Did Rhythm Come Naturally To You?

[fantom]

This.

Playing right on the grid is very mechanical. Sometimes that's the effect you're going for, but it often ends up sounding really boring.

This is a straw man argument. Music being "on the grid" does not prevent the music from being interesting or having feel. Being boring or sounding dull has more to do with composition and performance. In a large portion of recorded music, the first thing the recording engineer does is snap all of the drums to the grid with beat detective before recording any other instruments. Then they snap the rhythm instruments too.

My point is, the grid is not tempo locked. You can speed up or slow down the songs, measure by measure if you want. "Getting rhythm" means you can subdivide the grid accurately and understand syncopated subdivisions quickly.

I'll be the first to agree that MANY tech bands are super boring. But it usually is boring because the composition is just not melodic or memorable. I don't think timing contributes that much.

 

[Sogradde]

Always had an okayish rhythm sense because I started playing in a band shortly after starting to play guitar and my drummer back then also played in a big band, that definitely helped. But once I started recording myself I got really good and tight. I'm not the most technical player but I'm pretty sure I'm the tightest among my peers (pun intended).

 

[tedtan]

This is a straw man argument.

In what manner is this a straw man?

Music being "on the grid" does not prevent the music from being interesting or having feel. Being boring or sounding dull has more to do with composition and performance. In a large portion of recorded music, the first thing the recording engineer does is snap all of the drums to the grid with beat detective before recording any other instruments. Then they snap the rhythm instruments too.

My point is, the grid is not tempo locked. You can speed up or slow down the songs, measure by measure if you want. "Getting rhythm" means you can subdivide the grid accurately and understand syncopated subdivisions quickly.

I'll be the first to agree that MANY tech bands are super boring. But it usually is boring because the composition is just not melodic or memorable. I don't think timing contributes that much.

Modern music is often gridded and autotuned, but that does not mean that this is the "correct" way of doing things. It is merely an aesthetic choice.

Regarding performance vs. composition, an edited to the grid performance of a composition will be boring in comparison to a more natural performance of the same composition. Why? A big part of the feel of a performance involves intentionally pushing, dragging or swinging the beat. It's one of those things (like playing with dynamics) that better musicians tend to do and lesser musicians tend to be unaware of. And when you compare the performances, the one with dynamics and intentional timing variations is like having a conversation with someone compared to the right on the grid performance which comes across as someone talking at you in monotone.

 

[IbanezDaemon]

Nope because I made the fatal mistake of trying to creep before I could walk. I could actually play Yngwie's Disciples of Hell Acoustic Intro, Solo Intro and most of the solo before I even attempted the
rhythm parts.....happens when you are like 15.....I neglected rhythm playing for decades just to be able to shred....seriously not advisable.

 

[fantom]

In what manner is this a straw man?

The thread was intended to be about whether people understand and pick up different rhythms naturally and we are debating whether or not having precise tempo and timing is boring. When we first started talking about metronomes, I think it was implying that people who were more confident about their rhythm tended to practice to metronomes. Somehow were diverted into playing with metronomes is bad for music?

Modern music is often gridded and autotuned, but that does not mean that this is the "correct" way of doing things. It is merely an aesthetic choice.

I don't think anyone claimed using autotune or snapping was correct, but I would argue it is done by the industry for a reason. Yes there are amazing musicians that don't need either of these tools. To me, this thread is talking about your average Joe, who isn't a professional musician. People we run into more often than not.

Regarding performance vs. composition, an edited to the grid performance of a composition will be boring in comparison to a more natural performance of the same composition. Why? A big part of the feel of a performance involves intentionally pushing, dragging or swinging the beat. It's one of those things (like playing with dynamics) that better musicians tend to do and lesser musicians tend to be unaware of. And when you compare the performances, the one with dynamics and intentional timing variations is like having a conversation with someone compared to the right on the grid performance which comes across as someone talking at you in monotone.

I completely agree with you. We are arguing the same point with different words on this. I am not even sure why you think otherwise. This is entirely off topic for whether or not someone can subdivide a beat accurately. I think people that can't learn the rhythm to a song is a separate dicussion than people intentionally pushing the rhythm or shifting tempo/dynamics. That is why I'm saying this is a strawman argument.

 

[BIG ND SWEATY]

I can pick up the rhythm to a song with almost no problem and not have to listen to the song over and over to get it down. Counting beats can be a little tricky sometimes but even that doesn't take too long to figure out. I'll get completely lost once you start using actual music terms though.

 

[Avedas]

Does anyone else think about how far behind most modern guitarists are behind classically trained musicians? I remember a video of Dream theather playing the dance of eternity with an orchestra, not a famous orchestra orchestra or anything, it was just constructed for the gig. The Dance of Eternity is hailed as one of Progs greats with technical flouries, fast sections and time signatures to boot and the orchestra spent most of the time doubling guitar/keyboard parts without breaking a sweat.

Well I'm sure they practiced too. Do you really think Dance of Eternity is really such a pinnacle of difficulty though (speaking solely about guitars; the drums are likely insane)? Within Dream Theater's own library there are far more difficult sections. I do largely agree with your point, however. Modern guitarists are likely behind classically trained musicians. Especially when you consider the vast majority of guitars are blues, indie, and acoustic pop players. I still trust jazz guys to know what they're doing though.

 

[TedEH]

Behind in what sense? "Technicality" or some other useless descriptor? It's music. Modern guitarists aren't "behind" anything because there's no meaningful metric to be behind on. Every type or style or genre or arrangement or what have you is going to have it's own set of requirements. I'm sure there's lots that your standard "modern guitarist" can do that a classically trained musician doesn't even think about.

Also more technical or more complicated =/= "better" music.

 

[Mathemagician]

I find that to be a big part of the challenge when trying to teach someone. There's a certain level of playing where you don't have that capacity to take a step back because it would mean you're no longer focused enough to pull off whatever you're trying to play. It's made even worse when the thing you're *trying* to learn is rhythm in the first place. Like trying to teach someone strumming patterns - the attention spent on it is self-defeating. You can't keep a good rhythm cause you're too focused on trying to maintain the rhythm.

This. I can normally find the downbeat on songs I’m listening to now. That was never really my focus so I didn’t even realize you COULD find it. Especially in metal. But sure enough there it is.

While playing something new I keep my click track very loud and my guitar either low or unplugged. Because if I’m trying to learn a new thing in time, I will still find myself getting tunnel-vision on the playing and not the “space between the notes” as it were.

I’m aware it just takes practice. But I feel like in my experience this wasn’t stressed enough in my beginning lessons.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

I have decent rhythm, my biggest problem was I'm a stubborn idiot who refused to play with a metronome or a pick for close to 2 years after picking up the electric guitar. I was pretty cocky thinking that my classical guitar background would give me a good headstart (which it did in some aspects, and not so much in others). The plus side to me being so stubborn is I can sweep pick with my thumb and belt out django reinhardt/wes montgomery riffs all day
Probably didn't help that I was dead set on only learning solos for the first couple years of playing electric guitar.
I was in a shit band a few years after that and that's what really opened my eyes to playing with a metronome and really getting my rhythm playing to a decent level.
I've spent the last year really woodshedding and playing rocksmith and it's helped a lot with bumping up my rhythm chops. I have a pretty short attention span so playing along to shuffled playlist on rocksmith really keeps things interesting and forces me to try different styles of rhythm playing. It's actually really hard transitioning from something like Backbone by Gojira to Kiss on my list by Hall and Oates

 

[Mathemagician]

Yep. I only played solos. Rhythm parts were for “the other guy”. Imagine that a teenage guitar player with an ego? Lol.

Once I realized that good party riffs are the best part of a song I realized I needed to play them correctly, because speed wasn’t going to save that.

 

[NateFalcon]

Frequent masturbation as a teen built me up an iron picking wrist...yeah, it came easy

 

[NateFalcon]

On a serious note, I used a metronome ALOT when I was learning...after years I naturally caught on to the timing. I haven’t used one in 20 yrs now but I’m glad I learned on one

 

[JohnIce]

This is a straw man argument. Music being "on the grid" does not prevent the music from being interesting or having feel. Being boring or sounding dull has more to do with composition and performance. In a large portion of recorded music, the first thing the recording engineer does is snap all of the drums to the grid with beat detective before recording any other instruments. Then they snap the rhythm instruments too.

My point is, the grid is not tempo locked. You can speed up or slow down the songs, measure by measure if you want. "Getting rhythm" means you can subdivide the grid accurately and understand syncopated subdivisions quickly.

I'll be the first to agree that MANY tech bands are super boring. But it usually is boring because the composition is just not melodic or memorable. I don't think timing contributes that much.

I think that, having read your post twice and really thought about it, I disagree Timing is huge. Everything you say about composition and memorability holds true, I think that goes without saying, but timing is yet another side to all of it. It has nothing to do with composition. And it's not just displayed by virtuosos either, 99,9% drummers can't keep a blastbeat on the grid, and rushing with one hand and dragging with the other is what makes a blastbeat sound chaotic and intense. Quantize it and you lose that edge, instead you get elevator death metal, effectively killing the urgency of the song. I'm fortunate enough to know a lot of really stellar drummers and they all sound less exciting when quantized, I've A/B'd their tracks pre and post editing. So these small changes make a huge difference. Like tedtan said, a lot of musicians are unaware of or don't utilize this nuance in favour of mindless quantization. The producers/mixers you talk about who snap everything to the grid by default are just as guilty of this negligence, or can't grasp the fact that their DAW isn't an authority on groove, it's just a DAW.

My personal rule is if it sounds better by quantizing, do it. But ALWAYS make sure to A/B-test extensively to make sure the quantization isn't ruining the groove. Close eyes and use ears and judgement. It's super important to get the groove right.

 

[gnoll]

I think I have and always had a pretty bad sense of rhythm. I started drumming when I was pretty young and was never very good. I always struggled with being on time, like coming in right on the beat after a fill, not speeding things up/down etc.

I think those issues largely remain to this day, but with all the time I've spent on music I think I now have a good "understanding" of rhythm and I can mostly hear and tab rhythm pretty good, even if I don't have great rhythmic feel when I'm playing.

 

[You]

I would say that in general I am good about keeping a consistent rhythm whenever I'm playing guitar, and I've worked with keeping in time with a metronome before while I was in high school band, so I don't think that it will be difficult for me to follow an odd time signature or two.

 

[Dayn]

Rhythm was the easiest thing for me to learn. I can pick up some pretty complex rhythms and patterns very easily.

Of course, this came after many years of being a musician. I was always naturally inclined to have an excellent feel for rhythm, but that meant nothing without practice. It's just that rhythm comes to me far easily than any other musical concept. Harmony comes in second.

But as a trade-off, I find it incredibly difficult to write good melodies. I tend to just spread out aspects of interesting harmony over time/rhythm - basically combining rhythm and harmony to make my melodies. You could say it's monophonic harmony over time, rather than polyphonic at any singular point in time. It makes for lush sounds, and I can extend it to write interesting melodic phrases... but I don't have an ear for writing catchy melodies or melodic motifs out of the blue. It's super-hard for me. Like, I prefer to paint a scene, rather than tell a story, you know?

 

[tedtan]

The thread was intended to be about whether people understand and pick up different rhythms naturally and we are debating whether or not having precise tempo and timing is boring. When we first started talking about metronomes, I think it was implying that people who were more confident about their rhythm tended to practice to metronomes. Somehow were diverted into playing with metronomes is bad for music?

OK, I think I'm following you now. And I agree that the subject of timing is separate from that of whether or not rhythm came naturally to me/us, but it is an important and closely related tangential discussion that began back on page 1, so I participated in discussing it as I believe it will help others to pay attention to this area.

As for rhythm, it came pretty naturally to me, though I still have to count out complex poly rhythms and some 16th/32nd note funk syncopations.