9 over 7

Here are some polyrhythm MIDIs i made...

5:7 - http://rapidshare.de/files/3341326/5over7.mid.html

9:7 - http://rapidshare.de/files/3341401/9over7.mid.html

And just for fun, here's 15:16...

http://rapidshare.de/files/3341459/15over16.mid.html

Thanks LDGuy!

If I may offer to HODers some practice notes for these examples:

(1)The 5 over 7.

The high cowbell is playing the 5; the low cowbell is playing the 7. The seven (low cowbell), therefore, is your primary pulse.

a. Try listening to the low cowbell only at first, tapping your foot in synch with it.

b. Having locked in that tempo, use the "traditional" method of formulating the poly--i.e., accent every 7th note of the quintuplets in 7/4, starting with the first (you may have to slow this down without the computer track at first--once you get it down, repeat step (a) to find the original tempo again.

[Note: If you have trouble accenting every seventh partial, try using a sticking like Rllrrll.]

c. Tap out locked in tempo before you press "play" on your computer. Then play step (b) with the computer. [Since you do not have three hands, you won't be able to play the subdivisions on the first beat. Simply play the downbeat with the low cowbell and begins the subdivisions on the second beat (i.e., second low cowbell). YOUR ACCENTS SHOULD BE LINING UP WITH THE HIGH BELL!

d. Take out the intervening partials.


2. The 9 over 7.

For the 9 over 7, the cowbell is playing the 9, the click is playing the 9. Simply repeat the above process. In my personal opinion, I believe my alternative approach already discussed in this thread will be better than the traditional approach for this particular polyrhythm.

3. The 15 over 16.

Again, remember the cowbell is playing the 15, while the click is playing the 16. For all practical purposes (well, as practical as you're going to get with a 15 over 16), I prefer to think this polyrhythm as a 15 over 4. In other words, the 4/4 is being broken down into 16th notes with the 15 on top.

In order to formulate a 15 over 4, I would use my "alternative" approach.

a. Ask, is 15 divisible by 2 or 3, or both? In this case, it is divisible by 3. Thus you will play a 3 over 4 polyrhythm.

b. Take the 15 and divide by 3. The answer is 5. Thus you will subdivide the 3 over 4 into quintuplets (5's).

This gives you 15 over 4. I like this approach, because it gives me a nice contextual phrasing of 3 over 4, giving it some shape and substance (rather thean sounding like a guy who can't play with a click :0(

In order to play with the computer sample, add one more step:

c. Play 16th notes with the foot instead of quarters.

Enjoy!

Steve Michaud

Thanks Steve!

I'll get to work. Sounds very cool.

Did anyone here about this composer called Conlon Nancarrow who did this piece for player piano which involved a polyrhythm of pi:e? This sounds pretty stupid but it's quite cool, because pi is just above 3, and e is just below three.

e = 2.71828 18284 59045 23536 02874 7135...
pi = 3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279...

For those who dont know what e is, it's a very important mathematical constant used to work out logarithms (or maybe that should be logarhythms!)

He did loads of really strange stuff involving polyrhythms and polytempo - here's some documentation of his works... http://homepages.wmich.edu/~jscriven/Bridges.2001.pdf
Its fascinating stuff, but i couldn't find any recordings to listen to, so i have no idea how it sounds.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LDGuy:
Thanks Steve!

I'll get to work. Sounds very cool.

Did anyone here about this composer called Conlon Nancarrow who did this piece for player piano which involved a polyrhythm of pi:e? This sounds pretty stupid but it's quite cool, because pi is just above 3, and e is just below three.

e = 2.71828 18284 59045 23536 02874 7135...
pi = 3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279...

For those who dont know what e is, it's a very important mathematical constant used to work out logarithms (or maybe that should be logarhythms!)

He did loads of really strange stuff involving polyrhythms and polytempo - here's some documentation of his works... http://homepages.wmich.edu/~jscriven/Bridges.2001.pdf
Its fascinating stuff, but i couldn't find any recordings to listen to, so i have no idea how it sounds.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">not to get anal but the number "e" undoes natural logs (ln). wow to think something i learned in calculus can actually be applied to music. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

*fry* *sizzle* = sound of synaptic misfirings in the brain. [img]eek.gif[/img]

Here's an equation to describe e, just to get you even more confuzzled - http://meta.wikimedia.org/math/61e03...2ed3f6c3d2.png

@Clintuplet - http://meta.wikimedia.org/math/5c97f...a21f0a08a5.png [img]wink.gif[/img]

LOL!!! Perfect LD!! [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LDGuy:
Here's an equation to describe e, just to get you even more confuzzled - http://meta.wikimedia.org/math/61e03...2ed3f6c3d2.png

@Clintuplet - http://meta.wikimedia.org/math/5c97f...a21f0a08a5.png [img]wink.gif[/img]

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">uh... it made perfect sense to me [img]frown.gif[/img]

This has been an interesting discussion.

For me personally, the "math" of polyrhythms, although figuring prominently in their formulation, is pretty much what scaffolding is to a building. Once the building is in place, the scaffolding disappears.

In other words, the math is only serving the higher purpose of formulating interesting rhythms.

I remember hearing a well known drummer in a clinic saying that he didn't get into the "math stuff." Ironically, one could subject his playing to mathematical analysis and see that he was playing phrases of 5's, etc...

To stiff-arm the "math" of rhythm altogether is to close oneself off to an extremely effective method of learning different rhythmic shapes. It is also self-negating. Should one no longer refer to "8th notes" as such because he had to employ mathematical language to do so?

This is nothing reactionary to anything that has been said on the HoD board. Rather, I'm addressing a current trend in thought only too common in the music world. Let us use the math, but always subordinate it to the higher calling of making great music.

Steve Michaud

Re: last post; well said Steve. I couldn't agree more. I've always thought of math as key to learning rhythms. It is always important to note that one must temper the tendency to stay with the math and to make music from the template.

Thank you for your detailed posts regarding these types of 'out' rhythmic ideas. [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ July 26, 2005 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Clintuplet ]</font>