In fact, I now remember our French flautist telling me that the French called the quaver a crotchet!
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
Welcome to TalkBass! Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Double Bass Anybody Else Memorize Difficult Passages, to Conquer ‘Em?
- Thread starter CaseyVancouver
- Start date
Is GB still Europe? You are obviously talking about Zweiunddreißigstel!
To go back to the original discussion, it's interesting because to me it's impossible to correctly work on something if I'm reading. Granted I'm primarily a jazz musician, so I'm more used to aural work. Yet I studied classical (although not on DB) from age 7 to 18, so I'm a decent reader and have experience in that. My experience is that I was a mediocre musician as long as my practice was only centered around reading (unfortunately my teachers from that classical period of my life didn't teach me anything else). Discovering jazz really opened my eyes (and ears) about that.
So today, if I'm working (not playing) efficienly, I have so much I need to focus on : body sensation, left hand position, managing the bow, intonation, aural anticipation/internal singing of what I'm playing, rhythmic placement... that I really can't afford to add an overload to my brain with reading. I never play as well while reading than I do when the music is internalized.
To me, music notation is a shortcut when things are too long, complex, to be memorized in its entirety. I have always considered that's the reason classical musicians mostly work from charts. But I can't conceive working on a passage without having it memorized. I'm really not an expert on classical music, so maybe I'm off. I'm really interested to have experimented classical musicians correct me if that's the case. However I have noticed that concerto solists don't have a chart in front of them, this would reinforce my opinion that if you could put the time into it, it's always better to have the music memorized, and that orchestra musicians use charts only because the repertoire is too large to be memorized in a reasonable time.
So today, if I'm working (not playing) efficienly, I have so much I need to focus on : body sensation, left hand position, managing the bow, intonation, aural anticipation/internal singing of what I'm playing, rhythmic placement... that I really can't afford to add an overload to my brain with reading. I never play as well while reading than I do when the music is internalized.
To me, music notation is a shortcut when things are too long, complex, to be memorized in its entirety. I have always considered that's the reason classical musicians mostly work from charts. But I can't conceive working on a passage without having it memorized. I'm really not an expert on classical music, so maybe I'm off. I'm really interested to have experimented classical musicians correct me if that's the case. However I have noticed that concerto solists don't have a chart in front of them, this would reinforce my opinion that if you could put the time into it, it's always better to have the music memorized, and that orchestra musicians use charts only because the repertoire is too large to be memorized in a reasonable time.
I am under the impression that top classical musicians will have the harder passages from much of the common repertoire played in and memorized. AFAIK, everyone I took lessons from had large collections of music that they cycled through to keep important pieces under their fingers.
Sheet music also facilitates rehearsal. If the conductor says to start at letter B or measure 84, the sheet music allows you to go straight to the proper location.
I think sheet music also facilitates interaction/communication between the players. Although you may have a piece memorized, interpretation can vary. So it's useful to review the score and discuss how everything is supposed to fit together and flow.
Last edited:
Just to add a little bit to this, when playing in an orchestra I'm not really "reading" as I play, I'm reading a few bars ahead. Plus there are definitely times when I read a line, commit it to short-term memory, and play it while looking up at the principal, conductor, concertmaster, etc., which I think is fairly common.
I'm kinda spitballing here, but I think even though professional soloists and professional orchestral players are both working on and performing large amounts of music, it's very common for soloists to play the same concerto with several orchestras, while for orchestral musicians usually your rehearsal cycle is "one and done" (unless you're on tour playing the same set several times a week). Also in my experience, it's just easier to memorize solo music? Like when you're the featured instrument and dictating most of the musical decisions it's easier to commit that to memory, while when you're an orchestral player you're often in a supporting, there are many more small details, you kinda have to have your ear open to other parts, and most of the time the conductor is dictating the musical decisions. I would also very much not consciously commit an opera, ballet, musical, film score, etc. to memory because of how much music has to be prepared (the longest symphonic piece I've played I think was an hour, maybe 75 minutes, while the baseline for any opera I've played has been 2 hours).
The one common exception to memorizing solo music is that often times when playing sonatas the nominal soloist(s) will use music because sonatas historically are much more interactive between the soloist and the accompanist and it's kind of a way to show that it's chamber music rather than soloist + accompaniment. The soloist most likely isn't reading the music very much, but it's more there to show that the pianist is a musical equal. The one time I've performed a sonata in recital, my bass's bridge was facing the audience (as it should), which meant I was facing stage left, I had my music stand and sheet music placed in my line of sight and within reach for page turns, but I kept the stand itself fairly low so that it wouldn't obscure anything I was doing with the instrument.
Yes that's what I guessed, that reading for orchestra players is a necessity due to the amount and complexity of repertoire they need to integrate in a short time. To make a parallel with my jazz playing, if I'm doing a gig that needs me to play 30 songs, I'd take into account the benefits I'm getting from that gig and time I have to prepare, to decide if I memorize the songs or just read them from charts.
However, when working on a specific subject at home, and not playing a repertoire, IMHO I think it's better to memorize, it frees your brain for other things it should be focused on. Unless you are specifically working on your reading skills.
Agreed. I am aware that reading music takes away from my experience.
All donations accepted with thanks, confidentiality assured!
Last edited:
Agreed, memorization works for me for the thorny stuff. If I practice it enough I just end up memorizing it. In my old rocker days on BG I played everything by ear/memory. Good for me to work that muscle once in a while. You’ll be all set now if you’re called on to demonstrate the passage - and make the cellos weep!