Ok, no more excuses.

[rpjazzguitar]

From my perspective, bringing scales into it is an extra step. In order to figure out the scale degree you must already know what the two notes are. And, when you're reading something written in, say, 5 flats, which doesn't have an obvious tonal center but does have accidentals, seems to me that trying to figure out scale degree is going to take some time and effort. Given that you already know what the notes are, I don't see the advantage. What have I missed here?

I don't play atonal music either, but I regularly play passages that could be. That is, if I play a note in a random chart, the next note could be anything. It's like learning intervals by singing the first two notes of a familiar song -- there's a song for every possible interval. Flat 3? Don't Blame Me. Maj6? Shortnin' Bread. etc.

Reading isn't complicated. You have to learn the fretboard and the staff. You break rhythms into ups, downs and triplets. Where it gets hard is the situation where you look at the chart and you can play it, then the leader counts off the tune three times faster than you were expecting. Strategies that worked at 60bpm can break down at 180bpm. And, the solution is more time doing that stuff.

Gradually, you begin recognize commonly used rhythms and chunk them so you're not reading individual hits - and things like that. But that doesn't work reliably because the arranger was probably trying to be original -- meaning novel rhythmic material. Solution: even more time doing it.

[Christian Miller]

Intervals don’t work for sight singing. Thats why all the school teach solfege or some variant of functional ear training.

Intervals are useful for other stuff. Non tonal music for instance.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joe2758]

From my perspective, bringing scales into it is an extra step. In order to figure out the scale degree you must already know what the two notes are. And, when you're reading something written in, say, 5 flats, which doesn't have an obvious tonal center but does have accidentals, seems to me that trying to figure out scale degree is going to take some time and effort. Given that you already know what the notes are, I don't see the advantage. What have I missed here?

Yeah, to me the scale degree isn't something to figure out...it isn't any harder than reading by note names.

If I'm in Bb and there is a Bb on the staff, I know it is Do the same way I know it is Bb.

Ok, so then the next note is G. I know it's a G, but it doesn't register in my mind as such, just "La"

And now there are accidentals. The next note is E natural. It is on my "fa" place on the staff, and I raise it. I don't think E natural at all, although I know it is.

So I don't name the note and then determine the scale degree.

When I'm reading with 5 flats I have to bear in mind 5 flats. If I'm thinking scale degrees it is the same as reading in C

[starjasmine]

From my perspective, bringing scales into it is an extra step. In order to figure out the scale degree you must already know what the two notes are. And, when you're reading something written in, say, 5 flats, which doesn't have an obvious tonal center but does have accidentals, seems to me that trying to figure out scale degree is going to take some time and effort. Given that you already know what the notes are, I don't see the advantage. What have I missed here?

Like you, I learned the note names on the fretboard by rote. I also learned all of my scales and modes in all positions. So when I'm playing in, say, Db major (to use your example) I'm using muscle memory to play in-key notes: I've already trained my hands to know that (for example) a major 3rd is in a particular location relative to (for example) the root of the scale. Thus, when I am playing diatonically, I'm not thinking about those five flats. My fingers and my ears know where a certain sound is in relation to the current note I'm playing.

Thus, when I am reading in Db, I don't have to worry about the five flats that are in the key signature: they are implied by the key signature and they're hard-wired into the connection between my fingers and my ears. A note that does have an accidental stands out in standard notation as one that is not in the standard muscle-memory fingering for that key signature so will require some adjustment - a different finger, a stretch, a change of position.

I don't necessarily analyze as I read to inform my mechanics ("oh, this passage is Eb Dorian so I should finger it a particular way") but I might understand what I'm hearing as a confirmation that what I'm reading and playing makes sense. I most definitely hear scale degrees as colors - I've trained my ear to "just know" that a certain sound is a major third, or a 13th chord, and so on. There's no thinking involved. It's like seeing a color or tasting something. You immediately know that you see green or that you taste something sweet. You're not saying "hmm thats a mix of blue and yellow, so it must be green."

I hope that makes sense. I certainly don't mean to imply that anyone has to do any of this. Many people sight-read quite well without knowing any theory. Using theory to understand the context in which one is reading can be helpful tho. Its just another way to think about something.

[joe2758]

another example is I know the beginning of stella is Do Ti La Ti Do Sol That's what it is in every key, it doesn't matter

[Christian Miller]

Like you, I learned the note names on the fretboard by rote. I also learned all of my scales and modes in all positions. So when I'm playing in, say, Db major (to use your example) I'm using muscle memory to play in-key notes: I've already trained my hands to know that (for example) a major 3rd is in a particular location relative to (for example) the root of the scale. Thus, when I am playing diatonically, I'm not thinking about those five flats. My fingers and my ears know where a certain sound is in relation to the current note I'm playing.

Thus, when I am reading in Db, I don't have to worry about the five flats that are in the key signature: they are implied by the key signature and they're hard-wired into the connection between my fingers and my ears. A note that does have an accidental stands out in standard notation as one that is not in the standard muscle-memory fingering for that key signature so will require some adjustment - a different finger, a stretch, a change of position.

I don't necessarily analyze as I read to inform my mechanics ("oh, this passage is Eb Dorian so I should finger it a particular way") but I might understand what I'm hearing as a confirmation that what I'm reading and playing makes sense. I most definitely hear scale degrees as colors - I've trained my ear to "just know" that a certain sound is a major third, or a 13th chord, and so on. There's no thinking involved. It's like seeing a color or tasting something. You immediately know that you see green or that you taste something sweet. You're not saying "hmm thats a mix of blue and yellow, so it must be green."

I hope that makes sense. I certainly don't mean to imply that anyone has to do any of this. Many people sight-read quite well without knowing any theory. Using theory to understand the context in which one is reading can be helpful tho. Its just another way to think about something.

I like the idea of integrating everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

Stella happens to start on the root, but not like a much simpler standard that starts on the root.

If you had never seen or heard the tune and the chart is placed on your stand, how would you know that it starts on the root? Would it matter? Would you move the Do? If you're sight reading rehearsal big band style (meaning not even 5 seconds of prep before the countoff of a chart you've never seen of a tune you've never heard) how would you know when to move the Do?

Or, what about a tune that winds its way around, like, say Dahood?

I'm trying to get my mind around how this works, since it's a very new concept to me.

[joe2758]

If you're sight reading rehearsal big band style (meaning not even 5 seconds of prep before the countoff of a chart you've never seen of a tune you've never heard) how would you know when to move the Do?

If this is the sort of thing you're doing then I would just stick to whatever works. Probably don't need to be worrying about learning another approach at that point!

edit: I looked at a lead sheet for "Daahoud" If i'm looking at the right thing, Do would be F through the whole thing. I can't find a single thing about Dahood so it can't be all that common of a situation

[pamosmusic]

If you had never seen or heard the tune and the chart is placed on your stand, how would you know that it starts on the root?

Key signature?

Wouldn't be the case on every tune, but it often would be.

[Christian Miller]

Key signature?

Wouldn't be the case on every tune, but it often would be.

Yeah most trad big band charts have a key. For the more modern stuff you’d probably need a different approach anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joe2758]

I will say I'd never call myself a jazz guitarist. I understand harmony well and have arranged dozens of tunes though.

Are you thinking that for secondary dominants, back cycling, chord subs, chromatic notes etc moving Do is necessary?

That's only for real key changes, I might not even change it for a detour into the relative minor. Is that partly why you think it's complicated maybe?

[rpjazzguitar]

I will say I'd never call myself a jazz guitarist. I understand harmony well and have arranged dozens of tunes though.

Are you thinking that for secondary dominants, back cycling, chord subs, chromatic notes etc moving Do is necessary?

That's only for real key changes, I might not even change it for a detour into the relative minor. Is that partly why you think it's complicated maybe?

Why it seems complicated is that the reader needs to think about tonal center, or key, at all. And that, for certain things, it seems like it might not work. It just seems like an unnecessary layer when it comes to reading.

I sometimes see charts that should have been written in a different key. So, for example, it seems to me that it would be confusing to hear the piano resolve to an obvious tonic chord while, because the chart is written differently, I'm not thinking "do". And, tunes often change tonal center, and you have to think about that if you're doing it by scale degree.

[joe2758]

seems like you have plenty of reasons not to practice it, I wouldn't bother if I were you. Seems like you have it together already.

But I don't really see what you're saying as being the case in my experience.

However I can't speak to being thrown into situations where they count off while the paper hasn't even settled on the music stand, or wrong charts. I don't envy your gig!

Shifting tonal centers can be done without moving Do, but if it's a section in a different key then you can

[Question]

An interesting discussion with so many things that I have never really analyzed.

I would say that-for a string player-I am a strong sight reader on Bass (in Bass clef) and guitar (in treble clef).

Strangely, I can barely read bass clef when holding a guitar and conversely can barely read treble clef when holding a bass.

This leads me to believe that reading music has some parallels with learning to type text on a keyboard. You learn to reflexively press the correct letter key when you read it from something that you are copying.
It is so well learned that you are beyond thinking "press the letter C".

I notice that I briefly go into thinking mode when there are things like E#, Cb, F## etc..

If I were to harmonize a standard as a chord melody I would probably analyze the melody tones against the given harmony.
When just reading a written line I think I would just orient myself in the given starting key to allow me to utilize practical scale position fingerings and then just go.

I have been in countless situations where I am sight reading on the job, so this is definitely a necessary survival skill for me.

As others have mentioned, I have also spent many years separating the rhythmic learning (both Bellson books-Modern Reading in 4/4 and the odd time version) and the pitch learning.

Learning these two things well has helped me to be able to dedicate more of my brain to finding the needed notes with practical fingering solutions.

I don't really understand how Moveable-Do makes reading on a string instrument easier, but I am open to learning other methods that I didn't know even existed in the reading realm.
Maybe this type of thinking is more suitable depending on the type of music that you are reading as well as how much time you have to actually play it.

[Mick-7]

I looked at a lead sheet for "Daahoud" If I'm looking at the right thing, Do would be F through the whole thing. I can't find a single thing about Dahood so it can't be all that common of a situation

Daahood is an interesting case because the I chord varies between Ebm7, Ebm(Maj.7) and Eb6/Maj.7. So although Do could remain the same, the other scale tone intervals would change.

[rpjazzguitar]

I mentioned Daahood because it has ii Vs that are, at least momentarily, suggestive of Db, B, Bb, Eb, Ab and Gb. Maybe Bbm too, in the coda. Not all resolve to the I, but they do look like ii Vs.

The tune eventually lands on an Eb, but starts out with Ebm7 to Ab7 with suggests Db. But, the next couple of bars make it seem like a iii VI ii V in B. It just seemed to me that trying to keep the scale tones straight would require thinking in one key while modulating into various others - and that might prove confusing. That's a high skill level, ear-wise, or so it seems to me.

[Christian Miller]

Maybe don’t pay too much attention to the chords


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spencer096]

Highly recommend Fred Hamilton’s reading book

[JazzKatua]

don't make sight reading the main goal to practice but only a means to reach what you want to achieve. At the end you want to play what YOU want and sight reading is just a small part of it.
I do a LOT of sight reading, but I practice in a very pragmatic way.
Personally I dislike Bellson's Modern Reading; don't think this will improve me playing Jazz. Also constantly practicing patterns doesn't help and I found them quite boring.
Take a solo you like and search for easy solos! And you'll learn a LOT more.

[Aiq]

Very interesting thread.

[Aiq]

Here’s a video I did on reading, hope it helps

It’s much less graded and complete but I’d always recommend the Adam Levy book Sight-reading for Jazz Guitarists. Perhaps a bit less graded- and some tricky rhythms. Adam is a much stronger composer than Leavitt and his pieces all sound super idiomatic and musical.

It’s hard to find good quality graded material that isn’t aimed at kids though. For the latter I recommend Guitar Basics, but that only takes you through to about grade 2.

I can only really think of the Leavitt Modern Method even today. The pedagogy side of it is really good.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That audiation bit is great, Christian. Helpful.