Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Sight Reading: Rhythm over correct notes?

Hi guys, time for sight reading thread no. 9201.

As I understand it, getting the rhythm of a piece is more important than hitting the right notes, or at least not stopping to correct wrong notes, while sight-reading. My question is, to what extent should I take this advice? Should I go very, very slowly so I hit a reasonable amount of correct notes while maintaining rhythm? I guess I feel like if I keep hitting wrong notes I'll be creating a bad habit, but I don't know for sure.

Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks.

IMO you should sight read pieces that are easy enough so that you don't have to play them ridiculously slow and you can still play the notes and rhythm mostly correctly.

Unless you plan to sight read a lot of chamber music with other people or be a professional accompanist, I don't think it's important to avoid stopping and I don't think rhythm is more important than notes.

I agree with pianoloverus , sight read stuff at a more basic level that you would normally learn (very important that bit). But to add the following - firstly look at the rhythm and clap or tap it out first (I have a pair of claves for this), then look at the music and look for the highest and lowest notes and patterns. Look at key signature and then what notes that will apply to.
In effect study it well before starting to play. Then play it through at a pace where you can do so without any stops, if thats really really slow then I would say you need to find something easier. (my belief is that the rhythm and keeping going is more important than correct notes but ideally you want pieces that enable both)
This series of books is good http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/184761132X/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 with http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1847612296/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 which has extra exercises.

I have found (as a beginner still) that I have to sight read what seems really simple pieces but don't feel thats a backward step in any way , learning to sight read is different to learning a piece to play for the enjoyment of playing.

Hope that helps

Be aware that there is a difference between sight reading (reading a piece you've never played before and playing it at (or reasonably near) tempo) and simply reading (working through a piece and playing it, however slowly, so that you can practice it well enough to get it under your fingers). I generally agree with the advice above if you are trying to practice sight reading. For regular reading (learning pieces or reviewing pieces you've already worked through) the advice can be a little different.

Here's what happens to a lot of people, they are playing a piece (maybe even for someone) and they hit some wrong note(s) and it derails them like a train going off a track. They can't recover. A lot of the time if you hit a wrong note but can keep playing and keep the rhythm going, the audience won't even notice the mistake. So you need to practice keeping the tempo and not stopping. it's a skill that you need to build. And when actually playing pieces, it is often more important to keep the tempo going than it is to hit every note exactly correctly.

When learning pieces, go slow, really focus on hitting the right notes. practice doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent. So you want to practice the right notes when you are learning a piece. But when you're playing a piece through that you've already learned, focus on keeping the rhythm going. Also make note of any spots in the piece that are giving you trouble so that you can work on practicing the correct notes in those spots. But practicing keeping going is a very useful thing to do.

Warm Regards

Why are you learning to site read? That will affect the answer.
If you're learning to site read to improve your music reading skills, then go slow and get all the notes right.
I site read, as a jazz player, so I can handle pieces at a jam session or in a big band rehearsal. For that, getting the rhythm right is much more important that getting every note right. I can check out the notes later and clean things up. But to play effectively in a rehearsal, for example, I need to play in rhythm.
So, how to go about site reading depends upon what your goal is.

Here's another suggestion, courtesy of Super Sight-reading Secrets (SSRS) SSRS at Amazon

Split the sightreading task into two parts, rhythm and notes. Practice them first separately, and only after that practice them together.

Rhythm practice: using a sightreading practice piece (IOW a piece that is below your current playing level) play the rhythm at the desired tempo, using the keyboard and playing the same note with each hand, say C two octaves apart (so you're practicing the LH and RH parts together). Be sure you're counting correctly. If possible, use a metronome. Set the tempo close to the desired tempo for the piece, but not so fast that you can't keep up with the correct rhythm. The goal here is 100% rhythmical accuracy.

Note practice: Using the same piece, work on getting the notes, and also the fingering for those notes, perfect (accurate) by ignoring the rhythm and dropping the tempo waaaay down. By ignoring rhythm, though, I don't mean ignoring when the RH and LH are playing the same notes at the same time, those should be lined up. The point of this activity is to practice finding the correct notes with the correct fingering at 100% accuracy, so you need to play as slowly as... well as slowly as you need for in order to get all the notes and all the fingering correct.

Piece practice: Having done the above two exercises, now try to play the piece with the correct rhythm and correct notes and fingering. Now you won't (most likely) be able to play at the desired tempo, but you have to observe the rhythm even if it's slowed down. Now the goal is not necessary 100% accuracy, but instead as accurate as possible in both rhythm and notes, with the highest priority given to keeping the music moving forward.
(ok, I guess adding this step means this is a 3 step process

If you're interested in "true" sightreading practice with a goal of being able to improve your sightreading abilities, I highly recommend SSRS. Now, where's that link to the sightreading thread I started.....

I practice both of these. Sometimes I go for complete accuracy without going back to correct mistakes until the end and other times I try to keep the tempo going.

By all means, avoid the deadly stop and go back habit. It's very tough to break. To play with other musicians, you have to be able to keep going, or jump back in where everybody else is. Music Minus One records are intended for learning that.

My problem is simple....Everything I want to learn is beyond my current ability. I just take my time and learn things bar by bar while committing as much to memory as possible. Then when I finally figure out a piece, the musical notation is just a guide for me. I know I'm probably going about things in the wrong order but I do try to study the rhythmic pattern of each measure separate and away from the study of what notes to play. I also rely heavily upon listening to recordings to try and pick up on the subtle nuances of a piece. This doesn't mean I can play it well. It just gives me something to strive towards. Being self taught has developed this habit.

[quote=Arizona Sage]My problem is simple....Everything I want to learn is beyond my current ability.

A soul mate!

I propose the following way: during the sight reading, play only the first quarter of the bar , do pause until the end of the bar when you are preparing the first quarter of the next bar. A first quarter playing, the rest count off , staying in rhythm.

Keep in mind that the 'rhythm' is not the same as the 'speed.' You can play things very slowly but still have correct rhythm. That is, your half notes are twice as long as your quarter notes, etc. For example, if you play 'Happy Birthday' with the right rhythm but much slower than the norm, it is still recognizable. But if you play the right notes at the right speed, but the various lengths of the notes is wrong, it's hard to tecognize the song.

If you can't play the right rhythm even when playing at a slow speed, then the music is too difficult. My teacher recommends sight reading be a level or two down from my current level or normal play.

I started with (and to some extent still have) the same approach. I've only been playing 18 months.

I had a few run ins with my teacher over the issue of correct notes v.s. correct rhythm. I just want to learn the notes first. (I'm talking about learning a piece, not sight-reading - which I think is what you are talking about also).

Here is what I have learned from her, the hard way. I start a new piece, I get a few bars of the notes down. I figure out the hand positions and any hand transitions. What comes next?

Me - I figure I've got the rhythm kind of right, I'll work on it as I practice the piece, lets move on to learn the notes of the next section of the song so I can get the satisfaction of playing a longer piece. From now on, when I play the beginning I'm working on the rhythm, and when I play near the end I'm working on the notes.

My teacher - NO! Get the rhythm of that section down first before going on. Be a perfectionist about it. Do not move on until you have that rhythm perfect! Her point - if you keep playing the first section over and over again with the wrong rhythm, even slightly wrong, while your mind is focusing on a later part in the piece, you are ingraining the wrong rhythm and it will be harder to unlearn. If you follow my default approach, learn all the notes and then go back and try to correct the rhythm, it will take LONGER to master the piece, and overall it will be even more annoying although initially it may be more fun.

I have to say that I found this really really irritating and thought my teacher was quite unreasonable, and had a couple of big heated "conversations" with her about it and came close to quitting... and now after a few pieces with her forcing me to do it her way... I realize that she's right. At least (or especially) for anything with a complicated, syncopated rhythm. Which seems to be the common thread in anything I want to play.

So... yeah... take all advice with a grain of salt (especially from newbies like me) but from what you are saying I feel like I've been there, done that.

Don

ps: hey, you've done The Entertainer which definitely has syncopation, so maybe you don't need my advice. Well, its worth what you pay for it
[edit] - oops, you didn't mention The Entertainer, that was a different thread - my apologies

[edit] pps: oh, and completely agree with Oongawa. The secret to getting the rhythm down is start with a super slow tempo. And probably the secret to finding out if you have it right, when you dno't have a teacher to correct you, is to use a metronome.

[edit] ppps: dammit - I thought Arizona Sage was the original poster... man, I've messed this post up good

Just to be clear, what Donzo and Arizona Sage are talking about is not "sight-reading" but rather learning a piece of music from the score, which of course involves a good deal of reading, but as mentioned, also involves looking at the same section of the score numerous times, and, over time and to varying degrees, memorizing those sections.

OTOH, "sight-reading" means playing a never-before-seen piece of music, from a score, and being able to play it, on the first go, at a reasonable tempo and with a minimal number of mistakes etc. Sight-reading is a particular skill that is quite different from acquiring pieces of music to add to one's repertoire. And it's also different from practicing pieces of music as a way to improve one's overall technique and pianistic abilities. This also explains why it's frequently recommended that people use pieces *below* their current level for sight-reading practice, because the goals of sight-reading are quite different.

Sorry to be a "stickler" for these details, but whether one is talking about "sight-reading" or "reading sheet music to learn a piece" makes a huge difference for the types of advice needed and the relevant approaches that can be used to improve these two very different skills.
[/soapbox]

I think you have several misconceptions.

"sight-reading" means playing a never-before-seen piece of music, from a score". You should have stopped here because the rest of the sentence describes a good sight reader, not just the act of sight reading. Although sight reading is somewhat different from learning a piece they are somewhat related. The better one is at sight reading usually the quicker one can learn the notes/rhythms of a piece which is the first step in learning the music.

Unless one plays a lot of chamber music for fun or is a professional musician(where accompanying on quick notice is an important skill), I think how long it takes to learn the notes/rhythm is far more important than how well one can play a piece the first time through. Not stopping is only important when one is not playing alone.

Pianoloverus, I don't believe I have any misconceptions about sight-reading, in fact I'm fairly confident that my understanding of sight-reading as a concept is correct and is shared by a great number of pianists (both here at PW and in general). Instead, I think you and I have some significant differences in our pianistic pursuits. But I should have specified more clearly that what I was describing is the end-goal for sight-reading, not what anyone should think they'll be able to do when they sit down for the first time and say "gee, I know how to read sheet music, I think I'll sight-read now."

And you are quite right, the skills needed for sight-reading (a never before seen piece of music) and the skills needed for learning a piece of music (that you practice repeated from a score) are similar. But sight-reading (in the traditional definition I'm using) is a distinct skill that requires a distinct approach. Which is why I wrote what I did, since any time people start talking about committing the music to memory as they go along, they are no longer talking about sight-reading. Donzo does mention the distinction, but I believe we haven't heard back from the OP so what the OP actually meant, or wants/needs advice about, is not exactly clear at this point.

Still, I have to disagree with this though:


First of all, the number of people here at PW who are actively working to improve their sight-reading (SR of the kind that I defined) show that it's not only professionals or people who play in ensembles that believe sight-reading is important. And one of the reasons for that is something you said yourself:



And, I would add, the better one is at sight-reading, the better one is at playing from the score, by which I mean playing a learned piece without having it memorized, and actively reading while playing. And this is a key component of having a larger repertoire of pieces and maintaining a larger repertoire in general, which makes it possible to have that large repertoire without having to give up on learning new pieces as well. In other words, being good at sight-reading means it takes less work (less frequent practice/plays-through) to maintain numerous pieces simultaneously.

Also, for me, another reason I work on sight-reading is because at this stage of my piano studies, there is a lot of nice music that's below my current playing level, that I would like to be able to access through playing/sight-reading without necessarily having to devote practice and lesson time to. In other words, to just sit down and play something and enjoy that.

And finally


Not stopping is important if you're playing for someone, it's important if you're recording, and it's important if you're trying maintain the musical flow throughout a piece from beginning to end. Whether any given play-through of a piece should have not stopping as a goal depends on a variety of factors, including how long you've been working on the piece, and your goals for that particular play-through or practice session. There are many more things that come into play beyond just whether you're playing alone or with others.

So I have just disagreed with some of your main points, but that doesn't mean that I think you're wrong, instead it shows that you and I have different musical goals, and different approaches to achieving them. The only real point that I think is wrong is that you make it sound as if striving to develop the kind of sight-reading skills I describe is not a worthwhile activity (again, unless one is a pro or in an ensemble). I personally think it's very worthwhile goal, and I use specific practice techniques to work towards it. If that's what the OP wants to do, then s/he should have advice that fits that goal. If not, then we should all be clear on what the goals are, and describing/defining sight-reading versus other types of score-reading precisely is really the only way to be clear about that.

Yes, but it's a very rarely required skill. Whether you're playing Chopin or Cole Porter, how often do you encounter something completely unknown? In the olden days of movies and TV, music was written for the production, and recorded by Local 47 musicians who really did have the skill to play something mere minutes after getting the diazo's. But that's pretty much a thing of the past.

I don't know what the present state is, but until fairly recently the background music for the soaps required the pianist to sight read the music.

How do I know? I've had the fun of talking a lot with Harriet Wingreen, who was the pianist for the NY Philharmonic until about three years ago. She also played the piano for performances of one of the afternoon soaps. Talking to her is like hearing a history of classical music during the second half of the 20th century. She has played with almost every famous conductor and singer. And she also played the second piano part for rehearsals with many great pianists.

But you are right when you say that for the huge majority of amateur pianists the ability to sight read well is not too important. Much more important is how long it takes them to learn the notes at a piece. It is possible to be a relatively poor sight reader but still learn the music quickly.

Although those two skills often go together they are not the same. IMO when most beginners complain they are poor sight readers and ask advice about how to improve they are really complaining about how long it takes them to learn the notes of a piece.

Only professional musicians who often have to accompany on the spot or those who want to play a lot of chamber music where everyone is sight reading need to have excellent sight reading ability. And virtually none of them got that ability by practicing their sight reading (as in now I'm going to practice sight reading for 20 minutes).

That's interesting about the soaps. I'm in weekly episodic post production, soaps are a whole different world.

Sight reading has been a very important skill for me, in the pop/jazz arena:
1. Playing with a big band, you need to sight read charts during rehearsal. You don't have to be perfect, but you need to get most of it.
2. Working with singers who hand you charts. Again, you need to get the gist of it right, in rhythm.
3. Pleasure playing. For years I purchased sheet music, normally from the Great American Songbook. I rarely had the time or energy when the kids were young to practice, but I spent many enjoyable hours sight reading my way through countless books of sheet music.

I doubt there is any reasons to learn sight reading just for the sake of having the skill. But for me, it's all I did for many years, and it still pops up as a useful skill.