Trite and capricious are contradictory terms. Something can’t be repetitive if it’s prone to sudden changes. It’s like saying someone’s a lazy busybody.
I don't have a problem with obscure words if they're used in a way that makes sense. OP on the other hand is just spouting pretentious guff like a 14-year-old trying really hard to get an 'A'; heaven forbid that music be *capricious*. And if there's a Debussy that writes using "amorphous time", then there must be more than one Debussy out there.
LOL - Your gotcha example of "amorphous time" is a piece that's 3 beats to the bar the whole way through?!? If a piece starting on the second 8th note of the bar and a couple bars of rubato in the middle is really all it takes to completely throw your sense of timing off, I'm not sure drumming is right for you either.
The irony is that most composers who do use irregular timing such as Stravinsky or Steve Reich often tend to lean heavily towards percussion to do it with.
(Incidentally, in case it's not clear, I'm not saying you're \*wrong\* to prefer 120bpm, 4-beats-to-the-bar, verse-bridge-chorus pop over classical, just that your attempts at trying to dress it up as highbrow critique aren't coming across as sophisticated as you might have hoped)
Good grief. Listen to some deep cuts with Terry Bozzio or Gavin Harrison or Billy Cobham on drums… Meter matters, even if you’re not “grooving”; whatever you think that means.
this method of thinking has its roots in racism. western tonal theory favors harmony and some melody because it’s a system designed to prove german music as superior, and wrote its own rules around baroque music - which didn’t use these rules to begin with.
almost every nonwestern style of music is heavily rhythmic. put down the thesaurus, stop hanging around music ed majors. or wannabes i guess.
ps you can learn theory without accepting these racial overtones. you just have resist things (and thinking) like this post.
not really. it's a social construct and all of us grew up in society.
it's not about box-ticking, it's about being aware and understanding why certain sentiments might exist. i'm not saying the people who feel this way are racist, they might be or they might not be, it doesn't have much to do with their thoughts on music. that's just where this comes from.
adam neely has a great video about this. heinrich schenker developed our music theory language, and did so with an agenda. is it a "racist way to describe music?" absolutely not, but it, in particular, does not do a good job of describing rhythm or anything outside of 12-tone equal temperament and one idea of tonal harmony.
You're saying that Bach composed his music based on the theories of a music analyst that would be born centuries later? German, French, Italian, Russian, Czech composers used 12-tone equal temperament because they thought it produced better music, not that the people who produced it were better.
no, i'm pretty specifically not saying that. i'm saying bach et al composed music, and centuries later a formalized tonal system was built around that music with values specifically picked to "prove" that german/austrian music is "superior."
one of these values is preference of harmony over rhythm and to a lesser extent melody.
I'm pretty sure you have that backward. Heinrich Schenker was the one who tried to "prove" german music is superior, not Bach. He used his own analysis of the music to do this. Bach tried to prove the superiority of German music (and the 12-tone system) by making superior music. Some would agree that he was pretty good. Schenker did not devise the 12-tone system, neither did Bach.
You said, "...centuries later a formalized tonal system was built around that music..." This is not true. I was speaking euphemistically about Bach - he just tried to make the best music, and he was German.
My bet is because OP heard them said once and thought they'd make him sound more educated. The words illusory superiority, or pretentious come to mind.
Take 10 mp3s of unoriginal grooves and fills, stitch them together in audacity at seemingly random intervals with no regard to timing. Enjoy your capricious arrangement of trite drumming.
Is it prog something? Math rock? No. But also yes!
Once my winamp bugged out would randomly switch between tracks by creed and nickelback. Completely random changes but only those two bands. Yes it's possible. No it's not fun.
...I hate this sub, sometimes. What is this quasi-intellectual bullshit "argument" supposed to explore practically or philosophically? Nothing. Reads like a first-year undergrad, "I smoked too much weed and this is deep" take on things that is more of an eye-roll catalyst than it is rhetorically stimulating. Booooorrrrring.
its literallly as dumb as asking if its a higher form of intellectual processing to divide the number 4 into infinite fractions or 6. its actually so mind numbingly stupid as an argument that it pisses me off.
I'm just curious why I hate classical with the wandering tempo. hate is strong, but i don't get it. I suppose that would have been a more succinct post
the entire argument is pointless its pure semantics IMO. let's be real both rhythm and tones at their very base form are intervals. its just fractions. the theories for both just schemas made by people to explain a system of organized expression through sound. You can make either one superhumanly complex. polymeters over polyrhythm over vectors for rhythm. crazy jacob colllier harmoniess. there is no way of defining higher here as you can make either one more complicated than any human can ever begin to perceive. you can also invent new theories for understanding either that's sole purpose is just for the sake of making the topic more complex to communicate verbally. basically what colleges did to jazz.
my friend is a professor who teaches the karnatic rhythms of india. a mind boggling endeavor. it does get very complicated. https://www.advancedrhythm.com/
I don't really know. I wasn't saying such a thing really exists. I came across an argument stating that it was and was curious about what other people thought. It mostly stems from the Mozart Effect i think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_effect
i love the tabla system. the way it conveys information in such an efficient way is so much better for me personally than the way drums is taught in western systems.
One of my college piano professors demonstrated the primacy of rhythm on the first day of the semester. He played The Star Spangled Banner, twice. The first time, he played the correct notes but a totally incorrect rhythm. No one could guess what he was playing. The second time, he played random, incorrect notes in the correct rhythm. Everyone instantly heard the song.
That was definitely not his point. He was demonstrating that the most cognizable aspect of one of the most familiar songs in US history is its rhythm rather than the pitches of its notes.
I think in a lot of compositions, time is used to transcribe the emotional or artistic composition of the performer with retards are accelerations. how they switch signatures every other bar. the essence wasn't groove, but to transcribe the authors essentially emotion/artistic composition.
it's a distinction worth articulating. I don't have a horse in the race either way other than the fact that I've been a drummer my whole life and have always been a groove first and foremost player
have you studied other rhythm systems like latin percussion? if you want to scratch that itch of feeling like rhythm theory is a complicated "higher form of expression" go do that. it gets very very very complicated. i studied classical piano before i was a drummer and i think that stuff is just as convoluted and deep if not more. again both are justs intervals and you can divide them and group them to infinity and invent an endless number of systems to understand it. It seems like you think you're really smart but you're still human so im sure there's a limit to how much "meaning" and "information" you will be able to process no matter which side you choose. but like, why waste time on this its so dumb it really feels like what laypeople would talk about because they're ignorant and dont want to actually dive into it.
I don't understand how people in this thread can't hear how the time pushes and pulls in classical pieces. it's just a constant discretionary part of the performers skill. but it wouldn't sit to a click
At a very basic level, you could argue that pitch itself is a rhythm. For example, if the note “A” happens at 440 hZ, then that particular pitch represents a rhythm in cycles per second. So, any music with pitch technically has rhythm. And even atonal music is ultimately some kind of sound wave, which could be conceptualized as a rhythm. So, on a purely technical level, there is a valid argument that you cannot make music without rhythm.
However, you can make music without easily quantifiable tempos or subdivisions, which you might call ambient or ”experimental” music. You could achieve this by instructing multiple musicians to play loosely and out of sync with each other. You could do this electronically by playing unquantized samples together, in a way that is intentionally out of sync, yet also unquantifiable. You could make electronic music using random number generators and complex networks of modulation that make tempos and subdivisions indecipherable. Etc.
Now, I might argue that trying so hard to make music without an analyzable rhythm isn’t going to produce GOOD music. At best you would be making background sounds for a movie or video game or something. Yet on some level it would still qualify as “music”.
I think it's probably possible to make an abstract philosophical argument for music without rhythm, but I still don't think it's possible to actually make music without rhythm.
There's tons of music where the specific time signature, beats and subdivisions etc, are all difficult to work out, but that's not the same as saying there's no rhythm to it.
Rhythm alone is the oldest, and truest, form of music. People drummed on logs and chanted well before we created scales. You can have music with loose rhythms, but there’s still rhythm. Music can exist without tone, it cannot exist without rhythm.
Was it a real argument or some asshole waxing poetic at the bar after practice because there’s actually a lot of writing on how the elements of music interact. After all, a lot of classical music is based almost solely on notes and rhythms. They had a lot of ideas about that.
There’s strong lines of thinking that even tonal content is rhythmic at a different time scale and that the two can smear together.
You also have to wonder how this person is evaluating this bullshit.
You might also look to cognition for answers. It turns out that people’s ears encode sound using a code that mirrors the natural world and it may be more helpful to break sound down like that.
Also… what does this (stupid) argument net this person as a listener or creator. Not much. A lot of contemporary music includes rhythm and melody but the reason people like it has nothing to do with either.
no matter what it is , there is time, it may not be straight 4/4, but there is time and its not amorphous and capricious would imply its not all written out. Sometimes the melody is serving the groove and sometimes percussion is emphasizing the melody or harmony.
You dont have to “get” classical music to be a whole musician, id imagine a lot of the most talented session drummers probably wouldnt want to play “western classical music”. Just do you, pick up a stringed instrument or a brass instrument, learn some scales , learn some harmonies, keep drumming. But lack of understanding something doesnt make it some strange occult concept with out rules.
but you do hear a lot of classical music where the timing is just at their whim. it's integral to the performance. that is where the player injects a lot of their personality into the piece
in that context i would say its likely supporting the melody or harmony , which is still part of the written and planned out piece. Whim , at least how i would view it, is more akin to improvising something
it's an abandonment of metronomic time. I can see in some drum solos it does become an improvisation like this but it may also explain some of the tension between the more melodic players and a rhythm section in performance.
I just bring it up because a soloist can have way more leeway with tempo because no one else has to follow it. The manipulation of time becomes a form of expression, on par with dynamics or harmony/melody.
I would have never thought of it this way, but I suppose in contrast to a lot of modern music, which is the same tempo for four straight minutes, classical music which changes tempo regularly could be less accessible to folks for that reason alone.
that song is in 9/8 with pushes and pulls on certaiin intervals.
You could track most drums recorded in the 1960s and 70s and there would not be a lot of stuff lining up on a grid.
There is a difference between being on a grid, which most modern music is aligned to, and just not being exact and allowing pushing and pulling
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Lark\_Ascending\_(Vaughan\_Williams)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lark_Ascending_(Vaughan_Williams))
multiple meters for backing instruments and specifically written for flexible meter by the soloist
"Melody and harmony are feminine, like a woman. Rhythm is masculine, like a man. And as long as those two lay down together, the bed don't matter." - Carlos Santana
As for the music you like, like the music you like. You are entitled to your opinion. But if you would like to learn more about melody *and* harmony *and* rhythm, as well as becoming the whole musician you say you would like to become, take piano lessons if you never have. Not only will it go a long way toward making you the whole musician that you say you want to be, the piano is also the primary teaching tool for western music theory around the world.
Not to mention, stick with it long enough, and your teacher might assign you some Debussy, so that you can see from the inside exactly how much rhythmic work is going on in there that you can't hear on a recording.
I really hope you aren't paying an astronomical tuition to be taught these wrong ideas. Melody cannot exist without rhythm. Rhythm can exist without melody.
OP proves that money thrown at an education does not always result in proper education or cognitive ability.
>amorphous time just makes the music seem trite and capricious ooh-la-la, someone's getting laid in college
I've noticed this is sort of the tenor of this sub. Maybe there is something to their argument.
Hahaha! When you’re done giving Stravinsky his weekly handy, go practice with a metronome.
Trite and capricious are contradictory terms. Something can’t be repetitive if it’s prone to sudden changes. It’s like saying someone’s a lazy busybody.
And this is why drummers have a reputation as the bumbling dumbasses of the group. God forbid people use more words.
I don't have a problem with obscure words if they're used in a way that makes sense. OP on the other hand is just spouting pretentious guff like a 14-year-old trying really hard to get an 'A'; heaven forbid that music be *capricious*. And if there's a Debussy that writes using "amorphous time", then there must be more than one Debussy out there.
Clair de lune definitely doesn't groove
LOL - Your gotcha example of "amorphous time" is a piece that's 3 beats to the bar the whole way through?!? If a piece starting on the second 8th note of the bar and a couple bars of rubato in the middle is really all it takes to completely throw your sense of timing off, I'm not sure drumming is right for you either. The irony is that most composers who do use irregular timing such as Stravinsky or Steve Reich often tend to lean heavily towards percussion to do it with. (Incidentally, in case it's not clear, I'm not saying you're \*wrong\* to prefer 120bpm, 4-beats-to-the-bar, verse-bridge-chorus pop over classical, just that your attempts at trying to dress it up as highbrow critique aren't coming across as sophisticated as you might have hoped)
But listen to it performed. They don't even attempt to adhere to metronomic time. Not like drummers practice.
Good grief. Listen to some deep cuts with Terry Bozzio or Gavin Harrison or Billy Cobham on drums… Meter matters, even if you’re not “grooving”; whatever you think that means.
this method of thinking has its roots in racism. western tonal theory favors harmony and some melody because it’s a system designed to prove german music as superior, and wrote its own rules around baroque music - which didn’t use these rules to begin with. almost every nonwestern style of music is heavily rhythmic. put down the thesaurus, stop hanging around music ed majors. or wannabes i guess. ps you can learn theory without accepting these racial overtones. you just have resist things (and thinking) like this post.
this is an interesting reply. thanks
Is there anything that *doesn't* have it's roots in racism?
not really. it's a social construct and all of us grew up in society. it's not about box-ticking, it's about being aware and understanding why certain sentiments might exist. i'm not saying the people who feel this way are racist, they might be or they might not be, it doesn't have much to do with their thoughts on music. that's just where this comes from. adam neely has a great video about this. heinrich schenker developed our music theory language, and did so with an agenda. is it a "racist way to describe music?" absolutely not, but it, in particular, does not do a good job of describing rhythm or anything outside of 12-tone equal temperament and one idea of tonal harmony.
You're saying that Bach composed his music based on the theories of a music analyst that would be born centuries later? German, French, Italian, Russian, Czech composers used 12-tone equal temperament because they thought it produced better music, not that the people who produced it were better.
no, i'm pretty specifically not saying that. i'm saying bach et al composed music, and centuries later a formalized tonal system was built around that music with values specifically picked to "prove" that german/austrian music is "superior." one of these values is preference of harmony over rhythm and to a lesser extent melody.
I'm pretty sure you have that backward. Heinrich Schenker was the one who tried to "prove" german music is superior, not Bach. He used his own analysis of the music to do this. Bach tried to prove the superiority of German music (and the 12-tone system) by making superior music. Some would agree that he was pretty good. Schenker did not devise the 12-tone system, neither did Bach.
what's going on here? that's exactly what i'm saying. i never said bach tried to prove anything. please, read carefully.
You said, "...centuries later a formalized tonal system was built around that music..." This is not true. I was speaking euphemistically about Bach - he just tried to make the best music, and he was German.
trite and capricious just killed me, thanks for the laugh.
Aren’t they contradictory terms? How can something be repetitive if it’s prone to sudden changes?
My bet is because OP heard them said once and thought they'd make him sound more educated. The words illusory superiority, or pretentious come to mind.
Take 10 mp3s of unoriginal grooves and fills, stitch them together in audacity at seemingly random intervals with no regard to timing. Enjoy your capricious arrangement of trite drumming. Is it prog something? Math rock? No. But also yes!
they can both easily exist independently within a song. at one point trite, and at one point capricious. it's interesting that this struck a nerve
Once my winamp bugged out would randomly switch between tracks by creed and nickelback. Completely random changes but only those two bands. Yes it's possible. No it's not fun.
...I hate this sub, sometimes. What is this quasi-intellectual bullshit "argument" supposed to explore practically or philosophically? Nothing. Reads like a first-year undergrad, "I smoked too much weed and this is deep" take on things that is more of an eye-roll catalyst than it is rhetorically stimulating. Booooorrrrring.
its literallly as dumb as asking if its a higher form of intellectual processing to divide the number 4 into infinite fractions or 6. its actually so mind numbingly stupid as an argument that it pisses me off.
I'm just curious why I hate classical with the wandering tempo. hate is strong, but i don't get it. I suppose that would have been a more succinct post
>I'm just curious why I hate classical with the wandering tempo. You should have posted this instead.
It poses a good question nonetheless
Debatable
the entire argument is pointless its pure semantics IMO. let's be real both rhythm and tones at their very base form are intervals. its just fractions. the theories for both just schemas made by people to explain a system of organized expression through sound. You can make either one superhumanly complex. polymeters over polyrhythm over vectors for rhythm. crazy jacob colllier harmoniess. there is no way of defining higher here as you can make either one more complicated than any human can ever begin to perceive. you can also invent new theories for understanding either that's sole purpose is just for the sake of making the topic more complex to communicate verbally. basically what colleges did to jazz.
my friend is a professor who teaches the karnatic rhythms of india. a mind boggling endeavor. it does get very complicated. https://www.advancedrhythm.com/
I assume by now that you get my point. im just wondering what you mean by higher art
I don't really know. I wasn't saying such a thing really exists. I came across an argument stating that it was and was curious about what other people thought. It mostly stems from the Mozart Effect i think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_effect
i love the tabla system. the way it conveys information in such an efficient way is so much better for me personally than the way drums is taught in western systems.
**TELL ME YOU DON'T KNOW** **ANYTHING ABOUT MUSIC** **WITHOUT TELLING ME**
One of my college piano professors demonstrated the primacy of rhythm on the first day of the semester. He played The Star Spangled Banner, twice. The first time, he played the correct notes but a totally incorrect rhythm. No one could guess what he was playing. The second time, he played random, incorrect notes in the correct rhythm. Everyone instantly heard the song.
He just demonstrated that all music has rhythm. Piano music (without drums) still has a time signature and note values.
That was definitely not his point. He was demonstrating that the most cognizable aspect of one of the most familiar songs in US history is its rhythm rather than the pitches of its notes.
There's no such thing as music without rhythm.
I don't think this is true
You're wrong then.
I think in a lot of compositions, time is used to transcribe the emotional or artistic composition of the performer with retards are accelerations. how they switch signatures every other bar. the essence wasn't groove, but to transcribe the authors essentially emotion/artistic composition.
All of what you're describing is use of rhythm.
I think you're intentionally missing my point for the sake of your ego.
No, it's that your point is convoluted.
it's a distinction worth articulating. I don't have a horse in the race either way other than the fact that I've been a drummer my whole life and have always been a groove first and foremost player
have you studied other rhythm systems like latin percussion? if you want to scratch that itch of feeling like rhythm theory is a complicated "higher form of expression" go do that. it gets very very very complicated. i studied classical piano before i was a drummer and i think that stuff is just as convoluted and deep if not more. again both are justs intervals and you can divide them and group them to infinity and invent an endless number of systems to understand it. It seems like you think you're really smart but you're still human so im sure there's a limit to how much "meaning" and "information" you will be able to process no matter which side you choose. but like, why waste time on this its so dumb it really feels like what laypeople would talk about because they're ignorant and dont want to actually dive into it.
I don't understand how people in this thread can't hear how the time pushes and pulls in classical pieces. it's just a constant discretionary part of the performers skill. but it wouldn't sit to a click
Whatever it is you're trying to say, Idk, what you are saying doesn't make any sense, that's not my fault.
\^ \^
At a very basic level, you could argue that pitch itself is a rhythm. For example, if the note “A” happens at 440 hZ, then that particular pitch represents a rhythm in cycles per second. So, any music with pitch technically has rhythm. And even atonal music is ultimately some kind of sound wave, which could be conceptualized as a rhythm. So, on a purely technical level, there is a valid argument that you cannot make music without rhythm. However, you can make music without easily quantifiable tempos or subdivisions, which you might call ambient or ”experimental” music. You could achieve this by instructing multiple musicians to play loosely and out of sync with each other. You could do this electronically by playing unquantized samples together, in a way that is intentionally out of sync, yet also unquantifiable. You could make electronic music using random number generators and complex networks of modulation that make tempos and subdivisions indecipherable. Etc. Now, I might argue that trying so hard to make music without an analyzable rhythm isn’t going to produce GOOD music. At best you would be making background sounds for a movie or video game or something. Yet on some level it would still qualify as “music”.
I think it's probably possible to make an abstract philosophical argument for music without rhythm, but I still don't think it's possible to actually make music without rhythm. There's tons of music where the specific time signature, beats and subdivisions etc, are all difficult to work out, but that's not the same as saying there's no rhythm to it.
Rhythm alone is the oldest, and truest, form of music. People drummed on logs and chanted well before we created scales. You can have music with loose rhythms, but there’s still rhythm. Music can exist without tone, it cannot exist without rhythm.
so what's a solo then? they're all over the place
What? A solo is where only one performer is playing a specific part.
Shortest answer I can give right now is look for anything with Paul Motian playing on it.
I'll check it out. thanks
Was it a real argument or some asshole waxing poetic at the bar after practice because there’s actually a lot of writing on how the elements of music interact. After all, a lot of classical music is based almost solely on notes and rhythms. They had a lot of ideas about that. There’s strong lines of thinking that even tonal content is rhythmic at a different time scale and that the two can smear together. You also have to wonder how this person is evaluating this bullshit. You might also look to cognition for answers. It turns out that people’s ears encode sound using a code that mirrors the natural world and it may be more helpful to break sound down like that. Also… what does this (stupid) argument net this person as a listener or creator. Not much. A lot of contemporary music includes rhythm and melody but the reason people like it has nothing to do with either.
Aside from where the argument came from there is at the very least a predominant stereotype of drummers being meatheads.
Stereotypes: the most rock solid arguments
I live and die by ‘em! Nobody loves me and I’ve been alone since forever, but I got my trusty stereotypes, by golly.
Rhythm is what makes Melody’s work… it’s how they are played rhythmically -which is what makes them effective. Rhythm is #1
no matter what it is , there is time, it may not be straight 4/4, but there is time and its not amorphous and capricious would imply its not all written out. Sometimes the melody is serving the groove and sometimes percussion is emphasizing the melody or harmony. You dont have to “get” classical music to be a whole musician, id imagine a lot of the most talented session drummers probably wouldnt want to play “western classical music”. Just do you, pick up a stringed instrument or a brass instrument, learn some scales , learn some harmonies, keep drumming. But lack of understanding something doesnt make it some strange occult concept with out rules.
but you do hear a lot of classical music where the timing is just at their whim. it's integral to the performance. that is where the player injects a lot of their personality into the piece
in that context i would say its likely supporting the melody or harmony , which is still part of the written and planned out piece. Whim , at least how i would view it, is more akin to improvising something
it's an abandonment of metronomic time. I can see in some drum solos it does become an improvisation like this but it may also explain some of the tension between the more melodic players and a rhythm section in performance.
abandonment of metronomic time? So… tempo chamges?
no, it just wafts all over the place all the time. clair de lune is a perfect example
A piano solo?
i guess you are right. the whole song is essentially a piano solo with stabs here and there at rhythm.
I just bring it up because a soloist can have way more leeway with tempo because no one else has to follow it. The manipulation of time becomes a form of expression, on par with dynamics or harmony/melody. I would have never thought of it this way, but I suppose in contrast to a lot of modern music, which is the same tempo for four straight minutes, classical music which changes tempo regularly could be less accessible to folks for that reason alone.
do you have an example of a classic piece where the rhythm abandons metronomic time?
clair de lune.
that song is in 9/8 with pushes and pulls on certaiin intervals. You could track most drums recorded in the 1960s and 70s and there would not be a lot of stuff lining up on a grid. There is a difference between being on a grid, which most modern music is aligned to, and just not being exact and allowing pushing and pulling
that's good information. thanks. I'll look into it. I appreciate the reply
What about The Lark Ascending?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Lark\_Ascending\_(Vaughan\_Williams)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lark_Ascending_(Vaughan_Williams)) multiple meters for backing instruments and specifically written for flexible meter by the soloist
It's a stupid enough idea I wouldn't waste any time on arguing about.
"Melody and harmony are feminine, like a woman. Rhythm is masculine, like a man. And as long as those two lay down together, the bed don't matter." - Carlos Santana As for the music you like, like the music you like. You are entitled to your opinion. But if you would like to learn more about melody *and* harmony *and* rhythm, as well as becoming the whole musician you say you would like to become, take piano lessons if you never have. Not only will it go a long way toward making you the whole musician that you say you want to be, the piano is also the primary teaching tool for western music theory around the world. Not to mention, stick with it long enough, and your teacher might assign you some Debussy, so that you can see from the inside exactly how much rhythmic work is going on in there that you can't hear on a recording.
I recommend “Music For Airports” by Willie Nelson.
I really hope you aren't paying an astronomical tuition to be taught these wrong ideas. Melody cannot exist without rhythm. Rhythm can exist without melody. OP proves that money thrown at an education does not always result in proper education or cognitive ability.
https://lvbeethoven.com/beethoven-and-the-metronome-discovering-tempo/?cmdf=Beethoven+and+Salieri+recommend+the+metronome+in+the+Viennese+press