I was reading the website pointed to in another thread of an American piano teacher. On it she discussed recitals and said on several occasions 'don't force your student's to play from memory in recitals if they don't want to and don't make them feel they've failed if they don't do so'. Furthermore the words that followed this imply that American piano teachers would be shocked by this and it would think it would reflect badly on them if their students didn't play from memory.

In this country, however, it's rare to see students playing from memory, few do it in exams and it seems to be the reserve of those who are studying at music college level and beyond. There seems to be little emphasis on people being taught to play from memory; and really no encouragement for people to play from memory in recitals. Do you think there should be more emphais on playing from memory in this country, from the early stages? Should the AB require this in exams? (I know Trinity have it as an optional thing that one can do something else instead).

It seems at the diploma level (where, although it's not compulsary, the subtext of the syllabus appears to be that they'd like you to memorise) there's a sudden requirement to memorise with no preparation earlier levels whatsoever. Should this be addressed? I know that many people argue that it's not worth teaching it since so few people make it to professional levels when it's required: do you agree with this? It seems to be giving those who will make it to a high level a disadvantage over other people in different cultures who do have this requirement from the start. A similar argument could surely be that we shouldn't bother to teach a solid foundation of technique as this will bore people, and half of instrumentalists give up before grade 3 anyway....

Any thoughts appreciated .

I personally think that people shouldn't be forced to memorise pieces in an exam situation. Yet, I think it can be a very useful skill to have. For instance, when I play from memory, I can play more expressively, but I don't feel comfortable without the music being there. Yet, I use memory to learn piano pieces, as I get confused at times.

I voted 'no - other reasons'. Forcing inexperienced pianists who find memorising difficult\impossible to perform from memory leads to disaster.

Once candidates reach diploma level then the picture changes. Professional pianists are expected to perform solos from memory; it is part of the 'job description'. As is the case in all walks of life, we cannot take an exam if we cannot meet the requirements for it.

I think playing from memory should be discouraged if anything in the early stages. I think reliance on playing from memory leads to problems with following the score and subsequently sight reading. If I had watched the music more closely in my earlier piano playing I might be able to learn things quicker now. Reading music and performing at the same time is a skill in its own right. And if you do play from memory and slip in the pressure of an exam you could be in hot water.

This comes back to the memorisers vs. sightreaders problem, I think. We get a lot of pressure to sightread, and find that some need to be taught to do it, others are natural sightreaders. Books have been written to help those who don't sightread well how to do it - I've not seen any equivalents for memorising. Sightreading is vital for those who wish to play in ensemble, and I guess most music students would have that as their first goal in music-making. Only the very few make it to concert soloist level, and here is where memorising is considered to be more desirable. Should we ask everyone to acquire a skill only a few will ever need, or is it better to concentrate on the more valuable asset, at least as far as standard orchestral and ensemble playing goes? I realise that folk, jazz and pop musicians might well be playing by ear...
I say teach the sightreading first. At some point those who wish to go as far as possible might wish to learn formal memorising skills, and then it would be good to have better resources and more teaching on this.

Conflict of interest? I'm a natural sightreader, and can't memorise for toffee!

I don't know if it's true but I get the impression from my rather limited experience that the real high fliers are natural memorisers anyway.... though the reverse is not necessarily so.
Maybe it is something to do with the way that they relate to music generally?

Some interesting comments so far . I'm not suggesting that memorising should be taught instead of sightreading (I'm one of sightreading's biggest fans: that's in how much I value; it not how good I am at it ) I'm just suggesting that both should perhaps be taught. Perhaps 'perform' from memory rather than 'play' from memory would be a better description of the skill .

Hello . Good points and I'd possibly agree that forcing everyone to memorise may not be a good idea (then again what about people who can't sightead in the exams? Maybe a short low grade memorisation piece as an extra would mean that it was less critical as one didn't ruin a whole 'proper' piece by fogetting it). But you do say that professional pianists are expected to play from memory would it not have been useful for them to gain skills in doing this earlier in their careers?

I like this point, and think it is something today's exam system could do with a little more of, but where does one draw the line? One could say that about memorising at grade 1, introduce memorisation then: if one can't reach the standard one shouldn't be able to take the exam; I can see that there's logic for the line being at the level that it is, but it could equally be put at any level .

Exactly so in many regards those who are natural memorisers rather than sightreaders have the advantage: yes so they don't have the more practically useful skill to start with, but no bother, they will be taught that until it's coming out of their ears: when they do have to play from memory, no bother they can already do it. Natural sightreaders, however, are at a disadvantage, yes they can whip through and learn things more quickly enjoy the breadth of repertoire and have no troubles with sightreading in the exam, but then there's a problem: as soon as they're required to memorise suddenly (something they don't do naturally) they can't do it and have never been given the slightest bit of help to do so, this must be a big hurdle.

The main thing I'm trying to say is people aren't even encouraged to memorise, even if they're good at it. Teachers don't observe that people are good at memorising and suggest they do it in a concert, no one gets any extra cudos for memorising in exams (until arguably at diploma level for piano), and no one is encouraged to develop the skill as something they have and are good at. This means that some people think it's bad to be able to play from memory (this is different to only being able to play from memory) so even people who are natural at it, but have always been forced to use the music, will have something to overcome if/when they need to do it. Maybe read the question as 'should people be encouraged to play from memory'. I suspect if memorisation were taught as much as sightreading (not suggesting that it should be but certainly given more emphasis than it is) a lot of the 'can't memorise' people would be able to do it .

The other question is that concert pianists memorise for a reason, is this reason useful to others lower down the levels and would it improve their playing, why should it suddenly only become important at this level? The only answer of no to this I guess, would be that the concert pianists are only doing it as a party trick/because it's expected, nothing more.

I am not a memoriser but as a teacher I sometimes set my students the challenge of learning tihngs from memory. I choose something they like playing and are reasonably confident with or even let them choose for themselves.

Reading this comment made me think: what if this is the case because those who are not natural at memorising have not been taught it and find it too difficult a hurdle to overcome when they get to the point they're suddenly required to do it? Another more likely explanation, of course, is the pros make it look easy, even if they're not finding it to be particularly so .


This is the sort of thing I'm suggesting: should people be encouraged to use or develop this skill early on to prevent problems in the future ?

This was pretty much my thought - I don't think anyone should be forced to memorise lots if they are good at it (and I don't think that it should be an obligatory part of exams) but if it's a good thing for diploma pianists to do, why is it ignored till then?

Having a good memory to start with is only part of it - anyone can improve their memory/their memorisation skills. Not everyone might get to the stage where they can learn a whole concerto by heart, but everyone can get better - and on the other hand, if students who aren't natural memorisers don't practice memorisation skills, they they're not likely to improve or suddenly become brilliant memorisers by magic...

If, as some will say, it's necessary for a good pianist to perform from memory because they will play better (which actually I don't think is always true - it depends on the person) then why on earth is it a skill that's ignored by most teachers through the grades and then suddenly expected at diploma level? It's a bit like teaching someone a language just through reading and writing, and never through hearing or speaking, and then being surprised if they feel a little adrift when expected to communicate fluently in that country. If memorisation is required at a higher level then it's logical to start practising it at a lower level.

I find it odd that there are three short memory tunes in the ABRSM Piano Prep Test, then it's not required again - ever, apart from possibly at Diploma level. Trinity, howerever, encourage memorisation at all levels, offering it as an alternative to the viva voce from Initial stage up to Grade 8 and Performer's Certificate.

I certainly wish I had been encouraged to memorise - it's an excellent way to make you think much more carefully about what the notes and the structure of the piece are in the initial learning stage. I try to do at least some sections when learning a piece, but then I get discouraged because I can't remember what I've done the day before! I don't find it frees me up in playing, though, as my attention is on whether I can remember the notes rather than expression etc.

I have just memorised one piece on the cello (easier - single line instrument, one note at a time, though you do have to remember the bowing!), which I'm really pleased about. It's only one page and it's taken about three weeks, but when I played it today I did feel that sense of freedom and have just got to the point where I don't have to think about the notes, so can concentrate on technical points, dynamics and expression. Great! Having done it once, I suspect it may be easier to do it a second time.

I think both memorising and sight reading should be taught. Many children memorise easily, but lose this ability if they do not keep it up. The natural memorisers need to do plenty of sight reading so that they do not get away with memorising only, and the natural sight readers can be encouraged to memorise at least parts of what they are learning.

Pianists (and other instrumentalists and singers, so far as I know) learn pieces of music in three distinct ways:
1) by reading.
2) aurally - by hearing the music and 'picking out' the notes at the piano
3) physically - by tactile feel for the shape and movement of the fingers, wrists and arms on the piano.

Readers tend to be completely independent and do not need to hear the sound of the piece they are learning.

Aural and physical learners need to hear the music often whilst learning it. Learners using these methods are not always using simply one or the other methods; frequently, they use a mixture of both.

Both styles of learning are equally valid. They both have pros and cons. Teachers need to be able to deal with both styles.

So, to address the needs of all exam candidates, there should be sight-reading tests for those for whom reading is a strength. There should be 'quick study' tests for those for whom aural\physical methods are the most successful.

Test setters need to understand the different learning styles experienced by different candidates if they are to offer true equal opportunities to them. Failure to understand this means that some candidates will be disadvantaged; this is the case with most exam boards.


Yes, it would, but we cannot devise exam syllabi to cater for the vast mass of exam candidates who will never become pro musicians and then make professional demands of them. Another call for syllabus flexibility, perhaps?

Some people are naturally better at memorising - and it somehow does seem to be the ones who have the most natural musical talent. (Not me.) But I don't think it's something you can really teach - at least, I can't teach it, as I'm someone who isn't good at it myself, and would dearly love someone to teach ME. But I do think that it's something to be encouraged. To watch a performance without music on the stand somehow takes it into a different realm. It seems to be coming more from the heart and less from the head. And, judging from the few things that I HAVE memorised, one can concentrate much more on the aural and expressive qualities of music once the visual is no longer an issue.

Some more interesting points .

Can't resist another question :


Do you believe that memorising has any merit for pianists at a lower level than concert soloists (i.e. if people have no aspiriation to be a concert soloist is it of no benifit to their playing)? Or indeed, do you believe it has any merit for concert pianists (other than it being the expected norm)?

There's a big difference between insisting on it in exams (which I think is a bad idea, personally) and encouraging learning it and practising it in lessons and practice (which I think is an excellent idea)

As to learning how to memorise - well, practising it helps ie practise memorising, even if it's only of very short, very simple things.

And it can be improved (again, I'm not suggesting that everyone should expect to learn whole concerti - but one can get better) through practice and through finding out what kind of techniques work for you - it putting a story to the piece, or learning it mathematically, or memorising what the score looks like, or learning how the piece feels - depending on how YOU are wired. People can give you ideas and tips, but only you can find out by trying what does and doesn't work for you.

We all have primary ways of learning, but learning to learn in different ways (by practising those ways) will be a benefit. Aural learners may find it a lot easier to learn a piece when they can hear it often, but they can learn to learn without aural input (I know - I am an aural learner and find it an order of magnitude easier to learn something I have heard, but I have also learned to learn pieces without hearing them first or at all - there are quite a few pieces I have now learned without ever hearing anyone other than myself play them, or hearing other performances only after I have learned them without hearing - and incidentally, this has helped my sight-reading)

We all have immense potential to improve our learning abilities and memory through practice; the more different things we try, the more ways we try to work out a problem, the more connections we make and the more benefit we get. The more you memorise, the better you will become at memorising - it works with anything (I memorise bible verses, and the first few were pretty tough but now I find memorisation much easier - because I have practised, and because I have developed effective strategies)

The people who perform pure memory stunts (learning long lists of numbers or cards or similar) are usually those who started off with good memories, but their memories become exceptional through practice and through strategy.

I think the problem is, worryingly, that many teachers only teach what's on the exam, and even then sometimes don't do it much (e.g. aural) so the reason I suggested perhaps putting it into the exams is that it's the only way many teachers (by no means all) will teach it . It's just a cultural thing really, we don't seem to think it's worth learning, yet we expect people to do it. The problem with introducing it in exams is it potentially messes up a piece which is something people like and could otherwise do and is worth a lot of marks. Sightreading, although it's assessed, can't mess up one's pieces. A seperate memory test could work, but it seems to be detatching the skill from it's practical use....

I have observed the musical expression thing in my son, who memorised and played from memory his last piece in his grade 1 exam - and got 29/30 for it - there is no doubt that for him, the dots get in the way of expression, he can play better without them. It doesn't work for me, though - if I don't have the music, I find that I am so anxious about what the next note is, even when my fingers are going just fine, that the music actually loses something.
I'm interested in the comments about people needing to hear the music in order to learn it - both my kids seem to have needed to do this, and both memorise far better than they can read music. I'm able to "hear" an outline of the music when scanning the dots anyway - not perfectly, and I'm sure singers and more advanced musicians would be way better at this than I am - so I wonder if the natural readers may in fact be better off with the music, even if they also have learned to memorise? Not that one should extrapolate from a single case, of course....

..I think I'm saying - "please don't take my crutches away!"

True




I don't think that memorising should be obligatory, but I do think that practice improves it - for anyone (natural memoriser or not) - and that it's a skill worth having to some extent, even if you don't think you'll ever be great, so it's worth persevering.

I'm sure I've read of at least one exam board (not a UK one) which insists all the candidates play everything from memory. I doubt it's a country full of natural memorisers, and yet people seem to be able to manage the grades given enough work. I suspect it's just that if from the start one is forced to memorise, well, they say practice makes perfect - I don't think it applies to only one area of music

Thinking of this, and people saying "I can't memorise" - most of us can play something, even if it's only very simple and short, from memory - if nothing else, most of us can play "merrily we roll along" or a scale or "twinkle twinkle" from memory. If you can do that - you have a memory and it retains stuff. Practice and strategy can help it to retain more

Teaching someone to play from memory is almost at odds to how we normally teach. "Look at the music." "Don't look at your hands so much." and so on. If, as teachers, we ask pupls to memorise too soon, then they can't sight-read. At what stage should we introduce memorising? Should we introduce it at all before, say, Grade 5 - at which stage we would hope the music-reading ability is well esablished? Do we assume every pupil is a potential diploma candidate? Or is the most important thing getting them to make a good job of whatever they're playing at the time, irrespective of they can best do that?

It does, where pianists are both able and willing to do it. Natural memorisers will do this automatically but reality kicks in when this natural ability is lacking.

I am talking about the reality of dealing with real live young humans with their own agenda. Leaving aside the aural learners, some will respond to the encouragement to memorise; others will ignore it. Some will try and succeed; some will try and fail. Any element of compulsion is counter-productive when trying to get children to do something that is useful and good, but not vital.

It is especially counter-productive if the child is one of the majority of those who do enough practise to get by but are not sufficiently interested to do a lot of work. Try compelling them to do anything they are uninterested in risks them giving up alltogether.

There are no absolutes or definitive answers here. It is the usual horses-for-courses stuff.

Two points:

Firstly, I'm coming to the conclusion that, even when playing from the music, I actually have to memorise a lot of my piano music, becuase I just can't read it quickly enough. It might be that, as a first study flautist/recorder player I can't read vertically very well, and I'm hopeless at recognising most chord shapes, although I'm steadily getting better, if slowly!

Secondly, the exams already contain a requirement to play from memory: the scales. We're all so used to learning scales from memory, rather than from a score, that we tend to forget there is no intrinsic connection between scales and memory. I do like to try and ensure students play scale exercises from a printed score as well as from memory, otherwise half the benefit of learning scales is lost: that of recognising scale patterns in pieces, so that they don't have to be read/learnt note by note.

...tell me about it...

...desirable, but still not essential...my current teacher is a concert pianist but not a natural memoriser and does have the music when she performs - but she's not actually reading it, only using it at certain points - I suppose for tricky passages, orientation etc...

...if it's possible to teach memorising, then it would seem a good idea to do so, but not in the early learning stages, when reading skill development is paramount...

...well, I wouldn't mind having a repertoire to carry around in my head to play whenever I happened upon a piano (some chance)! But seriously, any skill is worth developing, it's just a question of emphasis really - a good thing to acquire but only secondary to reading in my opinion .

I have just seen this thread and would like to add our two cents' worth experience. Haven't read the posts yet. VN is a natural memoriser and her teacher (who has taught piano and violin for almost 30 years from low to very high levels) discouraged her because in her case it has been seriously bad for the development of her sight-reading skills. The latter is essential. It's not wrong to let her be but in my humble opinion, it should be discouraged in the case of "natural memorisers" UNLESS the student is a good sight reader.

EDIT
... and has already learned the piece as per VN's teacher's opinion.

This is just IMO obviously, and I'm not much of a pianist, or indeed a piano teacher ()

But... I would think that occasionally asking them to memorise a piece, or a section of a piece, wouldn't do them any harm - once it has already been learned. Especially if it contained some technical skill that would be useful to practice for another week but just making them keep playing the piece might be dull.

I don't think we should assume every student is a potential diploma candidate, but I do think that it's sensible to help each student develop into as good a musician as possible - working with their strengths, and working on their weaknesses. I don't think it should be assumed of any student that he or she *won't* go on to that level - because that leaves far too many students getting past grade 8 and then suddenly being told "oh, now we need to work on technique" and having to relearn the basics. I know way too many people for whom this has been the case on the violin, and the flute, and I suspect it's not that unusual on other instruments.

Andante: exactly, we all memorise scales, and if one can memorise scales, then one can apply the same ability to pieces. And just as with pieces, some will find memorising scales easy and natural, and for others it will be terribly difficult, and yet most people manage it eventually, which shows a lot about our ability to do stuff we're not naturally good at. Let's face it, this thread is relevant to students of every instrument and every level or age to a certain extent, we're all either people who memorise easily or people who memorise with difficulty, and it's interesting to look at ways in which we can develop our weaker areas.

I agree, Jen et al, that reading is important, and I'd much rather be a fantastic reader than a brilliant memoriser - much more useful - as it turns out I'm wired the other way round so have learned to read more fluently - fortunately I started music with a very good teacher who made sure we could sight-read rhythms, and have also had the self-discipline to brush up on those rusty skills as an adult..


Yes - once again it's a case of working on one's weak points. It's great to be a memoriser and to be able to pick things up aurally and quickly, but in that case one needs to work on sight-reading because it's a weak point. IMO, if a student (of any age or ability) is willing to work on their weak areas (whatever they might be) then they can, with work, stop those weak areas from being so much of a problem. Natural readers will maybe always have the edge in sight-reading, natural memorisers will have an easy ride in memorising, but just because you're not one or the other, doesn't mean you can't get good at those skills.

Even in the early stages, but only once a piece has been learned, or I want them to spend another week on it, but from a different angle, I'll ask them for a special challenge - if they can play it without the music the following week..... But while they are actually learning the piece, no, I prefer them to keep using the music. Some of them (without any encouragement from me!!) naturally try to memorize as soon as they can - but I try to keep them looking at the music until there are no mistakes. But I feel memory is also useful - afterall, if they go on holiday and there's a piano in the cottage/hotel whatever, I feel it's a shame if they can't sit down and play something........ even just doodling....... At more advanced levels, yes, memory is useful - I find it adds something to my performance, but there are concert pianists out there who after several years of playing confidently from memory can suddenly suffer anxiety/panic attacks and lose memory confidence - and those I have heard play from music, have certainly not lost any of their performing quality....as a result of using the music.....

As far as piano music goes I'm not a natural memoriser but every so often my teacher has suggested I memorise a piece & it's always proved to be a very useful thing to do. I learn a piece very differently when I'm memorising it as opposed to having the music in front of me (even though the music is usually only a visual jog to my memory). I memorised the grade 6 piece vals poetico & played from memory in the exam. A few weeks before the exam I realised that I couldn't play the piece with the music in front of me- even though I wasn't "reading it". It was a distraction & didn't seem to have any relevance to what I was playing .
I can easily enough memorise flute music -presumably because it's single line & I only have to hear that one line in my head to remember it.
A friend, playing at a high level on flute & piano, naturally memorises piano music because she watches her hands & sees patterns. She can't memorise flute music because she can't see her hands.

IMO the 1 real disadvantage of memorising music routinely from an early stage is that it enables a pianist to watch their hands.From my own experience 1 of the things that has really improved my playing & sightreading (not necessarily for exams but for instance being given accompaniments & playing them immediately) is knowing keyboard geography & knowing where notes live without visually looking for them.

....that's a good point I hadn't thought about - I'm particularly bad at finding my way around the keyboard without looking so memorising would only undermine my attempts to improve this...

Memorising music is definately important!!

I think memorising is a very important skill to learn, and it doesn't have to be at the detriment to sight reading. The main problem is, natural young memorisers in the early stages of learning, may try and avoid reading the music so never develop the skill to sight read, however they often (and I'm probably as guilty as the next person) rely heavily on finger memory, which as your brains are not in your fingers is very unsafe and the slightest thing goes wrong and they crash.

Learning to memorise something properly can be taught alongside sight reading as to memorise properly you have to have read the score, in depth, alot, to analyse what is going on.

I do think memorising should be encouraged more in the exams, although definately not compulsory for everybody, but what really annoys me is when a child, or adult, tries really hard to memorise, and through nerves makes a mistake in the exam (which can equally happen when playing with the music) and the examiner leaves a comment that they shouldn't have played from memory.



This is absolutely right, as if you chose to play with the music, you must practise with it, there is nothing worse than performing a piece that in truth you have partially memorised, forgetting the next bit looking up and realising you are not even on the right page. Or if you memorise, do it properly, my first teacher's (many years ago) idea of teaching how to memorise was 'ok now try without the music' which is not enough.

I should just add that I am not in any way advocating memorising instead of sightreading (I'm very strongly against this), or memorising every piece played. Merely suggesting that memorising is perhaps something that should be taught and encouraged more, particularly performing from memory which is a skill in itself . Digby's comment about examiners saying 'you shouldn't have played from memory' highlights exactly what I'm getting at: performance from memory seems to be seen as an 'unnecessary risk' by many; rather than a useful skill to be encouraged. It's pleasing to see that a few people do encourage the development of memorising skills .

Someone recmd me a book recently which has a chapter on this skill. It's called - Musical Excellence by A. Williamon released in association with RCM, etc.

FWIW, I agree

But you can memorise with your eyes shut - very good practice for your keyboard geography!

I believe that playing from memory will makes you to feel good, but also if you suddenly stuffs up then you won't be able to continue the performance...and believe it...you don't want to not continue in a performance...

Absolutely! Maybe this situation is unique to me but I can't see myself giving a really moving performance of any piece that I needed the music for. To be able to play from memory means to me that the brain has fully absorbed the music, every note, to the extent where it can become part of your being. Now I need the music for pieces such as the 'Moonlight' 1st movement, simply because I find it very difficult to memorise slow pieces. However, given the Nocturne in E Flat, there's no way I could make it special if I needed the music there. I think also, form a purely aesthetic point of view, it looks better somehow to see someone performing from memory, it gives that sense of 'being at one' with the piece!

... I can't even play scales with my eyes shut!!...

I once put myself on the spot about not looking at my hands.
I had a young student who used to look down too much and I suggested he watched me during a chruch service to see how often I looked down....
He counted 4 or five quick checks out of 10 hymns (I probably had a few more but made it VERY sneaky).

In concert situations, the two intrumentalists that are expected to play from memory are Pianists and Singers, although other instrumentalist sometimes do.

It is therefore part of teaching the complete technique for the instrument to teach memorisation. Pianists and singers are expected to do this.

I'm in the middle of trying to memorise a 90 minute song recital programme. You might say this is easier as I have words, but I managed to memorise Rachmaninov's Vocalise and that didn't. The required a detailed knowledge of the piano part and memory of precise note lengths. (remember singer's cannot count!)

It is far less intimidating to start memorisation earlier so the skill develops. Pieces are initially learnt from music, then the music is weaned off the performer.

An Opera singer performing an opera would look stupid incumbered by a vocal score. Aesthetically a pianist playing a beautiful Grand Piano lid open and no music is extrememly pleasing.

Plus with the pieces I've actually memorised, I have found a deeper connection with the structure and harmonic content of the music leaving me score free to communicate with the audience.

What is the end to learning music to please the Pianist, or be able to please other people?

I really liked the way you expressed this, and i totally agree with you.


take myself as an example , i actually memorise my pieces , so when i play them i concentrate on the expression rather than reading the right notes.


but on the other hand my sight readin skill became weak, not to mention that slipping during an exam will bring you disasters!!!

That is disappearing in the TrinityGuildhall merger.


Many readers hear the sound of what they are playing from looking at the notes on the page..... this is desirable really.




Yes, learning styles are different but doesn't an exam assess the end product which is the same whichever way you learn?
Is it really a good idea to change exams because some people can't manage to pass them the way they are?
GCSEs now have papers at more than one level for this reason....... How this is equal I'm not quite sure.
Does equal opportunity have to mean everyone does the same thing?

I had a teacher who used to insist on this from time to time. Actually, after my initial reticence I found it quite fun and easier than with my eyes open. I am a natural sight-reader, not a memoriser, and an extremely nervous performer. Without the music I don't know what to look at - definitely not the audience if there is one!

Scales are a good place to start - I shall expect a progress report

And arpeggios are even more fun...
Then try contrary motion scales.....

Why can't singers count?

I don't sing very well, but I do sing regularly in shows etc and I can always use my a voice in my head to count timing.

I remember once when I was 5 (I'd just started school) and I think i'd just started to realise about your "inner voice" and wondered if it always had to follow your normal voice when you were singing.

I did a little experiment in school assembly which i remeber to this day. We were singing "onward Christian Soldiers" and I was joining in as normal but, unknown to everyone else, I was singing "all things bright and beautiful" inside my head!

Tried it again at music society last night - can still do it!!

This singer can count. She's got a Mathematics degree too!

But, as Jod points out, singers are expected to memorise as a matter of course. I find this has a knock-on effect with learning music on other instruments, in that I instinctively let the work go into my memory, and I don't feel it's finished and ready to perform until it's securely in there (with dynamics and phrasing, not just notes!) For example, I ended up doing my Grade 1 Violin pieces from memory, as I wouldn't feel I was "performing" them with a book in front of me.

The adudicator at N. London music festival did critisise a couple of performances saying that they needed to be playing from memory. I'm getting better at *not* playing from memory, but if I ever got really lost in mid piece whilt on stage I think I'd be so flustered that the music wouldn't really help that much.

BTW I was always told that mathmaticians couldn't count 'cos zero, one and infinity were the only numbers worth bothering about!!!

Yes, but which infinity?

To be honest I thought there was only one - you have me at a disadvantage!!!!

When I made my remark about singers and counting, it was a rather flippant remark based on a joke I had a college. Surely you must have heard the singer who launches onto the long-note only to loose the place half way through it.

I can count. I may not have Katyjay's mathematical degree, but I did pass it at A level. And yes there is more than one infinity +/- for a start.

With the Rachmaninov Vocalise there are a lot of long notes that have to be sung accurately.

Back to the Piano, I was talking to a concert pianist friend of mine who was bemoning that playing from memory does not get the recognition it deserves, and that it should be assessed.

my piano teacher is always keen to remind me that you do not know a piece from memory unless you know every single dynamic change aswell as just the notes. Therefore one should also never attempt to play a piece until you are certain you know everything about because (because doing otherwise will lead to you leaning YOUR version of the piece, not the one on the page).

Slightly in contrary to this, my ex boyfriend (a concert pianist) swore that he didnt KNOW the music until he could play it from memory, and always plays everything without music. the thought fills me with horror. But he said the music got in the way, and then he worried if he had to think about turning the pages aswell as playing, because the pages would end up in a different place from him...he also would take any given opportunity to show off!