jbonny said:
I think that Jeff believes that metronomic time is over-valued by our modern musical culture. How long has the metronome been in existence compared to how long we humans have been making music? Are all those thousands of generations of pre-metronome musicians substantially inferior to those of us reared from birth with click?
Those of you who are most vehemently and violently opposed to Berlin's ideas may be missing a very fundamental statement about music and time.
OK, metronomic time is over valued by modern musical culture. Whoever they are (name 3). What about me, an itinerant jazz bassist who isn't striving for metronomic time (which I can only take to mean that you never go off-click whether it's on or not), just a steady time feel. That is stable, reliable and visceral? My experience is only my experience, but it IS my experience. And that is fairly clearly related here (in my opinion, if anyone isn't clear on it, let me know and I'll try to hit it form a different angle). Jeff, when you use words like "substantially inferior" it seems like you are hearing this as some sort of moral judgement. I'm not sure where that comes from. Using a nome doesn't make me a better person, it has just made my time feel steadier, deeper.
A lot of indigenous music, like much classical music, the time is not constant. It moves at the whim of the ensemble or of the composer or both. Nobody is saying that music that doesn't adhere to that aesthetic is intrinsically MORE or LESS worthwhile. And that doesn't seem to be what Jeff is saying (at least as far as I can tell from exchanging posts when he was here, reading what has been quoted from other articles and interviews and through people acting as his erstwhile proxy)
DON'T USE A NOME BECAUSE IT'S OK IF MUSIC MOVES AROUND IN A FLEXIBLE TIME LINE
I haven't heard or read that, what I have heard is
1. I can teach people to have time that DOESN'T move around without using a metronome.
2. No one can learn to have time that doesn't move around by using a metronome.
I'm sceptical of the first statement, but certainly willing to hear more.
I disagree fundamentally with the second because I have done it. And all you need to disprove a theorem is to have ONE CASE in which the hypothesis does not hold. That would be me. At least.
As I said, I'm sceptical of the first statement. And it doesn't do Jeff any favors to make such a bold statement and then follow it with others (in support) that are just plain wrong (ie the whole "jazz players didn't...", there is too much evidence to the contrary- in writing, in audio and video interviews and in such personal mementos as Clifford Brown's personal practice tapes. For Brownie's birthday 6 or 7 years ago, Phil Schaap played an excerpt of a practice tape {Brownie recorded almost all of his practice sessions}. The session lasted about 7 hours and much of it was Brownie improvising against the click of a metronome.)
NUNO - great, Jeff shut an audience up. BY DOING WHAT? That always seems to be the sticking point. My supposition is that he did one of two things
1. put the nome on and had everybody clap along. Then turn the nome off and have everybody clap and when evrybody more or less claps in time together says "See, you don't need a metronome."
2. have some poor sucker who says that he practices with a nome come up and clap along with the nome. Then he'll do soemthing like turn the sound off and have them keep on clapping and when they get off the click, say "See, practicing with a nome does nothing for your time."
So NUNO, you were there. Describe what happened.