Talk:Cross-beat

Merge: Polyrhythm
This article should probably be merged with polyrhythm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.155.42 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2011‎
 * Any reason? Hyacinth (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you asking is there any reason to merge with Polyrhythm, or any reason not to merge with Polyrhythm?Dr clave (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Picking
To Dr. Clave - I think all-in-all you've contributed a great deal of good edits to this article, but some of your recent edits are starting to be awfully nit-picking and some even counter-productive. Maybe it's time to give it a break... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numuse37 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you would detail exactly what you consider nit-picking or counter-productive, that would be useful. Otherwise, there is no way to know what you mean. --MichiHenning (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am certainly open to criticism. Could you please cite an example of where my nit-picking was counter-productive? Your feedback might help me with my future edits. Thank you.Dr clave (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

PS, I think you are probably referring to my edits in the Adaptive instruments section, a section, which I believe you created. The section strikes me as a bit out of place, and my edits were my attempt to better incorporate the information in that section with the rest of the article. Sorry for stepping all over your work (if it is indeed your work). Please free to re-enter text, which you feel should be in.

I'd like to mention though, that I see some issues with the Adaptive instruments section that I would like to share. I don't think that the statement "These simple rhythms will interact musically to produce complex cross rhythms including repeating on beat/off beat pattern shifts that would be very difficult to create by any other means" (my emphasis) can be supported. I do not see how vertical arrays of pitches, are any more conducive to playing offbeats, or cross-beats, than a horizontal (linear) array. After all, there are countless African marimbas (balafon, gyil, etc.) where the pitches are arranged in a horizontal array, like a western piano. These instruments sound the exact same cross-rhythms as say, an mbira. I added the mbira chart to show the cross-rhythmic structure of the music. However, the chart does pose a potential problem for someone who is thinking carefully about the premise of the the Adaptive instruments section. The "Nhema Mussasa" chart shows that the upper and lower melodies are basically divided between the two hands, similarly like the gyil marimba example. The photo of the mbira confirms this division. With both the verticaly-arrayed mbria and the horizontaly-arrayed gyil, one hand plays a duple beat cycle while the other hand plays a triple beat cycle. The issue is not really one of rhythm, but of how the instrument's pitches are arrayed and how they are sounded when generating melody. I don't know how the kora is laid out, perhaps that instrument is a better example for your premise? Or perhaps there is something I'm missing here?Dr clave (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Polyrhythms in other media
The graphic image "Sewn cross-pattern on Bushongo mat" is not an example of polyrhythms. I think it's a great idea to broaden the article to other arts media, but pick the right images please! It is basically a variation of a standard herringbone pattern which can be seen in many Wall Street banker's suits and ties. If this pattern were in music it would be just one pattern - 2 in unison and 1 shifted one metric unit. Basically: um pa, um pa, um pa, um pa, etc. on and on - not a polyrhythm. An image of the fabric that a real African musician would wear in concert would be appropriate. There are many exciting dashiki patterns that are true polyrhythms. I almost deleted this misrepresentation, but I liked the idea of broadening the article. Does anyone have a better real appropriate image? I do think it's a good idea put in graphic examples. There are also many examples in modern art paintings. Please someone upload a more appropriate image. Numuse37 (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the Congolese sewn pattern which I posted earlier. You point is convincing.Dr clave (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to adaptive instruments comments
Yes, your choice of mbira dzavadzimu image is not an example of what I am talking about. It is not really the right choice. You replaced the earlier more appropriate kalimba image. This is why I had to add in the lamellophones description section that most of these African thumb pianos have the same tonal range on right hand and left hand. The mbira dzavadzimu is an exception to this rule because the bass and treble tonal ranges are divided and dedicated to left and right hands respectively and its playing must therefore be more like the piano. The fact that they are vertical or horizontal is not the issue. I don't believe you have had the real polyrhythmic experience of these instruments and so can't know what it's like.

Yes, of course you can play polyrhythms and cross rhythmic music on normal linearly organized instruments, BUT these adaptive instruments have designed into them an open tuning and basically an irrational structure which is non-linear and not as easily held in your mind. When playing casually they will automatically produce polyrhythmic patterns on their own that are often not consciously created by the player. The fact that the same note ranges are separated and played by each hand independently creates a potential of deep polyrhythmic richness not easily available in other instruments. When the simple rhythms are maintained by each hand and the playing hands slowly cross their playing range from bass to treble, one rising and the other falling, the the music dramatically changes in rhythmic ways that are hard to predict. This occurs without the rhythm of the player's hands changing at all. What happens is that the ears don't follow the hands movement (as they normally would in a linear instrument with one hand staying in the bass and the other in the treble), but hear the music of the bass lines and treble lines as continuous, although the hands playing these have overlapped and then shifted, hence the easy on-beat/off-beat pattern shifts because of the instrument's adaptive structure, And these changes can be done very fast and repeatedly with great ease also while using different two finger simple or syncopated or mixed rhythms. This is hard to understand if you haven't experienced it. In the simplest example, if the right hand is playing on beat starting in the bass and the left hand is playing off beat in the treble you can imagine what happens when they cross. I hope you can understand how these complex rhythms would be very difficult to create by any other means. The spatial separation of the ranks of tones is what makes this possible. I tried to give this a more simplified overview in the article, I hope I have succeeded in making this odd property clear to you now. Numuse37 (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to Response to adaptive instruments comments


 * Hi Numuse37,
 * There are several issues here. First of all, I am sorry I replaced your pertinent lamellophone photo with the mbira dzavadzimu. I didn't realize the negative impact of my move. I would like to repair/improve this section. I hope we can reach consensus.


 * Secondly you state: “The fact that they are vertical or horizontal is not the issue.” Yet, in your second sentence in the article, you state: “These instruments organize the notes in a uniquely divided alternate array – not in the straight linear bass to treble structure.” It was important enough of a detail that you stated it at the beginning of the section you wrote.


 * Next, in addressing me here you say: “I don't believe you have had the real polyrhythmic experience of these instruments and so can't know what it's like.” I suggest that we refrain from making such sweeping assumptions.


 * I am the only one who posted an example and accompanying explanation of how a lamellophone generates cross rhythm. The subject of this article is cross beat, not offbeats, or syncopation, which while related, are a different matter. Phrases like “deep polyrhythmic richness” provide no explanation. Can you please explain specifically how the non-linear array of pitches is particularly conducive to generating conflicting beat cycles such as 3:2, or 3:4? Such an explanation would greatly help in making the overall article more cohesive.


 * I found some of your explanations above to be quite illustrative, but you are addressing melody—the series of pitches, rather than rhythm—the series of attack-points. Your mention of crossing here: “When the simple rhythms are maintained by each hand and the playing hands slowly cross their playing range from bass to treble, one rising and the other falling,” is about crossing bass to treble. I do think that the issue of how melody is generated on these instruments is a worthy topic, but it is secondary to the subject of the article—rhythm.


 * I suggest that I move the mbira example, photo and text so that it comes before or after what you wrote. Dr clave (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The seemingly false premise of the Adaptive Instruments section I've been thinking about this all day, and I think that my suspicions have been confirmed. As far as I can see, these instruments are no more conducive to playing cross-rhythms than any number of other African instruments. Basically, any instrument that is played with both hands can generate cross-rhythm; one hand plays one beat cycle, and the other hand plays the counter-beat cycle. This can be done on marimbas, lamellophones, and two-headed drums. Unless evidence to the contrary is offered, I think the Adaptive Instruments section should be modified so that it is not misleading. I do think that the way melodies are generated on these instruments is worthy of mention, but the section as it is presently written is a problem. The melodic structure needs to tie into the subject of the articles: cross beat and polyrhythmDr clave (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The true premise of the Adaptive Instruments section


 * This section was only meant to highlight these instruments which have only independently evolved in Sub-Saharan Africa because of the inherent esthetics and the supremacy of polyrhythms in the creative impulses of these peoples. The description of the playing of these adaptive instruments is meant to simply describe the rhythmically complex nature inherent in these unique designs. The outline of how this adaptive design works is not meant as a full description of how these instruments can be played but is necessarily a short overview. Whether this property is employed by the musician to create crossrhythmic texture, melodic complexity, rhythmic, or temporal counterpoint is up to the musician at any particular moment. They are certainly well capable of easy crossrhythm generation and more.


 * The notated examples in the "crossrhythm ratios" section of this article are useful and clear academic examples of what distilled crossrhythms are like and of course directly relevant to this article. But when these are produced they can also easily be heard as a whole gestalt of a single ongoing syncopated rhythm. When true African tribal and ceremonial music is performed by rural Africans (as correctly stated the performers do not consider it "music" in the western sense but an "embodiment of the people" and a reflection of the many natural and human forces in their reality, a much larger concept — see the Peñalosa quote) it is not nearly as static as that. This would be one line in a complex of many different free rhythms in different tempos that are are spontaneously created and overlaid in a rich and changing diversity, by percussion, strings, horns, voice, or whatever makes sound. Crossrhythms is a word that can describe this, but only very weakly, The reality is much more complex and subtle, and to notate a performance would require multi multi staffs and time signatures often changing for each "musician", key changes and is basically not the point. The point is the supremacy of multi rhythms overlaid not randomly but following an aesthetic unique to the moment and which in essence is resistant to academic analysis. Hence it doesn't fit into what we call Western music. Since this is directly dealing with African music this idea should be expressed in the article more fully in addition to having a list of single examples of the concept.


 * This discussion could go on and on and books can still be written about these things...But this adaptive instruments section is relevant and improves this article and is a concept not often noted elsewhere. It belongs in this crossrhythm article.


 * Yes I love these instruments and I find them uniquely empowering in rhythmic complexity. I think the respondent is over reacting to the point of this section, and I don't mean to belittle any other instruments, but believe they are appropriate here. If you wish to re-write any sections with these thoughts in mind, OK, but I don't want to get into an editing war with anyone which I'm afraid is what might develop here. I think this will be my last talk posting about this subject.Numuse37 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numuse37 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Both of you: stop making a new heading every time you reply! You only need to make a new heading when you start a new topic. Hyacinth (talk) 02:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

response to: The true premise
 * Numuse37, I think your responses have some of the best descriptive writing of yours I've seen yet. I have no intention of getting into an editing war with you. I would prefer that you re-work some of that section, but if you are giving me a green light, I will do so, with the understanding that you provide me with feedback so that I don't misrepresent your ideas. If I do re-write portions of the section, I would like to use some of what you have written above. I think I could satisfy my sense of preciseness without diminishing the splendor of the instruments under discussion. My main beef is the premise that these instruments are more conducive to generating cross-rhythms than other instruments. Other than that, i think including the instruments is a good idea.


 * At the beginning of the article is a definition of cross-rhythm from the New Harvard Dictionary of Music. Ideally, the patterns played by these instruments would be explained in terms of cross-rhythm. If not, it's not the end of the world, as long as the text is not misleading.


 * Concerning your statement that the music's "essence is resistant to academic analysis," I would point out that the master drummer C.K. Ladzekpo is renowned as a national treasure in Ghana for his knowledge of traditional music, and all of its spiritual aspects. He is also one of the most important authorities on music theory as it applies to sub-Saharan rhythms. Similarly, the great African musician and scholar Kofi Agawu straddles both worlds successfully.


 * As the Cross-rhythm, not polymeter section of the article explains, this music does not require as you say, "multi multi staffs and time signatures." The challenges of notating the music correctly were worked out several decades ago. Agawu states: “It is noteworthy that the debate about the appropriateness of staff notation for African music is a subject of particular interest to outsiders, not insiders. African scholars from Kyagambiddwa to Kongo have for the most part accepted the conventions—and limitations—of staff notation and gone on to produce transcriptions in order to inform and to make possible a higher level of discussion and debate.” Dr clave (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Both of you: stop making a new heading every time you reply! You only need to make a new heading when you start a new topic. Hyacinth (talk) 02:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes sir.Dr clave (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the exclamation point, and thanks! A new section for every comment makes the conversation very hard to read. Hyacinth (talk) 03:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for your continued guidance.Dr clave (talk) 03:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC) I eliminated the section headings. Hope that helped.Dr clave (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Images
The above image where removed without comment or reason. Hyacinth (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cross-beat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070217004822/http://youtube.com/watch?v=olOYynQ-_Hw&mode=related&search= to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olOYynQ-_Hw

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Re-title "Cross-rhythm"?
I'm a professor of music and I'm not sure I've ever heard the term "Cross-beat." The term "cross-rhythm" is certainly far more common, including within this article. A quick google search brought up very few pages using the words "cross beat" to mean this topic. It seems like it would be better if "Cross-rhythm" were the title of this article, and "cross-beat" were listed as an uncommon synonym. I don't know how to do that though. :) 141.166.184.123 (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)