sight-reading

I learned by (one summer (was when the breakthrough happened)) reading through the Well-Tempered Clavier very very very slowly. As I continued, I was able to play some of the pieces (the slow ones :) almost up to tempo.

With counterpoint, just think of each moment vertically---think of the peice going chord by chord--don't worry about the lines. As you get more and more skilled at it, you'll eventually be able to think about the lines.

The other thing is, my teacher said "you have to always be looking ahead, and thinking about what you are doing". Well, that didn't help me. Later, I realized that the trick to sight-reading is the ability to NOT be thinking about what you're doing, and still be reading well anyhow.

The only way to get there is to start slow enough that you don't have to think too hard.

Hi Chris,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <chris@...> wrote:

> The other thing is, my teacher said "you have to always be
> looking ahead, and thinking about what you are doing".
> Well, that didn't help me.

That's exactly another thing that i emphasize to my students.

I liken it to riding a bike or skateboard -- something
that most kids understand; for adult students, i use
driving a car as an example. I say "You don't look down
at the front wheel as you're moving, right? Why?" (next,
the student chimes in with me in unison) "Because you'll
crash." "Exactly. You have to look *ahead* of you so that
you can see where you're going, because you are moving.
It's the same thing when playing from written music."

Most of my students really grok it after i present it
this way, and they get much better at sight-reading.

> Later, I realized that the trick to sight-reading is
> the ability to NOT be thinking about what you're doing,
> and still be reading well anyhow.

Yes, i think that sums up pretty well how it works.

> The only way to get there is to start slow enough that you
> don't have to think too hard.

Yes, this is always great advice. I think you've got it right.

And for learning a new piece (as opposed to sight-reading),
beginning to practice a new piece *SLOWLY* is THE NUMBER ONE
thing that i teach every one of my students.

But in this case, it's not so that you don't have to think,
it's precisely the opposite: because you have *so much* to
think about, for each and every note, you have to play it
extremely slowly and make sure that the pitch, rhythm,
dynamics, and phrasing are all absolutely correct. If anything
is wrong when you first start to learn the piece, and you
continue to practice it wrong, you will learn it wrong and
play it wrong. "Practice makes perfect" for sure -- but
perfectly wrong practice makes it perfectly wrong, and
only perfectly correct practice makes it perfectly correct.

-monz

Yes, I think counting to 6 would work. One doesn't know what
the rest of the measure has in store though. I could count to
6 fast enough to make it work. I can't count to 12 (that is
48 in 4/4 time) fast enough to make it work. The reason I choose
48, was that anything that comes up (at least recently) could
be played in the proper timing with 48 ( that is counting to 12
per quarter note).

If I played something REAL slow (counting to 48 in 4/4) could
this be speeded-up with Audacity? Then I could internalize it.

I just need a yes/no on this. No one hears my playing except me,
and I don't seem to have the motivation or whatever to do much
sometimes. Just curious I guess.

Thanks,

-Stephen

Stephen,

Counting numerically is a completely wrong idea. Music teachers, and
especially drum teachers (who, obviously, work mostly with rhythm with
their early students) have come up with many mnemonic or syllabic
counting devices that are much easier to say, extensible to different
meters, etc.

For instance:

straight eighth notes are usually counted "one and two and" (or 1 + 2 +)

eighth triplets are usually counted "one ti ta two ti ta" (where "ti"
is pronounced "tee") - this vocalization mimics the tonguing styles
used in brass and (sometimes) woodwind instruments, lending clarity to
one's counting.

Which means that quarter note triplets over straight quarter notes
places the triplets on every other eighth triplet:

*one* ti *ta* two *ti* ta

Your quarter lands on the beats one and two, and the quarter triplets
on the syllables shown with asterisks above. You have a counting
scheme that includes both rhythms at once, and you can play it as slow
as you like, and extend it to 4/4, etc.

You never wrote back about the exact nature of your polyrhythm, so
this is an example for you. If you ever get more curious about this
kind of thing, a couple lessons with a good teacher should set you
straight. One of the worst things that can happen is for someone to go
down the garden path on their own, picking up bad habits, and having
to unlearn them later.

End of riddim lesson! :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
++++++++++++++ Jon

Thanks alot.

I didn't know there was a way to count that was not numeric.

Triplets come up in songs from "Once More, With Feeling".

There might be a triplet in G clef with a quarter note
and 2 eighth notes in F clef. (that is in the first
half of the measure in 4/4 time)

There might be (in G clef only) quarter, eighth-eighth
followed by a triplet and then a quarter rest to finish
the 4/4 measure.

Other things too. A half note, then a 1/16 then a 1/8
followed by a 1/16 tied to a 1/8, then a 1/8 to finish
the measure (in 4/4 time).

A good teacher might not help. I had a former concert
pianist as a teacher growing up. She could play Bach, or
anything else, off the page. I didn't have much desire to
play then. Didn't pracice much. Timing was hard for me
then, even with pracice.

I was hoping there was some really easy way to do all this.
There isn't that I can see. I am very tired at the moment
however.

You don't have to continue here Jon (unless you really want).
I think you have more motivation in this matter than I.

Thanks,

Stephen

_____________________________________________________________

> Stephen,
>
> Counting numerically is a completely wrong idea. Music teachers,
and
> especially drum teachers (who, obviously, work mostly with rhythm
with
> their early students) have come up with many mnemonic or syllabic
> counting devices that are much easier to say, extensible to
different
> meters, etc.
>
> For instance:
>
> straight eighth notes are usually counted "one and two and" (or 1
+ 2 +)
>
> eighth triplets are usually counted "one ti ta two ti ta"
(where "ti"
> is pronounced "tee") - this vocalization mimics the tonguing styles
> used in brass and (sometimes) woodwind instruments, lending
clarity to
> one's counting.
>
> Which means that quarter note triplets over straight quarter notes
> places the triplets on every other eighth triplet:
>
> *one* ti *ta* two *ti* ta
>
> Your quarter lands on the beats one and two, and the quarter
triplets
> on the syllables shown with asterisks above. You have a counting
> scheme that includes both rhythms at once, and you can play it as
slow
> as you like, and extend it to 4/4, etc.
>
> You never wrote back about the exact nature of your polyrhythm, so
> this is an example for you. If you ever get more curious about this
> kind of thing, a couple lessons with a good teacher should set you
> straight. One of the worst things that can happen is for someone
to go
> down the garden path on their own, picking up bad habits, and
having
> to unlearn them later.
>
> End of riddim lesson! :)
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

Hi Stephen,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@...>
wrote:
> I didn't know there was a way to count that was not numeric.

You know, I didn't even really mention one of the prime reasons for
this: you find something to enunciate that has only one syllable! One
of the big problems with just using numbers is that once you get past
"six", you've got more than one syllable ("se-ven") and that can
complicate things.

Compared to a lot of things in music, basic rhythms aren't that big an
issue. I wish you were in my area, one or two sessions would have you
flying. I might suggest you reduce the problem down to it's elemental
component - rhythm. By this I mean: don't work at the piano/kbd, just
sit with some music and either count the rhythm (*not* the pitches) or
tap with your hands. This way you aren't trying to get the correct
pitch AND the correct rhythm, just the rhythm. Isolate all the tricky
ones and do them slowly and with many repetitions; only after you are
comfortable with that should you go back to the kbd and try to play
the pitchs. I also would work on one staff at a time, and then put
them together.

Suggestion: go to a nearby decent college and see if any percussion
majors give drum lessons. Tell them you'd like to understand basic
rhythmic reading better, and see if they'll do a couple of lessons
with that in mind.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
I might suggest you reduce the problem down to it's elemental
> component - rhythm. By this I mean: don't work at the piano/kbd, just
> sit with some music and either count the rhythm (*not* the pitches)
or
> tap with your hands. This way you aren't trying to get the correct
> pitch AND the correct rhythm, just the rhythm. Isolate all the tricky
> ones and do them slowly and with many repetitions; only after you are
> comfortable with that should you go back to the kbd and try to play
> the pitchs. I also would work on one staff at a time, and then put
> them together.
>
>> +++++ Thanks Jon. What I sometimes have been doing lately is
just playing some songs from the book (Once More, With
Feeling") without counting or trying very hard to get the
timing right. Just trying to hit the notes on the page.
Timing is totally off of course. I'm pretty confident I can
get the timing right in 4/4 by counting to 48. One of those
catch-22 FUBAR situations I guess. You know timing on, yet
too slow .

I used to know a musician.
I haven't seen him in about 20 years
though. He would know what to do. Doesn't really matter for
now anyway. Not like I play outside my room for anyone.

I guess I'm okay on this for now,

-Stephen