Why so few music theory books on rhythm?

I'm rephrasing this subject line because I actually am not searching for books for my own use. I would like to stimulate discussion on why there seems to be so few books about rhythm in music theory sections in the library, and in university courses. I suppose there might be a couple that are like: "Other cultures use polyrhythms! WHOA! ROXORZ!" but that doesn't really tell us much. I'm asking: why the heck is there so little deep discussion about rhythm. For contrast, consider Schoenberg's "Theory of Harmony" text book. It has absolutely nothing about rhythm in it, or says it is simply "out of scope" of the text. Which is obvious of course, but...when I go to the library (the university library) and look in the music section, its all harmony harmony harmony form form form. No discussion about rhythm and melody. None.

It seems to me that harmony is over-stressed in musical academia. The way harmonies, and melodies and rhythms are placed throughout the duration of a composition is where all of the variety comes from, I believe, not from what exact vertical pitches are used at every point in a composition. I can think of many pieces where there might have been all sorts of "proper" things going on with exact vertical pitches going the "correct" ways, but the music was incredibly boring. To me, it is how the notes are organized through time (sorry to reiterate) which makes music good. And it seems very few people recognize this, focus TOO much on harmony, and thus stunt their musical growth. Correct me if I'm wrong!

Ah my ivory-improvising friend... you need to get into indian rhythm. I've been taking a course on it at school and it's amazing how much it frees you up. I've got to run now but I can post some more info later if you're interested.

Peter Erskine (famed jazz drummer) has published a decent text focusing specifically on rhythm...

Amazon.com: Time Awareness: For All Musicians (Book & Audio CD): Books: Peter Erskine

more geared for performance, and assimilating/using new/hip rhythmic concepts, but it might help you in your quest....

...I also found this on amazon, by association. Looks interesting: Amazon.com: Polyrhythms - The Musician's Guide: Books: Peter Magadini

I took a one-week seminar in rhythm at National Guitar Workshop. It was actually really helpful: lots of odd time signature work, polyrhythm, and rhythmic improvisation. I think that the dearth of books dealing with the subject has to do with the fact that a lot of the more advanced concepts of rhythmic theory can just be done by sitting and thinking. Basically, rhythm is more obvious than harmony.

I think that the dearth of books dealing with the subject has to do with the fact that a lot of the more advanced concepts of rhythmic theory can just be done by sitting and thinking. Basically, rhythm is more obvious than harmony.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point. Its not that rhythm is more obvious then harmony, its that the more complex rhythmic theory gets, the harder it is to understand and make clear to others. As you get more advanced, harmony becomes way more obvious than rhythm. As you come across new harmonies notation theories you come to understand them quicker because you've already dealt with the notes and intervals and anything else from previous experience. However, learning a new time signature, breaking down polyrhythms, shortening and lengthening notes and syncopation all become harder the more advanced you get because new, unrelated concepts are always being thrown at you. The first thing I ever learned was rhythm (having studied classical percussion for 10 years) and I still find harmonic theory much easier to understand then rhythmic theory.

Um... I'm not sure I agree with you. Harmony begins quite simple and gets insanely complex at the end of the typical tutelage curriculum.

But you may have a point....

...are you saying that what you learn harmonically builds upon your foundation of harmonic knowledge and makes further study easier? If you are I agree.

However, I think the same is true with rhythm. Try and teach a totally greensleeve how to do a mixed series of paradiddles and then try and show the same sequence to a percussionist and you'll get what I mean.

They are both equally insanely difficult to master.

Um... I'm not sure I agree with you. Harmony begins quite simple and gets insanely complex at the end of the typical tutelage curriculum.

But you may have a point....

...are you saying that what you learn harmonically builds upon your foundation of harmonic knowledge and makes further study easier? If you are I agree.

However, I think the same is true with rhythm. Try and teach a totally greensleeve how to do a mixed series of paradiddles and then try and show the same sequence to a percussionist and you'll get what I mean.

They are both equally insanely difficult to master.

I don't think using paradiddles is a proper example. Paradiddles are also techniques that require coordination which is different than teaching the theoretical concepts of understanding and composing with rhythms just as one teaches the concepts of understanding and composing harmony without really giving technical drills on an instrument.

Yeesh. Well whatever, my point still stands.

All I was trying to say is that I think they're both equal in depth of nuance.

You really have to dot all your t's when you post here.

Oh, get a grip. There is a difference and if factors into the point you were trying to make. Its not about dotting you i's and crossing your t's. There's no need to cry because someone shed a little more light on your argument.

Hey relax... I was just making a joke.

All I'm TRYING(and failing at that) to say is that advanced rhythmic concepts and advanced harmonic concepts have equal potential for depth.

Hey relax... I was just making a joke.

All I'm TRYING(and failing at that) to say is that advanced rhythmic concepts and advanced harmonic concepts have equal potential for depth.

Ok, so I jumped the gun and made a big stink out of what was to be a simple joke. I'm sorry...

I don't disagree that advanced rhythmic concepts and advanced harmonic concepts have equal potential. I said your example teaching someone to play paradiddles is not a proper example.

So I state again...

Teaching someone to play a technical exericse is not the same as teaching someone the theory behind constructing advanced rhythms.

Strangely I have learned the most about rhythm from Walter Piston's Counterpoint. It has his two chapters on melodic rhythm and harmonic rhythm. Harmonic rhythm is one aspect of rhythm that is often neglected but can profoundly improve music, if properly managed.

Also I have a book called Structural Functions in Music by Wallace Berry that is 1/3 about rhythm. He gives many extremely in depth analyses and theories about rhythm on many different levels. Unfortunately his terminology is so complex that I barely understand what he's saying.

Okay.