Time signatures

  william s. braintree said:

  taxman said:

somebody try this one :arrr:

 

song

 

5/4 with a triplet feel. Really it's relative to the reader. That's really only why time signatures are handy. You can write any rhythm in 4/4, but writing it in 5/4 might be more logical.

it's 3/5... or 15 squares, in fruity loops language

  Kcinsu said:

oh wait, my mistake... it would be a dotted half note. but still its just kind of pointless

I still dont get it, it seems like it would be a third of a whole note?

  taxman said:

  william s. braintree said:

  taxman said:

somebody try this one :arrr:

 

song

 

5/4 with a triplet feel. Really it's relative to the reader. That's really only why time signatures are handy. You can write any rhythm in 4/4, but writing it in 5/4 might be more logical.

 

it's 3/5... or 15 squares, in fruity loops language

I think its just 5/4. 15 squares in fruity languange means nothing, just that you can get into odd subdivisions. 3/5 would not make sense. There just happens to be a triplet rhythym (I never spell this word right, too tired), which has nothing to do with time signiature, and might as well be 4/4.

just about everything is in a 4/4 time signature.

if you listen to tool, you may find some 3/4's, some 5/4's and the occasional 7/4.

Its basically like counting 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4 on the hits, beats, blahs. If you can listen to a track and comfortably count to five instead of four, for 4 sets then its in a 5/4.

This is how Ive come to understand time signature.

To be honest, stick with the 4/4 it is the best time signature.

  william s. braintree said:

  ten fingers ten toes said:

Esentially though, as far as Venetial Snares and that sort of thing is concerned, the second number is meaningless. It could be anything because it doesn't matter. It's only usefull in the conext of reading it on sheet music. You might as well just say "7 count" or "11 count", referreing to the beats per measure.

 

There's a use for it because it tells you what the pulse is. 6/8 and 6/4 sound a bit different. 6/4 sounds more rigid whereas 6/8 is comprised of more flowing triplets. Same thing with 7/8 and 7/4.

But.. not technically. There's nothing stopping anyone from wiring a song in "6/8" that just has 3 quarter notes in every measure. It would "pulse" the same as any other 3/4 song. Typically that's not what happens, no. But my point was more, since the second number is just describing what to look for on your sheet music to represent one beat, there's not alot of point to it when listening to music that doesn't have or couldn't have sheet music is there? Also, triplets (dividing a beat into three for everyone who isn't up on their classical notation vocab), can be acomplished in any time signature using dotted notes and more subdivision (you can have dotted 16th's and 32nd's and everything too you know).

Really my point is just "Time signature exists for the benefit of classical notation and is therefore not very relvant when listening to Venetian Snares. You understand the rhythm every bit as well by simply saying "7 count"."

yeah, so I guess x/3 would be a half note triplet, which is even more pointless then before.

  ten fingers ten toes said:

Also, triplets (dividing a beat into three for everyone who isn't up on their classical notation vocab), can be acomplished in any time signature using dotted notes and more subdivision (you can have dotted 16th's and 32nd's and everything too you know).

Dotted notes are different than playing in 3. Slight, but there's still a difference. When you add a dot, you're adding 50% more of what you just added. Say you had a dotted quarter note. That is a quarter note and an eigth note. A dotted 32nd note is only a 32nd note+ a 64th note duration. So the beat is still quantized to 4 no matter how minute. You come off a bit hostile. What's the deal?

  Kcinsu said:

yeah, so I guess x/3 would be a half note triplet, which is even more pointless then before.

One measure of 8/3 followed my one measure of 3/2, followed by 4/4 followed by 8/3 followed by 3/1, etc. It can help to notate it that way if you want to skip a beat or skip a measure for effect.

  Quote

  Kcinsu said:

yeah, so I guess x/3 would be a half note triplet, which is even more pointless then before.

 

One measure of 8/3 followed my one measure of 3/2, followed by 4/4 followed by 8/3 followed by 3/1, etc. It can help to notate it that way if you want to skip a beat or skip a measure for effect.

I'm with Kcinsu here . . I'd really like to see the score for this. I can see a composer writing a measure in 8/3 only if they were a gigantic asshole. It seems like it'd take a lot more work for a player to learn to feel a measure of x/3 than it would to just notate it another way.

For real counting fun, try counting the 13/16 part in Boneville Occident! Yesss.

  william s. braintree said:

  ten fingers ten toes said:

Also, triplets (dividing a beat into three for everyone who isn't up on their classical notation vocab), can be acomplished in any time signature using dotted notes and more subdivision (you can have dotted 16th's and 32nd's and everything too you know).

 

Dotted notes are different than playing in 3. Slight, but there's still a difference. When you add a dot, you're adding 50% more of what you just added. Say you had a dotted quarter note. That is a quarter note and an eigth note. A dotted 32nd note is only a 32nd note+ a 64th note duration. So the beat is still quantized to 4 no matter how minute. You come off a bit hostile. What's the deal?

 

  Kcinsu said:

yeah, so I guess x/3 would be a half note triplet, which is even more pointless then before.

 

One measure of 8/3 followed my one measure of 3/2, followed by 4/4 followed by 8/3 followed by 3/1, etc. It can help to notate it that way if you want to skip a beat or skip a measure for effect.

I really don't think it would help to notate it that way. It just makes it confusing.

A more logical way to notate that sequence you wrote out (8/3, 3/2, 4/4. 8/3. 3/1) would be:

5 bars of 6/4 (1 bar of 8/3 would have 24 quarter notes, so that is easily divisible by 4, and then 3/2 has 6 quarter notes)

1 bar of 4/4 (same)

6 bars of 6/4 (again 1 bar of 8/3 would have 24 quarter notes, and 3/1 would have 12 quarter notes, which you divide by 2, to get 2 bars of 6/4)

this way, the x/4 is contant, making it easy for the players to have some sort of constant. and then you'd mark what kind of grouping had the beat for each time signature... phrasing marks would be important to show the groupings, but it would be clearer then complex time signature)

Also, tempo is a factor. As is conducting. I really just can't think of any place where this would benifit anything... as there are more logical ways to break it down.

And now, thinking about it more... using x/3 is even more pointless in a time signature where x = any number other then a multiple of 3. If you use x/3, then 3 is a half note tuplet. tuplet, implying a grouping of 3, which would be incomplete in a situation where x = any other number then a multiple of 3. (otherwise, a dotted half note would work just as well, which would mean using x/4 and saying a dotted quarter note has the beat, would have more sense)

Just curious, what kind of tempo are we dealing with? Cause this also would be a big factor.

Kcinsu, In classical notation tempos usually are not exact and therefore you could not create mathematical speed relationships between measures without using meter changes. I think thats why 8/3 is used. Its also possibly a statement of notation. Art is more than what aphex does on his computer. Thats all Im really saying. Much of what people do is justifiable.

  Bubba69 said:

Kcinsu, In classical notation tempos usually are not exact and therefore you could not create mathematical speed relationships between measures without using meter changes. I think thats why 8/3 is used. Its also possibly a statement of notation. Art is more than what aphex does on his computer. Thats all Im really saying. Much of what people do is justifiable.

not exact, like mechanical sample accurate timing, but you most certainly can create mathmatical tempo relationships without meter changes (its called metric modulation), but thats not what I was saying at all. I'm saying there are simpler ways to divide the afformentioned time signatures, that will work the same way, and sound the same, but making it easier for both the conducter to conduct, and the player to comprehend the subdivisions in their head.

sure it could be a statement of notation. so? I'd argue that if you are making statements with notation, in a way that the audience woulnd't comprehend (only the players/people looking at the score) then you're heading into academic-missing-the-point-of-music area.

I'm sure the entire orchestra will appriciate it, when it takes 30 mins of their time to be explained exactly how all the time signature changes work. And I'm sure you'd enjoy paying each player of the orchestra a large sum of money for an hourly rate, and using a good chunk of time explaining it, and running the piece enough times for them to feel comfortable with all of the changes.

And yeah, about that aphex computer bit... I don't know what that had to do with the conversation at all, besides being a little condescending.

And like I said, it CAN be done. Almost nything can be justified, doesn't make it practical or useful.

  Kcinsu said:

  Bubba69 said:

Kcinsu, In classical notation tempos usually are not exact and therefore you could not create mathematical speed relationships between measures without using meter changes. I think thats why 8/3 is used. Its also possibly a statement of notation. Art is more than what aphex does on his computer. Thats all Im really saying. Much of what people do is justifiable.

 

not exact, like mechanical sample accurate timing, but you most certainly can create mathmatical tempo relationships without meter changes (its called metric modulation), but thats not what I was saying at all. I'm saying there are simpler ways to divide the afformentioned time signatures, that will work the same way, and sound the same, but making it easier for both the conducter to conduct, and the player to comprehend the subdivisions in their head.

 

sure it could be a statement of notation. so? I'd argue that if you are making statements with notation, in a way that the audience woulnd't comprehend (only the players/people looking at the score) then you're heading into academic-missing-the-point-of-music area.

 

I'm sure the entire orchestra will appriciate it, when it takes 30 mins of their time to be explained exactly how all the time signature changes work. And I'm sure you'd enjoy paying each player of the orchestra a large sum of money for an hourly rate, and using a good chunk of time explaining it, and running the piece enough times for them to feel comfortable with all of the changes.

 

And yeah, about that aphex computer bit... I don't know what that had to do with the conversation at all, besides being a little condescending.

 

And like I said, it CAN be done. Almost nything can be justified, doesn't make it practical or useful.

Sorry for the aphex bit. Was jsut tryinng to relate it to something. But yeah I see your point. I'll check up on that metric moduation bit so I can understand what it is. I'll try to work this out on paper and then explain it, because I mostly talking out of my ass at this point. But I'd like to see this piece of music where this controversy started from. Any Images of wierd meter anybody has?

I just went through 3 music theory books, and no where did they even mention the possibility of the lower number being anything other then 1,2,4,8,16,32, or 64.

A search online found nothing either.

I just checked out that Metric modulation theory thing. Now I understand what you are saying. I still don't understand how it would be written though. Would it be a side note in the score so the musicians understood the tempo change, or would it be up to the conductor to convey the tempo change? I assume the latter. Thanks for this, I've been wondering how to integrate these relationships since when I first was in band in middle school. My mind would wander to weird places.

EDIT: nevermind I found a good article http://www.msu.edu/user/millett1/metricmod.htm

ok, here is a really cheesy example I put together. Obviously it sounds stupid with a dance beat, but its just to show you the pulse/divisions. When using in an orchestral piece, for example, its a good way to make the motion faster, while relating it to the previous pulse, and if you write it well enough, the change could be very subtle, (and not drastic like in this example).

but basically, here is a 4/4 beat, with triplets (this can work with any other subdivisions as well) the tempo is 80 bpm.

if you calculate that there are 3 triplets in the quarter note,( bpm x sudivision = bpm of the subdivision, so 80 x 3 = 240) and that you want to move to a fast 4/4 time with straight eigth notes, and you want the quarter note to have the beat, you put 2 eigth notes together, to form a quarter note (or 240 divided by 2 = 120) so the new bpm would be 120, and you'd have a 4/4 beat, with straight eigth notes, that is locked, in a way, with the subdivisions of the previous tempo.

if you think of it in terms of keep a straight tempo... you'd be making the 3rd triplet of the first beat, be beat 2, and the 2nd triplet of beat 2, the 3rd beat, and the 1st triplet of beat 3, the 4th beat, etc. this is just a way to do it with tempo changes, so that you don't have overlapping rhythms (like I just said... if you kept the tempo fixed, the straight eigth note 4/4 figure would not fit perfectly in 1 bar)

make sense?

listen to the cheesy example to see what I mean. tap out the triplets from the first beat... and suddenly the tempo and feel will have changed, but you will still be tapping in ryhthm.

metricmodulation.mp3Fetching info...

  Kcinsu said:

ok, here is a really cheesy example I put together. Obviously it sounds stupid with a dance beat, but its just to show you the pulse/divisions. When using in an orchestral piece, for example, its a good way to make the motion faster, while relating it to the previous pulse, and if you write it well enough, the change could be very subtle, (and not drastic like in this example).

 

but basically, here is a 4/4 beat, with triplets (this can work with any other subdivisions as well) the tempo is 80 bpm.

 

if you calculate that there are 3 triplets in the quarter note,( bpm x sudivision = bpm of the subdivision, so 80 x 3 = 240) and that you want to move to a fast 4/4 time with straight eigth notes, and you want the quarter note to have the beat, you put 2 eigth notes together, to form a quarter note (or 240 divided by 2 = 120) so the new bpm would be 120, and you'd have a 4/4 beat, with straight eigth notes, that is locked, in a way, with the subdivisions of the previous tempo.

 

if you think of it in terms of keep a straight tempo... you'd be making the 3rd triplet of the first beat, be beat 2, and the 2nd triplet of beat 2, the 3rd beat, and the 1st triplet of beat 3, the 4th beat, etc. this is just a way to do it with tempo changes, so that you don't have overlapping rhythms (like I just said... if you kept the tempo fixed, the straight eigth note 4/4 figure would not fit perfectly in 1 bar)

 

make sense?

 

listen to the cheesy example to see what I mean. tap out the triplets from the first beat... and suddenly the tempo and feel will have changed, but you will still be tapping in ryhthm.

 

metricmodulation.mp3Fetching info...

Thats cool. I think Im going to experiment with this a bit on my own. The tempo change formulas would be useful. Thats what I was getting at when I initially said that 8/3 would just be 4/4 in a different tempo, but I didn't understand the math behind it. You suprised me with your knowledge after your intial statements that 8/3 was using dotter quater notes or something along those lines, LoL! Thaks for sharing.

yeah, I wasn't really thinking too much when I said the dotted half notes bit

  william s. braintree said:

  ten fingers ten toes said:

Also, triplets (dividing a beat into three for everyone who isn't up on their classical notation vocab), can be acomplished in any time signature using dotted notes and more subdivision (you can have dotted 16th's and 32nd's and everything too you know).

 

Dotted notes are different than playing in 3. Slight, but there's still a difference. When you add a dot, you're adding 50% more of what you just added. Say you had a dotted quarter note. That is a quarter note and an eigth note. A dotted 32nd note is only a 32nd note+ a 64th note duration. So the beat is still quantized to 4 no matter how minute. You come off a bit hostile. What's the deal?

Whoa, sorry, didn't mean to come off hostile at all. My apologies man.

I guess then either Im just not getting something, or we speaking on different things here or something. As far as I can tell, I cannot think of an arrangement of notes that would play out differently in 6/8 instead of 3/4. I mean, an 8th note divded into 3 would have the same "values" in terms of beatage (heh) that a quarter note into 3 would right? So you just adjust temp accordingly for the triplets to sound the same no?

  Bubba69 said:

  taxman said:

  william s. braintree said:

  taxman said:

somebody try this one :arrr:

 

song

 

5/4 with a triplet feel. Really it's relative to the reader. That's really only why time signatures are handy. You can write any rhythm in 4/4, but writing it in 5/4 might be more logical.

 

it's 3/5... or 15 squares, in fruity loops language

 

I think its just 5/4. 15 squares in fruity languange means nothing, just that you can get into odd subdivisions. 3/5 would not make sense. There just happens to be a triplet rhythym (I never spell this word right, too tired), which has nothing to do with time signiature, and might as well be 4/4.

i don't really get it then... if i wrote it counting like 1-2-3-1-2-3-1-2-3-1-2-3-1-2-3 then it should be 3/5 right? how does that not make sense?

but then, all i know about music i learned for myself just by messing around with shit... i don't know how to turn music into science :sleeping:

  ten fingers ten toes said:

  william s. braintree said:

  ten fingers ten toes said:

Also, triplets (dividing a beat into three for everyone who isn't up on their classical notation vocab), can be acomplished in any time signature using dotted notes and more subdivision (you can have dotted 16th's and 32nd's and everything too you know).

 

Dotted notes are different than playing in 3. Slight, but there's still a difference. When you add a dot, you're adding 50% more of what you just added. Say you had a dotted quarter note. That is a quarter note and an eigth note. A dotted 32nd note is only a 32nd note+ a 64th note duration. So the beat is still quantized to 4 no matter how minute. You come off a bit hostile. What's the deal?

 

Whoa, sorry, didn't mean to come off hostile at all. My apologies man.

 

I guess then either Im just not getting something, or we speaking on different things here or something. As far as I can tell, I cannot think of an arrangement of notes that would play out differently in 6/8 instead of 3/4. I mean, an 8th note divded into 3 would have the same "values" in terms of beatage (heh) that a quarter note into 3 would right? So you just adjust temp accordingly for the triplets to sound the same no?

Im not sure whats being said here in your post but I understand where you were coming from. 1.5 (tied or dotted note) against 1 provides a similar beat relationship as 3 against 2, but in relation to the overall meter, you should use triplets, unless you want to write out the whole piece in non 4/4 and not use triplets, but take advantage of the meter? is that what you are getting at?

"i don't really get it then... if i wrote it counting like 1-2-3-1-2-3-1-2-3-1-2-3-1-2-3 then it should be 3/5 right? how does that not make sense?

but then, all i know about music i learned for myself just by messing around with shit... i don't know how to turn music into science"

Nah, maybe you are thinking in 3/4 time, but phrasing in groups of five. The time signiature would not be 3/5. a/b is the meter where a is the number of beats and b is the value of a single beat. If 4/4 is four beats, quarter note per beat. 3/5 would besomething silly like 3 beats, a quituplet per beat? three quintuplets? that would make things very difficult.

Ten fingers - the only difference in classical music is that 3/4 is typically grouped "one-two, one-two, one-two" while 6/8 is typically grouped "one-two-three, one-two-three".

Noradrenalin (right?) - what you said would most likely be notated as either a 5m phrase of 3/4, a 2.5m phrase of 6/8, a 5m phrase of half-note triplets, or a 2.5m phrase of 8th note triplets. It's awkward in classical notation, which makes FL a better notation system for that case.

  Kcinsu said:

  Bubba69 said:

Kcinsu, In classical notation tempos usually are not exact and therefore you could not create mathematical speed relationships between measures without using meter changes. I think thats why 8/3 is used. Its also possibly a statement of notation. Art is more than what aphex does on his computer. Thats all Im really saying. Much of what people do is justifiable.

 

not exact, like mechanical sample accurate timing, but you most certainly can create mathmatical tempo relationships without meter changes (its called metric modulation), but thats not what I was saying at all. I'm saying there are simpler ways to divide the afformentioned time signatures, that will work the same way, and sound the same, but making it easier for both the conducter to conduct, and the player to comprehend the subdivisions in their head.

 

sure it could be a statement of notation. so? I'd argue that if you are making statements with notation, in a way that the audience woulnd't comprehend (only the players/people looking at the score) then you're heading into academic-missing-the-point-of-music area.

 

I'm sure the entire orchestra will appriciate it, when it takes 30 mins of their time to be explained exactly how all the time signature changes work. And I'm sure you'd enjoy paying each player of the orchestra a large sum of money for an hourly rate, and using a good chunk of time explaining it, and running the piece enough times for them to feel comfortable with all of the changes.

 

And yeah, about that aphex computer bit... I don't know what that had to do with the conversation at all, besides being a little condescending.

 

And like I said, it CAN be done. Almost nything can be justified, doesn't make it practical or useful.

Or the conductor could just clap it out...

He had us play a lot of contemporary pieces, so I'm not justifying the use, I'm just saying it's happened. And yes, it did confuse the shit out of me when I read it, but we went over the rhythm and it wasn't that hard, and yes it changed the tempo for the one measure.

  Quote

Whoa, sorry, didn't mean to come off hostile at all. My apologies man.

 

I guess then either Im just not getting something, or we speaking on different things here or something. As far as I can tell, I cannot think of an arrangement of notes that would play out differently in 6/8 instead of 3/4. I mean, an 8th note divded into 3 would have the same "values" in terms of beatage (heh) that a quarter note into 3 would right? So you just adjust temp accordingly for the triplets to sound the same no?

3/4 pulse is generally more rigid: One-and two-and three-and

6/8 pulse is more flowing: one-two-three-four-five-six

You could write out 6/8 to sound like 3/4, but that would defeat the purpose of the time signature. But when listening, yes, that's not really the point.

WHAT MAEKS ME SAD IS THAT MUSICAL FORMATION IS ALMOST A COMMON LANGUAGE TO U GUYS, U LEARNED IT IN THE KINDERGARDEN, AND I´M ONLY LEARNING IT NOW, AT 25 YEARS OLD, IT SUX, PORTUGAL SUX!!!

im not having difficulties in learning it, its just that, it would never be the same has if i had learned it when young... :cry2:

  Fez said:

WHAT MAEKS ME SAD IS THAT MUSICAL FORMATION IS ALMOST A COMMON LANGUAGE TO U GUYS, U LEARNED IT IN THE KINDERGARDEN, AND I´M ONLY LEARNING IT NOW, AT 25 YEARS OLD, IT SUX, PORTUGAL SUX!!!

 

im not having difficulties in learning it, its just that, it would never be the same has if i had learned it when young... :cry2:

I don't believe that really. I think it means that you may need to work hard, but I truely don't believe you need to have started young. Sure, it helps, but it isn't a requirment.

Saying stuff like that, I think will just put yourself in the mind frame of "oh, I'll never be as good as the others, because its impossible"

you make your own limits this way

imo

  Kcinsu said:

  Fez said:

WHAT MAEKS ME SAD IS THAT MUSICAL FORMATION IS ALMOST A COMMON LANGUAGE TO U GUYS, U LEARNED IT IN THE KINDERGARDEN, AND I´M ONLY LEARNING IT NOW, AT 25 YEARS OLD, IT SUX, PORTUGAL SUX!!!

 

im not having difficulties in learning it, its just that, it would never be the same has if i had learned it when young... :cry2:

 

I don't believe that really. I think it means that you may need to work hard, but I truely don't believe you need to have started young. Sure, it helps, but it isn't a requirment.

 

Saying stuff like that, I think will just put yourself in the mind frame of "oh, I'll never be as good as the others, because its impossible"

 

you make your own limits this way

 

 

imo

hey, im not saying im not gonna maek it, I WILL, just dat, it sucks, not having musical in our studies liek u guys have outside...

its almost like a language, i notice it with the kids of my class, they read music liek they read portuguese, simple as dat...

everytime i speak serious on watmm i go downhill, i better STOP, HAMMERTIME!!!