Another one by Radiohead is 15 Step, written in 5/4 (and which has a repeating 15 beat riff).
Oh, Radiohead has got plenty of time signature experimentation going on. “2+2=5” is another example of 7/8 going into 4/4.
Answer: the denominator (x/8, x/4, etc.) does not tell how fast a song is played, so no, you can’t tell how it was written by listening to it. It’s only a relative thing. In 3/4, a quarter note gets twice the time value of an eighth note during one song, but there is no absolute value, like .05 seconds per note.
It is entirely possible to write the same song in 4/1, 4/2, 4/4, 4/8 or even 4/32 and all will sound exactly the same as long as the indicated tempo is adjusted.
However, it is standard convention today to use some denominators more than others; this was not the case in the past, before conventions settled down a bit. And due to notational quirks, there is something to be said for not using 4/32 or 4/1 – the former results in a lot of beams or flags; the latter, not enough stems and flags to make it readable.
In short, the meter is not the tempo.
Anecdote: When I was writing music in Hollywood for others, I would sometimes choose a time sig like 12/8 – 4 major beats, each subdivided into 3 parts. Some tunes (like slow blues) work perfectly in 12/8 (or 6/8, with twice the measures). But one dude refused to let me use that notation, requiring me to use 4/4 instead, with a forest of triplets (–3–). He said if I didn’t use 4/4, no one would buy the sheet music since they would be turned off by the “odd” time sig of 12/8. Good thing I didn’t have to arrange Take Five for him.
But isn’t blues and swing conventionally written out as 4/4? Most jazz lead sheets I’ve played from are probably better expressed as 12/8 (the feel certainly is 12/8), but it seems almost everyone uses the 4/4 convention, with a note to swing the eighth notes and triplets written out as triplets. Or are you talking about something slightly different?
Syncopation may be best counted out as something like 12/8 or 6/8 + 2 or whatever, and yet the sheet music still written in 3/4 or 4/4. Depends on whether you want to emphasize the longwave beats that constitute the measure or the faster beats each of which either does or does not get a pulse. Or, to put it another way, whether you do or do not want to count it finely enough that none of the pulses come in BETWEEN metered beats.
This piece is fundamentally in 3, but about midway through it cuts loose with some syncopation that is best counted as 18/8:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
You basically got a West Side Story type thing going on there, with 12/8 and 3/4 alternating.
Exactly what I was going to say (and did, but I got caught up fixing wiki before submitting). I would like to see this notated 12/8 3/4 (or 12/8+3/4) rather than 18/8, as the latter to me implies a triple of the triple 6/4. In other words, I’d expect it to be divided as (1 2 3) (4 5 6) (7 8 9) (10 11 12) (13 14 15) (16 17 18). The additive or mixed meter notation above makes it much clearer.
Still as long as the eighth notes were properly barred, it really wouldn’t matter. I’m just liking the newer, more specific time signatures.
12/8 + 6/8 would make more sense to me than 12/8 + 3/4 but yeah, it does convey more about the rhythm sequence than the 18 does.
Somebody should make a time signature that goes with the Fibonacci sequence. Didn’t Tool do something like that?
The aforementioned Lateralus.
The problem with 6/8 is that it almost always (at least in my experience) indicates a 3+3 subdivision. It’s normally duple compound meter. Now, I don’t think there’s any technical reason, though, that you can’t subdivide it as 2+2+2 (simple triple). Most sheet music for “West Side Story” does exactly that, but I do believe the original is notated as 6/8 3/4 as linked to previously. But, to my knowledge, that’s the only time I’ve ever seen 6/8 as simple triple. I’d be curious if there are any other examples of 6/8 as a simple triple meter.
I’d actually notate it as 3/4, as I think the predominant feel of “America” is established by the 3 quarter notes. Every time I try to keep the beat steady, I wind up with three parts to every measure, perhaps because it’s easier to sing 2 (or 6) in the time of 3 that 3 in the time of 2.
The Ocean is actually a little more straightforward than you portray it. The verse and the lead in to the verse are both three bars of 4/4 followed by one bar of 3/4. The chorus is 4/4, as is the a capella interlude. The outro is a swung 4/4, which might also be interpreted as 12/8.
If you want to talk about a Led Zeppelin tune that’s hard to wrap your head around, try The Crunge. I think it’s some combo of 9/8 and 5/4 but I haven’t really sat down and figured it out for sure.
Depends on the song. If the major beats in 4/4 are consistently subdivided into triplets by the melody, you can notate it with a triplet [–3–] pattern, which gets kinda clumsy IMHO, or use 12/8 and dispense with the "3"s. A band director would probably beat it as 4 beats to the bar either way. It’s just a matter of fitting the best notation to the situation.
Golden Brown by The Stranglers is an odd combination of syncopated 3/4 and straight 4/4 bars. It’s a strange effect.
What’s essential to the feel of an ordinary time signature is the somewhat heavier emphasis on the first beat of each measure. This anchors the flow of the rhythm in a regular, intuitive pattern. It also makes it easier to count out what the time signature is, because you can feel where each measure begins. There can be several relatively heavier internal beats in a meter, but the first one is the heaviest of all.
So as to the OP’s question: Yes-- the regularly recurring pattern of a heavier beat at the beginning of each measure is the foundation for the entire feel of the rhythm. The bar notation directly expresses the intuitive feel for the first beat. It’s further reinforced by how, as Spectre of Pithecanthropus noted above, the chords normally change on the first beat.
This is what James Brown referred to as “on the one”-- he used this phrase to direct the band to place an even heavier emphasis than usual on the first beat in each bar. By doing this, the rhythm developed a distinctive feel, and this is in fact how funk was invented.
Dave Brubeck’s “Blue Rondo à la Turk” is in a rapid 9/8 that’s divided up in an asymmetric way-- (2+2+2+3)/8. This is the equivalent of 3/4+3/8. Brubeck didn’t invent this-- it’s a traditional Turkish rhythm called karşılama. Which explains the title. Brubeck learned it from Turkish musicians who told him, “This rhythm is for us what the blues is for you.”
The alternation of 6/8 with 3/4 gives music a distinctly Spanish tinge, which is why Bernstein used it in “America.” The pizzicato second movement of Maurice Ravel’s 1903 String Quartet in F actually overlays 6/8 and 3/4 simultaneously-- the violins playing in 3/4 while the cello and viola play 6/8. This may have been the first polyrhythm used in European music, and it’s a simple one, because 3/4 and 6/8 are arithmetical equivalents. Of course, Africans had been playing far more complex polyrhythms for centuries already.
If it’s music and the fibonacci series, it’s been tried. Composers for centuries have experimented with it, but I don’t think it’s produced any superior music. I think one of the sillier things that has been tried is putting the climax of a piece at the golden section. Like if a song had 144 measures, the climax would come at measure 89. Because, as we know, when the listener hears measure 89 he’s thinking “Wow, if this song has only 55 measures left, it’d be so cool!”
Phi is quite possibly the coolest number in the world, but it doesn’t make better music, it’s not a gateway to other dimensions, and it’s not going to solve world hunger. People love to ascribe all sorts of magical powers to it, though.
I’ve seen it notated as 15/8, usually. I’ve always counted it as alternating 4/4 and 7/8, personally. Given where I feel the beats and accent placement are in the main riff, I don’t like calling it three bars of 4/4 and one bar of 3/4. Notating it that way, though it may work, would be a bit odd.
It should probably be noted that 12/8 and 4/4 with a shuffle feel are not really the same thing. There’s not really any great way to notate a shuffle feel. It’s also been tried as 4/4 with dotted eighth-sixteenths, but that really doesn’t get it either. I once read that the second note of a one-beat pairing is neither a third of a beat nor a fourth of one, but closer to two-fifths of one.
But if you don’t “get it” and have to go that deeply into the math, you’re probably incurably white and shouldn’t quit your day job with the Lawrence Welk Orchestra.
There’s this cute anecdote about the first rehearsal of Alexander Borodin’s 1887 Symphony No. 3 in A Minor. The scherzo is in 5/8, which the musicians had never encountered before. It had them baffled until the conductor told them to repeat “Rimsky-Korsakov, Rimsky-Korsakov”-- and then they got it!
Another unusual time signature used by Borodin, in the second movement of his Symphony No. 2 in B Minor, is 1/1 – arithmetically the equivalent of 4/4, but with all the rhythmic emphasis concentrated “on the one,” at a *prestissimo *(super fast) tempo, to give it a frenetic feel.
As for swinging the rhythm, we had a discussion about it last year, where **pulykamell **explained how “swing is expressed in a percentage.”