Weirdest time signatures in traditional prog

I guess it goes to show how people interpret art differently. Some people really get a kick from how it makes them feel AND from how it makes them think about the process. I haven't investigated a lot of math rock yet, and have rudimentary experience with RIO/Avant so far, but I'm sure some people love to pick it apart, and that can keep them going for a while. It's all valid.

I personally enjoy investigating Zappa's works, including all the posthumous ZFT releases and bootlegs, to hear the journey of his compositions, how they change with every line-up, and how they could have gone dormant only to be reimagined on stage.

There was a time when I would try to compose purposefully complicated time signatures (and just complicated music in general). What I found was that it always sounded wonky or contrived (or both). When I gave up trying to make things complicated and just follow my intuition from a basic idea, I would end up sometimes with really complicated/out there stuff, but that sounded good - organic and natural, instead of forced. And I would only find out how weird from a theoretical point of view, afterwards, when analyzing it. But analysis is not music, and complexity is not art. In general, this is what I hear in math rock and other purposefully complicated genres, which take their whole definition from being complicated - wonky, contrived, forced complexity just for the sake of being complex. Not really art but mathematical exercises disguised in sound. There's a place for it of course, but it doesn't really appeal to me. To me, music has to have a oomf which is beyond theory, analysis and convention/unconvention.

And again, there is a place for things that are purposefully complex, that make your mind and body reject them, and that you have to keep going. But personally I don't listen to music with my mind, I listen with my ears and soul, I want to be moved, not challenged to solve a math puzzle.

exactly 

Hi,

I like to joke that only "geek musicians" (who are NOT artists usually!) can detect those ... and most of us in the audience already dancing in our heads and feet ... couldn't careless what signature it was.

Reminds me of the disco days, and even before and after in almost ALL dancing places ...you are there to have some fun and have a good time with your significant other ... why would you give a damn about a signature? To aid you in your orgasms?

I can see a professor breaking this down in the class to show you that there is a lot in music in terms of details ... that part makes sense in studies ... but to simply go around asking if these are something that makes the music more/less intelligent or different than it already is ... is ridiculous! I sincerely doubt that Mike Rutherford in the early days went ... let's put this in here ... so it sounds "different"! Maybe it could once they had completed the first few recording takes or something like it, but I doubt that it was the signifying moment for the whole piece. 

Ex: we don't even give a damn about what their big piece was all about which was far more important than this discussion! AND, it's still important and very visible!

I can count the beats and tell if they're not a straight 4/4 e.g. I know "Solsbury Hill" has 7 beats (or 6 and 8 if you count the faster beats) and I know "Golden Brown" has 3 lots of 3 and 1 lot of 4 but I don't know whether that makes it 13/4 or 13/8.

In my opinion, it is ok to be conscious of the numbers and it's ok to not be conscious of them when writing. Or maybe you just play what you hear in your head and figure out numbers later for the score. Or you workshop it and get the numbers that happen to sound the best. It's a living process. Whatever fulfills you. I just don't want to be a "progressive gatekeeper" about it.

OK, it's waltz time, 3/4. If not, 4/4.

If you're Dave Brubeck, it's 5/4. 

Brubeck - with "Time Out", decided to write jazz in unusual time signatures, like ones the group had heard in Turkey. Whilst the album was a success, a massive success, in fact, this seemed to convince jazzers that there was money to be made (and also to appear clever) by writing music in unusual time signatures. The idea seemed to trickle down to prog rock in the 70's.

I just think it makes bad music if you sit down, write 7/4 after the treble clef and then think hmmmm. In my experience, anyway, you think of the music first - what does it sound like - and then that generates which time signature you're in at the moment. 

Talking of 7/4, I once worked with an imbecile who thought he was "a musician" - he wasn't. He declared he "was going to write a piece in 7/4 as it was clever" - he didn't. 

I said go the whole hog and write it in F or C sharp or even go microtonal. Which shut him up. 

Talking of which. 

We're on "unusual time signatures here" and everyone with basic musical skill can count time and, in some cases, recognise time signatures. But how many can work out what key music is in and how difficult it is to play on, say, a sax or keyboards ? Stringed instruments are a little simpler as you're shifting root note positions.... until you get to something like E flat. 

Then add in "microtonality". That's very clever. I'd attempt it with the right instruments, such as an Afghani rubab, and I'd absolutely flounder. 

There's nothing "clever" about complicated time signatures, keys or anything else, it all depends on the actual music. A bad piece of music will not be saved by it being in 11/8.