Sign(atures) of the Times

[Analog Kid]

Is there anyone who can tackle how the number of steps on a step sequencer relates to meter? Im sorry if i come across as ignorant, but i am. While i can play anything i can feel, i have no grounding for the theory behind it except, you know i can count out meter the same way i read sheet music, sort of a 1-2-3 okay, that's a G kind of way. I mean, i know all the chords im playing on my guitar and synth, but im not so good with paper.
I'm having trouble conceiving a 12/5 too... perhaps if we could get a soundbyte? It might even be small enough to fit as an attachment to a post.

Thanks everyone for their input. I hope we are only getting started? Perhaps while i still wont be able to sight read music after this thread, maybe i can stack my steppers in a new way and get a cool song out of it.

Ah, so many step sequencers, so little time!!
but then, we've all the time signatures in the world~

[TheFoosa]

Well the bottom number of a time signature starts as low as 2 (it could be 1 as well but that's silly), and then as it goes up, it is doubled each time. So if you want 4 pulses per meter, it could be as 4/2, 4/4, 4/8, 4/16, etc. Now some of these are silly and there are more rules to it....why you would see 2/4 instead of 4/8 (the 8 exists for different reasons), but that's the most basic rule for it, is that those are the number you will see.


What they mean is what note gets the pulse. So in 4/2, you have 4 half notes per par. In 4/4, you have 4 quarter notes. etc etc etc



So looking at it that way, you could just think of it as the bottom note means...
1= whole
2 = half
4 = quarter
8 = eighth
16 = sixteenth
32 = thirty-second


Some of those won't happen, but they theoretically exist. You could theoretically have a 17/128 bar. Nobody will listen to your music though.




And then you think....well what about triplets? What about, say, a dotted half note? This is where the 8 comes into play. Whenever you have an even group of eighth notes being accented on every other one, it gives you the perception of quarter notes being the pulse.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +

or in 3/4

1+ 2 + 3 +

5/4

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 +



etc, whatever you wanna do there.



If you break it into groups of 3 8th notes though, like take the 3/4 bar and accent every 3rd note, you get the feel of the dotted half note being the pulse. Now it is 6/8. You usually see the 8 as the bottom number if it is divided by 3 8th notes, so you would also see 9/8, 12/8, etc.

1 + a 2 + a 3 + a (that would be 9/8 right there).





And then when you get to odd meters, that is totally different, because with something like 7/8, you have groups of 2 and 3 in the accents, like this (I won't use numbers because then it gets weird).

BAH da da BAH da BAH da








I'm kinda rambling on this but I hope that gives you an idea what its like...and why there's no such thing as a x/5 time signature.

[setAI]

Originally posted by TheFoosa and why there's no such thing as a x/5 time signature.

this system is a western music convention but is often adapted to non-western music- odd signatures are common in African and middle eastern music- [ask any tabla player]

you can use many sequencers to learn these odd meters: the top number is the beats-per-measure and the bottom is the unit of beat- most DAW sequencers allow you to assign any whole number value to either number- so x/y meters are valid for any whole number x or y [even unlikely signatures like say 47/17]- the sequencer will click through the measure and do a highclick on the whole note- this will give you the basic feel of any complex meter- such as the 12/5 example I listed above-

[sizzlemeister]

Please, oh please, provide some sort of reference to a 5th note. I'd be interested to read up on how a 5th note is derived.

[XorAxAx]

The top number says how many notes are in a measure. The bottom number just says what kind of note that is. Thus, technically, the bottom number affects only the notation. For example, I could take any 6/8 piece and notate it in 6/4 by doubling the notated duration of each note. Double the tempi as well, and you have the same song.

Therefore it doesn't do you any good to put a 5 down there. All it does is make notation harder, since AFAIK we don't have any kind of notation for a fifth note.

I challenge anyone to put forth an example of compelling need for 12/5 time and fifth notes.

[jazzwee]

Originally posted by XorAxAx I challenge anyone to put forth an example of compelling need for 12/5 time and fifth notes.

 

 

I agree. This is a useless notation in western music as no one will be able to interpret a fifth note. It can exist in a non-recorded musical format of course but this should be re-classified as a western time signature.

 

Since the bottom of the signature applies to the notation only, I would gather that this can be represented as 12/4 with no problem at all. The important value is the pulse which remains at 12.

[sizzlemeister]

If I were to imagine, I imagine a fiver would be five 8th notes tied, or perhaps five 16th notes tied depending on the appropriate tempo and feel. So, you would either signify it as 12/4 or 12/8 respectively.

[TheFoosa]

Originally posted by XorAxAx For example, I could take any 6/8 piece and notate it in 6/4 by doubling the notated duration of each note. Double the tempi as well, and you have the same song.

 

 

 

 

Yes and no. It depends on how "correct" you really want to be. 6/8 will have a feeling of a pulse every 3 eighth notes...the pulse is a dotted quarter.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

Whereas 6/4 will be every 2 notes...or the pulse as a quarter note.

 

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 +

[XorAxAx]

Originally posted by TheFoosa Yes and no. It depends on how "correct" you really want to be. 6/8 will have a feeling of a pulse every 3 eighth notes...the pulse is a dotted quarter. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Whereas 6/4 will be every 2 notes...or the pulse as a quarter note. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 +

 

You could easily put the pulse in 6/4 on the dotted half note and achieve the same feel as your 6/8 example. Just double the BPM and you're there.

 

There's no reason why a particular meter must have a certain pulse structure.

[sizzlemeister]

Originally posted by XorAxAx There's no reason why a particular meter must have a certain pulse structure.

 

 

Actually, there's always an ideal meter depending on the feel the composer intends. This is PAINFULLY apparent when you're working with sequencers like Cubase and are linking together objects which are based on measures.

 

For example, the "one" may not necessarily fall on the first beat of the measure naturally if the wrong meter is selected.

[TheFoosa]

There is simple time.



There is compound time.



And there is "odd meter" time.




They are all not the same.




There is a reason for each.

[object.session]

Originally posted by jazzwee time signatures signal a groove. The groove is the pulse and excitement of a tune. Grooveless music is boring. It doesn't draw you in.

hey, you're right! grooveless music *doesn't* draw me in . . . oh, wait, nevermind. you're wrong.
(sorry. i just found that broad opinion kind of funny.)

-

i did a quick search on time signatures like "8/5" and couldn't find anything. trying to make up a justification is also kinda tough. maybe there's some sort of strange usage, but i was thinking maybe . . suppose you have eighth notes of 100 milliseconds. fifth notes would theoretically be 160 milliseconds. if you have a piece that uses a lot of notes of the length of 100 ms (or whole number multiples or fractions), but with the emphasis every 160 ms. it *might* be easier to draw the song in x/5 time. although you'd still have notes of lengths that are multiples 20 ms that are tough to notate.

anyway, that's my shot at explaining it.

[setAI]

I personally have never heard of any tonal music notated in x/5 or any other odd value - as far as I know these odd signatures are only adapted for african/middle-eastern/indian percussion- which is where I was exposed to the idea- hell- far all I know it's just an informal system used by only a few- but it DOES work when composing rhythms in a sequencer- you can program authentic rhythms quite easily

[TheFoosa]

"It exists, I swear. I can't explain it in the slightest bit or show you any examples, but I swear it exists."

[setAI]

Originally posted by TheFoosa "It exists, I swear. I can't explain it in the slightest bit or show you any examples, but I swear it exists."

 

 

Hafler trio- All that rises must converge- Of The Building Of Forms By Vibrations has a jazz loop in 12/5 time:

 

http://brainwashed.com/h3o/Hammer/sea_org1.mp2

[mildbill]

there are 'x/5' type notes, but they come under the heading of 'tuplets'.

3 notes played in the space of one time segment (quarter note, 8th note, etc.) are referred to as 'triplets'.

5 notes played in the time span of one segment are called 'quintuplets' (i think).

and so on.

you can also have 7, 9 or any other odd number of tuplets, but i don't really play well enough to keep it together on those. I can step record them in cubase tho.


here's a good visual of the concept:

http://denemo.sourceforge.net/Frog/tuplets.shtml




even tho these tuplets have an odd number of notes, they still fall within 'normal' time signatures, like 4/4, 6/8, etc.






on a side note, i saw drummer Max Roach at a jazz club a while back, and he was playing with a different time signature in each hand.
being a drummer myself, it almost made me dizzy trying to comprehend what he was doing. amazing stuff.

[mildbill]

Originally posted by jazzwee


This technique (mixing meters is typical in jazz improvisation, albeit quite advanced. This is not for the weak of heart. I've heard it done. I'm not able to do this myself except at a rudimentary level.

................................QUOTE]





i think people who can do this have minds that work very differently. they're able to split total concentration into 2 separate regions of the brain and maintain it.
more than just a matter of practice, i think.

[mildbill]

Originally posted by Analog Kid Is there anyone who can tackle how the number of steps on a step sequencer relates to meter? .......................

sequencers work on a PPQN (pulses per quater note) basis.

it's all basic math from there.

early sequencers had really low timing resolution, like 24 PPQN, so they couldn't accurately reproduce your playing.

anyways, as a basic (simple) example, say your sequencer has 400 PPQN - (most modern ones are in the thousands).


given that basis, an 8th note takes 200 pulses, a 16th takes 100 and a 32nd note takes 50 pulses.

if you are doing 4/4 time, with a bass drum beat on every quarter note, it sounds every time the sequencer counts off 400 ticks.
each measure will take 1600 ticks of the sequencers clock.

if you've got snare beats on 2 and 4, the sequencer counts off 800 ticks between each snare hit and so on.

because timing is determined by a clock, you can increase the tempo and the beats will still fall where they should in relative time.

OK - so if you do 5/4 time, each measure will take 2000 ticks to complete (5 times 400), but each 1/4 note will still take 400 ticks.

tuplets get a little more complicated, because everything doesn't divide out so cleanly. but in this simple case, if you do a quintuplet on a 1/4 note beat (play 5 notes in the space of one 1/4 note), those 5 notes will be registered 80 ticks apart.

if you do 6/8 time, each full measure takes 1200 ticks (6 x 200), and each of the 6 eighth note takes 200 tickes.

got it?

[mildbill]

approached from another angle:

say you've got a sequencer with 16 steps and you want it to have a time signature.

our ears and brains distinguish time siganture by an accented downbeat.

if you want to have 4/4 time, you establish it by putting an accent on steps 1, 5, 9, and 13.

if you want to have 6/8 time, you put a major accent on 1 and a minor accent on 4 and so on. (you'll have to drop 4 steps off the suquencer).

this is the limitation, and the reason why so much stuff is done in 4/4 with rudimentary sequencers. you're usually stuck with 16 steps and can't drop any and there's only a couple ways to divide 16 steps into a time signature, and they all sound similar.

[mildbill]

what? you all thought i'd let this post die before AK gets to see it?

[jazzwee]

Originally posted by mildbill Originally posted by jazzwee This technique (mixing meters is typical in jazz improvisation, albeit quite advanced. This is not for the weak of heart. I've heard it done. I'm not able to do this myself except at a rudimentary level. ................................QUOTE] i think people who can do this have minds that work very differently. they're able to split total concentration into 2 separate regions of the brain and maintain it. more than just a matter of practice, i think. If you study closely those who do this, (I studied Brad Mehldau), one will notice a transfer of focus from one hand to the next. Sometimes the transfer of focus is very fast and then the hand without the focus goes into a repetitive ostinato. Thus although it appears that each hand gets 50% of the focus, it appears that one hand goes on autopilot. Then if you keep transferring the focus, the listener's ear gets confused and just hears this mass of sound from both hands. It is achievable but obviously there is a lot of preparation required. Because of the transfer of focus, I would think it is more of a coordination between the conscious and subconscious part of the brain. It is an amazing technique and can be mind boggling to hear at first.

[jazzwee]

Originally posted by object.session hey, you're right! grooveless music *doesn't* draw me in . . . oh, wait, nevermind. you're wrong. (sorry. i just found that broad opinion kind of funny.)

I appreciate that maybe you can come up with a way to create good grooveless music. I was just taught in a more traditional way and being in jazz (with it's focus on swing), I probably can't relate without hearing an example. I suppose if you're doing a film score you don't need a fixed groove as you may be reacting to some other visual.

In any case, if there is some good itunes clip that you can point to that can prove this I am more than happy to learn from it. I learn by listening.

[TheFoosa]

Originally posted by mildbill there are 'x/5' type notes, but they come under the heading of 'tuplets'. 3 notes played in the space of one time segment (quarter note, 8th note, etc.) are referred to as 'triplets'. 5 notes played in the time span of one segment are called 'quintuplets' (i think). and so on.

 

 

 

If you're plowing along in 4/4 and have a measure of tuplets grouped in 5, then it is not practical to change the signature to 5/5 for a measure and then flop back. If your song is continually in tuplets of 5, then it ought to be notated in 5/8, or 5/4.

 

 

Also, when you are looking at time signatures, you have the forumula, "There are [top number] of [bottom number] notes per measure." So for 4/4, "There are 4 quarter notes per measure." This divides out evenly and is easy to understand. For something like 9/8, it would be, "There are 9 eighth notes per measure." It doesn't divide out evenly in 2's...but it will in 3's, and this is why it is called compound time.

 

Now, if you have 12/5, you're saying that there are 12 fifth notes per measure. This does not divide out to 2 or 3. Other time signatures like 7/8 will not do this either, you have to have something like 2-2-3 to make it work. If you try to do this with 12/5 it just becomes obnoxious. Like I said earlier, if the song is continually using groups of 5 then it should just be 5/4 or 5/8, and if it is just a measure inserted here or there, then notated as tuplets.

[jazzwee]

Originally posted by TheFoosa If you're plowing along in 4/4 and have a measure of tuplets grouped in 5, then it is not practical to change the signature to 5/5 for a measure and then flop back. If your song is continually in tuplets of 5, then it ought to be notated in 5/8, or 5/4. Also, when you are looking at time signatures, you have the forumula, "There are [top number] of [bottom number] notes per measure." So for 4/4, "There are 4 quarter notes per measure." This divides out evenly and is easy to understand. For something like 9/8, it would be, "There are 9 eighth notes per measure." It doesn't divide out evenly in 2's...but it will in 3's, and this is why it is called compound time. Now, if you have 12/5, you're saying that there are 12 fifth notes per measure. This does not divide out to 2 or 3. Other time signatures like 7/8 will not do this either, you have to have something like 2-2-3 to make it work. If you try to do this with 12/5 it just becomes obnoxious. Like I said earlier, if the song is continually using groups of 5 then it should just be 5/4 or 5/8, and if it is just a measure inserted here or there, then notated as tuplets.

 

 

Exactly.

 

Since the value of the bottom number is in "notation" (of the number of notes per measure), anything other than a standard note length is just a confusion in notation. No one will get it.

[TheFoosa]

Btw, I wanted to say how cool it is that you're talking about Brad Mehldau. I've only got one CD of his (Places) but I've heard many more...I was turned onto him by my teacher. He really is a wicked player.