...and want to bang my head against a wall. My 9 year old student will not pick it up. I have tried for literally hours in every way I could think of. Any solutions to this?
I have tried that. I have also tried playing the 2 or the 3 and having them play, clap, or sing the other one. What other ways are there?
https://f.unkster.tripod.com/polyrhythm.htmlI think this is the best method to learn any polyrhythm.
For me I can't think of anything more useful because it's the basis for playing any polyrhythm perfectly, albeit slowly. You pick up speed when you know by heart how the rhythm is supposed to sound and when you can stop counting. That's when you get the flow.
Leaving this step out and relying only on your feeling will get you too many uneven notes with polyrhythms more complex than 2:3.
I highly doubt the legitimacy of the train anecdote.
In the long run, no cross rhythm (especially complex ones) can be executed effectively without this natural sense of flow. Sometimes it's good to feel a compounded rhythm, to have awareness of how things relate- so nothing can surprise. However, good crossrhythms are two INDEPENDENT flows that return together of their own accord by flowing rhythmically. They are not a hotch-potch of seemingly bizzarre relations between notes (that supposedly demand feeling 15 independent subdivisions within a mere fraction of a second).
I offer invaluable help here and what am I confronted with? Ye of little faith. P.S. You people are truly a No-Fun Zone, by the way.
The question is really how you get a student to the point where they can execute different lines with different rhythms at the same time with full conscious control over each.
The counting method, or its verbal variants, essentially teach a single complex rhythm that "fakes" the polyrhythm. It will work at the start, though, and may be a useful stepping stone to the sort of independence that is ultimately required.
In my case, what brought about the transformation was a piece with long stretches of polyrhythm (Debussy's 1st Arabesque) that really highlighted the flaws in the counting method and gave the opportunity for that independence to force it's way through.
I'm not so sure if that's what really happens. Quite honestly, if I were to play the Fantasy impromptu I wouldn't want conscious awareness of the hectic nature of the compounded rhythm.
It's about doing two individually easy things at once- not trying to compound both into something VERY complex.
I'm not so sure if that's what really happens. Quite honestly, if I were to play the Fantasy impromptu I wouldn't want conscious awareness of the hectic nature of the compounded rhythm. Even if I didn't know how this compounded rhythm sounded as a backdrop, it would not interfere at all- because at speed I judge from the semiquavers and place trust in the physical flow of the left hand movements. Cross-rhythms are actually easier at speed- due to the flow. Only for a very slow 3 against four (where physical flow would make it hard to keep precision via flow alone) would I be consciously concerned with the exact relationships between notes.This is where I'd disagree- on 3 against 4 (although I do use this as one of my approaches to 2 against 3- where it's simple enough to not to necessarily interfere with flow issues). In 3 against 4 generally creates no flow of movement, even if done perfectly. More likely still is that it's not even done perfectly- which means that you have an imperfect rhythm that takes much thought and which doesn't flow. This actively makes it more difficult to evolve to the point where the two hands have their own independent flows, because the practise method actively encourages disconnected stabs that would be too frenzied to fit in at higher speeds. It can ingrain a style of movement that directly interferes with the end product. Even in two against three, I'd attribute the classic error of turning the triplet into a semiquaver-quaver-semiquaver rhythm to too much of this style of practise- without adequate attention on feeling the physical flow from beat to beat in a seamless movement. When you practise flow, it's impossible to get that type of stop-start rhythm.Exactly- but how much was down to compound rhythm beginning? Not much, I suspect. This kind of piece is a make or break situation- just like the Fantasy Impromptu is in 3/4. A student who doesn't naturally evolve into the flowing version will never succeed. My feeling is that teaching methods should be primarily geared towards aiding that flow- with much smaller amount of attention given to the background awareness of the compound rhythm. Basically, I think that you only need to not to be surprised if you do hear the compound rhythm coming out. I don't think having the compound rhythm in your head as the goal itself does anything other than hinder, however, unless you let go of that background altogether. Ultimately, for the arabesque the right hand has to feel overlapping groups of 3 notes (plus the first of the next group) as a fluid movement, while the left has the feel overlapping groups of 2 notes plus one. You cannot afford to feel five events within that, but have to train yourself only to pay conscious attention to the meeting points (which reduces that basic connection of beats to simply two events). Worse still in Fantasy impromputu- where it's the different between one event that requires awareness per beat (ie. just two events for two connected beats) compared to 13(!) events to supposedly perceive. Nobody has that kind of coordination or brainpower. It's about doing two individually easy things at once- not trying to compound both into something VERY complex.
Definitely a bad thing to think about the rhythm while playing a piece which contains it, but you have to learn to pay attention to it before you can learn not to pay attention to it..
That is what I meant, though I would add that one should (ultimately) have actual awareness of and control over each.
I don't agree. I can't tap a decent 5 against 3 with whole hand slaps. I have absolutely no problem executing one at the piano however- because I can feel how to distribute both groups steadily between two points in time with complete independence of the two flows of motion and rhythm. Sometimes awareness of the hectic nature of the compound is rhythm is useful, but it's certainly not a case of needing to learn it that way before you then go on to forget it. It's a case of using a different method altogether. This method favours seamless and simple individual lines over conscious perception of the complex relationship between hands.
Well, I can do a 5 against 3 with my hands (I just tried it) and at the piano I find it even easier. But when learning pieces containing these rhythms and even more complex ones (7 against 3, 7 against 4, 7 against 5, even 11 against 5 in one piece) I never thought about it while doing it. I just played it.
I think we're on the same page, but I'd just say that you should have the choice- and then generally pick only one of the two hands for conscious awareness. In the final product I'd usually pick one of the two rhythms to apply my focus to and let the other flow more on autopilot. I'd certainly want full choice over which one I think about, but once this is there it tends to be a case of letting go of one hand and using trust. In the Fantasie Impromptu, I'd make my focus on the right hand and only perceive the first of each left hand 3 consciously. I'd sometime practise with awareness of the left hand throughout, but in performance virtually all deliberate awareness would be reserved for the right hand.
I agree you should have a choice, but I think the picking one is an interim step. I would use it in learning a piece. It is also a stage on the way to being able to concentrate on both fully. Certainly fully concentrating on one is better than being unfocussed on either. I do think the aim should be to be able to give full attention to both, or at least switch between them on the fly as circumstances dictate.I should also remind you that there may be more than two rhythms in a polyrhythm; and that even when there are just two, they may both be in the same hand.
I should also remind you that there may be more than two rhythms in a polyrhythm; and that even when there are just two, they may both be in the same hand.
Yeah, fair point. What I tend to think is that you shouldn't be trying to focus fully on two at once- which can only result in a hectic and laboured execution, unless it's done at a slow tempo (although even there I'd be worried about getting a "notey" and lumpy sound). I think it's rarely a good idea with a fast rate of notes. I'm fine with the idea of switching attention for a bit according to a need- but I'd never be actively perceiving both three AND four in a single spot of the Fantasy Impromptu. I'd only think of both with each meeting point on the beats.Regarding two in one hand, maybe this is indeed one place where the flow issue doesn't quite work. However, do these really need to be literal very often? For example, there's a 5 against 3 in the first movement of the Chopin 1st concerto. Many people fake it altogether (with no cross rhythm at all), but personally I'd focus on the 5 and fit the 3 around it in a fairly approximate way. I doubt if anyone plays it truly strictly. I'd just feel a sense of which notes are very close and try to create a physical gesture that comes as close as possible to flowing through a decent approximation- rather than break it down to 15 subdivisions (which would destroy the flow of the 5 altogether).
Yes, check out the second half of the last measure before the lyrical restatement of the second theme in E-flat major, after the cadenza of the first movement of Rach 3 (did you catch that?)-it is 8 against 5 against 2, with the 8 in legato thirds in the right hand and the 5 against 2 in the left, with double notes...
The 5 against 3 you are referencing (I believe it occurs several times) cannot be faked, because it sounds, well, fake, but it also can't be played with absolute rhythmic perfection because it sounds robotic and affected, and this is primarily due to the way it draws your attention from expressing the piece if you become obsessed with the rhythm.
Regarding two in one hand, maybe this is indeed one place where the flow issue doesn't quite work. However, do these really need to be literal very often?
I don't think that's really very difficult though- as it just matches to a right hand note and is not the style of passage which needs to be remotely strict. The trick is simply to feel some form of flow to the group of 5 and not to let that be interrupted when the duplet is matched to a right hand note. It doesn't matter greatly how precise the 5 is. If there's a feel of physical flow that spans through the whole group and into the next beat, the execution is probably fine. Anything which would distort the rhythm altogether would feel choppy and disconnected at some point. The physical side and musical side and inseparable in these things.
There's a Clementi sonata (can't remember which) that has an extended 3-4 polyrhythm in the RH for about two thirds of a page. I don't believe it can be faked convincingly. I seem to recall something similar, though a bit shorter, in a Haydn sonata too, but I may have just dreamed that.But that said, they don't happen like that often.
I see there is someone here who knows what they are talking about. You are absolutely right that the figure does not have to be totally accurate. However, matching the 5 adequately with the 8 in thirds is harder than you might think.
Absolutely. In this case, I wouldn't break it into 40 subdivisions, but I would find it useful to have an awareness of particular points of closeness between r.h. and l.h. In slowish things this is much more useful than faster stuff. It's not about ridiculous amounts of counting, but general awareness of approximate spots. Ultimately, the feel of flow would always be my main guide for the end product, though. I'd even consider practising it fairly fast to check that the flow is genuinely there- rather than a sense of stop start between notes.I'm trying to picture 3 against four in one hand in Clementi. Full groups of each?
I'm trying to picture 3 against four in one hand in Clementi. Full groups of each?
4 against 3 is very easy, and should be metrically accurate without too much trouble. It gets tricky when you get into 5s and 7s.
Indeed. I'll try and find the place when I get home (or more likely over the weekend).Indeed that is generally true. The discussion however related to the added complication of it being in the one hand and over an extended period and how this was less amenable to the "concentrate chiefly on one" approach.
One should also remember that the brain of a 10 year old works differently than a brain of a 40 year old. The older you get the more things your brain has learned to do on "autopilot" (obviously depends a lot on how you have used your brain during the years) and going against it may require special techniques.
Yes, something may have worked for you and it may have worked for all of your students or if it didn't you may have decided that they just don't have talent. But when something does not work there may be other ways that do work no matter how weird and insane they may seem to an average person.
For me learning to do the simple 2-3 or 3-4 was not so much about learning to do something, but teaching my brain to let go of something that is very deeply ingrained in there. My brain has a very deep rooted need for "symmetry". I have never had any trouble keeping a steady pulse, what is very difficult is to let go of the strict rhythm. Adding the physical execution made it difficult to play polyrhythms and to be able to do that I needed to "dissect" the task. This is why mathematical analysis and counting worked. It was needed to force my brain to understand that things must be done in "wrong way" and let go of the control it wanted to have to stop the hands and fingers doing what it considered wrong.
After the brain had been tricked this way no counting was needed and the "flow" and later maybe even ability to feel or hear the two separate rhythms may come.
For me, the mathematical approach has been necessary to get to the flow. For 2-3, 3-4, 3-5, and 4-5, I had to figure out exactly where the beats fell. At first it was indeed "notey and jerky." But after I'd played them like that for a while, my brain adapted and I started to feel the two separate lines flowing independently. For me there was a particular and vivid sensation when I stopped feeling it as a one line pattern (1_3 4 5_) and started feeling it as two independent lines. But I definitely needed the math - trying to get there all at once failed again and again. Now that my brain can feel a couple of rhythms separately like that, I'm hopeful I'll be able to rush straight at things like 11-6 without doing the math. It seems to be working. We'll see.
I have more methods than I could list here and do not give up on people who don't get things. However, from experience, attempting to get a compound rhythm has been the single least effective tactic I have tried. It makes the student think the whole thing is complicated and it makes the way they try to move all the more complicated. It actively hinders them from getting to a simple flow, unless you are very careful to make this aspect one of the lesser goals. When a student cannot get it, physical flow is always missing. If they use the mathematical approach in the wrong way, this can get actively worsened.
I have no doubt that you would not give up and my post was not directed specially for you.I must say that I do things my way to make them feel simpler, not to make them more complicated... it's just that often I find simple things difficult and vice versa, compared to "normal" people.
But what happens if you have an 7 against 8 or a 6 against 7 say? At this point, your method doesn't even begin to be possible and an alternative one must be found. Is that really going to stay simpler for very long?
Is it necessarily down to the brain "feeling" those though? Can the brain really feel 11-6- with reference to 66 subdivisions? I'd put 3-5 (with 15) somewhere near the limit of where it's possible to use maths. Have you tried running a metronome and alternating between the hands- to check that you're absolutely spot on with either hand's rhythm? When people have problems, it's usually because they can't quite perceive a smooth 5/7 or whatever within steady intervals. One hand typically goes too fast or two slow or with a stop start feel even when done separately. Once they have been truly mastered individually, it doesn't greatly matter whether the brain feels a compounded rhythm or not- because the hands are simply doing things they have learned to do on independent levels. In a sense, almost no cross-rhythm is hard after this point- as long as you can feel how to perfectly subdivide each given number of notes between two clicks. With 11/12 the difficulty would be not the coordination of hands, but simply getting a "feel" for a perfect sense of an 11 between clicks. It's already hard to do that even without the 12. Anything that can be felt seamlessly between 2 clicks is easy. I'd probably be okay up to about 7 but a steady 11 or 13 is difficult.
I agree with most of this, but it isn't true that it doesn't matter whether the brain feels a compounded rhythm. You have to feel an 11 against 12 just like you have to feel a basic polyrhythm like 4 or 2 on 3.
Topic: Teaching 2 against 3 rhythm... 