# Pieces worth memorizing?



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I have a hypothesis that music was better when I was younger because I only had a handful of LPs. I played them over and over, memorizing every phrase, every grace note. Now I have millions of tracks at my fingertips and none of it seems as engaging.

So I want to try an experiment. Can you recommend to me one orchestral work and one chamber (or piano) work I should listen to over and over until I memorize them? The works might be better from second tier composers -- I'm likely to know everything from Beethoven or Stravinsky for instance. But there are prolific first tier composers I won't know every piece from also, in spite of how many decades I've listened. Let's keep them at reasonable length. No "As Slow As Possible" please. Symphonies, concerti and some tone poems are a good length, My tastes range from early music to the 21st century, so you're not likely to freak me out with "Black Angels" or Schoenberg or whatever. I will say I'm not overly fond of art song however or opera for just listening. 

I want to see if memorizing will help the appreciation, and I will include the works in my daily contributions to the Current Listening thread. I usually listen to chamber (or piano) one night and orchestral the next. The trouble is, I don't know how many listens it will take to memorize a piece anymore. But once memorized I can return to this thread for more recommendations -- assuming I get any. 

I'm interested to see if my enjoyment increases to the level it used to be. Thanks!


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Here are two works you could memorize:

Zemlinsky: _Die seejunfrau_
Schulhoff: _String Quartet No. 1_


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Funny, there is something about the great works that make them memorable and easier to memorize. I don't know if really memorizing a piece increases its appreciation. How many times do most people need in order to learn a work by heart? I'm lucky in that regard - I can listen to a work once or twice and have a record-quality imprint in my head. I've always been able to do it and thought everyone could. It's come in quite handy in that I can spot mistakes in performances and rehearsals instantly. Drives some people around me nuts. I can even playback (if that's the right term) in my head different recordins of the same piece. As I've gotten older the trick isn't as easy as it once was, and some works stubbornly resist memorization. But as far as I'm concerned, memorizing a work does nothing to increase my appreciation. FWIW: I can also playback movies in my mind, every work of dialogue, every music cue, and it takes several viewings.


----------



## Montarsolo (5 mo ago)

A very interesting opening post. I totally recognize it. I used to have to work a whole Saturday to pay for one CD. By the time I bought another CD I knew the previous one by heart.

Later as a dual student I had more money to spent. Then I bought boxes with complete symphonies, string quartets etc. I didn't get to know that music very well. I have the Bruckner/Haitink box for 20 years, but I only know the 4th and 7th well. 
And what I often think: the great composers and their great works are great for a reason. Actually, that's enough music for your life.

Then sometimes I come across a piece of music that is just as impressive as in the early years when I started to discover classical music. For me, for example, string quartet 1 by Smetena, symphony in C by Bizet and Ancient arias and dances by Respighi.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

MH367, the harmony and counterpoint-








I've listened to it like more than 30 times so far, I think. My views on it have changed in the process.


----------



## Hogwash (5 mo ago)

Legendary trio performance worth remembering:


----------



## Georgieva (7 mo ago)

Interesting. 

My suggestion:


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> Funny, there is something about the great works that make them memorable and easier to memorize. I don't know if really memorizing a piece increases its appreciation. How many times do most people need in order to learn a work by heart? I'm lucky in that regard - I can listen to a work once or twice and have a record-quality imprint in my head. I've always been able to do it and thought everyone could. It's come in quite handy in that I can spot mistakes in performances and rehearsals instantly. Drives some people around me nuts. I can even playback (if that's the right term) in my head different recordins of the same piece. As I've gotten older the trick isn't as easy as it once was, and some works stubbornly resist memorization. But as far as I'm concerned, memorizing a work does nothing to increase my appreciation. FWIW: I can also playback movies in my mind, every work of dialogue, every music cue, and it takes several viewings.


wow, now that is impressive. Photographic memory?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Neo Romanza said:


> Zemlinsky: _Die seejunfrau_


These both sound excellent. I'll probably start with these, starting with the Schulhoff tonight. Thank you!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Montarsolo said:


> A very interesting opening post. I totally recognize it. I used to have to work a whole Saturday to pay for one CD. By the time I bought another CD I knew the previous one by heart.
> 
> Later as a dual student I had more money to spent. Then I bought boxes with complete symphonies, string quartets etc. I didn't get to know that music very well. I have the Bruckner/Haitink box for 20 years, but I only know the 4th and 7th well.
> And what I often think: the great composers and their great works are great for a reason. Actually, that's enough music for your life.
> ...


I'm fairly familiar with the Repighi Suites, but will add Smetana, Quartet No. 1 and Bizet Symphony in C (which I have heard but don't really know at all). Thanks!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

hammeredklavier said:


> MH367, the harmony and counterpoint-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will add the Michael Haydn. I don't think I've heard his chamber works, though I have all of his older brother's string quartets -- certainly not memorized though! Thanks.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Hogwash said:


> Legendary trio performance worth remembering:
> View attachment 178493


I thought I knew this piece, but I was thinking of the Op. 100 in Eb major -- equally stunning and I'm very familiar with it. But I'll add the Op.99. 

These should be enough to keep me occupied for a while. Thanks!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Georgieva said:


> Interesting.
> 
> My suggestion:
> View attachment 178494


Unfortunately (or rather fortunately for me) I know the St. Matthew Passion quite well, even as long as it is. It is indeed a stunning piece!


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Solo Piano recommendation: Jolivet's _Cinq danses rituelles_
Orchestral recommendation: Dallapiccola's _Three Questions with Two Answers_


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Franz Krommer: Symphony no. 4 in C minor

CPE Bach: Keyboard Sonata in D minor, Wq 50/4


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Deleted


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Weston said:


> I will add the Michael Haydn.


Every time I listen, I discover things about his harmony that I had overlooked. The bit at 1:20, for instance, 




symphony in C, P. 19: II


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

I will do what you are talking about...listen to one record over and over until I know every line in it. But I'm a nut, and so I've not met many other people who do this. For me, I am not really memorizing like when I am preparing a piece to perform. I am more like filling my sub conscious with the musical ideas. 

I call it "immersion therapy" 

I do it when I am trying to get something new into my playing. Like when I am at work, I'll listen to the piece I'm going to be working on that night all day and when I get home and get to work on it, I've had the piece in my ears all day and things just go better. 

but as far as what to listen to...really anything that speaks to you, anything that you are interested in. For me, its all driven by what I am playing, so its a little different.

I do think that you are onto something. Active listening is always better than passive listening. I've played all my life, and its actually hard for me to passively listen to music. Even pop music. I'm listening, but at the same time I'm clocking the form, listening for the harmony, picking the intervals out of the melody and all that. It is why I can't relax and unwind and listen to music. I have to watch Hogan's Heroes or Gilligan's Island or a ball game or something to unwind, I can't listen to music

that is why I think any music that you listen to enough that you are singing it in the shower or something like that is good. If there's any advice on what to listen to, I can tell you that the easiest piece to memorize is the one that's stuck in your head, so if there are any pieces rattling around in the old attic that you know some bits of, those might be good candidates. 

And the familiar is always worth a deeper look, especially if it is Beethoven or Stravinsky


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> Funny, there is something about the great works that make them memorable and easier to memorize. I don't know if really memorizing a piece increases its appreciation. How many times do most people need in order to learn a work by heart? I'm lucky in that regard - I can listen to a work once or twice and have a record-quality imprint in my head. I've always been able to do it and thought everyone could. It's come in quite handy in that I can spot mistakes in performances and rehearsals instantly. Drives some people around me nuts. I can even playback (if that's the right term) in my head different recordins of the same piece. As I've gotten older the trick isn't as easy as it once was, and some works stubbornly resist memorization. But as far as I'm concerned, memorizing a work does nothing to increase my appreciation. FWIW: I can also playback movies in my mind, every work of dialogue, every music cue, and it takes several viewings.


Actually your abilities are amazing, higher than most university and conservatory music students and many profs.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> Funny, there is something about the great works that make them memorable and easier to memorize. I don't know if really memorizing a piece increases its appreciation. How many times do most people need in order to learn a work by heart? I'm lucky in that regard - I can listen to a work once or twice and have a record-quality imprint in my head. I've always been able to do it and thought everyone could. It's come in quite handy in that I can spot mistakes in performances and rehearsals instantly. Drives some people around me nuts. I can even playback (if that's the right term) in my head different recordins of the same piece. As I've gotten older the trick isn't as easy as it once was, and some works stubbornly resist memorization. But as far as I'm concerned, memorizing a work does nothing to increase my appreciation. FWIW: I can also playback movies in my mind, every work of dialogue, every music cue, and it takes several viewings.


yea, I'll second what Roger said. I've spent my life around musicians, and I've only known one other person with that kind of capacity. He was a theory professor I had in music school. He was probably the best piano player I ever knew, too. 

What was really impressive was when he would play the examples in the text book and then continue playing the piece beyond the snippet in the text. You got the impression that the entire piano catalogue was there in his head at all times.

I have a pretty good musical memory, even among musicians, but I'm not in your league.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Weston said:


> I have a hypothesis that music was better when I was younger because I only had a handful of LPs. I played them over and over, memorizing every phrase, every grace note. Now I have millions of tracks at my fingertips and none of it seems as engaging.
> 
> So I want to try an experiment. Can you recommend to me one orchestral work and one chamber (or piano) work I should listen to over and over until I memorize them? The works might be better from second tier composers -- I'm likely to know everything from Beethoven or Stravinsky for instance. But there are prolific first tier composers I won't know every piece from also, in spite of how many decades I've listened. Let's keep them at reasonable length. No "As Slow As Possible" please. Symphonies, concerti and some tone poems are a good length, My tastes range from early music to the 21st century, so you're not likely to freak me out with "Black Angels" or Schoenberg or whatever. I will say I'm not overly fond of art song however or opera for just listening.
> 
> ...





Weston said:


> I have a hypothesis that music was better when I was younger because I only had a handful of LPs. I played them over and over, memorizing every phrase, every grace note. Now I have millions of tracks at my fingertips and none of it seems as engaging.
> 
> So I want to try an experiment. Can you recommend to me one orchestral work and one chamber (or piano) work I should listen to over and over until I memorize them? The works might be better from second tier composers -- I'm likely to know everything from Beethoven or Stravinsky for instance. But there are prolific first tier composers I won't know every piece from also, in spite of how many decades I've listened. Let's keep them at reasonable length. No "As Slow As Possible" please. Symphonies, concerti and some tone poems are a good length, My tastes range from early music to the 21st century, so you're not likely to freak me out with "Black Angels" or Schoenberg or whatever. I will say I'm not overly fond of art song however or opera for just listening.
> 
> ...


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Do you mean memorizing these works by listening to them or by reading the score ? I don't know if you can actually memorize a work just by listening to it . You can certainly get to know it much better through repeated hearings on recordings , but unless you can actually read a score , you can't really hear all kinds of important details in it , such as inner voices in orchestration which you wouldn't notice without being able to read it . 
Being a professional trained musician, I can read an orchestral score , and have often listened to recordings with one . You can really learn so much from reading the score you could never getf rom mere listening . I don't know if you can read a score , but if not, you will never regret. gaining this ability . You should start with works such as with piano sonatas and miscellaneous works for piano , continue with say, string quartets , which have four different staves , then go to symphonies by Haydn and Mozart , and gradually get to the point where you can. read something as complex and a Mahler symphony or a. Richard Strauss symphonic poem etc .


----------



## That Guy Mick (May 31, 2020)

Montarsolo said:


> Later as a dual student I had more money to spent. Then I bought boxes with complete symphonies, string quartets etc. I didn't get to know that music very well. I have the Bruckner/Haitink box for 20 years, but I only know the 4th and 7th well.


I have the same set and same experience with it. When the CD music clubs (like BMG) were going out of business over a decade ago, I snatched up a dozen or so box sets that were heavily discounted without knowing much about the music. Turns out that I wasn't a big fan of Bruckner. Probably listened to half of the set at best and can recognize the first few minutes of the 1st Symphony, but that's about it.


----------

