Score Reading: Is It Necessary?

If something is useful... it's useful, but if it's only useful for Mozart and little more (but is it really useful? Recognizing timbres is extremely important and the pf completely cancels them out), but I have trained my ear on Mahler's symphonies (inhumane work) ... what would it be for?

mmm... I wouldn't know, as far as I'm concerned it's a resource I use quite a bit, then it depends on a case-by-case basis.

DrJellyfish wrote:

Hi old oak!

Hi old fox, how's it going?!

DrJellyfish wrote:

You're putting me a bit on the spot, I thought it might be useful for something. Of course, I work in a slightly different field than yours, but sometimes it has been useful to be able to perform a synthesis of the score at the piano to try out a step with a singer or a soloist, or to let a section hear the sound of a sequence of chords.

Hmm... to make people hear the sound of a sequence of chords, you are only playing some parts, which is exactly the use I find most useful for "score reading at the piano", namely a momentary and partial reading of a particularly difficult fragment. I do it too, for example, if I find myself studying a piece like "Ein Heldenleben" (to name one) where there are harmonic clusters so complex that in some cases, mentally, I cannot decipher them. A "jump" to the keyboard allows me to isolate a chord, a passage - perhaps just the horns - which once extracted from the complex, I can clarify. STOP. As far as working with a singer is concerned, scores are normally used (and, to tell the truth, even in a score reading course, the use of the score is expected for music with a solo singer - read: opera aria).

DrJellyfish wrote:

It is also true that to hear how a piece sounds (assuming it is necessary) it is sufficient to listen to a recording, but what about an unreleased work? Also, generally, I prefer to form my own idea, and only subsequently do I listen to other versions; imprinting is lurking ;-)

I agree. In the case of an unreleased work, I lean towards the inner ear (even in the case of a "published" one, to tell the truth). You speak of "forming an idea" and, in this specific case, that idea could be exclusively of a harmonic type, because a timbral idea, at the piano, you cannot have.

DrJellyfish wrote:

In the end, perhaps I am old school, but I think that a conductor or especially a composer must be autonomous in reading the score, and should not have to resort, if they want to understand how a particularly harmonically difficult piece sounds, to a CD or a computer.

Same as above

DrJellyfish wrote:

Clearly it is a synthesis; it is obvious that it is not possible to reproduce exactly everything that is written, but I believe that this study further develops reading, the ear, the ability to see on the fly which are the most important parts, the doublings, the ability precisely to synthesize the harmonic and rhythmic structure of the piece. Of course, if I were Beethoven, I wouldn't need it... ;-)

So, wait a moment: if you are talking to me about the ability to see "on the fly," we are not talking about the same thing... score reading, in my view, is not useful for studying a score (whereas it is the main purpose of a course like the one taken in a conservatory). And study is not done "on the fly." Furthermore, if you tell me that it can happen that you have to deal with it and read from the score because the sheet music is missing (but how often does that happen?), then that's a different story, but I find it so rare that it doesn't merit a specific course.

As far as I am concerned, I find that what is truly missing is a real "score reading" course, but not at the piano: at the desk. Even in a composition course, whether one likes it or not, one sits at the piano, also because, to speak with two or more people about a harmonic succession, it is useful to have it present in your ears ("do you hear this chord?": plùm! "there, hear how it resolves": plàm! and so on...). But I believe one should teach aspiring conductors how one really approaches the study, from the beginning, of an orchestral score. It is the question I am asked most often by those who ask me for study suggestions, by those who come to lessons: "how do I study a score?"".

Carlos wrote:

As far as I am concerned, I find that what is truly missing is a real course in "score reading," but not at the piano: at a desk. Even in a composition course, whether one likes it or not, one sits at the piano, partly because, when discussing a harmonic progression of two or more parts, it is useful to have it present in one's ears ("do you hear this" chord?: plùm! "there, hear how it resolves": plàm! and so on...). But I believe aspiring conductors should be taught how to actually approach the study, from the beginning, of an orchestral score. It is the question I most often hear from those who ask me for study suggestions, from those who come to lessons: "how do I study a score?".

I agree with you in general; in effect, the score reading course should simply be oriented and structured differently, rather than eliminated (but this also applies to Jazz and other disciplines, which certainly do not function at their best with current ministerial programs).

The issue of piano reading would only be a consequence of learning the skills you have listed.

Let me explain: I think it is difficult to hold a harmonic progression in one's head without being able to perform it (reading from the score);

who plays the various plùm and plàm?

It doesn't seem to me a case of having them listen to a CD (that can be useful for working on sound) and, besides, I am sure you know how to perform a synthesis of a passage at the piano, if only to explain it, to make the aforementioned resolutions heard, etc. If this thing is of some utility in any way, it will have to be taught...

We see it from two different perspectives, but neither is less valid than the other. Personally, I am able to "have in my head" a harmonic succession without having to play it, and therefore I do not feel the need for it. In fact, I will tell you more: where it proves impossible to play certain passages of some particularly complex scores on the piano due to obvious limitations, the ear can overcome those limits, because it goes far beyond ten fingers... I studied Stravinsky's Petrouchka score at the desk and (technically speaking) I would only know how to play certain passages, but that score is in my head with its exact timbres, its exact tempos, and without any "digital" filter.

The need to explain to another person is an aspect that is not part of the objectives of a score reading course, because if that were the case, they wouldn't ask you to read Mahler's 3rd on the piano, but they would ask you to read "these eight bars of brass," do you see what I mean?

What I find completely useless, frustrating, and absurd is forcing people (even non-pianists, damn it, what did they do wrong?) to sit in front of an orchestral score and read entire pages by performing an extemporaneous synthesis. Synthesis is only possible after analysis, and pianistic synthesis, where possible, would require a knowledge of the subject (meaning, with "subject," the piano) which in itself requires a lot of time. What could a clarinetist (or whoever) gain from that exercise after a couple of years of "complementary piano" when faced with a score?

If I were to draft a program for a score reading/complementary piano course, I would think, above all, about providing non-pianists with a useful tool for their profession; therefore, for example, I would skip Beethoven's Sonatas and put into the repertoire, for each instrumentalist, a selection of solo pieces from their respective repertoire, of which the student in question should learn the pianistic reduction of the orchestral part or the pianistic part in the case of chamber music. Thus, violinists would learn to sketch "Spring," Tchaikovsky's Concerto...; flute players would learn Mozart's Concertos, do you understand? This would have a utility, pianistically speaking, in their daily study.

As for the specific part regarding the score, if one must, I would look favorably upon a targeted exercise on instrument families, with particular reference to transposing instruments, which, when they must be inserted extemporaneously into an overall reading, are ignored in most cases (the high woodwinds, first violins, and cellos-double basses are read, and don't tell me it's not true!). Taking Mahler's 8th and reading two pages of only horns is a truly formative experience; taking the Pictures [of At the Gramophone] and reading Catacombae (just that one, have you ever tried?) without peeking at the pianistic part in the tiny tiny staff below makes you feel really stupid, but that is what would really be useful.

Another thing that would be useful (but here we are getting into complicated territory) would be to get used to singing orchestral parts, something that 90% of conductors cannot do (just like 90% of instrumentalists, who, if you show them a score, have no idea what it is until they have sketched it on their instrument...). But to be able to reproduce a part autonomously, it is necessary to have assimilated it with the inner ear, and we are back to square one.

All this, naturally, is seen from the perspective of an orchestral conductor, but really, just one—me. It is my point of view and I do not pretend at all to claim that it is the only valid one, even because I am refuted by the facts, namely by many colleagues who normally use the piano for studying. I, despite being a pianist, have never done so and continue to feel no need for it...

hello everyone, I apologize for the response I wrote some time ago. I realized that it was a misunderstanding; for some reason, after reading the post title and misinterpreting what Carlos had written, 'it's useless', I stopped reading and responded abruptly thinking they were discussing beginners, like those who start playing and complain about this and that.

My bad..!! I was completely wrong, a total misunderstanding; in fact, now that I understand what you are talking about, I have even drawn many interesting things from it.

Apologies again.