I often wonder why I find exam sight-reading so demanding compared to doing so in real contexts. At first I though it was the peculiar keys and sneaky clef changes and things in exams that were so tricky, but now I am not so sure. I was trying to do some stuff in the style of a Quick Study (which is not exactly the same as sight-reading but similar in concept) and I was finding it quite tricky to use the 5 minutes prep time usefully. And now I am realising a reason why. When you sight-read in ensemble or orchestra you have the notes others are playing to support what you are doing. The music is typical of your instrument's capabilities (you are unlikely to venture into 5th position on viola in an orchestral piece). You have a conductor helping things along.

When you sight-read solo there is no need to do it to tempo because it doesn't affect anyone else. But here's the real key for me is that you can't write on the music. Surely I am not the only person who casts an eye over a bit of sight-reading looking for the trickiest bit, have a go, select the most appropriate fingerings, whip out a pencil and mark it all on. Then out comes the metronome for the trickiest bars of rhythm, and back to Mr Pencil to mark on the beats if necessary. I can't honestly see the need to test sight-reading in isolation from these normal approaches, as when actually sight-reading this is what we do.

Same in the Practical Musicianship exams, you have to spot 5 differences between the played version and the scored version. I can spot them, but I can never remember them! In a real context you can make notes, or stop the ensemble if it's really that big an error, say right altos sing that line again, remember it's a dotted whatever, then restart. I have yet to think of one reason I would have to spot 5 mistakes in a piece and would not be allowed to record any of them as I go. The exams are dear enough that they could let us have a photocopy each of our own to scribble on and retain in the exam room for shredding, why not?

Sight-reading in exams is much more difficult, I find. I use a different part of my brain when sight-reading and this doesn't switch on unless there is a tempo. If I'm playing on my own I'm in practice mode. If say my husband comes along and plays guitar with me, it'll take my brain a few moments to switch but once it does I'm in sight-reading mode and less of my attention is devoted to perfecting the piece and more of my attention is on keeping up!

I don't get this switch if I play on my own. I can artificially get my brain to switch by using a metronome but its not as effective as playing along with someone else. So I tend to find it impossible to sight-read in an exam because I'm using my 'practice' brain to sight-read.

As for practical musicianship - I can't bear the thought of answering questions verbally. At least in written exams you have a chance to think it over, work things out and make a final decision on your answer. I say silly things all the time and even though in my head I may KNOW that it is a perfect cadence with a dominant seventh chord and the tonic I may say something completely different simply because I'm under pressure.

Sight-reading in exams is being 'dumbed down', I think, as I'm sure my Grade 6 piece was easier than G5(piano)!

Still, I agree it is a completely different kettle of fish to sight-reading in an orchestra. I find clarinet, bassoon and recorder S.R. easy, possibly because I'm used to reading two lines of music at once, but I do find it very helpful to have someone else playing the same or a similar part, and having a conductor there as well. Sometimes in recorder group we all have photocopies of the full score, which really helps!

I agree about the pencil! Even if I'm sight reading an accompaniment in a first practice with somebody, when I don't even have 5 minutes because they're standing there, I'll take a quick glance through and mark things that I might forget about, even though I've just seen them. I'm not wonderful about seeing performance directions first time round...I'm good with phrasing and that sort of things, but rit, a tempo, accelerando - that sort of thing - it can be a case of "O yes, I see it now" after the event...a pencil is a wonderful thing, and I've said here before that I think one should be allowed in exams as there's time to use it even in one minute's silent preparation! Bass clefs in the RH, stuck at the end of the line before the one they refer to - I hate to hear about that sort of thing in exams. I've had perfectly good sight readers caught out by that sort of thing. They say they look, see it, and then still forget when it comes to the bit! A big fat circle round it on a quick scan through would have done the job nicely!

Yes, piano sight-reading has been modified, and new specimen pieces have been issued this year. But I don't think this applies across the board; other instruments seem to be the same as before.

Just to share my experience as a singer - when given new pieces in the choir, we never have to "note bash" the tenor part, because I am able to sing it straight away. However... I've taken an exam for RSCM silver award recently (passed with merit) and the sight reading test was hopeless!

As a pianist (and honestly, I can't see that it is really different for other instruments), I'm often required to sight-read in real life - usually accompanying other instrumentalists or singers for exams or choirs. I busk through as best I can, being careful to maintain the rhythm and a bass-line if all else fails. It isn't a perfect performance, bit it provides the bare bones for whoever is singing with me because what am playing makes overall musical sense - it keeps going and stays in time. I sometimes make up chords or bits of accompaniment to fit or fill a gap (hardly notice I'm doing this moist of the time, it is so automatic). These are all the things I encourage my students to do for exam sight-reading.

If they need convincing, I will play them the rhythm of Happy Birthday on completely random notes - they never fail to make sense of it, because the rhythm tells them what the tune should be. Do the same the other way round - play the right notes with the wrong rhythm, and it is far harder to understand because the music makes no sense.

In order to be effective, real world and exam sight-reading is the same - rhythm is the most important priotity, followed by harmony, then individual notes and melody.

I think this is what separates amateurs from professionals. Amateurs attach too much importance to playing the "right" notes to the detriment of the rhythm.

My most extreme sight reading experiences were after getting a place on a big band. I played two gigs before we had a rehearsal. Each gig was something like 2 x 1.5 hr sets, averaging a chart every 4-5 minutes. I had time to check for repeats, codas, key changes and that was about it. Talk about rabbit caught in the headlights!

It was a lot simpler than exam type sight reading, but a lot more indicative of real life sight reading. And rhythm is a lot more important than notes. If the rhythm is sound than you know where you are and can drop straight back in when the notes get simpler. If your rhythm is kaput you're probably out until the next chart.

A year on I still have the seat in the big band, so I must have done OK!

For Sue HM: in my opinion, there is a huge difference between reading one line and a system and though I could play a lot of things at first sight on the recorder and I used to do this very often on the violin (when I studied that) I find it excrutiatingly difficult on the piano ... either a part of my brain is below average or there is a much greater difficulty in reading two lines than just one.

The stuff you sight read in "real-life" is real music, written by real musicians, intended to be performed.

The stuff that is produced to be sight-read in exams appears to be written by aliens.

The singing sight reading tests have been modified this year, too, but these have been made more difficult for grades 1-5 by the removal of the words. That didn't start out as my opinion, but it's what my students tell me! In that respect the exam test has less relation to real life sight reading. Give a grade 5 candidate a grade 5 sight reading test and they may flounder - give the same candidate a grade 6 practice piece and that can do it well - allegedly more difficult, but it has WORDS!! Please, AB, can we have our words back?

that the lack of words has been something my pupils have found offputting.

On the other hand, taking the examiner's introduction bars out of the accompaniment seems to have been a good thing, avoiding the nightmare of the examiner kicking off the test at a speed the candidate can't cope with, which I think was a serious disadvantage compared with instrumental sight-reading.

- with both the above! The words gave the singer some sense of rhythm and structure. Also, apart from being often at too fast a tempo, the accompaniments were just plain off-putting, and, as katyjay pointed out, something that instrumentalists didn't have to battle against.

No matter how many times I tried to point out that the examiner would not be playing their tune, in the stress of the moment many inexperienced sight singers will naturally reproduce whatever the pianist is doing.

What I would like to see is a choice - words, la, solfa syllables - whichever the candidate prefers. Similarly, they should be given the option to do the test unaccompanied if they find that easier. Eileen Field would be a good person to write to, I think. Maybe we can have a petition via AoToS?

How very clever! I think beginners tend to place more importance on the notes because we do not yet have the ability to improvise and ensure the harmony is correct whether it's the right or wrong note.