Talk:Bell pattern

Removed
I removed the above as it is not about bell patterns. Hyacinth (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The method of constructing iron bells in Cuba is identical to how it is done in Africa. In Cuba, there are several different types of iron bells: ekón, ogán and agogó. In the Cuban Yoruba and Congolese musics a guataca ('hoe blade') is also used. The standard pattern is the most widely used bell pattern in Cuba. Some of the Afro-Cuban rhythms that use the standard pattern are: Congolese (Bantu): palo, triallo; Lucumí (Yoruba): iyesá (12/8 form), bembé, agbe; Arará (Fon): sabalú, egbado; "Haitiano" (Bantu, Fon, Yoruba): vodú-radá, yanvalú, nagó; the rumba form columbia.
 * In the 1940s the cowbell was added to the timbales in the first danzón-mambos of the charanga orchestras. Arcaño y sus Maravillas introduced this development. Later multiple cowbells, a cymbal and sometimes a woodblock was added to the timbales setup. During that same era, the bongo player began regularly playing a large hand-held cowbell during the montuno section in son groups. This bongo bell role was introduced in the son conjunto of Arsenio Rodríguez.
 * During the early 1940s Machito and his Afro-Cubans was the first band to employ the triumvirate of congas, bongos and timbales, the standard battery of percussion used in contemporary salsa (music). In the montuno section the bongo bell and the timbale bell parts are sounded simultaneously in a contrapuntal interplay. In the 1970s José Luis Quintana "Changuito" developed the technique of simultaneously playing both bell parts when he held the timbales chair in the songo band Los Van Van.

There must be some misunderstanding. The first paragraph mentions the standard PATTERN, the third measure mentioned the "the bongo bell and the timbale bell parts," and "the technique of simultaneously playing both bell parts." Is it not clear tha a bell PART is a bell PATTERN?--Dr clave (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I struck through the content I did leave in the article.
 * It doesn't seem like it should take 13 sentences to say two things: "The standard pattern is the most widely used bell pattern in Cuba." and "In the montuno section the bongo bell and the timbale bell parts are sounded simultaneously in a contrapuntal interplay." The value of the latter claim seem limited since neither those parts or simultaneous bell parts have been described or explained. Hyacinth (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi OK, makes sense. I stil am learning the protocols of wikipedia. I am enjoying learning how to work within the guidelines. There's several issues we are currently hashing out on the clave and bell patern page, but from eading the new ! message at the top of this page has alerted me me to te fact that I hae a real dilema and I need some guidence. I was initially motivated to fix up the clave page, which I conisdered to be a real mess. I've done more research on the subject than perhaps anyone, so it's been fun to look up the quotes and cite the pages for the artice. The thig is thoug, I have also wrtten the difinitive ook on the subject. Should I only cite other authors? Would Wikipedia ever consider something I have published to be of value to Wikipedia? Would another editor have to quote me, rather than me? I fear that I may have seriously violated wikipedia guidelines. I should continue editing until I beter understand the boundres in this area. can you advise e? Thans. dr clave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.177.66 (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Am I able to be objectve by citing myself and others, or do I need to completely absolutely refrain from citing or quoting myself in order to avoid having a conflict of interest?-Dr Clave. Sorry, i can't sem to be able to sin my name onthis otel keyboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.177.66 (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Autobiography:
 * "If you have published elsewhere on a topic, we welcome your expertise on the subject for Wikipedia articles. However, every Wikipedia article must cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way in order to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole. Please forget your biases while enriching the Wikipedia readers' knowledge. Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted."
 * I think this refers to Conflict of interest. Hyacinth (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for copying that. I thought I was being neutral, fair, and comprehensive. I have been published elsewhere on a topic. Do you think it would be a good idea to delete some of the quotes by me and just write new text for Wikipedia?--Dr clave (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

incorrect example of standard pattern


I removed the newest graphic of the "standard pattern" [above] for the following reasons:

• Wrong pattern. The five-stroke pattern shown is not the same seven-stroke pattern already present on the page. While Jones and King considered this five-stroke figure a simplified version of the standard pattern, contemporary practice is to only refer to the seven-stroke pattern as the standard pattern.

• Wrong choice of notehead values. The example shows the "standard pattern" in additive form. African rhythm is divisive rhythm, not additive rhythm. The source of this new example is from Ancient Traditions Future Possibilities: Rhythmic Training Through the Traditions of Africa, Bali and India. The rhythms of Bali and India are additive, so apparently the author was incorrectly applying the Asian additive structure to this divisive rhythmic pattern.

For further information, I recommend reading The 3:2 Relationship as the Foundation of Timelines in West African Musics Dr. Eugene Domenic Novotney. You can download it free from here:

http://www.unlockingclave.com/free-download-32-thesis.html

--Dr clave (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While in your own writings you may exclude a source which disagrees with you or your other sources, on Wikipedia different POVs (points of view) are represented in the effort to achieve a NPOV (neutral point of view). Hyacinth (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the text I added will be considered neutral.--Dr clave (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you show the 7-stroke pattern instead of the 5-stroke pattern? --Dr clave (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to contact Matthew Montfort. Hyacinth (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. I thought you were able to generate examples.

I don't know how to read the code in order to know who removed my text, but I think it must have been you Hyacinth. Please explain why. You removed an important quote by a prominent African master drummer/scholar concerning the Afro-centric view of meter in this music. Removing that important information strikes me as neither neutral editing, or particularly helpful to those who wish to learn how an African would write the bell pattern in question.

I'd also like to know what you think the advantage of showing the bell strokes sustained between each interonset interval? How does obscuring the underlying meter, in a music that is by nature counter-metric, help someone understand the bell pattern better? If the subject were blending different world musics, like Balinese, Indian and African, it would make sense to depict the bell with additive groupings. This page just deals with African-based bell patterns though.--Dr clave (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

''
 * Notice that the example is cited. At first I wasn't even sure who you where talking to, since you didn't address your comment to anyone.
 * See Help:Page history.
 * If you are going to refer to removed text you should describe or quote it somehow beyond "removed text" so people know what you're talking about. In this case I assume you mean:
 * The example above is written in an additive grouping (2+2+3+2+3). Early transcriptions of African rhythm were often rendered in additive forms. This way of writing African rhythm can be traced back to the fact that ethnomusicology initially focused on Asian music (which is based in additive rhythm). Today, due largely to the input of African scholars, sub-Saharan African music is understood to have a divisive rhythmic structure.
 * ''"Additive rhythm . . . is a highly problematic concept for African music . . . it is not in sync with indigenous conceptions of musical structure. It arises as a kind of default grouping mechanism for those transcribers who either disregard the choreography or fail to accord it foundational status.—Agawu (2003: 94)."
 * Since this was in Bell pattern subsection and didn't discuss the standard pattern I wasn't sure why it was in that section and removed it.
 * Note that Montfort's book has separate chapters for each ancient tradition.
 * Hyacinth (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hyacinth, OK, I see the reason for your editorial decision. Thanks for your continued guidance in the "Discussion" section. There’s hope for me yet.

Concerning the different ways of depicting the standard bell and other key patterns, this is not merely a series of isolated attack-points. The pattern is a guide, a representation of a larger hierarchical structure. The pattern has historically been depicted in different ways. Some methods of notation properly represent its larger structural context and others do not. The most significant misunderstanding about this pattern and about African rhythm in general has been the music’s fundamental metric structure.

For example, in the "Discussion" page of "Clave (rhythm)" there are eight different depictions of the duple-pulse son clave. Only one example (shown in two measures of 2/4) shows the correct metric structure. How can only one be correct? I refer you to the following excerpt from Bach, written in three different meters.



Number 1 is how it normally appears. Number 2 shows the excerpt in compound duple meter, and number 3 shows it in polymetric form. Are all three depictions valid? No.

The various ways of notating the standard pattern are linked to the history of its formal study. That history, particularly the period 1950-1982, is a story of discovery, confusion, argument, and finally, clarity.

The following example shows the evolution of notating the five-stroke variant of the standard pattern.



Jones and King mistook the strokes to be indicators of meter. That’s why they wrote it in a polymetric 7/8 + 5/8 time signature.

Another polymetric interpretation (not shown) involves multiple meters existing simultaneously. "Certain players may divide the time span into duple meter while at the same time others divide it into triple meter, creating multiple meter"—Matthew Monfort (1987: 9).

The next historic stage interpreted the bell as an additive grouping (2+2+3+2+3) over a divisive ground (1, 2, 3, 4). That is how Monfort (p. 9) shows the pattern.

"The juxtaposition of additive and divisive rhythms (such as the bell pattern and four equal pulses,) creates complex cross-rhythms. [. . .] Additive rhythms, asymmetrical combinations of groups of two and three pulses, are a characteristic element of African music"—Monfort (pp. 10, 15).

What is understood today is that the standard bell pattern is generated completely by divisive rhythm. The musical period is evenly divided by four primary beats and six secondary beats. Monfort (p. 10) even shows this cross-rhythm with the bell, but fails to grasp that all three elements share the same generating principle.

It wasn’t until African master drummers became scholars in the field of ethnomusicology that there was true understanding of this bell pattern. In his 2006 article "Structural Analysis or Cultural Analysis? Comparing Perspectives on the ‘Standard Pattern’ of West African Rhythm" (Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 59), Kofi Agawu covers in great depth the various ways in which the standard pattern has been notated. Concerning the theory that the bell pattern is a form of additive rhythm:

"Do African musicians think additively? The evidence so far is that they do not. Writing in 1972 about the Yoruba version of the standard pattern, Kubik stated. ‘There is no evidence that the musicians themselves think it as additive.’ I have argued elsewhere that additive thinking is foreign to many African musicians’ ways of proceeding. [. . .] Then, too, there appears to be no trace of an additive conception in the discourses of musicians, whether directly or indirectly. [. . .] It would seem, then, that whereas structural analysis (based on European metalanguage) endorses an additive conception of the standard pattern, cultural analysis (originating in African musicians’ thinking) denies it. [. . .] . . . no dancer thinks in cycles of 12 when interpreting the standard pattern. The evidence of the rate at which the dance feet move is that 4, not 12, is the reckoning that most closely approximates the regulative beat. . . . what can be said for sure is that the cycle of four beats is felt and thus relied upon. This is cultural knowledge that players and especially dancers possess; without such knowledge, it is difficult to perform accurately."

". . . the African rhythmic structure which generates the standard pattern is a divisive structure and not an additive one . . . the standard pattern represents a series of attack points that outline the onbeat three-against-two / offbeat three-against-two sequence, not a series of durational values"—Novotney, Eugene (1998: 158) The 3:2 Relationship as the Foundation of Timelines in West Africa.

In the following example we see the two diametrically opposed positions of the six-beat cycle.



On the top line we have the cross-rhythm three-over –two. There are two cells of 3:2, beginning on main beats 1 and 3. This is the prime (or onbeat as Novotney calls it) position of 3:2. In the second line we see 3:2 in a displaced (or offbeat) position; the displaced 3:2 cells begin on main beats 2 and 4.

The bottom line shows the seven-stroke standard pattern generated from the two diametric 3:2 cross-rhythms. There is a lot more I could say about this, but I think I have at least demonstrated the divisive genesis of the pattern.

Yes, Monfort dedicates an entire section to African rhythm, but his model of the standard pattern in additive form conveniently complies with Asian structures, which is the foundation of his group Ancient Future. Are all these ways of depicting the standard pattern valid? People used to think that the sun revolved around the earth. That is no longer accepted as a valid theory. I think it might be useful to show the different concepts as part of a history of the study of African music in ethnomusicology. However, that explanation would probably be better suited on the "Sub-Saharan African music traditions," or "Polyrhythm" page. To arbitrarily show the standard pattern in additive form on this page does not serve any useful purpose as far as I can see. It in fact, confuses the issue.--Dr clave (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've asked before, what keeps example 2 of the 12/8 bell patterns from being an additive grouping (2+2+3+2+3)? Simply that they are all eighth notes and eighth rests? That doesn't seem that confusing, but to have a long paragraph which is repeated elsewhere and doesn't mention that actual difference does seem confusing. Hyacinth (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hyacinth, I take your point about my previous long paragraph. I appreciate the feedback. I moved on.

Concerning the notation of the standard pattern, I'm sorry, there's so many examples, I'm not sure what you mean by "example 2."

However, if I understand your question correctly—when the note values (and beaming) conform to the main beats, all eighth-notes and rests for example, or with the combination of eighths, quarters and dotted quarters with ties as you posted above, the pattern is represented in a divisive form (1, 1a, 2+, 3+, 4). When the note values do not conform to the meter, when the pattern is merely a series of durational values: quarter, quarter, dotted quarter, quarter, dotted quarter, it is in an additive form (2+2+3+2+3).

"Although the difference between the two ways of notating this rhythm may seem small, they stem from fundamentally different conceptions."—(Agawu 2003: 87)

"The standard pattern [is] not a series of durational values."—(Novotney 1998: 158)

Concerning the metrical context of the standard pattern: "what can be said for sure is that the cycle of four beats is felt and thus relied upon. This is cultural knowledge . . ."—(Agawu 2006: 94).

So, my question again is what advantage is there to representing the pattern as a series of durational values that contradict the main beat scheme?

Are you saying that it doesn't matter which example is used, either the one you posted in the article, or the one you posted in this discussion? Such an opinion does not conform with either the cultural understanding of the part, or with its contemporary academic analysis.

Although I think the use of ties makes the example less elegant of a representation, your example above is correct. --Dr clave (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sound samples
It would be a GREAT help (and improvement) to include small sound samples for each rhythm patterns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.231.79 (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)