How Did You Learn/How Would You Teach the Concept of METER?

I'm curious how you've been taught about the concept of meter. It seems there are a plethora of ways to do it. So, how did you learn about meter? If you have taught meter, what is your method?

You mean BMP ? and how to be precise on tempos, the key (for me) in both cases, is to divide the time, as smaller the time periods are, easier to control.

A 40BPM piece you need to play well, you just count in 80 or 160, difficult measures you divide them all into the smallest one, like counting everything in demisemiquavers for instance, I posted about this once, with a graphic example but couldn't find it, is an old post.... anyway I think you do catch what I say.

Also, working with synthesizers, for instance, recording part of an electronic work, where the synths will play 100% precise, and I have to play along with the machine, has been a great practice on time precision.....

So, subdivide the time is what I do, I hope that's what you meant.

@ SYS

That's "tempo"... What I think he means by "meter" is 3/4, 4/4, 12/8...

Well, my prof used various musical examples to show how it is used. Then had us think for ourselves how we would explain it. The fact that we had to come up with our own explanation helped me really understand the concept better. He really emphasized on how varied it is and how much of it is only a mere concept to the human mind. I'm not sure if this helps. I can't precisely remember how he explained it though, but he even admitted it's a tricky subject. I don't think the explanation of division of beats, compound, simple meter, blah blah blah is difficult. It's just the concept of what it is (and what it can be) was tricky.

This is the definition he used online, but he said it can be arbitrary.

Meter - the aural perception of hierarchical patterns of rhythm. To be metric, you must hear a minimum of two levels of patterns (e.g., measures and beats). Patterns are formed by the perception of groupings of accents.

I found it easiest to learn (and teach it to others) by graphical example and practical part (the person has to play a simple pattern with hands on the table or such) Notation is good, even if a person doesn't read notes, it's easy to explain. You have a measure that is divided into 4 by vertical lines. In that every bar there is a single quarter note. You have 4 quarter notes in one measure, thus the meter is 4/4.

My first piano teacher (who taught me more theory than piano) taught me in a way that still makes sense to me today, though I no longer need primitive methods over 15 years later. She showed me how I could find my pulse by putting two fingers into the side of my neck, right next to my windpipe, the same as you learn in a cpr course or health class. At 8 years old, this was brand new to me, so when I could feel my pulse, it was exciting. Then, with my other hand, she had me tap on the piano every time my heart beat. Then she had me count out loud. Random numbers: 4, 1, 7, 16....and she instructed me that when I got to the final number, start back at 1. Then she had me do it without feeling my pulse. And voila, I was counting in odd and complex meters (along with the "simple" ones) without even realizing it. She then showed me what those counts looked like on paper. A barline, quarter notes, then another barline with a colon in front of it, which i later found out was a repeat sign. So i counted to 4, 7, 12 and then started back from one. Etc etc etc so on and so forth. This was day 2 of my piano lessons. She also taught me tempo by timing my pulse to a metronome. First resting.....then i got up and did 10 jumping jacks and checked again. And we timed how many beats were in a minute. She said music was related to medicine this way, that BPM was beats per minute for your heart rate, or your song speed. Etc etc. Looking back, She was a great teacher. Only went to her 3 more times cause she kept canceling lessons and then she just disappeared.

It depends on the level of cognitive ability of the student.

For younger students (like beginning band students) who have more trouble thinking abstractly, it's easiest to teach by ROTE, EXAMPLE, and emphasizing SOUND well before written notation. Sound maps are definitely a good tool for this. It's simplest to demonstrate and perform examples of each type of meter (4/4, 3/4, 2/4, 6/8, etc), as the transfer of the abstract knowledge doesn't come as naturally. Definitely teach the theory as you go, but don't expect them to be able to do more than simple fact regurgitation on the subject. That's still helpful, though, so don't see it as a bad thing.

For students who are older and able to think abstractly, of course it's still preferrable to demonstrate and perform examples and sounds before written notation, but you can explain the theory of beat divisions much earlier and obviously they will "get it" sooner.

I just think of it all as stress -- Big small small Big small small vs. Big small BIG small (or if you're in new orleans small small Big BIG).

Rote memorization gets wonky when you introduce the idea that time signature ≠ meter.

To teach it to anyone: first the notion of beats. Have them count out beats. 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 or 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4 so they get the idea of the each measure having a certain amount of beats, all returning to the 1 (or downbeat, as you will eventually teach the student to call it). Then teach the concept of subdivisions. Depending on how smart the student is you could do this in a variety of ways. Easiest is to just repeat the numbers, have them say them twice as fast. 11, 22, 33. 1 and 2 and 3 and works just as well

I dunno, just as simply as it can be explained would be best, particularly for children. Then once they get the idea of meter you can introduce specific time signatures, measures, and the different note values.

I honestly can't remember if I was ever taught the concept of meter specifically - I know we addressed it in my college theory class, but that really assumed we already understood the concept of meter and were just reviewing more complex ways to deal with it. I would say, though, that I do think listening to examples is probably the best way, at least for me. Have students listen to a piece and find the beat or pulse, just on a single scale. Then ask them to determine if there is any beat or pulse that is consistently stronger, and work with that. Something along those lines. Obviously the important part is to find strong examples that clearly illustrate differences in meter (like compound vs. simple meter, etc.) And then beyond that, yeah, it probably does depend more on where the student is in his or her musical background and cognitive development.