 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: 3dogmom
Date: 2005-07-29 17:35
I've been wanting to ask this for some time - I don't believe it's come up before. I wear invisible bifocals, where one looks through a certain portion of the lens to see a particular distance. I'm having a really hard time sharing a stand - if I look to the side, my vision is distorted, if I turn my chair, I can't see the director. I only seem to be able to see the music well if it's directly in front of my field of vision. I feel like such an old fart.
Have any of you ever acquired a special pair of glasses for reading music at that distance, and what instructions did you give the optical people? What works for you? I'm even wondering about those bifocal contact lenses. Obviously specifics will vary- but I'm curious.
Thanks.
Sue Tansey
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: archer1960
Date: 2005-07-29 17:59
I know they're rather out of style, but I'll bet that if you ask for _glass_ lenses, you will be able to see fine all the way out to the edges of the glasses. I just got plastic (Lenscrafters featherweights) for the first time a couple of years ago after always having glass ones for the previous 30 years. It was a major adjustment having lenses that were only perfectly focused near the center of the field of view. This time around, I asked for a stronger "base curve" as they call it, and it broadened the field of good vision significantly, but made the lenses significantly thicker at the edges than the last pair was.
Another alternative would be to talk with your optometrist; they may have some specific ideas. Mine is a cyclist, and he mentioned designing a pair for another customer which had prisms in the top half of the lens so that the customer could keep his head down an still see ahead of him while riding. If they can do that, I'll bet they can come up with something for reading music at a distance of 2 ft (or whatever is appropriate) from your eyes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markael
Date: 2005-07-29 18:20
I disagree about the glass lenses.
I’ve been wearing glasses since I was three. Probably my first glasses were glass, but I’ve been wearing plastic for a long, long time. My vision has never been great, but plastic has worked just fine.
There are certain types of plastics that might cause problems. I got one of those new super duper types one time, and they distored my vision. (Sorry, I don’t remember what you call it.) As a matter of fact, it came from Lens Crafters. Perhaps I shouldn’t say any more about a particular company, but if you have a particularly difficult prescription, or you are getting to be an old fart (or both, like me) you really should seek out an independent optician rather than one of these chains. Not only will you get better quality care, but in many cases the prices will be just as good, if not better.
Some of these companies should be held accountable for false advertising, with all these too good to be true specials they advertise.
I have developed “issues” with glasses, too. If I could afford it I would buy several pairs for different uses. I do have one extra pair, but not for clarinet work. Oddly enough I don’t have Sue’s problem. Sue, I’ll bet you have become far-sighted.
People with normal vision tend to become far-sighted. You would think that myopia would correct itself. Not so.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: archer1960
Date: 2005-07-29 18:32
Markael wrote:
> I disagree about the glass lenses.
>
> I’ve been wearing glasses since I was three. Probably my
> first glasses were glass, but I’ve been wearing plastic for a
> long, long time. My vision has never been great, but plastic
> has worked just fine.
I've been wearing glasses since I was 10, and they were always glass until 3 years ago. I found that I need to move my head much more to keep my vision in the "sweet spot" of the plastic lenses, when I could move just my eyes with the glass lenses, because the entire lens gave me sharp vision.
You might want to try glass. You might be a lot better than "just fine". Optometrists will tell you that glass lenses are going to focus sharper than even the best plastic ones (mine warned me about that before prescribing my plastic ones). For many people, especially those whose uncorrected vision isn't horrible, the lighter weight of the plastic over-rides the better vision of the glass lenses.
As a reference point, I'm nearsighted, at about -6.5 diopters in one eye, and -7.0 in the other, with just a bit of astigmatism.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markael
Date: 2005-07-29 18:46
Thanks for your ideas. It is definitely worth looking into.
I have lots of questions (starting with the risk of breakage) which I will save for the optician.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jbutler ★2017
Date: 2005-07-29 18:49
3dogmom,
I was having the same problem and had to start using trifocals. Talk about feeling like an old fart! However, since adjusting to them I haven't had a problem for about three years now. I probably need to get a new pair, but it seems like every time I get new lenses the optomitrists want to make the prescriptions stronger and I think that turns into a cycle of having to get stronger lenses each time. I got a new pair of lenses a little over a year ago and went back and had the company put my old lenses back into may frames. (I find it cheaper to reuse the frames as long as the lenses are available.)
jbutler
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: archer1960
Date: 2005-07-29 18:58
"I have lots of questions (starting with the risk of breakage) which I will save for the optician."
I've never had a lens break on me. I've broken several frames (especially the hinge) from getting hit in the face with soccer balls, football helmet getting knocked askew, dropping the glasses onto the floor, walking into doors, etc, but never a lens.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hartt
Date: 2005-07-29 19:08
yepper, had a similar problem
I wore glasses for distance and reading (bifocals)
I switched to 2 separate pairs. The reading glasses are set at 18" for reading music on a stand. They are scratch resistant glass, not plastic.
d
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: susieray
Date: 2005-07-29 19:27
3dogmom,
Sounds like you are talking about the "Varilux" lenses, the ones that don't really look like bifocals (or trifocals)....I had a pair of those, and I hated them. They distorted everything and I actually felt like I was going to barf.
After about two days, I took them back and had regular bifocals made instead.
Some people can get used to the "blended" kind of lenses, but they do not work too well for reading music, since in reading music you need to be able to move your eyes back and forth across the page; and that just won't work with those glasses. You have to move your head from side to side instead, all the while looking through that same spot on the lens. This can get tiring real quick, and would be really difficult if you are sharing a stand. The regular old-fashioned bifocals work much better, since they are ground differently and you have a larger surface of the lens to look through. Hope I am making sense.
Another option would be to have a pair of reading glasses made special for that distance, and then look over the top of them to see the director (even if the director is out of focus that way, at least you can usually still see his/her arms waving around. ![[happy]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley12.gif)
Sue R.
Post Edited (2005-07-29 20:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2005-07-29 19:35
Sue,
Sounds like trifocals will work well for you. Just tell the eye doctor the next time you get examined that you'd like to put on your reeds using the lowest part, read the music with the middle part, and see the conductor through the top part of the lens. These are my regualr glasses and I have a pair of sunglasses with the same formula.
I am doing the same thing with my trifocals right now at the computer. The middle section is used for the screen and the bottom is for my fingers.
You are in your 40s, right :-).
HRL
Post Edited (2005-07-29 20:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: 3dogmom
Date: 2005-07-29 20:00
Well, I feel so much better now! At least I'm not alone.
I should have clarified more of my current status - I am 48, yes, I do have Varilux lenses, have been nearsighted since I was 10, the farsightedness started at about 40, which is pretty typical,I guess.
And yes, I was told that the plastic lenses would distort at the edges, now that you mention it, but they've always insisted my prescription is sooooo bad that the glass lenses wouldn't fit in any normal frames. They're about 4.5 each eye, which isn't apparently as poor as some other folks' vision.
So nobody's tried out those new contacts with the concentric circles of vision correction? Sounds like a modern miracle if you can tolerate contacts. I did in my younger days but don't seem to be as resilient now.
Lots of good suggestions - I'm very interested in hearing how you're all coping! I appreciate the feedback.
Sue Tansey
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-07-29 20:30
3dogmom wrote:
> They're about 4.5 each eye, which
> isn't apparently as poor as some other folks' vision.
-6.0 in my left, -5.5 in my right ...
I wore regular bifocals for quite a while, but they were incredibly heavy, even the "featherweight" plastics, and since I work on a computer for a living I had a problem with neck strain even at a 50% lower coverage.
I switched to contacts for middle/far sight and a couple of inexpensive aspheric reading glasses for reading/working/playing. Lightweight and easy to look over the tops.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2005-07-29 20:34
Sue -
Varilux lenses are in focus only in a fairly narrow stripe down the middle. Everything else is blurry. I use peripheral vision constantly, so they drove me crazy, even with a 5-minute try-on, but they may be right for you.
If the conductor is in focus without your glasses, you can get "half moon" lenses that are easy to look over the top of.
For music, I have separate, single focus music glasses that focus from 3 to about 5 feet away.
I found that things are much clearer with an antireflection coating on the lenses. Combine that with a scratch resistant coating and you're in business. It well worth the extra cost.
First I got a bit nearsighted. Then I got farsighted. Then I needed separate driving, music and close-work glasses. At least I don't need them for reading -- yet. Getting old sure is annoying.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-07-29 20:50
I was looking into contact lenses and tried 6 different pairs - basically ended up having the choice of either being able to see the music or the conductor.
Not that it was a bad choice, nor even one which would be questionable, but I opted out...............
;)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: susieray
Date: 2005-07-29 20:53
<The reading glasses are set at 18" for reading music on a stand.>
Yikes! Dennis, that seems really close.....my music stand is 30" to 32" from my eyes...at 18" I'd be bumping the stand with my clarinet all the time....
Sue R.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Burt
Date: 2005-07-29 21:18
I find that the solution for reading music is the same as for using a computer. Neither the top or the bottom of standard bifocals worked for reading music. I gave up on standard trifocals. The only type of glasses I can use (where the same pair works for everything) is the no-line bifocals. I've used glass and plastic and don't find a difference. Mine get dark in bright light but, except for outdoor playing, it's not a factor for reading music.
A friend had a separate pair of glasses for music and computer - single vision set for appx. 2 feet. He liked that approach.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob A
Date: 2005-07-29 21:31
Ken, You're right! "Getting old sure is annoying." I've decided not to do it anymore. On my next birthday (Oct.) I'm 80 and I'm going to stop counting.
I got "computer" glasses, fitted for music stand and computer. Only flaw, if I forget to change I have fallen UPSTAIRS going up from the basement. Big feet short steps.
Bob A
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: saxlite
Date: 2005-07-29 21:38
I, too, am an old fart and use the "blended lineless" trifocals for my everyday vision. But, as stated above, this makes scanning back and forth to "read ahead" difficult. I asked my optician for my prescription adjusted for "arm's length" (about 24-28") and took it to LensCrafters. I bought a cheap frame and low cost plastic lenses. Works fine for me-sometimes a slightly blurry conductor is a good thing.......
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ohsuzan
Date: 2005-07-29 21:50
I'm surprised no one has suggested monovision as an alternative to bifocals.
I've had significant myopia in both eyes since I was a kid. I don't know the exact numbers, but it's bad enough that I can see nothing at all -- just a white light -- on the doctor's eye chart without correction. I also have astigmatism.
As I started getting older and became unable to read a newspaper with my regular glasses, my optometrist suggested I try "monovision" contact lenses -- with one eye (the dominant eye) corrected for distance, and the other corrected for reading.
It works like a charm! The brain integrates the images from each eye, and I absolutely don't have any sensation of either eye seeing differently from the other. I can see distance, and I can read newspapers, computer screens, and sheet music without difficulty. On occasion, I have used a pair of reading glasses with light correction (+125) to help with music on a music stand, but usually that isn't even necessary.
I imagine this trick can be played with regular spectacles, as well.
Susan
P.S. There are a number of folks in my band who do have a separate pair of glasses for reading music on a music stand.
Post Edited (2005-07-29 21:51)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2005-07-29 21:54
I went with the traditional suggestion, having a pair of "reading glasses" made up for my musical use only. They were optimized so that everything from two feet out to about six feet out was in focus. No bifocal or trifocal provisions, as most of my reading is out of the whole lens (we play off of band front-type stands).
The glasses worked fine, and best of all they were free as I needed to get a new set at the same time due to onset of diabetes (which plays havoc with your vision, and keeps doing it for a long time until everything is stabilized).
I enjoyed the glasses...until I lost them during the first band job that I played with them about a month later!
In between vital music reading (most of it is old hat, and sharp vision is not critical), I found that I could not check out the talent on the dance floor (New Year's Eve crowd down in Galveston). So, I swapped out to my regular glasses, then walked out to the lobby for a break only to set the case down. Never saw them again.
There's a moral there somewhere...
leader of Houston's Sounds Of The South Dance Orchestra
info@sotsdo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2005-07-29 22:06
I, too, researched this whole business eight or ten years ago, and have ended up with successive pairs of old-fashioned bifocals--the kind with the half-and-half line running horizontally across the lenses.
I always have the optometrist make the long-distance (top) portion of the lense as shallow as possible and the close-up (music-reading) portion as large as possible, since when you're looking off in the distance you only need a narrow slice of lense to look through, and if you've got a stand full of music and (for instance) a bass clarinet in a fixed position on a peg, you need as big a field of view in the close-up portion as possible.
Was going to try the concentric contacts, but it would have been a several-hundred-dollar experiment with no guarantee of success, so I passed on it.
The close-up part of the lenses is set to focus at between 18"-24". (Also perfect for my computer graphics work.)
My optometrist told me I'm a candidate for trifocals (my magic prescription above unfortunately neglects the close-up spectrum) but dividing the lenses into 3 horizontal bands would have meant an even smaller section for reading music, finding mouthpiece cap, pencil, dropped reeds etc., so I passed on the trifocals.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2005-07-29 22:30
Susan,
I have monovision due to having had cataract surgery last year at the tender age of 35/36. While I thought I'd have problems, I actually really enjoy it. It's much better than the blurry cataract problem I had, and I only need glasses (cheap pharmacy at 1.25) for reading books. Music works fine for me!
So, for those of you for whom monovision is an option, do consider it! It works great for me.
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: swkeess
Date: 2005-07-29 23:47
I wear the old-fashioned bifocals with the line dividing the lens, as my optometrist recommended them for my astigmatism. When reading music, I found that I was tilting my head back and forth and sometimes missing whole lines of music, so I bought a pair of eyeglasses specifically for the distance I read music. They work great, but the conductor is a little blurry (as noted in another reply) and I have to remember to bring them on stage with me when we perform. It's also one more thing to remember after rehearsals - one night I drove home with my music reading glasses on instead of changing to my regular glasses. Thought my eyes were deteriorating more rapidly than I had imagined!
Susan K.
Susan Keess
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kel
Date: 2005-07-29 23:54
Not everyone can adjust to monovision contacts. I couldn't. I used them for three years and they continued to drive (putt?) me batty. But after decades of extreme myopia (-7.5 diopters) I was blessed with cataracts in both eyes. Had surgery, now I can use cheap reading glasses for music!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2005-07-30 00:33
3dogmom,
I'm nearly 60 and use bifocals with no discernible horizontal line in the lens, but it took three optometrists (and the third pair of glasses) to get it right so that I can use them without getting dizzy, risking a loss of balance on stairs, or having to tilt my head at an undesirable angle to drive and watch TV. The third optometrist finally took the time to get it right.
My lenses have the anti-glare, scratch resistant coating (both highly recommended) and darken in bright outdoor conditions, making sunglasses unnecessary. Reading music is not a problem (yet).
I favor the plastic lenses. They saved an eye from certain injury in an accident where glass would have shattered.
Regards,
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kel
Date: 2005-07-30 00:45
Posters to this thread mention not seeing the conductor clearly as if that were a bad thing. If you pay attention to conductors you only feed their sense of omnipotence.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda
Date: 2005-07-30 00:56
I too use a separate pair for reading music, and bifocals for reading books. Here I've always paid extra for an "indexed" lens, it's much thinner than the regular glass, plus the anti-reflective coating. Trifocals were tried and taken back pretty fast - too narrow a field for each range of sight.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: 3dogmom
Date: 2005-07-30 02:09
Wow, thanks, everybody. What a great question this turned out to be.
I do have some monovision contacts. I don't find them very comfortable. I can wear them for a short term, actually I use them on the rare occasions when I go to the beach. I think that the distance for which the farsighted one is corrected would be wrong for music. I get sort of whacked out going from my glasses to the contacts, my brain can't handle the switch (okay, what's her left eye doing now...)
It definitely sounds as though a special pair of glasses is necessary. I do need to see the conductor as well, I wouldn't even know they were there without correction for distance, which some of you think is a good thing!
I wonder how this works out if you get laser vision correction - I guess that's essentially what Kel did. Well, there's a positive aspect to getting older!
Thanks for your input.
Sue Tansey
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph Katz
Date: 2005-07-30 02:58
Here is a late post from another old fart.
The range of comments should show that there are a range of opinions and you are allowed to have your own. Try what works. If it stops working, try something else.
The glass issue depends on your level of correction. I gave up to a greater extent on plastic lenses a decade ago. If you are near-sighted and your correction is, say -4 diopters or less, plastic may work fine for you. My correction (nothing to brag about) is -8, and the edge distortion on plastic lenses was not bearable. Because of the "sweet spot", I have always preferred glass lenses.
Your optician may try to talk you out of glass. Don't let this deter you.
My day-to-day lenses are glass bifocals. I have plastic trifocal safety lenses for work, where I need to be able to see at a range of distances, except that I had the patches moved up so that the intermediate section is straight ahead. This makes looking at my computer screen the most comfortable, but I have to tilt my head down just a little to see straight ahead. My music glasses have glass single-vision lenses at the intermediate distance. This, and polarized bifocal sunglasses for driving, makes changing prescriptions very expensive.
I am lucky, in that my wife and I both have vision coverage, and I get a new pair of safety glasses for work every 2 years. Typically one or two pairs are at the current prescription, and the other ones are old. So now, the sunglasses are new, and the daily glasses need to be replaced, and the safety's are good for another year. I am wearing my old safety's at the computer at home.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2005-07-30 05:25
I realized a few weeks ago that my inability to see and read my music was limiting my playing ability!
I have to position the music stand carefully in order to play well.
Its bad when I share a stand while sitting in with the swing band and I have to look through the edges of my (blended bifocal) lenses.
A colleague has special glasses that he uses for music reading.
I'll wait to start experimenting with music-only lenses until I get a better understanding of how my current specs are limiting me.
BTW: I had the up close correction left out of my prescripton sunglasses. I wanted to be able to see the terrain while cross country skiing and to have a wide field of view for cycling with my head down. On my skis, I feel like I'm standing on a 10-foot radius beach ball. If I watch my feet, I get dizzy.
Even with the help of my opthomologist; we blew this experiment --at my expense.
Thanks, dogMom and all contributors to this thread. Your notes have been very helpful to me.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D
Date: 2005-07-30 09:11
Funny this should come up. Last night I was at a rehersal and a woman there had some new glasses of which the lower 3/4 were music reading distance and the top 1/4 were conductor seeing distance. Also she had had them put in an angled frame because of the position she holds her head in when she plays. I think they were sloped towards her cheak bones. She's had them for about three weeks and is finding them much easier to use than previous attempts, then at the end of the rehersal she is still trying to find the correct pair to put back on, I think she has about three or four for different things!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph Katz
Date: 2005-07-30 11:05
A couple of decades ago, I was asked to play chamber music with a group of people in their 50's. The viola had forgotten her reading glasses (inexpensive, drug-store variety). Everyone else rummaged around in their cases until someone found a pair that worked. Now I have arrived at the same point!
|-(8^)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kel
Date: 2005-07-30 13:35
3dogmom, I didn't have laser correction, I had the clouded lenses in my eyes replaced with intra-ocular lenses, which is the normal surgery for cataracts. It's almost always very successful, and a very different thing from laser correction. But I don't think it's done unless you have cataracts.
I know people who are very happy with their laser correction, and some who regret doing it.
Post Edited (2005-07-30 14:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2005-07-30 13:49
My special glasses come from either Ace Hardware or Walgreens. One pair for reading music on the stand and another for putting on my reed. Usually $2 or @3 each. One day at Ace I forgot my glasses and had to buy a pair so I could find the ones I wanted.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markael
Date: 2005-07-30 14:20
Two things:
1) Bob, anybody who can buy glasses for $2 at Ace Hardware doesn’t have
too much of an eye problem to worry about. Sheesh!
2) Misery loves company. It is oddly comforting to see so many responses
to this thread.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
