I think JustinGuitar is wrong about playing slowly to get faster

bertie

CoffeeAndTV said:

The technical aspect is just about prioritising which elements are important to you.  I can pick fast and have reasonably good legato, but since I’ve concentrated on jazz I cannot play bendy blues or rock licks because I’ve little interest in that. 

I think I get you, and concur - with most of it,

 agree, by our nature "most" people learn the stuff that interests them "insert genre (s) of choice" and learn and play "songs and styles" that float their boats................... few want / need(session musician ?) to learn everything. And I get that and I reckon that's 90% of us here.
 Personally - I dont like jazz, I hate shred so have never been bothered to attempt to "learn/practice" those styles. I agree that given time and dedication (something Ive always lacked) I could get "there" to some degree

 but the bit I "disagree" with, EVERYONE has their physical limitations and will prevent progress at varying stages, and for some that may be stage 1 or stage "101" so no, not everyone can do it

Greatape

viz said:

But many don’t because being precisely in time isn’t normally required. (Depending on your definition of precise obviously). Like concert pianists don’t play to a click track. 

Even if you are playing solo, you need to have a very good sense of the centre of the beat, because everything - even playing rubato - relates to that. 

If you play with other musicians at all, it's essential. 

viz

Greatape said:

viz said:

But many don’t because being precisely in time isn’t normally required. (Depending on your definition of precise obviously). Like concert pianists don’t play to a click track. 

Even if you are playing solo, you need to have a very good sense of the centre of the beat, because everything - even playing rubato - relates to that. 

If you play with other musicians at all, it's essential. 

Clearly, but that has nothing to do with a metronome

Greatape

viz said:

Greatape said:

viz said:

But many don’t because being precisely in time isn’t normally required. (Depending on your definition of precise obviously). Like concert pianists don’t play to a click track. 

Even if you are playing solo, you need to have a very good sense of the centre of the beat, because everything - even playing rubato - relates to that. 

If you play with other musicians at all, it's essential. 

Clearly, but that has nothing to do with a metronome

Not sure I follow you. What do you think a Metronome is for? You need to reinforce that sense of the pulse all the time 

Lewy

Greatape said:

viz said:

Greatape said:

viz said:

But many don’t because being precisely in time isn’t normally required. (Depending on your definition of precise obviously). Like concert pianists don’t play to a click track. 

Even if you are playing solo, you need to have a very good sense of the centre of the beat, because everything - even playing rubato - relates to that. 

If you play with other musicians at all, it's essential. 

Clearly, but that has nothing to do with a metronome

Not sure I follow you. What do you think a Metronome is for? You need to reinforce that sense of the pulse all the time 

I believe everyone should at least “check in” with a metronome from time to time. One great use is to have the click on the offbeat, not the beat. That way, you are responsible for the downbeat - it can be very illuminating! 

You can also have it only playing one beat per bar giving you extended responsibility for keeping time. Again, I think most people would discover they’ve got some work to do.

viz

Greatape said:

viz said:

Greatape said:

viz said:

But many don’t because being precisely in time isn’t normally required. (Depending on your definition of precise obviously). Like concert pianists don’t play to a click track. 

Even if you are playing solo, you need to have a very good sense of the centre of the beat, because everything - even playing rubato - relates to that. 

If you play with other musicians at all, it's essential. 

Clearly, but that has nothing to do with a metronome

Not sure I follow you. What do you think a Metronome is for? You need to reinforce that sense of the pulse all the time 

Well, for me, a metronome serves 3 main purposes - firstly to check the speed of the piece you're supposed to be playing; you set the time, you listen to it, then you turn it off when you've internalised what the required speed is, and you play. Secondly you might keep it going, to make sure you're not slowing down or speeding up if there's no accompaniment. Thirdly, but this is rather specialised, to practice the evenness of your note playing.

But what I think most musicians don't use a metronome for, is knowing where the centre of the beat is. In ensembles, everyone has to play in time with everyone else, in orchestras there's a conductor, anyway, to make sure that the players speed up and slows down as one (amongst other things). In a band situation, you have to be able to communicate with each other to alter the speed, or indeed to stick to a speed. 

If you're an accompanied soloist, you may indeed have the freedom to play rubato, but around the accompaniment, not around a strict beat. 

Now I do know that in recent times, especially for pop / rock, bands do use click tracks or backing tracks or whatever, but that hasn't been the case in many forms of music, for centuries. OK recently a desire for pieces that stay rigidly in time throughout is deemed important. I personally think it's not as important as allowing the natural ebb and flow to occur. Rachmaninov 3 would sound pretty terrible at single speed. And what's required there is for everyone to listen to the music as it's being played, not a click. 

I dunno, I just think that I'd never use a metronome on my own to practice the very thing I'd need to do in the band situation - which would be to play in time with the other players. It just doesn't work as a tool to help that. I'm not saying they don't have their uses - as per my first paragraph. And maybe I just have an ok sense of timing. 

Greatape

Lewy said:

Greatape said:

viz said:

Greatape said:

viz said:

But many don’t because being precisely in time isn’t normally required. (Depending on your definition of precise obviously). Like concert pianists don’t play to a click track. 

Even if you are playing solo, you need to have a very good sense of the centre of the beat, because everything - even playing rubato - relates to that. 

If you play with other musicians at all, it's essential. 

Clearly, but that has nothing to do with a metronome

Not sure I follow you. What do you think a Metronome is for? You need to reinforce that sense of the pulse all the time 

I believe everyone should at least “check in” with a metronome from time to time. One great use is to have the click on the offbeat, not the beat. That way, you are responsible for the downbeat - it can be very illuminating! 

You can also have it only playing one beat per bar giving you extended responsibility for keeping time. Again, I think most people would discover they’ve got some work to do.

Quite. Hitting on 2 and 4 and making that swing - essential.

Also working with subdivisions such as triplets, slow tempos etc. It's not a drum machine replacement.

The drum kit is just another instrument not necessarily the timekeeper. In the best bands, the pulse might not be played on at all by anyone, but everyone knows where it is. 

It's only by having a deeply ingrained sense of the pulse that you can consistently play ahead or behind the beat, to varying degrees. 

viz

Greatape said:

Lewy said:

Greatape said:

viz said:

Greatape said:

viz said:

But many don’t because being precisely in time isn’t normally required. (Depending on your definition of precise obviously). Like concert pianists don’t play to a click track. 

Even if you are playing solo, you need to have a very good sense of the centre of the beat, because everything - even playing rubato - relates to that. 

If you play with other musicians at all, it's essential. 

Clearly, but that has nothing to do with a metronome

Not sure I follow you. What do you think a Metronome is for? You need to reinforce that sense of the pulse all the time 

I believe everyone should at least “check in” with a metronome from time to time. One great use is to have the click on the offbeat, not the beat. That way, you are responsible for the downbeat - it can be very illuminating! 

You can also have it only playing one beat per bar giving you extended responsibility for keeping time. Again, I think most people would discover they’ve got some work to do.

Quite. Hitting on 2 and 4 and making that swing - essential.

Also working with subdivisions such as triplets, slow tempos etc. It's not a drum machine replacement.

The drum kit is just another instrument not necessarily the timekeeper. In the best bands, the pulse might not be played on at all by anyone, but everyone knows where it is. 

It's only by having a deeply ingrained sense of the pulse that you can consistently play ahead or behind the beat, to varying degrees. 

that's actually exactly what I was trying to say  

the_other_ed

I really can not believe this is still being discussed - its as if we will not be satisfied until we reach some sort of absolute. But, isn't that the bane of western culture that we all find ourselves mired in... Put everything beneath the autopsy table. 

I mean, anyone can play fast - f**king speed pick one note at mucho macho velocity with the ferocity of a Thor. But, we're talking about 'music' here, are we not...? There's so much more to that - that no 'absolute' will ever encapsulate. Something underneath it all. You can't own it... You can't possess it. You can only join in it.

= Harmony.

To condense this all into some convenient equation so as you can sleep tonight doesn't really feed the soul. There are so many other ways to express power or anger or intensity in music, than to rely upon speed...

Not being judgmental here. Just pointing out, that perhaps our energy should be placed into the baking of the cake, before we invest ourselves so much into the frosting of it...

But hey, I'm a monk. The bread before the buttercream.

When the music requires speed, and accuracy - I think we will all make ourselves capable enough.

If not, then you hire out...

I guess I'd rather be Akerfeldt than Akesson, Hetfield than Hammett. Or Page, sloppy as f**k player, especially playing lead - but, what an amazing composer. He was playing just to get the job done. In the writing of the music, the scenery, was where his heart and mind were...

Really - the dancer needs music before anything else. Otherwise, what is the dance, but seizure? 

I have to remind myself always - that I am not the dancer here. I am the guitarist. The rhythm for the dancer.

Although. Maybe that is where some of us get confused...

Greatape

viz said:

Greatape said:

viz said:

Greatape said:

viz said:

But many don’t because being precisely in time isn’t normally required. (Depending on your definition of precise obviously). Like concert pianists don’t play to a click track. 

Even if you are playing solo, you need to have a very good sense of the centre of the beat, because everything - even playing rubato - relates to that. 

If you play with other musicians at all, it's essential. 

Clearly, but that has nothing to do with a metronome

Not sure I follow you. What do you think a Metronome is for? You need to reinforce that sense of the pulse all the time 

Well, for me, a metronome serves 3 main purposes - firstly to check the speed of the piece you're supposed to be playing; you set the time, you listen to it, then you turn it off when you've internalised what the required speed is, and you play. Secondly you might keep it going, to make sure you're not slowing down or speeding up if there's no accompaniment. Thirdly, but this is rather specialised, to practice the evenness of your note playing.

But what I think most musicians don't use a metronome for, is knowing where the centre of the beat is. In ensembles, everyone has to play in time with everyone else, in orchestras there's a conductor, anyway, to make sure that the players speed up and slows down as one (amongst other things). In a band situation, you have to be able to communicate with each other to alter the speed, or indeed to stick to a speed. 

If you're an accompanied soloist, you may indeed have the freedom to play rubato, but around the accompaniment, not around a strict beat. 

Now I do know that in recent times, especially for pop / rock, bands do use click tracks or backing tracks or whatever, but that hasn't been the case in many forms of music, for centuries. OK recently a desire for pieces that stay rigidly in time throughout is deemed important. I personally think it's not as important as allowing the natural ebb and flow to occur. Rachmaninov 3 would sound pretty terrible at single speed. And what's required there is for everyone to listen to the music as it's being played, not a click. 

I dunno, I just think that I'd never use a metronome on my own to practice the very thing I'd need to do in the band situation - which would be to play in time with the other players. It just doesn't work as a tool to help that. I'm not saying they don't have their uses - as per my first paragraph. And maybe I just have an ok sense of timing. 

You are not using the metronome to play metronomically, though, if that makes sense. The sound the metronome is making and what you are actually playing...two different things, but one is in relation to the other. The metronome is the absolute frame of reference, and almost nobody has a perfect natural sense of where that is and so we have to reinforce it all the time. 

I'm not talking about sounding robotic. Listen to great rhythm guitar in any genre..Muscle Shoals, Jimmy Reed's group, whatever...and then listen to an average pub band doing reggae, for example...or even Clapton trying to play rhythm guitar with Santana on jingo, as can be seen on YouTube..yikes

Having a conductor guiding the orchestra is fine, but that relies upon the individuals in the ensemble individually having good time and crucially, agreeing what it is.

The pulse can change speed in a piece, of course. 

If you are only trying to play in time with the other players in a band, who is responsible for knowing where the centre of the beat is? 

I refer to my learned friend's sage words: 'most people discover they have work to do.' For example, set it to 60bpm to hit only on one and see how long you can stay in time with it...and then after a few weeks you do it again, and realise that your previous understanding of how good your time is was inaccurate... 

Avi Bortnick's Time Guru (?) app is cool because you can set it to randomly drop hits. It's an interesting test...

Brad

Greatape said:

I refer to my learned friend's sage words: 'most people discover they have work to do.' For example, set it to 60bpm to hit only on one and see how long you can stay in time with it...and then after a few weeks you do it again, and realise that your previous understanding of how good your time is was inaccurate... 

Avi Bortnick's Time Guru (?) app is cool because you can set it to randomly drop hits. It's an interesting test...

Time Guru is brilliant! 

Take your exercise and have the click on the last quaver of the bar (or anywhere else in the bar  )

Another good leveller I stole Victor Wooten is to take a riff, melodic idea… anything really and start with the click at a high rate, say 160bmp. Then halve it. Then halve it again, and again and so on. Trying to play something at 10 or even 5bpm is painful haha

Greatape

Brad said:

Greatape said:

I refer to my learned friend's sage words: 'most people discover they have work to do.' For example, set it to 60bpm to hit only on one and see how long you can stay in time with it...and then after a few weeks you do it again, and realise that your previous understanding of how good your time is was inaccurate... 

Avi Bortnick's Time Guru (?) app is cool because you can set it to randomly drop hits. It's an interesting test...

Time Guru is brilliant! 

Take your exercise and have the click on the last quaver of the bar (or anywhere else in the bar  )

Another good leveller I stole Victor Wooten is to take a riff, melodic idea… anything really and start with the click at a high rate, say 160bmp. Then halve it. Then halve it again, and again and so on. Trying to play something at 10 or even 5bpm is painful haha

Growth is painful rofl

Brad

Greatape said:

Brad said:

Greatape said:

I refer to my learned friend's sage words: 'most people discover they have work to do.' For example, set it to 60bpm to hit only on one and see how long you can stay in time with it...and then after a few weeks you do it again, and realise that your previous understanding of how good your time is was inaccurate... 

Avi Bortnick's Time Guru (?) app is cool because you can set it to randomly drop hits. It's an interesting test...

Time Guru is brilliant! 

Take your exercise and have the click on the last quaver of the bar (or anywhere else in the bar  )

Another good leveller I stole Victor Wooten is to take a riff, melodic idea… anything really and start with the click at a high rate, say 160bmp. Then halve it. Then halve it again, and again and so on. Trying to play something at 10 or even 5bpm is painful haha

Growth is painful rofl

Haha sure is!

Arjailer

the_other_ed said:

I really can not believe this is still being discussed - its as if we will not be satisfied until we reach some sort of absolute. But, isn't that the bane of western culture that we all find ourselves mired in... Put everything beneath the autopsy table. 

I mean, anyone can play fast - f**king speed pick one note at mucho macho velocity with the ferocity of a Thor. But, we're talking about 'music' here, are we not...? There's so much more to that - that no 'absolute' will ever encapsulate. Something underneath it all. You can't own it... You can't possess it. You can only join in it.

etc.

Again, no one has said speed at all costs!!!  -  the discussion is just "if a piece of music is faster than you can currently play it, what's the best way to go about speeding up so you can play it at the proper speed"  -   nothing "macho" about wanting to play a song at the tempo it was written at

Dave_Mc

simonhpieman said:

Barney said:

I think iff you want to play fast just go for it and then make it less sloppy ...iv heard players who can play fast though and struggle with medium or slow tempos cos the technique will be different ... I think that is where start slow and increase the tempo slowly works 

Playing slowly can be much, much harder, particularly rhythmically.

The gaps between notes are longer at a slow tempo, right? The ear has longer to perceive those gaps accurately. If you miss nailing a note even by a hair your timing can sound massively off at slow tempos.

It's especially true of drummers. The worst drummers I've played with literally cannot play slowly and time gaps between kicks and snares accurately, yet can play the intro to the Eastenders theme at well over 200bpm.

Obviously as you play faster, the gaps between notes are smaller and even if your timing is off, the margin for error is sort of technically larger as you're playing so quick that minor slip won't be as perceptible by human ears compared with slower speeds.

Does that make sense? I realized as I wrote this that it's not that easy to explain!

I think things get much harder at both really slow and really fast speeds. I would guess (citation needed!) that popular music rarely gets slow enough to get to that point, though...

Greatape said:

I would say that her perception of what was good time was out. 

Many of the greats known for good time and awareness of centre of beat e.g. Gadd, Krantz work on it with a Metronome constantly.

Whose? My teacher's?

viz said:

But many don’t because being precisely in time isn’t normally required. (Depending on your definition of precise obviously). Like concert pianists don’t play to a click track. 

Yeah, that's what I would think. Being in time with a metronome isn't always what you want. It can sound mechanical very quickly if you're not careful. It has to sound good to the human ear... it's like those new TVs (or any product) which has all the newest features, so many colours and pixels etc., so objectively it's better, right? Not if you think it looks worse!

If it sounds good it is good, kind of thing. If it sounds good but the metronome says it's wrong... is it really wrong? The music came first, not the metronome. The metronome can surely be used to help, but you have to use it correctly. It's a bit like music theory.

Dave_Mc

bertie said:

I think I get you, and concur - with most of it,

 agree, by our nature "most" people learn the stuff that interests them "insert genre (s) of choice" and learn and play "songs and styles" that float their boats................... few want / need(session musician ?) to learn everything. And I get that and I reckon that's 90% of us here.
 Personally - I dont like jazz, I hate shred so have never been bothered to attempt to "learn/practice" those styles. I agree that given time and dedication (something Ive always lacked) I could get "there" to some degree

There's definitely a paradox there. It's very tempting to say "Can you even play it?" to someone who says, "I don't like that style of music". But at the same time, if you don't like it, why would you put the time in to learning it?

Not sure what the answer is there 

Lewy said:

Greatape said:

viz said:

Greatape said:

viz said:

But many don’t because being precisely in time isn’t normally required. (Depending on your definition of precise obviously). Like concert pianists don’t play to a click track. 

Even if you are playing solo, you need to have a very good sense of the centre of the beat, because everything - even playing rubato - relates to that. 

If you play with other musicians at all, it's essential. 

Clearly, but that has nothing to do with a metronome

Not sure I follow you. What do you think a Metronome is for? You need to reinforce that sense of the pulse all the time 

I believe everyone should at least “check in” with a metronome from time to time. One great use is to have the click on the offbeat, not the beat. That way, you are responsible for the downbeat - it can be very illuminating! 

You can also have it only playing one beat per bar giving you extended responsibility for keeping time. Again, I think most people would discover they’ve got some work to do.

Yeah, to be clear I'm definitely not saying you should ignore your timing. Timing is definitely super-important. Also, "check in with a metronome" doesn't have to actually include a metronome! As I've said, I've rarely if ever used one... but any time I did I seemed to be fine. Also most of the time when I play I play along to MP3s, so I've definitely got a reference there to make sure I'm in time.

bertie

Lewy said:

I believe everyone should at least “check in” with a metronome

from time to time. 

shouldnt that be regular intervals ? 

digitalkettle

bertie said:

Lewy said:

I believe everyone should at least “check in” with a metronome

from time to time.    

shouldnt that be regular intervals ?

Is this a wind-up?

CoffeeAndTV

digitalkettle said:

bertie said:

Lewy said:

I believe everyone should at least “check in” with a metronome

from time to time.    

shouldnt that be regular intervals ?

Is this a wind-up?

No, click-bait

CoffeeAndTV

bertie said:

CoffeeAndTV said:

The technical aspect is just about prioritising which elements are important to you.  I can pick fast and have reasonably good legato, but since I’ve concentrated on jazz I cannot play bendy blues or rock licks because I’ve little interest in that. 

I think I get you, and concur - with most of it,

 agree, by our nature "most" people learn the stuff that interests them "insert genre (s) of choice" and learn and play "songs and styles" that float their boats................... few want / need(session musician ?) to learn everything. And I get that and I reckon that's 90% of us here.
 Personally - I dont like jazz, I hate shred so have never been bothered to attempt to "learn/practice" those styles. I agree that given time and dedication (something Ive always lacked) I could get "there" to some degree

 but the bit I "disagree" with, EVERYONE has their physical limitations and will prevent progress at varying stages, and for some that may be stage 1 or stage "101" so no, not everyone can do it

Yes, I agree with that statement in some respects, there’s some upper echelon stuff that I feel 99% can’t do.  But for people like me and the other guitar playing population there are varying degrees of success.  

It’s not an original thought, but for older instruments like piano and violin, there are processes that give the player good repeatable success that the guitar is lacking.

After watching the Troy Grady videos and seeing some of his students results, I feel this is getting closer to a method that would work for most.  I know it’s not rock and roll and all that.  

Guitar is such ‘do it yourself’ instrument and I’ve known people who have worked really hard trying to get their technique together with mixed results.