 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: BGBG
Date: 2015-07-11 20:11
Hope I can say this right. In 4/4 time, how does one count 4 eighth notes with a bar and the 4th one tied to a quarter note, followed by two eighth notes with bar and the second tied to a dotted quarter note in next measure? I was trying "one and two and three, four and one two three", but not positive this is correct. Can someone correct me if not? Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2015-07-11 20:33
Counting in "subdivided four" - 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and - is always correct in plain four-quarter time. The thing about the rhythm you've described is that you don't play a new note on 3 - the eighth-note on the "and" after two connects to it. Likewise, although you certainly need to count "one" at the next measure, you don't re-attack (play a new note) because the last eighth of the first measure is tied to it.
The next trap for most of my students would be when to play the note after the dotted quarter. It would be played on the "and" after two. To place that you need to know exactly when two is, so you have to keep counting as you've described no matter what actually happens on each beat and subdivision ("and").
BTW, those "bars" you refer to are generally called "beams." "Bars" are generally synonyms for "measures" and "bar lines" separate them.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EaubeauHorn
Date: 2015-07-11 23:33
One thing I recommend for rhythm problems is to download a free music notation program such as Finale's Notepad. Then input the rhythm in question, and any other rhythm you have a problem with, and let the computer playback assist you in learning what it sounds like. Yes you do need to learn to figure these out, but hearing and playing along with helps immensely when you encounter unfamiliar rhythms in sight reading.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BGBG
Date: 2015-07-12 20:45
Thanks. This all helps for I dont really have a lot of formal or detailed music training-only what I needed as went along. I have a better feel for hearing and remembering timing than looking at sheet music and counting. Just have to learn the correct terms and how to count. No one to confirm what i think but me. In addition to simply learning how, I found one problem was not necessarily the counting but I had an incorrect note which made the count come out wrong. Still need a lot of work on it though because I am used to hearing, memorizing, and playing with basic sheet music interpretatation ability.
The above greatly helps my confidence and points me in right direction. Thanks for the suggestions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: qualitycontrol
Date: 2015-07-13 07:07
It's always good to be able to feel the subdivision and to not have to count associating it to something like 1-and-2-and-3-and etc.. It can be helpful to input the rhythms into something like Finale's notepad and hear it played back if you're really having a hard time, but then you're more memorising a certain rhythm rather than really starting to feel a binary subdivision.
I would suggest practicing new rhythms away from your instrument by singing and clapping the subdivision. Since this is a binary subdivision (all the times divide into 2 equal parts,) I would suggest starting by clapping a steady 8th note beat (since that's the shortest note you encounter), trying to accentuate each beat a bit more than the 8th note off-beat, and accentuating the first beat a bit more than the others. Start very slow, and over top of this, sing each note you have to play as any random syllable, da is fine. Hold the da across the tied notes (like from the off-beats of the 3rd and 4th beats that are tied to the following beats.) Once you can comfortably sing the rhythm over the 8th note beat, return to your instrument and try to play it while you keep that 8th note subdivision in mind and it will be a lot easier and in better time.
If you had to do a subdivision involving 16th notes, you could clap a steady 16th note beat with 16 claps per bar, but always start slowly and speed it up as you understand the rhythm. This really helps with more complicated rhythms like 4 against 3 which are hard to learn by hearing and easier to play once you really feel the deep subdivision while you're playing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-07-13 20:13
My suggestion, as heretical as it may sound, would be to not count at all. You need to have the length of the pulse in mind NOT the theoretical mapped point in a measure. Not only is this approach quite liberating, it makes your rhythm rock solid.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BGBG
Date: 2015-07-14 07:01
At this point Paul I would tend to agree. Though I can play it reasonably well, when I try to think of the timing I just cant seem to count it like I think it should be while playing. Like talking two languages at once. I never thought counting time could be difficult but that is with easy timing. And not all, I have found, is easy. Never really counted time much, or needed to. Just memorized by ear and had a feel for it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-07-14 13:18
Even better examples would be contextual such as in the works of Tchaikovsky or Brahms or even Mozart where the "beat" is purposely misplaced to tweak the audience. Odd thing is that it can catch performers off guard if they're not aware at that moment. It's good to practice these moments knowing full well what is happening but I still prefer using the length of the note (or the length of time the note resides in if foreshortened) as prime force throughout.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: piu58
Date: 2015-07-14 14:48
There is a book devoted to this problem. Unfortunately, it is only available in German. Beside this it is very good.
The translated title is Basic rhythm patterns. The idea behind this is, that you should learn all the rythm patterns which may occur. Surprisingly, there are only 34 such patterns.
May be you can read the book through some kind of translater. Luckily, the scores remain the same in all languages.
Link the German Amazon:
http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/1480123471?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00
Uwe Pilz, Leipzig, Germany (of course)
Post Edited (2015-07-14 14:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2015-07-14 16:31
Attachment: rhythm.png (59k)
I'd count it all in quavers (8th notes) when working out the rhythm.
To me, it's a rhythm that's felt rather than counted due to the syncopation.
See the attachment as that's how I've interpreted the rhythm you mentioned in the original post.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-07-14 16:42
Another book that can be helpful is "Bona: Rhythmic Articulations."
This is actually a vocal training book but filled with a mass of short exercises. Once you get up into the 90s (half way), the rhythms get particularly tricky.
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2015-07-14 17:57
I just updated another discussion about dotted 8th/16 not being the same as triplets, even though for pop it's usually notated that way. And it would sound mighty odd if actually played as 3:1 timing ratio instead of 2:1. So for pop music at least, notated timings are intended to be taken with a grain of salt.
Which makes me wonder- have composers taken such notation shortcuts in classical ("art") music as well? ...expecting the performers to understand what is intended? I could easily imagine in today's slavish "play what's written" climate such a shortcut leading to a ridiculous outcome (from the composer's perspective).
And if timing, why not other things- dynamics, even the literal notes? Notation precisely as played is an elusive goal. Even software can't do it that well, it's actually impossible.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2015-07-14 17:59)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Maruja
Date: 2015-07-14 19:41
Danke! Ich habe es gerade gekauft. Ich hoffe, dass kein Problem gibt, wegen des Streikes von der Post...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2015-07-14 19:42
fskelley wrote:
> And if timing, why not other things- dynamics, even the literal
> notes? Notation precisely as played is an elusive goal. Even
> software can't do it that well, it's actually impossible.
That's why the "informed performance practice" genre of music exists. There are standards of performance practice (Notes inégales was a term I didn't know, thanks!) in rhythms, ornamentation, you name it that were so common in other periods and locations that composers didn't think to annotate what was known and expected - they may have annotated essentially differences from what was expected. Today we may not be absolutely sure what was intended, but reading treatises and instructional material written contemporaneously with the music has allow performers to emulate what might be close to the performance practice of the time.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2015-07-14 20:37
Fascinating stuff. I wonder how many kids go through band and lessons and play a bunch of shortcut timing notation parts, and never have it explained to them. I think it belongs on the same page as the initial introduction of dotted eight notes, as in "but we aren't always supposed to play these this way". In fact, it's "but USUALLY we're not supposed to play these this way".
Somewhere there is a student playing a triplet feel on something for which that is appropriate, and being harangued by a teacher because "that's not what's written". Or (as in my case in 1967) a student is asking why nobody is playing something as it's written and teacher / instructor has no good answer.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2015-07-14 20:43)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2015-07-14 22:09
I've often found some people get pretty defensive if you tell them they're not playing something as it's written (or 'busking' it). And it's usually a case these people act as though they know it all and tell everyone else how to do their job (even though they don't know the first thing about what they claim to know), so they won't be told otherwise - not even by someone of a higher authority who knows what they're talking about. So there's no cure for stupidity with some people.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-07-15 00:22
Quote:
That's why the "informed performance practice" genre of music exists. There are standards of performance practice (Notes inégales was a term I didn't know, thanks!) in rhythms, ornamentation, you name it that were so common in other periods and locations that composers didn't think to annotate what was known and expected - they may have annotated essentially differences from what was expected. Today we may not be absolutely sure what was intended, but reading treatises and instructional material written contemporaneously with the music has allow performers to emulate what might be close to the performance practice of the time.
Some other examples, aside from Baroque era inegales, would be the Viennese waltz hiccup; double dotting overtures (both French dance and Italian opera); and the hairpin cresc/decresc in Brahms, which should be played as a stretching of the beat.
To quasi-answer the OP, you should be aware of the beat's subdivisions. If you're just "feeling" or memorizing the rhythms, your playing will not be very accurate, and players with a very fine sense of rhythm will find it difficult to play with you. I don't mentally count much anymore (though I do when playing nested rhythms or metrically modulations to make sure it's accurate), but I always feel the subdivision in my body, especially the fingers and air.
Post Edited (2015-07-15 00:24)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
