How many worship groups are there that when using in ear monitors also use a metronome or drum machine in their ears to stay tight as a group? I do and it works great. Seems like some folks don't want to do it and I don't understand why they prefer being sloppy with rhythm.
are you after different opinions as this appears to be writen to suggest that no click tracks means "sloppy with rythm" (Rhythm).
I think it most likely means no money for anything but the basic PA, and different volunteers playing each week.
I also think if we are there to give a performance linked to the audio visual (a desire for it being the same every time) then click is great.
If we are there to worship and if we are following the leading of the spirit/needs of a congregation then possibly click may not be helpful as things are going to have changing flow.
Listen to some bands pre-click technology examples would be, The Rolling Stones and The Beatles(Sgt Peppers):
The Beatles great accurate arrangements which in those days could not be done justice with live performances. (maybe a Click needed.)
The Stones have an excitment because they suggest the wheel is about to come off. It never dose though.
I hear more and more that bands want to go and record like the sixties/seventies groups did, all together playing live.
things are always from opinion, my friend says that opinions are like arm pits. we all have two and they both stink.
even though some can't use, most like IEM's. My vocal is more articulate, you don't wear out your voice, and yes it eleminates stage noise. Rolls is a entry level way to go. 4 to 5 people set up for $2000.00 or so. Each person can control their own vocal, and instrument in there own ear, and there is a third knob to adjust volume only on the group mix set up at the foh board.
To go further on this, all bands, orchestras and singing groups prior to the 80's or so were pre-click technology. The metronome was only used to establish the first few beats (that was its original purpose, though it was often used as a take-home teaching device to help a beat-challenged student learn what a consistent beat was). Groups have long used an external beat (such as conductor), and the authority of such a beat can be observed in the French conductors who used to pound it out with a heavy stick. The composer Jean-Baptiste Lully died of infection, having put the stick through his foot.
The trouble with loops and metronomes is that they force an unwavering beat on us. How can you tail off the end of a phrase, or let the music catch up to the excitement of the singers, if you are forced into a single beat for the entire song? Our society is getting so used to this pounding, monotonous click-beat that they know nothing else -- they are deprived of the pleasure and joy of music that gives and takes, that breathes like we breathe fresh air in the springtime. I'm not sure if tidiness is the ultimate goal.
jazz is suposed to sound that way, that's why it's called jazz.
Why would you say anyone who doesn't use in-ear metronomes are being sloppy?
We don't have that capability for one, so there's that. But also, we intentionally change up our pace during a lot of our songs.
because the will be even if only slightly. tipically they will start at 112 bpm and end up at 118 bpm. I know because we were doing it until the drum machine gave us the anchor. I have talke personally to two big dog worship leaders and they use metronome or drum machine because it simply makes them better.
Not really necessary to be that precise. If you're watching BPM, as you seem to be, then you need a track. But most of us don't need to know if we're right on 112 or whatever. I think our point here is that it's personal preference. The point is also that there are not just two choices - sloppy or drum track. There is a whole spectrum of situations wherein being without a drum track can still be a very solid pace.
Maybe certain songs need it. One example I can think of is "Beautiful One". It is very easy to speed up with that song, and yet later, when you get to the bridge ("You opened my eyes...") it starts to be uncomfortable to sing.
So there are times when I can see that it is necessary, not for the sake of some meaningless musical precision, but for the sake of the congregation's singing experience. That said, I don't come across those times often. Which is good, I hate playing to the metronome! :)
One of the more repeatable "teaching moments" is when you get a song with a good upbeat chorus -- the chorus usually has fewer words-per-minute than the verse or the bridge (it seems writers have a built-in need to get a few more ideas in on the bridge). In fact, we are having the Bridge over the Columbia river painted, a three-year project. I always start out hoping to zoom over the bridge, but there they are, the Lego Men with their painting gear, and we gotta slow down.
The singers then put the brakes on things, and we establish a tempo that is proper for the bridge, which must be enforced for the chorus (kind of like keeping that 25-mph sign up there at midnight when nobody's painting, but you need it in music for the integrity of the thing).
Personally I find rhythmic imprecision more musical and less mechanical - I genuinely prefer to listen to imperfectly timed music. I have also noticed that, at least with some congregations, people participate more easily in corporate worship when the worship music doesn't sound like it will be utterly wrecked by an ordinary person being involved. But everyone is different, and some may flow more easily in worship if they aren't bothered by variations in speed and pattern.
you must not like listening to any of the professional musicians because they are all right on, in the groove, 110 bpm, not 112 then 114 and by the end of the song 120bpm