'able To Play'; Sight-reader, Perfectionist Or Both?, A tangent of the other thread! Options

[Dulciana]

We've had lots of different views about what constitutes being able to play an instrument, and most are in terms of Grade/standard. However, to have passed a certain grade, a candidate might have used great playing to cover up poor sight-reading - or vice-versa; excellent sight-reading can make up (in marks) for a performance of the music that is not of a standard that would be well recieved by an audience - be it three people or three hundred - other than doting parents.

Now, my own opinion is that to be able to play means to be able to play well - regardless of any exams. We can't possibly say that an individual has to have a good grasp of a variety of pieces from the upper end of the standard repertoire of the instrument, or there wouldn't be too many who would be considered 'able to play'! A Grade 1 piece can be well worth listening to if it's well presented, while a Grade 8 piece won't necessarily, just because it's Grade 8 and most of the notes are right.

However, where does this leave sight-reading? Is the ability to sight-read a prerequisite for being 'able to play'? Where does that leave all the piano-bar pianists, jazz musicians and the like who play by ear and from memory?

So whilst sight-reading is obviously a necessary skill for those who want to be accompanists or church musicians, how much does it figure in being 'able to play' for those who will only ever be playing what they've rehearsed and perfected- such as a concert pianist - and how much does it cover up for poor playing in exams, in that Grade 8 can be passed with good sight-reading, having failed at least one piece?

[notmusimum]

Ok I make no bones about the fact I am not musical. I can only base my response on very limited experience but for what it's worth...

I think to be able to say that you can play at a certain level then all aspects of musicality required for the level have to come together. They may not always be exactly equal but there should be some sort of balance. Sightreading, performance, technical skills and confidence will be evident in the playing.

On a completely personal level. My youngest passed grade 2 Piano a year ago. I don't think she's a Grade 2 Pianist though as she can't play pieces of a similar standard even now a year on (although she's starting to). She took Grade 2 Guitar at around the same time and has definately made progress even though it's not an instrument that she particularly works towards exams on. I do know her technical skills and confidence have developed more than Piano.

On the other hand she's just taken Grade 6 Treble, we don't have the result, but I would say that's an accurate reflection of her level as she can play pieces of a similar atandard (unpolisheded(, infact she was playing the exam peices which she taught herself between teachers, and has started playing other pieces of similar standard from the same grade and the one above, not particularly for any exam, as well as various Handel Recorder Sonatas. She'll play pieces on different sizes of Recorder too, sometimes mixing them form the same sonata other times she'll play something only on Bass.

I agree that being able to play well won't always mean that you are playing at the highest level. It's more important to have an understanding of the requirements of a level even more so than the piece of paper in my opinion.

The level you are is the level you are comfortable at and the place you are going to move forward from. Don't know if that makes sense?

To be honest I'm probably my daughter's worst critic and I don't think either of us would have it any other way.

[TSax]

I see where you're coming from, but I think as a working, gigging musician sight-reading is an important skill. Maybe not so much the 30 seconds then play it, but something more like the Diploma quick study.

I'm nowhere near being a pro musician myself, but I've got a few friends who are and the gigs that they do where they know exactly what they're going to be playing even weeks in advance are quite a low proportion of the work they do. Much of it is last minute (maybe depping) and involves filling a spot in a band or other ensemble for a show, gig or recording session where they may well have not seen the music in advance. Although a couple of these firends are jazz musicians, sight reading skills are no less important - if you're going to have to fill in on something like a big band gig or recording session, quite possibly on more than one instrument, you need to be able to read the charts accurately.

[SaxFan]

I have only just come back to this thread -

I think those are such sensible posts... the last three Tsax, notmusimum and Dulciana - adding a good lot to a tricky and partly subjective topic.

Of course it's difficult to pinpoint precisely what constitutes "being able to play"
a tune? a few notes? to play brilliantly with all kinds of expression? to sight-read? improvise? scales? modes?

at what stage does someone who plays an instrument become a musician?
this could go on for ever almost (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[LooneyTunes]

at what stage does someone who plays an instrument become a musician?

A good point. Ask 10 different people and you will likely get 10 different answers as the on-going poll has shown.

I'm only just getting used to the idea that I'm a pianist (I still prefer to call myself a person who enjoys playing the piano) and I am definitely not a violinist - despite being one of the "first violins (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rofl.gif) " in my daughter's orchestra.

this could go on for ever almost (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

It sure could! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[notmusimum]

at what stage does someone who plays an instrument become a musician?
this could go on for ever almost (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

This is proably not the expected answer but partly when other people recognise you as one....

TSax I completely agree with you about sight reading. It's not only professional musicians who have to live off their wits in the way you describe. It could be anyone who plays more than one instrument at their conductors beck and call.

[anacrusis]

I think the fact that the various skills are not necessarily present in everyone is a positive thing - it means you can find the sort of musician needed for a particular task. I know one keyboard player who can transpose anything at the drop of a hat - he's quite happy to have an instrument tuned at a'=415Hz for an ensemble playing at 440Hz - he just plays up the semitone; as a soloist he isn't necessarily so inspiring, so he's best doing the things he's good at - and there's no doubt that he can play. On the other hand, I've also met keyboard players who can't play nearly as well at sight, and need to practise, hone and polish, but the end result is at a higher standard than the first one can manage - such musicians make better soloists and obbligato players - they also can clearly play, just not as spontaneously as the more flexible but less polished players. Sure, both groups would improve the ranges of what they can offer if they work on both aspects, but in practice many musicians will gravitate more to one style of learning and performing, because as they get a reputation for their particular skills, they'll be invited back for more of the same.

[Barry Thain]

Sight-reading has nothing whatsoever to do with being able to play an instrument. It has to do with being able to play a piece of music you don't know.

There really cannot be any debate about this. You only have to think of (for example) Louis Vierne and Jean Langlais; great musicians, gifted composers, fantastic organists (church musicians, indeed) and both blind. Sight-reading for them was not an option.

Sight-reading is a great skill to have, but lacking it does not preclude one from being a musician, or an instrumentalist.

Best wishes

barry

[notmusimum]

Sight-reading has nothing whatsoever to do with being able to play an instrument. It has to do with being able to play a piece of music you don't know.

There really cannot be any debate about this. You only have to think of (for example) Louis Vierne and Jean Langlais; great musicians, gifted composers, fantastic organists (church musicians, indeed) and both blind. Sight-reading for them was not an option.

Sight-reading is a great skill to have, but lacking it does not preclude one from being a musician, or an instrumentalist.

Best wishes

barry

There are always exceptions ot the rule. No doubt there are lots of talanted plyers who learn by ear but the biggest majority of people will learn formally by reading Music. In normal circumstances to play with ensembles, bands or orchestras will need to be able to sight read to a reasonabl;e degree.

I don't think this thread is just about being a musician it's about saying you are playing at a certain level generally and that requires a combination of skills in my opinion. It doesn't mean if you don't have one of those skills that you are not at the particular level.

[bohemian]

Sight-reading has nothing whatsoever to do with being able to play an instrument.

Except that if you have ###### technique, you are extremely likely to be ###### at sight-reading as it's all about pattern recognition - on a violin at least you recognise finger patterns from scales and technical exercises which makes sight-reading easier. Sure, it's possible to have good technique and still not be a good sight-reader, but I think the key thing about sight-reading is knowing your way around the instrument.

Obviously bringing up examples like blind people isn't really what most people are talking about.

I do agree with you that sight-reading is fairly unimportant to the concert musician, though (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I don't care how long it takes Perlman to learn something because he plays so damn well.

[LooneyTunes]

As a follow-on from my previous post, the reason I am not entirely comfortable with being called a 'pianist' is precisely because my sight-reading is rubbish. I can rattle off pieces from memory but put an unfamiliar score in front of me and I go to pieces! Makes me feel a bit of a 'fraud' (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif)

[muse]

As a follow-on from my previous post, the reason I am not entirely comfortable with being called a 'pianist' is precisely because my sight-reading is rubbish. I can rattle off pieces from memory but put an unfamiliar score in front of me and I go to pieces! Makes me feel a bit of a 'fraud' (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif)

I know exactly how you feel. I don't think I can play the piano very well at all which is why I'm going to take my grades. I can't play a grade one piece from sight but from memory I can just about play anything I wish to learn if I practice long enough. Personally I don't consider myself a musician at all unless I can sight read and improvise and do both extremely well. I can't do either, but I'm working on it.

[Violinia]

Of course you can be a great musician without being able to sightread. I'd go even further and say you can be a fantastic musician without being able to read a note of music, otherwise what are you going to call the virtuoso Romanian and Hungarian gypsies, many of whom can't read a note? What about Django Reinhardt who in my view was one of the greatest musicians who ever lived?

[Dulciana]

As a follow-on from my previous post, the reason I am not entirely comfortable with being called a 'pianist' is precisely because my sight-reading is rubbish. I can rattle off pieces from memory but put an unfamiliar score in front of me and I go to pieces! Makes me feel a bit of a 'fraud' (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif)

But surely the important question is what you'll be able to do with that unfamiliar score, given some time? Some will be able to rattle it off fairly quickly in a recogniseable manner, but so what? Unless it's for a purpose where basically any sort of rendition will do, who wants to listen to somebody sightreading? If it's an accompaniment, then the soloist obviously isn't very demanding if the most basic will do! I think, as I've said before, that the DipABRSM Quick Study is probably a good test, as it would give a soloist looking for an accompanist a reasonable idea that somebody could learn something to a reasonable standard fairly quickly, if they had to find somebody through qualifications alone rather than through personal experience or word of mouth.

If you can't play by ear and aren't a natural improviser, and are not therefore an impromtu performer, it comes down largely to reading. But not sightreading. It comes down to reading and working at. Or hearing and working at if you can't read, for whatever reason. The proof of the pudding is in how good a polish you can put on the music - I think, anyway.

[sarah123]

I think, to a certain extent, sightreading (or learning new pieces relatively quickly) is an important (although not the most important) part of being able to 'play' and instrument. Pretty much anyone can play pretty much anything, if they work at it for long enough, but being able to play one really difficult piece really well, but to struggle to play other much easier pieces can't count as being able to play, surely?

For example, if you started a new instrument, and learned to play one diploma level piece really well, but that was it, would you say you could play?