sight reading

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:31:46 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Willard

Post by Jerry Willard
http://blog.chromatik.com/improve-sight-reading-skills/?utm_campaign=Blog:%20Sight%20Reading&utm_source=Facebook&utm_content=buffer15df4&utm_medium=facebook

After using that to improve your skills, here is a sight-reading test
(place it on your stand about three feet away):

http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/SightReadingTest.pdf

JMF

2013-09-27 07:27:20 UTC

Post by Richard Yates
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:31:46 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Willard

Post by Jerry Willard
http://blog.chromatik.com/improve-sight-reading-skills/?utm_campaign=Blog:%20Sight%20Reading&utm_source=Facebook&utm_content=buffer15df4&utm_medium=facebook

After using that to improve your skills, here is a sight-reading test
http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/SightReadingTest.pdf

Fantastic.

John Nguyen

2013-09-27 11:54:40 UTC

Gosh, my eyes were so tired after reading this chart. There are no rests in any of the lines!!!!

Steve Freides

2013-09-27 18:30:13 UTC

Post by Jerry Willard
http://blog.chromatik.com/improve-sight-reading-skills/?utm_campaign=Blog:%20Sight%20Reading&utm_source=Facebook&utm_content=buffer15df4&utm_medium=facebook

All those suggestions seem obvious and self-evident to me, but then I
realized that's because I'm a good sight-reader.

When asked about how to improve their sight-reading, the first and often
only answer I give is: sing on the names of the notes. Sing, and
instead of words, use the names of the notes (which is what fixed-do
solfege is, but if you don't know that, the American alphabet names will
work just fine). This is the tried and true method of training
musicians at conversatories for generations - because it works. And it
doesn't hurt that it requires every musician to be able to sing in tune,
either.

-S-

Murdick

2013-09-28 12:51:05 UTC

Post by Jerry Willard
http://blog.chromatik.com/improve-sight-reading-skills/?utm_campaign=Blog:%20Sight%20Reading&utm_source=Facebook&utm_content=buffer15df4&utm_medium=facebook

All those suggestions seem obvious and self-evident to me, but then I
realized that's because I'm a good sight-reader.
When asked about how to improve their sight-reading, the first and often
only answer I give is: sing on the names of the notes. Sing, and
instead of words, use the names of the notes (which is what fixed-do
solfege is, but if you don't know that, the American alphabet names will
work just fine). This is the tried and true method of training
musicians at conversatories for generations - because it works. And it
doesn't hurt that it requires every musician to be able to sing in tune,
either.
-S-

Steve, does anyone have a stats on the success of this fixed Do system when started late? When I was in music school we used a fixed Do type system and nobody learned anything, although to be fair, few worked on it very much. A friend of mine gave me a sheet with a simple movable Do system and I got through the sight singing course easily.

Slogoin

2013-09-28 13:41:28 UTC

Post by Murdick
Steve, does anyone have a stats on the success of this fixed Do system when started late?

That's silly. Use it or lose it. Theory and ear training don't work unless you USE it. Use it every day and you just do it all the time. IMO, teachers who don't use it are missing a lot.

Steve Freides

2013-09-28 18:23:18 UTC

Post by Jerry Willard
http://blog.chromatik.com/improve-sight-reading-skills/?utm_campaign=Blog:%20Sight%20Reading&utm_source=Facebook&utm_content=buffer15df4&utm_medium=facebook

All those suggestions seem obvious and self-evident to me, but then I
realized that's because I'm a good sight-reader.
When asked about how to improve their sight-reading, the first and often
only answer I give is: sing on the names of the notes. Sing, and
instead of words, use the names of the notes (which is what fixed-do
solfege is, but if you don't know that, the American alphabet names will
work just fine). This is the tried and true method of training
musicians at conversatories for generations - because it works. And it
doesn't hurt that it requires every musician to be able to sing in tune,
either.
-S-

Steve, does anyone have a stats on the success of this fixed Do
system when started late? When I was in music school we used a fixed
Do type system and nobody learned anything, although to be fair, few
worked on it very much. A friend of mine gave me a sheet with a
simple movable Do system and I got through the sight singing course
easily.

1. It goes back to the French in the early 1900's. Here's a bit of
information I found.

http://www.fontainebleauschools.org/music/

This is where the tradition I'm a part of comes from, e.g., I know some
of my teachers studied there with Nadia Boulanger, mentioned in the link
above as director from 1949-1979.

This link http://www.fontainebleauschools.org/history/index.html

mentions it starting after the first World War and being staffed with
prominent faculty from 1921 onward.

2. Larry makes a fine point - if you didn't really work on the system
but just dabbled with it, it's not fair to expect that to yield results
for you or anyone. I worked very hard at all this, often practicing my
ear-training homework three times a day, seven days a week.

3. My abbreviated opinion on moveable Do: a greater means to a lesser
end. I don't doubt that it's helpful to many people, but it becomes
more and more useless as the tonal complexity of the music - key
changes, atonality, etc. -increases.

4. Last but not least, solfege is but one part of the system. A
college undergrad would typically have, each week, a 2-hour theory class
consisting of one hour of harmony and one hour of species counterpoint,
a 2-hour ear-training class consisting of an hour of dictation and a
half-hour each of speaking solfege in rhythm and singing solfege, plus a
piano class, plus a keyboard harmony class, and they're all designed to
work together to get a student moving in the right direction, plus
they'd sing in chorus (voice, piano, composition, theory, conducting
majors) or play in the orchestra (everyone else).

Some of these things were tough, e.g., every week, a new Bach Chorale to
play, written in 4-part open score and in clefs: soprano line in soprano
clef, alto line in alto clef, tenor line in tenor clef, and bass line in
bass clef. Morris and Ferguson score reading exercises that did things
like change clef every few bars, and often included familiar or at least
what you thought was predictably tonal music with things that sounded
like mistakes put in on purpose, just to make sure you were really
reading everything. Atonal sight-singing exercises from the book Modus
Novus (which is still available and still an excellent resource for
anyone want to work on their atonal sight-reading).

Working on all that, it was just assumed you could figure out how to
sing an augmented 4th correctly without needing to call it Do-Fi. Fixed
Do as I learned it was part of a process that pursued a much loftier
goal and you learned whatever moveable Do had to teach you along the way
by other means.

-S-

Murdick

2013-09-29 00:35:13 UTC

Post by Jerry Willard
http://blog.chromatik.com/improve-sight-reading-skills/?utm_campaign=Blog:%20Sight%20Reading&utm_source=Facebook&utm_content=buffer15df4&utm_medium=facebook

All those suggestions seem obvious and self-evident to me, but then I
realized that's because I'm a good sight-reader.
When asked about how to improve their sight-reading, the first and
often
only answer I give is: sing on the names of the notes. Sing, and
instead of words, use the names of the notes (which is what fixed-do
solfege is, but if you don't know that, the American alphabet names
will
work just fine). This is the tried and true method of training
musicians at conversatories for generations - because it works. And
it
doesn't hurt that it requires every musician to be able to sing in
tune,
either.
-S-

Steve, does anyone have a stats on the success of this fixed Do
system when started late? When I was in music school we used a fixed
Do type system and nobody learned anything, although to be fair, few
worked on it very much. A friend of mine gave me a sheet with a
simple movable Do system and I got through the sight singing course
easily.

1. It goes back to the French in the early 1900's. Here's a bit of
information I found.
http://www.fontainebleauschools.org/music/
This is where the tradition I'm a part of comes from, e.g., I know some
of my teachers studied there with Nadia Boulanger, mentioned in the link
above as director from 1949-1979.
This link http://www.fontainebleauschools.org/history/index.html
mentions it starting after the first World War and being staffed with
prominent faculty from 1921 onward.
2. Larry makes a fine point - if you didn't really work on the system
but just dabbled with it, it's not fair to expect that to yield results
for you or anyone. I worked very hard at all this, often practicing my
ear-training homework three times a day, seven days a week.
3. My abbreviated opinion on moveable Do: a greater means to a lesser
end. I don't doubt that it's helpful to many people, but it becomes
more and more useless as the tonal complexity of the music - key
changes, atonality, etc. -increases.
4. Last but not least, solfege is but one part of the system. A
college undergrad would typically have, each week, a 2-hour theory class
consisting of one hour of harmony and one hour of species counterpoint,
a 2-hour ear-training class consisting of an hour of dictation and a
half-hour each of speaking solfege in rhythm and singing solfege, plus a
piano class, plus a keyboard harmony class, and they're all designed to
work together to get a student moving in the right direction, plus
they'd sing in chorus (voice, piano, composition, theory, conducting
majors) or play in the orchestra (everyone else).
Some of these things were tough, e.g., every week, a new Bach Chorale to
play, written in 4-part open score and in clefs: soprano line in soprano
clef, alto line in alto clef, tenor line in tenor clef, and bass line in
bass clef. Morris and Ferguson score reading exercises that did things
like change clef every few bars, and often included familiar or at least
what you thought was predictably tonal music with things that sounded
like mistakes put in on purpose, just to make sure you were really
reading everything. Atonal sight-singing exercises from the book Modus
Novus (which is still available and still an excellent resource for
anyone want to work on their atonal sight-reading).
Working on all that, it was just assumed you could figure out how to
sing an augmented 4th correctly without needing to call it Do-Fi. Fixed
Do as I learned it was part of a process that pursued a much loftier
goal and you learned whatever moveable Do had to teach you along the way
by other means.
-S-

Jesus Steve, that sounds both grim and mind-numbing. How are supposed to take a full rage of classes and practice your instrument 3 to 4 hours a day and do whatever the fuck you did? Only one in a thousand could or would do that.

I agree that if you are a late starter,the ear training thing is like learning a 2nd instrument. I don't think it's worth it. Better to spend that time on performance.

Murdick

2013-09-29 00:40:38 UTC

Post by Jerry Willard
http://blog.chromatik.com/improve-sight-reading-skills/?utm_campaign=Blog:%20Sight%20Reading&utm_source=Facebook&utm_content=buffer15df4&utm_medium=facebook

All those suggestions seem obvious and self-evident to me, but then I
realized that's because I'm a good sight-reader.
When asked about how to improve their sight-reading, the first and
often
only answer I give is: sing on the names of the notes. Sing, and
instead of words, use the names of the notes (which is what fixed-do
solfege is, but if you don't know that, the American alphabet names
will
work just fine). This is the tried and true method of training
musicians at conversatories for generations - because it works. And
it
doesn't hurt that it requires every musician to be able to sing in
tune,
either.
-S-

Steve, does anyone have a stats on the success of this fixed Do
system when started late? When I was in music school we used a fixed
Do type system and nobody learned anything, although to be fair, few
worked on it very much. A friend of mine gave me a sheet with a
simple movable Do system and I got through the sight singing course
easily.

1. It goes back to the French in the early 1900's. Here's a bit of
information I found.
http://www.fontainebleauschools.org/music/
This is where the tradition I'm a part of comes from, e.g., I know some
of my teachers studied there with Nadia Boulanger, mentioned in the link
above as director from 1949-1979.
This link http://www.fontainebleauschools.org/history/index.html
mentions it starting after the first World War and being staffed with
prominent faculty from 1921 onward.
2. Larry makes a fine point - if you didn't really work on the system
but just dabbled with it, it's not fair to expect that to yield results
for you or anyone. I worked very hard at all this, often practicing my
ear-training homework three times a day, seven days a week.
3. My abbreviated opinion on moveable Do: a greater means to a lesser
end. I don't doubt that it's helpful to many people, but it becomes
more and more useless as the tonal complexity of the music - key
changes, atonality, etc. -increases.
4. Last but not least, solfege is but one part of the system. A
college undergrad would typically have, each week, a 2-hour theory class
consisting of one hour of harmony and one hour of species counterpoint,
a 2-hour ear-training class consisting of an hour of dictation and a
half-hour each of speaking solfege in rhythm and singing solfege, plus a
piano class, plus a keyboard harmony class, and they're all designed to
work together to get a student moving in the right direction, plus
they'd sing in chorus (voice, piano, composition, theory, conducting
majors) or play in the orchestra (everyone else).
Some of these things were tough, e.g., every week, a new Bach Chorale to
play, written in 4-part open score and in clefs: soprano line in soprano
clef, alto line in alto clef, tenor line in tenor clef, and bass line in
bass clef. Morris and Ferguson score reading exercises that did things
like change clef every few bars, and often included familiar or at least
what you thought was predictably tonal music with things that sounded
like mistakes put in on purpose, just to make sure you were really
reading everything. Atonal sight-singing exercises from the book Modus
Novus (which is still available and still an excellent resource for
anyone want to work on their atonal sight-reading).
Working on all that, it was just assumed you could figure out how to
sing an augmented 4th correctly without needing to call it Do-Fi. Fixed
Do as I learned it was part of a process that pursued a much loftier
goal and you learned whatever moveable Do had to teach you along the way
by other means.
-S-

Jesus Steve, that sounds both grim and mind-numbing. How are supposed to take a full rage of classes and practice your instrument 3 to 4 hours a day and do whatever the fuck you did? Only one in a thousand could or would do that.
I agree that if you are a late starter,the ear training thing is like learning a 2nd instrument. I don't think it's worth it. Better to spend that time on performance.

Let me amend that Steve, if this is you, you did waste your time. Sorry to be so rough, but I'm making a point. This is barely a freshman level performance, which BTW, is fine - everyone has to be somewhere on the spectrum. If this is not you, I retract my statement.

Murdick

2013-09-29 00:41:26 UTC

Post by Jerry Willard
http://blog.chromatik.com/improve-sight-reading-skills/?utm_campaign=Blog:%20Sight%20Reading&utm_source=Facebook&utm_content=buffer15df4&utm_medium=facebook

All those suggestions seem obvious and self-evident to me, but then I
realized that's because I'm a good sight-reader.
When asked about how to improve their sight-reading, the first and
often
only answer I give is: sing on the names of the notes. Sing, and
instead of words, use the names of the notes (which is what fixed-do
solfege is, but if you don't know that, the American alphabet names
will
work just fine). This is the tried and true method of training
musicians at conversatories for generations - because it works. And
it
doesn't hurt that it requires every musician to be able to sing in
tune,
either.
-S-

Steve, does anyone have a stats on the success of this fixed Do
system when started late? When I was in music school we used a fixed
Do type system and nobody learned anything, although to be fair, few
worked on it very much. A friend of mine gave me a sheet with a
simple movable Do system and I got through the sight singing course
easily.

1. It goes back to the French in the early 1900's. Here's a bit of
information I found.
http://www.fontainebleauschools.org/music/
This is where the tradition I'm a part of comes from, e.g., I know some
of my teachers studied there with Nadia Boulanger, mentioned in the link
above as director from 1949-1979.
This link http://www.fontainebleauschools.org/history/index.html
mentions it starting after the first World War and being staffed with
prominent faculty from 1921 onward.
2. Larry makes a fine point - if you didn't really work on the system
but just dabbled with it, it's not fair to expect that to yield results
for you or anyone. I worked very hard at all this, often practicing my
ear-training homework three times a day, seven days a week.
3. My abbreviated opinion on moveable Do: a greater means to a lesser
end. I don't doubt that it's helpful to many people, but it becomes
more and more useless as the tonal complexity of the music - key
changes, atonality, etc. -increases.
4. Last but not least, solfege is but one part of the system. A
college undergrad would typically have, each week, a 2-hour theory class
consisting of one hour of harmony and one hour of species counterpoint,
a 2-hour ear-training class consisting of an hour of dictation and a
half-hour each of speaking solfege in rhythm and singing solfege, plus a
piano class, plus a keyboard harmony class, and they're all designed to
work together to get a student moving in the right direction, plus
they'd sing in chorus (voice, piano, composition, theory, conducting
majors) or play in the orchestra (everyone else).
Some of these things were tough, e.g., every week, a new Bach Chorale to
play, written in 4-part open score and in clefs: soprano line in soprano
clef, alto line in alto clef, tenor line in tenor clef, and bass line in
bass clef. Morris and Ferguson score reading exercises that did things
like change clef every few bars, and often included familiar or at least
what you thought was predictably tonal music with things that sounded
like mistakes put in on purpose, just to make sure you were really
reading everything. Atonal sight-singing exercises from the book Modus
Novus (which is still available and still an excellent resource for
anyone want to work on their atonal sight-reading).
Working on all that, it was just assumed you could figure out how to
sing an augmented 4th correctly without needing to call it Do-Fi. Fixed
Do as I learned it was part of a process that pursued a much loftier
goal and you learned whatever moveable Do had to teach you along the way
by other means.
-S-

Jesus Steve, that sounds both grim and mind-numbing. How are supposed to take a full rage of classes and practice your instrument 3 to 4 hours a day and do whatever the fuck you did? Only one in a thousand could or would do that.
I agree that if you are a late starter,the ear training thing is like learning a 2nd instrument. I don't think it's worth it. Better to spend that time on performance.

Sorry again, here it is.

Charlie

2013-09-29 01:07:47 UTC

Kent, You're a used condom douche bag.

Charlie

Murdick

2013-09-29 01:19:01 UTC

Post by Charlie
Kent, You're a used condom douche bag.
Charlie

That be so, Charlie, but I'm right. I don't think being a good sight reader or sight singer impacts performance very much. And I'm not the first person to say this on this list.

Slogoin

2013-09-29 02:44:26 UTC

Post by Murdick
but I'm right.

No, Kent, you are so wrong it's not funny. Once again you are playing expert about something you have not even learned to do. Why you think that failing makes you an expert is something that I can't help you with but I can tell you that I have taught singing to a lot of kids using SolFa and it works. No BS theory of yours is going to change that fact.

thomas

2013-09-29 21:34:32 UTC

Post by Charlie
Kent, You're a used condom douche bag.

But, he's right. The YT link Kent posted shows a guy who would have been better served by taking all that sight-singing time and using it to get good at guitar instead.

Steve Freides

2013-09-30 01:32:53 UTC

Post by Charlie
Kent, You're a used condom douche bag.
Charlie

Kent hasn't yet figured out how to be honest and polite at the same
time, but I'm holding out hope he will eventually.

-S-

Steve Freides

2013-09-29 01:30:37 UTC

Post by Murdick
Jesus Steve, that sounds both grim and mind-numbing. How are supposed
to take a full rage of classes
and practice your instrument 3 to 4 hours a day and do whatever the
fuck you did? Only one in a
thousand could or would do that.
I agree that if you are a late starter,the ear training thing is like
learning a 2nd instrument. I don't think
it's worth it. Better to spend that time on performance.

Decades of conservatory-trained musicians would disagree with you, and
they haven't found it a problem to practice their solfege as well as
their instrument.

Post by Murdick
Let me amend that Steve, if this is you, you did waste your time.
Sorry to be so rough, but I'm making a point. This is barely a
freshman level performance, which BTW, is fine - everyone has to be
somewhere on the spectrum. If this is not you, I retract my
statement.

Sorry again, here it is. http://youtu.be/6YkAPfnSR8M

I love you, too, Kent.

I made two recordings at around the same time. Here's the second one,
which I like better:

I have no problems with either recording as being representative of my
skill on the guitar, nor do I have any problem being told I play like a
college freshman guitar major. I haven't practiced the guitar, except
for a few brief periods of time along the way, since I was last a guitar
major in college in 1974. I'm delighted to play as well as I do. I
grew up a jazz player and have actually spent very little time as a
classically-focused guitar student - a couple of years at the local
community college, and part of one semester in 1974 as a student of Anna
Kotsarenko, and that was it. I dropped out of school without completing
that semester and, when I returned, it was as a voice major and that's
how I got my BA in music.

I attended Mannes, doing all those things you seem to think are
impossibly difficult, from 1982 to 1984, taking all the 3rd and 4th year
undergraduate stuff I described while also doing my Masters in Choral
Conducting. I later went on to complete a doctoral degree in Choral
Conducting and joined the Theory and Ear-Training faculty at Mannes.

While I was a Choral Conducting major at Mannes, I didn't have an
instrument to practice - I practiced conducting, certainly, but you
really just study music when you study conducting, and don't spend a lot
of time working on how to wave your hand around - some, sure, but not
nearly as much as an instrumental or vocal performance major. I had the
time to put into Theory and Ear-Traing and Score Reading and the like,
and am today, looking back on it, still very, very, very glad I did.

I'd love to hear your YouTube recording of this same piece - want me to
send you my transcription?

-S-

Tony Done

2013-09-29 01:50:10 UTC

Decades of conservatory-trained musicians would disagree with you, and
they haven't found it a problem to practice their solfege as well as
their instrument.

Sorry again, here it is. http://youtu.be/6YkAPfnSR8M

I love you, too, Kent.
I made two recordings at around the same time. Here's the second one,
http://youtu.be/GPHUhcBLsu8

<g> I like it because now I now what you look like.

--
Tony Done

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=784456

http://www.flickr.com/photos/done_family/

Murdick

2013-09-29 20:05:16 UTC

Decades of conservatory-trained musicians would disagree with you, and
they haven't found it a problem to practice their solfege as well as
their instrument.

Sorry again, here it is. http://youtu.be/6YkAPfnSR8M

I love you, too, Kent.
I made two recordings at around the same time. Here's the second one,
http://youtu.be/GPHUhcBLsu8
I have no problems with either recording as being representative of my
skill on the guitar, nor do I have any problem being told I play like a
college freshman guitar major. I haven't practiced the guitar, except
for a few brief periods of time along the way, since I was last a guitar
major in college in 1974. I'm delighted to play as well as I do. I
grew up a jazz player and have actually spent very little time as a
classically-focused guitar student - a couple of years at the local
community college, and part of one semester in 1974 as a student of Anna
Kotsarenko, and that was it. I dropped out of school without completing
that semester and, when I returned, it was as a voice major and that's
how I got my BA in music.
I attended Mannes, doing all those things you seem to think are
impossibly difficult, from 1982 to 1984, taking all the 3rd and 4th year
undergraduate stuff I described while also doing my Masters in Choral
Conducting. I later went on to complete a doctoral degree in Choral
Conducting and joined the Theory and Ear-Training faculty at Mannes.
While I was a Choral Conducting major at Mannes, I didn't have an
instrument to practice - I practiced conducting, certainly, but you
really just study music when you study conducting, and don't spend a lot
of time working on how to wave your hand around - some, sure, but not
nearly as much as an instrumental or vocal performance major. I had the
time to put into Theory and Ear-Traing and Score Reading and the like,
and am today, looking back on it, still very, very, very glad I did.
I'd love to hear your YouTube recording of this same piece - want me to
send you my transcription?
-S-

OK, Ok, why the fuck didn't you say so. If you did choral conducting, than all that work is your instrument. All I'm saying is that if you are a performance major, you don't want to sink yourself with these kinds of things. If you can do it in a half hour a day, it's probably worth it, otherwise, forget it. There are a lot of fine players out there who probably can't sight sing as well I could. I was conscientious and worked on ear training for a half an hour a day for several years. I could do the tonal music and could fumble very slowly through the atonal stuff because I could sing intervals.

Steve Freides

2013-09-29 23:33:34 UTC

Post by Steve Freides
I'd love to hear your YouTube recording of this same piece - want me to
send you my transcription?
-S-

OK, Ok, why the fuck didn't you say so.

I did, and I have before this, and I'm still waiting to hear you play
the same piece on classical guitar.

Post by Murdick
If you did choral conducting, than all that work is your instrument.

That's true, and I get paid to do that, albeit not often but that is of
my own choosing - I prefer to teach.

Post by Murdick
All I'm saying is that if you
are a performance major, you don't want to sink yourself with these
kinds of things. If you can do it in a half hour a day, it's
probably worth it, otherwise, forget it.

No. Anyone and everyone with musical aspirations should devote as much
time as they reasonably can to becoming a better musician, including
theory, ear-training, history, and keyboard skills.

A half hour a day is arbitary - the curriculae have progressions of
material. Each student should devote whatever time and energy is needed
in order to perform the material correctly. Some people need more time,
some people need less.

Post by Murdick
There are a lot of fine players out there who probably can't sight
sing as well I could.

Perhaps we have diffferent definitions of "fine" player. It is taken
for granted that a good musician can sing in tune. As but one example,
my son teacher (my son is currently a college trumpet performance major)
insists that he be able to sing everything he has to play - if he can't
solfege it, if he can't sing the right pitches on the names of the
notes, he's not allowed to play it until he can. If you can't hear it,
you can't play it well; if you can hear it, you can sing it.

Post by Murdick
I was conscientious and worked on ear training for a half an hour a
day
for several years. I could do the tonal music and could fumble very
slowly through the atonal stuff because I could sing intervals.

Congratulations - better that than less.

-S-

Murdick

2013-09-30 12:48:18 UTC

Post by Steve Freides
I'd love to hear your YouTube recording of this same piece - want me
to
send you my transcription?
-S-

OK, Ok, why the fuck didn't you say so.

I did, and I have before this, and I'm still waiting to hear you play
the same piece on classical guitar.

Post by Murdick
If you did choral conducting, than all that work is your instrument.

That's true, and I get paid to do that, albeit not often but that is of
my own choosing - I prefer to teach.

No. Anyone and everyone with musical aspirations should devote as much
time as they reasonably can to becoming a better musician, including
theory, ear-training, history, and keyboard skills.
A half hour a day is arbitary - the curriculae have progressions of
material. Each student should devote whatever time and energy is needed
in order to perform the material correctly. Some people need more time,
some people need less.

Post by Murdick
There are a lot of fine players out there who probably can't sight
sing as well I could.

Congratulations - better that than less.
-S-

Steve, that's a stupid argument. I used to play that piece four nights a week for years at Brooks Restaurant in South Florida. People liked it almost as much as Romanza. I played the whole suite when I was in music school. I haven't played the guitar in at least 10 years.

There is nothing wrong with your playing. You are not a pro, you are not charging anyone to listen to you , and that's fine. Your playing is clean with good tone. End of story.

Murdick

2013-09-30 12:57:44 UTC

Post by Steve Freides
I'd love to hear your YouTube recording of this same piece - want me
to
send you my transcription?
-S-

OK, Ok, why the fuck didn't you say so.

I did, and I have before this, and I'm still waiting to hear you play
the same piece on classical guitar.

Post by Murdick
If you did choral conducting, than all that work is your instrument.

That's true, and I get paid to do that, albeit not often but that is of
my own choosing - I prefer to teach.

No. Anyone and everyone with musical aspirations should devote as much
time as they reasonably can to becoming a better musician, including
theory, ear-training, history, and keyboard skills.
A half hour a day is arbitary - the curriculae have progressions of
material. Each student should devote whatever time and energy is needed
in order to perform the material correctly. Some people need more time,
some people need less.

Post by Murdick
There are a lot of fine players out there who probably can't sight
sing as well I could.

Congratulations - better that than less.
-S-

Steve says, " If you can't hear it,
you can't play it well; if you can hear it, you can sing it."

I agree with this, but solfege is not the only way to put the sound of a piece in your head. You can plunk it out on the piano or guitar, or you can listen to a recording. In the end, it doesn't matter how it gets in head as long as it gets there. The result is exactly the same. That's why great sight-singing ability does not result in great performances or the other way around.

Slogoin

2013-09-30 13:48:56 UTC

Post by Murdick
That's why great sight-singing ability does
not result in great performances or the other way around.

This is just lame. We use tools that work and solfege works better than any other tool, period. Stop being an idiot trying to make some point that does not exist. Teach it to kids and you can see for yourself how effective it is. For any k-12 music teacher singing is the one thing you MUST do and solfege is the best way to teach it. I have taught classes to students who did sing without solfege and the difference after solfege is easy to hear after just a few classes. This is not rocket science and is well documented.

Murdick

2013-10-01 15:15:04 UTC

Post by Slogoin

Post by Murdick
That's why great sight-singing ability does
not result in great performances or the other way around.

Larry, have you listened to what I have been saying? I don't disagree that kids should be taught solfege/fixed Doe. I just don't think it's the best use of one's time if you are over, say, 16. I was 23 when I started learning sight singing and got almost nowhere with fixed Doe. I did learn to sing intervals and could sing (maybe)fluently with movable Doe. I was certainly better than most of the students in my class.

Slogoin

2013-09-30 14:08:26 UTC

Post by Murdick
The result is exactly the same.

http://musiciansway.com/blog/2009/08/sol-what-some-thoughts-on-solfege/

"Solfège has become a native language that allows us to effortlessly integrate expression, notation, and technique."

"But I have no doubt regarding the benefits that I’ve derived from adopting fixed-do early in my education and later, after being exposed to the work of pedagogue Aaron Shearer, slotting in the chromatic syllables"

Steve Freides

2013-09-30 14:55:21 UTC

Post by Murdick
Steve says, " If you can't hear it,
you can't play it well; if you can hear it, you can sing it."
I agree with this, but solfege is not the only way to put the sound
of a piece in your head. You can plunk it out on the piano or
guitar, or you can listen to a recording. In the end, it doesn't
matter how it gets in head as long as it gets there.

As a teacher I am not interested in giving a person a fish but rather
teaching them to fish - big difference. To give a fish is to help a
student play one piece better, but I try to teach them to play better in
a manner that also results in an improvement in their ability to play
the next piece. And solfege accomplishes that.

Post by Murdick
The result is exactly the same.

No, please see the above.

Post by Murdick
That's why great sight-singing ability does not
result in great performances or the other way around.

I agree with your last sentence but it's important to place it in a
larger context.

A listener doesn't care how long it took a performer to learn a piece,
only that they know it well and can do something musical with its
performance. Solfege, theory, history, and all that both help a
performer learn a piece more quickly and learn it to a depth that only
playing what's on the page does not.

Your argument is rather like saying one doesn't need to learn to read
and write in order to be an effective public speaker - well, sure, there
have been people like that, but come on, they are the exception and not
the rule, and learing to read and write - well - is a worthwhile pursuit
for everyone.

For a slightly different take on the Chinese proverb, "Give a man a fish
and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a
lifetime," see this:

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/98021-give-a-man-a-fish-and-he-will-eat-for

:)

-S-

Slogoin

2013-09-30 15:06:20 UTC

Post by Steve Freides
For a slightly different take on the Chinese proverb,

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." - Terry Prachett.

Steve Freides

2013-09-30 15:37:35 UTC

Post by Slogoin

Post by Steve Freides
For a slightly different take on the Chinese proverb,

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the night. Set a man on
fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." - Terry Prachett.

Good one.

-S-

Murdick

2013-10-01 15:25:30 UTC

Steve, if one is a good reader, i.e. he can take a piece, visualize the fingers, and play it slowly with not many mistakes, then he's ready to work on that piece. If he's ready to work on it, that's all that he needs. Your "read and write" analogy is flawed in that players can read music. I seriously doubt that there is any correlation between the ability to learn a piece and perform it well, and the level of sight singing ability.

Steve Freides

2013-10-01 16:01:35 UTC

Post by Murdick
Steve, if one is a good reader, i.e. he can take a piece, visualize
the fingers, and play it slowly with not many mistakes, then he's
ready to work on that piece. If he's ready to work on it, that's all
that he needs. Your "read and write" analogy is flawed in that
players can read music. I seriously doubt that there is any
correlation between the ability to learn a piece and perform it well,
and the level of sight singing ability.

Kent, the things Larry and I are advocating are the things that will
improve how well a student can "take a piece, visualize the fingers, and
play it slowly with not many mistakes." That's a big part of why we
teach what we do.

Second, the ability to visualize the fingers is not the same as being
able to hear the music without playing it - that is one of the ultimate
goals of the theory and ear-training process, to hear the music without
having to play it.

I have a classical guitar student who works on a theory and ear-training
in his lessons with me because he had learned to play by "finger
memory." You couldn't, e.g., point to a spot in the middle of a piece
and ask him to start there because he only knew how to play the piece.
He is a retired adult, and a very smart one (and a delightful human
being as well), and he has improved greatly, and knows he's improved,
and really enjoys being good enough at reading music now to sight-read
things, start in the middle of a piece he's working on, and the like.

Your statement that "players can read music" is particularly "flawed"
when it comes to guitar players, witness the classic musical school
joke:

Q: How do you get a guitar player to stop playing?

A: Put a piece of music on his stand.

What you "seriously doubt" is not only true, it's been true for a long,
long time. Your player who can visualize fingerings will learn the same
piece more quickly, or be able to tackle a harder sight-reading piece,
if he can hear the music, not just visualize his fingers.

I think I'll go practice now.

-S-

Murdick

2013-10-17 12:46:18 UTC

Kent, the things Larry and I are advocating are the things that will
improve how well a student can "take a piece, visualize the fingers, and
play it slowly with not many mistakes." That's a big part of why we
teach what we do.
Second, the ability to visualize the fingers is not the same as being
able to hear the music without playing it - that is one of the ultimate
goals of the theory and ear-training process, to hear the music without
having to play it.
I have a classical guitar student who works on a theory and ear-training
in his lessons with me because he had learned to play by "finger
memory." You couldn't, e.g., point to a spot in the middle of a piece
and ask him to start there because he only knew how to play the piece.
He is a retired adult, and a very smart one (and a delightful human
being as well), and he has improved greatly, and knows he's improved,
and really enjoys being good enough at reading music now to sight-read
things, start in the middle of a piece he's working on, and the like.
Your statement that "players can read music" is particularly "flawed"
when it comes to guitar players, witness the classic musical school
Q: How do you get a guitar player to stop playing?
A: Put a piece of music on his stand.
What you "seriously doubt" is not only true, it's been true for a long,
long time. Your player who can visualize fingerings will learn the same
piece more quickly, or be able to tackle a harder sight-reading piece,
if he can hear the music, not just visualize his fingers.
I think I'll go practice now.
-S-

Steve says, "Second, the ability to visualize the fingers is not the same as being able to hear the music without playing it - that is one of the ultimate
goals of the theory and ear-training process, to hear the music without
having to play it."

I agree that in the best of all possible worlds, the ability to sight sing with a fixed Do system is best. But you are not listening to what I am saying!! Have you ever tried to learn sight singing at age 20? (Maybe you have) It's like learning another instrument. I think (excuse me, I know)the time could be better spent on other things. Also, I've never seen any relationship between the ability to sight sing and the ability to perform in a musical manner. People with perfect pitch can sight sing anything. Do they play the guitar better than people who can't? I don't think so. I have a friend who can't sight sing for shit, but he can memorize to performance level a page of guitar music almost instantly. I'd rather be that guy.

Steve Freides

2013-10-17 15:41:09 UTC

Post by Murdick
I have a friend who
can't sight sing for shit, but he can memorize to performance level a
page of guitar music almost instantly. I'd rather be that guy.

À chacun son goût.

-S-

Jerry Willard

2013-09-28 13:53:13 UTC

Post by Jerry Willard
http://blog.chromatik.com/improve-sight-reading-skills/?utm_campaign=Blog:%20Sight%20Reading&utm_source=Facebook&utm_content=buffer15df4&utm_medium=facebook

Just for the record my experience has been just the opposite i moved to NYC in 1972 and have worked professionally since then - i was always a miserable sight singer but was very good in theory and rhythm - i was hired by many chamber groups and orchestras on the basis of my sight reading skills. i would suggest reading a lot of easier classical and baroque music there are many good anthologies out there to choose from BUT ya gotta do it everyday to get better also something that really helped me was "never play a chord without naming what it is" i have found that very helpful too - nothing against the fixed Do thing this has been my experience

J

David Raleigh Arnold

2013-10-07 13:14:28 UTC

Post by Jerry Willard
http://blog.chromatik.com/improve-sight-reading-skills/?

utm_campaign=Blog:%20Sight%
20Reading&utm_source=Facebook&utm_content=buffer15df4&utm_medium=facebook

In developing sight reading one should pay attention to the goal,
which is to improve the reading of pieces that you are interested
in, not pieces that others think you should be interested in. It's
a long term goal, so it's easy to lose perspective, but while you
want to use a broad variety of material, you do not want to concern
yourself too much with the ultimately irrelevant. Example? A little
twelve-tone goes a long way.

Regards, Rale

--
For All Guitar Beginners: The pages of very easy solos missing
from all of the published guitar methods of others.
For All Guitarists: solos, duets, and peerless guitar exercises
David Raleigh Arnold http://www.openguitar.com

John Nguyen

2013-10-12 11:16:27 UTC

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:31:46 -0700, Jerry Willard wrote: > http://blog.chromatik.com/improve-sight-reading-skills/? utm_campaign=Blog:%20Sight% 20Reading&utm_source=Facebook&utm_content=buffer15df4&utm_medium=facebook In developing sight reading one should pay attention to the goal, which is to improve the reading of pieces that you are interested in, not pieces that others think you should be interested in. It's a long term goal, so it's easy to lose perspective, but while you want to use a broad variety of material, you do not want to concern yourself too much with the ultimately irrelevant. Example? A little twelve-tone goes a long way. Regards, Rale -- For All Guitar Beginners: The pages of very easy solos missing from all of the published guitar methods of others. For All Guitarists: solos, duets, and peerless guitar exercises David Raleigh Arnold http://www.openguitar.com

This is one of the funniest comment by far! One would think sign reading is to improve one's ability to read ANYTHING in front of him/her, not just what one is interested it. orchestral members sign read the music they may not necessarily interested it. Should they tell the conductor to get lost when presented with an unintrested piece of music? Music signreading ability should not be different from written language reading, should it?

David Raleigh Arnold

2013-10-12 21:53:01 UTC

Post by John Nguyen
This is one of the funniest comment by far! One would think sign reading
is to improve one's ability to read ANYTHING in front of him/her, not
just what one is interested

True for the studio musician and some students, but not everyone
is out to read "anything". Most people are more selective than that.

Post by John Nguyen
should not be different from written language
reading, should it?

It is very very different. Regards, Rale

Slogoin

2013-10-12 22:32:17 UTC

Post by David Raleigh Arnold
It is very very different. Regards,

Compared to what? Reading music has more in common with reading language than not. I would love to hear your argument for why you think they are more different than similar. If teachers are wrong about how musical reading skills and language reading skills are related I'm sure they would love to know why so much research shows something quite different.

David Raleigh Arnold

2013-10-14 14:53:02 UTC

Post by Slogoin

Post by David Raleigh Arnold
It is very very different. Regards,

Compared to what? Reading music has more in common with reading
language than not. I would love to hear your argument for why you
think they are more different than similar. If teachers are wrong
about how musical reading skills and language reading skills are
related I'm sure they would love to know why so much research shows
something quite different.

There are lots of differences. A similarity is that writing music
should be intrinsic to learning to read music. People teach
reading music without writing all the time. Ridiculous.

Music reading takes place when you are playing, but reading
language aloud is best done after reading for comprehension
without speaking, because reading aloud is a much slower process,
but reading music takes place with comprehension dependent on
time. Music is entirely comprehended linearly, language is not.
Word order can change, as "give it me" (England, Canada, etc.) and
"give me it" (U. S. only). "I have the book." "The book have I."

The difference is extremely important, and it makes dyslexia
in music highly unlikely, IMO. Regards, Rale

John Nguyen

2013-10-15 13:01:41 UTC

Music reading takes place when you are playing, but reading language aloud is best done after reading for comprehension without speaking,

It's incredible that this comment came from a teacher!!! Music reading skill is used more than just while playing. To list a few, it's for memorization, for review, for reading new material without playing any instrument, for preparation, andof course for composition. Are these not important?

David Raleigh Arnold

2013-10-15 23:26:24 UTC