Dump traditional rhythmic terminology: a thought experiment

[stubbsonic]

Of course, members are free to ignore any discussion. If, OTOH, one is only seeking responses in support of one’s thesis, the internet may not be the best place to propose it. Similarly, those with contrary views may also be successfully “ignored” but doesn’t that negate the whole concept of “discussion?”

Fair point. I over-reacted.

It looks like trying to solve a non-problem in an ancient way that has never worked.

This just seemed dismissive at first, but on re-reading, I get his point. Apologies, Mike.

Getting back on topic... I still fail to see the “problem” that is being presented.

Three problems:
1. Standardizing of 4-beats as "the unit of measurement" is clunky, and may lead to people thinking that 4/4 is the "most normal" starting point. Some of those people develop hardware and software that further hardens this thinking that 4/4 is simply it. It just forces a bias that 4/4 is somehow safer/better, etc. Granted, it is "safer" more "common" but not better. We could just as easily decide that a 3 beat cycle is the must pure and true and perfect beat grouping. Simply renaming the notes based on 1 beat, rather than 4 doesn't require any re-working of notation.

2. Time signatures often have a bit of ambiguity about how they are counted. So, for example in sight-reading a part for a musical, sometimes I have to add notes about where the beat is felt, and the actual printed time-signature itself did more to throw me off than help. And, again, I have dealt with a handful of iOS app developers who insist on using traditional time-signatures in their apps, but use them incorrectly which causes more hassles, and misses a potent opportunity to "teach" how time-sigs actually work. That last point is more a criticism of developers who have a superficial knowledge of theory. A slightly updated approach to time signatures would perhaps blend more effectively into modern sequencing.

[cuttime]

6/8 means that dotted quarters are the basis for the tempo beats, but most of these apps will still keep the quarter note as the basis. So you have to think in 3/4 as you work. Not impossible, but annoying.

I definitely think there could be a better way. The first time I was told that 6/8 was a "march" rhythm, my brain melted. I had been told that marches were in 2 since the 1st grade. I still have in incredibly hard time getting my head around Beethoven's "Ritmo di tre (and quattro) battute" indications in the scherzo to the 9th Symphony. Perhaps we could take a cue from DAWS and just reduce everything to ticks with accents where needed. (That would be incredibly awkward for humans, but just fine for computers.)

[stubbsonic]

As someone who plays Zimbabwean music, ...

Awesome! That sounds quite interesting. I don't think I've heard that music before.

...it often has a ternary group that is swung. It's a bit like a dotted 8, 16th, 8, but not really. Just a little longer first note and third note, and a bit quicker 2nd note. It really is a lovely feel. It's referred to as swing, in the states. I don't know if they have a word for it in Zimbabwe or not.

In México a lot of folk music does exactly what you mentioned above, combining compound and simple times, even at the same time by different musicians, so you get that sort of "clave" feel of takutu takutu taku taku taku.

Yes! I've heard that kind of "gallup" in Mexican music as well. So sweet to hear off-grid music that grooves so hard. Here's a pretty nice example of Zimbabwean music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1M69Gw ... gs=pl%2Cwn

And what about real odd time? Our current system is not particularly inviting to use them.
Maybe that's a reason why so much folk music around the world is so rhythmically free, adventurous and interesting, since they do it by feel or even to accomodate lyrics, rather than following alien western academic tradition. Thankfully! (for the sake of music variety/diversity).

I agree. Sometimes composers/ensembles that feature non-standard meters, will still need to navigate the limitations that are imposed.

I once worked with a sort of folk singer-songwriter whose music often defies notation, especially with regard to rhythm. There were times when (sadly) we did have to adapt something so that others could play with her, but I avoided this as much as possible. But the things she did were so organically gorgeous and resonant.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

So I am thinking of=n this now (thanks a lot... lol) and the other thing that occurs to me as a composer is that your system implies a kind of 'rhythmic certainty' to the music at hand. So that going from 3/4 to 6/8 (three beats of one v. two beats of three) would require a meter change?

Or are you proposing eliminating bar lines? I'm just having a very hard understanding your time sig format. You seem to be inserting the concept of somewhat exacting ratios to the time sig. IMO, those are better defined in the phrasing of the notes.

[stubbsonic]

The thing that I'm proposing isn't all that dramatic.

Keep the note values, keep the barlines, keep the concept of a "sign-post" that gives you a hint what to expect. Just change the names of the notation values, and tweak the format of the time-sig.

If a piece alternates between a 3/4 feel and a 6/8 feel, the time signature could just say either (as it does now), again, choosing the one that is most prominent.

My shoot-from-the-hip three item signature could be brought down to two. Simply show the number of beats in the measure, and actually show the note value (just show the actual note symbol itself) that gets a beat. Not really a change, but it fixes the issue with 3/8, 6/8, 9/8, 12/8 which don't follow the rule. If it was to stay in a two number format, then we might only need one or two new numbers. How to show a dotted-solid-notehead-with-stem? 1.5 Is that all we need? 6/8 would just be 2/1.5; i.e., two beats in a measure, a 1.5 (dotted-"whole"-note) gets a whole beat.

The two numbers would answer the question of "scaling" because if you saw anything but a solid-notehead-with-stem (something other than a "whole"-note), in the denominator, you'd know it was "scaled". Cut-time would be 2 over a hollow-notehead-with-stem, showing the scaling. The only other time scaling would come into play is where a software developer has to know to scale the values of notes based on the time-signature selected.

Let's just do all that and put this baby to bed.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

1. Note values are based on 4-beats. Leaving aside the implication that measures "should" be four beats long, or that the very suggestion of it may have been a self-fulfilling prophecy. It makes the note-value-names sound needlessly confusing. A half-note gets two beats, an 8th note gets a half-beat.

So before we bury the baby, let's get back to your initial reservation.

I disagree that note values are based on 4 beats. Note values are, in fact, simply a method of dividing a set space of time. A pulse, and yes, also called a beat. It is logical to keep the subdivision simple. Divide by 2, or 3, or 4, or for more experienced players, 5s, 7s, etc. It is true that a lot of music (especially in the Western Classical tradition) is in 3 or 4 or 6 or 9 or 12, but is that because the subdivision paradigm is faulty?

I think about "pulse" and phrasing in the music, not necessarily bar lines. By far, my biggest complaint with most popular music is it's nearly total reliance on hard down beats (or alternatively, hard off beats) but always repeated at a set time, and that has me wondering if that isn't what you are actually finding objectionable.

In that sense (if you will entertain the assumption for a moment) you may be blaming the victim instead of the culprit. The culprit being contemporary culture, which has reduced music to three chords and 4 beats.

Seriously, I cannot think of one valid reason to change the way music is currently notated. I can think of a lot of ways that music can be conceived and played and the current notation system has yet to stump me in memorializing my musical intentions. Maybe I'm just simple...

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." ~ Leonardo da Vinci

[Phil O]

Seriously, I cannot think of one valid reason to change the way music is currently notated. I can think of a lot of ways that music can be conceived and played and the current notation system has yet to stump me in memorializing my musical intentions.

I agree. However, I think there are times when the current system doesn't convey all the info necessary to play the piece. In those situations a simple note at the beginning of the piece is all it takes make things clear (most of the time).

For example, you may write a piece that has the feel of a measure of 4/4 followed by a measure of 2/4 - and that pattern repeats throughout. Writing it in 6/4 with a simple note that it should be played as 4 + 2 (or however you want to explain it) makes it easier to write and easier to read IMO. But I don't think a different system of writing would be that helpful.

Phil

[stubbsonic]

So before we bury the baby, let's get back to your initial reservation.

I disagree that note values are based on 4 beats.

The values aren't based on 4 beats. The NAMES are. How many beats does a whole note get? The implication is that a note is "whole" because it takes up a whole measure. So we infer that in order for either a measure or a note to be whole, it is four beats long.

Note values are, in fact, simply a method of dividing a set space of time.

But the NAMES are always dividing 4 beats worth of time. Half, quarter, 8th, 16th.

What I'm asking for is simple. You may be trying to make it more complicated.

A pulse, and yes, also called a beat. It is logical to keep the subdivision simple. Divide by 2, or 3, or 4, or for more experienced players, 5s, 7s, etc. It is true that a lot of music (especially in the Western Classical tradition) is in 3 or 4 or 6 or 9 or 12, but is that because the subdivision paradigm is faulty?

The paradigm of subdivision is fine. The NAMES of the subdivisions are stupid. Divide by 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. that is relatively simple, but we will call them 8th, 8th-triplet, 16th, quintuplet (5:4, five in the space of four, with sixteenth beams).

I think about "pulse" and phrasing in the music, not necessarily bar lines. By far, my biggest complaint with most popular music is it's nearly total reliance on hard down beats (or alternatively, hard off beats) but always repeated at a set time, and that has me wondering if that isn't what you are actually finding objectionable.

In that sense (if you will entertain the assumption for a moment) you may be blaming the victim instead of the culprit. The culprit being contemporary culture, which has reduced music to three chords and 4 beats.

I hadn't been thinking this is a criticism of current pop, though I did mention that my gripe #1 might be a contributing factor to the ubiquitousness of 4/4 with 16ths, and the lack of rhythmic imagination in most current pop.

In your scenario who is the victim and who is the culprit?

Seriously, I cannot think of one valid reason to change the way music is currently notated.

Sigh. Again, I've not suggesting changing the way music is notated. I've suggested a slight modification to time-signatures themselves, and changing the names to which we refer to note-values. The notation itself would stay the same.

I can think of a lot of ways that music can be conceived and played and the current notation system has yet to stump me in memorializing my musical intentions. Maybe I'm just simple...

I'm just wanting to make two things simpler.

I do understand the confusion, as my initial post was very poorly worded. I hadn't quite clarified it for myself. I've revised my initial post for clarity.

[Phil O]

How many beats does a whole note get? The implication is that a note is "whole" because it takes up a whole measure. So we infer that in order for either a measure or a note to be whole, it is four beats long.

This is simply not true. We don't infer anything. The time signature TELLS us how many beats a whole note gets. If, for example, the bottom number is a one, it gets one beat, no inference required. A quarter note is simply a quarter (of the time value) of a whole note. Same goes for 1/8, 1/16, or whatever. You have to start somewhere if you are going to subdivide things and the logical place to start is with 1, then use fractions from there. A whole note is not "whole" because it takes up a whole measure. It's whole because it is the starting place for the subsequent subdivisions. It could have just as easily been called a ONE note. When I teach time to my young students I tell them to think of a pie. There's the whole pie, half the pie, etc. How many pies in a measure? Well, you won't ever know until you look at the pie signature...err, time signature.

Phil

[stubbsonic]

How many beats does a whole note get? The implication is that a note is "whole" because it takes up a whole measure. So we infer that in order for either a measure or a note to be whole, it is four beats long.

This is simply not true. We don't infer anything. The time signature TELLS us how many beats a whole note gets. If, for example, the bottom number is a one, it gets one beat, no inference required. A quarter note is simply a quarter (of the time value) of a whole note. Same goes for 1/8, 1/16, or whatever. You have to start somewhere if you are going to subdivide things and the logical place to start is with 1, then use fractions from there. A whole note is not "whole" because it takes up a whole measure. It's whole because it is the starting place for the subsequent subdivisions. It could have just as easily been called a ONE note. When I teach time to my young students I tell them to think of a pie. There's the whole pie, half the pie, etc. How many pies in a measure? Well, you won't ever know until you look at the pie signature...err, time signature.

Phil

Thanks, Phil. That is helpful and clarifying.

So we have these choices. A "whole note" can be a whole measure, if it is in 1/1, 2/2, 4/4, 8/8. The time-signature not only shows you on the bottom how many beats is a whole note, but the whole fraction shows you how much whole note pie you have in a measure. Fair enough.

With ternary time signatures of 8ths (3/8, 6/8, 9/8, 12/8, etc) we have this special case where we know that 8ths are grouped into beats, and that was necessary because we didn't want to say that a whole note gets 8/3's of a beat, which would correctly make the time signature 2 over 8/3 ; i.e., two beats per measure, a whole note gets 2 2/3 beats) and the entire measure is still 3/4 of a whole note.

If the bottom number defines how many beats in a whole note (and we aren't inferring anything), then we just have a system that works a little more elegantly for binary structures. And where I was saying our system seems to favor 4/4, I should perhaps correct that to say that our system favors binary rhythms. And, because of the way the note values and time-signatures get used, it still adds a bias of four, because a "whole" always divides into two/four parts. And in early days for kids, that pie, is almost always 4 beats, and if it's 3/4, then it makes it seem that a measure is incomplete, i.e. un-whole.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

I'm just not seeing the problem you are presenting. If it's how the notes are named and not anything else, it becomes a semantics problem.

What I am failing to understand is what the actual problem you or your students are experiencing. The notation paradigm has worked in notating some very complex musical structures and also is efficient in representing "less sophisticated" musics.

Where is the disconnect that you feel needs to be addressed? If it's simply because your students don't "understand" it (or you cannot justify it to them adequately) then the actual problem may lie elsewhere.

[stubbsonic]

I'm just not seeing the problem you are presenting. If it's how the notes are named and not anything else, it becomes a semantics problem.

I suppose the note names issue is merely semantics. However, it is also a mental framing or mapping of how rhythm is to be thought about; and perhaps less about how it is read.

As Phil O clearly described, a whole is defined by the time signature itself, so a measure is either a whole, more than a whole, or some fraction of a whole. The time sig describes how much bigger or smaller a measure is than a whole, and the basic structure is that whole is cut into two, four, (etc.) pieces.

What I am failing to understand is what the actual problem you or your students are experiencing. The notation paradigm has worked in notating some very complex musical structures and also is efficient in representing "less sophisticated" musics.

Where is the disconnect that you feel needs to be addressed? If it's simply because your students don't "understand" it (or you cannot justify it to them adequately) then the actual problem may lie elsewhere.

Thanks, MLC, you really are helping me dig down to this. My rhythm and rhythm-reading skills are strong. I think ALL music students should put a high priority on rhythm skills, and my students are no exception.

This thought experiment is about what could be tweaked to make our system feel less 4/4 centric? And also, since some iOS developers insist on using time-signatures in their apps, what could be done to either help them do it correctly, or how can we change the terminology and structure so it will work right?

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Thanks, MLC, you really are helping me dig down to this.

And here I was thinking I was just a troll... lol Frankly, I love thought experiments like this. It may not lead to a new notational system, but it can certainly lead one to challenge the norms of musical creation! Here's how one composer bucked the system...

[stubbsonic]

Lovely example.

As I've slept on it, and revisited the "pie" analogy:

A whole note is a pie of arbitrary size.

A measure is a serving platter of specific size.

The time signature as a fraction describes how much of the whole pie goes on the platter.

The top number is how many servings, and the bottom number is the serving size (in proportion to the entire pie).

The pie can only be cut into 2, 4, 8, 16, (or perhaps 32?) slices. But you can choose any number of servings from those selections.

You might eat pie at a rate of one serving per beat. But if you've sliced the pie into 8 pieces, and you are serving a multiple of three servings, you might eat three servings per beat.

Should you desire non-binary groupings, you may have the option of multiples of 3 servings per beat options for the time signature, or you can indicate groupings like 5+6/8.

Should you desire to provide non-binary divisions, you can use tuplets to divide by 3, 5, 6, 7... etc. You can use a ratio to indicate some non-standard number of notes in the space of the standard number (as DP does so well); e.g. 5 in the space of 4 or 5:4. I usually find a note value that closely matches the desired tuplet.

Perhaps much of the bias that I find irksome is really in the way I was taught or have seen it taught. Fortunately, I've been enthusiastic about non-binary rhythms to help my students avoid those particular limitations. Perhaps my blame on the system was misplaced.

I do still think the issue with hardware and software developers hardwiring 4/4 w 16ths, and their collective misuse and misunderstanding of time-sigs is another issue.

This thread has been immensely helpful for me to make peace with it.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

You got pies?