Our practice of performing pieces memorized is consistently a topic of inquiry during interviews and other Q&A situations. While audiences are generally enthusiastic, musicians tend to go back and forth on pros and cons. We’ve been accused of using it as a stunt.
If one hasn’t personally experienced performing chamber music memorized, the conversation usually runs its course to a sort-of “I’ll take your word for it that it’s nice for you but remain skeptical that it would actually benefit me” conclusion.
*shrug*
I heard a wonderful feature this morning on Weekend Edition (btw: Support your local public radio stations! Both news and classical programming! Thanks.) about the Tanglewood Festival Chorus. Their conductor, John Oliver, requires that the chorus memorize most of their music, and commented as follows:
“Memorization is not a trick. It internalizes the music for you; it makes the music, somehow, a part of your own physical being,” Oliver says. “And you can express so much more like that. If you don’t see a singer’s face and you don’t see the posture of a singer, the address of a singer to the audience, you’re really not getting what a singer can deliver in music and what composers expected the singers to deliver.”
Insert “musician” every time he says “singer”.
We’re working to memorize Jennifer Higdon’s new concerto for it’s premier with the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra next week. With the first rehearsal only a few days away, this was a nice reminder as to why we make the effort, and it gave me some motivation to keep at it.
Thank you, Mr. Oliver.
Comments 3
I could not agree more with Mr. Oliver’s comments on memorization. Being a choral conductor and singer I know that the times I have performed music from memory as a singer it is always a much better performance. It’s the difference in simply being ABLE to perform the music and having MASTERED the music, made it my own, and given it my all.
And as a conductor, we MUST work from memory or we QUICKLY lose connection to the choir. If we (conductors) are relying on the score for more than a quick glance to keep us in the right spot at performance we aren’t putting in the time we need to outside of rehearsal.
And while it is somewhat different for a singer, whose body IS the instrument, than for an instrumentalist, I believe that memorization helps all musicians better internalize and master the music.
I fail to see how anyone could consider memorization simply a “stunt”. Sure, you can perform GREAT music without having memorized it, but it is SO MUCH easier to do so when you know that music better than the back of your hand. How can you know the music any better than having memorized it?
Posted 30 May 2010 at 11:24 AM ¶Being part of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Chorus, singing on the same program as the Higdon premier mentioned above, I was priveleged to see the dress rehearsal of this piece. There is no doubt in my mind that the performance of this piece was enhanced by its memorization. Often, when not watching the conductor, they were communicating visually with each other.
I can only imagine that this internal communication would be even more intense without having to deal with a conductor and orchestra behind them.
Congratulations, birds, on a great dresss!
Posted 04 Jun 2010 at 2:49 PM ¶my teacher was always frustrated with me that I refused to give a recital with music that I haven’t memorized…
and from chamber experience, it frees you up to so much more interaction – really lets you explore the dramatic aspects of the performance.
I’d never pay to see Hamlet if the actors weren’t off book – would you? Why shouldn’t musicians all hold themselves to the same standard?
(btw – why does the captcha say “stop spam. read books”?)
Posted 08 Aug 2010 at 1:46 PM ¶Post a Comment