Thread: finger cymbal philosophy

i'm interested in hearing how different dancers approach finger cymbals. i think everyone has heard of patterns that you play to xyz rhythm. jamila salimpour comes to mind as someone who really documented and taught patterns to rhythms. i've learned some patterns over the years, but when i go to improv (to music i am familiar with while dancing), they immediately leave my brain. i end up playing along with the music, not necessarily patterns, not necessarily the exact rhythm. to my ear, this doesn't sound bad. but i'm wondering if this is JUST NOT DONE. i guess i fall under the 'your finger cymbals follow your dance' philosophy. but i might just be lazy because i find it extremely difficult to play a pattern and not dance a pattern.

Originally Posted by emtink

i've learned some patterns over the years, but when i go to improv (to music i am familiar with while dancing), they immediately leave my brain. i end up playing along with the music, not necessarily patterns, not necessarily the exact rhythm.

I think of Jamila's patterns as being drills for purposes of training your fingers to play, and training your brain to realize that there are many rhythmic possibilities, not just the gallop. Ie, they're a good learning tool, but it's not necessary to play those specific patterns when dancing.

I teach that:

1. A novice musician/finger cymbal player always plays along with the notes in the melody line. (I'm not saying this is bad to do, just that this is the easiest to learn, and some people never progress beyond this.)
2. A more experienced musician/finger cymbal player plays along with what the drums are doing. (This is a bit more difficult to learn than matching the melody, and takes a more practiced ear to figure out what the drums are doing.)
3. A more advanced musician/finger cymbal player can play counter-rhythms that are different from both the melody line and the drums, and make it sound good. (This is quite difficult, and I wouldn't expect most dancers to be able to do it. Maybe those who had a lot of musical training, including experience playing in a band could.)

I think any of the three above are fine, and I'd encourage dancers to start with #1, progress to #2, and continue their growth toward #3.

Just so long as the dancer doesn't play the gallop continuously....

i am probably between your #1 and #2. and i can't play a gallop for very long because i rarely hear it in the music!

so when it comes to playing and dancing, to what degree should your cymbals match your movements?

Originally Posted by emtink

i am probably between your #1 and #2. and i can't play a gallop for very long because i rarely hear it in the music!

so when it comes to playing and dancing, to what degree should your cymbals match your movements?

I don't think it's necessary for the cymbals to match your movements exactly, so long as they seem to create a pleasing result. It's much easier for the dancer to make them match, so for that reason it's what most people choose to do. And I think it's fine to make them match.

I think of the dancer's body as being one instrument in the orchestra, and the finger cymbals as being another instrument in the orchestra. Her body and her zills could play in unison with each other, or they could play separate things that come together in an interesting way.

However, this act of having the body and the cymbals do different things is very difficult. In order to do it, I'd think a dancer would have needed some previous experience of playing a musical instrument in a band, or perhaps singing in a choir, to help her develop the instinct for how different instruments playing different counter-melodies can come together to make an interesting unified whole. Possible? Yes, and impressive when done well. Easy? No. I certainly couldn't do it myself (despite many years of experience playing trumpet in bands) when improvising, and even creating such a choreography would pose a big challenge for me. Very big. If I saw someone doing it, and doing it WELL, I'd really, really be VERY impressed! I'd be more impressed by that than I would by a deep backbend, the splits, or a Turkish drop because it's a much rarer skill.

But really, as I said above, I'm just happy when a dancer is not playing a continuous gallop!

Originally Posted by *Shira*

I think of the dancer's body as being one instrument in the orchestra, and the finger cymbals as being another instrument in the orchestra. Her body and her zills could play in unison with each other, or they could play separate things that come together in an interesting way.

oooo, i like this. it makes sense to me.

it also seems that the style of cymbal-playing is very different when doing a troupe choreography versus a solo improvised performance. i guess i got stuck on patterns because i see a lot of that done. but now that i think about, a lot of those performances were choreographed.

Very interesting thread!

I don´t have *anything*to contribute with because I´ve started to begin the zil playing very,very late(after about 9 years of dancing)and still don´t even feel confident enough to play them while performing.

So I´m reading this discussion with big interest:)

Given that a dancer plays a percussion instrument, she should be able to play the rhythm. How one embellishes the rhythm depends on a lot of factors, of course - and that's where those patterns come in handy. But, playing the unembellished rhythm is one of the foundations. And, I'd also say that it is good to be able to play threes along to the downbeat while dancing, even though in performance, that is a bad idea unless one does really fancy things with threes (which is possible). I think of playing continuous threes as having the zills on autopilot, or sometimes as one's own metronome.

emma, i'm like you! i've been dancing for years but am just now really starting to work on cymbals. its almost like having to learn to dance all over again lol!

steffi, i agree that constant 3's is like autopilot. not to get too all over the place with this BUT that's probably the one thing i don't like about tribal. every tribal group that i've seen perform doing the group improv thing just plays 3's. wouldn't it be cool if they choreographed cymbal patterns in addition to dance combos?

Originally Posted by steffib

And, I'd also say that it is good to be able to play threes along to the downbeat while dancing, even though in performance, that is a bad idea unless one does really fancy things with threes (which is possible). I think of playing continuous threes as having the zills on autopilot, or sometimes as one's own metronome.

can you say a little bit about why you think this is a good skill? ie dexterity, speed, feeling the down beat...

Originally Posted by emtink

steffi, i agree that constant 3's is like autopilot. not to get too all over the place with this BUT that's probably the one thing i don't like about tribal. every tribal group that i've seen perform doing the group improv thing just plays 3's. wouldn't it be cool if they choreographed cymbal patterns in addition to dance combos?

Well, ATS is improv dancing, so you can't really do too much zill choreography with it, there is good reason for keeping things extremely simple ;-) Of course, that can become more than a bit tedious when everybody plays straight through at volume level 11. I saw Mimi Fontana of NYC perform a tribal solo (yeah, it's a bit of a contradiction, but she was a teacher and all alone) with live music. There, she played threes with a lot of skill, including dynamics and different sounds, which beautifully complemented the music and her dancing. And, I have taken classes with Aszmara, where for quite a while we did just threes - one can do a heck of a whole lot with them, really. But, to do that, one first has to be able to play and-a-one and-a-two without having to think about it, it has to be second nature.

Originally Posted by emtink

can you say a little bit about why you think this is a good skill? ie dexterity, speed, feeling the down beat...

You need to know the music. You need to know the pulse of the rhythm, i.e., you need to know where the downbeat is when you dance, and even more so when you play a percussion instrument. You need to know where the one is. And, to given an example, some songs are kinda tricky - if you dance to Aya Zein and don't get that there is a pickup as part of the melody, that's not so good ;-)

Not putting down playing along to the dancing or the melody, not at all - but I believe you have to have the pulse of the music down before doing that. And, it's not easy ...

Originally Posted by steffib

Of course, that can become more than a bit tedious when everybody plays straight through at volume level 11.

i think that's what irks me more than the 3's! i had never thought about volume before, but now it seems obvious. hmm, i will have to try playing 3's with volume and quality variations, could be interesting! thanks for that insight.

Originally Posted by steffib

You need to know the music. You need to know the pulse of the rhythm, i.e., you need to know where the downbeat is when you dance, and even more so when you play a percussion instrument. You need to know where the one is. And, to given an example, some songs are kinda tricky - if you dance to Aya Zein and don't get that there is a pickup as part of the melody, that's not so good ;-)

Not putting down playing along to the dancing or the melody, not at all - but I believe you have to have the pulse of the music down before doing that. And, it's not easy ...

thanks for clarifying that. you and shira seem to have different ideas of 'stage 1' cymbals. but that's the whole point of this thread

Originally Posted by emtink

it also seems that the style of cymbal-playing is very different when doing a troupe choreography versus a solo improvised performance. i guess i got stuck on patterns because i see a lot of that done. but now that i think about, a lot of those performances were choreographed.

Yes, for a troupe choreography there's a need to keep it simple. This is partly to ensure that it's easy enough for every troupe member to play, and partly because something too intricate and embellished would just sound muddy when 5 people all try to do it at the same time. Also, it's easier to teach if it's somewhat simple.

In addition to the constraints imposed by having a troupe try to play in unison, I suspect another reason you see mostly patterns is that most belly dance teachers aren't proficient enough on cymbals themselves to go beyond the patterns. They've had plenty of training in dance, but not in treating their zills as a musical instrument. Still, I applaud any belly dance teacher who incorporates cymbals into the choreographies she creates for her students. It's a great teaching tool.

I keep thinking that someday, on one of my trips to Egypt, I should try to find a professional sagat player to teach me a private lesson! I have had extensive training in Euro-American musical instruments (trumpet, piano, guitar, harmonica, recorder), and I have many years of experience in playing in bands (concert band, marching band, jazz band, musical theater pit band), so I can figure some of the finger cymbal stuff out on my own, but it would be great to see what I could learn by studying with a professional sagat player!

Originally Posted by *Shira*

I keep thinking that someday, on one of my trips to Egypt, I should try to find a professional sagat player to teach me a private lesson! I have had extensive training in Euro-American musical instruments (trumpet, piano, guitar, harmonica, recorder), and I have many years of experience in playing in bands (concert band, marching band, jazz band, musical theater pit band), so I can figure some of the finger cymbal stuff out on my own, but it would be great to see what I could learn by studying with a professional sagat player!

Do you have Yasmin's CD Sagat Speak? She took lessons with a professional musician in Egypt, which influenced her approach. It is awesome material, and Yasmin has changed the way I look at finger cymbals.

Originally Posted by steffib

Do you have Yasmin's CD Sagat Speak? She took lessons with a professional musician in Egypt, which influenced her approach. It is awesome material, and Yasmin has changed the way I look at finger cymbals.

do you think this CD is beneficial for playing cymbals with 2 holes instead of one? it looks interesting...

Originally Posted by emtink

do you think this CD is beneficial for playing cymbals with 2 holes instead of one? it looks interesting...

You may not be able to get the full range of sounds, but if your cymbals are high end slotted, you will be able to work with limited talking (I do) - but hey, a set of Yasmin's sagat is $50, which is an investment every serious zill player will make happily. That said, given where you seem to be on the finger cymbal path, you probably will benefit a lot more from it after working with Artemis' Zill Speak, since Sagat Speak assumes you're familiar with a lot of the material on that.

cool, i'm going to buy zill speak right now!

Originally Posted by *Shira*

Yes, for a troupe choreography there's a need to keep it simple. This is partly to ensure that it's easy enough for every troupe member to play, and partly because something too intricate and embellished would just sound muddy when 5 people all try to do it at the same time. Also, it's easier to teach if it's somewhat simple.

In addition to the constraints imposed by having a troupe try to play in unison, I suspect another reason you see mostly patterns is that most belly dance teachers aren't proficient enough on cymbals themselves to go beyond the patterns. They've had plenty of training in dance, but not in treating their zills as a musical instrument. Still, I applaud any belly dance teacher who incorporates cymbals into the choreographies she creates for her students. It's a great teaching tool.

:edit
wow epic fail about not putting link in!!! LMAO

they do a great job with zilling all the way through buuuuttt right around 3.5-4 minutes it gets interesting.


I got to see this in person and it was so kickawwwesomesauce it wasn't even funny.

I am a terrible ziller because

1. I hate my zills currently
2. they are my least favorite thing to practice

but because of this particular studio- and how suhaila's format works- I'm kind of comitted/motivated to learning them- not just because I have to- but because I'm NOT good at it and I don't want to not be good at something...

I think it gets brushed aside because its quiet complicated- it IS an instrument not a noise maker. What really to me is a butt kicker is the fact not only do you have to do feet and hips and arms and all these things- you are playing an actual pattern that is suppose to mesh with a song... THAT is difficult for me to grasp as I am not a musically inclined individual.

Hello Everybody,
I love, love, love this thread. I am currently teaching zill classes. Before I ever thought of teaching zill's I made sure that I knew what I was teaching. My teachers are Shabnam Pena & Mary Ellen Donald (& I forgot to tell you that I played the violin for 15 years- so I have extensive music training). The first thing you need to do is teach your students how to count music (find the down beat or pulse in any type of music). I teach my students the time signatures the rhythms are in like 4/4 and what the top 4 and bottom 4 stands for (top is how many beats per measure, bottom is what note is going to get the down beat- 1 count).
You need to teach your students the basics (Baladi, Saidi, 6/8 & even 9/8 (karsilamas) triplets & singles (16th notes... 1e+a). You need to know the skeleton of the rhythms your teaching cause Baladi & Saidi are in the same family however the doom's and teks are different. I had to pick up a few drum lessons so I could hear the difference and play the difference. Depending on your zill skills you can play dooms and teks on your zills. When you teach beginners do not teach them the teks cause it's just that much more confusing. You can teach them embellishments later. One thing I also do is teach the rhythms on both hands. I'm left handed however I play with both hands. You need to be strong on both hands just in case you miss a beat with your dominate hand and you catch up on your left (or even close your eyes and listen to a zill player you can notice they are dominate on one hand).
When I teach patterns we stand and play in a circle, after we get the pattern, we walk in a circle & play the pattern, then after I go through all the patterns we go across the floor with the zill patterns and layering moves with it. My beginners don't just play triplets. They play triplets & singles as well as baladi. I also forgot to tell you that Mary Ellen Donald sells her books as well as rhythms in musical notation along with CD's.

Here is a video of Shabnam & I with acapella zills
.



I hope this helps,
Mandy Renae Gallegos
Mandanah

Mandaroonie, what state are you in? I'd like to look into deepening my knowledge on zills.

It is fine to play with the melody. It is also fine to play with the rhythm. It is not fine to play off beat or to play the same pattern 85 times in a row. Especially not triples.

I am also a big rhythm teacher and I teach them to play as they move. Many dancers can play beautifully until they move.

My teacher learned from Jamilla Salimpour and I am pretty similar to her, I think.

I'm jealous- I have gotten to study with Suhaila as I'm in the format- but as Jamillia isn't fying- I'd have to go to california... which at the rate i'm working- isn't going to happen any time soon. poopie

she can really rock a set of zills... she's fricking amazing.

I'm in Las Vegas, Nv & Shabnam is in Oakland, Ca.

Shira, I think your progression is interesting, but it seems to be rather opposite of what I have seen & experienced- we have had 2 workshop instructors emphasizing playing melodies because we up here are all stuck in basic rhythm mode, it seems!

I think to play with the melody WELL is a challenge and should not be done until you are comfortable with your cymbals. I agree with Shira that the ideal phase to reach for is to be able to play WITH the music in a way that compliments it. To do this you really have to have a good feel for the music itself, which doesn't general happen until you have been listening to it for a LONG time either.

I like to teach tiny segments first- how to play singles, doubles, triples, 5s 7s, etc, then work them into patterns- both official rhythms & the patterns/counter rhythms that can be played 'to the beat' (meaning this pattern, like 337, can be played to just about any 4/4 rhythm)
Personally, I think this has made it easier for my more recent students to transition into playing around, improvising, finding a way into the heart of the music so they can play responsively to the music and compliment the music with less timidity. It has definitely helped them progress with finger speed more rapidly than previous classes. My learning/teaching process is ever evolving, but that's where I'm at now :)

I think that there are two progressions we're talking about - one starting what novices are most likely to focus on when they start on their own without instruction (accent some melody and their own movement) and the other starting from what a more systematic approach at teaching will be based on (find the beat and then rhythm).

Originally Posted by steffib

I think that there are two progressions we're talking about - one starting what novices are most likely to focus on when they start on their own without instruction (accent some melody and their own movement) and the other starting from what a more systematic approach at teaching will be based on (find the beat and then rhythm).

yes, there is a difference, it's just that most of the folks I have dealt with are too scared of the cymbals to start anywhere but class, and then I have to convince them that a) they can do it b) it is fun and c) they are allowed to experiment & keep learning on their own. I can see where it may be logical for a new player who is more driven to learning on their own to start with what they can identify most easily, it just hasn't been my experience- that's all

Originally Posted by emtink

i'm interested in hearing how different dancers approach finger cymbals. i think everyone has heard of patterns that you play to xyz rhythm. jamila salimpour comes to mind as someone who really documented and taught patterns to rhythms. i've learned some patterns over the years, but when i go to improv (to music i am familiar with while dancing), they immediately leave my brain. i end up playing along with the music, not necessarily patterns, not necessarily the exact rhythm. to my ear, this doesn't sound bad. but i'm wondering if this is JUST NOT DONE. i guess i fall under the 'your finger cymbals follow your dance' philosophy. but i might just be lazy because i find it extremely difficult to play a pattern and not dance a pattern.

what you are saying is "turkish style" to pick with MELODY. arabic dancers zill with the drummer, so a steady pattern untill drum solo and then it is freestyle...guess we will be going over this next month in your intensive ????? to hyes and turks, the drum is for placement of the first foot in a line dance..to an arab, the drum is the heart and soul of it all. my teacher was a drummer also.
when i teach zill, you are moving...and i break down each step to where the longa or balady fits in

Originally Posted by mandarooonie

My beginners don't just play triplets. They play triplets & singles as well as baladi.

I hope you're not using the word "triplets" to refer to the gallop (and-a-ONE and-a-TWO) zill pattern.

Originally Posted by steffib

I think that there are two progressions we're talking about - one starting what novices are most likely to focus on when they start on their own without instruction (accent some melody and their own movement) and the other starting from what a more systematic approach at teaching will be based on (find the beat and then rhythm).

Agreed.

Melody is easier for someone with no prior musical training to relate to. Rhythm is a foundation that many teachers choose to start with even though students need a bit more musical awareness to identify & play along with rhythm. I personally think it's fine for a teacher to start with either one first. Each has its advantages, and it's beneficial for students to learn both eventually.

I teach a beginner choreography to my students in which I teach "play along with the melody" for the first couple of combinations they learn. Then we get to a combination where I want them to play along with the rhythm, and all hell breaks loose because they find it harder to "hear" and play along with the rhythm than with the melody. But that's why I include both in the same choreography - to help students learn how to use both.