Rhythm v's Speed

[JohnnyQ]

A quick question for you.

I've been practicing in earnest (i.e. 40 mins per day as opposed to 10 mins every two days) for the past two months and I'm having trouble with combining speed and rhythm.

Specifically, when I play along with Na Connerys The Session on track 6 - a Mazurka I know as 'Rachel on the Rock' - I can just about bang out the notes, but my tone and rhythm suffer. Conversly, if I play it on my own at 3/4 the speed of the recording I can manage to make the piece more pleasing to the ear.

My question is: Should I keep playing along with the recording and try to build up the rhythm side of things or play more rhythmically and build up the speed slowly?

Speed in this case being a relative term

P.S. I have a tutor but he's away at the moment

[s1m0n]

Build speed slowly. If you can slow down the recording to a speed at which you can play along and still play it right, do that.

Fast sloppy playing teaches your fingers how to do it wrong, not how to play fast.

[Bloomfield]

Keep it slow. Speed without rhythm is nothing.

[KBR]

JohnnyQ,
You should play no faster than maintaining good technique, rhythm, etc. allows. I recommend a metro(g)nome to help you play slowly at first

Kevin

[talasiga]

..... Speed without rhythm is nothing.

if S - R = 0
then
0 + R = S

[izzarina]

if S - R = 0
then
0 + R = S

ay yi yi......

What you've already been told is absolutely correct. You have to remember that once you get the rhythm down along with the tune itself, the more you work on it, the more up to speed you will get. It just takes time and practise to get to that point, no matter what instrument you are playing. My daughter is learning fiddle, and she is always so desperate to get a tune up to speed, she compromises on technique....I make her stay on track by playing on my whistle as she plays on her fiddle. I've told her that the most important thing for her to know at this level is HOW to play the tune with the correct tempo, not necessarily how fast she plays it. It has to be recognisable first, and the tempo is exceedingly important in this. Once you conquer that, the speed will come.

[ofloyd]

Do you have a metronome? I find that using a metronome is the best way to build speed cleanly. Sure, I know that such a "technical" thing such as a metronome is not used much when it comes to feeling the music but it helps wonders when learning. As mentioned start slowly with a slow tempo and don't move to a faster one until the slower tempo is worked out. And then, only make small increments until you get the speed you want. Playing in time with the solid "click" will help your rhythm like you wouldn't believe.

[Jon-M]

One thing that comes to mind here is this: practice slowly by all means but work hard at playing the tune with feeling. In fact, you can work at playing the same tune with lots of different rhythmic qualities, funky, silky smooth, etc. It will give you lots more insight into the possibilities inherent in each tune you learn. People sometimes worry that playing with a metronome will produce "dead" playing, but the life or lack of it come from the musician.

[okewhistle]

It is frustrating, especially if you want to play in a session, but rythmn is everything.

The only thing I would say is that if you are trying to play with other people who are faster than you, you don't necessarily have to play all the notes. it's quite often possible to simplify a tune to the point where you can play it at speed and if there are a lot of other people putting in the diddly bits it won't matter. They won't thank you if you are half abeat behind, though. Steve

[JohnnyQ]

Thanks lads! I had a bad week of practice and it felt like I was going backwards a little. I slowed down today during a two hour practice and got the rhythm and 'lift' just right - by the end I was able to build up the speed a little.

I recently broke my wifes metronome , so its a sensitive topic at the moment.

[Bloomfield]

..... Speed without rhythm is nothing.

if S - R = 0
then
0 + R = S

Just so. You just can't read your own notation.

0 + R = S <=> S = R + 0

speed [for it's own sake] is rhythm and nothing [more].

[talasiga]

Bloomfield, speed does not equal rhythm and therefore your proposition, that S-R=0, is rebutted.

[Cron-Z]

You can't have a Speed without Rhythm... but you can have Rhythm without Speed...

Musically, speed without rhythm sounds like a drunken slur, no matter the instrument you play. The more you practice rhythm, the easier you'll be able to play fast. Speed comes naturally with practice.

[Mitch]

Bloomfield, speed does not equal rhythm and therefore your proposition, that S-R=0, is rebutted.

I second that rebuttal (it's good to have 2 rebuttals, otherwise one has nothing to rest upon.)

But(al), out of sheer perversity, I'll go for 3 buttals and say that any permutation of S and R will equate to zero because S does not equate to music(m) (assuming 0m rather than the universal 0). Instead, we can postulate that R=TM[n] where Rhythm is a combination of "Tempo" and the array "Meter" (iterated by instance [n]), M and T not needing the contextual m=music). Given the upgraded context it might be more true to say R/M=0m if you assume an infinite value of M, which can be argued. Even moreso if 0 eqates to b0ring(B) which would make the correct proposition: R-M[n]=B with the corollary that B=0m. Conversely R-T should indeed = 0s (silence) which is definitely B.

Confuscious say: "Man with 3 buttals might achieve harmony (but who would stay for the encore?)".

Hope this helps dispell the confusion!

[jemtheflute]

And there was me thinking silence was golden.

The above is all jabber to me. Never was much cop at maths. I thought "calculus" was the Maths teacher's penchant for small pieces of (projectile) blackboard chalk ("calcule-lust"). I'll stick to word-play.

Is a buttal something like a curtal ?