Reprinted with permission from Tempo,
the official magazine of the New
Jersey Music Educators Association.
Citation information: Berz, William, "A Machine Age?," Tempo, 57(3), March, 2003, 26-27.
Several years ago, I attended a conducting clinic where a major
controversy arose which I didn't fully understand or appreciate at the
time. The clinician made a number of veiled references to an entire
“school" of band conductors who did not believe in actually conducting
during rehearsals but instead used an amplified metronome to keep
time. Some of the clinician’s comments were clearly political and
directed against this particular methodology. Since then I have
learned that a rather large number of high school band directors in
Texas rehearse almost exclusively using an amplified metronome.
Apparently, this is a highly emotional issue in Texas with directors
split into camps for and against.
I have recently seen increased use of metronomes in ensemble rehearsals
in New Jersey. While the emotional biases have not risen to the fever
pitch apparently found in Texas, the trend does beg further thought.
When thinking about this issue, two questions arise immediately.
What is the benefit
of using a metronome?
Should band
conductors use an amplified metronome during full band rehearsals? If
so, how should it be used?
Virtually all musicians
recognize the value of using a metronome when practicing to help
stabilize pulse and to work to refine technique. Most serious
instrumentalists regularly use one when practicing. However, individual
practice is very different from ensemble rehearsal.
Using a metronome in rehearsal might be valuable for the same reasons
as in individual practice. The first and most obvious goal would be to
stabilize tempo. Probably for both psychological and practical reasons,
students respond to the sound of the metronome more naturally than
watching the conductor in terms of keeping the pulse absolutely steady.
The metronome does not lie, and even the best conductor will follow the
group to some degree.
Certainly keeping a steady pulse is a positive step in helping to
develop students’ rhythmic maturity. There are numerous and legendary
stories about the great band conductors of the past, notably William
Revelli, spending countless rehearsal hours practicing marches at slow
tempi with only the tubas, horns, and percussion playing so that the
pulse would be absolutely steady and precise. Using a metronome would
not seem much different.
Just as in individual practice, a metronome would be best used when the
music has an unchanging tempo and the goal is largely technical
mastery. The pulse can be gradually increased for passages that are
technically difficult. The ensemble is essentially engaged in group
practice in these kinds of rehearsals.
Using a metronome changes the players’ psychological focus. The
clicking automatically implies a technical orientation implicit in
practice. Conductors might choose to use it when the goal is pure
technique. Musical expression might want to be divorced from technical
mastery.
However, there are some possible major negatives to balance the above
positives. Students may not develop their own internal sense of pulse
if too much reliance is placed on the use of the metronome. Even after
the metronome is turned off, students may already have established the
pulse through something resembling muscle memory. Second, the tempo,
and therefore interpretation, of the music may become very wooden and
rigid. Also with overuse, students may just not be able to follow the
conductor. They may get so used to reacting to sound, that they might
not follow visual signals very well. The conductor himself or herself
may become something of an automaton not really able to lead the
ensemble.
Students must develop their own sense of pulse. They must be able to
internalize the beat and its subdivision. It is this goal that is
probably at the center of the controversy over using a metronome in
rehearsal maybe even more so than the problems with rigid
interpretation. If the metronome is constantly used, will students
internalize the pulse on their own? This is a very difficult, if not
impossible, question to answer.
Tuning Machines
Although a different
issue, the use of tuners is somewhat related. What metronomes are to
rhythm, tuners are to intonation.
Many band and orchestra teachers make extensive use of tuning machines.
In a number of band rooms, each student has a tuner on his/her music
stand. A student can watch the readout and adjust her/his intonation
accordingly.
Tuners are very valuable tools in providing instant feedback about
tuning. This kind of ear training is very difficult for students to
learn and giving them instantaneous, visual feedback is of tremendous
educational benefit. The time devoted to full ensemble tuning can be
greatly reduced when using multiple machines. Students can check
themselves very quickly, even before the actual rehearsal begins.
Intonation problems arise often during the course of a rehearsal. One
reason is because of the scale of all wind instruments is so
tremendously uneven. Certain notes are very out-of-tune, even when the
instrument seems to be in perfect adjustment. There are countless
examples of real problem areas (i.e., clarinet throat tones, flute C,
C#, trumpet concert C, to name just a few). Tuning changes with
different dynamics. Using a tuner can help students to get a grasp on
intonation tendencies.
However, students can become totally dependent on tuners and fail to
critically listen. And unlike rhythm, intonation is rather subjective
in the real world because of the constantly shifting nature of pitch.
There are so many different variables when it comes to intonation. If
students cannot hear, they will always be limited.
To use them or not?
So what is the answer to
the question? Should conductors make use of these machines or not?
Obviously, students and teachers in their daily musical work, for
practice and study should use metronomes and tuners. The real question
then is if they should be used in full rehearsal or not. Many
conductors believe that they should not be used in this way. Others,
notably the aforementioned conductors in Texas, hold that there is no
better way to build technical mastery.
It is my opinion that the balance lies somewhere in the middle.
Metronomes and tuners can be valuable tools — machines to assist
learning. However, when overused, they can become crutches where
students cannot function without them. As long as these devices
further student learning, then their use should be encouraged — but
only in moderation. My guess is that it would be very easy to use them
too much and too often.
As in so many facets of education, success in the classroom falls on
the shoulders of the teacher. In the hands of a wonderful
conductor/teacher, these machines can be extremely effective. When less
inspired teachers expect them to automatically build a keen sense of
pitch and rhythm in their students, the result will probably be less
than successful. The machine does not teach.
So my recommendation is: use them but use them with great restraint and
with a clear sense of educational purpose.