How the heck do you memorize something like this?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Okay SO...

I know there's a few ways to memorize things right?  You got muscle memory, theory memory, ear memory, visualizing the score, and...  memorizing how your hands look on the keyboard?  And it's good to memorize your pieces in different ways because once you're performing and your muscle memory goes away due to nerves, your other memory acts like back up generators and you're still in the game.

Problem with this piece is...

It doesn't really appeal to anything I mentioned above.   

I haven't really played much ANY music like this before so I'm asking if any of you guys got any tips for something like this.

Even the atonal stuff I've played at least there's sort of a line to follow and a harmonic structure and/or overall structure that's sort of analyzable.  but this piece literally has no sign of traditional theory and structure that I can sort of grab on to AT ALL

[themeandvariation]

It does give the exotic impression of a rainbow… This is a wonderful work..  Ligeti's etudes do stand out among  piano music of the 20th cent.
I would seem there isn't much to grab easily, memory wise…
With simple grunt repetition, with even just a few bars a day, you'd have it in a week, give or take..  There is much also to notice in the strange dynamics…
Although the score said, 'swing' next to the starting mm. mark, i didn't much sense that in the recording.
Kudos to you for taking this on.

[bjenkins24]

The different types of memory you mentioned basically makes you memorize the same music 4 times. You memorize the theory, or the sound, or visually etc etc. This is great, but you don't really need all 4. You'll get muscle memory no matter what you do, and really if you have a really solid memory of any ONE of the other types of memory you should be fine.

It's good to have a lot of them, but the one that will help most with this piece is visual memory of the actual keyboard. This means you can close your eyes and actually see yourself playing the music. You have to be specific with your fingers playing the right keys at the right time. You should be able to hear the music as well.

In order to memorize anything though, you have to first put it in your short term memory. With a piece that is simple harmonically this is easier because you can fit bigger "chunks" in your short term memory. With any piece you have to put something in your short term memory first and then repeat. This piece included.

With this piece you'll probably only be able to fit maybe two sixteenth notes in your short term memory at a time. That's fine just take two sixteenth notes, repeat a bunch of times, then take the next two and continue that way. If it's getting frustrating for you, that means you're trying to fit too much into your short term memory.

Really you need a good understand of what short term and long term memory is to really understand this.

Check this article out. It will explain exactly how you should be doing it:
https://yourmusiclessons.com/blog/how-to-memorize-music-5-times-faster/

Also just for good measure here's one about the four separate types of memory:
https://yourmusiclessons.com/blog/the-four-types-of-musical-memory/

[pazzi]

I feel that pieces with challenges toward polyrhythms are harder to memorize than atonal or such.
e.g. Ligeti's Automne à Varsovie.

By the way, I always thought Xenakis' Mists and other algorithmic pieces seems impossible to do so!
 
This analysis on memorization patterns explains why those pianists read, instead of memorize, those extremely difficult pieces from Sorabji, Sciarrino and others.

[stevensk]

Make the music be a part of yourself. Live it, eat it, dream of it, wake up to it 

[mrcreosote]

Wow, is Ligeti out there.  Check out Mysteries of the Macabre  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmCmrZfybPQ

Then check out the performances of Barbara Hannigan (!)

[outin]

I guess if one can "feel" this type of music it's easier to memorize it.

Nice piece...something I could see myself learning...

[mrcreosote]

Lately, I'm obsessing over Prokofiev and there are patches of his stuff that is unlike any of the earlier composers I'm familiar with.  What I have found:

GROUPINGS:

You have to break it down into groups.  If you do this, it already means you see structure - other wise how did you determine the groups? 

These groups can be quite small, 1/2 a bar easily.

Each one becomes an exquisite orchid, a pattern that should almost make you giggle when you play it, the feelings of strange finger sequences should be exhilarating.

MUSCLE MEMORY:

I have a terrible memory.  But I also know what muscle memory is and Habbit is a good term for it.  MM occurs when I'm driving too fast for my headlights and I get behind, watching muscle memory take over is exciting to experience but it is dangerous because it degrades and before you know it you're playing wrong notes and you don't know what they should be.

Some amount of focus is needed.  For me, the most effective way is bits and pieces of all the memory techniques, this place requires his memtech, this other place a different one.  But the one memtech I don't seem to encounter is that of dancers - they have to memorize movement.  They have no instrument although they are very familiar with the music. 

"Dancing" works for me and when I play sections of true contemporary music, it is exquisite - so much that I am compelled to play it over and over again, marveling at the bits it is made up off - to he point where it is not totally unlike a Mantra.

I've looked at a bunch of Litegi's piano stuff and it's too "monotonous" for me.  Yes there is color, etc. but I see no emotion in it.  Mysteries of the Macabre is another matter - it explodes with "content."

I've found that the Carl Vine Sonata  #1 has some great parts, but there are places like at about 2:20, he has this fabulous left hand random "data stream" that is exquisite, but then he totally, in my opinion, ruins it with his obliterating slow descending simple RH sequence.  It's a shame because that LH part could have been expanded into the RH for something greater and more complex but instead he decided to have both hands extinguish each other - like watching 2 friends fight to the death.  If I payed any of this piece, I would do excerpts and do my own arrangement of the "fight" I just mentioned.

[lostinidlewonder]

To effectively memorise works you need to be able to sight read it at a controlled tempo and also be able to remember the sound that you should be producing. If the sounds you produce are constantly unanticipated you will set yourself up for problems. Some works are unnecessary to play completely without the score especially if they are not too fast a tempo though if you want them memorised multiple readings will eventually push it into a more automated state of playing. I feel it is a waste of time to discect every single fragment and work on them individually, it's just a huge consumption of your time.

[mrcreosote]

Some thoughts on this having just considered memorized the first 4 pages of Prokofiev's Sonata #7 1st movement.

For me, music that "makes sense" are the Baroque and Classical Composers with Beethoven being the easiest of all for me to understand, play, and memorize.

Maybe 10 years ago, I got all OCD vowing to memorize Rach's Etude-Tableau #4 after hearing it on the Ampico Recordings of Rach playing Rach.

That music's structure hardly made sense to me - when played slowly, there was dissonance and atonality - many notes sounded not totally unlike wrong notes.  However, it was clear that when at tempo, it was beautiful with more "colors" than anything from the Classicals.

Now, I'm looking at Prokofiev's Sonata #7 1st Movement and that is completely "around the bend" as far as making sense.  And yet, Prok has some of the most exquisite ethereal melodies I have ever heard/recognized.  And his slow passages are 95% chaos to me and mostly unmotivating - which means I won't play them.

Ligeti is even further out there.

QUESTION 1:  Does the music make sense to you?  Do you recognize melodies?  Do you have an emotional response to it?

I've looked at his works like the one you're trying and for me, there is no attraction or chemistry.  So I am not drawn to it and would not learn it except for the perverse fun of freaking people out when they say, "play us something on the piano" which happens fairly often for me.

But that brings me back to Rach and Prok.

Assuming you hear something - some melody or structure.  I had to deal with this with the Rach #4.  For me, each measure broke down into a structural/melodid group.  To memorize it, I "basked" in Rach's rich melodies and harmonies. 

With Back/Beethoven, it is common for an entire measure to be a "single construct" - a musical "word" if you will - can be memorized in a glance.)   With #4, single and pairs of notes/chords became the "words."  Slowing it down 10x so each note had a chance to "resonate" and burn itself into my memory. 

This was a very arduous task and it took much longer to memorize.  However, when it was, it was amazing to immerse myself into playing it.  The Prokofiev is even more profound for me - it is other worldly for me with some of the most beautiful bits I've ever heard (unfortunately, I don't see this beauty throughout all his compositions.

So I would say TOTAL IMMERSION.  Get PRIMAL.  Slow to an absurd level (I read somewhere that Glenn Gould would prepare for performances playing through his pieces at an insanely slow speed.  My comment on that is if you really want to test your memory, DO JUST THAT!  There is no room for slop or gray areas!

[dratinistar]

Well I think patterns are key to memorizing, so maybe even if this music does not have traditional tonal patterns, there are still patterns that are there. Also, after listening to it, (and I've attempted sight reading this before and yes agreed it is very hard), if you hear the upper melody, im not aure about you but it seems very recognizable to me. Not sure how great your aural skills are(recognizing a melody wont do me any good I'm so bad at knowing what the actual notes are). When I was first learning a piece by Robert Helps (albeit still more tonal than this) I thought the left hand was completely random notes, ended up after months a composer friend pointed out a hidden chord progression like wow. Probably not something similar here, but the way i memorized that piece was simply remembering patterns for each bar. Ie third in Db followed by 4th, next bar same but 5th instead of 4th etc etc

key point: after a while you will get to a point where your note consciously thinking this anymore. When you look at the keys you can immediately see the pattern.

[Bob]

You still have muscle memory.  You don't have to play it as it would be performed.  You could pound on the keys to engrain it faster that way. 

Same as anything else, except the melody, harmony, tonal center is different.  I still hear lines and sections.  If not, you can make your own for memorizing it.

It does have a steady beat so that's going to help.

Repetition.  And keep hacking away at it section by section like anything else.

I like the piece.  I haven't listed to a lot of him.