Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Flashcards and improved score reading

We do both, Tim. We develop a feel for patterns and shapes, which is why I can fake through music I know without glasses. But I have to be familiar with the music, because I can't quite see the lines and spaces without glasses, so I lose any sense of an anchor.

Also, the problem with the "shape" idea is that the same shape is not actually the same as you slide it up and down a staff. Think if triads. You look at three circles, stacked, and you know you are going to have a triad. But that triad can be major, minor or diminished, all very different mathematically (0-4-7, 0-3-7, 0-3-6), so how to you get clues about which you are reading?

The shape has to be fused to a key and the position of that shape in the key. No matter how you think about it, it is a complicated process, and we know too little.

I'm not arguing against new ideas. But the moment you start discussing pianists, for example, you can't forget that they all play the piano. You can't discount subconscious links to the instrument.

And I don't know of any small fries who aren't also playing an instrument daily while doing only "away from the instrument" studies.

More than a few music degrees, decades of private studio work, and c.decade teaching at the university level. I am writing to you from my experience. But, none of that really matters to you, does it? Your way is the only way to think about music, and anything that differs from that is, in your opinion, wrong.

The only theory is whether or not the pattern recognition skill necessary can be trained without the lines or not.

If the two of you think the best way to learn to sight-read is to simply sight-read music every day, in the hopes of learning through repetition (i.e., musical osmosis), then good for you. I disagree that that is the best way of going about that process. It is a mindless approach. I learned a different way, and so too have many other people all over the world.

An important point: it is easy for people to talk past each other and assume things.

A443, you say you teach at the university level. But we are talking about FORMING students in their first skills.

This is something I see all the time - Somebody has had his experience with his past teachers; has talked to people about their experiences with teachers; and then assumes what OTHER teachers do is the same as these things. You don't know that these two teachers do what you described. In fact, there are clues to the contrary in this thread. You took one part; to understand the whole we have to ask questions. In fact, it is not that straightforward to understand how someone teaches at the formative stage precisely because it is as complex as you are finding in your exploration. We can assume all kinds of things.

Previously you had written about pianists you know who teach once in a while. I asked whether you had talked to teachers who form students from scratch, and who are also dedicated to developing reading skills, and who were experienced. You answered me with one word: "Yes". But everything you write does not reflect what such teachers do - it seems more like an extrapolation of what you see advanced pianists do, and working backward from there as to how one might acquire the skills they acquired.

If you talked to teachers such as I described, was it in depth, and long enough. Would you be able to describe the goals and the approaches that any of them used, in what kinds of stages or interconnections?

Why not get more information here on ideas? I stayed out of this thread since the main aim seemed to be to find a way of producing these flashcards (which I don't know how to do), but the topic of reading skills has interested me for a number of years.

Sight-reading music every day in the hopes that one magically gets better over time is not a novel concept--it is not unfamiliar to me, or the study of piano pedagogy. I don't agree with that approach, and I have specific reasons why. But, that is not what this thread was intended to be about...

My writing may not reflect what US teachers do, but I hope you can appreciate that there are many other countries out there that think, teach, and perform music from a different standpoint. I've lived, learned and researched music within three different cultures, languages, and lands. They are significantly different in approach: they all have strengths and weakness.

If you'd like to debate pros/cons of pedagogical approaches, cool...but don't deny something doesn't exist simply because you don't know about it. That's silly.

Several people wrote. What is silly? Who is silly?

You wrote a generic reply.

I don't teach the same as Jonathan, and he doesn't teach the same as me. But I'm not going to dismiss his experience after decades of teaching.

I don't think you present your ideas very well.

If I see two notes, written with no staff, how would I know how far apart they are? 2nds are obvious, the notes are slanted. 3rds are obvious, because the note heads touch. A scale would be recognizable as a scale.

But if you present an octave, then a 9th, and they are not side-by-side, how you are you going to know how far apart they are?

If you make a 5th, and I can identify it as a 5th, how will I know if it is perfect or diminished, as in telling B-F from C-G?

So I have a ton of questions about flashcards without lines.

And bigger questions about how people learn to read well without playing an instrument and working daily with that instrument.

Which you have absolutely not answered...

Whether or not it is helpful (re: specifically training without lines to improve pattern recognition), I can't say, because none of us have specifically trained this way; we've acquired the skill through other forms of musical training, and arrived at a similar result.

For example, if you attend Japan's finest/most-competitive music school, you will notice that nearly everyone has perfect pitch. This has nothing to do with language--as Japanese is not a tonal language--it has to do with extensive musical audiation/ear-training. There are different paths that can be taken. What we have in common is this ability to recognise distances between notes in order to see the patterns.

The root-poisiton pattern doesn't exist without context: it exists within the context of a key area. It is not a complicated process at all. No one mistakenly plays an D# when playing root position chords in key of CM. That's not one of the options. If we are in C#M, similarly, E need not apply. It is not an extra thought process, unless people are taught to read lines as specific notes and think from the standpoint of CM--and then add accidentals.

So, now that we are on topic, I'd be happy to discuss. Seconds are obvious, thirds are easy, what about fourths and fifths?

The size of the note head defines where the lines would be. Use their size to mentally judge that distance and envision where the lines would be. BTW: the sharps and flats do the same thing.

A fifth has the same space between it as the size of either of the notes. A fourth, only has space for half of that note. Those are the easy ones that can be learned quickly.

A sixth fits a second between the two notes, a seventh fits a third in-between, and an octave fits a fourth. After awhile, it becomes second nature (i.e., a 7th and an 8th are very different looking, even with no lines to use as a ruler = one uses the note heads as the measuring system).

I haven't answered that questions because what I have stated so far has been taken out of context--and it is part of a different discussion all together, which is not easy to understand within this context. I don't need my instrument to think or hear what is in a score--whether I am reading an orchestral score or a piano score. I can audiate every orchestra instrument on the page, even though I don't play all the instruments. That was the background to my comment.

BTW, I don't personally see 9ths--I stop at 8ths. I don't know if others do or not. It might be trainable--but I think root, 1st, and 2nd inversion etc. identification is the logical next step (i.e., not larger distances).

I quoted you stating that two teachers on this board taught sight reading that way, and I suggested that there are many ways that reading is taught, and you cannot know whether these teachers teach in that way. I did NOT state that that "method" does not exist, nor am I ignorant about its existence. I invited you to explore these ideas with the teachers here, since learning to read interests you. I regards to "debating" - I don't know if this is something that you like to do. I don't. I find it much more interesting to see the different pieces of a puzzle that people can bring to the table.

keystring, I wasn't speaking [entirely] to you (i.e., my post didn't apply specifically to you). In terms of sight reading, one teacher specifically stated how he thinks sight-reading should be learned, and another one jumped-in in agreement. If you are suggesting that it is something they believe, yet do not teach, then I'm not sure what your point is. I, however, didn't assume anything: I read it, and took their comments at face value.

BTW: if someone already has a piece of the puzzle through their own experience, and someone else tries to hand them exact same piece, it does not make the puzzle new or interesting. So, no, I am not interested in hearing about things I've already done, experienced, and dismissed for good reason (i.e., just because someone else has done it that way for decades has no bearing on why I don't do it that way anymore).

That's a dangerous assumption. Notes heads are going to be close uniform size in printed music, but even here there can be some minor differences. But this spacing goes right out the window in handwritten notation.

That might work to some extent for 5ths, but I don't see the logic in eliminating lines because all 5ths are two lines or 2 spaces. Why make the visual information incomplete?

Again, the size of sharps, flats and naturals are not fully uniform, and the same problem exits in manuscript.

But you still have the problem how the brain will interpret note head, note head, note head, all of them touching in a triad, with a flat by the bottom note head. It could be Bb, major chord, Abaug, completely different sound, or it could be Fb A C, which the ear will hear as a first inversion Am, or Am/C.

I teach all these things with lines, and I start with kids very young. I don't see the advantage of removing the lines. Also, with any kind of flash cards you can't see what came before or what's coming next, which provide context.

I have young players who play the correct shapes, which is all we are talking about, but misplace them because they do not yet have landmarks. So they might see a C chord, guess, and move it to a D minor chord, or down to a Ddim chord. My next move is to ask them to identify ONE of the notes precisely, to slide the shape to the right place.

When we work with different clefs we have to slide everything up and down. But we still have to sense when it is locked into place, or what we audiate will move modally and produce chaos. Or we have to realized that a trumpet part has to be heard a whole step down from where it is written, which is a totally different problem.

Perfect pitch does not solve that problem. It makes it much more complicated. Do you understand why?

Again, there is a HUGE flaw here. If you remove lines from an octave in manuscript, that octave may appear to be a 7th or a 9th because manuscript is simply nowhere as precise. And again, the diameter of each printed notehead may not be as precise as you think.

You could write out a famous melody that is not normally written in only one key, remove the lines, then ask a musician what the tune is. If the treble, bass or other clef is written very precisely - which again can vary greatly in manuscript - then someone who reads well may be able to extrapolate.

If you write out Happy Birthday, and there are no sharps or flats, I will know that you wrote it in C. If the second note is a sharp, and most notes are sharped, I'll guess B by the location of the first note, if there is a clef. And if there are not sharps or flats but a 5 sharp key signature, I'll know for sure at a glance what the tune is, and what the notes are.

I'm not saying for a moment that a sense of the intervals, and patterns, and the overall shapes don't play a huge part in reading.

But you have not yet proved that removing the lines will speed up reading. That idea is actually rather common in pre-reading books for small children, where an easy tune is written without lines, just with fingers. We don't know if that system helps encourage reading earlier, or if it slows things down.

You're apparently not talking about melodic intervals though are you? You're thinking vertically. How about horizontally?

A melodic line involving larger intervals will present problems. The notes aren't on top of one another for you to estimate how many note-heads fit between. Even a melody involving 2nds and 3rds will be hard to judge if the line is stretched out a bit with long notes, or broken up by rests.

If you're just talking about chords I think I see what you're trying to get at. I can see the point of recognising intervals spatially, without lines, as some sort of transition to staff notation. I can't see the point of trying to read without the staff lines altogether, because it's simply not exact enough.

You can learn to recognise intervals instantly with staff lines. I'm struggling to understand what it is about not having lines which would make that easier.

I'm looking at simple music with block chords in various inversions. Root position looks like a snow man; Dm/F has two touching notes topped by a note floating a bit above it; EGA with the C# floating above in the melody has a "seven chord look" about it because of the GA lying at an angle across from each other as stacked seconds do. It forms a "picture", and that picture would still be there if I took away the lines. This may be the kind of thing that A443 is talking about. Will a student be able to recognize such things without lines?

I think that it was already pointed out that if I see my snowman without lines, I may instantly recognize it as a triad; my fingers 135 may itch to play it on skipped keys - but will I know which triad to play, and whether it is major or minor? The same for an interval. (which we now know is only meant for up to an octave)

There have been several references to "counting lines" as a way that people are presumed to get at music (literally counting lines) and maybe it is often taught that way - so I have guessed that a reason for eliminating lines is in order to get away from this counting.

I'm guessing the OP is, too. That's why I brought up the question of melodic intervals, which are far harder to read without lines than vertically stacked intervals.Yes, maybe that's what he's getting at. But it's an assumption that (most?) people actually "count lines" rather than read by interval. If they're using lines, that doesn't mean they literally count up 5 from the bottom of the stave in order to recognise than a note is on the top line.

I think it's an interesting enough idea to explore without starting out by making assumptions, which does rather look like the researcher's mind is already made up. This may not be so, but it's how it's coming across to me. But then again, the OP was really just asking for technical help in producing the flashcards, not giving us a thorough run-down on the project.

I note that the OP is wanting to apply the idea to transposing and reading other clefs. I do quite a bit of both, and find I use a combination of reading by interval, reading by shape, harmonic know-how, and playing by ear. Probably a few other things as well.

Rather than the speed of reading the notes (letter names) themselves, I think the bigger problem with most sight readers is their lack of understanding of rhythm. But that's just my observation among kids who actually can read notes (letter names) quickly and can play the notes in the correct octave.

RE: "counting lines" That's what the worst sight readers would do. All the extremely poor sight readers I've taught (maybe 4 or 5 of them??) have not internalized letter names by the note's location on the staff. They still rely on counting up and down from the guide notes. That, plus the fact that they're just not very smart people in general. Can you imagine kids trying to do long division without having the multiplication table memorized??

Most kids internalize the shape and location of notes without prompting to do so--they just "do" because they see the notes so frequently. Most of the current method books introduce notes at a logical pace, so by the time the kids play the 4-5 pieces at each "position," they will have already been familiarized with the letter names of those notes.

I agree with AZNpiano: I think the lack of understanding and reading rhythm--especially within a larger context--is probably a bigger problem. At the moment, I'm interested in something else...

I've seen many poor sighter readers count lines. Let me be clear: they don't necessarily count from the bottom each time, they individually seem to have developed their locations that they remember (i.e., probably based on the pieces that they have played before), and then count from these positions. With more experience, the missing information seems to get filled-in over time--so that there is less counting going on. However, they are still assigning note names to lines/spaces. That gets the job done, but it is a short cut, that potentially causes problems later.


A side NOTE: I take issue with the first line on a treble clef staff being E. While that is technically true--with the grand staff--I don't see that line specifically as an E. Why?!?

For me, the staff is a ruler to judge distance (i.e., it is not any specific note). When I generically look at a treble clef, the clef shows me that the second to the bottom line is a G, from here, I can judge all the other note locations using proximity (i.e., it is even more helpful where there are more sharps/flats in the key signature, as that is an additional guide that one see in the beginning of every line <---thus turning a normal negative into a positive, which also reinforces the importance of knowing what the accidentals are and their relation to the key area). If one approaches the reading of music in this way, then reading in other clefs is a non-issue: the only thing that changes is the reference note set by the clef. When one primarily uses proximity, ledger lines are then not a deferent mental process--it's all the same. Transposition too, becomes much easier: simply mentally adjust the clef and change the signature (e.g., piano playing a B-flat clarinet line: move the clef down a step and add 2 flats to the key signature = then read normally).

Gary - thank you for a number of very interesting observations in your last post. I don't need to reiterate them, but each one is right on the mark.

I work with the concepts of bottom/top lines, so that the bottom line and top line form what might be called limits for the staff. Used in that manner finding high C, two leger lines higher, or A, two leger lines lower, or getting to the middle line B all involve 5ths. Students do not have to know they are 5ths to see there is a common distance.

It is not necessary to find lines or spaces by numbers. All octaves always use a line and a space. Good readers know that and see the distance way faster than they can count lines or spaces. Distance and shapes give everything but an absolute location, and the recognition of any line or space within a chord (for example) will lock the chord into the exact right place.

Looking at the treble clef nothing shows me where any line is because I have known that for decades. I was beyond computing where G is when I was around 8 years old. Sharps and flats are like Keystrings dice. I know how many are there, and I absorbed the rest of that information when I was very young. When those flats or sharps are too high or low, I know I am in another clef. Tenor and other clefs like that cause my brain to click into those clefs because everything slides up or down. I would be most likely to miss those clefs (not noticing the clef sign) if there are no sharps or flats.

What makes you think this is not EXACTLY the way I do it? You are assuming your mental process is unique.

Many teachers stress the importance of intervals, we we do this to make sure students develop a very strong relational sense of notes as well as an absolute one. My students don't count lines. I've never known a single fine sight-reader who counts lines. We all see shapes and patterns.

Is there anyone here who does not do this? I'm talking about teachers, not beginning students who may or may not be learning to read in an efficient manner.

I started piano after several decades of brass and voice. I could see patterns from day one and knew what they should sound like, at least if not too complex. It was getting a finger to the right spot that was hard.

It seems to me though that the pattern recognition is a necessary but not sufficient condition and most of good sightreading happens downstream of that. (and far downstream of getting a finger to the right place prima facie)