To Metronome or not to Metronome?

There's been some low level controversy recently about whether or not aspiring jazz musicians should use a metronome during practice. The bone of contention seems to be in particular using the metronome as a 'hi-hat' during practice - having it click on 2 and 4.

Many great jazz players never went near a metronome - Barry Harris for example, mentioned in a masterclass that he has never practiced with one. We can conclude that he learned his swing from playing with the great players of the era. Others such as Hal Galper, Mike Longo and Gary Willis are set against metronome use.

On the other hand great players such as Victor Wooten and Emily Remler did practice with a metronome.

What seems to have happened is that the metronome drifted into common use around the time the jazz schools started to take off. It's likely the teachers were looking for a way of improving student time feel in a world that lacked the old apprenticeship systems.

Hal Galper identifies the problem of teaching jazz rhythm here - he credits Mike Longo with being one of the few jazz educators to really get involved with developing a pedagogy (based on Dizzy Gillespie's ideas) for addressing this fundamental aspect of African American music.

My own viewpoint?

Well I don't think I'm qualified to say, although the fact that there is any disagreement between the legends of jazz and jazz education mentioned above logically means that, no, a metronome is not necessary to develop a good sense of jazz time. What certainly is required is an interest in rhythm.

The question would seem to be instead is the metronome is a useful tool. Some say not - Mike Longo and Gary Willis for example.

For what it's worth I've practiced with a metronome for years and felt I didn't really 'get it'. My metronome work was very much based around 'fixing' my time, rather than seeing rhythm as a fascinating and deep subject in its own right. I became obsessed with having 'bad time' and saw rhythm as my enemy that need to be conquered, rather than a stranger that could become a friend.

I think that's not an uncommon attitude among developing players.

I now see this as a blind alley. Rather than trying to fix ones existing playing rhythmically, I feel the way to approach jazz music is to feel the rhythm first and give it melodic expression second. Dizzy Gillespie said this more or less exactly - 'find a rhythm and hang some notes on it.'

When I became interested in rhythm for its own sake, I feel I turned a corner. Jazz is polymetric music, and I am beginning to understand that these ancient polyrhythms are an infinite resource that can infuse even the simplest melodies and harmonies with a subtlety and complexity that is the hallmark of African Diaspora music throughout the world.

Even if my time hasn't improved becoming interested in rhythm and groove for its own sake has made me a much happier person with a wider appreciation of all styles of music. That's reason enough....

Six practice activities I feel have been useful

1) Rehearsing with bands. Even if you can't sort out issues on the day, it gives you a very good idea of what to practice. Most musicians I have spoken to who have studied jazz at conservatoires (I didn't) pick out playing and rehearsing as the most valuable part of the course. The more musicians you play with, the richer your understanding becomes.

2) Playing with records. A classic approach made easier and more accessible due to modern technology such as Transcribe and iTunes. I feel I do this better when I've spent some time on the exercises below.

3) Subdividing bebop heads on Djembe with two handed sticking in 12/8. This is included in Mike Longo's material - which I have found very interesting and fun to work with. I'm keen to start learning some authentic Djembe next year - this is not based on two handed sticking as you can see here. Needless to say the key rhythms of West African music are also structurally important to jazz.

4) Counting/singing subdivisions while I play - Pat Metheny suggests subdividing quarter triplets and sixteenths in this clip here. (Metheny recommends practicing with a drum machine, which is not advice you hear too often these days.) This exercise can easily be expanded to include bebop heads and other subdivisions (5 for example) once simple swung 8th and 16th notes lines are mastered. An important rhythm I working on counting against my playing is the quarter note triplet. Barry Harris identifies this as a key rhythm in jazz.

5) Using the metronome to develop consistency on off beat (upbeat) placement. You set the metronome on the and of 1 and 3 and play bebop heads taking care to synch with the click. Very hard at first. You can make the offbeat straight or swung, and I suspect it's a good plan to practice both. This exercise was suggested by Hannes Riepler - who I can highly recommend as a teacher to those in and around London.

6) The slow improvisation and meter work advocated by Warne Marsh (and Lennie Tristano.) This is covered in this book.

Roads less travelled

An element that is often overlooked by present day musicians is the pivotal importance of dance. In the 'classic era' of jazz c1920 -1960, dance was the central social activity, and an important focal point for music. Dizzy Gillespie for example, wasn't simply a good Lindy Hopper, he was a member of the Savoy 100, which was as good as it got for an amateur - he'd be allowed free access to the club, and would often dance for an hour or two before playing. Other forms of dance music followed swings popularity including the R&B of such artist as Louis Jordan and, needless to say, the Afro-Cuban craze of the late 40s, which is important to the development of bebop. All jazz musicians cut their teeth playing dance gigs. Barry Harris and Billy Higgins paint a vivid picture of the era here.

Personally I've found it hard to commit to learning dance - there's simply too little time to fit it in regular, weekly dance classes with all the other commitments of my life. Many cultures promote a connection with dance early in life - this is something sadly lacking in my culture. At least we can practice moving - stepping in time at the simplest level. I often practice polyrhythms while walking.

Another key element is drumming - playing drums is a great way to develop a physical rhythmic connection - check out Michael Brecker on drums here. I don't have room for a drum kit in my flat, but I have found playing the Djembe gives me great pleasure and challenge, and would recommend it to anyone. I can see that the physical coordination and independence required to play even a simple drum beat would be great for me too. Perhaps I can find a way.... I have to say drummers who play guitar (or vice versa) often have a great touch and feel in their playing.

In general one should play with players you can trust to take care of business and make sure that you listen to them and play with them. Ideally, one would play with best rhythm section players you can find.

Ultimately, everyone agrees that's where the real learning happens.

Keep the metronome off the bandstand

One issue I have found from my playing life is that one's playing can be adversely affected by too much metronomic obsession. A dangerous element is assessing your own playing or that of others by metronomic standards while in performance. I feel this is not uncommon.

What seems clear is that there is a qualitative difference between metronomic time and good jazz time. There are players who have great feel but chronic problems speeding up, dragging, dropping beats and so on. A good professional player will rightly eliminate these elements from their playing, and practicing with a metronome might well be helpful here.

However, close investigation of many classic recordings reveals that tempos often aren't completely stable: they edge slightly up normally, or even slow down. So a rigorous, scientific approach to tempo seems out of place, if the intention is to swing like Ray Brown, Wes Montgomery or Tony Williams.

Conversely, while there are some metronomic players who can also groove like crazy, an over studied metronomic approach to rhythm can result in stiff, square time. For me, a good rhythm section is one that respects and trusts one another and plays in a common pocket. This pocket can vary from player to player. There will be natural flexibility of tempo but these shouldn't feel jarring or out of place - a flux in the tempo is less desirable or tolerated in jazz than classical music, obviously.

I think we can make a distinction between clock time (mechanical) and pulse (human.) While we want to avoid getting over excited (rushing) or too relaxed or bored (dragging) good time is everyone's hearts beating together - the audience and musicians both. It has nothing to do with physical measurements. Anyone who's ever sat through their least favourite class at school, realises the difference between physical and human time.

For a long time, because of my tortuous metronome practice I could be inflexible and headstrong about where I thought the time was. In fact, while 'laying it down' is not itself a bad thing when the band needs it, to do this all the time is a mistake - time feel is based around what everyone feels together. You can't and shouldn't force your concept of time on the other players (unless something is really wrong, in which case you are kind of screwed anyway.)

So based on that trying to place metronomic standards on a live performance is pretty misguided. I suspect it has come from the modern rhythmic aesthetics of click tracks and sequencing. While these are facts of modern musical life, they are in opposition to the rhythmic aesthetic of jazz. We might practice with a metronome, but ultimately it should be kept where it belongs - in the practice room.

The difference between Bebop and Swing

This has been an issue that's concerned me a fair bit over the past couple of years.

It's my feeling that the fundamental difference is the way phrases are put together rhythmically. Charlie Parker introduced a new rhythmic language which he expressed melodically. However, this language is often mistakenly understood from a vertical standpoint - Parker plays x scale or chord arpeggio over y chord.

In fact Parker's harmonic language is almost entirely drawn from blues phrases, simple triads, 6th, m6, dim7 and dom7 arpeggios, diatonic scales and chromatic embellishments - all very much 'off the shelf' swing era material familiar from Coleman Hawkins, say. Don't believe me? Look at a page or two of the Omnibook and analyse Parker's lines without thinking of the background harmony.

It is Bird's phrasing and rhythmic understanding which is truly revolutionary and marks his music out from swing in the same way as Louis Armstrong was the rhythmic revolutionary who created the rhythmic landscape of the swing era.

This seems poorly understood from academic viewpoint, perhaps because, as Mike Longo points out, the Western education system is ill equipped to teach the African elements of the music - rhythm in particular. Bird's rhythmic concept is as fresh and powerful in music as ever it was. We can see its influences in music far outside the 'jazz' umbrella.

What bebop certainly isn't is fomulaic chains of 8th notes over ii-V progressions - at least if by referring to bebop, we mean what Charlie Parker did. That stuff gives bop a bad name. (And I say that as a formulaic 8th note player of many years standing :-))

Steve Coleman wrote the best article I have ever read on the technique of bebop (Parker in particular.) While he doesn't tell what to practice per se, he does provide a persuasive 'musician's eye' perspective on what Bird is doing and why. Here it is.