try doing so out loud.

With free time you mean without the correct rhythm? I've tried that with simple note figurations that I have a hard time to memorize. I can't seem to get the positive results one would expect. It seems when doing exercises like that my mind goes to a mode where it doesn't properly register what it is doing. It may be because the purpose of the notes gets lost and without purpose things just don't stick.

But if you have a solution to stop the wild and uncontrollable thought processes which are consuming the better part of my mind while I am trying to concentrate on such simple exercises, I am happy to hear it.  Saying the notes loud does not help me much to concentrate, I seem to be able to say the names of the notes without much conscious thinking. Forced concentration does not work either, it simply gets worse...

[nyiregyhazi]

You constantly talk about guessing. In practice when I don't remember I do not automatically guess, I stop. I sometimes will take out the score right away. But if it is something I already have been able to play from memory before, I'd rather first try to use a reasoning process to figure out what comes next. I've learned this way I will remember that specific thing better later. Don't you do the same yourself?

Nothing wrong with that. The key issue is certainty. A positive result doesn't necessarily prove certainty (as habit can be responsible), but going wrong always points to having gone on despite uncertainty. Learning to identify these moments for the sake of improving self-awareness is the key. You have press on and hope sometimes when you're at the performance stage, but the less you do it in the learning stage, the less it's likely to happen later.

It could be that this same issue is part of what is making sight reading difficult: I know the symbols and what they represent but at specific time that information is for some reason collected from a wrong place or gets confused with other information processed almost at the same time.

I still think verification exercises can help you. When you reference in more than one way, confused information will be exposed as such before you act on it. The key is to play very easy things with extreme awareness of multiple viewpoints- rather than by doing merely enough to get the notes correct.

With free time you mean without the correct rhythm? I've tried that with simple note figurations that I have a hard time to memorize. I can't seem to get the positive results one would expect. It seems when doing exercises like that my mind goes to a mode where it doesn't properly register what it is doing. It may be because the purpose of the notes gets lost and without purpose things just don't stick.

Actually, that is an important point. I always look for extreme musical connection when going this way and I try to "stretch" some kind of larger flow rather than truly stop dead at any point. I treat it as an exploration of connected sounds, full of experimentation. It's not just play one note, hang around for ages and then whack out another. There needs to be a vivid sense of connection through a long sound into the next, even if the time is free, in order to contribute towards improvements. Although the whole doesn't flow conventionally, far from breaking things up it should actually reinforce the awareness of every step that contributes towards the big flow. Ultimately, the whole is formed by connecting those steps, so it always pays to observe each without pressure being put on it.

But if you have a solution to stop the wild and uncontrollable thought processes which are consuming the better part of my mind while I am trying to concentrate on such simple exercises, I am happy to hear it.  Saying the notes loud does not help me much to concentrate, I seem to be able to say the names of the notes without much conscious thinking. Forced concentration does not work either, it simply gets worse...

When I do this type of ultra thoughtful practise, I strive for something like the sound you hear from Nyiregyhazi above in the simple opening. Although known for his huge FFFFs, his most interesting facet for me is actually the way he plays simple recitatives. He takes extreme rhythmic liberties, so nothing is ever close to be being forced to adhere to tight metre simply for the sake of it. I imagine that I'm exploring sound in that type of remarkably free and ethereal manner. It makes it both very musical and possible to be mentally rigorous about verifications. There's no pressure on anything BUT it's far from an academic or technical exercise. I try to listen to the colour and character of every interval and load the process with tonal exploration. It's not like a stage of simply pressing the right buttons, but rather a mindset that enables care within a very musical context.

[nyiregyhazi]

In line with what I've been saying, this is a very interesting article:

https://www.bulletproofmusician.com/8-things-top-practicers-do-differently/

The only thing I find curious is that they say that the best performing cases made as many mistakes early on, but corrected them better. I'm rather surprised, particularly in a three bar passage. With a wider number of pianists to test, I suspect that they would have found that the very finest of all also made very few mistakes at the start.

[outin]

When I do this type of ultra thoughtful practise, I strive for something like the sound you hear from Nyiregyhazi above in the simple opening. Although known for his huge FFFFs, his most interesting facet for me is actually the way he plays simple recitatives. He takes extreme rhythmic liberties, so nothing is ever close to be being forced to adhere to tight metre simply for the sake of it. I imagine that I'm exploring sound in that type of remarkably free and ethereal manner. It makes it both very musical and possible to be mentally rigorous about verifications. There's no pressure on anything BUT it's far from an academic or technical exercise. I try to listen to the colour and character of every interval and load the process with tonal exploration. It's not like a stage of simply pressing the right buttons, but rather a mindset that enables care within a very musical context.

I thought you wanted me to start playing Liszt 

Anyway, this we can surely agree on. The tone quality is what drives me at the piano and it is something I usually am aware of. I think I need to be more careful not to let it get forgotten when struggling with boring things that I don't find musically pleasing at all and so become more of a chore...

[outin]

In line with what I've been saying, this is a very interesting article:

https://www.bulletproofmusician.com/8-things-top-practicers-do-differently/

The only thing I find curious is that they say that the best performing cases made as many mistakes early on, but corrected them better. I'm rather surprised, particularly in a three bar passage. With a wider number of pianists to test, I suspect that they would have found that the very finest of all also made very few mistakes at the start.

Or maybe it's the same thing that I was talking about above: Initial mistakes are not a problem, if you deliberately take care to solve them?

I have been studying a piece since May and never really got this one fast passage solid enough. So this week I decided to one more time try other fingerings, and found something that works better. After a few days I am using the new fingering without any trouble. This is my experience in general: As long as I am completely aware and secure about the note content, changing fingerings is no issue. So maybe (at least for me) I really should put LESS attention to fingerings in the beginning and rather leave the final decisions for later. The idea of "practice makes permanent" just doesn't seem to be consistent with my experience.

I have also noticed that I find sight reading easier with scores that have no finger numbers at all. The numbers in the score seem to confuse me even when I am not consciously using them. Then again when learning a piece I have to write in a lot of, because otherwise I cannot remember the fingerings I have already figured out. Writing fingerings is a pain too, because I constantly write them in wrong order (writing 1-2-3 and actually meaning 3-2-1), without even noticing and they make sense to me when playing. It's only after my teacher points out that there's something strange that I notice...

It could be that the general association of fingers with numbers is not a good thing for me, considering the issues I have with numbers... Don't really know what to do about that though. It would be an interesting experiment to create a score where instead of finger numbers each finger has different colour notes... Not practical of course, but would be interesting to see if it made things more secure for me.

[dima_76557]

In line with what I've been saying, this is a very interesting article:

https://www.bulletproofmusician.com/8-things-top-practicers-do-differently/

The only thing I find curious is that they say that the best performing cases made as many mistakes early on, but corrected them better. I'm rather surprised, particularly in a three bar passage. With a wider number of pianists to test, I suspect that they would have found that the very finest of all also made very few mistakes at the start.

I think it's the unnatural test environment that causes the "surprising" results because they go about the task rationally and forget about their instincts. If it's as new to them as it is to the others, they'll react as everybody else does until they get used to the situation. So, an experienced test taker who is not a master in what is being tested may very well do better in the very beginning. They then lose the game because they neither have the skills nor the instincts to win.

My conclusion: You need to have enough automated skills + a certain psychological state (no ego interfering) to be successful.

[lostinidlewonder]

Lol good well read all these comments you will still be a poor sight reader... also a little stupider with all these useless generalisations packaged up to look clever lol.

[nyiregyhazi]

Or maybe it's the same thing that I was talking about above: Initial mistakes are not a problem, if you deliberately take care to solve them?

Obviously they're better solved, but remember that they said the highest percentage of accurate ones were most successful. Eliminating unnecessary confusion at the start can only help. Personally, I think the first is the most important. I may allow mistakes in the middle- when I'm trying what I've already understood and had a feel for, at a faster speed. But if I want to learn something I think of the first execution as the most important not to misunderstand things on. It saves endless time to start on the right foot.

I have also noticed that I find sight reading easier with scores that have no finger numbers at all. The numbers in the score seem to confuse me even when I am not consciously using them. Then again when learning a piece I have to write in a lot of, because otherwise I cannot remember the fingerings I have already figured out. Writing fingerings is a pain too, because I constantly write them in wrong order (writing 1-2-3 and actually meaning 3-2-1), without even noticing and they make sense to me when playing. It's only after my teacher points out that there's something strange that I notice...

I'd just as easily do the same myself. Who care about individual numbers? I deliberately avoid unnecessary ones. I just use brackets to show positions- so thinking is integrated into something bigger. I'd never write consecutive fingers, as it serves no purpose. Maybe one significant finger, but a bracket conveys all the rest, far more simply. The idea of writing consecutive numbers on consecutive notes is baffling to me.

It could be that the general association of fingers with numbers is not a good thing for me, considering the issues I have with numbers... Don't really know what to do about that though. It would be an interesting experiment to create a score where instead of finger numbers each finger has different colour notes..

Try the brackets thing. It's also part of increasing the number of mental associations. Part of the verification is perceiving a note relative to surrounding notes in the same position. Again, there is extra context that can expose confusion before mistakes occur. When I see which notes are being organised into one hand position, the detail of fingering organises itself, without reams of numbers being needed.

[outin]

Try the brackets thing. It's also part of increasing the number of mental associations. Part of the verification is perceiving a note relative to surrounding notes in the same position. Again, there is extra context that can expose confusion before mistakes occur. When I see which notes are being organised into one hand position, the detail of fingering organises itself, without reams of numbers being needed.

I don't normally write consequtive numbers either, that was just an example. I can just as well just replace a 5 with a 1 when I am thinking 54321...but with my limited reach I probably need a lot more hand position changes and creative fingering solutions than you would for the same passages.

Actually after writing the fingerings down I don't really need them anymore for playing the piece. The tricky process of getting them correctly on the paper seems to be enough for me to remember them. I mainly need the fingerings when I need to add new starting points or go back to HS practice. And of course they are good to be there in case I return to the piece later.

I do believe one of the things that slows down my memorizing of pieces is the need to refinger almost everything to be able to play fluently. Concentrating on the fingering and the physical movements means I pay too little attention to the notes in the beginning and have to do that later. This is less of a problem when playing pieces that are already familiar in style. I learn the Scarlatti Sonatas faster than anything else of similar difficulty. Or maybe they are just so much better suitable for hands like mine than Bach or the romantic music.

[colinpthomson]

There are some really helpful tips in this thread! Love it!


I also wanted to let everyone know about a program I've been putting together for some time to help pianists sight-read, by getting them new music every day, including exercises I designed specifically to improve sight-reading.


I am in the beta-testing phase right now, so I am offering a full month for free, if you are willing to give me feedback and report on any bugs or technical issues. If anyone is interested, I would really love the help!


The beta-tester signup page is here: https://sightreadingacademy.com/beta-test/


Talk soon!


-Colin

[bachapprentice]

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 usually read the piece first before I play it. Take it away from the instrument and sit someplace quiet.

[eldergeek]

Thank you, Colin, for your kind offer, but it would seem that to get the free 1 month trial of the program, I have to give my credit card details?

Sorry, but you have to be joking!