DRUMMER CAFE

  I'm not sure I understand what you mean that the second tap falls on every other Quarter note. Do you mean that the sticking alternates every other Measure?

  r r l l r r l \  l r r l l r r \ l l r r l l r \ r l l r r l l \ repeat

You guys are wrong.

Double the 5 in the same time as you normally would.  I do this stuff all the time.

RLRLR LRLRL RLRLR LRLRL  5's

rrllrrllrr llrrllrrll rrllrrllrr llrrllrrll  10's or go to a "press" roll

really cool sounding

It gets hard when you go into odd time measures or add rests.

Maybe I don't get side's meaning of "groupings"

Permutating diddle inversions will definitely lead to some complicated sticking within the realm of quintuplets which I probably mistakenly call "5's" (it's easier though isn't)...you will be getting some polyrhythms going on and have to "feel thru" the time.  Heavy stuff.

I thought you just meant playing single 5's and then doubling them.  But if you are going to group the 5's with say for example 3's (3 beats of snare, 3 beats of kick) you will be grouping "inside" the 5's across measures, which is heavy doo doo you are getting into.  It's hard enough doing that stuff within conventional groupings of 4's (sixteens) and 6's (sextuplets).

I normally don't deal with sevens except for fast singles...interesting idea about permutating in some diddles though with these 5 and seven note groups.

Polyrhythms and odd groupings are in my book, the toughest stuff I attempt.

Ok, i like to think I have a pretty good theoretical grasp on this stuff, but you guys are confusing me!!

Side, what your saying, IMO, is completely symmetrical.  Your saying 5:4, but you are simply writing quintuplets, which is just 5:1, which is NOT a polyrhythm at all.  Yes, it is difficult sticking, but still not polyr's.   Now if you were to play in cut time an 8th note quintuplet and play both quarter notes with the bass, that would be a polyrhythm, it would be 5:2.  But a 16th not quintuplet over one quarter note is not poly, it's just an odd grouping, as is a triplet.  

From what I gather you are just talking about advanced stickings over odd groupings, is that correct?

Yeah but you could make side's example a poly really quick, just add kick/hat and accents on that first right hand stroke.

5:1 ?

I think a quintuplet would be 5:4 with the quarter being the downbeat last I heard.

Wild stuff maynard.

Rlhubley is exactly right; I think Side and Felix are misunderstanding this a bit ... as we are not on the same page.

If you play a five-note grouping, such as five sixteenth notes, you would call it a quintuplet. If you play one of these quintuplets it would take up the span of one quarter note. If you then apply it to 4/4 time, you could only play 4 quintuplets per measure. THIS IS NOT A POLY-RHYTHM.

If you played these quintuplets with your hands while you played eighth-notes on the kick drum at the same time .... the 5 notes (quintuplet) per quarter-note in the hands, and the 2 notes (eighth notes) per quarter-note in the feet ... it's this relationship which creates the polyrhtym of 5:2 ... THIS IS A POLY-RHYTHM.

Poly means "many" ... Polyrhythm means "many rhythms". For there to be a polyrhythm there has to be two opposing rhythms played at the same time.

If you wanted to play 5:4 which means a ratio of 5 against 4, you would have to play your quintuplets in your hands while you play 4 sixteenth notes in your feet ... that would be a polyrhythm. Playing quarter notes in the kick drum while you play quintuplets is NOT a polyrhythm ... it's just 5:1 which is not a polyrhythm.

Playing 5's or 7's is called Odd Note Groupings. You can check out a lesson on my website which is a good example of a odd note grouping.

Quintuplet Patterns

OK, I see what's happened. First of all, I never said the word "polyrhythm" anywhere; someone else did. I do know what a polyrhythm is, and I didn't use the word quintuplet because I wasn't just talking about fives. But I did type 5:4 which is a way of *saying* polyrhythm. So I had to dig through and find my Chaffee book to figure out where the miscommunication happened.

If any of you have Gary Chafee's "Rhythm and Meter Patterns," turn to page 15 where he talks about "other numerical subdivisions of the quarter note." He writes that one quarter note can equal 5 subdivisions. He writes it as five 16ths per quarter, or five 16ths with the 5:4 bar spanned across them. So I'm not wrong in using the term 5:4. (either that or both me and Gary are wrong ) But I can see where it could lead to confusion.

If I could notate in this message board, I'd show you all what I mean very easily, but I can't. Intersting thing is that you've all commented on the way it's been described, but none of you have talked about whether you've tried it. It's a hell of a lot of fun! I'm just taking Chaffee's lessons and expanding them... instead of single strokes, I'm doing doubles and triples, or, put another way, instead of RL, I'm doing RR, instead of RLR I'm doing RRR.

Comprede?

thanks rlhubley...

But (all due respect) you're wrong in calling it 5:1. A group of five 16ths over a quarter note value, according to Chaffee, is written as 5:4. I believe because the "4" relates to "quarter note." In your definition of 5:4, you're talking about a polyrhythm (5 notes within a 4/4 measure [4 quarters]), which is not what we're talking about, although I can see how the confusion might happen. Gotta get the idea of polys outa yer head.

It makes no sense to call it 5:4 if you are only playing quintuplets in 4/4 time. 5:4 denotes a polyrhythm ... and it's not a polyrhythm.

If Chafee says what you seem to be saying, it's not correct; it's a typo or a misprint.

Your not playing 5:4 or 7:4 ... you are just playing odd groupings which simply called Quintuplets or Septuplets. There's absolutely no need to notate it as 5:4 or 7:4 unless you are adding accents that makes it sound like a polyrhythm of 5 against 4 or 7 against 4.

sweeeeetttt!   As usual, the great hubley is not wrong!!  HA HA HA  LOL at my own sarcasm, and self-esteem issues that make me have to congratulate myself.   Which is really just sad.