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.
Jeff Berlin Discussing Music Ed
- Thread starter JeffBerlin
- Start date
- Status
I don' teach the scales. I teach the chords and the chord tones. And I never teach key centers because this is a cheat. It ignores each chord for what it is because even if they share the same notes, they are totally different tonalities. Then I teach approaches to the chord tones, followed by other various elements of music. I offer stuff that all melodic instruments offer. Our guys read music from day one, counting, tapping their foot. No metronomes of course because they only insist that you perform. In a lesson it is the opposite; you should be learning slowly.
All that I ever said was that you won't develop good time with a metronome. And you won't! If you don't agree, then use one!
LOL. I know what you mean. Like I said before I don't think we can win an argument with Jeff especially here.
We all have egos,we all think we're the best at what we do......and you know what? WE ARE !
As long as we teach from our own experience, heart,with honesty and love,we'll do good.
I'm not stuck with a list of xx points like I used too. I always take some stuff out and some stuff in from my playing, teaching and learning experiences. This is called: evolving along the way.
I think the worst thing would be that someone without the experience that Jeff has or you have and teaches that exact methodology without experiencing it and take everything on the list for facts. That would make a really bad teacher. As long as we teach with our own experience with soul it will be good.
Sly
Let's examine all the well known bass players. Do me a favor and make a list of all the bass players who you know have used a metronome to help them develop good time and post it here. We can discuss this list. How about up to tomorrow. Do your research and post your lists and we can check them out.
he says a metronome won´t give you good time. he says that learning the music will give you the ability to play it in good time. and he says that learning music (a new piece or concept of music) will be disturbed if done to a click and should therefore be done out of time. that´s something different to "one CAN´T learn to play with good time using a metronome"...
PS Jeff, i hope you´re not angry if i write things like "he (you) said", if you feel misquoted let me know!!! It´s just that i think that some people here are so focused on this metronome-aspect that they don´t get the general point.
Sounds like fun. I'll look into it. However, the point being made by Ed and myself is that we both showed improvement in regards to time after work with a metronome. We never said "All the greats must be great because they practiced to a metronome." We are speaking from our own personal experience.
To make clear. I believe and I have said that you will never develop a good sense of time with a metronome. The moment that a drummer or real musicians enter the equation then the metronome lessons are negated. You can't train with a click and expect good time results if live players enter the equation and change the time principle that you were practicing.
In academics, the idea is to learn how to be musical on your instrument. I ask again to everybody who still has not answered my request: Tell me anything anywhere in the world that is best learned in time. If you cannot do this with anything at all, then why is music excempt from the same principle of learning that EVERYTHING is beholden to? If you cannot list musicians who have gained their time sense from a click, nor list anything on Earth that is best learned in time, then as a group, you are all in error. I question your idea that you've gotten better time with a click because 100% of everybody who came to The Players School of Music who made the same claim found out right away that they didn't acquire what they thought that they have, once they were put into different musical situations. Music makes honest people out of us all. I just don't believe people when they tell me that they've been helped with a click because they always find out that they really haven't once I introduce music into their day.
I operate from the principle that if it works for me, then it will work for you. Food is food in spite of the variety, because we are all the same types of life forms. We all have eyes and we all want to be happy. There are a lot of commonalities in our species. This is why I question anybody who states that they improved using a metronome, not because they are lying or dis-honest, but because they may not know enough about music to really know the truth about their improvement. So, I question anybody who says that they are better with a click. If there are well known bassists who developed their time with a metronome, then the claim is backed up by facts, by history. But, if it isn't then people have to reconsider what they believe.
RE: Timing
Isn't a written musical phrase notes that are placed at very specific subdivisions of each bar that are meant to be played for specific durations?
Isn't the tempo of a piece of music subject to interpretation as it's performed? Meaning a director can speed it up or slow it down as his/her interpretation and temperament deems necessary?
Further, isn't it true that a musical performance is the result of human expression and therefore subject to the ebbs and flows of how humans feel in the moment?
Also, isn't it true that humans are not mechanical and even though we can imitate mechanical precision, that's not necessarily the same thing as expressing a strong sense of timing as it relates to being musical?
I ask these questions because I think I see why there's such a strong divide between those who argue so adamantly that metronomes can teach timing while Mr. Berlin argues the opposite.
And really, the word 'opposite' doesn't apply fully because the framing of one argument vs. the other includes very different parameters in many ways. True, many here have learned to play in time with others and a metronome was a very big part of that process. But it was not the only part and not solely responsible for their ability to 'have a good sense of timing or rhythm'. And further, had such a device never been invented, they'd have probably been able to still develop a strong sense of timing in spite of that fact.
I don't think it comes down to semantics. I think there are very real, provable aspects to both sides - but as this particular argument is framed (by Mr. Berlin), if you choose to discuss musicality and timing within this construct, you have to accept the framing - then discuss.
All that said - I still use a metronome at times when I practice. But I think in the frame of this argument, I am not technically 'practicing' - I am performing - by myself with a metronome.
Prior to practicing performing with the metronome I do practice (and have always practiced) out of time - tapping the rhythm - slowing it when things got sticky - bringing it back up to tempo when things were smooth - then as an exercise - as if to practice like my conductor were at the podium or a drummer was in the driver's seat, I'd click on the metronome and see if I could maintain a smooth execution of my part at a fixed and rigid pace as dictated by the tool.
NEVER in a live performance did my conductor or drummer represent the tempo of a piece as my metronome did, however.
I am curious, Mr. Berlin, am I in the ballpark of understanding your point of view on this topic? If not, can you please enlighten me as to where I am off base?
Isn't a written musical phrase notes that are placed at very specific subdivisions of each bar that are meant to be played for specific durations?
Isn't the tempo of a piece of music subject to interpretation as it's performed? Meaning a director can speed it up or slow it down as his/her interpretation and temperament deems necessary?
Further, isn't it true that a musical performance is the result of human expression and therefore subject to the ebbs and flows of how humans feel in the moment?
Also, isn't it true that humans are not mechanical and even though we can imitate mechanical precision, that's not necessarily the same thing as expressing a strong sense of timing as it relates to being musical?
I ask these questions because I think I see why there's such a strong divide between those who argue so adamantly that metronomes can teach timing while Mr. Berlin argues the opposite.
And really, the word 'opposite' doesn't apply fully because the framing of one argument vs. the other includes very different parameters in many ways. True, many here have learned to play in time with others and a metronome was a very big part of that process. But it was not the only part and not solely responsible for their ability to 'have a good sense of timing or rhythm'. And further, had such a device never been invented, they'd have probably been able to still develop a strong sense of timing in spite of that fact.
I don't think it comes down to semantics. I think there are very real, provable aspects to both sides - but as this particular argument is framed (by Mr. Berlin), if you choose to discuss musicality and timing within this construct, you have to accept the framing - then discuss.
All that said - I still use a metronome at times when I practice. But I think in the frame of this argument, I am not technically 'practicing' - I am performing - by myself with a metronome.
Prior to practicing performing with the metronome I do practice (and have always practiced) out of time - tapping the rhythm - slowing it when things got sticky - bringing it back up to tempo when things were smooth - then as an exercise - as if to practice like my conductor were at the podium or a drummer was in the driver's seat, I'd click on the metronome and see if I could maintain a smooth execution of my part at a fixed and rigid pace as dictated by the tool.
NEVER in a live performance did my conductor or drummer represent the tempo of a piece as my metronome did, however.
I am curious, Mr. Berlin, am I in the ballpark of understanding your point of view on this topic? If not, can you please enlighten me as to where I am off base?
You certainly have broken through a large portion of the confusion between academics and performance. Some people here seems to confuse the two.
Jamming with a metronome is like jamming with a drum machine. If there is no one around to play with, then it is a fun device to play to. But, you won't develop better time by doing this. I know this because everybody jams, but few improve from doing it. By the way, that was a great letter that you wrote. In a nutshell, each element that you raised made sense.
- Dec 13, 1999
- 11,736
- 8,941
- 70
- Disclosures
- Chuck Sher publishes my book, WALKING BASSICS:The Fundamentals of Jazz Bass Playing.
Do we need to stick to bassists? Just off the top of my head there's that great practice tape of Clifford Brown working with a metronome, all of that great stuff with the Tristano crew -Marsh, Konitz, Sal Mosca, Sonny Dallas, Peter Ind, Connie Crothers et al - let's see at this site there's Lynn Seaton who advocates nome use. But I'll e-mail around and get a list together for you.
Hey Jeff,
A while back I said that I had started studying with a local guitarist. This is without doubt the best thing I have ever done for my music education. He is a well known performer and experienced educator.
I was until these lessons self taught. I played professionally starting on graduation from high school and did fairly well for years in pop, rock, swing, and lounge jazz bands. However I never truly studied nor understood music. Now I am struggling to overcome years of playing the root.
I have learned my chord voicings and am getting them down pretty well in all positions and inversions. I have been doing exercises such as your suggestion of playing the seventh mode of the melodic minor scale in all keys up and down the neck.
My current challenge is to begin improvising good solos. I still out of habit fall back on beginning my lines or ideas with the root. This does not make for interesting solos. My teacher has been working patiently with me to overcome this hurdle. We have been working on playing through standards playing the 3rd and 7th on each change only, using voice leading, then mixing in arpeggios based off the 3rd, 5th, or 7th, as well as playing linear lines which I am pretty good at. This is helping a lot. I have also been working through some Coltrane transriptions and writing out solos for myself incorporating some of his lines - or segments of his lines. I think that a few more months of this may get me through the root bound mentality / habit - I hope.
Do you have any other suggestions for improvement? I think I am on the right track but am of course having troube being patient with myself. I hear great lines in my head and want to be able to get them into my fingers.
Thanks!
A while back I said that I had started studying with a local guitarist. This is without doubt the best thing I have ever done for my music education. He is a well known performer and experienced educator.
I was until these lessons self taught. I played professionally starting on graduation from high school and did fairly well for years in pop, rock, swing, and lounge jazz bands. However I never truly studied nor understood music. Now I am struggling to overcome years of playing the root.
I have learned my chord voicings and am getting them down pretty well in all positions and inversions. I have been doing exercises such as your suggestion of playing the seventh mode of the melodic minor scale in all keys up and down the neck.
My current challenge is to begin improvising good solos. I still out of habit fall back on beginning my lines or ideas with the root. This does not make for interesting solos. My teacher has been working patiently with me to overcome this hurdle. We have been working on playing through standards playing the 3rd and 7th on each change only, using voice leading, then mixing in arpeggios based off the 3rd, 5th, or 7th, as well as playing linear lines which I am pretty good at. This is helping a lot. I have also been working through some Coltrane transriptions and writing out solos for myself incorporating some of his lines - or segments of his lines. I think that a few more months of this may get me through the root bound mentality / habit - I hope.
Do you have any other suggestions for improvement? I think I am on the right track but am of course having troube being patient with myself. I hear great lines in my head and want to be able to get them into my fingers.
Thanks!
well so what......you have stated many times that you are an accomplished player and teacher ,and you disagree with the methods advocated here...we get it.....but the constant debate over this point is long past any value in helping the rest of us.....perhaps it would be more productive for you to start an ed fuqua thread and let us see what you do advocate,and let those with a mind to go there.....you are adding nothing positive to this thread
When soloing on each bar, make sure that you resolve to a chord tone when you get to the next chord, something that lays near to the last note that you are playing. This way you aren't leaping to the root as bass players often do. This is a great exercise. Let me know how it goes.
It looks like you are denying the great melodies that are based on one scale even if the harmony implies something else. I think it is good to learn the heads and to understand it. By playing with the key center in mind is an excellent way to play melodically over a dense harmony. You can even play simple notes from the key center that become great extensions that are not in the chord symbols.
I totally understand the value of chord tones. They represent the vertical aspect of the music but key center represent the horizontal aspect and linear approach which is as important if not more then the vertical aspect.
Sly
Scales are different than melodies. learning a melody is learning a composition. Scales are generally vague about tonality because they include several chord possibilities, something that confused a lot of bass players. Besides, scales are no more or no less as important as, say, tensions on a chord. But, if you read what bass teachers and students say, you might believe that the only exercise worthy of learning are scales. They aren't!
Can you you define what you mean by dense harmony? Do you mean more than one chord in a bar?
- Status
