Jeff Berlin discussing music education part 3

[Roy Vogt]

If you play behind the beat, won't it just sound like you're dragging or have bad time? I mean obviously no one would accuse Willie Weeks or Will Lee of having bad time, but obviously there's something missing here.

The trick is to not play THAT far behind the beat. I conceive of the quarter note or pulse being a circle-I can either play on the front end of the circle (like Jaco or Geddy), in the center of the circle (like some English players do-particularly a lot of the '80s session guys) or on the back of the circle like Will, Willie and David and currently Raphael Saadiq.
You're never outside of the circle, that would be rushing or dragging.
BTW, this can be a moveable set point for a player. Just listen to Pino Palladino with Raphael Saadiq, John Mayer Trio, and The Who and you'll find three different ways of dealing with the time.
Did you ever think of how The Stones would sound if Keith didn't play on top of the beat, Charlie didn't play in the center, and Bill didn't play behind everyone else? That "ragged but right" sound defines them.
This stuff is best learned by listening and imitating and not analysis.
"It could be a Rutabaga ninth chord-don't analyze, listen!"-Hampton Hawes

 

[Fergie Fulton]

I think the key is working with the 'nome on things you can already play-hence, it's a performance and not learning the music. If I could always practice with a drummer 24/7 with impeccable time I'd love to do that, but the time feel is really something I create for myself. To harken back to the Martial Arts/Boxing analogy, it's a tool-like the Stationary Bag. The Stationary Bag is not going to teach you to box any more than the metronome will "give" anyone good time.
The dichotomy with working with a 'nome is to remember who's boss. The time can (and has to) come from you. Jeff's little demo with the cameraman (singing "Mexican Hat Dance" at various tempos and having the cameraman clap the rhythm in time) helped me totally understand this. The cameraman "knew the notes" so timing was not a problem. At that point he was "performing" and not learning.
Going back to the first rule of practicing I've heard from everyone from Jeff to Stanley Clarke to Rufus Reid: "Don't waste time playing things that you can already play." Practice is for the most part not performance, although I can affirm that some practice (rehearsal) to affirm ideas we already know is something everyone from a Rock Band to A Symphony Orchestra does. That's practicing a performance, not learning something new.
If I can get out of my own prejudices and look at methodology with no agenda everything makes a whole lot of sense.

Again i'm with you 100%, the old saying of those who always practice get good at practising, those who learn get and education, is always quoted with the last bit missing usually to make a case against learning new things.
As you know there is the learning, the practice, the rehearsal. the dress rehearsal and the performance, all need a different approach. Again that is something that should and can be taught.
Music education is about affirming the right ideas and habits with players, that's why when they get in a rut or struggle they fall back on there habits, then it gets worse because they already know deep down inside that this will not work for them but it is a safe feeling so they stay with it.

Just saying no to an idea is not enough like the nome or click principal, it has to be explained how they work for the good, then for the bad, just saying no to them will never work, telling someone to disregard them will never work. Good teaching and education on there use always works because it explains the ideas of why they work and why the don't, player will work it out for themselves and decide.
In this era clicks are now a part of what a player needs to understand so the education should reflect that and in time that will be part of academia of the future as it purpose and use is verified as knowledge.
I hear Pat Methenys new album Orchestration is him solo playing with triggers and pneumatic clicks, all controlled by him. So there is an example of a player using new ideas and principals for his need because i assume, he understands what he wants to achieve from it and this gives him what he wants.

 

[tZer]

I posted a question earlier on key centers and voice leading - I really do want to know if I'm thinking in the right direction. If anyone can let me know if what I asked made sense and/or clarify what didn't, I'd appreciate it greatly.

Voice Leading and Key Centers - am I on the right track?

I found when composing, using voice leading can point you at harmonic options that frequently step out of a key signature. I have always thought of music in terms of key signatures - and just accepted that most of the songs I play tend to simply leverage lots of accidentals.

So it occurred to me as I was transcribing a very simple chord progression this morning that thinking in terms of voice leading and key signatures tend to fight each other conceptually.

Sure, rules from both apply to the each other - in a key signature, you use accidentals to account for 'out' pitches - in voice leading you add/subtract pitches to chords.

So for me, "letting go" of a key signature - [EDIT] or thinking about the piece of music in terms of NOT having a key signature[/EDIT] - when working with chord progressions removed a LOT of clutter!

Chords themselves are/have their own 'key signature' - a global key signature isn't really needed in order for them to properly relate to each other...

Voice leading brings chords to each other in simple, logical steps based on their function in a piece of music and what the notes are is dictated by the chord they create.

Does that make sense?

Staying on the current topic and reinforcing 'out of time' learning; I've been doing a lot of that lately - on piano.

I think a lot of people mistake 'rote memorization of a system of patterns' with learning music. Hey, I'm playing it on a musical instrument, right? I must understand music. Pop/rock/blues (music systems that are built on very simple, repetitious patterns) nurtures a laymen musician's concept of what music is - learning and being able to repeat patterns. While the end result can be indistinguishable from what a scholarly musician may play, there's a huge difference in their understanding of music and what music actually is from an academic perspective.

Trivial? Yep... But that's what academics are all about, right?

Metronomes reinforce ones sense that they've learned something - how to perform a song in time. If they play through it with no mistakes, in time, they've learned the song. This was validated, not facilitated, by the nome.

Again (as Jeff and others are saying), the only thing the metronome did was provide them something to measure how effectively they learned a part. They have to learn the part first which is done slowly and out of time.

While they were learning the part, a metronome would have actually been a distraction - and hindered the process. To learn a part, you need silence. You need your mind and ears focused on the music. A click, someone knocking on the door, a dog parking are all distractions. If you cannot play the part slowly and out of time, you'll never be able to playing quickly, in time. So learning music and metronomes do not go together. Playing music and metronomes can go together - or not.

What are your thoughts on out of time practice and ear training vs. pattern training (rote memorization)?

 

[Roy Vogt]

I posted a question earlier on key centers and voice leading - I really do want to know if I'm thinking in the right direction. If anyone can let me know if what I asked made sense and/or clarify what didn't, I'd appreciate it greatly.




Staying on the current topic and reinforcing 'out of time' learning; I've been doing a lot of that lately - on piano.

I think a lot of people mistake 'rote memorization of a system of patterns' with learning music. Hey, I'm playing it on a musical instrument, right? I must understand music. Pop/rock/blues (music systems that are built on very simple, repetitious patterns) nurtures a laymen musician's concept of what music is - learning and being able to repeat patterns. While the end result can be indistinguishable from what a scholarly musician my play, there's a huge difference in their understanding of music and what music actually is from an academic perspective.

Trivial, yep... But that's what academics are all about, right?

Metronomes reinforce ones sense that they've learned something - how to perform a song in time. If they play through it with no mistakes, in time, they've learned the song. This was validated, not facilitated, by the nome.

Again (as Jeff and others are saying), the only thing the metronome did was provide them something to measure how effectively they learned a part. They have to learn the part first which is done slowly and out of time.

While they were learning the part, a metronome would have actually been a distraction - and hindered the process. To learn a part, you need silence. You need your mind and ears focused on the music. A click, someone knocking on the door, a dog parking are all distractions. If you cannot play the part slowly and out of time, you'll never be able to playing quickly, in time. So learning music and metronomes do not go together. Playing music and metronomes can go together - or not.

What are your thoughts on out of time practice and ear training vs. pattern training (rote memorization)?

Sorry, I meant to give you my 2 cents here, but it slipped my mind:
A lot of Jazz Charts have no key signatures. The issue with key signatures is that most Jazz tunes have different key centers. For instance, "A Train" is primarily in C with the bridge in the key of F.
What will help you define this is the V7-I cadence in A Train it's here:
Cmaj7-D7+-Dm7 (ii)-G7 (V7)-C maj7 (I)
The cadence is the last 2 chords. If you go to your Real Book and look for either V7-I or V7b9-i cadences (for a minor key) this will give you a clue about where the key centers are. Be prepared, there are a lot of them on some tunes!
This is one reason why I feel chord tones and approach tones are a better place to start with bass lines and soloing, BTW.
Hope this helps.

 

[Fergie Fulton]

If you play behind the beat, won't it just sound like you're dragging or have bad time? I mean obviously no one would accuse Willie Weeks or Will Lee of having bad time, but obviously there's something missing here.

Im sure i have giving this example before but its a good one

The word beat is the beat, so 4 beats is be^at be^at be^at be^at that is one bar of 4/4 if you will, with the accent in the middle of the word be^at.

Ahead of the beat is seen as b^eat and after the beat is bea^t. So the beat is constant it just where you play that will give it a feel. This happen natural in music with different players all feeling the beat but accenting to it slightly different, learn to see this and do it to call and you have the basis of feeling. Fall outside the word and you are out of time. That's why a click or a nome is not something that will dictate the accent, only the beat, the accent to it is the players choice. Its when a player tries to accent the beat all the time that trouble will follow.

 

[Roy Vogt]

Im sure i have giving this example before but its a good one

The word beat is the beat, so 4 beats is be^at be^at be^at be^at that is one bar of 4/4 if you will, with the accent in the middle of the word be^at.

Ahead of the beat is seen as b^eat and after the beat is bea^t. So the beat is constant it just where you play that will give it a feel. This happen natural in music with different players all feeling the beat but accenting to it slightly different, learn to see this and do it to call and you have the basis of feeling. Fall outside the word and you are out of time. That's why a click or a nome is not something that will dictate the accent, only the beat, the accent to it is the players choice. Its when a player tries to accent the beat all the time that trouble will follow.

That's actually a great visual analogy.

 

[chadhargis]

That's actually a great visual analogy.

+1

Cleared it up for me!

 

[tZer]

Sorry, I meant to give you my 2 cents here, but it slipped my mind:
A lot of Jazz Charts have no key signatures. The issue with key signatures is that most Jazz tunes have different key centers. For instance, "A Train" is primarily in C with the bridge in the key of F.
What will help you define this is the V7-I cadence in A Train it's here:
Cmaj7-D7+-Dm7 (ii)-G7 (V7)-C maj7 (I)
The cadence is the last 2 chords. If you go to your Real Book and look for either V7-I or V7b9-i cadences (for a minor key) this will give you a clue about where the key centers are. Be prepared, there are a lot of them on some tunes!
This is one reason why I feel chord tones and approach tones are a better place to start with bass lines and soloing, BTW.
Hope this helps.

Yes - very helpful, thanks!

And a lot of this feels like a big face-palm, "duh" now...

So - While most music ultimately does have key centers that help to frame harmonic nature of sections that are defined by chord progressions, some music is better served by not specifying key signatures depending on how much liberty the piece takes with shifting out of what would be governed by key centers around.

Some pieces can easily live in the key of C major and their chords all play nice in that space while others may favor C major, but have enough parts that step out that a key sig. would actually interfere with effectively describing the harmonic movement therein.

"Yes, it's 'generally' in C... But here it does this and there it does that - and it does this and that enough that saying it's really in 'C' is somewhat misleading..."

Jazz and chord progressions are not classical... Different rules - different mindsets... I need to get used to that! It's amazing to me how I've actually played in more jazz and chord-progression based ensembles, combos and groups than classical and yet my head is so totally wound around what I learned as a classical player... Sheesh...

 

[JeffBerlin]

About six months ago I tried Jeff's metronome theory on my son's friend. He's 14. I show him how to play a song that he had never heard, and it took him some time to get the notes right, but after he had it down he was still having trouble with his timing. So I played the chairdrum with him and he nailed it. At that point I believed Jeff, that anyone can play in time. I watched it happen with my own two ears. So, the other day my guitar player (bro-in-law) and I were playing with our drum machine and my 5 year old nephew comes in and tells me he wants to play me his music. I thought "that's cute, he wants to play my bass". Well, I was shocked that he could play in time, but even more that he was hitting downbeats and upbeats. It sounded good and it was pretty cool. Although I have never used a metronome besides a drum machine, I am 100% sure that they are unnecessary. Now I just really have to start practicing so not to be replaced by my nephew.

Metronomes are the most misused device in all of music practice for bass players. Guys who defend their use have not yet learned about music. I know this because their main interest is in performance, not the gathering of new musical information.

Your story about about your nephew is not new to me. My son, at 2 years old, could sing in time. The common element here between my son's and your nephew's experience is that practically everybody has good time. But practically everybody doesn't know how to play, certainly not in time, and certainly not while new information is being regarded.

Has anybody noticed that changing of the tide over here? More people are discovering a new approach to where good time comes from and I am pleased about that. Just to advice you guys, players who don't think about music first will defend or explain using a metronome during practice. This is the truth and either one falls into this group of non-musically motivated student or one does not.

Lately, there are more stories about discovering where good time comes from and unanimously, nobody brought up a metronome as a source. This is great news because now, it makes the player responsible to find out where good time actually comes from, and it makes them responsible to acquire it. How great for everybody who really wishes to play better, and in time!

 

[JeffBerlin]

This is a good point.
I always have more difficulty grooving with a drummer that is "locked-in" with an external time keeping device..
Seems like they are paying more attention to the "click" than the other musicians...

Here is one of the most important quotes about being a good player. It was said in a Guitar Player magazine interview by the late legendary guitarist Joe Pass.

"Guitarists should be able to pick up the guitar and play music on it for an hour, without a rhythm section or anything."

 

[JeffBerlin]

In Jeff's demo of the Mexican Hat Dance, it showed a very important thing that he didn't mention. Not all songs have a constant tempo. There are retards and breakdowns that occur

No! Most tunes follow a constant tempo!

 

[Roy Vogt]

Here is one of the most important quotes about being a good player. It was said in a Guitar Player magazine interview by the late legendary guitarist Joe Pass.

"Guitarists should be able to pick up the guitar and play music on it for an hour, without a rhythm section or anything."

+1 That's what Sonny Rollins can do, many of the Acknowledged Masters on any instrument can do, and what I aspire to do....

 

[JeffBerlin]

. What are your thoughts on out of time practice and ear training vs. pattern training (rote memorization)?

Nothing should be memorized as a goal when practicing. Ever! Memorization will happen when it happens and it isn't necessary that you memorize anything.

Out of time practicing must be a part of everything that you start out learning, or else, you won't learn it well. But if you have permission to slow down, count, review your errors and fix them, and in general, be as far away from a performance principle as you can get, then you will triple your learning experience. The performance experience takes care of itself. It has for everybody who ever played and so why should anybody who reads this be any different. Don't memorize! Practicize!!!!!!!!

 

[chadhargis]

No! Most tunes follow a constant tempo!

Most do, but some don't. There are tempo changes, retards, breakdowns and in some extreme cases a complete stop.

Take, for example, Billy Joel's "Scenes from an Italian Restaurant". It's basically two separate songs.

Granted, I might be using the wrong terminology. It's hard for me to express myself in musical terms when I don't know musical terms. DOH!

 

[Fergie Fulton]

That's actually a great visual analogy.

LOL feel free to use it and expand on it. Its a simple lesson to visualize "feeling" for those that don't get it rather than hours of endless playing examples trying explain it, works wonders.

 

[tZer]

Most do, but some don't. There are tempo changes, retards, breakdowns and in some extreme cases a complete stop.

Take, for example, Billy Joel's "Scenes from an Italian Restaurant". It's basically two separate songs.

Granted, I might be using the wrong terminology. It's hard for me to express myself in musical terms when I don't know musical terms. DOH!

While tempos my change in the ways you describe, the only way to know there's a change is if there's a constant. While all music can fluctuate as a result of either directives in the music, the conductor's or the individual performer's interpretation or an ensemble 'feeling it out' - there's a fundamental pacing that is necessary for music to be coherent.

Tempo rubato and tempo changes are not the same as absence of consistent tempo. Without consistent tempo, tempo changes or fluctuations can't happen.

 

[Quadruple Jay]

Nothing should be memorized as a goal when practicing. Ever! Memorization will happen when it happens and it isn't necessary that you memorize anything.

I see it kind of like this: It is better to seek total understanding than to just plain memorize. Memorization of a subject is a side-effect of having a total understanding of it. The difference between the two is the understanding gives you the tools to apply your knowledge to unfamiliar situations. Pure memorization simply gives you the ability to reproduce only what you've memorized.

If I just sit here and memorize what fret is what chord tone in Cmaj, all I can do is play chord tones in Cmaj. If I understand the chord tones of Cmaj, I not only know where they are, but why they are important, what they sound like, and how they work. Not necessarily for performance-sake, but for the sake of understanding (academically!) how music works.

If I sit here and memorize finger patterns for a song, what will I do when someone wants to play it in a different key where I can't use those finger patterns? If I have an understanding of the song and the lines I am playing, I can apply it to anywhere on the fretboard in any key.

I'm not saying people should sit down and over analyze everything they do, just to not sit down and have your main goal be memorization. Let it be understanding.

 

[JeffBerlin]

Most do, but some don't. There are tempo changes, retards, breakdowns and in some extreme cases a complete stop.

Take, for example, Billy Joel's "Scenes from an Italian Restaurant". It's basically two separate songs.

Granted, I might be using the wrong terminology. It's hard for me to express myself in musical terms when I don't know musical terms. DOH!

These are performance issues and breakdowns in performance are learned via rehearsals. Most music, practically everything that you have heard is played in some kind of straight tempo.

 

[Toronto Bassist]

Metronomes are the most misused device in all of music practice for bass players.

You say "misused". Do you feel that they have any legitimite use at all?

 

[JeffBerlin]

I see it kind of like this: It is better to seek total understanding than to just plain memorize. Memorization of a subject is a side-effect of having a total understanding of it. The difference between the two is the understanding gives you the tools to apply your knowledge to unfamiliar situations. Pure memorization simply gives you the ability to reproduce only what you've memorized.

If I just sit here and memorize what fret is what chord tone in Cmaj, all I can do is play chord tones in Cmaj. If I understand the chord tones of Cmaj, I not only know where they are, but why they are important, what they sound like, and how they work. Not necessarily for performance-sake, but for the sake of understanding (academically!) how music works.

If I sit here and memorize finger patterns for a song, what will I do when someone wants to play it in a different key where I can't use those finger patterns? If I have an understanding of the song and the lines I am playing, I can apply it to anywhere on the fretboard in any key.

I'm not saying people should sit down and over analyze everything they do, just to not sit down and have your main goal be memorization. Let it be understanding.

Well said! It occurs to me that practically everybody in every subject doesn't memorize their information unless there is a test, But because most here read, write, and speak English, and because we rarely were asked to memorize English information that we studied when we were young, then you can accept that memorization doesn't exist in almost anything that one learns, except to take an exam or some simple related reason. But, never to learn!