Lively rhythm and static rhythm

[kghayesh]

I was discussing with my teacher this topic, but we didn't seem to agree upon anything!!

She was saying that musical rhythm is a lively rhythm that always moves forward. Unlike static rhythm where the beat is lazy. She gave me an example by a static rhythm with Ravel's Bolero. Now, my point was that were no difference between both because the rhythm is the same in both of them. Rhythm is just a series of beats that fall on regular time intervals, no more. No matter how the rhythm is lively or static, the sound of continuous beats is the same.

So, what do you think ? Is there something called lively/static rhythm ??

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

Technically, all rhythms are equally lively as they are static, adhering to the pulse of course. What may connote a lively rhythm can connote a static rhythm, and much is due to the individual tempos given. Should a rhythm be fast, then it would be deemed as lively; should it be slow, it would seem as static.

Certain rhythms have their own different "flavor", but concerning excitement and the stance of being "lively", it is due to the tempo, with a faster tempo concomitant to more liveliness.

Best.

[counterpoint]

It' a question of agogic - small changes of the tempo in a group of notes - if a rhythm is feeling lively or if it feels static. You don't have to understand rhythmical notation mathematically. How it sounds, if you do that, you can hear from midi-files of classical music, which sound extremely unmusical. Rhythm in most cases should alternate between speeding up and speeding down.

Btw  Bolero is a very bad example for static rhythm  

[asyncopated]

This is an interesting question.

I think it is important to clearify the meaning of rhythm.  Some people simply use the word rhythm in the same sense as meter (which i think it is a clear word).  It sets the basic pulse of the piece.  However, if you do look at the etymology of the word, it originally meant 'flow' or in modern greek 'style', and with that carries a lot more meaning than just a beat. 

I tend to like the second meaning better.  I think what she means is that a static rhythm is one that follows the meter closely.  This is not a good/bad thing per se, both lively and static rhythms (in her language)  have their uses.For example, if you wanted to convey a maestoso section, you would follow the meter closely, and use a more static rhythm. 

However, if you are playing something like a waltz, or a minuet, my teacher keeps saying there is a lilt in the first beat.  So you go something like 1..!! 2..3.. 1..!! 2..3.. (if it's possible to convey). It is not really an accent on the beat but rather giving time for some extra movement/flow on the first beat.  Although it is written 3/4 the sense of the rhythm, due to the origins of the dance form, is not strict.   If you do dance either the waltz or the viennese waltz, your dance teacher will probably tell you the same thing -- I was told when i did do dance in college, that I need to move on the one.

Lastly there are melodic pessages, normally played legato.  This is used to convey some kind of song meaning in a song.  For cantabile sections, the rhythm is implied.  In general, i find that it is much better to "speak the phrase", treat a phrase as a whole, and find the rhythm within it, than simply to count or use a metrenome.  Doing the latter, a lot of the nuance is lost.  I think that is want your teacher means by "lively rhythm". 

The rhythm could be set in a nocturn,and still needs a sense of stillness, but does not follow the meter closely and changes according to phrase.

[ted]

It seems to me that rhythm is infinite in its expressive capability and its meaning cannot possibly be encompassed by two very limited adjectives. Rhythm can express liveliness in many ways, stasis in many ways and, as counterpoint says about the Bolero, can even combine them both in different senses. As another example, "Take Five" is lively but its hypnotic rhythm also gives it a peculiar stasis. It's rather like the old argument about a minor chord being sad and a major one being happy. The range of meaning in music is colossal and defies all such simple classifications.  Thank goodness for that, otherwise there would be no surprises.

[ludwig]

Yeah very interesting post by ted and asyncopated. I completely agree with how the definition of rhythm cannot be determined by stactic and lively. I also think asyncopation has an interesting point on how rhythm could be simply described as how notes are ensembled through space and time according to their values, and also the idea that the origianl meaning of the "flow" of things is a much bigger concept of time than rhythm can encompass.

Strictly speaking though, from a music educator's point of view, musical concepts are very clearly defined, and perhaps it shouldn't be like Ted says, nothing is a surprise, but I think if you were teaching the definition of rhythm and describing in musical "concepts", then it is simply "on" and "off" of a note through a set time such as provided by the time signature. It is mathematical, it has nothing to do with tempo, or how it makes you feel with its liveliness, you can say a rhythm makes a piece lively, but probably not a lively rhythm, because that's assuming there are notes to it, a speed to indicate how its played, amongst alot of other musical concepts.

Therefore rhythms are "static" when it the same, repeated, ostinato patterns, whatever you wanna call it, then liveliness would mean the opposite, which is irregular pattern, you could probably have a minim decreasing in value to some crotchets, then semiquavers, then dotted quavers with triplets, and that's a irregular flow, which makes the music "lively". Anyway I think I'm ranting but that's how I classify rhythm strictly speaking in terms of how to define musical concepts, strictly and boring(ly) speaking of course, I wouldn't want to define it as static or lively =) I'll probably get into trouble =p

[timothy42b]

While this may defy precise definition, I think it is useful to think of macrotime and microtime.

Macrotime is the basic pulse.  Some have internalized it, some seem never to get it; normally people in the second category will insist on singing soprano in my church choir.

But I digress.

Rubato is the adjustment of macrotime.  It implies that the macrotime first exists!  which is unfortunately not always the case.

Microtime is the subtle adjustment of time around the beat, which itself does not alter.  This is done for musical effect, and normally is an unconscious result of the effect you are trying to produce.  Some types of jazz are very sensitive to this timing issue, and you cannot simply play the notes on the page, at the times seemingly specified, and succeed.

Good macrotime is a prerequisite for microtime, which is an advanced concept. 

[ted]

That is certainly an interesting idea, Timothy. I look at things squarely the other way around, that is to say what you call "macrotime" is to me a trivial subset of your "microtime", being identical to those "microtimes" which are regular pulses.

Then again, I cannot honestly say with any certainty that when I intuitively feel a new and exciting "microtime" in improvisation, I am not unconsiously aligning it to selected pulses in a very rapid underlying "macrotime". In a certain trivial sense every "microtime" is aligned to a "macrotime" if we care to make the pulses rapid enough. Rhythm is much more complex than harmony because its points are taken on a continuous line whereas harmony comes from a discrete set. Rhythm (felt rhythm, not notation) is like the real number line and harmony is like the integers, to take the liberty of analogy - different orders of infinity.

Of course your view and mine are simply two perspectives of the same exceedingly complex and ineffable object, and what makes the object, rhythm, so exciting for me is that its psychic effect totally defies rational analysis of any sort.  Come to think of it so does music as a whole.

I conjecture that I could quite easily improvise a "microtime" which is instantly repeatable and clearly recognisable, but which has no "macrotime" and cannot be notated. I don't KNOW that this is true as it might simply be that everybody I have tried it on, including myself, just isn't up to the task of doing it !

[asyncopated]

Then again, I cannot honestly say with any certainty that when I intuitively feel a new and exciting "microtime" in improvisation, I am not unconsiously aligning it to selected pulses in a very rapid underlying "macrotime". In a certain trivial sense every "microtime" is aligned to a "macrotime" if we care to make the pulses rapid enough. Rhythm is much more complex than harmony because its points are taken on a continuous line whereas harmony comes from a discrete set. Rhythm (felt rhythm, not notation) is like the real number line and harmony is like the integers, to take the liberty of analogy - different orders of infinity.

I never quite thought if it like that hmmm... I still don't understand full what is meant by microtime and macrotime, but the analogy between this and the Alephs is somewhat interesting.  So notes are of measure zero on a domain of measure (Lesbeque or otherwise for music) one? 

Considering that the attack of each note is divided basically into pulses of 2^n or summations thereof, I suppose that this is true, although the set that defines the domain for a piece can be somewhat complicated, especially for polyrhythmic pieces.  Was wondering if any one has done an analysis about this, and how this relates to conveying the mood or feel of the piece -- this is probably more for fun/curiosity than to study proper music or mathematical theory. 

[counterpoint]

I'm not sure, if I correctly understand the terms "macrotime" and "microtime" either.

Is microtime the positioning of notes between the beats and macrotime the general tempo changes?

I don't think (in classical music) of beats with a fixed distance. That's what metronome wants us to suggest, but music which lives, is much more flexible.

Expression changes the tempo that is true for microtempo and macrotempo. Single notes may be shorter or longer as their mathematical value says (in relation to the actual tempo at this moment). As I see it, neither the tempo nor the length of single notes are fixed.

In jazz, the situation is quite different, since the tempo is absolutely fixed, so any rubato will result in offbeats.

In classical music, the beats themselves change their position together with the notes.