 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: janlynn
Date: 2010-02-18 14:33
I dont have the music with me so cant give measure #'s, but if you are familiar with it - my question is regarding the the measure with the 4 quarter notes that have to fit into 3 beats. any tricks for playing that in time?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2010-02-18 14:44
The piece being in 3/4 I feel much of it in 1, albeit on the slow side. In 1 it is easier to place the notes equally across the measure.
I do play it more towards quarter note = 116.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2010-02-18 15:14
Nope, that's not the answer:
There are 12 sixteenth notes in a 3/4 measure. 12 divided by 4 is 3, so each note in that measure has 3 sixteenth notes of duration.
Hindemith should have written the measure having four dotted eighth notes, and then the measure would have been less confusing.
This is essentially hemiola, and a rhythm that you have encountered in music many times dressed up in a different way.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: janlynn
Date: 2010-02-18 15:56
yeah - i can do it if I actually play three 16th notes (for each quarter) but as soon as I try to tie them as one sound - something throws me off.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2010-02-18 16:01
Are you tonguing the subdivision? I would continue to do it that way. Give it some time to come together: play it that way for a week, pave it down with perfect repetitions, and see where you are afterwards.
Good luck!
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2010-02-18 16:12
janlynn -
You learn to play 4 against 3 (and 3 against 4) the same way you learn 3 against 2 (and 2 against 3) -- subdivide.
For the Hindemith, on the 2 long notes before the 4/3 group, you mentally divide each note into 4 subdivisions (1-a-&-tu 2-a-&-tu). When you get to the 4 against 3 passage, give each note 3 of the subdivisions.
Practice by tapping your hands on a table. Start by tapping your left hand at about 60 beats per minute in groups 4. Then add a right tap every third left tap.
Then switch hands, doing the groups of 4 in your right hand and the groups of 3 in your left.
Next, start your left hand, this time in groups of 3 and tap your right hand every fourth tap, and then switch.
Two sentences give (approximately) the correct proportion:
I NEV-er PLAY gui-TAR.
PASS the GOD-damn SPIN-ach.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: janlynn
Date: 2010-02-18 17:02
yep, im tonguing the subdivision. I even recorded myself playing it tongued and then tried playing with the recording so I could hear the three 16ths while tying them together. I did fairly well with that, but as soon as i try to do it without hearing the recording, Im messed up again. I keep getting to the downbeat too fast.
I'm afraid that if I cant get this right, it will really throw off the pianist.
If I cant get it, is there any kind of editing I can do? Maybe play only 3 notes instead of 4? lol
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-02-18 18:27
Janlynn,
Just a different perspective, with no intent to be argumentative:
James's method certainly works metrically, but I have to confess that in actual practice I'd never be able at that tempo, I don't think, to keep track of the 16th note subdivision in my head that closely without actually doing something on each, like changing notes or articulating, and the effort would distract me from playing musically. I also confess that I don't really think much about that spot when I play it - it just seems to work. But what I believe is going through my head is essentially to divide the measure into 2 large beats (2 against 3, which is not an uncommon situation) and then put 2 notes into each of those beats. You can begin to think of the 2 subdivision a measure or two early (as I say, most of us are fairly used to playing 3 against 2) to prepare.
You might also try just playing the notes a little faster than the quarter note in the written meter. You won't hit exactly at first because it will be a guess, but if you experiment and find the right degree of acceleration by trial and error, you may be able through practice to build a mental image in memory and be able to hit the right note speed just "by feel."
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2010-02-18 18:52
I have to jump in here and defend James's method-
Karl stated that he would struggle to play this passage accurately without being distracted from playing it musically. This just means that Karl hasn't spent enough time working on these kinds of rhythms.
It's the same when an beginner starts learning to play dotted rhythms. At first they have to subdivide into 4, and their playing is very wooden and stiff. But after many years of playing they get used to playing these rhythms and it doesn't detract in any way from them being able to play "musically".
I'm very dubious about players who think they can just do things by "feel". Countless times I've heard people who think they are playing triplets, but are actually subdividing (unconciously) into 16ths and playing something which more resembles part of a bossa nova rhythm. This could be graphically presented as a 2/4 bar thus...
N--N --N-
where N represents the notes played and - represents the passing 16ths (so a 2/4 bar of rests would be written ---- ---- and a 2/4 bar of 16ths would be written NNNN NNNN)
While the above example is CLOSE to a real quarter triplets in a 2/4 bar, it is not at all accurate. I suspect that Karl playing the Hindemith Sonata would do something similar "by feel", which might seem to work for him, but isn't really what Hindemith wrote.
The whole endeavor of learning to play an instrument well involves going through many steps of difficulty in order to eventually make it all sound effortless to the audience. That's the beautiful challenge of it, so don't skip any of the steps.
Post Edited (2010-02-18 18:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-02-18 19:00
I love that piece!
I think the problem you're having is that you're not really *hearing* the polyrhythm. Playing 16th notes grouped in threes (a good idea, BTW) will cause you to *play* the polyrhythm, but unless you're specifically listening for the sound of 3/4-length notes and then also hearing the 3/4 beats in your head you won't get it.
I suggest you listen to some other people play this rhythm so you can get the feel for it. It's really more like the African and Latin rhythms you hear in popular music and jazz than it is classical.
Here's a good example, for instance (click the link). Listen to this guy play the rhythm together (which is 4 against 3). Then listen to it again and focus your eyes and ears on his right hand. It's his right hand that's playing the quadruplets you have in Hindemith. Finally, try singing along with his right hand (DA, DA, DA, DA, etc...).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dm-JePKjeU
Here's a better-executed example of the same rhythm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqQqATz2T8A
Also, the intro to Peter Gabriel's "Solsbury Hill" (minus the 3 pickup notes) features the same rhythm (although it doesn't stay in that rhythm the whole time). If you can get a feel for the way this intro goes, though (sing along with the guitar till you get it), you can play the Hindemith rhythm with no problems. (It's on PG's greatest hits album entitled "Shaking the Tree," as well as his untitled first solo album [from 1977], which has a picture of a car on the front)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0nb12GRzoY&feature=related
The key is that you have to *listen* to this rhythm enough until you're used to it and it becomes natural/intuitive. Don't even try to play it until you can sing it. If I can think of some other examples, I'll post them.
I've tried looking for decent performance of this piece (Hindemith) on YouTube, but I have yet to find one that I think is good enough to recommend.
There are a handful of decent professional ones on iTunes, though--you might look for one. I have one of Håkan Rosengren I bought on iTunes which is good. The only professional recording that I know of and that I would definitely steer clear of would be the Reginald Kell recording, which is, in my estimation, far too "jazzed up" and idiosyncratic to be a good model of the Hindemith style.
Post Edited (2010-02-18 19:09)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: janlynn
Date: 2010-02-18 19:16
WOW! Thanks guys!
the other day I "won" a CD from that auction site. the description was HINDEMITH - CLARINET CHAMBER MUSIC / J.B. YEH, - CD NEW
so I'm hoping it will have the Sonata on it. But I will definately check out the youtube samples. Im a youtube geek.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-02-18 19:45
Liquorice wrote:
> I have to jump in here and defend James's method-
>
> Karl stated that he would struggle to play this passage
> accurately without being distracted from playing it musically.
> This just means that Karl hasn't spent enough time working on
> these kinds of rhythms.
>
Oh, please!!!
I was doing this in all probability before you were born. I didn't say James's approach wasn't useful (I even said explicitly that it would work perfectly well in terms of accuracy).
I may have overstated my reaction - I certainly could work it out this way if I needed to and I would not have a problem internalizing it, at which point musicality would no longer be a problem. It's just that **at the tempo involved in this passage** I can imagine the approach's becoming fussy, so I suggested a couple of other ways of building the rhythm in the specific context Janlynn asked about.
Were the tempo slower, I would almost certainly do it the way James suggested, because the 16th notes are already established, while the duple division needs to imagined against the established triple (by imagining dotted-quarters against the ongoing quarter notes), and my second suggestion involved at its beginning genuine guesswork.
But to be as clear as possible I'll repeat - James's method needs no defense against me nor did I intend to criticiize it. It's a valid way to approach the rhythm and techically/theoretically the correct way. I only offered something else for Janlynn to think about.
Criticiize the post if you like, but don't characterize the poster unless you know him.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2010-02-18 20:27
It's exactly your post that I was criticising. The "something else" that you offered Janlynn to think about was bad advice, which isn't going to help her to play the passage well. You admitted your own limitations in your post. Don't prescribe those limitations for everyone.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2010-02-18 20:50
Karl, I just read your 2nd post again.
You wrote: "don't characterize the poster unless you know him"
and also: "I was doing this in all probability before you were born"
What???
You don't know me, nor how old I am. You may have been playing the clarinet for many years, but that doesn't mean you've been playing it well.
Your advice amounted to "Yes this is hard and I doubt I could do it. Just see if you can fit it in, more or less. Wing it. If you practise winging it enough you might be able to sort-of get it".
Your advice is rubbish. I think it's important to criticise that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2010-02-19 01:10
I think that although my method is logical, it would not solve the rhythm issue for everyone (and not because of tonguing 12 sixteenths at 108). Different individuals do learn differently.
I do believe that my suggestion is an absolute one: if you can do it, you will be able to play the rhythm correctly. In Janlynn's case, I think that further repetitions are needed. Adding definitive accents to the subdivision would aid in the development.
If you are having problems executing the passage at the final tempo, simply do it slower: when you can tongue the subdivision at X and understand the rhythm, you can play it as written at 108.
If you can only play a given rhythm at ONE tempo you do not understand the rhythm, you have learned to accommodate one situation.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-02-19 04:17
Liquorice wrote:
Quote:
You wrote: "don't characterize the poster unless you know him"
and also: "I was doing this in all probability before you were born"
What???
You don't know me, nor how old I am.
Don't be so sure about that. Some of us have very good memories. I am reasonably certain Karl is more than 20 years your senior. James and I are approximately the same age, and you're about 3 years older than the two of us.
Quote:
Your advice amounted to "Yes this is hard and I doubt I could do it. Just see if you can fit it in, more or less. Wing it. If you practise winging it enough you might be able to sort-of get it".
That's not fair. He didn't say he was incapable of subdividing the beat or playing the rhythm correctly--he just indicated that it would feel somewhat unnatural to do so at so high a tempo and that it *might* be better to take a more direct approach to learning this rhythm.
I think your insinuation that Karl lacks rhythmic ability or adequate experience in playing polyrhythms simply because he feels that way was entirely unnecessary and, frankly, rather presumptuous. By a similar line of reasoning, I could have suggested that YOU lack experience or skill in this area by virtue of the fact that you (unlike Karl and myself) appear to be reliant on the "crutch" of explicit mental subdivision into 16th notes in order to play this rhythm--except that I know better than to make that kind of assumption about someone whose Hindemith interpretation I have never heard.
Quote:
I'm very dubious about players who think they can just do things by "feel". Countless times I've heard people who think they are playing triplets, but are actually subdividing (unconciously) into 16ths and playing something which more resembles part of a bossa nova rhythm.
I have heard people try to play triplets like that, but I fail to see how that supports your point. The ONLY way to play triplets is "by feel," because no amount of duple/quadruple subdivision will give you a triplet--3 is a prime number, after all. Same thing holds for quintuplets and septuplets--you can't derive them through grouped duple subdivisions; you must learn directly what it feels like to play three divisions of a beat or five division of a beat, etc. in order to play these prime-numbered tuplets.
So if the direct route ("by feel" or I would preferably say "by ear") is the only way to learn to play triplets--since you can't use duple subdivision--then what is so wrong with learning to play 4 against 3 that way? I have never found it necessary to count 16th notes in my head to play this passage, and I have never had any trouble playing it in the correct rhythm. If subdivision into 16ths helps, that's great, but I can say from my own experience that there IS more than one way to skin this cat.
And for that matter, anyone whose triplets sound like a bossa nova ought to have no problem playing 4 against 3, since the bossa nova is nothing more than an elongated version of the 4 against 3 polyrhythm with an extra-long third beat (to give you 16 eighth notes over 2 4/4 bars), or in your notation:
N-- N-- N--- N-- N--
So the "feel" of a bossa nova, while not identical, is actually rather similar to the 4 against 3 polyrhythm in Hindemith.
Quote:
Your advice is rubbish. I think it's important to criticise that.
I don't think so. I thought Karl's suggestion to start with 3 against 2 and then subdivide the 2 was perfectly sensible and mathematically correct. Admittedly, I'm less sold on his second idea of using trial and error, simply because it's not the only option available, and I think it's possible to make more rapid progress from studying recordings, singing, and doing hand claps. In some instances, though, (like learning to play quintuplets) it's just about the only way to go.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2010-02-19 06:48
mrn- using subdivision isn't a crutch, it's the ONLY way make sure that you're playing rhythmically accurately.
Regarding the triplet example, you don't subdivide into duple units. For playing 3 over 2 you subdivide the 2 into smaller 3 units and then play on every second subdivision.
--- --- (subdivision)
N-N -N- (played like this)
But I'm sure you're aware of that.
The part of the bossa nova rhythm that I was referring to was the first half
N--N --N-
Some people who play "by feel" end up doing this. The usually happens because the piece, up to that point, has had an underlying duple subdivision, and they don't make the extra mental step of triplet subdivision of the smaller units. What they play fits in to the two beats but isn't accurate. This is what happens when you play "by feel".
A more simple example is dotted rhythms. If you're not subdividing then you're probably not playing accurately.
When you start practising something like 4/3 subdivisions they do sound stiff and unmusical (as Karl says they would when he plays them), but after some time it becomes second nature, and flows as easily as playing accurate dotted rhythms does. You're then able to subdivide mentally and "play musically" at the same time.
I've taken this up to the level of playing things like 5/4 or 7/6, and then things get tricky. The subdivisions become incredibly fast, but with practise you can get them. I once played a piece by Heinz Holliger, which he was conducting himself. I spent a lot of time preparing all the polyrhythms. What he sometimes did was conduct the beats with his right hand and the cross rhythm with his left hand! I knew then that he was subdividing too because my cross rhythms always lined up with his left hand beats.
The point I'm trying to make is that it's important to go through the process of subdividing in your head, even if it feels awkward at first, to make sure that you're really playing the rhythms accurately. Everything else is winging it.
Hey, if Karl is more than 20 years my senior (and started playing the clarinet at say age 10) then he's probably been playing inaccurate rhythms (and maybe advising others to do so) for over half a century! ;-)
Post Edited (2010-02-19 06:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Noqu
Date: 2010-02-19 09:42
I am rather surprised by the highly unprofessional undertones and ad hominem attacks in this conversation, especially because I can't really see the fundamental disagreement.
I think we all agree that at the time of playing a polyrhythmic passage, the player needs to have a mental image in her head that is firm enough so that the rhythm comes out correctly.
Is it such a controversial matter to agree as well that there are different ways to arrive at this mental image, depending on personal preferences ?
Counting and subdividing is a valuable helper, because it is both particularly precise and very sensitive to errors - not much chance to persuade yourself that you did it correctly when the count doesn't match at the end of the bar. But does that rule out the possibility that others may arrive at the same correct mental image by other means ?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-02-19 13:47
I hadn't intended to prolong what seems to have become a personal conflict. Janlynn asked a perfectly reasonable question and it's been answered.
However, a couple of other posters have have had more positive reactions to what I originally wrote, and I thought I ought to acknowledge those.
mrn wrote:
> Liquorice wrote:
>
> Quote:
> You wrote: "don't characterize the poster unless you know him"
> and also: "I was doing this in all probability before you were born"
> What???
> You don't know me, nor how old I am.
> Don't be so sure about that. Some of us have very good memories.
> I am reasonably certain Karl is more than 20 years your senior.
> James and I are approximately the same age, and you're about
> 3 years older than the two > of us.
And in any case, I didn't mean the comment to assert any kind of superiority of mine, only to refute Liquorice's comment that my first post demonstrated that "Karl hasn't spent enough time working on these kinds of rhythms." I meant only to answer, in essence, "oh, yes I have."
Again, mrn wrote:
> Liquorice wrote"Your advice amounted to "Yes this is hard and I doubt I
> could do it. Just see if you can fit it in, more or less. Wing
> it. If you practise winging it enough you might be able to
> sort-of get it"."
>
> That's not fair. He didn't say he was incapable of subdividing
> the beat or playing the rhythm correctly--he just indicated
> that it would feel somewhat unnatural to do so at so high a
> tempo and that it *might* be better to take a more direct
> approach to learning this rhythm.
>
> I think your insinuation that Karl lacks rhythmic ability or
> adequate experience in playing polyrhythms simply because he
> feels that way was entirely unnecessary and, frankly, rather
> presumptuous.
Thank you. I'm glad to know that someone read my post as I meant it.
Noqu wrote:
> I am rather surprised by the highly unprofessional undertones
> and ad hominem attacks in this conversation, especially because
> I can't really see the fundamental disagreement.
>
The only thing I can think of is that something I wrote in some other thread may have ticked Liquorice off and he was looking for a chance to avenge whatever it was. The only areas of disagreement are: (a) the possibility of there being more than one way to approach a given problem; (b) the level of my playing and musicianship, which seems odd since I don't think Liquorice has ever heard me play (maybe he has?). We certainly agree that arithmetically subdividing the note values is an accurate and useful approach.
Finally, Liquorice wrote:
> When you start practising something like 4/3 subdivisions they
> do sound stiff and unmusical (as Karl says they would when he
> plays them), but after some time it becomes second nature, and
> flows as easily as playing accurate dotted rhythms does. You're
> then able to subdivide mentally and "play musically" at the
> same time.
This is exactly what I said in my second post: "I may have overstated my reaction - I certainly could work it out this way if I needed to and I would not have a problem internalizing it, at which point musicality would no longer be a problem."
> Hey, if Karl is more than 20 years my senior (and started
> playing the clarinet at say age 10) then he's probably been
> playing inaccurate rhythms (and maybe advising others to do so)
> for over half a century!
I really don't think so.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2010-02-19 14:12
I didn't read all the long posts sorry if I'm repeating somoene else.
Janlynn, you say you can do it if you seperate the notes to 16ths and when you play the written notes while listening to the recording, then miss it when you play without it. Do you IMAGINE the 16th notes when you try this? If you don't... do.
James' suggetion in the 3rd post is very good.
What I recommend you do is to learn how the 3 on 4 rhythm sounds. Maybe start with a metronom slowly and by subdividing tap you hand 4 on the metronom 3. Get used to the sound of this. After you manage to do this, tap both hands, one instead of the metronom and the other the same, 4 on 3. Tapping on your thighs is comfortable. When you do this, sometimes listen to the 3 while playing the 4 over it, sometimes vise versa. Then instead of constantly doing that, tap the 3 tempo and occasionally insert the 4 rhythm over it. Then go back to tapping with one hand to give the tempo and sing the rhythm. Then stop tapping and imagine the tempo while sining, then with the clarinet. You can first do all of this with 3 over 2 since it is easier.
>> using subdivision isn't a crutch, it's the ONLY way make sure that you're playing rhythmically accurately. <<
Not necessarily. Some people can just hear it correctly.
Post Edited (2010-02-19 14:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: janlynn
Date: 2010-02-19 16:35
I want to thank everyone for your suggestions. I think I need much more work and practice playing 4 against 3 (and 3 against 2)as this is the first time ive come across it. I tried some of the tapping exercises and I just cant get the hang of it (yet).
Hopefully I will have a better grasp of it in a few months when I will be performing it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2010-02-19 16:38
If you have months Janlynn, and you continue with the many suggestions above, you will be able to play exactly as you would like!
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-02-19 17:31
Liquorice wrote:
Quote:
Regarding the triplet example, you don't subdivide into duple units. For playing 3 over 2 you subdivide the 2 into smaller 3 units and then play on every second subdivision.
--- --- (subdivision)
N-N -N- (played like this)
But I'm sure you're aware of that.
Of course! 3 against 2 is mariachi, not bossa nova--different country entirely! 
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-02-19 20:56
I want to suggest a point of view that allows us to see the solution to the problem as a progression through a sequence of different levels.
We all learn as beginners to play the 'military' dotted quaver plus semiquaver, and are encouraged by our teachers to subdivide in order to ensure its accuracy.
We also learn, probably a bit later, how to perform the backwards version of that rhythm -- semiquaver plus dotted quaver -- and equally, are encouraged to subdivide in order to ensure its accuracy.
But then, the ability to perform those rhythms can be taken for granted. We may, from time to time, need to check out that we are indeed performing them accurately; but essentially, they are available to construct other more complicated musical rhythms.
So in the case of the Hindemith Sonata, the 4:3 rhythm amounts to the first of the two rhythms, plus a simple quaver off-beat, plus the second of the two rhythms.
The thing to see is that although the performance of the 4:3 rhythm ultimately relies on accurate subdivision, that subdivision need not be present in awareness as a continuous stream of semiquavers. The work of establishing that has been done previously.
The famous philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead (he of the Russell and Whitehead 'Principia Mathematica'), wrote:
>> Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a battle -- they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments.>>
So in this case, you just need to check that the second of the 4-tuplet occurs a 'military' semiquaver before the second beat, the third half-way through the second beat, and the fourth a 'military' semiquaver after the third beat -- the quotes round 'military' standing in for the initial work required to have those rhythms be a part of our musical stock-in-trade.
I have a bit more to say about more complicated rhythms that I'll post later.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2010-02-19 23:38
Karl has correctly identified our two areas of disagreement:
(a) the possibility of there being more than one way to approach a given problem
In this case I don't believe that there is another way to ACCURATELY play rhythms like this without subdividing. If there is then I would appreciate it if somebody could explain it to me. I've heard too many examples of people playing these kinds of rhythms "by feel", which are simply inaccurate.
I maintain that you can only develop the sense of playing these kinds of rhythms "naturally" by first spending a lot of time working on internalising the subdivision. It doesn't matter how old you are- if you can't "keep track of the 16th note subdivision in my head that closely without actually doing something on each", then you just haven't spent enough time working on it.
Which is why I thoroughly disagree with with Clarnibass's statement that "Some people can just hear it correctly". If they can really hear it correctly then they are subdividing. This subdivision may not be in the "front" of their conciousness (eg. when an experienced drummer is playing a bossa nova) but the subdivision is there, otherwise their rhythm is wishy-washy.
(b) the level of my playing and musicianship
I've never heard you play. But when you write something like: "You might also try just playing the notes a little faster than the quarter note in the written meter. You won't hit exactly at first because it will be a guess" ... then I have to question you're commitment to playing the rhythms as written. What you suggest is an inaccurate and "wishy-washy" shortcut, which isn't going to help janlynn play in time. To me this is really bad advice.
Karl, I have no gripe with you from any previous thread. This is not personal. I just find your advice in this thread to be promoting mediocrity rather than excellence.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: srattle
Date: 2010-02-20 00:39
I haven't read the other posts, so sorry if this is repeating something:
regarding janlynn's original question, it would be best for you to do some rhythm work without the clarinet. Learning poly-rhythms as second nature will help you so much throughout a musical life, and people who don't master this stuff will always have deep rooted issues with them.
I suggest that you find a good ear training book, or rhythm book, and work through it. Better yet, work through it with someone who knows this stuff well.
As for 3 against 4, or 4 against 3 (which you will find are very different things) I suggest doing three things.
First, understand the subdivision. I will use capital letters for the 'played' notes and small letters for the 'imagined beats in between:
AaaAaaAaaAaa
BbbbBbbbBbbb
A is the 4 patten and B is the 3 pattern. which will end up sounding like:
A A A A |
B B B |
This is a good basic understanding of how the rhythms fit together. All poly-rhythms work this way, and you just have to find a large enough multiple that work for both numbers. (eg. for two against three, the multiple is 6)
Next, learn to think of one of the rhythms with all the subdivisions underneath.
If you say (in rhythm) the numbers 1-12 over and over, start tapping your hand on numbers 1, 4, 7 and 10. keep doing that until you don't have to think about it at all, then you can speed it up. This will give you subdivision for 4 beats.
Then do it with the 3 beat pattern, that means still 12 numbers, but tapping on 1, 5, and 9.
This will again help ingrain a very important skill.
To put it together, many people use the rhythm of the 2 beat patterns together, or something neumatic, like
Go and get your homework
go [rest][rest] and get [rest] your [rest] homework [rest][rest]
is what it will end up sounding like.
Now is just to figure out that rhythm with your separate hands, using the knowledge that you learned from the first exercises.
The last thing that I find very important with any poly-rhythm is learning to understand it without the underlying, total rhythm.
For this, I find that once you can comfortably tape the poly rhythm with your hands, then try to focus on one of the two hands, and hear that rhythm specifically, while the other continues.
Then switch, and try to hear on the other pattern that's going on.
This will be much easier if you try tapping one hand lightly on something soft, and the other loudly on something hard.
With this knowledge, playing this rhythm in Hindemith will be a cakewalk, and you will also maybe have a chance when you come across much more difficult poly-rhythms like 4 against 5, or 3 against 7, or 12 against 13. This stuff actually comes up more than you would think, so it's a very useful skill to learn properly.
Sorry for the long post. I find that not enough people really understand rhythm subdivision, and so everything becomes guessed, which makes it impossible to make anything really tight. And it bums me out!
Sacha
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2010-02-20 06:13
Tony wrote:
>> The thing to see is that although the performance of the 4:3 rhythm
>> ultimately relies on accurate subdivision, that subdivision need not be
>> present in awareness as a continuous stream of semiquavers. The
>> work of establishing that has been done previously.
...and...
>> So in this case, you just need to check that the second of the
>> 4-tuplet occurs a 'military' semiquaver before the second beat,
>> the third half-way through the second beat, and the fourth a
>> 'military' semiquaver after the third beat
That's what he will (hopefully) find out if he does the excercise I suggested of tapping (and singing/playing) both rhythms. I guess I could explain it... but I was hoping he will find that himself during the excercise (if he tries it). After that, eventually, it becomes "automatic" in the same way that playing 1/8 notes is aumtomatic after hearing only 1/4 notes, for example.
Liquorice wrote:
>> Which is why I thoroughly disagree with with Clarnibass's statement <<
Maybe I didn't explain so good. I meant maybe something like a combination of talent and the first quote of what Tony wrote above. The fact is some people don't need to think/imagine the string of 16ths to play a rhythm like this.
>> Countless times I've heard people who think they are playing triplets,
>> but are actually subdividing (unconciously) into 16ths and playing
>> something which more resembles part of a bossa nova rhythm. This
>> could be graphically presented as a 2/4 bar thus...
There's an old joke: How to play 3/4? Easy... 1 / / 2 / / 3 / 1 / / 2 / / 3 / ....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sarah Elbaz
Date: 2010-02-20 07:28
The 4:3 bar is not only a rhythmic event and certenly not a one bar "local" gesture. The 4:3 bar is one of the tools that Hindemith used to build a climax.
Hindemith sonata is usually the first modern work that my students play because it's very friendly and can be used to understand how composers use different musical tools. I find that the sonata is a good preparation to the Brahms sonatas and I'll explain.
If we look at the Brahms sonatas we can see that when Brahms is using more notes, or subdivides the beat to little notes- he – in my view- wants to express more intense feelings.
In the F minor sonata, first mov. bars 61-67, for example- these bars are sometimes played as virtuosic passages, and some people even play them faster than the previous bars. It’s a misinterpretation- because Brahms is writing more notes in the bar because something bigger is happening there and the small notes give more" time" to express it. The same thing is happening in the Eb sonata in bars 18-20 and 35 on in the first mov. And I think that we can include the second movement of the quintet op. 115 –the Piu lento part—most people will agree that this is a very emotional section. I think that Brahms is using so many small notes to get the feeling that there is more time in the bar- because there is so much to express there.
If we go back to Hindemith - as I wrote before – the bar of 4:3 is the last step before the climax in the next bars. Hindemith writes a crescendo, but he needs more "time" to build it and he divides the bar to 4, and this way the cresc. gets another step and more time.
And now to the rhythmic problem. I found that one of the best ways to teach complicated rhythms is to re-write them with a non-tonal melody, or in other words – to use dissonances. The reason is that with dissonances it's easier to feel formal and play more accurately than with a tonal melody.
Now before everybody jump and say that the 4:3 bar is not tonal, I have to explain why I like to use the Hindemith sonata to introduce modern music to students.
Hindemith created a new melodic aesthetics with the use of the 4th interval. At the beginning it feels new and uncomfortable, but we get used to this new aesthetics very quickly and soon the 4th feels like the 3rd in tonal music. When we arrive to the 4:3 bar we don't think about the 4th as a dissonance any more.
The solution is to divide the bar in TWO (play the first E than.D. and the next bar C) and play it like that until we can feel the dotted quarter very clearly, and then it's very easy to divide each beat in two again.
And, of course- we shouldn't forget the musical context, and play it as another step in the crescendo.
Sarah
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2010-02-20 14:42
Four notes in a three four measure--simple. Just think: "beautiful/ mississippi/ beautiful /mississippi" keeping the words evenly spaced. It probably would help to have a metronome set at a slow tempo, clap your hands to the beat and then repeat the words until the sylables fill each "measure" evenly. Say it enough times out loud and you should get the idea. Then, when to come to that "problem" measure, play the quarters as if you were saying "mississippi" in tempo and if should work just fine.
Post Edited (2010-02-20 14:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-02-21 00:03
As promised, I'm posting some more links to YouTube examples from popular music of this type of rhythm. These are all made up of 3/4-length notes played over a steady beat. Unlike the bar in Hindemith, these songs aren't in 3/4-time. Nonetheless, the rhythm is the same.
Here's an example of a disco tune using this rhythm (it's the "doo, doo, doo" part, not the chorus, that contains the polyrhythm)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWf1MdHv80Q
Here's another one (funk). Again, it's the instrumental intro with the 3/4-length-note rhythm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl7Bk364UdY
And another one--this one's a rock song. "The rhythm" first shows up around 0:56. (Incidentally, this song is also very rhythmically interesting because during the initial verses, the drummer plays in a duple meter, while the guitar riff is played on the same beats in a triple meter, but as a 2-against-3 figure. Hindemith does similar things in his clarinet sonata [as does Orff in the "O Fortuna" movement of Carmina Burana.] This rhythmic tension comes to a climax at 0:56, where the entire band switches into 4/4 time, but plays the 4-against-3 rhythm in the first 3 beats of each 4/4 bar.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzdgU_kpGo
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I'm on YouTube, too, playing a couple of these 4:3 rhythms--at about 0:15 and again at 0:45.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W26zRS82DiA
Post Edited (2010-02-21 00:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2010-02-21 05:20
>> And another one--this one's a rock song. <<
Can you say what this song is? The one in your link is not available in my country. Maybe I can find it if I know what to look for.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2010-02-21 05:35
clarnibass wrote:
> Can you say what this song is?
Led Zeppelin - Kashmir
2/4 on the drums, 3/4 on the guitar riffs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
