the most technically impressive song?

^ You are mistaken.

Ouch!!! Maybe you don't like his tone, but knowledge of music theory shouldn't be bad a thing, especially on a site that claims to be "progressive".
I come to this site to pick up information, not supress it.
Anyway, I don't want to add fuel to a deterioating conversation, so direct all hate mail to my lawyer.

Edited by Easy Money - October 21 2007 at 13:34

MikeEnRegalia wrote: There's no need to add more of what I've already posted here ... just one more thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_meter_%28music%29 So it appears like some things which were said here about the definition of "compound meter/time" weren't true after all. Could our resident music professors shed some light on the subject? Also, let's have a look at this example from the wikipedia page: "British rock musician Sting uses the 9/8 time signature on his 1996 song "I Hung My Head" from the Mercury Falling album. He uses it by playing 8 eighth notes (in effect, using a normal 4/4 time signature), just followed by a single eighth note. Thus, the division becomes: 4/8+4/8+1/8=9/8." Huh. Seems like I'm not the only one who had that idea. But what do I know ... you're the pros!

Not impressive, I'm sorry to say.

Off topic, but:

MikeEnRegalia wrote: There's no need to add more of what I've already posted here ... just one more thing:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_meter_%28music%29So it appears like some things which were said here about the definition of "compound meter/time" weren't true after all. Could our resident music professors shed some light on the subject?Also, let's have a look at this example from the wikipedia page:"British rock musician Sting uses the 9/8 time signature on his 1996 song "I Hung My Head" from the Mercury Falling album. He uses it by playing 8 eighth notes (in effect, using a normal 4/4 time signature), just followed by a single eighth note. Thus, the division becomes: 4/8+4/8+1/8=9/8."Huh. Seems like I'm not the only one who had that idea. But what do I know ... you're the pros!

Way back there I gave you the Don Ellis example that proved you are right. So I have no argument with you on that one. I still think ones are hard to count so I avoid them, but they do exist.

Your beef with the compound time is with the other "professor", although I'm not a "professor".

Anyway, may music theory bring more peace and love to the world as it has here on this day, amen.


Edited by Easy Money - October 21 2007 at 12:48

If you believe everything (anything) you see on Wikipedia I've got some oceanfront property in Nebraska (or the Czech Republic)I'd like to sell you.

Basically, 2/4 time with a triplet feel.

The wiki entry, like nearly all Wiki entries, is barely half right. The fist paragraph of the entry makes little or no sense in English so I assume it to be a bad translation.

The second part is a correct definition of compound meter.:

"6/8 divided into two equal parts, also called compound duple meter, i.e., a primary accent on the first 1/8 note, a subordinate accent on the fourth 1/8 note, and the rest of the 1/8 notes may have accents subordinate to that.

^Basically, 2/4 time with a triplet feel.

9/8 divided into three parts, also called compound triple meter, i.e., a primary accent on the first 1/8 note, subordinate accents on the fourth and seventh 1/8 notes, and the rest of the 1/8 notes may have accents subordinate to that.

^Basically, 3/4 time with a triplet feel.

12/8 divided into four equal parts, also called compound quadruple meter. A primary accent on the first 1/8 note and subordinate accents on the fourth, seventh and tenth 1/8 notes"

^Basically, 4/4 time with a triplet feel. (Duke's Travels is mostly in 12/8)

The rest (with the exception of the very last paragraph) is someone's poorly formed opinion. I could log on and change it all right now if I felt like it. Wikipedia is a worthless source of information, and in fact serves its greatest purpose in spreading mis-information.

The sum total of the definition of compound Meter in The Harvard Dictionary of Music and in the Nerw Grove Encyclopedia of Music (both of which are accepted research authorities (using Wikipedia as a reference in a research paper would get you a failing grade in ANY subject) is as follows:

" A meter that includes a triple subdivivsion within the beat, e.g.6/8.

^ triple subdivision being the key words here. Without the triple division you cannot have compound meter. Therefore 4 + 4+ 1 cannot be compound.

It does however fit the definition of additive meter: "a grouping of irregular numbbers of beats that add up to a larger overall pattern, example 2+4+4+4."

I think, Mike that you may be confusing the definitions of "subdivision", and "beat group". Subdivision is the division of an individual beat; that is a quarter note into 2 eighth notes. etc. Beat grouping is not subivision. it is the grouping of the beats into (usually) repeating patterns. The relative limitations of the human ability to perceive complex patterns dictates that we break them down into small enough units to avoid confusion. That's why I keep harping on the 2, 3, & 4 beats in a group issue here. It is also why 1 cannot be a group by itself. It must be part of a group or there can be no pattern.

But the basic idea to grasp is that compound meters group and subdivide ONLY in three's. Additive meter groups beats in any combinations of 2, 3, & 4, and can subdivide beats in two or three.

The concept of additive meter is centuries old, but as a "thing to be taught", it is relatively new having only been in the theory curiculum for about the last 15-20 years. Expressing additive meter as part of the meter signature (rather than using the simple form 9/8 etc.) is, likewise, somewhat new. But the whole purpose is to simplify life for both player and conductor and to avoid the confusion that has reigned through this thread by giving everyone involved an crystal clear picture of what they need to play. Expressing additive meters in simple form cannot do that.

For once, theory got AHEAD of practice.

Edited by Trademark - October 21 2007 at 13:13

"I think, Mike that you may be confusing the definitions of "subdivision", and "beat group". Subdivision is the division of an individual beat; that is a quarter note into 2 eighth notes. etc. Beat grouping is not subivision. it is the grouping of the beats into (usually) repeating patterns. The relative limitations of the human ability to perceive complex patterns dictates that we break them down into small enough units to avoid confusion. That's why I keep harping on the 2, 3, & 4 beats in a group issue here. It is also why 1 cannot be a group by itself. It must be part of a group or there can be no pattern.

But the basic idea to grasp is that compound meters group and subdivide ONLY in three's. Additive meter groups beats in any combinations of 2, 3, & 4, and can subdivide beats in two or three.

The concept of additive meter is centuries old, but as a "thing to be taught", it is relatively new having only been in the theory curiculum for about the last 15-20 years. Expressing additive meter as part of the meter signature (rather than using the simple form 9/8 etc.) is, likewise, somewhat new. But the whole purpose is to simplify life for both player and conductor and to avoid the confusion that has reigned through this thread by giving everyone involved an crystal clear picture of what they need to play. Expressing additive meters in simple form cannot do that."

Ok - fair enough. But how would you "beat group" Don Ellis' track "3 222 1 222"? It's a very good example of my point ... that "1" is neither a member of the previous group nor of the following group. I simply can't imagine that a player would practice the track counting "3 223 22", just because groups of "1" are not allowed ... I tried counting like that, and it didn't work at all.

Could it be that rhythms like this one are simply not used in the music which you usually encounter (Classical I presume, since you mention "conducting")?

I would group it 3+2+2+2 | 3+2+2 thus making two measures of each one in alternating additive meters. I have no problem counting it that way at all and it has a nice sense of that "constricting" idea that you mentioned in conjunction with Mike Portnoy a page or two back.

Conducting is one issue for a lot of music. A great many jazz bands also have conductors and the problems and issues with notation are much the same.

With over 185 GB (at 128 kbps) of music in my collection there isn't a whole lot I haven't encountered and studied.

And then how can you dare to accuse Dream Theater of mindless w......? 

Amen Brotha Money