A question about time signatures

[McLilith]

I want to ask about something I saw on a web site today:

In 6/8 time--6 beats of an eighth note each--the pattern is strong weak weak, medium weak weak.

Most sites I've visited, imply that there is only one way to arrange the accents within a particular time signature, but I thought there was no actual rule for this? Aren't statements such as the one above making a lot of assumptions about the music you want to compose sounding a lot like the music that everyone else wants to compose? For example, why couldn't 6/8 also be:

Strong, weak, weak, Strong, Strong, weak

Trying to separate "common tradition" from the actual technicalities gives me fits sometimes. It's one of the biggest reasons that I have trouble learning "music theory". Coming from a scientific background, it all seems much more like "hodge-podge of folk tradition" than a well-designed body of rational theories and rules.


take care,
McLilith

[kaden]

Consider 4/4: Lean on the '1', it's funk. Lean on the '2', it's rock. Lean on the '3', it's reggae. Lean on the '4', it's ska.

...And that's not even considering what you assemble the 4 from. Beats are comprised of rhythm (note duration) and dynamics (note volume) occuring at a given meter (note tempo). There's a *lot* of different ways to count to 4 if you're a drummer. Most of them don't involve the numbers nine or eleventy three, despite what you've heard about us.

...Then you have to contextualize them against the other instrumental passages playing congruently, which may end up syncopating or being polyrhythmic.

Or in unison, but you're timeshifting the '2' 3 milliseconds forward for that 'con brio' feeling.

Of course if you have natural talent, ya don't worry about this kinda analytical nonsense, and write phenomenal tarnce instead.

The rest of us muddle along...


Ain't riddim grand?


K

[Meffy]

As in so many things musical, there's a lot of opinion and recitations of common practice masquerading as absolute fact.

The conventional way of thinking of 6/8 time is as "compound duple," which is to say duple time with each beat divided into a triplet. The medium accent distinguishes the second triplet from the first. I see nothing wrong with accentuating beats and notes differently. But the farther from plain compound duple rhythm you get, the more desirable it becomes to resort to some other notation. For instance, if your rhythm goes:

STRONG weak STRONG weak weak weak

... then it might be best to call it 2+4/8 instead of 6/8.

I consider it a matter of personal preference, but the more academic the setting the stricter the standards.

[Meffy]

Oh: and yes, it is an assemblage of practice, not a deliberately formulated-before-the-fact system. Music was around long before traditional modern theory, which for the most part describes what was already there and provides potentially useful tools for working with Western music.

[kaden]

Hence the role of the conductor... for authoritative interpretation of such ambiguities.

[Meffy]

*nod* Assuming a competent conductor, that is. ;-) A few ensembles get along without a conductor. I guess they work things out on their own.

[McLilith]

Consider 4/4: Lean on the '1', it's funk. Lean on the '2', it's rock. Lean on the '3', it's reggae. Lean on the '4', it's ska.

So, it seems that I'm correct. There really isn't just one "approved" way of counting a measure.

Okay, what about this: Couldn't we have two absolutely identical sounding songs, one transcribed in 4/4 and, the other transcribed in 8/8 time? (Let's assume that the tempo is adjusted to make them play at the same actual speed.)

I'm really wanting to understand this better, but it all just seems like so much self-referencing circular logic at the moment.

I feel like a dog chasing its own tail, when trying to teach myself about this.


thanks,
McLilith

[Meffy]

4/4 vs. 8/8? I guess so. 8/8 isn't something you see used a lot, if at all. But that's a little like telling someone "Here are eight Oreo cookies!" after twisting four of 'em in halves. ;-)

Which is my roundabout way of saying: Don't get too hung up on technicalities. Let the music rule, then notate in whatever way makes sense to you.

My impression while taking theory in college was that even the hoitiest-toitiest academics didn't always agree on this kind of thing.

[kaden]

Standard musical notation is of...er...variable precision, but at least it gets everybody in the ensemble on the same page: With the topography laid out, as it were, it's easier to arrive at a concensus interpretation, so if you wanted to do, say, a dub version of a Joy Division song, you'd have a better than even money chance of doing it.

K

[McLilith]

4/4 vs. 8/8? I guess so. 8/8 isn't something you see used a lot, if at all. But that's a little like telling someone "Here are eight Oreo cookies!" after twisting four of 'em in halves.

Perhaps 4/4 vs 8/8 wasn't the best example. I think the same thing applies to lots of other time signatures.

Couldn't 2/4 sound the same as 4/4?

Couldn't 3/4 sound the same as 6/8?

Couldn't 12/16 sound the same as 4/4?

It all just seems so arbitrary to me, but many of the music theory people seem to try to give the impression that there is only one way to do things "right". It also seems that sometimes the music "theorists" simply wanted to see how many inter-dependant fractions they could incorporate into the same formula.


take care,
McLilith


--

Music theory makes me want to write a protest song in 5/3 time.

[Meffy]

Hm, well... 2/4 tends toward a definite "ONE-two" sound, while 4/4 is "ONE-two-Three-four." And so forth. But when you move away from the more common rhythms it all seems to break down pretty fast. A lot of it is convention, there are no "laws" worth mentioning IMPO. [P=pompous]

Go with the sound. Music's not for paper to enjoy, it's for ears. Notation must be the servant of sound, not the other way 'round.

For real fun, check out the segment of the score to "Penis Dimension" printed in the booklet packed with the LP version of Zappa's "200 Motels." Notational Fury! :-D Polyrhythms galore, Batman!

[McLilith]

so if you wanted to do, say, a dub version of a Joy Division song, you'd have a better than even money chance of doing it.

I like that track.

I don't know much about Joy Division, but that sounds pretty nice.


take care,
McLilith


--

It makes me want to celebrate, by writing a song in 7/11 time.

[hello1234]

6/8 vs 3/4 is mostly an opinion. This is not a set in stone thing.........not much really is.

I find 6/8 to be quicker usually.......kinda like "swing-for=ward/back-gent-ly" as opposed to "this-is-it"

Or 3/4 will be more "TA-tatata.. TA-tatata.."

Man.....this is hard to explain writting.......

[hello1234]

Couldn't 2/4 sound the same as 4/4?

yes

Couldn't 3/4 sound the same as 6/8?

yes

Couldn't 12/16 sound the same as 4/4?

No 12/8 could have a 4/4 sound under some circumstances..........but it should swing or it's just 4/4

[McLilith]

Couldn't 12/16 sound the same as 4/4?

No 12/8 could have a 4/4 sound under some circumstances..........but it should swing or it's just 4/4

You seem to be saying that yes it could, but it would go against common western musical traditions. Does that pretty much sum it up correctly?

I come from a world where Voltage = Current X Resistance

That's not a mere cultural tradition masquerading as a technical theory or law. It's a valid, proven, and demonstrable law of physics. Music theory, on the other hand, well...

...well, let's just say that I think it should be called something other than "theory", because "theory" implies concepts like logic, science, and consistency.

Instead of what is commonly referred to as "Music Theory", what about "Guidelines and Traditions of Common Western Music", or maybe "Applied Acoustic Folklore"?


take care,
McLilith


--
Don't get me wrong, I do have respect for anyone who masters this hodge-podge collection of culural traditions...