And this "robot" is one of the reasons why I always tell folks to get rid of that metronome, so you can spend more time with the "music" ... and define yourself and your work better. You canuse the metronome later to be able to score the music ... but until such a time, trash it! 



In my opinion this is poor advice. Playing to metronome is crucial for years until scales/arpeggios can be played evenly, accurately and automatically. Once that has been accomplished the metronome is not so important.

Danny Danzi

Not only that but some of the coolest artists that can really play, never get the notoriety they truly deserve and have just about 0 airplay. 

And that is the crux of the problem.

  I think there should be equal amounts of playing and practicing with a metronome.When instrumental rock got popular in the 80's there were alot of guys that sounded mechanical at times because they were so obsessed with speed that they spent way to much time with their metronome that it showed in their playing.Scales and arpeggios should definitely be practiced with a metronome but,playing music should also be part of practice.A few times a week or everyday if possible after a musician has practiced his/her scales and arpeggios they should turn off their metronome and just play,play to a backing track or,with a friend(s).Pick a chord or chord progression and some kind of beat(other than a metronome) and play over that and experiment with note groupings,rhythmic ideas,and different things to learn what works and what doesn't(for you).The playing part of practice should help you learn to stay in time with out the metronome and to find your voice.Try to play with other people as often as possible too for the same reasons I've already mentioned.Practicing and playing both lead to virtuosity.
 
  Part of the lack of good musicianship in mainstream music is a combination of laziness on the musicians' side of things,record company execs thinking they know what the masses want,and radio stations being paid/forced(by the record company execs) to play certian songs.Making music has gotten way to easy and,everybody wants results 5 minutes ago.I do believe there are people that take thier instruments seriously and strive to be the best they can be and play their instrument with great skill,we just don't hear it in mainstream music.

backwoods


And this "robot" is one of the reasons why I always tell folks to get rid of that metronome, so you can spend more time with the "music" ... and define yourself and your work better. You canuse the metronome later to be able to score the music ... but until such a time, trash it! 



In my opinion this is poor advice. Playing to metronome is crucial for years until scales/arpeggios can be played evenly, accurately and automatically. Once that has been accomplished the metronome is not so important.

backwoods: I think that whole metronome thing is a catch 22....and this is coming from someone that uses it religiously. There are certain times....when I think it can actually take away from a certain performance or feel so to speak. When I first read that posters comment, I thought exactly as you did...that maybe it could have been poor advice. Then I sat here for a minute and thought back in time to where there were clients of mine that (as well as some of the bands that I was in) that became horribly stagnant because of the click track. For some things, it works great and if you're the engineer, you always know where 1 is and can fix things a heck of a lot easier. But for other situations, sometimes artists worry so much about the click, it really does take away from their performance. I think part of that has to do with the sound of the click itself and also has to do with how well an artist can keep time.
 
For example, if I record a song right now using the normal, static wood block click or a cowbell click, I can keep time and do what I have to do. However, the sounds of those type of clicks annoy me to the point of sometimes not "grooving" as well. In my case, some of this is probably mind over matter...but if I create a midi click of a drum kit that has kick, snare and hat...or kick, snare, ride, what I play becomes a different animal. I also like to pan a click to one side so that it doesn't dominate my thinking pattern to focus on it too much. I've actually helped quite a few guys that had issues with click tracks, to get over them. When we get away from the traditional cowbells and wood blocks and substitute them with a decent midi using semi-realistic drums (not too real or you can sometimes lose focus of where your kick and snare are while you play) it sort of puts the player in the realm of "playing along with a cover" if that makes sense? Just about everyone is familiar with jamming along with their favorite music...especially drummers. So the drum beat click is a bit less harsh and easier to swallow for them.
 
But some guys just can't play to one because it takes them out of their element. For those that can play to it, you include it. For those that lose their direction because of it, you remove it and allow them to drift. It becomes a matter of what works best really, but I always like to use a click of sorts for myself. :)
 
-Danny

Paul Gilbert, Technical Difficulties

http://youtu.be/ES1RypBww_g

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ES1RypBww_g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

backwoods


And this "robot" is one of the reasons why I always tell folks to get rid of that metronome, so you can spend more time with the "music" ... and define yourself and your work better. You canuse the metronome later to be able to score the music ... but until such a time, trash it! 



In my opinion this is poor advice. Playing to metronome is crucial for years until scales/arpeggios can be played evenly, accurately and automatically. Once that has been accomplished the metronome is not so important.

I think you are mis-interpreting my comment.
 
The idea was not about "perfecting" your playing ability ... it was about discovering something else, which can be done WITH, or WITHOUT a metronome.
 
The point is ... follow the wind ... for a while, and later you can clean it up ... in order to allow it to live. That is not to say that a car can not live without wheels, after all there are boats and spaceships ... but it gives you a chance to do something else with the sound and notes that you might not otherwise feel.
 
It's the same thing with many folks ... sometimes you make a mistake on that arpeggio ... and you go .... whooooaaa ... that was cool, and you use it again ... it just makes room for something else to happen that one can learn from rather than feel subjugated to a process.

Danny Danzi

backwoods


And this "robot" is one of the reasons why I always tell folks to get rid of that metronome, so you can spend more time with the "music" ... and define yourself and your work better. You canuse the metronome later to be able to score the music ... but until such a time, trash it! 



In my opinion this is poor advice. Playing to metronome is crucial for years until scales/arpeggios can be played evenly, accurately and automatically. Once that has been accomplished the metronome is not so important.

backwoods: I think that whole metronome thing is a catch 22....and this is coming from someone that uses it religiously. There are certain times....when I think it can actually take away from a certain performance or feel so to speak. When I first read that posters comment, I thought exactly as you did...that maybe it could have been poor advice. Then I sat here for a minute and thought back in time to where there were clients of mine that (as well as some of the bands that I was in) that became horribly stagnant because of the click track. For some things, it works great and if you're the engineer, you always know where 1 is and can fix things a heck of a lot easier. But for other situations, sometimes artists worry so much about the click, it really does take away from their performance. I think part of that has to do with the sound of the click itself and also has to do with how well an artist can keep time. 
  
... 
-Danny

 
Thanks Danny.
 
I had a conversation with Pierre Moerlin one time about his "timing" in the Gong album "You" on the 2 long cuts ... and Bloomdido was next to us, and looked at him, and thought ... haha ... we got Pierre cornered.
    
"... I never worry about the time or the place ... sometimes I carry it, other times Mike does it, other times someone else does it ... and that allows me to be free of the rest and just flow with the music  ... "
   
I understand the need for the "time" and the "clocks" ... but it doesn't mean I have to play with it, or them, all the time -- and that is not a knock on musicianship at all ... because I have none! But I do know something about creativity from writing poetry and stories and many other things, and a "static" format, or carbon copy of what I wrote before ... is pretty boring!

Danny Danzi

...
But some guys just can't play to one because it takes them out of their element. For those that can play to it, you include it. For those that lose their direction because of it, you remove it and allow them to drift. It becomes a matter of what works best really, but I always like to use a click of sorts for myself. :)
 
-Danny

Danny ... and this is fix'able in music as it is with actors on a stage ... when you are "stuck" on a script, and scratching like crazy to find an extra step or movement on the stage and such, and this is where a director can usually help ... an outside person.
 
Musicians, specially here, sometimes think that they are above and beyond a "director" helping them, as if a director was out for the credit ... I would be much proud'r to see the musician do better and have more fun with it, and I have done this successfully on the stage many times with inexperienced actors, including psychic exercises.
 
My point is that there is an area that is all inside your head that has no "form" and that if you learn to talk to it, it becomes your greatest teacher and helper in all the music you do ... and you will "make it", because no one has that inate ability to do what you do as well ...
 
Virtuosity is like a prize fight ... tomorrow there is another one that punches harder! Or faster! ... and then one day, they meet a David ... end of story!

jamesg1213


I once made a medley of Amon Duul II songs, played it backwards, then overdubbed a metronome onto it.

Dang ... so how does "... unite ... and fight! ... " sound after that awesome jam? And Renate scream about the white beast ought to make Ozzie sound like a total commercial pundit and idiot!

PAUL GILBERT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES1RypBww_g&feature=youtu.be

gush, you guys have no idea what a guitar virtuoso is, what you're giving as example is ridiculous.
It's basic stuff kid know how to play. 

here you have 3 of the guitar real virtuosos. 
Al Di Meola, Paco de Lucia, John Mc Laughlin 
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADwfyxpriAM&feature=related

Bub, even in Mozart's time (and before) there were other types of music, not just what became subsequently known as "classical."

A couple examples (and then a few comments about music history):

In Dittersdorf's autobiography (minor composer, but played string quartets with Mozart and J. Haydn), he comments about having to find four bagpipes that were in tune with each other for a concert one of his patron's wanted of rustic folk music. 

Note also, the most famous (to this day) Celtic harpist, Turlough Carolan's (the O' is generally regarded as being spurious) harp tunes still have the central place in folk harp music.  He lived from 1670-1738.  Many of the traditional fiddle tunes are "traditional" because they go way way back.

Then there were the hurdy-gurdies, serpents, sackbutts, racketts, regals, the very curious rommelpot and all sorts of other Renaissance (primarily) folk instruments.  One can still find replicas of most of these in very specialized music stores.

Much of the literature simply didn't survive, and was strictly aural - throughout most of history music was the most fragile of all the arts, and our "modern" notation system didn't even exist for most of it (it gradually evolved from the neumes of Gregorian chant).

Some of the music of the middle age troubadours still exists - particularly the texts, and much of that subject matter is very bawdy or biting (not unlike much pop music today).

It is also worth noting that for much of music history there was virtually no division between "pop" and "serious", writers/composers often worked freely in both realms.  For example, the major difference between a motet and a madrigal was the former consisted of sacred text for church use, and the latter most definitely not.

By the 19th century things became much more stratified, particularly as the 19th century ethos started to view composers/artists, etc., as prophets and the elite.  Especially with all too much "serious" music of the 20th century (and one could argue modern art as well), the attitude was "if the masses can understand it and like it, it is not ART."

Of course "the masses" (rightly) said "nuts to this" and you have the rise of pop culture that has taken place ever since, while "serious" music has for all practical purposes mostly died.  Do most really want to spend much time listening to Stockhousen, Varese, Schoenberg, Berg, Xenakis, Cage, Pousseur, and the like?  No (nor do I), though there certainly can be a type of intellectual interest.

Most "serious" music at this point is written by composers for other musicians and composers, not the public (there are some wonderful exceptions (particularly 20th century English composers: Ralph Vaughan-Williams and Gustav Holst to name two of many).  But, especially as the century wore on, if one wrote "tonal" music, one was often regarded as an outsider.

Anyway, I apologize for going on at such length, but in many ways we have a greatly reduced understanding about what came "before".

Kalle Rantaaho


Bub
 

The Beatles did everything from heavy metal (Helter Skelter), to classical (B side of Yellow Submarine, Eleanor Rigby, Goodnight), to country (Act Naturally, What Goes On), to oldies (Mr. Postman, Baby It's You), to rockabilly (Honey Don't, Matchbox) ... they covered almost every genre of music. I take them very seriously. Keep in mind, this whole discussion is based on opinion. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong ... and if you look up virtuoso ... it's definition has been redefined many times over the years.

Bub



I would not call any of the Beatles virtuosos, not even close, but as you say, we're not right or wrong in this.

LOL Kalle....if I made a nickle for every fight and argument I ever got in about my thoughts on the Beatles, half the forum could probably retire. LOL!! The thing is, I absolutely love them but never really considered any of them great players other than Harrison. He was a good player, the other guys were unique....and definitely writing monsters. I always wondered though...how they would have faired without Martin. Then again, all of them had hit tunes after they split...so I will never take their writing ability away from them. I guess in a sense, I could call them virtuoso's in that respect because they really did write in just about every style within their means.
 
The weird thing about them though...you put them all together and this thing came out of them that really was/is extraordinary. I never liked Paul's voice other than when he backed up Lennon. I wasn't crazy about Lennon's voice, but loved his lyrics and the songs he wrote. Tough call when talking about the Beatles though. As players, I'd agree with you....as a band and even on their own, definitely some magic there that hasn't really been re-created since...and they broke so much ground as innovators....man, I dunno...lol. I might not have long hair if if weren't for them as well as some of the rock licks I play. :) I'll stick to my original statement before I get beat up. LOL! They didn't blow me away as players but they sure did blow me away as a band. :)
 
-Danny

Bristol_Jonesey
 

I'm surprised that in a thread about virtuosos that nobody's mentioned Satch or Vai

And please, don't assume for one second that all Vai can do is shred and nothing else.

I've listened to a lot of these guys' stuff Col, I even bought the G3 DVD's, and nobody can argue that they exude virtuosity by any definition of the word - I'd give my eye teeth to be able to play even half as well as these guys.
 
But my opinion, and it's just that, an opinion, is that there appears to be little real 'passion' in what they do. I know that by only playing instrumentals it must be incredibly difficult to keep reinventing the wheel, but sometimes for me it's just a little too precise, even too good sometimes.
 
Although no slouch by a long stretch, Gary Moore was argueably not in the same league technically as Vai and Satriani, but I could listen to him playing for hours, such was the passion in his playing.
 
 

I just listened to Lotus Feet.

My thoughts....

1) If that song was performed by a virtuosos musician playing that melody and flourishes with a flugel horn... it would actually be a difficult thing to do... but we'd all fall asleep from boredom and claim it was about as simplistic a melody and implication of harmony that we might not want to take the time to imagine. I mean honestly... there's more music going on in a bugs bunny soundtrack.

2) If that song was performed by a virtuosos musician playing a violin... same thing... nothing to see here.


The fact that it is a fancy electric guitar played in a novel setting doe not make the music transcend the obvious comparisons.

When I see/hear some music I wonder if the musicians spend much time listening to music. Sometimes it seems like a musician can have more far more advanced playing skills than basic listening interests.


I had hoped that my thoughts on the subject might be changed by this suggestion to listen... and I'll continue to listen to recommendations about Mr. Vai... but I've yet to hear sweet sweet music come through his fingers. It almost seems like a curse to be that good and yet not have anything compelling to say.

all the best,
mike