What is your "inner clock"?

It is a huge assumption about them being naive of music though I know numerous physicians (lots of faculty at the med school I was at, including the President of school, my wife included-many really accomplished and music majors-my wife was an education major before med school) and PhD's (lots of them too) who studied music, play an instrument-many in orchestras.

Like I said...
;-)

Seriously, I would be interested if they consulted with a serious player and educator-- Peter Erskine, Ed Soph, John Riley, Gary Chaffee-- or spent a couple of decades living with Pygmys. Thinking they know the right questions because they used to be music students or they play part time is a huge overreach. At least as the studies relate to playing music.
 
"Like I said...
;-)

Seriously, I would be interested if they consulted with a serious player and educator-- Peter Erskine, Ed Soph, John Riley, Gary Chaffee-- or spent a couple of decades living with Pygmys. Thinking they know the right questions because they used to be music students or they play part time is a huge overreach. At least as the studies relate to playing music."
The scientific studies were related to human comprehension of time-it was NOT directed towards music. Music wasn't in their question-like I said the studies are only peripherally related to music because our comprehension and abilities in time keeping are important. I don't see the need for insults to scientist. A scientist doesn't have to have a faith to study religiosity or have cancer to research it. If scientists are studying music I'm sure they are asking the right questions because that's what they've been trained to do-much as your point about keeping time. Hey thanks for asking about music Todd. I looked on Pubmed some 22,000 I got to go read now -dang you LOL. I never knew there was music psychology. I thought this was pretty interesting and I think supports you.
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 29;13(6):e0199604. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199604. eCollection 2018.
Groove in drum patterns as a function of both rhythmic properties and listeners' attitudes.

Senn O1, Kilchenmann L1, Bechtold T1, Hoesl F1.
Author information
Abstract
Music psychology defines groove as humans' pleasureable urge to move their body in synchrony with music. Past research has found that rhythmic syncopation, event density, beat salience, and rhythmic variability are positively associated with groove. This exploratory study investigates the groove effect of 248 reconstructed drum patterns from different popular music styles (pop, rock, funk, heavy metal, rock'n'roll, hip hop, soul, R&B). It aims at identifying factors that might be relevant for groove and worth investigating in a controlled setting in the future. Drum patterns of eight bars duration, chosen from 248 popular music tracks, have been transcribed and audio reconstructions have been created on the basis of sound samples. During an online listening experiment, 665 participants rated the reconstructions a total of 8,329 times using a groove questionnaire. Results show that, among 15 tested variables, syncopation (R2 = 0.010) and event density (R2 = 0.011) were positively associated with the groove ratings. These effects were stronger in participants who were music professionals, compared to amateur musicians or mere listeners. A categorisation of the stimuli according to structural aspects was also associated with groove (R2 = 0.018). Beat salience, residual microtiming and rhythmic variability showed no effect on the groove ratings. Participants' familiarity with a drum pattern had a positive influence on the groove ratings (η2 = 0.051). The largest isolated effect was measured for participants' style bias (R2 = 0.123): groove ratings tended to be high if participants had the impression that the drum pattern belonged to a style they liked. Combined, the effects of style bias and familiarity (R2 = 0.152) exceeded the other effects as predictors for groove by a wide margin. We conclude that listeners' taste, musical biographies and expertise have a strong effect on their groove experience. This motivates groove research not to focus on the music alone, but to take the listeners into account as well. " Weird paper. Enhanced auditory evoked potentials in musicians: A review of recent findings." sounds interesting too.
Now remember too science is a process it never "proves" anything so takes forever to get anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Your take on this makes me quite curious. Is it possible to explain what you actually mean when you say you're always keeping track of it without relying on your "internal clock"? Do you mean constant/conscious counting, or do you externalize every beat by tapping/closing your hats, or some other physical note-keeping thing?

Definitely not externalizing. The opposite actually-- you have to train your limbs follow the rhythm as you've conceptualized it. I don't have a complete theory worked out that I can summarize easily-- what I have is some practices that have worked for me and for my students. Vocalizing seems to be a key element-- it makes you conceptualize the rhythm and tempo in a way that just listening and playing does not. Playing with a slow click (and subdividing) is another thing that seems to enforce the type of process I'm talking about. I imagine anything that forces constant attention to the time would do the same thing. There's a lot more to it than that-- it's not a simple subject.
 
I don't see the need for insults to scientist. A scientist doesn't have to have a faith to study religiosity or have cancer to research it. If scientists are studying music I'm sure they are asking the right questions because that's what they've been trained to do-much as your point about keeping time.

I assume they're also trained to do research, which could conceivably involve consulting with experts?
 
Basically, to whatever extent we have an "inner clock", it's not real reliable for playing music at a high level. Natural human time and musical time as practiced by good US musicians are not the same thing.

I'm not sure if I agree with this. During my everyday life I wake up at the same time almost everyday. When getting ready for work I always know approximately what time it is regardless of what I am doing. At work I always know about what time it is based on certain cues, regardless of what I am doing that day. Everything for me comes back to time.

Examples: I must change my drill battery every 45 minutes. So if I use my drill all day I always know what time it is based on battery life. I know how long it takes to complete a pallet of work, regardless of the work. Again, this leads me to approximate the time to a pretty damn good degree. I get hungry around the same times each day no matter how much or little food I consumed the previous meal. There are many more examples I could list, but my point being that repetition in everyday life leads to unconscious timing.

As far as drumming goes, I always play along to something. Usually it's the radio so my wife can listen without being disturbed. She picks the station, I just play along. Whether or not I know any of the songs is irrelevant. Once it's starts I can find the pulse easily and stay on it without thought. It isn't a gift or anything magical, it's something from within that guides me along as I play. It wasn't always like this, but always playing along with something has developed my timing to a pretty much thoughtless state.
 
As far as drumming goes, I always play along to something. Usually it's the radio so my wife can listen without being disturbed. She picks the station, I just play along. Whether or not I know any of the songs is irrelevant. Once it's starts I can find the pulse easily and stay on it without thought. It isn't a gift or anything magical, it's something from within that guides me along as I play. It wasn't always like this, but always playing along with something has developed my timing to a pretty much thoughtless state.

I don't think the bold sections match up. The pulse from a prerecorded track doesn't come from within...

Although, I would think if you do something enough, your brain can set it to autopilot so you can think about other things.
 
Todd they are the experts-I don't think you understand how it works? By your logic none of us can have a "qualified" opinion, because none of us are a Peter Erskine, etc.-it wouldn't have to be a drummer?? I don't think you mean that nor do I know why you seem to be so irritable and contentious I'm agreeing with you dude? Not trying to piss you off. Generally scientist are experts in a field (I'm unusually multidisciplinary)-often just one aspect of even that-so whatever aspect of "music" they are studying -I'm sure the experts are guiding them in their research teaching them to be an expert-much as you with your students I assume (and I had numerous mentors). From what I've read of your posts you seem a dedicated drum educator-I'm on your side I want to see others play too. And unlike me well ;)
 
Inner clock?

Sounds like a surgery accident.



It's an enormous subject and there are so many factors. To many to generlaize.

I can intellectualize things more these days, but I've always focused on time relations and feel.

The "highly educated" people are not always right. There's often an obesssion with metronomic time and perfect quantization over feel. That's my experience anyway. It's one of those things educated and educated musicians point fingers about and they might often very well be wrong.

One example that I remember very well was playing "Josie" at university. Guitar was my instrument there. I didn't really think about it, but played the guitar off beat guitar rhythm part far ahead like Larry does. My teacher picked up on that and wanted me to play in perfect 8th note subdivision. Of course the song fell apart, so the teacher learned a lesson that day.

Styles and feels is one thing. I've always been good at picking up on that. You just have to be sensitive and present.

Developing time awareness is helped by all the typical metronome exercises, but it's a mistake to stop there. We have to think of it in context as a whole.

It's more of a conceptual thing for individual guidance. Where you're really at and what you want to develop first.
 
I don't think the bold sections match up. The pulse from a prerecorded track doesn't come from within...

Although, I would think if you do something enough, your brain can set it to autopilot so you can think about other things.

That's kinda what I'm getting at. I don't consciously think about it anymore, it just happens. I don't know how to put it in words. It's like the time finds me.

EDIT: as time in this sense I guess that i am referring to song speed. Not playing the beat per say, if that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
That's kinda what I'm getting at. I don't consciously think about it anymore, it just happens. I don't know how to put it in words. It's like the time finds me.

I am of the opinion that you are thinking about it, just that you do it so much you become less aware that you are.
 
I am of the opinion that you are thinking about it, just that you do it so much you become less aware that you are.

Maybe so, I have no idea. Do I think about thinking about it so I can become aware of whether or not I am thinking about it!?!
 
Well I feel bad because I think I just confused everyone. The articles I posted were psych papers-and it's a psychological hypothesis there is an "internal clock" which really means they treat it like a black box-we have the ability to sense and measure the passage of time, there is no anatomical or neurophysiological evidence we have a real internal clock that has been identified by neurophysiologist who don't support the notion. Now we do have other internal clocks that have been identified. Still how we reference time is interesting-and why we are so much better with auditory stimuli than visual-because visual is constant scanning and auditory often just short burst. Then does being able to measure the passage of time have anything to do with keeping good time in a musical context-no so I think Todd hit it. Point well made. I just conflated the issue-my apologies. If I decide to be an idiot, then I'll be an idiot on my own accord ...well not today sonny boy I stepped in it like doggy doo.
 
Well I feel bad because I think I just confused everyone. The articles I posted were psych papers-and it's a psychological hypothesis there is an "internal clock" which really means they treat it like a black box-we have the ability to sense and measure the passage of time, there is no anatomical or neurophysiological evidence we have a real internal clock that has been identified by neurophysiologist who don't support the notion. Now we do have other internal clocks that have been identified. Still how we reference time is interesting-and why we are so much better with auditory stimuli than visual-because visual is constant scanning and auditory often just short burst. Then does being able to measure the passage of time have anything to do with keeping good time in a musical context-no so I think Todd hit it. Point well made. I just conflated the issue-my apologies. If I decide to be an idiot, then I'll be an idiot on my own accord ...well not today sonny boy I stepped in it like doggy doo.

I guess it is the difference between knowing when 5 minutes has passed and being able to keep you movements at a consistent pulse.
 
Despite years of playing, I know that my 'inner clock' - and a I would guess, most of the people on here - is imperfect.
 
Well I feel bad because I think I just confused everyone. The articles I posted were psych papers-and it's a psychological hypothesis there is an "internal clock" which really means they treat it like a black box-we have the ability to sense and measure the passage of time, there is no anatomical or neurophysiological evidence we have a real internal clock that has been identified by neurophysiologist who don't support the notion. Now we do have other internal clocks that have been identified. Still how we reference time is interesting-and why we are so much better with auditory stimuli than visual-because visual is constant scanning and auditory often just short burst. Then does being able to measure the passage of time have anything to do with keeping good time in a musical context-no so I think Todd hit it. Point well made. I just conflated the issue-my apologies. If I decide to be an idiot, then I'll be an idiot on my own accord ...well not today sonny boy I stepped in it like doggy doo.

oh but there is and data from neuroscience

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/your-brain-has-two-clocks/
 
..Despite years of playing, I know that my 'inner clock' - and a I would guess, most of the people on here - is imperfect..


To me someone's 'inner clock' means the way how he or she feels the music, which is not only related to keeping a steady tempo..

And regarding the quote..If in that quote 'perfect inner clock' is equal to 'keeping 100% steady time' then i guess no one in the world has that..Not even Colaiuta, according Luis Conte..
 
Yes I saw that SA paper Gruntersdad there have been "temporal" and "time" neurons identified in hippocampus. But I didn't want to confuse the subject again-because they still don't understand time perception and they are "looking for" an inner clock (like since 60s)-it isn't like circadian rhythm (also in striatum) that has been well characterized. So really it's all "transient truth" and just evidence to support-needs lot more work. However as this article elaborates hippocampus and striatum seem to be involved and if you keep reading you'll find the cortex and cerebellum are involved too. It's hard to discriminate what is what because all these areas are involved in decision making, motivation, planning, memory, etc. . As the article indicated hippocampal damage didn't affect time, areas of Striatum damage does manifest as altered time perception. So "inner clock" is more a metaphor-since it takes lots of brain areas and we still don't understand "time perception" on small time scales. Here's a non-science journal that shows we develop-and can learn to keep time-so once again practice buy a metronome. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/01/psychology-time-perception-awareness-research. So it isn't straight forward. Don't listen to GetAgrippa the inner clock bullcrap-he took you down a rabbit hole LOL. Really we are doing same-inner clock-is just a metaphor trying to describe how we keep time-which even science can't explain yet. The issue is keeping good time is critical-and we can be deceived so the onus on us more to get it right-so we should practice. But is has been an interesting thread.
 
I like how the article Grunt posted mentions the brains ability to recognise and separate patterns in daily life and allows us to keep time by recognising pattern length. This is along the lines of what I was referring to with my examples of work. Battery life, work load, etc. I always know about what time it is because of it.

Perhaps science hasn't found an inner clock yet because it isn't a physical thing. It's more of a feeling, a sense if you will. The more we pay attention to our routines, the more fluent time becomes.

As a drummer, I feel almost programmed to find patterns, can sense repetition. Time is the most important to me. More than the beat, more than the sound. I feel time is my job, so it must come first. It is almost an obsession for me.

And no, my time isn't perfect, but I know there are plenty of other drummers who can hear the song and play at the correct tempo without having to search for it. This is not an anomaly.
 
Getting up at the same time, feeling hungry at the same times, knowing pretty close to what time it is without checking...I'm pretty sure these are circadian rhythms. So yea we all are subject to circadian rhythms.

But circadian rhythms...and musical time....I want to say that they are mutually exclusive. I don't know, I'm going by my own gut feeling and my own personal experiences.

I contend that learning musical time is a skill, and not something that we are born with. For the vast majority of us anyway. There's always exceptions. Like I'm guessing there's not a part of your circadian rhythm makeup that is solely allotted for musical time. It's not essential for survival. It's not like it's a natural inescapable urge, like the urge for a newborn to suckle. It's a skill that must be worked on. This is very true in my case.

Maybe a person has a natural gift for steady meter. That doesn't automatically mean that this same person has a good tempo sense and can combine the 2 to make the music feel good... They might, but it's not a given.

The goal of good musical time is steady unwavering meter at any given tempo. My meter will always need to be sharpened. My tempo sense is pretty good by comparison. I don't know how one works on tempo sense anyway. That's all in the mind. The only thing I can come up with is to try and be mentally aware, be present and accountable, and try and feel the music transparently. How does one do that? For me it's recording and listening back to make sure what I thought happened on the bandstand actually happened the way I thought it did. There's no tempo exercise that allows you to work on your tempo sense AFAIK. There's the portable recorder. It's all hindsight by listening back and future adjustment for me.

Tempo is easy for me compared to meter. It's the opposite with my bandleader. He has excellent meter but his tempo sense could use some work.
 
Last edited:
Larry I agree with that-it's learned. The Guardian article was interesting cause they commented how young kids can't discriminate time (naturally) but they could be taught it precociously-so we do naturally eventually self-learn. So it's a learned skill (either way)-how we do it physiologically (so psychologist and neurophysioligst are trying to discern how we do it) isn't really pertinent. Like with learning to read-who cares how our brain achieves this feat-when learning to read. Same analogy-call it feel, internal clock, time assessment it's a learned skill that our brain can achieve-neither science or any of us can really describe how we do it-just we can be readers and drummers. See I confounded and conflated the issue (Blinded it with Science) with all the publications-when it didn't even apply. So we got the ability to assess time-now apply it to tempo and meter and a musical context-if natural we'd all pick up any instrument and after learning "notes/scales" be on the road performing.
 
Back
Top