A weird time signature idea
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Music and Musicians Exchange
Forum Description: Talk with and get feedback from other musicians on the site
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=58867
Printed Date: November 22 2024 at 06:19
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: A weird time signature idea
Posted By: topofsm
Subject: A weird time signature idea
Date Posted: June 19 2009 at 02:09
|
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. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 19 2009 at 02:34
|
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. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: cobb2
Date Posted: June 19 2009 at 05:58
|
But you pointed it out yourself- how can anyone work out the beat value (bottom number) if it doesn't convert to a note?
Time signatures serve a wonderful purpose- so other people can understand what has been written and play it in the tempo the composer wanted. Music theory contains probably the only world excepted standards ie, the only (non-digital) communication protocol that is understood and adapted in every part of the world. The reason for this- it is a simple standard that works for any music that can be composed. The only person I know that would want to change a standard that well entrenched would be B Gates.
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: June 19 2009 at 09:00
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. |
topofsm wrote:Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: June 19 2009 at 09:00
|
What you're talking about is on paper, music is sound in time. The markings on the paper are just a way for people to communicate the sound. I'm fairly certain that any complex scheme of sound in time you want to play is already able to be notated in standard form. What you're suggesting actually sounds more confusing that standard as I try to imagine playing it. 3,5,7 notes require additional markings above the notes, and are we going to keep the pulse for a measure constant or the pulse for a note standard? Anyway, I think the most important thing is to make music that expresses what you want to express, and if you need to notate it, do so in the best way that communicates to the people you need to communicate to. Chord / lyric sheets actually are more effecient than standard notation in most of the music I play live. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: wreckfan1
Date Posted: June 19 2009 at 11:59
|
I heard classical composers used to do that occasionally, but only if necessary
nowadays their scores would have been re-interpreted using the power of two system
|
Posted By: Diaby
Date Posted: June 19 2009 at 12:43
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 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/agostonschranz/3641119561 / , if you don't see the picture ------------- yeah |
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: June 20 2009 at 11:53
|
^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.
And a measure of 4/3 would be like a measure with 4 of the notes in the first measure.
And of course again it would be highly impractical to have a measure of 4/3 unless you wanted the speed of the notes to be exactly the ratio of the quarter notes to the third notes if you get what I'm saying. -------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 20 2009 at 12:10
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. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Diaby
Date Posted: June 20 2009 at 15:32
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:
Of course this is stupid. After reading your reply I see what you originally meant. ------------- yeah |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 20 2009 at 15:42
It's an interesting discussion though ... and I'm glad that there are people in this forum who are willing to discuss a theoretical subject like this.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: mono
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 08:05
|
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. ------------- https://soundcloud.com/why-music Prog trio, from ambiant to violence https://soundcloud.com/m0n0-film Film music and production projects https://soundcloud.com/fadisaliba (almost) everything else |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 09:28
^ or you could write "(sic) # #". 
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |