Repertoire or Mastery?

College Majors Music Majors
1

<p>There is a question that’s been floating around my head for ages: is it better, in auditions for colleges and summer programs, to be playing easier repertoire perfectly, or to be playing harder repertoire, even if it is not as polished? I understand that repertoire isn’t everything - obviously a botched Paganini 24 is no better than a clean Kreutzer 1 - but in the case of showing off technical facility, isn’t it better to show off what you can do to the maximum, as opposed to only showing facets of your skill that have been perfected?</p>

<p>This is especially a concern for me due to my relative inexperience with my instrument (viola) - the repertoire I have been tackling has become exponentially more difficult, where as last year I was playing Vaughan-Williams’ Suite for Viola and Bach Suite 1, this year I’m playing Hindemith Der Schwanendreher, Bach Suite 4, and the like. I am working on a steady balance of fundamentals to repertoire, and each new piece shows off more facets of my technique than previous ones. However, in auditions, would you rather play an easier piece perfectly, showing what you could do in the past, or play a harder piece not as well, showing where you are and where you could use improvement?</p>

2

<p>This is something that probably depends upon the teacher and the instrument. You should ask your teacher.</p>

<p>My daughter is auditioning on two instruments this year. On one, she is playing very difficult music, graduate-level music, and hopefully she will hit all her notes. On the other, it’s just Bach, far easier technically. Different approaches to the two instruments.</p>

3

<p>I would say, from what I have observed, that mastery is much more important. My daughter has a friend who got into Curtis playing the Barber violin concerto; another was accepted to Perlman’s studio at Julliard playing Bruch. Obviously, these students could also play much more difficult repertoire, and the auditions called for more than just a concerto, but my point is that their choices of “easy” repertoire did not preclude admission. If you are struggling with your pieces, or if you are at risk of bungling your auditions because of technical insecurity (i.e., if you might have trouble in the high-pressure audition situation) it would be better to go in and wow them with your “easier” pieces. I realize that viola rep is more problematic in this regard than violin rep since the warhorses like Hindemith and Walton represent a technical quantum leap from pieces like Stamitz. Never go into an audition to show where you could use improvement (there could be some space for that in a trial lesson, where you can demonstrate how quickly you absorb instruction…)</p>

4

<p>Nice post GH, but I’m still getting over the “just Bach” of woodwind’s post. Please tell me ww was not referring to the Chaconne from Partita No. 2 for violin.</p>

5

<p>Thank you Compdad…I didn’t quite know what to make of that comment either. Beware the “easy” rep as it isn’t as simple as it sounds because there’s nowhere to run and hide. All technical flaws will come shining through, and Bach takes a very mature musician to perform well.</p>

6

<p>So true ProMusician. There is a reason why virtually every conservatory and SOM requires a Bach solo piece for many instruments at auditions.</p>

7

<p>Just talked to my piano teacher and she said mastery is always more important, but if your difficulty level is too easy, they’ll take note. So, it needs to be challenging, but accessible to be performed confidently in a high-pressure situation.</p>

8

<p>Is it different for bassists? I ask because my daughter’s rep for auditions was pretty much decided by the colleges she chose to apply to. each one had a few different pieces they wanted but for the most part they told her what she should be prepared to play. Now that said, she was told by at least two bass professors at two different schools that they were pleased she was working on appropriate pieces and not trying to do pieces that were more show-off pieces. One prof said he sees a lot of students come in able to play one crazy hard piece and yet they have weak basic skills… and you need those skills to be successful long term.</p>

9

<p>

Exactly-- and that is why Curtis requires a full Mozart concerto for violinists. Bach is also a bit of a minefield because there are so many conflicting, passionate opinions on how it should be played!</p>

10

<p>Like the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata. I never knew how hard that it was until I played it a second time as a more advanced student. The number of notes on a page can be deceiving.</p>

11

<p>Curtis also requires a complete partita or sonata of Bach for violin.</p>

12

<p>OK, I’ll explain.</p>

<p>Bach, played on oboe and other instruments, quickly separates those who have mastered their instrument, or are well on their way to. The judges can hear that in the first few measures. If the player has this control, he or she does not need to demonstrate different
technical skills, say by performing the Berrio Sequenza VII.</p>

<p>There are other instruments which are not as traditional. For example, a number of saxophone departments want to hear specific technical skills, and applicants playing easier pieces that do not demonstrate specific more advanced technical skills will not be rated as highly as those who do.</p>

13

<p>Kidding more than anything ww, but thanks for the explanation. I bought the Berrio on vinyl at Half Price Books a couple of days ago.</p>

14

<p>As a long time lurker, I just had to chime in to say I am constantly amazed at how much I learn from reading this forum . . . . </p>

<p>Hopefully, through the process of osmosis, I am able to absorb something to help my child navigate what, to me, feels like walking blindfolded through a minefield. Few years away, but trying to learn now.</p>

15

<p>Welcome DesignDad. What instrument or voice?</p>

16

<p>OH YES. The first movement of the Moonlight Sonata is extremely difficult (contrary and relative to what it looks like of course) and takes a relatively long time to perform well.</p>

17

<p>Compdad – Daughter is HS Frosh Oboe.</p>

18

<p>alexmariejp,</p>

<p>I think the main difference in the bass world is that there are fewer audition pieces in general use. I would guess that a large majority of the double bass auditioners at the programs usually mentioned around here are using one or more of the same six to eight pieces.</p>

<p>My daughter was accepted in the early review phase by Oberlin using the Eccles Sonata, which is not tremendously difficult technically, as one of her main audition pieces. She played it with a lot of musicality and maturity and really made it sing in the upper register. She used the Koussevitzky, which is a challenge but still not the hardest of the usual pieces, for auditions later that year that required a concerto. Her teacher through high school, who is now assistant principal in the Philadelphia Orchestra, used Kouss for his concerto in getting accepted to Curtis.</p>

19

<p>The standard advice is probably the best, to play the piece at the highest level you can where you are playing it in a polished fashion,because how you play it. I suspect you will get higher marks for playing the Sibelius Concerto at a high level over playing the Bruch at a high level, but if you had to choose between a polished Bruch and a less the polished Sibelius, Bruch would be the way to go.</p>

<p>The violin programs I am aware of require a bach solo partita or sonata as part of the audition repertoire and there is a reason for that. They were written to stretch the capability of the violin, and being solo, there is nowhere to hide, and you add to that that Bach is basically creating polyphony on a single instrument, and it is easy to see why they would want it. As GH said, what is fun about Bach on the violin is the artistic side is difficult, because no one really knows ‘how it was meant to be played’, Aaron Rosand of Curtis made a good point in an interview, he said that it is kind of idiotic to talk about playing Bach authentically, when we don’t know how it was played (no recordings in the 18th century), but more importantly, unless you are auditioning on a Baroque violin playing with a Baroque bow, playing on a modern instrument with a modern bow automatically makes it very different… </p>

<p>Bach is chosen for another reason, it is because musically it is very, very different then classical and romantic pieces, and they are trying to see if the student has learned to differentiate between playing Bach (or another Baroque piece) versus playing a classical piece versus a romantic one, it is amazing how many kids who are otherwise incredibly high level players have gotten through to that level without understanding the differences.</p>

<p>Mozart is an interesting one, it points out that difficulty is not everything (there is a reason why programs ask for Mozart). Mozart’s violin concertos are technically not as difficult as the romantic warhorses like the Sibelius, Tchaikovsky and Mendelsohn and their ilk, but Mozart has the distinction of being relatively easy to play technically, but is also very difficult to play well, in a way that is interesting, and audition panels are looking at that, to see especially if they are playing Mozart in a style appropriate to the classical era. </p>

<p>While playing technically flawlessly is a major goal, they are looking at musical interpretation and style, which is another reason to play a piece you feel comfortable with/is polished, that if you are struggling to hit the notes, play with solid intonation, you are likely to lose out on the musical/stylistic side.</p>

20

<p>This is good advice for any one auditioning, even VP majors. Musicality often trumps the technical. They teach technical but musicality is harder. Find the highest level piece you can connect to and perform well. Demonstrate your understanding of more than the technical components. This will serve you better than any struggle to achieve a higher but struggling technical level. DD had much less technical skills when she auditioned but her to-be studio professor loved her interpretation, musicality and potential.</p>