The case against memorisation

[keyboardclass]

So those of you who memorise effortlessly, do you spend a fair amount of time looking at your hands while practicing?

Now that seems a strange thing to say.  I'm no effortless memorizer but it's nothing to do with looking at the hands - looking at the hands in your mind's eye certainly - the real task is understanding the harmony (with some playing by ear).    

[perfect_pitch]

Nope... I learn rapidly fast by ear. I can hear anything and pick it up... which is good. It means when I'm away from the piano - I can still mentally practice in my head.     

[slane]

OK. I am a good memoriser of things other than music. No really I am. 
Like other good memorisers I make associations, handles and heirarchies between things I know and things to be memorised.
However! With music I have no handle. Obviously perfect pitch can make an association between the sound and the keys on the piano. I can sing the music I play, how can i learn to make associations between what i sing and the level of abstraction which is the keyboard?
What other handles do people put on the music?
I analyse the music, find the  tonics and dominants and then the shapes that join them. Scales, apeggios, bananas and elephants but its very tedious. In addition, when memorising english words, there is the meaning to act as a handle, and grammer that limits the positions words can be in a sentence. But for me, music has no meaning! Do other people find meanings that they associate with the notes?
Once music is in my "muscles" I can play it without thinking about the handles. I just focus on the tune.
So tell me, tell me! What goes through your head as you memorise?

[keyboardclass]

I don't memorize slow stuff - I play it from the sheet.  Something like Bach's first Prelude or Chopin's 4th Prelude I play by ear.  Fast stuff tends to have pretty easy to grasp chord structures - I memorize that so I can look at my finger as I play.

I think I know what you're getting at though - what is the science of memory?  I've done plenty of research - I can't help having the conviction it's visual - deep down in the brain's filing cabinet everything's pictures which relate to each other - dreams are the key.  Just my guess though.

[werq34ac]

I actually have a very good example. Chopin Etude Op. 10/1

When i was learning this piece, it took me just one day to memorize it. Out of pure necessity. There was no way to play it without looking at my hands (until the piece had settled into my fingers) and when I sightread, i don't look at my hands. I mean the piece itself wasn't difficult to memorize because the pattern was mostly the same throughout.

[keyboardclass]

I actually have a very good example. Chopin Etude Op. 10/1

Yep.  I memorized it in about two days - play it though?  Hmm.

[werq34ac]

Yep.  I memorized it in about two days - play it though?  Hmm.

Memorizing is easy, took me less than an hour after the first sightread. Cleaning it up is just plain awful.

[natalyaturetskii]

I've always used music - it just seemed more modest and humble. But now, I'm learning the Rach 2 Piano Concerto - and I just know that it needs to be memorised.

[slobone]

I tend to do something in between. When I feel like I've really gotten to know a piece, I keep the music open on the piano, but I don't refer to it unless I get stuck.

Real memorization -- not using the music at all -- is a whole different thing, can be very scary, and requires a different approach, in my experience. My last teacher had some good tricks for that: break up the piece into sections, number the sections, and then be able to play starting at any section. So she would say "Section 7 -- Section 3 -- Section 2" and I would have to play them in that order. This is a great help if you get one of those blankouts during performance.

Incidentally, I went to a concert recently by an older pianist, very well regarded where I live, who of course played everything without the music. He had no trouble with some rather difficult Chopin and Schumann pieces, but when he got to a Mozart sonata that he's probably been playing for 50 years, he messed up royally. He got into the recapitulation and then started playing the exposition instead, then realized what he'd done and tried to improvise to get back into the right key. Everybody was so embarrassed for him, and all I could think was "Dude! Keep the music on the piano! Nobody will mind if you take a peek if you get lost."

[keyboardclass]

but when he got to a Mozart sonata that he's probably been playing for 50 years, he messed up royally. He got into the recapitulation and then started playing the exposition instead, then realized what he'd done and tried to improvise to get back into the right key.

I've done exactly that!  There is an important issue here and it's forgetting.  How do you forget the exposition when you get to the recapitulation?  Please, somebody tell me!

[slobone]

I've done exactly that!  There is an important issue here and it's forgetting.  How do you forget the exposition when you get to the recapitulation?  Please, somebody tell me!

I've also been to a concert where a performer played the same section 3 times because he forgot that he'd already played the repeat.

[keyboardclass]

Yeh, yeh, rub it in!

[natalyaturetskii]

I went to a concert where someone didn't use the music. He was really nervous and so decided to skip about half of the music so that he could get to the end. His teacher said that it was because he hadn't memorised well enough and he wanted to look professional.

I totally agree with the forgetting thing! It can mess everything up...

[werq34ac]

I mean, if you use the music there is a risk of forgetting, since we ARE human, but not using the score is liberating. If you don't need the score, it means you actually know the music and don't need to worry about getting the notes anymore. It's one less thing to worry about.

[pianoplunker]

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?

Playing music is all about memory . Even sight reading requires memory.  How would you sight read a scale or chord if you have never done it before? Plus the act of reading and then placing your fingers on what you have just read also requires memory.  The only way to get away from memory is total improvisation, but even then you would probably blend in something from memory.   

[pianoplunker]

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

In context he probably didnt approve of memorizing his music the same way a musician today would not approve of recording the music and putting it on facebook.  He may have felt that others memorizing something he had spent so much time writing may have diminished the integrity somehow.

[ajspiano]

consider these elements -

memorising the score visually.
memorising the score theoretically (harmony/structure)
memorising the piece aurally
memorising the keys played visually
memorising the keys played in terms of physical motion
memorising motions as cueing between right and left hands.

connections between all avenues so that each version cues the other.

- for example, with good ear training you draw a parallel between the sound of notes, and what keys those notes would be, and what it would look like on a score - all of which instinctively works in conjunction to make memorising easier.

This does not work for someone who doesn't know exactly what G sounds like after hearing a C, or someone that can not sing the score without reference to the piano.

^feel free to add any other potential aspects, this is not intended as a definitive answer.

[j_menz]

This does not work for .... someone that can not sing the score without reference to the piano.

I can't sing. Refernce to a piano, tuning fork or anything else is only likely to highlight that sad fact.

I can hear the music from the score, though. Funnily, I can only do that when I move my fingers as if to play it. Then it's clear as a bell. If I don't, I get nothing.

[ajspiano]

I can hear the music from the score, though. Funnily, I can only do that when I move my fingers as if to play it. Then it's clear as a bell. If I don't, I get nothing.

"hearing" internally is effectively the same thing - sounds like you can not hear from the score though, you actually 'hear' as a cue from the physical motion or pattern of the keys. - completely different idea to hearing cued by the visual or theoretical aspects of the score.

[j_menz]

"sounds like you can not hear from the score though, you actually 'hear' as a cue from the physical motion or pattern of the keys. - completely different idea to hearing cued by the visual or theoretical aspects of the score.

True, though for me the physical motion and key pattern is inextricably linked to the score.

[ajspiano]

Thats kind of my point -

You have a strong mental link between score and physical motion/keys

You have a strong mental link between physical motion/keys and sound

You have a weak or limited mental link between score and sound.

[j_menz]

Thats kind of my point -

1. You have a strong mental link between score and physical motion/keys

2. You have a strong mental link between physical motion/keys and sound

3. You have a weak or limited mental link between score and sound.

1 and 2 are my link between score and sound. It's not direct, but not sure I'd call it weak or limited.

[slane]

consider these elements -

1. memorising the score visually.
2. memorising the score theoretically (harmony/structure)
3. memorising the piece aurally
4. memorising the keys played visually
5. memorising the keys played in terms of physical motion
6. memorising motions as cueing between right and left hands.

connections between all avenues so that each version cues the other.

- for example, with good ear training you draw a parallel between the sound of notes, and what keys those notes would be, and what it would look like on a score - all of which instinctively works in conjunction to make memorising easier.

Right! So all the music I've memorised so far has been by laborious application of items 1 & 2.  3 comes automatically, although I like to listen to performances to help with that.
4. Can't occur until 1-3 are done because you don't see your hands until you look at them . And you can't look at them while you are reading the score.
5&6 follow even if I am playing form the score. Once a piece is learnt the score really becomes a memory prompt and you unconciously wiggle the fingers as you praticed them a zillion times.

Now where is my disconnect and how can I fix it? I think its between steps 3 & 4.
There is no connection between singing "la la la" and playing "wiggle wiggle". Yes I think that's right. The connection is there between the memorised or read score and the fingers, but not the sound and the fingers and since the sound is easier to memorise than the score, that would make the memorisation quicker, as well as reinforcing steps 1 &2. Although once the whole thing is memorised I no longer think of the score. Which may mean the connection between the score and sound is not there either. Its all score to keys and by magic the sound is produced.

So how do I fix that? Learn that association between "la la la" and "wiggle" ? And "la la la" and "dot dot dot"?

[ajspiano]

1 and 2 are my link between score and sound. It's not direct, but not sure I'd call it weak or limited.

Fair point - however you have trouble memorising yes? Note that I don't think I've really got the knowledge to suggest this as being an accurate truth, and as I memorise very easily its hard to really break down and figure out what I'm doing (never have to solve a problem in the process)

Suppose your mental process for memorisation is:  score ---> motion ---> sound ---> dead end, must revert to score because there are no interweaved or reverse links.

No doubt its more complex for you but for the purpose of this I'll leave it as that..

Successful memorisation perhaps involves the unconscious use of a process that looks more like..

score ---> motion AND sound
motion ---> sound AND score
sound ---> motion AND score

...never ending mental loop

along with the other side which is all elements doing something like previous sound ---> next sound

So everything is directly linked and works both individually and in conjunction with each other.

[ajspiano]

@slane -

look at a section of score, a few bars..

read it, dont play it, just take it in... 
then close the score and play it by memory, looking at your hands and the keys. Force through it as best you can without referring back to the score at all, dont worry about errors.
Once your get through your section once, read the score again once...   
then repeat the whole process..

[j_menz]

score ---> motion AND sound

Is exactly what it feels like; not the score ---> motion --> sound.

[ajspiano]

Is exactly what it feels like; not the score ---> motion --> sound.

seems fair - brain works pretty damn quickly..   but if you can't hear the sound without doing the motion, and you can hear the sound by doing a motion notes without looking at the score then the logical inference is that despite what it feels like the brain must be doing score>motion>sound..  no?

..I don't mean to make any assumptions about what you can or can't do, or suggest you should do things differently - i find it interesting to try and figure out why there is a memory challenge though..

I'm not big on making the assumption that my ability to memorise means that someone else who can't has an inferior brain in that regard.. I believe I must have a different process, whether I do it intuitively or through having had to learn it.

[j_menz]

The order of score, motion and sound is more complex than that. When I'm playing, I know what the sound will be in advance of, as well as as part, of the motion. That sound helps shape the motion, as much as the motion helping shape the sound. The three (score, motion and sound) combine in a way that I can't really seperate the three.

*Just realises this is starting to sound like the doctrine of the Trinity and remembers how successful anyone has ever been explaining THAT* 

I believe I must have a different process, whether I do it intuitively or through having had to learn it.

Clearly. I find these differences fascinating, but ultimately if what you do works for you, it's not a problem. It's when it doesn't that there's an issue. We both seem satisfied enough.

[ajspiano]

*Just realises this is starting to sound like the doctrine of the Trinity and remembers how successful anyone has ever been explaining THAT* 

Actually its not that hard to understand (given the 'also a pianist' thing) - they are imperatively linked.

Its kind of like trying to break up spoken language into think > move > sound of voice.. seems a bit stupid. But then everyone can speak..  why can't everyone memorise, there must be some missing link..

Still as you said, its only a problem if a person considers it a problem.

[j_menz]

Its kind of like trying to break up spoken language into think > move > sound of voice.. seems a bit stupid. But then everyone can speak..  why can't everyone memorise, there must be some missing link..

Interesting that you'd draw the analogy with spoken language. The one that comes first to my mind is written language. 

I can see that for someone with your improvisational interest and practice that that would seem more natural, but for me who sticks to the score the latter lines up with my experence more naturally.

[teccomin]

I have heard of practice routine which may aid memorization. Play through the piece from beginning to end, but with random repeats inserted. The repeats could be phrases, sections, or even just a couple of bars.

[slane]

I googled "music memorisation neurology" and came up with nothing except observational studies where the researchers noted that people who are good at recalling music 24 hours after learning it say a lot of "ah has!" when studying the score (OK, they noted other things as well ). But where are the fMRI studies?? What have those lazy loll about neurologists been upto!??

I was just now, memorising a beethoven sonatina, and using the process ajs suggests, as it happens. But I was also singing as I played. I would say that sound->score mapping and sound-> motion mapping is probably something that happens with time but it I have been playing the piano for a very long time and it hasn't happened yet.
On the analogy to memorising words ... there are some extra cues for memorising words. First of all, almost all of us are immersed in language much more than music. Which is one reason I believe immersion in music is an excellent thing for learners. Also, there are some "grammatical" rules with language; certain words can only appear in certain places in a sentence, other words can appear in more than one place but it changes the meaning. In addition, there is the meaning. If the sentence you are repeating doesn't convey the meaning you memorised, you got it wrong. Music doesn't have meaning, even if it can be meaningful. Its more like trying to memorise shakespeare phonetically if you're Japanese.

[j_menz]

What have those lazy loll about neurologists been upto!??

Hahaha 

On the analogy to memorising words ... there are some extra cues for memorising words.

Had some thoughts about this. Consider making a speech (which is a bit like giving a performance).  There seem to be three approaches. Some people read their speeches, some memorise them, and some speak off the cuff (or off brief notes), improvising.  There have been great speechmakers who used each of these techniques, but they seem to use different skills.

Interestingly, as a "reader" for piano, I'm an improviser when making speeches.

[ajspiano]

Also, there are some "grammatical" rules with language; certain words can only appear in certain places in a sentence, other words can appear in more than one place but it changes the meaning. In addition, there is the meaning. If the sentence you are repeating doesn't convey the meaning you memorised, you got it wrong. Music doesn't have meaning, even if it can be meaningful. Its more like trying to memorise shakespeare phonetically if you're Japanese.

That right there is exactly why it should be a compulsory aspect of musical study to compose and improvise in all keys.

If you learn to speak music, rather than just read, you'll find that what you're saying there is a very long way from reality...   I have a fairly large concern relating the the fact that in spoken language humans learn to speak years infront of any consideration for reading/writing, but in music we see YEARS of reading, if not decades, even life times before some people consider speaking music.

There is no life necessity to speak music though, so I dont see it changing any time soon.

[j_menz]

That right there is exactly why it should be a compulsory aspect of musical study to compose and improvise in all keys.

What if I want to be a plinker? 

[ajspiano]

What if I want to be a plinker? 

Anyone's particular choice as far as what they wish to gain from music for their personal enjoyment is up to them, and that is fine.

It's foolish to ignore a significant aspect of music though for those who truly wish to master it. - I wouldnt try to master the german language for example exclusively by reading german books. I'm sure I'd get good at reciting passages from memory as if i were a fluent speaker, but I would derive no meaning from them, and likely not make significant progress with understanding until I bothered to go to germany and start conversing in german.

[j_menz]

Yet, If I wanted to be a fine Shakesperean actor, I wouldn't spend my time writing sonnets or blank verse.

I think our difference on this point stems from a fundamentally different approach to music. You want the whole experience; play and compose.  I seek to explore the great works and only play/interpret.  They are quite different approaches and are going to lead to different experiences, expectations and activities.  I think both are valid.

[ajspiano]

Yet, If I wanted to be a fine Shakesperean actor, I wouldn't spend my time writing sonnets or blank verse.

I think our difference on this point stems from a fundamentally different approach to music. You want the whole experience; play and compose.  I seek to explore the great works and only play/interpret.  They are quite different approaches and are going to lead to different experiences, expectations and activities.  I think both are valid.

Yes thats probably right..

I think that composition/improv (having and expressing your own ideas) is imperative to developing interpretive skills.

LIKEWISE

playing and interpreting great works (taking reference and learning from others ideas which are more advanced than your own) is imperative to developing composition skills.

And that each of the two are somehow completely intertwined.

....

Much in the same way that in the study of spoken language we write our own stories, have conversations, and read/study other peoples writing. - In music one must compose, improvise and study others compositions in order to truly develop wholely.

But that it is not problematic to go one way or the other - each can be done well without the other, though I suspect that it would be rare to find (for example) a master improviser that would be a terrible interpreter, or vice versa..  they feed off each other.