> Exactly. For an opera singer, sight-singing is one of
> the many ways you can learn a piece. It is a learning
> tool, since by definition it only involves the first
> time you look at a piece. Sight-singing only takes
> place the very first time you sing an unfamiliar piece
> of music. After you've sung through it (and, thus,
> heard it) once, then you are necessarily no longer
> sight-singing; you've heard it, and your ear (at
> least, if your ear is good) takes over and helps out.
> Then you are on no different footing than if you had
> simply heard the piece through once and then attempted
> to sing it.
James here....
Yes and no. It is true that the goal of sight reading is to be able to look
at a score and hear your line without a piano. However, sight reading skills
are basic to music, ie, the ability to read rythym correctly and sing
intervals with accuracy.
If one sight reads well the basic drudgery of learning pitches and rhythms
takes less time. Perhaps your ear is better than mine, but one run through
does not allow me to get everything right "by ear". In truth, at least for
me, sight singing has everything to do with "by ear". 4 years of music
theory allows me to predict the harmonic structure and match the notes I am
trying to sing with the harmonic structure so while some note may be off,
but still a part of the chord. I don't think one needs a lot of study of
harmony to do this, western music is largely based on I, IV, and V.
James
|
|  |
