Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Weirdest time signatures in traditional prog
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Weirdest time signatures in traditional prog

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
Message
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 03 2020 at 22:05
Originally posted by Awesoreno Awesoreno wrote:

Sometimes the artistry comes from how the time signatures work mathematically. You don't have to do everything by "feel." For many, the "feel" comes from the novelty of the numbers. Art comes in all forms, it's a reflection of life. Sometimes, life is about emotions, and other times, it involves ordered patterns, equations, forms, etc. So I'm sure math rockers wouldn't appreciate an attack on their art. It is every bit as valid as dreaming away music. And don't me started on Jazz. The best Jazz artists practiced for hours on the numbers and the math that comes with tonality, scales, chords, key signatures, chromaticism, etc. Only then could they do it effortlessly by feel. 

Hi,

I was just reading a book about this idea of not knowing anything. And the story goes that actor Paul Scofield did over one hundred performances of it, and when it came to "... never, never, never, never, never ... " it never even occurred to him that he did it differently every night and no one thought it wasn't right, or good. And he was the type of actor that would tell you ... I don't want to know ... because he had the intuition and ability to speak the words correctly and get the point across. 

In our younger days, when we were learning an instrument, we didn't know music, and even though we were told to do this and that, many of us, specially those that ended up in the rock medium, or even jazz medium, plainly continued with what they were hearing by themselves and to make sense of it ... and that "learning" is often more important than the actual teachers and schools ... because in it, you find your sense of yourself ...NEVER defined by the notes or the "music" that you are supposed to learn.

At this point, coming up with something different that we will "define" as a different time signature is quite often very weird ... and out of place ... it could have come from a space that we never knew was there, but it helped create something that stuck, and you improved on it.

"Prog" and "Progressive" mostly showed that music could be different and attuned to something else ... and the time signatures may have been there, however they were not the element that made the music shine, although folks ... way later when the music was written down ... thought it was a great composition, and sometimes this is a perfect example of how we misplace the learning with respect to "time" and "our abilities" ... we did what felt right to us ... and the notes did not matter as much as the feeling that the weird change created.

Seeing some time changes in many a piece of music today, we always fail to realize how this is SEEN way AFTER it was created. None of the artists really discussed these things ... but with some credit to Herbie Hancock, he only knew his stuff learned in school when he got on with Miles, and it probably taught him that what he did in the background, did not interfere with Miles playing and continuity ... and this is a completely different kind of learning that you can not get in school ... it's all, at that moment, about your experience and how you reacted to it.
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Awesoreno View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 07 2019
Location: Culver City, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 2886
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Awesoreno Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2020 at 00:37
I mean, I agree that the numbers themselves aren't always what makes the music feel good to the listener. At least, not necessarily a CONSCIOUSNESS of the numbers. So it seems we actually agree more than we disagree. (A friend of mine calls this discourse "violently agreeing," haha).

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.
Back to Top
A Crimson Mellotron View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 10 2020
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 3997
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote A Crimson Mellotron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2020 at 07:08
Hmm, how does one actually detect what time signature is used? Wacko
Back to Top
chopper View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 19942
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2020 at 07:29
Originally posted by A Crimson Mellotron A Crimson Mellotron wrote:

Hmm, how does one actually detect what time signature is used? Wacko

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.
Back to Top
handwrist View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 19 2019
Location: Lisbon
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote handwrist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2020 at 09:35
the weirdest time signature in prog is 4/4 LOL
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 05 2020 at 08:10
Originally posted by A Crimson Mellotron A Crimson Mellotron wrote:

Hmm, how does one actually detect what time signature is used? Wacko

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!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 05 2020 at 08:11
Originally posted by handwrist handwrist wrote:

the weirdest time signature in prog is 4/4 LOL

Hi,

Hmmmm ... because it would not be "prog"? LOLEmbarrassed
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
handwrist View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 19 2019
Location: Lisbon
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote handwrist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 05 2020 at 09:05
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by handwrist handwrist wrote:

the weirdest time signature in prog is 4/4 LOL

Hi,

Hmmmm ... because it would not be "prog"? LOLEmbarrassed

exactly Big smile
Back to Top
Awesoreno View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 07 2019
Location: Culver City, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 2886
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Awesoreno Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 05 2020 at 11:37
Originally posted by A Crimson Mellotron A Crimson Mellotron wrote:

Hmm, how does one actually detect what time signature is used? Wacko

Hi. Music geek AND artist here. 

Counting out a time sig can be more difficult depending on the kind of composition. Sometimes, you have repeating phrases or riffs, and those are the most easy to detect. Because the musicians may consider the kind of notes being used (quarter, half, eighth, sixteenth, etc.) differently than you or than someone trying write a score, I usually just don't even think about that unless I'm making an actual arrangement to do a cover. So I'll just throw out a generalized number. You shouldn't have to concern yourself with getting it "right" with respect to something being 5/4 vs 5/8 vs 5/16, unless, again, you're looking to make an arrangement. In which case, it would be up to you, especially since plenty of musicians never wrote it down. Most would probably just think of it in terms of what I said, just giving a number (5, 6, 13, 15, etc.) 

Another thing is that, if you want to get picky, sigs can be broken down into an emphasis. Five, for instance, could be emphasized as 2+3 or 3+2. This matters if you're a rhythm section player. I think choosing between calling something 13 vs 6+7 is really up to you, it doesn't really matter. Though, again, listening to how the rhythm section plays it helps. For example, if I was writing an arrangement: I hear a medium tempo, and a repeating phrase, with every other phrase adding a beat, I could write it as alternating 6/8 and 7/8; on the other hand, if I hear very rapid phrases that seem to repeat every 13 notes (whether that's the actual notes repeating in a riff, or if the rhythm section seems to be repeating the general rhythm patter scheme), I could call it 13/16.

If it wasn't clear, the second number refers to the note duration (half, quarter, eighth, sixteenth etc.), while the first refers to how many in a measure.

Of course, if it's really complicated, some pieces change the signature CONSTANTLY. Check out some of Zappa's scores for some crazy stuff. That can be harder to figure out. I tend to like to know because I'm a nerd, but I'd rather just look at a score than take the time to figure it out (if I can).

As you can tell, there are different ways to interpret these things, like any art form. And since it is art, it's up to you to. Don't let anyone gatekeep you from what you enjoy. If you don't want to think about time sigs, you're still a prog-head. If you do, you aren't sacrificing your credentials as a valid interpreter of art or whatever. If you want to break it down, do it. Don't let anyone tell you how to enjoy something.


Edited by Awesoreno - November 05 2020 at 11:39
Back to Top
handwrist View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 19 2019
Location: Lisbon
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote handwrist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 06 2020 at 03:16
On a more serious note, here are my two cents as both a composer and a listener:

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.

Now I don't think about it too much and only really care about making things difficult when the music itself calls for it. Intuition should be followed, not complexity. And I think someone like Zappa wrote complicated things when the music called for it, not just for being complicated. Even his most complicated compositions sound organic, not contrived or wonky. It's amazing to me that even his weird synclavier pieces don't sound contrived and mechanical for the most part. He subverted conventions as much as he adhered to them. And he always made sure to underline that to subvert conventions you have to understad them, and to understand them you have to actually use them sometimes. Otherwise it's just musical gibberish (this is also why most modern orchestral and chamber music sounds so lifeless - it's just subversion with no purpose - whereas something like Messiaen sounds heavenly). 

And then there's the question of polyrythms, which can color a basic 4/4 to madness, like some of the endless grooves of Fela Kuti's music.

Both as a composer and a listener, I find the most interesting pieces to be the ones which, while being complex, sound incredibly simple and seamless. This is what is truly difficult to achieve, I think, because it is something unconventional, your ears are being challenged, but somehow it's so well made that your mind doesn't get confused or assaulted by madness. I call it 'music that had to happen' - out there, but that makes so much sense you just interiorize it, your organism doesn't fight it. And this goes for time signatures but also for stuff like atonality. 

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.
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 06 2020 at 07:20
Originally posted by handwrist handwrist wrote:

...
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.

Hi,

O meu deus ... que bonito!

I have made a life on ears/soul or in my case intuition/soul ... as opposed to my better known father whose poetry is, for my tastes, very technical and mental ... he describes his experience, but he is so would up in so many things in his head, that the "experience" changes so fast, and it is hard to follow the visual that he is trying to describe of the music. I usually stick to the piece of music itself, and describe the little movie I see in it, but my dad, would, just about, write about the composer, not the piece he was listening to.

There are many examples of musicians that were self taught and did not spend their time telling folks to practice the circle of the numbers, and yet, we dismiss them when it comes to these discussions ... their ability came from the inside from what they HEARD and FELT with the notes they were finding each and every time ... 

Example: Robert Wyatt wrote in his book about Syd Barrett, and it explains why he ended up having to leave ... Robert was at a recording session for Syd and one other musician of note, asks Robert ... what chord is he playing? And Robert says ... he doesn't know the chords, he just plays ... and here we are saying that what that person (Syd) was hearing was not valid and created such wonderful songs ... during the time that PF members were in the mood to COLOR the words and stories ... and all of a sudden in the solo album .. .everyone can only play a rock'n'roll song and must know the chord to be able to play?

Example: Shankar with Bruce in the movie ... "what chord are you in, man?" ... "you no worry Mr. Bruce, you just play and I join in!"

I really believe that "progressive music" and "prog" were not defined by musical details as much as we think ... 20th Century Schizoid Man is an almost literal massacre related to some of the monster dictators around at the time, having a good time killing people to get more riches and what not! It is not, exactly, something that was composed, although I think that the ideas they had were fine tuned in rehearsal, for which KC has always been famous ... which some musicians did not care for, but others did fine with it. It "made" what they played sound really good and clean ... and that is not about the composition, sometimes, as much as it is about how it is played, and when it comes off clean and pretty, it is always fine to our ears.

But, the sad thing, specially here, is that people confuse the "art" with the "artist" and think they are the same thing, and they are not ... one is a person, and the other is a "process" that often can not be defined clearly and how the results came about. How do you ask Picasso how he did this or that? Or Pollock? ... you drive yourself into a gutter instead!

But here, I think it just shows the results of the really poorly defined way that "progressive music" was defined ... with this and that and this and that ... like no other music ever had it! 

AND until we refine that definition, I think that we will always have these questions and folks curious about something, that even they can not determine of find ... though that specific 20 seconds sounded weird and was not melodic like the rest of the piece ... which is how many here think that a different signature is now the norm. AND that it defines any new "prog" and "progressive" ... which is completely ridiculous!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Awesoreno View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 07 2019
Location: Culver City, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 2886
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Awesoreno Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 06 2020 at 17:51
Funny. As much as I adore Zappa, I could never get into the synclavier works. They sounded too cold and contrived for my taste. Though I'm sure I could try harder some time.

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.
Back to Top
Davesax1965 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2826
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Davesax1965 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 07 2020 at 03:36
I see Mosh is busily contributing to a discussion about time signatures by talking about something else with no connection. 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.862 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.