Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Memorization

Thanks for the memorisation thread rugrag.
Good to know you were still in the game.

That I am!

Firsty, I'm curious to understand why you keep stating that there is no subsitute for sheet music? Who is proposing otherwise? I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I did NOT state that (I haven't read all of the other posts so I apologize if someone else made that assertion). You seem pretty intelligent so I really don't know why you fail understand a simple concept--and I think it would be beneficial to not even consider my interpretation as the Suzuki method because people have been training this way NOT EVEN BEING AWARE OF THE Suzuki method. It's an idea, a philosophy, Suzuki just established this IDEA in the mainstream--and I would also like to explain my interpretation that follows does not include playing complex classical pieces by ear. But, it has already been proven, and it makes complete sense that if one becomes aurally proficient on a sensibly basic level with an instrument first (ANY instrument), THEN learning to read sheet music will become an exponentially easier task (I.E., if one reads a D-major chord for the first time on a staff after knowing how to play a D-major chord in every inversion, then they'll already have an understanding of why it's written in those specific intervals on the staff). I must add that there is a difference between learning by ear ONLY; and learning by ear FIRST, then learning to read music LATER. I think you're confusing the two. I can play by ear and read from music and I can certainly see the advantages of being able to play by ear even when studying a classical piece. For example, when I was learning 'The Solfeggietto,' after listening to it a couple of times first, I already had dissected the chord progression without even looking at the score. That made the sight-reading much easier knowing WHERE the notes where going. I don't know what else to tell you.

btb,
I can't help but be in awe of how limited you are in your way of thinking.
How do you think Mozart and other great pianists learned to play? I know they learned by ear first, from their musical environment.
By the time my students are playing advanced pieces such as Chopin's Nocturnes, they are reading the music.
Stop being so predjudice when it comes to playing by ear or memorizing a piece after you read it! If you are more comfortable with the music in front of you when you play, I'm okay with that. Really, what makes you (personally)most satisfied with your playing, is what's most important.
Is it Dave Brubeck that never learned to read music, and he's pretty good, wouldn't you say?

Thanks for the explanation Geek.
If you hadn't read through the earlier post ... the gist is that rugrag wants to speed up his progress and introduced the subject of memorisation ... hoping for a magical shortcut to his sight-reading chores ... along the way the Suzuki method looked momentarily like manna from heaven ... but was questioned for the misleading suggestion that it was possible to play keyboard music simply by listening ... thus the stand on sight-reading. There's no slur on memorisation ... quite the contrary ... if you have a special aural skill, exploit it to the full.

Chord identity helps avoid the sight-reading single note drag ... but should not be confused with the cul-de-sac of theoretical triads and their inversions ... no composer of merit has ever used such a pedantic triad sequence of dry sticks. Chopin uses potent 2-note chords ... his 3-note chords are rather like the mid-addition of the choicest of adjectives qualifying poetic nouns ... it's a good rule to go sparingly on the muddying effect of too many "adjectives".

Pianobuff
Love Dave Brubeck ... but then he is heir to the rhythmic heritage of past great jazzmen. For what it's worth I learned to play by ear at the age of 15 ... some say to impress the girls ... but obviously later had to upgrade the puerile thumping by learning to read the Moonlight.

Near the end of his life didn't Richter decry memorization and only play with sheet music? I think he felt that memorizing and playing without the music was not being true to what the composer wanted...(He also did not want the light on him and claimed too much emphasis was placed on the pianist and not enough on just listening to the music)

I guess you need to have memorized in order to decry it!

A follow what a lot of posters say about developing cognitive memorising as a skill but not about some people have it some don't.

As you know most music scores are broken down into constituent parts. When we memorise we automatically assign those details to the overall structure. That's how actors memorise pages of Shakespearian verse, or public speakers remember their speeches. The only function of repetition is to familiarise the brain with these patterns and their relationships. Most music can be reduced to nmemonics that enable the performer to call up the various passages in predetermined order. Music lends itself to memorisation by virtue of having inherent harmonic and melodic structure. Some music is more memorable than others for the fact that it follows a clear development. This is true of most early classical sonatas. So if a pianist has to memorise he should study such classical forms in addition to being aware of cadences and developments and of course the diversions taken by practically every composer since Mozart. Having a tangible framework to work with is essential to putting in the detail down to the finer details such as phrasing and fingering patterns. It's easier than it sounds to memorise and not a mystic gift. Most people here could memorise Mozart's Rondo al Turco in a short time as it is basically four or five repeating passages with a development. This memory skill can be extended to longer peices if you employ a similar logical breakdown of the score.

So I would think that pianists who wish to memorise spend a lot of time studying their scores and noting with pencil the main parts and how they relate. And that playing from memory and trying to guess the next statement is very effective. When you look at the score to check and play repeatedly you then reinforce your memory. But just playing from scores all the time from habit will make you a score slave.

But this is just my own guess at what is a serious and compelling subject inviting further research.

I don't agree with that last statement. The pianist and his/her interpretation is very much a part of any performance. If this was not the case then we might as well just listen to a CD. When I go to a recital I am just as interested in the pianist as I am in the music they play. Perhaps I am just conditioned to feel this way but watching a concert pianist play from the score just wouldn't seem right. As a pianist I prefer to perform from memory and feel more able to play musically this way. As an accompanist I nearly always use the score. Partly because I am often less familliar with the music but also because the spotlight is on the soloist rather than myself.

I don't have a photographic memory. I am hopeless at remembering names, numbers, dates etc. The only thing I seem to remember easily is music. I don't know why this is.

i think, from what i know about my teacher, reading music at a performance is not necessarily pure sight reading, because the pianist has already studied the score and worked on details so that the music on the piano is just pretty much a guide for the pianist to follow it without getting lost (since he/she didn't actually memorize it). at least it's what i heard from my teacher and from his recital as a collaborating pianist, of which my teacher said no memorization is needed especially. but he does memorize for his solo performance.

Actually I agree with you about wanting to see the pianist. I just remember watching a special on Richter and that stuck in my mind. I threw it out here just for the sake of interest. I kind of felt bad for those at Richter's last performances. Here they went to watch this epic performer and only saw the glow from his music light :rolleyes:

As far as if it's from memory or the score... If it's a great performance it doesn't matter to me. In the end it's what comes from the fingers and the piano...no?

Another thought: Maybe if Richter was getting old, his memory was not as sharp as it once was so needed to rely on the music more. Also maybe he didn't like his appearance as well getting older and didn't want to be stared at on stage. Famous actors make fewer appearances when they reach old age. Perhaps Richter was saying that about being true to composer's intent and too much emphasis on the pianist as excuses for failing memory and being concerned about appearance as he aged.
____________________
A few on the thread have also mentioned whether one need memorize when accompanying. I recently learned from a piano professor that it's beneficial to have the music in front of you when accompanying or playing chamber music as you can follow along in relation to the other performers parts.

I rarely visit this forum as I thought it out of my range but would like to give my own view on memory facts and abstracts.

There is a somewhat rare ability to play by ear and master the piano to a high degree, devoid of teaching at all. By master I mean to know what keys and chords to play for a certain sound. This is an ability that some folk have and it uses the subconscious brain that has stored up all the sounds available from one octave. Endless years of practice can get you to a reasonable standard playing jazz and blues. It starts on easily remembered tunes which as a child for example can be picked out. It does not lend itself to classical compositions due to requirement of precise representation.

This means of playing requires a sub-conscious brain storage facility that can be on recall to know without pre-thinking just what notes (keys) you play to suit the sound progression of a piece of music.

I ask you; when you play a single note of the piano and you wish to follow on to another to build up a simple phrase of a tune you have never seen on a music score, do you know what the succession is?

People that play as I do know by subconscious recall what sound comes from what key on the keyboard. Without needing to know the name of it or recall from memorising a score. You presumably have a memory of the written score and your brain stores up the music between the notes written and fingers to keyboard. I store up the keyboard sounds so know which notes to play as a progression for a certain tune or anything.

Or you can compose your own music such as the 'Blues' style. That I find is based on the set pattern of repeating the blues theme. Not easy to explain but it sounds right when played.

That last paragraph exposes the biggest problem I, or any other untaught pianist has; lack of technical communication!

Erroll Garner was probably the finest ever at this strange way of playing. I fully understand the absurdity of not reading but there is a great deal of happiness from the realisation that one has this ability and freedom of expression it allows. The more one practices the greater the scope for improvisation.

I never knew so many people had had to be taught the piano then, I though a lot would play by ear. These bar pianists today, do not usually have any music and they play lots of requests. Have they then memorised it all? And if so do I understand that they have memorised it from a score they have learned?

One final thought when I play jazz it is played in the style of the 1930/40s often where precise timing is required and that then seems to be a mathematical ability, in order to time the length of a arpeggio to keep within the rhythm and beat of the music.

Teddy Wilson and Art Tatum were especially adept at that timing ability and how I admire them.

Being an old jazz fan, I find the music so soul satisfying and the beat so exhilarating. Today's piano jazz mostly seems to go into abstract technicalities that is beyond my appreciation. Perhaps that is due to evolution and progress. We all have our eras I suppose and what pleases some is not good for others. I have a letter from an eminent scholar that explained this matter of the subconscious in music theory.

Alan

I just joined the Forum, and this topic caught my eye--so I'm putting in my 2¢ worth.

Memorization is a very valuable tool, and I've found that there are certain pieces that are so technically demanding that I am only able to perform them from memory (Revolutionary Etude, anyone?)

However, I do not require my students to perform from memory. I do encourage them to memorize and use the score as a reference as they perform (I find that most of them feel much more confident when they don't have to fear the "blanking out" and embarrassment that might occur without the score). The bottom line for me is that a performance be successful--that the student's concentration be directed at interpreting the composer's intentions and playing with emotional involvement.

On occasion I have a student who memorizes easily and prefers to perform without the score. That's great--but I have him or her play the piece several times for me to be absolutely sure that it is flawlessly memorized. I hardly ever see a student break down and forget in my recitals; it is very important to me that performances be positive experiences.

I should mention, however, that I also teach voice--and I absolutely require my voice students to perform from memory! Because a vocal performance depends so much upon a singer's communication with the audience, facial expression, and gestures, looking at the music is counterproductive to a good performance. And most singers find memorizing vocal music (even in a foreign language!) to be much easier than memorizing a piano piece, in my experience!

I'm working on a Joplin original (not "dumbed down") of "Peacherine Rag." With Ragtime's synchopated timing, bouncing chord changes in the left hand and all of the jazz happening in the right, I find that the piece, and whatever section I'm working on, doesn't begin to really smooth out and flow until I've memorized it.

Frank W
Thanks for this little bit of information. I would like to hear it. Any idea where it can be heard please?

I love Joplins compositions.

Alan

pianobuff,

If 'pianobuff' sees this he has my compliments for using the Suzuki method as it must be good for those that find that style of teaching best.

As I see it,like this:- 'sound/memory in ear-connects to sound of a note on piano/octave. Once you have stored all the notes-sounds in your brain. The system then follows naturally as ear to piano keyboard. You do not connect a written object on a piece of paper at all. It is direct from ear to that black or white note in that pattern/octave from C to C they are all there to give that ear-sound out. With some of us there is never a need to read music at all. And it is said that some composers never studied music. Open to debate on that I guess. Erroll Garner a prime example.

Just my simple brain at work again. And how I play jazz.

Classics must be possible the way Pianobuff and Suzuki method describe with reading later. But not for all students I would imagine. I never thought about the photographic brain factor.

Alan

Constant repetition.
If you play a piece over and over many times a day for a couple of weeks it usually gets ingrained in your memory and can be played without even putting much thought to it, your fingers will just know where to go.

Surely we need hard facts, statistics, evidence here. Does anybody know of a scientific study comparing the two groups of pianists (sightreaders and memorizers) to see which of the groups are doing best in the long run? It must be scientificaly scrutinizable.

But: Saying that you can't play musically when sightreading seems to me a little like saying you can't tell a story properly, reading it from paper, and offcourse you can do that, if you have practiced it thoroughly. Now, the thing here is, it seems: if you know the music you're playing, have really studied it, it doesn't matter if you play it from memory or not. I mean, how often have you seen members of an orchestra or a string quartet play from memory??

On the other hand when did you last see a jazz pianist play from the written score. It's perfectly posssible to master the piano keyboard and play by ear. Though few have done it. I grant you jazz is not comparable to classical which is played as composed, whereas jazz is improvisation.

You can play chords from memory and harmonic variations of same.

It's just having a connection between memeory of a piece of music and the sounds that the keyboard hold within, wether by mastering the instrument or being taught to read.

Alan