What parameters do you think would provide an authentic assessment of a choirs sight reading abilities? I think you would want to make sure that you are not using the piano or rehearsal time as a crutch. We are hoping to have students actually read music, not cram in five minutes. I think the choirs should hear the piece played one time through on the piano. They should be given the tonic triad and scale and then its time to go! I think it would be enlightening to have a count singing or rhythmic exercise. I think having different levels for groups to choose from is key. Not every school has the same amount of rehearsal time. I think the current process is not reflective of anything other than rehearsal technique, and how quickly your kids can learn a piece of music. It relies on storng student leadership. All of that is valid, but its not a measurement of reading ability for a whole group. I want to see that a group understands how to count and read. I want to make sure they have a firm grasp on the fundamentals of music making. Note/Rhythm accuracy Tone quality Intonation Balance and Blend Phrasing I want measure that from the group not from coordinated sectionals. I think having different levels of music selected for middle and high schools would make sense. Also, continuing middle school ensembles to use the piano during rehearsals would be helpful. I think that if that were taken away, some instructors might be too intimidated. High school ensembles should have stricter regulations. I would like to see guidelines laid out of how ensembles are being evaluated during sight-reading. I feel that it is sort of arbitrary right now. Continuing to provide sight-reading choices that reflect the realistic abilities of beginning, intermediate, and advanced choirs. Acknowledge that a group's sight-singing abilities may be less developed than their rehearsed festival repertoire. Note/interval accuracy. Pitch-fullness. Rhythmic integrity and musicality. Remember we/i am in the business of developing a love of the Choral Art of which only a part is dealing with sight reading...it is only one road to a glorious experience... Regarding texts in Sight singing...that is what choral music is about - the marriage of the poet and the musician. IMO, the main value of sight reading is as a first step to learning new music. If one can sight read notes and rhythms well, then singers are nearer to learning phrasing and interpreting meaning and adding other musical elements. So...what I think is valuable is showing the connection between sight reading skill and getting to enjoyment of a new piece/song. I would expect a choir to sight sing a melodic pattern on solfege syllables or numbers on the correct pitches and using correct rhythms. The sight reading exercise is more authentic to me if it could be a reasonable song melody or harmony line. Finding
"Do" on the piano or listening again to a Do-Fa interval using the piano seems reasonable practice to me for JrHi/MS level. As for the blanks above, I teach instrumental and vocal music. The vocal class I teach is a Men's Choir; so the above listed groups did not fit my situation. This is my first year team teaching this class with the teacher who has been here for the last 10 years. I am not aware if this choir attends CMEA Festivals. Much like instrumental sight reading; the choir should receive the music, the director talks about the music and describes as much as they can, then the choir sings the music. The exercise should focus on the principles of sight-singing. I am not an advocate of ""rehearsing"" and I would not be in favor of allowing the director to just sing through the exercise; thus rote teaching their choir. What I am in favor of would be limiting the director to singing no more than 4 notes in a row. They could assist with difficult intervalic passages in this way without giving up the entire piece. I would also allow them to say rhythms without restrictions. This would be closely in line with instrumental music teachers who are allowed to sing passages and say rhythms prior to the band or orchestra's sight reading performance. Jazz choir charts are more difficult to sight read, but something that isn't too difficult should be done. I don't think "sightreading" should be judged at a choral festival. There are too many variables and too short a time to really give an accurate and meaningful assessment. There is a melodic, rhythmic and expressive component of sightreading with the most proficient sightreaders being able to integrate all three. Any rubric used should reflect each of these areas seperately, as a group might have nailed the rhythm but not done as well on pitch or they might have gotten large dynamic changes but missed the subtle ones. The scores for each area could then be combined into a total score. I feel the focus should be on the ""reading"" rather than the tone production, as the prepared choral performance reflects that in it's evaulation. Use of required use Solfeggio... some choirs should not sight read, although I feel all choirs should sight read, some just aren't a the US level...and then shouldn't sight read. Same is true on the instrumental side...the above question should be revised. I think that five minutes of preparation for the choir is an adequate way to show how a choir learns music. It is apparent in how the choral director uses that five minutes that shows if the choir can sightread. For example, if a choral director sits at the piano and plays everybody's parts, they are more of a rote learning choir than a choir that rehearses through the music and fixes stuff as it goes. Maybe there should be a category in the rubric that addresses this. To get in the NY State All-State Chorus, students--h.s. Juniors or Seniors in the ratio of one Junior to two Seniors--needed to read a short 8 to 16 measure line. To do this they could use Solfeggio or la-la-la. This counted 10 points of the 100 needed to qualify. In
the instrumental categories, Suzuki kids were exempt from the sight-reading part, e.g., they were given a pass or 10 points towards entrance. I think that those of us who do not teach choral music should let the choral teachers (at each age level) decide what they think is best. They are the experts. That's what should have happened with middle school bands and sight reading, but didn't. How well the choir bounces back from mistakes, responds to the conductor & is able to work together as a group. Being able to rehearse in sightreading is important, because they are not sight-reading as soloists, but as an ensemble. 1. Directors should be given specific examples of which choral level (beg, inter, adv) prior to the festival performance. Are the music selections chosen from TMEA, NYSMA, etc? And what should they expect to see. i.e.- specific intervals expected, rhythmic motives, minor vs major mode, etc. I think choirs should be able to sight read in a manner similar to the way band does. A choir that performs simple two part song repertoire should be able to sight read a simple single line melody. (Step wise, no accidentals etc.) A choir that performs 3 part repertoire should be able to sight read 2 part simple melodies, step wise, 3rds, some dominant tonic movement. etc.) This could be performed using the usual method by which they learn in class. (Moveable Do, Fixed Do, letter names, numbers) I feel that if we are asking instrumentalists to truly sight read, shouldn t we ask the same of our singers? I think it would be most valuable to have simple 2-3 part, short pieces that are actually sight read, not rehearsed, then performed. I had good experiences with a choral octavo. The only bad experience was when a judge didn't like my "interpretation" but I had followed the MM marking on the score. Time limit, music matched to the skill level of the choir. CMEA should recognize that the terms beginning, intermediate, and advance are not universally defined across the state and between school districts, especially those districts that do not allow music programs to thrive. A beginning high school choir in a district where students receive k-12 music education is quite different than a beginning high school choir in a district where the student's first chance to learn to sight-read is in that high school choir. very limited amount of time to practice; choirs should be able to sing a scale/tonic triad and receive limited instruction from the director on possible pitfalls and pointers with the excerpt; excerpts should be composed specifically for the sight-reading portion of the festival Sight read single line with no lyrics and sight read 2-4 part work with lyrics, and always without piano.
I have always felt that the choirs should actually sight-read even if it were only a melodic line, otherwise I cannot actually deem what we are doing ""sight-reading"". Of course, the SR material would be easier, but then the judge could determine if they are actually using audiation to read & how accurate they are, etc. I think it should depend on the level of the choir. If it is an advanced choir, they should have multi-part songs with words with some help from piano. Younger less experienced choirs should sightread without words and have help from the piano. I am very neutral about this---i have yet to experience this myself but based off of what was explained to me--- if a director wanted their choir to receive the highest rating then they needed to sight-read. I am not particular about how it is done as long as is it consistently done throughout all CMEA festivals--- make sense? I have been bringing my choirs to the CMEA festival for 22 years and I think the way we have assessed our choirs sight singing ability is just fine. 1. Rhythmic accuracy - sight read once through counting and clapping the rhythm. 2. Establish key and sing scale- note any accidentals 2. Sing on solfege second time through - try a capella-use piano only if necessary 3. If multi parts are available entire group should sight read all parts 4. This is most useful for middle school choirs Being that the idea of having Sight Reading as part of adjudication is to demonstrate to students the importance of this skill for learning music more quickly and efficiently, I feel that leaving off text, not worrying about expression, etc. is of primary importance. For instance, if with 5 minutes of preparation a choir can "count" its way through a piece, thereby getting all the rhythms and pitches correct, it has demonstrated that it knows how to sight read. That choir has the tools to learn music in the most efficient manner. (Realistically, what more can anyone expect from a choir in 5 minutes? After all, if a choir can add words and sing expressively in that amount of time, then the piece was waaaay below their ability level!) Don't change ANYTHING. Can they follow the dynamics, shape the phrases, express the text accents, and follow the directors at the same time? If so, they are certainly not singing by rote. If we're really managing a choir's true, honest-to-goodness sight-reading abilities, they really ought to follow the same code that bands do--- no piano, no singing, no nothing... just the director talking for five minutes and making notes, followed by going for it. However, I do think that many of the groups wouldn't pass if that were the case (I know mine would not). I also think that there IS a really big divide between sight-reading multi-part music and text versus single-line melodies and no text. Again, if we're going with truly authentic assessment I think multipart music and text is the fairest, but I don't
know that we would really "pass" so often. OR, the parameters for ratings would have to change.