The Rhythm Of The Rowing Stroke

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This pendulum action is excellent for smoothing out the rhythmicity of the stroke.<br /><br />There is no need to consider one stroke rate or other, or a certain distance per stroke.<br /><br />If the stroke is bogging down and there is too much time in between them -- you can tell this by being observant -- then the stroke rate is too slow and needs to be faster. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, I agree--as far as this goes. That is why this sort of rowing (rowing in a 1-to-1 ratio) is so attractive to beginners, especially ergers than have never rowed in a boat.<br /><br />In addition to this sort of flexibility of rate, someone rowing this way can use the same flexibility in pressure. Then rowing technique presents no problems at all--ever. You just pull the chain and go as fast or as slow as you want (or can) with no attention to rhythm or stroke mechanics at all.<br /><br />The problem is how to use the sort of rowing to go fast, though. The only way, I think, is to row at high drag, in fact, maximal drag and a high rate. Rowing this way raises two issues, though. First, you can't do this at all in a boat. Second, the energies that can be generated by the complex sequenced and rhythmized levers involved in an OTW stroke are exchanged for brute resistance by the machine and the brute, unsequenced, unrhythmized strength, endurance, and athleticism of the erger. Rowing is turned into weight-lifting, and the question is, I guess, can you go faster on the erg by weight-lifting or by rowing?<br /><br />I am trying to find out.<br /><br />I already know that you can go pretty darn fast by weight-lifting (and forgetting rowing altogether), as you seem to do.<br /><br />I also know that, to me at least, weight-llifting is infinitely less enjoyable, interesting, and challenging than rowing, though, and not just because rowing can be done outside, skimming across a clear blue lake in the cool breezes of a sunny summer day. <br /><br />Part of this enjoyment, interest, and challenge, I think, comes (if you can get it right) from the euphorically complex but effective rhythms of the rowing stroke.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The result is not a 2-to-12 ratio </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sorry. Of course, this should be 2-to-1, not 2-to-12.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

Wow. I have just been rowing to "Row, row, row your boat." I didn't realize that it was so great for grooving into race pace.<br /><br />Indeed, I row right at 30 spm (@ 1:35) when I am singing it in my head (over and over) and pulling on the downbeats in the line.<br /><br />Great 4-beat measure (prepare on beat 4, pull on beat 1)<br /><br />1.7-to-1 ratio.<br /><br />A bit over 10MPS, but what the heck. <br /><br />13.4 SPI, 122 df.<br /><br />Force curve is a perfect semicircle.<br /><br />Really groovin' to the beat!<br /><br />ranger<br /><br />P.S. The triple _pulse_ (between tactical beats) in "Row, row, row your boat" encourages a reduction of the four-pulse preparation to a three pulse preparation: (1) start legs, (2) legs and back, and (3) finish legs. The start of the back can then be put in as a quick upbeat to (2):<br /><br /><br />row----------------------your-------boat----------------------------------gent----------------------ly<br />-3------------------------------------4----------------------------------------1--------------------------<br />-1-----------2-------------3---------1---------------2----------3------------1--------------2---------3<br />-1----2------1------2------1----2---1------2--------1----2----1-------2----1--------2-----1----2---1 <br />------------------------------------start---start----peak-----finish---------pull<br />------------------------------------legs----back-back&legs--legs---------arms<br /> <br /> <br /><br />

[[old] seat5]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 31 2005, 08:23 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 31 2005, 08:23 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br /><br />This 3-beat measure also preserves all of the syncopation and complexity of the more standard 4-beat measure but adds further difficulties. <br /><br />Three-beat measure are indeed possible, though, as a standard variant of 4-beat measures. So for extra speed, it is indeed possible to stay organized rhythmically (i.e., metrical) but not follow the standard 4-measure.<br /><br /> I suppose this 3-beat measure might also have the advantage of foregrounding the echoic recovery and of bringing the six (2 x 3)-beats of the drive into line rhythmically with the three beats of the stroke cycle as a whole. That is, in terms of the drive action itself, this meter is like a polymetrical 6/8  time signature (the drive) running in syncopation across a 3/4 time signature (the stroke cycle). <br /><br />THREE-two-three four-ONE-two---three-four-Two-two-three-four---------stroke cycle meter<br />ONE---two-three-Four-five--six---[ONE-two-three-Four-five--six]-----------drive meter<br /><br />heels-toes-back-legs-arms-hands-heels-toes-back-legs-arms-hands<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think you are talking in circles. At one point you say it is possible and maybe even advantageous to row to 3 beats for racing, and later you say it's possible but you don't like it.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What you suggest rows _off_ the beat, at least, if it is delicately represented. You both prepare and pull in empty metrical space--between and around beats, but never on them, except for the original firing off with the legs, something that anyone can get if they have eyes and ears. None of the other individual gestures in the drive are lined up with beats and given a metrical organization. </td></tr></table> <br /><br />Musically, if you are in 3, with the down beat on 1, there is nothing to stop you from breaking each beat up into 8th notes, 16th notes, triplets, or sextets. Just because you drive on 1 doesn't mean you can assign some rythmic place to the other parts of the stroke. Push against the footplates on 1--that is the beginning of the stroke, or the cox would yell the numbers at some other point in the stroke--open the back at "1 and", pull the arms in on 2, extend them forward on "2 and", forward lean on 3, up the slide on "3 and". Or whatever you want to do. Subdivide it further if you please. Triplitize it or make it into 16th notes if you want to specify more exactly every iota of the stroke. <br /><br />And I still don't see where you are doing the leg drive. You say you are doing the arm pull on 1 and preparing on 1; I just don't get that. If preparing is driving with the legs you are then driving and doing the arm pull at the same time, which can't be what you are doing. <br /><br />Also, 3 beat measures are not "standard variant of 4-beat measures." Where do you get that idea? And how is the downbeat, the beginning of the measure, at the end of the stroke, the arm pull? Wouldn't it be totally absurd for the cox to countl at the arm pull? It seems to me that when the oars enter the water and just start to move against the water is the start of the stroke (that is why the arm pull is at the "finish").<br /><br />I'm doing a long row today so I will try your 4 beats and try doing 1 at the arm pull just to see if I can make if feel natural.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jan 1 2006, 03:03 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 1 2006, 03:03 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is why this sort of rowing (rowing in a 1-to-1 ratio) is so attractive to beginners, especially ergers than have never rowed in a boat. </td></tr></table><br />I agree. It appears that beginners pick up the best rhythm naturally. Thus it can be said that the rhythm method is a natural one. <br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In addition to this sort of flexibility of rate, someone rowing this way can use the same flexibility in pressure. Then rowing technique presents no problems at all--ever. </td></tr></table><br />Just the same "problem" existing for everyone... going faster.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The problem is how to use the (this?) sort of rowing to go fast, though. The only way, I think, is to row at high drag, in fact, maximal drag and a high rate. </td></tr></table><br />I think the drag doesn't matter so much. I prefer a lower drag for distance (70-100), and a higher one for shorter events (100-110).

[[old] ranger]

Seat5--<br /><br />I did not say that you prepare on 1. I said you pull on 1. You prepare on 4.<br /><br />Meters can be duple or triple. A 4-beat meter is just 2 x 2. A triple meter is also possible.<br /><br />If I row to something with a slow triple pulse like "The more we get together," <br /><br />-------1----------------2------ ---3----------4------------duple tactical beating<br />The more we get together, together, together,<br />--3----12-------3------1--2-- 3--1--2---3--1--2-------triple pulse<br /><br />-------1----------------2-----------3--------------4-------duple tactical beating<br />The more we get together, the happier we'll be.<br />---3---12-------3-----1---2----3--1----2---3----1------triple pulse<br /><br />it takes me 11 seconds or so the sing these eight tactical beats. If I pull on each tactical beat, I am in a 1-to-1 ratio and rowing about 44 spm, what I might want to do for a 500m. <br /><br />Yes, you can stay organized at this rate, but I can't row a 2K in this measure. This is more of a 1K or 500m measure.<br /><br />As I have outlined, this meter also involves pulling on the 1s, but now with preparation on the 3s, rather than the 4s, as in a duple (2x2 or four-beat) meter. <br /><br />"The more we get together" is duple (2x2, 4-beat) at the level of the line but given how slow it is, I would row to the tactical beats, not to the downbeats in the line. Yes, technically, the triple pulsing is not a measure, but a "time-span," as some music theorists might call it.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think the drag doesn't matter so much. I prefer a lower drag for distance (70-100), and a higher one for shorter events (100-110). </td></tr></table><br /><br /> <br /><br />When I rowed this way, I used low drag to row all day (and 100K), and that was fine because I only wanted to row 1:48-2:00 pace or so. But rowing this way in a 2K, you will only go fast (e.g., 1:37, as I have done), if you row at maximal drag (or thereabouts), 200+ df. <br /><br />Rowing at 200+ drag, I rowed the third 10K in a my marathon pb at 1:48 (and 32 spm).<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And how is the downbeat, the beginning of the measure, at the end of the stroke, the arm pull? Wouldn't it be totally absurd for the cox to countl at the arm pull? It seems to me that when the oars enter the water and just start to move against the water is the start of the stroke (that is why the arm pull is at the "finish"). </td></tr></table><br /><br />I am claiming that the rhythmic measure/meter of the major events in the stroke are out of phase with the rhythmic phrasing/grouping of the events in the stroke.<br /><br />This isn't normal but it is certainly possible and even quite common. Phrases in popular song often end on 1, rather than 4. Rhythmic action doesn't have to start on a metrical downbeat (many measures are consistently upbeating). It is also entirely possible for rhythmic action to end on a downbeat, for instance, if it is _exclusively_ upbeating, if the purpose of the whole rhythmic action is to deliver the downbeat.<br /><br />This is exactly what happens in the drive of the rowing stroke. Everything is preparation and delivery of the physical force that accumulates through the drive and is passed along from the legs and back to the finalizing pull with the arms. Actionally/propulsively, nothing follows but the run of the boat (the spinning of the wheel) as a result of the force delivered (and terminated) at this point. The rest of the stroke is recovery.<br /><br />The cox counts to the events in the rhythmic phrasing not to the events in the meter.<br /><br />Do you ever hear coxes counting ONE-two-three-One-two-three-One-two-three, beating out the measure, counting on the drive with the legs (i.e., the 1) as well as with the beats on the recovery? I hope not! Because that is probably not the meter at all. To do this is _totally_ discombobulating.<br /><br />Rowing in close to a 2-to-1 ratio is not rowing in a triple meter (oom--pah--pah). It is rowing in a duple, 4-beat, meter, like "Row, row, row your boat." <br /><br />ranger

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jan 1 2006, 10:08 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 1 2006, 10:08 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And how is the downbeat, the beginning of the measure, at the end of the stroke, the arm pull? Wouldn't it be totally absurd for the cox to countl at the arm pull? It seems to me that when the oars enter the water and just start to move against the water is the start of the stroke (that is why the arm pull is at the "finish"). </td></tr></table><br /><br />I am claiming that the rhythmic measure/meter of the major events in the stroke are out of phase with the rhythmic phrasing/grouping of the events in the stroke.<br /><br />This isn't normal but it is certainly possible and even quite common. Phrases in popular song often end on 1, rather than 4. Rhythmic action doesn't have to start on a metrical downbeat (many measures are consistently upbeating). It is also entirely possible for rhythmic action to end on a downbeat, for instance, if it is _exclusively_ upbeating, if the purpose of the whole rhythmic action is to deliver the downbeat.<br /><br />This is exactly what happens in the drive of the rowing stroke. Everything is preparation and delivery of the physical force that accumulates through the drive and is passed along from the legs and back to the finalizing pull with the arms. Actionally/propulsively, nothing follows but the run of the boat (the spinning of the wheel) as a result of the force delivered (and terminated) at this point. The rest of the stroke is recovery.<br /><br />The cox counts to the events in the rhythmic phrasing not to the events in the meter.<br /><br />Do you ever hear coxes counting ONE-two-three-One-two-three-One-two-three, beating out the measure, counting on the drive with the legs (i.e., the 1) as well as with the beats on the recovery? I hope not! Because that is probably not the meter at all. To do this is _totally_ discombobulating.<br /><br />Rowing in close to a 2-to-1 ratio is not rowing in a triple meter (oom--pah--pah). It is rowing in a duple, 4-beat, meter, like "Row, row, row your boat." <br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Well, I've just spent the morning watching some World Cup Rowing and pretty much without exception it was easy to count this way.<br /><br />1...2...3...1...2...3...1<br />1Catch.2Release.3Recover.1Catch<br /><br />This is a ratio of 2, with time between the counts equal, i.e. 1 time period for the Drive and 2 time periods for the recovery. Of course this relies a bit on the definitions of Drive and Recovery, and I define Drive as being the time when the system is suffering no negative acceleration. i.e. it is either maintaining or gaining speed. Every other part of the stroke is Recovery, regardless of the direction of body parts WRT the hull.<br /><br />ErgMonitor data suggest that 3 different people rowing at 1:25 could produce the following variations in ratios and rates.<br /><br />DF=138, 1:1.31, SR=43.0<br />DF=109, 1:2.48, SR=33.9<br />DF=157, 1:1.56, SR=33.5<br /><br />All 3 are reasonably competent on the Erg, but we can easily see that the variations available are quite large. These figures were taken from the final 100m of what I call the "500m Protocol" (100m to get into the swing, 300m at Race rate/Pressure, final 100 'Put the hammer down').

[[old] seat5]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I row to something with a slow triple pulse like "The more we get together," </td></tr></table> <br /><br /> In musical terms, are you saying that you can think of it as 4/4 meter, with the quarter notes broken into triplets, which can also be written as 12/8 time? This gives "the" an 8th note, and "more" 2 8th notes, so that there's an emphasis on "more", and the same with "we get"--the "we" gets one 8th note, and the "get" gets 2...the togethers break evenly into triplets.<br /><br />Your "8 tactical beats" are then 2 measures, yes?<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->it takes me 11 seconds or so the sing these eight tactical beats. If I pull on each tactical beat, I am in a 1-to-1 ratio and rowing about 44 spm, what I might want to do for a 500m. </td></tr></table> <br /><br />My whole point is that you shouldn't use a 4 beat measure to start with and then break it into triplets anyway. Or sing slower!! You should use a 3 beat measure that's not tied to a particular lyric that makes you want to sing it in 11 seconds, and not break it up. So you won't end up at 44 spm. If you used a 3 beat measure, as in Oom Pa Pa, each stroke would be a measure, and you can just do the measures at whatever SPM you choose. Oom would be pushing off with your feet. Pa is arms forward, Pa is up the slide (in simple terms; of course you can add in all the subdivisions if you want to, but why?) This gives you a drive /recovery ratio of 1:2, instead of 1:1, which you say yourself you do not like. If you end up at 1:1 then back off the SPM so you don't rush the recovery. <br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you ever hear coxes counting ONE-two-three-One-two-three-One-two-three, beating out the measure, counting on the drive with the legs (i.e., the 1) as well as with the beats on the recovery? I hope not! Because that is probably not the meter at all. To do this is _totally_ discombobulating. </td></tr></table> <br /><br />When I do Level 4 workouts I've used a metrenome (though it's not supposed to be the best way to stick to a certain SPM, so nobody think Mike Caviston recommends this, because he doesn't) and if I'm supposed to be on 16 it beats 48. This metrenome can be set to make a louder sound on the downbeat, which I use to start the drive on, and basically each stroke takes a whole measure by itself. At the second beat my hands go forward, followed by forward lean, and at the 3rd beat my legs bend and I proceed up the slide just in time to drive again on 1. It is not discombobulating at all. It is very disciplined and feels very strong. I haven't done this at higher rates than 22, though. At 25--27, which is what I'm usually at for 6K, 10K, distances like that, I haven't actually used the metrenome but am conscious of feeling the 1-2-3 beat. As I said before, in a frantic ending sprint I have no idea what ratio I'm at. I just want to finish before I die and that's all I can think of besides the pace on the meter. <br /><br />As I mentioned before, on my long row today I'll try 4 beats, and I'll use a metrenome set at 4 x the SPM I want to keep it even. Either you are taking 2 beats to go each direction on the slide, which makes it a 1:1 ratio, or you are doing the drive in 1 beat and the recovery in 3, for a 1:3 ratio, which seems short on the drive and long on the recovery for me. I'll post back on results and what the corresponding force curves look like. Should be interesting.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I did not say that you prepare on 1. I said you pull on 1. You prepare on 4. </td></tr></table> <br /><br />Oops, sorry, I screwed up what I was trying to say. But refer to your post #46. There you say you pull with the arms on 1 and also start the legs 1. Ah.... Do you mean you start BENDING your legs to go up the slide at the same time you pull your arms in? That is still not a sensible sequence to me but it's better than pushing off the footplates at the same time you pull your arms in. I think some of what you are trying to say is getting lost in the translation, and vice versa. Perhaps the dashes and numbers are not always lining up on my screen exactly the way you type them in?<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Everything is preparation and delivery of the physical force that accumulates through the drive and is passed along from the legs and back to the finalizing pull with the arms. </td></tr></table> <br /><br />This makes me wonder why your force curve doesn't go upwards at the end at the arm pull...which you are calling the finalizing pull....odd to call a finalizing movement the beginning of the movement....<br /><br />I don't know if I will ever totally understand what you are saying, or agree with it if I do, but you are certainly making me think, which can't be all bad.<br /><br /><br />

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, I've just spent the morning watching some World Cup Rowing and pretty much without exception it was easy to count this way. </td></tr></table><br /><br />A meter is a beating, a felt force contour, and therefore a rhythmic response, not an objectively observable spectacle, like timing/ratio. Meter also has certain standard properties that have no inherent relation to timing: duple or triple alternation, strong-initial and then steadily falling contours, hierarchical structuring, recursively embedded measuring built out of three levels of beating, and a whole range of preferences that match metrical response (i.e., where to beat, etc.) with perceptual input of various sorts. Meter does indeed have one important correlation with clock time. We prefer that the strongest level of beating (what musicians call tactical beating) occur at about the speed of the heartbeat, although with a pretty wide variation (40-140 bpm). Besides this, though, meter has no intrinsic relation to clock time. Beating and timing (by the clock or other sorts of external observation) are very different things. Spans of objective duration (timings, ratios), in and of themselves, have no felt force, no pulsation, no declining contours, no hierarchical organization, no "measuring" in the rhythmic sense. Timing is an external/objective spatialization of meter. Meter is inherently internal/subjective and processive. <br /><br />Yes, you can observe how a boat/erger is moving along in something like a 2-to-1 ratio, spending twice as much time on the recovery as on the drive. (This is exactly what I do when I am rowing and am locked into a 4-beat meter). But in and of itself, this observation says nothing about the metrical organization of the rowing, as experienced by the rowers. For this, you would have to know what beats are being experienced, at how many levels, in what patterns, and so forth. A rower who is rowing to Oom-Pah-Pah when going along in a 2-to-1 ratio is rowing to a very different meter than a rower who is going along in a 2-to-1 ratio and rowing to "Row, row, row your boat." Rhythmically, these two rowers are responding very differently and therefore ordering, marshalling, and delivering different sorts of energies. <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There you say you pull with the arms on 1 and also start the legs 1. </td></tr></table><br /><br />No I don't.<br /><br />Downbeats do not have to be at the beginnings of actions. Actions can end on downbeats. Happens all the time. As I said, many phrases in popular song do this, as a standard practice. Their phrases end on downbeats. Of course, in a 4-beat measure, phrases can also end on beats 2 or 3 instead of 4. The most natural 4-beat forms in poetry and song (hymn meters of various sorts) often have three-beat phrases rather than four, even though they are not in a 3-beat meter but a 4.<br /><br />-1---------2---------3-----------4<br />Hickory, dickory, dock<br /><br />-------1----------2---------3------4<br />The mouse ran up the clock.<br /><br />The meter here is _not_ triple at the line level. There are _four_ tactical beats per line, the fourth beat in each line being unvoiced.<br /><br />You need to distinguish phrases from measures! Do you know the difference? Phases (of various sorts, at various levels) can run every which way across measures (of various sorts, at various levels). Meter and grouping/phrasing are very different components of rhythm, with very different properties, possibilities, preferences, perceptual sources, effects, and so forth. At certain levels in many standard rhythmic structures, meter and grouping/phrasing are diametrically opposed. Prolongation and theme are also distinct rhythmic components, both from one another and from meter and grouping/phrasing.<br /><br />I don't doubt that you can row to a ONE-two-three, OOM-pah-pah, meter. Of course you can, if you are in a 2-to-1 ratio. I am just claiming that, if you do this, you miss the possiblity of taking advantage of the special energies in the meter of a good rowing stroke. In essence, you miss the meter entirely and just go with the phrasing, and even so, the simplest of the phrasal distinctions, the divisioning between drive and recovery. You respond rhythmically as though you are watching yourself row and timing the drive-recovery ratio, like a metronome, rather than responding rhythmically by _feeling_ yourself row, like someone holding the oars, preparing to pull (toes--heels--back--legs), building up energy through the drive--and then pulling.<br /><br />By the way, how strong is the stroke you use (in terms of SPI)? Are your legs fast enough so that you suspend yourself from the handle on each stroke when you plant your heels and lift with your back, accelerate your back and legs in the center of the drive, finish with your legs, and then pull through with your arms?<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE<br />There you say you pull with the arms on 1 and also start the legs 1. </td></tr></table><br /><br />The legs do indeed start at a metrical downbeat, a 1, but not in the _superordinate_ measure that is the stroke cycle, in the _subordinate_ measure that spans from the 4th beat in the stroke cycle to the 1st beat in the next stroke cycle. For one whole tactical beat (and the delicate realization of beating at low levels within the span between this tactical beat and the next tactical beat) we prepare for the arm pull by pushing off with our legs, setting our heels and lifting with our back, accelerating our back and legs to a maximum, and then finishing with our legs: 1-2-3-4.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

Ah. Perhaps this might help. The parallel is far from exact, but...<br /><br />This poem represents (in certain nice ways) how I beat out a meter in the drive when I row. When I beat to my rowing, downbeats come at the _ends_ of the stroke cycles, with the arm pull, just like the downbeats in the meter here come at the ends of visual lines (on the _WE_s). In this case, phrases are also enjambed across lines, and this is not at all what happens in the rowing stroke, but perhaps this hints at the difference between how I row and an OOM-pah-pah alternative. This parallel is also nice because the phrasal peaks are centered in visual lines and come before the downbeats in the meter.<br /><br />We Real Cool<br /><br />The pool players.<br />Seven at the Golden Shovel.<br /><br /><br />We real cool. We<br />Left school We<br /><br />Lurk late. We<br />Strike straight. We<br /><br />Sing sin. We<br />Thin gin. We<br /><br />Jazz June. We<br />Die soon.<br /><br /> ---Gwendolyn Brooks<br /><br />Nice!<br /><br /> <br /><br /> 2---------------------3------------------------1---------------------<br />real-----------------cool---------------------We<br />recover-----------prepare------------------pull<br />rest-rest-rest-rest-toes-heels-back-legs-arms-hands-rest-rest<br />-2----2----3----4-----3-----2-----3-----4----1------2-----3-----4-<br /><br />This is a 1-to-1 ratio, but a triple meter.<br /><br />I would do this at about 44 spm, as in a 500m trial.<br /><br />Fast stuff, if you are using a big stroke, as I am now!<br /><br />ranger<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />ranger

[[old] Mewsician]

I’ve got rhythm!<br />I’ve got rowing!<br />I’ve got my Erg!<br />Who could ask for anything more?<br /><br />I’ve got phrasing<br />In all metres<br />I’ve got downbeats<br />Who could ask for anything more?<br /><br />Rupp & Ranger<br />I don’t mind them<br />You will find them<br />On my Ignore <br /><br />I’ve got rhythm<br />I’ve got rowing<br />I’ve got my Erg<br />Who could ask for anything more?<br />Who could ask for anything more?<br /><br />(And by the way, “The More We Get Together” is classic Oom-pah-pah, i.e. triple metre.) <br /><br />It’s so amusing to observe people discuss music from a literary standpoint. I’m glad I was pointed toward this discussion. Most enjoyable!<br />