As a drummer I really like odd time signatures, for example the Pat Metheny Group song entitled "First Circle" is in 22/8... For fun, try memorizing and clapping the pattern at the opening of the piece.
I'm also a big fan of odd time signatures, especially those that change. A great example of this is Dream Theater's "The Dance Of Eternity": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ftRhsvvfBw In ~6 minutes, there are 104 time signature changes, largely between 3/2, 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, 6/4, and 7/4.
Another great one is Radiohead's "Pyramid Song": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbKQPqs-cqc It's in (3+3+4+3+3)/16 (depending on how you interpret it), and it's one of the hardest songs to count, as the last note is swung and deceptive. But it's a great composition.
Pyramid Song is in 4/4. If you only listen to the piano part, then you might think it's odd, but when written in 4/4 the notes are just dotted quarter notes and half notes. The drum part is more revealing of the 4/4 time signature.
This doesn't really follow, to me. If you count out the piano part, you get the groups of 3 pretty quickly, then the group of 4 that sits in the middle is immediately apparent.
Counting the drums, to my ear, gives (5+4+4+3)/4, not 4/4. But admittedly, those could be counted differently.
I definitely disagree completely that this song is in 4/4, though the exact groupings can be tough to determine.
Dave Brubeck's Time Out has some well-known examples of interesting time signatures. My favorite is Kathy's Waltz [1].
The second half of the song includes a section in which the drummer maintains a 3/4 waltz beat while Dave improvises over top, seamlessly moving between the 3/4 waltz and a 4/4 swing.
I don't know of any other similar performances, but would be interested if anybody can recommend some.
[Edit] Having just listened to it a second time, it's actually more interesting. The drummer is playing a kind of 6/8 but using the hi-hat on every other beat. The bass player is placing notes on beats 1 and 4, and Paul Desmond and Dave are improvising on top. I'd be interested in others' assessment of what's happening in that second part of the song though.
The song "Hey Ya!" by Outkast is in 11/4 time. There's no shortage of prog rock and prog metal in unusual time signatures but for a catchy hit song to have such a quirky rhythm was unusual.
First Circle is one of the best (and hardest) songs that my former jazz orchestra played - I was on drums. We used a score from UNC, I believe.
You're right that the time signature is effectively 22/8. Our charts were written in 12/8+10/8 alternating (22 beats) but there were 4 bars of 12/8 and one of 8/8 at the end of the verses. I think the solo sections were mostly 12/8.
The song works best if the whole band feels the accented rhythms, rather than explicitly counting everything. But when it comes together, it is a powerful piece of music.
that piece is pretty awesome. rather more difficult to figure out than the terminator theme with all the syncopation and what not.
I've always loved odd time sigs. I recently got turned on to Indian classical tabla music, which is utterly ridiculous.. I'd say the gap in complexity vs the above is comparable to 22/8 vs 4/4.
It seems to me that time signatures assume a particular model of musical structure that doesn't apply to this score. According to the article, the sequence was looped a little short of a complete measure. So there's no reason to expect a rational time signature.
It's kind of like creating music that repeats every π (pi) beats, and people arguing if the time signature is 25/8 or 22/7. (Actually that might be an interesting piece of music.)
On the latter part, you might want to check out Wikipedia's list of musical works in unusual time signatures[0], which includes:
> "[Study] No. 40" for two non-synchronized pianos, version for player piano (punching score) by Conlon Nancarrow contains the mathematical constant e beats of pi.
Along those lines, here's an interesting video of a drummer playing various looping samples of dialogue from movies or TV and finding a bizarre time signature that is a "close enough" fit. http://youtu.be/MHft4OR7Rus
As a classical musician it took me about three bars of audio to figure out that this was 3+3+3+2+2. I'd call it 13/8 rather than the 13/16 which the article suggests, but that's mostly a non-difference.
Edited to rephrase this as a question as I'm not so sure any more :p
If it were 13/8, wouldn't each bar would comprise two 'patterns' (forgot the correct term) with the second beginning halfway between beats 6 and 7? IMO makes less sense than it beginning at the start of a bar of 13/16.
It would be relatively simple to plot steady subdivisions on the waveform and measure things closely. I don't have the software to do that right now, but I'm curious. It's definitely not exactly 13/16 (13 sixteenth notes), and definitely not exactly 7/8 (14 sixteenth notes), but it does feel closer to the former.
Since we're comparing music with weird time signatures: Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, "Promenade" section, he wrote in 11/4 time, but it's usually published as alternating 5/4 and 6/4 because, presumably, performers find that less strange. Mussorgsky is notorious for having spent most of his life in a drunken stupor, including, or perhaps especially, when composing.
he wrote in 11/4 time, but it's usually published as alternating 5/4 and 6/4 because, presumably, performers find that less strange
Oh god. I hate it when editors do this.
I can't think of any musicians who find this any easier -- quiet the contrary. I think this practice originated in the early days of typeset music, when there were letter blocks available for 5/4 and 6/4 but not for 11/4.
Whichever way it's printed, we just pencil "3 + 2 + 3 + 3" into our parts anyway...
The story I heard is that Mossorgsky wrote it that way because he walked with a limp. He wrote his limp into the time signature. This is probably an urban myth, as I can't seem to find any verification of it on line in a quick search.
Fascinating. I think it's particularly tricky because I'd argue it's not 13/16, but rather 6.5/8, in terms of where we intuively feel the beats. (Like the traditional difference between 4/4 and 2/2.)
But fractional top numbers in the time signature basically don't exist -- this is the first time I've come across something that feels like that -- hence why it's so hard to pin down.
13 subdivisions still isn't quite perfect, but it's closer than 14 (i.e. 7/8). It's somewhere in between, which makes sense considering the composer just manually looped a sample that wasn't an exact measure of any standard time signature.
Can someone explain what a "standard time signature" is, in terms of frequency, for someone who has no clue whatsoever about music theory? As far as I understand it, there's a duration which loops (e.g. 0.5 sec for 120 bpm) and then you subdivide that into something (I guess).
How can this not be an exact measure of a time signature, since you can pick an arbitrary amount of time, loop it and subdivide it into parts?
There are a number of different subdivisions. First there is the bars, that you could define as a complete cycle. Inside the bars there are beats, often 2 or 3 per bar, most often 4. Then each beat is divided in 2 or 3 parts.
Then you can play it slower or faster, that's the tempo.
Notice that it's just about the rythm of a song. The actual notes you can place on it wherever you feel. Of course you want them to match some subdivision for them to feel "right" but often intentionally shifted for expressivity (swing).
Some standard signatures are:
4/4 - Bars of 4 beats naturally divided in two (most songs)
3/4 - Bars of 3 beats naturally divided in two (waltz)
2/4 - Bars of 2 beats naturally divided in two (march)
12/8 - Bars of 4 beats naturally divided in three (used in blues)
The /4 or /8 difference is moot. It's the duration of the beat, but you can compensate it with tempo.
That helps, thank you! Given that bars contain beats, why is the Terminator theme such a mystery? Doesn't it also have bars that contain beats? Or is the problem that the beats are so irregular that they aren't spaced somewhat evenly in the bar?
The term "standard time signature" isn't a technical term. I just meant it to refer to time signatures with relatively low integers, as opposed to something crazy like 101/32.
This is 7/8. Your counting pattern doesn't line up. If it did, the first group of the "12 12" would hit the accents set up by the groups of 3. In other words, it would be _4_ evenly spaced notes at the beginning of the phrase:
X__X__X__X_X_
Notice how the four first notes each have 2 rests between them? That's not what is in the audio. The groups of two are delayed. The actual counting pattern is: 123 123 1234 12 12
X__X__X___X_X_
Putting the second unaccented note in gets:
XX_XX_XX__X_X_
The correct rhythm is:
| 1e_a 2_+a __+_ 4_ | 1e_a 2_+a __+_ 4_ |
7/8
If you're playing it hand to hand, try this:
RRL RRL RRLL RLRL
Rather than 13/8 I would say it was alternating 9/8 (three triplet beats, 123123123) and 4/8 (2/4? same thing right? 1212) measures. I guess that's just a matter of notation, but I'm used to seeing it like that in heavy metal that will throw in a 2/4 once in a while where needed.
Yes, it could be printed that way. Every classical musician I know hates it when editors do that, though -- it's exactly the same amount of work to keep track of the beats, but the alternating time signatures eat CPU cycles because you have to make sure that every change is the one you expect.
Actually the rhythm is XX-XX-XX-X-X- where each X or dash represents a beat (or half a beat). You're lopping a beat off at the end and there should be a full beat's rest between the last two notes (and not two beats' rest between those and the previous note).
If you would have one beat a few milliseconds off, would that turn your 6/8 into e.g. 619/824?
There is no strict boundary between which streams of sound are music and which are not, so have fun analyzing whatever else will come up.
If I were annotating it, I would use some ad hoc notation. I would probably just say 13/16 with a note to add a quarter beat (or something like that) to the end of each measure. Another option might be decimal signatures, like 13.25/16.
That would actually be the Terminator 2 soundtrack. The soundtrack from The Terminator would go “DAH-doonk, doonk, dah-doonk, gonk gonk.”; i.e. 2-1-2-2 instead of 2-2-2-2.
(Yes, this annoyed me back when Terminator 2 came out. Why, yes, I am old.)
Time signatures are extrinsic to a piece of music; a 3/4 piece can be also be written as a x/y piece, it will just be confusing for the musicians to follow.
It sounds and feels like 7/8 to me. So it's 13/16, cool stuff! I have a clock at home that plays the Big Ben Westminster Chimes in 5/4 time. Once I figured out it played in 5/4, I think of "5" now every time I hear it. There is a definite art to creating melodies that feel good in odd time signatures.
Here's from my brother (classically trained orchestra musician and electronic music composer):
I checked the cd version I have in cubase with a click track playing the accents: it's 13/8 (3+3+3+2+2), 194 bpm. You can hear the click being stable throughout, without any adjustments (ok, it might be .0x off due to slightly different midi timing from Cubase and his gear) - if this weren't the tempo/meter, it would drift a lot.
The reason for the confusion is probably the sloppy/free live playing in some of the lines. I imagine he had a click track or some quantised line running (like the opening percussion), and played the rest live (even the percussion/string hits in the middle, that sound a bit rushed and sloppy).
I think the whole 8ths/16ths etc about how the score should be are irrelevant in electronic music, unless you were to transcribe it for someone to play.
I can't agree with that. 3+3+3+2+2 means that the first four notes are all evenly spaced. Tap the accent with your hand. The fourth note is delayed. The pattern is actually 3+3+4+2+2. 7/8.
And the tempo is definitely faster than 194 - it's closer to 212. Are you sure your brother listened to the right track?
Actually, had another listen (and put it into a DAW). We're both wrong (but I'm more wrong). It's closer to 3+3+3.1+2+2.
The groupings of 2 are delayed, but not by a full 16th note.
So it's neither straight 7/8 nor straight 13/16, but a bit in between. Definitely much closer to the 13/16 others are saying, but with enough of a hesitation that a 16th note grid doesn't actually line up. 13.1/16?
He checked again. If we're being pedantic, 13/8 at 194.086 bpm is more accurate once you line up the more percussive elements in the middle of the track with a downbeat in the sequencer properly.
The actual tempo was probably 194 bpm, and the slight deviation has something to do with equipment or the transfer (tape speed, midi timing, whatever). Also consider the unquantised playing, slower attack times in some sounds, his gear etc. I wouldn't be surprised if a contemporary classical composer thought "You know what, no one's done a 13.1/16 piece - I bet it would be amazing. Such inspiration. Much genius", but I don't think that applies here. No reason to complicate things.
He made an mp3 with a ride cymbal doing the opening pattern throughout the track; 13/8 no tempo alterations, at 194.086 bpm, and it's pretty much spot on.
Obviously, it's a straight 4/4 ("Common Time")[0], with some swing and played tempo rubato ("robbed time")[1]. This is where the time allocated for the various beats is pushed around a bit by the performer to add character or emotional qualities. Very often, when the phrase "..with feeling!" is really speaking about rubato (or conversely, any "mechanical" quality a performance may have). "Stop playing it like a robot; now stat again, with feeling this time!"
So many people have a hard time picking out the meter, because they are still using an incorrect assumption: that time (meter/tempo/beats/etc) in music is regular/consistent - or even well-defined in the first place.
The important part to remember, when speaking of time-signatures, meter, and music theory in general, is that what's written (or even what was intended by a composer) is only a guide. They've drawn a model on the page, that is intended to help express how you go about playing a song, but just as "the map is not the territory", a quarter-note is not necessarily 1/4 of a measure in time[2].
This used to be more explicit in the Baroque era: you would see very simple notation on the page, and the performer was supposed to infer (and ad-lib their own) "embellishments" or "ornaments"[3] as they played.
This doesn't apply to all music, and some songs would not work without their strict, mechanical interpretation of meter. Of particular note is "martial music"[4], which is often quite regular/low-rubato, and the Terminator theme has some march-like qualities such as its iconic sharp-beats. Martial music could be appropriate for Terminator's subject matter, too. Instead, we get a really-modern[5] song that was likely performed directly, skipping the sheet music step entirely. That's the thing about music; you can't really shove it all in to nice, neat pidgen-holes, and if you could, some artist would just go and write a song that broke everything, for the lulz.
As the article mentions a Prophet-10, you also have to take into the considerations of the hardware involved, and how that influences everything, in large and/or subtle ways. If you're interested in the topic of how hardware and creativity are intertwined, LFT (Linus Akesson) gave a very interesting talk on the subject: "Poems for bugs"[6].
[0] There are other acceptable interpretations, of course, but that makes no difference.
That's a bit of a stretch (pun intended). This is clearly electronic music, or at least a consistently looping sound of some sort. Robbed time implies a live performance, and each measure definitely wouldn't be tempo shifted in exactly the same way.
About the impact of hardware on creation, Jay Dee (famous hip hop beatmaker) started creating musing by recording samples over tapes. I recall an interview he had to sync things with a pencil. Same result, weird swing, odd pulsing time. People even rejected it at first because it was too strange.
I'd maybe agree with you if this was organic music played by real people, but it's all electronic, so you can guarantee someone entered 13/8 into their sequencer's time signature.
The history of [digital] electronics does not fit with our modern neat notions of how things exactly must be. I've been there, seen the extraordinary contortions taken to make things work at all on equipment we'd consider completely incapable thereof; explaining why things worked out a particular way requires explaining how bad things were (relative to our norm) and, given such atrocious platforms, what mentally painful rationalizations gave rise to what needed doing - and the strange artifacts which accompanied those achievements.
The composer didn't "enter 13/8 into the sequencer's time signature." He recorded a sequence, then hit "repeat" at an inopportune moment which, serendipitously, led to the effect he was looking for. We take for granted setting time signatures as an absolute act framing the subsequent content inserted therein; wasn't so neat & tidy back then.
Because we take certain automatic framing processes for granted (to a near-exestential degree), we cannot create such art without great deliberative effort, and have great difficulty understanding why such art happened when it did.
As the article clearly says, the piece was never explicitly composed for any specific time signature; the signature it ended up with was almost an accident.
Wow, It's so weird to read this well articulated, seemingly well informed response and then listen to the piece. I can feel 7 grouped as 2 2 3 pretty comfortably, though I guess that gives it an extra 16th note. "Obviously its straight 4/4" is so wrong, my god- I'm sorry, you cant defend that as an "interpretation"
Your first sentence is simply incorrect. The time signature is not 4/4; it is 13/16. The author of the article even states this at the end. Several HN commenters with a music background also independently and very quickly came to this same conclusion themselves.
The rest of your comment has nothing to do with the article or the song. It's just you rambling on an unrelated tangent about music theory in general.
Back before formalised sheet music we had a better timing resolution apparently. Lots of music was lost in the adoption. Some folk players I know tend to avoid formalising anything and just playing entirely by ear with no sense of timing at all. Always sounds good.
Personally my timing is awful. Whether or not that sounds better or not is up to the listener to decide :)
Because I can't remember how to phrase an up beat in an */8 time signature, think in terms of 7/4 for a moment. You can clearly hear the repeating percussion pattern on these notes throughout the entire track:
Very close. The first beat comes in a little bit too soon to be 7/8... try tapping it out and you'll notice. Tapping with your first two taps on the first two drum hits will get you the right tempo.
The reason that it can sound so close to 7/8 is because 7/8 = 14/16, which is only one sixteenth off of 13/16.
13/16 still isn't perfect. There is something like an extra quarter beat every measure, as in 13.25/16. Of course, that makes it closer to 13/16 than 7/8.
http://www.halfstepup.com/articles/odd-time-signatures-in-co...
http://youtu.be/4YeoIn5-mSs