the most technically impressive song?

proglil49 wrote: Is it just the guitar that has to be technically or is it the whole musicianship? For the guitar, I'd go with The Extremist, by Joe Satriani, or some Dream Theater song (like Octavarium), but if we consider every instrument, I say Zappa's The Grand Wazoo.

Behold...The Arctopus - Alcoholocaust

Atavachron wrote: FruMp; make sure to check out Blotted Science with Zelany and Jarzombek..  album Machinations of Dimentia

Cheers, I'm suprised I hadn't heard of them earlier.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: BTW: 4.5/4 is probably better noted as 9/8.

Mathematically, yeah, you're right, but 9/8 is played usually as a collection of grouped triplets (slipjig time), and the section of the song I'm talking about isn't in triplets at all. Which is why I wrote what I wrote. But yeah I'd get yelled at for writing that in my composition class (and Fripp would get yelled at for writing Fracture if he was in my composition class).

[/QUOTE]

Playing 9/8 as 3+3+3/8 is just one option ... especially in prog rock it's often played as 2+2+2+2+1/8. It's essentially one bar of 4/4 with an extra 1/8 note added to confuse people. Similarly, 7/8 can be seen as one bar of 4/4 cut one 1/8 note short to confuse people.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: BTW: 4.5/4 is probably better noted as 9/8. Mathematically, yeah, you're right, but 9/8 is played usually as a collection of grouped triplets (slipjig time), and the section of the song I'm talking about isn't in triplets at all. Which is why I wrote what I wrote. But yeah I'd get yelled at for writing that in my composition class (and Fripp would get yelled at for writing Fracture if he was in my composition class).

Playing 9/8 as 3+3+3/8 is just one option ... especially in prog rock it's often played as 2+2+2+2+1/8. It's essentially one bar of 4/4 with an extra 1/8 note added to confuse people. Similarly, 7/8 can be seen as one bar of 4/4 cut one 1/8 note short to confuse people.
[/QUOTE]

Trademark wrote: "Playing 9/8 as 3+3+3/8 is just one option ... especially in prog rock it's often played as 2+2+2+2+1/8. It's essentially one bar of 4/4 with an extra 1/8 note added to confuse people. Similarly, 7/8 can be seen as one bar of 4/4 cut one 1/8 note short to confuse people." Mike this is purely and simply INCORRECT. Just because the beats add up to nine does not make it 9/8 (or 9/4 or whatever). 9/8 is a triple meter with a triplet subdivision of the beat. It is best described as being "felt" as 3/4 time with triplets rather than straight eight notes. That is the ONLY 9/8 time there is.

This is purely and simply INCORRECT.

Trademark wrote: The technique you are describing here is called "additive meter" and is very different. These meters should be written as an equation: i.e (3+2+4) / 9. This particular example is how the Apocolypse in 9/8 SHOULD BE WRITTEN but its not nearly as catchy sounding.

So what you're telling me is how you think it should be written, and not how it actually *is* being written.

Trademark wrote: The main source of confusion about additive meters comes from folks who have a small smattering of music knowledge and have misunderstood the concept and then proclaimed their mis-information as musical fact.

Maybe it also comes from the fact that most of the time 9/8 is noted as 9/8.

Trademark wrote: Anytime you make groupings of beats (mixtures of accented patterns of 2, 3 or 4 beats) in this manner, what you are dealing with is additive meter. 7/8 is NOT 4/4 with one less eight note. It is an additive grouping of (usually) either 4+3 or 3+4 beat groups which are accented so as to be able to "feel" the difference. If the accent pattern changes the meter signature must also change. The remaining "7" meter would be 2+3+2 but it isn't seen very often. 2+2+2+1 cannot exist because the "1" cannot be accented and "felt" as a beat group. "1" cannot be a group.

If I have a 2+2+2+2/8 groove (=4/4) and then the drummer simply combines the last 1/8th note of the bar with the first 1/8 note of the following bar and doesn't change anything else ... how is that not a 2+2+2+1/8 groove?

Trademark wrote: Please be sure you have your music theory straight before you announce things you might not understand as fact.

I'll continue posting anything I want. Sue me!

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: BTW: 4.5/4 is probably better noted as 9/8. Mathematically, yeah, you're right, but 9/8 is played usually as a collection of grouped triplets (slipjig time), and the section of the song I'm talking about isn't in triplets at all. Which is why I wrote what I wrote. But yeah I'd get yelled at for writing that in my composition class (and Fripp would get yelled at for writing Fracture if he was in my composition class). Playing 9/8 as 3+3+3/8 is just one option ... especially in prog rock it's often played as 2+2+2+2+1/8. It's essentially one bar of 4/4 with an extra 1/8 note added to confuse people. Similarly, 7/8 can be seen as one bar of 4/4 cut one 1/8 note short to confuse people.   You're right about the notation - 4.5/4 not only looks ugly, you'd find few software packages that'd allow it   But traditionally, 9/8 is 3 dotted crotchets to the bar, giving a feeling of 3/4 with a triplet swing.   In 20th Century music, of course, anything is possible...

"Traditionally" ... maybe you're right, especially if you're looking specifically at Classical music or traditional Jazz. But not in Prog! Maybe I'll post some examples later ... but I'm pretty sure that (3+3+3)/8 is very, very rare in Prog. You're of course welcome to post some examples to prove the contrary ...
[/QUOTE]

That's assuming, of course, there is something called Prog that can be classified like that. Which there isn't.

"So what you're telling me is how you think it should be written, and not how it actually *is* being written."

What I'm saying is that 9 years of formal music study and 9 years more teaching music theory at university trumps your false assumption.

"If I have a 2+2+2+2/8 groove (=4/4) and then the drummer simply combines the last 1/8th note of the bar with the first 1/8 note of the following bar and doesn't change anything else ... how is that not a 2+2+2+1/8 groove? "

It most certainly is not. The example you give equals 2+2+3/8. All beat groupings are broken down into two's, three's and four's. 1 IS NOT A GROUP!

As I said earlier in this thread music in additive meters that are "written" in simple terms; e.g. 9/8, 7/8 etc, are artificial or false meters. They "exist" only as a mathematical concept (or more accurately a mathematical construct) This is basic sophomore level music theory. The first thing any player will do when faced with this sort of piece is figure out the beat groupings and draw in the proper barlines to make it playable. No musician will EVER count to 15 or 17 while playing. Most won't even count to 9 (and since a true 9/8 is in triple time they only count to 3, and it will always be conducted in 3), and some won't even count to seven. They'll re-draw the barlines on the page to correct the composer's error.

And yes, composers make lots and lots of errors. Ask any orchestra musician. Just because a composer writes it down doesn't make it real or right. Conductors have to make all kinds of corrections to Beethoven's symphonies in order to be performed. Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony has a long section written in 5/4 and it is a common theory excercise to have students "correct" it. It is actually alternating measures of 3+2 and 2+3. You might want to call it 10/4 just to make it sound more impressive but it's not. Since the accent emphasis changes with each measure the meter sig needs to follow suit. 3+2/4 | 2+3/4 | 3+2/4 | 2+3/4 | etc.

Paul Hindemith (German composer BTW) wrote a string quartet (No. 4, I think) where each measure of one movement has a different number of beats. Hindemith was smart enough to know that this doesn't mean that the meter changes every measure. It takes repetition to establish a meter before it can be "changed". Hindemith knew the piece simply had an 8th note pulse. he drew the barlines in to mark out the phrasing for the players, but put no meter signature in the piece at all. The performance instructions are: 8th note = 60 BPM. Simple and extremely playable as a result. No confusion of artificial meters, no changes to watch for; just a simple tempo and clean notation. Typical German ingenuity.

I've had 6 years of composition study and it is still not unusual when my pieces are being played for the first time to have players ask "Why the hell did you...?" One of my early pieces was written with a large number of simpllified additive meter sigs (I thought I was being so cool), and the conductor and I had a LOOONG sit down about why that was such a bad idea. The offshoot was that I re-barred the whole piece (giving it even more meter changes as a result) and had a great performance by the Kiev Philharmonic Chamber Orchstra as a result.

Additive meters are as simple as dirt and and ten times more logical than your mis-conception. I would have thought that someone with your math background would find the simplifcation of the process appealing. Music is simple, but that doesn't make it easy. The hardest music to play well is often the simplest.

Just because someone writes 9/8 on a piece of music paper doesn't make it real. It's a bit like saying that "lksdf[a0s9xhergo8" means bathroom when it only means bathroom to YOU. Put that sign on the bathroom door and people will still ask you where the bathroom is every day because your sign doesn't make sense. Similarly, writing 9/8 when what you want is 3+2+4/8 will have the same effect. The musicians will stop playing and ask you what you want from this passage because they don't understand your sign. As Bill Engvall might say, "Mike, here's your sign." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upXayzBPuzM

The fact is that additive meters are THE CORRECT musical reality.   Who knows why a composer might choose to ignore this. Maybe to avoid lots of meter changes, maybe, as in Tchaikovsky's case, to save ink. Lots of musical "shorthand" that is still in common use came from the days of pen and Ink composition. Or maybe, like me when I was young, to make the music look really complicated and awesome. Suffice it to say not one of them would believe that 13/8 is a true meter. Anyone with even a basic music education knows it is additive meter made up of groups of 2, 3, & 4 beats that form a consistent repeating pattern.

So if what you are trying to do here is make this more complicated than it really is, I have to ask why? Are you so insecure that you need to make the music YOU like more complicated than what others like? Are you so insecure that learning something new (or having a long-held false assumption corrected) is such a terrible threat to you that you refuse to even consider the possibility? I wonder.

Those of us from the US are often criticized when we're abroad for holding an "ignorant and proud of it" attitude. I guess this isn't limited to the States. Ah well, ignorance is bliss.


Edited by Trademark - October 17 2007 at 16:59

Regardless of whether 7/8, 9/8, 15/16, and the like are legitimate time signatures, I think we can all agree that the
4/4, 7/8, 3/4, 13/16, 15/16, 17/16, 14/16, 5/4, 6/8, 2/4, 5/8, 11/4, 9/4, 7/16, 6/16, 5/16, 10/16, 9/8, 15/8, 12/16, 16/16 (3+3+3+3+2+2), 3/8
pattern that spurred this discussion is not legitimate notation.  

OK, I'm just trying to help clarify things and hopefully this will help. When playing odd meters, no matter what is written on the page you count everything in 2s, 3s, or 4s. You just can't feel a "1" it just doesn't work.
Your Pal
John (Masters degree in music comp) aka Easy Money