Is "Advanced/Complex Pulse" also one of Magadini's terms, or are you extrapolating the existence of such a concept based on Magadini's use of the term "Basic Pulse"?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
4:3 Polyrhythms in top 40 music
- Thread starter HaVIC5
- Start date
Is "Advanced/Complex Pulse" also one of Magadini's terms, or are you extrapolating the existence of such a concept based on Magadini's use of the term "Basic Pulse"?
Those boxes are the 16th notes.
The top layer has 4 boxes x 5 (repeats itself) = 20 boxes/16th notes.
The bottom layer has 20 boxes/the 16th notes which is 5 quarter notes in 5/4.
"Advanced/Complex" Pulse is my term as antonym to Magadini's "Basic Pulse".
Like "matter" and that invisible "antimatter".
Except it's not 5 quarter notes, it's a syncopated rhythm; if the bottom layer were 5 quarter notes in 5/4 they would be evenly spaced (same number of subdivisions between every attack). That's why I said that's an example of polymeter, not polyrhythm.
Okay. So if the "Basic Pulse" tends to align with the metric division (e.g., the quarter note in n/4 time signature) then I guess the "Advanced/Complex Pulse" could simply be the other voice in the polyrhythm -- e.g., if a 5:4 polyrhythm is established using quarter note quintuplets against a 4/4 beat, that quintuplet could be perceived as establishing another pulse with a 20% faster tempo. How's that for "Advanced/Complex"? Or, you could look at nested tuplets...or tuplets whose partials are dotted values, or that contain ties within the bracket...or tuplets that cross the bar line...or combinations of any/all of the above. (Imagine coming across a 23:15 tuplet that has a couple of nested 16th-note triplets in the middle and that takes up slightly more than one measure of 7/8? That'll get your sight reading chops in a tizzy!) All that stuff I would consider "Advanced/Complex" use of polyrhythm.
I truly believe that those DRUMMERS are going mad and post all kinds of ...
What's more, they think that intellegent bass players are going to accept that Drummer's polyrhythmic BS.
The drummer's 5 over 3 polyrhythm written in 3/4, even in 5/4.
Drummer Issue 109 - Polyrhythmic Grooves #2 - James Hester
More stuff to confuse beginner (but, possibly, "intelligent") bass players.
Taken from here:
Invalid Link Removed
P.S. I'm just getting deeper and deeper in that Polyrhythm {stuff}.
Taken from here:
Invalid Link Removed
P.S. I'm just getting deeper and deeper in that Polyrhythm {stuff}.
I think I am with @Bob_Ross (at least so far)
Reading through all of this (and part of me wishes I had not), I think there is a lot of hyping of the terms 'polyrhythm'/'cross-rhythm'/'cross-beat' that can all be described under the more general term syncopation. I've looked at the Wikipedia entries for polyrhythm and cross-rhythm and to me they just spawn confusion. If it is all to be believed, then suddenly triplets (three in the time of two) and compound time signatures such as 6/8 are now polyrhythms.
In the same way as playing 3 in the time of two is not a polyrhythm (it's a triplet), playing 5 in the time of 4 is not a polyrhythm (nine times out of ten it is just a mess). Are we now saying that any rhythmic figure that does not have an accent on '1' every bar is a polyrhythm? I'm sorry but to me that is just syncopation, and the term 'cross-beat' is nothing more than a term to description of the particular type of 'ebb and flow' created when independent but repeating patterns of accents, tones or pitches are super-imposed over each other such that certain of the accents, tones or pitches align every few bars.
Reading through all of this (and part of me wishes I had not), I think there is a lot of hyping of the terms 'polyrhythm'/'cross-rhythm'/'cross-beat' that can all be described under the more general term syncopation. I've looked at the Wikipedia entries for polyrhythm and cross-rhythm and to me they just spawn confusion. If it is all to be believed, then suddenly triplets (three in the time of two) and compound time signatures such as 6/8 are now polyrhythms.
In the same way as playing 3 in the time of two is not a polyrhythm (it's a triplet), playing 5 in the time of 4 is not a polyrhythm (nine times out of ten it is just a mess). Are we now saying that any rhythmic figure that does not have an accent on '1' every bar is a polyrhythm? I'm sorry but to me that is just syncopation, and the term 'cross-beat' is nothing more than a term to description of the particular type of 'ebb and flow' created when independent but repeating patterns of accents, tones or pitches are super-imposed over each other such that certain of the accents, tones or pitches align every few bars.
I'm sorry, but this is the sort of misinformation that made me stop posting in General Instruction, and I hesitate to get sucked into it again. Playing 3 notes in the time of 2 is the very definition of a 3:2 polyrhythm, so yes. Within a duple based meter like 4/4, triplets are a manifestation of a polyrhythm. You could make the argument that you need a separate voice performing the "2" pulse in order to be a "true polyrhythm" (whatever that might mean), but I don't think you're doing that here. No, 6/8 isn't automatically a polyrhythm, because the unit pulse generally is in 3 and not 2. Superimposing quarter notes onto a 6/8 groove would indeed be polyrhythmic.
Saying something is "just a syncopation" might be true, in the same way that talking about functional harmony is "just different chords put together." Yeah, sure, it's true, but it's oversimplifying something to a degree where you aren't actually creating any sort of knowledge or understanding. For example, how is THIS syncopation different from others? It's based of evenly-spaced groupings of notes that resolve every 3 quarter notes, which can be understood with the mathematical ratio of 4:3.
That's what I was trying to accomplish in the video - showing a popular polyrhythmic relationship common in certain kinds of top 40 pop songs to spur an interest in polyrhythms and what that might mean for personal internal time keeping, feeling, and musical knowledge in general. Instead, what people took from that was "THATS NOT A POLYRHYTHM THATS A CROSS RHYTHM" or whatever nonsense people like arguing about. Instead certain folks like TE insisted that it was a "rhythmic phrasing device" (actually known as a hemiola if you're going to be technical about it), and not really bothering to talk about the music at all. Somehow people got really in a tizzy about me calling it a polyrhythm (even though it very clearly is one).
And for all the talk about whether or not the rhythms from the video are polyrhythms, I can't help but notice that nobody has commented on the notation I used at the top of the video. I wonder why that is?
This is confusing notation for sure, but it is a 100% rhythmically accurate one for notating the rhythm used in the Britney Spears song. I included it 1) for shock value and 2) as a sort of pre-emptive strike against the people who didn't think that there were polyrhythmic ratios occuring. Let me explain the notation...
The first 3 beats of the 1st measure of 4/4 (the lyrics "take it take it") consist of 4 quarter note quadruplets, which are identical to 4 dotted eighth notes. The lyrics "take no more" fall within another cycle of quarter note quadruplets, but it's made very messy because they occur over the barline. Tuplets over the barline can be a notational issue, which is why it was necessary to create the nested triplet on the lyric "no." Since a quarter note quadruplet is identical to a dotted eighth note, if you split a quarter note quadruplet into a group of three (a triplet), it's the same thing as splitting a dotted eighth note into a group of three. This would mean three sixteenth notes, so when you write the nested triplet over the barline like I did on the lyric "no," it's identical to having a sixteenth note tied to an eighth note.
If all of this seems wrong, go ahead, input the notation into a notational software like Sibelius, and you'll hear that it sounds exactly the same as the more conventional method of writing the rhythm, which is written below.
Remember, notation isn't music - its just a way of understanding the music that we're making. It goes hand-in-hand with rhythmic theory, but there may be more than one way of notating the same rhythm, and there may be more than one way of understanding the music that you are hearing and playing. The important thing I was hearing in that dotted eighth rhythm was it's rhythmic relationship to the unit quarter pulse. If you don't want to call it a polyrhthm, that's your prerogative, but it DOES have the mathematical ratio of 4:3, so that's really the only thing I care about.
You are correct. A Polymess.
In fairness to the OP, although the examples are NOT "textbook polyrhythms," he is pointing out a phrasing device that at least unsettles the constant, incessant quarter-note pounding. And, introduces some interest, albeit as cliché as it comes, for a brief moment.
Poly On!
In fairness to the OP, although the examples are NOT "textbook polyrhythms," he is pointing out a phrasing device that at least unsettles the constant, incessant quarter-note pounding. And, introduces some interest, albeit as cliché as it comes, for a brief moment.
Poly On!
I believe I did.
For me, and many others, a "polyrythm," needs to be referenced to the Time Signature, and use the entire measure for reference.
In the examples you posted - that I seem to remember - were all in 4/4. What you did, by only using three beats (out of a 4-beat measure) as your reference, does not "qualify". True polyrhythms do not need to "catch up," or end with incompleteness.
I used the "Here Comes the Sun," as an example of NOT a polyrhythm. It is NOT a 4:6 followed by two quarter-notes.
But as I just pointed out, it's a cliché rhythm device.
On Poly, On!
Sigh. Is this any better for you?
I didn't change a single note, and the music sounds exactly the same. The only difference is just how it's notated, which, like I said, is not the same as music, and simply is a way of understanding music. If this means that it's a polyrhythm to you, then so be it, but remember nothing whatsoever about the music has changed - only the notation.
Not just for me. But for the sake of notating Polyrhythms, yes.
Having said that, this is not what's musically happening in the pop-examples. They are simply using dotted-rhythms.
Hey, at least the popsters are not swinging. The Rhythm Notation Police would be at your door.
So if I notate the rhythm from the Britney Spears song this way, it's a polyrhythm, but if I notate a different way it's not? How about if I say that there is a hypermetric hemiola of 3/4+3/4+2/4 superimposed upon the 2 measures of 4/4? Does that egghead jargon change the way you like to look at the rhythm?
Because the rhythm is the same, and has the same mathematical ratio to the base quarter note no matter what fancy names we give it. The music is the same.
I repeat.
The music. Is the same.
All three forms of notation I gave yield the exact same music, but for whatever technical reason, you feel like it doesn't count as a polyrhythm unless there is a written meter next to it. Thats fine, but that's nitpicking and, like I mentioned in the long post prior, it doesn't add any particular understanding to what is going on. The fact of the matter is, like stated before, that grouping of dotted eighth notes has a 4:3 mathematical ratio against 3 quarter notes. Call it what you want, but that is what I was trying to get through in the video in a fun and informative way.
OP, don't even even waste your time. If you say something is "the same color as a tree", we know you obviously mean it's green. But someone on here will enevitably argue that it's yellow and blue and post 100 diagrams and excerpts showing why.. And another will bring up that the tree may be dead, and therefore it would be orange.. And another will bring up that the trunk is brown (unless it's burnt, which would make it black).. And another will say that some trees are multi-colored, and your analogy just wasn't nearly broad enough. People on this forum love to get caught up in the minor details, and sooner or later miss your whole damn point. It's one of the most annoying things about this place. There's nothing wrong with your video lesson OP, or your way of explaining the concept.
Last edited:
Purportedly, you're the egghead. I'm not the one that made an attempt to find something sublime or cerebral in a BS song.
I never said that it wasn't.
Likewise, call it what YOU want. You certainly have a fanbase.
As far as undertanding/not understanding, there were about 4 pages of confusion before I entered.
It sucks being challenged.
I don't like when our discussions get personal.
I don't like when a Musician is personally attacking other Musician.
I completely agree with Adam's idea that "notation is only guide to Music".
Anyway, here is a video, "Polyrhythms for dummies".
Here's the formula you'll see explained in the video:
Polyrhythm Formula:
Take X:N (N = primary pulse, X = secondary pulse)
1. Create a bar with 'N' primary beats
2. Subdivide each beat into 'X' notes
3. Accent every 'N' subdivided notes
4. Remove non-accented notes (but count them)
I don't like when a Musician is personally attacking other Musician.
I completely agree with Adam's idea that "notation is only guide to Music".
Anyway, here is a video, "Polyrhythms for dummies".
Here's the formula you'll see explained in the video:
Polyrhythm Formula:
Take X:N (N = primary pulse, X = secondary pulse)
1. Create a bar with 'N' primary beats
2. Subdivide each beat into 'X' notes
3. Accent every 'N' subdivided notes
4. Remove non-accented notes (but count them)
I'm sorry Adam - I liked your video but X notes in the time of Y notes is a tuplet, not a polyrhythm. What I liked in your video was the pink-paper sketch which correctly explains polyrhythm as two independently accented parts written in different time signatures and then played side by side with a common tempo - the very foundation of a polyrhythm. I remember seeing something very similar when I first studied polyrhythms over 20 years ago with Stick masters Jim Lampi and Frank Joliffe. Unfortunately it seems to be this sketch and associated explanation which has sparked the discussion and somehow derailed it into a dick-dance. For my part in that I apologise.
SteveCS,
You were very unhappy with my humorous score comments in some other thread.
Now, I am unhappy when you start your comment as "Sorry, you are wrong".
What I've learned by being around Musicians that NOBODY has the FINAL RIGHT ANSWER IN MUSIC.
N.B. Even the best Musicians could have a very strong but "UNIQUELY-PROPRIETARY" knowledge or VISION about ANY SUBJECT in Music.
Once again, I want to thank Adam that his video sparked my interest about polyrhythms and proved to me that there is so much of "NEBULOUS and CLOUDY" information on that subject.
Let's continue with our explorations on Polyrhythms, plus cross-rhythms, odd groupings, metric modulations, etc...
(For those who want to explore more about that interesting topic.)
I will post a few excerpts from the following thesis:
Time Travels
Modern Rhythm Section Techniques as
Employed by Ari Hoenig
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
"A Brief Introduction to Polyrhythm Terminology
The word Polyrhythm can be misleading. A polyrhythm is a defined as: the juxtaposition
of simultaneous but conflicting rhythmic patterns. Or simply: two or more rhythms being used
simultaneously, but that don't divide evenly into one another. The most misleading part of the
word polyrhythm is the suffix "poly". It doesn't necessarily have to be two rhythms that are
played at the same time, but an implication of a new pulse or time signature that is somehow
mathematically related to the original.
There seems to be a lot of mystery surrounding this subject. Some find the subject to be
to be overwhelming and feel that the topic takes years of study to understand. I once spoke to a
beginning drum student about polyrhythms and said that his former teacher explained them to
him by making an analogy. He said, "Imagine you are listening to a song in your car on the radio
and turn on your turn signal, if you analyze the relationship of the radio to the blinker you have a
polyrhythm." This is far from the case. When you break down a polyrhythm, you actually find
out that the formula for figuring out and analyzing them is simple and only involves grade level
arithmetic. Many musicians play them without even realizing it."
For those who are "obsessed" with polyrhythms, I would recommend the following long thesis:
Phrasing and Polyrhythm in. Contemporary Jazz Guitar: A Portfolio of Recorded Performances and. Exegesis. Volume One. Quentin Angus. B.Mus. (Hons) 2008
Invalid Link Removed
Phrasing and Polyrhythm in. Contemporary Jazz Guitar: A Portfolio of Recorded Performances and. Exegesis. Volume One. Quentin Angus. B.Mus. (Hons) 2008
Invalid Link Removed
Latest posts
-
-
Misled by Talkbass Seller on Recent Trade- Latest: MultiScaleMale
-
-
-
