9 over 7

Hello All,

I noticed the 9 over 7 polyrhythm being discussed in another thread. Since it was under a topic not usually associated with this rhythm, I figured that I would start a post on this.
Here is how I would recommend learning this:

(1)Play 8th-note triplets in 7/4 time.

(2) Accent every 7th note of the triplet subdivisions, starting with the first.

(3) Take away the intervening partials between the accents; this gives you a "3 over 7."--Internalize this until you feel this pulse very easily.

(4) Now subdivide the 3 over 7 into triplets. This would basically be a 3/4 subdivided into 8th-note triplets, only it is now being polyrhythmically stretched over a pulse of 7--i.e., 9 over 7.

Hope you enjoy!

Steve Michaud

P.S. Just got two calls--One to do the new Dave Hines record with Steve Hunt; the second to do a polyrhythmic "drum and bass" project with an emmy-nominated composer named Randy Roos. Should be interesting!

Nice post Steve...........best of luck with those sessions

Riddim said,

"Another, perhaps simpler, approach is to establish a pulse of 7 notes, slowly, with one sound source. Once that's comfortable, play one note in the same space with another limb. Once that‘s comfortable, go to 2 notes. Now you have 7 over 2. Once that’s down, go to 3 notes. This gives one 7 over 3."
-----------------------

Hi Riddim,

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. Also, working 2 over 7 seems to be an additional step.
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. 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 polyrhythms needs to understand and feel that base of quantization in order to move to the final step.
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. It's always a joy to discuss differing methods with fellow drummers. The words above are in no way a criticism; It's quite possible that I misunderstood your post. If so, I humbly apologize--after all, I am getting old--35 years old :0(

Steve Michaud

Shockediddle said,

"thanx for the explanation steve.
i went back into the md archive and pete magadini did a few articles on the topic and from i understand u can mathematically manipulating the quarter note in a different time sig. ie 5 over 4 in 4/4 time can be transposed into 4 "pseudo-syncopated" quarter notes in 5/4 time.
the only part i dont get is #4. specifically what time sig is it in? still 7?
--------------------------------------------------

Hi Shockediddle,

I never worked with Magadini's method. The "pseudo-syncopation" was unclear to me. Would this mean that one takes a clave rhythm and smooths it out until it is 5/4 over 4/4?

I personally like to make distinctions in categories: polyrhythm and polymeter. A polyrhythmic 9 over 7 would be 9 quarter notes in the exact same space as 7 quarter notes. A polymetric 9 over 7 could be a phrase of nine 16th notes phrased in a 7/4 context. In this case, an "over-the-barline" phrase would occur. In the former (polyrhythmic 9 over 7), there would be no over-the-barline phrase (assuming that you are playing the nine "flat"; i.e., without any implied groupings in accentuation).
The method I described in my opening post was a polyrythmic 9 over 7. Thus to answer your last question, the time signature would still be in 7.
The distinction I use between polyrhythmic and polymeter has some overlap, for clearly a 9 over 7 is implying a 9/4 meter over a 7/4 meter. I only use the distinction as a convenient tag to differentiate superimposed pulses that occupy the SAME space as the underlying pulse (what I am calling polyrhythms) from superimposed meters that must be cycled "over the barline" in order to resolve themselves (i.e., reach the point where both the superimposed rhythm and the underlying rhythm line up with their respective "ones").

Thanks for tuning in!

Steve Michaud

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Michaud:
Shockediddle said,

"thanx for the explanation steve.
i went back into the md archive and pete magadini did a few articles on the topic and from i understand u can mathematically manipulating the quarter note in a different time sig. ie 5 over 4 in 4/4 time can be transposed into 4 "pseudo-syncopated" quarter notes in 5/4 time.
the only part i dont get is #4. specifically what time sig is it in? still 7?
--------------------------------------------------

Hi Shockediddle,

I never worked with Magadini's method. The "pseudo-syncopation" was unclear to me. Would this mean that one takes a clave rhythm and smooths it out until it is 5/4 over 4/4?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"pseudo-syncopation" is something i came up with to describe how a polyrhythm sounds against the dowmbeat. even something simple like 1/4 note triplets against straight 1/4 notes in 4/4 time can feel weird- almost like the 1/4 note downbeat is syncopated but its not hence the name. i'll try to post the five against four examples magadini to help clarify.

thanks again for the info

Hello Again,

If you wanted an incredibly slow version of the above polyrhythm, try this:

(1)Play an extremely slow 7/4 pulse in the bass drum.

(2)Subdivide each quarter into 9's on your snare (you could think of these as eighth-note triplets subdivided into threes, if that is easier to feel).

(3)Now accent every 7th partial, beginning with the first.

(4)Remove the intervening partials between the accents--Now you are playing 9 over 7.

The advantage with this approach is that you are playing a 9 over 7 that has been meticulously quantized at every step, including the last. The disadvantage is that the 7 pulse is ridiculously slow. All in all, the first way is the more useful in my opinion.

Steve Michaud

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ July 05, 2005 04:04 PM: Message edited by: shockediddle ]</font>

Link doesn't work, shock [but i see that you're prob trying to fix it]

5:4 - see my 2nd to last post [from bottom of pg 3] in this thread:
http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ult...09&t=5075&p=3#

Got a Matchgrip wrote,

"Shockadiddle, flarob explained the 9:7 thing in his post, only he said 5 against the first 2 HALF notes, which of course is 4 quarters, then 4 over the next 3 quarters. Thus, 5 against [or, "over"] 4, & then 4 over the following 3 in the bar. 5:4 + 4:3 = 9:7."

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

Hi Got-a-Matchgrip (and your inimitable icons ;0)

Strictly speaking, the rhythm you described is not a 9 over 7. Of course 5 and 4 equals 9. The problem is that the 5 and the 4 in your example have different subdivisional bases (i.e., the five has a quintuplet base while the 4 has a 16th note base, making the first part of the "nine" faster than the second half). At best, your approximating a nine over seven. Granted, one could flatten out this rhythm at a faster tempo and get pretty close. But at a slower tempo, the shortcomings of that scheme would show its true colors: the beginning of the 9 would sound extremely rushed. A lot of beginners play their quintuplets in a similar manner: i.e., with the first three notes sounding like 16th note triplets, and the last three notes sounding like sixteenths (I'm not calling you a beginner here by a long shot--I've admired your knowledgeable posts numerous times). I merely wanted to point out that the true identity of a nine over seven is a nine equally spaced over seven pulses. To use an analogy: we would not call two 16ths and an eighth by the name of a triplet simply because it had three notes occuring in one beat. The reason? The first two notes are being played at a different rate of speed than the last note.

Thanks for your post!

Steve Michaud

yeah match (and steve) ive copied the pattern and tranfered it into word i just need to get it published online.
i'll definately get it up

if u have old md's its in the mar-july of '89