If I do this, can I compensate for my rhythmic handicap?

[ranniks]

Pieces are written in 4/4 2/4  1/4 and onward.

Let's say a bar has 4/4 time, and 4 times 1/4 notes. If I play each 1/4 note for 1 second, is the rhythm correct then? What about if I play each 1/4 note for 0.5 seconds? Or even faster but assign each note a set amount of time.

I could go like this:

Each 1/4 note is 1 second for me (the time I let the note ring/hold)
Each 1/8 is 0.5 seconds for me
Eachh 1/6 note is 0.25 seconds for me

Would that work? I realise that isn't doable in your head, but if you feel it then it should be oke. So realising that each note has a set amount of time.

That being, said, the next piece is written in 4/4 time as you can see:



This is a piece my teacher gave me for rhythm exercise I believe.

I'll repeat the first 6 bars for three times and if someone could later on judge it based on this post, that would be awesome and very appreciated. Music to me is the key to God and tranquility, so playing it correctly seems a must.

I'll put the link later this evening. My dad is sleeping now downstairs, it's the afternoon at the moment, so I'd rather let him sleep (he's 63 years of age) than make a recording now.

[nyiregyhazi]

Pieces are written in 4/4 2/4  1/4 and onward.

Let's say a bar has 4/4 time, and 4 times 1/4 notes. If I play each 1/4 note for 1 second, is the rhythm correct then? What about if I play each 1/4 note for 0.5 seconds? Or even faster but assign each note a set amount of time.

I could go like this:

Each 1/4 note is 1 second for me (the time I let the note ring/hold)
Each 1/8 is 0.5 seconds for me
Eachh 1/6 note is 0.25 seconds for me

Would that work? I realise that isn't doable in your head, but if you feel it then it should be oke. So realising that each note has a set amount of time.

That being, said, the next piece is written in 4/4 time as you can see:



This is a piece my teacher gave me for rhythm exercise I believe.

I'll repeat the first 6 bars for three times and if someone could later on judge it based on this post, that would be awesome and very appreciated. Music to me is the key to God and tranquility, so playing it correctly seems a must.

I'll put the link later this evening. My dad is sleeping now downstairs, it's the afternoon at the moment, so I'd rather let him sleep (he's 63 years of age) than make a recording now.

I think you're setting out under a mistaken premise. is it in any way more natural for a human to feel a run of consists seconds than a run of consistent beats that last 1.17 seconds? If it is, I'm not aware of why. Beats are beats. it doesn't matter one bit how long they last in absolute terms. rhythm stems from relativity. rhythm is how you fit two of one type of note into one of another or four of one into another etc. seconds are totally irrelevant unless you intend to use the clock as a metronome. But even then it's simply feeling x notes into one beat.

[ranniks]

I think you're setting out under a mistaken premise. is it in any way more natural for a human to feel a run of consists seconds than a run of consistent beats that last 1.17 seconds? If it is, I'm not aware of why. Beats are beats. it doesn't matter one bit how long they last in absolute terms. rhythm stems from relativity. rhythm is how you fit two of one type of note into one of another or four of one into another etc. seconds are totally irrelevant unless you intend to use the clock as a metronome. But even then it's simply feeling x notes into one beat.

That's why I said feeling, but I do get what you mean. Thanks!

I've added my recording. Any consistency? I feel like in the last part of the recording I'm doing better.

[nystul]

You play the first measure of the pattern very well.  The second measure you always make the same mistakes and in fact you are only putting 3 beats in the second measure.

This left hand in second measure is a tricky syncopated rhythm.  In order to get something like this right, you need to be able to count it out and know exactly where each note is supposed to go.  Has your teacher worked with you on counting and clapping exercises?

Edit:  Counting exercises are not just some special tool for people that are bad at rhythm.  It is part of learning to read sheet music.  Just like we need to be able to associate the lines and spaces on the staff with certain notes, we need to be able to associate the written values of the notes with how it should actually be played.  We must do that with counting exercises.  Once you have mastered a certain rhythmic pattern it becomes automatic and you can read it and play it without having to count it.

[ranniks]

You play the first measure of the pattern very well.  The second measure you always make the same mistakes and in fact you are only putting 3 beats in the second measure.

This left hand in second measure is a tricky syncopated rhythm.  In order to get something like this right, you need to be able to count it out and know exactly where each note is supposed to go.  Has your teacher worked with you on counting and clapping exercises?

Thank you.

Yes, we've done the clapping. We had to do that a lot before I got it. So I guess I should repeat the clapping and try it on the piano.

The second meassure is tricky. I thought I got it.

[mikeowski]

You're leaving out one of the right hand chords in the second/fourth/sixth bar. Also you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the bow. It's tieing the half and eigth note together so the note should be held for that long (half + eigth).
Anyway, I put this into musescore so you can see how it's supposed to sound (plus a little excercise with only the rhythm in both hands and then only with the right hand).

[ranniks]

You're leaving out one of the right hand chords in the second/fourth/sixth bar. Also you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the bow. It's tieing the half and eigth note together so the note should be held for that long (half + eigth).
Anyway, I put this into musescore so you can see how it's supposed to sound (plus a little excercise with only the rhythm in both hands and then only with the right hand).

This is really helpful, thanks!

I'm gonna try that out on tomorow's practise.

[ranniks]

Edit:  Counting exercises are not just some special tool for people that are bad at rhythm.  It is part of learning to read sheet music.  Just like we need to be able to associate the lines and spaces on the staff with certain notes, we need to be able to associate the written values of the notes with how it should actually be played.  We must do that with counting exercises.  Once you have mastered a certain rhythmic pattern it becomes automatic and you can read it and play it without having to count it.

Yes, but I get so very confused when counting!

The way I see counting is just putting a 'feeling count' into each note. So I realise 1/4 note is longer than a 1/8 note and that two 1/8 notes fill into one 1/4 note, I just get confused.

Let's say that Mozart part I played in the end of my recording after the skyfall part. I have no frigging idea how to count that when playing. My teacher puts the numbers above the first bar, but I just can't get my mind around it. It's written in 3/8 time, so he puts 1, 2 and 3 above three notes, but when I count 1, 2 and 3, I'm not on the part of where the number is written above the note. So when I say 2 I'm on the A instead of the F >.<.

Thanks btw, I really appreciate it.

[mikeowski]

Here is the rhythm for the beginning of K331

with the left hand giving the beat (ignore the change from A's to E's in the second measure, it's just for creating a more pleasent sound )

edit: right click the image and select "show image" for a bigger picture
edit2: you don't have to count the "and"'s for every beat, just for those with the sixteenths.

[ranniks]

Here is the rhythm for the beginning of K331

with the left hand giving the beat (ignore the change from A's to E's in the second measure, it's just for creating a more pleasent sound )

edit: right click the image and select "show image" for a bigger picture
edit2: you don't have to count the "and"'s for every beat, just for those with the sixteenths.

*Slams his face on his desk*

Sir, is that really the correct way of counting? If so, then I've been doing it wrong all this time. That's not a good thing if you lack rhythm. I misunderstood my teacher.

I've got an 'aha' moment because of that picture. Here I thought that you couldn't count out loud 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 on a 6/8 bar, but rather 1, 2, 3 (I realise this is also possible way of counting).

I'm going to go through my moonlight sonata run twice and then count out loud while playing the Mozart and Skyfall piece.

You are amazing btw, thanks incredibly.

Edit:

But wait:

By that logic, the moonlight sonata easy version I'm learning now, this one:

https://gmajormusictheory.org/Freebies/Level4/4Moonlig.pdf

Is wrong. The time is 2/4, but you have six 1/8th notes, which make a total of 6/8 and that is 3/4, not 2/4.

Or am I thinking wrong here?

[outin]

By that logic, the moonlight sonata easy version I'm learning now, this one:

https://gmajormusictheory.org/Freebies/Level4/4Moonlig.pdf

Is wrong. The time is 2/4, but you have six 1/8th notes, which make a total of 6/8 and that is 3/4, not 2/4.

Or am I thinking wrong here?

Those are triplets, which means you have to fit 3 notes in a time where you would normally have two without altering the overall duration of the group.

[nystul]

I've got an 'aha' moment because of that picture. Here I thought that you couldn't count out loud 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 on a 6/8 bar, but rather 1, 2, 3 (I realise this is also possible way of counting).

Trying to count 3 beats for a 6/8 bar usually won't feel right.  6/8 looks the same as 3/4 in terms of how many eighth notes fill a measure, but they feel very different.  In 6/8 each measure actually has 2 main beats.  Each of those beats can be divided into groups of 3 eighth notes.  In 3/4 each measure has 3 main beats which can be divided into groups of 2 eighth notes.

For slow practice and learning the rhythm it is good to count the 6/8 as 6 beats:  ONE two three FOUR five six ONE two three FOUR five six.  When you understand the rhythm and play it up to speed you might think of it as just two beats: ONE and uh TWO and uh ONE and uh TWO and uh.  Or something like that.

[mikeowski]

Those are triplets, which means you have to fit 3 notes in a time where you would normally have two without altering the overall duration of the group.

Yes thats correct, the moonlight sonata has the right hand playing in triplets (the -3- under the first two groups shows this, aswell as the grouping in 3 notes in all the following ones), where you must count 3 eigths in a beat instead of two.
Triplets must be counted like this:
Ta-ta-ta
Ta-ta-ta
Ta-ta-ta
instead of
Ta-ta
Ta-ta
Ta-ta

Also rhythms which are in 8ths, like 3/8, 6/8 or 9/8 need to be counted in 3 (like the triplets) aswell.

Here is another visualisation:

[ajspiano]

Not to discourage, but why are you learning that particular arrangement? You seem like you're extremely passionate about piano, enough so that you would much rather be playing the real thing.. ..and so perhaps delaying the moonlight if you're not yet ready, or just putting in the effort to learn whole enchilada anyway?

..I wonder why the guy wrote it in 2/4 rather than cut common?

[nyiregyhazi]

That's why I said feeling, but I do get what you mean. Thanks!

I've added my recording. Any consistency? I feel like in the last part of the recording I'm doing better.

I think I'm with you now. I was confused by your meaning, because if you take out seconds, then it just is what it is in the first place. It's simply saying what the notes actually mean- not interpreting at all. However, I then realised that it might be an issue of translation from the American names? Sorry to Americans, but this whole "quarter note" nonsense really adds pointless complexity. In regular time, crotchets are 1 quavers are half and semiquavers are the "quarter note" (not in reference to this silly terminology but in reference to proportions of beats- why base the terminology on a quarter of a note that rarely if ever counts as a beat, rather than as 4 beats?). This is the default for most music. I think this way as the norm anyway, but presumably you were making the translation from the complexity of the American system to this simpler ratio, rather than worrying about actual literal seconds in time?

Also, the thing about feeling rhythm is that you always start from beats rather than details. It should feel more strange to change time signature than to maintain- so I suspect that you are thinking too much in small details. First think in 4 definitive beats per bar and count them. Then add detail around them. It should feel really odd to cut a bar a single beat short, if you are internally feeling the character of each beat.

[outin]

I think I'm with you now. I was confused by your meaning, because if you take out seconds, then it just is what it is in the first place. It's simply saying what the notes actually mean- not interpreting at all. However, I then realised that it might be an issue of translation from the American names? Sorry to Americans, but this whole "quarter note" nonsense really adds pointless complexity. In regular time, crotchets are 1 quavers are half and semiquavers are the "quarter note" (not in reference to this silly terminology but in reference to proportions of beats- why base the terminology on a quarter of a note that rarely if ever counts as a beat, rather than as 4 beats?). This is the default for most music. I think this way as the norm anyway, but presumably you were making the translation from the complexity of the American system to this simpler ratio, rather than worrying about actual literal seconds in time?

Now you managed to confuse me...what's complex with the American terminology? And it's not just American, they are called whole notes, half notes, quarter notes and so on in my language too and I have always found it a very simple and logical system and very easy to learn. No need to remember specific names for the notes that actually mean nothing, which I find difficult... Probably because of this logical linquistic system we use rhythm has always been the easiest thing for me to learn in music.

Maybe we are looking at the whole thing from a different angle. I always see a measure which is divided into beats in different ways and the note/rest names reflect that.

EDIT:
I think the reason Ranniks is so confused is that he has jumped straight into relatively complex pieces (for someone who has no musical background) without going through the basics first. 

[nyiregyhazi]

Now you managed to confuse me...what's complex with the American terminology? And it's not just American, they are called whole notes, half notes, quarter notes and so on in my language too and I have always found it a very simple and logical system and very easy to learn. No need to remember specific names for the notes that actually mean nothing, which I find difficult... Probably because of this logical linquistic system we use rhythm has always been the easiest thing for me to learn in music.

Maybe we are looking at the whole thing from a different angle. I always see a measure which is divided into beats in different ways and the note/rest names reflect that.

EDIT:
I think the reason Ranniks is so confused is that he has jumped straight into relatively complex pieces (for someone who has no musical background) without going through the basics first.  

The American system takes the one duration of note that almost NEVER represents one unit and takes that as the yardstick. That's just senseless complexity and pointlessly small fractions. With different time signatures beats can regularly be quavers, crotchets, minims, semi quavers or dotted versions of those. What you never catch representing a beat is a semi breve. The standard yardstick is for a crotchet to be deemed not a quarter but as one. 4/4 might make sense to divide into 4 subdivisions but even in simple 3/4 to think of three quarters per bar is wasted complexity. It's 3 simple whole units, not three fractions. Fast forward to 128th notes and it's pure madness to think of those as anything other than 32nds of a beat, if in common time. In fact, even in cut time I'd feel them as 32 per crotchet, rather than attempt a 64th of a beat. Why would I give a damn about 128 occurring per semi breve in 3/4? The relevance of the term is literally zero, and by having a fraction of no practical worth as its name it muddies the process of converting it to a useful fraction. Throw out 1/128 and conceive as a 32nd of a unit and the number is meaningful, however (and you can say the same about "sixteenths"- which I regard as quarters of a crotchet beat).

So, in short, the American system operates around a totally illogical yardstick that completely contradicts the simple manner of conceiving rhythmic proportions. If you can memorise the names purely as labels it's okay, but if you are thinking about what they actually mean as fractions then you are almost always having to multiply by 4 in order to get a sensible means of conception.

[outin]

The American system takes the one duration of note that almost NEVER represents one unit and takes that as the yardstick. That's just senseless complexity and pointlessly small fractions. With different time signatures beats can regularly be quavers, crotchets, minims, semi quavers or dotted versions of those. What you never catch representing a beat is a semi breve. The standard yardstick is for a crotchet to be deemed not a quarter but as one. 4/4 might make sense to divide into 4 subdivisions but even in simple 3/4 to think of three quarters per bar is wasted complexity. It's 3 simple whole units, not three fractions. Fast forward to 128th notes and it's pure madness to think of those as anything other than 32nds of a beat, if in common time. In fact, even in cut time I'd feel them as 32 per crotchet, rather than attempt a 64th of a beat. Why would I give a damn about 128 occurring per semi breve in 3/4? The relevance of the term is literally zero. Conceive as a 32nd of a unit and the number is meaningful, however (and you can say the same about "sixteenths"- which I regard as quarters of a crotchet beat).

So, in short, the American system operates around a totally illogical yardstick that completely contradicts the simple manner of conceiving rhythmic proportions. If you can memorise the names purely as labels it's okay, but if you are thinking about what they actually mean as fractions then you are almost always having to multiply by 4 in order to get a sensible means of conception.

What you write makes absolutely no sense to me...to me it's  the opposite when it comes to complexity. There's no need to make all these divisions you talk about, because it's all perceived naturally without effort. I see similar issues when it comes to measurements outside the metric system. They are just impossible for me to get, although people who grew up with them find them perfectly logical. I guess it's just one good example how different language and cultural background actually modifies our perception.

[ranniks]

Those are triplets, which means you have to fit 3 notes in a time where you would normally have two without altering the overall duration of the group.

>.<
I’m going to memorize this by remembering a three at the bottom of the row and that it’s slightly arched. Merci outin.

Trying to count 3 beats for a 6/8 bar usually won't feel right.  6/8 looks the same as 3/4 in terms of how many eighth notes fill a measure, but they feel very different.  In 6/8 each measure actually has 2 main beats.  Each of those beats can be divided into groups of 3 eighth notes.  In 3/4 each measure has 3 main beats which can be divided into groups of 2 eighth notes.
For slow practice and learning the rhythm it is good to count the 6/8 as 6 beats:  ONE two three FOUR five six ONE two three FOUR five six.  When you understand the rhythm and play it up to speed you might think of it as just two beats: ONE and uh TWO and uh ONE and uh TWO and uh.  Or something like that.

For now I’ll practice counting, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and using the and/uh when I can’t get through it. I got the general concept down thanks to you and mikeowski (and my teacher). I hope I can apply it when practicing. I’m going to go really slow at first.

Yes thats correct, the moonlight sonata has the right hand playing in triplets (the -3- under the first two groups shows this, aswell as the grouping in 3 notes in all the following ones), where you must count 3 eigths in a beat instead of two.
Triplets must be counted like this:
Ta-ta-ta
Ta-ta-ta
Ta-ta-ta
instead of
Ta-ta
Ta-ta
Ta-ta
Also rhythms which are in 8ths, like 3/8, 6/8 or 9/8 need to be counted in 3 (like the triplets) aswell.
Here is another visualisation:

But sir, you just said and showed me to count 1 to 6 with the other example.

Not to discourage, but why are you learning that particular arrangement? You seem like you're extremely passionate about piano, enough so that you would much rather be playing the real thing.. ..and so perhaps delaying the moonlight if you're not yet ready, or just putting in the effort to learn whole enchilada anyway?
..I wonder why the guy wrote it in 2/4 rather than cut common?

Halfway through this arrangement I stopped learning it and tried learning the real thing. When I brought it up to my teacher he said to first finish this arrangement and afterwards we could go for the real thing.  

Technically I can already play the first page of the real thing, but I haven’t touched it since my teacher told me to wait.

You are correct though, I’d rather play the real thing, but I’m learning the last few measures of the arrangement and am almost done.

I’ll tackle the real thing down after the Mozart piece, most likely and hopefully.

Your words remain encouraging, thank you sir.

I think I'm with you now. I was confused by your meaning, because if you take out seconds, then it just is what it is in the first place. It's simply saying what the notes actually mean- not interpreting at all. However, I then realised that it might be an issue of translation from the American names? Sorry to Americans, but this whole "quarter note" nonsense really adds pointless complexity. In regular time, crotchets are 1 quavers are half and semiquavers are the "quarter note" (not in reference to this silly terminology but in reference to proportions of beats- why base the terminology on a quarter of a note that rarely if ever counts as a beat, rather than as 4 beats?). This is the default for most music. I think this way as the norm anyway, but presumably you were making the translation from the complexity of the American system to this simpler ratio, rather than worrying about actual literal seconds in time?
Also, the thing about feeling rhythm is that you always start from beats rather than details. It should feel more strange to change time signature than to maintain- so I suspect that you are thinking too much in small details. First think in 4 definitive beats per bar and count them. Then add detail around them. It should feel really odd to cut a bar a single beat short, if you are internally feeling the character of each beat.

My teacher is from Germany and has done music school (conservatorium).

My first teacher was Lypur, from youtube. https://www.youtube.com/user/Lypur

He taught me the values of each note. I’ve only had about 2 hours of lesson from him with the help of his youtube vidoes. I learned mary had a little lamb from him.

My teacher has yet to deviate from Lypur’s counting method, so I’m not sure what the American system really is. I just learn what my teacher teaches me.

But isn’t a quarter note, just that? A quarter of a bar, a quarter of the 4/4 time? A half note is 2/4 of that and so not.

Could you explain it more so I can understand perhaps?  

I think the reason Ranniks is so confused is that he has jumped straight into relatively complex pieces (for someone who has no musical background) without going through the basics first. 

Correct.

[outin]

But isn’t a quarter note, just that? A quarter of a bar, a quarter of the 4/4 time? A half note is 2/4 of that and so not.

Could you explain it more so I can understand perhaps?  

I think it's best for you not to confuse yourself more with different naming systems. Stick with the one your teacher uses, which I believe is the common one in most countries where musical culture was heavily influenced by the Germans.

I wonder if you are still slightly confused about the relation of the time signature and note durations. If I try to simplify, you need the time signature to tell you where the strong and weak beats are. If you only consider the note values, you can write the same thing in different time signatures. But in real life things sounds different because the strong beats in different times are placed differently. This is where clapping exercises of different rhythmic patterns are helpful, to get the right "feel" of the rhythm.
The note durations are divisions of the bar according to the same simple system (sometimes specially marked exceptions as with triplets). In traditional musical notation you don't really need to think of the time signature to know how long a note is supposed to last in relation to other notes in that bar.

[mikeowski]

But sir, you just said and showed me to count 1 to 6 with the other example.

Well, yes, but it's done in groups of 3's. Like this: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Btw, no need to call me sir, I'm 22

[nyiregyhazi]

What you write makes absolutely no sense to me...to me it's  the opposite when it comes to complexity. There's no need to make all these divisions you talk about, because it's all perceived naturally without effort. I see similar issues when it comes to measurements outside the metric system. They are just impossible for me to get, although people who grew up with them find them perfectly logical. I guess it's just one good example how different language and cultural background actually modifies our perception.

In the end, yes. But beginners have to make calculations. So do advanced pianists, on odd occasions. In these moments, the more your head is filled with these truly irrelevant fractions, the more of a distraction you have from the simplicity of taking the "quarter" note as being a whole unit.

[nyiregyhazi]

But isn’t a quarter note, just that? A quarter of a bar, a quarter of the 4/4 time? A half note is 2/4 of that and so not.

Could you explain it more so I can understand perhaps?  

i
Yes, but it's a third of a bar in 3/4. What everyone does is not to feel these as a quarter but as a whole unit, with "eighth" notes as counting for half a unit etc. as you described in your first post. It would be crazy to have a youngster trying to understand semi quavers as a sixteenth of a 4/4 bar rather than as a quarter of a crotchet beat. I didn't see where you were coming from first, because that's just standard thinking for me and not any form of translation (except from the system of calling crotchets "quarters" rather than whole units).



ultimately you have to judge from different yardsticks in different time signatures, but the base unit in this system is literally never the baseline from which practically useful counting comes. 1 count can be almost anything other than a whole note.

[ranniks]

I'm happy, even though it isn't perfect yet:

Skyfall: First run only 3 notes on the second bar, but afterwards all 4. I can't hear the left hand F sharp as much, but I did play it.

Mozart: This one I'm most happy about because in the last 2 runs in the attachment it soudned decent

Surprise attachment: It's a surprise, even though it's not played correctly (I'm reading it while playing, not memorized yet, but it isn't a sightread either since I've read and played it before as well), I love this one (thanks to the person who suggested it, I forgot your name, I'm terribly sorry for that, but thanks again!).

Edit:

Well, yes, but it's done in groups of 3's. Like this: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Btw, no need to call me sir, I'm 22

I'm too polite for my own good Mike.

Still, you're my elder (by one year), so nothing wrong with sir I suppose.

[nystul]

Skyfall rhythm is much better.  There is still one tricky note that you aren't playing quite right.  It is the last left hand note in measure 2/4/6.  You are playing it basically halfway between count 4 and the start of the next measure, like an eighth rest followed by an eighth note.  The actual rhythm calls for a 16th rest followed by a dotted eighth note, so it needs to played sooner.  The tricky part will be making that change while keeping your right hand steady.

The Mozart rhythms sounded alright. 

[ranniks]

Skyfall rhythm is much better.  There is still one tricky note that you aren't playing quite right.  It is the last left hand note in measure 2/4/6.  You are playing it basically halfway between count 4 and the start of the next measure, like an eighth rest followed by an eighth note.  The actual rhythm calls for a 16th rest followed by a dotted eighth note, so it needs to played sooner.  The tricky part will be making that change while keeping your right hand steady.

The Mozart rhythms sounded alright.  

Thanks. The skyfall is just not working in my favor=/.

You're leaving out one of the right hand chords in the second/fourth/sixth bar. Also you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the bow. It's tieing the half and eigth note together so the note should be held for that long (half + eigth).
Anyway, I put this into musescore so you can see how it's supposed to sound (plus a little excercise with only the rhythm in both hands and then only with the right hand).

Mike, could you maybe put numbers under the second bar of the skyfall sheet? The one I have in my first post. My teacher had me clap the beat and it went well 4 out of 10 times. I asked him to put it in counting (more technical than based of of hearing). He wrote down: 1 2 3 4 uhh and e. But I'm not exactly sure where to put those in the second bar.

4 = 1/16
uhh =  2/16
and = 3/16
e = 4/16

Making it a quarter note. But I still can't grasp it=/. Also the first f sharp eight should be like this right:

 1 2 3(F) e 4 uh and e

The Mozart pieces is going well btw.

[mikeowski]

I hope this will clear things up a bit:

The first bar shows the "flattened out" rhythm (last measure from my previous skyfall-rhythm picture) with eigths in the left, the second with 16ths in the left.

Here I've added the words of your teacher the way I think he meant it.

Please ask if you don't understand something.

edit: wait, I will do the actual second measure now, I think I understood what your problem is.
Here it is:


The first F# is on "and", not on "e"

[outin]

Thanks. The skyfall is just not working in my favor=/.

I wonder...would it help if you used a little mathematics to figure out different rhythms? Then you wouldn't need someone to tell you how to count, you could figure it out yourself. You could practice this simple exercise: Find the shortest durating note in any measure. Make it a "count unit". Then analyze all the other notes in that measure, how many count units go into them. Write down the count units as counts (1 2 and so on, in as many groups as necessary depending on the time signature). Do this separately for RH and LH, then just see which count units fall on the same notes on both hands. This might help you understand better the interaction of the notes in the two hands.

[ranniks]

I hope this will clear things up a bit:

The first bar shows the "flattened out" rhythm (last measure from my previous skyfall-rhythm picture) with eigths in the left, the second with 16ths in the left.

Here I've added the words of your teacher the way I think he meant it.

Please ask if you don't understand something.

edit: wait, I will do the actual second measure now, I think I understood what your problem is.
Here it is:


The first F# is on "and", not on "e"

You are a hero, thank you! Now I'll learn the piece correctly and then get the groove down while feeling it.

I wonder...would it help if you used a little mathematics to figure out different rhythms? Then you wouldn't need someone to tell you how to count, you could figure it out yourself. You could practice this simple exercise: Find the shortest durating note in any measure. Make it a "count unit". Then analyze all the other notes in that measure, how many count units go into them. Write down the count units as counts (1 2 and so on, in as many groups as necessary depending on the time signature). Do this separately for RH and LH, then just see which count units fall on the same notes on both hands. This might help you understand better the interaction of the notes in the two hands.

Maybe, and that's not a bad idea about the notes, but I'd rather ask for help to make sure.

If I didn't ask for help with the Mozart piece, I wouldn't be able to play it correctly. My teacher told me somewhat what Mike said about the counting, but using that image that he made it suddenly became clear. Now I can apply that to other pieces, which is good.

Also, when I showed my teacher the Mozart piece with counting after Mike helped me out, he didn't say it was wrong. He nodded and said it was good and we moved on to the other meassures. So it did help.

It's like math/phyics, you just can't get your head around it, until you have that 'aha' moment.

The second bar of the skyfall piece is just hard (for me that is)...Because you have a 1/16 break, so someone pointing out where to push the key is very welcome.

[outin]

Also, when I showed my teacher the Mozart piece with counting after Mike helped me out, he didn't say it was wrong. He nodded and said it was good and we moved on to the other meassures. So it did help.

I'm glad it helped, but there's the danger that your teacher now thinks you can figure out these things on your own and won't teach you how to actually do it. Which I really think he should instead of just giving instructions how to count. Because once you learn how to analyze the measures yourself, you will never have any trouble counting again in new pieces (at least not until you run into polyrhythms). And you also will know exactly which notes to play together in your hands.