The Mystical Secret of Rhythm

[Gurn Blanston]

Whoa, Gurn . . . before anyone tries to climb into snypsss' head, oughtn't there to be a medical man to counsel us as to the risks versus the benefits? ; )

I have a harness on, and I was considering installing handrails as I go....

[Scarpia]

Can it be that we are actually talking about how all those little ties and slurs and rests etc make the rhythm happen? The little syncopation's and such. Or like DavidW was mentioning the other night about a quartet where each instrument was playing in a different time signature, and yet they blended in a perfectly... mystical rhythm? I wonder if that is what that rascally Snypper is alluding to, instead of straightforward math. Hmmm?

When someone posts an arithmetic problem and gets the wrong answer, you can assume they are questioning the metaphysical foundations of mathematics, or you can assume they can't do arithmetic.  We each have to decide what we think the correct interpretation is.

[Gurn Blanston]

When someone posts an arithmetic problem and gets the wrong answer, you can assume they are questioning the metaphysical foundations of mathematics, or you can assume they can't do arithmetic.  We each have to decide what we think the correct interpretation is.

Exactly why I posed an alternative. You're quite right though, there are many out there who don't realize that all they have to do is a little ciphering.

[Reverend Bong]

When someone posts an arithmetic problem and gets the wrong answer, you can assume they are questioning the metaphysical foundations of mathematics

well quite, and having spent literally years questioning the metaphysical foundations of mathematics before giving up in disgust leaving my DPhil uncomplete, I thought I would quickly try to divert the subject back onto music - without success unfortunately

[DavidW]

Thanks everyone, I get it now.  I especially like the unit conversion.

[jochanaan]

The trouble with talking about metaphysics is that we have to use words.

[Reverend Bong]

The trouble with talking about metaphysics is that we have to use words.

yes indeed, and my generation all studied Wittgenstein and Dummett and believed that ultimately all philosophical problems were problems of language and the nature of meaning was the hottest topic around, but I was talking to the son of a friend who recently finished his PhD and told me that it's gone back to everyone thinking the fundamental problem is not language but mind, they're all reading Gilbert Ryle again.

[DavidRoss]

yes indeed, and my generation all studied Wittgenstein and Dummett and believed that ultimately all philosophical problems were problems of language and the nature of meaning was the hottest topic around, but I was talking to the son of a friend who recently finished his PhD and told me that it's gone back to everyone thinking the fundamental problem is not language but mind, they're all reading Gilbert Ryle again.

Dullards. Language and mind are inseparable (at least, for intellectuals -- mystics need not apply ).

[Scarpia]

Dullards. Language and mind are inseparable (at least, for intellectuals -- mystics need not apply ).

Reminds me of a quote by Bertrand Russell regarding Descartes's "I think therefore I am."  Russell writes, "It would be difficult to pack so large a number of errors into so few words."

[mahler10th]

The trouble with talking about metaphysics is that we have to use words.

Mathematics can also be used to describe the physics necessary to elevate the subject.  Eh...wtf... ...it seemed to be the right thing to write when I wrote it. 

[jochanaan]

Mathematics can also be used to describe the physics necessary to elevate the subject.  Eh...wtf... ...it seemed to be the right thing to write when I wrote it. 

I'm glad you realized that! After all, metaphysics is by definition beyond the physical...

[Szykneij]

Unfortunately, when I'm teaching, rhythm is often mythical instead of mystical. 

[DavidW]

Unfortunately, when I'm teaching, rhythm is often mythical instead of mystical.

Well you can't have it too easy now can you?

[snyprrr]

Thanks everyone, I get it now.  I especially like the unit conversion.

Hey!

I totally forgot WHERE!?! I Posted this Thread, and, lo!, here it is, and you all have done wonders with it without me! Wonderful! Everyone has brought something to the table, and, of course we can speak of The Mystical Secret of Rhythm in all Seven Holy Languages.

[snyprrr]

To change the subject, I've never heard of Aperghis before, I see he's one of your favourites.  Can you recommend something to start listening to?  I have a very limited experience of Xenakis, which I enjoyed.

Hi!

I just found this Thread after having lost it after... anyhow,... Aperghis,... the two Kairos cds (especially the newer one), the Accord 2cd set, and the ZigZag Territories cd... the newer Kairos disc has the largest ensemble pieces, the Accord set has a lot of smaller scaled pieces.

... the I got sidetracked by the 'ghost in the machine'... is there a site where every philosophical... categories?, systems?, disciplines?,... has a cartoonish 'one liner' smart ass 'translation'?

btw- what do the Mystics of Rhythm mean to you?

[snyprrr]

Can it be that we are actually talking about how all those little ties and slurs and rests etc make the rhythm happen? The little syncopation's and such. Or like DavidW was mentioning the other night about a quartet where each instrument was playing in a different time signature, and yet they blended in a perfectly... mystical rhythm? I wonder if that is what that rascally Snypper is alluding to, instead of straightforward math. Hmmm?

What happened was that I was playing this piece I was working on, and I had it at quarter note = 100bpm. At a certain part in the piece (which I'm still working on), my counting must have gotten off track, because a part that I had written initially as half notes, when I played the piece through again, the notes in the section somehow turned into dotted quarter notes.

What happened to the missing 1/8 note?

I was haply going along like this:

1 and 2 and 1 and 2 and 1 and 2 and 1 and...


and, all of a sudden, I was counting:

1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3...

It was the same tempo,... I thought,... but... somehow, the part I wrote (a while back) as half notes, now has lost... TIME!!


The need, or not, for strictness, or laxness, I think, is part of the Mystical Secret of Rhythm. The slurs and ties, and how someone like Lenny interpreted... er... perhaps 'molded' his own... er... how, if you play a Bruckner Symphony either too this way or that way, all of a sudden, it's a different piece of music. That is also part of the Mystical Secret!@X*F%?!

It's the Secret Polyrhythm that can either build up, or tear down.

[Gurn Blanston]

What happened was that I was playing this piece I was working on, and I had it at quarter note = 100bpm. At a certain part in the piece (which I'm still working on), my counting must have gotten off track, because a part that I had written initially as half notes, when I played the piece through again, the notes in the section somehow turned into dotted quarter notes.

What happened to the missing 1/8 note?

I was haply going along like this:

1 and 2 and 1 and 2 and 1 and 2 and 1 and...


and, all of a sudden, I was counting:

1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3...

It was the same tempo,... I thought,... but... somehow, the part I wrote (a while back) as half notes, now has lost... TIME!!


The need, or not, for strictness, or laxness, I think, is part of the Mystical Secret of Rhythm. The slurs and ties, and how someone like Lenny interpreted... er... perhaps 'molded' his own... er... how, if you play a Bruckner Symphony either too this way or that way, all of a sudden, it's a different piece of music. That is also part of the Mystical Secret!@X*F%?!

It's the Secret Polyrhythm that can either build up, or tear down.

Hard to believe, but that's what I thought.   As a non-musician, I look at a score, especially a multi-stave score unlike what I learned my instrument on, and the multiplicity of precisely placed arcane markings which, when interpreted, give out rhythm, or if interpreted by a different person in a different way, give a different rhythm. This is mystical to me. It may be math to some... as Scarpia says, it all adds up. I knew that, but it is so... mundane (no offense, Scarps).

[Scarpia]

Hard to believe, but that's what I thought.   As a non-musician, I look at a score, especially a multi-stave score unlike what I learned my instrument on, and the multiplicity of precisely placed arcane markings which, when interpreted, give out rhythm, or if interpreted by a different person in a different way, give a different rhythm. This is mystical to me. It may be math to some... as Scarpia says, it all adds up. I knew that, but it is so... mundane (no offense, Scarps).

Sadly, rhythm in music notation is entirely unambiguous, although sometimes there are performances traditions that say the a certain rhythmic notations is shorthand for a come complicated rhythm (the snappy rhyhtm of baroque French Overtures, for instance).

What snypper describes ("the notes in the section turned into dotted quarter notes) sounds to me like a psychotic episode.  : )

[Gurn Blanston]

Sadly, rhythm in music notation is entirely unambiguous, although sometimes there are performances traditions that say the a certain rhythmic notations is shorthand for a come complicated rhythm (the snappy rhyhtm of baroque French Overtures, for instance).

What snypper describes ("the notes in the section turned into dotted quarter notes) sounds to me like a psychotic episode.  : )

  I just can't imagine where that thought came from!!

[snyprrr]

  I just can't imagine where that thought came from!!

Hey! I'm too sane, that's what makes me nuts!

What snypper describes ("the notes in the section turned into dotted quarter notes) sounds to me like a psychotic episode.  : )

Noooo. What I was getting at is is that for 'those' pieces of music (Schuller cites Carter), one, apparently, MUST have a SEVERE sense of metronomic time, let's say, when one is working with a piece that MUST be at 100: if it's played a few clicks down or up (and I don't know HOW much 'deviation' is 'allowable' in a super strict piece to still appear to retain the same note values).

Somehow, this image pops into my mind: two eighth notes followed by an eighth note triplet, repeat like a broken record. Do you hear how, if, from day to day, if you can't keep your tempo, you might start mistaking duple time for triple time?