Playing to a click track
-
- KVRAF
- 4878 posts since 13 Jun, 2002 from Montreal
Caleb. What you are aiming for is not easy. I know you can do it musically because the tracks I have heard from you are very good. If it was all in midi it would be simple obviously but it's audio + midi right. Maybe using Melodyne which allows midi-like audio manipulation would help. I haven't tried it but it might be a solution.
-
- KVRAF
- 2628 posts since 17 Apr, 2004
I also find it far more productive to create a basic beat that I can loop (or 2 loops, one for chorus and verse) and to play along with that.
It is easier to play along to a beat than the somewhat alien metronome sound. You can also add the basic accents to the beat so you even have the right "feel".
Sometimes just changing the metronome sound to hihats or something else makes it easier...
If it's any comfort, listen to some older music, most of which is recorded together in a single take. The tempo often varies pretty drastically depending on how excited everyone was getting
It is easier to play along to a beat than the somewhat alien metronome sound. You can also add the basic accents to the beat so you even have the right "feel".
Sometimes just changing the metronome sound to hihats or something else makes it easier...
If it's any comfort, listen to some older music, most of which is recorded together in a single take. The tempo often varies pretty drastically depending on how excited everyone was getting
-
- KVRAF
- 13444 posts since 14 Nov, 2000 from Hannover / Germany
There seem to be two things being mixed up in this thread:
1) The problems in playing to a steady metronome (or eventually a drummer's) beat.
2) The problems in capturing some initial "free" performance that you might like in that VERY way in your sequencer, along with the problems of lining up additional material later on.
About 1): That's some rather fundamental problem, but in case you got a sense for rhythm it can be practised in numerous ways. A piano (applies to some other instruments as well) isn't necessarily the best way to develop steady timing in the first place. Why? Because almost all patterns don't require a steady "body movement" to be present, sometimes the movements required are actually "against" the basic beat. As an example, imagine a rhythm of a few 8th notes followed by the occasional dotted 8th note. Your hand would have to move un-evenly.
In contrast, a guitar, a shaker, or even clapping your hands on your knees alternatively are perfect things to get into a steady rhythm, simply because the basic movement, regardless of the accents, non played or muted notes, will stay the same.
So, if you got serious rhythmic problems, I can only recommend trying one of the above mentioned. Using a shaker every now and then, shaking along with some songs or a metronome might improve your bodily sense of rhythm dramatically.
In addition, once you feel safe about such things, you may want to practice things similar to what Gordon suggested.
Here's a nice little excercise for sequencer users: Set up a rhytmic loop (not nexessarily a drumloop, but that'd certainly be your best bet for a start).
Copy it to fill, say, 4 bars.
Clap or play along with it, start with very basic patterns, say, quarters until you really feel comfortable. Now, mute the 4th bar. Play all the 4-bar cycle again and keep on clapping/playing. In bar 4 (the muted one), continue! Try to keep tempo by your own. You'll easily notice what was wrong (if something was wrong) when bar 1 will start to repeat after bar 4.
To enhance this exercise, try a 1 bar loop and a 1 bar mute/pause. Then try, say, 2 bars and a 2 bar pause (that's when it REALLY starts getting tough). Then lower the tempo (you wouldn't imagine how hard it is to keep tempo at, say, 40-50 BPM).
Then, play some more complexed patterns against that loop/pause combination.
Then, during the muted parts, add some accents on "difficult to catch" beats, such as the 16th note after beat 3. Try to hit it along with your programmed accent.
Even if slow tempos are the hardest to master, try with all tempos.
The possibilities of this method are endless.
Assuming you've got the slightest sense for rhythm in you, I can almost assure you that this method will dramatically improve your playing against a metronome based beat in a relatively short amount of time (I've been teaching using methods like that since quite a while, getting very good results, assuming my students did those things carefully indeed).
As for 2): In that case it's all up to your sequencer's skills.
Logic and Cubase (these are the ones I'm familiar with) both do a relatively good job on "reclocking". So you may just record your initial performance "unclicked", then use the reclock (or whatever it's called) function to have the sequencer's tempo follow your performance, rather than the other way round.
In case you've been using a MIDI device to capture your initial performance, you may later on decide to do a "mixed timing" thing. You could for instance reclock things first, then even out some of the more drastic tempo changes.
Reclocked songs based on a (timingwise) very freely initial track will however not work too well in case you plan to use things such as loops later on. Sure, recycled loops will easily follow your tempo, features such as "liquid/warp audio" (as in SX, Sonar, whatever) will also allow plain audio material to follow your tempo changes more or less well, but this defenitely shows some limits more or less easily.
Bottomline: Whenever it's not completely against the original musical intention, I try to do everything using a steady tempo without any tempo changes.
I did however reclock a whole bunch of, say, unclicked band performances and have been adding alls sorts of material (including loops) later on as well with good sucess too. In case a band was recorded it's all up to the drummers internal timing.
1) The problems in playing to a steady metronome (or eventually a drummer's) beat.
2) The problems in capturing some initial "free" performance that you might like in that VERY way in your sequencer, along with the problems of lining up additional material later on.
About 1): That's some rather fundamental problem, but in case you got a sense for rhythm it can be practised in numerous ways. A piano (applies to some other instruments as well) isn't necessarily the best way to develop steady timing in the first place. Why? Because almost all patterns don't require a steady "body movement" to be present, sometimes the movements required are actually "against" the basic beat. As an example, imagine a rhythm of a few 8th notes followed by the occasional dotted 8th note. Your hand would have to move un-evenly.
In contrast, a guitar, a shaker, or even clapping your hands on your knees alternatively are perfect things to get into a steady rhythm, simply because the basic movement, regardless of the accents, non played or muted notes, will stay the same.
So, if you got serious rhythmic problems, I can only recommend trying one of the above mentioned. Using a shaker every now and then, shaking along with some songs or a metronome might improve your bodily sense of rhythm dramatically.
In addition, once you feel safe about such things, you may want to practice things similar to what Gordon suggested.
Here's a nice little excercise for sequencer users: Set up a rhytmic loop (not nexessarily a drumloop, but that'd certainly be your best bet for a start).
Copy it to fill, say, 4 bars.
Clap or play along with it, start with very basic patterns, say, quarters until you really feel comfortable. Now, mute the 4th bar. Play all the 4-bar cycle again and keep on clapping/playing. In bar 4 (the muted one), continue! Try to keep tempo by your own. You'll easily notice what was wrong (if something was wrong) when bar 1 will start to repeat after bar 4.
To enhance this exercise, try a 1 bar loop and a 1 bar mute/pause. Then try, say, 2 bars and a 2 bar pause (that's when it REALLY starts getting tough). Then lower the tempo (you wouldn't imagine how hard it is to keep tempo at, say, 40-50 BPM).
Then, play some more complexed patterns against that loop/pause combination.
Then, during the muted parts, add some accents on "difficult to catch" beats, such as the 16th note after beat 3. Try to hit it along with your programmed accent.
Even if slow tempos are the hardest to master, try with all tempos.
The possibilities of this method are endless.
Assuming you've got the slightest sense for rhythm in you, I can almost assure you that this method will dramatically improve your playing against a metronome based beat in a relatively short amount of time (I've been teaching using methods like that since quite a while, getting very good results, assuming my students did those things carefully indeed).
As for 2): In that case it's all up to your sequencer's skills.
Logic and Cubase (these are the ones I'm familiar with) both do a relatively good job on "reclocking". So you may just record your initial performance "unclicked", then use the reclock (or whatever it's called) function to have the sequencer's tempo follow your performance, rather than the other way round.
In case you've been using a MIDI device to capture your initial performance, you may later on decide to do a "mixed timing" thing. You could for instance reclock things first, then even out some of the more drastic tempo changes.
Reclocked songs based on a (timingwise) very freely initial track will however not work too well in case you plan to use things such as loops later on. Sure, recycled loops will easily follow your tempo, features such as "liquid/warp audio" (as in SX, Sonar, whatever) will also allow plain audio material to follow your tempo changes more or less well, but this defenitely shows some limits more or less easily.
Bottomline: Whenever it's not completely against the original musical intention, I try to do everything using a steady tempo without any tempo changes.
I did however reclock a whole bunch of, say, unclicked band performances and have been adding alls sorts of material (including loops) later on as well with good sucess too. In case a band was recorded it's all up to the drummers internal timing.
There are 3 kinds of people:
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4143 posts since 7 Sep, 2001 from Melbourne, Australia
Nah nah nah Gordon. It is all in midi.Beardedone wrote:Caleb. What you are aiming for is not easy. I know you can do it musically because the tracks I have heard from you are very good. If it was all in midi it would be simple obviously but it's audio + midi right. Maybe using Melodyne which allows midi-like audio manipulation would help. I haven't tried it but it might be a solution.
I don't record the output of my digital piano as audio, I record it as midi and then run it through a piano soundset in Sonic Synth (soon to be Sonik Synth 2). I prefer to use external audio as little as possible if I can help it - just vocals.
The music you heard from me more recently was all programmed with a mouse and keeps impeccable timing. I need to program speed-ups and slow-downs in that at some stage.
Just because it's in midi I don't find that it's necessarily easy to keep this all together nicely.
You want your piece to fall into the structure of the sequencer's piano roll to make it easier to edit, read and program other parts where necessary.
However, if you try to quantize it by hand or through the sequencer's quantize function you often stuff up the performance and auto-quantizing is even worse I find.
I just programmed the most basic 4/4 beat and I am finding it much easier to keep in time with it than I was with the metronome.
I'm hoping that if I'm staying in time more easily than perhaps the dynamics of my performance won't suffer too much.
I always expect to have to do some midi editing afterwards - it's the reason I like working with midi afterall - easy to edit. But I am trying to reduce the amount of quantize and dynamic editing required after my performance complete. The more that's required, the less natural it will sound.
I don't mind automating some tempo changes because if the host supports it, I can control that with a midi controller in real time and record the result hopefully also being left with a vaguely natural feel at the end.
Caleb
Happiness is the hidden behind the obvious.
-
- Boss Lovin' DR
- 14312 posts since 15 Mar, 2002 from the grimness of yorkshire
Riddim, either you've got it or you haven't.
How can people not play to a beat?
Always amazes me when I see people doing it in bands, speeding up or slowing down with total disregard for the drums, how do they do that?
How can people not play to a beat?
Always amazes me when I see people doing it in bands, speeding up or slowing down with total disregard for the drums, how do they do that? -
- KVRAF
- 5782 posts since 10 Mar, 2003 from Music Shed #8
I have the opposite problem.donkey tugger wrote:Riddim, either you've got it or you haven't.
How can people not play to a beat?
If I'm walking past a shop, or a car, where someone's playing loud music, my pace automatically locks to its tempo - I find it extremely embarrassing, and have to "glitch" my steps to overcome it!
-
- KVRAF
- 2401 posts since 29 Dec, 2002 from In the dark
Like everybody say. Practise a lot playing to a click track and it improves.
Click tracks are usefull, but sometimes kill the feeling and emotion too.
The best way is to practise playing with other musicians. If you try to sequence to any pre-recorded band song you will be amazed at how the tempo changes. The nice thing is that the whole band always remain in tune. That is because the band members get to know each others and change tempo almost instantly at the same time.
Classical score was never written at click tracks. The old composers composed on paper. Very easy that way. BUT - when you listen to recordings and compare you will hear signifficant differences in tempo. That depends on the director of the orchestra. The big trick is still for the whole orchestra to change tempo at the same times. The only way they can do that is to practice, practise and more...
Click tracks are usefull, but sometimes kill the feeling and emotion too.
The best way is to practise playing with other musicians. If you try to sequence to any pre-recorded band song you will be amazed at how the tempo changes. The nice thing is that the whole band always remain in tune. That is because the band members get to know each others and change tempo almost instantly at the same time.
Classical score was never written at click tracks. The old composers composed on paper. Very easy that way. BUT - when you listen to recordings and compare you will hear signifficant differences in tempo. That depends on the director of the orchestra. The big trick is still for the whole orchestra to change tempo at the same times. The only way they can do that is to practice, practise and more...
-
- KVRAF
- 1907 posts since 29 Oct, 2003
common practice to own the material was to rehearse it half-tempo. this gives you both more precise feel in fingers (speaking from fretted instrument pov) as well as more precise feel for accents when played normal tempo.
-
- KVRAF
- 4878 posts since 13 Jun, 2002 from Montreal
Great suggestions Sascha - You must be a good teacher, sir.
. It's scares little children now when I get funky and try to move to the groove.
Donkey I know why because most musicians are terrible dancers. I always wonder how come I can play in time but cannot dance properly. Well I know why : when I was a teen it wasn't cool to dance unless it was slowRiddim, either you've got it or you haven't.
How can people not play to a beat? Always amazes me when I see people doing it in bands, speeding up or slowing down with total disregard for the drums, how do they do that?
. It's scares little children now when I get funky and try to move to the groove.-
- KVRAF
- 1907 posts since 29 Oct, 2003
poor little bastards.It's scares little children now when I get funky and try to move to the groove.
-
- KVRAF
- 4878 posts since 13 Jun, 2002 from Montreal
Quote:
It's scares little children now when I get funky and try to move to the groove.
poor little bastards.
-
- KVRAF
- 1907 posts since 29 Oct, 2003
heh when old farts start to smell ...
-
- KVRAF
- 4878 posts since 13 Jun, 2002 from Montreal
-
- KVRAF
- 1907 posts since 29 Oct, 2003
yup it's texturized ...
-
- KVRAF
- 4878 posts since 13 Jun, 2002 from Montreal
