The case against memorisation

[slane]

Apologies if this has been posted here before.
https://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/apr/20/classicalmusicandopera1

I wonder why I've been memorising everything for the last year. Its very lovely having everything in my head but was it worth the effort? And the mistakes I make are those of "oh bugger! what comes next?", rather than fingers tripping over themselves because I'm not looking. The reason I've been doing it is I guess snobbery. Because Chang said I should. And its a neat party trick to play from memory. I also have terrible trouble playing on a grand where the angle between the keys and the music is different.

I think I might take a new tack, and spend a small part of my practice memorising one piece until its "in there". The rest of the pieces will have to be from the sheet.

What thinks people?

[keyboardclass]

I feel your pain but obviously a combination is best.  I'm learning the violin - for some reason, as I've always done when working a piece up on piano, I instantly start putting it into memory - not muscle memory though.

[thalbergmad]

If I do have one talent in music, it is memorising pieces on the first hearing. I have had to work hard on score reading as I spend more and more time attempting to play works that have no recording, but once I can do without the score, I file it away.

Once a piece is in your brain and your fingers, I fail to see the need for the written note. Then, you can truly say it has been learnt.

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

There are pieces which you simply cannot sight read effectively without memorization guiding your movements. Of course "easier" pieces for yourself can be sight read but when we want to play pieces with more technical acrobatics, rapid tempo or what have you, memorization is simply unavoidable if you want to play it at a high standard.

Multiple sight reading attempts of the same piece over time should cause the piece to predominantly become memorized without you going through bruteforce memorisation. There are many pieces I can play with the sheets and they are mostly memorized because I have read them over many years, but I still need the sheets to cue my memory and without the sheets I can't play. So although I rely on the sheets, memory takes place when I read so I don't have to read very much at all.

[werq34ac]

Look at it this way. In order to express ourselves as musicians, you need to be familiar with the music. Can you say you are familiar with the music when you don't even know the notes you are going to play without looking at the music? We practice our pieces in order to play them with ease (relatively). Only AFTER one gets out of the notes and into the music can musicians express themselves. Yes?

[keyboardclass]

Look at it this way. In order to express ourselves as musicians, you need to be familiar with the music.

Doesn't always work that way.  We're forever leaving stuff out when we memorize which gets left on the sheet.  I remember teaching some grade 5 Grieg to some students - I put a vid of Rachmaninov doing it.  A whole trio section was the wrong dynamic - f instead of p!

[j_menz]

I never memorize anything. Always read off the sheet. Of course, after many times reading through a piece the memory must be doing something, but take it away and I'm lost.

It doesn't seem to affect my knowledge of the music, or my ability to play serious pieces (including those that are impossible to sight read at first (second, third...) go).

Also, I don't mark up my scores. Once I've sorted out a fingering, or identified a particularly tricky reading bit (leger lines or whether its a semihemidemisemiquaver or just a hemisemidemiquaver, for example) that bit stick in my memory. Still need the score, though.

I'm afraid I'm with Beethoven on this question. He didn't approve of memorisation.

[ajspiano]

I'm afraid I'm with Beethoven on this question. He didn't approve of memorisation.

He'd have had an issue with me - I simply can not avoid it, its just the natural course my mind takes when I play (or even just read) something 1 or more times.

I would always argue that when memorised the focus and concentration the mind is directing toward reading can be used for other musical ends. Some might argue that that isnt whats happening though, rather that its being redirected to recalling the piece.

I play better (more expressively) when I'm focused solely on the sound and all other factors have become second nature - but maybe thats a shortcoming of mine, not to be able to play so expressively while sight reading?

[j_menz]

I think it's difficult to say. When I'm playing a piece I know well (in my sense), I'm not really conscious of the score at all (still need it there, though), just of the music.  That's true to a certain extent even when I'm sight reading a new piece (unless it forces me to think of the notes or fingering or whatever).

I guess it's another case of whatever works best for the individual.

Of course, I only play for my own pleasure, so other considerations would apply if I were doing exams or competitions, or if I were giving concerts.

[ajspiano]

I know a lady who makes up 'cliff note' scores, just the sections she has trouble with..

I personally get distracted from playing repetitions of a section exactly as written and end up playing the section in multiple keys, or playing some kind of variation on the theme/accompaniment - I think this results in an increased aural and theoretical understanding of the piece, and ultimately I don't have to recall what keys to play, so much as I recall the sound and instinctively know which keys match that sound.

I also have to do this because i get very bored playing through whole pieces (during initial learning) without adding my own elements of creativity. But I do think it causes me to take longer to learn a piece than it would if I just pushed to playing through as written (but i end up with a much more thorough learning)

[werq34ac]

Doesn't always work that way.  We're forever leaving stuff out when we memorize which gets left on the sheet.  I remember teaching some grade 5 Grieg to some students - I put a vid of Rachmaninov doing it.  A whole trio section was the wrong dynamic - f instead of p!

Rachmaninoff really did whatever the hell he wanted. There are MANY times Rachmaninoff has ignored composer markings. And mind you, it's not because he wasn't aware of it. You really think Rachmaninoff would make such a juvenile error as playing the wrong dynamic?

We're forever leaving stuff out? That's why we practice both with the score and without. So we don't miss the details. When you memorize a piece, you aren't just memorizing the notes. You're memorizing the music.

I never memorize anything. Always read off the sheet. Of course, after many times reading through a piece the memory must be doing something, but take it away and I'm lost.

It doesn't seem to affect my knowledge of the music, or my ability to play serious pieces (including those that are impossible to sight read at first (second, third...) go).

Also, I don't mark up my scores. Once I've sorted out a fingering, or identified a particularly tricky reading bit (leger lines or whether its a semihemidemisemiquaver or just a hemisemidemiquaver, for example) that bit stick in my memory. Still need the score, though.

I'm afraid I'm with Beethoven on this question. He didn't approve of memorisation.

So you can play the music well with the score, but can't play without it? Could you explain? Do you just forget what comes next or do you forget which notes to play? I always thought with enough practice, the piece becomes memorized.



I like to think of memorizing a piece as making it a part of me. It becomes ingrained in my body and mind.



Although, I think we should bring up the issues of page turns. I mean there's no way you can perform if you're busy turning pages right?

[j_menz]

So you can play the music well with the score, but can't play without it? Could you explain? Do you just forget what comes next or do you forget which notes to play? I always thought with enough practice, the piece becomes memorized.

Yep, with score only.  It's not that I "forget" what comes next, I never had it in memory.  I do remember some things, clearly, or repeated practice of a piece wouldn't make any difference. It does (thankfully), but it just seems my brain doesn't bother to remember things that it can access outside of itself. 

Although, I think we should bring up the issues of page turns. I mean there's no way you can perform if you're busy turning pages right?

That's true.  I don't perform, so it's not an issue for me (though I am a spectacularly fast page turner once the book is broken in).  If I did perform, I'd need a page turner.

[keyboardclass]

You really think Rachmaninoff would make such a juvenile error as playing the wrong dynamic?

Yes, if a piece had been in his repertoire for 10 or 20 years.

[pianoplunker]

I never memorize anything. Always read off the sheet. Of course, after many times reading through a piece the memory must be doing something, but take it away and I'm lost.

It doesn't seem to affect my knowledge of the music, or my ability to play serious pieces (including those that are impossible to sight read at first (second, third...) go).

Also, I don't mark up my scores. Once I've sorted out a fingering, or identified a particularly tricky reading bit (leger lines or whether its a semihemidemisemiquaver or just a hemisemidemiquaver, for example) that bit stick in my memory. Still need the score, though.

I'm afraid I'm with Beethoven on this question. He didn't approve of memorisation.

I was going to reply here but had a serious case of Deja Vu -- did I already reply to this ?  Anyhow, the more you can memorize the better. Music is a great way to practice your memory .

[iansinclair]

I memorize -- eventually -- most of the piano music I work on.  I don't, however, make a conscious effort to do so; the memorization comes as a result of practicing the piece.  On the other hand, like most organists (which is what I was before I retired) I don't recall ever -- ever -- having fully memorized an organ piece.  Brief sections, yes, where the muscle memory simply wasn't adequate to ensure accurate placement -- particularly after registration changes which, of course, take your hands completely away from the keyboard.  But not a whole piece.  I'd never really thought about the difference (although it is quite traditional; it is a rare organist who memorizes, and a rare pianist who doesn't) until now.  But thinking about it, I can tell you at least one reason: if you are going to make your living as a Minister of Music or whatever your local ecclesiastical organist calls himself or herself, you are going to become one h___ of a sight reader.   Consider: There are 52 weeks in the year.  If you're lucky, you get 4 of them off -- but several of those weeks have more than one service (Christmas, for instance, routinely has 4 or 5).  Every service has at least four hymns, a prelude, a postlude, often an offertory, and an anthem or two (you also prepare the choir and play the accompaniment, conducting from the console...).  You don't have time to prepare anything to the extent you would for a recital (even if the rector doesn't change the hymns on you five minutes before the service).

So you sight read... furiously!

[j_menz]

But thinking about it, I can tell you at least one reason: if you are going to make your living as a Minister of Music or whatever your local ecclesiastical organist calls himself or herself, you are going to become one h___ of a sight reader.   Consider: There are 52 weeks in the year.  If you're lucky, you get 4 of them off -- but several of those weeks have more than one service (Christmas, for instance, routinely has 4 or 5).  Every service has at least four hymns, a prelude, a postlude, often an offertory, and an anthem or two (you also prepare the choir and play the accompaniment, conducting from the console...).  You don't have time to prepare anything to the extent you would for a recital (even if the rector doesn't change the hymns on you five minutes before the service).

So you sight read... furiously!

Hahah, I never made my living at it, but I did play piano for my local church for several years (would have been organ, but a fire put paid to that after only a few weeks    ). The rector would tell me the hymns for the service when I arrived that day to play. Improved my sight reading no end.

[werq34ac]

Yes, if a piece had been in his repertoire for 10 or 20 years.

If it's "in his repertoire" for that long, then it probably means he hasn't forgotten the piece. And in all seriousness, if he DID have a moment of OH sh*t WHAT"S THE DYNAMIC??? Then he probably would have looked it up. But I hardly think one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century would still make such a juvenile mistake as forgetting to play the right dynamic.

[keyboardclass]

If it's "in his repertoire" for that long, then it probably means he hasn't forgotten the piece. And in all seriousness, if he DID have a moment of OH sh*t WHAT"S THE DYNAMIC??? Then he probably would have looked it up. But I hardly think one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century would still make such a juvenile mistake as forgetting to play the right dynamic.

Some posters at this forum are just so wise before their years!  Anyway, decide for yourself:

[teccomin]

Playing with the score is NOT equivalent to unfamiliarity with the music. The score is there for cues or simply act as a safety net. It can ensure a better performance because it takes away the fear of a memory slip and allow the musician to focus on making music.

I have played both with and without the score and I find that my playing becomes more robotic without the score because I tend to play the way I have always used to play so that I don't have a memory slip. Playing on stage in front of an audience can give you a "force" you won't normally have, harnessing it and turning it into some "je ne sais quoi" is what makes a performance special. Thats where the score comes in, as it is something I could fall back on, and allow me to explore new interpretations on the spot without fear of a memory slip.

The only way a score can mess up a performance is the page turning.

[keyboardclass]

You have a point.  My last exam (years ago) I quite enjoyed the sight reading and made quite a musical meal of it.  If your sight-reading's good you can kind of sit back and listen to yourself.

[werq34ac]

Playing with the score is NOT equivalent to unfamiliarity with the music. The score is there for cues or simply act as a safety net. It can ensure a better performance because it takes away the fear of a memory slip and allow the musician to focus on making music.

I have played both with and without the score and I find that my playing becomes more robotic without the score because I tend to play the way I have always used to play so that I don't have a memory slip. Playing on stage in front of an audience can give you a "force" you won't normally have, harnessing it and turning it into some "je ne sais quoi" is what makes a performance special. Thats where the score comes in, as it is something I could fall back on, and allow me to explore new interpretations on the spot without fear of a memory slip.

The only way a score can mess up a performance is the page turning.

Yes Richter did that in his later years, because after a memory slip in one of his performances, he had a paralyzing fear of performing without the score. However, it really should be ONLY a safety net. If there really ARE places where you are having memory slips and need the score, then you will most certainly not be focused on the music but rather what the notes are. It should really just be there just in case. Of course you can play with music if you are familiar with it. But the thing is, you can play without the score if you are familiar with it as well.

Some posters at this forum are just so wise before their years!  Anyway, decide for yourself:

Wise beyond their years? Referring to me? Was that sarcasm?
Anyway, thanks for sharing, it's wonderful playing by the master.
As for the trio section, I don't exactly think it sounds forte. It sounds  more like he's really projecting the melody, which he plays beautifully and intimately. Take a listen and think again whether that's really a memory slip. I wouldn't be surprised if Rachmaninoff deviated from the score, but I don't think he did that here. And like I said, Rach did whatever the hell he wanted. I mean he respected the composer's markings, but he most certainly wasn't afraid to maybe play it differently.

As for exploring new interpretations, I feel like that should be done in the practice room. That's usually where I explore my options and decide how I want to play something.

[keyboardclass]

The return of the 'A' section is marked pp (as opposed to p at the opening).  Rach does it F! (very a la Rachmaninov)   It neither respects nor improves the score.

[iansinclair]

The return of the 'A' section is marked pp (as opposed to p at the opening).  Rach does it F! (very a la Rachmaninov)   It neither respects nor improves the score.

I presume that you intended to end that sentence with "in my opinion"?  At least I hope you did; unless, of course, you are holding yourself out to be a superior musician to Rachmaninoff... (in which case it would be a courtesy to be using your real name).

[werq34ac]

DFJKL:JBCX YOU SAID THE TRIO! So I listened to the middle section because I assumed that was the trio, and now you're saying the middle section?

Whether it respects and improves the score is a matter of personal opinion. But for sure Rachmaninoff wouldn't just play forte because he forgot the dynamic. And he doesn't play the ENTIRE A section loud. Just the first left hand chords. I think it works actually. He makes a stark contrast to the beautiful B section and then quickly and very smoothly drops down to a softer dynamic.

[ajspiano]

unless, of course, you are holding yourself out to be a superior musician to Rachmaninoff...

Wouldn't surprise me..

..Does anyone here really believe that any significant (or just any generally) composer played their pieces exactly the way they were published every single time? - or that they didnt further refine a piece after publishing and may have chosen many different dynamics through different periods in their life - or at different performances depending on their exact feeling at the time..

[j_menz]

As a case in point, Chopin had seperate publishers for his works in England, France and Germany. There are instances where he got the proof copies for a work back from  any two of them not very far apart. His corrections on each are completely contradictory, and show a development of his ideas over even that brief a period. Another example from him - the Tristesse Etude (10/3) was first marked by him vivace then vivace ma non troppo, and finally lento ma non troppo.

It's hard to believe he didn't undertake similar development when he actually played them.

[ajspiano]

Yes exactly - this importance of 'respecting' a composers intention as far as dynamic markings is EXTREMELY debatable assuming you care about being a musician, as opposed to winning piano competitions.

The problem only occurs in the case of pianists who fail to observe a composers intent AND have no intention of their own. Rachmaninoff does not fall into this category.

[keyboardclass]

 Well, I'm very much into respecting a composer's wishes.  You think Grieg didn't know exactly what he wanted? (or is he an inferior composer?)  A whole section mf where it's marked p doesn't respect that.    F where there's pp doesn't either.  Rachmaninov could have used his skill to really bring out Grieg's thoughts.  Basically, the fine detail - what I teach my students - is missing.  and Jeez I played this to them!  - what do you folks advise saying to them?  Just skip fine details?  or once your famous fine details can go out the window??

Anyway - listen to any recording done by memory and you're bound to hear slips like that if you have the score in front of you.  Rubinstein (Anton) would be (and was) the first to admit it.

[werq34ac]

Well, I'm very much into respecting a composer's wishes.  You think Grieg didn't know exactly what he wanted? (or is he an inferior composer?)  A whole section mf where it's marked p doesn't respect that.    F where there's pp doesn't either.  Rachmaninov could have used his skill to really bring out Grieg's thoughts.  Basically, the fine detail - what I teach my students - is missing.  and Jeez I played this to them!  - what do you folks advise saying to them?  Just skip fine details?  or once your famous fine details can go out the window??

Anyway - listen to any recording done by memory and you're bound to hear slips like that if you have the score in front of you.  Rubinstein (Anton) would be (and was) the first to admit it.

You're bound to make slips WITH the score in front of you. What are you expecting, absolute perfection? Some of the best recordings I've ever heard even have wrong notes. Slips happen, we're all human, but I doubt many of them are because they forgot the dynamic. Dynamics are part of the spirit of the music, and there's something fundamentally wrong when you forget the spirit of the music. I really don't think Rachmaninoff would forget the spirit of the music.

And there's more to music than fine details. So what if you played every note with the right articulation and dynamic? In the words of Ella Fitzgerald, "I don't mean a thang if it ain't got that swaanngg, doo-ap doo-ap doo-ap doo-ap..." While swing isn't exactly what we're talking about, it's a good metaphor for music playing. It don't mean a thing if it ain't got soul. While details are important, the whole entire point of these little details is the spirit of the piece. The music has to communicate SOMETHING, not just notes played a certain way.

[j_menz]

In the words of Ella Fitzgerald, "I don't mean a thang if it ain't got that swaanngg, doo-ap doo-ap doo-ap doo-ap..."

Poor Ira, everyone seems to have forgotten about him. 

[werq34ac]

Poor Ira, everyone seems to have forgotten about him. 

Ah did Ira write that? We played it in jazz band back in 7th grade. Pretty cool song. I just clearly have Ella's voice in my mind when I think of this song.

[j_menz]

Ah did Ira write that? We played it in jazz band back in 7th grade. Pretty cool song. I just clearly have Ella's voice in my mind when I think of this song.

I can't think of it without Ella either, but Ira wrote the words.

[werq34ac]

It's a pity lyricists these days aren't more like Ira..

[ajspiano]

Basically, the fine detail - what I teach my students - is missing.  and Jeez I played this to them!  - what do you folks advise saying to them?  Just skip fine details?  or once your famous fine details can go out the window??

Rachmaninoff would not have skipped the fine details, he would have made sure of them - just different ones to those in the version Grieg published.

I would suggest you encourage creativity in your students, rather than stifle it by suggesting that they have no right to choose their own way to interpret a set of notes.

^assuming that your student has the proper facility to play with varying dynamics already, and your are not teaching the piece as exercise for a specific touch.

Well, I'm very much into respecting a composer's wishes

I really don't see a problem with this either - just in the suggestion that there's something wrong with or sub-standard about someones interpretation if they choose not to.

[keyboardclass]

I really don't see a problem with this either - just in the suggestion that there's something wrong with or sub-standard about someones interpretation if they choose not to.

Interpretation is not running contrary to the score!  As Chopin said:  "If I had to put all the indications on the score it would be black with ink" - that's why we have interpretation!  This very same lack of detail resulted in one of the few times Beethoven got furious with Czerny - it happened because he played a Beethoven concert from memory.

[j_menz]

If Beethoven gets mad every time someone plays a piece other than as he would wish, he must be spending a very unhappy afterlife. I mean, Fuer Elise alone....

[keyboardclass]

If Beethoven gets mad every time someone plays a piece other than as he would wish, he must be spending a very unhappy afterlife. I mean, Fuer Elise alone....

I think he got condemned to hell simply for writing it!

[ajspiano]

indeed - poor bastard..  ..if he did get mad in those circumstances he's a fool.

No man or woman has some kind of proprietary ownership over sound, or notes in a certain order, giving them the right to dictate how they should be played.

..and really it doesnt matter what you say, you'll never convince me to waste away my life being uncreative by respecting the wishes of a person that I did not know, and that died 200 years ago. Especically in the face of the argument that you have no clue that his current wishes if he were still alive would be inline with the score, or that they were even just a single day after publishing. Music is not a stagnate art form.

[j_menz]

No man or woman has some kind of proprietary ownership over sound, or notes in a certain order, giving them the right to dictate how they should be played.

Not once they're out of copyright, anyway. 

[keyboardclass]

..if he did get mad in those circumstances he's a fool.

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!  I'm the first one to admit Beethoven was an a-hole but A GENIUS SURPASSED BY NO ONE!   I'm getting the impression there are a lot of untrained voices in this forum - the devil's in the detail folks!

[ajspiano]

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!  I'm the first one to admit Beethoven was an a-hole but A GENIUS SURPASSED BY NO ONE!   I'm getting the impression there are a lot of untrained voices in this forum - the devil's in the detail folks!

Firstly, your an easy target for trolling.

Secondly, my comment has nothing to do with his musical genius, only such arrogance. As if one persons genius means than another has no right to be creative. Such attitude belongs in the dark ages and does not promote good musicianship.

[keyboardclass]

Secondly, my comment has nothing to do with his musical genius, only such arrogance. As if one persons genius means than another has no right to be creative.

Be as creative as you like but not at the expense of Beethoven's thought.

[ajspiano]

Be as creative as you like but not at the expense of Beethoven's thought.

While I don't like this version it likely is exactly what you are looking for for the particular piece..

[keyboardclass]

Not that trolled!  Here's a man who knows what he's doing:

Follow the score with him!

[ajspiano]

Not that trolled!

I should have said I thought it was an unparalleled masterpiece. - I don't actually mind him doing it if he likes it..  but when I heard that techno synth part come in at the start really struggled not to scream.. just my own personal opinion.. 

I seriously wonder what all the orchestral musicians thought about having to do the gig..

[iansinclair]

Oh dear.  This is really all sort of sad, as I think at least some of us are not listening, and this is really a rather important topic -- not the memorisation part, but the interpretation part.

First, a credential or two: I am, at best, a so-so pianist; I only switched to piano a few years ago when I retired.  I spent 50 years as a Minister of Music; organist and choral conducting.  At least moderately successfully.  My own conducting professor -- back in the dark ages -- had studied with Nadia Boulanger, and I have had the opportunity to take master classes with a several reasonably well respected orchestral and particularly opera conductors.  I am sufficiently egotistical to think that I do know what I am doing; I am not sufficiently egotistical to think that I always got the results I wanted!  Once in a while...

It is always worth the effort to determine what a composer really wanted.  This is why we study music history and musicology as part of becoming a usable conductor or interpreter.  It is not, I would point out, always easy to do this -- even Mozart was rather sketchy when it came to interpretive notes in his music, and before him... almost nothing.  Some later composers are very precise indeed -- Poulenc being a notable example.  Others -- Sibelius and Puccini for example -- are not.  It is also worth studying and listening to what other interpreters have done -- not so much so you can slavishly imitate someone, but to see what the possibilities are.

Having done all of that, it is imperative that the performer -- and it doesn't matter whether he or she is the conductor, soloist, or a member of the chorus or third violinist -- bring his or her own soul to the music.  If you do not, the music is dead because you are dead, so far as the music is concerned.  Perhaps you should not go completely against the composer's indications in the score; if you do, you are perhaps not fully respecting the composer's wishes.  But interpreting those wishes is not only legitimate, but essential.  A good composer -- and I've known several -- is always interested in the dialogue between his or her imagination and soul, and yours.

One of the saddest things about some of the "prodigies" I've heard over the years is that while they are frequently technically superb, the music doesn't sing.  As an example -- and I don't think they would mind my mentioning it -- I distinctly recall a conducting seminar I was in many years ago with, among others, Michael Tilson Thomas and Seiji Ozawa, this being long before they were famous (and quite deservedly!).  They were both struggling with finding out how to project their own interpretation of the piece, and finding that it is easy to keep time and get the right dynamics and all that -- but very very hard to get your soul into the music.

Think about it...

[werq34ac]

Oh dear.  This is really all sort of sad, as I think at least some of us are not listening, and this is really a rather important topic -- not the memorisation part, but the interpretation part.

First, a credential or two: I am, at best, a so-so pianist; I only switched to piano a few years ago when I retired.  I spent 50 years as a Minister of Music; organist and choral conducting.  At least moderately successfully.  My own conducting professor -- back in the dark ages -- had studied with Nadia Boulanger, and I have had the opportunity to take master classes with a several reasonably well respected orchestral and particularly opera conductors.  I am sufficiently egotistical to think that I do know what I am doing; I am not sufficiently egotistical to think that I always got the results I wanted!  Once in a while...

It is always worth the effort to determine what a composer really wanted.  This is why we study music history and musicology as part of becoming a usable conductor or interpreter.  It is not, I would point out, always easy to do this -- even Mozart was rather sketchy when it came to interpretive notes in his music, and before him... almost nothing.  Some later composers are very precise indeed -- Poulenc being a notable example.  Others -- Sibelius and Puccini for example -- are not.  It is also worth studying and listening to what other interpreters have done -- not so much so you can slavishly imitate someone, but to see what the possibilities are.

Having done all of that, it is imperative that the performer -- and it doesn't matter whether he or she is the conductor, soloist, or a member of the chorus or third violinist -- bring his or her own soul to the music.  If you do not, the music is dead because you are dead, so far as the music is concerned.  Perhaps you should not go completely against the composer's indications in the score; if you do, you are perhaps not fully respecting the composer's wishes.  But interpreting those wishes is not only legitimate, but essential.  A good composer -- and I've known several -- is always interested in the dialogue between his or her imagination and soul, and yours.

One of the saddest things about some of the "prodigies" I've heard over the years is that while they are frequently technically superb, the music doesn't sing.  As an example -- and I don't think they would mind my mentioning it -- I distinctly recall a conducting seminar I was in many years ago with, among others, Michael Tilson Thomas and Seiji Ozawa, this being long before they were famous (and quite deservedly!).  They were both struggling with finding out how to project their own interpretation of the piece, and finding that it is easy to keep time and get the right dynamics and all that -- but very very hard to get your soul into the music.

Think about it...

Agree wholeheartedly. There's more to piano than detail work.

[perfect_pitch]

Doesn't always work that way.  We're forever leaving stuff out when we memorize which gets left on the sheet. 

Speak for yourself... I'm terrible at memorising peoples names, absolutely hopeless are remembering things to do during my day, but when it comes to music - once it is memorised, it's completely transferred to my brain.

I think the ease of this is because I can learn & transcribe songs by ear easier than anyoe else.

[keyboardclass]

Agree wholeheartedly. There's more to piano than detail work.

Of course - but that's where you have to start from.

[slane]

OK. Back to the topic. It seems there are a lot of lucky people who can memorise easily, without going through the laborious process which is the only way I can get a piece stuck in my neurons.
This person.. https://www.acousticfingerstyle.com/memorize.htm says that people who look fearfully at the music wont memorise automatically.
I guess I'm a fearful note starer.
So those of you who memorise effortlessly, do you spend a fair amount of time looking at your hands while practicing?