Telling time by volume

[venik]

I'm constantly rethinking how to keep tempo as I havent found a satisfying way yet. Counting has problems with syncopation and odd beats, often taking away emotion and giving a mechanical feel. "Feeling" emotionally can leave you racing through your favorite part in excitement. My most successful (personally) theory until now was to count only the major beats, and fill in the blanks for the notes in the middle. Accenting the major beats in the process. But that's not not perfect either, it requires attention, and in complex passages you can get lost.

But while playing today learning new piece I had this odd theory, which I am excited about right now, and I wanted to know what other pianists think. Right now I'm entertaining the idea/fact that this is easiest to execute on a harpsichord, with it's infamously uncontrollable volume. Perhaps  Bach and Mozart composed and wrote using this approach naturally since playing the harpsichord professionally likely requires that you know at what rate the volume drops.

It's easier to do than explain, but here's my attempt. Let's say you play a note at 15 decibels, no matter how you feel, what other notes you're playing, or how good you are at counting in your head, each time you play that note on that piano at 15 decibels...it is going to take the exactly same amount of time to reach 10 decibels, or 5 decibels, or 14 decibels.

If a note is consistently played at 15 decibels, and the upcoming note played at 15 decibels when that previous note reaches 10 decibels...and repeat...you will have a perfect metronome. There is no physical way of making that note decay faster other than changing the piano's tuning and mechanics. Even better, you didn't have to think any thought you just waited and reacted.

Obviously each note in a piece is played at a different volume and it's sustain is going to be camouflaged by all the other notes. This discouraged me on this theory, but then another idea came. Which is that all volumes still decay at the same rate. So as long as you note the peak volume of any particular note you can still theoretically tell perfect time by observing relative volume of all the notes played or tuning out other notes. This is where skill comes in. You need to learn the piano itself. But once you learn the piano and it's decay, keeping tempo could be like walking or talking or tying your shoes. You could do it while teaching advanced calculus.

In addition syncopated times become simple division rather than a multitasking fiasco.

I've recorded a couple passages doing this sort of thing, to listen and compare, and the results in regards to tempo are at the moment the same or better than any others I've tried. But that's not bad, considering I've only been doing this for a day. The real improvement, I believe, was in the feeling of the music. As I wasn't distracted by keeping tempo, I could mold the sound much better. In addition I was actually intently listening to the music rather than my own thoughts, it's a double whammy in regards to emoition. Again, this is only a day of practice with this approach.

Anyways thanks in advance for any constructive posts. If anyone knows of anyone that might actually use this technique or any tips on the physics of piano volume would be appreciated.

[richard black]

Well, my first thoughts are that

1) The decay time depends strongly on pitch, on any instrument, so the system will only work for one note;

2) In anything remotely fast the decay from one note to the next will be so slight you'll hardly be able to detect it;

3) Our perception of volume is not at all accurate or linear and is influenced by all kinds of factors.

So I'm afraid I'm not entirely hopeful that your idea will work!

[pianowolfi]

Wow how complicated. Wouldn't more practice with a metronome be of sufficient help?

[venik]

Well, my first thoughts are that

1) The decay time depends strongly on pitch, on any instrument, so the system will only work for one note;

2) In anything remotely fast the decay from one note to the next will be so slight you'll hardly be able to detect it;

3) Our perception of volume is not at all accurate or linear and is influenced by all kinds of factors.

So I'm afraid I'm not entirely hopeful that your idea will work!

It's already working, like I said I recorded and compared. For the first time I can play quintuplets and septuplets and any other permutation. I sat down today and played quintuplets over triplets for the first time and attempt ever and it took only a few seconds to get the feel for it. Just a little riff I came up with.

I thought about the pitch decay being different especially on the thicker/thinner strings. But it seems irrelevent as you only need to know the speed at which it's decaying which can be assessed or even retained by memory rather quickly especially with practice and knowing the instrument.

The loudest note(s) in any measure should be on the down beats, which is luckily the important note(s) to keep time with. And even if you play 32 notes in a measure they are all going to decay on average at some constant decay. It's really that which I am listening to, not the volume but the decay. I'm having a harder time with slow passages than fast ones. It's like shooting an arrow, the further you shoot it the less room for error there is.

There are problems I'm finding with it, such as deciding what volume to use as a baseline for the next down beat. But the three you listed aren't on my list.

And thanks, especially for the part where you said you hope my idea doesn't work. lol

[venik]

Wow how complicated. Wouldn't more practice with a metronome be of sufficient help?

Because I've been doing that for years and I'm not satisfied.

People who don't read music look at sheet music and say it's complicated. Complicated or not sheet music is the sharpest scalpel for the job. I'm looking for a good scalpel, not necessarily a simple scalpel. I think you underestimate the capabilities of the mind and the complex tasks everyone completes everyday which feel effortless.

The decay of each note is an all-purpose metronome, which involves little guessing unlike a metronome. And it won't distract you from the music. And I can keep tempo fine, it's how much effort I put into it that I want to reduce. Thanks for the "hospitality" though.

[richard black]

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle - whatever works for you!

[floydcramerfan]

Hey, whatever works.  It sounds confusing to me, but I think everybody has their own learning style, so if that helps you figure out something you're stuck on, stick with it.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm constantly rethinking how to keep tempo as I havent found a satisfying way yet. Counting has problems with syncopation and odd beats, often taking away emotion and giving a mechanical feel. "Feeling" emotionally can leave you racing through your favorite part in excitement. My most successful (personally) theory until now was to count only the major beats, and fill in the blanks for the notes in the middle. Accenting the major beats in the process. But that's not not perfect either, it requires attention, and in complex passages you can get lost.

To be honest, my first thought was that this is clearly nonsense. If the idea is to replace needing to be able to feel a steady pulse, I'm afraid I'd have to stand by that. However, I think that there's a style of rubato that works very much this way. Nyiregyhazi is the ultimate example. He plays so freely there is little sense of beats at all. However, something about the way he judges the sustain of the notes seems to define an altogether different style of logic. If you want to do this instead of learning to feel beats, I fear it sounds pretty futile. However, if you want to experiment with how to feel freedoms, it's a great way.

[sashaco]

I'm afraid it still sounds mostly like nonsense to me, but perhaps I need a fuller explanation. The ability to play so precise a volume every time and to judge its decay to another precise volume would be a thousand times more difficult to acquire than good rhythm.  The decay would be different on every piano, different on days of different temperatures and different in different spaces.  Different with the window open! If you needed to play softly in a small space that would change things as well.

Even if all these things weren't a problem, how would it work for an elementary piece like the First Invention?  One would hear the decay of each 16th to the next? Or the decay of the first note of each quarter note?  What about a stacatto section?

 Venik, "I'm not entirely hopeful that your idea will work" means not that one hopes it doesn't, but that one doesn't see a way to hope that it will.  Don't be so quick to take offense.

I say it sounds mostly like nonsense, rather than entirely, because I do believe that with certain held chords the decay will tell the player when to move on.  What's happening there (I think) is not the player hearing a precise and remembered volume, but the decays of various notes forming colliding waves that produce recognizable patterns.  It does seem to me that highly sensitive players might be able to apply this sort of listening to pieces moving a faster speeds than others could, but not to long sequences of 16ths.  Highly sensitive players have probably taken the time to acquire good rhythm anyway, though.

I'm still in the dark, Venik.  Enlighten me.  Sahsa

[floydcramerfan]

I wouldn't think you would need to do this if you were playing a Bach invention because you would need to stick to a straight pulse.  I'm thinking this would work okay for romantic pieces where the rhythm is a little more free, but like I said, I personally don't think I would try it because it sounds confusing.

[venik]

I havent ever heard of erwin, but I just listened to him and I loved it. I think he's one of my favorites now. I think him and me do indeed have similar styles. He sounds slightly noisy, didn't bother me much, perhaps its the recording equipment, but I liked it.

And thanks for the support from those who believe I should do what works for me.

I'm afraid it still sounds mostly like nonsense to me, but perhaps I need a fuller explanation. The ability to play so precise a volume every time and to judge its decay to another precise volume would be a thousand times more difficult to acquire than good rhythm.  The decay would be different on every piano, different on days of different temperatures and different in different spaces.  Different with the window open! If you needed to play softly in a small space that would change things as well.

Even if all these things weren't a problem, how would it work for an elementary piece like the First Invention?  One would hear the decay of each 16th to the next? Or the decay of the first note of each quarter note?  What about a stacatto section?

 Venik, "I'm not entirely hopeful that your idea will work" means not that one hopes it doesn't, but that one doesn't see a way to hope that it will.  Don't be so quick to take offense.

I say it sounds mostly like nonsense, rather than entirely, because I do believe that with certain held chords the decay will tell the player when to move on.  What's happening there (I think) is not the player hearing a precise and remembered volume, but the decays of various notes forming colliding waves that produce recognizable patterns.  It does seem to me that highly sensitive players might be able to apply this sort of listening to pieces moving a faster speeds than others could, but not to long sequences of 16ths.  Highly sensitive players have probably taken the time to acquire good rhythm anyway, though.

I'm still in the dark, Venik.  Enlighten me.  Sahsa

I think you're mistaking my example of how to tell time with volume decay fundamentally, with how it works when I'm actually doing it. It doesn't require a strict volume, it's easier that way though. That was just to give you an idea of how decay is an empirically a time-telling tool, although it might be more variable, flexible even, than a metronome.

I'll try my best to do a thorough explanation.

I have the ability, as I imagine many pianists do, to hear or know what's going to come out of my playing before it's played. Using this as a template, before I ever need to hear or recognize their volume or decay, I can calculate when I will need to play the 16th notes, and in context of the actual sound. I am often merely using my memory of their decay. This can be possible with staccato, trills, and the like. Even though often you can still hear the staccato before you play the next note.

But yes, memory is not needed in the case where you have a slower and/or louder voice along with the 16th notes. Although I should say, my past memory and current experience of the sound become hard to distinguish while I'm playing, and especially with this method.

Sure the temperature, room size, and piano change the dynamics of the decay. But once you're sitting at it all these variables are constant until you leave or play for a few hours. And it takes me merely a few seconds to adapt as it didn't change much. In addition, metronomes have this same problem and so does counting in your head. They have worse problems I'd say, your metronome inside your head can change mid-peice with your mood, someone coughing, etc. Which is exactly why I despise them. Metronomes aren't used in concert, and even then they are subject to the same conditions. In addition learning to play a metronome at 60 bpm is a different skill than learning to play one at 85 bpm. This method doesn't have that problem either.

I feel like trying to explain this, is like a tennis player trying to explain how they can make all the minute movements in their hand and arm responding to a different ball played each time, and still reliably hit it where they want with top spin none the less. They might tell you they lower their racket for lower balls, and raise it up for higher ones. But it's still going to be hard to explain exactly what is going on in their head while they do it. And many special case scenarios could take days to go through.

I feel like the best I could do is answer your questions and explain to you the physics behind it. Each string is essentially an extremely fast metronome. Middle A is a metronome that counts 440 bpm. Obviously we cannot count each individual beat inside our head. But if we can learn the decay of that note, we can use it's decay to make a good estimate or just peek at/for what beat we are at or when that beat will arrive using the volume almost like the hand of an old metronome. Another interesting correlation is that the higher the bpm of the string the faster it's decay. It's almost like two identical strings given the same energy want to vibrate the same amount of beats to reach the same volume. The result is a faster decay.

But the decay is very learnable kind of like how you learned to use the couple hundred different muscles in your body in synchronicity although they each have different strengths, speeds, and latencies.

Maybe I'll do some more later, I assume I didn't explain very much at all. Some good questions could help, i don't really understand where you're lost. Sorry.

[sashaco]

Thanks for such a careful and lengthy response.  Analogies can be very useful and I thought for a bit about your tennis analogy.  Tennis is an area in which I have considerable experience, and an uncommon appreciation for the difficulty of hitting the ball the way the very best do.  After some reflection (and a tiny amount of experimentation with decay) I have to say that it seems to me that the skill required to tell time by note decay would be several orders of magnitude greater than that required to hit a forehand even at the God-like level of the top pros.

The metronome is not subject to different conditions- it's simply a pendulum,keeping time on gravity and length.  That is not to say that playing constantly with a metronome is the way to acquire good rhythm. It may even be the reverse- that dependence on the metronome is a crutch that, when removed, leaves your rhythm weaker than ever.  It also fails,of course, to allow the player to make the subtle shifts in rhythm that are, in fact, what really good rhythm is all about.

Ensemble playing is probably the best way to acquire good rhythm, because it requires constant responses to circumstances.  It also gets the player outside of him or herself, and listening to the music- rather than to what she/he imagines the music sounds like.


Another thing is to get away from the piano and play the piece in your head while tapping or snapping or whatever suits your mood. 

I will make an effort to experiment further with the "decay method", although I admit I go into it with many doubts.

Sasha

[nyiregyhazi]

I havent ever heard of erwin, but I just listened to him and I loved it. I think he's one of my favorites now. I think him and me do indeed have similar styles. He sounds slightly noisy, didn't bother me much, perhaps its the recording equipment, but I liked it.

He often played extremely loud. However, I'm thinking largely of the lyrical passages. His sense of timing has truly zero to do with metre. It's a totally different kind of logic based on the relationship of connected sounds. Try the opening of the Faust symphony on youtube and the 2nd movement.

In that sense, I think you're absolutely on to something very important. However, I must say that I think you're making a real mistake to pick out one tool and try to use it cover rhythm in general. You explain it as if you can use it instead of having a good sense of rhythm. What happens if you have to clap a notated rhythm, say? Do you judge the decay of your clapping? At this point, it begins to sound absurd to think that can replace anything. If you cannot FEEL the rhythm internally (with recourse to nothing outside of your own mind), there's something lacking in the basic grasp. Listening to decay cannot replace that. What you describe is a valuable skill and I'd definitely do plenty of work this way. However, if you're hoping to use it to replace standard counting, it simply isn't going to work. You need something altogether more balanced than this alone.

In summary, I think listening to decay is great for feeling departure from strict rhythm- not for feeling rhythm itself in general. Especially if playing with others, you can't judge rhythm from dying notes alone. It's just one factor.

[richard black]

He sounds slightly noisy, didn't bother me much, perhaps its the recording equipment,

Er, what? That may be some use of the word 'noisy' I haven't come across before.

But Nyiregyhazi was subject to some very strange recordings. The ones on CBS and IPA in the 1980s were definitely not natural in their tonal balance. I'm cynical enough to think that someone deliberately attempted to highlight the great man's intrinsically unusual sound, which didn't really do him a service and was surely completely unnecessary.

[nyiregyhazi]

Er, what? That may be some use of the word 'noisy' I haven't come across before.

But Nyiregyhazi was subject to some very strange recordings. The ones on CBS and IPA in the 1980s were definitely not natural in their tonal balance. I'm cynical enough to think that someone deliberately attempted to highlight the great man's intrinsically unusual sound, which didn't really do him a service and was surely completely unnecessary.

There was no enhancement. They had to compress his dynamic range to be able to get it onto LP. The CD Nyiregyhazi at the Opera is from the same sessions, without compression. On the vast majority of amateur tape recordings his sound is equally identifiable. He just played that loud. One of his tricks is to use the low A to substitute for notes beneath the range of the piano, in order put things an octave down. Some of his wrong notes are certainly accidental but others were specifically intended to create that massive sound.

[richard black]

They had to compress his dynamic range to be able to get it onto LP.

They did indeed use compression (maybe not on all releases, but at least some), but they didn't have to. That was a myth put about by most of the major LP labels, that piano (and indeed at some times practically all classical music) needed compression to cut on to LP. I was involved in loads of LP cuts without compression and it could perfectly well be done - it just required a little care and attention and the use of top-quality lacquers etc.

But I maintain that some of EW's recordings had the bass unnaturally boosted to make him sound even more impressive than he undoubtedly was. The first IPA release was probably the least 'doctored' but made up for it by exaggerating some of EW's life story.

Incidentally, have you heard any of his piano roll recordings? They are much less individual rhythmically than the LPs, suggesting that (as is after all fairly common) his musical 'character' got more pronounced as he got older. I don't know if the rolls have ever been re-released commercially, but a friend of mine has a few and played some to me a while ago. Very interesting.

[nyiregyhazi]

They did indeed use compression (maybe not on all releases, but at least some), but they didn't have to. That was a myth put about by most of the major LP labels, that piano (and indeed at some times practically all classical music) needed compression to cut on to LP. I was involved in loads of LP cuts without compression and it could perfectly well be done - it just required a little care and attention and the use of top-quality lacquers etc.

But I maintain that some of EW's recordings had the bass unnaturally boosted to make him sound even more impressive than he undoubtedly was. The first IPA release was probably the least 'doctored' but made up for it by exaggerating some of EW's life story.

Incidentally, have you heard any of his piano roll recordings? They are much less individual rhythmically than the LPs, suggesting that (as is after all fairly common) his musical 'character' got more pronounced as he got older. I don't know if the rolls have ever been re-released commercially, but a friend of mine has a few and played some to me a while ago. Very interesting.

There was one of Sinding where he played very freely. Apparently there were many complaints and he went along with the straight style in the rest. He hated those roles and felt they captured nothing of his style.

I don't see any reason to believe they did anything to the bass. There are many amateur recordings that capture exactly the same sound. Also, in the documentary, the producer seems to regard Nyiregyhazi in particular as very difficult to put on LP. He doesn't seem to be saying that pianists in general are difficult in this way.

[venik]

Thanks for such a careful and lengthy response.  Analogies can be very useful and I thought for a bit about your tennis analogy.  Tennis is an area in which I have considerable experience, and an uncommon appreciation for the difficulty of hitting the ball the way the very best do.  After some reflection (and a tiny amount of experimentation with decay) I have to say that it seems to me that the skill required to tell time by note decay would be several orders of magnitude greater than that required to hit a forehand even at the God-like level of the top pros.

The metronome is not subject to different conditions- it's simply a pendulum,keeping time on gravity and length.  That is not to say that playing constantly with a metronome is the way to acquire good rhythm. It may even be the reverse- that dependence on the metronome is a crutch that, when removed, leaves your rhythm weaker than ever.  It also fails,of course, to allow the player to make the subtle shifts in rhythm that are, in fact, what really good rhythm is all about.

Ensemble playing is probably the best way to acquire good rhythm, because it requires constant responses to circumstances.  It also gets the player outside of him or herself, and listening to the music- rather than to what she/he imagines the music sounds like.


Another thing is to get away from the piano and play the piece in your head while tapping or snapping or whatever suits your mood.  

I will make an effort to experiment further with the "decay method", although I admit I go into it with many doubts.

Sasha

I also play(ed) tennis for many years. I think this is childsplay compared to a good tennis player. The timing, the precision, and the coordination alone are well above that of piano playing including this method. Piano isn't so much a test of skill as it is a test of emotion, tennis is the opposite. Think about this, a ball commonly crosses the net at 60 mph or more in pro tennis. But these guys hit the ball back, using the center of the racket, while the racket is traveling upwards as fast as it is forwards, to achieve topspin. That timing in and of itself is much more intensive. To compare this timing with my method would be that he is watching and guaging the speed of the ball with his eyes, and i am watching and guaging the speed of the volume (decay) with my ears and he has an extra factor of timing which is two moving objects colliding and ricocheting where as I sit and wait like hitting a baseball off a tee. Good for me is that I don't care where the ball is going, he needs to have control over where his is though, using three demensions instead of one in my case (volume). Luckily I don't have to worry about balancing, running, new scenarios every play, using and coordinating the 100 or so more muscles you use in tennis compared to piano. Getting inside my opponents head, making strategical chess-like moves, knowing whether the ball coming at me is spinning forwards or backwards and reacting effectively, really I could list the superior "skill" a tennis player needs all day.

But try it, and good luck. Try to think of the volume more in your head than where it is, kind of like a tennis player only glances at the speed of the ball then knows his next steps and can look away.

[venik]

Er, what? That may be some use of the word 'noisy' I haven't come across before.

But Nyiregyhazi was subject to some very strange recordings. The ones on CBS and IPA in the 1980s were definitely not natural in their tonal balance. I'm cynical enough to think that someone deliberately attempted to highlight the great man's intrinsically unusual sound, which didn't really do him a service and was surely completely unnecessary.

Felt like I was listening to him on an AM radio underneath a powerline. That's noise. But thats what all those old recordings sound like I guess.

[nyiregyhazi]

To compare this timing with my method would be that he is watching and guaging the speed of the ball with his eyes, and i am watching and guaging the speed of the volume (decay) with my ears and he has an extra factor of timing which is two moving objects colliding and ricocheting where as I sit and wait like hitting a baseball off a tee.

I see your point, but nobody can hit ball after ball 12 times in a second. A pianist must be capable of this. That takes ingrained reflex- not 12 individual acts of listening to decay and fitting in a note in response. You have to have learned the feel INSIDE. Can you accurately imagine the sound of a quintuplet or any other notated rhythm in your head? Can you imagine it occurring in time with somebody else who is playing for real? If so, it has literally zero to do with decay- considering none is occurring. If not, there's something fundamentally lacking in your internal feel for rhythm. Decay can never replace the internal feel for rhythm. What it can do is provide a basis for rhythmic freedoms and musical relations between pitches. This is lacking in all too many pianists, but it's not something that can replace basic grasp of rhythm- especially not at fast tempos.

[sashaco]

Tennis certainly requires a wide variety of skills, and it is certainly worth thinking about that even ordinary players are able to cope with so many measurements unconsciously and to calculate them accurately enough to strike the ball.  Nonetheless, the level of precision required is not remotely what is involved in playing music the way the best do. 

Although it may be as difficult to become a world-class tennis player as it is to become a "world class" pianist (the latter is far less easy to define) many of attributes of the top tennis player (foot-speed, fitness, competitiveness and others) are not in anyway analogous to the challenge of good rhythm we began with.  I've granted you that the precision of timing in a truly great groundstroke has a mysterious quality that evokes the timing of great musicians, but ultimately the depth and variety of skill required for the piano is far greater.

I've hit for short periods with a couple of world class guys (I gave a twenty minute exhibition for an inner-city program with V.J. Armitraj), and practiced seriously maybe 15 times with a top-ten woman.  I certainly have been impressed; the ball-striking gulf between us is like the Atlantic.  But the Atlantic is a puddle in comparison to the planetary distance that separates my grasp of music from that of the truly great! 

Cheers, Sasha

[venik]

I see your point, but nobody can hit ball after ball 12 times in a second. A pianist must be capable of this. That takes ingrained reflex- not 12 individual acts of listening to decay and fitting in a note in response. You have to have learned the feel INSIDE. Can you accurately imagine the sound of a quintuplet or any other notated rhythm in your head? Can you imagine it occurring in time with somebody else who is playing for real? If so, it has literally zero to do with decay- considering none is occurring. If not, there's something fundamentally lacking in your internal feel for rhythm. Decay can never replace the internal feel for rhythm. What it can do is provide a basis for rhythmic freedoms and musical relations between pitches. This is lacking in all too many pianists, but it's not something that can replace basic grasp of rhythm- especially not at fast tempos.

I don't think it's physically possible to hit 12 swings in a second, but likewise it's not possible for a pianist to hit the keys at 120 mph without breaking his fingers. The analogy has it's limits. That said there is more to tennis than just the point of contact. If you watch a pro serve you should note a rhythmic value to each motion that is repeated almost exactly each time.

I can picture the odd rhythms much better when I picture them with a analog reference point like decay in the backround. An audible metronome has 1 dimension to it, time, the decay has two, volume and time. There are visual metronomes that i consider better, but I don't see really the difference other than I'm hearing what a visual metronome sees, and I can hear this metronome at any time rather than turn my head or bring it to recitals.

I wouldn't say decay is replacing my rhythm but it's giving me a new avenue to learn rhythms that I dont know, and to better accuracy than I've had before. I'm noticing once I learn the rhythm I don't need to listen to the decay at all. But having learned the rhythm, faster, and more accurately than before.

Tennis certainly requires a wide variety of skills, and it is certainly worth thinking about that even ordinary players are able to cope with so many measurements unconsciously and to calculate them accurately enough to strike the ball.  Nonetheless, the level of precision required is not remotely what is involved in playing music the way the best do. 

Although it may be as difficult to become a world-class tennis player as it is to become a "world class" pianist (the latter is far less easy to define) many of attributes of the top tennis player (foot-speed, fitness, competitiveness and others) are not in anyway analogous to the challenge of good rhythm we began with.  I've granted you that the precision of timing in a truly great groundstroke has a mysterious quality that evokes the timing of great musicians, but ultimately the depth and variety of skill required for the piano is far greater.

I've hit for short periods with a couple of world class guys (I gave a twenty minute exhibition for an inner-city program with V.J. Armitraj), and practiced seriously maybe 15 times with a top-ten woman.  I certainly have been impressed; the ball-striking gulf between us is like the Atlantic.  But the Atlantic is a puddle in comparison to the planetary distance that separates my grasp of music from that of the truly great! 

Cheers, Sasha

I think any skill once mastered to a world-class level takes no more skill than the other. That said a pianist could be a fantastic technician, but if he doesn't have the musical intuition he's not going to make it.

But don't confuse my defending "telling time with decay" skill required with "playing the piano" skill required.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't think it's physically possible to hit 12 swings in a second, but likewise it's not possible for a pianist to hit the keys at 120 mph without breaking his fingers. The analogy has it's limits.

Yeah, it's a very significant limit to be honest. EVERY tennis shot is the result of an act observation and direct response to that particular observation. While piano playing is heavily based on the same principle, at high speeds you cannot individually listen to every note and fit the next specifically in response to feedback. Response times are not anywhere near quick enough, so much more has to come from advance intentions- where you group a few notes into a single prior intention. If the way you're doing it gives you the reflexes you need to do rhythms accurately at high speeds, I see no problem. However, I do wonder if the decay is giving as much as you attribute to it. Are you sure it's not just that it heightens your concentration and enables something altogether more conventional to function better? If I asked a beginner to attempt this, I could not imagine much success. It strikes me that the focus is probably helping you to fully realise something you already have the basic ability to do- rather than actually replacing anything more standard.

Incidentally, the decay/growth of another instrumentalist's tone can be very useful to judge by. A violinist will often create a logic through pacing it towards a clear arrival, that may be far from metrical. However, I still can't begin to imagine how listening to the decay of the piano could help me achieve tight triplets to fit around another player. If anything, the more I judge from decay the looser and freer my rhythm becomes. Also, the freedoms that result tend to be different virtually every time- not remotely consistent. That's fine for playing alone, but I wouldn't want to be dependent on that style of timing while accompanying.

[venik]

Yeah, it's a very significant limit to be honest. EVERY tennis shot is the result of an act observation and direct response to that particular observation. While piano playing is heavily based on the same principle, at high speeds you cannot individually listen to every note and fit the next specifically in response to feedback. Response times are not anywhere near quick enough, so much more has to come from advance intentions- where you group a few notes into a single prior intention. If the way you're doing it gives you the reflexes you need to do rhythms accurately at high speeds, I see no problem. However, I do wonder if the decay is giving as much as you attribute to it. Are you sure it's not just that it heightens your concentration and enables something altogether more conventional to function better? If I asked a beginner to attempt this, I could not imagine much success. It strikes me that the focus is probably helping you to fully realise something you already have the basic ability to do- rather than actually replacing anything more standard.

Incidentally, the decay/growth of another instrumentalist's tone can be very useful to judge by. A violinist will often create a logic through pacing it towards a clear arrival, that may be far from metrical. However, I still can't begin to imagine how listening to the decay of the piano could help me achieve tight triplets to fit around another player. If anything, the more I judge from decay the looser and freer my rhythm becomes. Also, the freedoms that result tend to be different virtually every time- not remotely consistent. That's fine for playing alone, but I wouldn't want to be dependent on that style of timing while accompanying.

But I've covered this already, I'm not listening to every note in the fast passages I'm remembering what the volume is like and timing it accordingly. The method works best in fast passages, and worse in slow. Even when I'm remembering it I'm not looking at all 16 individual notes I'm looking at the first one and using my experience to judge the next 15 parts of that beat by the decay of the first. I see them as a whole.

And many times in tennis you are forced to move before you see the opponent hit the ball, and especially in serves you have a sense of execution rather than reaction. Finally, so what if I play the piano extremely reactive? I think that's the way our brains evolved was to react.

I'm positive this isn't a placebo effect, as I am actively doing this in my head and visualizing it while I play. Doing this without the spacial thinking would be like doing algebra without variables. There's no way I could be doing this without the calculations I'm making actively in my head. Furthermore I have struggled for years in wonder of how liszt could improvise with quintuplets and septuplets over triplets or quarternotes. I tried many different things that would have triggered a placebo effect, some I had more faith in than this.

A beginner couldn't do this well, as he doesn't have the audible memory of the piano that I do, or the coordination and technical skill. That said I think anyone can do this method with 1 note and 1 beat.

I don't have any problem playing along with other people with this method, and actually I think I'm better at it. I feel like I could play any rhythm whether it's in my repertoire or not, and at any tempo. That's not the case when I'm in my traditional thought mode, which I learned from 14 years of piano lessons with a great teacher. However I could see the violinist putting in some rubato while I missed the queue and played in strict tempo.

I think I might see the problem in your execution of the decay method. I am using a whole different part of my brain as opposed to another method. In the traditional method I am using some sort of permutation of consequence, feeling, empathy, and thinking about time. In the decay method I think like I am doing a math problem and execute it like instructions. Perhaps you are trying to do these calculations with too high an order of brain function for you to do it quickly and precisely.

I choose a constant, lets say 5/8th, for a semi-allegro tempo. Keep in mind this is when I'm learning the tempo, but after I've learned it playing it back is more memory than calculation. Like after you multiplied 11 x 11 a couple dozen times you start to just remember the answer is 121 rather than calculating it. Anyways, I usually choose this constant by feeling rather than picking but just for arguments sake we chose 5/8ths. This example is just to tell you how I do fast notes. For this constant 5/8ths we are playing each down beat on. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4, 1s and 3s are played when the previous 1 or 3 reaches 5/8ths (correcting for pitch) volume of it's peak. Let's say we just played those two measures which have a very manageable tempo and speed. At around the "2" of the second measure I will analyze the third measure decide what volume I am going to play the first note or some reference note. When I know what volume I'll play at, then I'll calculate what volume each note is going to be played at including the last. This is before reaching that first 16th note. I know that before I play the 2nd 16th note I have no reference so I will use my memory, maybe the 3rd is this way to depending on the tempo. The other 16th notes I use the same first/second down beat and the calculation I made before I reached it. I think that is the most important difference between the traditional and my method, is that it's calculated or memorized before I get there I'm not using my biological metronome whatsoever other than one might use it who is listening to my music. It's more like a tennis player's serve, critiqued and perfected so he can do it without any thought, and focus on the strategical metagame.

Now since I have been playing 16th notes all my life, I dont need to do these calculations often its allready in my musical memory. But when I run into any dual rhythm or syncopation or polyrhythm this makes my life a whole lot easier. Really any time one might pull out a metronome, I pull this out.

[lostinidlewonder]

Counting has problems with syncopation and odd beats, often taking away emotion and giving a mechanical feel. "Feeling" emotionally can leave you racing through your favorite part in excitement. My most successful (personally) theory until now was to count only the major beats, and fill in the blanks for the notes in the middle. Accenting the major beats in the process. But that's not not perfect either, it requires attention, and in complex passages you can get lost.

What you say here is not true for those who have trained their piano learning/playing skills to a high level thus your quote does not prompt me to consider that one need to create obscure methods to act as a catalyst to improve your situation, rather improvement on normal methods should be encouraged. Mind you many teachers teach counting ineffectively and it is not always the teachers problem, it is the students not willing to practice sight reading (which is afterall quite full of drudgery).

If a note is consistently played at 15 decibels, and the upcoming note played at 15 decibels when that previous note reaches 10 decibels...and repeat...you will have a perfect metronome. There is no physical way of making that note decay faster other than changing the piano's tuning and mechanics. Even better, you didn't have to think any thought you just waited and reacted.

I know of "perfect pitch", but I have never heard of "perfect volume". How can one keep track or let alone tell the exact energy that is behind the sounds that they have created?

..Which is that all volumes still decay at the same rate.

If you play piano in a laboratory for the rest of your life then this is true. The time it takes for the echoes of a sound to decay depends on the environment you are in. Calibrating your method to suit all environments makes the task quite impossible.

So as long as you note the peak volume of any particular note you can still theoretically tell perfect time by observing relative volume of all the notes played or tuning out other notes.

"Theoretically" tell? You tried to explain this by:

This is where skill comes in. You need to learn the piano itself. But once you learn the piano and it's decay, keeping tempo could be like walking or talking or tying your shoes. You could do it while teaching advanced calculus.

What "skill"? What is "learn the piano" and the decay of a piano? The piano is not the only factor controlling the decay of sound.

[venik]

What you say here is not true for those who have trained their piano learning/playing skills to a high level thus your quote does not prompt me to consider that one need to create obscure methods to act as a catalyst to improve your situation, rather improvement on normal methods should be encouraged. Mind you many teachers teach counting ineffectively and it is not always the teachers problem, it is the students not willing to practice sight reading (which is afterall quite full of drudgery).

I consider my self at a high level playing skill. But I'm all ears, how do you count septuplets over triplets? Quintuplets over septuplets? Are all sight-readers counters? Are you the best piano player there ever was?

I know of "perfect pitch", but I have never heard of "perfect volume". How can one keep track or let alone tell the exact energy that is behind the sounds that they have created?

Why all the attempts to mock me? Apparently I have this skill (that doesn't exist because you've never heard of it) that no ones coined a term for. And you don't need to hear the volume if you read more carefully you will know I'm not trying to do that. But i'll humor you, one would know by experience with the piano and listening to what comes out as they play. I hope every pianist has this intuition, if you don't you might want to consider taking up the drums or the spoon.

If you play piano in a laboratory for the rest of your life then this is true. The time it takes for the echoes of a sound to decay depends on the environment you are in. Calibrating your method to suit all environments makes the task quite impossible.

No more impossible than it is for any other pianist to adapt to another piano. And I'd argue counting in your head is much more environment dependant. Nervousness, excitement, ambient noise, all contribute to a less than perfect biological metronome and these things can change while you're playing a piece. The decay is for all practical purposes static once you put a finger on it. There are problems with this method but you are missing them all by a mile, and I guess that is to be expected from a perspective which is too stubborn or lacking of cognitive ability to understand it.

That said, once I learn a piece with this method no more counting or decay monitoring is necessary. The tempo becomes easy and automatic, I say this from experience mind you, like reciting a memorized poem. Allowing you to focus on your voice rather than reading or counting.

"Theoretically" tell? You tried to explain this by:
What "skill"? What is "learn the piano" and the decay of a piano? The piano is not the only factor controlling the decay of sound.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. But it's obvious from your previous posts and their condescending tone, it probably wasn't constructive. Also obvious is that you're not here to help me or yourself. That's not why I'm here. So I ask simply, and bluntly, that you refrain from clicking on this thread again. Ofcourse, you can first answer the seemingly impossible questions I asked.

[lostinidlewonder]

Unfortunately you have NOT answered any of the questions I asked of you in hope that you would clarify.

I really have no time or interest to worry about what you think my tone is like in responses online sorry. I have ZERO interest in you personally, I don't even know you, it is totally irrelevant who you are in my mind. I am interested in musical perspectives, if you do not want to elaborate and answer my questions, oh well, I guess there really was nothing to discuss.

I consider my self at a high level playing skill. But I'm all ears, how do you count septuplets over triplets? Quintuplets over septuplets? Are all sight-readers counters? Are you the best piano player there ever was?

You might consider yourself a high level of playing skill but whether you have the tools to learn music with mastery is another issue. I also do not think I need to answer any of your questions since I have asked you questions already based on what you where talking about but you have not suffered to answer any of them.

Why all the attempts to mock me? Apparently I have this skill (that doesn't exist because you've never heard of it) that no ones coined a term for. And you don't need to hear the volume if you read more carefully you will know I'm not trying to do that. But i'll humor you, one would know by experience with the piano and listening to what comes out as they play. I hope every pianist has this intuition, if you don't you might want to consider taking up the drums or the spoon. No more impossible than it is for any other pianist to adapt to another piano. And I'd argue counting in your head is much more environment dependant. Nervousness, excitement, ambient noise, all contribute to a less than perfect biological metronome and these things can change while you're playing a piece. The decay is for all practical purposes static once you put a finger on it. There are problems with this method but you are missing them all by a mile, and I guess that is to be expected from a perspective which is too stubborn or lacking of cognitive ability to understand it.

This is long winded and when one analyses what you say is of little musical interest or content thus I have no questions or responses because it is devoid of anything that interests me.



I SAID:
Quote from: venik on May 09, 2011, 07:08:11 PM
So as long as you note the peak volume of any particular note you can still theoretically tell perfect time by observing relative volume of all the notes played or tuning out other notes.

===="Theoretically" tell? You tried to explain this by:=======

Quote from: venik on May 09, 2011, 07:08:11 PM
This is where skill comes in. You need to learn the piano itself. But once you learn the piano and it's decay, keeping tempo could be like walking or talking or tying your shoes. You could do it while teaching advanced calculus.

==== What "skill"? What is "learn the piano" and the decay of a piano? The piano is not the only factor controlling the decay of sound.=====

To which you respond:

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. But it's obvious from your previous posts and their condescending tone, it probably wasn't constructive. Also obvious is that you're not here to help me or yourself. That's not why I'm here. So I ask simply, and bluntly, that you refrain from clicking on this thread again. Ofcourse, you can first answer the seemingly impossible questions I asked.

All I asked of you was to be clear and explain yourself, you seem to be avoiding direct questions based on what you have written which is quite peculiar since you are supposed to be taking your own thread seriously. You have used terms without defining them which is of utmost importance if you want yourself to be understood.

[venik]

Unfortunately you have NOT answered any of the questions I asked of you in hope that you would clarify.

I really have no time or interest to worry about what you think my tone is like in responses online sorry. I have ZERO interest in you personally, I don't even know you, it is totally irrelevant who you are in my mind. I am interested in musical perspectives, if you do not want to elaborate and answer my questions, oh well, I guess there really was nothing to discuss.

You might consider yourself a high level of playing skill but whether you have the tools to learn music with mastery is another issue. I also do not think I need to answer any of your questions since I have asked you questions already based on what you where talking about and have not suffered to answer any of them.

This is long winded and when one analyses what you say is of little musical interest or content thus I have no questions or responses because it is devoid of anything that interests me.



I SAID:
Quote from: venik on May 09, 2011, 07:08:11 PM
So as long as you note the peak volume of any particular note you can still theoretically tell perfect time by observing relative volume of all the notes played or tuning out other notes.

===="Theoretically" tell? You tried to explain this by:=======

Quote from: venik on May 09, 2011, 07:08:11 PM
This is where skill comes in. You need to learn the piano itself. But once you learn the piano and it's decay, keeping tempo could be like walking or talking or tying your shoes. You could do it while teaching advanced calculus.

==== What "skill"? What is "learn the piano" and the decay of a piano? The piano is not the only factor controlling the decay of sound.=====

To which you respond: All I asked of you was to be clear and explain yourself, you seem to be avoiding direct questions based on what you have written which is quite peculiar since you are supposed to be taking your own thread seriously. You have used terms without defining them which is of utmost importance if you want yourself to be understood.

I read your questions as both already answered and rhetorical. You've offered nothing for me, why should I put the effort into re-explaining. Especially seeing as how I'm just another "irrelevant" bystander behind a computer.

You're looking for a fight, and you're not going to get one here. Move along.

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't know why you don't want to clarify your own post.

What do you mean by: Theoretically tell, skill, learn the piano, learn piano decay. These are terms you simply throw into your sentences but they are meaningless without clarification.


Quote from: venik on May 09, 2011, 07:08:11 PM
So as long as you note the peak volume of any particular note you can still theoretically tell perfect time by observing relative volume of all the notes played or tuning out other notes.

Quote from: venik on May 09, 2011, 07:08:11 PM
This is where skill comes in. You need to learn the piano itself. But once you learn the piano and it's decay, keeping tempo could be like walking or talking or tying your shoes. You could do it while teaching advanced calculus.

[venik]

I don't know why you don't want to clarify your own post.

What do you mean by: Theoretically tell, skill, learn the piano, learn piano decay. These are terms you simply throw into your sentences but they are meaningless without clarification.


Quote from: venik on May 09, 2011, 07:08:11 PM
So as long as you note the peak volume of any particular note you can still theoretically tell perfect time by observing relative volume of all the notes played or tuning out other notes.

Quote from: venik on May 09, 2011, 07:08:11 PM
This is where skill comes in. You need to learn the piano itself. But once you learn the piano and it's decay, keeping tempo could be like walking or talking or tying your shoes. You could do it while teaching advanced calculus.

Theoretically tell : I.e. the same way Einstein could theoretically tell how much energy would be released by the atom bomb. Through observation, math, science. That's theory. Any math or logic applied to the real world is theory, as we cannot prove the conjecture correct or with complete accuracy.

Skill is something acquired through experience, trial and error, mastered over time.

Learn the piano means learn the specific piano you are currently playing at, and in general the minor differences from piano to piano.

Learning the piano decay is the same as the above, excluding all other factors but the piano's decay.

[ongaku_oniko]

I'm sorry, if you think you can use your "method" to play, I can't stop you, but I am going to have to follow everyone else's stand, in that your method is utterly worthless and won't fool even the musically ignorant, like me.


To me, this just sounds like someone trying to sound smart, but failed miserably.

Basically, your "method" is effectively the same as putting your hand out of the window while driving to measure the wind velocity and using that to calculate how fast you're going instead of just looking at the speedometer or whatever it's called.

Absolutely ridiculous. It's not something that will "work for some people", it just... doesn't work. Sorry to break it to ya.

[lostinidlewonder]

Theoretically tell : I.e. the same way Einstein could theoretically tell how much energy would be released by the atom bomb. Through observation, math, science. That's theory.

But what are you observing to notice exact energy of volume?

Skill is something acquired through experience, trial and error, mastered over time.

So what skill are you talking about in terms of piano to be able to notice the exact energy of volume?

Learn the piano means learn the specific piano you are currently playing at, and in general the minor differences from piano to piano.

So how do you understand the piano in such a way to observe the exact energy of volume and its decay? How do you measure and use this observation while playing/practicing? Obviously you have had much experience trails and errors acquiring an understanding of the decay of your piano, how can you tell if you are going right or wrong when understanding a piano in this way or is it just an unexplainable process?

Learning the piano decay is the same as the above, excluding all other factors but the piano's decay.

But keeping tempo is not something that we really consider when we have learned a piece, it is something we consider when practicing, but there comes a point quite early on in our practice routine that we do not have to consider timing with conscious thought and it can be pushed out of the mind (but which can be retrieved if required.) So how does one use their understanding of piano decay in sound, what factors are there for us to take notice of? How can you approach the issue? Is there only one approach or can you tackle it in multiple ways as you can with standard counting and poly-rhythmic theory.

[ongaku_oniko]

Venik,

How about this:

You make a short list in note form of

a) What makes your method attractive (i.e why is it good)

b) How to apply your method

And then we can argue against that? Because now I think it's very easy to misunderstand. Especially when people get frustrated.

[venik]

I'm sorry, if you think you can use your "method" to play, I can't stop you, but I am going to have to follow everyone else's stand, in that your method is utterly worthless and won't fool even the musically ignorant, like me.


To me, this just sounds like someone trying to sound smart, but failed miserably.

Basically, your "method" is effectively the same as putting your hand out of the window while driving to measure the wind velocity and using that to calculate how fast you're going instead of just looking at the speedometer or whatever it's called.

Absolutely ridiculous. It's not something that will "work for some people", it just... doesn't work. Sorry to break it to ya.

You're entitled to believe what you will. But nobody can become great at anything by doing what is mainstream. Me and other people who feel discussing this topic maturely will continue to do so. I don't know if you're an american or not, but I am and I talk about and do anything I want in my private life whether I'm ridiculed for it or not.

But what are you observing to notice exact energy of volume?

I'm going to give you one good post for good behavior. But honestly, these questions aren't going to get us anywhere. I feel like showing to you how far into nowhere they are going to get us.
What am I observing...to notice the energy of the volume...hmmm...the volume. But I don't observe much of that anymore, as I do know whats going to come out. Ofcourse when there is a discrepancy I will notice.

So what skill are you talking about in terms of piano to be able to notice the exact energy of volume?

The skill where you can play at the volume you desire and know where and when that volume is going to go after you play it.

So how do you understand the piano in such a way to observe the exact energy of volume and its decay? How do you measure and use this observation while playing/practicing? Obviously you have had much experience trails and errors acquiring an understanding of the decay of your piano, how can you tell if you are going right or wrong when understanding a piano in this way or is it just an unexplainable process?

The first question is allready answered, twice in this post and many more times in this thread. I use my ear to measure the volume, and my memory when I know the piano. You're right, when the rhythm is correct.

But keeping tempo is not something that we really consider when we have learned a piece, it is something we consider when practicing, but there comes a point quite early on in our practice routine that we do not have to consider timing with conscious thought and it can be pushed out of the mind (but which can be retrieved if required.) So how does one use their understanding of piano decay in sound, what factors are there for us to take notice of? How can you approach the issue? Is there only one approach or can you tackle it in multiple ways as you can with standard counting and poly-rhythmic theory.

Tempo isn't considered after I've learned a piece (with this method) either. I explained thoroughly multiple times in this thread how you use the decay. Other factors would be that very high notes decay roughly 2x as fast as very low notes. And they decay similarly at closer ranges. You approach the issue as a mathematical problem, which has an exercise as a solution. I find myself alot trying to explain the method with a lack of vocabulary to use to explain it. But I imagine the same is the case with all skills. This makes your broad and generalized questions rather futile.

The last question is actually a good one. I imagine they are very similar, difference being I feel I am using math to achieve the results faster, and the counting methods are using consequential thinking which is a much higher (read exhausting, slow, inefficient) brain function.

But really all these questions are missing significance to the method. I don't feel like I am even talking about my method while answering these questions about it. I suggest you try it, and come back with questions about problems you are having. We are currently speaking different languages.

[venik]

Venik,

How about this:

You make a short list in note form of

a) What makes your method attractive (i.e why is it good)

b) How to apply your method

And then we can argue against that? Because now I think it's very easy to misunderstand. Especially when people get frustrated.

Sure, I'll try later as it might be a long post.

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm going to give you one good post for good behavior. But honestly, these questions aren't going to get us anywhere. I feel like showing to you how far into nowhere they are going to get us.

They are definitions of the very terms you are using in your own posts, so if you think they are going to get us nowhere then does it that means you don't really care about what you post?

What am I observing...to notice the energy of the volume...hmmm...the volume. But I don't observe much of that anymore, as I do know whats going to come out. Ofcourse when there is a discrepancy I will notice.

What you are describing here is a process that is left to merely "feeling" it and is not a concept that you can put into words. Unfortunately not much we can discuss and talk about, thus the content and quality of what you actually do still remains in the unknown.

The skill where you can play at the volume you desire and know where and when that volume is going to go after you play it.

This does not explain how you can observe the exact volume or decay in sound from the notes you play. We might be able to control any volume we want to produce but your pseudo method takes a step further to consider the EXACT energy of the notes and observing how they decay, you still require to explain to us how you use this information or even measure it.  Unless your reason is that you are an autistic and have a "volume mind space" and can feel volumes in terms of space around your minds eye, I have no idea how else you could explain it.

I use my ear to measure the volume, and my memory when I know the piano. You're right, when the rhythm is correct.

This is very generally written and is another example of terms requiring definition.

....You approach the issue as a mathematical problem, which has an exercise as a solution. I find myself alot trying to explain the method with a lack of vocabulary to use to explain it. But I imagine the same is the case with all skills. This makes your broad and generalized questions rather futile.

Useful methods on the piano can be shared amongst everyone, there is no exclusive group, mastery is another issue that might be exclusive but being able to understand a method is not. If your method can only be explained through example this is a fair enough condition, in that case there is little that we can discuss about your method unless you post some videos to try and help.

The last question is actually a good one. I imagine they are very similar, difference being I feel I am using math to achieve the results faster, and the counting methods are using consequential thinking which is a much higher (read exhausting, slow, inefficient) brain function.

I asked about your approaches to your method in my last question. Your response has undefined terms such as: "using math" "results faster" "what are the consequential thinking in counting methods?" and how are they more exhausting slow or inefficient? Counting is used to gain understanding what a rhythm may sound like, once you have decoded it you hear what you are playing and can forget about counting, the understanding is pretty much seconds when you face familiar rhythms or timing issues if you need to count at all. If you face issues you have no experience with I would like to know how looking at the decay of sound helps and how you approach the musical content with observing sound decay. We naturally have a counting when we play pieces, the strong beat of the piece encourage us to sense them more often than not, if you let this go and instead only consider exact volume decay, I simply do not see how this is any  better. Unless your real definition of your method is to merely "play by ear" which is not a new method at all.

Written music is as well written in a way in which counting is very beneficial to our reading. You may be able to visualize sections of music in terms of the beats and how the notes are formed encourages your reading to follow these beats without you even really think about counting once you are trained. I do not see a connection between exact volume decay and written music, however there is a strong connection between counting and written sheet music. If your method cannot be applied to sheet music then it is limited to its musical application where standard techniques have the upper hand being able to aid our reading and thus overall rate of learning.

[venik]

They are definitions of the very terms you are using in your own posts, so if you think they are going to get us nowhere then does it that means you don't really care about what you post?
What you are describing here is a process that is left to merely "feeling" it and is not a concept that you can put into words. Unfortunately not much we can discuss and talk about, thus the content and quality of what you actually do still remains in the unknown.
This does not explain how you can observe the exact volume or decay in sound from the notes you play. We might be able to control any volume we want to produce but your pseudo method takes a step further to consider the EXACT energy of the notes and observing how they decay, you still require to explain to us how you use this information or even measure it.  Unless your reason is that you are an autistic and have a "volume mind space" and can feel volumes in terms of space around your minds eye, I have no idea how else you could explain it.

This is very generally written and is another example of terms requiring definition.

Useful methods on the piano can be shared amongst everyone, there is no exclusive group, mastery is another issue that might be exclusive but being able to understand a method is not. If your method can only be explained through example this is a fair enough condition, in that case there is little that we can discuss about your method unless you post some videos to try and help.
I asked about your approaches to your method in my last question. Your response has undefined terms such as: "using math" "results faster" "what are the consequential thinking in counting methods?" and how are they more exhausting slow or inefficient? Counting is used to gain understanding what a rhythm may sound like, once you have decoded it you hear what you are playing and can forget about counting, the understanding is pretty much seconds when you face familiar rhythms or timing issues if you need to count at all. If you face issues you have no experience with I would like to know how looking at the decay of sound helps and how you approach the musical content with observing sound decay. We naturally have a counting when we play pieces, the strong beat of the piece encourage us to sense them more often than not, if you let this go and instead only consider exact volume decay, I simply do not see how this is any  better. Unless your real definition of your method is to merely "play by ear" which is not a new method at all.

Written music is as well written in a way in which counting is very beneficial to our reading. You may be able to visualize sections of music in terms of the beats and how the notes are formed encourages your reading to follow these beats without you even really think about counting once you are trained. I do not see a connection between exact volume decay and written music, however there is a strong connection between counting and written sheet music. If your method cannot be applied to sheet music then it is limited to its musical application where standard techniques have the upper hand being able to aid our reading and thus overall rate of learning.

Your though process is too formal, don't try my method. It's not that I dont care it's that you don't care. These terms are not ones that I came up with they are in the english language we speak.

[venik]

Venik,

How about this:

You make a short list in note form of

a) What makes your method attractive (i.e why is it good)

b) How to apply your method

And then we can argue against that? Because now I think it's very easy to misunderstand. Especially when people get frustrated.

I just noticed how you suppose you're going to argue against it before you even hear what I have to say. Funny, I thought you were one of the few non-aggressive people on this board for a minute. Anyways I'll bite because I already said I would...

a)
-It tests your knowledge of the sound of the piano
-It's faster to pick up new rhythms
-It has no problems with polyrhythms unlike counting and using a metronome
-It takes seconds to learn new rhythms, I often nail them the first or second time trying.
-It never involves keeping two or more rhythms at the same time.
-It gives you a reference point at practically all times. If you were to pause the sound I could tell you how far you are away from each successive note up until the next down beat.
-It uses math rather than complicated consequential thinking. I.e. the metronome is clicking or about to click now, so I play. Instead you know before hand exactly when you're going to play. Another comparison would be guess and check versus simple algebra.

b)
Play a repeated whole note D with your index finger, try to play it at the same volume each time. Note what the volume of that note looks like. You play, it gets loud fast, then it tapers off slower at some possibly varying decay. The volume looks kind of like a triangle if you were to graph it's volume with respect to time. As you're playing start thinking about how you could divide this picture into 1/5 of the triangle. Note at what volume the first division needs to take place in order to divide the triangle into 5 equal parts with respect to time. As you're listening to the D take note of when you would need to play each note to achieve the division. Then while still playing that D play a G with your left index finger at the first division, and repeat that tempo until you land on the down beat of the next D. Still focus on keeping the D played at the right volume and time. You might miss the equal parts the first time, if it was too fast divide sooner if it was too slow divide later. As long as you keep playing the D at each volume you are ok, and remember what at what time you played the last division you made. With the same triangle add in a D halfway through. And you're playing 5:2.

Obviously when playing an advanced piece correctly you will need to correct for pitch, rests, and varying volume. But the principle is the same.

Really the only difference between this method and the traditional is a reference point at all times rather than none, or once or twice a bar.

Here's an impromptu paint image I made on how I visualize sheet music I am learning. I'm starting to believe this is not all that different from traditional method, only the addition of a new tool. The red represents the sound of the loudest down beats.

[iratior]

I think that good fingering can go a long way to helping the timing to be strictly kept.  I regard fingers 1, 3, and 5 as relatively strong compared to 2 and 4, and I try to have the odd numbered fingers playing at odd numbered beats of a run.  The fingers "remember" how long its been since they were last put to service, and feel different depending on that.  So rather than seek to control tempo by volume, I would be more inclined to go with how the fingers feel.  Matching the odd-numbered fingers to odd-numbered beats helps prevent undesirable accelerandi, because enough fingers are pressed into service at enough predictable times for accelerandi not to feel right.

[ongaku_oniko]

I just noticed how you suppose you're going to argue against it before you even hear what I have to say. Funny, I thought you were one of the few non-aggressive people on this board for a minute. Anyways I'll bite because I already said I would...

Not gonna quote the rest, since it's so long.

But first of all, yes, I did assume that I would argue against your method, based on my understanding of your posts. But since it seemed so farfetched, I had to ask if I understood it correctly. It's also very possible that you had a good method, I simply didn't understand what you were trying to convey.

Now, in regards to points 1,2,4,5 and 6, I don't understand "how" it does this; I'm not sure I can agree, and assuming it does, it might only work for some people. I don't think they can be counted as facts until we have more people trying out your method.

3 and 7 will be covered later.

In regards to your methods, you haven't really described how to hear the decay; you keep comparing it to simple algebra, but I think it's more like trying to measure something without a ruler.

I mean, why don't you wear a piece of caesium-133 instead of a watch to tell time? Since a mechanical watch doesn't tick exactly...

What you're saying to do is simply impossible for humans to do, especially when you're playing fast and don't have time to react. And if you're not using this method when playing fast, then it doesn't really work, does it. In fact, then you're not really doing anything different than others.

One of your arguments earlier was that nervousness and external conditions influence our sense of rhythm, and thus our natural human instinct is not a good metronome, while your method is mathematical and thus can't go wrong. But one thing you failed to take into account is "who is measuring?". If you're using your natural human instincts to measure when the volume goes from 15 decibels to 10 decibels, I think it's much easier for that to be influenced by nervousness and other factors, as it is a much more precise measurement.

In regards to 3 and 7, and you made a similar question before about how we would keep uneven rhythm, well, personally I think my method is much easier:

Simply tune the metronome to a common denominator. If you're doing 3 against 4 for example, I would count to twelve instead of 4 or 3.  This way every note falls on a beat. I don't think we would ever need to play any complicated rhythm that the common denominator is too large; something like 13 vs 17 for example would never appear.

I'm not an advanced musician and don't know how pros practise. Personally I need to go from slow to fast. So it's not like you can't put the metronome fast enough to match the speed if you use 12 beats; you'll be playing slow at the start anyway. Once you're familiar with the 3 vs 4, or 4 vs 5 or whatever, you can speed up gradually and wouldn't need to pay special attention to counting anymore.

And playing notes with EXACTLY the same volume seems a lot harder than counting uneven rhythm.

[lostinidlewonder]

Your though process is too formal, don't try my method. It's not that I dont care it's that you don't care. These terms are not ones that I came up with they are in the english language we speak.

"Though" process? How do you know my thought process? Too formal? I merely ask you to elaborate which you are unable to do, if that is being too formal then quick run for the hills! I am afraid this method of yours is "made up" and quite useless if you are unable to explain it. Your diagram with the volume drawn in, what is that supposed to be telling us and how do you use it as a tool to maintain timing/rhythm? What is the thickness of the red supposed to represent? How do you notice that the thickness should be at a particular width? How do you know it is such a linear decay? Why is this better than merely considering the strong beats of the bar? How can you tell how much decay a note has undergone before another note comes in? Your diagram makes it look simple but how do you notice "time vs decay" in the redness?

Responding with, I listen, or I practice hard, or I use skill, or theory etc, does not answer it.

I wasn't going to "try" your method at all in the first place, mostly because you haven't even explained how it is used and merely use general terms to try and evade answering it directly.

Since you said you are an engineer you might not have much experience writing technical documents or essays I know it is not focused upon in Engineering in my country when I studied it. If you want to be taken seriously you should brush up on how one writes technical works in a manner which is understandable. I am not asking for dictionary definitions but exactly how you define certain things in action based on your method. You are unable to connect the two thus everything you post is ineffective, for me at least.

[venik]

Not gonna quote the rest, since it's so long.

But first of all, yes, I did assume that I would argue against your method, based on my understanding of your posts. But since it seemed so farfetched, I had to ask if I understood it correctly. It's also very possible that you had a good method, I simply didn't understand what you were trying to convey.

Now, in regards to points 1,2,4,5 and 6, I don't understand "how" it does this; I'm not sure I can agree, and assuming it does, it might only work for some people. I don't think they can be counted as facts until we have more people trying out your method.

Why the hell would you ask for the benefits just to call bullshit? What is wrong with you?

3 and 7 will be covered later.

In regards to your methods, you haven't really described how to hear the decay; you keep comparing it to simple algebra, but I think it's more like trying to measure something without a ruler.

I have ears. You measure the volume not the decay. And the same freaking problem exists with all counting methods. Do you claim to have a ruler while you count? Didn't think so. These are fallacious arguments.

I mean, why don't you wear a piece of caesium-133 instead of a watch to tell time? Since a mechanical watch doesn't tick exactly...

What are you talking about man? Mechanical watches are very accurate when made right. Guess and check, however, will never be accurate.

What you're saying to do is simply impossible for humans to do, especially when you're playing fast and don't have time to react. And if you're not using this method when playing fast, then it doesn't really work, does it. In fact, then you're not really doing anything different than others.

Once-again I'm not reacting I'm planning ahead. This is the exact problem I have with counting...it requires reacting, which is an unthoughtful and lame practice in which is hard to wrap the head around. You need to back away from the problem and solve it as a whole. Don't think you're reacting? Otherwise you wouldn't be counting in the first place, as that is the only purpose it serves.

One of your arguments earlier was that nervousness and external conditions influence our sense of rhythm, and thus our natural human instinct is not a good metronome, while your method is mathematical and thus can't go wrong. But one thing you failed to take into account is "who is measuring?". If you're using your natural human instincts to measure when the volume goes from 15 decibels to 10 decibels, I think it's much easier for that to be influenced by nervousness and other factors, as it is a much more precise measurement.

Once-again, you only need to pay attention to the volume while learning a rhythm not while performing it.

In regards to 3 and 7, and you made a similar question before about how we would keep uneven rhythm, well, personally I think my method is much easier:

Simply tune the metronome to a common denominator. If you're doing 3 against 4 for example, I would count to twelve instead of 4 or 3.  This way every note falls on a beat. I don't think we would ever need to play any complicated rhythm that the common denominator is too large; something like 13 vs 17 for example would never appear.

Un sospiro has 7:3 thats 84 "counts" a measure in some places. Are you going to count 1* 2 3* 4 5 6* 7* 8 9* 10 11 12* 13 14* 15* 16 17 18* 19 20 21*? And you're saying my method isn't humanly possible? To learn the volume curve of a note? My guess is you simply will never play un sospiro with correct tempo.

I'm not an advanced musician and don't know how pros practise. Personally I need to go from slow to fast. So it's not like you can't put the metronome fast enough to match the speed if you use 12 beats; you'll be playing slow at the start anyway. Once you're familiar with the 3 vs 4, or 4 vs 5 or whatever, you can speed up gradually and wouldn't need to pay special attention to counting anymore.

Unfortunately it doesn't work this way. Counting has a speed limit and you have an attention span. If you need to play a pattern that takes longer than 10 seconds to repeat you might not ever learn that pattern. Hence my method doesnt require an attention span, extreme slowing, or a speed limit.

And playing notes with EXACTLY the same volume seems a lot harder than counting uneven rhythm.

That is the easiest part. That is simple muscle memory. You're going to tell me it's impossible for a baseball player to throw a ball at the same speed everytime?

It's not my method you don't like, it's a simple irrational hatred for new ideas. If you were to question your own methods with the same rhetoric you would be having the same "problems" I am having with you.

It the same exact thing as your method, except I am using volume as a reference point. It's a tool added on. You can keep saying it's impossible or that it's not fact until everyone in the world is doing it aswell. But I am getting results, that is a fact. And yours is a simple conjecture you put forth which ignores the evidence right infront of you, that it's working. You obviously don't believe me, so don't. But why do you come back for more deconstructive criticism? Am I the only one here that knows you aren't going to budge? I know why, and it has more to do with you than it does with me or my method.

Not a single argument in your post has not been addressed allready.

"Though" process? How do you know my thought process? Too formal? I merely ask you to elaborate which you are unable to do, if that is being too formal then quick run for the hills! I am afraid this method of yours is "made up" and quite useless if you are unable to explain it. Your diagram with the volume drawn in, what is that supposed to be telling us and how do you use it as a tool to maintain timing/rhythm? What is the thickness of the red supposed to represent? How do you notice that the thickness should be at a particular width? How do you know it is such a linear decay? Why is this better than merely considering the strong beats of the bar? How can you tell how much decay a note has undergone before another note comes in? Your diagram makes it look simple but how do you notice "time vs decay" in the redness?

How about I ask you these same questions. How does one count a strict rhythm? How do we know we are counting evenly? How do we know that our rhythm doesn't drift when we put the metronome away?

Do you see what I see? I see double standards. And once again this isn't going to go anywhere until you grow some, and try it.

Responding with, I listen, or I practice hard, or I use skill, or theory etc, does not answer it.

Umm yes it does? Are you denying that I have an ear? Or that practice has limits? Or that skill is non-existent? Or that mathematical theory is flawed?
Perhaps you are the one that need critique not my method.

I wasn't going to "try" your method at all in the first place, mostly because you haven't even explained how it is used and merely use general terms to try and evade answering it directly.

I evade stuck up stubborn argumentative instigating know-it-alls, I don't evade explaining things. Say please and you shall recieve a better effort. But to say I am evading answering it directly when i have posted paragraphs and paragraphs is simply delusional. Maybe I am explaining it perfectly fine, it is just this delusional personality that is the trouble.

Since you said you are an engineer you might not have much experience writing technical documents or essays I know it is not focused upon in Engineering in my country when I studied it. If you want to be taken seriously you should brush up on how one writes technical works in a manner which is understandable. I am not asking for dictionary definitions but exactly how you define certain things in action based on your method. You are unable to connect the two thus everything you post is ineffective, for me at least.

I don't think I said I was an engineer in this thread, are you stalking me now? Perhaps you should brush up on how one understands technical works. While you're at it you should brush up on some social skills, respect, perhaps linguistics. Throw in some Cotillion, some yoga, a pinch of self-learning skills, and a rectoscopy.

I'm no genius, neither did I didn't figure this out by some act of god. I think if you go and try it you might figure out how to make it work, and find the same way I did. And THEN you can come back and look at all the redundant posts I've made in this thread.

When you first learned the piano did your teacher write an essay for you on how to play? Can you imagine how lost you would be? Thats not going to work here either. Surprise.

[lostinidlewonder]

Not a single argument in your post has not been addressed allready.

Most of what I asked was for you to define terms that you only described generally, your responses where with more generalizations. So even though you responded you still responded with the same quality.

How about I ask you these same questions. How does one count a strict rhythm? How do we know we are counting evenly? How do we know that our rhythm doesn't drift when we put the metronome away?

I am not trying to explain a "new" method such as yourself in this thread thus I do not have to go into these details. However if you want your method to be fundamentally understood by other people the onus is on you to provide that detailed info. If you want to learn methods how to count rhythms and poly-rhythms there is information that you can look up, if we however want to look up your pseudo method we have no resources because it does not exist, we would like you to create some resource that we can actually sink our teeth into, but it seems all wind at the moment.

Do you see what I see? I see double standards. And once again this isn't going to go anywhere until you grow some, and try it.

How can I try something that you say you can only feel, I need indicators to tell if I am on the right track of which you have not even revealed to any of us what that could be.

Umm yes it does? Are you denying that I have an ear? Or that practice has limits? Or that skill is non-existent? Or that mathematical theory is flawed?

I don't see how you could be satisfied with with explaining your method in general terms and think saying things like practice, skill, theory etc without even defining these terms is ok if you take discussing your method seriously.

Perhaps you are the one that need critique not my method.
I evade stuck up stubborn argumentative instigating know-it-alls, I don't evade explaining things. Say please and you shall recieve a better effort. But to say I am evading answering it directly when i have posted paragraphs and paragraphs is simply delusional. Maybe I am explaining it perfectly fine, it is just this delusional personality that is the trouble.

I don't see how me asking questions about your own method is being rude, if you are angry because you have not thought of these questions and/or cannot answer them that is another issue. I am not here to make you angry, I am here to discuss your new method which after quite a lot of posts I am no where closer in understanding it. If anyone instead of you understands it maybe they could say it in words for us I am not worthy of your proper reason and am only set for you trying to tangent the discussion into argument.

I don't think I said I was an engineer in this thread, are you stalking me now? Perhaps you should brush up on how one understands technical works. While you're at it you should brush up on some social skills, respect, perhaps linguistics. Throw in some Cotillion, some yoga, a pinch of self-learning skills, and a rectoscopy.

Looking at user post history is useful to measure the content of what the user posts. I have not been responding emotionally or personally in this thread so I don't see how I am disrespecting you, unless you want me to say your ideas are fabulous and mind blowing, but I would be lying because I still don't even know what your method is even about, you have only described it with general terms without even indicating how one practices or takes note of whether they are on the right or wrong track, normal methods provide all of this for us.

I think if you go and try it you might figure out how to make it work, and find the same way I did. And THEN you can come back and look at all the redundant posts I've made in this thread.

Unfortunately we cannot try a method that cannot be expressed to us in more precise terms and not generalizations which are left way open to interpretation. All of the questions I asked of you stops me from even being able to try your method, if you can answer any of them in detail then we can try, but if you merely want to say general things we can't do anything.

When you first learned the piano did your teacher write an essay for you on how to play? Can you imagine how lost you would be? Thats not going to work here either. Surprise.

Countless professional books on piano technique, go have a read of them, the good ones define everything they say, they don't leave us in the dark. None of my teachers said to me "oh just practice hard and learn your theory". They always said something specific for me to work on.

[ongaku_oniko]

Why the hell would you ask for the benefits just to call bullshit? What is wrong with you?

As I've explained, I was hoping that I misunderstood your method. Unforunately, I didn't. And there's nothing wrong with me. Rather, there is something wrong with you for being rude and using profanity against everyone who opposes your method. Fact is, not one person has supported your method, everyone is either against it or withheld their opinion. That alone should say something to you. You say I use "fallacious arguments"? Are you trying to say that your ad hominem isn't a fallacy? LOL.

Do you claim to have a ruler while you count? Didn't think so.

This is just about the most ridiculously failed argument Ive ever heard. Why would you need a ruler to count? Of course I don't use a ruler to count, I use a ruler to measure. If you can't even comprehend the difference between counting and measuring, it is no wonder you fail to comprehend the simple fallacies others have shown you with your own arguments.

Mechanical watches are very accurate when made right. Guess and check, however, will never be accurate.

They're not as accurate as caesium's decay. Just as guessing may not be as accurate as calculating. Thus it is a valid example.

However, your biggest flaw is that you're assuming you're not guessing. Wrong. In fact, you're guessing a lot more with your method than normal methods. Unless you can tell exactly how loud something is without a measuring device, your method is worthless.

Once-again I'm not reacting I'm planning ahead. This is the exact problem I have with counting...it requires reacting, which is an unthoughtful and lame practice in which is hard to wrap the head around. You need to back away from the problem and solve it as a whole. Don't think you're reacting? Otherwise you wouldn't be counting in the first place, as that is the only purpose it serves.

I am frankly amazed by the amount of arrogance stupidity brings. Do you seriously not see how contradictory your claims are? "I'm planning ahead". How're you planning ahead? By guessing when the sound will decay to a satisfactory level? By guessing how long it will take? LOL and you claim your method does not involve guessing? Plus, if you're planning, i.e getting ready beforehand, that means you're assuming the length of time it takes for the sound to decay. This is essentially the same as assuming an amount of time such that the rhythm will be correct, is it not? You're not calculating anything, there's no way a person with a two digit IQ can calculate that fast, even given accurate information.

u're going to tell me it's impossible for a baseball player to throw a ball at the same speed everytime?

Having played baseball for many years, I can assure you that even the best pitchers can't throw a ball at the same speed everytime, let alone getting it at the same position.

Actually, do you think you can point with your finger to the exact same spot two times? If you think so, well let me tell you that you can't.

But why do you come back for more deconstructive criticism? Am I the only one here that knows you aren't going to budge?
 

You don't realize how hypocritical that was, do you.

Instead of trying to keep the rhythm with just two different rhythms, you're essentially calculating every single note played. Indeed, you're not keeping two rhythms anymore; you're keeping hundreds. And biologically speaking, it's impossible that your ears are good enough to calculate the volume of the sound that precisely.


If you're here to discuss your method, you should be prepared for criticism. If you can't even take a little heat like this, where the others have not even used ad hominem against you, there really isn't much more to say. Go reread your own posts and others' posts, see who was rude, who was being unreasonable. If you still can't tell, go ask your mommy.

And by the way, one person does not make evidence for a ground-breaking discovery. All you've given are your own fantasies, with no real evidence, no statistics to back up. I can believe that you think this method works for you, but that doesn't mean it is an effective method at all.

[venik]

As I've explained, I was hoping that I misunderstood your method. Unforunately, I didn't. And there's nothing wrong with me. Rather, there is something wrong with you for being rude and using profanity against everyone who opposes your method. Fact is, not one person has supported your method, everyone is either against it or withheld their opinion. That alone should say something to you. You say I use "fallacious arguments"? Are you trying to say that your ad hominem isn't a fallacy? LOL.

It's not a fallacy in many cases including this one. It's only a fallacy when you assert a "therefor" statement, I haven't. You're rhetoric is plain and simple ignorance, there is no fallacy in acknowledging a fact. You've brought your character in question with your deconstructive criticism. Riddle me this, how does telling you the benefits of my method clear up an misunderstanding about the method? It doesn't, you asked me the question so that you could argue with me...you're here to be stubborn that's a fact.

This is just about the most ridiculously failed argument Ive ever heard. Why would you need a ruler to count? Of course I don't use a ruler to count, I use a ruler to measure. If you can't even comprehend the difference between counting and measuring, it is no wonder you fail to comprehend the simple fallacies others have shown you with your own arguments.
They're not as accurate as caesium's decay. Just as guessing may not be as accurate as calculating. Thus it is a valid example.

What am I supposed to say? a watch? There exists no measuring tool for counting, you can only *check* if you were right with a metronome. Same is the case with my method. The difference is I am using more information at my disposal and you are using almost none but faith.

It could take years for a mechanical watch to be off by a second. Thus it is an extremely accurate tool. And for that matter I don't even dream to get the accuracy of a mechanical watch. But it's not like I need it. If you're argument is that no measurement is perfect, I think I'm winning the debate. Because perfection is unachievable, and you should sell your piano if you wish to achieve perfection.

However, your biggest flaw is that you're assuming you're not guessing. Wrong. In fact, you're guessing a lot more with your method than normal methods. Unless you can tell exactly how loud something is without a measuring device, your method is worthless.

I see alot of accusations but no proof. Tell me how I'm guessing more than you. How can you possibly say that, when you don't even understand my method by your own admitting? I don't need to tell exactly how loud it is. I just need to get better results than counterparts, and the counterparts don't even attempt to calculate these. Fact: I'm not guessing at all. I'm calculating, the defintion of guessing is not calculating. You are not making a single calculation with your methods you are plain and simple reacting and guessing.

I am frankly amazed by the amount of arrogance stupidity brings. Do you seriously not see how contradictory your claims are? "I'm planning ahead". How're you planning ahead? By guessing when the sound will decay to a satisfactory level? By guessing how long it will take? LOL and you claim your method does not involve guessing? Plus, if you're planning, i.e getting ready beforehand, that means you're assuming the length of time it takes for the sound to decay. This is essentially the same as assuming an amount of time such that the rhythm will be correct, is it not? You're not calculating anything, there's no way a person with a two digit IQ can calculate that fast, even given accurate information.

Calculate how fast? What are you talking about? I could spend all the time in the world calculating, since I'm not reacting, and I'm planning ahead, I could take all the time in the world I wanted and still play it right. You on the other hand if you don't guess at the right moment, your tempo failed.

Having played baseball for many years, I can assure you that even the best pitchers can't throw a ball at the same speed everytime, let alone getting it at the same position.

I wasn't saying you could. I'm saying someone skilled can. And in order to throw a ball like they do, calculating the trajectory and speed, they need to have very good control over speed. And they do. Otherwise they couldnt make those long throws.

Actually, do you think you can point with your finger to the exact same spot two times? If you think so, well let me tell you that you can't. You don't realize how hypocritical that was, do you.

I'm not claiming to, you are. And you are accusing me of not being able to. That's hypocritical.

Instead of trying to keep the rhythm with just two different rhythms, you're essentially calculating every single note played. Indeed, you're not keeping two rhythms anymore; you're keeping hundreds. And biologically speaking, it's impossible that your ears are good enough to calculate the volume of the sound that precisely.

"that precisely"? How precise does it need to be? How precise is counting? You are making tons of accusations which suggest that you achieve perfect precision. And I'm keeping one rhythm, I should know, I'm the only one here that actually has used or even tried the method. So what makes you think you know better than me?

If you're here to discuss your method, you should be prepared for criticism. If you can't even take a little heat like this, where the others have not even used ad hominem against you, there really isn't much more to say. Go reread your own posts and others' posts, see who was rude, who was being unreasonable. If you still can't tell, go ask your mommy.

I'm prepared to take heat, I'm not prepared to be asked questions for the sake of argument alone. You proved in that freudian slip that you're not here to be productive. I've already seen the posts in this thread contrary to common sense (?). And these questions have been answered, a test-run has been formulated for you, and you continue to come back with the same old questions. There are plenty of words to describe your behavior but let's just say it's counterproductive.

And by the way, one person does not make evidence for a ground-breaking discovery. All you've given are your own fantasies, with no real evidence, no statistics to back up. I can believe that you think this method works for you, but that doesn't mean it is an effective method at all.

This doesn't even make sense. Your first sentence is not only wrong it's a completely fallacious assertion. Newton "made" his own evidence. And do you believe that if you were right this would somehow prove that I cannot "make" my own evidence? Statistics? What are you talking about? You show me some statistics on traditional methods, I've never seen any, and guess what I am still capable of using the method.

Both of you have serious mental issues. I've given you what you wanted, over and over. And you continue to ask for more, rudely and with condescension none the less. Does it ever end? Give me the exact height of the bar you want me (and I assume everyone you interact with) to jump over. Because from here it seems to be infinitely high, proportionate to your infinitely low amount of trust. So much so I haven't seen either of you answer the same questions about your own methods yet. How miserable a lifestyle yours must be, to ask others to do things which you cannot do yourself.

Let me show you how an adult would make this same sentence you just made.
You:"If you're here to discuss your method, you should be prepared for criticism."

Adult: "I honestly just don't understand your method, and I'm trying to find out how to use it. I assume you were prepared for the criticism you would receive when you made this thread"

That's my bar for maturity, neither of you have reached it yet. Go fetch me some results on this stat. By the way you shouldn't come in here being immature if you aren't prepared to be criticized for it.

[ongaku_oniko]

It's just sad seeing how stubborn people can be and not realize it.

When one without an argument keeps asserting that he indeed has one, there is nothing left to say.

I'm not going to bother anymore; summer courses are starting, I've no time to play with a troll. Keep thinking you're the next newton if you want.

[venik]

It's just sad seeing how stubborn people can be and not realize it.

When one without an argument keeps asserting that he indeed has one, there is nothing left to say.

I'm not going to bother anymore; summer courses are starting, I've no time to play with a troll. Keep thinking you're the next newton if you want.

When you enter a debate with a closed mind for the sake of argument, your opposition is rightfully stubborn.

When you enter a debate with an open mind, only then will you be able to spot who is stubborn and who is not.

I've suggested new ideas
I've made an effort to answer your questions
I've avoided double standards
And I've made the same arguments you made against me, to yourself.

If this rhetoric is stubborn, then your rhetoric is bigotry.

In fact, only a handful of times did I make the same argument twice. To say I'm stubborn is not only a fallacy, because the majority of my post was fresh every time. It is a mere speck of stubborn compared to your argument, in which you asked me the same answered questions over and over, never admitted to any of the falsities you put forth, and evaded all questions asked to you but the ones which you could twist to directly support your own argument.

[sashaco]

It's true that neither listening to decay nor feeling rhythms is a precise method of calculation.  It seems to me that the human body, though, is used to a variety of rythms and producing them- it already has much of the skill required for judging rythms and time.  When I run at an ordinary pace I take precisely 180 steps a minute, and 186 at a racing speed. When I was younger I could run a 400m at any speed you asked from 60 seconds to 80 and be within a second. I know what my heart beat will be when I wake up in the morning.  I could learn what speed I breath at, and very quickly be able to predict my breathing rate dependent on level of exertion.  When I wake up in the middle of the night I can normally guess within 5 minutes what time it is.  Very few people have any facility for hearing precise levels of volume.  If one has  that sort of preternatural ability, the decay method willl work fine.  

You apparently have that ability, Venik, so the method works for you.  I have never met or heard of anyone else with that ability, and the ability to hit a key at precisely the same volume every time under any circumstances, so it's my guess that your method will not generalize.  I consider myself to have quite poor rhythm, but sitting here now I can come within a second of counting 30 seconds precisely by hearing a Souza march in my head and clapping.  I think it would take many months to learn to do that by whacking a loud gong and listening to the decay, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

Good luck, Sasha

[nyiregyhazi]

There's a simple way to illustrate that this is simply nonsense. Sorry to be so blunt but it is. Think what happens when the pedal is down. It's basically a matter of chaos theory, when it comes to the precise manner in which different notes interact and sustain- particularly if you are looking at repeated notes (which need not even be particularly fast for notable levels of unpredictability to apply). To judge from decay would be totally implausible (especially in the cross rhythm you referred to) UNLESS you are talking about matching up sounds in a rhythmically FREE manner.

You're talking about something very important. But to portray it a means of feeling or learning precise rhythms is simply nonsense. It's totally the reverse. It's what people use to make sensitive departures from strict metre. The fact you refer to cross rhythms makes it wholly clear to me that what you are really doing. I'm actually wondering whether you heard this concept spoken of elsewhere but have mispresented it. Thinking about decay is a vital part of timing. However, it has no place in laying foundation stones. It contributes to how you make minute departures, while the prior foundations stop you losing the pulse altogether.

[venik]

There's a simple way to illustrate that this is simply nonsense. Sorry to be so blunt but it is. Think what happens when the pedal is down. It's basically a matter of chaos theory, when it comes to the precise manner in which different notes interact and sustain- particularly if you are looking at repeated notes (which need not even be particularly fast for notable levels of unpredictability to apply). To judge from decay would be totally implausible (especially in the cross rhythm you referred to) UNLESS you are talking about matching up sounds in a rhythmically FREE manner.

You're talking about something very important. But to portray it a means of feeling or learning precise rhythms is simply nonsense. It's totally the reverse. It's what people use to make sensitive departures from strict metre. The fact you refer to cross rhythms makes it wholly clear to me that what you are really doing. I'm actually wondering whether you heard this concept spoken of elsewhere but have mispresented it. Thinking about decay is a vital part of timing. However, it has no place in laying foundation stones. It contributes to how you make minute departures, while the prior foundations stop you losing the pulse altogether.

In the same respect it must also be "impossible" for someone to recite by ear over 20 notes played simultaneously and out of harmony. Yet we have at least one savant who can do this. I'm not even dealing with frequency only volume. In the same respect it must also be "impossible" for a blind man to go hiking using echolocation and no feeling stick. Yet we have thousands of people who taught themselves how to do this, and even started schools on the ability. You simply have a lack of faith in the human mind, bound by a delusional belief that you know what we are capable of.

I came up with this completely on my own, and for the purpose of, and successfully, keeping time with cross rhythms and jazzy beats easier. All it took was thinking about a rhythm as notes suspended in air, chronologically, like a bar of music, and scouring for a reference point which really doesn't seem to exist outside a musician's mind in the community of rhythm. And I almost immediately found a perfect reference point and that is the volume. It's a very predictable, controllable, and uniform curve. Especially when given the contrary, a one-dimensional metronome. A metronome has two positions, on and off. How can you do anything but guess and check with one? Mine is no more complicated than having simply one more dimension, volume and time instead of just time. More information allows for more accurate and planned tasks, not less accurate.

And really, as I've said countless times, I wouldn't use "any" technique which did not result in relatively well kept time. I would rather listen to radio fuzz than anything but a strict rhythm. I would not be using this technique, ever, if it didn't result in for all practical purposes perfect quintuplets.