Timing who needs a mentronome?

[wishface]

If you have come to the same conclusion from your personal experience, then you've figured out what works for you. But don't simply accept somebody else's proclamation that you shouldn't even try using a potentially very helpful tool. Everybody is different and learns in different ways. Jeff is a much better player than I will ever be, and I accept that a metronome wouldn't help him be a better player. But I feel it's helped me.

And I don't buy that using a metronome or any other practice tool will ruin your natural feel. You still have your ears.



If you feel that a metronome can help you develop speed and facility, and you don't know of a better way, then why not just use the metronome? Even if you don't feel it improves your groove or time, it has its uses. Useful tool is useful.

Maybe there is a better way? Perhaps someone here can provide it. I don't know. I've never heard Jeff actually address technique per se. He always talks in the context of music theory.

All I'm saying is that I agree that learning parts with a metronome makes things more difficult. You need to know the notes first. That seems to be all he's saying.

 

[Clef_de_fa]

Maybe there is a better way? Perhaps someone here can provide it. I don't know. I've never heard Jeff actually address technique per se. He always talks in the context of music theory.

All I'm saying is that I agree that learning parts with a metronome makes things more difficult. You need to know the notes first. That seems to be all he's saying.

Because for him, in school you should only learn theory and how to apply it. Stuff like floating thumb, slap, fretless, tapping, pick etc are "art" decision and you don't need to learn "art". When you are in school you learn fact not "art". So once you go out of the school you will do things right no matter what technic you use, the note you will play, or you could tell what you do, come up with arrangement no one thought because you have theory under your belt.

 

[Clef_de_fa]

He means when you learn some new stuff, u should not use metronome. when you are using metronome, it is like a performance nature, even maybe you just trying to get through the song

I got that part pretty well.

 

[INTP]

All I'm saying is that I agree that learning parts with a metronome makes things more difficult. You need to know the notes first. That seems to be all he's saying.

I don't think that's all he's saying. He could say, "when you're learning a piece for the first time, don't be afraid to do it without the metronome at first. You can use the metronome later..." But this is not what he says. He makes the point about the difficulty of initially learning a piece along with a metronome as an example, to make the point that metronomes are not helpful.

It seems like a straw man to make the case that way. I don't know anyone who advocates that a metronome should be used at every point during practice, including the very first time you work on a new piece or exercise. To hold up this argument, which is so clearly false (IMHO), and to use it to make the case against using a metronome is illogical at best. But by itself, this point has no bearing on whether using a metronome in other ways is useful, harmful, or irrelevant.

If the only point of being made is that it's OK to learn parts initially without a metronome, then let's just agree that is indeed the case. No further discussion needed.

 

[wishface]

Then Jeff has lost me. I don't really understand what else he's saying if there's more to it than that.

 

[bass_study]

I don't think that's all he's saying. He could say, "when you're learning a piece for the first time, don't be afraid to do it without the metronome at first. You can use the metronome later..." But this is not what he says. He makes the point about the difficulty of initially learning a piece along with a metronome as an example, to make the point that metronomes are not helpful.

It seems like a straw man to make the case that way. I don't know anyone who advocates that a metronome should be used at every point during practice, including the very first time you work on a new piece or exercise. To hold up this argument, which is so clearly false (IMHO), and to use it to make the case against using a metronome is illogical at best. But by itself, this point has no bearing on whether using a metronome in other ways is useful, harmful, or irrelevant.

If the only point of being made is that it's OK to learn parts initially without a metronome, then let's just agree that is indeed the case. No further discussion needed.

I understand ur confusion. For him, when u use metronome, it is already in the context of performance. He always address in the context of music theories so he won't state like that. As he always stated art and academia should be separate.

 

[INTP]

At the beginning of the video in the OP, JB says, "I believe that a metronome will not give you good time...at all." I think there is confusion about what JB is saying because for the rest of the video, he makes a lot of assertions that don't support this original point very well.

I lean toward Victor Wooten's comment (linked post 55 in this thread), "I'm going to show you a few ways that I like to use a metronome, and I will let you know that my goal...is to wean myself off of the metronome, so that the good time is coming from me." My n=1 experiment leads me to have an opinion that a metronome can be a useful tool for developing one's sense of time, when used in a manner similar to what Victor describes in this video.

Ultimately, I'm not sure anyone's opinion will be changed by this discussion. It's really OK with me if people have differing opinions about using a metronome.