Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
We often have to solve problems in polyrhythm…2 against 3, 3 against 4, 7 against 4, etc. There are of course various spoken phrases like “Pass the gol-den butter†which help us align the beats in 3 against 4. But for more complicated polyrhythms I have found this device to be quite useful: a polyrhythmic metronome that you can download. You can have several different meters going at the same time with a different click sound for each rhythm.
Go to : beausievers.com and download the Metropolis metronome. Be sure to watch the short how-to movie: Screencast
"Playing the piano is my greatest joy...period."......JP
You may like my Bounce Metronome Pro. It's for Windows only at present, not available for a Mac, though doesn't need any high spec gear, you could run it on a low cost portable Windows netbook.
We often have to solve problems in polyrhythm…2 against 3, 3 against 4, 7 against 4, etc. . . . You can have several different meters going at the same time with a different click sound for each rhythm.
Oh wow. I've been looking just for something like this! Thanks for the tip.
But I think it would confuse the heil out of me and turn my brain to mush.
This is a thing where I've benefited (all my life!) from what Charles Cooke said. I think I might have figured it out that way myself, but who knows....
way too many modern composers seem to find the need to riddle their music with devices such as this and then some that make it just a nightmare to play. Well the ones that are in grad school or tied to the academic world and can't accept that the so called modern music they are trying to make was done half a century ago. Not sure where this sense of self entitlement in that your score should not cater to the performer but it illustrates rather well the sort of ego and assume hierarchical structure of who is the most important.
Until you are a house hold name, I really don't think you have the luxury of demanding impossible and quite often dangerous passages from musicians which are most of the time students.
ANyways. To answer your question , when do you encounter this stuff, just pick a random composer doing their graduate and you will fins all sorts of nonsense that serves no purpose other than to showcase their ability to make something as unplayable as possible.
This one works for a mac as well http://www.luckymedia.com/Quadranome/ Very useful for those with a desire to learn about rhythm Absolutely no use for playing Chopin though
BadOrange: Such a bad review of many people I know! Most students studying composition, are entering a 'new' (not new, just 'new') sounding world and they are forced to compose in such ways... Even if it was 50 years ago (and btw, the aesthetics is also present, not just rhythmic techniques).
The score SHOULD cater for the performer, imho, but not to be tailored for your own needs. There's a huge difference there I think!
BadOrange: Such a bad review of many people I know! Most students studying composition, are entering a 'new' (not new, just 'new') sounding world and they are forced to compose in such ways... Even if it was 50 years ago (and btw, the aesthetics is also present, not just rhythmic techniques).
The score SHOULD cater for the performer, imho, but not to be tailored for your own needs. There's a huge difference there I think!
i've seen too many hack composers hide under the veil of unintelligible dissonance. Enough to say that composers that study at a masters level tend to be rather cliches. Of course I did do a masters in composition so i'm just reporting what I saw at many schools. Dissonance is great but the problem is that most of the composers seem to start composing styles stating at 1900 and of course the reason is quite obvious. Much harder to judge a piece when the merit is more in the process than how it sounds. I think you will find more than you can imagine, supposed composers that do all this complicated modern techniques yet could not do a simple tonal piece in ternary form. You have to study things in order to truly grasp the style.
Bear in mind i went to schools were everyone claimed to have perfect pitch, about a quarter claimed to have synesthesia (sp) way too many people wore top hats. Basically just of people making alot of effort to get the point across that they are mysterious eclectic and a musical genius. People would argue about the colour of middle C. And discuss their favourite interval. The better the school , the greater the posturing,
I mean when you see certain notation, you start to wonder if this is really how the composer felt. That measure just needed it. Without that ridiculous polyriythm voiced in the lower register of the bassoons at ppp and blistering speed. You just start to wonder if the person is perhaps rather just plain stupid. "I need more chamuleau on those horns" ya ......
way too many modern composers seem to find the need to riddle their music with devices such as this and then some that make it just a nightmare to play. Well the ones that are in grad school or tied to the academic world and can't accept that the so called modern music they are trying to make was done half a century ago.
Yamaha AvantGrand N1X | Roland RD 2000 | Sennheiser HD 598 headphones
This is a device for polyrhythms, not a manual for composition. Polyrhythms are used in all kinds of music - a lot of it is tonal music not seeking to shock the ear but to create interest on a rhythmic plane. By denouncing this metronome you are putting the cart before the horse. There is no requirement, suggestion or imperative that it be used for "avant-garde" composition. It's just a learning tool. The use of polyrhythms doesn't imply that music will be displeasing or unintelligible to the ear.
i've seen too many hack composers hide under the veil of unintelligible dissonance. Enough to say that composers that study at a masters level tend to be rather cliches. Of course I did do a masters in composition so i'm just reporting what I saw at many schools. Dissonance is great but the problem is that most of the composers seem to start composing styles stating at 1900 and of course the reason is quite obvious. Much harder to judge a piece when the merit is more in the process than how it sounds. I think you will find more than you can imagine, supposed composers that do all this complicated modern techniques yet could not do a simple tonal piece in ternary form. You have to study things in order to truly grasp the style.
While I do understand what you mean, I'm not sure I agree. Especially for a masters level (since I also did one back in 2004...).
the point is that once you have reached the age of 22 or something (I went rather late at around 26) you should also have a grasp of the basic harmony, theory, morphology, etc... I mean it would be norm to be studying music up to that point. while I understand that some people just wake up at the age of 23 and decide they love contemporary music, I'm still rather clear that most do go through studying music for a large time of their life.
And it is somewhat weird to be speaking of 'hack composers'. Perhaps you know many in LA, but I don't know too many myself. At least not anyone who I can call 'hack'. I can dissagree with quite a few and the choices made in their compositions, but not to call them 'hacks'.
Quote
Bear in mind i went to schools were everyone claimed to have perfect pitch, about a quarter claimed to have synesthesia (sp) way too many people wore top hats. Basically just of people making alot of effort to get the point across that they are mysterious eclectic and a musical genius. People would argue about the colour of middle C. And discuss their favourite interval. The better the school , the greater the posturing,
Very unfortunate... I'm sorry to hear that. as I've repeatedly said in the forums I don't quite buy fully the idea of 'talent', or 'gifted' (since the other thread is still around). I don't think you *NEED* to have synesthaisia (sp?) or perfect pitch in order to compose. You can very well go ahead and do that despite lacking these skills!
But in the end, when I compose (at least I can talk about me with the safety net of knowing that I *DO KNOW* the composer very well! :D), I do try to feel original. It's not to say that I'm aiming to be avant garde, coudln't be further from that, nor I enjoy some styles stuck in the 60s... But I do think that I love to think that I'm doing something that will add something rather than just repeat. Perhaps others are feeling the same way.
As it has been discussed before there was a few voices that when asked "what is contemporary music of today" replied that it was about freedom of choices, freedom of promotion, a break from those strict rules of the 60s, the use of music technology and ultimately the ability to do whatever one wants, without needing to sound in a specific fashion. I love that, personally (and I trully hope that it does apply to an extent)!
Quote
I mean when you see certain notation, you start to wonder if this is really how the composer felt. That measure just needed it. Without that ridiculous polyriythm voiced in the lower register of the bassoons at ppp and blistering speed. You just start to wonder if the person is perhaps rather just plain stupid. "I need more chamuleau on those horns" ya ......
There's two things to reply to this. You are either too truthful (and what you say apply). I always try to bring down from the clouds, my composition students, with the very simple notion "is it playable" (if we're talking about music that should get performed live). I was discussing this very issue with a new student of mine who plays the piano. His first assignment was a work for piano. He did very well, so I did mention that "it's playable" to which he replied that "of course it is...". Next assignment was for solo violin, and boy did he have trouble...
The second issue is the idea/style of Takemitsu, where he's doing slight (very slight) alterations to the orchestration and you HAVE to take notice to an otherwise needless change. (needless not for me, but due to the very slgiht variation created). Some things ARE there for a reason and it's not exactly easy to decide if it's because someone is trying to seem 'clever', or 'hack' or other...
PS. I love polyrhythmic stuff myself, especially when performed by a single performer. I don't know... the idea of making someone sounding like more people seems fascinating!
![[Linked Image]](https://forum.pianoworld.com//gallery/42/medium/10968.png)
Most students studying composition, are entering a 'new' (not new, just 'new') sounding world and they are forced to compose in such ways... Even if it was 50 years ago (and btw, the aesthetics is also present, not just rhythmic techniques).
There's a huge difference there I think! 
I'm sorry to hear that. as I've repeatedly said in the forums I don't quite buy fully the idea of 'talent', or 'gifted' (since the other thread is still around). I don't think you *NEED* to have synesthaisia (sp?) or perfect pitch in order to compose. You can very well go ahead and do that despite lacking these skills!