Most Complex Time Signature ever!?

Trademark wrote: 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.

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 ?

Edited by Madklikor - May 13 2008 at 19:32

Trademark wrote: "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.

Please, stop talking like you know something when you obviously don't.

Point of view point by cornelius

AMAZING

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.

explodingjosh wrote: Abstrakt wrote: Just Found Out that "Rational Gaze" by Meshuggah is in 4/4! 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. Cygnus X-2 wrote: Abstrakt wrote: Some More: Bill Bruford - Hells Bells 9/8 I've read and heard (as well as counted it) as 19/16. 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.

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.

Abstrakt wrote: A B Negative wrote: Take an easy time sig and either add or subtract a beat every now and again, whenever it feels right!   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

A B Negative wrote: Take an easy time sig and either add or subtract a beat every now and again, whenever it feels right!

That would be easy. 3+2+4=9

Apocalypse in 18/16 sounds way more complex, but it's the same thing.