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!