Don't Count On It

 

Once again I find myself wanting to write about rhythm. Without rhythm there would be no music. 

I am still amazed at how many people, even some who have been playing the piano for a few years, are just stumped by rhythm, and others who ignore it almost entirely.

If you are improvising (solo), you can theoretically ignore rhythm. There is no such thing as NO rhythm. But you could have a rambling, unsteady, incoherent rhythm, and, I suppose, if it doesn't bother you and no one else is listening, then who am I to say it's not good. But if you improvise with or for others, you will find no one will want to be your partners or your audience. And if you continue this way, focusing just on "the notes," your improvising will not improve.

Now we will address the more common situation, playing music from written musical notation. If you tried to teach yourself, you may have had no idea how to go about learning to read and hear rhythm. If you had a teacher, she/he should have given you the training and tools to hear the rhythm, and to understand the rhythmic notation. However, intellectual understanding is not enough; you must connect the hearing and understanding to a deep knowledge in your body to be able to actually play them. Sadly, many teachers and many books and many "methods" don't really do this. It has to be taught in a way which engages the physical, not just the mental. Knowing the "math" of rhythm is not enough.

So for hundreds of years teachers and pedagogues have searched for tools that could help with the learning of rhythm. Unfortunately, the one most commonly used is "counting," which is a blunt instrument indeed. As you are probably aware, counting involves saying (out loud) the number of the beat (e.g. one-two-three-four), and when the beat divides in two, adding a syllable between the beat (e.g. one-and-two-and etc.). If the beat divides further, more syllables are added. Proponents of this method insist you must count at all times. 

There are SO MANY problems with this, yet I am going to attempt to list them all.

1. Counting is basically putting the cart before the horse. Or perhaps it's more of a "catch-22." If you can hear the rhythm, you don't need to count or put any other words to it. If you really can't hear it, no amount of counting will help you, because you can still just say those numbers in the wrong rhythm and not even realize it. We all have a pulse within us, 24/7, moment of birth until moment of death, so I firmly believe everyone can hear (and replicate) a steady pulse. No need to say "one two three four" to hear it. (Yes, there are those few who are challenged to clap to the beat when hearing music, but they are a small minority and could improve with proper training.) Let's say our beat is a quarter note, and when the beat divides you have eighth notes. It is still like a pulse, just twice as fast. Same thing if it divides again. The problem is, of course, that actual music has these in different and ever-changing patterns. So, if your counting isn't 100% consistent, and even, it will still be a mess. With my method, I break down the more complex rhythms into a simpler ones, then "fill in" more of the "divisions" step by step, until the whole thing is fleshed out. I realize this may be unclear just from the description, but suffice it to say that, like many things we do, we start with the basic structure and add details litte by little. That being said, if the student is attempting to play a piece with really complex rhythms and is getting lost in it, then they may not be ready for that particular piece, and I would assign simpler pieces (rhythm-wise) and work up to the complex ones.

2. The system of counting began hundreds of years ago, when music was not nearly as complex as it is now. The system never really came up with an adequate method of using numbers and words when the beat divides in three instead of two or four, which is quite common. Teachers have devised all sorts of words to supposedly help with this problem, but again, it's entirely possible to say these words in a different rhythm than the one you intended. Counting is completely useless for non-standard divisions of the beat (see my post on this topic) such as five or seven, which may not have been used by early composers, but is very common in all the composers of the Romantic era and everything since then.

3. Counting is pathetic when it comes to jazz or pop. The idea of counting was formulated when the most "stressed" notes fall ON the beat. Thus, the other syllables such as the "and" and uh" are not as stressed. But what about syncopation, where the most "important" notes (or words, if it's a song) are occuring OFF the beats. Counting becomes very awkward. It was just never imagined that there would be a need for a system to accomodate this type of music.

4. Counting is totally useless for poly-rhythms, for example one hand playing in duplets (normal eighth notes) and the other in triplets. You obviously can't be saying both at once. Proponents of counting would just tell you to play each hand separately as you count, then put them together. I can assure, it's the putting them together that is the challenge. No amount of counting is going to help "wire your brain" to hear two different rhythms at once. (See my post on this topic.)

5. Counting is too slow. You can really only do it if you are playing fairly slowly. If you have to count "one-ee-and-uh two-ee-and-uh" for sixteenth notes, you can't say it fast enough for a lot of music that would actually have sixteenth notes.

6. Since counting itself is unreliable, the use of the metronome was introduced. Theoretically, having the metronome tick away in a steady pulse is supposed to help you with the rhythm. But as we have seen, the pulse is not the problem. It's all the stuff that happens within the beat that makes it complicated. Use of the metronome, making yourself a slave to an external machine, is never going to give YOU a good sense of rhythm, or help you play with rhythmic vitality. If you somehow manage to use it and get all your rhythm "correct," it will be lifeless and dull. By the time you wean yourself off it, it will be too late. Your habit of playing without any rhythmic nuance and subtelty will be too entrenched. Once again, some proponents of the metronome insist you use it almost all the time.

7. You can't really be listening to your own playing if you have to constantly hear the chatter of all those numbers and syllables. Our goal is to strengthen the connection between ear and body (arms, hands, etc.). Inserting mental and verbal activity such as counting is a distraction and is going to impede your progress.

8. Proponents of counting never do say when you can finally stop doing it! I've read the blogs and articles of many counting enthusiasts, and I have yet to find one who tells you when you don't need it anymore. Should you wean yourself off or go cold turkey? I hope you realize that concert pianists and other highly accomplished players DO NOT COUNT in their practicing. Many probably never did. If their their early teachers insisted on it, they just stopped doing it because they learned to hear the rhythm and simply realized they didn't need to count.

9. And finally, I want to point out that the people who play the most complex rhythms, such as African and Latin drummers, and many jazz musicians, never learned to play with counting nor with the metronome.

There are so many people who advocate using counting and the metronome, sternly warning you that you would ignore this at your peril! So you may be inclined to think there must be some truth in it if so many people believe it. I hope this post has convinced you otherwise. Our understanding and our methods have evolved over the years in almost every field of endeavor -- sports, science, medicine, to name a few -- yet piano methods seem largely stuck in the 1700s. If you still want to follow those methods because you are comfortable with them, or any other reason, and think you will someday play with beauty, fluency and mastery, I would say: DON'T COUNT ON IT!

Making Your Own Song Arrangements

 

You've read in my previous posts that I encourage students to play music other than classical music, at least a little, even if they are mostly interested in classical. It has a lot of skills to teach you.

When beginners start with me (and even not-so-beginners), I always start with playing by ear. They pick out the melodies for familiar songs such as Happy Birthday, Silent Night, Amazing Grace, and so on. I teach them about chords, starting with major triads, but they need to learn all twelve, not just the ones which fall all on white keys (which I've seen many students do). They harmonize the songs with the chords (just three chords for those songs), by ear, but with my guidance as necessary. We continue on to more songs, finding ones that require more chords.

Not only do you need to use your ear to determine which chords to select, you need to use your ear to tell you where they come. This will build your sense of rhythm and your understanding of musical architecture. Many people think the chord is one that has the melody note in it, but this is not necessarily the case. The musical architecture is more important here. You may not quite understand what I mean by architecture, but just for starters, read my post "Going Away and Coming Home."

Soon after, they learn all twelve minor chords, then augmented and diminished traids, then 7th chords, eventually learning all five kinds of 7th chords. At this point they know 108 chords. It is important to stress here that you must learn the chords by learning how they are built, not reading them from a book or chord chart. If you learn them by reading them or other methods which just show you which keys to play, you will never really know them well. It's the difference between giving you a fish and teaching you how to fish. If you currently have a teacher who cannot teach you this, or thinks it is not important, I strongly suggest you find a new teacher. (One of my current students had a previous teacher who told him that "the learning curve was too steep" to learn all about chords! Isn't that what a teacher is supposed to be helping you with?)

You originally learn all the chords in root position, but later your must also learn to play the inversions with ease. This means the notes of the chord are re-arranged. It is the equivalent of a whole egg vs. a scrambled egg. You must know the "egg" first, then you can scramble it.

In addition to being able to play dozens, if not hundreds of songs, you will be getting a lot of ear training and a lot of experience with chords. Not to mention that most people find this fun and satisfying. They can sit down at the piano and play for friends and family at a social gathering, playing music which many people may recognize and really enjoy.

The next step would be to play from "fake books" (also called "real books") where the melody is written in standard musical notation but the chords are written with symbols, which of course I taught them when the learned the chords. With this approach, you can learn and play many songs you might not have been able to figure out by ear. (Which doesn't mean you shouldn't still try.) You would continue playing the chords blocked (meaning all the notes at once) in root position in the left hand. This arrangement sounds perfectly fine, although it lacks something that a more complex and elaborate arrangement would have.

The next step, therefore, is moving the chords to the right hand, which frees up the left hand to play in the lower registers of the piano, which gives more richness to the arrangement, as well as being able to add some rhythmic interest. To put the chords in the right hand means that the melody note must always be at the top (the highest note). If it were not, we wouldn't identify it as the melody. (You don't want to "bury" the melody note inside the chord.) That means the chord tones will fall underneath the melody note. Therefore, many, if not most, of the chords will end up being an inversion (as opposed to root position). It takes a while (for many students) for the hand to just find those chords quickly, but eventually it will.

The left hand arrangement will differ if it is a slow, lyrical song, vs. an upbeat faster song. It is beyond the scope of this post to describe the myriad things the left hand can do. But even if it is simple, having chords in the right hand and even just one note (probably the root of the chord) in the left, will give you  a very pleasing result. And remember, if you can do this, without having read the chords in notation, from a book, it means you really know your chords.

Even if you think you want to play 100% classical music, I believe it's wise to devote some time to doing this as well. I've had many people come to me for lessons, and they may play a Chopin Nocturne, but when I ask them to play a simple rendition of Happy Birthday they can't do it. They ask to see the sheet music! Or I will point to a place in their classical piece and ask what chord it is, and they don't have a clue. Even though I've seen it dozens of times, I'm still shocked when this happens. Chords are one of the building blocks of our music. If you play clarinet or any single-line instrument, you don't have many opportunities to learn about harmony (chords), unless you go to a good music school or conservatory, in which case you absolutely are required to learn them. But as pianists, we are virtually never NOT playing chords. So it behooves you to at least understand what you are playing, but even better, to achieve mastery of it.

Are We Having Fun Yet?

 

When people contact me to inquire about starting piano lessons with me, they often say "I'm just doing this for my own enjoyment," to which I reply, "what other reason is there?"

All of my students are adults. Some are total beginners, and many are returning to the piano after an absence. Either way, it is quite clear to them that they aren't going to become concert pianists or make a career of music. This is virtually impossible. (I say "virtually" because there was the case of a man who was a doctor by profession, was struck by lightning on the golf course, and when he woke up in the hospital he had an overwhelming desire to devote his life to music. He became a composer and conductor with a succesful career. But I'm sure you don't want to be struck by lighting to achieve this result for yourself!)

Having fun is goal number one. Yes it's going to be work and effort to make progress and play really well. There are days that will be frustrating and even discouraging. But it will all be ultimately worth it if the majority of the time you find it to be FUN.

Hearing a piece of music come to life under your hands can be very exciting. Opening up a page of music and playing it through is very gratifying. Improvising and/or playing with others can be a great experience. So what are the things that prevent your piano studies from being fun? Here are the main ones.

1. Turning your practice sessions into drudgery. Many people believe that drudgery, endless repetition, and grueling or boring exercises are just part of the territory in learning to play the piano. Not true!! Playing scales, arpeggios or other "finger exercises" for hours is not the way to learn, and certainly not the way to learn to play with emotion and expression. Yet many teachers still will tell their students to do these things. Some repetition is needed, but it must be very targeted to solve an actual problem.

2. Having too limited a "diet." A woman came to see me last week who had been studying piano on and off for several years. She told me she had played almost all the Clementi Sonatinas, as well as some Haydn and Mozart, but not much else. Nothing written in the last 200 years. Since she didn't know anything else, she may not realize what potential fun she is missing out on. But someday she may realize it, and then it will be lot of time lost. In addition to a wide range of classical music, I urge my students to also play some jazz, pop, and Broadway, as well as to improvise. All of these will make you a better pianist, not to mention being fun.

3. Adherence to a rigid method or routine. There are a large number of "methods" (e.g. Suzuki) or curriculums (e.g. ABRSM -- Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music), and others developed by schools or individuals, too numerous to list here. In Suzuki there must be a strict following of the methods and there is no room for individual differences. In APRSM, there is a curriculum of exercises and pieces which must be practiced and learned in the prescribed order, followed by exams which must be passed before moving on. I really believe this is absurd. Every student is different. Some have a good ear but can't sight-read, others the reverse. Some have good coordination but cannot play with emotion, others the reverse. I find some students keep practicing things they can already do reasonably well, just out of habit, but then ignore other aspects of playing because no one "told" them to do it. I tailor all my lessons to each individual, working more on their weaker areas, but still continuing to improve their stronger ones. Most importantly, all students do not play the exact same music. Before assigning a piece, I want to make sure they enjoy the sound of it. If not, we choose something else that will develop the same skills. You wouldn't expect a doctor to give the same exact medical advice to every patient. Learning to play the piano is not a "one-size-fits-all." Following a rigid plan or schedule makes it easier for the teacher because they don't have to put a lot of thought into each lesson, but it's not better for the student.

4. Bad teachers. By this I mean a teacher who insists you do all of the above mentioned items. Or it could just be the teacher is cold, critical, un-caring, or seems bored with teaching. Or they could be un-professional, unrealiable (e.g. cancelling a lot of lessons). Some are just unqualified: they can't play well themselves and can neither demonstrate nor explain the many aspects of music theory, technique, etc., and wave their students' concerns off with statements like "you don't really need to know that." I have had many students describe their previous teachers as doing all of the above. The relationship with the teacher is critically important. The teacher must be very invested in the student's progress, yet also kind and caring. They need to be "friendly" but not be "casual" about the lessons or expect you to be their friend. Sadly, there are a great number of incompetent and un-kind teachers out there.

I'm sorry if I paint a bleak picture. Of course there are many excellent teachers as well. But sometimes the student has to kiss a lot of frogs before finding the prince.