An interesting take on rhythm

I revisited Cooper and Meyer's The rhythmic structure of music, an oldie but goodie as theory books go, and one that I think is much more performer-friendly than many. What really struck me this go-round is how they define rhythm:
Rhythm may be defined as the way in which one or more unaccented beats [defined as pulses in a metrical context] are grouped in relation to an accented one (6).

On the one hand, this seems fairly obvious, but for someone who has spent the past few years teaching basic rhythm and meter to freshmen, this was a refreshing wake-up call. Typically, I teach meter first and then talk about rhythm as divisions or groupings of pulses (I know, of course, that this is an oversimplification). What's refreshing about Cooper and Meyer's approach, I think, is that it's a little more flexible and permits us to grapple nicely with things like secco recitative, chant, and a variety of non-Western musics that don't depend on meter. Suddenly, rhythm isn't about grouping and dividing; it's about accent.

Also of interest to me is that their theory applies equally well (and may indeed be better suited for) the analysis of performance. We could take a score and mark it up with colored pencils or some such thing to illustrate how different performers interpret the rhythmic structures in a particular composition.

Beyond loud and soft

Lubbock Symphony Orchestra