the most technically impressive song?

Easy Money wrote: OK, OK put a "one" in there if you want, but they are hard to count. I really don't care anymore. ,    but I do agree that 9/4 is a better way of showing 4.5/4 than 9/8.

I'm really sorry if I'm going on your nerves ... but I think that 9/4 and 4.5/4 are very different things, and 9/8 is much closer to what 4.5/4 means than 9/4. But maybe it's best to agree to disagree here.

I don't think that anyone would use fractions in metrics ... it was just an example to illustrate the point. I think in real life 9/8 would be the only sensible way to note it - using 4/4 plus one "bar" of 1/8 would be really unusual, 3/8 + 3/8 + 3/8 would be misleading IMO. 2/8+2/8+2/8+3/8 would be possible, but it would be a bit cumbersome.

I mean, how many of you guys have heard the part of Fracture I'm talking about? It's after the really quiet slow violin and volume-pedal guitar, when Robert Fripp plays that big A-something chord, that's the part I'm talking about. If you heard that and tried to count it you'd call it something asinine like 4.5/4 too, I promise.

id just go with Hella and Jazz in general.

but for songs. I cant name imparticular ones by them. its pretty much.....everything.


Edited by fungusucantkill - October 18 2007 at 19:57

I'd say 9/4 would be more similar to 4.5/4 than 9/8 simply because of the quater note pulses.

"*sigh* ... you just don't understand. Compound time is totally off topic here ... of course 9/8 is often divided into groups of 2, 3 or 4. I'm just saying that *sometimes* 9/8 is also used for something like 4/4+1/8 ... in that case the grouping would be something like (2+2+2+2+1)/8. In compound time it would probably be written as (2+2+2+3)/8 instead, which IMO is simply odd if in the actual rhythm there's an accent on the last 1/8th note."

Compound time is not off topic here because YOU keep trying to make compound time into something it is not, and CAN NEVER be. Compound time and additive meter are two completely different concepts. Sometimes additive meters are erroneously notated with compound time signatures, but what that is, is a mistake, not "a different way of seeing it".

" In compound time it would probably be written as (2+2+2+3)/8"

(2+2+2+3)/8 is NOT compound time!! It is an ADDITIVE METER. ALL 6 or 9 or 12 beat meters are ALWAYS compound meters with a triparte division of the beat. This is the only time the 6, 9, or 12 should be seen in the top number.

It makes no difference if it is 9/8, 9/4, 9/16, 9/2, or 9/1. Whatever the beat value is, in compound time it will ALWAYS be subdivied in THREE's ONLY. Any other breakdown of the beat values constitues an additive meter and should be written in score as such. There are no exceptions and no "differences of opinion". Cert is right and you are wrong.

There can never be and "added 1" which is accented. Think about the concept of accent. Accent requires comparison. That means you need at least two beats for there to be any accent. Accent can take place on the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, beat of a grouping, but cannot exist in 1. 1 is an "event"; 2, 3, or 4 is a group. An event cannot be accented as there is nothing to compare it to. ALL BEATS IN ALL MUSIC ARE GROUPED IN 2, 3, or 4 BEAT PATTERNS. What you are, and have been, saying is just plain wrong.

The example from Fracture is a polyrhythm. The drums are playing in 4/4 while everyone else plays in different meters. That's why it is so hard to count. There is a piece for percussion ensemble by Christopher Rouse called "Bonham" that comes to mind in this way. The drum set in this piece plays parts from several differnt Led Zep tunes while everyone else plays parts written by Rouse. The polyrhythms are so complex that the player at the drum kit must wear earplugs to block out all the other noise to keep from getting "pulled" off his own part. In a similar vein there is a piece by Grygory Litegi for two pianos where each player uses his own metronome (on headphones) to keep time. This section of Fracture works on a somewhat simpler level, but is the same concept. Each player in his own meter signature, and possibly his own separate tempo.


Yes, Mike you ARE ever so stubbornly trying to push your big square peg through the roundest hole ever made and no matter how much YOU want it to, it will NEVER fit.

I am reminded of a quote from the great concert promoter of the 1950's Sol Hurok. He said, "If the people don't want to come, nothing will stop them." In your case Mike, it should be " If the people (Mike) don't want to LEARN, nothing will stop them." You're gonna fail this section of the course.



Edited by Trademark - October 19 2007 at 08:59

You're right, it doesn't exist as you've written it out. You'd have 3 (the 1 & 2) + 3 + 4 and then the 5 needs also to be broken down into either 2 + 3 or 3 + 2. Accents can be placed on any note or no notes in a beat group. The lack of logic is your shortcoming.

Edited by Trademark - October 19 2007 at 09:17

mmmmmm delicious pedantics

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I love being pedantic ...

/\ No, you're not at all  and I'm pretty sure that both sides are right to an extent, things can be written in weird meters but the actual execution is into subdivided meters. That's my impression at least, I'll ask my AP Music Theory teacher when I get back to school