 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: zuzu
Date: 2004-05-12 12:36
Hi! How many people here are GREAT sight readers and read music like it was there second language? Or do you play mostly by ear after the initial sight reading, not really reading the music but sort of playing along? Or perhaps you use a combination of both?
Just curious :-)
*I think I use a combo method. Not a Fab 'sighter', but can figure out difficult passages after playing them several times, and hearing others play it also.
doesnt it seem like clarinet players are always the most hesitant in the band to make mistakes? why is that??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2004-05-12 19:19
Let's establish that we're not discussing the local symphonic orchestra or the pit aggregation for a stage play where precision and timing are of primary importance. At least that's where I gather this topic may go from your post. I'm referring, in my response to your post, to musical groups that play for fun occasions. By no means do I mean to imply that musical standards are any less than should be required for any musical group presenting itself for public performance. A little different maybe, but not less demanding.
I consider myself a pretty fair sight reader, Zuzu, and I think that's only because I began reading in fifth (maybe it was fourth) grade 'orchestra'. During my musical "career" I've played with lots of different kinds and combinations of musical groups. Some read printed scores exclusively, some couldn't read notes if their lives depended on it and some are adept at both. My personal preference is not to read while playing solo. And... we certainly can't read sheet music playing in a group that doesn't have any 
Playing in a group with more than five or six players usually requires, at least initially, that we find our musical 'places' to establish harmonies, voicing, balance, routines and such. At least some ability in reading is *helpful* for that. There are exceptions, of course; some folks just never learned read but play by ear very well. Once the non-readers or semi-readers, such as yourself, Zuzu, have their 'lines', they're fine. I find also that after rehearsing a number a few times, to get the kinks out and so forth, the music takes on a life of its own and the charts are there for assurance (for the 'readers') only.
I don't think clarinetists are any more aftaid of making mistakes than other players are. No one enjoys embarrassment. But, if you ever play in "my" group, Zuzu, and you feel embarrassed by making a (so called) mistake - I've fallen down on my job as leader :| Mistakes can be, and often are, part of the fun of it. At least in "my" outfit, mistakes happen and it's okay. In fact, sometimes they're so much fun we leave 'em IN
- r![[cool]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/cool.gif) n b -
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ohsuzan
Date: 2004-05-12 21:46
I'm reading an interesting book right now, entitled "Sight-Read Any Rhythm Instantly," by Mark Phillips.
The premise of this tome is that good readers don't actually read "notes", but that we learn over time what certain sound patterns look like on the page, and know what to do when we see them. The purpose of the book is to teach folks who aren't already doing it how to learn to read this way. Phillips is concerned with teaching rhythmic patterns, but I'm sure the principle holds true for learning tonal patterns, also. (In fact, I think we call this "solfege".)
I am very taken with this idea, because it coincides to a significant degree with my own experience of learning to read music. I suppose I started with a "do the math" approach to reading music, but somewhere along the line, I got the "feel" of what I was reading (just about the time that dotted rhythms started to make sense to me. . .). There certainly are still passages that I have to parse out, but by and large, I read in short phrases, rather than notes. It's a whole lot easier that way.
One of the things that I found, as a long-time church music director, is that many people believe that what is on the page is "the music", when in reality, what is on the page is the score. "The music" is an auditory medium, not a printed one. The score is just a prompt to tell the musician what they are supposed to do. Difficulty rendering what is written on a score just means that we haven't studied our basics enough!
Best wishes, Zuzu! Develop that great ear!
Susan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-05-13 05:14
Sightreading ... you're either naturally talented (play just about anything perfectly with the least amount of work) or your fantastic an memorizing ... of course I generalise, but that's been my overall experience on this subject.
If you want to end up a pit musician (professionally) and your sightreading is only fair (or worse) you might just want to reconsider your career destinations.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bnanno
Date: 2004-05-14 09:00
They seem to teach sight reading from almost year one parallel to all instrument learning in our school, and they seem to give it great importance.
(one third of the marks for instruments for accessing the official conservatory course are for sightreading)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-05-14 17:16
I try to use the combo method myself. I consider myself to be a decent sightreader. Much of the music I'm presented with I can sightread very well the first time (however the dificulty level of the music from the groups that I'm in isn't all that high).
However I can now recognize certain patterns and will automatically play an arpeggio or two after quickly recognizing it on the page. Or a scale run or other simple, easy task. Also, I can sometimes 'guess' the next notes (if a familiar tune). For instance when our band did a compilation of West Side Story music, it wasn't that hard to figure out the tune to "I Feel Pretty" and so there wasn't much 'sight reading' there.
I also (after a few inital playthroughs of course) tend to recognize more 'audio' cues and don't count the rests. I simply listen and wait for the piece to change to a certain key and then I know I have four beats until my entrance, or wait for the trombones to play a certain sequence of notes and I know I have three and a half measures until I come in, etc. etc. I find it much easier than trying to count the measures in my head. And if I can't seem to remember it I write it in in the music (will write something like, 'french horn' above the spot that they play). I guess this could be considered as ear-reading when going through the first time (since pieces often have those oh-so-predictable four bar phrases)
But I still stink when it comes to more complex music. And maybe one day I'll be able to sight read a piece like Debussy's Premier Rhapsody or Weber's Grand Duo. But that's certainly not going to be any day soon.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
