Another sight reading inquiry

[Hugo Gainly]

I think the most famous example of the non reading session player is Glenn Campbell, but his ears were on a whole other level. Hear it once play it back perfectly first time territory.

Jimmy Page was a long term session player too. Don't think he read.

I gave up guitar to compose really. I became really quite good at sight reading/singing/recognising music. It was the 'on the guitar' bit that was pitiful. Although I had to do it in some ensembles, it was never high on my voluntary list, other than as a defence against the 'flyshit' heroes out there 'on the bandstand'; (these are universally guitarists by the way - other musicians just read and don't talk about it, unless it's something ludicrously demanding).

I suggest you should read - but reading what you are likely to play. I have loads of books on Bach, Kreutzer, Leavitt etc - who reads streams of diatonic quavers? I needed a Kenny Wheeler encyclopœdia.

[alltunes]

I am developing an aversion to TAB. It is often printed too small or faint making it difficult to read. It also takes up too much room and offers no visual clue of rhythm or pitch movement.

Also I tend to latch on to things better when displayed in standard notation only. Unfortunately when TAB is also displayed next to standard I will default to that.

I started to learn how to read like 20 years ago. First 20 I couldn’t.

In my humble opinion reading is mandatory for the serious hobbyist.

[Christian Miller]

Jimmy Page was a long term session player too. Don't think he read.

I gave up guitar to compose really. I became really quite good at sight reading/singing/recognising music. It was the 'on the guitar' bit that was pitiful. Although I had to do it in some ensembles, it was never high on my voluntary list, other than as a defence against the 'flyshit' heroes out there 'on the bandstand'; (these are universally guitarists by the way - other musicians just read and don't talk about it, unless it's something ludicrously demanding).

I suggest you should read - but reading what you are likely to play. I have loads of books on Bach, Kreutzer, Leavitt etc - who reads streams of diatonic quavers? I needed a Kenny Wheeler encyclopœdia.

Exactly, you need to practice reading the type of music you intend to play, otherwise you won’t learn the words and sentences and will still puzzling it out letter by letter.

Leavitt is ok for targeted practice - this position, this key etc. Musically though, ugh. Bach is of course wonderful to read through, but won’t prepare you for reading jazz.

im not sure I’ll ever be a flyshit guy, but it makes a difference. And it’s fun.

[JohnoL]

I keep seeing this topic title as sight reading injury.

[supersoul]

Speaking of reading what you will play, I will scour the web for transcriptions of jazz solos to sight read. Often I end up with saxophone or trumpet transcriptions, which are usually transposed for Bb and Eb instruments, but I just read through them as if they were in C.

[Jimmy Smith]

I keep reading this as another sight reading injury haha.

[supersoul]

indeed, it seems like sight reading is a deep traumatic wound for many of us guitarists.

[Christian Miller]

Speaking of reading what you will play, I will scour the web for transcriptions of jazz solos to sight read. Often I end up with saxophone or trumpet transcriptions, which are usually transposed for Bb and Eb instruments, but I just read through them as if they were in C.

Scribd is quite useful as a source of reading material

[rpjazzguitar]

One of the less-discussed issues of sight reading is chart quality.

You can be a terrific reader of RB charts, or Lenny Niehus books, or whatever, but, when you finally get a place in a reading band, you may find yourself in an unfamiliar situation.

In many bands (based on my somewhat limited experience) the charts aren't those beautifully engraved showpieces that you see in books.

Well, maybe they were when they were new. But, when you get them, they're dog eared, curled up, missing pages, covered with cryptic penciled notations and, occasionally, flat-out incorrect. Road maps can be tricky or inaccurately specified. You may be a great treble clef reader but some of the chart is in bass clef. Even if you can see what's written clearly, the spelled out chords may not be playable on guitar.

And, maybe worst of all, the rhythms are notated with quarter note slashes. That means "comp appropriately". Almost everybody else in the band is reading a fully specified part, but the guitarist (and probably the rest of the rhythm section) has to make up a good part on the spot -- often, depending on the situation, on a tune you've never heard before.

You can't complain because the pianist is probably handling it just fine and he has all the same problems plus an entire other hand and staff.

My pet peeve out of all of this is charts which have tricky rhythms and oddball phrase lengths and then are engraved with random numbers of bars per line. I also dread repeat marks (sometimes hard to see on older handwritten charts) which force you to be reading bars the band has already passed and then make sure you can get back on the train when you're done.

But, it sure feels great when you get through that situation.

[emanresu]

When doing the sight-reading pilgrimage, don't neglect sight-singing while at it.
I've noticed several times when doing the reading, when I can sing it in the head, it gets way more simple on the instrument.
I mean, the tune hops in the head first and fingers would follow.
When it is not a jungle of notes of course. And in well-known key.

[Tal_175]

I think it's useful to separate reading rhythm and pitch when practicing reading. Especially for those who aren't very fast readers like myself.
There are two ways to practice this way. One way is:
- A rhythm book for the rhythm practice and playing just the rhythms by muting a string.
- Continuous 8th note etudes for pitch practice. Some of the good sources for continuous 8th note lines is Barry Galbraith workbooks, various Joe Pass books, Pat Martino Linear Expressions.

Another way is to use actual music like Charlie Parker Omnibook but only read the rhythm first (again by picking a muted string) and then only the pitch (by playing each note as an 8th or a quarter note regardless of the actual rhythm). Once you can do each at a reasonable tempo then play it as written.

[Jimmy Smith]

indeed, it seems like sight reading is a deep traumatic wound for many of us guitarists.

[Christian Miller]

One of the less-discussed issues of sight reading is chart quality.

You can be a terrific reader of RB charts, or Lenny Niehus books, or whatever, but, when you finally get a place in a reading band, you may find yourself in an unfamiliar situation.

In many bands (based on my somewhat limited experience) the charts aren't those beautifully engraved showpieces that you see in books.

Well, maybe they were when they were new. But, when you get them, they're dog eared, curled up, missing pages, covered with cryptic penciled notations and, occasionally, flat-out incorrect. Road maps can be tricky or inaccurately specified. You may be a great treble clef reader but some of the chart is in bass clef. Even if you can see what's written clearly, the spelled out chords may not be playable on guitar.

And, maybe worst of all, the rhythms are notated with quarter note slashes. That means "comp appropriately". Almost everybody else in the band is reading a fully specified part, but the guitarist (and probably the rest of the rhythm section) has to make up a good part on the spot -- often, depending on the situation, on a tune you've never heard before.

You can't complain because the pianist is probably handling it just fine and he has all the same problems plus an entire other hand and staff.

My pet peeve out of all of this is charts which have tricky rhythms and oddball phrase lengths and then are engraved with random numbers of bars per line. I also dread repeat marks (sometimes hard to see on older handwritten charts) which force you to be reading bars the band has already passed and then make sure you can get back on the train when you're done.

But, it sure feels great when you get through that situation.

Chord notation can be highly non standard…

My favourite is the end of the Stan Kenton arrangement of Everytime We Say Goodbye my local big band plays the final chord is written as ‘maj11’ IIRC (I don’t take the pad home so I don’t have it in front of me.) it is of course maj7#11

Also my least favourite thing is when you have a specified rhythm figure in eighth notes say with a bunch of different chords written in small. That usually takes a few times to parse.

it helps me on bad days to remember while the horns have intricate parts to play they are always interpreting the same type of info; one note at a time, unless it’s changes for an improvised solo. Guitar and piano parts are all over the place.

[rpjazzguitar]

Some of the older charts one band plays have things like F9- or other odd uses of the minus sign. That one is F7b9.

Others designate Major with a capital M and designate minor with a smaller version of a capital M.

[Hugo Gainly]

And, maybe worst of all, the rhythms are notated with quarter note slashes. That means "comp appropriately". Almost everybody else in the band is reading a fully specified part, but the guitarist (and probably the rest of the rhythm section) has to make up a good part on the spot -- often, depending on the situation, on a tune you've never heard before.

I think this is OK in that you can be inventive/creative for once. An opportunity to use our ears and make something great out of it. If it doesn't go down well, reconsider. 'Appropriately' must also include 'playing when there's a piano player in the section' - the rules about keeping out of the way must still apply there, like everything should be above 'our' middle C (like fret 1 on the B string high...). Otherwise, #11b9 all the way...

My pet peeve out of all of this is charts which have tricky rhythms and oddball phrase lengths and then are engraved with random numbers of bars per line.

As a composer of quite challenging music, I can say it is not possible to have the same number of bars per stave. Fergit it. That's what bar numbers are for IMO. A piano player (or anyone else) will look at you with maximum 'askance' if you give them a perfectly bound and clean 40 page fan folded chart when everyone else has big bar rest symbols on two pages.

Speaking of which, how are you fixed for dealing with accidentals? What was a perfectly good F# on beat 4 of a bar, needs to be a Gb for the Gb triad on beat 1 in the next bar. It isn't enough to talk of whether something is going up or coming down either - it's a f* nightmare, which as a composer I pass onto the musicians to deal with. And generally, they can, more humiliation for the MD/guitarist.

[rpjazzguitar]

I think this is OK in that you can be inventive/creative for once. An opportunity to use our ears and make something great out of it. If it doesn't go down well, reconsider. 'Appropriately' must also include 'playing when there's a piano player in the section' - the rules about keeping out of the way must still apply there, like everything should be above 'our' middle C (like fret 1 on the B string high...). Otherwise, #11b9 all the way...



As a composer of quite challenging music, I can say it is not possible to have the same number of bars per stave. Fergit it. That's what bar numbers are for IMO. A piano player (or anyone else) will look at you with maximum 'askance' if you give them a perfectly bound and clean 40 page fan folded chart when everyone else has big bar rest symbols on two pages.

Speaking of which, how are you fixed for dealing with accidentals? What was a perfectly good F# on beat 4 of a bar, needs to be a Gb for the Gb triad on beat 1 in the next bar. It isn't enough to talk of whether something is going up or coming down either - it's a f* nightmare, which as a composer I pass onto the musicians to deal with. And generally, they can, more humiliation for the MD/guitarist.

If the music has phrase lengths that aren't evenly divisible by 4 or some other small, even integer, then bars per line gets similarly complicated. But, if the song is a standard, say, with 2, 4, or 8 bar phrases, I don't want to see random odd numbers of bars per line. It's also good idea to start motifs at the beginning of a line, not in random spots.

As far as accidentals go, I am not offended by seeing B natural rather than Cb, even when the theorists say it has to be Cb. I am also not opposed to courtesy sharps or flats and sometimes pencil them in. Sometimes you see a spelled out chord on beat 1, which includes an accidental. There's a chord symbol above it, so you ignore the notes and play the chord. Then, three beats later one of the chord tones pops up with no accidental sign -- because of the existence of the one you ignored three beats ago.

It's not the only situation where there can be some tension between what is technically right and what is likely to produce the proper results.

[Rickco]

[QUOTE=rpjazzguitar;1298817]Jazz has the idea of "paying your dues".


yeah, like having to carry your twin up a flight of stairs for a $40. gig

[Christian Miller]

yeah, like having to carry your twin up a flight of stairs

Pics or it didn’t happen

[Reg]

As a copyist and composer back in 70's and 80's.... we all used or at least had as reference, "The Art of Music Copying"... by Clinton Roemer, (a copyist) in 1973 and revised in 85. And as I've said forever and have posted years ago...
"Standardized Chord Symbol Notation"... By Carl Brandt, (a composer), and Clinton Roemer, again a copyist.

They are still standards etc...

Tal_175 suggestions about working on rhythmic and note aspects of sight reading... again are still the best approach for becoming proficient at sight reading.

Composers are crazy, myself included. We tend to believe the music is magical etc...and it's the players job to realize what we compose. The better the parts... the better the results.

I subbed for RP.... a couple weeks ago.... it's a BB, anyway some of the charts.... most of the charts were like a sight reading maze... 10 bar rest, then a 40 etc... most were older hand notated charts. It's just how it is...

Man... I still have a couple twins and box of tubes LOL.... I mean we had wheels... but my back twitched just thinking about those years.

Parts might be lousy... at least Amps are much better.

[sgcim]

Jimmy Page was a long term session player too. Don't think he read.

I gave up guitar to compose really. I became really quite good at sight reading/singing/recognising music. It was the 'on the guitar' bit that was pitiful. Although I had to do it in some ensembles, it was never high on my voluntary list, other than as a defence against the 'flyshit' heroes out there 'on the bandstand'; (these are universally guitarists by the way - other musicians just read and don't talk about it, unless it's something ludicrously demanding).

I suggest you should read - but reading what you are likely to play. I have loads of books on Bach, Kreutzer, Leavitt etc - who reads streams of diatonic quavers? I needed a Kenny Wheeler encyclopœdia.

The famous story about Page's first recording session was that he went in there, and a bunch of old session players were there. They put some single line stuff in front of him, and he completely blew it. He went home and practiced reading like crazy for some time, and the next session went fine.
Vic Flick talks about helping him out quite a bit in the studios in VF's entertaining autobiography.

[Bop Head]

In case somebody needs an (a little longer) entertainment break to procrastinate his/her sight reading practice: Here is a video by MuseScore's head of design.

[Reg]

Man... that vid would drive any jazz player away.

So the OP should put 10 to 15 minutes a day into sight reading... I can't believe anyone would not believe this.

The days of playing enough gigs to know the tunes are long gone. And most jazz players don't rehearse

For most... just that minimal amount of time for 6 months and you'll have enough sight-reading skills to cover what you'll need... to play Jazz and get through most playing jazz situations.

This would be most amateurs... not kids or just starting.

[Bop Head]

Man... that vid would drive any jazz player away.

So the OP should put 10 to 15 minutes a day into sight reading... I can't believe anyone would not believe this.

The days of playing enough gigs to know the tunes are long gone. And most jazz players don't rehearse

For most... just that minimal amount of time for 6 months and you'll have enough sight-reading skills to cover what you'll need... to play Jazz and get through most playing jazz situations.

This would be most amateurs... not kids or just starting.

Seems like you judged the book by the cover. This video is about the history of the notation as we have it today and why it is still the best way and why different tries to present an alternative did not work out. Do you seriously think that the chief designer of an open-source notation software that under his aegis has become a very serious competitor for Finale, Sibelius and Dorico would have an interest in killing notation?

EDIT: BTW the video was posted on the notat.io forum by a guy who worked as a copyist for Frank Foster, Slide Hampton, Manny Albam, and others. He learned hand-copying from Paul Jeffrey in NYC who copied for Mingus, Dizzy, Basie, Gil Evans, etc.

[Reg]

No... I watched the vid... was aware of some of the history, not all... but maybe you misunderstood me. Sorry.... I like drawing out geeky details. I do not think most jazz players do...

I like notation and view it as just part of being a musician. .... which Frank Foster... I studied with trumpet player who was great BB arranger in Las Vagas... finish a chart in 2 hours approach, back in 70's.

I still do copy work... and use finale. It is about the time required....

That would have been a BB chart. (not the parts LOL)

[RickyHolden]

I've been picking up reading as I go along recently, mainly because I'm picking up things that are only written in score, e.g. its hard to find gypsy jazz stuff in tab.

Its not to hard, I'm finding there are 3 elements:

1. the rhythm, timing etc. Note lengths and rests. You start to see common patterns, e.g. a bar of 8th notes or a phrase that starts on the 1 and, and they match quite naturally with what you already do and listen to.

2. seeing the notes on the score, again this is not too hard, I mean there's only 8 possibilities ( sharps and flats are easy to spot), although you still need to do a bit of counting when they are high notes, like 3 or 4 degrees above the top of the score.

3. Finding the note on the guitar..... this seems to be the hardest, basically applying 2. to the fretboard. Had always thought in terms of numbers, e.g. 'this is the root, 3rd etc" instead of notes, so finding e.g. a f# is proving a bit of work. I tend to go, 'f#....', ahh, oh its the 5th in relation to what is going on, and then think of it that way.

But overall, I think the difficulty may be overstated. Esp among original rock players, such as myself. And its quite rewarding and kind of makes you feel like a 'proper musician' when you do it.