Software for practicing reading music

Post by Ludwig77
Do they make any software that will more or less produce random
notation that can be used for practicing reading music?

Why would you bother with random notation? How about some music you're unfamiliar with?

Post by Ludwig77
I play by ear so once I know the melody, my tendency is to rely on
what I've heard over what I'm seeing.

Curiously, any piece that I've played from sight reading I find difficult to reproduce without the
music, unless I already knew it by ear.

Stuff I've learned by ear seems to stay there almost forever. Playing with a bunch of blokes
recently and they do all sorts of covers. They lurched into Boston's 'More Than A Feeling' and I
played the duo-solo and blew everyone (esp me) away....couldn't tell you the last time I played
that....it was just 'there'...go figure.

GDS

"Let's roll!"

moobinsikau

2010-01-20 12:58:06 UTC

Post by Greendistantstar

Post by Ludwig77
Do they make any software that will more or less produce random
notation that can be used for practicing reading music?

Why would you bother with random notation? How about some music you're unfamiliar with?

Post by Ludwig77
I play by ear so once I know the melody, my tendency is to rely on
what I've heard over what I'm seeing.

Curiously, any piece that I've played from sight reading I find difficult to reproduce without the
music, unless I already knew it by ear.
Stuff I've learned by ear seems to stay there almost forever. Playing with a bunch of blokes
recently and they do all sorts of covers. They lurched into Boston's 'More Than A Feeling' and I
played the duo-solo and blew everyone (esp me) away....couldn't tell you the last time I played
that....it was just 'there'...go figure.
GDS
"Let's roll!"

I have the same problem - sight reading alone does not allow me to
reproduce the tune - so I make GuitarPro5 do it for me. I just put in
the notation and I have got the perfect basis for practice. Easy to do
once you get used to it.

Rick Stone

2010-01-20 20:31:16 UTC

Post by moobinsikau
I have the same problem - sight reading alone does not allow me to
reproduce the tune - so I make GuitarPro5 do it for me. I just put in
the notation and I have got the perfect basis for practice. Easy to do
once you get used to it.

Yeah, I think that's a great idea for non-readers, or guys just trying
to get their reading together. GP5 is a really nice tool and I wish I'd
had something like it when I was first learning. Just the process of
going through some written music and TABBING it out in GuitarPro will
make you THINK through the music in a way that will help you better
understand standard notation and its relationship to the guitar.

ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT:

Reading to learn a new piece of music and "Sight-Reading" are in a way
two different animals. For Sight-Reading you just need to develop a
really good eye-to-hand response and keep your eyes moving forward on
the page. That means that you're basically playing stuff that you can
EASILY execute 99% of the time.

I'd also recommend starting with REALLY EASY stuff (like "Mary Had a
Little Lamb" easy!) and just read TONS of it until you can reliably do
it without stopping and going back trying to "learn" it.

Good books for this are the Rubanks Elementary Method for Trumpet,
Clarinet, Saxophone, etc. Also Universals, or other beginner books for
any treble clef instrument.

Just put a stack of them on the stand and read a few pages from the top
book, then move it to the back of the pile (open to the page where you
left off), then read a few pages of the next book in the stack, and
repeat. Keep cycling through them until you've played EVERYTHING.
Never play an example more than twice. If you can't get it in two
takes, you're trying to read over your head (in which case you should
probably actually STUDY the books you were trying to read, and go find
something EVEN EASIER to practice the "Sight-Reading."

--
Rick Stone
website: www.rickstone.com
Some of My Other sites: www.myspace.com/rickstonemusic
www.facebook.com/rickstonemusic www.sonicbids.com/rickstone
www.reverbnation.com/rickstone www.youtube.com/jazzand
www.cdbaby.com/all/jazzand http://jazzguitarny.ning.com

Paul Mitchell Brown

2010-01-20 22:23:38 UTC

If you're struggling with naming individual notes and comprehending
basic rhythmic figures, here's a nice little multi-platform
application that worked really well for my kids when they they first
started reading:

http://www.jalmus.net/

Gerry

2010-01-21 00:19:50 UTC

Post by Rick Stone
Just put a stack of them on the stand and read a few pages from the top
book, then move it to the back of the pile (open to the page where you
left off), then read a few pages of the next book in the stack, and
repeat. Keep cycling through them until you've played EVERYTHING.
Never play an example more than twice.

Precisely my viepoint. Better even, if you have a local resource
(university, big-city library, etc), is to work with guitar literature
(whether "classical music" or not). It addresses things specific to the
guitar that are diverse and specific.

What's great about reading for clarinet and trombone, is that they are
*not* written for guitar so it makes it more difficult--and
challenging--to read. The more challenged the faster the growth, in my
view.

--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

LJS

2010-01-21 03:18:23 UTC

Post by moobinsikau

Post by Greendistantstar

Post by Ludwig77
Do they make any software that will more or less produce random
notation that can be used for practicing reading music?

Why would you bother with random notation? How about some music you're unfamiliar with?

Post by Ludwig77
I play by ear so once I know the melody, my tendency is to rely on
what I've heard over what I'm seeing.

Curiously, any piece that I've played from sight reading I find difficult to reproduce without the
music, unless I already knew it by ear.
Stuff I've learned by ear seems to stay there almost forever. Playing with a bunch of blokes
recently and they do all sorts of covers. They lurched into Boston's 'More Than A Feeling' and I
played the duo-solo and blew everyone (esp me) away....couldn't tell you the last time I played
that....it was just 'there'...go figure.
GDS
"Let's roll!"

This works up to a certain point. In the end, it is really just
learning the music by ear. Or by Rote. It will work, but in your
statement, you admit to the limitations of this process! Ask yourself:
If this is really a good method, why can't I reproduce the tune?
Taking a little time and learning to read correctly WILL allow you to
reproduce the tune. GuitarPro5 is a good tool, but your process will
not teach you to read. The tool will help you to learn to play by rote
better but you will always need it when you want to learn a new tune.
The object is to be able to reproduce the tune as you read it. The
process you are using is the same as not taking the time to learn to
read the written word but instead to get an audio version and play the
tape and learn the book by sound. If you followed this procedure to
learn to read language, you would still not be learning to read. You
would still be learning everything by rote.

LJS

Dan Adler

2010-01-20 13:52:00 UTC

Post by Ludwig77
Do they make any software that will more or less produce random
notation that can be used for practicing reading music?
I play by ear so once I know the melody, my tendency is to rely on
what I've heard over what I'm seeing.

BIAB can compose solos on any chord progression (and in the style of
any artist) and then you can see the notation as it goes by with one
or two bars ahead. It's great for reading and checking your accuracy
against the midi at the same time and you can slow/speed it up as much
as you like.

-Dan
http://danadler.com

unknownguitarplayer

2010-01-20 14:37:30 UTC

Post by Dan Adler

Yes, BIAB is a great reading tool, with one possible caveat. It's
best to print the solos out and read them off the page. If you watch
the screen, the current note is highlighted, and there are jumps as
the song progresses and the screen updates. A big part of reading is
training your eyes to keep moving with the music, but in BIAB, the
eyes follow the highlighting, which is a very artificial situation.
It's been a while since I've looked at BIAB solos, but I recall that
in one configuration, the music scrolled so that your eye didn't need
to move at all. If you practice that way for a while, you might be
unpleasantly surprised when you try and sight read something on a
page, because your eyes won't be used to moving with the music.

Gerry

2010-01-20 17:32:21 UTC

On 2010-01-20 06:37:30 -0800, unknownguitarplayer

Post by unknownguitarplayer
Yes, BIAB is a great reading tool, with one possible caveat. It's
best to print the solos out and read them off the page. If you watch
the screen, the current note is highlighted, and there are jumps as
the song progresses and the screen updates. A big part of reading is
training your eyes to keep moving with the music,

I'm sure you meant "moving ahead of the music"...

Post by unknownguitarplayer
...but in BIAB, the eyes follow the highlighting, which is a very
artificial situation.
It's been a while since I've looked at BIAB solos, but I recall that
in one configuration, the music scrolled so that your eye didn't need
to move at all. If you practice that way for a while, you might be
unpleasantly surprised when you try and sight read something on a
page, because your eyes won't be used to moving with the music.

--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

LJS

2010-01-21 03:28:56 UTC

On Jan 20, 8:37 am, unknownguitarplayer

Post by Dan Adler

The question, however, is why would you want to read BIAB solos? Read
REAL solos that have musical merit. When you are reading correctly,
you are learning the music at the same time. Why on earth would you
want to waste your brain bandwidth learning BIAB solos? Have many of
these solos made any great music? If you want to read solos, learn to
read and then you can listen to GOOD solos and WRITE them down.
(transcriptions are simply the reverse of reading. When you can play
it, the same skills for reading will allow you to write it down)

All of this is work and does require energy. I just don't understand
the concept of spending ANY time, much less valuable study time, on
sub standard music. Learn to read BIAB solos? Does anyone want to
sound like BIAB solos? If it had musical merit, the musican would be
replaced by BIAB! If this is the bar that one sets for oneself, find
another profession. If you want to play a BIAB solo, play it on BIAB!
If you want to play a musical solo, read and study (or transcribe)
GOOD music. Why waste your time on BIAB. Use it for a backing track.
An improvisor does not read solos anyway. It improvises them!

LJS

Gerry

2010-01-21 04:48:14 UTC

Post by LJS
The question, however, is why would you want to read BIAB solos?
Read REAL solos that have musical merit.

They cost more, have to be pursued and can't be generated by the ton-load.

Post by LJS
When you are reading correctly,
you are learning the music at the same time. Why on earth would you
want to waste your brain bandwidth learning BIAB solos?

It's not really brain bandwidth it's more synaptic question-response thing.

Post by LJS
Have many of
these solos made any great music? If you want to read solos, learn to
read and then you can listen to GOOD solos and WRITE them down.

Good recommendation. But back to the topic of acquiring good reading
skills; you need to read a LOT, make it diverse, and don't repeat it or
you'll just train your self to quickly memorize (an additional skil as
well).

Post by LJS
All of this is work and does require energy. I just don't understand
the concept of spending ANY time, much less valuable study time, on
sub standard music.

Because it's not about music, it's about recognizing a blip and doing
what the blip tells you to--in time.

--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

LJS

2010-01-21 14:38:52 UTC

Post by LJS
The question, however, is why would you want to read BIAB solos?
Read REAL solos that have musical merit.

They cost more, have to be pursued and can't be generated by the ton-load.

Cost more? What are we talking about here. There are transcriptions of
Jazz solos in various places that are totally free. One should be able
to find them in libraries if one doesn't have friends that will share
their collections with you. IF one is talking about READING music, you
don't need to have jazz solos to learn to read. You can read from ANY
music. It is a mechanical skill and CAN be learned with things like
BIAB. But music that can be found free on the web all over the place.
If you are interested in Jazz, read the fake books. If you happen to
repeat them enough to memorize them, well then you have learned a lot
of literature.

How much of a ton-load do you need? You might also consider that if
you input a ton-load of rather meaningless solos into you brain, don't
you think that you might start to think like the BIAB algorithms? Then
you would be able to read, but you would have compromised your musical
taste!

Post by LJS
When you are reading correctly,
you are learning the music at the same time. Why on earth would you
want to waste your brain bandwidth learning BIAB solos?

It's not really brain bandwidth it's more synaptic question-response thing.

Its not? Can you back up this statement? I have taught students from
age 5 and up to adults to read effortlessly up to their ability to
play the instrument by following this procedure. It also follows
accepted educational principles. You learn something, you make it
automatic and then your mind frees up processing space and the new
level is assimilated into your processing skills.

But, we may just bee looking at things from different perspectives.
Could you explain a bit more about the "synaptic question-response"
thing? It really doesn't bring up any relevant ideas in the context
that I seem to be looking at this phrase.

Post by LJS
Have many of
these solos made any great music? If you want to read solos, learn to
read and then you can listen to GOOD solos and WRITE them down.

Post by LJS
All of this is work and does require energy. I just don't understand
the concept of spending ANY time, much less valuable study time, on
sub standard music.

Because it's not about music, it's about recognizing a blip and doing
what the blip tells you to--in time.

If its not about music, why is it showing up in a music theory group?
Why would one want to learn to read music if it is not about the
music? If there is a non-music reason to learn to read music, them
please let me know about it. I could use another way to make money
with my reading skills!

LJS

Stephen Cowell

2010-01-21 15:33:49 UTC

You can read from ANY music.

... that's written for a C instrument.
Even *you* might have trouble with
saxaphone parts.
__
Steve
.

Gerry

2010-01-21 16:58:27 UTC

On 2010-01-21 07:33:49 -0800, "Stephen Cowell"

You can read from ANY music.

... that's written for a C instrument. Even *you* might have trouble with
saxaphone parts.

For reading practice, there is no difference between C and Bb charts.
If you are actually performing from such sheet music with others,
you'll need to learn to sight-transpose for Bb or Eb. It behooves to
learn to transpose from F and Ab too while you're at it.

But reading practice certainly doesn't necessitate and ensemble
setting--thank god!

Sight-transposing is another skill that is acquired by doing it, doing
it a lot and from as diverse a batch of sheet music as you can find.

--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

LJS

2010-01-21 17:42:53 UTC

On Jan 21, 9:33 am, "Stephen Cowell"

You can read from ANY music.

... that's written for a C instrument.
Even *you* might have trouble with
saxaphone parts.
__
Steve
.

When reading, unless you are playing with yourself it doesn't matter
what key it is in. It doesn't matter the key of the instrument. We are
talking about exercises here.

What do you mean by even I might have trouble with saxaphone [sic]
parts. Why would I have trouble. No one is talking about transposing!
That would come later. Why would you think that reading a part written
for an Eb or Bb instrument would be any different from reading one
written for a C instrument? That just doesn't make any sense at all.

LJS

Stephen Cowell

2010-01-22 02:07:02 UTC

On Jan 21, 9:33 am, "Stephen Cowell"

You can read from ANY music.

... that's written for a C instrument.
Even *you* might have trouble with
saxaphone parts.
__
Steve
.

Remember writing this?

If you happen to repeat them enough to memorize
them, well then you have learned a lot of
literature.

... in the wrong key?
__
Steve
.

Rick Stone

2010-01-22 06:44:15 UTC

On Jan 21, 9:33 am, "Stephen Cowell"

You can read from ANY music.

... that's written for a C instrument.
Even *you* might have trouble with
saxaphone parts.
__
Steve
.

Remember writing this?

If you happen to repeat them enough to memorize
them, well then you have learned a lot of
literature.

... in the wrong key?
__
Steve

Doesn't seem like key should be that big an issue. If you know it in
one key, you can pretty easily know it in another. That's my first
question when somebody calls a tune "what key?" and maybe "where does
the bridge go?" if it's one I don't play often.

LJS

2010-01-22 14:52:53 UTC

On Jan 21, 8:07 pm, "Stephen Cowell"

On Jan 21, 9:33 am, "Stephen Cowell"

You can read from ANY music.

... that's written for a C instrument.
Even *you* might have trouble with
saxaphone parts.
__
Steve
.

Remember writing this?

If you happen to repeat them enough to memorize
them, well then you have learned a lot of
literature.

... in the wrong key?
__
Steve
.

I am sorry that you do not have a good sense of movable DO. To a
professional musician, the key is not that important. If you can hear
the music in one key, and if you "know" the other key, then a
professional can play it in the other key, or in ANY key that he
chooses. Your teachers should have pointed that out to you. If they
have not, I have now.

If you are a good student and you have competent teachers and you keep
working, you will see this as you progress to a more professional
level.

Good luck.
LJS

Stephen Cowell

2010-01-22 16:56:10 UTC

On Jan 21, 8:07 pm, "Stephen Cowell"

On Jan 21, 9:33 am, "Stephen Cowell"

You can read from ANY music.

... that's written for a C instrument.
Even *you* might have trouble with
saxaphone parts.

Remember writing this?

If you happen to repeat them enough to memorize
them, well then you have learned a lot of
literature.

... in the wrong key?

I am sorry that you do not have a good sense of movable DO.

What makes you think that? It's Do, BTW.
****SSSSOOOUUULLLL!!!1!**** - fege!

To a
professional musician, the key is not that important.

Is the OP a professional musician?

If you can hear
the music in one key, and if you "know" the other key, then a
professional can play it in the other key, or in ANY key that he
chooses. Your teachers should have pointed that out to you. If they
have not, I have now.

OK! Get down on that floor and give me five choruses of
Smoke On The Water, in Eb! Should be easy, right?
Why's it sound wrong? It's in the wrong position!
There's a difference between copping the tune, copping
a lick, and learning to sight-read.

If you are a good student and you have competent teachers and you keep
working, you will see this as you progress to a more professional
level.

There are songs that are *unplayable* in the wrong key.

Cop the tune in the original key, fer crissakes!

Or, if you're just trying to learn to read, sure,
learn on tenor-clef euphonium Sousa marches.
That'll be fun!
__
Steve
.

Rick Stone

2010-01-22 17:53:03 UTC

Post by Stephen Cowell
Or, if you're just trying to learn to read, sure,
learn on tenor-clef euphonium Sousa marches.
That'll be fun!

Yeah Steve, I must be a real sick puppy because that actually DOES sound
like fun to me (no sarcasm intended) :-)

Gerry

2010-01-22 18:19:13 UTC

Post by Stephen Cowell
Or, if you're just trying to learn to read, sure,
learn on tenor-clef euphonium Sousa marches.
That'll be fun!

Yeah Steve, I must be a real sick puppy because that actually DOES sound
like fun to me (no sarcasm intended) :-)

A challenge is a challenge...

--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

Stephen Cowell

2010-01-23 02:58:01 UTC

Post by Stephen Cowell
Or, if you're just trying to learn to read, sure,
learn on tenor-clef euphonium Sousa marches.
That'll be fun!

Yeah Steve, I must be a real sick puppy because that actually DOES sound
like fun to me (no sarcasm intended) :-)

I'm guessing you can already read....? Mee too.
Not a super treble-clef reader... enough to do
arrangements with Finale, all I'll ever need.

My main, big point... learn the usual keys first.
It might be fun to try and sight-read Z#, but
not when you're just starting out... and reading
a different-keyed instrument can do that to you.
__
Steve
.

Rick Stone

2010-01-23 14:45:58 UTC

Post by Stephen Cowell
Or, if you're just trying to learn to read, sure,
learn on tenor-clef euphonium Sousa marches.
That'll be fun!

Yeah Steve, I must be a real sick puppy because that actually DOES sound
like fun to me (no sarcasm intended) :-)

I'm guessing you can already read....? Mee too.
Not a super treble-clef reader... enough to do
arrangements with Finale, all I'll ever need.
My main, big point... learn the usual keys first.
It might be fun to try and sight-read Z#, but
not when you're just starting out... and reading
a different-keyed instrument can do that to you.

Did you read my earlier posts in this thread? I told you EXACTLY what
you need to do if you're starting out. These "reading" threads have
come up before and I've posted EXTENSIVELY on it. Google it.

David J. Littleboy

2010-01-23 15:12:37 UTC

Post by Stephen Cowell
Or, if you're just trying to learn to read, sure,
learn on tenor-clef euphonium Sousa marches.
That'll be fun!

Yeah Steve, I must be a real sick puppy because that actually DOES sound
like fun to me (no sarcasm intended) :-)

(Strange, there doesn't seem to be a video of van duser himself doing it on
youtube.)

--
David J. Littleboy
(Who spent a lot of time trying to do that back in the day in his kid at the
back of the bar picking up a storm on a Martin guitar phase)
Tokyo, Japan

LJS

2010-01-23 17:45:06 UTC

On Jan 22, 10:56 am, "Stephen Cowell"

On Jan 21, 8:07 pm, "Stephen Cowell"

On Jan 21, 9:33 am, "Stephen Cowell"

You can read from ANY music.

... that's written for a C instrument.
Even *you* might have trouble with
saxaphone parts.

Remember writing this?

If you happen to repeat them enough to memorize
them, well then you have learned a lot of
literature.

... in the wrong key?

I am sorry that you do not have a good sense of movable DO.

What makes you think that? It's Do, BTW.
****SSSSOOOUUULLLL!!!1!**** - fege!

To a
professional musician, the key is not that important.

Is the OP a professional musician?

??? does it matter? We are talking about learning to read. Do you have
a point or do you just like to make unrelated statements?

Are you an idiot? Is this suppose to make any sense? Is this what
happens to you when you try to play by ear?

If you are a good student and you have competent teachers and you keep
working, you will see this as you progress to a more professional
level.

There are songs that are *unplayable* in the wrong key.

You should really get more experience to avoid making such ridiculous
statements.

Cop the tune in the original key, fer crissakes!
Or, if you're just trying to learn to read, sure,
learn on tenor-clef euphonium Sousa marches.
That'll be fun!
__
Steve
.

Fun? Do you suffer from ADD? What are you talking about and responding
to?

LJS

Joey Goldstein

2010-01-23 18:53:08 UTC

On Jan 22, 10:56 am, "Stephen Cowell"
We are talking about learning to read.

No, we're not.
We're talking about learning to read *better* than what we can already do.
The OP knows how to read music.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

LJS

2010-01-23 20:53:49 UTC

On Jan 22, 10:56 am, "Stephen Cowell"
We are talking about learning to read.

No, we're not.
We're talking about learning to read *better* than what we can already do.
The OP knows how to read music.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

So, how can he get better by reading music that is randomly generated?
you keep avoiding this question and are repeating yourself on off
topic issues! Do you know the OP personally? I did not see anything in
these posts that says how well he reads or not. If you have additional
knowledge, please share it with us.

LJS

Stephen Cowell

2010-01-23 22:08:54 UTC

Post by LJS
We are talking about learning to read.

No, we're not.
We're talking about learning to read *better* than what we can already do.
The OP knows how to read music.

So, how can he get better by reading music that is randomly generated?

You, yourself suggested he grab any old paper with
staff on it... french horn parts, anyone?

I learned morse code that way... random, five-character
groups. Here's the thing... I could never anticipate what was
coming up... it was always new. Go through *any* written
piece several times... you are starting to learn it by rote.
You're memorizing, instead of sight-reading.
__
Steve
.

LJS

2010-01-23 22:31:14 UTC

On Jan 23, 4:08 pm, "Stephen Cowell"

Post by LJS
We are talking about learning to read.

No, we're not.
We're talking about learning to read *better* than what we can already do.
The OP knows how to read music.

So, how can he get better by reading music that is randomly generated?

You, yourself suggested he grab any old paper with
staff on it... french horn parts, anyone?
I learned morse code that way... random, five-character
groups. Here's the thing... I could never anticipate what was
coming up... it was always new. Go through *any* written
piece several times... you are starting to learn it by rote.
You're memorizing, instead of sight-reading.
__
Steve
.

Well, as I said earlier, it is better than nothing. BUT compared to
using real music, its certainly on the bottom of the list. I think
that I made the distinction of reading, sight reading and memorizing.
If I didn't, I apologize.

On the Morse code: What you describe about learning the code sounds
like you learned the "fingerings" to the alphabet as it relates to
code. I don't consider someone to be a music reader if all they can do
is play any note called out.

Once you learned the "fingerings" for the code, you then learned to
read (well, really hear) them and as you THEN practiced reading the
code by ear, you learned to hear patterns that became words. When I
was studying code, I could recognize any letter and send messages
really slow. I didn't consider myself at all fluent although I knew
all the letters. I would suggest that after you did this that you
listened to code and started to think in terms of groups of letters to
form words.

Just as with learning to read words, most people need to learn the
sounds of the letters. This however is not reading in the true sense.
In order to read, one has to communicate ideas or concepts. Only after
you get past the sound of the letters and you can see a group of them
as words AND THEN put the words together to transmit a thought are you
reading.

So yes. If you can't find music to read and the only thing you can
find is randomly generated notes, then of course use it If you have
any kind of choice, your time is much better spent reading real
music.

LJS

Stephen Cowell

2010-01-23 19:25:27 UTC

On Jan 21, 8:07 pm, "Stephen Cowell"

On Jan 21, 9:33 am, "Stephen Cowell"

You can read from ANY music.

... that's written for a C instrument.
Even *you* might have trouble with
saxaphone parts.

Remember writing this?

If you happen to repeat them enough to memorize
them, well then you have learned a lot of
literature.

... in the wrong key?

I am sorry that you do not have a good sense of movable DO.

What makes you think that? It's Do, BTW.
****SSSSOOOUUULLLL!!!1!**** - fege!

To a
professional musician, the key is not that important.

Is the OP a professional musician?

??? does it matter?

Is the OP a professional musician?

Post by LJS
We are talking about learning to read. Do you have
a point or do you just like to make unrelated statements?

Yeah... you claimed that a beginner, practicing
a Black Horse Troop trumpet part, has copped
the tune. I disagree. I claim that learning the normal
key signatures for your instrument is important... you
seem to think that any old key is just fine, since someday
you'll be a real pro, and can sight-transpose from an
Eb Alto part to comping for an ensemble.

Learn easy guitar keys first. Next learn horn keys.
*Then* proceed to sight-reading Z#.

Are you an idiot? Is this suppose to make any sense?

I cain't 'splain it any plainer.

Post by LJS
Is this what
happens to you when you try to play by ear?

Ask Wes Montgomery.

If you are a good student and you have competent teachers and you keep
working, you will see this as you progress to a more professional
level.

There are songs that are *unplayable* in the wrong key.

You should really get more experience to avoid making such ridiculous
statements.

I've already given you an example. Go ahead...
SOTW, in Eb. Post it to YT. See how it sounds.
No fair tuning down!

Cop the tune in the original key, fer crissakes!
Or, if you're just trying to learn to read, sure,
learn on tenor-clef euphonium Sousa marches.
That'll be fun!

Fun? Do you suffer from ADD? What are you talking about and responding
to?

Sorry... tweaking pedantic pseudo-jazz-bo's is a
weakness of mine. Do the same to gun nuts.
__
Steve
.

LJS

2010-01-23 20:55:04 UTC

On Jan 23, 1:25 pm, "Stephen Cowell"

On Jan 21, 8:07 pm, "Stephen Cowell"

On Jan 21, 9:33 am, "Stephen Cowell"

You can read from ANY music.

... that's written for a C instrument.
Even *you* might have trouble with
saxaphone parts.

Remember writing this?

If you happen to repeat them enough to memorize
them, well then you have learned a lot of
literature.

... in the wrong key?

I am sorry that you do not have a good sense of movable DO.

What makes you think that? It's Do, BTW.
****SSSSOOOUUULLLL!!!1!**** - fege!

To a
professional musician, the key is not that important.

Is the OP a professional musician?

??? does it matter?

Is the OP a professional musician?

Post by LJS
We are talking about learning to read. Do you have
a point or do you just like to make unrelated statements?

Yeah... you claimed that a beginner, practicing
a Black Horse Troop trumpet part, has copped
the tune. I disagree. I claim that learning the normal
key signatures for your instrument is important... you
seem to think that any old key is just fine, since someday
you'll be a real pro, and can sight-transpose from an
Eb Alto part to comping for an ensemble.
Learn easy guitar keys first. Next learn horn keys.
*Then* proceed to sight-reading Z#.

Are you an idiot? Is this suppose to make any sense?

I cain't 'splain it any plainer.

Post by LJS
Is this what
happens to you when you try to play by ear?

Ask Wes Montgomery.

If you are a good student and you have competent teachers and you keep
working, you will see this as you progress to a more professional
level.

There are songs that are *unplayable* in the wrong key.

You should really get more experience to avoid making such ridiculous
statements.

I've already given you an example. Go ahead...
SOTW, in Eb. Post it to YT. See how it sounds.
No fair tuning down!

Cop the tune in the original key, fer crissakes!
Or, if you're just trying to learn to read, sure,
learn on tenor-clef euphonium Sousa marches.
That'll be fun!

Fun? Do you suffer from ADD? What are you talking about and responding
to?

Sorry... tweaking pedantic pseudo-jazz-bo's is a
weakness of mine. Do the same to gun nuts.
__
Steve
.

I see. You have nothing really to say that is pertinent.
Later,
LJS

Joey Goldstein

2010-01-23 21:51:24 UTC

On Jan 23, 1:25 pm, "Stephen Cowell"

On Jan 21, 8:07 pm, "Stephen Cowell"

On Jan 21, 9:33 am, "Stephen Cowell"

You can read from ANY music.

... that's written for a C instrument.
Even *you* might have trouble with
saxaphone parts.

Remember writing this?

If you happen to repeat them enough to memorize
them, well then you have learned a lot of
literature.

... in the wrong key?

I am sorry that you do not have a good sense of movable DO.

What makes you think that? It's Do, BTW.
****SSSSOOOUUULLLL!!!1!**** - fege!

To a
professional musician, the key is not that important.

Is the OP a professional musician?

??? does it matter?

Is the OP a professional musician?

Post by LJS
We are talking about learning to read. Do you have
a point or do you just like to make unrelated statements?

Yeah... you claimed that a beginner, practicing
a Black Horse Troop trumpet part, has copped
the tune. I disagree. I claim that learning the normal
key signatures for your instrument is important... you
seem to think that any old key is just fine, since someday
you'll be a real pro, and can sight-transpose from an
Eb Alto part to comping for an ensemble.
Learn easy guitar keys first. Next learn horn keys.
*Then* proceed to sight-reading Z#.

Are you an idiot? Is this suppose to make any sense?

I cain't 'splain it any plainer.

Post by LJS
Is this what
happens to you when you try to play by ear?

Ask Wes Montgomery.

If you are a good student and you have competent teachers and you keep
working, you will see this as you progress to a more professional
level.

There are songs that are *unplayable* in the wrong key.

You should really get more experience to avoid making such ridiculous
statements.

I've already given you an example. Go ahead...
SOTW, in Eb. Post it to YT. See how it sounds.
No fair tuning down!

Cop the tune in the original key, fer crissakes!
Or, if you're just trying to learn to read, sure,
learn on tenor-clef euphonium Sousa marches.
That'll be fun!

Fun? Do you suffer from ADD? What are you talking about and responding
to?

Sorry... tweaking pedantic pseudo-jazz-bo's is a
weakness of mine. Do the same to gun nuts.
__
Steve
.

I see. You have nothing really to say that is pertinent.
Later,
LJS

Either do you.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

LJS

2010-01-23 21:13:51 UTC

On Jan 23, 1:25 pm, "Stephen Cowell"

On Jan 21, 8:07 pm, "Stephen Cowell"

On Jan 21, 9:33 am, "Stephen Cowell"

You can read from ANY music.

... that's written for a C instrument.
Even *you* might have trouble with
saxaphone parts.

Remember writing this?

If you happen to repeat them enough to memorize
them, well then you have learned a lot of
literature.

... in the wrong key?

I am sorry that you do not have a good sense of movable DO.

What makes you think that? It's Do, BTW.
****SSSSOOOUUULLLL!!!1!**** - fege!

hmm,, this sounds like someone else I know..

If you understand movable DO, (you can spell it as you like, I am
capable of figuring out what you mean!) then if you learn something in
one key, you know it in every key. If you understand movable DO then
I would guess that you would understand that. Maybe you can explain to
me how this would not be true? I am willing to learn.

To a
professional musician, the key is not that important.

Is the OP a professional musician?

??? does it matter?

Is the OP a professional musician?

Again, it doesn't matter. The question is about reading. If you are
"professional" in the sense that you are constantly striving to do
things in a professional manner, you will learn this at some point.
Reading is not rocket science. If he wants to read better, then he can
learn to read better and become more professional in his approach.
(Making money is not the only context of the word professional)

A doctor is a professional. Yet he still "practices" and if he doesn't
learn throughout his life, he may be making money, but he may not be a
"professional"

Post by LJS
We are talking about learning to read. Do you have
a point or do you just like to make unrelated statements?

I see. You have me confused with someone else as well as misreading
the context and facts of any posts that you read of mine.

Is learning to play things in the correct key for performance
important. Yes it is. I have never, I repeat, never, said otherwise.
Is the key important to learn the process of reading? Not in the
least. In fact, reading in keys that are now appropriate for your
instrument is a much better road to take to learn to read then to read
meaningless music that is randomly generated.

That is what I said. Did you really not understand that? or are you
just bumping your gums?

Post by Stephen Cowell
Learn easy guitar keys first. Next learn horn keys.
*Then* proceed to sight-reading Z#.

Are you an idiot? Is this suppose to make any sense?

I cain't 'splain it any plainer.

Post by LJS
Is this what
happens to you when you try to play by ear?

Ask Wes Montgomery.

If you are a good student and you have competent teachers and you keep
working, you will see this as you progress to a more professional
level.

There are songs that are *unplayable* in the wrong key.

You should really get more experience to avoid making such ridiculous
statements.

I've already given you an example. Go ahead...
SOTW, in Eb. Post it to YT. See how it sounds.
No fair tuning down!

Cop the tune in the original key, fer crissakes!
Or, if you're just trying to learn to read, sure,
learn on tenor-clef euphonium Sousa marches.
That'll be fun!

Fun? Do you suffer from ADD? What are you talking about and responding
to?

Sorry... tweaking pedantic pseudo-jazz-bo's is a
weakness of mine. Do the same to gun nuts.

And this is referring to who? You make less and less sense as you try
to do what ever it is you do. Isn't there enough trolling around for
you?

LJS

Post by Stephen Cowell
__
Steve
.

Stephen Cowell

2010-01-23 22:25:34 UTC

What makes you think that? It's Do, BTW.
****SSSSOOOUUULLLL!!!1!**** - fege!

hmm,, this sounds like someone else I know..
If you understand movable DO, (you can spell it as you like, I am
capable of figuring out what you mean!) then if you learn something in
one key, you know it in every key. If you understand movable DO then
I would guess that you would understand that. Maybe you can explain to
me how this would not be true? I am willing to learn.

1.) If you're reading. Sight-transposing is hard, even
for seasoned pros. Key signatures go into funky land, too.
2.) If you're on a non-slidey instrument. Guitar is
easy to slide stuff around on, unless you pass a root
position. Trumpet, sax, piano... much harder to do.

Normally, music is written *for* an instrument, with
an understanding of the limitations of the instrument.
The literature for guitar in Eb (a great horn key) is
sparse, for example... except for those tunes written
for horns... and they won't ask you to play a low Eb
without 'preparing' the instrument.

Post by LJS
To a
professional musician, the key is not that important.

Is the OP a professional musician?

??? does it matter?

Is the OP a professional musician?

Again, it doesn't matter. The question is about reading. If you are
"professional" in the sense that you are constantly striving to do
things in a professional manner, you will learn this at some point.
Reading is not rocket science. If he wants to read better, then he can
learn to read better and become more professional in his approach.
(Making money is not the only context of the word professional)
A doctor is a professional. Yet he still "practices" and if he doesn't
learn throughout his life, he may be making money, but he may not be a
"professional"

But he doesn't practice on cow cadavers!

Post by LJS
We are talking about learning to read. Do you have
a point or do you just like to make unrelated statements?

You say this, then...

Post by LJS
In fact, reading in keys that are now appropriate for your
instrument is a much better road to take

you say that. I very much agree with the 'that'... can we leave
it at 'that'?
__
Steve
.

LJS

2010-01-24 01:00:56 UTC

On Jan 23, 4:25 pm, "Stephen Cowell"

What makes you think that? It's Do, BTW.
****SSSSOOOUUULLLL!!!1!**** - fege!

hmm,, this sounds like someone else I know..
If you understand movable DO, (you can spell it as you like, I am
capable of figuring out what you mean!) then if you learn something in
one key, you know it in every key. If you understand movable DO then
I would guess that you would understand that. Maybe you can explain to
me how this would not be true? I am willing to learn.

1.) If you're reading. Sight-transposing is hard, even
for seasoned pros. Key signatures go into funky land, too.

I didn't say that it was easy. If it were easy, everyone would do it!

2.) If you're on a non-slidey instrument. Guitar is
easy to slide stuff around on, unless you pass a root
position. Trumpet, sax, piano... much harder to do.

It depends upon how you learned and how you are used to doing things.
If you play a melodic instrument and you really know your keys and you
learn to read music with SoFa, then it is just as easy as you imagine
it to be on the guitar. True, on the guitar you can get by with just
sliding around on the fretboard. That does make it a bit easier, but
for example:

Are on a melodic instrument and you are reading a major scale written
in C and you think of the tones as "drmfsltd", You can play it just as
easily in C or Db or Ab etc. If you know the tune in SoFa and you know
the key on your instrument, there is no problem with keys. If one does
it this way and finds problems with keys then one of the elements is
missing. Either one doesn't know it in SoFa or one doesn't know the
key one is trying to play it in.

Normally, music is written *for* an instrument, with
an understanding of the limitations of the instrument.
The literature for guitar in Eb (a great horn key) is
sparse, for example... except for those tunes written
for horns... and they won't ask you to play a low Eb
without 'preparing' the instrument.

True enough. A nice factoid. This is also a very important part of the
larger picture of music in general but has nothing to do with anything
I have said nor with anything else that I have read in the thread.

We are talking about reading. To put it in the context of reading
words aloud might show what I am saying better than bickering.

I can read a piece of poetry. It will have a certain sound. I may read
Shakespeare in my native accent and read it perfectly correctly. I may
even read a line from Juliet in my voice and will not sound like a
teenage girl from the famous play. I am still reading and I may sight
read it perfectly although transposed up to a different pitch than a
teenage girl. I am still sight reading perfectly and I am transposing
and learning the literature and the rhythm of the words (well maybe
translated to my own dialect). There is no difference with playing a
melody on a different instrument and doing what I just described.

I am puzzled with your comment, however, as when you inject the
statement about playing a tune that went outside the range of the
instrument one is using. The idea of even mentioning such a thing
seems to indicate that you have totally lost perspective of the scope
of the discussion. Doesn't that seem like a rather irrelevant comment?
Wouldn't you just assume to transpose it up or to leave it out and
continue practicing reading when it gets back into the proper range?
Isn't that rather one for (as an earlier poster said) Obvious Man!

And then the comment about not having much literature in Eb for the
guitar. I didn't realize that guitar players (professionals) were so
restrictive with the keys and were literate in all keys. Most of the
guitar players I know play in any key. But no one that I know would
ever think of reading music designed specifically for guitar with lots
of use for open strings for reading exercises on any instrument except
a guitar that had the open strings the same as it was written for. And
this concept was covered in earlier posts so I know that you must not
be commenting on that aspect of it so I just don't understand what you
are really trying to say. You certainly would not be trying to talk
about something like that.

Post by LJS
To a
professional musician, the key is not that important.

Is the OP a professional musician?

??? does it matter?

Is the OP a professional musician?

Again, it doesn't matter. The question is about reading. If you are
"professional" in the sense that you are constantly striving to do
things in a professional manner, you will learn this at some point.
Reading is not rocket science. If he wants to read better, then he can
learn to read better and become more professional in his approach.
(Making money is not the only context of the word professional)
A doctor is a professional. Yet he still "practices" and if he doesn't
learn throughout his life, he may be making money, but he may not be a
"professional"

But he doesn't practice on cow cadavers!

By practicing on cow cadavers are you making the analogy of a musician
practicing on random generated music? I can agree with that!

Post by LJS
We are talking about learning to read. Do you have
a point or do you just like to make unrelated statements?

You say this, then...

Post by LJS
In fact, reading in keys that are now appropriate for your
instrument is a much better road to take

you say that. I very much agree with the 'that'... can we leave
it at 'that'?
__
Steve
.

I suppose we can leave it at that. I don't know that "that" is but
sure. Why not. That sentence seems clipped and I don't remember it
specifically and I don't care to look it up. If you can be more
specific as to what we are agreeing on maybe I can answer it better.
LJS

Gerry

2010-01-21 16:53:08 UTC

Post by LJS
The question, however, is why would you want to read BIAB solos?
Read REAL solos that have musical merit.

They cost more, have to be pursued and can't be generated by the ton-load

Cost more? What are we talking about here. There are transcriptions of
Jazz solos in various places that are totally free.

I think reading music is about reading music. It's not particularly
important to read the solos of Wes Montgomery over those produced by
BIAB. *Studying* the solos of Wes is valuable where *studying* the
solos of BIAB is not. But we're talking about the process of using
your eyes to recognize a blip on paper and converting that into a
mechanical motion.

Again: Reading music is not inherently "making music". In bettering
ones skills as a reader it is important to NOT read something twice.
Going to all the trouble and expense (including the free stuff that
might be available on line, downloading and printing) to read through
something once and then intentionally put it away seems like more
effort to me that it is worth.

Post by LJS
How much of a ton-load do you need?

As much as you want to read.

Post by LJS
You might also consider that if you input a ton-load of rather
meaningless solos into you brain,

The point is not NOT put it into your brain, read it and turn the page.

Post by LJS
...don't you think that you might start to think like the BIAB algorithms?

Recognizing a phrase in print is not the same as memorizing it. That's
the point.

Post by Gerry
It's not really brain bandwidth it's more synaptic question-response thin

Its not? Can you back up this statement?

Can you prove it false?

Post by LJS
But, we may just bee looking at things from different perspectives.
Could you explain a bit more about the "synaptic question-response"
thing?

You see an F, you play an F, you see a G, you play a G. Pretty soon
you get pretty quick and agile about the process.

Post by Gerry
Because it's not about music, it's about recognizing a blip and doing
what the blip tells you to--in time.

If its not about music, why is it showing up in a music theory group?

I'm in the rmmgj group, had I realized this was on the
shriek-and-eye-claw network I might not have responded. In any case
reading notes off a page does not inherently involve theory, nor any
music per se.

Post by LJS
Why would one want to learn to read music if it is not about the
music?

Reading music off a page is a mechanical process, and does not
inherently produce music.

Post by LJS
If there is a non-music reason to learn to read music, them
please let me know about it.

That request is rhetorical so I'll let it pass. I understand you
disagree with everything I have said, vehemently and finally. That's
okay with me.

--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

Steve Freides

2010-01-20 15:44:21 UTC

A few things about becoming a better reader - you become a better
reading by learning various pieces of music, not by just reading things
once. You need to play a piece or a passage correctly, and you need
_not_ to start to "rely on what I've heard over what I'm seeing" - it's
great that you know how it goes and you don't want to turn off your
ears, but don't stop reading. When you read, try to make a mental
connection between what it plays like, what it sounds like, and what it
looks like on the page. The act of doing that, over and over, will make
you a better reader. In other words, learn the tune _and_ keep reading
it, don't just learn the tune to free yourself from what's on the page.

Take out a fake book and start playing. I like playing every tune that
starts with a certain letter of the alphabet at one sitting, usually
around a dozen or so. On Monday, I used Real Book II, turned to Willow
Weep For Me near the back and then played until the end of the book. (I
was doing this on the piano, but the process is the same.) Play each
tune a few times, or at least enough times to make it go pretty
smoothly, in the tempo of your choosing, from start to finish.

Think back about learning to read English - they didn't teach you the
sound of the letters and then present you with random combinations of
letters to figure out. You practiced the same thing over and over
until, when you saw a word, you recognized it quickly. Word recognition
was the goal, not sounding out combinations of letters, and eventually
recognizing combinations of words became the goal. What you're after is
building up your vocabulary of things on the printed page that you
recognize. Being able to figure things out, as opposed to recognizing
them, is of very limited value when you're sight-reading. You need to
be able to figure things out, but you don't want to be doing it most of
the time.

Disclaimer: I'm a long-time college theory and ear-training teacher.

-S-

2010-01-21 16:33:39 UTC

A few things about becoming a better reader - you become a better reading
by learning various pieces of music, not by just reading things once. You
need to play a piece or a passage correctly, and you need _not_ to start
to "rely on what I've heard over what I'm seeing" - it's great that you
know how it goes and you don't want to turn off your ears, but don't stop
reading. When you read, try to make a mental connection between what it
plays like, what it sounds like, and what it looks like on the page. The
act of doing that, over and over, will make you a better reader. In other
words, learn the tune _and_ keep reading it, don't just learn the tune to
free yourself from what's on the page.
Take out a fake book and start playing. I like playing every tune that
starts with a certain letter of the alphabet at one sitting, usually
around a dozen or so. On Monday, I used Real Book II, turned to Willow
Weep For Me near the back and then played until the end of the book. (I
was doing this on the piano, but the process is the same.) Play each tune
a few times, or at least enough times to make it go pretty smoothly, in
the tempo of your choosing, from start to finish.
Think back about learning to read English - they didn't teach you the
sound of the letters and then present you with random combinations of
letters to figure out. You practiced the same thing over and over until,
when you saw a word, you recognized it quickly. Word recognition was the
goal, not sounding out combinations of letters, and eventually recognizing
combinations of words became the goal. What you're after is building up
your vocabulary of things on the printed page that you recognize. Being
able to figure things out, as opposed to recognizing them, is of very
limited value when you're sight-reading. You need to be able to figure
things out, but you don't want to be doing it most of the time.
Disclaimer: I'm a long-time college theory and ear-training teacher.
-S-

i'd like to bump this post. it goes against the mainstream opinion (at least
at rmmgj), that you learn sight-reading by just reading though piles of
music. which is *not* the case with every good sight-reader i've ever met.

Steve Freides

2010-01-22 14:18:43 UTC

A few things about becoming a better reader - you become a better
reading by learning various pieces of music, not by just reading
things once. You need to play a piece or a passage correctly, and
you need _not_ to start to "rely on what I've heard over what I'm
seeing" - it's great that you know how it goes and you don't want to
turn off your ears, but don't stop reading. When you read, try to
make a mental connection between what it plays like, what it sounds
like, and what it looks like on the page. The act of doing that,
over and over, will make you a better reader. In other words, learn
the tune _and_ keep reading it, don't just learn the tune to free
yourself from what's on the page. Take out a fake book and start
playing. I like playing every tune
that starts with a certain letter of the alphabet at one sitting,
usually around a dozen or so. On Monday, I used Real Book II,
turned to Willow Weep For Me near the back and then played until the
end of the book. (I was doing this on the piano, but the process is
the same.) Play each tune a few times, or at least enough times to
make it go pretty smoothly, in the tempo of your choosing, from
start to finish. Think back about learning to read English - they
didn't teach you the
sound of the letters and then present you with random combinations of
letters to figure out. You practiced the same thing over and over
until, when you saw a word, you recognized it quickly. Word
recognition was the goal, not sounding out combinations of letters,
and eventually recognizing combinations of words became the goal.
What you're after is building up your vocabulary of things on the
printed page that you recognize. Being able to figure things out,
as opposed to recognizing them, is of very limited value when you're
sight-reading. You need to be able to figure things out, but you
don't want to be doing it most of the time. Disclaimer: I'm a
long-time college theory and ear-training teacher.
-S-

i'd like to bump this post. it goes against the mainstream opinion
(at least at rmmgj), that you learn sight-reading by just reading
though piles of music. which is *not* the case with every good
sight-reader i've ever met.

Thank you.

Sometimes people don't want to go about it in a way that's been proven
to work, they just want to pursue whatever their own idea of how to get
better at it. The "learning to read English" analogy is really how this
works for almost everyone. There's a wonderful quote out there, can't
remember by whom, to the effect of, "for every problem, there is a
solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." In this case, while it
might seem like random note reading practice would be helpful, it really
is not for most people most of the time.

Instead of random notes, I suggest any atonal sight-singing text - just
play the exercises on the guitar. "Modus Novus" is a classic and still
a favorite of mine, and there are plenty of others. Modus Novus is
organized around specific intervals and sequences of intervals, and it
would yield a fine progression on the guitar. In fact, any
sight-singing text will provide progressively harder material - it's all
fine to use on guitar as well, and will help rhythm as well as pitch
reading.

People who read alot become better sight-readers, not people who
sight-read a lot. Sight-reading ability is the end-game, the test, the
product, but doing a lot of sight-reading is like taking a lot of
tests - you don't really improve from taking tests except, perhaps, a
little by getting used to taking tests, so a little sight-reading makes
sense, just not a steady diet of it if the goal is to become a better
sight-reader.

One guitar-specific thing I can suggest that I use a lot in my own
teaching - read notes in different octaves. If it's not easy for
someone then it's worth doing a lot of. I start with very easy things
from a beginngers' guitar method, played up or down one octave. Fake
book melodies in easy keys played one octave higher is a next step.
It's not really transposing, and it's a great way to learn the neck of
the guitar.

-S-

LJS

2010-01-22 14:57:02 UTC

A few things about becoming a better reader - you become a better
reading by learning various pieces of music, not by just reading
things once. You need to play a piece or a passage correctly, and
you need _not_ to start to "rely on what I've heard over what I'm
seeing" - it's great that you know how it goes and you don't want to
turn off your ears, but don't stop reading. When you read, try to
make a mental connection between what it plays like, what it sounds
like, and what it looks like on the page. The act of doing that,
over and over, will make you a better reader. In other words, learn
the tune _and_ keep reading it, don't just learn the tune to free
yourself from what's on the page. Take out a fake book and start
playing. I like playing every tune
that starts with a certain letter of the alphabet at one sitting,
usually around a dozen or so. On Monday, I used Real Book II,
turned to Willow Weep For Me near the back and then played until the
end of the book. (I was doing this on the piano, but the process is
the same.) Play each tune a few times, or at least enough times to
make it go pretty smoothly, in the tempo of your choosing, from
start to finish. Think back about learning to read English - they
didn't teach you the
sound of the letters and then present you with random combinations of
letters to figure out. You practiced the same thing over and over
until, when you saw a word, you recognized it quickly. Word
recognition was the goal, not sounding out combinations of letters,
and eventually recognizing combinations of words became the goal.
What you're after is building up your vocabulary of things on the
printed page that you recognize. Being able to figure things out,
as opposed to recognizing them, is of very limited value when you're
sight-reading. You need to be able to figure things out, but you
don't want to be doing it most of the time. Disclaimer: I'm a
long-time college theory and ear-training teacher.
-S-

i'd like to bump this post. it goes against the mainstream opinion
(at least at rmmgj), that you learn sight-reading by just reading
though piles of music. which is *not* the case with every good
sight-reader i've ever met.

Thank you.
Sometimes people don't want to go about it in a way that's been proven
to work, they just want to pursue whatever their own idea of how to get
better at it. The "learning to read English" analogy is really how this
works for almost everyone. There's a wonderful quote out there, can't
remember by whom, to the effect of, "for every problem, there is a
solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." In this case, while it
might seem like random note reading practice would be helpful, it really
is not for most people most of the time.
Instead of random notes, I suggest any atonal sight-singing text - just
play the exercises on the guitar. "Modus Novus" is a classic and still
a favorite of mine, and there are plenty of others. Modus Novus is
organized around specific intervals and sequences of intervals, and it
would yield a fine progression on the guitar. In fact, any
sight-singing text will provide progressively harder material - it's all
fine to use on guitar as well, and will help rhythm as well as pitch
reading.
People who read alot become better sight-readers, not people who
sight-read a lot. Sight-reading ability is the end-game, the test, the
product, but doing a lot of sight-reading is like taking a lot of
tests - you don't really improve from taking tests except, perhaps, a
little by getting used to taking tests, so a little sight-reading makes
sense, just not a steady diet of it if the goal is to become a better
sight-reader.
One guitar-specific thing I can suggest that I use a lot in my own
teaching - read notes in different octaves. If it's not easy for
someone then it's worth doing a lot of. I start with very easy things
from a beginngers' guitar method, played up or down one octave. Fake
book melodies in easy keys played one octave higher is a next step.
It's not really transposing, and it's a great way to learn the neck of
the guitar.
-S-

Good perspective.
LJS

Joey Goldstein

2010-01-22 15:50:52 UTC

A few things about becoming a better reader - you become a better
reading by learning various pieces of music, not by just reading
things once. You need to play a piece or a passage correctly, and
you need _not_ to start to "rely on what I've heard over what I'm
seeing" - it's great that you know how it goes and you don't want to
turn off your ears, but don't stop reading. When you read, try to
make a mental connection between what it plays like, what it sounds
like, and what it looks like on the page. The act of doing that,
over and over, will make you a better reader. In other words, learn
the tune _and_ keep reading it, don't just learn the tune to free
yourself from what's on the page. Take out a fake book and start
playing. I like playing every tune
that starts with a certain letter of the alphabet at one sitting,
usually around a dozen or so. On Monday, I used Real Book II,
turned to Willow Weep For Me near the back and then played until the
end of the book. (I was doing this on the piano, but the process is
the same.) Play each tune a few times, or at least enough times to
make it go pretty smoothly, in the tempo of your choosing, from
start to finish. Think back about learning to read English - they
didn't teach you the
sound of the letters and then present you with random combinations of
letters to figure out. You practiced the same thing over and over
until, when you saw a word, you recognized it quickly. Word
recognition was the goal, not sounding out combinations of letters,
and eventually recognizing combinations of words became the goal.
What you're after is building up your vocabulary of things on the
printed page that you recognize. Being able to figure things out,
as opposed to recognizing them, is of very limited value when you're
sight-reading. You need to be able to figure things out, but you
don't want to be doing it most of the time. Disclaimer: I'm a
long-time college theory and ear-training teacher.
-S-

i'd like to bump this post. it goes against the mainstream opinion
(at least at rmmgj), that you learn sight-reading by just reading
though piles of music. which is *not* the case with every good
sight-reader i've ever met.

Thank you.
Sometimes people don't want to go about it in a way that's been proven
to work, they just want to pursue whatever their own idea of how to get
better at it. The "learning to read English" analogy is really how this
works for almost everyone. There's a wonderful quote out there, can't
remember by whom, to the effect of, "for every problem, there is a
solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." In this case, while it
might seem like random note reading practice would be helpful, it really
is not for most people most of the time.
Instead of random notes, I suggest any atonal sight-singing text - just
play the exercises on the guitar. "Modus Novus" is a classic and still
a favorite of mine, and there are plenty of others. Modus Novus is
organized around specific intervals and sequences of intervals, and it
would yield a fine progression on the guitar. In fact, any
sight-singing text will provide progressively harder material - it's all
fine to use on guitar as well, and will help rhythm as well as pitch
reading.
People who read alot become better sight-readers, not people who
sight-read a lot. Sight-reading ability is the end-game, the test, the
product, but doing a lot of sight-reading is like taking a lot of
tests - you don't really improve from taking tests except, perhaps, a
little by getting used to taking tests, so a little sight-reading makes
sense, just not a steady diet of it if the goal is to become a better
sight-reader.
One guitar-specific thing I can suggest that I use a lot in my own
teaching - read notes in different octaves. If it's not easy for
someone then it's worth doing a lot of. I start with very easy things
from a beginngers' guitar method, played up or down one octave. Fake
book melodies in easy keys played one octave higher is a next step.
It's not really transposing, and it's a great way to learn the neck of
the guitar.
-S-

I disagree with almost everything you're saying here except the idea
that becoming a good reader involves reading a lot of music.
Reading pitch content that makes little or no musical sense is a *great
way* to improve both your reading and your sight reading.
It is certainly not the only material that a student should use. Reading
pitch content that does make sense is much more important because a good
reader has to be able to understand the music he is reading too.

And someone who is a good reader but never works on sight reading will
*never* become a good sight reader.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Steve Freides

2010-01-22 20:05:07 UTC

A few things about becoming a better reader - you become a better
reading by learning various pieces of music, not by just reading
things once. You need to play a piece or a passage correctly, and
you need _not_ to start to "rely on what I've heard over what I'm
seeing" - it's great that you know how it goes and you don't want
to turn off your ears, but don't stop reading. When you read, try
to make a mental connection between what it plays like, what it
sounds like, and what it looks like on the page. The act of doing
that, over and over, will make you a better reader. In other
words, learn the tune _and_ keep reading it, don't just learn the
tune to free yourself from what's on the page. Take out a fake
book and start playing. I like playing every tune
that starts with a certain letter of the alphabet at one sitting,
usually around a dozen or so. On Monday, I used Real Book II,
turned to Willow Weep For Me near the back and then played until
the end of the book. (I was doing this on the piano, but the
process is the same.) Play each tune a few times, or at least
enough times to make it go pretty smoothly, in the tempo of your
choosing, from start to finish. Think back about learning to read
English - they didn't teach you the
sound of the letters and then present you with random combinations
of letters to figure out. You practiced the same thing over and
over until, when you saw a word, you recognized it quickly. Word
recognition was the goal, not sounding out combinations of letters,
and eventually recognizing combinations of words became the goal.
What you're after is building up your vocabulary of things on the
printed page that you recognize. Being able to figure things out,
as opposed to recognizing them, is of very limited value when
you're sight-reading. You need to be able to figure things out,
I'm a long-time college theory and ear-training teacher.
-S-

i'd like to bump this post. it goes against the mainstream opinion
(at least at rmmgj), that you learn sight-reading by just reading
though piles of music. which is *not* the case with every good
sight-reader i've ever met.

Thank you.
Sometimes people don't want to go about it in a way that's been
proven to work, they just want to pursue whatever their own idea of
how to get better at it. The "learning to read English" analogy is
really how this works for almost everyone. There's a wonderful
quote out there, can't remember by whom, to the effect of, "for
every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and
wrong." In this case, while it might seem like random note reading
practice would be helpful, it really is not for most people most of
the time. Instead of random notes, I suggest any atonal sight-singing
text -
just play the exercises on the guitar. "Modus Novus" is a classic
and still a favorite of mine, and there are plenty of others. Modus
Novus is organized around specific intervals and sequences of
intervals, and it would yield a fine progression on the guitar. In
fact, any sight-singing text will provide progressively harder
material - it's all fine to use on guitar as well, and will help
rhythm as well as pitch reading.
People who read alot become better sight-readers, not people who
sight-read a lot. Sight-reading ability is the end-game, the test,
the product, but doing a lot of sight-reading is like taking a lot of
tests - you don't really improve from taking tests except, perhaps, a
little by getting used to taking tests, so a little sight-reading
makes sense, just not a steady diet of it if the goal is to become a
better sight-reader.
One guitar-specific thing I can suggest that I use a lot in my own
teaching - read notes in different octaves. If it's not easy for
someone then it's worth doing a lot of. I start with very easy
things from a beginngers' guitar method, played up or down one
octave. Fake book melodies in easy keys played one octave higher is
a next step. It's not really transposing, and it's a great way to
learn the neck of the guitar.
-S-

I disagree with almost everything you're saying here

Why am I not surprised? But no, you don't disagree with almost
everything I'm saying here. You've misread or misunderstood a couple of
points, and you agree on the rest.

Post by Joey Goldstein
except the idea
that becoming a good reader involves reading a lot of music.

OK, we agree on that, and I said that.

Post by Joey Goldstein
Reading pitch content that makes little or no musical sense is a
*great way* to improve both your reading and your sight reading.

I didn't say that it wasn't. I suggested an atonal sight-singing book.

Post by Joey Goldstein
It is certainly not the only material that a student should use.

OK, agreed, and what I said.

Post by Joey Goldstein
Reading pitch content that does make sense is much more important
because a good reader has to be able to understand the music he is
reading too.

OK, agreed, and what I said.

Post by Joey Goldstein
And someone who is a good reader but never works on sight reading will
*never* become a good sight reader.

Again, not what I said. I suggest "a little sight-reading" in a diet
consisting mainly of reading. I didn't say "never" and I don't think
that.

Tough guy to please, you are, Joey.

-S-

2010-01-23 00:07:10 UTC

"Joey Goldstein" <***@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:ad815$4b59c95a$adceee25$***@PRIMUS.CA...

snip

Post by Joey Goldstein
And someone who is a good reader but never works on sight reading will

*never* become a good sight reader.
--
Joey Goldstein

i'm confused. what's the difference between a good reader and a good
sight-reader?

Gerry

2010-01-23 00:14:39 UTC

Post by hw
snip

Post by Joey Goldstein
And someone who is a good reader but never works on sight reading will

*never* become a good sight reader.

i'm confused. what's the difference between a good reader and a good
sight-reader?

Me too. I think it means reading the first time at speed.

--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

2010-01-23 00:28:04 UTC

Post by hw
snip

Post by Joey Goldstein
And someone who is a good reader but never works on sight reading will

*never* become a good sight reader.

i'm confused. what's the difference between a good reader and a good
sight-reader?

Me too. I think it means reading the first time at speed.
--

speed is a quantity, not a quality

Gerry

2010-01-23 16:19:18 UTC

Post by hw
i'm confused. what's the difference between a good reader and a good
sight-reader?

Me too. I think it means reading the first time at speed.

speed is a quantity, not a quality

"Speed" is a noun with four definitions and a verb with three. Either a
reader reads a piece acceptably the first time or two or they don't.
I'm guessing that "wrong" would be a quality in this circumstance.

--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

Joey Goldstein

2010-01-23 00:45:44 UTC

Post by hw
snip

Post by Joey Goldstein
And someone who is a good reader but never works on sight reading will

*never* become a good sight reader.
--
Joey Goldstein

i'm confused. what's the difference between a good reader and a good
sight-reader?

A good sight reader is someone who can play written music with few or no
mistakes the very first time they look at the music.
Someone ho is a good reader is merely capable of figuring out how to
play something based on notation if given enough time.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Steve Freides

2010-01-23 00:56:49 UTC

Post by hw
snip

Post by Joey Goldstein
And someone who is a good reader but never works on sight reading will

*never* become a good sight reader.
--
Joey Goldstein

i'm confused. what's the difference between a good reader and a good
sight-reader?

Think of a good reader as a good musician, and a measure of
good-reader-ness would be hard a piece of music they can play well when
given it one week ahead of time.

A sight-reader is just that - I put the music in front of you and say,
"Play!"

For most people, you will be able to do harder music if given it a week
ahead of time, and there will be a more or less fixed gap between how
difficult the music is that you can prepare well in a week and how
difficult the music is that you can play well without having seen it
before. Improving your reading means things like being able to play
more difficult passages (more rangy, more jumpy, faster, harder rhythms,
etc.)

The way this traditionally works is that you are given pieces to prepare
that gradually get more difficult over time. You take each home, you
figure out what you need to figure out, you practice what you need to
practice, and you return in a week's time being able to play the piece
well. (My standard operating procedure was to try my assignments at 1/2
speed, work out what I needed to, if anything, that way, and then start
gradually cranking up the speed on the metronome.) Your sight-reading
ability would just, as I said above, lag behind that in terms of how
difficult the music could be, but the point is that it will improve
without you doing much sight-reading _if_ your working, as described
above, on your "regular" reading.

Hope that 'splains it.

-S-

LJS

2010-01-23 21:39:12 UTC

Post by hw
snip

Post by Joey Goldstein
And someone who is a good reader but never works on sight reading will

*never* become a good sight reader.
--
Joey Goldstein

i'm confused. what's the difference between a good reader and a good
sight-reader?

Think of a good reader as a good musician, and a measure of
good-reader-ness would be hard a piece of music they can play well when
given it one week ahead of time.
A sight-reader is just that - I put the music in front of you and say,
"Play!"
For most people, you will be able to do harder music if given it a week
ahead of time, and there will be a more or less fixed gap between how
difficult the music is that you can prepare well in a week and how
difficult the music is that you can play well without having seen it
before. Improving your reading means things like being able to play
more difficult passages (more rangy, more jumpy, faster, harder rhythms,
etc.)
The way this traditionally works is that you are given pieces to prepare
that gradually get more difficult over time. You take each home, you
figure out what you need to figure out, you practice what you need to
practice, and you return in a week's time being able to play the piece
well. (My standard operating procedure was to try my assignments at 1/2
speed, work out what I needed to, if anything, that way, and then start
gradually cranking up the speed on the metronome.) Your sight-reading
ability would just, as I said above, lag behind that in terms of how
difficult the music could be, but the point is that it will improve
without you doing much sight-reading _if_ your working, as described
above, on your "regular" reading.
Hope that 'splains it.
-S-

Exactly right. Its good to see posts that can address that subject in
a competent way.

The only thing that I might add to this is to reemphasize the
importance of reading rhythmically. The most important skill of sight
reading is to keep the time going and to stay in the same place of the
music even if you can't read the notes for a particular passage. If
you miss a few figures, there will most likely be an audible mistake,
but if you stop and loose the time or place when sight reading, then
you are out of the game. If there is a tricky figure that needs to be
worked out, in sight reading, you just skip it and come back in when
you can. Thus the music continues and the whole band does not stop
because you stopped playing.

This plus the brain bandwidth that is saved by having made rhythmic
reading natural to help you play more of these figures and the ability
to continue with the music, take a quick rehearsal when there is a
break, and when you start up again, you will play it better.

For an audition, if you "slur" over a difficult figure but continue
with the musical thought, a good conductor will see that you have
command of the music and that you will be easy to work with.
Conductors that I have worked with want to go through the music for
continuity. If you make a mistake and come back in correctly, the
better ones will understand that you are a good musician and that each
time you play it, you will be better. Play it right the second time
and he knows that even if there is not time to rehearse completely
that you will learn what you need to to play it at a high level.

Sight reading is really more of a game and a tool. As a game, random
generated music may be quite alright. As a tool, it can show the
overall level of the musician in a short period of time. In an
audition, the fact that you may miss a tricky figure is more than
made up by the ability to read the articulation, expression, phrasing
and play the other conventions of the style you are reading to any
listener that is worth their salt.

LJS

Rick Stone

2010-01-23 14:57:36 UTC

Post by Joey Goldstein
And someone who is a good reader but never works on sight reading will

*never* become a good sight reader.
--
Joey Goldstein

i'm confused. what's the difference between a good reader and a good
sight-reader?

A lot of guys can "read" which often means they can take a piece of
printed music and LEARN it. If you ONLY read music when playing by
yourself, you can kind of get by on this.

A good "sight-reader" is somebody who can look at a piece of music and
play it through decently (not always perfect mind you, but acceptably)
the FIRST (or maybe second) time. If you ever play in GROUPS where you
need to read, this skill is MANDATORY (you don't want to be the guy
holding everybody else back).

Case in point: When I was young and in college, I studied classical
guitar and was reading and learning some pretty complicated music with
no problem. I would go through it slowly working out, learning and
memorizing each passage until I had it. Then I got an opportunity to
audition for some gig with the Cleveland Ballet and was asked to
sight-read. They put some music in front of me that didn't look
particularly difficult and counted off. I fell on my face. Pretty
embarrassing. While I could read and learn some complex music own my
own, I could NOT "sight-read" in time and under pressure.

That's the difference.

tom walls

2010-01-23 15:32:59 UTC

Post by Rick Stone
Case in point: When I was young and in college, I studied classical
guitar and was reading and learning some pretty complicated music with
no problem. I would go through it slowly working out, learning and
memorizing each passage until I had it. Then I got an opportunity to
audition for some gig with the Cleveland Ballet and was asked to
sight-read. They put some music in front of me that didn't look
particularly difficult and counted off. I fell on my face. Pretty
embarrassing. While I could read and learn some complex music own my
own, I could NOT "sight-read" in time and under pressure.

In your experience has this come up often since then? Just curious.

Steve Freides

2010-01-23 18:24:26 UTC

Post by tom walls

Post by Rick Stone
Case in point: When I was young and in college, I studied classical
guitar and was reading and learning some pretty complicated music
with no problem. I would go through it slowly working out, learning
and memorizing each passage until I had it. Then I got an
opportunity to audition for some gig with the Cleveland Ballet and
was asked to sight-read. They put some music in front of me that
didn't look particularly difficult and counted off. I fell on my
face. Pretty embarrassing. While I could read and learn some complex
music own my own, I could NOT "sight-read" in time and under
pressure.

In your experience has this come up often since then? Just curious.

Again, speaking from a lot of experience in this area, those who do not
sight-read a lot, but do the other kinds of reading suggested, will
indeed have problems when they first start sight-reading. But those
problems will go away fairly quickly, and all the work they've done will
stand them in good stead. As said above in several places in this
thread, for most people most of the time, the first mix is a lot of
reading and some sight-reading.

-S-

David J. Littleboy

2010-01-23 21:34:55 UTC

Post by tom walls
In your experience has this come up often since then? Just curious.

Again, speaking from a lot of experience in this area, those who do not
sight-read a lot, but do the other kinds of reading suggested, will indeed
have problems when they first start sight-reading. But those problems
will go away fairly quickly, and all the work they've done will stand them
in good stead. As said above in several places in this thread, for most
people most of the time, the first mix is a lot of reading and some
sight-reading.

The OP was having a problem that I've noticed going through the Berklee
reading books: letting one's ear take over from one's eyes.

It seems that the most heated contributors to this thread haven't addressed
that issue.

Personally, I find that forcing myself to slow down a bit and concentrate
harder helps. I don't know if that's a good suggestion for the OP, as my
experience reading (16 years of reading every day on violin but not much
reading on guitar) is presumably rather different.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

LJS

2010-01-23 20:41:29 UTC

Post by hw
snip

Post by Joey Goldstein
And someone who is a good reader but never works on sight reading will

*never* become a good sight reader.
--
Joey Goldstein

i'm confused. what's the difference between a good reader and a good
sight-reader?

It is confusing, especially when there are people that don't
understand the terms mucking the thread with what sounds like "random
generated responses".

Maybe this will help.

Sight reading is generally considered to be playing something at
sight, for the first time, and playing it at a performance level. The
need for this is practically non existent in the real world of
performing. It is a very useful skill however and can be used to judge
someone's level of literacy and performance. As such, you may be asked
to "sight read" a piece at an audition for a symphonic gig or
something of that nature. It is used to filter out students for youth
orchestras and other things of this nature.

On a more pragmatic note, at a recording session where there are time
limitations for use of the musicians for the amount of music that they
can use during a session and on some show gigs where there are pickup
bands and there is limited time to rehearse, sight reading is very
valuable for the performer. Although it is possible that everything is
done on the first take (or reading), more often the good sight reading
band will be able to rehearse the music while reading it. There will
be stops to clear up some points and if the band is good sight
readers, then the rehearsal will take a relatively short amount of
time and after a few hours of rehearsing, the good sight reading band
can play an hour long show at a professional level or make the final
take on the recording session without going into overtime. (Producers
of jingles and commercials really hate overtime!)

To be a good reader really only means that you can read music. You
understand the concepts and you can interpret the music correctly. To
be a better reader means to most people that you can do this correctly
rather quickly. In everyday use, competence is only required as most
of the reading is used to help the player rehearse a piece of music
and he has the opportunity to do this at his own pace.

It is rare indeed for the musician to be required to "sight read"
music even on a symphonic gig. The regular members will always have a
copy of the music to rehearse before the paid rehearsals. This is not
necessarily so with the "extras" as they are often reluctant to let
the expensive music sheets out of their sight and thus the extras have
to sight read the rehearsal. Usually these parts are not so difficult
and if the musician is competent to play at a high level, then they
can read at a level high enough to do this without any difficulty.

This is what these terms mean in a pragmatic context. I hope that it
helps you sort it out. There is a LOT of "not exactly good opinions"
being thrown around this thread by some that have no idea of what they
are talking about. I understand the confusion you may be
experiencing.

LJS

Joey Goldstein

2010-01-23 21:42:21 UTC

Post by LJS
Sight reading is generally considered to be playing something at
sight, for the first time, and playing it at a performance level.
The
need for this is practically non existent in the real world of
performing.

Bullshit.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

LJS

2010-01-23 22:06:32 UTC

Post by LJS
Sight reading is generally considered to be playing something at
sight, for the first time, and playing it at a performance level. The
need for this is practically non existent in the real world of
performing.

Bullshit.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Now that's a typical Joey response. No answers, but a useless
opinion.
LJS

Joey Goldstein

2010-01-23 22:55:11 UTC

Post by LJS
Sight reading is generally considered to be playing something at
sight, for the first time, and playing it at a performance level. The
need for this is practically non existent in the real world of
performing.

Bullshit.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Now that's a typical Joey response. No answers, but a useless
opinion.
LJS

It's not opinion, it's fact.
I am called to sight read professionally almost every day.
You *DON'T* know what you're talking about.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

LJS

2010-01-24 00:12:19 UTC

Post by LJS
Sight reading is generally considered to be playing something at
sight, for the first time, and playing it at a performance level. The
need for this is practically non existent in the real world of
performing.

Bullshit.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Now that's a typical Joey response. No answers, but a useless
opinion.
LJS

It's not opinion, it's fact.
I am called to sight read professionally almost every day.
You *DON'T* know what you're talking about.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Still no answer. Maybe you just forgot what the question was. What do
you do every day that requires sight reading? If your memory still
fails, you know, music that HAS to be played right the first time with
no rehearsal and properly in time, etc, etc. etc.

LJS

Joey Goldstein

2010-01-20 23:29:03 UTC

I think that Band In A Box's soloist feature is about as close to what
you're asking for as you'll find out there right now.

But the solos it generates are not exactly random.
They usually follow some sort of logical algorithm that attempts to
imitate various styles of jazz playing, and it's intended that they
should sound musical.

The type of thing you're asking for works better the more unmusical the
lines sound because that forces you to read the notes more.

A random line generator where you could randomize pitch and rhythm and
then print it out in standard notation would be a great tool IMO.
We'd need to be able to put certain limits on it though, like range
limits, minimum rhythmical values, etc.

In lieu of software like that there are a few tricks you can do with
pieces you already have that can help to get more mileage out of them.
Eg. If the piece has very few accidentals then you can try changing the
key signature or turning the page upside down.

Etc.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Flasherly

2010-01-21 00:01:36 UTC

Easy enough if you don't mind reading classical and random doesn't
connote reading other than sounds of a mellifluous nature. Classical
can reasonably be expected to share that definition. Getting the
various classical PDF files neither is going to be a major problem.
Not at all, considering a sheer bulk available, which is within
randomizing constructs when taking apart classical collections,
transposed and variously written, among manuals as well issued for
instruction purposes. All you'll need is a PDF writer -- the various
mechanics within programming (some freely published) for working with
with assembling (and disassembling) PDF files. Subsets to
subsequently compile, from musical notation or scores with potential
use you apply to practical usages.

I wouldn't of course mean to ignore other offerings, an emphases or
value of scales, chords, or potentials among such as the CAGED
system. An importance or lack of classical appreciation, as classical
applies to techniques and musical proficiency, though would occur. A
manner of style, as it were. . .similarly to ask, if you played within
progressions of rock, at what point interest is relevant to other
styles. For instance, if you knew you could also play country music,
then would you particularly care to pursue that avenue?

David J. Littleboy

2010-01-21 01:03:30 UTC

If you haven't been through the Berklee reading books (2 volumes), you
should. They drag you through all keys in every position and teach you an
approach to fingering.

And, as people have mentioned, Band in a Box produces quite reasonable
random solos. The latest version seems to be doing a mix and match and glue
together game based on snippets of solos actually played by some quite good
players, so it's quite musical stuff.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

LJS

2010-01-21 03:11:31 UTC

Not knowing what instrument you play does make some small differences
as to how to learn to read but not that much. I will answer your
question with simple reading and you can take it from there.

Reading is not really that difficult. It is much easier than learning
English for example (or any other spoken or written language) and
hopefully, most of us are literate.

First of all. Learning to read will in no way hurt your ability to
learn things by ear and will not present a problem with remembering
music that you learned by ear.

When I start my kids off reading, I emphasize counting. Experience
shows that if you know when you are supposed to play something,
learning which note to play becomes MUCH less of a problem. My
approach to learning music in general is to break things down into the
smallest components. If you learn the components in the proper order,
once you learn one to the extent that it is automatic, then you go to
the next component.

Playing, reading and understanding music is a series of very simple
concepts that only become complicated when one has to think of each of
the layers necessary for the end result. When broken down, reading
music is extremely simple.

Here is my suggestion:
Concentrate on rhythmic reading. Learn to instantly recognize the
length of the note and how to place it on a matrix of counting the
beats and the subdivisions. Start simple and progress to more
complicated rhythms. You can use any beginning band method, instrument
method or a graduated set of musical sheet music. Any of them will
work although the ones that provide the most variety of rhythmic
patterns will be the most helpful.

There is an old snare drum method (Podemski's Snare Drum Method) that
is an excellent place to start as it does not dwell on learning
patterns but starts very simple and progresses, without hardly any
repeated patterns, through an vast amount of rhythms in a relatively
short time.

It is also good to use melodic examples, but do not worry about the
notes in the beginning. As you read the rhythms, you will be seeing
the shape of the melody and this is more than enough for the first
stages. (IT also provides a good start to sight reading the notes
without an instrument)

Once you can easily read the rhythms, or after you have progressed
enough to "know" the rhythms, then put the notes to it. Note reading
is simply reading a graph. Once used to the graph, it is really easy
to see the name of the note as well as the distance it is from the
previous note and to the next note. Your mind will be free to
concentrate on this as you have already made the rhythm a part of you
so you don't have to think about the rhythm. You are free to play the
notes.

When you reach this stage, do not stop playing if you make a wrong
note. Keep on going with the rhythm in your head and play the notes as
you are able to pick them up again. This is the key and I really
should have mentioned this in the rhythmic section. NEVER stop the
flow of the music when learning to read (or when rehearsing for a
performance). music. If you are practicing, you may slow down or speed
up, but do keep it smooth and do not stop and go back and start over.
Keep the music alive by continuing to have the counting matrix and the
rhythm in your head. Later keep the melody in your head as well and do
not stop for mistakes.

If you are making too many mistakes and it falls apart, then take the
problem sections and rehears them, but in general, ALWAYS go from
beginning to end and work to keep it steady. It will take a while to
get used to this concept but it really will work. You can play it
really slow and speed it up as you learn it, but keep the music going.
Even with performance mistakes, your mind will still be learning to
"hear" the music as you progress through the music with the mistakes
and all. As your technique gets better, your mistakes will
disappear.ALWAYS think of the finished product in your head the best
you can.

This is the short explanation. If you are interested, I will be happy
to go into more detail if you follow this approach. If you do work on
learning to read in this manner, you will amaze yourself at how easy
it is. Start with easy pieces and progress to music that is more
challenging to your technique. The process is the same for Mary Had a
Little Lamb as it is for reading a Parker solo. Practice your reading
slowly so that your mind had a chance to process everything. When you
can read and play without the mistakes, your speed will automatically
speed up. If you learn to play through the wrong notes and rhythms
while keeping the background matrix, you will progress very quickly.
In no time, you will be reading music up to the point that your
technique allows you to play it.

Good luck and enjoy your reading. Remember that you started out
reading your native language slow, do the same thing for reading
music. Don't rush it and you will get results more quickly.

The first thing is to get comfortable with the counting ( the
background matrix), then what the notes look like and getting your
fingers etc to play them on command, and then keeping the continuity
together and you are on your way. Once you can master these skills at
a slow tempo, your speed will increase dramatically and this will
happen very quickly if you play a lot, more slowly if you don't.

Enjoy and don't be afraid to ask.

LJS

Chickenhead

2010-01-21 17:43:14 UTC

I've never been a very good music reader. Two things have helped me
dramatically though in the last couple years: The first was learning to
read and understand the rhythm first. For myself, I couldn't agree more
with LJS.-- Once I know WHEN to play something and what the rhythm is, the
notes are usually easy.

The other thing that helped me was eyeglasses. As I'm somewhat
nearsighted -- maybe in the 20/40 to 20/70 range depending on which eye and
the lighting -- I can read text just fine without glasses, but music is
different. I think it's because I need to see more of the page at once when
reading music as opposed to text. It wasn't until recently that I figured
this out: I always wondered why reading text was so much easier for me than
music, but it never occurred to me that it might actually be a
kinesthetic/eyesight issue, as I never needed eyeglasses to read text. My
music reading improved quite a bit once I started wearing proper eyeglasses
when I did it. I wish I'd tried it 20 years earlier. This should have been
a job for Obvious Man, but sometimes the obvious eludes us.

Post by LJS
Concentrate on rhythmic reading. Learn to instantly recognize the
length of the note and how to place it on a matrix of counting the
beats and the subdivisions. Start simple and progress to more
complicated rhythms. You can use any beginning band method, instrument
method or a graduated set of musical sheet music. Any of them will
work although the ones that provide the most variety of rhythmic
patterns will be the most helpful.
There is an old snare drum method (Podemski's Snare Drum Method) that
is an excellent place to start as it does not dwell on learning
patterns but starts very simple and progresses, without hardly any
repeated patterns, through an vast amount of rhythms in a relatively
short time.
It is also good to use melodic examples, but do not worry about the
notes in the beginning. As you read the rhythms, you will be seeing
the shape of the melody and this is more than enough for the first
stages. (IT also provides a good start to sight reading the notes
without an instrument)
Once you can easily read the rhythms, or after you have progressed
enough to "know" the rhythms, then put the notes to it. Note reading
is simply reading a graph. Once used to the graph, it is really easy
to see the name of the note as well as the distance it is from the
previous note and to the next note. Your mind will be free to
concentrate on this as you have already made the rhythm a part of you
so you don't have to think about the rhythm. You are free to play the
notes.
When you reach this stage, do not stop playing if you make a wrong
note. Keep on going with the rhythm in your head and play the notes as
you are able to pick them up again. This is the key and I really
should have mentioned this in the rhythmic section. NEVER stop the
flow of the music when learning to read (or when rehearsing for a
performance). music. If you are practicing, you may slow down or speed
up, but do keep it smooth and do not stop and go back and start over.
Keep the music alive by continuing to have the counting matrix and the
rhythm in your head. Later keep the melody in your head as well and do
not stop for mistakes.
If you are making too many mistakes and it falls apart, then take the
problem sections and rehears them, but in general, ALWAYS go from
beginning to end and work to keep it steady. It will take a while to
get used to this concept but it really will work. You can play it
really slow and speed it up as you learn it, but keep the music going.
Even with performance mistakes, your mind will still be learning to
"hear" the music as you progress through the music with the mistakes
and all. As your technique gets better, your mistakes will
disappear.ALWAYS think of the finished product in your head the best
you can.
This is the short explanation. If you are interested, I will be happy
to go into more detail if you follow this approach. If you do work on
learning to read in this manner, you will amaze yourself at how easy
it is. Start with easy pieces and progress to music that is more
challenging to your technique. The process is the same for Mary Had a
Little Lamb as it is for reading a Parker solo. Practice your reading
slowly so that your mind had a chance to process everything. When you
can read and play without the mistakes, your speed will automatically
speed up. If you learn to play through the wrong notes and rhythms
while keeping the background matrix, you will progress very quickly.
In no time, you will be reading music up to the point that your
technique allows you to play it.
Good luck and enjoy your reading. Remember that you started out
reading your native language slow, do the same thing for reading
music. Don't rush it and you will get results more quickly.
The first thing is to get comfortable with the counting ( the
background matrix), then what the notes look like and getting your
fingers etc to play them on command, and then keeping the continuity
together and you are on your way. Once you can master these skills at
a slow tempo, your speed will increase dramatically and this will
happen very quickly if you play a lot, more slowly if you don't.
Enjoy and don't be afraid to ask.
LJS

LJS

2010-01-22 14:32:12 UTC

On Jan 21, 11:43 am, "Chickenhead"

That is the first and most important aspect of reading. Once you can
read rhythms you are reading music. A drummer might then learn the
next step by dividing the rhythms between two drums or sounds. The
Tuba might put this ability to steps 1, 4 and 5 in many tunes. You
can then practice reading 5 tones in in the pentatonic scales and then
to 7 tones in diatonic tonal music. Add the accidentals and you have
the whole gamut.

Once you can read rhythms you have learned to read music. THEN your
REASON for wanting to read further will determine your course of
action.

The question for you to improve your overall musicianship and reading
ability is "What use can you make of reading?"

Sight reading is not necessary for MOST musicians. Auditions are
about the only time the MOST musicians need to sight read. The other
time is if you are playing recording gigs and you need to go in, play
the part and get out in the required time to spare the producer the
overtime rates. In all other cases, you pretty much just need to be
able to "decipher" the music so that you can practice it without a
teacher present.

The real value of reading, however, has not been brought up in this
thread as yet, unless I have missed a post to this point. That value
is in being able to "hear" the music as you look at it.

Reading music is akin to reading poetry. You read if for the sound of
the words as well as the meaning behind them. We don't usually think
of "sight reading" poetry. We read it, we re read it, we practice it,
we add inflection, we learn what it is about, we get to different
levels of understanding as we read and reread it. These are the same
things that we do when we read music.

The notion of reading random music that is not musical is just plain
ignorant. What is the purpose? (I am not addressing this to you, just
a general statement about this thread!

I read music to listen to it. Can I hear ALL the music on sight?
Certainly not. One has to study the music to get the full value. The
ability to play music musically is also the ability to know and
understand all the aspects of music that makes it musical and to
recognize these concepts by the notation. One needs to study the
Baroque performance practices to be able to read Bach and have it
sound right. You have to learn different performance practices if you
want to make the Romantic period sound correct. If you are playing
BeBop with the performance practices of Dixieland, it will not sound
like BeBop, it will sound like Dixieland. Play Heavy Metal Rock with
the conventions used in Rockabilly and the results will be comical.

It sounds like you are on the right track. Carry on.

The other thing that helped me was eyeglasses. As I'm somewhat
nearsighted -- maybe in the 20/40 to 20/70 range depending on which eye and
the lighting -- I can read text just fine without glasses, but music is
different. I think it's because I need to see more of the page at once when
reading music as opposed to text. It wasn't until recently that I figured
this out: I always wondered why reading text was so much easier for me than
music, but it never occurred to me that it might actually be a
kinesthetic/eyesight issue, as I never needed eyeglasses to read text. My
music reading improved quite a bit once I started wearing proper eyeglasses
when I did it. I wish I'd tried it 20 years earlier. This should have been
a job for Obvious Man, but sometimes the obvious eludes us.

lol,
I need you to come down here and share this with some of my Jr. High
students! Fortunately, I have been waging a campaign to get my kids
tested and to get glasses as needed. lol, YOU are not alone with
missing the call of Obvious Man! I am glad you faced up to reality and
your reading should improve drastically as you have removed one of the
layers that waste bandwidth on your brain. Now you don't have to use
the brain to decipher those blurry dots and lines and you can
concentrate on the music.

Later,
LJS

Jonathan (Cleve)

2010-01-21 03:38:50 UTC

I don't think software is the way to go at this.

To get your reading down, you need to sight read off the page. And you
don't need random notation, you need jazz rhythm. In my view, what you
need are some books with jazz/swing etudes that use the kinds of
rhythmic and harmonic figures that are commonly used in jazz. Bugs
Bower's Rhythms Complete is a good one to get started with. Mel Bay
and other publishers have different ones, although I can't vouch for
them. The ones I have are terrific, but they're mostly out of print.

You don't want to read the same thing over and over. Keep turning the
page and get at least several books, going through one after another
without repeating. Avoid repeating anything. Solo transcriptions are
good, but they're usually too hard for beginning readers trying to get
their sight reading down. You need a book that will take you from an
easy reading level to more difficult stuff. Fake books are ok, but
you'll soon realize in many cases that you've heard the melody before.
You need something you've never heard before.

I'd also emphasize that getting a good teacher can be really helpful
with reading. There are lots of little tricks that can be helpful.
Knowing what keys lay well in what positions helps. Knowing how to
scan the page to eliminate surprises is really helpful. Having someone
point out how you're misreading rhythms is also helpful. A good
teacher can really smooth the path for you.

Good luck. If you go at this in an organized way, you can greatly
improve your reading in a few months. But there's no substitute for
just doing it.

Joe Walker

2010-01-21 14:51:37 UTC

I'm working on such a program as we speak. Reading all the responses
here makes me more confident that there's nothing else like it out
there.

There's a lot of great advice in this thread, most of it steering the
reader away from random notes in favor of real music. I completely
agree, but the advantage to reading real music is you learn to
recognize scales, arpeggios, and rhythmic cells, similar to
recognizing whole words in a language. I've incorporated these
elements into my program.

Once it's user-friendly (I use it myself daily), it will allow the
user to specify the range, key signature, allowable notes, weights of
different rhythms and intervals, and whether to include rests or ties.
The idea is to isolate your weaknesses and tailor the output to any
level of challenge.

Here is an example: http://www.fromthewoodshed.com/public/sightreader.pdf.
To render this output, I chose a range of A3 to C6, corresponding to
5th position on guitar. C major key signature with no accidentals in
the piece, so I can mentally apply any key signature I want. I allowed
only seconds and thirds between notes, at a 1:1 ratio, which spits out
nothing but scale and arpeggio snippets. I allowed all rhythms from
half notes down to eighth notes, weighted toward eighth notes. I
allowed ties but not rests.

I've been using my own program for the last year, in conjunction with
several books of real music, and made immense progress. I will
certainly post a link here once it's ready.

Joe
joewalker.com

Joey Goldstein

2010-01-21 16:13:57 UTC

Post by Joe Walker

Material like that is easy to find.
It's more material like the stuff the OP is asking for that is needed.
Stuff that does not sound logical so that you are forced to read the
notes, not play by ear. Stuff where there are few easily recognizable
patterns. Stuff with lots of accidentals and odd rhythms. Rhythmic
notation that uses the imaginary barline and notation that violates the
imaginary barline.
Etc.

Post by Joe Walker
To render this output, I chose a range of A3 to C6, corresponding to
5th position on guitar. C major key signature with no accidentals in
the piece, so I can mentally apply any key signature I want. I allowed
only seconds and thirds between notes, at a 1:1 ratio, which spits out
nothing but scale and arpeggio snippets. I allowed all rhythms from
half notes down to eighth notes, weighted toward eighth notes. I
allowed ties but not rests.
I've been using my own program for the last year, in conjunction with
several books of real music, and made immense progress. I will
certainly post a link here once it's ready.
Joe
joewalker.com

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Paul K

2010-01-21 18:39:37 UTC

Post by Joe Walker
Here is an example: http://www.fromthewoodshed.com/public/sightreader.pdf.

I like this book for that kind of thing,

http://aebersold.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=AR&Catego
ry_Code=TROTEC

although the rhythms are not that complicated, but they have the rhythms that
you run across in 90% of jazz guitar sight reading. Melodically it makes no
sense, so that you have to read.

a much more difficult one I have is this one from the classical world.

http://www.di-arezzo.co.uk/sheet+music/music+learning+method/Eléments+Pratique
s+du+Rythme/LEMOI00953.html

I've bought a few others over the years.

For me, the thing that gets my reading chops "de-rusted" most quickly is
chordal stuff, eg transcribed chord solos, rather than single line stuff.
I can't explain why; perhaps having to reach several notes at the same time
makes things faster when you jsut try to find one at a time.

But like most guitarists, I'm not a great sight reader.

--
Paul K

http://www.youtube.com/TopologyPaul
http://www.soundclick.com/paulkirk
http://php.indiana.edu/~pkirk/

LJS

2010-01-22 14:47:59 UTC

>> Here is an example:http://www.fromthewoodshed.com/public/sightreader.pdf.

Post by Joey Goldstein
Material like that is easy to find.
It's more material like the stuff the OP is asking for that is needed.
Stuff that does not sound logical so that you are forced to read the
notes, not play by ear. Stuff where there are few easily recognizable
patterns. Stuff with lots of accidentals and odd rhythms. Rhythmic
notation that uses the imaginary barline and notation that violates the
imaginary barline.
Etc.

I like this book for that kind of thing,
http://aebersold.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=...
ry_Code=TROTEC
although the rhythms are not that complicated, but they have the rhythms that
you run across in 90% of jazz guitar sight reading. Melodically it makes no
sense, so that you have to read.
a much more difficult one I have is this one from the classical world.
http://www.di-arezzo.co.uk/sheet+music/music+learning+method/Eléments+Pratique
s+du+Rythme/LEMOI00953.html
I've bought a few others over the years.
For me, the thing that gets my reading chops "de-rusted" most quickly is
chordal stuff, eg transcribed chord solos, rather than single line stuff.
I can't explain why; perhaps having to reach several notes at the same time
makes things faster when you jsut try to find one at a time.
But like most guitarists, I'm not a great sight reader.
--
Paul K

Guitar is somewhat more difficult to sight read. I would suggest that
you focus on the more pragmatic approach. Work on sight reading
melodies of course, but that will only help your overall ability to
play in real time as you read.

The chords, however, do make things more complicated. I don't know if
you are talking about reading classical guitar music or Jazz charts.

Classical guitar reading should be the same as for reading the piano.
The fingerings may be more complicated and this does present a
problem. My question would be: How often do you have to read classical
guitar? In most cases, it is written so that you can study the music
and learn to play it and sight reading classical is rarely, if ever,
required for a musician to play. If you are doing it for fun with
friends, start with the melody and then add voices with successive
readings so that you can build your fingering skills as you read.

If you are reading Jazz charts of the "alphabets" with or without a
melody, your ability to read will be directly related to your
knowledge of chord fingerings and voicing. Again, if you are reading
chords below (or above a melody) you can choose our own voicing to
complement the given line being harmonized. In this case, there may be
better voicing of the chords from a part writing standpoint, but this
would come in successive readings as you refined your interpretation
of the pieces.

If you are playing lots of recording sessions, this should be obvious
to you. Even in this setting, you usually have some time for rehearsal
or the producer will give you part earlier to look over and decipher.

So, the question is still: What purpose does the reading serve in your
situation?

If your situation is improved by studying (as sight reading is not
really that helpful for learning patterns, one usually learns patterns
from repetition) Aebersold or Mel Bay patterns then that is fine. I
just don't see where "sight reading" is that relevant to achieving
this end.

LJS

http://www.youtube.com/TopologyPaulhttp://www.soundclick.com/paulkirkhttp://php.indiana.edu/~pkirk/

MT-Oz

2010-01-22 10:26:09 UTC

Hey Joe Walker,
I didn't know you read this newsgroup. I've been subscribed to your
blog through bloglines for more than a year and I must say I find it
really helpful, specially your interval and triad trainer. I'm looking
forward for this new tool. very promising.

Post by Joe Walker

I'm working on such a program as we speak. Reading all the responses
here makes me more confident that there's nothing else like it out
there.
There's a lot of great advice in this thread, most of it steering the
reader away from random notes in favor of real music. I completely
agree, but the advantage to reading real music is you learn to
recognize scales, arpeggios, and rhythmic cells, similar to
recognizing whole words in a language. I've incorporated these
elements into my program.
Once it's user-friendly (I use it myself daily), it will allow the
user to specify the range, key signature, allowable notes, weights of
different rhythms and intervals, and whether to include rests or ties.
The idea is to isolate your weaknesses and tailor the output to any
level of challenge.
Here is an example:http://www.fromthewoodshed.com/public/sightreader.pdf.
To render this output, I chose a range of A3 to C6, corresponding to
5th position on guitar. C major key signature with no accidentals in
the piece, so I can mentally apply any key signature I want. I allowed
only seconds and thirds between notes, at a 1:1 ratio, which spits out
nothing but scale and arpeggio snippets. I allowed all rhythms from
half notes down to eighth notes, weighted toward eighth notes. I
allowed ties but not rests.
I've been using my own program for the last year, in conjunction with
several books of real music, and made immense progress. I will
certainly post a link here once it's ready.
Joe
joewalker.com

paul

2010-01-21 19:23:40 UTC

I'd just like to add that I have spent a lot of time over the past
year writing in bass clef, a little time following scores in bass clef
and very very little time actually practicing sightreading in bass
clef. despite this, my sightreading in bass clef has improved markedly
over the past year. take from that what you will :).

--paul

tom walls

2010-01-21 19:55:04 UTC

Post by paul
I'd just like to add that I have spent a lot of time over the past
year writing in bass clef, a little time following scores in bass clef
and very very little time actually practicing sightreading in bass
clef. despite this, my sightreading in bass clef has improved markedly
over the past year. take from that what you will :).
--paul

On a similar note, since my recent enforced moratorium on guitar
playing, I've been learning pennywhistle. Since the various keys
require different fingerings, it's made me increasingly aware of the
sharps and flats of the key signatures, note names, intervals, etc
while I'm playing. This is something I've needed to improve for some
time, but have been too lazy to do it.

Gerry

2010-01-21 23:13:04 UTC

Post by tom walls
On a similar note, since my recent enforced moratorium on guitar
playing...

I missed that. The reason?

--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

tom walls

2010-01-21 23:54:13 UTC

Post by tom walls
On a similar note, since my recent enforced moratorium on guitar
playing...

I missed that. The reason?
--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

I'm having problems with my rotary cuff and "tennis" elbow. I still
sneak a few minutes on guitar here and there but for the most part
I've been off for a couple of months. It's excrutiating. I'm surprised
that you haven't heard me whining about it; the whining is, thus far,
the most effective part of my therapy.

Gerry

2010-01-22 15:58:33 UTC

Post by tom walls
I'm having problems with my rotary cuff and "tennis" elbow.

Having suffered with that for a year and a half (concluding around
1996), I've sent you my notes.

Post by tom walls
I still sneak a few minutes on guitar here and there but for the most part
I've been off for a couple of months. It's excrutiating. I'm surprised
that you haven't heard me whining about it; the whining is, thus far,
the most effective part of my therapy.

I'm surprised I haven't seen it. Good luck with that.

--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

Bill C

2010-01-22 16:40:27 UTC

Post by tom walls

Post by tom walls
On a similar note, since my recent enforced moratorium on guitar
playing...

I missed that. The reason?
--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

My rotator cuff problems disappeared after doing the exercises in this
book for some months - ymmv ...

http://www.amazon.com/Treat-Your-Own-Rotator-Cuff/dp/1598582062

LJS

2010-01-22 14:49:46 UTC

Very good, This is exactly what I am talking about. Reading through
the rhythms in the bass clef by following the scores allows your sub
conscious to start to "hear" the music. Thus your reading is
improving. Sounds like you are on the right track.

LJS

paul

2010-01-22 14:53:52 UTC

Post by LJS
Very good, This is exactly what I am talking about. Reading through
the rhythms in the bass clef by following the scores allows your sub
conscious to start to "hear" the music. Thus your reading is
improving. Sounds like you are on the right track.

the best part is, I haven't been trying to improve my sightreading
abilities on bass clef! I've been following scores mostly because of
compositional/orchestration studies.

--paul

LJS

2010-01-22 14:58:52 UTC

Post by paul

the best part is, I haven't been trying to improve my sightreading
abilities on bass clef! I've been following scores mostly because of
compositional/orchestration studies.
--paul

There you go! Multitasking is good! and it never ceases to amaze me
what one's sub conscious is capable of doing while we are doing
something else.
LJS

Joe Finn

2010-01-22 02:51:10 UTC

If you are just starting out get some beginners books for other instruments.
Then work your way into the intermediate material. Don't worry about the
"random" aspect that you mentioned. Music is full of patterns and you just
need to recognize what they look like on paper. Relying on what you've heard
[and therefore learned] is hard to avoid. Reading at sight means you'll have
to keep digging up music you have not seen before. This will not be a
problem, there is tons of it out there. I wouldn't worry about software at
first; stick to the printed page. .............joe

--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net

Joey Goldstein

2010-01-22 05:20:22 UTC

I think you could probably randomize a series of notes with a
pre-written rhythm fairly easily in Apple's Logic sequencer using one of
the Transform Objects in The Environment or using a Transform Set.

Eg.
You could have a steady stream of 16th notes on middle C that you
randomized within a user selectable range of pitch and selectable
intensity of randomization, I think.
It would be important to start with the pre-written rhythm so that the
notation in the Score Editor makes sense.
If you could randomize attack and duration in a controlled way so that
the resulting notation would make sense, then that would be cool too,
but I don't believe that's possible.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Stephen Cowell

2010-01-22 06:35:48 UTC

If you could randomize attack and duration in a controlled way so that the
resulting notation would make sense, then that would be cool too, but I
don't believe that's possible.

Pink noise generator + Finale set to quantize 16ths.
Have fun.
__
Steve
.

Les Cargill

2010-01-22 23:17:39 UTC

If you could randomize attack and duration in a controlled way so that the
resulting notation would make sense, then that would be cool too, but I
don't believe that's possible.

Pink noise generator + Finale set to quantize 16ths.
Have fun.
__
Steve
.

I have actually written a random music generator, using the TclMIDI
extension to the Tcl language. You could do something similar
with TXT2MIDI.exe, then import into Finale.

--
Les Cargill

LJS

2010-01-22 14:53:53 UTC

I think you could probably randomize a series of notes with a
pre-written rhythm fairly easily in Apple's Logic sequencer using one of
the Transform Objects in The Environment or using a Transform Set.
Eg.
You could have a steady stream of 16th notes on middle C that you
randomized within a user selectable range of pitch and selectable
intensity of randomization, I think.
It would be important to start with the pre-written rhythm so that the
notation in the Score Editor makes sense.
If you could randomize attack and duration in a controlled way so that
the resulting notation would make sense, then that would be cool too,
but I don't believe that's possible.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Why would anyone want to read random music?

LJS

Joey Goldstein

2010-01-22 15:54:00 UTC

I think you could probably randomize a series of notes with a
pre-written rhythm fairly easily in Apple's Logic sequencer using one of
the Transform Objects in The Environment or using a Transform Set.
Eg.
You could have a steady stream of 16th notes on middle C that you
randomized within a user selectable range of pitch and selectable
intensity of randomization, I think.
It would be important to start with the pre-written rhythm so that the
notation in the Score Editor makes sense.
If you could randomize attack and duration in a controlled way so that
the resulting notation would make sense, then that would be cool too,
but I don't believe that's possible.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Why would anyone want to read random music?
LJS

To become a better reader.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

LJS

2010-01-23 17:37:18 UTC

I think you could probably randomize a series of notes with a
pre-written rhythm fairly easily in Apple's Logic sequencer using one of
the Transform Objects in The Environment or using a Transform Set.
Eg.
You could have a steady stream of 16th notes on middle C that you
randomized within a user selectable range of pitch and selectable
intensity of randomization, I think.
It would be important to start with the pre-written rhythm so that the
notation in the Score Editor makes sense.
If you could randomize attack and duration in a controlled way so that
the resulting notation would make sense, then that would be cool too,
but I don't believe that's possible.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Why would anyone want to read random music?
LJS

To become a better reader.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

lol
A good reader of what? Nonsense music? We have machines that crank
that out all the time! Reading random music is "game playing". In your
own post right before this one, you state that understanding the music
is important. What is is about reading random music that makes it
*better* than using real music?

Exactly how often in your career were you called upon to sight read
random music?

LJS

Joey Goldstein

2010-01-23 18:46:17 UTC

Post by LJS
Why would anyone want to read random music?
LJS

To become a better reader.

lol
A good reader of what?

A good reader of whatever is thrown in front of you to read.

Post by LJS
Nonsense music?

If that's what's put in front of you then, yes, you should be able to
read it.

Post by LJS
We have machines that crank
that out all the time! Reading random music is "game playing".

It's an exercise.

Post by LJS
In your
own post right before this one, you state that understanding the music
is important. What is is about reading random music that makes it
*better* than using real music?

It's not "better".
Who ever said it was "better"?
Reading music that makes very little musical sense forces the reader to
read the music as opposed to playing by ear because he can not
anticipate what is about to happen next.
If the only work a student ever did was to read random music then he
would probably not become a very good reader.
No-one here is suggesting that random music is *all* that a student
should be reading. All we're suggesting is that doing some reading of
random music can be an important and worthwhile activity *in addition*
to reading the types of music that the reader will actually be called to
read in his professional circles.

Post by LJS
Exactly how often in your career were you called upon to sight read
random music?

Irrelevant, as always.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

LJS

2010-01-23 20:50:57 UTC

Post by LJS
Why would anyone want to read random music?
LJS

To become a better reader.

lol
A good reader of what?

A good reader of whatever is thrown in front of you to read.

Post by LJS
Nonsense music?

If that's what's put in front of you then, yes, you should be able to
read it.

Post by LJS
We have machines that crank
that out all the time! Reading random music is "game playing".

It's an exercise.

Post by LJS
In your
own post right before this one, you state that understanding the music
is important. What is is about reading random music that makes it
*better* than using real music?

Post by LJS
Exactly how often in your career were you called upon to sight read
random music?

Irrelevant, as always.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Joey, Your response was that the reason to read random music was to
become a better reader and you said it in the post after saying that
it is necessary to understand the music that you read. Isn't there any
continuity in your posts? You know, like things having the same
meaning in one post as the other?

And I take that last comment as you have not had to sight read during
your career. The question still stands: what purpose is served by
reading random music?

Since you are now saying that it is not "better" and you previously
said that is is important to understand the music, then how is this
all rectified into something that is helpful?

LJS

Joey Goldstein

2010-01-23 21:50:30 UTC

Post by LJS
Why would anyone want to read random music?
LJS

To become a better reader.

lol
A good reader of what?

A good reader of whatever is thrown in front of you to read.

Post by LJS
Nonsense music?

If that's what's put in front of you then, yes, you should be able to
read it.

Post by LJS
We have machines that crank
that out all the time! Reading random music is "game playing".

It's an exercise.

Post by LJS
In your
own post right before this one, you state that understanding the music
is important. What is is about reading random music that makes it
*better* than using real music?

Post by LJS
Exactly how often in your career were you called upon to sight read
random music?

Irrelevant, as always.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Joey, Your response was that the reason to read random music was to
become a better reader and you said it in the post after saying that
it is necessary to understand the music that you read.

Most of the time it is necessary to understand the music you're reading
in order to effectively make it sound like music.
But sometimes, when you get a piece of music that you don't understand,
it's more important to just read the damn the thing.
Sometimes you may even think you understand the music when you don't,
and this will cause you to play things that thew writer never actually
wrote. better to get in the habit of reading what's actually on the page
and not what you think should be there. If what comes out sounds like
shit then it's not your fault, it's the writer's fault.
If you were an actual working musician you'd know this.

Post by LJS
Isn't there any
continuity in your posts?

If you were an actual musician you'd understand more of what I say, but
you're not.

Post by LJS
You know, like things having the same
meaning in one post as the other?

I'm completely consistent. You're just ignorant and stupid and when yiou
stick your nose into jazz oriented discussions you don't have a clue
about what you're talking about.

Post by LJS
And I take that last comment as you have not had to sight read during
your career.

Again, you 'take' things wrongly.

Post by LJS
The question still stands: what purpose is served by
reading random music?

Go back and read the thread again.

Post by LJS
Since you are now saying that it is not "better" and you previously
said that is is important to understand the music, then how is this
all rectified into something that is helpful?

If you're too dense to understand what we've been talking about thus far
then no more explaining it on my part will help you.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

LJS

2010-01-23 22:19:35 UTC

Post by LJS
Why would anyone want to read random music?
LJS

To become a better reader.

lol
A good reader of what?

A good reader of whatever is thrown in front of you to read.

Post by LJS
Nonsense music?

If that's what's put in front of you then, yes, you should be able to
read it.

Post by LJS
We have machines that crank
that out all the time! Reading random music is "game playing".

It's an exercise.

Post by LJS
In your
own post right before this one, you state that understanding the music
is important. What is is about reading random music that makes it
*better* than using real music?

Post by LJS
Exactly how often in your career were you called upon to sight read
random music?

Irrelevant, as always.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Joey, Your response was that the reason to read random music was to
become a better reader and you said it in the post after saying that
it is necessary to understand the music that you read.

If that is good enough for your circle, then there is no sense
arguing. If you can accept that level of playing so be it.

If however, you want to reach a higher level, then you might want to
broaden your horizons. Personally, I am not comfortable with your
answer. I demand more of myself and my students than that.

Post by LJS
Isn't there any
continuity in your posts?

If you were an actual musician you'd understand more of what I say, but
you're not.

But you do have a very high level of avoiding specific questions! And
I have no desire to attain your level for THAT!

Post by LJS
You know, like things having the same
meaning in one post as the other?

I'm completely consistent. You're just ignorant and stupid and when yiou
stick your nose into jazz oriented discussions you don't have a clue
about what you're talking about.

See, no answer, and can't keep in one context! This is a discussion on
reading. All genres have been mentioned. Even if your statement about
jazz discussions were true, it is totally out of context for this
thread. (unless you actually prefer random generated jazz to music
that might have at least a little bit of feeling!)

Post by LJS
And I take that last comment as you have not had to sight read during
your career.

Again, you 'take' things wrongly.

You see. You again did not answer the question? Where have you needed
to sight read? There are real times when you have to do this. I have.
Both in auditions and on concerts. The question was what was your
experience in this area? You avoided the answer again in favor of out
of context non answers with personal attacks and slurs. What can I say
about that you don't illustrate better with your responses?

Post by LJS
The question still stands: what purpose is served by
reading random music?

Go back and read the thread again.

Post by LJS
Since you are now saying that it is not "better" and you previously
said that is is important to understand the music, then how is this
all rectified into something that is helpful?

If you're too dense to understand what we've been talking about thus far
then no more explaining it on my part will help you

lol
You're quoting me again!
BUT still no answers.
LJS

Post by Joey Goldstein
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca

Gerry

2010-01-22 16:00:39 UTC

Post by LJS
Why would anyone want to read random music?

In order to better their skills as a reader. Haven't you been
following this thread?

--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

LJS

2010-01-23 18:04:37 UTC

Post by LJS
Why would anyone want to read random music?

In order to better their skills as a reader. Haven't you been
following this thread?
--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

Lol, And it serves little or no purpose! Haven't you been paying
attention? What exactly is the benefit of playing random music in your
opinion?
LJS

Gerry

2010-01-23 20:37:02 UTC

Post by LJS
Why would anyone want to read random music?

In order to better their skills as a reader. Haven't you been
following this thread?

Lol, And it serves little or no purpose!

That makes about nine times you've said that. I think we get your stance.

Post by LJS
Haven't you been paying attention? What exactly is the benefit of
playing random music in your
opinion?

Shall I repeat myself a few more times, as if you can't read?

Okay, just for the assumed personal insult in response: To improve your
skills at reading, in this case the unexpected and/or apparently
illogical. I've read a few 12-tone pieces in my life and I think
sight-reading random music would have better prepared me for those
demands.

--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

LJS

2010-01-23 22:05:20 UTC

Post by LJS
Why would anyone want to read random music?

In order to better their skills as a reader. Haven't you been
following this thread?

Lol, And it serves little or no purpose!

That makes about nine times you've said that. I think we get your stance.

Post by LJS
Haven't you been paying attention? What exactly is the benefit of
playing random music in your
opinion?

Shall I repeat myself a few more times, as if you can't read?
Okay, just for the assumed personal insult in response: To improve your
skills at reading, in this case the unexpected and/or apparently
illogical. I've read a few 12-tone pieces in my life and I think
sight-reading random music would have better prepared me for those
demands.

FINALLY a coherent answer to something actually asked! (I feel like a
dentist!)

But never mind that.

Compared to reading tonal music, this may indeed be true. (I stated
this before in a different way, maybe you missed it!) But do you think
that random music is better than 12-tone pieces for learning to read
12-tone pieces?

12-tone pieces, at least the better ones, are not randomly generated.
They are built upon a 12-tone row and this row has characteristics of
the row that is being used to build it. If you read enough 12-tone
music, you will start to hear these patterns. If I knew your personal
situation and instrument I could be more specific, but in general, you
will have melodic patterns that will reflect the row in the melodic
line at least some if not most or all of the time. As you read more 12-
tone music, you will start to hear the retrograde and the inversions
and these elements in combination.

Just as in tonal music, reading is easier if you understand tonality,
so is understanding and hearing the concepts for 12-tone music. If you
really want to be fluent in reading 12-tone music, then you need to
learn how to listen to 12-tone music. Playing actual 12-tone music
will help you to understand the music where random music will not.

If you have a program to generate 12-tone patterns and you use these
patterns to practice reading 12-tone music, then in this case, I can
agree with your statement to some extent.

But when you are doing what you describe, you are using random
generated music to make a quick connection from the note you see and
the "fingering" for that note. This is just as easily accomplished
with real 12-tone music, but at the same time, with real 12-t music,
you are learning to hear the context.

So I can agree that compared to reading tonal music to prepare for
reading 12-tone music that random generated music may be better. BUT
if you compare it to reading real music in the 12-tone setting, you
will do better than you would with random generated music. Random
generated music lacks the true context of the style and that is what
makes the difference of "reading the notes" and "reading the music".

LJS

LJS

2010-01-23 18:04:47 UTC

Post by LJS
Why would anyone want to read random music?

In order to better their skills as a reader. Haven't you been
following this thread?
--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

Lol, And it serves little or no purpose! Haven't you been paying
attention? What exactly is the benefit of playing random music in your
opinion?
LJS

Gerry

2010-01-23 20:38:01 UTC

Post by LJS
Why would anyone want to read random music?

In order to better their skills as a reader. Haven't you been
following this thread?

Lol, And it serves little or no purpose!

That was quick. Now, 10 times!

--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.

Les Cargill

2010-01-22 23:15:57 UTC

<snip>

Post by LJS
Why would anyone want to read random music?
LJS

It's a Hogan's Alley thing....

--
Les Cargill

Patrick Keenan

2010-01-22 05:54:08 UTC

That's pretty much what's going to happen.

You might find that a more enjoyable and productive approach is to go to
your local library and check out some music books, pick pages and play them.

When you're done, take them back and get others.

HTH
-pk

David Raleigh Arnold

2010-01-24 02:13:30 UTC