Playing Pieces Never Heard

[Glyptodont]

This came up on a different piano forum.  I made a comment to the effect that my strategy in beginning a piece is different if I have never heard it.

Reactions were surprising (to me, anyway).  One respondent said his music teacher told him, "always listen to recordings first.  Don't attempt pieces you have never heard.  Your time is too valuable to waste."    [ ? ? ? ]

Two or three others indicated they NEVER play a piece they've never heard, and in fact, would avoid such a situation. 

My approach to unheard material is as follows--  I just play enough of the piece to get a sense of it -- say, playing the first page.  If I like the piece, I persevere.  Otherwise, I move on.

It surprises me that some players, who are probably better pianists than me, are so "spooky" (and defensive) about trying to play material they have not heard.  Like, horrified at the thought.  This would certainly take out the Suzuki people, because for these folks, hearing a piece many times is crucial to playing it.

Does anyone else have opinions about this?      Regards--

[Bob]

If you want your own pure interpretation you can't listen to a recording.

I think you should be able to create your own realization of a piece without having heard it first.

It's good to hear a professional recording, to hear the high level of a professional sound.  Even if you know the piece backwards and forwards, a good recording can give you some ideas.  Live is good too.


So if you want a "pure" performance, don't listen to any recordings.  You can listen to other pieces by the same composer or other pieces from the same era to get an idea of the style.

I do whatever.  If I'm in the middle of shaping a piece, I don't want to hear what anyone else thinks.  If I hear a piece I like, then I might want to play it so maybe I'd learn it later after hearing the recording first.  It can be very interesting when you run across a recording that sounds very different from the way you play it or the way another recording sounds.

It can also be very discouraging to listen to a professional recording.  You become aware of things or their ease of playing that you haven't developed yet, things are just not going to happen soon.

[quantum]

Another solution is to record yourself, then listen to it.  You may be surprised of what you don't hear when you are performing. 

[Glyptodont]

"It can also be very discouraging to listen to a professional recording.  You become aware of things or their ease of playing that you haven't developed yet, things are just not going to happen soon."

---------------

Very true. 

Sometimes I think that for pieces that are "off the beaten track," it is not easy to get your hands on a recording.  So if your approach DEMANDS listening to recordings, you have to avoid an awful lot of good piano music.  MacDowell's "Sea Pieces" are an example.   A recording may exist, but I probably would have to buy it from a megastore such as  -- on-line.  No local store in my small city would have it.  Even our public library does not have anything recorded by MacDowell and they have a pretty good collection.

So if you limit yourself to music you can listen to first, you are stuck with to the same composers we see constantly being discussed here-- Bach, Chopin, Beethoven, Debussy, Mozart, Rach and a few more.  Whereas some of us enjoy "the road not taken," as Robert Frost put it.

Your point that professional recordings can be discouraging --   So true.  When I listen to professional recordings of "Jesu", the Myra Hess arrangement, I am always surprised at how clearly professionals can diminish the right hand and build a melody line out of left-hand octaves.  I try but just can't make that work.  Also, I'm impressed at the way professionals can play three against four with such ease.  I struggle.

When people write into this forum and boast that they play this, and that, and something else that is very hard, you have to take that with a grain of salt.  I am sure they play it in some fashion.  But what does it sound like?  No doubt some play it well, but others may hit most of the notes and call it good enough.  Better to choose pieces within one's reach, and try to play them well.

Thanks for some good comments --

[whynot]

Recordings are useful for hearing what other people do with the piece, but shouldn't be necessary just to hear how it goes.  I think classical performers should be able to read at or near their technical level of playing, so we can read through our scores and hear the music in our heads.  Conductors do this, and with far more lines to keep track of.  Like others have mentioned, I often play pieces that are lesser known, so sometimes there aren't any recordings.  I admit that even when there are, I don't work hard to seek out "my" pieces, at least not mid-work.  I like to hear other interpretations after I've learned it.  I do listen to great pianists play other things to learn more what great playing sounds like. 

[eins]

This from a beginner:

For me, a very simple piece is a challenge. I can identify notes but couldn't say I can 'read music' yet. For me, it helps to hear the piece played at least once so I get an idea. Ten minutes later, I will have forgotten details anyway, so how could hearing it once (or a few times) possibly influence my interpretation of it? My interpretation of the piece is much more influenced by all the hints and pointers in the written music.

Since everything is relative, that should go for any level of advancement. The more complex pieces get, the more they are challenges for even the most advanced player. And as long as a piece is unknown at first, I doubt it will ingrain in all detail and influence the player's interpretation other than that he knows what he is about to learn to play.

The argument that hearing a piece influences one's interpretation should mean that you don't want to learn to play the popular pieces that we have all heard to the nth  before we even started to play piano.

But then, what do I know...

[TheHammer]

Some similar discussions:

https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2255.msg19147.html#msg19147
https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,5792.msg56472.html#msg56472
https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,7240.msg75238.html

and many other, I am sure, but can't find them at the moment.

Long, long ago, I thought it would definatly "hurt" my interpration of a piece when I would listen to a recording of it. I thought I would sub-consciously imitate it, thus making it not "my" piece. And I think this can happen to you. But only if you are interpretating your piece sub-consciously in th first place.
That means, if you are really thinking about the way you want a piece sound, no recording can "harm" that. Furthermore, I don't consider myself better than the great pianist, so why not listen to them and see what they have to say about the piece. Of course, when you only listen to one and the same interpretation, over and over again, and don't think a second about your own playing, you may play like the recording in the end. But when you listen attentivly to several (>3) recordings while looking at the score, you will hear so much nuances, that you will not be discouraged but to the contrary be stimulated to try it, to see if you can do as good. I think listening to the masters of piano playing can teach you a lot.
When you then have listened to some recordings, you have several advantages:
1. You know the piece (by ear).
2. You know also what every section you listened to sound like, so you can imagine even the hard sections you could not play at first when starting to practice.
3. You know a lot of different possibilities on how to play this piece. You know that you can play this passages so or so, how you could handle the dynamics etc.
4. You also have a direct comparison to your own playing, which ensure a better control.

This does not mean that you should just imitate the recordings, coming up with a mixture of what the others played. It is more meant as an inspiration and a help (especially for not so experienced pianist). If you now, that you know several interpretation, go again through the score, analysing the piece, trying to understand why the performers played in their way, you will automatically agree with them, or not. And so you will gain your own interpretation. And if you can't come up with a better realization of this interpretation than Richter, Horowitz or Rubinstein, than well, why not trying to imitate them (if it's the best you can think of).

On the other hand, listening to recordings (escpecially for advanced/professional players) is no must. You can easily play a piece never heard before - why should you not? It can also be fun to try it on your own, to think of possible interpretations for yourself. But if someone other can convince you, that his playing is "better": why be so stubborn and stay with your playing? Just because it's yours? Do you want to be a better musician or a better narcist?

[anda]

One respondent said his music teacher told him, "always listen to recordings first.  Don't attempt pieces you have never heard.  Your time is too valuable to waste."    [ ? ? ? ]

Two or three others indicated they NEVER play a piece they've never heard, and in fact, would avoid such a situation. 

why? every work has to go through a "first audition" - why should it be by somebody else?

i say approach the work honestly, as you would any other work. sight-read a few times, trying to understand what's this all about, then start working.

i'm not saying listening to recordings is not important - recordings can be very helpful. but you should never rely completely on recordings!

for a real "thrill", try never-heard works with the composer in the audience. and, just to make it more fun, assume the composer is one of those persons who thinks horowitz plays too fast, richter has a too-nice sound and brahms writes too well; he comes to you just before the recital to introduce himself and says "please remember the coda is prestissimo con fuoco". (true story, every detail!)

[lostinidlewonder]

I think it is important to listen to recordings, it will not influence you unless you let it. You have to absorb as much information you can on a piece then make your decisions as to what you want to do with it.

If you are scared that by listening to recordings you may be influenced then look for MIDI recordings which lack a lot of musical playing. It is important to have the overall sound of the peice in mind to maintain efficiency in your learning progress, unless of course you are at a very high standard and can maintain top efficiency even with music you haven't listened to. But still i think the best pianist in the world would have to benefit from hearing a piece being played at least once before they try it.

It is very important to be able to play straight from sheet music without hearing what it is first. That is where closer study in rhythms and how they are written is helpful, since there is a limitation to the different types of rhythms you can come up with, they eventually become products of one another. So you develop your ability to identify the rhythm by sight instead of stopping to measure and count them.

[claudio]

i am a little astonished by the questions. isn't it the ultimate goal of being a
musician to actually hear music in your head? at least it is for me.

granted, as a beginner i have my own problems to "hear" in my imagination
the sound of a piece when reading its score. but i regard instruments and
scores only as means to playing music, not as ultimate ends. and my reading
and hearing abilities improve every day (quite fascinating).

naturally it is great fun and certainly very useful to recording of other artists
or to ask teachers and friends for guidance / interpretations. but i have no
idea why somebody would not touch a score without having listend to somebody
else before.

most of the time this is also not possible: i have a huge book filled with old
german fraternity songs. mostly walzes or menuettes, etc. they are great fun
to play or sing after a certain level of alcohol consumption  however, it
would be a total lack of time to run around for cd recordings (not to speak of
the waste of money).

listening to recordings is certainly necessary (just think of jazz, etc.) but to
not touch a piece without having listend to a recording sounds like worshiping
a false god.

[Glyptodont]

Reply to "The Hammer" --

Even if I grant you all that you say, where you explain benefits of listening to a recording first, I guess my point is -- does this ALWAYS have to be done?

Often I listen to a recording to clarify things about a piece.  But I guess my issue is -- is this ALWAYS necessary? 

As several posters have clarified, this often cannot be done because there will be many pieces worth playing that are not recorded, or the recordings are heirlooms or collector's items, and not currently available. 

So many pieces exist in multiple versions, such as Pachelbel's Canon in D and others.  How can one find a recording of the exact version one is trying to learn?

One person who posted -- above -- refers to himself (or herself) as a beginner.  This person feels the recordings are of great help, and I will not disagree.

However, where do you get recordings of beginner-level pieces?  Two ideas come to mind--  some lesson books come with a CD in the back.  This would work.  Secondly, the Suzuki piano program, that replies heavily on working from a recording.  My son took Suzuki violin.  I know this works.  But see this as a bridge-- you cross the bridge at some point and look at the scenery on the other side.

I think when you reach a point that you are confident enough at reading music off of the page that you can dare to go off on your own,  then this is a "passage."    You have broken through, and perhaps you will never again be comfortable with those student books that are called something like "Grade 3" and rigidly "program" some number of pieces that are mastered in a certain order.  The person has outgrown that.

Thanks to those who have posted--

[TheHammer]

Reply to "The Hammer" --

Even if I grant you all that you say, where you explain benefits of listening to a recording first, I guess my point is -- does this ALWAYS have to be done?

Err... as I said previously:

On the other hand, listening to recordings (escpecially for advanced/professional players) is no must. You can easily play a piece never heard before - why should you not? It can also be fun to try it on your own, to think of possible interpretations for yourself. But if someone other can convince you, that his playing is "better": why be so stubborn and stay with your playing? Just because it's yours? Do you want to be a better musician or a better narcist?

Of course it's not "necessary". But it's IMO extremely helpful, and therefore should be considered a mean to improve one's playing. Again, I don't think that listening to others will hurt you or your precious interpretation, but will teach you a lot of things. Everyone who doesn't consider himself a true master of the piano (and even them) could benefit from listening.

To your question on recordings of beginner repertoire, I agree that it's nearly impossible to get some recordings of most beginner pieces. But well, why must it be a recording? Simply ASK YOUR TEACHER to play it. Or someone else who is more advanced. Well, there are still some obscure pieces you will never be able to listen to. Then you have my permission to play them without listening first. No, no, if you are an experienced player you will probably don't have any problems figuring out the most important aspects of a piece, and will probably learn even more about yourself when coming up with your very own interpretation. That can be then considered a test on how good you are at interpretating. However, as said before, it doesn't mean that from there on you should never listen to a recording again, it's still a beneficial mean.

[terminal]

I do this for my teacher behind her back sometimes, I will just show up at a lesson with something I picked out, there are never recordings of this stuff typically. It really comes down to working it out as any other piece. Start with the notes, figure out the rhythm (pay close attention to detail there, because there is always something missing). The work in the details of the voicing, an acustic piano really helps here IMHO. And then start working with the tempo fast / slow / ritardo all that stuff...

If you listen to recordings typically you get a virtuosso recording of something at a tempo and decoration level that you wouldn't be able to achieve, and most works although written for something faster can really be voiced nicely somewhat slower.

(this week it is Mosorgsky, which may take a couple of weeks but worth the amazement factor)

[Derek]

Music that has never been heard is generally a good way to determine if the music sucks or not. 

[terminal]

Considering there is enough music for a lifetime, but a lifetime is not enough for all music. Your chances of coming something across music without an avaliable recording is actually quite high.

It's a personal taste thing, but if you read up on what the favorite composers of many famous musicians are you would find some very uncommon composers with an almost zero chance of a recordings.

[Glyptodont]

Derek writes, "Music that has never been heard is generally a good way to determine if the music sucks or not."

If I interpret you right, I suppose in your dim mind, "fur Elise" or "Soldier's March" are the ultimate in quality, because they are beaten to death.  Every fool on the planet has played them.  Every Grade 3 collection includes them. 

Whereas a number of pieces that are not popped into every anthology then "suck." If I am getting your drift . . . . .

How about virtually the entire production of the composer Anton Rubenstein?

I suspect the name would be unfamiliar to you.  He was one of the most played and celebrated composers of the 19th Century, but he has fallen out of favor.