Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Sight reading strategies?

What are some ways to get good at sight reading? Popular advice seems to be to keep reading. But what else should I be doing? What difficulty should I read at, and how do you develop all the individual skills that go into sight reading?

Thank you for posting the first sight reading thread of the new year! This probably isn't a good answer for you, but it gave me a good excuse to share a recently gained insight on the topic of increased fluency in music reading.

I mostly goofed off during the holidays and did nothing but play previously memorized Christmas music. I did keep up daily 15-minute sight reading practice, but took the month off from quick study/40 pieces type practice that involves what Shirokura calls read-playing. I noticed that I got progressively worse during the month without read-playing. I'm wondering now whether read-playing may be a surer path to improved music reading. Perhaps not sight reading, but music reading.

Good that you ask because I have been changing my sight reading strategy recently with I believe some mild success so far.

The typical advice is:
* Do a few minutes a day every day
* Keep going regardless of mistakes
* Read a variety of music
* Read below your level

Except that it doesn't really work. Well, for me at least doing it like this for seven years did not make me a great sight reader. I can read ok-ish and learn pieces very quickly but I'm still bad at prima vista.

The first one is fine as a starting point - regularity is king and it's much better to do a few minutes every single day than a bit more every other day or on a sparser schedule. I agree, but I found that doing a lot every day (like 1h or more) really gave me a big boost. I'll come back to this.

For the second one I have mixed feelings. The point of it is to learn to read rhythms and also help you become a group musician (you can't stop or restart when playing with others). For rhythms I get it and I practice this part separately sometimes, but I don't really care about accompanying or playing in a group. I tried this thing where you set the metronome really slow and keep going but that is just robotic and completely unmusical. Learning to read like that is not my idea of making music.

Reading beginner pieces is also not really my idea of fun and in fact fun is really the crux of the whole matter.

The thing is that sight reading beginner pieces like that every day is not very inspiring. So I said the heck with that and started doing it my own way instead. I bought some books with lots of music that I want to play: Grieg Lyric Pieces, Bach French Suites, Chopin preludes, etc. and just started exploring that music. Obviously, reading a piece like that is a lot harder so at first I had to stop, try stuff hands separately, and so on. However, the great advantage is that these are really interesting pieces that sound nice even when you play them slowly. So I stopped calling it sight reading and started calling it music exploring. I know you can listen to anything on Youtube but this is not the same. Feeling a famous piece under your fingers as you play it is much more exciting than hearing it in a video. You get to make it your own. You get a feeling for how hard it would be to learn it. It's a totally different kind of exploration.

So that's what I do. I pick random pieces from my books and try to play them and explore music that I may want to learn in the future. I don't care if I have to stop to figure something out, I don't care if I stumble or restart. I'm really just trying out new pieces for fun. It's so fun, in fact, that I had to limit this to 1h per day so I wouldn't neglect my other practice. And that is the real power of this method. It's easy to simply say "just do it more" but having a real motivator for that can truly boost the number of hours you put into an activity.

I have only been doing this for about 3 months but already I am seeing improvements and a different level in my sight reading. I can more easily recognize patterns and my hands go to the right place on the keyboard automatically, often without looking. It's like magic. I often surprise myself at the ease with which I read some things which I would have found difficult before. For instance, these last few days I've been reading pieces from Schumann's Kinderszenen and it's not even so bad. I have some hesitations but in general you could recognize the melodies. And I'm playing all the inner notes. A few months ago I wouldn't have been able to do that.

I'll add one more thing, that reading harder pieces also pushes the limits of your comfort zone and over time you find yourself accustomed to the more difficult level. For instance, when I started trying to read Grieg Lyric pieces I had to stop and count ledger lines (he likes to use a lot of them) but now I can glance and find the note semi-automatically. Same thing with Schumann and inner melodies or Bach and counter-point. It's only by pushing the limits of your comfort zone that you get better at something.

Sight-reading - once past the elementary stage, where you have to scrutinize every single note and think:"Aha! A C flat!" - is all about pattern recognition, therefore familiarity breeds....not contempt, but fluency. Even lurve .

In other words, for instance, in the first bar, you see a C# minor arpeggio ascending followed by a D flat major arpeggio descending, whilst the RH is playing a G# major chord with added 6th followed by a descending diminished 7th arpeggio going into a G flat7 chord and you instantly recognize the whole lot for what they are, and your hands move to the right positions and execute the whole sequence - because you recognize each constituent instantly and put the whole lot together automatically, and just play.

Just like you see the word 'floccinaucinihilipilification' and you instantly recognize it, and know what it means, without having to scrutinize and analyze each syllabus before putting the whole together.

Familiarity comes from lots & lots of reading. Students who hurry to memorize every piece they play and then chuck the score into the recycle bin ASAP (not waste bin, hopefully) will never become accomplished readers, let alone sight-readers, because they never associate learnt and half-familiarized patterns with what they play - because they get rid of the score just as soon as they've learnt it. Often because they just can't read the music fast enough because they never read, and it becomes a vicious cycle of 'can't read easily, so hurry to memorize => never improve at reading, so keep hurrying to memorize, because can't read easily => can't read while playing, so memorize ASAP' ad nauseam.

Therefore, one should only memorize the pieces one is planning to keep (and maybe perform in Carnegie Hall) and play everything else from the score, always. That way, you have a few favorite pieces you can instantly perform for anyone who cares to listen whenever you see a piano (in a shopping mall, train station, airport, Carnegie Hall etc) as well as have a whole lot of other music you can also play and enjoy, when you have the music with you, as well as the ability to sight-read at tempo any piece short of Opus Clavicembalisticum.

I personally follow the RCM curriculum, and have dialed back the level I was playing at to improve my reading skills. I'm working at this level now and using their sight reading/ear training book, and it's been super helpful for me. They give a lot of helpful hints in their exercises, and everything I'm playing uses those concepts, so it all makes sense to me now. Generally, the sight reading is about 3 levels below playing level. I'm definitely getting a lot better! I've caught up with theory, too. I'm finally feeling comfortable with my learning and playing.

Maybe I'll comment on this too because I happen to have all the RCM books. I think their method is good for consolidating skills but it's not sufficient for building up past a certain level. I did all the sight reading exercises starting from Prep A and I hit a wall around Level 8. I did this entire level four times over and it still wasn't very fluent (I haven't tried in a long time so maybe I should try again now 😆). I think the problem is that you need a long time and a massive amount of varied music to really get comfortable and fluent at reading. The the pattern recognition and rhythm exercises are good as they makes you aware of what to look for and how to approach reading music but they are not enough to build that fluency.

Qazsedcft - That sounds brilliant to me. I've read a lot of sight reading threads. (I don't have my Jane Austin handy, but recall something about a truth universally acknowledged about poor readers wanting to get better at it.) One thing I've noticed is that the good readers say that they didn't set out to be good readers, but just read anything they could get their hands on. I also don't recall any mention of it being easier level music.

As a kid, I would drag my mom to the local music store and come home with all sorts of music: classical, pop, rag, Broadway. I just played them the best I could because I wanted to at least hear them. My proficiency improved over time, but yes, I stopped to work out some of it.

If you define sightreading in the strict way of not stopping, proper articulation snd interpretation, that music will generally be about 2-3 grades below what you normally play.

I will mention what will be really helpful; train your eyes to ‘read ahead’ of the note you are playing. It takes time to develop but the advantage is you are more prepared when you get there.

That's right.

What Jane Austen (who was an excellent sight-reader, regularly playing Cramer, J.C.Bach, Pleyel etc from her huge collection of sheet music - and of course, she never played anything from memory) wrote in her treatise Pride versus Prejudice about Sight-Reading in Music was: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a poor reader in possession of good sense, is in want of lots of variety of music to sight-read."

And in her accompanying novel Pride and Prejudice: "Of music! It is of all subjects my delight. I must have my share in the conversation if you are speaking of music. There are few people in England, I suppose, who have more true enjoyment of music than myself, or a better natural taste."
Spot on, you've hit the nail on the head.

Be totally indiscriminate and have a go at sight-reading anything (whatever the complexity, however haltingly) you can get your hands on - everything from Bach to Bartók, Berio to Birtwistle, Beethoven to Boulez, Bernstein to Bacewicz, Brahms to Busoni (OK, OK, enough of B's, how about A-Z?), Arne to Zemlinsky, Mozart to Mussorgsky, Bliss to Cage, Bull to Lamb.............

I believe that sight-reading is a knack. I can't memorize anything, but I made my professional 57 year musical career as a sight reader. I have always been able to sight-read since I was 5 years old and still get called by organizations to sight read for people (singers, instrumentalists) doing auditions. This means reading most of the notes, all of the rhythm and all of the musical emotional context and creating synergy with the soloist on ZERO rehearsal on first reading. You perform at sight. It works, and many of my friends have done the same job for as many years.

1. A few minutes/day is not worthless but much more is needed to become proficient. If one can find music one enjoys sight reading this will not be a chore. Almost all good sight readers never "practiced sight reading". They just read through a lot of music because it was enjoyable.
2. In general it's a bad mistake to feel one must keep going regardless of mistakes. I guarantee that advanced pianists rarely follow that rule. It's probably only mentioned because that's what is desired on exams. That skill is only useful if one wants to be a professional accompanist where that skill is necessary of if one wants to sight read music with other instrumentalists. But those who are working on their sight reading usually are not ready to do either of those things.

The third and fourth rules are OK but it's not always necessary to read below one's playing level. If one reads at one's playing level one can just play the piece more slowly and expect that the sight reading will not be as good as when one reads music at a lower level. In fact, when one is learning a new piece at one's level one always sight reads the music which is at one's level.

One of my teachers went thought this book series as a child. I did I think grade 4, grade 5 and grade 6. It is for the English grade system (so not RCM) but it taught a few skills. I remember clapping rhythms, short passages and then each week I had an exercise with a few questions. Like to identify terms in the score and the key signatures. It also had a few exercises to prepare for the exam. You can also buy books with short exercises to practice. I think having some structure is easier.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Piano-Grade-Improve-Your-Sight-reading/dp/0571533019

I think at a more advanced level you certainly can play lots of music but at a lower level I don't think it works but I'm not a teacher. I don't think playing scores helped me for the sight reading test. The sight reading book prepare better.

One exam board has this in their diploma exam where you have to play an unseen piece of music . I think however diploma is very much harder than the grade exam where you only have a few short bars even at the top grade

https://gb.abrsm.org/en/exam-support/preparation-for-diplomas/diploma-specimen-quick-study-tests/

After a decade of playing my sight-reading improved but not to the point of reading anything higher than intermediate level correctly the first take. I have a good memory & can play difficult pieces after learning the notes section by section. Learning pieces in small chunks & often hands separate unless I worked on them before.

Relying on reading alone I can get through pieces up to a level 3. A week ago I worked on 2 holiday pieces. The first I’ve been learning for a few weeks & the second is a familiar tune I haven’t played for over a year. Wouldn’t call it sight-reading when a piece is familiar. Just need a week or 2 to relearn the notes.

There are advanced pieces I’m not ready for. Don’t think it’s a good idea to spend weeks or months learning just 1 difficult piece than doing easier pieces first. 3 years ago met a man who learned the Debussy “Clair de Lune” watching online demos without reading a note. Took him 3 months to memorize the piece while playing under tempo. With little knowledge of music theory the way he learned 1 piece is a bit extreme. Couldn’t convince him to play easier pieces by Mozart or Beethoven.

Improving my sight reading is one of my primary goals for 2022.

As a gigging musician, I have known how to read music for decades, but I never had to hone the ability to work in bars. I have a great ear, which is a bad thing in this case. I can (could?) listen to just about anything non-virtuosic once or twice and nail it. But Chopin isn't going to work like Led Zeppelin.

For a while, I am literally refusing to listen to recordings of pieces...and playing them with my eyes.

It is painful, because I am sooooo sloooooow for now. But I know it will pay off.

So my advice....put your ears away for a while.

I found a very good video. It recommended both a sight reading series, graded example and also playing through pieces, with some suggestions

At the moment, sight-reading is not the only concern. The local government announced the city is going into partial lockdown until mid-January. Still waiting for the latest from the teacher or the conservatory whether there will be in-person classes or the students will be connecting through Zoom.

On average I'd read up to 3 new pieces a month (the number of new pieces assigned by the teacher). I prefer to work on pieces that I know and can rely on my ears to play the melody and read the bass line.

100% agree, you absolutely have to incorporate all the exercises into your own pieces. My teacher has me sight read all my pieces before analyzing them. The more you read, the easier it gets. It takes years! No rushing it. 🙂👍❤️

I've written about "read-playing" in this forum before, I'm glad to see the term being used more often...

I find that I have really benefited hugely from actively read-playing with a more of a sightreading approach. By which I mean, for the first 10-15 minutes of practice, I play through a piece that is below my playing level, and I usually stick with one piece for a week (playing it daily) before moving on. The goal is not to perfect the piece, but get it mostly smooth and bring the tempo up as close as possible to the target tempo. I was doing this with pieces in the Music for Millions series, now I'm trying to do it with more jazz-y music.

This approach means I'm always learning something new, I move through a huge number of pieces this way. And compared to when I was truly sight reading (play the piece once and then never again), I am actually learning rather than stumbling through and then moving along.

And it makes a difference in how quickly I learn new repertoire music -- i.e., music that is at or just above my playing level. Like many people, I spend a lot longer on repertoire pieces, sometimes months. If I didn't have the read-play pieces, I would be seeing far less new music.

A few points that are important when trying to either sight-read or read-play:

1. Always look ahead in the score

2. Keep your eyes on the score as much as possible. If you have to look down, look up again right away.

3. For read-playing, make sure you're actively reading the score, not just looking at it -- this happens often unconsciously as the score is memorized even without intention to do so (which is why I stick with my read-play pieces for a week but no longer).

4. For read-playing, it's ok to write in a fingering note here or there, but if you can't play it without writing lots of fingering, then it's probably too hard to use for this approach.