How Do I Play/Count This?

[Nickweissmusic]

Hello!

We are working on our second record and one of our guitarists, bless his heart, has sent me this rhythmic monstrosity.

View attachment 3211727

I cannot for the life of me begin to figure out how to pick this apart. Is this even in 4/4? There's another song we've written that I've found much more helpful to feel as bars of 6 - 5 - 6 - 7 - repeat, but that song is at 110, not 150. I can't begin to pick apart how to count this in an easy way. I could conceivably stumble through it live but want to make sure it's airtight and I'm wondering if there's any repeating pattern or motif that I'm not seeing. It doesn't sound that complicated in the demo track, but, again, I'm wondering if there's anything I'm missing or if I just need to buckle down and learn this full sixteen-bar motif the old fashioned way.

No comments on the insanely low tuning, please, I didn't buy this Dingwall for nothin'

Thanks!

Looks like a repeated 8 measure phrase. It’s obtuse, but not hard. Can he send a recording? Looks like that was done on guitar pro, which usually allows you to export audio. If you’re not into reading that will probably go a lot faster.

 

[Nickweissmusic]

...or at the very least tell him to re-read the chapter on beam groupings in his notation software manual.

There’s no problem with the beam groupings at all, they’re perfect. The slide to nowhere from nowhere is silly, other than that there’s no problem.

 

[Mugre]

If I cite my experience/education it's not to improperly imply authority but rather to provide context to my perspective. I've been playing instruments for almost 50 years including reading snare drum music, marching beats, highly syncopated woodwind music from when before there WAS notation etc and I find this confusingly beamed. To me it feels like there are some 16th note rests where 8th rests should be and or some missing dots. I suspect it was played into a notation program and this was what was spit out.

Is it correct? I don't know because I don't know what the guitar player played but I do know that it could be easier to read if it were beamed for better readability.

 

[SteveCS]

If I cite my experience/education it's not to improperly imply authority but rather to provide context to my perspective. I've been playing instruments for almost 50 years including reading snare drum music, marching beats, highly syncopated woodwind music from when before there WAS notation etc and I find this confusingly beamed. To me it feels like there are some 16th note rests where 8th rests should be and or some missing dots. I suspect it was played into a notation program and this was what was spit out.

Is it correct? I don't know because I don't know what the guitar player played but I do know that it could be easier to read if it were beamed for better readability.

No, the groups/beams are correct...

That said, I would offer 3 improvements:
1 Use a 16vb clef
2 Use repeat barlines
3 tweak the space between beats up a bit

 

[Real Soon]

I'm fine with the notation; were I scoring this, I'd use the same conventions on the staff. Maybe lower the rests a space to be a sympathetic engraver. Also: seeing it's an 8-bar phrase, doing a set of repeats around it would make reading the part way more efficient.

The way I'd learn it is start REALLLLLYY SLLOOOWWW. Then practice my butt off till I could reliably hammer out 16ths at 150bpm, because I'm maxed around 138-144bpm. Heh!

Er, but is the part transposed as bass notation normally would be, i.e. those really low F's a tritone under a standard 5er's low B?


Also yeah: I'm chuckling at the thought of doing a slide down from fret 0. Dunno about that tablature buddy!

 

[PotsdamBass8]

I wasn’t sure of the style or tempo at first, and thought hey, that sounds like it could be a pretty funky bass line at 80 bpm, especially with those eights on the + of 4. But at 150, you really have to ask what the goal is. Because to me, it seems like it’s difficult just for the sake of being difficult/impressive. And that’s fine if that’s what you’re going for. Obviously all we can see is the rhythmic pattern and a tempo, so take that with a grain of salt.

Thanks for posting this though, it’s great to get a little snapshot of how other people write/learn/share musical ideas.

 

[Drucifer]

I'd be more concerned with the slide down the zero fret...

I agree, but that could be a "dive bomb" whammy bar on guitar, but no way to play it on most basses.

 

[Blackjac97]

If I cite my experience/education it's not to improperly imply authority but rather to provide context to my perspective.

This is exactly what I was trying to say! Just put more succinctly

 

[SteveCS]

... But at 150, you really have to ask what the goal is. Because to me, it seems like it’s difficult just for the sake of being difficult/impressive. ...

I have to admit that was my first reaction. But then I got thinking. At that tempo and that pitch, the string won't even make 9 cycles per 16th note. If we assume the first 2 are lost to the relatively pitchless initial attack and the last two at least are lost to the time our OP's finger/pick is on the string cuing up the next note, that leaves just over 4 cycles for the string to produce a note with discernable pitch - so more like damped tuned percussion. I think the key characteristic of this part is not pitch or even the (inevitably percussive) flurries of the 'notes', but getting crisp well defined rests.

150bpm =150/60 = 2.5 bps
1 beat = 1/2.5 = 0.4s
F=21.8125Hz
21.8125 x 0.4=8.725

 

[SLO Surfer]

To me it feels like there are some 16th note rests where 8th rests should be and or some missing dots.

There is not one place where two 16 note rests are back to back, so why would there need to be an 8th rest in their place? Changing the rests and/or adding dots would change the actual rhythms the guitar player gave this bassist to learn. I’m also not seeing any problem with the beams or how it’s written.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

...or at the very least tell him to re-read the chapter on beam groupings in his notation software manual.

What's wrong with the beam groupings?

 

[bfields]

I've always wondered whether the goal of some bassists is to increase their plucking speed and decrease the frequency of the lowest note until the two meet somewhere around 15-20Hz.

Anyway. I'd repeat those 8 bars very very slowly--enough that you have time to think, "OK, this next beat is gonna be 1e&a, then this one is e&a", etc., and feel pretty relaxed about it. Once you've got the pattern memorized, allow it to slowly speed up as it feels natural to do so.

Friedland's bass guitar method has some chapters devoted to practicing reading all the different 16th note groupings, for what it's worth. (As do lots of other books.)

 

[dreamadream99]

What helped me in school, when I was learning complex 16th rhythms, was labelling the music with downbeat marks, so I always knew exactly where each beat started. From there it was just a matter of subdividing, and leaving out notes on rests.

 

[Bob_Ross]

What's wrong with the beam groupings?

See my reply in post #14: It's considered good practice, a courtesy at the very least, to extend 16th-note beams over the entire duration of a beat, for clarity/legibility. Makes it easier to see the subdivisions, and easier to not mistakenly think three beamed notes are some kind of (poorly identified) triplet.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

See my reply in post #14: It's considered good practice, a courtesy at the very least, to extend 16th-note beams over the entire duration of a beat, for clarity/legibility. Makes it easier to see the subdivisions, and easier to not mistakenly think three beamed notes are some kind of (poorly identified) triplet.

I haven't seen this in practice in many years, and I've been reading music every day for 35 years. I've also read quite a bit about good notation practice, and never seen it. Do you have any sources?

 

[SteveCS]

See my reply in post #14: It's considered good practice, a courtesy at the very least, to extend 16th-note beams over the entire duration of a beat, for clarity/legibility. Makes it easier to see the subdivisions, and easier to not mistakenly think three beamed notes are some kind of (poorly identified) triplet.

They are - last time I looked there were only 4 semiquavers in a crotchet. I don't see any place where the beam might encompass a rest. Semiquavers don't get beamed across beats...

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

They are - last time I looked there were only 4 semiquavers in a crotchet. I don't see any place where the beam might encompass a rest. Semiquavers don't get beamed across beats...

I belive he meant like this, but it's still not good practice, and it's very uncommon.

 

[Blackjac97]

IMO that looks terrible, and I've never seen it in a piece of music. Not once ever.

 

[SteveCS]

I belive he meant like this, but it's still not good practice, and it's very uncommon.

View attachment 3212314

That's just nasty to read. Just a little more spacing between the groups (in the OP) is all that's required, IMHO.

 

[TNLA]

Seems that OP was asking for advice on counting the excerpt. Half the comments are on the formatting/engraving. The formatting could certainly be improved for the sake of sight reading. However we should be able to agree that the rhythm is spelled out correctly. The clarity is another question...but maybe we can try to stick to the original point.

In any case if it were me I would probably input into notation software and play along at low tempo, and gradually speed it up.