Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner You're either a good sightreader or you're not.

Again as I said, many people will have different interpretations of what constitutes a 'good' sightreader. I never said that my definition was standard.

You said "general belief". That's not the case.(And most would say general belief and standard are basically synonymous)I was the one who pointed out there are different definition of "good".

Opinion is opinion. But ok, pretend you see someone who is trying to sightread a piece of music and they can barely play with the right rhythms, let alone tempo (or even half). Could you call them 'good'?

What if they were trying to play something impossibly hard like most saxophone sonata accompaniments? They might be good and doing better than many.

So really it comes down to what is it that *you* wish to accomplish in being able to sight read? At which level would you like to be fluent to consider yourself "good"?

I'm not among the very best, but I used to be decent at sight reading.

I think the age at which people learn to read music probably makes a big difference, too. I learned the basics of how to read music when I was five, before I learned how to read words, and because of that, I think it just always seemed to be nothing special to be fairly comfortable with it. It was just something I knew how to do, like tying my shoelaces or anything else you learn early. I didn't know any other kids my age who were learning piano, so can't really compare their skills to mine.

The first school I attended was a small rural one, and we had "assembly", which meant that all the kids in the school (around a couple of dozen of them, aged 6-14) would get together in the auditorium. One activity during assembly was singing, mostly out of a book of folk and popular songs. I was accompanying these songs, usually just sight-reading them, before I was big enough to reach the pedals. And that would include doing an introduction of some sort, or, if the song was unfamiliar, I'd play through the tune first so we could get an idea of how it went. I don't really remember my exact age when I started doing that, but it was probably around 7-8 years old. Looking back, I imagine that was sort of unusual, but I don't actually know. Neither do I know how well I did it, other than well enough to do the job.

A couple of years ago, I had a long and interesting conversation with someone I knew back in middle and high school, with whom I had not had contact for around forty years, and who had been a professional classical musician for a good portion of those years. His recollection of me as a teen was that I had been, in his words, "like some kind of genius sight-reader, able to play Chopin etudes on sight" but that I lacked the discipline to go on to thoroughly master the pieces I played. He was exaggerating my skill, but it does tell me that I was probably better at sight reading than most of my peers. He definitely was not exaggerating about my lack of discipline, which was a sadly accurate assessment, and is a problem I've heard that some other good sight-readers have.

Funny you mention saxophone. The Creston Sonata is very difficult for the pianist, but it was the slow movement I sightread with a saxophonist -he was very impressed- and because of that initial encounter we eventually performed the entire piece. The outer movements I could not have sightread, and indeed they took a lot work on my part.

Back in the old uni days my teacher took us into the studio and talked about the Schonberg Piano Concerto. What a great piece of music we were told -Emperor's clothes on overtime I should think- and then the four of us were put on the hot seat to sightread. I was first.

I sightread the opening piano statement almost perfectly and damn near up to speed (which isn't very fast, okay.) My classmates gasped as did my teacher. No one else touched me. This was a big moment, I have to admit. And I got a date out of it.

So be it. You people can talk about 'talent' in sightreading all you wish (the good Lord hardly gave me any talent as a concert pianist), but almost from the very beginning, I have had a voracious appetite for reading through new music.

IMO, no magic to sightreading, one just needs to 'do it'. Look at a new piece of music, scan it through, identify 'problem' areas where notes need to be left out, and go for it. And another thing I have found helpful: look at a piece of music away from the piano, and visualize how your hands would encompass those notes.

Just my experience here.

Wow, I didn't visit PW since yesterday morning and I was amazed to see how much you quoted and debated my following phrases:

Every pianist can become a good sightreader! It's a proven fact.

Sightreading, just like any other piano skill, can be developed by mindful, correct practice.

I totally agree that 'good' is a relative term. That's why I used it! I certainly did not say 'great' or 'genius' . 'Good' means being satisfied with what you can do - it means being able to read at first sight fairly complicated piano pieces (for example, a Nocturne or even an Etude by Chopin, a Sonata by Beethoven etc. - certainly not atonal music! LOL) in a reasonable tempo (but not too fast) and with minimum stops, being able to grasp at least to a certain degree the meaning, the atmosphere and the character of the piece. Yes, all this is relative, but so is art itself! That's why it's so important to determine for ourselves if our sightreading capacity satisfies us or not.



It's absolutely true!!!

Most of the time, we see a person who's excellent at what he/she is doing (piano, tennis etc.) and we think that they are simply 'good at it'. It's not true! They simply know what they want, they know how to get there and they make little steps every day for achieving their goal (instead of sitting in front of the TV and complaining about their lack of talent)!

There is one more aspect to this idea: Passion towards a certain activity transforms HARD work into ENJOYABLE smart work!

The key to success (no matter if we talk about piano playing, tennis or something else) is enjoying what you do! Passion and a positive attitude have the amazing power of accelerating our progress beyond anything we could imagine!

In the end, it's all a question of passion and goals: if you enjoy sightreading and exploring the amazing piano repertoire, if you KNOW the difference between correct and incorrect practice, if you do it repeatedly and mindfully (as opposed to mechanically), if you are relaxed and calm in the process - you'll INEVITABLY get better at it!

Yes, experience also matters. If you play piano since you were 6, it's logical that by the age of 20 you have all the chances of becoming not a good, but an excellent sightreader. On the other hand, how can you compete with someone of your age who started to play piano at 18?

Of course it all depends on your particular situation, on your predilections, on how much you love to play piano and so on.

But the bottom line remains the same: if you really want to achieve something and if you make small mindful steps every day in that direction - you'll certainly reach your goal!

Smart work, determination, passion, perseverance and a positive and confident state of mind can truly move mountains!

P.S. Our mind is extremely powerful. Sadly, most of the time we are not aware of this .

Ouch! I recognize myself in wr's description of the good sight reader who just isn't disciplined enough to learn a piece thoroughly. I've always been able to read unfamiliar piano music easily, accompany signers or play in duets with competence without knowing the music, and fake my way through the difficult passages. I'm also the anti-Debrucey, able to solve crossword puzzles or sudoku quickly, see the jumbled word pop out immediately, enjoy chess, etc. Of course, the more you do these things, the easier they get, like sight reading music.

The downside is that I'm not very good at memorizing, so I don't have an established repertoire. I always have to travel around with the music on hand in order to perform publicly. Fortunately, I am not a professional musician required to play by memory. Even more fortunately, I know a large amount of repertoire competently, though not at a professional level, if I have access to the music. The older I get, the more I appreciate this. Most of my piano playing is not work - it is fun, exploring new repertoire or visiting old friends. I'll never have a tag line showing all the pieces I am learning, because I am never "learning" anything. I guess I can say I am learning everything I can get my hands on, which is why I am always exploring book sales and printing up interesting music off imslp. I am just never learning it in the traditional way, polishing it off completely all at once.

I guess I wouldn't trade sight reading ability for the memorizing skills of a professional artist, which I will never be anyway. If I have a fancy, I can pull out the Songs Without Words and play them all, or play all of the Annees de Pelerinage (except for the Dante Sonata, which I don't like), for the musical enjoyment of playing this music. I'll just never post any of it in the Members Recording section.

Excellent!



Excellent !



Excellent!

Not only is "good" a relative term without specific meaning...so is "great","genius", "fairly
complicated","reasonable","minimum","certain degree".etc.. The definition of "good" you gave is completely your own and could easily be far different from someone else's definition.

Everybody can improve through practice and hard work, but eventually one will not grow beyond his or her own limiting factors. It is crazy to think that everybody will be able to play, say, ALL chopin etudes well if he or she practices very hard.

I'll admit I'm NOT a good sight-reader and I admire those who are. I will defer to anyone who is better than I am. I had played the Liszt Eb Concerto for my senior recital in high school and was surprised by gifts and accolades the next day. I entered college and was to accompany a singing group. The conductor gave me a score at the rehearsal and all I could do was look at it--I was stymied because I always worked my way through a piece laboriously note by note and measure by measure. To just play it at sight was not possible.

I played for Sunday school but the leader always gave me the hymns on Wednesday so I could get them ready. Later, after college and more experience I began to get better but even now, with that pressure of playing for services, I don't feel very comfortable being asked to play much more than a simple hymn at sight. I have improved tremendously from the early college and high school but, as I said, will defer to anyone when sightreading is done. I have worked on it so I'm not so bad when I am alone and surprise myself sometime. My high school teacher could sight read almost anything and told me she was several measures ahead of where she was playing. I have NO IDEA how she did that. She was a Juilliard graduate (Samaroff) and the one who taught me the Liszt. A marvelous musician and pianist, I still feel she was as good as any subsequent teacher I've had. She insisted on a change after high school but kept tabs on me all time.

I play a number of instruments and I'm a really good sight-reader on the ones that are not polyphonic. The polyphonic ones (piano and classical guitar) for some reason give me a lot of problems. I think it's just something in the way my brain works that makes it harder for me to read multiple notes at once. A pattern-recognition thing or something. I don't know. I started on piano lessons when I was about 4 or 5, and trumpet when I was probably 10, so I had much more polyphonic reading "practice", and I know many techniques of improving sight reading, but there is still just something that doesn't "click" for me. My dad was a pianist and a really good sight-reader. I tried to play hymns and such, and even familiar ones with really easy chord progressions were not easy to read. There is just something different about the processing of polyphonic and monophonic lines for me. Maybe others are the same.

No disagreement there. I've sight-read through all of the Chopin etudes (only seriously studied 3 or 4 of them) and came to the depressing conclusion that many of them I would never get up to speed, not to mention accurate.

My story is even worse. I had accompanied my high school chorus, but the first thing the college choir director asked me was "Can you sing"? Since the choir did an awful lot of a capella music he wasn't interested in an accompanist who couldn't sing.

I forgot to mention that the score the conductor put in front of me was, what I know now, a simple four-part arrangement that would not be a problem with my present ability. Since he had attended my recital for the Chopin Polonaise in Ab, and other things and the Liszt, he thought I would be able to sight-read fluently. He was so surprised that I could do virtually nothing.

I'm so glad I've improved but still boast no laurels for sight-reading.

I agree, reading Chopin Etudes is not difficult. But playing up to tempo and well is totally different game! Damm those Chopin etudes.....hehehehehe

I think a lot depends on how you learn pieces or first learned pieces on the piano. As a kid I learned playing from the score. After I could play a piece, then my teacher would sometimes have me memorize it. Also I never practiced much, and memorization would take too much time.

The "fast-track" approach that many people seem to be taking (especially those who tackle advanced "dream pieces" after only a year or so of lessons)is to decipher a small bit of what is on the page, look down and transfer it to the keys, repeat the pattern until memorized, then move on.

With the former method over time, working your way up through the literature, you should eventually be able to play most intermediate pieces pretty well prima vista. However, it may also take quite a while to get to the more advanced stuff. The latter can get you "up to speed" more quickly, and amaze your friends, but you will probably end up with a limited repertoire, and be unable to play something somebody hands you.

Despite the fact that pianists mostly play from memory, the conductor and the rest of the orchestra always plays from the score. I think if you make a habit of almost always playing from the sheetmusic, even when a piece is learned, you will be a better sight reader.

For the latter group of people you menionted, how big/small are the hopes would you say they have of seeing their sightreading improvement to a point where they can actually go through different pieces at satisfactory tempo and with minimum stops? Would they still have a hope of catching up to those who sightreading came natural to in the beginning?

The reason you can't play them to tempo is because you lack the technique to do so. It's as simple as that. There is no great mystery to tackling and conquering the Chopin etudes or any other work. You either possess the proper technique or you don't. Thus, the "limiting factor" here is technique, or rather the lack thereof.