Accidental Notation Rules: Every one should be marked.

[mrcreosote]

The Rule is that once marked, they are implied for the rest of the bar.

That was appropriate for Bach and Beethoven - but it becomes burdensome with Rach and Prok and ridiculous with Ligeti. 

No one at that time ever thought music would become that complex - one needs a mini eidetic memory to remember 4 or 5 accidentals being held over in a bar.

Or the "failings" of notation with the Bartok Piano Concertos.

I would even go so far as to make the middle line of the staff a bold one to help with sight reading difficult works.  And then there could be the use of colors.

Notation is still stuck in the baroque.

[georgey]

I don’t disagree with most of your ideas.  Here are a couple thoughts.

If you don’t need to sight read music sight unseen and can have the music 1 day in advance prior to reading, you can make a Xerox copy and add supplemental accidentals and color coding and notes as you see fit.  Your coding will be personal to you.

Charles Ives was able to notate exactly what he wanted in his concord piano sonata for example without any new notational ideas.  He did go to 3 or 4 staves in spots (if I remember) as done many times by earlier composers and omitted bar lines in many parts.  Most other modern composers were able to use our standard notation system to express what they wanted.

Some musical instruments read music notes with 5 or 6 ledger lines.  This would seem to be tough to me.

There is a simplified notation system so you are not the only one thinking this is a problem!  But I doubt much music is available using this.

Simplified music notation is an alternative form of music notation designed to make sight-reading easier. It was proposed by Peter Hayes George (1927-2012). It is based on classical staff notation, but sharps and flats are incorporated into the shape of the note heads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_music_notation

[mrcreosote]

I don’t disagree with most of your ideas.  Here are a couple thoughts.

If you don’t need to sight read music sight unseen and can have the music 1 day in advance prior to reading, you can make a Xerox copy and add supplemental accidentals and color coding and notes as you see fit.  Your coding will be personal to you.

Charles Ives was able to notate exactly what he wanted in his concord piano sonata for example without any new notational ideas.  He did go to 3 or 4 staves in spots (if I remember) as done many times by earlier composers and omitted bar lines in many parts.  Most other modern composers were able to use our standard notation system to express what they wanted.

Some musical instruments read music notes with 5 or 6 ledger lines.  This would seem to be tough to me.

There is a simplified notation system so you are not the only one thinking this is a problem!  But I doubt much music is available using this.

Simplified music notation is an alternative form of music notation designed to make sight-reading easier. It was proposed by Peter Hayes George (1927-2012). It is based on classical staff notation, but sharps and flats are incorporated into the shape of the note heads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_music_notation

SIMPLIFIED MUSIC NOTATION:

I should have expected a "Simplified Music Notation" "movement!"  - Thanks so much for that reference.

LIGETI"S DEVIL's STAIRCASE:

*)  12/8 Time:

I've been trying to "do something" w/Ligeti's Devil's Staircase which is in 12/8 time where no only are the bars not marked, but there are dashed bars that have nothing to do with the 12/8 - that alone makes me wonder what I'm supposed to do when paying it!  (Of course, I came to the conclusion some decades ago that I will completely ignore what the composer intended.  I say rubato gave me that license and also listening to Rachmaninoff playing his own works - I would say that no one would ever come to that interpretation if just given the music.)

*)  Faded Copy:  ♯ -vs- ♮:

The copy that I found on internet is very faded - especially in the spine margins which happens when you are Xeroxing from a book (!)  So the difference between Sharp and Natural are impossible to discern in places.  Seriously?  2 vertical and 2 parallel lines the basis for both?  Couldn't be better designed to confuse.  Which begs the question, How did the Flat (b) come about? 

*)  BLASPHEMY:

2.1.1) HaHa:  I'll bet in the very early days of music, Naturals might have never occurred since they might have been considered impure and blasphemy.
....(researched internet)...
I GUESSED RIGHT about "blasphemy:"  It turns out the First Accidental was the Bb.  And then:

"As polyphony became more complex, notes other than B required alteration to avoid undesirable harmonic or melodic intervals (especially the augmented fourth, or tritone, that music theory writers referred to as diabolus in musica, i.e., "the devil in music"). The first sharp in use was F♯, then came the second flat E♭,[citation needed] then C♯, G♯, etc.; by the 16th century B♭, E♭, A♭, D♭, G♭ and F♯, C♯, G♯, D♯ and A♯ were all in use to a greater or lesser extent" (from Wikipedia)

[iansinclair]

In the very early days of Western music, accidentals weren't needed, since everything was done by mode, and our modern concept of a fixed do (C) was unheard of or not thought of.  Only when things began to be played on instruments with fixed pitches -- the viol family, early reeds and early keyboards -- and people wanted to always have the same note as the tonic did things start to get messy.

On the accidentals, though -- it's really a matter of what one gets used to.  If one is reading measured music -- more or less late Renaissance forward to early Twentieth Century -- one knows the rule and its not -- or shouldn't be, after a few years -- a problem.  Properly written out, earlier music really shouldn't have the bars at regular intervals -- they tend to mess up the accents for people who aren't used to earlier music -- and the accidentals are, or should be, on every note where they are needed (I had an awful time with a choir once, on some Tallis which had been published with bar lines.  It took several rehearsals to get them straight on where the emphases were supposed to be!).

[richard black]

I often have to play Berg's operas Wozzeck and Lulu from the vocal score, in which EVERY NOTE (apart from a few obvious repetitions) has an accidental, including naturals for every white note, and I have to say I find it horribly difficult to read.

[mrcreosote]

There is no doubt that here are limitations in he official system - close voiced 5-note chords need scrutinized.

I think the current system is good up to a point in complexity.

How many times have our teachers circled a note and wrote he accidental we kept missing because it was previously set?

I need to get the score for the Bartok Piano Concerto(s) - that have to be entertaining to peruse.

[ca88313]

.

[iansinclair]

I think that including an accidental next all the same notes in a bar is an excellent idea, especially for improving sight-reading.

I also think that including letters next to notes would improve the process of sight-reading, for example, a "C" could be included next to a note if it is marked as a C. Additionally, this would help to reduce barriers to learning how to read sheet music which could make classical music more accessible and increase its popularity even though it has been popular for two centuries or more.

Finally, musicians can learn how to play new pieces at a much faster rate if accidentals are included for all the same notes in a bar and the letter of each note is included next to each note.

I would find a score marked up like that to be hopelessly confusing, and honestly I would never buy such a thing.

Learning the rule about accidentals -- and remembering it -- is no big deal. 

As to placing the note name -- e.g. C, C sharp, etc. -- next to the note, I can think of so many problems related to that I honestly don't know where to begin.  A few.  You should be relating the spatial position of the note on the staves to the spatial position of the note on the keyboard both in absolute terms (where is this thing relative to where I'm sitting?) and in relation to other notes, either in the same chord for chordal music (is this a third away from that?  A fourth?) or in relation to the next note (how far do I need to reach to get there?  A fifth?  A minor second?).  Bluntly, if you can't get that spatial relationship down, you will never, ever learn to sight read anything.  Second, you need to be seeing the shape of the musical line or lines -- again, a spatial thing.  Third, in a complex passage, it would take up an appalling amount of space on the page.

And so on.

This is not arrogance.  The rule about accidentals should be learned somewhere around your fourth or fifth lesson.  The linking of spatial relationships from the presentation on the staves to the position of your fingers and hands should be learned starting with the very first lesson and should be absolutely automatic after a few months.

I might add that I have, over the years, occasionally used the tonic sol-fa method to teach tunes to groups (moveable do, of course)(compare with that song from Sound of Music -- "do, a deer, a female deer; re, a drop of golden sun..." (argh.  Sorry!)), but only rarely as most of the groups and individuals I have worked with have been perfectly comfortable with either conventional or Gregorian notation.

[keypeg]

I might add that I have, over the years, occasionally used the tonic sol-fa method to teach tunes to groups (moveable do, of course)(compare with that song from Sound of Music -- "do, a deer, a female deer; re, a drop of golden sun..." (argh.  Sorry!)), but only rarely as most of the groups and individuals I have worked with have been perfectly comfortable with either conventional or Gregorian notation.

Off topic I know - but this just came up and what you wrote reminded me of it.

As most people know, I didn't have formal lessons until late, and music theory even later, in my mid-fifties.  I had some strange way of "reading" music most of my life through anticipation and a sense of Solfege.  I learned Do a Deer when it came out in the movie (yes, I'm that old), and that was a year after we were drilled in movable Do solfege in school.  Recently my teacher and I were doing some ear things, and I was asked to play Do a Deer by ear on the piano.  Apparently I have been singing it totally diatonically all these years, when there are accidentals in the song!  Having been mostly a singer, I did not have a strong sense of chords to anticipate for example E7 to A, and since it was about Solfege, I sang the notes ** in ** Solfege.  It opened a whole can of worms.  I looked up the sound track to see how I could have misheard the one and only record (besides Sound of Music) that I owned in childhood.  Julie Andrews sings the key notes very precisely, but there are also notes that she half "speaks" instead of singing.  Those notes were obscure to my ears, especially listening as a child, so I "filled in" what I expected, according to the pattern I knew.
The accidentals start here:

=93
Any thoughts?

[iansinclair]

You should have heard Baroness von Trapp's comments about that song...

[keypeg]

You should have heard Baroness von Trapp's comments about that song...

Can you paraphrase?  

[iansinclair]

Can you paraphrase?  

She hated it!  On the other hand she recognised that it was very popular and catchy.

Her usual comment was a polite request "turn the d__n thing off!"

[keypeg]

She hated it!  On the other hand she recognised that it was very popular and catchy.

Her usual comment was a polite request "turn the d__n thing off!"

Well, that's certainly clear enough! 

I had never thought about it before that recent incident.  Since I learned it so young, it was a thing that had "existed forever", and later seeing it used for teaching, I thought of it vaguely as a teaching song.  But really, it has some major flaws as such - and it was actually written for entertainment.

As soon as you get to the "La, a note to follow So" you get non-diatonic notes because of the harmony.  You can actually see it taught as "A - D E F G A B" instead of "A - D E F# G# A B".  When a child is given a turn to sing solo, as soon as they get to this part, the adult quickly chimes in.
There's another problem in the "La, a note...." line if used for teaching.  "to follow So..." that word "So" is emphasized like the other emphasized note names. Problem is that you are singing "Ti" (B) and not "So" (G) at that point.   When you teach a new concept there should be congruence.

[anamnesis]

Well, that's certainly clear enough!  

I had never thought about it before that recent incident.  Since I learned it so young, it was a thing that had "existed forever", and later seeing it used for teaching, I thought of it vaguely as a teaching song.  But really, it has some major flaws as such - and it was actually written for entertainment.

As soon as you get to the "La, a note to follow So" you get non-diatonic notes because of the harmony.  You can actually see it taught as "A - D E F G A B" instead of "A - D E F# G# A B".  When a child is given a turn to sing solo, as soon as they get to this part, the adult quickly chimes in.
There's another problem in the "La, a note...." line if used for teaching.  "to follow So..." that word "So" is emphasized like the other emphasized note names. Problem is that you are singing "Ti" (B) and not "So" (G) at that point.   When you teach a new concept there should be congruence.

There's local tonicization going on.  

La	A	note	to	fol	-low	So
A	D	E	F#	G	A	B
6^ (C Maj):5^ (D Major)	1^	2^	3^	4^	5^	6^
La (Fixed Do)	Re	Mi	Fi	So	La	Ti
La:So	Do	Re	Mi	Fa	So	La

[keypeg]

There's local tonicization going on.  

La	A	note	to	fol	-low	So
A	D	E	F#	G	A	B
6^ (C Maj):5^ (D Major)	1^	2^	3^	4^	5^	6^
La (Fixed Do)	Re	Mi	Fi	So	La	Ti
La:So	Do	Re	Mi	Fa	So	La

Yes, that is correct.  As a teaching device for introducing this, it is too complicated.  You see signs of it when you see it as a teaching tool, with chlidren singing along.  Julie Andrews - as I remember her singing playing in my head - speaks the words "a note to follow So", etc.

[mike_lang]

The Rule is that once marked, they are implied for the rest of the bar.

That was appropriate for Bach and Beethoven - but it becomes burdensome with Rach and Prok and ridiculous with Ligeti. 

No one at that time ever thought music would become that complex - one needs a mini eidetic memory to remember 4 or 5 accidentals being held over in a bar.

Or the "failings" of notation with the Bartok Piano Concertos.

I would even go so far as to make the middle line of the staff a bold one to help with sight reading difficult works.  And then there could be the use of colors.

Notation is still stuck in the baroque.

I only really see a major problem with this when it's something that needs to be sight read . . . on the other hand, I'm unlikely to be put in the position to sight read a Bartok concerto, Rachmaninoff sonata, etc. In other words, there's usually time to work it out and mark up the score accordingly . . . and of course, the better you know the piece, the more logical it seems and the less the additional marking is necessary. I think the standing rule is the simplest and cleanest . . . it just demands a little preliminary work.

[outin]

I would find a score marked up like that to be hopelessly confusing, and honestly I would never buy such a thing.

Learning the rule about accidentals -- and remembering it -- is no big deal.  

...

This is not arrogance.  The rule about accidentals should be learned somewhere around your fourth or fifth lesson.  The linking of spatial relationships from the presentation on the staves to the position of your fingers and hands should be learned starting with the very first lesson and should be absolutely automatic after a few months.

Come on...it's not about learning the rule or remembering it...it's about remembering the accidentals while playing. I often cannot, depending on the piece. Some people probably can, it's a matter of short term and working memory capacity I guess.

I have been playing two pieces lately where this is especially frustrating. Despite practicing them for weeks I keep forgetting certain accidentals. So what I do is just add them by pencil myself. Certainly would be easier if they were there already.

I assumed the thing about note names was a sarcastic joke?

[anamnesis]

Come on...it's not about learning the rule or remembering it...it's about remembering the accidentals while playing. I often cannot, depending on the piece. Some people probably can, it's a matter of short term and working memory capacity I guess.

I have been playing two pieces lately where this is especially frustrating. Despite practicing them for weeks I keep forgetting certain accidentals. So what I do is just add them by pencil myself. Certainly would be easier if they were there already.

I assumed the thing about note names was a sarcastic joke?

Accidentals don't come from nowhere.  Follow the musical logic, learn to audiate the piece, and you won't forget the accidentals because that's just how the piece has to go.   If the accidentals are simply "read" and don't have musical meaning, of course, you are going to forget them.  They were never truly "learned" in that case.  

I personally like to to take Schenker's criticism of performers to heart whenever I face similar problems when learning from the score:

"They play away as if only to get to know the work, where they ought to get to know the work first in order to be able to play it at all."

[outin]

Accidentals don't come from nowhere.  Follow the musical logic, learn to audiate the piece, and you won't forget the accidentals because that's just how the piece has to go.   If the accidentals are simply "read" and don't have musical meaning, of course, you are going to forget them.  They were never truly "learned" in that case.  

When one likes to play modern music with several voices and strange harmonies it is not that simple at all. Of course the problem disappears after the piece is fully memorized, which is likely to happen before all the accidentals have found their "meaning" in the music...

[anamnesis]

When one likes to play modern music with several voices and strange harmonies it is not that simple at all. Of course the problem disappears after the piece is fully memorized, which is likely to happen before all the accidentals have found their "meaning" in the music...

Of course, the nature of modern music requires more thought and study.  You shouldn't go into this music, expecting to put in less effort (or even equal effort) than you would with music you more readily grasp.

There's no reason to deny the obvious that more is demanded of the "performer", or rather the musician (in the full meaning of the term), especially when dealing with solo works. 

Part of the issue is that the underlying theoretical approach people use is fundamentally misguided: 

https://komponisto.tumblr.com/post/160087428485/early-webern-the-futility-of-chord-theory-and




 

[outin]

Of course, the nature of modern music requires more thought and study.  You shouldn't go into this music, expecting to put in less effort (or even equal effort) than you would with music you more readily grasp.

There's no reason to deny the obvious that more is demanded of the "performer", or rather the musician (in the full meaning of the term), especially when dealing with solo works. 

Part of the issue is that the underlying theoretical approach people use is fundamentally misguided: 

https://komponisto.tumblr.com/post/160087428485/early-webern-the-futility-of-chord-theory-and

But what exactly is your point? Aren't we talking about notation rules here, which ěs a separate thing from the musical properties of the piece. They are just rules that someone invented. A score only becomes music after it is read and played.

[anamnesis]

But what exactly is your point? Aren't we talking about notation rules here, which ěs a separate thing from the musical properties of the piece. They are just rules that someone invented. A score only becomes music after it is read and played.

Actually I made no comment particular concerning the rules and their application, so I'm actually a tad off topic.  I'm merely commenting on the reasons why we forget them in the middle of a measure, and how it is to be prevented, by holding higher standards of ourselves.

The likelihood of changing notational convention is much less under our control than is changing our attitude, intellect, and relationship with the score. 

[outin]

Actually I made no comment particular concerning the rules and their application, so I'm actually a tad off topic.  I'm merely commenting on the reasons why we forget them in the middle of a measure, and how it is to be prevented, by holding higher standards of ourselves.

The likelihood of changing notational convention is much less under our control than is changing our attitude, intellect, and relationship with the score. 

You do realize that you sound quite pretentious?
People do not always have the luxury to spend time analyzing something before playing it. And not all music is even worth it. That has nothing to do with their personal standards.

Anyway, I would not seriously expect the notation to change, but it's good to challenge convention every now and then.

[mike_lang]

You do realize that you sound quite pretentious?
People do not always have the luxury to spend time analyzing something before playing it. And not all music is even worth it. That has nothing to do with their personal standards.

Anyway, I would not seriously expect the notation to change, but it's good to challenge convention every now and then.

I have to disagree, actually . . . having accompanied hundreds (perhaps thousands) of lessons, I've rarely been in the position where I can't at least do a cursory analysis. I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to play a piece without even 30 seconds to look it over.

I'm not saying every piece merits Schenkerian treatment, just that a quick semi-analytical lookover will reveal the key areas and drastically reduce the odds of unnecessary mistakes. And if you have the time to actually practice the piece . . . there is no reason not to do some analysis, at least in broad strokes. In the end, it saves a TON of time.

[anamnesis]

You do realize that you sound quite pretentious?
People do not always have the luxury to spend time analyzing something before playing it. And not all music is even worth it. That has nothing to do with their personal standards.

Anyway, I would not seriously expect the notation to change, but it's good to challenge convention every now and then.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having an ideal to strive toward.  

Consider the underlying rationale of worrying about missing or forgetting these accidentals in the first place.  

Or to turn it into an analogy, consider the grading of an exam.  The missing of a question is of superficial concern to correcting the prior misunderstanding one had that caused one to miss it in the first place.  From the perspective of anyone passionate about whatever subject or interest was tested, the people concerned about the former (even if they got it right) over the the regard of the latter (even if they got it wrong initially), drive you bonkers.

[anamnesis]

I have to disagree, actually . . . having accompanied hundreds (perhaps thousands) of lessons, I've rarely been in the position where I can't at least do a cursory analysis. I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to play a piece without even 30 seconds to look it over.

I'm not saying every piece merits Schenkerian treatment, just that a quick semi-analytical lookover will reveal the key areas and drastically reduce the odds of unnecessary mistakes. And if you have the time to actually practice the piece . . . there is no reason not to do some analysis, at least in broad strokes. In the end, it saves a TON of time.

I think there's a bit of misunderstanding of what analysis truly is. It can be more formalized, or it can be intuitive. Performance itself is an analysis. 


It's not some weird artificial act, but a representation of how one "hears" and understands a piece.  The more formalized attempts are ways to communicate that understanding to others using the same meta-language. 

[mike_lang]

I think there's a bit of misunderstanding of what analysis truly is. It can be more formalized, or it can be intuitive. Performance itself is an analysis.  


It's not some weird artificial act, but a representation of how one "hears" and understands a piece.  The more formalized attempts are ways to communicate that understanding to others using the same meta-language.  

I agree with all of this.

Analysis isn't really anything more than taking things apart to see how they work. You can take them apart harmonically, structurally, melodically, rhythmically, etc. . . and many of these categories overlap. You can choose to represent these on paper or just keep your observations "upstairs" and if you do choose to express them, you can do so in a number of way . . . each of which add to your understanding.

Analysis needn't be anything formal, anything fancy, anything complicated . . . but it need be done on some level if any real understanding is to be gleaned and a compelling performance to be produced!

[outin]

I don't think there's anything wrong with having an ideal to strive toward.  

Sigh...and you think people don't have one just because they think differently about some grammar rule?

[outin]

I agree with all of this.

Analysis isn't really anything more than taking things apart to see how they work. You can take them apart harmonically, structurally, melodically, rhythmically, etc. . . and many of these categories overlap. You can choose to represent these on paper or just keep your observations "upstairs" and if you do choose to express them, you can do so in a number of way . . . each of which add to your understanding.

Analysis needn't be anything formal, anything fancy, anything complicated . . . but it need be done on some level if any real understanding is to be gleaned and a compelling performance to be produced!

People have varied natural cognitive abilities. A pro can do analysis quickly and make use of it while playing. They have the natural cognitive abilities added with experience and practice and that allowed them to become pro. Someone else can analyze a piece just as much and still forget things while playing because their brain is not capable of storing information as quickly and reliably and handling as much information while performing tasks. No amount of analyzing or practice will get some people to pro level in this aspect. So you cannot judge someone's work ethics or standards just by looking at their results. It's a matter of brain ability as well as good preparation. Understanding can be there, but application still fails.

Not to mention that I've seen many good pianists mark their scores to help them remember certain anomalies while playing. Do they just have low standard and don't understand the piece of music? Or do they just have so much more to handle in their head that some things have to take lower priority...

[dogperson]

...Not to mention that I've seen many good pianists mark their scores to help them remember certain anomalies while playing. Do they just have low standard and don't understand the piece of music? Or do they just have so much more to handle in their head that some things have to take lower priority...

If I am understanding your question in this post as 'are we to assume that marking a score means analysis did not occur and the pianist did not understand the music'?

My opinion would be NO.... the amount of marking of a score is not indicative of lack of analysis or lack of understanding. the score can be marked as a mental marker to the analysis that has been done..and needs to be highlighted in the score; the marking could any aspect of analysis that is important to retain/emphasize.  In fact, I view marking the score as an extension of the analysis that has been done.

[mike_lang]

People have varied natural cognitive abilities. A pro can do analysis quickly and make use of it while playing. They have the natural cognitive abilities added with experience and practice and that allowed them to become pro. Someone else can analyze a piece just as much and still forget things while playing because their brain is not capable of storing information as quickly and reliably and handling as much information while performing tasks. No amount of analyzing or practice will get some people to pro level in this aspect. So you cannot judge someone's work ethics or standards just by looking at their results. It's a matter of brain ability as well as good preparation. Understanding can be there, but application still fails.

Not to mention that I've seen many good pianists mark their scores to help them remember certain anomalies while playing. Do they just have low standard and don't understand the piece of music? Or do they just have so much more to handle in their head that some things have to take lower priority...

Valid observations . . . just two thoughts I would add:

1) Pro or amateur music-lover, everyone can analyze music on some level. Some examples . . .

Form: I can notice that a piece is in two sections.
Harmonic: I can notice that though a piece has a key signature of two sharps and begins in D major, it seems to have acquired a bunch of G sharps by the end of the first section. I may or may not also deduce that it has arrived in the dominant, A Major . . . and when that happened.
Rhythmic: there's a repeating figure in this piece that needs to be figured out because it happens twelve times, so I spend a second and take it apart so I don't have to decipher it in "real time."

These things help, I promise, whether we remember everything or not . . . whether or not we know EXACTLY how the first section came to move to the dominant, whether or not we remember every single G-sharp, whether or not we master that pesky rhythm completely the first time around. It's a process!

2) Vis-a-vis pro pianists/musicians marking music, via a flute teacher friend: "If you make a mistake twice, mark it." In other words, don't allow yourself to make a mistake more than twice, once you're aware of it . . . the act of marking the music and the visual left on the score help to guard against that, saving time in the long run that might otherwise be spent trying to get rid of engrained wrong notes. If there's something unusual in the score, it can be helpful to mark it somehow.

On a personal note, I like to write all over my scores about any number of things . . . just part of my process. In the end, if I'm playing from score, I like to play from a clean one, but that's just me, and I certainly know others with performance scores that are heavily annotated.

[outin]

I'm just puzzled why some of you assume that analysis does not happen or that it's usefulness is in question...

[mike_lang]

I'm just puzzled why some of you assume that analysis does not happen or that it's usefulness is in question...

In my case, I was responding to this, which was said above "People do not always have the luxury to spend time analyzing something before playing it. And not all music is even worth it." I just meant to underline that there's not a time required to do it (and therefore remove it from the class of luxuries) and underscore how much value it often has, regardless of the quality of the music.

I have, by the way, heard many an amateur assert in this and other fora that analysis is not needed . . . just that one "play from the heart," "feel the music," etc. (which is great, but usually gets better results after some study)

[outin]

In my case, I was responding to this, which was said above "People do not always have the luxury to spend time analyzing something before playing it. And not all music is even worth it." I just meant to underline that there's not a time required to do it (and therefore remove it from the class of luxuries) and underscore how much value it often has, regardless of the quality of the music.

Oh, that was just an answer to anamnesis who seemed to insist that EVERY single piece ever played must be analyzed to death before playing so that one cannot forget even some minor voice accidental in some  dense modern text...otherwise one has low standards. The sort of black and white thinking that I personally would find substandard...

Not to mention that understanding something does not help with my memory problems. Details just get lost in my head and sometimes I find them, sometimes not. Understanding or familiarity is irrelevant. It's more a concentration issue than preparation issue.