Count rests...or learn the piece?

[ZNC Dandy]

Count until you learn the piece. Listen to recordings and study the score like its your job...oh wait it is!

[jacojdm]

Nudge the bone

I think that belongs in the other thread about inappropriate things to do during tacet movements or long periods of rest.

[The Impaler]

very long rests (say 20 bars+)

c'mon Todd. Don't you mean (more like) 200+ bars? Even my 6-fingered buddy who used to sniff gasoline when he was in jr. high can probably keep track of 20.

20? Well, 12 to be sure.....

[Rick Denney]

When I played in an orchestra, I would add cues to the parts, but I would also learn the music well enough (even if just by listening) so that I knew where my entrances were within the context. And I count rests until I know the piece so well that I don't have to. I count the old-fashioned way--the beats in my head and the bars on my fingers (though maybe surreptitiously).

I don't depend on any one section, because in community groups they can't count any better than I can.

In a previous band, the tuba section members would make eye contact and visually note when an extended rest passed over a rehearsal number.

So, my answer to the poll is "yes".

I know a trumpet player who cannot count rests, even for a few beats. His concentration fails him when he is not playing. Fugues are a challenge for us. I try to keep my concentration going during rests to avoid making the same mistakes.

Rick "who thinks method doesn't matter--proper entrances do" Denney

[Captain Sousie]

I am currently playing trombone in a pit for "The Music Man" and I can confidently say that, by themselves, neither counting nor listening will work. They need to be put together to be even adequate. If I just counted, I would invariably make a mistake in some of the fun meter changes and become hopelessly lost. If I just listened, I would lose track of some of the music because some parts of it (the Marian Dance or Shipoopie) do not always make sense musically. I have to do both and for good measure, the trumpet player next to me and I both count on our fingers to make doubly sure we are both in the same place.

Fun,
Sou

[The Impaler]

So, my answer to the poll is "yes".

Ditto.

[Chuck(G)]

The problem with counting is that you have to be awake to do it.

I'll pencil in a note where the passage that starts before an entry begins--not where my entry starts. That lets me nap until said passage comes along and then count my way into the important entry.

Really, there's no substitute for learning a piece--and not just what you're supposed to be doing, but what everyone is doing. Wasn't there a posting on the old TubeNet about a violinist who made it a point to play through everyone's part and learn it?

[Wyvern]

I also do all of the first three. I don't like to rely on counting - it is too easy to go wrong. I therefore wherever possible listen a lot to CDs of the work, so I can hear when the tuba entry is coming up.

In one work i was playing, Puccini Madame Butterfly, there was whole sections the tuba was not playing and the part was just marked Tacit to #. Of course I did not know when the rehearsal # was coming up. In that case I managed to look over the double bass part to keep a track of where we had got to.

One of my most nerve racking experiences was playing a Rachmaninoff piano concerto (I can't remember which one) where the tuba just comes in the last twenty odd bars of the movement and that is a cue for the trombones who come in a few bars later. I was called in just for the gig, so had been to no rehearsal and was not familiar with the work. I counted like hell, but was still very unsure!

[Kevin Hendrick]

First and foremost I count. On my fingers. It looks stupid but it's more reliable than just mentally counting 1.2.3/2.2.3/3.2.3. I saved many a colleague (and myself) by doing this.

It is more reliable than a mental/verbal count (not so easy to get jostled off count by somebody asking you something!), and can be done unobtrusively. It can be even more effective if you're counting in binary (leave it to the computer types to come up with something like that, eh? ) -- you can count up to 31 on one hand, and using both hands lets you count to over a thousand (surely enough for almost any orchestral piece) without wondering "how many tens have I counted?" It does take practice (an "extended technique", if you like), but also has the advantage of running you through all the valve combinations as you count (1, 2, 1-2, 3, 1-3, 2-3, 1-2-3, 4, 1-4 ... etc.)

[Chuck(G)]

One of my most nerve racking experiences was playing a Rachmaninoff piano concerto...

Did you have to use "big hands?":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifKKlhYF53w

[eupher61]

one friend used to play "The Nutcracker" annually, something like 40 shows each year between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

The first couple of years, he counted and watched and stayed alert. later he let his mind wander a bit, but still counted when it got close. Still later, he took a book and read. The last few years, he slept.

so he said...

[Wyvern]

Did you have to use "big hands?":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifKKlhYF53w

That's hilarious!