Hi and a question on time signature

[cgCody]

Well I'm glad to know I was on the right track. Could it be a simple waltz with syncopation? I give up. What's the answer? hehe

[daz.diamond]

Would I be correct in saying that sometimes it's a matter of making the score more readable, as well? So you're not doing too many over-the-bar-ties?

+1

also - I've played with people who play semi-quavers too fast just by thinking "they're semi-quavers so they must be fast" - when the parts are rewritten as quavers they've played it no problem.

[cransky]

Basically what time sig. is, at least in terms of the modern music sequencer is a means by which you determine the length and duration of a musical passage or phrase as it is known in musicology.

There is no song at it's roots, ie the melody, perceived or otherwise a progression that has an arbitrarily fixed time signature or for that matter tempo, which is a wholly related concept.

What I mean by this is when you write a song you may start with a 4/4 measure but as you elaborate on your ideas, you "meter out" as it were varying lengths or sections that amount to parts of an arrangement, each with a different signature and/or tempo base.

In other words time signature is ever changing until you reach the "end" of your composition and again I'm not talking in an arbitrary sense but rather when your work as a composer is completed.

[Aroused by JarJar]

Yes, that would be kind of a Waltz a little bit short.

The question is: how on earth would you write this rhythm in a decent way without having to deal with fractionary numbers? (2+2/3)/4 of course is not an option to write on a score. So how should you deal with this?

ONE-and-a TWO-and-a PAM-pam/ONE-and-a Two-and-a PAM-pam/... this helps?

If time signatures were to be taken as logically as possible (impossible at this point in history, with so much custom involved), an answer to your question
would be 16/6.

[Musicologo]

Well, I might be wrong, but the way I see my own problem leads me to this "pratical" solution:

since we have a mixed rhythm quarter, quarter, Triplet, then it's better to understand this as a compound measure, in which each beat is divided by three.

So we will multiply all values by 3/2, so that the "triplet" disappears and we have whole values instead of fractions.

So now you have 2 dotted quarter notes, divided in three eight notes, and then plus two eight notes.

So I would treat this as a complex compound 8/8, with the beamings at 3+3+2.

When I read the rhythm it sounds like that at least:

One-and-a (3) Two-and-a (3) Pam-pam (2)

Writing my rhythm this way would work fine and would be easily readable and understandable.

[Aroused by JarJar]

Well, I might be wrong, but the way I see my own problem leads me to this "pratical" solution:

since we have a mixed rhythm quarter, quarter, Triplet, then it's better to understand this as a compound measure, in which each beat is divided by three.

So we will multiply all values by 3/2, so that the "triplet" disappears and we have whole values instead of fractions.

So now you have 2 dotted quarter notes, divided in three eight notes, and then plus two eight notes.

So I would treat this as a complex compound 8/8, with the beamings at 3+3+2.

When I read the rhythm it sounds like that at least:

One-and-a (3) Two-and-a (3) Pam-pam (2)

Writing my rhythm this way would work fine and would be easily readable and understandable.

That is the standard way of doing this, very common. I thought you were asking for a time signature specifically for this, which would reflect the kind of phantom beaming of the triplet into the next measure, which 8/8 with beaming doesn't do. And, if that particular beaming and therefore rhythm is consistent, it would usually be written as 3+3+2/8, a very common kind of thing in Balkan and modern classical for example.

When you beam in 8/8, you imply syncopation over a square pulse, not the long-long-short as the principle feel.

[Musicologo]

That's why I told it was "my solution"... because it was a simple and legible way to do this. However, it requires a rephrasing and recalculation of the values.

If I really want to stand with quarter, quarter, 2/3 triplet, then I really don't know how to notate it, avoiding fractions.

I didn't get that 16/6...
a 6 in denominator for me would equate to a beat unit of dotted eight. What do we achieve with this?