Most Complex Time Signature ever!?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27231
Printed Date: November 27 2024 at 12:37
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Most Complex Time Signature ever!?
Posted By: Abstrakt
Subject: Most Complex Time Signature ever!?
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 14:11
|
Maybe:
Planet X - Interlude In Milan 15/16?
Led Zeppelin - The Crunge 11/16?
Meshuggah - I ??????
Your turn
 |
Replies:
Posted By: Bj-1
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 14:12
|
The ones in Meshuggah's "I".
Blows everything else out on the water! ------------- RIO/AVANT/ZEUHL - The best thing you can get with yer pants on! |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 14:18
I don't know...13,000/16.  It's limitless...
But an odd time would usually only seem complex within the context of a song. Say: 4/4, 3/4, 4/4, 7/16, 2/4, 9/16, 4/4. That's be pretty weird in any style. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 14:57
|
Stonebeard has a point: an "odd" time signature is often just two or three measures of "standard" (or at least "basic") signatures put together. 11/16 is simply a measure of 6/8 and a measure of 5/8. The most radical signatures used on a "regular" basis in prog are 7/8, 9/8, 10/8, 11/8 and 13/8. As an aside, having not heard Meshuggah, I cannot comment. But Mars Volta uses some pretty out there time sigs - or, at least, combinations of "basic" sigs. Peace. |
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 15:05
|
------------- 
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 15:40
| It's not the numbers, it's what you do with it! |
Posted By: Kleynan
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 16:53
|
I'm unable to read many of Meshuggah's time signatures. They win! ------------- 
You've just had a heavy session of electroshock therapy, and you're more relaxed than you've been in weeks. |
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 16:58
|
Dream Theater's Dance of Eternity cycling between 4/4, 15/16, and 11/4 at times. -------------  
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls." |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 18:21
|
Black Page : Frank Zappa Red Shift: Anders Johansson Alex Mahacek: most tracks from his forthcoming album [SIC] or from his earlier album Featuring Ourselves - check out the merging of Charlie Parker's Donna Lee with Zappa's Black Page. Joe Morello's Castillian Drums (ex. Dave Brubeck Quartet's Carnegie Hall Live album) is reckoned to go through several dozen time signature changes |
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 01:00
|
According to one analysis I read of Frame By Frame (KC), in one section of the song, Robert is playing a part in 81/8.
-------------   |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 02:25
|
Some More:
Samla Mammas Manna - Syster System 5/8
Samla Mammas Manna - Dundrets fröjder 4/4, 6/8, 6/4
Bill Bruford - Hells Bells 9/8
Mahavishnu Orchestra - Birds Of Fire 9/8? 19/16???
The Flower Kings - There Is More To This World 5/4, 3/4, 6/8
The Flower Kings - Melting Pot 6/8
The Flower Kings - Flora Majora 5/4 (My Favourite)
Genesis - Apocalypse in 9/8 9/8+4/4(Keyboard)
 |
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 12:07
I agree with Dick. Zappa's "Black Page". 
------------- Pure Brilliance: 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 22:49
|
Complex time signatures can often be broken down into groupings of two three and four beats. In modern classical music the groupings are given in what looks like an alegbra equation over the beat value something like this: 3+2+3 / 4. That would be the equal of 8/4 but tells the player how to "feel" the note groupings. The potential for this type of time signature, as noted, is limitless, but there does need to be a repeat of the basic pattern of groupings. For example, Supper's Ready's Apocalypse in 9/8 would be grouped 3+2+4 / 8., both because that totals 9 and because the pattern repeats over and over. Looked at in this way none of them are really all that complex. It's more about feel than it is about counting.
|
Posted By: Hierophant
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 23:01
|
I found this very interesting wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_in_irregular_time_signatures - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_in_irregular_time_signatures I think this time signature takes the cake: (2002) "A Headache and a Sixty-Fourth" by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Jarzombek - Ron Jarzombek - "one measure of 4/4, followed by a measure of 1/64" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_in_irregular_time_signatures#_note-8 - [9] ------------- 
|
Posted By: Hierophant
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 23:03
the black page is in 4/4 common time -------------
|
Empathy wrote:Posted By: suomynona
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 23:09
|
I believe that Zappa's "Joe's Garage" has its opening song on (disc 2) in 17/16 time, very bizarre riff but also very catchy. Also the Apocalypse in 9/8 in 'Supper's Ready' is incredibly done |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 23:25
|
There really is no such thing as 17/16. Time sigs like this get written on occasion but it is mostly for shock effect (or out of ignorance on the part of the composer. Zappa was by no means ignorant and shock value was something he placed a high priority on so...) and it appears to be working well on many of you.
Our rhythmic brain wiring will simply not accept the reality of a time sig like that. We understand it mathematicaly but in reality we break all rhythmic information down into groupings of 1, 2, 3 and maybe 4 (four can be felt in 2 + 2 or 3 + 1), pulses. See my breakdown of the Apocalypse above. So as I explained above a meter like 17/16 is in reality a repeating pattern of smaller pulse groupings such as 4+3+4+3+3 or 3+2+3+3+4+2 etc The trick to learning to play and to listen to these pieces is to detect and "feel" the smaller patterns within the larger structure of the measure. Otherwise you'l completely lose your sanity trying to count to 17 over and over again. Trust me no trained musician will EVER do that. |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: August 14 2006 at 03:50
Great Site!
 |
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: August 14 2006 at 09:16
 Hmm... not sure I buy that. ------------- Pure Brilliance:
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: August 14 2006 at 09:27
| The Black Page is broken down into a bunch of smaller accented groupings of 1, 2 and 3 pulses. It could certainly be written down in 4/4 but not in Common Time as the accents are not all on beats one and three. I haven't visited it in detail in a number of years, so I don't remember if the patterns of pulse groupings repeat often enough to encompass a larger numerator in the time sigt. or not. |
Posted By: Spanky
Date Posted: August 16 2006 at 09:22
  ------------- Coalinga knows how to party. |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: August 16 2006 at 09:27
|
6/1, 3/6, 2/6, 8/1, 66/66, 2/32, 24/4, 54/32...!!!???
Hard to read, but it must be VERY complex
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: August 16 2006 at 09:58
| Its a JOKE piece abstrakt. Written tpo poke fun at "real" 20th century music scores and for the amusement of other musicians. |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: August 16 2006 at 10:00
| ehhh... Okay!? |
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: August 16 2006 at 10:19
 Looks like a Fantomas score to me!  ------------- Pure Brilliance:
|
Posted By: billbuckner
Date Posted: August 16 2006 at 21:19
|
"Remove cattle from stage" |
Posted By: Spanky
Date Posted: August 16 2006 at 22:18
|
Half of the times signatures in there couldn't even exist. There is no way you can have a 66/66 time signature because there aren't 66th notes in music. Maybe 64th notes, but not 66ths. I thought it would be appropriate though.
------------- Coalinga knows how to party. |
Posted By: billbuckner
Date Posted: August 16 2006 at 23:00
|
Best stage direction: "Play a little faster than everyone else" |
Posted By: krring
Date Posted: August 18 2006 at 10:57
|
"At this very moment on stage we have Drummer A playing in 7/8, Drummer B playing in 3/4, the bass playing in 3/4, the organ playing in 5/8, the tambourine playing in 3/4 and the alto sax blowing its nose."
Toads of the Short Forest - Frank Zappa.
|
Posted By: Ben2112
Date Posted: August 18 2006 at 15:52
I got a kick out of the credits in the upper right: Words and music by John Stump, Arranged by Accident.
|
Posted By: Leningrad
Date Posted: August 18 2006 at 16:33
'Based on a Cro-Magnon skinning chant'
 |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: August 19 2006 at 02:54
Sounds Cool!
|
Posted By: Cygnus X-2
Date Posted: August 19 2006 at 03:02
I've read and heard (as well as counted it) as 19/16. ------------- 
|
Posted By: acheron
Date Posted: August 19 2006 at 13:25
|
there's that 11/4 part of 'under a glass moon'
if you want odd signatures look at Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring' or anything by Liszt
"1973) " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_%28song%29 - Money " by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Floyd - Pink Floyd , although the solo is in 4/4, as David Gilmour believed that it would be too difficult in simple septuple meter. The triplet/shuffle feel makes this time debatable; it is technically in 21/8. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=8882917533 - ISBN 8882917533 "Pink Floyd Guitar Tab Anthology" and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_in_irregular_time_signatures#_note-2 - [3] "
did anyone read this? what the hell?
|
Posted By: acheron
Date Posted: August 19 2006 at 13:45
|
can lindsay be in the prog archives now?? |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: September 17 2006 at 11:33
|
Meshuggah - New Millenium Cyanide Christ: 5 bars of 23/16 + 1 bar of 13/16, adding up to 128/16
Dream Theater - Metropolis: 5/8, 12/16, 13/16, 5/16, 13/8, 7/4, 9/8, 18/16, 7/8, 9/16, 7/16, 3/16, 10/16
Symphony X - Communication And The Oracle: 5/4, 11/8, 6/4, 7/8, 3/4, 4/4, 5/8, 9/8
Symphony X - The Odyssey: 4/4, 7/4, 6/4, 5/4, 2/4, 3/4, 10/8, 12/8, 5/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 6/8, 11/8, 15/8, and 18/8
Prog metal is complex!
|
Posted By: Borogrove
Date Posted: September 17 2006 at 13:05
| I read somewhere that National Health's Tenemous roads is 25/16 at one point, but I've tried to count it and never found it. |
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: September 19 2006 at 18:43
My band teacher gave us this on April Fool's day to sight read ------------- 
|
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: September 19 2006 at 19:00
|
time signatures dont always make a song complex. Five Per Cent For Nothing is in 4/4 ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm 
|
Posted By: I|I|I|I|I
Date Posted: September 20 2006 at 20:27
|
The first song off of the Area album "Arbeit Macht Frei" has its first
synth riff in 27/16... and the bridge of "Cygnus... Vismund Cygnus" by
The Mars Volta is also in 27/16. It's a very common time signature, apparently. ------------- Go and listen to my music. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31725 |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: September 20 2006 at 21:10
|
listen to "Glowin'" from "Dein Kopf ist ein Schlafendes Auto" by Roman Bunka, then you have the answer. 17/16
-------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: September 21 2006 at 10:20
| A random pattern of every possible time signature in one song would be the most complicated. |
Posted By: Reverie
Date Posted: September 22 2006 at 03:20
Sure, but, for me at least, something like 17/16 is visually much more pleasing than 4+3+4+3+3 etc. Having said that, i'm not a sight reader, i'm a composer/rehearser, so when i come across a sig like 17/16 i already know how to play and group it in my head. Though i don't count the groupings, i just know the rhythm. I wouldn't be looking at sheet music regardless. Maybe it's also ego, you know, the more complex you write a time signature the more impressive you seem to others. For me it's probably a combination of ego and visuals/neatness. Anyways, i think most time signatures are relatively easy within themselves. As i said before, i don't really count beats, i just memorise the rhythm so when i'm playing, 7/8 or 9/16 etc. mean little to me. When it gets tricky is when you add rhythmic devices such as polyrhythms or polymeters. But to answer the topic question, there are rare cases where composers see fit to disrupt the standard metric measurement of your quarter, 8th, 16th (etc.) notes and use absurd signatures like 5/10...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_signature#.22Irrational.22_meters I know that doesn't really concern prog (at least not prog rock  ), but i figured i'd throw it out there anyway.
Speaking strictly about prog, i'd probably say On The Virg or Planet X use some pretty silly time sigs as well. |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: September 26 2006 at 12:45
Just Found Out that "Rational Gaze" by Meshuggah is in 4/4! 
It sounds very complex because it's put together very complex. Probably with 16th notes, which technically makes it 16/16.
A really cool time-signature is in "Solitary Shell" by Dream Theater.
One section is in 11/8 put together like 6/4+5/4.
Then it changes to a bar of 11/8, followed by a bar of 12/8, that sounds really cool.
And something that would sound cool is 15/16 put together like 3+2+4+5 (14/16) plus a 16th note, to make it 15/16.
Or, something like 23/16 put together like a bar of 4/16, one bar of 5/16, a bar of 7/16, a bar of 2/16, and finally a bar of 5/16.
Well, that was a waste of time.
|
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: September 30 2006 at 10:46
|
Eloy's song, "Giant" has a great use of the 6/4 Signature.
The Time Signature in "Mars, The Bringer Of War" by Gustav Holst is hard to count
 |
Posted By: Arrrghus
Date Posted: September 30 2006 at 10:53
No it doesn't! Actually, making it 16/16 makes the sixteenth notes slower because the 16th note gets the beat. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: September 30 2006 at 11:03
16/16 is basically 4/4 with "more" notes within the bar, if you get my point.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 06 2006 at 03:05
Yes, it's called spontaneous music, like the Dead on a good night or maybe KC's 'Thrakattak'. |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: October 06 2006 at 08:19
|
I remember Bruford saying in an interview that KC are the only band he's played in where he gets to use a 17/16 time signature & still stay in a decent hotel. ------------- 
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: October 07 2006 at 10:04
|
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 13:02
|
Meshuggah "Future Breed Machine" - the clean guitar part before the solo is in 13/8, the breakdown is in 7/4 Meshuggah "New Millenium Cyanide Christ" - 5 bars of 23/16 + 1 bar of 13/16, adding up to 128/16 (or simply 4/4) Mars Volta "Cygnus... Vismund Cygnus" - various movements of the song contain passages in 10/4, 11/8, 15/4, and 29/16 Dream Theater "Dance Of Eternity" - incorporates an incredible amount of time signature changes (in order, each entry written once): 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. No, i didn't write that myself |
Posted By: Revan
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 13:15
|
I wrote in 11/16 once. The first four bars took me 2 complete hours to do something coherent. But it ended up very well. I'll upload the sheet if i can find it... ------------- 
|
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 15:06
 ------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?" 
|
Posted By: Sasquamo
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 17:07
| A big band tune by Don Ellis called "33 222 1 222." It's in 19/4. If you don't think that's too complicated, just look at the title. That's how each measure is subdivided. There's another Don Ellis tune called "27/16." Guess what time signature it's in. |
Posted By: Revan
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 17:30
sh*t... -------------
|
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: November 10 2006 at 13:20
|
"Retropolis" by The Flower Kings - 9/8 and 11/8 in the intro I just found that out  |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: November 10 2006 at 13:23
You're wrong! This is 4/4: One Two Three Four And this is 16/16 Onetwothreefour onetwothreefour onetwothreefour onetwothreefour |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: November 18 2006 at 20:19
|
I think you'll find 16/16 is more likely to start
Onetwothree onetwothree onetwothree...! |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 07:49
Meshuggah - Elastic:
(I didn't read the time signatures myself) |
Posted By: Trademark
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 09:59
|
Abstract you are the one who is wrong here. I understand what you're thinking, but musically it is not correct. More notes in a measure do not change the lower number of the time Sig.
If the measure were to be broken down into irregular groupings of 16th note pulses then and only then would you use 16 in the lower number. Even then as Guest notes, the correct way to set up the time sig. would be as guest put it (3+3+4+2+4 / 16). Larger top numbers are only used as reverie points out to avoid "clutter" in a score. No real musician will count that measure as 16/16. If the sixteenth notes are organized in groups of four (like the example you gave) you are in 4/4 time. The quarter note (the lower 4) can go at any tempo you like making the 16th notes go anywherer from really, really fast to not so fast, to almost slow. A 16th note is not a guarantee of a certain speed. The organizing pulse is still found at the quarter note level. One might just ask well as what the most complicated mathematical equation is. The equation might take up many pages and the answer could turn out to be 1. The time signature thing is exactly the same. The gibberish time signatures you all are putting up DO NOT EXIST musically, they only exist mathematically. The measures in question all break down into sub groupings of 2, 3, or 4 pulses. No player will ever count to 27 (or even 17 or 11) as he reads his part. He will look at the music and break it down into sub-groupings, take out his pencil and mark the score accordingly. Similarly, a conductor will not beat time in groupings of anything more than 4 beats. These "complex" time signatures are a figment of the over-active imaginations of some guys who want to appear clever to their gullible fans. I know no one wants to hear this because its fun to think of how "amazing" all these time signatures are, but musically, it's a fallacy. Sorry. As for this stuff: Historically, this device has been prefigured wherever composers have written tuplets; for example, a 2/4 bar consisting of 3 triplet crotchets could arguably more sensibly be written as a bar of 3/6. Henry Cowell's piano piece "Fabric" (1920) throughout employs separate divisions of the bar (anything from 1 to 9) for the three contrapuntal parts, using a scheme of shaped noteheads to make the differences visually clear, but the pioneering of these signatures is largely due to Brian Ferneyhough. Thomas Ades has also made extensive use of them, for example in his piano work "Traced Overhead" (1996), the second movement of which contains, amongst more conventional meters, bars in such signatures as 2/6, 9/14 and 5/24. A gradual process of diffusion into less rarefied musical circles seems to be underway, hence for example, John Pickard's work "Eden", commissioned for the 2006 finals of the National Brass Band Championships of Great Britain, which contains bars of 3/10. Show me a 6th note or a 14th note and I'll play it. Of course they do not exist and so, cannot be the pulse level "beat" of any composition. This is just another example of the self-important composer attemptiing to prove he knows more than his audience. The pulse level of the pieces in question are NOT at those levels. This is an overly clever way of changing tempo without marking a simple tempo change in the score. Elliott Carter invented this concept in the 1950s and called it metric modulation. In brief, he took the tempo of a triplet or quintuplet and made that the new tempo of an eighth or quarter note, thus speeding up or slowing down the tempo of the piece. Carter accomplished it without changing the time signatures though, which made playing and conducting his pieces much simpler. The current adaptation of Carter's concepts seem only intended to antagonize the player and conductor and prove the superiority of the composer's wonderful mind. The listener won't hear it and the player won't feel it, but the composer still insists it's real. In short it's gobbledygook. |
Posted By: Freak
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 22:27
I don't think I've heard much complex stuff. "The Eleven" by the Dead is always fun!
 ------------- 
|
Posted By: Barla
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 22:43
|
Oh yeah, Dream Theater's amazing instrumental The Dance Of Eternity, has a lot of unusual time signatures, read: In order, each entry written once: 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. Incredible!! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Barla/?chartstyle=LastfmMyspace">  
|
Posted By: Bj-1
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 22:45
Try to count the time sigs for Meshuggah's "I" then we're talkin'
------------- RIO/AVANT/ZEUHL - The best thing you can get with yer pants on! |
Posted By: Trademark
Date Posted: December 02 2006 at 00:50
|
"In order, each entry written once: 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."
Not really incredible, just incorrect. According the The Harvard Dictionary of Music a time signature is: "The pattern in which a steady succession of rhythmic pulses is organized", and it is "characterized by the regular recurrence of such patterns. The DT example given has no recurring beat groupings. The only possible way to justify these types of time sigs is with recurring beat grouping patterns. The Apocalypse in 9/8 is a good example, being a recurring grouping of 3+2+4/8, although, 9/8 is still technically incorrect. A true 9/8 is a triple meter with the beats grouped in threes (again, according to the Harvard). The correct name should have been The Apocalypse in 3+2+4/8, though it doesn't sound as "snappy". In a piece like the DT example THERE IS NO METER; there is only a pulse, so there can be no time signature. In this case probably an 8th note pulse. One of Paul Hindemith's String quartets from the 1940s is written in this same manner, but without the ever changing time signatures (he knew better). hindemith simply designates that the 8th note should be counted at 60 Beats per minute. The music has bar lines (though some composers don't even use them), but no time signature. That is the way the DT piece should be written if its written out at all. There can be no true meter or time signature where there is no repetition. If you all are determined to ignore the truth in this matter of time signatures please let me know and I'll leave off pointing this stuff out and just let you go to town with your foolishness. I thought you might want to know how it really is in actual musucal terms, but I might be mistaken. |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: December 03 2006 at 10:10
I'll see if i can get my hands on them somewhere |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: December 03 2006 at 10:18
Meshuggah - I:
It's played with an incredible speed, that'a what makes it sound complex, i guess. (i didn't read them myself  ) |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: December 03 2006 at 10:42
| Good posts, Trademark. |
Posted By: Bj-1
Date Posted: December 03 2006 at 17:39
It can't be. ------------- RIO/AVANT/ZEUHL - The best thing you can get with yer pants on! |
Posted By: 1800iareyay
Date Posted: December 03 2006 at 18:20
| just about anything for Liquid Tension Experiment |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: December 04 2006 at 11:21
Okay, it can be seen as 14/16 9 times, 6/16 3 times... etc. If that sounds more complex... |
Posted By: Trademark
Date Posted: December 04 2006 at 12:06
| Ahh well, ignorance is bliss. |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: December 20 2006 at 09:41
I was reading it from the Guitar Pro Tab. The person who made the tab probably heard it like 4/4, since that's what Haake plays with his hands (mostly) |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: December 20 2006 at 09:49
I think that sounds silly and stupid. BTW, 9/8+5/4 equals 19/8 If there's one bar of 5/8, a bar of 14/8, two bars of 5/8 and a bar of 7/8 doesn't make it 36/8. Do you get my point? |
Posted By: Sasquamo
Date Posted: December 20 2006 at 10:45
|
Yes, Apocalypse in 9/8 is not as complex as a lot of us like to think. Not to mention it has the most pretentious title ever. Why list the time signature just to look complicated? |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: December 21 2006 at 11:44
|
Apocalypse in 18/16 sounds way more complex, but it's the same thing.
Or: Apocalypse in 36/32, Apocalypse in 72/64, Apocalypse in 144/128, Apocalypse in 288/256...
 |
Posted By: Sasquamo
Date Posted: December 21 2006 at 11:53
| Or you can just say "Apocalypse" and let everyone figure out the time signature by themselves. |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: December 22 2006 at 01:25
|
That would be easy. 3+2+4=9
Let them figure out the time signature in "new millenium cyanide christ" or "in death - is life" by Meshuggah and then we're talkin'
|
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: December 22 2006 at 10:42
|
Take an easy time sig and either add or subtract a beat every now and again, whenever it feels right!  ------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: December 23 2006 at 02:04
Like 4+3+4+5? that just equals 16/4 or 4 measures in 4/4
One cool thing is to use another signature that equals the same number of 8th or 16th notes as in a number of measures of 4/4.
X = one 8th or 16th note
Example:
4/4 4/4
X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---
7/8 9/8
X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---
7/8+9/8 = 16/8 = 2 Measures of 8/8 (4/4)
or
4/4 4/4 4/4
X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---
3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4
X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---
3/4+3/4+3/4+3/4 = 12/4 = 3 Measures of 4/4
|
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: December 23 2006 at 02:06
|
9/16+9/16+2/16+7/16+5/16 = 32/16 = 2 Measures in 16/16 (8/8 (4/4))
|
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: January 03 2007 at 07:10
It's not the same coz the emPHAsis is in differENT places!
------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: January 14 2007 at 02:29
|
^ What?
5 fast bars of 5/8 creates 25/8. Anyone used that time signature?
Can you make a decent song in 2/16?
6 bars of 5/8 plus a bar of 2/8 on top of two bars of 4/4.
Hmm.... enough of my crazy ideas
|
Posted By: Trademark
Date Posted: January 15 2007 at 15:10
| Your ideas are not crazy , they are simply incorrect. A-B Neg is right. Emphasis is the ruling factor in determining meter. You need to look this stuff up (try the New Harvard Dictionary of Music or talk to anyone wsith a degree in music theory) and try to gain some TRUE understanding of it. Rhythm and meter are not mere number games. |
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: May 06 2008 at 23:25
Well if you'd just listen to the drums, it wouldn't be near as suprising. Try memorizing that pattern in tempo.... I've only been able to pull it off a handful of times without the song playing.
Ten bucks says that Bill Bruford just sees it as 4/4 with an added 3/16, and Dave Stewart sees it as 7+7+5/16. ------------------------------------ And any signature you see where the bottom number is not '2-to-the-power-of-something' virtually does not exist in music. I think that includes 2^0, which is 1.... hmm does single meter exist? ----------------------------------- I think polyrhythms are a different story though. Like 9:4, 7:4 ... I learned how to drum a 5:4 and 7:4 pattern (with my hands, I'm not a drummer, yet ) by learning how 5/16 and 7/16 interacts with 4/4 when the 16th note of each has the same set tempo.------------- 
|
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: May 07 2008 at 00:25
In theory yes. I don't know a song that uses it though. I'd love to find one! ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: May 07 2008 at 11:09
|
The middle section of The Mars Volta's "Cygnus... Vismund Cygnus" is in 29/16. I doubt that's very toppable. Speaking of which, what is the time signature for the riff after the drum solo in One Word - Mahavishnu Orchestra? I just cannot figure that bitch out man, it's doing my nut in...
------------- "Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value." Arnold Schoenberg |
Posted By: Unsouled
Date Posted: May 07 2008 at 15:10
|
I don't think there is a "most complex" time signature... many being listed are odd beats of 16th notes, and it can be argued that a lengthier signature is more complex, I guess. However, I think it's really the relationship between the signatures that adds complexity - polyrhythmic meters between band members, time shifts. (One of the most easily discernible polymeters I can think of is in the bridge of Lateralus, with the high hat vs. the bass, and eventually the guitar and vocals.) Tool's Schism also goes through many time changes. Two other notes: 1. Fripp's 6-note repeating theme in Frame by Frame is in 3/8, weaving in and out of the rest of the band going in 4/4. I believe this is the "81/8" mentioned earlier. 2. The distorted guitar section of Frakctured is running in 15/16. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: May 07 2008 at 20:29
|
There was Don Ellis back in the early-70's, who had a big band which specialized in weird/complex time signatures, 27/16, etc. Check out his Wikipedia entry. |
Posted By: manray
Date Posted: May 13 2008 at 09:33
|
Point of view point by cornelius AMAZING |
Posted By: Madklikor
Date Posted: May 13 2008 at 15:48
|
"One might just ask well as what the most complicated mathematical
equation is. The equation might take up many pages and the answer could
turn out to be 1. The time signature thing is exactly the same. The
gibberish time signatures you all are putting up DO NOT EXIST
musically, they only exist mathematically. The measures in question all break down into sub groupings of 2, 3, or 4 pulses. No player will ever count to 27 (or even 17 or 11) as he reads his part. He will look at the music and break it down into sub-groupings, take out his pencil and mark the score accordingly." It's not because musicians don't count them as they are written that they doesn't "exist". |
Posted By: Madklikor
Date Posted: May 13 2008 at 16:07
Please, stop talking like you know something when you obviously don't. |
Posted By: Trademark
Date Posted: May 13 2008 at 16:27
|
I put this post up well over a year ago and then let it go. If you all want to play around in your little fantasy world that is certainly fine with me, but absolutely everything I said in that post is 100% correct. 12 years of formal music education 3 advanced degrees (2 Masters and 1 PhD), and 15 years practical experience playing and teaching music theory gives me some indication that I just "might" know what I am talking about. If you want to get into I can and I will back up everything I've said; if not you're the one who needs to let it drop. Don't call me out if you don't want the answers. If you want to live in a magical world where incorrect information is "right" because some kids say so, as I said, I'm OK with that. if you want to know the truth, you'll have to be willing to learn. Which is it going to be? |
Posted By: Madklikor
Date Posted: May 13 2008 at 17:50
I'm not saying that everything you wrote is wrong, but I don't see how anyone with "2 masters and 1 PhD" would write things like some stuff you wrote. With that experience, you should know that truth in music theory is certainly not something definitive, especially when it comes to NOTATION. Anyone who have true understanding of these problems should know that it doesn't concern what "exist" and what "doesn't exist", but how you write a musical phenomenon. and I have seen none of this in your writing. I would add that a quick glance at the Grove dictionary shows that the definition for "time signature" can totally change from one author to the next (the Grove definition has little to do with the Harvard dictionnary definition you gave). And please, don't try to lecture me... that is simply ridiculous, because I happen to have pretty much the same number of degrees, and you've got no kind of superiority from this stuff (or any kind of superiority for that matter). But I do have a question. I do agree that there is no NEED to write the "time signature" in some of these cases and that some prog musicians are looking to hard into time signatures. But what about Stravinsky's Glorification de l'élue from you-know-what? If I wrote the beginning like this DT song, it would go : 5/8 5/8 9/8 5/8 7/8 3/8 2/4 7/4 3/4 7/4 3/8 2/4 7/4 6/8 5/8 9/8 5/8 5/8 7/8 5/8 3/8 3/4 3/8 4/4 3/8 3/4 3/4 5/4 etc. I guess Stravinsky was a stupid composer who was playing in a a little fantasy world, huh ? |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 13 2008 at 19:13
|
All very interesting stuff certainly BUT has anyone yet run this past that timid and self-effacing creature lurking in the shadows called: PHRASE LENGTH ? (The Bambi of music theory) This is what determines ANY time signature, it's where the musical statement(s) can be deemed to have reached a natural pause for breath. Similar to punctuation for written sentences. After all, taking the reductio ad absurdum route here, we could theoretically transcribe 'Three Blind Mice' into say 15/16 with disingenuous recourse to rests to 'balance the books' The problem with so many of the 'math rock/prog metal' bands around is that they just seem to either add or subtract beats to bog standard rock riffage and call it complexity. If a musical phrase is conceived that expires naturally after an unconventional number of beats, then fine and dandy, but all I can hear is the furious planing of round pegs into square holes. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Trademark
Date Posted: May 13 2008 at 23:31
|
Its funny because when I see this "Please, stop talking like you know something when you obviously don't." It really doesn't follow that the next statement would be this: "I'm not saying that everything you wrote is wrong" followed later by "I do agree that there is no NEED to write the "time signature" in some of these cases" Which is it? It was crystal clear to me from your first comment that you did consider it to be wrong, and nothing I stated was wrong in any way. What changed your mind? Meters like 27/16 and so forth, are false and artificial (is that better than do not exist?) because they cannot be perceived aurally in music. The human brain breaks pulses or beats down into groupings of 2, 3, or 4, and meter (which is really what we are talking about) is established only by repetition of discernable patterns. In short, without the aid of the paper sheet music the brain will not remember the patterns that add up to 27 and will not "count" to 27 over and over again to establish the pattern and rise to the level of being meter according to the accepted definition. Speaking of definitions, the Grove definition reads: "Meter is the grouping of beats in a regularly recurring pattern (the bar or measure) defined by accentuation. At a higher level than the beat and in more complex ways, meter (whether explicitly marked or only sensed) provides the temporal framework of the music within which rhythm is established and perceived." The Harvard Dictionary of Music meter is: "The pattern in which a steady succession of rhythmic pulses is organized", and it is "characterized by the regular recurrence of such patterns." These definitions are exactly the same. The Grove gives more detail, but says the exact same thing. Where is the difference you mention? Neither the DT example nor the Stravinsky meet the accepted definition for meter as there is no repetition. Both are highly rhythmic, but non-metric and so the use of meter signatures is superfluous and confusing to players attempting to read from printed music. There is only a steady pulse and random groupings of 2, 3, and 4 beat patterns which do not repeat. Orchestras often have no more than 4-6 hours rehearsal time for incredibly complex and difficult pieces of music. if the composer handicaps them by writing foolishness like 19/16 or whatever, he's shooting himself in the foot because he'll get a poor performance AND no more work from that particular conductor. Music performed from memory gives a little more latitude, but not much. Make the player's job harder (for no other reason than to stroke your own ego) and you won't have your music performed. I assume that this is the example given that you're comparing to Stravinsky: "In order, each entry written once: 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." The Stravinsky comparison doesn't hold up too well for a couple of reasons. I'll try to explain without lecturing. The first is "theoretical". In the Stravinsky example there are no beat groupings with more than 9 beats. For some reason which I'd have to do some research to find more information about, the abiilty to process more beats than this drops off sharply as the top number in the meter sig. rises. 9 is OK, 11 and 13 get rough, and anything above that would be considered a no-no. I wrote a piece about 15 years ago with a longish section in 13/8. Every time this piece has been performed (half dozen or so) the conductors asked me to "re-bar" the 13/8 section into alternating measures of 7/8 and 6/8 because the players couldn't stay on track through the section. It made perfect sense to me on paper, but it was a performance problem every time. When I finally gave in and made the changes the performances improved dramatically; everyone stayed together. Players won't count and conductors can't conduct (especially if the players won't count) with meter sigs like that. They get out their pencils and re-do the score which makes them annoyed with the composer for needlessly wasting their rehearsal time. The publisher I have for my music now would laugh me out of the building if I put something written in 17/16 on his desk. As a composer you (I) might as well accept reality. So getting back to Igor, he was well within the tested and accepted limits (the limits are not arbitrary, there's actual research to back up common practice) of notation with that segment of Le Sacre. The DT example, on the other hand, has 9 (out of 22) "measures" in sigs with top numerals over 9, and this is the real problem with it. To be readable (notice I did not say playable) those would need to be broken down further and really it would be best to simply leave them out as is common practice in the art-music world. (exceptions exist for everything and you may be able to find a better example. Try the Bartok Sonata for 2 pianos & Percussion or Music for strings, Percussion & Celsta. I have the scores at the moment and it might be fun.) Here's the other thing which you may or may not know about Le Sacre. In his handwritten sketches for the piece there were no bar lines. Stravinsky originally conceived this section without meter signatures. Why then, did he put them in the score for you to quote? He did so at the specific request of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaslav_Nijinsky - Vaslav Nijinsky , the choreographer for the Ballet Russe for whom the piece was originally composed. Nijinsky needed the numbers in order to plan out his choreography. The dancers have to count steps since they cannot have the music in front of them when they perform and the choreography for Le Sacre was unbelievably difficult (at least for its time). Through the rehearsals and even during the disastrous 1st performance in Paris in 1913 he would stand in the wings off stage and shout out the numbers to the dancers to help THEM keep their place. The orchestra would have been just fine without them and Stravinsky knew it. The main reasons for the use of these artificial meters was summed up very well by another poster early on in the thread, "Maybe it's also ego, you know, the more complex you write a time signature the more impressive you seem to others." That IS the reason. The complete and total truth of that statement is born out by the very existence of the thread. If the schoolboys weren't impressed by the big numbers... Well boys, "Here's your sign". |
Posted By: Madklikor
Date Posted: May 14 2008 at 13:54
|
My long answer has been erased with the attack, I'm not writing everything again. A few points : - The questions here : "how do I write these musical phenomenons?" and "what is useful to write?", not "what does exist?". And there are no rules, it depends of the cases. With complex rhythm structures, sometimes time signatures are useless, sometimes they're a way to emphasize structure, sometimes they can be point of reference... which leads to : - Rock music isn't classical music. Rock is about repeated riffs, drum patterns, cycles... You can write stuff in rock music that you wouldn't write in classical music, or write in a different way. If the main riff in a song is repeated 32x and is in 3+4+4+3+4/8, I don't see any problems to write it that way, or 19/8, or 9/4, instead of 3/8+4/8+4/8+3/8+4/8, or whatever. Time signature could only indicate duration here. - That DT song has no 11/4, 17/16 and stuff (the only "unusual" time signature is 15/8), so the Stravinsky comparaison does hold up (they share some rhythmic means). Fanciful time signatures come from bad transcriptions. Instead of lecturing people, you could have simply corrected the transcriptions (I don't think 9/16+12/16+8/16 (Mars volta's Cygnus) would seem less "complex" than 27/16 to anyone). - "Time signature" does not equal "meter". - What Bartok example do you think of? - If you're just trying to say that 27/16 is a stupid way to note a musical phenomenon, there is no need to tell everyone they live in some "magical world", because most of time signatures in this thread are simple and coherent. I think the answer you gave me here isn't quite the same you gave to other people before, it sounds to me like you just wanted to show off and lecture people. |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: May 14 2008 at 14:04
| Hey, someone brought back this little monster! |
Posted By: Madklikor
Date Posted: May 14 2008 at 14:29
|
What monster?
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: May 14 2008 at 15:18
|
try Roman Bunka's album "Dein Kopf ist ein schlafendes Auto" and listen to "Glowin'". also listen to Embryo's album "Embryo's Reise". Meshuggah is simple compared to these rhythms
------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 14 2008 at 17:02
|
^ what did Meshuggah ever do to you?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|