Going back how far? The oldest bone flute is dated to around 60,000 years old. In terms of the history of music making the argument of the necessity of a metronome is laughable.
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
Going back how far? The oldest bone flute is dated to around 60,000 years old. In terms of the history of music making the argument of the necessity of a metronome is laughable.
- Aug 5, 2005
- 7,243
- 92
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: J.C. Basses
It's true, timing is dynamic. But like attack, it should be CONTROLLED and changes done PURPOSEFULLY whenever possible.
For example, Blues Traveler's "Stand":
They drop the tempo way down - probably to about half speed, and then gradually come back up. It's intentional and well done.
No musician will be perfect. Those tiny inconsistencies in our playing are, in fact, preferred according to some recent research I found (I'll go look for the link if you're interested). However, they are just that: tiny inconsistencies, meaning the musician should be pretty damned consistent with infrequent and tiny mistakes.
I agree. My belief is pretty similar to JimmyM's, but I was referring to western music to answer your question.
It's simple: Know the groove, the pocket, the feel, the emotion of the tune, have it in your head and heart, before you play a single note. You do that, and can keep that feel all the way through the tune, you won't need a metronome. But until you do, use a click to solidify your part. If you are still playing notes, you need a click. if you are still playing scales, you need a click. If you are still working on difficult to play music, you need a click. If you are reading music as a series of notes, and not phrases, then, you need a click. In short, to me, while you are still learning the ropes, use a metronome.
I think I understand where Jeff's coming from, but Jeff seems to be speaking from a more experienced, middle level to mature player viewpoint, and, while he did a great job of picking the wrong words to get his point across, I understand and agree with what he says. In short, play the music....
I think I understand where Jeff's coming from, but Jeff seems to be speaking from a more experienced, middle level to mature player viewpoint, and, while he did a great job of picking the wrong words to get his point across, I understand and agree with what he says. In short, play the music....
- Aug 5, 2005
- 7,243
- 92
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: J.C. Basses
I don't know that there is a metronome that could do a linear tempo increase (and even if it could, you would probably still have to do it by feel alone), but I do think everything else should be aligned to a click.
I also think that normal subdivisions of tempo are preferred to the human ear, and so dropping to half tempo or two-thirds tempo makes much more sense aurally than just slowing down 5 or 10 clicks.
That's what it means, alrightyI see people with zero musical training able to clap and sing and dance in time.
Yeah, but that's what they're doing, not playing an instrument. Different animal. Especially when you're learning. While not crucial, I think it can be helpful in some cases.
I totally got your point and agree. Anyone who's done theatre work will tell you the tempos can vary from performance to performance due to all sorts of factors. The disposition of the actors, the disposition of the audience, the temperature of the room, if the conductor has a hot date later are all among the things that can have effect.
I just wanted to make it generally clear how far back I was thinking.
That's what it means, alrighty
Or what APPEARS to be in time........
Using a metronome to learn to effectively use the dynamics of tempo is like using a compressor at 16:1 to learn to effectively use the dynamics of volume.
Without solid, consistent tempo as a basis, it is difficult to know when you are intentionally varying from that tempo.
The great thing I love about the metronome debate is the amount of opinions that really do not understand the human bodies interaction with one.....not just in music, but it's interaction with one on all levels.
So let's define metronome as a click.
Let's then remove the mechanical part, so a click is an pulse that interacts and affect the human perception.
So define pulse, it can be light, sound, or wave form, so that means it can be seen, heard of felt.
So go back through time and pick out examples and basing them today proves nothing, because there is no history or record of any viable or quantifiable results. All we have is there attempts to create a timing that can synchronise the human body.
So from galley ships that had slaves row to the sound of hammers, to soldiers that marched to the beat do a drum, through to sailors singing as they all worked to keep everyone on time, the evidence is clear that you can affect the human perception of time.
Showing examples of simple clapping or foot tapping is not proving any point.
What would prove a certain point would be to play some a click of say 75 BPM and ask them to play 90 BPM.
This would prove a person can be put off time.
Let a player hear a tempo, then tell them to come in after the count and play that tempo regardless of what they hear from the count..then count in different...again they will be put off.
If you have ever heard a click you have been influenced by it, whether you wanted to be or not. You cannot choose to ignore what you experienced, so you will in some way or form relate to it.
As such if you say a metronome cannot help give you good time, then how do you know?
If you say a metronome can help give you good time then how do you know?
You need something to base your decision on, another person with the same or a different opinion is not conformation of anything. Any number of people saying it is not conformation it is still opinion....as in the opinion once was the world is flat. No matter how many people said it or believed it, they were proved wrong.
How can we learn to sub-divide time of we do not have a reference point that is quantifiable?
We know that a human being cannot be truly trusted because they can be calibrated with external interaction. If they believe it is feeling, then a feeling can change. So is it a feeling that it's right or a fact it is right?
In the end a click is a tool to be used, there are those that use it wrong, those that use it right, those that do not need to use one and those that do.
Since evidence supports that it does and there is no evidence to support it does not, that does not prove one side over the other.
All it proves is that one side cannot claim "it cannot" and prove it, where as I and others can claim it does and can prove it.
Whether you accept that is another point completely.
So let's define metronome as a click.
Let's then remove the mechanical part, so a click is an pulse that interacts and affect the human perception.
So define pulse, it can be light, sound, or wave form, so that means it can be seen, heard of felt.
So go back through time and pick out examples and basing them today proves nothing, because there is no history or record of any viable or quantifiable results. All we have is there attempts to create a timing that can synchronise the human body.
So from galley ships that had slaves row to the sound of hammers, to soldiers that marched to the beat do a drum, through to sailors singing as they all worked to keep everyone on time, the evidence is clear that you can affect the human perception of time.
Showing examples of simple clapping or foot tapping is not proving any point.
What would prove a certain point would be to play some a click of say 75 BPM and ask them to play 90 BPM.
This would prove a person can be put off time.
Let a player hear a tempo, then tell them to come in after the count and play that tempo regardless of what they hear from the count..then count in different...again they will be put off.
If you have ever heard a click you have been influenced by it, whether you wanted to be or not. You cannot choose to ignore what you experienced, so you will in some way or form relate to it.
As such if you say a metronome cannot help give you good time, then how do you know?
If you say a metronome can help give you good time then how do you know?
You need something to base your decision on, another person with the same or a different opinion is not conformation of anything. Any number of people saying it is not conformation it is still opinion....as in the opinion once was the world is flat. No matter how many people said it or believed it, they were proved wrong.
How can we learn to sub-divide time of we do not have a reference point that is quantifiable?
We know that a human being cannot be truly trusted because they can be calibrated with external interaction. If they believe it is feeling, then a feeling can change. So is it a feeling that it's right or a fact it is right?
In the end a click is a tool to be used, there are those that use it wrong, those that use it right, those that do not need to use one and those that do.
Since evidence supports that it does and there is no evidence to support it does not, that does not prove one side over the other.
All it proves is that one side cannot claim "it cannot" and prove it, where as I and others can claim it does and can prove it.
Whether you accept that is another point completely.
I never suggested that a metronome be used to develop an internal sense of time nor is that my goal. I don't see a lot of proponents of metronomes suggesting that as the reason to use one or perfect timing as a goal. Haven't seen too many people in this thread suggest that either but it seems to be one of the common attack points from those who don't like them.
Like I said before I try to use it as a tool to playing with a reference and to keep me honest. If you're playing with a drummer (or any other musicians for that matter) the key is being able to adapt to their reference whether they speed parts up or swing subdivisions in a certain way. I think that learning to synch up with a metronome is a good step in that direction, it just doesn't speed up or slow down like a real drummer might. If I can't hit a stationary target, I don't see it being likely that I can hit a moving one better.
Well, let's hope that after 40 years of proper training and practice (including the use of a metronome) that you would have developed some skills other than an overinflated ego....
That kind of ad hominem is the sign of a man who's run out of reasonable argument...or who never had one to begin with. The funny thing about it is there are actually some good arguments for the use of the metronome. You just aren't hitting on any of them.
I've always had good time. I just have a very good internal clock. That said, practicing with a metronome has made it even better than what it once was.
This is kind of funny - the guitarist and singer in my band both have the worst sense of time out of all the members in my group. They aren't bad, mind you, but they could definitely stand to get better. They both also REFUSE to ever use a metronome. My drummer and myself, OTOH, both have superior time and neither of us have ever been against using a metronome to help hone in our meter. Me and my drummer both think there's a connection there...
