As one whose memory has failed on too many occasions, I found this thoughtful Guardian article by Susan Tomes, pianist extraordinaire -- founder of Domus and member of the Florestan Trio -- fasctinating. I wonder if others have comments about it?
Scott Morrison
--
ALL IN THE MIND
Play from memory and you might forget what note comes next. Use the score and you'll perform better. So why the snobbery about sheet music, asks pianist Susan Tomes
Friday April 20, 2007
The Guardian
I recently went to a party where our host regaled us with a compilation of concert recordings in which famous pianists had suffered from horrible memory lapses. Everyone fell about with laughter at the sound of celebrities going hideously off the rails, but, as a pianist, I found it an uncomfortable experience. The struggles of Curzon, Richter and Rubinstein with memorisation had become a spectator sport.
Playing from memory in public is a fairly recent fashion. Before the late 19th century, playing without the score was often considered a sign of casualness, even of arrogance. The custom of playing from memory developed along with the growth of a body of classics that everyone agreed were worth preserving exactly as their composers had intended. Teachers encouraged students to memorise them. Many young players memorise easily, but it gets harder as time goes on. As the pianist Charles Rosen put it: "With advancing age, memory becomes doubly uncertain; above all, what begins to fail is confidence in one's memory, the assurance that the next note will follow with no conscious effort."
Clara Schumann felt that playing by heart "gave her wings power to soar", but many musicians find it so stressful that they play less naturally than they would with the score. And the pressures are much worse today than they were in Clara Schumann's day. After a century of recording, the record-buying public has been trained to expect perfection, whereas earlier audiences didn't mind if things went occasionally awry.
The burden of memorisation falls particularly on solo instrumentalists. I've always played from memory in solo recitals and concertos, but I play chamber music from the score. Chamber groups are not expected to play from memory; those that do - like the Kolisch Quartet in the 1930s, or the Zehetmair Quartet today - are regarded as spectacular exceptions. Nor are symphony orchestras expected to play from memory. And no one suggests that playing a chamber work or a symphony with music on the stand prevents a performance from being superlative.
Conductors sometimes conduct from memory, but they themselves don't have to make a sound, so many mistakes go unnoticed. Opera singers have to memorise, but they have the help of prompters, discreetly feeding them the next line. Songs have words, and because words are our everyday language, they help singers to memorise. Abstract music is also a language, but one whose immediate meaning is less clear-cut. Scientists now agree that memorising music is more complex than memorising words, and the challenge is multidimensional for those who also have to play instruments.
It's not as if composers require musicians to memorise. In Beethoven's day, his pupil Carl Czerny apparently had such a phenomenal memory that, as a teenager, he could play all his master's works by heart. But Beethoven disapproved, saying it would make him casual about detailed markings on the score. Chopin was angry when he heard that one of his pupils was intending to play him a Nocturne from memory.
Others felt it would be inappropriate to play without a score, Mendelssohn, who had an amazing musical memory, was nevertheless modest about it. When he visited London and took part in a performance of one of his own piano trios, the piano part was missing. "Never mind," he said, "just take any book of music, place it on the music desk, and have someone sit beside me and turn the pages, and then no one need know I play from memory." Liszt, though gazing heavenwards in contemporary drawings of him at the piano, appears to have played only half of his repertoire from memory. And when he played his own compositions, he used the score to demonstrate that these were seriously worked-out pieces, not fleeting improvisations.
The growing taste for watching soloists play from memory has actually narrowed the breadth of the repertoire. Vladimir Horowitz, for example, played a huge number of works at home from the score, but only performed a small repertoire from memory in public. Today many soloists won't commit themselves to more than a handful of works each season, no doubt partly because of the burden of memorisation. In the past few years, I've successfully memorised several solo recital programmes, each lasting about two hours. Had I allowed myself to use music, I could have performed the programmes much earlier, and with equal interpretative power. It was the sheer effort of memorising that added months to the process.
Secure memorisation has several elements that interweave unpredictably for the player. There is analytical memory, an understanding of the music's structure. There's photographic memory, which enables the player to "read" the visualised page when it isn't there. And there's physical memory, perhaps the most dependable kind, but one for which there's no shortcut. In performance, muscle memory will carry you along when something distracts you, or when you have a moment of doubt. Indeed muscle memory can enable you to play the whole piece while thinking about something else entirely (as I discovered when putting in my hours of piano practice as a child). But to develop it you simply have to play the music over and over, for a long period of time.
I recently gave two performances of the Schumann piano concerto. For several weeks before the concerts, I privately played the piece by heart without problems at least once a day and felt very secure. At the first performance, however, with an orchestra of 60 musicians and 2,000 listeners, I had several terrifying moments of insecurity. Worse, they were in places in the piece where I'd never had trouble before. So the following day I hammered those places into my memory. At the second performance, I had another couple of nasty moments - but in completely new places.
Must musicians waste so much of their time and emotional energy on memorisation? If we've prepared the music thoroughly, does playing it from memory really add an extra dimension that is worth all the pain?
Fascinating reading, thanks, Scott. I've always had problems memorising - not only that, but I've always sensed the problems that lie behind it: the risk of memory lapses of course, but also the limitations it imposes on the number of pieces one can play, for starters (that's one reason why I've never really made much attempt to memorise, in fact- perhaps I could do it if I really tried). Nice to see Tomes confirm that I'm not alone in feeling that way, and good to see her put some historical perspective on it - her examples are fascinating. There is a fallacy, I think, that only without the score can one really 'fly free' - but I don't think that is true at all. After all, the presumption of publicly performing a piece, either with or without the score, presupposes that one knows it intimately; if a book in front of you means that you don't risk a lapse, helps you with intricate details, and at the same time has meant that your repertoire as a whole is larger - well, more power to you, I say! ;)
It is a thing I could never understand either. I have not learned a single piece by heart since leaving music school. Of course, I'm an amateur, so I had no need for that but I also felt it would be a waste of time/energy.
Didn't Richter often play from sheet music?
On the other hand, playing from memory helps if you don't have a page turner! ;D
Also, there is nothing to prevent instrumental soloists other than pianists from memorizing too. I played the first movement of the Mozart oboe concerto from memory on my senior recital, including a cadenza I had written--without lapses or flubbed entrances.
I find that, once I've got the music's technical aspects worked out, my hands, lips, etc., know what to do without my having to think about it, with only a little help from my mind. I only flub when I worry too much. :o
I disagree with some points in the article. I memorize pretty much everything I play for no other reason than the fact that I hate having to read the score. ;D Seriously, though, whether or not memorization makes sense is an individual question. For some the page turning is more of a distraction than the memorization is a burden. It is also the case that the added effort of reading the score drains energies from the mind that should go into producing a spontaneous, flowing performance. The examples of musicans playing or conducting from scores are nonetheless exapmles of people who have for all practical purposes memorized the score and are just using it as a safety net. I disagree with the pedantic view that detailed score instructions are hard to memorize. I find that dynamics, phrasing and accents are the easiest thing for me to memorize. What is much harder for me to remember are the middle voices in thick chords and fingerings for nasty passages. Speaking of which, the author is incorrect in his belief that muscle memory is reliable. Indeed, the frightful moments in concert he describes are episodes where the pianist didn't fully mentally memorize the score and relied on muscle memory which failed. Muscle memory is invariably the first thing to fail in a moment of stress (or under the influence of alcohol or drugs ;D ). You really have to know where each note is. You can't rely on your fingers to do it for you. For me, the test of whether I have fully memorized a piece is whether I am able to start anywhere in the piece. If that works, it's there.
Quote from: O Mensch on April 20, 2007, 08:43:13 AM
...Muscle memory is invariably the first thing to fail in a moment of stress (or under the influence of alcohol or drugs ;D ). You really have to know where each note is. You can't rely on your fingers to do it for you. For me, the test of whether I have fully memorized a piece is whether I am able to start anywhere in the piece. If that works, it's there.
Hmmm...I'll have to think about that a bit. Maybe a holistic approach is best--indeed, I feel that it is, especially while you're learning a piece. I teach my students to be aware of every aspect of the music at all times: notes, dynamics, phrasing, overall shape, intonation (pianists, be glad you don't have to worry about THAT! :o), underlying beat--everything that goes into great music. Once you've got this good habit, memorization is easy.
But I don't feel that having the music in front of you necessarily takes away from a great performance. Indeed, there may be a sense of discovery in seeing things you never noticed before, or that you have seen a hundred times but suddenly take on new meaning...
I absolutely agree, jochanaan. I didn't mean to say one form of memorization should be followed and others ignored, only that muscle memory alone is a recipe for disaster.
Quote from: jochanaan on April 20, 2007, 08:19:02 AM
I find that, once I've got the music's technical aspects worked out, my hands, lips, etc., know what to do without my having to think about it, with only a little help from my mind. I only flub when I worry too much. :o
From the prespective of one who is both a string player and a pianist, I must say that memorising is infinitely easier on the cello. Without ever having to concentrate my mind on it, I was always able to play most of my repertoire from memory. In part this is because there's 'less to do', notewise. But I think it's more that one is directly creating the notes (and using big physical gesture to do so) rather than pressing buttons that make the notes for you. IOW, on the cello I 'hear' the music internally and it almost plays itself; it doesn't work so directly for me on the piano.
Quote from: O Mensch on April 20, 2007, 08:43:13 AM
It is also the case that the added effort of reading the score drains energies from the mind that should go into producing a spontaneous, flowing performance.
Possibly - but for me I don't find that reading a score is any effort whatsoever, whereas memorising places strains and worries on the mind which inhibit far more.
Quote from: jochanaan on April 20, 2007, 08:59:04 AM
But I don't feel that having the music in front of you necessarily takes away from a great performance. Indeed, there may be a sense of discovery in seeing things you never noticed before, or that you have seen a hundred times but suddenly take on new meaning...
I like that alot. And I think there's real truth to it. I suppose, for me, there's also the connected fact that I am absolutely in love with printed music! And I want to look at it as much as I can! ;D
because Composers don't play their pieces by looking at scores.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 20, 2007, 10:13:39 AM
because Composers don't play their pieces by looking at scores.
What, none of them? Never? Never mind that the article itself mentioned how important playing from the score was to Beethoven and Chopin.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 20, 2007, 10:13:39 AM
because Composers don't play their pieces by looking at scores.
I have seen film of Britten play his own music from the score when accompanying singers. Also, the article points out that Liszt only had about half his music memorised, the rest of his piano music he played from the score. Chopin played from the music. The composers that I have been conducted by used their scores.
People's brains function differently. For some memorising is no problem. For others it is a complete chore and undermines confidence.
I have general memory problems anyway; but to have to learn an entire concert full of pieces without being allowed to use the music at all would have meant I would not have bothered.
The music can get in the way, but if you are sufficiently inside it, I see no reason why it cannot be there for the purposes described by Luke.
Mike
well, if you can play from memory, you must be over all the "technical" problems associated with the piece. SO, you are more aware of the style, your personal interpretation.
Hmm - interesting about piano vs cello memorising... I think you are right about the movement thing - there are far more ways in which your body can be oriented or arranged on the cello, rather than the piano, and as you say, the sound is far more directly produced. Each register has its own unique physical feeling, as does each interval, which could be said to be true of the piano, but far more subtly.
I never memorise stuff consciously, but can play large swathes of the piece I have played before, often to my surprise. I'm not sure whether I think its pointless or not. I think a music stand can put a barrier between the audience and a soloist. I wouldn't object to it even slightly in solo recitals, but string concertos can seem a bit weird with music... Not always of course and it's all down to the performer really, and the repertoire. Its just a fact that tonal music is easier to memorise than atonal music (it would be truly remarkable to play Carter by memory!)
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 20, 2007, 11:17:24 AM
well, if you can play from memory, you must be over all the "technical" problems associated with the piece. SO, you are more aware of the style, your personal interpretation.
Not necessarily. One can have memorized a piece completely, yet still have technical problems in executing it. I think you too are confusing mental memory with muscle memory.
I always believed in Toscaninis famous comment about having the score in your head, rather than your head in the score.
According to what I've read, Toscanini had the following scores commited to memory.
1. All the Beethoven Symphonies
2. All the Brahms Symphonies
3. All Puccini and Verdi Operas
4. Many violin and piano concerti
5. The entire Wagner "Ring", + Lohengrin, Meistersinger, Tannhauser, Tristan and Isolde, Parsifal and the Flying Dutchman.
6. Dozens and dozens of overtures and preludes by various composers.
I was witness to HvK conducting "Die Walkure" at the Met in 1968.
He had the score on the stand in front of him. But he never opened it.
Can anyone confirm (or annul) that statement I made about Sviatoslav Richter? I think I read an interview with him somewhere where the interviewer asked him about this and he replied that having to commit everything to memory would mean needlessly reducing his repertoire. There was also a question about lighting - why he would insist on only using a small lamp next to the piano and turning all the other lamps off during recitals (he said he wanted the intimacy). But this had to be more than 10 years ago (the man was alive), so I could be mixing things (or pianists ;D) up.
Oh, and just an aside re what Iago said: My 2 favorite Polish conductors (Henryk Czyż and Jan Krenz) both conduct (or conducted - only Krenz is still alive) without the score more often than not. But it may be just a special ability they have, not necessarily linked to their being great conductors. But it may be otherwise too. I don't know. ???
It's not that unusual. I've seen Barenboim conduct rehearsals (!) from memory. Maazel supposedly also has a stunning memory.
yeah, in one of the books I have it says Maazel is fluent in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian- i'd almost kill a guy to have that kind of memory
i have a question- are modernist scores like Boulez's 2nd Sonata also played without the score? that would seem pretty hard.......
Quote from: MrOsa on April 20, 2007, 02:19:54 PM
Can anyone confirm (or annul) that statement I made about Sviatoslav Richter?
Yes, from about 1980 on, after an embarrassing memory lapse, he played with score and with the intimate lighting you mentioned.
Thanks, Scott! :)
Quote from: greg on April 20, 2007, 03:07:38 PM
i have a question- are modernist scores like Boulez's 2nd Sonata also played without the score? that would seem pretty hard.......
On most of the concerts of contemporary music I've ever been to the music was played with the score. However, I do remember three outstanding piano recitals where the pianists (excellent pianists, needless to say!) played everything from memory: two were given by the Australian pianist Michael Kielan Harvey (in 1994 and 1995 but I still remember them!), and one by the French pianist Pierre-Laurent Aimard (in 2000 but, strangely enough, I remember this one a little less distinctly).
Oh, and both Krenz and Czyż often conducted contemporary stuff without the scores (sometimes even first performances!).
Quote from: MrOsa on April 20, 2007, 03:42:27 PM
Thanks, Scott! :)
On most of the concerts of contemporary music I've ever been two the music was played with the score. However, I do remember three outstanding piano recitals where the pianists (excellent pianists, needless to say!) played everything from memory: two were given by the Australian pianist Michael Kielan Harvey (in 1994 and 1995 but I still remember them!), and one by the French pianist Pierre-Laurent Aimard (in 2000 but, strangely enough, I remember this one a little less distinctly).
Oh, and both Krenz and Czyż often conducted contemporary stuff without the scores (sometimes even first performances!).
lol, they deserve a trophy for all that
Man, I should be going to bed! I wrote "two" instead of "to", and then almost corrected it to "too"... :P Sorry for the OT >:D.
Quote from: Scott on April 20, 2007, 03:36:57 PM
Yes, from about 1980 on, after an embarrassing memory lapse, he played with score and with the intimate lighting you mentioned.
Interestingly, it worked both ways for Richter. He decried not working from the score yet only took it up himself late in his career (about 1980, as you say).
He claimed that reading from the score was the better way to go so to experience as wide a range of repertoire as possible. However, the rumor mill had it he simply forgot his way during a concert and this necessitated a quick change in philosophy.
Who's right? It's unclear. But for a good chunk of his career Richter had all the music he wanted locked in his memory banks. And no one had a larger range of repertoire than Richter.
On the other hand, it's interesting to note that Richter's change of heart did, in fact, occur in the relative twilight of his career. Which might lend credence to the comments above about late-career memory fuzzy-wuzziness in performance. ;D
Quote from: Iago on April 20, 2007, 12:28:48 PM
I was witness to HvK conducting "Die Walkure" at the Met in 1968.
He had the score on the stand in front of him. But he never opened it.
Yoiu can't see the score with your eyes shut anyway ...
Quote from: MrOsa on April 20, 2007, 02:19:54 PM
Can anyone confirm (or annul) that statement I made about Sviatoslav Richter? I think I read an interview with him somewhere where the interviewer asked him about this and he replied that having to commit everything to memory would mean needlessly reducing his repertoire. There was also a question about lighting - why he would insist on only using a small lamp next to the piano and turning all the other lamps off during recitals (he said he wanted the intimacy).
I believe that he said that he wanted to lights off for concentration. Not his, the audiences.
This statement blew my mind.
Quote from: Novitiate on April 20, 2007, 05:15:14 PM
Yoiu can't see the score with your eyes shut anyway ...
LOL! Good point! ;D
I forget. ;D
I generally memorise everything I play since I find it much easier to give a nice flowing performance, not to mention I don't have to worry about annoying and distracting page turns. And also because I don't find memorisation that difficult, since I try to memorise as I learn. i.e. Each physical movement or each passage I have to learn while first learning the piece I memorise as I practise it. This is also much more time efficient since the difficult passages or difficult fingerings require a lot of practice to learn and execute properly, and this is a great opportunity to memorise at the same time. A lot quicker than learning the whole piece first, and then trying to memorise it I find.
Quote from: greg on April 20, 2007, 03:07:38 PM
i have a question- are modernist scores like Boulez's 2nd Sonata also played without the score? that would seem pretty hard.......
Well, here's Aimard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBhXrFp0AXE) playing Boulez's 1st piano sonata from memory. I'm sure he could also play the 2nd from memory if he wanted to; an amazing pianist.
QuoteYes, from about 1980 on, after an embarrassing memory lapse, he played with score and with the intimate lighting you mentioned.
From http://www.perfectpitchpeople.com/richter.htm
Quote"In the book Sviatoslav Richter: Notebooks and Conversations by Bruno Mosaingeon, Richter mentioned that not only was his perfect pitch altered by a full tone in his old age, but that the same thing happened to his teacher, the great pedagogue Heinrich Neuhaus. He went on to say that the main reason why he played with a score in his last years was that because of this altered pitch he tended to transpose automatically when playing from memory, and was thus afraid of presenting musical pieces in the wrong key to the audience." [2]
Quote from: Novitiate on April 20, 2007, 05:15:14 PM
Yoiu can't see the score with your eyes shut anyway ...
Karajan frequently kept his eyes closed during purely orchestral works.
But for "opera", they were wide open and alert.
An excellent memory is clearly a great tool in the musician's toolbox, but don't confuse it with musical talent. It is quite possible to have one to excess, but not the other.
Maazel has indeed an extraordinary memory, but how interesting is most of his music making? He is high profile and basically a gifted musician, but there are no doubt plenty of also-rans with a great memory and nothing much to say.
Mike
Quote from: Symphonien on April 20, 2007, 09:02:19 PM
Well, here's Aimard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBhXrFp0AXE) playing Boulez's 1st piano sonata from memory. I'm sure he could also play the 2nd from memory if he wanted to; an amazing pianist.
I'll say! I have him playing 'Gaspard de la nuit' by Ravel, coupled with some Carter works. He is amazing to listen to.
Quote from: knight on April 20, 2007, 10:42:54 PM
Maazel has indeed an extraordinary memory, .
And he also plays the violin.
QuoteWell, here's Aimard playing Boulez's 1st piano sonata from memory. I'm sure he could also play the 2nd from memory if he wanted to; an amazing pianist.
Wasn't he boo-ed at the Proms last year for a slow Brahms' 1st concerto, 2nd movement?
I'm a pianist (amateur) and I find that the best way to memorize a piece is to not try. If I fall madly in love with a particular piano work I play it over and over as I get to know as much about it as I can and, without even trying, I find I've memorized it.
It might be psychological, but I've always found that the music stand seems to block the sound. Also, when I know a piece well, I find the music just distracts me, so doubleminus points to reading from a score for me.
But reading from the score is what the majority of professional musicians do.
Mike
Quote from: knight on April 21, 2007, 01:14:03 PM
But reading from the score is what the majority of professional musicians do.
Mike
What if they all jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge? Would you do that too?
(My goodness, I have become my Mother.) :-[ My apologies, Mike.
In the nineteenth century, it also saved the travelling musician the inconvenience of having to carry large quantities of sheet music with them. Mendelssohn in England has been mentioned. His sister took a long holiday in Rome where Gounod heard her playing many works by Bach, all from memory.
This is the main reason I regret not learning to memorise. If I meet a lonely piano on my travels I can only extemporise. I restrict myself to those awkward passages that are just over the page. I find my mind too elastic and full of wrong ideas.
Had the same problem and found a simple solution: I don't travel anymore. :) 8)
(Only kidding, of course. ;D)
Quote from: George on April 21, 2007, 01:33:29 PM
What if they all jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge? Would you do that too?
(My goodness, I have become my Mother.) :-[ My apologies, Mike.
Not too clear what the underlying point is here....my own point, to those who regard it as a second rate sort of behaviour, is that most musicians from conductors, all orchestral players, most chamber music players....including pianists in that context, accompanists, singers when in choir or soloists in oratorio use the music. If the music is not getting in the way for that lot, why should it for the pianists and violinists in a solo context. Is someone really telling me that a great Schubert quartet is being inhibited by the players who almost ALWAYS use the music?
Mike
Quote from: Ten thumbs on April 21, 2007, 01:39:15 PM
In the nineteenth century, it also saved the travelling musician the inconvenience of having to carry large quantities of sheet music with them. Mendelssohn in England has been mentioned. His sister took a long holiday in Rome where Gounod heard her playing many works by Bach, all from memory.
This is the main reason I regret not learning to memorise. If I meet a lonely piano on my travels I can only extemporise. I restrict myself to those awkward passages that are just over the page. I find my mind too elastic and full of wrong ideas.
Yes, this is another reason why I memorise because this situation has happened to me before: If you go out somewhere and there's a piano and everyone says "play something!" since they know you're a pianist what are you supposed to play if you don't have anything in your memory? Tell them, "Sorry, but I'll just have to go back home and get my sheet music and then return"?
There is a difference between committing several pieces to memory for the sort of purpose you suggest and being peer-pressured into committing all the music you ever play as a full time professional into your memory because of a convention.
Mike
Quote from: The Mad Hatter on April 21, 2007, 12:24:50 PM
It might be psychological, but I've always found that the music stand seems to block the sound. Also, when I know a piece well, I find the music just distracts me, so doubleminus points to reading from a score for me.
Quote from: knight on April 21, 2007, 01:14:03 PM
But reading from the score is what the majority of professional musicians do.
Mike
Quote from: George on April 21, 2007, 01:33:29 PM
What if they all jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge? Would you do that too?
(My goodness, I have become my Mother.) :-[ My apologies, Mike.
Quote from: knight on April 21, 2007, 01:49:58 PM
Not too clear what the underlying point is here....
I was simply agreeing with the Mad Hatter.
Just because the "majority of professional musicians" perform with the score, doesn't mean that it is the optimum way to perform.
For the Mad Hatter's reasons, Symphonien's reason and others mentioned earlier, I am in favor of memorizing the score, or rather being well-rehearsed enough so that the score is uneccesary when it comes time to perform.
I definitely believe that memorising improves ones understanding of the music. If anyone has any suggestion as to how an old dog like me can learn new tricks, I will be interested to hear them.
Ten thumbs, I'm not sure I can oblige you, since what works for one musician might not work at all for another.
But one of the main blocks to playing from memory is the fear that you won't be able to. Let the fear go, and often you find there wasn't any need for it at all. On the other hand, overconfidence is also a big block.
And, as with anything else, practice makes perfect--yet in this case, the only "practice" you can get is by performing from memory. The more you perform, the better you get.
Once I was performing in a chamber recital, and I got to the hall (a small one in a local library) and discovered I'd left my music at home! :o I thought for a bit, and felt I could play everything anyway, except for one small piece--the simplest, which we hadn't rehearsed much since it didn't need it. Even though at rehearsals I'd always had the part in front of me, I played the whole concert, except for that one piece, from memory. :D That experience taught me to trust my powers and my judgment. (Amazing what you can do when you simply HAVE to. ;D)
Quote from: Ten thumbs on April 22, 2007, 07:52:22 AM
I definitely believe that memorising improves ones understanding of the music.
That applies to me too. I definitely feel more comfortable when playing in public if I know the whole score, as I don't have to deviate attention in reading. (I suppose this is because I'm not a pro, and I tend to be moderately nervous in concerts or auditions).
Memorizing the works, bar by bar, is also a must if the piece is particularly an etude. I feel I can only dominate it, and therefore get full advantage of the techniques involved, if I can play it from memory. This may imply a certain degree of inefficient sight-reading...
Thank you for your thoughts. I believe my main mistake is in analysing the music so that instead of knowing what come next I start to think about what might come next. I know I can do it because during my life I have memorised three pieces, namely:
Debussy - Claire de Lune
Ibert - Le petit âne blanc
Busoni - Prelude Op 37 no8
You are right of course, the only way to succeed is to try.
Quote from: jochanaan on April 22, 2007, 10:21:59 AM
Once I was performing in a chamber recital, and I got to the hall (a small one in a local library) and discovered I'd left my music at home! :o I thought for a bit, and felt I could play everything anyway, except for one small piece--the simplest, which we hadn't rehearsed much since it didn't need it. Even though at rehearsals I'd always had the part in front of me, I played the whole concert, except for that one piece, from memory. :D That experience taught me to trust my powers and my judgment. (Amazing what you can do when you simply HAVE to. ;D)
So you just stopped playing for that part? Hopefully it wasn't a small ensemble. ???
There does seem to be a borderline where the keyboard changes from being an accompaniment to becoming part of a duet with the other soloist. Here, the pianist may well have the music whereas the other performer stands and plays without. Where does convention stand here?
Quote from: JCampbell on April 23, 2007, 11:26:49 PM
So you just stopped playing for that part? Hopefully it wasn't a small ensemble. ???
No, we just didn't play that one piece. Everything else went well. :)
Jochanaan's story about forgetting his music reminded me of my own performance disaster. I was performing a Bach fugue on the organ and for some reason one of my hard contact lenses popped out and fell into the pedal board. From that point on the fugue had no entries from the pedal! :)
Quote from: jochanaan on April 22, 2007, 10:21:59 AM
...But one of the main blocks to playing from memory is the fear that you won't be able to. Let the fear go, and often you find there wasn't any need for it at all. On the other hand, overconfidence is also a big block.
And, as with anything else, practice makes perfect--yet in this case, the only "practice" you can get is by performing from memory. The more you perform, the better you get... That experience taught me to trust my powers and my judgment. (Amazing what you can do when you simply HAVE to. ;D)
Yes, indeed!! I found that I have been getting either too scared or lazy to play without the score. Over the years this has become a habit so I even put the closed score on the piano as a security blanket (just in case!!). But your words gave me some hope, even at my age...
ZB
In one competition I was singing two of the Wagner Wesendonk Lieder. I always have had problems getting pieces fully committed to memory, but inevitably there are usually one or two sticking places. I got through the difficult bits, then suddenly thought...I have no idea of the next line, so I made one up including the word 'Umfangen'. I saw my wife's head snap up to look intently at me; as she had helped me memorise the piece and she knew there was no such word in the song.
I found the proper next line and got second place, despite the slip-up. Ever after my memory lapses have been called 'One of your umfangen moments'.
Mike
Prokofiev has a few interesting things to say about this subject:
Quote
when a piece has been sufficiently learned with the music, one must try to remember it away from the piano, imagining the sound of the music in parallel with the way it is written, that is to say recalling the music through the ears at the same time as remembering how it looks to the eyes. This must be done slowly and meticulously, reconstructing in imagination every detail of every bar. This is the first stage. Stage two consists of recalling all the music aurally while training the visual side to recall not the score but the keyboard and the individual keys which are employed to produce the sound of the music in question. [...] The more one gradually succeeds in absorbing into memory the music, the more one can be sure that the piece is irrevocably stored in the memory, since when it is reproduced all three sorts of memory are combined: musical, visual and digital, each of them having first been exercised separately and only later integrated. [...] A practical advantage is that one can practice anywhere at any time: walking along the street, sitting in the tram, waiting in a queue, anywhere indeeed where one would be bored without this activity to engage the mind.
From Prokofiev's diary on November 4, 1913, as quoted in Orlando Figes, "Prokofiev Makes his Moves", New York Review of Books, May 10, 2007, p.42.
Well, if he used a computer to store the music (digital memory 0:)) no wonder he could brag about remembering it away from the piano... ;)
I think the real point is that people become so inflexible in such matters. If a pianist prefers to have the music, why should it matter? Certainly when recording it is entirely irrelevant. Some composers worked their pieces out to completion at the keyboard before committing a note to paper, others threw scrap after scrap into the bin and their manuscripts are covered with alterations. However, whatever the method it scarcely matters to us, the listeners.
It is a thing I could never understand either. I have not learned a single piece by heart since leaving music school. Of course, I'm an amateur, so I had no need for that but I also felt it would be a waste of time/energy.
[gratuitous commercial hyperlink removed $:)]
The choice is easy for me. I cannot fluently read sheet music at a rate that allows me to play solely from it. I practically have to memorize it. I do not have a problem forgetting parts because muscle memory takes over once I just think about a piece. It may be limiting to my repetoire in the future, but currently there is not enough piano music that I am both willing and able to play.
For professionals, I do usually do like to see the score in front of them, even if they just occasionally glance at it. I just think it is good practice...similar to wearing appropriate attire, having good posture, etc.
The "Problem" of score/no-score is almost entirely a psychological one.
The symbolic value of playing from memory indicates complete mastery.
That's not actually true, but it's a reasonable assumption and so far, so good.
But from that has developed a faulty inference that _not_ playing from memory means _not_ having complete mastery.
What audiences mind is not the use of the score, per se, but the association with the use of a score... which is, quite frankly, a second rate performance.
This is reinforced by the fact that most of the performances that do use a score actually _are_ second rate, since everyone who doesn't have to use a score won't... and since the first rate performers have--grudingly or not--learned to learn/play things by heart.
It's a social dynamic that's difficult to break, not unlike the "no clapping between movements" rule. If we knew that everyone clapping after the first movement of the Tchaikovsky First Piano Concerto were music critics/connoisseurs who, aware of there being three movements and aware of conventions, wanted to express their particular approval of that movement, we'd be perfectly happy with it and maybe even join in.
Since clapping after the first movement of the Tchaik PC, no matter how much the music screams for applause, is a sign of ignorance, noobism, we look upon them with disdain and hush them into the ground.
Same with the score/no score. We expect (and often get) mediocrity--and the only way to break out of that is through being made conscious of the irrelevance of performing with or without score, as long as the interpretation is sufficiently good.
What would help? If Maurizio Pollini performed with a score. If Murray Perahia performed with a score. If M.A.Hamelin performed with a score... players that no one would ever doubt not having the absolutely highest technical (and in the first two cases also the expressive) capabilities.
Short of that...
Meanwhile, when I see that Christian Thielemann--a conductor who has conditioned us to expecting memorization and connect them with extraordinary performances--brings the score to conduct, I fear the worst. ;D
Sometimes playing with score can be harder than playing without one.
http://www.youtube.com/v/ZG931XPV5VU
Quote from: Drasko on February 27, 2009, 01:17:17 PM
Sometimes playing with score can be harder than playing without one.
;D
I went to a Stockhausen recital recently and thought at the time that that must be a hard page-turning gig.
jlaurson Quote from: jlaurson on February 27, 2009, 12:51:15 PM
The "Problem" of score/no-score is almost entirely a psychological one.
The symbolic value of playing from memory indicates complete mastery.
That's not actually true, but it's a reasonable assumption and so far, so good.
But from that has developed a faulty inference that _not_ playing from memory means _not_ having complete mastery.
What audiences mind is not the use of the score, per se, but the association with the use of a score... which is, quite frankly, a second rate performance.
This is reinforced by the fact that most of the performances that do use a score actually _are_ second rate, since everyone who doesn't have to use a score won't... and since the first rate performers have--grudingly or not--learned to learn/play things by heart.
It's a social dynamic that's difficult to break, not unlike the "no clapping between movements" rule. If we knew that everyone clapping after the first movement of the Tchaikovsky First Piano Concerto were music critics/connoisseurs who, aware of there being three movements and aware of conventions, wanted to express their particular approval of that movement, we'd be perfectly happy with it and maybe even join in.
Since clapping after the first movement of the Tchaik PC, no matter how much the music screams for applause, is a sign of ignorance, noobism, we look upon them with disdain and hush them into the ground.
Same with the score/no score. We expect (and often get) mediocrity--and the only way to break out of that is through being made conscious of the irrelevance of performing with or without score, as long as the interpretation is sufficiently good.
What would help? If Maurizio Pollini performed with a score. If Murray Perahia performed with a score. If M.A.Hamelin performed with a score... players that no one would ever doubt not having the absolutely highest technical (and in the first two cases also the expressive) capabilities.
Short of that...
Meanwhile, when I see that Christian Thielemann--a conductor who has conditioned us to expecting memorization and connect them with extraordinary performances--brings the score to conduct, I fear the worst. ;D
Hi. I went to a performance of
Vingt regards a few years back by Peter Donohoe, who was interviewed beforehand, saying that some works get better when entirely from memory, and some don't. He seemed to be saying that in some cases it's best to keep your eye on the written layout of the music rather than trying to commit everything to memory: Yvonne Loriod played it from memory, and of course it has to be memorized in order to play it anyway, but Donohoe kept the score in front of him, watching the pages even in the super-fast sections.
Quote from: Maciek on April 20, 2007, 03:42:27 PM
Thanks, Scott! :)
On most of the concerts of contemporary music I've ever been to the music was played with the score. However, I do remember three outstanding piano recitals where the pianists (excellent pianists, needless to say!) played everything from memory: two were given by the Australian pianist Michael Kielan Harvey (in 1994 and 1995 but I still remember them!), and one by the French pianist Pierre-Laurent Aimard (in 2000 but, strangely enough, I remember this one a little less distinctly).
Oh, and both Krenz and Czyż often conducted contemporary stuff without the scores (sometimes even first performances!).
I have, however, seen Aimard play early pieces by Scriabin (badly) using the score. In the Barbican in London a few years ago. Most embarrassing!
I think he must be a crony of the director there, since I can't imagine anyone in their right mind hiring Aimard to play in a series of concerts of this composer.