Decipher this Time Signature?

[treeboxterry]

Make some kind of crazy sense to anybody? Please say yes...

Yes.
I hear a cycle of 5 and a cycle of 4. Repeating

,

Thanks! I feel better now.

Since I posted my reply a while back I've been checking back every now and then to see if Aleos found that my explanation made sense. But, I guess that he (or she) either moved on to other concerns - or found my rudimentary technique too confounding to deal with.

Aleos?

[aleos]

hey treebox, sorry I'm not getting notified for this thread for some reason.

The reason, in my opinion, your counting method works is that you are counting 18 beats but in half time, which of course would equal 9. I think we've all pretty much agreed on 18 beats being the number in this progression.
I would never say that you are wrong in hearing it in 9 beats, but I think it would be a little awkward, and uncharacteristic of the style to label it 5/4 + 4/4 or 4/4 + 5/4. Or 9/4.
I was mentioning this earlier, that is a nice gift to be able to hear fast tempos at slower speeds (and vice versa), but if little joe was calling in some session musicians and we gave them sheet music with the exact same notes that joe plays, but grouped into a different time signature like some of the ones mentioned, you would get a different feel.

I have a question for you. Maybe something to think about, why do you finish your cycle at 5? Is there something in the music that tells you that after 5 beats a phrase or downbeat, or section has changed? I just did your method of counting on the fingers, but instead of going 5 and 4, I used both hands and went to 6 then started again and only went to 3. So now do we have a bar of 6 and a bar of 3? No, we don't. We must take heed of the stylistic, and performance characteristics in a piece of music.

Time signatures aren't simply about how many beats are in a phrase, each time signature has a very specific character. Especially 5/4. And having played a lot of groove in 5/4, I personlly just don't feel any of the "bump" that 5/4 transmits in little joe's tune.
Think about hip hop, the most 4/4 based music of all time (some exceptions). 4 bars of wu tang = 16 beats. It is redundant and of service to no one to group that into 3 bars of 3, one of 5 and 1 of 2. Right? You could basically say to group like that would be wrong.

Regarding the character of a time signature . A great example is the classic opening track to Kid A, by Radiohead. Everything in it's right place
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrpGhEVyrk0
There are 10 beats in this progression for sure, but how would you notate the signature? Is it 5 and 5, or 6 and 4? or whatever. (The easy way out is to say it's in 10, which you could say, but let's try to feel the grouping). And be careful, because the rhodes is anticipating the downbeat on some chords. Do you feel the 5/4 spirit that is in "take 5"? Or even compare it to another radiohead tune
15 Step
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WedRDYmtvX4
You could argue, with a very strong case, that they both have 10 beats to the phrase. But are they in the same time signature?

On another note, any one from Malaysia here?

[treeboxterry]

I have a question for you. Maybe something to think about, why do you finish your cycle at 5? Is there something in the music that tells you that after 5 beats a phrase or downbeat, or section has changed?

To answer your question that I've quoted - I finish my cycle at 5 because, clearly, at the end of 5 - his next downbeat is a new chord. He gives five downbeats to one chord - and four downbeats to the next chord.

Did you play along with Joe's piece on a guitar? There is a beautiful gentle swing... and after hitting that last single note of his little transition - it gives him enough time as a young player to get back to that second chord on 2.

If I were expressing the feel and time of this little groove to other musicians who walked in to play it... I would not tell them to think 18 beats. I can hear how one could superimpose that - but it ignores the relaxed sense of the piece.

I believe that the swing and feel of Joe's guitar - especially if you consider the last note of his single notes transition to be 1, and the first chord he hits after that last note to be 2 - suggests 5 and 4, regardless of how five has been historically represented.

I would suggest that they think of 9 as an overall container, or structure - with cycling repetitions of 5 and 4 within the container.

I think that the key here is the word "cycle", which you and I both used. I've listened to a lot of Indian music, Gamelan and jazz - so I'm very aware of the use of cycles and irregular patterns in music. And I believe that young musicians, or those who don't have formal training (at least yet) can express music in a spontaneous outburst of feeling - using that original spark of creativity can often result in unusual, even uncomfortable cycles for some listeners.
In the past, as a sort of pseudo-jazz player I used to show up with a new tune to show to the band... and somebody would inevitably ask how I came up with that strange time thing. I didn't get there by imposing a concept on something - I got there by feeling a groove or cycle. Later on, we would figure out how to express it in a time signature if necessary.

Funny - Dave Brubeck's 'take 5' album was the 2nd album I ever got (and wore out) as a kid. I cut my teeth on 'take 5' and 'Blue Rondo a' la Turke'.

Did you ever listen to "River Man", by Nick Drake? It's on his 'Five Leaves Left" album. It's a beautiful example of 5/4...without the usual bump. I would recommend that you listen to it if you have not.

If I have a favorite band - it's Radiohead. I am very familiar with the two examples you mentioned. I do hear 10 in "right place" and 5 in "15 step". Yes, maybe it's not the usual bump either... but I would bet that if you asked Thom Yorke if he was thinking in 10 or 5 for either of those tunes - he would probably respond...hmmmmm.. let's see...

I know that as an academic, one must learn to define, place, and categorize in order to bring order to things that may be vague or ambiguous. It's a valuable, irreplaceable skill that we all recognize. Sometimes though, we just have to quiet our mind's critical overview, and feel, in order to understand something in a different way. I'm not saying that either approach is superior. They can both lead to the same understanding.

[ski]

know that as an academic, one must learn to define, place, and categorize in order to bring order to things that may be vague or ambiguous. It's a valuable, irreplaceable skill that we all recognize. Sometimes though, we just have to quiet our mind's critical overview, and feel, in order to understand something in a different way. I'm not saying that either approach is superior. They can both lead to the same understanding.

What drivel! And pointedly condescending too.

[aleos]

To answer your question that I've quoted - I finish my cycle at 5 because, clearly, at the end of 5 - his next downbeat is a new chord. He gives five downbeats to one chord - and four downbeats to the next chord.

Actually, if I am doing it correctly, and I think I am, after five is not a new chord, instead little joe is hitting the higher strings of his guitar and providing an accent yes, but a new chord no.

If I were expressing the feel and time of this little groove to other musicians who walked in to play it... I would not tell them to think 18 beats. I can hear how one could superimpose that - but it ignores the relaxed sense of the piece.

I agree, I would definitely not tell some musicians that it's an 18 bar phrase. I was just trying to point out why your method of counting lined up at the beginning of the cycle.

I believe that the swing and feel of Joe's guitar - especially if you consider the last note of his single notes transition to be 1, and the first chord he hits after that last note to be 2 - suggests 5 and 4, regardless of how five has been historically represented.

Well, if we think "regardless of how 5 has been historically represented" then there is no point to anything we are saying. When someone asks "what time sig is this in?" what we are doing is giving an answer entirely based on how rhythms have been historically represented. If not then we would have 15 different examples (sort of like in this thread ) That is the the main purpose of music theory and notation etc. To quantify past examples so that we may use, understand, and appreciate them. When someone asks what time signature something is in, it is a very specific theoretical question. And especially in a pop example like this, there is a very clear specific answer.
What I feel some people are not hearing is, there are 3 chords. They are played with exactly the same rhythm. That rhythm is a classic 4/4 rhythm. You just have to trust me. To ignore the fact that there are 3 chords played with identical rhythm, and not to group them into some sort of logical grouping is just stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the 300 years of musical history that have come before. And when we talk about theory that's what we do. We base our ideas on some well tested methods of aural observation. I'm all for writing your own musical lexicon and changing the game, but in lieu of that...we have the rules given to us.

I think that the key here is the word "cycle", which you and I both used. I've listened to a lot of Indian music, Gamelan and jazz - so I'm very aware of the use of cycles and irregular patterns in music. And I believe that young musicians, or those who don't have formal training (at least yet) can express music in a spontaneous outburst of feeling - using that original spark of creativity can often result in unusual, even uncomfortable cycles for some listeners.
In the past, as a sort of pseudo-jazz player I used to show up with a new tune to show to the band... and somebody would inevitably ask how I came up with that strange time thing. I didn't get there by imposing a concept on something - I got there by feeling a groove or cycle. Later on, we would figure out how to express it in a time signature if necessary.

I love all that, we definitely listen to some of the same stuff bro. As someone who played in a javanese gamelan ensemble, I can attest to the fact that they do hear things in a different way, the here longer forms for sure, especially the gong who sometimes waits ages before striking again. But little joe isn't playing gamelan, and in our system we have very strong signposts to help dictate rhythm and meter.

Did you ever listen to "River Man", by Nick Drake? It's on his 'Five Leaves Left" album. It's a beautiful example of 5/4...without the usual bump. I would recommend that you listen to it if you have not.
If I have a favorite band - it's Radiohead. I am very familiar with the two examples you mentioned. I do hear 10 in "right place" and 5 in "15 step". Yes, maybe it's not the usual bump either... but I would bet that if you asked Thom Yorke if he was thinking in 10 or 5 for either of those tunes - he would probably respond...hmmmmm.. let's see...

I am a nick drake fanatic. As well as radiohead. Actually in my opinion, "River Man", "Take 5" and "15 step" all exhibit the bump I mean to convey in 5/4. "Bump" isn't very clear so I'll elaborate. The classic way to play 5/4 is in a grouping of 3 then 2. Then with a slight accent, whether through dynamics, melodically or harmonically, on the 4 and 5.
[1 2 3] [4 5 Nowhere does little joe do that. Now that's not to say that it's definitive, but it's a good starting point. But anyways, those above songs, as well as mission impossible theme, and some jesus christ superstar tunes, all employ that cliche. Which is what I call the bump. "everything in it's right place" however is not in any odd meter. although the beat total is 10, it's divided up into to 4+4+2.

I know that as an academic, one must learn to define, place, and categorize in order to bring order to things that may be vague or ambiguous. It's a valuable, irreplaceable skill that we all recognize. Sometimes though, we just have to quiet our mind's critical overview, and feel, in order to understand something in a different way. I'm not saying that either approach is superior. They can both lead to the same understanding.

This is often an argument people who haven't studied music theory speak from. And while it has, maybe, some validity, it is kind of strange, because I once knew less and then I learned a bunch. I have been in both places. The person who has not has only been in one. And my mind is much more quiet now. My "critical overview", and command of theory is due to my undying love and lifelong dedication to music. So I don't know how I can really "feel" anymore than that. The "quiet mind" of Zen Buddhism you reference, is achieved in monks from countless hours of study and discipline and immersion in their art.
I am indie rock free jazz freak, definitely not an academic in the classic sense, and I can tell you that I enjoy the visceral aspects of music more than anything. You'll just again have to trust me, from over here on the other side. I feel infinitely more with music now than when I was ignorant to it's workings.

[aleos]

but I would bet that if you asked Thom Yorke if he was thinking in 10 or 5 for either of those tunes - he would probably respond...hmmmmm.. let's see...

I would have to disagree. Radiohead are VERY conscious of what they are doing. The aren't just hitting the bong and saying "let's jam dudes". Their knowledge of the music that came before them and the devices employed by previous masters is large. They have broad listening tastes that are revealed, with individual touches, in their music. That's why in my eyes they are the heavy weight champions.

This isn't simply my opinion by the way, it comes from a reliable source.

[Rev. Juda$ Sleaze]

Dang aleos, I would have been right with you if you hadn't said "trust me". I can never trust someone who says that!

But seriously, this is why when I want musicians to play my music, I get someone else to edit my score.

[aleos]

Dang aleos, I would have been right with you if you hadn't said "trust me". I can never trust someone who says that!

But seriously, this is why when I want musicians to play my music, I get someone else to edit my score.

sorry rev, which "trust me" didn't you like. The first or the second?

The reason I said the first one it, was because I don't have the time to try to convince the reader that it is in 4/4. And without trying to sound smug or arrogant, that's a pretty basic rhythm. So if the person is not hearing it, they just have to "trust me", trust me that I would bet my mothers house on the fact that's in 4/4. It may sound unflattering on me, but to move on past the elementary aspects of the discussion we just have to agree on this basic fact.

I said the second "trust me" to sound like an asshole.

[ski]

I said the second "trust me" to sound like an asshole.

Now I'm startin' to like this thread all over again!

Yeah, really, c'mon, it's all pretty basic stuff. It is what it is, no endless interpretation needed. That's good for studying, say, the Talmud.

At the end of the day, the OP wanted to know how to group the rhythms. Of course, the whole point of this is to provide a structure for other people to play against, or perhaps even Lil' Joe himself to overdub to. If this were a real recording session and a chart had to be provided, it's going to boil down to ONE interpretation. Period, end of story. Then, after the rhythm tracks were laid down, that might be room for someone to do something musically clever and play (say) a percussion part that overlapped the fundamental rhythmic structure with something fancy in "5". Like, for a momentary bit of interest or ear candy. But to approach this by counting on one's fingers or to summarily dismiss the merits of a more (ahem) academic approach is barely worth addressing (other than to get one's ire up).

[Rev. Juda$ Sleaze]

I forgot one of these: ...or was it one of these: ?

Anyway, I'm always more than happy to bow to greater experience. Scoring is not my strong point, and like I said, I write the music and in general leave the "convention" part to others more skilled in communicating my ideas to other musicians, as I don't come from a conservatoire background (or anywhere close!).

Kudos and peace guys (oh, and where does Bartok fit with conventional feel of time signatures? )

[aleos]

oh, and where does Bartok fit with conventional feel of time signatures? )

since you asked
taken from here http://www.damjanabratuz.ca/essays/bart ... tenary.htm
also reference balkan rhythms here http://www.paulboizot.co.uk/irregular.htm


IV. "Bulgarian rhythm and its manifestation in Bartók's compositions. (47)

Of the many cultural influences present in Bartók's compositions, one that is frequently made manifest is the enigmatic style of Bulgarian rhythm; enigmatic, since it occurs almost exclusively in Bulgaria. In fact, Bulgaria is the only European country where asymmetrical metric and rhythmic forms are an integral part of national art. The exact genealogy of this rhythmic form is relatively vague. Arabic and/or Greek roots are possibilities, but no conclusive evidence has been brought forth to clarify the situation. Examples of Bulgarian rhythm in Greek or Arabic music are extremely isolated.

In his essay "The So-Called Bulgarian Rhythm," Bartók defined this musical phenomenon as:

. . . that in which the quantities indicated in the irregular time signature are exceptionally ( = 300-400 MM.) short and in which these very short, basic quantities are not evenly--that is to say, not within the larger quantities. (48)

The basic temporal unit of Bulgarian rhythm is the sixteenth note, although Bartók advocates the use of the eighth note. For the most part, the time signature is an odd number, lending itself to the application of hemiola (the lengthening of a note value by half) which is an integral part of the Bulgarian rhythmic character. Bulgarian rhythms are obtained by the combination of ordinary time values with lengthened values in a hemiola-like relationship, producing an additive metrical structure within the confines of each bar. The speed of Bulgarian music causes the units to be grouped aurally, forming the ground plan for this additive construction. The most common manner of designating the time signature and units within them are as follows: 5/16 2+3 or 3+2, 7/16 2+2+3, 8/16 3+2+3, and 9/16 2+2+2+3. These groupings are the most prevalent, but individual patterns can be and are varied by manipulating the temporal units, as shown in ex.14. The most likely forum for Bulgarian rhythm is in the national dances of the country; for example, in the Ručenitza or handkerchief dance in 7/16 time and the Pajduška or limping dance in 5/16 time.

A question which comes to mind here is that of differentiation between Bulgarian rhythm and some other kind of rhythmic designation, especially when referring to Bartók's compositions: that is, what criteria can be established for the inclusion of a rhythm in a Bulgarian-influenced list. It is of primary importance to realize the salient characteristics of Bulgarian rhythm: a quick tempo, short temporal units, asymmetrical structures of individual bars, and consistency within a self-contained section. Further, when this kind of musical parameter is juxtaposed within a different context, it will usually undergo some kind of metamorphosis. In this regard, it must be remembered that the use of aboriginal source material in Bartók's music falls into three main categories: direct quotation, quotation and synthesis, and complete synthesis.

Ex.14. Variation of the temporal units.

[Rev. Juda$ Sleaze]

Wow, tha's great aleos, thanks!

The source page is bookmarked, and I'll have a read of the full thing soon. One of my favourite things is string quartets playing Bartok

I was under the impression that a lot of European folk was quite possibly far more complex rhythmically (and perhaps harmonically) than what survives of it now, because of the folk revivalists tendancy to fit what they recorded into contemporary musical convention. What's your thoughts on that?

[aleos]

good question. I don't know. I do know that Balkan rhythms have definitely kept their complexity. Bulgarian music is f'in awesome. And they play odd-time signatures like John Mclane dies hard.
Maybe as modern times grew upon them, some folk musics lost their importance in social function, and only the dedicated musicians kept on the passage of these styles, away from the everyday activity of a community. And now a days, maybe those same musicians are "professional art" musicians and are therefore not under the folk umbrella. The sophistication in many European Gypsies music is still alive and well. The "folk" musics of india and arabic nations are still definitely glowing red hot and are complex rhythmically.

I've wondered often as well why some of the western worlds, specifically western europe's, folk music is less complex. When in other parts of the world the folk musics are some heavy duty s#!+. Indonesia, India, Africa etc.
I'm no musicologist, but I'd bet one factor of the western worlds more modest folk musics is the separation of music from the function of daily life. In Africa, they would probably have conversations with percussion. You need some serious skills to say "honey don't forget the wild boar at the market" in drum speak. Some insanely sophisticated biz. When we did something that heavy, we put it in the concert hall. No better or worse. Just different. The Western musical system is still, in my eyes our greatest cultural invention that couldn't have been replicated anywhere else. You could argue, somewhere, with more intelligence than I have, that western classical music IS our folk music.
That's pretty awesome.
What do I know though.

[Rev. Juda$ Sleaze]

With the death of rural culture during the industrial revolution, classically trained musicians went about notating the last remnants of peasant folk music in Britain. I wouldn't be suprised at all if they "ironed-out" what they may have seen as undesirable inconsistencies in what they found. But we'll never know.

I'm no musicologist either, but as impressive as the Western classical music tradition is, for my money Indian classical music is the most advanced musical culture our planet had seen.

As to whether classical music is our folk, well I suppose that depends on what subculture you are brought up with. I think I'd side more with pop music being our folk music.

Anyway, nice musing with you, and thanks for the Bartok link, great stuff.

[aleos]

With the death of rural culture during the industrial revolution, classically trained musicians went about notating the last remnants of peasant folk music in Britain. I wouldn't be suprised at all if they "ironed-out" what they may have seen as undesirable inconsistencies in what they found. But we'll never know.

I bet your right on that. Good point.
Great talking bro.

A

[treeboxterry]

know that as an academic, one must learn to define, place, and categorize in order to bring order to things that may be vague or ambiguous. It's a valuable, irreplaceable skill that we all recognize. Sometimes though, we just have to quiet our mind's critical overview, and feel, in order to understand something in a different way. I'm not saying that either approach is superior. They can both lead to the same understanding.

What drivel! And pointedly condescending too.

Ski - At the risk of driveling and condescending even more - in no way was what I said above condescending. I meant exactly what I said, and without sarcasm. In my mind, Aleos and I are just exploring an interesting topic. I think it's possible that you may have misinterpreted my meaning.

[treeboxterry]

Actually, if I am doing it correctly, and I think I am, after five is not a new chord, instead little joe is hitting the higher strings of his guitar and providing an accent yes, but a new chord no.

I'm starting my count of 1 on that first soft note (an E note)... and like Erik Simon.. I hear the last note of his single note figure as the 1... if you count 9 as the number of downbeats in the whole cycle. To me.. that makes the downbeat after 5 to be the main chord change (an F# with a C#, E. and an A note).
I can hear the 3 chords. I'm hearing E then Emaj7 then that F# chord I mentioned - which I'm calling the chord change after 5.

To ignore the fact that there are 3 chords played with identical rhythm, and not to group them into some sort of logical grouping is just stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the 300 years of musical history that have come before. And when we talk about theory that's what we do. We base our ideas on some well tested methods of aural observation. I'm all for writing your own musical lexicon and changing the game, but in lieu of that...we have the rules given to us.

Hold on... I'm not trying to throw out the history of music - or invent a new musical lexicon here. My main idea was that young untrained musicians don't necessarily rely on that history when they begin to create music spontaneously. I think it's more about getting into a groove that feels right to them. I'm saying that people who have studied - either academically or on their own - can quantify music based on their knowledge - while those who are not trained rely more on instinct.

I had no intention of insulting, demeaning or otherwise dissing musically educated people. Just for the record - although I did not study music in school - I've spent years studying theory, and continue to perform with many highly trained musicians... and I forgive them for their knowledge.

And being bitch slapped by Ski it did remind me that I need to choose my words more carefully when commenting here - which I will do in the future.

Last comment - the OP did ask for a time signature - but he sure got a lot more than that. What a great thread!

[aleos]

it is a great thread. haha.

[hmowday]

I read through this post very quickly and downloaded the file.
For what its worth its easier to count in cut time for me.

Three bars of 2, One bar of 3. I know this adds up to 9 and can be 4/4, 5/4 BUT thinking of it in "2" actually feels better.

That how I would count it in for a band anyway.

H

[aleos]

Three bars of 2, One bar of 3. I know this adds up to 9 and can be 4/4, 5/4 BUT thinking of it in "2" actually feels better.

H

yeah, feeling it that way does feel nice. A little more laid back.