The rarely/never asked question about Time signature and Meter

If you ask 20 different persons about rhythm and meter, you'll probably get slightly different definitions. I would say: Rhythm is the organised alternation of sounds in time, with different durations. Meter and rhythm are connected and meter is the periodic pulsation that arises from the alternation of accented and unaccented moments. Note that I say sounds, since notes are only graphical representation. I also don't say tones because we may have noises and not tonal sounds.

This is what is rather odd about this rhythm discussion. What do "accents" have to do with rhythm? Accents are another dimension of music altogether: Dynamics. Accents do affect the "attack" of notes but don't actually -change- the rhythm of anything. Whether there are accents on beats one and three or not, the rhythm of four quarter notes is still constant. You can certainly use that dimension of sound (dynamics) to stress some beats and not others, but again, when we mix musical dimensions of sound like this, we're over-complicating the discussion.

Keep it simple. That's my motto :)

This is what is rather odd about this rhythm discussion. What do "accents" have to do with rhythm? Accents are another dimension of music altogether: Dynamics. Accents do affect the "attack" of notes but don't actually -change- the rhythm of anything.

They factor into rhythm by allowing multiple dimensions of it.

The written rhythm might be all 8th notes...but accents allow for MORE rhythms within that.

They factor into rhythm by allowing multiple dimensions of it.

The written rhythm might be all 8th notes...but accents allow for MORE rhythms within that.

How does the volume of a note determine its rhythmic value, exactly?

The argument -could- be made for something like staccato and legato markings (which affect note values specifically), but accents? Whether two different rhythms are occurring simultaneously or not, Accents themselves don't make those rhythms. Accents -expose- those rhythms. I see a tremendous difference here. Rhythm specifically deals with the temporal level of music, the horizontal occurrence of sound in time.

Accents are a dynamic tool for making a note louder and, thus, more prominent. If you want two rhythms to occur simultaneously, accents are important for making those rhythms more prominent, exposing them within the temporal soundscape. But accents have no -rhythmic- value as far as I'm concerned.

Accents change the way the rhythm sounds to the listener. 3+2+3/8 sounds different than 4/4.

1 2 3 4 (in 4/4)

is a different thing from

1 2 3 1 (in 3/4)

Accent is exactly what this topic is about isn't it?

"Accent" in the literal sense is a > sign above a note that signifies a different attack and volume for any pitch where it appears.

Now, "accents" aren't the only way to reveal a time signature. A waltz doesn't have to accent the first note for us to hear the second two notes and understand we're hearing a piece in 3/4. We hear this as "accentuated" because of the contour of the accompanying line as well as the melodic material occurring with it. Right? Wrong? I'm open to suggestions as to why you need accents to hear a waltz...

Similarly, accents don't have to be present to hear every time signature. You can hear a 4/4 meter through a harmonic rhythm of half notes and a melody of quarter notes. None need to be accented for the meter to be apparent, right? Wrong? I'm open to suggestions as to why you need accents to hear a time signature...

Accent is not what this topic is about. Rhythm is what this topic is about. Accents come to the fore when we're talking about adding dynamics to create or evoke different patterns in rhythm. These -can- be patterns that expose the time signature. They can be patterns that make the time signature completely unapparent. Hemiola and polyrhythms come from accentuation of certain notes within a rhythm. But accents aren't -rhythm- at all. They're a dynamic component of notation.

That's right and I couldn't agree more with you. (And I was thinking of mentioning hemiola, too.)

As for the word accent - I personally don't use it only in the 'literal', dynamic sense of the '>' sign (and that's not only me, I guess), so it could make for confusion sometimes. What you just described makes for the 'accentuation'. Dynamic accent appears only to support (or oppose) the revealing of the meter and affects the feel. Also, a syncopated 4/4 sounds different than a straight 4/4, but it's still 4/4.

"Accent" in the literal sense is a > sign above a note that signifies a different attack and volume for any pitch where it appears.

Now, "accents" aren't the only way to reveal a time signature. A waltz doesn't have to accent the first note for us to hear the second two notes and understand we're hearing a piece in 3/4. We hear this as "accentuated" because of the contour of the accompanying line as well as the melodic material occurring with it. Right? Wrong? I'm open to suggestions as to why you need accents to hear a waltz...

This is where the rhythm contradicts the metre (causing interest). The rythmical accent is on the 2nd beat, but the metrical accent is still on the first beat. I think you are confusing the two.

This is where the rhythm contradicts the metre (causing interest). The rythmical accent is on the 2nd beat, but the metrical accent is still on the first beat. I think you are confusing the two.

Entirely incorrect as far as I'm concerned.

The bass note of a waltz occurs on beat one, not beat two. The accompaniment establishes the mode of the harmony (major, minor, w/e) on beats two and three. There is no accent on either of these beats in the accompaniment. In the melody of a waltz, there -could- be an accent on any of the three beats. Regardless, we know the waltz is in 3/4 because of the configuration/contour of the accompaniment, not because of the melody or because of any -accent- in the accompaniment.

The dance steps of a waltz may be entirely different. Musically, though, I find it entirely impractical to say a waltz accents beat two. If it does, then it's not -that- common and definitely doesn't appear to be reinforced by the typical waltz accompaniment where the bass note sounds on beat one.

I read through these posts, but still these does not answer doubts I have. I fear to make mistakes in giving the general question... so I ask just through examples:

what does distinguish a meter of 2/4 from one of 2/2 or 2/8?

A lot of baroque themes are written in 3/2: can I rewrite the same in 3/4 by halving all values or this gives a different auditory effect (different playing from the interpreter)?

It's probably naive, but I never had a clear explanation (except invoking historical conventions).

Thanks

Many modern editions of old music change the value of the beat - very often changing minims for crotchets. So this would suggest that it makes no real difference. You could write it in semiquaver beats if you stipule a metronome mark that makes it the same speed.

However, I'm sure some musicians will tell you that a fast minim has a different feel to a slow crotchet, even if they last for the same length of time. But I think this is mostly nonesense.

So if you have 4/4 with crotchet=60, I feel this would essentially be the same thing as 4/2 with minim=60.