# How and why classical musicians feel rhythm differently



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

A very interesting video where Adam Neely explains why classical musicians have a different sense of rhyhtm compared to other genres (like jazz, pop or rock music).


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

This kid's a snot nosed moron. Bernstein talked a lot about how important it is that the conductor be ahead of the orchestra. No, they don't play "on the beat" and that's a GOOD thing! It's a playing technique that some European orchestras do without thinking - it's their style. You want "on the beat" conducting - that's your high school band and orchestra. No good conductor want the orchestra to play on the beat constantly. Listen to a great orchestra like Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Berlin, and others - they have incredible levels of rhythmic togetherness, "phase lock" be damned.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The statement that jazz musicians feel rhythm while classical musicians react to it is one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

As I understand it, Austro-German orchestras traditionally play well behind the conductor, whereas many American orchestras react a bit more quickly. To say that the former is an indication that the orchestra is out of synchronization is nonsensical.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> The statement that jazz musicians feel rhythm while classical musicians react to it is one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time.


But it's something that can be printed on a mug and attributed to Einstein, so it's sure to catch on quickly.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Any musician worth its salt, be it jazz or classical, 'feels' the rhythm... that's kinda the point when you play an instrument at the professional level...


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> The statement that jazz musicians feel rhythm while classical musicians react to it is one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time.


I don't know, but I've heard an incredible number of times that classical musicians while they can read the most difficult parts on the other hand can't swing for instance. A generalization that has probably exceptions obviously, but I'm not sure it's so stupid.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

aleazk said:


> Any musician worth its salt, be it jazz or classical, 'feels' the rhythm... that's kinda the point when you play an instrument at the professional level...


I don't think it's that simple. For instance, even a great jazz musician like Bill Evans is well known for his problem with keeping a steady tempo.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

norman bates said:


> I don't think it's that simple. For instance, even a great jazz musician like Bill Evans is well known for his problem with keeping a steady tempo.


That's not what I meant... that's just tempo, not the sense of rhythm.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

I am often confused by the seeming lack of synchronisation between conductor and orchestra - I didn't know that some play behind the beat. That is curious.

What about this example of lack of tightness? - Karajan conducting the magnificent 1st movement of Beethoven's 9th Symphony - listen to the trumpets at 8m40s:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

aleazk said:


> That's not what I meant... that's just tempo, not the sense of rhythm.


to me if a musician tends to accelerate he clearly has a rhytmic problem. But my point obviously is not Bill Evans. I'm saying that to me it's a simplification to say that every good musician feels the rhythm. That's a skill that could be learned and improved and exposition to certain rhyhtms certainly helps. I've read many times that a very simple polyrhythm like the hemiola, that is very natural for african musicians could be quite tricky for classical musicians.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

What a load of rubbish. Nuff said.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/1v1is6


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Merl said:


> What a load of rubbish. Nuff said.


he's a musician who has studied composition and he's talking about his personal and real experience performing with classical musicians, and showing recordings on a computer... I have the impression that the problem here is not the video, but people here been easily offended and using the "what a load rubbish" strategy.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

norman bates said:


> I don't know, but I've heard an incredible number of times that classical musicians while they can read the most difficult parts on the other hand can't swing for instance. A generalization that has probably exceptions obviously, but I'm not sure it's so stupid.


Gershwin - Prelude No. 1 is up on ABRSM for exams so I did a little searching and came across






quite fascinating to hear how different people cope with the same piece and the degree of swing they use.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

norman bates said:


> I don't know, but I've heard an incredible number of times that classical musicians while they can read the most difficult parts on the other hand can't swing for instance. A generalization that has probably exceptions obviously, but I'm not sure it's so stupid.


If jazz musicians are sometimes more rhythmically aware than classical musicians, it's because jazz rhythms are more often inherently non-metrical, and its more obvious that what one plays can't be written precisely. Different kinds of music require different kinds of rhythm. You "feel the rhythm" of music you're used to. A parallel to "swing" in jazz is the "lift" that Viennese musicians bring to the waltz, an instinctive sense of how and when to anticipate the second beat of the measure or delay the third. It must be subtle and variable according to context, and non-Viennese musicians usually can't do it or do an exaggerated caricature of it; you can always tell whether you're hearing a Viennese ensemble play Strauss. But the major area of rhythmic intuition in classical music is rubato, and this is entirely dependent on "feeling the rhythm." Rubato is what brings music to life, and if you don't have a keen rhythmic sense, you're just not a very good musician, regardless of genre.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I, for one, do not want "swing" in my classical music. One of my problems with Wynton Marsalis, who is certainly a very competent and skilled trumpet player, is that he tends to put some "swing" into his performance when he strays into classical music. It always feels terribly out of place to me (admitting different strokes for different folks).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

JAS said:


> I, for one, do not want "swing" in my classical music.


well ok, but to me the point of the video doesn't seem to be "put swing in classical music" (even I like to hear that too, in compositions created to swing, not in pieces of music where it's out of place), but the fact that classical musicians have a different perspective on rhyhtm. And since to me it's always been an interesting topic I thought it was interesting that he relates the difference to the use of drums in other genres while in classical a deliberate lack of "phase lock" and use of rubato makes the music more loose.
Even if it seems that somebody took this completely the wrong way.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

norman bates said:


> Even if it seems that somebody took this completely the wrong way.


At TC? Inconceivable! (And yes, the Princess Bride reference is intended.)


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> If jazz musicians are sometimes more rhythmically aware than classical musicians, it's because jazz rhythms are more often inherently non-metrical, and its more obvious that what one plays can't be written precisely. Different kinds of music require different kinds of rhythm. You "feel the rhythm" of music you're used to. A parallel to "swing" in jazz is the "lift" that Viennese musicians bring to the waltz, an instinctive sense of how and when to anticipate the second beat of the measure or delay the third. It must be subtle and variable according to context, and non-Viennese musicians usually can't do it or do an exaggerated caricature of it; you can always tell whether you're hearing a Viennese ensemble play Strauss. But the major area of rhythmic intuition in classical music is rubato, and this is entirely dependent on "feeling the rhythm." *Rubato is what brings music to life*, and if you don't have a keen rhythmic sense, you're just not a very good musician, regardless of genre.


sometimes yes, sometimes it completely kills the rhythm of the piece. 
Sometimes it's used also just to hide technical flaws under the alibi "make the music breathe".


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

janxharris said:


> I am often confused by the seeming lack of synchronisation between conductor and orchestra - I didn't know that some play behind the beat. That is curious.
> 
> What about this example of lack of tightness? - Karajan conducting the magnificent 1st movement of Beethoven's 9th Symphony - listen to the trumpets at 8m40s:


Re the Karajan - errors happen even the best orchestras. When you have 100 humans playing together, sometimes ensemble gets off track.

This behind the beat thing: it's especially common in German, Austrian and other eastern Europe orchestras. It's important: a conductor must lead, not react and absolutely not follow. To show where you're going, you have to be a bit ahead. Players who have had less gifted conductors find themselves lost at first in a group that plays behind the beat. It's also a source of fright to inexperienced conductors and someone called it "second-beat-itis". You give a down beat but you don't hear the sound immediately - it's a fraction delayed and that scares you so you hold off moving to the next beat. It takes time, training, practice and experience. Conducting as far ahead as some of the German conductors do is amazing to watch.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

He's talking about a real phenomenon, even though all of his specific diagnoses are wrong and confused.

In classical music, the expression through rhythm takes the form of tempo rubato, a free, fluid variation in the underlying pulse. (For some reason, some writers have liked to say that there is an underlying constant tempo, with "stolen time" always repaid, but that's just not true.)

In pop, jazz, rock, R&B, etc., rhythmic expression happens through the relationship between one or more performers (usually lead singer or soloists) and an underlying pulse that never changes. Musicians with an exclusively classical background generally can't do this at all.

Also, the rhythmic background tends to be built from syncopated polyrhythms, which can be unfamiliar to classical musicians, though they can be learned. The rhythmic background may be difficult or impossible to notate precisely, as with swing, or attacks that are supposed to be slightly ahead of or behind the beat (I suspect this explain the trouble with the sixteenth note syncopation referred to in the video).

But the big error in the video is the idea that classical musicians "react to" rather than "feel" the beat - every decent musician feels the beat. Actually I think that internal metronome is the one thing that all musicians across all genres share, what sets them apart as musicians.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

isorhythm said:


> He's talking about a real phenomenon, even though all of his specific diagnoses are wrong and confused.
> 
> In classical music, the expression through rhythm takes the form of tempo rubato, a free, fluid variation in the underlying pulse. (For some reason, some writers have liked to say that there is an underlying constant tempo, with "stolen time" always repaid, but that's just not true.)
> 
> ...


well rubato exists in jazz too. Actually I can't think of another category of musicians that uses and often overuses rubato in a annoying way more than guitarists playing solo chord melody improvisations, to the point that it's a relief to hear the few exceptions who are able to keep a steady rhythm.
About the "react to" vs "feel"... I don't know, I think that especially with very complex music it's only possible to count. This is not a judgement on the music, but I don't know if it's possible to "feel" rhythmically something as difficult as the third string quartet of Elliott Carter as one could do with a swinging piece of Teddy Wilson.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

I've certainly found that in music that demands a sense of 'swing' or just some more spontaneous kind of 'rhythmic vivacity', it's rare that you get an orchestra really delivering it. But that's also just conductors. Bruckner's 6th, 1st movement, demands a real sense of rhythmic propulsion that can't be delivered by just playing all you see on the page. Klemperer fails at this in his celebrated recording. Glenn Gould confessed he struggled with the 32nd Beethoven sonata (in reference to that swingy part in the 2nd movement) because he lacked that sense of 'groove' if you'll excuse my vulgarity. And if you listen to his recording, it's clear he is struggling to shackle its new and strange rhythms within some fixed metronomic framework and it just doesn't quite work. But that's just Glenn Gould.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

norman bates said:


> well rubato exists in jazz too. Actually I can't think of another category of musicians that uses and often overuses rubato in a annoying way more than guitarists playing solo chord melody improvisations, to the point that it's a relief to hear the few exceptions who are able to keep a steady rhythm.


Yes that's certainly true...it's the pop/rock/jazz way of relating to the rhythm that doesn't exist in classical music.



norman bates said:


> About the "react to" vs "feel"... I don't know, I think that especially with very complex music it's only possible to count. This is not a judgement on the music, but I don't know if it's possible to "feel" rhythmically something as difficult as the third string quartet of Elliott Carter as one could do with a swinging piece of Teddy Wilson.


Also true, but in order to count the metronome has to be ticking away somewhere in your brain - you maybe "feel" it less viscerally but it's there.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I studied classical piano, but I also like to improvise jazz, and to improvise more 'abstract' things too. I also play old classical music as well as new (e.g., Ligeti's rhythmic piano etudes). And I can tell you that the sense of rhythm is the same in all of that. The only difference is the following. When you improvise, you feel certain adrenaline, since you have to pay close attention to many things (what you played, what you are playing, and deciding, based on that, what you are going to play the next seconds and so on); of course, one of the things is to feel the pulse at the moment; thus, this sense of pulse combined with the adrenaline gives a special feeling. But I claim that this is more related to the nature of the act of playing music by improvisation rather than with some 'special' sense of rhythm. If you play by memory a piece of modern music, with its complex rhythms, or even a Bach gigue, I can assure that you do feel the rhythmic drive, since that's the only way to play the music with authenticity, nobody plays that mechanically, unless you are a lazy music student or performer.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

mbhaub said:


> Re the Karajan - errors happen even the best orchestras. When you have 100 humans playing together, sometimes ensemble gets off track.
> 
> This behind the beat thing: it's especially common in German, Austrian and other eastern Europe orchestras. It's important: a conductor must lead, not react and absolutely not follow. To show where you're going, you have to be a bit ahead. Players who have had less gifted conductors find themselves lost at first in a group that plays behind the beat. It's also a source of fright to inexperienced conductors and someone called it "second-beat-itis". You give a down beat but you don't hear the sound immediately - it's a fraction delayed and that scares you so you hold off moving to the next beat. It takes time, training, practice and experience. Conducting as far ahead as some of the German conductors do is amazing to watch.


I'm still a little confused - if the details of the performance are worked out in rehearsal then there shouldn't be a need to 'lead' by beating ahead of time. The example error I gave regarding Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic isn't the only one - I love the sound they make but such mishaps sound awkward.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

At 13:50 -


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Classical musicians find it hard to do 3/2 triplets? What a lot of bull. Maybe that particular teacher, but in general they can do all sorts of tuplets. Here is an example of lots of 5/4 and 3/2.






There are conventions in Jazz rhythms which make them jazz, just as there are certain Jazz harmonies, which differentiate them from Classical. But in general Classical is more all-encompassing and have more variety in rhythms, which is why they don't normally improvise based on a certain set of predrilled rhythms. How else do Jazz musicians "feel" the rhythms? They are more specific, drilled-in, and recalled more readily as fragments and blocks.

Stuff like Rite of Spring have way more unconventional rhythms than Jazz. My favourite example, Monk's Brilliant Corners had the accents in unconventional places in Jazz, and the musicians could not perform a complete take. Ferneyhough's music have tons of accents in unconventional places outside of regular metre, and are performed routinely.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I showed the video in this thread to the visiting violin teacher at my school (former orchestral violinist). She agreed with me that's its the biggest pile of tosh she's ever watched. In her words, a musician who can't feel the rhythm is a pretty poor musician. She's classically trained but earns money teaching and playing at Ceilidhs. She says she has no problem playing with folk, rock musicians or an orchestra. Rhythm is rhythm, you've either got it or you haven't. .


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

janxharris said:


> I'm still a little confused - if the details of the performance are worked out in rehearsal then there shouldn't be a need to 'lead' by beating ahead of time. The example error I gave regarding Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic isn't the only one - I love the sound they make but such mishaps sound awkward.


Yes, details should be worked out in rehearsal, but any performance worthy of attention has a certain spontaneity that cannot, must not, be rehearsed! It's those sudden, subtle, even unexpected shifts that make live music invigorating. Charles Munch was famous for this, never conducting the same work the same way twice. Bernstein, too. And most of the greats. But the conductor must still lead the way. There are some bad conductors who cannot maintain a tempo; it gets slower and slower and slower. Why? Because they aren't leading! They're trying to conduct on the beat - the beat being what they hear. Human reaction times being what they are, the tempo starts to drag. It's a common fault of young and beginning conductors. Actually leading, pull the orchestra along and maintaining a tempo is harder than you think, especially if you have a bass drum player who can't keep moving and plays on the back of the beat! It's like conducting in a tub of molasses.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

My experience playing both... It's a different experience playing in an orchestra and playing in a jazz ensemble. Both, of course, require that you have the ability to feel the beat as a visceral experience. BUT, while feeling the beat in the orchestra, you are also obliged to _follow_ the directions of the conductor at the same time, such as dynamic indications, and sometimes that can be slightly inhibiting or restrictive rather than basing your performance solely on the basis of feeling the beat... You are not free simply to feel that beat; there are other considerations because no performance is exactly the same. So, the conductor is supreme and if you don't follow the conductor, you are out.

In a jazz ensemble, you are looking to each other for unity, listening to each other as equals to play the written parts well or to generate "swing", which is the perfect rhythmic alignment of all the players in that ensemble and one of the most thrilling experiences that can happen in all of music, because it doesn't happen automatically. There are no equals in an orchestra with a conductor, even if the conductor is doing very little on the podium and the orchestra seems to be playing itself, because the conductor might do something to create a variation of the work that was rehearsed, and you have to have the presence of mind to notice those changes and respond to them... Under normal circumstances, it's a completely different experience though both require you to have an innate sense of rhythm that is _felt_. If the conductor is there, it is not always possible to anticipate what the conductor will do, and that means you are _following_ the conductor, not simply relying totally on your own sense of the beat, and that's why it can look like the beat of the conductor is slightly ahead of the orchestra or the orchestra is playing slightly behind the beat of the conductor.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Yes, it can be a challenge to get some classical musicians to loosen up and stay on top of the beat in the same way that most jazz musicians do, but they sure do a great job here, probably with a great deal of practice because there's no conductor to rely on and the beat has to be be felt:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^You seem to be talking about large vs. small ensembles rather than classical vs. jazz. The smallest "ensemble" would be a solo performer, for whom this whole dichotomy between "feeling" and "responding to" would be irrelevant, regardless of genre.


----------

