Sight reading website of interest

[nick1994]

It seems like people are getting the impression that guitarists are generally not good at reading (not just sight reading) which then guitarists don't feel so guilty for not working on it. At least, that's what's happening in the schools.

[targuit]

How can you study music at a school like Berklee and not read notation? Is this true? Considering there must be a stiff cost for a year of study that would blow my mind.

If I were teaching at Berklee, learning to use notation software would be expected. But who knows? Anyone here?

[Reg]

Smokingui's 1st post was great resource, and there are obviously many resources for one to use and collect for developing the skill of sight reading and becoming aware of general notational practice of music.

Maybe a thread could be revived or started to work on development of this skill.

There are obviously many levels and stages of this skill.

You can only sight read what you can play without rehearsing, which ends up being... you can only sight read what, and this is what becomes very critical... What you've practiced technically. I'm not implying that one can't play any melodic line, rhythmic, chordal or combination of without having played it before.

I'm talking about the technical aspects... note collections, rhythms and the possible fingerings. I believe Henry's post covered these same aspects. I quote,

1) the symbols and notes on the page,
2) the rhythm
3) the location of the notes on the guitar, the hardest.

So sight reading isn't being in the moment and reading the notes... it's being able to recognize rhythmic patterns and subdivisions and melodic patterns, being able to be reading ahead of what your actually playing. You need to be able to perform what your playing, which means you need to be aware of what's going on, articulations, dynamics, phrasing the basic setting and what everyone else is playing.

This skill of being able to recognize notated music is developed from what you practice, your technical skills of playing arpeggios, scales... any organization of any note collection... anywhere on the fretboard. And of course, from what you've picked up from playing in general. Classically trained players generally don't sight read bebop lines well because they don't really play bebop lines well in general. Most don't understand the rhythmic, harmonic and phrasing concepts, which don't come from the notation.

I'm not picking on classical players, just using them for example.

So should this discussion be continued in different thread? Or just highjack the thread.

[henryrobinett]

And classical guitar players generally don't sight read because they don't have to. Reading classical guitar is also about following the fingering pima, and many preconceived notation. It's not designed to be sight read.

Jazz, for the most part, is designed to be sight read. Jazz is about, more than anything, being on the bandstand, reading and comprehending a score quickly. Jazz guys don't want to rehearse a lot.

[johnny67]

Here is what i thought sight reading was.

Someone looks at sheet music and can play it at speed without mistakes.

[targuit]

Henri - I'd have to disagree respectfully in part with your assertion about classical players "not sight reading because they don't have to".

I understand what you mean that in performance guitarists are more likely to have memorized the score, and that, even if they are using a score as in a quartet performance, for example, that they have already studied the music previously. That is true, though to me 'sight reading' is any musician using a score in any performance situation, whether classical, jazz, or whatever. But likewise I doubt the musicians who recorded your recent CD were "sight reading" your scores the first time either. Am I wrong, as I could be? I just thought your music was complex enough that the players likely had rehearsed a few times. That is not to say that good musicians shouldn't be able to play a song like My Foolish Heart without sheet music and in any key. To me that is a given.

And Henri, I know you must read notation well. Can you take a crack at the notation-based 'trick' (which it isn't) I hinted at a post or two earlier? I see no one has thought about it yet.

"In any case sure you can play jazz without reading notation well, but it does not hurt. In fact, I just recently realized something very fundamental about using a written score to stimulate an approach to improvising or developing a solo that touches on the hoary old argument here over the issue of "what scale to play over what chords" and the approach of "scales versus chord tones". Most of you know that I cannot deal with the argument of the modal and scalar approach which I find a distracting waste of time. But can anyone guess what technique or approach I might be hinting at to use for varying your improvisation line that would incorporate the written music?"


Jay

[mr. beaumont]

I think terms have connotations and denotations based on context. If I tell a jazz bandleader I can sight read, it means he can give me a part and I can play it on the spot, cold.

[sgcim]

I don't know about linking jazz and sight reading. I think they are two separate skills, without any relation to each other.
Steve Little, an excellent sight reading drummer I've done some gigs with, said that when he was with the Duke Ellington Band in the 50s, they couldn't sight read any new charts at their rehearsals; they'd wind up sounding like a high school band.
There are thousands of more examples of great sight readers who can't improvise, and vice-versa.
Most small group jazz is played without any written music (unless someone wants to play a new, or special tune)on the stand, and these 'Real Book gigs', are a relatively recent phenomena.
Even big band jazz (based on the Ellington story above) was not about sight reading.
I think you're confusing studio work or playing shows, with jazz.

[henryrobinett]

Henri - I'd have to disagree respectfully in part with your assertion about classical players "not sight reading because they don't have to".

I understand what you mean that in performance guitarists are more likely to have memorized the score, and that, even if they are using a score as in a quartet performance, for example, that they have already studied the music previously. That is true, though to me 'sight reading' is any musician using a score in any performance situation, whether classical, jazz, or whatever. But likewise I doubt the musicians who recorded your recent CD were "sight reading" your scores the first time either. Am I wrong, as I could be? I just thought your music was complex enough that the players likely had rehearsed a few times. That is not to say that good musicians shouldn't be able to play a song like My Foolish Heart without sheet music and in any key. To me that is a given.

And Henri, I know you must read notation well. Can you take a crack at the notation-based 'trick' (which it isn't) I hinted at a post or two earlier? I see no one has thought about it yet.

"In any case sure you can play jazz without reading notation well, but it does not hurt. In fact, I just recently realized something very fundamental about using a written score to stimulate an approach to improvising or developing a solo that touches on the hoary old argument here over the issue of "what scale to play over what chords" and the approach of "scales versus chord tones". Most of you know that I cannot deal with the argument of the modal and scalar approach which I find a distracting waste of time. But can anyone guess what technique or approach I might be hinting at to use for varying your improvisation line that would incorporate the written music?"


Jay

Jay - I'm working in the studio right now so my attention is barely a third on this post. But I can tell you that my guys for my CDs were more or less sight reading. None of us had played that music together. I gave them scores ahead of time and in most cases a demo, but I really doubt whether they looked at them much. The piano player did a little. The bassist not at all. The drummer listened to some on the plane. Lol. Those guys are monsters. We had no rehearsal besides little run throughs before the takes.

For a guitarist I'm a pretty good reader. I sight read at gigs. Most of the charts they have for guitarists are abysmally easy, simply because we don't read, for the most part. But I'm not nearly as good as most horn players, and not as good as Reg, I'm sure. I work on my reading when I have to but it's been a little while since I've worked it in to my normal practice routine. When I have a gig coming up I think will be a big requirement I panic and practice reading for a week or two and ends up I needn't have bothered. But that's no excuse for me not being a lot better reader. It warms my heart hear Vic Juris complain about how hard reading for guitar is. He's one of the best.

I've always used clarinet books, sometimes violin for reading. Sometimes jazz solos. But they are a little predictable for me. I want to use things awkward and where my ear won't get in the way by predicting too much. That's why reading melodies isn't sight reading for me.

I'll also tap rhythms or pull out a score on the plane or in bed and read it like a book.

I'm not not following your quote, hint or whatever.

[rwmol]

#3 - A quick scan of the range and the key usually tells me where on the neck to play the notation.

[Stevebol]

Site reading means play at tempo and don't stop. Increasingly this is way more important in jazz than in classical.

[targuit]

Henri - I was checking out your web site. Congratulations on creating a career in music, as it ain't easy.

I also noted in your bio that your relative, a fellow named Charles Mingus, impressed you with the music he had written in collaboration or for Joni Mitchell. I remember that period. Quite a legacy. But I do note that Mingus, while a bassist and composer, apparently also was fond of notation, according to your bio. But at least he wasn't a guitar player, or that would not have been possible.

[Jonzo]

Interesting site. Only problem is that to learn sight reading, I think it helps enormously to be sight reading melodies that are familiar to you, so you can associate the melody with the visual notation on the staff.

I've considered creating with Sibelius an e-Book type thing of classic melodies for guitarists to use to learn their sight reading skills. Would this idea be of interest to those who would like to improve their sight reading skills and have some fun learning arranging skills at the same time?

Jay

i think the opposite is probably true. Working on totally unfamiliar material would force you to read instead of recall.

[Reg]

I'll say this very slowly.... I sight read... real music... real notation... at gigs and in the studio... all the time.

Think...like... your playing a very slow... very simple blues, rock or R&B tune... two or three changes, ( no black dots), just a couple very simple chord changes, say like four bars each... very slow tempo... say an open E and A chord.

So there are eight bars total...with an E chord the first four bars and an A chord the second four bars.... and on top of that you already know the style of music.... lets say you already somewhat know the tune etc...

And that's it... that's all the material you'll ever need for developing Sight Reading as one of your skills.

I would hope any guitarist on this forum could cover the gig. At least get close. And if by chance your not sure you could sight read the music... you can at least see... I could do this.

That's what sight reading is to me, it's not complicated, there's no pressure, if anything it's easier, much of what I'm suppose to play, or use as my reference is already notated out for me.

Just for reference... I can generally play most tunes with out a chart... generally jazz musicians have pretty good ears. That doesn't mean what we choose to play is better or worse. The nature of just performing jazz demands being able to hear what's going on.

I personally trash many tunes... part of the performance aspect of playing live jazz is to push, take chances, not being sure if what your hearing is what the other musicians are hearing... at least those are the more enjoyable gigs.

johnny67 said...
Someone looks at sheet music and can play it at speed without mistakes.

That works for me... at least that the basic starting point or reference. And for the majority of printed music that works...

But not always with jazz, and many other modern pop music styles. Most modern notated music gigs require being aware of what's also implied... what's not on the page.

OK who really cares... I'm just trying to give one perspective about sight reading.

[matt.guitarteacher]

The terminology usage has always frustrated me. "Sight reading" is often used interchangeably with what should be 'reading music'. 'Sight reading' is used on the boards in a lot of discussions where esp. beginners are asking how to simply read music. Sight reading is reading 'at sight'. All the stopping to work things out or figure out rhythms etc is reading, and is work that has to be done at a basic level, but that's not sight reading.

I think you have to work on basic 'reading' at the edges of your ability and, like reg said work on 'sight reading' at a lower level (stuff you can play and comprehend). Sight reading is an independent skill that should be practiced, but even if you don't, you should generally be able "sight read" at levels somewhat below the edge of your basic reading level.

[henryrobinett]

Henri - I was checking out your web site. Congratulations on creating a career in music, as it ain't easy.

I also noted in your bio that your relative, a fellow named Charles Mingus, impressed you with the music he had written in collaboration or for Joni Mitchell. I remember that period. Quite a legacy. But I do note that Mingus, while a bassist and composer, apparently also was fond of notation, according to your bio. But at least he wasn't a guitar player, or that would not have been possible.

I'm just missing you larger point here. Reg understands, and probably everyone else here does too. My fault for not taking the time to carefully read each post.

Thank you btw!

[targuit]

Reg - I'm sure you can read music notation and 'sight read' as well (defined in my book as using sheet music during a live performance). But I can assure you that comprehending the time values and rhythms is an integral part of reading notation, not unique to jazz, however much some people like to shroud it in some cloak of mystery.

Henry - Mingus was a fine musician and composer. That he should be able to express himself using the basic tools of his trade is not surprising. And the comment about not being a guitarist was a joke.

I am perplexed by some of the comments making it sound as though guitarists, uniquely in the musical world, tend to suffer from some intellectual impairment that makes comprehension of those black dots on the sheet music nearly incomprehensible with a few exceptions. That is nonsense. My comments about developing skill at reading music is from someone whose abilities to do so are well developed by fifty years of experience. When I look at a score of guitar music, I "hear" the score. As you guys know, that skill comes from the association of appearance of the notes on the score and is reinforced by reading daily. The simplest way to learn to read notation and the correlation of the notes on the sheet music with total fret board awareness is learning major and minor diatonic scales and developing reading skills from the first day of classical lessons. And daily after that for years. A classical guitar method book can teach anyone to read music, if that individual is motivated to do so. Obviously a teacher helps, but real skill development depend on the individual musician's desire and motivation.

As for that improvisational 'trick' I was speaking of, it seems despite broad hints you guys have no idea of the trick I was speaking about that includes 'frames of reference' that are staring you in the face when you read notation as I described it. So until or unless someone cares to guess, I'll just work on the concept some more.

[bako]

Gigs and rehearsals operate within a range of expectations and norms.

Sometimes reference materials are sent in advance and you can prepare at the level you choose,
given the limitations of time and need.

Other times, the first appearance of the music is at the rehearsal.
These vary as well, sometimes it is ok to grow into the music gradually and in other situations the one rehearsal is shorter than the gig. This leaves little or no time to work and discuss very much.
Read it down once or twice, a few quick comments, next song.
No guarantee that there will be time and motivation to address every song on the setlist.

Then there are the just show up and play the music on the stand gigs, zero advance prep.
Sight reading is playing the music accurately, in the groove and expressively on the first and only pass.

We practice reading and musicianship by playing, studying and working on the written
and improvisational aspects of scores.

We practice sight reading and real time musicianship by constantly playing new music,
one, two or three chances, next song.

My main challenges with reading fall mainly into what Reg describes, music at the edge of my technical abilities
and a bit of denial about my declining aging eyesight. Reading glasses soon to come.

Living in NYC, I have stumbled into a variety of working situations.
Most allow for some prep, some rely solely on ears and knowing repertoire and a few require sight reading.
I am the nice guy who does his homework class of working musician.
Although I have mostly covered what I have been called to read within the parameters of the gig,
I know there is music lurking just around the corner that can completely kick my ass.

The first call players are a special breed and their reading skills are one reason
their names reside at the top of the list.

[Reg]

Jay... sorry not to play question and answer ... were you referring to one the many melodic methods of development.

Here's a somewhat real example of sight reading.... real only to the extent that I was paid for a rehearsal and studio sessions for CD. Vocalist and a pro big band, at least that's what the band is called. (last week)

One of the tunes was My favorite things... long notated out arrangement, somewhat up tempo, quarter note at 260. The difficult aspect was time changes, the chart went between 3/4 and 4/4. I was a sub... the band rehearses.

So what's interesting is how musicians deal with performance and sight reading. When your a single note performer or reading melodic lines in a section, your always trying to follow the lead players phrasing, which is supposed to be working with the arrangement.

And generally the rhythm section is supposed to be just that... keeping the harmonic and rhythmic aspects, the somewhat foundation of the chart in the pocket. Make the chart feel right. Know what's coming and make transitions, in this chart, the time changes feel natural. All the players were great, but it was interesting to watch and listen to how different players performed, in this example somewhat up tempo time changes.

My point... I'm not sure the rhythm section could make the chart groove, not because they couldn't somewhat academically get through the music... being in the groove, or what the chart was also implying might not have been within their notational vision.

[targuit]

I would never ever underestimate the difficulty of playing an unfamiliar piece cold without benefit of a demo, chart, or sheet music beforehand. That is very hard, especially if an up tempo tune with complex charts. I, too, prefer playing standards where I'm familiar with the melody and the groove and just playing by ear.

As for ageing eyesight, it is one of the most annoying things. One reason I like my transcriptions of standards is that I like having them flow by on my computer screen that enlarges enough that I don't need the reading glasses you get at Target. I suspect some musicians are using i-Pads and other devices. Parenthetically, I was just disappointed the other day when I copied my collection of Sibelius transcriptions off my PC onto one of these portable key drives, thinking I could just plug the drive into my MacBook and access at least the transcriptions off of the MacBook. But I couldn't open them up on the Mac, apparently because of some incompatibility in reading the files. Sibelius software, at least the older one (G7) that I have does not seem to play well with Macs. If anyone knows a work around, let me know.

[matt.guitarteacher]

I am perplexed by some of the comments making it sound as though guitarists, uniquely in the musical world, tend to suffer from some intellectual impairment that makes comprehension of those black dots on the sheet music nearly incomprehensible with a few exceptions. That is nonsense. My comments about developing skill at reading music is from someone whose abilities to do so are well developed by fifty years of experience. When I look at a score of guitar music, I "hear" the score. As you guys know, that skill comes from the association of appearance of the notes on the score and is reinforced by reading daily. The simplest way to learn to read notation and the correlation of the notes on the sheet music with total fret board awareness is learning major and minor diatonic scales and developing reading skills from the first day of classical lessons. And daily after that for years. A classical guitar method book can teach anyone to read music, if that individual is motivated to do so. Obviously a teacher helps, but real skill development depend on the individual musician's desire and motivation.

It's not the black dots. Those are the same between instruments. I think the guitar, as an instrument, is just harder to learn to read on, and I don't think it's because guitarists such as myself are just meat heads. I think it's just a confounding instrument on which to read/play in upper positions because of the lack of kinesthetic connection to absolute pitch and the pattern repetition.

C#/Db on a saxophone feels unique to that pitch. Even if there are multiple fingerings they don't *feel* like 11 other pitches the way they can on a guitar. On horns, most pitches have one or two fingerings, and there are many fewer differing pitches that share exactly the same fingering compared to guitar. If a particular fingering is shared by more than one note (as on a brass instrument), there's still a distinct kinesthetic connection to that individual pitch by way of the embouchure/fingering combination. Each pitch has it's own distinct *feeling*.

I think the piano is the easiest. You can play notes with different fingers in different "positions", but each key center feels different because of the 2 and 3 black note layout. I don't know...a real horn player (I'm not one) might say that there's more of a connection to absolute pitch on a horn because of the embouchure thing. Stringed instruments which are tuned in 5ths have fewer iterations of scale patterns because of that tuning and (I assume) would have more of a kinesthetic connection to absolute pitch.

Because the guitar is tuned in 4ths, on many instruments there are 5 middle C's (concert pitch) that can be felt kinesthetically in at least 6 different ways I can think of in several of those positions: 1st finger, 2nd finger, 3rd finger, 4th finger and then 1st and 4th finger with stretches. That's a ton of ways to *feel* the same pitch and it occurs on multiple strings as well. If you use CAGED type shifts you simplify somewhat, but then you're uprooting you're entire kinesthetic context and going to a whole new "place". Regardless of how you do it, in reading jazz chromatics, you're going to have to deal at some level with pitches outside of your current position.

On a sax, I just play C. I can think about other things. On a guitar, I've really got to be able to conceive of the entire fretboard and know where I am, just to start really feeling things kinesthetically in all of those positions. That's well and good, but that's endgame stuff that comes with hours of work. For horn or keyboard players, that's beginner knowledge of the instrument.

Also, compared to jazz, classical playing/reading is a different beast entirely. In classical, you have positions and fingerings written out by the composer/arranger most of the time, or you arrange it yourself. (That's because of the problems with note/pattern repetition on the instrument, by the way; not because classical guitarists aren't as good musically as other instrumentalists). You can get pretty proficient at reading up the neck as a classical player, but everything's mostly centered around a limited number of key centers. In jazz, the key center can pretty easily change every 2 beats and presents problems with fingering systems that aren't present for most classical playing, not to mention the fact that on-the-fly reading is not as often required in classical settings.

For me, as a jazz beginner with previous musical training, the pattern repetition was very hard to deal with in learning to see absolute pitches on the fret board. If you know your scales aurally and on the fretboard, it's hard to focus on the absolute pitches once you get into a pattern. I'd be thinking more 1-2-b3 than C-D-Eb. If you already know some music, this is almost impossible to avoid doing. This is compounded by the fact that, without looking at the fretboard, it *feels* exactly the same as 11 other key centers when playing outside of open position.

From everything I can get from looking at Leavitt's vol.1, he assumes you're reading pattern more than absolute pitch anyway because he jumps straight into five-position reading studies without learning the pitches up the neck outside of the context of pattern. His reading studies books are kind of the opposite approach, working everything one position at a time and are (to me) much more helpful in learning absolute pitches on the fretboard.

Now, just bein' honest...

I've been reading on the guitar for about 25 years or so. I've read on piano for about 4 years less than that. I'm much more of a guitar player than pianist. In any position or key, I sightread much better than 99% of guitarists (definitely not this forum, mind you...just guitarists). At the same time, I'd say I sightread piano at a pretty stinkin' low level compared to the majority of keyboard players. But even at that, for me, most things are just easier to read on the keyboard. It's just simple.

Honestly, if there is an easy way around the pattern repetition and kinesthetic disconnect problems that I have with reading on the guitar, I'd love to know what it is. If it's really just as easy as any other instrument, I'd like to know how ...specifically...beyond just saying it's not harder.

I love the instrument. It's my main instrument, but it makes me mad almost every time I read something at the edge of my ability. I think, "There's just got to be a better way!". Honestly, I've gone back and forth on thinking I need to go full Leavitt-fingerings on everything to saying that I'm going to do CAGED on everything.

To your point that anything improves with much practice I'm in full agreement. I don't think anyone's arguing that.

Sorry to "nerd out" and bloviate on this one, but I think about it a lot.

As for that improvisational 'trick' I was speaking of, it seems despite broad hints you guys have no idea of the trick I was speaking about that includes 'frames of reference' that are staring you in the face when you read notation as I described it. So until or unless someone cares to guess, I'll just work on the concept some more.

I wouldn't take this as disinterest as much as maybe people just aren't understanding. I don't really know what you're referring to enough to even comment. Maybe others are in the same boat?

[coolvinny]

I think what Reg is saying is that just because it's on the page doesn't mean it should be played that way. In our big band, our leader is often telling the pianist to play something different than what's on the page. I can't speak to other styles, but in jazz it just has to feel right or else it's wrong. I'm a non-pro and frankly I'm no great player, but from having interacted with lots of jazz pros I know this is true.

Actually, as I re-read Reg's comments I see he said exactly that: "make the chart feel right".

[targuit]

Matt - I get your point about the difference between the repeated patterns of chords and inversions on a piano by comparison with a guitar as regards playing in the first position versus playing in the seventh or higher fret positions. But I actually love that part of playing the guitar, and I really don't have to "think about it" much as it has become intuitive. For example, I love cycling a song through different keys to find the one which permits me to play the fingerings that most complement the melody and harmony, as well as fit my vocal range. By now the fret board holds no mysteries or obstacles to my imagination, beyond what is truly unplayable, though naturally I have improved over the years. But my greatest progress has occurred with using Sibelius over nearly the past decade or so. And that is why I am so enthusiastic about using notation software, as the pain of hiking the learning curve was so very worth it.

I did not even own a Real Book of jazz standards till around 1980 and it is still the only one I own. But it was using Sibelius that I found myself fulfilling my lifetime ambition that crystalized in my late twenties of learning to play the jazz standards repertoire, after focusing on both classical and jazz in my twenties. I was also earning my medical degree during those years, so I couldn't devote myself single mindedly to my goal. And working with Sibelius also made me improve significantly as a pianist, which has benefited my guitar playing and overall musicianship synergistically. I always wanted to be the guy who could sit down at the piano and play Misty at a party.

[Jonzo]

So, back to the website itself.

Pros
It does a nice job of creating passages of various degrees of difficulty in various keys and time signatures.
Cons
There is no interface to track how you are doing on each combination of level of difficulty, key, time signature, and position. Some programs try to build a computerized grading system, using an interface between your guitar and the computer, but a way to simply grade yourself in comparison to the sound file would probably be better.


It would be nice if they eventually built in a "rate yourself on this exercise" feature, and gave you data to help you decide what still needed work and what needed review. They could also make the progression automatic with some type of spaced repetition algorithm that scheduled reviews for you. As it is, I would recommend tracking your progress on a piece of paper, spreadsheet, flash cards, or a spaced repetition program.

[Reg]

Has anyone actually put in a concentrated amount of time working on reading in general. Like at least a six month period where you sight read and the other technical studies that help reinforce reading.... yea and about six hours a day.

I would really dig hearing what learning to sight read means, (sorry Jay, not you, I get and understand your position), the how your approaching that skill thing...

It's pretty obvious putting in the years doesn't get it done, or many of you would have it together. Right, I personally don't believe the throw $ at it approach will work either.

I've tried to explain how I see it, it has worked for me. Jays explained what works for him, at what level, I'll take his word for it.... maybe we can find some organized approach that will actually work, at least to some degree of being able to develop the skill... to a performance level.