Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner How good are the best sight readers?

A story I've mentioned a few times before. At a masterclass some years ago an Asian student brought in an obscure Szymanowski work and played it while Irina Morozova followed the score. Irina said she liked the piece a lot and had never heard it before although she had played other works by Szymanowski. After the student had played the work, Morozova proceeded to play lengthy passages of the work as if she had studied it for a long time.


Everything is relative when it comes to ability. I consider myself an excellent sight reader for an amateur but a talented professional pianist like Morozova was able to sight read a work that I could not learn in 10 years of daily practice.

There are people who can sight read from orchestral scores and transpose if needed at the same time. And they can do it with performance perfect results. But don't get discouraged because these abilities may seem beyond your reach. We all have something different to offer. At the very least, you provide yourself w/the fulfillment that comes from pursuing a musical life. And, you also provide those in your proximity the opportunity to hear live music and interact w/it's performer - you! There are people whose only access to music will be through you, and that's an awesome position to hold. So keep practicing and keep bringing music to those who otherwise might miss out.

Valentina Lisitsa is renowned for being a very good sight reader, due to the fact that she has photographic memory.
I am terrible at sight reading. I play at about grade 7-8 stadards but my sight reading is more grade 3. My new teacher is now making developing my sight reading first priority, and I am slowly getting better.

Is there a difference between "sight-reading" and "faking it"? I play accompaniments at sight all the time; some of which are incredibly difficult. But, since the audience is focused on the soloist, I find it's usually okay to leave some notes out, follow the chord structure, etc. People tell me I'm a great sight-reader all the time, but I think I'm really just a good faker. I think it's a state of mind more than anything else!

By the way, doing this as often as I do makes it more difficult for me to sit down and learn a piece the right way. My teacher gets so mad when I "fake it" during lessons...

I have known many people who were excellent sight readers. In fact my 1st wife was so good that I would have her play through my new assignments so that I could hear what they should sound like! The most authoritive accounts I know of in print are Dave Brubeck's brother(who was himself an excellent pianist and transcribed Dave's improvisations)'s description of a pianist's first playing of Brubecks 'Point's on Jazz'. (Sorry - that was a terribly convoluted sentence!) He (brother Brubeck) had been asked a question about how the piano part was considered by most musicians to not be idiomatic to the keyboard and perhaps not playable. He recounted in detail how the pianist for it's performance had played it effortlessly at sight. There are also the many descriptions and reviews of Peter Serkin sight reading recitals and concerts. When I was studying, it was not only comon but expected that the professors could sight read (although there were occassionally those who didn't/couldn't. I can only think of one who expressed to me his lack of sight-reading proficiency). It was also expected that we the students could sight read. And there were even many fellow students that could play anything you put in front of them - tastefully, expressively and w/appropriate interpretation. Now that I think of it, I've had students (early teens) who were excellent sight readers. It really is a skill that is considered a part of overall musical proficiency. It doesn't mean that we aren't musicians if we lack that skill or don't possess it to the same degree that we have other skills. But I don't think we should dismiss the fact that it's something we should strive for in order to be well rounded musicians. I learned to read fairly late and have always been very self conscious about my poor reading. As a result, I practice it as often as I can. And I have continually improved. I'm sure that if I had more time to devote to it, I'd get better faster. But I try to keep my sight reading situation in perspective. There are other areas in which I am strong, I'm able to function under whatever musical circumstances present themselves, and I'm always improving - not just at sight reading, but in every area where I need improvement. The one thing I don't do is kid myself that sight-reading is: 1)something that no-one can do perfectly, 2)not a part of musical profiency, or 3) not something I need to be able to do. So, in order to sum up, keep a healthy attitude about your abilities and inabilities, but don't ever stop pursuing all of the areas that will move you closer to being a totally competent, well rounded, and complete musician.

When talking about sight-reading skills many tend to lose sight (whoops!) of the fact that we are not always necessarily referring to those who can take a complex score and play it at what would appear to be almost performance level the first time through. The emphasis always seems to fall upon those with phenomenal skills - stories apocryphal and true - about those incredible musical geniuses who play Liszt at sight, followed by the disclaimers and the disbelievers cries of "foul!"

Yet, on the other hand, there are those who have good sight-reading skills - referred to in previous posts in this thread - where they can take the accompaniment to a vocal or instrumental work or a solo piano piece of moderate difficulty, and play it almost flawlessly the first time through. These are people who, along with their talent have developed this skill through hard work and through the constant demands put on them to sight-read.

What I find disconcerting is that occasionaly those who don't have this skill are very often inclined to say that sight-reading at this level just isn't possible and that the claims are exaggerations of fact. Yet, it's done all the time by those who need sight-reading skills at this level to maintain their positions in their profession.

The "phenoms" who can read a Ligetti Etude at sight may be indeed rare and their skills may be hard to imagine and believe, but there are many, I say many, good sight readers who use their skills effectively and efficiently every day.

Regards,

Laney,
For most of us, the ability to select things to leave out, or simplify, or make generic (faking if you like) is a big part of sight reading. If you can recognize an F maj arpeggio and then fill in a generic one of your own rather than to read each note of the composers F maj arpeggio, then that's a valuable tool for sight-readers. Likewise for knowing (or being able to find) the important elements to include while letting less important details go. It sounds as though that's what you do, so I'd say you are a good sight reader.

It is also absolutely possible to learn (and teach) sight-reading. From the first lesson (and every lesson after that) I incorporated sight-reading into my students regimen. Regardless of their level, they took sight reading for granted. Of course it's more difficult to go back and pick up reading skills for students who developed technique and repertoire w/o addressing sight-reading issues. But it can be done.

Bruce D has hit the nail on the head. Competent sight readers are everywhere. Go to any community and you'll find church pianists who can read anything put in front of them. Many can transpose it for you too! Of course we have to keep in mind that they are not required to play outrageously difficult virtuoso material at sight. But, piano accompaniments and the standard repertoire that most of us play (from Bach to popular piano sheets) are well with-in their ability to play perfectly at sight. It's an expected musical proficiency. And it's not that unusual to find people who LITERALLY can play anything you put in front of them. We need, however, to keep in mind that 'competency' doesn't necessarilly require the abilities of those have unimaginable super-human abilities. Those who can take the written page and simplify it to create an appropriate performance are also skilled (and competent) readers. We need to remember that there are many different approaches to sight-reading and many degrees of sight reading proficiency. The determination of whether or not a pianist is a good sight reader is not how he compares to phenomenal super-readers, but how well he can meet the needs of a given performance at sight.

One thing that might bear mentioning is that when we say 'Sight-reading' we don't mean playing from the music. We mean playing from the music at FIRST sight. The second time you read it, it's no longer sight reading.

I apologise for monopolising the thread, but I wanted to comment on Bob Newbie's statement about savants. Like most people, I am fascinated by the abilities of savants and rush to listen each time there is a report of another. But, my experience has been that they never live up to the hype. They don't play everything correctly, or regurgitate things exactly as presented. You can get a feel for the 'mental groupings' that guide their perception of what they hear and how they reproduce it, but it always seems distorted. While their music seems 'perfect' to the general public, it is usually pretty bad outside of the Savant context. I don't mean to diminish the abilities of these people (they are truly extraordinary and fascinating); but, we really should avoid misrepresenting their abilities as well. Their abilities are very different from prodigies. The other aspect we need to consider is that, whenever we use terms to describe people, we are in essence placing individuals in categories. I'm sure that there are some prodigies that display some characteristics of savants and vice versa. Once we add an element of genious (actually, any time we add the variability of a human brain) we encounter countless incarnations of abilities, disabilities, eccentricities, and conformity. There, but for the grace of God, go US ALL!

Sightreading is a major part of my professional life.

I accompany many choirs, and many singers. Often times I won't have the advantage of having the music in advance. Sometimes I'm only able to study the score en route to the venue (if I'm not driving ).

I read vocal open score, anything beyond 8 parts gets rather dicey. I transpose simpler music - not my favorite thing, but I try to keep a smile on my face nonetheless .

I once had to accompany the Dvorák "Stabat Mater" with only one day to prepare it. It was for a high-profile symphony chorus, so the pressure was on.

I occasionally accompany gifted high school instrumentalists - I'll sightread things like the Poulenc Sonata for Flute & Piano, perhaps with only one run-through immediately prior to the concert.

I accompany a gathering of professional singers who often put Richard Strauss operas in front of me, or 20th-century works that are unfamiliar to me. In cases like this, I've learned that dropping notes (in order to maintain the beat, and in order to play the correct notes) is a virtue.

That's true for just about any ensemble circumstance, really. The only time I really try to squeeze in every possible note is when I'm playing through solo literature for myself.

After years of doing this, I'm happy to say that I don't drop too many notes. I maintain that years of practicing scales got me to this point!

The good thing: I can sightread almost anything up to tempo.

The bad thing: I don't spend enough time practicing and perfecting anything, and memorize nothing.

Some of these testimonials are blowing me away! Especially the one about Ernst Von Dohnany. I think I recall a similar story about Joseph Hoffman viewing a score and then without having taken it home playing the entire work the next day in recital.

I'm in awe of you guys that can read so well. To think how hard and long I work just to even play through a piece much less learn it. So Sam....I have to practice? Seriously, thanks for the advice. I'm going to order the Bach chorals.

Sorry stephenc,

After everybody has vented their spleen ... no one has come up with a cast-iron way to
sight-read keyboard music ... other than the stale and extremely brainless maxim of
"practice, practice, practice" ... lots of pipe-dreams about knowing "someone"
(or having heard of someone) who can "magically" sight-read anything ... but amazing how all these stories tend to fade a little at the end and include a closing reservation ... we never
get to meet these people or glean from them the magic recipe to sight-reading " a new score as easily as you can read out loud from a new book. "

There are endless examples of folk who want to believe in the pot of gold ... and babble the faith only to be reduced to saying contradictory things like

"There are, I expect, plenty of people on this forum and elsewhere who, on a daily basis will
do just this" ... but strangely close with ...
"I don't know of anyone, though, who would
sight-read a formal solo performance; that would be patently absurd."

We're dealing with an extremely touchy subject in talking about personal sight-reading skills
... it's almost as though it's a reflection on manhood or IQ ... nobody wants to be shown up
and secretly carries a slightly inflated image of their own sight-reading skills.

Braggadocios are the supreme con artists festering the myth that it's possible to play a fresh piece of music without preparation ... and why not ... it's good for business.

btb, I'm not sure I understand what your complaint is?

I have no reservations in claiming to sightread *almost* anything - even at a performance (if it is truly an emergency). Which reminds me - I once did indeed have to sightread Gigout's Grand Choeur Dialogué on the organ with a brass sextet, when the performer became ill immediately prior to the performance.

And I have even said that my secret (if it can even be called that) is that I diligently practiced all major & minor scales for years.

The only thing I didn't say (but you reminded me) was that the more you sightread, the easier it becomes. It really is true.

Whippen is this really true?
"The bad thing: I don't spend enough time practicing and perfecting anything, and memorize nothing." you can't play without the score in front of you? I know a lot of the play by ear..guys say the classical people are unable to play without the music sheet! I always took that comment with a grain of salt..is it true? Bob

It has been years since I've played from memory.

No time to memorize. No inclination.

I have a few pieces that I still remember: Bach's Italian Concerto, for example; a Chopin Scherzo, bits of Debussy and Beethoven. But that's it.

As I've said, there ARE downsides to this life. Not everyone will give up a solo career for a life of sightreading/accompanying, but that is the choice I made.

BTB,
It's surprising that you have not personally run upon any excellent sight-readers. I have had a great deal of first hand experience. My father was a violinist, and many times pianists would have to site read performances w/him. Many of my friends are excellent sight-readers. It's required for our work. There are people in college music programs who accompany for student auditions. They sit at the piano all day just accompanying the next musician who just handed them a sheet for the first time. The same is true of companies who produce musicals. These are everyday working musicians. It's a skill like any other which can only be mastered through practice. I'm sure that a method could be designed to facilitate the learning of sight reading, but not w/o the obligatory practice, practice, practice. I'm kind of curious as to why you believe that the rest of us might be exaggerating or lieing about the sight-reading skills that are expected of well rounded musicians. If one were to apply for admission to a college level music program as a piano major, I can assure you,it would be expected that they could sight-read. I'm not saying that they'd be denied entry if they couldn't sight-read, but inability to sight-read would be considered a deficiency and the applicant would have to have some other area in which to recommend him/herself.

'Sorry stephenc,

After everybody has vented their spleen ... no one has come up with a cast-iron way to
sight-read keyboard music ... other than the stale and extremely brainless maxim of
"practice, practice, practice" '


Several times, on this forum, I have recommended effective ways to practise sight-reading. Reading through previously learned pieces from years ago - you know when you're right or wrong. I've supported Pianojerome's Bach chorale idea which he has recommended several times. Getting hold of older hymnals. Earlier volumes of graded repertoire series. There have been many very good suggestions - but it all comes down to "you have to bite the bullet and just do it". And what's wrong with that? It's what we all had to do (often without teacher support).

At my degree finals we had to read an orchestral score at sight and we had to realise a figured bass at sight.


John

I gotta think about this one, Walt.

To me, sight-reading is the ability to play and read at the same time, first or one hundredth time. As Whippin stated, he does not memorize anything because he does not have to. I, on the other hand, do not read at speed, so I must memorize if I want any chance to play at speed.

So, I guess I feel playing at speed without memorizing is sight-reading to me.