Today I took a quick swing at a current pop song, just a few min of trying a bar for fun. And all I can think is how the heck does anyone play songs with sixteenths, ties, dotted, etc. I know this is not as challenging as the classical out there but I'm not comparing. I'm simply wondering how do you all even get this under you fingers and sounding good? I think I know the answer, lots of skill development, practice and time. And all I was trying was single note RH melody and filled octaves LH. I can't wait until this type of song can be something I can take on soon I'm sure it will be just have to keep learning and practicing.


https://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=MN0226406

Sure there was a similar thread about this recently in the non-classical forum.

It was your thread, Sebs! ha

http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthre...-melodies-in-todays-pop.html#Post3137478

Haha. That one was discussing about why vocal melodies seem to complex these days. Although I do suppose it did kind of turn into a response about how you play it. Maybe I’ll revisit that one again. It’s probably just me looking at sheet and thinking I’ll never be able to play it so dumping random thoughts here.

I feel your pain. Early this year, or possibly even last year, I had a yen to play 'Beyond the Sea'. All I could ever find was a very basic unsatisfying version of it or an advanced (to me at least) version. I'm sure there must be something in between the two extremes out there, but after checking my usual sources (musicnotes, sheet music plus and amazon) came up empty.

So I've been struggling with the advanced version (on and off) for the better part of a year. No sixteenth notes, thank goodness, but lots of tied, dotted, three over two type triplets . Not only that but where the key changes from F to A to C for the bridge section, instead of changing key signature, they used accidentals. That alone was a nightmare for me with my poor reading skills.

Anyway, you have my sympathy.

Thanks for the understanding. It can sometimes be a bummer when so many pieces are always stretch pieces or not even attainable yet. I suppose we just have to be patient and trust the process.

Syncopated rhythms can look utterly baffling on the page, and sound perfectly playable when you hear them. They're tough to write down (until you learn the patterns), and tough to read back (ditto).

In such cases, you might want to learn the piece (or at least the melody) _by ear_, before you try to match up the notes on the page, to the music in your head.

It's not only beginners who say:

. . . "Oh -- _that's_ what it sounds like!"

when they hear a piece played.

I don’t agree with this but then I learned to play where there was little option of listening first. I was generally forced to grab the score and dig-in, without having any idea what it should sound like until I learned to play it. The exceptions were few and far between. ( and my teacher never played it for me).

Rhythm is one of the more difficult aspects of pop music. Classical music doesn't normally have so much syncopation. There are a number of common patterns (I would even go as far as calling them "stereotypes" of this genre) and after you've encountered them a number of times you'll be able to play them "by feel" without really counting, but at first it's better to count properly and make sure you get it right.

I suggest that you start by tapping the rhythm with both hands on your lap until it's sharp and you're very comfortable with it, and only then go to the piano and learn the notes. The notes are really easy compared to the rhythm (at least for this song).

One of the pieces in my video course was just like this. I kept postponing to play it, but eventually I pulled myself together, copied the score to Musescore, ran Doubletime (a plugin that doubles the values of all notes, so a 16th note becomes an 8th note) and suddenly it was perfectly doable.

I am sure that if you do the same, double all note values - and of course change the tempo from 72 to 144 - it won't look half as impressive, and perfectly doable. At least when you play slower than 144.

Doubling notes is a great idea and something I've done lots in the past. Brilliant there's an app for it now.

Sebs, in that link MOST of the syncopated rhythms are just the off-beats within a beat. So if you think of a quaver-crotchet-quaver rhythm, and half all the values, you get semiquaver-quaver-semiquaver. When the ties get involved you get a pattern.

Also, be careful about learning pop songs by rote if you're wanting to improve rhythm reading as the notation doesn't always match what is sung. Of course, if you just want to be able to play the melody then listen to it (and maybe sing along).

+1 - I've used that method a number of times working through the 'stretch piece' arrangement of 'Beyond the Sea'. I should have a go at the Vince Guaraldi Easy Piano arrangements again. I've done several in the Charlie Brown Christmas book, but when I decided to branch out to the rest of the Charlie Brown Collection for 'Easy Piano', I was stopped in my tracks by rhythm difficulties.

The next challenge is swung 16th notes.

Do you mean knowing the piece so well in my head such as I can hear the melody? Or do you mean try to play it by ear, such as listen and play back? I really don't think I could listen to it then play it back by ear not even close hahah.


I will try this. I assume that could even mean just tapping RH melody rhythm for a few min then add LH for few min? Such that you don't have to drill it for an hour of tapping even little sessions could help? Do you ever use 'dummy note' for example using same single note in both hands?

I agree that the notes are not too hard and if doing single note melody RH to start most an be played from same RH position as it's mostly Bb to F.




That's interesting you mention this as my teacher just explained this last week that some arrangers do this to make scores easier to read. And since I write my own stuff I can convert to double time but I'll first see if my software can do it. And since tempo doesnt matter to me when learning because even if in double time I'll still be WAY under 144 but I know what you mean, I can work up to it and make that the target goal.



I completely agree also my teacher has mentioned something very similar such as, pop songs are improvised even the artist that sings and perform them are not following every note exactly and what they sign and play today could be different tomorrow. I understand that a lead sheet/score is just someones best interpretation of what they hear. I mean I know there are some core components to a song but I agree to fixate on each note exactly as is. For me my primary goal is to play piano solo from a lead sheet. I have made a ton of progress and this is my first time even poking around with sixteenth notes and a lot of syncopation. Since 80% of the song follows that pattern you mention does that mean once yo get a good chunk down it will come easier for the rest?


I'll save that one for tomorrow hahah

Actually, I don't understand why not all composers use notation that is easy to read. As in your example, why use predominantly 8th notes and 16th notes? Why not quarter notes and 8th notes? Why?

Because then you have to change the meter to 2/2 or change where the bar lines are. Pop music is usually accented on the off-beats 2 and 4 (the opposite of classical music), also called a "back beak". Changing the meter changes where the down beats are and that changes the feel of the music.

Also, have a look at this:
https://viva.pressbooks.pub/openmusictheory/chapter/rhythm-and-meter-in-pop-music/

It explains how these rhythmic patterns are built.

Here there is no LH rhythm so basically you can tap the beat with your left hand. Yes, I do use dummy notes sometimes, especially to provide the beat. If for instance the LH is complicated I sometimes just play block chords on each beat while learning the RH.

Why not change the meter to 4/2?

There is also a certain tradition of notating rock and pop in 4/4. It would be strange and confusing to someone who is used to the normal conventions. Actually, I find this notation quite readable and I think it's just a matter of getting used to it.

One thing to keep in mind with the rhythmically intricate piano transcriptions of vocal scores of more recent pop songs: the notation, while it should be learned as accurately as possible, is often just an approximation of the liberties that many singers take in their interpretations of these songs. What you see on the page is not always precisely what you hear when the song is performed.

A more simple analogy is to take the score of a standard song from the 40s or 50s as recorded by the likes of Frank Sinatra and see just how different in rhythmic details the plain score is from what Sinatra sings. He was well-known for his ability to "stretch" rhythmic patterns within phrases while still keeping an overall regular tempo.

All written music is just an approximation - some of it very close, admittedly - to a composer's intent.

Regards,

I will be doing eighth note filled octaves for LH for about 90% of the song. I will try working with 'dummy notes' as for some reason I prefer to make some sound or hit a key versus tapping the piano just a silly preference I have. I know


For me reading it isn't too bad but counting the 1 e & a + sure can be a mouthful and getting it under the fingers is challenging but this is for time trying it and I know it's a stretch my plan is just to try a bar or two as an exercise for a couple days and see how it goes. If it's way to hard I'll hold off.

Do you have to count every note with a voiced syllable? Can't you do two notes to a count?

Regards,

Pop music isn't generally easy. I have a few scores which I've not had a real shot at yet; too hard! Would take too long!
There are plenty of 16 beat songs though; Barry white's "You're my everything" mightn't be so bad, but the left hand could be busy . . .

I take the easy way with four sixteenths: 1 2 3 4 — 2 23 4
I can play faster than I can spit out the 1 e & a stuff — it gives me a headache to try and fit it in.

I have never seen anyone who could do the 1 e & a thing. When I first learned of it, my immediate thought was "Seriously?"

Very clumsy and non-intuitive, thus more difficult than necessary to remember, and use correctly, all while struggling to also play the notes, keep the rhythm, and put the whole thing together in a way that resembles the music. Don't make things harder than they need to be!

However, many pianists have thrived using a word or a phrase that matches the rhythm.

For 4 equal notes, such as sixteenth notes in this thread, if counting 1 2 3 4 does not help, use a word that has 4 syllables. My favorite is Huckelberry. A friend's favorite is Avocado.

This chart, (below is the link) and others like it are very helpful with rhythm challenges.

http://jazzmando.com/new/images/ClassicalChops.jpg

Be careful of the words that you choose and how you use them as rhythmic. In normal speech, such words as "huckleberry" and "avocado" have one slightly longer and/or stressed syllables and remaining short syllables. This could lead to unconscious irregular playing of rhythms. I would stick to numbers.

Regards,

I actually agree with this. Pop music, when a catchy song, you can get the rhythm by hearing in it. Most people can sing it back. The score is hard to read.

I remember in rag time with lots of snncopated rhythms I think it can help if you have a stable beat. Either counting, repeating a left hand every beat or a metronome.



But yes I think pop music has catchy rhythm most often. Remember this song with - only one note - the rhythm makes the tune.

In my experience, that is not an issue. Students have done well with it. At least with a known word, they typically do not stumble through it with one super-long syllable, and other short ones. But with counting, I have seen people put a very long time on one beat, and rush through others, and then say they did not notice. Perhaps because counting is a series of words, a sentence.

It is like when people use a metronome but do not hear it. Just a bunch of clicks.

But when speaking a known word, that has a known rhythm, they usually notice the rhythmic error because the proper way to say the word is now changed.

I've had experience of sight-reading lead sheets of pop songs, playing the rhythm precisely as printed in the songbook I was given (in a Christmas concert, where the audience chose what they wanted to sing) in the songs I'd never heard before, which raised eyebrows when the rhythm I played wasn't what the pop group/singer sang. With the songs I actually knew, I discovered that what was notated wasn't always what was sung by the original band: dotted notes were sung more as triplets, straight notes were sung dotted, notes on the beat were sung before or after the beat etc. So, I played what I'd heard before in the songs rather than what was notated.

And we all know that cover versions of older songs often have changes of notes as well as rhythm.........so it depends on which version you're singing/learning too.

One more thought that came to me about using words to play rhythms, words that might have tiny uneven rhythms.

If you use a metronome as you speak / practice with such words, the metronome will keep you in perfect time, and any syllables that are slightly longer or shorter, those will be evened out.

But now you will probably speak that word in an unusual manner!

What's the benefit to use a would like avocado versus 1-e-&-a to me it seems more logical to use 1-e-&-a especially if words can varying syllable length then trying to even out a word seems like an extra step. I'm just wondering as I never used other counting systems.

Huckelberry does not have varying syllable length if spoken correctly. That is why it is frequently used...a word with clear distinct syllables, enunciated strongly. If there are any minute variations as you say it, they can be eliminated by using a metronome, which you should already be using if rhythms are challenging to you.

BTW, I am not selling these words...just sharing a working tool that has helped dozens of my students with rhythmic / counting challenges. If 1-e-&-a works for you, that is great.

Other than that, I don't think I can explain it any better, so the only thing I can say is, give it a try.

One of the things I dislike about the forum here is how many people just insist things come with time. It's of course not technically wrong, but it's often used as a way to limit discussion and cut other people down.

The excerpt you sent doesn't look too hard. There are a couple of places where it doesn't match what was sung. Unless you're specifically practicing reading rhythms, my suggestion would be to play along with the original song. You can either play by ear, or look at the notes from the sheet (which are correct) and feel the rhythm. I don't think there's any point just memorizing this sheet music, you will sound really poor as the rhythms are quite off from the felt rhythm of the original.

Also, to be fair, I mostly play complicated rhythms by ear in some capacity, and I think so do a lot of people. Even when you're reading from sheet music, you often just play it, hear back whether the syncopation sounds right, and make a judgement call based on that.

Got it. I didn't know if for some reason you or others would strongly say to use words instead. I agree for using whatever works or what you like as so many things in music are about preference and not right or wrong ways.


I'm not trying to memorize it. Can you let me know where the rhythms are way off? I didn't think this sheet is way off and I would imagine my teacher would have told me if it was. It might not look hard for you but it sure will be challenging for me. I'm not even sure if I'll try it I might just try a few bars see how it goes and apply all the tips I got here



I don't have that skill level to just play it or play it by ear. I would love to just look at a sheet and play it. I need to read/learn it first and then maybe after I learn it I could apply what I think it sounds like.

Is it technically hard or musically? I would assume the latter.

I'm talking about repeating the rhythm, not the melody. Can you listen to a couple seconds of a simple drum groove and play back the rhythm? That's what I'm referring to here.

About the rhythm in the transcription, there are some obvious ones such as having a 16th note in place of a 32nd. You know what, I'll transcribe it myself according to what I hear exactly and post it here today. Normally the details of the rhythm aren't notated because it would make it tedious to read. But it could illuminate the kinds of nuances I'm talking about. That said, it's honestly easier to just feel the rhythm and play it than to labor through a nasty transcription.

No need to write one up. I wasn't saying you were wrong or not believing you, I was only wanting to make sure there wasn't something way off I was missing.

I don't think you don't believe me. I still think it'll make things clearer to see the differences.

You are right it's impossible without practicing but sometimes you can use some tools. Musicnotes doesn't have it but you can find tutorial function in musescore (https://musescore.com/verona/driver-s-license/piano-tutorial) which can help you to visualize your hands moves.

Henrik
I hope you will take some to explore options outside of Musescore.

I appreciate the suggestion although I use printed out on paper lead sheets. I'm not a fan of synthesia style learning. I'm not knocking it just not my style/preference.

Sebs, don't feel bad about not being able to play that piece well, because it is just not a good piece to learn on.
There is less than one octave in variation of the notes, which might seem to make it easy to play, but it doesn't have much rhythm to help you count with and it is just a boring, stupid melody.
Sorry, just my opinion, I guess the 3 million people who listened to the official version on YouTube have a different opinion.

It is much easier to learn the timing of the notes (whether 16th or 8th) on a song that has a definite rhythm paired with a melodic treble, because you can feel the pulse of the music in your head.
I know that you played around with Heart of Gold (Neil Young) and I would recommend you go back to that piece. It has a simple and recognizable melody line with a consistent beat that you can hear as you play the notes.

The song actually features quavers in the LH, which I'd argue is a great rhythm to play the RH melody alongside. Crotchets would work well too, but is a step away from how the song is supposed to go. As a learning exercise it could be valuable though.



7.4 million likes, actually:

Driver's License

Listening to it, you can hear how there's slight back-phrasing in certain parts of the melody. Think I've said to be careful of taking written pop music down as gospel before - the rhythm on the sheet music is not an absolute, but it's pretty accurate.

I absolutely love this song and she takes you on such a journey through the verses, bridge, etc have such different moods and a lot very cool elements. I understand other songs can easier and I have been working simpler ones as well but modern pop like this song and tons othera alike is what my goal is to be able to play. Also I don't go look at your songs and say "hey those are boring and stupid" really doesn't help anyone to just bash an artists and someone else's taste in music.


Thanks! I agree that the lead sheet for pop you don't have to treat as gospel my teacher always tells me this too. However, like you, he also said this score is done pretty good and really good for practicing rhythms on. I have just been working on first couple bars, with clapping, dummy notes, and now trying hand together. I don't know if I'll be ready to learn whole piece anytime soon but even using a few bars as an exercise is really fun. I'm trying to get LH on autopilot and feel with the 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + so I can try to get the RH melody better.

Everyone has an opinion about various genres of music, you can hate the stuff I like and it won't insult me at all.

If you really want to know how it should sound on a piano, there is a piano tutorial here.
But be aware, the lyrics make this song...play the melody for someone who doesn't know the words, they will wonder what you are doing...

BTW, if you think I'm hard on Oliivia Rodrigo, you should read the flak I got for enjoying Euro-Dance music in this thread on Piano World.

Just one excerpt;

As for the sound ... I play that music all the time.

There's a switch next to the kitchen sink.
I flip the switch, the garbage disposal turns on, and all the waste in the drain gets ground up.
The sound is just like the music posted above. As is the physical content.