Yes, in keyboards that provide some form of accompaniment, the "ending" is a pattern that ends all musical parts in a certain duration (usually predefined by the current "style").
Depending on the keyboard, the "ending" could begin as soon as the button is pressed (by immediately changing the pattern) or at the next bar.
If the ...
Hemiola turns out to be fairly strictly defined (see Sources and Definitions, below). The key distinction from other 3:2 relationships is that it is a metrical event, as opposed to a rhythmic one. That is, hemiola temporarily redefines the meter of a piece by affecting the beat level or without changing the primary subdivision pulse.
Thus, the following ...
Additional time exercise, suggested by Victor Wooten: once you're okay with 4/4 at a certain bpm, half it and play with it hitting 1 and 3.
Then 2 and 4.
Then half it again so it clicks on 1. Then 2, 3 and 4. Then (from 1-and-2-and-3-and-4-and) have it click on an and.
And then half again so it's every other 1.
The point is for you to internalize the time, ...
The arguments of the other answers respecting the beats are all correct.
But there are exceptions like the example A and C of Laurence Payne which show a clear symmetric structure and also the group 3-3-2 notated by two dotted fourth are common. The goal is the readability of the notation and if we have a repeated rhythmic pattern 3-3-2 this notation is ok.
Your version is correct.
In the example below A is fine (to the extent that B would be considered incorrect). C is acceptable, and even preferred to D in some circumstances. The mainstream musical world is not yet ready for E.
Your notation is correct. When notating syncopation, the goal is to visually preserve the strong (part of the) beat. In 4/4 time, that means making clear where beats 1 and 3 lie, which your notation does and the "original" version does not.
A couple of references articulating this idea: here and here.
It is standard practice to write 4/4 measures as if there was an invisible barline in the middle, forcing syncopation to be broken down to two 2/4 half-measures. (Excluding whole notes.) So your modified version is "better". It makes syncopation more explicitly visible if you're used to having things spoon-fed like that. ;) I'm sure you could get ...
I assume it would involve counting in my head, while I'm playing.
Count out loud while playing. Make sure you count beats correctly for the meter. Basically, if the meter is common time 4/4, count "1 2 3 4" on the quarter note beats. If counting shorter rhythms like eight notes count `"1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and ". The beat gets the number ...
Answering your last question first. It can be bad. As a beginner, you won't have much idea of the quality of lessons, and when you come unstuck, there's no-one to ask at that moment, as there will be with a real live teacher.
As far as rhythm is concerned, the first port of call is usually a metronome - particularly one which doesn't just click, but can ping ...
Disclaimer: I'm neither a qualified piano teacher nor to good of a player. I'm just someone who had a few years of classical piano lessons and also struggled with building a sense of rhythm.
Here are two things that helped me improve:
The first thing to try is to play with a metronome. But don't force yourself to play everything with the metronome. Only turn ...
My Honegger-Massenkeil reference provides a similar dry definition, but adds a consequence, which seems more accessible (my translation):
Such hemiolas, which effect a significant shift of emphasis in the musical flow, are frequently found in the works of Dutch composers since Dufay, but also in the Baroque era, especially preceding cadenzas and also with ...
I prefer the m. 60 beaming to that of m. 62. It better reflects the musical intention.
Your current notation in m. 61 seems best. It makes clear the voice(s) proceeding in thirds. To preserve that clearly, the alternative would be to keep the note placement as is, but stem the lower note of each pair with the left-hand. However, I think it's better (i.e., ...
The primary use of hemiola is to describe a sort of aliasing of 3 beats vs 2 beats. There are two examples I remember from early music (actually, I remember seeing, not really being there): one is two-quarter-notes in one voice against a quarter-note triplet in the other. The author called this a "vertical" hemiola. The other example was two ...
I haven't read the work of the theorist in question, but the description of "measured rhythm" in the Wikipedia article reminds me of something entirely different, which leads me to the conclusion that because 7/8 is a meter, it is necessarily metrical.
The "something entirely different" is the opening of Time Piece, composed by Paul ...
I read Wikipedia's definition this way:
Additive rhythm is "metrical", because the same accent pattern occurs in each measure. So 7/8 considered as (3+3+2)/8 would be "metrical"; whereas a 7/8 with
different stresses in different measures would be "measured".
T: Metrical 7/8 = (2+2+3)
K: C major
I would argue that it's a question of levels. In other words, the confusion is caused due to the different hierarchical levels of the meter (the eighth-note level and the measure level).
You're correct that the 2+2+3 pattern, when we focus on that eighth-note level of a 7/8 measure, doesn't necessarily suggest any "normal accents [that] reoccur ...
Aaron has the right idea - although - it's the first half of each bar only. The drummer uses crotchet triplets for only the first half of each bar, the singer matching those three notes. More often, those sort of triplets run through a whole bar, as indicated in Aaron's answer.
It's still 4/4 time, but the rhythm performed is called a hemiola, meaning three notes in the time normally assigned to two. Notated, it would look something like this:
(3BBB (3BBB |
w: don't want to x x x
Each group of three quarter-notes lasts two beats. Put another way, each quarter-note lasts 2/3 of a beat.
Neither of the first gives a 3+3+2 rhythm in the bass. I've looked a lot of Latin music from Cuban, Brazilian, Argentinian, etc. and all of them use the following: dotted quarter, eighth-tied-to-quarter, quarter. I tend to think of this rhythm as two dotted-quarters followed by a quarter, but I haven't seen it notated that way. The point as mentioned in ...
Based on my experience reading and playing many Latin styles over the years, write it in 4/4. There really should be no special accommodation for 3-3-2 rhythms in this piece and in general, Latin music. This piece does not always use the 3-3-2 rhythmic grouping. Both hands play rhythms and patterns at times that are 100% 4/4. If you write it in 3-3-2, the ...
I found this fragment
very difficult to interpret at first sight. It's hard to see how many parts there are (it kind of looks like three) and it therefore feels as though some rests are missing.
I think the second A-quaver should be tied to the D instead of to the previous three quavers. That way we can immediately see there are two parts and not three. It ...
You could improve this to be in line with recommended standards for notation.
First bar RH: the second version would be more usual, but the first works.
Fourth bar: never write dotted rests except in compound time. There should be a quarter note rest and an eight note rest.
First bar LH: the middle of the bar should always be visible, so your second version ...
I would stray away from your first notation, as you've sensed. Trained musicians won't find it too confusing, but it's uncommon enough that it may occasionally trip someone up. (I admit that your last measure in the right hand, with the dotted-quarter rest, looks really strange to me even though I know exactly what it's saying. It's just not something we're ...
There is a huge amount of stuff written about rhythm. William Rothstein's "Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music" is one. A quick check on Google Scholar turns up quite a few papers on the subject. There is probably a lot also in dissertations which could be found in a dissertation index.
I would argue that the two separate notes don't imply a "subtle pause" that is measurable, but rather it means you play the same note twice. In most instruments, this will be audible as you will hear the attack again (i.e. the sound of the note beginning to play). If you are working with a sound envelope that doesn't have an attack (a pure sine ...
These kinds of ornamental runs do not need to be played in a metrically exact way, so you can match up notes in a way you find musically pleasing.
As a general, personal rule, I like to start runs slower and finish faster. So for the first run, I'd group the notes 2+3+3+3 against the four left-hand notes.
T: Nocturne in C# Minor
T: m. 60, beats 3-4
Other way around. The two sixteenth notes forming "& a" will be a bit slower.
The circled triplet lasts 1/2 beat (so each note in it lasts 1/6 beat), and the following two notes together last 1/2 beat (so 1/4 beat each).