Memorizing Songs (how do you make it?)

[MikeT156]

Thanks for the positive note Jazz+. I didn't explain what I meant very well the first time around. The key is to memorize measures or phrases as separate entities. That way you're memory is not dependent upon the previous measure or phrase in order to continue playing the piece if you make a mistake.

 

Mike T.

[sudeep]

wow i was just about to post about this tune as well becuase im learning to play it too.

 

normally in trying memorize a progression i try to use the Roman numerals and learn it that way...but it doesnt always end up the case.

 

Bohemian Rhapsody has taken me a little while but i think ive finally got that operatic bit memorized. Ive used a method (similar to what someone mentioned above) and thought of each chord as an inversion with melody on top. Especially on the "No No No ..." part where it goes from D Db Gb Bb etc

 

ps do you play hard rock guitar bit on piano as well?

 

also can anyone give any insight to the harmonic structure of the song? are these actual opera progressions...while learning this song i just cant help thinking to myself "how the hell did he come up with this"!!!

[Andre Lower]

Originally posted by sudeep:

wow i was just about to post about this tune as well becuase im learning to play it too.

 

ps do you play hard rock guitar bit on piano as well?

 

also can anyone give any insight to the harmonic structure of the song? are these actual opera progressions...while learning this song i just cant help thinking to myself "how the hell did he come up with this"!!!

Hi Sudeep,

 

So you've got the "BoHap itch fever" too? Most everybody would love to cover this song, but talk about a hard nut to crack!

 

As for the chordal analysis, try out this link:

http://queen.musichall.cz/index.php?s=sa&d=bohrap

 

Considering my absolute ignorance of chord names, the analysis is Greek to me, but it might help people like you.

 

Now back to the playing of it, my band did not actually get to play it yet, but I have some tricks up my sleeve. The second guitar that permeates the whole song (and not only the hard rock suite at the end - listen carefully to the original recording) will be pretty impossible to reproduce on keyboard, but I might at lest try some basic chords with a Hammond or Wurly patch under the hard rock suite. As for the vocals (clearly the hardest part of this song) I'll try to pull some TC Helicon VoiceLive tricks along with the aid of two singing bandmates on the parts that feature simultaneous, different phrases. Now please wish me luck...

[MIDIdiot]

As for the vocals (clearly the hardest part of this song) I'll try to pull some TC Helicon VoiceLive tricks along with the aid of two singing bandmates on the parts that feature simultaneous, different phrases. Now please wish me luck...

The first rock show I saw was Queen circa 1978. For those who recall Queen concerts at their peak (late 70s, early '80s), they would actually leave the stage during the operatic part when the record would take over (with light show). Then they would come back for the hard rock part - it was quite cool actually.

This was actually one of the first pop songs I learned after a couple of years of classical lessons. I learned it straight out of the Queen anthology song book, a pretty good arrangement, has all the parts.

One last thing, Freddie Mercury has to be one of the greatest all time rock voices!

[MikeT156]

Andre:

 

Hey, thanks for that excellent link. That should save a lot of time trying to figure that song out. If you'e band plans on playing that song live, better have a lot of time to rehearse.

 

I only ever heard one group (besides Queen) do that song live and not only pull it off, but do it well. It was a five piece group and everyone one of the guys in that band could sing lead vocals. All great players too. When I heard them do it live for the first time, it knocked my socks off. Really well done. I don't get to hear live acts like that anymore. Beside luck, I'll wish you plenty of "FREE" rehearsal time.

 

Mike T.

[Dave Horne]

MikeT156,

 

I find it easier to learn music by praises, ...

That method only works with evangelical tunes.

[Dave Horne]

I've come across 'musicians' who can play a piece of music perfectly - the piece is committed to memory and they execute it flawlessly. If you were to ask them to play it in another key, you'd have problems ... actually, they would have problems. It's not just classically trained musicians who are guilty of this behavior, jazz and pop musicians are also guilty.

 

If you rely on 'finger memory', you're screwed. You get nervous, misplace one finger and the house of cards comes tumbling down. On the other hand, depending solely on a piece of music also can have its drawbacks as it can make for a lazy musician. If you use music all the time, your eyes might become better trained than your ears.

 

Analysis is the only fool proof method to insure that you completely understand what you are playing .. and that is the only way to insure playing flawlessly from memory. I know there are a few folks here who can not read music; they depend solely on their ears, finger memory and other devices that may let them down in a critical situation.

 

Learn to read music, learn to analyze music and the chore of having to memorize music will become much, much easier. You could, of course, practice memorizing music. Start with memorizing 8 or 16 bars per day and keep expanding on that. Develop some kind of routine.

 

I should add that my theory prof in college would write out note for note a piece he had to perform. When you can do that, I'd bet the piece in firmly lodged in your gray matter.

[MIDIdiot]

If you rely on 'finger memory', you're screwed. You get nervous, misplace one finger and the house of cards comes tumbling down.

I can attest to that fact. If you're going by finger memory only, no matter how well you know it, it can fail you at any time, when it counts, like at a gig. Nerves can do funny things to finger memory. Another example, if I try playing a classical piece I knew very well 20 yrs ago, I can play, say, the 1st few bars easily but then I have no clue where to go. If I repeat the first few bars a couple of times, I get a little further as my fingers begin to remember but my brain still has no idea what's happening. If I keep repeating, I can get further and further. Quite intriguing how this works.

[Andre Lower]

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

I've come across 'musicians' who can play a piece of music perfectly.

How dare they?! Poor handicapped bastards...

 

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

I know there are a few folks here who can not read music; they depend solely on their ears, finger memory and other devices that may let them down in a critical situation.

Get real, Dave. You depend on practicing and memorizing just as much as we do. I am sure your knowledge of theory can help you narrowing the possibilities for the next chord, etc. That is a valuable resource that I do not intend to play down. But if you tell me you do not have to memorize the exact hand position of any chord, or that your brains are fast enough to spit out every single chord of "Bohemian Rhapsody" only by analyzing the harmonic structure, etc., people will stop reading you seriously here... You cannot stop to ponder over each chord while you are playing, and my guess is your pondering is not fast enough to cope with quick chops, live.

 

Dave, once and for all, let's drop this Jihad thing about playing by ear or through musical theory. I am sure we all have fun with music, so let us keep enjoying it the way that pleases each of us.

 

P.S. = I understand the obvious value of dedicated exercising and physical technique (i.e. mastering hand movements, etc.). However the more you boast about the rewards of theoretical musical education, the more it seems removed from my musical purposes. I am still waiting for an example of practical use of lofty harmonic analysis in playing cover rock tunes, which is what I am interested in.

 

P.S.2 = You might chose to assume I am simply lazy, the typical labeling of old school people for those who dare not wanting to learn what they prize so much. Well, a couple of years ago, when my interest in playing keyboards faced me with the need to learn subtractive synthesis, I started reading and taking classes at once. That is because there is a clearly defined purpose that appealed to me, namely being able to nail the exact sounds I wanted to play. Believe me Dave, if there was some benefit in learning musical theory that appealed to me considering the amount of dedication required, or if I ever wanted to compose or anything like that, I'd already have started learning musical theory.

[Dave Horne]

I am still waiting for an example of practical use of lofty harmonic analysis in playing cover rock tunes, which is what I am interested in.

Billy Preston's Nothing From Nothing ... it was very popular many years ago and I'm guessing that Billy Preston is still known today.

 

C major, the tune begins with:

 

C Bø7 E7 Am Gm7 C7 F ....

 

I look at that simply as:

 

I [iiø7 V7] of vi [ii7 V7] of IV ...

 

Let's imagine you're working a piano job on TV or a cruise ship and the star singer that night has a mild cold. He turns around to the musicians and says, 'let's take it down a step tonight guys, I've got a cold'.

 

What do you do? Do you quickly try to locate the global transpose button on your keyboard (you're screwed if you're playing an acoustic piano, right) or do you take a few seconds, do a quick analysis and say, 'you got it'.

 

You asked for an example and I gave you one.

 

Lofty harmonic analysis might actually save you much time in the long run and you might actually look at music from a different angle.

[sudeep]

thanks for that link Andre.

 

I recently went to see We Will Rock You in london...OK show...but obviously the music is brainless (but who didnt know that).

 

just in case anyone is looking for a arrangement...the We Will Rock You showbook has actually been arranged by Brian May and the MD of the show...its more like a vocal score with piano parts rather than your standard sheet music. Its quiite good...

[Dave Horne]

André,

 

you distort my meaning by partially quoting me.

 

I've come across 'musicians' who can play a piece of music perfectly - the piece is committed to memory and they execute it flawlessly. If you were to ask them to play it in another key, you'd have problems ... actually, they would have problems.

Playing anything in all keys really comes down to excellent theory training. Analysis and theory go hand in hand with making memorization easier which your initial post was all about. Instead of memorizing individual chords, you might 'see' groups or patterns ... or functions of chords. You might 'see' melodic patterns that keep repeating but on a different scale degree. The more you know about something, the easier it is to deal with large amounts of information.

 

You certainly do not have to take my advice (or anyone else's), but if you need help in making memorization easier, what did you really expect?

[MikeT156]

I don't often disagree with Andre, but this time I do. I was primarily "Self taught" until I was 21 years old. I had played in garage bands for a number of years and as I got beyond teenage years, the group I was in started to achieve a higher level musically, were moving into something other than pop covers, and I was finding it more and more difficult to "keep up" musically. I had difficultly playing in a lot of different keys, couldn't transcribe very well, and found it difficult to learn tunes the band wanted quickly enough and sometimes, accurately. I knew that I had gone as far as I could on my own, musically.

 

I decided to take piano lessons. After several years of lessons from a good teacher, I had a better understanding of scales, inversions, could read music, and playing in different keys. Classical training required me to play more challenging music than I was accustomed too, and I also noticed that passages from classical work gave me some good ideas for my own licks, and I was also able to change keys quickly enough when the key we were playing in was too high to sing. Basically, musical training broadened my knowledge of music overall and allowed me to grow as a musician.

 

I only wish I was able to continue with more training, but demands of my job and family, as well as playing a part time band schedule on weekends made practicing unproductive on a regular basis over time. You really don't know what you're missing unless you've experienced both methods. Musical training makes life as a musician a lot easier.

 

I wouldn't let a doctor that never went to medical school perform surgery on me, thank you very much.

 

There are a few rare exceptions of gifted people that are born with perfect pitch, can pick up any instrument and play it, but I submit there aren't very many. I know I'm not one.

 

Mike T.

[JeffLearman]

Dave, you can understand theory quite well without being able to sight read. The two skills are almost completely unrelated.

 

Sure, being able to read help to learn theory. (It can also enable you to avoid learning theory, and avoid learning to play by ear.) But being able to read slowly and being able to sight-read are very different. And neither is necessary to learn theory.

 

Furthermore, lots of good musicians have an innate understanding of music theory, but just don't know the names ascribed to the things they're doing. Likewise, there are plenty of folks who seem to know their theory upside down but couldn't play an emotionally moving piece to save their lives.

 

I strongly recommend studying theory because it brings great insights. I also strongly recommend playing multiple instruments for the same reason. In the end, we all do what we're motivated to do and what works for us, and there's no need for a "right vs. wrong" argument about theory. It's an extremely useful tool; whether to use it or not is up to you.

 

Concerning "lofty" structural analysis of most rock music -- it's hardly necessary when there are only three or 4 chords. If you don't understand the structure innately already, you're probably not much of a musician.

 

How many of us who say we don't know music theory still know quite well what happens when the guitarist plays a C chord and the bass player plays an A? If you don't know that kind of thing, you need to learn about music, and it doesn't matter whether you call it theory or by ear or what.

 

I hope Dave wasn't dissing finger memory. If you're thinking about your hands when you're playing, you haven't got to the stage of playing music yet -- you're still just "practicing". But he's also correct that if you ONLY know a song by finger memory, then you run the risk of not being able to recover from a mistake or a curve thrown from another musician in the band.

 

But you don't have to know the names of the things you're doing to understand the structure. If you can play the song using different inversions or play it in another key without too much trouble, then I'd say you understand the structure, even if you don't know a flat 5 from a flat 9 by those names. That's just the difference between book learning and intuitive learning.

 

Knowing the names is really helpful, though, when you're trying to communicate with other musicians!

[MikeT156]

Learjeff, it sounds like you're working both sides of the street. Its true that some musicians that took music lessons really can't play anything other than what's on sheet music. My nephew took years of piano lessons and concentrated on classical music. He use to listen to my band and couldn't figure out what the hell we were doing musically. When we were learning a cover tune from the record, he sat there shaking his head and couldn't understand how we could just listen to a tune, pick it out, and play it.

 

I suggested that he put records on he liked and attempted to play along with them so he could develop his ear and not be confined to printed music. I also mentioned it was easier to memorize music if you related it to the chord changes throughout the song, rather than trying to memorize each note unrelated to the chord structure.

 

Just because you can read music doesn't mean you're an accomplished musician, and just because you can play a pop tune doesn't mean you can handle Chopin. I think its best to have formal training and develop playing "by ear" too. There's no substitute for talent and excellent relative pitch. Having a good voice doesn't hurt either. Not everyone is born with all of the above.

 

Mike T.

[MIDIdiot]

I agree with Dave that understanding the chord structure of a song is the fool proof way to learn it. Any form of memorization can and will fail in a variety of conditions. If you have the harmonic structure eg Dave's Bill Preston example, you have it licked. You can play it in any key. I also agree that this is a different ability and not dependant on the ability to 'read' music (in the form of notation).

[Andre Lower]

Originally posted by MikeT156:

...I had difficulty playing in a lot of different keys, couldn't transcribe very well, and found it difficult to learn tunes the band wanted quickly enough and sometimes, accurately...

 

...Classical training required me to play more challenging music than I was accustomed too, and I also noticed that passages from classical work gave me some good ideas for my own licks, and I was also able to change keys quickly enough when the key we were playing in was too high to sing...

 

Musical training makes life as a musician a lot easier.

 

Mike T.

I've got the feeling that my musical interests are different from those of most of you who answered (BTW, thanks for caring to answer). I understand Mike's and everybody else's point of view. However I believe these opinions are related to the use they make of their time and musical abilities. Let me point out our differences:

 

1) I do not intend to make any sort of profit from music. Again my personal opinion is that commercial interest usually forces you to play things you do not really like, which is a great no-no in my book. I play strictly for my personal pleasure, with some flexibility to accommodate my bandmate's taste. I leave the compromises to my professional life, and strive to keep music as pure pleasure.

 

2) I have no intention of composing music. I believe it takes a kind of talent that I do not have. The fact that very few of the tunes ever composed are any good (again from my personal point of view) reinforces this concept.

 

3) I am very picky on nailing an exact cover of the music I like. The idea of playing "Bohemian Rhapsody" a step lower does not make sense to me. It is like going to a church marriage dressed in shorts and T-shirt, with the excuse that you do not have a suit. I am the singer, mind you. If I cannot reach the notes of the original, I do not play the song. Therefore playing in different keys is not paramount in view of my purposes. The same applies to well, I replaced this lick with one of my own... thing. My experience is that 90% of the time it is a poor excuse for not being able to nail the original lick. I never came up with a lick of my own that was better than the one in the original recording which made the song attractive to me in the first place.

 

4) I do respect the classics, and actually do listen to some of them. But the classics are not the only source of challenging pieces. I sure have my hands full with some rock tunes.

 

Dave, I am not disputing the fact that the ability to relay on melodic structural analysis helps on simplifying memorization. As explained on my previous posting, I only believe the many years of dedication required to achieve this ability are not comparable to the benefit of having it. It is a simple question of valuing benefit versus effort. And if you look at my goals (i.e. playing cover rock tunes) my choice does not seem that much bizarre.

 

I've come across differences of perspective upon reading many posts in this wonderful group, but this one is by far the one that exposes it the most. But as I already wrote, I am sure we all enjoy music in spite of our vision of it.

 

P.S.: Dave, I asked the memorization question with the light mind of someone who's really stuck with a problem and wonders how others handle it. I sure knew exactly how you would answer (you are kind of an institution in this group ), but perhaps someone would come up with something I had not thought about. Like the idea of memorizing the parts in reverse order.

[Dave Horne]

The idea of playing "Bohemian Rhapsody" a step lower does not make sense to me.

Maybe it might sound better a 1/2 step higher instead, who knows. I once knew a pianist who always played tunes in their original key. His reasoning, the original key was the composer's intention, anything else wasn't being ... pure.

 

Sometimes playing a tune in a different key makes it sound better only because the placement of the chord voicings actually sounds better in different keys. Sometimes the voicing you might want to use sounds a bit muddy in one key so taking it up is the solution. If it happens to sound better in Db than C, play it in where it sounds better. As an aside, Tom Jones would record in one key and they would speed up the tape to make to make it brighter (and slightly faster in the old analogue days). There's a dilemma - what's the original key there?

 

Bottom line for me is what sounds better.

[MIDIdiot]

Andre, not that you care to hear from me, but my $0.02 is if you're happy doing what you're doing then that's really all that matters. I don't know how long you have been playing but that's a limited approach albeit one can travel a very great distance musically with that approach. However, the desire to surpass one's own limits comes from within, so one day perhaps, you will want to explore more musical theory, maybe not. Until then, I'm sure you will be very happy playing the same way you do now.

[MikeT156]

Andres certainly makes good points as to why he does things the way he does them. For example, the "return" you get from time invested. Not interested in playing professionally, so why bother learning something that you may never use. Can't argue with that.

 

If Andre is satisifed with his chops, has a good ear, and works on the tunes he wants to learn, I'm sure he can still get excellent results. Everyone has their own way of doing things, but as Andre said, we all enjoy music.

 

Cheers,

 

Mike T.

[Steve in KS]

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

. . . If you rely on 'finger memory', you're screwed. You get nervous, misplace one finger and the house of cards comes tumbling down.

This is just not true. I've always played almost solely on muscle memory and except for my first couple of times playing in public, I've never had a brain fart that left me unable to recover. By the time I play something for anyone else to hear, I've played it so many times that it is a part of me. I'm no more likely to get stymied in the middle of a song than I am to suddenly forget how to steer my car or go to the bathroom. (Both primarily muscle memory skills)

[MIDIdiot]

Steve in KS:

I've always played almost solely on muscle memory and except for my first couple of times playing in public, I've never had a brain fart that left me unable to recover. By the time I play something for anyone else to hear, I've played it so many times that it is a part of me

And how do you find this works for you on a tune that you haven't played in years?

[JeffLearman]

Learjeff, it sounds like you're working both sides of the street.

Exactly. There are many paths to enlightment. I think it helps to explore many paths.

 

Andre, if you never came up with a variation that you liked better than the original, I feel sorry for you. It's not unusual for me to learn a song more or less rote and play it for years thinking I'm playing a pretty faithful rendition. But the part drifts and takes on my own style, and when I hear the original again for the first time, I get annoyed because they're missing this or that little thing!

 

I also think it's foolish to try to be a human juke-box. But I'm foolish enough to enjoy trying to be one! Worse yet, I record stuff, trying to be as faithful as possible, for the fun of it and to learn stuff. Yet, the results still seem to have my fingerprints all over them. In a way it's a limitation, but in another way it's a good thing.

 

Many big-name will tell you that they record their songs before they've taken them on tour and learned to play them properly. The recorded version isn't necessary the pinnacle.

 

Some tunes sound better in different keys on different pianos (mostly depends on the way they're tuned). But mainly, playing them in another key is a way of understanding the structure. I didn't suggest it as a necessity. In my case, I play tunes in different keys all the time -- I play jam sessions, and it's usually fine with me if the other folks want to pick a key they like. (It's really good exercise for me!) But, I don't think I'd bother trying to play Emerson's Trilogy that way!

 

Memorizing tunes really isn't the hard part, anyway. Knowing them well enough to play and sing lead at the same time, THAT takes knowing it cold, both ways. At least for me. I can pretty quickly get to the point where I can sing or play a song. But to do both, I usually gotta get a serious jones for it and drive my wife crazy doing it over and over.

 

Regardless, I think it's foolish to be bigoted about "the only best way", because what's best is different for different kinds of people. And in any case, it helps to know basic nomenclature if you want to communicate with other musicians.

[Steve in KS]

Originally posted by InTheDark:

Steve in KS:

I've always played almost solely on muscle memory and except for my first couple of times playing in public, I've never had a brain fart that left me unable to recover. By the time I play something for anyone else to hear, I've played it so many times that it is a part of me

And how do you find this works for you on a tune that you haven't played in years?

It varies. Some of it comes back pretty quick as I start to re-familiarize myself with it. Other things, especially 'classical' pieces that were more difficult for me to learn don't come back so easo;u. I have to revisit the sheet music, but they're easier to re-learn than they were the first time.

[Andre Lower]

Originally posted by learjeff:

I also think it's foolish to try to be a human juke-box. But I'm foolish enough to enjoy trying to be one! Worse yet, I record stuff, trying to be as faithful as possible, for the fun of it and to learn stuff. Yet, the results still seem to have my fingerprints all over them. In a way it's a limitation, but in another way it's a good thing.[/QB]

Ditto!

 

Memorizing tunes really isn't the hard part, anyway. Knowing them well enough to play and sing lead at the same time, THAT takes knowing it cold, both ways.[/QB]

Oh boy, now that is my bread and butter. It is really tough, and though I have improved a bit over the years, it is still the toughest part... I only did not bring it up before because I realized from previous postings that very few people in this group are interested in singing.

 

Regardless, I think it's foolish to be bigoted about "the only best way", because what's best is different for different kinds of people. [/QB]

Thanks, Learjeff!

[Dave Horne]

The following story is true and possibly relevant. My wife has a cousin who lives right around the corner and who has severe pain in her lower back. She recently went to her family doctor who gave her professional advice - go to a physical therapist.

 

The prospect, however, of having to change her clothes several times a day to accommodate the therapist and the work outs was simply too much trouble. My wife's cousin wants an injection to relieve the pain; she does not want to confront the origin of the pain, she simply wants a convenient solution to her problem.

 

The solution for her current dilemma, she's going to another doctor who will tell her want she wants to hear. If the next doctor also advises a physical therapist, she will proceed to yet another doctor who will tell her want she want to hear.

 

Sometimes it is easier to ignore the best advice for the quick fix. The doctor will see you next.

[Andre Lower]

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

The following story is true and possibly relevant.

OK Dave, I have a relevant story too. I am a Civil Engineer, and in school we were frequently confronted with topics that were very hard to understand. Then over time every one of us (that is my colleagues and I) developed an acute sense of which kind of example and/or approach was the best for oneself. Some people would naturally understand structural analysis by means of the mathematical examples only. Others preferred practical, physical examples, devoid of numbers (these guys would just abstract the variables by naming them with letters and concentrate on the understanding of the model, not the problem immediately at hand). With 120 students, you were sure to find many more approaches to handle the task of understanding what they would teach us.

 

Then of course we had just as many different teachers. Some of them were pretty hermetic, forever sure that there was a single best way to understand whatever they were teaching (more often than not the way they were taught). Others were gifted with mental flexibility and a genuine interest for the mechanics of learning. Over time, they would develop a "personal" connection with each of their pupils, resorting to that particular pupil's preferred approach every time they suspected they were not being understood.

 

It was an Open University, and though everyone had to go through all the credits, we were free to choose which teacher classes to attend. It always amused me that the "one track brain" teachers hardly ever had more than a dozen pupils at any one time, whereas the classes of the "flexible" ones were always crowded to the point of having people sitting on the floor. And mind you, the examinations were a global affair, everybody would face exactly the same tests.

 

As the venerable Frank Zappa used to say, a mind is kind of like a parachute: It works best when it is open.

 

People are very unique, Dave. And yes there is more than a way to do most anything. To give you yet another example, I never in my life had a formal English class. Not even the very silly basics. I learned from scratch, on my own. It started upon listening to Beatles tunes and then trying to sing them. Then looking for the right lyrics. Then learning their meaning. Then reading snippets of the National Geographic Magazine. Then traveling abroad, enjoying the practical teachings of some English-speaking girlfriends. Then I got it. Just like with Music, I surely could have got here through classes. Only I chose not to do so, mostly because I abhor grammar (I'm sure that will raise your eyebrow ). But you see Dave, I learned what I needed to learn to serve my purposes: I am communicating with you...

[MikeT156]

Both interesting stories you guys. Here's another one. A woman friend of mine met and married a great guy from the Netherlands. They decided to get married in our hometown at the place where they met. Her Husband's best man came to the US for the wedding, and being that he was never in the US before, I was surprised at how well he spoke English. I asked him how he learned to speak English (well, the American Dialect) and he said "From watching American TV programs". Never had any formal English classes that I know of, never a "world traveler". I was also pleasantly surprised with his good manners. I'm glad he didn't spend too much time in New York City when he visited us later the next year, that may have changed that.

 

Now, I don't know that learning English is standard in the Netherlands education system and he was BS'n me, but he sure as hell had no problem communicating with us. He had better grammar than many of the "locals" too.

 

I really don't think we should let this turn into a pissin' contest. There are a number of ways to learn things, whatever works.

 

Mike T.

[Dave Horne]

When I was in high school and college I had to perform from time to time without using music. I would use the 'finger memory' method along with various 'tricks', in other words, just the opposite of what I would recommend now. I wasted a lot of time using those assorted 'tricks' to get the job done.

 

As I got older, I realized the best way to accomplish the task of memorizing something is to really understand what you are playing. Some folks have a photographic memory (Leonard Bernstein did) and 'see' a picture of the music in their head. They do not have to memorize, they just read the music they see in their mind's eye. For the rest of us, the chore of memorizing music is made easier when we have more 'hooks' on which to hang the vast amount of musical information. Theory and analysis allow us to reduce (and conceptualize) the vast amount of information into smaller chunks. By reducing the amount of information to work with, you have less 'things' to clutter your mind ... and memorization becomes easier.

 

The added advantage of learning conventional theory (and not creating your own special language) makes communication easier with others in your field. If we all speak the same basic language (along with the assorted accents or dialects) we still can communicate with each other. Speaking the same language facilitates communication.

 

(In order to effectively use theory and analysis to facilitate memorization, one must be able to read music - slowly, poorly perhaps, but able to read nonetheless. If you are musically illiterate, it is a waste of everyone's time asking for tips on how to improve the task of memorization.)

[MikeT156]

Well Dave, by now I'm sure you know that I agree with your position on musical training, having been a self taught musician at first, and later going back to take piano lessons, then organ lessons, and then, voice training. There are a lot of people that have no musical training on this and other sites. Many of them are as adament as our friend Andre about not wanting to take the time to get formal training. I believe he has the right to ask the question as much as you have the right to give him your best answer. There's not a lot you can do if anyone doesn't take your advice and goes in another direction, or continues to use the method he's always used, rely on pure memorization.

 

Mike T.