bluesparky Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Hello all, I hope someone can give me a bit of assistance with this one. I've noticed in a particular piece I played recently (6:00 by Dream Theatre - Trinity College Rock and Pop Bass Grade 8 piece) that there are directions above the stave which don't really make sense to me. The start of the piece is in 4/4 and the tempo is crotchet = 100 After the intro, and also later in the piece the time sig changes to 6/8, 9/8 & back to 4/4 several times but each time there is a note above the stave of quaver = quaver. I'm unsure as to what exactly this is trying to say. I assumed that quaver = quaver notification indicates where the "beat" is (i.e. to differentiate between simple / compound & duple / triple / quadruple time etc). Would I be correct in thinking that the same indication in different time signatures would indicate a different "feel" / beat from the norm by emphasising the beat on unusual notes, or is it suggesting it's played in "straight" temp (i.e. not swung) or something that I'm missing entirely? Why is the same notation (quaver = quaver) used for several time signatures which have their main beats in different places? There aren't any other performance notes relating to time signatures or feel in the piece. I dunno! I'm all set to take the Grade 8 exam (all I've got to do is wait for the next set of exam dates to be released) and I'd like to think that my music theory knowledge is pretty good but I know in my waters that when they come to ask questions about the theory side of the pieces I'm playing they'll ask me about this and I'm not sure what I'll say back! Thank you for any help & advice. Edited October 31, 2014 by bluesparky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 My guess is, and I am not absolutely sure, that this indicates that the 4:4 to 9:8 ratio is that the first is 8 quavers and the second is 9 i.e. the crotchet count is the same even thought he note value has changed. In short, it has gone from 4:4 to 4.5:4 which doesn't exist so is written as 9:8. It is effectively saying that 'this is easier than it looks'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ras52 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Yes, it's saying "the duration of a quaver on the left of the bar line is the same as that on the right of the bar line". The time sig changes, but the quaver pulse doesn't. In contrast you may see a change from 4/4 to 12/8, where both bars have four [i]beats [/i]of the same duration, only their [i]division [/i]has now changed from 2 quavers (4 x crotchet beats) to 3 quavers (4 x dotted-crotchet beats). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveFry Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Yes , In the first section ( 100 crotchets per minute ) the tempo of the quavers would be 200 per minute . The " quaver = quaver " instruction says to stick to the same 200 quavers per minute tempo , but the time signature changes say to feel the beat in groups of three ( as opposed to groups of two in 4/4 ) . Hth . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 [quote name='DaveFry' timestamp='1414689615' post='2592315'] Yes , In the first section ( 100 crotchets per minute ) the tempo of the quavers would be 200 per minute . The " quaver = quaver " instruction says to stick to the same 200 quavers per minute tempo , but the time signature changes say to feel the beat in groups of three ( as opposed to groups of two in 4/4 ) . Hth . [/quote] I'm sorry to disagree with the last part. I wouldn't necessarily associate 9/8 with groups of three. The number of beats changes, but there is no implicit 'grouping' going on. There could be, but that wouldn't be a result of the change to 9/8 (nor 6/8...). The time signature changes are simply that; changes to the number of 'beats' in the bar, no more, no less, exactly as if the whole piece had been written with that timing. Just sayin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ras52 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1414690256' post='2592329'] I'm sorry to disagree with the last part. I wouldn't necessarily associate 9/8 with groups of three. The number of beats changes, but there is no implicit 'grouping' going on. There could be, but that wouldn't be a result of the change to 9/8 (nor 6/8...). The time signature changes are simply that; changes to the number of 'beats' in the bar, no more, no less, exactly as if the whole piece had been written with that timing. Just sayin'. [/quote] Ooh this is going to get all pedantic semantic... ;-) A time sig doesn't explicitly tell you how many "beats" there are. [i]Conventionally[/i] there are 3 beats in a bar of 9/8, each subdivided into three quavers: 3+3+3/8. But in e.g. Dave Brubeck's Blue Rondo a la Turk, there are 4 asymmetric beats: 2+2+2+3/8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 [quote name='ras52' timestamp='1414705625' post='2592584'] Ooh this is going to get all pedantic semantic... ;-) A time sig doesn't explicitly tell you how many "beats" there are. [i]Conventionally[/i] there are 3 beats in a bar of 9/8, each subdivided into three quavers: 3+3+3/8. But in e.g. Dave Brubeck's Blue Rondo a la Turk, there are 4 asymmetric beats: 2+2+2+3/8. [/quote] Indeed, if it's pedantry that's wanted..! "[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]The time signature changes are simply that; changes in the way of counting the 'beats' in the bar..." Is that better..?[/font][/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesparky Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 Thanks for the replies - I hope I've not sparked too much of a lively debate about it. On top of posting here I've contacted the examining board to see what the "official" answer to my query is, I'll let you know what they say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scalpy Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 [quote name='bluesparky' timestamp='1414755185' post='2592914'] Thanks for the replies - I hope I've not sparked too much of a lively debate about it. On top of posting here I've contacted the examining board to see what the "official" answer to my query is, I'll let you know what they say! [/quote] Don't panic it's one of those things that's easier to do than read. Just start counting quavers a bar ahead of the signature change and you'll be fine. Oh, and practice the rhythm without the instrument in your hands, one task at a time. Oh and 9/8 is also known as compound triple, so conventially it's grouped into 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesparky Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 [quote name='scalpy' timestamp='1414767658' post='2593133'] Don't panic it's one of those things that's easier to do than read. Just start counting quavers a bar ahead of the signature change and you'll be fine. Oh, and practice the rhythm without the instrument in your hands, one task at a time. Oh and 9/8 is also known as compound triple, so conventially it's grouped into 3. [/quote] Cheers, thank you. It's easy enough (well, for me anyway) to play and the "feel" of the track flows well - I'm just confused why the notation is there if it simply indicates the same as before! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesparky Posted November 3, 2014 Author Share Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) I've received a reply from the examination board in answer to the same question, and they say: "The quaver=quaver markings are there to inform the performer that the quavers in the new time signature are the tempo as those in the previous time signature." I've not come across the need for this notation before - I just assumed that the stated fact was the norm, even when the time signature changes. Edited November 3, 2014 by bluesparky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 There are lots of the 'aids' to reading that do not 'do' anything but simply exist to 'remind' he reader that s/he's on familiar territory. A similar one would be when an accidental is written in brackets to remind you that the key signature requires it to be sharp or flat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesparky Posted November 3, 2014 Author Share Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) [quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1415038444' post='2595985'] There are lots of the 'aids' to reading that do not 'do' anything but simply exist to 'remind' he reader that s/he's on familiar territory. A similar one would be when an accidental is written in brackets to remind you that the key signature requires it to be sharp or flat. [/quote] Too true, when using Sibelius it really annoys me when it sometimes corrects a note which was either flattened or sharpened in the previous bar and it puts the correction to the previous accidental into the current bar to remind you that it's "business as usual" again. Edited November 3, 2014 by bluesparky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrixn1 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I think "Blue Rondo à la Turk" does have a quaver conversion, although it's unrelated to the 2+2+2+3 grouping of 9/8. When moving from the head (9/8) to the solos (4/4), you switch with 3 quavers = 1 crotchet. It's about 1m50s into it: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKNZqM0d-xo[/media] Another example of a conversion is "Killing in the Name": from the intro to the verse, about 40 seconds in, it converts with 2 triplet crotchets = 1 crotchet. (I don't know how you'd formally notate that...) [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWXazVhlyxQ[/media] As a contrast, here is an example of a "non-conversion" (i.e. "quaver = quaver"): [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPdaQDSlp9c[/media] The composition is mainly in 6/8, although the third bar is in 3/4 and the fourth and fifth are in 4/4. All quavers are the same length as each other -- but I'd argue it's a lot harder to tap your foot along to the Metheny transition than the RATM transition! Another, different example I can think of is: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU70hNzHZRY[/media] Technically, you have "crotchet = minim" at 1m14s and again at 2m44s -- where each time, the chord progression goes round twice as fast as before. Then the reverse at 3m22s and 4m22s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesparky Posted November 5, 2014 Author Share Posted November 5, 2014 [quote name='jrixn1' timestamp='1415145948' post='2597298'] I think "Blue Rondo à la Turk" does have a quaver conversion, although it's unrelated to the 2+2+2+3 grouping of 9/8. When moving from the head (9/8) to the solos (4/4), you switch with 3 quavers = 1 crotchet. It's about 1m50s into it: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKNZqM0d-xo[/media] Another example of a conversion is "Killing in the Name": from the intro to the verse, about 40 seconds in, it converts with 2 triplet crotchets = 1 crotchet. (I don't know how you'd formally notate that...) [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWXazVhlyxQ[/media] As a contrast, here is an example of a "non-conversion" (i.e. "quaver = quaver"): [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPdaQDSlp9c[/media] The composition is mainly in 6/8, although the third bar is in 3/4 and the fourth and fifth are in 4/4. All quavers are the same length as each other -- but I'd argue it's a lot harder to tap your foot along to the Metheny transition than the RATM transition! Another, different example I can think of is: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU70hNzHZRY[/media] Technically, you have "crotchet = minim" at 1m14s and again at 2m44s -- where each time, the chord progression goes round twice as fast as before. Then the reverse at 3m22s and 4m22s. [/quote] Interesting, thanks for that, I'll check them out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.7e18f76540598a8efc0e6ca9be453059.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.