Rhythm, I - Fundamental Concepts & Terminology in Oxford Music Online

Rhythm, §I: Fundamental concepts & terminology in Oxford Music Online 3/23/11 3:29 PM
Oxford Music Online
Grove Music Online

Rhythm, §I: Fundamental concepts & terminology
article url: http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com:80/subscriber/article/grove/music/45963pg1
Rhythm, §I: Fundamental concepts & terminology
I. Fundamental concepts and terminology

The elements of rhythm are necessarily intertwined in their origin and effect. Thus, for example,
while durations have certain essential properties, one's experience of duration will vary according
to musical context (i.e. given the presence or absence of a regular metre). Nonetheless, this
discussion begins with the duration of single notes, then proceeds to the organization of successive
durations into coherent groups, the emergence of metre and metric listening, and so forth. In
addition, since rhythm and metre are coherent phenomena only for a listener who can capture and
remember the music as it unfolds, the following discussion engages psychological theory and
research to a significant degree.
1. The distinction between rhythm and metre.

A series of events (whether musical notes or the blows of a hammer) is commonly characterized as
‘rhythmic’ if some or all of those events occur at regular time intervals. But being ‘rhythmic’ is not
the same thing as being ‘a rhythm’. For a musician or musicologist ‘rhythm’ signifies a wide variety
of possible patterns of musical duration, both regular and irregular. A musician is apt to observe
that a regular rhythm exhibits metric properties – or, to put it directly, regular rhythms involve metre.
While all music involves some type or rhythm, not all music involves metre. Thus in common usage
the adjective ‘rhythmic’ often signifies what might more precisely be described as a ‘metrically
regular series of events’. However, irregular rhythms can occur in the context of a regular metre
(e.g. syncopated figures and asymmetrical phrase structures), and not all metres require regular or
even patterns of duration (e.g. Bartók's ‘Bulgarian’ rhythms). Thus there is more to the distinction
between metre and rhythm than regularity versus non-regularity.
Broadly stated, rhythm involves the pattern of durations that is phenomenally present in the music,
while metre involves our perception and anticipation of such patterns. In psychological terms,
rhythm involves the structure of the ‘temporal stimulus’, while metre involves our perception and
cognition of such stimuli. Perhaps the earliest recognition of this distinction was made by Butler
(1636; see Houle, A1987). Butler's illustration is given as ex.1; he remarked that in the top staff the
minims go ‘jumping by threes’ whereas in the bottom staff they go by twos, based on the metric
context established in the previous bars. That is, even if the second and third bars are performed in
the same way, we will hear them differently; different perceptual attitudes give rise to different
metres. As Gjerdingen (I1989) has aptly put it, ‘metre [is] a mode of attending’, while rhythm is that
to which we attend.
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.proxy.uchicago.edu/subscriber/article/grove/music/45963pg1?print=true Page 1 of 13
Ex.1 Butler (1636) on metric context and its perceptual effects; repr. in Houle (A1987), 31
Many of the salient differences between rhythm and metre are summarized in Table 1.
While the majority of contemporary music theorists embrace a ‘strong separation’ of rhythm and
metre into separate ontological and analytical domains, not all do so. Schachter (G1987) and
Rothstein (E1989) explicitly de-emphasize the rhythm–metre distinction, preferring instead to
address a more general concept of ‘phrase rhythm’ (see §III, 3). Hasty (G1997) gives an especially
thorough critique of this separation, drawing on the work of Friedrich Neumann (G1959). Hasty
notes that the ‘strong separation’ between metre and rhythm can be traced to 19th-century
theorists such as Lussy (D1885), and he also questions the basis on which rhythm and metre can
interact if such a strong separation exists between them.
2. The perception of duration and succession.

Not all durations are perceived alike, as there are a number of psycho-physical limits on our ability
to perceive durations and durational succession. Hirsh (I1959) demonstrated that two onsets must
be separated by at least two milliseconds (ms) in order to be distinctly perceived, and that at least
15–20ms are required to determine which onset came first. There also seems to be about a 50ms
perceptual decay time – a minimum interval needed to hear one element follow another without
overlap. Hirsh and others (I1990) found that 100ms seems to be the threshold for reliable
judgments of length, and Roederer (I1995) noted that 100ms seems to be a threshold for
processing in the cerebral cortex, and is thus the minimum duration that engages a ‘musical’ (i.e.
learnt) understanding of sound and constructs such as scale degrees and rhythmic archetypes.
The maximum interval for reliable estimates of the length of single durations, as well as for the
connection of successive articulations, is usually 1·5–2·0 seconds. This limit is related to the
limitations of short-term memory and the perceptual present (Fraisse, I1978; Handel, I1989).
Musicians and musicologists have long been aware of these upper and lower bounds, as they
appear in the context of discussions of tempo and performance limits (see, for example,
Westergaard, E1975).
Just as there are perceptual and cognitive biases and constraints on our understanding of duration,
there are also similar constraints on our apprehension of musical texture, some of which impinge
on our understanding of rhythm. In perceptual psychology texture is investigated under the rubric
of ‘auditory streams’ which are the ‘perceptual grouping(s) of the parts of the neural spectrogram
that go together’ (Bregman, I1990). It is through the process of auditory streaming that we are able
to pick out some sounds in our environment and hear them as connected and coherent, whether
they are a single voice in a crowded room or a single part in a complex musical texture. Research
in auditory streaming has shown that pitch, tempo, timbre and loudness are all factors that affect
our ability to segregate sounds into separate streams. Some streaming effects interact with our
perception of duration; for example, Van Noorden (I1975) has shown that when two isochronous
streams cross, an uneven (‘galloping’) rhythm is nonetheless perceived. It is through streaming that
we are able to hear compound melodies, and hence perceive a series of different durations within
a musical surface consisting of even articulations, as in ex.2.
Ex.2 (a) compound melody (b) auditory effect
Along with streaming effects, other factors can influence our perception of duration. As summarized
by Handel (I1989), intensity and/or pitch differences between evenly spaced notes tend to be heard
as durational differences (with a longer duration perceived from the onset of the unstressed or lower
note to stressed or higher note, and vice versa). Similarly, durational differences may be perceived
as differences in intensity or loudness, and the durational and/or intensity difference(s) of one note
may interfere with durational judgments of other notes. Repp (I1995–6) has reported that in metric
contexts listeners expect slight variations in duration, such that actual durational differences may go
unnoticed if they occur where they are expected, or may seem exaggerated if they occur in
unexpected metric positions.
Musical durations (and hence rhythmic groups) are almost exclusively recognized from note onset
to onset. Ex.3 contains three different musical figures: (a) a series of staccato notes; (b) a series of
legato notes; and (c) an arpeggio. While 3a and 3b differ with respect to the absolute value of their
component notes, and while 3c is texturally different from 3a and 3b, all three express the ‘same’
rhythmic pattern – a three-element series with a sense of accent on the first element (prosodically,
a dactyl). While rests between sounds may be salient, most often they inform the perceived quality
of articulation (i.e. staccato versus legato) rather than being heard as musical objects in themselves
(except that in established metric contexts some rests can be heard as having definite duration: see
London, G1993).
Ex.3 Onset patterns
See also HEARING AND PSYCHOACOUSTICS and PSYCHOLOGY OF MUSIC, §II, 2 .
3. Durational patterns and rhythmic groups.

As James noted, ‘To be conscious of a time interval at all is one thing; to tell whether it be shorter
or longer than another interval is a different thing’ (I1890, p.615). Metre obviously plays a crucial
role in the determination of relative duration. Nonetheless, we are also aware of relative durations
in non-metric contexts. The first judgment to be made regarding two successive durations is
whether they are the same or different. This distinction is not as trivial as one might suppose. Within
the range of rhythmic acuity described above, the perception of duration follows a modified form of
Weber's law, in which the just-noticeable difference between two successive durations is
proportional to their absolute length (plus a constant of minimal discrimination: see Allan, I1979).
There are also effects of ordering (whether the longer note comes first or last), pitch proximity and
differences in loudness, all of which influence durational comparisons. If two successive durations
are judged as different, then their difference can be conceived and represented in different ways.
One may simply compare the first interval with the second, using the first as a sort of temporal
yardstick. This strategy may be used when the two durations are close to each other in length. If
the two durations differ to a greater degree, rather than comparing the second directly with the first,
one may relate each to previously established perceptual categories of duration. These categories
may simply be ‘long’ versus ‘short’, or they may be more nuanced (e.g. ‘very long’, ‘long’, ‘medium’,
‘short’, ‘very short’). Such categorical perception of duration has been documented in psychological
studies, and it does not require precise (i.e. proportional) definition of the respective categories
(see Clarke, I1987).
Two or more musical durations may cohere into a larger unit, termed a ‘rhythmic group’. The
creation of coherent, well-articulated rhythmic groups is one of the principal tasks the performer
faces in realizing a musical score: to project a sense that some notes go with other notes, and that
these groups themselves form larger units. From this process the basic musical shapes of a piece
may be discerned.
In the absence of phenomenal cues for group boundaries we will arbitrarily impose a sense of
group structure on a series of events. 18th-century theorists such as Koch (1787) noted this
propensity (see discussion in Hasty, G1997), and in 20th-century psychological studies this is
known as ‘subjective rhythmization’ (Fraisse, in Action and Perception, I1985; Handel, I1989). The
two principal factors that influence group boundaries are proximity and similarity (see Meyer, I1956;
Lerdahl and Jackendoff, E1983; Handel, I1989; and Bregman, I1990). In ex.4a proximity (as well
as placement on a common horizontal line or pitch plane) gives the sense that the series of Xs or
notes is organized into three groups of three. Composers, copyists and engravers have long
understood the importance of note-spacing in projecting a sense of group boundaries. It can be
seen that this proximity is marked from note onset to note onset. In an analogous case which
employed a continuous series of durations (e.g. two crotchets plus a semibreve) we would find the
same grouping structure. Small variations in onset timing may have an impact on proximity
judgments (and hence on grouping structure); the common performing practice of taking extra time
for bowing or breathing following longer notes exploits (and underscores) our innate proclivity to
hear a long note as the end of a group (see Gabrielsson, H1988).
Ex.4b illustrates the effect of similarity on the perception of group boundaries. Even though the
pitches are equally spaced in this example, one again perceives a series of triplets. In ex.4c the
effects of similarity and proximity are combined. As can be seen, proximity is of greater salience
than similarity, for despite the sharp differentiation of pitch, the differentiation of note-onset
proximities creates a series of four-element groups. Group boundaries can be marked by changes
in any musical parameter, including dynamics, timbre and texture. However, grouping is primarily
marked by patterns of duration and timing, with pitch playing an important, though secondary role
(see §III, 6).
Ex.4 (a) proximity (b) similarity (c) proximity versus similarity
Once the boundaries of a group have been established one may describe its internal structure,
though often these two issues are interdependent. Cooper and Meyer (E1960), whose prosodic
approach to musical rhythm has its antecedents in 17th- and 18th-century discussions of
rhythmopoeia such as those of Mersenne (MersenneHU) and Mattheson (C1739), begin with a list
of two or three-element archetypes for musical groups; these involve the relationship between one
accented and one or two unaccented elements in each group (iamb, trochee, dactyl, anapest and
amphibrach). Cooper and Meyer then consider each archetype in various metric contexts. Lerdahl
and Jackendoff (E1983) do not employ durational archetypes in their analysis of rhythmic grouping;
rather, they focus on the determination of group boundaries and on the hierarchical nesting of
subgroups. In Lerdahl and Jackendoff's theory the internal structure of each group is determined by
the interaction of metrical and tonal components (see §III, 3).
The same pattern of pitches and/or durations may allow for more than one grouping interpretation
(ex.5). These various groupings may be differentiated compositionally (for example, by the
patterning of the accompaniment) or by articulative and dynamic cues in performance. The fact that
the same pattern of pitches and durations may give rise to different grouping (as well as metric)
structures has implications for the historical study of rhythmic notation and performance. Rhythmic
notation must somehow inform the performer how to make rhythmic nuances in performance,
either with explicit markings, with hints from spacing and orthography, or through shared
conventions of score interpretation (e.g. metre as an indication of bowing and hence grouping,
characteristic styles of rhythmic performance for various dance genres, and so forth).
Ex.5 Same pitch-durational pattern with different group boundaries
Rhythmic groups may be nested hierarchically, and thus smaller groups may function as composite
elements within a larger group. Ex.6a consists of a pair of simple dactylic groups, while in ex.6b the
dactyls are themselves composed of trochaic subgroups. One reason we are able to hear ex.6b as
a variant of ex.6a is that we treat the grouping structures as commensurate; the elaborations in
ex.6b, while adding extra depth to the rhythmic hierarchy, do not alter the basic rhythmic pattern on
the crotchet level.
Ex.6 Nested rhythmic groups
4. Metre: beats, metric cycles and tempo.

Metre is a structured attending to time which allows the listener to have precise expectations as to
when subsequent musical events are going to occur. Dowling, Lung and Herrbold (I1987) have
studied and described such directed attention in terms of ‘expectancy windows’; Jones and her
colleagues (I1981, 1989, 1990, 1995, 1997) have given considerable attention to the process of
entrainment, whereby one synchronizes one's attention to regular patterns of information present in
the environment. Musical metre, then, would seem to be a particular utilization of our more general
capacities for temporal perception. Thus, while knowing that waltzes are in triple metre tells us
something (at least in broad terms) about their rhythmic structure, it also tells us even more about
the way we listen to and/or perform them.
First and foremost, metre requires an awareness of a beat or pulse. A series of very rapid notes
(such as a sustained tremolo) does not give rise to a sense of metre, nor does a series of very
long or widely spaced notes. Only when we hear a series of regular articulations in a certain range
(from 100ms to 2 seconds apart) does a sense of pulse arise. More familiarly, a 2-second duration
is a semibreve at a tempo of crotchet = 120 (the upper limit), while a 100ms duration is a
semiquaver at a tempo of crotchet = 150 (the lower limit). While these very short and rather long
durations may constitute individual levels of a metric hierarchy, they are at the ends of the metric
spectrum. Psychological research has validated what musicians have long known: we have a
preference for tempos within a narrower subrange of these extremes (see also PSYCHOLOGY OF
MUSIC, §II ). Parncutt (I1993–4) has examined a range of ‘maximal pulse salience’ (from 60 to 150
beats per minute, anchored at approximately 100 beats per minute) wherein pulses tend to be
most strongly felt. Our sense of tempo is not simply based on the shortest (or longest) durations
present in the musical surface, though such durations contribute to the particular quality of motion
present, such as a ‘tense’ adagio or a ‘serene’ allegro. As Epstein (H1995) notes, tempo is an
aggregate effect of the total metric hierarchy – its relative depth, the continuity of its various levels
and so on.
The perception of a beat or pulse is not only necessary for a sense of ‘connectedness’ among
successive events; it may also be necessary for a sense of motion, a temporal/auditory analogue of
the ‘phi phenomenon’ in visual perception (Wertheimer, I1912; Bregman, I1990). The special
salience of the pulse level has been acknowledged in various theoretical models of metre, from
Cooper and Meyer's ‘primary rhythmic level’ (E1960, p.2) to Lerdahl and Jackendoff's ‘tactus’
(E1983, p.71). If the beat level should drop out, we immediately feel suspended in time and await
its restoration.
A sense of beat, while necessary, is not sufficient to engender a sense of metre. Another layer of
organization is also required, giving rise to a metric hierarchy which contains two or more
coordinated levels of motion. Koch (D1782–93, ii) recognized beats (Taktteile) as primary
components of the measure (Takt), while various subdivisions (Taktglieder and Taktnoten) are
produced by analogous partitions of the beat. Weber (D1817–21), with an emphasis on symmetry
as an organizing principle, noted that
"Just as beats together form small groups, several groups can also appear
bound together as beats of a larger group, of a larger or higher rhythm, a rhythm
of a higher order. One can go even further and place such a rhythm of a higher
order with a similar one, or a third, so that these two or three together form yet a
higher rhythm. (1824, pp.102–3; trans. from Morgan, E1978, p.437)"
Thus Weber extended metric relationships both upward and downward, as opposed to earlier
theorists who had begun with the measure and then had proceeded by division. Similar
descriptions can be found in Hauptmann (D1853), who spoke of ‘metric construction inwards and
outwards’, as well as in Riemann (D1903–4), who articulated the principle of Achttaktigkeit to
describe an eight-measure metric schema (see also Klages, E1934; Leichtentritt, E1951).
Given the emphasis on symmetry and the pervasiveness of the systole/diastole metaphor for
musical motion, 19th-century accounts of metre were strongly biassed towards binary principles of
metric organization. Present-day theorists continue the hierarchic approach to metric structure but
have relaxed the strictures on its organization. Cooper and Meyer define metre as ‘the
measurement of the number of pulses between more or less regularly recurring accents’ (E1960,
p.4). Yeston describes metre as the interaction between two adjacent levels of motion (E1976,
p.67).
Lerdahl and Jackendoff note that ‘fundamental to the idea of meter is the notion of periodic
alternation of strong and weak beats’ and that ‘for beats to be strong or weak there must exist a
metrical hierarchy – two or more levels of beats’ (E1983, p.19). They go on to specify how the
metric hierarchy must be organized through a series of metric well-formedness rules. These rules
work in a bottom-up fashion, prescribing that beats come in twos or threes and that beats and
measures be isochronously spaced. Kramer (K1988) relaxes these constraints and allows for the
non-isochronous spacing of beats and hyperbeats (though they still must occur in cycles of twos or
threes).
While two levels of structure will give rise to a sense of metre, most metric hierarchies are more
richly organized. Time signatures used in Western notation since the 17th century specify four
basic metric types, based not only on the organization of each measure into two or three beats, but
also on the organization of beat subdivisions into duplets or triplets (see Table 1). These time
signatures specify three levels of structure and thus define the pacing of rapid, moderate and
slower events in a coordinated fashion. Additional subordinate and superordinate levels of
organization are possible. Subdivisions are constrained by our abilities to discriminate among rapid
stimuli, as individual note onsets become a perceptual blur (as in rapid sweeps in Chopin). Limits
on superordinate levels are more controversial. Clearly there may be a sense of attending above
the measure (see Caplin, D1981, on ‘notated versus expressed’ metres), but the extent of such
‘hypermetres’ remains a topic of considerable debate (see §III, 1).
The beat level of the metric hierarchy serves as the temporal anchor for the other levels. Thus
neither a ‘top-down’ approach (where one starts with the duration of an entire measure or larger
unit and then proceeds to partition that span into beats, and those beats into subdivisions) nor a
‘bottom-up’ approach (where one starts with the shortest durations present on the musical surface,
combines them into beats, and those beats into measures and so forth) is quite right. Rather, a sort
of ‘middle-out’ perspective on metre seems most consonant with the way we attend to (as well as
represent) rhythmic events. For higher and lower levels may come and go over the course of a
piece without breaking its temporal thread; a layer of subdivision may be absent entirely, or freely
change from duplets to triplets without perturbing our sense of temporal continuity. Ex.7 illustrates
how the number of metric levels may fluctuate over the course of the piece, from two or three
above and below the beat in the opening bars (ex.7a) to its distillation down to simple pairs of beats
(ex.7b). (Here and elsewhere, layers of dots under the staff correspond to levels of the metric
hierarchy. A metric event is more or less accented depending upon the number of levels on which it
occurs, indicated by the greater number of vertically aligned dots under that event.) In a very real
sense these fluctuations are changes of metre, as they represent changes in the degree and depth
to which the listener is entrained to the music.
Ex.7 Fluctuation in metric depth over the course of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, first movement
Finally, if metre is a complex mode of musical attending, in characterizing a piece or passage as

‘metric’ one usually means that composer, performer and listener all share the same temporal
perception(s) of the music. If a performer maintains a complex counting framework in the execution
of a musical work, but this framework is aurally inaccessible to the listener, then that musical work
is not metric in the ordinary sense. If the performer maintains one sense of metre while the listener
infers another (which may be possible in a wide variety of contexts), then the music is metric but in
a multivalent sense. If on the other hand the performer maintains one sense of metre but the
listener is unable to infer any sense of metric organization at all, then the music is in some sense
non-metric. Thus the presence of metric notation (whether in Babbitt or Baude Cordier) does not
guarantee the presence of a metre (see §II, 4).
5. Rhythmic and metric accent.

Perhaps the thorniest problem in discussing rhythm and metre involves their respective accents. In
its broadest sense, ‘accent’ is a means of differentiating events and thus giving them a sense of
shape or organization. Many sources distinguish between ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ accent.
These terms originated in discussions of poetry and linguistic accent, and were subsequently
applied to music. Originally, qualitative accent referred to poetic rhythms whose elements were
differentiated by dynamic or intonation stress, as distinct from those differentiated by length. This
opposition in turn informs the distinction that has been made between stress-timed and syllable-
timed languages. Yet, as Handel (I1989) notes, all languages employ both qualitative and
quantitative accents. Moreover, from a perceptual point of view quantitative differences result in
qualitative distinctions, and conversely qualitative distinctions are often perceived not simply as, for
example, difference in dynamic emphasis, but also as differences in duration.
A metric accent marks one beat in a series as especially strong or salient, such that it functions as
a downbeat, while a rhythmic accent makes one element in a series of durations the focal member
of the rhythmic group. Cooper and Meyer, in recognizing the difficulty of pinning down rhythmic and
metric accent, simply said that an accent event is ‘marked for consciousness in some way’ (E1960,
p.8). They distinguished accent from stress, which is the ‘dynamic intensification of a beat, whether
accented or unaccented’. Thus, for example, the dynamic and textural emphasis that occurs on the
second beat of each bar in a mazurka does not displace the downbeat (and hence the sense of
metric accent).
The relationship between tonal motion and rhythmic and metric accent(s) has generated a
considerable amount of discussion, much of it focussing on the accentual status of cadences and
other components of phrase structure (for a summary see Kramer, K1988). Analyses of rhythm and
metre by Schenkerian theorists, most notably in the work of Schachter (E1976, E1980, G1987) and
Rothstein (E1989), engage analogous concerns. Not surprisingly, from a Schenkerian perspective
rhythmic accent is generated via top-down linear processes, as it derives from tonal motions which
serve to articulate various structural levels. Schachter (G1987) also notes that metric accent
accrues to the boundary points of various time spans, and that such spans may be articulated by
both durational and tonal processes. Rothstein, drawing on the work of Koch (D1782–93) and
Schachter, posits that middleground tonal motions are inherently regular, based on symmetrical
archetypes which may be modified or transformed in the foreground. Rothstein also emphasizes
the ways in which rhythmic groups and metric structures tend to be commingled, and so
approaches questions of metre and accent through a consideration of ‘phrase rhythm’ which
includes both metrical and rhythmic components (see also §III, 2).
Other theorists consider accent by focussing on musical motion and on those points which serve as
crucial moments in its ebb and flow. This perspective naturally leads to considerations of metre and
metric accent. Momigny (D1803–6) spoke of an upbeat-downbeat motion (from levé to frappé)
which inheres at both foreground and higher levels. A similar account of arsis and thesis was given
by Riemann (D1903–4), who integrated a recursively applied concept of upbeat-to-downbeat into
an eight-bar metric/rhythmic schema. Zuckerkandl (G1956) developed a wave model of metre,
linking successive upbeat and downbeat motions:
"With every measure we go through the succession of phases characteristic of

wave motion: subsidence from the wave crest, reversal of motion in the wave
trough, ascent toward a new crest, attainment of a summit, which immediately
turns into a new subsidence. … Our sympathetic oscillation with the metre is a
sympathetic oscillation with this wave. (p.168)"
The crest of the metric wave is a point of metric accent, a moment of beginning. The correlation
between a point of beginning and metric accent has been explored by Berry (G1976), who speaks
of ‘reactive’ and ‘anticipative’ impulses and their corresponding accents; this parallels Zuckerkandl's
account of motion from trough to crest (see also Brower, E1993). Kramer similarly defines metric
accent as ‘a point of initiation’ (K1988, p.86). Benjamin (G1984), drawing on the work of Berry,
attempts to quantify and tabulate various factors (harmonic change, relative stability, relative
dissonance, contour, textural density and so forth) which mark such points of initiation and thus
define accent algorithmically; Lester (E1986) espouses a similar approach.
Other theorists have refined Cooper and Meyer's distinction between accent and stress. Epstein
distinguishes stress, rhythmic accent and metric accent. He places metre and rhythm into separate
temporal domains, a ‘chronometric time’ consisting of beats and metric accents, and an ‘integral
time’ which contains pulses and rhythmic groups (E1979, pp.58–62; see also Souvtchinsky,
K1939). Lerdahl and Jackendoff distinguish three varieties of accent: phenomenal accents which
‘give emphasis or stress to a moment in the musical flow … such as sforzandi, sudden changes in
dynamics or timbre, long notes, leaps … and so forth’, structural accents which are ‘caused by
melodic/harmonic points of gravity in a phrase or section’, and metrical accents which accrue to a
‘beat that is relatively strong in its metrical context’ (E1983, p.17). Their metric accent is hierarchic
in nature, in that a metrically accented event on one level is also present on higher levels; these
relationships are indicated by their dot notation which marks the emergent metric grid. In Lerdahl
and Jackendoff's approach metre is read in relation to grouping structure, though it is restricted to a
few levels in the musical foreground (see §III, 2). This hierarchic approach to metric accent has its
precursors in Komar (E1971) and Yeston (E1976) and is also adopted by Kramer (K1988).
6. Interactions of rhythm and metre.

The first question to consider in discussions of rhythm-metre interaction is, ‘Which comes first,
rhythm or metre?’. Hauptmann (D1853), for example, viewed metre and metric processes as prior
to rhythm, while Neumann (G1959) takes the opposite view. Metric priority implies that durational
patterns are understood only within the context of a metric framework (and, on some views, are
generated from that framework; see Johnson-Laird, I1991). The pulse train which is the substrate
of metre may be internal to the listener, or it may be given in the music, but in either case rhythmic
shapes gain their identity in relation to it. Conversely, from the point of view of rhythmic priority, the
metric framework is inferred from the unfolding durations; Lerdahl and Jackendoff (E1983) give a
formalized treatment of such a metric discovery process. On this view it also follows that metre is
not inherently regular, given that it flows from the fluctuating stream of durations. Rather, metricity
lies in the listener's sense of temporal comparison or measurement. At the root of the question of
rhythmic or metric priority are fundamentally different conceptions of time and temporal
consciousness (for a discussion of the historical and philosophical aspects of this issue, see Hasty,
G1997). One may steer a middle course between these two perspectives. When a piece begins, its
metre and tempo are usually not known to the listener, and so the listener must make metric
inferences (usually quickly and without difficulty) from the pattern of durations and stresses that are
given. Once the metre is established it takes on a life of its own; the listener may then project a
sense of accent on to an event even if it is not otherwise marked by duration, dynamics, contour or
harmonic change. Thus at some times a sense of accent flows from the musical surface to the
emerging metre, and at other times from the metre to the unfolding musical surface. Metre is not
constant over the course of a piece, and should the metre falter or collapse later on, the listener
must again seek an appropriate metric framework.
We often speak of conflicts between rhythm and metre. As Hasty has rightly observed, ‘to enter
into conflict metre and rhythm must share some common ground’ (G1997, p.17). In hearing
metrically, a listener also generates a series of rhythmic groups, a pattern of durations and
rhythmic accents. Thus two grouping patterns are usually present in the musical experience: that
expressed by the musical surface, and that generated by the metrically entrained listener. While
often these patterns are perfectly congruent (ex.8a ), quite often they are not (ex.8b). In
Beethoven's ‘Ode to Joy’ there is a one-to-one correspondence between rhythmic and metric
events, and both measures and groups have their boundaries in the same locations. In the Haydn
example, however (ex.8b), the rhythmic groups in the first violin part have a different number of
elements from the metre (which is clearly expressed by the other members of the quartet, who play
a foursquare accompaniment in quavers), and these groups are offset from the metric boundaries
because of anacrustic figures. Nonetheless, in ex.8b these groups are coordinated in a number of
important ways. Both the ‘rhythmic group’ and the ‘metric group’ express the same length. It may
also be observed that in both examples the rhythmic and metric accents coincide – the downbeats
of each bar are also the location for the note which functions as the focal note in each group. In
other words, though groups and measures are non-congruent in ex.8b, the result is not a
polyrhythm or polymetre.
Ex.8 Congruent and non-congruent metre grouping boundaries (a) Beethoven, ‘Ode to Joy’; (b) Haydn, String Quartet
op.33 no.2, first movement, bars 1–3
More serious conflicts occur in the cases of syncopation and hemiola (ex.9). Yeston (E1976) and
Krebs (G1987), building on the work of Sachs (A1953), have described these conflicts in terms of
‘metric dissonance’, and their approach has been taken up by theorists such as Rothstein (E1989),
Cohn (G1992, G1992–3), Kamien (G1993) and Grave (G1995). Metric dissonances occur when
secondary accents and/or group lengths undermine the established metre to the point that a
secondary metric framework may emerge; in ex.9a Holst's melody refuses to settle into the 2/4
framework, but neither can it quite establish a new metre. In ex.9b, however, there is a local shift of
metre, from compound duple to simple triple in the second and fourth bars. Note in this case that
the quaver and dotted minim levels of metre remain the same; the shift occurs only on the beat
level (from dotted crotchets to crotchets and vice versa).
Polyrhythms entail even greater complexity, as they involve the simultaneous (as opposed to
successive) presence of two different rhythmic or metric streams. Thus, for example, if the bass line
in ex.9b maintained the 6/8 metre while the upper part shifted to 3/4, the result would be a true
polyrhythm. Polyrhythms are often described in terms of the presence of two (or more) concurrent
metres (thus, more properly, polymetres); descriptions of metric dissonance often make similar
assumptions. However, work in perception of polyrhythms (Lashley, I1951; Handel and Oshinsky,
I1981; Handel, I1989; Klapp and others, I1985; Grieshaber, I1990; and Jones and others, I1995)
suggests that we are unable to hear two metric frameworks at the same time, but either hear
polyrhythms in terms of a dominant metre, or construct a composite metre to accommodate both
rhythmic streams.
Ex.9 Syncopation and hemiola (a) syncopation in Holst, The Planets, ‘Jupiter’, bars 6–12 (b) hemiola in Gaspar Sanz,
Canarios, bars 9–12
A number of theorists (Cone, E1968; Westergaard, E1975; Benjamin, G1984; Schachter, E1976;
Berry, G1976; Komar, E1971; and Lerdahl and Jackendoff, E1983, summarized in Kramer, K1988)
have concerned themselves with the relationship between phrase structure and metre or, more
precisely, hypermetre. Here the chief concern is the alignment between the tonal structure of a
phrase and the accentual organization of the hypermeasure, especially with respect to the
interaction(s) between cadences and hypermetric accent. A related concern is whether the tonal
structure of the phrase determines the higher-level metric accent or vice versa (see §III, 1).
7. Complex rhythms and complex metres.

While complexities such as hemiola and syncopation may arise from the interactions between
rhythm and metre, rhythmic and metric structures may also exhibit considerable complexity in their
own right. In describing either a measure or a rhythmic group one may note (a) its overall size, in
terms of both its absolute duration and the number of elements it contains; (b) the number of
structural levels it comprises; (c) the variety of its elements (e.g. the range of durational values
within it); and (d) the degree of redundancy in its organization. These factors must be considered
together, for a large number or variety of elements does not in and of itself entail rhythmic or metric
complexity. For instance, ex.10 contains many notes and many levels of metric structure, yet it is
not rhythmically or metrically complex, given the high degree of redundancy in its grouping and
metric structure.
Ex.10 Multi-level, simple metre in Bach, Prelude in C major (Das wohltemperirte Clavier, bk 1)
More complex rhythms involve a variety of contrasting durational values. In ex.11 there is
alternation between a series of short durations and then an extremely long inter-onset interval
between groups. As the metric subdivisions (and indeed almost the beats themselves) lapse during
the grand pauses, the result is both an indeterminacy with respect to the ‘end’ of each group and a
sense of discontinuity between successive metric units. Ambiguity of group organization and/or
boundaries adds to rhythmic complexity. In ex.12 the sense of closure and group articulation that
occurs on the second beat of bar 4 is undermined by the sequential repetition of the motif in bars
5–6; the result is a sense that bars 3–6 form a group in their own right, blurring the cadence in bar
4.
Ex.11 Collapse of metric subdivision in Haydn, String Quartet op.33 no.2, finale, bars 153–9
Ex.12 Indeterminate phrase/group boundary owing to motivic continuation in Haydn, Symphony no.92, finale, bars 1–8
Complex metres involve irregular relationships among elements on a single metric level as well as
between adjacent levels (Jones and Boltz, I1989). The hallmark of complex metres is that some
levels are non-isochronous. In ex.13a , showing a metre commonly referred to as mixed or
alternating, the downbeats are unevenly spaced, but regularity occurs every five beats. In ex.13b
the quavers are too rapid to be felt as beats, and the result is a series of uneven beats with a ratio
of 2:2:2:3. Such 2:3 ratios for the duration of successive beats are characteristic of metres with
complex beat patterns and give the music its ‘limping’ quality (see Brăiloiu, J1951, on ‘aksak’
rhythm). Complex metres typically are indicated with a fractional time signature such as 2+2+2+3/8.
Complex metres also tend to be more fragile, in that they readily devolve into metres with
isochronous beat or measure periods, and in that only a limited range of durational patterns is
possible in any given complex metre. Subdivision is also usually explicitly present to ensure the
intelligibility of the metre.
Ex.13 (a) ‘mixed metres’ in Bartók’s Mikrokosmos, bk 4, no.102, bars 33–7 (b) non-isochronous beats in Dave Brubeck,
Blue Rondo à la Turk, bars 1–3
On a larger scale, the use of constantly changing patterns of rhythm and/or shifting metres adds
another level of structural complexity. Elliott Carter has developed and described the technique of
‘metric modulation’, which he uses in his percussion piece Canaries (ex.14). Of this excerpt Carter
writes that ‘to the listener, this passage should sound as if the left hand keeps up a steady beat
throughout the passage … while the right-hand part, made up of F-natural and C-sharp, goes
through a series of metric modulations, increasing its speed a little at each change’ (F1977, p.349).
Canaries has its antecedents in the use of a series of proportional changes in mensuration in pre-
tonal music.
Ex.14 Metric modulation in Carter, Canaries
8. Additive versus divisive rhythm.

In discussions of rhythmic notation, practice or style, few terms are as confusing or used as
confusedly as ‘additive’ and ‘divisive’. Additive rhythms are said to be produced by the
concatenation of a series of units, such as a rhythm in 5/8 which is produced by the regular
alternation of (2/8 + 3/8). Divisive (or, more often, multiplicative) rhythms are produced by
multiplying some integer unit such that a measure of 2/4 is equal to 2 × 2/8. In addition, additive is
associated with asymmetrical rhythms, while divisive rhythms are often assumed to be symmetrical.
As a result, the first problems that often arise occur in the case of triple metres, which can be
regarded as divisive (e.g. 3/4 = 3 × 1/4) but often involve the pairing of unequal durations (e.g. a
minim plus a crotchet, creating a 2/4 + 1/4 figure, to put it in appropriately metric terms; see Rastall,
A1982). While this problem stems from a conflation of metric beats with rhythmic durations, deeper
confusions regarding additive versus divisive rhythm also occur.
These confusions stem from two misapprehensions. The first is a failure to distinguish between
systems of notation (which may have both additive and divisive aspects) and the music notated
under such a system. The second involves a failure to understand the divisive and additive aspects
of metre itself. Few notational systems are wholly additive or wholly divisive, given the practical
problems such systems create (see §II, 1). Any notational system that uses different orthographic
forms (or patterns of forms, in the case of modal rhythm) for different durations will have to define
their interrelationships in some way, and this is almost universally done in terms of proportional
differences between different shapes. Therefore, on a note-to-note level successive durations will
be expressed in terms of some multiplicative or divisive relationship (e.g. that a given note is half or
twice as long as the note that preceded it). Yet ‘additive’ and ‘divisive’ mean more than simple
note-to-note durational relationships, in that they imply the manner in which a series of durations
coheres into a larger figure. Additive rhythms are constructed and understood from the ‘bottom up’,
while divisive rhythms are constructed and understood from the ‘top down’. Additive and divisive
are therefore claims about the essential nature of the rhythmic hierarchy in a particular piece or
style.
Notational systems that are metrically equivocal tend to give representations of durational
sequences that are neither specifically additive nor divisive. For example, while there is a divisive
aspect to modal rhythm, in that one must see the entire ordo in order to understand which mode is
present, this is not the same as understanding shorter durations in terms of their generation from
longer spans via some process of division. Later Franconian and Petronian refinements of modal
practice, while giving greater precision and flexibility, essentially remain systems representing a
linear series of durations. Such notational systems do not express any hierarchical structure of
either an additive or a divisive nature. This is not to say that the music written in modal notation
cannot contain hierarchical rhythm; one would be hard pressed to claim that pieces which
employed primarily 3rd- or 4th-mode rhythms do not project a sense of metre akin to compound
duple time. Conversely, just because a notational system is hierarchic (i.e. divisive), it does not
follow that the musical rhythms notated under such a system are (see ex.14).
Metre itself contains additive and divisive components, and this suggests that our understanding of
rhythm in general involves both additive and divisive aspects. Psychological studies of metre
indicate that above the level of the beat all metres are additive: 2/4 (1+1), 3/4 (1+1+1) and so forth.
On the other hand, below the level of the beat metric and rhythmic relationships are usually
divisive, in that these shorter durations are given definition through the subdivision of the beat in
simple metres (see Shaffer, H1982). Standard metric pedagogy and practice reveal this basic
distinction between beats and subdivisions: one counts a basic frame additively (‘1 2 3, 1 2 3 …’)
and then interpolates subdivisions within it (‘1 and 2 and 3 e-and-uh, 1 2 and-uh 3 and …’). For this
reason, metric subdivision can come and go over the course of a passage, and even shift from
duple to triple without seriously disturbing the sense of metre. Complex metres differ from simple
metres in that the units of addition, rather than simple isochronous beats, are nested ‘packets’ of
shorter durations which themselves define long versus short beats. While this means that in
complex metres the listener's sense of the subdivision cannot come and go (which may account in
large part for the qualitative differences between simple and complex metres), the counting process
in complex metres remains analogous to the counting of rapid subdivision in simple metres.
Copyright © Oxford University Press 2007 — 2011.

Rhythm, I - Fundamental Concepts & Terminology in Oxford Music Online

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rhythm, I - Fundamental Concepts & Terminology in Oxford Music Online

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rhythm, §I: Fundamental concepts & terminology in Oxford Music Online 3/23/11 3:29 PM

Oxford Music Online

Grove Music Online

Rhythm, §I: Fundamental concepts & terminology

I. Fundamental concepts and terminology

1. The distinction between rhythm and metre.

2. The perception of duration and succession.

Ex.2 (a) compound melody (b) auditory effect

See also HEARING AND PSYCHOACOUSTICS and PSYCHOLOGY OF MUSIC, §II, 2 .

3. Durational patterns and rhythmic groups.

Ex.4 (a) proximity (b) similarity (c) proximity versus similarity

Ex.5 Same pitch-durational pattern with different group boundaries

Ex.6 Nested rhythmic groups

4. Metre: beats, metric cycles and tempo.

Finally, if metre is a complex mode of musical attending, in characterizing a piece or passage as

5. Rhythmic and metric accent.

"With every measure we go through the succession of phases characteristic of

6. Interactions of rhythm and metre.

7. Complex rhythms and complex metres.

Ex.10 Multi-level, simple metre in Bach, Prelude in C major (Das wohltemperirte Clavier, bk 1)

Ex.14 Metric modulation in Carter, Canaries

8. Additive versus divisive rhythm.

Copyright © Oxford University Press 2007 — 2011.

You might also like