# Difference between "rhythmic" and "metronomic"?



## Fenestella (Oct 4, 2015)

I know many piano tutors in conservatories who, when teaching almost every Classical work and many Romantic works, want student's playing to be meticulously rhythmic, i.e., metronomic unless there's an urtext marking for change of tempo (like piu mosso, meno mosso, accelerando, rit.).

What do you make of such pedagogical approach?

I don't recall any of such piano tutors practicing what they preach when performing on formal occasions, i.e., I heard rubato (piu/meno mosso, rit., accel., etc.) here and there without urtext marking for doing so.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

At the learning stage of a piece, strict timing should be observed. I personally had a student or two (my only ones, both family memebers) learn based on hearing only, and they can’t play it without their mental pauses showing up in their playing, and consistent division of durations. Rubato etc. is only more meaningful when there is a reference to the strict timing and form.


----------



## Fenestella (Oct 4, 2015)

I'm talking about the lessons taking place in conservatories where many tutors subscribe to the dichotomy of "rhythmic" genre and "rubato" genre:if you play a work which they consider "rubato" genre, say, one of Scriabin's poemes, they allow or encourage rubato here and there; if you play a work which they consider "rhythmic" genre, say, one of Beethoven's sonatas, they want your playing to be metronomically rhythmic, no matter how long you have been learning that work for.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Yes, I noticed the rhythms of some of Scriabin’s preludes, are very, very loosely played. On of his last Opus with Gilels comes to my mind, but it did have the term sostenuto. Beethoven and Mozart in general are more strict. I also had the same question about Debussy, there was a story I heard where he greatly discouraged tampering and playing loosely a piece of his, but I hear recordings where they did it anyway. My conservatory was pretty strict. I was never encouraged to add rubato on my own, but I did it after I finished my lessons,


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Fenestella said:


> I'm talking about the lessons taking place in conservatories where many tutors subscribe to the dichotomy of "rhythmic" genre and "rubato" genre:if you play a work which they consider "rubato" genre, say, one of Scriabin's poemes, they allow or encourage rubato here and there; if you play a work which they consider "rhythmic" genre, say, one of Beethoven's sonatas, they want your playing to be metronomically rhythmic, no matter how long you have been learning that work for.


My suspicion is that this conservatory practice is unjustifiable. Didn't Schindler record in some detail Beethoven's rubato?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

metronomic playing is rhythmic, but not all rhythmic playing is metronomic...

I concur with the view that metronomic might be applied in the learning stage of performance. difficult technical or rhythmic parts must be worked out metronomically - so the tempo and rhythm are even, not rushed, not dragged. once this is achieved, expressive elements, such as accelerando, ritardando, rubato may be applied...but these are still 'rhythmic' [ie - a rhythmic pulse is sustained], altho they are not necessarily at steady tempo.
to illustrate - the opening bassoon solo of "Rite of Spring" is indicated "Lento 14 note =50"; "tempo rubato"; "solo ad lib." the bassoonist is supposed to vary the tempo, apply rubato appropriately and musically. However the written rhythm is more obscure, with lots of fermati [holds], sustained notes, etc...
one of my bassoon teachers required his students to at first perform the solo absolutely "metronomically" - steady beat, steady tempo, no rubato, - play exact rhythms....of course, this sounds rather silly, rigid, and unexpressive.
However, once the basic rhythm was learned, then we could go on and apply the rubato, and the espressivo touches to bring the solo to life...a basic pulse was maintained, albeit with a flexible tempo, as prescribed by the composer...
so, again - metronomic in the learning stage, leads to rhythmic performance as the passage or solo is learned. 
of course, there is much music where maintainig a steady tempo is requisite to good performance - this must be played with "metronomic" accuracy, but it also in this case, coincides with [steady] rhythmic performance.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

when I play, I'm working with psychological time. I play mostly baroque and classical styles, but its called "shaping the line"

I am going to add a bit of time to stress a note and to "shape the line". Listen to Segovia play Bach and put a metronome on. the result might be shocking.

Also, the "beat" is actually pretty big. most people who aren't players themselves don't understand that. You can be in front of it and sound like you are rushing, but you are not. You can be behind the beat and make the beat sound "fat". When I play with somebody new, its takes some time playing together to get the sense of how they feel time. 

so I do not agree that music should be strictly metronomic. Now as far as pedagogy goes, I'm a veteran professional player, so don't waste your breath on me. I'm past saving. But if you were to start young children with metronomes, that would probably be a good idea

now just because the teachers don't practice what they preach, don't take that too seriously. What's good for learning and what's good for performing are not always the same. Time feel is one of those things. If they performed in strict metronomic time, they would not be very interesting and they might even end up with viola players making jokes about THEM


----------

