9 over 7

okay...now let's hear someone play it!

Sorry to be so long in responding to Steve's observations.

"Thanks for joining in! One or two things remained unclear in your post--perhaps you could clarify. You mentioned playing two notes in the space of seven but didn't mention how to do so."

A reasonable question.

I do start with a reference quarter note on one limb (this can later be subdivided, if needed, into 2s, 3s, etc., if one needs to proceed incrementally). I didn?t say this initially because I felt this would be implicit. Continuous improvement?.

Having established the basic pulse, I then play whatever subdivisions, say 7, with another. Then I?ll stop and play the other grouping, say 2, 3, etc., with another limb, just to lock them in. Then I play them both concurrently. If I have difficulty, I may phase them in and out, to verify accuracy. Recording is good too.

"Also, working 2 over 7 seems to be an additional step."

I didn?t find it necessary, but I included it in case others had difficulty, as most of us are probably familiar with dividing things in 2.

"When you explain the next step (i.e., playing three in the space of 7), it seems that this is supposed to emerge from a vacuum."

Hopefully the additional information provided above resolves this. That?s how I did it.

"Actually, this step is the one that needs the most guidance. Three over seven is difficult simply to "feel" without a base of quantization (i.e., a flow of underlying partials, whether explicitly stated or implicitly felt). The student of polyrhythm needs to understand and feel that base of quantization in order to move to the final step."

Agreed.


"We were in fundamental agreement as to the last step: once you have the 3 over 7, subdivide into triplets.

Thanks Riddim for your post."


"You are most welcome.

"It's always a joy to discuss differing methods with fellow drummers. The words above are in no way a criticism;"

None taken.

"It's quite possible that I misunderstood your post."

It?s also possible that I didn?t explain it as well as it needs.

I was trying to keep it simple; sometimes one does not hit the mark. Maybe a better way is to think of it as 7 over 3 over 1. Then all follows from that.

Thanks for the clarification, Riddim!


Also, thanks so much V-Drummer for doing this! It looks great! There was only one line that was missing. After the 3:7 quarter note line, I suggested three groupings of eighth note triplets with a 3:2 bracket over each grouping. These three groupings would then have a large 3:7 bracket over the whole phrase. This would make the crucial step clear; i.e., that the 3 over 7 is being subdivided into triplets. The 9:7 notation would then follow afterwards exactly as you have transcribed. Thanks for all your work!

If one can see it on the staff & then hence, understand it, one can begin to 'hear' it. Then once one 'hears' it, one can play it; & as it is heard awa played, it becomes internalized.

Rather than simply an excercise in meter[ed numbers], it's cool when one applies it as a more musical application...as V did at the end of his 5:4/4:5 lesson, applying the rhythm to the parts of the kit, giving it DBs awa BBs [down awa back beats]...then shifting the accents, such as the hats, so that the accent is implied more on that part of the poly-subdvsn [as V also did in that last application]. Makes for a cool, tasty little rhythmic 'illusion' [if in the right place/called for in a section of the music]. It's all subdvsns awa synchop...only the objective is to make it musical in application.
It becomes more musical in applic, rather than merely an exc in #s. But then i suppose that's a given. [img]cool.gif[/img]

Once again, ya gotta love that music-notate SW! The days of having to transcribe the "doctor's-[prescription]-penmanship" in charts [aka "chickenscratch!"] are virtually over. Thank Gadd [& Brad...here]. [img]wink.gif[/img]

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ July 07, 2005 03:06 PM: Message edited by: got_a_match_grip? ]</font>

Cjbdrm said,

"okay...now let's hear someone play it!
--------------------

Hi Cjbdrm,

I actually came up with a great idea for this rhythm that I'm going to put forward to the guys when we go into the studio in August. Hopefully they can write a tune around it (it would be great to hear Holdsworth solo over it!).

The possibilities are endless. Whe you've mastered the 9 over 7 exercise, you are only at the beginning. You've simply learned a note rate (just as eighth notes are a note rate). The task remains to apply your creative juices and apply it.

Have Fun!

Steve Michaud

Hi Steve,

Love your playing...you're a monster!

I'll leave the '9 over 7' to you fusion cats! You guys are killing me!

I tried working on it a little bit here at work tapping on the desk...I passed out...co-workers said I was muttering something about 'Mac Hine' when they found me...

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

Tell Al the guys at HOD said hello...

Wow, cool discussion!
I think things may be getting overcomplicated a bit perhaps. There is a simple formula to determine anything over anything. A lot of you are using this forumla but I think it may help to clearly state it instead of applying it over and over without saying so.
In the 5 over 4 example I didn't see quintuplets mentioned so I thought I would use that example.

1) Find out the rate you want: In this case 5 even notes over 4/4 time.
2) Multiply the two numbers to get your subdivision. 5x4=20 notes. 20 notes in 4/4 = quintuplets. That's your subdivision.
3) Take the number of beats per bar (4 in this case) and accent that many notes in your subdivision. So:

Every 4th quintuplet in 4/4 is 5 over 4.
You can reverse it as well:
Every 5th sixteenth in 5/4 is 4 over 5.

That's how I learned it anyway. [img]redface.gif[/img]

I do like the idea of mixing and matching various rates to get a greater sum, but as stated earlier in this thread, that's not creating a whole poly, that's combining different ones within the span of a large bar (4:3 and 5:2 does not get 9 over 7).

Hi Steve H.,

Thanks for chiming in! The method you described is the second approach I referred to in the thread. That is the traditional way to formulate a polyrhythm.

The reason I gave an option is because the larger numbers (e.g., 9) require an extremely dense rhythmic base in order to formulate the poly--nine in 1.

It gets to a point where the traditional formulative steps are impractical. An example would be an 18 over 7. Let's apply the traditional approach:

(1) I determine that I want 18 over 7 in 4/4 time---18:7.

(2)Find out the subdivisional base [By the way, there is no need for multiplication or division here. Simply look at the first number in the above ratio--that is your subdivision. In this case, it would be 18.

(3) Take the amount of beats per bar (the second number of the ratio--e.g., 7) and accent accordingly.

Here is the problem. Using this method, one has to play 18 subdivisions per beat and accent every 7th note! If you could do this for one minute at 67 BPMS, you should enter your local chapter of the World's Fastest Drummer contest--you just played 1206 beats in a minute, having goosenecked past the current top speed in the Guinness Book of World Records! Add to that, you are accenting every 7th partial in that blur!

I devised a second approach to take care of the problem. By taking a slow polyrhythm and subdividing it into the rhythmic equivalent of what I am shooting for, I do not have to play a single stroke roll that will burn a hole into my drum pad :0)

Using the 18 over 7 as an example, here is how I would do it:

(1) Ask the question, "Is 18 divisible by either 2 or 3?" In this case, it is divisible by both. Great! I'll choose the 2.

(2) Divide the 18 by 2. Answer? 9.

(3) Play a 9 over 7, assuming this has already been learned using the steps mentioned earlier in this thread.

(4)Subdivide the 9 into 2s (that is, eighth notes). Now you are playing 18 over 7!


Note: My method has its limits--the large number must be divisible by 2 or 3. For example, it WOULD NOT work for a 19 over 7. (But who wants to play a 19 over 7 anyway? ;0)

Steve Michaud

There is more than one way to skin the cat.

Play a 3 over 7, then subdivide the 3 into sixes. This will also give you 18 over 7!

Steve Michaud

Got-a-MatchGrip said,

"Funny the mention of "Blown Fuse."
That is close to the idea of my changing from the old screenname to the new ;-p
I need to get this recording on merit of your "accomodation" ;-)...interesting moreso, now that you tell the story of how a certain section or motif came about. Any more info [perhaps when you get the chance] on how to get this recordg, Stv? "

--------------

Hi GAMG,

Try these links:

http://www.globalbass.com/archives/f...blown_fuse.htm

http://cdbaby.com/cd/pickford

For sound clips, try this:

WWW.Stevehuntjazz.com

Steve Michaud