Internalizing the metronome?

[athena2]

Hello,

Just started playing piano 8 weeks ago. I am presently taking lessons. How important is practicing with the metronome? My teacher said it is important but not to rely on it too much as you want to internalize the metronome.

Any advice or thoughts regarding this?

Thanks.

[outin]

Hello,

Just started playing piano 8 weeks ago. I am presently taking lessons. How important is practicing with the metronome? My teacher said it is important but not to rely on it too much as you want to internalize the metronome.

Any advice or thoughts regarding this?

Thanks.

I personally think it's much more important to learn to count than practicing with the metronome. Metronome is helpful at times when you want to check that you are playing something correctly. I also use it sometimes to force me to practice really slowly. For a beginner I don't think how the metronome is any benefit at the piano. The teacher can check and address for any problems with rhythm.

[iansinclair]

Absolutely agree with outin.  It is far far more important to learn to count and to hold a steady beat, regardless of how fast that beat is, than it is set a specific tempo.  I use a metronome only to compare the tempo I'm comfortable playing at with someone else's idea of a good tempo (an idea with which I may or may not agree...)(metronomes also make excellent targets, or objects to hurl across the room in a fit of whatever!).

[athena2]

Thanks for the replies. You mean there is a difference between tempo and beat? I thought they were one and the same.

[saranoya]

Hi Athena,

As I understand it, what IanSinclair means when he talks about beat is the "pulse" by which you play your music: you need to make sure the beats (say, four beats to a measure) are spaced out evenly in time. As long as that is true, it doesn't really matter whether your tempo is 60 or 120 beats per minute. Just keep it steady. Make sense? 

I'm sure outin is a far more accomplished pianist than I am. And yet, I find myself using the metronome much in the way that he does: mainly to make sure I keep playing slowly, very slowly, when the need for that presents itself. 

[pianoplunker]

I personally think it's much more important to learn to count than practicing with the metronome. Metronome is helpful at times when you want to check that you are playing something correctly. I also use it sometimes to force me to practice really slowly. For a beginner I don't think how the metronome is any benefit at the piano. The teacher can check and address for any problems with rhythm.

I agree with outin. The metronome cannot indicate which beat you are on. Counting does indicate which beat you are on.  It is  important to understand the rhythm structure. Counting also helps memorize what you are playing. You may want to try practicing counting with a metronome away from the piano. The internal metronome is actually pulsating, not clicking.

[j_menz]

The problem with a metronome is that it will give you timing, but not rhythm.  It will also separate that timing from the music, rather than integrating it into it - you will be playing along to a timing, not playing with that timing.

Timing and rhythm are not the same thing, and what you need to develop is rhythm. Counting helps, but so does doing other activities, like walking, with a sense of rhythm - walk along like a waltz, or tap it out, or a march, or a funeral march, or whatever.

[pianoplunker]

The problem with a metronome is that it will give you timing, but not rhythm.  It will also separate that timing from the music, rather than integrating it into it - you will be playing along to a timing, not playing with that timing.

Timing and rhythm are not the same thing, and what you need to develop is rhythm. Counting helps, but so does doing other activities, like walking, with a sense of rhythm - walk along like a waltz, or tap it out, or a march, or a funeral march, or whatever.

I dont disagree with you except that you present timing like a bad thing ? The metronome gives you timing ---- that is bad ?  And if the "metronome" separates the timing from the music, then someone does not understand the timing. A metronome just sitting there clicking should not cause timing to be separate. But I think I remember posts where we discussed the best way to throw a metronome out the window...

[j_menz]

I dont disagree with you except that you present timing like a bad thing ? The metronome gives you timing ---- that is bad ?  And if the "metronome" separates the timing from the music, then someone does not understand the timing. A metronome just sitting there clicking should not cause timing to be separate. But I think I remember posts where we discussed the best way to throw a metronome out the window...

It's not that timing is a bad thing, but rhythm gives you timing much more satisfactorily.

And the fact that it's sitting there ticking away means that "click" is not part of the music. If you are using it as the source of the pulse, rather than finding and expressing that in and through the music, it is separate. If you just use it to check that the pulse you are generating in the music is at the right tempo (leaving that fraught concept aside for the moment) then that is fine, but if you are using it as a substitute for the feel of that pulse then it is doing you a severe disservice.

A metronome, for example, fails to distinguish 6 quavers in 6/8 time from 6 quavers in 3/4 time. If you play without that distinction, you might as well not bother.

[saranoya]

A metronome, for example, fails to distinguish 6 quavers in 6/8 time from 6 quavers in 3/4 time. If you play without that distinction, you might as well not bother.

Well, actually ... there are metronomes out there that *can* make this distinction, by producing a different sound for heavy versus light beats.

I have an app on my phone that can do this: https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/metronome+/id434136233?mt=8. The screenshots are awful, but the app is quite good, actually. The level of control one has over which beats will be heard, and how, is quite granular. The only problem it has, which as far as I can tell is a problem with all "simulated" metronomes on the iPhone, is that it stutters whenever the phone goes into battery-saving mode (which automatically switches off the screen).

[j_menz]

Well, actually ... there are metronomes out there that *can* make this distinction, by producing a different sound for heavy versus light beats.

Hmm.. OK - I'd forgotten the electronics age.  Nonetheless, it's no good the metronome making the distinction if you don't.

[outin]

I'm sure outin is a far more accomplished pianist than I am.

Probably not

[kriatina]

I was reading that using a metronome supposedly helps to learn
how to play the piano and that is why I bought one...

I only tried it once but realized that it made me play like "painting by numbers"...
... it instantly took all the life out of my piano playing,
it left no time for a little thinking pause in the right places
and the piano was instantly not breathing anymore...

As a result I have not touched the metronome every since.

One good point about giving the metronome a try is,
to be able and notice instantly if a pianist uses it...

[gyzzzmo]

The metronome is not ment for rhythm, but for tempo.

My experience with students is that practising with a metronome does not really help with their feeling for keeping the speed right: as soon it is turned off, their 'rubato' turns on.
What seems to help much better is to mark the points where the students (or you) have the tendency to change the speed. For some people it's at 16th, for some people it is at slow parts. If people get more aware of that, it seems to be a much more efficient way to keep their internal metronome right

[louispodesta]

Hello,

Just started playing piano 8 weeks ago. I am presently taking lessons. How important is practicing with the metronome? My teacher said it is important but not to rely on it too much as you want to internalize the metronome.

Any advice or thoughts regarding this?

Thanks.

Rhythm/time is a skill that most pianists do not have a clue as to what it involves.  I have lived this life.

A metronome, if it is electronic and properly calibrated, can check you, per a particular tempo.  Other than that, it is not a device designed to teach you HOW TO COUNT!!!

However, mostly in Europe, and now in the U.S. there is a (very old, and very well-seasoned) methodology which addresses this subject in its entirety.  It is called Dalcroze Eurhythmics.

Here is a Wikipedia link, as well as their own website.  For real, this discipline is required matriculation, for two years, at every major music conservatory in the world!

I commend you for having the insight to ask, and I genuinely mean that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalcroze_Eurhythmics

https://dalcrozeusa.org/

[pianoplunker]

I was reading that using a metronome supposedly helps to learn
how to play the piano and that is why I bought one...

I only tried it once but realized that it made me play like "painting by numbers"...
... it instantly took all the life out of my piano playing,
it left no time for a little thinking pause in the right places
and the piano was instantly not breathing anymore...

As a result I have not touched the metronome every since.

One good point about giving the metronome a try is,
to be able and notice instantly if a pianist uses it...

The benefit of the metronome is not found by playing along with it like so many think. The benefit is by practicing any measure or section very precise albeit un-musical. As you know precision and control of that precision makes you play better. Sometimes we have to focus on certain elements of playing such as precision and control during practice and that is where a metronome can be a great help as a tool, not as a magical rhythm maker. Being able to count while you play an accomplished piece is very important, but that is knowing the music flow, or pulse. One day you may be asked to play for 32 bars. Metronome wont help at all then ! You still have to count

[j_menz]

The benefit of the metronome is not found by playing along with it like so many think. The benefit is by practicing any measure or section very precise albeit un-musical. As you know precision and control of that precision makes you play better. Sometimes we have to focus on certain elements of playing such as precision and control during practice and that is where a metronome can be a great help as a tool, not as a magical rhythm maker. Being able to count while you play an accomplished piece is very important, but that is knowing the music flow, or pulse. One day you may be asked to play for 32 bars. Metronome wont help at all then ! You still have to count

I don't get the role of the metronome in what you're talking about. What purpose is it playing?

BTW, I think having to count while you're playing an accomplished piece means it's not accomplished.

[pianoplunker]

I don't get the role of the metronome in what you're talking about. What purpose is it playing?

BTW, I think having to count while you're playing an accomplished piece means it's not accomplished.

I dont know yet know how to reply post what I posted in addition to what you posted but what I referred to is when you are learning a piece of music... let me rephrase.. when I am learning a piece of music sometimes there may be an area of the music which I just cant seem to grab. By using a metronome it helps me with certain difficult sections because of the control aspect of having to practice precisely to the metronome.  Musicality is not lost because at that point of practice it is not musical yet anyway. Practicing scales to a metronome never hurt either. It is an excersize of control and precision.  As far as counting , having to count is a drag and I agree that you know a piece much better if you can focus on the music, but knowing how to count is useful at times.  

[j_menz]

when I am learning a piece of music sometimes there may be an area of the music which I just cant seem to grab. By using a metronome it helps me with certain difficult sections because of the control aspect of having to practice precisely to the metronome.  

So the difficulty you have relates to the "when to play a note with respect to the others" aspect? The "when notes fall in the bar" aspect?

I can see a metronome could be used for that in some instances. So could counting.

What am I still missing?

[outin]

I find it difficult to count something that is heavily ornamented, so I sometimes use the metronome instead to check that I am keeping the pulse. Other than that, counting is much more realiable IMO. I have this tendency to start listening to the metronome instead of my playing and trying to anticipate the ticks instead of just playing and letting the metronome do what it does. I guess I would need to practice ignoring it, but I don't really see the benefits of learning to play duets with a metronome

[j_menz]

I don't really see the benefits of learning to play duets with a metronome

There's always this. 

[dima_76557]

I personally think it's much more important to learn to count than practicing with the metronome.

The great value of a  metronome is beat accuracy. Counting alone does not help to check/test that precision.

[outin]

The great value of a  metronome is beat accuracy. Counting alone does not help to check/test that precision.

But learning to count includes learning beat accuracy. Counting is no use if not accurate. I don't think metronome is needed to learn that.

[pianoplunker]

So the difficulty you have relates to the "when to play a note with respect to the others" aspect? The "when notes fall in the bar" aspect?

I can see a metronome could be used for that in some instances. So could counting.

What am I still missing?

You are not missing anything

[dima_76557]

But learning to count includes learning beat accuracy. Counting is no use if not accurate. I don't think metronome is needed to learn that.

Counting never kept me from MINUSCULE slow-downs and speed-ups BETWEEN the beats (some would call that "rubato", but it is actually a lack of control), mainly depending on the technical convenience of what I had to play. I remember I had to do quite a lot of metronome practice with subdividing ticks before I was able to function confidently in ensemble playing.

[j_menz]

Counting never kept me from MINUSCULE slow-downs and speed-ups BETWEEN the beats (some would call that rubato, but it is actually a lack of control), mainly depending on the technical convenience of what I had to play. I remember I had to do quite a lot of metronome practice with subdividing ticks before I was able to function confidently in ensemble playing.

How do you manage to coordinate ritardendi and accelerandi in your ensemble playing so they are smooth and effective? How do you cope with swung rhythms?

[dima_76557]

How do you manage to coordinate ritardendi and accelerandi in your ensemble playing so they are smooth and effective? How do you cope with swung rhythms?

By acquiring utmost control first over the frozen image. I don't see how my ritardendi and accelerandi will convey anything artistic if they are actually the result of my lack of mastery over the material stuff.

[forte88]

I started using the metronome very late(after about 10years of piano playing). It always bugged the hell out of me. But now that I've started using it my piano playing has drastically improved.
Having this fixed beat also seems to improve my muscle memory, or maybe it's just that I really have to know the music before I even turn the metronome on.
It also prevents going to fast or using wrong technique/fingering etc coz you have to reach the right note in time. In the past I'd play difficult passages slowly and the easy ones fast. Now I practise with a metronome I sound like a pro
And even without the metronome my whole body moves in time with the music. Now when I practise I try to play with my eyes closed as much as possible to really get a feel for the music and the piano

[j_menz]

I don't see how my ritardendi and accelerandi will convey anything artistic if they are actually the result of my lack of mastery over the material stuff.

Nor will they if they are out of sync with the rest of the ensemble. How do you ensure they are not?

[dima_76557]

Nor will they if they are out of sync with the rest of the ensemble. How do you ensure they are not?

That's like dancing. Either you have a feel for it, or you don't. If you don't, NOTHING (including counting) will help, and you will keep stepping on your partner's toes. If you are so unlucky but are still forced to participate, then mastering your own steps in perfect time is about the least you can do not to make a complete failure of yourself.

[j_menz]

That's like dancing. Either you have a feel for it, or you don't. If you don't, NOTHING will help, and you will keep stepping on your partner's toes.

That "feel for it" is a sense of rhythm, and can be learnt, or rather retrieved and improved - we all start with one.

Some people manage to lose it quite markedly. I once attended a wedding where the bridal party proceeded to "waltz" in 4/4 time. 

[dima_76557]

That "feel for it" is a sense of rhythm, and can be learnt, or rather retrieved and improved - we all start with one.

Maybe, but certainly not by counting and certainly not by the use of the metronome, which are both UNNATURAL, over-rational approaches to music.

Unifying movement (body control) and sound is the key. One gesture necessarily creates one certain sound effect; another gesture - another. I am not so sure everybody can learn this to the same degree.

[outin]

Counting never kept me from MINUSCULE slow-downs and speed-ups BETWEEN the beats (some would call that "rubato", but it is actually a lack of control), mainly depending on the technical convenience of what I had to play. I remember I had to do quite a lot of metronome practice with subdividing ticks before I was able to function confidently in ensemble playing.

It isn't the counting that makes you accurate, but your inner sense of pulse. I think when you learn to count you also should learn to intergrate that inner pulse with the music. So the exercises you do to learn to count should work on several levels. I assume that most people do have an accurate enough "inner metronome", if they just have learned to use it. Those who do not maybe benefit from metronome practice. I think the best thing that I could transfer to piano playing from my past experiences in music was rhythm accuracy. Once learned it seems to stay forever. And I never owned a metronome until 3 years ago.

What I have noticed is that many people who cannot keep an accurate beat are not willing to concentrate on counting, tapping or other exercises that would help them employ their inner sense of pulse. If they did I think they would get much faster results than with metronome practice.  

If one has already done those exercises and can count accurately enough and then wants to use the metronome for fine tuning, I'm sure it's good practice. But for a less experienced player I still think it's little benefit. It's different for you, with your background you are able to judge yourself whether it's useful and worth doing.

[dima_76557]

What I have noticed is that many people who cannot keep an accurate beat are not willing to concentrate on counting, tapping or other exercises that would help them employ their inner sense of pulse. If they did I think they would get much faster results than with metronome practice.

I am not sure it is a matter of willing only. Doing exercises forced upon you "for your own good" can be quite confronting, paralyzing even, especially in the presence of others. The eurhytmics louispodesta cited as a useful and required subject in most good musical institutions (reply # 14) is not exactly the best-liked subject among students. It makes you feel quite vulnerable, and nobody likes being vulnerable before others.

P.S.: My take on metronome usage: the accuracy of your feel for the beat and its divisions is best tested when the stimulus is external. If there are no people around and you have no "minus-one" recording available, the metronome is about the only tool you have to check/test your own perception against.

[outin]

I am not sure it is a matter of willing only. Doing exercises forced upon you "for your own good" can be quite confronting, paralyzing even, especially in the presence of others.

I couldn't agree more. I have never been good at following other people's instructions. I rather make my own exercises and do them on my own time in my own way. So I guess I was referring to willingness to take the time to analyse what's needed and do all that work oneself rather than willingness to just follow orders

[dima_76557]

I couldn't agree more. I have never been good at following other people's instructions. I rather make my own exercises and do them on my own time in my own way. So I guess I was referring to willingness to take the time to analyse what's needed and do all that work oneself rather than willingness to just follow orders

Analyzing everything yourself, though, may very well be a waste of valuable time. Personally, I also find it very tiring, sometimes even depressing.

Some things cannot be grasped unless you have the right perspective of looking at them. This usually develops by simply doing (chicken-egg dilemma). One could say that it doesn't even make sense to read a book about subject X unless you have gone through all of the experiences described in that book.

More important is a safe environment and a teacher who can step down to the level of being your friend who casually shows you how to approach this or that. You then simply imitate and nature does the rest.

[outin]

Analyzing everything yourself, though, may very well be a waste of valuable time. Personally, I also find it very tiring, sometimes even depressing.

Some things cannot be grasped unless you have the right perspective of looking at them. This usually develops by simply doing (chicken-egg dilemma). One could say that it doesn't even make sense to read a book about subject X unless you have gone through all of the experiences described in that book.

More important is a safe environment and a teacher who can step down to the level of being your friend who casually shows you how to approach this or that. You then simply imitate and nature does the rest.

I guess people are different. I can really only enjoy work with a challenge, I hate routines and I always work best on my own. I could never see it as a waste of time, because not only do I learn the thing I am trying to, but I also learn how to learn and that will be useful later.

While I may have a natural tendency to do the right thing when it comes to rhythm, I don't in other aspects of playing. Whatever my teacher shows me I need to work on alone to really get it. I may be extreme but I think most adults are capable of and can benefit from some level of self-guidance. 

The friendly teacher approach didn't work that well for me. There was little substance on lessons. My present teacher is not unfriendly, but very focused on quality and always insists I correct things no matter how much I tell her I can't. And I almost always do before the next lesson after I get some basic idea from her what is wanted and needed (the right perspective). I am not good at learning by imitation and also my initial perspective is quite often wrong, so learning by just doing doesn't work that well for me...