Counting question

[Shadow of the Sun]

Heya, folks.

At the moment, I'm really putting some work into getting my rhythms ingrained- work with the metronome will be paramount here, I know for certain.

At the moment, I'm working on 16th note rhythms. Well, that's the furthest I'm getting. I'm starting with quarter note rhythms, then eighth note rhythms, then triplet rhythms, and then up to sixteenth note rhythms. At the moment, the metronome is clicking on all four beats- eventually, I'll get it to the point where it's two beats per bar, then one per bar, then one every two bars and so on (got that from Victor Wooten).

My main question is, if I work up to thirty-second notes, which will probably be at slower tempos, how would I count it?

16th notes are one-y and-a two-y and-a three-y and-a four-y and-a. What would 32nd notes be?

And, if we're getting really complex, more unusual divisions of the beat- seven notes per beat, or five, or even nine?

Any and all help appreciated,

ShadowoftheSun

[ronjazz]

one-thir-ty-sec-ond-note-and-a
two-thir-ty-sec-ond-note-and-a

or something like that, just an 8-syllable thing.

[JonnyPac]

I think of double-timing the pulse and then counting them as 16ths. I rearrange my internal pulse constantly for different groupings and feels. Variety in time is what makes things exciting, IMHO.

I have spent 2+ hours a day with a metronome for the last month or so. I have tried to tackle many little accent, metric super-impositions, groupings, and tempos that I neglected to be a solid rhythmic player. I have felt (and heard) a huge improvement and can do things I would have never thought of a year ago. Speed in only one part of rhythmic articulation, and it preoccupies way too many players and audiences- All of the other "tricky" things in rhythm are much more artistic and sophisticated; Speed is not always needed to play them. Accuracy and feel are my main interests nowadays.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by Shadow of the Sun

Heya, folks.

At the moment, I'm really putting some work into getting my rhythms ingrained- work with the metronome will be paramount here, I know for certain.

At the moment, I'm working on 16th note rhythms. Well, that's the furthest I'm getting. I'm starting with quarter note rhythms, then eighth note rhythms, then triplet rhythms, and then up to sixteenth note rhythms. At the moment, the metronome is clicking on all four beats- eventually, I'll get it to the point where it's two beats per bar, then one per bar, then one every two bars and so on (got that from Victor Wooten).

My main question is, if I work up to thirty-second notes, which will probably be at slower tempos, how would I count it?

Don't count it, feel it. If the 32nds are slow enough to count using sensible syllables, then they should probably be written as 16ths anyway, and double the bpm - as Jonny says.

If you want something verbal, any bunch of 8 equal syllables would do (as ron says), and the faster you can say them the better, of course. I'm thinking of that Indian vocal system of rhythmic verbalisation; something like "takataka-takataka" (which you can say quite fast) would do for one beat of 32nds, up to around 70-80 bpm I guess.
If you want to differentiate beats in 4/4, something like WAkataka-takataka TUkataka-takataka, THRIkataka-takataka, FOkataka-takataka would represent the 1-2-3-4 sounds. (Seeing as it's too fast to verbalise the "n" in "one". Saying the whole word "one" - or releasing your tongue to make the next sound - takes too long .)

Personally I've never done this kind of counting. I never need to go beyond 1-and-2-and-, etc. I even find 8ths like that are easier to feel - or to visualize - than say. (I'd be more likely to use visualization of time in space, like divisions on a ruler.)

Originally Posted by Shadow of the Sun

And, if we're getting really complex, more unusual divisions of the beat- seven notes per beat, or five, or even nine?

These are less natural, so - IMO - would benefit from some kind of system.
However, I don't think I've ever seen such beat divisions notated, other than in transcriptions of improvisation, where they are approximations of a quantity of notes that just happen to fit that many into one beat - I'd doubt the player counted them while he was playing. (It would matter more to listen to how those notes were phrased, the accents and stresses used, then to mimic the exact timing used, at least as expressed crudely in notation.)

IOW, I'm not sure I see the point in formalising how one would practise beat divisions of 7 or 9 (5 might arguably be useful). Practising irregular time sigs like 5/8, 7/8, 11/8, 15/16 (ie bar divisions rather than beat divisions) is much more important.
After all, if you get a series of beats which all have - say - 7 equal subdivisions (the kind of scenario where you might want some counting system), it should probably be written as something like 7/8 or 7/16 anyway.