Strange Time Signature

[Sir Edward V]

I started to write a song, well the beginings of one, yesterday and I can't decide what time signature it is... There are just two measures so far. The first measure is in 4/4, then the second is the weird part. When I came up with it it was simple enough, I played 8 8th notes in the first measure, then in the second I play another 8 equally spaced notes, but I played them in 3 beats at the same tempo. I wanted to call it 2/3 time, but I really can't decide if that is it or not.

It sounds like I am speeding it up for the one measure, which is what I am liking. I just want to figure out what to call this time signature!!!

I guess it works if I just call it 7/4, cause that is aproximately the amount of time it takes up, but this other measure is something different... I guess it could just be 3/4 and I am playing a eighthlet accross the measure... haha

but then the part I wrote to go with it plays 4 notes in that measure, but I guess along the same thoughts I can call it a quartet across 3/4...

Any ideas?

[cowsgomoo]

Originally Posted by Sir Edward V

I started to write a song, well the beginings of one, yesterday and I can't decide what time signature it is... There are just two measures so far. The first measure is in 4/4, then the second is the weird part. When I came up with it it was simple enough, I played 8 8th notes in the first measure, then in the second I play another 8 equally spaced notes, but I played them in 3 beats at the same tempo. I wanted to call it 2/3 time, but I really can't decide if that is it or not.

It sounds like I am speeding it up for the one measure, which is what I am liking. I just want to figure out what to call this time signature!!!

I guess it works if I just call it 7/4, cause that is aproximately the amount of time it takes up, but this other measure is something different... I guess it could just be 3/4 and I am playing a eighthlet accross the measure... haha

but then the part I wrote to go with it plays 4 notes in that measure, but I guess along the same thoughts I can call it a quartet across 3/4...

Any ideas?

would prefer to hear it first.. but if the second bar is 8 eighth notes in the time of 6, then it's a 3/4 bar with an 8:6 / 4:3 grouping over it ...

[megadan]

Originally Posted by Sir Edward V

but then the part I wrote to go with it plays 4 notes in that measure...

Sounds like you're working in the realm of polyrhythms.

See here for a possible explanation (or confusion!)

http://www.vai.com/LittleBlackDots/tempomental.html

[MonetBass]

Originally Posted by cowsgomoo

would prefer to hear it first.. but if the second bar is 8 eighth notes in the time of 6, then it's a 3/4 bar with an 8:6 / 4:3 grouping over it ...

Right. It would be an octuplet over three beats.

[Jon Simonoff]

Hearing would be best. It sounds to me like if you're second measure is sounding faster than the first, but they are all even over three beats you have a measure of eighth notes in 4/4 and a measure of dotted 16th notes in 3/4 This would sound faster than the first, be all even, and occupy three beats. Another way to notate this, which sounds exactly the same is an octuplet based on the 16th note. Same value, and sound, it's a matter of preference I think.

[Sir Edward V]

Originally Posted by megadan

Sounds like you're working in the realm of polyrhythms.

See here for a possible explanation (or confusion!)

http://www.vai.com/LittleBlackDots/tempomental.html

Thank you for this. This has been an interesting read so far, I will finish it when I have more free time later (I'm supposed to be working, lol).

Originally Posted by Sir Edward V

I guess it could just be 3/4 and I am playing a eighthlet accross the measure... haha

but then the part I wrote to go with it plays 4 notes in that measure, but I guess along the same thoughts I can call it a quartet across 3/4...

So judging by the Frank Zappa read, I had exactly the right idea in the end! Go me!

[mutedeity]

Before you go any further I would point out that there is no such thing as 2/3 time. In time signatures the "numerator" denotes how many beats in a measure, this can be any number practically. The "denominator" denotes the subdivisions of the notes. For example 4/4 denotes four crotchets, or quarter notes per measure. 5/8 denotes 5 quavers or eighth notes per measure. Therefore the denominator can be divided up as 2,4,8,16,32.. etc. For practicality most time signatures will be in measures of quarters, eighths or sixteenths, but measures like 2/3 are not really possible.

If you are playing the second measure as "triplets", for example you will have to find the length of the measure in terms of quarter, eighth or sixteenths and so on, and then notate "tuplets" in the score.

[projectMalamute]

Are we talking about 8 notes in the space of three quarter notes?

Cause those are just dotted 16ths.

[ryco]

Maybe a bar of 4/4 + 6/8?
1&2&3&4&|1 2 3 :|

[Sir Edward V]

Originally Posted by projectMalamute

Are we talking about 8 notes in the space of three quarter notes?

Cause those are just dotted 16ths.

yeah that would be right I like my version better

I wanted to convey via the time signature the fact that the measure is supposed to feel like everything is speeding up. Your way doesn't do that, I different time signature does.

[HaVIC5]

Originally Posted by projectMalamute

Are we talking about 8 notes in the space of three quarter notes?

Cause those are just dotted 16ths.

Yeah, true, but its a notational/psychological thing. Since all of the notes are evenly spaced in the measure it SOUNDS like a polyrhythm (which it is, in a sense). If I see a bunch of dotted sixteenth notes, that have crorrect used the imaginary barline (so really, dotted sixteenth, 32nd note tied to sixteenth, sixteenth tied to 32nd note, etc, etc.) I think, "whoa, crazy syncopation", and I try to internalize the rhythm with the predisposed notion that its going to be uneven.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by Sir Edward V

I wanted to convey via the time signature the fact that the measure is supposed to feel like everything is speeding up. Your way doesn't do that, I different time signature does.

Uh...no. A different time signature conveys nothing about "speeding up". Writing the second measure as either dotted 16ths or a 4:3 tuplet is all that's required to convey that the notes are moving faster than the previous measure's even eighth notes.

If you want to make it explicitly obvious (to the non-reading musician and/or layperson) that it's "supposed to feel like everything is speeding up" just write it as more even eighth notes with a tempo change indicated over the second bar. (Or even just "faster" indicated over the second bar.)

But most musicians would rather see the 4:3 tuplet or the dotted 16ths (...or a dotted 16th followed by a 32nd tied to a sixteenth, followed by a 16th tied to a 32nd etc etc, for those that really want to see the internal subdivisions). The "speeding up" is inherent in the rhythmic notation; the time signature simply indicates how long this figure lasts before the next downbeat, as well as where stress points land within the figure.

[crazyguy832]

Originally Posted by mutedeity

Before you go any further I would point out that there is no such thing as 2/3 time. In time signatures the "numerator" denotes how many beats in a measure, this can be any number practically. The "denominator" denotes the subdivisions of the notes. For example 4/4 denotes four crotchets, or quarter notes per measure. 5/8 denotes 5 quavers or eighth notes per measure. Therefore the denominator can be divided up as 2,4,8,16,32.. etc. For practicality most time signatures will be in measures of quarters, eighths or sixteenths, but measures like 2/3 are not really possible.

If you are playing the second measure as "triplets", for example you will have to find the length of the measure in terms of quarter, eighth or sixteenths and so on, and then notate "tuplets" in the score.

Actually, time signatures like 2/3 are possible.

4/4 - 4 beats of quarter notes
4/8 - 4 beats of eighth notes
4/3 - 4 beats of third notes

Worthless without context, but it's possible. No, it doesn't fall under standard theory, but it's theoretically (HAH!) possible. Is it absolutely stupid? Yes, because the exact same bar could be notated as triplet quarter notes without being stupid in the time signature.



Edit: To explain my point further, all the second number is is the division of quarter notes in the beat. Essentially, what grouping of quarter notes there are.

x/1 - 1 note over the span of 4
x/2 - 2 notes over the span of 4
x/3 - 3 notes over the span of 4
x/4 - 4 notes over the span of 4
x/5 - 5 notes over the span of 4
...
x/8 - 8 notes over the span of 4
...
x/12 - 12 notes over the span of 4
...
x/13 - 13 notes over the span of 4
...
x/27 - 27 notes over the span of 4
...
etc. etc.

All these odd timings can be done in 4/4 with groupings (triplets, quintuplets, septuplets, etc. etc.) and, according to traditional theory, should. However, there's nothing stopping a composer from writing a piece in an odd signature like this.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by crazyguy832

All these odd timings can be done in 4/4 with groupings (triplets, quintuplets, septuplets, etc. etc.) and, according to traditional theory, should. However, there's nothing stopping a composer from writing a piece in an odd signature like this.

And in fact some composers have; except instead of writing it as 4/3 (which, despite your ministrations, really is completely nonsensical in terms of what a time signature is designed to convey) they write it as

(well, I can't really show you using ASCII characters)... The lower denominator, instead of being the number 3, is a quarter-note shape with a superscript number 3 above it. Like the central character in a quarter-note triplet, without the bracket or it's two neighbors. When uttered aloud the time signature is "four over one-of-a-triplet". Usually followed by the uttering aloud of many curses and disparaging remarks about the composer's mother.

[crazyguy832]

Actually, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing that.



Also, I suck at paint, but...



??

Seems like what you said.

Either way, yeah, there's really no point. If Psyopus doesn't do that, then I don't personally see the point.

:P

[lemur821]

Originally Posted by Hoover

And in fact some composers have; except instead of writing it as 4/3 (which, despite your ministrations, really is completely nonsensical in terms of what a time signature is designed to convey) they write it as

Why do you think four third notes to a measure is nonsensical?

I don't think x/3 is appropriate though, since a third note is longer than a quarter note and you want something shorter. 4:3 tuplets in 3/4 are what you want.

[crazyguy832]

Ermmm... by a third note... I meant four quarter notes in a group of 3... really, half note triplets (which would be a third note... I believe..................... o_O........... I'm confusing myself now).

That was my bad there, sorry.

What I meant was explained (much) better in my edit.

[projectMalamute]

What the hell is a third note?

4/4 - 4 quarter notes to a measure. I know how to write a quarter note.
4/8 - 4 eighth notes to a measure, I know how to write an eighth note.
12/8 - 4 dotted quarters to a measure, I know how to write a dotted quarter.

2/3 - I suppose this would be 2 third notes to a measure. What the hell is a third note? Is that supposed to mean half note triplet? Quarter note triplet?

I can see a situation in which you need to notate a bar of a length equal to 2 half note triplets, it's a corner case but it could happen. I think Hoover's notation is what I would use in that situation.

That is not even what we are talking about here however. The OP wants a measure to feel like 4 beats in the space of 3, or for the length of a beat to go from a quarter note to 3/4's of that duration. We already have a perfectly fine system for doing exactly that.

The first measure is in 4/4, four beats each a quarter note long. The second measure is 12/16, four beats each a dotted eighth note long. There you go, each measure would conventionally be read as a four beat unit and the implicit change in tempo is taken car of by the note values.

[crazyguy832]

I thought the original question had been answered, which is why I began to segway... I know for a fact I spelled that wrong. Please don't hurt me.

All right. Let's say someone has a song. Basic beat is 4/4. However, there is, say, a 12 bar section where the rhythm is in quintuplet quarter notes (this would end up being 10 notes per bar). He could either notate it in 4/4 with quintuplet groupings over every two quarter notes. Or, he could notate it in 10/5. This would work and would save some notation, so long as whoever was reading it knew why the composer did this.

[projectMalamute]

Originally Posted by crazyguy832

I thought the original question had been answered, which is why I began to segway... I know for a fact I spelled that wrong. Please don't hurt me.

All right. Let's say someone has a song. Basic beat is 4/4. However, there is, say, a 12 bar section where the rhythm is in quintuplet quarter notes (this would end up being 10 notes per bar). He could either notate it in 4/4 with quintuplet groupings over every two quarter notes. Or, he could notate it in 10/5. This would work and would save some notation, so long as whoever was reading it knew why the composer did this.

5 quarter note quintuplets occupy the space of four quarter notes, not two. (five per bar in your example, not 10).