Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-11-10 20:21
brycon wrote:
> My general concept with practicing is that passively consuming
> material isn't going to make you much better.
I admit to not knowing what passively consuming material means here.
Drucker, who was an awesome sight reader (by second hand account) use to, as a student, put any music he could find on his stand and play it. The more music I throw at you, that you can listen to how it sounds, the better you will become at memorizing rhythms and reading notes, i.e. a better sight reader.
"Klose scales are
> great to practice!" "No, Baermann is better!" But ultimately,
> it doesn't matter. What matters is how you engage with the
> material, how you uncover your unique weaknesses and then
> curate a regimen to turn your weaknesses into strengths.
Hmm..engage the material. I'm not sure what this means. I will though tell you what I think.
Etude work is essential, but it often focuses on notes and technique more than on varied rhythms, and thus is limited in its ability to efficiently teach sight reading, which requires mastery of both. It DOES matter that you delve beyond etude books to become a good sight reader.
Again, getting your eyes in front of music with more diverse rhythms, whether that comes in the form of composed music, or rhythm/note randomizing software like my link, either of which allows you to hear where you've played mistakes, or even Tom Heimer's The Most Advanced Clarinet Book, whose rhythms and notes are so varied, is what I think you need.
>
> There are two main components to sight-reading: rhythm and
> pitch.
On this I agree, but I'd say rhythm and notes. Here again, to "beat a dead horse," getting your eyes in front of lots of diverse music helps you memorize rhythms and read notes faster. That your unique method of becoming a better sight reader may or may not involve different cerebral process from others in no way negates the simple fact that exposure to diverse musical rhythms and melodies is key for all those seeking to advance their sight reading skills, independent of the differences in the cerebral mechanisms each musician may incorporate to improve at this task.
> Do you get hung up on particular patterns, such as leaps back and forth?
> Again, make a note of what's difficult for you.
Difficulty with playing leaps is far more, I think, likely to be a product of technique, not reading limitations. Here's where etude books and slowing down the metronome do shine.
>
> You don't need material or "content." You need a process:
> discover where exactly the difficulty lies and then work on it.
You need both material or "content" and a process. I could teach you in a classroom how to throw a frisbee. Only getting out on the field (exposure to the printed page) will allow you to practice that you learned sitting in my class.
> I would actually avoid sight-reading generators, such
> as the one posted above. They generate completely idiosyncratic
> music.
I would tend to agree, much that I was the one that recommended a sight reading generator. But here's why I disagree. First off, idiosyncratic material is exactly what you need. Idiosyncratic music is, well, unique in its generation of rhythms and musical patterns, the more of which are thrown your way, the better you will become at sight reading. This is where software randomization shines. By NOT having a known tune to work with (but that you can hear how it sounds) you are not given other cues as to rhythm and melody. That said, if you had access to the music of known melodies this is often a useful way to say to yourself, "ah, that's what that rhythm and tune I know looks like on paper." In absence of access to such content though, sight reading generators are indispensable.
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
