Help on understanding time signatures.

[Sascha Franck]

I will recap this one last time.

You don't have anything to recap but unfounded nonsense.

Does that mean that, functionally, the meter is not built on triplets? No.

As said, you don't understand anything about swing.

The *very* reason the term "swing" was invented because it SHOULDN'T exactly sound like a triplet groove. The 8ths (yes, even 8ths!) were just bouncing ever so slightly (or a bit more).
Describing swing as the first and third of a group of triplets is nothing else but a theoretic vehicle, making it easier to explain (and probably practice). And that's the first thing any proper jazz teacher will tell you as well, once it comes to swing.
In jazz music, "perfect" swing is rarely ever heard. And that's the very reason why, instead of notating it as triplets (or 12/8) it's coming with a "swing" advice.
If you listen to very fast bebop tunes, there's even almost *no* swing present. The ride, soloists and whatever patterns are close to even 8ths.
Ok, you will now explain to me that the performers simply aren't able to play triplets, that originally it was meant to be triplets - and whatever bullshit you could probably make up.
Fact is, swing is *not* meant to be triplets, it's *not* performed as triplets either in most cases, and hence the triplet approach is *only* making sense in case you're learning or teaching.
It doesn't make sense for notation (otherwise it'd probably be used) and it does make even less sense to even try to play things as triplets in certain tempi.

[Sascha Franck]

I had an mp3 example but I guess no one listened.

Well, just that you came up with a 12/8 example. No swing in sight at all.

[nuffink]

From...

I can't tell if this is just the refusal to concede the point, or if I'm REALLY missing something huge.

... to absolute certitude in 2 hours.

Guess what. You really are missing something huge and you always will, because you don't listen

[Sascha Franck]

Fwiw, I am perfectly happy to see at least a few folks with a clue in this thread. I was almost banging my head to the wall already.

[Hink]

don't worry, some people learned from this thread

[No name]

We need a music theory forum I think, there are just as many issues in music theory that seem to need discussion. I think it would be benefical to the community. Lord knows I alone have many more questions, and it seems that out of every person that comes here, they seem to be almost more ignorant about theory than any other aspect already discussed on these forums. I'm not saying this in regards to the disucssion that's been going on within the last few pages. When I say ignorance in theory, i'm talking about all the folks that come here asking such questions as what a time signature is, what scales are, etc. So??? Mods?

[Deric]

@Sascha Frank - this is a great thread! Informative and confusing as hell in equal 'measure'!

[No name]

don't worry, some people learned from this thread

I've found it quite insightful. The things I don't yet get will be things that, give a few weeks or a month, I will most surely begin to read into and understand. Right now i'm struggling with more basic things.

[Hink]

Whenever Sascha comments in threads like these I learn something, I just have a layman's understanding of theory and I love learning more

[Toxikator]

From...

I can't tell if this is just the refusal to concede the point, or if I'm REALLY missing something huge.

... to absolute certitude in 2 hours.

Well, somewhere along the line I realized that it was, in fact, just a refusal to concede the point.

But no matter, you guys seem to know your music well enough, I'm sure you'll get on fine.

[Sascha Franck]

We need a music theory forum I think, there are just as many issues in music theory that seem to need discussion.

Yes, a music theory forum would be a great idea to have at KVR. After all, you do want to put all those synths and FX to good use, no?
Right now, these issues are discussed all over the place, so IMO it'd defenitely be nice to have a knowledgeable moderator running such a part of KVR.
Not that there weren't other places on the web already, but it just seems to make sense to me to have something like it right here.

[nuffink]

http://www.ibreathemusic.com/forums/

[vurt]

We need a music theory forum I think, there are just as many issues in music theory that seem to need discussion.

Yes, a music theory forum would be a great idea to have at KVR. After all, you do want to put all those synths and FX to good use, no?
Right now, these issues are discussed all over the place, so IMO it'd defenitely be nice to have a knowledgeable moderator running such a part of KVR.
Not that there weren't other places on the web already, but it just seems to make sense to me to have something like it right here.

i too would welcome such a thing, so long as "out there" theorists could also discuss their theory.
for instance rachmiel runs a very interesting column in cm, id love to see a place where both schools of thought could sit together...

[herodotus]

It doesn't make sense for notation (otherwise it'd probably be used).

So you are assuming that the consensus makers of music are reasonable?

I've got to say, guys, that you seem to be kind of fetishistic about this 'swing isn't just triplets' issue.

Sometimes triplets can be a better way of conveying certain rhythmic ideas in songs that could be said to 'swing'. It depends on the musicians, their background, and the meter of the song.

Remember, notation isn't some sort of ontological bedrock for musical truth. Its a convenient method of conveying musical ideas to other musicians.

A vital part of the musical traditions related to swing is the direct real time communication between musicians that makes notational fetishism (which might make sense if we were talking about the music of an anal retentive nut like Milton Babbit) unnecessary.

Lighten up.

[No name]

I personally have quite the journey ahead of me still. Even after i'm finished learning theory, I still got to learn technique. I often find myself fumbling over the keys when I play something that gets a bit busy. I'm optimistic though.

So let me get this straight here, because the past few pages have thrown me somewhat.

Triplets are just a division of, say, two notes (quarter notes for example) into 3 notes (3 quarters i'm assuming?), but yet still in the same duration as the original notes? They are just divided up? I'm pretty sure this is correct, or if not, then it is at least on the correct path.