Reading against the quarter note

[Julián Fernández]

I´m starting to address some "unresolved" areas in my playing that (since I don´t play many gig that requires them) need some revision...

One of them is my current way of reading rhythms... I´m always reading against the quarter note (or dotted quarter), and so far it´s been useful for chart and stuff but everytime I found something like this, I realize my current method is not that good...


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Any advice on how to rethink my way of reading? Any books to help through the process?

Thanks!

btw, I know the example I provided is in 7/8, and would made more sense to read against the eighth note, but then again, it doesn´t seem to be a good way to achieve any kind of expression or freedom (even less, speed).

[DeeP_FRieD]

There's nothing wrong with reading against the 8th note, especially if it's sight reading and you're getting paid to do it.

You could read this against the quarter note for the first 2, then read it as 3 8th notes, like the way it's phrased. Then the last bar you can see it's phrased backwards (3 + 2 + 2).

Really the best way IMO is to anchor on the stuff that's familiar and then devote the processor to the less familiar.

In your example the only thing really coming to mess anyone's read is that dotted eight rest, and that's not really beefy.

Maybe you're letting the time signature get to you, cause I bet if this same string of notes was in a 4/4 snare etude, you'd probably read it down no problem. If you break it up into it's pieces these are all very common rhythms, it's just in the context of 7/8 people can get psyched out. If you just read each group that's beamed together as single 'entities', you'll quickly realize this is all in your vocabulary and it's just the assembly process that you're hung up on.

[Jim Richman]

1 2+3 4+5+6+7+
(1+2)+3 4 5 6+7
1 2triplet 3 4+(5)+6 7

Just sing/count the eighth notes as quarters,and 16th's as 8th's.

[nomsgmusic]

I've been playing drums for 30 years, and read very well...
But what does "reading against the quarter note mean?"
I've never heard of, nor run into that phrase.
Educate me please?
MSG

[Julián Fernández]

Mark, what I meant by that is that each figure relates to the quarter note in a way that the rhythm is understood as a series of sounds "rooted" to the invisible but felt quarter note... Am I making any sense?

Ok, let´s try something else. Some Messiaen. How hard is for you guys to read this rhythm?

http://anglicanorganistjohn.com/Messiea ... le%203.jpg

That´s a good example of how reading "against" any note value is almost impossible in some cases... Any thoughts?

[Rhythmatist]

Maybe you're letting the time signature get to you, cause I bet if this same string of notes was in a 4/4 snare etude, you'd probably read it down no problem. If you break it up into it's pieces these are all very common rhythms, it's just in the context of 7/8 people can get psyched out. If you just read each group that's beamed together as single 'entities', you'll quickly realize this is all in your vocabulary and it's just the assembly process that you're hung up on.

Yep! I'd suggest Anthony Cirone's "Portraits in Rhythm" for learning to get a handle on a variety of rhythmic "entities." There's a lot of analytical stuff out there in print and on the web that can help one to understand not only how to read the etudes but, even more valuable, various musical interpretations which should be the ultimate goal. I'm guessing when you say playing against the quarter note you're referring to the pulse. In odd and mixed meters you still have a pulse but it might be based on something entirely different depending on such factors as tempo, phrasing etc. For instance, a common "pulse" for 7/8 is a phrasing of 2-2-3 in eighths (or break it down to quarter/quarter/dotted quarter if the tempo is very fast). You can possibly encounter other phrasings as well...2-3-2...3-2-2 and combinations of these. Your example is 2-2-3 | 2-2-3 | 3-2-2. As Deep Fried said...it's all in your vocabulary, you just need to understand the simple math that connects it all. Vinnie Colaiuta, when asked how he interprets odd meters said, "Yeah, I just break it down into groups of two and three like anybody else." Pretty simple, really.

[nomsgmusic]

Ok, I think I've got 'cha. Let's start here. I always look to the bottom number to see NOT (as many describe it) what note gets the "beat" ... But instead to establish the "pulse" of the music. That is the most important part in establishing a rhythmic phrase (and rhythmic flow.) When we subdivide rhythms by pulse we are doing it for (ease of) reading purposes. In modern times we usually quantify all the rhythms to each pulse (when written) so they are easier to see/interpret.

I have been told, (I can't verify the validity) that up until recently people didn't put the numbers above notes (like the 3 over a Triplet) so it often left some rhythmic ambiguity (as in your Messiean snippet.)

And you probably know that Chaffee (for example) writes all his odd groupings as ratios, because that's really what they are. For example, the three notes of a triplet aren't really eighth notes. They are three notes being played where two notes are normally played. Ie. 3:2 (or 3 over 2.) A group of five sixteenth notes aren't sixteenth notes, but five notes equally spread where 4 notes are usually played. Ie. 5:4 (or five over four)

I also seem to remember a teacher saying that time signatures are a newer occurance as well (again, I am not stating this as fact, just a very distant memory.)

So back to the topic. If I get what you are saying, (and that's a big IF) I would think of it as "Reading with the Pulse." Take out the stigma of the "quarter note" designation, and take out the implication of the word "against" (I hate the use of the word "against" in music. In polyrhythms I prefer the word "over," but that's not the subject here.) Just be true to what the (established) "Grand Pulse" of the piece is (as established by a time signature, or written rhythmic groupings.)

In the Messiean snippet a time signature would help. But at first glance, those first 4 notes are what hangs me up. If those bars were connected it's the first 2 notes of each partial of a sixteenth note triplet (1, ta - & ta -) That way there's 5 pulses, and all those sixteenth notes on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th pulse is just dividing the first half of each beat into 4, 6, and 5 equal pieces. That way it's in 10/8 or 5/4, right? Or I could be completely wrong.

I guess that is what you are referring to as "Reading Against The Quarter Note," or the "Reading Against The Eighth Note" right?

Regarding your desire to "achieve any kind of expression or freedom."

That involves phrasing the written rhythm (which always implies learning the rhythm FIRST!) Experiment with putting phrasing marks over the written rhythm, and phrasing it differently while playing (dynamic inflection, etc) Try playing it with different stickings. And (IMHO) the term phrase is possibly the most misused term in music!!!! It can be a noun (play a phrase) or a verb; You can phrase a rhythm or a meter (just a pet peeve of mine.)

And speed ALWAYS comes last!!!!

Did that help clear anything up, or help at all????

I'm either
A) Glad I Could Help
or
B) Very Sorry

MSG
(Wasn't there someone here who who was doing a paper on rhythmic notation ((Dave Goodman maybe)) maybe they can help.)

[chris perra]

I use the method of changing your counting based on what time signature it is.

If in 4/4 the quarter note gets the number count..... 8ths get the +'s 16th e+a's ect
If in 9/8 the eighth note gets the number count .....16ths get the +'s... ect
If in 5'16 the sixteenth notes get the number count......ect


if 4/2 ect still use quarter note counts...

[littlegrooves]

I'm with Mark on this one-- looking at the bottom number in the sig works when reading.

It is different for me in different situations:

-When I'm playing an odd time with a band, I try and hear it (as I am sure 99% of drummers do)

-When I can't hear it, I ask what time signature it is in

-If I am reading anything, I just figure out the pulse and read it

Generally when I have to count within measures (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,...,etc.) whilst I am reading them, it means I am having trouble reading the sheet. When my reading chops are hot, I just read it and play it and feel the pulse-- no counting.

In general, the only time I care about the top number is if I am struggling hearing the groove or reading it.

Just my take...

[willyz]

There's nothing wrong with reading against the 8th note, especially if it's sight reading and you're getting paid to do it.

You could read this against the quarter note for the first 2, then read it as 3 8th notes, like the way it's phrased. Then the last bar you can see it's phrased backwards (3 + 2 + 2).

Really the best way IMO is to anchor on the stuff that's familiar and then devote the processor to the less familiar.

In your example the only thing really coming to mess anyone's read is that dotted eight rest, and that's not really beefy.

Maybe you're letting the time signature get to you, cause I bet if this same string of notes was in a 4/4 snare etude, you'd probably read it down no problem. If you break it up into it's pieces these are all very common rhythms, it's just in the context of 7/8 people can get psyched out. If you just read each group that's beamed together as single 'entities', you'll quickly realize this is all in your vocabulary and it's just the assembly process that you're hung up on.

I agree with all of the above.

Forget about the time signature and focus on the phrasings. Unless you're in a Zappa cover band or playing done intentionally crazy tunes, the subdivisions are going to speak for themselves.