How different is sight reading to just reading?

[Billnc]

If you practice a piece of music, then each time after the first time you are just reading it.

At least that's the way our conductor explained it to us.

My only issue is this. When you run into a problem sight reading a piece, the 'sight reading' is over. If you are on the job with no rehearsal you are fired (let's face it reading gigs usually have time to look at the piece). How can you 'work' on anything if you have one chance?

If it is a line or two that requires adjustments you are still working on sight reading IMO. If everything is a trainwreck the piece is too hard for you to sight read. You still gain a huge benefit from finding a weakness in your playing.

So I think you will always sight read at a level below your 'reading' level.

 

[slybass3000]

My only issue is this. When you run into a problem sight reading a piece, the 'sight reading' is over. If you are on the job with no rehearsal you are fired (let's face it reading gigs usually have time to look at the piece). How can you 'work' on anything if you have one chance?

If it is a line or two that requires adjustments you are still working on sight reading IMO. If everything is a trainwreck the piece is too hard for you to sight read. You still gain a huge benefit from finding a weakness in your playing.

So I think you will always sight read at a level below your 'reading' level.

I think that working on reading will help you stop less and less while reading a piece of music for the first time. The sight-reading issue is really a real-world situation and one thing you can do if you cannot sight-read in a band situation is trying to not stop when you are reading and don't let the hard stuff stopping of playing music. For example, you can fake by playing other notes or other rhythms or leave space but don't stop the music AND make sure you keep the pace with or without a click.

Actually, any play-along would be perfect for your training, just play from start to end and grab whatever you can in time.

 

[Mark Perry]

I think of sight reading as simply reading at tempo. When you do make mistakes you can keep track of where you should be and get back as quick as you can. Making few and unnoticeable mistakes vs. Making a huge amount of mistakes and getting lost is a case of how well you sightread, imo.

And the more you read, the quicker you can process the information on the page in real time.
And then transcription is a case of doing the same process backwards.

 

[Gaius46]

I see your point, but it might be a tad unfair to good sight-readers. A really good sight-reader can not only run down the notes but also imbue the performance with some musicality, which in the terms you describe must mean that he/she is understanding it, at least to a significant degree, while reading it. So it really isn't just a simple matter of reading without understanding.

As an analogy, I have seen actors who could take a monologue they've never seen before and deliver an actual dramatic performance with it. As with the written music, this would have to mean that they're understanding the material to a degree while they're sight-reading it, because if they weren't, they wouldn't be able to deliver anything that was at all dramatically cogent.

I think most of us would agree that being able to sit with a written piece or part and work on it is likely to yield better understanding and performance. (Actors would generally tell you the same thing.) The thing is, some playing situations just don't allow you the time to do that. Those situations demand that you read both quickly and convincingly.

The argument for sight-reading has always been more a practical one than a strictly musical one. I don't think I've ever heard anyone maintain that you play a piece better when sight-reading it than when you've learned it well. The main value of sight-reading is that it allows you to deliver a musical performance when time is highly limited. This is a very valuable skill for those who need it. Not everyone has an urgent need for it, however.

Keep in mind also that a good sight-reader can also do "regular" reading, by definition, but a "regular" reader won't necessarily be a good sight-reader. Working on your sight-reading, if you choose to do that, is not going to get in the way of any other work you want to do on the music.

Thank you. I see your point, agree and apologize for any implied unfairness.

Outside of simple single voiced pieces I can't really sight read that well. At least not to the point where I can make something sound musicial - mechanistic is more like it. Something I should probably work on.

 

[KingRazor]

Practicing sight reading seems like it would be difficult if you don't have a big stack of music you've never seen before...

Practice reading, the better you get at that, the better you can sight read.

 

[Buxtehude]

In Mozart's they called it prima vista which means at 'first' sight. This is real sight reading but not many have the skill. Lots of reading notation and practicing playing music at sight can help. We are lucky that we play an instrument that mainly plays one note at a time. As an ex pianist, sight reading on the piano can be a real nightmare. Most instrumental exams have a sight reading component and the music gets harder as you progress up the levels. But the essence of sight reading is the first time performance of a piece you've never seen.

 

[Dbassmon]

I am not sure of the importance of a distinction between reading and site reading... isn't all reading site reading unless we are reading via braille?

The process of reading is learned through doing it. Learning to recognize what rhythmic figures sound like so eventually, you can see a pattern and know what that sounds like without having to count out each part of the subdivision. When we learned to read written words, a lot of time was spent decoding the phonetics to decipher what the word sounded like. Eventually, we learn what the word is and no longer have to sound it out. This frees us string together ideas in sentences, paragraphs and complete stories... music is no different.

Playing what you are reading slowly and accurately is how you become a better reader. Slowly increase the difficultly of what you are reading...The speed will come over time.

Just as important as the rhythm and pitch, is dynamic markings. Legato to staccato, forte to pianissimo... sometimes in the same phrase, if you play accurately with dynamics....this is what makes it really sound like music. Classical music background is really helpful to learn these skills because much of modern music is not about these dynamic details... often its balls to the wall from first note to last.

Transcribing is a great way to learn to read better

 

[BassyBill]

I am not sure of the importance of a distinction between reading and site reading... isn't all reading site reading unless we are reading via braille?

The process of reading is learned through doing it. Learning to recognize what rhythmic figures sound like so eventually, you can see a pattern and know what that sounds like without having to count out each part of the subdivision. When we learned to read written words, a lot of time was spent decoding the phonetics to decipher what the word sounded like. Eventually, we learn what the word is and no longer have to sound it out. This frees us string together ideas in sentences, paragraphs and complete stories... music is no different.

Playing what you are reading slowly and accurately is how you become a better reader. Slowly increase the difficultly of what you are reading...The speed will come over time.

Just as important as the rhythm and pitch, is dynamic markings. Legato to staccato, forte to pianissimo... sometimes in the same phrase, if you play accurately with dynamics....this is what makes it really sound like music. Classical music background is really helpful to learn these skills because much of modern music is not about these dynamic details... often its balls to the wall from first note to last.

Transcribing is a great way to learn to read better

I think I clearly defined how I was using the term sight reading in the original post, i.e. reading and playing a piece on first sight.

Your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs I am in complete agreement with, and also your comment on the efficacy of learning through transcription.

I think dynamics and expression, whilst very important, probably don't have the same priority in learning to read as do pitch and rhythm. During practice, these latter two elements are what to need to be mastered first and the dynamics can be worked on after that.

 

[BassyBill]

Practicing sight reading seems like it would be difficult if you don't have a big stack of music you've never seen before...

Practice reading, the better you get at that, the better you can sight read.

There's quite a lot of stuff out there for reading practice online if you look for it. And going back to a piece that you haven't looked at or played for a very long time is the "next best thing".

Totally agree with your second comment.

 

[ben12390]

i've had years and years of experience on many different instruments including tuba, baritone, trumpet, sax, clarinet, trombone, and bass guitar. and all through grade school and high school, we would always sight read each piece right when we got it as a band. then we would go back and play it agian.
and now i'm able to sight read on my main instruments (tuba, baritone, bass guitar) very fluently to a certain level of music. usually around a 5, if i remember the difficulty scale right. it just takes practice. you know where each note is on the page, the staff, and your fretboard. and your fingers know how to play each note your eyes see. whether that be a 16th or a whole, or a rest. you just get used to seeing them, and you get faster and faster.
i believe every piece or song you get, you should immediately start to play it, and if you flub often, then go back and work on it. but if you can continue, then it starts to hone your skills.

 

[Chris K]

In Mozart's they called it prima vista which means at 'first' sight. (...) But the essence of sight reading is the first time performance of a piece you've never seen.

...though not reading at first sight (which feels a bit silly to me) , but playing. So the unmistakable term could be 'first-sight playing', implying the element of reading in a natural way.

On top of many familiar remarks, like the helpfulness of being forced to learn it and the factor of technical mastery of the instrument, I would like to add the importance of learning to read ahead of what you play, which I find indispensable for first sight playing.

 

[Phil Smith]

...
Transcribing is a great way to learn to read better

I believe reading and in real time i.e. actual playing situations is the thing that will enable you to read better. Transcribing is a great way to improve you hearing but not your reading, though there may be some residual effect it pales in comparison to actual reading.

Don't take my word for it though, I played "Dream Girls" and Brahms "Requiem" last week and tonight I'm doing "42nd Street" and tomorrow both "42nd Street" and "Il Tabarro" by Puccini.

 

[lsabina]

I might grab a chart and see If I can read through it, but that is not practicing sight reading.

Uh...yes it is...that is exactly what you are doing when grabbing something and trying to read through it perfectly (without stopping to try to correct your errors, or figure out a fingering, of course). By doing this over time, one learns to anticipate rhythms, melodic patterns, etc., so that overall sight reading improves.

 

[the yeti]

When I was in school, "sight reading" was part of the Band/Orchestra Festival competition.

They would put an envelope on the stands containing a piece of music. Everyone would open it and look at the same time. The director/conductor had 5 minutes to point out things in the piece, but no use of instruments was allowed.

Then you played it as an ensemble and were graded on it.

That is what I think of as "sight reading"

...and yes, we practiced it repeatedly.

my experience was very similar. sometimes we'd do this exercise, sometimes we'd get several pieces and be told to "flip to No. 3" (for example) and hit them randomly. i think that helps a lot. i can't read for *^% now... i can read but not on sight, 'cos i don't need to and therefore never practice it.

 

[fdeck]

In my view, it's sometimes easier to describe a skill from someone else's perspective. If a bandleader calls me up and asks if I can sight-read, it's because they have a gig, and a pile of charts, and no bassist. It's pretty clear what they need.

Now, like any other skill, there are of course levels of reading ability. There's stuff that I struggle to read, such as complex syncopated rhythms. And of course I can't read material that's beyond my technical ability to play. Right now I'm lucky to be in a band that challenges both my reading and playing ability.

 

[Hoover]

I might grab a chart and see If I can read through it, but that is not practicing sight reading.

Semantics; I would argue that indeed you are "practicing sight reading" when you "grab a chart and see if (you) can read through it". What else could you possibly be doing? ...other than perhaps killing five minutes?