A weird time signature idea

4/3 is the same as 4/4 ... or 4/5, 4/6, 4/7, 4/8 etc.. To note things in either x/4 or x/8 has simply become a standard notation.

But of course you could note a piece that's in 3/4 in 3/3 instead. Then, if it has bars with one additional beat, you could note those as 4/3.




Edited by Mr ProgFreak - June 19 2009 at 06:22

topofsm wrote: Okay, everyone should know by now that I'm basically a sucker for odd time signatures and discussing them. Anyways, I have an idea that may just confuse some people but to me it makes perfect sense.   For a while I've seen lots of people on the internet (not just here) stating that there can't be a number on the bottom of a time signature that isn't a power of 2. This makes sense for the most part. For those of you who don't get it:   4/2, 4/4, 4/8, and 4/16 could be acceptable time signatures, respectively meaning four half notes in a measure, four quarter notes, four eighth notes, and four sixteenth notes. However 4/3 wouldn't be acceptable, it would be like saying 4 third notes in a measure, and third notes don't exist.   However, It seems kind of logical to me that it could happen. Considering that a quarter note takes up one-fourth of a measure, a third note (I'm making up the term, so don't criticize me for this) would take up one-third of a measure. Therefore if a measure takes up the same amount of time, a third note is basically a triplet quarter note.   Therefore, suppose had a measure of 4/4 followed by a measure of 4/3. For example you simply play a single note on the emphasis parts of the measure. You would simply play the first measure at the correct tempo with four quarter notes, and the next measure play triplet quarter notes, but instead of only playing three, you would play four.   Therefore, when having a non-power-of-two number in the denominator of the time signature, you simply play the tuplet for quarter notes based off the bottom, and play however many of those notes the numerator says to play. 4/4 + 9/7 would simply be four quarter notes followed by nine septuplets.   Of course, nobody would ever do this. Different measures would simply have the conductor speed up or slow down accordingly. I'm just saying it is possible from a musical perspective.   Does anybody understand what I'm saying? If you do please comment.

Sorry, no. Although it's just a convention.

Time measure could be 3/4, 7/8, 502349870/32. But any measure that is n/5, n/7, n/13 is conventionally marked as n/m , where m is divisible by two, playing p/q (where q is not divisible by two), and it simply means you play a p  number of q-plets within a pulse of n/m.

It's not clear what 4/4+4/3 would be: 4/4 + 4/4, where a common beat is followed by another one, with triplet of the same duration? Is that triplet long as 1/8, 1/2, 1/4 of a tempo? If it's long as 1/3 it's simply one bar of 4/4 followed by another bar of 4/4, but in slower tempo (3/4th of the first bar's tempo).

You said 4/4 + 9/7 would be simply four quarter notes followed by nine septuplets. Septuplets of what? Those rhythmical figures are determined by the songs pulse. The other way round is not making sense, much less so making them both a theoretical priority.


On a side note, such phrases are extremely difficult, if not impossible to achieve by a human musician. And God save me from music that is complicated for the sake of being complicated.

My two eurocents.

I heard classical composers used to do that occasionally, but only if necessary

^Exactly. If you look at the link and see the triplet half notes, those are technically third notes, since they take up exactly one third of the measure, like the quarter notes in the second one taking up one-fourth of the measure.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Diaby wrote: I disagree. You are saying that 4/3=4/4=..., but in a different tempo. That's just not right. A musical 1/4 note (and every other) has a standard notation which can't be misunderstood for anything else, pace is nothing to do here! Simple maths. The first bar you see is 3/3 and the second is 4/4. Which equal each other mathematically, both of them =1. Now, if I added one more from the first type of note into the first bar, that'd be 4/3 (sorry, Guitar Pro doesn't allow that signature). #update: http://www.flickr.com/photos/agostonschranz/3641119561/ , if you don't see the picture Sorry, but where did I say anything about tempo/pace? It's all 4/x ... doesn't matter how you notate it. I understand the example in that image ... but if you chose to note that first bar as 3/3, with crotchets (quarter notes) instead of those triolic minims (half notes), you would really make it a bar of 4/4. In a different tempo, but we aren't talking about tempo here - we are talking about notation. The tempo is usually defined as the pace of the beats that make up a bar, and in the notation crotchets (quarter notes) are defined as representing the beats (tempo-wise). In order to note something in x/3 you would probably still use crotchets to represent the beats (1/3 of a bar in that case). The only difference to x/4 notation would be the label (x/3 instead of x/4) and the re-definition of crotchets and beats.

Factually, you did not mention pace, but this was the only way I could interpret your original post. I thought you were thinking about the following:

Diaby's Interpretation of MrProgFreak's Thoughts wrote: Sit. 1; Pace=120 BPM --> 1/4r lasts 1/120 minutes long Sit. 2; Pace=60 BPM--> 1/8 lasts 1/120 minutes long ...so the notation doesn't matter, the pace is important.

Of course this is stupid. After reading your reply I see what you originally meant.

Notation has to respect the music it's "displaying". Which means you should use the notation that best "describes" your music.
If your measure is actually based on a division in thirds, you can use a n/3 signature. Still, none of the n/m where m is not a power of 2 are "necessary" (all of them can be transcripted with a n/2^p signature).

It's like using the "double sharp" (double dièse). It's not  "necessary", but represents more accuuratly the note to be played relatively to its position in the scale.