I literally bursted in laugh with your beatbox example. Great Great videos, and very generous of you making this information available to everyone. Thanks a lot John!.
You briefly glossed over one of the big things I think is the culprit when you mentioned people spending "2-3 months hacking through a piece." This has become such the standard in the classical/academic world, and particularly in the piano world. There such a focus on rep that is honestly out of the technical reach of the students. Instead of learning a small number of very difficult pieces over the course of several months, they could instead have learned a dozen or more pieces that are at a level in which they have much more control. This would allow them to spend a huge amount more of their time in a place where rhythm was consistent. I would also further cement a solid foundation that they can continue to build on. It's often argued that technique won't improve, but that's just not true. Any piece you can't sightread probably has something technical you can learn from it. The sticking point is often some unfamiliar or uncomfortable chord shape, or a problem with vertical alignment of unfamiliar rhythms between hands, or maybe just a pure technical execution issue. But in more level appropriate music, those ideas are often easier to isolate and master, all while having much more control of what is being played and spending less time baking in mistakes from repeating in incorrectly dozens of times. If someone wanted to juggle 6 lit torches, they wouldn't start with 6 lit torches. They would start with maybe two bean bags and get their foundations and slowly ramp up from there. But too often in the current academic music tradition, we just tell students if they want to juggle 6 torches they should just start juggling 6 torches and see how many months it takes for them to figure it out. With piano, there are just too many things going on. If they are dealing with half a dozen unfamiliar concepts simultaneously, their progress will be incredible slow and incredibly inefficient. There is an emphasis put on having the fundamentals of scales and arpeggios in place, but so much less emphasis on good rhythm and consistently accurate sightreading or often even on the theory knowledge that ties it all together. The paradigm of 3 pieces of rep a semester honestly needs to die away. In the real world, unless you're teaching privately or at a university, nobody cares that you can prepare some Liszt with a 3 month head start (or at all). They care if you can learn or sightread a stack of music with maybe a week or two of heads up with consistent enough rhythm to play with other musicians. The vast majority of jobs involve collaborative piano either as an accompanist or playing in a rhythm section from a jazz combo or other contemporary ensemble.
Very good point about "three big pieces per semester". While I do think some things can only be learned by working a long time on very difficult music, I agree that for the most part students' time is better spent on shorter projects, collaborative work, and improvisation.
That's interesting. Classical pianists have the temptation of rubato they can use to cheat when they just can't play a passage in tempo. I attended a master class by Eteri Andjaparidze where she called out a student for masking a technical weakness with rubato. The student was very advanced, but even at that level, evidently there are still technical roadblocks.
"You have to understand music much more, while almost anyone can teach a students to regurgitate what's on the page like a trained monkey." I don't believe that is true. I played jazz bass for several years and got to the point where I could walk through 'Giant Steps', or walk through a new song from the fakebook on the spot in front of an audience. I find when Chopin or Liszt really go of the rails, it's impossible to learn by rote. I have to break down the patterns and do a note-by-note analysis, using every scrap of theory I know to get to the skeleton. I don't memorize the notes, I memorize the skeleton. And I'm just an amateur pianist, I can't imagine I'm doing more mental work than conservatory students. There's a fascinating master class by Barry Harris here on RUclips where he calls out classical pianists for not knowing the 'changes' of Chopin pieces they play. I found that so interesting, so I looked again at the horrifying chromatic cascade in the middle of Scherzo #3 (leading back to the equally horrifying leggierissimo). I'd deconstructed the cascade fairly thoroughly, to the point where I could visualize every interval away from the piano. In doing so, I'd never realized that Chopin had chosen the notes in the cascade (with a key exception) from a descending set of dominant 7 chords -- if you want to think of the cascade as 'changes.' But I didn't find that was very useful to my analysis. Anybody can write descending 7th chords, that's not Chopin. 'Changes' doesn't come close to describing what's happening in that passage. To play the cascade or the leggierissimo, I need to understand the complex note-by-note interval relationships between the right and left hands. That's Chopin! A jazz musician naturally thinks in terms of 'changes' because that's how the fakebook is laid out. I follow the changes to walk the bass. In a classical score, we don't get chord changes, we get insane accidentals flying all over the place. I couldn't possibly follow all those accidentals without applying theory. And I'm sure conservatory students delve far, far deeper than I do. So I don't think Harris's criticism is valid. Just because classical pianists don't see a composition through the eyes of a jazz musician doesn't mean they are mindlessly regurgitating notes on a page. God have mercy! I'd think you'd end up hospitalized if you tried to learn Chopin or Liszt mindlessly.
I just wanted to say that your videos are absolutely fantastic. I am a guitarist and don't play piano at all, but I find the things you discuss to be amazingly helpful and interesting to me. Much of what you teach applies to any instrument. Many lesson videos on youtube are all shtick and vanity, and not so much on giving good information about actually playing music or improving yourself. Anyway, I thank you and I am really glad that I stumbled upon your lessons.
very true, I came to the same realization my rhythm was bad when I started playing non-classical music with others and your explanation makes a lot of sense
This is exactly what I was looking for! I was just talking about how a lot of pianists drift around the actual beat and fall behind or jump ahead sometimes and nobody agreed with me! Thank you for making me feel sane
I don't play classical, but truly appreciate it. I play gospel , contemporary, etc. I think classical has so much value to all music and truly appreciate you sharing your knowledge. Even if other players don't realize it, a lot of what they play has techniques born in classical.
I used to play Irish Folk Guitar in pubs including bluegrass, it did wonders for my rhythm. I would play complicated pieces at home in my own time, but playing basic chords which you'd have to change to in real time with a solid rhythm from banjos, squeezebox, guitar, violin, flute etc. etc. made so much difference. Most times I'd never know the songs that were played by name, if at all. HOWEVER, transferring to piano as a second instrument has been a blessing and a curse in this respect. It's very easy to play a robotic rhythm, such as ragtime... but it takes more work to gain that instinctive, fluid rhythm (or lack of) in other pieces, I struggle knowing exactly when to just slow down, speed up or keep the tempo which seems like a particularly expressive element.
Dr. John, I had a classical background in high school but was never a very good player. About a year ago, I decided to go back to the piano and take lessons in jazz. My teacher is a New Orlean's style cat with nine fingers. In his world, every rhythm has to be nailed at full speed right from the start and you're simply not allowed to miss a turn. The flip side is, though, is that you can mess up a large percentage of notes so long as you hit the basic ones. It is taken as given that nobody can play a (NOLA) Dr. John score -- and, in fact, the score isn't even right -- if anything, it's an interesting suggestion. If a riff doesn't fit your hand, you don't try to solve the problem, you change the riff. And, in fact, you don't even have to take the key very seriously, as long as you kind of stay within the local circle of fifths. It was explained to me that there is "the white key (including C,F,G,Bb), the black key, (Ab,Db,Eb,Gb), and the guitar key (E,A,B - avoid it if you can)". The point being that if you don't have to worry about notes and fingerings and are allowed to bang on the black keys to keep the tempo up while you re-set a confused right hand, there is a lot more time practice time available for heady, syncopated rhythms. That being said, your videos have done wonders for me! Even living in a world where it is considered intellectually stunted to play notes as written, there is nothing wrong (and quite a lot right) with actually being able to do so! Thank you!
Another point worth mentioning is that many young pianists listen to recording of their favorite pieces and/or pieces they are learning and are therefore relying more on their ear when learning the piece, which already includes (ideally, carefully crafted) rubato, thus they are not paying precise attention to the notated rhythm and are glossing over all kinds of issues because they want to be able to play it like they hear it.
Rhythm is the foundations that hold the building up, without strong rhythm the whole building will, at least wobble, or at worse, totally collapse. My career was as a lieder accompanist, where string rhythm is absolutely essential. Now as I am nearer the end of my career I am preparing to record Iberia from Albeniz, which is 'maybe' more about rhythm than any other piece I have played. I love your videos and admire your way of communicating to your audience.
I got my own method for practising a piece, I start out by practising a very small part of the score slowly, and then I'll get the rythm right, after that I try to play it in a faster tempo with the good rythm and notes etc., I do this to the multiple parts and when I have finished a part I will try to play it with the parts I practised earlier. This is a very time-consuming method, but I surely pays of. It also keeps you from getting bored all the time when you are trying to practise slowly :)...
I like what your teacher did, John. I've been unwittingly doing the same thing, breaking down every bar into the down beats and only play those notes in my first number of runs on a piece. Great video, btw.
one thing that causes this a lot of times is the amount of complexity in the notes. sometimes it’s a feat of dexterity to play some pieces in rythym depending on what your playing.
Hello Dr. Mortensen!! I am really enjoying your videos, and the "classical music" perspective they offer. I am coming from more of a contemporary, jazz and Latin music background. Talk about rhythm!! More recently I have been starting to learn classical piano as a means of improving my reading, gaining functional piano skills, and diversifying my musical palette. In my very first lessons my teacher would note my strong rhythmic feel.. sounds like maybe lots of other students are practicing the way you describe. Here is where I think my approach is different: first, for somebody like me that learned music by imitating records, improvising with friends and playing by feel, at first I found it difficult to make sense of a piece of written music unless I read it simultaneously with a metronome. Next, having beginner technique and attempting early- to late- intermediate pieces (to avoid intellectual boredom) I spend lots of time on very small sections - maybe I look at 2 particularly challenging bars at an 8th of the intended playing speed, with a metronome clicking out the 8th notes or even 16th notes, while I struggle to make my fingers do the right thing. By the time I have figured out the mechanics, the rhythm is burnt into my brain. As I build confidence with sections of the piece, I draw from a variety of metronome games like playing the piece with the metronome on the 2 and the 4, or maybe just the 1, or even the "and" of 2, for an obscure example (or other variations depending on the time signatures!). Only when I have the thing totally under control in a super slow, even tempo do I start to incorporate the "ebbing pulse" (tempo and volume dynamics) that is often written into classical music (rather than the constant, driving pulse more typical of styles like rock, jazz, or salsa). Finally, an anecdotal recount of a life changing moment from my first attempt at a "scat" solo over Jobim's "Desafinado". My instructor told me, "it sounds like you're focusing on trying to find the right notes and you've forgotten about your rhythm". she went on to demonstrate how all the "right" notes with no rhythm can come across as a ramble, and all sorts of "wrong" notes can sound amazing if played with rhythmic conviction. Cheers!
Spot on. This is why I have all of my students work with the metronome from day one. And they must count aloud while they play. It changes EVERYTHING. Thanks for this video!
I am guilty of doing exactly what you described - 'hacking' my way through it. What I usually do when I get to a point where I can play a piece reasonably well is introduce the metronome and force myself to obey it. This can take a while, sometimes. Once I can play it in a very slow tempo, I begin to raise the tempo until I reach a point that is either at the top of my ability or is at the indicated tempo. It is then that I work in any fluctuations in timing that the composer indicates. It is sometimes a slow and frustrating process, but when it finally comes together, it seems to come together quickly. Thank you for the video. - Side note: modern music is very beat driven and always has a strong back-beat. Classical music; not so much. This might contribute to some of the rhythm issues as well.
7 лет назад+2
I love your videos, such a great teacher. Really like the way you are explaining things and using comparements to do it. Keep doing it, as still a beginer pianist it helps me so so much!
I discovered my love for (real) music fairly late. I started playing the piano when I was about 17 but I had no opportunity to play a piano regularly until I was 20; that was when I fell in love with Bach. For some years I thought that maybe the Piano is not the right instrument for me, so I started to play the Violin. Now I am 25 and can play some advanced stuff fairly well (I have enough passion for being disciplined), but my repertoire is small and I know that I will never become a student at a conservatory. Your videos matter quite a lot for me. Thank you for uploading
Interesting take on the problem of rhythm. It is something I have struggled with most of my life. I tend to play better when I'm playing for listening rather than for someone to sing along. To add to your beatbox example. I was thinking that those who play Bluegrass, or similar, are more likely to be playing for fun. This is not to say that they do not practice or that they do not get paid, but they are less concerned with perfection and more interested in having a good time. It's common to see others join in at random times and play along and the one thing that holds it all together is the rhythm.
I deal with this in three ways: 1. Many rhythmic problems are caused early on by attempting to coordinate the hands, so whenever this is the case, it is highly beneficial to drill hands separately at a steady rhythm 2. Even though this is controversial for some, I do think practicing in a rhythmically precise way at a very slow tempo is often very helpful. Of course, some of the feeling of the phrasing will not be accurate at the slow tempo, but I think that is okay because in my opinion the precision gained will allow more flexibility in shaping the phrase at a faster tempo. 3. Finally, one must have the patience to break the music into the smallest unit that you can learn to play with rhythmic accuracy in a session. I feel that it's okay to open a session with a sloppy sight reading of the whole piece to help comprehend the work as a whole, but then you really have to break it up and work on small chunks, even half-bar if necessary, and get those chunks consistent with both rhythm
wow so true! i spent alot of time learning 3 against two wrong in a bach prelude. was a nightmare to unlearn..... like learning downbeats first and then filling in!
Hey John, recent subscriber here. I really like your videos but your voice is a bit quiet in comparison to other youtube videos. A little volume boost or compression would help a lot.
Also many musicians begin learning their instrument in school with other students and their instruments so from day one they are trying to sound good together which includes staying on the same tempo and following a conductor. Piano is pretty solitary.
Such fantastic observations! And thank you for the suggestions about how to improve, too. I like the idea of playing a skeleton to begin with, I’m going to try it. You’re a great teacher, your students are lucky! London
When learning complex music, it’s tougher to keep to the beat, so yes, classical pianists would tend to spend more time outside a good solid beat. True, very much so, but not EZ to avoid when not an advanced player or starting a new piece.
You are an excellent teacher. Informative and entertaining plus having many more positive attributes. Only wish I was starting music now at a young age. 😂
I always had a hunch about the fact that learning the usual way people do learn classical music does not help you enough with rhythm :) and I always had a problem with the metronome / thus also playing with others and thought it's maybe more my problem as I am just an amateur and maybe just not good enough ... but I realize it can be anyone's problem if they only learn this type of music and don't practice it properly.
I think that many pianists shortchange the primacy of rhythm in classical music. Rubato has its place but it must be in the context of the actual notated rhythm. I remember once playing Debussy's famous "Clair de lune" for another classically-trained pianist. He asked me, "Why is it that the music sounds so right as you play it?" My answer was that I simply play exactly what Debussy notated, not some sentimental, mooning, arrhythmic mash. Doing that works because Debussy wrote into the notation exactly what he wanted, rather than something notationally simpler and more direct but which could not guarantee getting from a pianist what he really wanted of it.
What you say about failing to learn the rhythm - the pulse - in the early practice time is true, but I also think that most classical music has comparatively less complex and more predictable rhythm than almost any other musical genre. And to me, that means that the typical classical pianist doesn't have to work at it as much to get it right, or at least has more time to learn it eventually. Everyone else has to get it right as soon as they start.
@@PsychHacks Those are cool. My point was merely that some classical composers such as Scriabin are in fact astonishly complex and unpredictable in their rhythmic construction.
@@cedarvillemusic That wouldn't surprise me. But don't you think that Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart and many other composers are less so, and that that might be why so many piano students aren't as diligent about rhythm in the early days as they should be?
@@PsychHacks I do understand why you might say that, especially when thinking of classical music that proceeds in unbroken, constant 16ths. But the rhythmic complexities of (say) Beethoven and Brahms are very subtle and sophisticated. For just one example, take the surprising and uneven phrase-rhythms of Brahms.
By the way, I gave a song of mine to my grandad (as sheet music) and he massacred it, taking no note of the *deliberately* metronomic, clockwork-like rhythm. He didn't grasp, despite the brief instruction at the start, that the song was meant to be tight, the beats always important (the song is about a life of gratitude and losing, especially losing time). Classically trained, played the organ for his church. Poor sense of rhythm, he had no swing.
I think this problem of classical artists not having the best sense of rhythm even extends to conductors. Symphonies should grip you, at all times. Was listening to a William Schuman symphony where it really didn't have much of a sense of coherence.
Wow, I'm a bit of a contrarian devil's advocate in general but when I come across your vids I find myself agreeing with most of it and learning a lot in the process too! Subscribed of course!...
Very important! My brother, who has no formal music training and plays by ear, has that “pulse”. I have good knowledge of theory and formal training, but I cannot play as well as my brother. He also started out playing drums. Perhaps that helped.
Guilty as charged. I'm badly sightreading Bach Chorales (2 voices) and my rhythm is flatlining. I might look for some Bach Beat Box medleys and remedy that.
I'm not sure which piece you're talking about. It might be Beethoven's Sonata No. 21, called the "Waldstein" sonata: ruclips.net/video/v-U-23qI9gs/видео.html Mortensen also talks about this Beethoven sonata, No. 5 in C minor: ruclips.net/video/GuMzYleEPRE/видео.html
0:50 I totally disagree with Dr. John here about classical musicians not having a good sense of rhythm. I'm a jazz pianist , and often play with a drummer and bassist, both of whom produce the rhythm needed so I can play harmony and melody. Classical musicians usually don't have rhythm players keeping time, but despite this, string sections, horn sections, woodwinds..everything outside of the percussion section, continue to amaze me on how well they create VERY rhythmic music from scores whose main focus is on melody, harmony, and contrapuntal obbligato accompanyment. Classical players can really rock, swing and groove as well as anyone, given that they are playing scores that require such rhythmic feels.
Jazzers and rockers begin to make a living by playing dance halls. Classical musicians make their living by playing to seated audiences who are frightened to move. "It don't mean a thing If it ain't got that swing."
I think one of the reasons is a classical player cant and will never add something to the piece from themselves. And thats kinda disappointment after all these hard work. While any simple musician can add anything they want even it was not a good idea. So classical people getting to add something in other places, like rhythm and nuances, which doesnt satisfies much :-D while other simple musicians are having their fun. Also you halfly mentioned, probably you had this on your mind, some music such as jazz is completely depending on rhythm which makes it more fundamental on these genres thus makes those who plays it more strong on this matter.
"I think one of the reasons is a classical player cant and will never add something to the piece from themselves." 1. You are either not listening to good classical musicians or 2. you may not know how to listen with an informed ear.
I don’t understand why this would even be an issue if you used a metronome and took it one measure at a time. If you take it in measures or a small series of measures, would it not change the time spent with bad rhythm drastically? I think trying to process a whole piece, or even page, at a time would increase the time spent trying to understand the piece, therefore making you less efficient. I don’t play piano, and I can barely read sheet music, so please excuse me if I sound like a jackass in writing this.
Lucky you didn't venture into improvisation, where you can throw rhythm out the window... (it just becomes one of many improvisational tools). Thinking further, I've noticed that the main problem with rhythm (and this goes for every other facet of music) is when the performer does not 'listen' to what is actually occurring. If the performer does not 'hear' what just happened (with a pianist, the mind would be occupied visually with the keys and patterns), the performer will not know what to do next to 'keep it right' according to one's tastes, and according to the emotional/mental image 'story' that is going on (but now I am digressing into artistry) - meaning each performance is a new path not yet trod - exploration and reaction (mindframes which I don't think can be taught) (and I'm not even going to get into 'character') (OK, I'll just mention it - it is the accumulation of artistic decisions you've made in a piece, and over your career). ('Personality' would be those things you cannot (and really should not, you being unique) control)...
Intentionally copy Vladimir Horowitz’ rhythmic feel as often as possible
7 лет назад+4
Here's my humble opinion: The music you want to learn has to be gradual in difficulty. Very gradual. I had a piano teacher who insisted on using pieces above my level, and I struggled too much. I fired her :)
I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm what might be termed an 'advanced beginner' at piano (I have quite a bit of musical experience and I'm a songwriter), but I looked at a few pieces almost at the start of a piano instruction book and thought 'why on Earth are these impossible pieces being set forth *here*, when I can barely do anything??!' Well, I tackled the impossible, learned that what is impossible today will not be tomorrow or the next day, and gained confidence and a sense of accomplishment. Had the student been fed tamer fare, without having to reach, the difficulty of piano arguably would have been reinforced and much less would have been taught/learned with the same investment of time.
cedarvillemusic I was just kidding...Anyways, some people are just wired with classical music and don’t want to learn or even bother to hear any other type of music, therefore limiting themselves... I love all kind of music specially flamenco, their rhythm it is awesome, 12/8 bars with emphasis on 3,6,8,10, and 12, depending on the type of flamenco genre...Music without cultural knowledge just make us robots reading music without really enjoying the music we play... some of the best musicians never learned how to read music and left a huge legacy, such as Paco De Lucia, and Django Reinhardt, they just played.
Ha ha! If you love teaching and are committed to seeing your students do well, you will get exasperated from time to time! If you don't care, you can always be chill...
I don't imagine a serious classical pianist would have any interest in jazz or such. Not as though there are not thousands of amazing classical pieces out there to master, which a non classical pianist could probably never play well. IF a classical pianist ever wanted to migrate into other genres I can guarantee they would learn the transition pretty easily, if they wanted.
What a daft idea, there is good music and bad music some of the finest classical pianists I know are indeed fascinated with jazz and explore many genres of music. Secondly to devalue entire traditions of music by saying they could be easily learned is just nonsense and an insult to all musicians who followed a path other than classical music. Thankfully this kind of snobbery is as rare as my RUclips replies
Most classical players can't make an easy transition to Jazz, Jazz is progressive music with odd time signatures and very advanced harmony and it requires locking in groove with other players, things classical pianists won't have as much exposure to. Getting a classical player to improvise over a jazz standard while grooving would take years in itself as it's so far removed from their usual repertoire
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
Your parody of a poor beatboxer just killed it.
hah :D
😂
I literally bursted in laugh with your beatbox example. Great Great videos, and very generous of you making this information available to everyone. Thanks a lot John!.
You briefly glossed over one of the big things I think is the culprit when you mentioned people spending "2-3 months hacking through a piece." This has become such the standard in the classical/academic world, and particularly in the piano world. There such a focus on rep that is honestly out of the technical reach of the students. Instead of learning a small number of very difficult pieces over the course of several months, they could instead have learned a dozen or more pieces that are at a level in which they have much more control. This would allow them to spend a huge amount more of their time in a place where rhythm was consistent. I would also further cement a solid foundation that they can continue to build on.
It's often argued that technique won't improve, but that's just not true. Any piece you can't sightread probably has something technical you can learn from it. The sticking point is often some unfamiliar or uncomfortable chord shape, or a problem with vertical alignment of unfamiliar rhythms between hands, or maybe just a pure technical execution issue. But in more level appropriate music, those ideas are often easier to isolate and master, all while having much more control of what is being played and spending less time baking in mistakes from repeating in incorrectly dozens of times.
If someone wanted to juggle 6 lit torches, they wouldn't start with 6 lit torches. They would start with maybe two bean bags and get their foundations and slowly ramp up from there. But too often in the current academic music tradition, we just tell students if they want to juggle 6 torches they should just start juggling 6 torches and see how many months it takes for them to figure it out. With piano, there are just too many things going on. If they are dealing with half a dozen unfamiliar concepts simultaneously, their progress will be incredible slow and incredibly inefficient.
There is an emphasis put on having the fundamentals of scales and arpeggios in place, but so much less emphasis on good rhythm and consistently accurate sightreading or often even on the theory knowledge that ties it all together. The paradigm of 3 pieces of rep a semester honestly needs to die away. In the real world, unless you're teaching privately or at a university, nobody cares that you can prepare some Liszt with a 3 month head start (or at all). They care if you can learn or sightread a stack of music with maybe a week or two of heads up with consistent enough rhythm to play with other musicians. The vast majority of jobs involve collaborative piano either as an accompanist or playing in a rhythm section from a jazz combo or other contemporary ensemble.
Brilliantly said.
Very good point about "three big pieces per semester". While I do think some things can only be learned by working a long time on very difficult music, I agree that for the most part students' time is better spent on shorter projects, collaborative work, and improvisation.
Down to earth, sensible and practical thinking 🤔
That's interesting. Classical pianists have the temptation of rubato they can use to cheat when they just can't play a passage in tempo. I attended a master class by Eteri Andjaparidze where she called out a student for masking a technical weakness with rubato. The student was very advanced, but even at that level, evidently there are still technical roadblocks.
"You have to understand music much more, while almost anyone can teach a students to regurgitate what's on the page like a trained monkey."
I don't believe that is true. I played jazz bass for several years and got to the point where I could walk through 'Giant Steps', or walk through a new song from the fakebook on the spot in front of an audience. I find when Chopin or Liszt really go of the rails, it's impossible to learn by rote. I have to break down the patterns and do a note-by-note analysis, using every scrap of theory I know to get to the skeleton. I don't memorize the notes, I memorize the skeleton. And I'm just an amateur pianist, I can't imagine I'm doing more mental work than conservatory students.
There's a fascinating master class by Barry Harris here on RUclips where he calls out classical pianists for not knowing the 'changes' of Chopin pieces they play. I found that so interesting, so I looked again at the horrifying chromatic cascade in the middle of Scherzo #3 (leading back to the equally horrifying leggierissimo). I'd deconstructed the cascade fairly thoroughly, to the point where I could visualize every interval away from the piano. In doing so, I'd never realized that Chopin had chosen the notes in the cascade (with a key exception) from a descending set of dominant 7 chords -- if you want to think of the cascade as 'changes.' But I didn't find that was very useful to my analysis. Anybody can write descending 7th chords, that's not Chopin. 'Changes' doesn't come close to describing what's happening in that passage. To play the cascade or the leggierissimo, I need to understand the complex note-by-note interval relationships between the right and left hands. That's Chopin!
A jazz musician naturally thinks in terms of 'changes' because that's how the fakebook is laid out. I follow the changes to walk the bass. In a classical score, we don't get chord changes, we get insane accidentals flying all over the place. I couldn't possibly follow all those accidentals without applying theory. And I'm sure conservatory students delve far, far deeper than I do.
So I don't think Harris's criticism is valid. Just because classical pianists don't see a composition through the eyes of a jazz musician doesn't mean they are mindlessly regurgitating notes on a page. God have mercy! I'd think you'd end up hospitalized if you tried to learn Chopin or Liszt mindlessly.
You had me at the mention of bluegrass and at 8:34 "Rhythm is the performers contract with the listener" gold statement
Bryan Jansen Toatally. Beautiful statement.
I just wanted to say that your videos are absolutely fantastic. I am a guitarist and don't play piano at all, but I find the things you discuss to be amazingly helpful and interesting to me. Much of what you teach applies to any instrument. Many lesson videos on youtube are all shtick and vanity, and not so much on giving good information about actually playing music or improving yourself. Anyway, I thank you and I am really glad that I stumbled upon your lessons.
Man, wish I could go back 20 years and be starting into college with a teacher like you 😖
very true, I came to the same realization my rhythm was bad when I started playing non-classical music with others and your explanation makes a lot of sense
This is exactly what I was looking for! I was just talking about how a lot of pianists drift around the actual beat and fall behind or jump ahead sometimes and nobody agreed with me! Thank you for making me feel sane
I don't play classical, but truly appreciate it. I play gospel , contemporary, etc. I think classical has so much value to all music and truly appreciate you sharing your knowledge. Even if other players don't realize it, a lot of what they play has techniques born in classical.
I used to play Irish Folk Guitar in pubs including bluegrass, it did wonders for my rhythm. I would play complicated pieces at home in my own time, but playing basic chords which you'd have to change to in real time with a solid rhythm from banjos, squeezebox, guitar, violin, flute etc. etc. made so much difference. Most times I'd never know the songs that were played by name, if at all.
HOWEVER, transferring to piano as a second instrument has been a blessing and a curse in this respect. It's very easy to play a robotic rhythm, such as ragtime... but it takes more work to gain that instinctive, fluid rhythm (or lack of) in other pieces, I struggle knowing exactly when to just slow down, speed up or keep the tempo which seems like a particularly expressive element.
You are a brilliant teacher a real inspiration. You speak from the heart and I totally relate to all your wisdom. Keep up the good work. 👍
Dr. John, I had a classical background in high school but was never a very good player. About a year ago, I decided to go back to the piano and take lessons in jazz. My teacher is a New Orlean's style cat with nine fingers. In his world, every rhythm has to be nailed at full speed right from the start and you're simply not allowed to miss a turn. The flip side is, though, is that you can mess up a large percentage of notes so long as you hit the basic ones. It is taken as given that nobody can play a (NOLA) Dr. John score -- and, in fact, the score isn't even right -- if anything, it's an interesting suggestion. If a riff doesn't fit your hand, you don't try to solve the problem, you change the riff. And, in fact, you don't even have to take the key very seriously, as long as you kind of stay within the local circle of fifths. It was explained to me that there is "the white key (including C,F,G,Bb), the black key, (Ab,Db,Eb,Gb), and the guitar key (E,A,B - avoid it if you can)".
The point being that if you don't have to worry about notes and fingerings and are allowed to bang on the black keys to keep the tempo up while you re-set a confused right hand, there is a lot more time practice time available for heady, syncopated rhythms.
That being said, your videos have done wonders for me! Even living in a world where it is considered intellectually stunted to play notes as written, there is nothing wrong (and quite a lot right) with actually being able to do so! Thank you!
Another point worth mentioning is that many young pianists listen to recording of their favorite pieces and/or pieces they are learning and are therefore relying more on their ear when learning the piece, which already includes (ideally, carefully crafted) rubato, thus they are not paying precise attention to the notated rhythm and are glossing over all kinds of issues because they want to be able to play it like they hear it.
Rhythm is the foundations that hold the building up, without strong rhythm the whole building will, at least wobble, or at worse, totally collapse. My career was as a lieder accompanist, where string rhythm is absolutely essential. Now as I am nearer the end of my career I am preparing to record Iberia from Albeniz, which is 'maybe' more about rhythm than any other piece I have played. I love your videos and admire your way of communicating to your audience.
Language teachers need to watch this video, as the same applies to getting fluent in a foreign language.
I got my own method for practising a piece, I start out by practising a very small part of the score slowly, and then I'll get the rythm right, after that I try to play it in a faster tempo with the good rythm and notes etc., I do this to the multiple parts and when I have finished a part I will try to play it with the parts I practised earlier. This is a very time-consuming method, but I surely pays of.
It also keeps you from getting bored all the time when you are trying to practise slowly :)...
Brilliant videos!
What a consummate professor! Thank you so much !
Perfect. Create the spacious large framework, then selectively fill it in gradually, rather than taking an additive approach with no pulse.
I like what your teacher did, John. I've been unwittingly doing the same thing, breaking down every bar into the down beats and only play those notes in my first number of runs on a piece. Great video, btw.
Thanks. I felt that your instructions about rhythm gave freedom to trust ourselves for way we know to practice a piece.
one thing that causes this a lot of times is the amount of complexity in the notes. sometimes it’s a feat of dexterity to play some pieces in rythym depending on what your playing.
Hello Dr. Mortensen!! I am really enjoying your videos, and the "classical music" perspective they offer. I am coming from more of a contemporary, jazz and Latin music background. Talk about rhythm!! More recently I have been starting to learn classical piano as a means of improving my reading, gaining functional piano skills, and diversifying my musical palette. In my very first lessons my teacher would note my strong rhythmic feel.. sounds like maybe lots of other students are practicing the way you describe. Here is where I think my approach is different: first, for somebody like me that learned music by imitating records, improvising with friends and playing by feel, at first I found it difficult to make sense of a piece of written music unless I read it simultaneously with a metronome. Next, having beginner technique and attempting early- to late- intermediate pieces (to avoid intellectual boredom) I spend lots of time on very small sections - maybe I look at 2 particularly challenging bars at an 8th of the intended playing speed, with a metronome clicking out the 8th notes or even 16th notes, while I struggle to make my fingers do the right thing. By the time I have figured out the mechanics, the rhythm is burnt into my brain. As I build confidence with sections of the piece, I draw from a variety of metronome games like playing the piece with the metronome on the 2 and the 4, or maybe just the 1, or even the "and" of 2, for an obscure example (or other variations depending on the time signatures!). Only when I have the thing totally under control in a super slow, even tempo do I start to incorporate the "ebbing pulse" (tempo and volume dynamics) that is often written into classical music (rather than the constant, driving pulse more typical of styles like rock, jazz, or salsa). Finally, an anecdotal recount of a life changing moment from my first attempt at a "scat" solo over Jobim's "Desafinado". My instructor told me, "it sounds like you're focusing on trying to find the right notes and you've forgotten about your rhythm". she went on to demonstrate how all the "right" notes with no rhythm can come across as a ramble, and all sorts of "wrong" notes can sound amazing if played with rhythmic conviction. Cheers!
Spot on. This is why I have all of my students work with the metronome from day one. And they must count aloud while they play. It changes EVERYTHING. Thanks for this video!
i hope you were preaching moderation as well, you really shouldnt be using the metronome for more than 25% of total practice time.
The metronome is terrible for rhythm. You'll make their rhythm worse if you have your students playing to a metronome.
I hate the metronome. I find it simply distracting -- but then, I have a good sense of rhythm.
Whenever I find myself missing the rhythm I listen to the piece. It dosen't instantly help but it gives me a better idea of what I'm doing wrong.
I am guilty of doing exactly what you described - 'hacking' my way through it. What I usually do when I get to a point where I can play a piece reasonably well is introduce the metronome and force myself to obey it. This can take a while, sometimes. Once I can play it in a very slow tempo, I begin to raise the tempo until I reach a point that is either at the top of my ability or is at the indicated tempo. It is then that I work in any fluctuations in timing that the composer indicates.
It is sometimes a slow and frustrating process, but when it finally comes together, it seems to come together quickly.
Thank you for the video.
- Side note: modern music is very beat driven and always has a strong back-beat. Classical music; not so much. This might contribute to some of the rhythm issues as well.
I love your videos, such a great teacher. Really like the way you are explaining things and using comparements to do it. Keep doing it, as still a beginer pianist it helps me so so much!
I discovered my love for (real) music fairly late. I started playing the piano when I was about 17 but I had no opportunity to play a piano regularly until I was 20; that was when I fell in love with Bach. For some years I thought that maybe the Piano is not the right instrument for me, so I started to play the Violin. Now I am 25 and can play some advanced stuff fairly well (I have enough passion for being disciplined), but my repertoire is small and I know that I will never become a student at a conservatory. Your videos matter quite a lot for me. Thank you for uploading
Interesting take on the problem of rhythm. It is something I have struggled with most of my life. I tend to play better when I'm playing for listening rather than for someone to sing along. To add to your beatbox example. I was thinking that those who play Bluegrass, or similar, are more likely to be playing for fun. This is not to say that they do not practice or that they do not get paid, but they are less concerned with perfection and more interested in having a good time. It's common to see others join in at random times and play along and the one thing that holds it all together is the rhythm.
I deal with this in three ways:
1. Many rhythmic problems are caused early on by attempting to coordinate the hands, so whenever this is the case, it is highly beneficial to drill hands separately at a steady rhythm
2. Even though this is controversial for some, I do think practicing in a rhythmically precise way at a very slow tempo is often very helpful. Of course, some of the feeling of the phrasing will not be accurate at the slow tempo, but I think that is okay because in my opinion the precision gained will allow more flexibility in shaping the phrase at a faster tempo.
3. Finally, one must have the patience to break the music into the smallest unit that you can learn to play with rhythmic accuracy in a session. I feel that it's okay to open a session with a sloppy sight reading of the whole piece to help comprehend the work as a whole, but then you really have to break it up and work on small chunks, even half-bar if necessary, and get those chunks consistent with both rhythm
I really like these teaching videos. Thank you fo makeing them.
wow so true! i spent alot of time learning 3 against two wrong in a bach prelude. was a nightmare to unlearn..... like learning downbeats first and then filling in!
Love the beatbox analogy lol
Hey John, recent subscriber here. I really like your videos but your voice is a bit quiet in comparison to other youtube videos. A little volume boost or compression would help a lot.
But I love the quiet voice.
Appa Rillo
Hey the quiet voice is his style. I would say the relaxed, calm, informative voice.
you are best at presenting real life situations... super.
Also many musicians begin learning their instrument in school with other students and their instruments so from day one they are trying to sound good together which includes staying on the same tempo and following a conductor. Piano is pretty solitary.
Thank you for that video!! I am kind of struggling with rythm right now
Such fantastic observations! And thank you for the suggestions about how to improve, too. I like the idea of playing a skeleton to begin with, I’m going to try it. You’re a great teacher, your students are lucky! London
* 6:28 - practising skeletal outlines of pieces in rhythm, as done by the pianist Raymond Hanson
* 5:14 - Mortensen beatboxing
“WIKIWIKIWIKIWIKI” 🤣🤣🤣
Fantastic advises, Dr. Mortensen. Thx so much!
When learning complex music, it’s tougher to keep to the beat, so yes, classical pianists would tend to spend more time outside a good solid beat. True, very much so, but not EZ to avoid when not an advanced player or starting a new piece.
Excellent thank you for this .very helpful
You are an excellent teacher. Informative and entertaining plus having many more positive attributes. Only wish I was starting music now at a young age. 😂
I always had a hunch about the fact that learning the usual way people do learn classical music does not help you enough with rhythm :) and I always had a problem with the metronome / thus also playing with others and thought it's maybe more my problem as I am just an amateur and maybe just not good enough ... but I realize it can be anyone's problem if they only learn this type of music and don't practice it properly.
I could listen to John all day.
Dude, you are a hoot? I love all the videos, by the way.
Excellent. I try play classical pieces like rock and roll. chords left hand melody right.
how to practice complex rythmus like in Scriabin? great video
I think that many pianists shortchange the primacy of rhythm in classical music. Rubato has its place but it must be in the context of the actual notated rhythm. I remember once playing Debussy's famous "Clair de lune" for another classically-trained pianist. He asked me, "Why is it that the music sounds so right as you play it?" My answer was that I simply play exactly what Debussy notated, not some sentimental, mooning, arrhythmic mash. Doing that works because Debussy wrote into the notation exactly what he wanted, rather than something notationally simpler and more direct but which could not guarantee getting from a pianist what he really wanted of it.
Thank you
Could someone tell me the name of the sonata he references at 6:45?
Beethoven's "Waldstein" Sonata, Op. 53.
cedarvillemusic thanks!
Great vid, I'm very happy I found that channel ;)
Very interesting observation. :)
What you say about failing to learn the rhythm - the pulse - in the early practice time is true, but I also think that most classical music has comparatively less complex and more predictable rhythm than almost any other musical genre. And to me, that means that the typical classical pianist doesn't have to work at it as much to get it right, or at least has more time to learn it eventually. Everyone else has to get it right as soon as they start.
Have you played Scriabin?
@@cedarvillemusic Yes, but only some of the etudes, Op 2 & Op 8
@@PsychHacks Those are cool. My point was merely that some classical composers such as Scriabin are in fact astonishly complex and unpredictable in their rhythmic construction.
@@cedarvillemusic That wouldn't surprise me. But don't you think that Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart and many other composers are less so, and that that might be why so many piano students aren't as diligent about rhythm in the early days as they should be?
@@PsychHacks I do understand why you might say that, especially when thinking of classical music that proceeds in unbroken, constant 16ths. But the rhythmic complexities of (say) Beethoven and Brahms are very subtle and sophisticated. For just one example, take the surprising and uneven phrase-rhythms of Brahms.
5:21
By the way, I gave a song of mine to my grandad (as sheet music) and he massacred it, taking no note of the *deliberately* metronomic, clockwork-like rhythm. He didn't grasp, despite the brief instruction at the start, that the song was meant to be tight, the beats always important (the song is about a life of gratitude and losing, especially losing time). Classically trained, played the organ for his church. Poor sense of rhythm, he had no swing.
I think this problem of classical artists not having the best sense of rhythm even extends to conductors. Symphonies should grip you, at all times. Was listening to a William Schuman symphony where it really didn't have much of a sense of coherence.
Wow, I'm a bit of a contrarian devil's advocate in general but when I come across your vids I find myself agreeing with most of it and learning a lot in the process too! Subscribed of course!...
Thank you.
Do you have any resources you can recommend for developing rhythm?
My biggest struggle.
Very important! My brother, who has no formal music training and plays by ear, has that “pulse”. I have good knowledge of theory and formal training, but I cannot play as well as my brother. He also started out playing drums. Perhaps that helped.
that piano sounds good
Guilty as charged. I'm badly sightreading Bach Chorales (2 voices) and my rhythm is flatlining.
I might look for some Bach Beat Box medleys and remedy that.
Wiky Wiky Wiky Wiky
The best lessons are the ones that seem obvious in retrospect.
Catching up. "So When is the release date coming for your New Book>? Asking for a friend.
What's the title of the last piece of music? Sounds great
I'm not sure which piece you're talking about. It might be Beethoven's Sonata No. 21, called the "Waldstein" sonata: ruclips.net/video/v-U-23qI9gs/видео.html
Mortensen also talks about this Beethoven sonata, No. 5 in C minor: ruclips.net/video/GuMzYleEPRE/видео.html
Wow, so true!!!
Interesting video. Is it not more common for classical music to have a "fluent" sense of rhythm? Most classical music does not follow a steady BPM.
Well, sometimes classical music is all gooey and fluid, but sometimes tight and motorhytbmic.
0:50 I totally disagree with Dr. John here about classical musicians not having a good sense of rhythm. I'm a jazz pianist , and often play with a drummer and bassist, both of whom produce the rhythm needed so I can play harmony and melody. Classical musicians usually don't have rhythm players keeping time, but despite this, string sections, horn sections, woodwinds..everything outside of the percussion section, continue to amaze me on how well they create VERY rhythmic music from scores whose main focus is on melody, harmony, and contrapuntal obbligato accompanyment. Classical players can really rock, swing and groove as well as anyone, given that they are playing scores that require such rhythmic feels.
What sonata did you play on 6:48? I couldn't hear well that part.
He's talking about Beethoven's "Waldstein" Sonata, Op. 53. Here is a recording: ruclips.net/video/v-U-23qI9gs/видео.html
Solid
He's even better at beatboxing than me...
Rickey Rickey boom
Jazzers and rockers begin to make a living by playing dance halls.
Classical musicians make their living by playing to seated audiences who are frightened to move.
"It don't mean a thing
If it ain't got that swing."
wicky wicky wickyyyy
I think one of the reasons is a classical player cant and will never add something to the piece from themselves. And thats kinda disappointment after all these hard work. While any simple musician can add anything they want even it was not a good idea. So classical people getting to add something in other places, like rhythm and nuances, which doesnt satisfies much :-D while other simple musicians are having their fun. Also you halfly mentioned, probably you had this on your mind, some music such as jazz is completely depending on rhythm which makes it more fundamental on these genres thus makes those who plays it more strong on this matter.
"I think one of the reasons is a classical player cant and will never add something to the piece from themselves."
1. You are either not listening to good classical musicians or 2. you may not know how to listen with an informed ear.
But, I would've never found you were it not for the interweb / youtoob......sigh.
rhythmic styles of music also assume a dancing audience
I don’t understand why this would even be an issue if you used a metronome and took it one measure at a time. If you take it in measures or a small series of measures, would it not change the time spent with bad rhythm drastically? I think trying to process a whole piece, or even page, at a time would increase the time spent trying to understand the piece, therefore making you less efficient. I don’t play piano, and I can barely read sheet music, so please excuse me if I sound like a jackass in writing this.
Lucky you didn't venture into improvisation, where you can throw rhythm out the window... (it just becomes one of many improvisational tools). Thinking further, I've noticed that the main problem with rhythm (and this goes for every other facet of music) is when the performer does not 'listen' to what is actually occurring. If the performer does not 'hear' what just happened (with a pianist, the mind would be occupied visually with the keys and patterns), the performer will not know what to do next to 'keep it right' according to one's tastes, and according to the emotional/mental image 'story' that is going on (but now I am digressing into artistry) - meaning each performance is a new path not yet trod - exploration and reaction (mindframes which I don't think can be taught) (and I'm not even going to get into 'character') (OK, I'll just mention it - it is the accumulation of artistic decisions you've made in a piece, and over your career). ('Personality' would be those things you cannot (and really should not, you being unique) control)...
Intentionally copy Vladimir Horowitz’ rhythmic feel as often as possible
Here's my humble opinion: The music you want to learn has to be gradual in difficulty. Very gradual. I had a piano teacher who insisted on using pieces above my level, and I struggled too much. I fired her :)
I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm what might be termed an 'advanced beginner' at piano (I have quite a bit of musical experience and I'm a songwriter), but I looked at a few pieces almost at the start of a piano instruction book and thought 'why on Earth are these impossible pieces being set forth *here*, when I can barely do anything??!' Well, I tackled the impossible, learned that what is impossible today will not be tomorrow or the next day, and gained confidence and a sense of accomplishment. Had the student been fed tamer fare, without having to reach, the difficulty of piano arguably would have been reinforced and much less would have been taught/learned with the same investment of time.
Great video!. BUT, please, C'mom man, show off and challenge your skills and play latin rhythm here: timba, salsa, merengue, latin jazz!!! LOL.
I'll leave that to you.
cedarvillemusic I was just kidding...Anyways, some people are just wired with classical music and don’t want to learn or even bother to hear any other type of music, therefore limiting themselves... I love all kind of music specially flamenco, their rhythm it is awesome, 12/8 bars with emphasis on 3,6,8,10, and 12, depending on the type of flamenco genre...Music without cultural knowledge just make us robots reading music without really enjoying the music we play... some of the best musicians never learned how to read music and left a huge legacy, such as Paco De Lucia, and Django Reinhardt, they just played.
fwiw I love the non-yelling.
wiki wiki wiki wikiw bum psss bumm haha
Maybe start learning jazz and other musical genres so it will improve your sense of rhythm
You're really good and helpful but seem a little exasperated! Maybe you need to get some decent students.
Ha ha! If you love teaching and are committed to seeing your students do well, you will get exasperated from time to time! If you don't care, you can always be chill...
I don't imagine a serious classical pianist would have any interest in jazz or such. Not as though there are not thousands of amazing classical pieces out there to master, which a non classical pianist could probably never play well. IF a classical pianist ever wanted to migrate into other genres I can guarantee they would learn the transition pretty easily, if they wanted.
But aren't you curious how other styles of music work?
What a daft idea, there is good music and bad music some of the finest classical pianists I know are indeed fascinated with jazz and explore many genres of music. Secondly to devalue entire traditions of music by saying they could be easily learned is just nonsense and an insult to all musicians who followed a path other than classical music. Thankfully this kind of snobbery is as rare as my RUclips replies
I'm sure you realize that this is a ridiculous statement. I play classical, jazz, ragtime, boogie-woogie, pop, rock, etc.
Most classical players can't make an easy transition to Jazz, Jazz is progressive music with odd time signatures and very advanced harmony and it requires locking in groove with other players, things classical pianists won't have as much exposure to. Getting a classical player to improvise over a jazz standard while grooving would take years in itself as it's so far removed from their usual repertoire