Intensity of neural signals lead to faster learning...?

[hmpiano]

He told you?! 

No, he (and Liszt) told Ferdinand Hiller.

[nyiregyhazi]

No, he (and Liszt) told Ferdinand Hiller.

Great. Based on a combination of mythology about Liszt and selective use of tit-bits of neuroscience (taken out of the context of a complete picture) let's encourage pianists to do the worst kind of practise imaginable.

[hmpiano]

Great. Based on a combination of mythology about Liszt and selective use of tit-bits of neuroscience (taken out of the context of a complete picture) let's encourage pianists to do the worst kind of practise imaginable.

I'm encouraging nothing, just keeping an open mind rather than summarily dismissing every new idea in such a ludicrously aggressive manner.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm encouraging nothing, just keeping an open mind rather than summarily dismissing every new idea in such a ludicrously aggressive manner.

It's not a new idea. I already waste far too much of time playing things loud and fast- rather than doing detailed slow work. It's about the most tried and tested approach there is to piano playing. It does nothing to aid memorisation to rip through. Also, I do not dismiss anything casually. Above all, what I dismissed was the bogus reasoning and impossible assumptions that the theory rests upon (not to mention the refusal to address such irrefutable issues as the fact that going fast from the start reduces the consistency of execution and therefore the acquisition of consistent neural pathways).

Incidentally, the poster has never classified how we define when a pianist is learning technique and when he is only learning the notes. To say that this is for pianists who only need to learn the music is to attempt to make reality fit to a synthetic and implausible classification- rather than to actually base classifications on conceivable reality. I'd like the poster to specifically define who the theory is for- so we can understand precisely who it can reasonably be applied to. Personally, I've performed various advanced works by Liszt, including the Sonata and I'm also a pretty decent sightreader. Does that mean that I'm supposedly accomplished enough to get straight into loud and fast playing without prior slow preparation? If not, precisely what are the criteria for deciding who is in a position to use the immediate loud and fast for better (rather than woefully inadequate) results? Does the poster himself have direct experience of playing advanced repertoire? If not, how come he's in a position of supposedly not having to worry about the process of "learning to play the piano" whereas I am? If this is grounded purely on conjectures that are not remotely supported by logic (rather than grounded in anything that is supported by real life experiences), there is no reason to give it serious consideration.

[hmpiano]

(not to mention the refusal to address such irrefutable issues as the fact that going fast from the start reduces the consistency of execution and therefore the acquisition of consistent neural pathways).

Firstly I don't think that's 'irrefutable' and secondly I believe the poster is referring to memory for a piece not its 'consistency of execution'.

[nyiregyhazi]

Firstly I don't think that's 'irrefutable' and secondly I believe the poster is referring to memory for a piece not its 'consistency of execution'.

That is constructed on a glaring logical fallacy. Are we talking about physical memory? If so, it's intrinsically linked into achieving a consistent quality of execution. Allowing the quality to slip is grossly detrimental to the ability to perform a high quality version of movements upon instinct. If we were not talking about physical memory, there would be no need to perform any executions AT ALL! Therefore, it is clear that the poster is talking about the acquisition of physical memory. Bulk quantity does not provide better learning than accuracy of repetition. The whole theory is built on sand, due to casual omission of important considerations.

I'm stunned that anyone would take such a simplistic view as the quantity over quality one- trying to protect it merely via the fantasy that you could make a casual decision to do things fast and loud with the same quality as when taking your time (to perceive properly and think about what you are doing). You can no more decide to go fast and loud without compromise of quality than you can tell an experienced craftsman to treble his production rate- but in a way that doesn't undermine the care and attention that he puts into quality control. It's the stuff of fantasy.

[faulty_damper]

Once you've learned the music, or even just a short portion of it, then by all means go ahead and practice to make music using the necessary technical practice.  The goal is the learn the music well-enough to free your mind from having to sight-read.  Hence, learning the music.

But there is this incessant nagging that learning the music is the same as playing the piano.  Then you resort to personal attacks asserting some kind of mental disability because you're case is flawed and you have no other alternative than to resort to personal attacks.

See it from a different point of view.  If we were concerned with playing the piano, then by all means practice the technique but practice with what?  The music.  Hence, learning just a few notes and practicing to get it to technical proficiency.

But again, because some of us may not be a quick as others, this is not about learning how to play the piano but about learning the music.

[nyiregyhazi]

Once you've learned the music, or even just a short portion of it, then by all means go ahead and practice to make music using the necessary technical practice.  The goal is the learn the music well-enough to free your mind from having to sight-read.  Hence, learning the music.

But there is this incessant nagging that learning the music is the same as playing the piano.  Then you resort to personal attacks asserting some kind of mental disability because you're case is flawed and you have no other alternative than to resort to personal attacks.

See it from a different point of view.  If we were concerned with playing the piano, then by all means practice the technique but practice with what?  The music.  Hence, learning just a few notes and practicing to get it to technical proficiency.

But again, because some of us may not be a quick as others, this is not about learning how to play the piano but about learning the music.

AGAIN- you merely reword your initial point? You really have not a single word of follow-up to any of the points I have made, or any of the questions I have asked? This is why I asked a perfectly sincere question about whether you are autistic. Anyway, I'm not going to bother- if you can merely repeat generalised assertions without being able to clarify or expand on them. An argument that is protected by merely ignoring inconvenient counterarguments is not worth arguing against.

Regarding this nonsense about learning the musical interpretation later- the music in instrinsically linked to the structure of the music. If you pay no attention to the concept of harmony and consonances vs. dissonance, you have no hope of adding good interpretation later. This is part of the reason why it's so important not to hurry early on. Even if the notes are accurate, too much vital detail is missed.

[faulty_damper]

Firstly I don't think that's 'irrefutable' and secondly I believe the poster is referring to memory for a piece not its 'consistency of execution'.

Yes, this is what I mean when I say that this isn't about learning how to play the piano (consistency of execution) but learning the music.

[nyiregyhazi]

Yes, this is what I mean when I say that this isn't about learning how to play the piano (consistency of execution) but learning the music.

I'll ask one last time- seeing as you are still repeating this stock phrase like a broken record, rather than fleshing it out with any substance whatsoever.

How do you define the difference between someone who is at a level where they are able to forget learning to play the piano and instead concentrate on "learning the music" (minus all musical considerations)?

Also, what level are you at? Please give an example of your typical repertoire that you approach this way.

[faulty_damper]

That is constructed on a glaring logical fallacy. Are we talking about physical memory? If so, it's intrinsically linked into achieving a consistent quality of execution. Allowing the quality to slip is grossly detrimental to the ability to perform a high quality version of movements upon instinct. If we were not talking about physical memory, there would be no need to perform any executions AT ALL! Therefore, it is clear that the poster is talking about the acquisition of physical memory. Bulk quantity does not provide better learning than accuracy of repetition. The whole theory is built on sand, due to casual omission of important considerations.

NO, again, we aren't talking about how to play but instead a faster way to memorizing the music.  

[nyiregyhazi]

NO, again, we aren't talking about how to play but instead a faster way to memorizing the music.  

Precisely the terms I argued on. The problem is if you are playing, you learn things from the experience- whether you intend to or not. The only abstraction from that must be done mentally without actually playing anything. You're creating a synthetic separation of two things that is quite impossible when you are actually playing notes at the instrument. Coming up with implausible theoretical distinctions that cannot be achieved will not bend reality. Neither will repeating an initial stock phrase for the tenth time, in response to a logical demonstration of fallacious reasoning.

[hmpiano]

You may struggle with technique.  For some of us it's memory not technique that let's us down.

[nyiregyhazi]

You may struggle with technique.  For some of us it's memory not technique that let's us down.

I know who you are, so it's use bigging yourself up:

Those who are blind to their limitations are often the most likely to claim there is no struggle. Anyway, I'm more interested in where the poster draws the line than in your well-known delusions of grandeur.

My own struggle with technique is usually interlinked with the fact that I want to sound good. If I cared nothing about anything but playing notes in the right order, as the poster describes, I wouldn't be having to worry about anything technical in most of my repertoire (excepting extreme difficulty in things like Chopin Etudes).

It's not hard to get the notes right in a piece like this:

What is hard is to have CONTROL the sound of the notes and to move in a way that is efficient and effortless. Playing fast and loud straight off contributes nothing to that. It would actively hinder it (and is equally detrimental to memory acquisition). There are many poor movements in that video (despite the accuracy) that need to be rectified with slow precise work.

[outin]

I know who you are, so it's use bigging yourself up:

But the video is really up to date 

[nyiregyhazi]

But the video is really up to date  

You suspect that he's since acquired supreme command over the instrument in intervening years and that any boasts as to his supposed pianistic prowess would now be justified? I'll believe it if I see it.

[mike_lang]

Agree.

Louder, harder, for the physical side.

More concentration on the mental side.  

I suppose something with emotions too. Over-feeling maybe.


It takes more effort though and wears you out faster.

Are you talking about music-making?

[hmpiano]

It's not hard to get the notes right in a piece like this:

Any excuse to publicize yourself eh?  not that I'm about to watch.  It's irrelevant to the discussion.

[outin]

You suspect that he's since acquired supreme command over the instrument in intervening years and that any boasts as to his supposed pianistic prowess would now be justified? I'll believe it if I see it.

I guess you haven't seen the latest enhancements 

Have you ever considered that instead of fighting the windmills you could use the time playing the piano? Which you do very well indeed 

[faulty_damper]

What is hard is to have CONTROL the sound of the notes and to move in a way that is efficient and effortless. Playing fast and loud straight off contributes nothing to that. It would actively hinder it (and is equally detrimental to memory acquisition). There are many poor movements in that video (despite the accuracy) that need to be rectified with slow precise work.

Hehe... again the techniques described in how to memorize a piece faster has little to do with actually practicing a piece.  We are concerned with learning a piece faster, not how to play the piece.


(This is my rondo interjection with slight variation. )

[werq34ac]

Back to this topic.

Who cares how fast you memorize something, now that you have made that absolutely clear. Who cares if you memorize a piece in an hour or 30 minutes (btw, when I was practicing Chopin Op. 10 no. 1, the piece became automatically memorized within half an hour. Probably out of necessity and ease, but automatic nonetheless. Sorry, I digress). Anyway, if you were to practice this way (loud and fast) you admit that technique still needs working on. I assume you admit that musicality also needs work? Now my point is why not practice technique AND musicality at the same time AND memorization at the same freaking time. Actually I find in practicing technique and musicality, memorization is automatic for me. But for those who can't memorize like this, why not work on technique and musicality while memorizing a piece? It would much more efficient than just working on memory and then having to go back and fix everything bad that you learned while playing fast and loud.

[nyiregyhazi]

Hehe... again the techniques described in how to memorize a piece faster has little to do with actually practicing a piece.  We are concerned with learning a piece faster, not how to play the piece.


(This is my rondo interjection with slight variation. )

Even if this worked- what is the value? Hey, look, I can play a piece horrifically and with no control from memory. Great. Now you need to spend 10x longer fixing the bad habits than it would have taken if you learned it properly in the first place.

[nyiregyhazi]

Any excuse to publicize yourself eh?  not that I'm about to watch.  It's irrelevant to the discussion.

The relevance is that it shows you can be playing advanced repertoire accurately, without having come near to true mastery of technical issues. No doubt more advanced pianists than myself too, realise this- but I can only speak directly on my own behalf. Virtually anyone who thinks they can go loud and fast right off with no technical technical issues is simply a victim of their outright ignorance about what constitutes good technique. Anyone of such a naive mindset is typically the type to do themself the most technical harm- via such foolish bravado.

[faulty_damper]

Even if this worked- what is the value? Hey, look, I can play a piece horrifically and with no control from memory. Great. Now you need to spend 10x longer fixing the bad habits than it would have taken if you learned it properly in the first place.

You assume that the techniques mentioned for memorizing quickly is actually a practice method.  It's not.  It's a memorization method that you use until it's memorized, which should only be a few repetitions.  Once it's memorized, abandon it. 

Great! We now have an understanding even though you'll come back and make some comment about playing the piano and I'll come back and reply that this isn't about playing, it's about memorizing.


So, last time in our Rondo alla Fast-n-Loud, this isn't about playing, it's about memorizing.

[j_menz]

I'm struggling to see the underlying science here. I doubt that the strength with which you bang the keyboard has anything to do with the signal strength in the bit of the brain that actually has to learn the movement/position/notes/whatever.  Perhaps someone would be so kind as to point me in the direction of some scientific study on the subject.

I know I personally use quite a bit of "intensity" on the keyboard when I make repeated reading or execution errors. It certainly makes me feel better. I'm not sure it helps me learn anything.

[outin]

I'm struggling to see the underlying science here. I doubt that the strength with which you bang the keyboard has anything to do with the signal strength in the bit of the brain that actually has to learn the movement/position/notes/whatever.  Perhaps someone would be so kind as to point me in the direction of some scientific study on the subject.

I know I personally use quite a bit of "intensity" on the keyboard when I make repeated reading or execution errors. It certainly makes me feel better. I'm not sure it helps me learn anything.

I have found that banging the keys a bit helps to relieve frustration when something just doesn't stick to my head...

[hmpiano]

I know I personally use quite a bit of "intensity" on the keyboard when I make repeated reading or execution errors. It certainly makes me feel better. I'm not sure it helps me learn anything.

That's interesting.  I think we all do that.  Perhaps it's a strategy carried out by the body (which usually knows best).  We're so involved with the frustration caused by errors we don't notice we've just used a strategy to improve retention.

[nyiregyhazi]

You assume that the techniques mentioned for memorizing quickly is actually a practice method.  It's not.  It's a memorization method that you use until it's memorized, which should only be a few repetitions.  Once it's memorized, abandon it.  

Yes. And get on with having to unlearn all of appalling habits that have now become 2nd nature. Why do you merely repeat assertions that have already been undermined- rather than defend them against the points that bring them into question? Do you understand how debate works? Even in the case of disagreement, there can be great value in hearing well reasoned arguments for opposing points of view. When one party chooses to ignore inconvenient arguments (rather than provide intelligent reasoning to dispute them) nothing can be learned.  

You seem to think that artificially constructed classifications will alter reality. They will not. In the brain, countless factors are interlinked. The brain does not neatly divide things into segregated areas that are conveniently independent of each other. As I stated, whether you call it a "practise method" or not- the brain learns when you perform movements. You cannot decide for it not to! We are dealing in objectively reality. Political-style spin of saying "it's not a practise method" does not change what it necessarily wires into the brain. Have you forgotten that creation of habit was YOUR original assertion- when you spoke of how the neurons acquire habits from repetition? However, now that it's less convenient to your fantastical beliefs, you can just decide that "it's not a practise method"- as if that prevents harmful habits from developing? If the neurons learn any old rubbish that gets the notes out (due to no attention being paid to maintaining quality of movement or control over sound) then you are left with hard-wired bad habits- which are an inseparable part of what you call the "memory". These neuronal patterns can just be discarded, can they? How much research have you actually done on the brain? It doesn't sound like much. It doesn't matter whether you now abandon this ridiculous approach. The harm has already been done- whether you term it a practice method or not.

Also, you made no attempt to answer my question as to why it would be useful to have something memorised with bad habits, before starting the "practice" side of things. Please name even one reason why this would be better than memorising while you develop good quality movements and hard-wire those into the brain. The way you repeat the same assertions over and over without engaging in intelligent debate against counterarguments makes it sound as if this isn't even your own opinion, but something that you are just parroting 2nd hand. If you came to these conclusions based on rational thought, what prevents you from using rational principles to defend them- rather than just repeating the very arguments that have been brought into question?

[werq34ac]

So you're telling me that you can memorize a 5 minute piece if you play it in 4 or 3 minutes over and over only a few times so you don't develop bad habits but still are able to memorize a piece? Tell me more! 


 Half an hour of working on a piece will develop habits and whether they are good or bad depend on the quality of the practice. Now that means your method has to work within 30 minutes, probably even less considering how quickly the human brain develops habits. Some people are so adept at sightreading that they actually develop habits in playing a piece on the first reading.


Lets do some math. Spend 30 minutes memorizing the piece but developing bad habits. Spend about an hour trying fix the habits you developed. Total of an hour and a half.
Spend an hour memorizing and working the piece normally, same amount of material covered, same amount of practice actually accomplished, 2/3 the time.

Keep in mind these are rough estimates, but it just shows that in trying to take a shortcut (I don't want to discuss whether it works or not), you end up wasting time.

[faulty_damper]

There are two different ways you can look at memorization:
1. repetition
2. over-learning

Repetition of the same neural pathways leads to the strengthening of the those pathways.

Over-learning is increasing the number of synapses between neurons.  This makes the event more memorable.  This is the point of this thread.  By increasing the number of synapses, you have more connections but at the same time, you have more to lose but the net result is still more connections; you still have more memory of the event.  But before we prune those synapses, the variability of which to prune them are very high.  You can choose which ever way you want to practice it normally with consideration to musical content of the piece.

It's important to note that forming new synapses and pruning them are vital functions in learning; it makes the process efficient since useless synapses can potentially trigger neurons that are useless to the task.

Pruning, by the way, means forgetting.  The act of forgetting is an important factor in learning since it's important to forget useless processes that slow down primary processes of tasks, e.g. learning mnemonics for ledger lines such as FACE and Every Good Boy Does Fine.  This may be helpful for a new learner but detrimental for an intermediate or advanced player since it slows the player down.

[werq34ac]

What you just said actually makes sense. What you fail to connect is the idea of the intensity of neurons and physical speed and volume.

[faulty_damper]

In your brain, your neurons have axon terminals that wave to and fro like seaweed occasionally making contact with other neurons. (Memory is the connection between two or more neurons.) When contact is made and an action potential is generated from one neuron, the receiving neuron may also be activated and create its own action potential.  Thus, you have activation of that memory.

Now, how quickly synapses and how many synapses are formed depends on many factors.  One factor is the intensity of the neural signal -  the number of action potentials...

Background info:
An action potential is all-or-nothing; an electro-chemical signal is either sent from a neuron or it isn't. Like a light switch, it's either on or off.  A single AP is very weak and may not be enough to trigger an AP in the receiving neuron(s).  However, its frequency determines how intense the signal.  The more frequent the AP, the stronger the signal, and the more likely the receiving neuron(s) will also be activated and send its own AP.

What happens to the axon terminals under increased intensity (more AP) is that they become more excited and wave to and fro faster, potentially making more contacts with neighboring neurons.  However, once contact is made (a synapse is formed), it can just as easily lose it... unless, (and I'm speculating here on a not fully understood process) unless that synapse triggers an AP in the receiving neuron.  At this point, something happens chemically which makes that synapse stable (thought not necessarily permanent) and allows for the continued communication between the two neurons.


So why speed?  Speed requires increased number of AP just as loud and firm do.  (I'm not necessarily referring to the activation of fast-twitch muscle fibers responsible for fast movements, just in the rate of neural signals in the brain.)  The more AP, the more synapses can potentially form.  This essentially strengthens the memory.  We are only concerned with memorizing the piece, not the technique of playing.

[werq34ac]

But doesn't speed sometimes create a disconnect between the brain and the fingers?

[faulty_damper]

This is the main confusion of this thread.  It's not about playing technique, just memorizing so if you need to you can work on technique later so you don't need to keep referring to the printed music.

But to elaborate on your comment:

By disconnect of brain and fingers, you probably mean control of those fingers.
Usually when there is lack of control, it's from poor/lack of practice that results in multiple outputs to the muscles or insufficient inhibition of neural outputs to the muscles.  Your muscles are literally doing too many things at one time.  One of those things will be correct.  The rest are not.  (This is the issues of tension and relaxation that is so often discussed on this forum.)

The worst way to remedy this is more of the same kinds of practice that led up to this issue. 

Since the issue is about coordination and control, slow practice, allowing for only the necessary neural outputs to activate the necessary muscles, is the way to go.  This kind of practice also helps pruning the unnecessary synapses since the way to forget is simply not to use those connections.

[j_menz]

So why speed?  Speed requires increased number of AP just as loud and firm do.  (I'm not necessarily referring to the activation of fast-twitch muscle fibers responsible for fast movements, just in the rate of neural signals in the brain.)  The more AP, the more synapses can potentially form.  This essentially strengthens the memory.  We are only concerned with memorizing the piece, not the technique of playing.

How does speed achieve this? Or indeed "loud and firm"?  Why does playing a passage three time fast require more APs than playing it three times slowly? And why does playing it more firmly require more APs than playing it softly?  In the part of the brain memorising the piece, incidentally.

[ajspiano]

This seems all well and good, but why speed and volume?

Why does it have to be increased physical movements over mental processing?

I'm just failing to see why you can't intensify your brains activity by playing more musically rather than faster/louder. AND, I'm failing to see a purpose in divorcing memorization from the rest of the elements of musical learning.

EDIT:
This is especially evident since if we are assuming technique does not need to be acquired - I can aurally remember something pretty much on the spot, or within a few listens. And if I've done that I can play it by memory and by ear with no trouble. Completely voiding the need to do any of this..

The sound image is more powerful than the muscle memory, and if you fail to use a sound image you'll sound bad and completely fall apart if your muscle memory chokes.

[faulty_damper]

How does speed achieve this? Or indeed "loud and firm"?  Why does playing a passage three time fast require more APs than playing it three times slowly? And why does playing it more firmly require more APs than playing it softly?  In the part of the brain memorising the piece, incidentally.

When you play it softly, you are more likely to use pre-existing connections.  In other words, you're just playing from memory those individual notes and no new connections may form.  However, increasing neural intensity, you significantly increase the likelihood that those notes will be remembered in the specific order in which it is played instead of having to repeat dozens of times before it becomes memorized.

The principle is over-learning.  We over-learn to increase the likelihood that something can be memorized faster and more is retained.

I'm just failing to see why you can't intensify your brains activity by playing more musically rather than faster/louder. AND, I'm failing to see a purpose in divorcing memorization from the rest of the elements of musical learning.

You can intensify mental activity a variety of different ways and they may be effective in memorization and recall.  However, we want to break things down to smaller parts before putting it all together so that it saves time.  The order of the notes is one small part and this is what we are concerned with first: playing in the correct order even if it isn't music.

[j_menz]

When you play it softly, you are more likely to use pre-existing connections.  In other words, you're just playing from memory those individual notes and no new connections may form.  

I don't understand why this should be the case. I don't see that the volume I play at, or the speed, has anything to do with the strength or number os synaptic signals. Also, I'm pretty sure my memory encompasses playing most (short) sequences of notes at all sorts of volume. Why does only soft playing tap directly into this while loud playing requires new connections?

However, increasing neural intensity, you significantly increase the likelihood that those notes will be remembered in the specific order in which it is played instead of having to repeat dozens of times before it becomes memorized.

I still don't get the relationship between the force applied to the keys, or the speed they are played, with "neural intensity".

Incidentally, given your other posrt today, wouldn't I be better of saving the extra energy to go for a jog after?

[nyiregyhazi]

When you play it softly, you are more likely to use pre-existing connections.  In other words, you're just playing from memory those individual notes and no new connections may form.  However, increasing neural intensity, you significantly increase the likelihood that those notes will be remembered in the specific order in which it is played instead of having to repeat dozens of times before it becomes memorized.

Based on what evidence? None of this stands up to an ounce of scrutiny. If you normally play loud, it's softer playing that could not use pre-existing connections. And where does tempo come into this? The faster you go, the more likely you are you to use existing connections. The brain does not have time to form new pathways, because there is too much information to process. You are simply inventing (woefully inconsistent) assertions to support a pre-conceived theory. If you don't want pre-existing connections to be used, playing fast is about the worst thing you can be doing! You make dubious assumptions in one instance and then casually neglect to even consider the same factors where they really are important (yet do not suit your predetermined beliefs).

This also completely contradicts what you said about the technique already being fully formed. If it's fully formed, you would be relying on well-established neural pathways (which is what you now complain about in soft playing). Your argument is all over the place. I suggest you wipe the slate clean and start again- not with pseudoscience but with practical observations and experiments. Brain science is so complicated that you easily choose small pieces , like a lawyer, to imply anything. The problem is that it will have no bearing reality unless viewed in the whole picture. If you wish to have something that relates to the real world, you cannot be selective.

[ajspiano]

The order of the notes is one small part and this is what we are concerned with first: playing in the correct order even if it isn't music.

I don't think its effective to completely ignore the fact that musical playing and sound image aids memorizing the order of the notes.

You're trying to isolate muscle memory from every other element of memory. Why is that a good idea? At least for me personally this would be a massive waste of time, I just don't need to do it - listening is enough - and where its not (and I need to use some kind of muscle memory aid) its because technique was initially inadequate for the musical aim.

^such as that I was unable to comfortably play fast enough for the required tempo, or I was unable to immediately coordinate the hands correctly. (for example)

[faulty_damper]

I still don't get the relationship between the force applied to the keys, or the speed they are played, with "neural intensity".

Incidentally, given your other posrt today, wouldn't I be better of saving the extra energy to go for a jog after?

It's not the loud that's important, or the speed and firmness - loud and fast is just the output, how it sounds - but the effort needed to play loud/fast/firm is the important part.  It's that extra effort in order to play loud, fast, firm that helps over-learn and connect sequences faster.

Soft playing, assuming the pianist is well-accomplished, doesn't require any effort both mental and muscular.  (In contrast, a new pianist may find soft playing very difficult.)

There is one thing that I will now mention that I've haven't mentioned:
If you always play loud/fast/etc. then the mentioned strategies probably may not work since loud/fast/etc. is the default pathway.  Using it requires little to no effort and thus not many new connections.  If this is the case, repetition is the best bet for memorizing note sequences as I can't think of any way to increase neural intensity using the mentioned strategies.  But I think someone who bangs away at the piano is rare.  However, if this is the case, then playing softly may actually increase neural intensity by the process of inhibition, inhibiting neural activity.

Jogging, btw, is primarily a physical activity, not a mental one.

[nyiregyhazi]

It's not the loud that's important, or the speed and firmness - loud and fast is just the output, how it sounds - but the effort needed to play loud/fast/firm is the important part.  It's that extra effort in order to play loud, fast, firm that helps over-learn and connect sequences faster.

Bullshit. I don't use that word lightly, but if the above stood up to scrutiny then generic muscle tensions would also aid memorisation. You are talking utter nonsense. If you think it's as simple as more effort necessarily providing more useful connections, you have your head in the clouds. CLARITY of sensation provides better learning, not intensity of effort. Wasted efforts typically diminish clarity of sensation and corresponding learning. You can't just single out a single simplistic factor that is one of countless interdependent variables. Otherwise any assumptions you make will be worthless. The clarity of perception is sometimes aided by a slightly more intense effort- but go just a fraction too far and the extra effort completely destroys it. Your argument is based on a superficial correlation- but you're looking at completely the wrong variable.

Soft playing, assuming the pianist is well-accomplished, doesn't require any effort both mental and muscular.  (In contrast, a new pianist may find soft playing very difficult.)

Says who? Obviously you've never heard the story about a famous pianist playing for Leschetizky's class- who played bravura music with ease yet sweated profusely in a simple lyrical work. Quiet playing requires tremendous mental effort- often way more than loud playing (although perhaps not in your case, if you feel music should not be a consideration). Where is all this fiction presented as fact coming from?

[ajspiano]

Soft playing, assuming the pianist is well-accomplished, doesn't require any effort both mental and muscular.  (In contrast, a new pianist may find soft playing very difficult.)

WOW.

...Accomplished pianists play with no mental effort. I've clearly been barking up the wrong tree for years.

Incidentally I don't find loud/fast playing to be physically any more demanding than soft/slow assuming this "fully formed technique" point. And ALL playing is mentally demanding.

[faulty_damper]

I don't think its effective to completely ignore the fact that musical playing and sound image aids memorizing the order of the notes.

You're trying to isolate muscle memory from every other element of memory. Why is that a good idea? At least for me personally this would be a massive waste of time, I just don't need to do it - listening is enough - and where its not (and I need to use some kind of muscle memory aid) its because technique was initially inadequate for the musical aim.

One of the things that psychologists have found is that by breaking down tasks and practicing individual parts is that the memory of the individual parts becomes much stronger as opposed to practicing the task without breaking it down.  I think anyone who plays the piano knows this and advanced ones use it religiously for complicated parts.

In this case, it's not muscle memory but the sequence of the notes that are important.  The strength of that sequence is the limiting factor for whether or not it's well-learned or not.

[faulty_damper]

WOW.
...Accomplished pianists play with no mental effort. I've clearly been barking up the wrong tree for years.

Absolutely correct!  You've never read what I'm typing right now but yet you read it effortlessly!  No mental effort whatsoever!

[faulty_damper]

Doing is easy. Learning how to do is hard.

[j_menz]

You've never read what I'm typing right now but yet you read it effortlessly!  No mental effort whatsoever!

Curiously, I'm starting to find it requires more effort the more practice I'm getting.

[nyiregyhazi]

Absolutely correct!  You've never read what I'm typing right now but yet you read it effortlessly!  No mental effort whatsoever!

That's a very poor analogy- if it's meant to relate to an accomplished musician playing a musical composition.  We should be comparing to an actor reciting a monologue. Not someone deciphering what words come out of a string of letters. Actors put mental effort into the recitation- not into being able to read written language.

[faulty_damper]

That's a very poor analogy- if it's meant to relate to an accomplished musician playing a musical composition.  We should be comparing to an actor reciting a monologue. Not someone deciphering what words come out of a string of letters. Actors put mental effort into the recitation- not into being able to read written language.

Okay, fine, you win.  Then simply read what I'm writing out loud.

[ajspiano]

Absolutely correct!  You've never read what I'm typing right now but yet you read it effortlessly!  No mental effort whatsoever!

I didn't say I personally find it a strain to focus mentally. Maybe I twisted your words and you twisted mine.

Any accomplished pianist focuses on the sound they wish to create, and puts "effort" into that, and lets the physical take care of itself.

Any experienced pianist knows you can break up difficult elements into easier ones.

I'm not even against you're point about strengthening individual elements of memory, just the notion that an accomplished pianist needs to do it the way you're suggesting.

......

As someone who can sit in a live performance with zero rehearsal and just play by ear, remembering past elements of a song and anticipating future elements without any prior experience of the given bit of music, this is a waste of my time. AND, relying on it on any level would be, because there's no way I could play unrehearsed if I had to rehearse first.

And this is my whole point, if you've got a technique you can just lead with your ear. If you don't then you're going to have to break things up.