Count rests...or learn the piece?

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Another thread got me interested in this question...do most of the pros here actually count very long rests (say 20 bars+), or do you find it easier to learn the piece and recognize the music before entrances?

Personally, I've always preferred the latter, at least after the initial reading of a new piece. I was just wondering if I'm a mutant, or other players do the same.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

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.

Sure...the number doesn't really matter to me, and wasn't really the point. I just wondered if most players are thinking 1..2..3..4..2..2..3..4 while they rest. I find it rather tedious, and it disrupts my enjoyment of the piece going on around me.

Am I dumb and/or stating the obvious to suggest that most of us do both of the things you suggest?

Not a dumb point at all, and a very valid one. I would revise my question to discover how many players dislike counting rests at all, and use other avenues to find their next entrance.

[iiipopes]

What elephant said.

With due respect to Todd, if he wants to enjoy the piece, get a sub for a performance and sit out front. You just can't enjoy the piece in the same way as an audience member and still maintain the concentration to come in properly on the particular entrance.

[djwesp]

I'd say I'm really weak with rest counting.

For too long I've relied on aural cues, then find myself mistaking them and coming in late or early.

I've devoted myself recently to sticking out my hand and literally counting these bars with my fingers, and practicing the rests for all of my solos so when the accomp. comes along I'm not second guessing myself.

It is a concentration and repetition issue with me. I'll break a piece down and work on it so much, I lose track of the simplest thing. The rests. Then when I hear the accomp. I try to find the cues for the entrance, and find myself in a total disaster.


Without silence, there is no music.

[LoyalTubist]

Most of what we play with a symphony orchestra is totally mathematical. Even if you don't "learn" a piece you can still feel it.

[LoyalTubist]

I guess I have had too many experiences of bass bonists who seemed to be a little slow. I never count on anyone to help me.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

With due respect to Todd, if he wants to enjoy the piece, get a sub for a performance and sit out front. You just can't enjoy the piece in the same way as an audience member and still maintain the concentration to come in properly on the particular entrance.

Agreed to the point that you won't "enjoy the piece" in the same way as an audience member, but I can't believe you think a performer can't enjoy the piece at all. What a sad fate to befall performers if they're so intense that they can't revel in the glorious sound of the orchestra (or band, for that matter) as it plays.

I think that was my point with the whole question...you can maintain a level of concentration to make the next entrance and still relax enough to enjoy what's going on around you. I see too many colleagues so worried about counting rests, scared to lose their place, and they look like they're not enjoying the experience - not at all what my idea of our profession is supposed to be. I choose to keep my seat onstage and be a happy piece of the performance. No worries...I'll be there when the entrance comes.

[KevinMadden]

My vote is for all of the above depending on the situation.

Count when its say less than 100 measures, or when it is in any 'easy' to count time.

Learn the piece to be aware for when you do screw up counting

Nudge the bone (but only when they have a shorter rest than you)

and so on and so forth.

[tbn.al]

I guess I have had too many experiences of bass bonists who seemed to be a little slow. I never count on anyone to help me.

Golly, I didn't realize we had played together. Wonder what gig it was. Seriously, my tuba player has bailed me out more times than I can count. BTW that's my problem. I can't count. In rehearsal last night I kept coming in early on an entrance after a rest in Prince Igor. My tuba buddy was trying his best to help me. The conductor had to stop twice. Very embarrasing. I finally noticed that the cues on the tuba part were in a different place than my part. Eureka! Fixed! Change the 13 m rest for a 15 and shoot the copyist. Counting is overrated. The only thing saving my gig is that they are not having to pay me.

[The Big Ben]

Luckily, I've usually had at least one other person who played the same part. I count and listen- so a combo of one and two.

I've been tempted to get one of those clicker counters like they use to count attendance at theaters. Propbably too loud. Isn't there a gadget I can buy?

[corbasse]

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. I also rely on cues and learn the piece. I've had too many times that other sections mess up their entrance, leaving you to have to stop counting and dive in on your memory and ears anyway. It's either that or you'll end up as the only one in the entire orchestra who's in the right place.

[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.)