Barbara Fast currently serves as Keyboard Area Chair and Associate Professor of Piano Pedagogy, and coordinates the group piano program as well as teaches graduate and undergraduate piano pedagogy at the University of Oklahoma. She co-founded the National Group Piano/Piano Pedagogy Forum held for the first time in 2000 with the fifth Forum held in 2008 at the University of Oklahoma. She has presented workshops on sight reading, ensemble music, technology, newly published music, and historical keyboard pedagogy at Music Teachers National Conferences (MTNA), National conference on Keyboard Pedagogy (NCKP), World Piano Pedagogy Conferences (WPPC), International and National College Music Society Conferences (CMS), and the European Piano Teachers Conference (EPTA). Additionally she has performed in chamber settings in England, Russia, Japan and Korea, as well as presented lecture recitals and master classes throughout the United States. Dr. Fast previously served as Keyboard Chair and Associate Director of Graduate Studies at the University of Northern Iowa.
Barbara Fast
Department of Music
University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK 73019
405.325.5444
bfast@ou.edu
Sight reading for pianists remains a special challenge. While every other instrumentalist reads music horizontally, primarily one line of notes on one staff, pianists routinely read as many as four to eight notes vertically at one time, and on two different staves. The greater complexity of note reading at the keyboard, particularly vertical reading, demands more specialized development of sight reading skills for pianists.
The purpose of this article is to examine the research on sight reading, extrapolating important findings that can become building blocks to improved reading ability.
Basics of Eye Movement
It is helpful to understand how the eye functions when working to improve sight reading. There are several surprising facts to note. While musicians often feel as if they are staring in a fixed manner at a piece of music, in reality the eye is constantly moving very rapidly, performing large and small movements, about 4-6 per second. The eye takes snapshots, similar to a camera, and the brain hooks these snapshots together, so that it seems that our eyes function like a movie. (Lehmann, Andreas, McArthur 2002).
Secondly, with these frequent small and large movements, the eye moves ahead in a score, but also returns to current or even previous material. This fact runs counter to the practice of improving sight reading by covering current notes students are playing in order to force the eye to read ahead. This can be helpful in some circumstances, but should not always be utilized. The eye movements of better sight readers not only travel further ahead in the score, the eye constantly moves around, including returning to the current point of performance (Young, 1971).
In addition, better sight readers have a larger vertical span, grabbing outer notes rather than simply reading “in the middle” of the two staves. Studies that track eye movement when pianists are reading a score, dramatically demonstrate that good sight readers possess more frequent eye movements, more vertical movements up and down, more movements away from the current notes, and greater ability to move to the highest and lowest notes in the score. Poor readers on the other hand have fewer eye movements, tend to hover in the middle of the score or on no specific note, have fewer movements away from the current notes, and frequently the eye is rather static, rarely attempting to reach the highest and lowest notes. (Waters, Townsend, Underwood, 1998; Young, 1971).
This demonstrates the importance of vertical eye-span for pianists and reinforces the need to expand the treble to bass reading ability of piano students. Certainly early reading of both staves simultaneously should be encouraged, and an over-reliance on learning music hands separately, or only one staff at a time, should be avoided. Also, in the group piano curriculum, working on choral and instrumental score reading becomes a helpful aid in developing greater vertical eye-span in students.
When working on reading, it's helpful to remember that studies show that chords arranged in thirds are more easily recognized than inversions or chords with other arrangement of intervals (Ortmann, 1934). Thus, intervals of a fourth and sixth need more drill than thirds and fiths and first and second inversion chords need more emphasis than root position chords. It's helpful in the first year of piano study to encourage students to scan for and then circle intervals of the fourth and sixth, as these are frequent stumbling blocks in reading.
It's also helpful to know when working on sight reading that good sight readers perceive phrase units. Better sight readers have a perceptual span of 6-7 notes of a single line melody, while poor readers have a 3-4 note span. This span increases or shrinks, depending on phrase boundaries (Sloboda, 1984; Bean, 1938; Jacobson, 1926). Knowing this information, teachers should be encouraged to add phrase markings in elementary music when none exist. Phrase markings help organize the music for students.
Rhythmic Importance in Sight Reading
Research frequently shows that rhythm errors outweigh all other types of errors when sight reading. (Hardy, 1995; McPherson, 1994; Elliot 1982). Emphasis given to previewing music by tapping and counting the music before actually playing at the keyboard is enormously helpful to students. Even with adult students, closing the keyboard cover and tapping the rhythm of the piece hands together not only insures rhythmic accuracy, but also helps to develop coordination before tackling the actual note reading.
In one study, sight reading improved for instrumentalists when students were allowed to tap, clap, or mark the beat while playing (Boyl, 1970). Band students are frequently taught to tap their feet as a means to feel the pulse. A flutist or violinist, when performing, has great freedom to move, feeling the natural pulse of the music. Pianists on the other hand, are frequently taught to not pump the arm to the musical beat. Also, feet are occupied on the pedals, not on tapping the rhythm, and in general there is less freedom for pianists to overtly feel the pulse of the music in the body. Because of this lack of externalization of the pulse, young piano students should be encouraged to participate in rhythmic activities away from the piano. Dalcroze or eurthythmic type classes can be particularly helpful to a young students overall development of rhythm.
Pianists can borrow another technique from instrumentalists: the “slash” technique. Sight reading improved the most for instrumentalists when students located primary pulses in a measure and made other notes subordinate (Lemons, 1984). The “slash” technique, where students literally draw a line through the primary beats of the measure is frequently taught to band students and is widely used by professional orchestral musicians. Pianists who are poor sight readers are frequently unaware of this technique and can benefit enormously by marking or “slashing” the primary beats within the measure. It's particularly important to be precise in the slashes, as one then learns to read from slash mark to slash mark, or beat to beat.
Studies also show that following a definite, steady beat was a helpful aid to sight reading (Lemons, 1984). While pianists don't have a conductor, they can make use of metronomes, CDs and the accompaniments that are included with much educational music. At lessons, it can be helpful to have the student clap the rhythm while the teacher plays, or in classes to have the group clap while one or several students perform. It's particularly revealing to have the student point to the music and count while the teacher performs the music. The student's ability to track the music, or read the music, is clearly revealed.
Ensemble Playing in the Curriculum
Studies have shown that in piano performance majors, a predictor of sight reading proficiency was the number of hours in accompanying activities and size of accompanying repertoire. Hours of piano practice or a large solo repertoire did not predict good sight reading (Lehmann, Ericsson, 1996). While this fact is common knowledge among piano teachers, it's easy to forget to include ensemble playing in a student's curriculum. Again, if we refer back to instrumentalists, a trumpet or cello student is automatically playing in an ensemble such as band or orchestra from the very beginning.
Piano teachers must consciously include ensemble playing from the very first piano lesson. It's important to insist on well-written duets in a students beginning music. As a student advances, their curriculum should always include ensemble playing. This can be in various formats: teacher and student at the lesson or partner lessons (duet, two-piano, concerto), and group classes (keyboard ensembles, three-at-one piano, piano quartets). It's also helpful to encourage accompanying activities as part of a student's curriculum.
Harmonic Understanding Puts it All-Together
In group piano, theory grades were the strongest predictor of improvement in sight reading, rather than previous piano experience (Micheletti, 1980). The importance of harmonic understanding was demonstrated in a second study: students who memorized most quickly, memorized visually (hearing the music “in their head” and understanding harmonic structure) while looking at the score. They were composition students, not pianists (Nuki, 1984). Because of the complexity of note reading in keyboard music, these studies reinforce the importance of students understanding how music is put together harmonically. Theory study remains an important component of a piano student's curriculum.
An extension of harmonic understanding, pattern recognition or “chunking,” the ability to process individual notes as a unit, is one of the strongest predictors of good sight reading (Waters, Townsend, Underwood, 1998; Sloboda, 1984). Blocking broken chords, including alberti bass type patterns, is very helpful in building facile reading skills.
Ear Training Matters
Harmonic understanding includes the ear and ultimately affects good sight reading. Proofreader's error (oversight of a mistake in a highly familiar word), also applies to music. In one study, a piece of familiar music had several notes altered by a step. The better sight readers unintentionally corrected the altered pitches to match their expectation while the poor sight readers played the altered note, although it sounded incorrect (Sloboda, 1984). In a different study, erased notes were inferred more correctly by better sight readers (Lehmann, Ericsson, 1996). It was even found that auditory skills (the ear) and prediction skills (able to anticipate harmonically or hear in one's head what is “coming up”) are stronger indicators of skilled sight reading, over and above basic pattern recognition (Waters, Townsend, Underwood, 1998).
All of these studies point to the power of the ear to aid in effective sight reading. Teachers have to very consciously work to include ear training within lessons. Group classes or partner lessons are an easy format in which to include ear training activities.
Fluent Technique Precedes Good Sight Reading
Obviously, students cannot sight read beyond what they technically can play. In wind players, the strongest indicator of good sight reading was good rhythmic reading. Almost an equally strong indicator was good technical proficiency. (Elliot, 1982). The technical fluency that is necessary for fluid sight reading is developed through careful choice of repertoire, allowing the student to be successful while always providing a challenge that is attainable. The difficult aspect of piano technique, the coordination between two hands of complex movements, is primarily developed through repertoire. Consequently, it's imperative that teachers carefully choose music that is both attainable, yet constantly challenging.
It is helpful to know that the research shows that good sight readers conform to the prescriptions of classic fingering in literature. Also, novices tended to avoid squashed and stretched finger transitions, while master performers employed these quite readily (Sloboda, Parncutt, Raekallio, 1998). Teachers should carefully prepare hand extensions and contractions, as students will not intuitively use these hand movements.
Preview, Preview, Preview
In a study of expert pianists who spent two minutes scanning music before sight reading, they focused on meter, complex rhythms, and time signature (Waters, Townsend, Underwood, 1998). Numerous studies such as this have shown that better sight readers spend time previewing and evaluating musical material. Guiding students to identifying key and time signature, the form of the piece, and familiar patterns as well as difficult spots, is particularly effective through the use of thoughtful questions that require the student to discover how the piece is constructed.
Just Do It!
Sight reading requires careful planning to consistently incorporate into a student's curriculum, as it's one of the easiest items to omit when repertoire, technique, and theory all compete for a share of lesson time. Deciding on a program of study is the most important step for the teacher. Materials that are constructed to include brief daily sight reading, rhythm and ear training assignments, are frequently the most successful with students. It's important that these materials begin at the student's current sight reading ability, almost always several steps below their repertoire level, and gradually and steadily increase in difficulty.
Sight reading can also be included in the curriculum by consistently assigning four to five “prepared reading pieces” that also begin at the students sight reading level, and gradually increase in difficulty. At the lesson the teacher only “spot-checks” the assigned pieces, to insure the student practiced any difficult spots. This can be particularly effective with the more advanced student.
When it comes to sight reading, as the Nike slogan says, Just Do it!
References
Bean, Kenneth (1938). “An Experimental Approach to the Reading of Music,” Pschological Monographs, 50, quoted in Lowder, p.68.
Boyl, David (1970). “The Effect of Prescribed Rhythmical Movements on the Ability to Read Music at Sight,” Journal of Research in Music Education, 18 (4), 307-318.
Elliot, Charles A. (1982). “The Relationships Among Instrumental Sight-Reading Ability and Seven Selected Predictor Variables,” Journal of Research in Music Education, 30(1), 5-14.
Hardy, Diane (1995). The Construction and Validation of an Original Sight-Playing Test for Elementary Piano Students. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma.
Jacobson, O. Irving (1926). An Analysis of Eye Movements in Reading Music. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Lehmann, A.C., K. A. Ericsson (1996). “Sight-reading Ability of Expert Pianists in the Context of Piano Accompanying.” Psychomusicology, 12 (2), 182-195.
Lehmann, Andreas, Victoria McArthur (2002). “Sight-Reading,” in The Science and Psychology of Music Performance, Parncutt and McPherson, ed., pp. 35-150, Oxford University Press.
Lemons, Robert McCord (1984). The Development and Trial of Microcomputer-Assisted Techniques to Supplement Traditional Training in Musical Sightreading. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder.
Lowder, Jerry (1973). “Evaluation of a Sight-Reading Test Administered to Freshman Piano Classes,” Journal of Research in Music Education, 21, 68-73.
McPherson, Gary E. (1994). “Factors and Abilities Influencing Sightreading Skill in Music,” Journal of Research in Music Education, 42(3), 217-231.
Micheletti, Lynn Howe (1980). An Assessment of the Vertical Method and the Ensemble Approach for Teaching Sight Reading to Secondary Class Piano Students. Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami.
Nuki, Michiko (1984). “Memorization of Piano Music,” Pschologia, 27, 157-163.
Ortmann, Otto (1934). “Elements of Chord Reading in Music Notation,” Journal of Experimental Education, 3, 50-57.
Sloboda, John (1984). “Experimental Studies of Music Reading,” Music Perception, 2, 222-236.
Sloboda, John, Richard Parncutt, Eric Clarke, Matti Raekallio (1998). “Determinants of Finger Choice in Piano Sight-Reading,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24 (1), 183-203.
Waters, Andrew, Ellen Townsend, Geoffrey Underwood (1998). “Expertise in Musical Sight-Reading: A Study of Pianists,” British Journal of Psychology, 89, 123-149.
Young, Leonora (1971). A Study of the Eye Movements and Eye-Hand Temporal Relationships of Successful and Unsuccessful Piano Sight-Readers While Piano Sight-Reading. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
| TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|