[TheOtherHobbes]

Yes, that's the problem with this approach. You don't learn random notes, you learn note patterns.

It's the difference between learning to recognise letters and learning to read words. Music is made of words - scale-specific gestures, of which there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, typically arranged in some kind of harmonic context so you can make reasonable guesses about what's coming next.

This matters because finger positions have to be optimised for the smoothest and fastest motion. Piano sheet music usually includes this information, but random note sequences won't.

All of it contributes to look-ahead, where you're reading a bar or two ahead of the music to give your brain time to assemble the finger movements it's going to need.

[eitally]

I was going to make the same comment as the PP, but I disagree with your point about "note patterns". When you're sight reading real music (melodies, harmonies and chords), that's when you start grokking note patterns and can reach real mastery. Sufficiently good sight readers often don't even need to read every individual note to anticipate what will "happen next" because in many cases chord progressions, rhythms and harmonies are fairly predictable (especially, especially in pop/rock music, religious music and a lot of early classical.

I think the OP would have benefitted more from programming an interface to project Hanon's exercises[1] to practice than randomized notes.

[1] https://www.hanon-online.com/ <-- perhaps the most popular fingering practice for pianists. It's boring and tedious, but it 100% works!

[mianos]

They are not anticipating the next phrase from memory. Music has a structure that often repeats or relates to earlier patterns. Like reading, you look forward and recognise the patterns in the score and their relative position. While I am partially agreeing with you, I disagree about 'reading' individual notes. You see every note, you just don't need to convert them to a letter or key, because your hand is playing the whole phrase by interpreting the structure.

[stonemetal12]

> good sight readers often don't even need to read

That would suggest they aren't good at reading, but good at playing. If you are practicing reading, then not reading and making stuff up is against what you are trying to do.

[EvanAnderson]

> Music is made of words - scale-specific gestures, of which there are hundreds, perhaps thousands...

This made me think of typing tutor programs that just prompt for random letters. I type like shit on those-- slow and inaccurate.

On the other hand, I'm quick and reasonably accurate when typing English words and frequently-used command lines.

The analogy would surely hold true with musical instruments. Even with my limited experience playing musical instruments I can't imagine trying to practice random notes and rhythms. On the face of it I would think it would have little to no value. (Effectively practicing to play unlistenable music...)

[klodolph]

I remember typing tutors that started with the home row and slowly expanded. There aren’t a lot of words that use the home row exclusively, so you end up with nonsense.

(You said “typing tutors programs” but my memory is of actual tutors, as in, people.)

You may not like practicing random notes but maybe you want to play Schönberg or Bartók?

[jlbooker]

I remember a lot of, 'a sad lad had glad fad'. And then yes, it descended into nonsense from there on out.

[EvanAnderson]

Bartók... >shudder< You have a point.

[ssttoo]

As a counterpoint, Bartok’s Mikrokosmos [1] was the “textbook” for a piano sight reading class at my community college. He does have a lot of accessible, even pedagogical, pieces.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikrokosmos_(Bart%C3%B3k)

[Hunpeter]

I mean, Bartók is really not that random: polytonality, pentatonic and octatonic stuff, whole-tone scales etc. are all things you can practice and put into work in his music. (You can argue that Schönberg is even less random, cause serialism, but that probably doesn't help too much when playing the piano).

[EvanAnderson]

As a wildly amateur and unschooled musician Bartók simply looks wildly intimidating. Listen to him (again, as a wildly amateur and unschooled musician) doesn't make him make much more sense.

I wish I'd taken music more seriously when I was a kid (and had better neuroplasticity). I know I could still make decent progress with it, even at nearly 50, but I missed my opportunity to really cozy up to it deeply. (Instead I've got 6502 and 16-bit x86 assembler... Arguably not an even trade.)

[castillar76]

Whoof — this brought back memories of endlessly typing things like...

kkk kik kik k,k k,k jjj juj juj jmj jmj hhh hyh hyh hnh hnh

...on a lovely, bangy, ink-scented IBM Selectric in typing class. Which at the time felt like a meaningless exercise, but absolutely strengthened the ability of my fingers to find the right keys in a hurry without looking at the keyboard.

[vishnugupta]

> typing tutor programs that just prompt for random letters

I learnt touch typing on a physical mechanical typewriter. The syllabus that I followed did seem random but as I kept at it I could see there was a method to the madness.

I checked out a few software tutorials and they seemed OK. Maybe there are some not good ones.

[brudgers]

Music is made of words - scale-specific gestures, of which there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, typically arranged in some kind of harmonic context so you can make reasonable guesses about what's coming next

Some genres of music are that way. Other genres have different conventions, ethics, and aesthetics. Even within harmonically oriented Euro-traditions, great weight is given to a musician’s ability to play what does not easily “fall under the fingers.”

There’s nothing wrong with Smoke on the Water but it is totally played.

[khazhoux]

> It's the difference between learning to recognise letters and learning to read words

Bebop is the best example of this for me in music. When I first started listening to Charlie Parker as a teenager, I heard only a series of notes. But it sounded great so I kept listening (a lot!) and then I heard phrases, sentences, an actual language.

Then I bought Giant Steps and again heard only a scramble of notes. It was a new language, which took some time to learn. But now listening to Coltrane and listening to someone talk, feels exactly the same.