Peter Erskine explaining how to practice with a metronome.
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.
Metronomes and Time/Rhythm Awareness
- Thread starter jallenbass
- Start date
Didn't then, and doesn't now. Or more to the point, it absolutely does, but as you (@JeffBerlin) say, because those basic tasks are so deeply learned and aggregated in a progressive controlled way, the consious effort becomes next to nil - timing, intonation, dynamics and so on are second nature because they have been taught and subsequently learned correctly. It's a bit like learning to drive - you don't learn a hill start until you can hold revs, release the handbrake and hold the biting point of the clutch, all of which are taught and learned on the flat...
Eventually(!).
After long decades of my personal/internal confusion, I can put to rest that controversial subject on the use of the metronome in Classical Music. drool
Thanks to some powerful postings in this thread, I've come to my final conclusion that the metronome is not too important or valuable while playing Classical Music.
Wow!
Thank you.
And I was trying to attache that click track to Arvo Part music.
It really saved me from so much wasted time.
Just imagine applying the metronome to the following.
Now.
Can we get back to the Rhythm-based pop, country, rock, soul, R&B, Funk, etc... music and the use of the Metronome in order to deal with Time awareness?
After long decades of my personal/internal confusion, I can put to rest that controversial subject on the use of the metronome in Classical Music. drool
Thanks to some powerful postings in this thread, I've come to my final conclusion that the metronome is not too important or valuable while playing Classical Music.
Wow!
Thank you.
And I was trying to attache that click track to Arvo Part music.
It really saved me from so much wasted time.
Just imagine applying the metronome to the following.
Now.
Can we get back to the Rhythm-based pop, country, rock, soul, R&B, Funk, etc... music and the use of the Metronome in order to deal with Time awareness?
Agree that the distinctions are meaningless - there is ambient/floaty classical music, sure, but the same can be said of most styles. There is also plenty of rhythmic music by Arvo Part.
I feel much of the arguments against metronomes are based on a false dichotomy. I almost always practice with an external time reference. I never play with a machine. Football players all lift weights when they train. I have yet to see a flat bench or squat rack on the field during a game. Boxers use a heavy bag and speed bags to train. These things are never in the ring during a fight. And yet, people in training at the highest level tend to regularly do these things.
Playing classical piano 30 years ago, the mantra of all students in the school was "how could I ever play something fast if I couldn't play it slow?"
The point of the pro-metronome folks is basically that it is a training tool like weights for athletes who are trying to hone their strength and endurance before they enter into whatever sport they are training for. Of course they don't equate lifting weights with "learning football". They know that just because you can bench more than the guy across from you doesn't mean that you are a better football player; but they do understand that it makes them stronger, and strength is a part of athletics.
Here's the question I have for the anti metronome side of the argument: Why all the fuss about this? The Dalai Lama once famously said "before one can transcend something, one must first attain it". If someone with the point of view that metronomes are harmful can play flawlessly with a metronome but chooses not to when practicing, more power to them...but that just shows transcendence of that level of training and doesn't show that it is useless or harmful. If they can't keep time with a metronome, this also kind of speaks for itself. But why care so much what exercises others perform in the weight room?
I feel much of the arguments against metronomes are based on a false dichotomy. I almost always practice with an external time reference. I never play with a machine. Football players all lift weights when they train. I have yet to see a flat bench or squat rack on the field during a game. Boxers use a heavy bag and speed bags to train. These things are never in the ring during a fight. And yet, people in training at the highest level tend to regularly do these things.
Playing classical piano 30 years ago, the mantra of all students in the school was "how could I ever play something fast if I couldn't play it slow?"
The point of the pro-metronome folks is basically that it is a training tool like weights for athletes who are trying to hone their strength and endurance before they enter into whatever sport they are training for. Of course they don't equate lifting weights with "learning football". They know that just because you can bench more than the guy across from you doesn't mean that you are a better football player; but they do understand that it makes them stronger, and strength is a part of athletics.
Here's the question I have for the anti metronome side of the argument: Why all the fuss about this? The Dalai Lama once famously said "before one can transcend something, one must first attain it". If someone with the point of view that metronomes are harmful can play flawlessly with a metronome but chooses not to when practicing, more power to them...but that just shows transcendence of that level of training and doesn't show that it is useless or harmful. If they can't keep time with a metronome, this also kind of speaks for itself. But why care so much what exercises others perform in the weight room?
I think this is the MAIN question.
Most probably, some psychiatrists would be able clearly answer that question.
I've specifically said, "in the following(!) video".
It's a very good and profound questioning answer.
I'd like to delegate your question to Jeff Berlin, who said the following
And this:
And, finally, this:
And here is my question,
Why the distinction?
OK, then I ask of you both - why the distinction? My formal taught background, such as it is, is primarily classical with a sprinkling of jazz, and these days I use a lot of classical music in my personal practice. I love all (with some notable and reasonable exceptions) music but the bands I've been part of have been exclusively non-classical - rock, pop, fusion, folk, etc... I've yet to come across any fundamental musical fact that only applies to a given genre.
Agree. Music is music. A bassist who doesn't have a concept of dynamics and articulation is a musician who doesn't have a concept of dynamics and articulation. IMO, that musician has room to grow in those areas.
I don't want to separate.
Music is Music.
A bass line should always have the same ingredients/attributes/requirements for any kind of music - Classical or "Easy listening" - some attributes more pronounced, some less, some more important, some less depending on this or that type of/genre Music.
One could play a very simple bass-line but that bass line should have the same requirements like, notes' lengths, some dynamic requirements, rhythmic phrasing, vibrato, melismatic embellishments, Mood, Character, Tone, as for the bass riff (within one measure) and/or within the song's forms - Verse1 or Chorus 2, etc...
It does not matter to me if the country bass player or some serious Double Bass Pro with the symphony orchestra is playing "dead" notes.
I hope you got my idea.
Sade has just released a new song, Flower of the Universe.
Let's listen to two versions of the same song - RECORDED with a click at 100BPM.
From Yahoo article.
"The song is a waltz, powered by a brittle drum machine backbeat and acoustic guitar crocheting typical of Sade's mature work. A florid orchestration surges up ominously across the course of the track."
Now, it's time for the second version of the same song.
The No I.D. version.
Again, from Yahoo article.
"The official version of the song is quite different, lacking any of the producer's brittle drum machine and orchestral swells. Meditative and percussion-less, it's driven by an acoustic guitar and somber backing vocal counterpoint."
The same 100BPM tempo.
Let's listen to two versions of the same song - RECORDED with a click at 100BPM.
From Yahoo article.
"The song is a waltz, powered by a brittle drum machine backbeat and acoustic guitar crocheting typical of Sade's mature work. A florid orchestration surges up ominously across the course of the track."
Now, it's time for the second version of the same song.
The No I.D. version.
Again, from Yahoo article.
"The official version of the song is quite different, lacking any of the producer's brittle drum machine and orchestral swells. Meditative and percussion-less, it's driven by an acoustic guitar and somber backing vocal counterpoint."
The same 100BPM tempo.
+1
The fundamentals apply to all styles of music. I studied jazz first and then classical. True, I've never broken out the bass line to a Beethoven symphony in the middle of a rock tune, but the things I learned have helped my in more ways than I can describe.
I'm taking jazz guitar lessons and I played the chords to Misty for my teacher. We were both pleased and he pulled out iReal and had me play along. In playing against the program we both realized that I had a tiny bit of hesitation moving between two chords that wasn't apparent until I was playing against a fixed rhythm.
As others have said, a metronome is just another tool.
Hello. I thought to offer my thoughts about this.
The distinction is based upon the uniqueness of both the styles of music and the manner that they are constructed. Classical music functions differently than music where the electric bass is used. It is taught differently as well. Because many styles of music aren't related (as the writing of Shakespeare and Hemingway are different) there isn't much in each particular musical discipline that is useful in other styles of music.
In the process of learning how to play the bass, little has prevented one from developing an internal sense of time as using a metronome to acquire this ability. I know that some people don't agree with this. I can only state that you aren't being told how to acquire an ability to play in time correctly. As a small piece of circumstantial evidence, it is a fact that a lot of bass players have used a metronome for years. But, one simple new piece of music to practice or play will instantly demonstrate that metronome users haven't gotten any closer to finding out where good time actually comes from.
I know EXACTLY where it comes from and so do other well trained musicians. If people really wish to do the work to improve their time, it will all start by studying with a bass teacher that only assigns you musical content to practice. Or else, it requires a deep introspection into playing and being self taught. There are no other ways to learn how to play in time.
Respectfully, I could not disagree more with this statement. I find that western music is unnervingly similar across genres in many ways. One particular instance of this can be found by comparing melodies of Charlie Parker compositions for outlining content with the melodic counterpoint of J.S. Bach. Both genres tend to not only outline changes of harmony with chord tones (1, 3, 5, or 7) on the downbeat of the chord change, but also tend to resolve non chord tones (i.e. extensions) in a similar manner; 9-8, 4-3, 6-5, etc. The similarities are downright uncanny IMO. There are many other similarities that I have found to make me feel that classical music and jazz are more alike than different in a number of ways.
Hi Jeff, and thanks for picking up the question. I think I adequately demonstrated in my analysis of the perfect csdence in hhe other thread that from a harmonic function perspective, most western music is based on the same principles. I think @Whousedtoplay has demonstrated in a roundabout way that the importance and role of time and rhythm in classical music is as variable as in any other style. All along you say that the proven methods of teaching are the only methods of teaching, and on the whole I agree. Yet you seem to be saying that time and dynamics are not important to music that uses bass guitar. I will admit to reading your comments a couple of times to be sure I was understanding, and I think I know what you weee getting at.
If an alien arrived on earth today and compared music with bass guitar to music without bass guitar, they might reach your conclusion. But as an educator, I think you are doing the bass guitar, and maybe even bassists, a dis-service by saying the music we play doesn't use dynamics. Perhaps from empirical observations of the music currently played on bass guitar one might draw that conclusion, but as a player I strive to include all elements of music in my playing - even a theoretically simple perfect cadence can be FUBAR-ed by poor dynamics. If anything, based on the music to date from which you maybe drew your conclusion, IMHO bass guitarist are probably more in need of education in dynamics than anything else right now.
No, I never said this! I said that dynamics aren't much included as a part of much of music where the electric bass is used. I also don't think that I mentioned time at all.
Regarding guitar and bass needing dynamics in music education, I suggest that music itself is more important, that being the studying of functional harmony, melody and rhythm. If one doesn't know what the notes are, then there's no reason to study dynamics since there isn't any use for them.
Fair enough - maybe that didn't come across previously and it did seem at odds with everything else you have said, so 'my bad', maybe.
I think the point I was trying to make is that learning/playing a piece of music doesn't end with putting the right notes (including an understanding of why they are right) in the right order at the right time - thats just the start.
Maybe your point is that a lot of bass education skips that part (the 'what') and goes straight to the 'how' (time, feel, style and execution), thus creating castles built on sand, if you will? If that is the case, and if that's your reason for apparently focussing on the notes - because that is where the gaps are- then once again we are in violent agreement.
Maybe the wrong people are reading and responding to these threads and you are preaching to a choir that already knows what the right notes are...
Dear Jeff,
I'm one of those "wrong people" (by my dear TB member, SteveCS) reading your various sophistries about the dangers of the metronome, about "if you don't read Music - you don't understand about Dynamics
, if you don't read music - your timekeeping AUTOMATICALLY sucks, etc...I've just imagined your attempt to tell about "tempo", about "dynamics" to some of my Gypsy musician friends who could not sightread Music.
Anyway.
With all my respect for you as a great bass player, composer, I strongly disagree with your "separation" of Classical Music from the bass player!
I can only ridicule your statements, but I cannot do with one of the greatest bass guitar players in the world.
All my life, I have been surrounded/played/recorded by Classically educated musicians, a lot of them Classical Composers, but I've never ever heard about that "separation" of Classical Music and the bass player.
Once again, I always listen to your recordings and tremendously enjoy but your fallacious (and kind of arrogant) statements about Classical education, Classical Music, etc... - I cannot accept it.
Ha! You know you are not! What a meant was maybe the right people are not! I think you are very much in the choir on many topics, and IMHO, for what it's worth, there is nothing wrong with a bit of thought-provoking dissent in the ranks...
