Question about time signatures... |
Post Reply | Page <123> |
Author | ||
goose
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 20 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4097 |
Posted: November 06 2005 at 17:57 | |
A quaver is half a crotchet.
|
||
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 21131 |
Posted: November 06 2005 at 18:12 | |
A 1/8 is half a 1/4 ... I see. |
||
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: November 07 2005 at 04:18 | |
Mike, I think you're talking at cross-purposes a bit there. You've obviously learned in a different, less traditional way to me, and I happen to like the traditions because I see more skill in re-interpreting the old than in the illusion of attempting to create something new. I was trained in the Italian methods - which, since that country has the greatest musical heritage in terms of the development of music, and was the source of teaching for the great Austrian and German composers, has got to be good for something. Please note, I am not trying to use this as "stripes", just background.
A Semibreve is a whole note when we are considering Common Time (4/4, 2/2, etc). In other circumstances, other notes are whole notes - hence the existence of the Breve, which you could never use in Common Time. It's known in some circles as a Double Note - but to what purpose? In other Times it is a whole note - so one should be careful about the use of the term, and when referring to fractions of whole notes. A crotchet is a quarter of a Semibreve and an eighth of a Breve - that's why the names are important; to get a handle on what the time signatures mean. Fractions are used all over the place in music - why obfuscate matters by using more of them?
If you just say 1/4 then I think it's confusing (assuming you pronounce it one quarter). One quarter of a beat is not necessarily a crotchet, nor is one quarter of a bar - and a crotchet is not one quarter of a minim. That's why I think it's important to keep a handle on what it is a quarter of! If you say that 3/4 is three quarters, then that's confusing, because it doesn't say anything musically, and you then have to explain the system and then relate it back to beats in the bar. If you say that 3/4 is three crotchet beats to the bar, you're half way there, and only then need to explain the place of the crotchet in the scheme of things. To extend that to 6/8, if you say it's six eighths, then you have to go around the houses to explain why it's (typically) not 6 beats in a bar, and why you couldn't just say three quarters, as you would in mathematics. If you say that 6/8 has six quavers to a bar, but is compound time, and you simply divide the top number by 3 to get the number of beats to the bar - then that's a shorter and easier explanation, IMO.
The point of the Stravinsky example is to show how a master of composition used both 7/8 and 7/4 within 10 bars of the same piece as a slightly complex illustration of the difference between the two. It's an easy example to follow, if you already read music well, and are schooled in the Italian traditions - all you need to do is find a score, and they're not expensive. "The Rite of Spring" should be of great interest to someone who likes complicated music full of wierd and savage time signatures and loads of time changes - and it's undergraduate stuff, not post grad. If you're just going to use quavers as the beats you might just as well not bother, because aurally you couldn't tell the difference, and it becomes just an act of show rather than of skill and craft - which is why I feel that it's often used inappropriately and in an uneducated way - much like poor grammar shows lack of education in language.
I don't believe it's so hard to explain this to 20+ year-olds - I've had no problems getting 8-18 year-olds through their music theory examinations
|
||
Lindsay Lohan
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 25 2005 Location: Norway Status: Offline Points: 3254 |
Posted: November 07 2005 at 04:25 | |
And the battle rages on...
Edited by maidenrulez |
||
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 21131 |
Posted: November 07 2005 at 05:04 | |
Cert, I read your above post and it makes much sense to me. However, I'm still curious to know why you think that counting 7/8 like "1 and 2 and 3 and 4" is wrong. It really works for newbies ... you have to take into account that they don't even know the concept of bars. Whether a 7/8 is 3 + 3 + 1 or 2 + 2 + 3 ... why confuse them? Let them FIND the beats first and deal with their interpretation later.
Edited by MikeEnRegalia |
||
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: November 07 2005 at 08:49 | |
I think you're right for rock bands - it's just that having studied this topic in so much depth I feel like I'm correcting grammar and spelling mistakes that are in the original material... But then people seem to use phoenetic spelling and ignore grammar totally these days. I'm not trying to confuse - quite the opposite - but irregular time signatures are fairly complex and you'd only normally study them once you'd got the hang of Compound vs Simple time. Once the penny has dropped with those, irregular time makes more sense in both its Compound and Simple forms. That's not to say that "never the twain", as musical rules are just not so fixed - but there are good and bad reasons for using either, as with anything in music. While that may be subjective to a large extent, "one instinctively knows when something is right" (to quote Croft Original sherry...). Music = Sound Organised in Time. We covered Form almost disastrously recently - that's tough enough to get a handle on. And now we're looking at time, which is nearly as hard, especially as you get closer to the present day - and is which is why there are reams and reams written on the subject (and not just by me ). Sound is even tougher to pin down than time - which boils down to mathematics on a simple level, but on an artistic, musical level can be like complex equations - and there is beauty in those for the right kind of mind... But go ahead - count what you like |
||
Gaston
Forum Senior Member Joined: February 26 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 401 |
Posted: November 07 2005 at 23:14 | |
I think most explanations on this subject are confusing to the layman.
Usually I just insist everything be thought of in quarter notes, not
eighths or sixteenths. That way you can just tell the guy to transfer
things to the lowest common denominator using 4. It works because you
feel the speed better.
If you can count to seven, you're half way there. Count to 4 once and count to 3 once. It's that simple. Swing time is the hard part, and if you're a musician you'll know that swing 2/4 uses triplets but the triplets can then be applied to the whole, so you've actually got something more along the lines of a 3/4 (6/8) arrangement, not 2/4 at all. And this then works with the polymeters and rhythms too. That's about the easiest I can explain it. Gaston |
||
It's the same guy. Great minds think alike. |
||
Gaston
Forum Senior Member Joined: February 26 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 401 |
Posted: November 08 2005 at 01:38 | |
Oh, and a good example of what I'm talking about, in Shine On You Crazy
Diamond. They play slow so Nicky swings on the high-hat indicating it
is a 6/8 swing (which is something like a [diddidy, diddidy, diddidy],
[4, 5, 6] but the triplets on those 6 counts aren't played, they are
like ghost swing triplets, you don't hear them actually ticked out, but
you hear the swing to it) It actually sounds like 3/4 swing but
syncopated on the 1st and 4th, because of the 6 counts.
And then it changes, right after Dave comes in on guitar during the sax solo and it goes into regular 2/4 swing. It's completely mind blowing. Then, in the second Shine On, parts 5 and on and such, they do it again!! It happens because Rog is playing the same kind of rhythm as his bass line, that "1,2,3,4,5,6" count. So you don't actually hear the swing on those 6 counts ticked out, but you hear it subconsciously, and then it goes into 2/4 swing again. And that's why WYWH is the best effort by the Floyd too, btw, because they are fooling around with time and space. I like that. Gaston Edited by Gaston |
||
It's the same guy. Great minds think alike. |
||
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 21131 |
Posted: November 08 2005 at 02:27 | |
I understand what you mean by simple vs. compound: http://www.dims.co.uk/id74.htm and http://www.dims.co.uk/id75.htm they illustrate the definitions with notation examples, which makes it far more obvious (but you also explained it well, of course). But what the hell does that change? Ok, so I know that 7/8 is not simple time. one bar consists of 7 quavers, at least in 99% of all the (non-classical) songs that I know to use 7/8. And as to how it can be grouped ... I think that there are two popular uses:
There are other groupings as well - 3 + 2 + 2 or 2 + 2 + 3, but why confuse people? Let them count to 7 (or 1 and 2 and 3 and 4) first, that's all I'm saying.
|
||
Lindsay Lohan
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 25 2005 Location: Norway Status: Offline Points: 3254 |
Posted: November 08 2005 at 06:21 | |
Is there something as a 29/16 time signature? I never heard about it but i belivie Mr Jon Theodore of TMV used that once...
|
||
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 21131 |
Posted: November 08 2005 at 06:37 | |
29 = 16 + 13. => 4/4 + 13/16, and 13/16 is 6/8 + 1/16. The question is: Why would he use such a signature? The weirder the signature, the more difficult it is for the artist to reason for the use of it. 29/16 seems to me like "let's try to impress the listener and use the most complex signatures". Sometimes less definitely is more ... |
||
Lindsay Lohan
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 25 2005 Location: Norway Status: Offline Points: 3254 |
Posted: November 08 2005 at 06:40 | |
Well i did not know that he used it and he uses it in the guitar solo in Cygnus Vismund Cygnus(The quiet part) ...and i dont think that it feels un-natural or anything...i really think that Neil Peart of rush is a drummer that just uses strange signatures just to make the song sound more complex when it is really based on ordinary hard rock riffs Edited by maidenrulez |
||
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 21131 |
Posted: November 08 2005 at 06:50 | |
^ of course it is entirely possible to use a 29/16 signature in a natural way. But: Would the song suffer if he simply used 13/8 or 15/8? The latter is very similar to 29/16 (just alternating 8/8 and 7/8) and really much easier to play.
Edited by MikeEnRegalia |
||
Lindsay Lohan
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 25 2005 Location: Norway Status: Offline Points: 3254 |
Posted: November 08 2005 at 06:52 | |
Nay but perhaps it would be more original? I dont know...but i really dont think Jon Theodore is the kind of drummers that uses strange time signatures just for the sake of using strange time signatures...he might even find that using 29/16 would be the most natural approach to that bit of the song...i dont know i just never heard about that one before |
||
goose
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 20 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4097 |
Posted: November 08 2005 at 07:12 | |
I like 15/8 because you can play around with it as 5 compound beats or as 4 double time simple beats cut short, or as 7 and a half simple beats, etc. A lot of the more weird time signatures, like 17/16 or 29/16, it's difficult to do that sort of thing with.
Edited by goose |
||
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 21131 |
Posted: November 08 2005 at 07:12 | |
^ it pretty much boils down to 13/16, the way he plays it. Of course a x/16 signature is much cooler than a boring x/8 sig. A really cool approach would be 10/16 + 10/16 + 9/16. if you interpret the 16ths as 8ths, you'd get 10/8 + 10/8 + 9/8, which would be 5/4 + 5/4 + 9/8. That would be really simple to count: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 hey, this makes sense: 5/4 + 5/4 + (5/4 - 1/8). So essentially 3 5/4 bars and skip the last 1/8. Edited by MikeEnRegalia |
||
penguindf12
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 20 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 831 |
Posted: November 09 2005 at 19:03 | |
You guys should see the chart for Captain Beefheart's "Peon". It's ridiculous! You gotta love the Captain. |
||
Reverie
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 14 2005 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 626 |
Posted: November 09 2005 at 20:59 | |
You sure about that one? |
||
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 21131 |
Posted: November 11 2005 at 05:03 | |
I thought that simple time was anything that can be counted in crotchets, without using dotted notes. So 2/4 or 3/4 would also be simple time. |
||
goose
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 20 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4097 |
Posted: November 11 2005 at 11:06 | |
and 2/4 and 3/4 are both over 4, no? |
||
Post Reply | Page <123> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |