Does sightreading skill help to to increase theoretical knowledge?

[el murdoque]

All of these things you've identified here appear in the syllabus I attached above. Note names on the stave in Grade 1, along with longer note and rest values. Time and Key Signatures, along with shorter notes through grades 1 to 5 in increasing complexity. No doubt you also learned about dynamics/articulation markings, phrase marks, repeats and voltas, the meaning of con sordino and senza sordino, etc... To say you acquired no theoretical knowledge is, I think, doing yourself some level of disservice. You nor label these things as 'theory' and just see as 'things you know', but they are all necessary for the correct analysis and execution of a score, you got the ability to read from somewhere, and they are clearly part of music theory, IMHO.

I'm gonna split that hair and say to execute music in anything except the most organic ways (I.e. teaching yourself what sounds good), you do have to know what's going on at some level.

But my point always is, the theory drives the sight reading, which is what you seem to be saying and I agree with that.

Sight Reading does not in any way, drive the theory. That is the questions the OP posed. My performing the act of sight reading did not gain me any theoretical knowledge or insight. It was just a skill that was performed. I could be wrong in interpreting what you are conveying.

I think we need to, and can, agree on the following thesis:
From the starting point - where you know exactly zero about theory - to the point where you're competent enough to do sight reading, your knowledge about musical theory has increased significantly.
So, to a point the answer is yes. You cannot not learn anything about musical theory while learning sight reading.

At the same time, however, you're barely scratching the surface. You're reading dots off a sheet of paper and translate those into noises you make with your bass guitar. One could say you've learned all the letters of the alphabet but you're reading them one by one. You know zip about grammar.
Imagine a first grader reading off the blackboard, forming the words letter by letter.
Now take a grown person that knows the whole word with barely a glance, often even able to finish a sentence after reading the first half.

 

[SteveCS]

I think we need to, and can, agree on the following thesis:
From the starting point - where you know exactly zero about theory - to the point where you're competent enough to do sight reading, your knowledge about musical theory has increased significantly.
So, to a point the answer is yes. You cannot not learn anything about musical theory while learning sight reading.

At the same time, however, you're barely scratching the surface. You're reading dots off a sheet of paper and translate those into noises you make with your bass guitar. One could say you've learned all the letters of the alphabet but you're reading them one by one. You know zip about grammar.
Imagine a first grader reading off the blackboard, forming the words letter by letter.
Now take a grown person that knows the whole word with barely a glance, often even able to finish a sentence after reading the first half.

Good post. I can roll with that.
And on the back of that, I'll modify my answer to, 'yes, if you want it to'... Learning to sight-read to a certain level will give you some knowledge of the basic facts, but in itself need not promote deeper understanding unless you choose to look beyond the score.

 

[brianrost]

I’d say no. Sight reading on an instrument is a very specific, detail oriented skill; whereas theory is more wholistic and conceptual.

Agreed. Sight reading a chart with no chord symbols will not reveal the harmony to you. Now, analyzing that chart would help with theory. Reading is required if you want to work out of theory books.

 

[Scoops]

I say yes.

Many, many, many written bass lines are (pardon the pun) bassed on theory.
By playing the line, and understanding the theory, the player is given an aural context of the theory, therefore expanding the understanding

 

[DavC]

No .. one has nothing to do with the other

for me , back in my very heavy classical piano days , when i could sight read very well , stuff just went in my eyes and out my fingers ... seemed to mostly bypass many brain parts .. !? just reading / seeing / playing the notes ...

 

[MotorCityMinion]

So essentially, reading and sight reading are orthogonal to an understanding of theory. It's possible to have both, have one and not the other, and have neither. There tends to be a correlation between these two skills and aptitude (which doesn't necessarily mean that aptitude in either skill translates to music communication and expression, another orthogonal skill), but there's no causation.

I need a drink.

 

[Newby6string]

Depends on how well you recognize the fly specks.

Theory opened up for me - as a bassists - when I knew what notes, or scale degrees, made a chord. All of a sudden the fog cleared. Chord "spelling" aka R-b3-5-b7 opened up a whole new
World for me.

Same here. Sight Reading helps me to make sense out of a bass line especially the little nuances that I don't hear and it helps me to pay less attention to what my fretting hand is doing and more on the page of music in front of me. I had to learn where the notes are on the fret board. Chord spellings and scale degrees made more sense to me to me too! Overall, sight reading forces me to learn where the notes are located on the fret board in various keys. I am still in the learning phase.

 

[dkelley]

That is to say does increased sight reading skill, in turn, increase one’s grasp of theory? Just throwing that out there, if anyone wants to field it.

Helps you practice, study, and learn it all faster.... since you can sight read what's on the paper quickly and easily to understand the examples in theory textbooks, rather than having to have someone teach you by ear or to have enough knowledge to slowly work out what each note means in written form but not to be fast enough at it to be particularly productive.

So imho, it helps with the execution of anything theoretical to be able to sight read. Sight reading skill is a great benefit.

However, there's absolutely no REQUIREMENT for it to do what you're doing.

To put a background on my perspective: I have been able to sight read since before I could read and write the alphabet, due to how I was brought up by a music teacher. However through my career I've taught myself new instruments along the way, ones that I couldn't sight read on accurately at all. One of those, surprisingly enough, is guitar. Because I can read treble and bass clef just fine, it ought to be fine, right? And I can sight read on bass without thinking about it. But because bass and guitar are essentially played exactly the same way with same tuning, just an octave apart (ignoring the extra 2 strings for now), it completely threw me off so much that I couldn't sight read on guitar for many years of playing professionally, and I'm still slower reading on guitar than on bass by a looooong way.

My point being - I have experience both as a really good sight reader (sight reading new music classical, jazz, rock, funk, on different instruments)... and as someone playing professionally on instruments I play well but couldn't sight read on at all. In all of those situations I have had plenty of new theory learning situations, whether it was learning/mastering modes, learning increasingly obscure jazz chords and transtitions, or learning "new music" in the classical field where your previous theory knowledge gets taken to a crazy new level of mathematical complexity.

And I can definitely tell you that translating the theory into the instrument without sight reading was much harder for me to get into my head.

 

[StatesideRambler]

I’m not going back and rereading the thread to cite anything by anyone but several of you are unaware of the difference between reading music and sight reading [a score in performance]. “Sight reading” means that you’re playing something on the page, often something you’ve not played before, at tempo, with dynamics and all else that goes into a rehearsal, a performance or a recording. Reading music is a valuable step in learning music theory and theory is a valuable aid to sight reading. They aren’t separate pursuits, each helps the others and it’s possible, though limiting, to learn theory without learning standard notation.

BTW music theory isn’t there to tell you what to play, it’s an explanation of what is being or has been played. Music would still be here if there never existed a study called music theory.

 

[cnltb]

Does sightreading skill help to to increase theoretical knowledge?
No.
It makes you more employable tough.

 

[Polish Thunder]

I have a much more limited musical back round than most on here, but here are my thoughts:

I think it depends on what you are doing music-wise. If you play in an orchestra, you are expected to play the notes from the sheet music.

If you are playing more improvisational, then basic music theory goes a lot farther than sight reading.

An example would be to give a classically trained pianist, some complex piano sheet music, and then will probably be able to play it competently. Ask them to improvise and chances are they will struggle with it.

Give sheet music to, let's say blues harmonica great Little Walter, and he probably could not play what is on there. Ask Little Walter to improvise on a harmonica solo, and he knows enough theory to play something that is musically sound theory-wise and sounds great!

 

[kirkplunkett]

No.... But being a proficient sight reader does equip you with a highly valuable skill that can assist in the in-depth analysis of written music, which could in-turn increase theoretical knowledge.

 

[bass12]

I'm not a good sight reader (at all). My mother, on the other hand, is a very good sight reader (classical piano). Her theoretical knowledge, however, is virtually non-existent.

 

[fishdreams]

I don't think so.

I'm a good example of someone who as an musicologist is well schooled theoretically and at the same time is not the best reader (as in : sight-reading prima vista). I did a lot of transcriptions and composing, and notating music I have always been better at than reading music on a professional performance level.

And there are very good prima vista readers who have theoretically no idea what they are reading/playing. It's like reading a book or newspaper: you may be quite capable to read every article out loud from start to finish, however that doesn't mean necessarily that you understand (or are even interested in) what it is about

 

[bassinplace]

Great answers, all. Thanks. The main reason behind my question is I'm currently learning to sight read and I'm wondering if it will help me more when it comes to things like understanding song analysis and how the harmonic structure of the bass line relates to the song. The answers here have given me a good idea to the answer to my question. Basically, that it can be, depending on how you use and apply the information. That's what I'm getting overall from the answers. If people have more to add, I'd love to hear it! Thanks! Just for context, my overall skill level on bass in general is pretty intermediate.

 

[dkelley]

BTW music theory isn’t there to tell you what to play, it’s an explanation of what is being or has been played. Music would still be here if there never existed a study called music theory.

Totally true.

And also, one thing that gets forgotten a lot in this day and age of all genres (Even orchestral and choral music) no longer following many of the biggest theoretical rules of composition..... but nearly all of the most legendary high-brow music (classical, for lack of better term) in history was composed following very VERY strict rules of theory. Every new generation or so, a brilliant new composer would find ways to twist those theory rules around to add new concepts that blew people's minds.... without completely destroying the existing music theory (For the most part LoL).

Bartok comes to mind.... and was one of the first to compose quarter tones in his music, among other crazy new ideas.

Parallel fifths, once a huge faux pas, are common parts of 20th century "Classical" music... so the rules change, at times.

So yes theory describes music, but all classically trained composers learn theory FIRST and then compose within the knowledge of those rules, and as noted, sometimes creating a new rule or two so allow them to do their brilliant new thing.

VERY very much the same way mathematicians work - and invent new math... although of course with a very different goal (art, as opposed to science).

 

[Artman]

I think reading notation is a great skill to have. Is it required for playing rock n roll, blues, or country? No. If you want to learn to read and sight-music, go for it, just don’t forget to learn your fretboard, intervals, Nashville Numbers, and chord charts. I use the last two more than anything. In fact, Ive played more gigs than I can remember and a couple dozen sessions but nobody has handed me sheet music to play off of since high school...that was 1982. Maybe just the way it has shaken down for me. Your experiences may differ.

 

[mrcbass]

Sight reading , no. But Reading and theory can help sight reading skills.

As to reading: Not necessarily. I was reading sheet music (SM) well, long before I had any concept of theory. It's probably more likely that having a solid grasp of theory, will help your reading more than the reverse.

That said, my first foray into music theory was analyzing Beethoven's 5th SM in high school, so yeah, it can help if used specifically to support theory education. As I recall (feels many hundreds of years ago), we documented all of the repeating patterns of the main theme in all of the modulations and mode changes. Yes, it could have been done by ear (we used both), but the music makes it very clear what's going on when you can see the note patterns.

Other possible benefits:
Understanding key signatures on SM helps to be able to recognize the theoretical movements (ie chord progressions and modulations).

SM can help visualize chords and their variations.

You can help build interval training by reading SM.

Form is easily derived with SM. While not technically a theoretical component, from recognition is vital to performing with a group.

 

[knight of ni]

No. My daughter is 12, she reads any reasonable score she is confronted to. Harmony she doesn’t even know what it means, yet.
Reading is a skill required for a musician to perform a written part. Harmony is meant for those who write music or (god forbid in a classical orchestra context) want to understand it.

 

[Polish Thunder]

I think reading notation is a great skill to have. Is it required for playing rock n roll, blues, or country? No. If you want to learn to read and sight-music, go for it, just don’t forget to learn your fretboard, intervals, Nashville Numbers, and chord charts. I use the last two more than anything. In fact, Ive played more gigs than I can remember and a couple dozen sessions but nobody has handed me sheet music to play off of since high school...that was 1982. Maybe just the way it has shaken down for me. Your experiences may differ.

I just starting playing bass a year and a half ago. After learning the bass fundamentals and a bunch of songs, I decided to focus on learning basic music theory to start with, and to continue a goal of long-term growth in music knowledge.

I did pick up a Bass Method book that I startied working on sight reading, but for the music I play (Blues, R&R, Country, Motown), I found that focusing on music theory (scales, intervals, fretboard, as noted above) seems to make more sense in my improvement as a bass player.