Polyrhythms/Cross Rhythms

[Aroused by JarJar]

But, I suppose now my question is, how do you make it sound good and not like a jumbled mess?

Break it down and strip it down first. For example, in three against two, the lowest common denominator (breaking it down) is 6. Each beat of the "two" gets three time units, each beat of the "three" gets two time units.

123456

1..4..
1.3.5.

The 1's are together, so you can sing or tap out the resulting rhythm easily.
Bum...buk-a-dum... Tap your finger slowly up and down, each down and each up is one time unit (on beat, off beat). In three taps of the finger you've got your six units and in three against two, it sounds like

DOWN-up-DOWN-UP-DOWN-up

In each polyrhthm there's an essential resulting rhythm you have to have to get the polyrhythm. You don't need all the hits in each rhythm all the time. You don't even need all the hits in the essential resulting rhythm all the time.

First getting down a minimum of what is required to feel the polyrhythm is a way to avoid a jumbled mess.

Another thing is- each rhythm does not need to be exclusively performed on one instrument.

And another thing is, if you are programming drums, after you've got your basic rhythms down, take off snap to grid. If you listen to polyrhythms and other complex rhythms from around the world, they sound good and they are swung in some way or another. Just loop a couple of measures and feel it, move your hits a bit forward or back by feel, it only takes tiny deviations from a clock tempo to make a polyrhythm much more danceable.

And another thing- drum sounds and drum rhythms work together. You'll probably have to use variations with longer and shorter hits, variations in drum pitch and so on, not the same one you'd use performing or programming four on the floor.

[manducator]

I like a 4/4 kick with hihats every third 16th on top.

It sounds like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScBx2VZ-Y1s

[tapper mike]

Most people can't get into poly rhythms unless it is all about the drumming.
Poly rhythms in popular form don't go over very well as it drains the listener.

That being said many don't realize the power of standard rhythms. Rhythm within popular music is much underrated and miss understood.

There are two core paths. One is simply working out rhythmic ideas by studying the music of others using notation and the other is ear training.

I started on the later. I simply followed and imitated rhythmic patterns I'd heard in songs and as a result I gained a keen sense of "flow" It wasn't till much much later that I sat down and studied standard rhythm styles as expressed in notation. It's worked somewhat against me now. As when I try to apply a two part (rhythm instrument and melody) If the melody comes in on a deliberate non standardized value and the rhythm for the melody is in a standardized form it makes things very very rough.

So rather then trying to cross the rubicon into poly rhythms I would suggest that you simply work out standard rhythms first. There is much more then meets the eye and ear. The best way is to study "Styles"

Styles teach you syncopation they paint a landscape for your melody to sit in front of. It's not something you can read in a book and somehow it magically happens. It does take patience and listening and practice. It's not impossible and not beyond your abilities if you are willing to stretch them.

Fortunately Youtube abounds with lessons dedicated to the art of accompaniment.

Skip thru about half way till he actually starts playing something
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evqF4XZU ... re=related

He presents simply accompaniment rhythms from which to build on (yeah I know it's a really lame presentation. But it gives you something to build on.

As you develop confidence in simple timekeeping rhythms it will allow you to expand to other rhythmic phrasing ideas.

[Aroused by JarJar]

Most people can't get into poly rhythms unless it is all about the drumming.
Poly rhythms in popular form don't go over very well as it drains the listener.

Popular music today has everything from subtle polyrhythmic touches to herky-jerky broken rhythms to mad syncopations, cross rhythms, polymetres and polyrhythms. People ask here about different rhythms because it is a big thing in popular music. Have you ever listened to Venetian Snares? Or even...Britney Spears?

[tapper mike]

Yes, I've actually transcribed Brittney Spears music. No individual parts are poly rhythms they are overdubbed and subdued as to not engage the ear as would your average ska song. Or Billy Cobham performance,

If you read the OP and have read ntom's previous post he has expressed concerned over understanding rhythmic structures. He's an intellectual. He thinks about timing and rhtythm but he doesn't have the working knowledge because he hasn't worked it out physically. Which is something he wants to do. ntom doesn't have a teacher. I've been a guitar teacher. I know what it's like when a student has a basic grasp of harmony but can't work it out for lack of experience rhythmically. It's something that some people get naturally and don't concern themselves with notation and others need to work out. The best easiest way to overcome this is with a teacher. Someone who is going to show a musical example of an accompaniment rhythm part and how it fits into a greater arrangement (or smaller one) against a drum pattern or metronome.

At his level of rhythmic development. It's better that he focus on simple yet not too boring accompaniment patterns while he gains confidence in his ability and a sense of connectivity with the beat.

[Aroused by JarJar]

Yes, I've actually transcribed Brittney Spears music. No individual parts are poly rhythms they are overdubbed and subdued as to not engage the ear as would your average ska song. Or Billy Cobham performance,

If you read the OP and have read ntom's previous post he has expressed concerned over understanding rhythmic structures. He's an intellectual. He thinks about timing and rhtythm but he doesn't have the working knowledge because he hasn't worked it out physically. Which is something he wants to do. ntom doesn't have a teacher. I've been a guitar teacher. I know what it's like when a student has a basic grasp of harmony but can't work it out for lack of experience rhythmically. It's something that some people get naturally and don't concern themselves with notation and others need to work out. The best easiest way to overcome this is with a teacher. Someone who is going to show a musical example of an accompaniment rhythm part and how it fits into a greater arrangement (or smaller one) against a drum pattern or metronome.

At his level of rhythmic development. It's better that he focus on simple yet not too boring accompaniment patterns while he gains confidence in his ability and a sense of connectivity with the beat.

First of all, you should lose the concept of classifying musicians as "intellectuals". The "body" and "mind" are obviously completely entangled. Have you never laughed at a verbal joke, or do you need to be tickled with a feather? Never sprouted a woody when imagining something, or do you always need physical stimulation? And ask yourself this: how come the crude combinatorics of serial music, which are mathematically a joke, not even as sophisticated as traditional change-ringing with church-bells, are considered "intellectual", but no one acknowledges that when it comes to motivic development, A Love Supreme is a work of intellectual genius? The answer is obvious, and nasty.

And, the original poster is "programming" music. For all we know, they have a fantastic natural sense of rhythm but no understanding of how to make that happen using an electronic instrument. This is not a hypothetical situation. I witnessed this very problem a couple of weeks ago. A musician programmed the music for the concert, and it was so square and weak I was grinding my teeth. But the musician is a professional jazz drummer, and a good one, worth listening to- but I could throw a potato into a group of stoned teenagers and probably hit someone who can program with more rhythmic feeling. The guy needs to learn a new skill- programming rhythms (or just play everything in with triggers).

So I say, just answer the question in the original post "straight".

[jancivil]

http://blog.adrienpellerin.com/post/627 ... ng-tuplets

it's the main hook. it's the exciting thing to grab onto. /edit - initially I only noticed one bar/: 4 in the time of 3 twice, crossing the bar.

A whole lot of pop uses Latin influence from the 3:2, 2:3 tendency. It isn't terrifically exotic today.

Also note the dubstep wobble.

[Shabdahbriah]

Very interesting/informative thread. Nice break-downs.

There are two core paths. One is simply working out rhythmic ideas by studying the music of others using notation and the other is ear training.

There is at least a third: (cultural influence notwithstanding) inherent rhythm, e.g. "born" (natural) dancer and/or drummer, that *others* analyze and/or mimic.

[jancivil]

I started with teh natcheral rhythm. However when I got to be 12 and wanted to get what Mitch Mitchell done on Fire - Jimi Hendrix, my teacher made me write it out in order to understand the ride, snare, kick independently and I believe he was right to. it was after all a matter of independence of hands/feet performing actually more than one part. some people might have gotten away with not having to do this but it was a eureka moment for me.

the Britney track is perhaps surprising but I don't think it's too avant garde.
for pop type of styles the thing is, and this is based in it, the syncopation of a dotted value [vs the straight]. So I start in with the Son Clave, aka the Bo Diddley rhythm. There you go to the 8th note level and take them: 3 + 3 + 2 = 8. (NB: if someone else in the band is keeping straight 4 We Have The Polyrhythm.)

In compound time, ie., 6/8, 12/8; it's called compound because of this: two or four dotted quarters vs three or six quarters/six or twelve eighths.
I want to be in A Mer, i, ca...
1 2 3 4 5 6/ 1 & 2 & 3 &...

you double that to dotted eighths it amounts to 4 in the time of 3 [quarters], only here* placed in common time.
I have no evidence of how Kei$ha arrived at this for *that Britney number. It could have been perfectly natural out of a certain experience.

[jancivil]

And ask yourself this: how come the crude combinatorics of serial music, which are mathematically a joke, not even as sophisticated as traditional change-ringing with church-bells, are considered "intellectual", but no one acknowledges that when it comes to motivic development, A Love Supreme is a work of intellectual genius? The answer is obvious, and nasty.

Or don't.

Which serial music is not more intellectumal than which kind of change-ringing? Method ringing seems to require no thought at all, it's pure rote.
Do you mean 'the tone row = 12' is not higher mathematics? There isn't real involved mathematics in music anyway.

So, a lot of, say Schoenberg is pretty pedestrian rhythmically, but you should know that 'serial music' is a rather wide thing to have a facile whack at.

The answer is, DING!, academics are idiots? That's a fun concept sho nuff and yes it is.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMuYaki
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMyn01Wg2Ms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SnyL8GycrY

The dude Addison Kurt is a decent, friendly and helpful guy. Explains everything clearly, PDFs and audio downloads also. Aside from the stuff with 'djent' where applied most obviously (but that is the whole kind of point) and definately the 'blasts' or speed building examples. It starts to add up and allows of some really monsterous grooves. Anyway his stuff is surely worth a look ntom

Samuel L Jackson is pretty good at explaining/demonstrating also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Lr-704aCs

Hope that is off some use and all the best

Dean

[anomandaris1]

I have no evidence of how Kei$ha arrived at this for *that Britney number. It could have been perfectly natural out of a certain experience.

This is overused rhythm in progressive/ anthem house.

Here is one nice article - Harmonic Time: Multidimensional Awareness of Polyrhythms, Polytempos
and Polyfeels

http://www.rhombuspublishing.com/articl ... c_time.pdf

And the videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1AuuSBrplc&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n6RA-fg ... ure=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiSgpIk0 ... ure=relmfu

[seismic1]

Or, you could perhaps listen to the interlocking guitar parts on "Discipline" from King Crimson's album of the same name.

[ajrdileva]

Yes use the LCM of the two subdivisions you want to play and create a compound rhythmic pattern

Here's a cool YouTube video about it
http://youtu.be/GaZ8_fH9cGA

[jancivil]

But, I suppose now my question is, how do you make it sound good and not like a jumbled mess?

Break it down and strip it down first. For example, in three against two, the lowest common denominator (breaking it down) is 6. Each beat of the "two" gets three time units, each beat of the "three" gets two time units.

123456

1..4..
1.3.5.

That's 2:3 in compound time, here 6 {I want to be in A mer/ i/ ca/}. Latter-day Hemiola (aka sesquialtera).
The original question (albeit I'm not sure that's what he wanted exactly) had to do with 'cross-rhythm'. As both 2 and 3 factor into 6, there's no 'crossing'.

OTOH: the basic triplet is 3 versus 2, as in simple duple time. 3 8ths in a quarter note's duration rather than 2 8ths. Or you can do 3 quarter notes, OR 3 half notes within the time of 4/4. It's probably quite a bit easier to quickly do a triplet, 3 evenly spaced hits over 1 quarter than this more expansive thing. So the 'cross' element of 3:duple, the different feel of it is more abundant.

Technically the term "cross-rhythm" doesn't apply to multiples of the two numbers in question. 2 in the time of 6, 6 contains 2 and 3 per se. 3 and 2 aren't factors of each other. Triplets are of course taken for granted but here is your beginning of the 'cross-rhythm' journey.

There is a possible grey area here; 4 in the time of 6/4 boils down to 4 dotted 8ths. Per my 'definition' it's a cross-rhythm but it factors into a finer resolution @ 'compound'.