• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Timing in this song.

It stays in 4/4 throughout the 8-bar section.

It doesn't feel like it because of where the hits fall but it's really just a repeated 4-bar phrase. If you were notating it, you could call it 2-bars of 6/8, followed by a bar of 4/8, followed by a...etc, but that's silly since it adds up to 8-bars of 4/4. Occam's Razor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jalapejoe
If you were notating it, you could call it 2-bars of 6/8, followed by a bar of 4/8, followed by a...etc, but that's silly since it adds up to 8-bars of 4/4. Occam's Razor.

First off, I agree that the example from the OP is definitely 4/4. The implied 6/8 syncopation is such a common device that there'd be no reason to make it any more clear than it already is.

But as a matter of principle, I think it's important to note that just because a passage might add up to 8 bars of 4/4 (or N bars of X/Y) it's not always simpler to notate it as such. Remember that musical notation is designed to convey information concisely...and sometimes the information that's most important to know is how a passage is subdivided, and/or where the strong versus weak beats should occur, and/or whether or not any of that coincides or conflicts with the prevailing metric environment. Sometimes it is indeed simpler to leave everything in a single meter and add additional articulation, phrasing, and dynamic markings; but other times it is simpler to convey this via changing meters.

Context is everything.
 
Yeah. Mixed meter would be the way to go in an academic sense but I tend to favor simplicity for the sake of practicality/readibility.

Having said that, I'm not sure if I'd prefer reading this in 9/8 or alternating bars of 6/8 and 3/8. o_O