A Century of Memorization Pedagogy

Author(s): Jennifer Mishra

Source: Journal of Historical Research in Music Education , OCTOBER 2010, Vol. 32, No.
1 (OCTOBER 2010), pp. 3-18
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20789876

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20789876?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Historical Research in Music Education

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Historical Research in Music Education_October 2010 XXXII: 1

A Century of Memorization Pedagogy

Jennifer Mishra
University of Houston

In 1837, eighteen-year-old Clara Schumann performed Beethovens Piano

Sonata No. 23 in F minor, opus 57 from memory1 A century later, performing
the piece from memory would have been commonplace, but early in the
nineteenth century, performing without the score was viewed as arrogant and
ostentatious. It focused attention on the performer and the performance and
away from the composer and the music. In the 1840s, only a few years after
Clara Schumann's feat, Franz Liszt performed more than half his recitals from
memory.2 Romantic virtuosity was sweeping through the world of music and
performing from memory was the act that could inspire awe. People viewed
performers playing memorized music as having almost super-human powers.
By the beginning of the 20th century, it was common for instrumentalists to
perform concerti by memory and for pianists to memorize solo recitals. A pianist
performing with score became the notable exception.
Commentators began discussing the merits of performing without a score
almost at once. Chopin discouraged the practice3 while Liszt actively encouraged
his students to memorize. With conventions moving toward performing from
memory, it was not long before the pedagogues, as well as the critics, took up
the topic in the periodicals of the time. One of the earliest discussions, appearing
in the 1872 volume of Dwights Journal of Music, concerns whether or not music
should be conducted by memory. The author, Ferdinand Hiller, provides both
sides of what appears to have been an ongoing debate, and decides in the end
that soloists may be excused the virtuosity of playing from memory, but not
conductors who:

. . . have a higher object: that of presenting in the best light the musical
picture confided to them. The more they disappear as individuals from before
the audience, the better. Nothing is a greater mistake than for a conductor
to assume the place of a virtuoso, and attempt to attract the attention of
the public to himself personally... diverting] their attention from what,
in the eyes of a conductor, ought to be of more account than anything else
[the music] .4

?.Joan Chissell, Ckra Schumann: A Dedicated Spirit (NY/. 1983), 46-47.

2. Alan Walker, Franz Liszt: The Virtuoso years 1811-1847 {NX.: Knopf, 1983), 372.

3. Jonathan Bellman, "Chopin and his Imitators: Notated Emulations of the True Style of
Performance," 19th-century Music, 24 (2000): 149-160.
4. Ferdinand Hiller, "Conducting from Memory," Dwights Journal of Music, 32 (1872): 289.
3

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
4 Journal of Historical Research in Music Education

By this point, probably influenced by the great performers of the Romantic

era, the practice of performing from memory was being accepted as common.
Pedagogical discussions shifted away from whether or not to memorize to the
most effective way to memorize. At this point, writers either clearly advocated
memorizing, at least in certain situations, or took it for granted. Recently, there
has been renewed interest in the debate with a handful of articles written
between 1990 and 2001 (n = 7) again questioning the convention of performing
from memory.
The purpose of this paper is to identify trends in pedagogical writing on
committing music to memory to determine whether thinking and techniques
have changed during the last 106 years. Articles written by musicians and
music teachers and published in English language periodicals or as book
chapters were subjected to a content analysis (N= 185). The articles chosen
were specifically about memorization; not considered were articles on broader
topics that included a passing mention of memorization. While an attempt was
made to be exhaustive, it is likely that not all articles on the topic were included
in the analysis. The earliest article was the aforementioned 1872 article by Hiller
and the most recent was written in 2006 by Oshima-Ryan.5 As can be seen in
Figure 1, the number of articles published each decade varied, with a dramatic
increase since 1980. More articles were published in the last twenty-six years
(n = 109) than in the entire preceding century (n = 76).
A number of journals demonstrated a repeated interest, publishing more
than five articles on the topic, including The American Music Teacher\n =16),
Classical Guitar (n = 7), Clavier (n= 16), The Etude (n= 17), Music Educators
Journal\n = 7), Music (n = 8), and Musical Times (n = 8). Additional journals
represented in the content analysis indicate a widespread interest in the topic,
regardless of primary instrument. Articles were also found in American Organist,
American Recorder, Choral Journal, Flute Talk, Guitar & Lute, Guitar Player,

Figure 1. Breakdown by decade of the number of articles and book chapters

on musical memorization included in the content analysis {N= 185).

5. Yumiko Oshima-Ryan, "Not Always by Memory," Clavier, 45 (2006): 21, 23-27, 30-32.

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Jennifer Mishra_i

Guitar Review, Jazz Education Journal, Journal of Singing, NATS Journal,

Percussive Notes, Piano & Keyboard, Recorder Magazine, Saxophone Journal,
Soundboard, and Strings.
Despite the general interest, the majority (60 percent) of the articles focused
on memorizing for keyboard instruments (piano or organ). Pianists appear
more vested in memorizing music possibly because it began with the virtuosic
pianists of the Romantic era and may indicate a desire to perpetuate the
piano as the virtuosic instrument. Many articles however, were instrument
nonspecific (16 percent), emphasizing memorization as a process rather than
as a specific instrumental technique. A handful of articles focused on memorizing
for other instruments (strings/guitar: 11 percent; woodwinds/recorder:
6 percent; brass/percussion: 2 percent), including conducting (3 percent).
Notably, just a few articles were devoted to vocal memorization (3 percent). The
scarcity of articles may simply reflect the longer history of performing vocal music
without a score?so engrained is the practice of memorization that it does
not need to be discussed. Alternatively, vocalists may view memorizing music
as less arduous, suggesting a fundamental difference in vocal and instrumental
memorization. Throughout the content analysis, differences in attitudes
and practices based on instrument were considered. However, no obvious
trends were apparent.

Content Analysis
Articles written between 1872 and 2006 on the topic of musical
memorization (N= 185) were analyzed for patterns and trends. The major topics
discussed were characteristics of good and poor memorizers, methods (visual,
aural, kinesthetic, and analytical), organizing memorization practice, memory
cues and preparing for performance, and reasons why memory fails in
performance. Table 1 shows how the articles were distributed, referencing each
category and sub-category. As many of the authors discussed multiple topics,
percentages sum to more than 100 percent.
In this survey, it was expected that a change in thinking over the course of
the twentieth century would show, but instead there were no obvious patterns
based on when the article was published. Ludicrous theories, such as one
discussed in an article by Van Cleve published in 1897, were rare:

Musicians as a class of men have large brains. . . . [M]en like Bach,

Beethoven, Wagner and many others, have had conspicuous bulky bulbs
at the top of their spinal marrow. It is one of the most curious and
patent facts that wherever there is a large brain there is phenomenal
memory.6

6. John S. Van Cleve, "Concerning Musical Memory," Music, 13 (1897): 158.

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 6_Journal of Historical Research in Music Education

Table 1
Percentage of Articles by Topic (N= 185).

Articles cover multiple topics resulting

in percentages that sum to more than 100 percent.

(percent) (percent)
within category of total

Memorization Advocacy 87 (47)

Memorization favored 53 (61)
Memorization not favored 10(11)
Memorization is situational 30 (34)
Memorization Produces Higher Anxiety 36 (19)
Characteristics of Good Memorizers 18 (9)
Motivated/Preference for piece 12 (67)
Memorization related to sightreading 7 (39)
Talent 6 (33)
Innate skill (for memorizing) 5
Attention span 4 (22)
Absolute pitch 2 (11)
HighlQ 2(11)
Musical knowledge 1 (5)
Memorization Methods 116 (63)
Analytical 62 (53)
Kinesthetic 53 (46)
Visual 45 (39)
Aural 44 (38)
Combination advocated 55 (47)
Visual Method* 73 (39)
Visualize notation 51 (70)
Notate music 26 (36)
Visualize playing 13(18)
Visualize hand patterns 12 (16)
Use imagery (not notation) 8(11)
Aural Method* 88 (48)
Audiate 57 (65)
Sing/hum 39 (44)
Learn music by rote/Improvising 21 (2
Listen to recordings 18 (20)
Record & listen to own playing 17 (1
Transpose 12 (14)

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Jennifer Mishra_

Kinesthetic Method* 76 (41)

Play in air/silently 30 (39)
Visualize playing 27 (36)
Play with eyes closed 22 (29)
Automate movements 19 (25)
Play on different instrument 4 (5)
Analytical Method* 140 (75)
Formal analysis 95 (68)
Informal analysis (find patterns) 66 (47)
Play at slow tempo 56 (40)
Play hands separately 53 (38)
Study away from instrument 40 (29)
Create visual map 15 (11)
Manipulate elements 15 (12)
Internal dialogue/verbalization 8 (6)
Block chords 6 (4)
Other Practice Techniques 30 (16)
Recite pitch names 17 (57)
Feel emotion of piece 7 (23)
Add lyrics to melody 5(17)
Count aloud 3 (10)
Organizing Memorization Practice 74 (40)
Memorize early 48 (65)
Distribute practice 37 (50)
Mass practice 3 (4)
Memorization Strategy 74 (40)
Segmented (Part) 49 (66)
Phrase 28 (60)
1-2 bars 16(34)
Difficulty 15 (32)
Page 3 (6)
Line 3 (6)
Holistic (Whole) 6 (8)
Holistic & segmented comb
Additive 16 (22)
Memory Cues 64 (35)
Start practice at various poin
Identify landmarks 25 (39
Practice backwards
Add images/labels 11(17)
Alternate playing and a

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Journal of Historical Research in Music Education

(percent) (percent)
within category of total

Preparing for Performance 49 (26)

Perform informal concert 33 (67)
Add distractions to practice 11 (22)
Imagine performance 10(20)
Dress rehearsal 9 (18)
Remove distractions from practice 3 (6)
Practice without warm-up 2 (4)
Reasons why Memory Fails in Performance 102 (55)
Reliance on kinesthetic memory 47 (46)
Distractions 43 (42)
Anxiety/stress 26 (25)
Technical problems/practicing 16(16)
Confusion with other passages 16(16)
Changes in environment 13 (13)
Poor practice strategies 11 (11)
Failure to listen 8 (8)
Limited memory span 8 (8)
Age 7 (7)
Reliance on visual memory
Rote learning 4 (4)
* Grouping of practice strategies in
analytical reflects the researchers u

Aside from the discussion m

be performed by memory, wh
there was a general chronol
twentieth century.

Characteristics of Goo

Generally, memorization w
developed in all musicians; how
of good and poor memorizer
motivation. As Winslow (1949)
a voluntary one and basicall
to memorize" (italics in orig

7. Robert W. Winslow, "The Psych

no. 2 (1948): 15.

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Jennifer Mishra_9

ability to memorize was an innate skill or related to musical talent or attention

span. A few authors (n = 7) noted a connection between sight reading and
memorization, though a couple specifically dismissed the relationship.
Only one author mentioned the importance of previous knowledge in the
task of memorization. Winslow noted, "... musical learning is dependent upon
musical understanding_One has but to witness a person attempting to learn
an unknown poem in a foreign language... to appreciate the relationship between
understanding and retention."8 This omission is notable as there is widespread
evidence from expertise development research that experience affects the way
new information is learned. Experts remember patterns and have superior
memory in their domain (e.g., music, chess).9 In essence, every musical
experience combines to determine how well a musician can memorize. While
most of these authors did not emphasize musical knowledge, a large number
did focus on efficiency, discussing the most efficient strategies for memorization.

Memorization Methods: Visual, Aural, Kinesthetic, Analytical

Two-thirds of the articles (63 percent) focused on at least one of the
commonly discussed memorization methods: visual, aural, kinesthetic, and
analytical. Though various terms were used when labeling these methods (e.g.,
ear, melodic, auditory memory for aural memory and tactile, muscular, motor,
finger, or digital memory for kinesthetic), the underlying method was clear. The
terms visual, aural, kinesthetic, and analytical shall be used throughout the paper
for consistency and to reflect a move toward the use of these terms in the literature.
Rarely was one method of memorization discussed in isolation. In general, at
least two, but more commonly all four methods were discussed. Many authors
specifically advocated combining these methods for memorization stability. The
first author to advocate for the use of all four methods was Shinn, who stated
in 1898:

Not merely is it [memorization] employed by those whose memory is

sufficiently reliable and secure to enable them to play pieces without some
assistance from the printed music, but even by performers who carefully
follow the printed page are the forms of memory belonging respectively
to the ear, the fingers, the eye, and the intellect employed more or less
continuously throughout the progress of a piece.10

8. Winslow, 15.

9. For a review, see Robert H. Woody, "Learning from the Experts: Applying Research in
Expert Performance to Music Education," Update: Applications of Research in Music Education,
19 no. 2 (spring-summer 2001): 9-14.
10. Frederick G. Shinn, "Memorizing of Piano Music for Performance," Music Association
Proceedings, 25 (1898): 1.

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 10_Journal of Historical Research in Music Education

The use of these four memorization methods, especially in combination,

persists. In 2003, Dube wrote:

The act of memorization calls on several distinct types of memory, of which

a pianist uses four to memorize a work in his/her repertoire: auditory, visual,
kinesthetic and conceptual. Each fulfills a specific role in the process, but
it is their mutual interaction that allows a pianist to remember. All kinds
of memory must work together to be truly efficient.11

This conceptual consistency lends itself to two conflicting interpretations.

The first is that musicians clearly know and understand how to memorize music
and have for more than 100 years. When asked about it, nearly all musicians
report using one or more of these methods, generally emphasizing a combination,
though there is no consensus as to the distribution.12 However, the large
number of writings on the topic and the underlying rationale for writing the
articles suggest musicians continue to find the process challenging and anxiety
producing. Therefore, an alternate interpretation is that though sheer repetition
of an idea, musicians have perpetuated the myth of visual, aural, kinesthetic,
and analytical memory and the "common knowledge" resulting from this
incomplete picture has inhibited growth and understanding of the topic.
Further, the consistency in the literature advocating visual, aural, kinesthetic,
and analytical memories is surprising when contrasted with the drastic changes
in the psychological understanding of memory in the twentieth century. From
1898 to 2003, psychology has progressed from introspection, through behavioral
psychology into cognitive psychology and has now entered the era of
neuropsychology. Understanding of human thinking and especially memory
has changed drastically, yet only a very few isolated articles have attempted to
apply psychological understanding of human memory to musical memorization.
In psychology, the influence of the sensory memories (aural, visual, and
kinesthetic) has been supplanted by a more concept-driven understanding of
human memory. However, the proportion of articles specifically advocating an
analytical or conceptual approach to musical memorization has changed little
over the century.
Most articles centered on practice strategies designed to develop one or more
of the aforementioned methods. Activities were not always linked to a single
method. For instance, silendy fingering a piece could be advocated for developing

11. Francis Dube, "Pianists' Four Kinds of Memory," La Scena Musicale, 9 (2003),
http://wvvw.scena.org/lsm/sm9-3/pianiste-en.htm (accessed 26 October 2007).

12. Jennifer Mishra, "Correlating Musical Memorization Styles and Perceptual Learning
Modalities," Visions of Research in Music Education, 9-10 (2007), www.rider.edu/-vrme/
(accessed 14 July 2007).

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Jennifer Mishra_11

aural or kinesthetic memory, or both. Further, practice strategies were often

advised without talking about which type of memory the strategy was designed
to develop. For this content analysis, these practice techniques were classified
based on the underlying themes in the literature and a global understanding
of what method of memory each activity may enhance.
Few authors believed that visual memory was an inborn trait equivalent to
ftdl-scale photographic memory. Most believed that visual memory could be
developed, at least for portions of the piece, and advocated mentally visualizing
the notation. To check memory, many suggested writing out the notation.
Visualizing hand patterns was also advocated, not just for pianists, but also for
guitarists and percussionists.
Thinking through the sound of the piece (audiation) and singing or
humming were the two most popular strategies for developing aural memory.
Listening was also encouraged (though not often before the 1980s), either to
recordings by others, live performances, or recordings of the performer s own
practice sessions. Other techniques included learning at least a portion of a piece
by rote, improvisation practice (particularly useful if a memory slip were to occur
in performance), and transposition exercises.
Two additional activities, which could be used to improve either aural or
kinesthetic memory, were playing silently in the air or on a desk and playing
with eyes closed. Removing aural feedback by playing silently was suggested
to encourage audiation, but this practice also focuses attention on muscle
movements. Playing with eyes closed removes any residual visual feedback,
allowing attention to be focused on the sound of the music and the feel of the
muscles. In the 1940s, authors began advocating kinesthetic visualization.
"Mental practice is an invaluable skill for the pianist to develop. With eyes closed,
visualize keyboard and mentally play your piece."13 This visualization could
develop kinesthetic memory if the focus was on the feel of the performance,
though other authors focused on mentally seeing a visual image of the hands.
An over-reliance on kinesthetic memory resulting in memory instability was
mentioned in approximately a quarter (27 percent) of the reviewed articles.
Practicing at a very slow tempo was commonly advocated as a way to depend
less on kinesthetic memory and counteract what was perceived as the dangerous
automaticity of muscle movements. However, research on procedural memory?
the memory of skills?indicates that the ultimate goal of practice is the
automaticity of movements. Conscious, explicit memory initially required
during the learning of a skill is supplanted by unconscious, implicit memory.
As Llin?s described, using a musical example, "The previously mastered and

13. Samuel Viviano, "Some Thoughts on Memorization," The American Music Teacher, 36
(1986): 52.

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 12_Journal of Historical Research in Music Education

memorized composition represents a learned motor skill and is largely implicit

memory There is simply no time to think about what is the next note you must
play."14 Thus, automated motor patterns are the goal when learning to perform
a particular musical composition. Performing slowly may indeed force
unconscious muscle movements into consciousness, but ultimately the piece
must be performed at tempo with a certain amount of automaticity. A few authors
noted that automating the movements required to perform music by memory
is important. However, playing slowly has an additional benefit not discussed
in the literature; it may develop and enhance analytical memory.
Analytical memory is the cognitive interpretation of patterns in a musical
work. Three-quarters (75 percent) of the reviewed articles mentioned some
practice that could develop analytical memory. Though often considered a formal
theoretical analysis of the music, analytical memory may be much more
informal. Shockley developed a system for identifying musical patterns which
she called "mapping," a process whereby the way the individual understands a
musical work is notated using images. In her words, "Memorization that is based
on awareness of musical patterns and structure rather than on rote repetition
can promote a more secure performance and foster an efficient, stimulating
approach to learning."15 To enhance analysis, she advocated studying the score
away from the instrument, including a period of study prior to sight reading
the piece.
Practicing at a slow tempo aids the musician in developing the slower
cognitive processes, such as pattern recognition. Similarly, isolating hands or
musical elements helps the musician focus his or her attention. By separating
left and right hands or melody from rhythm, the performer can discover
patterns that would otherwise be overlooked, developing analytical memory.
Another strategy suggested was that the learner should change expressive
elements such as dynamics and articulation. While some consider this
counterintuitive, as the strategy does not reinforce the music as it will be
performed, manipulating elements draws attention to musical detail and allows
the musician to experience the music differently.
Playing slowly or separating elements of the piece appear to focus attention
and encourage cognitive analysis. However, a person who uses these techniques
does not necessarily understand the music more deeply. It is possible for a pianist
to mindlessly practice hands separately at a very slow tempo, which severely reduces
the effectiveness of the activity. While it is possible to memorize by mindlessly
repeating a piece, the process is time-consuming and the resulting memory may

14. Rudolfo R. Llin?s, I of the Vortex: From Neurons to Self (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
2001), 187.
15. Rebecca Shockley, "A New Approach to Memorization," Clavier, 25 (1986): 20.

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Jennifer Mishra_13

be unstable. A number of authors address this concern, emphasizing complete

concentration during practice. Musical meaning is the key to musical memory.
Whatever is meaningful is easy to remember. Something meaningless will be
remembered only laboriously. Musicianship imparts meaning to the notes on
the page, and analysis is a tool to activate musicianship.16

Organizing Memorization Practice

Many articles also included ways of organizing practice. Forty-eight of
the authors specifically mentioned that the performer should start memorizing
the music early. The consensus was that memorization should not be left:
until after a piece was technically learned, but should begin as soon as possible.
This integrates memorization into the learning of the piece, rather than
relegating it to a pre-performance activity. Starting early may also encourage
practice blocks separated by breaks, a technique that psychologists and educators
alike encourage. These breaks allow memories to be consolidated and solidified.
Twenty percent of the authors specifically encouraged distributing memorization
practice over time.
While a discussion of whether to memorize using a holistic (whole) or
segmented (part) strategy has received some attention, possibly due to early
memorization research by Rubin-Rabson,17 the pedagogical literature shows little
signs of division. Most writers advocate a segmented strategy, though some suggest
a balance between the use of holistic and segmented strategies. This view is
supported by recent observational research, which found that experts tend to
intersperse periods of intense practice on a section with playthroughs.18 While
not always defining the ideal length of a segment, many authors suggested dividing
the piece by phrase or in a way that made musical sense. A number of authors
noted that the size of the segment was related to the difficulty of the music,
with technically difficult passages divided into smaller segments. However, over
a third of the authors recommended segments of one to two measures. While
short segments might be necessary for difficult passages, dividing the music into
such small segments disrupts the musical flow, making it difficult to conceptualize
the segment in relation to the entire piece. By far, segmented practice was
mentioned most frequently when discussing how to organize memorization.

16. Thomas Mastroianni, "Can Musical Memory be Manipulated?," Piano and Keyboard
186 (1997): 21.
17. Grace Rubin-Rabson, "Studies in the Psychology of Memorizing Piano Music: A
comparison of the Whole and the Part Approach," Journal of Educational Psychology, 31
(1940): 460-476.
18. Roger Chaffin, Gabriella Imreh, and Mary Crawford, Practicing Perfection: Memory and
Piano Performance, (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002).

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 14_Journal of Historical Research in Music Education

Holistic, holistic and segmented, and additive techniques (where a segment is

systematically lengthened) were mentioned much less frequendy in the literature.
Recent research has revealed holistic and additive strategies may be more
efficient than segmented when memorizing a short piece of music.19
As mentioned earlier, practice should always be mindfulra?ier than mindless.
Only a very few authors (n = 8) advocated mindless repetition by playing each
segment three, five, or ten times before moving to the next. This technique of
mindless repetition was not found to be prevalent in the literature and Jordan
Anders illustrates the dangers: "Practice time spent automatically repeating music
without thinking creates a mental vacuum, which nature abhors. This vacuum
will be filled.... if a student allows this vacuum to exist during practice time,
it will persist during performance."20

Memory Cues and Preparing for Performance

When authors wrote about segmentation, they also discussed memory
cues. They encouraged musicians to add mental landmarks which would
serve as back up starting points if memory failed in performance. Many authors
(n = 64) suggested consciously identifying landmarks and starting from various
points in the piece. Those points are best found paying attention to phrase
structure or musically important (or difficult) locations. "... [I] t is good to try
if one can begin at various points during the course of the piece and still keep
the continuity of the composition clearly in mind."21
One technique often suggested is practicing backwards (playing the last phrase
or section first and then working toward the beginning phrase-by-phrase). Jordan
Anders elucidates the benefits to this strategy:

A logical dissection of a piece stimulates a student's thinking and

discourages passive practice. Also, most memory mistakes happen toward
the end of a piece because students typically learn pieces from the
beginning; they usually practice the first measures at least twice as many
times as the final ones. Working backwards can help compensate for this
natural tendency.22

Another test of memory involves alternating between playing and thinking

through or silently playing sections of the piece.

19. Jennifer Mishra, "A qualitative analysis of strategies employed in efficient and inefficient
memorization," Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 152 (2003): 74-86.
20. Lee Jordan-Anders, "Stamp Out Memory-by-Default," Clavier, 29 (1990): 35.

21. Edwin Hughes, "Musical Memory in Piano Playing and Piano Study," The Musical
Quarterly, i (1915): 601.
22. Jordan-Anders, 34.

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Jennifer Mishra_L?

Only about a quarter of the authors (26 percent) addressed preparing for
performance and most of these called for either a formal or informal dress rehearsal
or practice performance. Imreh and Chaffin discuss why a musician should
perform an informal dress rehearsal:

A memory will often surface if you are able to re-create a situation

similar to that in which you last remembered it. The more similar the
present situation is to the last time, the more reliability it will cue the
memory... The more similar the circumstances, the more likely the right
memory will be available. . . That is why it is so important to practice
in front of other people before a performance. The presence of other people
changes the memory cues.23

During practice, a few authors recommended removing all distractions though

others suggested adding distractions to insure the piece could be performed in
a concert situation, which often includes unexpected distractions. Visualizing
the performance environment during practice was suggested by surprisingly few
authors (n = 10) especially considering that visual, aural, and kinesthetic
visualization was commonly discussed. Imagery can also be used to mediate
context effects (described in the above quote by Imreh and Chaffin) which predict
memory will be better for material if it is learned and recalled in the same or
similar environment.24

Reasons Why Memory Fails in Performance

Approximately half of the authors (55 percent) hypothesized at least one
reason for forgetting and while there was a range of reasons, three were the most
prevalent: relying too much on kinesthetic memory, becoming distracted
during the performance, and stress or anxiety. As discussed earlier, automatic
muscle movements is a desired outcome of procedural memory. This unconscious,
automated movement however appears to be mislabeled frequently in the
literature as kinesthetic memory (strictly defined as the memory for muscle
movements). The memory lapses attributed to relying too much on kinesthetic
memory are likely a breakdown in the automated muscle movements necessary
for a musical performance. Further, a processing breakdown may occur when
the musician makes a conscious attempt to control automated movements, as
cognitive thought functions slower than automated movements. It is not the

23. Gabriella Imreh and Roger Chaffin, "Understanding and Developing Musical Memory:
The Views of a Concert Pianist and a Cognitive Psychologist," American Music Teacher, 46
no. 3 (1996/7): 22.

24. Jennifer Mishra, "Context-Dependent Memory: Implications for Musical Performance,"

Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 20 (2002): 27-31.

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 16_Journal of Historical Research in Music Education

automated movements that are the problem, but the conscious attempt to control
them. The sensation that muscles are moving without input from the brain can
be unsettling. Placing cues or landmarks in strategic places throughout the piece
can keep the performer in sufficient contact with the mechanical movements
to dissipate the disconcerting effects.
Though many musicians say that they forget music during concerts because
of being anxious or distracted, the underlying cause may be a change in events
or in physiology Concert halls vary considerably from practice spaces. The
differences may not appear important (e.g., lighting, d?cor, acoustics), but
seemingly incidental features of the context serve as memory cues. The change
of environment may remove an important, though unconscious, memory
cue.25 Similarly, musicians rarely experience the high level of anxiety, accompanied
by physiological changes (e.g., tremors, sweaty hands, etc.) during practice, but
even the most seasoned performer may experience at least moderate or even
high levels of anxiety while performing. Practicing in the concert space is one
way of mediating the effects of a change of context. Thus, the pre-performance
activity of a dress rehearsal is not only pedagogically sound, but has a basis in
psychological research.26
A number of other reasons for memory loss were discussed throughout the
literature including confusing similar passages of music, technical problems, and
poor practice strategies. When one passage of music inhibits the retrieval of
another passage, it is called interference and it is a well-documented cause of
memory failure. When two passages are similar, the musician needs to find a
way to make each section as distinct as possible. Adding clear landmarks,
especially at the point where the passages diverge, will help.
Technical problems, strictly speaking, are not memory problems. Memory
lapses often occur during difficult passages, but technical problems also tend
to occur in similar places. It is not always easy to know if young musicians have
forgotten the music or are having difficulty executing the notes. Some
performance errors are caused by poor practice strategies, but technical concerns
may also be caused by ineffective practice habits. Performing by memory may
illuminate technical problems that were not apparent during a performance with
a score. These problems reveal a weakness in technique, not memory
Age was mentioned by a few of authors a reason for forgetting (n = 7). The
lack of discussion on this topic indicates that it has not been viewed as an

25. Jennifer Mishra and William Backlin, "The Effects of Altering Environmental and
Instrumental Context on the Performance of Memorized Music," Psychohgy of Music, 35 (2007):
453-472.
26. For a review see Mishra, "Context-dependent memory: Implications for musical
performance."

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Jennifer Mishra_17

important issue by the field. Of those who discussed age, some argued that
memorizing when young was easier and the memories more stable while others
argued that age had no effect on memory. Current psychological theory is that
conscious memories (declarative) are adversely affected by age while unconscious
memories (procedural) are not.27 For musicians, the process of memorizing may
become more difficult with age as the conscious analysis and retention of cues
may be inhibited (declarative memory), but the ability to perform previously
memorized pieces (procedural memory) will not dissipate. This perhaps accounts
for the continued careers of pianists such as Abbey Simon and Ruth Slenczynska
well into their ninth decade.

Conclusions
Musicians have been studying their own memory processes for more than
100 years and the pedagogical literature is peppered with prescriptions for musical
memorization, many echoing ideas presented in the past. The repetition of ideas
in the pedagogical literature implies that all agree about the best way to
memorize music for performance and that there are no further questions to ask.
However, musicians continue to struggle with memorizing music and memory
continues to fail inexplicably in performance. Automated motor processes are
difficult to articulate and it is possible that musicians have relied on conventional
descriptions of memorization (e.g., aural, visual, and kinesthetic) rather than
systematically investigating the actual process.
One theme explored in the pedagogical literature that resonates with
current psychological thinking is using cognitive analysis to aid the memorization.
It is certainly possible to memorize meaninglessly, repeating and repeating and
repeating until the music mysteriously sticks in memory, but those kinds of
memories are notoriously unstable. Often mistaken for kinesthetic memory,
this mindless memorizing is in actuality an absence of analytical memory
rather than the presence of kinesthetic memory (strictly defined as a memory
for muscle movements). A formal or informal analysis of the piece helps, and
for advanced performers this type of analysis may happen unconsciously.28
Memorizing music involves mindful and deliberate practice. Many commonly
used practice strategies are effective because they help the musical patterns come
into focus. Though music is performed serially, the musicians brain perceives
it as a web of connections.
The literature centered primarily on the most effective ways of encoding

27. Ludy T. Benjamin, Roy J. Hopkins, and Jack R. Nation, Psychology, 3rd ed., (N.Y.:
Macmillan, 2003), 281.
28. Aaron Williamon and Elizabeth Valentine, "The Role of Retrieval Structures in
Memorizing Music," Cognitive Psychology, 44 (2002): 1.

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 18_Journal of Historical Research in Music Education

musical memories, but this is only half of the process. Music is memorized to
be performed?the memories must be retrieved. In the absence of another theory,
musicians may rely on repetitive practice in an attempt to stabilize the memory.
However, the theory of context shift predicts that even after hours of practice
in the hope of preventing a memory slip in performance, the very act of
changing rooms, from the practice room to the concert hall, may negate that
effort. Regardless of whether the physical environment or the feelings of the
performer change at the time of a concert, the shift may result in a marred
performance. Preventing memory lapses may be less about the quantity of
practice and more about the quality.

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:50:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms