What's left for musicians to learn if they can sight-read?
It seems skilled musicians can can sight-read even advanced pieces.
What's left for musicians if they can sight-read advanced pieces? It seems to me there must be something left to do - otherwise they'd have reached perfection, and there'd be nothing to distinguish between musicians (e.g. who is a better hire for our orchestra) since they're all perfect anyway.
I'm looking for some way musicians can continue to improve if they can already sight-read, or some way to say musician A is better than musician B even if both A and B can sight-read.
(11)11 Comments
Sorted by latest first Latest Oldest Best
From my perspective: I am an experienced amateur orchestral player, can generally sight-read and play my part (I play the Bassoon).
Now and then, I get to play sitting next to professional players: every note becomes Music (I would play notes). This is partly due to knowledge of the type of music as same notes will be played differently depending on genre, say Barock as compared to Romantic.
I train at home playing orchestral solos and solo pieces. To be frank, even if the notes come out correctly it is far, far from what I hear the real pros playing. Interpretation comes far after sight-reading.
A bit of thinking: compary "type-writing" performances on the piano to great masters playing the same notes. Mastering the technicals of an instrument does not make music.
You don't sight-read whole pieces. Sight-reading helps with playing pieces on-the-fly. You are not going to perform pieces you sight-read. This is just a soft-skill that helps when music is brought to you and you are expected to discuss it.
Sight-Reading at a practical level is generally two grades lower as the one you are on. usually you are given a passage to sight-read, not whole pieces.
Orchestral musicians have the score in front of them, but this hardly means they sight-read. They have to practice there parts just as much as the soloist, they just have the fallback of the score.
Being able to read but not understand what you are reading is not necessarily "skilled". It is A skill and an important one. Consider the analogy of a literate person who can stand at a podium and recite a lecture of nuclear physics. I know what I'm about to write will get some negative feedback, it's an attempt at an analogy and not a perfect one but... A person does not have to understand what they are reading to be able to read it out loud and convince others that they do understand it.
Now, reading in music is a bit different than reading English or Spanish, etc. One can write about many subjects in a given language but standard music notation (SMN) is merely a set of instructions for creating a set of frequencies in time. It can be thought of more like a programing language, like C++ or FORTRAN. And we are the "interpreters" or "compilers". While it is true especially in classical music circles that being a good sight reader is a necessary job skill that doesn't mean that even historically such skills existed or were in common demand when we created and made music as part of our every day lives. Someone has to make the instructions for others to read and that person doesn't create music merely by reading music, that would lead to an infinite regress. The composer, any of us for that matter, can create music then write the instructions for what they want others to do in SMN. So there must be more to music than literacy.
I think it's probably safe to say that you can write most basic ideas in SMN but that doesn't mean you can convey an explanation of them in SMN. Also, keep in mind that sight reading as you are asking about is part of the "Western Musical Tradition" and other cultures may not have sight reading at all, or may use different methods to display instructions to musicians. So to even suggest that sight reading is the last word on musical training is intrinsically ethnocentric.
Here is a short list of things worth learning about music that, IMO cannot necessarily be picked up by sight reading pieces.
"Groove", or feel. There are many Latin musical styles that have rhythmic figures in their foundation that CANNOT be written in discrete SMN using the divisions of time available in that instruction set. I am sure these exist in other cultures too, Asian, African, perhaps even early European folk music. Such rhythmic ideas must be learnt by example and memorized through performance. And example is the Clave style of rhythm. If you search you WILL find Western sheet music for this but as I was taught by a Jazz percussionist from South America these are only an approximation to the real groove, that must be learnt by feel. This is not the only example and serves to illustrate that you CANNOT learn everything vie reading.
Music theory. Western music theory attempts to provide a succinct, minimal set of rules that describe what patterns are most liked by the Western ear. Of course, if you read a piece and play it as written you will play, for example, an authentic cadence, and a plagal cadence, etc. You will be exposed to all the elements of music. But to the reader these are all just instructions to play these "things". Understanding music theory provides a means to see the big picture that serves as a template for the details of a piece. I was raised in the classical music tradition on violin and it was all read, read, read, and technique. Mozart, Paganini, Wieniawski, etc. As were many of my friends. But I was very luck to grow up with exposure to working Jazz musicians and got indoctrinated into the world of Improv, playing by ear, and what I would call "informal music theory" at an early age. I can say from personal experience that that is a better way to learn music. I've had friends who went all they way with a classical music career starting with private lessons from age 4 or 5 and only after 20 years realized that their favorite symphony from the classical era had 2 chords in it, I --> V repeat. Theory doesn't cover every pattern in music but it is worth the effort to learn.
Improv. For me this is the pinnacle of a musician's education. When you can improv you really understand music and have developed good skills on your instrument as well as a good ear. Ironically you do not need to know how to read to be a good musician and reading alone does not necessarily translate to an understanding of the patterns in that music or a good ear (though you would hope that the constant exposure would rub off).
Other musical traditions. Like I said SMN is a Western Invention. If you think you've reached the pinnacle of Western music with that skill trying Indian Ragas, Carnatic music, Middle-Eastern music (real mid-east, not a Westernized version), African. Venture out of the classical sphere. Even if there are pieces "written" in SMN that claim to be "Indian" or "African", I can assure you they are not. They are perhaps the work of a Westerner influenced by another culture. What I'm saying is immerse yourself in that other culture and learn their methods.
Compose. If you have read your way through a large selection of pieces on your instrument then start composing. Write your own pieces, and exercises. My first guitar teacher encouraged this as soon as he taught me my first diatonic sequence. "Make up your own". That will both challenge your skills and help develop your own musical language.
Learn a new instrument. If you really feel like you've reached the highest level on one instrument, and have great sight reading skill, pick up another. Something in a completely different family.
I think music literacy is very important and require my students to learn SMN and get good at it. But that is just one skill and to be honest probably not the most important skill. It is critical for working in an orchestra and probably for that reason it is emphasized more in classical training.
I think that the simple answer is: lots.
However, if you want a specific target then you could consider transposition. Can you sight read a piece and play in another key e.g. a second higher or a fifth lower? There are a variety of reasons that you might want to do this. Players of transposing instruments, e.g. Bb clarinet, often learn this early on so that they can play music that was not written for their instrument. Another example would be accompanying a singer who cannot manage the written key and needs it a bit higher or lower. Many, many years ago when I was in school, the school band that I was in played in a venue where the piano was tuned a semitone too low. Although the teacher was good, he did not feel comfortable transposing everything up a semitone with no warning. So, we had to play without our usual support.
How about other clefs? Can you sight read a viola part written in the alto clef?
It seems skilled poetry readers can sightread even advanced poems. What's left for a recital if they can sightread advanced poems?
Why do people go into recitals who are fully capable of reading?
Coming back to your question: "It seems to me there must be something left to do." Of course there is. Music.
You would not go into a recital by someone who is reading a poem off phonetically without understanding its meaning, even though they may reproduce the words on page perfectly.
Just because sightreading is hard does not mean that it is all there is to the music.
Sight-reading is a nice skill to have for the logistics of orchestra work. But it doesn't matter in your actual interpretation.
You could reasonably imagine an hypothetical world where the musician producing the best interpretations to ever be played does not have the ability to sight-read at all, because their brain is just not wired that way. That musician would just have to memorize entire pieces before playing them properly.
How to play music, however subjective and however dependent on natural talent and inclinations, is a skill which is learned and cultivated.
It is arguably much harder to master this, as even though many professional musicians can sight-read, only a few are recognized as masters of interpretation.
It's not very formal though, and maybe that's what your question was about. More formal things to really learn in an academic way include music theory, composing, leading, other instruments and other musical traditions.
I think this deserves an anecdote. The greatest classical bassist I've ever met is the woman who plays bass in my fathers bluegrass band. But she wasn't always a particularly great bluegrass bassist.
She came into the band via her husband who's a noted (Well at least in the local scene) bluegrass mandolin player, when they met and fell in love she had never even heard bluegrass before (Despite being a Kentucky gal) , and although she apparently enjoyed watching the musicianship of her husband was not initially particularly enthused by the bass generally typical to the style (often simply a i-iv-i-iv kind of thing).
Now, this woman is an astonishing classical bassist, for many years the lead soloist bassist in the state orchestra here, this woman reads flawlessly, had a masters degree in music (but for some reason had never done any significant jazz improvisation, I guess the music degrees where done differently back then). Watching her play was mesmerising. Let me be clear, she was exactly the sort of musician you refer to here.
But when asked to join her husbands bluegrass band on bass was absolutely terrible at it, despite it being an incredibly simple genre to play, for a bassist. Myself, 10yo (this was 30 years ago!) son of banjo player, hater of anything not heavy metal(dont worry, the last 30 years have seen my tastes evolve a little lol), had a significantly better feel because at least I had grown up in the groove of the thing. She really struggled with it. Not because she couldn't memorise the songs, her brain was built for THAT task, nor because she'd get the notes wrong, but because she hadn't learn the groove of the thing yet. She didn't know yet how to relax and stop viewing musical as a giant mathematical galaxy-brain fractal, and just let the fingers do the talking.
In other words, she had a lot to learn.
Now, the epilogue to the analogy is 30 years later, still bassist of that band, she's the best bluegrass bassist I've ever seen. And still goddamn ascended master at the classical stuff . Probably can't jazz improvise worth squat, but I doubt she's attempted it in the last 30 years either.
My point is, an expertise in technical skills, and masterful sight reading isn't anything approaching the end of a musicians journey, its barely even the start. It might even take a genre as famously unrefined and simplistic as bluegrass to stump a master sight reader, because thats country where most of its legends barely had the education to write their own name, let alone a band score.
You'll never reach "the end" of music. Theres always new things to learn.
Being able to sight-read even very difficult pieces is certainly a great skill to have. But there's a lot more to any piece of music than just the dots. There's interpretation - which may consist of the player's way of bringing it to life, rather than merely playing the right notes at the right time - dynamics, mainly - or being guided by a conductor, who may have different interpretations.
There's playing with others. For some, particularly solo performers, it's not easy to be a team player, literally! Listening skills are paramount, and if a player is used to playing by themselves, playing with others is as important as getting the notes right.
O.k. so you can read anything. Can you carry on if the sheet music falls off the stand? Can you decide to play the last 24 bars in a different way? Can you look at the music and play it in a different key? Can you take a simple one line tune and harmonise it in several different ways? Can you Listen to a piece and play it back, even simply?
There are plenty of other skills that need honing even by a muso who is excellent at sight-reading. That's a great skill to possess, and in certain circumstances it's exactly what's needed, but in others, it won't help at all.
Imagine a jam session, everyone knows the basic tune, and the key they'll play in. 1,2,-1,2,3,4... "But I can't play - there's no music telling me what to do!" Good sight-readers, generally, struggle in situations such as these. Time to learn a new musical skill?
You can answer your own question if you consider the following analogous situation.
A film actor prepares by learning the script, and then performs in front of the camera. Anyone can do that as long as they a) can read, and b) can remember the lines until the delivery moment.
So... what is left after you learn to read?
The sight-reading endzone differs based on each instrument needs. But, let’s take a general view on sight-reading at the piano as base. Piano reading skills are usually part of graduate entrance exams for courses in composition, conducting, some instruments, musicology, theory... so, that’s a common need in higher music education across the world.
The final goal for sight reading at the piano, for me, is partiturspiel (score playing an orchestra score at piano on sight-reading) a 20th century orchestra piece, like Stravinsky or Lutoslawski. Someday, I hope can reach this.
But besides sight-reading, as your original question, how measure a musician ability?
Interpretation of the same pieces, scales on different articulations, group playing (or blending within a group) tests, as orchestras usually do to select new players. There’s always something to improve on an interpretation, always a way to make justice to a section or a whole work. Perfection at playing is not achieved, unless for brief moments in a lifetime - but we try to reach this anyway.
If, hypothetically, you’re in doubt about 2 perfect musicians for a gig or permanent place, take into consideration non musical soft skills, as communication, social or emotional intelligence skills.
Hope this helps.
Playing by heart
Transposing
Composing
Conducting
Teaching and helping others
Sponsoring ;)
e.g. Yehudi Menhuin
www.gstaadmenuhinfestival.ch/en
Terms of Use Privacy policy Contact About Cancellation policy © freshhoot.com2025 All Rights reserved.