When is Common Time Not So Common?

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

In triplets three notes have the duration of two, thus 4/4 time in this piece, and that is how it counts out. There is no use beating a dead horse though by adding any further comments.

Sorry rick, I just think maybe we're misunderstanding each other.

I'm going to flog it a little more, because there are some fine distinctions that interest me, and it's maybe worth checking how we each understand the conventions of notation. (Please comment if you disagree.)

You can count this tune in 4, as you say, or you can count it in 2.
And actually you can count in 2 in two ways: 2/4 or - as written in that notation for the chorus - 2/2 (cut time). Personally I wouldn't do the latter (counting half-notes as beats), although the notation looks clean enough like that (beaming 8ths into 4s rather than 2s).

But as (ostensibly) 2/4 or 4/4, the question then is how the beats subdivide. Ie, is a compound time sig required, or suitable?

Do you agree that each beat (aurally) subdivides in 3 (in a mostly 2+1 rhythm)?

If so, that gives two choices for notation:

(a) we stick with 2/4 or 4/4 (or maybe 2/2), and mark beats with 8th note triplets where necessary (bracketing 3 8ths, or quarter + 8th);
(b) we choose a compound time sig (6/8 or 12/8), which removes the need for triplet markings (because 6/8 is already 2 beats of triple 8ths) - but means that single beats need to be marked with dotted quarters.

Choosing 2/4 or 4/4 would normally make such a feel look very fussy, with all the "3"s and brackets. (And of course it would imply that 8ths should be straight otherwise, which would be misleading.)
So 6/8 (or 12/8) would be "cleaner" in that respect.
But if the melody didn't contain a lot of triplets, it might be considered that 4/4 (with a few triplets) would be easier to read than 12/8 (with lots of dotted quarters).

In this case, the publishers have gone for 2/2 (cut time) - not 4/4 - but instead of bracketing some beats as quarter+8th with a "3" triplet marking, they've chosen to make them dotted 8th+16th pairs. The former would be more accurate rhythmically, but the latter is visually cleaner and arguably easier to read.
Ease of reading probably also explains the use of cut time (following on from the 4/4 intro verse) rather than 2/4. The harmonic rhythm is ambiguous as to whether 2-beat measures or 4-beat measures are more correct.

In jigs, 6/8 (2 beats) is preferred over 12/8, probably for ease of reading. (Whereas 4/4 and 2/2 are arguably easier to read than 2/4.)

Corrections or alternative views welcome .

[rick-slo]

Since you asked, one more reply.
A dotted 8th+16th pairs is the rhythm. A quarter+8th triplet is not the rhythm.
The sheet music is correct IMO.
You can listen here: http://www.onlinesheetmusic.com/chri...y-p283942.aspx
The music phrases count out 4/4. 6/8 misses accents and the end of phrases.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Since you asked, one more reply.
A dotted 8th+16th pairs is the rhythm. A quarter+8th triplet is not the rhythm.
The sheet music is correct IMO.
You can listen here: http://www.onlinesheetmusic.com/chri...y-p283942.aspx

You're right the audio plays the correct rhythm (jig), but that's not how it's notated.
It sounds like a quarter+8th triplet, not the written dotted 8th+16th.

Originally Posted by rick-slo

6/8 misses accents and the end of phrases.

Not sure what you mean. The audio sounds like true 6/8 (or 12/8 if we're counting in 4).

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by JonPR

You're right the audio plays the correct rhythm (jig), but that's not how it's notated.
It sounds like a quarter+8th triplet, not the written dotted 8th+16th.Not sure what you mean. The audio sounds like true 6/8 (or 12/8 if we're counting in 4).

Nope, the audio sounds like dotted 8th + 16th (123-1). Let's move on.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Nope, the audio sounds like dotted 8th + 16th (123-1).

Not to me.
Let's move on.[/QUOTE]OK, we agree to differ. (I would post an example of dotted 8th + 16th if I had the time, but it seems we've already spent too much time on this...)

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by JonPR

OK, we agree to differ. (I would post an example of dotted 8th + 16th if I had the time, but it seems we've already spent too much time on this...)

OK, one last bit.

You do realize that the recording was from a midi of the score. There is no room for error where the recording would differ from the score.

Here are clips.

Original recording:
http://dcoombsguitar.com/Guitar%20Mu...eyOriginal.wav

Example of dotted 8th + 16th (123-1)
http://dcoombsguitar.com/Guitar%20Music/Other/Killarney.wav

Example using triplets
http://dcoombsguitar.com/Guitar%20Music/Other/KillarneyTriplets.wav

The dotted 8th + 16th in drum with metronome combined with the original recording
http://dcoombsguitar.com/Guitar%20Mu...mKillarney.wav

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

OK, one last bit.

You do realize that the recording was from a midi of the score. There is no room for error where the recording would differ from the score.

That's what I would have thought, which is why it surprised me. But it differed in other ways than the rhythm.
(I did slow it down and check it with software to be sure. And I tried notating myself in MIDI, which sounded different.)

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Here are clips.

Original recording:
http://dcoombsguitar.com/Guitar%20Mu...eyOriginal.wav

Example of 8th + 16th (123-1)
http://dcoombsguitar.com/Guitar%20Music/Other/Killarney.wav

Example using triplets
http://dcoombsguitar.com/Guitar%20Music/Other/KillarneyTriplets.wav

The two blended together 8th + 16th and triplets

It does sound close at the given tempo. I slowed them down and looked at waveforms to be sure.

http://dcoombsguitar.com/Guitar%20Music/Other/Blend.wav

Thanks for those - saved me the trouble!
"It sounds close" for sure. But my point is it's still different. I can tell the difference without having them blended.

You seem to be agreeing that there IS a difference, just not regarding the difference as important, which is a different point.
I kind of agree, in fact. Which is why I said I understand why they've notated it in a way which is - strictly - incorrect.
It's arguably close enough like that, and the fact that dotted 8ths are easier to read than quarter+8th (in 12/8 anyway) over-rides the small rhythmic inaccuracy.

It's still true that jigs have the same feel and are normally notated in 6/8.

[rick-slo]

No, I said it was not triplet timing in the audio and that the audio matched the score.

BTW I had just changed my prior post and added the dotted 8th + 16th timing in a drum midi (with metronome) combined with the original recording
http://dcoombsguitar.com/Guitar%20Mu...mKillarney.wav
It is exactly in synch, even when I slowed it down in Audacity and checked the waveforms. The music score is copied from the original composer's score so I would not call it incorrect. Of course the tune can be played 6/8 and some do.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

I had just changed my prior post and added
the 8th + 16th in drum with metronome combined with the original recording
http://dcoombsguitar.com/Guitar%20Mu...mKillarney.wav
It is exactly in synch, even when I slowed it down in Audacity and checked the waveforms. The music score is copied from the original composer's score so I would not call it incorrect. Of course the tune can be played 6/8 and some do.

OK.
Personally I don't think it's exactly in sync, but it's not worth arguing about.

When you say the tune "can be played in 6/8", I would say it is being played in 6/8. The beats divide into 3 aurally (2+1 or 1+1+1) - it's a much more natural rhythm than dividing some beats 3+1 and others 1+1+1 (triplets).
The dotted 8th notation is a way of notating the jig feel (in 4/4 or 2/2) less fussily than 12/8. They don't really mean it must be played in 3+1 rhythm, which would be quite difficult, combined with the triplet sections.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by JonPR

it's a much more natural rhythm than dividing some beats 3+1 and others 1+1+1 (triplets).

That just happens to be the rhythm of the song however. Anyway, it's time for a new day.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

That just happens to be the rhythm of the song however.

If you say so.

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Anyway, it's time for a new day.

Suits me .

[Davis Webb]

For my nub input, it is 4/4. Not only is it on the Warner Brothers stationary but when I counted it out the triplets lined up well. There was some drift and I can see what yer all debating about, I learned alot reading this, great discussion.

But to me, when I count 4/4, its so easy to slide into the pulse and then I think the band members would take a lead off one player to syncopate. There is some anticipation in the performance, some of the notes lead off slightly ahead of the previous triplet, giving it a dynamic feel. Just staring into the soundhold cranking out 4/4 triplets is wrong in so many ways.

So I would have to side with Warner Brothers and Rick on this one, from where I sit, if I had to show someone the song, I think 4/4 is more natural way to think about this. Its not informed but input from the viewing gallery sometimes is helpful, like a town hall.

[mc1]

rick and jon,

i found this thread interesting and learned some things. i would have preferred you dicussed it in more detail (no joke) and at more length (no joke). i have to process it a bit more to grasp what i think i almost understand. for some reason thinking about the differences and samenesses of 2/4 with triplets compared with 6/8 tickles my brain. i will mention that with sibelius G7 there are quite a few options for playback with a swing (or lilt) feel.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by mc1

rick and jon,

i found this thread interesting and learned some things. i would have preferred you dicussed it in more detail (no joke) and at more length (no joke). i have to process it a bit more to grasp what i think i almost understand. for some reason thinking about the differences and samenesses of 2/4 with triplets compared with 6/8 tickles my brain. i will mention that with sibelius G7 there are quite a few options for playback with a swing (or lilt) feel.

You can read about meters and timing in great detail on many internet webpages.

In brief in this tune's refrain they have notated in the score 2/2 (cut time) for this march like (accent on every beat) tune. The beat falls on a half note, and there are two half beats per measure. In 6/8 time often the beat falls on the first and fourth eighth note, so there are also two even length beats per measure. So far so good when you just count on those beats and either would do. However when you count out each group of three eighths note in 6/8 time you will have a real problem fitting that in with the 123-1-123 timing.

On the other hand for example, say in a 6/8 tune the beat fall on the first and fifth eight notes. You are not going to make that rhythm fit into a 4/4 meter.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

You can read about meters and timing in great detail on many internet webpages.

Indeed. But why do that when we can continue to entertain our fans here?

(You are bringing up some different points here, which is why I'm back .)

Originally Posted by rick-slo

In brief in this tune's refrain they have notated in the score 2/2 (cut time) for this march like (accent on every beat) tune. The beat falls on a half note, and there are two half beats per measure. In 6/8 time often the beat falls on the first and fourth eighth note

More like "always" than "often"...

Originally Posted by rick-slo

so there are also two even length beats per measure. So far so good when you just count on those beats and either would do.

Well, in this tune, the alternative to one measure of 2/2 is two measures of 6/8, not one.
That does mean a slight difference of emphasis from 2/2, where the 2nd half-note is weaker than the 1st. Here's how they would line up:

2/2: 
beats (1/2 notes):   |1  .  .  .  2  .  .  .  |
6/8:
beats (dotted 1/4s): |1 . . 2 . .|1 . . 2 . . |

8th note triplets in 2/2 then match the 8ths in 6/8. You just get twice as many bars if it's 6/8, and you miss the subtle difference between the "1" and "2" in 2/2 (because they are both "1" in 6/8). Personally I don't think that's significant.

Originally Posted by rick-slo

However when you count out each group of three eighths note in 6/8 time you will have a real problem fitting that in with the 123-1-123 timing.

Not sure I follow what you mean by "123-1-123".

If you mean 6/8 (at this tempo) is too fast to comfortably count "1-2-3-4-5-6" (or "1-2-3-2-2-3"), that's true, but then 6/8 usually is too fast for that. That's partly why it's 6/8 and not 6/4.
If one wanted to verbalise all six 8th notes, then it would be "1-and-a-2-and-a".

Originally Posted by rick-slo

On the other hand for example, say in a 6/8 tune the beat fall on the first and fifth eight notes. You are not going to make that rhythm fit into a 4/4 meter.

Well, you could... But why would you?
In any case, if the beat falls on the first and fifth 8th notes consistently, then it should be notated in 3/4 .

6/8:                  <     <     <     <
          8th notes: |x x x x x x|x x x x x x |
beats (dotted 1/4s): |1 . . 2 . .|1 . . 2 . . |
.
3/4                   <   <   <   <   <   <
          8th notes: |x x x x x x|x x x x x x |
beats (1/4 notes):   |1 . 2 . 3 .|1 . 2 . 3 . |