4/3 ???

[pallemino]

I came in contact with a discussion on another forum. ibreathemusic.com about irrational time signatures. I have no experience with this topic and so far I'm convinced its all just hocus pocus. is there such thing as a 4/3 signature??. If so Id be keen to see the logic in it, and or significance. From the discussion so far I's my thinking that anything that this 4/3 signature has to offer could more easily be represented in 4/4 anyway.

Fire when ready.

[Jay Norem]

Since there's no such thing as a third note I don't see how there could be a 4/3 time signature.

[pallemino]

http://paintedover.com/uploads/show.php?loc=0735&f=irrational_rationals_page_2.png

http://paintedover.com/uploads/show.php?loc=0735&f=irrational_rationals_page_1.png

someone posted these as examples of the 4/3. I'm not convinced though.

[Cirle]

Yeah, it technically DOES exist...

They are trying to accurately notate polyrhythms, which is where western notation fails horrendously. Incidentally, these things are much easier to feel than to read, and even when they get absurdly complex they are still easier to feel and hear than read. This is perhaps why African music tends to be of the oral tradition, rather than try to write this stuff down!

[BWV 1080]

It is a 4:3 polyrhythm. Brian Ferneyhough uses meters like this frequently and as he explains, there are other ways of notating them:


The so-called 'irrational' measure lengths, i.e. those based on beats expressed in terms of fractions of full beats in the prevailing tempo, thus giving rise to such time signatures as 3/10 or 5/24, are useful as local 'dissonances' serving to refocus attention and instantiate reassessment of the prevailing temporal perspective. A somewhat distant analogy would be the metric modulations typical of Elliott Carter's music, where a steady pulse in one tempo would continue across at exactly the same perceived rate in a new tempo, albeit notated differently, thus providing the performers with a constant unit of measurement when undertaking complex series of tempo modifications. I said earlier that these pulses are not normally present to the same degree in my own practice or, at most, are present only fleetingly through two adjacent measures. I find that such 'irrational' measures serve as a useful buffer between local changes of event density and actual changes of base tempo, which latter I interpret as being a more thorough-going radical intervention. Other composers have taken this particular technique much further than I in the meantime, with the result that the Law of Diminishing Returns has begun to apply.

[Slant]

pallemino,

To anyone trained in western music, the time signature 4/3 is not going to make any sense, and, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist. The same goes for the time signature 4/6, which appears at the bottom of the piece posted at your 2nd link. I think your composer likely has some interesting ideas in his/her head, but is unable to accurately represent them on the page.

Given the standard note durations that appear attached to each note in these links, there doesn't appear to be any reason that the time signature 4/4 wouldn't be sufficient. If 4/4 is unable to work, then 12/8 will certainly cover all of his/her bases, especially if 3:2 polyrhythms are truly intended in some places here and there.

If your composer IS attempting to represent simple polyrhythms here, then I'd say he/she doesn't have a firm grasp of how they have traditionally been treated on the written page. This is not a put-down, but rather a simple observation and constructive criticism. However, since the actual music isn't present (i.e. the sound), it's really hard to tell what this person intends to have happen.

[Slant]

Quote: The so-called 'irrational' measure lengths, i.e. those based on beats expressed in terms of fractions of full beats in the prevailing tempo, thus giving rise to such time signatures as 3/10 or 5/24, are useful as local 'dissonances' serving to refocus attention and instantiate reassessment of the prevailing temporal perspective. A somewhat distant analogy would be the metric modulations typical of Elliott Carter's music, where a steady pulse in one tempo would continue across at exactly the same perceived rate in a new tempo, albeit notated differently, thus providing the performers with a constant unit of measurement when undertaking complex series of tempo modifications. I said earlier that these pulses are not normally present to the same degree in my own practice or, at most, are present only fleetingly through two adjacent measures. I find that such 'irrational' measures serve as a useful buffer between local changes of event density and actual changes of base tempo, which latter I interpret as being a more thorough-going radical intervention. Other composers have taken this particular technique much further than I in the meantime, with the result that the Law of Diminishing Returns has begun to apply.
-------------

Everyone take note: Tempo fluxuations ARE NOT the same as polyrhythms!!! Let's not get confused.

I have noticed time and again that the word "polyrhythm" is perhaps the most misunderstood term in music. Everywhere there is major confusion about this little word!

[EdByrne]

Quote: I have noticed time and again that the word "polyrhythm" is perhaps the most misunderstood term in music. Everywhere there is major confusion about this little word!

and?

[Dave Martin]

Everyone take note: Tempo fluxuations ARE NOT the same as polyrhythms!!! Let's not get confused.

I have noticed time and again that the word "polyrhythm" is perhaps the most misunderstood term in music. Everywhere there is major confusion about this little word!
This seems a good thread to ask a couple of questions that I've never seen discussed (though I may simply have not seen where it WAS explained - I quit college after freshman theory...); in my soloing and rhythm section playing, I've always considered 'polythythms' to be fairly simple - quarter note triplets in a 4/4/ measure, for instance, or playing straight eighths against a shuffle - or vice versa. would this generally be considered the correct terminology?

Then there's the idea of accenting notes in a long phrase - for instance, if playing straight eighth's in a line where every 5th note or every seventh note is accented , the line sounds more complex that it actually is. Would that still be considered a polyrhythm?

Third, there's the whole concept of playing 5 against 4, or 7 against 4; Probably because I've worked with guys who are into 70's prog rock, most of the guys I talk to think of these things as playing 5/4 measures at 120 BPM (for example) while other band members play patterns in 4/4 at 120 BPM - so that essentially, the down beats coincide every 4 or 5 measures. But I've done a but of experimenting over the years with trying to fit 10 eighth notes into each 4/4 measure - effectively superimposing a faster 5/4 tempo on top of the 4/4 measure so that the downbeats of each bar are together. I'm not sure which (if either) of these counts as a polyrhythm, or if superimposed thing thing is simply odd and disturbing, and something that shouldn't be done by decent people... Is there a such thing as 'polymetrical' playing?

[tweebinmusic]

I consider polyrhythm to be contained in one measure (Pulse against pulse), and hemiola to be the superimposed meter that crosses the bar line (Meter against meter).


for example

a 4 note polyrhythm in 3/4 time

ONE e and A two e AND a three E and a

a 4 note hemiola in 3/4 is

ONE two three one TWO three one two THREE one two three

[Slant]

and?

And? And what?

Am I noticing a pattern here?!!

Hit me again, but this time make it polymetrical!

Seriously, if we are content with confusion...then fine. So be it. If not, then we should all make an attempt to be on the same page. 2 musicians reading from the same chart should be interpreting the same rhythmic figures, don't you think? If that's so, then why not have as many musicians as possible have the same understanding of basic terms? In the case of the term POLYRHYTHM, there are many, many interpretations (yet only one term!).

[Slant]

This seems a good thread to ask a couple of questions that I've never seen discussed (though I may simply have not seen where it WAS explained - I quit college after freshman theory...); in my soloing and rhythm section playing, I've always considered 'polythythms' to be fairly simple - quarter note triplets in a 4/4/ measure, for instance, or playing straight eighths against a shuffle - or vice versa. would this generally be considered the correct terminology?

Then there's the idea of accenting notes in a long phrase - for instance, if playing straight eighth's in a line where every 5th note or every seventh note is accented , the line sounds more complex that it actually is. Would that still be considered a polyrhythm?

Third, there's the whole concept of playing 5 against 4, or 7 against 4; Probably because I've worked with guys who are into 70's prog rock, most of the guys I talk to think of these things as playing 5/4 measures at 120 BPM (for example) while other band members play patterns in 4/4 at 120 BPM - so that essentially, the down beats coincide every 4 or 5 measures. But I've done a but of experimenting over the years with trying to fit 10 eighth notes into each 4/4 measure - effectively superimposing a faster 5/4 tempo on top of the 4/4 measure so that the downbeats of each bar are together. I'm not sure which (if either) of these counts as a polyrhythm, or if superimposed thing thing is simply odd and disturbing, and something that shouldn't be done by decent people... Is there a such thing as 'polymetrical' playing?

Dave,

You are hitting on the fundamental issues here. That is, you are getting down to the basic forks in the road...unfortunately, some people go this way, some go that way -- yet we all use the same term! One thing is for certain: do not take a music critic's understanding of the term "polyrhythm" as correct. This term is thrown around becuase is sounds intimidating. In fact, it is not.

The most basic polyrhythm is called "3 against 2" (or vice versa). What this means is that 3 rhythmic notes occur simultaneously, and occupy same space of (real) time, as do 2. In practice this can happen a number of ways, but your illustration of straight 8's vs. shuffle (triplet) feel is correct. Now, 3:2 or 2:3 you will hear routinely, esp. in jazz. When other, more complex, polys are considered (5:4, etc.), you can pretty much bet that it will be a rare occasion that you'll ever hear it. They are akin to hearing a pop tune in 5/4 time...not going to happen very often...if at all.

Tweeb's example of hemiola, and which you allude to in your post, is also often referred to as polyrhythmic, though, me personally, I disagree. But that's just me. To me, hemiola is like a polyrhythm yet on a macro scale. That is, it is poly in reference to the bar lines while my previous example is poly in reference to beat subdivisions (micro). But, now I'm splitting hairs. They both essentially have the same effect. That is...WOW. Traditional African music is where you want to go to find out about how all of this really works. They had/have it down to a science.

More later...I've got to "cut and run".

[tweebinmusic]

Slant, my whole point was in differentiating the nomenclature to arrive at a standardized terminology... isn't that what you are looking for?

the issue is context, after all poly is just a prefix meaning more than one at the same time.

[clave]

"Western" notation doesn't work well at all when dealing with many kinds of rhythmic patterns, not just polyrhythms.... Unless you can indicate pitch and "fingering," it's useless for most "non-Western" percussion. (IMO, anyway.)

And trying to nail certain rhythmic patterns to specific time signatures doesn't always work, either. There are common rhythmic patterns from Bulgaria and other E. European countries that have been given wildly varying time signatures, and I can't help wondering if any of these are "correct."

I bet that Bartok, Kodaly and other composers like them - who spent a lot of time in the field, making recordings and learning from "folk" musicians - probably had a real grasp of how this might work on paper. But whether you're working with patterns from Mali, Transylvania or Iran, it's *very* hard to learn them properly from reading notation - and very hard to notate them in the first place.

Counting can help, but for me, using "one and..." doesn't work at all, because it's a lot like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, or vice versa.

[thedwork]

http://www.amazon.com/Unstable-Molecule-Isotope-217/dp/B000008TKK/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2412109-2776708?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1189277772&sr=1-1


scroll down and listen to the clip of "Beneath The Undertow." i wish the clip was longer but you definitely hear the main rhythmic rub (i hesitate to write rhythmic dissonance but it feels like that to me...).

polyrhythm? two completely divergent meters/tempi? i've listened to this piece consistently for a long time. i love it! the rhythmic idea here (the straight-up rhythm section feel in 3, or a bar of 4 and then 2, against the melody which to me feels as though it's in a slower tempo and also in 4/4 or 12/8) definitely occurs regularly through the piece and lines up rhythmically consistently with breaks that come around later in the piece. great stuff.

i'd love it if some of you guys wanted to chime in on this specific piece. probably would be good for the discussion to have some specific musical examples to be pointing to. this example is possibly not the best one to start with because of it's complexity or inability to be notated within the same score (or it's certainly possible that i'm just not sharp enough to pick up a simpler rhythmic process happening here :gavel: :shrug:). maybe members of the group are reading off sheets written in different meters and tempos and it had to be "directed."

anyway, hope the clip is interesting for you all.

[Slant]

Slant, my whole point was in differentiating the nomenclature to arrive at a standardized terminology... isn't that what you are looking for?

the issue is context, after all poly is just a prefix meaning more than one at the same time.

Tweeb,

Actually, I'm not really looking for anything! I'm just trying to cut through the clutter a bit. Take my workplace for example. There are so many misunderstandings every single day that it is a stupendous wonder we are still around (seriously!). Luckily, we are a not-for-profit, so we're also not really looking for anything. Music, likewise, isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so I don't think this is a major issue. Like I said, I was splitting hairs to create a distinction between a "macro" polyrhythmic application (hemiola) vs. a "micro" (beat subdivision) application. I realize the etymology of the term "poly". I was just pointing out that hemiola is often confused w/ the term polyrhythm, but w/out knowledge that there are really some distinctions to be made, primarily in type and size when polyrhythms are concerned.

[EdByrne]

"Western" notation doesn't work well at all when dealing with many kinds of rhythmic patterns, not just polyrhythms.... Unless you can indicate pitch and "fingering," it's useless for most "non-Western" percussion. (IMO, anyway.)

And trying to nail certain rhythmic patterns to specific time signatures doesn't always work, either. There are common rhythmic patterns from Bulgaria and other E. European countries that have been given wildly varying time signatures, and I can't help wondering if any of these are "correct."

I bet that Bartok, Kodaly and other composers like them - who spent a lot of time in the field, making recordings and learning from "folk" musicians - probably had a real grasp of how this might work on paper. But whether you're working with patterns from Mali, Transylvania or Iran, it's *very* hard to learn them properly from reading notation - and very hard to notate them in the first place.

Counting can help, but for me, using "one and..." doesn't work at all, because it's a lot like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, or vice versa.

Good points, c, & Bartok et al did indeed know how to notate this better than most. But, as you say, this notation thing perhaps becomes a dumb intellectual reading & calculating jag not so applicable to the practicalities of performance for the practitioner (sorry about the alliteration, but you perhaps triggered it with "whether you're working with . . .").:cheers

[Slant]

http://www.amazon.com/Unstable-Molecule-Isotope-217/dp/B000008TKK/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2412109-2776708?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1189277772&sr=1-1


scroll down and listen to the clip of "Beneath The Undertow." i wish the clip was longer but you definitely hear the main rhythmic rub (i hesitate to write rhythmic dissonance but it feels like that to me...).

polyrhythm? two completely divergent meters/tempi? i've listened to this piece consistently for a long time. i love it! the rhythmic idea here (the straight-up rhythm section feel in 3, or a bar of 4 and then 2, against the melody which to me feels as though it's in a slower tempo and also in 4/4 or 12/8) definitely occurs regularly through the piece and lines up rhythmically consistently with breaks that come around later in the piece. great stuff.

i'd love it if some of you guys wanted to chime in on this specific piece. probably would be good for the discussion to have some specific musical examples to be pointing to. this example is possibly not the best one to start with because of it's complexity or inability to be notated within the same score (or it's certainly possible that i'm just not sharp enough to pick up a simpler rhythmic process happening here :gavel: :shrug:). maybe members of the group are reading off sheets written in different meters and tempos and it had to be "directed."

anyway, hope the clip is interesting for you all.


Just a quick analysis: the rhythmic vamp is in 6 (check out the bass line especially), while the horn line modulates ("rubs") over the top. The horn line modulates for 3 bars, and then meets the rhythm section back at the down beat w/ a long extended note. Interesting horn line -- very simple but sounds twisted over the bass line.

[clave]

There are patterns that sound very different from each other that look identical, or nearly so, in Western notation. Listening (and watching, when you've got a teacher) work best. so does singing the rhythmic patterns and/or using syllables as "notation." Even if you transcribed an Indian percussionist (or dancer's) vocal percussion solo, you wouldn't (I think) be able to get more than a fraction of it on paper. Pulse, probably yes, but the rest... not really.

I'm no expert on polyrhythmic music (or on other kinds of complex rhythms) of any kind, but i do know from learning/playing that it's very hard to "get" these kinds of music from notation or transcription. There are so many subtleties that simply can't be written down. (My background is mainly in Arabic and Turkish rhythms, also some Iranian stuff, and all but the most basic, skeletal patterns are extremely difficult to notate.)

In Deena Epstein's book Sinful Tunes and Spirituals there are many quote from people who heard spirituals and other kinds of songs sung by African Americans in the antebellum South. Those who knew how to write music said that they literally did not know how to begin to notate what they heard - and they also had no points of comparison, because what they were hearing was completely new to them. (Like they'd been dropped onto another planet, more or less.) I think most all of us run into the same difficulties, even today. ;)

[thedwork]

Just a quick analysis: the rhythmic vamp is in 6 (check out the bass line especially), while the horn line modulates ("rubs") over the top. The horn line modulates for 3 bars, and then meets the rhythm section back at the down beat w/ a long extended note. Interesting horn line -- very simple but sounds twisted over the bass line.



hey Slant. thanks for checking it out.

yeah - the vamp for sure is in 6. i wrote in 3 or a bar of 4 then 2. in my mind those all reduce to the same thing and doesn't really matter so much.

but the horn line "modulating?" i assume you mean metric modulation and that's the question here. but what metric modulation? or using language from this thread, what polyrhythm? the line does last for three measures (in 6) as you point out. but my question is how would you count/write the horn line? i'm inclined to think it wasn't written out, or if it was, they had parts that were written in different meters and there was a small amount of simple cueing going on for the rhythmic hook-ups - just for the entrance of the horn line.

again - it's very possibly something easy that for whatever reason i'm not catching :gavel: , but i'd be down w/ some specific ideas. this relates to the thread, right :shrug: :light:

[BWV 1080]

Tweeb,

Actually, I'm not really looking for anything! I'm just trying to cut through the clutter a bit. Take my workplace for example. There are so many misunderstandings every single day that it is a stupendous wonder we are still around (seriously!). Luckily, we are a not-for-profit, so we're also not really looking for anything. Music, likewise, isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so I don't think this is a major issue. Like I said, I was splitting hairs to create a distinction between a "macro" polyrhythmic application (hemiola) vs. a "micro" (beat subdivision) application. I realize the etymology of the term "poly". I was just pointing out that hemiola is often confused w/ the term polyrhythm, but w/out knowledge that there are really some distinctions to be made, primarily in type and size when polyrhythms are concerned.

but that presupposes that the polyrhythm can be contained within a measure. Hemiola is perhaps better thought of as a change of meter as typically the 3/4 and 6/8 are not played simultaneously. Elliott Carter, on the other hand structured pieces around slow polyrhythms at ratios like 62:63 that line up perhaps twice in a 15-20 minute piece.

[BWV 1080]

also the additive rhythms in Bartok and other Eastern European music are not polyrhythms. They are combinations of 2 and 3 beat accent patterns within a constant pulse

[EdByrne]

And? And what?

Am I noticing a pattern here?!!

Hit me again, but this time make it polymetrical!

Seriously, if we are content with confusion...then fine. So be it. If not, then we should all make an attempt to be on the same page. 2 musicians reading from the same chart should be interpreting the same rhythmic figures, don't you think? If that's so, then why not have as many musicians as possible have the same understanding of basic terms? In the case of the term POLYRHYTHM, there are many, many interpretations (yet only one term!).

I was merely reacting to your pointing out of a confusion, and then not offerring your solution or definition to dispell said confusion.

Anyway, the New Harvard Dictionary of Music defines Polymeter as follows: The simultaneous use of two or more meters. The term is sometimes applied to different meters in one or more parts.

Of the term, Polyrhythm, it reads:

The simultaneous use of two or more rhythms that are not readily perceived as deriving from one another or as simple manifestations of the same meter; sometimes also 'cross rhythm.' Familiar examples in tonal music are the simulaneous use of 3/4 and 6/8 or similarly related pairs of meters (whether or not explicitly indicated), termed 'hemiola' . . . . Western art music of the 20th century offers numerous examples, often notated explicitly with conflicting meters. Such techniques are especially prominent in some music of Elliot Carter. Traditional African music abounds in polyrhythm, and it is evident in Aftrican-derived musics of the New World.

BTW, BWV: I play and hear 3/4 and 6/8 together all the time: It's one of the most common and basic of jazz hemiolas.

[clave]

also the additive rhythms in Bartok and other Eastern European music are not polyrhythms. They are combinations of 2 and 3 beat accent patterns within a constant pulse

Yes, you're correct - I didn't mean to imply that they were, but was kinda addressing them + other kinds of complex rhythms/meters in a general way. In folk and popular music, these are actually fairly set patterns with improv to ornament. (Like many Greek, Romanian and Bulgarian rhythms, which are closely related to many Middle Eastern patterns.) The kinds of Hungarian rhythms that Bartok used are quite different from the ME-derived stuff, I think.

I also am guessing that people who end up counting many of these rhythms and trying to fit them into Western notation are doing a number of things:

1) working with local variations of the same rhythm(s)

2) starting the count from different points in the pattern

3) different perceptions of accented beats vs. non-accented

# 2 would account for a lot of things, including discrepancies in time signature as written. But that's a whole other discussion!

In Arabic and Turkish music, percussionists tend to shift from rhythm to rhythm in a very fluid way; also to play variations (ornamented and not) of many of the basic rhythms, so you do find people switching time signatures (6/8 - 9/8 - 11/8, for example, though not necessarily in the order that I've typed them). It can be incredibly confusing when your ear's not attuned to this - have been there and done that, and I still get thrown by some of the more complicated patterns and variations that many people play as a matter of course.

Re. shifting from 3 to 6 and then back, that seems pretty standard to me, in the context I just mentioned.

[Phil Kelly]

I consider polyrhythm to be contained in one measure (Pulse against pulse), and hemiola to be the superimposed meter that crosses the bar line (Meter against meter).


for example

a 4 note polyrhythm in 3/4 time

ONE e and A two e AND a three E and a

a 4 note hemiola in 3/4 is

ONE two three one TWO three one two THREE one two three


I commonly notate a four note group in 3/4 as four
dotted eight notes ( i.e. three sixteens times 4 =
twelve sixteens = three quarters )

on the other question of dealing with oddly accented
groups ( 5, 7, etc ) of an even eighth or sixteenth stream of notes, you're dealing with something termed an "isorhythym". This shows up frequently in ostinato patterns. For example, a five pitch isorhytmic ostinato in 4/4 will sync with one again in 20 beats ( or 5 4/4 bars )

[clave]

Phil, just out of curiosity - have you ever written out any Indian, African or Arabic rhythms? I have a lot of questions about how to do this, and I think you might well have wrestled with that yourself - suggestions deeply appreciated!

[thedwork]

hey phil, tweeb, clave, and BWV - i'd be interested in your ideas about the clip i put up here, and whether what i've written about it is off the mark or not. just curious. thanks...

[clave]

Hmm... definitely not one I can answer (not being very familiar with Cuban and Puerto Rican rhythms), but I'm guessing that either tpt1, harmolodic or LuckeyRaffy1925 could help you here.

[thedwork]

Hmm... definitely not one I can answer (not being very familiar with Cuban and Puerto Rican rhythms), but I'm guessing that either tpt1, harmolodic or LuckeyRaffy1925 could help you here.

thanks clave. yeah - it's pretty funky, right?! love it.

would love to hear from the rest of you on this one. cool thread...

[clave]

Most def' funky - there's a lot going on there, especially with the congas in the background, which is one of the reasons I'm hesitant to take a stab at this one. (Also because the sample is so brief.)

You've got me interested in this band now!

Edited to add: I wonder if they're deliberately messing with the whole "in clave" vs. "off-clave" thing, to some extent?

[JoeNovice]

I commonly notate a four note group in 3/4 as four
dotted eight notes ( i.e. three sixteens times 4 =
twelve sixteens = three quarters )

on the other question of dealing with oddly accented
groups ( 5, 7, etc ) of an even eighth or sixteenth stream of notes, you're dealing with something termed an "isorhythym". This shows up frequently in ostinato patterns. For example, a five pitch isorhytmic ostinato in 4/4 will sync with one again in 20 beats ( or 5 4/4 bars )

I just wrote a piece with 4 against 3 in the melody. I used quartuplets (ie 4 notes in a measure of 3 with a bracket and a 4 to indicate four in the space of 3).

I can't IMAGINE a single need to notate in 4/3. (IMO, it's impossible considering the function of the bottom number.) Four notes over 3 doesn't require a special time signature, just a good sense of time.

[tpt1]

thanks clave. yeah - it's pretty funky, right?! love it.

would love to hear from the rest of you on this one. cool thread...yeah, *very* cool clip. would love to hear the whole thing -- and more of this band. just listening through the clip a few times I hear a 4/4 - 2/4 vamp by the bass player and the horn line starts on the last beat of the phrase ( beat 2 of the [second] 2/4 measure ), which implies a characteristic of latin music ( heavy emphasis on the 4th beat of the second bar of a 2/3 clave, for example ). definitely would like to hear more of this and spend some time figuring out what the horns are doing rhythmically against the vamp. it's one of those things that is "felt" rather than analyzed and carefully notated by the muscians, though, I think. Great thread, btw!

[clave]

definitely would like to hear more of this and spend some time figuring out what the horns are doing rhythmically against the vamp. it's one of those things that is "felt" rather than analyzed and carefully notated by the muscians, though, I think.

Yeah, the horns/vamp parts are very interesting! Agreed completely on "felt," too.

[Slant]

hey Slant. thanks for checking it out.

yeah - the vamp for sure is in 6. i wrote in 3 or a bar of 4 then 2. in my mind those all reduce to the same thing and doesn't really matter so much.

but the horn line "modulating?" i assume you mean metric modulation and that's the question here. but what metric modulation? or using language from this thread, what polyrhythm? the line does last for three measures (in 6) as you point out. but my question is how would you count/write the horn line? i'm inclined to think it wasn't written out, or if it was, they had parts that were written in different meters and there was a small amount of simple cueing going on for the rhythmic hook-ups - just for the entrance of the horn line.

again - it's very possibly something easy that for whatever reason i'm not catching :gavel: , but i'd be down w/ some specific ideas. this relates to the thread, right :shrug: :light:

Yes, by "modulation" I here mean metric modulation. Here's the breakdown. Took me a while, but I got it:

Key: 16 = 16th note, 8 = 8th note, d8 = dotted 8th, w = whole note, | = bar line

The rhythm section is in 6, while the horn lick is...well...a bit complicated. If you notate the clip in 6/8, you will have the following rhythmic figure for the horn line:

d8, 16, d8, 8, d8 | 16, d8, 8, d8, 16, 8 (tied) | 16, 8, d8, 16, d8, 8 (tied) | w

So, w/out the visual confusion of bar line no. 2 (forcing the tied note), the pattern is simple: d8, 16, d8, 8, repeat, repeat, then meet back at bar 4 w/ the rhythm section on the down beat. The horn line is made even more intense by the stress they place on certain notes, and the fact that they seem to play w/ a bit of the New Orleans looseness!!

Pretty cool.

[clave]

It sounds to me like tambourine is being used to play a salsa/Cuban bell pattern (timbales/bell, not bongo/bell), though again, I'd have to hear more of the cut to be able to say for sure. (Or not, as the case may be! ;))

I wonder how this chart starts, and when the horns come in?

[BWV 1080]

BTW, BWV: I play and hear 3/4 and 6/8 together all the time: It's one of the most common and basic of jazz hemiolas.


Well, thats my ignorance. My direct experience with hemiola is 16th century Spanish music and some flamenco. There it typically is just a change up of metric accents.

[BWV 1080]

Here are a couple more example clips, if anyone is interested.

The first is Elliott Carter's Night Fantasies which features a 216:175 polyrhythm at the pulse rates of MM 10.8 and 8.75. They coincide only at the downbeat of the 3rd bar and once again toward the end of the 20+ minute piece:

http://www.artofthestates.org/ram.php?pid=72&playmode=0


And here are some real African complex polyrhythms from Konono N°1's Lufuala Ndonga (they are a street band from Kinshasa, Congo playing amplified Mbiras and percussion mostly made from car parts)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcwvEtg14Iw

[clave]

In case anyone is interested, here examples of some of the music I was talking about earlier...

Klezmer (Balkans, with strong Turkish/Greek influence): http://spinninginair.blogspot.com/2006/10/klez.html

Southern Egypt: http://spinninginair.blogspot.com/2007/08/raks-saaidi.html

Morocco: http://spinninginair.blogspot.com/2007/05/arabesque.html

Southern Egypt/Sudan (with a lot of funk influence!): http://spinninginair.blogspot.com/2007/05/aswan-swing.html

Iran: http://spinninginair.blogspot.com/2006/12/68.html

Lebanon/Palestine/Syria/Israel - rhythms for the dabke dance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYHXRBlpaKs&mode=related&search=

India - kathak dance with vocal percussion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AIRSmN339g - you can see the dancers making movements corresponding to the syllables.

iran - iranian Kurdish drummer Kelvan Almoradi playing daf:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOqItTZyENw&mode=related&search=

[Fred]

In this example (http://www.downloadcenter.homepage.t-online.de/polyrhythm.jpg)Schillinger calls the a+b line “generation of resultant rhythmic groups as produced by the interference of two monomial periodicities” - that is to say, the way in which one monomial periodicity (say, 3, 3, 3, 3) may be combined with another (say, 4, 4, 4, 4) so as to produce another rhythm.
If two different monomial periodicities run at the same time with different velocities you can call this also polyrhythm.
The resultant (the a+b line), always shows symmetry. It’s like there would be a mirror in the middle of the phrase.

I would like to hear the resultant of the various monomial periodicities of our planets. How would this sound like?

[Slant]

Here are a couple more example clips, if anyone is interested.

The first is Elliott Carter's Night Fantasies which features a 216:175 polyrhythm at the pulse rates of MM 10.8 and 8.75. They coincide only at the downbeat of the 3rd bar and once again toward the end of the 20+ minute piece:

http://www.artofthestates.org/ram.php?pid=72&playmode=0



Steve,

It would be much easier to see this sort of "polyrhythm" on the page, since, due to the nature/sound of the piece, any sort of metric modulation would be undetectable to the ear. By the way, where are you getting your "facts and figures" (10.8, 8.75, etc.) about this stuff?

[clave]

In this example (http://www.downloadcenter.homepage.t-online.de/polyrhythm.jpg)Schillinger calls the a+b line “generation of resultant rhythmic groups as produced by the interference of two monomial periodicities” - that is to say, the way in which one monomial periodicity (say, 3, 3, 3, 3) may be combined with another (say, 4, 4, 4, 4) so as to produce another rhythm.
If two different monomial periodicities run at the same time with different velocities you can call this also polyrhythm.
The resultant (the a+b line), always shows symmetry. It’s like there would be a mirror in the middle of the phrase.

I would like to hear the resultant of the various monomial periodicities of our planets. How would this sound like?

This is exactly like ethnomusicology-speak. [heeheehee] :wink2:

[BWV 1080]

Steve,

It would be much easier to see this sort of "polyrhythm" on the page, since, due to the nature/sound of the piece, any sort of metric modulation would be undetectable to the ear. By the way, where are you getting your "facts and figures" (10.8, 8.75, etc.) about this stuff?

The first page of the score is here (http://www.wpunj.edu/coac/music/link/sonus/ex1sonus.html). The source is for the info is David Schiff's Music of Elliott Carter, written in collaboration with the composer and with access to his sketches and (Carter typically calculates a time screen, meticulously working out a piece's structural polyrhythm and calculating sets of tempo relations stemming from it.

[Phil Kelly]

Phil, just out of curiosity - have you ever written out any Indian, African or Arabic rhythms? I have a lot of questions about how to do this, and I think you might well have wrestled with that yourself - suggestions deeply appreciated!

Clave:

I have in the past transcribed some African drum music (only because by breaking it down to a 12/8 base yield most all of the divisions necessary for the various hemiolas (hemiolae ? ) present )

the other non western music you cite ( Arab , Semitic, Indian, etc ) are historically taught thru an oral tradion by studying with a "master" and are almost impossible tot notate with our western system.

A similar problem exists with Balinese music , both because it is based on non western scalar tunings ( usually penta or hexatonic in nature ) and because it utilizes a tradition of stating a"melody" and simultaneous embellishments of this with increasingly ornate configurations.

I've mentioned this book before on this BBS, but you might want to get a copy of "Music of the Whole Earth" by David Reck. It goes into great detail in analysing non western musical traditions.


:yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat:

[clave]

Thanks, Phil - one of the reasons I asked is that virtually everything I've studied to date falls into the category you're talking about (can't be notated), but you never know if someone might have found a "fix" or work-around.

I think the Iranian percussion duo I linked to above has a lot in common with gamelan (per complexity, ornamentation, etc.).

What kind of African drum music were you working with?

EDIT: Some nice Malian polyrhythms and dance (shot at a party) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYY4WhdlS2c The tempo picks up quite a bit...

Enjoy!

[harmolodic]

dammit, I can't open the first link thedwork posted!

for what it's worth, my trio works a LOT in polyrhythms and what I call post-polyrhythms...rhythm textures that are influenced by looping technology (whether or not we're using loops). Electronics allow you too hear, for example, a 5/4 against a slightly faster 5/4, w/ a 3/4 groove in the bass that doesn't share a quantifiable "one" with either of the other patterns. There is no real one at all and there's no "return" to a base. But since time is really the same as pitch (waves at some level) the ear perceives it all as an organic whole, if it is free to deconstruct cultural constructions (i.e., the need for even-numbered groups of phrases and metric repetition).

It's hard to write about and impossible to notate, but losing the notation is liberating to the ear.

[Slant]

dammit, I can't open the first link thedwork posted!

for what it's worth, my trio works a LOT in polyrhythms and what I call post-polyrhythms...rhythm textures that are influenced by looping technology (whether or not we're using loops). Electronics allow you too hear, for example, a 5/4 against a slightly faster 5/4, w/ a 3/4 groove in the bass that doesn't share a quantifiable "one" with either of the other patterns. There is no real one at all and there's no "return" to a base. But since time is really the same as pitch (waves at some level) the ear perceives it all as an organic whole, if it is free to deconstruct cultural constructions (i.e., the need for even-numbered groups of phrases and metric repetition).

It's hard to write about and impossible to notate, but losing the notation is liberating to the ear.

The first link posted by thedwork is: http://www.amazon.com/Unstable-Molecule-Isotope-217/dp/B000008TKK/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2412109-2776708?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1189277772&sr=1-1. It's still working for me -- should be OK. Maybe the server at Amazon was having a fit?

Anyway, would you care to elaborate on your statement that "time is really the same as pitch (waves at some level)"?

[harmolodic]

The first link posted by thedwork is: http://www.amazon.com/Unstable-Molecule-Isotope-217/dp/B000008TKK/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2412109-2776708?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1189277772&sr=1-1. It's still working for me -- should be OK. Maybe the server at Amazon was having a fit?

Anyway, would you care to elaborate on your statement that "time is really the same as pitch (waves at some level)"?

I think my Windoze player is effed...

Anyway, pitch and rhythm are just functions of repetitions in time, right? (Periodicity.) Pitch is just (usually) faster. We sometimes like to break down these constructs and construct sound that explores these concepts.

I think Gamelon music explores such concepts as well, but based on what I've heard, not studied as an ethnomusicologist.

[clave]

for what it's worth, my trio works a LOT in polyrhythms and what I call post-polyrhythms...rhythm textures that are influenced by looping technology (whether or not we're using loops). Electronics allow you too hear, for example, a 5/4 against a slightly faster 5/4, w/ a 3/4 groove in the bass that doesn't share a quantifiable "one" with either of the other patterns. There is no real one at all and there's no "return" to a base. But since time is really the same as pitch (waves at some level) the ear perceives it all as an organic whole, if it is free to deconstruct cultural constructions (i.e., the need for even-numbered groups of phrases and metric repetition).

It's hard to write about and impossible to notate, but losing the notation is liberating to the ear.

Yeah, I like!!! (heads to check out samples...)

Coincidentally, I once heard English guitarist Martin Carthy tell a joke about English trad. rhythms: they all are "1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [etc.]." Carthy works with a lot of "unusual" rhythms, so coming from him, it's pretty amusing.

[Slant]

I think my Windoze player is effed...

Anyway, pitch and rhythm are just functions of repetitions in time, right? (Periodicity.) Pitch is just (usually) faster. We sometimes like to break down these constructs and construct sound that explores these concepts.

I think Gamelon music explores such concepts as well, but based on what I've heard, not studied as an ethnomusicologist.

Harmolodic,

I'd posit the idea that periodicity (event cycle) is an illusory consequence of our limited view of time. Think of it this way: we see the sun "come up" and "go down" every day, right? So, we usually make the statement that "that was then, this is now" to refer to yesterday and today. However correct that may seem on the surface, the fact remains that it is always the same sun. That is, it never "diappeared" into the past, and, likewise, it is never "non-existent" in the future -- it's either out of your view on the other side of the earth or over your head (no pun intended), but always right there in the center of it all. So, the obvious question is: why, if we know this to be true, do we persist in applying the same short-sighted logic to other events? The answer is simple: we have a limited view of Time.

On the one hand, music mimics our limited view of time by moving in the only direction it seemingly can: forward. On the other hand, music mimics the true nature of Time through the use of resolution, thus creating what we call cycles (built around the tonic, the down beat, and other devices).

Now, the not so obvious question is: is there any way to get a better idea of the nature of Time? The answer here is not-so-simple: yes, but you have to find the right means first.

[harmolodic]

Slant, I didn't miss this post--it just caused me to go silent for a week!

Harmolodic,

I'd posit the idea that periodicity (event cycle) is an illusory consequence of our limited view of time. Think of it this way: we see the sun "come up" and "go down" every day, right? So, we usually make the statement that "that was then, this is now" to refer to yesterday and today. However correct that may seem on the surface, the fact remains that it is always the same sun. That is, it never "diappeared" into the past, and, likewise, it is never "non-existent" in the future -- it's either out of your view on the other side of the earth or over your head (no pun intended), but always right there in the center of it all. So, the obvious question is: why, if we know this to be true, do we persist in applying the same short-sighted logic to other events? The answer is simple: we have a limited view of Time.

On the one hand, music mimics our limited view of time by moving in the only direction it seemingly can: forward. On the other hand, music mimics the true nature of Time through the use of resolution, thus creating what we call cycles (built around the tonic, the down beat, and other devices).

Now, the not so obvious question is: is there any way to get a better idea of the nature of Time? The answer here is not-so-simple: yes, but you have to find the right means first.

[philoxenos]

A great musicological thread, from a year back.

:thewave:thewave:

[CoyotePalace]

Harmolodic,

I'd posit the idea that periodicity (event cycle) is an illusory consequence of our limited view of time. Think of it this way: we see the sun "come up" and "go down" every day, right? So, we usually make the statement that "that was then, this is now" to refer to yesterday and today. However correct that may seem on the surface, the fact remains that it is always the same sun. That is, it never "diappeared" into the past, and, likewise, it is never "non-existent" in the future -- it's either out of your view on the other side of the earth or over your head (no pun intended), but always right there in the center of it all. So, the obvious question is: why, if we know this to be true, do we persist in applying the same short-sighted logic to other events? The answer is simple: we have a limited view of Time.

On the one hand, music mimics our limited view of time by moving in the only direction it seemingly can: forward. On the other hand, music mimics the true nature of Time through the use of resolution, thus creating what we call cycles (built around the tonic, the down beat, and other devices).

Now, the not so obvious question is: is there any way to get a better idea of the nature of Time? The answer here is not-so-simple: yes, but you have to find the right means first.

Gosh damn, Slant...I want to hear more about your ideas in this area!

[BirdMan]

Gosh damn, Slant...I want to hear more about your ideas in this area!

I think he's gone away since May but that bit you quoted is provocative in a music is a sacred object hidden in plain sight sort of way, isn't it?

[edrowland]

Everyone take note: Tempo fluxuations ARE NOT the same as polyrhythms!!! Let's not get confused.


I'm not sure I really understand any of the points being made (not just this one, but others as well). In the given sample, it seems clear to me that the composer's intention is neither polyrhythm, nor variation in tempo, but, simply, a bar which has an extra half-note triplet, and that the tempo should not vary.

Given that the intention seems crystal clear, and that the arithmetic actually does seem to be correct (it really *is* 4/3), I don't think there's any basis on which to object to the notation. Sure, it's odd; but I can't imagine that anyone could misread it.

Are we slaves of notation, or is notation slave to our intention?

[engelbach]

Are we slaves of notation, or is notation slave to our intention?

Well said.

Striving for more and more accurate notation seems futile to me anyway.

All notation has always been approximate and performance practice from written scores has varied over time.

But for over a century we've had a foolproof way of notating exactly what is intended: it's called recording.

[Bob Budny]

On the one hand, music mimics our limited view of time by moving in the only direction it seemingly can: forward.

Can we also perceive time as moving from anticipation to experience to memory? (Future->Present Moment->Past). As when driving a car, you see something coming, you're upon it, it disappears in the rear view mirror.

If you sit totally absorbed in the Present Moment, there is no time movement at all, but eventually you would get older and die anyway.

[ernz]

4/4 = a bar lenght of 4 fourth notes... four times a fourth note..

2/4 = a bar lenght of 2 fourth notes.. two times a fourth note..

6/8 = a bar lenght of 6 eight notes.. six times a eight note

whole = two halfs
half = two fourths
fourth = two eights
eight = two sixteenths
etc

therefore:

4/3 must be = a bar lenght of 4 times the duration of something between a fourth note and a half note..

and this is a dotted fourth note..

4/3 = a bar lenght of 4 times a dotted fourth note ¿?

[engelbach]

4/3 must be = a bar lenght of 4 times the duration of something between a fourth note and a half note..

and this is a dotted fourth note..

4/3 = a bar lenght of 4 times a dotted fourth note ¿?
In other words, a 1/3 note = three 1/8 notes.

Congrats. You worked that out with perfect logic.

However, in our system every denominator has a symbol for the note value. In 3/4, for example, this is a quarter note symbol.

There is no symbol for a 1/3 note, so how would we notate it on the staff?

Anyway, whether we use a new symbol for the 1/3 note or a dotted 1/4 note, there's no point of having four such notes in 4/3 time, when it's only the equivalent of four 1/4 notes in 4/4 time.

Although the discussion on this thread has been interesting, the premise was disposed of in the first couple of posts. Nobody has shown an example of a piece in 4/3 time, and nobody has come up with any reason to use it.

[harmolodic]

If you sit totally absorbed in the Present Moment, there is no time movement at all, but eventually you would get older and die anyway.

Now I'm depressed.

[ernz]

In other words, a 1/3 note = three 1/8 notes.

Congrats. You worked that out with perfect logic.

However, in our system every denominator has a symbol for the note value. In 3/4, for example, this is a quarter note symbol.

There is no symbol for a 1/3 note, so how would we notate it on the staff?

Anyway, whether we use a new symbol for the 1/3 note or a dotted 1/4 note, there's no point of having four such notes in 4/3 time, when it's only the equivalent of four 1/4 notes in 4/4 time.

Thank you for not having prejudice with this :)

normally ppl will get mad at me for only suggesting it lol


I have had another idea since yesterday that perhaps will make the 4/3 look less ugly...

If we agree that 1/3 note is like a dotted 1/4, therefore a 1/3 note = three 1/8

So, 4 times three 1/8 = twelve 1/8 notes!

4/3 = 12/8 ~pimp:


it actually kills the 4/3 concept as unnecesary .. oh well :P

[Borys_Pomianek]

Thank you for not having prejudice with this :)

normally ppl will get mad at me for only suggesting it lol


I have had another idea since yesterday that perhaps will make the 4/3 look less ugly...

If we agree that 1/3 note is like a dotted 1/4, therefore a 1/3 note = three 1/8

So, 4 times three 1/8 = twelve 1/8 notes!

4/3 = 12/8 ~pimp:


it actually kills the 4/3 concept as unnecesary .. oh well :P

It is important to understand that our system of notation is full of agreements and that when it comes to notating measures it is not enough to just count everything to make sure that it makes sense.

Each time signature communicates a separate thing.

3/4 and 6/8 is not the same thing!

A time signature communicates what kind of beats a measure consists of and where they are.

A simple meter will always have 2, 3 or 4 above the line!

Many people do not understand this out of lack of experience with the instrument itself and with reading music.

I used to have a similar problem in mathematics where i was using logic intended for a specific set of rules and applying it to another set of rules when same symbols where used in both. I was making a lot of other mistakes since i was used to inventing ways of finding a result rather than learning them, i was an annoying student ;).

Music theory is very specific in nature and while it might look like it has something to do with mathematics, practically nothing can be calculated to any result apart from things that are unimportant or things that are obvious. A specyfic symbol is there for analysis and to signal the performer a specific thing, where that symbol or whatever it is cannot be substituted by a different one that means something same in mathematics.

The shillinger dude we talked about on the forum not that long ago, created an uncompleted theory that was more mathematical in nature but still i believe in order to understand it, one have to learn a specific set of rules and constant values that where introduced by way of limited observation and then by bending the rules.

So basically: the more you play the more you will understand music theory since it was created for the musician, not for the mathematician.

[ernz]

But this is not maths!

Not any more maths that countin four 1/4 notes on a 4/4 beat..

I mean you always have to have some maths, if you want to comunicate this rhythm ideas.. even if we did everything adding 1 + 1...

The difference between 3/4 and 6/8 exists, yes... and it is a matter of what is the predominant accentuation of the beats...

But a lot of times you see 3/4 and 6/8 used togheter, even at the same time... so it isnt THAT different.. they are compatible..



The problem with the 4/3, or the 1/3, is that we dont have a symbol to notate this note lenght..

But who cares? we could aswell create it, because conceptually, it works..

Or we could just represent it as a dotted 1/4 note.. (that will be enough to me tho, as it is possible to count with dotted 1/4's as the base).. or transate it to 1/8's..

if we translate it in 1/8's we get a 12/8..


I understand what you say about specific symbols, and them meaning somethin more than the mathematical side of it... and i agree!

But in this case, to me, we have a concept wich has no symbol, other than the dotted 1/4... so how can i be perverting symbols, when there is none?

we have to actually give it a symbol, and then it will become something that we could actually pervert with maths :P

[Borys_Pomianek]

But this is not maths!

Not any more maths that countin four 1/4 notes on a 4/4 beat..

I mean you always have to have some maths, if you want to comunicate this rhythm ideas.. even if we did everything adding 1 + 1...

The difference between 3/4 and 6/8 exists, yes... and it is a matter of what is the predominant accentuation of the beats...

But a lot of times you see 3/4 and 6/8 used togheter, even at the same time... so it isnt THAT different.. they are compatible..



The problem with the 4/3, or the 1/3, is that we dont have a symbol to notate this note lenght..

But who cares? we could aswell create it, because conceptually, it works..

Or we could just represent it as a dotted 1/4 note.. (that will be enough to me tho, as it is possible to count with dotted 1/4's as the base).. or transate it to 1/8's..

if we translate it in 1/8's we get a 12/8..


I understand what you say about specific symbols, and them meaning somethin more than the mathematical side of it... and i agree!

But in this case, to me, we have a concept wich has no symbol, other than the dotted 1/4... so how can i be perverting symbols, when there is none?

we have to actually give it a symbol, and then it will become something that we could actually pervert with maths :P

The difference between 3/4 and 6/8 is that the first is a simple measure containing 3 simple beats and the second is a compound measure containing 2 compound beats.

1/3 is conceptually flawed and unneeded as Jerry proved.

Of course 4/3 might mean something else than a measure in which case there was a mistake made on behalf of the person who took it for a measure.

As was written previously, there is no example that we can analyze.

I do not think that we lack a symbol, i think simply that this concept is bogus since it does not cover anything new and also does not fit with the already present theory.

Cheers,
BP

[edrowland]

1/3 is conceptually flawed and unneeded as Jerry proved.

I do not think that we lack a symbol, i think simply that this concept is bogus since it does not cover anything new and also does not fit with the already present theory.


S'funny. I though the conclusion we arrived at was otherwise.

I though the example that was posted at the beginning of the thread was a good one (unfortunately now a dead link). A summary for those who missed it: a composition in 4/4, in which the bass line consists (at various points) of half-note triplets. An irregular bar appears with 4 half-note triplets. The irregular bar is notated 4/3.

Jerry makes a good point that the example given could have been re-notated in 12/8, thereby avoiding the need for 4/3 time-signature in the irregular bar. But if 3/4 doesn't mean the same thing as 6/8 (I agree absolutely that it's not the same), then there should be equivalent distinctions between 4/4 and 12/8.

'Tis true that you could make a case for renotating the example in 12/8, but I don't think that proves that the proposed notation is unneccesary. I shows only that it might be unneccessary in the example given.

I propose the following example of a slightly modified Sousa march. The time signature would be 2/2 (because it's a march) , rather than 4/4 , and a 12/8 time signature would be right out of the question. There would be one extra bar, added for entirely John-Cage-ian reasons (lest there be any questions about artistic integrity) consisting of four half-note triplets. What would the time signature be, if not 4/3?

To clarify what the "3" means: it means one third of a WHOLE note, just as "4" in the denominator means one 4th of a whole note, and "8" means one-eighth of a whole note.

[ernz]

You see, i didnt even knew what that "Jerry example" was about; yet i arrived at the same conclusion of the 12/8 pseudo-equivalence..

But if 3/4 doesn't mean the same thing as 6/8 (I agree absolutely that it's not the same), then there should be equivalent distinctions between 4/4 and 12/8.

Right!

So what could those distinctions be?

I guess the 4/3 will be divided in four beats, as a regular 4/4, but each beat being one 1/8 note longer..

In how many beats will normally a 12/8 be divided?

I have no idea about the traditional use of 12/8, however i can imagine dividing the 12/8 in four beats of three 1/8's each..

123 123 123 123

that would be perfect for blues :)

[edrowland]

I guess the 4/3 will be divided in four beats, as a regular 4/4, but each beat being one 1/8 note longer..
... each beat being 1/3 of a whole-note (i.e. a half-note triplet).


In how many beats will normally a 12/8 be divided?

6/8 ambiguously divides the bar into two, or three parts (12 34 56, or 123 456), and 6/8 pieces usually play off that 3 against 2 thing. That's the difference -- a feel thing, rather than an arithmetic thing. 6/8 tunes have a different feel to them than 3/4 tunes, because any given 6/8 bar may have a 2-beat-per-bar feel, or a three-beat-per-bar feel, and, often, one voice that has a 2-feel, and one that has a 3-feel in the same bar. Wheras 3/4 is predominantly 123 123 123, with only rare occurences of dotted-quarter+dotted-quarter).

12/8 is the same idea, but dividing the bar ambiguously into 3 or 4 parts, playing off 3 against 4. (1234 5679 9-10-11-12, vs. 123 456 789 10-11-12). Not a popular time-signature, because it's kinda hard to count to 12 when you're playing.

It's easier to notate blues with "swung eight notes", and the occasional quarter-note triplet, since that full 4 against 3 thing doesn't happen very often in blues.