Does everyone erm ....know their time signatures?

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1396864812' post='2418004']
8/8 = 1 and a 2 and a 3 and
8/8 (another one) = 1 and 2 and a 3 and a

[/quote]

In 20 years of reading music I've [i]never [/i]come across 8/8. Its much more common for music to be written down using changing time signatures than it is using these "odd" ones. Your first example would be much clearer written as a bar of 6 and a bar of 2, for example.

In my opinion the only time signatures theory beginners need consider are 4/4, 3/4, 2/4, 2/2, 5/4, 7/4. 6/8, 9/8, 12/8 and thankfully those are all easy to understand. These really weird things like 8/8 are little more than theoretical constructs that you'll only come across once in a lifetime unless you're into some pretty niche stuff.

[toneknob]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1396943486' post='2418883']
In 20 years of reading music I've [i]never [/i]come across 8/8. Its much more common for music to be written down using changing time signatures than it is using these "odd" ones. Your first example would be much clearer written as a bar of 6 and a bar of 2, for example.

In my opinion the only time signatures theory beginners need consider are 4/4, 3/4, 2/4, 2/2, 5/4, 7/4. 6/8, 9/8, 12/8 and thankfully those are all easy to understand. These really weird things like 8/8 are little more than theoretical constructs that you'll only come across once in a lifetime unless you're into some pretty niche stuff.
[/quote]

I agree, never seen an 8/8 - and even the 3/3/2 example would be written in 4/4 as feel of two dotted quarters plus one normal quarter, and eighth note subdivisions of same.

Back to 13: the aforementioned Robbery Assault and Battery instrumental in 13/8 can initially be felt as an alternating 7 and 6, but later the feel changes to alternating 4 and 9. Would those in favour of subdividing complex time sigs notate this as bars of alternating 6/8 and 7/8, then switch to 2/4 and 9/8, or just keep it as a 13/8 all the way through? My suspicion is that common sense might suggest the latter.

[Annoying Twit]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1396943486' post='2418883']
In 20 years of reading music I've [i]never [/i]come across 8/8. Its much more common for music to be written down using changing time signatures than it is using these "odd" ones. Your first example would be much clearer written as a bar of 6 and a bar of 2, for example.

In my opinion the only time signatures theory beginners need consider are 4/4, 3/4, 2/4, 2/2, 5/4, 7/4. 6/8, 9/8, 12/8 and thankfully those are all easy to understand. These really weird things like 8/8 are little more than theoretical constructs that you'll only come across once in a lifetime unless you're into some pretty niche stuff.
[/quote]

As seen with the examples above, there are alternative ways of writing 8/8. While 8/8 exists as a concept, I feel that additive time signatures such as 3 + 3 + 2 / 8 are superior to a simply stated 8/8. As 3 + 3 + 2 / 8 indicates the groupings, while a simply stated 8/8 leaves the groupings to be inferred. Same for other odd time signatures. Ravel's Piano Trio, for example, is typically described as 8/8 in sheet music. Looking at it more closely, the bass line appears to be four crotchets, so rather 4/4 like. The treble line appears to be a 3 + 3 + 2 pattern.

If a time signature of 3 + 2 + 3 / 8 is written as (say) one bar of 3/8 and then one bar of 5/8, then this would imply (in the absence of other information which can easily be provided) that the 1st quaver of the group and the 5th quaver of the group both start bars and then would receive equal emphasis. If the same time signature was written as one bar of 5/8 and then one of 3/8, then the stereotypical emphasis (in the absence of further information) changes. As I see it, the additive time signature 3 + 2 + 3 / 8 allows a particular grouping (and hence stereotypical emphasis patterns) that are more difficult to describe with separate bars.

My interest in time signature theory is mainly as I find it helps push me into rhythmical areas that I otherwise might not go. The 8/8 (now I would describe that as 3 + 3 + 2 / 8) bassline example is ultra-trivial, but it was actually not trivial to come up with it. Even with a drum beat having three strong beats per bar, not four, I found it difficult to resist the inclination to play 4/4. When I wrote my looper pedal, one thing I added to it quite early was the ability to specify a very wide range of time signatures which the metronome can play back. Hence while many people may not come across extreme time signatures, I do. As I choose to.

Edit: In this youtube video, Mike Portney describes a rhythm which is 4/4 plus an additional eighth note as '9/8'. It's the very first rhythm he describes.

[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no4luPP6t9c"]https://www.youtube....h?v=no4luPP6t9c[/url]

I'm not sure I agree that the time signature there is 9/8, as 9/8 should be compound. Depending on how you classify the last eighth (it sounds like a beat to me), that would make the time signature:

2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 / 8

or:

2 + 2 + 2 + 3 / 8

Edited April 8, 2014 by Annoying Twit

[toneknob]

No one counts "one two one two one two one two three" though do they?

[Annoying Twit]

[quote name='toneknob' timestamp='1396956254' post='2419035']
No one counts "one two one two one two one two three" though do they?
[/quote]

I would personally find that confusing. I like to have only the beats having numbers. On the wikipedia page for counting there are a number of counting techniques given, some of which use numbers only for beats, and other sounds for divisions. Searching online reveals even more counting systems. Aztec drum syllables, anyone?

Edit: Or, have I misinterpreted your post? Do you mean that no-one counts using numbers for both beats and divisions? Or that nobody counts time signatures that require division of an eight quaver bar into unequal beats? If the latter (which I now think is the case), then I'd agree that it's very rare, because very little music is written in that way, and that there is the alternative to interpret such music as being 4/4, but with a high degree of syncopation. As for the rarity of music of that type, how many examples have we seen in this thread other than Ravel's Trio?

But, additive time signatures, counted as I've described, are being used by some people. E.g.: https://keenot.es/read/additive-time-signatures However, just because there are web pages using the terminology like that doesn't mean that it's correct.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Annoying Twit

[achknalligewelt]

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1396866184' post='2418035'] We managed to bury one on our last album: https://cherrywhite.bandcamp.com/track/the-white-whale The chap with the sticks was actually quite good at "hiding" the odd-meter bars on this one. And it does shift back to occasional 4/4. I'd be interested to see who can spot the main time signature! [/quote]

It's all 4/4. But with a very clever drummer, who makes an irregular snare pattern sound like it's not. I think.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='achknalligewelt' timestamp='1396960143' post='2419092']
It's all 4/4. But with a very clever drummer, who makes an irregular snare pattern sound like it's not. I think.
[/quote]

Oh, no; it starts off in alternating 4/4 and 3/4, then spurious 4/4s get chucked around (I think..?).

[toneknob]

[quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1396958394' post='2419071']
I would personally find that confusing. I like to have only the beats having numbers. On the wikipedia page for counting there are a number of counting techniques given, some of which use numbers only for beats, and other sounds for divisions. Searching online reveals even more counting systems. Aztec drum syllables, anyone?

Edit: Or, have I misinterpreted your post? Do you mean that no-one counts using numbers for both beats and divisions? Or that nobody counts time signatures that require division of an eight quaver bar into unequal beats? If the latter (which I now think is the case), then I'd agree that it's very rare, because very little music is written in that way, and that there is the alternative to interpret such music as being 4/4, but with a high degree of syncopation. As for the rarity of music of that type, how many examples have we seen in this thread other than Ravel's Trio?

But, additive time signatures, counted as I've described, are being used by some people. E.g.: [url="https://keenot.es/read/additive-time-signatures"]https://keenot.es/re...time-signatures[/url] However, just because there are web pages using the terminology like that doesn't mean that it's correct.
[/quote]

What I mean is - no one counts 9/8 as four "one two"'s with an extra "one" or a "one two three" at the end.

[jonsmith]

Most of the musicians I know don't count at all - not even subconsciously - to my occasional annoyance!

I was totally confused by Annoying Twit's way of counting when I first read the post, but I guess as long as it works for you, that's all that matters (and I can see how it works now).

[EliasMooseblaster]

[quote name='achknalligewelt' timestamp='1396960143' post='2419092']
It's all 4/4. But with a very clever drummer, who makes an irregular snare pattern sound like it's not. I think.
[/quote]
[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1396962204' post='2419128']
Oh, no; it starts off in alternating 4/4 and 3/4, then spurious 4/4s get chucked around (I think..?).
[/quote]

Both wrong, I'm afraid. Though there are some spurious 4/4s chucked in at key points. Try again!

[toneknob]

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1396963593' post='2419151']
Both wrong, I'm afraid. Though there are some spurious 4/4s chucked in at key points. Try again!
[/quote]

The verses sound like alternating 7/4 and 15/16 (or 7/8 7/8 7/8 4/4 if you like)

[JellyKnees]

Uncle Frank getting down with some 13/8...

[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHvdlBJZbow"]https://www.youtube....h?v=cHvdlBJZbow[/url]

[pete.young]

[quote name='toneknob' timestamp='1396962738' post='2419136']
What I mean is - no one counts 9/8 as four "one two"'s with an extra "one" or a "one two three" at the end.
[/quote]
It depends entirely on the piece. I've counted similar bars in similar ways in both orchestral and brass band settings. Depends where the MD wants the accents.

[EliasMooseblaster]

[quote name='toneknob' timestamp='1396965633' post='2419189']
The verses sound like alternating 7/4 and 15/16 (or 7/8 7/8 7/8 4/4 if you like)
[/quote]

Your bracketed guess is correct! Unfortunately I don't have a prize to offer you.

[achknalligewelt]

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1396963593' post='2419151']
Both wrong, I'm afraid. Though there are some spurious 4/4s chucked in at key points. Try again!
[/quote] Is it one of these 9/8 + 7/8 + 5/4 + 3/4 constructions? Because I counted those whole beats in the guitar part, and dammit there were 16 of them!

[EliasMooseblaster]

[quote name='achknalligewelt' timestamp='1396969201' post='2419252']
Is it one of these 9/8 + 7/8 + 5/4 + 3/4 constructions? Because I counted those whole beats in the guitar part, and dammit there were 16 of them!
[/quote]

Try following the hi-hat instead: after the vocals come in, it's three bars of 7/8 followed by one of 4/4. (The choruses and the drum solo are just straight 4.)

[toneknob]

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1396967259' post='2419219']
Your bracketed guess is correct! Unfortunately I don't have a prize to offer you.
[/quote]

Cool! (They're both the same thing btw). My prize shall be an elevated sense of satisfaction and pride for the rest of the day, as I walk down the street in 17/16

[Lord Sausage]

[quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1396944775' post='2418890']
I'm not sure I agree that the time signature there is 9/8, as 9/8 should be compound. Depending on how you classify the last eighth (it sounds like a beat to me), that would make the time signature:

2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 / 8

or:

2 + 2 + 2 + 3 / 8
[/quote]

i wouldn't say 9/8 has to be compound I've played a few things in nine where it's straight. You would just have the feel written and the beginning of the piece. You'd be able to tell by how the quavers were grouped when written. There's a lot of prog where 9 is straight. Why over complicate things? Just write things as easy as possible. So that the message gets across to the musician easier.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Lord Sausage

[Lord Sausage]

I may be wrong as it's been a long time, 17 yrs, but I'm sure i played America from West side story and it was written bar of 6/8 bar of 3/4. Not some crazy time.

[Annoying Twit]

[quote name='Lord Sausage' timestamp='1396972027' post='2419293']
i wouldn't say 9/8 has to be compound I've played a few things in nine where it's straight. You would just have the feel written and the beginning of the piece. You'd be able to tell by how the quavers were grouped when written. There's a lot of prog where 9 is straight. Why over complicate things? Just write things as easy as possible. So that the message gets across to the musician easier.
[/quote]

You say that you've played a few things, and there is a lot of prog, where 9 is straight. By 'straight', do you mean simple time? E.g. beats divided into two? In which case, you can't have 9/8, but could have 9/4, as 9 quavers can't be divided into two, but 9 crotchets can be. As is the belly dancing music further up.

Or do you mean that you agree with Mike Portney, in saying that 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 / 8 is 9/8? Is that what you mean by 'straight'?

That 9/8 is a compound time signature is very widely accepted. So, people can describe non-compound time signatures as 9/8, but that raises the question of whether that description is right or not. If the groupings are shown in the music, then it won't prevent musicians playing it correctly. But if the meanings of time signatures is weakened by widespread mis-use (assuming that this is mis-use), then they lose descriptive power. As if we see 9/8, we won't know immediately which 9/8 the music means, and we have to guess it from other information.

That's why I've decided to use additive time signatures rather than 8/8. Because 8/8 is ambiguous, while additive time signatures aren't. And therefore they are much better at conveying information.

[Lord Sausage]

[quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1396981023' post='2419460']
You say that you've played a few things, and there is a lot of prog, where 9 is straight. By 'straight', do you mean simple time? E.g. beats divided into two? In which case, you can't have 9/8, but could have 9/4, as 9 quavers can't be divided into two, but 9 crotchets can be. As is the belly dancing music further up.

Or do you mean that you agree with Mike Portney, in saying that 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 / 8 is 9/8? Is that what you mean by 'straight'?

That 9/8 is a compound time signature is very widely accepted. So, people can describe non-compound time signatures as 9/8, but that raises the question of whether that description is right or not. If the groupings are shown in the music, then it won't prevent musicians playing it correctly. But if the meanings of time signatures is weakened by widespread mis-use (assuming that this is mis-use), then they lose descriptive power. As if we see 9/8, we won't know immediately which 9/8 the music means, and we have to guess it from other information.

That's why I've decided to use additive time signatures rather than 8/8. Because 8/8 is ambiguous, while additive time signatures aren't. And therefore they are much better at conveying information.
[/quote]I agree with portnoy as there are 9 quaver beats in a bar. The groupings would be defined by how it's written down or a note at the beginning of the piece.

With regards to lessening descriptive powers i think you maybe over thinking it. You wouldn't have to guess which 9/8 it meant. you could just tell by how it's written. (the whole piece)

Edited April 8, 2014 by Lord Sausage

[Annoying Twit]

[quote name='Lord Sausage' timestamp='1396985747' post='2419524']
I agree with portnoy as there are 9 quaver beats in a bar. The groupings would be defined by how it's written down or a note at the beginning of the piece.

With regards to lessening descriptive powers i think you maybe over thinking it. You wouldn't have to guess which 9/8 it meant. you could just tell by how it's written. (the whole piece)
[/quote]

I thought about what you said, and still have to disagree.

The same argument can apply to both 3/4 and 6/8. We don't need 6/8, as 3/4 can have six quavers in a bar, and we could write all 6/8 rhythms as 3/4, showing that the quavers are grouped into two groups of three, rather than three groups of two. However, that's easy enough to notice if there is a bar of six quavers appropriately grouped. But, what if there is a different pattern, where it isn't obvious. What if the player wishes to embellish what is written, or even improvise around it, rather than play it straight. Having the correct time signature there gives such a player more accurate information about what the music is about.

The same applies to time signatures incorrectly stated to be 9/8 when they aren't compound time signatures. (And I've revised online sources and thought about it, and I personally conclude that this is incorrect).

An example is the 8/8 time signature of Ravel's Trio. Looking only at the first few bars in the treble clef, it's not clear as to what the groupings are, and it's plausible that either it's 2 + 2 + 3 + 2, or 2 + 2 + 2 + 3. As there's a single quaver before the last whole note. The slurs suggest to me that it's 2 + 2 + 2 + 3, but I'm not confident of this. An additive time signature would make this crystal clear.

There is a quote often mis-attributed to Albert Einstein. "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler." IMHO, it's best to have time signatures where if we look at the time signature, we know what it means. If a single time signature is used for two or more fundamental rhythmic patterns, then we no longer know what it means. This is an example of that quote, in reducing the number of time signatures, we introduce ambiguity, and this causes problems as we no longer know what the time signature is. You say that I'm over-thinking this, but considering the 3/4 vs. 6/8 time signatures, I find that there is no logical difference between the two cases. And hence since I conclude that we should't write 6/8 using a 3/4 time signature, I feel that we also shoudn't write 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 / 8 as 9/8.

There are examples of people, even very skilled musicians such as Mike Portney, incorrectly using 9/8 for a situation where the time signature is not compound. But, this doesn't mean that it's right. If we are going to appeal to authority on this one, then it should be to experts in musical theory, and I can't find examples of such people who don't say that 9/8 is a compound time signature. Hence, it appear to me that 9/8 implying a compound time signature is correct, and Portney is wrong. Personally, while I accept that there is wide (what I see as) misuse, I believe that 9/8 is compound by definition. And I also agree that this is a sensible and useful definition of this time signature.

Hence, for these reasons, I personally conclude that using 9/8 for non-compound time signatures is wrong.

I also think that 18/16 is literally correct, but preserves the ambiguity, meaning that the additive time signature 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 / 8 is the best time signature to use for Portney's rhythm.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Annoying Twit

[Lord Sausage]

I've just dug some music out, printed official by music publishers etc where i know there are parts containing bars of 9/8 that isn't compound. It's notated as 9/8. I think you should get on the phone to 'em and Portnoy.

I ain't saying it's not compound, I'm saying it doesn't have to be and that it doesn't always get used as that. I've done plenty of reading gigs where it isn't. It's like language. things and meanings can change over time in English, why not music.

Plus it's not that big a deal. I bet loads of musicians think of 9/8 in compound and simple. It's not a problem. Why do you need it to be just compound?

Edited April 9, 2014 by Lord Sausage

[EliasMooseblaster]

As someone else said in one of the related threads (and possibly here as well) these "rules" are more like widely-followed guidelines than scientific laws. Depending on whose transcript you pick up, for example, I've seen Pink Floyd's [i]Money [/i]written out in both 7/4 and in 4+3 / 4.

(Somebody told me this was because conventionally, 7/4 is emphasised as 3+4 / 4. I don't know whether I believe this person, particularly because I didn't think there was enough music written in 7/4 for there to be a broad "convention" on the matter!)

[Lord Sausage]

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1397048427' post='2420094']
As someone else said in one of the related threads (and possibly here as well) these "rules" are more like widely-followed guidelines than scientific laws. Depending on whose transcript you pick up, for example, I've seen Pink Floyd's [i]Money [/i]written out in both 7/4 and in 4+3 / 4.

(Somebody told me this was because conventionally, 7/4 is emphasised as 3+4 / 4. I don't know whether I believe this person, particularly because I didn't think there was enough music written in 7/4 for there to be a broad "convention" on the matter!)
[/quote]i think it can be either way. 4 then or vice versa. like 5 being 3 and 2 or vice versa.