10. Memorisation of Twentieth-Century Piano Music: A Longitudinal Case Study

Fig. 10.1 (a) Session 3 (early) and (b) Session 16 (late)

Multiple regression analyses were performed to examine the effects of the formal structure of the piece, the pianist’s segmentation of the piece, and technical difficulties, on the amount of practice (i.e., the numbers of starts, stops, and repetitions) during the four learning periods. The predictor variables were formal structure (‘structural bars’ at the beginnings and endings of sections) as determined by a music theorist (Žauhar et al., 2020); the pianist’s segmentation of the piece in addition to its formal structure (‘structurally relevant bars’ at the beginnings and endings of sections she reported as relevant for memorisation); technical difficulty (bars reported as ‘technically difficult’), and basic PCs (bars reported as ‘technically difficult’ as well as relevant for memorisation and monitoring of the performance).

The pianist’s segmentation of the piece matched the formal structure only to some extent, φ(151) = .47, p < .001,3 because she did not mark all the structural bars as relevant for memorisation and monitoring of the performance. However, she did mark additional shorter segments, such as bars containing harmony changes, as structurally relevant. These structurally relevant bars were included as a predictor variable to observe their contribution to the amount of practice. They were not correlated with the structural bars as defined by the music theorist, φ(151) = -.06, p > .05. There were no significant correlations between the four predictor variables, φ(151) ranged from -.09 to .12, p > .05. Three outcome variables were used to represent the amount of practice: numbers of starts, repetitions, and stops. The first bar of the piece was not included in the analyses of starts, and the last bar was not included in the analyses of stops.

Multiple regression analyses were performed to investigate the effects of formal structure, the pianist’s segmentation of the piece, technical difficulties, and basic PCs on the amount of practice in the four learning periods (Table 10.2).

Table 10.2 Results of multiple regression analyses for four learning periods

Section-by-section and putting together

Memorisation

Improving fluencyand consolidating

Polishing

Predictor variables

Starts

Repeti-tions

Stops

Starts

Repeti-tions

Stops

Starts

Repeti-tions

Stops

Starts

Repeti-tions

Stops

Formal structure

Beginning of section

.33***

.06

.23**

.38***

.07

.17*

.28**

.13*

.11

.33***

.15

.03

End of section

.03

.07

.40***

−.02

−.04

.28***

.08

.04

.13

−.03

.02

.25**

Pianist’s own segmentation

Beginning of section

.68***

.23***

.26***

.49***

.10

.11

.67***

.18**

.14

.50***

.17*

.05

End of section

−.02

.12

.15*

−.02

−.01

.12

−.01

−.04

.03

−.01

−.02

.19*

Technical difficulties

.03

.14*

.08

.05

.10

.03

.01

−.02

.07

−.02

.19*

−.08

Basic PCs (e.g., jumps)

.06

.53***

.11

.10

.31***

.02

.12*

.64***

.01

−.05

.22**

−.02

R2

.53

.36

.28

.37

.12

.11

.52

.45

.04

.34

.14

.10

F(6,145)

28.11

14.01

9.92

14.05

3.28

3.06

26.61

19.83

1.27

12.66

3.81

2.77

p

< .001

< .001

< .001

< .001

< .01

< .01

< .001

< .001

ns

< .001

< .01

< .05

Note. For all predictors standardised coefficients are shown (β).

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

An online version of this table may be viewed at https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12434/46be45c0

The predictors together accounted for 10% to 53% of the variation in the amount of practice. The results of the regression analyses are interpreted below. Where applicable, comments from the practice diary are included to complement the interpretations, given that the pianist’s short descriptions of the practice sessions are a helpful source of information.

The regression analyses showed that the pianist relied on the formal structure and her segmentation in four learning periods, that is, during the whole process of preparing for the performance from memory. As can be seen from Table 10.2, starts were predicted by the beginnings of sections within the formal structure and the pianist’s segmentation. Beginnings in the pianist’s segmentation were the main predictors of starts in each learning period. Stops were predicted by the beginnings and endings of sections within the formal structure and the pianist’s additional segmentation in the first learning period. In the second learning period, stops were predicted only by structural bars, and in the fourth learning period by endings of sections.

In the first learning period (section-by-section and putting together), the pianist worked in short segments, as shown by her choice of beginnings of sections as starting places, and the beginnings and endings of sections as stopping places. According to her practice diary, she did this to master the musical material, and it can be inferred that she also did so to link landmarks in the piece together. Furthermore, she reported in her practice diary that she began to memorise some segments as early as the fourth practice session.

In the second learning period, the pianist focused on deliberate memorisation. From Table 10.2, it can be observed that she started more often at the beginnings of sections in the formal structure and according to her own segmentation. However, she stopped more often at the beginnings and endings of sections only within the formal structure. This result suggests that the pianist practised starting at multiple locations within larger segments corresponding to the formal structure.

In the third learning period, the pianist consolidated her memory for the music and improved the performance’s fluency from memory. As can be seen from Table 10.2, starts were predicted by the beginnings of sections and basic PCs. This indicates that the pianist was encoding additional landmarks as starting points. In the practice diary, she reported working on phrases and/or sections as well as on details, directing her attention to locations that were demanding to memorise, and aiming to play without effort. In this period, she began to play the piece fluently from memory.

In the final learning period (polishing), starts were predicted by the beginnings of sections and stops by the endings (Table 10.2). The pianist reported that practice was intended to make her feel comfortable while playing and to prepare her for performing from memory.

Some effects of the beginnings of sections were also observed in repetitions. From Table 10.2 it can be observed that the pianist repeated bars at the beginnings of sections according to her own segmentation, more often in the first, third, and fourth learning periods. Beginnings of sections within the formal structure predicted repetitions only during the third, consolidation, period.

The effects of technically difficult bars on repetitions were observed in the first and the final learning periods, although basic PCs predicted repetitions in all four periods (Table 10.2). In the first period, the pianist repeated difficult bars to master them. In the fourth period, she repeated them to overlearn them or to feel more comfortable when playing them. As reported in the practice diary, she directed her attention towards PCs representing technically difficult bars throughout all four periods to ensure that she would ultimately perform them fluently and effortlessly.

In this study we examined the process whereby a professional pianist learned and memorised a short piece of 20th century music, Papandopulo’s Fourth Study for Piano. Several findings can be highlighted. Firstly, the results show that, in the process of preparing the Fourth Study, the pianist relied on its formal structure and her segmentation of the piece throughout the process of preparing to perform it from memory. Secondly, technically difficult bars affected repetitions in the initial and final learning period. Furthermore, bars including technical difficulties that were used as basic PCs and were relevant for memorisation predicted repetitions in all four learning periods. Below, we compare the learning processes of the professional pianist with those of the piano student who took part in the study by Žauhar et al. (2020) and highlight the similarities and differences between their strategies for mastering and memorising the music. The results are discussed with reference to studies carried out in Western Europe and the USA using a similar procedure, as few have been conducted in the Western Balkans.

One of the key findings of the present study is that the effects of the structure were identified from the earliest stages of practice. That is, the pianist used structural bars as starting and stopping places more often than the other bars. Moreover, when asked to describe her preparation for the process of practising, she reported that she read the score without playing it to gain an overall idea of the structure and technical complexity of the piece. She also estimated how difficult it would be for her to master the material and play the piece. Other experienced musicians have also been observed to form an overall idea of the structure of music they are to perform, its tempo, and any potential technical problems, before starting practice (Chaffin et al., 2003; Hallam, 1995). In the present study, the pianist reported that she tried to ‘understand a structural and artistic idea of the piece’, which corresponds to what Neuhaus (1961/2000) calls the ‘artistic image’. Her practice, in learning and memorising a new work, was consistent with that of expert memorisers. These results corroborate the findings of other studies on the memorisation of music by, for example, Bach (e.g., Chaffin & Imreh, 2002; Lisboa et al., 2018), Debussy (Chaffin, 2007), and Stravinsky (e.g., Ginsborg et al., 2006), and show that similar memory processes occur during the memorisation of music pieces with a clear-cut formal structure, irrespective of the style of the music. The memorisation processes are similar also for music that has a complex and challenging structure (e.g., Chopin’s Barcarolle, Op. 60, Chaffin et al., 2013). When the piece is free-form (e.g., Schoenberg’s Op. 11, No. 3, Chueke & Chaffin, 2016) or has a complex non-tonal structure (e.g., Messiaen’s Oiseaux Exotiques and other non-tonal pieces from the 20th and 21st centuries, Soares, 2015), the musician has to develop their own understanding of the musical structure to be able to segment the piece into sections. Once the musician has segmented the piece into sections that are meaningful for them, the process of memorisation is again similar to that observed with highly structured pieces (Chueke & Chaffin, 2016; Fonte, 2020; Soares, 2015). Expert musicians use the structure of a piece to organise their practice and memorisation, regardless of its length and complexity and/or how long they have to prepare it for performance from memory (Chaffin, 2007; Ginsborg et al., 2006; Noice et al., 2008). In this way, the (formal) structure becomes a ready-made retrieval scheme when the piece is performed from memory.

In previous studies, the musicians who participated often determined the formal structure of the piece themselves (Chaffin & Imreh, 2002) or in discussion with other musicians (Žauhar & Bajšanski, 2012). In general, musicians tend to agree on the formal structure of a piece (Chaffin et al., 2016), although they may have different ways of segmenting it for memorisation, or other ways of analysing it and understanding its structure (Ginsborg et al., 2006). In the present study, as in Žauhar et al.’s (2020) study with a piano student, the formal structure was determined by the music theorist and the professional pianist. The segmentation of the piece by the pianists in both studies matched the formal structure identified by the music theorist to some extent, although the pianists were of different levels of expertise. Neither marked all the structural bars, and both marked other bars as relevant. According to their segmentations, they used their structurally relevant bars as starting and stopping places more often than other bars, which confirms that structuring the material during practice plays a vital role in preparing for performance from memory. Yet, while the student was aware of the formal structure from the earliest stages of practising and used structural bars as starting and stopping places, as observed in other studies involving students as participants (e.g., Williamon & Valentine, 2002), she repeated structural bars identified by the music theorist more often than other bars in each learning period. On the other hand, the professional pianist repeated structural bars defined by the music theorist more often only in one of the learning periods, when improving fluency and consolidating memory.

In the present study, the effects of the technical difficulties of the piece were observed in the initial and final stages of practice. The professional pianist reported, however, that few technically difficult bars became PCs. These bars needed attention throughout the whole learning process, as demonstrated by the number of times they were repeated. They were also bars at which the pianist started practice segments, but only at the consolidation stage, suggesting that she identified them as starting points on the mental map so that they would become retrieval cues. By contrast, the student who memorised the same piece worked on technically difficult bars throughout the learning process (Žauhar et al., 2020). The number of starts at and repetitions of difficult bars decreased over time, as observed in other studies involving students (e.g., Williamon & Valentine, 2002; Žauhar & Bajšanski, 2012). Nevertheless, unlike the professional pianist, the student needed to continue working on these bars to master their technical difficulties.

Another important finding is that the professional pianist who took part in the present study began to memorise early on, in the fourth practice session. Chaffin (2007) reported a similar finding in a study involving a concert pianist’s memorisation of Debussy’s Clair de Lune, a piece in a simple ABBA form; the pianist started playing from memory in the fourth practice session even though she had not yet completed the section-by-section learning period. Early memorisation characterises the practice of experienced musicians even when they prepare more complex pieces (Chaffin et al., 2003), as this means they can begin to develop their mental maps and practise retrieving at least some segments of the music. By memorising difficult passages early on in the learning process, they reduce the load on working memory and free up attentional resources for other aspects of the piece (Chaffin, 2007). Like other experienced musicians, the pianist in the present study devoted the second learning period to deliberate memorisation, and the third to consolidation and improving the fluency with which she played from memory. By contrast, the student in the parallel study (Žauhar et al., 2020) only started memorising after completing the section-by-section, whole-practice, and improving-fluency learning periods. Taken together, these findings suggest that using landmarks in the formal structure to memorise in the earliest stages of practice enables performers to focus on details while developing a mental map of the music. Research with singers of different proficiency levels also pointed out the importance of starting to memorise early on in the practice process, and highlighted that early strategic memorisation contributes to performance efficacy more than expertise (Ginsborg, 2002).

Specific teaching is necessary if musicians are to improve their practice by becoming aware of and using their knowledge of formal structure. Expert musicians participating in longitudinal case studies have been asked to repeatedly report their thoughts and describe the strategies they use while practising. There is evidence that it is helpful for professional musicians to report their thoughts during practice, as this increases their conceptual understanding and improves memorisation (Lisboa et al., 2011). It can also be helpful for students (Lisboa et al., 2015, 2018; Timperman & Miksza, 2019) to identify the landmarks in a piece of music that have been shown as beneficial to more experienced musicians. It would contribute to the development of their own efficient memorisation strategies and help them to master new pieces of music. In a study investigating string students’ immediate and delayed recall of memorised études, for example, verbalisations about learning were shown to be effective in later performances, once the pieces had been retained for some time in long-term memory (Timperman & Miksza, 2019). Chaffin et al. (2013) reported a longitudinal study examining the learning of Chopin’s Barcarolle, Op. 60, by an experienced pianist who was also a music theorist, and who made a detailed Schenkerian analysis of the complex structure of the piece. Although carrying out this analysis did not have immediately observable effects, it was reported to be helpful in the learning process when the pianist subsequently came to prepare the piece for public performance. The ability to recognise formal patterns in music increases as students learn to analyse pieces and pay attention to the reasons why some places may be particularly useful when forming mental maps (Timperman & Miksza, 2019). Such strategies can help students develop a deeper understanding of the piece, and strengthen their ability to encode it securely and retrieve it when performing from memory.

The findings of this study confirm that the memorisation of Papandopulo’s Fourth Study for Piano followed established patterns of music memorisation (e.g., Chaffin & Imreh, 2002) corresponding to general memory principles (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995). The professional pianist who took part in the study relied on the formal structure and her own segmentation of the piece while preparing to perform it from memory. She deliberately developed a mental map of it to serve as a reliable retrieval structure. The results of this study corroborate the findings of previous studies with concert and jazz pianists (e.g., Chaffin & Imreh, 2002; Chueke & Chaffin, 2016; Fonte, 2020; Noice et al., 2008; Soares, 2015); a cellist (e.g., Lisboa et al., 2018); and a singer (e.g., Chaffin et al., 2023; Ginsborg & Chaffin, 2011; Ginsborg et al., 2006), and contribute to their generalisability. To date, memorisation of music pieces of different styles has been examined from late Baroque to contemporary music. This study expands the repertoire used to investigate the memorisation of 20th century and contemporary pieces to include music of Croatian heritage. It also represents an interdisciplinary collaboration between a performer and cognitive psychologists, established to investigate the memorisation of music.

Studies including participants of different levels of proficiency who learn the same piece of music (e.g., Ginsborg, 2002) are rarely conducted, so the comparison between the processes of memorisation of a professional pianist and a piano student offers an important contribution, even though the comparison is descriptive, which presents a limitation. Such comparisons have implications for the teaching of efficient practice. For example, Lisboa et al. (2015, 2018) have shown how a teacher may encourage their students to report thoughts during practice to improve its quality. Reporting thoughts helps students to develop content-addressable access to memory, and consequently, memorisation becomes more reliable. The metacognitive awareness of the musician’s learning process and progress is also characteristic of the practice of expert musicians (Chueke & Chaffin, 2016). Detailed comments recorded during practice provide insight into the focus of a musician’s attention during the learning process (Chaffin et al., 2003), and confirm that professional musicians have a good understanding of their learning strategies, the difficulties they encounter, the actions they must take to fix passages that go wrong, and how to improve their performance (Hallam, 1995). In the present study, we collected only brief descriptions of practice sessions, which were congruent with analysis of the amount of practice undertaken. Reporting thoughts during practice, and discussing them with the teacher, could also improve students’ awareness of their strengths and weaknesses when preparing new pieces for performance.

It can be concluded that by deepening the understanding of the musical material being learned, and with the appropriate use of memorisation strategies, the quality of practice improves. Organising practice according to the principles of expert memory could speed up and improve the processes whereby students prepare repertoire for performance from memory.

The authors thank Jane Ginsborg, an anonymous reviewer, and the editors for their thorough reading and valuable comments on earlier versions of this chapter.

Chaffin, R. (2007). Learning Clair de Lune: Retrieval practice and expert memorisation. Music Perception, 24(4), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2007.24.4.377

Chaffin, R., Demos, A., & Logan, T. (2016). Performing from memory. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (eds), The Oxford handbook of music psychology (2nd ed., pp. 559–71). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198722946.001.0001

Chaffin, R., Gerling, C., Demos, A.P., & Melms, A. (2013). Theory and practice: A case study of how Schenkerian analysis shaped the learning of Chopin’s Barcarolle. In A. Williamon & W. Goebl (eds), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Performance Science (pp. 21–26). European Association of Conservatoires.

Chaffin, R., Ginsborg, J., Dixon, J., & Demos, A. P. (2023). Recovery from memory failure when recalling a memorized performance: The role of musical structure and performance cues. Musicae Scientiae, 27(1), 94–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/10298649211025491

Chaffin, R., & Imreh, G. (2002). Practicing perfection: Piano performance as expert memory. Psychological Science, 13(4), 342–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2002.00462.x

Chaffin, R., Imreh, G., & Crawford, M. (2002). Practicing perfection: Memory and piano performance. Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612373

Chaffin, R., Imreh, G., Lemieux, A.F., & Chen, C. (2003). ‘Seeing the big picture’: Piano practice as expert problem solving. Music Perception, 20(4), 465–490. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2003.20.4.465

Chase, W.G., & Ericsson, K.A. (1982). Skill and working memory. In G. H. Bower (ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 16 (pp. 1–58). Academic Press.

Chueke, Z., & Chaffin, R. (2016). Performance cues for music ‘with no plan’: A case study of preparing Schoenberg’s Op. 11, No. 3. In C. Mackie (ed.), New thoughts on piano performance (pp. 255–268). London International Piano Symposium.

Detoni, D. (2008). Note about the composer. In D. Cikojević, & F. Spiller (eds), Boris Papandopulo: Osam studija za glasovir [Boris Papandopulo: Eight studies for piano] (Revised ed., pp. 9–11). Croatian Music Information Centre.

Ericsson, K.A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211

Fonte, V. (2020). Reconsidering memorisation in the context of non-tonal piano music [Unpublished doctoral disseration]. Royal College of Music, London.

Ginsborg, J. (2002). Classical singers learning and memorising a new song: An observational study. Psychology of Music, 30(1), 58–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735602301007

Ginsborg, J., & Bennett, D. (2021). Developing familiarity in a new duo: Rehearsal talk and performance cues. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 590987. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.590987

Ginsborg, J., & Chaffin, R. (2011). Preparation and spontaneity in performance: A singer’s thoughts while singing Schoenberg. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind & Brain, 21(1–2), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0094009

Ginsborg, J., Chaffin, R., & Demos, A.P. (2012). Different roles for prepared and spontaneous thoughts: A practice-based study of musical performance from memory. Journal of Interdisciplinary Music Studies, 6(2), 201–231. https://repository.rncm.ac.uk/111/

Ginsborg, J., Chaffin, R., & Nicholson, G. (2006). Shared performance cues in singing and conducting: A content analysis of talk during practice. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606061851

Hallam, S. (1995). Professional musicians’ orientations to practice: Implications for teaching. British Journal of Music Education, 12(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700002357

Kovacic, L. (1996). The piano music of Boris Papandopulo [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Rice University, Houston, Texas.

Lisboa, T., Chaffin, R., & Demos, A.P. (2015). Recording thoughts while memorising music: A case study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1561. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01561

Lisboa, T., Chaffin, R., & Logan, T. (2011). An account of deliberate practice: Thoughts, behaviour and self in learning Bach’s Prelude 6 for cello solo. In A. Cervino, M. Lettberg, C. Laws, & T. Lisboa (eds), The practice of practising (pp. 9–31). Orpheus Research Centre in Music.

Lisboa, T., Demos, A.P., & Chaffin, R. (2018). Training thought and action for virtuoso performance. Musicae Scientiae, 22(4), 519–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864918782350

Miklaszewski, K. (1989). A case study of a pianist preparing a musical performance. Psychology of Music, 17(2), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735689172001

Music Lab, University of Connecticut. (2020). Study Your Music Practice [Software]. https://musiclab.uconn.edu/study-your-own-music-performance/

Neuhaus, H. (2000). O umjetnosti sviranja klavira [The art of piano playing]. (2nd ed.). Naklada Jakša Zlatar.

Nielsen, S.G. (1999). Learning strategies in instrumental music practice. British Journal of Music Education, 16(3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051799000364

Nielsen, S.G. (2004). Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in instrumental and vocal individual practice: A study of students in higher music education. Psychology of Music, 32(4), 418–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735604046099

Noice, H., Jeffrey, J., Noice, T., & Chaffin, R. (2008). Memorisation by a jazz musician: A case study. Psychology of Music, 36(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735607080834

Noice, H., & Noice, T. (2006). Artistic performance: Acting, ballet and contemporary dance. In A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. Hoffman (eds), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (1st ed., pp. 489–503). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816796

Soares, A. (2015). Memorisation of atonal music [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Guildhall School of Music and Drama, London.

Timperman, E., & Miksza, P. (2019). Verbalization and musical memory in string players. Musicae Scientiae, 23(2), 212–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864917727332

Williamon, A., & Valentine, E. (2002). The role of retrieval structures in memorising music. Cognitive Psychology, 44(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0759

Žauhar, V., & Bajšanski, I. (2012). Uloga formalne strukture i izvedbene zahtjevnosti glazbenoga djela kod upamćivanja notnoga teksta: Studija slučaja [The role of the formal structure and technical difficulties of a piece of music in memorising music score: A case study]. Psihologijske teme, 21(2), 225–247. https://hrcak.srce.hr/89528

Žauhar, V., Matić, A., Dražul, A., & Bajšanski, I. (2020). Memorising the contemporary piano piece of music: The effects of the formal structure, pianist’s segmentation, and technical difficulties. In B. Bogunović & S. Nikolić (eds), Proceedings of PAM-IE Belgrade 2019 (pp. 69–77). Faculty of Music, University of Arts in Belgrade. https://www.fmu.bg.ac.rs/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/psychology-and-music-08_zauhar-et-al.pdf