Can all musical rhythms be identified?

[Auplant]

I was recently researching something called "polyrhythms", but while some rhythms I've made sound like polyrhythms, they're not exactly that.

Polyrhythm is defined as:

Polyrhythm is the simultaneous use of two or more rhythms that are not readily perceived as deriving from one another, or as simple manifestations of the same meter

https://soundcloud.com/deep-theory/abst ... hm/s-lT22o

What would you call this rhythm?

The pattern repeats so I guess it can be classed as a "regular rhythm" in common time. But could it be classed as something more specific? This is what I want to know.

Is this my own rhythm, or is there a name for what I just made?

Thanks in advance.

[AsPeeXXXVIII]

It's certainly not a polyrhythm of any sort, but it's not any commonly known rhythmic pattern either - at least as far as I know.

[jancivil]

The term typically refers to more than one level of rhythmic activity. However you could think of that as having more than one level but in the same part.
There is a consistent push before any duple kind of measurement of the beat which might be measurable as a cross-rhythm, eg., 7 in the time of 4 or something and you've hit on one of those numbers in the occurrence of it. It's pretty much the very picture of irregular at those moments, though. Consistent, sure. It has a rather spastic effect if you asked me.

But you would need to prepare yourself considerably I think before embarking on that particular analysis. I'm of the view that anything can be described, albeit there are things which may as well be let alone unless you have a solid reason to know.

That one can be known, yes. You'd have to pay me to sort it.

[Auplant]

Are time signatures important concerning the science of rhythms? even when the rhythm is sparce?

In that thing I posted, it could be seen as two bars. The first bar is 1/4, and the second bar is 2/4.
(ignoring the first clap sound)

[vurt]

yes time signatures help give the feel of the rhythm.
but if it's just the multiples of 2/4 that's more about tempo than feel id say.
your 5s and 3s and so on give a more defined "flow"

someone else will put this in music speak

[Auplant]

yes time signatures help give the feel of the rhythm.
but if it's just the multiples of 2/4 that's more about tempo than feel id say.
your 5s and 3s and so on give a more defined "flow"

someone else will put this in music speak

I didn't even want to go into the depth of feeling and such, I just feel like maybe I misunderstood something and need to be educated. But perhaps the rhythm that a composer uses is an artistic element, and not a mathematical thing?
I might have been looking too much into it.

[jancivil]

Are time signatures important concerning the science of rhythms? even when the rhythm is sparce?

concerning the "science" absolutely. Not all music is metered, however.

[jancivil]

on second listen, I think the things I found so off are just a little bit rushed and you could quantify everything down to 16ths or the pulse divided into 4.

I have some right complex things knocking around in my head and no caffeine yet

[Auplant]

on second listen, I think the things I found so off are just a little bit rushed and you could quantify everything down to 16ths or the pulse divided into 4.

I have some right complex things knocking around in my head and no caffeine yet

Interesting. Normally I would've come up with melodies and rhythms by trying to wing it. And to be honest, I am ignorant to a lot of things. Sometimes it's fun to experiment, though.
In the near future, I'll try to explore polyrhythms and put them to use in melody writing. I never really looked at them before.

[lobanov]

May be, syncopation?

[jancivil]

yeah, it's called syncopation; in addition it feels slightly off of the division in spots (which I would not necessarily choose to quantify, albeit it tends to be interesting to in the DAW).

the first hit is before the downbeat, I'm pretty confident you realize that. That is a little longer than half a beat, or 8th note. Call it 'and before 1'.
The way drummers learn to subdivide by 2 is: One and Two and Three, etc; by 4, One e and a Two e and a Three, etc

You should call this 3/4. You have One Two and Three, One e (and a) Two...
and so forth. the 'kick' is all downbeats.

[jancivil]

that 'e' rather than a really strict 16th or 1/4th of the pulse feels a little late and I'm sensitive to 3.5 vs 4 divisions is why my first impression is what it is.
Maybe best not to worry.

[jancivil]

In the abstract, all musical rhythms can be described; identifying them, ie., notating them means you have to relate to a pulse somehow. So you could choose conversational rhythm as your interest and assign everything in it some kind of value but the value cannot be absolute, it relates to a base value such as a quarter note (half note, whole note, 8th, ad infin).

So, for something which does not have an apparent or identifiable pulse, in order to transcribe or notate the thing there is an imaginary pulse by necessity.

So something like this, which is conversational speech Steve Vai was asked to notate, was placed against a metronome to even be conceivable for notation:

[Auplant]

I have to read into syncopation. I'm just wondering now in relation to a piece of music in 3/4 time signature - what if I don't strictly use 3 beats in each measure? so I break the rules and use only 1 beat instead of 3.

It seems that in 3/4 by convention, if I want to have only one note in the bar then I'm forced to use a dotted minum in that bar to make up the 3 beats. If I only use one quarter note, does it mean that I re-write that phrase to be 1/4?
It seems that composers tend to stick to the same time signature the entire piece.

Maybe contemporary classical composers now alternate between different time signatures and are less strict about that?

@3:40 he moves between so many odd time signatures
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9yI4dtuGQ

[lobanov]

I have to read into syncopation. I'm just wondering now in relation to a piece of music in 3/4 time signature - what if I don't strictly use 3 beats in each measure? so I break the rules and use only 1 beat instead of 3. Does that mean I make the piece less musical or more abstract?

It seems that in 3/4 by convention, if I want to have only one note in the bar then I'm forced to use a dotted minum in that bar to make up the 3 beats. If I only use one quarter note, does it mean that I re-write that phrase to be 1/4?
It seems that composers tend to stick to the same time signature the entire piece.

1/4 is theoretiaclly possible but very rare and not typical. It's meaningless as a measure is a succession of pulses hierarchically organized and differently accentuated. In 3/4 it is:
strong | weak | weak ||
strong | weak | weak ||
etc.
And every second eight note will be more weak than second and third quarters:
strong, max weak | less weak, max weak | less weak, max weak ||
strong, max weak | less weak, max weak | less weak, max weak ||
etc.
In 1/4 we have only one pulse and all successive quarter notes are equally accented. It's too flat and trivial. 2/8 make more sense but it's unusual too.
May be, 1/4 is possible when the meter really changes, and changes all the time. 3/4 + 4/4 + 2/4 + 5/4 etc., etc.
1/4 is sensible and practical if 1) you have one note, 2) the next note is a strong pulse and 3) the next note is the first note of the next measure. 2) and 3) are almost identical.
But composers tend to stick to the same time signature the entire piece, you're right. Frequent metric changes in music are redundantly complex for the majority of listeners. Because of a repetition listeners can catch a rythm, groove etc. Music is a repetition in many, many cases.

Could you "recalculate" bars? Not 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 but 3/4 + 4/ 4 or 3/4 + 2/4 + 2/4 + 2/4 or something else? Are you sure you are using 3/4? May be, not? In a last bar of a song or a section you can use full bar, you don't need to "cut" empty notes.

And remeber, music isn't a math, it's a sensation, a feeling. What rhythm do you hear? How do you type when listening?