Can You Sight Read?

My actual fuency when reading is still at an amatuer level. Apparently I read at an AMEB grade 3 level. This is the Australian Music Examination Board’s grading system. Supposedly there are 6 grades involved and im yet to acually be examined, this was just a rough estimate by a guy I spoke to about it.

I was transcribing music now and then before sight reading became part of my routine. Since learning to read though, transcribing has become 10 times easier. Its at the point where ( and this is due to tireless aural training aswell) I can hear a melody and write it out without even touching the guitar or piano. Obviously there are limits to what complexity ‘melody’ ill be able to write out. I guess my point is that reading is an invaluable asset to any musician, professional or hobbyist.

Mike.

Sight reading is an area that I should focus on a lot more. I’m fairly comfortable in a classical context but never really devoted enough practice to become fluent. I couldn’t recommend it highly enough though.

@Richard Lundmark 368 wrote:

I can sightread decently, but haven’t practiced it in about a decade (that’s he last time I played classical and piano frequently). Haven’t had any used for avista reading since then. Being able to transcribe anything (especially improvisations) is for me the no.1 teaching tool for both yourself and aspiring students. However, APPLICATION of said trancriptions is everything. If you don’t learn to apply everything your learn conceptually to any style, tune, scale, key or tempo, and note value, you’re just learning licks like a copy machine. That is maybe also why I gave up the classical guitar (no offence Rick, you’re a master of that instrument bro). I just didn’t feel like only intepreting others works (even though you can go to great lengths doing that masterfully), was for me. I thrive on improvisation, both tonal and rhytmical, and could never see myself focusing on being able to sight read other peoples music and notations. I don’t see myself being in the situation (studio musician, classical and such) where I would really need that either.

However, I do belive that you should learn as much theory as you possibly need and can, since good theoretical knowledge can never hinder you, only help you broaden your horizons, and playing.

I concur 100%. I do understand where you are coming from with regard to the ‘classical’ approach, that is, interpretation of a piece that was not created by yourself. Although that is an art in itself, I personally feel that improvisation is where my true heart lies and I love nothing more than expressing myself through improvisation. I really enjoy playing classical guitar but the magic of improvisation will always be my true focus. I do feel that transcribing is part and parcel of improvisation too but as Richard said, its the application that matters.

I sight read quite a bit on gigs but have had some pretty scary experiences doing so.

I’ve done quite a few big band gigs and did one a few years ago with NYJO (national youth jazz orchestra) here in the UK. Scariest gig of my life with all hand written charts covered in huge runs at silly tempos! I’ve never felt so inadequate in all my life.

I’ve got so many sax playing mates who can read anything. I used to be in a Chick Corea style fusion band and had to read the tune ‘King Cockroach’ in a rehearsal. Boy did I get left behind! I think this can be a great way to learn though. These high pressure scenarios force you to work really hard and teach you a great deal. It reminds me of Pat Metheny saying, “you always learn the most from being the worst guy in the band.” In terms of sight reading I certainly was!