12/8 Time Signature - Confused

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by mchalebk

I gave myself an unexpected lesson in what I believe is sometimes call hybrid time signatures. I had written a song once without really paying attention to the time signature. When I decided to notate it using Finale, I was surprised to find out that it appeared to be in 4/4 time. The surprise resulted from the fact that I had presumed it to be in 3/8 or 6/8. After playing around with it a while, I finally figured out that it was in (3+3+2)/8.

My first thought was that the distinction wasn't really important. However, after thinking about it a while, I decided it did matter, because I wanted the 1/8 notes to be grouped as 3-3-2 per measure. Finally figured out how to notate it in Finale and came away a little bit smarter.

The standard term is "additive meter" (see my post above), not "hybrid".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_meter

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by bishopdm

Who said you can't have beats of different lengths? My ears pick up the groupings more readily than the individual eighth notes (I guess I'm more of a big picture person, in this regard).

I agree with the feel, but I see no reason why that can't be notated with a 9/8 key sig; no reason why 9/8 should always mean 3+3+3, just because that's the most common arrangement.

As MSchott says, in "blue rondo" the 4th bar is 3+3+3, and it would be unnecessarily fussy to keep switching additive time sigs. The 8th notes could be beamed differently to show the different rhythms if necessary.

Originally Posted by bishopdm

Ditto for the Allman Brothers piece.

Yes, that's an interesting one. How would you notate it? 11/8 in an additive 3+3+3+2?
It changes to regular 12/8 in the vocal. (Or two bars of 6/8?)

Originally Posted by bishopdm

Any other well known examples of irregular meters? I guess everyone probably knows "Take Five," right?

which is normally written as 5/4.
It's divided 3+2 throughout (or 6/8 + 2/4 to be precise), but there seems no need to indicate that with an additive time sig (and seeing as "5" in the title, after all ).

Here's two more in 5/4 with similar 3+2 divisions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsCyC1dZiN8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gnnBt9WcH0&feature=fvst

Radiohead's "Paranoid Android" contains sections in 7/8.
Pink Floyd's "Money" is mostly a 7/4 riff.
Peter Gabriel's "Solsbury Hill" is 7/4 throughout.

A list of others is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ime_signatures
- notice (if you want to trust wiki ) it lists a few in what it calls "9/8 (not ordinary triple compound)". That suggests 9/8 is indeed suitable for those pieces.

[AirWolf]

The ending of this song is in non-compound 9/16: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXTue...=youtu.be&t=3m

They fit it into 4 bars of 4/4 (the 9/16 phrase repeats 7 times [9x7=63 sixteenth notes] and then they add one extra 16th-note to fit it in four measures (64 sixteenth notes = four bars of 4/4)


The solo section of this song is in 9/4 (non-compound). The turn-around is 12 quarter notes but besides that it's in 9: http://youtu.be/eppUzxHTs7Y?t=4m10s

That whole song is really nice. I started the link at 4:12 because that's when the meter changes to 9/4, but if you have time check out the whole tune.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by AirWolf

The ending of this song is in non-compound 9/16: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXTue...=youtu.be&t=3m

They fit it into 4 bars of 4/4 (the 9/16 phrase repeats 7 times [9x7=63 sixteenth notes] and then they add one extra 16th-note to fit it in four measures (64 sixteenth notes = four bars of 4/4)

Sheesh - did you count that yourself? I'm impressed.

To be honest, I hear the 9/16 as compound (3+3+3). But - having listened carefully with my slowdown software - and translated the rhythm to notation (seeing as I don't have a life) - I can see the four 4/4 bars, even if I can't hear them. The splashy hi-hat is marking the quarter notes, but is swamped by that relentless 3+3+3 stomp of the 9/16; and the extra 16th seems like a lazy mistake; not helped by the fuzzy sound.
Those boys sure know how to have fun...

Originally Posted by AirWolf

The solo section of this song is in 9/4 (non-compound). The turn-around is 12 quarter notes but besides that it's in 9: http://youtu.be/eppUzxHTs7Y?t=4m10s

That whole song is really nice. I started the link at 4:12 because that's when the meter changes to 9/4, but if you have time check out the whole tune.

Yes, that's nice. Not quite my thing: I have a kind of philistine resistance to clever irregular metres (they both fascinate and irritate me), but the sound and playing is great.

[AirWolf]

Originally Posted by JonPR

did you count that yourself?

I learned this song from a transcription a long time ago, like 12 years ago. I learned the whole record over the course of about 2 years (rhythm guitar and most of the drum parts). My favorite band of all time, my favorite record of all time.

edit: The extra 16th isn't a mistake. Nearly the entire record is based around the concept of using odd 16th-note meters and fitting them into four bars of 4/4. The rhythmic cells range from 5/16 to 23/16.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by AirWolf

I learned this song from a transcription a long time ago, like 12 years ago. I learned the whole record over the course of about 2 years (rhythm guitar and most of the drum parts).

Two years for one record. My awe knows no bounds... (I take it you mean the album? Or just this track??)

Originally Posted by AirWolf

My favorite band of all time, my favorite record of all time.

OK. Not mine, but there you go .
While I can't say I like them at all, I can see they're the kind of band that have to exist. Just like the kind of guys that trek single-handed across Antarctica have to exist.
If they didn't we'd have to imagine them. But no - they're real heroes of the wild frontier .

Originally Posted by AirWolf

edit: The extra 16th isn't a mistake.

No, I realise that. I know it's no mistake, I was just saying it sounds a little like that (like they slipped out of time with each other) because the sound is not clean enough to make it totally clear what we're hearing. Maybe not much a looseness on their part (perish the thought) as a "what did I hear just then?" feeling.
(When I notated it into my midi sequencer - the 9/16 loop (just on one note for the sake of the experiment) plus a hihat keeping 4/4 time- the whole thing gained a kind of cool groove that I can't grasp in the original.)

[AirWolf]

Yeah they are definitely a pioneering band without peer.

I learned the record because I was listening to it so much. It wasn't really a goal as much as a complete infatuation and obsession with the songs and the grooves. I think a lot of us have those moments as teenagers where some band just blows our minds away and we think they are the coolest thing in the universe.

I bet there would be a lot of cool grooves if they slowed down some of the songs. They actually did this with one of the tracks.

Original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK0tjSvA17g

Slowed down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYRTeBRATnI