Double Bass How do you count these?

[Andy Mopley]

Not even sure what to call them, to be honest...Duplets?
To be clear bars @ 34 and in other example after 2 bar rest.
Thanks

 

[Tom Lane]

If it's slow enough, I'd count them 1 & 2 & 3 &. If it's too fast to count, a trick a drummer taught me was to count the subdivided one beats. So, between one's, 1-&-2-& or 1-ee-&-ah-2. Both tricks work well for me.

 

[neilG]

You don't need to do anything special: each of those half-notes under the "2" is equal to a dotted quarter in the tempo of the 3/4 that it appears the rest of the music is in.

For the notes under the "4", the beginning of the note is in the same relationship as above, only shorter. You could be more exact by dividing each conducted beat into 4 16ths (12 total) and the dividing that into groups of 3 16ths, giving you your grouping of 4 over three.

This is how you get 4 over three:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[squidtastic]

As neil mentioned, just think dotted quarter for the duplet. You can count "1 and 2 AND 3" where "AND" is the second note of the duplet. And his notation for 4 over 3 is useful.

2 against 3, and 3 against 4 are the foundations of afro-cuban rhythm. If you're unfamiliar with their sounds, Google some samples of those rhythms (or sequence them if you can); it's helpful to get 'em in your ears while you're looking at a chart.

 

[Andy Mopley]

OK, thanks everyone, makes sense ...
NeilG - each of those half-notes under the "2" is equal to a dotted quarter in the tempo of the 3/4 that it appears the rest of the music is in. So why not notate this way, then? Is it because it is easier to read?

Thanks very much again.

 

[neilG]

NeilG - each of those half-notes under the "2" is equal to a dotted quarter in the tempo of the 3/4 that it appears the rest of the music is in. So why not notate this way, then? Is it because it is easier to read?

On the contrary, I think it's more difficult to read. You'd have to ask the composer why they did it this way, but I can imagine that playing 2 over three without all the mental subdividing could let you add some nuance to the rhythm, much like the way Latin rhythms are not played exactly as written. On the other hand it could just be gratuitous cuteness. It looks more "modern" this way.

 

[Andy Mopley]

OK, you're the man! Thanks again

 

[Major Softie]

On the contrary, I think it's more difficult to read. You'd have to ask the composer why they did it this way, but I can imagine that playing 2 over three without all the mental subdividing could let you add some nuance to the rhythm, much like the way Latin rhythms are not played exactly as written. On the other hand it could just be gratuitous cuteness. It looks more "modern" this way.

Yeah, I'll admit I've never seen it notated this way and don't know enough theory to know any reason that it would be preferred over maing them dotted quarters. I would certainly consider dotted quarters simpler to read.

 

[PaulCannon]

Composers try to write these kinds of things either in the way they're used to seeing them, or the way they would want to read it.

Fred Lerdahl's "Waltzes" are full of this, and he uses both in different contexts. Dotted quarters show up in more fluid, lyrical passages while the brackets are put in to emphasize more precise moments.

 

[contrabart]

OK, thanks everyone, makes sense ...
NeilG - each of those half-notes under the "2" is equal to a dotted quarter in the tempo of the 3/4 that it appears the rest of the music is in. So why not notate this way, then? Is it because it is easier to read?

Thanks very much again.

Maybe not easier to read, but when it is a swing feel for the 8th notes, there's a difference between dotted quarter notes and a duplet.