i don't mean this in the normal way when people say "do a search", but do a search if you wanna read page after page after page of argument about jb. you may find it entertaining, some of it is fairly heated.
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.
Timing who needs a mentronome?
- Thread starter fuzzy beard
- Start date
i don't mean this in the normal way when people say "do a search", but do a search if you wanna read page after page after page of argument about jb. you may find it entertaining, some of it is fairly heated.
but does precise timing always equal good timing? in some situation the answer is clearly yes, but are there situations where precision reduces "feel"?
My personal experience: Years ago I played in a Heavy Rock band and I will never forget the first recording session with said band. I (hadn't used a metronome ever) messed up big time......I had to go back and fix almost all the bass lines and even the fixed ones were not in time and very ungroovy (is that a word?). Lesson for me: start practicing with a metronome.
Roughly 1 1/2 years later we went into the studio again, same producer, same sound guy, only this time I was prepared and nailed it.
For what I needed at that time, the metronome worked just perfectly and I still use it up to this very day.
It doesn't make me groove or play with fantastic phrasing or "feel", but it's a basic necessity for me.
Besides, if Victor Wooten, John Patitucci, Gary Willis, John Scofield (list goes on and on), etc recommend it, it can't be wrong IMO.
Roughly 1 1/2 years later we went into the studio again, same producer, same sound guy, only this time I was prepared and nailed it.
For what I needed at that time, the metronome worked just perfectly and I still use it up to this very day.
It doesn't make me groove or play with fantastic phrasing or "feel", but it's a basic necessity for me.
Besides, if Victor Wooten, John Patitucci, Gary Willis, John Scofield (list goes on and on), etc recommend it, it can't be wrong IMO.
Like I said I totally get it for studio when it just you in a both.
But have you ever played with some one that got in the mood and held some notes alittle longer. Or seen two players grooving and playing off each other. They go to another place with there music its more organic and not so stiff.
But have you ever played with some one that got in the mood and held some notes alittle longer. Or seen two players grooving and playing off each other. They go to another place with there music its more organic and not so stiff.
When Jeff talks about rhythm he's talking about playing the correct subdivisions. When people mention metronomes, they usually mean playing the subdivisions 'perfectly' in time using the metronome as a perfect reference. That's why Jeff says that any random person can clap the chicken dance rhythm correctly and metronomers respond by saying that they can't do it very precisely. Both sides are talking about different things really, no wonder why both sides can't convince the other.
You have it correct when you talk about jams, timing is not an issue until it relates to something. That something may be a click or another person or other musicians. As has been said it is a tool and can in no way giving you correct timing, but It can show you where to work on it in a certain way so it does make sense.
It is no more important to a musician than a dictionary is to a writer, but if you need a reference then it is there. Once you use and learn the reference you need never look it up again, and so it is with a metrome, once it has done its job, you will learn no more by continuing with it.
How do you prove the spelling or meaning of a word...you use a dictionary, how do you check your timing...you use a metronome.
Why do you need a click? Go into a theatre where lighting systems and effects are controlled by computers and you will need a click so you sync with it. Simple thing, but it is amazing how many people cannot do it, time after time after time. Not once or twice, not close enough will do, but on cue time after time after time.
These are examples of use, not learning, that is what used to make Jeffs ideas on metronomes and click not controversial, but ill- informed to the point of stupid.
He would bring in totally non related issues and then use them as examples ( as he does with the Latin American thing ). We are not talking about teaching Latin American music we are not even talking about music, we are talking about timing and tempo and that is measure with a metronome.
As I said earlier with so many different tempos being interpretated by players there needed a uniform way to represent what the composer wanted, that is why metronomes came in to existence to represent what a composer wanted, not the musicians.
Most timing issues are cause by players not listening......yes the do not listen so they do not relate to the time. In Jeffs example of Mission Impossible and the Birdie Song the other person is listening.
Example of this is Sympathy with the Devil by the Rolling Stongs. Listen to it a few times and you will 'woo woo' from the start and come in on time later on...but only because that is the logical place for it to go.
As for a symphony Orchestra we take our time from the conductor.....he does not give us time, we are all responsible for our own time. This is why when I played in Symphony Orchestras we did not tap our feet in case we put off those around us, look at any Symphony Orchestra and you will see a flow in their playing movement more than any foot tapping going on. We were taught to play by feeing the time and tempo in relation to the conductor. If there is no drummer to keep beat in a Symphony Orchestra then how do they do it.....we all keep time. Look to a band and all of a sudden the job of keeping time is a drummers????
The job of keeping time is everyone's, it is like the Orchestra it is a shared job it does not belong to one person.....that is how you improve you timing....by owning it.
The bad players you see and hear at Jams are just not listening because they are intent on playing, their focus is themselves not those around them. For those about to rock......remember to roll...the clue is in the name.
But if you look at when Jeff got his start. A lot of those recording sessions were big jam type sessions. Every one in the same room feeding off each other.
If you watch standing in the shadows of Motown they even mention how much of a differance it was in those days playing together vs recording seperatly. About the feel of the music. And those are some of the greatest songs ever. Do you think they were using a metranome?
If you watch standing in the shadows of Motown they even mention how much of a differance it was in those days playing together vs recording seperatly. About the feel of the music. And those are some of the greatest songs ever. Do you think they were using a metranome?
- Dec 21, 2007
- 15,222
- 45,003
- Disclosures
- Lark in the Morning Instructional Videos; Audix Microphones
Fuzzy - I totally get you about the organicity of music, and that great music will sometimes "breathe" and not play in perfect time. And that is good. Robotic music is, well, robotic.
Metronomes are tools. For me, the most concrete example of how a metronome helped me was the first time I recorded to one, I noticed that there were certain phrases that I tended to rush, and that to play them in time I had to change the way I felt them. Once I learned that, I had more musical options - I could play them "the way I originally felt them" or I could play them "in time", and I learned the difference in how that sounded and felt. And then I could use that knowledge in how I wanted to drive the groove.
Does that make sense?
Metronomes are tools. For me, the most concrete example of how a metronome helped me was the first time I recorded to one, I noticed that there were certain phrases that I tended to rush, and that to play them in time I had to change the way I felt them. Once I learned that, I had more musical options - I could play them "the way I originally felt them" or I could play them "in time", and I learned the difference in how that sounded and felt. And then I could use that knowledge in how I wanted to drive the groove.
Does that make sense?
From now on I am going to have you say what I am thinking. That is exactly what I am trying to say!
Well, the legendary Carol Kaye, who played on a lot of the Motown hits ( I know, I know, it was not her !!
), recommends the use of a 'nome for practicing.
Metronomes are the death of music. I'll give you two great examples...
1. When I first got a drum machine, I would program beats and fills with it. The more complicated fills always sounded like they were dragging. Then I read something Charlie Watts (another metronome hater) said...the producer of one of the later Stones albums wanted him to play to a click. He said something like, "I'll do it, but I don't like it. There are times when the drums should push the beat and sometimes they should be behind the beat. Plus sometimes your fills will sound like you're dragging if you play with strict time to a click." So I started bumping the tempos up on my drum machine fills by a few BPM's then bringing it back down to the regular time when the beat started up again. All of a sudden, my fills sounded like they were in perfect time, despite not being in perfect time. Strike one against the click.
2. A band I was in during 1993 was doing some recording. We did a quick demo of this one song I wrote the music to that was kind of slow, but would pick up time as we went along in it, and it sounded great. I loved it. We went to record it for real, and the drummer insisted on playing it to a click. I told him that the click would ruin it. He thought I was nuts, then we ended up wasting a half hour arguing about it with everyone but the drummer on the side of no click, including the producer/engineer. But he put his foot down and said he'd walk if we didn't use a click, and we ended up recording it with the click. Sucked. Had zero life to it. It was a limp-ass version of the demo, which had a ton of excitement and drama to BECAUSE it was out of time in places. Strike two.
Way too much emphasis is placed on perfect time. Time doesn't need to be 100% perfect to sound right, and if often sounds better if it's not. And I've seen people who got used to playing with a click and were totally lost without it. Absolutely crazy. And if you rush to such a crazy degree where you need a click to settle you down, you have bigger problems than a click can fix.
1. When I first got a drum machine, I would program beats and fills with it. The more complicated fills always sounded like they were dragging. Then I read something Charlie Watts (another metronome hater) said...the producer of one of the later Stones albums wanted him to play to a click. He said something like, "I'll do it, but I don't like it. There are times when the drums should push the beat and sometimes they should be behind the beat. Plus sometimes your fills will sound like you're dragging if you play with strict time to a click." So I started bumping the tempos up on my drum machine fills by a few BPM's then bringing it back down to the regular time when the beat started up again. All of a sudden, my fills sounded like they were in perfect time, despite not being in perfect time. Strike one against the click.
2. A band I was in during 1993 was doing some recording. We did a quick demo of this one song I wrote the music to that was kind of slow, but would pick up time as we went along in it, and it sounded great. I loved it. We went to record it for real, and the drummer insisted on playing it to a click. I told him that the click would ruin it. He thought I was nuts, then we ended up wasting a half hour arguing about it with everyone but the drummer on the side of no click, including the producer/engineer. But he put his foot down and said he'd walk if we didn't use a click, and we ended up recording it with the click. Sucked. Had zero life to it. It was a limp-ass version of the demo, which had a ton of excitement and drama to BECAUSE it was out of time in places. Strike two.
Way too much emphasis is placed on perfect time. Time doesn't need to be 100% perfect to sound right, and if often sounds better if it's not. And I've seen people who got used to playing with a click and were totally lost without it. Absolutely crazy. And if you rush to such a crazy degree where you need a click to settle you down, you have bigger problems than a click can fix.
A metronome would destroy my ability to flexibly choose timing. After some rehearsing the rhythm is in my head. Then I know what's coming next. I like to simply fit in. A lot of what I'm playing is way to fast to bother about a relatively slow ticking metronome anyway. That's also the case with counting. I seldomly count.
Come on Jimmy, just bad examples of playing, not the clicks fault.
I find It strange that in music every endeavour is made to be the best, strive for the highest standard you can reach.....well if faultless time is that standard then why settle for anything less.....they say the higher you aim......
I'll disagree here. That's exactly what the metronome is designed to fix. The player has no awareness and a little focused work will at least give him or her reason to be aware if they are willing to look inward.
If the player is willing to look inward, that's 90% of the battle right there. Seen a lot of musicians who work with a metronome regularly rush the beat. Yeah, it can make you aware of rushing the beat, but it can't make you slow down and play in time when you don't have it unless you make a conscious effort not to do it. And you can do that with or without a metronome.
sort of interesting that an external device is needed to do that. i do agree that it's needed.
just like almost everything else in life the answer is "it depends". sometimes metrognomes are the devil, sometimes exactly the ticket.
Pause to think that metronome use in music is less than 500 years old.
It's highly improbable that there were no musicians with good time before then. The metronome has corrupted the meaning of good time into metronomic or mechanical time.
What was the definition of good time before metronomes existed?
It's highly improbable that there were no musicians with good time before then. The metronome has corrupted the meaning of good time into metronomic or mechanical time.
What was the definition of good time before metronomes existed?
