Counting techniques

[byeats]

I'm interested in hearing about counting techniques used by advanced pianists. I don't really know if there is standard method used by more advanced players. Let me say what I do and solicit comments and alternatives.

The first problem that comes up is assigning the beat/count location of a particular note. This is not a big deal for quarter notes, but what about for 32nd's or 48th's, etc. in a complex rhythm. What I came up with is to count with these sounds:

For quarter notes: 1 2 1 2 etc.
For 8th notes: 1 n 2 n  etc.
For 16th notes:   1  ah  n  ah   2  ah  n  ah
So far I'd guess this is pretty standard, but to count denser/shorter notes I have an alternative for 16th notes & beyond:

16th's alt.:   1 be doe tay  2 be doe tay etc.
32nd s:        1 ah be ah doe ah tay ah    2 ah be ah doe ah tay ah .

For both these cases the core sound syllables (be, doe, tay) were chosen for being able to roll off your tongue QUICKLY, and to have different leading consonant and trailing vowel sounds, which I found helps avoid getting mixed up. Having "sounds" for counting 32nd notes makes counting the first page of Beethoven's Pathetique sonata a lot easier.

To count 2 counts of triplets use:  1 be doe 2 be doe .
To count 2 counts of six-tuplets use:  1 ah be ah doe ah   2 ah be ah doe ah  ,
     or (for grouping in 3's):    1 ah be doe ah tay   2 ah be doe ah tay .

So the first part about counting is the assignment of count sounds to the various notes as indicated above. The next part is how to accommodate music that is alternately sparse and dense in notes per second. I think it's too hard to (e.g.) count in 32nd notes for a beat that is a simple quarter note, just because the preceding beat was in 32's. So I use a hybrid like in these examples:

1   n ah   2   1  2                   1  2       n               1                                    2 ,
1   n       2   1  2 be doe tay   1  2  be ah doe tay   1 ah be ah doe ah tay ah  2 .

1   n     2        1 be doe         2 be doe       1 be doe tay      2  be doe tay.

Note that, e.g.,  "be doe" can represent two 16th notes in places or two notes of a triplet in other places, so the pianist needs to be aware of the different time values being used and to insure that the underlining 1 2 1 2 beat is maintained.

These are examples. For simple rhythms of regular (e.g.) 16th notes, I don't count the 16th notes separately, only the quarter notes, but for an irregular pattern of 16th notes I would count them on a finer scale, though not necessarily finer than 8th notes.

I am definitely interested in hearing how others count in sounds a mix of dense and sparse notes, and a mix of triplets and (e.g.) eighth or quarter notes.

Some say they stop counting once they know a piece. I think for difficult passages, it still helps me to always count to avoid racing ahead.

Lastly, a rare piece (e..g., Chopin Nocturne in Db Major Op. 27-2) needs sounds for 6 or 12 notes in a beat, so I use "my so" for the 2 additional sounds; e.g.:
1 be doe tay my so    2 be doe tay my so    1 ah be ah doe ah tay ah my ah so ah    2.

These sound syllables are pretty much gibberish, but you can get used to them if you go for a walk and start using them in time to your steps (plus vary the "density", include triplets, etc.).

[nyiregyhazi]

"(even as many as 16 counts per crotchet if need be- although this would be very rare)."

Actually, forget that bit. Thinking about it again, I'd likely subdivide the beat into four semiquavers and count 4, then fit four notes into each of those. That would keep it far simpler. Early on, I think any student needs to be able to "feel" how to fit 2,3 or 4 notes between any two counts. If you can do that, you rarely have to count beyond 4. Very few things are actually very complex at all, when you have internalised the feel for 2s 3s and 4s.

[richard black]

Like most pianists I know, the only time I actually count, as a rule, is when playing orchestral piano and I have long rests to count. Just occasionally in complicated chamber music I will count if I reckon my colleague(s) is/are likely to keep in time and I can't switch my eyes fast enough to follow their lines. In solo music I can't remember the last time I counted - maybe I never did.

[fleetfingers]

I only count if there is a weird rhythm I'm not used to, and want to make sure I'm getting it right. Then again, I will usually get online and listen to an audio...so I won't have to count.

If I am counting, I don't ever count higher than 4, with half-counts in between (for which I use the word "and"). It is easier for me to break everything down into 2's, 3's, or 4's.

[ramseytheii]

One should always practice counting giving more weight to the offbeats, no matter what beat you are counting.

Walter Ramsey

[gore234]

Heres a question I posted in a topic about lowell lieberman's Gargoyles op.29 that deals with counting.

How do you guys count 7 notes against 6 and 5 against 3.  When i practice 4 against 3s, I count to 12 hitting notes with my right hand on the beats :1,4,7,10 and hitting notes with the left hand on beats:1,5,9.  For 5 against 3s, should I count to 15 playing beats 1,6,11 with one hand and beats 1,4,7,10,13 with the other?

[retrouvailles]

Heres a question I posted in a topic about lowell lieberman's Gargoyles op.29 that deals with counting.

How do you guys count 7 notes against 6 and 5 against 3.  When i practice 4 against 3s, I count to 12 hitting notes with my right hand on the beats :1,4,7,10 and hitting notes with the left hand on beats:1,5,9.  For 5 against 3s, should I count to 15 playing beats 1,6,11 with one hand and beats 1,4,7,10,13 with the other?

One word: autopilot. Separate the parts of the polyrhythm and practice each one until it just flows without you thinking about it. Then put them together and just play them without thinking. If you kept them even while playing each separately (with a metronome, of course), they should line up. When you get to ridiculous polyrhythms, and not the common 2:3 or 3:4, this is the only way to practice them.

[gerryjay]

i'm not convinced that counting do any good. ok, ok: if you are completely lost about the music you play, it may help, but... if you are completely lost about the music you play, perhaps you shouldn't play it yet. i mean specifically you need more rehearsal time, more listening time, more analysis time: something is missing if you need to count, and plain counting is probably the worst solution around.

btw, i never knew a percussion player that counts.

best!

[nyiregyhazi]

i'm not convinced that counting do any good. ok, ok: if you are completely lost about the music you play, it may help, but... if you are completely lost about the music you play, perhaps you shouldn't play it yet. i mean specifically you need more rehearsal time, more listening time, more analysis time: something is missing if you need to count, and plain counting is probably the worst solution around.

btw, i never knew a percussion player that counts.

best!

It's something where you have to have a foundation before you can forget it- just like with letters. Advanced pianists may not think consciously about every letter or even any of them. However, ask them what letter any note was and they will tell you in an instant- whereas the beginner may well stare blankly at you. The same goes with advanced rhythms. Pianists who don't count but can are often fine. Pianists who couldn't if they tried are screwed. This is definitely not something that should be judged from what advanced players do. You need a foundation. The only problem is when the foundation is overly complexified. The easiest foundation is to feel every beat (and initially count it) and have an acquired sense of how to fit 2s 3s or 4s into any such reference points. There's little else to learn that is not covered by that (add 5s and 7s and you've even covered most possibilities for contemporary music) Any pianist who does not count but who has not already acquired this skill will be a pianist with a poor sense of rhythm.

[nyiregyhazi]

"(even as many as 16 counts per crotchet if need be- although this would be very rare)."

Actually, forget that bit. Thinking about it again, I'd likely subdivide the beat into four semiquavers and count 4, then fit four notes into each of those. That would keep it far simpler. Early on, I think any student needs to be able to "feel" how to fit 2,3 or 4 notes between any two counts. If you can do that, you rarely have to count beyond 4. Very few things are actually very complex at all, when you have internalised the feel for 2s 3s and 4s.

Oops. Just realised that I deleted the initial post (that that the quote had been from) by modifying instead of quoting it. Anyway, it covers the gist of what I'd written.

[mike_lang]

One should always practice counting giving more weight to the offbeats, no matter what beat you are counting.

Walter Ramsey

Why?

Mike

[gerryjay]

It's something where you have to have a foundation before you can forget it- just like with letters.

you are right, but we are talking about different things. the initial post is about counting technique in an advanced context, which i dismiss as useless.

on the other hand, and that's your point - and you are right - newbies must count. nevertheless, always away from the piano. again, if a newbie need to count while playing, it means that s/he is not ready to play the particular work/part/phrase/measure yet. instead of counting, just listen again, do some body activity (dancing is cool, but sometimes even walking is helpful), sing, and - of course - count.

i'll apply the same reasoning to reading notes, looking at the piano, fingering, and so on. you only are able to play when these thing are under your belt.

[nyiregyhazi]

you are right, but we are talking about different things. the initial post is about counting technique in an advanced context, which i dismiss as useless.

on the other hand, and that's your point - and you are right - newbies must count. nevertheless, always away from the piano. again, if a newbie need to count while playing, it means that s/he is not ready to play the particular work/part/phrase/measure yet.

Ah, I see what you mean in the first point. Definitely agreed there. I don't see any reason to be counting the accompaniment in the D flat nocturne. I couldn't agree with the second though. I definitely agree that preparation is extremely useful. However, counting is a very good way to be consciously certain that every reference point is matching up- i.e. the notes on the beats are on the right ones. Although I sometimes specifically recommend beginners focus more on tapping their foot (to create a steady pulse) than on counting, the problem with only "feeling" beats is that it's still very easy to mistime the exact location of notes. I think of it as being almost like an unshakeable grid upon which notes are superimposed. It's easier to keep track of where you are if you start with counting. If beginners do it too much by ear or "feel", they don't necessarily understand what is going on in the rhythm well enough to develop long-term skills or a feel for how notes are placed around the basic framework of beats. I think this is the key foundation for advanced rhythm- the notes on the beats are your unshakeable anchor points and everything else simply fits between. I think it's invaluable to be clear that a certain note within a complex rhythm is on beat 3 or beat 4 or whatever one it happens to be. Quite frankly, I can still mistime plenty of things without even realising it, unless I'm totally clear on the individual beats. While my instincts are usually right, I often want to count at least once to be sure. I recall occasions of starting to sight-read through exam pieces for students to choose from- and suddenly realising a few bars in that I was playing a piece in 3 in 4, or vice versa. While I'm rarely prone to that kind of stupidity, I do have to be sure of counting a few bars to be 100% that such things won't happen.

[gore234]

if you are sight-reading music for the first time, you need to know how to count all kinds of rythms.  Being able to count will allow you to write your own compositions correctly.  someone who can't count would have a hard time writing rythms.

[gerryjay]

hi nyiregyhazi,
interesting post. i worked with similar approaches, but now i prefer something different. nevertheless, i don't think mine is the right: it just works for me, and for most of my pupils.

about foot tapping...it's another thing that i don't rely on. anyway, i agree with you about the need of creating a feeling of pulse, though i like to use the whole body in this process. more often that not, i saw and see pianists with precise foot tapping and very stiff bodies.

of course, i am not advocating a steve wonder stage performance. for him, it's cool and fine, but imagine someone getting the groove in the middle of a bach courante? well, it will be cool either!

best regards,
jay.