Sight Reading Music Vs. Reading Music

I am writing this article because of a recent discussion on a piano forum that I am a member of. The argument was about the proper use of words when describing music reading, specifically the term “sight reading”. If you are sight-reading a piece of music, is this the first time you are playing it or have you played it before and therefore you are only reading music and not sight-reading anymore? Some on the forum felt that the use of the term “sight reading” did not accurately describe the process I was talking about at the time. I hadn’t realized there were such strong thoughts about the way we describe playing sheet music, but I quickly learned that there are more than a few people with differing opinions on the use of words. I will share both sides of the argument and offer my own thoughts on the subject.

Many in the music community see the term “sight reading” to mean “sight reading music.” This can also be its definition and is often the end goal for anyone trying to read music. Many sites and forums are devoted to the ability to sight play music, a skill that is very difficult to master and can be frustrating, especially for the beginning piano student. Most pianists need to play a piece of music several times before they can play it directly. So this definition would lead many to believe that sight reading is an impossible task for the beginner. Personally, I don’t like this limited view, and therefore tend to agree with the more general definition.

The other side of the argument is more on my side. The term “sight reading” to me simply means “playing music by what you see” rather than playing by ear or memory (imitating another player, like on YouTube). I do not make a determination as to whether it is the first reading or the hundredth. In fact, I would define sight-reading ability not only by the difficulty of the pieces they can touch, but also by the number of times it takes them to touch them before mistakes are minimal. Even for a seasoned professional, every time you read an additional piece of music, it usually results in greater accuracy. If you could play a piece of music by spending 5-10 minutes on it, playing it several times, and then playing it with no problem, wouldn’t that be an achievement of your ability to read music by sight? There are advanced skill enhancement techniques to minimize mistakes on first read, but I don’t want to lower someone’s skill level just because it takes them several times longer to play until they really get it.

One more point on my side of the argument. As someone who has been called upon to sight-read music often (for example, playing for musical theater auditions), I can honestly say that I rarely, if ever, play the music without reading it first. I read the piece I’m about to play, looking for difficult sections, analyzing the different notes and patterns. So I could argue that the first time I play the music is actually the SECOND time I read it. So would that mean that by definition I’m just reading the music now and not reading the sight? I would not make that distinction. It would be like reading a speech before delivering it. Even if you’re reading your cards and giving that speech for the first time, technically it’s not the full first reading.

This is how I define sight reading, in the broadest definition. I understand that some put a stricter meaning on the word, but in the end, aren’t we all trying to learn and do the same? We want to be able to see a piece of music and play it with as few mistakes as possible, whether it’s the first time or the millionth time.