3-3-2 triplets: name?

[fretlessman71]

A student came back from an orchestra camp talking about a certain kind of triplet they used in a song... said that it was similar to "dotted eighth, dotted eighth, eighth", and that it had a name that sounded like a disease... anyone?... anyone?...

[Alvaro Martín Gómez A.]

As far as I know, the main requirement for a rhythm to be considered a "tuplet" (triplet, quintuplet, sextuplet...) is that all the rhythmic values inside it must be exactly the same: All quarter notes, all eighths, all sixteenths... a single different rhythmic value inside the "tuplet" immediately disqualifies it as such.

[fretlessman71]

Same here. I was surprised that this had a particular name for it, according to my student's orchestra camp teachers. This sounds more like a fast clave - 3:2 style. Maybe that's what she meant, but I have no way of knowing until next week...?

[Michael Campbel]

Originally Posted by Alvaro Martín Gómez A.

As far as I know, the main requirement for a rhythm to be considered a "tuplet" (triplet, quintuplet, sextuplet...) is that all the rhythmic values inside it must be exactly the same: All quarter notes, all eighths, all sixteenths... a single different rhythmic value inside the "tuplet" immediately disqualifies it as such.

+1. What he described might have been called a "triplet" in his camp, but it's not (at least not in any context I've ever seen). I am just starting bass playing, but I read drum music for years and have never heard or seen anything but a true "...let" called such.

[Febs]

Originally Posted by fretlessman71

A student came back from an orchestra camp talking about a certain kind of triplet they used in a song... said that it was similar to "dotted eighth, dotted eighth, eighth", and that it had a name that sounded like a disease... anyone?... anyone?...

Hemiola?

[Mark Wilson]

Originally Posted by Febs

Hemiola?

That's what I was thinking.

[Zombbg4]

Originally Posted by Alvaro Martín Gómez A.

As far as I know, the main requirement for a rhythm to be considered a "tuplet" (triplet, quintuplet, sextuplet...) is that all the rhythmic values inside it must be exactly the same: All quarter notes, all eighths, all sixteenths... a single different rhythmic value inside the "tuplet" immediately disqualifies it as such.

Not at all. For example the closest way to writing "swing 8ths" is a quarter note and an eighth note with the triplet notation above it. You can break it up all day as long as it keeps a triplet value, I think...my theory talk is pretty sloppy nowadays.

[Alvaro Martín Gómez A.]

Originally Posted by Zombbg4

Not at all. For example the closest way to writing "swing 8ths" is a quarter note and an eighth note with the triplet notation above it. You can break it up all day as long as it keeps a triplet value, I think...my theory talk is pretty sloppy nowadays.

You are right, but that's just the abbreviated notation. The implied rhythm is two tied eighth notes plus another eighth note (three eighths total), all of them within a triplet bracket.

[Zombbg4]

Originally Posted by Alvaro Martín Gómez A.

You are right, but that's just the abbreviated notation. The implied rhythm is two tied eighth notes plus another eighth note (three eighths total), all of them within a triplet bracket.

Isn't that kind of like saying a dotted half note is an abbreviation for three quarter notes? Doesn't make sense...I mean it IS, but you wouldn't notate it that way. Also, you could take a tuplet of different note values is, find the smallest value (say a 16th), then say that the other values are tied 16ths. I think a tuplet with different values is just that, not implied-abbreviations for smaller note values, like the dotted half example.

[standupright]

Originally Posted by Zombbg4

Isn't that kind of like saying a dotted half note is an abbreviation for three quarter notes? Doesn't make sense...I mean it IS, but you wouldn't notate it that way. Also, you could take a tuplet of different note values is, find the smallest value (say a 16th), then say that the other values are tied 16ths. I think a tuplet with different values is just that, not implied-abbreviations for smaller note values, like the dotted half example.

well, except that the dotted half will always represent the value of what it is. three quarter notes. a triplet can be a beat divided into three even parts tied. so you could have a triplet that represents the value of a quarter note, and not the value of a quarter+eighth note.

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally Posted by Zombbg4

Isn't that kind of like saying a dotted half note is an abbreviation for three quarter notes? Doesn't make sense...I mean it IS, but you wouldn't notate it that way. Also, you could take a tuplet of different note values is, find the smallest value (say a 16th), then say that the other values are tied 16ths. I think a tuplet with different values is just that, not implied-abbreviations for smaller note values, like the dotted half example.

No, the point is that a triplet is composed of three equal components, however you choose to divide or combine them. Just the way a measure of 4/4 is composed of four equal beats. This is why the "triplet" mentioned by the OP can't actually be a triplet, because there's no reasonable or halfway sensible way to see that as making up something that can be said to comprise three equal parts.

[fretlessman71]

Hemiola sounds the most plausible. It's entirely possible that my student didn't describe the situation to my perfect understanding, and hemiola definitely sounds like a skin condition... will report back.

[Alvaro Martín Gómez A.]

Originally Posted by Zombbg4

Isn't that kind of like saying a dotted half note is an abbreviation for three quarter notes? Doesn't make sense...I mean it IS, but you wouldn't notate it that way. Also, you could take a tuplet of different note values is, find the smallest value (say a 16th), then say that the other values are tied 16ths. I think a tuplet with different values is just that, not implied-abbreviations for smaller note values, like the dotted half example.

I get your point, but how do you explain the (often neglected) difference between a quarter + eighth triplet (swing eighths) and a dotted eighth + sixteenth? In my case, I always try to show the real rhythm behind such notation for each case: Two tied eighths + eighth triplet and three tied sixteenths + sixteenth. That's an example of what I mean with implied (or real) rhythm. Swing eighths are really three notes of the same rhythmic value, just tying the first two.

Originally Posted by Richard Lindsey

the point is that a triplet is composed of three equal components, however you choose to divide or combine them.

I couldn't say it better myself.

[Ed Fuqua]

And hemiola describes the three against two feel...

[fretlessman71]

Originally Posted by Ed Fuqua

And hemiola describes the three against two feel...

Righto. Awaiting a text message to confirm. Stay glued to your monitors...

[standupright]

Originally Posted by fretlessman71

Righto. Awaiting a text message to confirm. Stay glued to your monitors...

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally Posted by fretlessman71

Righto. Awaiting a text message to confirm. Stay glued to your monitors...

According to Wikipedia, which as we know is never wrong, hemiola is not exactly the three-against-two feel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemiola

(This actually seems like a pretty decent explanation to me.) But the OP's original example isn't really three against two either.

[Febs]

I think that this is the relevant part of the Wikipedia article for the purposes of our discussion:

Musicians' common speech has extended the definition of "hemiola" to include any occasion of a "three-against-two" metrical feel --- including some mixed meters and polyrhythms --- contrary to the word's original meaning.

[megadan]

I've used the pattern the OP describes often. it's not a three against two feel really. It's just a way of subdividing an 8/8 bar. Like a clave but longer.

There are only 3 ways to divide a group of 8 notes like those, that I know of:
2-2-2-2
4-4
3-3-2

(not including using a 1, like 3-1-3-1 or other things)

to me 2-2-2-2 and 4-4 are really the same, especially in rock (back beat). to me, 3-3-2 (or 2-3-3 or 3-2-3) are the only variations. My band has a song written around around the 3-3-2 rhythm.

Perhaps I am talking about something different than the OP, this is just what came to mind when I saw it.

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally Posted by megadan

it's not a three against two feel really.

Right, which is why "hemiola" would be the wrong word to use, regardless of how strictly or loosely one defines it.