You would be the first is this is true. I am kind of excited!
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
How's your tempo?
- Thread starter BassyBill
- Start date
You would be the first is this is true. I am kind of excited!
Thank you, that's so nice of you to say it.
Please listen to the following song as a token of my appreciation.
Johnny Nash – Let's Be Friends
(Yes, Let's Be Friends)
TEMPO IN MY HEAD: 95
ACTUAL TEMPO: 95
A great point was brought up earlier that a lot of older pre-click track songs have tempos that are all over the place, this one slowly moves from 95 to 96.
I've been a strong proponent of click tracks in the past because they have a way of pulling a scattered band together and can tighten one up faster than any other tool, but with a band that is sensitive to tempo I really see the point of turning it off. Forcing a robotic beat handcuffs your ability to express the song.
I've got used to playing with the click, as ALL my musician friends, and singers.
What's the difference to record a song in the studio to a click track or to have that click going into the drummers ear on stage while playing live?
Play with to a click, and no more EMPTY but Emotional talking like, "Man, you're rushing/you're dragging", especially if you have a lot of dancers (who can be IN YOUR FACE explaining that this or that song was played either too fast or too slow.)
Yes, I understand your point about a "robotic beat that handcuffs your ability to express the song".
I understand your "worries", but don't accept it.
A metronome/a click does not stifle my ability (if any) to express the song.
With most bands it can dramatically improve the sound. With a band that is sensitive to tempo, I could see a clicktrack as a pair of handcuffs on your expression and ability to follow what feels right.
Once upon a time, I was playing in a Gypsy band. There were a lot of songs where tempo could change from 40 BPM to 250 plus (gradually).
It's completely impossible to use ANY METRONOME. What's more the band's leader -keyboard/guitar player - REALLY needed to show us/conduct those tempo changes,
but
in Lite Music - Pop, Rock, Funk, etc... - a click is that SOLID FOUNDATION on which the musicians and singers are building their ideas.
Let's say, a leading instrumentalist or a singer wants to built SOMETHING beautiful (some very Ornamental phrase) but suddenly discovers that the foundation has a gap - the brick (the rhythmic foundation) is too short (too fast).
Anyway, it's only my opinion - nothing more.
I tried the first two examples, Signed Sealed and I Wish, 105 and 106. So pretty close. However, I suspect on a gig I might be very likely to start either too fast.
Then I tried a song we play in church and I always think we're playing it too slow. I got 92, the record is 85. Guess it's me.
Then I tried a song we play in church and I always think we're playing it too slow. I got 92, the record is 85. Guess it's me.
I can only repeat my previous comment.
My simple answer is - That kind of pseudo-"test" is
Environmentally-Subjective and Subconsciously-Circumstantial and
ALMOST means NOTHING to me as a bass player.
I wasn't claiming any kind of positivist research validity for this procedure. The word "fun" in the OP was a giant clue. 
Agreed, and driving a band to a constant tempo is yet another thing. I play in a big-band, and improving my ability to hold a band's tempo steady is probably a lifelong pursuit.
LOL, I tried Coltrane's "Giant Steps," and was way off.
My memory: 250
The recording: 290, holds pretty steady until Flanagan's solo, then takes off like a rocket
My memory: 250
The recording: 290, holds pretty steady until Flanagan's solo, then takes off like a rocket
