Memorization and the Performing November, 2007

Musician

Conscious memorization is the period after which piece

can be played technically correct with notation, but
before a piece can be performed without music.
Memorizing music in-
 Memorization begins before volves mindful and
& continues after conscious deliber-ate practice.
Developing an
memorization understanding of the
 Three stages music and recognizing
 Preview patterns are active pro-
cesses; thoughtlessly repeat-
 Practice ing muscular movements is
 Overlearning a passive process.
 Enculturation
Mishra, J. (2005). A theoretical model of musical memory. Psychomusicology, 19(1), 75-89.
Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007 Jennifer Mishra
 Can memorize piece without
understanding relationships (passive)
 Novice musicians
 Mindless repetition – not efficient nor
stable
 Understanding a piece requires active
processing
 Patterns unique to individual
performer
 Labels beneficial, but not necessary
 Younger students need guidance to
patterns
University of Houston November, 2007

 Analytical “memory”  Human mind designed to find patterns.

 Also termed Conceptual memory  Musical pattern is any meaningful grouping of notes
 Not a “memory”, but a process  Learned patterns e.g., scales, arpeggios, chords
Analytical “memory”  Meaningful understanding of the piece  Found relationships between 2+ notes
requires the cognitive
 Need not be theoretical analysis  Pattern processed as unit, not individual notes
interpretation of patterns
and repetitions in a  Need not be through score study  Patterns allow for prediction
musical work. The focus is  Differs from sensory memorization  Sight reading
on forming relationships styles  If memory lapse occurs “Man is, perhaps above all else, a predicting
and finding familiar animal…He must pattern the world… we must
 influenced largely by training and ability
patterns. pattern the world.” Music, The Arts & Ideas
 Expert and advanced musicians use;
inexperienced performers do not Leonard Meyer (p. 227-8 )
 Structural boundaries (phrase structure)
emerging as dominant in experts.

Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007 Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007

 Music performed serially, but understood as a web of  Labels- brings patterns to the surface, fixes in mind
connections  Isolate elements to direct attention to patterns.
 Web is unique to the piece and to the individual performer  Mapping is visual analysis & simplification of structure
 Patterns are not what composer intended, but what performer  Visual icons symbolizing patterns
perceives  Verbalizing or labeling patterns
 Performer’s understanding of piece impacts interpretation  Attending to patterns
(Consciously or unconsciously)
 Similarities can be unconsciously understood, but
 Can find unique patterns not intended by composer.
 Even aleatoric music, truly random music, can have labeling brings to forefront
patterns imposed upon it by performer  Need not use theoretical terms/labels
 Patterns & connections can be anywhere

Shockley, R. P. (2001). Mapping Music: For Faster Learning

and Secure Memory. A-R Publications.
Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007 Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007

Jennifer Mishra | jmishra@uh.edu 1

Memorization and the Performing November, 2007
Musician

 Common practice techniques emphasize pattern

recognition; allow obscure patterns to become clear
 playing hands separately
 blocking chords (on keyboard)
 rehearsing under-tempo
 rehearsing the piece backwards
 score study away from the instrument
 transposing
 Analysis may be visual (based on scored notation)
 Analysis may be aural (i.e., not notation-based)
 interplay between voices in a fugue
 Analysis may be kinesthetic (e.g., blocking chords)
Shockley, R. P. (2001). Mapping Music: For Faster Learning and Secure Memory. A-R
Publications.
Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007 Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007

 Also termed
 melodic memory, auditory memory, ear
memory
 Four “memories” popular memorization topic  Used primarily to monitor performance
 Focus of 60% of 121 pedagogical articles on memory since for errors
1900 Aural “memory” is the
 Good aural memory doesn’t insure good
 Most advocate a mixture of memorization styles ability to hear the notes of
performance
 can hear the next note and not know how
 implying memories are equal and mutually supporting a piece of music in the
to play it
 No research support proper order without
relying on a sound source  Removing aural feedback doesn’t affect
 Isolated usage of strategies rare (depending on study) or notation. performance
 Not “memories”, but processing strategies  Pianists can perform in absence of
 Can be used as early as sight reading
auditory and kinesthetic feedback (Repp,
1999)
 Used throughout notation-based practice  Only effect when aural feedback removed
 Aural, Visual, & Kinesthetic was pianists pedaled less (Repp, 1998)
 Sensory Learning styles – rather than memory stores
Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007 Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007

 Also termed  Also termed

 Photographic, eye memory  Motor, hand, tactile, muscular, finger,
 Not necessarily full-scale photographic digital memory
Kinesthetic “memory” is
Visual “memory” is the memory for notation the retention of muscular  Most misunderstood “memory”
ability to recall a mental  Visualize part of notation movements involved in  Often confused with automated
picture of the musical  Visualize finger patterns on an instrument performing a piece of procedural memory (more later)
notation, as a whole or in music. Tactile memory is  Not incidentally developed
 Isolated visual memory trainable
parts, or to visualize the memory for the feel of
 Used primarily as a memory cue to  Not “thoughtless”
finger patterns or hand the instrument and is not
positions. initiate recall exactly the same as kin-  Used to assist with difficult or
 beginnings of sections esthetic memory. awkward passages
 difficult sections

Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007

Jennifer Mishra | jmishra@uh.edu 2

Memorization and the Performing November, 2007
Musician

 Research attempt to determine  Variable definitions for memory styles

usage among musicians  Question too broad “which memory style do you use?”
 Mixed results  Musical Memory Inventory (MMI)
 Aural: 4 – 42%  Specific questions
 Visual: 0 – 50%  Asked “how often”
 Kinesthetic: 3 – 50%
 Mixed: 13 – 58%
 Discrepancy - lack of
standard definitions

(Analytical not considered in all studies, so omitted)

Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007

 Past experiences affect the way we learn new material

 Every musical experience combines into schemas
 Musical Memory Inventory (MMI) results
 Expectations formed
Mishra, J. (2007). Correlating Musical Memorization Styles and Perceptual Learning Modalities.
Visions of Research in Music Education, 9-10. Retrieved July 14, 2007, from www.rider.edu/~vrme/  Applied to new music
 Continually processing and storing information
 Learning all the time
 Learning without conscious study
 Can be problematic - CDM
 Memorize, at least in part, naturally through experience
and practice

Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007

 Find the error (recording

is performed as
musically expected, not
 Tonal music easier to memorize than
as notated)
atonal
 More experience with tonal music =
stronger expectations
 20th century music often played with
notation
 Structure preserving errors Error in:
Breitkopf Edition
(“proofreader’s errors”) Henle Urtext Edition
 Goldovsky’s Sightreading Experiment Peters Edition

Example from Boulez

Brahms
Wolf, T. (1976). A cognitive model of musical sight- Third Piano Sonata
reading. Capriccio Op. 76 No. 2
Journal
Jennifer of Psycholinguistic Research, 5(2), 143-171.
Mishra University of Houston November, 2007 Jennifer Mishra University of Houston
November, 2007

Jennifer Mishra | jmishra@uh.edu 3

Memorization and the Performing November, 2007
Musician

 Memorization begins very early in the learning process  Many factors potentially influence the
Musicians often decide
 Unconscious whether they are “good” or amount of time required to memorize
 Even when memorization not primary goal “poor” memorizers based  Characteristics of the musician
on a handful of salient
 Sightreading study  Experience - Enculturation
experiences or informal
 Memorization practice strategies
 4 playings - mask bars conversations rather than
a systematic observation  Characteristics of the composition
 Between 30 and 88 % of the missing notes could be and comparison. There is  Memorization takes a long time
recalled no doubt that some
 36-bar exercise – up to 100 minutes
musicians memorize faster
than others; however even
the most advanced
musician requires time to
memorize
Lehmann, A. C., & Ericsson, K. A. (1996). Performance without preparation: structure and
acquisition of expert sight-reading and accompanying performance. Psychomusicology, 15, 1-29.
Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007

 Organizing memorization practice  Holistic - most efficient

 Holistic (Whole) – develop concept of entire piece  Emphasizes connections throughout piece
 Segmented (Part) – break piece down into sections  Segmented & Serial – less efficient
 Additive – systematically lengthen  “section” 2-100 bars
sections
 Other possible divisions: hands, elements
Serial – play as far as possible
 Structural, but not necessarily
 By line – not musical structure

Mishra, J. (2002). A qualitative analysis of strategies

employed in efficient and inefficient memorization.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education,
152, 74-86.
Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007 Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007

 Why segmented strategy might be less efficient  Evidence from expert musicians - Alternating Holistic &
 focused on discrete fragments ignoring others Segmented
 very short segments of 2-4 measures – not necessarily  mindless sectionalizing and rigid adherence to repetition is
musically meaningful counter productive
 Repeat each fragment in isolation a large number of times  Musically meaningful segments
(43 consecutive times – without any discernable errors )  Amount of segmentation
 Boring, mindless repetition  Difficulty of piece
 Unable to connect newly mastered segment to as  Experience of performer (e.g., with genre)
previously learned segments had been forgotten!  Length of piece
 Additional time was wasted on practicing the connection of  Intersperse Holistic practice to develop an overall
the discrete segments.
concept of piece
Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007 Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007

Jennifer Mishra | jmishra@uh.edu 4

Memorization and the Performing November, 2007
Musician

 Compositional characteristics of a piece, to a large

extent, determines the amount of time required to
 Serial – inefficient strategy memorize the piece
 Beginning learned very well, but the end never played
 length of the piece (in terms of notes)
 musician conceded defeat when confronted by an error or
 harmonic complexity
memory lapse by returning to the beginning
 Tonality
 No attempt is made to understand why the error occurred
 familiarity with the genre
or to place the problematic section into the context of the
 Number of notes single best
piece.
 strategy regrettably may be in common usage, especially
predictor of memorization
among younger, less experienced performers time
 Pianists more time
 Pianists more notes

Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007 Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007

Curve Estimation
 When is a piece memorized?
14
 No standardized operational definition for “memorized.”
11.94

12 11.14  The first time a piece played through by memory? Second?

 Musicians continue to rehearse even after piece played by
10.33

9.53
10

7.92
8.72
memory
8 7.12
 Overlearning Stage - point after which a piece can be
Total Memorization Time (Hours)

6.31

6
4.71
5.51
performed from memory, but before the memory is
4 3.10
3.90
stable enough for performance.
2.29  Important stage, though the purpose of extended practice
not well understood
1.49
2
0.69

0  As much as 150% more practice time is needed to stabilize

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

Number of Notes
1300 1400 1500
the memory
Note: Times are only measured until 1 or 2 memorized playthroughs
Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007 Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007

 Overlearning = Testing  Structural boundaries as landmarks

 Testing memory cues (reminders, triggers) for  Hierarchy of retrieval
effectiveness  Entire piece not retrieved simultaneously - lightening the
 Testing cues - starting at various points throughout the memory load
piece  Test by starting at points throughout piece
 Cues not resulting in stable retrieval can be replaced  Structural boundaries
 Unnecessary cues removed  Not random points, cues are related to musical form
 Added cues especially in difficult sections
 Fewest cues possible = less to remember
 Cues may be aural, visual, kinesthetic, or analytical
 Attend to where the memory fails – add cue
 Simply circling place in music calls attention to the point Williamon, A., & Valentine, E. (2002). The role
of retrieval structures in memorizing music.
 visualize the circle Cognitive Psychology, 44(1), 1-32.
JenniferMay not be conscious
 Mishra University of Houston November, 2007 Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007

Jennifer Mishra | jmishra@uh.edu 5

Memorization and the Performing November, 2007
Musician

 Any over-learned motor sequence  Confusion between kinesthetic “memory” and

As cognitive control of
actions requires time, quick
physical sequences must be
automated to occur
without conscious control.
Far from dangerous,
automating movements is
necessary for a musical
performance both for speed
of movement and
redirecting precious atten-
tion to interpretative
rather than technical
aspects of the music.
requires automated muscle movements
 Frees attention
 Driving – automated series of
movements allows attention to shift
 Attention is a bottle neck in human
processing system – can only fully
attend to one thing at a time
 Must automate to perform complex
sequences of motor movements
 Automated movements faster than conscious
thought
automating movements
 Fingers seem to move without conscious thought
 Repeating motor movements automates process
 Kinesthetic “memory” is conscious awareness
of muscle movements
 Much to attend to in performance
 Automated to free attention
 interpretation & communication with audience
 Attend to demands of performance situation
 Difficult sections
 Can’t generally verbalize automated procedures
 Tie Shoes

Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007

Preparing for Performance

 Overlearning = Re-learning  Overlearning = Preparing for Performance

 Repetition is ONE way of learning  Not really memorizing
 superficial level of processing  Confidence building
 More connections = deeper processing =  Superstitious behaviors
stronger memory  Extra practice due to anxiety - especially when memorizing
 Re-learn music Sensory “memories” ▪ Performing without music increases anxiety
▪ Heightened anxiety results (sometimes) in poorer performance
 Aural
 Visual
 Kinesthetic
 Find additional patterns (analytical)
Craik, F. & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A
framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Leglar, M. A. (1978). Measurement of Indicators of anxiety levels under varying conditions of
Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684. musical performance. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1978.
Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007 Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007

Part 3

Jennifer Mishra University of Houston November, 2007

Jennifer Mishra | jmishra@uh.edu 6