I see these terms used interchangeably a lot here on TB and they're not really equivalent. In particular, I see many instances where the term sight reading is used when really it should just be reading. Of course, you can't sight read without reading (duh). But reading doesn't always mean sight reading. Suppose you get a new chart and when you play it you have to stop at some bars and think about the phrasing (note duration values) or fingering (how to physically play the correct pitch for each note). You need to send some time with the chart (5 minutes / a couple of hours / days or more) before you're ready to play it to a good standard of accuracy at a constant, appropriate tempo, very often with other musicians. In other words, you're able to read and play the chart even though you weren't up to doing it on sight. So, yes, this is reading but not sight reading. Now you get a simpler chart (or a better reader gets the first one), on a gig. Never seen the chart before. Band leader counts everyone in, and away you go. Bass part gets played at a good standard of accuracy. No stops, breaks, fluent, very very few fluffed notes, et cetera. That's sight reading. Okay, that's just to clarify how I'm using the terms. My question is, are there different skills involved here to any significant extent? My own experience has been that if you keep slogging away at enough material at a personally appropriate level of challenge, then sight reading improves as a natural consequence of this. But I've seen other people suggest that you can enhance this further by actually practising sight reading as a distinct activity, going straight at a new chart in tempo and not stopping to sort out tricky phrases or whatever. What do you folks think? Do those of us who teach have an interesting take on this?