Great video, I assume conductors are almost required to imagine the music as they see it on the score in real time. That's quite fascinating. I can't even imagine my own part score!
A bit, therefore we have to be prepared very well when standing in front of the orchestra. I can't do it without playing the score extensively on the piano🙌🏻
@@Carl-FriedrichWelkerhow is that possible on a huge score with multiple transposing instruments, is is even humanly possible to look at a 30 stave score and hear it at tempo
Two musicians particularly renowned for their exceptionally acomplished _sight_ reading (not just _score_ reading) skills: Saint-Saëns (including full orchestral scores) and John Ogdon ('scary ' mid-century avant garde works).
Не знаю, как перевести это на английский, но мой обожаемый Рахманинов тоже превосходно читал с листа, даже партитуру, перевёрнутую вверх ногами и справа налево. И этим даже подъебнул какого-то скрипача во время их совместного выступления в Карнеги-холле:))
Very nice video! As a clarinettist, I would just like to remark two things: 1. I imagine this is a slight slip up due to German having different terminology, but the clarinet is definitely in B flat and not in B. 2. Stravinsky does not add 'piccolo clarinet in E flat' compared to Mahler - the clarinet in E flat used by Mahler is the same instrument. It has many names, like 'sopranino clarinet' or 'piccolo clarinet', or 'petite clarinette' in French or 'kleine Klarinette' in German, but it's all the same instrument.
1. yes of course, thanks for mentioning. 2. If I get that right, both clarinets in E flat from Stravinsky and Mahler and piccolo clarinets? Thanks again for explaining.🙌🏻
@@Carl-FriedrichWelker Yes, both clarinets in E flat in those scores are the piccolo/sopranino E flat clarinet, and sound a minor third higher than written. Some people disagree that the E flat clarinet is a true piccolo clarinet, since it tends to operate in a range similar to the regular flute and thus lower than a piccolo, and this is why it's sometimes called piccolo and sometimes sopranino. Any time 'Clarinet in E flat' is mentioned, this clarinet is meant. There are more clarinets pitched in E flat, but they will always have some further name attached, such as the 'Alto clarinet in E flat'. It's similar to how you have the standard clarinet in B flat, even though there is also 'Bass clarinet in B flat'. Also, there is a D clarinet, too, which is pitched a semitone lower than the E flat clarinet (and which is actually used in the Rite of Spring, to my knowledge). It's similar to how the B flat and A clarinets also form a pair. Hope that's all clear, it's a bit complicated! Edit: oh I forgot to mention - the D clarinet is very rare nowadays, which is also why there are so few parts written for it. Mahler's Fifth and Sixth also use it, and I believe Strauss's Till Eulenspiegel does, too. I would not recommend writing for it unless you are writing for a specific clarinettist who you know has access to one.
The places that use alphabetical names for notes can be divided into two groups, more or less English speaking and non English speaking. What the first group calls B flat and B are called respectively B and H by the second group.
I remember having to try and sight read some scores for a conducting class. Most of it one could fake through in some aspects. Then came Bartok Concerto for Orchestra, then Mahler 2nd.
My score playing teacher showed me some useful tips. He read transposing onstruments as other clefs. Clarinet in B? Tenor Clef, in A? Soprano Clef etc... so horns un E (or Eb) can be read as bass clefs conincidently enough. You just have to be careful with the accidentals ;)
Like everything, score reading takes practice and knowledge of the instruments nuances and their written pitch vs sounding pitch. When you study the craft of orchestration, you learn all the clefs, how the instrument is supose to sound and how the color and character changes when you double them. We study a lot of scores and read through them as I listen to it. Instruments are not only playing notes, there are articulations, ornamentations and other markings and instructions the composer might add, often to the percussion section, as they may ask for a soft mallet or hard mallet on the rim. All of these details must be kept in mind to better understand the composer intention. No one would be expected to sight read a score, but every conductor and orchestrator should know how to read a score. Every instrumentalist better know how to read their own part. With a lot of practice and experience, we can look at a score and hear it in our head.
Few disagreements: 1) Maybe it's a bias from overexposure but I don't think The Rite of Spring is that hard to read (nor do I think this excerpt is a particularly good example of it being hard to read.) That's because the orchestra essentially works as a giant guitar in this part. There's no real counterpoint and everything moves in block chords that are orchestrated for volume. So the only real challenge is the time signature shifts but that also isn't bad when you understand the underlying construction. It's not an easy piece to memorize to be sure, but Mahler's 7th is much more of a challenge imo. 2) I think even within the confines of the very early 20th century, Daphnis et Chloe isn't necessarily harder than many excerpts of say Mahler's 9th. There are less total instruments but when there's also almost no doublings whatsoever and you're staring at 6 or so independent voices orchestrated in Klangfarbenmelodien, that becomes a lot harder to parse. 3) I know later 20th century works are essentially cheating since at some point, they reach a scale that is impossible to fully comprehend and compare - it'd be like asking to tell which star in the universe feels hotter to bare human skin - but most later 20th century works are at least chamber orchestras. One score that smacks of instant unreadability is Feldman's Coptic Light. Most works I can at least listen along while looking at the score and have the score help me to make more sense of it. But with Coptic Light, I honestly can't even tell if the score video is in synch after a few minutes of listening. (Shout outs to the opening of Feldman's Violin and Orchestra as well. Very manageable amount of instruments and the work is quite easy to parse by listening. But actually following the score with the solo violin rhythms and god forsaken staggered repeats means that it's still a very difficult work to wrap your head around visually in an unusual way for a 20th century work)
1. I get your point, but if you want to read every instrument, every single one, I think it's harder, because it's not tonal, so reading horn .... will be extremely difficult. 3. Thanks for sharing🙌🏻
I agree with the Feldman mention when it comes to score reading difficulty - taking your eyes off a Feldman score (particularly those without solos) for a few seconds while listening along is detrimental - almost no way of knowing where exactly you are unless you're manically counting beats and bars!
Excellent survey! Obviously scores in the 20th century go way past this to level 30 or 40, but probably few people are interested in those. Having played Clarinet and English Horn, B♭ and F parts are much easier for me to read than D, A and E. Two things I find harder that didn’t appear in the video are: (1) e.g. Wagner writing for E and F Horns at the same time, and (2) enharmonic changes in transposing instruments. The video title notwithstanding, I _can_ read all of these scores. (And it was fun to be able to name all the works.)
What's the name of the last piece, once again? Additionally, I'd point that some passages of Wagner Das Rheingold (or even on Die Walküre) are pretty hard to read: There are a total of 6 Harfen (plus one on stage!) . The Dover edition of the score even have the 6 harps separately, in an annex at the end as it'd otherwise occupy the whole page. (That certainly gives you a different look of the leven of Wagner's ambition, not to mention the 18 (!!) anvils also on 's Rheingold. Wahnsinn!
For level 1 Actually Mozart 41 is one of hard type reading scores If we speak about final movement. Yes first movement is not hard but last movement is full of counterpoint, especially coda part all fugal lines mixing in every line Thats why Mozart 41 is actual a bit dangerous take. For example Mozart 25 is more basic take for sight reading Also, I would have liked to see more radical pieces on the list. For example, Scriabin, Bartok, Messiaen, Boulez, Schnittke.
I would like to add that reading and playing on the piano the fourth movement of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony (which I did during the college) is quite difficult. Transpositions and unusual clefs shouldn't be the primary criteria regarding the difficulty, partly because we get used to them as we gain more experience. Some scores are written in C (for instance Prokofiev) and they are still tremendously difficult to read.
Yes 4th movement of Jupiter is brutal, had to play it in a lesson once, while someone else had to conduct it. My teacher yelled at me because it was so bad😂
I could imagine Strauss Eine Alpensinfonie with so many differents to be tough, but it is very tonal compared to some of the other pieces at the end of this video hahaha! Knowing myself though, I think my music will be around a level 7 to read hahahaha!
Score reading is definitely not about playing scores on the piano most of the time. Also, the reduction of score reading difficulty to just issues with reading transpositions is… anyway.
daphnis et chloe is so much better with the chorus, imo. I know it's more manageable with just the orchestra, but it just... doesn't SOUND right without the chorus!
@@Carl-FriedrichWelker you gotta hear it! it's on TH-cam :) the best recording is the version conducted by Ansermet (the whole ballet, though, and the 3rd act is the second suite, which also has quite a bit of chorus, especially in the 'Leve du Jour' and "Danse Generale' parts. It really lends it a certain... je ne sais quoi.
Well, I know the squiggly dollar sign thingie is a "triple clef" or something like that, and that you read left to right, but after that I get a bit lost. 🤔
bruhhh I have an audition excerpt from daphnis et chloe :') funny things aside: Im actually loving your series, or something, on conducting/score reading! I want to be more of an orchestral musician, so I guess this is one thing to pick up on 👀
![งมหอย จับปลา มือเปล่า หาอยู่หากินแบบวีถีอีสานกับแก๊งเซียนหรั่ง ม่วนคัก! [ขอนแก่น] @Sianstudio](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JEJZg6N-AbU/mqdefault.jpg)
Leave a comment🙌🏻
Chose such an easy Stravinsky excerpt.
0:00 Level 1: Mozart Symphony No. 41
0:53 Level 2: Haydn Symphony No. 104
1:58 Level 3: Beethoven Symphony No. 5
2:49 Level 4: Dvorak Symphony No. 9
3:38 Level 5: Brahms Symphony No. 4
5:12 Level 6: Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 6
6:46 Level 7: Bruckner Symphony No. 7
8:11 Level 8: Mahler Symphony No. 7
10:29 Level 9: Stravinsky The Rite of Spring
11:42 Level 10: Ravel Daphne et Chloe
Great video, I assume conductors are almost required to imagine the music as they see it on the score in real time. That's quite fascinating. I can't even imagine my own part score!
Audiation takes practice, just like note reading, scale playing, and vertually any skill a musician learns . . . it all takes practice.
A bit, therefore we have to be prepared very well when standing in front of the orchestra. I can't do it without playing the score extensively on the piano🙌🏻
Agreed🙌🏻
@@Carl-FriedrichWelkerhow is that possible on a huge score with multiple transposing instruments, is is even humanly possible to look at a 30 stave score and hear it at tempo
Neat to see just how complex the scores get! It makes Beethoven and Mozart a walk in the park!
Two musicians particularly renowned for their exceptionally acomplished _sight_ reading (not just _score_ reading) skills: Saint-Saëns (including full orchestral scores) and John Ogdon ('scary ' mid-century avant garde works).
Не знаю, как перевести это на английский, но мой обожаемый Рахманинов тоже превосходно читал с листа, даже партитуру, перевёрнутую вверх ногами и справа налево. И этим даже подъебнул какого-то скрипача во время их совместного выступления в Карнеги-холле:))
@@ЕленаШатравка-ц5з Вау! Это невероятно. Я никогда не слышал этих анекдотов раньше.
Me: casually skips to level 10 and successfully reads about half of it.
Very nice video! As a clarinettist, I would just like to remark two things:
1. I imagine this is a slight slip up due to German having different terminology, but the clarinet is definitely in B flat and not in B.
2. Stravinsky does not add 'piccolo clarinet in E flat' compared to Mahler - the clarinet in E flat used by Mahler is the same instrument. It has many names, like 'sopranino clarinet' or 'piccolo clarinet', or 'petite clarinette' in French or 'kleine Klarinette' in German, but it's all the same instrument.
1. yes of course, thanks for mentioning.
2. If I get that right, both clarinets in E flat from Stravinsky and Mahler and piccolo clarinets? Thanks again for explaining.🙌🏻
@@Carl-FriedrichWelker Yes, both clarinets in E flat in those scores are the piccolo/sopranino E flat clarinet, and sound a minor third higher than written. Some people disagree that the E flat clarinet is a true piccolo clarinet, since it tends to operate in a range similar to the regular flute and thus lower than a piccolo, and this is why it's sometimes called piccolo and sometimes sopranino.
Any time 'Clarinet in E flat' is mentioned, this clarinet is meant. There are more clarinets pitched in E flat, but they will always have some further name attached, such as the 'Alto clarinet in E flat'. It's similar to how you have the standard clarinet in B flat, even though there is also 'Bass clarinet in B flat'.
Also, there is a D clarinet, too, which is pitched a semitone lower than the E flat clarinet (and which is actually used in the Rite of Spring, to my knowledge). It's similar to how the B flat and A clarinets also form a pair.
Hope that's all clear, it's a bit complicated!
Edit: oh I forgot to mention - the D clarinet is very rare nowadays, which is also why there are so few parts written for it. Mahler's Fifth and Sixth also use it, and I believe Strauss's Till Eulenspiegel does, too. I would not recommend writing for it unless you are writing for a specific clarinettist who you know has access to one.
The places that use alphabetical names for notes can be divided into two groups, more or less English speaking and non English speaking. What the first group calls B flat and B are called respectively B and H by the second group.
@@cesareangeli6653 True although the French might call B "Si"
@@robinhillyard6187 in fact I specified "places that uses alphabetical names", which does not include France, as far as I know
Carl: 10 levels of score reading.
Me: Just “da da da da”.
Haha😂
Im happy to announce that when it comes to playing scores on the piano I am below level 1👊👊
Sorry😂
I remember having to try and sight read some scores for a conducting class. Most of it one could fake through in some aspects. Then came Bartok Concerto for Orchestra, then Mahler 2nd.
My score playing teacher showed me some useful tips. He read transposing onstruments as other clefs. Clarinet in B? Tenor Clef, in A? Soprano Clef etc... so horns un E (or Eb) can be read as bass clefs conincidently enough. You just have to be careful with the accidentals ;)
Yeah, that's the problem, as soon as more then 2 shows up, it's way more difficult and I wouldn't recommend it.
Like everything, score reading takes practice and knowledge of the instruments nuances and their written pitch vs sounding pitch. When you study the craft of orchestration, you learn all the clefs, how the instrument is supose to sound and how the color and character changes when you double them. We study a lot of scores and read through them as I listen to it. Instruments are not only playing notes, there are articulations, ornamentations and other markings and instructions the composer might add, often to the percussion section, as they may ask for a soft mallet or hard mallet on the rim. All of these details must be kept in mind to better understand the composer intention. No one would be expected to sight read a score, but every conductor and orchestrator should know how to read a score. Every instrumentalist better know how to read their own part. With a lot of practice and experience, we can look at a score and hear it in our head.
8,5 -- Scriabin's Poems
Few disagreements:
1) Maybe it's a bias from overexposure but I don't think The Rite of Spring is that hard to read (nor do I think this excerpt is a particularly good example of it being hard to read.) That's because the orchestra essentially works as a giant guitar in this part. There's no real counterpoint and everything moves in block chords that are orchestrated for volume. So the only real challenge is the time signature shifts but that also isn't bad when you understand the underlying construction. It's not an easy piece to memorize to be sure, but Mahler's 7th is much more of a challenge imo.
2) I think even within the confines of the very early 20th century, Daphnis et Chloe isn't necessarily harder than many excerpts of say Mahler's 9th. There are less total instruments but when there's also almost no doublings whatsoever and you're staring at 6 or so independent voices orchestrated in Klangfarbenmelodien, that becomes a lot harder to parse.
3) I know later 20th century works are essentially cheating since at some point, they reach a scale that is impossible to fully comprehend and compare - it'd be like asking to tell which star in the universe feels hotter to bare human skin - but most later 20th century works are at least chamber orchestras. One score that smacks of instant unreadability is Feldman's Coptic Light. Most works I can at least listen along while looking at the score and have the score help me to make more sense of it. But with Coptic Light, I honestly can't even tell if the score video is in synch after a few minutes of listening.
(Shout outs to the opening of Feldman's Violin and Orchestra as well. Very manageable amount of instruments and the work is quite easy to parse by listening. But actually following the score with the solo violin rhythms and god forsaken staggered repeats means that it's still a very difficult work to wrap your head around visually in an unusual way for a 20th century work)
1. I get your point, but if you want to read every instrument, every single one, I think it's harder, because it's not tonal, so reading horn .... will be extremely difficult.
3. Thanks for sharing🙌🏻
I agree with the Feldman mention when it comes to score reading difficulty - taking your eyes off a Feldman score (particularly those without solos) for a few seconds while listening along is detrimental - almost no way of knowing where exactly you are unless you're manically counting beats and bars!
Excellent survey! Obviously scores in the 20th century go way past this to level 30 or 40, but probably few people are interested in those. Having played Clarinet and English Horn, B♭ and F parts are much easier for me to read than D, A and E. Two things I find harder that didn’t appear in the video are: (1) e.g. Wagner writing for E and F Horns at the same time, and (2) enharmonic changes in transposing instruments. The video title notwithstanding, I _can_ read all of these scores. (And it was fun to be able to name all the works.)
Then great work💪🏻
Level 11 would be contemporary pieces with extended technique on all instruments and ten pages of notation explanation.
Where would Prokofiev's Fifth Symphony be placed?
What's the name of the last piece, once again?
Additionally, I'd point that some passages of Wagner Das Rheingold (or even on Die Walküre) are pretty hard to read: There are a total of 6 Harfen (plus one on stage!) . The Dover edition of the score even have the 6 harps separately, in an annex at the end as it'd otherwise occupy the whole page. (That certainly gives you a different look of the leven of Wagner's ambition, not to mention the 18 (!!) anvils also on 's Rheingold. Wahnsinn!
The last piece is Ravel Daphne et Chloe suite no.2
Yes Wagner is usually also very hard to read, around Mahler to Stravinsky Level or Ravel Level. If the harps are in C, I think it's still doable😂
For level 1
Actually Mozart 41 is one of hard type reading scores
If we speak about final movement.
Yes first movement is not hard but last movement is full of counterpoint, especially coda part all fugal lines mixing in every line
Thats why Mozart 41 is actual a bit dangerous take. For example Mozart 25 is more basic take for sight reading
Also, I would have liked to see more radical pieces on the list. For example, Scriabin, Bartok, Messiaen, Boulez, Schnittke.
Shostakovich and Gershwin : Are we a joke to you ?
I've studied the sacrificial dance, so I had no problems reading it at all. Probably kinda hard to read it for someone who hasn't done that though
I would like to add that reading and playing on the piano the fourth movement of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony (which I did during the college) is quite difficult. Transpositions and unusual clefs shouldn't be the primary criteria regarding the difficulty, partly because we get used to them as we gain more experience. Some scores are written in C (for instance Prokofiev) and they are still tremendously difficult to read.
Yes 4th movement of Jupiter is brutal, had to play it in a lesson once, while someone else had to conduct it. My teacher yelled at me because it was so bad😂
I could imagine Strauss Eine Alpensinfonie with so many differents to be tough, but it is very tonal compared to some of the other pieces at the end of this video hahaha!
Knowing myself though, I think my music will be around a level 7 to read hahahaha!
I've played Carmina Burana about two months ago and it still haunts me. Where would you put it on the list?
Never seen the score, but sang it in choir. Around Bruckner I would say.🙌🏻
Which recording is that for the D&C?
I think they are all from HR Sinfonieorchester, th-cam.com/video/sxPcroAcCfY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=78uZHHTLTi8FKXX3
Score reading is definitely not about playing scores on the piano most of the time. Also, the reduction of score reading difficulty to just issues with reading transpositions is… anyway.
Sorry, yes I can. All of them. No issue.
Some of them I can even play on the piano.
Can you make the same idea but for pianists ?
Maybe, let's see😉
Now show Scriabin’s Prometheus and some Korngold, puts Ravel to shame😂
daphnis et chloe is so much better with the chorus, imo. I know it's more manageable with just the orchestra, but it just... doesn't SOUND right without the chorus!
I don't even know it with the choir. What a shame😂
@@Carl-FriedrichWelker Parts of it have chorus
@@Carl-FriedrichWelker you gotta hear it! it's on TH-cam :) the best recording is the version conducted by Ansermet (the whole ballet, though, and the 3rd act is the second suite, which also has quite a bit of chorus, especially in the 'Leve du Jour' and "Danse Generale' parts. It really lends it a certain... je ne sais quoi.
I always thought Daphne et Chloe is easier to read than Rite of Spring.
ferneyhough is level 20
Well, I know the squiggly dollar sign thingie is a "triple clef" or something like that, and that you read left to right, but after that I get a bit lost. 🤔
Yeah that doesn't help much😂
13:47 you did not just say 4/5
Damn, thanks for recognizing😂
Nice, I’m -1 then
😂
level 10 is even hard to sightread for the people playing LOL
bruhhh I have an audition excerpt from daphnis et chloe :')
funny things aside: Im actually loving your series, or something, on conducting/score reading! I want to be more of an orchestral musician, so I guess this is one thing to pick up on 👀
Thank you, glad if I can help🙌🏻
If this is level 10, Ferneyhough is level 134
Still, great video! Though a lot of modern music would easily top all of that.
Yes that's right, but I don't like that kind of music very much🙌🏻
@@Carl-FriedrichWelker What's that you say? Heresy! Heresy! Every "proper" musician must like abstruse non-diatonic soundworlds. lol 🤣