Do you always count while playing?

[paulpiano]

Do you always count to yourself while playing?
The experts are divided on the question. Some tell you that continuous counting when playing the piano merely diverts attention from the musical contour-shaping, because it keeps you from concentrating on sounding the tones. Others tell you it's the only valuable help for a sure rhythm.
What do you think?

[gyzzzmo]

I dont count, and with pianoplaying its not really needed, especially if youre an advanced player. And IF you count, you only need to do it for a short moment, to get the rhythm. And once you get that rhythm, counting isnt needed anymore. I cant really immagine experts are actually divided about this...

[paulpiano]

I can quote from the well-known book "Piano Technique" by Karl Leimer:

" When an artist such as Gieseking admits that he still counts occasionally, and Professor Straube, when instructing his choristers, marks the rhythm by counting keenly and even tapping certain singers on the shoulders, I am convinced that this is the proper way of developing rhythmical feeling."

[gyzzzmo]

I can quote from the well-known book "Piano Technique" by Karl Leimer:

" When an artist such as Gieseking admits that he still counts occasionally, and Professor Straube, when instructing his choristers, marks the rhythm by counting keenly and even tapping certain singers on the shoulders, I am convinced that this is the proper way of developing rhythmical feeling."

...... Thus if you have a decent rhythmical feeling, you hardly need any counting....

[paulpiano]

I'm just wondering if counting could help, for instance your memory. You know on which beat you are. It might be something not natural. It's rather an intellectual approach. But it might give you a better command on the playing apparatus.
Rachmaninov himself said that he always counted beats, even during a concert.

[gyzzzmo]

The clapping, the stamping on the ground, ticking on stuff or counting is all pretty useless, since rhythm is more based on a more unconcious system of your brains. People who tap or whatever do it because they A dont know the music well enough, or B are just used to doing it (rachmaninov). The fact that it gets harder when they try to stop counting/tapping, is that they have to concentrate doing it wich distracts them.

[avguste]

I am counting only for modern pieces. Examples:

-Messiaen's "Colors of the Celestial City" for piano and wind symphony
-Daugherty "Piano Plus"

Also, counting is good as member of ensembles,especially orchestras and wind symphonies

[gyzzzmo]

I am counting only for modern pieces. Examples:

-Messiaen's "Colors of the Celestial City" for piano and wind symphony
-Daugherty "Piano Plus"

Also, counting is good as member of ensembles,especially orchestras and wind symphonies

K, some modern pieces are a different story, they are too unlogical in rhythm to get used to, but even then if you listen enough recordings, you'll know when to start playing.
Btw, next to pianist im a melodical percussionist also

gyzzzmo

[avguste]

Try to play the Messiaen without counting,lol

K, some modern pieces are a different story, they are too unlogical in rhythm to get used to, but even then if you listen enough recordings, you'll know when to start playing.
Btw, next to pianist im a melodical percussionist also

gyzzzmo

[gyzzzmo]

No problem... you know the music, you'll recognise certain things so you'll know when to start.
Btw, your original thread was: 'Do you ALWAYS count while playing'. You're busy changing that 'always' to 'very rare' by calling wicked orchestra pieces only. Its clear advanced musicians only count when playing those pieces with very unlogical rhythm, and practicly only if theyre part of an orchestra.

[avguste]

you are right on the subject thread and my apologies if I seemed to divert it.wasn't my intention.By the way,it wasn't my thread

[invictious]

I don't count explicitly while playing, so there is no ONE AND TWO AND THREE AND FOUR AND in my mind while I play.

I just feel the music...you know..you just know.

[counterpoint]

Counting is important in the process of learning pieces, but if you have got the feeling for the rhythm, in most cases, you don't need to count any more.

There are some exceptions, where you have to count even in the performance, especially in compositions of the 20th century.

[paulpiano]

When I posted this subject I had in mind all what I heard from numerous piano teachers.
Some would tell you: "YOU SHOULD NEVER COUNT, YOU SHOULD FEEL THE BEATS"
And some others would say: "YOU SHOULD ALWAYS COUNT BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO LOCATE YOUR STRONG BEATS"

[gyzzzmo]

When I posted this subject I had in mind all what I heard from numerous piano teachers.
Some would tell you: "YOU SHOULD NEVER COUNT, YOU SHOULD FEEL THE BEATS"
And some others would say: "YOU SHOULD ALWAYS COUNT BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO LOCATE YOUR STRONG BEATS"

Then you should ignore all generalising teachers and count when you dont get the rhythm and stop doing it when its not necessary anymore

[jinfiesto]

While I'm learning a piece, I always count out loud with the metronome. When I count though, I sing the melody while counting, so I don't lose the ability to shape phrases. I think that gets the best of both worlds, with rhythmic drive and and some lyricism to boot. Eventually, I just feel the pulse. I feel though, that if I don't do the counting work initially, I'll get lost in a performance. Also, for me it helps to organize the beats which helps with my memory.

[paulpiano]

Also, counting is good as member of ensembles,especially orchestras and wind symphonies

We can't say that counting is used only in some cases and not in others. I'm trying to find a universal principle that could apply to rhythm. I noticed that most musicians are not consciously aware of the mental process.

[avguste]

when you perform modern pieces(20-21st century)you have to be aware

[paulpiano]

I feel though, that if I don't do the counting work initially, I'll get lost in a performance. Also, for me it helps to organize the beats which helps with my memory.

I'd like to have pianists' opinion on this forum. Do you agree?

[capella]

I'm learning to count and it driving me a little crazy, but I never knew how to count correctly before.  Even trying very hard, I can't count all the way through a simple little two page piece in an early beginner book.  It works best for me to work out all the notes and make sure my ducks are in a row - the go back and count so I'm staying even.  I have a tendency to race toward the end of anything and stop too long at the end of "sentences".  The dreaded metronome (and it *is* distractiing, just as counting is) is really helping me though.  I plug on because I need this to be able to start to play something I don't already know.  1...2...3   1...2....3 - my personal bad dream.  I'm hoping it's a phase:) and will become less necessary.

Debbie
Full of wishful thinking

[paulpiano]

A friend of mine who is a well-known piano teacher send me this mail:

Rachmaninov himself said that he always counted beats, even during a concert.

 

Do never take opinions given by greater Masters as something that really means that that the words LITERALLY indicate.   

 

"YOU SHOULD NEVER COUNT, YOU SHOULD FEEL THE BEATS."

 

That's right - when playing and mostly - in practicing, too.

 

"YOU SHOULD ALWAYS COUNT BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO LOCATE YOUR STRONG BEATS".

I fully agree, if this bit of information would concern mentally handicapped persons.

 

"I am counting only for modern pieces. Examples: Messiaen's "Colors of the Celestial City" gor piano and wind symphony, Daugherty "Piano Plus". Also, counting is good for member of ensembles, especially orchestras and wind symphonies."

Counting could even be truly necessary within very preparatory phases of work, but only in case WE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW the rhythm has factually been constructed. When the problem is clear – I do not understand, what for we should count and count again? 

I'm trying to find a universal principle that could apply to rhythm. I noticed that most
musicians are not consciously aware of the mental process.

The universal principle is to UNDERSTAND mentally this, which we are unable to properly recognize in a while just using our musical instinct and learned skills – mental understanding is like a prosthesis to them, who for any reason does not possess any hand or leg... Besides, musicians were created for DOING MUSIC, not for ANALYZING IT MENTALLY. OK. Teachers, critics, some less talented composers maybe, etc, etc.

Finally, if I summarize the situation related to MEMORY: I'd like to ask you if counting to yourself while playing can help your memory because it organizes the beats with a rhythmic drive and order.

 

Counting will last your memory and disturb the entire process of memorizing because you will be forced to memorize not only the musical text, but horribly many additional bits of information related to 1, 2, 3, 4 added to hundreds of bars of memorized music. As I mentioned for a while: we must count if we DO NOT UNDERSTAND what is going about in the rhythmically more difficult, complicated phases of studied music. That's all. Why you don't like to count when you are dancing? You just hear to the played music and go after it. Listening to the sound produced by yourself you should be able to control it without counting, too.

 

The very last bit of advice is still: if counting for any mysterious reason helps you – let you count!!!

[m]

I can quote from the well-known book "Piano Technique" by Karl Leimer:

" When an artist such as Gieseking admits that he still counts occasionally, and Professor Straube, when instructing his choristers, marks the rhythm by counting keenly and even tapping certain singers on the shoulders, I am convinced that this is the proper way of developing rhythmical feeling."

If you have this answer why would you ask this question, first thing?

[lostinidlewonder]

If the music is strong in your head you don't have to subject yourself to pathetic counting numbers.

[PaulNaud]

Do never take opinions given by greater Masters as something that really means that that the words LITERALLY indicate.

I agree 100%

[m]

If the music is strong in your head you don't have to subject yourself to pathetic counting numbers.

When Rachmaninov was asked about his such strong sense of rythm, his answer was--"I always count". The following question was--"What about during performances?" his reply was--"During performances, too".

Do you mean the music was not strong enough in his head?

[zheer]

Do you mean the music was not strong enough in his head?

 Yeah what did Rach know about music.

[lostinidlewonder]

When Rachmaninov was asked about his such strong sense of rythm, his answer was--"I always count". The following question was--"What about during performances?" his reply was--"During performances, too".

Do you mean the music was not strong enough in his head?

Maybe with an orchestra or where you must be in time with other people yes you must count, but piano solos? I certainly don't think it's required as much.

[franzliszt2]

I practice counting out loud quite a lot. It's very helpful, and keeps the rhythm solid. I don't count all the time, but I always know where I am in the bar, and could start counting at any time. Watch anyone who messes up, in most most most cases the first thing to go in the rhythm. It's like your cement, it holds everything together.

[nyonyo]

Why do you we need to count if we already know the piece well?

I only count when I am not familiar with the piece.

[cygnusdei]

You always have to count ..... when playing Träumerei.

[pianochick93]

You always have to count ..... when playing Träumerei.

I disagree, I play it, and I don't count. A little rubato never hurt anyone in that piece. I think that if you played it while counting, it would become too clockwork.

[franzliszt2]

Because counting keeps the sense of rhythm!!! Rubato is not playing out of time, you have to count especially if you are doing rubato, because the rubato must still have rhythm.

When playing traumerei you have to play it in time. People hardly ever play it in time, and thats why they sound bad. Listen to Horowitz...it is so strict, but sounds so free. Thats good sense of rhythm.

[mephisto]

I count when I am learning the piece, but not after I have learned it.

[cygnusdei]

This is what happens if you don't count.

[nyonyo]

You always have to count ..... when playing Träumerei.

People do not count, they sing in their mind what they want to present to audience. Nobody count 1, 2, 3, 4 etc while playing. Unless you just learn the piece.

For example Traumerei, the first time you learn you need to count correctly, after that you start adding your feeling and finally you come with the finaly form and you keep that form in your mind while you perform....Nobody keeps counting??? If you sight play something, yes, you need to count because you do not know the piece.

[dan101]

Counting is a means of making the rhythm of a work second nature. This frees your mind so that emotion can become a major focus. Good luck!

[cloches_de_geneve]

I think it really depends on the complexities of the rhythm. I think that for most pieces, learning them with the occasional help of the metronome is ample. But there are pieces in which I would consider counting helpful. Though people with a subperb sense of rhythm will never need counting; or they do it without being aware of doing it which amounts to not doing it.

[houseofblackleaves]

I do the Argerich-ish thing, where I sort of twitch my head to one side or the other, and it looks like I'm "counting" sometimes.

[dnephi]

I'm trying to pick up counting (when practicing) and it's a very effective tool.  I personally have a lot of problems keeping a steady temp, and counting, along with metronome practice, solves those problems.  It's just my big weakness.

[nyonyo]

I'm trying to pick up counting (when practicing) and it's a very effective tool.  I personally have a lot of problems keeping a steady temp, and counting, along with metronome practice, solves those problems.  It's just my big weakness.

If you sing in your mind while you play, it will help. You have to control you playing with your mind. If you only play with your fingers, it will be hard to control the speed.

If you cannot keep the tempo, it means that you do not play with your brain but only with your fingers.

[danny elfboy]

Do you always count to yourself while playing?
The experts are divided on the question. Some tell you that continuous counting when playing the piano merely diverts attention from the musical contour-shaping, because it keeps you from concentrating on sounding the tones.

The real risk is another one.
Counting (or using always a metronome) force you to play with a steady perfect rhythm, but rhythm is never so perfect and mechanical. When you start to use your own internal sense of rhythm you'll notice that you're not as precise as your metronome and yet your pieces sound better and more musical and lively.

[jinfiesto]

In my opinion, it's important to do the initial learning work counting out loud with the metronome. That establishes a good amount of rhythmic stability from which there is room to develop some freedom without becoming overly sentimental. After the initial learning work with the metronome, I typically only use it to clean up passages that become sloppy, and to speed things up.

[pianochick93]

What I find annoying about the metronome, is that I like to stick strictly to it. This becomes a problem when I don't know the peice well enough to either play through my mistakes and pick up the piece again, or to just not make mistakes. With the metronome I feel rushed, and too mechanical. No matter what tempo I have the metronome set on.

I mostly rely on internal counting, when I need to determine tempo or double check the timing of something, I will use the motronome, but for most rhythm problems I count the passage through a few times, then rely on my sense of rhythm to remember the timing. It works everytime.

[epf]

I'm going to respond to the OP's question: No, I do not always count. Sometimes I count, sometimes I don't. The better I know the music the less likely I am to count. And, as has been noted by others, I sometimes will sing the melody while counting and other times I will just count.

Ed

[schubertiad]

I have inherited a few students who learnt fur elise with a previous teacher. Despite having studied the piece for several months, both of them were entirely clueless as to where the strong beats lay. One didn't even know how many beats were in a bar. "DAdadadadadadadaDA..dadadaDA..dadadaDA" etc. In such instances of course you need to count. On the other hand, with pieces where the rhythm is easy, I'm sure students would probably rather not hear you yelling "1,2,3,1,2,3!"

[paulpiano]

After reading all your comments on this subject, I think a conclusion can be drawn from these comments. Although loud and exact counting is essential to keeping strict time, it is also advisable to refrain from continuous counting in the case of similar consecutive figures. As we advance in this particular branch, we must become able to play rhythmically without oral counting. The metronome should be used temporarily as a time controller or as an emergency instrument, and not as a permanent medium.