Anyway, my point is related to rhythmic pronunciation: in the sense that when I see syncopated rhythm, if I start solfegging it with the conception u-no du-e tre-e quattro-e, I get lost.
With the concept of additive rhythm, one can trace back to a rhythmic figure by dividing it by the sound with the shortest possible duration (e.g., if I have a dotted eighth + a sixteenth, the unit will be the sixteenth) and then utilizing the additive concept by grouping the accents for each note to be accented based on the rhythm (with the same example, I will have a group of three sixteenths and a group of one sixteenth, and I place the accents on the first and fourth sixteenths).
This is equivalent, given the pulse regardless of the time unit, to taking a certain rhythmic figure with a pre-established "rhythmic sound," directly from the source by constructing it.
In the conception with weak and strong accents, this procedure is much less evident.
I hope I made myself clear.
C
Carlos
Member
Reply 22 by Carlos
Posts
759
Syncopation has its very reason for being in the non-coincidence of the beat's accentuation with the occurrence of sounds within the beat itself, so if you get lost... well, you'll find your way back!
The example you give of a dotted 1/8 + 1/16 has two flaws: first, it is not a syncopation; second, if you want to accent the sixteenth note, you are making a huge mistake, because that sixteenth note should only be accented if we were in the presence of a meter of, say, 6/16, and thus that sixteenth note was only the first of the second group of three.
The example you give of a dotted 1/8 + 1/16 has two flaws: first, it is not a syncopation; second, if you want to accent the sixteenth note, you are making a huge mistake, because that sixteenth note should only be accented if we were in the presence of a meter of, say, 6/16, and therefore that sixteenth note was only the first of the second group of three.
This is the "classical" conception of rhythm: I spoke of syncopated rhythm, which means the shifting of accents relative to their conventional position. It is certainly an error if viewed through the concept of weak accent, strong accent.
It is clear that if I play a composition conceived with such an accent structure, I am getting the rhythmic conception wrong.
The conception of rhythm in jazz and in polyrhythmic music in general—if one applies the concept of having uniform weak and strong accents throughout the flow of time—one totally misses the approach and plays them incorrectly.
I hope I have explained myself.
I am attaching a recording made very crudely with my laptop microphone. I did 2 measures of 4/4 with all the accents on the downbeat, and 2 measures of 4/4 with the accents shifted (in a "boppish" conception), i.e., "non-European". I then concluded with one measure of European 4/4 and one measure of "non-European" 4/4. I hope you understand what I mean.
I cannot upload the file because there are filters that do not allow it.
C
Carlos
Member
Reply 24 by Carlos
Posts
759
Rhythm and meter are two different things. You are confusing things. It is wrong. Syncopated rhythm would not exist outside of a regular meter. Bye!
In other words, syncopation is the displacement of something from its natural placement. If there is no natural placement, there is no syncopation... because it is not "perceivable."
I hope it's clear; technically speaking, Carlos explained it well... and the genre doesn't matter, syncopation has only one defined meaning (documentation is easily available online). Are you perhaps confusing it with Swing?
Maybe I am a bit confused. But try listening to this and then tell me what you think.
I am attaching a recording made very crudely with my laptop microphone. I did 2 measures of 4/4 with all the accents on the downbeat and 2 measures of 4/4 with shifted accents (in a "boppish" conception), i.e., "non-European". I then concluded with one measure of European 4/4 and one measure of "non-European" 4/4. I hope what I mean is clear.
Ritmo.mp3
C
Carlos
Member
Reply 27 by Carlos
Posts
759
Those "2 measures of 4/4 with all accents on the downbeat and 2 measures of 4/4 with shifted accents (in a 'boppish' conception), i.e., 'non-European'" are only possible if the constant pulse (1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4) remains "underneath," because the rhythmic displacement is perceived when, instead of feeling 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4, you feel 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4: it is that shift that makes the rhythm interesting, but it isn't "boppish." If there were no regular metric pulse, we would be facing a ternary movement with mixed meter, i.e., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 commonly called "Bartókian 8." That movement is like a 9/8 that is missing a little piece, but it is felt in three and, there yes, the regular pulse underneath is missing, because the pulse is 3 3 2. But, as you know, Bartók was very European...
Perhaps I got the thread title wrong then: it's better to talk about additive rhythm vs divisive rhythm. I wrote it because generally, divisive rhythm originated in Europe, while additive rhythm originated in the rest of the world. Or am I mistaken?
I used the term "boppistico" because if you take that rhythm I recorded and apply the typical jazz rhythmic equivalence (duplet=triplet), you get a "galloping" rhythm. Doing this also explains why it feels natural to clap on the second and fourth beat.
C
Carlos
Member
Reply 29 by Carlos
Posts
759
I, truly, have no answers. I don't even know what "divisive rhythm" and "additive rhythm" mean. It must be a limitation of mine, without a doubt...
PS: I find it natural to think about the tactus always, not just on the second and fourth beat... could it be because I am an orchestral conductor?
I, truly, have no answers. I don't even know what "divisive rhythm" and "additive rhythm" mean. It must be a limitation of mine, without a doubt...
PS: I find it natural to think about the tactus always, not just on the second and fourth beat... could it be because I am an orchestral conductor?
It's not that one doesn't beat on the one and the three! On the contrary! Beating your foot on the one and the three helps to play better, in my opinion!
Let's see if I can explain myself with a musical example.
In this 12-bar blues, there is a feeling of clapping on the 2 and the 4. But why does this happen? If I applied the conception of traditional rhythm (that is, regular strong accents and weak accents in time), it could not be explained: in fact, from that point of view, it would be the opposite.
This happens because the conception of rhythm is different, and in fact, all classical musicians who try to play jazz standards play them with wrong rhythmic pronunciation and they don't swing.
Carlos, I hope I don't sound "know-it-all." I only want to share something that I believe might be useful to others. If you are interested in deepening this concept, I recommend watching Mike Longo's DVD. I was amazed to see and realize certain things that I used to play by ear but didn't understand.
Something else occurred to me: Dizzy Gillespie was referring to the "perfect offbeat". It means placing accents on the division of the figure into the smallest unit of time that appears.
An example came to mind while listening to Black Sabbath.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zWDa9NT88E
From 1:14, there is the beat in the first measure: 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4
the second measure: 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 (the last accent occurs a little bit earlier, even if that is the basic beat, because it is due to the appoggiatura played with bending between fa and sol)
Then at 1:27 the drums start, clearly marking the eighth notes and creating polyrhythm.
Subsequently, the guitar and bass riff vary a bit (one is an octave higher and one is an octave lower), but the pattern of accents remains the same for most of the song, except for the intro and the fast interlude.
Beautiful! The drums are missing because it is a piece for keyboard.
However, I cannot understand why Carlos says that he doesn't know divisive rhythm: after all, that is what is studied in solfeggio. Perhaps it just has a different name.
To clarify what I mean, I will repeat briefly: the divisive rhythm (a concept typically associated with European music) to which I am referring involves taking the measure and dividing it according to mathematical units (e.g., 4/4). Then every rhythmic figure will have multiples and submultiples.
Additive rhythm (a concept typically associated with non-European music), on the other hand, takes a rhythmic unit and uses it as a reference to create groups of notes by giving accents.
I am evidently linked by the passage of time, but they are not the same thing from what I have understood. Are there traces of a treatise or books written about this even in European literature?
Can you tell me if there are references to this concept anywhere?
C
Carlos
Member
Reply 35 by Carlos
Posts
759
camy86 wrote:
But I can't understand why Carlos says he doesn't know divisive rhythm: after all, that is what is studied in solfeggio. Perhaps it just has a different name.
There... it was a polite way to tell you that you are saying things with a sense that is difficult to pinpoint (another euphemism...)
K
Kappa
Member
Reply 36 by Kappa
Posts
146
camy86 wrote:
Additive rhythm
It is used by musicians like Stravinsky in the Rite ... in particular, he uses it for the "negation" of the unity of movement. If you look at The Rite of Spring, the succession of meters 5/4 4/4 3/4 4/4 3/4 4/4 2/4 etc. falls into the type of irregularity typical of additive rhythm.
