Thomas, ( I intentionally leave your quote below as this is a long thread).
I can't play with a metronome (and you know I can't play the lute yet, but I speak of the harp and psalteries). But I do need to practice with one. (And I'm not even satisfied with the recording of my speaking voice on my answering machine, to say nothing of my playing of any instrument). My approach is the same one I used for many years as to a capella pitch. Strike the chord, sing the song, then strike the chord again and see if you are on pitch. I did that with ten to twelve verse songs that took five minutes to sing, and never missed by an audible amount (yeah, I could hear I was off an eighth or sixteenth of a tone). The same applies, for my practice, with the metronome. Turn it on, get the time in your head. Turn it off and play. Then turn it back on again when finished and see if the timing is the same. I think it is a better drill than practicing to the metronome. Perfect pitch is a talent I don't know (and I do remember a fellow singer who claimed perfect pitch - another in the group said "perfect, always perfectly a quarter tone flat"). But relative pitch, and relative time, are things that can be practiced. The voice has a scale that has minute differentiations that can only be done on an unfretted instrument, and the mind has a rythym that can't be expressed in notation. To me the key point is consistancy, set a pace and vary it as you choose, but be able to complete the final phrase at the same pace as the initial phrase. If you have set your mental clock with the metronome then you should be able to play the final phrase at that same pace and then turn on the clocker to verify it. Use the metronome to discipline your internal clock, not as a crutch. Best, Jon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Schall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lautenliste" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 5:18 AM Subject: Re: Passive metronome. > Hi Jon, > > yes - of course you are right. Playing strictly in time would make the > music mechanical and emotionless. > But I made the experience that we as soloists learn to think we would > play fine and even in time although we are completely off. We imagine it > would be right or caused by musical reasons which often are in fact > technical. > As Stewart suggested there is a time in the learning process when you > need to omit the metronome to let the music breathe (again). > > I am using a metronome in the process of learning a piece (as well as a > tape recorder) to check my playing. Later I omit both (the metronome > won't help anymore and recording the playing just produces new > insecurities - I don't know how others might feel about it, but I'm far > away from being satisfied with the sound of my home recorded lute). > > Best wishes > Thomas > > > Am Mit, 2003-11-05 um 10.34 schrieb Jon Murphy: > > > Herbert, > > > > I've had one of those for 68 years, it is commonly called a toe. Use the > > metronome to set the pace, then turn it off. As you know I don't speak as a > > lutenist, but all songs vary in the steadiness of the beat desired. Only in > > ensemble is strict timing desirable. Even in orchestral music the conductor > > will subtly vary the time that he beats, although he may not know it. > > > > The tapping toe is the best metronome, although the mechanical device is > > useful to set the overall pace of the piece. I would be speaking in the > > wrong place were I to compliment a pop singer, but Frank Sinatra didn't have > > a very good voice at all - what he had was phrasing, the ability to lead or > > lag the beat by just enough to make music. A strict progression of notes in > > a strict time can be made by a computer, music is made by musicians. > > > > Best, Jon > > > > > > -- > Thomas Schall > Niederhofheimer Weg 3 > D-65843 Sulzbach > 06196/74519 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.lautenist.de / www.tslaute.de/weiss > > -- > >
