How and why classical musicians feel rhythm differently
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 січ 2016
- COMMENT RESPONSE VIDEO HERE:
• Q+A #22 - Classical mu...
Support me on Patreon!
/ adamneely
Rhythm is treated very differently in classical music from the sharp precision that other musics might require - it's organic and fluid. Recognizing this difference and being sensitive to the nature of rhythm itself in different contexts is important if you're trying to bridge gaps between different styles of musicianship.
I recognize also that I come off as pompous and harsh sometimes with my critiques of - the musicians who played on inside//outside's record were absolutely phenomenal and had to learn and record the music in a very short amount of time. What they did was, quite frankly, incredible, and of the highest professional standard.
Hear inside//outside here:
insideoutsidemusic.bandcamp.com
Follow me on the internets
/ adamneely
www.instagram/its_adamneely
Peace,
Adam
Nobody tell this guy about Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring." His head might explode, lol.
What, you mean all star by igor stravinsky?
ua-cam.com/video/tEC6W8ujSlE/v-deo.html
That's pretty glorious. I was going to share the air horn remix, but apparently it got copyrekt, so here's this melodica version instead.
ua-cam.com/video/vIq543Q10UM/v-deo.html
I like how he talks about classical musicians like a different species
Musicians and the guys who tries to play :D
Jonathan Glisson I played Rite of Spring last Spring. I gave up on counting some of sections and just memorized where to play.
So if I play the wrong notes, it's jazz. But if I play the wrong rhythm, it's classical. All this time I've been playing classical jazz!
😂😂😂😂😂
„I play classical and also jazz“ just got a new meaning for me 😅
Damn
@@GustavoStrauss 'classical AND jazz' is parallel to 'country AND western'
@@toamaori 😅 haha, yeah
bold of you to assume we actually look at the conductor
Emily Liu Lol only when I need to
Only when my first chair gets lost
I know... you rather ask everyone else to follow your bow and forget about him/her waving a useless stick that does not produce any sound at all.
I just find it easier to feel it rather than look up lmao
you've never played drums more than 100 meters away from the conductor. There is literally a half second of time before the sound reach the drummer so he would be so laaaaaaate if he wasen't watching.
I am a professional orchestra musician - the joking rule is: whatever you do, DON'T look at the conductor:)
I have to adhere to that rule often myself. Tough for me b/c I also studied conducting....so for whatever reason it's natural for me to want to look. Then I'll make a mistake and I can't exactly say, "I messed up b/c I was watching." hahahahaa :)
@tubenshaft certainly depends on the music. I'm a percussionist, so I have to be particularly careful. since i play an instrument, with sharp attack, it have to anticipate the moment, the pulse arrives at the audience but also wait for strings and wind instruments, that it sounds tight. we percussionists have a few techniques how to hit, basically delaying the hit, while moving in pulse. but: you rarely look at the conductor to stay in time, but to know, what time it is. especially when there are a lot of time changes or if the pulse isn't self explaining.
tubenshaft ihr habt natürlich auch verdammt gute Orchester in verdammt schönen Konzerthallen in Wien ;-)
I agree, Not because of my own experience, as I am a pianist and not an orchestra member, but because I saw how this plays out in practice year in, year out.
My mum (violin teacher, studied at Maastricht Conservatoire with Swedish violinist Nilla Pierrou) was the concert master of the local symphony orchestra as well as its only professional member. AFAIK the only role of its conductor was organising rehearsals and standing in front of the lot during performances and making the picture complete.
They actually did a pretty decent job despite the conductor (who was a former student of Czech legend Karel Ancerl, as well as being a useless alcoholic and womaniser) not helping much at all, as it was mum who was leading most of the rehearsals anyways. They went through pieces like the Grieg piano concerto and just followed the soloist and cues from the concert master.
Ideal? No. But if an amateur orchestra can do that, a bunch of pro's will defo be able to coordinate itself without some guy dressed as a penguin waving a baton in front of them. Only when a conductor is a musical genius he offers an extra, in terms of coordinating a performance and getting it to a higher level by making sure all nuances are being taken care of. The average conductor however is no Dimitri MItropoulos or Eugen Jochum or Bernard Haitink tho.
Can you pros tell me why so many big-name conductors hardly seem like they're conducting at all, but merely wildly gesticulating to show that they're "passionate"? (and seemingly having nothing to do with the structure of the piece). It really irks me. If you're not up there as a rhythmic guide, what purpose do you serve (and why have you the there at all)? It's like an actor on stage yelling "LOOK! I'M ACTING! SEE ME ACTING?!?"
In the mahler symphony, both Bernstien and the players are correct, as the downbeat for the player is the upbeat of the conductor. The conductor's downbeat is essentially a "get ready, this is how i want you to play it", not a misallignment between the two.
That’s Herbert von Karajan, not Bernstein as he mentioned in the video
@@rpfigueiredo No it's Bernstein
Thank you!! I was expecting someone to say something about it. It's not out of sync, in fact is what makes a good conductor. I play jazz and popular music and it took me quite a while to understand the main rol of a conductor. I'm from Argentina and the folklore here also moves the tempo by melody, they are just conceptions, all are equally good in terms of rythm
Its not even an orchestra just one trumpet
To be more concise the piece starts on an 8th note triplet in alla breave. So the notes come in the second half of the second beat. If you have any experience conducting you know that these are cues that are incredibly hard to give. Bernstein does this by giving the cue onto the second beat (which is the common way to do it), with the trumpet player only playing on the second half of that beat. So clearly this is a case of Adam not knowing how conducting works.
Classical pro here, and I can tell you that any perceived lack of rhythm you've observed among us has nothing to do with the conductor. I can assure that 95% of the time, 80% of the orchestra isn't looking at the conductor and is staying in time with their ears and (YES) with feeling the groove of the music
Also the example you showed of Leonard Bernstein's conducting to show a conductor beating out of time is sort of a red herring. The beginning of Mahler's 5th Symphony is an unaccompanied trumpet solo. His beats you see here aren't him "keeping the trumpet player in time", they're there as a cue. He's essentially saying "go ahead john do your thing". Moments after you cut off the clip the rest of the orchestra joins in and you would see Bernstein's baton line up in time with what you're hearing.
Good video, but I think you misunderstand the conductor's role a little bit. That's not to say there aren't very poorly rhythmically developed classical players, ESPECIALLY string players. That I believe is connected more to practice habits, culture and personality more than it has anything to do with musical style or whoever is leading the ensemble.
He did raise an important point though: the attack of most string instruments is not as direct as many others - especially drums.
One thing that drives me as a percussionist is when I'm playing in orchestra that plays slightly behind the beat as opposed to directly on it. I've talked to many string players about this trying to figure out why it happens (it drives some of them crazy too). The most direct answer is probably a mix of tradition... and that strings have a softer attack. So, in essence, if they're not playing slightly ahead of the beat, it sounds like they're playing slightly behind.
I have to address a similar problem on some percussion instruments - if I do not play slightly ahead, the moment of attack doesn't line up with the rest of the ensemble. Or, also, time delay can affect it depending on the size of the ensemble and how far away you are from the woodwinds in a concert band or strings in an orchestra. This is why the ictus of the conductor's baton is where my eyes are locked when I play with strings players in an ensemble - merely listening deceives the performer's ears.
Time delay is huge factor when you're talking about The First Violins and the Percussion section playing together, that's absolutely true.
I think what I was saying about listening and feeling the music may apply most to the wind section. Playing a wind instrument is a physical exercise. Your face, your lungs and your hands all need to be 100% coordinated or you sound bad, so you don't have the time or brain power while you're playing to go "okay his baton is going at this speed, I have to watch the ictus and play my phrase riiiiiiiiiiight....now!" If you do that, you'll frack your entrance, play something wrong, or even worse miss the phrase entirely.
So how and when you enter in an orchestra to be right on time with your attack is something that gets quickly committed to muscle memory. Of course you're gonna look up at major transition points to see where a conductor has decided to take a piece, and you're still gonna count your rests and listen and look for cues directly related to your part, but once the instrument is to your face, you really are relying on feeling the groove.
Wow I'm writing a book here. I understand why it's not like that for percussionists. You may switch from a glockenspiel to crotales and need to visually reorient yourself in the middle of a piece while a trumpet player never needs to look at the valves on his trumpet.
Even this small difference is enough to shape how we think about the way we play our parts in the same piece.
Also striking something to produce a tone is much different than creating the tone with air from your lungs, another key perceptual difference that may change how you think about coming in.
In a professional setting this doesn't mean all that much though. The key to playing in time is knowing exactly how your instrument functions within the ensemble, the room and the piece itself, and in most top level groups every player even in the last chair has got this down.
As for the attack of a string instrument being less direct than that of a timpani or vibraphone? That's up to the string players to worry about. Play your part how you know you can make it sound good and the violas can sort themselves out.
The idea of "being on the beat" in most classical scenarios is really a whole other can of worms that I could write 6 more comments about but I think its overrated. Like others have said here, the conductor is not a metronome so thinking about playing with him in perfect synchronization as being the musical ideal is just the wrong place to start in the first place in my opinion.
You can not "phase-lock" with Leonard Bernstein due to him wanting to be correctly interpreted before the note gets played. He also gives his demand of the note before the note is actually played, so the musicians can read him correctly and thus play correctly. We see this in various explanations of Bernstein. If you would go against his instructions that do change on how he feels each performance is his later years, he would definitely recognize it. I do not know which conductor you play with, but I look at my (strict) conductor when he is conducting actually.
Mate I kind of agree with what you said about the fact that musicians feel the rythm differently regarding the music they play.
I'm a classical pianist, I still play classical. I'm also a jazz pianist.
I started in a fusion funk jazz band. The first rehearsal I nearly cried 🤣😂.
I was phrasing everything and the drummer used to hate me.
I had to start from scratch and it took me a bit of time to get used to it.
I seriously started to loose confidence, thinking that all I learned so hard in classical Conservatoire was rubbish.
My band mates were mocking me a lot which didn't help.
Until one day, one of my band mate suddenly had the idea to play classical as an outside project of the band.
And he asked me for advice. I listen to him playing and it was horrible!
The rythme wasn't fluid, the phrases weren't there, harmonicly, he was playing each bar isolated from each other but not a global view of the harmony.
When he realised that he had to learn from scratch he gave up.
It's just a different language. Classical musician has to feel the beat, when you play rubato as a pianist for example, if you don't feel the beat, if you don't sing, if you don't have the beat inside you, you might play a very bad and unnatural rubato.
Somebody told me one day that if I was a classical musician, I couldn't improvised. It's totally wrong.
I struggled to improvise in funk/jazz or the new style I was playing but I always improvised.
Improvisation is not just a jazz thing.
Today, my band mate ask me to do a solo on each new composition we do.
Music is full of different type of language. You can be good at all of them. If you want to learn a new one then it take time and practice.
I finish with this, I met an idiot who told me: "classical is for technical and jazz for musicality".
The guy is a full time teacher in a public school and never touch his instrument.
All the great legend of jazz, Art Tatum, Oscar Peterson, Bill Evans,... are very respectful for the classical compositions.
There are no dumb music, we can always learn something from a piece. Even a Katie Perry song can tea h at least one little thing.
That's the best explanation!
Your ear can tell if a classical musician is ONLY classical or if not, because classical music sounds in general much better and groovy played by people enriched with experience from outside the classical world. There are some very few exceptions, people who only are classical and still can play with groove, but they are quite few.
The Guldas of the world really give a good example of what happen when rhythmic sensibilities cross over.
On the other hand, hear Yuja Wang play Art's Tea for Two and something just doesn't work.
nice
@@pablojlascano8322 ?
This video is funny because it is like putting two groups have huge ass egos inside the cage seeing who win, cool vid
Kkkkkkkkkkk
Lmao
I’m a classical and jazz musician and I use both methods together.
Evan McCaskill Damn, you must have the biggest ego of all.
Classical musicians also can't improvise, just saying
Your example for the Mahler 5th is a bit wrong, Bernstein is giving the trumpet player a rhythmic lead in, as the part is a solo. Check out Bernstein's "conducting" during the part, there is a noticeable white space for 2-3 counts, and right before the rest of the ensemble comes in there is a noticeable count off before he goes into regular conducting
Several renowned directors have the habit of directing their orchestra one measure in advance so that the musicians actually have a chance to pick off fine points from the directing rather than being late with any reaction. Essentially labeling this as "classic musicians are not able to keep/feel the beat" is, well, being rather self-assured. I would expect a serious musician witnessing a scene from musicians of that caliber to try harder for the answer to the "what is going on here?" question.
Having been trained first with classical music (piano) and then jazz music (bass & double bass), I've always felt that the two sides feel rhythm completely differently, and I was enthusiastic about this video.
I agree on most of it but I think I would phrase it slightly differently : to me classical musicians feel rhythm as breathing, it is indeed fluid and it flows, whereas jazz musicians feel more of a internal drive (especially as a bassist, that's like crucial). But in both cases, it's still internal and I don't think the conductor is as an important of a factor as you imply it.
kozkozof
So true!
Playing both classical and jazz piano, I use to say that my feeling comes from the lungs for classical music and from the belly for jazz.
A lot of the difference comes from the notation both types of musicians use, and were trained on, like the difference between a chart and a score. Not that jazzers don't encounter fully scored out music occasionally. A "chart" only requires a song form mapped out in bars, chord symbol abbreviations and a melody line on the staff to be useable.. The words "With Feeling" or "Brightly" stated once at the upper left can make a big difference. Classical players are much better readers but you have to spell it out for them. They are like machines and strive to play back precisely what was written. This can end up sounding stiff (without soul) for jazz/pop music. Jazz players (and rock and pop) get to cheat somewhat. For example, the concept of "Swing 8ths" is foreign to classical music, but they could play it if it were written out specifically. This would look like 8th note triplets with the first two tied. instead of a pair of 8th notes. A lot of notational complexity for a "feel". On a contemporary chart you're allowed to just write it with ordinary 8th notes and add the words "Swing 8ths" once, right above the first measure and everyone knows what to do. The same goes for notating anticipation where a classical score would have to put a tie over the bar line, jazz (contemporary) is much looser. In the old days composers tried to be much more specific (unless they were deliberately being non-specific as an effect in which case they would tell you) but a wide latitude was given only to conductors and soloists for artistic "interpretation" . Both schools have their pluses and its probably best to be proficient both ways.
@tubenshaft Music that ebbs and flows, gallops and then pauses, is so much more expressive than "click track" music, theres almost no comparison. Since its all nearly click-tracked now (if recorded) musicians work at playing 'around' the click (a skill) to keep the same freedom. An organic live performance where the musicians can all pause together, take a breath and wait for a leader to nod is the best (my opinion).
well said!
That’s absolutely tru
as a classical tuba player, i'm required to play all over the beat. if i'm in an orchestra and i'm not on or ahead of the beat of the rest of the ensemble, the acoustics of orchestral halls will make the sound emerge such that i sound late. in brass ensembles, i am the beat and the pulse. depending on the style of music we are playing, i can lay back, push ahead, or provide strict time. i appreciate the sharp contrast drawn in this video - it calls an important issue to mind, and clearly, a few classical musicians have taken offense. i provide my response simply to share that each musician is different depending on all sorts of circumstances, and none are more valuable simply because they can play with a sense of time. the only value the musician has is to themselves and their audience, in communicating emotion or entertainment, or some form of art.
+Wiatt Cariveau You seem like you know your stuff than. If I was starting a funk band, you'd be my Tuba player, because it sounds way better than bas guitar imo. :)
Thanks! This comment really made my week! HMU anytime for some fat tuba tracks. It's good to find someone who appreciates the tuba!
Learning bass classically I too was taught to play at the leading edge of the beat when in a large ensemble. As an electric bassist now I find I use playing at the leading edge or trailing edge of a beat to effect a feel or groove in ways that many self-taught bass and guitar players don't seem to realize can be done.
Neely really shouldn't talk about classical musicianship, since he knows so little about it. The players read the "wrong" 9/8 beaming with ease because it's common in mixed-meter music for the groupings within the bar to change. The notation says to them, "for this measure, think 3+3+3," so they adjust instantaneously because they are well trained in doing so. In Mahler 5, it's a single player, so the apparent lack of synchrony is irrelevant. It's standard courtesy in that opening for the conductor to communciate, "Play when it's comfortable, and know that I'm here listening to you," which is exactly what Bernstein was doing. (Bernstein's tremor before the first and fifth downbeats communicates the speed of the triplets, because Mahler's instruction is for the triplets to be played faster than strictly notated, but he doesn't specify how _much_ faster, so it's always a gray area.) As for the sixteenth rest followed by the dotted quarter, I don't know why that particular group of players struggled in that instance, but that's not a rhythm that would bother me in the slightest.
Yeah this video is a major oof 6 years later and though he hasn't done anything like this since, it was clearly a moment where he was trying to imply he was "better" than most classical musicians and considering his lack of knowledge (which he still is incredibly shallow in his knowledge of classical forms etc) it was his first major yikes moment. A lot of Jazz musicians are insecure around classical players for some reason. Weird.
are you even a musician? srsly...
@@NAETEMUSIC are you even a musician? srsly...
@@NAETEMUSIC Yeah right lol; are you even a musician? srsly...
@@NAETEMUSIC I'd rather be a bot than a non musician pretending to be a musician. Your lack of musicianship is obvious through your messages.
Ooooh, this is fight bait! Classical musicians understand syncopation and polyrhythm about as much as jazz musicians understand dynamics and rubato.
hahaha
Fantasie improptu: *caughs*
*laughs in Chopin*
Unless you love Meshuggah and play classical guitar :)
Polyrhythm and syncopation are part of 'classical' playing as well.
Hey everyone! I have NO idea why this video suddenly became so popular. I made this video because I wanted to try and figure out why classical players have such a hard time with popular rhythms, syncopation and playing backbeat-oriented music when they have such deft technical control and precision for other things. I didn't do nearly good enough of a job exploring certain things, and I didn't tie it together as cleanly as I should, my apologies.
Here are a few other things!
1) I got the stuff about conductors wrong. Sorry about that! I know Bernstein was using a particular technique that to me, as a jazz musician, looks ridiculous, but I can understand the utility.
2) 9/8 can be beamed different ways. In the case of the music that we were playing, it could ONLY have been beamed 2+2+2+2+1. It was phrased with the drums so that the backbeat was placed as if it were 4/4 + an eighth note. Anything else would have been straight up musically wrong. Listen for yourself (The section starts at roughly 1:45 insideoutsidemusic.bandcamp.com/track/program) Yes, it's possible to count the eighth notes phrased as 3+3+3 against the backbeat, but it feels soooo wrong.
3) Yes, I am a trained musician, I swear. And yes, the classical musicians I've played with have been worldclass. Watch my other videos, I think you'll dig them!
I think this is an interesting video and it does touch on the difference of feeling the beat, but in a different way then you suggested above.
If you research the development of rhythm you'll find it is based on language, and western 'classical' rhythm develops from the 'long' 'short' syllabic language structure from the Greeks, where as non-western rhythm will come from a different language with a different language structure such as Sanskrit for Tala, which basically adds syllable in a continuous way. (p.s. in western music, notation for notes developed before rhythm so harmony was a bigger deal at first in 'classical' history. Just remember Gregorian chants).
A lot of modern and popular music use non-western rhythm patterns that for me are easier to feel rather than read in detail like I would a classical piece. When I do read pieces that are not written in the more western tradition, I know it is a modern piece (popular or classical, because 20th century 'classical' composers loved to do phasing and non-western rhythms). I find modern music a monster to read with my 'classical' cap on, so I have to stop and mentally shift gears because I play more classical music rather than popular music (I mainly play the flute, but occasionally brass and keyboard).
So the example of the classical musicians sight reading right through that measure of 9/8 is because the grouping of 3 is EVERYWHERE in classical music and the classical musicians were trained (programmed) to know this pattern inside-out. Where as the 32nd rest with the dotted eighth note does not compute correctly in the 'classical' sense. With that rhythm, I'd need to know the feel of the 'modern' piece to put it into context. So they were not agreeing on how to approach this rhythm.
Any thoroughly trained musician should be well versed in all these rhythms, but even classical musicians can get separated into traditional classical music and modern classical music. I met a professional flute player who can play the traditional 'classical', but her specialty is modern music, modern techniques, and extended techniques. My flute instructor is phenomenal in traditional 'classical', which is why he is hired, but he still knows the modern stuff, which is not the reason they hire him.
So yes, there is a difference in approach to rhythm, but I believe it is not the musician so much as it is the music itself and how thoroughly the musician is exposed and trained in it. So I agree and disagree with your video, and it sent me into a long thinking rant.
I am a current music education student who minors in flute performance and has had the benefit of of having two awesome professors teach me history and theory. One of which is a history buff and will tell you why people did what they did back then because 'you have to understand the times and why things turned out the way they did, it is how you will know how to play your music for juries,' while my other teacher is a non-western music history and non-western theory buff who composes VERY modern pieces based on the sound world that make all the students go WTF. He also likes to rant on the rhythm difference and why non-western tonality and rhythm are so great.
So sorry for the rant, but your video made me think, and think, and think, and here we are at 2:15am... Hope this may help as an opinion from a maybe more classically oriented view who gives lessons to student who want to learn popular pieces and I'm just like, "your reading the music too much that will confuse you (like it does me), just feel the the beat and then the rhythm will make more sense." I also could have just totally botch this up.
P.S. The double bass professor does not look or sound to be all there and almost feels like he is in his own world, so I do not think he was the best example to bring forth. His age isn't helping this line of thinking either.
It's been shared recently on various Facebooks groups that have over 10,000 - 15,000 members... :-O
Hey Adam, I hope you had time to look at some of the comments here. Don't be afraid to email me if you want to discuss anything I've said, or if you have any questions I can give you contacts to other classical professors. I think what bothered me most about your video is that there are a lot of people who are willing to say that the process of playing classical music and the process of playing modern music is somehow different when in reality the two styles require the same skill-set. The reality in my opinion is that one detail needed for classical music is ignored in modern music teaching, or a detail needed in modern music is ignored in classical teaching. For example, classical musicians don't really know how to "jam," or to better put it they don't know how to listen to a rhythm section and solo over it or they don't know how to play as a part of a rhythm section (if everything isn't written out for them then they might not be able to function). It's kind of like how there are a lot of legendary modern musicians that preach that one doesn't have to know how to read music, but I think we can all agree that reading music is an incredibly important and necessary skill in today's industry.
.
As a classically trained musician, I can agree to a point on some things. I will say this though, your point about how we "react" to the beat rather than feel it is completely wrong. The reason that Bernstein was doing that and the musician was playing like that was because he was "feeling" the beat. When it comes to professional classical groups, the conductor no longer conducts beats. He conducts music. The musicians must all feel the beat as one and play together. The conductor shapes their playing style and approach.
On the flip side, I have also played with plenty of rock groups. Yes those off beat things are harder for us. But it did not take long for me to figure it out (maybe not during sight reading) and do it correctly. The presence of the drum set or other percussive instruments actually only furthers my ability to do them properly and well. That is, like you said, me and others feeling that beat.
I will say sometimes, classical musicians get trapped in only doing that style of music. That is what makes the jazz/pop/etc genre a little rougher for us. However, I have never met a classically trained musician that when exposed to it, learns it faster and better than those that haven't spent those years learn the art.
I feel like you missed a few things here. Part of what you missed, though you alluded to it but never explicitly discussed it, is rubato. Depending upon the classical style, you can own the rhythm and take liberties. In some late Romantic stuff, it's to quite an extreme. But in an orchestra rhythm needs to be more strict, you can't coordinate 80 people with ebbing/flowing rhythm. (Mahler aside-- that was a trumpet solo from a particular style of orchestral music and should have little bearing on the rhythmic limitations of musicians who almost certainly have also played a ton of Mozart and Haydn in their lives).
Another issue is just culture and what you are used to. There are rhythmic structures that I find very easy and familiar that others might find less easy (like teentaal, which is used so commonly in Hindustani classical music). Honestly, it's not because of any rigorous training or talent on my part, it's just that I have lots of exposure to it, so I can just feel it.
So if classical musicians have trouble with a rhythm that's common in jazz but not in classical music ... does it mean anything? Maybe they're just less familiar with that rhythm?
Finally (sorry this is longwinded), lots of classical musicians play instruments where you'll get the flam if you're not phase locked. The classical music world absolutely has cymbals, glockenspiels, xylophones, guitars, pianos. So ... what would your answer be here?
3:46 Some conductors prefer to have the orchestra follow behind their beat, while others prefer the musicians to play on their beats.
Just a note about Leonard Bernstein conducting ahead of the music - this is actually totally intentional. It's a more advanced conducting technique than conducting with the music. I had a conductor in college that tried it on us once when we were playing Beethoven 1. It was kind of weird but kind of cool. The point is that the conductor can better cajole the orchestra by telling them what to do before they have to do it. I imagine it must be very tricky for the conductor, since he/she would need to be very detached from the sounds he/she is hearing in order to keep his/her gestures a beat ahead. The phase locking theory is interesting, but I think a better explanation is just relative familiarity and practice. Most standard classical rep doesn't have those rhythms very often, so classical musicians can't just look at it and hear it in their heads (and if the tempo is fast, it makes it difficult to subdivide). It's like having to sound out a word vs just looking at it and recognizing it. Now, if they play lots of more modern classical music then the rhythms you mentioned would probably be easy for them, but if they just play Mozart all the time they are not going to see those rhythms a lot. Which brings me to another point - they might just not be very good classical musicians. Many of the difficulties you described classical musicians having (not really together, not listening to each other) are common traits of bad classical musicians (I say this as a rank amateur myself). Yeah, it's true that if you are a violinist you can kind of sneak in with a soft attack if you are lost, but not in the big leagues (with regard to that bass player, I can only assume the job market was much less competitive when he got tenure). We are aware that these are common flaws, and expect the best musicians to overcome them completely. If you listen to the best orchestras (especially on a good night with a good conductor!) it can be amazing how together 80+ people can be, even with rubato. The Metropolitan Opera orchestra is especially astounding in this regard (it's probably all the practice they have trying to follow singers! or maybe James Levine deserves the credit...).
When I see a rhythm that I need to subdivide at a fast tempo, I will often think in cut time. For example, if I saw a quarter note triplet at 200 beats per minute in 2/4, instead of trying to subdivide the smaller beats, I think of the 2/4 bar as a 1/2 bar and play a normal triplet. This is easy because I am a percussionist, but I feel that more intensive rhythmic training is needed at beginner and high school levels for wind/string instrumentalists.
It's actually really common to see orchestras about a beat behind the conductor. That gives them time to see the tempo changes and other instructions from the conductor and play them without tripping up.
theMike97_ was heading down here to type this but then saw your comment
It is adversely preferred since it you're exactly on beat it means you are not reactive to the conducted which means the whole orchestra might not be in sync since sound in a concert hall and it did the effect of the orchestra not being in time
So I'm not crazy and this actually happens. I don't play classical music but when I watch a performance, I'm like, there's no way they are on the same beat.
In all orchestras I played every beat was exactly when the baton/hand reaches the lowest point.
You can't play strong ritardandos and accelerandos exactly when the orchestra is not in sync with the concuctor.
The orchestras where this is not the case usually don't play any pieces with huge tempo changes. You can often hear them fail at the a tempo after a ritardando.
Conducting a beat ahead of the orchestra is the European way according to my music history prof.
I think it would be interesting if you recreated this concept by filming an interview with the string quartet and other professional classical musicians to see what they say and think. It would mean having a dialogue with them where you can compare and contrast approaches. Just a thought! :) I enjoy your content
This is amazing, I’m coming from classical music world and I never figured out why I had such ‘bad’ sense of rythm in other style of music.... I was such frustrated about it but now I understand a bit more where it’s coming from! Nice topic, congrats!
Bernstein was doing what is known as a delayed beat. totally purposeful and although disorienting at first, it can be very interesting to play in that manner vs phase locked.
A bunch of people have told me that - I can totally understand why. It does look absolutely ridiculous to me, but I can see the utility.
Yes, you are right, but i think the main idea of the video is to show how rhythm has different approaches. To use delayed beat on a jazz ensemble wont work at all.
+Adam Neely if you really want to see delay. Look at Barenboim conducting.
how is that useful?
TheAwesomeGingerGuy if you are cued on the beat it is hard not to be late if the group is relying to heavily on the conductor. There is very little to go off rhythmically in the Bernstein example for the musicians to ensure there internal clocks/rhythm is right. Cuing a beat early helps ensure the entrances of all musicians match.
I play cello in a lot of classical scenarios and am currently studying for a BM in cello performance, and I also play guitar, bass, and drums in a lot of different modern genres (going from jazz to metal to psychedelic to whatever, I just like to play music man), and when it comes to the classical environment it really depends on a lot of different factors.
The conductor's job is not to keep the tempo; his job is to conduct rehearsals and have the piece played in the manner that he seems best. It really depends on the piece and the conductor on how he conducts time. Some music doesn't require an orchestra to rely on a strict downbeat, but this sentiment depends mostly on the piece or the conductor of the piece. Also, musicals, operas, and ballets are almost un-performable without a strict sense of time. It's also important to note that conducting has varying styles, and just like how Jimi Hendrix's playing is completely different to Chet Atkins' playing, Leonard Bernstein's conducting might be completely different from Gustavo Dudamel's.
Despite all that I've just said, whether or not a conductor wants a strict sense of time or a delayed downbeat is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to keeping time in an orchestra. Orchestral musicians keep time by watching the conductor's tempo and by listening to the musicians around them, and therefore the responsibility is entirely on that of every individual instrumentalist in the orchestra to keep time with themselves and their colleagues. The purpose of the conductor in an orchestra is to have the piece played with his implications and his musical decisions in mind (if there was no conductor, then every musician would be constantly arguing over how the piece should be played). Orchestral instruments, those being the bowed strings, the brass, the woodwinds, the percussion instruments including piano, or any other thing that someone decides to throw into the mix will all have completely different parameters that decide their method of attack when playing a piece. These parameters are decided by the composer, the time period of the piece, the seating of the instrumentalist in the orchestra, the conductor's wishes, the room or hall that the instrumentalist is playing in, and et-cetera.
For example, the strings of an orchestra don't necessarily have to worry about anticipating a downbeat because they are at the front of the orchestra and their sound is the first thing to travel out into the audience. The woodwinds, on the other hand, already have a delayed sound due to the nature of the instrument (sound isn't produced until after air starts circulating through the instrument), and they also have to factor in how far away from the front of the orchestra they are sitting. If they're in a small ensemble, or if they have been seated towards the front (like for a solo piece), then they won't have to worry as much. If it's a larger ensemble or if for whatever reason they've been seated very far back in the orchestra, then they have to factor in the amount of distance their sound will travel to reach the front of the section to match that of the strings. One of the major signs of an inexperienced orchestral woodwind player is constantly being behind the beat, because although they are counting in time correctly, they are failing to factor in the distance.
In regards to the Ravel quartet, that piece in particular requires an incredibly good sense of time. The second movement is even titled Tres Rythme due to it's rhythmic complexity. What you're noticing is that the musicians are so used to playing with each other that they have developed phrasing that allows the tempo to fluctuate for musical expression. In this piece, and many pieces of that time period, the tempo has to breath and fluctuate to give better musical expression. It's like how a pianist can have complete control over the tempo of a solo piece, but in this instance the musicians are such great players that they can share this control amongst the four of them. There's still a lot of counting going on in that performance, though. Playing any kind of chamber music requires a strongly developed sense of time.
I don't normally comment on UA-cam videos, but I strongly recommend you discuss this topic with some professional classical musicians and make another video, because a well-trained musician should have good rhythm (if they don't then they haven't been well trained). In my experience, most modern musicians who haven't had any aural skills training or rhythmic training fail to accurately subdivide, especially in dotted rhythms (I've heard it called the "dotted rhythm triplet conspiracy" by some famous violinists) and they struggle with hemiolas and smaller subdivisions such as sextuplets or very fast eighth/sixteenth/thirty-secondth notes.
Nice opinion and facts on this response. Thanks!
I didn't think about this on my own comment above, but wouldn't you say that distance is less of a concern for woodwinds than you might at first think. Sure, a piccolo player may be seated 20 feet further away from the conductor than the concert master, but think about how loud and piercing a piccolo can be! Compared to the tiny sound produced by each violin I'm sure the effect of distance on the audience is more than made up for.
What are your thoughts on this? I've never explored this before, but as a brass player, always seated very far away, you'd think I would have to always be thinking about playing ahead of the beat but only on rare occasions do I have to make the conscious decision to do so. Is playing a loud ass bell-front instrument more than making up for the fact that I'm seated where I am? Or have I just internalized the process of delaying my attack as part of the "groove" I mention above in my other comments?
"The purpose of the conductor in an orchestra is to have the piece played with his implications and his musical decisions in mind (if there was no conductor, then every musician would be constantly arguing over how the piece should be played)."
Also I hope you don't mind if I use this from now on. Best explanation for a conductor's purpose that I've ever read and SO TRUE!
Everything that Joe has stated is accurate from a classical standpoint. I would like to add that string instruments have an inherent advantage over any wind instrument in producing instant sound. For string instruments, sound relies solely on the physical action of drawing the bow across the string. For wind instruments, sound is produced after the musician has taken a breath, exhaled, and allowed the sound to travel throughout the entirety of the instrument. As previously stated, this is why experienced wind musicians must know how to stay in time with the ensemble by anticipating the delay.
And also to more directly address your question, the piercing sound of a piccolo does not have any effect on how soon the sound reaches the audience. Again, keep in mind that the speed of sound is constant. But still, because wind instruments are indeed seated further back in an orchestra, they should factor in the microsecond of delay that it will take for their sound to reach the audience versus the strings' sound (however, this delay is much smaller in comparison to the delay that I mentioned previously). Also, it is important to note that the delay of a particular instrument varies greatly depending on size and how sound is produced. For instruments like the tuba and contrabassoon, there is a much greater amount of tubing which the air must travel through before the entire instrument is vibrating and producing audible sound. I would have to say that the reason you are not consciously playing ahead of the beat is because you have indeed learned to internalize and anticipate your sound given the circumstances of your environment.
I've been watching your other videos and really enjoyed them, but I have to say I'm very disappointed with this one. (I think maybe UA-cam promoted it to those of us watching nerdy classical musicians channels like TwoSet, which is maybe the reason for the influx of negative comments.) I really wish you would reconsider your analysis here. I'm not "defensive," as some would claim all the classical critiques are - it is certainly true that classical musicians learn an overlapping but slightly different skill set. The most common rhythms are different for different genres, of course. Most classical musicians have little practice in improvisation (although it actually used to be the norm) - but of course, on the other hand, many non-classical musicians would struggle to play a symphony due to the musical complexity, number of voices, and length, which (generally) necessitate sheet music. Also, it's true that some lesser orchestras have musicians hiding their inaccurate timing through a great muddle of instruments, and certainly people people can use sheet music as a crutch and forget to listen carefully. But you're wrong to think that this isn't audible to an advanced musician. There aren't really that many passages where an off-beat musician can sneak in without being noticeable - during a long held note, perhaps. But it better only be one or two people. During fast passages? Absolutely not. I can't think of many - or any! - pieces in classical music that don't have some portion necessitating crisp and precise attacks. And really, the number of musicians and complexity actually makes it even more important to have a pulse. (And not just a pulse - sometimes it's also the ability to maintain your own pulse while some other section is playing a competing pulse on top of you - I don't care much for Wagner, but that's a good example. If you're playing one motif in 3 and the conductor is beating in 2 for a brass theme, you absolutely have to maintain your own internal rhythm while simultaneously watching the conductor's downbeat as they change the tempo.) If you mean to say that classical musicians constantly recalibrate their pulse in response to their conductor's instructions about tempo, that's true - but that, to me, is actually harder than just swinging to a single unchanging beat for the duration of a single song, as you might see in simpler pop music. And it's necessary for the "feel" of great drama you get from late Romantic music, for example, where you have to a coordinate all the dreamy rubato and tense accelerando between those 70 musicians.
A LE This!
Haldun Bucak they’re just correcting him. They wanted to make all the points they had, and they were excellent points
That is a big wall of text. Are you sure this MUST be one paragraph?
@@groovesmoviesandjokesinthe7052 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@groovesmoviesandjokesinthe7052 Lmao I thought the exact same, I almost didn't read it. But he does make good points.
Makes a lot of sense. I was never able to put my finger on it. That example with the midi progression made things a lot clearer for me. Thank you!
Hello Adam Neely,
I was introduced to your videos by a student of mine (classical piano) who also plays a little jazz. While I respect you as a musician and think you have some good ideas, especially for explaining music to the layman--and even other non-professional musicians--in a way that is engaging, I do have some qualms with a few things you talk about. I will briefly mention them here since I think this videos shows a few over-simplifications/misunderstandings. I don't mean to be harsh or criticize; like I said, I think you are doing a service to music in general.
1) The bass teacher at the beginning is clearly not a high-level professional player. In addition, unfortunately, there aren't that many bass players that can build the type of technique that other string players can, simply because the repertoire isn't extensive or all that difficult. That said, playing the same melody on violin is much easier than on bass, so "difficult" is a relative term. This teacher is probably a tenured professor and there's not much to be done. May I suggest listening to one of my favorite bass teachers (and my former roommate's teacher) James Vandemark.
2) The recording with Bernstein isn't proof of not being in phase, per se. Granted, levels of orchestras, even 50 years ago, were not what they are today. Also, Bernstein guest-conducted a lot and it's possible he had little rehearsal time with this particular orchestra. But these are just minor excuses. The main reason is that there are two main schools of thought in orchestral conducting with respect to the downbeat. Is it at the trough (i.e. the bottom of the baton's movement) or on the uptake? I grew up playing both piano and violin in orchestras, under conductors at various points in the spectrum. Keep in mind another issue: sound delay (lots) vs. visual delay (none) and microphone placement.
3) the sixteenth-note rest + dotted-eighth note shouldn't be that difficult for any serious classical musician.
4) Phasing in and out is one of the essential components to great chamber music. There are a number of times when my internal clock (time is subjective, of course, not objective, and changes with heart-rate, etc., i.e. it's not entirely cerebral) was slightly off that of my duo partner. But we "fell in line" together so to speak by feel, not by micromanaging beat subdivisions. (On a slightly separate note, speaking of phase locking, I would highly recommend Stephen Strogatz's book "Sync".)
5) Piano, basically a percussion instrument, has a similar "sharp attack" when graphed (I can attest to this from recordingand editing 3 CDs). Piano parts are not often found in orchestral works, but pianists do feature often as soloists. Aside from volume issues in modern, large halls, attacks of the piano are very hard to match by the orchestra. This is not only the job of the conductor, but also the job of great musicians, especially brass players, who are farther back and must anticipate the downbeats so that the resulting sound emanating from the entire ensemble is as tight as possible.
Your last comment was very good. And btw, I played the Turtle Island St. Qt in high school and had great fun doing it. Anyway, best of luck with your continued success.
Eidt: "a piece performed by...TISQ" was what I meant to type. Thanks for Jan Kafka for kindly pointing that out. The piece was called Skylife and it was tons of fun. So much energy!
Funny how the only comment to be taken seriously has no replies, cause it goes too deep and actually argues well.
I'm playing cello in a setup of sweeney Todd now and everytime the band master changes the sound on the synth to strings or something I have to either rely on bass or drums or hope he'll start conducting with is head 😂 It's impossible to hear any kind of rhythm and unfortunately he usually used that sound in songs that require a steady pulse rather than whenever something's in rubato
@@GONZOftw2k the comment was too long my short attention span cause I'm a gen z can't handle it so I didn't read it growing up in such a fast paced world and social media shortens my attention span due to small captions and such everyone is fighting for attention unfortunately I grew up in a generation where my attention span is complete ass
I'm a classical guitarist. I don't understand. Maybe I have to learn some more.
@@cruzmoreno2798 Nigga you stated your thesis like five times. Chill out.
Why am I watching this if I can't play an instrument and I am tone deaf ?
Subscribed
try guitar or piano. Then you can rely more on your written music, and not your ear. (at least at first; your ear will train itself over time)
Or drums!
KFlorent13 Actually, nobody is tone deaf. If you were tone deaf you wouldn't recognise anybody's voice when they talked to you and you wouldn't distinguish between sounds such as a bird's tweet or a train's horn. If you learn music you understand it, but if you don't it don't it doesn't mean you're tone deaf.
except being tone deaf has nothing to do with rhythm
KFlorent13 maybe because the videos are well made and explained to a point that you don't have to be an expert to understand...I think we need more teachers with this gift of making complex matters attainable to others. Plus anyone can be a music fan...you don't have to be able to play to enjoy music!
First, let me say that I subscribe to your channel and have enormous respect for your talent and expository insights. In this particular video I have to take issue with a couple of your statements. I studied "classical" bass at Stony Brook University (formerly SUNY @ Stony Brook) and got my MMus in performance there. I have been playing with orchestral ensembles for 47 years. This, in no way, makes me an expert, but I do have some background in the area. The first statement I mildly disagree with is the one about reaction versus internalizing. As this is quite subjective and you point out yourself very generalized, I will let this one slide. The one I take real issue with is "The conductor's job is to keep everyone in sync". This statement is very true for inexperienced, community orchestras and even some regional groups where the level of musicianship is such that the conductor must use part of their time playing "traffic cop". This is far less the case as you rise up to the level of super regionals and virtuoso orchestras. This is not to say that conductors don't serve a purpose. They're main function, at that level, is to elicit their own musical interpretation of the pieces on the program. When the program is comprised of standard repertoire, the musicians have all the notes well in hand and do not need a baton for rhythmic surety. It is far more likely that the principal 1st violinist is preparing the string section for entrances and the individual sections themselves may look to the principal player for awkward or unusual entrances. The winds and brass are so used to playing as an ensemble, they are like one hive mind. When you see a conductor like Bernstein appear to be "out of sync" with the group, that is very far from the case. Frequently conductors only have to look at section or principal wind or brass player and that will be sufficient for a perfectly executed entrance. This is not to say that there aren't very precise conductors out there, Steinberg comes to mind as one. It's just that, at the virtuosos orchestra level, it is not even close to being necessary. I don't know how much orchestral playing experience you have, but I have come across the rhythm you indicated that "classical" musicians have "trouble" with and know how to play it with precision and in sync with other players. Many 20th century composers have that and far more difficult rhythms that are easily played by orchestras with no difficulty. I would very much like to hear what your had to "fix" in post production that led you to this unfortunate conclusion. Again, I am a big fan, but wanted to make these remarks without malice.
As a drummer, this makes so much sense. When I play with the choir/orchestra I have learned to follow the director/contuctor which does not "feel" wrong at all, but trying to play to a recorded piece of music that has a conductor is almost impossible because you can't see the beat. When I'm locking in with the bass player in my band or sitting in with another band it just "feels" right. And it's not that difficult to play to a 70s classic rock recording (which rarely stays in time with a metronome) because you can still feel the beat move as you are playing with it. While metronome practice is extremely important to develop your sense of time, I think it's definitely not as useful in live playing even though there are others who use it all the time. As a recent follower, I'm learning a bunch of new stuff from Adam. Thank you.
As a classical musician, let me tell you. We never look at the conductor. Unless they're yelling at us.
That means you aren't in a big orchestra
Dr. Robert Culocane you ever seen a big orchestra? The front might be aware of the conductor because he’s right there in their face but aside from time changes CSO was all buried in their stands the last time I saw them.
Nah, the players in your orchestra are retards.... I mean i bet they can even get a ritard right.. Right?
HAHAHA TRUE
If you were a pit musician and didn't look at the conductor, you would be in bog trouble!! just saying! :D :D
This completely wrong. As a classical piano musician I can assure you that we have to feel the rhythm and not just react to it. It obviously depends on which style and period of music you are playing. Of course while in the Classical music period (for example Mozart piano sonatas) the rhythm is very strict. But while playing Romantic or more modern composers like Chopin, Liszt, Debussy, etc it is very important for the musician to feel the rhythm in the purpose of interpreting better the piece. I understand that different type of music like jazz might have different perception on the rhythm but keep in mind that in classical music there are different periods of music (Baroque, Classical, Romantic,...) which have different rhythm perceptions and rules too.
A classical piece usually has a signature melody or rhythm that anyone can hum, once they hear it once. This 'motif may be difficult to notate precisely (a computer might have to put notes a couple milliticks off the beat to be exact) a tuning idiosyncracy, or a dynamics trick that makes it instantly recognizable, especially romantic and impressionist pieces with heavy emotion. This "signature" then defines a "feel" or 'degree of looseness' that applies to the entire piece and the whole orchestra understands.
The rhythm in the notation in Mozart is very strict. There are 2 schools of thought on how it's supposed to be performed though. For some reason, today the dominant attitude is to play it near metronomically, but there are good reasons to think that, like in Chopin and Schumann, Mozart ought to be played with significant rubato, and this was in fact the most common approach prior to this fetishisation of 'period performance' that also has (IMHO) ruined the way baroque music is being performed.
One can check early 20th century phonograph recordings of Mozart by the likes of Artur Schnabel and Alfred Cortot, or even player piano recordings by Carl Reinecke (born 1824 and trained by his father, born 4 years after Mozart died). They are way more liberal with keeping the beat than is common nowadays and I do think that makes the music sound more alive...
Max Giot
Basically you can feel it
You can feel it
But if you don’t
You don’t
Max Giot I don’t have much place in this this argument as my immersion in music is limited, but I will say that Adam stated before this that he may be generalizing. You can really only understand your own experience.
Spanish Moustache he’s not wrong lol
Being a classical percussionist is difficult when the orchestra isn’t phase locked with the conductor. Our instinct is to hit whatever instrument we may be playing right when the baton comes down. But the winds and brass usually take a whole second.
Ayla Allen wouldn’t you be hearing their delayed sound since they are in front of you pointing their bells away from you? So of course their beat is going to be behind what you’re seeing. And depending on the hall, percussionists should try to play on top of the beat to make up for the distance between them and the conductor.
@@JennaHuntMusic sometimes. Really depends on the acoustics
YES, my biggest problem/difficulty when playing with a conductor and brass instruments! as soon as that baton comes down i want to land exactly right but ALWAYS seems like i'm coming in ahead of everyone else.. i contemplated that it might be because of the fact that i'm farther away from the conductor and the instruments are pointing away from me but still, the delay is just way to long for that to be an explanation. i just stick with solo.lol
The joy this channel brings me is difficult to convey. You are doing great work, Adam. Thank you deeply.
Regarding the conductor being ahead of the music at 3:48, this is entirely intentional. Many conductors of elite orchestras conduct a bar ahead of the music because the musicians know perfectly well where the beats are, and the conductor is simply conveying to the musicians the style, tempo and emotion of the upcoming bar.
iamGed7 Most of this video is terrible generally. This specific exaple he used as an example to say that players in the orchstra don't always play at the same time. First, there was only one player playing, and second as you mentioned, many good conductors conduct ahead of the beat which does not make players not play together. That's youtube for you, anyone can post videos.
It's simply a matter of different schools of conducting. Not everybody conducts like that.
There is no school of orchestral conducting where the conductor deliberately beats ahead of the instrumentalists in order to show them how to play what's coming next. The expression "follow the conductor" is misleading.
In the Mahler 5 example Bernstein is not conducting "ahead of the beat" to show the trumpet player how to play, nor is he conducting ahead of the beat for any other reason. He's not actually conducting ahead of the beat. (It's also arguable that in this particular passage there isn't actually any "beat" to conduct.) It's quite likely that the conductor has instructed the player to play the solo "in his own time" and he's simply making a "when it suits you gesture" to the player.
However, it's also possible that Mr Bernstein would have preferred the player to play precisely on his signal, but the trumpet player - for his or her own reasons - is overruling him. The trumpet player does not need anyone to tell him/her when or how to play one of the most well known trumpet solos in the orchestral repertoire.
It's quite possible - even quite likely - that the trumpet player is deliberately playing after Mr Bernstein's beat because it suits him/her to do so in the full knowledge that there is absolutely nothing Mr Bernstein can do about it. Particularly when they're wary of the conductor's technical incompetence the whole orchestra will sometimes play perfectly together (on the concert master's bow) though deliberately after the conductor's beat partly to create a safety net for themselves or to achieve a more perfect ensemble. However, the most common reason for the orchestra playing after the beat is because the players are letting the conductor know what they think of him. There is nothing more frustrating for a conductor than the orchestra playing behind his beat; some conductors are very annoying people. And they're overpaid.
not to mention that the trumpet triplet is a quarter note in cut time. So lenny gave the beat, but the trumpet does not come in until a half-beat later.
This is awesome...nerdy music talk. Very well spoken too. Subbed.
Thank you so much for creating this video!
There are some really important points made here. As a classically trained violinist, I can definitely understand what it's like viewing rhythm as reactionary.
However, things definitely changed once I began to play more rock, jazz, and bluegrass music. I noticed that my sense of rhythm and sight reading ability improved greatly, and suddenly many musicians I know who only play classical music seemed to be on different pages.
This is why it's so important as an artist (whether or not your medium is music) to venture outside of the environment where you initially learn your craft and into places that push the boundaries of what's comfortable. Only there do we truly grow as artists.
Thank you for putting a name and description on something I've felt but couldn't verbalize! I play classical guitar and acoustic blues and I've always known the approach to rhythm is different in both cases. A good teacher years ago told me to trust my ear rather the score for getting the right feel; and though this does not really explain anything, it's been very useful to me.
Orchestral players will also play with a delayed beat, not delivering exactly on top of the ictus of the conductor. This is mainly in romantic music so the conductor has the chance to deliver style and tempo changes before the downbeat, giving the musicians time to react. It gives a lot more communication to the musicians and forces them to feel a little more. Playing a delayed beat is a great and awesome experience. It forces you to take a much more vertical approach to music.
Conductors have the leeway to completely tear a composition apart to their own liking. Some are brilliant at it and paid big bucks. It can definitely irk the musicians, who sometimes secretly hate the particular interpretation but, as someone mentioned, keep it to themselves. Or they might be thrilled.
Question: When a new conductor comes in to conduct an orchestra, does the conductor tell the members " I like a delayed beat on this piece or here is where the beat is when working we me" . There appears to be a difference between one conductor and another so how does one know if you are a member of the orchestra?
@@rhondaedwards3949 they don't exactly spell it out like that, but it becomes clear in practice. Just like in any other group, there is an adjustment period to a new leader/conductor, but professionals can adapt quickly. It can be hard to tell from the audience, but if you're sitting in the orchestra, the cues start to make much more sense. Interestingly, conductors have to have the same kind of adjustment to working with soloists. When playing something like a concerto, the orchestra is guided by the conductor who is in turn guided by the soloist
Just want to point out a few things - (a) you've found a classical musician who gave a (very) poor example of 3s against 2s; that doesn't mean all classical musicians are like that. You get good and bad musicians in all styles of music. (b) a good classical musician also 'feels' the pulse, but this is harder when you read music (as is necessary for most orchestral players) than when you have memorised your music (like most jazz etc players), which is one of many reasons all musicians are encouraged to know the music well and memorise it if possible. If you got your string quartet to play from memory, I bet they would be bang on the pulse (c) Your example of string quartet music actually refers to rubato (changing the pulse) than phase locking - this is a feature of romantic/21st cent music rather than string quartet music, or even classical music (in its broadest sense, although 'classical' music [1750-1830] would in the vast majority of cases be a regular pulse). A conductor is necessary when larger ensembles (like an orchestra) play music requiring rubato because otherwise everyone's 'feeling' of the pulse (rubato) in the emotive moments would be a bit different causing chaos! (d) And the conductor must conduct in front of the sound so the players have time to respond. The conductor is often not needed for earlier music and with small ensembles. (e) Good point about flam, but this is a characteristic of the sound/instrument, not the style/training of the musician. A good performance of classical music using instruments with hard sounds (or a playing technique causing a hard sound, such as plucking on a violin) will very much be phase locked.
You've made some good points, but to say that 'rhythmic facilities in classical musicians can be left a little bit wanting' does not follow! Thanks for provoking discussion though, I hope any replies will be constructive.
I would disagree with some points. Some orchestras play exactly with the conductor (the Scandinavian orchestras play exactly with the conductor). Also, the upbeat before the beat is what the conductor conducts. In other words, orchestras play behind yes (depending), but how the conductor wants the note to be played is communicated before in the upbeat.
I've met so many classical musicians from all schools who can barely count syncopations (not saying I'm perfect at it) than any other type of musician. My biggest gripe is how classical musicians are told to subdivide to the 16th now rather than just to feel. In rehearsal and practicing sure, but the end goal is to feel. Being told to subdivide to the 16th constantly not only detracts from the ebb and flow, but from the music. Not all teachers say count constantly in your head, but I'm willing to bet a significantly more classical music teachers tell their students to do it as opposed to jazz musicians.
Just addressing one of your points. jazz musicians are expected to lock in regardless of whether they are reading or not. I'm sure you've seen a jazz gig where the musicians are reading. Fairly common.
I agree 100 (HUNID!) with this comment but let's be honest...classical music is so demanding and we have some professional classical musicians (whether they be conductors, performers, composers, or educators) out there who are terrible at rhythm in general. It needs to be fixed.
@@Dylanguitar69 Sure, but the information conveyed by classical sheet music is pretty different from that conveyed by jazz sheet music, wouldn't you say?
@@candiedhams Different in what way? Both use 8th or 16th notes. Classical music has dynamic markings and things of that nature, but It's not a completely different language. It's written notes which are rhythmically subdivded, played to a pulse.
This actually answers a question that has been stuck in my head for many years. Thank you!
This video has been extremely enlightening, as in my classical training on the violin, I have always found that my performance is way better when in the orchestra, surrounded with other musicians who are reacting to the conductor than it is practicing the music to a metronome at home by myself. It also explains why the one time I performed in a pit orchestra for a jazz-styled musical, we string players seemed to be lost in relatively simple rhythms when the drums, horns, and winds had absolutely no problem. The main focus of the musical was on the singing happening on stage, and the ebbs and flows of their rhythmic sense not translating well at all when we can't see what's happening up there, and rely on the conductor who has their attention split between the stage and the pit. Granted, I was in high school, but I got frustrated and never tried playing in a pit orchestra again. For years, I assumed I couldn't play well when strings were a more supporting role rather than acting as lead instruments
I played lute and theorbo continuo with a variety of string ensembles. Because plucked string instruments have a sharp, short attack transient, like a drum, while the bowed strings have a slow, rising attack, I had to ignore the conductor and listen to the strings to know when I had to enter. So you might wish to note that not everyone in a large ensemble is following the conductor.
Interesting seeing a fellow theorbist in a... Dumpsterfire of a video like this. He has some good takes but this video is just shockingly bad.
I'm learning so much about music in UA-cam lately. I don't even try to find this awesome videos, they just are there in my feed.
I know a classically trained pianist with a ph.d. She 0lays with the local symphony and can sight read classical works at the drop of a hat. She also has taken to playing ,k-pop recently. She said it’s really helped her sense of rhythm. Orchestras play a great variety of music these days and one concert they gave was of video game music. A lot of it has this classically oriented epic quality to it in terms of orchestration. She said she was having trouble staying on the beat until recalled her k-pop hobby and applied those skills.
I watched this a while back, but only upon re-watching it now am I fully appreciating your insight about _feeling_ the beat vs. _reacting to_ it. I’m more from a Classical background and I see the reacting in my musical personality more than I’d like to admit!
Actually there are two different styles of conducting. The "old school" was known for considerably anticipating the beat. Younger conductors are MUCH closer to the beat. That's because younger musicians are much more familiar with pop-rock-jazz than the previous generation. Also because contemporary music requires a lot more precision than Beethoven or Mahler.
Paolo Pizzi was searching for this comment. Lol I had hoped someone explained the differences in conducting styles. Thanks!
Maybe this explains why frequently oll watch an orchestra video and the conductors swings appear out of time with what i hear. Its infuruating tbh
As a younger violinist I can definitely relate... We've always learned that when the director's baton snaps into place on one.. You better be there with them...then I watch professional orchestras constantly playing almost a dotted quarter note behind the director and it bugs the hell out of me. I also noticed this playing in a municipal orchestra where most of them were older... I'd come in with the director and I'd be the one who sounds off or early. 😣
Check this out...sounds great but the conductors movements dont match what im hearing a lot of the time ua-cam.com/video/sUgoBb8m1eE/v-deo.html
The trumpet player for Mahler 5 is not off phase - European orchestras play behind the conductor's beat, but in time with one another. And this business about the attack quality being softer - this is true only some of the time. Have a look at some very rhythmic, percussive or pointillistic classical music like Stravinsky, and you'll see that absolute attack clarity is needed. I see what you're getting at, but your conclusions are too broad.
In short - there's too much variety of style and instrumentation in classical music to make these sweeping generalizations. Often times the similarities to jazz outweigh the differences. I would agree that classical musicians can have problems "feeling" the groove compared to rock or jazz musicians, but this can be overcome.
could not have said it better. also a bowed instrument is not the only type of classical instrument. A brass section that is not phase locked would sound bad.
Very interesting point there, and yes this is subject to great debate, but you are right in saying that the assertion that Adam Neely makes, which I initially agreed to, is far too generalized, and when one looks deeper into the great Classical compositions, there far too many examples of movements with great rhythmical intensity and precision. What I would say is that much of the rhythms of today are highly influenced by the canon of African rhythmic sensibilities. A similarity can be found in modern dance vs European ballet which are also different in expressing pulse, although much research would need to be applied here before I'd make any assertion. In Classical what I find more common in terms of rhythm is that it 'swings' differently, it also speeds up, slows down, in a manner of telling a story. In Jazz the idea of swing is what actually shapes your playing, how you improvise, how you go in and out, but ultimately I do find great commonalities with both Classical and Jazz, in that both are not held prisoner to the rhythm, each in their own way find ways to command the rhythm. This is quite apparent with Chopin, Debussy, Liszt but also with Monk, Tyner, Coltrane and Herbie-during their solos in particular where the drummer often bends to what they're expressing. Also to note and not a part of this topic per se but an important mention; Beethoven, Mozart and from what I've been told is that many Classical musicians were perfect improvisors as well, so again, Jazz and Classical have a lot more common roots than what is usually acknowledged.
It can be overcome, like you said, but on the other hand Jazz musicians, as Keith Jarrett has so wonderfully demonstrated on his ECM Classical recordings, have a lot to learn in playing in a Classical style of swing.
Adam Neely should pin this comment !
Man you nailed it. I have often experienced similar things, and now I have some notions of why that might have been the case. Still very polite towards all the parties involved. The way to go.
Fantastic video, Adam. I really appreciate this point of view. As a conductor and a performer in a variety of idiomatic settings (rock, jazz, country, and others) I have always been keenly aware of these differences and I try to bring a recognition of these different approaches to rhythm to both arenas. My orchestras will frequently hear me asking them to listen to and lock in to the inner rhythm that is found in other voices of the orchestra. I have a ton of thoughts on this but for this morning, I just want you to know how much I appreciate your perspective. I look forward to future videos.
4:10 thats' called anticipated conducting
@6:10 the word you’re looking for is “rubato.” The beat is flexible because you rob time from another beat. Given the texture of *some* classical music pieces you cannot have a rigid pulse or it sounds lifeless (you were right in that regard).
Also I definitely heard the out of phase notes on the sustained example. I wouldn’t hear that from my orchestra and think “Hmm, that’s the best it could be.”
And not all classical music is fluid and soft attacks. I think the issue with recreating rhythms has more to do with the primary processing method (visual vs. aural). My students can echo back more complex rhythms than they can read; but once felt, reading that same rhythm becomes much simpler.
Sir Thomas Beecham to an amateur chorus when someone said they couldn't see his beat: 'What do you think I am, a bl**dy metronome?'
The problem is the word "classical" musician.
Classical ear is a very specific type of music in a specific period of time. 20th century "classical" music is not classical music anymore.
It's the same with Jazz, there are so many different form of jazz. I don't know anybody that can play any form of Jazz and be good at all of them.
A lot of jazz musician believe that if you can't improvise in their style of jazz, you are not a real musician.
As a classically trained musician, I always improvised, just not jazz.
When I started to join a funk/jazz band and had to learn everything from scratch, I had to learn a new language and a new way to express myself. Still, the other musician in my band can't play a half of a quarter of a classical piece without destroying it.
Just a different feel.
I’m a classically trained pianist, vocalist, and choral director, and all three of those have shaped my understanding of rhythm in different ways.
As a pianist, I’m playing off the percussive pulse of the metronome, so I see the validity of your argument that we react to an ictus. I was taught to never lag behind the beat, nor rush ahead of it, particularly playing anything written before 1800, or early Beethoven. Even in Romantic music, I was taught to practice with strict rhythm before playing with rubato.
As a vocalist, choir singer, and choir director, our ictus is based on our breath, which is a vague foundation for rhythm, yet here we are. Orchestra directors and musicians don’t quite working with us musicians, because we do have to move our air through our bodies, which means we’re often behind the conductor’s beat. For us to stay with the director, we have to watch the baton (as you said) and move our voices before the ictus. A general rule of thumb for us singers: the consonant must be said/sung before the beat, so the first vowel can be sung on the beat.
Interestingly, the classical examples you gave were from the Romantic era or later, in the era of modern conducting. Talk to a Baroque or Early Music performer, and they think about rhythm different still. The “conductor” of the Baroque was either the harpsichordist or some buy banging a large stick against the floor offstage. French Baroque composer Antoine Charpentier killed himself when he jammed his stick into his foot and developed gangrene. Gross.
Anyway, I think you may have overstated the importance of the conductor to our sense of rhythm at the expense of what matters most to the classical senes of rhythm: the preeminence of the downbeat. If you get rid of the downbeat, we really do struggle, which is why that stellar string quartet you referenced couldn’t quite perform the 16th note rest. That rest was on the downbeat, and we tend to rush those kind of rests. Or clip it out all together.
Thanks for a thoughtful, honest rebuttal of our rhythmic struggles. I was about to get all defensive for us classical musicians, but then you shared that double-bass instructor botching a 3:2 quarter note triple. Shouldn’t be THAT hard, but again...no downbeat, no clarity. Shouldn’t be that way, though.
I've noticed a lot of people complaining about string musicians being particularly bad at keeping rhythm, but on the other end of the spectrum as a string musician myself (not professional, but I've played for a long time) I've thought of pianists as particularly robot-like in their playing. Even when they feel they're performance ready (note, music school and not a professional place) it really feels like they let the music down by playing too much on the beat. I think what you're saying about practicing strict rhythm when playing piano is very normal for pianists, but it seems rubato can almost be forgotten due to that.
Myself I've been told to play with metronome in the early process of learning a piece, but as soon as I have the basic rhythmic structure down I play without metronome in order to train and develop my own understanding of how the rubato, ritardando etc should flow in the piece. This might be damaging too because we put very little importance on the rhythm and subdivisions being even and that's why we have difficulties performing with instruments or people taught in another way.
Anyway, the differences aren't only in being classically trained vs modernly trained but also differ between instruments because of their limitations and uses (as you mentioned with the vocal training)
Unless you’re a percussionist.
I have been playing the violin for ten years and basing myself on my personal experience I disagree with many things said in this video...
For example, I am very surprised that the double bass teacher cannot play a two against three rythm! I don't know how you found this example but I assure you it's a rare one!!!!
About the bernstein conducting mahler, and the delay technique that not only him uses, I can say that with this type of movements he makes he can clearly give the frequency of the repeated note... And much is left to the one who's playing.
Then about the precision of strings, that in this video is seen as blurred, I can say that melody together with a continuous and gradual changing of volumes make feel the piece much more unrhythmical than it actually is. In many pieces for chamber music there are very rhythmical parts and no conductor. Classical musicians are aware can deal with the "imperfections " of their instrument (but I believe a computer cannot)
That's why I don't consider the prove shown on this video by computerized sounds a valid one.
Summarizing I can say that jazz music is different from classical one and of course so are the musicians, but in this video is shown a stereotype of what's the sense of the rhythm is for a classical musician...that in my life I didn't found to be true.
Classical music is various... So the possibility of rhythms: there can be precise rhythms conducted or even felt by a group, and also rhythms "imprecise" on porpoise.
Classical directors and ensembles are not out of sync, they make the marks usually one time before it's played so the players have time to know the pulse. If you just mark the tempo on the time is impossible for the orchestra to react all at the same time.
Love your energy and passion man 🤜🏼🤛🏼
Outstanding video&lesson. I’m definitely subscribing. Side note: I first listened to Mahler’s 5th symphony on cd while walking around the 1st district in Vienna. The surprising movements in the music synced perfectly with astonishing architecture that would suddenly appear around a corner of a tight street. Surreal experience.
Hello: Although I agree with some of the comments that find "mistakes" in your analysis, I still think your video is great because it moves me to learn more. So, thank you very much.
"I have never heard a Metropolitan Opera percussion audition or seen a performance of modernist music"
you're totally right! i never have! by the way, check out my clapping music vid
thanks!
Adam Neely Wow. I mean, I was more annoyed at his comment than sticking up for you, since I haven't heard Metro opera either, but no prob. Your vid was pretty cool and I liked how it was easy to digest, so I'll definitely look at some more. But also, he sounded like a prick.
sorry! totally thought you were talking about me. a ton of hilarious negative commentary on this video recently, so i've been flippant towards a lot of commenters recently as a result. thanks for watching, sorry about that.
Adam Neely Hey, no biggie. I kind of thought you were actually thanking me, but wasn't sure because that typically doesn't happen, but no sweat man. Again, cool vid
@Adam Neeley, you have finally put explicit words to my everyday reality... As a jazz/pop guitarist, I work everyday with a concert band I will finally be able to explain this exquisite concept of phase locking. thanks man
I really like this. As a classically trained bassist who now plays electric bass in a jam band, I feel these things. I find I have to practice certain grooves in order to be able to replicate them in a jam environment - but once I'm comfortable, I can apply everything I know - the fluidity of a classical background means adapting is easy. This is really cool, Adam - thanks for all you do.
Yea, that nails it just right. As a classically trained French hornist and self taught jazz and rock bassist I've often noticed this same thing. You really described it clearly. What is fun for me is playing musical theater and both this concepts are often found in the same show.
Keep making these videos. You have a gift for explaining difficult ideas in easy to understand terms.
Adam, I think the main point is that the concept of "phase locking" is an important musicianship skill for any musician to develop. I think these anecdotes only help to perpetuate stereotypes that are not really useful. A double bass professor at a college I've never heard of isn't a good example of the height of classical performance. If you listen to good performances of works by Ligeti, for example, you will find that there isn't room for not being "phase locked." Regarding the Bernstein example, consider Bernstein's first few gestures as the first three sextuplets starting on beat 4 preceding the first measure. The trumpet player is not meant to play with Bernstein's gesture, but on the "and" of 4, completing the sextuplet that Bernstein started. A good conductor gives a prep beat before a musician plays. This is precisely the function of Bernstein's gestures here. Watch it carefully and you'll see - there is no "delay."
Excellent video. Very eye opening on a subject I never thought too much about. Fascinating stuff.
Accepting your modifications below, I do appreciate the point you are making in that it applies a lot to my own experience as a (not very talented) musician. I learned music initially as a cornet and tuba player in jr. and high school bands. I then took up the guitar and eventually, bass. At about age 55, I began playing regularly with a group of friends who were pop/folk/rock oriented. It became very obvious right away that I was very visual in my approach, whereas all the other players could hear and feel the music, a much more intuitive approach. It has taken 20 years for me to begin to feel the rhythm of our songs. Additionally, I struggle with melody but not harmony, something I attribute to having played 2nd and 3rd and bass parts in the band, with little emphasis on melody.
Adam,
GREAT discussion you started. I appreciated your initial thoughts, and your follow-up comments. Also, I welcomed the insights and examples from the knowledgeable classical musicians, as I'm sure you did. I particularly appreciated the offerings of Elias-Axel Pettersson.
I was less impressed with insulting comments from some who included nothing to clarify their opinion or anything helpful to offer; but that's life. It's a good thing for more of us to understand some of the intricacies in other styles of music; understanding breeds unity and helps eliminate stylistic snobbery.
Thank you. I really appreciate your work, Adam.
The contrabass player doesn't know rythem. Most good classical player would play those triplet 100% corectly and in time.
I think he got nervous and slipped, it's very easy to cut the third beat short but that's a funk rhythm
Yeah most good classical musicians, and almost all pianists who have some training would d fine with 3:2
“No true Scotsman would do such a thing.”
Two against three is actually quite a common rhythm in classical music, especially with the Romantic composers.
@@colly7963 right
Fascinating. Subscribed. Always wondered about the nature of such differences when playing with my classically trained friends. Boggled my mind why certain things that were so easy for me were much harder for them, even though I considered some of them to be much better musicians. I just figured it was unfamiliarity with certain types of rhythms, but that didn’t quite satisfy.
You put a lot of thought into some interesting topics, thank you, Adam
Become both, and you are the most powerful person in the world
As a classical musician, I can confirm that the rhythm at 2:10 immediately made me recoil and go “ew no why what”
I hated mozart for this reason lol, his k521, k448 etc
are you even a musician? srsly...
This is excellent! Thank you for this! I just saw a concert at the Hollywood Bowl with a Rock band paying with an orchestra and it was a complete train wreck. I knew this was why, but this so aptly articulates it. Very good. You should do more of these. You're good. Cheers!😊❤🎻🎶
Classically trained musician here... spent the last 5-10 years slowly crossing over into non-classical spheres (which, I would admit, is my true love). I recently did a show with a band that had that very syncopated rhythm you illustrated above. Me (french horn), and the two other guys (trombone and bari sax) had the hardest time locking in with one another. I would readily admit it was probably me who was just a little bit off. Thank you for this video. This is something I'm going to spend more time studying and thinking about.
You know what, rhytm, and especially rhytm variation is of course important in classical music. And so is variation of dynamics. Actually these things are what I miss most, listening to rock or pop music! E.g. starting out by playing a phrase a bit too slowly and compensating by accelerating and then mayby slow down a bit in the end - this created a much more plastic time feel, which I find very satisfying. Treating time like a rubbberband, you may pull or release - but if you strech it so much, that you cannot feel the underlying pulse, the rubberband will break. Some classical musicians really excell in this, others suck - and of course it is a matter of taste and musical style. I once had a pupil, who played rock professionally, and he totally did not get this important parameter in his classical playing.
Classical musicians have a lot of terms to adress this: accelerando, allargando, agogic, inegales... They also have a word to describe rock or pop music: beat music or rug beater music!
Nope, is not about phase locking there: in conducting you are taught to give all the information (entrances, accents, climaxes of phrases... everything) one beat before, so the musicians can actually react to it, which is important cause not everybody is paying all the attention 100% all the time, a fact that can respond not solely to lack of professionalism but to extreme cognitive demands that the music can have in very technically and expressively sophisticated works, like scores by Richards Strauss or Mahler or Hindemith...
Thanks a lot for the well made and well though through video.
I especially enjoyed your example with the soft versus the sharp attacks with the same midi data. It very clearly demonstrates an important phenomenon in instrumentation and in music in general. Being a classically trained composer myself, working mostly with classically trained musicians, but also being very open to jazz, rock and pop, even playing and writing it on occasion, this topic interests me a great deal. One thing I would like to add to this string of thoughts is that in contemporary music, most of the time performed by players, who play classical/romantic music on a daily basis, needs more of rhythmical precision than older music and cannot be played accurately without what you call phace locking. The weird thing is, and this is what I can't fully wrap my head around, that the strange an attractive phenomenon of groove still doesn't need to be there. Contemporary music, even when performed without percussion, only with strings and winds, absolutely needs the phace looking and yet, strangely enough, it can and even should be totally grooveless and often times it is more related to (in terms of the feeling of it) your Ravel string quartet example, then to music with what you referred to as based on Western African rhythms.
I'm going to check out your other videos. Thanks again.
Wow! This was eye opening. I've been struggling with this for years, and the clarity of your explanation is what I call a BFO ... blinding Flash of the Obvious - except it isn't until it's explained ; ) Thx.
Going to university in January and this has been extremely helpful as to which major I should pick (classical or jazz guitar). Formerly playing prog metal and funk I think jazz would play to my strengths more. Thank you!
These examples seem cherry-picked. The bass professor seemed like he had no idea what he was talking about. Music of the romantic era is full of strange poly-rhythmic phrases, especially in Chopin and Liszt. Even in Mozart and Beethoven there are instances of things like playing septuplets over 4 and other tricky poly-rhythms. If you want to see an example of super-human rhythmic fidelity listen to how Glenn Gould plays. I do agree that classical music has a different approach to rhythm, the 'pulse' as being different from the beat.
In my experience classical musicians don't get taught to listen to one another's rhythms. They might be counting together, in time, but they're not really hearing each other's rhythmic feel. At least at a junior level anyway. I went into a school and made a student string quartet stop and separate the parts so the two parts playing the same thing practised together and got a feel for playing together and then layered the other parts on top once they had listened and seen on the score what rhythmic pulses they're parts should come on. Played a lot better after that.
Although they seem cherry picked, it is not uncommon for instrumentalists to be awful with feeling a pulse or subdividing rhythms. I go to the University of Houston and am in the top wind ensemble at the school. One example I have seen in the wind ensemble is that in one of our pieces "Diaghilev Dances", the tuba section has a quarter note triplet over 2/4. For quite a few rehearsals, they were playing it as two dotted eighth notes and one eighth note (very common mistake for quarter note triplets). The conductor never said anything to them so I explained to them how to subdivide the rhythm by thinking about two eighth note triplets and playing a note every other triplet eighth note (note-sustain-note--sustain-note-sustain). This helped fix the problem. As a music education major and percussionist, I see these mistakes and it shows not that they don't know how to feel the pulse, but that they do not actively subdivide.
>classical musicians
>student string quartet
Not to be that guy, but that's a pretty bad basis for your assertion
McDucky
Me? Just remember that it's preceded by "in my experience..." I'd never claim all classical musicians are like this. "In my experience, the way that classical musicians are taught..." might have been a better sentence to assert my point. :-)
+David Foster Walrus I'm not a performer, but I did take piano lessons from age 6 to 17, and still play for my own amusement. I remember one day when I was about 13 my teacher gave me a piece to sightread (probably Chopin, she was keen on him), and when, about half-way through, she turned the page for me, there was a bar demanding I play a 16th-note septuplet over four 8th-notes. As you say, it's not an uncommon rhythm split, nor even especially difficult, but it was the first time I'd encountered it.
My gut reaction was to momentarily "split my brain in two" (as it were), and let the right hand "think in sevens" while the left carried on thinking in fours, and pray that they landed on the first beat of the next bar together. Luckily they did, and she said it was OK, but that if I wanted to learn the piece properly I should practise that bar (and other similar ones later in the score) with a metronome, hands separately at first, counting 28 beats (7+7+7+7 in the left, 4+4+4+4+4+4+4 in the right) then gradually speed up the tempo and put the two hands together. It sounded like perfectly crazy advice, but I tried it for an afternoon. The end result didn't seem to me to be any better, and I nearly drove myself insane in the process, so never attempted such a thing again, reverting immediately to "winging it" as on my first sightread. Perhaps that's why I'm not a performer now!
Not a fascinating anecdote in itself, but here's my question: how does a real pianist approach and practise polyrhythms like this, and more complicated ones? Was my teacher's advice good, bad, or indifferent?
+Adam Neely I learnt a lot both from your video and from the discussion.
I used to play a lot of classical but I switched to a jazz band from an orchestra. At the time, I distinctly remember relearning rhythm. Seeing this video helps me understand what exactly I need to think about to "switch modes".
Thanks for this videos Adam!
The reason that 9/8 meter is beamed in groupings of 3 eighth notes is because it is a compound triple meter. The dotted half note is the beat note and the eighth note is the subdivision. In compound meters such as 9/8 the time signature doesn't identify the beat note like it would in a simple meter such as 3/4. In 3/4 the quarter note gets the beat (4 on bottom) and there are three beats per measure (3 on top). A compound meter is a meter where the beat note is subdivided into 3s instead of 2. In a meter such as 9/8, the top number represents the number of subdivisions per measure (9), and the bottom number represents the subdivision of the beat (8=eighth notes). That is why in compound meters such as 9/8, 6/8, or 3/8 the subdivisions are beamed in groupings of three because the beat note is equivalent to 3 subdivisions (9/8= 3 dotted quarter note beats). Understanding compound meters makes sight reading far easier in abnormal time signatures. I hope this helps further your understanding of how classically trained musicians feel rhythm. :)
Justin McNamara way to miss the point.
Keenan R He didn't explain why the classically trained musicians could sight read that rhythm without flaw, so I thought I might elaborate for him. Compound meters are used throughout all kinds of classical scores. What was the point to you? Because all I heard was a musician speaking about music who doesn't know how a compound meter functions, and why classically trained musicians can sight read them more fluently than his jazz band. If you're going to make a video explaining why classical musicians feel rhythm differently, then you should have an understanding of how they feel compound rhythm.
Ian Howard that doesn't matter, because if you read it as compound meter you can sight read it more fluently. I'm saying that 9/8 time isn't as strange of a rhythm for classically trained musicians. He also said that the bar that tripped up his rhythm section was the one that had beaming consistent with compound meter. 9/8 in classical musical is a compound meter. He's talking about classically trained musicians, so it should be understood that a classically trained musician will read 9/8 as a compound meter because that's how we are trained to read it.
While I am classically trained, most of my ability to play with an orchestra came from "feeling" more that reading notes - classical music just instilled a stronger awareness of what beat/part of the bar I'm on, but my other musical training was more helpful; I find most purely classical musicians just don't have as much "feel"
Thanks again Adam. I checked this out a couple of years ago. I've been working hard with my time and it makes more sense to me now. I STILL can't follow the Bernstein example. I would have been way early!
That is my very favorite string quartet. I have listened to it at least a dozen times.
Terrific. Fascinating. I learned plenty! Thanks :)
I can relate to that as a classical musician. I don't think the answer to the question is as simple as presented but I do believe that classical musician don't feel the rythm the same as jazz musician. As classical musician I had to play very rythmically complex contempory pieces where the beat changes all the time with very complex divisions of beats but a classical musician will pratice a piece like that for a long time and decorticate the different changes in tempos and rythm subdivisions making it almost a memorized thing instead of a felt thing. Jazz musician on the other hand improvises alot wich means they have to be synced with the rythmic section.
Thank you for sharing the insights. Highly appreciate your observation.
I think this is a great topic for discussion and a decent start at a good video. There are too many misconceptions and bad conclusions baked into it from a lack of a professional classical musician's perspective. I really do think there is something to discuss here. I just wish you had made an attempt to step outside of your own assumptions and get some insight into our work.
I dont know why this appeared in my feature youtube page , but i'm glad it did.
Fartalone same mah dude
same here XD
It always bothers me when people say that classical music doesn't have rhythm. Rhythm is simply the organization of sounds and silences through time. I think what most of these people really mean is that classical music doesn't have as much pulse. Pulse and rhythm are not the same thing. But ultimately all music, whether classical or pop, will either end up singing or dancing, or possibly doing a combination of the two. Music that dances tends to have a more pronounced pulse whereas music that sings tends to be more fluid. The point of so much pop music, especially early jazz or swing had a goal of getting people to dance. Hence why this music feels like it has more pulse.
This is an EXCELLENT observation. I am a contemporary music director, playing a lot of rock, pop, latin, R&B, etc. After watching this video, I'm realizing that the mindset of "reactionary/response" vs. "feeling/internalizing" is the main obstacle many players are dealing with. Those players don't feel, they react, therefore they're usually just a little behind. With complex, syncopated rhythms, you can't react - quite the contrary, you actually need to anticipate to some degree, or you're going to fall out of tempo. This also explains why I never see any of those particular players moving their bodies to the beat while they play, or even tapping their feet. They aren't internalizing or feeling it, they're reacting to it. This video was an eye-opener in helping me to understand that mindset. Thanks!
Thank you for resolving this mystery of why it seemed to me like the conductor in the opera was out of pulse ❤️
I was hoping this would be an explanation as to why classical music has so many fluctuations in time signature and modern music has very few
But it is.
As a professional classical musician, even though I don't really consider myself a strictly classical musician, I completely got your point and agree AF
The very first Adam Neely video I ever watched, years ago. Ah, the nostalgia!
That was very interesting. Thank you. I wonder if this accounts for something that astounded me when I was rehearsing (me on guitar) with a singer, bassist and drummer for a gig composed solely of Beatles songs. The singer was a piano tuner by profession, and obviously had a Western Classical Music training. I, on the other hand just learn the song by ear, tab, copying others - whichever is relevant - and would never even try to rely on my very basic awareness of reading musical notation.
What astounded me was when we came to playing 'Ticket to Ride', the singer had to get us to repeat the intro about four or five times so that she could count where to come in. The rest of us just did it by feel (we knew how many times to play the opening phrase, too, but communicating that to the singer did not seem to make a difference, even though she was well-acquainted with the song). I have played a few times with people who are Western Classically trained, and each of these 6 or 7 people has not known how to jam. Even if I say to a keyboard player, "just vamp; just play the chord on the first beat of every 4/4 bar", they seem to be at a loss.
Most of my comments below are just theoretical discussion and not really arguing against your video's premise, but I will say one thing I explicitly disagree with you on is saying that orchestral musicians "react" to rhythm. If you only learn one thing in music school it should be that you never ever follow another player's rhythm--if you do you're automatically playing late! Now apply that to your theory about the purpose of the conductor. If everyone played by reacting to the conductors baton, not one person would play in time with each other!
I agree with you, but I don't think the two perspectives are entirely mutually exclusive. Take, for example, the two metronomes not phase locked. Both metronomes -- "classical musicians" if personified -- have superb rhythm that is certainly assertive and internal, but because they rely on a conductor to tell them when to periodically start, stop, or change as the fluid nature of the piece's tempo requires, phase locking isn't as vital.
No, it's virtually impossible to ever get 2 mms to sync perfectly. It has nothing to do with rhythm. First of all, mms give a pulse, not the rhythm, and the reason they don't line up perfectly has to do with their imperfect electronics. It's a ridiculous comparison. The best classical musicians have internal tick as good (or better) than any other good musician of any other musical genre. The other point we're missing here is that percussionists, by the very nature of their instrument, have great internal pulse and can read and play complicated rhythms better than the average musician in any genre. But I will put a top classical percussionist up against a top jazz drummer any day. If they know their stuff, they should both be able to keep a steady tempo, subdivide equally well, and play complicated rhythmic patterns.
true and accurate.
My best friend is a conductor. That is literally how most conductors conduct. Yes, there are two schools of thought to conducting, where one just sorta stays on the beat to keep those lost on the same page, and the other stays one beat ahead to control the orchestra.
I love how definitively you say this, too. It is literally the conductors job to anticipate the beat a little. Musicians are not midi; they see a note, they interpret it, then they play it. They don't play the note the instant it gets seen, and they don't wait until the last note they played is over to look at and interpret the next one. As such, musicians are used to seeing the beat before they play it, which is why any conductor worth his salt is conducting ahead of the beat. They are controlling the performance by giving instruction prior to the beat, not on it.
FFS go watch John Williams conduct. He literally conducts exactly how you say can't work. Everyone in his orchestra reacts to him. But please do go on about how the Star Wars scores are a jumbled trainwreck of garbage rhythm. *rolls eyes at your ego*
Thanks a lot! But, you can't put put "classical musicians" in a homogenous group. Singers and solo pianists are especially known for not caring about accurate rhythm at all in favour of expression, often to great frustration for their co-musicians. You can also find modern music specialists being able to play the most complicated rhythms accurately and together.
Rhythm for large symphonic orchestras is a very complicated matter! There are over 100 musicians playing very different instruments, seated far apart with no amplifiers nor monitors. Every orchestra develops its own "timing" for how they react to the conductor, and the musicians have to anticipate and wait for colleagues to sound reasonably together. There is a reason why a large part of orchestra rehersals, even for high level professional orchestras, consist of the conductor fixing rhythmic problems.
I challenge you try to play a live rehersal with the double bass section of a professional orchestra for one of your videos! I believe you will appreciate getting to know better the challenges they face and how they solve them!
Oh, and that professor would have been thrown right out of any orchestral audition, even for serious youth orchestras.
Two things:
It has often been said, "I don't anything about music but I know what I like." The corollary to this is, "I like what I know." We also can only do so much with music with which we are unfamiliar until we are immersed in it. Since "classically trained" musicians don't typically get a ton of playing experience outside the orchestral or wind medium, they aren't likely to "feel the music" in the same way a pop, jazz or otherwise trained musician is (yes, those musicians are trained even if they never went through a day of formal music school; informal training is real and can be just as effective or ineffective as formal training). If you look at anyone who grew up playing (and to an extent, listening to) in multiple styles, they will be much better at interpreting even written rhythms in the way they are "supposed to sound".
I had a jazz instructor in college who had a DMA in percussion/jazz from UNT, played with the 1 O'Clock Band (heavy hitters if you are unfamiliar). Monster drummer AND marimbist but also a very good jazz pianist. One year, our piano professor (classically trained) performed Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" with us but didn't sound particularly jazzy. I was talking to the jazz guy and he said, "There is no way I could play Bach as well as he can on the piano" so I said, "Well, the piano guy can't play jazz as well as you can." The takeaway: it all comes back to experience and training (however you come by it).
Helps explain a lot of classic vs. popular ensemble music experiences I've had in a "percussionist" vs. "drummer" role.