The times you were expected to sight read?

[CharleyJackson]

I recently commented in one of the threads regarding online lessons. I am (slowly) learning to sight read (bass clef, standard notation) through one of the online courses. Somewhere on TB someone quotes the memorable line, "it's a process not an event."

Anyone can learn to play bass parts on just about any given song via You Tube, etc. Some of the presentations and breakdowns are very good. Lots of talented players out there. Things were not so easy in the pre-internet past, or before the availability of home studio demos for listening.

Many many years ago I was lucky to get into a pit band playing rock music for a performing troupe (political theater). I was given sheet music for the songs. All original compositions. Luckily there was someone in the band who could read. He showed me the hooks and turnarounds for the bass parts. The parts were super easy once I realized what they were, so problem solved. We could improvise through the chords but there were definitely hooks and turnarounds that needed to be played.

As my friends and I became better players we would run into horn players and inevitably the horn guys would want to play all the jazz songs that were kicking around at the time. And out would come the sheet music. At that point the different guys would chip in on how and what the bass part might be. We would then search for the records and try to cop the parts correctly. It was a learning process but it would have been much better to be able to read the hooks and turnarounds.

When were the times you wished you were able to read? Aside from school bands and orchestras, does it even happen anymore?

 

[Eli_Kyiv]

In 2011 while working in Norway I played bass in orchestra. It was kinda musical play, well known songs with alternate texts, interspersed with theatrical scenes.
First thing the band leader asked me was if I can read music. I said "a little", so he gave me sheets. The problem was that half of those songs were local Norwegian hits of old days, so no Youtube tutorials and no midi files were available for them. But thankfully there were chords on those sheets along with notes, plus original records, so somehow I managed. But yes, that was the time I wished I could sight-read, it could save me a lot of hours I've spent memorizing my parts.
Horn players were making fun of me, saying "See, here comes the guy who has to remember everything he plays".
In my current band I wish I could sight-read every time I have to play a complex part. A good example was "Show Must Go On".

 

[JTE]

"Sight read"? Not often. Did some dance band gigs- ballroom, not EDM, where there were no rehearsing. Get to the gig, and the set list doesn't have name, just song numbers from the book. Most had chord changes in addition to the line so I could fake most parts. But a few required me to sight read them,- as in play what's written on the staff without any time to practice it.

I've done reading gigs, mostly theatre pit gigs, where I've read the parts. But that isn't sight reading because I had time to read through the charts and work out fingering and jot notes

 

[BassChuck]

Playing in musical theater pits is all reading, but you usually get the books a few weeks ahead of first rehearsal. There's no way around it, you have to read the parts. Even if you get an original cast recording, you won't get the scene change music or a lot of the dance sections.
Big band dance music is all sight reading, rarely rehearsals. You just show up, see who else is playing the gig, gossip with friends, get the book and pull out the songs on the list, and away you go, performing as you see the music for the first time.
I prefer to read charts, with rehearsal. With non-reading bands there is a tremendous amount of time spend sitting around with the other band members listening and discussing what to play. With the reading bands there is a level of performance that could be enhanced with rehearsal, but the economics and logistics of getting the group together keeps that from happening. (reading musicians tend to be busier and not as available)

 

[Mushroo]

I have a mild dyslexia, so certain elements of sight-reading don't come naturally to me. But I will say, it gets less scary the more I do it.

What helped me the most was to break it into two different skill sets, and drill each skill set separately: Pitch and rhythm. For pitch, I like to use walking bass lines that are all in quarter notes. And for rhythm, I like to use pitchless drum notation. At this stage in my learning, pitch is relatively easy, but rhythm is a bit terrifying. My brain sometimes inverts rhythms, like I'll read 16th-16th-8th as 8th-16th-16th. But practice makes perfect!

I figure even a mediocre sightreader is probably in the top 10th percentile of musicianship, and this realization helps me justify my shaky skill set and not feel too down on myself.

 

[Spin Doctor]

I figure even a mediocre sightreader is probably in the top 10th percentile of musicianship...

In my opinion, sightreading has nothing to do with musicianship. Sightreading means you can read notes. Doesn't mean you have an innate ability to make music. I've known great sightreaders that couldn't swing if you hung them from a chandelier.

It's a useful tool, don't get me wrong. But it's far from a musical panacea. For me, most of the music that requires heavy reading, I really have no interest in. Reading chord charts will always be more important for the stuff I like to play. At that point, it's up to me to interpret the music.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

Anyone can learn to play bass parts on just about any given song via You Tube, etc. except for the ones that haven't been recorded yet. Somebody brings a tune in with all the parts written out, any competent musician should be able to take their part and turn it into music. And think of the future, as it relates to your current present - if you have a bunch of written parts to a tune and one of those sets of IBM punch cards that, when fed into a reader, activate a program that runs a keyboard to play back those parts, which one is going to be easier for you to rehearse? The rate at which storage media for digital recording changes is increasing exponentially, 30 years ago it was on magnetic tape. We are able to play music composed 600 years ago because of musical notation.

I've known great sightreaders that couldn't swing if you hung them from a chandelier. Well your experience is your experience. But my experience is mine as well, and the best musicians I know have the ability to look at a part in front of them and imbue it with a depth of emotion and feeling that made you believe that they WROTE whatever it was they are reading. I have know players, as well, who can swing their asses off, but put a part in front of them and all that feel goes right out the window. Mediocre musicians are mediocre musicians, it doesn't matter which skill set they come up short on.

For me, most of the music that requires heavy reading, I really have no interest in. To each his own. I would say that you are not just limiting your options, you are actively denying yourself opportunity to grow as a musician. Not just networking; meeting some drummer in the pit from a Broadway roadshow that gives your number to a saxophonist who tours with just a pianist and picks up the rhythm section in whatever town they're in, but being able to pull in music that challenges and pushes your ear, your physical approach, your entire musical conception. If all that you know of the world is your neighborhood, then you don't know the world...

To answer the original question Aside from school bands and orchestras, does it even happen anymore? Depends on what kind of music you play, I'm a jazz musician and I have to read written parts quite often. There are "jazz" gigs where you have rhythm section players that can improvise a part looking at a lead sheet for a standard in a fake book, but that's not really "reading". If you're playing with a group that does their own arrangements of standards and jazz standards, there are quite often notated charts for specific lines that you need to be able to sight read (particularly if you're subbing with the group). If you're playing with a group that does original compositions as well as their own arrangements, particularly if they are writing more modern mainstream stuff, you'll need to be able to read that.

So within the last month it's been like this -

small big band (5 horns, 3 rhythm) - music of Dizzy Gillespie, charts primarily notation with some chord changes
quintet (2 horns, 3 rhythm)- holiday ceremony, jazz arrangements of holiday tunes, mix of notation and chord changes
trio (guitar, bass, drums)- my steady gig, every Friday. Standards and jazz standards, little to no reading since we all have a pretty deep repertoire
small big band (5 horns, 3 rhythm) - holiday concert, jazz arrangements of holiday tunes, fully notated
sextet (vocalist, trumpet, 3 rhythm) - mostly chord charts, some notation

SO as you can see, if I COULDN'T read music, there is only 1 (maybe 2) of those gigs I could have made.

When I was living in NYC, the session band I was in (3 sessions a week, different horns but the same rhythm section mostly) I read ALL the time. Between the originals brought in (Chris Rogers, David Smith, Jed Levy, Dan Greenblatt, Tatum Greenblatt, Tim Harrison, Roberta Piket, Jill MCCarron), original arrangements by these folks, and even the tunes they brought in that were contemporary mainstream, if I couldn't read (AND swing, SpinDoc), somebody else would have gotten the call...

 

[Spin Doctor]

For me, most of the music that requires heavy reading, I really have no interest in. To each his own. I would say that you are not just limiting your options, you are actively denying yourself opportunity to grow as a musician. Not just networking; meeting some drummer in the pit from a Broadway roadshow that gives your number to a saxophonist who tours with just a pianist and picks up the rhythm section in whatever town they're in, but being able to pull in music that challenges and pushes your ear, your physical approach, your entire musical conception. If all that you know of the world is your neighborhood, then you don't know the world...

I don't care about Broadway, pit bands and holiday concerts. I can't even listen to that stuff for the most part. So playing music I'm not into isn't an option anyway. I have a couple of good bands and I'm enjoying it. You do you and we'll be good. I already have a career and playing isn't really all that big a deal. I dig it, but I'm not into scuffling and starving. I'm just into the process.

I'm ok with you doing what you want. Doesn't mean that I have to, or even want to do what you do.

 

[REV]

I had been playing in a Jazz band for a couple of years and a drummer friend invited me to come and sit in with his big band. The band I played in used charts but they were just chord charts. We called them "roadmaps". When I went to play with my friends band they had full on notation charts (no chord symbols). I cannot read notation very fast. I gulped, moved over by the guitar and piano player because they had chord symbols on their charts and I did the best I could. I got through it but it was obvious that I wasn't in the same league as these guys. I've done some recording sessions where the music is blocked out with chord symbols but there might be a melody line written out for the bass. I have been able to handle situations like that pretty well but I still don't read notation fast enough.

 

[Ruknrole]

I’m also learning to sight read trough this book method I’m working on. For me it’s the slowest part of the process. Once I learn the song I notice I use the sheet music as a guide to know were I’m going rather than my brain actually translating the notation.

I guess it’s nice to know how to read but don’t Pros mostly use the Nashville number system and song charts instead?

 

[Mechanical]

The thing about getting a chart is not just getting the changes.

It's also giving you the melody, which is helpful.

That's one of the reasons I read music.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

I guess it’s nice to know how to read but don’t Pros mostly use the Nashville number system and song charts instead?

No. For example...

 

[BarfanyShart]

I was lousy at sight reading until I started in the college orchestra. Every month or so we would have a whole 5-hour rehearsal session just sight reading stuff so the music director could get programming ideas. Then every 5 weeks we were performing a completely new program, so you really might not be looking at every single page of the music prior to the first concert. My first semester of school was a real sink-or-swim moment for sight reading.

 

[mattj1stc]

The number of times that I've been asked to truly sight read, meaning someone handed me sheet music and expected me to play immediately, have been very rare (in fact, just once). I can read bass clef decently, and if I know the song, I can usually play it pretty quickly, especially if the chords are present. Put another way, if possible, I prefer to see the sheet music vs. just tabs or trying to watch someone online. Writing out the music requires a certain amount of thought, especially around key, chords and rhythm compared to tabs. This is not to say all sheet music is correct (real book), but it will tend to be more consistent.

What I have been asked to do many times is to look at a chord sheet for a song, often a song I haven't heard before, and start playing from there. While this is not as demanding as true sight reading, where the expectation is for you to be note perfect, this is still a pretty demanding skill. I've played with a few guitarists who are more like singers who accompany themselves on guitar. They often have their own paper chord charts (typically transposed to fit their vocal range) that they need for you play to. There are a few simple hacks (roots for rock, 1's and 5's for country, 1-3-5 types of patterns for blues and jazz), but I still find it challenging. That said, I'm reasonably good enough at it that most people couldn't tell that I was just making it up as I went along from the chord sheet.

 

[Spin Doctor]

The thing about getting a chart is not just getting the changes.

It's also giving you the melody, which is helpful.

That's one of the reasons I read music.

Yup. I can read also, and been sight reading trumpet parts since I was 14. But I don't need to sightread the music I play now and it's not a big deal. It's just not what I'm into. If I showed up to a band audition and told the members I needed the music for Chaka Khan's "What ya gonna do for me", they'd probably just tell me to get out.

 

[Killing Floor]

I grew up playing violin and had piano lessons. Learning to read was part of the process. Like anything it is easy to retain if you keep it up. I would say I can read and do read but nowhere near as strongly as when I had to do it every day. My kid learned the same way. For her state competitions a complete stranger judge would had the students their sheets and say "go". I'm impressed to see that still happens. I admit to being more comfortable in treble than bass clef, sad but true. I find it's easier for me to write in 5. I'd go back and slam the lowers into bass clef before I showed paper so I wouldn't seem like the dummy I am. Habits!
You can learn how to play songs and jam with others without knowing how to read, let alone sight read proficiently. But it's the language that musicians use to communicate ideas.

In school we had to sight read. In some studio situations I've had to sight read, time is money. I've done some pickups where reading was a requirement too, especially international musicians where language isn't as simple as when you're with your friends. It's a worthwhile investment in my opinion if you have any intention of playing outside your own band. Played a little bit of theatre but not a lot, it was fun and right now that really seems appealing.

 

[Altitude]

I played cello in junior high and high school before I picked up the bass, so I learned to sight read that way. As a bass player in college and since, I've continually used it. I've waned to be the kind of guy a bandleader could hand a chart to and figure the bass responsibilities were taken care of without additional thought. That, to me, is how you get and stay employable.

The guys who make their livings as session players in LA/NY/Nashville will routinely get a chart, run it once or twice in the studio, and on the same day lay down the part on a recording that will become memorialized forever. Some of those are chord changes and feel designations for the player to embellish, others are note-for-note charts to be played as written.

I played in pit groups all the time in college and four or five times since. I'm not a chorale guy or a big fan of musicals, but playing six shows a week a couple hours a day for an eight week run paid a college student $1500 in the early 90s and beat the hell out of working a fast food job. In every single case, those gigs were note for note sheet music, though as someone said I always got the music a couple weeks in advance. Though, often with only one or maybe two live runthroughs before the show went live.

But Eddie Van Halen couldn't read music.

If you want to be a working, employable musician who gets calls, I can't see doing it without knowing how to read. There are simply too many gigs where you need to, and once you have to turn a gig down for any reason you tend to not get called by that guy again. IME. So why handicap yourself.

But if, as someone said, you're just playing for your own enjoyment, there are no rules. Do what you want.

 

[NickyBass]

I haven't had many gigs where I was sight reading live. But, being able to sight read saves a lot of time in rehearsals and the practice room. The less time we spend working out the notes, the more time we can spend fine tuning the piece. (If it's notated that is). There are times in a pit orchestra where we might only play the overture once before the show. We'd just run through it, then move on. I also find that being able to read is very beneficial to working on etudes and other material when I'm practicing. Reading through some of the Charlie Parker Omnibook, for example, allowed me to work on a lot of material for soloing ideas in a shorter period of time. If I wasn't a decent reader, it would have taken me a lot longer to get through some of the solos. I can't play them up to original speed, but that is also a technique issue. I'm not one to say that everyone needs theory and needs to know how to sight read...but, there is tremendous value in it.

 

[joelns]

I've not had to read note for note, but reading chord charts and making up lines on the spot has often been needed. I've gotten reasonably proficient at that throughout the years.

 

[TheReceder]

What follows is too long a post... easiest to just read this sentence and skip to the last sentence.

I'm in the process of teaching a young bassist. He learns the songs he likes off YouTube, and I try to teach him the theory behind what he's learning, how to read sheet music, and basic fundamentals. Every once in a while I yield to superior bassists on line... I just think it helps to have someone that assigns a little "homework" once in a while, and can also tell the student "you didn't practice enough this week did you".

I can only hope that he ends out a better rounded bass player than his teacher. Worst case... I spent a little time helping out someone that could have just as easily been TP'ing my house.

Learning anything can only expand your skill... whether or not that skill will be necessary later on... who knows.