Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Jazz Study Group 2: Advanced Players

Sharing time!

I was playing with a new group the other night and we tried All Blues in 5/4. I doing some barline extension stuff (ie playing 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 over two 5/4 bars) to see if my timing was getting better.

Comments, criticisms always welcome! link: http://www.box.net/shared/3dzn11fdt9

Well Erskine says he's "thinking about it" and he's one of the top 10 drummers in the WORLD. And he teaches this "thinking" to his students.

In another video, he says "it doesn't mean I say it out loud"...

You skipped the key word though and that's "SUBDIVISION". Why do we play to a metronome at 2/4? Helps to subdivide. Similarly, Dave Frank in his video talked about thinking "Ten-ne-see" for triplets and "Mis-sis-sip-pi" for 16ths. Again ways to subdivide.

The thing is that a swung eighth is so short that I don't know how to subdivide that. Erskine showed how.

Now if we all had a perfect groove, then this discussion would be immaterial. But since we are all challenged in this area, a little tip here and there might be helpful.

It's easy enough to do what Erskine says at 150, but at 200 it's really really hard. The subdivion is so small.

I find the fact that he is 'thinking about it' interesting. As I said before, I would have thought the whole thing would be ingrained, and not a conscious decision. So, my original question is STILL valid, and still not answered.

And why do you even bring this up:

Er..? I never said he did it out loud either, or if I did it was not an integral part of my concerns. I believe this is completely missing the point.



I didn't skip the concept at all. I was talking about groove, and how interesting it was that apparent jazz masters still have to think or mouth 'uh' or something to help them keep in the groove. It is implicit in the discussion that to be in the groove includes being able to play a variety of rhythms other than simply a string of quarter notes.


Absolutely. No argument from me on this point.

Now here you go contradicting yourself again. Either Erskine showed how to do something easier that was previously hard, or he has shown a way to do something that was previously easy, but just not considered (read your last sentence).
So what is the solution then to playing in the groove at 200? Or doing what Erskine does at 200? Do you honestly think he is thinking 'uh, uh, uh, uh' at 200bpm, or 300bpm? I'm suggesting that he is NOT doing this, but has practiced the subdivision technique of thinking 'uh, uh..etc' at slower tempos a number of years ago, and that this feel became part of the neural pathways that trigger how to subdivide rhythms, and that thinking 'uh' on the last triplet of each pulse is no longer necessary, and probably impossible at the faster tempos. Does this not sound reasonable to you?


Listen, I'm not trying to cause controversy here, but rather to clarify the validity of some of what is being proposed.

Also, to be honest, I'm not sure if you're now saying that what you've learned about subdivision has helped you in ways that you'd not considered before, or if you're still considering this new information potentially helpful, but not able to execute it at any meaningful level at the tempos that are more difficult to play in (e.g. 200).

Ok, this just in:

I've seen the videos of Peter Erskine talking about subdivision a number of times now. I've also seen another one on Youtube of him on Kids talk radio on the same subject. He's consistent in stating that he thinks about the spaces in the beat as he plays. I've not seen him talk about playing faster tunes, except for saying that he'll think about large sections, rather than subdivisions.

I'm still curious though about one thing. Peter Erskine is not famous because he was once a really bad drummer and overcame this somehow to rise to the top of his profession. Likewise, I'd argue that most if not all great jazz musicians have certain musical qualities that most of us lack to some degree. So, if Peter and others like him have naturally good timing, and they are in a position to explain to others why this is, I'd suggest that they'd need to find an explanation for this attribute. However, this isn't necessarily explaining the cause (talent).
So, what I'm suggesting is that although he may very well think of the spaces in the groove/beat, this doesn't necessarily explain his success in executing great timing, rather it gives a plausible method for others to follow that may bring them closer to his success.
And as a pianist, I'm still not sure I can do both the 'uh uh' thing and remain harmonically and melodically musical at the same time. I'm absolutely willing to try, but remain sceptical (as my name implies).

Yes you are very sceptical. First let's discuss the problem. If you've read the discussion on swing, a good swing groove will require that the eighths not land on top of the beat, and the offbeat to be right on the swing eighth position.

Now think just about trilling 2 eighth notes in your fingers over and over. How are you lining this all up consistently so you can achieve the above? There are no clear markers for this on the beat other than the top of the beat.

That's my only marker (before). And then you start dragging back. Well then the first phrases sound awful until I get a feel of how much to drag. Then my lines get a little better.

I've noticed that even "professional" players are never that exact with their groove. And these people are supposed to have good time. The exactness on records seem to be reserved to a chosen few. The world class players at the top of the heap.

The practical effect of using Erskine's "Uh" was that I could it up more before I put my finger down on the key. The delay is already in my head. I did it for hours away from the piano.

Now having my notes extremely even is another technique problem, but at least I made progress with a groove issue by having a way to approximate the drag with an "Uh-Ga". It worked for me.

At higher tempos, this gap is a littler smaller so I can't sing it anymore but I imagine it. In any case, it gives me something to shoot for. And 'Imagine' may be the keyword here.

You play 2 & 4 and imagine the 1/4 with some part of your body don't you? At my level, I count it first. It's possible here because the gaps are large enough. I can't "count" a swing eighth. Not enough time.

You are saying you are doubting this even when the videos state it. How else can one subdivide (before you play)? I think various physical methods are used, some visible some not.

Once the beat is going, the 'Ding-A-Ding' of the drummer IS THE SUBDIVISION. So the drummer is now using his arms/legs as the subdivider.

I think it is possible for pianists to use the 'A-Ding' as the marker if you listen closely. But on some trios like Mehldau's, that is not always there so the internal subdivision is constant. And I have a hard time hearing the 'A' at 200.

I don't know why you're so sceptical. I'm here away from the piano and the "Uh-Ga" feel is still in me.

The question is this: What do you instead? BTW, until this thread, I didn't realize how precise these landing points are in swing. No wonder these top players are so consistent.

You've managed to miss my point again by evidence of this statement. Of course the 'uh ga' works away from the piano for you. How does that answer any of what I raised as concerns?

What do I do? I've tried a number of things that have worked to some degree, including everything mentioned on this thread thus far. Now, the question is did I do them for long enough, or do I still think 'uh ga' or whatever when I play. Well, no, I haven't done this particular thing for a while, and will try it again.

But jazzwee, do you even know what I'm asking? You seem to be defending something that I'm not attacking, and making this part of the thread into some sort of defense of learning how to groove. Well, rest assured I'm not against learning new ideas, or relearning or reapplying old ones. So until you or others look at my original concerns, and the ones raised after that, lets just drop the subject because it's getting tedious trying to get you to actually address what I've raised as valid questions and not attack straw men, etc.

Hi wee
Thanks for recording, I've saved it. In the 1st half, I noticed you used the fragment development approach. In the 2nd half, your teacher used nice arps.

I guess I don't know the answer. I was taking the video at face value since he said it consistently. Would you like me to have someone ask Erskine if this is still done consciously? It will take awhile to get an answer but I'll pass the question in a couple of weeks.

Although I'm not sure it hurts to keep doing it. After awhile it can't really occupy much of one's brainpower, I would imagine. But of course I'm merely guessing since we don't know what goes on in the minds of the people at this level.

Otherwise, there's a gig I'm going to watch in March where he's playing.

Yes! Absolutely! Ask specifically if he still consciously subdivides, or if that was what he did and now just reaps the benefits.

Also, ask your teacher if he consciously subdivides too. Or have you already talked about that and I missed it?

And neither do I. The trouble is, sometimes they don't either. Don't you think it is kind of the same as a left-handed person describing what they do to write, throw, etc to a right-handed person? Everything IS more natural for them on the left, but if pressed to explain why, I'm sure they could come up with a list of things they did to get better at said activities, but this still wouldn't preclude the fact that they started off left-handed and would naturally be better at most things with their left hands than the right-handers.

By the way, have you listened to my odd little quartet recording of All Blues?

Thanks for reminding, I guess I missed that post. I have some comments later about the rhythm but I want to listen again. Your playing was excellent from a first listen. More to come.

Scep, IMHO, you and the bass player were right on implying 2 dotted quarters and two quarters. But the drummer wasn't supporting that in my mind. Maybe he needs to listen to more Take Five You can see at the drum solo that he wasn't clear on the pattern he was implying. Maybe 2 + 3 (no dotted quarter feel). At least that was the sense I got. When I followed the bass player, the groove was strong. When I followed the drummer I got lost.

Which reminds me of Mehldau and 7/4. In past videos, they made that a pattern of 4+3. But I remember them changing that around during the Concert. Sometimes it reversed and sometimes it was like 14. That's time mastery right there.

Scep/Scott, listen to this ATTYA from the lesson again.

http://www.box.net/shared/ncz1fp5xnb

I just need to verify something. This tune was at 180 so it's pretty hard to subdivide that swing eighth. But I think perhaps my teacher is using a different approach here. Instead of trying to time the 1st note, I think perhaps he's landing the 1st eighth right on the beat than plays it a tad longer. So the first note is always longer and then that synchronizes the rest of the eighth notes in the phrase.

See if the first of his eighths is longer. Clearly when you look at the eighths overall it sounds relaxed and dragging all the time. But I never sensed a gap on the first note with the beat.

Sometimes these guys can't explain exactly what they're doing.

But I was playing alongside one of the eighth note lines and I seem to feel that lengthened first eighth.

The rest of his eighth note playing is completely even. So everything seems to hinge just on the first note.

EDIT - I think the first eighth note is a dotted eighth and the rest are straight. Makes sense to land on the proper spot on the beat.

A clear example to listen to is 0:16.

Wow -- I cut off the 4 notes at 0:16 and put it Audacity. I looped the last 3 notes until it sounded completely even and arrived at:

.12 seconds per note.

The first note was

.18 seconds. Dotted Eighth????!!?!?!?!

If you do it like this, I doubt if you would need an Erskine "Uh".

I'm going to loop this into an app that can slow it down as this method isn't perfect. The absolute legato doesn't show as clear spikes on the waveform.

Sounds good scep! Excellent blues chops! I think your solo stays in time really well, less a couple of slippery spots here and there. I like the chord approach at 1:43 but that's where the time seems most challenged. I think it's hard to stay relaxed doing that kind of stuff some times. But overall, your extension of ideas over the barline works well.

I think maybe some of the 1st eighths are longer, but I'm not really sure.

I've been thinking about the idea of delaying the downbeat and I wonder if that's not really what we should be concentrating on. It seems to me that the important aspect is the "and" of the beat... 1 "and" 2 "and"...etc. Which to my knowledge, should always be on the "let" of tri-p-let in swing, regardless of the tempo. The triplet of course dividing the quarter in three parts. This ties in with the "doo-duh-luh" concept that I learned from Ron Carter. He was absolutely adamant about the triplet as the key to swing, especially what he explained was the "up" beat, which is the 3rd beat of the triplet (the "luh"). I really think that learning to feel that beat as the "primary" beat is the key. Instead of worrying about the down beat. Sure the downbeat is important and I think it's always present (felt) in it's precise location as the 1st beat of the triplet, whether it's played that way or not. But to lock in on that "and" is necessary because it's absolute... the real pulse of the swing. The shifting of the downbeat would then be secondary, only serving to facilitate the feel of the lines or ideas that are targeting the "up" beat.

To address the tempo issue, I do agree that it's hard to feel this triplet subdivision "concretely" at faster tempos. But I really think that it's something that if it's learned at slower tempos, it can still be felt almost subconciously at faster tempos. I am reminded of how difficult it is for some of my young students to feel a simple quarter note pulse at tempos of even 120 or so, let alone 200. They may be able to follow it, but they don't really lock into it until they've gotten the feel at a slower tempo, say 70 or 80. Faster quarter notes are easy for us because we've spent enough time with it to really assimilate the feel and get control over it mentally. So it seems to follow that we can learn to do this with triplet subdivisions the same way.

One more thing, regarding the earlier mentioned contribution of talent to the abilities of top musicians...I would recommend reading this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Overra...mp;ie=UTF8&qid=1296484588&sr=1-1

Scott, my conclusion based on our testing here is that the offbeat is a fixed point. To be in the groove, that has to be in a specific spot. 3 of a triplet or 'let'. So we have 100% agreement here.

Now how to land exactly on that spot without doing a drummer's 'Ding-A-Ding' imitating triplet feel is the challenge. Copying the drummer sounds bad. It sounds Hokey.

So we discussed that the downbeat eighth cannot be consistently the size of a dotted eighth. If it's dragged, then it is slightly shorter than a dotted eighth and that's the way you play.

My teacher on the other hand plays straight eighths. But the question is how to "find" the swung offbeat position immediately. The only solid marker when you start a line is a downbeat.

So at least in theory, if the first note is a dotted eighth - started at the downbeat, then subsequent notes can be played straight and it will always remain in sync with the offbeat swung eighth position. In fact, trying it out a few times, it doesn't seem to sound bad to occasionally sync to the downbeat and play a note as a dotted eighth. It just sounds like an accent.

A computer can find that exact position on the beat at first try. We on the other hand have to listen for it.

Now for someone that doesn't play straight eighths, the problem is similar. Since a slight drag sounds better, there's the possibility that the slight drag will take the offbeat off the groove. So even here it makes sense to start dragging only after the first note so you have some time reference.

That's what I'm thinking of at the moment for practice. Which is: Don't worry about dragging on the 1st note. Do it on subsequent eighth notes.

Although I can't be 100% sure of the note lengths in the recording, (a) the 1st note in the phrase I was listening to was longer, and (b) it started at the top of the beat -- I clearly hear the ride cymbal.

What I can't tell for sure is if process of lining up of the offbeat occurred gradually over several notes, or all happened on the first note.

Sharing time, whilst I'm still in edit mode, the 4-hand 1 piano rec session went well, I'll post later on a couple pre-masters for your listening pleasure (a wicked version of Spain and a swinging Joy Spring amongst others). Until then, here's 'Stella' from last friday. This time I tried to create space by not playing . . . but I found that its hard to "think different" when the drummer sticks to his guns.

Sorry I'm not providing any feed-back on the 5/4, but after some days mixing, my ears are longing for silence.

Very solid Stella playing right there! Very nice.

I learned a little bit about what to with the LH there, particularly at the head.

Now you have a predominance of triplets 16ths here. For whatever reason, I'm discouraged from using triplet 16ths too much. But I hear everyone do it a lot, particulary at our jams.

So I'm at a loss about whose advice to follow. There are certain tempos though like 100bpm where it's slow for just constant eighths, but at the margins for doing 16ths for me.

Yes, I've heard it's a good book and gives some ideas about that it's most likely a number of other attributes other than just talent. But the key thing to remember is that talent is simply an easier in to the things that need to be mastered. Those with less talent aren't exempt from learning the same concepts/feel/etc, but the amount of time and effort that is needed will be much different, depending on the starting point. Sometimes the starting points seem similar, but talent is a depth, not necessarily a surface measure.

But, I have not lost hope for myself, even though I know I am less talented than others. I just have adjusted my timelines and some expectations.