In general terms, the lyrical passages come across better. Some of the more technical sections, like from 1.04, need work both on the rhythm and accuracy of the notes. Grieg isn't quite that jazzy.
I use "and"s when counting if necessary. However, if I was (for example) counting a 6/4 bar at the semiquaver level, I would count 1234 2234 3234 4234 5234 6234.
The place isn't perfect, but I wasn't aware it was all of the above adjectives. Seems harsh.
Lol.
I started looking at the rhythm of the grieg with a more empirical approach than before, and I can really appreciate now how off my rhythm really was. I was playing the part from 1.04 as if they were 1/8th notes even.

Not only was I significantly off (from memory they are 32nds or 16ths) in that respect, I dont think I could keep the rhythm steady.
After learning and counting 3 pages of lieberstraum I felt like I was ready to start implement counting into the grieg (this was my plan but I didn't expect it so soon). Counting with the concerto is much harder, he IS JAZZY!

. But I found it more comfortable to count the 4/4 bars as 1234 1234 1234 1234. I felt like I could much more focus on the chords and notes at hand rather than other things, as this was easiest/simplest for me. But with simplicity comes the problem of dealing with complex problems. I feel most comfortable with this and I don't forsee any problems with this counting in this specific peice. But as a much more experienced pianist is there any foresight you could give me on the possible problems of counting on this tunnel-vision like method?
Also I watched some of your performances, ronde, bravo! Wonderful to have gotten your opinion.