"Sightplaying", memorizing? Something in between?

[gleeok]

I've noticed most people performing classics and almost all other pieces in a master level had no sheets near them. Considering something "learned" necessarily means fully memorizing the piece and breaking free from the music sheet? I really don't feel comfortable doing that, I always need the sheet there and even though it doesn't feel I'm reading 100% directly (like the first time), I keep following the notes.

Some parts I prefer to look down on the keyboard completely to see my hands moving to the right places and then I go back to the exact place I would be reading after skipping that hard part.

Lets say, If I wanted to sightplay a piece I would need a piece I had never seen or heard before, right? Or is sightplaying to play the piece following the notes regardless of previous knowledge?

Some other discussions prompted me to open this one.

[faulty_damper]

Fluent reading requires memorized combinations of notes.  You're not processing anything new, you're just using your memory to play.

[gleeok]

Well, this means I have a good memory haha!

[faulty_damper]

One possible reason why having the sheet music in front of you is more comforting is because of the association you had formed between playing and the sheet of music.  It's that association that helps your memory because you learned the piece with the music in front of you. 

[gleeok]

One possible reason why having the sheet music in front of you is more comforting is because of the association you had formed between playing and the sheet of music.  It's that association that helps your memory because you learned the piece with the music in front of you. 

True. I don't think this is necessarily bad.. but I would like to play musics completely from memory. I guess if I dedicate enough time I might be able to play some completely from memory, my favorite ones. Then I would be able to play them anywhere without needing the sheet!

[iansinclair]

I find it rather interesting that there seem to be two very different traditions on this one.  Organists very very rarely play without the music before them (a few do, but it's rare) while concert pianists almost equally rarely play with the music.  I'm not just sure why, but for myself I find that I do much better with the more complex piano pieces if I have them effectively memorized.  Some of them I have fully memorized, and look at the music only once in a while to be sure that I am not practicing mistakes; others I have almost fully memorized, but need the music up there more as a memory jogger than actually reading the music.  When I am playing organ, however, I always have the music up, even for pieces which I have played for years, and I do refer to it.

[j_menz]

I find it rather interesting that there seem to be two very different traditions on this one.  Organists very very rarely play without the music before them (a few do, but it's rare) while concert pianists almost equally rarely play with the music.  I'm not just sure why...

Clara Schumann started the fad. Before her, pretty much every pianist read, she played from memory and it caught on.

[werq34ac]

Clara Schumann started the fad. Before her, pretty much every pianist read, she played from memory and it caught on.

I thought it was Liszt... Was it?

[j_menz]

I thought it was Liszt... Was it?

Given that they were contemporaries, originally friends who later fell out, I suspect that there are competing schools of thought on this. They did both do it (play without scores), so who did it first, or who was more influential, probably could be debated endlessly without purpose.

[werq34ac]

Given that they were contemporaries, originally friends who later fell out, I suspect that there are competing schools of thought on this. They did both do it (play without scores), so who did it first, or who was more influential, probably could be debated endlessly without purpose.

Liszt did pretty much set most of the modern standards of piano performance, so I guess that's why I inclined towards Liszt. I really don't think that something as minor as who memorized pieces first would create "two competing schools of though" but I see your point.

[j_menz]

Liszt did pretty much set most of the modern standards of piano performance, so I guess that's why I inclined towards Liszt. I really don't think that something as minor as who memorized pieces first would create "two competing schools of though" but I see your point.

Clara and Franz were the leaders of two opposing movements in music during the romantic period, and those schools still have their respective adherents. Pretty much anything that could be attributed to one or other of them is coloured by that adherence.

[lostinidlewonder]

We where playing/performing music by memory thousands of years before Liszt and C.Schumann, just because they decided to do it on the piano means nothing at all.

You can play a piece with mastery by sight reading, but you can only do this with music that usually isn't fast and is usually under your playing level. When one is studying a piece it is of highest learning efficiency if memory/sightreading are working together. You know you have done this job correctly when eventually the amount you need to read to cue your movements depreciates to near zero.

A simple test can be undergone if you try to sight read music that is very very easy for yourself. Eventually you cannot help but memorize it and play without sheets, if you still cannot then your brain is wired a certain way and you need direction to balance the way you process information. But who is to say that you cannot play with mastery with the sheets, you can do it, tell world famous orchestras that they shouldn't! But soloists look funny when they have to read while performing in my opinion, it looks less "free" they cannot let themselves loose, but that is only an opinion. Personally I wouldn't dare do a public concert with pieces that I need the sheets for, I should have trained so hard on the repertoire that I can do it all without the sheets and in a dark room, if I cannot then there is more work to be done! Everyone however treats their preparation for performance differently though.

Performing with the score however acts as a safety net if one loses their way. Totally relying on muscular memory can be risky, people can be prone to memory slips and mistakes and be unable to recover, where if you have the sheets if you make a mistake you can easily carry on and read your way through.

[werq34ac]

We where playing/performing music by memory thousands of years before Liszt and C.Schumann, just because they decided to do it on the piano means nothing at all.

You can play a piece with mastery by sight reading, but you can only do this with music that usually isn't fast and is usually under your playing level. When one is studying a piece it is of highest learning efficiency if memory/sightreading are working together. You know you have done this job correctly when eventually the amount you need to read to cue your movements depreciates to near zero.

A simple test can be undergone if you try to sight read music that is very very easy for yourself. Eventually you cannot help but memorize it and play without sheets, if you still cannot then your brain is wired a certain way and you need direction to balance the way you process information. But who is to say that you cannot play with mastery with the sheets, you can do it, tell world famous orchestras that they shouldn't! But soloists look funny when they have to read while performing in my opinion, it looks less "free" they cannot let themselves loose, but that is only an opinion. Personally I wouldn't dare do a public concert with pieces that I need the sheets for, I should have trained so hard on the repertoire that I can do it all without the sheets and in a dark room, if I cannot then there is more work to be done! Everyone however treats their preparation for performance differently though.

Performing with the score however acts as a safety net if one loses their way. Totally relying on muscular memory can be risky, people can be prone to memory slips and mistakes and be unable to recover, where if you have the sheets if you make a mistake you can easily carry on and read your way through.

Muscle memory isn't the only thing we should be relying on... there's also visual memory, and aural memory. Visual memory is probably the most powerful, but aural memory is probably more useful. And then there's plain old intellectual memory. The one you use when studying those SAT words. Long term and short term depend on various things.


Going back to performance standards, wasn't it considered almost heretical not to perform with the score in the time of Liszt? I mean the guy pretty much invented the whole idea of the piano recital. Plus he's the reason why the audience can see our lovely profiles now.

[j_menz]

A simple test can be undergone if you try to sight read music that is very very easy for yourself. Eventually you cannot help but memorize it and play without sheets, if you still cannot then your brain is wired a certain way and you need direction to balance the way you process information.

I can certainly help but memorize it, though I doubt I need direction to rebalance my brain.

[danhuyle]

When do I memorize a piece? I find myself play the same piece a lot.

To play a piece expressively, playing from memory or with music is irrelevant. Playing from memory and playing well have nothing to do with each other.

To have that flexibility to play with/without music requires memory work meaning you know the technique, interpretation and you can play it from start to finish as if you're playing in a performance.

[werq34ac]

When do I memorize a piece? I find myself play the same piece a lot.

To play a piece expressively, playing from memory or with music is irrelevant. Playing from memory and playing well have nothing to do with each other.

To have that flexibility to play with/without music requires memory work meaning you know the technique, interpretation and you can play it from start to finish as if you're playing in a performance.

Interpretation requires knowing the piece. Sure you can play expressively by looking a few measures ahead, but can you really just understand a piece without having even looked at the score?

In the end, whether or not you use music depends on what allows you to get out of the notes.

[j_menz]

Interpretation requires knowing the piece. Sure you can play expressively by looking a few measures ahead, but can you really just understand a piece without having even looked at the score?

In the end, whether or not you use music depends on what allows you to get out of the notes.

Agreed. That said, there are some pieces that are easier than others to understand at first sight, so a read through of a Khulau sonatina, for example, is likely to be pretty reasonable (assuming you can do it at speed easily enough), but a late Liszt piece, even though it may be technically easier, is never going to have a good first read through in terms of interpretation (or a second, third, fourth, fifth....).

[ajspiano]

Interpretation requires knowing the piece.

I would say yes, but I suspect that familiarisation with composition in general and the tendancies of the specific composer may make to possible to do a lot better without prior work on the piece..

Ofcourse in order to do that you'd have to know most of the composers works to begin with so there'd be less and less opportunity the better you got at it..

The question reminds me of the movie "copying beethoven" - fictional, but this made me think of the moment where the copyist is writing out orchestral parts for beethoven, and she alters his work. Then they have a tiff over it and she says that she changed it to what he really meant, arguing that she knew his style better than he did..  and he eventually agrees.. 

[j_menz]

The question reminds me of the movie "copying beethoven" - fictional, but this made me think of the moment where the copyist is writing out orchestral parts for beethoven, and she alters his work. Then they have a tiff over it and she says that she changed it to what he really meant, arguing that she knew his style better than he did..  and he eventually agrees.. 

Not Beethoven, but Liszt thought this to be true of Alexander Siloti.

[werq34ac]

I would say yes, but I suspect that familiarisation with composition in general and the tendancies of the specific composer may make to possible to do a lot better without prior work on the piece..

Ofcourse in order to do that you'd have to know most of the composers works to begin with so there'd be less and less opportunity the better you got at it..

The question reminds me of the movie "copying beethoven" - fictional, but this made me think of the moment where the copyist is writing out orchestral parts for beethoven, and she alters his work. Then they have a tiff over it and she says that she changed it to what he really meant, arguing that she knew his style better than he did..  and he eventually agrees.. 

I feel like it would be easier just to work the piece...

And I'm not sure I entirely agree. Playing musically and and playing well are actually different things. You can shape melodies beautifully, but if it doesn't communicate to the audience, then the music loses meaning. We practice technique so that we can play musically. We play musically so that we can communicate to the audience. But things you do to play musically are just tools, just like technique is a tool for playing musically.

And one needs to be familiar with the piece in order to have an interpretation to communicate to the audience. All knowledge of composition and the composer will get you is convention, not interpretation.

[j_menz]

I feel like it would be easier just to work the piece...

And I'm not sure I entirely agree. Playing musically and and playing well are actually different things. You can shape melodies beautifully, but if it doesn't communicate to the audience, then the music loses meaning. We practice technique so that we can play musically. We play musically so that we can communicate to the audience. But things you do to play musically are just tools, just like technique is a tool for playing musically.

And one needs to be familiar with the piece in order to have an interpretation to communicate to the audience. All knowledge of composition and the composer will get you is convention, not interpretation.

Yet pieces do not exist in isolation. Composers write in particular ways, and have  their own quirks, conventions and emotional and musical headspaces. Some composers I "get" and some I don't. It's much easier to play ones I do get, and their meaning is clear(er). Ones I really don't get will always sound like crap in my hands.

[lostinidlewonder]

Muscle memory isn't the only thing we should be relying on... there's also visual memory, and aural memory. Visual memory is probably the most powerful, but aural memory is probably more useful. And then there's plain old intellectual memory.

Visual cues only plays a part if you need it to I do not find that they are universal musical tools. I wonder how blind pianist use it? I don't think memory should be graded as what is more useful or not also.

Intellect cannot keep up with rapid pieces, you simply cannot sight read complicated fast music at tempo without muscular memory.

[lostinidlewonder]

I can certainly help but memorize it, though I doubt I need direction to rebalance my brain.

I didn't understand this bit.

[werq34ac]

Visual cues only plays a part if you need it to I do not find that they are universal musical tools. I wonder how blind pianist use it?

And yet visual cues are incredibly useful. I would say that of all our senses, we get the most information from our eyes. They are essentially our most "practiced" organ. Thus, it's easier to memorize something visually than it is by any other sense. That's why I said it was more powerful. Now visual memory on its own is worthless in music since music is after all an auditory experience, but to say they aren't universal tools? Can you imagine a world without sight? Blind pianists have to make up for their loss of sight through incredibly sensitive hearing and touch. Their minds work in a completely different way than others in the way the sense the world. Unless you are blind yourself, I really don't see how anyone can speak for a blind person. Humans are very dependent on their sense of sight.

I don't think memory should be graded as what is more useful or not also.

I'm not saying muscle memory is worthless. You need it to play difficult passages. However, muscle memory is most certainly the weakest form of memory and the most likely to fail. You aren't even using your senses. You are unconsciously going through a motion. Now is that really the way music should be made?
As for other forms of memory, I'm evaluating their strengths and weaknesses. Visual memory I explained above. Aural memory, well obviously as musicians, we need a strong aural memory. How the hell are you supposed to play something the way you want if you don't even know what it should sound like? Enough said about that

Now for the most ridiculous of your claims (not that your post didn't have merit, but I found this absolutely ridiculous)

Intellect cannot keep up with rapid pieces, you simply cannot sight read complicated fast music at tempo without muscular memory.

If your own intellect cannot keep up with a piece, you've got practice to do. The human brain can send messages at roughly 1000mph. Human fingers probably travel at around 10-20mph at the fastest (rough estimate). You underestimate the brain my friend. The mind should always be faster than the fingers. Otherwise, you are depending solely on muscle memory and as I explained above, that's not the way to go. It's quite frankly an insult to the music.

[j_menz]

I didn't understand this bit.

I mean I can read a piece hundreds or thousands of times and still not remember a single note. I do not see this as a problem requiring intervention.

[werq34ac]

I mean I can read a piece hundreds or thousands of times and still not remember a single note. I do not see this as a problem requiring intervention.

Well I suppose as long as you don't have blips in your interpretation..

[ajspiano]

I mean I can read a piece hundreds or thousands of times and still not remember a single note. I do not see this as a problem requiring intervention.

Freak.

You're like the anti-Clara.

[j_menz]

Freak.

You're like the anti-Clara.

Haha, I think Wagner was the anti-Clara. I actually quite like her.

[ajspiano]

I actually quite like her.

Opposites attract ...?

[j_menz]

Opposites attract ...?

Not really. There's a lot more to Clara than her memorising. A feisty, talented and influential woman in a day when any one of those would have been difficult.

[ajspiano]

Not really. There's a lot more to Clara than her memorising. A feisty, talented and influential woman in a day when any one of those would have been difficult.

I guess you were born into the wrong era.

[davidjosepha]

Opposites attract ...?

A feisty, talented and influential woman in a day when any one of those would have been difficult.

I think ajspiano might have been implying that you are an unfeisty, untalented and not at all influential man. He's really subtle with his insults.

[ajspiano]

He's really subtle with his insults.

Are you trying to get me in trouble..?   I guess I did have a go at someones arrogance the other day by using a  completely misunderstood early 90's grunge reference 

[davidjosepha]

Are you trying to get me in trouble..?   I guess I did have a go at someones arrogance the other day by using a  completely misunderstood early 90's grunge reference 

Link me, I need to see this.

[ajspiano]

Link me, I need to see this.

You did see it, you responded to his super witty flip of my statement.

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=47679.msg518002#msg518002

On review, I think the first part of my post there is a little less subtle. - but his response suggests to me that he had no clue what the latter reference was..  but who knows, could be wrong - its not as if I made it very obscure at all... 

[davidjosepha]

Oh, I caught that. I thought you were talking about a different early '90s grunge reference

...

But really, I caught it, I just didn't make the connection when you mentioned it in this topic. Not everything I read gets placed in the long term memory.

[ajspiano]

Oh, I caught that. I thought you were talking about a different early '90s grunge reference

...

But really, I caught it, I just didn't make the connection when you mentioned it in this topic. Not everything I read gets placed in the long term memory.

Nevermind, I won't hold it against you.

[davidjosepha]

that one's a stretch

[davidjosepha]

If you can (accurately) tell me what that's a reference to, I'll grant you one non-monetary wish.

[j_menz]

I guess you were born into the wrong era.

Possibly. I'd have made a great Victorian.

[j_menz]

If you can (accurately) tell me what that's a reference to, I'll grant you one non-monetary wish.

But it's a monetary stretch.......

[ajspiano]

If you can (accurately) tell me what that's a reference to, I'll grant you one non-monetary wish.

I can not. Not even with google's help, which is pretty amazing.

[davidjosepha]

It's a song off the debut album, Ipecac Neat, of Minnesota used-to-be-underground rapper P.O.S

Googling "that one lyrics" would have returned it as the first result

He's kinda mainstream now, his new stuff sucks, but his stuff from early 2000s, really good. I met him, really nice guy, too bad his music doesn't have the passion it used to.

You had no chance, by the way

[ajspiano]

Googling "that one lyrics" would have returned it as the first result

..Why didnt I think of that..?

[davidjosepha]

Hmm. Logged out, incognito mode, so it shouldn't be based on my search history and such...location based, perhaps?



Edit: I also have 110,000,000 more results than you. Hmm

[ajspiano]

Hmm. Logged out, incognito mode, so it shouldn't be based on my search history and such...location based, perhaps?

Nah, I just searched for "that one lyrics -p.o.s."

Then photoshopped out the latter element.

[davidjosepha]

Nah, I just searched for "that one lyrics -p.o.s."

Then photoshopped out the latter element.

hahahahahaha oh God, that's hilarious. Nice work

[ajspiano]

hahahahahaha oh God, that's hilarious. Nice work

This is what I was hoping you wouldn't notice..  didnt even think of the number of results at all..

[davidjosepha]

haha yeh, I didn't even think to look up there, and it didn't catch my eye at all. I was too busy thinking of why your results didn't show the same as mine and why there were so much fewer of them. I was kinda hoping the answer was that Australia censored the internet

[ajspiano]

..that Australia censored the internet

oh god lets hope not..   I was angling for that the other sites somehow had a higher google page rank by location - I guess that was voided by having half as many results.