Argument with Guitarist over time signature

4/4 would give a completley different feel, there are no groups of three in 4/4.

...A triplet played in 4/4 can be a group of 3 per beat...so yes...there CAN be groups of 3 in a 4/4 timing.

Remember that time signature does not describe the music...it describes how to commonly describe the music...and the time signature given to ANY music is arbitrary...and intended for communication purposes.(one persons 4/4 is anothers 2/4...or 5/4 that finds a common "1" every 20 beats...depending on the musical phrase described, of course)

The descriptive charactaristic of "time signature" is ARBITRARY.

You can play something noted in 4/4 with a "3" feel.

You can play something written in 6/8 with a rigid "2" feel.

Of course, both are ruled by the accents and additional charactaristics of the written music...such as ties and even hand written notes in the margin from the writer.


A time signature is not music...it is part of an arbitrary set of conventions to describe music. Western Notation gives us infinite ways to describe one specific musical moment.



disclaimer: I only call myself professional when I accept money...so please feel free to ignore me ; )
 
Triplets can be played in 4/4, you shouldn't be counting your bass notes as quarter notes at 250 bpm. You're getting confused because your counting six, which we refer to as 3/4. Even if 6/8 repeats at 12 measures, that's no where near what you described. 6/8, oddmeter or polyrhythm, is not even relevant to this. All in all your both wrong it's 2/4, ride on 1, snare on two, eight note triplet bass.
 
I take it that in the full face of adversity, the OP has legged it outta here?

Way to bury your head in the sand.

The OP hasn't been here since 4/4/14 Jules.I guess he tried other forums, where he thought he'd get the answer he was looking for,be it truth or fiction.:)

Steve B
 
I'm confused.
What's a time signature? I just hit stuff rhythmically so that it sounds good to me AND the rest of the band.


I'm not confused.
And you have a perfect solution !

.
 
I'm not confused.
And you have a perfect solution !

.

Kind of makes me happy that I am blissfully ignorant about all of this time signature debate! I am with him, I just sit down and hit things; most times it works out pretty well!
 
I take it that in the full face of adversity, the OP has legged it outta here?

Way to bury your head in the sand.

Have to say I miss these 'kinds' of exchanges on here from time to time....whether its time sigs, Ringo, coated vs. clear, Evans vs. Remo

They help exercise ones' conflict resolution skills.
 
I once had the same problem when a song went into a sort of half-time shuffle feel for the bridge, the keyboardist didn't understand. And god help me if I counted off "one-n-two-n-THREE-n-four-n".

Anyway...I feel your pain.
 
Have to say I miss these 'kinds' of exchanges on here from time to time....whether its time sigs, Ringo, coated vs. clear, Evans vs. Remo

They help exercise ones' conflict resolution skills.


This one has been particularly bloody hilarious, hasn't it. A most excellent giggle.

Although it's difficult to resolve conflict when you're too busy running away from the fight you just picked. :)


There are several ways of posting in a thread. My way is one way, Tharakan's way is another way.

There are those who post "by the book" and those who are just so damned unique, they can afford to throw out said book.

You my friend, are a "book" poster. And you're in real danger of sounding just like all the other "book" posters on the forum. Throw the damned thing away and let your inner Pachik-Moon shine!! :)
 
I'm confused.
What's a time signature? I just hit stuff rhythmically so that it sounds good to me AND the rest of the band.

And as laid back as that is, music theory is here for a reason, to correctly structure and organize music. You wouldn't even be able to rhythmically hit anything if you didn't understand the simplest theories of rhythm.
 
And as laid back as that is, music theory is here for a reason, to correctly structure and organize music. You wouldn't even be able to rhythmically hit anything if you didn't understand the simplest theories of rhythm.

My two-year-old can sing and play the drums, piano, guitar and bass rhythmically, and I'm quite certain that she hasn't a clue about the "theories of rhythm".
 
And as laid back as that is, music theory is here for a reason, to correctly structure and organize music. You wouldn't even be able to rhythmically hit anything if you didn't understand the simplest theories of rhythm.

Rubbish. You don't need to study or understand music theory to play in time, and you certainly don't need to know a time signature to play a rhythm.
 
this is false on so many levels

It really isn't. Even if it's subconscious and/or innate, you still must have an understanding of rhythm in order to execute it. If you don't, you're just flailing and hoping.

Having a theoretical understanding of what you're doing makes playing music - or indeed any activity - infinitely less of a struggle. You don't have to know that what you just played is a paradiddle, but it helps.

As others have noted, notation is merely another language in which music can be expressed. It is portable - you can carry the score to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony in your briefcase, but if you need to "learn it by ear" you need 80 people, their instruments, and a concert hall. It is also universal - an eighth note on the G line on the first beat of a measure in 4/4 time at 120 beats per minute is not subjective, whether you're in Des Moines or Prague. It has a specific note in frequency and duration in time. (NB: If it's marked "piano", yes, that's subjective. But dynamics are in my experience the only way in which noted music is subjective.) It's the same if you speak English or Czech or Somali. It's a way for me to express a practice regime to a student without relying on the student's memory for the patterns I've assigned her to practice.

Those who deride musical theory are as unwise (and douchey) as those who deride musicians who have no theory.
 
Rubbish. You don't need to study or understand music theory to play in time, and you certainly don't need to know a time signature to play a rhythm.

Do you need theory? No. Does it help? Definitely and infinitely.

I confess I don't really understand why any musician would refuse to learn theory. It's just another tool in your toolbox, another part of the whole mosaic that is music.

To deliberately shun theory is as baffling as deliberately shunning, say, brushes. Or a crash cymbal. Or playing with one arm only. Can you do it? Sure. Ask wossname from Def Leppard. :) My question is "Why would you if you don't have to?"

That's enough philosophizing for me for today. Y'all have fun! :D
 
It really isn't. Even if it's subconscious and/or innate, you still must have an understanding of rhythm in order to execute it. If you don't, you're just flailing and hoping.

Having a theoretical understanding of what you're doing makes playing music - or indeed any activity - infinitely less of a struggle. You don't have to know that what you just played is a paradiddle, but it helps.

As others have noted, notation is merely another language in which music can be expressed. It is portable - you can carry the score to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony in your briefcase, but if you need to "learn it by ear" you need 80 people, their instruments, and a concert hall. It is also universal - an eighth note on the G line on the first beat of a measure in 4/4 time at 120 beats per minute is not subjective, whether you're in Des Moines or Prague. It has a specific note in frequency and duration in time. (NB: If it's marked "piano", yes, that's subjective. But dynamics are in my experience the only way in which noted music is subjective.) It's the same if you speak English or Czech or Somali. It's a way for me to express a practice regime to a student without relying on the student's memory for the patterns I've assigned her to practice.

Those who deride musical theory are as unwise (and douchey) as those who deride musicians who have no theory.

so when my 10 month old daughter repeats a rhythm that I tap on the table perfectly back to me she has an understanding of theory ?

false... 100%

she is repeating what she hears exactly ... nothing more

when a song she likes is on she can tap along in time for the entire song and barely has and understanding what the words she can say mean let alone music theory

rhythm is primal my friend and has absolutely nothing to do with music theory

music theory was created to scientifically break down rhythms and tones .... but rhythm is not theory .... rhythm is as natural as the blood in our veins

....and as a player and fully educated musician with a degree who makes his living solely by playing and teaching music .... I can confidently say that theory is not 100% necessary to make a living

where I am an advocate of having a solid understanding of theory ..... a drummer easily make a living knowing the basics that he learned in public school if he/she is a player of substance

in its origins rhythm meant.... bring the rains for our crops .... the buffalo are dead.....war.......new life was born.....time to hunt .....etc etc

were they handing out charts in the tribes of Africa ?.... or were they just repeating what they heard since birth...... yeah the latter
 
Last edited:
Back
Top