What does it mean to "know" a piece?

[Bob]

(Sorry if this has been asked before.  I'm almost sure it has.  I'll do a search later and link it here hopefully.  Searchwords: master, finish)


What should you be able to do?  What should you know about that piece?

There are levels of knowing a piece -- whether you want it in your repertoire, if you're performing it, if you just want to know more about it, if you're sight-reading it?

What should you be able to know about a piece while sight-reading, on first lookover, after first round of studying?

mirrored at:  http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/2/6678.html

===========================
Workspace:
Some of my ideas....

What does it mean to know a piece?
- being able to hear it in your mind
- that you can play it
- probably that you have it memorized
- performing it, real performances, will help to impress it on your mind more deeply
- recording it too, with a very detailed listening/analysis to follow
- that you've gone through the process of learning it completely
   - What does it mean to learn a piece completely
- Keep in mind, there are varying degree of knowing/learning a piece.  It's not necessarily to learn all

pieces with the same about of depth.
- Some specifics?
   - memorize the melody (really any line)
      - be able to sing it
      - be able to play it (thumbs) on the piano
      - be able to play it in any key
   - memorize the bass line (if there is one)
   - memorize the chords, chord progressions, member voicing
   - Analyze it for all this
      - Problem:  It's not reading though.
   - Be able to play it with all things changed- slow/fast, loud/soft, voicing different, rit/accel,

etc., different articulation
      - You really need to make a list of these and all combinations.
   - different angle:  It shouldn't take up all your mental ability.  You should still be able to

think while playing it.
      - and no hesitation
   - It should probably fit into your schedule with everyting else.  Otherwise, maybe it's too big? 

Balanced with you.
   - be able to play 10% faster than performance tempo
   - Make sure everything's the way you want it -- dynamics, articulation, voicing, etc.
   - Find and listen to some recordings
   - composer information
   - angle: your interpretation.  You can also check out other's interpretations.
*** Make this the first part of the thread -- Your summary, your workspace.
   - technique -- If you don't have it, you probably won't get it on the piece.  You should probably

pick an easier piece and work on developing the technique.  Or screw it, and make this a botched piece

that you don't end up playing well, but develop more technique on.

[Nina_too]

Do you mean in the Biblical sense??  

[Hmoll]

Do you mean in the Biblical sense??  

Very funny Nina.

[Bob]

Do you mean in the Biblical sense??  

  Why yes, I did mean the Biblical sense.  Only the truly enlightened are able to devine this though.        Just joking.   

Any ideas?   Anyone want to do that search for me?

[bernhard]

(Sorry if this has been asked before.  I'm almost sure it has.  I'll do a search later and link it here hopefully.  Searchwords: master, finish)


What should you be able to do?  What should you know about that piece?

There are levels of knowing a piece -- whether you want it in your repertoire, if you're performing it, if you just want to know more about it, if you're sight-reading it?

What should you be able to know about a piece while sight-reading, on first lookover, after first round of studying?

mirrored at:  http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/2/6678.html

Ralph Kirkpatrick pretty much answered this question in his preface to his edition of Scarlati sonatas for Schirmer. Have a look.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Bob]

Cool.    (looks forward to reading/studying it)

[Bob]

I still wonder about this, don't you?

[ramseytheii]

I still wonder about this, don't you?

Well did you read the preface?!  tell us what it said.

Walter Ramsey

[matraveo]

To know a piece is bieng able to play the song from begining to end with out hesitation. It should almost be second nature. The only song i can say i know would be Chopin's Nocture op. 66, the rest of the songs on paper that i have to read i would consider learning in progress, and eventually playing enough to know.

Also knowing the title of the song and the composer of what your plaing might be helpful, just a thought.

[Bob]

Also knowing the title of the song and the composer of what your plaing might be helpful, just a thought.

mmmm... That is good to know, yes. 

[pianowolfi]

To know the piece is to be the piece, I think.

[wishful thinker]

I was watching an interview with Rubinstein on the DVD Art of Piano the other day, and was struck by something that he said.

He was referring to why people go to concerts, rather than listening to recordings, and he said, in relation to what he plays "who knows what will happen; anything can happen" or words to that effect.

And to me, that is the difference that comes when you really know a piece well, something unpredictable happens, because the music takes on its own life.

You'll know it when it happens 

[Bob]

Well did you read the preface?! tell us what it said.

Walter Ramsey

Kirkpatrick has information in the first of two volumes of Scarlatti sonatas.  The info is only in vol 1, nothing in two.

He lists info about the sonatas, the composer, and then has a series of questions and answers grouped by topic.    Some questions he answers, some he just asks -- He wants the reader to ask them of themselves and about the piece.

I'm still reading through the thing.  At first, I thought it wasn't quite what I'm looking for.  The more I read it, the more I see ideas.  I think it's close.  It doesn't seem quite "complete" though.

I think I was thinking "know" the piece in terms of understanding it and learning the sounds in your head.  Kirkpatrick sits in the land of physical technique for awhile -- fingering ideas, becoming comfortable with the technique.  I meant -- if technique were not a concern at all I think.

I'm thinking it's probably one of those questions that is so broad and so vague, I'll never have a complete answer.  But I can get closer to one.

[phil39]

i wouldn't dare play a piece in public unless i could think through all the notes in my head. i need to be able to a run complete imaginary 'video' in my head of every fingering and every detail of expression, to literally 'see' my fingers on the keys from beginning to end of the piece. it's ok to run this video in 'slow motion' because it's not an easy mental exercise, as long as i've proved to myself i can actually play it for real at full speed at the piano.
this mental practise side of things away from the piano is what i think of as really 'knowing' a piece. at the same time you know it 'in the ears', that is you play it through your head in every detail and thinking of exactly how you want to express it, and if necessary visualizing what technique you need to use to get the effects.
i guess essentially we are talking about memorizing here, a good idea for a whole new thread! but obviously closely related to this topic in my IMO
to sum up...  knowing a piece is having it memorized, both at the piano and in the minds eye and in the ears, with all the notes and interpretation. then you really feel as though you 'own it', it's yours, part of you.

[michael_langlois]

If you are able to write out the entire piece from memory, I think that is a good indication.