Question about time signatures...
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Music and Musicians Exchange
Forum Description: Talk with and get feedback from other musicians on the site
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13969
Printed Date: November 23 2024 at 06:42
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Question about time signatures...
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Question about time signatures...
Date Posted: November 03 2005 at 18:25
|
... or whatever.
I've never played in a band at school or anything so I'm not sure what the differences between different things like 4/4 or 7/8 are. Is there a good place to read up on it? Also, are things like 7/8 hard to play or is ut the transitions between different times that make it hard? Thanks. |
Replies:
Posted By: penguindf12
Date Posted: November 03 2005 at 18:35
| I've been making it my duty to absorb as many time signatures as possible. I'll now sit down with an instrument and start playing in 5/4, 11/8, 13/8, and 7/8 just as likely as I would play in 4/4. You just tap out the time. You can usually feel the divisions, it just comes to you. They really aren't hard. Harder is shifting meter, virtually impossible to follow even for a seasoned time tapper. Only by slowing it down and building from square one can you figure those out. |
Posted By: Rust
Date Posted: November 03 2005 at 18:40
|
4/4 = four beats per measure, and the quarter note gets the beat. It's a whole lot easier if your in band to understand musical structure. I recomend you study some music theory, there are classes for it in school. Trust me, music is much more entertaining when you can tell what is going on in it. Once you understand music structure try getting into an instrument you find the most interesting and can enjoy music even more, it's so awsome to hear a keyboard solo and being able to tell what most of the notes are, it gets you involved in the music more. |
Posted By: Reverie
Date Posted: November 04 2005 at 04:20
|
There's no simple way to explain time signatures. It's actually not complicated at all, it's just trying to understand it (because it's tricky to explain) that's the hard part. Once you understand what the numbers mean - how they relate to the note values and the beat, you're laughing because it's so easy from there. The trickiest part is getting your head around it in the beginning. The vocalist for my band knows nothing about music theory and just trying to teach him the basics i've written up 7 pages worth of material, and i'm not yet done. I'm sure there are web pages out there that can help you out. Good luck! |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: November 04 2005 at 04:28
| The easiest way to play 7/8 to begin with is to imagine it's 4/4 with half a beat missing. I don't know how constructive that is in the long-term, though. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 04 2005 at 04:38
|
I think it'd be better to imagine 7/8 as 6/8 + 1/3 beat... Basically there are 2 types of time signature:
Simple time (simplified With time signatures greater than 4/4, it's a matter of breaking it down into 2s, 3s and 4s, so 11/4 could be 4+4+3/4, 3+3+3+2/4 and so on.
Compound time is best considered in terms of anything over 8 - but obviously there's more to it. Consider 6/8 time. It has 2 dotted crotchet beats to the bar, with quaver movement akin to triplets, but not playing "against the grain" - thus achieving a smoother sound, widely considered to be "Pastoral" in feel. This is what is compound about it - you can count both the number of quavers and the number of dotted crotchet beats that underly the rhythm. Hence 7/8 time should be 2 dotted crotchets + 1 quaver. If there's more of a 4+3 feel to the underlying beat, then chances are it's actually in 7/4. I hope that clarifies it |
) is anything over 4, because that's the number of beats you count in a bar. Posted By: Balder
Date Posted: November 04 2005 at 15:22
|
Something I read on a music theory site some time ago really helped me
in this regard. As Certif1ed just explained, it pretty much comes
down to 2's and 3's. Whatever else is done rhythmically,
groupings can always be dvided into these short and long pulses.
For instance, the most basic, quarter-note based rhythm could be felt as DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da or ONE-and-TWO-and-THREE-and-FOUR-and, etc. This 4/4 meter uses "2's" exclusively, groupings of two eighth notes, 2+2+2+2. The only pulse here is one felt as a succession of two eighth notes. Alternatively, a 4/4 meter might use a combination of 2's and 3's. DA-da-da-DA-da-da-DA-da or ONE-two-three-FOUR-five-six-SEVEN-eight. Two long pulses are followed by a short one, 3+3+2. To evince alternate time signatures, one would merely group the eight notes appropriately. For instance, 5/8 could be felt as DA-da-DA-da-da-DA-da-DA-da-da or ONE-two-THREE-four-five-ONE-two-THREE-four-five. This pattern of 2+3 is felt repeatedly, creating a five feel. As for the notion of shifting meters, it's largely a relative one. For instance, my friend might perceive a sequence as being composed of bars of 5/4, 3/8, and 7/8. I might perceive it as two bars of 10/8. This largely doesn't matter, as long as we both recognize those elementary pulses I've been discussing, those 2's and 3's. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 04 2005 at 15:28
For most situations it is more appropriate to see it as 8/8 - 1/8, wouldn't you think? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Certif1ed wrote:Posted By: cobb
Date Posted: November 04 2005 at 18:44
|
My understanding- and this could be wrong- is two different varieties, simple and compound time. Simple time can be basically read out from the time signature. Top number is the number of beats in a measure, bottom number is the note that equals one beat. eg. 5/4 five beats each of a quarter note. 7/8 seven beats each of an eighth note. Therefore read out the top number for the beats. Imagine the bottom number with a 1 over the top and name the fraction for the beat value. These fraction names equate to the common names of the notes. In this manner it is much easier to use common note names, not the latin, eg, crotchet as to quarter note. Compound time uses a compound note as the beat value and is only any time signature with a number on the top that is divisible by three ([edit] but the top number is not 3 ie 3/4 is simple time). Compound means it is two note values that make the beat, that being a note and a dot (the dot adds half the length of the note to it, so a dotted quarter in 4/4 equals 1 beat plus half a beat). So, in 6/8, because the top number is divisble by three, we know it is compound time. To work it out a little simple maths is needed.
If you look at manuscript of compound time, in a lot of the cases you will see the notes grouped in the beat value breakdown |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 04 2005 at 20:22
That clears it right up. I thought I understood time signatures until I read that. God only knows how a novice would feel. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: penguindf12
Date Posted: November 04 2005 at 21:18
| I always think of 7/8 as One two One t/ One two One t/, like in UK's "In the Dead of Night" and Chris Squire's "Lucky Seven". It's like 4/4 but with a half beat at the end. Either that or One two three four one two three. Really very simple, but I found it hard at first to comprehend how you tell where a measure "sits" in the piece of music. It just "comes" to you. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 05 2005 at 03:13
|
If you count like that and it really fits, it might be a 7/4, seen as 4/4 + 3/4. Check where the bass and snare drum are ... that also helps to make that determination. Below are two examples: 7/8: b s b s
7/4: b s b s b s b ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: krusty
Date Posted: November 05 2005 at 07:32
This thread is very interesting, I'm self taught and time signatures have always been my weak point. Would you guys agree that the above post is correct because it seems the simplist to understand for me, so before I start applying I'd like to know it works.  Also there a couple of tracks mentioned as examples of 7/8 time but then doubt was cast on wether or not they are 7/8. Is there one or more deffinate 7/8 tracks I could listen to as example's? Cheers ------------- http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=309" rel="nofollow - Humanism |
Posted By: penguindf12
Date Posted: November 05 2005 at 13:35
|
Definitely 7/8: "In the Dead of Night" by UK, used to be downloadable here. "Lucky Seven", by Chris Squire. "Dance on a Volcano," Genesis. The middlesection instrumental synth (then bass) part of Rush's "Tom Sawyer". Could be 7/8 or 7/4: most of "The Battle of Epping Forest", the "fast section" of Genesis' "Cinema Show", "Back in NYC" also by Genesis; "Money" by Pink Floyd; "The Fish", the "stereo panning" section of "Perptual Change", and the opening part of "The Remembering" by Yes; and lots of other stuff I can't think of right now, plus a lot of songs that have just bits and pieces of seven. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 05 2005 at 15:47
No - I don't think that's useful, because 7/8 is generally compound, not simple time.
It's very straightforward really; Simple time = the number of beats in a bar over the type of note used to denote the beat. So 4/4 is 4 1/4 notes (crotchets) in a bar. Compound time is the number of notes in a bar over the type of note used, but the notes are usually grouped in 3s to form beats that are equal in length to 3 of that note type. So 6/8 is 2 groups of 3 quavers - or two dotted crotchet beats per bar.
There is a 3rd category, which is really an extension of Compound time, and that is Irregular time - but it's not often used. 7/8 would fit that category, and a composer could interpret it as he/she wishes. However, 7/4 is normally 7 crotchet beats in a bar - so you could think of that as 8 - 1 if it helps. I think that to break it into 2s, 3s, or 4s is easier. 7/8 is more normally compound/irregular time, so it's 2 dotted crotchets +1 quaver, or 2 1/3 beats per bar.
If any single point is confusing, I'm more than happy to break it down as much as necessary. It's really not hard. |
Posted By: -bp-
Date Posted: November 06 2005 at 00:47
 before this I started this thread I knew how to count/ read time signatures, but now I'm completely confused. Next time I count out a song to find the time I'll be using 10 different methods at once
------------- 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 06 2005 at 03:39
As I said in an earlier post - you might define crotchet and quaver for a start. In Germany we call it 4ths, 8ths, 8th triplets, 16ths ... that is a lot less confusing. Also, someone without a musical background might not even understand the concept of a "dotted" note at all (I do). About the 7/8: A LOT of prog bands use that signature like I described. They simply "merge" the last 8th of the bar with the first note of the following bar. One 8th is simply skipped, and the simplest way to count is this (speak + as "and"): 4/4: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 06 2005 at 08:30
|
|
Posted By: krusty
Date Posted: November 06 2005 at 15:47
Cheers... I never realised I have been listening to 7/8 or 7/4 pieces for so many years ------------- http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=309" rel="nofollow - Humanism |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 06 2005 at 17:48
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: November 06 2005 at 17:57
| A quaver is half a crotchet. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 06 2005 at 18:12
|
A 1/8 is half a 1/4 ... I see. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date 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
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: November 07 2005 at 04:25
|
And the battle rages on... ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date 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. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date 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 |
). Posted By: Gaston
Date 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. |
Posted By: Gaston
Date 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 -------------
It's the same guy. Great minds think alike. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 08 2005 at 02:27
I understand what you mean by simple vs. compound: http://www.dims.co.uk/id74.htm - http://www.dims.co.uk/id74.htm and http://www.dims.co.uk/id75.htm - 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.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date 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... ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date 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 ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date 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 ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date 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. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date 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 ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: goose
Date 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. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date 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. 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. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
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. Posted By: penguindf12
Date Posted: November 09 2005 at 19:03
|
You guys should see the chart for Captain Beefheart's "Peon". It's ridiculous! http://www.beefheart.com/datharp/tab/tabpeon.zip - http://www.beefheart.com/datharp/tab/tabpeon.zip |
Posted By: Reverie
Date Posted: November 09 2005 at 20:59
You sure about that one? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date 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. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: November 11 2005 at 11:06
and 2/4 and 3/4 are both over 4, no? 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 11 2005 at 12:14
|
^ exactly. So 7/4 should also be simple time. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Badabec
Date Posted: November 20 2005 at 16:34
Same thing with me.  He's right, just believe him. |
Posted By: Badabec
Date Posted: November 20 2005 at 16:40
Why shouldn't you use a 29/16? I've written a song with a part in 17/16. It's not just the time signature which is important for a good sound, it's more the rhythm and the melody. |
Posted By: Soulman
Date Posted: November 30 2005 at 01:25
|
Man I just started picking up on the world of abstract rhythms and time signatures. It's freaking amazing .
I'm finally starting to understand songs like "Starless and Bible
Black" and "By-Tor the Snow Dog" and being able to apply it to my own
playing. I think this entire thread has answered the majority of my thoughts on this topic. Yet I'm still puzzled by what are "traditional" or "non-traditional" ways to play certain compound time signatures. I think my only question is if anybody has seen a time signature like 7/10 or 16/9...and what do those denominators represent. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 30 2005 at 03:35
|
Those time signatures are "impossible" with the traditional notation system: 1/1 represents a Semibreve 1/2 represents a Minim 1/4 represents a Crotchet 1/8 represents a Quaver 1/16 represents a Semiquaver
...and so on.
The current (ancient) system used in Western Music splits beats from the Semibreve, or whole note, as it is bizarrely known, and treats other note lengths as fractions of Semibreves. So the top number is the number of beats in a bar, and the bottom number represents the length of the beat in terms of fractions of a Semibreve. The dividing line can be seen as the mathematical symbol for division - e.g. 4/4 is 4 "quarter" beats per bar. This attempt to explain everything (including why 7/4 is simple time and 7/8 is compound time) - but still leaves a lot of questions unanswered: http://www.answers.com/topic/time-signature#copyright - http://www.answers.com/topic/time-signature#copyright
However, I think the system itself is confusing, misleading, misunderstood - even by academics - and not appropriate for the way that people write music these days.
If the system was changed to a decimalised notation, and a multiplier used instead of a divider, then you could have 4X0.25 instead of 4/4, which would open up the use of dotted crotchets as beats in their own right, instead of the current limited use of dotted crotchets in compound time. So 4 dotted crotchets in a bar could be represented by 4X0.375. Doesn't really trip off the tongue like 12/8, does it? But really, the whole system should be overhauled, IMO, so the the Breve regains its proper status as 1, and every other note is a fraction of that - ie, a crotchet should really be 1/8, not 1/4. As it currently stands, a SEMIbreve represents a whole note, purely because common time became more widely accepted as groupings of semibreve bars rather than breve bars, which were felt to be too long for quick music, which was more popular outside the church.
/ends ramble and hopes it's useful... |
Posted By: Andrew Vernon
Date Posted: November 30 2005 at 09:12
|
Hope no one reams me... Anyway... I write riffs and stuff in various signatures, I'll often come up with something that sounds cool, record it, and then count it out by listening back. Tool use a lot of different time signatures in their music, the track The Grudge for instance switches between 5/8, 5/4, and 6/4 at various places. Learning the song though is just a case of counting in 5/4 and adding crotchets in certain places - even though it is notated differently. Here is a riff that I came up with recently as an exercise... http://s59.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3UUGO1JRF2H3I1HZFP39GW2W4W - Download One http://s59.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=38FVENKNHOHI70A7AQGA1CAU5G - Download Two Stars off in 7/8 for two bars, then a bar of 8/8, and a final bar of 7/8 before looping again. Count it out if it'll help you understand. For rock music it really is just down to the ability to count the beats you're working in. If you're writing in 10/4, try splitting it up in various ways. You don't even have to stick with splitting it into 5/4 or 6/4 + 4/4. When notating things, it's pretty important to stick to conventions. But when composing and when coming up with ideas, you can go anywhere. 10/4 to me might be 5/4 twice, but to someone else they might count it as 4/4 + 3/4 + 2/4 - if it helps them play in 10/4, then I see no problem with it. ------------- over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind. feed my will to feel this moment, urging me to cross the line. reaching out to embrace whatever may come. |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: March 30 2007 at 14:11
|
Wow such a great thread. It deserves a bump. |
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: March 31 2007 at 02:34
If I'm not mistaken, you can have denominators that are not powers of two, but you have to tuplet the hell out of the thing to make it work. You can write it out much easier in normal denominators. -------------   |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: March 31 2007 at 02:40
|
Question: can we all just skip that and enjoy the music? ------------- sig |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 31 2007 at 03:44
|
For many of us analyzing these things is a big part of the enjoyment.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: April 03 2007 at 22:33
|
I find the distinction between different denominators to be a matter of perception/notation; I may count a semibrive (or "whole note" to normal folks) as half the length of semibreve, and thus have a different denominator than you. The only time that that length is standardized is on sheet music. So when I just sit down and listen to, say, Tubular Bells, the opening could be counted as 15/16 or 15/8 or 15/2, depending on how I count my whole notes.
------------- |
Posted By: coleio
Date Posted: April 05 2007 at 13:37
|
^^ Got a point. I don't know if it's because I'm rubbish at understanding time signatures, but I can sometimes listen to something an can give it multiple time signatures, just different counting.
------------- Eat heartily at breakfast, for tonight, we dine in Hell!! |