Memorization: Your method of choice?

[kard]

Hello all,
I was just wondering what opinions/ways are out there. I'm assuming that I'll see opinions unique to each person, but I want to see if there is any common ground or common skills that whatever techniques you employ support.
I myself have gone through quite a lot of approaches.
My current one is basically observing the sensation of movement that music causes and using that as the backbone for everything else. I guess it's kind of deductive in a sense? starting from general (concept of music) to specific (fingering, technique).
Who here has had good experiences with more inductive methods?

I'm really interested in hearing your responses. Please share

[slobone]

I'm having trouble seeing any connection between what you're describing and memorization, which is a fairly mechanical process.

Here's some tricks I've learned. First, divide up the piece into small manageable chunks, and number the chunks (with a pencil on the score.

Then memorize each chunk in isolation. To do this, do NOT attempt to start by playing it without looking at the score. Play it first while looking at the score, then again by looking only at the keys. Repeat until you can do it perfectly without looking at the score. Then go on to the next chunk.

Repeat the process the next day. Eventually you should be able to play all the way through without looking at the score.

Now do the chunks in random order. You should be able to do any chunk independently of any other (this is where the number comes in). Deal out a deck of cards, or whatever, to determine the order each day. If you can stop or start a piece anywhere, without looking at the music, then you truly have it memorized.

None of this has much to do with interpretation, obviously, but I'm assuming that you're also continuing to work on that. I regard memorization as a separate skill.

[pianoperformer]

Honestly, it's not really something I think about. I've been memorizing everything since I started 14 years ago, so it's rather natural. I say just do it, and you will get better with time. The real trick though is never using the score again once you have it memorized, unless you forget something, and then only to refresh your memory on that part. Use the score as little as possible.

So, start from the beginning, and memorize as much as you can. Then, put away the music and just practice that part. Add more as you get comfortable with the parts you've already learned. Maybe set a goal for what to memorize daily, then just practice that part.

[kard]

hmm I guess memorization wasn't the strict focus of what I was talking about, I was thinking more along the lines of "How do you keep it all together?" like..what's your main device for approaching a piano, sitting down and gathering yourself to play? Even the memorization chunks, what is going through your head, how do you process it all? (does that make sense?)
--

Here's some tricks I've learned. First, divide up the piece into small manageable chunks, and number the chunks (with a pencil on the score.

I have heard of the memorization by chunks part, and I do it (not as thoroughly as you do). I think the reason why it sounds weird is because I attempt to do some sort of interpretation as a part of the memorization process.
--

Honestly, it's not really something I think about. I've been memorizing everything since I started 14 years ago, so it's rather natural. I say just do it, and you will get better with time. The real trick though is never using the score again once you have it memorized, unless you forget something, and then only to refresh your memory on that part. Use the score as little as possible.

So, start from the beginning, and memorize as much as you can. Then, put away the music and just practice that part. Add more as you get comfortable with the parts you've already learned. Maybe set a goal for what to memorize daily, then just practice that part.

The reason why I'm asking is to see how I can do better and if I have any inefficient habits. (I have no teacher to consult). I believe that if I better understand my process, I have less chances of blockouts and technique issues and the faster I can get to the music.

[pianoperformer]

Well, at first you play slowly and think of note-by-note, what chords you're hitting, etc. Eventually you get the feel of it in your hands; you still know the notes but don't really think of them. You just know where you are and where you are going. Always think of where you are going, because it helps you anticipate what's coming up, which helps with avoiding mistakes.
Never forget the notes though even when you don't think of them, because mental play can be another valuable way of improving your memory of the piece and your playing of it. Also, if you get lost somewhere in the middle of a piece, you can more easily continue without trouble.

[kard]

Yea, I do mental play too  Its very interesting.
I guess I could explain myself even more now    ...
(i should really work on getting my point across...i have AP english exams tomorrow  )

I use movement (musical and physical) to track where I'm going as well as a significant part of what I try to emphasize as far as interpretation goes.
Do you use sound, photographic memory or what?

And I noticed you consider interpretation different from memorization. How do you guys think about interpretation?

[pianoperformer]

You sound like you're doing fine, then.

What od you mean by photographic memory? I mean, I don't have the music score embedded in my mind or anything. I just instantaneously memorize the notes without much effort, from all the memorization practice I've gotten over the years. Usually I do a measure or two for one of the hands, play it one or more times depending on the difficulty, then learn the other hand and do the same. Then I play them together. After a line or two, I try to connect the parts I've just learned, and connect the previous part with it for transition.

I guess after a while I know what sound I want and act accordingly.

As for interpretation, you shouldn't/can't memorize that. For me, interpretation is different every time. I feel the music and let it tell a story. There are things I do that are similar every time, but sometimes I might slow down here or bring this certain note out because I feel like it is the right effect at the time. That's another reason you really have to have an idea of where the music is going, because it is very much like a story, and one part leads to another, and you're the one that leads it.

I hope that makes sense.

[kard]

ah you're lucky  I haven't had the experience to ingrain a specific method without thinking about it...I think this is my weakest point. I've only recently started to tackle piano seriously, (around 2-4 years?) but I have been playing as an amateur since childhood (just a reeally limited repertoire, and a keyboard: nothing much was available). I've got decent technique and can figure out technical problems quick enough (I read a lot of Chang's+this forum and so on). It's just a certain mental aspect of piano playing that keeps eluding me.
Is that something that can only be treated with time or experience? 
I hope I can start getting lessons in college though :-/ That would be awesome. I would love to play more Ravel+Scarlatti+Scriabin ^^

[pianoperformer]

I don't know what I can say about it. It is natural for me. I read a measure of notes and it is memorized. I practice this for a brief time and I don't have to think about it anymore. Sometimes I have become conscious that I was mentally totally somewhere else and I'm several pages on in the music by the time I become aware of it. Of course I try not to do that, because then it's all automatic and there's no interpretation. But that's happened when I'm really tired while trying to practice. I'll actually doze off a little and start semi-dreaming, and then I come to and am still playing.
Anyway, I think it should be something you will get better at with time and practice. Just try to start memorizing, and use the music score as little as possible (preferably not at all once you have it memorized), and that should help you improve. Do as much as you can, whether that's just a few measures or an entire page. Look for patterns in the music, too, because there are often many of them all throughout.

[dan101]

Lots of repetition with no errors makes for a good combination when memorizing.

[kard]

yea the more i think about it, its all a question of practice. I just need to find my 'groove' and grow in experience. No matter how many pages of theory I come up with, it takes practice to make it work.  Its just that I get stuck sometimes and I get all panicky lol
thanks so far you guys

[aewanko]

Memorization's overrated. 

[healdie]

I recently went to see a concert in Manchester and i went to see the pre concert talk and the pianist said that he can play 30 concertos from memory and then there are another 30 that he knows but may need to revise, and he also said that you cannot call yourself a pianist untill you can play all 48 Bach preludes an Fugues, all 32 Beethoven Sonatas and all of the Chopin Etudes from Memory

[mike_lang]

you cannot call yourself a pianist untill you can play all 48 Bach preludes an Fugues, all 32 Beethoven Sonatas and all of the Chopin Etudes from Memory

I must say, I know very few "pianists" that can perform this prodigious feat...

[mike_lang]

Lots of repetition with no errors makes for a good combination when memorizing.

To build on that, lots of creative repetition - listening to different voices, mental analysis, varied tempi (to varied ends, of course), and refinement of motion.  It is important also, as Dan points out, not to make mistakes (this includes incorrect/inconsistent fingering), since they are memorized as well!

[slobone]

I must say, I know very few "pianists" that can perform this prodigious feat...

Oh, I don't know. If you're a top-level pianists, you pretty much have to have a huge repertoire memorized or you won't be ready for all the concerts you play. Do you think Josef Hoffman didn't have all those pieces committed to memory, or Rubinstein, who recorded practically everything? Horowitz? Claudio Arrau? Maybe not literally every item on the list, and certainly there could be a memory lapse now and then, but I don't think you can be a professional unless you have a highly-developed memory.

A friend of mine, a flutist, went to a student piano recital with me, where one of the students had a panic attack and couldn't remember a note of her piece. Afterwards he said, "Why do they torture pianists by making them memorize everything? Other instrumentalists get to play from the music." I could only respond, "Perhaps more is expected of pianists...".

[alessandro]

It's probably nice to play pieces by heart, so you don' have to carry scores all the time...  I have a bad memory and I'm kind of lazy...  So I was glad to hear when Richter said that at a point of his life he had a lot of music in his memory but gave up memorising from one day to another... At the end of his life (probably also due to his age)  he played with the score and he said that playing without score is a useless effort for the brain.   He felt much lighter and felt that he could better focus on the music with the score in front of him.  I think there's an actual tendancy in musical education to not exaggerate on memorizing, it is alright to play with the score.   There's one practical problem, it is the page turning, but for the rest, the only reason why memorizing is nice is for playing in 'unexpected' moments, for friends, in a bar, in a place where there's a piano and you don't have your scores with you. 
Kindly.

[rachfan]

Techniques of memorization are unique to the particular pianist, as capabilities and skills between and among pianists differ.  There are four basic kinds of memory: visual, aural, tactile, and analytical. 

There are two kinds of visual memory.  The first is "photographic memory" where one can "see" all of the details of the score in the mind as if the sheet music were actually open on the piano.  I would guess that about 5% of pianists have that extraordinary ability, which quickly eliminates its practical usefulness to other pianists who do not have photographic memories.  The other form of visual memory is observing and retaining in mind the key patterns as they are depressed and progress on the keyboard as the piece is played.  Jorge Bolet, for example, always watched the keyboard like a hawk whenever he performed.  He used this form of visual memory extensively. 

Aural memory is hearing the piece, not in the mind's eye, but in the mind's ear so to speak.  This does not require perfect pitch, only relative pitch.  Being able to hear in the mind how the piece unfolds helps the playing mechanism to navigate the keyboard to maintain continuity and fluidity in playing.  Thus, to a great extent the sound in the mind directs the execution at the instrument.  And if playing gets off track, the aural sound within the mind can assist in getting it back on track.

Tactile or digital memory occurs when, through diligent practice, one has the piece "in the fingers" as they say.  So this mostly depends on the motor responses from the brain and nervous system and the consequent feeling of the playing in the fingers, which can be recalled during performance.  Where this is principally mechanical, it comes the easiest to many pianists.  It is also the first system of memorization to suddenly evaporate and fail during performance.

Analytical memory involves studying the score away from the piano, observing form, structure, "landmarks" that can be used as re-start points after a memory slip, and fine points of musical theory.  Walter Geiseking, for example, relied heavily on analytical memorization.  But if one has not been schooled in music theory, form & analysis, harmony, counterpoint, etc., there will be some limitations as to how helpful this approach can be.  But even knowing the overview and major reference points of the score can be useful.  Knowledge of analysis can be acquired through study, thus is potentially available to everyone.

So it's already apparent that there is not necessarily a "menu of choices" for the pianist who might be absent a particular capability(s) or skill(s).  If one does not have very good relative pitch, then aural memory will be somewhat iffy.  If one lacks a photographic memory, then that can be crossed right off the list.  That is an inborn, not an acquired ability.  If one cannot read key signatures, spot a second inversion of a chord, know an organ pedal point when he sees one, etc. then score analysis might not be too fruitful for that individual.

It's also well known too that it's best to always use at least two (2) memorization techniques in tandem.   For example, one might combine aural and tactile memory.  Or someone else might be able to combine aural, tactile and analytical.  Yet another pianist might rely on visual (key patterns) and tactile.  Etc., etc.   Again, the combinations vary by individual.  The point is though that having at least two kinds of memory aids working together at all times allow each to back the other(s) up during performance, thereby reducing the possibility of a memory lapse. 

As allesandro mentions above, in the last third of life, memorization becomes difficult to impossible.  So at that point methods will no longer be helpful.   The only answer then is to play with the score open.

Thus, there might well be common ground within a group of pianists, but not across the population of pianists.  To memorize effectively, the person has to know his/her own capabilities and to utilize those--not the techniques that suit and benefit someone else with very different capabilities.

[rasteen]

I have particular ideas on memorization. From the time I was a senior in high school, my teacher(s) would not hear anything (even in a lesson) that was not from memory. It was integrated into the natural learning process.  The music was played (obviously) quite slowly, but by memory.  This "forced" the student to learn (or if you prefer, memorize) on every level:

Aural-learning the way the music sounds...getting the accurate pitches into your ear.

Analytical-knowing what is happening on a harmonic, rhythmic, and formal basis.

Tactile-learning the way the music "feels" to the hand, the fingering, reaches, etc.

It has been my experience that adding memory as a second experience relegates it to being learned on only one of the above levels. Then, if something happens during performance to shatter the memory, you are in trouble. When memory is integrated into the normal learning process and occurs on all levels, it is less likely to fail you in performance.

This probably does not work for everyone, but is a good approach in my opinion.  I am anxious to read what others have written.  Thanks!

PS  To me, the best "test" of memory (other than in performance) is in "ghost" or "shadow" practicing (playing the work, silently, on top of the keys, at a slowed tempo).

[rasteen]

An apology: it appears I unnecessarily repeated, in my post, what rachfan had already covered so very well. I should have read all prior to writing.

My apologies.

[lostinidlewonder]

This is how I  usually memorize.

-Memorize what the piece sounds like, i.e be able to reproduce every single note [or close to]  in my mind without playing the piano. This might include listening to recordings with the sheet music or simply sighting the score in silence.

-Sight read over and over again, basically just play the piece while anticipating the sounds from my sound memory in my head. Take note of any patterns observed, write in any difficult fingerings, highlight musical groups etc. Judge difficulties of sections, usually I simply say controllable and challenging, I will highlight challenging parts so they stand out as well as highlighting musical groups.

-Usually after this I memorize a good majority of the piece so then I go back and memorize the weaker bits that have always had to be sight read. I make it a habit not to linger on parts for too long, if a section proves challenging and I cannot completely control it I will take stock of the problem then move on. Thus I learn to juggle lots of imperfect parts and manage to monitor their progress. This can be a tricky task if you are not use to dealing with lots of difficult parts and have the security blanket approach of not moving on until you master every part you play.

I find writing comments and pattern recognition, chord scale forms etc, is essential to increase your rate of memory and rate of relearning if you ever come back to the piece in the future. I certainly cannot remember every single aspect of all my music back to front for performance without some revision before hand so keeping comments on your score is essential. You must also alter these comments because some become obsolete and useless, and sometimes you will need to find a new observation or a more efficient more encompassing pattern recognition.

Hybrid of sight-reading memory is certainly the way to go. I use to separate the two but they both should be together until you find you have memorized the piece without even realizing it. I find that my sight reading becomes lazier and lazier without me noticing as I  sight read, and my memory takes over more and more, until I can simply look at the page and know what to play even though I couldn't read that fast a piece I never knew.

I  believe there are 3 states of memory which reflect what rachfan mentions.

1]Conscious; pattern observations in the score, sectioning out score etc.

2]Muscular; feeling how a group of notes feel with our movement of the hand

3]Sound; hear the sound in your head and using that to guide the other 2 memory.

[slobone]

I always find the hardest part of memorization is when a section is repeated, but with just a few notes changed. Chopin does that a lot.

[rachfan]

Hi rasteen,

No apology is necessary.  I had, in fact, forgotten to mention the point concerning the integration of the memorization process into the learning of a piece, not as a separate activity or after-thought.  Thanks for adding that!

[rachfan]

Hi lostinidelwonder,

I'm glad you made that point about freely annotating scores.  I've known of pianists who have a fetish of keeping scores unmarked and pristine in their music libraries.  To study a piece, they first make a xerox copy of it as their working copy!  I mean, who should fully use, enjoy, and benefit from a score--the person who bought it, or someone who might inherit it in 50 years?  I think the former! 

I very liberally annotate my scores in pencil--comments about the mood, figuration, technical requirements, structure, etc.  I also write in important fingerings, shade in "hairpin" markings for cresc./dimin. as well as accents.  If there is a measure with a tricky rhythm in it, I'm not bashful to write in the counting.  If there is a crucial accelerando or allargando or whatever, I make sure the eye will not miss it.  If I see a wonderful inner line or a critical voiceleading between the hands, I'll place an indicator line there.  If there is an essential pedaling at a certain point to achieve clarity, I'll take a moment to draw in the pedaling there.  Etc. etc.  For those who still study with teachers (I'm long on my own now), their key points should be placed onto the score too as reminders.  (If you paid for the lesson, why forget instructions?  Things can be totally forgotten 48 hours later.)

And there's another bonus: If one goes back years later to relearn a piece,  there will be a goldmine of information annotated there.  The pianist will certainly discover new insights and might even revise an interpretation given increased maturity, but at least those older annotations will accelerate learning and act as a good starting point.  I think in some of my scores, I've annotated them more than the composers!   

Bottom line, those annotations made by the pianist absolutely aid memorization too.

[michel dvorsky]

Sleep with the score under your pillow.

[slobone]

Sleep with the score under your pillow.

Or with one of the judges...

[michel dvorsky]

Mmm. Nikolai Petrov. Dreamy. 

[dora96]

Hi lostinidelwonder,

I'm glad you made that point about freely annotating scores.  I've known of pianists who have a fetish of keeping scores unmarked and pristine in their music libraries.  To study a piece, they first make a xerox copy of it as their working copy!  I mean, who should fully use, enjoy, and benefit from a score--the person who bought it, or someone who might inherit it in 50 years?  I think the former! 

I very liberally annotate my scores in pencil--comments about the mood, figuration, technical requirements, structure, etc.  I also write in important fingerings, shade in "hairpin" markings for cresc./dimin. as well as accents.  If there is a measure with a tricky rhythm in it, I'm not bashful to write in the counting.  If there is a crucial accelerando or allargando or whatever, I make sure the eye will not miss it.  If I see a wonderful inner line or a critical voiceleading between the hands, I'll place an indicator line there.  If there is an essential pedaling at a certain point to achieve clarity, I'll take a moment to draw in the pedaling there.  Etc. etc.  For those who still study with teachers (I'm long on my own now), their key points should be placed onto the score too as reminders.  (If you paid for the lesson, why forget instructions?  Things can be totally forgotten 48 hours later.)

And there's another bonus: If one goes back years later to relearn a piece,  there will be a goldmine of information annotated there.  The pianist will certainly discover new insights and might even revise an interpretation given increased maturity, but at least those older annotations will accelerate learning and act as a good starting point.  I think in some of my scores, I've annotated them more than the composers!   

Bottom line, those annotations made by the pianist absolutely aid memorization too.

Hi Rachfan,

You said it very well. Memorization is always a struggle for me. Because I didn't train myself to do when I was learning the piano and when I was young, most my piano teachers, didn't reinforce the idea that students must remember the score no matter in beginner level to a high level. Most the teachers I had encouraged the students if we can remember the score - great. If we can't, just play with the score. Especially, in piano exam, after learning and practicing for 12 months to 2 years for grade 8. I could play without the score, but it was always the pressure on performance, what if I couldn't remember, or couldn't recovery if I made a mistake without the score. Therefore, for the sake of passing the exam or embarrassment, I chose to use the score no matter what.

My question is how to put the secure memorization in the head without being betrayed by the memory. Despites of using all the methods you have mentioned above, I know some week, I can do with no problem, but some day I have to look at the score. It is very normal. I practice Beethoven Pathetic (3 movements ) every day without the score. I practice like real performance, after I finish. I have used so much energy, brain power and not only physical and mentally strained. As if I have been running in an oval for few times. It is very rewarding to know the music inside out and back to front. But still even I can visualize the score, some day I will still play with mistakes, some part I couldn't remember.

I watched Barenboim in Youtube playing whole Beethoven moonlight Sonata. The concentration and energy and his brain power, the sweat came out to his forehead. It was amazing the mental discipline, what a nervous racking performance !! Even for the most experienced and professional pianist.  I have heard some of the pianists, after the performance, they feel sick even lost weight.

Some one in the forum said, concert pianists have to remember 300 piano concerto, and whole Chopin Etude. I am just wondering how do they achieve that?

Martha Argerich learned Rachmaninoff piano concerto within 2 weeks with memorization. Is that possible? 

[lostinidlewonder]

...I've known of pianists who have a fetish of keeping scores unmarked and pristine in their music libraries.  To study a piece, they first make a xerox copy of it as their working copy!  I mean, who should fully use, enjoy, and benefit from a score--the person who bought it, or someone who might inherit it in 50 years?  I think the former! 

I really hate seeing sheet music without anything personally written on it to guide the owner of the music. As well as written comments, fingering, highlighting pattern etc, I really feel that we should take time to color in music. My most favorite pieces I literally color in everything, the entire sheet music is full of color and looks very pretty to me  Highlighting expressive requirements as you say is very important, I find color and progression of color highlighting your musical observation more effectively than what words do.

I was suggested to explore this coloring in by one of Australia's leading concert pianists Roger Woodward who said color everything and also see the entire score simultaneously all the time. Even if there is a lot of pages of music I will stick them all on a wall and look at the color I have put in it, see the entire music completely as if I was looking at a painting. You know I did think it was strange to do this at first, but then when I actually did it I found that I memorized the music faster, had a better grounds for the memory to grasp the whole piece.

Sure people think you are a little crazy when they see a room full of sheet music stuck up everywhere   Pieces I currently work on are stuck up around the piano for me to always look at. I do not keep them in a book or in a folder which can be closed up, because that takes it out of my sight. When you have things constantly posted up in front of yourself you tend to work on it more. Just by looking at the entire score you are learning, you are consciously re-observing patterns you have highlighted, you are constantly aware of the entire structure of the piece you want to learn, you can see it even when you are sitting somewhere else not doing piano It can taunt you, encouraging you to get it done so you can take it off the wall.

Often I stick up a page of a piece I enjoy but don't feel like actually learning immediately. I every now without thinking try bits of it because it was in front of me when I sat down and I couldn't escape it. Eventually I learn the page without actually trying to learn it, just keep it stuck up in front of me with it all colored in and conscious pattern observations etc (but very little physical playing work) and trying it when I get distracted now and then. I find this is very good to reduce the wasted time when I am distracted. It makes me think that we unavoidably learn music if we see it long enough in front of us and are looking at constantly with an intelligent musical eye.

[mike_lang]

Martha Argerich learned Rachmaninoff piano concerto within 2 weeks with memorization. Is that possible? 

I had a piano teacher once that learned Rach 3 over a weekend (memorized, of course) because he got a call on Friday for a sub performance on Monday and had told them that he, of course, knew the piece.

Argerich has done better than this though (although perhaps it is the stuff of legend): she learned Prok 3 unconsciously while her roommate was practicing it.  The story goes, she woke up and "discovered that she knew it, mistakes and all."

[rachfan]

Hi dora,

On keeping memory secure before playing a piece in recital, two things are particularly important in my opinion.  The first is preparation.  If the pianist has truly studied the piece, practiced intelligently and diligently, done "trial runs" playing the piece from memory for family, friends, neighbors, a teacher, etc., then that is the first constructive step toward success.  Too often one believes that he/she knows the piece--but really does not.  That nasty surprise then surfaces during the recital.

The second requirement is the one you've already observed: concentration.  If one is truly prepared, concentration is the other guarantor of success.  There are two types of distractions than can interrupt concentration.  One is environmental, that is, a disruption from the audience, a quirk of the piano, a noisy heating or A/C system, a loud street noise, a door slamming backstage, or whatever.  Over time most pianists learn to tune all these things out and to persevere in their playing. 

The other, and more serious, enemy of concentration is the occurrence of stray thoughts within the pianist's head.  There are probably hundreds of examples.  For instance, the person might be thinking too far ahead in the piece, but those thoughts are incongruous with what is actual being played on the keyboard in the moment.  In those two or three seconds the brain cannot bifurcate, and there is then a total disconnect showing itself as a memory lapse.  Or, an error has occurred, the person becomes startled and flustered by it, and suddenly continuity is lost.  Or the person is playing, and a totally unrelated thought enters the pianist's mind such as a commitment later that evening.  The pianist is, therefore, not present in the playing, and a memory lapse occurs for that reason.  You get the idea.  Concentration doesn't happen by itself; rather, it is something that requires discipline.  It is a conscious effort and skill that is developed, practiced and achieved over time.

I believe that with solid preparation and steadfast concentration, that the probability of of a serious memory lapse is far reduced.   

[rasteen]

After reading the excellent comments here I did have one more point to offer.  It was triggered in my mind by the exploration of concentration in memorization and performance.

My undergraduate  piano teacher who was a student of Jorge Bolet always stressed what he called "involvement" in practice and performance.  He maintained that "involvement" (or concentration I suppose) in the music must be a total mental, aural and emotional condition of practice to have successful performance.

One aspect of this concerns memory slips.  He maintained (and I agree) that during performance, all senses are sharpened and mental activity is heightened.  If a performer has not practiced with that same sense of complete involvement, they will be shocked in performance.  They hear things they have not heard before...are aware of harmony, form, etc. in ways they have not recognized before, etc.  This can confuse, or even frighten a performer.

I concede that part of this sounds a great deal like preparation...and indeed it is.  But if the preparation does not include "involvement" with the music on a consuming level, the performer will not notice everything in the music that they should.

Also, this is only part of the memorization process, and cannot work without the three prong approach I mentioned in an earlier post and which rachfan presently so completely.

[slobone]

Martha Argerich learned Rachmaninoff piano concerto within 2 weeks with memorization. Is that possible? 

Rubenstein, in his autobiography, claimed that he once learned a new piece he had to perform just by reading the score in the train between cities. I can't remember which piece, but it was something major. Remarkable if true.

[rachfan]

H rasteen,

Jorge Bolet was a great pianist.  I wish he were still with us.  His career got off to slower start than most, but he was duly recognized for his masterful playing in his later years.  I love his Liszt recordings in particular, even though some feel that he was too cautious when recording, but took more exciting risks in live performances.  His idea on "involvement" while playing makes complete sense.  If anyone has ever watched Bolet play in recital or on video, you can actually see his intensive and  total involvement as he plays.

[rachfan]

Hi slobone,

Yes, I remember reading that anecdote told by Rubinstein in My Young Years.  Sometimes he was prone to exaggeration, but who knows, it could be true.  I read a similar one involving Hofmann.  It seems that he listened to another artist playing a piece at a recital (I wish I could recall the piece).  It was the first time he had ever heard it, and he took an instant liking to it.  At his own next recital, he played that entire piece note perfect and masterfully from just that one hearing!  Hmmm... I wish I could do stunts like that!      

[slobone]

Hi slobone,

Yes, I remember reading that anecdote told by Rubinstein in My Young Years.  Sometimes he was prone to exaggeration, but who knows, it could be true.  I read a similar one involving Hofmann.  It seems that he listened to another artist playing a piece at a recital (I wish I could recall the piece).  It was the first time he had ever heard it, and he took an instant liking to it.  At his own next recital, he played that entire piece note perfect and masterfully from just that one hearing!  Hmmm... I wish I could do stunts like that!      

That's a terrific book, by the way. I highly recommend it, not so much for insights on how to play the piano, but on his absorbing accounts of his "lifestyle" which (before WWI) seemed to mostly consist of hanging out with rich friends, eating and drinking well, and getting by on 3-4 hours practice (at most) a day. He seems to have never forgotten a good meal, and the book was written at least 60 years later with no written notes!

[mike_lang]

Rubenstein, in his autobiography, claimed that he once learned a new piece he had to perform just by reading the score in the train between cities. I can't remember which piece, but it was something major. Remarkable if true.

I'm sure it's true - Pletnev learned the Scarlatti sonatas on the plane flight to the city of the studio where he was recording them.

[rachfan]

Hi slobone,

Yes, I agree.  My Young Years was one of the most entertaining autobiographies I've ever read.  And Rubinstein gave so many humorous stories as well.  You can't help but love the book.  I didn't care as much for the continuation, My Many Years.  It wasn't nearly as engaging in my opinion.

As far as one who enjoys 12 course meals with wine courses, traveling the world, staying for long periods with patrons and friends for free, enjoying art, poetry, concerts and museums, and engaging in delicious idleness, the French have a term for that--a bon vivant.  Rubinstein was certainly that, but it was more often referred to as his joie de vivre, or the joy of living.  That's probably why he lived into his 90s! 

In the 1960s I saw a Rubinstein recital at Symphony Hall in Boston.  The hall was was jammed.  Temporary seating was arranged around the piano on stage for the conservatory students in the city.  A Rubinstein appearance was an event as much as a recital.  The air was electric!  When he came out through the stage door, the applause was deafening.  His presence was like none I had ever seen before.  It was as if he owned the hall.  The audience was crazy about him.

It's interesting, because when I was a kid, there were three top-tier pianists at the time--Rubinstein, Horowitz, and Serkin.  (Arrau hadn't yet attained stardom, Richter didn't make a splash until I was at university, and Cliburn was a heroic newcomer, more of my own generation.)  Of the big three, Horowitz was in one of his very long withdrawals from public view and only some recordings were available, so he seemed more of a legend.  Serkin, whom I saw several times, programmed mostly Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert, but Viennese Classics was not my thing.  For me, that left Rubinstein whom I admired greatly.  If any touring artist influenced me more than any other when I was a kid, it was Rubinstein.  I wish he could still be with us.     

[slobone]

I've seen Horowitz and Serkin, but not Rubinstein. Although he was active to quite an advanced age.

I have to laugh at the cover of a Chopin recording of his that I have. It was re-issued under the title The Young Rubinstein. The recordings were made in 1937, when he was already 50!

[rachfan]

That's not the first time Rubinstein regained his youth overnight.  When I was a kid I had a new LP album of Rubinstein playing the Grieg and Liszt concertos.  In his picture on the back he appeared to be about 40.  One day my piano teacher happened to be at our house.  I showed her the album and she saw the picture on it, laughed, and had to inform me that he was in his late 60s!     Maybe Sol Hurok, his impressario, only kept old publicity photos on file.   

[dora96]

I have been thinking and constantly asking other musicians and pianists that how confidence of your memorization if you have to perform in a concert with fair amount of distraction. When I watch Youtube  -  Horowitz played the piano in the White House,  there were people sitting quite close to him and there were some sort of noise within the build, and so many people breathing behind him.

 I have performed in this situation before, but not as many as people in the room, I find that it is hard to concentrate, because I feel the presence of people moving, coughing, whispering etc.. during the concert. I know I should ignore and just thinking about the music instead of worrying about the audiences, but sometimes, it is out of my control. At the beginning of the concert, it is hard to play because I find myself nervous, getting used to the piano, and environment. Once I get going, I feel fine, but  it gets hard again, because I feel tired mentally, and physically toward the end of the concert. Especially, when I play slow tempo music like Chopin Nocturne, second movement in sonata. How do you get constant focus and strength not to slip away of the memorization? And how to gain control when something has gone wrong?

When I am nervous, tired, my mind is  blocked, it is so hard to concentrate and remember the whole piece of music. The question is - Can you perform in any circumstance and can you play in any state of mind with memorization?   If you have to be put in a spot to play, can you demonstrate your memorization without saying "NO" to your audiences?

[lostinidlewonder]

This is really what separates the performers from out of the musicians. Not all musicians are good at performing (which is really odd I think because music should be shared!!). And you will find that not all successful performers are actually outstanding musicians! You must first find the love to perform for people.

You have to have a reason to perform. I think I found it when I realized people can forget about their world just for a moment while they listen to some music. The healing nature of music is just wonderful and if you focus on that when people watch you, you can relate any observations of the audience to your music as they suck up your playing