Rhythms

[steve_m]

s

[ted]

Rhythm is by a long way the most vital component of music for me. However, I now consider that discrete subdivision of time into integral multiples of notes, beats or metres is far too simplistic a representation. It probably originated from the Western domination of music by notation. The actual process much more resembles an arbitrarily subdivided continuity and the fact is that most felt, improvised rhythms cannot be adequately notated in the conventional way at all.

Even in rhythms which, on the face of it, appear regular and integral, minor variations in accents, subdivision into additive components and fluctuations in speed cause large variation in resulting effect. I would assert that a complex felt rhythm is its own primitive notation and cannot be converted into visual or other abstract form.

It is also possible for two individuals to perceive the rhythm of the same piece in two completely different ways. An elementary example would be lightly accented groups of six beats. A listener can perceive them as either 3+3 or 2+2+2 simply by an effort of will, in much the same way as one of those isometrically ambiguous pictures shifts its meaning from humps to hollows. The first time I heard Scott Kirby's Waltz I heard it intuitively as 3+3, liked it that way, and ever since I haven't heard it as a waltz at all.

Disregarding notational concepts altogether, I suppose how sensitive a given individual is to rhythmic sublety depends on practice and experience. The older I get the more I realise just how exceedingly complicated and ambiguous a thing rhythm is. Perhaps this is why I like it so much - because I like music to constantly surprise me.