Abstract time signatures Question

[Skwirm]

Is it possible to use a rhythm of 7/7? I was told this was possible by a friend but others tell me it's not. Does anyone know if this is possible?

[subcitizen]

i don't know what kind of note you associate with the 7. Perhaps some sort of dotted quaver?

-andrew

[Colman]

i dont know hot that would happen the only way i could see 7/7..... mmmm no i cant see it. y cant you just do 7/4 that makes more sense or 7/8...7/2.... those could all work just play with tempo

hope it helped

[Phil Kelly]

It's not possible in Western notation to have a "seventh " note ..

the divisors have to be 2,4,8,16,32, etc ..

it IS possible to beam a tuplet indicating say seven 16ths in the space of a half note, or quarternote, etc...

the tuplet designation works for all manner of odd "uppers" over even "lowers."

[aquabenz]

You may as well not worry about it and just notate the music without a time signature at all, or just use 7/4 and change the metronome to make quarter and eighth notes have favorable lengths. Trying to use seventh-notes is purely tedious and would probably just come out as an overly arrogant and useless mathematical application.

[scrote]

Yes. You can have that time signature.
there have been tunes where the basic
subdivisions are five and seven.

However both you and your friend are both f@ckwits.

love scrota

[Phil Kelly]

Scrote ( somehow, I smell deja vu here .. )

Name one WRITTEN piece of music where the BOTTOM number of a time signature is a 5 or 7 ..and I'll blow reagan dimes outta my a@@hole..

remember: BOTTOM number ..



..




:eek2: :eek2: ~pimp:

[jazzbluescat]

Sounds too weird to contemplate.
Maybe if you convert to metric system....

Some academics have too much time on their hands.......

Thank you, thank you very much.

:wink2:

[Phil Kelly]

Be sure to convert the drummer and bass player to CElsius as well ...


:eek2: :eek2: :eek2: ~pimp:

[carmenodgie]

Why can't there be something written in 7/7.... 1/7 would be easier, a double dotted whole note would fill it up....granted, it'd be WAY easier to notate it as 7/8 and group over the barline, but it's totally possible - why any one would want to on the other hand................

[Phil Kelly]

A double dotted whole note = seven QUARTER notes

not seven SEVENTH notes ...


still waiting to blow the dimes upon proof of the existence of "seventh notes..


:eek2: :eek2: ~pimp:

[aquabenz]

alright, now this is getting plain ridiculous. Use 7/8 or 7/4 or make up your own method of notating rhythm. Trying to put a 7 in the bottom of a time signature is like trying to spell out Russian consonant inflections in the English alphabet. All you can get is an approximation. So do what do can with various forms of seven time and septuplets and whathaveyou.

[Phil Kelly]

FINALLY!


Avoice of reason appears!

Thank you, AquaB ...

come to think of it, why stop this notational silliness at seventh notes?

howza bout:

3 /4.66? or 2.75/ 16.875 ?

pi are square? .. pie are ROUND!!

:eek2: :eek2: :eek2: ~pimp:

[Jazzman83]

This is the most idiotic discussion I've ever read on music theory. I think some people need to start to learn more about music theory instead of just learning the actual music.....:rolleyes:
Also wanted to state that Blue Rondo Alla Turk uses a 9/8 time which is about as funky as I've seen it in most general jazz pieces (I think it's 2+2+2+3)/8...Some Monk, Peterson and Tatum pieces go into abstract times....but none of use can play those properly anyway :wink2: (And lets not even start on John Cage stuff!!)

[xa_kraw4d]

...because we all use double dotted whole notes everyday of our lives!

haha! I'm impressed that this is even an argument. Who's ever heard of 7/7?!

exactly...

[Phil Kelly]

Originally posted by Jazzman83
This is the most idiotic discussion I've ever read on music theory. I think some people need to start to learn more about music theory instead of just learning the actual music.....:rolleyes:
Also wanted to state that Blue Rondo Alla Turk uses a 9/8 time which is about as funky as I've seen it in most general jazz pieces (I think it's 2+2+2+3)/8...


I've in the past written several R&B /Funk type pieces in 7/8 that came off quite well ..

two groups of four 16ths ( accent on first beat of second group ) ..followed by two groups of three 16ths ( again, accent on the first beat of second group )

tickaticka TICKaticka tikata TIKata .. and repeat

try it : it works

and yes ..this IS the silliest theoretical discussion I've ever been involved with!

:eek2: :eek2: ~pimp:

[Jazzman83]

About a year back or so I remember playing a song for a local jazz jam thing in 7/8...can't remember its name though and it's really bugging me!
Also I recommend listening to some Zappa music if you're into odd times...I found that it helped in identifing times just listening to his music. He was a master in odd times.

[aquabenz]

My band uses 7/8 all of the time, sometimes back and forth in between bars of 4/4 and 3/4 It's a brilliantly frantic-sounding signature that rocks the boat when it is applied correctly.

Next I have to write a song that uses more mathematical stuff like

6/9
2/3
19/41
Pi over Avogadro's constant
The Room Temperature in Fahrenheit over the Room's Temperature in Celcius

Now that will make me look smarter.

Theory buffs are people who can't play without it.

Justin

[jazzbluescat]

Playing in odd meters seems to come naturally to me. Matter-of-fact I use a kinda floating/movable "one" most of the time......:rolleyes:

[Phil Kelly]

Try some gigs with a band that specializes in Greek, Romanian , and Balkan weddings where they play all that authentic indigenous dance music ..

you'll be plating 7/8 and 11/8 all night ..

doubling on dumbek extra ..:eek2: :eek2: ~pimp:

[solarjazzband]

At the moment I'm often playing a 1/4 meter. So there's only a tempo and a pulse. You just count 1 all the time, it's quite cool.

[Jon]

it is technically possible to have 7/7 i suppose.. but you'd just play it as 1/1, 2/2, 4/4 etc... *notation* would be almost impossible.

theres is no reason to use 7/7..

[Phil Kelly]

Originally posted by Jon
it is technically possible to have 7/7 i suppose..

.


please illustrate ( in the accepted western notational system ) how this is "possible" ..

why do I keep beating this dead horse ?? :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

[Jon]

hmm.. i see what you mean. it is kind of.. totally impossible... lol.

mathematically it must be though surely... o well... i dunno...

have a good xmas for 1 hour 29 minutes....

[Hazza]

Maybe you could, consider this:
triplet = 3 on 2

what about 7 on 2?

one (and) two (and) three (and) four (and) five (and) six (and)etc


ONE---------------------------------TWO




So you'd have 7 Seventuplets in a bar...or somethign crazy!!

As for wierd sigs, everyone's favorite drummer (Dave Weckl) (I'm kidding!!) has a peice Lucky 7 in either 7/4 or 7/8 depending on how you feel it.

And my personal favorite is Virgil Donati's "Sort Yourself Out" in 19/16 - One Two Three Four onetwothree etc (And it works, nice piece)

Most of the wierd time signatures alas are found in heavy metal - but then again most of them are just polyrhythms on a 4/4 beat that "feel" odd.

anyway enough from me!

[Phil Kelly]

Originally posted by Hazza
Maybe you could, consider this:
triplet = 3 on 2

what about 7 on 2?

one (and) two (and) three (and) four (and) five (and) six (and)etc


ONE---------------------------------TWO




So you'd have 7 Seventuplets in a bar...or somethign crazy!!




nope ..you have FOUR sets of septuplets in a bar of 4/4 time :eek2:

btw: is your 19/16 example grouped as two seven groups and a five group?

[Jon]

anything on 1/2/4/8/16/32/64 would work, but not anything you cant divide into normal notation...

[Hazza]

Sorry was just postulating!

No, the 19/16 was 4 4 4 4 3 - is there a proper correct way to group 19/16?

[Phil Kelly]

not really ..whatever works and adds up to 19 beats :D

4 4 4 4 3
7 7 5

5 5 5 4

and so on .....


one of the toughest charts I ever tried to play was a slow blues in 11/8

with accents on 4 ..again on 10 and oops ..there was one again!

15 /16 funk grooves were MUCH easier that that damn 11/8 !!

[Tenorman]

OK, so Western time signatures are based on the binary system, one theory being that because we have two legs, and march or dance on these, music had to correspond to that rhythmic base.

Purely hypothetically and fantastically thinking; how would our music have sounded had the base been 3, 5 or 7? This is thinking totally out of the box and would require a different notational system from that we are used to. How would you swing 6/6 time (assuming of course you had 3 legs)

Or have I just pushed this thread over the edge into total madness:confused:

[Hazza]

I think we write in 2s because thats how our heart beats?

the only thing I can think of that I had trouble was when I first started playing was the B section of Gray And Visceral :embarass: :embarass: :embarass:

6/6? umm....

That'd be simply 4/4 with triplets? Felt on the 1 and 2?

Dunno!

[Phil Kelly]

Originally posted by Tenorman
OK, . How would you swing 6/6 time (assuming of course you had 3 legs)

Or have I just pushed this thread over the edge into total madness:confused:


I think possibly so ....:eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

[thePianist]

ok ... heres the solution.
7/7 time is possible, but its just way too confusing, and there are better ways.
i could be wrong here, but i'm thinkin if you played in 1/4, and just used an eighth-note seventuplet for every measure, it would be essentially 7/7. or even 7/8 would be close. but if one were to really use 7/7 , a measure would consist of 7 beats, with each beat being 1 seventh of the measure, so like seven seventh notes (1/14th of a beat longer than an 8th note.) per measure. (i think) or maybe ive just gone completely insane.... :wink2: what do yall think??

[Phil Kelly]

ok ... chop..


or maybe ive just gone completely insane.... :wink2: what do yall think??


Bingo !! .. :tanz:

[Dennis_M]

Also wanted to state that Blue Rondo Alla Turk uses a 9/8 time which is about as funky as I've seen it in most general jazz pieces (I think it's 2+2+2+3)/8...

I'm way over my head here, but I have to say that Don Ellis played much more exotic time sigantures, like 11, 19, 25, 33 (but always over 2, 4, 8...).

[Phil Kelly]

I'm way over my head here, but I have to say that Don Ellis played much more exotic time sigantures, like 11, 19, 25, 33 (but always over 2, 4, 8...).




DOUBLE BINGO!!!!!

AT LAST!! ..SOME ONE gets the point here!!

the NUMERATOR can be ANY number you choose ..

BUT:

the DENOMINATOR** MUST** consist of a standard written note value ..i.e. 1,2,4,8,16,32,64, etc

somebody buy Dennis a drink!


:thewave :thewave :thewave :thewave

[thePianist]

well, this is where i disagree
the denominator is the basic division of the measure, and the numerator is how many of those "divisions" there are per measure.
so why wouldn't it be possible to have the basic division be 1/7th of the measure, and just have seven of those divisions per measure?
it seems to me that it is theoretically possible.... but, like i said, there are much easier ways.
well... im probly in way over my head anyways, so ill stop arguing...
what would a sevent of a measure be anyways?

[Brett]

There is a local guitar player named Arthur Gracias who I have heard live playing a song in either 7/11 or 11/7. He plays Indian/Jazz Fusion. It was an awesome piece. In Indian music they also play in scales known as raggas and they are made up of any combination of 26 microtones.

[edrowland]

Scrote ( somehow, I smell deja vu here .. )

Name one WRITTEN piece of music where the BOTTOM number of a time signature is a 5 or 7 ..and I'll blow reagan dimes outta my a@@hole..

remember: BOTTOM number ..


That's just too good an opportunity to pass up.


Seven Even
Ed Rowland
http://members.rogers.com/rerdavies/images/seveneven.gif


Now. Why you would want to notate something like that is an entirely different question. But it can be done.

Will there be an .mpg, or do I have to settle for the satisfaction of knowing that it happened even though I didn't get to see it?
:lol:

[Phil Kelly]

That's just too good an opportunity to pass up.



Now. Why you would want to notate something like that is an entirely different question. But it can be done.

Will there be an .mpg, or do I have to settle for the satisfaction of knowing that it happened even though I didn't get to see it?
:lol:



sorry ed ..no dimes, no see-gar!

I gotta see a living breathing SEVENTH note 'fore I squirt any change! :barf:

[JSngry]

A seventh note is playable. You got a 4 beat measure, you divide it into seven equal parts. A measure is just a unit, right? And units can be divided into any numer of subunits, right? So the playability of it, although definitely not-traditional, is certainly a mathematical possibility.

Now, notating that sucker is a whole 'nother thing. And if you could, what would 7/7 be? No different that 2/2, or 4/4, or 8/8 (think somebody already said that), only the basic bar would be 7 beats of seventh note. Since the emphasis is on the 7 beats per measure are the key point, and since a seventh note is pretty damn near unnotatable (except maybe by writing an eihgth-note looking creature with a "1:7" over it or wome untenable shit like that), what's the point? Just use 7/4, 7/8, or whatever else makes the point and be done with it.

[yawuh]

I've been inspired to write a tune in 257/4. It will probably be about 3 bars long.

I once played with a bassist who seemed to be in the rare 7/-3 time siggie for every tune, ie, he invented new avenues of rhythmic awfulness.

Count me in as a lover of all time signatures, as long as they're used musically.

And I'm reminded of that joke about the cocky young violinist who shows up to the rehearsal boasting "I've got no trouble playing 64th notes, no trouble at all" and one of the older hands, unimpressed, says "Oh yeah? Play one."

[zaragemca]

I got my share of that stuff when playing with Ethiopian bands and musicians,or indian percussionists,and on top of that there is that thing of overimposing differents parameters to the original time signature.

[edrowland]

... since a seventh note is pretty damn near unnotatable

No problem notating it. A 7-tuplet is 7 notes played in the space of 4. Finale seems to think so, anyway. See above. (And if you think a 7-tuplet is 7 notes in the space of 6, then you need to think about whether you're in charge of the notation or vice versa).

I once met a potter who made beautiful pots. "What exactly is this?", I asked him, holding up a small pot with too many handles to be a mug, and too many spouts to be a teapot. "It's exactly whatever you would like it to be", he replied with obvious disdain.

I can think of one reason to use 7/7. If you were writing a peice that used 7 against 4 polyrhythms, and you wanted the drummer to play 7 per bar, while writing a melody that was based around 4 beats per par, then 7/7 would be a good choice. In this case, it may be better to use 7-tuplets for the rhythm parts than it is use 28th-lets in the melody. On a chart, 7 would end up on the bottom in order to indicate that this is what the drummer should be playing.

Now, if I could only write a piece like that, I could get Phil to deliver the goods. <grin> I've tried it, without much luck, so far.

[Phil Kelly]

No problem notating it. A 7-tuplet is 7 notes played in the space of 4. Finale seems to think so, anyway. See above. (And if you think a 7-tuplet is 7 notes in the space of 6, then you need to think about whether you're in charge of the notation or vice versa)


.snip


I can think of one reason to use 7/7. If you were writing a peice that used 7 against 4 polyrhythms, and you wanted the drummer to play 7 per bar, while writing a melody that was based around 4 beats per par, then 7/7 would be a good choice. In this case, it may be better to use 7-tuplets for the rhythm parts than it is use 28th-lets in the melody. On a chart, 7 would end up on the bottom in order to indicate that this is what the drummer should be playing.

Now, if I could only write a piece like that, I could get Phil to deliver the goods. <grin> I've tried it, without much luck, so far.


ask Finale in the time signature box to show you a 7/7 signature ..than Ill believe you :D

what one CAN do:

designate a 4/4 basic signature:

then write everything based on a tuplet 7 ..

(I dont know if the Finale program will allow you to nest tuplets within the 7 tuplet to do nested eighths, sixteenths, etc. ..I've never had occasion to try it..nor subject some poor sucker to attempt to play such a thing )

you might be able to pull this off with a sequencer with a high enough ppq resolution using parallel click tracks:

( based on 24 frames per second ..film rate )

24 div by 4 = 6 fps quarternote click

24 div by 7=3.4286+ fps parallel 7 tuplet click

I dont know how long these would stay in sync without drifting ..

this is truly getting arcane! :tearhair:

is anybody really ever gonna try and use this stuff ?

[JSngry]

No problem notating it.

Okay, so how would you notate a seventh note triplet? What's the base unit you're tripleticizing gonna look like?

[Phil Kelly]

Okay, so how would you notate a seventh note triplet? What's the base unit you're tripleticizing gonna look like?


thats what a "nested tuplet " is ..a triplet nested within the seven note tuplet ..

BTW: in 4/4 time, I betcha Finale wouldn't allow 7 quarters in the space of 4 ..It'd probably come out as 7 eighths in the space of four quarters ..

I cant BEE-LIEEEEEEEEVE we're still screwing around with this :rant2:

[JSngry]

As we in Quartet Out like to say when we get to thinking too much about too many things to too many non-constructive ends, "Too much math for R&B!" :D :D :D :D :D

[JSngry]

thats what a "nested tuplet " is ..a triplet nested within the seven note tuplet ..:

Well, in 4/4 time, yeah. But what about in this propsed 7/7 time with the still-elusiv seventh note?

Seems like if you write a seven note tuplet, you've created a visual representation of 7 beats, but not the corersponding note construction that can stand alone as a "seventh note". All you have is a bastardized eighth/quarter, whatever note that needs some extra designation to let you know what it's supposed to be.

That's not a note, that's a freakin' co-dependency issue!

[Dennis_M]

I've been inspired to write a tune in 257/4. It will probably be about 3 bars long.."
I suggest you divide it 128-128-1, and forget about the 1!

[jazzbluescat]

I ain't never seen a 7th note. What the hell is it, what's it look like? :confused2 . Given a whole note gets 4 counts then a 7th note would get .57142857142857142857142857142857th of a beat. I'll let one of you notate it. Carry on. :)

[Phil Kelly]

I've been inspired to write a tune in 257/4. It will probably be about 3 bars long.



You've been topped by John Cage once again:

>>www.john-cage.halberstadt.de

Check out the link above!

This is the longest musical composition ever made,
with the suitable name As slow as possible (ASLAP).
John Cage's composition really lasts 20 minutes, but he wondered how long it could be made to last. The finished plan makes it 369 years long, where every
note will be played one-and-a-half-year. If everything goes right, the play will be finished in 2640, with a scheduled pause in 2319. *

Check it out at Halberstadt.


* obviously, a potty break ! :banana:

[yawuh]

I suggest you divide it 128-128-1, and forget about the 1!

Well, that would be mundane, wouldn't it? It's the odd bar that makes the piece. :)

[yawuh]

You've been topped by John Cage once again:


This is the longest musical composition ever made,
with the suitable name As slow as possible (ASLAP).
John Cage's composition really lasts 20 minutes, but he wondered how long it could be made to last. The finished plan makes it 369 years long, where every
note will be played one-and-a-half-year.


Bastard Cage is always topping me, dammit. And I don't even care for him.

Having read the book Clock of the Long Now (by Stewart Brand), I can dig JC's idea for a really long piece of music, if only as a parlor topic.

[Phil Kelly]

Re Cage:

I'm seriously thinking of taking a trip in about a year and a half ..to catch the next note ..:violin

and then on to a tour of some single malt distilleries on the isles of Islay ...

:tanz:

[tpt1]

John Cage's composition really lasts 20 minutes, but he wondered how long it could be made to last. The finished plan makes it 369 years long, where every note will be played one-and-a-half-year. But won't leap years make the music sound out of sync? :D

[Phil Kelly]

But won't leap years make the music sound out of sync? :D


maybe they'll just add a grace note a day earlier than the primary note ..

:yeahthat:

[skatardrummer]

RAWR! You CANNOT HAVE an uneven number on the bottom. DO YOU REALIZE that while the TOP number is how many beats in the measure, the BOTTOM number is what note IS the beat. This is why only an even number can be on the bottom.

For example, in 7/4 time, there's 7 beats in the measure and the quarter note is the beat. If you had 7/32 time, the 32nd note would be the beat. There IS NO SUCH THING as a 7th note!!!! You can have certain feels to things like having 3:2 (duplets vs triplets) but you can't invent new time signatures because you can't invent new notes. ALL notes must be divisible by 2.

[Jay Norem]

RAWR! You CANNOT HAVE an uneven number on the bottom. DO YOU REALIZE that while the TOP number is how many beats in the measure, the BOTTOM number is what note IS the beat. This is why only an even number can be on the bottom.

For example, in 7/4 time, there's 7 beats in the measure and the quarter note is the beat. If you had 7/32 time, the 32nd note would be the beat. There IS NO SUCH THING as a 7th note!!!! You can have certain feels to things like having 3:2 (duplets vs triplets) but you can't invent new time signatures because you can't invent new notes. ALL notes must be divisible by 2.

A long time ago I was at a party and I found myself talking to a rock musician I knew. He asked me what I'd been doing and I told him about my study of odd meters, and mentioned a few time signatures I'd been playing around with. He said "What about 12/7?" and I said "Uh, yeah that's a good one" and I split to get another drink.
The last time I saw the cat he was doing roofing work in North Carolina.

[Slant]

RAWR! You CANNOT HAVE an uneven number on the bottom. DO YOU REALIZE that while the TOP number is how many beats in the measure, the BOTTOM number is what note IS the beat. This is why only an even number can be on the bottom.

For example, in 7/4 time, there's 7 beats in the measure and the quarter note is the beat. If you had 7/32 time, the 32nd note would be the beat. There IS NO SUCH THING as a 7th note!!!! You can have certain feels to things like having 3:2 (duplets vs triplets) but you can't invent new time signatures because you can't invent new notes. ALL notes must be divisible by 2.

Wow! Talk about digging up old threads!!! Whewweee, pardner.

This discussion has obviously come up a number of times, even in just the 8 months or so that I've been here. Confusion in general comes from the fact that any statement regarding odd time signatures is...well...odd. For instance, how can you have seven QUARTER notes in one measure of music? It seems irreconcilable. See the following thread for a somewhat exhaustive look at this "problem":

http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread.php?t=22945&highlight=odd

Jay's mention of "double think" (if memory serves) hits the nail on the head.

[Jay Norem]

I just noticed that the name of this thread is "Abstract Time Signatures." But there's nothing abstract about a time signature. I mean, it's there. It's just numbers. It means a specific thing.
Okay I know. I'll shut up now.
But what about 12/7?

[Vic J]

Seven on the bottom is not divisible. You might want to consult someone who studies the music of composers like Joan Tower, Elliot Carter, George Crumb.....Never say never...The bottom numbers I see most often are 2, 4, 8, 16.....Hike!!!!!!

[Jay Norem]

Seven on the bottom is not divisible. You might want to consult someone who studies the music of composers like Joan Tower, Elliot Carter, George Crumb.....Never say never...The bottom numbers I see most often are 2, 4, 8, 16.....Hike!!!!!!

Yes yes yes. The thing is, there is NO seventh note. We've got that well down by now. And if anyone figures out a way for there to BE a seventh note I'll just say that I wasn't aware of it and I'll stick to that story.

[Bill Robinson]

I once proposed that 4/4 swing have a time signature with 4 on top, and a dotted eighth note on bottom, instead of a number.
So with 7/7, you could have 7 on top, with a note unit adding up to seven, such as 2 quarter notes and a dotted quarter.
I'm assuming, as with the "swing" concept, that instead of dividing the basic pulse by two (as in 4/4) or three (as in 12/8), that you want your single, basic pulse divided into seven parts, and the main pulse to overall have seven of those pulses. It would seem to lack forward momentum to me. Maybe we should try 5/5 for starters, until we get a "groove" going.
YEAH, MAN GROOVING ALONG IN SEVEN.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Bob Budny]

A 7th note would be one part of a septuplet, so 7/7 would be one septuplet per measure. However, nothing would be gained, because an 8th note septuplet would come out to 7/8, a quarter note septuplet, 7/4. However, 5/7, for example, might be worth pondering. (one part of a septuplet with five per measure, would be a septuplet accented every 5 notes.) "Tuplets" are there to accommodate 'odd' numbered groupings.

Carter's string quartet's are worth the time to understand them. A.M. Jones did a 'electronic' analysis of Ewe music in the 50s (or earlier) which is quite revealing in the appearance of 5s, 7s etc.

Carmen McRae, used a lot of quintuplets to a very soulful effect.

5:3:2 (a personal favorite) has a very organic feel.

I only saw the last few posts. Forgive me if I took a joke post seriously.

[Vic J]

Perhaps Jay can yes yes yes your post....I think I will put my SHORTS on and join Ed...for awhilr, anyway....Some of you need to get off your high horse......

[JFitzGenius]

Some of you need to get off your high horse......

Thank you for the advice, Vic. I did get off my high horse (he's like 18 hands), and I feel much better. :cool:

Seriously, though, I think I remember playing a piece in college that had some 5/7 time signatures, but that's been 20 years ago and I could be mistaken.

[Bill Robinson]

We derive "3" divisions of the "pulsebeat" by using compound time signatures, as in 6/8 and 12/8, since we cannot put a 3 on the bottom. For instance, we can't write 4/4 swing feel as "4/3", even though it is 4 main beats divided into units of 3's, but must translate the "3" division into sensible and usable form by using a compound time signature.
For a "7/7" (misnomer) time signature, the top number is 7, but the bottom 7 can't be used for our note system, not making sense as Phil pleaded.
So how about as a compound signature, it could be 49/8? Of course, you wouldn't count to 49, but feel the "pulse" of 7 beats of 7, and get into a nice blues groove.
In Gardner Read's "Music Notation", he lists 21/8 as a possibility.
To clear up the issue, we must ask Jay what his intent was in wanting a 7/7 time signature, and then help him turn his misnomer into a usable time signature. Poor guy, and he's a drummer, too.
Another possibility would be alternating time signatures, as in 21/8-21/8 followed by 7/8. Or seven measures of 7/8; or anything that adds up to 49 (7x7).

HI YO SILVER! AWAY! (high horse).

[Jay Norem]

To clear up the issue, we must ask Jay what his intent was in wanting a 7/7 time signature, and then help him turn his misnomer into a usable time signature. Poor guy, and he's a drummer, too.


Wait a minute now. I DON'T want a 7/7 time signature. That was another guy, the guy who started this thread.

[Bob Budny]

Perhaps Jay can yes yes yes your post....I think I will put my SHORTS on and join Ed...for awhilr, anyway....Some of you need to get off your high horse......
Huh? Just in case you're referring to me. Bye.

[Slant]

First off, if we REALLY want to get a sensible system in hand, we need to determine what's "wrong" (read: what isn't sensible) about the current system. In modern composition, it seems clear that plain-old 4/4 just isn't going to cut it. Incidentally, I'd be interested to hear Dave Holland's thoughts on the matter.

As I have said elsewhere (see the link at post no. 60, etc), something rational needs to be done about the bottom number. The first hurdle we have to overcome is that "quarter", "eighth", "16th", & other like terms don't actually have any reference (DESPITE THEIR NAMES!!) to actual number. In fact, once one moves into the odd time realm, said terms are place holders only, and bear a relationship to "quarter time" by analogy only. Here's how the "math" works out:

In 4/4 time, 1 quarter note = 1/4th unit (hence the name "quarter"), and thus 4 quarters = 1 whole. 4 = 1 = 4, simple enough. However, this is the only time signature where the numbers make logical sense, given the fact that musicians refuse to abandon the term QUARTER NOTE!!

Try plugging the info into 3/4 time, like so:

In 3/4 time, 1 quarter note = 1/3rd unit, and thus 3 quarters = 1 whole. 3 = 1 = 3, yet nevertheless, we don't abandon the term "quarter".

The problem is that the term quarter means "four". I'm not kidding...look it up if you must. If we were to simply apply the "British" or "classical" system of note nomenclature to time signature, we would have a really handy and less-confusing way of dealing w/ tunes in odd time, and, especially, tunes that change time signature.

3/c = 3 crotchets per measure
7/q = 7 quavers per measure, and so forth...

Why am I so confident this will work? Because, it's plain and simple and to the point. The application of this system for music that changes time signature is far better than the current system. Besides, the term crotchet means "hook", thus the name of the note is so-called because it looks like a damn hook. That's a much better reason in my mind than the oddity of retaining reference to "quarter", even when not really applicable. Not only that, but the OED states that one of the meanings of the word crotchet is, get this:

"A peculiar notion on some point (usually considered unimportant) held by an individual in opposition to common opinion."

[Vic J]

Sorry Bob ....I was not referring to you....Nice of you to even ask.....And goodbye to you too...I am outta here. Too much wining and complaining.

[TheSeanKelly]

Sorry Bob ....I was not referring to you....Nice of you to even ask.....And goodbye to you too...I am outta here. Too much wining and complaining.

:-(

[Bill Robinson]

Slant: I remember us talking about this ages ago; in fact, did you simply copy & paste that post?
So it's the NAMES that give you grief.
I'm gonna see if Logic will let me do a 49/8 time signature. Who knows, if you get it up to speed it might sound like a shuffle with an extra back leg, a "blues genetic mutation".
I've noticed tunes in which 4/4 is alternated with 7/8, to accommodate an eighth-note bassline or some weird riff that is an eighth note short.
What was that thing Zappa used to do with the drums? It went "bomp-m-bomp-m-bomp-bomp-bomp". Is that 2/4 alternating with 3/8? Or just one 7/8?
The song "Sands of Time" on Fleetwood Mac's "Future Games" has some strange rhythmic things going on, but feels totally organic and right. Starting out, an ambiguity is already in place in the 4/4, with eighth notes grouped as 123-123-123-123-1234, spread out over two measures of 4/4. In the verses, it goes 123-123-123-123/123-123-123-123-1234. Isn't that 6/4 alternating with two measures of 4/4? The eighth notes come into play as groups of three; 123-223-323-423-523-623-723-1234 ("We will go right down to the sea").
Anybody have any practical advice in using time signatures practically, for musical purposes? Rules of thumb, etc?
I may be late to the game, but I've been noticing all over, on radio, in popular music, wherever I happen to be listening, how normal 4/4 beats get regrouped into 123-12345, or 123-123-12, so it kind of simulates odd time if you translate it as eighth notes. Duhhh...

[Slant]

Slant: I remember us talking about this ages ago; in fact, did you simply copy & paste that post?
So it's the NAMES that give you grief.
I'm gonna see if Logic will let me do a 49/8 time signature. Who knows, if you get it up to speed it might sound like a shuffle with an extra back leg, a "blues genetic mutation".
I've noticed tunes in which 4/4 is alternated with 7/8, to accommodate an eighth-note bassline or some weird riff that is an eighth note short.
What was that thing Zappa used to do with the drums? It went "bomp-m-bomp-m-bomp-bomp-bomp". Is that 2/4 alternating with 3/8? Or just one 7/8?

Bill,

No, I didn't copy and paste (as the record will attest), but I did re-state what, to me anyway, seems an easy solution to something that presents beginners and students w/ a major stumbling block.

[EdByrne]

I apologize if I'm off topic here, but here's my two cents:

I don't mean to be flippant here at all, but I focus on the rhythms & the grooves themselves, & am striving to get completely away from a notation head. And with regard to drummers, I haven't written a proper part in years--even in 4/4. I figure if I have to write him a part, I've got the wrong drummer. I once wrote detailed parts out for Victor Lewis for a recording. I was quite happy with them. Before to session began, I briefly ran them down to Victor, who nodded and said "cool." When we did the takes, he played something else altogether--& much better than anything I wrote.

Moreover, I've found that the best readers are not often my favorite artists, & vise versa. Of course different circumstances require different considerations, but I'm talking here about a jazz date with original material. I've found that for my music, however complicated at times, it's better if I get somebody who can understand the forms & the feels I'm looking for in general--& then set him loose. This approach doesn't work for everybody, though, but it works for me.

I view reading as a non-essential skill, however important. At best it is an expedience, rather than an express to the meaning of the music. In my practicing I strive to overcome all that imaging thing & go for the "right brain" intuitive, global thinking, as close as possible to no imaging of nuts & bolts whatsoever. Therefore, I seek not to get more accurate &/or innovative drum notation, but rather a more internalized understanding from everyone in the group.

Hey Vic, don't go away. Please tells us how you deal with this.

[Vic J]

Ed....Great to see your back on the board. I enjoyed posting. I think it is time for me to sit back and listen for awhile. I may return at a later date. I feel like I am getting in the way.

[harmolodic]

I don't mean to be flippant here at all, but I focus on the rhythms & the grooves themselves, & am striving to get completely away from a notation head. And with regard to drummers, I haven't written a proper part in years--even in 4/4.

Yes! a voice of reason (there are others on this thread too).

We play w/ no time sig all the time..there's plenty of rhythm, plenty of groove, micro pockets of this and that, pulse(s) everywhere. But no artificial construct time signature (o course, unless we want to...).

Something weird has happened to this board in the last 2 months...did some kind of asylum close recently?

Anyway, I just found a 7th note. It was stuck in my trumpet.

[EdByrne]

Ed....Great to see your back on the board. I enjoyed posting. I think it is time for me to sit back and listen for awhile. I may return at a later date. I feel like I am getting in the way.

Thanks, Vic--had to get some ground rules clarified.

I know that I am only one of a great many who listen with interest to anything & everything you have to say. I can assure you that you are NEVER in my way, & it is world-class practitioners such as you who we at the Musician to Musician section of AAJ in particular should be listening to. Please say whatever is on your mind--anytime.

Ed

[Slant]

I apologize if I'm off topic here, but here's my two cents:

I don't mean to be flippant here at all, but I focus on the rhythms & the grooves themselves, & am striving to get completely away from a notation head. And with regard to drummers, I haven't written a proper part in years--even in 4/4. I figure if I have to write him a part, I've got the wrong drummer. I once wrote detailed parts out for Victor Lewis for a recording. I was quite happy with them. Before to session began, I briefly ran them down to Victor, who nodded and said "cool." When we did the takes, he played something else altogether--& much better than anything I wrote.

Moreover, I've found that the best readers are not often my favorite artists, & vise versa. Of course different circumstances require different considerations, but I'm talking here about a jazz date with original material. I've found that for my music, however complicated at times, it's better if I get somebody who can understand the forms & the feels I'm looking for in general--& then set him loose. This approach doesn't work for everybody, though, but it works for me.

I view reading as a non-essential skill, however important. At best it is an expedience, rather than an express to the meaning of the music. In my practicing I strive to overcome all that imaging thing & go for the "right brain" intuitive, global thinking, as close as possible to no imaging of nuts & bolts whatsoever. Therefore, I seek not to get more accurate &/or innovative drum notation, but rather a more internalized understanding from everyone in the group.

Ed,

I don't think, or at least I hope it isn't the case, that anyone is stating that the music/vibe shouldn't come first and foremost. Of course that's the intent in any situation.

The fact remains, however, that music can be communicated to a certain extent via notation. Just because you, personally, have found communicating ideas verbally to be a better route in some cases doesn't necessarily mean that Joe Smith living in Where Ever, Earth has that option available. In many cases, in fact, notation is a valid alternative and supremely-excellent supplement to recordings. That said, there should be discussion amongst artists about the best way to go about representing ideas on paper, and a stream-lined method that leads to the reduction of confusion. Can confusion be eliminated? No. But there are some definite steps that can be taken to help move in a helpful direction. Will anything of the sort ever happen? Probably not. Most industries are sluggish at best when it comes to improving systems, why should one as old as notation be any different?

[sounds212001]

Thanks, Vic--had to get some ground rules clarified.

I know that I am only one of a great many who listen with interest to anything & everything you have to say. I can assure you that you are NEVER in my way, & it is world-class practitioners such as you who we at the Musician to Musician section of AAJ in particular should be listening to. Please say whatever is on your mind--anytime.

Ed

Vic: I hope you keep on posting, I've gained alot of insight and knowledge from you and appreciate having access to your thoughts.

[EdByrne]

Ed,

I don't think, or at least I hope it isn't the case, that anyone is stating that the music/vibe shouldn't come first and foremost. Of course that's the intent in any situation.

The fact remains, however, that music can be communicated to a certain extent via notation. Just because you, personally, have found communicating ideas verbally to be a better route in some cases doesn't necessarily mean that Joe Smith living in Where Ever, Earth has that option available. In many cases, in fact, notation is a valid alternative and supremely-excellent supplement to recordings. That said, there should be discussion amongst artists about the best way to go about representing ideas on paper, and a stream-lined method that leads to the reduction of confusion. Can confusion be eliminated? No. But there are some definite steps that can be taken to help move in a helpful direction. Will anything of the sort ever happen? Probably not. Most industries are sluggish at best when it comes to improving systems, why should one as old as notation be any different?

Slant,

I am by no means suggesting that you are incorrect, or that you shouldn't discuss & learn these things. I'm merely saying what works best for me. It is also my view, having benefited from a very white band system at all levels, that for me to find increased meaning in performance, we can, as a result, tend to be over-focused on all levels of literacy. While I am more than proficient at those things, I wish now to put them aside insofar as that can be practical.

When there is talk of such esoteric & advanced reading--especially when one rarely encounters 7 meters (as a bottom number), for example, on most gigs, I try to focus on the rhythms themselves, since I fear myself getting caught up in the "left brain," In another, recent, thread I wrote a tune on a "bet," which had a rhythm that I had worked out with 7 within 6. Normal notation would be a bear. Instead, I am concentrating on internalizing how it fits, feels, & works--& is paraphrased & permutated, rather than getting caught up in the sophisticated & perhaps prohibitive notation it would require to notate.

There was also another thread a while ago, in which someone was advocating an innovative & advanced chord notation for guitarists for quartal voicings. I had a similar take on that: why invent more notation, when we should be teaching students how to interpret the perfectly suitable symbols already in place? For me, notation is only temporary, until I've had time to memorize the composition & forget that literate stuff.

Bear in mind also that I am talking about reading in jazz.

Please don't take my opinion in this instance as a put-down of those who choose to further advance notation. But from my pragmatic side in jazz, an extemporaneous art form, I know how easy it is to make those methods we've been weened on to remain professional priorities, when perhaps sometimes it is better to put them aside & re-think priorities. This is just my report on my journey at this time.

Best to you in yours.

Ed

[Bill Robinson]

Slant: Ed Byrne is just saying nicely what I've always known: you can't tell drummers a damn thing!

[EdByrne]

Slant: Ed Byrne is just saying nicely what I've always known: you can't tell drummers a damn thing!

Bill,

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing. To put it near your phraseology, "I don't seek drummers for my music who I HAVE to tell specific damn things." A great drummer is essential, & you can believe that I need & respect them. Indeed, they are essential musical artists.

I respect anyone's right to totally disagree with me on this--& anything else, & I wish to argue about this point or anything else only if someone is interested in clarification of the thinking involved with my opinions. We all have to ultimately consider such points (or not) & make our own decisions.

Best,
Ed

[Bill Robinson]

Sorry Ed, just a feeble attempt at humor.
I was just trying to squeeze some advice of a purely technical nature out of you, for use in purely compositional contexts, like working in Logic and constructing drum parts while you're in Europe working with fantastic drummers. I suppose I'll solve those problems as they arise.
Highest regards, BR

[EdByrne]

Sorry Ed, just a feeble attempt at humor.
I was just trying to squeeze some advice of a purely technical nature out of you, for use in purely compositional contexts, like working in Logic and constructing drum parts while you're in Europe working with fantastic drummers. I suppose I'll solve those problems as they arise.
Highest regards, BR

No problemo, Bill. I am always happy to address any questions you or anyone else has--especially specifics, so ask away. I am, however, burnt out with pissing contests over opinions. I will strive to offer mine in a take it or leave it (do what you like with this) attitude--but i almost always give & explain reasons for those opinions. Some people perhaps don't understand that I go off, not due to disagreement, but rather from those ocassions when someone dismisses my points out of hand, & starts arguing from the standpoint of "who the hell are you?" & "such & such said this, & he's a big name & you're not, so he must know more than you about this." Proper arguments are those which stand on their own logic & cite specific points with specific reasoning; & even then it often comes down to personal preferance (as with me & dogbite). And I too am constantly in search of musical knowledge, & I have to be painfully aware that, as I learn, I have to be willing to chuck old ideas that no longer wash (I do that all the time).

Regarding pain, I am well aware that if someone such as me punches holes in conventional wisdom such as Chord Scale Theory, for example, it is maddening--& even threatening--to someone who has just invested several years in it. But I have found that such re-evaluations never make what you have done a waste. Rather, needed changes in one's game-plan only re-focus one for the better.

Best,
Ed

[Bill Robinson]

Ed, I'm surprised that you are as engaging as you are in many situations. Your presence, as well as the other "gurus" here, is essential to me, and I'm sure many others. It must be that you are not only a great musician and thinker, but also a great teacher. I'll shut up, now; but it's true; this forum is like no other, IMHO.

[EdByrne]

Ed, I'm surprised that you are as engaging as you are in many situations. Your presence, as well as the other "gurus" here, is essential to me, and I'm sure many others. It must be that you are not only a great musician and thinker, but also a great teacher. I'll shut up, now; but it's true; this forum is like no other, IMHO.

Thank you, Bill. Don't shut up, for there is much to discuss; and we can make to journey together.

[Jay Norem]

And with regard to drummers, I haven't written a proper part in years--even in 4/4. I figure if I have to write him a part, I've got the wrong drummer.

Anyway, very few people know how to write a good drum chart. They tend to over-write the thing, which is just a huge obstacle course to have to get through for the drummer. That's why when I do sessions I'll just jot down my own chart, or go with the piano or bass chart.
And when it comes to odd-meters, there are a lot of disagreements on how to approach these. I don'y like rigidly syncopated odd meters. The trick is to groove, to play straight through them, in my opinion.
I once played with a guitar player who "wrote" music that was, in some cases, almost impossibile to notate (he insisted that he couldn't read or write music). We had to feel our way through a lot of his rhythm changes. Somehow, it was easier to do it that way than it would have been if we'd all been reading.

[EdByrne]

Anyway, very few people know how to write a good drum chart. They tend to over-write the thing, which is just a huge obstacle course to have to get through for the drummer. That's why when I do sessions I'll just jot down my own chart, or go with the piano or bass chart.
And when it comes to odd-meters, there are a lot of disagreements on how to approach these. I don'y like rigidly syncopated odd meters. The trick is to groove, to play straight through them, in my opinion.
I once played with a guitar player who "wrote" music that was, in some cases, almost impossibile to notate (he insisted that he couldn't read or write music). We had to feel our way through a lot of his rhythm changes. Somehow, it was easier to do it that way than it would have been if we'd all been reading.

Dig that, Jay! Even when I start with a sketch, I want to quickly internalize it--& then lose it.

[Phil Kelly]

Ed....Great to see your back on the board. I enjoyed posting. I think it is time for me to sit back and listen for awhile. I may return at a later date. I feel like I am getting in the way.

vic:

add a hearty welcome back from myself as well. just as you and ed (among others ) have been assailed by annoying trolls hiding behind te mask of cyber-anonymity, i too, have had to bail for similar reasons on other jazz boards.

it only takes a couple of these disgusting subspecies to mess things up for the rest of the folks here who are glad to recieve first hand information from the working pros among us.. like yourself. threads on M toM are the cyber equivalent of the old pro-mentor relationship that many of us older guys were priveleged to experience in our formative years. ( the big difference is if a "troll" type showed up in person back then cracking wise, the older pros would slap him upside the head! )



:yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat:

so ..please,hang in there: keep in mind that no good deed goes unpunished.

:cheers :cheers :cheers :cheers :cheers


Phil Kelly
www.philkellymusic.com
NW Prevailing Winds
SW Santa Ana Winds
Origin Records

[Phil Kelly]

also regarding drum parts:

as an arranger as well a former drummer ( who was generally accepted as a pretty good reader ), i offer the following to other arrangers:

keep in mind that to be considered a good " reading drummer" you have to simultaneouly do several things on the firts rundown of a chart:

1. look at what the arranger has written

2.in many cases,translate what you SEE into what you might think he INTENDED.

3. hold the band together while doing the first two things.

what a drummer wants to see at first glance:

+ what to hit ( or set up )

+where NOT to play ( rests,breaks )

+ any specific vamp patterns if present ( reduced to their most basic outline )

+if an odd meter is present, reduce it to basic sub components ( i.e. 7/4 = 3+4 or 4+3 etc )

+do NOT try to write out specific patterns for the drummer unless you are one and know how to put it on the staff in readible fashion. the previous step (regarding odd meters ) will suffice in most cases.

DO feel free to add comments like " loose elvin type feel " or " on top jimmy cobb quarter notes ". to a drummer,comments like these are a big help to finding out your intention.

[Jay Norem]

also regarding drum parts:

as an arranger as well a former drummer ( who was generally accepted as a pretty good reader ), i offer the following to other arrangers:

keep in mind that to be considered a good " reading drummer" you have to simultaneouly do several things on the firts rundown of a chart:

1. look at what the arranger has written

2.in many cases,translate what you SEE into what you might think he INTENDED.

3. hold the band together while doing the first two things.

what a drummer wants to see at first glance:

+ what to hit ( or set up )

+where NOT to play ( rests,breaks )

+ any specific vamp patterns if present ( reduced to their most basic outline )

+if an odd meter is present, reduce it to basic sub components ( i.e. 7/4 = 3+4 or 4+3 etc )

+do NOT try to write out specific patterns for the drummer unless you are one and know how to put it on the staff in readible fashion. the previous step (regarding odd meters ) will suffice in most cases.

DO feel free to add comments like " loose elvin type feel " or " on top jimmy cobb quarter notes ". to a drummer,comments like these are a big help to finding out your intention.

Man I can think of a few guys I'd love to forward this to.

[EdByrne]

also regarding drum parts:

as an arranger as well a former drummer ( who was generally accepted as a pretty good reader ), i offer the following to other arrangers:

keep in mind that to be considered a good " reading drummer" you have to simultaneouly do several things on the firts rundown of a chart:

1. look at what the arranger has written

2.in many cases,translate what you SEE into what you might think he INTENDED.

3. hold the band together while doing the first two things.

what a drummer wants to see at first glance:

+ what to hit ( or set up )

+where NOT to play ( rests,breaks )

+ any specific vamp patterns if present ( reduced to their most basic outline )

+if an odd meter is present, reduce it to basic sub components ( i.e. 7/4 = 3+4 or 4+3 etc )

+do NOT try to write out specific patterns for the drummer unless you are one and know how to put it on the staff in readible fashion. the previous step (regarding odd meters ) will suffice in most cases.

DO feel free to add comments like " loose elvin type feel " or " on top jimmy cobb quarter notes ". to a drummer,comments like these are a big help to finding out your intention.

Wow. Thanks, Phil: beautiful.

I should qualify my previous remarks on writing for the drums by stating that I was talking about small group playing of jazz originals in my group.

Nobody writes better drum parts than Phil Kelly (or any other parts, for that matter). And big band arranging does indeed require parts such as he describes. He also might very well have different ways of going about writing for the small group drums than I described.

[Vic J]

Congrats To Phil Kelly as one of the top picks for 2007 at AAJ....How does it feel to be an overnight success Phil? Great to see someone like you being recognized!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Slant]

Here's one thing you SHOULD NOT tell a drummer just before the count off: "don't worry, you'll feel it". This eats me up!!! At jams, especially, this is worst piece of freakin' "advice" a drummer can get. Something more along the lines of: "this is a 36-bar medium tempo swing, and bar 8 is a drum break" is more along the lines of what we want to hear!! That's bare bones essentials, and that's WAY better than nothing!

[Jay Norem]

Here's one thing you SHOULD NOT tell a drummer just before the count off: "don't worry, you'll feel it".

Anyone who says to any musician "Don't worry, you'll feel it" isn't worth playing with. I've heard that a million times. It's always the same old shit with drummers, isn't it? I find that sort of thing to be very tiresome and disrespectful, but it says a lot about the person who's making such a statement. In other words he doesn't know shit, and obviously doesn't care about how the music is going to sound anyway.

[engelbach]

Anyone who says to any musician "Don't worry, you'll feel it" isn't worth playing with.... I find that sort of thing to be very tiresome and disrespectful, but it says a lot about the person who's making such a statement. In other words he doesn't know shit, and obviously doesn't care about how the music is going to sound anyway.

Hmm. While I often feel the same anger, Jay, I don't think it's always justified, so I want to defend some of those people.

First of all, there are myriad situations in which it's absolutely true that if a player listens he'll get it in an easier and better way than can be given in any technical explanation. I can become impatient with too much explanation, and just tell someone that I'll see what they mean when they play it.

Second, I've played with some pretty good musicians who've told me to "just listen," "just feel it," and similar advice, which at the time was useless, as I already had been listening and trying to "feel it," without success. But nevertheless they cared deeply about the music and were capable of playing their asses off.

I understand that at times it must be tiresome to experienced players, for whom music has become second nature through years of study and an abundance of talent, to have to come up with a technical explanation for something that for them needs no explanation.

Not everyone can teach, but even for those who can, there are instances when it's better to say less and do more.

Musical notation in itself is, at best, only a fair approximation of the intended sound. If someone wants to try to write a piece with 7/7 notation, nobody will hear it in 7/7, as such a time signature is not within the bounds of the approximation we've all agreed to accept in our system of musical notation. But even if one couldn't read it, that doesn't mean it couldn't be played.

[Slant]

Hmm. While I often feel the same anger, Jay, I don't think it's always justified, so I want to defend some of those people.

First of all, there are myriad situations in which it's absolutely true that if a player listens he'll get it in an easier and better way than can be given in any technical explanation. I can become impatient with too much explanation, and just tell someone that I'll see what they mean when they play it.

Second, I've played with some pretty good musicians who've told me to "just listen," "just feel it," and similar advice, which at the time was useless, as I already had been listening and trying to "feel it," without success. But nevertheless they cared deeply about the music and were capable of playing their asses off.

I understand that at times it must be tiresome to experienced players, for whom music has become second nature through years of study and an abundance of talent, to have to come up with a technical explanation for something that for them needs no explanation.

Not everyone can teach, but even for those who can, there are instances when it's better to say less and do more.

Musical notation in itself is, at best, only a fair approximation of the intended sound. If someone wants to try to write a piece with 7/7 notation, nobody will hear it in 7/7, as such a time signature is not within the bounds of the approximation we've all agreed to accept in our system of musical notation. But even if one couldn't read it, that doesn't mean it couldn't be played.

Jerry,

I hear what you're saying, but at least giving the drummer the FORM of the tune is BARE BONES essentials (assuming the drummer doesn't know the tune off hand)! Anyone on this board that doesn't do this simple act is begging for a train wreck!!!

[engelbach]

Jerry,

I hear what you're saying, but at least giving the drummer the FORM of the tune is BARE BONES essentials (assuming the drummer doesn't know the tune off hand)! Anyone on this board that doesn't do this simple act is begging for a train wreck!!!

I couldn't agree more.