The Mystical Secret of Rhythm

snyprrr · October 29, 2012, 07:20:16 PM

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 29, 2012, 05:28:27 PM
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).

My thing right now is, as I'm writing this piece, I'm having the paranoid fantasy that as I'm hearing the Premiere, and I start getting crinkle-nose, say, Hey! THAT's not what I meant!! Are they playing it wrong or did I write it wrong? I obviously wrote it wrong.

If I then correct it, and hear a bible performance, and then later hear a 'willful' performance, I'll know it's a willful performance and that my music is correct.

So, it IS math, straight and true,... it HAS to be,... but, the numbers CAN be Mystical. Imagine doing something wrong in a Norgard Symphony?

Some types of music can 'stand' being played a little faster than intended, and it sound great, and other musics can 'stand' being played a little slower than intended and achieve sublime results, but, if there are any more than the simplest of ratios (2:1!), this start to get interesting.

There is a piece that is 'perfect' at 11 mins. The is a super great performance of this piece at 10mins., but there is a horrible version at over 14 mins.

So, it IS math, and it IS interpretation.

Perhaps the fun in certain types of musics is the engendering of radically different interpretations whilst being able to at the same time keep the strict math relationships of your personal musical language patently yours?

Oh what a fun Thread!

Opus106 · October 30, 2012, 01:22:55 AM

It's all in the psychology of music. But then, that's just neurons firing in certain patterns -- biochemistry, essentially. We can tackle the chemistry with quantum physics, which is basically maths. See?

North Star · October 30, 2012, 01:47:17 AM

Quote from: Opus106 on October 30, 2012, 01:22:55 AM
It's all in the psychology of music. But then, that's just neurons firing in certain patterns -- biochemistry, essentially. The chemistry, which is basically quantum physics, we can tackle with maths. See?

Si
Saying that physics is basically maths is sort of like saying that changing a tire is basically a wrench.

Karl Henning · October 30, 2012, 03:48:05 AM

Quote from: snyprrr on October 29, 2012, 07:05:00 PM
Hey! I'm too sane, that's what makes me nuts!

Hold tight onto that dream!

Karl Henning · October 30, 2012, 03:48:53 AM

Quote from: North Star on October 30, 2012, 01:47:17 AM
Si
Saying that physics is basically maths is sort of like saying that changing a tire is basically a wrench.

Nice analogy.

Opus106 · October 30, 2012, 06:38:21 AM

A wrench is not very elegant in its own right, though.

[BTW, one must imagine my previous post with appropriate emoticons in place. I'm only a closet reductionist.

]

North Star · October 30, 2012, 07:13:20 AM

Quote from: Opus106 on October 30, 2012, 06:38:21 AM
A wrench is not very elegant in its own right, though.

[BTW, one must imagine my previous post with appropriate emoticons in place. I'm only a closet reductionist. ]

Yes, but it's relative elegance compared to tire-changing is probably higher than maths vs physics.
And I didn't really take your post too seriously, Nav.

jochanaan · October 31, 2012, 02:23:02 PM

snyprrr, in my decades as a performing musician, I've found that it's possible to play everything precisely and still not have everything come out sounding "right." In fact, it's often a few little imperfections that make the rhythms sound right. For example, my oboe instructor taught me, when I have a group of, say, four 16th notes, to lengthen the first one slightly, for two reasons: because we naturally tend to rush over it, and to emphasize its importance. It's not "exact," but it's right in that instinctive sense we have. And we players have lots of similar tricks to make things sound "right."

Szykneij · October 31, 2012, 03:01:10 PM

Quote from: snyprrr on October 29, 2012, 05:00:07 PM

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!!

If I understand what you're saying, it simply sounds like you went from 2/4 time to 6/8.

snyprrr · October 31, 2012, 10:06:54 PM

Quote from: Szykneij on October 31, 2012, 03:01:10 PM
If I understand what you're saying, it simply sounds like you went from 2/4 time to 6/8.

You know what, that's not the half (pun) of it. I took the rolling pin to my music again today, making sure that my note values were actually the note values that I'd intended, and I found the entire 'lead-in''s values had to be halved. This definitely was the current problem I was experiencing, and poof!, fixed, yay!

Still I feel like I've got a chaos of duple vs. triple meter running through my head, and I HAVE to use the metronome to count correctly. Maybe I'm in this tempo range that is most likely to play tricks on your concentration? Hence, haha, the Secret Mystery of Rhythm!!

Karl Henning · January 29, 2013, 10:21:58 AM

beep-beep-beep doooom

jochanaan · January 29, 2013, 04:35:38 PM

Quote from: snyprrr on October 29, 2012, 07:05:00 PM
...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?

Careful. We may start to think you're the reincarnation of Anton Bruckner!