Time signature question

I'm currently writing a choral piece in 15/8 time because I'm trying to create an meterless feeling. Once I finish the piece, would it be easier to conduct and sing if I change the meter to three measures of 2/4 and one of 3/8, or should I leave it as 15/8?

:dunno: What do YOU want to do? How's your time?? Can you feel the 15 really well?

Personally, I'd leave it in 15 and just conduct five "big beats" as opposed to fifteen little ones. But all that hinges on how well you feel the pulse and your skillz both at sub-dividing and at conveying that time through your conducting.

...

Thanks for writing.

There aren't any discernible subdivisions, like 4+4+4+3, but the eighth note pulse is pretty prominent. There's nothing special about the 15 except for the beginning, where the harmony tends to change after 15 beats. But basically I just used 15/8 to keep me from establishing any kind of 4/4 or other regularly-metered downbeat. The 15 is not important to the piece, and once it's complete there's no particular reason why I shouldn't convert it into something that's easier to follow.

I like the idea of 5 "big" beats as long as it doesn't start imparting a 6/8 feel.

... There's nothing special about the 15 ...I just used 15/8 to keep me from establishing any kind of 4/4 or other regularly-metered downbeat. The 15 is not important to the piece, and once it's complete there's no particular reason why I shouldn't convert it into something that's easier to follow.

I like the idea of 5 "big" beats as long as it doesn't start imparting a 6/8 feel.

It might be tough to avoid giving it some sort of "internal pulse" within the 15 if you start conducting any subdivisions or break-downs.

Perhaps avoiding conducting anything other than a BIG ONE would help...assuming it's fast enough to easily feel the pulse.

I.e. instead of ONE two three FOUR five six SEVEN eight nine...

do this:

ONE two three FOUR five sex SEVEN eight nine ...

BIG ONE, beat the rest of the big five just to keep time...

does this make any sense? ...

Tempo makes quite a difference here too (especially in terms of conducting practability), so how fast will it be?

how the accents are divided ?

2,2, 2,2, 2,2, 3, ? (a hiccup beat ?)

3, 3, 3, 3, 3 (I've used that one, is very good)

other ?

The accented pulse beats are largely effected by the performer. Indicate that they subdue the down beat significantly and not let the audience hear it. It is still there and you still conduct it so nobody gets lost (I'd suggest 3 sub divisions of 5 if its fast, 5 divisions of 3 if its slow), but the audio effects of the pulse and down beats should then be irrelevant.

Also, how far along are you in the piece? Dont change anything already written, but feel free to change time signatures as much as you want as you progress through the writing of the piece. If you're looking for a meterless effect this is a great way to do it without getting lost as the conductor.

One more thing: Theres no better way to create a meterless effect than to not have any meter in the first place. Theres no measures, no down beat, not pulses, just notes. Its somewhat similar to modern chant notation with the addition of note values to indicate relative durations. Then just conduct it very freely (dont focus on exact motion of your hand, just ensure that every 8th note is marked or otherwise indicated...Try using a figure eight motion). This really only works well with slower pieces. If its fast go with one of the above suggestions.

leave it at 158. Or not. Your decision.

There are no subdivisions, just an 8th note pulse. The tempo starts slowly, ~108 (8th note) bpm, but gradually increases throughout much of the piece, reaching 144 bpm. As the tempo increases, the meter increases with it, to 16/8. 17/8 and eventually 18/8. The meters tend to reflect when the harmony changes. ("Morphs" might be more accurate, as different harmonies tend to overlap.)

I should add that I am writing this in Sibelius, so it is relatively easy for me to go back and change the meter to anything I want once the piece is completed. I am toying with the idea of just putting everything into 2/4. It will make the score easier to conduct and follow, but with all the notes tied across measures and harmonies changing at different points within the measures, there shouldn't be a noticeable 2/4 feel.

I hope to have a rough draft of the piece completed soon. I will post a notice when it's ready to share so, if you're interested, you can evaluate whether or not I've been successful in obscuring the meter and if the 2/4 approach works.

Be careful with the use of time signatures. A time signature indicates when the measure changes; at a measure change there is naturally a beat feel. When theres a downbeat happening the piece wont sound as "meter free" as you would like.

I wouldnt plan ahead what time sigs you're going to change to. The time sig reflects the song, not the other way around. Ie, if something doesnt quite fit dont adjust the notes, adjust the meter.

I still hold that you should just abolish the meter all together. Writing a "meterless" song using a specific meter is like trying to pour a pitcher of water down a straw. You're bound to get some through, but most of it will be lost.

(P.S. On a scale of 1-10 how was my analogy? Did it make any sense at all? Just curious...)

Good luck!

Sounds like you should use the 15/8 ... but you can change it if it's more suitable for some segments...

I would have to see the score to tell you when could be changed and what to put instead.

Meter has moved away from a pattern of stresses... Yes, the stresses exist, but if the music doesn't call for it, then it doesn't have it. Remember that in a conducting situation, meterless works are VERY hard to do, because the conductor (and players) will simply add the barlines.

yes,

Don't write meterless stuff, .... change the time in every bar if you have to, but no meterless.

Very true, at least if the music is otherwise conventionally notated. (There are of course certainly kinds of conducted music that work by totally different principles where it's logical to write meterless, but it doesn't sound like this is the case here.)

And Ferkungamabooboo is of course also very right about meter having moved away from stress patterns these days. Some meters however tend to give an impression of implied stresses more than others. A piece in 4/4 with tempo quarter=60 is for instance extremely typical for music where the measures are merely for orientation and not for accentuation (such as in the famous orchestral works by Ligeti, which very often are in this time signature and tempo). A 7/8 in relatively fast tempo however typically conveys a much stronger impression of accentuated note groups, if you don't write clear instructions that this isn't the case (or if the music itself is written in a way that makes this obvious), simply because of the fact that time signatures such as this first became popular in the "western world" in very rhythmically driven music, where the meter always has an important rhythmical meaning (such as in Stravinsky's music).

Personally, I think it's easiest for a conductor to give a meterless impression if the conducting pattern is relatively static and calm, without any hectic movements and tempo changes, which means irregular combinations of time signatures (like 2/4 + 2/4 + 2/4 + 3/8) might better be avoided in favour of more regular patterns (such as 5 times 3/8 or 3 times 5/8, also depending on how dense the score is). But in any case I'd always consider how you want it to be conducted. The conductor will probably split up a 15/8 time in -some- way, so you might as well consider it and give him a concrete suggestion.

But again, if I personally just wanted a meterless music I would take as simple a time signature as possible, with relatively slow beats (i.e. something like 2/4, 4/4, or 5/4). (Actually, a lot of my music is 4/4, quarter=60 too…)

I'm leaving town on Saturday and will be out of www contact for about 2 weeks, so I'm going ahead and posting a very rough draft of the song now just so everyone can get an idea of how it sounds.

I wrote the song in 15/8 but then added an extra 8th note after every accel., so it's really 15/8 then 16/8 at rehearsal letter C, then 17/8 at E, then finally 18/8 at G before returning to 15/8 at measure 71. Then, thanks to the miracle of Sibelius, I just converted the whole thing to 2/4 because I think it will be easier for the singers to follow that way. But then I inserted a few measures of 2/4 in a couple of places, so if I tried to convert it back to the way I originally wrote it all the measures would be off after letter G, although I can probably work around this if I need to.

To my ear there is no discernible meter, although the 8th note pulse is quite strong. But that's probably because the song is being performed by a computer. I don't know if live singers will, intentionally or unintentionally, superimpose a 2/4 feel to the piece. I guess I'll just have to wait until I can find a choir to read through it for me to know for sure if switching to 2/4 screwed the song up or not.

Anyway, I've attached a pdf of the score, and an mp3 can be found here: http://www2.potsdam.edu/simonega/Library/Silver_Dreams_7-23-09.mp3

As I said, I'll be leaving town for a while on Saturday, so I won't be able to respond to any comments posted after Saturday A.M. until I get back. Thanks a lot for everyone's opinions, comments and suggestions.

Silver Dreams 8-5-09.pdf

I think stravinsky did not mind if noone could conduct his sacrificial dance in the rite of spring. there are time signatures like 4,5/4 or 2+5/4.. you can write it as 15/8 or 4+4+4+3/8, as you want...

Plenty of people could and can conduct Sacre; just he couldn't :P

And things like 4.5/4 are really rather straight-forward and clear. (Usually it's just a different way of writing (2+2+2+3) / 8)

yes, the division of the "measures" always make everything clear ....

and I think some time changes in the Dance Sacrale are unnecessary....

and I dare to say that other even wrong .... (well this last phrase.... I'm not sure :D , let me check it ok ? )