Is the oft-heard count-in, which warns us that we are in for some serious Rocking!, incorrect?
We’ve all heard it many times:
One <beat> Two <beat> One Two Three Four!
Now, this is a two measure count-in right? In the second measure of the count-in we heard four quarter notes being called out, but in the first measure we hear two half notes being called out- on One and Three right?
Shouldn’t it be:
One <beat> Three <beat> One Two Three Four!?
I’m not claiming to be correct, I’m honestly looking for and answer (although I kinda think I am correct).
I’d say kt’s a matter of convention. You could say that a major scale is the 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 13 notes of the chromatic scale. But once you’re in the scale, when you say third, you mean the chromatic fifth. In other words, once you’ve settled on a count, everything adjusts accordingly.
You could consider the first bar cut-common (2/2) time and the second bar is in common (4/4) time. To take a stab at how it might of originated, it generally helps to think of most music these days as in 2/2 stylistically (or at least it helps to read it that way IME), but if the band comes in on the offbeat of four you want everyone to come in together. That’s just a wild-arsed guess though.
I concur with mrsam. The initial count (1 - 2) is essentially a cut-time counting of a measure. Then it is subdivided into 1, 2, 3, 4. This two measure lead-in allows the musicians to better prepare for the tempo of the piece. The tempo begins to be “felt” with the cut-time measure, then the full count measure solidifies it.
Typically this is only done for up-tempo music. For slower pieces, the conductor will simply conduct a four count lead-in. (for common time at least).
I was in a band once upon a time with a singer who was musically particularly clueless. She’d heard me or the drummer count the band in and one time wanted to count us in herself.
I’m particularly enamoured of people who count in (or click in) at a completely different tempo than the song - as if the count in is some kind of “on your marks” signal, rather than establishing the beat.
sigh
Count me in for the “convention” and/or “halftime->fulltime” explanation re: the OP.
Well, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that you all start together at the same tempo. You could grunt as long as everyone knew how many grunts there would be–or use Ted N.'s “Wang, Tang, Sweet PoonTang” as a tempo-setter. Yeah, it’s “beat 3” but who cares? And as jackelope says, that “accelerating toward the song” feeling is cool, too.
Because we usually count in eights. So the beat right before 1 is usually 8. I don’t know why dancers do this, but maybe because dances tend to be “slower” than songs. In other words, You can often fit as much as four notes into one beat (using 16th notes in 4/4 time) but it’s hard to fit four different dance steps into one beat, so it’s easier to get confused in a dance that’s counted in fours. (“The kick is on beat 3.” “Which beat 3?”) Of course the same problem could happen in music, but with a printed score it’s less of a problem. (“3rd beat in measure 92”)
Anyway, back to the OP: I agree that saying “three” is strictly more correct, but “two” sounds way better.
You’re thinking of a different matter entirely. As someone said, we’re discussing beats, not pitches. Remember the old Kit-Kat commercials (gimme a break, giiiimme a break)? They started off with exactly what the OP is talking about: someone yelling out numbers in order to set the tempo.