time

I wouldnt sweat it too much. You say yourself that it was complimentary.

Could have been a matter of context as well. Last week I worked with a guitarist who does not listen well* and who has some hitches in his ability to maintain a solid tempo. Between those two issues, supporting him was a chore. Last night I worked with a pianist who has none of those issues and the tunes went smoothly. I know what you're saying is technically accurate, but I still told the pianist pretty much what the guy told you, in part because the experience was so different from last week's. As for the guitarist, I would say (to myself; I wouldn't badmouth the guy by name to anyone else) that the guitarist has "bad" or "needs to work on his" time. I ought to say "needs to get some time" or "has no time", but the phrase is understood either way.


EDIT: *here's another one... he's either listening or he is not

 

It's tough to say what is meant. I always thought it had to do with feel. Like you said in your OP the time is either right or it's not. Maybe it also has the to do with being flexible but not too flexible. I know from some of my experiences that if you try to hard to rein in your fellow players the time feel can suffer. If you're too flexible, well you get the point.

Time is very important to me, I work on it a lot. I know I'll never be a killer soloist and that wont get me hired anyway, but my time feel will. Plus, I really enjoy laying down the time and being a part of some good swinging music.

 

Agreed wrt "not negotiable", but it would be interesting to know how he would have responded if you'd asked him (in a conversational kind of way) to clarify a bit.

It stands to reason that your "feel" contributed to or at least did not detract from his sense of your "good" time, or he wouldn't have been complimentary. But there's no way to know which sentiment he was trying to convey unless you ask him. At the very least it'd begin to help clear up a question to which you give a lot of thought.

Now you've got me interested in this, as tho I didn't have enough to think about already. Ask for deeper input next time you get that compliment and post what you hear.

 

I have always thought this myself, but quite a few drummers I have played with seem to think that time is fluid and goes up and down. Drives me NUTZ

 

I'll would like to say that in my opinion, "Time is times"; the conception of time is different according the jazz -and the formations- you play.
It's not about precision, but if you play in a big band or in a duo, time conception is changing.
The same way we have pitch expression, we have time expression that contributes to develop musicality. For example, in the Ron Carter/Jim Hall duo, Ron has a different conception of time and play different than with Miles's Quintet...
For me, having a good Time is to be solid self confident on your own pulse, in all circumstances, and on the other hand, to be able to be open to partners rythmical suggestions, and flexible.
Cheers!

 

Yes, this strikes a chord with me. I find that if I don't have a tune fully internalized, I'm not keeping time at all, I'm just keeping up. When it's working, it feels like my hands and body are keeping time, not my head. (I'm not good enough to keep time with a new tune on the fly with anything but the most simple tunes.)

 

Remember this? The only other thing I would add would be this: Jim Hall was asked to define "swing", his answer was "Camaraderie"....

 

Thanks, Ed. I missed that thread first time around.

 

Time is time, but feel is feel,,, and that means taking time and making it bend, swerve, slow down, and speed up, lag, and jump -- all in time, of course.

I agree practicing time at home with the ole metronome is important, but in an ensemble situation, if everyone just played to a metronome, we might as well just sit at home and do math problems,, or listen to robots play music,, or listen to real dudes with little in-ear robots telling them what to play.

A song has a tempo (time) and that's constant, but people gotta play around with it, and that what makes music fun and interesting. Listen to Willie Nelson sing a song... he's about 3 measures ahead of the beat,, but somehow, he's still on time - and that makes his thing unique and interesting.

You gotta know time, and be able to play around it, depending on the song. But,, as a rhythm guy, just don't play in front of it,, that's called rushing. Leave that to the melody instruments (guitar solos, sax, willie nelson, etc...)

 

I'm confused. I should play with good time and don't rush or drag, but I shouldn't play like a robot?

Heh. I think you guys are looking for the word "pulse". You want to play in a way that the rhythm is driving, infectious and inescapable. Victory means that the audience is tapping their toes nonstop and they can't help themselves.

Replace the word "time" with the word "pulse" and it makes alot more sense. Practicing vs a metronome just works on your consistency vs. a fixed tempo - doesn't neccessarily mean you're practicing developing a strong pulse. I dunno, I feel like my time spent working on drumming, latin jazz rhythms (6/8, tumbao, samba, bossa, etc), and even learning to dance (salsa in my case) does more for my pulse than any metronome would.

 

YES, that's good advice.

But sometimes it might be OK to rush or drag. But generally as a bass player you don't want to rush. Unless you are Geddy Lee And you never want to play like a robot.

You have to listen to the song, and the other people you are playing that song with, and then adjust accordingly. Music is a conversation that you are having with the other musicians on stage, and that the band is having with the audience. The OP said something to the effect of "it's right or wrong," and I'm saying that it's not that simple. Nobody want to listen to a monotone person that speaks like a metronome. Bueller, bueller, bueller... that's no fun (robot). Same with a band.

Just to clarify when I say "time", I am thinking BPM... like a metronome. But feel, pulse, or what ever word is not quite the same.

Good example, my guitar player counts fast, and I count slow. He does 1234, 1234, 1234, 1234.... and I do 1, 2, 3, 4. It's the same time (i did the math), but the different count give us a different feel (or pulse). But I'm a bass player and he's a guitar player, so it works.

I think when the OP got told that he had good time, he was actually being told that he had good feel.

 

Jimmy Raney on Timing, 1993 Workshop - YouTube

 

A week ago I played with a great piano player, guitar and four horns. Two of the horn guys were NY cats and really great players, no drummer. Although each player had really good time (sorry Marc) some would push and others lay back on the beat a bit. This was really apparent fifteen minutes into Donna Lee. That experience illustrated the importance of just feeling it and keeping steady time for them to play off of.

Marc, your comment about being inside of your head is right on. I find that if I concern myself that a particular player is ahead of or behind the beat that they might be telling me something about time. Am I dragging or rushing? Maybe they just feel it there. One guy in particular plays Waaaay behind but he relies on me to keep it solid so he has something to be behind of. That's just his thing and my job is make him comfortable so he can sound his best. That's how I see it.

A weekly gig for going on two years has been bass, guitar and a featured guest. Playing without a drummer has been an amazing experience in helping me develop my time, feel and a sense of pulse. It's been good for me.