How to count and tap this rhythm? Seems like a polyrhythm - triplet notes that go for 2 quarter notes in 3/4 time signature? I don't know how to practice for this type of rhythms
As Benjamin said, think of this as in 3/4. And while you generally wouldn't see this rhythm notated as 6/8 since it is more organized as 3 beats in the measure (rather than 2 big beats each divided into 3 small beats as in 6/8), you can sometimes see stuff like this where a piece that generally has a 2 feel switches to a 3 feel for a measure or two. I happen to be working on a piece in choir that does just that (though it doesn't subdivide the quarter notes into triplets like this does). In fact, it has different voices doing different things in the same measure -- some in a 2 feel and some in a 3 feel. Hawley's 'In dulci jubilo'.
Triplet 8th notes are not possible in compound time signatures (time signatures where the basic beat is a dotted quarter note). It's not your fault that you cannot understand this notation @Question Toothbrush The notation is incorrect. My best advice is try to ignore feeling of the metronome and just try to play through it with the way that a triplet feels. I wish I had better advice. I struggled with these also.
@Question Toothbrush: Yes, that would be a polyrhythm. Our director pointed out that if you put the two together, you get the rhythm of Carol of the Bells. This jibes with what David Bennett says about polyrhythms, which is that it's often too hard to keep both rhythms in your head separately, and often better to think of what they sound like together. But in the case of the choral piece I referred to, since the two rhythms are in different voices, no one voice has to deal with both at once (except to the extent that they to hold to one rhythm while hearing a different one from their choirmates).
BTW, a polyrhythm is not to be confused with a polymeter. In a polyrhythm, the beats are of different lengths, but the beat pattern repeats at the same frequency so, for example, there are different numbers of beats in a measure, but the overall length of the measure is the same.
In a polymeter, OTOH, the beats are of the same length, but the beat pattern repeats at different frequencies. Led Zeppelin's Kashmir is an example of a 3-against-4 polymeter. The drum track chugs forward at a steady 4/4, but the main riff is in three (the three hits of the riff are on 1-and-2, with the third beat being silent). Since the least common multiple of 3 and 4 is 12, the two patterns form an uber-pattern of 12 beats, or 3 measures, with the two patterns coming in and out of phase with each other.
@Jesse Lyons: It's possible if a piece that is overall in 6/8 time switches temporarily from the 2-feel of 6/8 to a 3-feel. Then each of those triplets comprise one beat in the 3-feel.
1. When I had to face this one, I decided to try without sound (to get rid of the metronome sound, the only thing that follows the 6/8 signature) and play it in 3/4 as @Benjamin Jack suggests.
2. While the notes thrown onto those 2 bars 'fit', in an algebraic way, as they add up to the expected duration of a 6/8 bar (6 eighth notes distributed in 2 beats), the difficulty of just imagining how this would sound, let alone playing it, is so high that makes it absurd to be included among the rest of Rhythmania exercises. My conclusion therefore is that the exercise must have been wrongly conceived (based on misunderstood theory concepts). The tempo, expressed as '1 quarter note equals 170' can only reinforce my conclusion: tempo on compound signatures is always expressed in reference to a dotted quarter note (the sum of 3 eighth notes , or the duration of one beat) and not to a quarter note, which would be useless in practice. Moreover, 170 bpm is Drum'n'Bass territory and fast as hell!
3. I wonder why these mistakes on a few exercises haven't still been corrected. As @Jesse Lyons wrote weeks ago, these are unnecessary obstacles on a learning path that already has a good amount of them.
@Victor Wilburn I'm not talking about the feel of notation... I'm talking about the actual notation and how it is written... particularly triplet 8th notes (or any triplet divisions) that are marked with brackets... it is only possible in simple time signatures such as 3/4, 4/4 etc. In compound time signatures, such as 6/8 or 6/2 or 9/4, you may see a duplet, but never a triplet. You cannot build a compound time signature on top of an already compound time signature. You can build a simple time signature feel into a short section of a compound time signature without having to change the time signature, which is done via a duplet. Inversely, you can have a compound feel in a simple time signature, which is achieved via triplets, usually marked with a bracket that says 3. I'm not trying to argue, but I do want to get down to the bottom of this, because people who are trying to learn are relying on info from more advanced folks who are answering their questions. It is important to learn it correctly.
I've spoken to 2 different highly educated individuals with doctorate degrees who have told me this to be true. Just think about it... it would not make since to see a duplet bracket group of notes in a simple time signature... it is the same for compound time signatures. If you can show me an example of triplets (marked by the number 3) within a measure of a compound time signature, located in a piece of famous musical literature I will take back what I have said. I mean this with all the respect in the world.. it is obvious you are a great and accomplished musician. You are probably more skilled than me, but I am studying music theory heavily daily for the last year. I know I am correct on this. If we are helping to answer questions, we need to make sure we are guiding them correctly... after all, I am still learning, and I hope that the people giving me information are teaching me correctly.
I can see how this notation would seem a bit goofy if you are only used to traditional Western European classical music theory. For the beginners, when we use compound time signatures like 6/8 or 9/8 we usually think about grouping eighth notes in groups of three. When using simple time signatures like 3/4 or 4/4, we usually think about grouping eighth notes in groups of 2. Sometimes, we need to “borrow” a grouping from another time signature by using a triplet (or group of 3 per unit) in a simple time signature or a duplet (or group of 2 per unit) in a compound time signature. Of course this can also happen with any number of combinations of note groupings and values (like quintuplets or septuplets) that are not “borrowed” from anywhere. These may or may not be interpreted literally (played evenly with precision), depending on the context.
Notation, of course, is descriptive. Its purpose is to convey a rhythm and its context in a way that the reader will understand. Yet, notation will always be limited and will need to reference the musical traditions and other contexts in which the rhythm is being played. Actually, there is plenty of rhythmic ambiguity in traditional Western European musical notation, even with respect to rhythms that are very common in traditional Western European classical music theory. For example, if you study Baroque music, you know that composers often write out dotted eight notes and sixteenth notes when their intent was almost certainly for us to play a quarter note followed by an eighth note (triplet). Since we are familiar with the tradition, we know exactly what they mean, and this shorthand doesn’t cause anyone too much trouble.
When we need to notate a complex rhythm or an example from another tradition, we may need to do so unconventionally.
Now to this example. I believe that what we are looking at is a vertical polymeter, with 3/4 superimposed over 6/8. This rhythm is very very common in many musical traditions, including West African music, Caribbean music, Latin American music and, of course, jazz, which is influenced by all of these traditions.
These folks explain and demonstrate the concept very well:
Their examples don’t include triplets, but of course these can be included as an embellishment. It would be rare to see notation for this.
I can understand that this example in rhythmania would be more useful if they made this concept explicit or used simpler examples to introduce the concept. For example, I might put notate this rhythm in 3/4 time and make a note that it is superimposed over a 6/8 beat. Yet, I do think the value of this gym exercise is being able to recognize, understand and reproduce rhythms on site. This particular example is a practical one with value, in my opinion.
If you would like a demonstration of this cool stuff in action, check out Duke Ellington’s Caravan. Juan Tizol is Puerto Rican and the band uses claves here to make it clear that they’re referencing that tradition:
By the way, I’ve gotten pretty far in rhythmania and I don’t think difficult examples like this come up too often, so if you plow through these few, you’ll be fine. Good luck!
@Cycle Angelo Amazing post! I have been reading all the comments here wondering who is right, and by what you are saying, because of the built in complexity due to borrowing of music, no one is wrong here!
Though I would say that maybe the idea of the game here is not to necessarily teach layered polymeters but to give you the ability to play any rhythm, even if it is not perfectly valid in pure western music. so you can face any rhythm you come to without blinking. IDK :)
Perhaps this concept would be better placed in very high levels of the game, however, maybe this is just an introductory bit to introduce a concept like Cycle Angelo was saying.
@Jesse Lyons If your point is that this rhythm is notated incorrectly, the may I suggest that you write it correctly and share? Since it is performable (it is, and I'm assuming that no one is making the point that it isn't), then let us see how to correctly notate it!
@Jesse Lyons From my standpoint it's rather weak argument when asking to show a famous piece that has this type of nation. Does the well-knowness or famousness of the piece make the notation right? I am by no means an expert in the field, but just logically it doesn't hold truth. So to continue, if someone, unknown, wrote a piece with this notation would it be wrong notation. I think it's just a rule and sometimes we are faced with limits of this rules and so we might need to break them. Another point about professors. I'm certain they know a lot, way more than me, but do they know absolutely everything? In previous comments people said about African, Caribbean, Latin American music, does their knowledge base include these music? I'm not trying to completely dismiss the point you made, i wanted to show that the foundation of it a little bit shaky.
@Jesse Lyons From my standpoint it's rather weak argument when asking to show a famous piece that has this type of nation. Does the well-knowness or famousness of the piece make the notation right? I am by no means an expert in the field, but just logically it doesn't hold truth. So to continue, if someone, unknown, wrote a piece with this notation would it be a wrong notation? I think it's just a rule and sometimes we are faced with limits of this rules and so we might need to break them.
Another point about professors. I'm certain they know a lot, way more than me, but do they know absolutely everything? In previous comments people said about African, Caribbean, Latin American music, does their knowledge base include these music? I'm not trying to completely dismiss the point you made, i wanted to show that the foundation of it a little bit shaky.
@David Robinson I’m not implying that it is incorrect, I have flat out stated that it is incorrect notation, just as I have said in comments above. I cannot be sure what the composer intended, but my best educated guess would be changing the time signature from a compound one of 6/8, to a simple one of 3/4, because of the triplet grouping of eighth notes marked by a 3. Then the 3 marking above each grouping of 3 eighth notes beamed together would make sense. Because they gave us a compound signature of 6/8, and the eighth notes are beamed in sets of 3’s, it tells us that each beat is already made up of a division of 3 eighth notes. You cannot divide those beat divisions of 3 further into divisions of 3. The other problem is I can tell in the picture that the metronome they are grading us on is based on beat divisions of 3, because each measure is represented by 6 boxes in the photo.
@Cycle Angelo Cool video about polyrhythms and how they work! I can nerd out on this stuff all day. That was a solid explanation and a great example. Thank you for sharing that. I found it very informative. I’m still trying to train my mind to be able to go back and forth easily between beat divisions like they do in this video. The video embodies amazing musicianship and rich cultural musical roots. As far as the notation in the picture… You said you think this is an example of 3/4 superimposed over 6/8? 3/4 superimposed over 6/8 would be beat divisions of 2 portrayed in duplets, marked with 2’s instead of 3’s above them. Each beat is divisible by 2 in 3/4 time because it is a simple time signature. The notation in the picture is trying to superimpose a compound time signature onto an already compound time signature. You mentioned this as an example of a polyrhythms, but they are a totally different thing. Polyrhythms are different beat divisions occurring at the same time, but both rhythms have to be simultaneously occurring, like in the video you shared where 2 drummers were playing 2 different notations at the same time. Another example would be a piano player playing different beat divisions with each hand where the emphasis was in different places over time. The notation in the picture is not an example of a polyrhythm, because it is only one rhythm happening within one notation. Multiple rhythms are not being played at the same time in the photo.
@Question Toothbrush You ask awesome questions that really encourage people to think. I like how your mind words. These are my thoughts to your points. You said, if someone, unknown, wrote a piece with this notation, would it be a wrong notation? In my opinion it would be… I am assuming the composer wrote the music to be understood by others universally, and unless the composer is standing over me explaining, I would not know how their composition is supposed to be performed. That is why we have standard music theory rules that are supposed to be followed. I suppose if the composer was just writing it for themselves and they understood what it meant, then it doesn’t really matter if I understand. On the contrary, if a composer is making a notation to be universally understood, then that composer needs to follow the universal rules. This notation is being presented to us by a platform that is teaching us the universal fundamentals of music theory. That is how I draw my conclusion that this notation is incorrect. Your other point was that professors don’t know everything… you are correct in that. Nobody knows everything, but they are the highest achievers in their respective fields, and I set my own ego aside to learn from them, because chances are they would know better than me. Not having correct guidance from someone who is more experienced is the equivalent of trying to find your way in the dark. I am someone who is still relatively early on their musical journey, so I trust the experts to guide me. That is why I went to the highest achieving individuals I personally know to get down to the bottom of this debate. I am willing to admit I’m wrong when I am wrong. Which brings me to your other point… You said that you think it's a rather weak argument for me to ask to show an example of a famous piece that has this type of notation. I disagree with you. It would be evidence that no music theory rules are being broken here if someone could produce said evidence. That’s why I am asking. I’m second guessing what I know to be true because multiple individuals are here in the comments telling me I am wrong. It’s like being told purple isn’t my favorite color by everyone around me, even though I know for a fact that purple is in fact my favorite color. I’m asking those with different knowledge and understanding than me to help me understand if I am incorrect, because I want to know the truth as much as you do.
@Jesse Lyons: I do not have an example of a piece in 6/8 that temporarily changes to grouping the time as 3 quarter notes AND THEN subdivides those quarter notes into triplets. However, I did already cite an example of a piece that does that first bit -- temporarily changes to a grouping of 3 quarter notes while staying in 6/8 notation. And once you have that, why would it be impermissible to subdivide those quarters into triplets? How else would you notate that? I suppose you could notate in 9/8 temporarily, but that wouldn't preserve the length of a quarter note, so the tempo markings could be confusing. It also doesn't cover the case where some voices are staying with a grouping of 2 dotted-quarters, and others are doing a grouping of 3 three quarters (perhaps subdivided into triplets), all within the same measure.
@Victor WilburnI'm asking for an example notated in 6/8 time (or any compound time signature), where in the same measure it has triplet eighth notes bracketed with a 3, like in the photo Question Toothbrush gave us. There is a reason such an example does not exist.
In the example you gave before (which I have posted in the picture below), it is still all notated in 6/8 time (I am assuming every measure is in 6/8 even though I cannot see the time signatures on the left side of the page). Yes, the example you gave is a polyrhythm, because different beats are emphasized in each vocal line, and because they are all being performed over the same span of time. The tonegym picture Question Toothbrush asked about is not a polyrhythm, because only one rhythm is occurring over a specific span of time, not 2 or more rhythms like in the photo example you provided before. You cannot divide the triplet 8th's in compound time even further into triplet 8th's.
In the example you provided look at the staff with the bass clef, first measure furthest to the left... The first note is a dotted quarter which is the same equivalent as three, 8th notes beamed together overtime, but you could also divide that first beat up by 2 if you wanted over that same span of time... That would look like two, 8th notes with a 2 bracket above them, also known as duplet 8th notes. In that instance, it would be 2 notes with an equal division of time over 1 beat, versus the regular division of time being three notes over 1 beat... You cannot divide triplets further into triplets tho... In this notation you provided, each beat is already divided into triplets. We can see this logic further enforced by the piano part at the bottom of the page... in the treble part, all those 16th notes are beamed together in groups that would equal 3 8th notes if we added up all the values.
In reference to the very top row, first measure, the composer probably left it in 6/8 time for continuity, because every other line is written in 6/8, and even though they could have temporarily switched to 3/4 time, why make the performer go through all the trouble? It would have messed up the notation of the measure after the first one, because the second measure is better suited to a notation of 6/8 just for the sake of that first measure... After all ,most of the piece exists in a way that that is better suited to be notated in 6/8 time.
@Victor Wilburn I also meant to add that the reason we see 3 quarter notes in a measure of the example you provided is because, it all comes down to beat value... in 6/8 time, three quarter notes in a measure still adds up to 2 beats per measure nnotated the way it is in the example, where as in 3/4 time, those same quarter notes would add up to 3 beats per measure, instead of 2.
You all are really challenging me to think hard about how theory actually works and I'm grateful for that. Having to explain what I have learned and applying it to a practicality-debate is reinforcing those concepts and helping to connect the dots for me. We really have a great community here on tonegym.
@Jesse Lyons a triplet divides the note value one higher than the one making up the triple by three(instead of two like usual), e.g. for a 8th note triplet it divides two eight notes (quarter note) into three parts.
6/8 is a triple meter built up of two triplets (if you go by accents) but it is counted 1+2+3+4+5+6 not 1-trip-let-2-trip-let so if you are given (in this example) a 8th note triplet you are being told to put three notes into two of the notes of every triplet (1+, or 2+, etc ) (MATHEMATICALLY valid)
However this is rather MISLEADING because you have to split triplets. 3/4 would be a better way to notate this out of context. If a composer wanted a temporary weird feel of 3/4 with triplets in a 6/8 song this might be a way to do this. I do not know of a song that does this, however if this sort of idea was wanted in 6/8 song and the composer does not want to change the time signature (IDK why) this is a way to notate it.
In summary, out of context this is not at all PREFERRED because it could be misleading in most contexts. Only in a 6/8 song with a temporary feel of triplet 3/4 (e.g. one measure out of the entire song) would ever have need of this.
This is kind of like choosing between adding ledger lines or moving to another cleft, both are telling the musician the same thing, however you have to choose one based on how easy it is to read/understand.
The whole job of the notation rules is to convey the composers ideas to the musician, in a way that the musician understands, so perhaps this complicated idea of triplet 3/4 in 6/8 is not the best way to notate that, and by that argument I would never use that 6/8 instead of temporary 3/4 for that measure.
So yes @Jesse Lyons I think you are right, although this notation may be mathematically valid therefore technically correct, it is kind of like writing your bass part in treble clef with ledger lines -- confusing.
The job of this game is to make you think, applying theory to your playing, so I think this confusing notation is not entirely out of place here BUT If I saw this notation on a piece that I needed to learn, though I would definitely not be happy with the composer, but it could be played correctly in the way the composer intended and the notation would have done its job. (though less efficiently than a temporary 3/4 measure)
Sorry for the long post, this is an really complicated subject... :)
@Question Toothbrush I did give some slightly misleading info in an earlier comment and it was an oversight on my part. I said in one of my early comments that the basic beat in compound time signatures is represented by a dotted quarter. The note which represents the beat in any given compound time signature is based on the total value of 3 of whatever note is at the bottom of a compound time signature. For example, for a compound time signature like 9/2, each beat would be represented as a dotted whole note, because three half notes added together equals the value of a dotted whole note.
@Benjamin Jack the frustrating part of that thread in the article is they never came to a universal conclusion either 🫣😅
Because triplets are divisions of 3 in the time of 2, I'm still gonna stick to my thought process that this is not even a technically possible notation. You can not divide 3 in the time of 3, because a triplet is defined as 3 notes, within the time of 2. I'm locking in, final answer 😂
Yea this definitely looks to be a gray area. This has been a really good discussion for me causing me to try to notate an play harder rhythms than I have ever done before and solidifying some ideas on rhythm. So THANK YOU @Question Toothbrush for starting this
I didn't read all the comments but let me see if I can help with the discussion:
First thing to consider is 6/8 (or 9/8, 12/8 etc) doesnt necessarily need to have a triple feel. Some folk music are writen in 9/8 but the performance can have something more of a 2+2+2+3. Still I would notate the bar as 9/8;
Having said that lets forget about the triplets of this example for a moment. Lets say this 6/8 is a 2+2+2 group. That would definetily feel like a 3/4 but you can still write in 6/8, where the second beat falls under the second half note of the second 2 group. Those triplets only means those 2 groups now have three notes, And trying to count that as a normal 6/8 beat (as in two beats per measure with a triple feel) makes really hard, because the result of this triplets in a 6/8 is a very nasty polyrithm (if you try to count in a triple feel). Normally I would count the half notes to try to get this done and forget about 6/8 as in two beats.
If I would to notate that, I would definetily give the musician a metronome indication in quarvers (halfnotes) to get a better feel on the duration of each half note group. The fact the metronome indication is in quarter note makes it even harder. I mean pretty mean exercise.
But after looking for a while, I do think it is correct notation although Ive never seen something like that or would ever write this way. That at least my interpretation of this.
In jazz there is a lot of it even in 3/4 where you have to insert a triplet into 2 beats So I count it like this: I play two trills very slowly normally and then I calculate every two sounds into one sound and then it comes out exactly to me
1 props
Space Description
Discuss everything regarding music, composing and hot coffee. Recommend videos and courses from the learning center. Get inspired and inspire others to make great music.
Oct 02
Oct 02
Oct 03
Oct 03
Oct 03
Oct 03
Oct 03
Oct 03
Oct 03
Oct 03
Oct 05
Oct 07
Oct 07
Oct 07
Oct 07
Oct 07
Oct 07
Oct 07
Oct 07
Oct 07
Oct 07
Oct 07
Oct 07
Oct 07
Oct 07
Oct 08
Oct 08
Oct 09
Oct 09
Oct 10
Oct 10