A-Z of Rhythm -For Beginers

[whyterabbyt]

I find it amusing that people are coming out of the woodwork to engage in this thread. People whom... have made little to no valuable contributions to this forum otherwise.

I find it amusing that you would seek to disparage the input of others solely on the basis that they're not part of the existing coterie who aggressively dominate this forum. Im not particularly sure the direction this forum has been taken actually corresponds much with that its founder actually intended, as per the original post on what this thread was for, but there certainly seems a hell of a lot of self-aggrandisation behind those who persist here.

[whyterabbyt]

Are we speaking of the same electro-acoustic music? I feel that we are not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroacoustic_music

Because if we are, then I think that the problem is that there is really nothing like a theory for that music, at least to my knowledge.

One of the things I think that's an issue there is atually the opposite; there are lots of theories, with many practitioners bringing their own theoretical basis into their work. Resolving those disparate theories is a bit like the problem of unified field theory i physics; there's an intuition that there should be an underlying cogent basis, but resolving the differences is proving intractable...

[tanabarbier]

One of the things I think that's an issue there is atually the opposite; there are lots of theories, with many practitioners bringing their own theoretical basis into their work.

Yep, I totaly agree with you, every composer comes up with a "theory". In fact I think that more than a theory, it is a personal explanation/interpretation on music, via the electroacoustic angle.

Resolving those disparate theories is a bit like the problem of unified field theory i physics; there's an intuition that there should be an underlying cogent basis, but resolving the differences is proving intractable...

Yes indeed, and that is what makes this music so incredible to me, you don't necesarily know why it works, you just know it does. And when it does not, you have to go look for the intentions of the composer, to see what failed at making you feel what his purpose(s) was/were.

Of course we have a base for that analysis, all the work of Pierre Schaeffer in "Treatise on Musical Objects", (and I prefer the revision/revisitation by Michel Chion "Guide des objets sonores", a lot shorter and put to date -1983- ).

His approach permited to define what is peculiar in this music, put the bases to this new music, and even though I felt that his classification of sounds was a desperate intent from a scientist to clasify music, I have to say that learning and understanding his work does give a base to learn how to listen.

I feel that his way of defining this particular way of listening can be "updated", as it is, to me, a straight out of the book application of what is epoché in phenomenology, in music, and well there are others way of understanding cognition. This was the subject of my (really short) thesis, an intent of connecting his work to Francisco Varela, and more precisly his "enaction" theory, mainly the idea that perception is an action guided by perception.

[herodotus]

OK, first the preliminaries: this may well reach the 1000 word mark, and people concerned about my credentials (so they can know that I am not just some 'random guy on the internet') can either check out the music available via my signature, or (easier) go to this old page that is more to the point.

That being said....

Rhythm is not only complicated, it is really badly treated in conventional music theory. While the fine points of harmony are discussed intensively, rhythm is taught as an afterthought, and in essentially the same way that it has been taught since Rameau.

If you consider the facts:

• 1. That the single instrument that defines 'rhythm' in popular music is the drum kit (or electronic emulations thereof).
  
  2. That the traditional pedagogy of rhythm predates the drum kit by hundreds of years.
  
  3. That there has been no systematic or concerted effort to provide a viable, consistent alternative to the traditional pedagogy of rhythm.

You can see why teaching the 'ABCs of Rhythm' would be difficult even if someone did want to do all of the work for free.

A striking illustration of the size of the disconnect can be seen in the fact that traditional theory regards rhythm primarily as the study of the durations of notes, while drums play notes of fixed, random durations. The durations of most of the drum sounds in the vast majority of music are not precisely controlled the way the duration of a note that is sung is controlled. It takes a whole bunch of figuring to connect the study of note durations with the study of drum beats.

In short, while traditional theory can sort of explain drum rhythms, it isn't optimized for the study of drum rhythms. I don't think it makes sense to fault it for this. It is perfectly understandable that a tradition as grounded in singing as the Western European musical tradition would think of rhythm from the standpoint of the durations of notes. But understandable or not, it doesn't really help someone who is trying to understand drum rhythms.


Which is why I think that the best way for anyone to learn about drum rhythms is to emulate existing rhythmic patterns. Pick a list of drum parts you like, put the audio files in your host or DAW or whatever, and try to match them. You can play along with a real or virtual instrument, you can slow it down and play along and create a MIDI file and accelerate the tempo back to normal, or you can even visually line your samples or MIDI notes up next to the peaks in the audio file you are emulating.

I personally think that the virtual stuff is a lot of work. Just listening to parts and trying to play along on your legs or a table top until you can do it without missing a beat is definitely every bit as educational. But I see no reason to denigrate a more 'virtual' approach if its results are satisfactory.

[Shabdahbriah]

the problem with a lot of theorists and musicians is they don't allow for evolution of music. i noticed it through my own uni course, very resistant to new ideas.

It is really bizarre that there are so many 'constraints' superficially imposed on the EXPRESSION of what is called "music", by "our ideas" of what it IS, or should/shouldn't be, according to preconceptions (opinions) that allow "us" (them/anyone) to feel comfortable and/or 'acceptable/appropriate', if not blatantly "right".

But then, were things not placed in a 'box' (so to speak), it wouldn't be able to be "taught" as a "rule" or at least "guide-line", within a presumably desirable 'structure', and/or attainable and replicable "norm".



ta-da-BOOM-tish!

+1 what "herodotus" said about "rhythm"...

[stringtapper]

A striking illustration of the size of the disconnect can be seen in the fact that traditional theory regards rhythm primarily as the study of the durations of notes, while drums play notes of fixed, random durations. The durations of most of the drum sounds in the vast majority of music are not precisely controlled the way the duration of a note that is sung is controlled. It takes a whole bunch of figuring to connect the study of note durations with the study of drum beats.

In short, while traditional theory can sort of explain drum rhythms, it isn't optimized for the study of drum rhythms. I don't think it makes sense to fault it for this. It is perfectly understandable that a tradition as grounded in singing as the Western European musical tradition would think of rhythm from the standpoint of the durations of notes. But understandable or not, it doesn't really help someone who is trying to understand drum rhythms.

Great post. Thanks for contributing.

Your observation about the concentration on duration in traditional music theory is spot on, but I would argue that the reason behind it isn't as simple as the western music tradition being "grounded in singing."

The reason I would posit is that, from a purely cognitive standpoint, human beings can't help but hear events temporally, i.e. one event following another within a span of time, and so we hear each event in relation to what comes before and after it. Thus an event played on an instrument like a drum that has a short decay time, i.e. the transient attack is mostly what is perceived as its ultimate "sound", are almost necessarily perceived as having a "duration" equivalent to the time between their initial attack and the time of the next event's initial attack. In other words the human mind is already thinking in terms of duration from event to event because of the inherent temporal nature of music, regardless of the actual amplitude envelope of a particular sound. This is probably why we haven't seen a non-duration centric theory of rhythm (maybe, I haven't actually consulted all of the scholarly literature on this particular subject, it might be out there, Fred Lerdahl's work comes to mind).

[Tricky-Loops]

10 African guys coming out of the jungle without any knowledge about music theory would make a better rhythm & beat than 100 classical trained European composers out of the university!

[Shabdahbriah]

10 African guys coming out of the jungle without any knowledge about music theory would make a better rhythm & beat than 100 classical trained European composers out of the university!

I agree, however... "Culturally" - from the moment they make that "rhythm & beat" a *tradition*, then (in this example) only "10 African guys" (most likely from the same "tribe") could do it "right" in some or many peoples 'eyes', and were it to take-on the proportions of "ritual", or an "anthem", only "10" (usually) specific instruments would be the "right" instruments... this even happens with any "style" or "genre".

[Tricky-Loops]

Dha Dhin Dhin Dha Dha Dhin Dhin Dha Dha Tin Tin Ta Ta Dhin Dhin Dha...

Nope, I'm not drunken. This is a Tabla rhythm...

IMO the Tabla rhythm notation is far better than our Western notation system with notes...

I found this guide for Tabla playing - but I think if I'd really like to learn to play it seriously, I would have to take lessons by a professional Tabla player...

http://www.petelockett.com/lessons/esse ... 0TABLA.pdf

[herodotus]

A striking illustration of the size of the disconnect can be seen in the fact that traditional theory regards rhythm primarily as the study of the durations of notes, while drums play notes of fixed, random durations. The durations of most of the drum sounds in the vast majority of music are not precisely controlled the way the duration of a note that is sung is controlled. It takes a whole bunch of figuring to connect the study of note durations with the study of drum beats.

In short, while traditional theory can sort of explain drum rhythms, it isn't optimized for the study of drum rhythms. I don't think it makes sense to fault it for this. It is perfectly understandable that a tradition as grounded in singing as the Western European musical tradition would think of rhythm from the standpoint of the durations of notes. But understandable or not, it doesn't really help someone who is trying to understand drum rhythms.

Great post. Thanks for contributing.

Thank you.

Your observation about the concentration on duration in traditional music theory is spot on, but I would argue that the reason behind it isn't as simple as the western music tradition being "grounded in singing."

I certainly wouldn't want to give an overly simple explanation for anything as complex as this is.

The reason I would posit is that, from a purely cognitive standpoint, human beings can't help but hear events temporally, i.e. one event following another within a span of time, and so we hear each event in relation to what comes before and after it. Thus an event played on an instrument like a drum that has a short decay time, i.e. the transient attack is mostly what is perceived as its ultimate "sound", are almost necessarily perceived as having a "duration" equivalent to the time between their initial attack and the time of the next event's initial attack.

I am not sure that this is true. Or rather, I think it is partly true. The thing is that in western theory a single sound, whether a note or a chord, qualifies as an event. It has meaning on its own, so that, say, a measure of music is a succession of events of various durations. In the case of drum rhythms, things are subtly but significantly different. The ambiguity of the word 'beat' tells the story.

A 'beat' in standard music theory is a '1', a '2', a '3', or a '4' (i.e. in 4/4 time). It is an abstract concept that is marked by every stroke of a conductors baton, whether or not there is an audible note to correspond with it.

A drum 'beat' (as in, e.g. "That song has a good beat", or "DJ Supercrunk makes the phattest beats") on the other hand describes an actual bit of music: usually a repeated rhythmic figure with a distinctive accent pattern. This bit of music usually takes place over at least 4 strokes of a conductors baton, though it could conceivably stretch out over as few as 2 or as many as 32 baton strokes. But 1 'beat' of a conductors baton is never a drum 'beat'.

So when you write:

the human mind is already thinking in terms of duration from event to event because of the inherent temporal nature of music, regardless of the actual amplitude envelope of a particular sound.

I would agree with you, except to note that what exactly constitutes an 'event' is problematic.

[Tricky-Loops]

We should make an event "Meet a real drummer!" where people who are interested in rhythm & beat, can go to a real drummer & learn to make better beats.

All this theory blah doesn't help anyone...the approach by ras.s is the only applicable one here...

I've learned making beats by listening to beats, analyzing the elements and learning about real drum kits. If I want to make a beat, I usually stomp with my hands, clap with my feet, bang with my ears and shake my head...and sometimes some other things are shaking, too, if the beat is good enough...

[stringtapper]

I am not sure that this is true. Or rather, I think it is partly true. The thing is that in western theory a single sound, whether a note or a chord, qualifies as an event. It has meaning on its own, so that, say, a measure of music is a succession of events of various durations. In the case of drum rhythms, things are subtly but significantly different.

…

I would agree with you, except to note that what exactly constitutes an 'event' is problematic.

I should clarify that in this case I'm using the term "event" in a similar way that it's understood in computer music and the use of MIDI. Also I'm not sure that I agree that there is anything inherently different about western music and drum beats that make "events" different in this regard.

But I do agree that, at least from a purely experiential standpoint, the concept of an "event" is problematic and I think the reason for that is because of the polyphonic nature of much western music and of drum beats. When you hit the kick and hi-hat together on beat 1 is that two events that coincide? Or one event consisting of two sounds? Interesting questions, for me at least.


Apparently not for others…

All this theory blah doesn't help anyone...

…If I want to make a beat, I usually stomp with my hands, clap with my feet, bang with my ears and shake my head...

And I walk over to my drum kit, sit down and play. What about it?

We can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time (i.e. talk theory and talk practice), right?

[Sendy]

If a computer running a "super ez-loop randomizer" spits out a series of drum sounds in the middle of a forest but there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?

[xoxos]

2) Money is a gatekeeper. If you really want to learn, you'll find a way to pay.

it takes real bravery to say or think something like that

if someone robs you this week, you'll spend the rest of your life wondering how you said it. course, i guess the corollary is:

if you really want to believe something, you'll find a way to justify it

[herodotus]

I should clarify that in this case I'm using the term "event" in a similar way that it's understood in computer music and the use of MIDI. Also I'm not sure that I agree that there is anything inherently different about western music and drum beats that make "events" different in this regard.

Certainly there is no 'inherent' difference. I would say the difference was more a matter of emphasis. What we call a 'drum beat' might be better described as 'an untuned melody that has a characteristic feel, that is repeated in various forms through most of the song, that is musically fundamental, and that is articulated in most American and European popular music since Louis Armstrong by a kick drum and a snare drum with or without cymbals and toms'

In Afro-Cuban drum music they speak in terms of Claves. These are conceptually similar to 'drum beats' in some ways. They are events that take place over time, they have a characteristic feel, they are repeated throughout most of the song, and they are musically fundamental.

Now drum beats and claves and other forms of rhythmic events over time can all be represented in standard notation. It's not like there are no commonalities or points of intersection between traditional theory and non-European musical cultures. As I said, it's a matter of emphasis. What makes it interesting are the subtle hidden meanings that are revealed when there are crashes at these intersections.

Interesting questions, for me at least.


Apparently not for others…

All this theory blah doesn't help anyone...

…If I want to make a beat, I usually stomp with my hands, clap with my feet, bang with my ears and shake my head...

And I walk over to my drum kit, sit down and play. What about it?

We can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time (i.e. talk theory and talk practice), right?

I have never understood the hostility to music theory that threads like this often seem to reveal.