Metronome Settings - "Putting" the metronome on different beats

**JakeAcci** · 02-28-2017, 02:10 PM

In the end I probably would agree with most of what Christian is saying if we really got into all the details. Just wanted to add that all the stuff in the original post, it's about keeping tempo and hearing and feeling different subdivisions, but I agree it won't necessarily help with "Feel." Although I think things can "feel" better if they're not super wobbly. And also "feel" or feeling is very subjective. But yes, just technical stuff to have command of tempo and also not get thrown off by other musicians doing wonky, complex rhythmic things.

**bako** · 02-28-2017, 02:11 PM

Jake presented a nice menu of different rhythmic relationships.
Very different experience playing 16th's at 360 bpm 1:1 ratio than playing 16th's at 10 bpm per 4/4 measure.
A slow click allows for human time bending expressiveness while maintaining a recurring appointment with the robot.

Possible real life scenarios to prepare for:

Playing solo, duo with a full band, overdubbing or any fixed background situation, playing rubato,
playing with a conductor, etc.

I am in no position to dispute the wisdom of master musicians except in regard to understanding
my own goals and learning style. Personally, I have found it helpful to practice both with and without.

**christianm77** · 02-28-2017, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

In the end I probably would agree with most of what Christian is saying if we really got into all the details. Just wanted to add that all the stuff in the original post, it's about keeping tempo and hearing and feeling different subdivisions, but I agree it won't necessarily help with "Feel." Although I think things can "feel" better if they're not super wobbly. And also "feel" or feeling is very subjective. But yes, just technical stuff to have command of tempo and also not get thrown off by other musicians doing wonky, complex rhythmic things.

It's entirely possible, of course, to have a player that has great feel but bad time - to the point where they may in fact drop or add beats. Swinging like crazy, but sometimes with a bar of 5/4 or 3/4 :-O

I knew one musician, from Argentina, with an amazing Milonga feel but added a beat in a break and then accused everyone of being early :-)

OTOH there are other players who are metronomically accurate but have no Rhythmic mojo to speak of.

I probably differ with some others when I say I think it is possible to learn feel, and that basically what Mike Longo is about - which can perhaps be expressed as; starting with the maths/pattern and allowing feel to come into your music rather than trying to put it in - is something I have found a lot of value in.

That said for me the ultimate objective is a refined and nuanced time sense that allows me to engage musically with musicians from different sensibilities. The best way to do that, of course, is to play lots of gigs with lots of different players and really listen to them.

**christianm77** · 02-28-2017, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

But yes, just technical stuff to have command of tempo and also not get thrown off by other musicians doing wonky, complex rhythmic things.

This is to do with the mathematical structure of rhythm more than anything to do with a metronome. For example, none of the M-Base rhythmic independence exercises I have seen are demonstrated or described as to be practiced with a metronome. To be honest it's kind of unnecessary for the purposes of the exercise - if you can lock in groups of 3 against 5 over a 4/4 pulse, your tempo is unlikely to go anywhere.

When someone is playing a polyrhythm or an odd meter grouping against you, what both musicians have to understand is where the rhythm coincides, and preferably also develop a feel for where the two rhythms push and pull against each other - it's a body thing.

So for one simple example, one way I have been practicing the well known dotted quarter against 4/4 time - a venerable polyrhythm in American music that probably goes back to the 19th century.

The problem is I listened back to my playing, and it sounded too straight. I wanted to make sure I swing it.

So I broke down how this rhythm worked in 12/8 with swung upbeats. In 12/8 it's 5 counts followed by 4 counts, which then repeats.

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 (12/8, right?)

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

Which against the 12/8 gives

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Which I think is correct.

You could use takadimi instead if you are familiar with that system.

I would then put this onto a drum with two handed sticking. The cross hand interplay you get with a lot of rhythms is quite a fun thing for coordination. I daresay it's good for the brain.

I might well practice this against a metronome to make sure it's locked in, but in general if I get to understand a rhythm so I can play it effortlessly using two handed sticking on a hand drum, playing it with a metronome is not a problem.

This type of thing is not unlike the stuff in the two Ari Hoenig books. Hoenig does, unsurprisingly, suggest using a metronome for polyrhythmic work, but TBH the basic material is all about locking into a 12/8 grid and dividing it up in various ways.

I probably sound like I am down on metronome practice more than I am - in fact I encourage my students to work with a metronome, and present day working musicians need to be able to synchronise with a click in many case. I am just mindful of the limitations of this kind of thing.

All the metronome can do is tell whether or not that particular part of your rhythmic phrase coincides or not with a click. That's not unhelpful if used intelligently (for example in the ways given above) and in combination with other rhythmic work.

Diversify - use many different approaches. Don't just turn on the metronome and expect it to help you.

BTW I reject Longo's idea that click music is somehow abhorrent. Click based music can groove IMO.

**JakeAcci** · 03-09-2017, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by christianm77

Don’t Use a Metronome

Should You Practice Jazz With A Metronome?

Ok, did get around to reading these, realized I read the Longo one a longo time ago (LOL.) Ok, seriously though, I think there's a bit of tinfoil hat stuff going on here, and I'm familiar with these arguments. The Longo one, it's just like...I guess it reminds me of a bigger problem I have with music ed especially in the jazz world which is that educators often apply very subjective value judgements to things and present them more so as fact. I think this can be problematic and confusing for newer and more impressionable players.

The problem with talking about and teaching music, a problem that I come back to in my mind often, is that there are not scientific, peer reviewed studies on these issues, and a lot of the things we attempt to quantity can't actually be quantified. For example, is A better than C? does D sound better than E? does X 'groove' better than Y? Longo thinks Wes grooves better than Metheny (I think that's who he was referring to)...ok, sure, why not. I don't have an opinion, I don't care about that debate, but I'm not sure I'm going to base my educational practices on which style of rhythm I relate to more. Maybe there's something more objective in there, I guess, but it seems pretty apples and oranges.

Longo talks about a decline in jazz popularity and correlates it with jazz education practices related to the metronome. Come on. There may or may not be a relation, but freakin good luck trying to prove that.

Anyway, I agree with much of what you and the articles have said, except that students "shouldn't" practice with a metronome. (I know you're not saying that personally.) Because that's just freakin stupid. Not because the metronome is so great, but just because it is a tool that has practical uses. With my students I'll have them use the metronome for specific purposes and do specific things with it - at times. I won't just say "hey anytime you're practicing, have the metronome on."

Now, on the other end of things, if any teacher says "always have the metronome on, no matter what, the metronome is the key to sounding great, having great rhythm, great time, getting gigs, being attractive, lasting longer in bed, making money, making sure you have attractive kids that also make money and can take care of you when you retire" etc then that's stupid too.

There's another piece of this which is that I don't think playing music is all about getting on stage (or making a recording) and then having an audience go "yeah man I'm really feeling this, that's the cool groovy stuff man!" as I think there can be more to musical growth and musical experiences beyond just making people dance and have a good time, or even relating to an audience at all. I know that's a separate argument, but it does relate to this issue.

**christianm77** · 03-09-2017, 07:43 PM

Personally I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would think Pat M grooves as much as Wes, but *shrugs* all part of life's rich tapestry.

**christianm77** · 03-09-2017, 07:45 PM

I have a lot of thoughts on you post Jake, will post when practical

**JakeAcci** · 03-10-2017, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by christianm77

Personally I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would think Pat M grooves as much as Wes, but *shrugs* all part of life's rich tapestry.

It's just so subjective, you know? I haven't put on either a Wes or Pat album in quite a while, but, I totally get that there's this concept of groove and that somebody would probably say that, at an extreme, James Brown grooves more than James Taylor, and Ray Charles grooves more than Nine Inch Nails, but I'm just not sure I get the point as educational practice, in trying to teach. Maybe a slightly more objective recommendation would be to look at the rhythmic approaches that resonate with you personally and find out what those players did in their practice?

Because if you prefer Wes's time feel to Pat's then it makes sense to try to emulate it. But if your jazz teacher says one type of rhythmic approach sounds better than another...you get where I'm going with this? Maybe somebody feels more connected to Metheny, or Holdsworth, or Meshuggah for that matter, rather than Dizzy and Wes?

This isn't to say much of my personal appreciation for different rhythms. As might be the theme in a lot of my posts, I'm less concerned about my own personal aesthetic preferences and more about logical education practices and musical improvement in a more general sense.

**christianm77** · 03-10-2017, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

It's just so subjective, you know? I haven't put on either a Wes or Pat album in quite a while, but, I totally get that there's this concept of groove and that somebody would probably say that, at an extreme, James Brown grooves more than James Taylor, and Ray Charles grooves more than Nine Inch Nails, but I'm just not sure I get the point as educational practice, in trying to teach. Maybe a slightly more objective recommendation would be to look at the rhythmic approaches that resonate with you personally and find out what those players did in their practice?

Here's the thing for me - music isn't a science. There is no consensus.

If you have a hugely opinionated teacher that's not a bad thing. They might contradict someone else. But they might teach you a certain outlook or approach, or style. This a GOOD thing. Mike Longo is such a teacher, for instance. Learning from him would give you a shaping insight, a certain view of music.

Might not help you play a show gig. But it would teach you about jazz.

If you go to a Tristano school teacher, OTOH, they will tell you play with a metronome.

Because if you prefer Wes's time feel to Pat's then it makes sense to try to emulate it. But if your jazz teacher says one type of rhythmic approach sounds better than another...you get where I'm going with this? Maybe somebody feels more connected to Metheny, or Holdsworth, or Meshuggah for that matter, rather than Dizzy and Wes?

Bleurgggh, this is such a huge area.

Emulating Wes's feel is extremely difficult IMO. It's not simply a matter of transcribing or working from records. I can understand why so many give up. I think they are the wise ones. It sounds easy, but it is not.

It is easier to make music that sounds hard and fast.

For me it's simple. I feel Wes in my body. With Pat, sounds great, but I don't feel his music in my body so much.

What it really boils down to is personal preference of course, but if people can't hear the incredible sophistication of the bebop language on a rhythmic level, and some how regard todays jazz influenced music as being 'more rhythmically sophisticated' because it has odd time, and metric modulation and other things like that.... Well, they haven't understood that music IMO.

I say this as someone who plays fusion and contemporary jazz influenced music as well as bop, swing and so on. (I might also add that my favourite fusion players such as Brecker, Jaco, Mike Stern, Sco etc - get it. They get the bop thing. Greasy motherfuckers.)

Anyway Meshuggah is quite fun. I just find it amusing that the rhythm guy play 8 string guitars and yet only use the bottom 2. How Spinal Tap is that?

'Just make the 6th string lower'
'But this one has 8 strings!!!!!'

Anyway I digress.

This isn't to say much of my personal appreciation for different rhythms. As might be the theme in a lot of my posts, I'm less concerned about my own personal aesthetic preferences and more about logical education practices and musical improvement in a more general sense.

That's a mistake. You can't take yourself out of the picture. There is some logic, but there is no definitive right or wrong.

It's an art form, right? Your personal aesthetic preferences are tremendously important - the most important. If you set them aside for some illusion of objectivity will be a bland musician with nothing to say.

There are many teachers who agree on practically nothing, and yet are equally respected. Why? Because they are individuals with a personal voice and take on their art.

The most you can work on is perception - how is this person playing? What do I notice about the way they play time? How did they come to this?

Because of that perhaps the best way to work on rhythm is to play with others, listen to your recorded playing, and work out what you like about it and what you don't. Aesthetic choices, right?

And be aware that your aesthetic choices will change over time, too.

Embrace subjectivity! Tear down the false idol of 'science' in art.

**JakeAcci** · 03-10-2017, 01:55 PM

Christian yeah I think I basically agree with you, I think we just look at it through different lenses. I know you teach, but you also perform a lot and are invested in that, and I'm thinking more about "how do I communicate and connect with all the students in my studio" which is, not to toot my own horn, quite a lot of people. And I agree that as a musician it makes sense for me to personally have something to say...but I feel like my educational efforts have to be much more in line with what my students want to say, obviously recognizing my niches and not trying to spread myself too thin. You can't be all things to all people, but I think it's helpful when I can accurately communicate what I am and what I am not, as well as an attempt at parsing out fact from fiction.

I joke with my students often when they ask me certain questions as I'll preface my answer with "well, there are no peer reviewed students on this, but I think the best approach is to..."

Originally Posted by christianm77

Here's the thing for me - music isn't a science. There is no consensus.

If you have a hugely opinionated teacher that's not a bad thing. They might contradict someone else. But they might teach you a certain outlook or approach, or style. This a GOOD thing.

It's a great thing - as long as the student is sharp enough to make the distinctions on their own.

I'm just wary of people who don't present things in a fair or at least somewhat objective manner. Because then I have to question how they are drawing their own conclusions, or whether they are even communicating with me honestly.

That's a mistake. You can't take yourself out of the picture. There is some logic, but there is no definitive right or wrong.

It's an art form, right? Your personal aesthetic preferences are tremendously important - the most important. If you set them aside for some illusion of objectivity will be a bland musician with nothing to say.

But again the attempts at objectivity are not to improve my personal performance abilities, but to be able to communicate clearly with students (or other forum members) and of course not only help them improve their abilities but help them decide which abilities are important for them to improve.

...perhaps the best way to work on rhythm is to play with others, listen to your recorded playing, and work out what you like about it and what you don't. Aesthetic choices, right?

And be aware that your aesthetic choices will change over time, too.

I don't disagree with any of that, but I don't think this bit I just quoted negates any of my points about the articles' subjectivity nor the pros and cons of metronome use. For example, you might follow the procedures you just recommended but realize something that is weak in your time, and the metronome may serve a purpose in trying to solve that rhythmic problem, or may not.

Embrace subjectivity! Tear down the false idol of 'science' in art.

Here's the thing, I do embrace the subjectivity, but we can objectively talk about subjectivity, can't we?

Statement I have a problem with "Wes grooves and Pat doesn't." or "Play with a metronome and you'll sound stiff like Pat. Turn it off and learn your body rhythm and you'll groove like Wes." (I got a little nauseous just typing that.)

Statements I have no problems with: "I think there's a different type of groove in Wes vs Pat, and I find Wes's music much more danceable, it connects with my body better, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of other people feel the same way." (and that's similar to what you yourself are saying)

More statements I have no problem with: "There are problems with over reliance on the metronome as a tool to solve all rhythmic problems" or "I don't think quantized rhythmic accuracy necessarily makes the music have a stronger emotional impact, and sometimes it might have the opposite effect."

Yeah maybe those nerded out statements make for a less sexy headline or a less contentious flame war (and less linking to the original authors website...) but I think they are much more helpful for the student who is trying to figure these things out and develop his or her own identity as well as practice routine.

As for science in music, we can recognize that some things are, well, fact, or pretty close, and some are not, and I don't think it's all that difficult to attempt to make those distinctions and communicate them.

**christianm77** · 03-10-2017, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

Christian yeah I think I basically agree with you, I think we just look at it through different lenses. I know you teach, but you also perform a lot and are invested in that, and I'm thinking more about "how do I communicate and connect with all the students in my studio" which is, not to toot my own horn, quite a lot of people. And I agree that as a musician it makes sense for me to personally have something to say...but I feel like my educational efforts have to be much more in line with what my students want to say, obviously recognizing my niches and not trying to spread myself too thin. You can't be all things to all people, but I think it's helpful when I can accurately communicate what I am and what I am not, as well as an attempt at parsing out fact from fiction.

I kind of imagine what someone like Mike would say to that is - what your students want to say is not important. Really it's what the music wants to say through them.

So this whole thing is really much more New Age for want of a better word. The more I learn about music the more of a crystal dangling hippy I become, and you know what - it helps. It really helps.

I'm very much anti-Enlightenment when it comes to music. It's all about spirits and magic to me. They actually talk to you if you know how to listen.

People where making great music before the Age of Reason, and the dethronement of deities probably hasn't helped much in the creative arts even if (if!) it hasn't actually made things worse (now there's a discussion!) Miles wasn't a worse musician because he believed in astrology.

Bear in mind I am a trained scientist when I say this. Reason ruled my early life. But there is an ancient wisdom that is lost...

I joke with my students often when they ask me certain questions as I'll preface my answer with "well, there are no peer reviewed students on this, but I think the best approach is to..."

It sounds like you are trying to minimise the personal quality of your ideas and judgements.

I think you should have more faith in yourself. In my experience people relate to the personal. A bit of argument can be useful, but ultimately there is little that is a priori so to speak. Things that I once thought fundamental turn out to not be so...

For example - while Longo says what he says and I respect him, some of the most grooving, swinging jazz guitarists I know practiced a lot with a metronome. But if I was Longo's student (I kind of am in a way) I would still apprentice myself to his teachings regardless of this.

It's a great thing - as long as the student is sharp enough to make the distinctions on their own.

I dunno about your students, but the problem with my students is that they are too sharp!

You can end up chatting the lesson away if you don't make them do something... Not sure if that's what you meant.

I'm just wary of people who don't present things in a fair or at least somewhat objective manner. Because then I have to question how they are drawing their own conclusions, or whether they are even communicating with me honestly.

Beware of gurus. But I think you can spot them.

But again the attempts at objectivity are not to improve my personal performance abilities, but to be able to communicate clearly with students (or other forum members) and of course not only help them improve their abilities but help them decide which abilities are important for them to improve.

I don't disagree with any of that, but I don't think this bit I just quoted negates any of my points about the articles' subjectivity nor the pros and cons of metronome use. For example, you might follow the procedures you just recommended but realize something that is weak in your time, and the metronome may serve a purpose in trying to solve that rhythmic problem, or may not.

The more I think about this, the more I think this maybe an attempt to gain control over aspect of your life that are frighteningly unknowable and uncontrollable. I think this because I feel the same urge.

'How do I know what I am practicing is the right thing?'
'Have I wasted my time for five years doing "x"'
'What if I am telling my students to do the wrong thing and wasting their time and money?'
And other scarier questions.

My fear is that I go to a teacher and they tell me the same thing I was told to work on 10 years ago, because I've been practicing the wrong thing, and somehow IT'S MY FAULT.

Ultimately many of these fears boil down to the ego, and a fear of death

Problem is the urge to measure things can in fact change the process and derail it.

Here's the thing, I do embrace the subjectivity, but we can objectively talk about subjectivity, can't we?

Whoa fella that's getting a bit meta...

Statement I have a problem with "Wes grooves and Pat doesn't." or "Play with a metronome and you'll sound stiff like Pat. Turn it off and learn your body rhythm and you'll groove like Wes." (I got a little nauseous just typing that.)

Well that's fucking bullshit isn't it, so I'm not surprised. :-)

How is Wes affecting my body in that way? Hard question to answer. Hard to enumerate and measure.

Statements I have no problems with: "I think there's a different type of groove in Wes vs Pat, and I find Wes's music much more danceable, it connects with my body better, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of other people feel the same way." (and that's similar to what you yourself are saying)

Yeah but saying that is kind of, y'know, long. That's very reasonable, but not everyone talks that way.

In my crankier moments (which is quite often) I kind of feel that education is going towards accountability, measurable outcomes and lack of controversy is squeezing out the passion. Before I come across as some strange mix of JK Simmon's character in Whiplash, Robin Williams in Dead Poet's Society and some sort of 1960's guru, I think there's a happy medium.

I'm just aware that even the way we evaluate musical performances in education environments is kind of geared towards rewarding the 'middle view.'

More statements I have no problem with: "There are problems with over reliance on the metronome as a tool to solve all rhythmic problems" or "I don't think quantized rhythmic accuracy necessarily makes the music have a stronger emotional impact, and sometimes it might have the opposite effect."

I would go further - there is no historical precedent for quantised rhythmic accuracy in the jazz of first half of the 20th century - i.e. the shit that most people would agree swings. There was accuracy in the rhythm - but this accuracy was based on human pulse time not scientific clock time.

Educational practices and recording techniques have altered this. I would agree that this can squeeze the humanity out of performance, but here we are, it is 2017. You may have to learn to play with a click if you want to work.

That said, people getting really confused about how all of this works.

Yeah maybe those nerded out statements make for a less sexy headline or a less contentious flame war (and less linking to the original authors website...) but I think they are much more helpful for the student who is trying to figure these things out and develop his or her own identity as well as practice routine.

I would say that depends on the students, but most jazz guitar students are nerds, so perhaps you are on to something.

As for science in music, we can recognize that some things are, well, fact, or pretty close, and some are not, and I don't think it's all that difficult to attempt to make those distinctions and communicate them.

The process of music itself has little to do with science. People made music before Pythagoras came along. Interestingly intuition etc has a role to play in science and math.

Scientific knowledge might be verified by the scientific method, but scientific ideas are of the same mysterious origin as music and art.

As Alan Moore puts it - 'science is the child of magic.'

**JakeAcci** · 03-10-2017, 04:59 PM

Dude I'm so high right now. What is truth, and what is not NOT art?

Ok, just kidding, but this is an interesting discussion. Will Re: later.

**christianm77** · 03-10-2017, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by jakeacci

dude i'm so high right now. What is truth, and what is not not art?

faaaaaarrr oooooout maaaaaaannn

**emanresu** · 03-10-2017, 06:36 PM

I had 2 problems. Floaty time and lazy fingers. Without practicing with the metronome, no one would play with me.. the next time

**JakeAcci** · 03-11-2017, 11:44 AM

I dunno about your students, but the problem with my students is that they are too sharp!

You can end up chatting the lesson away if you don't make them do something... Not sure if that's what you meant.

I meant something more simple - they are looking to me to tell them what to practice and what to play. If I tell them something like "X is bad, Y is good" then that may stick with them and become a rule in their mind that they not only use for their own playing but also share and teach others. if I say "I prefer X over Y, but really you have to figure out how you feel about it. For right now, i want you to work on this activity, for you, because I think it will help you with this specific issue you are having" then there isn't some fake global principle learned.

The more I think about this, the more I think this maybe an attempt to gain control over aspect of your life that are frighteningly unknowable and uncontrollable. I think this because I feel the same urge.

'How do I know what I am practicing is the right thing?'
'Have I wasted my time for five years doing "x"'
'What if I am telling my students to do the wrong thing and wasting their time and money?'
And other scarier questions.

My fear is that I go to a teacher and they tell me the same thing I was told to work on 10 years ago, because I've been practicing the wrong thing, and somehow IT'S MY FAULT.

Ultimately many of these fears boil down to the ego, and a fear of death

Problem is the urge to measure things can in fact change the process and derail it.

Christian I think in a lot of your comments here you're still missing an extremely large point that I have repeated but I'll try to reframe it here:

There is a huge difference between trying to play music well and trying to teach someone else to play music well. Similarly, there is a difference in discussing overarching philosophy of creativity and music making vs designing a program and instructing someone on what, specifically, to practice to achieve the goals they have.

I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating myself on this point.

In my crankier moments (which is quite often) I kind of feel that education is going towards accountability, measurable outcomes and lack of controversy is squeezing out the passion. Before I come across as some strange mix of JK Simmon's character in Whiplash, Robin Williams in Dead Poet's Society and some sort of 1960's guru, I think there's a happy medium.

I'm just aware that even the way we evaluate musical performances in education environments is kind of geared towards rewarding the 'middle view.'

I think one spot where we might agree is that I think it's hard for performances and compositions to really be evaluated in music ed. I think this is especially true because there is so much beautiful (my opinion) music that has been written by people with little or no formal musical education training, especially in folk, pop, and rock contexts.

In my mind I frame it more that there is a ton of knowledge, ideas, perspectives, principles, techniques, etc, out there in the music ed world and an individual can choose to be part of, or extrapolate from, that world as much as they choose and use what they find valuable. Not to go too off topic but personally I think the reasons that a lot of people want to practice or 'learn about music' are often not that they want to create better music or relate to an audience better, but because there is a certain satisfaction in the learning and skill building process that gives value to a person's life beyond the more obvious communicative aspects of music making, but...let's not get too off topic.

In general a problem I do have with music ed is the "do it this way and it will sound better" kind of mentality. Because say if you have a school with 5,000 people and you're telling them all the same thing to "make better music" or "sound better" well...I'm not sure they're all going to come out creative and inspired, but I guess that's also a separate issue. Maybe another way to put it is...I don't think there's a formula or a method for "sounding good" or connecting with an audience or communicating well musically or anything like that. So I suppose in a sense I do agree with you that there are these elements that are up to the gods or something, but I again I think what people are seeking when they want to learn an instrument or learn how to play jazz is not necessarily those communicative/artistic goals of sounding good, having an emotional connection.

Or, it's also possible that the students that come to ME have a certain mindset and similarities because of my ad copy, my personality, etc, so I'm biased by that subset of the population.

The process of music itself has little to do with science. People made music before Pythagoras came along. Interestingly intuition etc has a role to play in science and math.

Scientific knowledge might be verified by the scientific method, but scientific ideas are of the same mysterious origin as music and art.

As Alan Moore puts it - 'science is the child of magic.'

Sure, but somebody comes to you for a guitar lesson and says "I want to know more than two voicings for a major seventh chord" then it's not 'science' to answer the question, but there is clear and basic data to draw from, at least as a starting point.

Sure I can also say "feel the spiritual energy of a major seventh chord and close your eyes and attempt to find on your guitar that communicate that same spiritual energy but do not name them or write them down, and repeat this process for an hour every day and you will discover your own unique interpretation of what a major seventh chord truly is, for your own life path" and I guess that could be a cool exercise but A. the student, hungry for something tangible, may get frustrated and not actually implement that strategy and B. I think it's useful to lay down the tangible stuff first, or at least in conjunction. I do do things like that, but I also pair with it...knowing where all the 1, 3, 5, and 7s are for each key.

**christianm77** · 03-11-2017, 12:48 PM

1. What makes you think I wasn't talking about teaching?

2. What makes you think that what I am talking about is some how in opposition to the notion of teaching a player the fundamentals of music?

(TBH there's a mischevious streak that likes to push arguments to the extreme. I actually think our styles of teaching are pretty close)

Anyway what I think is interesting is where this quest for some sort of objective measurable result both in teaching and our own practice. The psychological reasons for this are pretty deep.

This did occur to me when taking my diploma in music education.

(I'll pass over the intimate and complex relationship between internal and exterior experiences in music for now.)

The metronome - a source of abstract clock time in music is connected of this, and to some extent representative of the complex relationship between science and art in our culture. Why do we feel we require a mechanical arbiter of our music?

I'm not condemning this, cos I do it myself.... but when you think about it judging music in this way - comparing your timing to mechanical click for example - is actually quite weird. Why the need for this inhuman objectivity?

I think that's a very interesting question that relates to all sorts of aspects of the modern world including why we organise education the way we do.

Music is also unique one, because many thinkers have held it to have some sort of abstract beauty or meaning beyond the merely human, and connected to the eternal truths of mathematics. Think of the well tempered clavier as the ultimate example of this.

Is the metronome God? Some sort of ticking representative of the privileged omniscient viewpoint that Newton implied in his laws of motion?

Anyway we were talking about teaching time/feel iirc.

So I would ask you - do you think you can swing, and do you think you can teach it?

If the answer to the second question is no, do you think it is something that can be taught?

**JakeAcci** · 03-11-2017, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by christianm77

So I would ask you - do you think you can swing, and do you think you can teach it?

You know, me personally, I feel that I have the rhythmic tools in place so that if I were regularly playing with a great rhythm section, 2-3x a week, every week, for several years, then with no additional practice I would feel confident that to some extent my playing "swings" and that that would be agreed upon by other semi-professional jazz musicians. I think I have done quite a lot of rhythmic work and that this would be the missing ingredient, but it's just not a priority for me and has not been, to be hustling for gigs and trying to create these performance opportunities for myself.

As for right now, March 2017, I don't know...don't really care either. Self assessment is a funny thing. I suppose I could put up a clip of me doing my best Wes impression and have forum members vote on it, but I'm not going to do that. Keep in mind that I've studied jazz guitar pretty intensely in the past, but it hasn't been the focus of my life or my playing for the past six years or so.

That being said, I'll say that I can teach my students a lot about time and interaction and as early as possible I will push them to be playing as often as possible with the best musicians they can find. I'd wager that I will not any time in the near future be in a lesson discussing whether something "swings" or not, though we'll talk about plenty of other, more specific things related to time and rhythm.

Also, for whatever it's worth keep in mind that only a very small % of my students are actually jazz students, where "swing" in the general sense is relevant, but of course the concept of playing good-sounding rhythm applies to all styles.

**christianm77** · 03-11-2017, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by emanresu

I had 2 problems. Floaty time and lazy fingers. Without practicing with the metronome, no one would play with me.. the next time

Lazy fingers

**christianm77** · 03-11-2017, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

You know, me personally, I feel that I have the rhythmic tools in place so that if I were regularly playing with a great rhythm section, 2-3x a week, every week, for several years, then with no additional practice I would feel confident that to some extent my playing "swings" and that that would be agreed upon by other semi-professional jazz musicians.

Thanks for the honest answer, I need to answer it myself!

Yes I think I have it in me. Not always. Not at every tempo. Not with every band.

But sometimes I listen to my playing and I think 'that's it, that's the sort of body feeling I like.' I try to take note of the things that were in place for it to happen - for instance I would say that I am most likely to swing on a medium tempo F blues with a very good jazz bass player and drummer. Well, duh.

So, that does raise some practical ideas for how to make me swing more consistently. Also being able to project a sense of tempo on your own is kind of important...

Of course, others might disagree.

It's also hard to disassociate yourself from the fact that you are listening to YOU though and not just 'a guitarist' which is the difficulty in making that call.

But from an interior point of view I think I am starting to understand what it *feels* like to swing... Which is not what I thought it was as a listener. The sensation of listening to a swinging player and swinging yourself is actually really different.

I agree that this sort of learning is something I have found more on the bandstand than the practice room. Which leads to the question - is it possible to replace this learning on some level with classroom/practice activities. This is slightly controversial I would say.

I think I have done quite a lot of rhythmic work and that this would be the missing ingredient, but it's just not a priority for me and has not been, to be hustling for gigs and trying to create these performance opportunities for myself.

I kind of feel you would get a lot out of Mike Longo's teaching, actually. His teaching in so much as I understand seeks to develop some of those subjective experiences in lieu of performance opportunities playing swing based music which are harder to come by every year.

As for right now, March 2017, I don't know...don't really care either. Self assessment is a funny thing. I suppose I could put up a clip of me doing my best Wes impression and have forum members vote on it, but I'm not going to do that. Keep in mind that I've studied jazz guitar pretty intensely in the past, but it hasn't been the focus of my life or my playing for the past six years or so.

That being said, I'll say that I can teach my students a lot about time and interaction and as early as possible I will push them to be playing as often as possible with the best musicians they can find. I'd wager that I will not any time in the near future be in a lesson discussing whether something "swings" or not, though we'll talk about plenty of other, more specific things related to time and rhythm.

Is it because swing is hard to define in a way that everyone agrees with?

You haven't answered my other two questions - probably because you are unsure yourself if you can swing. But I think they are really really important ones for teaching jazz, no? And yet I suspect most people on the forum would have difficulty answering them.

I have some ideas (not sure yet, and possibly yes) but we'll see.

Also, for whatever it's worth keep in mind that only a very small % of my students are actually jazz students, where "swing" in the general sense is relevant, but of course the concept of playing good-sounding rhythm applies to all styles.

Indeed - I don't see a huge gulf between jazz and other forms of 20th century popular music rhythmically. More recently I think the click/sequencer thing has changed the nature of it all. You might be able to ignore this as a jazzer, but as a pop musician, not so much.

**JakeAcci** · 03-11-2017, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by christianm77

?

You haven't answered my other two questions - probably because you are unsure yourself if you can swing.

Which ones? Can I teach swing, can swing be taught?

I think I answered the former. As for whether it can be taught...sorry man I respect you and this conversation, but it's a boring question. It's hard to define "swing" it's not a tangible thing so, I could produce some word salad with my answer, but...I'd rather be focused on more tangible elements of rhythm, and that might include things like...does it sound good to me, do I like listening to it, for the student does it sound connected to the tradition of the players that students like, etc.

**JakeAcci** · 03-11-2017, 02:20 PM

also, the self assessment thing, it's also just a BS question. Again, I respect you and this is a fun conversation, but it's like, we might as well ask each other

1. Do you think you are a good player

2. Do you think your music sounds good

3. Do you think you swing

4. Do you think your time feel sounds good

These are dumb questions. A person can't really answer them because people are just generally terrible at this kind of self assessment. There are all sorts of cognitive biases at play with that stuff, and also: Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

**christianm77** · 03-11-2017, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

Which ones? Can I teach swing, can swing be taught?

I think I answered the former. As for whether it can be taught...sorry man I respect you and this conversation, but it's a boring question. It's hard to define "swing" it's not a tangible thing so, I could produce some word salad with my answer, but...I'd rather be focused on more tangible elements of rhythm, and that might include things like...does it sound good to me, do I like listening to it, for the student does it sound connected to the tradition of the players that students like, etc.

What; so hard to define about swinging? I mean my definition might not be peer reviewed, but here's my definition of swinging:

It swings like.. well Wes.

2.6 Barn Doors, 0.75 Bored Housewives, depending on whether you use Metric or Imperial.

Intangible? All our assessments of music are in some way intangible. Is the slow movement of the Eroica a sad piece of music? Well that's intangible too. This cannot fundamentally bother you as a listener, because I assume you enjoy listening to music, and presumably it generates emotional responses too.

The challenge for you (and me) is to find practical ways to work towards developing that link between cause and effect.

What the fuck is boring about that? THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF MUSIC & MUSIC EDUCATION.

Otherwise we may as well go into plumbing or something.