Memorisation

[ludwig]

 Inspired by another poster in another thread, verwel I think it was, he/she mentioned what is the point of playing a piece by memory. One of my students absolutely loathes playing by memory, I've set time limits for her so she could remember her pieces by her exams and competitions. I think that having a piece remembered is important because whenever I don't bother with the memory task, she'll be glued to the score stand. Having the ability to memorise allows a performer to be more involved in thinking about the music, hearing ahead and concerntrate on hand movements and musical intepretations. This is just my view, I'm just interested in other member's views on memorising music. Is it important?

[MzrtMusic]

Here's something interesting. Before Franz Liszt and Clara Schumann, pianist didn't play anything from memory. Chamber Musicians and Symphonies use music. Does this mean that all of these people aren't involved in the music? One of the things that I love about art/music is that there isn't "one right answer" to everything. So much of music is personal interpretation, including under what circumstances you play your best. As a younger student, I was the same way. I didn't memorize things well, and when I have to memorize, it took me MONTHS to get it done. Having to play without the music hampered my playing... However, as I went on to more advanced pieces, I learned to memorize, and be comftorable with it. I still feel that I can be more "creative" when I have music in front of me, but it's one of those things I've had to learn to achieve my goals. I don't know what level your student is at, and I don't know what career aspirations they have, but I would encourage you to remember that there really isn't a "right" answer when it comes to playing an instrument. Some people can't play well with their music, and some people can't play well without their music. For me, that's one of the biggest challenges as a teacher; trying to make my lesson plans fit each student.

I've rambled on for long enough now. I guess what I wanted to say was don't stress out about memorizing. Let your student grow and learn at their own pace, and memory will come at some point! It always does!

Love,

Sarah

[verwel]

No no, i asked what the point of sightreading a piece was. As for playing by memory, I usually don't even think about getting behind the piano before I know a piece by heart. That's my personal approach, and I noticed that very little people adhere to it. However, I stay convinced that a lot of technical problems arise from not really knowing what you're playing, that's why I find it necessary to really know the score before starting to play a piece.
Greetz.

[ludwig]

Thank you guys for your opinions. I was always told that to be able to play a piece to performance level, it is necessary to know every detail of the score in your head, therefor it was always in my goal to memorise a piece before playing it for an exam or performance or competition. I always thought it odd though, memorising made me nervous and I thought I'd stuff up a piece because I would have a total mind blank and forget what was next.

I'm not sure about the systems in other countries, but here on the exam reports, and teacher manuals, the examination board suggest that students play without music for exams. And as a bonus, they will get extra marks for doing so. Do you think this is possitive encouragement or unnecessary?

I have noticed changes in my student's playing after I've suggested that she does her exam by memory. This particular student does have a weakness for memorisation, what I'm worried about is that she does not play musically when she looks at the music, she'll be concerntrating fully on fingering, and what notes are next, that her eyes are glued on the page, forgetting hand posture, basically musically playing a piece. Does this happen to anyone else's piano students?

[verwel]

Very interesting case, this student of yours (and your own case!): It seems to me that it's a sheer matter of confidence (or lack of it). Try to convince her that it is really not hard remembering a piece (nobody can have a memory weak enough not to be able to contain a music score, surely?). I don't think that it is wishable to punish not playing by heart in anyway: it's the result that matters, the way it was obtained should be of no importance, but just as you do, I feel strongly about all of this: good knowledge of the music is essential for good palying.
(you can always bring a score with you if there is a scare of blacking out).
I think that Richter always played with score, so ....
Anyway, greetz...

[willcowskitz]

Reading notes is very difficult for me.
I couldn't play a piece without memorising it, alas, memorising is kind of a light task for me. I learn to play by the tones, continuity and movement of my hands and fingers. That's how I just learn to 'predict' what comes next as I play. I don't think very far but more like just follow the piece trusting my hands. I'm not a good pianist yet, but I thought I'd share this perspective.

Sight reading?  I don't think I'll ever be able to do that.

[rachfan]

As pointed out above, we owe the requirement for memorization when performing in public to Liszt.  It's unfair, because chamber musicians, for example, are allowed to have their music.  Where is the justice in the world!  

Anyway, that being what it is, there are four factors that facilitate memory.  The first is tactile memory as referred to above by Willcowskitz.  The important thing to remember is that you must always use at least TWO of the four methods in tandem, NEVER ONE.  Countless pianists have foundered when they relied solely on tactile memory and it evaporated during performance.  It's the most treacherous method!

The next kind is aural memory.  I like to call that the "mind's ear".  It's knowing the sound and flow of the piece not only from the beginning, but from any "landmark" point within the music.

The third aid is visual memory--this is literally the photographic memory where one can close eyes and actually see the details of the score.  How can anyone get lost with that talent?    But only a tiny fraction of the population enjoys that ability, so it is of the least importance overall.  

The final kind is analytical memory.  This comes from thorough study of the piece away from the keyboard.  Analysis is done on form, modulations, cadences, voice leading, climaxes, inner lines, etc. such that the pianist knows and can recall the major sequential structural elements of the piece and can "bookmark" important landmarks in his/her mind as aids in performance.  Again, the thing to remember is that the pianist must always rely on at least two, never one approach.  Geiseking was a master at this method.

Not all artists have had great memories.  Greats like Cortot and d'Albert used to have memory lapses frequently.  With Eugene d'Albert, people used to flock to his performances, because he was an extraordinary improviser--one of the best ever.  So when he would become lost, he would instantly improvise until he could find his way back and reconnect with the composer.  The audience would be enthralled at the beauty he would elicit from the piano during those impromtu transitions.  In fact they thought his "wrong notes" were worth more than the cost of their tickets.  Unfortunately, the recording industry has made today's audiences far less generous in their assessments of performing artists.

[MzrtMusic]

There is another kind of memory that my teacher has told me about... It's probably the kind that I use best... It's Kinetic Memory, and it's basically that your hands just "know" where to go to hit the right key. For most of the people that I've talked to, this is the first kind of memory to come, and one that lasts fairly well...

Has anyone else heard of this? Do you use it?

Love,

Sarah

[willcowskitz]

Hey Sarah,

I think the "kinetic memory" you're talking about is the same thing as RachFan's "tactile memory"  

(If I fully understood)

Also when I play a piece from the notes slowly (as my ability to read notes is, as stated, weak), I listen to the music and create a pattern for the visual route of hands. Then when I accompany the memory of the musical flow with the visual pattern, I'm able to often remember long runs and chords after playing through it slowly. On the other hand, I don't know _any_ names for _any_ chords, and I hardly even know the letters for the keys. (I'm not kidding, I always get confused with A, B, H and so on...) So when my teacher tells me the keys I always have to count them from the C.  

My memory works rather stupidly sometimes, you might note.

[rachfan]

Hi Willcowskitz,

I should have mentioned in my outline above on memorization that "visual memory", in addition to the so-callled photographic memory, also includes seeing and recalling sequential and spacial note patterns on the keys.  So you are now, in fact, combining two methods--tactile and a form of visual--which is better than either alone.

Bear in mind, though, that most generally agree that tactile (sometimes also called digital memory) is the least reliable of all.  The other point I want to make is on the note pattern visualization.  As we advance and become more competent in our playing, and once pieces are memorized, many of us don't look down at the keyboard very much while playing.  Indeed, if there is a difficult leap, for instance, we might shoot a quick glance at it for a better sense of security, but by and large we're not looking at the keys nearly as much as a beginner or intermediate student might.  Many accomplished pianists can play a piece through with the eyes closed most of the time.  So my guess is that over time you'll probably be migrating away from that particular memory aid.  In my own case (and everyone is different), I have a very keen ear.  So I combine tactile and aural memory.  It's a pretty strong combination and works for me.  

And now the bad news: The older one gets, the more difficult memorization becomes.  

[willcowskitz]

Hey Rach,

I suppose its true about tactile memory being the most unreliable of them all. Its like a 'short term' memory of different ways to recall parts of a piece. Combined with "aural" and/or visual memory it is nonetheless effective. I've got a fairly bad ear and I guess most of my playing happens visually. I do have a good memory though, when it comes to movement or other visual sight that attracts my 'passive' attention. My memory kind of works strongly in layers, as in a string of numbers or a run of keys is easy to remember. Between numbers there are relations, as there are with note values. I think those two are somehow related who knows. Its much like a "relative pitch" of notes represented visually.

About the bad news: one can train his/her memory although aging. Its a matter of practice really, and if you have a naturally good memory its easy to keep it up by using it! (been proven from times to times)

[reinvent]

I am new and really enjoying reading your posts.  As for the memorization of pieces - I have never been very good at learning a piece of sheet music and memorizing it.  I am always amazed at my students who memorize fairly easy.
But when I listen to music that I love (not with the idea of memorizing it) but just to enjoy it - I find that I can sit down and play the music.
So I wonder if you can get a CD for your student, if this may make a difference.  Since relaxing is so important in learning.
Maybe you could try it before giving them a new piece and just tell them to listen to it and later give the sheet music to see if it makes a difference for them.