PDA

View Full Version : Ok so is it 13/8 or not???


lenron
10-08-2004, 08:56 PM
Ok, so I am *supposed* to be a musician who has played in progressive bands, and I am *supposed* to be familiar with everything from playing in odd time to playing in no time to playing multiple times on top of each other. Technically, yeah I am supposed to be that.

Well, apparently I've tons to learn (duh) and I cannot figure out the main progression/riff in "Frame By Frame" by King Crimson. The secondary part, the 7/8 part, is understandable, even with the time shifting of the 2nd guitar to create an echo effect. But its the main part, the intro part, that I can't quite grasp yet.

Aside from Fripp's 16th note flurry of a riff, there is a matter of not being certain what signature the whole darn thing is in. I've been told 13/8, but I can't find it as easily as I thought I could. Somehow I either A.) listen inaccurately and get distracted by the whole beautiful mess or B.) make an assumption, musically, of what is happening and then realize it was a wrong assumption.

Could someone shed some light on what's going on in there, or at least an opinion? Its been bugging me this week. Visual aids would be great. hehe.

What-Kind-Of-Lame-Prog-Musician-Am-I Nino (lenron)

roger
10-09-2004, 09:41 AM
I wish I could help. I love odd time. but somehow, sadly, KC is one of those bands that I missed along the line. they're something that I need to dig into, and fill that gap. which album is "Frame" on?

Rick and Roll
10-09-2004, 09:55 AM
is the name of the album. It's possibly my all-time favorite record.

However, I know little about time signatures. Sounds like 3/4 to me!:D

Geddy Lee played that tune as a guest DJ one. It must be cool, right!

kevishev
10-09-2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by lenron
I've been told 13/8, but I can't find it as easily as I thought I could.
Not being able to read music myself and being in construction, I look at 13/8 as being 1 5/8".

What-Kind-Of-Lame-Prog-Musician-Am-I Nino (lenron)
Practice young man! Practice!

Does the Phoenix not rise from it's own ashes?

My name is Kevin, and I approved this posting.

ps: Lenron, I'm sorry that I was unable to be of any help to you whatsoever. But like others in these forums, sometimes I just can't help myself. :D

lenron
10-09-2004, 10:39 AM
Yes I must agree Discipline is one of my all-time fave albums too. A truly revolutionary record for 1981, no question.

The disc is riddled in odd time, no time, and geniusly orchestrated multiple times layering on top of each other. If you know little, nay, nothing about music and music theory then I suppose the album "sounds really cool", but doesn't stir you in the same way an interested musician might get stirred.

In bands I have been in, particularly my last band, odd times were smiled upon greatly. Our inside "joke" if you would, was "Play it in 7!!". As in, play it in 7/8. We would occasionally incorporate a cover tune into our setlist, and sometimes play it 7/8 or 9/8 or something even though the song, like most rock songs, was in straight time (4/4).

I could yammer on and on about the philosophies of playing in odd time and why it can be so fun to do, but I am here to beg and plead for help understanding "Frame By Frame"...so I'll be quiet now and see if a musician pops up with some insight.

Thanks...!

Bob Lentil
10-09-2004, 10:59 AM
I'm pretty sure it's in 4/4 at the beginning (listen to the drums). I found a tab that claims Fripp is laying down a sextuplet on each beat. It sounds plausible, but I'm not going to vouch for its accuracy, because I can't play it. You can check it out here (http://www.elephant-talk.com/tabs/frame.htm). Scroll down to the part submitted by Reginald Hunt.

Roger -Dot- Lee
10-09-2004, 08:21 PM
I've always been fairly good at ferreting out exactly what odd time signatures happen to be playing (ObTrivia: did you know that the clock on "It's A Small World" at Disneyland plays a multimeter 22/8-17/8?).

I'll give it a listen and see what I can figure out.

Roger -Dot- Lee, oddest time signature played: 23/8

Roger -Dot- Lee
10-09-2004, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by lenron
Well, apparently I've tons to learn (duh) and I cannot figure out the main progression/riff in "Frame By Frame" by King Crimson. The secondary part, the 7/8 part, is understandable, even with the time shifting of the 2nd guitar to create an echo effect. But its the main part, the intro part, that I can't quite grasp yet.


And the verdict is:

7/8 with 8th note anticipations in the second guitar.

Don't let the second entry (an 8th note early) confuse you. It's simply tied over the bar. If you count out 7 beats continuously, you'll find you end right smack on 1 when it goes to 4/4 time. I think you're confusing the entry of the second guitar as the first guitar shifting gears.

HTH!

Roger -Dot- Lee, Leonard Bernstein in a different lifetime.

Yesspaz
10-10-2004, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Bob Lentil
I'm pretty sure it's in 4/4 at the beginning (listen to the drums). Don't let Bill Bruford fool you. He has a penchant for playing in a different time signature than the rest of the band. On "Long Distance Runaround" by Yes, the band is in 4/4 while Bill is in 5/4 (and it takes extraordinary musicians to play on a different rhythm than the drummer does - no matter what band).

lenron
10-10-2004, 01:19 AM
Some fine information. My additions...

I did some research and found that someone said that during the 7/8 part, the guitars are in tandem (written as 14/8 by this author) and he claims that the 2nd guitar shifts to a 13/8 riff, which of course creates an offset that grows and then comes back to meet the original riff in tandem again at the appropriate time - in this case after 7 measures of 14/8. Is this another way of saying what you said Roger? Agree? Disagree?

And thanks for the unintentional compliment, Yesspaz. hehe. What I mean is, a band I was in up til earlier this year did that time signature overlap thing. One example was a song we did with an interlude that broke down like this:

Bass: riff for 6 beats, riff for 8 beats et al
Drums: 7/8 et al
Keyboard: Ascending chords over minor scale every 4 beats et al

It all matched up every 28 beats, which we'd sometimes accent. That is to say, every 28 beats we'd all begin our progression in tandem on the 1. And after 224 beats (8 repetitions) we'd move back into 6/8, 4/4, 6/8, 4/4 that was the rest of the song. Man I love doing that. :)

Roger -Dot- Lee
10-10-2004, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by lenron
Some fine information. My additions...

I did some research and found that someone said that during the 7/8 part, the guitars are in tandem (written as 14/8 by this author) and he claims that the 2nd guitar shifts to a 13/8 riff, which of course creates an offset that grows and then comes back to meet the original riff in tandem again at the appropriate time - in this case after 7 measures of 14/8. Is this another way of saying what you said Roger? Agree? Disagree?


Agreed. What he said was pretty much what I said from the perspective of looking at the sheet music, whereas I'm going strictly by the sound.


And thanks for the unintentional compliment, Yesspaz. hehe. What I mean is, a band I was in up til earlier this year did that time signature overlap thing. One example was a song we did with an interlude that broke down like this:
[snip: massive multi-meter]


Wow. It takes a LOT of concentration to be able to pull that off.

My first exposure to multi-meter was in my high school marching band. We did a 6/8-4/4 multimeter. Doesn't sound like much? YOU try doing that on a football field!

Man I love doing that. :)

Say on. There's a certain sense of accomplishment when you can pull something like that off and make it sound good...

Roger -Dot- Lee

kirk
10-10-2004, 03:02 PM
[QUOTE
Say on. There's a certain sense of accomplishment when you can pull something like that off and make it sound good...[/QUOTE]

it's even more amazing that adrian pulls it off
from memory, unable to read music!
in an interview, adrian said he asked FZ if
he should learn to read, and zappa replied
"absolutely not, it'll ruin your instincts".

hey dot- when are we going to hear something by you?:cool:
if you need some guidance w/ the sequencing thing,
give a yell.

Yesspaz
10-10-2004, 03:13 PM
I don't think a similar discussion is going on over at the Blink 182 boards.

lenron
10-10-2004, 03:24 PM
Certainly Belew does infinitely more complicated stuff than I could ever do, but I too am lacking in my ability to read music and have to be sure to memorize whats coming up next in a song, or at least hope that the music itself will lend me hints as to how it is progressing, by ear, and hope I can keep up. A lot of "complicated" songs I have been a part of creating with other musicians are usually pre-determined patterns with slight variances. Once you know the pattern inately, you then can modify it depending on what the song calls for. At times, songs that seem wildly complicated are 4 or 5 main patterns with variances in each, creating the illusion of a "monster" arrangement of 15 to 20 sections.

I have noticed, however, that a lot of songs I DIDN'T write have the same formula: Variances on a pattern(s). And when done properly, it makes for a very dynamic song. (I am not speaking of a 12-bar blues pattern here...I mean patterns like the song in question "Frame By Frame" which, although its a complicated and hard-to-play pattern, is nonetheless repetitious in the end.) When done poorly, it begins to grate and can sound seriously lame. (enter 12-bar blues again)

Few musicians can make genius arrangements of long, complicated songs truly unique, never repeating, and highly rhapsodic without having to rely on pattern variances. Those who can do this, of course, tend to be able to read and write notation as easily as reading language. One insane example in the jazz world is Michel Camilo, whose over-the-top jazz instrumental arrangements would send even the most seasoned musicians crying for mommy. Thats why his trio is himself, Anthony Jackson, and Horacio "El Negro" Hernandez....I mean, who else? :)

My wife can sight read, but I've never gotten around to having her help me learn. Oh sure, I can read a guitar or bass tab with ease, but my notation reading easily less than 5% of what it should/could be with the right effort. Which I don't make, sadly. Its the biggest, gaping hole in my music theory knowledge at this point. I used to even give guitar and bass lessons once....had to skirt the subject of notation on many occasion. The embarrassment!!

lenron
10-10-2004, 03:27 PM
hehe. Don't get me started on all the kids I had to teach Blink 182 songs to when I taught guitar and bass. Good lord!

You put on KC for these kids and you might as well be playing FM static, because they literally hear NOTHING. I feel, sometimes, like the oldest 28 year old I know.

Roger -Dot- Lee
10-10-2004, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by kirk
hey dot- when are we going to hear something by you?:cool:
if you need some guidance w/ the sequencing thing,
give a yell. [/B]

Consider the yell given. I may be able to make computers do just about anything, but I'll be buggered if any kind of sound engineering doesn't leave me stumped.

Spent too much of my theater days doing lights, I suppose.

In any event, it seems that just about any time I try to improve a sound file, it just makes matters worse, and god help us all if I try to record my own voice to anything more complex than an answering machine. I tend to sound half way between a pig with it's tail stuck in the door of a 1997 Ford F-150 and the alarm sound that an elevator makes when the door's been left open too long. I found an application for the Mac that I've had some success with, but it's got a lot of toys that COULD make things sound better, but yet I manage to make things sound worse. Ah well.

Anyway, if I could get some guidance from a pro, that would, as they say, rock. I might even get a cool ID up on the station.

Roger -Dot- Lee, Ahh, That's Nice.

PS: Here come the 'toopid questions: what is sequencing?

Rick and Roll
10-10-2004, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Roger Lee
In any event, it seems that just about any time I try to improve a sound file, it just makes matters worse

Does this mean the excellent job you did on mine is really bogus?

:p

Roger -Dot- Lee
10-10-2004, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Rick and Roll
Does this mean the excellent job you did on mine is really bogus?

:p

Actually, it actually means it's really lucky. I had to start from scratch three times because this one thing I thought was cool would actually introduce a hiss or make your Ps pop or blast my meter past the red into the ultra-violet or make the neighbors stick their heads out their doors and ask "What the HELL was THAT?!?!?"

Seriously, I'd REALLY like to be able to do a better job than what I did on those clips. I know it can be done, and I know I have the equipment to do it. I just haven't got the first inkling as to how to go about it.

Roger -Dot- Lee, Larnin' sumpthin' new agin....

lenron
10-10-2004, 04:50 PM
Hey Rog....I am a self-proclaimed sound engineer/producing HOBBYIST. One of my passions, regardless of whether or not I am a certified "pro". Whats the scoop on your audio situation? If you explain it from the beginning, since I am obviously catching this exchange mid gallop, maybe I can help? Who knows. I also know my Macs and Mac audio apps fairly well...so I am intrigued to see if I can help your problem(s). Try me!

Roger -Dot- Lee
10-10-2004, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by lenron
Hey Rog....I am a self-proclaimed sound engineer/producing HOBBYIST. One of my passions, regardless of whether or not I am a certified "pro". Whats the scoop on your audio situation? If you explain it from the beginning, since I am obviously catching this exchange mid gallop, maybe I can help? Who knows. I also know my Macs and Mac audio apps fairly well...so I am intrigued to see if I can help your problem(s). Try me!

OK. Here's Dr. Dot's Audio Issues, from the word go:

I have an eMac with 768 MB Memory and a 1 GHZ cpu. Plenty of elbow room. I have a dirt cheap microphone that I picked up from Worst Buy about 6 months or so ago. It's a USB mike since the external audio in port on my Mac hasn't worked from day one. I suppose I should have gotten it fixed a long time ago, but it was never important enough to warrant the loss of my computer for [X] days.

Anyway, I have the internal built in audio port, which works fine for sending Mom and Dad their yearly audio birthday cards from the Atlanta Branch of the Lee family, but for The Moon, it Just Won't Do. I got Garage Band to do some recording work, but have yet to have the time to really master it (Note: once I get the time (HA!), I'm going to hook the kids' keyboard to the Midi port and start composing some music).

Anyway. The biggest problem with the mic and audio setup that I have is level control. One pixel to the left and you can't hear anything, one pixel to the right and it's so overloaded that the spectrum analyzer pegs, looks at me strangely, and promptly goes to file a formal complaint with the shop steward. There seems to be no in-between. Once I get that working, I should be in a much better position to do something. Anything. :D

When I finally DO get the levels worked out to where they're workable, I have this background hiss that I've been trying to get rid of, but thus far have been unsuccessful. What do I have to do to get rid of this?

I guess my first question should be: does anyone have a good pointer to a web site called "Audio Engineering for Dummies" or some such? I've got access to filters and plug-ins galore but have no idea what any of them do.

When I said the work I did on Rick's sound files was luck, I wasn't joking. The only difference is that his sound files were a much better starting point than anything I've been able to create to date.

Having said all that, what do YOU need to know about what I know or what I have to help me out?

Roger -Dot- Lee, thankful for all the help.

lenron
10-10-2004, 05:46 PM
But I do my audio stuff on my G4 at my office.

Here's what I see. The bottom line problem, Rog, that I see is you don't have an intermediate step between the source (mic) and the recorder (eMac). Problem is easily resolved with the use of a preamp/mixer. A mixer itself should be what you need, if you were using a mic with 1/4" or XLR cable. Since you have a USB mic, and no mixer or preamp to control your input levels properly, you're at the mercy of the very consumer-grade audio input situation on your computer.

Possible solutions, bearing cost in mind, but if you wanna do it *right* you'll need to spend a little $$$:

Set aside the USB mic, or return it if you can. The range on a mic like that from a consumer electronics store is minimal at best. It is probably designed to be very "hot" in order for the standard user to be able to, in fact, send those audio birthday cards without worry that they are getting no signal.

Get a standard issue vocal mic. Ideally, you'll want one that has an XLR (balanced) cable. Price range: $30-$100 for something decent at home.

Then buy you a USB preamp that accepts XLR input. These devices have gain control for both channels (stereo), and with the combination of a preamp's control and the better tone of the XLR mic input, you should get impressive results in your audio app. Best suggestion for this device: M-Audio MobilePre. Around $149-$179 at music instrument retail shops, or online at http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/MobilePreUSB-main.html

I use this exact setup at home for recording tests, and it works surprisingly well. I've even used it for quick demo recordings in bands I've been in. (However, I use a Rode NT3 mic at home, since the MobilePre allows for 48v phantom power too. Heck, it'll take line-in bass or guitar or keyboard too, if you run your signal thru a DI box first.). But even my setup is basically the same as I described above.

$200-$275 and you are gonna be SET UP with home audio recording. That is about the lowest (and cheapest) you can go without sacrificing TOO much quality.

My 2 cents. Sorry to say you will have to spend a little money to get better results! :)

Suggested audio apps (cost prohibitive, but not nearly as much as industry-grade apps):

BIAS Peak 4 (www.bias-inc.com) - perfect post production stereo waveform editor. Supports up to 32 bit audio

BIAS Deck 3.5 (www.bias-inc.com) - 16 bit multitrack recording. As many tracks as your Mac can handle.

SoundStudio - should come with your eMac. A "lite" version of Peak, basically.

GarageBand from Apple is cool, from what I can tell, but my experience with it is minimal. Bear in mind it is consumer grade as well, mostly, however.

kirk
10-10-2004, 06:28 PM
hi roger- i'm not a mac user, but i concur.
i'm surprised that the feedback hasn't been a problem.

there's some really good, (relatively) inexpensive
mics on the market. rather than go w/ a vocal mic,
like the industry standard shure sm-57 & 58,
i'd look at either a behringer "B" series or one of the
russian oktavia condenser mics. both are under $100,
available at the guitar center ect.
behringer also makes some decent small mixers.
for your use, 1 or 2 inputs w/ 48v phantom power is all
you'll need.
garageband has some fantastic features for the $$,
you can't go wrong w/ it. the trade mags have been
gushing over it for months.
you may be able to find some help/ back articles at
www.keyboardmag.com.

k

roger
10-10-2004, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by lenron
but my notation reading easily less than 5% of what it should/could be with the right effort. Which I don't make, sadly. Its the biggest, gaping hole in my music theory knowledge at this point. I have exactly the opposite problem. I'm too paper-trained and I have a hard time learning things by rote. give it to me in notation and I'm there, but try to just play it for me, and I'll probably try to write it down so I can learn it...
it's been several years since I've had a chance to play much, but i'll see if I can dig up some mp3's of some old odd-meter tunes...
this is a great thread... :cool:

Yesspaz
10-10-2004, 08:50 PM
I love the second section of "Awaken" rocking in 11/8.
The opening of "Release, Release" is 4/4 and 6/4 at the same time.

Roger -Dot- Lee
10-10-2004, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by kirk
hi roger- i'm not a mac user, but i concur.
i'm surprised that the feedback hasn't been a problem.

there's some really good, (relatively) inexpensive
mics on the market. rather than go w/ a vocal mic,
like the industry standard shure sm-57 & 58,
i'd look at either a behringer "B" series or one of the
russian oktavia condenser mics. both are under $100,
available at the guitar center ect.
behringer also makes some decent small mixers.
for your use, 1 or 2 inputs w/ 48v phantom power is all
you'll need.
garageband has some fantastic features for the $$,
you can't go wrong w/ it. the trade mags have been
gushing over it for months.
you may be able to find some help/ back articles at
www.keyboardmag.com.

k

OK, I'll give those a look. I'll also run over to the local Radio Shacks to see what they might have (comparison purposes only. I don't buy from Radio Shack unless it's batteries or radio gear).

I think the very top end of my budget on this is probably going to be in the 2-250 range. Anything more than that and I'm going to have to answer to Mrs.Lee about it.

Roger -Dot- Lee, lookin' and readin s'more.

lenron
10-10-2004, 09:21 PM
Talk about odd meters and drumming... :)

So in the late 70's, Robert Fripp had Bill Bruford join up in King Crimson. After a few sessions, Fripp liked Bill's skill, but became very frustrated. He wrote down the following guidelines for Bill, based on his dominant vision for things in the new KC:

"1. Any existing solution to a problem is the wrong one absolutum, obsoletum.
2. If you have an idea, don't play it.
3. When a change in the music needs emphasis, don't play it: the change in the music is emphasis enough.
4. Don't phrase with any other member of the band unless its in the part.
5. Phrasing in the part should include no more than two people.
6. If the tension in the music needs emphasizing, don't. The tension is there because of what you are playing, not what you are about to play.
7. If you really have to change your part to build tension, don't add - leave out.
8. The maximum amount of tension you can add is by stopping completely.
9. If there is space for a fill which is demanded by the music, don't play it; there are three other people who would like to use that opportunity.
10. If the part you are playing is boring, stop listening with your head.
11. If this still bores you, listen to the interaction between all the parts.
12. If this still bores you stop playing and wait until you are no longer bored.
13. Do not be dramatic.
14. Do not be afraid to repeat yourself.
15. Do not be afraid to take your time.

Boy, what a negative list. Let's be positive about this.

1. Repeat yourself.
2. Take your time.
3. Leave room.
4. Listen to everyone else.
5. Develop a new set of cliches.
6. Develop a new set of drum sounds.
7. Listen to the sound of what you play."

-- Robert Fripp.

Bruford once said:

"Usually I go for the lowest common denominator and make it appear not to be in 17/8 [for example]. That's the guitar's business, not mine. I'm in a cheerful 4/4, but I can play whatever I like in it. It's not terribly restricting, actually."

lenron
10-10-2004, 09:43 PM
We all speak of "odd time" or "odd meters" and what have you. We are, of course, speaking of 5/4, 7/8, 9/8, 11/8, 17/8, 10/8, etc etc. And we all know that 4/4 is very much typical, and easily comprehended on a musical level. Right?

So I pose 2 questions for you:

1.) Why is 4/4 so natural, so typical, and so "simple"? (as opposed to other times)

2.) Why is 3/4 or 6/8 also considered natural, typical, and "simple"? (as opposed to other times)

It clearly has to do with what you're used to, says me. One parallel you can draw to help illustrate this point is traditional Indian music. That is, music from India - not American Indians, as it were. Anyway, the main, obvious difference in Indian music is that it utilizes quartertones, very UN-like the 12 note semitone scale we westerners are used to. To us - er, most of us - quartertones sound, well, out of tune. And technically, according to our pre-wired semitone western ears, it is out of tune. So semitones are "right", and quartertones are "weird" or even "wrong." Thats the basic concensus the average American music listener. Truly a challenge to get over the unfamiliarity of it to embrace it.

But in fact, its not "weird"...or "wrong". Just "different".

Back to meters/times. Music in the modern, civilized world from Europe to the Americas has been dominated heavily by songs in 4/4 and 3/4 for many many many decades. From the waltzes (3/4) to Americana folk (4/4 and 3/4), all the way to country, rock and roll, folk and bluegrass of modern times, almost everything that can be considered "popular music" is decidedly NOT in 5/4 or 7/8 and sure as hell is NOT in a quartertone scale.

Duh.

That being said, it is obvious this culture has raised millions of us to be comfortable with 4/4 and 3/4, and the 12 note semitone scale, so much so that it is a CHORE for us musicians to break beyond that "barrier" when we first try. It just makes no sense. You have to re-learn the very basic, raw, elemental concept of music again if you grew up with Sabbath and discovered Crimson in your 20's or 30's. Or heck, even if you simply grew up here.

"Odd time" or "odd meter"....doesn't 3 count as an odd number? :)

Then why is 3/4 so simple to understand and fall into, as opposed to 5/4 or 7/4 or 9/8? Could it be CONDITIONING? Inversely, if you were raised in a small Texas town called "Oddville" since birth, and all you heard was music in 7/8 or 5/4, and there simply was no other types of time signatures present in all the music you ever heard....

...4/4 would confuse the hell out of you. Most likely. Or would it?

Which brings me to my second point...

Is 4/4, straight time, a mystery of psycho-physiological function? Is there something about straight time that "connects" with our brains in such a way that it leads us "send another hero up the pop charts"? Is it in fact NATURAL yet there are those few (us) who challenge, nay, denounce the idea that its "just the way it has to be"? Or is my previous example valid? If you were raised with 5/4 and 7/8, would 4/4 be confusing at first or totally natural?

Bottom line, is it all relative, or is there something more behind the fact that those us who enjoy playing in 7/8 will never be in the Top 40 and become rich? :)

Do tell!

Yesspaz
10-10-2004, 10:10 PM
Um, I think 3/4 and 4/4 are natural, and the rest aren't. I don't know why they are; they just are. Probably, it's because they are the lowest. 7/4 is a combo of 3/4 and 4/4 eliminating a downbeat. In other words, it's not as simple.

lenron
10-10-2004, 10:12 PM
The very fact that you consider 7/4 a combination of 4/4 and 3/4 is my point exactly. The mystery continues!!

:)

Roger -Dot- Lee
10-10-2004, 10:25 PM
Since it's so late here on the east coast, I'm going to take this in steps. I can't pass on the opportunity to answer the two questions at the top, and I've got a few comments for below that I'll address later.

Anyway....

Originally posted by lenron
We all speak of "odd time" or "odd meters" and what have you. We are, of course, speaking of 5/4, 7/8, 9/8, 11/8, 17/8, 10/8, etc etc. And we all know that 4/4 is very much typical, and easily comprehended on a musical level. Right?

So I pose 2 questions for you:

1.) Why is 4/4 so natural, so typical, and so "simple"? (as opposed to other times)


This goes back to pre-historic times and has to do with, of all things, the most natural of human rhythms: the heart beat. Everyone back in those days had one (kinda hard to be interested in music if they didn't, donchaknow), and it gave the basis for the music. Simple one beat per measure.

But why four? Dancing. Two legs. One two. One two. It just became easier to subdivide it into four as music became more complex.

This, of course, leads us to your next question:

2.) Why is 3/4 or 6/8 also considered natural, typical, and "simple"? (as opposed to other times)



It all has to do with subdivision. 4/4 is either 4 sets of 1, or if it's fast, 2 sets of 2. It's a lot easier to be precise with that than it is with, say, 11, which is often 3 sets of 3 with a set of 2 thrown in for good measure. Or 14, which is 2 sets of 7, which could be 2 2 3 or 3 2 2 or 2 3 2, or, in some cases, any combination of the above.

In short (yah, I know, too late. Look at my history to see how often I can say ANYTHING "in short"), 4 and its counterpart 2, have been around a LOT longer than 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 22, or 28, and are thus a lot more "natural" and "normal" and "regular" than some of the more esoteric time signatures.

3/4 and 6/8 are a much later mutation of the ancient 4 beat measure. MUCH later, like multiple thousand years. It's been around a lot longer than some of the more irregular (which is what we're really talking about here -- regular vs. irregular, not normal vs. abnormal or odd vs. even (since 10, 12, 14, and 18, all of which make appearances here on the Moon, are even)).

But let's take a look at music as it permutated over the years. Ancient manuscripts didn't HAVE the measure subdivided into beats. You had a few lines, some dots that went up and down, and some markings that meant that some notes were faster than others. Gregorian chants are a perfect example of this. You had some notes that were filled in, which meant that they didn't last as long as the other ones that weren't filled in. Some had dots, which meant that they were longer than the filled in ones without dots, but shorter than the empty ones.

Then we started subdividing once instruments were added; as music became more complex; as musicians needed to be more precise and composers wanted their music to be heard by more than the people who were listening to THEM playing it. We go back to the 4/4, simply because it was the easiest to subdivide. It's easier to write for, easier to memorize, and easier to conduct.

But the high born decided they wanted to dance in three, since step step got boring after a while, they added a pause in there. Step step pause. That sort of thing.

6/8 is simply a combination of 4/4 and 3/4, though faster. Usually 6/8 is conducted in two (two sets of three). If they wanted to do three sets of two, they'd write it in 3/4.


Do tell!

Proof positive that you did ask.

I'll likely address this in much greater detail later this week (oh stop groaning already). But it's time for Dr. Dot to hit the hay.

Roger -Dot- Lee, a big fan of 7, actually, with a budding interest in 11...

Yesspaz
10-10-2004, 11:01 PM
yeah, that's what I meant :D . 7/4 is subdivided into 3/4 and 4/4. they are more basic.

progdirjim
10-10-2004, 11:51 PM
great thread!

Roger has said it better than I can. I'll add one thought.

4 is divisible by 1,2 and 4. 3 is divisible by 1 and 3. 5 is divisible by 1 and 5. 6 is divisible by 1,2,3, and 6. oops! talked about all of those except for 6. except, 6 is 2 3's, unless you're doing something very different with the second 3. 7 is divisible by 1 and 7. 8 is divisible by 1,2,4 and 8. same as 4, unless the second 4 is very different. etc, etc, etc. 9 is 3 3's. 10 can be 4,4,2; 12 is 4 3's or 3 4's. 4 is the smallest number that allows for a strong accent (typically on the 1 or 3 beat), a weak accent (on the 1 or 3 that isn't the strong accent) and unaccented beats. It's essentially mathematics that makes 4 our usual count.

Fripp's apocryphal message to Bruford shows a short sightedeness I don't associate with Fripp. I'm nowhere near as talented as Bruford, and I would NEVER join a band under those conditions.

lenron
10-11-2004, 08:35 AM
Another great way of putting it progdirjim! A fine thread indeed.

I think Fripp's comments to Bruford were sincere, but at the same time with the tongue firmly planted in cheek. Perhaps the truth, but if you read the entire story this text is from, you get the feeling that Fripp's vision perhaps didn't quite account for Bruford's mastery. In the end, the music speaks for itself, I don't honestly hear Bruford being shackled with limitations on those records!

But as a bass player...I will say....when it comes to the backbeat, I have always acknowledged that sometimes the power of what you DON'T do is just as powerful, if not more so, than what you DO do. :)

Yesspaz
10-11-2004, 01:03 PM
Bass players unite.

One thing I like is when a band changes time signatures to a signature with a different feel. For instance, 2/4 and 4/4 have the same feel, but 7/4 and 4/4 don't. Different feeling changes are colorful and sometimes staggering. Floyd's "Money" is in 7/4 but the bridge is 4/4. Yes' "Lightning Strikes" is a fast 7/4, and when they switch to 4/4 in the middle, it is dynamite. The Letter E's "Alushta" is 7/4, then 12/8or4, then 7, then 12, then 7 again. Journey's "Nickel and Dime" has two sections, one in 5/4 and one in 10/8or4.

Lenron, I'm sure you're familiar with the KC and Yes picks there, but maybe not the other two. For fun in time signatures, try those. :cool:



Hmmm... fun non-4/4 or 3/4 songs should be a thread. I start with American Football's "Never Meant" in 12/8.

moses
10-12-2004, 04:02 PM
This is all good on why 4/4 and 3/4 are "natural" (or whatever the oringal term was) for WESTERN music.

(Hmm, oringal, that's a good one. I'll leave that. Sounds like a place. I just got back from Oringal and boy is it nice there this time of year!)

Of course I meant ORIGINAL!

But my point was that traditional Indian music (India-Indian, not Native American again) often used(uses?) 5/4 or 10/8 (depending on how you count it) in addition to the quartertones. My guess is because of the 5 fingers (per hand) thing.

Not that it really adds much to what has already been said. I'm going back to Oringal now.

Yesspaz
10-12-2004, 07:44 PM
I read that all Oringnal ethnic music is in 1/1 time, but some of those non-traditionalist types are experimenting with 3.5/11 rhythm.

moses
10-13-2004, 08:54 AM
I want to hear a Progressive Shores show on the Prog scene in Oringal! It could probably be a three-part series!

Rick and Roll
10-13-2004, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by moses
I want to hear a Progressive Shores show on the Prog scene in Oringal! It could probably be a three-part series!

I believe it's next to Senegal. There may be some musicians on Gabriel's records from there.:D

kirk
10-13-2004, 11:28 AM
oringal...... isn't that what the "O" stands
for in o.j. simpson's name? :D

lenron
10-13-2004, 01:02 PM
I think it does, yeah. However, I have no idea how to REALLY spell it. :)

Rick and Roll
10-13-2004, 01:07 PM
don't ask me how i know these things. I actually knew that before his second career as a non-convicted felon.

lenron
10-17-2004, 05:23 PM
More KC....more Discipline.

"Thela Hun Ginjeet". The guitar riff that opens the song and plays behind the main bass riff. It seems like 7/8 to me, and obviously the entire song is in straight time. I hear the guitar in 7/8 almost the entire song. Am I wrong here? I sure as hell hope it was Fripp playing that part, since he doesn't sing. I don't see how you could be in 7 over straight time for so long and somehow sing simultaneously. Eeesh! Then again, I am not in KC. Nor ever will be. :(

Thoughts?

Rick and Roll
10-17-2004, 05:41 PM
but the riff that opens the tune plays for a few seconds before Levin enters. That's Belew. After Bill Bruford comes in, I'm not so sure that Fripp doesn't even play for awhile. I'm trying to remember in concert. It's still vivid (although 22 years ago...wow are we that old?) and I distinctly remember all Fripp did in the middle of the song was move his hand down the frets.

spedblavio
10-23-2004, 02:44 PM
I just want to second moses' comment.

It seems like much of the discussion regarding "why 4/4?" has been from a European/western perspective.

Which leads me to believe that it's more cultural than "natural", maybe having something to do with dualistic, linear, analytical thought; trying to "make sense" of everything, quantizing, categorizing, etc.

Indian music, Gamelan and I don't know what all else, are a different story and did not evolve along the supposedly "default" 4/4 path.

and yeah, organized dancing probably had something to do with it too.

Hey, if any of you have a taste for jazz, you really MUST check out this album from Don Ellis, recorded in 1966:
The Don Ellis Orchestra Live at Monterey.

There's a song on there called "33 222 1 222", and as Ellis jokes in the intro, "that's just the area code". Actually, it's the breakdown of the song's meter, 19 beats to the bar. It really rocks/swings too, shades of KC in big band jazz form. Ellis also played quarter tones. Great piece of music, and I think accesible to fans of prog rock and especially odd meters.