Memorization... just DO it !?

[cbreemer]

I came across this blog by "Piano Swami" Itzhak Solsky

https://itzhaksolsky.com/2014/05/14/on-memorization/

who seems to claim that the secret to memorization is a leap of faith. Just put away the score
and play without it, as the entire piece has already been engraved in the mind by previous
playings. what !?

Maybe he's blessed with a megapixel photographic memory and this kinda works for him
(he's got a ton of recordings on YT), but I tend to think this is total BS.

[awesom_o]

I would very much agree with him. 

[hardy_practice]

Did you know, that your own human mind has a perfect copy stored in it, of everything you’ve ever seen, heard, done, smelled, ate, said, or otherwise experienced?

No evidence for that as far as I'm aware.  I think Coleridge believed it.

[dima_76557]

@ cbreemer

I think I have to agree. Memorization is the automatic result of intensive creative input into the task you set out to accomplish without the explicit wish to learn it by heart.
P.S.: Know-how of all kinds is assumed, of course.

[m1469]

I think it's true that a person can over complicate the memorization process, as well as just be lazier about it than one may even realize one is being about it.  Or consciously be lazy about it.  I think it's true that there is such a thing as a perfect image with details after one reading or one listen (actually, even before one reading or listen), and that it's actually possible for any individual to access this (if not as a whole, at least in parts that can be pasted together).  Though, upon reading the article, it actually doesn't address this at all - not even slightly, as his use of the idea of memorization is actually addressing individuals who already have a piece learned but can't seem to get off book about it.  

On the subject of memorization itself, I also think it's important to draw lines between what is changeable and what is not.  My own experience is about working with a constant and with a non-constant.  For example, a constant would be three notes on the piano:  CEG.  If that is written in the score, it is because the original musical idea includes this as a constant.  It is part of the musical idea itself and does not depend upon anybody else in order to be part of the constant.  The non-constant is how a person approaches it, interprets it, or plays it.  

My current ideas about memorization (and interpretation) include the possibility or even probability that what a person often thinks of as "trouble" with memorization is in part, or even largely in part, rooted in being confused about what is constant and what is changeable, and how to balance those into a working force.

I do not feel that this particular article actually covers any of the points it tries to hint at, even if the main idea is actually true.  In fact, my initial reaction of the article is that of inviting a person to fail and, in so doing, want to come for a lesson with the author in order to learn more of the details about what the general statement about memorization is.  As a teacher, I do understand marketing to some degree, but if I were going to fly transatlantic to study with somebody, I'd like to be convinced that there would be more to my lesson in memorization than somebody simply taking the book away from me and forcing me to play by memory once I'm there, and I am not convinced.

[goldentone]

I agree with the premise.  But his method of getting there is another story.  The teacher says,

"It does take a huge amount of confidence and faith in order to pull it off"

That's encouraging.  And this is where I think the teacher should be shedding the light and taking the load off that this is possible.

"If you reach a part where you really don’t know what to do – maybe try again, maybe go back a couple of measures and try a second time, maybe even stop. . . You made it."

This part doesn't make any sense.  Then reading through they ask you to now turn to the score.  So now we're back in the realm we all have trod.  Looking at the score, trying to go as far as we can, then turning to the score again.

I believe this is convoluted and contradictory.  It has a manipulative feel to it.  There's a better way to access our mind's great abilities.

[faulty_damper]

Did you know, that your own human mind has a perfect copy stored in it, of everything you’ve ever seen, heard, done, smelled, ate, said, or otherwise experienced? Don’t take my word for it… there’s plenty of materials about it – one only has to know where to look…

This is completely false.  The brain does not have any kind of fidelity to sensory experiences.  Further, there are no "plenty of materials about it" that can be substantiated by evidence.  As a matter of fact, there's significantly more evidence showing the opposite, that the brain cannot record anything in perfect fidelity.

The rest of the article is based on this faulty rationale.  Thus, the entire article is pseudo-science.  

[cbreemer]

After digesting some helpful replies here I must concede the author does have a point of sorts.
But he's contradictory allright. First he says

"So this means that the first time you ever “laid your eyes” on any piece of piano music, it got permanently engraved onto your mind, in its entirety, all details included!"

which I believe is total bullcrap. This could be true for a very short and simple piece like an early
Mozart minuet, but no way so for a long and complicated 20th century work.

Then he says

"First, I suppose that this is a piece that you already know and can play. You have probably tried to memorize it already, and probably with some partial success."

and that might actually work. I've you've worked long and painstakingly on a piece chances
are that a big part of it may just sit there in memory already. So yes, this premise may be
true. I suppose I should just give this a try and see how far I get.

It's always the details I worry about though. I found this guy through listening to Falla's Pieces
Espagnoles, which I am polishing right now. I heard a lot of wrong things, which sounded
like reading mistakes rather than slips (the guy CAN play). So I'm still a bit skeptical about
putting the score away assuming that you know every note and little detail. I was always led
believe memorizing is a tough bar-by-bar job which can take weeks for a piece of significant
size. How anyone can memorize huge and bewildering works like the Concord Sonata or The People United is totally beyond me.

[dima_76557]

After digesting some helpful replies here I must concede the author does have a point of sorts.
But he's contradictory allright.

He is simply trying to support a very positive idea with "evidence" that stinks, and confuses opinion with fact. That's why the argument doesn't hold too well. We should not make the mistake of therefore rejecting the main idea itself, though. Rephrasing all the premises and assumptions that make the argument work is far more productive.

I've you've worked long and painstakingly on a piece chances are that a big part of it may just sit there in memory already. So yes, this premise may be true. I suppose I should just give this a try and see how far I get.

It doesn't have to be long. Most important is intensity and involvement of ALL your senses, ALL your resources.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I don't believe for one minute the statement that the score is "engraved upon the mind... all details included". It is possible that it might be the case in a few freakish cases, but I doubt even that. If we consider the de Groot experiment, a rational extrapolation might be that a master pianist would be able to recall all the details of an individual bar, and that lesser mortals would recall it albeit slightly imperfectly, but a piece consists of much more information than that!

(The de Groot experiment doesn't appear to be described on Wikipedia vis-a-vis the relevant details, so a brief summary here) - Adriaan de Groot, psychologist and minor chess master conducted a memory experiment in which a plausible chess position was set up on a board and four people, ranging in ability from novice to one-time world champion (Max Euwe) were given a short period of time (seconds) to study it and then asked to reconstruct the position on another board. Predictably, accuracy of reconstruction was related to ability, Euwe being not only able to reconstruct the position perfectly but also state the correct next move, whereas de Groot had one small inaccuracy and the novice had more right than wrong. For "normal" pianists (assuming the validity of the analogy) this would appear to refute Solsky's hypothesis, as the implication is that there will be errors in recall for the vast majority. It also has to be considered that in terms of data to be processed, a bar of music will often contain at least as much information as the positioning of chess pieces on a board - nevermind that a piece is much more than just one bar! (In passing, the most interesting thing about the de Groot experiment was that when he placed a nonsensical chess position on the test board, recall was imprecise for all the subjects - the logical conclusion, and one which applies to score-reading also, is that there is a healthy amount of pattern recognition going on).

I would agree that memorisation does begin when you first play through a piece, but that it is highly limited, extremely imprecise (unless you have freakish abilities like Ogdon or Gieseking) and evolves naturally through further practice. I'm not a great believer in memorising eg four bars at a time, though I know it is a school of thought. I have a suspicion that the "go to bar 96" on demand type of memory test is as much a mechanism for dealing with memory lapses as it is a genuine method of memorisation.

[timothy42b]

I don't believe for one minute the statement that the score is "engraved upon the mind... all details included".

I agree with you.  Also, every time you retrieve a memory you alter it slightly.

However.  There may be a few people out there with an eidetic memory.  I know there's some controversy about it, I don't know what the current thinking is. 

[dima_76557]

(The de Groot experiment doesn't appear to be described on Wikipedia vis-a-vis the relevant details, so a brief summary here) - Adriaan de Groot, psychologist and minor chess master conducted a memory experiment in which a plausible chess position was set up on a board and four people, ranging in ability from novice to one-time world champion (Max Euwe) were given a short period of time (seconds) to study it and then asked to reconstruct the position on another board. Predictably, accuracy of reconstruction was related to ability, Euwe being not only able to reconstruct the position perfectly but also state the correct next move, whereas de Groot had one small inaccuracy and the novice had more right than wrong.

By the way, the position where nobody, not even Max Euwe, could remember anything was a bit unfair to test, I think, because it was a position that could never have occurred on a chess board in a real game. I find it plausible, for example, that the brain is trained to simply reject "nonsense" in those super learning methods. There has to be some kind of underlying logic for the phenomenal memorization system to work. Still, the tester concluded that super memory (in this case eidetic memory) does not exist, which was the foregone conclusion of the experiment itself.

[m1469]

Chess board example, if everything else were part of logic, what was not logical would stand out like a sore thumb and be easily memorable (and has its own logic, actually, even in relation to the rest).  So I call BS.

[dima_76557]

Chess board example, if everything else was part of logic, what was not logical would stand out like a soar thumb and be easily memorable.

You think so? But all test takers (even the genius Euwe) failed to get anything right, while in rather complicated but logical positions, they all got at least something right.

[m1469]

You think so?

Of course.

[dima_76557]

Of course.

But what about the discrepancy I mentioned? How do you explain that? Bad luck for all?

[m1469]

But what about the discrepancy I mentioned? How do you explain that? Bad luck for all?

If it were actually something that might change the way I approach music, or how I help students, I'd be interested to read and learn more about it, but what I have read does not support the conversation nor change my conclusions about what is being posted in this thread about it.  

[dima_76557]

If it were actually something that might change the way I approach music, or how I help students, I'd be interested to read and learn more about it, but what I have read does not support the conversation nor change my conclusions about what is being posted in this thread about it.

Well, as far as music is concerned: if there is a clear inner logic in the Work of Art and the student learns to see that logic, memorizing by whatever method becomes so much easier and faster. Memorizing will actually be the result of analyzing and understanding it. Works that are perceived as an unorganized mess, however, will take very, very long to memorize.

[m1469]

Works that are perceived as an unorganized mess, however, will take very, very long to memorize.

That is something different.  The concept presented was a single "messy part" amid a sea of logic.

[dima_76557]

That is something different.  The concept presented was a single "messy part" amid a sea of logic.

The position I was talking about was "unchunkable" within the set time. Chess players also learn by chunking, just like musicians do.

[timothy42b]

Well, as far as music is concerned: if there is a clear inner logic in the Work of Art and the student learns to see that logic, memorizing by whatever method becomes so much easier and faster. Memorizing will actually be the result of analyzing and understanding it. Works that are perceived as an unorganized mess, however, will take very, very long to memorize.

I've read some of the memory training books.

Actually I own most of the classic ones, with the exception of Moonwalking with Einstein, which is very good, but I read it at the library.

A lot of the benefit of these memory systems comes from the work you do first.  You pre-memorize lists that you can hang memories on.  You already have a set of vivid memory images, and the things you need to memorize get attached to them, or get meaning attached to them.

For a very oversimplified example, consider remembering a number.  Say you parked your car in space 149.  You need to remember that so you can find it again.  You have previously memorized something called the Major system, where every numeral has an associated letter.  It may have taken you a long time to learn that 1 is t, 4 is r, and 9 is p, but you eventually accomplished it.  Vowels don't count.  So you convert an abstract number which is hard to recall to a concrete visual image which is easy:  149 = trap.  Picture your car being cut in half by a giant trap, and you can't possibly forget where you parked it.

People who memorize well without these systems are doing some of this unconsciously.

People who memorize music well, probably the same.  

[hardy_practice]

People who memorize well without these systems are doing some of this unconsciously.

People who memorize music well, probably the same.  

I 100% agree.  I tried using playing cards or football teams to memorize music without much success.  Any ideas?

[dima_76557]

People who memorize well without these systems are doing some of this unconsciously.

People who memorize music well, probably the same.

Very much so. If all kinds of analysis in themselves don't seem to work, then I simply think up a text that goes with what I have to play. The more absurd the text or association, the better the stuff that requires memorizing tends to go into memory storage.

[timothy42b]

I 100% agree.  I tried using playing cards or football teams to memorize music without much success.  Any ideas?

I've tried to come up with some and so far not done well.  We have already prememorized huge amounts of context (note names, key signatures, chords progressions, periods of music) but it's hard to see how to make it work.

Maybe if we find someone who does it really well and interrogate them about their mental processes.  They probably don't know consciously, but if we kept at it we could get them to examine themselves.  That would have two advantages:  we might gain some insight, and they might lose the ability to do it, no longer making us feel inferior.

[timothy42b]

My main instrument is trombone.

As a youth memorization was effortless.  But alas, no longer.

I still did it when necessary, because there are huge advantages to not needing sheet music, particularly if mobile or in dim light. 

But I've changed my strategy recently.  I've never been a strong ear player, but now I spend some time every day playing a simple tune in 12 keys by ear.  So I no longer memorize as such.  I learn the piece and play it by ear. 

My piano ear playing skills are much worse and this doesn't really work for me.  Yet. 

[hardy_practice]

I was memorizing today and the interval Bb to G above reminded me of Mickey Mouse ears.  If it works...

[faulty_damper]

I agree with you.  Also, every time you retrieve a memory you alter it slightly.

However.  There may be a few people out there with an eidetic memory.  I know there's some controversy about it, I don't know what the current thinking is. 

The the retrieval of memory is altered by two apparent processes:
1) forgetting
2) incidental or purposeful retrieval of extraneous tangent information

Forgetting is constant.  It occurs immediately after the sensory experience due to the instability of the novel synapse connections.  Tangent information is stored in close relation to the intended retrieval of information, like picking up china-ware but incidentally picking up the dust that has collected on it.  This makes the original information partly lost due to alteration.

Eidetic memory - There is no such thing as eidetic memory (photographic memory).  Virtually all cases have been shown to use some kind of mnemonic process.  The brain is simply incapable of such feats of encoding.

[cwjalex]

they have studied participants in memory competitions and found they are not any smarter than the average person.  most use some variant of the 'method of loci' in order to memorize huge amounts of information.  the premise to this method is that you will better remember something if you add a visual component to it.  mentally they will walk through a certain location they are familiar with to retrieve anything they want to remember.  people can use this to memorize the order of a deck of cards in only a few minutes. 

[timothy42b]

Eidetic memory - There is no such thing as eidetic memory (photographic memory).  Virtually all cases have been shown to use some kind of mnemonic process.  The brain is simply incapable of such feats of encoding.

When I was a small child, about age 4, we lived in an apartment over a service station.

The mechanic was working on an unfamiliar and complicated brake system from an import, very rare in those days (1950s) and no way to check youtube.  So he very carefully laid each piece out of the floor in order and told everybody vehemently not to touch.  

Of course the next guy in the shop walked through the pile and scattered them.  

After the cursing stopped I put them back in order going from the visual memory of how they were laid out.  

The ability to do that has faded over the years but in my early school years I could remember what pages in the text book looked like.  

I am now an engineer and might be able to deduce the parts layout from the function, but not at age 4.  So was that an example of eidetic memory, or at least as close as we get?  I was able to retain an accurate mental picture of an image, after a brief glance at the parts, for long enough to assemble them in order.  

[pianoplunker]

I came across this blog by "Piano Swami" Itzhak Solsky

https://itzhaksolsky.com/2014/05/14/on-memorization/

who seems to claim that the secret to memorization is a leap of faith. Just put away the score
and play without it, as the entire piece has already been engraved in the mind by previous
playings. what !?

Maybe he's blessed with a megapixel photographic memory and this kinda works for him
(he's got a ton of recordings on YT), but I tend to think this is total BS.

The secret is to know the piece. That comes about by good focused practice. Over time you get to know the piece and all of the fingering requirements  . Practice the ending sections as much as the beginning sections. And then practice  hand separate all the way through. Eventually it will get ingrained in the brain.

[hardy_practice]

I am now an engineer and might be able to deduce the parts layout from the function, but not at age 4.  So was that an example of eidetic memory, or at least as close as we get?  I was able to retain an accurate mental picture of an image, after a brief glance at the parts, for long enough to assemble them in order.  

In children it's famously excellent but it's still the same mechanism - there's no photographic memory. 

[timothy42b]

In children it's famously excellent but it's still the same mechanism - there's no photographic memory. 

That seems to me a distinction without a difference.

Apparently a good percentage of children can retain and use a vivid visual image, but that's called eidetic instead of photographic, because we know photographic doesn't exist.

I'd like to test preschoolers on Groot's chess board. 

[hardy_practice]

You underestimate the brilliance of the mind.  It can not only constitute an experience but also make us convinced it's a reconstitution!  The constitution bears hardly, if any, relation to the original - it just works and that's OK for us.

[goldentone]

Apparently a good percentage of children can retain and use a vivid visual image, but that's called eidetic instead of photographic, because we know photographic doesn't exist.

There is a reading method called Photoreading, and its results are permanent unlike eidetic.  You get into a certain wave state of mind with your eyes unfocused, seeing the entire page, and then you just turn the pages while your mind takes a snapshot of each page.  After the subconscious processes it, you can then activate what was stored in your brain.  It is not easy to get into the photographic state, but I did manage it a time or two.  I did not get beyond the initial state, but I believe it is real and sound, and plan to turn back to the system in the future.

This of course directly relates to the thread.

[sashaco]

I remember going to a competition in the late '70s in which a number of performers included slections from Etudes Australes.  I went back stage, (one of the performers was staying in the house where I boarded) and heard one pianist saying to another that he had missed a note in one passage.  The two pulled out a score and agreed that the one had indeed misplayed a note.

It's pretty hard to identify patterns in those Etudes, and yet these guys had memorized them to an extraordinary degree, and most interesting to me is that one player's ears knew the pieces so well that he could hear a wrong note in the midst of a great deal of planned randomness.

Has anyone played that game where a little machine plays a tune with flashing lights, adding a note each time the players successfully reproduce it?  I do much better at that than my less musical friends (I  should say "did", I haven't played it for many years) although I am not a great memorizer.  Clearly we can train some sort of aural memory to a high degree that is not neccessarily innate.

[m1469]

The position I was talking about was "unchunkable" within the set time.

This is a premise I can't get on board with until I better understand the scenario through reading about the experiment myself, and I could not find anything to support the experiment as described in this thread.  The little bit that I read outside of this thread was nothing like what has been brought up here.
 

Chess players also learn by chunking, just like musicians do.

This I do not doubt and would be happy to explore the parallels but, in this case, I would prefer to read specifics about the scenario brought up so I may start by making my own conclusions, to form my own thoughts, and then to consider a question about it for the sake of deepening understanding.  That would be to me a more productive conversation, with all parties informed from the same source.

[faulty_damper]

The position I was talking about was "unchunkable" within the set time. Chess players also learn by chunking, just like musicians do.

Actually, chess players do not learn by chunking.  They learn by function (if this move, then that counter move).  Over extensive trials, these functions become codified into recognizable patterns.  It is only then that they execute by pattern recognition, i.e. chunking, because these patterns have functional meaning.  The same process is observed in backgammon, checkers, many other board games, as well as poker and other card games.  Further, musicians also follow this same pattern of learning.  Teaching students to chunk is like teaching students to read using the 'whole language' approach, which was, btw, a miserable failure.

[timothy42b]

Actually, chess players do not learn by chunking.  They learn by function (if this move, then that counter move).  Over extensive trials, these functions become codified into recognizable patterns.  

Actually I understand the research on chess players to show something quite different.

The masters do not think move by move at all.  They do not look ahead ten moves, or even a couple, except maybe in the end game (and the end games are so obvious they are rarely played out).

Instead, over time they have memorized a very large number of visual images of patterns on the chess board.  What they do when they play is to try to force the pieces into a pattern that is recognizable as having an advantage.

Of course at beginner levels there are known strengths to having various pieces protecting various sections of the board.  But at master levels it is all about tweaking position into one of those visual patterns. 

As far as reading is concerned, you're quite wrong.  Phonics works for some people and not at all for others; my children learned by whole word and are far more fluent than any of their peers.  It just depends on how your brain is wired. 

[dima_76557]

@ timothy42b

+ 1. Nothing to add.

[faulty_damper]

Actually I understand the research on chess players to show something quite different.

The masters do not think move by move at all.  They do not look ahead ten moves, or even a couple, except maybe in the end game (and the end games are so obvious they are rarely played out).

Instead, over time they have memorized a very large number of visual images of patterns on the chess board.  What they do when they play is to try to force the pieces into a pattern that is recognizable as having an advantage.

Of course at beginner levels there are known strengths to having various pieces protecting various sections of the board.  But at master levels it is all about tweaking position into one of those visual patterns.  

As far as reading is concerned, you're quite wrong.  Phonics works for some people and not at all for others; my children learned by whole word and are far more fluent than any of their peers.  It just depends on how your brain is wired.  

I specifically indicated how chess is learned, not how it is performed/played by advanced players.

"Actually, chess players do not learn by chunking."

Further, there is, indeed, thinking ahead even by masters.  At a certain point in the game, whose outcome is near infinite, all the common patterns would have been played out and the pieces may venture into unknown territory.  At this point, thinking ahead and anticipation is necessary.  This holds very true for backgammon players due the element of chance that can place extraordinarily rare positions of the pips in the hands of complete novices.  Novices are very unpredictable and even advanced players dislike playing against them because of their unpredictable choices.

As for the reading, the research does not bare such a conclusion.  Phonics must be understood at a basic level for whole word methodology to work.  Some students are able to infer the phonetics, however, the majority do not, hence the failure.  Current research-based reading pedagogy stresses early learning of phonics before advanced reading instruction can commence.  This is not a brain wiring issue, it is an instructional issue.

[dima_76557]

I specifically indicated how chess is learned, not how it is performed/played by advanced players.

I was wrong in that I generalized all levels. When chess players are more advanced, they still have lots of learning to do to make it to the top. At that level, separate moves don't mean anything unless they are part of a meaningful chain of moves.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Actually I understand the research on chess players to show something quite different.

The masters do not think move by move at all.  They do not look ahead ten moves, or even a couple, except maybe in the end game (and the end games are so obvious they are rarely played out).

Instead, over time they have memorized a very large number of visual images of patterns on the chess board.  What they do when they play is to try to force the pieces into a pattern that is recognizable as having an advantage.

Possibly not especially germane to the thread, but nevertheless, this is false. Masters do think move by move, but with greater clarity than amateurs, because their greater knowledge enables them to prune the analytical tree with efficiency compared to weaker players who will consider more options (often irrelevant). Even superficially simple endgames can be remarkably complex. The last sentence contains some truth, but it's more complex than that - certain positional facets are usually identifiable as being advantageous or disadvantageous, but master level chess is usually about an agglomeration of such facets where there will often be a trade-off between positive and negative ones.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

When chess players are more advanced, they still have lots of learning to do to make it to the top.

Tell me about it. I was good enough to play internationally as a junior, and to (at 17) finish second in a national blitz championship. Yet I became very aware of not how much I did understand, but how much I didn't understand.

[dima_76557]

Masters do think move by move, but with greater clarity than amateurs, because their greater knowledge enables them to prune the analytical tree with efficiency compared to weaker players who will consider more options (often irrelevant).

You underestimate yourself, Andrew! This is indeed relevant to the thread. Good memory is mostly about what is relevant and what is not. If you focus often enough on the elements that are indeed relevant, then the task has a good probability of being resolved successfully. If you systematically distract your attention with elements that have no significance at all, you waste valuable brain power. People with "bad memories" may very well have trouble in that area: bad working habits.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

If you focus often enough on the elements that are indeed relevant, then the task has a good probability of being resolved successfully. If you systematically distract your attention with elements that have no significance at all, you waste valuable brain power. People with "bad memories" may very well have trouble in that area: bad working habits.

Agreed: if Master X were to attempt to analyse every single move and ever possible response, he would rapidly find it an impossible task as the number of continuations expands exponentially (even computers gave up on brute force methods), thus, as you say, the irrelevant elements require to be removed from consideration. However in this hypothetical chessplayer analysis example, I think it's primarily understanding that's at work, enabling the selectivity of analysis, rather than pure memory. Of course, one can argue that understanding is memory driven by experience

[falala]

Well, as far as music is concerned: if there is a clear inner logic in the Work of Art and the student learns to see that logic, memorizing by whatever method becomes so much easier and faster. Memorizing will actually be the result of analyzing and understanding it. Works that are perceived as an unorganized mess, however, will take very, very long to memorize.

100% correct. And contrary to what the guy from the OP says, this is actually in accordance with what psychologists now know about knowledge, skill, memory and recall.

I had a very interesting object lesson in this recently when teaching my daughter. She's 8 now and we started doing music together when she was 2, doing simple vocal kodaly work and games. That led onto piano from when she was 4, but we've ALWAYS worked from singing and understanding first. I've even written my own custom materials for her applying kodaly methodology to the piano, because I couldn't find anything commercially available to do it that I liked.

There have been a number of interesting outcomes from this, the important one for the current discussion being that she has phenomenal memory. She learns simple pieces in a few days, more taxing ones in a few weeks, and basically from the moment she's played them through a few times, even imperfectly, she's memorised them without needing to try.

Now what happened recently was that we were working on a little Walter Carroll piece, she learnt it quickly as usual, played it very musically and loved it - but absolutely could NOT memorize it securely. The only reason I can think of for this is that the harmony is unconventional and falls outside of the normal triadic shapes and functional relationships that her ear and musical sense have developed around. It's not even that modern - it's mostly just kind of added-note harmony, I suppose you could call it vaguely impressionist. But it's different enough to fall outside of her expectations, and it just can't find it's place in her memory.

So we have a little work to do on advanced harmonic analysis. Might have to wait till she's 9 though.  

The mistake people always make with memory is that they focus on trying to do it as a thing in itself. That's a bit like trying to fall in love. Memory is an OUTCOME of a whole bunch of other stuff.

[hardy_practice]

Now what happened recently was that we were working on a little Walter Carroll piece, she learnt it quickly as usual, played it very musically and loved it - but absolutely could NOT memorize it securely. The only reason I can think of for this is that the harmony is unconventional and falls outside of the normal triadic shapes and functional relationships that her ear and musical sense have developed around. It's not even that modern - it's mostly just kind of added-note harmony, I suppose you could call it vaguely impressionist. But it's different enough to fall outside of her expectations, and it just can't find it's place in her memory.

I'd love to hear how that plays out.  I taught a boy who was 6 or 7 at the time.  Memorized all his grade 1 piece in a few weeks.  He went off for 6 weeks holiday, forgot the lot, and I spent many months putting them back in his memory.  They were never as secure and he never memorized again as well as originally.  Maybe your daughter's changed not her repertoire?

[falala]

Maybe your daughter's changed not her repertoire?

But she still memorises other pieces - more tonally straightforward ones - just as easily and securely as she ever did.

[hardy_practice]

But she still memorises other pieces - more tonally straightforward ones - just as easily and securely as she ever did.

Have you read this?  It's by Clara's dad - she became one of the world's all time greats.  It's also at archive.org as an aural book.

https://archive.org/details/pianosonghowtote00wieciala

[jianxli]

I've never been a strong ear player, but now I spend some time every day playing a simple tune in 12 keys by ear.  So I no longer memorize as such.  I learn the piece and play it by ear.

What do you mean "play by ear"? Thanks.