Something I’ve never understood:
“Cut time” vs. 4/4: Isn’t it the same freakin’ thing? Is there any difference at all?
Cut common time means you cut every note in half.
So it’s easier to write crotches but they’re played as though they were quavers.
It makes the chart easier to read without all the tails on the quavers (IMHO).
Someone please explain what the 4/4 is, I know it but in Spanish! Help me increase my vocabulary? puppy eyes
4/4 is the time signature, and it’s shorthand for 4 beats per measure with the quarter note being one beat (one-two-three-four). 3/4 is the “waltz” time, 3 beats per measure, but still with the quarter note being one beat (one-two-three).
Thank you, much appreciated!
Something I never understood: I know what 4/4, 3/4, 6/8 and so on are, and how they sound. But who decides that the beat should be a quarter note or an eighth note or whatever?
I mean, surely there is no difference between 4/4, 4/8, 4/2, 4/16 or even 4/1, except that you’d have to draw more or fewer tails on each note, right? There’s nothing intrinsic about a “quarter-note” that is different from a whole note, except the tempo.
Is it just tradition?
No, there’s no intrinsic difference between 4/4 and any other 4/X meter. In fact you could rewrite a 4/4 piece as 4/1, play it four times as fast, and no one would notice (except the players). Generally, practicality and readability are going to be the deciding factors; you’re pretty much not going to write in 4/16, because the beat divisions are going to just be a mess of ink.
As to who decides: generally the composer, or possibly the editor. Although there is no guarantee that the conductor will conduct it the way you want (he may decide to direct your 4/8 piece in 2/4, or some such).
This is wrong. “Cut time” is 2/2 time, i.e. there are two half notes in a measure; 4/4 has four quarter notes in a measure. This means, as the OP has noticed, that each measure is as long as a whole note. However, the beat structure in 2/2 is different than that in 4/4. If I were conducting a piece in 2/2, I would give one beat per half note; if the piece was in 4/4, I’d give a beat on every quarter note. Most British and American marches, for example, are in 2/2 time rather than 4/4.
Pretty much. There’s an ingrained perception among most musicians that “more flags means faster”, so composers will occasionally write things in “slower” or “faster” time signatures depending on how they want the piece to go. For example, Barber’s slow, mournful Adagio for Strings is primarily in 4/2 time.
Yes, there’s no inherent mathematical difference between a piece in 4/4 and the same piece written in 4/2 with the appropriate tempo change. But it’s not like there’s no rhyme or reason at all to the traditional system.
In the most common tempo, there are four beats or accents per measure-- this is how the music is supposed to sound, independent of the notation. Now if we define a ‘whole note’ as the note which takes up a whole measure (in the most common tempo), half note takes up a half measure, and so on, then 4/4 is the natural time signature. Now of course a half note doesn’t take up half of a 3/4 measure, but it’s still as close as you can get with a three-beat.
With that in place, the shape of whole notes, half notes and so forth are going to evolve so that they’re easiest to read in 4/4: quarter notes and eighth notes are the standard notes, while half and whole notes are easy to sort of skip over, and sixteenth notes attract close attention, etc.
So, you could transpose a piece to 4/2, but it would be harder for the musicians to read, plus they’d be wondering what you meant by writing in 4/2 and would be confused about how the music was supposed to sound.
Also, 4/4 is sometimes called “Common Time”, and denoted by a “C” on the staff where the time signature would normally go. Relatedly, cut time (2/2) is sometimes denoted by a “C” with a vertical line through it.
So, I assume these two variations are played at the same speed (whatever is dictated by the composer)?
And if so, this goes back to my original question; how would the listener know the difference?
And if you cannot hear a difference upon listening (as opposed to watching the conductor), then why does cut time exist?
Thanks!
It doesn’t make a very big difference when you’re listening, but it makes a HUGE difference when you’re playing (and being conducted by someone). MikeS said that he would give a beat for each half-note in 2/2. This means that each measure has two beats. In 4/4, he would give a beat for each quarter-note, so each measure would have four beats. This makes a really huge difference if you’re sitting there counting measures waiting to come in with your part.
Written music isn’t really for the listener (though it sometimes is…I used to listen to Brahms Sympony #4 and follow along with a little treasure of a scorebook that I found in our local library when I was a teenager), it’s for the musicians. That’s why there are things like double accidentals and time signatures that are almost indistinguishable by listening.
A listener who’s paying attention should be able to tell the difference between 4/4 and 2/2. In 4/4 (or 4/anything else), you’ll get a repeating pattern of strong beat - weak beat - medium beat - weak beat - repeat, while in 2/2 (or 2/anything else), you’ll get a repeating pattern of strong beat - weak beat - repeat.
I will say though, that in my experience, cut time is more often written as 2/4 than 2/2. That’s a distinction which you won’t be able to make as a listener, and is only really meaningful when you’re looking at the sheet music: Basically, do you want a measure to be a full-note long, as in 4/4, or do you want a quarter note to have the beat, as in 4/4? It’s a matter of taste which is easier for the performers.