Do you memorize as you learn a new piece?

[musicalpenguin]

I recently picked back up playing piano after a long hiatus, and do not have a teacher but I've been very interested in learning smart practice methods by myself. I've started reading through C Chang's book on fundamentals of piano practice, and he says to memorize a piece as you're learning - otherwise you're doing the work twice to learn it first, and then try to memorize after.

I'm trying this out with Beethoven Op 13 (pathetique) 3rd movement, and I'm surprised at how fast I'm getting the fingering down when the section is memorized, and how it sounds less like playing piano, but more like playing music. I'm a newbie in this regard, I was wondering if seasoned piano players do this regularly with pieces they're not performing. Do you find it a more efficient way to learn a new piece to learn/memorize at the same time? And do you do this for every new piece you learn, or would you consider that a waste of time?

When I was little, I was never taught to do this - only to memorize after learning if I'm performing the piece.

[brogers70]

I never do any separate work to memorize a piece, I always memorize as I'm learning it.

[lelle]

For me "learning" implies memorization together with mastering technical difficulties and shaping an interpretation. I find it difficult to conceive what "learning" might mean if it does not include memorization. Like what are you learning exactly?

[musicalpenguin]

For me "learning" implies memorization together with mastering technical difficulties and shaping an interpretation. I find it difficult to conceive what "learning" might mean if it does not include memorization. Like what are you learning exactly?

Interesting, maybe it's my lack of experience distinguishing the two. For example, I can learn to play the notes in Tchaikovsky's June, but not necessarily memorized. Some passages may be memorized by muscle memory, but not all. For me in order to memorize something, I need to actively put brain energy into it, use different methods for creating memory and keep practicing passages without looking at the music, and really think about the chords and melody. But I can play just to learn how to play the notes hands together and not necessarily actively use memorization techniques.. perhaps this means I have not truly learned it? 

[essence]

I've never memorised anything.

I may be able to play the opening few bars of the Chopin revolutionary study, or the first bars of the Schubert B flat sonata.

That's it.

At primary/prep school, I was the only one who coul dnot learn Blake's 'tyger, Tyger'. I was forced to recite it every day to the teacher for the following week.

My current memory of it - 'Tyger, Tyger, burning bright, in the middle of the night'.

Doesn't mean to say I couldn't attain high (scientific) academic qualifications or career.

Interestingly, my organ/piano teacher at school, Peter Smith, who went on to be head of piano at Eton, performed the Schumann concerto with sheet music with a semi-professional orchestra.

His organ improvisations were always melodic.but maybe they weren;t as improvisory as I had originally thought!

[brogers70]

Interesting, maybe it's my lack of experience distinguishing the two. For example, I can learn to play the notes in Tchaikovsky's June, but not necessarily memorized. Some passages may be memorized by muscle memory, but not all. For me in order to memorize something, I need to actively put brain energy into it, use different methods for creating memory and keep practicing passages without looking at the music, and really think about the chords and melody. But I can play just to learn how to play the notes hands together and not necessarily actively use memorization techniques.. perhaps this means I have not truly learned it?

When I learn a piece I (more or less automatically) identify the chords and aspects of the form - things like, "OK here's the second theme and it's in the dominant, so probably it will show up in the tonic in the recapitulation" - places where a theme or idea is repeated but the key or voicing is changed - things like "Ah ha this is just like a few bars back, but it's in the subdominant and the bass is doubled in octaves." All those kinds of observations supplement muscle memory and, for me, anyway, they are just part of learning a piece. The more you practice thinking this way as you learn a piece, the more automatic it will become.

[essence]

Maybe as an aside - as an organist, we are meant to be able to transpose at sight. Apparently, it is easier to do so by understanding the harmonies and relationships between chords, rather than transposing each note in turn.

I couldn't do it either way, and failed my ARCO exam (as did most entrants).

[frodo10]

When I learn a piece I (more or less automatically) identify the chords and aspects of the form - things like, "OK here's the second theme and it's in the dominant, so probably it will show up in the tonic in the recapitulation" - places where a theme or idea is repeated but the key or voicing is changed - things like "Ah ha this is just like a few bars back, but it's in the subdominant and the bass is doubled in octaves." All those kinds of observations supplement muscle memory and, for me, anyway, they are just part of learning a piece. The more you practice thinking this way as you learn a piece, the more automatic it will become.

Sounds like a great way to do this.  Muscle memory can lead you astray in many situations.

[psipsi8]

Wow, this is the first time I heard about memorizing as the piece is being learned. Throughout all my years of piano lessons, I always played with the score and only when the piece was due to be performed, or for exams, did I memorize it. But it was already in great shape. I also took a long break from playing the piano and now I can't for the life of me remember how exactly I went about memorizing pieces, only that I didn't find it difficult. But that was a long time ago. Now, I seriously don't know what to do! I think it involved a combination of playing without looking at the notes but having them there for security and referring to them less often as the piece was being memorized.

[pianistavt]

Yes, I try to start memorizing as soon as I have the notes learned and I can look away with any minor degree of confidence. I have found that memorizing is essential for performing challenging music well.  It's also an interesting mental challenge which can be a rewarding to explore in its own right.

[david-g]

I have never committed a piece to memory.  I always play from the score.  I have no interest in memorising; I would rather put my efforts into learning to play pieces fluently.

[brogers70]

I have never committed a piece to memory.  I always play from the score.  I have no interest in memorising; I would rather put my efforts into learning to play pieces fluently.

People memorize in very different ways. Some use almost entirely muscle memory, some aural memory, some use theory, though I cannot imagine it, some people keep a mental image of the score in their mind's eye. Some people don't memorize at all, particularly people who mostly play in ensembles. For me, the effort that goes into playing something fluently automatically makes me memorize it, without additional effort, but plenty of people play beautifully from the score and would have to "waste time" by memorizing. I think ensemble players mostly don't do it, because it's hard to keep a detailed mental image (visual or aural) of everybody else's part as well as your own, but I think there are a few string quartets who memorize and play without the score. I don't think of that as a party trick but as a way of forcing yourself to pay even more attention to everything that's going on in the quartet. For me, it just feels much better to play without the score.

[dizzyfingers]

Why are some pieces easy to memorize and some are difficult?
As far as I can tell it has nothing to do with how technically difficult the piece is ...

[psipsi8]

Why are some pieces easy to memorize and some are difficult?
As far as I can tell it has nothing to do with how technically difficult the piece is ...

If there are recurrent themes or patterns which take different routes, then that makes it hard to memorize. e.g. in sonata form, as the theme shifts to the development, it's easy to skip it entirely and end up finishing the piece. Kind of cliche though.

[dizzyfingers]

If there are recurrent themes or patterns which take different routes, then that makes it hard to memorize.

Yes, that's it exactly.
Bach fugues are difficult to memorize, yes?

e.g. in sonata form, as the theme shifts to the development, it's easy to skip it entirely and end up finishing the piece. Kind of cliche though.

I guess you're talking about in the heat of performance?
Rather unacceptable strategy.  Odd you would even suggest it.  Skip the development completely?   Better to go back to the second theme of the first section and re-enter the development again.
Is this what happened in a recent performance?

[brogers70]

Rather unacceptable strategy.  Odd you would even suggest it.  Skip the development completely? - lol. 

He meant it's an easy mistake to make, not that it's a good idea, easy to implement.

[morrisjd]

I memorize a piece measure by measure as I learn it.

I was never very good at sight reading, in contrast to my piano teacher who could sight read a difficult piece and transpose it to another key, a tempo.  So in the beginning as I learned a piece, at some magical point it just became memorized automatically.   I think this is an example of muscle memory which apparently worked pretty good for me.  The problem is that you can never be sure that during a performance something wrong is going to happen and you might have a memory dropout.  Also, with muscle memory, you may not be able to continue the piece without starting from the beginning or some earlier point way before the disaster.
Also, some people, such as my piano teacher have the equivalent of a photographic memory.  I believe that she could actually see all the notes in her mind and play them.  The reason for this was that she could look at a page and then flip to the next page long before it was necessary time wise.  Also, like a phonograph, she could start playing a piece from memory at any point in the score. 
Once at a home recital, I was playing a Beethoven sonata when I had a memory dropout.  She got up and sat next to me and put her hands on top of mine causing my fingers to move through the forgotten passage and I was able to recover.  It was simply amazing.
So later, I realized that the most effective way for me to learn a new piece was to review it measure by measure and workout any fingering issues.  Then I would learn and commit the piece to memory, a few measures at a time before muscle memory had taken hold.  This might take several days or weeks playing at a slower tempo before I had the music memorized from start to finish.  The last phase of the process was to gradually bring the piece up to tempo.  This method works for me, but that doesn’t mean that it works for those who are adept at sight reading and capable of memorizing the score in such a fashion that they could accurately reproduce it on paper.  I believe that all great concert quality pianists have this ability to “see” the music.
Although muscle memory is a factor in playing up to speed, it can lead to playing the piece that sounds okay, but some of the notes might be missing or different than the score.  I think it is important on a regular basis to play the piece at half tempo or a slower rate that defeats the automatic mode of playing.  This will identify areas where muscle memory is not doing a good job, forcing you refresh the memorization process used to learn the piece in the first place.  Knowing the rules of harmony and major and minor scales can really help.

[ricercar]

It doesn't make sense to me to separate the two. If you learn a piece without memorizing it, what does "learning" it actually entail?

[ranjit]

It doesn't make sense to me to separate the two. If you learn a piece without memorizing it, what does "learning" it actually entail?

This is what I've always wondered.

[orgarnic]

For me, I don't have to do any extra effort to memorize a piece. Like, if I just practice it in its entirety a lot, I'll figure it out pretty quickly, without devoting any extra time to a section to memorize it.

[ranjit]

For me, I don't have to do any extra effort to memorize a piece. Like, if I just practice it in its entirety a lot, I'll figure it out pretty quickly, without devoting any extra time to a section to memorize it.

I feel like you end up having to do it for extra security though.

[dizzyfingers]

For me, I don't have to do any extra effort to memorize a piece. Like, if I just practice it in its entirety a lot, I'll figure it out pretty quickly, without devoting any extra time to a section to memorize it.

Do you play Bach, memorize Bach this way?

[jonathannyc]

Hello MusicalPenguin,

A very interesting topic!  To state the obvious, not everyone's brain processes information the same way. Some musicians are primarily auditory, others use muscle memory, some are visual (seeing the paper in their mind), and some are conceptual (form). I try to combine all of these, but some aspects are more pronounced.

I am not the prototype for other pianists, but I will share that I don't work at 'memorizing' a piece so much as knowing it (same thing from a different perspective). The process is straightforward. First, I take a moment to visually look over the form of the piece: is it A-B-A-Coda (ternary), or is it in rondo form? Whatever it is, I label each section as if I were teaching one of my students, and the sections have their own internal forms. The form is usually simple and can be assessed in seconds; it's pretty obvious as we turn the pages. And I haven't really touched the piece yet.

Only then do I sight-read the music at a moderate tempo, as best I can, to get a sense of how the various passages 'fit' with my hands, and see where I will need to give extra attention to technical challenges.

Then I go through the piece measure by measure, and with a pencil in small print every harmonic change. Also, the general movement of the music toward points of arrival. The patterns or directions of melodic lines, and bass lines, etc. I find it relaxing to do that before I really launch into the piece. But in the process, I learned a good deal. I do compel myself to memorize the harmonic progressions. I don't say others should, but I make myself do that because I am never fully convinced I have that securely enough.

I am very particular about fingering and fuss endlessly experimenting to find the best fingering for my type of hands. Then, various technical challenges require me to experiment with various hand positions, etc. By the time I have done that, I have substantially memorized the music without being self-conscious about it.

There is nothing innovative in what I do and have written above. It is very plain, old-fashioned, methodical accountability. As a note of reference, Murray Perahia, while waiting around for hours in airports for his next flight, would take out blank manuscript paper and write down, measure by measure, his recital pieces to prove to himself he knew the music. I have not done that, but I think I would be better off adopting that habit.

regards,
_____________________
https://www.bakerpianolessons.com/


 

[lostinidlewonder]

I sort of take a different angle in answering this question and rather look at the philosophy of memorizing music which is rarely spoken about and worst still not even considered by many! I am not arguing that memorization is bad or that musicians shouldn't memorize. Rather, I argue that memorization should be one approach among several legitimate options, not an unquestioned requirement that defines legitimacy.

You don't always need to memorize music. It has become quite a fashion over the last 150 or so years of piano playing, though. Liszt really popularized the idea of memorizing virtuosic music and we've blindly followed this ideology ever since. Competitions require memorization, conservatories maintain requirements and classical music culture remains conservative on this point, expecting memorization in concerts.

Historically piano works have become more and more difficult over time which pushes to the need to memorize virtuosic patterns. I honestly think its fine to totally push against this trend that as you get better at piano you need to learn harder and harder works, especially at the upper levels of difficulty. In fact I have found it a much more rewarding and healthy approach to music especially through my students and my own experiences. The piano world needs to pay more attention to this.

When I was younger I would learn all sorts of virtuosic works which required a lot of energy to memorize and master, my successful solo concerting career was all about this! I hardly do any where near as much of that today. I much rather spend my time playing works I can sight read immediately at mastery or near mastery level and building my reading skills. For me this is a much more enjoyable and rewarding experience. I can play thousands of works a year as opposed a few technical monsters a year. Even through reading scores and playing you may automatically memorize works, or at least it becomes easier and easier and the sheets just cue the memory. so it's not like reading totally removes memorization, they combine.

I think there's a deeper issue here, we've somehow decided that 'knowing' a piece means having it locked in your head without any external support. But musical knowledge isn't just mental,  it's in your fingers, your ears, your understanding of the harmony and  sometimes in having the score in front of you as part of the whole system. These all work together.

I think piano trends have changed in this world that many classical music lovers (who are a very small minority) miss. Most people in this world don't care about virtuosic playing, they really don't know the differences in difficulties. So why do classical pianists spend their life trying to memorize technically challenging works when no one cares? Sure if you personally enjoy it go for it, but why restrict yourself to only playing works which require memorization?

Audiences respond to musical communication, not technical difficulty or memory feats. The obsession with virtuosity might be more about what we pianists value among ourselves than what actually makes music meaningful to listeners. If audiences don't care and the music doesn't require it, then memorization becomes more about maintaining professional standards and proving seriousness than about making better music.

Sometimes I wonder if we're maintaining this expectation more to prove ourselves to each other than for any musical reason. How many talented people have stopped playing because of memorization anxiety? How many interesting musicians never enter the field because they can't or won't meet this particular requirement? We should return to the flexibility that existed before this became dogma. This isn't inventing something new, it's actually circling us back to the roots of keyboard performance, when having music in front of you was perfectly normal and respectable.

Maybe this quote from Richter will be interesting. Later in his life he performed with the score which caused quite a stir since the piano world has been so brainwashed to expect memorization (and if you look in history performing concerts by memory used to be a sale point and mentioned in advertising, nowadays its just expected!)

Richter explained his choice pragmatically:

"I do not want to spend my life preparing the same pieces over and over to keep them in my fingers. I want to explore new repertoire, to delve deeply into works and then move on. The score allows me this freedom."

But for most audiences and critics, this was shocking abdication. If a performer of Richter's stature still faced pushback, what hope did younger, less established musicians have for choosing score-present performance?

Ferdinand Ries, Beethoven's student, wrote in his biographical notes:

"Beethoven often improvised for hours, but when playing composed pieces, he nearly always had the music before him. He was too preoccupied with inspiration to burden his memory with works already fixed in notation."

The last sentence is particularly significant: Ries treats memory as a burden, not a virtue. The assumption is that creative energy is better spent on interpretation than memorization.

When Beethoven premiered his own piano concertos, sketches and accounts suggest he
sometimes used scores, sometimes played from memory, depending on how recently he had
composed the work and how thoroughly he had prepared. The choice was pragmatic, not
ideological.

[essence]

I agree. Partly because my brain is not designed to memorize anything, be it poetry or music.

Organists are not expected to memorize, and they don't, with some rare exceptions. Possibly because they are expected to cover a wide range of music every week. But more a matter of tradition.

I once had an excellent organists/pianist teacher, he played the Schumann concerto with the county orchestra, he played Gershwin Rhapsody in Blue with the school orchestra, but always with sheet music. Nobody seemed to mind.

[lelle]

I see more and more local pianists (not as high-profile as the greatest greats today) play with tablets and a pedal for turning pages. I think it's good that this is being normalized.

[dizzyfingers]

For me it's less about being able to perform a piece without music - i.e. fully and securely memorized, as it is going through the memorization process:  it makes you (me) think about how the piece was composed, the harmonic plan among other things.  It's a way of getting to know a piece better.

[eee-_-]

For me I memorize it , Becuase I can have more of my mind on music and not on reading the score , biologically speaking (in a nutshell if u couldnt tell ) Eyes and reading take a lot of brainpower , which can be used by your ears .