Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner New York Times Article on Pianists playing with a score.

May I hasten to correct any implication from my earlier post that a piece is only 'half-learnt' if it cannot be played from memory. That applies purely to me, for pieces that I didn't care enough for to want to keep in my long-term repertoire - I'd then learn it well enough to play all the notes fluently, but with unavoidable hiccups during awkward page turns. (Before I embarked on my 'memorising spree', I'd spend time photocopying pages to avoid tricky page turns, sticking pages together with Sellotape etc; if necessary - and only as a last resort - memorizing a whole section to make it to an easier page-turning part of the music; or even buying a different edition that has a more 'page-turning friendly' layout of the music.)
When I was having lessons, of course my teacher would turn the pages for me, but these days I find I'm even practising 'built-in' missed notes from one hand, or pauses, just to turn pages....... ...since I don't ever get a chance to play from the score with someone doing the work for me.

With careful practice and decisions about where to turn a page, occasionally printing out of an extra measure and pasting at the bottom of the score, or even occasionally memorizing a few measures, I have found that it is possible to turn one's own pages without leaving out any notes or causing any hesitation/tempo change.

deleted due to post was in poor taste.

I sooooo agree. That just about covers every concert pianist of any repute, from Rachmaninoff and Horowitz to Michelangeli to Van Cliburn to Yuja Wang and Daniil Trifonov. Musical masturbators all!

Although I have recommended that amateurs use music if they wish(either to avoid nervousness about memory problems or to better spend the time involved in memorizing on other musical endeavors)I strongly disagree with this statement. For a long time it's simply been a requirement of professional performers to play from memory so these pianists had little choice in the matter from the time they began playing. In fact, I think it's almost inconceivable that professionals think about playing from memory in this way. I don't think many in the audience are thinking how impressive it is that the pianist is playing from memory. Anyone who has reached a reasonable level knows that for the most part memorizing is not so difficult, although not getting nervous about memory problems may not be so easy.

Some professionals may make performing into an ego trip, but I don't think the memory part is any part of this.

deleted because post was in poor taste for an international forum.

I would not agree with this.

Getting pieces to performance level takes work. Memorizing takes more work. And requiring memorization for performance means that a pianist has a very limited performance repertoire in any given year.

I agree that it takes more time if one has to memorize a work well enough to be secure but that was not at all the point I was making.

You said that those who play from memory are doing it as an ego trip to show they're better than amateurs who may not memorize as frequently. The only time I would be impressed or give the memorization part of a performance even the slightest thought would be if the program was particularly difficult in that area (like Schiff's recent performance of both books of the WTC). I think most in the audience with the possible exception of some of the non pianists think this way. In fact, I think the majority of pianists find memorizing a piece quite easy and only have to spend more time in this area because of the pressure of performing.

I find it inconceivable that the memory part of a recital is an ego trip for the performer.

Way off.

Why does playing from memory suddenly equate to some condescending personality? Nobody ever thinks "you silly peons and your sheet music". People who play from memory just prefer playing without the score. It's as simple as that. I don't understand why you are saying such things. All signs point to jealousy if you ask me. Instead of getting emotional and taking it out on others with said ability, keep practicing and get better at it.

Why do (some) teachers think that performing in public is the ultimate goal for a pianist? And why is a pianist who doesn't do so a 'nobody'?
If anyone is serious about becoming a concert pianist, they would have no problems accumulating - and keeping - a large amount of repertoire in their memory. If they did, surely they would have realized (or their teacher should have told them, if he/she was any good) that a concert pianist's life wasn't on the cards for them. There are lots of other ways to perform without being a soloist: as lieder accompanist or chamber musician for example, or repetiteur; none of which requires playing from memory.

I never thought of becoming a concert pianist; if any of my teachers insisted that I had to perform in public - with or without music - I'd change teachers. But if a student entered a music college where the requirements for graduation include a solo concert playing from memory, then they only have themselves to blame for their 'misery' if playing without the score made them miserable.

If a pianist isn't born to be a performer, being able to play from the music isn't going to change it.

I don't think anyone has been told not to play from memory. But plenty have been told not to play using the score.

I'm simply saying I don't agree with the attitude that performances must be played from memory.

As to why I said "such things"...it just popped into my mind and I thought it was funny. But I can see my sense of humor bombed in this corner. (Creeps back to teacher forum.)

Edit: I deleted some of my previous posts. What seemed hilarious last night, I found to be in poor taste this morning.

I don't think there is anything wrong with professionals using music. However, doing a full work from memory is more entertaining and thus more marketable.

For me, how entertaining a performance is has nothing to do with whether the score is used. And, of course with very rare exceptions all orchestral and chamber works are performed with he score.

Interesting thread, though so far I have only lurked. Rather than quoting posts which I either agree or disagree with, I'll just put out my feelings.

I don't attend many solo or orchestral concerts. (Chamber, choral, organ and opera are generally more of interest.) Being busy with a full time job, a concert has to either feature a performer I'm anxious to see live, or repertoire which is sufficiently out of the mainstream or dear to my heart. (I cannot see myself going to the symphony and hearing the Schumann concerto followed by a Brahms symphony.)

But when I do attend a recital or featured concerto, I expect the performer to play for memory. Part of the concert experience for me is the visual aspect, and I find page turners distracting. I do not feel I got my money's worth. What is the point of going to a piano recital wherein the Beethoven Op 81a or the Liszt B minor is played with music? Any major concert pianist can do those for memory, so why watch some silly pretender using the music?

(No concert pianist myself, but at uni I always played everything for memory, including the Beethoven Op 53 and Schumann Op 13.)

Exceptions of course. Stephen Hough used the music for a complicated Kenneth Leighton piece (btw, he turned his own pages), and I didn't have a problem with that.

(Another exception: Richter. He played with music at the end of his life, but his Olympian status was another matter. Alas, I am too young to have heard him live.)

Concertos are designed to showcase the soloist, and to me it is particularly disconcerting to watch a page turner hovering nearby. Yet twice I attended concerts wherein the concertos were not played for memory. Neither concerto (Busoni and Reger) is in Elliott Carter territory, so why weren't they memorized? A frustrating experience to watch, as both of those concertos are superbly conceived for the star of the show.

We can broaden our discussion to singers and actors. Who would go to an opera where the diva was holding music in her hands while singing her last in La Traviata? Or reading from the auto cue? Or go to a Shakespeare play where the actor intoned ''To read or not to read, that is the question" while clutching his script? But we easily accept the solo singers in oratorios and cantatas (but not in Lieder recitals) singing from the music, just as we accept chamber musicians - string quartets etc - playing from the score. Because no single musician is the star of the show, whereas in a song recital, the singer clearly is. So, his accompanist can (and is expected to) use music.

Going back into history, Liszt started the tradition of the solo piano recital, where the pianist is the star, and so the piano is placed sideways on to the audience so that they can see his flashing hands and fingers as well as admire his noble profile . Naturally, playing from memory followed - why have the distraction of a page-turner getting up from his seat every minute?

In other words, the whole package of the solo piano recital includes playing from memory. Something an aspiring young pianist should ponder when deciding on his future aspirations.

Incidentally, more and more conductors are conducting from memory - complete Mahler symphonies and all......

I don't think that memorization is, nor should it be, a one-size-fits all proposition. Every pianist is different, and in regards to memorization there are all sorts of variables. Although the accepted standard for solo recitals is that most standard repertoire will be memorized, if a pianist's music-making is compelling, I could care less if they use the score or not.

I've seen a good number of concert mishaps relating to memory by wonderful pianists, and there's not a single time that I would have preferred the mishap to hearing them play the same music using a score. To me, it's high time some excellent pianist arrives on the scene who always uses the score for everything, right from the beginning of their career. That would put the kabosh on the notion that memorization is crucial.

And too, why is it more acceptable for a solo instrumentalist other than a pianist to use the score in their recitals, which seems to be the case? They don't have nearly as many notes to deal with as a pianist.

If one goes to a piano recital with all or mostly contemporary music, chances are the pianist will play the recital with the score.

As far as the idea that a soloist in recital or concerto is the "star" and must look like a star by playing without the music, I think that is mostly tradition. If one heard Stern, Rose, and Istomin playing trios(all with the music) there are still three star performers on the stage so its mostly the performers and their performances that make stars.

Would Peter Serkin or Aimard playing a contemporary recital with music, Richter playing a recital with the music, or one of the great pianists of the 19th century performing before playing from memory before this became standard be considered any less of a star by most in the audience because they used the music?

I do agree that the visual aspect is important but I think it's of relatively minor importance compared to the musical composition and what the pianist does with music. Personally I do prefer to hear a recital without the pianist using the score but it's not the most important aspect. I also think if the pianists used Airturn when they played with the music, they could remove any distraction caused by a page turner.

Solo instrumentalists playing concertos don't use the score in performance - whether string, woodwind or brass. Maybe percussion (but that's often because they play contemporary music).

But they tend to do so when playing with piano accompaniment, because I suppose it's chamber music then. However, when a violinist (or cellist) plays all by himself (Bach, Ysaÿe, Britten etc), they often play without a score.

And singers rarely ever use a score in song recitals.

I've been to a few piano recitals where the pianist used the score in one or two pieces - Pollini in Stockhausen, Grimaud in Berg - but not in the rest of their program. For me, it was the page-turner getting up every so often that was distracting, rather than the actual reading from the music itself. Pollini managed without one by sticking several pages together, and it seemed perfectly natural. (The music - Klavierstück IX among others - made perfect sense when played from the music..... )

Opera is at least somewhat different because there is acting and a dramatic production happening on stage so holding a score would interfere with the drama.