Solidifying memory

[astroboy]

So i'm performing a concerto with an orchestra in a few weeks (my first time as a soloist with an orchestra!), and I was just wondering what techniques people use to solidify their memory of the piece? I can play it from beginning to end no problems, but sometime I catch myself playing on auto-pilot and relying on muscle memory, which can be a little unreliable at the best of times. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

[faulty_damper]

I'm speaking from my knowledge of memory (psychology and neuroscience).

You find a number of places in the middle of the movement.  These places are your 'anchors'.  It does not have to be at the beginning of a phrase; it can be anywhere.  It will be about 4-8 measures long.  You practice just these few measures for 10-15 minutes.  This time is important because this is the time your brain transfers information from working memory into long term memory.  Once you have focused for the 10-15 minutes, move on to another 'anchor' and repeat the process.

Anchoring is simply a way to solidify your memory by learning it really well.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm speaking from my knowledge of memory (psychology and neuroscience).

You find a number of places in the middle of the movement.  These places are your 'anchors'.  It does not have to be at the beginning of a phrase; it can be anywhere.  It will be about 4-8 measures long.  You practice just these few measures for 10-15 minutes.  This time is important because this is the time your brain transfers information from working memory into long term memory.  Once you have focused for the 10-15 minutes, move on to another 'anchor' and repeat the process.

Anchoring is simply a way to solidify your memory by learning it really well.

Sorry to be blunt, but this is the worst thing possible- unless you have a plan of what to think about and focus on. He said he already has muscle memory. Simply repeating a segment over and over guarantees nothing. You need specific mindsets and techniques, otherwise you may achieve nothing. One good trick is to play passages slowly by memory with one finger. It soon establishes whether you are taking in the actual musical construction or merely learning movements.

When most people repeat simplistically, they only learn physical memory. You haven't scratched the surface of what must occur to go beyond what the poster says he already has. Also, ten to fifteen minutes is likely way too long for only four bars- unless severely difficult. The same could usually be achieved in five or so repetitions. What is your source? I've seen some very dubious assertions portrayed as science by you before and doubt this figure greatly.

[faulty_damper]

Unless you have the expertise that I have, you offer only opinion, not scientifically verifiable evidence.  Your opinions are not supported by the evidence, hence, opinions only.

[nyiregyhazi]

Unless you have the expertise that I have, you offer only opinion, not scientifically verifiable evidence.  Your opinions are not supported by the evidence, hence, opinions only.

The "I'm an expert" argument would hold more credibility had you not previously claimed that science supposedly suggests playing loud and fast from the outset is the best way to build memory (in an argument that was based solely on quantity of repetion with no regard for quality- just the same as your advice here).

If we're dealing in third-party science backed up by evidence then provide a source for it. Otherwise we're dealing in hearsay backed up by nothing other than one person's arrogance.

[faulty_damper]

I cannot provide one single source; I'd have to provide dozens.

I guarantee that my advice will work.  For it not to work will go against everything we have learned about the brain, especially in the past decade.

BTW, you didn't even answer the OPs question; you just criticized mine.  Your advice is to not even attempt to try what I suggest because it contradicts your opinion.  This was your exact same reasoning last time: don't try it because it won't work because you say so, without any proof, because it's your opinion.

[nyiregyhazi]

I cannot provide one single source; I'd have to provide dozens.

Yes. Because there is no source. You are making your own subjective assumptions that relate only to selectively pruned highlights and presenting them as if scientific truth. You are not arguing for anything that a single scientific paper directly suggests as the best approach.

I guarantee that my advice will work.  For it not to work will go against everything we have learned about the brain, especially in the past decade.

Don't be so bloody naive! Simply repeating something over and over does not magically provide a deep memory. It's exactly what provides the shallow and superficial physical memory that most of us suffer from- UNLESS you are finding a whole wealth of different approaches to how you think about what you are doing in that time. If it were as simple as throwing loads of time at 4 bar groups, as you suggest, almost nobody would have memory problems.

Man up and attribute your speculative interpretations of selectively chosen scientific tit-bits to yourself. People like yourself give science a bad name- by making wild speculations of their own and claiming that science itself is responsible for them. Do you seriously think that it takes 15 minutes- regardless of the difficulty or complexity of a passage? And this will cause anything to be solidly memorised by default? It's plain foolish to attribute an exact time scale, without consideration of both specific factors to the music and the specific abilities of the person attempting to memorise it. It's also very naive not to consider the QUALITY of what is being done- rather than merely a timescale. You may be capable of memorising isolated snippets of published scientific papers, but you show no ability to think like a scientist when it comes to extrapolating from those points in a logical and self-critical manner.

BTW, you didn't even answer the OPs question; you just criticized mine.  Your advice is to not even attempt to try what I suggest because it contradicts your opinion.  

Obviously you didn't read my reply carefully. What I said was that your advice merely scratches the surface- not that I disagree, exactly. It's simply that repetition alone is worthless- unless you do it with the right qualities and thoughts. By omitting these issues from your advice, you omit virtually everything of genuine importance. That's why I pointed out the value of the one finger practise method- which is worth 100 thoughtless repetitions of a passage. To improve memory, a person needs to engage more ways of thinking and processing the musical construction. Merely repeating things leaves you stuck in your typical ways of thinking- inspiring minimal improvement, unless you force yourself into alternatives. When the only plan is to repeat something for 15 minutes (rather than to find a wealth of different viewpoints during those 15 minutes) there might as well be no plan at all.

[j_menz]

Simply repeating something over and over does not magically provide a deep memory.

Do you seriously think that it takes 15 minutes- regardless of the difficulty or complexity of a passage? And this will cause anything to be solidly memorised by default?

It's simply that repetition alone is worthless- unless you do it with the right qualities and thoughts.

Agreed. I offer myself as a case in point. I can repeat a passage thousands of times and yet remember it not.

[nyiregyhazi]

Agreed. I offer myself as a case in point. I can repeat a passage thousands of times and yet remember it not.

Absolutely. The thing I have myself is that I acquire physical memory but not enough understanding from other points of view. Right now, I can get through the last movement of the Chopin 2nd sonata, but I simply haven't got a clue what my fingers are doing half the time- and I still fall apart all too easily. It's way too much about physical memory. Repetition will not change that. Until I know the notes independently of the physical habits (and can play the line by memory with one finger- not quickly, but fluently) I can't say I know the music. It's not a repetition issue but about the fundamentals of thinking. It's important to structure what you are doing- but structuring regular thoughtless practise into four bar groups is no help. I wouldn't be so blunt were it not for the odiously self-proclaimed "expertise" of the person giving the advice. However, dressing up the oldest and most limited memorisation method known to man and claiming that science proves it's some kind of amazing approach warrants an honest response, in my opinion.

[hmpiano]

To be really secure in front of an audience you must be able to 1) play the entire work hands separately and 2) see yourself play the entire work in your mind's eye.

[charmsjr94]

Yes. Because there is no source. You are making your own subjective assumptions that relate only to selectively pruned highlights and presenting them as if scientific truth. You are not arguing for anything that a single scientific paper directly suggests as the best approach.

Don't be so bloody naive! Simply repeating something over and over does not magically provide a deep memory. It's exactly what provides the shallow and superficial physical memory that most of us suffer from- UNLESS you are finding a whole wealth of different approaches to how you think about what you are doing in that time. If it were as simple as throwing loads of time at 4 bar groups, as you suggest, almost nobody would have memory problems.

Man up and attribute your speculative interpretations of selectively chosen scientific tit-bits to yourself. People like yourself give science a bad name- by making wild speculations of their own and claiming that science itself is responsible for them. Do you seriously think that it takes 15 minutes- regardless of the difficulty or complexity of a passage? And this will cause anything to be solidly memorised by default? It's plain foolish to attribute an exact time scale, without consideration of both specific factors to the music and the specific abilities of the person attempting to memorise it. It's also very naive not to consider the QUALITY of what is being done- rather than merely a timescale. You may be capable of memorising isolated snippets of published scientific papers, but you show no ability to think like a scientist when it comes to extrapolating from those points in a logical and self-critical manner.

Obviously you didn't read my reply carefully. What I said was that your advice merely scratches the surface- not that I disagree, exactly. It's simply that repetition alone is worthless- unless you do it with the right qualities and thoughts. By omitting these issues from your advice, you omit virtually everything of genuine importance. That's why I pointed out the value of the one finger practise method- which is worth 100 thoughtless repetitions of a passage. To improve memory, a person needs to engage more ways of thinking and processing the musical construction. Merely repeating things leaves you stuck in your typical ways of thinking- inspiring minimal improvement, unless you force yourself into alternatives. When the only plan is to repeat something for 15 minutes (rather than to find a wealth of different viewpoints during those 15 minutes) there might as well be no plan at all.

^^^
Oh sh*t! This is the most polite internet fight I've ever seen. I love it.

That being said, my teacher has us, among other methods, memorize chord structures. I guess it easier depending on the piece, but I find that it's actually quite helpful remembering what chord of the progression I'm in than the actually sea of notes I'm playing.

[erichernandez88]

Have you tried making a story, images with emotions, out of the music? I found, at least, that when I connected these together I didnt go into auto-pilot, but emersed in the piece.
Good luck with the concert man, must be exciting!

[brogers70]

You can try playing the piece very, very slowly, forcing yourself to think or even to say out loud something useful about what's coming up "here comes a Mannheim rocket in C minor," or "this bit is just the secondary theme from the exposition but now in the sub-dominant," "this is just like the first statement of this theme but with the bass doubled," or whatever is useful. The more theory you know, the easier it is to put these mental signposts throughout the piece. Playing so slowly also prevents you from relying on muscle memory.

[faulty_damper]

Playing long stretches is only possible because of a well-rehearsed script.  That is, pages and pages of music are repeated over and over to the point where one part leads directly to the next and then the next without interruption.  This is perfectly fine as long as nothing interrupts that script.  But this is exactly the issue that the OP wants to address.

The way to break the script is to purposefully practice the script in parts.  Now, the script is not continuous but in multiple parts.  The only way to do this is to practice the script in parts (short segments) separately.

Now here is the point I make: each part must be practiced to the point where it feels like its own short script, not part of a longer script.  It just happens that when the piece is played, the short scripts are in sequential order and forms the long script which was previously on autopilot.

[nyiregyhazi]

Playing long stretches is only possible because of a well-rehearsed script.  That is, pages and pages of music are repeated over and over to the point where one part leads directly to the next and then the next without interruption.  This is perfectly fine as long as nothing interrupts that script.  But this is exactly the issue that the OP wants to address.

The way to break the script is to purposefully practice the script in parts.  Now, the script is not continuous but in multiple parts.  The only way to do this is to practice the script in parts (short segments) separately.

Now here is the point I make: each part must be practiced to the point where it feels like its own short script, not part of a longer script.  It just happens that when the piece is played, the short scripts are in sequential order and forms the long script which was previously on autopilot.

Yeah, obviously. The problem is that you are not addressing issues of quality. You presume that throwing time at something is enough. I don't dispute a word you say above, but there's so much more to good memory skills than devoting time to chunks. without strategies, most people repeat what they can already do in the same old way. It's necessary to make yourself think in different ways, if you want a really good memory, rather than mere physical habit. The poster said he already has that- so he needs to find ways of thinking, rather than merely do generic repetition. When I already have a physical memory of something, I'm in the most danger of running my fingers without understanding anything new about it.

If you isolate a chunk, you have think about how to start it- but you need to be sure you're finding ways to think as hard about the rest of that chunk, otherwise it doesn't go much beyond physical memory. It's easy to just end up figuring how to start a chunk but then go on to be running your fingers as mindlessly as any other other  time. I've spent plenty of time practising chunks in the Chopin sonata, but it's still mostly physical memory of getting from a to b. It hasn't made my understanding notably deeper. Better progress is dependent on how I work at each chunk.

[faulty_damper]

A lot of the advice that has been given about slow practice, identifying chord progressions, etc., to ingrain a piece into memory doesn't work when a piece can already be performed.  It only works during the initial memorization process when such things actually matter.

The OP can already perform the piece.  His issue is the long script that is on autopilot.  The only way to break the long script is to practice the long script as separate small parts.  But I'm just repeating myself.

[nyiregyhazi]

A lot of the advice that has been given about slow practice, identifying chord progressions, etc., to ingrain a piece into memory doesn't work when a piece can already be performed.  It only works during the initial memorization process when such things actually matter.

The OP can already perform the piece.  His issue is the long script that is on autopilot.  The only way to break the long script is to practice the long script as separate small parts.  But I'm just repeating myself.

I could not disagree more, sorry- and I assure you that I'm not just in the habit of wanting to carry on disagreeing simply because I've started.

In the last movement of Beethoven's Les Adiuex I had muscle memory of the whole thing, but occasionally slipped up. Stopping to analyse the harmonies was massively useful . There's a particular bit where a basic II,V,I comes over and over that later appears in a different key. Thinking about this served as a trigger which kept the muscular memory on track- making it far less likely to run off course. Previously I had noticed if I was playing a C minor chord and then and E flat one say- but was not stopping to really think about the relationships within the key I was in.

Simply because you can execute movements doesn't mean there's no value in going back to understand what you are doing better. I find your argument extremely irrational and would be interested to hear what makes you feel that simply because you can already run your fingers, there's no value in understanding what they are actually doing musically. It's like saying that simply because you can recite a Shakespeare speech by memory, it doesn't matter whether you actually know what the words mean or not. I'm utterly baffled. You can never understand too much. Breaking mindless physical memory into smaller chunks is not half as good as understanding what you are really executing.

[teran]

I'm not exactly a virtuoso or anything but I've always been very strong at playing or doing anything related to memory.

Honestly with a piece they key to stopping those momentary lapses is to just focus, it seems like a vague thing to say, but basically just remain engaged with the piece and remember every little nuance that you've worked on when prepping it.

Basically, do no drift off for a single moment, hard to really explain how to do it, other than saying just do it, ha.

[cmg]

I could not disagree more, sorry- and I assure you that I'm not just in the habit of wanting to carry on disagreeing simply because I've started.

In the last movement of Beethoven's Les Adiuex I had muscle memory of the whole thing, but occasionally slipped up. Stopping to analyse the harmonies was massively useful . There's a particular bit where a basic II,V,I comes over and over that later appears in a different key. Thinking about this served as a trigger which kept the muscular memory on track- making it far less likely to run off course. Previously I had noticed if I was playing a C minor chord and then and E flat one say- but was not stopping to really think about the relationships within the key I was in.

Simply because you can execute movements doesn't mean there's no value in going back to understand what you are doing better. I find your argument extremely irrational and would be interested to hear what makes you feel that simply because you can already run your fingers, there's no value in understanding what they are actually doing musically. It's like saying that simply because you can recite a Shakespeare speech by memory, it doesn't matter whether you actually know what the words mean or not. I'm utterly baffled. You can never understand too much. Breaking mindless physical memory into smaller chunks is not half as good as understanding what you are really executing.

Amen.  Muscular memory is a rather crude form of retention, but it works -- until something distracts the flow.  And that could be anything from wandering attention to some noise around you. You need an internal road map of the piece, and analyzing the harmonic structure is utterly indispensable.  Memorizing the last movement of the Beethoven "Moonlight" required a thorough knowledge of harmonic relationships, chord by chord by chord.  Only then did i feel that I not only KNEW the piece, but also had it memorized. 

[lloyd_cdb]

Amen.  Muscular memory is a rather crude form of retention, but it works -- until something distracts the flow.  And that could be anything from wandering attention to some noise around you.

I have always had very good physical memory as opposed to visual or auditory.  It persists in all aspects of my life.  In regards to your actual point, I've found the exact opposite.  My problem is if I actually pay attention.  Then I get nervous, tense up and start to stumble, just as I would if I was trying to visualize the piece or walking down that auditory 'roadmap'.  My best performances come when I'm thinking about what to cook for dinner... lol.