Related to my last posts I am now wondering about â€˜3 against 4â€™ arpeggiated chord playing.
Up till now, Iâ€™ve been unconventionally synchronising the 2nd & 3rd components too, like:-
RH â€“ RH â€“ RH â€“ RH
LH â€“ LH â€“ LH
Iâ€™d presume this would be sacrilege on classical, whilst perhaps even clever on a non-classical song standard such as â€˜Exactly Like Youâ€™ as the composer has alternated these consecutively across an entire phrase with 4s &/or 3s against 1s, thus:
RH â€“ RH â€“ RH â€“ RH______ . RH â€“ RH â€“ RH â€“ RH______. RH â€“ RH â€“ RH â€“ RH______
LH â€“ LH â€“ LH___________. LH___________________. LH â€“ LH â€“ LH___________
, & thereby regulating the busyness to a minimum for impact and consistency.
Clumping in this way also makes for some very decent sounding final cadence chords. So I am in 2 minds as yet if I'll be departing from this approach all of the time. I'll need to try the alternatives and conventions first before making up my mind. Again, I'm sure there's much more leeway for alternate approaches such as this on the non-classical side, if relevant to classical (?)
The alternative would be to show off by convention, which might make for a testing practise exercise. Maybe later for me. I donâ€™t know as Iâ€™m merely beginning to consider the polyrhythm question.
Up until now Iâ€™ve tried to refrain from having too much cognitive flexibility
Iâ€™ve instead been doing this synchronised clumping of â€˜3 against 4â€™ throughout my growing repertoire to date.
It may be more correct for me on other occasions to show off with a more conventional â€˜3 against 4â€™ method.
The good thing is that I have memorised all the fingerings that I need to test such 3-4 polyrhythms with.
I guess so far from a quick internet browse that there are 2 possibilities from reading about 2 very close if not the same approaches for classical pianists (?)
[An interesting aside: Iâ€™ll rule out simple â€˜left and rightâ€™ marching equally valued notes, which would have to start on the RH.
Note that thisâ€™d be a derivative of the clef-spanning or bridged single arpeggiated chord of rolling all 7 notes independently, which Iâ€™d like to practise (at least) for familiarising with fingering, but avoid for playing as I do agree that bass & treble should initiate simultaneously as Iâ€™ve been doing (if a little too much into the 2nd & 3rd components as well).
Comment anyway on this if necessary]
The 2 conventions that Iâ€™m surmising from so far, albeit they seem practically the same but relayed in different ways and I presume based on note rather than condensed chord progressions, are:-
1) via the suggestion of (16th) semiquaver RH notes with (8th) quaver (3-as-2 triplet) LH notes as per following forum quote
Not Ver-y Diff-i-cult!
Seriously, on the syllable "Not" you play the first note of both hands together. On "Ver" you play whichever hand has the 16th notes (I assume you're talking 4 16ths vs. 8th note triplets). On "Y" play the next note of the triplet hand, "diff" the next 16th, "i" the last of the triplets and "cult" the final 16th.
So to clarify, if you are playing (4) 16th notes int eh RH and 8th note triplets in the LH, it would go like this:
& 2) ditto, but regulated due to the convenience of 3&4 being multiples of 12 as per the following forum quote or You Tube link â€œPolyrhythms: 3 against 4 and 4 against 3â€ https://youtu.be/wQWQUc8CCa0
What Morodiene wrote is very useful (I plan to adopt 'Not Very Difficult' as my default phrase for this rhythm), but there is some crucial information missing.
The common multiple of 3 and 4 is 12, so the rhythmic interplay between the two parts is actually based on a structure of 4 triplet groupings,like this:
So, using Morodiene's phrase: - "Very" must be said quickly, and "Difficult" must be 'swung', so with a slight pause on "Diff-", and "-icult" being said quickly. (It seems impossible to get the characters aligned properly with this UBBcode, so to clarify - the second L should align exactly with the 2)
I would advise to start with a slow approach based on my triplet grid above, then moving across to the verbalisation as you bring the tempo up towards playing speeds.
Oh, but bearing in mind that the latter, if not even the former, suggests that these are precursory to the actual end beat, which is typically held for whatever is the value of the chord on the squiggled notation, e.g. often a full crotchetâ€™s value thereafter.
Does anyone else think differently on this? For instance - using Benâ€™s 4 triplet groupings - would anyone land the beat on the 3rd R note rather than sustaining for an extra triplet.
I guess that it depends on the piece/tempo etc. as to whatâ€™s doable and feels right.
Looking forward to any comments!
Apologies for the length of post.
Another story is at the moment I am finding joy in starting arpeggiated chords often prior to the preceding melody note/s especially if thereâ€™re semiquavers beforehand, as I suppose we may have to.
Ps Iâ€™m also enjoying bringing in small arpeggiated chords prior to the preceding semiquavers resting/stopping as a rule of thumb on some pieces - and even when I donâ€™t feel technically compelled to (even when finishing off crotchets or minims) â€“ for consistency...