4 ms·

You have to start with really simple things. When you can sight read a grade 1 piano book, move on to grade 2. Doing written theory homework also helps, becau

You have to start with really simple things. When you can sight read a grade 1 piano book, move on to grade 2. Doing written theory homework also helps, because it forces you to think about all the little details and it means your fluency goes up. I really don't believe this is about talent, it's just difficult in the same way that learning to read English is difficult. Also stopping and starting is a no-no, and recording yourself and analyzing where you slipped up helps too. Really, if you want to do it, I'm sure it can be done, but you probably need a better approach.

haberman 13y ago
Maybe I didn't make this clear enough. I grew up in a household with a piano teacher and could play simple Bach pieces from an early age. I studied organ for four years. On my senior recital, I played this very difficult piece: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtA_6lIhKWY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtA_6lIhKWY I have achieved some skill on the keys, and spent a lot of time doing it. And still I can only sight read basic things. Like a four part hymn is basically the limit of how much information I can process in real time. Contrast this with a musician I work with regularly who can sight read from an orchestral score WHILE TRANSPOSING. I could work my whole life and never be anywhere close to what she can do. Look, I've had people tell me before that they're sure that I'm just not practicing right. Just because certain techniques work for you doesn't mean they will work for everybody. I have a whole lifetime of data that says that things that are relatively easy for other people are very difficult for me.
- saraid216 13y ago
  My piano teacher had me practicing sight reading very specifically. I don't know if that's important, perhaps? I was able to sight read just barely well enough to get the certificates, but I've never been able to do it honestly, or play by ear. And back when I still practiced, I was a fairly decent pianist.
- charlieflowers 13y ago
  People really wish this wasn't true, and they wish it so badly that they continue to fool themselves into believing there is no innate talent. It's basically Wizard's First Rule at work. How quickly people forget the whole "Blank Slate" fiasco in the field of psychology. Certain proclivities, likes & dislikes, and yes, talents, are innate. It is not such terrible news ... you can still accomplish a hell of a lot in a direction of your choosing by dogged, deliberate practice.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Well, what is your method for improving your sight reading? Have you thoroughly addressed all of the training aspects described in the Wikipedia article on it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sight_reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sight_reading If you want to make some point about talent, obviously the best way to do that is to be resistant to improving your practice. If you genuinely want to be better at sight reading, then obviously it's going to conflict with your beliefs about talent. So, you're in a bit of a jam if you want one or the other, but I'm pretty sure the explanation for competent sight reading ability is not all talent (nature) or all practice (nurture). Even the research quoted in the article I linked to says it's a combination of a strong working memory combined with lots and lots of practice.
  - haberman 13y ago
    If you're admitting that talent plays a role, then we are in agreement and I'm not sure what you're arguing against. I'm arguing against the 10,000 hour rule, which attempts to discount or minimize the role of talent in one's ability to develop skill. Over the years I have practiced keyboard sight reading in various ways. I own this book and practiced with it for a while: http://www.amazon.com/Speed-Reading-Keyboard-Edward-Shanaphy/dp/0943748259 http://www.amazon.com/Speed-Reading-Keyboard-Edward-Shanaphy... And sure, it made me slightly, marginally better. But contrast this with sight reading as a singer, which I have always been good at without even trying. I have never had to specifically practice sight reading as a singer, and yet I've always been better at it than most people. The 10,000 hour rule isn't much of a rule if for every counterexample you say "you weren't trying hard enough."
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      Oh I was just reacting to this part of your post: > I strongly believe that no amount of time at the piano will make me a good sight reader. I believe I could get marginally better, but I will never reach the level of even an average pianist. So, in the absence of technique problems, I think you can become an average sight reader. I think it's much harder to say whether you can become an excellent sight reader. Seriously, if you have classical piano books at home, just start with every piece in the grade 1 or kindergarten book, then the grade 2 book, and so on. Usually sight reading 2 grades below your playing level is a reasonable end goal. It can be boring to play those simple pieces but it's the most effective method in my experience. Perhaps you are good at sight singing simply because you are a singer, and if you were a pianist in the same way you are a singer then your sight reading would improve. Perhaps you don't need or want to be good at sight reading, in which case there's no point in pursuing it. I'm not denying your experience of one being easier for you than the other, but I'm also not convinced that you have 10,000 hours of piano sight reading practice, so I guess it doesn't strike me as a counterexample. How many hours would you say you had for each of singing, sight singing, piano playing, and sight reading? If it's really 10,000+ hours each, I'll eat my hat.

haberman 13y ago

Maybe I didn't make this clear enough. I grew up in a household with a piano teacher and could play simple Bach pieces from an early age. I studied organ for four years. On my senior recital, I played this very difficult piece: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtA_6lIhKWY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtA_6lIhKWY I have achieved some skill on the keys, and spent a lot of time doing it. And still I can only sight read basic things. Like a four part hymn is basically the limit of how much information I can process in real time. Contrast this with a musician I work with regularly who can sight read from an orchestral score WHILE TRANSPOSING. I could work my whole life and never be anywhere close to what she can do. Look, I've had people tell me before that they're sure that I'm just not practicing right. Just because certain techniques work for you doesn't mean they will work for everybody. I have a whole lifetime of data that says that things that are relatively easy for other people are very difficult for me.

saraid216 13y ago
My piano teacher had me practicing sight reading very specifically. I don't know if that's important, perhaps? I was able to sight read just barely well enough to get the certificates, but I've never been able to do it honestly, or play by ear. And back when I still practiced, I was a fairly decent pianist.
charlieflowers 13y ago
People really wish this wasn't true, and they wish it so badly that they continue to fool themselves into believing there is no innate talent. It's basically Wizard's First Rule at work. How quickly people forget the whole "Blank Slate" fiasco in the field of psychology. Certain proclivities, likes & dislikes, and yes, talents, are innate. It is not such terrible news ... you can still accomplish a hell of a lot in a direction of your choosing by dogged, deliberate practice.
foobarbazqux 13y ago
Well, what is your method for improving your sight reading? Have you thoroughly addressed all of the training aspects described in the Wikipedia article on it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sight_reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sight_reading If you want to make some point about talent, obviously the best way to do that is to be resistant to improving your practice. If you genuinely want to be better at sight reading, then obviously it's going to conflict with your beliefs about talent. So, you're in a bit of a jam if you want one or the other, but I'm pretty sure the explanation for competent sight reading ability is not all talent (nature) or all practice (nurture). Even the research quoted in the article I linked to says it's a combination of a strong working memory combined with lots and lots of practice.
- haberman 13y ago
  If you're admitting that talent plays a role, then we are in agreement and I'm not sure what you're arguing against. I'm arguing against the 10,000 hour rule, which attempts to discount or minimize the role of talent in one's ability to develop skill. Over the years I have practiced keyboard sight reading in various ways. I own this book and practiced with it for a while: http://www.amazon.com/Speed-Reading-Keyboard-Edward-Shanaphy/dp/0943748259 http://www.amazon.com/Speed-Reading-Keyboard-Edward-Shanaphy... And sure, it made me slightly, marginally better. But contrast this with sight reading as a singer, which I have always been good at without even trying. I have never had to specifically practice sight reading as a singer, and yet I've always been better at it than most people. The 10,000 hour rule isn't much of a rule if for every counterexample you say "you weren't trying hard enough."
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Oh I was just reacting to this part of your post: > I strongly believe that no amount of time at the piano will make me a good sight reader. I believe I could get marginally better, but I will never reach the level of even an average pianist. So, in the absence of technique problems, I think you can become an average sight reader. I think it's much harder to say whether you can become an excellent sight reader. Seriously, if you have classical piano books at home, just start with every piece in the grade 1 or kindergarten book, then the grade 2 book, and so on. Usually sight reading 2 grades below your playing level is a reasonable end goal. It can be boring to play those simple pieces but it's the most effective method in my experience. Perhaps you are good at sight singing simply because you are a singer, and if you were a pianist in the same way you are a singer then your sight reading would improve. Perhaps you don't need or want to be good at sight reading, in which case there's no point in pursuing it. I'm not denying your experience of one being easier for you than the other, but I'm also not convinced that you have 10,000 hours of piano sight reading practice, so I guess it doesn't strike me as a counterexample. How many hours would you say you had for each of singing, sight singing, piano playing, and sight reading? If it's really 10,000+ hours each, I'll eat my hat.