No muscle memory?

[JeffD]

My key to memorizing is understanding.

This is gigantically true in many endeavors. To go one step further, understanding often obviates the need for memorizing. In the sciences and mathematics, by understanding the way it works you don't have to memorize a whole bunch of arcane factoids.

Understand the song, how it's put together, e.g., chords, how do they connect, how does the melody line relate to the chords (scales, arpeggios, going outside?), does the tune stay in one key or visit others, etc. A healthy dose of theory supplies the relevant concepts..

I wonder about this. I know that the theory and understanding greatly enhances my ability to figure out a tune, to improvise, to ornament and decorate a tune, to make music out of a series of notes. Its huge.

But the narrowly defined task of remembering the series of notes in the right order, how it is supposed to sound and how your fingers go to make it sound, I think in that case the understanding and the theory is ancillary. It seems or akin to remembering your brother's phone number. You don't need to know how area codes work, or extensions, or even where he lives. You just have to call him enough that the sequence is remembered.

Then again, you could rightly say I have insufficient theory to fully take advantage of it in this way. I am taking a course in composition this summer, (if all goes right), and perhaps I will find the "narrative logic" that holds a tune together and then be more able to understand and remember the tunes.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

The following is a gross oversimplification, and I don't have the citations handy for any of it, but google should provide confirmation. Data storage and retrieval in human brains seems to be greatly enhanced by association--the more stuff we associate with what we're trying to learn, the easier it is to pull up the lesson and belch it back out. On the surface, that seems counterintuitive. The more stuff you cram in, the harder it should be to retrieve it, right? But if the 'extra' stuff is linked to the important bit, then it gives us that many more strings to pull on for retrieval. Research suggests that emotion (stress, in its broadest sense) plays a key role: things tied to strong emotion are more strongly imprinted and easier to retrieve.

Understanding the various aspects of music theory gives us lots of associations to tie to the music itself. So in that way, it probably helps rather than hurts. But most people don't get too emotionally revved up over theory (unless confusion and frustration count). Still, relevant associations are better than none, so understanding theory doesn't hurt.

If the goal is to simply learn a piece of music and be able to play it well at the drop of a hat, it's probably better to learn it in an emotionally charged situation. For most people, then, it probably works better to learn a piece in an exchange with a real person, played with feeling, rather than from a recording or written notation.

Think of it this way. You're more likely to grab and hang onto the cross-picking version of Wildwood Flower that you learned directly from Jesse McReynolds back in 1975 after hours in the chilly performance tent at the Possum Hollow Festival, when it rained all week and the air smelled like wet dog, and Jesse gave you the tune in trade for a king-size helping of the warm homemade peach cobbler you offered from your dutch oven, than you are to glom onto the same tune from anonymous tab scribbled on a piece of paper. If you knew that the setting was in C and the opening progression went I-V-I, that doesn't hurt, but the smell of soggy dog likely does more to help you recall the tune than that string of roman numerals.

[JeffD]

but the smell of soggy dog likely does more to help you recall the tune than that string of roman numerals.

My vote for the best posted statement of the year.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

In the 1970s, seemed like every bluegrass festival I went to was held under a waterfall. I'm talking acre-feet of rain. When Bill Monroe's bus pulled into the grounds at Ronceverte one year, it looked like an ark and left a wake in its...well, wake. The music and jams would go on, regardless, but you'd never quite get over the wet dog smell of everything--the tents, the mud, the food, the people.... I swear, the smell/music connection runs deep. Now my dog jumps in the river on a summer day, and suddenly I got bluegrass tunes running through my head that I haven't played in almost 40 years.

[MandoGael]

The response to my original post has been overwhelming! I can't thank each of you individually, so I'll say thanks everyone for taking the time to post a reply. It's all greatly encouraging and has given me a great boost to continue playing and improving. Mandolincafé.com is a marvelous resource and a welcoming community.

[kjcole]

The research concerning the neuroscience of motor learning has been exploding in volume over the last 20 years. Here's a few tidbits that map nicely on to comments made here. Learning music clearly has a more cognitive or even declarative memory component (as opposed to procedural or motor memory) early on for learning the sequences of movements (and linking the sequences to the mental singing of the melody). At first you can talk through them, and they require your attention. This part of the learning benefits from 'off-line' consolidation (after practice) and especially sleep. They become more automatic with practice, because you will find yourself able to attend to other things (like keeping in time with the other musicians). There is also a more pure motor component that involves movement and force accuracy (finger positioning, pressing force, chord shape, etc), timing of the next change, etc, etc that doesn't benefit so much from your attention except at the earliest stages of learning. This part doesn't benefit from so-called 'off-line' learning and sleep-dependent consolidation. These rely on error correction of a sort occurring on the fly and motor cortical learning. One key here is that we understand some of the synaptic mechanisms (connections between neurons) in the motor cortical areas that result in learning and retention that make sense for musicians. For example, skill acquisition through physical practice results in more potent synapses (through Long-term potentiation 'plasticity' - synapses become more excitable by manufacturing more receptors and so on) followed by the production of more synapses on the appropriate neurons (we grow more dendritic spines). One result of this is that practicing errors strengthens errors because the neurons don't know they shouldn't be strengthening THAT synapse! (Practice doesn't make perfect - perfect practice makes perfect) Hence, we hear the advice from experienced teachers to slow down and eliminate errors! There's a whole bunch more we can do to optimize our learning as musicians. Come take my new class on the neuroscience of motor learning and its practical applications....if you happen to be in eastern Iowa attending a certain Big Ten university.

Kelly

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

Ah, a mandolin-picking neuroscientist--perfect!
Kelly, assuming some of us can't get to Iowa on time for class, can you share any accessible resources (online or books) for those of us who'd like to learn more? I've read Oliver Sacks' Musicophilia and Daniel Levitin's This Is Your Brain On Music. I'm interested in anything that helps me as a musician and music teacher. Thanks!

[kjcole]

Yes, I've been thinking about resources for 'best practices' relevant to musicians that are based on solid data. Motor learning has a rich behavioral tradition, and that's the stuff that is in many textbooks on skill acquisition (and is easier to distill down to nuggets). Surprisingly, some of these practices, known for a few decades, haven't filtered down in a uniform way to impact teaching/learning dance, music, speech therapy, PT/OT, let alone PE and coaching! There are many counter-intuitive findings that get dismissed out-of-hand by teachers and coaches The neuroscience of motor learning is more recent and hasn't been distilled to the same level. But, I'll see what I can do. This is powerful stuff for improving the efficiency of our learning. And as has been pointed out, 'muscle memory' is an unfortunate term, that implies the participation of muscle in memory, but we all know what is meant. Motor memory is better - but just so we know that 'memory' requires neurons (unless you are a materials engineer).

I may start another thread maybe with the theme of 'top-ten teaching/practice' strategies based on motor learning research...and I'll try not to lecture!

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

"I may start another thread maybe with the theme of 'top-ten teaching/practice' strategies based on motor learning research...."

That would be brilliant!

[kjcole]

Ok. Will do.