How to learn 2 against 3

[freakofnature]

Heyho! 

I've got a problem: I can't seem to get the 2-against-3-thing into my fingers (or my brain  ). Are there any tips, tricks, special excercises etc. that could help me learn the trick???

Thanks in advance,
FoN

[bunnicula]

Position each index finger on two different notes (make a 3rd, 5th, octave, whatever sounds good together), then play those notes together, then one at a time.  If the "3" is in the R hand, for example, and the "2" in the left, then play together, right left right, together, right left right. Just your index fingers on just two notes. This simple exercise will help you get your mind around the rhythm.  When it comes to practicing the actual piece, I can't emphasize enough how important it is to go as SLOWLY as possible -- I promise, one day it will just click!

This is a very difficult technique to learn, so go as slowly and be as thorough as possible, and your time will really pay off.  Good luck, keep posting any questions that arise.

[quasimodo]

Heyho! 

I've got a problem: I can't seem to get the 2-against-3-thing into my fingers (or my brain  ). Are there any tips, tricks, special excercises etc. that could help me learn the trick???

Thanks in advance,
FoN

Try just tapping your hands on the piano lid or a table : first, focus on the "3" part (let's assume it's at the RH). Then "drop notes" from the "2" part (at LH). The first beat of the 2 is no problem, it's exactly the same as the first beat of the "3". your problem then only consists in determining when is the 2nd beat of the "2". It's not that difficult : it's exactly half-way between the beats 2 and 3 of the "3" part,  that is : as your RH is up between the beats 2 and 3, your LH taps the beat 2.

I don't know if it's clear and if that really helps  .

That is just in order to ingrain the concept of how it goes rhytmically. Then when applying it to musical pieces, I guess you will have to do a lot of work HS first.

[freakofnature]

Thanks a lot for the help - I guess, this will take a while...   

Is a short etude or other piece out there, that concentrates on this problem?

[xvimbi]

Here is your "etude" (really, no etude needed). I call it the "smallest common denominator".

Step 1: analysis

Consider each hand to consist of six beats: ------

The "2" get 3 beats each: 2--2--

The "3" get two beats each: 3-3-3-

Put them together: 5-323-  (the "5" denotes both hands are played at the same time)

2. Step two: getting into the groove:
Start with simply banging out the rhythm, without paying attention which hand plays which note. This is best done by clapping: da-dum-da-da-da-dum. This will give you a feeling for the general structure, particularly when exactly a note is being played.

Step 3: Pulling it apart
Then start separating the two hands. In this case, it is fairly easy (well, it is the easiest case, except mayby "1 against 0" or "2 against 1" ), because on the first beat, both hands play, then there is a rest, then there is a simple pattern of RH-LH-RH and finally, there is a rest again. LH = left hand; RH = right hand.

Step 4: Putting it all together:
Then, proceed to the piano and repeat Step 3 with actual notes, one for the LH, one for the RH. Finally, use the notes in the score. Remember, at this point, the rests are no longer rests. The previously played note needs to sound still (unless it is in fact a rest).

I found for myself that getting the rhythm is the most important step. Once you know when a note should sound, putting the right note to the corresponding beat is a lot easier.

Hope that helps.

[freakofnature]

Okay, I think I got it, thanks to your help! Could someone check my short sound file, if that's exactly what it's supposed to be? I just played C & G left and C E G right...

Here's the link: https://www.savefile.com/files/1733826

[steve jones]

If you are refering to the technique I think you are, then dont worry because it is hard for everyone (atleast everyone Iv met). I still have difficulting tapping this one!

[xvimbi]

Okay, I think I got it, thanks to your help! Could someone check my short sound file, if that's exactly what it's supposed to be? I just played C & G left and C E G right...

Here's the link: https://www.savefile.com/files/1733826

Sounds good to me

[freakofnature]

Great! I'm proud of me...  Thanks for all the help again! 

[nightmarecinema]

I have a similar problem, and also for 3 against 4. I think hearing the rhythm is the first step, them knowing which hand should sound each beat is the next step. But I'm wondering whether that is even relevant, since everyone who actually plays pieces with complex rhythms tells me that you have to "just feel it", that is, "set one hand on auto-pilot" and fill up that space with the number of notes you are trying to play. I've found knowing how to play the rhythms and "just feeling it" are two completely different things, and that the latter is MUCH more difficult.

[xvimbi]

I have a similar problem, and also for 3 against 4. I think hearing the rhythm is the first step, them knowing which hand should sound each beat is the next step. But I'm wondering whether that is even relevant, since everyone who actually plays pieces with complex rhythms tells me that you have to "just feel it", that is, "set one hand on auto-pilot" and fill up that space with the number of notes you are trying to play. I've found knowing how to play the rhythms and "just feeling it" are two completely different things, and that the latter is MUCH more difficult.

You are quite right... to some extent. The latter approach (feeling), as you described it, requires one to have complete hand independence. There are few things more difficult than having one hand play in a nice rhythm while the other one does whatever it wants. This facility, in the end, is good to have but not strictly required to solve the problem of cross-rhythms. I do agree, though, that playing through cross-rhythms by feeling invariably gives "better" results than doing it in a strictly mathematical way.

I think analyzing cross-rhythms is very much relevant, because in order to know how to "feel" one's way through them, one has to get them into one's ear first. Either pull them apart and study them, or listen to someone play them correctly through. Knowing how to play them, rather than feel one's way through them, is also very good for sightreading.

[nightmarecinema]

So are you suggesting that by learning the sounds of these rhythms and by simply playing them over and over, that eventually they will be second nature and lead to complete hand independence? If that's the case, you've just made me feel alot better...but I don't think that's exactly what you're saying. So how exactly do you suggest developing complete hand independence?

[asyncopated]

Learn to dance the tango.

Apart from that, don't over analyse.  It's a feeling, not counting.  The other thing is that there is a difference between

a triplet embedded in quadruple time and a duplet embeded in triple time.  See if you can distinguish the two.


             |  3 |
| 4/4 p p p p p |

and
        |2|
| 3/4 p p | p p p |



al.

[xvimbi]

So are you suggesting that by learning the sounds of these rhythms and by simply playing them over and over, that eventually they will be second nature and lead to complete hand independence? If that's the case, you've just made me feel alot better...but I don't think that's exactly what you're saying. So how exactly do you suggest developing complete hand independence?

No, I didn't say anything like that. Developing hand independence is a completely different story. All I said was that hand independence helps with cross-rhythms. Furthermore, ingraining a pattern is hardly "independence". If one had independence, there would be little need to painstakingly practice cross-rhythms.

[nightmarecinema]

Alright, my mistake. How does one develop hand independence then?

[xvimbi]

Alright, my mistake. How does one develop hand independence then?

That is an eternal quest (at least for me ). Developing hand independence has been discussed a few times on the forum. I'd be interested in a new discussion of the topic. If you are, please start a new thread, so that this one doesn't get diluted even further.

For starters, check out:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,7682.0.html
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,10580.0.html
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,11898.0.html
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,6836.0.html
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,1651.0.html

[omnisis]

Here is an excellent resource on polyrhythms in general, the "time box" notation is very
easy to read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyrhythm

When I  learned 2 against 3 I tried to hear one rhythm at a time and insert the other
rhythm on the appropiate sub-divisions.  For instance for two against three if you take the 3 beat rhythm all you need to do is figure out where the second beat of the two part lies.

a basic three beat pattern is:

Code: [Select]

1...2...3...
Mathematically if we divide 3 by 2 we get 1.5, so the second beat for the two part is 1.5 beats into the three part.  Therefore, the second beat of the two part falls on the "and" betwen 2 and 3 (see below).

Code: [Select]

      *
1-a-2-a-3-a-


Now all you have to do is draw it out and count the beats.  So in this case it would be easiest to count 1-2a-3 your LH would tap on "1" and "a" and your RH would tap on 1,2, and 3.  This way you get a feel for the true splicing of two distinct rhythms.  If you just memorize a phrase to get you up in running you might not get the rests right and you never actually feel the beat instead relying on your memory of the interplay between the beats but not how the beats actually superimpose on one another.

Code: [Select]

    *   * * *   *
RH: 1-a-2-a-3-a-1
LH: 1-----2-----1

In general you want to work with finding the subdivisions in the beat with the most pulses, that way the number of beat subdivions is smaller.  (In this example had we
started with the "two beat" we would have had to feel a "1-e-a-2-e-a" pulse instead of
a 1-a-2-a-3-a pulse).
   
~omnisis

[chopintod]

Forget all this mathematical stuff!  Bah, humbug to math, I say!  Bah humbug!

Just remember this: you have to fit three notes with one hand into the space normally taken up by two.  Remember this.   Think about it.  Dissect it.  (Without math, please!)  Then, sit down at the piano and PLAY PLAY PLAY.  Play CDE  CDE  CDE  in the right vs. CD CD CD  in the left, over and over and over again without stopping.  Make sure that the Cs match up in each hand, and play it.  Play it.  Play it.

I did this for hours on end to learn the 3 vs. 4 of Chopin's Fantasie Impromptu; no math needed, no analysis, nothing.

I think that learning the 2vs3 mathematically will lead to problems later on with more difficult pieces.  For instance, take one of the Chopin waltzes where it is necessary to play 3 vs. 13, or 6 vs. 17, for short stretches.   Learning these mathematically would be way too complex.  Instead, learn all of these split timings by playing them over and over again; experimenting; in other words, trial and error. 

Hope it works for whoever happens to have trouble with this problem.

Terry

[dmk]

I agree with Xvimbi, hand independence really is the key, make sure you are listening really carefully to what you are playing and what the melody is.  You will want to make sure that the quavers (if this is the melody) have that strict sense of being played like quavers so practice the melody lots by itself (think of the opening of Chopin's op 72 n1 E minor nocturne or the link in the first movement of Schubert's op 120 A major sonata)

If you are really stuck you can always try the classic....

/         /         /
Four  Fun ny Frogs
/               /

Good luck!!

dmk

[nightmarecinema]

Forget all this mathematical stuff!  Bah, humbug to math, I say!  Bah humbug!

Just remember this: you have to fit three notes with one hand into the space normally taken up by two.  Remember this.   Think about it.  Dissect it.  (Without math, please!)  Then, sit down at the piano and PLAY PLAY PLAY.  Play CDE  CDE  CDE  in the right vs. CD CD CD  in the left, over and over and over again without stopping.  Make sure that the Cs match up in each hand, and play it.  Play it.  Play it.

I did this for hours on end to learn the 3 vs. 4 of Chopin's Fantasie Impromptu; no math needed, no analysis, nothing.

I think that learning the 2vs3 mathematically will lead to problems later on with more difficult pieces.  For instance, take one of the Chopin waltzes where it is necessary to play 3 vs. 13, or 6 vs. 17, for short stretches.   Learning these mathematically would be way too complex.  Instead, learn all of these split timings by playing them over and over again; experimenting; in other words, trial and error. 

Hope it works for whoever happens to have trouble with this problem.

Terry

See, now ideally this is what I think you should do. And I've tried it, many times. But the problem is...it's not that simple. It's like saying "Hey, there's a huge boulder, lets not worry about getting a bunch of pulleys and levers - that's too complicated. Let's just go lift it up".

It just isn't simple - you need those pulleys and levers, at least at first. I'm not at the point where I can play one time in one hand and another in the other, unless I'm just hearing the rhythm and tapping it out. I've worked on it for hours, because I really want to be able to play pieces that involve that stuff, such as Fantaisie Impromptu, and lots of other Chopin pieces, but I can't. I'm hoping one day it will just *click*. We'll see.

[alraydo]

I think the real issue here is INTERdependence, rather than independence.  The previous example of "Four Funny Frogs" is a good illustration of this.  The point of it is to create ONE rhythm out of two different (yet precisely related) rhythms. 

So for three-to-two, we have:

     Quarter Eighth Eighth Quarter
    (four       fun   -  ny       frogs)
              -or-
     R      -      R      -      R      -     
     L      -      -       L      -      -     

For four-to-three, we have:

     Dotted eighth, sixteenth, eighth, eighth, sixteenth, dotted eighth
     (writing it out may help visualize this)
               -or-
     R   -   -   R   -   -   R   -   -   R   -   -   
     L   -   -    -   L   -   -   -   L   -    -   -   

No math, just notation!

If you want six to five, let me know.  For anything more complex, like 6 to 17, chopintod is right.  It'll just take trial and error until it feels right.

I hope this provides another angle you can use...

alraydo

[abell88]

Something that I think has helped me is to think of rhythms while I walk. Keeping a steady pace, I subdivide each step and (under my breath, so my sanity isn't questioned) say
"1-2, 1-2, 1-2, 1-2; 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3" etc. (What I just wrote would be eight steps,  the first four subdivided into eighths/quavers, the second four in triplets. I go up to 6, and also alternate quickly from one to another -- eg. 3's, 2's, 5's, 4's, 6's mixed up randomly. Then I sometimes tap my hands on my legs (inconspicuosly!) in a different rhythm from the one I'm saying, or have the two hands do different rhythms (have not tried three different rhythms yet!)

By the way, a saying for 3 against 4 is "pass the golden butter".

[xvimbi]

Forget all this mathematical stuff!  Bah, humbug to math, I say!  Bah humbug!

Just remember this: you have to fit three notes with one hand into the space normally taken up by two.  Remember this.   Think about it.  Dissect it.  (Without math, please!)  Then, sit down at the piano and PLAY PLAY PLAY.  Play CDE  CDE  CDE  in the right vs. CD CD CD  in the left, over and over and over again without stopping.  Make sure that the Cs match up in each hand, and play it.  Play it.  Play it.

I did this for hours on end to learn the 3 vs. 4 of Chopin's Fantasie Impromptu; no math needed, no analysis, nothing.

If you sit down and think about it first for ten minutes, it will take only ten more minutes to have it mastered. Not hours and hours.

I think that learning the 2vs3 mathematically will lead to problems later on with more difficult pieces.  For instance, take one of the Chopin waltzes where it is necessary to play 3 vs. 13, or 6 vs. 17, for short stretches.   Learning these mathematically would be way too complex.  Instead, learn all of these split timings by playing them over and over again; experimenting; in other words, trial and error. 

How would playing something rhythmically correctly (that's what the "mathematical" approach is all about) lead to problems? It doesn't. It is only harder to achieve this for something like 17 against 19. In such cases, nobody would probably care too much about rhythmic accuracy, so one shouldn't spend too much time on it. Here I agree, but it has never hurt to sit down and think about music, before attempting to play it, on the contrary, it always helps.

Anyhoo, 2 against 3 must be played accurately, i.e. "mathematically" correctly, because every note can clearly be distinguished and will stick out if not done right. At 3 against 4, one can probably start to move over to a "just play it" method.

[chopintod]

OK, let me say this: perhaps I gave an answer above the quesiton; meaning, an answer for 3 vs 4 as opposed to 2 vs 3.  I will admit that 2 vs 3 can and probably should be learned by the notation already provided.  However!  A player cannot play every 2 vs 3 section by thinking consciously, "OK, the second note of the 2 part must go halfway through the triplet set, which puts it 1/6 of the set past the 2nd note of the 3 part...." or however it goes. This leads to robotic sounding playing instead of smooth, flowing triplets.  By all means, if you need to learn how the rhythm works by looking at a diagram, analyzing it, etc., go ahead and do it.  I still think that after this work is accomplished, the student needs to sit at the piano and play these over and over again until they flow, and s/he can play them without thinking about them.

Nightmare, let me say that, for the 3 vs 4 of the Fantasie-Impromptu, you're exactly right: one day, it will click.  It will take a while, but it will.  For me, it was nearly two months.  I'm not sure how that relates to the average, but it was two months of playing nothing other than the first two measures after the right hand comes in.  It was hard, seemingly impossible, and my mind repeatedly shut down and simply refused to work on it any more.  I came close to quitting several times, but stuck with it.  My teacher kept telling me interesting ways to count it out loud, or ways to map out the rhythms, but it just didn't work for me.  I couldn't translate numbers on a sheet into smooth, flowing rhythms on the piano.  But, after those two months of tapping it out on the piano, on the piano bench, on restaurant tables, on my lap, etc., it clicked.  I don't know what I did to make it click, but it clicked.  After that, I had the song learned and memorized in a month.  (The notes aren't nearly as hard as they may look; lots of patterns, repetitions, variations, etc.)

Oh, and xvimbi, when I said hours and hours, I meant for the Fant-Imp.; I don't think it's possible (for most people at least) to learn 3 vs 4 in 20 minutes.  I don't remember exactly how long it took me to learn 2 vs 3, but I'm almost positive I learned it in one lesson and had it perfected by the next week.  Let me finally explain that by no math, I mean no dividing and finding fractions, etc.  I've always loathed fractions anyway. 

Good luck Nightmare and others

Terry

[franzliszt2]

     Quarter Eighth Eighth Quarter
    (four       fun   -  ny       frogs)
              -or-
     R      -      R      -      R      -     
     L      -      -       L      -      -     

That how my techer taught me. Instead of funny frogs, i was told "nice cup of tea"

[omnisis]

I'm sorry if my previous post was too "mathematical", I was trying to explain it in a way that was exact so there wasn't any confusion and (being of an analytical mind) resorted to using math to show the "exactness" of how to play (with the appropiate rests and such).

It is not true that learning something "mathematically" leads to a "mechanical playing style".  This is one of the biggest myths that I see people spreading all the time and it's absolutely absurb.  Just because I used math doesn't make it any less valid than using boxes or dashes or phrases or whatever, these are all just a means to an end.  How can you play 2 vs. 3 with any rhythmic latitude if you can't accurately play 2 vs. 3 in the first place?  What if you had a student that couldn't play straight 1/8 notes.  How would you explain the difference between swing eigths and regular ones?  Piano students most know basic rhythmic subdivision and simple polyrhythms (like 2 vs 3) if they want to move on to more advanced stuff and not have major rhythm problems.

I think it is important to learn how to play rhythms correctly before you start "interpreting" all over them.  That is why I learned 2 vs. 3 not with a piano but with a small hand drum.  Often times I think the problem with learning 2 vs. 3 isn't and other polyrhythms isn't that a person can't chant "Cold cup of tea" or whatever but that they have a basic rhythmic deficiency and they can't properly sub-divide a beat in perfect time, this skill is essential and absolutely necessary for any advanced rhythm playing.  This is why I was stressing paying attention to the 2 beats and 3 beats in 2v3 because if you are doing it properly, you should be able to count 1-2-3 or 1-2 (depending on which beat you are counting with) and have perfect rhythmic accuracy. 

Once you have the basic ability to drum or tap out 2 vs. 3 in perfect time then you can start experimenting with various amounts of tempo shifts to achieve the desired effect.  Of course when you get to more advanced rhythms with two numbers that are fairly large (like 9:8 or something) "perfect counting" is pretty much impossible.

~omnisis