Bad Time Signatures

I'm just curious, how exactly do you propose to notate one single beat in a measure of , let's say 4/5?

I thought about your question for a while, and came to the following conclusion. Keep in mind, this is pretty much just a guess; don

I thought about your question for a while, and came to the following conclusion. Keep in mind, this is pretty much just a guess; don

For instance. Meter notated as 3/4. Chords changes are as follows: []=bar Numbers=beats

[1,3] [2][1,3][2][1,3][2]

There is a chord change every 2 beats. Unless this is a short section of the music, the meter marking is incorrect. It should indicate an even number of beats per bar - in line with the pattern of the melody or chords that accompany it. Would be the same if the chord changed every 4 beats, 8 beats, 16 etc.

This is an outdated view. Using a syncopated hypermeter like this is perfectly acceptable. Granted, a composer should not do something like this without giving it though and a reason for being this way, but I think that holds true for using even hypermeters as well.

yes, read my first post on the topic of non-standard denominators in time signatures.

the whole point is, notation has no way of notating anything other than the standard denominators.

a measure of 4/5 means each beat is a whole entity, each entity being one part of a quintuplet of quarters.

you have to be able to notate those single quintuplets... AND their subdivisions!

if your time signature requires you to notate each beat as "part of a tuplet", then you are simply adding complication for nothing.

the important part of a time siganture is the top number, that's where the interest lies.

Actually, in my composition class, when studying Ferneyhough and Carter, we learned how to do this. 4/5 is used exactly as a previous post stated: 4/4, but faster. The easiest way of doing this is by metric modulation:

Going from 4/4 to 4/5

Above the end of measure x, write one quintuplet quarter note. Above the final barline of measure x, write =. Above the beginning of measure y (immediately following measure x), write a normal quarter.

This tells the performer that the quarter in the following measure is 4/5 of a quarter in the previous measure, thereby making the following measure the equivalent of 4/5.

Actually, in my composition class, when studying Ferneyhough and Carter, we learned how to do this. 4/5 is used exactly as a previous post stated: 4/4, but faster. The easiest way of doing this is by metric modulation:

Going from 4/4 to 4/5

Above the end of measure x, write one quintuplet quarter note. Above the final barline of measure x, write =. Above the beginning of measure y (immediately following measure x), write a normal quarter.

This tells the performer that the quarter in the following measure is 4/5 of a quarter in the previous measure, thereby making the following measure the equivalent of 4/5.

is the subsequant measure IN 4/5?

how is it notated in each measure?

what rythmic unit is used as the base unit of beats?

or is the subsequant measure simply still in 4/4 but with a faster tempo?

if the latter, then what you are describing is simply a tempo change indication.

there's nothing unusual there, and it's not quite what the discussion was about.

to indicate "one quarter of a quintuplet is equal to one quarter of regular time" makes for a logical tempo change.

I'd have said this was either academic or pertaining only to the most modern music (in attempts to notate it with conventional notation), the province of computer music where it's possible with some accuracy. But over this week I've been working on a notated piece that has a cross-rhythm distinct from the metre of the main flow. I've so far resolved it with quintuplets, using accent marks and rests to group the notes into three beats in a dactylic or trochaic metre. As it's fairly regular it might be best just to say "quintuplet groups" over the passages in the score.

I have yet to find out if it's playable.

M

Well, yes... But is it a bad idea to have these signatures?

If you're writing the piece simply to put it in that irregular time signature, then yes.

But... if you have written it and it sounds good, then I don't see why not ;)

Yeah, really. No thing in music can be "bad." Performers might hate you, but eff 'em, they're a whiny lot anyway.

BTW, nice necromancy, composer238...

I think we've rehashed this discussion somewhere else on this forum before, but I wanted to point out a brilliant point by Montpellier on page 1:

It's a question of whether you want it performed or not but can't afford the Boston Symphony Orch (or similar) so you have to turn to a provincial orchestra - and if you have to rely on an amateur orchestra, take it from me - they'll probably never make it, even a good one - amateurs have one thing over professionals - if they don't want to play it, they won't.

Since the majority of you aren't in a position to write for professionals, why make things even harder for yourselves by guaranteeing it won't be played at all?

The piece of me that has been probably best liked by the amateur orchestra musicians who played it (at least they are telling me they enjoy it) is probably the least traditionally notated music I've written so far. All it takes is a good conductor who explains it to them. (Or you do that yourself.)

It's quite a mistake to think that everything that seems unusually notated makes it harder for the musicians to play. They might take longer to understand the notation, but once they do, an uncommon notation might actually prove much easier to realize for the musicians than tons of notes going up and down the staves of a traditional score. "Irrational" time signatures aren't necessarily hard to play, it all depends on the context they are used in and the reason why they are used.

I also agree more or less with Bolanos, that ease to play shouldn't be the primary concern of the composer in most cases and that you shouldn't make compromises to your musical ideas too quickly. But I'm not 100% sure of the absolute stance to just write what you feel you must without thinking of anything else. If I wanted that I would write merely electronic music, so I don't have to bother with performers. When I do write for actual performers I certainly also think of practicability and make some compromises, because what matters to me is the actual sounding music, not just the score, and I want to hear that music. It's not about selling it, or getting loads of concerts, it's mostly that I like to physically experience the music I write.

And if I'm writing something my performers can't play well, it won't sound like what I want it to sound anyways, so I still have to deal with a compromise in the performance - just that I couldn't decide on it. In that case I'd rather make small compromises myself before the performance and decide myself what I can accept to simplify and what is absolutely important to me. If simplifying some stuff means I get a performance that actually matches my musical intentions better, then it's an easy decision for me (well, not always). My compositions aren't made to be stored for eternity. I wouldn't mind much if all of my music was destroyed five years after I composed it - but I do want to hear it just once, as well as possible (and preferably not too long after I wrote it). That's the bit of luxury I desire.

I'm just against flat out saying "this notation definitely won't work practically" without trying it.

One of the orchestras I'm in recently did a piece by a local composer here that changed time signature lots and had complex time signatures and I noticed that the old people had difficulty grasping them, but all the younger people were fine.

It's becoming far more common in music and since, at least with ensembles I've played with, there's always encouragement for looking at contemporary works, younger musicians are quite comfortable with reading these time signatures with ease.

It think it's stupid to say people only use time signatures like 11/8 for the image and such. I mean... it gives a distinctive feel to the music.

I don't think there's any issue using complex time signatures in orchestral or chamber music, and if there is, there shouldn't be.