what to look for when following a score

[Justin Ignaz Franz Bieber]

I've found that following a score is a good way to learn more about some music, especially when I try to follow a certain part or see how they imitate each other. What else should I look/listen for when following along with the score?

[hornteacher]

I analyze scores all the time (geeky hobby I know but I enjoy it).  I usually label themes, major sections, modulations, sudden changes of style, tonality, and volume.  Often I'll label motifs with nicknames just so I can identify them as they reoccur throughout the piece.

Following the bass is a good way to identify tonality changes, and I find that looking at a score can point out subtle changes in tone color that I would have not noticed otherwise.

[Justin Ignaz Franz Bieber]

That sounds like a lot for me.... I can follow along but I've never really studied music before. I think I've got a long way to go before I can do stuff like that on the fly. Changes in modulation & tonality might be easier since I can already hear changes but from what to what I have no idea lol.

[hornteacher]

That sounds like a lot for me.... I can follow along but I've never really studied music before. I think I've got a long way to go before I can do stuff like that on the fly. Changes in modulation & tonality might be easier since I can already hear changes but from what to what I have no idea lol.

Oh, okay.  Let me suggest then a series of CDs that are marvellous for score study.  They are called "Classics Explained" and they are put out by Naxos.  A narrator basically "talks" you through a work and provides performance excerpts as he goes along.  Plus there are fantastic liner notes included and written for people who have little training in musical form and analysis.

Here is a link to a few in the series:

Bach Brandenbergs 4 and 5
http://www.amazon.com/Classics-Explained-Brandenburg-Concertos-5/dp/B0000666A9/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/105-4924212-6205218?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1188840288&sr=8-3

Beethoven Symphony 6
http://www.amazon.com/Classics-Explained-Pastoral-Symphony-Beethoven/dp/B000065THN/ref=sr_1_8/105-4924212-6205218?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1188840288&sr=8-8

Vivaldi's Seasons
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Vivaldis-Four-Seasons/dp/B00005COY5/ref=pd_bxgy_m_text_b/105-4924212-6205218?ie=UTF8&qid=1188840288&sr=8-8

Brahms' Piano Concerto 2
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Brahms-Piano-Concerto-No/dp/B00005COY7/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_0_2/105-4924212-6205218

Schubert's Trout Quintet
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Schuberts-Piano-Quintet-Trout/dp/B000076FX6/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_2_1/105-4924212-6205218

Dvorak's New World Symphony
http://www.amazon.com/Symphony-9-Introduction-Dvorak/dp/B000069HGK/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_1_2/105-4924212-6205218

Stravinsky's Rite of Spring
http://www.amazon.com/Classics-Explained-Rite-Spring-Stravinsky/dp/B00007FPFN/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_1_0/105-4924212-6205218


There are several more in the series as well as several on operas.  A great place to start.

[Larry Rinkel]

Start small. Piano music, string quartets, solo violin pieces like the Bach partitas. Take notes, mental or otherwise, on what you are actually hearing. Hold off on big orchestral works for the time being until you are more comfortable with works for small forces. Even though many symphonic textures only have a limited number of real parts, they are reinforced and doubled to suit the size and strength of the orchestra, and it takes time and practice before your eye and ear can identify the underlying contrapuntal structures in a large orchestral work.

Simultaneously, start reading more about harmony, tonality, musical forms. I can't suggest any truly basic books, but maybe others can. I think reading scores is invaluable - both as a way of entering the composer's mind, and seeing the music from the perspective of the performer who has to make continual intepretive decisions.

[Justin Ignaz Franz Bieber]

Start small. Piano music, string quartets, solo violin pieces like the Bach partitas. Take notes, mental or otherwise, on what you are actually hearing. Hold off on big orchestral works for the time being until you are more comfortable with works for small forces. Even though many symphonic textures only have a limited number of real parts, they are reinforced and doubled to suit the size and strength of the orchestra, and it takes time and practice before your eye and ear can identify the underlying contrapuntal structures in a large orchestral work.

I think I'm past that stage. I think what I was getting at was getting 'into the composer's head'.

Simultaneously, start reading more about harmony, tonality, musical forms. I can't suggest any truly basic books, but maybe others can. I think reading scores is invaluable - both as a way of entering the composer's mind, and seeing the music from the perspective of the performer who has to make continual intepretive decisions.

I've also noticed a lot that I didn't notice when just listening passively. Things like motifs, themes, changing harmonies etc. I could always go back to my old university & get whatever textbook they use for their beginner's theory course. Better yet, I could go to the used bookstore on campus & get it for 1/3 of the price. 

[KevinP]

Even with works I'm already pretty familiar with, there seems to always be recurring motifs that I had never noticed until I followed with the score.

But other than that, it depends. What I look for in following a Bach score is not the same as what I'd look for when following a Stravinsky. (Unless, of course, I was studying something specific, like how various composer wrote for trumpet.) If not, the first pass through is for whatever grabs me. The second pass is for more of that which grabbed me.

[Catison]

Start small. Piano music, string quartets, solo violin pieces like the Bach partitas. Take notes, mental or otherwise, on what you are actually hearing. Hold off on big orchestral works for the time being until you are more comfortable with works for small forces. Even though many symphonic textures only have a limited number of real parts, they are reinforced and doubled to suit the size and strength of the orchestra, and it takes time and practice before your eye and ear can identify the underlying contrapuntal structures in a large orchestral work.

Simultaneously, start reading more about harmony, tonality, musical forms. I can't suggest any truly basic books, but maybe others can. I think reading scores is invaluable - both as a way of entering the composer's mind, and seeing the music from the perspective of the performer who has to make continual intepretive decisions.

Nice advice Larry.  I hadn't thought of starting small yet and moving up.  I only have a few scores, but the one time I followed along with Beethoven's 9th, it was a great experience.  It added the visual element missing from a recording.  Almost like being live with the orchestra.

[Maciek]

There was a very nice thread on this subject in the old board. Do check it out:
how to listen to music while reading the score

[BachQ]

Start small.

Start big.  I started with the score to Mahler 3 in d minor ........ and I still recall the pervasive feeling of awe and wonder over Mahler's amazing achievement(s) ..........

[Larry Rinkel]

Start big.  I started with the score to Mahler 3 in d minor ........ and I still recall the pervasive feeling of awe and wonder over Mahler's amazing achievement(s) ..........

Well, start somewhere.

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, start somewhere.

I rather agree more with your original statement. I tried a few symphonies that I had and was hopelessly lost within 50 bars. So I dropped down to string quartets and voilá! Another one that was a good starter was The Four Seasons, which I got for that discussion thread I had a couple years ago. After having done chamber music for a while, this turned out to be a snap. It was only then that I was able to edge into a symphony again with any measure of success.

[mahlertitan]

i'd say start with a piece that you know very well.

[BachQ]

I rather agree more with your original statement.

I disagree. 

[Gurn Blanston]

I disagree. 

It is your nature to disagree with me. I forgive you. I don't agree with you, however. With the possible exception of the morale boost that would come if you were actually successful starting with Mahler 3! 

[DavidW]

I think there is a fundamental difference of perception here.

Some are advocating reading the scores to improve understanding, some are advocating reading the scores to be awestruck.  Either is fine, but they are not necessarily compatibile. 

If you want to learn, you always start with simple works and work towards increasing complexity. 

You can also read the score simply to revel in the complexity and beauty that might not be as apparent when listening to the music.

Hey both are admirable goals.  A computer geek example-- if you want to learn to program you would start with "Hello world", if you want to revel in the complexity and coolness of Firefox you could read the really long Firefox code. 

[BachQ]

It is your nature to disagree with me.

I dont' mean to be cute, but I disagree with you on this particular point.

[lukeottevanger]

If you want to learn, you always start with simple works and work towards increasing complexity. 

So true, my first score was the Brahms D minor Concerto....

[Larry Rinkel]

I disagree. 

With whom?

The fact is, score study is an infinitely challenging exercise, which doesn't just begin with "Hello World" and stop at some finite point where you can say, "I can read a score!" Score study can embrace all aspects of one's musical understanding, whether it's knowledge of orchestration, form, counterpoint, performance practice, and so on. It's as never-ending as is the variety of music itself.

[BachQ]

... my first score was the Brahms D minor Concerto....

That score appeared to me in utero, so, technically, Brahms op. 15 was also my "first score" .........