Complex time signatures?

I congratulate the author for placing a good theme to discuss about. More like this would make of the poll site a much more  interesting and entertaining place.

 About the time signatures, ...Well. As you well said, playing either is basically the same. However, I find the use of different time signatures very interesting. As in "cirkus" (Lizard) by King Crimson. The song is not particularily "nice" or enjoyable on the first 100 listens. But the way the instruments are mixed is so interesting and creative that you don´t care if this could be an otherwise, ugly song. And that´s because of the different  time signatures the instruments are playing. 

 Another good poll would be: To you, which is the most important factor in music?

                                              A) Creativity

                                              B) Diversity

                                              C) Complexity

                                              D) Style

                                              E) Originality

                                              F) Concept

                                              G) Other, mention it.

   I would have done it but I still have to define "Creativity", because originality and diversity could be considered part of it....

Trotsky wrote: Ipacial Section wrote: Trotsky wrote: Maybe a straight 7/4 may not impress you ... how about a piece where two musicians are playing according to two different time signatures and only overlap occasionally ... like one guy in 13/8 another in 5/8 but occasionally the patterns come together I must say I once wrote a largely instrumental piece multi-time signature piece so difficult for the band to play that the lyrics were written in recognition of the chaos of the piece! ... we only got it right 1/3 of the time despite playing it on and off for 4 years! Music that uses time signatures in a way that is too outrageous never sounds good. It is therefore unimpressive. Music is only impressive if it is good. Now i'm into chaotic music, but music that is too OTT just gives me a head ache. And i wouldn't even describe 'musique concrete' as being OTT. The chaos of the piece that you wrote (not to mention your inability to get it right more than a third of the time) must indicate to you how pointless it is to make over-complex music just for the sake of it. Complex musical techniques should be employed to enhance the music, not to make it unlistenable & unplayable, just for the sake of complexity. There's a fine line between music & noise. When a band crosses that line, i think it is time for them to give up. Before they enter the realms of ultra-pretentiousness. Besides, i've always believed that music isn't about showing off, to me it's about sharing. Oh please ... actually it had very little to with showing off and much to do with challenging ourselves as musicians ... not that we didn't show off elsewhere! ... this started off as an interesting, somewhat angular riff and I wrote three different sections for it, initially thinking that they were all in the same time, and it was easy enough for me by myself ... plus as a keyboardist I happened to write it in a guitar/bass unfriendly key ... and for once we didn't adjust ... it was more a fun piece than anything else ... with an improvised solo for yours truly ...  and we never once played it for a show ...

All that does is prove my point, the fact that the piece of music was a disaster is down to the silly use of time signatures & other fool hardy methods.

Well done for not performing it live!! Alot of bands would have attempted it, & they are exactly the sort of pretentious bands that get so much stick around here.

Ipacial Section wrote: *Still not impressed*

What ever.

Improvising would be more difficult in unusual time signatures. If you had practiced your licks in different keys (church modes?) then had to use different time sig. it would add another thick layer of complexity. Probably why most Rock and Jazz is done in 4/4.

But if you want to hear different time signatures done well invest in Dave Brubeck's Time Out. This is a Jazz swing group from the late 50's. Each song is a different time signature and they can swing in any of them.

I belive that time signitures are a pretty good metaphor for the spirit of prog. Now one would like to belive that artist write in odd time signitures not to be writing in  weird meters, but because that is the feel they want or that is how a melodic line they hear fits. One would hope to belive that this is true; that it is a thoughtful decision as opposed to just doing it to be different. Obviously there are artists that dont think like this, and really do it just to be doing it. This is more prominant with younger musicians and amateurs. A great example is DT's When Dream and Day Unite. In this debut album, a lot of it seems forced . But in their later albums, the time signitures seem more natrual and apropriat.

Now my point is this: The use of odd meters and odd meter changes allows freedom. If an artist is hearng the begining of the line in 5/4 but the end of it in9/8, then he can do that. It is this type of freedom that is the spirit of progressive rock. Prog bands hear their music out of a verse/chorus/verse form. so they dont use that form, they do what they hear. If they hear a 5 minute instrmental section, they do it.

Prog is about total freedom for the artist to do what he feels is rockin \m/

Trotsky wrote: Maybe a straight 7/4 may not impress you ... how about a piece where two musicians are playing according to two different time signatures and only overlap occasionally ... like one guy in 13/8 another in 5/8 but occasionally the patterns come together I must say I once wrote a largely instrumental piece multi-time signature piece so difficult for the band to play that the lyrics were written in recognition of the chaos of the piece! ... we only got it right 1/3 of the time despite playing it on and off for 4 years!

Music that uses time signatures in a way that is too outrageous never sounds good. It is therefore unimpressive. Music is only impressive if it is good.

Now i'm into chaotic music, but music that is too OTT just gives me a head ache. And i wouldn't even describe 'musique concrete' as being OTT.

The chaos of the piece that you wrote (not to mention your inability to get it right more than a third of the time) must indicate to you how pointless it is to make over-complex music just for the sake of it. Complex musical techniques should be employed to enhance the music, not to make it unlistenable & unplayable, just for the sake of complexity.

There's a fine line between music & noise. When a band crosses that line, i think it is time for them to give up. Before they enter the realms of ultra-pretentiousness.

Besides, i've always believed that music isn't about showing off, to me it's about sharing.