Reading music training

[audington]

Can anyone recommend any iPhone apps / websites / PC programs to assit in learning and training sight reading?

Thanks!

[Winstontaneous]

This might not be the answer you want, but...

While you may find an app to teach you Every Good Boy Does Fine, technology won't help you with sight reading (aside from a good electric light and a metronome). It's really a matter of wetware programming: pattern recognition (for intervals & rhythms), looking ahead, paying attention, hand-eye coordination, and knowing your instrument(s).

Getting better at sight reading is achieved by doing it regularly...this means plowing through, more or less at tempo, even when you make mistakes. You don't get a do-over in professional situations (if that's the level you're aiming for) so get in the habit of real-time reading, on unfamiliar music.

Get music in the clef(s) you know, doesn't matter whether it's for your instrument, or in a style you like. Look it over once, noting key/time sigs (+ changes), structure, form, chord movement, repeats, etc. Play it through once or twice, note your mistakes...practice that stuff and see what you can learn from this to make the next "cold read" better.

I'm saying this from experience, when I realized that my gig opportunities as a freelance bassist were limited by mediocre reading skills. Regular piano lessons have done a LOT to remedy this...my reading is much better now, but I still have a ways to go.

[jancivil]

Take lessons. Just do the thing. The idea of leaning on software is just so pervasive these days, it's not as efficient as it might seem and doesn't supplant the tried and true old school ways. Find a teacher in your area, at your instrument and take weekly lessons where you have someone enforcing your achievement, that makes you complete assignments on time.

[standalone]

But if you insist being a bad boy:

http://www.ars-nova.com/aboutpm5/index.html

[beltrom]

http://www.adventus.com/store/piano-suite-premier/

I used to use this a lot especially for getting my sightreading better. As any method for learning sightreading it requires some disciplin, the program won't do the work for you but it provides a method and a good alternative (with feedback) to playing from books and sheets.

The app is getting a bit old, but seems to support Windows 7.

[audington]

Thanks for all the replies, guys. I actually found an iPhone app that is pretty much what I was wanting. It's called Note Goal. You set up your key, clef, range of notes, and then it gives you random note which you have to identify on the keyboard. It's been great for polishing my treble clef reading, so I'm now moving on to the bass clef reading. I wanted to stay away from lessons for this. I had lessons (a lot) as a child, and now married with kids, long working hours, I just couldn't fit lessons into my life at the moment. Besides, I know how to read music - I'm just not very fast (I just need the practise, not the tuition). The bonus with software (particularly portable software!) is I can do it whenever I have a spare 10 minutes in the day.

[tapper mike]

I'm with Jan on this. apps / software don't give the feedback a teacher can provide. They don't challenge you, they don't correct you. They don't inspire you.

[beltrom]

Actually I do find software like adventus challenge me, correct me and inspire me. I don't really get why it has to be a choice between teacher or software though? It is not necessary to totally eliminate one to get benefits from the other, and software do have some benefits a human teacher don't have. Also, if you for some reason can't find a teacher software will definately help you out with some stuff that's hard to get just from training by sheets and/or books. I do think it's important to have a teacher, I just don't get why that makes the software useless? Especially since it helped me out a lot.

[wrench45us]

I can see that random note identification will only go so far

but I have seen apps that run simple to complex sheet music and you can adjust and work up speed from simple to more complex

the benefit of a teacher with something very similar would be addressing the fingering whicjh is bound to get strange on one's own (believe me I know this to be true)

[jancivil]

... I don't really get why it has to be a choice between teacher or software... I do think it's important to have a teacher, I just don't get why that makes the software useless?

so use both. I am recommending a teacher. I'm not sure where you saw someone say 'it's useless, software'.

... software do have some benefits a human teacher don't have.

That doesn't appear so reasonable to me. A machine that is programmed to emulate some of the functions of a teacher - but most probably cannot give any real feedback, such as answer your questions and put them in context from an experiential model - offers more than the human it's a substitute for? You'd have to cite specific functions for that to be debatable, but you've posed it as a per se true statement. I disagree.

The reason I am argumentative is that I see that leaning on software for every single thing, from the bottom up leads too many people to believe they are ready to build some music where in actuality they aren't. I see arguments for 'you don't need to interact with people, now there are machines'. The results of so suspect a premise will be impoverished, believe me.

[beltrom]

I'm not sure where you saw someone say 'it's useless, software'.

Not in those exact words (in this particular thread), but if you read the answers I'm sure you see where I'm getting at. It's more something I accumulated over time though.

... software do have some benefits a human teacher don't have.

That doesn't appear so reasonable to me. A machine that is programmed to emulate some of the functions of a teacher - but most probably cannot give any real feedback, such as answer your questions and put them in context from an experiential model - offers more than the human it's a substitute for? You'd have to cite specific functions for that to be debatable, but you've posed it as a per se true statement. I disagree.

I think this is the key, I never perceived software as an attempt to replace a teacher. It's more equivalent to a flight simulator to me, you will learn stuff that helps but I wouldn't trust you as a pilot with only that background.

I'm not really after a debate (believe it or not) I sincerely want to know why so many dismiss software as a practice tool when it's so obvious to me that it works and works well. Maybe Audington and me see the benefit because we seem to have similar backgrounds. I had a teacher as young and wanted to pick it up again so I used software for improving when I had the time, since then I went to some classes but that was more for holistic purposes - not sightreading. As for benefits of software some of them are pretty obvious and I think audington points some of them out quite well.

I would highlight:

* You don't have to take their feedback personally and they don't spare your feelings, it's an objective and consistent evaluation of your performance. There have been times when I was sure I played a part correctly and the software disagreed, and was right.
* It's portable, hard to bring a teacher with you when traveling.
* You normally have constant access to software, teachers as a rule are quite timelimited. You can put quite high quality training in whenever you have the time.
* Software don't get tired when you practice, it just tell you you missed the fast passage in the 7'th measure again in the 16'th try. And precisely, graphically where you went wrong this time.

Good software let's you practise whole or extracts from songs in tempo or pitch and tells you where you were off by how much. It keeps statistics so you can see your improvements. It has games so you can take a break that still improves your knowledge and skill.

I think you agree with me that repetition is key when learning sightreading, that's where software excels if you've got the disciplin, but of course it can't replace the advice and guidance from someone who knows the map (and terrain).

The reason I am argumentative is that I see that leaning on software for every single thing, from the bottom up leads too many people to believe they are ready to build some music where in actuality they aren't. I see arguments for 'you don't need to interact with people, now there are machines'. The results of so suspect a premise will be impoverished, believe me.

Then I understand where you're coming from, and no disagreement from me on that. Software training IS just a tool, it's just a better tool than it seems to get credit for. I don't think the positives of the human factor is limited to teachers though, I think it's beneficial to work together with people musically in any way possible.

[audington]

@ beltrom:

Thanks

[ugocapeto]

i am pretty sure there's a youtube tutorial for whatever you need (joke).

as they often say, software tools are better than nothing. Don't you regret as an adult not having taken piano lessons when you were a kid?

[audington]

Don't you regret as an adult not having taken piano lessons when you were a kid?

Nope, because I did take lessons. For a long time, too. It's just after 20 years of not using it, I'm a little rusty. It was just a revision aid I wanted... something portable and easy to use. I found it. I think this entire thread blew up into something else entirely!

[ugocapeto]

Haha, it always does. Glad you found a good app for your purposes.