Before this thread moves away from the original OP problem ( it may even be me doing that? ), i previously posted reasons, or some may think they are cures, to help relieve the symptoms of bad timing. So this post is to help clear ups ome mis-conceptions and also show why no one thing is really to blame...or take credit when dealing with timing issues.
Tapping the foot has no more to do with timing as does reading out loud. or your lips mouthing the words. Tapping the foot is not really a concious function of music, it is a function of representation reinforcement, the same as clapping your hands.
Whether you tap your foot or not is not the point, it is why you tap your foot in the way you do and what's involved when you do it.
First and foremost thing to realise and understand is your bodies internal clock can be calibrated.
It can represent time or mis-represent time using external forces. This is a short term task, but when done over time the body learns the difference between the tasks and can learn to choose which one it uses.....
But to be out of time you need to know what you're out of time with?
So in-fact you do have timing because you know it is wrong.
The point about giving the OP tips and ideas to work on such as counting exercises, foot tapping etc, does not work because he can do this all ready, these are just symptoms of a different underlying problem.
See the problem in its true form.
Take one hundred individual people and ask them to count to one hundred out loud and note the results of each.
In those results i would expect to see all count to one hundred, what i would not expect to see is they all do it in the same time frame to a stopwatch
I would expect to see groups forming of approx the same time.
I would also see variations as to consistant they done this, again groups may form in this that are similar.
So if i put a marker on how long any one person took to count one to ten, then compared how long it took them to count from 10 to 20, then 30 -40 etc or took any ten second section it would not be consistant. They will speed up or slow down as they go through the task....but they will all count to one hundred.
If i cut it in half and compared 1-50 against 50 -100 i would see a difference, again one half may be faster or slower, and again there would be goups that compre to each half.
But if i take one hundred people and asked them to count to themselves, but indicate to me when they start and finish, then all i will have to note is the time it takes to complete the task.
I would expect that to have less variations on how many reach 100 than they did when counting out loud.
The reason is partly that in counting out loud you have to say the words, you have to form the words. so the physical task of saying 1 out loud is shorter than saying 61, which again is shorter than saying 21 ( even though after 20 they have the same amount of sylables..3 ) etc.
In counting out loud to represent the beat you may trip over your own words....that does not prove or mean you have a real timing problem, it is an indicator of where a or fault problem may lie.
Compare that to any individuals counting out loud results to their own personal counting to themselves results and the only one we can check will be the length of time it took to do each task.......then counting out loud will be longer because there is more involved in it.
The reason is not clear as to why this happens, but it lies in the brains ability to internalise the two tasks, using the right of the brain and the left of the brain.
Since both side deal with the task when counting out, that is the actual thinking of it and the saying of if, the brain has to learn to sync the two sides of itself to do the task...co-ordination if you will. we are said to hve a left or right brain dominance, much in the same way we can be left handed or right handed, left eye or right eye dominant, etc. But because the right and left side of the brain deals with different functions, this may show the reasons why some find it easier than others. Therefore in playing music it could be an indicator as to why certain players seem to be " born with natural rhythm", some use more of one side than the other..or even the wong side first.
But counting to yourself is thinking it, that is a one sided use, so less obsticals to interfere and as a result the task is done faster, and, if we could check the results, more than likely in a more even consistant way.
As for the metronome debate, a metronome will calabrate a person, it is the persons use of that calabration that helps improve timing.
Being exposed to a metronome, or similar device, whether sub-conciously or a concious decision, is where we find many answers, and more questions on matter of internalisation of time.
Say for example i have heard a metronome or listened to one, at any point in my life, then i have in fact learned from it.
My brain would have on some level used the sound to form an opinion on what it is hearning, remember and store it for later till a full understanding of it is known.
The same would have happened in a house with a clock that had an audible tick tock.
That sound would again have the brain form an opinion about it, and again it would be remembered and stored for later.
As more and and more such information is added and saved, we start forming conclussions about what this is, and other noises that seem to have an order, can be....or can be used for.
So it is not a case of how long you are exposed to a metronome, but whether it added to what you know. ( stabalisers on a childs bike come off when the child understands balance, so two camps can form, pro stabaliser, anti stabaliser)
The fact that a metronome was used is nether here nor there, it may have been a clock, or any piece of machinery that produded the pulse of a beat, it is the fact the brain used it and calabrated it to what you all ready know.
So in some it may be the last piece they need to work with a metronome to fit all the pieces they have gathered together to relate time and tempo to music, in others it will make no difference if the problem is some where else.
But wait some may cry..it cannot be that just hearing a metrome, or such, for a few minutes at some point in your life will callabrate you for the rest of your life?
If you believe that to be true then the next time your band rehearses just say "go" and start playing.....because if you believe it is not possible that a short or small exposure to tempo and rhythm can make a difference, then a short count of 1234 ( a bar ) at the start of a song should make no difference to the next 90 bars, then why do you do it?
In-fact that short count is a calabration of what you already know..that short count is a reminder of what you know, it brings everyone who hears it together in sync.
The fact is that many different count ins have the desired componants in them to remind us of what we are going to do, not teach us what we are going to do...we already know that.
This is why the metronome use ( i use it as an example of anything that represents time from drum machines to beat boxes ) can fall into two camps on its usefullness and benefits, ( pro stabaliser anti stabaliser) because it is the final result that is being judged on it alone, not its use in being part of the final result. In the bike riding senario the final results are the same, so what is the issue again?
JimmyM has correctly stated that working to a metronome can be bad.
Working to a metronnome changes the task in the same way as counting out loud the numbers and thinking them does.
The constant sound of the metronome may cause anxiety about the physical part and we trip over ourselves, so we are really not learning anything by doing it, we are in fact making the task harder.
But once you can do the task, you can calabrate it or learn to adapt it by playing to a metronome.
Now this is not learning a new skill, it is adptation of an already learned internal skill. ( a child has to learn to balance to walk, it has to learn to walk to run this is adaptaion of the learned skill of balance..as is riding a bike )
So calabration from a metronome is what we get, it gives us the idea of tempo to prove or dis-prove timing, it is not the all and be all of it, just part of it.
jeffbonny has correctly identified another area, not listening.
I find this to be very true as part of the problem, as not listening, or not hearing what is going on, is based in part to not understanding it.
Now apply that to the timing or rhythm of a song and it becomes more important.
Players neglect to learn how a song or a piece of music is formed and structured from a timing point of view.
It is this understanding of where you are against where you should be, that reinforces the other areas of your playing.
If a chorus starts Cm7 only in a song, say that song has four verses and five choruses, then you know you are at the chorus when you play Cm7 and you also know that playing Cm7 means you are at the chorus..it all helps build a mental map for you to draw on.
Take it a step further, if each verse ends on a different lyric line, and you have learned the song complete, you will associate the lyric to the verse number, the chorus number to the Cm7 chord you should be playing, and you will know where you are in the song...not thinking "which chorus is this". you will associate the end lyric to a verse number....because you know how may verses and choruses the song has, you know how many you have played, so you know how many you have left to play.
Take that a step further and add a key change after chorus 3 then if become important to know the song and know where you are. Again, any part information such as a key change, is used and compared against the other info to reinforce what you are playing.
Take that a step futher with a different feel to be added at a given point, or accents, or just a plain dead stop, any player that misses a dead stop may feel, or be accused, or having bad timing, but all it shows is they did not know the song or music well enough to know when to stop.
I was orchestrally trained so i was calabrated and trained to count first, not feel first.
My feeling became part of my counting over time until the two were as one, then it was never ever worked on because i knew how to do it, what was worked on was adapting it...that is where playing to a metronome becomes important, because it will show you the error of your playing and so it is showing you the error of your counting, which is an error of your thinking, which is being supported by an error in your sub concious.
This can be a split second thing, as in a reaction, or a thought out conclussion when listening or learning.
We know this happens because far to many people experience it.
We have all experienced " i know what i should be doing, but can't" feeling i our playing lives.....and that is it..a feeling.
That's a feeling of not being able to play what we feel we should.
Classic example is the symptom of anxiety in these cases that affects timing. It is the belief that there is a problem that creates it, it is reinforced everytime it is done wrong to the point that the player is no longer concerned with playing, the whole song right, but just not playing that part wrong.
This then means there has to be an awarnes of that part coming, so if the mind wander on ahead of where you should be then you are not thinking about where you are in the song, you are focusing on a specific part of the song.
Crux of the matter is until it is played you have no foundation for thinking that way...it may even be your thinking that always makes it happen.
This was reinforced in me ( in my orchestra days ) in two ways when i was younger, i could never feel some of the stops in a piece ( i cannot remember what it was, but i remember what i was told about my problem ).
When once more i got it wrong, and when we stoped to review that passage i was told to stand up and explain why i keep getting it wrong.
The conductor instructed the piano player to play the passage i am getting wrong " give him a 8 bars before".
And when i got it wrong again i exclaimed out loud to justify myself. " I knew that would happen"
only to be told " then if you knew it would happen...why did you do it"?
"Because that's where it felt right" i shouted back, feeling that i had been mad a fool of...and was now adding anger to my other emotions about it.
The conductor laughed gently and shook his head, he then imparted great wisdom on me " why feel it when you can just simply count it Mr Fulton"? (even though only 14 everyone was Mr somebody)
"So for the benefit of Mr Fulton..and any others, this is what you should be counting." and with that the piano soloist played the part and the conductor counted it out showing us where each section comes in and out and where any individual chairs within the section should be. I never missed it again because i just counted it.
The reason 100 players in an orchestra play together is because they can count, but it is an internalised count developed over many disiplines of playing and reading music.
I have worked for 5 piece bands that cannot keep time because they want to feel the songs, the advice is still the same " why feel it when you can count it......because once you can count it you can feel it.
Once you can feel it you have no real reason to learn to count it....but if you cannot feel it you have every reason to learn to count it...........
Tapping the foot has no more to do with timing as does reading out loud. or your lips mouthing the words. Tapping the foot is not really a concious function of music, it is a function of representation reinforcement, the same as clapping your hands.
Whether you tap your foot or not is not the point, it is why you tap your foot in the way you do and what's involved when you do it.
First and foremost thing to realise and understand is your bodies internal clock can be calibrated.
It can represent time or mis-represent time using external forces. This is a short term task, but when done over time the body learns the difference between the tasks and can learn to choose which one it uses.....
But to be out of time you need to know what you're out of time with?
So in-fact you do have timing because you know it is wrong.
The point about giving the OP tips and ideas to work on such as counting exercises, foot tapping etc, does not work because he can do this all ready, these are just symptoms of a different underlying problem.
See the problem in its true form.
Take one hundred individual people and ask them to count to one hundred out loud and note the results of each.
In those results i would expect to see all count to one hundred, what i would not expect to see is they all do it in the same time frame to a stopwatch
I would expect to see groups forming of approx the same time.
I would also see variations as to consistant they done this, again groups may form in this that are similar.
So if i put a marker on how long any one person took to count one to ten, then compared how long it took them to count from 10 to 20, then 30 -40 etc or took any ten second section it would not be consistant. They will speed up or slow down as they go through the task....but they will all count to one hundred.
If i cut it in half and compared 1-50 against 50 -100 i would see a difference, again one half may be faster or slower, and again there would be goups that compre to each half.
But if i take one hundred people and asked them to count to themselves, but indicate to me when they start and finish, then all i will have to note is the time it takes to complete the task.
I would expect that to have less variations on how many reach 100 than they did when counting out loud.
The reason is partly that in counting out loud you have to say the words, you have to form the words. so the physical task of saying 1 out loud is shorter than saying 61, which again is shorter than saying 21 ( even though after 20 they have the same amount of sylables..3 ) etc.
In counting out loud to represent the beat you may trip over your own words....that does not prove or mean you have a real timing problem, it is an indicator of where a or fault problem may lie.
Compare that to any individuals counting out loud results to their own personal counting to themselves results and the only one we can check will be the length of time it took to do each task.......then counting out loud will be longer because there is more involved in it.
The reason is not clear as to why this happens, but it lies in the brains ability to internalise the two tasks, using the right of the brain and the left of the brain.
Since both side deal with the task when counting out, that is the actual thinking of it and the saying of if, the brain has to learn to sync the two sides of itself to do the task...co-ordination if you will. we are said to hve a left or right brain dominance, much in the same way we can be left handed or right handed, left eye or right eye dominant, etc. But because the right and left side of the brain deals with different functions, this may show the reasons why some find it easier than others. Therefore in playing music it could be an indicator as to why certain players seem to be " born with natural rhythm", some use more of one side than the other..or even the wong side first.
But counting to yourself is thinking it, that is a one sided use, so less obsticals to interfere and as a result the task is done faster, and, if we could check the results, more than likely in a more even consistant way.
As for the metronome debate, a metronome will calabrate a person, it is the persons use of that calabration that helps improve timing.
Being exposed to a metronome, or similar device, whether sub-conciously or a concious decision, is where we find many answers, and more questions on matter of internalisation of time.
Say for example i have heard a metronome or listened to one, at any point in my life, then i have in fact learned from it.
My brain would have on some level used the sound to form an opinion on what it is hearning, remember and store it for later till a full understanding of it is known.
The same would have happened in a house with a clock that had an audible tick tock.
That sound would again have the brain form an opinion about it, and again it would be remembered and stored for later.
As more and and more such information is added and saved, we start forming conclussions about what this is, and other noises that seem to have an order, can be....or can be used for.
So it is not a case of how long you are exposed to a metronome, but whether it added to what you know. ( stabalisers on a childs bike come off when the child understands balance, so two camps can form, pro stabaliser, anti stabaliser)
The fact that a metronome was used is nether here nor there, it may have been a clock, or any piece of machinery that produded the pulse of a beat, it is the fact the brain used it and calabrated it to what you all ready know.
So in some it may be the last piece they need to work with a metronome to fit all the pieces they have gathered together to relate time and tempo to music, in others it will make no difference if the problem is some where else.
But wait some may cry..it cannot be that just hearing a metrome, or such, for a few minutes at some point in your life will callabrate you for the rest of your life?
If you believe that to be true then the next time your band rehearses just say "go" and start playing.....because if you believe it is not possible that a short or small exposure to tempo and rhythm can make a difference, then a short count of 1234 ( a bar ) at the start of a song should make no difference to the next 90 bars, then why do you do it?
In-fact that short count is a calabration of what you already know..that short count is a reminder of what you know, it brings everyone who hears it together in sync.
The fact is that many different count ins have the desired componants in them to remind us of what we are going to do, not teach us what we are going to do...we already know that.
This is why the metronome use ( i use it as an example of anything that represents time from drum machines to beat boxes ) can fall into two camps on its usefullness and benefits, ( pro stabaliser anti stabaliser) because it is the final result that is being judged on it alone, not its use in being part of the final result. In the bike riding senario the final results are the same, so what is the issue again?
JimmyM has correctly stated that working to a metronome can be bad.
Working to a metronnome changes the task in the same way as counting out loud the numbers and thinking them does.
The constant sound of the metronome may cause anxiety about the physical part and we trip over ourselves, so we are really not learning anything by doing it, we are in fact making the task harder.
But once you can do the task, you can calabrate it or learn to adapt it by playing to a metronome.
Now this is not learning a new skill, it is adptation of an already learned internal skill. ( a child has to learn to balance to walk, it has to learn to walk to run this is adaptaion of the learned skill of balance..as is riding a bike )
So calabration from a metronome is what we get, it gives us the idea of tempo to prove or dis-prove timing, it is not the all and be all of it, just part of it.
jeffbonny has correctly identified another area, not listening.
I find this to be very true as part of the problem, as not listening, or not hearing what is going on, is based in part to not understanding it.
Now apply that to the timing or rhythm of a song and it becomes more important.
Players neglect to learn how a song or a piece of music is formed and structured from a timing point of view.
It is this understanding of where you are against where you should be, that reinforces the other areas of your playing.
If a chorus starts Cm7 only in a song, say that song has four verses and five choruses, then you know you are at the chorus when you play Cm7 and you also know that playing Cm7 means you are at the chorus..it all helps build a mental map for you to draw on.
Take it a step further, if each verse ends on a different lyric line, and you have learned the song complete, you will associate the lyric to the verse number, the chorus number to the Cm7 chord you should be playing, and you will know where you are in the song...not thinking "which chorus is this". you will associate the end lyric to a verse number....because you know how may verses and choruses the song has, you know how many you have played, so you know how many you have left to play.
Take that a step further and add a key change after chorus 3 then if become important to know the song and know where you are. Again, any part information such as a key change, is used and compared against the other info to reinforce what you are playing.
Take that a step futher with a different feel to be added at a given point, or accents, or just a plain dead stop, any player that misses a dead stop may feel, or be accused, or having bad timing, but all it shows is they did not know the song or music well enough to know when to stop.
I was orchestrally trained so i was calabrated and trained to count first, not feel first.
My feeling became part of my counting over time until the two were as one, then it was never ever worked on because i knew how to do it, what was worked on was adapting it...that is where playing to a metronome becomes important, because it will show you the error of your playing and so it is showing you the error of your counting, which is an error of your thinking, which is being supported by an error in your sub concious.
This can be a split second thing, as in a reaction, or a thought out conclussion when listening or learning.
We know this happens because far to many people experience it.
We have all experienced " i know what i should be doing, but can't" feeling i our playing lives.....and that is it..a feeling.
That's a feeling of not being able to play what we feel we should.
Classic example is the symptom of anxiety in these cases that affects timing. It is the belief that there is a problem that creates it, it is reinforced everytime it is done wrong to the point that the player is no longer concerned with playing, the whole song right, but just not playing that part wrong.
This then means there has to be an awarnes of that part coming, so if the mind wander on ahead of where you should be then you are not thinking about where you are in the song, you are focusing on a specific part of the song.
Crux of the matter is until it is played you have no foundation for thinking that way...it may even be your thinking that always makes it happen.
This was reinforced in me ( in my orchestra days ) in two ways when i was younger, i could never feel some of the stops in a piece ( i cannot remember what it was, but i remember what i was told about my problem ).
When once more i got it wrong, and when we stoped to review that passage i was told to stand up and explain why i keep getting it wrong.
The conductor instructed the piano player to play the passage i am getting wrong " give him a 8 bars before".
And when i got it wrong again i exclaimed out loud to justify myself. " I knew that would happen"
only to be told " then if you knew it would happen...why did you do it"?
"Because that's where it felt right" i shouted back, feeling that i had been mad a fool of...and was now adding anger to my other emotions about it.
The conductor laughed gently and shook his head, he then imparted great wisdom on me " why feel it when you can just simply count it Mr Fulton"? (even though only 14 everyone was Mr somebody)
"So for the benefit of Mr Fulton..and any others, this is what you should be counting." and with that the piano soloist played the part and the conductor counted it out showing us where each section comes in and out and where any individual chairs within the section should be. I never missed it again because i just counted it.
The reason 100 players in an orchestra play together is because they can count, but it is an internalised count developed over many disiplines of playing and reading music.
I have worked for 5 piece bands that cannot keep time because they want to feel the songs, the advice is still the same " why feel it when you can count it......because once you can count it you can feel it.
Once you can feel it you have no real reason to learn to count it....but if you cannot feel it you have every reason to learn to count it...........
I'm not the one with a rythm problem unless that part wasn't directed at me.
Wizard Of Oz says, "It was always in you, Scarecrow!"
