I've had quite a bit of experience playing in mixed groups with classical and jazz players. I'm was always amazed at how badly the "classical" players keep time. It's not just the difference in perceptions of time either, but the basic ability to not drop the beat! Time can be divided into roughly three places (this is really artificial but helpful for discussion): ahead of the beat, on the beat and behind the beat. Jazz music is usually played with an "ahead of the beat" feel, classical ensembles play mostly "on the beat" and funk and blues players generally favor "behind the beat." All three time feels can be played "in time" without dropping the beat. I find that most classical players either try to play exactly "on the beat" or some flowing free style tempo for solo pieces. I think classical players would do well to try and keep time more consistently in a given piece or section of music. I also find that Renaissance lute music seems to swing (almost like jazz in places), especially with thumb under technique -- lends itself to eighths that are not exactly straight. So, playing exactly in time is a bit more complicated than metronomic time. Try playing "in time" with a metronome with an "ahead of the beat" feel so that you are on the outer-most edge of the beat. This is something that jazz players work on quite a bit and might make Renaissance dances feel a little more lively.
--- Herbert Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, James A Stimson wrote: > > > I recall, in a book about Pablo Casals, an encounter with a student who > > wasn't playing in time, and Casals pointed it out. The student said, > > "But I'm fantasying!" Casals said: "Fantasy as much as you like. In > > time." > > I read something similar about Chopin. Despite being famous for his > rubato, he often insisted that his students play in exact tempo. > > I think this was in the preface to an Alfred edition of his Preludes. > > ===== web: http://www.christopherschaub.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
