I can't remember if I've already posted this on here but memorising is a skill worth also teaching for those to whom it doesn't come naturally. As an experiment I once memorised a piece of piano music without playing a single note of it. I sat down and studied the chords, inversions, modulations, harmonic progressions etc, and physically shaped them under my hands and rehearsed the "fingering" and how it would "feel" to play and tried to hear as much of it in my head as I could (all without singing out loud). Basically everything I could think of bar the actual playing of it. It was really to prove that there are so many different aspects to memorising and that they're all as important. (And also to show how important using the correct fingering every time is too!!!!...) But if the muscle memory should ever fail then the more "academic" memory kicks in. Muscle memory alone is not enough, even though it is extremely important.

In Kendall Taylor's book he says that as soon as possible all practice should be from memory - and I think he knew what he was talking about. He was of course speaking from the viewpoint of the pianist, as do I

When it comes to performing it doesn't matter what method you use so long as the final sound is good enough. You can:

memorise - as quickly or slowly as you like

sight read from a new score

make a "quick study"

play a piece you know well from the score

improvise, or

play by ear

If you regularly attend recitals you'll probably notice that the more athletically difficult the piece the more likely it is to be played from memory. I have never seen anyone perform "Gaspard de la Nuit" or "Islamei" other than from memory. A|nd while I have seen Chopin etudes and Ballades performed with the score they have never been as convincing as a memorised performance.

I find that it is just impossible to play extremely technically demanding pieces from the score. Even when a score is being used as a reminder any difficult work is being played mostly from memory.

I used to have no trouble memorising at all. Now I have, and its connected with this stupid brain problem thats happened before and now gone on for 6 weeks.

Whether I've just lost confidence in memorising I don't know, but when I did my LRSM I had my music on a stand infront of me, memorised bits and used the music as an aide memoir Now obviously if I was asked to do a whole opera I'd have to memorise the whole thing. However I'd find it much harder than I would when I was half my age when I'd have memorised the lot on two rehearsals.

I still encourage my singers to memorise, and praise my pianists when they do too. For ABRSM grades they have no option but to sing from memory, however I would write and ask for special dispensation if a pupil had a problem similar to my own so that they could use sheet music. This requires a letter from me, and a doctors letter. In the past the board have been very accomodating in granting these requests.

I certainly think that it's an incredibly useful skill to possess, I memorise thinga really quickly which I'm really pleased about. However under AB exam conditions it wouldn't really be appropriate to make it obligatory, particularly in the lower grades, because without the music in front of them, lower grade takers I imagine would feel less confident of the pieces. I mean, it's certainly fair enough if you WANT to play from memory if you feel that it'll help your playing, but if it were compulsory, there'd be a lot less distinctions and merits I think, and perhaps even passing would become difficult. I know that memorising scales in AB exams is compulsory, but that's not exactly difficult is it?

in my university, we need to perform at least 1 piece from memory for very end of term recitals. in the final year we need to memorise a complete concerto

Well it's standard that Concertos must be performed from memory, particularly if with an orchestral accompaniment

I think memorising is really important, but am so glad its not compulsory for exams, because i tend to get lost without the music if i'm under pressure. I could see me playing (or trying to play ) something from memory in an exam being a complete and utter disaster.

I think memorising is important and I memorise things really quickly. However, and I'm sure this will have been picked up already in the 11 pages of posts, it has advantages and disadvantages.

I play almost everything from memory but once, in a lesson when I was incredibly tired, I got halfway through a piece and had a complete mental blank - I had no idea what my fingers were meant to do next. After a couple of seconds I recovered and carried on but I always have a fear that this'll happen in an exam and I'll not be able to go on (and I can't read the music so I'd be stuffed).

The good thing I find about playing from memory is that I can completely focus on the piece itself and really hear what I'm playing and improve bits that don't sound quite right. However, learning this in the first place is difficult - once I've learned the piece I find it very difficult to look at the music so I miss all the performance directions.

If the ABRSM were to come up with an option for the exam (1) standard sight reading passage (2) play a piece from memory then I'd be chuffed as I would choose option (2) every time and stop failing sight reading miserably (I know this is a rather silly notion but I can but dream...)

Does it depend on the instrument as to whether you can memorise or not?

I don't naturally memorise anything on clarinet, no matter how many times I've played it. The only time I've ever memorised some clarinet music is when my teacher gave me a piece to memorise over last year's summer holiday. I had to work extremely hard at it, and I managed it by the end of the holiday, but only because I'd *worked* at it every day for about 8 weeks. Even exam pieces which I practise a lot, I couldn't play any of them from memory, not even G1 pieces and not even sections of them.

For the last week I've been playing a nice little piano piece. It's only for beginners, and it's only 16 bars (12 if you take out the repeat!), but I can now play it from memory even though I haven't *learnt* it from memory. It's not much I know, and it remains to be seen whether I'll be able to play longer or more difficult pieces from memory in the future, but compared with the fact that I couldn't even play something like "When the saints" from memory on clarinet, I'm really surprised that I can play something from memory on piano, no matter how small. I can see the notes/fingerings in my head, and I think I could write them out pretty accurately. There's no way I could do this for clarinet.

Do other people who play more than one instrument find that you can memorise with one but not the other?

I'm not much of a memoriser on piano exept for short/simple things and maybe things where the harmnoy is VERY obvious.

On clarinet I can memorise more easily probably because it's only one line and I can use my ears to tell me where I'm going.
Or maybe it's just that I'm at a lower level on clarinet....

I can't memorise on clarinet even at the lowest level

I can memorise on piano far more easily than I can on flute. I played two of my Grade 5 piano pieces from memory, and have worked on memorising Grade 8 repertoire as well.

It may be partly because my flute music tends to be too complex to sing, and so I don't hear it in my head well enough to memorise. The only flute pieces I have a decent chance of playing from memory are the Mozart concertos and Andante in C.

I'm firmly in the 'can't memorise' camp, even when I know a piece very very well. I don't necessarily read every note off the page but having the ability to check where it goes next is necessary.

On the very odd occaisions I play a solo with accompaniment it these days it is with the community band I'm a member of. Normally I don't lift the stand much if at all from the height I'd use when seated thus it doesn't get in the way of my communication with the audience but is still visible. I'm long sighted so whilst I can't 'read' the blacker bits I can see enough.

Most of the concerts I've been to recently soloists have played from the music pretty much in the same way I do.

The only time not being able to memorise has been a problem to me was in a concert last year where we were playing a transcription of Bolero and the conductor wanted a few of us to walk in whilst playing. I didn't manage to memorise enough to get me to my seat so added some harmony Ravel probably wouldn't have approved of!

Beyond that is just the frustration when someone says 'well play something then' when you're holding an instrument with no music around.

I've never been able to memorise anything - until I started on the Classical Guitar...

I think it's the way my teacher instroduces new pieces. He starts me off just playing a chord progression until I have it smooth and then puts a few notes until I have that secure - then shows me the original, generally something written two hundred years ago and very beautiful - but by then I have the basic chord structure and can adapt that into the finisherd piece really quickly. This approach works really well on the guitar as once my hands are in the right position to play a chord picking the notes from it is simple.

And best of all - I can always play something without music.

Interestingly, I seem to be the opposite of other woodwind/pianists. I have never really been able to memorise things for the piano (I have memorised a grand total of 2 pieces in the nine years I've been playing it, and they were by 'accident', in that they were just so repetetive and i played them so much, that they stuck). There's just too many notes to remember!

For recorder though, I find i can pretty much play pieces from memory after learning them for a couple of weeks. Its probably something to do with having one note at once.

Just out of interest, what types of memory do people, who find memorising for piano easier, have? I would say I am almost entirely visual, so, while I can picture a single line in my head without too much trouble, I find it difficult to remember all the notes etc of chords in a piano piece.

I was about to reply that I don't see any difference between my two instruments, but then I realise they both use the same music so my case isn't really valid

The two most important to me - and roughly equal - are aural (aka remembering how the piece sounds and its rhythms) and tactile/kinaesthetic (i.e. hand or motor memory). Next comes an overall grasp of the structure of the piece - which does not take a lot of work to figure out.

Next there is the detailed technical understanding of harmonic progressions, what the composer has done with the themes and ideas, how the figuration and texture complement the musical idea, how apparently different themes are related and so on. This is really hard work, but it makes the two primary forms of memory a lot more secure (and to playing the piece a lot better).

According to all the books I have read, and everyone I have discussed this with, this is normal - it is how most musicians remember.

There are two forms of visual memory. In piano one of those is the memory of patterns of keys and the positions and actions of your hands as you play. I find this useful for learning difficult passages, but that is short-term. It is also useful for the parts where the mood or style of a piece changes, but not for remembering whole pieces.

Remembering an image of the printed page - staves covered in meaningful squiggles - is mentioned by everyone that writes on musical memory, but apparently it is quite rare. But very impressive when it is highly developed. There are stories of conductors that literally have a photographic memory in that they can look at a score for a short time, then call up an accurate image to mind and read from it as though they had the real score before them. How much truth there is in this, and how much such stories have grown in the telling I leave to your own judgement.

I do a fair amount of memorising - it tends to be jazz standards which are usually fairly short (32 bars) and relatively simple. I think I would agree with Tom's description, although I can't say I've analysed it to the same extent. I would add remembering intervals and the function of the notes e.g. "Autumn Leaves" starts on the 5th of the ii chord, up the scale to the 7th, then the 7th of the V chord. Thinking like this helps me with transposing into different keys - I usually try to learn tunes in at least 2 keys for tenor and alto saxes, and if I'm being good in all 12 keys.

I was thinking about the visual memory bit the other day - by this I mean remembering the printed page. There are times when I remember parts of tunes like this - it tends to be marker points e.g. the start of a section. The weird thing is I'll "remember" a written page that I've never seen. For example I have some concert pitch Real Books and I'll learn a tune in Bb/Eb without writing it down but I'll use a visual prompt of a chart I haven't seen at times when I'm trying to recall it.

The nearest I could find to my view was, "No, other reason", but more precisely I think it depends upon what sort of musician you are or want to be. The people who obviously need to memorise are stage singers, both soloists and chorus. Solo pianists and string players have been expected to do so, and for the majority of professional players who can make their living as soloists, memorising is a natural byproduct of the amount of work they have to put in to deliver their part to the amazing standard that is demanded. Even so, some players choose to use the sheet music when delivering a particularly complex piece, e.g. Pierre-Laurent Aimard in the UK première of Elliott Carter's "Caténaire" in the first Prom last summer. Playing chamber music without the parts remains unusual.

In orchestral playing, memorising is very rarely required. One circumstance in which it used to be necessary (I don't know the present situation) was in auditioning for a principal position at the Berlin Philharmonic in the Karajan days, if Jimmy Galway's account is accurate: he was given an audience of the whole orchestra and Karajan instructed him, "Play Brahms 4", and "Play Daphnis and Chloe"; Galway was expected not only to have these long solos memorised but to know which one was meant!

In most professional orchestras, sight-reading is useful, but quick study is essential. Sight-reading is essential in recording incidental music for film, since it is nearly always new music, and rehearsal time is expensive. Regular members of an orchestra usually know the works to be played throughout a concert season and have time to prepare for them. Only last minute deputies might be faced with sight-reading on the day, if they happen upon a work that they have never played before.

I would not have said I was a memoriser - I can do it but it requires a lot of effort and I tend to see the music in my head while I'm playing.

However, I help my daughters with their music practice and find that I memorise their music without any particular effort (often without even playing it and I never see the notes in my head). Obviously their music is much easier than the music I usually play myself but it has made me wonder if so many professionals can play from memory simply because they are excellent musicians who are playing music which is not "hard" for them.

I suppose my hypothesis is that when the brain is not distracted by technical issues it automatically memorises things.

I really liked this idea. Encouragement is the key here. Pupils learn from their teachers and if not encouraged to at least try and improve memorising, no wonder many think it's a hurdle and simply don't do it. I do feel a lot of not placing any importance on memorising is down to attitude.

Of course it's down to attitude: but ability to memorise is varied, and I'm still not convinced that it is an essential skill - a useful one certainly, but not essential. So in a limited timeframe, such as the one I have (already 44, heading for arthrits some day and wanting to learn to play suuuuch a lot of music whilst running a home, a family and holding down a job as a doctor), putting in the sort of extra effort needed to achieve even a modest improvement in my abilities to memorise is quite frankly not worth it. Some have got so hyped up with fear about whether or not their memories might desert them that they're in danger of forgetting they're still good musicians - by all means try teaching the skills, but if it's not their first aptitude, and they're getting worried about it, why crank up the pressure about it?

I have been playing the piano in some shape or form for some forty years now, but I doubt that the music I know to play from memory would fit on two sides of A3 paper!

So I have no intention of battling against a lack of aptitude for memorising music when all I want to do is play more of the music I love.

I shall be quite happy playing from the scores for my Diploma in 21 days' time, with no feeling of failing to rise to convention - whose convention? Not mine! The exam will be hard enough, without the prospect of going blank at any moment!

If it comes naturally, then all well and good.

My thoughts exactly!

Can you actually teach memorising? For me, it's just something that happens, I have no control over it and don't know how it happens.

Sometimes it's having an idea of what the score looks like in my head, others, it's pure "feeling" and muscle memory.

I don't memorise now, and I suppose that skill has become more rusty over the years.

I would say I'm not a natural memoriser maybe because I am constantly learning and 'sight reading' new pieces all the time.

However, when I think back to my exams...many moons ago, I MUST have memorised the pieces without me realising. I always had the score in front of me but there is no way I was reading the music...especially the very quick and more complicated pieces.

I suppose maybe parts were memorised and other parts needed a 'memory jog' from the score such as a particular chord which would herald a sequence I would have memorised without realising.

I think many would be surprised how much of a piece they have memorised, and once they get the 'connecting bits' memorised, the whole piece can be achieved.

I also get my pupils to memorise certain pieces like shboa, It is good for them and their confidence as a memorised piece can be played anywhere...as long as there is a piano nearby and a good chance for them to 'show off', and deservedly so!

I do agree though, some people do find it 'more natural' and easier than others.

It is worth making the effort to memorize the pieces that you are studying, even if you never quite manage it ... or, if you do that you choose nevertheless to perform them with the score in front of you (for fear of a memory lapse, or to be sure of accuracy in details of phrasing and dynamics, or both).

It forces you to pay much closer attention to all kinds of things, both the music itself, from broad structure to small details, and the physical movements you make to realize it. So you end up playing the pieces with more fluency and understanding - just better in every way.

I don't know if you can teach, but you can certainly encourage. In our jazz class the teacher will regularly take away/turn over the music to general groans all round. But actually we normally manage to pull it together OK. For a jazz musician it's expected to have a reasonable amount of repertoire memorised. BUT the pieces are generally a lot simpler AND playing precisely the dots on the page is not necessary (or even desirable in many cases).

A good old thread to resurrect!

I've never been a natural memoriser, but the one thing that forced me to memorise was wanting to play music that I couldn't possibly play if I was dependent on the score. I've always been good at leaping in the dark - without looking at my hands - but some music just needs hand-watching! Because memorising was so alien to me I've struggled enormously with it, but looking at patterns and analysing is eventually beginning to work. I do think teachers should try to encourage these skills at an earlier level, though, in order that those who make it this far don't have such an uphill battle when it comes to the likes of Chopin Etudes, for example. I think we try so hard in the early stages to make pupils read that we can neglect memorising. Certainly I know I have more natural memorisers than natural sight readers amongst my pupils. However I'm amazed at how many there are that I've had since they were beginners whose sight reading ability suddenly kicks in at about Grade 5. But the natural readers are harder to teach to memorise...so in answer to the original question in this thread, I do think we teachers should pay attention to memory work, and point out pattern recognition and anything else that would help. "Go memorise it now" is not enough. If they can do it naturally they'll do it anyway; if not, they need help with how.

For those who don't attempt to memorise anything until they've reached a decent level of playing I suspect the temptation is to try and memorise the pieces they're currently playing which will be much longer and more complicated than those they started off learning to read.

If somebody who's only ever played music by rote / ear but has reached a decent standard with this approach decided to learn to read music you wouldn't start them off trying to read at the level they're playing. From my own experience I know that learning to play by ear when its not something that comes naturally necessitates going back to very simple and well-known tunes before gradually increasing complexity. I suspect the same may be the case with memorising.

Like Dulciana I tend to memorise by remembering patterns. I also have one or more "anchor points" and I use my ears too. One thing that I have to watch out for is memorising the notes, but being less precise with the rhythm. I know I've ended up before now with a sheet of music in front of me that's in a different key to what I'm playing, so I'm not using it for the notes, but to check my timing along with a metronome, making sure I'm not suffering "memory drift" with the rhythms, or adding in slight pauses where I'm trying to recall the next phrase.

This is a very good point.
I can play most of my daughter's piano and oboe pieces from memory but none of my own. And I memorise hers just by playing through them once or twice and sitting beside her when she practises them.

And I can play some of my pupils' pieces, up to about Grade 4, from memory, even though I've never played them at all! I discovered this when pupils starting into new exam pieces wanted to know how some of the pieces sounded before they had bought the book, and I tried to have a stab at what was on the syllabus at that grade that others were already playing, without having the book myself. This also goes to show how much of memorising comes from analysing the score rather than playing it. In this case, sitting looking over their shoulder to help others play it was enough.

I have to admit, I have not read all of the thread. However, it is quite an interesting subject. Especially, since I recently discovered, how people differ from each other, even family members playing the same instrument.

First of all, I would say that it is not important to learn how to memorize.



I think, this comes with the process of learning and has little to do with high fliers. Once I start on a piece, I usually know neither melody nor notes. If the piece is important to me, for whatever reasons, I start practicing it. With metronom, without. Some passages I can do, just because they remind me of arpeggios, or scales, or whatever. Other passages are easy to memorize because the tune is such an earworm. Then there are passages, I have difficulties with (I play flute). Fingers not synchrone with each other. Bad tone. Or I just simply cannot remember what is next and if it's a fast passage, my fingers just stumble over each other and I have to start the passage or the piece all over again.

During this process, I do several things. (i) I get to know the melody, even if it is not a very harmonic one. (ii) My fingers learn to memorize, what comes next. So, even when my eyes are not fast enough in those difficult passages, I can concentrate on the passages where it is likely I get thrown off course. And by the time, I play all parts to my satisfaction, I found that my father, who has the very bad habit of stealing my notes from the music stand or to go through their pages, while I play, is not able to stop me from playing, even so the notes are not in front of me anymore. I have yet to memorize a piece on will completely, but there are several, where I tried to play them as far as I get from memory, and I almost came though to the last line of the music sheet.

However, my uncle, who is a much better player, and has had much more time to learn the pieces I play, says, he is not able to do this.

For me, this leaves one conclusion: there is no need in the early process of learning an instrument to learn memorizing, unless maybe there is a known problem with that particular task. Even so some pieces might be considered standard repertoire, the skills simply lack in the early years to give a piece, however easy it might seem, the full meaning and purpose. (And an ability it really is that needs to be developed - but there are other sings to help there like poems, lyrics of a song or whatever).

I agree with the several statements, that the emphasis and feeling increase with playing less dependently on the written music. There already is a huge jump from playing with metronom and without to add emotions to a piece. And the more secure a piece is played without a dependency on the notes, I believe the quality and feel of the piece will gain even more. I think, by the time I reach professional level, there is little need to memorize anything of the things, I studied so far. And the new pieces will undergo the same procedure with the same result in the end. Maybe, that will be the point were I - on will - will memorize some turns where I loose track of the melody. But considering the ease to memorize that comes with practice, I will worry about that than.

What I consider important is the ability to sightread. And that is what it should be about in the early learning stages. A musician can play almost anything from sight, when that ability was developed fully. Which will be very helpful in the end when it comes to expression and correct playing.



That same statement could also come from my teacher. She says there are pieces out there, where even a James Galway would not play from memory, because they are just so difficult and unforgiving. (Not, that he would play such pieces in the first place, since most of them are not soloistic). But I certainly understand it, that the notes are just used in such cases as an orientation.

I voted for no - other reason as i know i would cope with memorising the peices for graded exams as once iv played them enough i have learnt them - and i never plan to learn them.

but i know my mum would not cope with memorising a peice but then she is better at sight reading then i am. i don't think its fair to make some-one memorise a piece if they can't.