SIGHT-SINGING PERFORMANCE AND PIANO ACCOMPANIMENT
Philip Fine & Hazel Younger
University of Buckingham, UK & St. Hilda’s College, University of Oxford, UK.
ABSTRACT
Previous research into sight-singing suggests that hearing the
accompaniment can improve pitching accuracy (Fine, Berry &
Rosner, in preparation). This study additionally investigated the
effect of seeing the accompaniment. Using an objective measure of
accuracy and a within-subjects design, 48 singers were tested, but
no significant effect of the presence of visual or aural
accompaniment was found. Significant interactions showed that
aural accompaniment increased improvement between attempts (F
(1, 42) = 4.51, p < 0.04), and that the skill of the singer affected the
use of visual accompaniment (F (1, 21) = 6.20, p < 0.03). The findings
have both educational and practical implications.
1. INTRODUCTION
Sight-reading is performing an unfamiliar piece of music with no
prior practice. It is an important skill for professional musicians and
involves transforming a visual input (the score) into a motor output,
such as pressing a piano key. Translation of the visual input
involves recognizing groups of notes and reading ahead.
Most sight-reading research has focused on pianists. However,
despite the differences between instrumental sight-reading and
sight-singing, there has been little research into sight-singing. This
is perhaps surprising, considering its practical importance to
singers and the benefits it can bring to other musicians, such as
improved instrumental sight-reading.
In singing, the motor output cannot generally be represented as
explicitly as in instrumentalists. Singers need to know the sound of
a note before producing it, i.e. they must internalize the pitch.
Although such auditory representations have been shown to be
involved in piano playing (Waters, Townsend & Underwood, 1998),
many instrumentalists do not have to hear the pitch of the note
before producing it (e.g. pianists just have to press the right key).
Singers, however, need a starting note before they can perform
(apart from the few with perfect pitch). Then, instead of linking
each note to a motor representation of its performance, a singer will
analyze the interval from the preceding note(s) (Fine, 2002), and
change pitch appropriately.
A further difference between singing and instrumental performance
is that singers rarely perform alone and unaccompanied. This
presents the possibility that the accompanying instruments or
singers provide cues for pitch (Fine, 2002; Fine et al, in prep.).
Accompaniment could aid singers in two ways: by assisting
intonation, and by helping them make judgments about intervals. A
tonal accompaniment, for instance, could limit the selection of
plausible choices through harmonic and melodic expectation.
ISBN 1-876346-50-7 © 2004 ICMPC 778
Expectation is important in music reading, as demonstrated in
priming studies and studies of proof-reader’s error in pianists.
Sight-reading improves when the piece conforms to a familiar style,
as this makes expectation more accurate. The intonation of most
instrumentalists improves with accompaniment, and the same could
be expected of sight-singing performance. Pitching and intonation
inaccuracy in singers can have two causes; incorrect intervals or
pitch drift. Incorrect intervals are caused by misrepresentation or
miscalculation of the pitch that is being attempted. Pitch drift
causes inaccuracy by a gradual change in the representation of the
key note (often becoming slightly flat), or each interval being
slightly too small or large, depending on whether it is ascending or
descending.
Singing performance of familiar melodies is best with tonal
accompaniment, as opposed to chromatic or dissonant. Intervals are
also sung more accurately when presented in context. Boyle and
Lucas (1990) found that singing performance was better with
accompaniment than without, especially in less experienced
students, but used a simplistic scoring system with no allowance for
a correct interval sung from a preceding incorrect note. Fine et al
(in prep.) used a more complex scoring system, investigating the
effect of accompaniment on sight-singing accuracy, and separate
scores were produced for the number of correct notes and the
number of correct intervals. Predictability of both harmony and
melody significantly improved pitching accuracy, less skilled
readers being more affected than more skilled readers, supporting
the previous findings. They also showed that a second attempt was
significantly more successful than the first, which has practical
implications in terms of the fairness of sight-reading tests in
auditions and examinations.
On occasion, singers will change the pitch of a note once started.
This self-correction presumably occurs when, after producing a
note, the singer realizes that it is incorrect. This is probably affected
by accompaniment, as dissonance can indicate error.
Seeing the accompaniment may also affect sight-singing, as other
parts in the score provide useful pitching cues (Fine, 2002).
Experienced musicians can identify chordal structure, which might
increase their ability to judge intervals more accurately, even in the
absence of hearing the accompaniment. Seeing the accompaniment
may also reduce self-correction, as knowing how the melody fits in
with the piano part may lessen the tendency to change pitch after
production.
Although Boyle and Lucas (1990) and Fine et al (in prep.) both
showed that the presence of accompaniment improves
sight-singing performance, scoring in both cases was done
subjectively within arguably flawed scoring systems. As pitch
perception is generally categorical, subjective scoring could be
biased. For example, if a singer sings a slightly reduced ascending
ICMPC8, Evanston, IL, USA
interval, the pitch of the note may become technically wrong but
the listener’s expectation can lead them to hear it as correct but flat.
The main aim of this study was thus to assess the effects of aural
and visual presentation of the accompaniment on pitching accuracy
during sight-singing, using an objective measure of pitch.
Participants sang each piece twice. It was expected that singers
would perform better on the second reading of a piece, and that both
hearing or seeing the accompaniment would improve pitching
ability, though the effect of seeing the accompaniment may be
limited to more experienced musicians. It was further expected that
self-correction would be more common when the piano
accompaniment could be heard and when it could not be seen.
Finally, few studies have looked at the opinions of sight-singers
regarding preference for being accompanied. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that singers prefer to hear the accompaniment, and prefer
to see the accompaniment when it can be heard, but that they are
indifferent to visual presentation alone. This was investigated.
2. METHOD
Participants. Twenty males and 28 females (mean age 20, ranging
from 15 to 24) participated, recruited from various choirs including
the National Youth Choir of Scotland. All participants had some
experience of sight-singing, usually in examinations or auditions,
although some were primarily instrumentalists rather than singers.
Those with self-reported perfect pitch were excluded, and all were
fluent readers of both treble and bass clef. Allocation to condition
was random. Age, sight-singing experience and preference for
seeing and hearing the piano part (on a three point scale: prefer,
indifferent, prefer not) were recorded.
Design. There were 3 dependent variables: the percentage of
correct notes, the percentage of correct intervals, and the number of
occurrences of self-correction. There were 2 independent variables
related to accompaniment: seeing and hearing. Combination of
these within-subject variables resulted in four possible conditions.
These were presented to the participants, each condition paired
with one of the four test pieces. The third within-subjects
independent variable was attempt, as participants were asked to
sing each test piece twice. Order of conditions and pieces was
counterbalanced.
Materials. The test pieces were selected from published examples
of ABRSM (Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music)
grade 7 singing standard sight-singing tests. Selection was based on
rhythmic simplicity (as complex rhythms could distract participants)
and vocal range. The pieces were rewritten using Coda Music
Finale Notepad software to present to participants. The number of
metronome beats preceding the piece was also shown on the score.
Accompaniment, played on a piano and not synthesized, was
recorded on a Sony minidisc player and transferred to CD. The
metronome beat was recorded simultaneously. The accompaniment
was presented using a portable Sony CD player through earphones,
at a preset volume – participants were told that they could adjust it
if they wished, but none did. Attempts were recorded onto Sony
minidisc and analyzed using the freeware computer program Praat,
which was used to identify the fundamental frequency of each note.
779
August 3-7, 2004
Procedure. Participants were tested singly. They were given about
15 seconds to look at each piece before attempting it (treble or bass
clef according to preference), and a further 10 seconds between
attempts. A metronome beat was provided to keep participants in
time (crotchet = 100). All trials began with presentation of the key
chord and the starting note, and at least a bar of metronome beats.
Accompanied attempts began after a bar of metronome and any
piano introduction, and unaccompanied after a bar of metronome,
but with the first three notes doubled on piano, to ensure the
participants began at the right time, and to improve confidence in
the starting note and key.
The importance of keeping going and not backtracking to correct
errors was emphasized. Occasionally an attempt was abandoned
during the first few bars due to confusion over tempo or
introduction, in which case participants were allowed an extra
attempt; otherwise scoring was as normal if an attempt was not
completed.
The pitch of each note produced was then identified using Praat.
Pitches within a semitone (50 cents) of the required note were
accepted as correct. The number of correct pitches was then
counted and turned into a percentage score for each piece. As
intervals depend on pitch ratios, it was decided that an acceptable
interval would fall within the size of [note 1 - note 2 r half a
semitone]. Self-correction was assessed subjectively with the help
of Praat.
3. RESULTS
As the pitch and interval scores were in the form of percentages, an
Arcsine transformation was performed on the data. A repeated
measures ANOVA, with the within-subjects factors of piece (4
levels) and attempt (2 levels), showed a significant effect of attempt,
with improvement on the second attempt, on both pitch (F (1, 41) =
5.14, p < 0.03) and interval (F (1, 41) = 19.90, p < 0.001) scores, and
also of piece on pitch (F (3, 123) = 6.49, p < 0.001) and interval (F (3,
123) = 34.83, p < 0.001) scores. The interaction was not significant.
Piece A led to fewest errors, D most, probably due to differences in
the interval distributions.
The same independent variables were used to test for an effect on
the number of self-corrections. Attempt but not piece was found to
be significant, with fewer self-corrections in the second attempt (F
(1, 41) = 12.40, p < 0.001). The mean scores for pitch, interval and
self-correction are shown in Table 1.
Performanc Pitch % Interval % No. of Self
e Corrections
Score
Piece A 62.68 76.15 0.49
Piece B 53.24 55.93 0.40
Piece C 57.91 62.49 0.37
Piece D 51.62 57.01 0.36
Mean 56.55 63.10 0.42
Table 1: Mean performance scores by piece
A second within-subjects ANOVA with the two accompaniment
independent variables (seeing and hearing) and attempt was carried
ICMPC8, Evanston, IL, USA August 3-7, 2004

out on the pitch and interval scores. Tables 2 and 3 display the Yes Don’t mind No
means by condition and attempt for pitch and interval scores Prefer hearing? 46 2 0
respectively. Neither seeing nor hearing the accompaniment had a
Prefer seeing when hearing? 24 23 1
significant effect on pitching accuracy. There was, however, a
Prefer seeing when not 6 42 0
significant interaction between hearing the accompaniment and
hearing?
attempt for pitch score (F (1, 42) = 4.51, p < 0.04). There was greater
Table 4: Response frequencies to preference questions
improvement when the accompaniment could be heard.

Accompaniment Condition Pitch score (%)

4. DISCUSSION
1 2 Mean The hypothesis that pitching accuracy would be greater on the
See / Hear 56.45 61.64 59.11 second attempt at a particular piece was supported, as found by
Hear only 50.56 60.01 55.56 Fine et al (in prep.). The lack of support for the hypothesis that
See only 55.55 53.55 54.53 hearing the accompaniment would improve pitching accuracy is
Neither see nor hear 56.68 58.33 57.47 surprising, given the results of previous studies (e.g. Boyle & Lucas,
Table 2: Mean pitch scores by condition and attempt 1990, Fine et al, in prep.). However, the latter study compared the
effect of harmonious accompaniment to chromatic or dissonant
accompaniment, suggesting that unpredictable accompaniment
Accompaniment Condition Interval score (%) may impair accuracy, rather than predictable accompaniment
1 2 Mean aiding it. The hypothesis stating that visual presentation of the
See / Hear 60.18 64.52 62.39 accompaniment would improve pitching accuracy was also not
Hear only 60.21 66.42 63.45 supported, suggesting perhaps that the singers were not paying
See only 61.75 62.17 62.05 attention to parts other than their own.
Neither see nor hear 62.87 65.69 63.17
Table 3: Mean interval scores by condition and attempt When participants heard the accompaniment, they improved more
between attempts than when they sang alone (as shown by the
There was a non-significant trend in the direction of increased significant interaction between hearing the piano and attempt).
self-correction when accompaniment could be heard, irrespective Being able to predict the piano part (through memory of the first
of whether or not it could be seen (F (1, 42) = 2.973, p < 0.09), and time) could help to predict the vocal line, or it may be that
when it was not seen, whether or not it could be heard (F (1, 42) = participants ignore the piano on their first attempt, and only after
3.31, p < 0.08). There was a significant interaction between hearing they are familiar with the melody do they begin to integrate their
the accompaniment and attempt on self-correction scores (F (1, 42) = knowledge of the accompaniment into their pitching tactics.
5.84, p < 0.02): a reduction in self-correction occurred only when
the accompaniment could be heard. Self-correction, when a singer changes the note they are singing,
was not significantly affected by either aural or visual
To investigate any effects of sight-singing skill, participants were accompaniment, although non-significant trends suggested that
split into 4 groups on the basis of their average pitch score. When self-correction may be encouraged both by hearing the piano and
the analysis was restricted to the top and bottom skill groups, there by not seeing the accompaniment. Self-correction occurred
was a significant interaction between seeing the accompaniment significantly less in the second attempt, although this may be due to
and skill level on interval scores (F (1, 21) = 4.54, p < 0.05), which the overall increase in scores – singers do not need to change from
was supported by a trend when all levels were included. There was notes that are correct, so are more likely to do so when they are
also a significant three-way interaction between seeing the performing poorly. The significant effect of attempt may also have
accompaniment, skill level and attempt on pitch scores (F (1, 21) = been caused by increased confidence in the pitching decisions made,
6.20, p < 0.03). The best sight-singers were better and improved or anticipation of those notes that were self-corrected during the
more when they could see the accompaniment, but the least first attempt. The interaction with hearing the accompaniment
experienced were better and improved more when they could not showed that this effect was larger when participants could hear the
see it. piano, suggesting that hearing the accompaniment in the first
attempt improved anticipation of potential mistakes in the second.
Participants’ response to each of the preference questions (coded as
1, 0 or -1) are shown in table 4. As no overall preference would As Fine et al (in prep.) found that sight-singing skill influenced the
result in an average value of 0, this was compared to each mean effect of the accompaniment, the singers were divided into four
preference score using a one-sample t-test. There was a significant equally sized groups, based on their average pitch score.
preference for hearing the accompaniment (t (47) = 32.879, p < Restricting the analysis to the highest and lowest scoring groups
0.001), for seeing the accompaniment when it was heard (t (47) = resulted in a significant three-way interaction between skill level,
6.087, p < 0.001) and for seeing even when the accompaniment was attempt and seeing the piano accompaniment. Only the most skilled
not presented aurally (t (47) = 2.591, p < 0.05). sight-singers improved when the piano part was visible, suggesting
that they were more adept at integrating their knowledge of the
piano part with the melodic line. This could be due to their relative

780
ICMPC8, Evanston, IL, USA
ease of reading the tune allowing them the capacity to analyze the
piano part, or it could be that more of them were pianists or
instrumentalists and therefore could read piano parts more fluently.
It would have been advantageous to ask participants whether they
could play the piano, which should be taken into account in future
studies. The least skilled singers were disadvantaged by seeing the
piano part, perhaps indicating that attending to or attempting to
analyze the accompaniment distracted from the melodic line.
Most of the participants, however, reported no strong preference for
visual presentation alone, and approximately half preferred to see
the piano part if it was being played. The preference for aural
presentation of the accompaniment was almost unanimous. These
findings are surprising in the light of the lack of a main effect of
seeing or hearing the accompaniment, but suggest either that
accompaniment can be beneficial to singers in specific conditions
(for instance, if sight-singing in a choir, where other singers may
make distracting errors, or for particular styles of music), or that it
has benefits to other aspects of performance, such as increasing
confidence or noticing errors. Hearing the accompaniment may
also improve rhythmic confidence, or simply increase the aesthetic
value of the music. Increasing confidence is in itself a desirable
outcome, particularly as sight-singing can be a stressful experience,
no doubt worse in an exam or audition situation. Increased
confidence could promote louder singing, rhythmic accuracy and
expressive aspects of performance.
In this study, the scoring was objective, using Praat. It is possible
that, had the pieces been scored subjectively, slightly different
results might have been found, as subjective scoring is less
sensitive to pitch drift than objective, but on the other hand notes
out by as much as 49 cents were counted as correct, so intonation
was ignored. Obviously, in the real world of musicians, it is
subjective and not objective evaluation that matters and this should
therefore be combined with objective measurements in future
research.
Comparing the results of this study to those of Fine et al (in prep.),
the negative effect of dissonant or unpredictable accompaniment
appears greater than the positive effect of tonal accompaniment. It
might therefore be useful to learn modern pieces unaccompanied
(i.e. those that do not fit neatly with the piano part), but that other
pieces would not suffer from initial practice either with or without
the piano. The accompaniment may have had a significant effect
had the sample been of a more limited skill range, or different
pieces used. However, while the results do not prove that
accompaniment cannot affect pitching performance, they do show
that accompaniment does not necessarily affect pitching accuracy.
Aural accompaniment was found to increase improvement between
attempts, suggesting that accompanied tests of sight-singing would
be more representative of pitching ability if a second attempt was
allowed. Skilled sight-singers were found to improve more when
accompaniment was presented visually, arguing against the use of
part-books in choirs. Less skilled readers, however, may be
distracted by seeing the accompaniment, suggesting either that in
the early stages, single line music may be more appropriate, or that
novice singers should be taught how to make best use of the piano
accompaniment.
781
August 3-7, 2004
The significant effects and interactions on self-correction scores are
more difficult to interpret. Self-correction demonstrates that the
singer is aware of an error, but singers who are over-enthusiastic in
changing to fit with the piano part may run into difficulties when
faced with an intended dissonance or suspension. It may be the case
that singers do not self-correct if the style of the music suggests that
the accompaniment is likely to be dissonant, which should be taken
into account by future studies.
Although the pieces were all ABRSM Grade 7 sight-reading tests,
they were found to differ in difficulty level as both pitch and
interval scores varied systematically between them. This is
probably due to differences in rhythmic, structural and key
complexity, not just pitching. For example, piece A, which had the
highest average score, contained many repeated notes, but was in a
difficult key and contained reverse dotted rhythms, which were
often sung incorrectly. In comparison, piece D was rhythmically
simple, but contained larger intervals, fewer repeated notes and
little use of the tonic triad. To tease apart the effects of
accompaniment, which may be somewhat piece-specific, or at least
reliant on the stylistic quality of the piano part, future studies
should use more equally matched pieces in terms of their style,
pitching and rhythmic difficulty.
As the limited existing research supports the influence of an
accompaniment on pitching performance in sight-singing, future
research should perhaps test more restricted hypotheses or include
qualitative research, because until it is understood how
accompaniment exerts its influence, the implications of such
research are necessarily vague. Future work should compare the
effect of piano accompaniment, which is likely to be correct, to the
effect of sight-singing surrounded by other singers, who may be
themselves making mistakes. It is clear that singers need to be
taught to sight-sing in a more systematic manner – research into
method and intervention programmes would be beneficial – as the
overall standard was surprisingly low. Education should also
include instruction on how to make best use of accompaniment,
especially when it is presented visually, as it seems likely that
pianists have an advantage in this sense. Future study should look at
methods of improving sight-singing so that these findings can be
implemented in a practical sense.
5. REFERENCES
1. Boyle, J.D. & Lucas, K.V. “The effect of context on
sightsinging.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in
Music Education, 106, 1-9, 1990.
2. Fine, P.A. “Note-finding strategies in singing: An
interview study on Schnittke’s Bussvers XII”. ICMPC 7.
Sydney, Australia, 2002.
3. Fine, P.A., Berry A. & Rosner, B. “The Effect of Pattern
Recognition and Tonal Predictability on Sight-Singing
Ability.” In preparation.
4. Waters, A.J., Townsend, E. & Underwood, G. “Expertise in
musical sight-reading: A study of pianists”. British Journal
of Psychology, 89, 123-149, 1998.