In the thread about wrong notes, I mentioned that I had read advice to read from the bottom up when sightreading, but I couldnā€™t remember where Iā€™d read that.

Well as it happens, that advice is repeated in this recent article on the Pianist Magazine website:

https://www.pianistmagazine.com/blogs/mastering-the-art-of-sight-reading

Which states:

Remember that the harmony in music is from the bottom up, and that is the best way to sight-read a difficult chord for instance, is by working up the musical stave.

It makes sense to me to read a chord bottom-up, although I donā€™t think I actively do that now, because I look at the chord as a chunk.

But I know I donā€™t read from the bottom (bass clef) staff up to the top (treble clef) staff. I mostly read from the top down.

In the wrong ā€œnotes thread,ā€ other people agreed that they donā€™t read bottom-up. But I wanted to ask everyone else.

How do you read? Bottom -> up, or top -> down?

I don't read like that. I take a quick glance and immediately convert the chord shape on the page to a hand shape on the keys.

I don't consciously know where my eyes are looking but what I think is happening is that I look to see if I can recognize a repeating pattern and put that on a kind of auto-pilot while I focus on the more complicated parts. So, if there is a harmony change each bar in the bass then I just take a quick glance at the bass and then I look at the melody. Perhaps that's what they mean by "bottom to top" but I don't think of it that way. It might very well be that the bass has the more complicated part and the right hand is just playing chords.

Sight reading at my level, which is low, is all about trying to produce a decent version of the melody and its rhythm. Usually, the melody is in the treble clef, so that is where I look first. Now if the accompaniment is a bit off, that is not as important as the melody line, so that gets a lower prioritisation. As for chords, the pattern is the most important, and sometimes I notice the bottom note best, sometimes the top note.

*
... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...

For me it is a little different I think.

I read music in a similar way that I read (words, books, ā€¦). When reading text, one does not focus on individual letters to eventually make up a word as this would be somewhat time consuming I would think. But rather (at least for me), it is more a question of a pattern recognition of word structures we already know. Of course, new vocabulary will sometimes pop up, or an unfortunate spelling error will appear - but such irregularities usually stand out glaringly and oneā€™s focus is then more on those irregularities while the rest of the words are pretty well assimilated on autopilot. Just think about how you learn a second language, the process is then drawn out of course as you need to progressively gain reference points in the new target language.

Similarly, when reading music at least in my case I do not focus on individual notes. It is again a pattern recognition effort which takes place and any deviation from the regular pattern stands out like a sore thumb so my attention is essentially focused on those deviations. For ex. say we have a dominant 7th harmony on C (C-E-G-B flat) but with an augmented G (G sharp), that one deviation quickly grabs the attention and gets the focus as the rest is standard. This similarity also extends to melodic lines and I seem to think of them as fancy arpeggios, only focusing on the outcasts.

I donā€™t know if this is making any sense but it is pretty well how it works for me.

    kanadajin I do not focus on individual notes. It is again a pattern recognition effort

    Yes, and this is how I read as well.

    But the advice from the article (and I've seen it given elsewhere) re reading from the bottom to the top assumes the pianist is looking at patterns, reading chunks and also looking ahead. It nevertheless recommends that the bottom is the place to start.

    I am just curious is anyone actually reads this way.

    I wish I could do an eye tracking study. I seem to remember reading somewhere that when reading text, adult readers don't slide their eyes over only one line of text, they're looking a lot of the page at once and them move diagonally down.... Now I'm questioning my memory, I can't remember if that was about English or Japanese.... šŸ˜…

    The other thing is that when we look at something, it's not like we look at one point and can't see anything else around that point. This is why we're able to look at patterns and read note-chunks of course.

    Also, we get information from all the visible space where our eyes are pointed, so maybe the bottom-up, top-down question is misplaced, because we can see the whole grand staff in one look....

        I used to get called occasionally to sub for organists at local churches. FWIW, if I have to read four-part hymns (on a grand staff), I read the soprano and alto lines together with the bass line. Generally, it's the tenor part that gets short changed, probably because I'm right-handed.

        ShiroKuro
        Interesting point ā€¦ I am pretty sure I read both hands simultaneously and think of it as a whole entity. Because I read both bass and treble clefs with equal ease, and I agree with you that we re not reading single points and instead are seeing chunks of the page at the same time (if only sometimes through peripheral vision), if I really think about it I probably start by focusing on the one hand that I would perceive to present the most challenges or technical difficulties at a particular point in the the score. Sometimes this would be the right hand and other times the left.

        Now you have me curious, Iā€™ll try to be a little more conscious next time I read and see if I can make out what I am looking at first (if any). šŸ™‚

          ShiroKuro I wish I could do an eye tracking study.

          So do I. It's very hard to sight-read as usual while simultaneously observing myself. I just gave it a try: it's clear that I don't read bottom-up, top-down, or even (as I was inclined to think) top and bottom inwards. I scan over several measures, instinctively looking for things that are important, which may be at the top, at the bottom, or in the middle. Before I've played a phrase, I already have a good idea of how it should sound.

          It's all about understanding the music before you've played it. it's just like reading a story aloud. If you don't understand what you are reading before you speak it, all you can do is pronounce the words. You won't be able to speak the phrase with the correct rhythm or emphasis, you won't convey its meaning.

              MRC It's all about understanding the music before you've played it. it's just like reading a story aloud. If you don't understand what you are reading before you speak it, all you can do is pronounce the words. You won't be able to speak the phrase with the correct rhythm or emphasis, you won't convey its meaning.

              That's it, precisely.

                MRC I scan over several measures

                Is this with music youā€™re already working on? As opposed to a prima vista score?

                I am certain Iā€™m doing something different with music Iā€™ve been working on, and I think I look at ā€” and see ā€” more of the score at once when itā€™s music Iā€™ve been working on for a bit. And I think I can look ahead much more successfully.

                With prima vista sightreading, I think Iā€™m not reading as far ahead, for one thing, and for another, I think I focus on more details, maybe more than I need to, because I donā€™t yet know what I can ignoreā€¦

                • MRC replied to this.

                    ShiroKuro Is this with music youā€™re already working on? As opposed to a prima vista score?

                    Prima vista. I observed what I was doing while sight-reading some pieces I had never played before.

                      ShiroKuro I am certain Iā€™m doing something different with music Iā€™ve been working on, and I think I look at ā€” and see ā€” more of the score at once when itā€™s music Iā€™ve been working on for a bit. And I think I can look ahead much more successfully.

                      With prima vista sightreading, I think Iā€™m not reading as far ahead, for one thing, and for another, I think I focus on more details, maybe more than I need to, because I donā€™t yet know what I can ignoreā€¦

                      For me it's the other way round!

                      In prima vista playing, I'm scanning ahead to pick out the essentials, and I may ignore all sorts of details. That's how I can make sense of a piece first time through. It's how I've been able to accompany countless opera rehearsals where I hadn't seen the score beforehand.

                      It's when I start working on a piece that I get down to details. When playing through a piece I'm working on, I won't be scanning so far ahead: I already know how it goes. In this situation I will be more carefully looking at the place in the score where I'm playing, making sure that I'm getting the details right.

                        @MRC when I posted yesterday, I already sort of knew that Iā€™m probably paying attention to too much when sightreading. Iā€™ve never really been very good at selectively ignoring (not playing) certain notes while doing prima vista sightreading.

                        But reading your comments makes me think that even more. When I practice tonight, Iā€™ll have to get out some sightreading material and see what I can discover about thisā€¦ Iā€™ve always had as a goal (in sightreading) looking forward in the music, and obviously I must be doing that to some extent because my sightreading is not bad, far from it. But I think if I can improve on that, and improve on what we might think of as ā€œselective attention,ā€ then maybe my sightreading can get even betterā€¦.

                        And to bring it back to the topic I originally started this thread about: I would guess that reading ahead in the score is much more important than the question of whether one reads from the bottom up or the top down.

                        It's an interesting question. I don't do a lot of reading. But when I do have to, I find that I typically am focused upon the melody first, which tends to move around the most, and then probably the bottom note, which often gives the bass of the chord supporting the melody. (I probably didn't say that well.) If I can get the melody and I can get what the bass of the chord might be, the other notes give a hint at what fills in the middle.

                        I suspect it's gonna vary based upon what is being played. Probably my best sight reading would be something like a hymn, which is as described. Something like a lead sheet would give you the chord in letter form and have a melody line, it doesn't get much more simple than that. The printed out music for a Chopin etude... maybe not quite so easy.

                        Well I did some sight reading this morning and tried as best I could to be conscious of what I am looking at on the score. I can now emphatically state that, at least in my case, I am definitely not reading from the bottom up or top down or any regular pattern. I seem to be scanning a little all over as explained by MRC above. This is done simultaneously over both the treble and bass clefs as if they were a single one. I do think that in the heat of the moment, I am doing my best to establish reference (or support) points for hand/finger placement (or anchoring on the keyboard) in keeping with what lies ahead (next bars) while trying to maintain the spirit of the piece.

                        It is a bit of a juggling act I suppose. Or maybe I am a strange pianist šŸ™ƒ

                        The point of reading from the bottom up is largely for sight-reading as a collaborative pianist or, perhaps, ballet class.

                        The essence of music is the bass and everything builds on that so get that down first and keep the tempo and the rhythm going. The right hand can be reduced to simple chords or melody and generally isn't as important, in that work, as bass.

                        If you're reading on your own to learn or discover new music or just enjoying reading, it matters not; just keep all the buffers filled before committing to playing.

                        I typically read from the bottom up as I sometimes have to keep the foundation of the music going for others and when the reading gets tricky the left hand may be all I get time for.

                        The time framework is kinda important. It's hard to describe exactly.

                        On a simple tune, like Silent night as an example, had I never seen it before, probably the first things are key and time signature. For example, lets say it's in the key of C and 3/4 time. That's easy enough but gives a clue as to what notes of the scale will likely come into play and IF the song starts out with a 1 chord, the bass note is going to be C. It does. And that C in the bass stays put for 4 measures so we can read something else. Melody comes next on my radar. What's the tune? It's simple enough to pick that out. OK, so if we have that and still have a tiny bit of brain power left, what other notes are there to fill in the harmonies?

                        That's a bit of where my brain goes.