Are you stronger at Sight Reading or Memorisation?

[toby1]

Hi All,

I had an interesting conversation with my teacher this week. I told him that I was always much better at memorizing pieces than doing sight reading. He told me that with him it was more the other way around, that he can sight read reasonably well but that he struggles to memorize pieces.

So what are you stronger at, and do you think the two are mutually exclusive or can you have both skills to a high level?

Also if you know of any completely free graded pieces for sight reading online I would be interested.

regards,

Toby1

[p2u_]

So what are you stronger at, and do you think the two are mutually exclusive or can you have both skills to a high level?

I'm extremely good at memorizing, especially if I lift (and drop) my fingers in a Zen fashion (3 repetitions and it's locked forever). I'm a lousy sight-reader, however. I'm sure I could improve if I wanted to, but I'm probably too lazy to do what it takes.

The combination is rare, but Sviatoslav Richter, for example, was VERY strong in both.

Paul

[rachmaninoff_forever]

This is what I think.  I think that pianists with bad sight reading skills have better memorization.  Since they can't sightread well, whatever they actually do sightread, they can't afford to forget it.   So they have to memorize it... OR ELSE! 

But if you're a good sightreader, then your memorization isn't as good because your brain is like, aaah I get forget it.  Besides, why do I need to remember?  I can just sightread it again.  Right? 



I remember reading an article about how the internet isn't helping your memory because the information is already there, so why do you need to remember it?  You don't remember something?  Just google it.  Doesn't that sound like the same thing with sightreading?  If it's easily available for you, then you don't have to remember.  But if it's hard information to obtain, then it's easier to remember.

Catch my drift?

[cmg]

I'm extremely good at memorizing, especially if I lift (and drop) my fingers in a Zen fashion (3 repetitions and it's locked forever). I'm a lousy sight-reader, however. I'm sure I could improve if I wanted to, but I'm probably too lazy to do what it takes.

The combination is rare, but Sviatoslav Richter, for example, was VERY strong in both.

Paul

I'm intrigued by this approach to memorizing, which, as a good sight-reader, is not my forte.  Could you please elaborate on your Zen approach.  What does it mean to "drop my fingers in a Zen fashion?"  (I'm actually a Zen practitioner, btw.)

[p2u_]

I'm intrigued by this approach to memorizing, which, as a good sight-reader, is not my forte.  Could you please elaborate on your Zen approach.  What does it mean to "drop my fingers in a Zen fashion?"  (I'm actually a Zen practitioner, btw.)

I lift them (is much like stretching in yoga) and I drop them (release of energy, giving it away without worrying about the result). Well, it's not actually a drop; it's a gentle swing of the finger, enough to cause the key to sound. It's very Zen-like in experience.

P.S.: I have the same approach to "jumps". I don't "jump", because I'm one with the instrument, so both the target and the movement are an illusion. I'm just there and never miss, because it's not me who plays; the music plays itself and it is my task not to interfere. Hope that is the right word usage to explain my mindset, because I'm not a native speaker of English.

Paul

[cmg]

Thank you.  Beautifully described.  I'll try your approach.

[chadbrochill17]

Memorizing for sure. My sight reading is atrocious. Once I have a piece memorized however, I'm generally able to retain it as long as I periodically play it. I hate sight reading.

[hfmadopter]

Memorizing has gotten slow. Used to be, ya a little slow but once memorized now we can get down to great expression between both reading and memorizing to a memorized end result. Well memorized end result. Now after many years away I'm beginning to wonder if it's going to be a read only situation, memorizing well enough to get to the next bar or two.. What ever comes  and if I do it well, I'll take it !!
David

[fleetfingers]

I am equally skilled at both. Not to say that I'm particularly highly skilled, but the skill levels I have of each is very close - either/or at the moment. As a young Suzuki student, I didn't learn to read well until my late teens and twenties . . . so I memorized everything, and that's just how I learned it. Now, at 31, I can still memorize well but I can also sight read decently. I think that if I don't keep trying to memorize that I may lose that ability and will depend only upon reading, as that continues to improve. Most things I don't memorize, but I try to memorize some pieces- just to exercise the skill.

Funny what rach was saying about the Internet. I told my son the other day that he should have his friends' phone numbers memorized; I always did when I was a kid! He said, "But if I use your cell phone, all I have to do is press their name, and it calls them." Haha, so maybe the technology is making everyone lazy.

[j_menz]

But if you're a good sightreader, then your memorization isn't as good because your brain is like, aaah I get forget it.  Besides, why do I need to remember?  I can just sightread it again.  Right? 

I'm a good sightreader (and a complete non-momoriser) and that sums up perfectly the view of my brain to such things.

[cmg]

I lift them (is much like stretching in yoga) and I drop them (release of energy, giving it away without worrying about the result). Well, it's not actually a drop; it's a gentle swing of the finger, enough to cause the key to sound. It's very Zen-like in experience.

P.S.: I have the same approach to "jumps". I don't "jump", because I'm one with the instrument, so both the target and the movement are an illusion. I'm just there and never miss, because it's not me who plays; the music plays itself and it is my task not to interfere. Hope that is the right word usage to explain my mindset, because I'm not a native speaker of English.

Paul

Paul, thank you for this suggestion.  I have little time to practice with my professional life lately, but today I had an hour to concentrate on memorizing the last mvt of the "Moonlight," which can't be played other than memorized.  Your applied technique of Zen concentration did the trick.  Thanks so much for sharing it.

[j_menz]

the last mvt of the "Moonlight," which can't be played other than memorized. 

I find it can be read relatively easily.

[graceandbeauty]

I would say I am mediocre in Both. My sight reading isn't terrible but neither is my memorization.. I can only sight read up to a certain level though before I get the mental block and have to work it out. I also have a problem with second guessing myself while. I will get to the note my hand is on it  but I am just not sure so I check again. i do that allot with accidentals... My memorization is better i would say. Just once I learn it and practice enough it will be stuck in their for a little while.

[searchingfordistance]

I had an interesting conversation with my teacher this week. I told him that I was always much better at memorizing pieces than doing sight reading. He told me that with him it was more the other way around, that he can sight read reasonably well but that he struggles to memorize pieces.

So what are you stronger at, and do you think the two are mutually exclusive or can you have both skills to a high level?

I find that I can forget a piece of music but if you simply have learnt it before then when I find the Sheets For it later I then remember it . I Have trained for about 2 years and I always learn to memorize the sheets before going on to the next so I have it in the back of my head.

If you are good at memorizing the only thing to do is then to learn how to sight read faster to be able to learn faster .

[dantesonata]

This is what I think.  I think that pianists with bad sight reading skills have better memorization.  Since they can't sightread well, whatever they actually do sightread, they can't afford to forget it.   So they have to memorize it... OR ELSE! 

But if you're a good sightreader, then your memorization isn't as good because your brain is like, aaah I get forget it.  Besides, why do I need to remember?  I can just sightread it again.  Right? 



I remember reading an article about how the internet isn't helping your memory because the information is already there, so why do you need to remember it?  You don't remember something?  Just google it.  Doesn't that sound like the same thing with sightreading?  If it's easily available for you, then you don't have to remember.  But if it's hard information to obtain, then it's easier to remember.

Catch my drift?

This. I'm the former.

[dee101]

Memorizer!!! Sometimes the memory slips and I have to get the music out to see where I went wrong or forgot. Early piano teachers use to give out the me for not looking at the music, and I always thought "but the professionals memorize huge chunks of music".  My present teacher when it was time I went to go sit my last grade exam, told me if I could play my three pieces without the looking at the music it'll look really impressive. And that's what I did!

With sight reading when I started lessons, it was left to the few weeks leading up to exams to be covered and it was never a skill that was improved upon. Present teacher had me buying a sight reading book and working on it one a day months before the exam and I was much better prepared. It even has boosted my own confidence to sight reading non-grade music pieces. So some days when I practising, I just pull out a book and scan through it to get a feel for it. If I think I'm not ready for it, I put it aside and work on something else.

Though the argument for looking at the music helps to recognise the signs and symbols that you need when sight reading makes sense also.

So while I'm not amazing in either, I try and use both skills as best as I can.

[faulty_damper]

The reason why good sight-readers are poor memorizers is simply because they do not bother to memorize.
The reason why poor sight-readers are good memorizers is simply because they have no choice but to memorize in order to play.
But when a poor sight-reader becomes a good sight-reader, he simply stops trying to memorize. That requires effort.  That effort is what they avoid.

Memorization is NOT a skill.  It's a technique.  As such, there is no such thing as a good memorizer; only good memorization technique.

[pianotrio]

I am a rather good sight-reader - and absolutely terrible at memorisation. Perhaps what faulty_damper says above is right; that I simply did not bother.

I'll try some of the memorising techniques explained on this forum and see if it improves.

[black_keys]

I didnt get it , one can be good at both if he want so , I am very good at memorising and i worked hard to improve my sight-reading , and I think now that im good at the two.

[ichky]

I remember all the music I play.

I work them out by myself, I play by ear.

If I can't remember, I just work it out again.

 

[pianotrio]

I didnt get it , one can be good at both if he want so , I am very good at memorising and i worked hard to improve my sight-reading , and I think now that im good at the two.

It is possible, I guess, that most people have a natural affinity for one more than the other. Personally I always found sight-reading really easy, without actually working on it in any systematic way; while I always found memorising really hard.

But you are absolutely right and working on both is a very good thing.

[miamlevy]

Hmm... I'm a pretty good sight reader, and I can memorize pieces pretty quickly. HOWEVER, these pieces do not seem to stay in my brain!

My mom can play pieces she played when she was 15, or my age. She's almost 50 now. I don't know how she does it... maybe it's because she has perfect pitch? Anyways, super easy pieces I learned two years ago are completely GONE from my memory. Sometimes I try to play my old pieces, and my mom looks at me with concern like I am an Alzheimer's patient.

[roseamelia]

I'm much much better at sight reading than memorizing but I can memorize some pieces pretty good.

[faulty_damper]

Sight-reading and memorization are not comparable.  While you can be good at sight-reading, you cannot be good at memorization.  Sight-reading is a skill that can be learned.  As such, you can practice to get better.  Unfortunately, memory does not work the same way.  It's not a skill.  It doesn't matter how much you try to practice it, you're memory is stuck the way it is; it will never improve.  (It won't get worse, either.)

This fact is surprising to most people because it contradicts their experiences.  You probably know someone who seems to remember all sorts of trivial things and life episodes and you assume they have a good memory.  But that is wrong.  Their memory is very similar to your own.  It's what they do differently that makes their memories more memorable.  Namely, they make their memories more memorable.  Hence their better recall of events and piano pieces.

The reason why poor sight-readers can memorize quickly is they read a few notes and then look down to play the sections over and over again and again, looking up at the score as necessary.  They don't actually read the score, they remember enough notes so they can play while looking at the keyboard.  Looking at the notes for a moment, memorizing the notes, then looking down at the keyboard and recalling what they've just read.  This is memorization and recall.  This is the fundamental difference between between memorizing quickly as opposed to memorizing slowly.  It's the recall.  The more you recall it, the stronger the memory.

When you sight-read, you don't recall beyond 2-3 seconds.  You just read and play.  This difference is why there is a correlation between being a good sight-reader and memorizing slowly.

[j_menz]

Unfortunately, memory does not work the same way.  It's not a skill.  It doesn't matter how much you try to practice it, you're memory is stuck the way it is; it will never improve.  (It won't get worse, either.)

Do you have some (scientific) authority for that rather outlandish statement?

[ajspiano]

Unfortunately, memory does not work the same way.  It's not a skill.  It doesn't matter how much you try to practice it, you're memory is stuck the way it is; it will never improve.

--

The reason why poor sight-readers can memorize quickly is they read a few notes and then look down to play the sections over and over again and again, looking up at the score as necessary.

funny how when a poor memoriser that always looks at the score starts practicing your latter statement their memory seems to improve...

I rather think everyone has the capacity to memorise, its just as you say, some naturally favour that tool and practice recall instead of reading.

[faulty_damper]

Do you have some (scientific) authority for that rather outlandish statement?

Yes, I do have authority, though my principle area of expertise is learning.  It was through the study of learning that led me to study intelligence.  It was through the study of intelligence that I had to understand memory in order to understand intelligence. 

Anyway, you can read this exceptionally good book for a thorough background on the study of memory: Higbee, Kenneth L., Your Memory: How it Works and How to Improve It.

https://www.amazon.com/Your-Memory-How-Works-Improve/dp/1569246297/ref=la_B001H6P1WS_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342164800&sr=1-1

Don't let the subtitle fool you.  It's a marketing gimmick.  You actually "improve" it by using mnemonic devices.  The direct way to memorization is repetition; aka "kill-and-drill" or rote memorization.

This is not in the book: there is new evidence that suggests that the memorization pathway follows two distinct courses: one processed by the immediate short-term memory that is quickly forgotten (probably the one used when you sight-read) and the other that is processed for long-term memory (which is probably used when you actively memorize.)

[pianoplayjl]

Probably Sight Reading although I always ignore the mistakes that come my way. Memorisation-too many details.

JL

[fleetfingers]

Sight-reading is a skill that can be learned.  As such, you can practice to get better.  Unfortunately, memory does not work the same way.  It's not a skill.  It doesn't matter how much you try to practice it, you're memory is stuck the way it is; it will never improve.  (It won't get worse, either.)

This seems to contradict your latter post, in which you reference a book that teaches mnemonics. Are you saying that people can't learn to apply mnemonics and improve their ability to memorize?

This fact is surprising to most people because it contradicts their experiences.  You probably know someone who seems to remember all sorts of trivial things and life episodes and you assume they have a good memory.  But that is wrong.  Their memory is very similar to your own.  It's what they do differently that makes their memories more memorable.  Namely, they make their memories more memorable.  Hence their better recall of events and piano pieces.

It seems that you're saying everyone has the potential to remember as well as the next guy. But there is something that has to happen, something that they have to do to "make the memories memorable". I don't see how that's any different than saying that good memory is a skill that can be improved.

[faulty_damper]

Memory is an ability. It is not a skill because skills can improve with practice.  Memory cannot be improved with practice.

Mnemonics devices are memory techniques.  They can be learned.  They can be practiced but they will only improve itself, i.e. the mnemonic device that is practiced is quickly recalled and applied to aide in memorization.  But the memory system itself is not improved by using mnemonics.

Mnemonics are like a can of NOS that can be used to boost power in an engine.  However, the engine isn't actually more powerful, it's only getting that increase in power through the NOS.  The power of the engine remains constant.

Mnemonic devices only work by making experiences more memorable.  It does nothing to improve your memory system.

[faulty_damper]

There has been one principle false analogy about memory, namely: "Memory is like a muscle."  This false analogy has influenced the concept of memory as something that can be improved.  It seems to make sense.  Even in your life, you may be able to recall that trying to memorize things actually makes you better at it.  But that's not what actually happened but you think it did.  (Psychologists call this confirmation bias, the tendency to see things the way you want to see it.)

Hundreds of psychological experiments have concluded that memory is not in anyway like a muscle.  It doesn't matter how much you try to practice it, you are stuck with the memory you have.  It simply won't get better.  Psychology, unfortunately, can't explain why this is. 

Neuroscience can.  Memory is simply the connection of neurons.  When you form a new memory, your neurons connect to new neurons.  This has no effect or influence on your memory "system".  (The connection of new neurons is also the definition of learning; memory and learning are the same thing.)

So if you are practicing the piano and want to memorize Brahm's Lullaby, you'll need to repeat it hundreds of times if you're an amateur.  The more you repeat that specific memory, the stronger the connection between neurons, but it will only be strong for that specific memory allowing you to recall and play the piece with ease.  However, it will not make your memory of yesterday's dinner any stronger no matter how much you practiced memorizing piano pieces. 


So, what did you have for dinner, yesterday? 

[j_menz]

So if you are practicing the piano and want to memorize Brahm's Lullaby, you'll need to repeat it hundreds of times if you're an amateur.  The more you repeat that specific memory, the stronger the connection between neurons, but it will only be strong for that specific memory allowing you to recall and play the piece with ease.  However, it will not make your memory of yesterday's dinner any stronger no matter how much you practiced memorizing piano pieces. 


So, what did you have for dinner, yesterday? 

Strangely, I have no trouble remembering what I had for dinner yesterday, but despite having played quite a few pieces hundreds of times, I couldn't tell you even the first note of them.

[ajspiano]

Strangely, I have no trouble remembering what I had for dinner yesterday, but despite having played quite a few pieces hundreds of times, I couldn't tell you even the first note of them.

This would drive me completely insane..   

There's a bernhard comment lying around somewhere on my "collection of PS posts worth reading" at home, where he talks about giving lessons to a guy with zero short term memory skills..

So he had to teach the guy to put small segments into muscle memory each day, and then he'd return the following day and the student wouldnt even remember having had the lesson, but his hands did remember the tiny fragments of music, much to his surprise since it was not in his conscious memory..

[j_menz]

This would drive me completely insane.. 

Either never been a problem for me, or it's already done its job.

It's not that I don't remember anything. If I encounter new chords or patterns or ways of doing things or whatever, that bit sticks (and translates directly to other pieces). Indeed, if there is a typo in the score, I'll remember what and where it is.  So, I basically remember everything about a piece except what's written down. Brain apparently simply doesn't see the point. And it's not that I have a bad memory generally, but again I won't remember things that I use other resources to keep track of. (I remember all the phone numbers of my school friends (long ago) but since I now store them in my phone I couldn't tell you any I now use).

[ajspiano]

Either never been a problem for me, or it's already done its job.

It's not that I don't remember anything. If I encounter new chords or patterns or ways of doing things or whatever, that bit sticks (and translates directly to other pieces). Indeed, if there is a typo in the score, I'll remember what and where it is.  So, I basically remember everything about a piece except what's written down. Brain apparently simply doesn't see the point. And it's not that I have a bad memory generally, but again I won't remember things that I use other resources to keep track of. (I remember all the phone numbers of my school friends (long ago) but since I now store them in my phone I couldn't tell you any I now use).

It just strikes me as odd, because my memory is largely based on pitch skills - that is that apart from memorising the score visually (which I don't do at all) and memorising the keys visually and through muscle memory, which I do a bit...  mostly I remember exactly how I intend it to sound, and as a result of that I can "figure it out" on the fly by ear..   And this is mostly how I memorise from the beginning, read score once, look at keys - play by ear..  rinse/repeat.

Being unable to do that is what would drive me insane, and it strikes me as being pretty unlikely that you can't remember what a song you heard sounds like, and that you have no pitch skills.. so I would assume that you can do that, even if it probably needs a bit of work before it would happen as a reasonably enough level to perform advanced music.

^maybe you just sight read your sound image? that would work as a reasonable enough replacement i guess.. I can probably do that just as well with easier music..

[j_menz]

^maybe you just sight read your sound image? that would work as a reasonable enough replacement i guess.. I can probably do that just as well with easier music..

Quite possibly.  One thing I've found interestingly odd is that I can sight read pieces to play them even where I have trouble reading the score listening to someone else play it. Never made any sense to me.

[ajspiano]

Quite possibly.  One thing I've found interestingly odd is that I can sight read pieces to play them even where I have trouble reading the score listening to someone else play it. Never made any sense to me.

Actually that is my experience also, though perhaps to a lesser degree...

I suppose that when we are actually playing we get physical cues that match the score and keep up in sync with the music. So we have visual/aural/physical, instead of just visual/aural as it is when following a score..

Additional cues make a big difference to the overall picture..

For example, I can sight sing (you know, in my head) a single line really easily.. however 2 parts takes enormous concentration and there's no way I could manage a fugue for example. But when i'm actually playing and reading, say just 2 parts - its fairly easy (harder if its contrapuntal though) to keep track of what sound should come next with the constant reassurances provided by the pianos sound..

I've actually begun trying to flat out improvise inventions from scratch in order to improve in this area. FREAKING DIFFICULT. Doing wonders for my ears and contrapuntal thinking though - even if I do suck at it and its full of stops and starts and complete atonal failures from time to time.

[fleetfingers]

So if you are practicing the piano and want to memorize Brahm's Lullaby, you'll need to repeat it hundreds of times if you're an amateur.  The more you repeat that specific memory, the stronger the connection between neurons, but it will only be strong for that specific memory allowing you to recall and play the piece with ease.  However, it will not make your memory of yesterday's dinner any stronger no matter how much you practiced memorizing piano pieces. 

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying . . . I think it has a lot to do with semantics (i.e. ability vs. skill).

The "hundred times" thing I don't buy at all, because I've always been a good memorizer and have never had to repeat things a bunch of times to remember it. I can sight read something tons of times and never memorize it, but once I put my mind to memorizing, it doesn't take long. Certainly not anywhere close to a hundred times. I've always had a good memory, and have never attempted to "improve" it, so maybe that's why I don't understand the conclusions of the studies. I coach my kids and piano students on memorizing techniques and I'd like to think that it's helping them learn a "skill". I don't know, it sounds like you've studied this a lot more than me. I am just going off of experience.

[fleetfingers]

It's interesting to hear the different methods that are used to remember piano pieces. I use pitch/ear and a visual of the keyboard but, having a strongly visual memory, I picture the score also. Especially super-easy student pieces . . . I can study the page by looking at it and then play it from memory. I have a long-term goal of being able to do that with intermediate (maybe someday advanced, if I live long enough) pieces, as Gieseking did.

[j_menz]

I've actually begun trying to flat out improvise inventions from scratch in order to improve in this area. FREAKING DIFFICULT. Doing wonders for my ears and contrapuntal thinking though - even if I do suck at it and its full of stops and starts and complete atonal failures from time to time.

Cool. Just to spur you along, Bach could improvise fugues. He once did one for the King of Prussia on a theme provided by the King (who didn't understand about what makes a good fugue theme). The King asked for a six part one  , and the difficulty of improvising sich a one is apparently the equivalent of playing 64 similtaneous games of chess blindfolded.  Bach tactfully replied that it was too great a theme for such an improvisation and did a 3 part one ias an interim nstead.

He reworked the theme a little, though and in its 6 part form became the Musical Offering.

[j_menz]

It's interesting to hear the different methods that are used to remember piano pieces. I use pitch/ear and a visual of the keyboard but, having a strongly visual memory, I picture the score also. Especially super-easy student pieces . . . I can study the page by looking at it and then play it from memory. I have a long-term goal of being able to do that with intermediate (maybe someday advanced, if I live long enough) pieces, as Gieseking did.

If you play off a mental image of the score, does that make you a memoriser, a sightreader, or both at once?     

[fleetfingers]

If you play off a mental image of the score, does that make you a memoriser, a sightreader, or both at once?     

LOL 

[ajspiano]

Just to spur you along, Bach could improvise fugues.

Yes I did know this - not the rest of the story though..

I can actually see in my mind how you could do it though, but the chess analogy seems pretty accurate. The mental capacity required is beyond a reasonable expectation for a normal human - and since i'm doing it without a teacher I'm probably giving myself a few headaches that could be avoided...

The inventions practically teach it to you progressively the longer you stare at them, assuming you think about them the right way.. 

The thing is, that managing a single motif, in two parts and actually keeping it flowing and creating a piece of music rather than a meandering wash of sound totally blows my mind at this point. I can do it if I get to stop and think for a bit every call and response..  keeping going though. NO. Composing it on paper wouldn't be too bad, its the keeping up with yourself in real time that's difficult.

3 parts, or even just a counter motif in a two part work would totally screw me over at this point, but I haven't been doing it long.. so who knows where I'll be with time.

*sorry for the thread hijack.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Do you have some (scientific) authority for that rather outlandish statement?

Isn't the burden of proof on the positive claim?  So shouldn't YOU have to provide scientific authority that it is a skill?

[ajspiano]

Isn't the burden of proof on the positive claim?

Depends on where you come from.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Depends on where you come from.

Lol I remember you saying this to me.

FINE then...

Me:  everyone on this website are murders!

Everyone on pianostreet:  dude what are you talking about?!  Do you think you're cool or something?  You can't prove it!

Me:  you can't prove that you're not!!!

*police shuts down the website and everyone here is in jail*
___________________________________________

Me:  I have a dragon in my pocket

You:  oh yeah?!  Well prove it!

Me:  you can't prove that I don't!!! . *troll face*



Seriously?!

[j_menz]

Isn't the burden of proof on the positive claim?  So shouldn't YOU have to provide scientific authority that it is a skill?

Don't argue burdens of proof with a lawyer, mate.  

The claims (a) that memory cannot be improved by practice and (b) that memory does not deteriorate run counter to the accepted wisdom.  Indeed, in the latter case the evidence that it deteriorates with age and/or lack of use would appear to be overwhelming.

I note that the authority provided against me was a self help book.

[j_menz]

Depends on where you come from.

Depends on who is paying you. 

[j_menz]

Me:  I have a dragon in my pocket

And I just thought you were plesaed to see someone. 

PS, mind the burns. Very nasty.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Don't argue burdens of proof with a lawyer, mate.  

  Indeed, in the latter case the evidence that it deteriorates with age and/or lack of use would appear to be overwhelming.

Oh so you're a lawyer huh?

Well one could make the argument that everything deteriorates with age and/or lack of use.  Which would make that what you said invalid.  

Don't argue burden of proofs with someone who's half brother twice removed in law cousins friends friends acquaintance half brothers cousin is a lawyer as well!