This is not about any individual so don't come roaring back....unless you think the shoe fits. Occasionally someone will post a tune that may have what some members believe is (or politely describe as) a 'timing' problem. In fact, most of the time it's not a timing problem so much as a rhythm problem. A timing problem is when you and the background tracks don't end up at the same place at the same time. Rhythm, although related, is more difficult to explain. That's because it's more about feeling than exact mathmatical spacing between notes. Most of us can tell who has it and who doesn't. Listening to someone play who doesn't have a strong sense of rhythm is like watching geeks dance....like holding a talent show at a Star Trek convention.

The reason I mention this distinction is because a person can be taught to improve timing but if "you ain't got rhythm", forget it. The other problem with rhythm is that the person who is rhythmically challenged can't hear this deficiency, especially if their 'timing' is passable. I was about to say that this "problem" is less noticable in certain types of music, but upon reflection, that's probably not true either.

Anyone familiar with the studio world knows that there are not only "first call" musicians but "first call" rhythm sections as well. There is a reason for this. Most studio quality musicians not only play in time but also play rhythmicaly but some rhythm units just have that special in-the-pocket groove that is so hard to define...you just know it when you hear it. I'm sure most jazz, rock, and funk players know what I mean.

I don't mean to sound harsh or discouraging, but if you don't have it, there is little chance that you will be successful as a professional. Therefore, if you have career aspirations and nobody is telling you the truth, they could actually be doing you a disservice. Or maybe not.

chas