I don't know if they will really help anyone but it's just something I came up with one night when I was bored.

Ever had a hard time playing 8 notes in one beat? It may be just easier to play 4 notes on a faster beat, and then using those 4 notes to play 8 notes in a certain beat.

I've analyzed the math and simplified the analysis into this:
Just use this simple equation 2(X1)=X2

X1 being the slower note that you would like to play 8 notes in one beat
X2 being the faster note that you would like to play 4 notes in one beat

For example:
Let's say you want to play 8 notes per beat at 60BPM
60BPM=X1
So 2(60)=120
Try to play 4 notes at 120BPM and thats equivalent to 8 notes per beat at 60BPM!

There's always a constant ratio between these time intervals. Just use this raw equation to come up with your own skill level.

(X1/60)(Y1)=(X2/60)(Y2)

X1= Initial BPM
X2= Secondary BPM
Y1= A certain note per beat
Y2= Secondary note per beat

Hope this helps.... :lol:

yeah, as of yet we don't have a name for it, but one we've been kicking around the shop is "multiplication." ;)

A cookie to anyone who actually catches that reference.

It depends what you mean by 8 notes per beat. If by "beat" you mean metronome click (as you should) and are counting 4 clicks per measure, then yes, four notes per click (16th notes) is sort of the "default" tempo guitarists like to practice at. Double it up to 8 notes per click, and you have 32nds. Cut it down to 2, and you have 8ths.

Wanna really fuck with your head? This is actually a pretty cool dril. Start playing a scale pattern with one note per click - quarter notes. Ascend a total of 3 notes, including the root, and go back down - this will give you a 3-note motif that repeats every measure. Do that a few times (at a SLOW tempo), then start playing slightly faster and play four notes up before descending, starting a 5-against-4 polyrhythm where you play five notes in a four-beat measure. Do that fora bit, then ascend 5 notes at a slightly faster speed before descending, again perfectly even in time, which will give you quarter note triplets. Add one more, still in time, and you get a 7:4 polyrhythm. By now, you should be playing at a pretty good clip, much faster than your initial slow tempo. Add one more, and you're playing 8th notes. Then, work back down.

It's tough to describe, but if you stick with this stuff and then start practicing moving between widely different groupings - say 5:4 and 7:4 groupings, it will really help develop your rhythmic sense.

Multiplication <_< It certainly is multiplication when I simplified the equation. But yea, the raw equation I used can be generalized. I just used and specific time interval and just matched some other notes of a faster beat with same time interval.

Um, it's not an "equation," dude, it's just realizing that two thirty-second notes equal the duration of one 16th. It's just straight up music theory, specifically rhythmic subdivision. ;)

Well lets consider something hypothetical which would use my equation, lets say you want to play 27 notes at 60 BPM (per click or whatever), and you would have to find a BPM that you would use with 2 per click. Then you would have to use a simple algebric equation i got up there wouldn't ya? :lol:

No, because then you'd be playing in an unrelated time signature. ;)

It really depends how you wanted to group them. If you wanted to squeeze 27 notes into a 60bpm measure, provided you wanted to play them all evenly, well, there's a couple ways you could notate it but the most straightforward would probably be a 27:16 polyrhythm. As 27 is a factor of 3 you could try to write it out in triplets- say a 9:8 polyrhythm with the 8th notes further subdivided into triplet 8ths, but that gets pretty hairy and honestly I'm not even sure how I'd notate that.

Remember, the number of notes per measure means absolutely nothing on its own - it's how they fall rhythmically within the measure that counts.

So what you're saying is....1 mutiplied by 2 is.....two? :mellow:

-Rich-

That's why I said it's a hypothetical situation. Doesn't matter whether it's a related or unrelated time signature. Plug any numbers into that equation and it will work.

Well, yeah. That's because your equation is basically 2*X=2X. It's one of the fundamental rules of algebra. ;)

And in the real world - you know, the one you and I play music in - it matters VERY much how the time signatures are related.

lol sigh I don't think you know what i mean. >_<

Wow! That's some incredibly complicated "analysis" that you've done. If only Newton were here to marvel at it. :blink:

It's simpl, no biggy B)