 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-02-17 00:05
I am absolutely horrible at sight-reading. I would love for as many suggestions on how to sight-read better...and how "practice" sight-reading. People tell me to just read a new piece of music- put the metranome on, look it over for about 30 seconds, and go, but that hasn't helped me at all. Any suggestions?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2005-02-17 00:12
Forget a career in an orchestra or in a pit orchestra if that's the case ...
From my experience, sight reading is just one of those things you're either good at or not. Not to say practising it won't help. I also find the most people who are brilliant sight readers have the devil of a time memorizing.
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-02-17 01:27
hmm... that's interesting...
1. I plan to be a music educator, but be a performer as well (like a sub or something) and to say that I am a horrible sight reader is a bit over the top- it just seems tru 90% of the time. however after only 2 3-hour rehersals in a regional orchestra, I sight-transposed 2 pieces (one of which would have been in the key of B, had I notated it) rather well.
why wouldn't I consider a career in orchestra if I can't sight read well??
2. I actually think in some ways I have gotten worse at sight reading over the years... maybe their just giving me harder music, I don't know...
3. my friend is a pretty decent sight reader...I wouldn't say he's "brilliant" per se, but decent, but he memorizes things very well. maybe he's in the balance....
anyway- still open to advice/suggestions....anything!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2005-02-17 02:27
I'd more say to forget a career in the studio if you can't sight read, but that's a pretty exclusive track to begin with.
Play pieces you've never seen, from etude books, etc. Play them at a tempo that is just barely too fast for you to get the notes properly. Do not allow yourself to stop. Pay attention to rhythm, dynamics, and the general feel of the piece. Don't play the note you're on, rather play to the notes that are approaching. With practice, you may be surprised how many tricky passages happen "by accident." This is what we practice scales and such for.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ohsuzan
Date: 2005-02-17 02:32
Maybe it would help us -- and you! -- if you could be a little more specific about what you mean by being "absolutely horrible" at sight reading.
Is it a matter of not being able to react to the sequence of notes quickly enough, or not getting the rhythmic figures, or ????
Are you better at reading some keys than others? Are you OK with some rhythms but not others?
Can you play scales/scale exercises in all the keys -- major, minor? Arpeggios?
Have you done a college-level sight-reading course (Hindemith, e.g.) that includes rhythmic figures?
Can you generalize the appearance of standard rhythmic and intervallic figures? For example, can you look at a pattern of, say, dotted-eighth/16th notes and know how they would sound? Can you perceive a series of ascending or descending thirds?
To me, it's things like these (plus trial-by-fire experience) that are the underpinnings of sight-reading capability, and they are things that can (must) be learned.
Susan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dana J
Date: 2005-02-17 06:41
Hi Susan,
Could you elaborate on "college-level sight-reading course (Hindemith, e.g.) that includes rhythmic figures? "
Thanks.
D
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2005-02-17 06:49
I don't know about the "rhythmic figures" criterion, but my university offers a "Woodwind Orchestral Repertoire" class where students read through the woodwind parts of major orchestral pieces. We also have a studio orchestra that sight-reads anything brought to them.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2005-02-17 09:48
What specifically are you having problems with? Are you missing rhythms, missing pitches, or failing to keep up with the group? Knowing which if these things are weak would help the group in advising you.
As to why you shouldn't consider a career in an orchestra if you don't sightread well....
You're welcome to consider it, but if your reading is weak a professional group that uses written music is unlikely to consider YOU. Jobs are tight, schedules are tight and time is money. Professional musicians rehearse according to the needs of the group as whole, and not the technical needs of individual members.
Sightreading CAN be learned, but it may require you to overhaul the way you approach your reading. I suggest a two-track approach.
On one track, work your technical prerequisites. Scales, arpeggios, and scales-in-thirds for all major keys ASAP. Once mastered, follow up with the minor keys. (why major keys first? Because you need to know SOMETHING in all 15 key signatures pronto...and minor keys are going to require some real time-consuming work) What you are trying to do on this first track is to take standard note patterns (the most common three in each key) rehearse each of them to to be visually recognized and digitally executed AS A UNIT, rather than as a group of discrete notes.
Also watch your key signature in these exercises--not to tell you which notes are sharp or flat, but to function as a single visual cue to awaken your rehearsed patterns in each key.
On track 2, is the true essence of sightreading--rhythm. Most folks can hit the pitches, but either have problems figuring out the timing, or with hesitating in the tougher areas rather than pressing on. You need to be paying primary attention to your timing, and letting your prerehearsed skills carry as much of the pitch burden as possible.
Study rhythm as much as you can. Your analytical skills are not going to be enough to consistently save the day. You need lots of experience, and to build a repertoire of patterns that you can recognize and execute as a unit--saving your analytical skills for things that you DON'T recognize.
I also suggest using a metronome when sightreading. Lots of players have a problem maintaining tempo--either rushing easy passages or dragging in difficult passages. A major problem with fast passages is the tendency to rush them until notes collide, rather than properly subdividing the beat and putting each note in its proper place.
Bottom line...work the rhythm (at a steady tempo) and let your eyes operate your hands directly. If you have to think about pitches to a large degree, practice your basic skills until they feel more automatic.
Good luck and I hope that some of this helps. But you should still try to be more specific about the problems that you are encountering.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-02-17 12:17
>"Maybe it would help us -- and you! -- if you could be a little more specific >about what you mean by being "absolutely horrible" at sight reading."
I wish I could pinpoint exactly what's wrong. I guess one thing I have trouble with is subdividing the beat. At times I find that the tempo or rhythm gets off simply because I wasn't subdividing and then I play, say, 16ths too fast or too slow.
I also fall into that "accidental trap", where I completely forget the key signature because I am too focused on the accidentals.
I practice all of my scales and I think I have all major (including F# and such keys) keys down pretty well. I'm still working on my minor scales. but those (and the arpeggios) help me...
on my old eastern region and all state score sheets it seems that prevaliently, in the sight reading sections, my rhythm is off and I don't get all the correct notes.
>"For example, can you look at a pattern of, say, dotted-eighth/16th notes >and know how they would sound? Can you perceive a series of ascending >or descending thirds?"
I can do that, but to an extent. sometimes in different meters- like, say, 5/4, or 12/8 or something, rhythms get a bit more confusing. but I can get those rhytms for the most part. all though, in my last audition, which included a fairly easy sight reading piece, I messed up on an eigth tied to a quarter! which is pretty simple, but I messed it up. and I was playing a piece in 3/4 that switched to 6/8, and I know the beat should stay the same, but I messed that up too.
as for the thirds, I can pretty much do thirds and such patterns. but sometimes, just the mere fact that I am seeing it for the first time messes me up- as though I am over-thinking it or something.
...maybe I just need to read ahead more. I don't know.
perhaps if anyone has any advice on subdividing?
I hope that's a little bit more specific?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ohsuzan
Date: 2005-02-17 13:56
Dana J --
Back in the day, sight-reading/ear training was one of the required lower division courses for college music majors. I presume that is still the case today, although I don't know what they call it today. I think they called the course I took "ear training". It used to be called "solfeggio" or more familiarly, just "solfege".
I think "solfege" may imply just the tonal aspect of ear training. The course I took included both tonal and rhythmic ear training.
The text used in the course I took was by Paul Hindemith. I loved it (and hated it!) because it was both thorough and rigorous. Or maybe it was my professor who was thorough and rigorous?
I am sure there are many other texts available for this purpose. I just got attached to the one I used. It was very no-nonsense and very useful.
Susan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ohsuzan
Date: 2005-02-17 14:30
M-I-L --
I'm of the conviction that rhythm, more than tonality, is the basis of music. I don't know if this is a widely-held attitude, but it works for me.
When reading an unfamiliar score, if I focus on "playing the right notes" [i.e., tones], the music just passes me by. On the other hand, if I first approach the rhythmic content and "hear" it mentally, the tones tend to fall into place much more readily.
To me, tones are the vehicle for expression of the rhythm. I suspect that many people approach it the other way around -- thinking of rhythm as the vehicle for expressing the tones. But tones by themselves are nothing but sound. With slight exceptions for dynamic movement, tones are static, and the same tones are common to music of many genres. The character of the music -- the character of the genre -- seems to me to come from its rhythmic content.
Excluding instrumentation for a moment, think about what distinguishes a march from, say, swing? What distinguishes Handel from Mozart? Mozart from Strauss? Certainly not the tonality. Yet you could most likely instantly distinguish one from the other, even on paper.
Focus *at least* as much on learning rhythmic figures and patterns as you do on the scale and arpeggio work. Your goal is to be able to "hear" it before you play it, to know what you are supposed to be doing before you do it. Otherwise you are faced with reinventing the wheel every time you play a new piece.
Good luck!
Susan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: johng ★2017
Date: 2005-02-17 14:37
I think Allen Cole's advise is the best. I believe good sight readers are those who have many musical patterns under their fingers (meaning scales, interval studies, and rhythm) AND can recognize them at a glance AND can read ahead in the music. When saying "under their fingers" that means automatically playing the patterns without having to think about it.
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2005-02-17 14:57
Subdividing can sometimes be the wrong approach, in my opinion. Rather, "playing to the next downbeat" makes more musical sense. If you are subdividing, you are stuck "where you are" rather than putting the energy towards where you are going.
Rather than thinking, "this is how a beat split into 3 goes," try thinking "this is how I make my way to the next downbeat from a beat split into 3." After a certain level of proficiency, you know how long each note should be. At this point, by the time you've thought out the subdivision in your head, you'll be late to play it. I see it all the time.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-02-17 15:11
thank you so much for all the advice! I'll try to utilize it and get back to you WHEN I get better at sight reading.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2005-02-17 15:13
For some TOUGH sightreading, try flipping your music over and reading through it upside down. Rhythms, arpeggios, everything's off.
Or get a copy of Stark's studies (forget which opus it is . . . 63 maybe?) It runs through various patterns, however uses double flats, double sharps, Cb and B#, and all sorts of other oddities.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-02-17 16:16
you know, it's funny you should say that, 'cause I have flipped the music over before. also- in one really hard, technical piece I believe it was in thirds, but it was still tough so I read it backwards, then forwards, and it helped! I got it into my fingers and was able to play it much faster.
I'll check out that etude book as well, thanks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2005-02-17 16:24
Backwards/forwards helps too in drilling a recognizeable pattern (thirds, arpeggios, scales, etc). Most of the study books that I know of run through patterns both going UP, and going DOWN (which would be like reading the "UP" scale backwards)
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-02-17 21:44
anyone know Bitsch? I got a book of his rhythm studies (well, borrowed it from my clar. teacher)- I'm guessing it's good, since she lent it to me.
btw- we sight read a piece today in wind ensemble and I felt that by looking ahead and keeping the key signature in my head, I did significant;y better than I have been doing lately. one thing- 4 groups of triplets in cut time threw me. I know, 2 to a beat, but then threw me off. especially all those E#s!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-02-18 01:14
ok- to update on my sight-reading woes: I practiced the Bitsch and found that I seriously have trouble with 7/8, 5/8.....then one ryhthm figure I have trouble with: switching between 6/8 and 3/4, but with three quarter notes or quarter, 8th, quarter, 8th then back to 6/8....it gets really confusing.
also- 16th note triplets in common time
in common time: 16th, 8th, 16th? how do you count that? is it still 1 e + a?
9/8 is simple, but when you get into breaking the beat up into 3 8ths, the last one tied to a seperate 8th, then a quarter tied to the first of 3 8ths...etc. it's a bit confusing. even when attempting to subdivide or "fall on the next beat"
those are only a few issues with the bitsch. advamced stuff, that is!
thanks again.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
