# Performing Large Works from Memory: Aurora Orchestra



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

As an aging singer, a few years ago I signed up with an excellent voice teacher who worked with me via Skype--yep, Skype; just don't try to sing duets--and really helped me brush up my technique and the lower extension, in particular. It was a great learning experience for both of us; he learned a ton of new songs I know, I learned a lot of new vocalises and good vocal practices.

But one of the best learnings from the entire experience was when he observed, over and over again, _how much better I sang when I put the music down and just gave myself over entirely to interpretation._ Quit worrying about every little jot and tittle of the score, just perform!

Now, I have never had particular trouble learning new music, but obviously it takes a while. The great solo pianists largely played from memory, and professional opera singers do it day in and day out (the occasional memory blip aside).

But imagine an entire symphony orchestra doing it, all those players doing it with all those thousands and thousands of notes in each part (except for the timpani :lol.

Well, here you are, ladies and gentlemen, the Aurora Orchestra, who are making a name for themselves performing at the Proms (and presumably elsewhere) by performing complete orchestral works from memory.

I am not that much of a Mozart fan (please don't start with me), but the _"Jupiter" Symphony_ (No. 40, his next-to-last) is among my favorite works (and I'm sure that of many others). I very much enjoyed these players' interpretation, and I was struck by _how well they played since they knew every note so intimately. _(You can also see some players who seem to be relying on their buds).






Although I have not yet listened to it, they also perform, from memory, the entire Beethoven _"Eroica" Symphony, _a piece of gigantic proportions. You can find it on YouTube as well (I shall listen later today after I snag potatoes and onions for our church dinner next Sunday afternoon; thus doth the celestial and the mundane mix).






I am sure this is worth discussing. Do you think more symphony players could benefit from memorizing the pieces they play? Is this even practical?? Or do many seasoned players know these popular pieces by heart already?

Does interpretation get sacrificed by trying to remember notes?? Or does interpretation get sacrificed more by being able to rely on a score right in front of you as you play?

Talk amongst yourselves ... enjoy these wonderful pieces ... and have a lovely day. Or week. I shall.

Kind regards, :tiphat:

George


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

The notes are there so people know what to play and how toi play it. If you can memorize the score so you don't need it, fine. But if you can't, that's what the score is there for. Given that orchestras play seasons of subscription concerts that range from half a dozen to 24 separate programs a year -- I can't imagine memorizing that much music. Can you see memorizing Mahler's Sixth Symphony for a single weekend of performances?

Also can you imagine dozens of string players without scores each given license to emote? Even with a conductor riiding herd?


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

I play the guitar, which is a solo instrument with a tradition of playing from memory. Presumably because guitarists are such terrible readers. I've been working on the same mental aspect of performing that you are talking about. I quiet my inner dialog and let the music flow through me. I'm trying to let go and just play.

I have found that in the exercise of working out a difficult part, I am memorizing the precise hand mechanisms I need to play the section how I want to play it.

but when I play that same section, I only am conscious of the aural memory. If I have the sound of all the lines in my head, I just play it. I'll even take chances and if I hear an accent or a different phrasing at that moment, I'm trying to let go and just go for it. I'm actively trying to not be afraid of failing, otherwise I'd never take those sort of chances

but all that is predicated on the sound of the piece being in my ears and all the mechanical stuff being on the auto pilot

for an orchestra, that's not going to be practical, though, just because of the sheer volume of music they can go through in a season. I play with a retired symphony violinist, and she told me that many times she only had time to practice the difficult bits and was sight reading most of the rest.

but whether a large ensemble all memorized a piece or not, I think the most important thing is that everyone be of the same mind in regard to what they want to bring out in the piece, and that is the role of the conductor to provide those directions. So I don't know if memorizing would really make the same impact on a large group that it does for a soloist. I think that a symphony that has been together for some time and is well led will be able to deliver the goods just as well whether they memorize or not.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

There are good reasons why memorization is not standard for orchestras. Most important, the text of something like Mozart's "Jupiter" Symphony, _his 41st_, is not the same from one performance to another. Each conductor has different ideas about bowing and articulation, and all of these indications will be laboriously written into the parts, in pencil, by those unsung heroes of the orchestra, the orchestra librarians, often between rehearsals. Every time a guest conductor comes through or the music director wants to try something new, hours of labor is spent changing hundreds of details of the text. So parts are going to need to be on the stage as a general rule. For many standard works like the Mozart, there is a good chance many of the players know the notes nearly by heart, but since the parts are going to need to be there anyway …


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

Limited by practicality rather like plays, here is a limit on what can be memorised at any particular time - one, certainly; one or two more (unless they are large late C19-early C20 pieces). Suitable for several concerts in a large centre like London (including the Proms) but hardly viable as a permanent feature unless the orchestra is prepared to travel.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Barelytenor said:


> As an aging singer, a few years ago I signed up with an excellent voice teacher who worked with me via Skype--yep, Skype; just don't try to sing duets--and really helped me brush up my technique and the lower extension, in particular. It was a great learning experience for both of us; he learned a ton of new songs I know, I learned a lot of new vocalises and good vocal practices.
> 
> But one of the best learnings from the entire experience was when he observed, over and over again, _how much better I sang when I put the music down and just gave myself over entirely to interpretation._ Quit worrying about every little jot and tittle of the score, just perform!
> 
> ...


Obviously. The 40th is his G minor Symphony. The Jupiter is next and last at 41 in C major. 

Performing in an orchestra with score is difficult enough. Taking a chance on memory lapses without scores? No thanks. Always with scores, IMO.


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

Sorry darling, I was sampling various Mozart bits yesterday. Actually, the No. 40 is his second G minor symphony, and No. 25 is his first G minor symphony. I shall now go sit in a corner until you have studied your Mozart more thoroughly.

I wonder if anyone is actually open-minded enough to listen to these performances, rather than merely calling out the brain fart of an old man? It is amazing what they do, and not having a music stand frees them for so much more expression. I also notice that none of them appear to be older than 30 or so.

Kind regards, :tiphat:

George


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I like the idea but it requires a special dedication and enthusiasm to pull it off… and practice, practice, practice. Some musicians have a gift for memorization and it can be very freeing to have the music so much under your belt that your attention is freed to listen in the midst of the entire ensemble. It’s not unusual for a jazz ensemble to do it because there are fewer players involved and they’re able to get together more often to get their parts down. (Charles Mingus usually taught each individual player by rote rather than having sheet music. That way no one could steal his arrangements!) So to do it in an orchestra is really an amazing feat and I wouldn’t expect anything less than a stunning performance that really ignites because of the potential risks involved if you blow your part.


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2018)

Well I was impressed. With our without a score, a performance remains an interpretation, so I can't think of any reason why "without" should be automatically deemed inferior.

The Aurora have been performing from memory at the the BBC Proms for at least 4 years, so they can't be all bad.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I would only rate an orchestra that could perform by memorization as superior, never inferior, or there'd be no point. Such a feat wouldn’t even be attempted unless the orchestra knew that it could pull it off and had no anxiety about it. It’s amazing how much more one can listen and interact with others if one is not having to read parts. 

If one has the knack, there’s no limit to how much one can memorize. Look at the complicated violin concertos that are now routinely memorized, and soloists aren’t the only ones with that ability. It’s possible to feel the music in one’s body and not be dependent on always having to read it. There’s a way of making it stick. But it’s probably hard to believe if one isn’t a musician.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

I imagine that the hardest thing to do for orchestra members is memorizing the durations of all rests; especially non-string players.


----------

