Is it just me? Or does the metronome take all the fun out of the world?

[20yearbreak]

Ok, it's not that bad.  I've just noticed practicing with a metronome is not much fun for me.  I think I actually play a lot worse when trying to use a metronome.

Everything I've read and heard says it helps quite a good deal.  I just prefer to listen to the music enough to know how things are supposed to sound...  then fix the timing issues slowly.

I have tried stamping my foot instead.  I do like practicing that way.  I'm not sure if that quite as good though.

[chopincat]

I think what makes metronome playing hard and annoying is that most music isn't supposed to be precisely on the beat at all times. But if you are having some serious issues with tempo, it's a really good tool to have. Personally, I don't see it as a necessity though. I only use it when I feel I need it.

[j_menz]

Metronomes can be lots of fun.

They make great projectiles, good targets, can entertain pets and the simple minded and the old ones make attractive paperweights or doorstops.

I wouldn't use one to accompany my playing, though.

[hardy_practice]

If you can't play along with a metronome then you can't play along with others.  Once you can, throw it away.

[faulty_damper]

Music, like speech, is not metronomic.  That's unnatural.  (Sometimes, however, it is but those are rare exceptions.)  What's important is that the musical ideas are expressed in a coherent manner.  This results in tempo that naturally contracts and expands.

If you are using a metronome to learn how to make music, you are retarding your musical development, possibly forever.

[cwjalex]

i think playing along with a metronome is easy and fun but before i played piano i played a lot of rhythm games that graded your score by how exact you are to the beat.  a lot of people here really don't like metronomes but how else are groups of people to play together if they aren't following a strict timing?

[diomedes]

old ones make attractive paperweights or doorstops

On first thought i agreed, but then you can use other objects with greater originality and attractiveness as paperweights. There's only so much design you can put into a metronome, although i'm quite certain there might be some extremely nice ones on ebay. But then again, you'd have a decorative object which might certainly look nice, but it ultimately represents something that is frankly useless.

I kind of actually recommended a student use one for her Mozart sonata recently. Themes/transitions had some very large differences in tempo. I think the recommendation might end up wasting some time of hers though, however.

You need to be able to listen to yourself, and certainly be your own metronome if need be. And there are often needs. Reading through a mahler symphony with someone for example requires it even from a professional.

I guess they also help determine a recommended tempo of a piece in question. But i don't remember the last time i did that either.

[iansinclair]

i think playing along with a metronome is easy and fun but before i played piano i played a lot of rhythm games that graded your score by how exact you are to the beat.  a lot of people here really don't like metronomes but how else are groups of people to play together if they aren't following a strict timing?

Uh... try following the leader or conductor?  Even a string quartet has a leader (and not always the first violin!).  When I was conducting -- which I did, with moderate degrees of success -- the one thing which could drive me truly crazy was the odd bod who didn't pay attention to ME.  Ego?  Sure, I've never met a conductor who didn't have some.  But I wasn't there to decorate the podium...

[nedrahej]

My two sense is:

The metronome helps with rhythm; either slow through fast. If its no fun perhaps the tempo is too fast. As i had a piano teacher that used to say to me, "break it down and slow it down." once you master a slow tempo then speed it up a little. also clapping the pitches helps to; either with the metronome or without.

[Bob]

Useful for smoothing out the beat and rhythms.  Might not be the piece, but could still be a useful practice tool.

Useful on pushing tempo on things.

[j_menz]

Ego?  Sure, I've never met a conductor who didn't have some. 

"Some" is such a wonderfully understated word. 

[sarahyinlo]

It does, and when actually playing I find it terribly distracting.

I use it to get a hang of the tempo when learning something new, for getting something up to tempo, and also for sorting out complicated rhythms (Foot tapping doesn't work for me, I might need the pedal).

Groups have conductors or leads.

[outin]

I have never had an old-fashioned one, I wonder if it would be less unpleasant. The sound of the electronic device just makes me grazy, so after a while I am ready to slowly torture it to death

[bronnestam]

I only use metronome for finding out tempo and very occasionally for correcting tempo problems, like those who sometimes arise when there are certain difficult sections where you have to practice slowly a lot. But often I solve this by playing more HS instead; my inner metronome seems to be rather reliable.

[timothy42b]

If you can't play along with a metronome then you can't play along with others.  Once you can, throw it away.

+1

[iansinclair]

"Some" is such a wonderfully understated word. 

[quantum]

Metronomes can be so easily abused to assist in ensemble playing and direction, but it doesn't necessarily result in musical output.  It works because it is indifferent and rather easy to train musicians to be dependent on a predictable and unchanging reference, with the musicians eventually tuning out the metronome because there really isn't much need for continual attention.  Real music isn't exactly predictable or unchanging now is it.  Following an educated and sensitive conductor or ensemble leader requires far more skill and constant attention, however results in crafting exponentially greater musical creations.  

[timothy42b]

 Following an educated and sensitive conductor or ensemble leader requires far more skill and constant attention, however results in crafting exponentially greater musical creations.  

That may very well be true.

But then it logically follows that if you can't follow the simple and easy metronome input, you'll have even more difficulty with the less predictable conductor. 

That's not just theory, I've observed it in practice with pianists and organists.  Not so much with other instruments, but then they mostly have more ensemble experience. 

[quantum]

But then it logically follows that if you can't follow the simple and easy metronome input, you'll have even more difficulty with the less predictable conductor. 

What is different about metronomes, is that they lack the reciprocal relationship found between performer and conductor.  The less predictable conductor can craft good music out of the performer, even performers inexperienced in ensemble work, while at the same time developing the performers skill in awareness of leadership and unified corporate expression. 

[gyzzzmo]

Start realising what the use of a metronome is (and its limitations). Use it only for that purpose and its usage, leave it alone for the rest.
The metronome is useless when you can force yourself to excercise things at low tempo and repeat till you can do it, ( at that same slow tempo).

[timothy42b]

What is different about metronomes, is that they lack the reciprocal relationship found between performer and conductor. 

Right.  A good conductor can follow a bad pianist.  And often has to.  and in fact that's acceptable, WHEN the pianist is the soloist and not an ensemble member.

If the pianist is a choir accompanist and adds his usual rubato, disaster follows.  I've seen it way too many times. 

[iansinclair]

Right.  A good conductor can follow a bad pianist.  And often has to.  and in fact that's acceptable, WHEN the pianist is the soloist and not an ensemble member.

If the pianist is a choir accompanist and adds his usual rubato, disaster follows.  I've seen it way too many times. 

Exactly.  And a good conductor can even make a bad pianist sound pretty decent.  It's not much fun for the conductor nor the rest of the group, though.

And your choir accompanist example?  I've fired a couple of those in my time...

[j_menz]

If the pianist is a choir accompanist and adds his usual rubato, disaster follows.  I've seen it way too many times. 

If the pianist is accompanying a vocal soloist and can't adapt to the soloists tempo variations, and these may be substantial, more than musical disaster will follow - usually a trip to the hospital is required.

What is required is an ability to listen to the pulse/rhythm of other players and adapt accordingly. Rarely is a metronomically correct performance a particularly musical one.

[newkidintown]

I used to hate metronomes too... until I started getting really involved in music. If I'm playing solo or in my regular orchestra, I hardly ever use one (if at all), but there have been situations where they've been life savers. In fact, one of those situations is happening right now, albeit not on piano...

I'm in the chamber group for my school's musical playing accordion. The musical is pretty standard, so I could listen to the CD, but the group only started playing together the beginning of the month of the play. The conductor normally conducts choir and has a VERY different style from the other musical directors at the school and tends to go back and forth between beating the measure and beating the quarter, eighth, or half notes. On top of that, since it's a high school production, the tempo of each song varies from the original, and the group has only started rehearsing with the cast the week of the show. The songs are fast and relatively unfamiliar, time is short, and the director is of little help. So what do I do? Use a metronome! Will it help while playing the show, when I have to adapt to dialogue and whatever else comes up? No! But will it help me bring each song as close to the actual tempo as I can so that I'm as prepared as I can be come rehearsal? Yes.

As others have said, a metronome can be a very powerful tool, but it shouldn't be a crutch. And in some cases, it's better to put up with the tedious and unartistic metronome than to fall into panic (like I almost did).

(PS something I thought of after originally posting this: if you're arranging a nonclassical song that only has chords or tabs, it can be difficult to figure out what the duration of each note is. A metronome can be hugely helpful for this purpose.)

[timothy42b]

I'm in the chamber group for my school's musical playing accordion. The musical is pretty standard, so I could listen to the CD, but the group only started playing together the beginning of the month of the play.

I found a metronome hugely useful for preparing a musical.  With most of the rhythms syncopated and/or swung, it's easy to lose where beat one is, but it's essential to know.  An electronic metronome that had a different click for beat one always let me know if I'd played a phrase correctly or lost or gained a beat somewhere in there.  That wasn't too necessary for the last one I played, Beauty and the Beast, but for Guys and Dolls some metronome work was mandatory. 

[quantum]

A good conductor can follow a bad pianist.  And often has to.  and in fact that's acceptable, WHEN the pianist is the soloist and not an ensemble member.

Indeed the opposite is true.  A good pianist can follow a bad conductor, and go beyond their duties to unite the ensemble and get everyone to the finish line without a major breakdown. 

If the pianist is accompanying a vocal soloist and can't adapt to the soloists tempo variations, and these may be substantial, more than musical disaster will follow - usually a trip to the hospital is required.

What is required is an ability to listen to the pulse/rhythm of other players and adapt accordingly. Rarely is a metronomically correct performance a particularly musical one.

Well said.

[Bob]

A metronome is fun for technical practice. 

[20yearbreak]

Thanks for the input everyone.  I was leaning towards not using a metronome much so this confirms my thinking.

[timothy42b]

Thanks for the input everyone.  I was leaning towards not using a metronome much so this confirms my thinking.

BE CAREFUL in interpreting the advice.

Much of the contrary advice is from experienced playes who CAN use a metronome - they could play along with one if they wanted to, but they have reasons not to need it on a regular basis.

If you CANNOT play along with the metronome, then you lack an essential skill that you need to master.  It is better to learn that skill early in your development, allowing you to deviate from it later. 

Then as you age you will occasionally need to recalibrate.  Those of us past 60 usually find we need to review this once in a while. 

[hardy_practice]

+1

[diomedes]

This makes 2 this week that i've assigned the use of metronomes to students: They do their best to count as they play but develop glitches, such as pausing before a bar line as a habit. I count for them, sure, it works. But at home, that's not an available resource. I use a metronome in the lesson, it appears to solve the concern, so i assigned it. I suppose the results will turn out well.

[timothy42b]

They do their best to count as they play but develop glitches, such as pausing before a bar line as a habit.

I have noticed people who are playing without a hitch within a section, but pause before the next one without noticing it.  The first person I noticed doing that was myself - I really thought I was playing seamlessly from section to section until I put a metronome on it.  (I think it was that Minuet in G from the AMB, something simple anyway). A recording would have been another check but the metronome is easy. 

[20yearbreak]

BE CAREFUL in interpreting the advice.

Much of the contrary advice is from experienced playes who CAN use a metronome - they could play along with one if they wanted to, but they have reasons not to need it on a regular basis.

If you CANNOT play along with the metronome, then you lack an essential skill that you need to master.  It is better to learn that skill early in your development, allowing you to deviate from it later. 

Then as you age you will occasionally need to recalibrate.  Those of us past 60 usually find we need to review this once in a while. 

I would say I can use a metronome for songs I know well.  I won't sight read... but I'll memorize where the beats will be.  Songs I'm in the process of learning I struggle with a metronome...  and from my title it makes learning less fun for me.  I mean right now every song I learn I listen to beforehand and know how it should sound.

I think I'm kind of a slow starter.  I don't sight read well but I memorize really well.  So I kind of slug through things at first going really slow and not having the timing right in several sections...  then there's a phase where I have it memorized and I'm fixing things up to sound correctly tempo-wise... knowing how it should sound but still not being accurate enough.  Then for me the final phase is just being able to speed up or slow down in a song at will and not really think about it.

It's kind of cool because I've gotten to the point where I don't need to even look at the keys much for a few songs.  It's odd how my hands just know where to go.  Muscle memory is really interesting.  I couldn't tell you how to play some of the songs I know.  My hands just know.  The only bad thing about muscle memory is initially it's easy to get lost.  If you lose where your at your lost if you haven't practiced it enough.

[rmbarbosa]

One common mistake beginners do is to slow the second part or the second theme of sonatas or variations, for example. In this case, the metronome may be usefull but only to be sure one doesnt loose the correct "tempo"along the composition.
 But only along one or two bars of that second part or theme or along each variation. Once we get the right speed, we dont need the metronome. And music is not the clik-clak of the metronome, rythme is something "alive" like when we talk...

[gustaaavo]

One common mistake beginners do is to slow the second part or the second theme of sonatas or variations, for example. In this case, the metronome may be usefull but only to be sure one doesnt loose the correct "tempo"along the composition.
 But only along one or two bars of that second part or theme or along each variation. Once we get the right speed, we dont need the metronome. And music is not the clik-clak of the metronome, rythme is something "alive" like when we talk...

This is an interesting topic. I'm studying Waldstein right now and have been thinking about the relative tempi between subjects a lot. Some editions even change the metronome mark for the second subject and many recordings do just that (or apply considerable rubato). So this is not always just a beginner's mistake.
What's more, this happens throughout the movement, not just in the second (chorale-like) subject. One day I did a run-through of the exposition at a manageable tempo with metronome and realized that my conception of the piece (hugely influenced by recordings, of course) is very non-metronomic. For example, the codetta of the exposition felt awfully rushed when played with the metronome, even though the metronome was definitely not set at "Allegro con brio".
The thing is, we have a pre-conception that music of the classical period is to be played more or less metronomically (and the romantics anti-metronomically, even though we know that Chopin's conception of rubato was the same as Mozart's: the right hands sets free as the left hand maintains steady rythm). But even some of Mozart's sonatas are sometimes played very effectively with some rubato (for example listen to Sokolov's recording of K457, in particular the f minor arpeggios in triplets).
So, quite honestly, I'm baffled. I guess Neuhaus' analogy, that musical rythm ought to be more as a heartbeat than as a metronome, sheds some light, but still leaves much room for confusion.
So what do you think? Are there any pieces (well, good pieces at least) that work better metronomically? Is it justifiable to play Mozart with rubato? What about Beethoven? And Chopin!!!? And I haven't even mentioned Bach, that would make my post too long, but was Feinberg absolutely wrong?

[hardy_practice]

So what do you think? Are there any pieces (well, good pieces at least) that work better metronomically?  but was Feinberg absolutely wrong?

Maybe a toccata or two?  Feinberg wrong!?  Shudder the thought!

[timothy42b]

Maybe a toccata or two?  Feinberg wrong!?  Shudder the thought!

How long does a section have to be before you declare it metronomic?  What about pieces that need some variation between sections but are fine to be very steady within sections? 

How about scales?  If scale practice is to apply to music, surely we should never play them metronomically, right?

My focus is ensemble work, in which the freedom of any one player to vary the tempo or add rubato (not the same thing) must be limited.  You soloists can get away with a lot more.   

[hardy_practice]

How long does a section have to be before you declare it metronomic?  What about pieces that need some variation between sections but are fine to be very steady within sections?  

How about scales?  If scale practice is to apply to music, surely we should never play them metronomically, right?

My focus is ensemble work, in which the freedom of any one player to vary the tempo or add rubato (not the same thing) must be limited.  You soloists can get away with a lot more.    

Yes, solo sucks - I say to my students they may practice their football skills on their own in their backyard but play football on their own?   Playing football, playing in an ensemble, both are about give and take.

Scales?  When are they ever even even?  Never in a composition.  

[gustaaavo]

Thanks, Hardy and Timothy, you've certainly given me more perspective about the issue.
My experience with ensemble playing is not null but I'm certainly no expert. Indeed, I've never played "classical" music with more than one partner (piano 4 hands, flute and piano, or voice and piano is my experience). Nevertheless, I have felt sometimes that there is a certain magic when there's absolute synchronization with a flexible tempo. By this I mean that I do believe that a regular (i.e. metronomic) tempo is not necessary for ensemble playing (of course, crazy inflections like those which are common with pianists playing Chopin are certainly not desirable; indeed I think they don't even suit Chopin!) and that there is a nearly mystical connection that can be achieved between musicians that can replace the head-banging count (so common in beginners playing 4 hands). So I guess I'd like to know from those of you ensemble-players if I am being naively optimistic due to my inexperience (certainly playing in a trio should be more difficult than a duo!).Does it become an absolute necessity to keep a steady count in ensembles bigger than a duo?

About metronomic sections, you're absolutely right. My point of departure, Waldstein, abounds with examples, such as the very beggining (the trouble is, of course, about the relationships between sections, such as first and second themes). Indeed, even C major sclaes ought to be quite regular in Waldstein! But I guess there's a clear (though not pragmatically straight-forward) answer: you have to think about the music, not about traditions.

[hardy_practice]

I don't think you quite get it.  It's not about playing in time it's about listening to others - like when a football player can intuitively pass the ball because even though he's concentrating on keeping possession of it he's also conscious of what's going on around him all the time.   I tell my students - you haven't the luxury of listening to yourself, you're too busy listening others.

[timothy42b]

.Does it become an absolute necessity to keep a steady count in ensembles bigger than a duo?

I'm the trombone player in this amateur band of 27 people.  You be the judge.

[timothy42b]

I think I'm going to share another example.

My church has a music program during the fall through spring but the choir has the summer off, and I usually put together some kind of group occasionally.  Last time it was a round canon, and of course that needed metronomicity, so it isn't a good one to share.

So here's an unaccompanied vocal quartet singing a version of Amazing Grace I rather like.  I'm on tenor here, I'm essentially leading but I'm not directing; we're just listening and watching each other.  While doing it I felt there was considerable natural rubato, but I'm not sure the recording confirms that.  I'd be interested in your reaction.

[hardy_practice]

Cool.  Straight out of Prairie Home Companion!  Have you ever tried the shape note version?

[gustaaavo]

Thanks again, Timothy and Hardy.
I have come to think that I was touching this issue in an extremely general manner, which is when ambiguities arise. Each genre, composer, piece and passage is different; generalizations are not very safe here.
Those recordings are perfect examples: in the one of the band, each section of the piece requieres a steady tempo. In Amazing Grace more freedom is possible, but since there's no conductor there are some limitations. So what I felt is that the tempo is very organic (again, like a heartbeat, as Neuhaus wrote) but never is it as extremely variable as what soloists sometimes do.
The real issue is that with the old masters we have no idea how they intended their music to sound. We have read that Chopin asked for a steady beat in the accompainment, but we've never heard Chopin played that way (the closest would be Gould's rare recording of the 3rd sonata). As for Beethoven, I remember reading that he said that metronome markins apply just to the begginings, since tempo is prone to fluctuation. Of course, both conceptions are quite contrary to the currrent paradigm of how we should play their music! The thing is, we have no way of being certain. I guess that's one of the reasons that we enjoy listening to varying conceptions and it is one of the fascinating aspects of studying their music (since one needs to creatively experiment and take decision, at least temporarily).

[timothy42b]

So what I felt is that the tempo is very organic (again, like a heartbeat, as Neuhaus wrote) but never is it as extremely variable as what soloists sometimes do.

That's how I think i approach it. 

I'm okay with soloists taking liberties, but it's not really my style.  I kind of like the cellist Janos Starker, famous for recordings of the Bach Cello Suites.  He said quite strongly, when accused of being unemotional, "I AM emotional.  But I am NOT sentimental."  (in that thick accent of his)

What is absolutely wrong, and I hear too often, is players that slow down for the hard parts and speed up in the easy ones.  For shame!!!!!!!!

By temperament I am a section player/singer, an ensemble member, and would be perfectly happy never to solo again, as long as I get to play.