Telling time by volume

[nyiregyhazi]

It's a very predictable, controllable, and uniform curve.

So obviously you didn't bother to actually read my post, before replying to it? No it isn't. That's exactly what I pointed out to you.

When playing something like Chopin's Fantasy Impromptu, even without pedalling the overtone series will cause interactions that render a uniform curve a complete impossibility. Once you add the pedal, it's even further from "a uniform curve". Sorry, but you're simply talking nonsense. In a complex cross-rhythm you can throw that idea out the window. In places where notes are very close in time, you'd have to hear the swell and then start judging decay again- all within a tiny fraction of a second.

I'm pleased if trying to think this way works for you, but your explanation is completely at odds with conceivable reality. If your ear were so sensitive, you wouldn't be claiming this pigswill about uniform curves. You'd hear something altogether different. You have also given no pointers whatsoever as to how it might be applied. Anyone who can tap their foot to a song has a feel for time that makes rhythm fully explicable. You have given no practical information whatsoever on how your approach might be employed (even if one assumed the fallacy of consistent decay, that you claim, had any consistent truth in it).

Also, you should really spend some time playing on some modern grands. I recently played on a piano where a softly depressed low A octave could scarcely be heard to decay whatsoever. Even after a number of seconds it was scarcely distinguishable from the level that came before. Quite honestly, it's staggering how long the bass of some pianos will take to display audible decay, once you are in the quieter levels.

[venik]

So obviously you didn't bother to actually read my post, before replying to it? No it isn't. That's exactly what I pointed out to you.

When playing something like Chopin's Fantasy Impromptu, even without pedalling the overtone series will cause interactions that render a uniform curve a complete impossibility. Once you add the pedal, it's even further from "a uniform curve". Sorry, but you're simply talking nonsense. In a complex cross-rhythm you can throw that idea out the window. In places where notes are very close in time, you'd have to hear the swell and then start judging decay again- all within a tiny fraction of a second.

I'm pleased if trying to think this way works for you, but your explanation is completely at odds with conceivable reality. If your ear were so sensitive, you wouldn't be claiming this pigswill about uniform curves. You'd hear something altogether different. You have also given no pointers whatsoever as to how it might be applied. Anyone who can tap their foot to a song has a feel for time that makes rhythm fully explicable. You have given no practical information whatsoever on how your approach might be employed (even if one assumed the fallacy of consistent decay, that you claim, had any consistent truth in it).

Also, you should really spend some time playing on some modern grands. I recently played on a piano where a softly depressed low A octave could scarcely be heard to decay whatsoever. Even after a number of seconds it was scarcely distinguishable from the level that came before. Quite honestly, it's staggering how long the bass of some pianos will take to display audible decay, once you are in the quieter levels.

hahahaha, I haven't given any pointers? You are not only deaf, but blind, sir.

I own a modern grand. I've done experiments with it. And I've played many pieces with this method. You are simply delusional making accusations without any proof and only your skewed misunderstanding, lack of conceptual ability, and lack of critical thinking.

This works, you are just too closed minded and stubborn to ask real questions. I can't teach without a good student, and currently my "student" is a zombie minded fool with a elementary physics understanding, if that could be called an understanding at all, that believes should be thought of as a masters degree.

[richard black]

I think it's obvious to most of us that Venik's idea can't possibly work as he (she?) describes it. All the same, if the process of listening intently for decay of volume helps keep rhythm constant, why not? I'd be interested to know if anyone else finds it useful. I'm afraid I haven't the patience to try it myself (and don't see a huge amount of point as I've never found rhythm a major personal problem).

[pianowolfi]

Well, I think sometimes people can become so fascinated by some very specific idea which seems (to them) to be the solution for all problems, and of course for eternity, that they lose the point completely, and can't do anything but repeatedly ponder, realize, think, favorize this one and only idea, this ultimate essence of wisdom, repeated ad infinitum. These people don't realize that they're just narrowing their focus and point of view by excluding every other idea and just letting this one and only idea grow like a huge bubble, and losing the connection to any other ideas. Hopefully it's only a phase.

[m1469]

Well, I think sometimes people can become so fascinated by some very specific ideas which seem to be the solution for all problems, for eternity, that they lose the point completely, and can't do anything but repeatedly ponder, realize, think, favorize this one and only idea, this ultimate essence of wisdom, repeated ad infinitum. Hopefully it's only a phase.

omg, I am instantly completely fascinated and obsessed and can't do anything but repeatedly ponder, realize, think, and favorize this one idea  .

[venik]

Well, I think sometimes people can become so fascinated by some very specific idea that seems (to them) to be the solution for all problems, for eternity, that they lose the point completely, and can't do anything but repeatedly ponder, realize, think, favorize this one and only idea, this ultimate essence of wisdom, repeated ad infinitum. Hopefully it's only a phase.

Such as the idea of a one-demensional metronome?

[venik]

I think it's obvious to most of us that Venik's idea can't possibly work as he (she?) describes it. All the same, if the process of listening intently for decay of volume helps keep rhythm constant, why not? I'd be interested to know if anyone else finds it useful. I'm afraid I haven't the patience to try it myself (and don't see a huge amount of point as I've never found rhythm a major personal problem).

I'm not listening for the volume, I am using the memory of the volume. It's planned ahead before I even play the rhythm. Any measurement of incorrect decay is semantic. It is impossible to plan ahead a rhythm with a metronome, without much guess and check involved.

[pianowolfi]

omg, I am instantly completely fascinated and obsessed and can't do anything but repeatedly ponder, realize, think, and favorize this one idea  .

Yes but I can't imagine that you are losing the connection to other ideas, in the long run. To focus on one idea doesn't mean to principally exclude other ideas. That's (at least to me) an important point

[m1469]

Yes but I can't imagine that you are losing the connection to other ideas, in the long run. To focus on one idea doesn't mean to principally exclude other ideas. That's (at least to me) an important point

Yes, that is an important point, and one which is probably extremely pertinent to this thread!  I hope you realize I was *having* fun with you, and not *making* fun of what you wrote .

[pianowolfi]

Yes, that is an important point, and one which is probably extremely pertinent to this thread!  I hope you realize I was *having* fun with you, and not *making* fun of what you wrote .

Yes of course!!

[lostinidlewonder]

Well, I think sometimes people can become so fascinated by some very specific idea which seems (to them) to be the solution for all problems, and of course for eternity, that they lose the point completely, and can't do anything but repeatedly ponder, realize, think, favorize this one and only idea, this ultimate essence of wisdom, repeated ad infinitum. These people don't realize that they're just narrowing their focus and point of view by excluding every other idea and just letting this one and only idea grow like a huge bubble, and losing the connection to any other ideas. Hopefully it's only a phase.

I think this is a far reaching truth for many threads on the internet! Sometimes they even look at something so closely and can't even explain what they are looking at and wonder why everyone else can't see the idea through their fantasy driven abstraction.

[keyboardclass]

All the same, if the process of listening intently for decay of volume helps keep rhythm constant, why not? I'd be interested to know if anyone else finds it useful.

I read the beginning of this thread but couldn't quite understand it.  The idea of listening to the decay has merits.  The end of a note is so little paid attention to.  In wind playing it's very much the be all and end all.  It's all about eccentric muscle contraction (which I'm sure applies equally to the piano).