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

[faulty_damper]

This idea just came to me while practicing.  I thought I'd share it.

The intensity of the neural signal depends on two factors:
1. rate of neural signals and
2. the number of neurons involved in signaling

If repetition of neural communication leads to stronger connections, then increasing the rate of signaling and increasing the number of neurons involved in that signaling should increase the rate of learning.

How to accomplish this:
1. play fast, ignoring any attempt to make music
2. play loud, also ignoring music-making


The anecdotal evidence for this may include fast and loud pieces that are faster learned than slow and soft ones.

[Bob]

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.

[werq34ac]

This idea just came to me while practicing.  I thought I'd share it.

The intensity of the neural signal depends on two factors:
1. rate of neural signals and
2. the number of neurons involved in signaling

If repetition of neural communication leads to stronger connections, then increasing the rate of signaling and increasing the number of neurons involved in that signaling should increase the rate of learning.

How to accomplish this:
1. play fast, ignoring any attempt to make music
2. play loud, also ignoring music-making


The anecdotal evidence for this may include fast and loud pieces that are faster learned than slow and soft ones.

Hahahaha you also end up with a crapload of bad habits. I don't recommend this. It's better to learn it properly once then half learn it and then have to fix it later.


But intensity does lead to more efficient (and therefore faster and better) learning. Just keep in mind that intensity doesn't mean fast and loud.

[hmpiano]

For some reason I find playing firmer helps establish memory but I don't agree much with the rest.

[faulty_damper]

Hahahaha you also end up with a crapload of bad habits. I don't recommend this. It's better to learn it properly once then half learn it and then have to fix it later.

This is an incorrect assumption.  A bad habit is a result of poor technique.  There is nothing about playing fast and loud that leads to bad habits if you already know how to play fast and loud.

[faulty_damper]

For some reason I find playing firmer helps establish memory but I don't agree much with the rest.

This also works since a firm touch requires continuous signals beyond an initial impulse.

[hmpiano]

This also works since a firm touch requires continuous signals beyond an initial impulse.

Maybe.  I don't know the science but I know it's very effective.

[hfmadopter]

My experience ( I can only speak for myself not for others) has been that firm pressure on the keys that give me trouble helps learn a passage , for instance. Usually slow intentional practice, gradually bringing it up to speed or even beyond speed till I get it. I mean intense over and over those notes, playing nothing else but the trouble spot. Once I get it I then work on technique required for the passage or piece. I may already have learned the piece in fact, and a section falls apart. I then go back in with deliberate hard slow practice, going over that section and follow the above.. Then incorporate it back into the overall.

I'm not sure if that's clear what the difference is over your method or not but I gather it is different from your method..

I just would learn nothing blasting it out at full speed or faster from the get go, in any event. The above was modeled for me by my teacher a lot of years ago, I still run with that method these days. I'm thinking she knew what she was teaching me. Since she was a trained woman by the New England Conservatory of Music in teaching piano, doing what she taught me makes total sense to me.

[nyiregyhazi]

This is an incorrect assumption.  A bad habit is a result of poor technique.  There is nothing about playing fast and loud that leads to bad habits if you already know how to play fast and loud.

Sorry, but this makes no sense. It would only make more if it said "if you already knowhow to play the specific passage fast and loud"- which obviously you don't if you haven't yet practised it. Are you implying that there's a general "fast and loud" technique and that anyone who has it can never do any wrong in a passage that is both fast and loud, no matter how little preparation? Who do you know that plays Rachmaninoff's 3rd piano concerto fast and loud at the first visit, without any bad habits? No such ability exists in anybody. Making an inherently flawed (ir)rational construct is not going to change the fact that starting fast and loud is the worst thing you can do, if you want to learn it properly. Your logic does not hold up and neither does this work in practise.

[hfmadopter]

This also works since a firm touch requires continuous signals beyond an initial impulse.

I can agree with the firm touch theory to get a piece or a passage into your hands. I can't agree with just full steam ahead fast and hard playing accomplishing much of anything, especially from the get go of a new piece. Again, as I stated in my other post, certainly not for me at least.

It's been stated here at the forum many times that the key to fast playing is playing slow and deliberately, learning it and getting it into your hands, FWIW. Now, if you begin to really know the piece and need to get the speed up, then certainly at some point you have to start playing faster and then faster etc. To me, this assumes that you have learned it well already. Going fast right off can not be a tool to learn the piece by, IMO.

[faulty_damper]

Sorry, but this makes no sense. It would only make more if it said "if you already knowhow to play the specific passage fast and loud"- which obviously you don't if you haven't yet practised it. Are you implying that there's a general "fast and loud" technique and that anyone who has it can never do any wrong in a passage that is both fast and loud, no matter how little preparation? Who do you know that plays Rachmaninoff's 3rd piano concerto fast and loud at the first visit, without any bad habits? No such ability exists in anybody. Making an inherently flawed (ir)rational construct is not going to change the fact that starting fast and loud is the worst thing you can do, if you want to learn it properly. Your logic does not hold up and neither does this work in practise.

The focus is not learning how to play the piano which is how the original post was interpreted.
The focus is on learning the music.  (Learning means memorizing.)

The strategies mentioned prior are memorization techniques that have scientifically-based evidence to support it (both from psychology and neuroscience).  Virtually all brains work the same way and will work for anyone.  Increasing the intensity of neural impulses can increase the rate of memorization.

[faulty_damper]

I can agree with the firm touch theory to get a piece or a passage into your hands. I can't agree with just full steam ahead fast and hard playing accomplishing much of anything, especially from the get go of a new piece. Again, as I stated in my other post, certainly not for me at least.

You're not learning how to play the piano with the mentioned strategies; you're learning the piece.  These are two different aspects.

The confusing seems to be using pieces as piano learning tools.  I am simply suggesting that if you already can play the piano, you can use these strategies to increase the rate of learning a new piece.

[hfmadopter]

You're not learning how to play the piano with the mentioned strategies; you're learning the piece.  These are two different aspects.

The confusing seems to be using pieces as piano learning tools.  I am simply suggesting that if you already can play the piano, you can use these strategies to increase the rate of learning a new piece.

I understand that.

[nyiregyhazi]

You're not learning how to play the piano with the mentioned strategies; you're learning the piece.  These are two different aspects.

The confusing seems to be using pieces as piano learning tools.  I am simply suggesting that if you already can play the piano, you can use these strategies to increase the rate of learning a new piece.

I was speaking in precisely those terms. I'm not clear what might possibly have made you assume I was speaking about a novice. I was speaking of a very accomplished player starting a new work. To repeat the example I gave- are you seriously suggesting that a very accomplished pianist who has never played Rachmaninoff's 3rd concerto will learn it best by ploughing into it loud and fast?

I'm not quite clear as to why anything to do with the brain would imply that to be so. Experience tells us that it is not so. If you try to do something fast without preparation, you will not do it either accurately or consistently. The most basic common sense tells you don't go from doing something incorrectly and erratically to suddenly doing it reliably and precisely. Why do we even need to bring speculative theory about neurons into it- when both common sense and observations of practical reality tell us that it does not work as you suggest it would? You omitted the issue of consistency from your theory altogether- which is a pretty major oversight, to put it mildly.

[faulty_damper]

If the pianist is accomplished, the concerto should not be a problem to read through since it's just different notes in different orders.  But what I am saying is that to memorize it, it may be faster to play fast, play loud.

I am providing a neurological explanation about how the brain works.  To deny that it doesn't work this way is purposeful ignorance.

Anyone who wants to test this idea out can choose two similar pieces.  Learn one the way you would normally learn it.  Learn the other the way I have prescribed.  If the theory is valid, then the fast/loud practice should be the one memorized first.

[nyiregyhazi]

If the pianist is accomplished, the concerto should not be a problem to read through since it's just different notes in different orders.  But what I am saying is that to memorize it, it may be faster to play fast, play loud.

I am providing a neurological explanation about how the brain works.  To deny that it doesn't work this way is purposeful ignorance.

Anyone who wants to test this idea out can choose two similar pieces.  Learn one the way you would normally learn it.  Learn the other the way I have prescribed.  If the theory is valid, then the fast/loud practice should be the one memorized first.

Sorry, but you're completely neglecting well-recognised practical reality and key factors in the supposed scientific logic. Selective use of information is not going to prove anything- when the omitted factors are of substantial relevance.

If a pianist does not take the time to play a piece precisely and accurately, the brain does not get used to a remotely consistent pattern of signals. It does not get any experience at accurately performing the task. Memorisation is best achieved by consistency and awareness of what you are doing. If you're making different errors every time (by forcing yourself to scrape through something you are not ready to do accurately) your brain cannot settle into a consistent pattern. Even very good sight readers will always underperform if they straight in at high speeds, unless they have done preparation. They may do a remarkably good job compared to others, but they will fall drastically short of what they get by starting slower and taking the time to be more precise- and also to notice what they are doing.

How is a theory that is founded upon completely overlooking important factors supposed to say anything about the real world (in which, as we all know, forcing yourself to go fast straight off leads to a poorer quality of both short-term execution and long-term learning)?


PS. In short- it seems to me that you are founding this on the premise that an accomplished pianist will necessarily play to their usual high standard if they force themself to go straight in fast and loud. In difficult repertoire, this is pure fantasy.

[werq34ac]

I am providing a neurological explanation about how the brain works.  To deny that it doesn't work this way is purposeful ignorance.

You really don't understand how science works do you. You don't make a theory by ignoring basic common sense. It's like saying objects in motion don't stay in motion because when you throw a ball it doesn't go in a straight line. 

Nyiregyhazi is spot on.

Anyone who wants to test this idea out can choose two similar pieces.  Learn one the way you would normally learn it.  Learn the other the way I have prescribed.  If the theory is valid, then the fast/loud practice should be the one memorized first.

Also completely ridiculous. Who cares if it's memorized first? It's going to sound like sh!t. There was no point in learning the piece that way in the first place.

[faulty_damper]

It's important to note that making music is NOT the initial goal.  The initial goal is to memorize the piece first and when the notes are in place the ultimate the goal will be to make music.  This would then require music-making practice.  You aren't doing everything perfectly all at once.  I think even in your experience that music-making practice usually happens after the notes have been learned, not before.

[faulty_damper]

You really don't understand how science works do you. You don't make a theory by ignoring basic common sense. It's like saying objects in motion don't stay in motion because when you throw a ball it doesn't go in a straight line.

Please provide an example of "common sense".

[nyiregyhazi]

It's important to note that making music is NOT the initial goal.  The initial goal is to memorize the piece first and when the notes are in place the ultimate the goal will be to make music.  This would then require music-making practice.  You aren't doing everything perfectly all at once.  I think even in your experience that music-making practice usually happens after the notes have been learned, not before.

Are you actually interested in thinking rationally about this? Who even said anything about musicality? Everything I said has been pertaining specifically to the memory issue that you set out on. You have no comment on the self-evident fact that going fast without proper preparation is going to spoil both the mental understanding of the notes that are to be performed and the physical execution of those notes (regardless of how high the player's standard)? You do not memorise pieces by doing them wrongly and inconsistently. It's a hopeless approach to memorisation. Even if you still play the correct notes, the clarity of sensation is compromised by rushing- and so is the level of retention.

If you're not prepared to factor issues of consistency and quality of execution into the consideration of what goes on in the brain, your theory is founded on willful ignorance towards an overwhelmingly important factor. Simply repeating it is not going to compensate for that casual omission. It's a huge issue with regard to both what goes on in the brain and the practical results.

[faulty_damper]

Maybe.  I don't know the science but I know it's very effective.

In the DVD, Marc-Andre Hamelin: No Limits, there is a portion of the interview where he explains that he learns pieces best by applying really firm pressure into the keys.  He is shown forcing all of his weight into the key bed.  At first, I thought this was a bad thing since no one (at least not the super good ones [hint, hint: Hamelin]) actually plays the piano that way.  But he explains that this is the fastest way he gets it into the fingers.

While the argument "If it's good enough for Hamelin, it's good enough for me" isn't very convincing, maybe Hamelin and you are right.

From my knowledge of neuroscience, both of you are right.

[nyiregyhazi]

In the DVD, Marc-Andre Hamelin: No Limits, there is a portion of the interview where he explains that he learns pieces best by applying really firm pressure into the keys.  He is shown forcing all of his weight into the key bed.  At first, I thought this was a bad thing since no one (at least not the super good ones [hint, hint: Hamelin]) actually plays the piano that way.  But he explains that this is the fastest way he gets it into the fingers.

While the argument "If it's good enough for Hamelin, it's good enough for me" isn't very convincing, maybe Hamelin and you are right.

From my knowledge of neuroscience, both of you are right.

Exactly. Does he do this very fast straight off? Or does he do this slowly- observing the clarity of sensation that comes from the firmer pressures? The firmness makes perfect sense. It's what you claim about doing it fast that is clearly not grounded in any conceivable reality. The brain processes best when you give it clarity and time to observe- hence the use of movements that are pronounced enough to be vividly perceived and a slow tempo to absorb the sensations.

[musicioso]

Hey guys.. i dont really understand this. So its better if you, for example, play the Hanon exercises as fast and loud as possible? What about the injuries you could get that way?

[faulty_damper]

Speed is an important factor in learning due to the constraints of working memory.  If two related stimuli are spaced too far apart, you may completely fail to make the connection.  It's like listening to a professor babble on and on about something for 15 minutes when he could have said it in 3 sentences.  Even though all the necessary information was given in those 15 minutes, the information was spaced too far apart to be easily processed and connected.

[faulty_damper]

Hey guys.. i dont really understand this. So its better if you, for example, play the Hanon exercises as fast and loud as possible? What about the injuries you could get that way?

We aren't talking about learning how to play the piano which is what you're thinking.  We're talking about the fastest way to memorize a new piece when you already know how to play.  And don't play Hanon, it's bad for you.

[nyiregyhazi]

Speed is an important factor in learning due to the constraints of working memory.  If two related stimuli are spaced too far apart, you may completely fail to make the connection.  It's like listening to a professor babble on and on about something for 15 minutes when he could have said it in 3 sentences.  Even though all the necessary information was given in those 15 minutes, the information was spaced too far apart to be easily processed and connected.

The analogy doesn't work, sorry. It's more like if you have to accurately memorise every word of a short speech by listening to someone else recite it at high speed and go on to deliver it at the same high speed yourself. It would be easier to memorise it by listening and practising it at a speed where you can easily process all the information and only then recite it faster- not to memorise it by listening to someone rattling through it at high speed and only practise it at high speeds.

Anyway, it would be better to keep this away from analogies. The specific thing we are talking about just is what it is. Why are you not bothering to deal with the point I keep having to repeat? Your whole premise continues to be based on the assumption that you can play fast with the same level of precision as when you play slow, at the drop of a hat. You cannot found a premise on such a dubious assumption. This is not going to go anywhere if you're not even going to attempt to deal with the issues I have raised. Ignoring factors that conflict with your theory does not make them fail to be an issue. At the very least, you need to attempt to deal with them, by providing a specific reasoned response to these issues, or this is quite pointless.

It's widely accepted that short bursts at faster speeds are useful to cross-reference with slower practise. This doesn't necessarily relate to neurons though. It's the simple fact that the mechanics of a slow movement may not translate to a faster movement unless you do them in a specific way. Going faster allows you to check the quality of the movement. However, what that does not lead to is the idea that learning occurs quicker if you drop the slow practise altogether and go crazy from the beginning. Quite the opposite ensues. It's more interesting to view this in practical efficacy than to base it on selective snippets of brain science that are taken out of the bigger context.

[musicioso]

We aren't talking about learning how to play the piano which is what you're thinking.  We're talking about the fastest way to memorize a new piece when you already know how to play.  And don't play Hanon, it's bad for you.

Ok, i understand now. Thanks

[ajspiano]

The brain processes best when you give it clarity and time to observe- hence the use of movements that are pronounced enough to be vividly perceived and a slow tempo to absorb the sensations.

It might be useful to highlight this point in slightly different words... this is not just a case of "playing loud/heavy" - I personally use the process some of the time, and for me at least it works not just because its loud (and for that matter its not necessarily loud). Its more to do with a state of mind, and playing each note with fundamentally sound movements. The body has to feel "settled" on each key.

Beyond that, and sometimes fast, sometimes not - its not about cramming information together so the brain connects it altogether. Its more about giving the notes focus, mentally connecting them with musically appropriate phrasing. Making a phrase 1 instruction, rather than a series of instructions.

Also, the idea that you can memorise before focusing on music may be very alluring when the notes present a challenge - but you'll memorise faster if you play musically from the beginning.

[nyiregyhazi]

It might be useful to highlight this point in slightly different words... this is not just a case of "playing loud/heavy" - I personally use the process some of the time, and for me at least it works not just because its loud (and for that matter its not necessarily loud).

Agreed. You can do this even in PPP. For me, it's all about the clarity with which you connect to the keybed. The finger needs to pin the key down with some degree of intensity- but NOT by the arm pressing down! It's a matter of learning to get a very clear and precise contact, rather than the vague type that a half-hearted movement usually ends up in. Playing louder makes this happen easier, but ultimately it's about how well the finger connects a loose arm to the piano after sounding the keys- not about whether you produce loud sounds. It's useful to differentiate between them.

[ajspiano]

It's useful to differentiate between them.

Yes..

What I've noticed over a great deal of my own experiences, and students, is that when the "balance/technique/feel (as musically applicable)" isn't quite right, the body seems to know it and refuses to grasp it. When you settle in the right place everything clicks in. It gets locked into the memory because the body seems to recognise it as worth remembering..  (i'm sure there's a better neuroscience type explanation for this)

Particularly evident in HT coordinations, when its right you get a sense of "togetherness" and even perhaps "comfort" and its very difficult to forget the passage once that happens.

EDIT:
I think that this can either quickly, in very smaller chunks - if you need to gain technique.
Or slower (but mentally connected) and with limited repetition, if you're very sure of you're technique already.

[werq34ac]

It's important to note that making music is NOT the initial goal.  The initial goal is to memorize the piece first and when the notes are in place the ultimate the goal will be to make music.  This would then require music-making practice.  You aren't doing everything perfectly all at once.  I think even in your experience that music-making practice usually happens after the notes have been learned, not before.

Why not get a head start on making music? It's freaking hard enough already. There's a heck of a lot more to work out musically than technically. That's why even after you've learned the notes, you still have a lot to work on musically. That's why I said just working on the notes is an ineffective use of practice time (did I say that? Well I said it now).

Please provide an example of "common sense".

1. Consistently making mistakes means you are learning mistakes
2. Playing faster and louder without regard for the music will lead to mistakes
3. Consistently doing so will lead to consistent mistakes.
4. Mistakes are REALLY hard to unlearn.

[lostinidlewonder]

1. play fast, ignoring any attempt to make music
2. play loud, also ignoring music-making

This will shave off a lot of your stamina during practice sessions. Forcing practice when exhausted and the lactic acid burns is a bad idea IMO.

From gentle and controlled we have the ability to transform this to whatever we wish. From hard and loud we cannot always achieve a relaxed touch. Imagine learning to eat with knife and fork and you start off doing it as hard as you possibly can, obviously it ll not feel like it should once your muscular memory absorbs it into an efficient relaxed motion. So we may do it with unnecessary strength to begin with but we aim to reduce that so we gain more control.

From learning a passage hard and fast we may however set ourselves up to appreciate a softer more relaxed touch more readily, but to repeat hard actions is not a good idea, we need to reduce it ASAP and find the relaxed touch to produce the desired sound. I however find this application benefits most the beginner/intermediate who is investigating what it feel like to acquire a more relaxed touch, it seems unnecessary for the more experienced who want to solve the issue immediately without creating more work for themselves (since they have gone through the learning process a huge number of times).

As for speed itself I find the younger you are the limits to how slow you can play a passage decreases. Almost none of my students at around the age 5-6 can play a passage at various slower tempo, they need to play it at the tempo it is supposed to be performed at. But many more older students can adjust their tempo to slower movements without losing context to the faster movements when playing at tempo. So I find young students often need to learn things at faster tempo than older students who can slow down and still hear what they are playing. I can remember reading a study that was done on this, can't remember where though.

[faulty_damper]

The analogy doesn't work, sorry. It's more like if you have to accurately memorise every word of a short speech by listening to someone else recite it at high speed and go on to deliver it at the same high speed yourself. It would be easier to memorise it by listening and practising it at a speed where you can easily process all the information and only then recite it faster- not to memorise it by listening to someone rattling through it at high speed and only practise it at high speeds.

This analogy doesn't work, either.  When we play fast for the purpose of increasing memorization, what we are doing is chunking larger pieces of information into a shorter time span.  This is the reason why Chinese speakers memorize more numbers than English speakers who memorize more numbers than Farsi speakers; the time it takes to say the numbers is the limiting factor with Farsi being the slowest of the three mentioned languages.  But back to playing, the speed forces the brain to process more information into a shorter amount of time.  This is mental effort.

Why are you not bothering to deal with the point I keep having to repeat? Your whole premise continues to be based on the assumption that you can play fast with the same level of precision as when you play slow, at the drop of a hat. You cannot found a premise on such a dubious assumption. This is not going to go anywhere if you're not even going to attempt to deal with the issues I have raised. Ignoring factors that conflict with your theory does not make them fail to be an issue. At the very least, you need to attempt to deal with them, by providing a specific reasoned response to these issues, or this is quite pointless.

You are still confusing learning to play the piano as opposed to learning the music.  It is assumed you already know how to play, thus the mechanics have already been learned and is a non-issue.  What you are attempting to do with fast/loud/firm/etc. is simply to memorize the notes faster in the written order.  But you insist that the issue is about mechanics by saying playing fast is not the same as playing slow.  This isn't about technique; it's about memorization.  If the issue is technique, then learning by playing fast/loud may not be in your best interest since you are still learning to play.

[faulty_damper]

1. Consistently making mistakes means you are learning mistakes
2. Playing faster and louder without regard for the music will lead to mistakes
3. Consistently doing so will lead to consistent mistakes.
4. Mistakes are REALLY hard to unlearn.

You assume that by playing fast and loud that you will make mistakes.  I do not make such assumptions.

Addressing No.4: once you learn something (once you've memorized something) you can't purposefully un-memorize it.  You either let it decay over time OR learn something in place of it so that the newly learned behavior becomes the habit.

[faulty_damper]

This will shave off a lot of your stamina during practice sessions. Forcing practice when exhausted and the lactic acid burns is a bad idea IMO.

This is something about technique that should to be addressed.  Playing fast and playing loud is about speed, not about strength.  If your technique requires you to use a lot of strength to play loud, then it is an inefficient one since, mechanically, loud means a faster depressed key.  One good example is playing loud chords.  If your technique requires you to push down into the keybed, then this is poor technique because it is tiring.  Instead, punch the keys in a diagonal (downward and forward) motion.  You'll get the same loudness without any effort and you can repeat the chords numerous times without tiring.

[nyiregyhazi]

This analogy doesn't work, either.  When we play fast for the purpose of increasing memorization, what we are doing is chunking larger pieces of information into a shorter time span.  This is the reason why Chinese speakers memorize more numbers than English speakers who memorize more numbers than Farsi speakers; the time it takes to say the numbers is the limiting factor with Farsi being the slowest of the three mentioned languages.  But back to playing, the speed forces the brain to process more information into a shorter amount of time.  This is mental effort.

Well, it's a hell of a lot closer. How can a rambling speech vs a 3 sentence version be remotely comparable- considering that every note counts as significant content when you have to memorise something. Nothing you say above negates the fact that you must memorise EVERY detail and evolve to a product that replicates something without error. If we must use analogies, the best I can think of is to say that if you are to recite a written speech at high speed, it's best to work on memorising it first and practise both reading and saying it at regular speeds. You will not memorise it quicker by forcing yourself to say it fast at the outset, but will instead make errors and get confused. However, analogies prove nothing. I'm more interested in the issue under discussion. In fact, considering the greater density of information that must be processed in reading to play piano music at speed (compared to reading and reciting words at speed) the actual situation makes the point far better than any partial comparisons. There's even more difficulty in going to straight to high speeds at a piano than when reading unfamiliar words at speed.

You are still confusing learning to play the piano as opposed to learning the music.  It is assumed you already know how to play, thus the mechanics have already been learned and is a non-issue.

Um, yes. Are we also assuming that the Tooth Fairy exists? You seriously think anyone who has good technique can do no wrong when playing difficult music fast and loud from the very outset? I have already dealt with this issue and would be more interested in a follow up than repetition of this ludicrous initial argument. As I already pointed out, you're living in a fantasy world if you believe this fills in the gaping hole in your theory. Even the finest of mechanisms will go off track over time, if the pianist spends their time playing fast and loud without preparation.

The above argument is a bit like the old crap golf joke about how to always guarantee getting the ball in the hole in two putts (ie. always leave the first putt an inch away from the hole). Even in the case of the greatest sight-players in the world they memorise LESS if they force themselves to play fast and loud right off. It makes the fingers make more errors and the brain has less to time to adequately absorb information. Even if the notes are executed accurately (despite the absurd improbability, due to the mindset), there is less sensitivity and awareness of the physical procedures when a player is pushing themself to go faster. It will most certainly not lead to better memorisation.

I am really quite baffled as to why you are trying to sculpt reality into fitting what is the one of the most dubious theories I have ever heard.

The only thing you can say about fast playing is that it forces the brain to organise things into mental chunks. That's one of the reasons why it's useful alongside slow practise- but only if you do it in very short bursts (generally much less than a bar at a time) and go back to slow precise work whenever the slightest holes in the execution arise. If you simply plough through, your brain practises nothing but useless information and errors cannot be fixed. Also, a good player organises information into chunks whatever speed they go at. Only inexperienced players miss these issues in slow work.

[hmpiano]

While the argument "If it's good enough for Hamelin, it's good enough for me" isn't very convincing, maybe Hamelin and you are right.

Convinces me!  Anyway, it was my teacher who first pointed it out.  I think you're on a great track - intensifying neural signals - but I'm still not keen on the fast thing.  I don't think speed has much effect on memory in the short term.  In fact, I'd say it's the opposite - memory isn't affected by the fast or slow of a piece much like an odometer.

[hfmadopter]

Convinces me!  Anyway, it was my teacher who first pointed it out.  I think you're on a great track - intensifying neural signals - but I'm still not keen on the fast thing.  I don't think speed has much effect on memory in the short term.  In fact, I'd say it's the opposite - memory isn't affected by the fast or slow of a piece much like an odometer.

Speed equates to something for me, drawing a blank ! I will not get any place in a piece doing it fast right out of the gate. If it requires speed then eventually I'll get around to speed. Memorising for me takes deliberate repetition, before the OP chimes in again stating we aren't learning how to play but memorising a piece we know.. My mind needs time to absorb what's taking place ( call me slow, us Poles maybe are slower thinking or learning than say Orientals,for instance who are quick learners). Deliberate action goes way further for me than speed ever can. I'm all for something new but in deed speed in my case will cause mistakes, where I'm going when going fast becomes unclear even when it's "in my hands". I must be careful of this.. I knew this 30 years ago and if anything it applies even more so now at an older age.

[nyiregyhazi]

Convinces me!  Anyway, it was my teacher who first pointed it out.  I think you're on a great track - intensifying neural signals - but I'm still not keen on the fast thing.  I don't think speed has much effect on memory in the short term.  In fact, I'd say it's the opposite - memory isn't affected by the fast or slow of a piece much like an odometer.

Why are you speaking in the short-term? It strikes me as the single least relevant form of memory. In the short-term, "memory" is much more about the mental conception that you get from the score anyway.  Of course speed has little short-term effect- as muscle memory requires a period of rest to evolve. For a good reader, arguably the short-term memory is based almost entirely on what they have read from the page anyway- rather than being a product of the execution. It's the long-term memory, which is intrinisically linked to the execution, that's of interest (not the ability to remember something for a few minutes after you did it and then forget it). Speed has a phenomenal effect on that. There are passages which I could play accurately at speed first time around, but the movement might be less than optimal and I would have far less time to absorb what I'm really doing- as I'd be heavily dependent on the sight, in order to do so. To do the same entirely by memory, I'd want to notice considerably more detail than the amount I'd have to process to do it quickly straight off.

In a way, doing something quick straight off is too "easy". It allows the brain to forgive itself for not bothering to process the full level of information that is available- instead it tends to do the bare minimum to scrape out a reasonably acceptable execution. Even playing the notes right doesn't mean you're processing all the details you should. It takes slow work to do get a deeper grasp.

[faulty_damper]

Convinces me!  Anyway, it was my teacher who first pointed it out.  I think you're on a great track - intensifying neural signals - but I'm still not keen on the fast thing.  I don't think speed has much effect on memory in the short term.  In fact, I'd say it's the opposite - memory isn't affected by the fast or slow of a piece much like an odometer.

Neurologically, memory is simply one neuron connected to another neuron.  That's it.
Learning is the process in which neurons connect.  But there are billions of neurons and billions ^exponential possible connections.

Speed is important to engage closely related neurons to connect and communicate using specific pathways.  These pathways are determined by learning.  By playing quickly certain segments, you essentially group pieces of information more closely making it easier to memorize that same sequence.  Speed also makes it easier to practice (repeat) the same segment in a shorter amount of time so that slow pieces like the "Moonlight" sonata or a Nocturne are learned (memorized) much quicker.  We are only concerned with learning the notes, not making music.

[nyiregyhazi]

Neurologically, memory is simply one neuron connected to another neuron.  That's it.
Learning is the process in which neurons connect.  But there are billions of neurons and billions ^exponential possible connections.

Speed is important to engage closely related neurons to connect and communicate using specific pathways.  These pathways are determined by learning.  By playing quickly certain segments, you essentially group pieces of information more closely making it easier to memorize that same sequence.  Speed also makes it easier to practice (repeat) the same segment in a shorter amount of time so that slow pieces like the "Moonlight" sonata or a Nocturne are learned (memorized) much quicker.  We are only concerned with learning the notes, not making music.

So, presumably you have firm evidence that the very different physical motions required to make a musical execution (involving totally different intensities of pressure) could still be triggered by the same pattern of neuron connections that is learned with zero musical consideration?

If not, portraying wild speculation as being grounded in scientific reasoning is fanciful, to put it mildly...

PS. Next time I play golf at the driving range I'll try to hit at least one shot every 2-3 seconds- in order to maximise my learning potential. After all, who cares where it lands? I can worry about hitting it anywhere near a target later, after I've learned to send it towards any old place that it happens to go. Clearly your logic is beyond question and involves consideration of all the relevant factors (rather than merely a tiny handful of them) so I'll have to apply the same rationale to other fields.

[faulty_damper]

Why do you persist in thinking that this is about playing the piano when I stated numerous times that this is about learning the music?  Every time I say that this isn't about learning to play you come back and say something about the playing of the piece.  This is the most common misunderstanding here and yet you seem to not understand when I attempt to clarify:

“The focus is not learning how to play the piano which is how the original post was interpreted.
The focus is on learning the music.”

OR

"We aren't talking about learning how to play the piano which is what you're thinking.  We're talking about the fastest way to memorize a new piece when you already know how to play."

OR

"You are still confusing learning to play the piano as opposed to learning the music.  It is assumed you already know how to play, thus the mechanics have already been learned and is a non-issue.  What you are attempting to do with fast/loud/firm/etc. is simply to memorize the notes faster in the written order.  But you insist that the issue is about mechanics by saying playing fast is not the same as playing slow.  This isn't about technique; it's about memorization.  If the issue is technique, then learning by playing fast/loud may not be in your best interest since you are still learning to play."

OR

“You're not learning how to play the piano with the mentioned strategies; you're learning the piece.  These are two different aspects.

“The confusing seems to be using pieces as piano learning tools.  I am simply suggesting that if you already can play the piano, you can use these strategies to increase the rate of learning a new piece.”

OR

“It’s important to note that making music is NOT the initial goal.  The initial goal is to memorize the piece first and when the notes are in place the ultimate the goal will be to make music.  This would then require music-making practice.  You aren't doing everything perfectly all at once.  I think even in your experience that music-making practice usually happens after the notes have been learned, not before.”

You consistently reply by making some reference to the bad technique of playing the piano.  Then your last reply uses a golf analogy about swinging a club.  Again, for the last time:

THIS IS NOT ABOUT PLAYING THE PIANO.  IT IS ABOUT LEARNING THE MUSIC.

[faulty_damper]

This entire thread reads like a rondo with theme and variations.   

[nyiregyhazi]

You consistently reply by making some reference to the bad technique of playing the piano.  Then your last reply uses a golf analogy about swinging a club.  Again, for the last time:

Actually, it wasn't an analogy. It was an extrapolation of your bogus logic to another field. You can't apply logic selectively. If it supposedly works in piano then it should work in golf too. Fair point though- in the respect that I'm a crap golfer. I should have said that Tiger Woods should hit a ball every 2-3 seconds. Then the guiding "logic" of your premise would suggest he would get the maximum learning available to him.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT PLAYING THE PIANO.  IT IS ABOUT LEARNING THE MUSIC.

Oh dear. I've pointed out what fantasy this concept is, every time you've repeated it. Your latest approach is to repeat yourself yet again, but in capitals- rather than provide a counterpoint to my follow up? Are you autistic? I say this not flippantly, but as a sincere enquiry. Regardless, I'll say this in capitals too then (hoping you'll actually try to deal with it this time, rather than merely repeat the same piece of fantasy that it refers to).

NO PIANIST HAS A MAGIC TECHNIQUE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO PLAY ALL DIFFICULT NEW REPERTOIRE FAST AND LOUD WITH FLAWLESS TECHNIQUE.

You have your head in the clouds, if you think you can found a premise on a casual assumption that not only cannot be taken for granted, but which is altogether impossible. The tone you're taking reminds me of the way younger kids often imagine that anyone who has done Grade 8 must have reached some hypothetical zenith of piano playing- after which you can do anything with ease. That's to say nothing of the irony of you saying it's about learning the "music", when you also say that the brain should not be remotely concerned with anything but playing notes loud and fast.

PS. While I'm at it, I'll repeat this too:

So, presumably you have firm evidence that the very different physical motions required to make a musical execution (involving totally different intensities of pressure) could still be triggered by the same pattern of neuron connections that is learned with zero musical consideration?

Can't be bothered to change it to capitals- but I note that you didn't make the slightest effort to deal with the point (unlike my various responses the point that you keep repeating). Ignoring inconvenient points does not do anything to strengthen a case. It merely reveals selective use of logic. If you think you have a genuine case, you need to be able to deal with conflicting arguments- rather than found it upon casual disinterest in them.

[hmpiano]

NO PIANIST HAS A MAGIC TECHNIQUE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO PLAY ALL DIFFICULT NEW REPERTOIRE FAST AND LOUD WITH FLAWLESS TECHNIQUE.

Disagree.  Sight reading no, but after a few run-throughs I don't see why not.  There are pianists with flawless technique ya know.

[nyiregyhazi]

Disagree.  Sight reading no, but after a few run-throughs I don't see why not.  There are pianists with flawless technique ya know.

Find me a single pianist who can maintain it, if they learn difficult pieces exclusively by playing them fast and loud, and we'll have something to talk about. No pianist can learn Rachmainoff's 3rd concerto merely by blasting through it over and over. Even the best technique is destroyed by casual disinterest in doing anything other than playing fast and loud.

[hmpiano]

Find me a single pianist who can maintain it,

Liszt

[outin]

Liszt

You saw him practice?! 

[hmpiano]

You saw him practice?! 

No, but Chopin did!

[outin]

No, but Chopin did!

He told you?!