"1. How long is it going to take me to get the skill of being able to play and read any type of guitar piece for the first time without any mistakes??"

Depends on how much you practice. Also on how complicated the piece is. But I'd say at least a year, probably 2 or 3, or even more - unless you are absolutely obsessive about practising.
It takes a lot longer (of course) to be able to read a piece straight off, flawlessly (no pauses), at the correct tempo, than to be able to do the same thing after a few run-throughs.

"2. Are my methods of practicing practical? Do I need to use another method?"

From what you've said, I'd say yes. I can't think of any better way of practising than just doing it - reading music and playing it.

"3. Are there many guitarists who can play any piece of music (while reading music) and go through it without any flaws like a professional pianist?

There are some, of course, but I've no idea how many. How do you define "many"?
A professional classical guitarist would be able to do it. A good pro session player, almost certainly. A pro jazz player, probably. A pro rock player, probably not.
Even those that can do it with simple pieces might not be able to do it with complex pieces. (Eg, fast, or rhythmically complex.)

"4. Should I strive to be able to play through a piece of music without any mistakes for the first time? Is this possible?"

It's up to you.
It IS possible, and obviously if this is what you want to do, then it's what you should strive for. Even if you never achieve perfection, you will improve immensely.

Remember, in any case, "perfection" in a musician is non-existent. I've been playing 40 years. I'm nowhere near "perfect". OK, I don't practice much ;-). But that's because I can play most things I need or want to play, as well as necessary.
I can read a simple piece almost straight off. I need to sit and study anything relatively complicated.
But the point is, there is no goal here, no final "destination". Only a lifelong "journey". The better you get, the better you can imagine getting.
Even the most technically skilled player knows they can get better, and may still be frustrated at things they can't do - even tho you or I wouldn't notice any problems!

So don't ask quantifying questions about "how long", or "how many". Just pursue your desires, do as well as you can NOW. Keep challenging yourself, and you will improve.
Mainly, you have to enjoy what you are doing NOW, not what you hope to be doing somewhere down the line. Otherwise you will never have any fun!

Jon,
The problem that I face now is trying to learn pieces that are suitable for my level of playing (i.e. Barrios pieces) while simultaneously practicing my sight reading. But I think that I should practice reading the easy pieces for 30 minutes and then spend the other 30 minutes with difficult pieces. I should do this at least 5 days a week.
Adrian

That sounds like a reasonable strategy to me.

How long is it going to take me to get the skill of being able to play and read any type of guitar piece for the first time without any mistakes??

Are you serious? I might be wrong but I don't think anybody other than some of those autistic musical geniuses can do that. I've never met anyone in forty years of learning guitar that can do that. Not in tempo, at least. Of course, everyone I ever knew has been an "Ear" player.

I didn't read the entire thread so, some may say different. I've just never, personally, seen anyone, on any instrument, run through a song for the first time without stumbling and/or losing time. (Not to mention backing up and starting over)

YMMV

"I've just never, personally, seen anyone, on any instrument, run through a song for the first time without stumbling and/or losing time."

???

Sightreading is a very, very standard practice amongst professional musicians (guitar, sadly, excluded). If a musician can't do what you've described here, they're considered rather deficient in most musical circles.

Spoons. Spoon music is more easily sight-read.

So it's like typing words that you're reading from a written page. Pretty mechanical process. I've never seen a typist who didn't have an "oops!" now and then. Remember white out?

I supposed you're telling me that sight-reading while playing a song, any song, mistake-free, no matter how complicated, is a normal skill for many musicians. If you say so but I've not seen it. I've been around "Professional Musicians" all my life and I've never even noticed anyone caring, one way or another, if someone was a sight reader or not.

Like I said before, I've been around "ear" players who seem to have the "reading" musicians outnumbered by a long shot in this neck of the woods. The only circle" I can think of, locally, where a non-sight reading musician might be considered "deficient" might be when trying to get a job with the symphony orchestra.

"I can read a little music. Just not enough to mess up my pickin'" Chet Atkins

"So it's like typing words that you're reading from a written page. Pretty mechanical process. I've never seen a typist who didn't have an "oops!" now and then. Remember white out?"

Yes, I realize people make mistakes. I'm not talking about super-humans devoid of flaw. But, for the most part, sight-reading can be done without a problem.

"Like I said before, I've been around "ear" players who seem to have the "reading" musicians outnumbered by a long shot in this neck of the woods."

I guess it may have to do with where you live. Good session players should be able to sight-music; Living near LA, that's a serious profession. Orchestra musicians should be very proficient at sight-reading; there's countless orchestras and classical ensembles in southern California. University music professors and instrument teachers must be able to sight-read; many (acclaimed) schools around here.

So perhaps it's just a matter of percentages for me - chances are, if someone's a professional musician around here, they can sight read. Maybe the predominant professions are different where you are?

Sightreading is a very, very standard practice amongst professional musicians (guitar, sadly, excluded). If a musician can't do what you've described here, they're considered rather deficient in most musical circles.

If professional musicians can sightread perfectly without making mistakes, why do orchestras have to practise so much before they get it right?

Adriano:

Orchestras back in the baroque and classical period DIDN'T practice hardly at all before a performance - simply didn't have the time. They were expected to play new material almost constantly.

That said, nowadays there are a lot of interpretive considerations to be made regarding baroque and classical music. Living in modern times, trying to recreate older music, we have to infer a lot of stylistic conventions. These things must be practiced, or at the very least, discussed and agreed upon.

Finally, we're talking about getting 80 people to sight-read together - not a single person running through his own part. It's possible, sure, but a orchestra performance will come out much more polished with some rehearsals.

Finally, we're talking about getting 80 people to sight-read together - not a single person running through his own part.

In other words musicians don't have the same sense of timing and need practise to get it right.

In other words musicians don't have the same sense of timing and need practise to get it right.



Exactly! If the orchestra makes a mistake, that means that at least one person out of the whole orchestra makes a mistake. That also means that more practice is needed!



Adrian

"In other words musicians don't have the same sense of timing and need practise to get it right."

The ability to sight-read something alone and the ability to play cohesively with an ensemble are two different skills.

I'd expect that fellow musicians would know how tricky playing in a massive ensemble could be, but perhaps you're too inexperienced to know.

There are interpretive issues one must take into consideration even on a solo piece - grace notes, for example, can be played on the beat or slightly before. Obviously this is something that need be sussed out in a rehearsal for an ensemble. Even if every single person in the orchestra, as a soloist, would be able to perform such a passage alone without a problem and, technically, in time - put 80 people together, with half doing it before the beat, and half doing it on the beat, and you've got a problem!

Anyway, you guys are kind of freaking out about this whole sight-reading issue. I don't know if it hurts your pride to know that there are people out there that can do things that you can't - or what the deal is - but I'm just letting you know the way it is outside of the guitarist's little world.

You can try harder or get defensive, but neither decision will change the reality of the issue.

Hey Shad,
I think that it was me who interpreted your message wrong. I thought that you said that little practice is needed (if any practice at all) for the whole orchestra. Not the just the individual.



I think that it's okay to debate this issue. As long as we don't get anyone angry or make this thread too long. : )



Adrian

I am 100% with Shad on this.
If you are trained as a classical guitarist, you are tought sight reading from day one, and in every examination there is a part where you are expected to sight read and play something you don't know in advance - with virtually no preparation.
This doesn't mean you will be playing flawlessly (especially not in the context of an exam); but if the score corresponds to his/her technical level, any classical guitarist will be able to sight read and play on the fly.
I also agree that the vast majority of guitarists cannot actually do that, for all the reasons mentioned previously.