First, my core student population is 8 years old and younger. I teach children starting at birth, although I believe strongly that rhythm development begins earlier—at least three, maybe four or five, months earlier. During this time, the aural experience repetition of diverse rhythmic and stylistic repertoire is key. There is no rhythm content that should be off-limits with the relatively rare exception being pieces that have no consistent beat or meter. I wouldn’t necessarily avoid Chopin being played rubato, but I wouldn’t encourage it either. Twentieth century works whose composers actively sought to avoid conventional rhythms and meters would be something I would discourage. Any piece with too much subjective of meter (experts could disagree and both be right) would also be discouraged.
On the other hand, the most complex content of some rhythm traditions, such as northern Indian tabla drumming, I believe would make for extraordinary acculturation. Rhythm repertoire represented in broad categories of traditional jazz, classical, blues, gospel, rhythm and blues, Latin, African, African diaspora, and other styles should comprise the meat of a child’s listening vocabulary, though important potatoes of Rock and Roll should certainly be included. Styles such as Rap, Hip Hop, contemporary R&B, and more do certainly have value. Still, they do not, in my opinion, typically and consistently provide what is an adequate foundation for a child’s rhythm listening vocabulary. The rhythm content simply is not broad enough without the inclusion of my A-list genres. Please understand that I already stated they certainly have value. Perhaps these lower and higher limits are self-imposed due to the level of my personal rhythm aptitude. I won’t deny that cultural bias, too, might play a role. (I’ve opened up a Pandora’s Box.) There are good and band exceptions in every kind of music. I adhere to this as gospel. As Duke Ellington said, "There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind."
Regarding classroom teaching and rhythm learning, I always ask each child to perform (or just listen to) rhythm patterns individually that incorporate these beat functions in this hierarchical order:
A) macro/microbeats (starting at 9 months if they want to),
B) divisions (at 2 years old if they want to using ba-da-ba-da, not bah bah bah bah),
C) elongations (whenever they show me they are imitating if not audiating divisions, as early as 2)
D) pick-ups (whenever a few elongation patterns are imitated or audiated)
E) ties (whenever the above are being imitated consistently)
F) rests - the most difficult patterns. I will try these to find the most rhythmically inclined child, but I’d rather acculturate them, or have them imitate and audiate A-E above. Rest patterns are just silently audiated bits inside all the above patterns.
Rhythm performance alone is not as important as movement alone. Said another way, encouraging a child to move has more value than having them perform rhythm patterns, especially early in life. Large body movements incorporating flow and weight are crucial to a child’s rhythm development. Continuous fluid movement (or CFM) is a major player in what I model for children and parents. But, I do not model CFM exclusively. (I don’t subscribe completely to the common CFM vocabulary I’ve seen. It’s typically far too limited and dynamically flaccid. [Ouch!]) I concentrate on modeling three elements—flow, weight, and space— while keeping a greater emphasis on flow. I move as expressively and as dynamically as possible. I conduct using my entire body, never shying away from being Bernstein, Ozawa, or Ormandy with legs and a full stage, not just upper body on a small podium. Simple and solid macrobeat movements I model keep flowing, moving between beats. Stillness, though, can be a valuable preparation for the next beat if prepared with movement and a demonstrative breath. Coordinating macro and microbeats simultaneously in the body is as important as rhythm pattern performance. Both are crucial.
Rhythm performance combined with movement is that much better. It is content and context happening simultaneously in a physical, objective reality. Further, helping children to feel form while audiating rhythm and moving is the holy grail. I lead function-feeling activities for the purpose of pure acculturation whereas moving rhythmically while performing rhythms has a different purpose of furthering rhythm performance audiation. (For example, the A section of an ABA piece is accompanied by locomotor move and the B is not.) These activities give children the opportunity to acculturate to form, a sort of longitudinal rhythm.
[Ideas for expansion.] Beat keeping is best done with the tongue or mouth first.
Coordinating the voice with rhythmic movement. Rhythmic coordination sequencing.
Why I don’t teach beat functions beyond macro- and micro-beats.
So, say that I have had some children at the 99.99 percentile, (and I’ve had a few in my 30 years since BGE [Before the Gordon Era]) who can perform and create all of the above by the time they’re 6 or 7. I have never felt compelled to teach them the labels of the beat functions. I just didn’t use the terms divisions, elongations, ties, upbeats, and rests. There was no present need. It wasn’t going to help their audiation. Neither were there questions from the children or the sense of them missing something by not having the labels.
Unlike beat functions, the label of a tonal pattern as tonic or dominant is specific. Labeling a rhythm pattern as one with divisions is not specific enough. And what of patterns with many different beat functions? I don’t feel that we’re given them any more meaning to rhythm than by performing it accurately and expressively. That one pattern has macro, micro, and elongations and that another has micro, elongations and divisions does not give you but cursory information relative to the musical meaning of the rhythm pattern itself. Labeling a pattern doesn’t bring any more understanding to the rhythm pattern itself. On the other hand, tonic and dominant functions can be audiated. Divisions cannot (or may I don’t) until you make them specific by putting them into a rhythm pattern that includes divisions. . .or maybe also has macrobeats, or microbeats, or both, or rests, or ties, etc., included with the divisions. A pattern of only divisions is like a pattern of only macrobeats—that is, not useful except at the Theoretical Understanding level of Skill Learning Sequence.
These are my initial thoughts. This is a first draft with a few hours of editing. The writing is not the best. I hope it is clear.
Responses are most welcome.
Recent Comments