Thread: Gallop? Longa? Basic? Threes? Triplets? Worship ME? That finger cymbal rhythm! RANT

There are lots of names for the basic finger cymbal rhythm that is counted as and-a-ONE, and-a-TWO, and-a-THREE, and-a-FOUR.

I think "gallop" is a good name because that rhythm kind of sounds like the gait of a horse.

I think "threes" is fine, especially if you're learning the Salimpour approach to playing cymbals that also has rolls of 5 and 7, and you're trying to distinguish between threes and opposed to fives and sevens.

I think "basic" is fine, if that's the first finger cymbal rhythm a teacher introduces to her students, and if she treats it as a building block for others.

I'm not quite as comfortable with "longa". A longa is a piece of classical music from Turkey. It's sort of a like a symphony in the sense that it contains a number of different sections, some slow and some fast, with varying rhythms. The high-energy finale of longas was widely used by belly dancers in the 1960's and 1970's, such as that of Nihavend Longa, and that's why the finger cymbal rhythm was named that. But I find it a little misleading to use the term "longa" as a rhythm name for finger cymbals because it appropriates a term that means something entirely different, and uses that term in a very limiting way.

Dolphina's "worship ME worship ME" makes me giggle.

Begin rant.

But I have a serious objection to using the term "triplet" to apply to the finger cymbal rhythm in question. There is already a musical term of "triplet" which means something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT - it refers to playing three notes across two counts. Anybody who actually knows something about music knows about the musical term and what it means. People who have had piano lessons for more than 6 months know it. People who have played in middle school bands know it. Anybody with even a modest amount of musical education knows it. So, when a belly dance teacher appropriates the term and uses it to mean something else, she exposes her total ignorance of music AND PASSES THAT IGNORANCE ON TO TRUSTING STUDENTS. Any belly dance teacher who uses the term triplet to refer to that zill pattern is basically showing me that she is a) ignorant, and b) hasn't bothered to learn enough about the topic she's trying to "teach" (in this case, playing a musical instrument known as finger cymbals) to realize that she's ignorant, and c) is passing that ignorance on to her students. She will lose credibility with students who have musical training in their backgrounds when she uses the term "triplet" in a way that is musically incorrect.

Rant over.

Originally Posted by *Shira*

There are lots of names for the basic finger cymbal rhythm that is counted as and-a-ONE, and-a-TWO, and-a-THREE, and-a-FOUR.

I think "gallop" is a good name because that rhythm kind of sounds like the gait of a horse.

I think "threes" is fine, especially if you're learning the Salimpour approach to playing cymbals that also has rolls of 5 and 7, and you're trying to distinguish between threes and opposed to fives and sevens.

I think "basic" is fine, if that's the first finger cymbal rhythm a teacher introduces to her students, and if she treats it as a building block for others.

I'm not quite as comfortable with "longa". A longa is a piece of classical music from Turkey. It's sort of a like a symphony in the sense that it contains a number of different sections, some slow and some fast, with varying rhythms. The high-energy finale of longas was widely used by belly dancers in the 1960's and 1970's, such as that of Nihavend Longa, and that's why the finger cymbal rhythm was named that. But I find it a little misleading to use the term "longa" as a rhythm name for finger cymbals because it appropriates a term that means something entirely different, and uses that term in a very limiting way.

Dolphina's "worship ME worship ME" makes me giggle.

Begin rant.

But I have a serious objection to using the term "triplet" to apply to the finger cymbal rhythm in question. There is already a musical term of "triplet" which means something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT - it refers to playing three notes across two counts. Anybody who actually knows something about music knows about the musical term and what it means. People who have had piano lessons for more than 6 months know it. People who have played in middle school bands know it. Anybody with even a modest amount of musical education knows it. So, when a belly dance teacher appropriates the term and uses it to mean something else, she exposes her total ignorance of music AND PASSES THAT IGNORANCE ON TO TRUSTING STUDENTS. Any belly dance teacher who uses the term triplet to refer to that zill pattern is basically showing me that she is a) ignorant, and b) hasn't bothered to learn enough about the topic she's trying to "teach" (in this case, playing a musical instrument known as finger cymbals) to realize that she's ignorant, and c) is passing that ignorance on to her students. She will lose credibility with students who have musical training in their backgrounds when she uses the term "triplet" in a way that is musically incorrect.

Rant over.

Agreed. Very good point Shira!

I tend to call it 3s or triples (as in singles, doubles, triples, quads), but not triplets. I explain to my students the difference between musical triplets and the finger cymbal 3s so that they will know the differences if they are with another teacher later.

I have known teachers who are exemplary musicians in other forms who still use the word triplet for this pattern, so it isn't always out of ignorance. I just stay away from it for clarity's sake.

Many of my students seem to *want* to call it a triplet, right off the bat, and I can only figure that it's because they hear 1-2-3 (or and a one) and think of it in terms of something that is happening in a triplet form. It drives me crazy, as a musician (over 10 years of cello and piano), you're absolutely right - it is NOT A TRIPLET.

argh.

I feel your frustration!

Musically, to me, using the word "triplet" is wrong. I call it "three" or "teca tek".

I call it a gallop, like Shira pointing out that it sounds like a horse galloping. The first class I teach it in, I compare it to Monty Python and The Holy Grail, where the knights had the guys behind them playing coconuts. ..l;,

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtpRGFAbPBs]YouTube - THE MONTY PYTHON and the holy grail ( the coconuts)[/ame]

It makes people laugh, but even more importantly, it makes them remember the rhythm once they leave class.

I call 'em either "triples" or "threes", NEVER "triplets" for all the reasons Shira notes. I played French Horn for 25 years, and piano intermittantly even longer than that (to this day, in fact). Shira no speak with forked tounge! ..g.:

But since we're discussing this pattern, I'm going to add a bit to Shira's rant:

<RANT>

It drives me NUTS when a dancer, or worse, an entire troupe of them, comes on stage and plays NOTHING but "triples" the entire time! Middle Eastern musicians call this "Coffee Cup", they liken it to drinking little cups of expresso over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over... again. AAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!! ..cr.:,m::.p::

Take it easy on the triples! The only thing worse than endless triples is endless BAD triples!

</RANT>

i have a music degree and I'm quite comfortable with calling it a triplet

I recently attended a workshop where an instructor called this pattern "araj."
I have no idea from whence came this name; had never heard it before (in 20 years of dancing). Anyone have a clue?

they liken it to drinking little cups of expresso over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over... again

Sounds like heaven to me!

I call them triples or threes or gallops or 123.

worship me worship me worship me worship me
=
and I puke and I puke and I puke and I puke

I call them Sagat 3's

As I teach percussion as well and some of the students are also dancers, I never use Dom tek and ka when it comes to zills, unless I am teaching the percussion rhythms themselves, and even then I teach the zillists the rhythms with fills so they can elaborate during a simple Baladi percussion piece.

Example played at the same time;

(Tabla)Dom Dom tek ka tek dom tek ka tek

(Zillist) DomkaDomkatekkatekKaDomkaDomkaTek tekka

I took a finger cymbal playing workshop from someone with a music background, and she was very adamant about the 1-2-3 rhythm NOT being a triplet. She taught us a real triplet, which was R - L - R - L - R - L spaced out over a 4 count measure.

Interesting thought. My teacher says triplet I think refering to all the 3 patterns and then calls the different three patterns their own names. She is very musically trained, writes her own, and plays several instruments. I wonder now tho if she is saying triplet or triple and I am hearing triplet. I took piano and violin for 6 years and never heard the term triplet so I guess it just depends on who taught you. Much like BD.

I call it a basic gallop. Never triplet, for the reasons already mentioned.

Speaking of musical correctness, I dislike using counts of 8 with music that has 4 beats per measure. When you do this, you count across two measures as though it is one unit. This disregards the basic structure of the music.

I try to convey the inherent pattern in the rhythm. If we are doing a movement combination that takes 2 measures to complete, well, occasionally I might slip up and count it out as 8, but my preference is to count:
one, two, three, four
two, two, three, four

I learned it as Longa, which is the Turkish name for the rhythm.

Originally Posted by *Shira*

Begin rant.

But I have a serious objection to using the term "triplet" to apply to the finger cymbal rhythm in question. There is already a musical term of "triplet" which means something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT - it refers to playing three notes across two counts. Anybody who actually knows something about music knows about the musical term and what it means. People who have had piano lessons for more than 6 months know it. People who have played in middle school bands know it. Anybody with even a modest amount of musical education knows it. So, when a belly dance teacher appropriates the term and uses it to mean something else, she exposes her total ignorance of music AND PASSES THAT IGNORANCE ON TO TRUSTING STUDENTS. Any belly dance teacher who uses the term triplet to refer to that zill pattern is basically showing me that she is a) ignorant, and b) hasn't bothered to learn enough about the topic she's trying to "teach" (in this case, playing a musical instrument known as finger cymbals) to realize that she's ignorant, and c) is passing that ignorance on to her students. She will lose credibility with students who have musical training in their backgrounds when she uses the term "triplet" in a way that is musically incorrect.

Rant over.

I agree, too!

Deborah

ETA: I call it the "gallop"

Originally Posted by Veil_Dancer

and I puke and I puke and I puke and I puke

..l;,..l;,

Originally Posted by ssipes

I call it a basic gallop. Never triplet, for the reasons already mentioned.

Speaking of musical correctness, I dislike using counts of 8 with music that has 4 beats per measure. When you do this, you count across two measures as though it is one unit. This disregards the basic structure of the music.

I try to convey the inherent pattern in the rhythm. If we are doing a movement combination that takes 2 measures to complete, well, occasionally I might slip up and count it out as 8, but my preference is to count:
one, two, three, four
two, two, three, four

Structure is more than the beats per measure, it's how the music is phrased--in 4/4 time the 8-count is the smallest phrase (a waltz, in 3/4 time has 6 beats in the smallest phrase). A minor phrase (like a break you will hear in between verses in a pop song) is 16 counts. The common major phrasing is 32 counts or 4 8-counts. Music for aerobic classes is commonly edited to be "squared" to solid 32-count phrases.

~~Kimahri

Originally Posted by Kimahri

Structure is more than the beats per measure, it's how the music is phrased--in 4/4 time the 8-count is the smallest phrase (a waltz, in 3/4 time has 6 beats in the smallest phrase). A minor phrase (like a break you will hear in between verses in a pop song) is 16 counts. The common major phrasing is 32 counts or 4 8-counts. Music for aerobic classes is commonly edited to be "squared" to solid 32-count phrases.

~~Kimahri

Yes, I know that structure is more than beats per measure, but if you count 8 for everything, you lose the smallest unit of repetition in music with a maqsum or saiidi rhythm.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say in 4/4 time the 8-count is the smallest phrase. A measure is the smallest phrase. For music with a maqsum rhythms, 8 counts would encompass 2 measures, unless you are counting twice as fast as the beat.

Originally Posted by ssipes

Yes, I know that structure is more than beats per measure, but if you count 8 for everything, you lose the smallest unit of repetition in music with a maqsum or saiidi rhythm.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say in 4/4 time the 8-count is the smallest phrase. A measure is the smallest phrase. For music with a maqsum rhythms, 8 counts would encompass 2 measures, unless you are counting twice as fast as the beat.

A measure is not the smallest phrase.
"Phrase: A specific number of measures that make up a complete "thought" of music. It is similar to a sentence, having a beginning and a clear end. There are small phrases (as few as two measures or eight counts) as well as longer phrases of 8, 16, or 32 measures."

~~Kimahri

Originally Posted by Kimahri

Structure is more than the beats per measure, it's how the music is phrased--in 4/4 time the 8-count is the smallest phrase (a waltz, in 3/4 time has 6 beats in the smallest phrase). A minor phrase (like a break you will hear in between verses in a pop song) is 16 counts. The common major phrasing is 32 counts or 4 8-counts. Music for aerobic classes is commonly edited to be "squared" to solid 32-count phrases.

~~Kimahri

I didn't have the right words to say this, so thanks so much for posting this, Kimahri!

Deborah

I agree that the term "longa" for the "and-a-ONE" zill pattern is not terribly useful these days and probably should be dropped. I teach the pattern as "threes" or "basic threes". I teach all zill patterns in terms of number of beats, such as "threes", "singles" (for 1-2-1-2-1-2..."), 3-3-7, 3-7-3, 3-1-3-1-3, etc., along with the drum rhythms with which each can best be played.

I also agree with Shira's rant against calling it a triplet for the same reasons.

Me too Shira and THANK YOU for putting it and-a-ONE and-a-TWO as one of my peeves has been people who teach it as ONE-two-three-pause. Thank you and I agree about "triplets" misusage being annoying.

Originally Posted by Sabine

I recently attended a workshop where an instructor called this pattern "araj."
I have no idea from whence came this name; had never heard it before (in 20 years of dancing). Anyone have a clue?

Karim Nagi teaches this rhythm as aaraj too. He says it's Arabic for "to limp" because the threes just limp along.

Originally Posted by Kimahri

A measure is not the smallest phrase.
"Phrase: A specific number of measures that make up a complete "thought" of music. It is similar to a sentence, having a beginning and a clear end. There are small phrases (as few as two measures or eight counts) as well as longer phrases of 8, 16, or 32 measures."

~~Kimahri

Sorry, you are correct here. I said phrase but the idea I was trying to convey was that a measure is the basic unit of repetition. It is the building block of the phrase if you will.

And yes, 8 counts *might* encompass a phrase, or it might not. A common phrasing pattern is something I call 3+1, where there are 3 measures similar (or something melodic that takes 3 measures to complete), then one that does something quite different, then usually the whole pattern repeats itself. Counting this out in 8's would, IMO, de-emphasize the pattern.

Then there is the issue that 1) rhythms change in some pieces, and not all the rhythms have 4 or 8 beats per measure and 2) occasionally there are phrases that are not multiples of 4 or 8 at all, but 3 or 5. This happens quite frequently in complex Egyptian music. There is a rather long section in Alf Leyla that has phrases of 3 measures, and it is some kind of 6 count rhythm.

Bottom line, if phrases can be various numbers of measures long, why would someone want to count everything out in 8's?

And my point wasn't that one should never count anything out in 8s, but rather that one shouldn't by default count *everything* out in 8's as is often done in western dance.

Originally Posted by ssipes

Sorry, you are correct here. I said phrase but the idea I was trying to convey was that a measure is the basic unit of repetition. It is the building block of the phrase if you will.

And yes, 8 counts *might* encompass a phrase, or it might not. A common phrasing pattern is something I call 3+1, where there are 3 measures similar (or something melodic that takes 3 measures to complete), then one that does something quite different, then usually the whole pattern repeats itself. Counting this out in 8's would, IMO, de-emphasize the pattern.

Then there is the issue that 1) rhythms change in some pieces, and not all the rhythms have 4 or 8 beats per measure and 2) occasionally there are phrases that are not multiples of 4 or 8 at all, but 3 or 5. This happens quite frequently in complex Egyptian music. There is a rather long section in Alf Leyla that has phrases of 3 measures, and it is some kind of 6 count rhythm.

Bottom line, if phrases can be various numbers of measures long, why would someone want to count everything out in 8's?

And my point wasn't that one should never count anything out in 8s, but rather that one shouldn't by default count *everything* out in 8's as is often done in western dance.

Obviously music won't be counted in 8s when the time signature or rhythm changes, but hearing 8-count phrases (specifically within larger 16 and 32-count phrases) is very VERY common.

I remember many heated discussions among group fitness instructors on teaching to the beat vs. teaching to the phrase. For the most part they had to agree to disagree. But for a performance art learning to hear the phrasing in music is essential. It's a leap in musicality not unlike the leap of a reader going from recognizing words to having the flow of connection into a sentence.

~~Kimahri

Originally Posted by Kimahri

Obviously music won't be counted in 8s when the time signature or rhythm changes, but hearing 8-count phrases (specifically within larger 16 and 32-count phrases) is very VERY common.

Well, the 3+1 pattern is also very VERY common.

But for a performance art learning to hear the phrasing in music is essential. It's a leap in musicality not unlike the leap of a reader going from recognizing words to having the flow of connection into a sentence.

Yes, I hear, dance to, and teach phrasing.

I count measures because I think of phrases as groups of measures. This doesn't mean that I don't hear the phrases, or that I haven't progressed into the "sentence" phase of dancing.

I don't have a problem with someone counting 8's for phrases that have 8 counts. I dislike when people just count 8's for everything.

Originally Posted by ssipes

Well, the 3+1 pattern is also very VERY common.

That pattern, within a phrase, is very common. I'm not arguing with you.

Originally Posted by ssipes

Yes, I hear, dance to, and teach phrasing.

I count measures because I think of phrases as groups of measures. This doesn't mean that I don't hear the phrases, or that I haven't progressed into the "sentence" phase of dancing.

I don't have a problem with someone counting 8's for phrases that have 8 counts. I dislike when people just count 8's for everything.

We're talking about music theory, I don't believe I commented on your teaching content or ability.

~~Kimahri

I'm sorry about that. I'm stressed and it has nothing to do with counting music.

Originally Posted by Kimahri

That pattern, within a phrase, is very common. I'm not arguing with you.



We're talking about music theory, I don't believe I commented on your teaching content or ability.

~~Kimahri

I'm actually wondering if the above is why I slide from eight to four to two in really random ways when trying to count out things for students. I have some basic musical theory background but it was a long time ago; I'm fairly musical naturally, in the sense of good rhythm, can recognise phrases etc, and the overridding thing for me is "it says it in the music, listen". But some people need numbers - they want to know *how many* hip drops *exactly*, and they want counting out. My counting out is not very good!