R
RAMI
Guest
I can't believe you music theologians haven't figured this out yet.
It's like watching 3 dogs trying to fuck a football.
- Status
It's like watching 3 dogs trying to fuck a football.
G
Greg_L
Banned
It's like watching 3 dogs trying to fuck a football.
It's just nice to know that while I don't know shit about time signatures, at least I'm not alone.
R
RAMI
Guest
It's nowhere near as important as it looks like we're making it. We were actually doing ok until some guy did a drive-by with a 15 paragraph post that made no sense, while he had this "Let me educate you" attitude. He then proceeded to show he knows nothing about the subject. I just hate mis-information and I will call it out whether people like it or not. I got no problem bantering with Gekko about it because I respect him, even if I think he's wrong in this particular case. At least he's coherent in his wrongness.It's just nice to know that while I don't know shit about time signatures, at least I'm not alone.
Steenamaroo
...
Preach it, Brutha!
R
RAMI
Guest
OK, that's nice to know. Wasn't sure how you guys were reading my shit. I was bracing for the worst. Thanx.
famous beagle
Well-known member
Assuming you're talking about the original post in this thread, it is ABSOLUTELY in 4/4. It's actually an incredibly simple syncopation.
If you can make this fit in 5/4, then you've rewritten the laws of nature.
There are 16 16th notes in a measure of 4/4. This riff is simply accenting the following 16th notes:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
In 5/4, there are 20 16th notes in a measure. There are not 20 16th notes in this riff.
Again, this is a very simple syncopation device, very similar to the "Bo Diddley beat," aka clave or son clave, all of which are in 4/4, even though they accent off beats at times.
That's the definition of syncopation.
R
RAMI
Guest
Thank you. That's exactly it.
I'm not telling anyone what to do. But if it was up to me, I'd simply close the thread because the point has been made and anyone trying to dispute the FACT that this is 4/4 is just dealing in meaningless hyperbole at this point. This is not 5/4, 7/8 or anything else anyone wants to try to make it. There are NO TRIPLETS in this pattern. A basic understanding of musical notation is all that's needed to realize that. This is a 16 16th note phrase that contains some accents, but no triplets, and it's 4/4. That is 100% indisputable.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
Working with sixteenths is ok to a point, but it does come unglued when you have to deal with triplets. Often, with triplets, three notes occupy the space of two quarter notes, or four sixteenths, making each note 1.33 sixteenths long.
One of the points I made earlier was along these lines: If you hear a repeating riff of, say, six notes, and if there is no musical information other than these notes, how can you tell what the underlying rhythm is, i.e. whether the notes form two 3/4 bars, or one 6/8 bar, or are a pair of triplets in a 4/4/ bar?
R
RAMI
Guest
But this riff contains no triplets. Just because every third 16th note is accented for part of it, that's not what a triplet is. It's simply 16th notes with accents. There are no real triplets in this phrase. I think that was covered by myself and Steen about 10 pages ago.
R
RAMI
Guest
I can see you're ignoring me for some reason, but I'll respond to you anyway. I have to think that being ignored means that someone can't refute my points...or they just don't want to acknowledge my points for some reason.
You don't need "context" or more musical information. Did you listen to the recording of me counting to this from 2 pages ago? There's no disputing that it's a simple 4/4, especially after hearing me effortlessly counting to it. There's no changing that. That is what it is.
4/4. Very basic music theory.
If the purpose of this site is to help people learn, then prolonging this argument is accomplishing the exact opposite of that because it's giving someone who doesn't know better the impression that a time signature can be this, that, or the other thing, or that a time signature is a matter of opinion. It's not and it's a dis-service to try and give that impression. Trying to suggest that this pattern is anything other than 4/4 is mis-information, plain and simple.
Last edited:
F
FingerzAndKeyz
Member
OK, going back and reading some of these posts...this one in particular, I now understand what everybody is talking about. Not having anything else to go on, I was putting each note on a down beat and that then gives you a 5/4 pattern. Even my sister, a music teacher and several of her friends who are professional orchestral musicians were feeling it the same way. I myself have 3 years of college theory.
But this morning, she said she changed her mind. I don't know what changed her mind, but she still believes it could be written either way, 5/4 or 4/4. It all depends on what else you are going to put with it. This clip alone really isn't enough to go on.
To put it in 4/4, you have to kind of syncopate the notes instead of playing them all on the down beat. That's where the triplets feel was coming from that other people were mentioning. That then puts the two eighth notes on the fourth beat of the measure, and the next note is the first beat of the next measure and so on.
Putting it in 5/4 does make it seem pretty dry once you see how it is in 4/4. 5/4 isn't incorrect as much as 4/4 is better, because it shows the feel of the clip. Maybe all of my education got in the way?
Attached is the 5/4 beat. Keep in mind, I was putting each note on the down beat.
Attachments
R
RAMI
Guest
You and your sister are both 100% wrong. This is in 4/4. Plain and simple. Stop trying to cloud it and complicate it. There are no triplets in this, and if you think there are, you have no business trying to preach music theory to anyone. It simply has some accents, that doesn't make them triplets. You also don't need to hear the "rest of the piece", and if you think you do, you know nothing about music theory.
This is4/4. Stop spreading mis-information. You're demonstrating an extreme lack of knowledge of basic music theory. Go bak and couple of pares and listen to the clip of my counting to this.
It's 4/4, and it will always be4/4.
Incredible, just incredible.
This is4/4. Stop spreading mis-information. You're demonstrating an extreme lack of knowledge of basic music theory. Go bak and couple of pares and listen to the clip of my counting to this.
It's 4/4, and it will always be4/4.
Incredible, just incredible.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
I'm not ignoring you.
I already agreed some pages ago that the OP's piece was 4/4.
I've been making a more general point, which is that without extra musical information you may think that a selection of notes (not necessarily the OP's) has a particular time signature, when further information might reveal something else. And further saying that reducing everything to sixteenths doesn't always work. That's why I used the example of triplets. I thought you were ignoring me.
I'm quite happy with your counting.
R
RAMI
Guest
That's simply not true. You don't ever need to hear "extra musical information" to determine the time signature of a certain pattern. The rest of the song might go into 7/4, then 5/4, then 3/4, etc....That doesn't change the fact that THIS part of the song, THIS pattern is in 4/4. Many songs change time signatures within the same song. But each part, and for that matter each bar can have it's own time signature. You don't need to hear the rest of the piece. This pattern is what it is. The rest of the song does not affect that.
4/4. I'm out of here. I feel myself getting stupider with every post that I read.
Steenamaroo
...
Sorry dude, that's just not right.
The four crotchets you have there should be dotted quavers.
Split into 16 (which isn't preference or choice) each of those notes span three, where the closing pair span 2 each. 3-3-3-3-2-2.
The same as the 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16....... examples.
The whole thing adds up to 32/16/8/4, depending how you count.
It's 4/4.
Edit: I think I know where the 5/4 guys are coming from. I'll upload two audio clips showing why it's wrong in a sec.
IF you were to have 4 triplets then two quavers, spanning 5 beats, it'd sound damn close...DAMN close...but wrong.
Last edited:
famous beagle
Well-known member
Yes, you just illustrated the problem with your 5/4 idea. These rhythms don't match what's being played. What you wrote would be read as:
1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and
In other words, you should be able to steadily tap your hand, five times per measure, at the same speed.
With this riff, you can't do that. You have to tap it one speed for the first four accents and then speed up for the last two. But it's not just a matter of doubling it to 8th notes as you've done.
Listen to what you wrote (attached). It's not the same as the riff.
Again ... there are no triplets in this riff at all. A triplet is three notes in the space of two. This is simply syncopation --- i.e., accenting the off beats.
R
RAMI
Guest
Them you obviously weren't paying attention because you have no idea what you're talking about. The pattern you wrote out isn't even the same as the pattern we're discussing. Jesus.
Can you please make a simple recording of yourself counting to this in5/4, like I did with myself counting in 4/4? I'll tell you in advance that you can't do it because it's in 4/4. Stop polluting this place with your un-informed mis-information.
This is 4/4. It is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be in any other time signature.
Wow!
G
Greg_L
Banned
Rami.....
F
FingerzAndKeyz
Member
Just what is your education in music theory that you can say I'm wrong? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it depends on how you count it. I think you're being a little bit rude and there's no need for that.
R
RAMI
Guest
Rami.....
I swear. This is beyond stupid. I'm looking around for the hidden cameras because I'm almost expecting someone to tell me I'm on "Candid fucking Camera". This can't possibly be happening. It's like trying to convince someone that 2+2=4 and they just want to keep telling you otherwise. Incredible.
- Status