4 ms·

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?

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

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.