Talk:Metronome/Archive 1

CD players help modify the metronome.
count out loud try a variety of tempos put the beat somewhere else besides the 'one'

subdivide!

(theres an x-box game called metronome) wish there was a article on it - im lazy..

>>There's also a Japanese band named metronome. They're fantastic. メトロノーム http://www.artpop.org/meto21/

Beethoven and the metronome
I edited out the second part of the following statement: "Ludwig van Beethoven was the first composer to indicate metronome markings in his music, in 1817, although the extremely fast markings he put on some pieces led some modern scholars to suspect his metronome was quite inaccurate."

First of all, this notion did not come from any modern scholars; it comes from his 19th-century biographer Anton Schindler--the same one who forged entries in Beethoven's conversation books.

Secondly, Beethoven had two metronomes, one of which still exists. Both were the familiar pyramid-shaped Maelzel type with the double pendulum design stolen from Winckel (by the way, I'm glad to see that this article gets that story right). That type of metronome is astonishingly reliable--the British music critic Peter Stadlen once took several such metronomes and tried tampering with them in any way he could (putting sand or other gunk in the mechanism, etc.) to get them to malfunction. He found that he could alter the tempo by a few percent, but any interference more severe than that would make them stop working entirely.

Finally, there are only a few works in which fast metronome markings are controversial, such as the first movement of the "Hammerklavier" (piano) sonata, op. 106. Its marking is uncharacteristically fast for that type of movement, but I have heard it played at that tempo by the contemporary pianist Ursula Oppens in a most convincing manner--so it is not only physically possible (and would have been somewhat less difficult on a fortepiano), but musically plausible.

The real controversy has been over the slow movements, which in the German Romantic tradition have sometimes been stretched out and played at nearly half the tempo Beethoven indicated. This ultra-solemn, trance-like approach had enormous mystical appeal and some conductors (e.g. Furtwaengler) and string quartets (e.g. Busch) made careers based on it. As a musician I have to respect the effectiveness of that approach, which might be even more effective if combined with recreational drug use. In terms of cultural history, it obviously resonated with deeply-felt notions of German identity.

But that is at best a "special use" of the music for nearly (or during the Third Reich, actually) propagandistic purposes; it isn't what Beethoven wrote. His music "works" and "conveys a meaning" when played at many different tempi, but Beethoven complained in his letters that other people often got his tempi wrong when he didn't supervise their performances, and that was why he was so enthusiastic about the metronome. DSatz 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I hardly think this is an appropriate occasion for such weaselly and unsupported nationalist/racist smears against musicians. It is clearly documented that lots of German or German-speaking musicians also took faster or more moderate tempos, indeed some of Furtwaengler's and the Busch quartet's tempos are remarkably fast. I suppose one would not want to go as far as to say that the enormously slow slow movements of Solomon's Beethoven recordings were a product of deeply-felt notions of London East End Jewish identity... This sort of thing is offensive and over-generalised nonsense. --Tdent (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Better Pictures
I think this entry would be improved by pictures of the first metronomes, as well as at least one made by Mälzel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnesseler (talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Standard metronome markings.
I'm an amateur musician and own a digital metronome. My instructor told me I should increase tempo one "notch" at a time. Apparently on a standard metronome, the notches are not a constant distance apart in BPM, whereas my digital one could go 1 BPM at a time, creating non-standard tempos. After checking wikipedia and googling for some time I finally found a picture in a catalog that was large enough to read the dial. Standard metronome markings seem to be (based on this one picture) 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 60 63 66 69 72 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 120 126 132 138 144 144 152 160 168 176 184 192 200 208 216
 * 2 at a time from 40 to 60:
 * 3 at a time from 60 to 72:
 * 4 at a time from 72 to 120:
 * 6 at a time from 120 to 144:
 * 8 at a time from 144 to 216

I think this information ought to be in wikipedia (or somewhere on the web), but am afraid that it might be discounted as trivia. Where in Wikipedia is an appropriate place to put it?

Also, is there any music historian out there that can document / cite the historical reasons for these choices? Also, do the standard markings go faster than 216 or slower than 40 on any metronomes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.203.191.61 (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The number series in the article sometimes repeat the last number on the next line, and sometimes just continue with the next higher number using the new interval gap.
 * E.g. the first series is 40 42.. 60 and the next series begins 63 ... 72. But then that final 72 is repeated at the beginning of the third line.
 * I discovered this when I wondered how many clicks it takes to double the speed. It seem to be 17 steps to get from 40 to 80, but on my own metronome it is 16 steps.
 * For understanding, I prefer the method shown above by 198.203.191.61, where each new series starts with the end of the previous series. This helps you see all the jumps and their sizes.
 * Anyway it should at least be consistent. 176.72.35.87 (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

So how does a Maelzel metronome work?
I came to this page looking for a description of how Maelzel's orignal metronome actually worked, and I'm not really any the wiser. Presumably there's some kind of escapement powering the pendulum, but how does does it work, and is the same mechanism used today? A diagram and description of the guts of the thing would be nice - possible it should be its own page, because the description of the workings one particular type of metronome is separate topic to the concept of metronomes in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.85.27 (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for deletion - Cultural References
I suggest that we remove the Cultural References section; i understand the basic idea that Cultural References (or References in Pop Culture, or whatever) is to show the ripple impact the article's subject has had - but for something as old and common-place/widespread as a metronome, this seems pointless. Should there be no disagreements before 25.jun.08 and i'll go ahead and nuke the section. Quaeler (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous stuff
Please, could someone remove this thing? I personally thing it's ridiculous (My intention is not to insult anyone, but it's really ridiculous):

Ching!, tick, tick, tick, Ching!, tick, tick, tick, …

while an irregular meter of 7/8 might produce this pattern:

Ching!, tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tick, Ching!, tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tick, ...

Another pattern for 7/8 is

Ching!, tick, tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, Ching!, tick, tick, tock, tick, tock, tick,...

[I personally think this cannot be inside an encyclopedia (maybe an audio sample could substitute this)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by MXER (talk • contribs) 04:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The "ching-tick-tock" section of the article does not positively contribute to the understanding of using a metronome to keep tempo with music. I would remove the section, or relocate it to somewhere that concerns itself with music theory, not with devices. 130.20.71.48 (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Sta7ic


 * I assure you, that has no place in any article on music theory, either. --Blehfu (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend the topic "Metronome" be locked.
I recommend the topic "Metronome" be locked. There is ongoing vandalism in which products or enterprises are mentioned/recommended/linked to, while competitors are removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.139.64 (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite/cleanup
Hi. I've done a rewrite/cleanup of the article. Please send your comments if you have any. Here's a summary of what I did: Here are three areas where I think the article needs attention:
 * Added additional sections like Etymology for clarity and moved pertinent material.
 * Rewritten copy. Particular attention to tone.
 * Taken out the ting click clicks. If someone really feels strongly about describing how a metronome sounds, that warrants a recording.
 * Removed elaboration on time signatures. Out of the scope of this article.
 * Criticism of Metronome use section needs work.
 * Personally, I feel like it should be deleted altogether or seriously pared down for the following reasons:
 * It delves into issues of the inaccuracy of music notation, the rhythm and internal pulse of music, pedagogy through oral tradition, the inhibition of "creativity" and "expressive variety", music criticism regarding performance and electronic music, ethnomusicology
 * A general lack of verifiable and reputable sources.


 * Expansion of History section.
 * I found this link which contain a plethora of information not contained in the article. I wouldn't jump on this site as it wouldn't necessarily make the best source, but it is a start.


 * Expansion of Metronome as instrument.
 * I don't really know anything aside from seeing a performance of some random Steve Reich piece for four metronomes.

Thanks for reading. --Blehfu (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the Criticism sections, trying to distil all the copy that was there beforehand. I've pulled some quotes from the the Whitwell essay which are quite compelling, but they still need to be verified as it is a secondary source. I've tried as much as possible to keep the section on topic as much as possible. --Blehfu (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Metronome use
Umm...the "criticism" section of the metronome is being given undue weight and is VERY long. This needs to be reevaluated. I unfortunately do not have the time. 71.52.101.131 (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Frazzled.

Hi!

It is rather unfortunate that many of the original references and quotes on the section "Criticism of Metronome use" have been removed, since I believe they contributed important background understanding; which the current presentation lacks. The wording and tone of the previous version may perhaps be seen as somewhat unfitting, BUT the Quotes and References were verifiable, relevant and accessible to anyone (this is not the case with "oxfordmusiconline", which requires subscription). Is there a way that we can re-include these quotes and references to supplement and enhance the current form of the article?

As a reference: Criticism of Metronome use - previous version with references and quotes

Some brief additional info about the references (answering some questions...): Saying about the reference of Pedro Batista's article Understanding the Samba Groove, Quote: "This as a source is lackluster at best." is perhaps a result of misjudging the article, because it is part of a site called "StreetDance Australia's Dance Survival Guides". (Note that the article was in fact originally published on Batista's (now non-available) own website in Portuegese and English versions - the article was only later reproduced on StreetDance Australia's site with Batista's permission) It is this very article that is the best explanation of the discrepancy between the notation of a rhythm and it's actual performance in the correct pulse, rhythm and style! That's because that article presents audio wave graphics in actual comparison with the typical samba sheetmusic-notations. Very important is that this article highlights not classical music, but shows a direct relevance to popular musical styles. The article is a treasure and really needs to be included!

I feel the same way about the other references and quotes.

About the reference of Brinton Smith's 1998 Doctoral Thesis The Physical and Interpretive Technique of Emanuel Feuermann you ask: Quote: "is this published somewhere? which school? more information, please". Well it was published as a thesis written at "The Juilliard School".

If there is some way of re-including the previous references and quotes (Batista, Smith, London), that would be really wonderful.

Seldoritv (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you are able to furnish some context to the above quotes; I did look through them but from the references alone, they did not provide this information. I've reinstated some of the quotes which I too hastily removed. However, most of what was written would be much more valuable in the articles like rhythm, where there is already a sections on rhythm notation and the oral tradition as well as claves, or perhaps in pulse (music). What the previous version was leaning towards was a discussion on the rhythmic irregularities of certain types of music, which is just beyond the scope of an article on a box that goes "tick tick cling". --Blehfu (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A metronome is not just a box that goes "tick tick cling", as is mentioned above. It is a tool which has destroyed traditional (expressive) performance practice, and replaced it with modernist views of metronomic/regular beat, regular rhythm, metronomic exactness. The traditional performance practice has been wiped out. Is it any wonder that classical performances today are boring, lacking, sterile? And still conservatories continue in their production of unimaginative slaves of fingermotion-only!: the "classical" musicians of today.Seldoritv (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem here, in my opinion, is that the size of the criticism section, relative to the whole article, is rather out of proportion and is not balanced by other views. A metronome is a tool, one that does have its uses, but like any tool, can be misused or overused. Since metronomes continue to be made and used, there must be some quotes and/or references that are pro metronome. Wschart (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the section on criticism of metronome use has been so truncated to say hardly anything now. The quotes are just enough to let readers know that there is an issue, that's all, and don't give much idea of what the issue is or why some musicians and composers should feel so strongly about it - and doesn't give the reader much idea about what to do to find out more about it if interested.

The original section linked to above is much better. But I can also see why it may seem to be overlong for the metronome article, and it is too specific for the rhythm article. So, why not have a separate article "Criticism of metronome use" and link to that instead, with a brief summary and link to it in the metronome article. It is surely a substantial enough issue to require a separate article in the encyclopedia

BTW I'm the author of a software metronome Bounce Metronome Pro which I've designed with the aim to introduce these rhythmic subtleties into metronome practice which normal metronomes lack. So it has swing, lilt, ability to adjust the time of any individual beat, lilt bars which lets you vary the timing from one bar to the next, practice of gradual tempo changes etc, and with conductor / drum stick visuals to help the student hit the beat exactly so learn to be more flexible in their rhythms. I think metronome practice has a lot of value as a way of learning to hit the beat exactly and keep to a steady tempo (which doesn't mean to play every bar exactly the same duration or in the same way), so the aim was to make a way musicians can practice with a metronome without losing rhythmic subtleties, even perhaps add to the flexibility of their rhythms. Robert Walker (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with the "criticism" section is that it does not distinguish between using a metronome to practice and performing metronomically. Practicing with a metronome is essential if one is preparing to be part of a larger ensemble (where the participants must have a shared sense of tempo, even if they later decide to be malleable with it) or if the nature of the music demands very precise rhythm. It is a good idea otherwise, not in order to establish a metronomic performance, but rather to be aware of where and how the music wants to breathe. Saying that the metronome itself is a problem is just as silly as saying that the chromatic tuner is a problem, and yet there are plenty of cases in which one will want to bend a pitch slightly from its equal-tempered standard. A responsible performer should never pass up the opportunity to learn more about exactly what he or she is doing or imagining, and having a steady tempo reference handy is just part of that exploration. Having a good sense of tempo and playing metronomically are not the same thing at all; yet a performer with a good sense of tempo works often with a metronome, to keep that sense finely honed. 76.169.152.2 (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree here - it misses out on different ways of using the metronome. The article gives the impression that when musicians play with a metronome the aim is to make their music fit the rhythm of a metronome, even in performance. This is far from the case. When you use good metronome technique then you work with the metronome as a way to internalise a precise sense of timing and tempo. With this way of working with the metronome then you may spend little time playing actual pieces of music with the metronome even during your practise sessions. This approach addresses most of the issues that the critics have of metronome use. So it is reasonable to say that most of the criticism, perhaps even all of it, only applies to particular ways of practising with a metronome.


 * A metronome is just a tool that indicates time in an extremely precise way. Yes it can have a bad effect depending on how it is used - but the issues that do arise sometimes from particular forms of excessive metronome use aren't really problems with a metronome as such, more issues with the way it is used. Also all the particular issues that can arise can be addressed (e.g. inability to play without a metronome, over rigid sense of timing and tempo, tendency to get locked into particular tempi because those are the ones you practise most often, etc). So - they need to be discussed in detail - look at what can go wrong - also look at what the metronome can do for you and the ways that it can improve your technique - and learn from that to improve the way you work with the metronome if you decide you still want to work with a metronome. I.e. not just present the criticisms but also present the ways that musicians who work with a metronome specifically address those criticisms in the various exercises and methods they use while working with a metronome.


 * Because of this I feel the article needs a major rewrite - and like many here agree that the two extra paragraphs in the introduction devoted to metronome criticism are out of place - and that little advantage is served by a long list of quotes that just aim to show the large numbers of musicians that criticise metronome use. Particularly you don't need more than maybe one or perhaps two quotes if they are all saying the same thing more or less. It would be enough to say "Many musicians criticise metronome use" and just give a couple of examples at most - there are many more available on wikiquotes if anyone needs more quotes.


 * The quotes are basically saying the same thing - that the metronome is a rigid fixed time base - and that musicians play in a fluid way with each measure even slightly different in time - so the music played by musicians in most traditions can't be superimposed on a metronome or click track and expect them to fit. Also if you learn to play like a metronome then you won't play in a musically rhythmically expressive way. Which is kind of obvious really at least to most experienced musicans.


 * So the thing is, everyone agrees on that - advocates of metronomes and those who don't like their use - are all in agreement on that point. So it doesn't really need so many quotes. Yet you can still use a metronome without any of those issues if you set about it the right way, so that needs to be made clear as well. Basically it is unbalanced because it raises some of the major issues that can arise if you use a metronome in particular ways - and then doesn't say anything about all the things that some experienced musician users of metronomes do to address those issues.


 * I'm the author of Bounce Metronome and have a links page here - to material on this modern way of working with a metronome: Metronome Links - the books by Mac Santiago and Andrew Lewis particularly have had good reviews and deserve mention in this article I feel.


 * So anyway might have a go at rewriting it myself but am somewhat hesitant despite the wikipedia "Be Bold" because it would mean removing most of the material on the criticism of metronome technique and replacing it instead with a more reasoned approach talking about what the issues are with use of a metronome, some of the things that can go wrong if you use it excessively, how you can prevent that with good metronome technique, and to say also that many good musicians have wonderful sense of rhythm without use of a metronome - so reader doesn't get the sense that you have to use a metronome to be good at rhythm - but at the same time - not to put off beginners who want to use a metronome because if used well with awareness of the issues it is a wonderful tool. Especially if you don't aim to be able to perform your music with a metronome - that I think except for some styles of modern drumming, for most styles of music is clearly not the way to go.


 * In it's present form, the article doesn't do much to help the reader make an informed decision about whether to use a metronome, and how to make sure you don't fall into bad habits if you do use one. It might scare off a few readers from using the metronome, but not in an informed way, they won't really understand why they shouldn't (or should) use it, just won't use it because of all the quotes from musicians who said not to use it.


 * Anyway interested in thoughts, do you think it would be good to do this, any ideas and suggestions I will have to step carefully as I have an interest in the matter as the author of a software metronome myself, but I have had to deal with situations like that before - it is because of that research into metronome use that I did for the software that I could also help here, and I think I can do it in a reasonably objective and encyclopedic way. It's just the criticism part of the article that needs a major rewrite - but at present that is a large part of the article so it is a matter of rewriting much of the article, and some re-organising of it as well Robert Walker (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced article
The POV of the current version of this article is unbalanced. The length of the criticism section is 2/3 of the whole article and it contains 24 references out of total 29. Even the beginning of the article has multiple references to criticism section. Isn't this a "bit" excessive for an article that is supposed to have neutral point of view? I agree that making a separate article for the criticism section is one possibility. Deletion is another. This should be discussed further. I will add "unbalanced"-template to draw attention to the fact that this article is grossly unbalanced and needs work. J-p-fm (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article is indeed grossly unbalanced. Wikipedia should reflect the views of all people. And in the past and still today (2010) the metronome is embraced by music-students, teachers, conservatories, musicologists, etc.! (This can also be heard in todays recordings.) It would be a severe pity if a wiki-page that presents some criticism of the metronome, suddenly causes teachers and musicologists to change their own opinion; if - at the same time - it removes without a trace, the fact that previously the metronome was so highly regarded. Wikipedia should not misrepresent the present, or past; but all the better if - at the same time - it shows minority views that could inspire, and cause you to critically evaluate your own opinions, or see them in a new light. Be good silverster (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the poor old metronome seems to cop a bit of beating (!) in this article. - Sticks  66  23:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Plan for a rewrite
Hi - I plan to rewrite the article - the criticism section - in view of all the comments on this page and my own impression of the article that it is unbalanced towards criticism of a metronome.

I have done a video about metronome technique here - and would incorporate the encyclopedic parts of this talk - the parts that can be backed up by citations as is usual in Wikipedia. There are other parts of the talk that would count as original research since not yet published so I would leave those out.

Enjoyment and Relaxation in Metronome Technique

Also of course much shorter.

Basic plan - in introduction, to mention the criticism, also new techniques that help to address those issues - just mention it without details so it is a balanced point of view from the start. Also, to point out that rhythm is natural to humans and that you don't need to use a metronome to have a good sense of rhythm, but it can be a useful tool for dealing with timing issues.

In criticism section - to talk in detail about what the criticisms are - and about how they can be addressed through technique - and leave it an open question with the two points of view whether to use metronome a lot or not at all or something in between.

To add a new short section on metronome technique and reference the two books by Andrew Lewis and Mac Santiago and other reference material on metronome technique to show that modern metronome technique goes way beyond use of it simply to establish the tempo of a pipece.

Also might be nice to add a section on the most important metronome patents I thought.

So that is the plan. Any comments? Since no-one has suggested any other way of dealing with these issues, and given the number of posts here suggesting revision is needed - then even if there are no comments then say in a few days from now when I have some time then will "be bold" and go ahead and give it a go and see what the reaction is.

I should say I am a metronome software developer myself. So have a potential COI. But I have had to deal with such things in the past and know how to do it in an encyclopedic fashion, and it is also of course because of my background in metronome design that I have a reasonably extensive knowledge of the existing literature on metronome technique. Robert Walker (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Draft for criticism section of intro
This might replace the entire criticism section of the intro - I need to add references to this. Also if I come back to it afresh may see a way to say the same things in fewer words - and perhaps some of this belongs in the section on metronome technique rather than the introduction - it might be seen as going too much the other way to put all this into the introduction, and once more makes the intro rather over-long:

The metronome is used by musicians to help keep a steady tempo as they play, or to work on issues of irregular timing, or to help internalize a clear sense of timing and tempo. The metronome is also often used by composers as a standard tempo reference, to indicate the intended tempo for the piece.

Human beings seldom play music at an exact tempo with all the beats exactly the same. This makes it impossible to align metronome clicks with the beats of a musically expressive performance.

This also has lead many musicians to criticize use of a metronome. Some go as far as to suggest that metronomes shouldn't be used by musicians at all. The same criticism has been applied to metronome markings as well. See Criticism of metronome use.

Those in favour of metronome use understand this rather as a criticism of metronome technique rather than criticism of the tool as such. See Metronome Technique.

Then this is the draft for the new Metronome Technique section

Metronome Technique
Metronome technique is extensive and has been the subject of several books. . So this short section just summarizes some of the main ideas and approaches.

Playing in the pocket
The basic skill required is the ability to play precisely in the pocket with the metronome in a relaxed fashion. The aim here is not to be able to play like a metronome, but rather to help you to relate to the time of the metronome clearly and precisely at the millisecond level, and so internalize a precise sense of time yourself.

It is harder to play in the pocket with the metronome than one might expect, especially with piano or percussion. That's because the metronome click may seem to vanish when you hit the click exactly - or may be heard less distinctly. The further you are away from the click the more easily you hear the metronome. Musicians may find that playing in the pocket introduces tension and effort into their instrument technique.

To address these issues, the musicians start by learning to play consistently ahead or behind the beat whenever they want to. As a result they develop a clear sense of "where the click is" and so can also play to hit the click as well, in a relaxed way.

The other thing they do is to listen out to hear how the sound of their playing merges with the metronome to create a new sound when you play precisely in the pocket with the metronome. By listening in this way it is possible to play precisely in the pocket with the metronome in a relaxed fashion.

At the same time as they work on playing in the pocket, they also work on flexibility and the ability to play in the same precise way anywhere in the beat.

Playing with what in the pocket?
What is playing in the pocket, except for an euphemism for something better described in a different article? The whole section appears to assume that the reader is familiar with the term. What's a pocket in this context? Strike the section, rewrite it to be useful to the general public, or make a new wiki page describing what "playing in the pocket" means and link to that on first use.

I think striking it is best, because it doesn't seem to answer what someone searching for a dictionary entry on metronomes expects to find, and reads like it's original material; either clipped from somewhere without attribution, or presented as an essay. Neither belongs on WP.

2001:470:1F07:5C1:16DA:E9FF:FE96:FFC2 (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Internalizing a precise sense of time
One thing you do is to set the metronome to go silent for a number of measures, and see if you are still in time when it comes back on again - this helps to develop an inner sense of exact time.

You can also play through music in your mind's ear, and try to do keep in time with the metronome as you do so - another way to internalize a precise sense of the passage of time.

Other exercises of this nature include subdividing the beat, also playing displaced clicks, playing polyrhythmically with the metronome, and many other exercises. Much of modern metronome technique is to do with various methods to help the musician to internalize a precise sense of time.

Musically expressive rhythms
Modern metronome technique addresses the issues of expressive musical rhythms in many ways. For instance, much of the focus of modern metronome technique is on internalizing a good sense of tempo and timing in your playing, and in your mind. So you may work with the metronome in separate exercises to achieve this. When you have a more precise sense of the passage of time, you can then choose for yourself how to use this in your musical performance. You still play in a musically expressive fashion with continually changing tempo and beat, the only difference is that as a result of your work on internalizing a precise sense of time with use of a metronome, you are more aware of what you are doing.

Special exercises may be used to help keep this fluid sense of rhythm and timing as you work with the metronome. For instance you might let yourself drift faster and slower than the metronome and listen clearly to what is going on - or you might play in a musically expressive fashion and hear how your timing varies relative to the metronome - or deliberately play selected individual beats ahead or behind the click, and so on.

So, with the correct technique then use of a metronome helps you to improve your sense of time and exact timing without causing any of the expected issues for musicality and expressive timing. The thing to bear in mind all the way through is that you use the metronome to help with exact timing -but that the sense of rhythm and musically expressive timing is something that comes from yourself. Rhythm is natural to human beings and pervades our lives, though you may need help to bring that rhythm into music. An exact sense of time doesn't come to us quite so naturally (sometimes time may seem to pass quickly and sometimes more slowly) and that's where the metronome can help most.

I have now updated the article
Bearing in mind the number of people here who have commented and said that the article is unbalanced, and as this proposal for change has been here for a week or two now with no comment - I've now "been bold" and put this into the main body of the article. Hope it helps make it a balanced article and deals with the issues readers have voiced on this talk page Robert Walker (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Material I Cut Out of the Intro
This is the material I cut out. It seems inappropriate for an introduction for the reasons mentioned elsewhere on this talk page - too much weighted towards criticism for a NPOV encyclopedia, but some of it may be suitable for including in the criticism section. Since it will get lost in the history of the article, then thought I'd put it here for easier reference. Maybe some of the material here can be useful for improving the Criticism section of the article.

In the 20th century and especially today the metronome is generally positively regarded in Europe and Western culture. The metronome is used by some musicians for practice in maintaining a consistent tempo with steady regular beats and it can be used by composers, as an approximate way of specifying the tempo.

Yet in stark contrast with this positive view, research on the history of the metronome and its influence on performance practice reveals criticisms of metronome use, and highlights differences of "performance practice" and cultural perception/values between the current modern European/Western society (which values the metronome), and the same society during previous times (beginning of the 19th century and earlier: classical/romantic/baroque eras etc.). '

Accordingly, some musicians consider the metronome to be a highly controversial tool in regard to music, with some rejecting the metronome altogether. Some composers considering metronome-tempo-marks to have only little value, or to hinder creative musical interpretation: Johannes Brahms said: "I am of the opinion that metronome marks go for nothing. As far as I know, all composers have, as I, retracted their metronome marks in later years."

M.M 'rare'?
Characterising the M.M. notation as 'rare' strikes me as surprising, in particular compared to 'BPM'. In my experience (admittedly biased towards classical music and European publishers), M.M. is quite common, whereas BPM is hardly to be seen. Perhaps ♩ = 92 (not mentioned at all?) is more common than either M.M. 92 or 92 BPM in jazz and contemporary music. In any case, the preference varies for different genres and perhaps different parts of the world, and a blanket statement like 'M.M. is rare' without any source to back it up seems out of place and is probably strictly speaking incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.9.216 (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism needs to be moved out of intro
I came here to get just a thumbnail sketch of what a metronome was, and I felt I was bombarded by a dissertation on "The Evils of Metronomes". Could someone kick down all the critique to a subheading. I'd just like an intro in the intro, not a debate. Artemisstrong (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Did Winkel conceive the metronome, with the purpose of use, being music?
It is well known that Maelzel promoted the metronome particularly for use in music. In the beginning he even managed to persuade important composers to write some favourable comments about his metronome (though many later changed their mind about its merits - including Beethoven). But the really interesting question is: Did Winkel conceive the metronome for this purpose? As a constant beat to be used by musicians? Or didn't he care about it. Was it perhaps just an invention without a particular purpose? What was his purpose in realizing that ticking box? I think this may be hard to answer (perhaps there is not even evidence to prove or refute the point), but one thing is for sure: Winkel did not promote the metronome in the aggressive, ugly manner in which Maelzel did: and Maelzel did it with musicians and art as direct target. Perhaps somebody can help? Be good silverster (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me odd that a technical page is 3/4 criticism
It srikes me odd that a technical page about a device is stuffed with about 3/4 of criticism. Not even pages like [|"Nuclear power"] take that much of a space for a pro-contra debate. Looks to me like someone who wants to force people to get his personal point and I think it would do good to reduce that discussion to 1/10th or less.

88.149.234.156 (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * now improved and balanced. Be good silverster (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Robert Walker's changes (and his comments above)
Hi Robert. I'd like to comment on your changes (link). I can see that your edits are directly related to the fact the you're the developer of bouncemetronome.com. So when you mention COI... yes that's what it is. I myself happen to be a bit pessimistic towards the use of the metronome, I hope I can expain why.

But first let me address your intro changes. I think they are OK, except for the last paragraph:
 * Those in favour of metronome use understand this rather as a criticism of metronome technique as commonly practised, rather than criticism of the tool as such. Their response has been to develop better methods of metronome technique to address the various issues raised by the critics. See Metronome Technique.

This sounds to me like it suggests that there is a general consensus that it you use the metronome "correctly" according to some "metronome technique" then everything is OK and in particular the negative view of the metronome is cancelled out and no longer applies. A minor side issue first: I think that "metronome technique" has never before been addressed in any encyclopedia and I'm not sure it's good to include this type of "howto information" in an encyclopedia. anyway... Then the main problem with the last paragraph of the intro: 1) Your description of "metronome technique", makes it come across as a knowledgable way of using the metronome in order to solve and neutralize any issues that those who are critical, might have. I might think it OK'ish to highlight some features of "metronome technique", if it just applies to how to use the metronome. But suggesting that the "correct" way of using the metronome (according to you suggestions) makes it into a non-controversial tool is simply false. The problem relates in particular to: "Those in favour of metronome use understand this rather as a criticism of metronome technique as commonly practised". And: "Their response has been to develop better methods of metronome technique to address the various issues raised by the critics. See Metronome Technique." Metronome Technique has NEVER been developed to counter issues raises by critics of the metronome. This seems to me to be quite NPOV and quite OR (original research). Because it seems to me, to be your way of justifying the bouncemetronome, but that's not the point I want to make and it's a minor side issue, since I'm only interested in the article anyway. So we should not state metronome techique is a response to criticism, since it is not. So can we find a way to tone down that last paragraph of the intro? I'd hope we can.

Let me continue by attempting to outline the issues that people may have with the metronome, and why "metronome technique" can never neutralize them. The view (yes view) you have to take is a simple one: Music is where the musician uses his inner soul and shapes the outer world (in this case music) acccording to his inner human sentiments, thus making them into a physical reality and allowing it to touch the listener. So what exacly is the reference for this true musician? Well it is his human self: which is his inner intuition, inner harmony, inner sense of balance. Thus music is shaped to reach the listener and touch the listener also. When playing in ensemble, the true musicians play together based on an understanding of the message and feeling that stems from themselves and that the music conveys. OK, so this is music. True music. Well: a purists view... if you like. It's a view. If you bring in the metronome you destroy everything. The musician then, instead of touching the listener with deeprooted musical meaning, stemming from the own inner self, is condemned to follow the lifeless, machinelike, outer, sterile ticks of a machine. The whole reference is upset, the world is turned upside down. The inner self is forced to follow that outer ticking. The inner self can no longer express, but follows the utterly shallow, insignificant, simple and downright stupid ticking of a machine. No "metronome technique" in the world will ever fix this, because the metronome is an outer rational cold machine-reference and has nothing to do with expression.

So where does this take us??? How can we rectify 2 views. Perhaps we cannot. But perhaps we can. There is nothing wrong with playing with a metronome, or even playing like a metronome. There is nothing wrong with techno music. Here's how to consolidate the 2 views: We keep them separate.... How musicians happen to play music is based on the culture in which they live and the views they happen to have. I can fully understand a pop musician who uses a click track to turn out metronomic pop music. I can understand university students at conservatory who use the metronome while playing Bach or Mozart (this is modern performance practice, and I find it quite disgusting, but still ... it's ok... I simply don't like it), or to technical drills to a metronome (I also find this really bad, but I understand the reason and society that has created this to be a reality). I also understand people who say they relax with a metronome tick or get trancelike cozy. All no problem... It's someone else's preference and someone else's view and shaped by that person's world (with influece by society and culture etc.). I have my own view. You have yours. So perhaps the article does not yet reflect the role of culture, on our understanding of "time in music" enough. Alexander Bonus' PhD Thesis says a lot about this, and perhaps the article can reflect this in a better manner.

So there simply is no concensus about a metronome being good or bad. Some people believe one thing, some the other thing, and others don't have an opinion. What people believe depends on their view and the cultural and social influences. So metronome technique, if we decide to include it, is just a way of using the metronome, based on a particular view. We should not make it sound like it is superior and the correct view to have. If someone wants to play in a style that is influenced by the metronome (to whatever degree), then metronome technique can be used. But if someone wants to express directly from the inner self, no metronome technique can ever be used, and in this case the musician might even reject the use of the metronome entirely.

So I hope we can find a good way of working this out. Issues are the last paragraph of the intro, and also (of much lesser importance)... I think the section "Metronome Technique" may perhaps possibly be a bit long. RogerLeClerck (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Roger, okay first to say, on my own POV so you understand it, I agree totally that rhythm comes from the musician rather than from the metronome. The metronome I see as a tool to help develop a keen sense of time rather than a keen sense of rhythm, and as a way to pick up on timing issues. AS I understand it, most of the metronome technique is to do with internalizing a precise sense of time so you don't need to use the metronome. Both Andrew Lewis's book and Mac Santiago's book make that point.


 * Also - certainly don't want the article to come over as suggesting that musicians must use a metronome. Yes the COI is because I'm the developer of Bounce Metronome, but not because I want to promote metronome use. I never say that musicians should use a metronome. Just want those who do use a metronome to make good use of it with the right technique, and those who don't should also feel reassured that it is okay not to use a metronome. So our POVs are perhaps closer than you might think.


 * If you look at my page on Metronome advantages and disadvantages then that's one of the disadvantages you can get from excessive metronome use without good technique, that Beats can be too metronomic.


 * This is something the books on metronome technique say too, talk about rubato, and about playing ahead and behind the pulse. Here is an interesting quote from Mac Santiago's book in his chapter 8 "Phrasing, Accelerando and Ritardando" "


 * Andrew Lewis also talks a lot about rubato and playing ahead and behind the beat, about responsiveness to changes of timing, and about paying attention to the rhythms that occur in your life in yourself and all around you and bringing those too into music. I have just taken a look, can't find a succint easy to quote passage like the Mac Santiago one but the message is clear when you read the whole thing.


 * Here is another interesting quote from the Frederick Franz online metronome book:


 * That BTW is an example of a book on metronome technique that particularly addresses the issues raised by critics of metronome use. His chapter III brings together a number of quotes in favour of metronome use Chapter III contents It's obvious that part of the book hasn't been updated - so most of the quotes are from the end of the nineteenth century and start of the twentieth century - but the quotes are interesting nonetheless. For instance this once


 * So - that's the other point of view - that when you use metronome technique to internalize a clear sense of time rather than just become a slave to the metronome - it actually helps you to hear the time more precisely, so that gives you more flexibility, and you can then vary away from it in a smoother and more controlled way.


 * That's been my own experience, as an amateur musician following these techniques, that it helps with rubato and rhythmic expressivity rather than hindering it. Very few musicians use these metronome techniques or are even aware of them, I find - so when you say that musicians who use a metronome excessively tend to play "like a metronome" then the chances are high that they haven't made a special study of metronome technique, and simply just set the metronome ticking away and play in time with it as best they can.


 * Most musicians who use a metronome probably don't practise playing ahead and behind the beat, drifting from one beat to the other, playing with the metronome going silent from time to time, playing polyrhythmically with the metronome, playing in a rhythmically expressive way while the metronome continues its steady pulse and just noticing how they drift in and out of time with it - and all the other exercises of that nature - there are many of them.


 * Also totally agree the aim is not to learn to play like a metronome - at least for most styles of music. Even musicians who work to a click track, their notes drift around before and after the click, which is what makes it music rather than just clicking of a clock or computer generated music. There are studies that show that. You might be interested in this study . Also this interesting blog post which analyzes many styles of music - you can see the tempo varying even with click tracks - and with the "click track style" of music when the musicians don't actually use a click track then they drift far more than you might expect.


 * I'm really interested in this subject, and have more links about it here: Timing and Tempo variations and Micro Timing


 * Computer generated music and metronome like playing has it's place as well, of course, but the metronome isn't just limited to those types of music.


 * So, the main point I'm trying to make with the changes is that use of a metronome isn't solely restricted to those who want to play like a metronome. Yes some musicians may use the metronome in that way - but others use the metronome in a different way. You can use it to internalize a keen sense of time - and when you do it that way - it doesn't interfere in any way with rhythmic expressiveness or with use of rubato etc.


 * I think that needs to be said, and if other encyclopedias leave this out and don't mention metronome technique then that's an omission.


 * Yes the COI is because I'm developer of bounce metronome myself. But - that's also one of the things I've worked on with Bounce Metronome, ways of making it a suitable metronome to use by musicians who want to develop their technique in this flexible way, rather than just to learn to play like a metronome. So I am very much on the side of wanting to encourage flexibility of timing - it's one of my motivations while developign Bounce Metronome - to make a tool for the musicians who do use a metronome which encourages them to do work with metronome technique to internalize a good sense of time and to develop flexibility of rhythm etc.


 * Totally agree there is no consensus on the metronome as good or bad. Also I feel myself just as you do, that it is important if one has a good sense of rhythm and one doesn't feel the need to use a metronome, to go with that. I feel the article shouldn't push either point of view - if the reader does want to use a metronome, then to help there - if they don't want to use a metronome, to encourage them that that also is okay.


 * So anyway I'll have a look at the article now and see if I can make some changes. Spotted one thing already - it says "correct metronome technique" somewhere - really that should just be "metronome technique" not that there is one best or most correct technique, and it is a huge subject with many ways of working with a metronome. Robert Walker (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay - I've edited it a fair bit now.


 * Okay I've made some changes. Actually ended up putting some of those quotes into the article, I think it helped, to give the author's voices from different writers of metronome technique, it helps to quote the originals rather than paraphrase - when you paraphrase there is a tendency for some of your own ideas and POVs to creep in unintended. I feel the article is improved, hope you do too, criticism is welcome when it is constructive as yours was and hope you feel it is at least a bit better with these changes, interested to hear what you think Robert Walker (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Roger LeClerck's second response

 * Well ... this is extremely unsuitable for the wiki text: "Frederick Franz expressed it well in his book, and what he says still applies today".
 * Franz says: "In some instances such criticism is largely a prejudice". This is incorrect since Franz's further explanations cannot neutralize a well-founded criticism of metronome that takes as it's basis a differing view of what "good timing" is - in the first place. (More about this below).
 * I think the wiki article does not clearly show the critical view of the metronome and the mindset that enables this criticism (esp. regarding the intro)
 * You wrote above: "internalizing a precise sense of time", "a keen sense of rhythm", "hear the time more precisely"
 * And you wrote: "Also I feel myself just as you do, that it is important if one has a good sense of rhythm and one doesn't feel the need to use a metronome, to go with that."
 * Well there exist differing opinions on "a good sense of rhythm" and unless the article can clearly reflect that it will never be truly neutral.
 * Where is the problem?? -> There is a view that "good timing", ""a keen sense of rhythm" does not mean that the duration of each bar of music is equal, nor does it mean playing ahead and behind the beat, or fluctuating around a beat. Because the point is: the beat itself is not even regular. It's not even mathematically expressible. So neither the puls nor the beat is regular. Let me state this unequivocally: there is a view that sees good rhythm and good timing as something where, NEITHER THE PULSE, NOR THE BEAT IS REGULAR.
 * People should ask: how can that be? Well the answer is that the person creates the flow of music based on the person's inner emotional self. Playing according to some beat is completely irrelvant: sometimes the puls is more regular, other times not. The point is: this stems from the musicians subjective inner world, not from an external machine.
 * Now for those who favour this view, a metronome is always something critical.
 * So the article needs to more clearly state
 * 1) there are different concepts of what "good timing" actually means
 * 2) that these concepts are influenced by the culture, the surroundings and the beliefs of the time
 * 3) that the belief of "good timing" being something accurate and metric and referencible through outer objective means (such as the metronome) is a very modern view, that is directly reflected in the rational scientific approach of the late 19th century up till today
 * 4) that this modern view is in direct conflict with the historic view of "good timing", where the reference for good timing was subjective (the own inner self), and as a result there was music that was in "good time", yet had no metric or repetitive puls
 * 5) that as a result of all this, a metronome will falsify the interpretation of historic music, because it disallows the musician to focus on the inner self (the uneven pulse of emotion), but forces a following of a machine.
 * 6) that many people who hold the view that "good time" is a regular beat (perhaps with a bit of leading or lagging to the beat), flippantly believe this applies to music of all epochs and have never even questioned their own timing beliefs. Others who consider music of early epochs (baroque, classical) to be grounded in an inner subjective pulse consider the strict metronomic performance to be lacking in emotional power and inner conviction (see the writing of Sol Babitz, Alexander Bonus and some quotes below).
 * 7) and thus finally: that a criticism of the metronome is a criticism of the metric performance practice and the modern concept of "good timing" as something universally applicable
 * This is essentially the essence of Alexander Bonus' thesis, and supported by the writing of others such as Robert Hill and Sol Babitz.


 * Some quotes should be in order:
 * I feel that the intro (perhaps even the whole article) does not show this view (and points 1 to 7 above) well enough.
 * RogerLeClerck (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel that the intro (perhaps even the whole article) does not show this view (and points 1 to 7 above) well enough.
 * RogerLeClerck (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel that the intro (perhaps even the whole article) does not show this view (and points 1 to 7 above) well enough.
 * RogerLeClerck (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Roger, first - am going to unindent this because these indented replies get hard to read when you indent too far to the right.

Okay thanks, first of all interesting quotes, and particularly I was interested to read what says about Notes Inegales, another article that I got involved in just making videos for, but have also been interested in Notes Inegales for some time personally.

I for one had got the impression from reading about Notes Inégales that it meant perfectly regular limping, and am really pleased to hear that some at least think that it quite possibly didn't as that's a much more natural and organic way to play this style of music. It fits much better to my mind and the musical examples in the article bear that out.

Also what he says later on about the Gesture or Inflection Technique. The way they talk about grouping guestures together in larger units - it's a bit like fractal music, which is built up in larger and larger units in that sort of a way, which I've got involved in programming, including fractal rhythms where you have a different metrical structure. Here for instance is my example of Fibonacci rhythms (played on harmonics - that's a rhythm developed by David Canright inspired by gamelan rhythmic patterns. I don't mean at all that it is the same as human fluid rhythms (that example has just two beat sizes), but not structured in the same way we are used to so showing that you can structure in other ways than just one beat after another in a steady pulse. Then I've also explored fractal rhythms - this one here is a good example Endless movement for unaccompanied violin - fractal tune made with Tune Smithy - though computer generated of course, the rhythm is built up in a similar way to the gestures idea (it is more flowing and fluid than the fibonacci example with probably no two beats or measures exactly the same).

I agree the article is lacking here, the good thing about these quotes is that they give a constructive criticism, telling the musician what is used to replace the metronome, for musicians who need help in timing and rhythm. I.e. to work on guestures and build the music up from guestures rather than linearly as a sequence of exact measures one after another.

It probably needs a section of its own in this page, perhaps alongside the criticism one. I wonder if there is a separate article about it somewhere in wikipedia which one could summarize and link to? Since this page is about the metronome so you don't want to go in lots of detail about ways of working that don't use a metronome, but do want to say something about it of course, mention it in a few sentences and I think a separate section so that the user can spot it easily in the page.

When you say " Let me state this unequivocally: there is a view that sees good rhythm and good timing as something where, NEITHER THE PULSE, NOR THE BEAT IS REGULAR." - I totally agree, and also microtiming studies show that clearly for those who have any doubts about it, and you can easily hear it with your own ears too. I don't mean just moving about within the beat and playing in different places in the beat - but the beat and the measure also continually varying slightly, slightly faster, slightly slower, though just by perhaps a few bpm - except in the case of musicians who actually do play to a click track.

The question is though - does work with a metronome tend to make your music more even like that. And I'd say that if you just play your music along with a metronome for hours on end then maybe it does, but if you use the metronome to internalize a precise sense of time, then it doesn't.

The thing is - you aren't really internalizing the pulse of the metronome. That comes from you. It's more like you are using the tick of the metronome to feel the passage of time more clearly and more sensitively. In Andrew Lewis's book he talks a lot about the pulse you feel in yourself, and also getting it from the rhythms you experience in your life inside yourself (like heart beat, breathing, etc) and running, walking, etc.

One of the exercises is indeed to play in the pocket with the metronome - and that's a foundation exercise - because that then lets you relate to it in a precise way. But the focus there is on feeling the time more precisely - rather than on trying to learn to play the same pulse as the metronome.

Not at all saying that everyone should use a metronome. And this guesture and building up guestures approach and connection with speech is really interesting. I think something should be said about it in the article. Will think over and see if I have any good thoughts about what to do with the article, if I have any good ideas about ways to improve it.

Also see what you mean about the introductory quote. Maybe can find a better one. But - wanted somehow to introduce the idea that a lot of the criticism is based on the impression the critics get that the way you work with a metronome is to simply set it ticking away and then play with it - which indeed is how many musicians use it. So - the point in the quote is just so the reader realizes that any criticisms based on that impression are only criticisms of a particular use of a metronome, and might not apply to other ways of using the metronome.

Again, the article shouldn't give the impression either way that you do need to use a metronome or that you shouldn't use a metronome, but instead should make it clear that there are two general approaches in music, where use of a metronome is favoured, and where it is not. But you shouldn't identify the approaches where the use of metronome is favoured with styles of music where the playing is "metronomic" because that depends on how you use the metronome and on your technique and your aims and the styles of playing.

I'd agree that the invention of the metronome has made "mechanical playing" something that can be achieved in a way that wasn't possible before the invention - and especially use of a click track nowadays makes mechanical playing within the reach of many if that is their goal.

But don't think it is true that use of a metronome necessarily leads to that result. I think that depending how it is used, and what it is used for, and it can have the opposite effect and help with nuances. That's my POV but also it's what some of the positive quotes also say.

So - anyway not sure what to do with the article, you've given a lot to think about and will return to this. Robert Walker (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Latest
Hi Roger - first I've put in subheadings to make it easier to edit this talk as it takes a lot of scrolling to get to the end now.

I've just edited the intro para before the quote, replaced "expressed it well" with "what he said is still true" - and put the focus on what he says about critics to this day still largely under the impression that the way you work with a metronome is to play your music along with the metronome. That I think anyone can agree is true. Did wonder about editing or paraphrasing the quote but I think is best to leave it as it is and just point out the thing in the quote you wish to highlight in this way.

So hopefully that fixes that or at least it is surely better than it was.

I've read the material you gave, which I understand is an article from the book "Orphei organi antiqui: essays in honor of Harald Vogel". Find it is really interesting. The only thing is - doesn't have any other references to find out more about the ideas. With a google search can't find anything else linking Entasis with Notes Inegales, and it's not mentioned in the wikipedia article on Notes Inegales.

Anyway I've tried the ideas out in my own music playing - I play recorder, and have often thought that Van Eyck's music should be played with unequal notes, although not French, Holland isn't that far away, and some of the scholars at least think the practise was widespread in Europe even though when written about. Anyway these Entasis ideas do seem to work really well with his music to my ears. I'm very much an amateur so can't play them extremely fast and virtuosically the way they should be, but it is still an enjoyable experience to play it that way, and the experiment is interesting.

It fits fine with metronome technique as well. I think the work that I do on metronome technique actually makes it easier to apply these ideas such as Entasis because you become more sensitive to time as a result of working on metronome technique in that way.

So - I think musicians can use the one or the other approach or both and though some musicians have no need for the metronome, there is no problem combining them if one wanted to do both. Came up with an interesting analogy. Being able to play precisely in time with a metronome is a bit like an artist being able to draw a perfect straight line or a perfect circle. It shows that you have mastery of the brush stroke - but it doesn't mean that you have to be a cubist and construct your painting entirely out of circles, straight lines, spheres, cubes and cylinders. In the same way the ability to be able to play a perfectly steady beat like a metronome - if you do develop that (which you might not do, it's not the objective of metronome technique, but could be a side effect of it) - that is just like an artist who can draw a perfect circle. You could be a Giotto or Michaelangelo. Don't have to be a Cezanne or even a Mondrian. So in the same way being able to play a perfectly regular beat if you want to, says nothing about how your musical performance style, or how you choose to express yourself in music. Playing your actual music along with a metronome a lot - that could influence your performance style. But separate practise with a metronome to develop control in the area of musical time, and to develop sensitivity in that way - that's not going to change your performance style. It just gives you more sensitivity to time and more control which you can use as you please. That's my experience and what others also have said about work on metronome technique, indeed I think that is what Frederick Frank is saying in his introduction too.

Anyway - I think there should be a section in the article about this Entasis type approach to rhythm, but it would be good to have some more material on the subject to draw from. Ditto would like to add it to the Notes Inegales article as well and it would help to have more references if you know of any, and interesting to know if the authors of the day also wrote anything that linked Entasis with Notes Inegales. If they did could be interesting to read what they said about it too. It makes a whole lot more sense to me musically than the mechanical always same amount, by the rule book approach which was derived from study of surviving mechanical musical clocks I gather mainly as our best evidence of how the music was actually performed - but - were the mechanical clocks of the day able to perform music in the same way as musicians of the time - or were they just first approximations - the latter seems more likely. Robert Walker (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on the current version
Hi Robert, regarding the current version from 28 November 2012: I think the article has now got some serious problems and it is not neutral. Examples: Sorry, but this is about as POV (non-neutral and non-representative), OR and COI as it can possibly get. This sentence makes it sound as if the metronome techniques are something really complex and unknown, when in the meantime it is just mundane simplistic techniques that are in fact widely known. Additionally: what the heck are we talking about here anyway... "metronome techniques"? You're trying to categorize metronome techniques into good techniques (which are "oh so widely unknown") and bad techniques. This clearly is POV. If you really must, then do realize that the following is a very mundane and minor point and also simply a particular point of view: "Bad is to play while the metronome is ticking. And good is to play ahead or behind the beat." Metronome technique is all quite well known, nothing new and most importantly: nothing revolutionary that will require publications etc: Again this tries to make metronome technique into something that is still developing and with a still a lot of good information missing. Clearly POV. (also check my comment about Franz further to the bottom). Furthermore when writing it sounds like there are hoards of metronome critics. Clearly not true. Most people see the metronome as something positive: Put them into 5 classes: those that play exactly spot-on with metronome ticks and want that aesthetic (check out the drummer Jojo Mayer who plays the hardest exactest Drum 'n' Bass), those that play spot-on with the metronome ticks during practice and get a bit freer otherwise (most beginners and many conservatory students). Those that play with a metronome and play ahead or behind the beat while doing it (some conservatory students and professionals). Those that use the metronome only to check the average tempo and always set it aside when playing (probably a minority).
 * "These techniques however aren't widely known by musicians generally, including many of the critics of metronome use."
 * "Metronome technique has developed considerably since his day, but the amount published is still small."
 * "many critics of metrome use"

But the biggest minority are those that actually criticise metronome use. And there's a reason why this is such a minority: metronome criticism is something that is incredibly unfashionable, since everyone today likes things to be rational, measurable, scientific and repeatable. A metronome fits that bill perfectly. Criticism of metronome, on the other hand, requires an understanding of the whole philosophical mindset, that the interpretation should stem from the inner self and thus be free in tempo and rhythm, and that these parameters are freely controllable and changable just as all other parameters. Take me as an extreme example: I don't think it's good to "internalize a clear time reference" - something that you consider great and fabulous. So most modern listeners and musicians do not understand the philosophy that leads to a critique of metronome use, being that they are so conditioned to a relatively strict and metric beat/pulse. ("principle of strict unity of beat within a movement has been part of our understanding and experience of classical music for so many decades now" as quoted from Robert Hill).

So what can we do about the article??? I think we need to question the assumption that metronome technique is something of a "high art" that is "widely unknown". It's simply not true. The article needs some toning down in this respect. And metronome technique (the toned down version) should be kept separate from any criticism of metronome use, and vice versa. It's not OK to state that the one thing occurred because of a misunderstanding of the other. Because it simply ain't true (we should not read to much into the words of "Frederick Franz" who was affiliated with the "Franz Manufacturin Company" - "Designers and Manufacturers of Precision Metronomes since 1938". Franz has a clear COI and interest in writing as positively as possible about the thing with which he earned his living). So let's keep use of metronome and criticism thereof separate: Both are ok in their own ways and don't need to neutralize the other. Why not: because there are differing aesthetics about rhythm, and that's ok. RogerLeClerck (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you not agree that most musicians think that the way you use a metronome is to play your music along with it indefinitely? That's the attitude I've come across in all the forums and it's clear from the quotes and so on. Also that's what many musicians have a lot of difficulty with.


 * With metronome technique then one of the things about it is that you may spend very little time actually using your metronome with your music. The focus isn't on trying to play your music like a metronome. The focus is on increasing your sensitivity to musical time, which you have already, and to reinforce your sense of rhythm, not to internalize the metronome tick as a replacement for your sense of rhythm. Then - just like the artist who can draw a perfect circle - and as a result can also draw wonderfully expressive wavy lines - so by having higher degree of sensitivity to time, and a greater steadiness in your rhythm, it actually helps you to play more non-metronomically.


 * There is a big difference between trying to internalize the way the metronome works into your playing, which is what you seem to think metronome technique involves - and using the metronome as a way to refine and reinforce what you have in yourself already.


 * The way you just replied would suggest to me that you aren't very aware of metronome technique yourself. Have you read Andrew Lewis's book and Mac Santiago's book? Frederick Franz's book introduces many of the ideas but there are quite a few ideas left out of it. E.g. the exercise you use to learn to play in the pocket (like an artist learning to draw a perfect straight line or circle) - I've seen that exercise in all the accounts of modern metronome technique, but it isn't in his account. That's the exercise where you play first ahead of the beat - then behind the beat - and get comfortable playing both sides, so you can at any time just come in and play ahead, or come in and play behind the beat. Then after you are well able to do that then you try hitting the click - by playing ahead and behind then you become familiar with where the click is. Also you listen out for a merge of the two sounds when you play in the pocket, a bit like the sound of two different pitches coming together to make a chord, something not in either of them separately.


 * The result of all that - plus more of the same - is that playing in the pocket with the metronome becomes relaxed and effortless and easy to do. Remember all along this is like the artist drawing a perfect straight line or circle, doesn't mean you have to become a musical cubist anymore than Giotto or Michaelangelo became early cubists as a result of having fine and delicate control of the brush able to draw perfect circles and straight lines..


 * That's an essential key part of metronome technique in all the modern accounts and isn't in Frederick Franz's account. You need to try that exercise out to understand its value and how it helps with steadiness of rhythm. Which doesn't mean to say learning to play like a metronome. Other exercises that most musicians are unaware of in my experience are the things like playing polyrhythmically with a metronome, deliberately drifting away from the beat and back again, setting the metronome to go silent for increasingly long periods of time, and deliberately drifting away and back from the click in a controlled way. If you have only used a metronome by playing your music along with it, then you haven't given modern metronome technique a fair try.


 * Not at all saying that you should study modern metronome technique. Just saying - you can't say that the subject doesn't exist and introduces nothing new over what all musicians know already unless you read the literature, try it out, and see if it works for yourself and see if it does introduce anything new. You probably can't tell if it introduces something new just be reading the accounts of how it works very well, you have to try out the exercises and see how they work to realise what it is and how it works.


 * I am also very interested to know if you have any more literature on the Entasis ideas, it would be good to include something about it, but I haven't found anything else yet apart from the site you gave before, and it would be good to have a fuller picture of it to introduce a section on it in the metronome page.


 * Hope this is a bit clearer. Do try out the metronome technique ideas if you want to check to see if it really is something new, I think you might get a surprise about how different it is to use a metronome in that way instead of simply playing your music along with it. But if you don't want to try out the metronome technique ideas that's also fine but I think it is a bit unfair to write it off as a subject without trying it for yourself. It is indeed a minority of musicians who use these techniques, as indeed it is a minority who use the entasis ideas - but I don't think it is right to just ignore them. Robert Walker (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Also - just to say, that a metronome manufacturer writing about metronomes is a POV, but not a COI. It's not publicity for his metronome - he doesn't even mention it in the book, or say anything about particular advantages of his metronome. I don't know anything about him, would be interested to find out more, it's entirely possible that he started as a music teacher and then got involved in making the metronome after writing the book, but whichever way it is, a metronome maker is likely to be a good person to write about metronome technique if he is also a music teacher and music scholar, and in his book he is bringing together methods and ideas from the late C18 and early C19 on metronome technique, and you just need to read the book to see he is an enthusiast for his subject, and not just writing a commercial blurb. Andrew Lewis also sells a metronome - and it's the same thing, he doesn't even mention his own metronome anywhere in his book on metronome technique, and he is a music teacher too.


 * Sometimes in wikipedia you need to try to be as neutral as possible. But some articles like this one present several different POVs and you can only do it justice by giving space for authors to write from all the different POVs there are on the subject.


 * I haven't had much time recently to work on wikipedia, but my suggestion is to have a new section probably at the end called "Alternatives to metronome use". Rough draft - to say that you can work on timing and tempo glitches, and rushing and dragging without use of a metronome. This can be used either as an independent approach with no use of the metronome at all, or a complimentary approach along with metronome technique. Mention that until late C19 then people used to sing as they worked, in time to the rhythms of their work, also when walking, and musical rhythms were much more part of daily life - quote Cecil Sharpe's work and related research there. Mention that in many parts of the world music is still much more part of daily life than it is here, Then can talk about Andrew Lewis's ideas about becoming a "rhythm antenna" and how you can use rhythms from your daily life to help develop a good sense of rhythm. Also talk about how you can record your own playing and listen to it. Also about the techniques that involve hearing music in your mind's ear first before you play it and dealing with timing and tempo glitches by learning to hear a perfect performance in your mind's ear first - a technique used both by musicians who work with metronome technique (and there is a section on it in Andrew Lewsis's book) and musicians who don't use a metronome at all.


 * Then as a separate thing (probably new para.) say that in some styles of music such as early music Inegales it can be appropriate to use a different approach that doesn't work so much with a sense of inner pulse and instead works on ideas of guestures and is more closely related to rhythms of speech and poetry.


 * Not got that much time right now but have done a bit of an edit today - mainly taking away all the references to "internalizing a precise sense of time" and "using it as a timing reference" because I see from your response that it gives quite the wrong idea about how you use a metronome. They were my own words so not direct quotes from the literature, just rather clumsy paraphrasing of it. It is true that you do use it as a timing reference - yes - because it is something that is ticking at a precise beat - but not with the idea of internalizing like a metronome click inside yourself, not in the sense of trying to turn into a kind of robot or clockwork human with a tick instead of a heart. It's much more to do with making your human flowing and fluid sense of pulse - helping to firm it up, give it more precision to work with, - to help e.g. with timing glitches or tempo glitches or when  you rush and drag and simply aren't aware of the issues of timing of your notes or of how your tempo might be gradually and slowly changing in an unmusical way (in case of rushing or dragging) due to nervousness, tiredness, boredom, or whatever it is. Also to do with learning to hear subtle nuances of timing and tempo more clearly and so able to use those also for musical expression.


 * Anyway hopefully reads rather better now. The intro para needs work too, maybe just need to add an extra sentence at the end, but will see what I come up with there. Then will draft out a new section as suggested above and put it here first for comment. As I haven't got much by way of citations will probably just add a "more citations needed" tag to it also maybe an "expand" tag as well to encourage other authors who know more about it to add citations and to expand it. Obviously don't want it to be a huge long section, but - could be a few paragraphs anyway so long as not getting too far away from the relevance to the metronome article.


 * Basic motivation for having at least a short section of this type is - typically musicians when they play music along with a metronome (i.e. not using metronome technique particularly) - use it mainly to deal with timing and tempo glitches and rushing and dragging. So - if you criticize metronome use, or even, just say it isn't the whole story - then the question is "What then replaces the metronome" - so do need to say a bit about how you work with timing and tempo glitches without a metronome. It doesn't seem right to have a section on criticism of metronome use and say nothing about how musicians deal with timing issues and glitches if you don't use a metronome. Robert Walker (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Roger, done a first draft of the suggested new section, see below Robert Walker (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternatives to Metronome Use - Draft
Just trying to work on this a bit. But not sure how to do it. This is my best attempt so far.

Alternatives to Metronome Use
If you decide you don't want to use the metronome, you need a way to work on timing and tempo glitches, and rushing and dragging without it's help. These ideas may also be useful as a complimentary approach along with metronome technique.

One starting point is to notice that you rely on a sense of rhythm to perform ordinary activities such as walking, running, hammering nails or chopping vegetables. Even speech and thought has a rhythm of sorts. So one way to work on rhythms is to work on bringing these into your music, becoming a "rhythm antenna" in Andrew Lewis's words. Until the nineteenth century in Europe, people used to sing as they worked, in time to the rhythms of their work. Musical rhythms were part of daily life, Cecil Sharp collected some of these songs before they were forgotten. For more about this see Work song and Sea shanties. In many parts of the world music is an important part of daily life even today. There are many accounts of people (especially tribal people) who sing frequently and spontaneously in their daily life, as they work, and as they engage in other activities.

Singing as you work is one way to bring the natural fluid rhythms of daily life into music. You can also use any of the many exercises that have been developed for metronome technique; just replace the metronome with rhythms you generate yourself in your everyday activities. You can clap or click or articulate tonguing patterns in time with your activity, just as you do with the metronome. You can deliberately play ahead, behind, or in time with the rhythm of your activity. Similarly you can do any of the other metronome exercises - play polyrhythmically with your rhythm, shift your clicks gradually away from the rhythm of your activity, and back to it again, drift from one beat to the next, and so on. In this way you can do many of the exercises described in books on metronome technique, but with the rhythms of walking, running etc. taking the place of the metronome.

Another thing you can do is to play your music in your mind's ear along with the rhythms of your walking or other daily life rhythms. Other techniques include hearing music in your mind's ear first before you play it. You can deal with timing and tempo glitches by learning to hear a perfect performance in your mind's ear first.

In some styles of music such as early music Inegales it can be appropriate to use a different approach that doesn't work so much with a sense of inner pulse and instead works on ideas of gestures and is more closely related to rhythms of speech and poetry. Ideas from this approach can be useful for all styles of music.

The basic ideas are -
 * Notes should be subtly unequal - having no three notes the same helps to keep the music alive and interesting and helps prevent any feeling of sameness and boredom in the music - the idea of "Entasis"


 * Notes and musical phrases can be organized in gestures - particular patterns of rhythm that come naturally - rather than strict measures.
 * Individual notes can be delayed slightly - when you expect a particular note e.g. at the end of a musical phrase - just waiting a moment or two before playing the note:


 * Notes played together can be allowed to go somewhat out of time with each other in a care-free fashion "Sans souci".

This just touches on some of the ideas, for more details, see "The Craft of Musical Communication"

Comments
It's just the best I can do so far, and interested in any suggestions of improvements or better ways to do it. Fascinating subject, but a bit hard to find a lot of material on it online. Only have your original reference for the entasis etc. techniques.

Also would be good to have better references for the songs people used to sing as they work or walk before the Industrial Revolution - also still used widely, especially by tribal people to this day world-wide - the Wikipedia articles on these subjects are rather short and inadequate, just stubs really - it would be good for instance to have examples of the songs sung for particular common types of activity.

For instance there must be many songs meant to be sung while walking trails, to help with the rhythm of the walk - a whole genre of music surely. The only thing I can find about it though is the entry on the Australian Aborigine Songlines which I'm not sure if it is the same thing - at any rate a lot more than just a simple walking song. Can't find anything on songs that are just used for singing while you walk on a long journey. It's a minor thing really here - but would be good to have a nice link to link to on this subject of songs meant to be sung in time with daily life activities involving rhythms, such as work and walking or running. There is one good wikipedia article here, the one on Sea shanties - would be good to have more like that on other types of work / everyday life song.

Also - are there any important techniques for working with rhythms without a metronome which I've left out? Also does anyone have suggestions for good references particularly on methods of working on rhythms and tempo without a metronome to help with this section? Robert Walker (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There have been no comments yet, so I've just added it into the article with a refimprove template at the head of the section. Feel the article does need something on what you do if you decide not to use a metronome, or to complement metronome use, the section is surely needed, so this is just my best shot at it for now. Robert Walker (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * However, I've removed this section from the actual article for now, as it is a synthesis of ideas from Andrew Lewis's book, replacing the metronome by your own rhythms. He only suggests in his book doing these exercises with the metronome, so the idea of doing them with the rhythms of your activities I think in wikipedia would count as a synthesis and should probably be left out unless someone can come up with a reference to an author who talks about the idea of doing this. What do you think? Do say if you have ideas about this, or about other material that would be suitable for this seciton Robert Walker (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sine Metronome?
I don't see how the Sine Metronome is noteworthy enough for inclusion in this article. It appears to be some college students' class project and not any sort of commercially available product or major breakthrough in music. I'd remove it myself, but I'm not familiar enough with the topic to know if it should stay. Jet Jaguar (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's clearly original research which has no place in Wikipedia. Moreover the style used in that section looks awful, with bold text used as if someone wanted to emphazise its own name for 15 minutes of fame. I'll add a warning template and come back to remove the whole section plus image, unless someone shows up with real references. --isacdaavid 06:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've had discussions with the author, originally because his patent was relevant to my software, then out of mutual interest in each other's ideas. The author is a conductor. I can confirm that it is the result of his research while studying for a degree, and is also subject of a patent. I don't know what degree it was submitted for and can check with the author. I don't know if it was a separate research degree or research submitted as part fulfilment of his qualification as a conductor. However as far as I know there are no scholarly works on it - search in google scholar turns up nothing by the author Josan Aramayo.


 * I have refrained from joining this discussion or editing the section, because of my connection with the author and thought that there might be a COI.


 * I don't know if this is enough to confer notability on the topic or not. There is no doubt that it is scholarly research, or that it is a genuine technique. The instrument itself is I believe still work in progress and mainly exists as a demonstration in principle and not yet in extensive use, though the author has demonstrated with his tests that it can be used to conduct an orchestra.


 * If more information is needed, I can contact the author to ask him for information. As for the style of the section I am happy to rewrite to improve the style if it is thought notable enough for inclusion. The author of sine metronome has English as a second language which he doesn't speak fluently, and I suspect the same was true of whoever added the entry. Robert Walker (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sine Metronome is the first prototype that Josan Aramayo created when he was building the web editor Dot Conductor. Yes, he used it as a research project for his degree but it was something he started before, in fact the patent is from 2007 and he finished his degree in 2009. He continued researching till 2015, year of release for Dot Conductor. I do not know if my contribution helps but I would say that actually Sine metronome is patented in Spain ES2332342A1 and it never has been built as device, even as software. The author went from Sine metronome prototype to Dot Conductor. It is a 2D graphic design app on music oscillatory movement environment. I think the first in its kind. He was no more interested in Sine metronome, but it follows the same principles as Dot Conductor. An oscillatory movement in 2 sections where you can draw the shape, time and acceleration of each section. With Dot Conductor web editor you have the entire control of those parameters but with Sine Metronome you would have standard shapes. That would be the main difference between Sine Metronome and Dot Conductor. Any case, I think he has made a good contribution to the theory of music performance. It is not just a 15 minutes of Glory I think he has been in years of hell for 1 hour of Glory in 2017 during the presentation of Dot Conductor in Guggenheim Bilbao. There are some videos about it on internet. Any case this is history, It is an excellent contribution to the music using technology. I do not know why we need to discredit him. So, we can say that we have an environment where we can "write the music performance", think about, the music performance never has been written. That is a big achievement. Basically it is similar to the sound recording. You can create a shape from sound waves, then you have a vinyl disc. And then you can convert the shapes again in sounds. So similarly the performance can be drawn as a wave form. you convert the music performance parameters of tempo, character, dynamics (Intensity) and tension to movement parameters using an environment of Dot Conductor web editor to draw those movement parameters, an environment that uses a shape editor, a velocity editor to draw the accelerations and using the time editor. Any variation in the music performance parameters is converted to a movement parameter variation, and that is the key, so you have the absolute plasticity of the music expression converted to the plasticity of the movement. Same way we convert acoustic signals into electric signals using electromagnetic. If you think that only going up and going down is enough, then you will never understand what it is about all of this. You will lost a lot of details of the music performance. Nevertheless, as if a scientific experiment was, the author had the chance to prove it. In the concert for the 20th anniversary of Guggenheim, the author made a replica of Barber´s adagio that the famous conductor Sergiu Celibidache made with Munich Philharmonic in 1982, and he made Bilbao Symphony Orchestra to play with it, with the same Celibidache´s performance edited by the author using Don Conductor web editor and without the musician knowing that it was a 25 years earlier Celibidache´s performance. The result is astonishing. It seems the same. Saving the distances. It is also in internet. In my opinion Dot Conductor is not a metronome, but the prototype Sine metronome yes it is. the problem is that the author did not continue with it so by now it is not accessible. I think the problem in those cases is always money, and I wish to see it someday, but sadly there is never money for those kind of projects. Instead publicly discredit him saying that is a school research or he did it for 15 minute of glory and those kind of silly things we have an excellent change to know about him, he is alive, and I do not think he is getting any support.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinkevenson (talk • contribs) 22:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

"one needs to watch the precise moment where the pendulum is exactly vertical"
From the History section: In order to get the correct pulse with this kind of visual devices, one needs to watch the precise moment where the pendulum is exactly vertical, as the left and right positions are constantly changing due to the decreasing amplitude. Is there a citation for this? This does not make sense to me. Even though the amplitude is continually decreasing, the point of maximum extension has the same frequency as the vertical point, and of course is a lot easier to see. Omc (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the amplitude isn't decreasing. A practical metronome is clockwork, so it keeps a constant amplitude.
 * Secondly, "precise" is presumably being measured in time, rather than a position. As it's moving faster at the middle, this (assuming the limit is the bounds of spatially resolving where it is) then it's more precise to time it from there than when it's moving slowly out at the ends. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Metronome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604142446/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Music/MusicHistoryWestern/EarlyMusicMedievalRenaissance/?view=usa&ci=9780195189872 to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Music/MusicHistoryWestern/EarlyMusicMedievalRenaissance/?view=usa&ci=9780195189872
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604142446/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Music/MusicHistoryWestern/EarlyMusicMedievalRenaissance/?view=usa&ci=9780195189872 to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Music/MusicHistoryWestern/EarlyMusicMedievalRenaissance/?view=usa&ci=9780195189872
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121135320/http://www.musicalratio.com/gpage.html to http://www.musicalratio.com/gpage.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Jon Truelson
Truelson's revision of Franz's book seems to be self-published. Per WP:SPS (part of WP:V), self-published sources are generally not considered reliable. The original pamphlet (it's so short it barely qualifies as a book, tbh) was published by Yale University Press, but it still seems pretty niche. I also have concerns about the last paragraph's neutrality, and in any case it was too detailed for the lead section, so I removed it. The "views" section still has too many and too long quotations. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)