Intensity vs Duration of sight reading

[ranjit]

Which should one have more of to improve sight reading quickly? Shorter, more intense sessions of say 15 minutes each, or long sessions where you're reading at a lower level but for an hour or more?

[brogers70]

Eventually, you and Frodo will design a randomized trial to determine the most effective method to practice sight reading. In the meanwhile, I can just tell what I've done that has helped. I was always a poor sight reader at the piano (unlike for classical guitar or voice, where I could sight read quite well). Since it seemed my main problem was "touch typing", knowing instinctively where the keys were I started working like this.

30 minutes a day. At first I used ultra simple things like the first volume of Sartorio Opus 45 sight reading exercises (find it on IMSLP) going slowly enough that I could play it at a steady tempo without looking at the keys. The later exercises get more complicated so I'd cut myself some slack and allow myself to look at the keys for big jumps once in a while. After that I just cycled through a lot of stuff, some beginners level Music for Millions which I could pretty much read through without looking at the keys if I went slowly enough, and as that got easier a whole lot of things, all the Kuhlau Sonatinas, all the Haydn and Mozart Sonatas, the Bach French and English Suites and Partitas, the Chopin Mazurkas, a bunch of Scarlatti sonatas. For the things that were easy for me, I'd try to read at near to full tempo without looking at the hands, for progressively harder things I'd slow down, harder yet I'd let myself look at my hands sometimes, harder yet and I'd forgive myself a few stops and breaks in the rhythm. After doing this of a couple of years I find sight reading much easier, and it's getting to the point that I can read through pretty interesting pieces at a tempo that at least gives me an idea of what the thing sounds like, so sight reading has gone from being something I never wanted to practice to something I look forward to every day.

I know this does not answer your intensity versus duration question, but it's the best answer I've got.

[frodo3]

Great question.  I think it is actually good to read both easy and harder pieces.  Brogers gives great suggestions.  An idea that some may disagree with – If you are sight reading something over your head, I think it is actually good to repeat reading through it for up to 3 reads in a row in addition to playing at a slow to very slow tempo.  Then you need to not read from the piece again for months if possible.  Hopefully you can assemble a large pile of music for reading purposes.  May want to add 12 sonatinas by Clementi in op. 36-37-38 and Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach for easier pieces to add to brogers list. 

[ranjit]

Eventually, you and Frodo will design a randomized trial to determine the most effective method to practice sight reading.

At first I used ultra simple things like the first volume of Sartorio Opus 45 sight reading exercises (find it on IMSLP) going slowly enough that I could play it at a steady tempo without looking at the keys. The later exercises get more complicated so I'd cut myself some slack and allow myself to look at the keys for big jumps once in a while.

I just went through that book. I find that the last few exercises of the first Sartorio book, or the beginning of the second book, is about my sight reading level.

I know this does not answer your intensity versus duration question, but it's the best answer I've got.

It's very helpful, thanks!

An idea that some may disagree with – If you are sight reading something over your head, I think it is actually good to repeat reading through it for up to 3 reads in a row in addition to playing at a slow to very slow tempo. 

It makes sense, because the patterns you miss during a read are the ones which require reinforcement.

I have gone through a lot of books in the sight reading list, and I'll probably go through the rest with time. I want to quickly get to a point where classical sonatas become approachable (which is what brogers was talking about). I think that is when sight reading will start to become quite a bit more intrinsically rewarding.

[lostinidlewonder]

You could train your reading skills repeating the same group of pieces hundreds of times. Noticing the synergy between memory and reading is very important and is necessary with multiple repeats of the same content.

Easy and hard music to read both serve different purposes. Easy music allows you to play successfully, play with good fingers, be able to hear the music you are creating on the go, read ahead and anticipate etc etc. Hard music helps you to push what you can coordinate, your calculation speed, your ability to correct yourself when you make errors on the go (especially in fingering and coordination), encourages you to read more with less effort (not looking at every single detail but being able to fill in the gaps) and etc.

The bread and butter of sight reading is doing works you can manage but only slightly challenge you here and there. Also note that sight reading itself has various definitions, I certainly don't see it as solely being playing a piece you have never hear or tried before for the first time, that is a far too limited view of what sight reading is about and it's benefits for musicians.

Sight reading can be simply listening to music and following a score, anticipating the sounds to come based on what notes are before you. Sight reading can be playing a piece with master on first go without any problems, it can be also not being able to this but have to play much slower to control what you are doing. Playing slower might be accompanied by intrinsically knowing how to speed it up later or may not come with that at all. Sight reading can closely be related to memory work, how many repeats do you need to read though a work until it is naturally memorised? And so on so on.

[frodo3]

You could train your reading skills repeating the same group of pieces hundreds of times. Noticing the synergy between memory and reading is very important and is necessary with multiple repeats of the same content.

Absolutely!  Here is a modified program that may give great results if done 30 minutes a day for a year:

Universe of pieces:
20 sonatinas by Kuhlau
12 sonatinas by Clementi
15 2-part inventions by Bach

Method of reading to start with:
1 read RH alone
1 read LH alone
2 reads both hands together - as slow as needed

Then on to the next piece.  Do all approx 3*(20+12) + 15 = 111 pieces (assuming 3 movements per sonatina)

Do as many complete readings of these 111 pieces as you can doing 30 minutes a day for a period of 1 year.  You would improve your sight reading as well as form new synapses.  This is another valid approach to sight reading and is worth considering.  It has its pros and cons but I believe it would be a valid way to move forward.

EDIT:
You might go thru these pieces about 3-6 times doing it this way for a year.  3 times => do 1 piece a day.
Extremely rough calc - 2 minutes per piece at full tempo
4 minutes per piece at 1/2 tempo
16 minutes per piece do RH, LH then 2 reads hands together
16*111 = 1724 minutes = 30 hours to go thru once.
365*0.50 = 183 hours practice in a year
183/30 = 6 times

[lostinidlewonder]

Method of reading to start with:
1 read RH alone
1 read LH alone
2 reads both hands together - as slow as needed

I don't like the idea of reading one hand then putting it together in terms of sight reading skills (or something you should heavily rely on for practice method, there are better ways to maintain both hands eg simplification and bulilding towards all the notes) unless you are a very early beginner with reading skills, but even then you can do easy enough works that you can manage reading both hands.

If you are not reading both hands at once because it is too challenging to do so you need to simplify the music so you are experiencing it.

[frodo3]

I don't like the idea of reading one hand then putting it together in terms of sight reading skills (or something you should heavily rely on for practice method, there are better ways to maintain both hands eg simplification and bulilding towards all the notes) unless you are a very early beginner with reading skills, but even then you can do easy enough works that you can manage reading both hands.

If you are not reading both hands at once because it is too challenging to do so you need to simplify the music so you are experiencing it.

I don't disagree with anything that you say here.  However, I still believe there could be benefit to doing as I describe (LH 1 read RH 1 read and both hands 2 reads) if the music is too hard for Ranjit to read hands together at this time..

If these 111 pieces are not too hard for Ranjit - he should skip the reading with separate hands.  If they are too hard, he can also chose to wait to improve his reading/playing before starting to read these 111 pieces played hands together.  All just IMO of course.

Again - I don't disagree with anything that you say here.

[lostinidlewonder]

There is nothing wrong with doing some single hand reading especially for pieces written for one hand as that often goes through different clefs. Two hand reading is just something as keyboardist that we really need to get good at unlike other instruments which where often it is only one stave at a time. So reading one hand is fine but one shouldn't really make that a focused effort unless they really are early beginners. If you are doing pieces that are too difficult you can always read one hand complete while playing only a limited amount of the other, at least two hands ar being played and you also are practicing simplification skills (good tool to use when trying to solve both hand playing).

[frodo3]

I don't like the idea of reading one hand then putting it together in terms of sight reading skills (or something you should heavily rely on for practice method, there are better ways to maintain both hands eg simplification and bulilding towards all the notes) unless you are a very early beginner with reading skills, but even then you can do easy enough works that you can manage reading both hands.

If you are not reading both hands at once because it is too challenging to do so you need to simplify the music so you are experiencing it.

I guess I was thinking of following:  Rather than being able to play a piece without having seen the work before, it is sometimes more important to be able to play a piece having only looked at it for a very short period of time.  For example, a violinist says to a pianist - Can we get together tomorrow to read thru some music?  Pianist says - sure.  Let me know the pieces so I can take a look at them before we get together tomorrow.   Violinist says:  But I have music with me.  Pianist says:  Can I stop by now to pick up the music?  Violinist says - OK.   

[frodo3]

There is nothing wrong with doing some single hand reading especially for pieces written for one hand as that often goes through different clefs. Two hand reading is just something as keyboardist that we really need to get good at unlike other instruments which where often it is only one stave at a time. So reading one hand is fine but one shouldn't really make that a focused effort unless they really are early beginners. If you are doing pieces that are too difficult you csn always read one hand complete while playing only a limited amount of the other, at least two hands ar being played and you also are practicing simplification skills (good tool to use when trying to solve both hand playing).

See prior post.  Sorry!

[lostinidlewonder]

I guess I was thinking of following:  Rather than being able to play a piece without having seen the work before, it is sometimes more important to be able to play a piece having only looked at it for a very short period of time.  For example, a violinist says to a pianist - Can we get together tomorrow to read thru some music?  Pianist says - sure.  Let me know the pieces so I can take a look at them before we get together tomorrow.   Violinist says:  But I have music with me.  Pianist says:  Can I stop by now to pick up the music?  Violinist says - OK.   

I'm specifically focused on forgoing two hand for one hand reading. I'm not sure what your described situation is dealing with 

[frodo3]

I'm specifically focused on forgoing two hand for one hand reading. I'm not sure what your described situation is dealing with 

Forget about hands separate then if you believe it is not helpful. When learning a piece quickly - say piano part of a Beethoven violin sonata to be learned overnight - I would suggest fingering the piece as the first step after a quick first read.  How about let ranjit finger say the 3rd mvt of a Kulau sonatina before reading thru it?  Is this ok?  Of course it s not good if your goal is to be able to sight read without any prep - but I am talking about learning a piece quickly - say overnight.  How do you learn a piece quickly?  Just read thru it?  Ever practice any passages hands separately?

If learn piano part to Beethoven violin sonata overnight - you will be reading from the score.  I don't think it's possible to memorize in 1 night!  Is it okay to practice small sections to learn a piece quickly?

[frodo3]

I guess I am talking about sight reading from a score that you have studied for say 4 hours having never seen the work before.  Say the piece is 5 minutes long. You will be reading from the score since it will not be memorized.  How is it best to learn the piece in this short period of time?  I understand this is not true sight reading.

In the case of true sight reading, you play the piece having looked at (but not played) the score for about 1 minute in advance.

Reason I raise the question: Sight reading with short prep is often more useful than true sight reading in real life situations.

[lostinidlewonder]

Forget about hands separate then if you believe it is not helpful.

I didn't say it was "not helpful" I think I made my position rather clear. It is not something really for me to forget about either since that is the point of my response to you when you suggested a course of sight reading study which focused on single hand practice.

When learning a piece quickly - say piano part of a Beethoven violin sonata to be learned overnight - I would suggest fingering the piece as the first step after a quick first read.

I mean we are discussing sight reading skills which can contain various skills, learning the best fingers on the go being one of them. Sure it is ok to stop and analyze what is the best fingering as this makes you more readily determine what the best fingers are on the go much easier in the future. But if you are talking about preparing works for actual performance collaborating with another musician, this is somewhat different to general sight reading training.

How about let ranjit finger say the 3rd mvt of a Kulau sonatina before reading thru it?  Is this ok?

It sort of defeats the main purpose of sight reading if you have to stop and calculate everything, you should choose pieces where you predominantly can play the correct fingers and if not be able to recover during the process of reading. If it all gets too difficult its wise to practice reading with easier works which doesn't require a large amount of precalcuation of the fingers, notes, coordination etc.

Of course it s not good if your goal is to be able to sight read without any prep - but I am talking about learning a piece quickly - say overnight.  How do you learn a piece quickly?  Just read thru it?  Ever practice any passages hands separately?

Learning/polishing a piece vs training sight reading are related but if you are specifically training reading skills it is somewhat differernt. Just reading through a piece is a very good way to just learn a piece in fast time, certainly putting it all to memory cannot compete especially if your reading/memory skills are working in synergy in an effective manner.

If learn piano part to Beethoven violin sonata overnight - you will be reading from the score.  I don't think it's possible to memorize in 1 night!  Is it okay to practice small sections to learn a piece quickly?

Nothing wrong with focusing on passages that challenge you but in context to actual sight reading training I don't think it is necessary and you woud better off study pieces which doesn't require you to micro manage a lot of parts which you are unable to read effectively.

[lostinidlewonder]

I guess I am talking about sight reading from a score that you have studied for say 4 hours having never seen the work before.  Say the piece is 5 minutes long. You will be reading from the score since it will not be memorized.  How is it best to learn the piece in this short period of time?  I understand this is not true sight reading.

I believe as a piano pedagogist that sight reading has many definitions and I believe it is far too stringent to consider it only being skills that exist for pieces you have never tried before. If you are practicing reading with a piece for 4 hours that you have initially not seen before logically you will have seen it after the first read!

In the case of true sight reading, you play the piece having looked at (but not played) the score for about 1 minute in advance.

Reason I raise the question: Sight reading with very short prep is often more useful than true sight reading in real life situations.

I don't believe that sight reading definition merely rests with works you have never tried before and are trying for the first time, thus there is no "true" or singular definition that rises above all the others. During the process of reading you may come across parts where a particular finger used is quite interesting or required a little calculation, you then get your pencil and mark in that number. The same goes for any pattern observations you may find, expressive ideas and so on. So the analytical part of sight reading where you take note of interesting points and mark it down is a good part of ones sight reading routines. If you are working with a piece that is easy enough for you this process all can be done mostly on the go. That is because you have practice appropriate works and built yourself up to that point to be able to do it and experience it. Training sight reading thus requires appropriate content that very infrequently if at all causes you to stop and calculate before carrying on, then building up the difficulty level and understanding what you can and can't do and working on those areas will help expand your reading capabilities (of which focusing on single hand practice is not necessarily highly desirable).

[frodo3]

Just a few final thoughts from me on this thread.  ALL just IMO. Everything is related – technique, sight reading ability, thorough knowledge of scales, arpeggios and chords, ability to play without looking at hands.  Ideally all would be developed at the same time. 

Scott Ross recorded all 555 Scarlatti sonatas in a 15-month period – all played to perfection.  He probably averaged about 3 hours practice per sonata.  I think he already played about 100 before starting the project if I recall correctly, leaving 400+  to be learned close to from scratch.  He would not have been able to accomplished this without perfect technique and great sight-reading ability.

I am just guessing on the following:  He probably could sight read 60%+ of the music to the very high performance level given in the recording without any practice.  He then was able to quickly pick out the problem spots and know how to quickly overcome their challenges.  This was possible only due to his incredible technique.

IMO: There is no "magic very narrow path" to learning sight reading.  It is instead a fairly wide road to travel but staying out of ditches is very important.

Ranjit is trying to make up certain deficits due to starting at a late age.  I have little doubt that he will succeed with hard work. 

[lostinidlewonder]

IMO: There is no "magic very narrow path" to learning sight reading.  It is instead a fairly wide road to travel but staying out of ditches is very important.

I don't think anyone has suggested a "very narrow path" in fact I have encouraged that sight reading be defined in multiple ways. Saying things like "learn appropriately easy reading material and build from that" is not a narrow path really as it has a lot of detail, it is merely a constaint that aligns one in the correct direction rather than it being a suffocating single mindedness.

[permata]

Which should one have more of to improve sight reading quickly? Shorter, more intense sessions of say 15 minutes each, or long sessions where you're reading at a lower level but for an hour or more?

I think you are not asking the right question. Sight reading is very common among vocalists. I personally am not a vocalist, but my first music education was not through the learning of a musical instrument. In grade 2 elementary school, kids in my school were introduced to the solfege system and sang before singing from the music staff where the scale can be moved from line to line for different voices. Some could sight sing, some could not even after years of learning. Sight reading won't happen overnight. It involves too many things especially for the piano. There's ear training. You will learn to recognize intervals and triads so that at the end you can read and hear it in your head. Ultimately, it still takes innate ability and working over a long time. Different creatures have different functions in the ecosystem.  What God left out, you can't put it in.

[ranjit]

While I think there is a lot wrong with the above post, it is nevertheless interesting so I'll try to decode it point by point.

I think you are not asking the right question. Sight reading is very common among vocalists.

Sight reading one vocal line is obviously easier than sight reading piano music with two staves and multiple notes and rhythms at the same time, so I find this comparison to single-line instruments to be a bit misguided. In general, I find less people who are anywhere good at sight reading piano than other instruments, simply because it's harder at some level.

Some could sight sing, some could not even after years of learning.

The question was how to maximize your own rate of progress, for which this is irrelevant.

Sight reading won't happen overnight. It involves too many things especially for the piano.

Nowhere was it claimed that sight reading is learned overnight.

There's ear training. You will learn to recognize intervals and triads so that at the end you can read and hear it in your head.

While this is important for sight singing, it's not very clear how important it is for sight reading piano music.

Ultimately, it still takes innate ability and working over a long time.

Again, this doesn't answer how to best train the ability.

Different creatures have different functions in the ecosystem.  What God left out, you can't put it in.

Surely, you can't be claiming that sight reading talent is 100% innate, and has nothing to do with training?

[keypeg]

 Sight reading is very common among vocalists. I personally am not a vocalist, but my first music education was not through the learning of a musical instrument. In grade 2 elementary school, kids in my school were introduced to the solfege system and sang before singing from the music staff where the scale can be moved from line to line for different voices. .....

This is my original world so I'll address it.  I was introduced to this, and in grade 2.  I became very good at it.  In fact it was my only world for several decades.  When I was given a keyboard and then a piano, I translated what I saw in the score into sound which I heard, and then played what I heard.  I was puzzled, decades later and my first ever instrument lessons, when I brought a song to my piano that I loved, why he went to the piano to play "how it sounds" - since I heard it off the page.  I have transitioned from that world.  There are fallacies or weaknesses with it.

The first thing is that when you have Solfege, you go from the Tonic.  So is the 5th note from the Tonic.  Re is the 2nd note, etc.  And you're assuming diatonic music build on the major or natural minor scale, with the harmonic minor and melodic minor as familiar derivatives.  What happens if your music is no longer diatonic in that way?  Get my point?  Well actually it already fell a bit apart when I sang the Mozart Requiem, when it modulates - I wrote in interval names (I had a good ear for "M3" "m6" or whatever so I could do that.) - and Mozart is pretty diatonic and standard.  I was good enough that the other amateurs with my voice cocked one ear toward me when they feared getting lost.  It was NOT good enough for piano - not when you move out of the diatonic world.

You will learn to recognize intervals and triads so that at the end you can read and hear it in your head.

Melodically or harmonically?  Back when I was still in that world, and my then-teacher tested what abilities I had, I could sing a major, minor, diminished or augmented chord; I could of course sing the intervals and "aug2" would simply have translated into "m3" so no problem.  That was always melodically, one note at a time.  In actuality, if I heard a fully diminished chord played harmonically (all notes at once), vs. augmented, I might mix up one for the other, or mix up dim for minor because I'd hear some of the m3's.  Singing by its nature (unless you're a throat singer) is one note followed by another note.  If you're in a choir you might get some ear for harmony - maybe.

Here's another problem.  I look at the score, I hear the melody - I might even hear both the Alberti bass and melody in my head at the same time.  It's in Db major.  In order to pull it off, with those particular abilities, I need to have a solid sense of the layout of the piano keys - which ones are 'operational' for Db major so that I know my "Mi" is a white key, my "Re" is black.  Otherwise I'll be in a "nope, not this one, go up a semitone" hunt.  Been there, done that, discarded that t-shirt.  Bought a better more versatile one.

Are you picturing the "melody in one hand", "chords in the other hand", diatonic music type of thing?  What about music which is full of dense chords, polyrhythms, chords outside of keys, melody that goes along whole tone, octatonic etc?  Are we supposed to hear these as singers? 

Actually Ranjit started with different music than I did, and we have opposite strengths and weaknesses.  He recognizes chords more than I do, relates them to piano keys more than I do - while I can hear melodies while looking at a score, and those things that come from being a singer and playing a passle of sonatinas when young since it's the only music I had. Said sonatinas were mostly diatonic.  And yeah, I probably have some "talent".  I'd not bank on that, though.

[ranjit]

Actually Ranjit started with different music than I did, and we have opposite strengths and weaknesses.  He recognizes chords more than I do, relates them to piano keys more than I do - while I can hear melodies while looking at a score, and those things that come from being a singer and playing a passle of sonatinas when young since it's the only music I had. Said sonatinas were mostly diatonic.  And yeah, I probably have some "talent".  I'd not bank on that, though.

Nice post overall, and you make a nice point regarding the varied kinds of talents people have. It's not just "super ears" vs "tin ears" -- there are a lot more variations. Sure, 1 in a million (or less) people simply seem to have the ability to hear and play anything, regardless of genre and complexity, but there are many more who possess some part of that but don't have "everything". Depending on the kind of ability, it can be a boon and a curse at the same time.

[keypeg]

Ranjit, you and I have different and opposing strengths and weaknesses because we were exposed to and thus focused on opposing things.  Whenever there is an imbalance of weak and strong areas, the trick is to focus on the part one doesn't have (much).

[ranjit]

Ranjit, you and I have different and opposing strengths and weaknesses because we were exposed to and thus focused on opposing things.  Whenever there is an imbalance of weak and strong areas, the trick is to focus on the part one doesn't have (much).

You can also sometimes use the strong area to generalize to the weak area. Sometimes it's actually good to focus on the strong area and push it even further. Earlier, I feel I sometimes used to focus on weak spots too much. Sometimes an indirect approach to weak spots while allowing strong ones to flourish is the way to go.