Teaching 2 against 3 rhythm...

[nyiregyhazi]

See above...

I am not sure I would call this a method at all, it's just a way to solve a problem at hand. When it stops working I would forget about it, not force it.

But what if it doesn't work? I know that I couldn't breeze though a 11 against 12- and maths will not help there. What use is feeling how many 11ths through one of your 12s the next of the 11 falls? None. It's important to have a plan B at the very least, or you learn some things and then find yourself without any method that is of any use for anything further.

If I devoted myself to feeling how to fit a very steady eleven between two beats (before concerning myself with the cross rhythm), I have no doubt that I could learn to do a decent enough job with both hands relatively quickly (assuming the notes aren't outrageously difficult to execute too).

[the89thkey]

But what if it doesn't work? I know that I couldn't breeze though a 11 against 12- and maths will not help there. What use is feeling how many 11ths through one of your 12s the next of the 11 falls? None. It's important to have a plan B at the very least, or you learn some things and then find yourself without any method that is of any use for anything further.

If I devoted myself to feeling how to fit a very steady eleven between two beats (before concerning myself with the cross rhythm), I have no doubt that I could learn to do a decent enough job with both hands relatively quickly (assuming the notes aren't outrageously difficult to execute too).

Yes...subdividing the beat into 132 won't really work here...

[outin]

But what if it doesn't work?

I have already answered this (twice actually) so I don't know what more to say 

I am talking about learning 2-3 or 3-4 here. The more complex polyrhythms require something different, but I will cross that bridge when I come to it.

If I devoted myself to feeling how to fit a very steady eleven between two beats (before concerning myself with the cross rhythm), I have no doubt that I could learn to do a decent enough job with both hands relatively quickly (assuming the notes aren't outrageously difficult to execute too).

I have no doubt that you could, but we are not talking about you here are we? This is just the attitude I was referring to above

[ahinton]

Mon Dieu! The fiftieth post about "2 against 3"!

One useful principle, albeit perhaps more of a psychological than a technical one, is - as I was urged years ago in aural training classes - never to think of a polyrhythm as "x against y" but as "x in the time of y", otherwise it will become "x and y against you"...

Best,

Alistair

[nyiregyhazi]

I have already answered this (twice actually) so I don't know what more to say  

I am talking about learning 2-3 or 3-4 here. The more complex polyrhythms require something different, but I will cross that bridge when I come to it.

I have no doubt that you could, but we are not talking about you here are we? This is just the attitude I was referring to above

You miss where I was coming from. My point was actually based on the fact that I probably could NOT just sit down and execute a decent 11 against 12 straight off the bat, due to existing ability. My point was that the primary METHOD that I use for absolutely any cross-rhythm (of the kind where each hand has one rhythm) will apply equally to that situation and hence it would not be a problem to develop the ability to work it up.

If the compound rhythm helps to get 2 against 3 and 3 against 4, there's nothing wrong with that. My point is that if you want to go on to be able to execute ANY conceivable cross-rhythm (which we surely do want, no?), you need a method that is not based on complex compound rhythm, but the simplicity of flow in the individual rhythms. It's the difference between giving yourself a fish and learning how to use a fishing-rod, to paraphrase the saying. I believe Alistair is making the same point- that cross-rhythms are not actually about the complex juxtapositions between individual notes, but rather the ability to feel x number of notes between two points in time, without concerning yourself about how it directly relates to the other rhythm. The only way to feel a whole range of cross-rhythms with equal ease is to learn to devote yourself to seamless travel between the meeting points- not to attempt to fathom the complexity between those points.

[nyiregyhazi]

I was playing through the Rachmaninoff Elegie just now and I realised just how deep this issue goes- both on cross-rhythms and in general. In some of the two against threes I realised that I was getting too much of that compound rhythm feel. My right hand wasn't flowing through a seamless line. I learned the piece along time ago and realised I had a habit of waiting for the interaction with the left hand- instead of flowing through an independent melodic gesture. It created a choppy feeling of implied syncopation- rather than of a flowing triplet. Rather than two flows, each hand was stopping to wait for the other- in a compounded view of what should be completely independent musical parts.

Beyond that, I  also realised that in a section which has no cross-rhythms I wasn't properly individuating the parts. I started off with my attention on a left hand melody in the B section and realised that my attention was going to the right hand mid-way through- rather than feeling the completion of the more melodic part. This issue runs at the heart of everything- not just cross rhythms. You do need the ability to look at the whole like a conductor, but you also need truly independent awareness of musical lines. My view was so much about the overall effect of what comes from two compounded hands, that I hadn't even realised that I'd completely lost sight of the completion of melody. It makes me realise quite how useful hands separate practise remains for musical practise- even if you have no problem executing the notes. When you tie these issues into musicality, even without cross-rhythms, each part needs to have it's OWN flow of motion- that is not understood merely in reference to cues in separate musical lines. You should never feel a hand basically stops after playing a note and then waits for the other hand to do something before it becomes active again. The hand should have it's own flow. It shouldn't be felt to wait for a cue. The same issue lies at the heart of good rubato- where melody notes are constantly not judged as a certain amount separated from the left. The separation comes from the natural flow of the musical line- which naturally takes it slightly out of sync with the other hand.

I think compounded rhythm can be an extremely dangerous thing to use as anything more than one possible viewpoint (as it completely interferes with musicality if it becomes your norm for judgement). I was actually pretty amazed to realise that I'm still prone to slipping into lumpiness in a simple two against three. If I can get lost in (after having written all this stuff in this thread about getting away from that) it shows just how deeply a habit can dominate due to even starting out with this viewpoint. Even if a compounded feel gives the right rhythm, is it actually creating a musical effect?

[lloyd_cdb]

I'm working on a 5 over 6, and it's definitely different than ones that are more spaced.  Playing close numbers tend to make your rhythm converge, and the brain separation can be much more complicated than something you can use word devices to work out.  Even much more difficult than ones like 4/7.  As a mediocre pianist with decent natural rhythm, it's still difficult for me.  My most basic way of dealing with the more complex combinations is the rare instance in which I use a metronome.  Doing each one separately and repetitively, then switch, then switch back, etc.  Over 15-20 minutes you bring it down to starting one hand on one beat and the next hand immediately starting on the ending beat.  It may seem counter-intuitive to be practicing notes that aren't actually being played together, but after 15 minutes you aren't really paying attention to it at that point.  The harmonics become fairly mechanical at that point, and you just have to focus on keeping the melody fluid when you start combining.  Even if you are off, still try it several times in a row, take a break, and then start back with the 1 and 1 alternating pattern.  That's at least how I do it, and have had a fair amount of success.

[the89thkey]

I'm working on a 5 over 6, and it's definitely different than ones that are more spaced.  Playing close numbers tend to make your rhythm converge, and the brain separation can be much more complicated than something you can use word devices to work out.  Even much more difficult than ones like 4/7.  As a mediocre pianist with decent natural rhythm, it's still difficult for me.  My most basic way of dealing with the more complex combinations is the rare instance in which I use a metronome.  Doing each one separately and repetitively, then switch, then switch back, etc.  Over 15-20 minutes you bring it down to starting one hand on one beat and the next hand immediately starting on the ending beat.  It may seem counter-intuitive to be practicing notes that aren't actually being played together, but after 15 minutes you aren't really paying attention to it at that point.  The harmonics become fairly mechanical at that point, and you just have to focus on keeping the melody fluid when you start combining.  Even if you are off, still try it several times in a row, take a break, and then start back with the 1 and 1 alternating pattern.  That's at least how I do it, and have had a fair amount of success.

I don't love this method. And I think polyrhythms are actually easier the closer you get together. If I were to do a 16 against 17 that would be much easier to sound plausible than something like 4 on 7, which is a smaller but much trickier rhythm because it actually has to be right.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't love this method. And I think polyrhythms are actually easier the closer you get together. If I were to do a 16 against 17 that would be much easier to sound plausible than something like 4 on 7, which is a smaller but much trickier rhythm because it actually has to be right.

Are you serious? It depends on context.  The 7 against 8 in rustle of spring needs to be absolutely spot on. There's no scope for melodic rubato there. It far harder to get that than a tight 4 against 7- where you can afford to think about pairing notes together (where there's a sense that one hand triggers the note in the other hand). There's no way to do that if you have to play a tight rhythm where the numbers are close together. It has to go on two completely independent feels. With 4 against 7, there's scope to feel approximate relations between the hands and to make it work from that (even though I'd still largely favour the autopilot based approach).

I've never encountered a 16 against 17, but if one did arise I don't see any obvious contextual reason why a more typical 4 against 7 could not be executed as freely. Also if circumstances meant they both had to be tight, the 16 against 17 would be drastically more difficult- primarily because it would be so hard to feel a precise 17 between two points in time (even without a 16 against it). The 4 against 7 is not hard, because all it takes is to be able to feel a steady four or a steady 7 between two clicks. If you can do both individually, the combination will come very easily on autopilot. It's only because it's so hard to feel a continuous 17 between two clicks that a 16/17 would be so hard to do strictly (yet very easy to do freely).

If a cross-rhythm features two numbers that I can easily feel (individually) between two points in time, it will always be readily possible to do it precisely. Any combination of numbers lower than 9 is relatively easy (although 7 starts to get tricky). If it features a number that is difficult to feel between two points of time (without anything going against it) it will always be hard to do, except with freedom and rubato. Such numbers as 11 and 13 will always be harder to do precisely, for this reason.

[the89thkey]

The 4 against 7 is not hard, because all it takes is to be able to feel a steady four or a steady 7 between two clicks. If you can do both individually, the combination will come very easily on autopilot.

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. You think if you can play an 8 and a 9 (both very easy to do because they are both subdividable (not sure if that's a word) - the 8 is 4 2s and the 9 is 3 3s) then you can do 8 against 9 with no trouble at all? That makes no sense whatsoever. The rest of your post has numerous other misconceptions, all of which I need not take the trouble to address. This one was particularly glaring.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. You think if you can play an 8 and a 9 (both very easy to do because they are both subdividable (not sure if that's a word) - the 8 is 4 2s and the 9 is 3 3s) then you can do 8 against 9 with no trouble at all? That makes no sense whatsoever. The rest of your post has numerous other misconceptions, all of which I need not take the trouble to address. This one was particularly glaring.

It may not make sense to you, but as I use the flow method described previously (and as another poster gave an alternative description of a few posts back) , all it takes it to learn to make each hand go on autopilot between the steady meeting points. As long as the tempo is not too slow to feel a sense of a single independent flow between two beats, it's not really any harder than any other cross rhythm. It's based on flow between fixed meeting points- the same as the 3 against 4 in the fantasie impromptu. This works fine for the 7 against 8 in rustle of spring. It can be learned very quickly this way. What makes 8 against 9 so different? I'm not saying anyone who has never done a single cross rhythm will get it in an instant. If you've used the method for easier ones, it's not long before you can use it for anything where you can feel a flow of x notes between two strictly defined points in time.

If my post contains misconceptions then identify them. Otherwise I'll assume that your identification of misconception is based on a misconception on your part- the same as your incredulousness about using the flow method for 8 against 9. With experience at using this approach for various cross rhythms, it works equally well for 8 against 9. There is nothing ridiculous about this simple method- unlike the idea that a 7 against 4 might always need to be strict. Every case goes on its own merits. However, the flow method only requires that each group can be done with certainty. From there, you just have to learn to trust what your hands can do without mental interference or panic about the exact displacement.

The reason 20 vs 21 would be hard to do exactlu is because it's hard to feel a flow of either 20 or 21 notes (played alone) between two clicks with precision. This means you can't just flow. 8 or 9 can easily be done on an autopilot flow, if you're used to how the method works. From there, doing both at once is only mildly more difficult, as long as the conscious mind can stay out of hoping to understand the precise relations between notes.

[brendan765]

you play her right hand part, let her play left as its usually weaker hand...and have her listen to your right hand and understand the rhythmic feeling, it should help...understanding it's not a perfect interval as well, one hand is faster than the other.

[ruvidoetostinato]

Lol, I remember someone teaching their student polyrhythms through phrases or words.  It seemed a shortcut solution for the child.  Seemed to work    in this case he used "Not Difficult"

Not Di-ffi-cult   Not Di-ffi-cult
1    2        3     1     2        3
1         2          1         2    

[j_menz]

Lol, I remember someone teaching their student polyrhythms through phrases or words.  It seemed a shortcut solution for the child.  Seemed to work    in this case he used "Not Difficult"

Not Di-ffi-cult   Not Di-ffi-cult
1    2        3     1     2        3
1         2          1         2    

You need to be very careful with such methods.  In the example you give, it "works" fine in the US, where "Not" is a long syllable, but fails in the UK and Australia where it is short.

[outin]

You need to be very careful with such methods.  In the example you give, it "works" fine in the US, where "Not" is a long syllable, but fails in the UK and Australia where it is short.

Yeah, I don't normally use word games, but my teacher gave me one for a Chopin piece: se-ka-ta-va-ra
That would not be very helpful with most of you 

[ruvidoetostinato]

You need to be very careful with such methods.  In the example you give, it "works" fine in the US, where "Not" is a long syllable, but fails in the UK and Australia where it is short.

Yup yup.  True.  It's up to the teacher, if he/she decides to use this method to find phrases in his/her language that fits the corresponding polyrhythm.  And of course always be very careful with any method he/she uses!