Why the two and four? What about 3/4?

[tapper mike]

I understand what you are going through. Your are a smart young man who analyzes everything as you haven't had the opportunities that some have. I walked a similar path scraping for bits of knowledge to put things together.

The only things I can impart to you is music isn't reductionist. Meaning once you get the basics down there are things beyond them and that it's not science. Music can very much be art. Whether we choose a paint by number approach occasionally painting outside the lines and changing colors to suit our moods or we wipe the canvas clean and aim for a more visceral approach.

There are some who have gone to the great halls and have had creativity sucked out of them by regiment and yet others who have found it a means to an end. The path you choose is yours. However regardless of which way you go keep an open mind and heart. Many of us seek out a particular "style" as a reflection of our self and then go through the process of internalization. It's both intellectual and emotional. We put ourselves into the music as much as possible so we get the most out of it. Sometimes that means faking it till we make it. Doing a job well is it's own reward. Acceptance, acknowledgement are by products not end products. You may become very good at what you are doing and yet no one will know but you. But sometimes that's enough.

[jancivil]

I found the snare sounded best on the upbeat!

so there's your reason.

With answers like these, you might as well be telling me, "Apollo created music purposefully to sound good like this"
.

so, ignore my previous quite detailed answer so you can be a smart ass with a non sequitur? You're welcome.

so do your own investigation, you know. Or, ask your dad!

[ntom]

I understand what you are going through. Your are a smart young man who analyzes everything as you haven't had the opportunities that some have. I walked a similar path scraping for bits of knowledge to put things together.

The only things I can impart to you is music isn't reductionist. Meaning once you get the basics down there are things beyond them and that it's not science. Music can very much be art. Whether we choose a paint by number approach occasionally painting outside the lines and changing colors to suit our moods or we wipe the canvas clean and aim for a more visceral approach.

There are some who have gone to the great halls and have had creativity sucked out of them by regiment and yet others who have found it a means to an end. The path you choose is yours. However regardless of which way you go keep an open mind and heart. Many of us seek out a particular "style" as a reflection of our self and then go through the process of internalization. It's both intellectual and emotional. We put ourselves into the music as much as possible so we get the most out of it. Sometimes that means faking it till we make it. Doing a job well is it's own reward. Acceptance, acknowledgement are by products not end products. You may become very good at what you are doing and yet no one will know but you. But sometimes that's enough.

Partially true.
Though at times when (Jancivil) I have talked to my dad about music theory, usually what he teaches me opens my up to new ideas in ways of creation. I am not trying to limit myself to rules and theories, I am trying to know these rules so I know how to break them...I guess that would be how I would put it.
I want to learn how and when painting outside of the lines is good or not good. Obviously experimentation is the best way to find out, but what if I knew the rules to it? How would that reflect on my painting?

But, I like experimentation too I think the collective Knowledge of KVR and my own experimentation is what has gotten me furthest in music.

[mcnoone]

Go for a walk with bottle caps on the soles of your shoes.
Record.
This is your timing.

[tapper mike]

Here is the old joke about guitarists. How do you stop a guitarist from playing?
Put sheet music in front of him.


I've known extremely talented guitarists who lack a certain level of musical knowledge. It's not to diminish their abilities. It's just that some know things innately without being able to express it verbally. And somethings they can get by without so they tend not to develop the intellectual pathways to it.

I used to play with this guitarist who had an incredible ear, flawless technique and only a smattering of musical knowledge and a great deal of creativity. He would ask me questions about theory and things he'd never attempt because they weren't "his style" I'd try to give him nothing in that realm because it would detract and not add to what he had to offer.

[sammy24]

Two words, Primary Beats. In a 4/4 time signature, the primary beats are 1 and 3. This idea is not just "terminology"-- music theory is the study of what sounds good, to humans. To give an example, if you have a melody that ascends, there is an increase in intensity, and the opposite for descending. Why? The same reason why you walk on the ground instead of the ceiling, or you perceive a person's head as the top and their feet as the bottom. No point in over-thinking it, it's just the way it is. Same thing here- we naturally feel a 4/4 pattern with the emphasis on 1 and 3. You can fight this natural feeling, but then THAT's what you've decided to do- in other words, there is no right and wrong, but one way is the more natural way and the other is the less natural.

Therefore, it is very natural to play a low-sounding percussive sound, like a kick drum, on the primary beats, which emphasizes the strength of those beats, and a higher sounding percussive sound like a snare on the secondary beats. Also, I'd say that the snare is more obviously apparent to the ear than a kick drum, since a kick drum has such a low frequency, so it's harder to hear and not as attention-grabbing. Using a snare on the secondary beats helps to "fight back" against the primacy of the primary beats by emphasizing the weaker secondary beats. This helps balance out the overall beat.

In other time signatures, the same ideas follow through. Just the primary beats are in different places. In 5/4, there is more than one choice of which beats to make primary-1 and 4 is probably the most natural, 1 and 3, 1 and 5. So in that regard, it's a little more complicated than 4/4. (We naturally hear rhythms in groups of two or three-- all rhythms are made up of combinations of two and three. So any time signatures bigger than 4 are gonna be more complex because now you have combinations of these basic building blocks).

A major point associated with this idea of primary beats is harmonic rhythm. The most natural place to change chords is at the primary beats. When chords change on secondary beats, you sort of notice that immediately. And sometimes it sounds a bit unnatural, if not done well.

Also, in jazz, the drummer plays the hi-hat pedal on secondary beats, 2 and 4. Why? Because the primary beats are so obvious, and strong, that you don't even need to do anything to emphasize them. They are inherently emphasized, in the ear of the listener. By emphasizing the secondary beats, that provides that balance, by kind of giving more strength to those beats and helping them "compete" against the primary beats. Same reason why it usually sounds much better to clap on the weak beats, 2 and 4.