Whenever people talk about 'music theory', they invariably seem to mean harmonic theory (in a fairly broad sense), and maybe a bit about classical structures.
But is there anything like a well developed theory of how rhythm works? Of what sounds wonky and what sounds energetic and what sounds lethargic and so on. I guess there wasn't much call for it when harmonic theory was developing, but now that people are analyzing everything from cuban drumming to Iannais Xenakis to kids slicing breaks in their bedrooms, it seems like there should be something a bit more developed going on...
Rhythm theory
-
- KVRian
- 1084 posts since 12 Sep, 2008 from Your basement
I agree and think that there's a big gap in the standard university education system with regard to the study of rhythm.DWb wrote:Whenever people talk about 'music theory', they invariably seem to mean harmonic theory (in a fairly broad sense), and maybe a bit about classical structures.
But is there anything like a well developed theory of how rhythm works? Of what sounds wonky and what sounds energetic and what sounds lethargic and so on. I guess there wasn't much call for it when harmonic theory was developing, but now that people are analyzing everything from cuban drumming to Iannais Xenakis to kids slicing breaks in their bedrooms, it seems like there should be something a bit more developed going on...
And rhythm ties in so intimately with tonality too. For example, you can either establish a more or less temporary tonality depending on where that newly formed tonal area shows up rhythmically...like at the end of a phrase, on a strong beat, weak beat, etc.
The ear will perceive things differently depending where you put them in your phrase or in your measure.
-
- KVRAF
- 1585 posts since 13 Nov, 2005 from St. Paul
http://www.amazon.com/Rhythmic-Structur ... 0226115224
This is very based on classical music, so if you don't know Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Barktok, and Debussy you might not get much out of it. He deals with rhythm and not just beat or meter, so there's discussion of phrase length and accents. It's a very dense book, I find myself studying it in small pieces rather than reading through, but it's worth a look.
This is very based on classical music, so if you don't know Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Barktok, and Debussy you might not get much out of it. He deals with rhythm and not just beat or meter, so there's discussion of phrase length and accents. It's a very dense book, I find myself studying it in small pieces rather than reading through, but it's worth a look.
-
- KVRAF
- 2217 posts since 15 Jul, 2003
in my peripatetic study of bebop, there's a definite balancing act of long and short phrasing
and in jazz, the evolution can be seen in rhythm changes as hand in hand with harmonic changes
and I have seen in some books that indicate the rhythm evolution was more the driving force than the harmonic
so we go from straight 4/4 dixieland to ragtime to swing to bebop with its 'misplaced' accents on top of swing and offset phrasing
given the whole post modern electronic music scene -- everything is present from the straight 4 on the floor to the most glitched up busyness
and in jazz, the evolution can be seen in rhythm changes as hand in hand with harmonic changes
and I have seen in some books that indicate the rhythm evolution was more the driving force than the harmonic
so we go from straight 4/4 dixieland to ragtime to swing to bebop with its 'misplaced' accents on top of swing and offset phrasing
given the whole post modern electronic music scene -- everything is present from the straight 4 on the floor to the most glitched up busyness