Good sight reader, not a memorizer, building a repertoire

[richardb]

I took lessons as a child, since then have been sight reading pieces off and on my whole life.  One of the things I plan to do in my retirement (which will be here soon as I'm in my late 50s) is to learn to play the piano well.  Recently I realized that if I were out with friends near a piano and they asked me to play something, I wouldn't be able to do it. I'd have to ask for the sheet music.  So I decided to do something about this.  I googled "sight readers vs memorizers" and found the Chang book. Following that book's suggestions, I memorized Bach's Invention 1 and Invention 8. I've also memorized some of the easier movements from the French Suites, and one or two Scarlatti sonatas.  I LOVE IT!  Now I want to memorize every piece I play.  Having the piece memorized makes it so much easier to play it musically - before I simply focused on hitting the correct notes at the correct time and that was it.  And it's so much more fun to just sit down and play. 

I guess my question is this: Do I need to memorize a piece before I can say it's in my repertoire? Or more generally what does it mean for a piece to be in your repertoire?  Even though I have sight read many pieces, I don't think I mastered any of them.  It seems to me the first step in mastering a piece is to memorize it, and be able to play it without relying on the sheet music.  Do you agree?  For me, I think sight reading is not beneficial, and may even be counterproductive.

[diomedes]

I've noticed people either lean one way or another. Myself I've decided to accelerate memorization to the point of score study and memory developing while doing things like gorcery shopping (which i refuse to do). But i know one guy, his sight reading is incredible, but he accompanies a lot and fairly professionally so inevitably his strength will be there. You're the one that decides.

What's in your repertoire as a term? Whatever you decide to designate as the meaning of it. Usually if you learn something it decays with time anyway, so that's a factor in deciding what the word means.

[stefo78]

I agree with Diomedes and also belongs to those who try memorizing while shopping.

I feel that readers are more turned to accompaniements, while memorizers are just alone. If you plan to play in groups, reading skill is the priority I suppose.
If you only play alone, what is the need to read ? You'll finally waste your time just reading the piece again and again.

I'm also looking for different point of view.

[j_menz]

If you only play alone, what is the need to read ? You'll finally waste your time just reading the piece again and again.

I'm also looking for different point of view.

If you only play alone, what's the point of memorising. All that time could be spent playing (reading) new stuff (or, in your two cases, looking for bargains or cruising aisle four).

[quantum]

I think one needs to define the purpose of the repertoire.  The repertoire needs of someone seeking to play for friends and enjoyment would differ from a pianist touring concertos, which would likewise differ from a cruise ship / lounge pianist.  The subjective seriousness of the music or its difficulty doesn't have any bearing on its status as "repertoire" IMO.  What one needs to do is determine what music is appropriate for what you want to be doing.  

Personally, I'm a natural memorizer - its something that has always come easy.  Sight reading was not easy, but that has changed.  I devoted serious study to sight reading techniques and in hindsight am grateful for taking the time to do so.  It has opened so much more musical possibilities than if I would have stuck to my strength in memorization.  Now I utilize both techniques, choosing the more appropriate one for the task.  

Different performance situations sometimes require different approaches to memorization / reading.  For solo recitals, I may prefer to have music memorized.  For church music, the sheer volume of music calls into play reading.  An informal gathering of friends may be more inclined to spontaneous requests of music where books can get in the way of the fluidity of the moment.  For my improvisatory work either may be called into play.  You would need to see what is the most appropriate for the task you are carrying out.

[diomedes]

Sight ready was not easy, but that has changed.  I devoted serious study to sight reading techniques and in hindsight am grateful for taking the time to do so.

About once a month i find myself saying something to the effect of, i really should work on my sight reading, to someone. Do you mind sharing what some of the most efficient methods you used were?

[quantum]

Sight read ensemble music with other musicians.  The instrumentation doesn't matter as much as the fact that you are not sight reading and playing music alone. 

Don't stick to working at sight reading by yourself until you feel you are "good enough" to play with others.  Find activities you can do now that involve reading and making music with others.  Find playing opportunities that require you to sight read.

When sight reading, music making should be a top priority.  It should not be an exercise limited to playing as many correct notes as possible.   Correct notes are important, making music is much more important. 

Sight reading may require learning a different workflow and cognitive organization to what one is used to.  Be open to learning new systems of doing familiar things even though it may be scary and unfamiliar at times. 

[krzyzowski]

Great discussion; If one cannot sight read with proficiency, memorizing is relegated to rote learning or muscle memory. When playing a piece from brain (?) memory do we see the notes in the minds eye or rely on whats in the fingers? Too often when a failure occurs, we hate to go back and re-read a complex passage if reading is slow. Solution to memory lapses is to always go back and READ it.
It is interesting to do a search on accomplished musicians who can't (don't) read music. Many play by ear and is a skill that might be more valuable than good reading ability.

[richardb]

I think one needs to define the purpose of the repertoire.  The repertoire needs of someone seeking to play for friends and enjoyment would differ from a pianist touring concertos, which would likewise differ from a cruise ship / lounge pianist.

Thank you quantum, I completely agree. Me, I play for fun. If others enjoy my playing that's fine too, but I play mainly for my own enjoyment. It's a challenge and I get a sense of accomplishment when I master a piece.  I also find playing the piano therapeutic.  Originally I thought I'd play just Bach and Scarlatti - make that my repertoire.  I love the music of Bach.  In fact I thought I'd set a goal to someday play a Prelude and Fugue from the WTC.  But now that I've played a few Bach and Scarlatti pieces, I'm thinking I may want to play some non-Baroque stuff.  Chopin's music is so very different from Bach but also very beautiful.  I can play some of his easier Preludes and Mazurkas.  Do I have enough years left to set a goal of mastering a Chopin etude in addition to my Bach goal?  There's so much great music out there!
 
I think I've answered my own question: I just need to pick a piece I like and focus on it.  Probably getting a teacher would help too.  With so much great music out there, instead of sitting down and sight reading many pieces (probably very badly, non-musically, but hitting 95% of the correct notes), a teacher would give me focus: we're working on THIS piece THIS week.

Very interesting that what you wrote below is the exact opposite of my situation.

Personally, I'm a natural memorizer - its something that has always come easy.  Sight ready was not easy, but that has changed.  I devoted serious study to sight reading techniques and in hindsight am grateful for taking the time to do so.  It has opened so much more musical possibilities than if I would have stuck to my strength in memorization.

Personally, I'm a natural sight-reader - it's something that has always come easy. Memorization for me takes work, but I've devoted some time every day recently working on memorization. For me that has opened up many more musical possibilities than if I would have stuck to my strength in sight-reading.

The following quote was also very helpful.

When sight reading, music making should be a top priority.  It should not be an exercise limited to playing as many correct notes as possible.   Correct notes are important, making music is much more important. 

Over the years my sight reading was focused way too much on hitting the correct notes and way too little on making music. 

I'll continue to work on memorizing, and if I do sight read, I'll make a conscious effort to play musically. 

Finally, I've looked at other posts here on sight-reading vs. memorizing, and I've seen many people say they are better at memorizing than at sight reading.  I get the feeling I'm in the minority here.

[hfmadopter]

Great discussion; If one cannot sight read with proficiency, memorizing is relegated to rote learning or muscle memory. When playing a piece from brain (?) memory do we see the notes in the minds eye or rely on whats in the fingers? Too often when a failure occurs, we hate to go back and re-read a complex passage if reading is slow. Solution to memory lapses is to always go back and READ it.
It is interesting to do a search on accomplished musicians who can't (don't) read music. Many play by ear and is a skill that might be more valuable than good reading ability.

Playing by memory I have learned to see Chords, written chords and I can call out in my mind the next chord coming up. This works especially well within my own compositions ( originals) and my own arrangements or improvs. But it works otherwise as well. And no you don't have to be playing all block chords, it just references where you are going, especially at major shift in keyboard location, key changes etc..

Most often for church and bible study environments I sight read. There is a true hitch in the works with this. Solo piano is solo, I'm free as a bird with that and I do get to do some of that. i read or play from memory. Congregations will follow along to your piano as their signal when you lead group singing, I'm good with that to sight read it....  Vocal Soloists will not. Solo singers absolutely by far are my hardest to accompany. In this category you really have to know the music or don't do it because soloists tend to do their own thing and expect you to adjust and they really can be all wrong. If you are relying on any reflex playing you will derail. Additionally they may even have their own orders for you ( I don't sing that as 1/16th, make them 1/8's ). Never do battle with the vocal soloist, it isn't worth it and you won't win because this is about them and their performance.

[quantum]

There are various discussions on the forum about this, but I think it is good to bring it back up: sight reading isn't purely playing unknown material, it involves memorization.  More specifically, memory recall of concepts and physical actions that have been previously learned and stored in memory.  People that excel at sight reading have learned to use memory in a specific manner that is beneficial to sight reading.  It is not at all that they are unable to memorize, but they have optimized memory input and output for a sight reading workflow. 

For such people seeking to improve memorization and the memorized performances of whole pieces, learning to employ a different workflow would form part of the strategy.  It is easier said than done, as it may involve going about familiar tasks in a different manner.  A natural reaction is to default to what is comfortable and easy, but this does not do much for skill development.  If one persists, the difficulties will lessen over time and experience and develop into skill sets in one's toolbox.

richardb, since you like the music of Bach and Scarlatti, I'd also encourage you to look at the music of pre-Bach composers.