Teaching 2 against 3 rhythm...

[the89thkey]

...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?

[ajspiano]

...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?

care to name every which way so I don't double up on things you already know..

[ajspiano]

You may also like to present it as a straight rhythm progressing to a polyrhythm..  similar to the file "2 vs 3 again.pdf" I attached to the below post.

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=45318.msg494144#msg494144

[the89thkey]

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?

[ajspiano]

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?

Sometimes you can just say the hand pattern out loud as a trigger..  or use sentences where a syllable is attached to the note in the same context, which is slightly less mechanical.


tog  L     R  L
nice cup-of tea

[the89thkey]

I've heard of that for 4 against 3...

[ajspiano]

I would do whole hand taps on the knees..   dont worry about rhythm, just get the pattern right..

T RL R

and the inverse

T LR L

once that can be done..  get it in time..

then go to the piano, start with 1 note with one finger in each hand.. not other movement.. progress from there..

find some pieces that foster general hand independence..  so anything contrapuntal..  easier inventions? what level is the student at?

[the89thkey]

He is playing Bach Invention 1 and Schumann Scenes from Childhood (the first few pieces).

[thesuineg]

this will legit work.
teach him to clap the overall rhythm. like as if you're doing 2 against three on a single note. the rhythm then i believe is
eighth note - 2 sixtheenth notes - eighth note

then teach him to hit the eighth note with both hands at same time and alternate on the two sextheenth note. thats legit the 2 against 3 rhythm

i think.....not gonna make sure at the moment but im sure its close enough, some people might just never grasp it :/

[mikeowski]

https://f.unkster.tripod.com/polyrhythm.html

I think this is the best method to learn any polyrhythm.

[cmg]

As I kid, my teacher had me chant as I played, "George Wash-ing-ton, George Wash-ing-ton," while the right hand tapped three beats, left hand two (obviously) with both hands on "George,' just the right on "Wash" and the left coming in for "ing" and the right soloing on "ton."

Try it.  It's fullproof for kids.  Well, it was for me, at least.  

P.S.  Another method that worked on me, too:  my first teacher's studio was near a commuter railway line and trains passing over the tracks made a two-against-three sound.  One day she tied me to the tracks just before the train came and screamed, "Get this rhythm or get the train!"  I got it. I know that's severe, but this is America.  We're tough.

[nyiregyhazi]

https://f.unkster.tripod.com/polyrhythm.html

I think this is the best method to learn any polyrhythm.

For me, that's actually the least useful method. It only teaches you awareness of how jerky it is to be fully aware of both hands in slow motion. That actively hinders from getting the feel for flowing execution. The player shouldn't be worried by exactly how close any two notes are, or by trying to count to 15 for something that may require execution within a mere half second. It's an issue of flow- not complex counting.

AJS' sheet is a very good way of doing this type of thing for 2 against 3, but that is the only cross rhythm where I'd personally look for the lowest common multiple (particularly for a 3 against 4 I consider it virtually useless to subdivide into 12). I'd also add stopping exercises to those- where you stop to feel a sense of the left leading to the right, or to feel the right leading back to the left, after the closest notes. If that doesn't work for 2 against 3, I'd use an alternative method which is all about flow (actually, cross-referencing both is good even if it does work). This method I'd use for any complex cross-rhythm in particular, but it also helps 2 against 3:

Firstly make sure there is equally good feel for fitting either a two or a three into a steady pulse, when tapping. Use a metronome to set a steady reference note and alternate between twos and three. Then start playing one hand and switch to the other in different places, with no loss of rhythmic flow. If you are truly rhythmic, go back and do it again. This time, at the point where you had previously switched, still focus your attention from the starting hand to the other hand that took over before. But keep the first hand going too, this time. To clarify- you no longer stop the hand altogether anymore, when you switch your attention to the other, but keep going without thinking about it. The hands should start to create their own flow between the points where they land together- as long as they are both used to flowing between the points where they arrive together, which serve as anchor points. These are the ONLY places where you consciously associate one hand to the other, in the final product. The rest needs to go on feel.

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). Players who get lost in trying to feel a rhythm that is compounded out of both hands are invariably very noisy and unpleasant in their executions- and generally far less rhythmic anyway, compared to those who base the final product simply on each hand flowing to the next meeting point. Consider if two instrumentalists played a cross rhythm between them. Neither worries about precisely how close their notes fall in relation to the other players. They simply feel 3/4/5 or whatever within a fixed time unit and look for no notes from the other player but that on which they are landing back together. The rest sorts itself out. The only way to truly master cross-rhythms is to learn how each hand has its own flow- and to allow the complexity of exactly how notes relate to the other part to simply generate itself.

[cmg]

Agreed, nyireghazi.  But if all else fails, try my first teacher's train track method (see above)!

[the89thkey]

I highly doubt the legitimacy of the train anecdote.

[mikeowski]

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.

[nyiregyhazi]

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.

What flow? This is exactly where my problem lies with this approach. There's no flow- but simply a series of jerky individualistic movements in a tempo that has no flow to either individual rhythm. When you go faster, flow doesn't necessarily appear from nowhere. How would breaking a simple seven against four into 28 subdivisions help to create a flow when you attempted to do it in half a second or less? It would actively hinder, not help. I only need to know what a seven sounds like and what a four sounds like. The combined rhythm is automatic. This ties in strongly to technical issues, where the easiest way to flow is for the arm to steadily pace a movement between the notes- as if to remind each finger when it's due, by its rate of continuous horizontal motion. The  combined approach typically generates a stop/start feel- where notes are felt abruptly, rather than in the flow from the previous note that the hand played. Neither part flows and neither does the movement of the arm behind each hand.

Leaving this step out and relying only on your feeling will get you too many uneven notes with polyrhythms more complex than 2:3.

Why would it- given that neither hand is doing anything remotely difficult? You just need two separate coordinations that are both properly internalised and which have their own flow between two fixed points in time. It's only if these coordinations are faulty that they can possibly break down. Only a break in the physical flow can break the accuracy of the rhythm. If I learn each coordination properly, I have no problem keeping that physical flow and hence the correct rhythm- no matter how little concerned I am by imagining the  compounded rhythm.  

An interesting thing however, is that I am truly rubbish at tapping polyrhythms. Tapping doesn't evolve into a flow in the same way as when a smooth arm movement leads a certain rate of finger actions. My continuous arm movement is integral to my ability to execute 3 against four rhythms (which I assure you that I have no problem keeping steady, via this approach). I'd make a rubbish drummer, but as a pianist I consider compounded rhythms inherently anti-musical to the context of virtually all cross-rhythms and nothing more than a distraction from the simplicity of merely learning two execute two separate flows of very simple rhythms at once. I'd always favour this over turning them into a single very complex rhythm that easily occurs by itself.

[cmg]

I highly doubt the legitimacy of the train anecdote.

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.

[j_menz]

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).

This is undoubtedly true, but I don't thnik many of us started there. I know I didn't, and used counting to fudge these for quite some time. Ultimately, of course, that failed and I had to start doing them properly.

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.  Polyphonic pieces also help in that endeavour, even where they are not polyrhythmic.

So, whatever works as a first step; but try and make sure it's only the first step towards doing these properly.

[the89thkey]

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.

If I were not looking for information I would have found it slightly funnier.

[thesuineg]

did you look at my answer? I thought it might work. well i kinda naturally got it when i was like 6 lol...but I thought that strategy always worked ): jst try it k?

[nyiregyhazi]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[j_menz]

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.

I appear to have been unclear. I wasn't suggesting awareness of the complex compound rhythm. That would indeed be too much - and I think counterproductive as it is inclined to treat the two (or more) rhythms as if they were one.

It's about doing two individually easy things at once- not trying to compound both into something VERY complex.

That is what I meant, though I would add that one should (ultimately) have actual awareness of and control over each.

[the89thkey]

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..

[nyiregyhazi]

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..

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. At most I'd observe it while executing the rhythm by an alternative means. I certainly don't start from the compound rhythm, however, and I neither do I necessarily even spend any time attempting to perceive its intricacies.

[nyiregyhazi]

That is what I meant, though I would add that one should (ultimately) have actual awareness of and control over each.

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.

[the89thkey]

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.

[nyiregyhazi]

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.

Exactly. It's a flow. It has nothing to do with associating exactly how close notes are from hand to hand. If you don't get independent flows in the individual hands, no amount of attempting to associate them will lead to anything but a grinding stop-start feel. In most cases, such rhythms shouldn't even be all that literal anyway. However, even in cases where they need to be strict, there's no easier method than learning to feel a group of  5,6,7, or however many as a single flow of motion between two fixed points in time.

EDIT- I think perhaps I misread your comment as suggesting you should think about the COMPOUND rhythm before forgetting it. If that wasn't what you meant (but simply the individual rhythms for a hand at a time), then I think we're actually in agreement.

[j_menz]

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.

[nyiregyhazi]

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.

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).

[the89thkey]

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.

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...

[the89thkey]

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).

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.

[nyiregyhazi]

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...

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 are inseparable in judging these things.

[nyiregyhazi]

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.

I only recall it once in the single hand, but don't know the piece greatly well. It's a turn up above with a triplet executed  the thumb. It certainly can be faked- it's just a matter of extent. It's not about getting a literal triplet, but getting the proportions close enough for it not to take on a stop start feel. The 5 is the most important and the three just needs not to stick out too heavily.

I don't think the problem is actually rhythmic perfection, but rather the sheer lumpiness that tends to ensue due the physical manner of playing if you strive for it. A player piano could easily be programmed to do a literal execution with a very gentle triplet and a very melodic group of 5- which would sound seamless and natural. The problem with striving for metrical perfection is that it detracts from the physical ease of generating a melodic flow of the important turn figure up top. It turns it into a frenzy of notes rather than two simple flows. I think the trick here is to favour the flow of the top and try as best as you can not to destroy that when you try to squeeze the thumb notes inbetween those.

[j_menz]

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?

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.

[the89thkey]

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.

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.

[the89thkey]

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.

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.

[nyiregyhazi]

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?

[the89thkey]

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 some idiot sitting there subdividing that bar into 40...

[j_menz]

I'm trying to picture 3 against four in one hand in Clementi. Full groups of each?

Indeed. I'll try and find the place when I get home (or more likely over the weekend).

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 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.

[the89thkey]

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.

That's true. 5 against 7 in one hand is notoriously difficult. 3 against 4 is still very doable.

[outin]

It seems to be pretty common that piano teachers have it difficult to relate to people whose brain is wired differently that the 90+% of the population. I see this in my own teacher too and what I read in this forum just confirms my thoughts. Maybe it's because most people give up when they find learning piano too difficult or this is not something taught much in the piano pedagogy. 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. The mathematical analysis is not about trying to match the notes perfectly in time, it's just needed to help getting how to count. And the counting is needed just to help the fingers to learn the way in which the notes are played when at the same time stopping the brain from interfering. Some people obviously do not need this, but it doesn't mean that it won't help others who are otherwise completely stuck.

It obviously would not work for more complicated rhythms, but once one has got the "flow" in the more simple ones, I hope the others may come more naturally...and if not, there's still lost of repertoire to play without more complex polyrhythms. And if you have to fake an occasional one, then wouldn't that still be better than giving up playing because your brain is unable to crasp what others can?

[nyiregyhazi]

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.

I'm not talking about the type of autopilot that allows you to do a completely unfamiliar cross-rhythm straight off with no planning. I'm talking about gearing your practise towards CREATING two individual autopilots for simple execution of each separate hand and then blending them.  It's not the same thing as just having a prelearned skill and using it. If that's not yet possible for one hand at a time, the student is not ready to attempt cross-rhythms.

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.

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.

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.

I see where you're coming from, but I'd reframe that. In 3/4 I usually do draw the mathematical thing for the student. Not for them to count, but for them notice which notes are close. From there, I tend to get them to feel a sense of one hand "triggering" the other. eg. they'd stop on the 2nd triplet note and feel the preceding right hand semiquaver as if it directly causes that note. It's not about the literal execution, but getting a feel for asynchronicity- and the ability to feel that this is natural.

This is where the key difference lies though. If the student thinks literal counting will help get them to the final product, they are barking up the wrong tree. If they stick with this view they will get unmusical and choppy executions that are not even all that precise. However, if they use this exercise to feel awareness of how far away the execution is from precise alignments, they will have freed themself up to allow two separate flows of rhythm to occur without the brain questioning whether the hands are supposed to be lined up more normally. It's not about learning the exact proportions in these exercises. It doesn't even matter much if you get the rhythm rather imprecise, as long as the interrelations are in the right ballpark. It's more about learning not to question a slightly strange physical sensation when the hands go against each other and try to sync them back up. At this point, if you go back to the simpler idea of learning a flow for each hand and just run them, it's no longer inclined to break down due to interference from the brain about how "odd" it seems.

In short, it's not about feeling the compound rhythm as being in any way relevant. It's just learning not to care, how odd any particular relationship might feel compared to standard rhythms.

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.

Exactly. This suggests that it wasn't about the compound rhythm itself- but about freeing yourself up to trust that any weird relationships that come from a simple flow do not need to be "corrected".

[brogers70]

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.

[the89thkey]

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.

You should make progress with this method. Try doing as good an 11-12 as you can. It's pretty hard not to fake it but you need it for the last movement of Respighi violin sonata...

[nyiregyhazi]

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.

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.

[outin]

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.  

[nyiregyhazi]

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?

[outin]

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?

See above...

I am not sure I would call this a method at all, it's just a way to solve a problem at hand. When it stops working I would forget about it, not force it.

[the89thkey]

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.

[nyiregyhazi]

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.

Why? I recall a 7 against 8 in Rustle of Spring. I have no ability to tap a decent 7 against 8 with two hands. I'd go as far as to say I'm plain inept- it's not even a matter of it being a little tricky but rather being outright impossible for me. Executing a flow of two simultaneous groups just isn't hard for me- despite not having any "feel" for the relationships of a compound rhythm.

By ensuring that I can fit either individual hand into two completely rigid points in time (with a smooth sense of physical flow that neither stops nor starts, but contains truely steady flow of both notes and horizontal arm movement) I can execute a 7 against 8 without any issue. I could do this back I was in my early teens and a thoroughly incompetent pianist. It's a much easier method than feeling the correct number of 56ths.

If you feel the compounded rhythm is the only way to go, you're not seeing the whole picture of what goes on. As I said, if one instrumentalist plays a 7 and another an 8, all they care is where they land together and that they can feel how to execute a smooth group. Neither worries about how many 56ths of a unit to wait until the next note. My hands work the same. It's neither hand's business what the other one is doing. They each have a separate task of their own.