9 against 4 Conundrum Help Needed

Geoff J

Member
This is a pretty advanced inquriy, and the only way I could communicate my findings is by hammering out in pdf & finale. I think I may have found two different ways to play 9:4, but I could be WRONG !

Any input is appreciated. I have indexed the points & diagrams with letters numbers. Please title the reply as RE 9:4 or something like that, and index your answers consistent with how the inquiries were indexed.

I am stumped ! PDF ATTACHED

http://www.divshare.com/download/13587227-618
 
This is a pretty advanced inquriy, and the only way I could communicate my findings is by hammering out in pdf & finale. I think I may have found two different ways to play 9:4, but I could be WRONG !

Any input is appreciated. I have indexed the points & diagrams with letters numbers. Please title the reply as RE 9:4 or something like that, and index your answers consistent with how the inquiries were indexed.

I am stumped ! PDF ATTACHED

http://www.divshare.com/download/13587227-618

My first thought is that you're making a much bigger meal out of this than strictly necessary. There is one way to play 9 over 4. It's a mathematical relationship just like 4 over 4 (quarter notes) or 3 over 4 (Half-note triplets). I think you're looking too far into the relative positions of written notes instead of concentrating on how it should sound.

Here's a few methods that might help:

1. Use Finale to create a 9 over 4 polyrhythm using two different percussive sounds of different pitch. Xylophone works nicely, as would two wood block sounds. Listen back and imitate what you hear using two limbs. Or simply play along with the 9 side using your hands and work on *hearing* the sound of the rhythm. Each polyrhythm has a kind of little melody to it. If you use two sounds of different pitch, you can learn to remember the polyrhythm by signing the melody created by the two pitches. See if you can come up with another onomatopoeic device that helps, like a series of words that fit for you, e.g. ve-ry-ve-ry-ve-ry-dif-fi-cult works for 9s.... :)

2. Play Half-Note Triplets with one hand over a constant pulse, either internal, i.e. another limb, or external, i.e. a metronome playing quarter notes. Fill in the space between with the other hand to create triplets so that you're using an open drag sticking, e.g. Rll Rll Rll.

3. Play 8th notes over a quarter note pulse using alternating sticking, then see if you can slightly speed up your hands so that your hands alternate landing on the down beat (as they will with all odd-note groupings). Keep aiming at getting that opposite hand to land on 1 each time and then adjust your notes in between so they're even.

The trick with polyrhythms isn't to tie your head in knots thinking about theory or trying to notate them visually. We must learn to hear them and feel them in our hands and bodies just like we do more common divisions.
 
Totally respect what you are saying, but I have been playing BOTH ways, taking these drills beyond the paper, and both sound like even "9's", but the accents seem to wind up in different spots against the pulse. Have you tried tapping / Finale-ing the example I demonstrated in (1)(C) to conclude that (1)(C) is not even 9's and that (1)(D) is even 9's ?

My other computer w/no sound has Finale 2004. Is there a way I can save an audio file, then transfer it to my computer w/ sound ?I think this way may demonstrate the nature of the conundrum. Another problem, is that it is tough to accurately notate these polyrhythms correctly. For (1)(C), I had to actually had to type the rhythms out somewhat differently than the way they appear to where they wouldn't sound right if MIDI-ed

So, in light of me tapping these examples out with a met & taking them beyond the paper, at this point, I tend to respectfully disagree that there is one way to play 9:4. It seems that there are 2 different ways, with the accents falling over different parts of the pulse, until proven otherwise

THANK YOU for your tips, BTW
 
Last edited:
9/4 is a fixed mathematical relationship, there is not more than one way it can work. We're putting 9 things in the space of 4 things. Any sense that it sounds different is either an error or an illusion created by the change in the subdivision grid you're picking your accents out of. But 9 is 9 and 4 is 4 and if you take a bar of chocolate and divide into 9 evenly the pieces will ALWAYS be the same size.

For starters, you've written C incorrectly. Strictly speaking, the number of "nonuplets" in each quarter would not shift from 4 notes to 5 to 4 to 5. It should be 4.5 as you're splitting 9/2 (9 notes per half note) into two. 9/2 = 4.5. In other words the accents on "3" and on the & of 5 and 7 wouldn't fall directly on the pulse. The pulse should fall somewhere between the 5th and 6th nonuplets in a group.

Looking at D, all I see is that you're doubling the number of divisions of the whole note from 18 to 36. If you tap C (corrected to not land on the beat as you have written it) with your right hand, and simply fill in the space with the left (like you would moving from one-handed 8ths to two-handed 16ths) you get D.

You say they "sound" like even 9s. Have you tried slowing them down and recording them against an objective "4" - i.e. a click?
 
Last edited:
So, in light of me tapping these examples out with a met & taking them beyond the paper, at this point, I tend to respectfully disagree that there is one way to play 9:4. It seems that there are 2 different ways, with the accents falling over different parts of the pulse, until proven otherwise

THANK YOU for your tips, BTW

Well, you can "tend to respectfully disagree" with me all you like. But at the moment you're disagreeing with mathematics. With all due respect, I don't think you'll win that battle.
 
Boomka's right, sorry bro.

9 "against" 4 is quite literally 9 against 4. That's all there is to it.


|1 2 3 4 |
|1 - - 2 - - 3 - - |
 
Well, you can "tend to respectfully disagree" with me all you like. But at the moment you're disagreeing with mathematics. With all due respect, I don't think you'll win that battle.
I 100% grasp your analysis which confirms & corrects my analysis in (1)(D), but is my example in (1)(C) incorrect, &/or illogical, &/or false from a mathematical perspective and NOT 9 even accents placed over 4 counts ?

Since I am not a drummer & have only average math skills, is it cool if you answered YES OR NO to the above question first, then proceed with your formal remarks as to why it is not correct ? I ask that in the most respectful sense since I am not as versed in polyrhythms as you are, and I kinda need a clearcut answer in the affirmative or negative answer first so that I understand more clearly

My position in (1)(C) is that

(1)Quarter note triplets with triplets added produces 18 even accents over 4 beats. Is that correct or not ?
(2)Tying every other one of those triplets produces 9 even accents over 4 beats. Is that correct or not ?
(3)In doing so, are the accent points different OR the same as the traditionally accepted way of interpreting 9:4 per the analysis w/your corrections in (1)(D) and in (2) ?

IN THE MEANTIME, i am not blowing off your previous posts, and am ingesting - I love the "very difficult" approach - thanks !
 
Last edited:
I 100% grasp your analysis which confirms & corrects my analysis in (1)(D), but is my example in (1)(C) incorrect, &/or illogical, &/or false from a mathematical perspective and NOT 9 even accents placed over 4 counts ?

Since I am not a drummer, and not a mathemetician, is it cool if you answered YES OR NO to the above question first, then proceed with your formal remarks as to why it is not correct ? I ask that in the most respectful sense since I am not as versed in polyrhythms as you are.

NO.

If you read above, I said what I think is wrong with C. You have 4 notes in beat 1 (which would be 16ths) and then 5 notes in beat 2 (quintuplets). Beat 2 (and 4) should land between the 5th and 6th nonuplets. Do you follow? Or, if we assume we're working from a 1/4 note triplet, the second triplet created by tripling each note of the 1/4 note triple doesn't begin on 2.

I've attached a PDF of a more accurate way of notating this figure, and you'll note that the 1/4 note pulse doesn't line up with the nonuplets except on 1 and 3.

If you really want to understand this, I suggest you work backward from D or the third bar in my example. See where the pulse and the nonuplets intersect.
 

Attachments

  • Nonuplets.pdf
    29.5 KB · Views: 207
Last edited:
NO.

If you read above, I said what I think is wrong with C. You have 4 notes in beat 1 (which would be 16ths) and then 5 notes in beat 2 (quintuplets). Beat 2 (and 4) should land directly between the 5th and 6th nonuplets. Do you follow?

I've attached a PDF of a more accurate way of notating this figure, and you'll note that the 1/4 note pulse doesn't line up with the nonuplets except on 1 and 3.


Yup, gotcha, that makes sense, and I appreciate the pdf. I did edit my last post with some further inquiries, if you'd be so inclined. Sorry for being a stubborn stickler. Downloading the pdf, and I really need to learn.

I will record a (1)(C) example against a click, which I haven't done yet. I will post soon
 
My position in (1)(C) is that

(1)Quarter note triplets with triplets added produces 18 even accents over 4 beats. Is that correct or not ?
(2)Tying every other one of those triplets produces 9 even accents over 4 beats. Is that correct or not ?
(3)In doing so, are the accent points different OR the same as the traditionally accepted way of interpreting 9:4 per the analysis w/your corrections in (1)(D) and in (2) ?

1. True. You could also state that there are 9 even accents over 2 beats.

2. True. You could also state that there are 4.5 even accents over 2 beats. Tying every other note means that on beats 2, 3, and 4, there are no accents.

3. False. As you stated in #1, there are 6 quarter note triplets in the space of 4 quarter notes, creating a 6:4 ratio. Adding the triplets, you've created 18:4, which is mathematically equivalent to 9:2, NOT 9:4.

I hope this adds some clarity!
 
YES, thanks that does add clarity and underscores Boomka's previous 9:2 explanation. I guess that explains why I'm not a drummer and got C's in math - HAHAHA.

The end game is that I'd like to get a meaty ass bonham style 4 groove or meaty shuffle, while playing Hendrix's Manic Depression riff that is in 9 against it. I'd like to try that w/ Bach's , Yeshu, as well
 
Last edited:
Perer Magadini RESPONDS !!

What a great guy he is. I highly recommend his Polyrhythms Book

Peter Magadini said:
Hi Geoffrey:
I hope this answer will give you some idea to what I am trying to do with this book and
your analysis of 3 over 4:
....If you can play and hear half note triplets ( or any - 3 over 4 - ) then sub-divide those triplets BY EAR into triplets
( in 3 over 4 ) so that now you can play ' 3' sub-divided into triplets over 4 beats in perfect time. Just keep working at it until
you hear it and can play it - you will know when it falls into place.
In my opinion all the math as to how it would work if sub-divided in 4/4 etc... so it all works out is a waste of time. Why?
Because it keeps you tied to the bottom pulse. It keeps you in "monaural"
i am trying to get your musical ( and rhythmic ) brain into "stereo". I want all my students of that book to let go of the bar
and get into space. The subdivisions of two meters at the same time will do that but not if it becomes a musical math problem in 4/4 time.
Then you are not in a polyrhythm in your head and do not have the freedom
of hearing the wide rhythmic highway of being able to play or hear in two ( in this case related) time signatures ( polyrhytms ) at the same time.
I am not saying what you did is not interesting and valid and probably looks good in a PHD study but if you play an insrtument
and improvise on it ( or not ) in my opinion you should not approach the study from that angle. At least not very long. I have those breakdowns in the book
but only to get a person started.
Hope this helps.
Peter
 
Interesting and informative thread.
Thank you guys.
Iv'e been sitting here tapping this out for a while know.
Fun stuff!
 
Back
Top