2017 was our 20th year online!

Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments.
Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Shop our online store for music lovers
SEARCH
Piano Forums & Piano World
(ad)
Best of Piano Buyer
 Best of Piano Buyer
(ad)
Faust Harrison Pianos
Faust Harrison 100+ Steinway pianos
(ad)
Wessell Nickel & Gross
PianoForAll
Who's Online Now
91 members (anotherscott, benQF, ambrozy, Animisha, 1903wrightflyer, AlphaTerminus, Bernard40, 20 invisible), 789 guests, and 692 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
(ad)
Estonia Pianos
Estonia Pianos
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 647
500 Post Club Member
Offline
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 647
Originally Posted by bennevis
Yet again, a thread about sight-reading got derailed into one of memorization..... crazy

First off (staying with sight-reading), this is incorrect:
Originally Posted by fatar760
Don't get me started on the problems with the exam system (ABRSM). You would still get 7-10 marks (which is nearly 50%) in the situation we've described. These organisations don't like to FAIL candidates.
To pass any test in the ABRSM, you need at least 66.666666666...%. For the whole exam, 100/150 is the minimum pass mark.

Sight-reading is marked out of 21. Pass mark is 14 (i.e. 66.6666666666.......%).

Hi Bennevis - welcome back.

Nothing I said was incorrect. You can get 7-10 marks in the scenario we were discussing. That's nearly 50% of the 21 marks allocated for the sight-reading section.

(ad)
Piano & Music Accessories
piano accessories music gifts tuning and moving equipment
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,943
B
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
B
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,943
Originally Posted by fatar760
Nothing I said was incorrect. You can get 7-10 marks in the scenario we were discussing. That's nearly 50% of the 21 marks allocated for the sight-reading section.
7-10 marks is FAIL, as I've already said. In fact, a pretty bad FAIL.

Pass mark for the sight-reading test is 14.


"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 647
500 Post Club Member
Offline
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 647
Originally Posted by bennevis
Originally Posted by fatar760
Nothing I said was incorrect. You can get 7-10 marks in the scenario we were discussing. That's nearly 50% of the 21 marks allocated for the sight-reading section.
7-10 marks is FAIL, as I've already said. In fact, a pretty bad FAIL.

Pass mark for the sight-reading test is 14.

What's your source for that?

According to the ABRSM site they don't use the word FAIL (which I mentioned earlier) and award marks as long as an attempt is made:

https://gb.abrsm.org/en/our-exams/what-is-a-graded-music-exam/sight-reading/

Joined: May 2015
Posts: 8,926
Silver Subscriber
8000 Post Club Member
Offline
Silver Subscriber
8000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 8,926
Originally Posted by fatar760
Originally Posted by bennevis
Originally Posted by fatar760
Nothing I said was incorrect. You can get 7-10 marks in the scenario we were discussing. That's nearly 50% of the 21 marks allocated for the sight-reading section.
7-10 marks is FAIL, as I've already said. In fact, a pretty bad FAIL.

Pass mark for the sight-reading test is 14.

What's your source for that?

According to the ABRSM site they don't use the word FAIL (which I mentioned earlier) and award marks as long as an attempt is made:

https://gb.abrsm.org/en/our-exams/what-is-a-graded-music-exam/sight-reading/


They may not use the word ‘FAIL’ but they use the euphemism of ‘below pass’. Last time I checked a below passing grade is a fail. The only question is how many points you get for your failing grade. Just like in elementary school.


"Music, rich, full of feeling, not soulless, is like a crystal on which the sun falls and brings forth from it a whole rainbow" - F. Chopin
"I never dreamt with my own two hands I could touch the sky" - Sappho

It's ok to be a Work In Progress
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 647
500 Post Club Member
Offline
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 647
Originally Posted by dogperson
Originally Posted by fatar760
Originally Posted by bennevis
Originally Posted by fatar760
Nothing I said was incorrect. You can get 7-10 marks in the scenario we were discussing. That's nearly 50% of the 21 marks allocated for the sight-reading section.
7-10 marks is FAIL, as I've already said. In fact, a pretty bad FAIL.

Pass mark for the sight-reading test is 14.

What's your source for that?

According to the ABRSM site they don't use the word FAIL (which I mentioned earlier) and award marks as long as an attempt is made:

https://gb.abrsm.org/en/our-exams/what-is-a-graded-music-exam/sight-reading/


They may not use the word ‘FAIL’ but they use the euphemism of ‘below pass’. Last time I checked a below passing grade is a fail. The only question is how many points you get for your failing grade. Just like in elementary school.

Whatever your personal definition, the ABRSM do not deem it a FAIL and certainly not a BAD FAIL. You can gain marks which may, ultimately mean you pass the overall practical exam.

In the scenario we spoke of I said you could get 50% of the allocated marks (that's the 7-10 bracket) In the 'Below Pass' section you can get up to 62%. That's not incorrect or open to dispute.

Let's not get diverted talking about the exam system though (which I believe is flawed), I simply wished to address the 'incorrect' comment I was quoted in.

Joined: May 2016
Posts: 2,260
I
2000 Post Club Member
Offline
2000 Post Club Member
I
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 2,260
Originally Posted by pianoloverus
1. If one is reading while performing a well studied piece, the amount of "decyphering of notation" is by your own admission quite minimal so any resources used on that will be minimal. But more importantly, you omit the anxiety provoking fear of a memory lapse which could certainly cause a far bigger problem and bigger use of resources compared to minimal looking at the score.
The impact of reading on attention resources is still significant even when the "decyphering of notation" component is low because of the need of constant place tracking in the score.

The fear of a memory lapse is usually a pre-performance thing, it disappears when you begin playing and immerse yourself into music. Playing by memory is a great pleasure really. Although if anxiety of any kind, would it be a fear of a memory lapse, or a fear of technical mistake or just a stage fright, is so severe that it hinders the immersion into music and affects performance negatively, than it must be dealt with separately. There are methods to overcome it. It's not a reason to back down to score reading. Or to cancel performances after all.

Originally Posted by pianoloverus
2. Even if one is not reading ahead because one is playing without a score one has to be thinking ahead so one cannot be concentrating fully on what one is playing in the moment.
Actually no, playing from memory doesn't require thinking ahead in the manner of reading the score ahead.

Originally Posted by pianoloverus
3. If playing without a score is better, why don't solo pianists playing contemporary scores, vocal accompanists, chamber musicians, and orchestral players perform that way?
Because, to say honestly, accompanying and playing in ensemble doesn't require the level of perfection of solo classical performance. There also are sorts of music that don't require it.

Originally Posted by pianoloverus
Bottom line: I think for a big majority of amateurs and many professionals performing with the score will give a better result. In terms of not having to spend an inordinate amount of extra time memorizing the score and being able to use that time learning more repertoire, it is undeniably better. For some, playing without the score gives a better result for a variety of reasons but I think at least a majority of amateurs and many professionals play better and have other benefits from using the score.
It's certainly a matter of personal preferences, but most solo piano performances with a score that I heard I'd call clearly second-rate. I also don't support quantity over quality approach regarding the repertoire.

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,036
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Online Content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,036
Originally Posted by Iaroslav Vasiliev
Originally Posted by pianoloverus
1. If one is reading while performing a well studied piece, the amount of "decyphering of notation" is by your own admission quite minimal so any resources used on that will be minimal. But more importantly, you omit the anxiety provoking fear of a memory lapse which could certainly cause a far bigger problem and bigger use of resources compared to minimal looking at the score.
The impact of reading on attention resources is still significant even when the "decyphering of notation" component is low because of the need of constant place tracking in the score. I think this just your opinion and nothing more.

The fear of a memory lapse is usually a pre-performance thing, it disappears when you begin playing and immerse yourself into music. Playing by memory is a great pleasure really. Although if anxiety of any kind, would it be a fear of a memory lapse, or a fear of technical mistake or just a stage fright, is so severe that it hinders the immersion into music and affects performance negatively, than it must be dealt with separately. There are methods to overcome it. It's not a reason to back down to score reading. Or to cancel performances after all.

Originally Posted by pianoloverus
2. Even if one is not reading ahead because one is playing without a score one has to be thinking ahead so one cannot be concentrating fully on what one is playing in the moment.
Actually no, playing from memory doesn't require thinking ahead in the manner of reading the score ahead. But I assume it still requires thinking ahead which might be more complicated without the score in front of you. I think your post and my reply are basically speculation.

Originally Posted by pianoloverus
3. If playing without a score is better, why don't solo pianists playing contemporary scores, vocal accompanists, chamber musicians, and orchestral players perform that way?
Because, to say honestly, accompanying and playing in ensemble doesn't require the level of perfection of solo classical performance. There also are sorts of music that don't require it. I think the greatest chamber performers would disagree. Performing the greatest chamber music doesn't require the highest level of perfection?

Originally Posted by pianoloverus
Bottom line: I think for a big majority of amateurs and many professionals performing with the score will give a better result. In terms of not having to spend an inordinate amount of extra time memorizing the score and being able to use that time learning more repertoire, it is undeniably better. For some, playing without the score gives a better result for a variety of reasons but I think at least a majority of amateurs and many professionals play better and have other benefits from using the score.
It's certainly a matter of personal preferences, but most solo piano performances with a score that I heard I'd call clearly second-rate. I also don't support quantity over quality approach regarding the repertoire.
One only has to read the threads about incredible nervousness many amateurs feel before and during a performance with concerns about memory lapses to realize that for most amateurs performing with the score will avoid some of that problem and, in general, lead to a better performance. It's possible that for some professionals playing from memory would lead to a better performance, but since professionals are far less than 1%(maybe less than .1%) of pianists, what's better for them doesn't seem like a major consideration. For amateurs, enjoyment should be a major consideration, so doing whatever one can to avoid the unpleasantness so many write about when they perform in the teacher's student recitals should be a major consideration.

As far as quality over quantity goes, I think the inordinate amount of time it takes most amateurs to memorize a work to a degree where they feel reasonably confident in a performance is so great that it would almost be a pedagogical crime to insist they memorize all the repertoire they study. Memorizing the single piece they play once or twice a year at student recitals is reasonable although not necessarily desirable, but memorizing all the pieces they study is something I think is a very bad idea. Using that memorization time for additional repertoire study or technical work is incredibly more important.

Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,003
Z
4000 Post Club Member
Offline
4000 Post Club Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,003
Originally Posted by pianoloverus
So all the greatest pianists who never memorized music before it became fashionable/required and all the chamber music players and orchestra players who have almost never memorized music may lack comprehension...
That's your conclusion but that's not what I've been saying.
Originally Posted by pianoloverus
...or be concerned that their non memorization is a warning sign(not sure what you mean for what)?
We know that it's better to learn in phrases than to just play the whole piece over and over.

If a phrase that's being practised isn't being remembered, naturally and automatically, over that few minutes it may indicate a lack of comprehension (though it doesn't necessarily imply it.)

My experience is that if I play a phrase a few times and I still need the score to keep repeating it I may not have understood its musical context. If I then try to memorise it deliberately I have to look for patterns and clues in the music to make the phrase stick. That makes the phrase better understood and it then falls naturally into memory for those few minutes when I'm practising it and I learn it faster. Once I've mastered that phrase I needn't ever play it from memory again.

So (here we go again) learning quickly needs good reading and comprehension skills.
And not automatically remembering a repeated phrase over a few minutes and for a few minutes may indicate a lack of comprehension.

Deliberately trying to memorise that particular phrase for a few minutes may help discover its musical context and improve the interpretation and understanding of the piece.

For me it also speeds up the learning process of that piece by around a week per page. This has nothing to do with playing the piece without the score.

Originally Posted by pianoloverus
I haven't memorized a piece for the last 55+ years...
Yet you have so many negative things to say about it.

I have memorised most of my pieces just by practising them. If memorising took more time or more effort than coordinating my hands and fingers I probably wouldn't bother but it's a natural outcome of repetition for me. And because memorised music is more solid I would never contemplate performing in recital a piece that I needed the score for. Horses for courses.


Richard
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,036
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Online Content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,036
Originally Posted by zrtf90
Originally Posted by zrtf90
[quote=pianoloverus]So all the greatest pianists who never memorized music before it became fashionable/required and all the chamber music players and orchestra players who have almost never memorized music may lack comprehension...
That's your conclusion but that's not what I've been saying. I think what I said follows directly from what you said but didn't include in the above quote.

Originally Posted by pianoloverus
...or be concerned that their non memorization is a warning sign(not sure what you mean for what)?
We know that it's better to learn in phrases than to just play the whole piece over and over. I never said one should play the whole piece over and over.

If a phrase that's being practised isn't being remembered, naturally and automatically, over that few minutes it may indicate a lack of comprehension (though it doesn't necessarily imply it.) If it was that simple for most people to memorize there wouldn't be the countless posts about performance anxiety when the person had even one short piece to play. It's one thing to remember a phrase immediately after one practices it a few times but more difficult to remember it after one is working two pages later on the piece or a week later.

My experience is that if I play a phrase a few times and I still need the score to keep repeating it I may not have understood its musical context. If I then try to memorise it deliberately I have to look for patterns and clues in the music to make the phrase stick. That makes the phrase better understood and it then falls naturally into memory for those few minutes when I'm practising it and I learn it faster. Once I've mastered that phrase I needn't ever play it from memory again. If you're not playing it from memory then are you using the score? If you meant to say you needn't ever play it from the score again, I would find that hard to believe. Not even a year or ten years later?


Originally Posted by pianoloverus
I haven't memorized a piece for the last 55+ years...
Yet you have so many negative things to say about it.
Perhaps I've performed/ learned a lot more music than you have despite relatively small practice time. For example, when I used to give Christmas recitals at senior centers I had a folder with advanced intermediate to advanced level arrangements that was well over 100 pages long. If I had tried to memorize things the page limit would have been 10-20 and I wouldn't have learned all the other songs ever.

Right now I am working on a repertoire of note for note transcriptions of performances by Jarrett, Hersch, Pandolfi, Grusin, Peterson, Gershwin, Evans, Bence, Shearing, etc. that's over a 150 pages long. If I (and I think most people also) attempted to memorize these transcriptions I would end up learning at most 20% of them.

I doubt we'll ever come to agreement here, so if your approach works for you I think that's perfectly fine. I don't think memorizing everything is a good approach for most amateurs and would guess many pros would prefer to not have to do it if it wasn't expected.

Last edited by pianoloverus; 08/23/21 11:31 AM.
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,849
W
5000 Post Club Member
Offline
5000 Post Club Member
W
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,849
Originally Posted by pianoloverus
Originally Posted by wouter79
Originally Posted by Saan
I have never heard that it doesn’t count as sight reading if you are playing below tempo or if you make lots of mistakes. I took lots of sight reading exams as a child and if I did these things I would have received poor marks but I would have still been sight reading.
So if I get you right, you believe it is sight reading if I play the first chord, take a minute to decypher the next beat, then play it, another minute or maybe two, play the next chord etc? Of course you can define sight reading this way but I would just call this practice or even out figuring out the notes. And would you pass a "sight reading test" this way?
You wouldn't pass the test but it would count as your sight reading test. No matter how poorly or slowly one does it, by definition it's still sight reading. And you would fail the test without doing as badly as you described. If I'm on a tennis court and hit every ball into the net I'm still playing tennis.


So you fail the test. Wouldn't it be correct then that you did NOT properly sight read?

As analogy, you fail your math exam. Shouldn't the conclusion be that you can NOT do math (yet)?

Anyway, in my book it is not sight reading if you can not do it at approximately the correct speed.


[Linked Image][Linked Image][Linked Image][Linked Image]
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,036
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Online Content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,036
Originally Posted by wouter79
Originally Posted by pianoloverus
Originally Posted by wouter79
Originally Posted by Saan
I have never heard that it doesn’t count as sight reading if you are playing below tempo or if you make lots of mistakes. I took lots of sight reading exams as a child and if I did these things I would have received poor marks but I would have still been sight reading.
So if I get you right, you believe it is sight reading if I play the first chord, take a minute to decypher the next beat, then play it, another minute or maybe two, play the next chord etc? Of course you can define sight reading this way but I would just call this practice or even out figuring out the notes. And would you pass a "sight reading test" this way?
You wouldn't pass the test but it would count as your sight reading test. No matter how poorly or slowly one does it, by definition it's still sight reading. And you would fail the test without doing as badly as you described. If I'm on a tennis court and hit every ball into the net I'm still playing tennis.
So you fail the test. Wouldn't it be correct then that you did NOT properly sight read?
As analogy, you fail your math exam. Shouldn't the conclusion be that you can NOT do math (yet)?Anyway, in my book it is not sight reading if you can not do it at approximately the correct speed.
It would be correct to say you did not sight read well or that your sight reading skills were poor. If passing on a math test is 70 and you get a 68 or even a 10 you know something, just not enough to pass.

What is "approximately the correct speed"? I've never heard anyone say that one must be able to sight read a piece near performance tempo in order to call it sight reading. That's a description of a good sight reader. How slow is too slow? What's "proper" sight reading? Clearly, these questions have no answer. I think that in itself should indicate that any attempt to play a piece for the first time from the score is sight reading.

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,849
W
5000 Post Club Member
Offline
5000 Post Club Member
W
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,849
These questions have trivial answers. But I'll spell them out but they.

You surely know what is the proper speed for all pieces you play. But to spell it out, the proper speed is often indicated with the score. And there are accepted tempos for markings like Allegro, largho etc. There are the recorded performances of the great pianists, and sometimes of the composer himself. etc.

If you have the tempo below 5/10 it's a fail. A fail means it's beyond your current capabilities. Yes you may know something but not enough to make it work. Same for sight reading imho. Playing at 50% speed is a fail. 60% might be just acceptable.

>I've never heard anyone say that one must be able to sight read a piece near performance tempo in order to call it sight reading.

Oh. then I am the first.


[Linked Image][Linked Image][Linked Image][Linked Image]
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 8,926
Silver Subscriber
8000 Post Club Member
Offline
Silver Subscriber
8000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 8,926
Originally Posted by wouter79
These questions have trivial answers. But I'll spell them out but they.

You surely know what is the proper speed for all pieces you play. But to spell it out, the proper speed is often indicated with the score. And there are accepted tempos for markings like Allegro, largho etc. There are the recorded performances of the great pianists, and sometimes of the composer himself. etc.

If you have the tempo below 5/10 it's a fail. A fail means it's beyond your current capabilities. Yes you may know something but not enough to make it work. Same for sight reading imho. Playing at 50% speed is a fail. 60% might be just acceptable.

>I've never heard anyone say that one must be able to sight read a piece near performance tempo in order to call it sight reading.

Oh. then I am the first.


No, you’re the second. I was taught to sight read music at a level far enough below my actual level, so that I could play it convincing at tempo

If you are working on sight-reading at home, whatever you do works


"Music, rich, full of feeling, not soulless, is like a crystal on which the sun falls and brings forth from it a whole rainbow" - F. Chopin
"I never dreamt with my own two hands I could touch the sky" - Sappho

It's ok to be a Work In Progress
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,501
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,501
Originally Posted by wouter79
As analogy, you fail your math exam. Shouldn't the conclusion be that you can NOT do math (yet)?
I'm not sure what the point is intended to be. But in regard just to the math exam, failure in an exam shows that you are not good at math exams, or maybe that particular math exams. Our professors in teachers college stressed the weakness of tests and exams for assessing abilities, and experience tends to bear this out.

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,036
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Online Content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,036
Originally Posted by wouter79
If you have the tempo below 5/10 it's a fail. A fail means it's beyond your current capabilities. Yes you may know something but not enough to make it work. Same for sight reading imho. Playing at 50% speed is a fail. 60% might be just acceptable.

>I've never heard anyone say that one must be able to sight read a piece near performance tempo in order to call it sight reading.

Oh. then I am the first.
1. Where did the 50% figure come from? It's just a completely arbitrary number that you think applies. Someone else could just as easily choose a number smaller or larger or say no figure is relevant. When sight reading there is no requirement to "make it work". If 60% is acceptable(for what?) does that mean 59% isn't? I think that's ridiculous. Is 50% with excellent accuracy for notes and rhythm worse than 60% will less accuracy?

2. The fact that either no one or very few people think one must be able to sight read a piece near performance tempo to call it sight reading should indicate you are probably wrong in your opinion. In fact, when people ask about improving sight reading, one of the most common suggestions is to sight read the piece more slowly. IOW playing slowly is still sight reading. No one says "Play it more slowly but that really won't be sight reading."

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,450
2000 Post Club Member
Offline
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,450
Originally Posted by pianoloverus
Originally Posted by wouter79
If you have the tempo below 5/10 it's a fail. A fail means it's beyond your current capabilities. Yes you may know something but not enough to make it work. Same for sight reading imho. Playing at 50% speed is a fail. 60% might be just acceptable.

>I've never heard anyone say that one must be able to sight read a piece near performance tempo in order to call it sight reading.

Oh. then I am the first.
1. Where did the 50% figure come from? It's just a completely arbitrary number that you think applies. Someone else could just as easily choose a number smaller or larger or say no figure is relevant. When sight reading there is no requirement to "make it work". If 60% is acceptable(for what?) does that mean 59% isn't? I think that's ridiculous. Is 50% with excellent accuracy for notes and rhythm worse than 60% will less accuracy?

2. The fact that either no one or very few people think one must be able to sight read a piece near performance tempo to call it sight reading should indicate you are probably wrong in your opinion. In fact, when people ask about improving sight reading, one of the most common suggestions is to sight read the piece more slowly. IOW playing slowly is still sight reading. No one says "Play it more slowly but that really won't be sight reading."
So if a beginner attempts to "sight-read", say, Chopin's G minor Ballade but plays it so slow and with so many stumbles and pauses that it's not recognizable as music you would still call that sight-reading? I don't agree. Now let's say the same beginner attempts to "sight-read" Bach's Art of Fugue "simplifying" it by leaving out all but a single voice. Is that still sight-reading? What if they "simplify" it even more and play only the first note of each beat? What if even after simplifying they get every single note wrong? At some point the thing they are producing is so far removed from the music on the page that you have to admit that their attempt can no longer be called a sight-reading of that particular piece. Otherwise, you have to admit that any beginner can "sight-read" Rachmaninoff's 3rd concerto and that is, IMO, ridiculous.

IMO, it has to be at least minimally musically convincing to call it sight-reading. That is indeed subjective and any criterion is necessarily going to have to be arbitrary but IMO it includes a combination of: some degree of rhythmic accuracy, some degree of note accuracy, and a minimum tempo (although whether that's 50% or something else is subjective).

Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 2,366
S
2000 Post Club Member
Online Content
2000 Post Club Member
S
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 2,366
I think you are conflating 2 different things
One is sight reading as a practice and two the proficiency when doing it.

One does not have to be good at something to say one is doing it. Just like you can be a terrible tennis player and send most of the balls into the net, it is still practising tennis.

In addition, there are levels. You can be good at sight reading a simple menuet and overwhelmed by Chopin. So you are still sight reading Chopin just very poorly. And at the beginning everyone is stumbling and having difficulties.

So when talking proficiency, the issue of criteria comes in. But otherwise when sight reading, well or not, one is still practising it.

Just like when one is learning to read (a text), even if you stumble on every word and it takes you ages to read one sentance. It is still practising reading.

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 647
500 Post Club Member
Offline
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 647
Originally Posted by Sidokar
I think you are conflating 2 different things
One is sight reading as a practice and two the proficiency when doing it.

One does not have to be good at something to say one is doing it. Just like you can be a terrible tennis player and send most of the balls into the net, it is still practising tennis.

In addition, there are levels. You can be good at sight reading a simple menuet and overwhelmed by Chopin. So you are still sight reading Chopin just very poorly. And at the beginning everyone is stumbling and having difficulties.

So when talking proficiency, the issue of criteria comes in. But otherwise when sight reading, well or not, one is still practising it.

Just like when one is learning to read (a text), even if you stumble on every word and it takes you ages to read one sentence. It is still practising reading.

The difference between these examples though is 'pressure':

Even when practising sight-reading there should be an element of pressure i.e. seeing something and playing with sense of purpose, not a casual attitude if one is it to replicate the conditions normally associated with sight-reading. Otherwise, it's just reading.

In regards to normal reading, consider a TV news reporter. Yes, they have spent hours casually reading in their own leisure, but they've also spent hours reading auto-cues under pressure, They get good at it because they can handle the pressure of reading quickly because they've practised within the situation both in and out of the studio.

Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,932
1000 Post Club Member
Online Content
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,932
Everything here goes round and round, and round and round

Originally Posted by Animisha three days ago
I think the confusion here is that you fatar760 talk about sight-reading as a skill, whereas of course there is also sight-reading as part of piano practice

Originally Posted by Sidokar today
I think you are conflating 2 different things
One is sight reading as a practice and two the proficiency when doing it.


Playing the piano is learning to create, playfully and deeply seriously, our own music in the world.
*
... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 8,926
Silver Subscriber
8000 Post Club Member
Offline
Silver Subscriber
8000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 8,926
Originally Posted by Animisha
Everything here goes round and round, and round and round

Originally Posted by Animisha three days ago
I think the confusion here is that you fatar760 talk about sight-reading as a skill, whereas of course there is also sight-reading as part of piano practice

Originally Posted by Sidokar today
I think you are conflating 2 different things
One is sight reading as a practice and two the proficiency when doing it.


Do you really expect anything different? I doubt that you do.


"Music, rich, full of feeling, not soulless, is like a crystal on which the sun falls and brings forth from it a whole rainbow" - F. Chopin
"I never dreamt with my own two hands I could touch the sky" - Sappho

It's ok to be a Work In Progress
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
What's Hot!!
Pianos - Organs - & Keyboards, Oh My!
Our Fall 2021 Free Newsletter is Out , see it here!
---------------------
Selling my Hammond & Leslie!
---------------------
My first professionally recorded piece
---------------------
Visit Maine, Meet Mr. Piano World
---------------------
Posting Pictures on the Forums
-------------------
Forums RULES & HELP
-------------------
ADVERTISE on Piano World
(ad)
Pianoteq
Steinway Spiro Layering
(ad)
PianoDisc

PianoDisc
(ad)
Piano Life Saver - Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad)
Mason & Hamlin Pianos
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Yundi Li arrested
by Sidokar - 10/26/21 05:36 AM
A thought experiment
by cygnusdei - 10/26/21 03:58 AM
Modern U where is the sample folder located?
by MooganDavid - 10/25/21 11:33 PM
Download Sheet Music
Virtual Sheet Music - Classical Sheet Music Downloads
Forum Statistics
Forums42
Topics209,747
Posts3,142,125
Members103,118
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
Please Support Our Advertisers

Faust Harrison 100+ Steinways

Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver

 Best of Piano Buyer

PianoTeq Bechstein
Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

Virtual Sheet Music - Classical Sheet Music Downloads



 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
| Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | MapleStreetMusicShop.com - Our store in Cornish Maine


© copyright 1997 - 2021 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5