Procedural and Declarative Memory Practice - A Guitarist's Perspective
Procedural and Declarative Memory Practice – A Guitarist’s Perspective
Introduction and Context
The following article examines my research into the discourse surrounding the use of implicit memory (or ‘muscle memory’) and explicit memory within guitar performance practice. As part of my PhD thesis, I developed a directory of guitar fretboard patterns which documented some of my own existing muscle memory movements. Although derived from standard tuning, I also explored composing with these same motions in a range of alternate tunings which formed the basis of my composition portfolio [1].
Given the dependance guitarists have towards muscle memory and concerns students have invariably expressed towards me concerning the musical ‘limitations’ of prescribed, uninspiring finger patterns and shapes, I felt it was a significant to address this through examining how implicit and explicit memory is employed from a guitarist’s perspective.
The Cambridge Dictionary [2] defines muscle memory as: ‘the ability to move a part of your body without thinking about it, learned by repeating the movement many times’. Muscle memory is also referred to as procedural memory, motor memory, implicit or even non-declarative memory. However, explicit memory (also known as declarative) is based on the conscious recollection of facts and/or events. These differentiations are highlighted by Kim Ann Zimmerman [3]:
‘Declarative memory consists of facts and events that can be consciously recalled or "declared." Also known as explicit memory, it is based on the concept that this type of memory consists of information that can be explicitly stored and retrieved.
Declarative memory differs from procedural memory, which encompasses skills such as the use of objects or movements of the body that are deeply embedded and are performed without being aware.’
An over-reliance on existing muscle memory is commonplace among guitarists and this is often seen as a catalyst by the player to seek out new material using different fretboard patterns and shapes. While this can be effective, I have realised as a guitar teacher that often it is the sounds generated by the muscle memory the player wishes to change, not the muscle memory itself. After all, muscle memory provides enormous technical advantages for the guitarist, such as facilitating the execution of fast single note passages or being able to draw upon a range of chord voicings with ease.
My research into alternate tunings demonstrated that by changing the tuning, not the muscle memory motions, a guitarist can in fact retain existing muscle memory movements while at the same time completely changing the harmonic, melodic and timbral implications of the sounds they are generating. Changing the tuning also causes the player to develop new muscle memory shapes and patterns in line with their own musical aesthetics. Indeed, should the player find themselves in the same uninspiring situation with another tuning, there are virtually an infinite number of alternatives they can try.
There is considerable debate within the guitar community and among musicians more widely as to whether muscle memory is in fact a creative advantage, hindrance or even a mix of both. The following sources will evaluate the different arguments accordingly. As a guitarist, I have found developing muscle memory is an inevitable by-product of constant practice. While I have found this advantageous for playing technically demanding material, I have also found the repetitive nature of these physical motions can have the potential to become somewhat predictable over time, especially when composing and improvising.
While there are traditional texts pertaining to music psychology which address procedural knowledge which muscle memory derives from, there seem to no authoritative sources from my findings which address the role of muscle memory from a guitarist’s perspective. Therefore, some of the literature I have referred to originates from guitar pedagogy.
First, I will examine sources favourable towards muscle memory use, both within guitar and musical instruments generally. I will begin with the most authoritative texts supported by online sources before concluding with a summary of my findings. I will then follow with sources which advocate greater use of explicit/declarative memory and then present my findings and conclusion, outlining areas for further study.
Evaluation of Sources
Sudnow (1978) [4] chronicles his development as a jazz pianist from a physiological perspective. This is a distinct contrast to many jazz scholars who write around subject matters where there is greater objectivity, underpinned by music notation, theoretical concepts or historical facts to reinforce their writing.
Sudnow’s initial challenges focused on grasping piano chords and melody with the left hand. He discusses the transition he made from conceiving these as collections of individual notes to physical shapes or ‘constellations’ [5]. He shares the challenges he faced in training his hands to move from one chord to the next, different technique approaches he employed to circumvent this and methods of visualizing particular hand movements [6]. Sudnow adds the importance of practicing such a transition at a set tempo to enhance continuity, a theme which reoccurs throughout other sources in this chapter.
Sudnow’s approach to emphasizing these kinetic aspects is markedly different from simply presenting a series of visual diagrams for the reader to interpret. Sudnow continues with discussing how these motions became more instinctive over time with practice, cultivating a growing repertoire of jazz tunes and chord progressions [7] before focusing more closely on the development of the right hand.
In learning to play melodies and improvise, he claims transcription and ear training played a significant role. Sudnow later discusses his approach more wholisitcally to the physiology of playing piano, citing Jimmy Rowles [8]. Sudnow’s focus on the whole-body experience of playing an instrument suggests that our concept of muscle memory does not just apply to the hands but also posture and physical movement much more generally.
Lehmann et al. (2007) [9] explains a four-stage practice method relating to the development of motor skills, based on Chaffin and Imreh (2002) [10].
Stage one involves reading through the material to get an overview of the relevant piece, incorporating methods such as sight reading, analysis and listening. Stage two is where the material is broken into smaller sections and methodically pieced together later. This stage is where the motor skills become largely automatised, according to Lehmann et al. ‘resulting in a first incidental memorization of the piece’ [11]. During the third stage, the piece is refined to performance standard, rooting out any technical imperfections. Lehmann et al. also explain that this stage represents an ongoing longer-term process in a musician’s development [12]. The final stage relates to the maintenance work required to accurately memorize a piece of music. During this stage there may be ongoing modifications though the main focus is ‘...general upkeep of the technical and memory aspects.’
Sloboda (2005) [13] adds credence to Lehmann et al, outlining the transition of factual to procedural knowledge:
...skill learning involves acquiring habits. The principal feature of a habit is that it is automatic, and that it uses up little or no mental capacity to execute. The precursors of habits are conscious, deliberate, and effortful behaviours which commonly involve verbal control...skill learning involves passing from factual knowledge (knowing that) to procedural knowledge (knowing how) [14] .
Sloboda goes on to give further detail using Fitts’ (1964) [15] model which suggests skill acquisition can be divided into three stages: cognitive; where the task is still being understood and relies on declarative memory, associative; whereby limited muscle memory is acquired and finally, autonomous where the task can be performed entirely from procedural memory.
Dean (2014) [16] examines live DVD footage of Pat Metheny’s performances for transcription and analysis. Dean highlights the issues surrounding muscle memory use citing musicologist Lars Lilliestam:
When we learn an instrument we learn scales and chord shapes as finger routes, which are programmed into the brain and set frames for what we can play. Music that employs moments that live outside these finger routes can be hard to play and demand extra effort.
Dean argues that little is written about jazz guitar technique itself and is fairly critical of sources such as Howard Spring’s analysis of Charlie Christian’s solos and Rob Van Der Black’s study of Wes Montgomery which neglect such information concerning muscle memory as they are derived solely from recordings rather than video footage, potentially leading to inaccurate fingering. Dean includes both tablature and notation in his own musical transcriptions, concluding with a discussion of how muscle memory relates to the practice of transcribing an improvised solo:
...when transcribing from an audio recording only, determining exactly where a passage is played on the guitar is almost always open to interpretation (an exception...might include...an open string on the guitar which has a clear tonal characteristic...)...Additionally, a transcription which includes details of position and fingering (such as a tablature example) is in danger of presenting the preferred technique of the transcriber, rather than the player...
Dean then presents a series of Pat Metheny transcriptions from live DVD footage using a detailed mix of notation, tablature, position numbers and fingering instructions which are presented both as a series of numbers underneath the tablature alongside his own graphic charts. Dean also includes a short terminology list. Dean shares a revealing insight from Metheny himself concerning the extent to which he believes muscle memory underpins jazz improvisation:
...if you play 200 nights in a row, you are not going to be playing different shit every night. You're just not. There's this mystical version of what jazz improvisation is that implies that every single time you play, that you're going to go to this far off mystical place and you're going to discover this universe...
Dean concludes that Metheny’s faster musical passages tend to be underpinned by a set of muscle-memory derived patterns while other sections are based on ‘...well developed finger-guided phrases...’. Dean reaffirms that a lack of muscle memory understanding can affect the quality of a musical transcription and advocates greater use of video footage to produce more detailed and nuanced guitar transcriptions.
The online articles by Motto (2010) [17], Levi (date unknown) [18] and Lam [19] (2012) all emphasise the importance of practicing very slowly to begin with to ensure mistakes are not programmed into the acquisition of muscle memory. While students are often reluctant to adopt this approach due to the perceived notion that it will take too long according to Motto, he argues there is credence to this method, especially for learning difficult musical passages which require the brain and muscles to learn the correct information more efficiently from the start.
Lam also emphasises the importance of ensuring that the memory information is correct during the initial learning stage as this can be difficult to correct later on and stresses the importance of having adequate goals to focus on in a musician’s practice routine. Lam emphasises the importance of being patient, diligent and consistent when learning new muscle memory skills.
Levi distinguishes between learning muscle memory technique, which relates to building up muscle memory through the working out process and practicing, whereby once you have it correct it can be practiced through repetition.
Levi offers several tips on improving muscle memory:
1. Practicing twice per day with short intervals between sessions
2. Practice slowly
3. Set a timer/alarm for the end of the session that is kept out of sight during practicing
4. A healthy distraction can actually be good for muscle memory practice – such as having the TV on silent or at low volume. However, Levi cautions against introducing mistakes during the learning phase, as it can program the wrong muscle memory instructions and make it very hard and time consuming to undo.
Sources which take a more moderate position toward muscle memory use include Jenkins (2016) [20] which states:
Implicit, procedural, and non-declarative memory are all synonymous with ‘muscle memory’. All of these terms refer to the long term memory that helps us perform motor skills like walking, riding a bike, or playing a musical instrument. This type of memory does not require conscious thought.
Jenkins argues every musician uses muscle memory (the only exception being complete beginners) which is readily acquired through ongoing practice. It is not something a musician has to try to gain, he claims. Jenkins also cautions that muscle memory has its flaws as an unplanned distraction during a performance can throw a musician off if they are solely relying on muscle memory technique. For instance, memorizing the music as a series of physical motions that the nerves controlling the muscles have become accustomed to.
Jenkins does however express a positive side to muscle memory application, arguing it plays a central role in any musician’s technique, giving the example of how a sight-reading musician will instinctively look for patterns of movement rather than a series of individual notes as this allows them to execute the notated passage more effectively. Jenkins proposes that there is a healthy medium that can be achieved by musicians when balancing muscle memory technique with ‘explicit memory’, which is the musician’s ability to consciously remember specific musical passages when the automated muscle memory fails or if they are searching for a greater sense of creative freedom in the musical performance, concluding:
When you play with muscle memory and explicit memory, your body is on autopilot and you can think about the music and make changes when needed. It’s a winning combination.
Darling (2009) [21] examines the affect muscle memory has on intonation. Darling discusses this with assistant music professor Charlene Dell, who describes intonation as: ‘...a combination of what the player hears in his head and the muscle memory he attributes to that sound.’ Darling deduces that intonation issues occur where there is a disconnect between what a student is hearing and the sound that the muscle memory in their fingers is producing. Dell also discusses the importance of singing as a means of improving intonation as well as playing chord tones against the drone of the respective chord to help train the ear and thus, intonation in the process.
Authoritative sources which make such associations between intonation and procedural memory are ostensibly rare. Yet, its importance cannot be understated and is a subject I continue to be mindful of in my own recording and performance work alongside guitar teaching. The number of factors which can impact intonational accuracy (including that of procedural memory use) are considerable and can include the slightest change of pressure applied by the fretting hand, which finger is used, how hard the note is played in addition to factors such as the condition of the strings, frets and way the guitar is set up. The aesthetic of most guitarists is to able to control these factors in such a way that every possible variable is mitigated as much as possible. However, a more nuanced approach can be found in the works of guitarists such as James Taylor who use a compensation method for inherent intonational inaccuracies [22].
Moorman and Miner (1998) [23] explore a range of contexts which employ both procedural and declarative memory, stating: ‘...prior knowledge and routines are important to improvisation, but that the presence of stable competencies is not inconsistent with improvising’ [24].
Moorman and Miner discuss how the outcome of an improvisation can be influenced by varying degrees of procedural and declarative memory [25]. Moorman and Miner make nine propositions which address the importance of achieving an optimum balance between procedural and declarative memory when improvising [26] :
Proposition 1: The greater the procedural memory level, the greater the likelihood that improvisation will produce coherent action…
Proposition 2: The greater the procedural memory level, the greater the likelihood that improvisation will produce speedy action…
Proposition 3: The greater the procedural memory level, the greater the likelihood that improvisation will produce action low in novelty”.
Moorman and Minor do however caution that a high level of procedural memory can be limiting, which they argue is reaffirmed by Berliner (1994) [27].
Proposition 4: The greater the declarative memory level, the greater the likelihood that improvisation will produce coherent action”
Proposition 5: The greater the declarative memory level, the greater the likelihood that improvisation will produce novel action
Proposition 6: The greater the declarative memory level, the greater the likelihood that improvisation will produce action that proceeds at a slower pace”.
Moorman and Miner argue that while procedural memory encourages coherent and speedy action, it also increases the risk of automated behaviour. Conversely, declarative memory enhances novelty in improvisation but makes it slower to produce coherent ideas. Moorman and Miner therefore advocate a combination of memory types.
Proposition 7 states: ‘...Combining procedural and declarative memory can enhance the probability that improvisation will produce coherent, novel, and speedy action’.
Moorman and Miner argue that collective improvisation amongst jazz musicians can iteratively become standardised over time, thus using improvisation as a compositional tool in itself. This is a similar methodology to the one I have adopted in my own compositional work with alternate tunings.
The final two propositions address the impact improvisation has on organisational memory and competence, rather than the previous ones that were concerned with the effects of organisational memory on improvisation:
Proposition 8: Improvisational actions can serve as unplanned experiments that generate enhances in an organization’s procedural and declarative memory.
Proposition 9: The greater the organizational improvisational level, the more likely an organization will to develop a higher-order organizational competency in improvisation over the long run.
Tedesco (1979) [28], also advocates both conventional and unconventional approaches to position playing for the guitar, arguing the importance of learning all the notes fluently on one string [29]. This unconventional technique reinforces an understanding of the fretboard geography, according to Tedesco. I have also found it offers much greater tonal consistency and is particularly useful for playing single note melodies. This is something very few guitarists seem to practice or educators seem to teach, yet it is a technique which provides a major tonal advantage as well as helping students with learning the notes up and down the fretboard. It also avoids the use of muscle memory-based patterns as the technique draws on a greater sense of explicit memory to enhance musicality.
Guitarists such as Wayne Krantz and Bill Frisell both advocate greater emphasis on explicit memory in their work. For Krantz (2004) [30], unlike other texts reviewed here, the need for a guitarist to be able to challenge procedural memory is clearly a priority as this is what he believes allows an improviser to truly flourish musically: ‘Rhythm, melody, harmony and sound, free of generic reference, idolatry and derivative affectation, are expressions of the self’ [31]. Krantz presents a series of 2,048 ‘formulas’ which include conventional triads, arpeggios and scales as well as every other possible note combination on the guitar fretboard. Krantz conceives the formulas as being totally different to scales and chords:
The word ‘scale’ implies an orderly sequence of notes learned by rote; a known quantity with little potential for reinvention. ‘Formula’ suggests a blend. A concoction; something open-ended and without a tendency toward any particular order… [32].
Krantz argues the importance of formulas over scales and chords as they do not rely on muscle memory. Rather, Krantz encourages a good knowledge of note names and essential theory to access the sounds. Krantz also discourages the use of any muscle memory approach in learning the formulas in the book:
In this mapping-out process of the formula it’s important not to reduce the sequence of available notes up and down to mechanize it and reduce it to a 30 pattern...that’s an important goal: to not remember a single formula’s location anywhere on the neck. Instead, every time that access to a formula is needed, it is searched for by note name or function as if for the first time, regardless of how many times it has been searched for before [33].
Krantz offers further advice on the best methods for practicing the material, suggesting an effective strategy is to divide the guitar fret up visually into four fret zones which can cover any four frets. Ultimately, the logic here is that each finger can then be assigned to a corresponding fret which makes it easier to focus on the theoretical aspects of learning and less on the physical. Once the player has chosen a zone to work with, he/she can then input one of the many formulas from the book [34]. Krantz also considers how an artificial limitation of resources to improvise with can in fact nurture creativity
A limitation can’t sound bad; only what we do with it can. The limitation is an opportunity to build improvisational muscle. As noted previously, what makes music sound good isn’t which notes and intervals are used, or how many, but how they are used [35] .
Krantz explores the various modes that can be derived from the formulas, alongside a number of ‘subsets’ which provide an even more expansive range of permutations to work with [36]. To conclude, Krantz answers some short questions relating to how ideas generated from these methods can be later standardized if one so chooses as the basis for writing a composition. Krantz also suggests that these formulas can provide an alternative approach to soloing on changes by accentuating the use of non-chord tones to create greater improvisational colour [37].
Frisell’s chapter, cited in Zorn (2000) [38] presents a short overview of his own approach to guitar fingerings and how this enables him to achieve his own inimitable guitar sound [39]. Frisell discusses how most guitar method books typically address fingering from the perspective of what position a passage should be played in. However, Frisell presents a series of examples which incorporate all of the various guitar strings, often ringing out over one another akin to a piano sustain pedal. Frisell gives examples of his own finger positions for various scales, harmonics and triads before following this with a short series of etudes using this approach.
Frisell’s chapter, much like Tedesco, presents a method of guitar playing which prioritizes the desired sound and makes the guitar fingering work to suit this, whereas normally guitarists will choose the fingering based on what is physically the most logical to play, with tone/timbre very much a secondary factor.
Conclusion
From my findings, I have found the majority of sources favour the use of muscle memory especially within guitar pedagogy which typically promotes a more standardized way of playing using fretboard diagrams, tablature, chord symbols/boxes and aural demonstration. By comparison, there seems to be minimal literature which takes a more introspective position towards muscle memory use for the guitar. There could be reason to suggest these findings are indicative of the guitar’s broader standardization and its expanding role within music academia. As standard tuning for the guitar has not really diversified in the mainstream, it is inevitable there will be a significant dependence on established finger shapes and procedural memory patterns among players.
There is also a lack of material which contextualizes musical muscle memory in the broader context of physiology, like Sudnow does. Sudnow’s writing, which focuses on giving highly descriptive accounts of the transition and techniques required to execute specific finger patterns, seems to be rarely found in other sources. This has led me to consider how I could develop my own compositional method which prioritises a bodily movement over sound creation as the primary musical aesthetic, thus potentially providing a basis for new knowledge creation.
As we have seen, sources such as Dean (2014) have argued that poor insight into such procedural/declarative memory motions can lead to an inadequate standard of musical transcription and suggest improvising guitarists could be better informed about their use in order to make more informed decisions when playing music.
The concept of using limited resources as a basis to inspire greater creativity discussed by Krantz [40] is not addressed widely in the literature either. This is significant as it can be an effective tool for circumventing over-reliance on existing muscle memory ideas and is a strategy I employ regularly with guitar students who are seeking alternative resources to improvise with.
While some of the sources address the ongoing issues around how to practice muscle memory techniques most effectively, I believe this is still an area which could be further reinforced as I still see many examples of poor muscle memory acquisition in my own teaching.
I feel it is also important to re-iterate the observation I made earlier, that when a guitar student expresses frustration about being over-dependent on a particular pattern for improvising or composing, it is usually the sound of those patterns they are taking issue with rather than the actual physical shape itself. This suggests that procedural memory in itself is not the issue, rather the musical context in which it is being applied to.
It is important to recognize however that approaches which advocate new musical applications of procedural memory do not oppose the use of explicit memory methods we have seen evaluated by Krantz (2004) and Frisell (2000). As these findings suggest a lack of literature which specifically promotes the use of explicit memory, I believe it is therefore valuable to look further a how these two memory approaches can be of mutual benefit to guitarists and hence, a more valuable musical resource.
Suggestions for future research
In considering suggestions for future research, a larger scale work or series of works based on procedural and declarative memory use (rather than any type of sound aesthetic) could be an interesting area for potential. For instance, I could explore how a kinesthetic approach to guitar composition based on choreographed finger movements and analysis of sound vibration (rather than actual sound itself) could produce works aimed at challenging the traditional sensory aesthetics within music. This could also work well as an interdisciplinary project offering scope for collaboration with other artistic media such as dance or fine art. For example, a choreographer could produce a dance based entirely on sound rather than visual movements.
As there is emphasis here on bodily motion over sound as the primary musical aesthetic, there could also be scope for developing a method of guitar composition that has an accessibility benefit. For instance, among individuals with aural impairment. I plan to engage further with organisations in Australia which may advocate and facilitate such collaborations I have highlighted based on the findings of this research.
As part of a subsequent paper, I plan to investigate links between guitar inharmonicity/intonation and procedural/declarative memory. A collaborative approach working closely with music technology would also be advantageous for this. For example, analyzing data produced by different string vibrations, collecting data about how different string types/gauges behave and using 3D visuals to illustrate the methodology are all further possibilities.
[1] Lee Anthony Jones, ‘Exploration of Unorthodox Tunings and Muscle Memory Practice for the Electric Guitar’ (PhD thesis, University of Salford, 2019).
[2] Author Unknown: ‘Muscle Memory’, Cambridge Dictionary Online ed. C. McIntosh (Accessed 21 September 2018).
[3] K.A. Zimmerman: ‘Declarative Memory: Definitions & Examples’ Live Science Online (Accessed 27 July 2020).
[4] David Sudnow, Ways of the Hand: The Organization of Improvised Conduct (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1978).
[5] Ibid pp. 8- 9.
[6] Ibid p.11.
[7] Ibid p.14
[8] Ibid pp. 82-83.
[9] Andreas C. Lehmann, et al. Psychology for Musicians: Understanding and Acquiring the Skills (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
[10] Chaffin, Roger and Imreh, Gabriela (2002), ‘Practicing Perfection: Piano Performance as Expert Memory’. Psychological Science 13/4: 342-349.
[11] Lehmann et al (2007), see p. 76
[12] Ibid p. 77
[13] John A. Sloboda, Exploring the Musical Mind: Cognition, Emotion, Ability, Function (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
[14] Ibid p. 216
[15] Paul M. Fitts, ‘Perceptual-Motor Skill Learning’, in Arthur W. Melton, (ed.), Categories of Human Learning. (New York: Academic Press, 1964), 243–285.
[16] James Dean, ‘Pat Metheny's Finger Routes: The Role of Muscle Memory in Guitar Improvisation’, Jazz Perspectives (2014) 8/1, 45-71
[17] D. Motto: ‘Learn Faster by Playing Slower: Muscle Memory Techniques That Work’, Molto Music Online (Accessed 26 October 2018).
[18] Levi: ‘Learning to Play Music: The Phenomena of Muscle Memory’, Joy Tunes Online (Accessed 14 September 2018).
[19] G. Lam: ‘Muscle Memory: Only for “Smart Musicians”? Artiden Online (Accessed 26 October 2017).
[20] B. Jenkins: ‘Muscle Memory is a Requirement For All Musicians’, Your Music Lessons Online (Accessed 14 September 2018).
[21] Cynthia Darling, ‘Muscle Memory, Ear Training, and Intonation’, Teaching Music 17:1 (2009), 49.
[22] Taylor, J. ‘Bonus Lesson: Tuning – Official James Taylor Guitar Lessons’, YouTube Online (Accessed 11th August 2020).
[23] Christine Moorman & Anne S. Miner, ‘Organizational Improvisation and Organizational Memory’, The Academy of Management Review 23:4 (1998), 698-723.
[24] Ibid p. 706. [25] Ibid p. 707
[26] Ibid pp. 709-715
[27] Paul Berliner, Thinking in Jazz: The Infinite Art of Improvisation. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994).
[28] Tommy Tedesco, For Guitar Players Only. (Van Nuys, Alfred Publishing, 1979).
[29] Ibid pp. 15-19
[30] Wayne Krantz, An Improviser’s OS. (New York, Self-Published, 2004).
[31] Ibid p. 5
[32] Ibid p. 40
[33] Ibid p. 52
[34] Ibid p. 49
[35] Ibid p. 54
[36] Ibid pp. 60-65
[37] Ibid pp. 76-77
[38] Bill Frisell, ‘An Approach to Guitar Fingering’, in John Zorn (ed.), Arcana: Musicians on Music (New York, Granary Books Inc, 2000), 140-144.
[39] Ibid pp. 140-44
[40] See Krantz, p. 54