rhythm question

[welcome to the machine]

Since you're being strictly from argumentative, hey!:
IF the math works to where the thing/the idea lands on ONE, how is any of this different, objectively?

12/8, sure as shootin, = 6/4, at the self-same tempo. Difference between 6/8 and 12/8 is 'how many bars per phrase'. Triplets in 4/4 = 12/8, therefore Triplets in 2/4 = 6/8. Two dotted quarters {6/8} only differs from 2 quarters 2/4 in terms of tempo, when you get right down to it.

In terms of your sequencer, which is objective, what's the diff, was my point, and you can't refute it.

(when you need to translate to a person, you probably need some subjective criteria, sure)

no you see thats the point, 12/8 and 6/4 are not the same, sure mathematically and visually they are, but MUSICALLY they are not. 12/8 is compound time, basically meaning you feel the rhythm in three's, 6/4 is standard time so you feel the rhythm in two's.

you count 12/8 '1' 2 3 '4' 5 6 '7' 8 9 '10' 11 12

you count 6/4 '1' 2 '3' 4 '5' 6

the AB guide to music theory describes it this way, 3/4 (similar to 6/4) is like saying

dont forget to catch the train, ie DUH duh DUH duh DUH duh DUH

and 6/8 (similar to 12/8) is like saying

Phone me as soon as your there, ie

DUH duh duh DUH duh duh DUH.

mathematically this difference is nothing, but musically its a big difference, especially for people playing the piece in question.

[nuffink]

Since you're being strictly from argumentative, hey!:
IF the math works to where the thing/the idea lands on ONE, how is any of this different, objectively?

It's all about playing. The problem with you strict mathematical theorists is that you haven't paid your dues.
If you didn't suck all this in at the knee of Blind Artichoke Jackson by osmosis then you have no right to...




...blah blah blah






...continued page 74

[jancivil]

Since you're being strictly from argumentative, hey!:
IF the math works to where the thing/the idea lands on ONE, how is any of this different, objectively?

12/8, sure as shootin, = 6/4, at the self-same tempo. Difference between 6/8 and 12/8 is 'how many bars per phrase'. Triplets in 4/4 = 12/8, therefore Triplets in 2/4 = 6/8. Two dotted quarters {6/8} only differs from 2 quarters 2/4 in terms of tempo, when you get right down to it.

In terms of your sequencer, which is objective, what's the diff, was my point, and you can't refute it.

(when you need to translate to a person, you probably need some subjective criteria, sure)

no you see thats the point, 12/8 and 6/4 are not the same.

They might be in some cases, they might not in other cases. I have granted you a diff. in the subjective. To claim anything is an unqualified this or the other thing is a little goofy.

IE: if you did the hemiola move in 6/4 (getting dotted or 'compound' values in the bargain), it's tantamount to 12/8. What you call it is just naming; it is what it is, rose by another name. U Grok?[/u]

[jancivil]

Since you're being strictly from argumentative, hey!:
IF the math works to where the thing/the idea lands on ONE, how is any of this different, objectively?

It's all about playing. The problem with you strict mathematical theorists is that you haven't paid your dues.
If you didn't suck all this in at the knee of Blind Artichoke Jackson by osmosis then you have no right to...




...blah blah blah






...continued page 74

It's True Style from Planet Nuffink! Instead of the participant contributing to a conversation, or argument, or bringing either, you get to see this special brand of really cool confusion!

what an aroma!

[nuffink]

Why thank you.

[herodotus]

Since you're being strictly from argumentative, hey!:
IF the math works to where the thing/the idea lands on ONE, how is any of this different, objectively?

12/8, sure as shootin, = 6/4, at the self-same tempo. Difference between 6/8 and 12/8 is 'how many bars per phrase'. Triplets in 4/4 = 12/8, therefore Triplets in 2/4 = 6/8. Two dotted quarters {6/8} only differs from 2 quarters 2/4 in terms of tempo, when you get right down to it.

In terms of your sequencer, which is objective, what's the diff, was my point, and you can't refute it.

(when you need to translate to a person, you probably need some subjective criteria, sure)

no you see thats the point, 12/8 and 6/4 are not the same, sure mathematically and visually they are, but MUSICALLY they are not. 12/8 is compound time, basically meaning you feel the rhythm in three's, 6/4 is standard time so you feel the rhythm in two's.

you count 12/8 '1' 2 3 '4' 5 6 '7' 8 9 '10' 11 12

you count 6/4 '1' 2 '3' 4 '5' 6

the AB guide to music theory describes it this way, 3/4 (similar to 6/4) is like saying

dont forget to catch the train, ie DUH duh DUH duh DUH duh DUH

and 6/8 (similar to 12/8) is like saying

Phone me as soon as your there, ie

DUH duh duh DUH duh duh DUH.

mathematically this difference is nothing, but musically its a big difference, especially for people playing the piece in question.

The problem with this is that musical practice comes up against it so often. These rules of thumb are very old and have never really been updated. They date from a time when any piece of music had only one predominant 'feel'.

But what does one do if the feel of most of the piece is in standard 6/8 compound time, but it switches to duple-feel time for two measures every 12 measures? Clearly switching to 3/4 for those two measures would just create confusion. The problem becomes more acute if the 'feel' is changing constantly.

[jancivil]

Tell you what, if musicians are counting while playing something I showed 'em to do, something ain't right.
If they are thinking about the time, I have failed to convey, or have failed in my choice of participants.

If I'm telling a sequencer how to do it, the signatures or what-have-you are for my own point-of-reference, and I'm going to have to tell that machine a LOT, a WHOLE LOT more than the kind of information in this thread to get a musical result.

12/8 and 6/4 are not the same, sure mathematically and visually they are, but MUSICALLY they are not.

12/8 and 6/4, note this VERY well, are not musics. They are shorthand, names, for merely attempting to describe a single element in a music. If you are trying to convey a feel, you may have to play the damned thing and have someone cop you. Or have more of a grip on what it really is, on some level.

[jancivil]

Since you're being strictly from argumentative, hey!:
IF the math works to where the thing/the idea lands on ONE, how is any of this different, objectively?

It's all about playing. The problem with you strict mathematical theorists is that you haven't paid your dues.
If you didn't suck all this in at the knee of Blind Artichoke Jackson by osmosis then you have no right to...




...blah blah blah

I have no dogma, somethings you have to use your ear and heart in the strictest sense, and throw out any idea of 'information' and act in the manner that, you *know* something.

Sometimes you have to get yo calculata out, do tha math.

I'm results-oriented. Theory isn't music. Music isn't a theoretical exercise.

To pretend that it is, is something like acting like 'I'm a theoretical physicist, tho' I can't really do science; & I do know that I like the info in my texts from physics class.'

[nuffink]

Since you're being strictly from argumentative, hey!:
IF the math works to where the thing/the idea lands on ONE, how is any of this different, objectively?

It's all about playing. The problem with you strict mathematical theorists is that you haven't paid your dues.
If you didn't suck all this in at the knee of Blind Artichoke Jackson by osmosis then you have no right to...




...blah blah blah

I have no dogma, somethings you have to use your ear and heart in the strictest sense, and throw out any idea of 'information' and act in the manner that, you *know* something.

Sometimes you have to get yo calculata out, do tha math.

I'm results-oriented. Theory isn't music. Music isn't a theoretical exercise.

To pretend that it is, is something like acting like 'I'm a theoretical physicist, tho' I can't really do science; & I do know that I like the info in my texts from physics class.'

Oi! You've already had a whinge at this post. No double whinges, it's in the rules.

[jancivil]

OH, the irony

[nuffink]

OH, the irony

No jan, there's no irony involved. You keep coming back and picking at the same scab.

You had one sad little pop at that post. Then you came back for another. Move on eh? You're an accomplished stalker. I'll post again at some time and you can do your bunny boiler impression at a new post.

[jancivil]

OH the redundancy.

You can only go for innuendo. I was answering the attempt you made at a point. Instead of an answer, you make snide personal comments.

How is criticizing everything I say, and pointing to 'cont on pg 74', then saying 'stalker', not 'pot calling the kettle black'?

OH THE IRONY.

[nuffink]

OH the redundancy.

You can only go for innuendo. I was answering the attempt you made at a point. Instead of an answer, you make snide personal comments.

How is criticizing everything I say, and pointing to 'cont on pg 74', then saying 'stalker', not 'pot calling the kettle black'?

OH THE IRONY.

Jan, I can hardly post at the moment without some inane pop from you. You've even taken your campaign to Todays quotable.
At the moment I'm happy to give you the odd gentle little putdown because, frankly, their aren't enough women around here and I don't want to be responsible for scaring off one of the few. But at some time if you don't stop trying to impress me with your wit and wisdom I will unsheath my claws.

[arturito]

nuffink en jan,
maybe you should begin a new forum on 'everything else' called:
deathmatch jan vs nuf!
vote: