I don't want to comment on Scott's personal demons - he's committed to fighting the battle his way - so be it.SteveL123 wrote:Are you serious when you said that a metronome is not necessary to develop an even tremolo ?
Exactly. And metronome will not help here, it's just a wrong right hand and tremolo technique in the first place.
What's got into you? Did they run out of jam in Cornwall?Crofty wrote:That sounds the same to me as saying that practice can be counter-productive, or using a sharp knife to peel a potato can be - which clearly they both could ...Mark Clifton-Gaultier wrote:a metronome is not a requirement - in some cases it can even be counter-productive. Don't be misled just because the video doesn't demonstrate this.
If you want to produce mechanical players I can't think of anything better than training them with a machine.Crofty wrote:Are you really saying the downsides outweigh the benefits and, if so, why?
Paperweight? Doorstop? I know that they don't burn very well.Crofty wrote:... and metronomes - still perform a very useful function when used intelligently.
Analogies like that make no sense - like "learning to walk before one can run". Any apparent correspondence, partial similarity or logical consequence is, at best, facile and incomplete.Tremeggio wrote:A metronome is like sailing in the bay. No metronome is like ocean sailing. Sail in the bay first then sail on the ocean
Two reasons? I see only one possible benefit i.e. accurately defining what he means in a particular instance when employing a flexible term such as allegro. This would assume that all metronomes are the same, that his was functioning correctly and that we fully understand his intention. His success in that endeavour by the way is not at all a given considering ongoing debate over interpretation of the quartets (amongst others), where all of those conditions have been brought into question.Crofty wrote:Mark: your quotes, above, by ole Beethoven seem to suggest two jolly good reasons for owning and using a metronome.
Lol. Not a chance - I'd happily argue the toss with old Ludwig. As for Mälzel, I'd be pleased to chase him up a tree and set fire to it ... along with his bloody contraption.Crofty wrote:You are obviously now becoming convinced yourself - which is nice.
I disagree. We can reflect on our personal experience but that doesn't change the truth (whatever it may be).Adrian Allan wrote:The metronome argument is a personal perspective.
I believe that you did - everyone does - we see (and hear) it everywhere. Skipping games, nursery rhymes, football chants, work tasks such as sawing wood, hammering a nail ... even walking.Adrian Allan wrote:I didn't start off in life with an internalised sense of rhythm ...
What relevance does that have Adrian? I've met, studied and worked with many professional musicians that either did or didn't have a metronome.Adrian Allan wrote:I also studied with one of the UK's top performers, and he also had metronome in his guitar case and used it regularly; for both me, and I think, for himself.
Well it's great that you achieved your goal, and there's absolutely no doubt that you're a decent player. I'm suggesting that, with the correct guidance, the metronome wouldn't have been necessary.Adrian Allan wrote:... but the metronome helped me to get there.
Interesting history here about which I had no idea. If nothing else I’m glad my comment prompted you to write about it.Mark Clifton-Gaultier wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:30 amAnalogies like that make no sense - like "learning to walk before one can run". Any apparent correspondence, partial similarity or logical consequence is, at best, facile and incomplete.Tremeggio wrote:A metronome is like sailing in the bay. No metronome is like ocean sailing. Sail in the bay first then sail on the ocean
It would be more useful if you could explain exactly what you believe the metronome achieves, perhaps then we could understand just how so many wonderful musicians managed perfectly well before its invention. Though need is said to be the mother of invention, an invention itself is no proof of need as can be illustrated by any number of useless gadgets.
Mälzel, one of the most well known manufacturers of the device, was a business opportunist, a fraudster, liar, thief and cheat. Amonst other things he was party to a number of dealings involving Klemperer's fraudulent chess playing automaton, he attempted (unsuccessfully) to steal from Beethoven who depicted him thus:
"Mälzel is a rude, churlish man, entirely devoid of education or cultivation, it is easy to conceive the tenor of his conduct ..."
In the Yearbook of Facts in Science and Art (1856) describes him:
"... quarrelsome, extravagant, and unscrupulous."
In his own words:
"if it is only said in London that people have paid ten gulden for admission here, that is all I care about; the wounded are nothing to me."
The above may be discounted as merely ad hominem argument with regard to the machine itself - accepted - I include it as this is the man who would persuade us that we actually need his product. He claimed to have invented the metronome and proceeded to market it as indispensable.
Winkel, the actual inventor, successfully sued but it was too late. Through clever marketing Mälzel's device came to be perceived as a "necessary" addition to the fashionable music salon, to such an extent that publishers felt the need to include settings in order to indulge their wealthy clients who wanted to play with their new toys.
Even Beethoven was persuaded, though we must acknowledge that he does seem to have been somewhat bipartisan. After all Mälzel had promised to manufacture and supply superior ear-trumpets for him for which he was beholden. Nevertheless, in a letter to Hofrath von Mosel he (Beethoven) comments with some enthusiasm, undertaking to support Mälzel in creating the conditions for the universal uptake of his machine.
However, where Beethoven comments on its merits it is with regard to ascertaining an overall tempo - not maintaining time. He writes:
"... what can be more irrational than the general term allegro, which only means lively; and how far we often are from comprehending the real time, so that the piece itself contradicts the designation ..."
He suggests that a starting metronome figure might give a more accurate indication. He is firm nonetheless regarding the "art" behind the composition further stating:
"... but it is quite another matter as to the words that indicate the character of the music; these we cannot consent to do away with, for while the time is, as it were, part and parcel of the piece, the words denote the spirit in which it is conceived."
Elsewhere he is reported as saying that any metronome marking he might suggest was, at best, good for the first few bars - after that the music should go its own way according to the artistry of the performer.