Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner playing from memory/score

That says it all for me.

LOL - Great!

Was it her or Liszt?

For the last year or so playing from memory has freaked me out to no end. I think I'm going to steer away to chamber music - I enjoy it so much more. Plus I'm not good enough for solo anyway.

Richter said, it's IMPOSSIBLE to memorize everything, every single detail of so many pieces and get them right all the time. Hence he used a score. And I think he's right! As for interpretation being more free when there's no music - would you say chamber music interpretations are dull? You can still have tons of freedom and not have a heart attack over a memory slip.

I ran a personal experiment about 4 years ago. I had two performances of the same program about 3 months apart. I played the first recital all from memory, but on the second performance, I played one of the pieces (Bach Eb French Suite) with the score.

I know, it's highly unscientific, but my conclusion was that having the score was different, but not better or worse, easier or harder.

For the past two years, most of my performing activity has been collaborative, so I've been using scores for everything. Using the score is a different skill, and one that needs to be developed, but I don't feel that it's easier. Memorizing can be a bit more time-consuming, but I don't feel that it necessarily results in a better performance. (Nor do I think playing from the score results in a more secure performance - slips can still creep in!)

For a professional soloist, I think playing from memory is important because it's expected, and using the score could distract audiences. (Unless, like Richter, you've established yourself and have reached an age where your memory is not as secure as it once was.) For students, I think it's very important to memorize - it's a wonderful mental exercise with enormous benefits. But for amateur musicians or occasional performers, I don't see a compelling reason to play from memory if using the score makes you feel more comfortable.

If I remember correctly - and if the sources were accurate : It was Clara Schumann who really began the idea of performing from memory, while it was Franz Liszt who is given credit for having "invented" the solo piano recital. Before the solo piano recital, most piano performances were part of concerts in which almost everything featured: vocal works, solo instrumental works, orchestral works and concerto movements.

Regards,

Richter didn't use a score because he couldn't memorize. He used it because he realized it's impossible to honour every detail a composer has established.

Not what it says as the main reason on page 213 of Richter's very recent bio by Rasmussen. It says it was to "free himself of the psychological pressure of playing without the score".

Really? I think in the enigma he says otherwise. But even then, to free himself of the psychological issues doesn't mean he couldn't memorize.

Yes, not that he couldn't memorize but probably that he didn't want to have the pressure of having memory slips anymore. The book says he had been playing[on and off]without the score for a while but decided to do it on a permanent basis after a particularly disaterous performance on some of the Liszt Transcendental Etudes.

Rubinstein once said that an interesting part of going to see Cortot perform was waiting for the inevitable memory lapse. (not an exact quote) Nonetheless, do you think there is a "train wreck" component in performance that increases the thrill for audiences? Do audiences naturally respond to a heightened sense of imminent failure? And does score reading diminish this sense?

You mean does every concert goer have an inner ice hockey fan?

Cathy

Well..Yes! Or Nascar, if you prefer.


But not everyone! I'm sure there are still many who attend merely to show their status in life.

I can't speak for others, but I know that as an audience member if I sense that there is any threat of memory lapse on the part of the performer it heightens my distraction level and inhibits the pleasure of listening to the performance. I guess that there will always be some who get some kind of thrill to see others wallow in difficulty or fail.

Regards,

But maybe not even on a conscience level, does the sight of a score to a(n) (non-pianist) audience member indicate a sort of "cheating" that lessens the accomplishment?

When it comes to recitals and other public performances, I must admit, I strongly favor playing from memory.

When the score is up and the pages are being turned by the player or a page turner - it lessens the drama and the risk in my opinion.

And I do think the risk of public performance is a big part of its appeal for audiences.

Absolutely! Even for Texas fans, Texas vs. Baylor isn't nearly as exciting as Texas vs. Oklahoma precisely because they might lose.

The sports analogy only really works for competition performances, though, and I include in that recitals that feel like competition programs. (You know, like when people program the Liszt sonata *and* a Rachmaninoff sonata *and* top it off with late Beethoven. Part of the allure of that kind of program is "can they do it?"

For other performances, the sports analogy doesn't hold. Like last week at our state conference where Brian Ganz programmed Beethoven 109 and a bunch of miscellaneous Chopin. It was the kind of program that would never win a competition or appear at a conservatory or music festival, but it was the kind of program that everyone in the audience LOVED. There was no sport or competition, only the enjoyment of great music.

I think part of the brilliance of Horowitz's programs was that he included both. There was the athletic, sporting heroism of a Liszt Mephisto Waltz or Carmen Fantasy, and there was also the intimate, "let's sit back and enjoy" Mozart sonata. You even see it in his encores: Etincelles and Traumerei, for example.

Also an aside, I'd say the two approaches I just mentioned can be applied to the same piece. For example, when I watch this performance, I feel like I'm a participant in a conversation about Schumann.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQOi1ehF754

While in this performance of the same piece, I feel more like a spectator watching someone accomplish something - a feeling supported by the artist herself through the "behind-the-scenes" look at the production as she opens the video by telling us about the challenge of getting her material recorded before she moves on to the next round of engagements.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0lLtkN47tg

Both are wonderful performances, but they feel completely different.

What you're thinking of is a story that Andrei Gavrilov tells (that I've recounted here before a few times) about a conversation that he and Richter had once.

---------------------------------------------

“you know Andrei there is no such thing as interpretation”. I was looking at him interrogatively waiting continuation, he continued – “You know why I am starting to play with music on the stand? I am starting to play with music because I am getting crazy of trying to remember all the composer’s marks in my music!”.
I said that it is of course almost impossible to memorize every line or point or accent, impossible or one will play a couple of pieces for a life time.
Slava laughed and continued – “yes, yes, and here on the stage we start "interpreting" (it was said with great sarcastic and sardonic smile, Slava was very expressive in his mimic). We start “interpreting” the piece making it far away from what composer wants. We play frustrated ourselves but not the composer”.
At that time Richter was already obsessed with the idea that as soon as he will execute all the composer’s wishes fully punctual he would achieve the direct hit into the heart of any composition and will put to the end “bloody interpretation", the word which he dreamed to eliminate from musicians vocabulary.

---------------------------------------------

The conversation can be found on Gavrilov's site (I don't have the address handy, but have copied and save some things of interest I've found there).

I do!!! GO WINGS!!!

I attended a recital a few months ago by a former Van Cliburn winner. The final major work on the program was one with which I had a bad performance experience many years ago (a memory slip in the final movement caused me to panic and ruin the performance). Interestingly enough, the Van Cliburn winner had a memory slip in exactly the SAME PLACE in the score - and while he managed to continue it was clear that he was rattled - and his playing was very tenuous from that point on. Many in the audience seemed well aware of what was happening, and the artist received only "polite" applause at the conclusion of the performance. I personally did not get a thrill from watching the well-known gentleman wallow in difficulty. It was like watching a train wreck !! Ultimately, however, I felt a little better about my own unfortunate experience with the piece.