How Do You Learn New Repertoire?

[pianoperfmajor]

I'm starting a bunch of new repertoire and I'm wondering how you all go about this initial learning stage.  This is usually the toughest and most time-consuming part for me--learning all the raw notes off the page.


How do you all go about learning new pieces--especially long ones--quickly?

[steve jones]

First, I like to listen to recordings of the music while reading the score.

If its a longer piece then I might chop it up into sections. For instance, sonata movements can easily be hacked up in the main sections. And ofcourse, when you realise that much of the piece is made up from the exposition it makes it so much easier to remember.

When I get to the piano, I take managed portions (sometimes a phrase, sometimes a few bars) and I work on it HS until its under my fingers. Then I move on to the next bit, and so on.

Sometimes it is worth considering the order you learn before hand, as anything technically challenging is likely to take longer to  learn. So if you start those bits first, you should get them sorted around the same time as the easier bits.

SJ

[thalbergmad]

1. Get the sheets.
2. Locate a good recording.
3. Get the music into your brain.
4. Go throught it on the piano and mark in all the fingerings.
5. Gradually build up the speed to correct tempo.
6. Chuck in the dynamics and special little bits.
7. The End

Thal

[pianochild]

Time, Dedication and Practise ! - Its not easy to learn a repertoire from scratch, so do 1 or 2 pieces at a time otherwised youll get confused ( Whell i do )

 Danny

[mike_lang]

1. Study the score to decide what you will do with it musically (you cannot practice anything without a musical intention).

(1a.  Listen, perhaps to a few recordings for ideas.)

2. Play each hand separately, slowly, in order to find good fingerings.

3. Practice each hand separately, then together, still very slowly.

4. Memorize each hand separately and together.  Still practice slowly, but add moderate tempo, and when you feel ready, try the piece a tempo.

4a. Practice away from the piano, look through the score, listen to recordings, study other music by the composer, etc.

It is good to learn fast, but speed means nothing if you don't learn it well.

Best,
ML

[lagin]

I personally:

1. Play through it a few times to get somewhat familiar with the shape of it.

2.  Memorize one line at a time.  (Note:  I DO NOT memorize it fluently at this time.  For example, once I can play line one without looking at the music once, I then do line two, but I do not often bother to then do lines one and two together from memory, or worry about being able to play line one later on that day or even later on that page from memory).  This is simply a step in becoming more familiar with the music.

3.  I then alternate playing it with the music (which is so much easier and more fluent now that I have gotten even more familiar with itby"memorizing" it), at which time I write in fingerings in the tricky spots and dynamics, and then I play it by "memory" looking as often as necessary at the music but trying to use it as little as possible at the same time.

4.  Then once I have it fairly fluent with the music and a descent head start on the memory process by doing step 3 a few times, I work on getting a good performance of the piece with the music but not at speed.  How I do this is by playing with the music and FULLY memorizing the lines that require lots of jumping ect.  When I finish this, about 1/3 of the piece is REALLY memorized from necessity and I can give a fluent performance at my lessons.  At the same time, if I lose my place, the rest of the "memorized" parts can sometimes hold there own while I find my place on the music again. 

5.  Then I work on memorizing properly the rest of it, which doesn't take long because the tricky bits are already done. 

6.  Then I work on playing it as musically as possible and at the same time gradually build up the speed now that it's memorized and fluent. 

Note:  I play with full dynamics from step 3 onwards whenever I'm using the music.  I play with full dynamics from memory during step 4.

This is just my "method" that I'm trying this year.  I have to be able to have it ready to work on in my lessons which is why I'm careful to not let memorizing slow down my learning of the piece.  I have tried memorizing it "properly" right from the get go, but found that I could play the first half of my pieces wonderfully in my lessons from memory, but couldn't even begin to work on the last half with my teacher, due to all my time being spent on just the first half.  This way, I can always "play" it, so we can work on interpretive stuff, but the memory work gets done, too.  Oh, and I listen to recordings once and a while too, particularly during step 3 when I'm writing in dynamic ideas.

[gonzalo]

I'm starting a bunch of new repertoire and I'm wondering how you all go about this initial learning stage.  This is usually the toughest and most time-consuming part for me--learning all the raw notes off the page.


How do you all go about learning new pieces--especially long ones--quickly?

Here:

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2255.msg19129.html#msg19129
(practising long pieces – Good discussion if one should or should not listen to CDs - Slow motion practice, comparison with walking/running)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,5767.msg56133.html
( HUGE COLLECTION OF LINKS)


Anyway, ORDER YOUR REPERTOIRE FROM EASIEST TO DIFFICULT.

[mike_lang]

Remember, you cannot memorize music before you know it.

Best,
ML

[walking_encyclopedia]

Time, Dedication and Practise ! - Its not easy to learn a repertoire from scratch, so do 1 or 2 pieces at a time otherwised youll get confused ( Whell i do )

 Danny

if i learn one piece (or two) at a time i find learning it monotonous. i prefer starting a full program and working on all at the same time. like right now i'm working on bach prelude and fugue, mozart sonata, chopin etudes, chopin ballade, and a concerto. i'm planning to add some prokofiev to all that. it's a great feeling when you finish a full program and start performing it.

yes, learning the notes is a time-consuming part, but very necessary. like right now, i'm totally blitzing the concerto that i got the music for a couple days ago. learn hands alone, maybe ten pages or so! seriously it works! don't put your hands together until you have each part nailed down. make sure to take tons of time over the fingering. i sometimes spend a half hour on fingering just one page, trying millions of different ways to finger it and coming up with innovative fingerings and crossovers.

once you've totally learned each hand for about ten pages or so, start putting them together at a very slow speed while beginning the next ten pages. this is the best way to learn fast without making costly mistakes.

good luck

danny

[mike_lang]

if i learn one piece (or two) at a time i find learning it monotonous. i prefer starting a full program and working on all at the same time. like right now i'm working on bach prelude and fugue, mozart sonata, chopin etudes, chopin ballade, and a concerto. i'm planning to add some prokofiev to all that. it's a great feeling when you finish a full program and start performing it.

yes, learning the notes is a time-consuming part, but very necessary. like right now, i'm totally blitzing the concerto that i got the music for a couple days ago. learn hands alone, maybe ten pages or so! seriously it works! don't put your hands together until you have each part nailed down. make sure to take tons of time over the fingering. i sometimes spend a half hour on fingering just one page, trying millions of different ways to finger it and coming up with innovative fingerings and crossovers.

once you've totally learned each hand for about ten pages or so, start putting them together at a very slow speed while beginning the next ten pages. this is the best way to learn fast without making costly mistakes.

good luck

danny

I often find that I can save time fingering if I do it very slowly.  That way my hand finds the most natural way to sit over the keys, and I do not have to try millions of fingerings.  It is true that it is important to spend quality time fingering these pieces, but it is also important not to waste time.  As a rule, do what comes naturally, not what is "innovative."

Best,
ML

[moi_not_toi]

You all say you listen to a recording, but my teacher says not to listen to one.
She says it's cause she wants us to get our OWN interpretation.

[pianote]

eh, i just listen to a recording of the piece once or twice to get a general idea of the structure / overall feeling of the piece. that way when I start learning it from pure scratch I know how to locate the musical phrases better. then once I've learned / memorized it I put in all the interpretation that I want / see fit...


...to each his / her own.

[bernhard]

You all say you listen to a recording, but my teacher says not to listen to one.
She says it's cause she wants us to get our OWN interpretation.

So, does this mean that you never go to concerts where your piece is being played?

Come to think of it, you should not listen to any piano music in any form, after all you don´t know you may want to play it in the future and that may influence your interpretation.

Yes, my teachers were also fond of talking nonsense.

Have a look here for the complete argument for listening to CDs (as many as possible):

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2255.msg19129.html#msg19129
(practising long pieces – Good discussion if one should or should not listen to CDs - Slow motion practice, comparison with walking/running)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[mike_lang]

So, does this mean that you never go to concerts where your piece is being played?

Come to think of it, you should not listen to any piano music in any form, after all you don´t know you may want to play it in the future and that may influence your interpretation.

Yes, my teachers were also fond of talking nonsense.

Have a look here for the complete argument for listening to CDs (as many as possible):

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2255.msg19129.html#msg19129
(practising long pieces – Good discussion if one should or should not listen to CDs - Slow motion practice, comparison with walking/running)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

I just want to throw out two ideas that I found helpful.  My teacher, Emilio del Rosario, told me to get a piece in my ear by playing through them; I should not have rely on a recording to learn the piece.  His argument was that if I were to play a very modern piece, and a recording was not yet available, I would be sunk. 

I also remember Andre Watts saying once in an interview that if you are the sort of person who is influenced by others' recordings, you are in the wrong business.  I think this is very true, that if you cannot go to a performance without automatically imitating that artist afterward, you are in fact not disposed to this art.

Best,
ML

[gorbee natcase]

Weather or not you listen to a piece, If you have an interpretation worthy or better than the recording then it should shine through all outside thought like the sound of an Enzo Ferrari over a Ford GT

[brewtality]

I just want to throw out two ideas that I found helpful.  My teacher, Emilio del Rosario, told me to get a piece in my ear by playing through them; I should not have rely on a recording to learn the piece.  His argument was that if I were to play a very modern piece, and a recording was not yet available, I would be sunk.

Those are two big 'ifs' (unless you are a fan of modern music), and it seems a weak argument to not listen to recordings merely for those reasons. Also, a person who listens to recordings isn't necessarily reliant on them. I'm not saying that sight-reading through pieces is bad, but no matter how good a sight-reader one is, it is easier to familarise oneself with the repetoire through recordings.

I also remember Andre Watts saying once in an interview that if you are the sort of person who is influenced by others' recordings, you are in the wrong business.  I think this is very true, that if you cannot go to a performance without automatically imitating that artist afterward, you are in fact not disposed to this art.

Best,
ML

Hofmann once said that he was influenced by two pianists; his master Anton Rubinstein and his compatriot Moritz Rosenthal. I doubt that Watts would dare suggest that Hofmann was in the wrong business.

[ahinton]

First, I like to listen to recordings of the music while reading the score.

2. Locate a good recording.

(1a. Listen, perhaps to a few recordings for ideas.)

Oh, and I listen to recordings once and a while too, particularly during step 3 when I'm writing in dynamic ideas.

You all say you listen to a recording, but my teacher says not to listen to one.
She says it's cause she wants us to get our OWN interpretation.

eh, i just listen to a recording of the piece once or twice to get a general idea of the structure / overall feeling of the piece.

(practising long pieces – Good discussion if one should or should not listen to CDs

Well, that's not even all the posts so far that have referred to listening to recordings. What if the only recording/s ever made of the piece you're learning no longer exist? What if there have never been any such recordings? What if you are preparing the première of the piece and you don't even have the benefit of experience of anyone else's live performance/s as any kind of guide?

It seems pretty obvious to me that any kind of reliance on existing recordings has a very limited useful function and, if it cannot be depended upon as part of the process of learning all repertoire, shouldn't we question the extent of its possible validity in all cases?

Whilst I do realise that no one here is advocating listening to existing recordings as an essential and inevitable part of the learning process, it must nevertheless be true that anyone who depends on this has already decided (even if only indirectly and subconsciously in some cases) never to learn any new or other previously unrecorded repertoire. Can you imagine, for example, what Ronald Smith would have done in his early pioneering days had he depended upon other pianists' existing recordings of Alkan?

Best,

Alistair

[mike_lang]

Those are two big 'ifs' (unless you are a fan of modern music), and it seems a weak argument to not listen to recordings merely for those reasons. Also, a person who listens to recordings isn't necessarily reliant on them. I'm not saying that sight-reading through pieces is bad, but no matter how good a sight-reader one is, it is easier to familarise oneself with the repetoire through recordings.

Hofmann once said that he was influenced by two pianists; his master Anton Rubinstein and his compatriot Moritz Rosenthal. I doubt that Watts would dare suggest that Hofmann was in the wrong business.

I suppose I didn't clarify my reasoning well enough.

It is not that everyone who listens to a recording is relying on it.  It is that one should be able to learn a piece without needing to listen to a recording.  In my own opinion, it is best in the early stages to learn without a recording, and perhaps listen for ideas as an understanding of the music develops.  This does not require a prodigious sight-reading ability.  It can be as simple as playing one of the parts at a time (the key being to get it in the ear), playing each hand separately, and maybe trying them together at an incredibly slow tempo.  Recordings are nice, but should not be a crutch.

I may have misquoted Watts - I do not remember if he used the exact word "influence" or not.  In any case, his meaning was not that we do not have influences as pianists.  Of course, we are all influenced by someone.  His point is that some pianists fear going to concerts or listening to recordings, lest their own interpretation be unwillingly affected for the worse.  It is one thing to take a good idea from a performer, as a creative seed, but it is another thing altogether to have such unstable artistry that one's interpretation automatically imitates the last performance heard.  (In short, there are people who are influenced negatively by performances, and it changes their interpretations without their control, even though they may disagree with the interpretation if they were to think about it, and these are the people that should not be in the business, not Rubinstein.)

Best,
ML 

[brewtality]

Ok I see what you were getting at.

[ahinton]

I suppose I didn't clarify my reasoning well enough.

It is not that everyone who listens to a recording is relying on it.  It is that one should be able to learn a piece without needing to listen to a recording.  In my own opinion, it is best in the early stages to learn without a recording, and perhaps listen for ideas as an understanding of the music develops.  This does not require a prodigious sight-reading ability.  It can be as simple as playing one of the parts at a time (the key being to get it in the ear), playing each hand separately, and maybe trying them together at an incredibly slow tempo.  Recordings are nice, but should not be a crutch.

I may have misquoted Watts - I do not remember if he used the exact word "influence" or not.  In any case, his meaning was not that we do not have influences as pianists.  Of course, we are all influenced by someone.  His point is that some pianists fear going to concerts or listening to recordings, lest their own interpretation be unwillingly affected for the worse.  It is one thing to take a good idea from a performer, as a creative seed, but it is another thing altogether to have such unstable artistry that one's interpretation automatically imitates the last performance heard.  (In short, there are people who are influenced negatively by performances, and it changes their interpretations without their control, even though they may disagree with the interpretation if they were to think about it, and these are the people that should not be in the business, not Rubinstein.)

Very well put!

Best,

Alistair

[bernhard]

Well, that's not even all the posts so far that have referred to listening to recordings. What if the only recording/s ever made of the piece you're learning no longer exist? What if there have never been any such recordings? What if you are preparing the première of the piece and you don't even have the benefit of experience of anyone else's live performance/s as any kind of guide?

It seems pretty obvious to me that any kind of reliance on existing recordings has a very limited useful function and, if it cannot be depended upon as part of the process of learning all repertoire, shouldn't we question the extent of its possible validity in all cases?

Whilst I do realise that no one here is advocating listening to existing recordings as an essential and inevitable part of the learning process, it must nevertheless be true that anyone who depends on this has already decided (even if only indirectly and subconsciously in some cases) never to learn any new or other previously unrecorded repertoire. Can you imagine, for example, what Ronald Smith would have done in his early pioneering days had he depended upon other pianists' existing recordings of Alkan?

Best,

Alistair

Once upon a time no recordings of any kind existed. The only way to know what a piece sounded like was to have the good luck to attend a concert where such piece was played, or to sight-read through it. In fact in the 19th century there was a huge market for piano transcriptions of orchestral works simply because sight-reading and playing them on a piano was the only way to hear them at all.

Even in my younger years, it was almost impossible to listen to recordings because classical recordings were extremely expensive and the repertory limited to the most famous warhorses.

The point is not to rely on recordings but to use whatever means are at one´s disposal to help one learn a piece. For instance, rhythm notation is notoriously inaccurate. Rather than trying to figure out mathematically from the score what a certain rhythm should sound like, a much better approach is to compare a midi derived from a notation software (which will render the rhythm mathematically according to notation) and a number of recordings. The comparison will immediately teach the student the range he is allowed by rhythm notation. If this is done form the very beginning, soon there will come a time when the student will intuitively look at the score and hear the proper rhythm in his mind, in spite of notation shortcomings.

Just because Bach had his eyes operated on without anaesthetics, does not mean we have to do the same. He had no choice. We have.

Sure in the cases you mentioned there is no choice, so one will have to rely on the score alone. But I firmly believe that the art of relying on the score alone can be learned much faster by using any technology available: midis, recordings, videos, etc. that will allow us to compare the model (the score) with the reality it models (the music), and do the reverse path to modeling: undistort the model´s distortions, specify its generalizations and supply its deletions, in short interpretation.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[thalbergmad]

Even in my younger years, it was almost impossible to listen to recordings.

Yeh, not easy to find bamboo for the gramaphone needles .

I have to listen to recordings as my sight reading skills do not exist.

As i have not planned any world premieres, i hope to continue using this method.

Thal

[ahinton]

I have to listen to recordings as my sight reading skills do not exist.

It's never too late to start developing them...

As i have not planned any world premieres, i hope to continue using this method.

It's never too late to start...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

OK, I will be giving the world premier of Thalbergs - 2 Russian Airs Op17, in my garage on 15th October 2006.

There is seating for 6 and the entrance fee is 2 bottles of guiness.

Tickets on a first come first served basis.

Thal

[quantum]

Once upon a time no recordings of any kind existed. The only way to know what a piece sounded like was to have the good luck to attend a concert where such piece was played, or to sight-read through it. In fact in the 19th century there was a huge market for piano transcriptions of orchestral works simply because sight-reading and playing them on a piano was the only way to hear them at all.

Even in my younger years, it was almost impossible to listen to recordings because classical recordings were extremely expensive and the repertory limited to the most famous warhorses.

The point is not to rely on recordings but to use whatever means are at one´s disposal to help one learn a piece. For instance, rhythm notation is notoriously inaccurate. Rather than trying to figure out mathematically from the score what a certain rhythm should sound like, a much better approach is to compare a midi derived from a notation software (which will render the rhythm mathematically according to notation) and a number of recordings. The comparison will immediately teach the student the range he is allowed by rhythm notation. If this is done form the very beginning, soon there will come a time when the student will intuitively look at the score and hear the proper rhythm in his mind, in spite of notation shortcomings.

Just because Bach had his eyes operated on without anaesthetics, does not mean we have to do the same. He had no choice. We have.

Sure in the cases you mentioned there is no choice, so one will have to rely on the score alone. But I firmly believe that the art of relying on the score alone can be learned much faster by using any technology available: midis, recordings, videos, etc. that will allow us to compare the model (the score) with the reality it models (the music), and do the reverse path to modeling: undistort the model´s distortions, specify its generalizations and supply its deletions, in short interpretation.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

I completely agree. 

It's just like saying, practice using a screwdriver as a hammer in case a hammer is not available.  Use all the tools available to you, in order to learn your piece.  And when a situation comes up where a tool is not available, adapt your learning strategy. 

[bernhard]

OK, I will be giving the world premier of Thalbergs - 2 Russian Airs Op17, in my garage on 15th October 2006.

There is seating for 6 and the entrance fee is 2 bottles of guiness.

Tickets on a first come first served basis.

Thal

Darn! If it was October 2005 I would have been able to make it!

[contrapunctus]

I listen to MIDIs usually. They play what is exactly written on the score, so the only interpretation they contain is the composer's.

Also, Ashkenazy usually makes clear and accurate recordings, and interpretations usually are not very deep, so he is a good "student's" pianist.

I also like Gould for his clarity too.

[repeat]

Interresting topic this. But I think it is an illusion that players of today do not listen to and take after each other. If not, why is it then that  interpretations  are so boringly similar?
Try listening to very early recordings which are now almost a hundred years old. There you will find a stunning diversity of interpretation totally unheard of today. Why? Obviously because there were no recordings or references, so pianists of those days had to form their own  interpretations  with only what help the composer might have left as guidelines in the text.

[ail]

I first get the a recording and listen to it while reading the sheet music. I haven't seen many people here referring that, but I find that it helps me. I associated the sound with the note. Then, before going into the playing, or perhaps a bit as I make a first exploratory run, I divide the music in sections. Usually, you can understand different parts in it, even if it is small. Then, I make a plan to learn each section at a time, first hands separated, then hands together.

I do not worry about memorizing all at once. As I join hands, I make an effort to do it at speed and with musicality, even if I don't yet know it all by heart. As I play it, it will go in steadily.

Then, when I feel it is almost there, or that I am being slowed because I'm still reading it, I do without the sheet on purpose and go over the music again to learn it by heart. I insist on specific and short parts until they are learnt, and if it really is being difficult, I do it with the sheet in front of me.

Much of the work in memorizing is saved by the initial exploratory reading where I confirm that certain parts are mere repetitions of previous ones. I try to mark in the score any subtle deviation, or mark where some parts are the same figure as before, but some steps above, or below, or where some notes are the same and the others transposed. When I am trying to memorize, I already know where these tricks are and it saves time and effort.

Using all of these, I memorized Moskowski's Op 72 no2 in 4 weeks, with a minimal of effort (perhaps 2 days) to actually memorize individual parts. But I did a lot of work for short passages, like 4 bars at a time.

Alex

[tompilk]

I have to listen to recordings as my sight reading skills do not exist.

exactly the same with me! I can't play something if i haven't heard it first... im getting better with playing the organ though
Also, i agree with your first post about the 7 easy steps
Just get notes, then dynamics.
Lol...
Tom

[mike_lang]

I do not worry about memorizing all at once. As I join hands, I make an effort to do it at speed and with musicality, even if I don't yet know it all by heart. As I play it, it will go in steadily.

I think that you will find that if you practice (even with the hands together) extremely slowly, savoring each sonority (that extreme), as well as moderately slow, you will find that in no time, you will have the piece memorized without consciously trying to memorize.  It is my opinion that memorizing and learning the piece are one process, and once you know the piece, you will find that it happens to be memorized.

I suppose what I want to emphasize is that you shouldn't add premature speed (i.e., as soon as the hands are joined), otherwise you jeopardize what your hands have learned so well separately.  You are right, though, to not worry consciously about memorizing at the beginning.

Best,
ML