Advances in music reading research — from cognitive process to classroom

Advances in music reading research

Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir

Experienced teachers know that the road to fluent music reading is strewn with obstacles. In Western culture, true music literacy remains a rare achievement (Green 2002). Some scholars argue that instructional methods for music reading are fundamentally flawed and that many children are let down by the ways they are taught to read music (Mills and McPherson 2006). The teaching strategies currently in use rest largely on convention. When students fail to reach acceptable fluency, teachers often rely only on intuition to adjust their approach.

This review highlights research findings that could improve music reading instruction. Surprisingly little systematic effort has been invested in deepening instruction through a thorough study of what music reading actually involves. Still, decades of research from perception, cognition, education, and neurology have begun to draw the outlines of the nature of music reading, with important implications for teaching.

In this article, the term music reading refers to decoding staff notation symbols while playing a musical instrument. Some researchers call this sight-reading (e.g., Wolf 1976). Others use the two terms interchangeably (e.g., Sloboda 1978), while still others draw sharp distinctions (e.g., Elliott 1982). The broader term music reading is chosen here because sight-reading often denotes only performances at first sight, typical of graded music examinations, whereas music reading covers a wider range of activities.

Singing from notation is usually called sight-singing. The development of sight-singing abilities may seem similar to instrumental music reading, since both require pitch and rhythm reading. However, unlike most instrumental reading, sight-singing depends strongly on pre-formed internal auditory representations of pitches or pitch relationships (Fine, Berry, and Rosner 2006). Successful instrumental music reading does not necessarily require those internal representations, and fluency in one skill is neither necessary nor sufficient for fluency in the other. Excellent reviews of sight-singing already exist (Demorest 1998; Fine et al. 2006; Henry 2004; Killian & Henry 2005); this review will not pursue that comparative path here.

What is music reading?

Music reading is a complex activity that draws on at least two distinct skill sets: decoding symbols and executing the mechanical movements an instrument requires (Wolf 1976). Viewed through a cognitive lens, music reading involves simultaneous processes: coding visual information, forming and sending motor commands, and integrating the visual and motor domains (Gudmundsdottir 2007). Studies show that high-level reading achievement is tied to speed of information processing and psychomotor speed (Kopiez, Weihs, Ligges, and Lee 2006). The quality of the motor response and the speed of decoding both matter; integrating them is what makes execution successful.

The decoding of staff notation by itself calls on multiple sub-processes. Sloboda argued that music reading is built from perceptual processes common to music in general (Sloboda 1976, 1978, 1984). Perception studies indicate that pitch and timing are processed separately by the mind (Palmer and Krumhansl 1987), which makes sense given the separate ways pitch and timing are encoded in staff notation. Experiments confirm that musicians decode pitch and timing as distinct streams during reading (Schön and Besson 2002; Waters and Underwood 1999). Neurological case studies reinforce this: a professional musician who suffered brain damage could still read pitches but not the rhythm in notation (Fasanaro et al. 1990). So music reading already involves parallel decoding of pitch and timing, which must then fuse in a single motor output.

The ability to read music

Given how demanding music reading is, we might wonder how it is ever accomplished fluently. Many musicians fail to reach that goal even after years of study. Yet numerous individuals do master the process, and some report having acquired it almost unconsciously. A pianist Sloboda interviewed confessed that he could not remember doing anything especially focused to become a good reader and suspected that most skilled music readers had picked up the skill early, without a great struggle (Sloboda 1978, p. 9). That account illustrates a common view among the gifted few: reading seemed effortless. However, if fluency becomes linked in anyone's mind with musical giftedness—and, worse, if a lack of fluency suggests lack of talent—then damaging misconceptions take root.

Wolf (1976) pointed out that expert performers do not necessarily excel at music reading. The literature does not show a strong relationship between general performance skills and reading achievement. In a thorough study of Australian students taking graded examinations, only low correlations emerged between performance ability and sight-reading scores (McPherson 1994); the correlation was slightly higher for Grade VI than Grade III participants. Reading skills do not develop automatically alongside performing skills. Indeed, large discrepancies can occur. The most striking evidence appears in a case of brain-injury: after his accident, a professional musician’s reading and writing abilities were severely impaired while his other musical capabilities remained intact (Cappelletti, Waley-Cohen, Butterworth, and Kopelman 2000).

A substantial number of studies have failed to connect music reading scores with any of the following: years of instruction (Luce 1965; Mishra 1998), total amount of practice (Anderson 1981), or even practice focused on reading itself (Mishra 1998). However, the ability to play by ear has sometimes shown a moderate positive correlation with reading ability (Luce 1965; Mishra 1998).

Difficulties in reading music

Like any advanced skill, music reading no longer feels difficult to those who have acquired it—so long as the material stays within their capacity. Imaging studies confirm that trained musicians read music automatically (Stewart, Walsh, and Frith 2004). Why some students reach that effortless stage naturally is less interesting to educators than the question of how to guide all students toward the same goal.

The degree of trouble many students encounter has prompted teachers to reduce music reading instruction—or even abandon it. The danger is that failure at reading might cause truly musical young people to leave music study entirely. As Mills and McPherson put it: “Exclusive concentration on reading has held back the progress of countless learners, while putting many others off completely” (2006).

Problems with learning to read music are more widespread than is often supposed. Multiple reports describe music students who, after many years of lessons, remain surprisingly weak at notation reading (Hargreaves 1986; Mills and McPherson 2006; Scripp 1995). This probably happens for two main reasons. First, music reading is complex and many obstacles may stall progress. Second, for most individuals, reading notation is a highly specialized skill that must be taught carefully and really mastered; it rarely develops on its own.

Symptoms of success in music reading

Expert readers differ from less skilled ones in several ways. One of the most noted is that experts look farther ahead when they read (Goolsby 1994a, 1994b; Sloboda 1974; Thompson 1987; Truitt, Cifton, Pollatsek, and Rayner 1997). This seems to come from an ability to perceive the score in larger perceptual chunks instead of one note at a time. That chunking depends on recognizing identifiable clusters such as tonal patterns or rhythmic patterns. Research shows that familiar structures like chords (Salis 1980; Waters et al. 1998), musical phrases (Sloboda 1977), and tonality (MacKenzie et al. 1986) are key: the reading performance deteriorates significantly when those structures are omitted or disrupted. In one brain-injury case, a musician could only read pitches individually and could not apply global strategies, resulting in a severely impaired music-reading ability (Stanzione et al. 1990).

Both expert and novice readers appear equally good at identifying a single arbitrary pitch pulled out of context. Where experts clearly outperform novices is in identifying a group of pitches as a particular chord or scale and instantly translating that recognition into motor output.

Music reading and pitch structure

Evidence on the importance of pitch structure has led researchers to build structural awareness into reading-instruction programs. Gruzmacher (1987) tested the effect of tonal-pattern training on the melodic reading of fifth- and sixth-grade wind-instrument students (n = 48). The experimental group learned to sing and harmonize tonal patterns; the control group worked on recognizing individual symbols and a range of learned pitches. Both groups had a thirty-minute lesson per week for fourteen weeks. After the sessions, the children took the Iowa Test of Musical Literacy. The experimental group scored significantly higher on melodic sight-reading (p < .01). So teaching tonal patterns improved melodic reading more than teaching symbol-by-symbol recognition. In a similar vein, MacKnight (1975) compared two approaches with ninety fourth-graders who were beginner wind players. The experimental group read pitches as part of tonal patterns, while the control group was taught to link isolated notes with names, fingerings, and sounds. Lessons lasted thirty minutes per week for thirty-two weeks, with classes of six students. On the Watkins-Farnum Performance Scale, the pattern-focused teaching produced better sight-reading and auditory-visual discrimination results.

These studies make clear that instruction grounded in musical structure outperforms mere note-naming tasks. The classroom takeaway should not be to emphasize isolated pitches, but rather the patterns or relationships they create: chords, melodies, and phrases. Research also suggests that pitch-centered methods like color-coding individual notes do not help and may even hinder skill development, since they direct attention away from broader structures. Indeed, a study of color-coded notation for young recorder players found no measurable advantage over standard black-note instruction (Rogers 1991).

Music reading and timing structures

Successful reading relies heavily on fluent chunking of pitch. But decoding rhythm is equally essential. Fittingly, studies confirm that strong rhythmic reading is closely tied to overall music-reading success (Boyle 1970; Elliott 1982). Timing is the means by which music moves forward, so the capacity to decode and reproduce temporal patterns plays a critical role. Experiments show that musicians tap into internal mental models of meter when performing music with temporal structures (Palmer and Krumhansl 1990; Sloboda 1983).

Cognitive development and music reading acquisition

Although developmental effects on children’s acquisition of reading skills have not been studied systematically, there is solid evidence that teachers should consider a child’s developmental stage when planning reading instruction. Young children as early as age three or four can learn to read individual pitches within a limited pitch set (Capodilupo 1992; Pick et al. 1982; Tommis and Fazey 1999). At that age they do not yet apply global strategies to reading multiple notes. Very young children, when used to reading one pitch at a time, actually become less confident when asked to read full melodies (Pick et al. 1982). Yet no difference emerged between teaching five separate note names or always relating them to a central ‘C’ position (Tommis and Fazey 1999).

When the same instruction method is offered at different ages, older children respond faster. Capodilupo (1992) observed that children’s ability to retain information from pitch-reading instruction increased linearly between ages four and ten. Similarly, Shehan (1987) reported that by the age of twelve, children learned to read rhythmic patterns twice as quickly as eight-year-olds under the same type and amount of instruction.

Timing materials must match the child’s age. Teaching methods that combine foot tapping to the beat and counting or clapping rhythms are highly effective with older children and teenagers (Boyle 1970; Salzberg and Wang 1989), but the same techniques turn out to be ineffective and even disruptive for third and fourth graders (Palmer 1976; Salzberg and Wang 1989). Music programs that use speech cues to label rhythmic patterns—such as in the Gordon and Kodály pedagogies—work well with eight- to ten-year-olds (Bebeau 1982; Palmer 1976; Shehan 1987) and also for the older group (Shehan 1987). The reason seems to lie in the combination of visual and aural reinforcement. Notated patterns pair with repetitive mnemonics; this combined aural–visual pathway helps the student internalize and reproduce the patterns effectively (Shehan 1987).

When children perform full music-reading tasks where pitch and timing information compete for attention, they tend to sacrifice timing for pitch. Developmental experiments with children and adult pianists found that young piano players give priority to the pitch content, but for adults the reverse appears to hold: timing receives more focus (Drake and Palmer 2000; Gudmundsdottir, forthcoming). Younger piano students seem to attend first to pitch, leaving temporal accuracy to be worked on secondarily (Gudmundsdottir, forthcoming).

Conclusion

Music reading is an advanced ability that many musicians never master, despite reaching elsewhere in their training. Failure to achieve a satisfactory reading level holds back countless students and may even trigger dropout from music study altogether (Mills and McPherson 2006). What evidence shows is that skill in reading grows not merely from mechanical precision but from building highly specialized understanding of musical structures (Scripp 1995). Conscious research is necessary—both to identify the challenges in music reading and to understand the root causes of reading difficulties. To improve instruction, we must grasp all the cognitive components that operate during music reading and, crucially, explore how a child’s cognitive development interacts with those components. Since most music literacy milestones are reached early, any instructional materials and strategies should align with the child’s developmental readiness level. The path to a broad, effective, and research-driven instruction in music reading is still being built. This paper identifies some of the first stepping stones.

References

Anderson, J.N. 1981. Effects of tape-recorded aural models on sight-reading and performance skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29(1), 23.

Bebeau, M. J. 1982. Effects of traditional and simplified methods of rhythm-reading instruction. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30(2), 107–119.

Boyle, J. D. 1970. The effects of prescribed rhythmical movements on the ability to read music at sight. Journal of Research in Music Education, 18(4), 307–318.

Capodilupo, A. M. 1992. A neo-structural analysis of children’s response to instruction in the sight reading of musical notation. In R. Case (Ed.), The mind’s staircase: Exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children’s thought and knowledge (pp. 99–115). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Hillsdale, NJ.

Cappelletti, M., Waley-Cohen, H., Butterworth, B., & Kopelman, M. 2000. A selective loss of the ability to read and to write music. Neurocase, 6(4), 231–332.

Demorest, S. M. 1998. Sight-singing in the secondary choral ensemble: A review of the research. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 137, 1–15.

Drake, C. & Palmer, C. 2000. Skill acquisition in music performance: relations between planning and temporal control. Cognition, 74, 1–32.

Elliott, C. A. 1982. The identification and classification of instrumental performance sight-reading errors. Journal of Band Research, 18(1), 36–42.

Fasanaro, A. M., Spitaleri, D. L., Valiani, R., & Grozzi, D. 1990. Dissociation in musical reading: A musician affected by alexia without agraphia. Music Perception, 7(3), 259–272.

Fine, P., Berry, A., & Rosner, B. 2006. The effect of pattern recognition and tonal predictability on sight-singing ability. Psychology of Music, 34(4), 431–447.

Goolsby, T. W. 1994a. Eye movement in music reading: Effects of reading ability, notational complexity, and encounters. Music Perception, 12(1), 77–96.

Goolsby, T. W. 1994b. Profiles of processing: Eye movements during sight reading. Music Perception, 12(1), 97–123.

Green, L. 2002. How Popular Musicians Learn: A Way Ahead for Music Education. Ashgate Publishing.

Grutzmacher, P. A. 1987. The effect of tonal pattern training on the aural perception, reading recognition, and melodic sight-reading achievement of first-year instrumental music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 35(5), 171–181.

Gudmundsdottir, H. R. Forthcoming. Pitch error analysis of young piano students’ music reading performances. International Journal of Music Education: Research.

Gudmundsdottir, H. R. 2007. Error analysis of young piano students’ music reading performances. Paper presented at the 8^th conference of the Society for Music Perception and Cognition, Concordia University, Montreal, 30 July – 3 August 2007.

Henry, M. L. 2004. The use of targeted pitch skills for sight-singing instruction in the choral rehearsal. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52(3), 206–217.

Killian, J. N. & Henry, M. L. 2005. A comparison of successful and unsuccessful strategies in individual sight-singing preparation and performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53(1), 51–65.

Luce, J. R. 1965. Sight-reading and ear-playing abilities as related to instrumental music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 13(2), 101–109.

MacKenzie, C. L., Vaneerd, D. L., Graham, E. D., Huron, D. B., et al. 1986. The effect of tonal structure on rhythm in piano performance. Music Perception, 4(2), 215–225.

MacKnight, C. B. 1975. Music reading ability of beginning wind instrumentalists after melodic instruction. Journal of Research in Music Education, 23(1), 23–34.

McPherson, G. E. 1994. Factors and abilities influencing sight-reading skill in music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42(3), 217–231.

Mills, J. and McPherson, G. E. 2006. Musical literacy. In G. E. McPherson (Ed.), The Child as musician: A handbook of musical development. Oxford University Press.

Mishra, J. 1998. Factors influencing sight-reading ability. Paper presented at the Music Educator’s National Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, April 1998.

Palmer, M. 1976. Relative effectiveness of two approaches to rhythm reading for fourth-grade students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 24(3), 110–118.

Palmer, C. & Krumhansl, C. L. 1987. Pitch and temporal contributions to musical phrase perception: Effects of harmony, performance timing, and familiarity. Perception & Psychophysics, 41(6).

Palmer, C. & Krumhansl, C. L. 1990. Mental representations for musical meter. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16(4), 728–741.

Pick, A. D., Unze, M. G., Metz, S., & Richardson, R. M. 1982. Learning to read music: Children’s use of structure in pitch notation. Psychomusicology, 2(2), 33–46.

Rogers, G. L. 1991. Effect of color-coded notation on music achievement of elementary instrumental students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(1), 64–73.

Salis, D. L. 1980. Laterality effects with visual perception of musical chords and dot patterns. Perception and Psychophysics, 28(4), 284–292.

Salzberg, R. S. & Wang, C. C. 1989. A comparison of prompts to aid rhythmic sight reading of string students. Psychology of Music, 17(2), 123–131.

Schön, D. & Besson, M. 2002. Processing pitch and duration in music reading: a RT-ERP study. Neuropsychologia, 40, 868–878.

Scripp, L. R. 1995. The development of skill in reading music. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 56(6-A), pp. 2162.

Shehan, P. K. 1987. Effects of rote versus note presentations on rhythm learning and retention. Journal of Research in Music Education, 35(2), 117–126.

Sloboda, J. A. 1974. The eye-hand span: an approach to the study of sight-reading. Psychology of Music, 2, 4–10.

Sloboda, J. A. 1977. Phrase units as determinants of visual processing in music reading. British Journal of Psychology, 68, 117–124.

Sloboda, J. A. 1978. The psychology of music reading. Psychology of Music, 6, 3–20.

Sloboda, J. A. 1983. The communication of musical metre in piano performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A, 377–396.

Sloboda, J. A. 1984. Experimental Studies of Music Reading: A Review. Music Perception, 2(2), 222–236.

Stanzione, M., Grozzi, D., & Roberto, L. 1990. Note-by-note music reading: A musician with letter-by-letter reading. Music Perception, 7(3), 273–284.

Stewart, L., Walsh, V., and Frith, U. 2004. Reading music modifies spatial mapping in pianists. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(2), 183–195.

Thompson, W. B. 1987. Music sight-reading skill in flute players. Journal of General Psychology, 114(4), 345–352.

Tommis, Y. & Fazey, D. 1999. The acquisition of the pitch element of music literacy skills by 3–4-year-old pre-school children: A comparison of two methods. Psychology of Music, 27(2), 230–244.

Truitt, F. E., Clifton, C., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. 1997. The perceptual span and eye-hand span in sight reading music. Visual Cognition, 4(2), 143–161.

Waters, A. J., Townsend, E., & Underwood, G. 1998. Expertise in musical sight reading: A study of pianists. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 477–488.

Wolf, T. 1976. A cognitive model of musical sight-reading. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 143–172.