The tempo is wrong!!

I read an interview with Cy Curnin of The Fixx once, and he spoke about touring with The Police and how they were masters of relating tempo to the mood of the crowd - some nights they would blast through something like Roxanne, other nights it would be more spaced out. I suppose the moral here is give the people what they want. Either that or Copeland's rubbish.

That Miles Davis video Chris posted is interesting too. I saw him, Miles that is, on that tour, and the moody git only blew his trumpet about three times the whole night.
 
He was often in pain I think.
I saw him in 1982 and was taken backstage by Paul Buckmaster (orchestral arranger for 'On The Corner') and we were told Miles wasn't seeing anyone due to being in a lot of pain. I would characterise his performance that show as 'introverted'.
 
Push pull stroke said:
This right here. And this is why I say everyone needs a click, all the time.
Click to expand...
After a certain level though, there really shouldn't be this weird finger pointing thing going on, because everyone should have a decent enough time-sense it's not an issue or if it is, everyone can tell just the same and not blame one another because they're all riding the same wave together, not everyone trying to catch one player.
 
Dr_Watso said:
After a certain level though, there really shouldn't be this weird finger pointing thing going on, because everyone should have a decent enough time-sense
Click to expand...
In my experience it's not really based in reality though. It is a way for someone feeling stressed and under pressure to vent on a matter that isn't black & white. If you are all just 'feeling' the tempo, then if the lead singer is having a bad show they can blame it on the wrong tempos. If you have a click or a metronome, they can't make that claim.
 
Dr_Watso said:
After a certain level though, there really shouldn't be this weird finger pointing thing going on, because everyone should have a decent enough time-sense it's not an issue or if it is, everyone can tell just the same and not blame one another because they're all riding the same wave together, not everyone trying to catch one player.
Click to expand...

But the only way to get to that level is if everyone is capable of playing to a click.
 
My band doesn't get hung up if we're a little too fast or too slow. Generally speaking, it's better to be too slow than too fast. Playing a song too fast complicates the lead guitar player/singer's job immensely. Most of the time, I let him start the song for us, playing a few bars, then me and the bassist come in. I lock in the tempo and keep it there.
 
A J said:
My band doesn't get hung up if we're a little too fast or too slow. Generally speaking, it's better to be too slow than too fast. Playing a song too fast complicates the lead guitar player/singer's job immensely. Most of the time, I let him start the song for us, playing a few bars, then me and the bassist come in. I lock in the tempo and keep it there.
Click to expand...

yeah...my bands also don't really sweat ><5bpm changes...the only times things are said is if we are going too slow or fast for the vocal cadences...it has been a while since I have played in a situation where someone was just not able to feel the pulse, and was pulling away from the group. That only happens in my community concert band, and it is always the low brass slowing down, or the trumpets speeding up....always...
 
  • Like
Reactions: A J
Thanks for all the comments and sorry for throwing a tantrum.

I will suggest a click on the gig at next rehearsal and see what happens. I have worked with backing tracks + clicks but never used a metronome app with pre-set setlists on a gig to date. I'm sure it's going to be a pain when they suddenly change the songs/song orders.
 
To the OP, you didn’t throw a tantrum. Clearly you have a strong internal clock as evidenced by you typically being spot on with tempo. Don’t let those who don’t have as good a handle on tempo as you do mess with your own self confidence.
 
Push pull stroke said:
But the only way to get to that level is if everyone is capable of playing to a click.
Click to expand...
In my experience it has more to do with time spent playing with others and listening more so than click time, not to say it isn't important, but it's not the only way to learn or play music, and in fact, strict time itself isn't the only way to approach playing pleasing music. One of the things that come with putting in the time is that you learn to within a certain extent control the other players or help keep everyone in the feel good zone if someone drifts, and even this becomes a group effort.
 
Dr_Watso said:
In my experience it has more to do with time spent playing with others and listening more so than click time, not to say it isn't important, but it's not the only way to learn or play music, and in fact, strict time itself isn't the only way to approach playing pleasing music. One of the things that come with putting in the time is that you learn to within a certain extent control the other players or help keep everyone in the feel good zone if someone drifts, and even this becomes a group effort.
Click to expand...

Singers can’t learn this way. You need to be playing a rhythm section instrument for that to happen. And the clock is a MUCH faster way to get there then simply playing with others, just saying
 
Duck Tape said:
Thanks for all the comments and sorry for throwing a tantrum.

I will suggest a click on the gig at next rehearsal and see what happens. I have worked with backing tracks + clicks but never used a metronome app with pre-set setlists on a gig to date. I'm sure it's going to be a pain when they suddenly change the songs/song orders.
Click to expand...

You started an interesting topic and got already good advices. But I would not start immediately with an in-ear click or something like that (for you, only? for the whole band?). I would start with a metronome to find out, what tempos of the songs suit best for the band.

My 'trick' is, to count in without the band knowing that I just got the right bpm from my app. Then, I check bpm immediately after the song with a metronome app, or check the recording. Sometimes, I only check after the song. Because to count in the 'right time' is only one half of the job, the second half is, to keep the tempo. And if everything was right, by end the song you should be at the right tempo.

I liked the comment of Chris, that "The original recording has always the right tempo." This is so true. But why? I think, because everybody in the band agreed to that tempo at that time. And this 'everybody' was most likely the singer.

Fun fact: Most do know the song 'Back in Black' by AC/DC. If you listen closely to the studio recording, the chorus is 2-3 bpm faster than the verse. After the chorus, they return again to the 'original tempo' of the verse (how it was counted in). These few bpms give a different feeling, and the song really starts to breathe. So, your '5 bpm off' comment might work on 220+ bpm songs, maybe, but is far off for 'average rock/pop songs', in my opinion.

Just to get the context right: I was sometimes really bad at counting in and keeping time (in my own opinion). But I was convinced, that 'good time' is not a 'god-given talent that you have or you don't'. I thought you can learn it, so I trained with a metronome. As simple as that. And I think, I improved a bit, but still feel to be far from being 'good'. Hopefully good enough to still sound 'human' but not being off (it's a thin line in between).
 
Last edited:
I think, after participating in this thread, that there are a few different issues that are being confused/mixed together:

(my thoughts in italics below)

1. agogic tempo change: the +/- 5 bpm change that happens due to human ebb and flow
- I think most of us are in agreement that this is NOT a problem that needs to be "fixed"

2. not feeling and organizing by pulse: when the players randomly speed up and slow down, and not with other players in the band; often times confused with "not being able to count"
- this is a problem that should be fixed...and can not be attributed to "art" or "feel", unless chaos is the intent

3. not placing rhythms in the subdivisional relationship with the pulse: this IS not being able to count, or to process manipulation of space around the center point of the pulse ie. playing rhythms that should be 8th notes as if they were quarter notes, or not holding sustained notes long enough etc
- for me this is not a subjective thing; this is not part of the "feel" of the song...this is getting things wrong, and should be corrected, by codifying subdivision somehow. Personally, I like the traditional counting system taught in music theory

4. not understanding phrase length: this is the "the guitar player just randomly made that 8 measure phrase an 11 measure phrase" or "the singer started verse 1 too early" thing
- this is a result of the combination of #2 and #3 above...usually a result of not organizing space; to me, this also needs to be corrected, because it can cause massive tears in performances that can't be recovered.
 
Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX said:
I think, after participating in this thread, that there are a few different issues that are being confused/mixed together:

(my thoughts in italics below)

1. agogic tempo change: the +/- 5 bpm change that happens due to human ebb and flow
- I think most of us are in agreement that this is NOT a problem that needs to be "fixed"

2. not feeling and organizing by pulse: when the players randomly speed up and slow down, and not with other players in the band; often times confused with "not being able to count"
- this is a problem that should be fixed...and can not be attributed to "art" or "feel", unless chaos is the intent

3. not placing rhythms in the subdivisional relationship with the pulse: this IS not being able to count, or to process manipulation of space around the center point of the pulse ie. playing rhythms that should be 8th notes as if they were quarter notes, or not holding sustained notes long enough etc
- for me this is not a subjective thing; this is not part of the "feel" of the song...this is getting things wrong, and should be corrected, by codifying subdivision somehow. Personally, I like the traditional counting system taught in music theory

4. not understanding phrase length: this is the "the guitar player just randomly made that 8 measure phrase an 11 measure phrase" or "the singer started verse 1 too early" thing
- this is a result of the combination of #2 and #3 above...usually a result of not organizing space; to me, this also needs to be corrected, because it can cause massive tears in performances that can't be recovered.
Click to expand...

I agree completely and I think they're broken down and explained well too.

Honestly, it's one of the reasons why I like playing to a click 95% of the time. I never want the chance of getting stuck on point #1 to prevent ever addressing problems like #2, 3 and 4.

I've worked with people that were extremely sensitive to tempo, and in the same band with some people that had issues with general timing and phrase lengths. Not letting any questions about tempo helped keep the focus on correcting the other musical mistakes. I think sometimes claiming "the tempo is wrong" is an easy way to cover up the actual mistakes being made.
 
Regarding playing a bit faster live..yes.. not sure of the exact reason but the way it was explained to me.. depending on the size of the venue and the size of the band eg with a brass section.. the sound projection can get a bit mushy by the time it gets to the back of the room. People obstacles, sound absorption, reflections etc.. better to be a bpm faster than a bpm slower which can sound draggy.
It could also have to with band energy. For example we play the live version of Bruno Mars 'Locked out of Heaven'. The studio version is 144 bpm. The live 'in Paris' version that we play is 150bpm
 
Last edited:
Chris Whitten said:
My comment comes from literally years of performing records in concert with major artists. You can disagree if you like.


Yes, absolutely. Modern decks - vinyl, CD or Wav have tempo controls. The DJ adjusts the tempo to match the previous or next record they are mixing AND to suit the mood on the dance floor.
Click to expand...
And to match other songs adjacent songs in their sets...
 
Stickman said:
Regarding playing a bit faster live..yes.. not sure of the exact reason but the way it was explained to me.. depending on the size of the venue and the size of the band eg with a brass section.. the sound projection can get a bit mushy by the time it gets to the back of the room. People obstacles, sound absorption, reflections etc.. better to be a bpm faster than a bpm slower which can sound draggy.
It could also have to with band energy. For example we play the live version of Bruno Mars 'Locked out of Heaven'. The studio version is 144 bpm. The live 'in Paris' version that we play is 150bpm
Click to expand...
I don't think there's much merit in that acoustics idea.

I think it is more just a matter of context - creating a record is the all-purpose starting point tempo-wise. Depending on the song and arrangement it may need to be exciting, but not frantic... or chill, but not too chill - with the idea of how the song works all by itself.

Now put that song in a concert setting - and there's now nothing all-purpose or generic in its function - it is now the song that comes after this three songs and before what follows. In that "context", how does the tempo feel? Too fast? Too Slow? In that setting, choosing the tempo that works - for that specific setting - is all that matters. Nobody during the concert - on or off the stage - is sitting there with a BPM counting app and a list of the original recorded tempo giving the concert a grade for its accuracy - as accuracy is absolutely not the point.

In its slot in the show - does the song invoke the feeling you want? The feeling that people in the audience will remember it having.

This is similar to the way club DJ's work - modern DJing is all about mix and matching songs and their tempos - to create long fluid extended dance sets (that don't change tempo with each new song) - so keeping the dance floor packed with tempos far altered from the original is the norm.

Now wedding DJ's do some of that - while also a great deal of the time, functioning exactly like a jukebox - with annoying announcements.

For the life of me, I can't fathom why so many modern cover bands playing clubs and weddings are so obsessed with slavishly adhering to original recorded tempos. To the point of choosing to play the "correct: tempo rather than whatever tempo feels best for their band.... or for the context of the performance.

Choosing to never just "feel it" - as opposed to always defaulting to "Nope, gotta check the list - and do it exactly as we did it last weekend - and chastise ourself if we deviate from that rigid, inflexible discipline at all". It makes me wonder, why even bother with a band? Why bother paying for the possibility of a unique and "in the moment" performance, if cookie-cutter, just like the record, down to the exact BPM performance is all I'm going to get? Can't I just hire a DJ? And for less money? And with live bands demanding an ever smaller piece of the entertainment pie - I wonder how many potential clients have pondered the same question?

I get this won't be a popular sentiment these days - but I think with so many advancement in the arts, where "correct" is easy to attain them ever before.... correct tempo, correct pitch, correct color balance, perfectly sharp pictures, and on and on, we are starting to face the question more and more often - is "correct" really the point?
 
Grawe said:
Fun fact: Most do know the song 'Back in Black' by AC/DC. If you listen closely to the studio recording, the chorus is 2-3 bpm faster than the verse. After the chorus, they return again to the 'original tempo' of the verse (how it was counted in). These few bpms give a different feeling, and the song really starts to breathe. So, your '5 bpm off' comment might work on 220+ bpm songs, maybe, but is far off for 'average rock/pop songs', in my opinion.
Click to expand...
A good example of how click becoming ubiquitous in pop/rock music is not necessarily a good thing. Back in Black was released in 1980 - it is highly, highly unlikely that it was track to any kind of a click at all.

They played what felt good - more than likely cutting a basic track with a scratch vocal altogether, at the same time. Determining the exact tempo, right then, as they were playing it. Basically the way most all music was recorded prior to the mid-80's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top