From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #405 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, November 30 2002 Volume 11 : Number 405 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: An introduction to time signatures for the non-musician [grutness@sur] Re: An introduction... (slight return) [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dign] time signatures [drew ] Here Comes the Sun [Eb ] Re: An introduction to time signatures for the non-musician ["Michael E. ] Re: time signatures ["Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" OK. 2/4 time is marching music: "BOOMP-bah-BOOMP-bah-BOOMP-bah-BOOMP-bah". >Only two beats to the pattern. Marching bands do it all the time. I'm sure >it's been used in rock but I can't think of an example. Laibach has >probably done it. Quite a bit of Motown is 2/4, often with fast triplets over the top. "Where did our love go?" is 2/4, ISTR. Continuing the Beatles theme, I suspect that "Getting better" is 2/4, but in practice it's very difficult to separate 2/4 and 4/4 (much harder than it is to separate 3/4 and 6/8 (boom-cha-cha-boom-cha-cha and boom-cha-boom-cha-boom-cha). There's virtually no 6/8 in rock AFAIK - the only example I can think of is the Spencer Davis Group's "Waltz for Lumumba". >5/4 is heard occasionally on the radio: the already mentioned "Living In >The Past" by Jethro Tull, and the surprisingly not yet mentioned "Good >Morning, Good Morning" on Sgt. Pepper (what a great album for these >things.) That's because it's far more complex than simply 5/4. I think most of it is 4/4 with occasional bars of 2/4 and 3/4 (intro all 4/4, start of verse 4/4, 4/4, 2/4, 4/4, 4/4, 4/4..). The first line of each verse does have ten beats, but it's not 5/4. And even more confusing, parts of the song have fast triplets over the top. It's one of the most frustrating songs time-signature-wise (along with Jethro Tull's "Songs from the wood", where they even brag about it being a difficult rhythm in the first verse!) >I'm pretty certain, for >instance, that there are few or no heavy metal tunes in 3/4. It's generally >associated with music that's too perky and chirpy. Even "Piano Man" has >that slight circus feel to it. This is why it's such a gas that Hendrix >pulled off a rockin' tune in 3/4, without a hint of irony, with "Manic >Depression". hm. I'd say that is an overgeneralisation. 3/4 is often used because it has a wistful quality that is difficult to achieve in 4/4. There's nothing perky or chirpy about "You've got to hide your love away", "I often dream of trains", or "Norwegian wood", for instance. You're right that it is often used in a perky way, though ("Waltzinblack" by the Stranglers, and Eno's "Back in Judy's Jungle" are perfect examples). You could be right about heavy 3/4s though... I can't think of many myself, although the instrumental ending of "I want you (She's so heavy)" has got to be one of the best. Blind Faith's "Do what you like" is probably the only heavy 5/4, as well. >Although there are some strange people out there. (Just kidding, James.) aw. No, I admit it - I'm strange. Strawberry Fields forever does one of my favourite things in rock. It is in (almost) straight 4/4 (as you say, there are a coupl,e of other little bits in there, but to all intents and purposes it's 4/4, but it also has straight 3 triplets over the top in places. That's a hard trick to pull off well (I know - I've tried myself, badly, in my song "Taking time"). Oddly, the best examples I can think of for this are two songs both written by Paul Simon: "Learn how to fall" and "The 59th St Bridge Song (Feeling Groovy)". Both straight 4/4 with triplets. >James: >"Here comes the sun" mucks >around all over the place with changing signatures.: > >Any chance you'd explicate? I find this all interesting. I had enough music >in school to know what 4/4 is, and to know, in theory, what say, 5/4 or any >other sig is, but having someone explain the time changes on songs I love >and can play in my mind fleshes out the theory, I can hear it and feel it >then. Mostly 4/4. The instrumental between verses goes: 1-2-3,1-2-3,1-2-3,1-2-3,1-2,1-2. (four bars of 3/4, two of 2/4) This could simply be triplets played on 4/4, but it seems unlikely if you listen to the drum beat. and the "sun, sun, sun, here it comes" bit goes 1-2-3-4,1-2,1-2-3,1-2-3,1-2-3,1-2-3-4-5 (repeat). I suspect from the structure and tempo that this is 4/4, 2/4, 9/8, 5/8, but... >> I like the fact that you can use nil beats in songs, thats where >>the music gives you more freedom within your meter(time sig) than youd get >>in poetry. > >I think that's the difference between "meter" and "rhythm". Going back to >"I Often Dream Of Trains", if you just recite the words "I often dream of >trains when I'm alone" it has a meter (of 2, sort of), but if you say the >words as they are sung, with the rests, "I oft ten dream of >trains when I'm alone",you're are saying them in a certain >rhythm . In poetry, there are distinct names for the rhythms, which would be useful in music too. IODOT is, ISTR, iambic (i-AMB, i-AMB, i-AMB what i-AMB as Popeye would say). Rock has "The Bo Diddley beat" as one standard rhythmical name, and that's just about that. BOM, BOOM-da-DOOM, ba-DUM-BOM. James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 12:00:03 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: An introduction... (slight return) >There's a shorthand involved with time signatures, particularly the 2/4, >3/4 and 4/4. Each of those time signatures is frequently (although not >always) associated with certain types of music, which I have alluded to. >2/4 suggests marching music. 3/4 generally suggests waltz, German oom-pa >bands or circus music. 4/4 is most rock, folk, and ALL hip-hop AFAIK. I forgot to add that Irish and Scottish reels are 4/4 (r-e-e-l = 4 letters); Irish and Scottish jigs are 3/4 (j-i-g = 3 letters); and Irish and Scottish slip-jigs are 9/8 (s-l-i-p-...erm, never mind). I know a soccer fan folkie who insists that the best way to remember the difference between reels and jigs is that a jig has the rhythm "Liverpool, Liverpool, Liverpool" and a reel has the rhythm "Crystal Palace, Crystal Palace, Crystal Palace". For a slip jig he goes something like "Liverpool, Chelsea, and Everton". YMMV. James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 15:35:15 -0800 (PST) From: drew Subject: time signatures Very interesting discussion...as a semi-musician I was pretty familiar with most of it, so I think I need lesson 2 or 3 on how to recognize weird time signatures. For example, I can see that the sung lines of "I Often Dream of Trains" are in 3/4, but what about the guitar fills between them? Still in 3/4? Is there a reason they sound so odd and exotic? - -- drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/~drew/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:58:59 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Here Comes the Sun >James, on Here Comes the Sun: >Mostly 4/4. The instrumental between verses goes: > >1-2-3,1-2-3,1-2-3,1-2-3,1-2,1-2. (four bars of 3/4, two of 2/4) > >This could simply be triplets played on 4/4, but it seems unlikely if you >listen to the drum beat. Mmm...you're just plain wrong, James. You're counting the above notes as if they're quarter notes. They're *eighth notes*. The time stays in 4/4...it's just that the eighth-note groupings go against the measure divisions, because they're in groups of three instead of four. The four measures have 16 eighth notes, except they count like 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3-4 instead of the expected 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4. And even if we interpreted the passage with using your groupings-must-match-the-measures methodology, it would have to be 6/8 measures rather than 3/4 ones. >and the "sun, sun, sun, here it comes" bit goes > >1-2-3-4,1-2,1-2-3,1-2-3,1-2-3,1-2-3-4-5 (repeat). >I suspect from the structure and tempo that this is 4/4, 2/4, 9/8, 5/8, but... Yeah, this bridge is a bastard to transcribe. Maybe the strangest meter in the Beatles' entire catalog. The time is so peculiar that I'm never even confident that I'm humming it correctly in my head. (Actually, to me, it's a bit of a letdown -- it doesn't sustain the melodic magic of the rest of the song.) Anyway, there are a couple of ways to go with this. The bulk of the song is in 4/4. But the time changes abruptly on that lone sustained note, followed by "dead space" and a three-note "grace" figure leading into the bridge's twisted triplet feel. There are a number of possible ways to divide it, but the simplest way is generally the best. It's 4/4 throughout the main body of the song. Then, one measure of 7/8, beginning with the "dead space" and ending with the three eighth notes which lead into "Sun, sun, sun...." It actually counts easiest as a measure of 2/4 plus a measure of 3/8, but writing 3/8 measures isn't really kosher, so I'll shrug and stick with 7/8. "Sun, sun, sun, here it..." uses 11 eighth-notes. You can divide these 11 notes in a number of ways, depending on your own quirks. The counting feel of the divisions is 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2, but it's probably best to just count them as one large 11/8 measure. Counting it as a 6/8 measure plus a 5/8 measure doesn't feel right to me. However, I don't think there's an absolute answer to this issue, unless you just accept how George himself counted while playing it. It would be interesting to know. ..."cu-ums." One 4/4 measure. The rhythm goes back to "normal," and we regain a feeling of rhythmic comfort. This comfort zone is sustained through part of the next measure, until the triplets enter again. The above sequence repeats until the bridge is over. 7/8 + 11/8 + 4/4. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:40:58 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: An introduction to time signatures for the non-musician Quibbles all well taken... At 11:54 AM +1300 11/30/02, James Dignan propounded thusly: >Mike wrote in 11/8 time. Most of it very well. I hope you go on to explain >the lower number, since that's where I hit trouble. > >I do have a few small quibbles, though: > >>OK. 2/4 time is marching music: "BOOMP-bah-BOOMP-bah-BOOMP-bah-BOOMP-bah". >>Only two beats to the pattern. Marching bands do it all the time. I'm sure >>it's been used in rock but I can't think of an example. Laibach has >>probably done it. > >Quite a bit of Motown is 2/4, often with fast triplets over the top. "Where >did our love go?" is 2/4, ISTR. Continuing the Beatles theme, I suspect >that "Getting better" is 2/4, but in practice it's very difficult to >separate 2/4 and 4/4 Yes, GB definitely has the "2/4 sound" and no, I can't make the call on that one either... [pause to tap fingers on desk] ...yeah, I think it is. The thing I found trying to come up with an example is everything I could think of had 2/4 but in that swing shuffle - done with that triplet feel - and I didn't want to have to explain that without being able to provide an example of straight 2/4 to compare it to. I hear you on the Motown, as well, "Where Did Our Love Go" strikes me as a 2/4 shuffle as well, although I'm not positive. I think also of "The Man Who Invented Himself". >(much harder than it is to separate 3/4 and 6/8 >(boom-cha-cha-boom-cha-cha and boom-cha-boom-cha-boom-cha). There's >virtually no 6/8 in rock AFAIK - the only example I can think of is the >Spencer Davis Group's "Waltz for Lumumba". There was a lot of 50's ballads in 6/8. There's that cliche piano baseline that got used all the time... chords in the right hand were, like, C -Am - F -G played as constant 8th notes, the rhythm was like "DUM-tap-tap-tap-tap-DUM-DUM-tap-tap-DUM-tap-DUM". I can't believe I can't think of a specific example. Give me a few minutes. [later] Oh, of course! "Still Of The Night". >That's because it's far more complex than simply 5/4. I think most of it is >4/4 with occasional bars of 2/4 and 3/4 (intro all 4/4, start of verse 4/4, >4/4, 2/4, 4/4, 4/4, 4/4..). The first line of each verse does have ten >beats, but it's not 5/4. Yeah. I purposely said too little on the subject of 5/4 so as to avoid information overload. > And even more confusing, parts of the song have >fast triplets over the top. It's one of the most frustrating songs >time-signature-wise (along with Jethro Tull's "Songs from the wood", where >they even brag about it being a difficult rhythm in the first verse!) > >>I'm pretty certain, for >>instance, that there are few or no heavy metal tunes in 3/4. It's >>generally >>associated with music that's too perky and chirpy. Even "Piano Man" has >>that slight circus feel to it. This is why it's such a gas that Hendrix >>pulled off a rockin' tune in 3/4, without a hint of irony, with "Manic >>Depression". > >hm. I'd say that is an overgeneralisation. 3/4 is often used because it has >a wistful quality that is difficult to achieve in 4/4. There's nothing >perky or chirpy about "You've got to hide your love away", "I often dream >of trains", or "Norwegian wood", for instance. You're right that it is >often used in a perky way, though ("Waltzinblack" by the Stranglers, and >Eno's "Back in Judy's Jungle" are perfect examples). I think calling it an overgeneralization is apt. Although I'd be inclined to say "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" is downright chipper, despite some grim lyrics. Anyway, I did make the later point that there are exceptions where 3/4 has lent a more downbeat song a certain unique beauty because it's fairly unusual. I racked my brain trying to come up with an example of truly sinister-sounding music in 3/4, but I don't think it's possible. >You could be right about heavy 3/4s though... I can't think of many myself, >although the instrumental ending of "I want you (She's so heavy)" has got >to be one of the best. Blind Faith's "Do what you like" is probably the >only heavy 5/4, as well. Kudos to you on both points, although slight quibble myself, I think "I Want You" is 6/8. > >Strawberry Fields forever does one of my favourite things in rock. It is in >(almost) straight 4/4 (as you say, there are a coupl,e of other little bits >in there, but to all intents and purposes it's 4/4, but it also has >straight 3 triplets over the top in places. That's a hard trick to pull off >well (I know - I've tried myself, badly, in my song "Taking time"). Oddly, >the best examples I can think of for this are two songs both written by >Paul Simon: "Learn how to fall" and "The 59th St Bridge Song (Feeling >Groovy)". Both straight 4/4 with triplets. Yeah, I'm having a hard time thinking of 4/4 songs that rely on triplets although they're practically a cliche for a power-chord type break or something. They're out there though. How many 4/4 songs get ended during arena rock concerts with the whole band going "dont-dont-dont-dont-dont-dont-DAHHHHHHH!" I think the beatles used this once or twice as well. (Somebody pointed out to me that for the first half of their career, the beatles frequently wrote endings to their studio songs, as if they were being played live, instead of fading them out. I think this is an underappreciated art.) >In poetry, there are distinct names for the rhythms, which would be useful >in music too. IODOT is, ISTR, iambic (i-AMB, i-AMB, i-AMB what i-AMB as >Popeye would say). Rock has "The Bo Diddley beat" as one standard >rhythmical name, and that's just about that. BOM, BOOM-da-DOOM, ba-DUM-BOM. OK, let me ask the poets a question. Here's the first verse of a poem I've been working on. What meter is this? "I have, in my time, seen some cheeses. No stranger to Swiss or Gruyere, I may, as I wander, wherever I pleases, pause briefly to ponder that prized food of meeses, and of some poets, here and there." I assumed it was iambic pentameter? If it was music it would be 3/4, which would validate what Kay said earlier about some thinking poetry in 3 was only for comic verse (although I myself consider the subject matter to be deadly serious.) BTW Kay, please note that if you read this aloud, it DOES have those [nil] beats in them... it goes: "i-HAVE-in-my-TIME-seen-some-CHEE-ses-[nil]-[nil]-[nil] No-STRAN-ger-to-SWISS-or-gruy-ERE -[nil]-[nil]-[nil]-[nil] i-MAY-as-i-WAN-der..." They just don't come in the middle of a phrase like they can in music. Those first two lines are both four groups of three beats when read aloud, even though they only contain 9 and 8 syllables respectively. The rest are "rests". (Reminds me of Chomskyan linguistics, where he came up with a grammatical model that fits every known language, but required positing the existence of 'invisible' words to do so.) >I forgot to add that Irish and Scottish reels are 4/4 (r-e-e-l = 4 >letters); Irish and Scottish jigs are 3/4 (j-i-g = 3 letters); and Irish >and Scottish slip-jigs are 9/8 (s-l-i-p-...erm, never mind). > >I know a soccer fan folkie who insists that the best way to remember the >difference between reels and jigs is that a jig has the rhythm "Liverpool, >Liverpool, Liverpool" and a reel has the rhythm "Crystal Palace, Crystal >Palace, Crystal Palace". This is actually something I've wondered about. Thanks! Boy, I've been spending a lot of time on my email lately. Mike - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:41:24 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: time signatures At 3:35 PM -0800 11/29/02, drew propounded thusly: >Very interesting discussion...as a semi-musician >I was pretty familiar with most of it, so I think >I need lesson 2 or 3 on how to recognize weird >time signatures. For example, I can see that the >sung lines of "I Often Dream of Trains" are in 3/4, >but what about the guitar fills between them? Still >in 3/4? Ok, here's something I left out for simplicities sake (or did I mention this already? I forget.) I used the vocal lines as examples because they were the easiest way to convey what I was trying to show over a primitive early-21st century text based medium. The fact is, general, it's not just the melody line that has a unique signature. Typically, the whole song, all the instruments, are playing together in the same time signature. All the instruments in IODOT are playing in 3/4. The peice of information I left out in the initial email was this. Notes/sung syllables/drumbeats/whatever don't have to occur only on beats. They can occur on half beats, quarter beats, eighth beats, sixteenth beats, and so on (and this is still a vast simplification... there's ways to put them on 1/3 beats, etc., too.) So writing out the rhythmic pattern of IODOT: "i-OF-[nil]-ten-DREAM-[nil]-of-TRAINS-[nil]-when-I'M-[nil]-a-WAKE" is actually not sufficient except as a beginning example for illustrating the most basic concepts. Now, I'm going to write it out slightly differently, again in a completely extemporized but hopefully clear notation: "i - + - OF - + - [nil] - + - ten - + - DREAM - + - [nil] - + - of - + - TRAINS - + - [nil] - + - when - + - I'M - + - [nil] - + - a - + - WAKE" I have opened it up to show that there are spaces BETWEEN the beats where you can stick something, too... on the "+". And technically, there are spaces between those, and so on. The guitar, vocals, or indeed any instrument can play a note or sing a syllable or whatever it does ANYWHERE, on any one of those divisions, not just on a beats themselves. It's still the same time signature, it just gets harder to hear that until your ear is trained. The closer it is to a low integer division of the beat, the simpler and more recognizable it is, which is why all my examples had words on the beats and only on the beats (except for "Lucy", with its "BOAT-on-a-RIVer-nil-where". That second half of "RIVer" occures on the half beat between "RIV" and "[nil]") So it may be that the guitar in IODOT doesn't stick to the whole beats as much as the vocals do, but once you get used to picking out the different time signatures, and can hear them even through these more complicated permutations, you'll hear that it's still all 3/4. Generally there is musical activity of some form or another on enough of the eve beats to suggest the overall time signature. Now, as always, in music, there are exceptions. If you're listening to Zappa or King Crimson, you may hear songs which involve different instruments playing in different time signatures alongside each other. (Robert Fripp has a neat thing he shows off where I can tap one hand in 4/4 and one hand in 5/4 at the same time... one hand taps five even beats in the exacts same time it takes the other to tap 4.) But other than ultra-cerebral prog-rockers, you never hear a piece of music where the different instruments are in different time signatures. (Although you might hear something like one instrument playing in 2 over another playing in 4, or similar very, very closely related meters, or one instrument breaking down a beat into triplets - three divisions - as a passing flourish. James will no doubt to be able to volunteer other examples or exceptions to this.) But, rule of thumb, it's not an individual line or instrument that's in a particular time signature, it's a whole song. If you start going "ONE-two-three-ONE-two-three" along with IODOT you should be able to see pretty quickly how the whole song fits into it the vocal melody has a rest on the "two" beat and the main guitar riff between the verses might have a couple of its notes occurring on smaller divisions between the beats or might not be playing a note on any given beat. Time signature is an overall framework that endless variations can be draped over. In most simpler rock music, they snare and bass drums are the things to listen for, they'll give the best idea of where the main beats are that will shed light on the overall time signature of the song. Remember, again, it's the number of beats in a repetition that counts, not what might or might not happen on any given beat, but generally the snare hits the most emphasized beat, and the bass drum hits the other main beats - In 4/4: "bass-bass-SNARE-bass, bass-bass-SNARE-bass". Or "bass-[nil]-SNARE-[nil], bass-bass-SNARE-[nil], bass-[nil]-SNARE-[nil], bass-bass-SNARE-[nil]". You could play "Walk This Way" right over this second one all by itself. >but what about the guitar fills between them? >Is there a reason they sound so odd and >exotic? It's just that Robyn is friggin' brilliant. And you can't diagram THAT. Mike - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:42:41 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Punk in 2 or 3? One further thought on 3 - I believe there is definitely some punk in 2. Anybody know any in 3? (Melodic punk bands like the Buzzcocks don't count. I'm talking Angry Samoans or heavier.) Due to this whole thread, I'm sitting here right now compulsively thinking "1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4" to The Dead Boys' "Young, Loud And Snotty", which is a travesty. Mike, in 1 - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 21:37:08 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: An introduction to time signatures for the non-musician I appreciate the input - by the way, this came to me personally, assume you meant to go to the list - you know, I'll have to listen to Tom Sawyer firsthand. Right now I'm listening to "You Are The Sunshine Of My Life", it's impairing playback on my mental tape player - but if you're right, I'll give Tom Sawyer props as the heaviest thing I've heard in 3/4. Although if it's nonconsecutive instances of 3/4 in the middle of several measures of time signature changes, I'm not sure it counts, because you lose 3/4's perky insistence if you don't stick with it for a good couple of measures. You know, one Rush fan to another, I'm not sure what it is that keeps them from being widely thought of as one of the great rock bands of the 70s. I mean, many people do, but many people seem to pooh-pooh them. Goddammit, they ROCKED! And rocked harder than any other progressive band - they're like a "crossover" band. Tull rocked, and they did progressive, but they never did both well in the same song. Although I must admit the song "Going For The One" walkes an amazing line between balls-out buttrock and cerebral progressive. Aaaah, "Master Blaster (Jammin')" just came on. Excuse me for a minute. Mike At 10:08 PM -0600 11/29/02, Michael Wells propounded thusly: >> I racked my brain trying to come up with an >> example of truly sinister-sounding music in 3/4, but I don't think it's >> possible. > >Firstly, kudos on the nice time-sig writeup Michael! > >Take a look at some Rush passages from Moving Pictures and I think you'll >find several examples of 'heavy' 3/4... > >'Tom Sawyer': the bass riff (echoing the earlier keyboard riff) after >"...space he invades, he gets by on you" which alternates measures between >3/4 and cut time (and wraps up in 7/8) > >'Limelight': the main riff, which alternates between 3/4 and 4/4 > >Also, a great deal of 'Camera Eye' is in 3, though I wouldn't describe it >as >sinister :) > >Of course, there are earlier - albeit brief - uses of 3/4 in their canon >(in >2112, etc) but you were correct in noting their fondness for writing in 5 >and 7. > >These are not quibbles by any stretch - you did a dynomite job simplifying >what can be an awfully confusing topic for the unintitated. The only reason >I know these is, well, I'm a Rush freak. Among other things. > >Michael "buried in the mists of time" Wells - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 21:38:46 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: An introduction to time signatures for the non-musician I appreciate the input - by the way, this came to me personally, assume you meant to go to the list - you know, I'll have to listen to Tom Sawyer firsthand. Right now I'm listening to "You Are The Sunshine Of My Life", it's impairing playback on my mental tape player - but if you're right, I'll give Tom Sawyer props as the heaviest thing I've heard in 3/4. Although if it's nonconsecutive instances of 3/4 in the middle of several measures of time signature changes, I'm not sure it counts, because you lose 3/4's perky insistence if you don't stick with it for a good couple of measures. You know, one Rush fan to another, I'm not sure what it is that keeps them from being widely thought of as one of the great rock bands of the 70s. I mean, many people do, but many people seem to pooh-pooh them. Goddammit, they ROCKED! And rocked harder than any other progressive band - they're like a "crossover" band. Tull rocked, and they did progressive, but they never did both well in the same song. Although I must admit the song "Going For The One" walkes an amazing line between balls-out buttrock and cerebral progressive. Aaaah, "Master Blaster (Jammin')" just came on. Excuse me for a minute. Mike At 10:08 PM -0600 11/29/02, Michael Wells propounded thusly: >> I racked my brain trying to come up with an >> example of truly sinister-sounding music in 3/4, but I don't think it's >> possible. > >Firstly, kudos on the nice time-sig writeup Michael! > >Take a look at some Rush passages from Moving Pictures and I think you'll >find several examples of 'heavy' 3/4... > >'Tom Sawyer': the bass riff (echoing the earlier keyboard riff) after >"...space he invades, he gets by on you" which alternates measures between >3/4 and cut time (and wraps up in 7/8) > >'Limelight': the main riff, which alternates between 3/4 and 4/4 > >Also, a great deal of 'Camera Eye' is in 3, though I wouldn't describe it >as >sinister :) > >Of course, there are earlier - albeit brief - uses of 3/4 in their canon >(in >2112, etc) but you were correct in noting their fondness for writing in 5 >and 7. > >These are not quibbles by any stretch - you did a dynomite job simplifying >what can be an awfully confusing topic for the unintitated. The only reason >I know these is, well, I'm a Rush freak. Among other things. > >Michael "buried in the mists of time" Wells - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #405 ********************************