Piano Forum
Piano Board => Teaching => Topic started by: maplelea on November 08, 2011, 09:25:57 PM
-
Any advice on the best way to teach triplets in the right hand over duplets in the left?
I have tried to be analytical about it but there must be tricks that people have to make it easier?
-
Well . . . "nice cup of tea" ends up with the right resultant rhythm. Try tapping it on a desktop in alternation.
-
1 2 and 3.
1......the first note of the triplet and first quaver (eighth note)
2......second triplet note
and....second quaver
3.......third triplet note
-
It's also the same rhythm as "carol of the bells"
BOTH Right Left Right
-
My teacher just taught me these last lesson (I'm amazed that I've been playing them wrong without trying to fix them.. I always new I needed to I just never did.) What he had me do was start with just playing C - D repeated with my left hand, then C-D-E on my right, obviously the C-D-E being the triplet. So when playing both C's would always start the same and you would just keep on meeting back at C at the beginning of each loop.
Once I sort of got a feel for that he gave me a homework assignment to play a C scales 2-octaves with the left hand and 3 with the right.. basically a lot of triplets/duplets in a slightly more musical form then before. I feel like that really helped. Make sure you tell them to practice it slow, speed is not what you want here.
Words were not working for me at all.. trying to say 'nice cup of tea' or 'where did he go' was just a brick wall for me.. I might try it again now that I have a better feel for them.
-
While I don't disapprove of noticing the combined rhythm (which is what words give) I think it's a risky strategy to dwell too much on that. Some people even have words for 3 against 4, which strikes me as a hindrance, not an aid. The art to cross-rhythm is independence. It's two things, not one. Thinking too much about the combination leads to a heavy and overly notey feel. A well executed 2 against three rarely sounds or feels like a syncopation- which is what looking at the combined rhythm promotes. It should generally just flow through with simplicity. It's good to accent the hell out of the note a few times, to bring out the sense of displacement. But then you have to forget about it- and turn it into something that sounds normal (not spiky and brash).
Once you've noticed where the second note of the two falls, you need to start feeling total independence. The trick is to get a metronome running and practising alternating between a series of twos and the threes without pause. Eventually, instead of switching from one hand to the other, just happen to carry on with the other hand too.
-
While I don't disapprove of noticing the combined rhythm (which is what words give) I think it's a risky strategy to dwell too much on that. Some people even have words for 3 against 4, which strikes me as a hindrance, not an aid.
I should have added a caveat: this is a beginning step (the use of a resultant rhythm). Once your hands are doing the rhythm in alternation as "2D polyphony/rhythmia," you would begin to change the balance and adjust your hearing to notice the two different rhythms working against each other.
The approach can only be applied to 2 vs. 3 and 3 vs. 4, so the idea is that by the time these are mastered, one is hearing them "polyphonically" and can approach all other polyrhythms (even in multiple layers, e.g., 3 against 4 against 5) on the basis of a steady pulse.
The word combination is really only a set of training wheels.
Hope that was adequately/responsibly explained now!
Best,
Mike
-
I should have added a caveat: this is a beginning step (the use of a resultant rhythm). Once your hands are doing the rhythm in alternation as "2D polyphony/rhythmia," you would begin to change the balance and adjust your hearing to notice the two different rhythms working against each other.
The approach can only be applied to 2 vs. 3 and 3 vs. 4, so the idea is that by the time these are mastered, one is hearing them "polyphonically" and can approach all other polyrhythms (even in multiple layers, e.g., 3 against 4 against 5) on the basis of a steady pulse.
The word combination is really only a set of training wheels.
Hope that was adequately/responsibly explained now!
Best,
Mike
Sure, we see it much the same on the 2 against 3. I couldn't agree on the 3 against 4 though, personally. I'm not convinced that any words for that even give a terribly accurate sense of the rhythm. I think anything beyond 2 against 3 really needs to be learned horizontally and independently (except for the the meeting on each beat). 2 against 3 can take it- as there's only one note in a "surprise" location, but anything more than that encourages rather wild and ungainly movements. I think it's a lot easier to learn the individual feels and trust them, by that point, rather than focus on a series of notes in which every single one feel like a surprise.
-
Sure, we see it much the same on the 2 against 3. I couldn't agree on the 3 against 4 though, personally. I'm not convinced that any words for that even give a terribly accurate sense of the rhythm. I think anything beyond 2 against 3 really needs to be learned horizontally and independently (except for the the meeting on each beat). 2 against 3 can take it- as there's only one note in a "surprise" location, but anything more than that encourages rather wild and ungainly movements. I think it's a lot easier to learn the individual feels and trust them, by that point, rather than focus on a series of notes in which every single one feel like a surprise.
I'm with you, actually! I have friends that have had success with something to do with "g.d. butter" for 3 against 4, but after 2 against 3, I thought it easier just to develop a sense of pulse and feel it out.
Mike
-
While playing a piece with that type of polyrhythm or similiar, I invented this rude thing 'five freaky fags' which helped me alot since I wasn't good with rhythms and polyrhythms.
-
I always think of twos against threes and threes against fours in terms of their resultant rhythms. I don't think it necessarily creates awkward accents or phrasing, as long as you know that the danger is there and avoid it and think of each line independently as well. I don't think I could manage it by just thinking of the independent lines, and especially not if I was a beginner (which I'm not).
-
I always think of twos against threes and threes against fours in terms of their resultant rhythms. I don't think it necessarily creates awkward accents or phrasing, as long as you know that the danger is there and avoid it and think of each line independently as well. I don't think I could manage it by just thinking of the independent lines, and especially not if I was a beginner (which I'm not).
I think to permanently hear polyrhythmia as resultant rhythms holds a danger of neutralizing the texture -- the rhythm of quarter-eighth-eighth-quarter doesn't hold the same tension as the actual two-against-three.
Beginners have difficulty hearing two lines at once, but they must be trained to do so. So much of musical rhetoric and communication hinges on the interaction of lines. Certainly, it is difficult, but it is a difficulty necessary to overcome. I think you can manage it better than you realize, if you put in the effort!
Mike
-
I always think of twos against threes and threes against fours in terms of their resultant rhythms. I don't think it necessarily creates awkward accents or phrasing, as long as you know that the danger is there and avoid it and think of each line independently as well. I don't think I could manage it by just thinking of the independent lines, and especially not if I was a beginner (which I'm not).
If there's even a trace of a compounded rhythm in the execution within Debussy's Arabesque, say, the whole rhythm will sound terrible. Not only do you need to avoid hearing it that way yourself, you need to exaggerate enough that a listener could not possibly hear anything other than a smooth and simple flow. A compound feel renders that impossible- implying jazzy syncopation rather than flowing lines. In countless circumstances, to draw any attention to the compounded rhythm is inherently unmusical. It's fine to use a compounded rhythm as a learning tool, but reliance upon it can only be viewed as a limitation.
The above applies even moreso with 3 against 4s.
-
I'm sure there are people in the world who can look at 4 against 5 and just feel the pulse and go for it, but I need to work all such things out mathematically. Then I spend a few weeks tapping them on a table top as a compound rhythm. Then one day, bingo, I start to hear and feel it as two independent rhythms rather than as a single complex pattern, just like looking at one of those optical illusions of two faces or a vase. Then everything gets loose and easy. I wish I could just feel the two rhythms independently from the start, but my brain just won't do it.
-
I'm sure there are people in the world who can look at 4 against 5 and just feel the pulse and go for it, but I need to work all such things out mathematically.
How is this is even possible? You break it down into 20 subdivisions? What would you do with 6 against 7? Break it down into 42 subdivisions? I have to admit that I am useless at tapping cross rhythms- precisely because it implies emphasis on every tap. It makes the sense of folowing through a "gesture" very difficult. However, when I learn to do individual musical gestures between notes of a steady pulse, it rapidly becomes easy to do both at the same time. If I had to play 5 notes (preferably finishing on a note on the new beat) I'd only have to feel the arrival of the first note of the 5, and their destination. If you can do that on its own, it takes little more to acquire the habit of combining with other things. You just have to think it in the right way before you combine it with anything.
Consider that if two musicians were to play one part each, neither would have the slightest interest in how their parts conflict. They'd just fit a chain of equally spaced notes within beats. To assume that cross-rhythms are about conflict is the big mistake, in my opinion. The conflict occurs of it's own accord, when you just learn a simple flow. To do so is way easier than having to look at a complex compound rhythm of 20 divisions. A cross-rhythm is just two simple things done at the same time.
-
Seems to me the easiest explanation is to create a repeating bar of 3/4 time.
the RH will play on each beat in 3/4, the left hand will play on the first beat, and on the 'and' between beats 2 and 3.. or if counting everything at once like that is challenging...
play the following in the right hand alone, just tapping with the whole hand on any surface
(3/4) ta titi ta :||
then play the the second "ti" with the LH instead of RH..
then play the left hand together with the first "ta" aswell..
I've used this process with students to teach more complex/longer rhythms aswell. eg. useful for students that are having trouble with keeping an on the beat LH vs a latin rhythm RH..
once they can tap the rhythm totally dry with no dynamics you can add accents in the approriate place and they will start to get more "feel"
-
This is probably obvious, but I always have students practice tapping the rhythm on their laps (or fallboard) whenever there is a rhythmic challenge between the hands. It helps to isolate the rhythmic element and master that first without having to worry about the getting-the-notes-right part of it simultaneously. Sometimes I will tap the rhythm with them on their shoulders if they are having trouble getting it.