Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Debussy Arabesque I E maj

Polyrhythms are often tricky for beginners. I remember my teacher showing me tricks like "nice cup of tea", and yeah, it sorta worked. But, I eventually realized that it's just not the right way to look at it. The problem is that it doesn't sound like music when you play that way (not to mention that it's practically impossible to speed this up). Instead, it sounds like you are mathematically trying to find a common denominator so that all the notes can happen one after the other.

That's not the point of this rhythm. The point is that you really want to be playing 2 in the left hand, and 3 in the right hand, simultaneously. So, the left hand needs to feel like it's in 2, and the right hand needs to feel like it's in 3.

Don't be satisfied with something that seems mathematically correct, but which doesn't sound like music!

I wouldn't argue with that. I will say that for some who don't immediately "feel" the two against three that it helps to work it out, precisely, first. When that has been accomplished, then one can move away from the intentional mathematical timing of the notes to what responds, musically, to the phrase(s).

Regards,

Helps with what, exactly? I'm not seeing a clear path from "intentional mathematical timing" to "musically" that doesn't involve a fair bit of backtracking and realizing you've been going down the wrong path.

I find this akin to saying, "Just do it." When you first tackle them you can't "just do it." You need to start from something and, indeed, it may not be perfect. The perfection comes later.

Also, the counting to six method in cmb13's earlier post doesn't just seem mathematically correct, it is correct, mathematically and in execution. You just have to do it really fast.

Well, the solution is to "just do it." However, I understand that's not very practical advice!

Here's a preparatory exercise that I would want to see someone be able to do:

Step 1: Play both hands while intentionally ensuring that the left hand is playing even eighth notes, even if the triplets in the right hand are uneven.
Step 2: Play both hands while intentionally ensuring that the right hand is playing even triplets, even if the eighth notes in the left hand are uneven.

Well, there’s more than one way to skin a cat (who made that expression up? It’s horrible!). The count to 6 worked for me and I transitioned to just doing it and I’m happy with the result.

Speaking if transitions, I’m going to transition to a discussion of the A section when I have a few minutes free later today.

Playing triplets and eighth notes hands separately is a far cry from playing them hands together, one in each hand.

You can tap out the rhythm palms to legs.

(1-2-3 is nice/cup/tea; 1-2 is nice/of)

Not sure if that makes sense.
I've never used that saying but I find tapping it out can help feeling the beat internally (musically?)

Great! You might state for the record the measure nos. for the A, B, and A sections so everyone is on the same page.

Don't play them separately. In step 1, you deliberately fix your attention on the left hand, ensuring that it is playing correctly. Instruct your right hand to play triplets, yes, but don't let it mess up whatever your left hand is doing. Then, switch.

This is easier than playing what Debussy wrote, but may still be a challenge.

Great place to start!

I don't know if there is a standard notation, or if I'm 100% correct, but here is my breakdown.
There is a change in key in Measure 39; the character of the piece changes here as well. The A section is in E maj, and the B section is in A maj, then in the A', there is a return to Emaj.

A Section: M1-38 (Key Emaj)
B Section: M39-70 (Key Amaj)
A' Section: M71-107 (Back to Emaj)

By the way, I’m the interest of full disclosure, and for those who read this down the road or in the future, I’m an adult beginner with approximately 6 years of experience. Please take any information I provide here from where it comes - I’m just learning this one too. I have a teacher who is a professor of music at a local university who will help me with this piece. I haven’t seen her since before the holidays, and have been working on this independently but will have a lesson tomorrow.

Im glad we have others collaborating on this worthy protect. Let’s keep the ideas coming!

M1-2
There are simple arpeggios. Make sure to note the treble clef in the L hand as well as the R hand. I allow the melody to rise as the pitches increase, and fall as the pitches decrease. I have used the Henle fingering and it works for me. If anyone would like this in detail LMK.

M3-5
Again arpeggios, but there are held notes and both hands play simultaneously. There is a crescendo in each measure, and a final crescendo with a ritardando in the second half of M5 that transitions to the next part of the section.

M6-16
More arpeggios, but more fun! Here's where we have some 3:2. I have spent a few weeks here, getting this section nice and solid. I believe it will pay dividends, as we will see it again later in the piece. Find your fingering and stick with it!! Again I can detail mine if anyone is interested. The arpeggios in M13-16 rise progressively in pitch and are some fun.

M17-25
This revisits the opening statement with the addition of an upper voice that is held. The fingering is different as the A, then G, F, E, D...etc... are held by the R hand (fingers 3-5) while the melody and arpeggio continues (fingers 1-3).

M26-38
This may be my favorite part so far. It's relatively easier, and quite nice. The C# is held with the pinky, while some rolling notes are played in p (piano, softly...don't know how to express that with the keyboard). Then an F# is held in M28, some tricky fingering occurs in M29-30, then the A-C# is held in M31 while you play the G#-G#-C#-E etc arpeggio in M31, some thirds in M32, then M31 is repeated in M33, culminating in a nice ascending thirds pattern in M34-37. This whole section is really beautiful, and with a little practice can be learned more quickly, imo, than M6-25.

I'm giving myself a full 4-6 weeks to learn this section. The nice thing is it seems as though you can almost stop here and take a break...the A section stands well alone.

By some time in February, I hope to work on the B section, and I think this section is a little easier. I was able to sight read it very slowly (and poorly) and think it will go more quickly on a measure for measure basis.

Then hopefully, the A' will fall into place more quickly than the A section, as there is some repetitiveness to it. That's the plan so far.....we'll see!

I think for pianists getting started on the 2 vs. 3 polyrhythm you have to go through the stage of working it out by using the common denominator, or saying the phrases. After doing it for awhile you will then feel the pulse. I used to do polyrhythms on the kitchen counter tapping them out. Another exercise that I think Graham Fitch suggested is playing scales with 8th notes in one hand and triplets in the other. Then reverse hands. Probably the best way to get good at this is playing a bunch of pieces like Arabesque.

At one of my lessons awhile ago my teacher remarked, “your playing sounds like ‘Look at me - I can play 2 against 3’!” After that remark I then got what MichaelJK is getting at. The polyrhythms need to sound free and relaxed and not mathematical. I think though that you have to get the rhythm precise before you can take it to the next, more musical level.

You are an enabler! 😈 I have been trying so, so hard to not get ahead of myself because of my weakness for 'playing through,' and here you go, goading me on!

Learning out of order is different than playing through. I agree it’s best not to wast too much time playing through until you’re ready. Once in a while is okay, as long as it doesn’t detract too much from time spent learning.

Honestly, I sometimes learn a piece in random orders - if you want to move there for a little while, IMO, it’s all good. Truthfully, this subsection doesn’t really carry the theme of the piece as much as the rest does, and doesn’t work as well in isolation. I do enjoy it, though.

It sounds like maybe you didn't see the problem until you mastered the mathematical version first, and then saw that it didn't create the musical result you wanted.

This is like patting your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time. Nobody who tries doing this is going to attempt to calculate exactly where in the "rub" the "pat" should occur. The way to do it is to understand the "rub" rhythm on its own terms, and then understand the "pat" rhythm on its own terms, and then deliberately split your brain so that you do both at once.

PS: What I'm writing is mainly aimed at pianists who have spent years fearing "2 against 3" (this was me at one point). If you have a strategy for dealing with this that works for you, feel free to ignore what I'm saying.

That's right.

Classical music should never sound metrical (unlike a certain other genre that one mustn't mention here), but before the student can break free of the regular beats, he must first master the regular beats. Without (a sense of) rhythm, there is no music. (Without melody or harmony, there is still music - like Clapping Music by Reich). Which is why any teacher worth his or her salt will get all his/her beginners counting out beats aloud, right from the first second of the first lesson.....but I digress.

Practicing 2:3 can be done anytime, anywhere, even while chatting to someone who's boring you to death telling you about all the Christmas presents Mr Santa brought for him/her (which he/she is giving away to the homeless on the streets, because he/she is altruistic and anyway, he/she doesn't need all those red socks/stockings). You just nod your head at a constant rate, pretending you're listening intently, while counting silently * and tapping your hand against your thigh, in the ratio of 2:3 with your head bobbing/nodding. Or to save your neck muscles, just tap your right hand on your thigh in regular beats, then start tapping your other hand in triplets against the tapping of your RH, until the rhythm becomes completely ingrained. Then switch hands, with your LH tapping 2 against the 3 of your RH. (* count something like 1, 2-and-3 and keep repeating the same: both hands tap on 1, one hand taps on 2 and 3 as well while the other taps on "and")


Do this using any and every permutation of your anatomy at every spare moment - especially just before you go to sleep. You'll then dream in 2:3, and wake up refreshed in, er, 2:3 rhythm. It will become so automatic that soon you won't have to count......

Help with playing the notes in the correct rhythm. After one can do that one can work on making it sound more musical. My guess is most people learn it the mechanical way first and quite successfully make things sound less mechanical later on. I don't think there's a particularly big adjustment.

Interesting tidbit

In the first two measures, the arpeggios are descending from:
IV to iii to ii to I.

Amaj, G#min, F#min, Emaj (IV-iii-ii-I)

These are all first inversion chords - easily seen in the L hand.

I would begin to think about the interpretation as soon as possible, but this is my approach to learning new music. So a beginning thought:
-Do you know what arabesque means:
- an elaborate design of intertwined flowing figures or complex geometrical patterns. This ornamental design is often mainly used in Islamic Art and architecture.

Given this, think how you would phrase the introductory measures?
How should the remainder be phrased? What should be the balance between the hands? How do you want the polyrhythms to sound