Richard Pennycuick wrote:

>I'm not nitpicking or trying to score points, but there must be a lot of
>music which is familiar to you through having heard it in live performance,
>recordings or both, but which you have either not conducted or read or
>both.  Are you able to dissociate what you have learned of the music in
>this way when you read a score, or isn't this important to the process
>you describe?

That depends on the score and how commonly it is performed.  If I am
working on the Mozart Requiem, for example, then I do, of course have
memories from having either sung the work, heard it somewhere etc.  I try
then to study such a score from a sort of deconstructionist's point of
view, where I attempt as much as possible to throw out what I know about
it and approach the score afresh.  On the whole, however, I don't program
overly familiar music with my choir.  I have tried to build our reputation
on doing the repertoire that is off the beaten track.

Yes, there are pieces which I have heard once, perhaps, and it made an
impression.  But given the number of concerts in our season and the amount
of rehearsal time we have, it is often years between hearing a piece and
learning a score, so I am able to approach it from scratch with perhaps
only the memory of a theme or tune to go on.

What is more familiar is my knowledge of styles.  I can learn Bach quickly
because I have sung a lot of Bach and I know his habits.  Ditto most
Renaissance music.  The more music one knows, the easier it is to learn
more music.

Kevin Sutton