Which is your preferred route? Maximizing Repertoire or Perfection?

[opus10no2]

Ok, there are different levels which every piece in our repertoire is at.

There are those which we simply just 'know the notes', and there are those which are truly 'perfected', in the fingers, and maximized for optimum performance with the mechanism and technique you have.

There are people who work on very few pieces, but play each of them so well because they are so deeply ingrained, and there are people who play many pieces, which are essentially sight read from their mind.

Of course there are examples of great pianists who can make the latter type of approach sound completely convincing, because their technique and brain is so good that they can make a piece sound good with 60-80% of their potential powers.

Anyway, which do you veer towards? There is is always the 2-way pull in me, one telling me to perfect the pieces I know, and the other to expand and play more new pieces.

[amelialw]

My choice would be both.

I have 9 different pieces now currently and I like to have as many pieces as possible but bring all of them to perfection.

[opus10no2]

Ok, I suppose this has to be more exact, obviously everyone wants both, but doesn't every choice show a priority?

When do you know a piece is 'perfected' and doesn't need further work? How much should it continue to be maintained, if at all?

In some pro pianists, great ones, I hear some stunningly average performances from a technical standpoint, and in the pieces they program often, I uniformly hear stunning performances.

This leads me to the conclusion that every piece they work on isn't prioritised the same.

Actually, I think most of it has to do with motor-memorisation.
Most pieces in an advanced concert pianists repertoire are generally memorised in a different way. To give the best performance, it has to be memorised as a set of motions, as opposed to a series of notes, if this makes sense.

[invictious]

I'd still stick with both. Somewhat of a middle ground. Perfection can't be achieved, and I know that, so I won't dwell on one piece too long, I know when to stop. I stop when I feel I have understood the whole piece of music and can play it from the bottom of my nonexistant heart.

ooooooh

[thalberg]

I have gone the perfection route.  Not that my playing was ever perfect, it's just that I spent a really long time with all my repertoire. 

Overall, spending lots of time with repertoire gave me some artistic and technical breakthroughs, but in the final analysis my repertoire list is much shorter than it should be IMO and I wish I would've played more repertoire.  Of course, much of this is because my teachers always gave me really hard rep.....I wish they would've given me more intermediate stuff so I'd have something to teach.  I mean, am I ever really going to teach the Liszt Sonata?

[opus10no2]

Perfection can't be achieved, and I know that, so I won't dwell on one piece too long,

Well, that's the interesting thing.

There is a concept in which the only skills you learn are the ones relevant to the piece you're learning, and there is the other which suggests that learning a piece not only learns the piece, but increases overall skill.

So the idea is, learn a piece to the fullest potential of your present 'skillset', and then move on to another and do the same.

I suppose the point is, one must develop an instinct to know when a piece has been worked on enough, and 'overall skill' can just as well be developed by doing something else.

[jlh]

Choosing between only these 2 options is like having to choose between food and water...

[thalberg]

Choosing between only these 2 options is like having to choose between food and water...

True, but it can be done.  For example, if you ate foods with high water content like watermelon and celery, you'd stay reasonably well hydrated.

[mcgillcomposer]

I never learn a piece from beginning to end the first time. I am constantly reading through new pieces, and eventually return to those I have already read through. At that point, I learn all of the notes and put it away again. I return to it a few weeks later and solidify the notes, work on the interpretation, and memorize it. Of course, this last stage must be repeated 2 or 3 times before the piece is there for life.

[thalbergmad]

Being only a keen amateur, my route is the maximising one. I rarely aim for perfection and most of the time do not even finish a piece, before my attention is drawn to something else.

This way, i have time to cover a huge amounts of repetoire and investigate forgotten and unplayed composers.

I sometimes pity the professional that does not have time to do this.

Thal

[opus10no2]

Takes alot of patience to concentrate on the individual pieces, repetition after repetition.

It seems that repetition is what most of practice time is about, and the very best players seem to simply need less repetitions.

I think it's about the brain's pattern recognition system, which is a part of the memory.

Beginners, and non so advanced amateurs memorise smaller groups.
The experts work with big pieces of the *puzzle* of the piece, basically just from a greater familiarity with common patterns in music and figuration, and maybe some delightful growth of that brain area?.

[rc]

Learn the rep to my present standard, go back afterwards and polish details as far as my patience will allow.  Get curious to play the piece again after a long time and the whole thing is up to a new standard.

That's how I like to work.

[jinfiesto]

I'm learning over thirty different pieces right now. That doesn't mean I don't strive for perfection. It just means I have to practice really efficiently.

[rallestar]

And I bet it's all the Rachmaninoff and Prokofieff concertos coupled with the last 20 beethoven sonatas huh?

[cloches_de_geneve]

Memorize and bring to perfection. But mind you: This principle is born out of necessity rather than some supreme value, due largely to my lamentable sightreading skills

[nick]

perfect pieces.

Nick

[arbisley]

Ok, I suppose this has to be more exact, obviously everyone wants both, but doesn't every choice show a priority?

When do you know a piece is 'perfected' and doesn't need further work? How much should it continue to be maintained, if at all?

In some pro pianists, great ones, I hear some stunningly average performances from a technical standpoint, and in the pieces they program often, I uniformly hear stunning performances.

This leads me to the conclusion that every piece they work on isn't prioritised the same.

Actually, I think most of it has to do with motor-memorisation.
Most pieces in an advanced concert pianists repertoire are generally memorised in a different way. To give the best performance, it has to be memorised as a set of motions, as opposed to a series of notes, if this makes sense.

I think that you possibly appreciate these often played pieces more because you have trained yourself mentally to listen out for technical prefection before musical exploration. Fair enough, I like to appreciate a performance for one, the other, or possibly both, and it is when the two come together in an original performance of and often played piece that you get masterly results.

[jinfiesto]

No rallestar... It's all the chopin etudes and all the mendelssohn songs without words... Christ... it's not that hard. Don't be an ass.

[frombachtobarber]

I usually do both at the same time; i.e. I would be polishing a few pieces while learning a few new pieces, after a few months, I'd be done with the ones I was polishing, and I'd be 'polishing' the new pieces and learning some more pieces... 

[forester]

It's a never ending journey. Any performance is a showing of work-in-progress. 

Thalberg; you sound like you've stopped your journey. Just because your teacher didn't teach you any intermediate repertoire doesn't mean to say you can't now explore and learn it for yourself. You have to become an authority in your own right. Carpe diem.