BPM - How to know the exact bpm in a track

[miroslav]

Where do you get this notion from??

BPM is a unit of measure for the rate of tempo. That's all. Nothing to do with average over a song. Well, unless you express it that way, ie, "Oh, the average tempo of that song is 120BPM." Or you can say, the tempo in bar 34 drops to 72 BPM then goes back to 120 BPM in bar 35.

BPM can change throughout a song because the tempo can change.

I know, I know, don't get into an argument with Miro. He's going to make a really long post and automatically win because of TL/DR. j/k

Look it up....I'm not making it up, and it's got nothing with any "argument".
BPM was always used to express average/overall tempo of a song.
BPM isn't a DAW invention. They were noting BPM as numerical value for a piece of music since back in Mozart's days.

"The tempo of a piece will typically be written at the start of a piece of music, and in modern Western music is usually indicated in beats per minute (BPM)."
One value noted for the song....not a lot of varying values throughout the song.

You guys want to get all DAW-happy and take BMP measurements every few beats or use some 10 decimal point value to describe some *exact* BPM.....knock yourselves out.

Get a metronome....set it to 116 (or watever)....THAT is the BMP.
Now, get the metronome going, and speed up and slow down your playing a bit from measure to measure...not a problem....but the metronome value is still your overall tempo/BMP for the song.

 

[jimmys69]

WTF is BMP?

 

[jimmys69]

And just to be clear, 'Beats Per Minute' is not an average in any situation I have had. It is the definite tempo for any part of a song. There is no average for tempo in any genre I work with. I must have misunderstood you because it makes no sense to me at all.

Not trying to argue either. It just makes no sense to me. Please explain.

 

[miroslav]

WTF is BMP?

Fat-finger dyslexia!

I totally get how you guys are looking at it and where you are coming from.
You want to take every tempo change, for every part of a song, and note it's BPM.
Sure, you can do that, but tempo/BPM when given, is usually given as a single value for the whole composition, and not for parts of a composition, and it's not about adding up all the sections where you sped up or slowed down the tempo a bit for effect.

For close to 200 years now, "tempo/BPM" has been given that way, and it's usually notated at the top of the page of many classical pieces, where music notation was/is the norm, unlike Pop/Rock music that doesn't use as much notation.
(The use of tempo/BPM notation started somewhere in the early 19th century and become widely used after that).
It's a single BPM number given to denote the overall/average pace of the song.

Here's a Mozart piece, showing that the overall/average pace for the composition to be played at is 1/4 note = 120 BPM.
It doesn't say the composition can't have faster or slower sections....it just states its average pace.



Sure, it makes sense in this DAW/MIDI/loop age to look at songs in "chunks"....as parts that are assembled to make a whole song, and each one has it's individual BPM pace....but I'm just going by the standard definition of how one states the tempo/BPM of a song.
If there's one thing I had beaten into my head as a kid taking piano lessons....it was using a metronome to play at a given BPM pace. "You're playing too fast....slow down and follow the metronome!"

 

[Steenamaroo]

I used my ears, a metronome, and trial and error.
That's how I arrived at 133-134.

 

[jimmys69]

Fat-finger dyslexia!

I totally get how you guys are looking at it and where you are coming from.
You want to take every tempo change, for every part of a song, and note it's BPM.
Sure, you can do that, but tempo/BPM when given, is usually given as a single value for the whole composition, and not for parts of a composition, and it's not about adding up all the sections where you sped up or slowed down the tempo a bit for effect.

For close to 200 years now, "tempo/BPM" has been given that way, and it's usually notated at the top of the page of many classical pieces, where music notation was/is the norm, unlike Pop/Rock music that doesn't use as much notation.
(The use of tempo/BPM notation started somewhere in the early 19th century and become widely used after that).
It's a single BPM number given to denote the overall/average pace of the song.

Here's a Mozart piece, showing that the overall/average pace for the composition to be played at is 1/4 note = 120 BPM.
It doesn't say the composition can't have faster or slower sections....it just states its average pace.

View attachment 88464

Sure, it makes sense in this DAW/MIDI/loop age to look at songs in "chunks"....as parts that are assembled to make a whole song, and each one has it's individual BPM pace....but I'm just going by the standard definition of how one states the tempo/BPM of a song.
If there's one thing I had beaten into my head as a kid taking piano lessons....it was using a metronome to play at a given BPM pace. "You're playing too fast....slow down and follow the metronome!"

But this is not '19th century recording forum'.

I get what you are saying but it has nothing to do with the OP's question or any hint of help for anyone reading this thread.

Where is that hand on head smiley?....

 

[miroslav]

I used my ears, a metronome, and trial and error.
That's how I arrived at 133-134.

Yeah....the first thing I do when composing a new song is to find the overall tempo that fits the song.

I'm talking...playing my acoustic guitar, tapping my foot, counting the beats and watching the clock.
That's just for setting the tempo/BPM of the whole song.....it's not about any parts of the song.

It's funny....sometimes even 2 BPM up/down will affect the overall vibe of a song.

But this is not '19th century recording forum'.

I get what you are saying but it has nothing to do with the OP's question or any hint of help for anyone reading this thread.

Where is that hand on head smiley?....

Music is music...theory is theory...notation is notation...definitions are definitions.....
...regardless of the century.

Like I said....look it up, don't take my word for it.
The OP wants some new definitiuon of *exact* BPM for the song...and the way you guys look at it, you end up with stuff like 121.4523 BPM.

 

[Farview]

There are plenty of classical music pieces that have noted tempo changes. If I wasn't on my phone , I would look some up.

Rubato is not a tempo change, thay seems to be what you are talking about. Tempo changes in a composition are always noted.

 

[miroslav]

OK...fine....but tempo/BPM of a song, is given as a single whole number value to denote the overall pace.
You can change that, and note it if needed...but it's not the same as what some are talking about here...where it's derived as some *exact* computation that ends up with fractions and values like 121.5432 BPM for the whole song!

I've never seen anyone notate BPM in that manner...which is what the OP is after and what he was puzzeled about at the start of the thread.

 

[jimmys69]

OK...fine....but tempo/BPM of a song, is given as a single whole number value to denote the overall pace.
You can change that, and note it if needed...but it's not the same as what some are talking about here...where it's derived as some *exact* computation that ends up with fractions and values like 121.5432 BPM for the whole song!

I've never seen anyone notate BPM in that manner...which is what the OP is after and what he was puzzeled about at the start of the thread.

Seriously? You are going to argue this?

My lord...

Ugh...

 

[miroslav]

Jimmy...LOOK IT UP!

Look up the definition of "Tempo/BPM" and how it's notated and used.

Sheeeeesh!

 

[jimmys69]

Jimmy...LOOK IT UP!

Look up the definition of "Tempo/BPM" and how it's notated and used.

Sheeeeesh!

Stop arguing man. That is just not useful in this thread.

I understand your point, but it is not the place to hold a debate on where the origination or use of BPM or lol (BMP) comes from.

The OP just wanted to do what every member here wants to do. 'record to or find an exact bpm'. It not that friggen hard nor reason for an argument.

I sure hope Rod comes around to give some support soon.

 

[Greg_L]

Lol. Yall have been miroslaved!

 

[Chili]

Where do you get this notion from??

BPM is a unit of measure for the rate of tempo. That's all. Nothing to do with average over a song. Well, unless you express it that way, ie, "Oh, the average tempo of that song is 120BPM." Or you can say, the tempo in bar 34 drops to 72 BPM then goes back to 120 BPM in bar 35.

BPM can change throughout a song because the tempo can change.

^^^This^^^

Even the Wikipedia excerpts you quoted do not mention anything about BPM being the average tempo of a song. In fact, the article supports my argument better than yours.

In a piece of music, you'll have the tempo shown at the top, near the first measure, as you noted. It is mostly expressed as a number, but might be a word; ie Allegro, slowly, moderate, etc. The number given is a starting point to get the band starting at the same speed. Later in the music, there might be more annotation to change the tempo. If the first half of a song has a tempo of 85 BPM, then the second half of the song has a tempo of 145BPM, is the number at the top of the page going to say "115"?? Nope, It'll say 85 because that is the tempo the song starts at.

So, our discussion is still going because I called Miro out on the BPM term. We're splitting hairs, but that's okay. It's internet banter and there's nothing else to do on the internet.

 

[miroslav]

The OP just wanted to do what every member here wants to do. 'record to or find an exact bpm'. It not that friggen hard nor reason for an argument.

And that was/is my point...that it's not accurate to look at BPM as some *exact" fractional value.
Sure, you can compute things based on song "parts", and end up with some fractional value for the whole song, like 118.3333 BPM....but that's not really correct, and you wouldn't set that value as your "song value"....would you?

AFA the definition of "tempo/BPM of a song"....anyone here can Google it, I was just repeating it.
Not accepting that definition....doesn't make me the one arguing.

 

[gecko zzed]

Here's a Mozart piece, showing that the overall/average pace for the composition to be played at is 1/4 note = 120 BPM.
It doesn't say the composition can't have faster or slower sections....it just states its average pace.

My take on this is a little different.

I don't think the tempo marker indicates an average pace at all, except in a special circumstance.

It is simply an instruction to the performer to start at that speed and continue until otherwise indicated. In popular music, tempo is generally steady throughout, except for natural variations in playng, and this is the special circumstance where the tempo marker will be both an instruction and a statement of average pace.

However, this doesn't apply in many other forms of music. For example, a lot of show music and a lot of classical music has quite extreme changes in tempo, and these are often marked with their own tempo markers (other than the swag of latin descriptions often used). It is possible, for example, to have a piece of music that starts at 120 and changes suddenly halfway through to 160. "Average", in such cases, is meaningless.

 

[miroslav]

^^^This^^^

Even the Wikipedia excerpts you quoted do not mention anything about BPM being the average tempo of a song. In fact, the article supports my argument better than yours.

In a piece of music, you'll have the tempo shown at the top, near the first measure, as you noted. It is mostly expressed as a number, but might be a word; ie Allegro, slowly, moderate, etc. The number given is a starting point to get the band starting at the same speed. Later in the music, there might be more annotation to change the tempo. If the first half of a song has a tempo of 85 BPM, then the second half of the song has a tempo of 145BPM, is the number at the top of the page going to say "115"?? Nope, It'll say 85 because that is the tempo the song starts at.

So, our discussion is still going because I called Miro out on the BPM term. We're splitting hairs, but that's okay. It's internet banter and there's nothing else to do on the internet.

Look at my very first post.....you're now saying pretty much what I said.

The number at the top of the page gives the overall (kinda means "average" doesn't it, ) pace of the song, not necessarily just the starting pace.
The whole crux of this thread is the idea of getting some fractional value like what the OP was getting, and what many of the DAW tap/tempo calculators will give you when applied to a whole song when it has some sections that speed up/slow down.
Which is a wrong value for BPM.
That's what I've been saying.
A couple of sped up measures are going to change the overall/average pace is.
For a song that has the same tempo start to finish, but you don't know what it is....do exactly as I said in my first post. Count the beats, watch the clock, divide the time by the number of beats....that's the average value.
I never said that you take the speed changes and average them out...nope....that's exactly what's wrong with the OP's results that he questioned.

Anyway...been playing/writing songs, tapping, counting and looking at the clock to get overall/average BPM value for a song since my teen days. Ain't never had an issue or come up with the wrong number.
Even now days, when I stick that number in the DAW....it's right on the money.

 

[miroslav]

My take on this is a little different.

In popular music, tempo is generally steady throughout, except for natural variations in playng, and this is the special circumstance where the tempo marker will be both an instruction and a statement of average pace.

Everyone here seems to have their way of looking at this...don't they!

Yeah...speed changes in most popular music tend to be limited to "variations in playing"...so "average" tempo is a legit way that I think it can be looked at.
I think I also said a few times that you can change speed in a song. I don't think I ever suggested that the numerical value noted is a set pace for the entire song.

Since you mentioned popular music, which is what we mostly deal with....the whole BPM came into heavy focus with disco/dance music, since DJs wanted to know the overall pace of a song so they can beat-match the next tune.
It was/and still is....given as a single number for the whole song.
To me....that's an average pace being given. Even if the song pumps up a bit at some section, it still has the overall pace value. I mean....DJs have been using this way of looking at for years, so nothing odd or weird in my also saying it here.

Anyway...I was focusing initially and exclusively on the OP's situation (though now we are all over the place).
He did not indicate speed changes...yet he was getting some weird fractional value....and wanting to get *exact* value.
Hence my initial post about how to get the correct BPM for his song...and not what that fractional value was giving.

It's always been such a simple thing.....that's all I was giving the OP.

 

[miroslav]

We're splitting hairs, but that's okay.

Exactly....!

Not sure why that gets some folks panties all in a twist.
I think we've run out of broad, opposing views around here for the most part....so it comes down to fine details.

 

[Wilde]

Audio Downloads : TapTempo /// AnalogX

Cheers - Link appreciated