fallacies in teaching rhythm

[PaulNaud]

"I would like to examine three areas of teaching in light of re-engaging body learning. The issue in each area is how to get adults to perceive the issues physically, in terms of kinesthetic sensations, and not just words.

Counting out loud is a wonderful example of the conflict between words and the body.

George Moore is a neuroscientist who spoke at the last Biology of Music Making Conference at Eastman. He had presented a paper about how musicians use the information gained from the metronome. In the question and answer session afterwards someone asked about the value of tapping the foot to keep track of the pulse. He adamantly replied that such an activity would degrade the primary task of playing the instrument; it would be a distraction. The audience was stunned. Another asked about counting out loud and his reply was the same, it was an additional activity that would make the primary activity less effective. The body language of the audience was such that George knew he had taken a big step into troubled waters. He said, "Obviously, I've said something terribly wrong from your perspective; but from the neurological perspective, what I'm saying is totally correct."

I could not dismiss his point because it's exactly what so many of my students say to me. "Do I have to count out loud, it's just one more thing to do when I can't seem to handle all the other things." When counting out loud is a strictly verbal task it is intrusive. When I have my students walk around the room and count one beat for each step they take, it is not a probli. It feels quite different. That difference is that the body and mind are working as one. My students are attempting to count using only their minds when they must learn rhythm is a complex dialogue between the mind and the large muscles of their arms, shoulders, and trunk."
Quotation from the Adult Music Student Forum by Matthew Harre

[pianistimo]

although i wholeheartedly agree with you about putting rhythm in your heart - i think that first year students do well to say the type of note they are playing so that if someone asks them - is this an eighth note or thirty-second - they have a clue. 

i have followed the bastien method where they use saying the type of note while learning them.  quarter / two-eighths / four-six-teenth-notes /thir-ty-se-cond- play - it -fas-ter

believe it or not - this REALLY helps - even adult students - to remember what TYPE of note they are playing.  but, it can only go so far.

my college prof used walking as an example of speed.  he said something about largo as a tempo that would be a funeral march or wedding procession- and had me literally get up and show him what i thought was the correct tempo by walking it.  same with all the other speeds.  this really helped to set in my mind what speed was appropriate - without the metronome always.

giving students a taste of rhythm in other forms can be great, too.  i remember a class where we were sightreading and i thought it would only be notes - but it ended up being rhythms, too.  this was extremely helpful so i integrated it into my second and third year piano lessons ideas.  giving out a page of previously unseen rhythms and clapping or tapping a pencil to it.  it really helps.

[keyofc]

paul,
I think the brain and the body have no problem counting when walking because walking is something they know how to do already.

Reading music and playing piano is something they are learning.

What did this guy say a person should do in order to internalize rythm? 

I have students say that it's difficult too - but usually they are the ones that don't practice a lot.  I don't know if that's the same for others or not.

I've been playing piano all my life - and if I didn't count when I'm playing a new piece that I consider challenging - I would never learn it, I feel.

I don't understand why he is against it.  I've never heard of such a thing.  I'm interestd in how he teaches. 

Walking and counting - and tapping the foot - what's the difference?
I think that by to tapping your foot - you've actually already bypassed the need to count at that point -assuming you are only doing the percussion.  Most people who don't know how to play piano can do that. 

If I knew a better way to teach rythm (one without counting) I would love to do it - but it doesn't sound practical to me. 

Have you changed anything since you heard him - and if so, what are you doingdifferent?

[PaulNaud]

I've been playing piano all my life - and if I didn't count when I'm playing a new piece that I consider challenging - I would never learn it, I feel.

I don't understand why he is against it.  I've never heard of such a thing.  I'm interestd in how he teaches. 

Well, even for some great piano teachers who admit that counting is a very valuable help to the pupil in his striving for a sure rhythm, they say that continual counting merely diverts attention from the musical contour-shaping. Some scientific research seems to show this fact.
Another quotation from the same author may help:
"Usually the self-portrait of the adult piano student is a head and a pair of hands. There is no bodily connection between the two, no arms, no shoulder; no torso nor trunk supporting the mechanism. The head just sits in space complaining about what the hands are doing. There virtually is no body to feel the rhythm. There is no body to facilitate exchanges between the mind and the fingers. There is just empty space.

Much of my work with adults is trying to get them to fill in this empty space. It is getting them to learn they have a body and to learn that awareness of the sensations of the body is how the mind communicates with the body. They need to learn to remember that body knowledge is highly reliable. They use it every time they walk, climb stairs, or drive their cars.

The first probli in teaching body awareness is that most people don't want to admit they have a musical body. That people are willing to dance with these bodies but not make music with the bodies always surprises me. To be perfectly honest though, I do not think most of my students do dance. Even the few who do don't make the connection.

I go about teaching students that they have a body by first working with the arms. Lateral motion of the arms is just as important as the up and down motion of the fingers. One can get the feeling of the musical pulse in lateral motions of the arms. Arm motion is usually un-rhythmic in adults. When they land on a right chord they hold on it to make sure its right and if it's wrong, that holding motion gives them the impression they can go back and correct it. This leads to a constant set of stop-start motions.

Conductors do not conduct with stop-start motions. This kind of motion takes too much energy and is too unpredictable for the orchestra to follow. The same is true of motions at the piano. The flowing sense of the body that comes with continuous motion physically mirrors the flow of the music. That's why great conducting can be so effective.

Rather than continuing in this nature, let me refer you to books by Seymore Fink and Seymore Bernstein on the use of arm motions and gestures in playing the piano. They do a wonderful job presenting this information."

[counterpoint]

Now rhythm is a very slippery terrain.

Of course it would be possible that the teacher plays the music then the student just imitates, what he hears. That's what students mostly do. "Oh pleeeeease, play me the piece, that I know how it sounds...!"

The unwillingness of students to get the rhythm for themselves from the score has its cause mostly in that they do not know, how to count.

Counting only in the brain does not help, since if the rhythm gets difficult - and where you needed counting most - the counting stops. Or the counting gets out of tempo.

It's so important to count loud (not really loud, but with movement of the tongue and the lips!), when you learn a new piece. If you got the rhythm, counting isn't needed any more for this piece. But until to this point, there is no real other way to get grip of the rhythm.

[timothy42b]

I have to agree with counterpoint.

All the people I hear play or sing "by feel" without actually counting are very imprecise.

The only people I ever hear with precise rhythm can count out loud, and often do. 

Of course the notes on the page are an imperfect representation of the music - but if you're singing in a choir, or worse yet playing in a big band or musical pit, you need to play the page precisely enough that the others can cope with you. 

I'm not sure what the mental process is.  Clearly when you are learning it becomes difficult, and can interfere with playing.  Later on it seems to help and the interference vanishes. 

[keyofc]

Yes - I agree too with the last two posts and find the other one interesting.

To me when counting is a distraction it's really this:  The problem has come to the surface and the problem (incorrect rhtymn) was not realized before.
So they think its harder, but really its a pointer.

It's true if I learn something by ear I rarely need to count - I still probably am counting - but not aware  of it.  Somehow my brain has interpreted the rhtymn without any verbal help from me.
Is this maybe what you are referring to?
I agree that the body needs to be involved - but if that's the guy's point - why would he be against tapping the toe?

I joined a jazz band a couple of years ago.  Until then I mainly played as a soloist. (worship music) Big difference!  I counted constantly until I learned it.  I practice 4 hours a day - since jazz was much harder for me.
The band director kept telling me to "listen to my friends"  I thought how can I do that?  I'm
focusing on too much as it is right now.  But there did come a magical time when all of the sudden I stopped counting and I could feel the beat and when they slowed tempos down.
 
If I could pick up Rhapsody in Blue or if you could teach me it - without counting I'd be willing to pay big bucks for it.  Seriously.   
I think our body is trying to work together - our hands - our brain in decoding - as our brain decodes the counting helps the hands - as the hands get it - it flows together and the rhtym is internalized.   well, anyway - I'm kind of rambling now.  It's a mysterious process though.

[pianoexcellence]

I don't think that George Moore really said anything too shocking...

The fact is, that we as instructors are constantly endeavoring to controll the number of complexities that our students face. Counting out loud is another complexity that is added to the mix when learning a piece. However, counting is not any more complex than any other process. One could easily argue that instructing a student to use correct hand posture is a complexity that interferes with learning...

hand posture, and counting for that matter are necessary for learning to play music.

I have found that the key is understanding...If you are going to add the complexity of counting, then it makes pedagogical sense to remove a complexity as well.
      -play perfect rhythm, but jibberish notes...
      - count and tap on knees with respective hands
     -play slower
the list could go on, but the fact is, that we all use these complexity reducing techniques in compensation, and they are effective.

The other factor is comfort with counting. It is a skill that must be taught like any other principle. Internalization may take between 1 mo. to a year of weekly counting excercises. Once the counting process is comfortable, it will be more efficient with regards to the total strain on the concentration.

[ramseytheii]

I disagree with this philosophy and the example of walking is a perfect reason why.  When we walk, we count a beat per step: it's coordinated.  However in music we have to coordinate several elements.  By this philosophy, we shouldn't even try to listen to an orchestral part when playing a concerto, since it would take away from playing the instrument.  Or trying to sing the orchestral part when we play the piano part.  But not being able to do that is a sure sign of undeveloped musicianship, and the fact that people can do it, proves it is possible and helpful.

Why count out loud when playing?  To organize all of the local rhythmic activity with the larger plan.  This is right from every perspective, physical and neurological, because you are coordinating all of the disparate elements into larger patterns, which is what the brain does with everything, and what the body has to do to cope.

Walter Ramsey

"I would like to examine three areas of teaching in light of re-engaging body learning. The issue in each area is how to get adults to perceive the issues physically, in terms of kinesthetic sensations, and not just words.

Counting out loud is a wonderful example of the conflict between words and the body.

George Moore is a neuroscientist who spoke at the last Biology of Music Making Conference at Eastman. He had presented a paper about how musicians use the information gained from the metronome. In the question and answer session afterwards someone asked about the value of tapping the foot to keep track of the pulse. He adamantly replied that such an activity would degrade the primary task of playing the instrument; it would be a distraction. The audience was stunned. Another asked about counting out loud and his reply was the same, it was an additional activity that would make the primary activity less effective. The body language of the audience was such that George knew he had taken a big step into troubled waters. He said, "Obviously, I've said something terribly wrong from your perspective; but from the neurological perspective, what I'm saying is totally correct."

I could not dismiss his point because it's exactly what so many of my students say to me. "Do I have to count out loud, it's just one more thing to do when I can't seem to handle all the other things." When counting out loud is a strictly verbal task it is intrusive. When I have my students walk around the room and count one beat for each step they take, it is not a probli. It feels quite different. That difference is that the body and mind are working as one. My students are attempting to count using only their minds when they must learn rhythm is a complex dialogue between the mind and the large muscles of their arms, shoulders, and trunk."
Quotation from the Adult Music Student Forum by Matthew Harre

[PaulNaud]

Why count out loud when playing?  To organize all of the local rhythmic activity with the larger plan.  This is right from every perspective, physical and neurological, because you are coordinating all of the disparate elements into larger patterns, which is what the brain does with everything, and what the body has to do to cope.

When you play a piano piece do you say aloud A B C or Do Ré Mi ? I don't think so. When you play a scale, you don't even think in your head A B C while playing the scale. I think that it's the same situation for the beats in a bar of music.

[timothy42b]

I do a lot of church music.  Some people can read music, more cannot.  Many who read music cannot count out loud.

In a performance situation, we simply follow them.  The ones who cannot count cannot play the rhythms correctly, period.  You cannot even explain to them what they are doing wrong.  If you have guitars start on beat one and voices on and-of-one, might as well just rewrite it because it probably isn't going to happen.   

The ones who can play precisely can always count correctly if asked.  I don't know how much of their counting is conscious.  There are a lot of activities that have to be done consciously when you're learning them, and disappear from consciousness later.  So it may be that people with good rhythm are actually counting without realizing it, or it may be that counting is simply a step in the learning process that can be dropped later. 

I observe that 100% of the people who have good rhythm are able to count out loud correctly, though they may not always do so.  So I conclude it is an essential skill.  I do not always count myself, but especially if I'm playing different rhythms in different hands I am very conscious of the beat.  Whenever I have difficulty I revert to conscious counting.  I've done several musicals, and those rhythms tend to be very different from what I'm used to, and I was forced to count.  Many of those rhythms were "swung" such that eighth notes were not even, but grouped as triplets or maybe 1.5 to 1.  I did not have to "count" the swung part of it but did have to do the beat.

I applaud trying to apply science to this problem.  I think it will work, but you have to know enough of the details to apply it correctly.   

[ramseytheii]

When you play a piano piece do you say aloud A B C or Do Ré Mi ? I don't think so. When you play a scale, you don't even think in your head A B C while playing the scale. I think that it's the same situation for the beats in a bar of music.

If you are asking whether I can sing solfege while playnig, the answer is yes.  For those that can't, I suggest practice, because it's an invaluable skill.  And therefore I agree with you that it's the same with beats in a bar: because major beats are only markers which are used to organize all the local rhythmic activity, we should be able to feel and conciously know them.

Look at for instance m.39 in Bach d minor concerto, 3rd mvmt.  It's a complicated cadential bar with 4 different kinds of note values, and on top of that ornamentation.  It's hard at first to count out loud in quarter notes, but if you count in eights it gets easier.  If you count in sixteenths *slowly of course) it gets even easier.  If you count in 32nds, it gets still easier (and including ornamentation). 

Is counting out loud and playing a contradiction because if you count large beats, there are a lot of small beats in between?  Then a person should always play counting one beat for every note they play.  But then again how ridiculous would that be?  We have to laern to control the rhythm at all the levels, from small (32nds notes), to large (entire bar), to larger (phrase which includes multiple bars), to even larger.  Frankly if you are playing and you can't distinguish between large beats and small beats, you are doing something wrong.

I also couldn't help but notice that the person you quoted said he found a correlation to the neuroscientist's comments in the complaints of his students.  This suggests to me a teacher who gives in too easily to the whims of his students, and doesn't push them to master these basic music skills.

Walter Ramsey

[PaulNaud]

IT'S SOUND NOT VERBAL CONCEPT,
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING:
"Another physical connection adult students don't make is the relation of body sensation to wrong notes. Again the words are a probli and again they don't acknowledge the body's part in their playing. Adults keep saying to themselves, "It's A-flat" while they continue to play A natural. They don't understand that they need to change the feel in their hands and arms. They don't understand they just need to move a different distance and feel for a black note. The difference is a kinesthetic sensation not words; it's sound, not verbal concept. Most notes are wrong because we don't feel the motion to the next note or we misperceive it. The hand has gone too far or not far enough. That is all. Contrary to the feelings of most adults, it's not a moral issue, it's not an intellectual issue, it's not even a mental competency issue. It's just a physical issue, an issue of the body that has moved too far or nor far enough.

The same thing is true about controlling the tone of the instrument. Pianists need to get to know the instrument in a very physical way. They need to know the resistance of the keys and to understand the relationship between what their fingers feel and their ear hears. There is not much use for words. It's like melody. Amidst all the books about harmony and counterpoint there are few indeed about melody. There is not much to say. How do you make a beautiful phrase? You start, you end, you have a climatic point. That's about it. You can say that one is born with a melodic sense; which may be true or it may be a cop-out. Note, however, how many sketches Beethoven made of some of his melodies before he arrived at the simplicity he wanted.

Tone is elusive in the same kind of way. One can talk about not pounding the key or about using the weight of the arm but that doesn't necessarily make a good tone. People need to sense a oneness between themselves and the instrument, as some say, a feeling of the key as an extension of the finger.

Adult students tend to see the instrument as something to be overcome; sometimes even an enemy out to get them. It is hard, indeed, to get adults to relax into feeling the decent of the key rather than just pushing it down. This takes a kind of leisure adults don't think they have. They've got 30 minutes and they have a lot to get done. What I'm talking about seems like a waste of time to them. When I'm in a bad mood I suggest they waste a lot of time in their practice anyway and suggest this might be a better way to waste time. It's hard for adults to understand. The results aren't immediate; they certainly are un-quantifyable, and there is no verbal thinking involved."

[timothy42b]

I have no clue how any of that related to rhythm.  Possibly you are a postmodernist?

Anyway, let me add one thing.

Subdivide.

Your accuracy with any kind of measurement is about half the unit you use.

If you have a yardstick marked in feet, you can measure to about half a foot.  Marked in inches, about half an inch, etc. 

If you're counting only the beat, you can maybe do the eighth note accurately, maybe not.  If you're subdividing to sixteenth notes (one-ee-and-uh) then you might be accurate with a 32cnd.  Depends on how precise you feel you need to be. 

[cjp_piano]

I see both sides.  On one hand, I've always thought that counting out loud is beneficial, but on the other hand, I know from teaching that most of my beginning students can't do it.  Or they do it, but it doesn't really work.

I observe that 100% of the people who have good rhythm are able to count out loud correctly, though they may not always do so.  So I conclude it is an essential skill. 

I think this is a false conclusion.  People who have good rhythm can count out loud correctly, yes, but that doesn't mean being able to count out loud correctly makes you have good rhythm.

I think that's an important point.  Sure, most of us who are trained pianists and good musicians find it helpful to count out loud while playing in order to practice the rhythm of how a certain part goes.  But when teaching children or adult beginners, it's a different story.  You've all had students that count out loud with absolutely no sense of pulse or rhythm:

"one . . .  . and . . . . . . . . two and . . . . three . . . . . . . . .. and four and . . . . . . . . . . one and . . . . . . two. .

Anyway, you know what I'm talking about, right?  So I'd rather be concerned with them knowing how it's suppose to go rather then saying the counting out loud.   It's more important that they have a sense of pulse first, right?  So this is where teachers have had the idea of walking and moving to feel and internalize the rhythm and pulse.

[ramseytheii]

I see both sides.  On one hand, I've always thought that counting out loud is beneficial, but on the other hand, I know from teaching that most of my beginning students can't do it.  Or they do it, but it doesn't really work.

I think this is a false conclusion.  People who have good rhythm can count out loud correctly, yes, but that doesn't mean being able to count out loud correctly makes you have good rhythm.

I think that's an important point.  Sure, most of us who are trained pianists and good musicians find it helpful to count out loud while playing in order to practice the rhythm of how a certain part goes.  But when teaching children or adult beginners, it's a different story.  You've all had students that count out loud with absolutely no sense of pulse or rhythm:

"one . . .  . and . . . . . . . . two and . . . . three . . . . . . . . .. and four and . . . . . . . . . . one and . . . . . . two. .

Anyway, you know what I'm talking about, right?  So I'd rather be concerned with them knowing how it's suppose to go rather then saying the counting out loud.   It's more important that they have a sense of pulse first, right?  So this is where teachers have had the idea of walking and moving to feel and internalize the rhythm and pulse.

I think you're right.  Maybe we let the original post run wild and loose, when it was just suggesting that for beginners, counting and playing simultaneously is too much to handle.
But it's definitely a skill one would be embarassed later on in the music world, not to have!

Walter Ramsey

[chocolatedog]

I often find that beginners have trouble counting - especially once quavers are introduced. I tend to use words and phrases to get the 'feel' of the rhythm across - and often the siller the better! I use 'tea' for crotchets and 'coffee' for quavers and 'cocacola' for semiquavers, etc and when there are jazzy syncopated rhythms I have my own phrases to help them understand what the rhythm should sound like. eg 'Skippy the kangaroo' 'Winnie the Pooh' etc...........

[cjp_piano]

I often find that beginners have trouble counting - especially once quavers are introduced. I tend to use words and phrases to get the 'feel' of the rhythm across - and often the siller the better! I use 'tea' for crotchets and 'coffee' for quavers and 'cocacola' for semiquavers, etc and when there are jazzy syncopated rhythms I have my own phrases to help them understand what the rhythm should sound like. eg 'Skippy the kangaroo' 'Winnie the Pooh' etc...........

Those are pretty good . . . what rhythm is "skippy the kangaroo?"

Share more if you are willing!

[timothy42b]

I think you're right.  Maybe we let the original post run wild and loose, when it was just suggesting that for beginners, counting and playing simultaneously is too much to handle.
But it's definitely a skill one would be embarassed later on in the music world, not to have!

Walter Ramsey

That makes a lot of sense.  I was a beginner back in 1962 or so.  Clearly it is impossible for me to remember what worked.

Similarly, I find a metronome essential, yet many beginners will find it impossibly distracting.  I have to think though that use of a metronome would be helpful in learning to internalize a beat, even if you couldn't play along with it at first. 

As a rule I find organists tend to have shaky rhythms.  I attribute this to two things.  One is that they rarely play with anyone else and and have to accomodate.  The other is that the delay between keypress and sound filling a church is so long that no direct connection gets established.  So they end up doing large rubato they are unaware of. 

[PaulNaud]

It's more important that they have a sense of pulse first, right?  So this is where teachers have had the idea of walking and moving to feel and internalize the rhythm and pulse.

Again, what Matthew Harre is telling us is that the body and the emotions are made the vital part of the learning experience. He is giving us here more suggestions :


" Sometimes I will tell my students to feel the keys as if feeling the body of a member of the opposite sex. The difference is amazing. They always astound me. I think the students are embarrassed but they note how different the sound is too. I leave the experience thinking they've finally understood. They seem to leave the experience thinking I'm not gonna do that again. They lose the understanding so fast. They are afraid of it, they don't trust it, they don't like being this exposed, especially in front of another person.

My talk has been more of a rhapsody than a developed theme. I did this to give as broad a view of my concerns as possible. There are many issues I've raised and not pressed and many implications not stated. The probli with this approach is it's hard to remember what was said. In closing, I want you to remember:

The question is not why can't adults learn but rather why can't we teach adults. We must take the efforts of adult students seriously and honor their desire to truly learn to play a musical instrument.
Being a student is being vulnerable. Most of us had enough of being a student when we were growing up and adults who take lessons demonstrate rare courage.
Adults carry a lot of baggage with them when they walk into your studio. Some is cultural, some is educational, some is cognitive and some is personal.
Adults beat themselves down with the distilled fury of all their past teachers and parents. They need us to be sympathetic, compassionate and supportive.
The adult mind is verbal and conceptual. It is disengaged from the body, embarrassed by the body, and cognitively untrusting of the body.
We play the piano with the body. We teachers know this and speak from this kinesthetic frame of reference but our adults don't have this frame of reference. We have to work to re-integrate their bodies into their learning.
Adults can learn to play and they can learn to play with freedom, speed, and expression but not unless the body is made the vital part of the learning experience. Someone has said true learning does not take place unless the mind, the body and the emotions are all involved. This could not be truer of learning to play the piano.
Matthew Harre "

[cjp_piano]

" Sometimes I will tell my students to feel the keys as if feeling the body of a member of the opposite sex.

Yikes!

feeling bodies - hope this isn't for my 6-year olds   

[ramseytheii]

Adults can learn to play and they can learn to play with freedom, speed, and expression but not unless the body is made the vital part of the learning experience. Someone has said true learning does not take place unless the mind, the body and the emotions are all involved. This could not be truer of learning to play the piano.
Matthew Harre "

paulsylvianenaud it is hard to understand your posts, because you just present this ifnormation, and we are supposed to respond somehow, but what about you?  Are we arguing with quotations or with a person?

Anyways if he says that the mind and body both have to be involved, there is no better recommendation for counting out loud and playing.  One might say it is neurologically impolite to rub one's stomach and pat one's head simultaneously, but we can do it.  One might also say, it is against the primary goal of playing piano to try and hear two separate voices at once, and yet we can do it with practice.  How is counting and playing simultaneously different?  You're training the muscles better actually, because you're fitting a myriad of small movements into larger patterns.  Again with this walking example, it seems he is just having a person count a beat per step, which is just juvenile.  We have to be able to do a lot of things in one beat, a lot of different things.  Anyone who says it is neurologically impossible is simply incapable, and that's as far as it goes.

Walter Ramsey

[PaulNaud]

paulsylvianenaud it is hard to understand your posts, because you just present this ifnormation, and we are supposed to respond somehow, but what about you?

I've tried both ways for years, counting out loud and not counting at all (just feeling the beats, e.g. quarters, eighths etc.). I noticed that my playing is much more musical when not counting and the quality of the sound is much better. However, I admit that counting out loud or even counting silently gives me, I think, a  wider and a better landmark or point of reference from a rhythmical point of view. But I'm not quite sure... because may be when playing without counting I'm not feeling the beats the right way.
Anyway musical quality should come first!!!
At the same time I posted this subject because I wanted your feedback on it.
Thanks for your comments.
Paul

[keyofc]

No one ever responds to any of my comments -    I feel cheated!
Perhaps I'm not sophisticated enough....
Paul - can you tell me is George Moore also a pianist?  You said he is a neurosurgeon.
I just wonder if he is giving his opinion experientially - or strictly from a scientific view.
thanks

[PaulNaud]

No one ever responds to any of my comments -    I feel cheated!
Perhaps I'm not sophisticated enough....

I'm really sorry keyofc, I've tried to find the answer to your question without any result, so we have to assume that George Moore might not be a musician but definitely the experiences were done amongst professional pianists.

[keyofc]

Paul,
Thanks for your response -

I am interested in new ways - that make realizing the beat easier. 
What I do when I'm learning a new piece is tap out the Bass clef with my LH - and Treble with RH and it does save a lot of work before I go to the piano.

I would really like to find more info from the piano teachers/pianists who were involved in this study.  Also - I wonder (which I understand you don't have the info) if they are so accomplished that they have already internalized the sounds of the 16th,s 32nds,etc.

If that's the case - wouldn't they have a head start?  If not the case,  I'd sure love to know how they did it.

[mcdiddy1]

The truth about people who have difficulties with rhythm is generally how they were taught. Often the problem is someone show them black dots on the page and then they call it a quarter note or half note and this is one beat and two beats and then show them music and say play it. Of course they can't do it because the havent done anything. If you teach them to do something physical FIRST such as clapping, although it not as good as saying the rhythm because you can't control duration of clapping, and then labeling the rhythm pattern  then they can put a label on and not before.

So actually the doctor has a very good point, counting out loud and tapping are activites that left to their own devices are not usefully but if you first establish recognizing simple rhythm patterns first then gradually adding more and more then that will be more effective than simply looking at a piece of music and stay count. Often the real core of the problem in piano is establishing hand independence. The key is to realize simply tapping the rhythm or counting out loud doesnt do anything by its self but when you are able to recognize rhythm patterns in and out of context then you will actually be learning rhythm

[jgallag]

First of all, I was just wondering if anyone has any experience with the ta-ka-di-mi system of counting rhythms? I found when we switched to it in college sight-reading rhythms became a million times easier. Not sure why, but it seems easier to say and it has a very nice system of division so that threes and twos line up, allowing students to easily learn two against three cross-rhythms.

I also wanted to say that I never count, not even when learning new music. However, I do not doubt that I could do so, as I did learn on piano that way. But I also started my music education as a member of the chorus, joined the band as soon as I was old enough, and was playing bass keyboard in the middle school jazz band within three years of beginning lessons. So perhaps the fact that many adults learn music in an isolated setting such as a private lesson has to do with the problem. Has anyone tried teaching piano using pieces where the teacher provides an accompaniment to the student's playing? My pre-college teacher did this with her new students and I'm sure that's how she began students on the piano (she was not my first teacher).

I also think that part of the problem in general is beginning with an incorrect concept of how the body plays the piano. It's been mentioned in several posts above the idea that students feel that their hands are disconnected from their head. Of course. It baffles me why the parts of the mechanism that do the least amount of work get the most attention, and the ones that do the most work aren't examined until the student becomes "advanced". Think about it. The most a finger does is press a key down. It simply relaxes to let the key come up, it does not even make an active "up" motion on its own. The hand may also move down, and it may expand at the palm to shape chords. Very few motions, considering the many that are made at the piano. Why do we start at the periphery? This seems as though it could be why students can't feel the rhythm, because they think playing only happens in the hand and the fingers. Who can blame them? That's all we ever talk about, hands and fingers. How do the fingers get to where they're supposed to be? The upper arm of course, in combination with the torso at extremes of the keyboard. Chords can be played with the upper arm, forearm, hand, but they are never played with the fingers, and rarely with the hand. So what is the problem to me? We start students off on pieces where the hand does not need to leave its initial position. Therefore, they have no sensation whatsoever of the role that the upper arm plays in placement of the mechanism. They learn to locate and press the keys first with the fingers, when they should be learning first how to do so with the upper arm and forearm.

One final question: to what extent do you use listening as a part of your instruction? All types, listening to recordings of music, teacher-demonstrates-student-imitates sort of listening, improvisation sort of listening?

[ramseytheii]

First of all, I was just wondering if anyone has any experience with the ta-ka-di-mi system of counting rhythms? I found when we switched to it in college sight-reading rhythms became a million times easier. Not sure why, but it seems easier to say and it has a very nice system of division so that threes and twos line up, allowing students to easily learn two against three cross-rhythms.

I have never heard of that system, but it reminds me of this comment from Richter:

"The three pillars of the Russian school... were Goldenweiser, Igumnov and Neuhaus.  Goldwenweiser represented the older tradition, a pianist of the pedantic kind.  For him, the important thing was knowing whether to play ti-ri-ra, ti-ra-ri or ti-ra-ra.  An academic pianist, with no imagination."

Walter Ramsey

[richard black]

I'm not a piano teacher but I thought the following observation may be of general interest....

I accompany opera singers, many of whom are very advanced (e.g. performing frequently at the world's great opera houses). They come to me to sing through music they are somewhere in the long process of learning. When a piece is new, many of them will often try to beat time with their hand, to help keep their singing in time. In all the years I've been doing this, I've not met ONE singer who can beat time while singing PROPERLY (i.e. full voice as if on stage) without losing the rhythmic thread - and that includes at least three I can think of offhand who double in their spare time as conductors. I find this quite remarkable.

On a less exalted note, I used to play violin in a folk dance band. You're not a proper dance fiddler unless you can stamp your foot in time to the music, but I really had to work at this to get it right. Sounds trivial until you try!

[ahinton]

I'm not a piano teacher but I thought the following observation may be of general interest....

I accompany opera singers, many of whom are very advanced (e.g. performing frequently at the world's great opera houses). They come to me to sing through music they are somewhere in the long process of learning. When a piece is new, many of them will often try to beat time with their hand, to help keep their singing in time. In all the years I've been doing this, I've not met ONE singer who can beat time while singing PROPERLY (i.e. full voice as if on stage) without losing the rhythmic thread - and that includes at least three I can think of offhand who double in their spare time as conductors. I find this quite remarkable.

On a less exalted note, I used to play violin in a folk dance band. You're not a proper dance fiddler unless you can stamp your foot in time to the music, but I really had to work at this to get it right. Sounds trivial until you try!

That's most interesting, but Richard, please tell people here why you think it is that most singers (in particular) seem to be given to doing this - or trying to do it - and what it may or may not achieve for them in the long run. If one cannot hear and feel rhythms in one's head, whether one is a singer, pianist, violinist, percussion player, conductor or composer, there's no real ultimate hope, surely? For what it's worth as any kind of illustration (and I admit in advance that it's far from the best kind of analogy here), I once said to someone (quite unwarrantably, no doubt, but only because I felt it) that dance is something that most people think is done to music whereas to me it is something that music itself does - when it does.

Curiously, when I was working with the soprano Sarah Leonard in the recording of my string quintet, the only time she resorted to this kind of thing was when resolving to overcome a pressing - and at the time seemingly intractable - ensemble problem; she stood on a chair and rehearsed a passage that involved her and the two violins and the viola by conducting it, thereby managing to pull it together perfectly - but this was not at all done - or needing to be done - for her own personal benefit!

Best,

Alistair