3/3 time signature

[MPGK]

"Metric modulation" refers to a technique where a tempo change occurs as a result of a rhythmic pattern in tempo/meter A becoming the new beat in tempo/meter B.

Exactly. Thanks for clearing that up, Dennis.

[Dennis DeSantis]

I'm not sure there's any advantage to having "irrational" time signatures - i'd expect to be able to transcribe most if not all time signatures in x/4, x/8, x/32, x/64 using "tuplets".

The problem is that tuplets actually define two essentially unrelated concepts:

- a particular type of note division
- a group of notes consisting of a fixed number.

For example, a "triplet" tells you both something about the pace of the notes (in relation to a larger beat grid) and also that you get three of them.

Where irrational meters become useful is when you want to use tuplet-based note division but you want an odd grouping of them.

For example, it's quite difficult in conventional notation to represent the notion of 5 eighth-note triplets. You can do it using metric modulation, but this requires a lot of information on the page - especially if you're consistently going back and forth between something more conventional and a weird grouping (like 5 eighth-note triplets.) A much easier way would be to use a time signature like 5/12.

Best,

[Lazos]

I'm not sure there's any advantage to having "irrational" time signatures - i'd expect to be able to transcribe most if not all time signatures in x/4, x/8, x/32, x/64 using "tuplets".

The problem is that tuplets actually define two essentially unrelated concepts:

- a particular type of note division
- a group of notes consisting of a fixed number.

For example, a "triplet" tells you both something about the pace of the notes (in relation to a larger beat grid) and also that you get three of them.

Where irrational meters become useful is when you want to use tuplet-based note division but you want an odd grouping of them.

For example, it's quite difficult in conventional notation to represent the notion of 5 eighth-note triplets. You can do it using metric modulation, but this requires a lot of information on the page - especially if you're consistently going back and forth between something more conventional and a weird grouping (like 5 eighth-note triplets.) A much easier way would be to use a time signature like 5/12.

Best,

Except for the fact that 5/12 doesn't exist as a time signature (didn't this already get covered?) Maybe when you say "5 eighth-note triplets" you mean a single "quintuplet" (?) This is easily enough notated (as a bracketed "5" or "5:2"/"5:4" or whatever above your grouping of five notes. As in five notes played in the space normally occupied by 2 or 4 or whatever. If you really mean to write (and play) "5 eighth-note TRIplets" as a single grouping of notes, you are probably writing music specifically for mathmeticians

edit: One could argue that 5/12 could exist as an "irrational" meter, but I firmly believe as a musician who reads notation that this would complicate things and confuse the average performer and would only be useful as a theoretical device to compare the juxtaposition of two different meters with each other. Just my 2 cents.

[Dennis DeSantis]

Except for the fact that 5/12 doesn't exist as a time signature (didn't this already get covered?)

It's true that you won't learn 5/12 in school. But there are certainly some composers that are using it in their scores; most notably Brian Ferneyhough. There are also composers who do away with a numerical denominator entirely and replace it with a notehead. In this case, 5/12 would be written as the numeral 5 over an 8th-note triplet.

Maybe when you say "5 eighth-note triplets" you mean a single "quintuplet" (?) This is easily enough notated (as a bracketed "5" or "5:2"/"5:4" or whatever above your grouping of five notes. As in five notes played in the space normally occupied by 2 or 4 or whatever. If you really mean to write (and play) "5 eighth-note TRIplets" as a single grouping of notes, you are probably writing music specifically for mathmeticians

No, it's definitely not the same as a quintuplet. As you said, a quintuplet is some grouping of 5 notes within the time of a conventional
beat division. What 5 eighth-note triplets gives me is 5 notes within the time of 1 and 2/3rds quarter notes. This is something very different. There's a lovely Soundgarden song that has uses this exact concept a few times and, of course, I can't remember which song right now...

Best,

[H20nly]

This is something very different. There's a lovely Soundgarden song that has uses this exact concept a few times and, of course, I can't remember which song right now...

whoa... no joke??

You're gonna have to remember which song it is Dennis...

[Dennis DeSantis]

Sorry I didn't have the answer available.

The Soundgarden track in question is "Pretty Noose," which can be heard here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8nkHrv_4Mg

There are several instances of five eighth-note triplets, followed immediately by the downbeat of the next measure. You can hear them at 1:06, 2:08, 3:05, and the very end.

Without using a metric modulation, there is no way to represent this figure using "conventional" time signatures. You must use either an irrational meter (5/12) or some sort of notehead-based denominator (5 over 8th-triplet).

Best,

[MPGK]

And the Soundgarden guys weren't even thinking a lot about it when they did it... at least, that's what I read in an interview. They just thought it sounded neat.

[H20nly]

thanks for the reply Dennis. I like me some Soundgarden.

I wonder if they knew what it is they're doing there (on paper) or if its one of those musical things we do based on nothing more than our ears. I know the guitar player/singer on our tracks wouldn't have a clue. He just plays and it is... I find the science extremely interesting but don't create music based on that. Its kind of like trying to fathom God... if you're not careful, you can end up loosing your religion. That is to say, if you over think it, you kill the feeling. A lot of the best music.. just happens.







edit: lol maybe I shouldn't have walked away from my puter before finishing my post... MPGK answered the question.

[alex.the.forge]

Sorry I didn't have the answer available.

The Soundgarden track in question is "Pretty Noose," which can be heard here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8nkHrv_4Mg

There are several instances of five eighth-note triplets, followed immediately by the downbeat of the next measure. You can hear them at 1:06, 2:08, 3:05, and the very end.

Without using a metric modulation, there is no way to represent this figure using "conventional" time signatures. You must use either an irrational meter (5/12) or some sort of notehead-based denominator (5 over 8th-triplet).

Best,

another track of theirs that I always loved for that kind of thing was "the day I tried to live" - I think it was mostly 7/8 but there were definitely some unusual changes in there from memory....we're going back a long time though since I heard it

[H20nly]

^ really good track. Surely they would have done it a lot more if they weren't even trying and covered it on two albums... and neither of those is Badmotorfinger

[cmcpress]

Sorry I didn't have the answer available.

The Soundgarden track in question is "Pretty Noose," which can be heard here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8nkHrv_4Mg

There are several instances of five eighth-note triplets, followed immediately by the downbeat of the next measure. You can hear them at 1:06, 2:08, 3:05, and the very end.

Without using a metric modulation, there is no way to represent this figure using "conventional" time signatures. You must use either an irrational meter (5/12) or some sort of notehead-based denominator (5 over 8th-triplet).

Best,

That rhythm is just quintuplets (5 quavers played in the same time as 4).

The time signature changes to 2/4 - if you count 8ths underneath you can see that they don't break rhtyhm.

[Dennis DeSantis]

That rhythm is just quintuplets (5 quavers played in the same time as 4).

The time signature changes to 2/4 - if you count 8ths underneath you can see that they don't break rhtyhm.

That's what I used to think, too. But try it against a click track and you'll find it doesn't quite add up.

[MPGK]

Haven't checked it against a click, but I'm also pretty sure those are five triplets. In any case, they're no quintuplets.

[memes_33]

the answer is you could have a x/3 time signiture, but what's the point, especially when you are not using standard notation. the bottom number is really not important unless you are writing out sheet music. if you count a 3/3 beat and a 3/4 beat out loud (1-2-3-2-2-33-2-3, etc), they sound exactly the same.

think of it like this- the bottom number gives you the "symbol" for which to base your beat on. in the case of x/4, it is a quarter note. in the case of 3/3, it is a 1/2-note-triplet. both of those reference symbols on a piece of paper that look different. once you don't need the "symbol" as a note on a sheet of paper, you are only dealing with the top numbers, i.e., how many beats are in a measure.

so unless you are scoring experimental orchestral music, ignore the bottom value.

[sugary weaver]

http://img404.imageshack.us/f/screensho ... at845.png/

Hey maybe you guys could help me out with my problem.

Take a look at that image - how the hell do i resample it so that it's @ 127 bpm and 4/4?

That little (random) loop sounds like a standard four to the floor repetitious beat at a dance music tempo, but i can't figure out how to record it into ableton as such... i'm stuck with a beat 2.3 measures long playing at 184 bpm!