I get the belief that Clarinet Marmalade is in 2/4 because it is in 2/4.
Oy vey. In other words, what makes it in 2/4 rather than 4/4, 2/2, 8/8, or even 2/16, 1/4, or 7/8? You can write anything in any time signature. You have some odd view that you're not explaining that some things are really in some time signatures. Explain your ideas there.
As I detailed in my original post, 20s Chicago jazz works were absolutely without a shadow of a doubt constructed in 2/4
What makes them in 2/4 rather than 4/4? If you're claiming that there was a historical notational convention that composers actually wrote the time signature as 2/4 rather than 4/4, then that would be fine (if it were actually the case, that is--I'd want to see the actual
historical charts and lead sheets). But you'd just be saying that it's what they happened to choose to write as the time signature. If you're saying that per the sound of something, it's "really" in 2/4 rather than 4/4, as if it's some kind of objective fact, then you're just wrong. We can write anything in any time signature. I'll briefly explain this:
Now, there are conventions of thinking of particular kinds of phrasing in particular time signatures. For a simple example, if we're playing a steady pulse of notes (not shuffled, all evenly spaced, etc.) and accenting them like this: LOUD soft LOUD soft LOUD soft soft LOUD soft LOUD soft LOUD soft soft, over and over, conventionally--and this is just a convention, it's not at all a fact about what it "really" is--most folks would say it's in 7, and if they're anything but classically-oriented, they'd usually say it's in 7/4, 7/8 or 7/16 depending on just how fast it's being played relative to about 120bpm. None of that is
right, it's just a convention, a "groove" (in the "rut" sense) in the way that some populations think about it. The actual time signature is no more a fact than the idea that you shouldn't wear white shoes after labor day (however, the actual time signature that someone chose to write something in historically would be a fact just like it would be a fact whether Joe Smith did choose to wear white shoes after Labor Day in 1945).
We could write it in 7/8, so that it's just ONE two THREE four FIVE six seven, repeating ad infinitum, but we could also write it in 14/8, so that it's ONE two THREE four FIVE six seven EIGHT nine TEN eleven TWELVE thirteen fourteen.
In 4/4, it would be ONE and TWO and THREE and four AND | one AND two AND three and FOUR and | ONE and TWO and three AND four AND . . . etc.
11/16: ONE (two) three (four) FIVE (six) seven (eight) NINE (ten) eleven | (one) two (three) FOUR (five) six (seven) EIGHT (nine) ten (eleven) | ONE (two) three (four) five (six) SEVEN (eight) nine (ten) ELEVEN | etc.
Or at a halftime tempo of 11/16: ONE two THREE four FIVE six seven EIGHT nine TEN eleven | ONE two three FOUR five SIX seven EIGHT nine ten ELEVEN | etc.
Or in 1/2: ONE | one | ONE | one | ONE | one | one | ONE | one | ONE |one | ONE | one | one etc.
In terms of what you'd be
hearing, it would be exactly the same in each example. So there's no way to say what time signature anything is "really in", as there are no facts about what time signature anything is "really in". There are only facts about what time signature a composer or arranger, say, chose to write something in (and sometimes the choices are very odd--look at a Stravinsky score), or what time signature some particular musician (or dancer, or listener, etc.) chose to think about something in.
to fit the dancing of the time. If the music is constructed in anything other than 2/4 then there's no Charleston dance.
As we've just seen, it can be written in absolutely ANY conceivable time signature and sound just the same. You could also count dance steps anyway you like and yet the movements are exactly the same. (And you can also dance so that it's polyrhythms relative to the music, etc.)
Now, some of those time signatures would be very unusual to think of for certain phrasing, but 1/2, 2/4, 4/8, 8/16, etc. are all theoretically identical to 2/4 (in terms of that, it works just as mathematical fractions does, but you can just think of it like this: in 2/4, there is one half note in the bar, four eighth notes, etc.), and 2/2, 4/4, 4/2, 8/8, 8/4, 8/2, etc. would all
sound identical, you'd either just be using different notes to write it and thinking of it at a different tempo (like using half notes where you'd used quarters before, but the half notes are occurring just as quickly as the quarter notes had been--it sounds
exactly the same) or you're just thinking of bars being longer strings of the phrases, so that instead of 1 2 1 2, you've got 1 2 3 4 --- sounds
exactly the same, you're just counting it differently.
It's no different than having a jar of marbles and counting them as 1, 1, 1, 1 (and seeing how many 1s there were total) or 1, 2, 1, 2, (and seeing how many twos there were total) or 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 (and seeing how many 3s there were total, etc.). The jar of marbles doesn't change. Only the way we're choosing to count them changes. There is no fact that there were 100 pairs of marbles in the jar rather than 50 quartets or marbles, or 66 and 2/3 trios--they're all the same exact thing.
And as everyone knows all of that is always in 2/4.
It can be a fact that conventionally, that has been written in 2/4. It's very wrong to say that it's a fact that it really is in 2/4. It would be the same as this difference: "Historically, people have always counted jars of marbles in pairs", and "Jars of marbles
really are in pairs". For the latter--no they're not. There's nothing that makes them "really in pairs", that would just be a fasionable way of counting them if that happens to be the case (if people happen to be following that fashion).
Your original confusion, and the part where Britt and others tried to clarify for you, was that Kenny Clarke said late 30s
He said that it wasn't played on cymbals, but snare drums. He said it wasn't accepted by others to play it on cymbals.
It is a pure skip note because it accompanies the actual dance step and was the reason for the continual evolution of the pattern.
It was present in the music prior to the jitterbug. I also know no one else with an academic background in it who agrees with your view on this, but I can give you academic references for many different musicologists who believe it stems from the 2:3 hemiola as I noted above.
In case you're not aware, 2 beat is an actual style that is studied in schools and is beyond any possible discussion of semantics or terminology.
I have degrees (plural) in music theory/composition, by the way. I'm familiar with what is taught in schools.
Because you had no idea about the relation of the dance to the evolution of the ride pattern/although Clarke absolutely did/ you then inferred that he might not have been correct,
Re Clarke, he made statements about snare drums versus cymbals that I noted were incorrect. I didn't say anything about anything else there. Also, re the historical evolution of the swing groove, I'm relying on the work of academic musicologists and historians who I'm familiar with and happen to agree with on this issue.
then used as an example a composition that inferred your notion of a possible ride pattern, not fully aware of the whole picture.
I referred to a randomly picked earlier piece that has that same exact rhythm on cymbal, rather than playing a shuffle groove on snare drum. That was it.
You can probably figure that out from my comments.
Tell that to the dancers.
Okay, point me to some dancers you want me to explain this to.
In your world they would be falling down the moment they hit the dance floor.
They would be dancing exactly the same way, just counting their steps differently.