Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner 7-year-old on metronome practice

A perfect response. And another intriguing nugget of information regarding Lully.

I am surprised that so few people know that the metronome was originally invented as a way for composers to specify the tempo at which they wanted their music to be played, NOT as a counting device. This terrible misuse of the metronome has caused more distress than almost any other practice insisted on by teachers. You simply cannot LEARN the notes and obey the relentless ticking of the metronome as you fumble for the correct key. It's total frustration.

Human beings have an internal "metronome" ... the beating of their hearts. It is not difficult to tap out a beat. To force a young student to use this horrid device is almost guaranteed that they will lose interest in their music. Music is heart and feeling and emotion. Strip it of that and apply a rigid machine and what's left.

Very very little.

Have you ever listened to a performance from someone whose internal "metronome" was broken? It's a very disconcerting and unpleasant experience.

I have a metronome somewhere. I think it is in a box in an attic in Texas, having been there for several years and presumably by now has been baked to smithereens.

No, I haven't. Apart from students playing the wrong time values for individual notes or sections. And of course, some pretty wild "rubato" playing by certain performers intent on flashy playing. There's a Gould performance of the Mozart Fantasia in D minor which curls my hair and makes my teeth twitch.

With my students, I'll risk the rare possibility that someone's internal metronome is flawed, because the potential harm and robbing of enjoyment of playing and learning is too great.

I evaluate hundreds of piano students every year. It's obvious which ones do NOT use the metronome, or have no clue HOW to use the metronome. Or maybe they were never taught how to use the metronome properly.

And there are teachers who complain about evaluators who, in their written comments, suggest the use of a metronome to help the student establish a steady beat during practice. Obviously, those teachers don't know how to teach rhythm, either.

My first teacher didn't use a metronome neither. My new teacher tells me to do the practice part with the metronome. I just find it hard to keep a steady beat. When taking lesson with her, it's without metronome.
Maybe it's easy to follow your heartbeat, but as soon as the tempo differs from your heart, that's when a metronome might help. I don't use use it until I get the right notes of course. Once I know the notes and can play it from begin to end, I try it (with every detail) with metronome at a slow tempo.

I think it would be important to clarify what is meant by steady beat. I prefer to talk about consistent pulse, because steady beat can sometimes be understood as sounding like a midi recording. And some people even seem to use the metronome to achieve that...

BTW: I have found this a very handy tool:

Click for beats per minute

It can be used to evaluate one's own recordings for pulse variation.

It's also quite an eye opening to use it with recordings from top quality pianists...There's bad rhythmic variation, but there's also good one that only adds to expression.

Consistent pulse is indeed better.
It hasn't to be a concistent as in a MIDI recording, but there are more levels between the pulse of a MIDI recording and the consistent pulse of a beginning piano player...

Once you are able to play with a consistent pulse, then you can purposely vary the tempo in subtle beautiful ways.

If you can't play with a consistent pulse, then your playing will be wild and uncontrolled in tempo.

Argerich and Horowitz sometimes don't keep a steady beat, but only when they choose not to.

What are the ways (or tools) to help you develop a consistent pulse?

A metronome!

And not just any metronome. Buy or download one of those nifty ones that can subdivide the beats for you. There's one that even has the option of clicking dotted rhythm or swing rhythm. There are even ones that you can program "ONE two three FOUR five ONE two three FOUR five" or other irregular meters.

But first you must acquire a deep and thorough understanding of rhythm, intellectually (mathematically) and physically. And don't be afraid to slow way, way down to count.

This can also be understood as use the metronome long enough to learn to play as a midi recording and then later add expression on top of it...I'm not quite sure of the usefulness of such a method...




Sometimes? Try the device linked in my post above to any of their recordings

Which makes me think...Maybe the idea of a consistent pulse is actually like the idea of beautiful tone. It's partly just an illusion that a skillful player creates to the listener even if the pulse actually isn't that consistent? And those who cannot maintain this illusion will sound wild and uncontrolled...

Yes! And I think this is what is often neglected by those who think using the metronome is the answer.

I am all ear on how to train and learn this!

Well, I already wrote about how I learned rhythm as a child. A lot of counting and tapping (or some other physical exercise) different meters as work away from an instrument. As well as analysing and writing down how to count different scores (this I did again as an adult due to the long gap). Seemed to work for most people.

I tend to use the metronome for some specific purposes:
- Finding out what the composer's suggested tempo marking mean
- Helping me get the rhythm correct with complicated sections, especially those with ornaments (I cannot really count those)
- Forcing myself to practice slower than what I could naturally do
- Helping to correct earlier misreadings of note values

I don't think these are things a beginner usually needs, so from my point of view it's a device more useful for a bit more advanced players.

No, it isn't an illusion. Anyone who has played very often with others, especially with ensembles and orchestras, can tell you that playing with a steady beat is a requirement for good ensemble work. And it is a requirement that can come as a bit of a shock for someone who is playing with an ensemble for the first time.

Sure, even a large orchestra under a good conductor can and will vary the beat for musical effect, but there are still frequent long stretches of music where they stay absolutely on the beat. And in some contemporary music with complex and/or irregular rhythmic schemes, there really is not any way to mess around with the beat without coming completely apart.

I think that you may even be able to tell which solo players work frequently with ensembles and orchestras because they tend to stick to a very steady rhythm more than those who don't, even in their solo work.

And, finally, I think it is worth mentioning that Chopin - he whose music is often pulled about like taffy by pianists - would have his students practice just the accompaniment in some of his music, strictly following the metronome. An example I remember where he did this is in his E flat nocturne, op. 9, no. 2. He wanted that left-hand accompaniment part played with a rock-solid beat, and had his students use a metronome to get it that way.

You misunderstood me. I was only referring to pianists playing solo. I also did not mean that such a thing as steady beat does not exist or is never needed. Of course it does, but it just does not seem to be that important for the quality of performance when the pianists play solo and people do not necessarily notice the variation at all. Which you will see if you indeed track their playing with a steady beat device.

I also think it's a matter of taste. I personally mostly do prefer more rhythmically steady playing. Indeed one reason why I don't enjoy Horowitz's Scarlatti recordings that much is probably the amount of rhythmic variation. When I compare to some of my favorite Scarlatti recordings (from Weissenberg or Ciccolini for example) they are more consistent, yet not metronomic. I think they better work with my inner conception of pulse and this is very individual.

You are right - I did.

I think that MIDI recording effect has much more to do with all the notes being in their exact, mathematically determined place in time, rather than just on the beat being precise.