Recently I bought a metronome for my playing! And i was wondering to what extent I should use it and for what sort of things. Mostly i bought it for scales and technical work, but is it also good to use it while playing/learning pieces?

Secondly, my teacher has often told me that I have a very good sense of natural rhythm and timing , but my brother (who is also musical) often watches and listens to my playing commenting that the timing is not "bang on" So how important is it for the timing to be exactly right on spot? Or can it sometimes vary just a bit. I don't see how I'm supposed to get it 100% every time I play, but should I even strive for it to be that perfect???

My teacher tells me to use the metronome at least 80-90% of the time when I am practicing my pieces. Especially when I am first learning them. When I first start practicing a piece, I put the metronome on a very slow tempo, slow enough that I can get all the notes and rhythms right and practice a small section. Then I slowly speed up the tempo when I can play the section consistently right.

Practice with the metronome does help you have a steady rhythm, and it also forces you to count and get the right rhythm when first learning a piece. But I have found it does even more than that. It helps me solidify memory after I have learned a piece.

I think being able to get the rhythms spot on is good. You SHOULD try to get them perfect, and it IS possible, especially if you use a metronome to learn things. However, there are times when musicality calls for a deviation from strict metronome rhythm. I'm talking about things such as rubato, ritardando, even stresses and pauses sometimes. But it helps to have a good steady foundation first.

Personally, I would use the metronome only to get an idea of the general tempo of the piece initially. Your inner sense of tempo should take over after that.
Timing is a personal matter - your music should not be played metronomically, like a computer.
Your brother might have the mistaken impression that all pieces of music should start out at one tempo, and never vary until the very last note. This is usually not the case, and makes for very uninteresting music-making. My and Beethoven's opinon, of course.

Rubatoooooo. I generally use a metronome when I am getting the piece under my fingers and up to speed, after that I cut the metronome and work on musicality.

Interesting anecdote, I have an older non-digital metronome and one day I set it to 60 bpm and timed it against a clock, turns out it did not beat true and would lose about a beat a minute. Needless to say everyone out there without a digital metronome, it may be a little slow!

Use it took get the steady tempo, then stop to find out where the tempo should be altered. Don't trust metronome markings on music though. Don't ever.

I feel that one of the major advantages of a metronome is to overcome those parts where we use to hesitate, so it forces you to have a constant flow on the playing. Therefore, it has a use on learning a piece, not only for technical issues.

Quite often when I'm learn a piece, right after I can play it slow with the metronome without hesitation, the speed increases naturaly.

Metronome is good to build a flowing and the memorization of the piece.

Using a metronome is good for practicing music pieces. However, it tends to sound too mechanical. For scales and exercises, I would recommend using rhythmic tracks. The one I've used are in a variety of modern music styles. It will help you develop rhythm and timing. Best of all, the tracks were created with a drone in each key to allow you to check your intonation and work on your ear training. This is invaluable in helping you to play or sing in tune and to hear intervals.Check it out.

If your playing is too close to the metronome's beat, it will be called "metronomic" (which is not good). Even Baroque music require some flexibility in the rhythm. It's a question of appropriate degree.

OTOH I don't think this should be something of much concern to relatively new piano students(whereas solid rhythm should be).

You mean check out the ones you sell, don't you? Check the forum rules for self-promotion.

Ken

It has been almost twenty years since I last used a metronome during practice.

Well, then, it's about time!

Pun intended? >:)

This word "pun" makes me laugh a bit, because is the same word in portuguese to.... well..... fart

I personally have to use a metronome at times, because I'm just two nervous to keep a good rhythm. It also is indispensable for promoting evenness(how else can you make bumbling arpeggios of Un Sospiro evaporate into a cloud like wisp), they also force you to listen to every note which is something beginners who skip Bach and Mozart loose focus of.

Sounds like just the thing for those wobbly pitch problems while playing piano...

That's just silly. If metronome marks are supplied by the composer, they should be taken as a valid part of score. And I've seen scores where the only indication of tempo at all is a metronome mark.

I have 2 metronomes: an old fashion swing type and a digital one. I much prefer the digital one: easier to use. However, I only use a metronome to 'set' a tempo; to get an idea of the beat. In essence, I set the metronome, let it 'beat' for a few measures while maybe I sing a part of the score; then turn it off and I play. My believe is that the inner rhythm is what should control my playing. That and 'listening' to my playing. If there's a section that 'feels' I'm consistently slowing down or speeding up, I then set the metronome to the correct beat, listen and maybe tap to it; turn it off and then try to play at that speed. It always works in getting a section in the correct rhythm/speed.

I suppose if the only indication of tempo is a metronome mark, that is supposed to mean that you should never vary the tempo? This might be true for some of the more modern pieces which are designed to be rhythmically repetitive, but a sarabande, a Haydn sonata - what happens in this instance?
I've seen plenty of pieces of music without a metronome mark, and without any tempo indications (many before the invention of the metronome - some after it). I guess - it's unplayable without guidance from the composer! God forbid a musican have the intelligence, experience and taste to determine the tempo on his own, without needing the composer to hold his hand. Most music is very clear, from it's compositional style, as to it's tempo.

Only later did certain composers become so picky and so individualistic in their output and way of expressing themselves that the metronome was needed to point to a specific beginning tempo. Beethoven, for example, one of the most individual and demanding of composers, specifically wrote that the metronome should only be used to set the initial tempo of the piece - it is to be discarded after that, because "sentiment has it's own tempo".
He even makes fun of the metronome in his 8th symphony. The metronome was needed for some of his ideas, however, because he felt the tempo ordinarri were too restricting on what a composer was trying to say. He did expect some common sense from performers, however.

The metronome is great for beginning students as a constant presence in the background of their playing, but it is only useful as an initial tempo-setter for experienced musicians, in my opinion. Mozart, Bach, and others got along without it just fine. I think many of us can, as well.

In the end - it comes down to the individual. If you need the metronome - by all means, use it!

try Beeth.op.106, or Alkan op.15 for that matter...

My opinion of metronomes is that they are best used to test
sledge hammers. The metronome was apparently invented as
a tool for composers, during the time when everyone composed the
music they played. But as concert pianists began to play from
memory in concerts, and no longer composed their music, something
had to be done to put all those metronomes still being manufactured
to use. Someone then apparently came up with the idea of (mis-)
using them to keep time when playing. The idea caught on, and
metronomes are still being (mis-)used in that way till this day.

The whole idea when playing is to not play in strict time, that is,
to play rubato, which is the only way to get an impressive performance.
Thus, where does the metronome fit in in this?

Ligeti composed a 'good' piece for them, a 100 in total, probabely to get rid of them for good

The number of cases where composer-supplied metronome markings leading to extreme tempos are too much to ignore. Like Chopin's etudes, the Hammerklavier sonata (and what I tried to do before posting), Scriabin etudes and the like.

Whether you like them or not, or follow them or not, they are still part of the score. Sure, there are cases where they may be questionable, but those exceptions don't prove anything in general.

Of course!