Sight reading

[kwyn]

Sight reading

What is the best way for a 38 year old to learn to sight read?

 

What I already know is: the spaces are FACE and the lines a EGBDF. I know how sharps and flats word in the key signature and in the middle of a piece.

 

As far as theory, I know how to form most chords: major/minor/dim/aug/#5, 7,9,11,13 etc... I know major and minor scales but I know nothing about modes. I also don't consider myself good at always using the right voicings.

 

So, I want to learn to sight read. Recommend courses, websites, tips, etc...

 

Thx!!!

 

[Griffinator]

You pretty much have the core of it. If you understand the key signature and you recognize the notes on sight, then learning to sight-read quickly is really a matter of grinding it out, drilling yourself with sheet music, preferably new material constantly (you don't want to "memorize" the stuff, just be able to read and react quickly).

 

Now, it wouldn't hurt to learn chord progressions (I-IV-V et al) in order to be able to anticipate where a piece is going so you're not so fully dependent on reading the notes themselves.

[dazzjazz]

Hi,

I really think the key is to do it ALL the time.

I'm not a great reader, but when I've had to do a lot of sight-reading, my reading has definitely improved outta sight.

 

As a side-point, I remember the Professor who took the Piano Pedagogy class saying that the system of written music we have (and are stuck with) is a really inefficient one, and only suits 10% of musicians. He also said that many people who are great sight-readers aren't necessarily good musicians.

 

I thought it was interesting points from someone who was a total genius and world-class pianist. Certainly made me feel better about my reading chops!

[Griffinator]

Yep. Just like the would-be guitar shredder, the key to being a lightning-fast sight-reader is to just do it over and over again until it becomes unconscious.

[JpScoey]

As a side-point, I remember the Professor who took the Piano Pedagogy class saying that the system of written music we have (and are stuck with) is a really inefficient one, and only suits 10% of musicians.

He also said that many people who are great sight-readers aren't necessarily good musicians.

 

I would go along with that 100% - I've encountered MANY 'musicians' over the years who are

 

completely lost if they don't have the dots in front of them -

 

they don't know where to start, or what to do.

 

That is not to say the ability to read music scores is detrimental, but it's not the be-all-&-end-all.

 

Most of the best & inspirational musicians I know don't read music at all...

 

they play from the heart, rather than from a script.

 

IMO, that spontaneous 'feel' is what makes GOOD music -

 

rather than a robotic copy of something that's been done a million times before.

 

As they say, YMMV !

 

 

 

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice.

 

I never did get very good at it, and I have a bachelor's degree in Music. Best of luck.

[frogmonkey]

Hehe, the best thing that ever happened to my sight reading was when I became a piano teacher. Seriously, reading the method books over the shoulders of my students every day did wonders.

 

On that note, the key is to read EASY music every day. You could get some method books meant for kids, and play through a few pages every day (this requires a particular sense of humor). You might even find them used. Either way, I heartily recommend playing just a little bit of very easy music every day.

[Sven Golly]

Same way you get to Carnegie Hall... you take the D train to Columbus Circle, then hop on the N over to 57th Street/Seventh Ave.

 

No, wait, that's not it...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G-xRXd4m8qI/TVdq39kmqUI/AAAAAAAAADc/pQZ6IfxJeKA/s1600/scratch-head.gif

[gryphon]

the system of written music we have (and are stuck with) is a really inefficient one

So what system is better? How else can you convey the following info?

 

http://g.sheetmusicplus.com/Look-Inside/large/17686750_00-02.jpg

[Sven Golly]

the system of written music we have (and are stuck with) is a really inefficient one

So what system is better?

 

Why, Keyboard Tab, of course!

[iLaw]

You get better at sightreading music the same way you got better reading English. By doing it constantly, every day, for days and months and years. It's the same process; teaching your brain to recognize symbolic notation of increasing complexity at increasing speed, until one day you're reading "Gravity's Rainbow" instead of "Dick and Jane Go to the Park."

 

Larry.

 

[iLaw]

Sorry, my earlier post didn't actually offer any practical help:

 

1. Go to your favorite church and obtain a copy of any typical hymnal. They're full of simple but great chordal reading;

 

2. Order the first few books of Bartok's Mikrokosmos graded piano series;

 

3. Go to the local music store and pick up whatever graded piano series has the most actual printed music, rather than music theory (I'm big on music theory too, but we'll put that aside for the moment);

 

4. Go to the IMSLP and download one of the old graded piano series that are now public domain;

 

then start at the beginning and read and read and read. Remember that you're looking for the kind of reading fluency that lets you play without having to stop and figure things out. That will be a more basic level than you can play with practice.

 

Larry.

 

[kwyn]

Good ideas. THX!!

[dazzjazz]

Unfortunately he never showed us the alternate music notation systems he mentioned! Bummer!

I find them hard to imagine I must admit.

 

Darren

the system of written music we have (and are stuck with) is a really inefficient one

So what system is better? How else can you convey the following info?

 

http://g.sheetmusicplus.com/Look-Inside/large/17686750_00-02.jpg

[Griffinator]

Sorry, my earlier post didn't actually offer any practical help:

 

1. Go to your favorite church and obtain a copy of any typical hymnal. They're full of simple but great chordal reading;

 

This was exactly what I was thinking in my earlier post - challenge yourself by just banging your way through the hymnal - play through it like it were a great big concerto (until your fingers beg for mercy) then the next day pick up where you left off. Keep going until you hit the end, then start over - don't let yourself get familiar with the music - it defeats the purpose.

[Cygnus64]

As a side-point, I remember the Professor who took the Piano Pedagogy class saying that the system of written music we have (and are stuck with) is a really inefficient one, and only suits 10% of musicians.

He also said that many people who are great sight-readers aren't necessarily good musicians.

 

I would go along with that 100% - I've encountered MANY 'musicians' over the years who are

 

completely lost if they don't have the dots in front of them -

 

they don't know where to start, or what to do.

 

That is not to say the ability to read music scores is detrimental, but it's not the be-all-&-end-all.

 

Most of the best & inspirational musicians I know don't read music at all...

 

they play from the heart, rather than from a script.

 

IMO, that spontaneous 'feel' is what makes GOOD music -

 

rather than a robotic copy of something that's been done a million times before.

 

As they say, YMMV !

 

 

 

I gotta jump in here. Reading music has nothing to do with anything you're trying to say. It's reading. It's no different than reading the morning paper, it's exactly the same thing.

 

That is not to say the ability to read music scores is detrimental, but it's not the be-all-&-end-all.

 

Ever play a 2 hour show without any rehearsal whatsoever and not even knowing what's on the show? I have. It's not the end-all, but it sure saves some time. Stuff that would take weeks to learn by ear, I can open the folder at the gig and read it down.

 

My wedding quartet has never practiced. I'm serious, not one second. We have people subbing in and out constantly- never practice. I'm the arranger, I write new charts all the time, we read them down at the ceremony in front of hundreds of listening people. THAT'S worth something. Even reading at a rudimentary level can save someone considerable time.

[JpScoey]

I gotta jump in here. Reading music has nothing to do with anything you're trying to say. It's reading. It's no different than reading the morning paper, it's exactly the same thing.

 

I think we're talking about different aspects here.

 

I fully respect the work you do, & everything has it's place -

 

but I suppose the point I was trying to make is akin to this...

 

If you're a good (& fast) touch-typist - does that make you a creative author ? ..... not necessarily -

 

you merely copy what's in front of you.

[Nillerbabs]

If you're a good (& fast) touch-typist - does that make you a creative author ? ..... not necessarily -

 

But a good musician need not be a creative author. Many musicians make a living performing the music of others - many of them are very, very good at it - and many of them are considered artists in their own right. Does the fact that it's not their own music invalidate them?

[JpScoey]

If you're a good (& fast) touch-typist - does that make you a creative author ? ..... not necessarily -

 

But a good musician need not be a creative author. Many musicians make a living performing the music of others - many of them are very, very good at it - and many of them are considered artists in their own right. Does the fact that it's not their own music invalidate them?

As I said - different aspects.

[Cygnus64]

but I suppose the point I was trying to make is akin to this...

 

If you're a good (& fast) touch-typist - does that make you a creative author ? ..... not necessarily -

 

you merely copy what's in front of you.

 

You're simplifying it. Part of being a good musician can be being a well-rounded musician. Speaking German is a good skill to have, but speaking it and reading it would go further. Reading the notes is part of the language, it opens doors to other musical genres.

[Gary75]

My opinion is that I don't consider someone a 'professional musician' if they can't read straight off the page. There's a 'pro musician' and someone who plays in bands. You can stun me with your Jimmy Smith licks, your Hancock riffs, but if you can't play what somebody throws at you on a sheet I personally don't consider you professional. Is that a harsh opinion? Probably.

[Bobadohshe]

Sight reading

What is the best way for a 38 year old to learn to sight read?

 

Get volumes of easy classical music and start there. These include the easiest pieces by all the masters. You will read simple textures in simple keys. Work through the pieces slowly but surely. Then go on to level 2. Then level 3. And keep at it every day. It's frustrating at first, but if you keep doing it, you'll look back down the mountain one day and say 'damn, I can actually read this stuff now'.

 

Here are some of the time tested collections people use for these purposes:

 

Bastien Piano Literature

 

Music For Millions Easy Classics To Moderns

 

Then eventually, you'll be ready for the 'Easy Piano' level of popular music. If learning to sight read from scratch you don't want to start here, as this level isn't for beginners. Even reading 'Easy Piano' level material isn't entirely basic.

 

Here is a good book at that level. Take a look at the example and see what I mean. Not something a beginner could sight read:

 

The Best Songs Ever Easy Piano

 

But there are other easier pop collections you can start with immediately. But I'm telling you, work the classical first. It's more thorough and gets you used to more pianistic devices.

[Sven Golly]

but if you can't play what somebody throws at you on a sheet I personally don't consider you professional. Is that a harsh opinion? Probably.

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YHubNjdqtIE/SMCP13nqlbI/AAAAAAAACds/gspOZKKJnLM/s400/can+of+worms+ahead.jpg

 

[J Graul]

I don't know a single professional pianist that can't read music (although I'm sure there are). I personally know one in particular who is a great pianist and has been music director for Bette Midler and the Gaithers. He can read music but not that quickly. I sight read much better than he but I am nowhere near the pianist he is. Two completely different aspects of musicianship.

[Ken Beaumont]

I read music but very slowly. I wish I could read well and one day I will. Its hard but sometimes you just have to suck it up and do the homework. Reading music is not the end all be all of musicianship but it sure helps.

[Gary75]

But I need a piano player tonight to sit in, it's well paid, the sheets are there ready for you....

 

That scenario is only viable for the 'professional', not the guy who plays in bands who can't read. I'm playing devils advocate somewhat, I freely admit my sight reading is not great to be a 1234 go! guy. I don't consider myself a pro yet on that basis.

 

It's harsh to the non readers but it's there as praise to the guys who do work hard to achieve that all-roundedness.

 

 

[Sven Golly]

But I need a piano player tonight to sit in, it's well paid, the sheets are there ready for you....

 

That scenario is only viable for the 'professional', not the guy who plays in bands who can't read. I'm playing devils advocate somewhat, I freely admit my sight reading is not great to be a 1234 go! guy. I don't consider myself a pro yet on that basis.

 

It's harsh to the non readers but it's there as praise to the guys who do work hard to achieve that all-roundedness.

 

 

How's this: I need a pianist tonight to accompany a singer; lead sheets are all there, although she does like to change keys now and again depending on how she's feeling throughout the night. She'll call'em for you ("Summertime, 1 tone down from book key"), because she's been doing this forever.

 

Let's see your "professional" sight reader handle THAT gig.

 

(Incidentally, this is not to suggest that I could handle EITHER of those situations, but I'm a hell of a lot closer to handling the second one than the first one, and I consider myself a pro just fine, as do my clients, my bandmates, and (probably most importantly of all), my accountant.

[Cygnus64]

 

How's this: I need a pianist tonight to accompany a singer; lead sheets are all there, although she does like to change keys now and again depending on how she's feeling throughout the night. She'll call'em for you ("Summertime, 1 tone down from book key"), because she's been doing this forever.

 

Let's see your "professional" sight reader handle THAT gig.

 

 

You're making assumptions that one skill somehow cancels out another. Why would it? Transposing is one skill and reading is another. Woodwind players transpose all the time: Clarinet parts can be written in Bb, A, Eb. Horns can be written in pretty much any key the composer wants. They are doing this in music much harder than Summertime, think Bartok and Stravinsky.

[JeffLearman]

As a side-point, I remember the Professor who took the Piano Pedagogy class saying that the system of written music we have (and are stuck with) is a really inefficient one, and only suits 10% of musicians.

I'd like to know where he got that silly idea.

 

People tend to think that music notation has been the same for many hundreds of years. I have a very interesting book on music notation that shows this is not the case. It's a living, fluid language that has adapted dramatically over the centuries to suit the musicians using it.

[JeffLearman]

My opinion is that I don't consider someone a 'professional musician' if they can't read straight off the page. There's a 'pro musician' and someone who plays in bands. You can stun me with your Jimmy Smith licks, your Hancock riffs, but if you can't play what somebody throws at you on a sheet I personally don't consider you professional. Is that a harsh opinion? Probably.

You can use words any way you want. However, keep in mind that the primary purpose of words is to communciate, so when you use a word in a unique, individual way, you're thwarting the purpose.

 

By definition, a "professional" is someone who earns a living at it.

 

What inability to read really means is, professionally speaking, "not right for this kind of gig" in many cases.