+- Scoring Central (http://scoringcentral.mattiaswestlund.net)
+-- Forum: Music (http://scoringcentral.mattiaswestlund.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Music Theory (http://scoringcentral.mattiaswestlund.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+--- Thread: Time Signature Identification (/showthread.php?tid=1210)
Time Signature Identification - Nayrb - 07-11-2021
Ok, this tune may not be to everyone's taste, but I've been listening to a lot of this kind of stuff as I've begun to tackle time signatures and meter seriously for what is probably the first time since 2005 and my one theory class in college. I admit ignorance on a lot of that stuff. I often just set my simple meter to triplets when doing "heroic" stuff in the past, but that isn't going to fly anymore.
One thing I've learned is that it seems you can usually trust whatever your compulsion to tap or nod your head might be to get a good start on determining meter--that general feeling is where it starts. I sure wish someone had done a better job explaining to me that pulse and beat are not always the same thing, though. But, especially in metal music, it can be tempting to assume what is compound to be simple when it's a particularly fast compound part (which paradoxically can feel slower at times).
So this track feels like it's moving pretty seamlessly between simple and compound meters. I'm hearing it start in a simple triple meter and going into compound duple, then changing between simple and compound duple pretty fluidly throughout the track. Pretty standard for metal, I think. Am I on the right path here? fast double kick and blast beat rhythms are usually pretty easy to feel as compound; fast skank/thrash-beat derivatives tend to feel "simple," and can trip me up.
RE: Time Signature Identification - Paul Battersby - 07-11-2021
From the beginning to the 2 minute mark I was able to reliable count in 3/4 time. When it's being played the cymbal is being hit every 3rd beat. Otherwise there is emphasis from the guitar every third beat. So I'd say it's a simple 3/4, at least for the first 2 minutes.
RE: Time Signature Identification - Chris Spyratos - 07-12-2021
Not trying to be pedantic but I always think of these faster paced triple meters as 6/8. Surely there are some phrases with more complex rhythmic patterns but they conform to this 6/8.
RE: Time Signature Identification - Mattias Westlund - 07-12-2021
+1 on the 6/8. The drummer is doing some sneaky things here and there that throws you off, but overall it feels like most of it conforms to 6/8 (one-two-three-FOUR-five-six). 3/4 and 6/8 are of course interchangeable but I normally listen for where it makes sense for a measure to start over, and to me the 6/8 flow feels more natural here.
RE: Time Signature Identification - Nayrb - 07-12-2021
(07-11-2021, 11:03 AM)Paul Battersby Wrote: From the beginning to the 2 minute mark I was able to reliable count in 3/4 time. When it's being played the cymbal is being hit every 3rd beat. Otherwise there is emphasis from the guitar every third beat. So I'd say it's a simple 3/4, at least for the first 2 minutes.
(07-12-2021, 09:50 AM)Chris Spyratos Wrote: Not trying to be pedantic but I always think of these faster paced triple meters as 6/8. Surely there are some phrases with more complex rhythmic patterns but they conform to this 6/8.
(07-12-2021, 12:01 PM)Mattias Westlund Wrote: +1 on the 6/8. The drummer is doing some sneaky things here and there that throws you off, but overall it feels like most of it conforms to 6/8 (one-two-three-FOUR-five-six). 3/4 and 6/8 are of course interchangeable but I normally listen for where it makes sense for a measure to start over, and to me the 6/8 flow feels more natural here.
In response to all: Yes, and I know in metal music it's typical to go for 6/8 because it gives the impression of speed and allows for what Mattias describes as "tricky": it feels simple in that you want to "bang your head" to it, but it's actually just divisions of the beat in a compound meter. Then again, it's true that you could move between 3/4 and 6/8 and not really lose anything (sometimes). As a friend of mine put it, it's often just "semantics." I too like to listen for where it makes sense for a measure or a phrase to start over. There are certain songs where it's obvious it has to be compound because you wind up with a single measure in simple somewhere, which kind of doesn't make sense. The point isn't complexity for its own sake, but rather simplicity in service of the musical ideas themselves.
Generally, I don't want to be one of those "purists" who cares more about analyzing the music based on "rules," but I do want to learn the most efficient ways to do things and to understand some of the ways stuff I'm trying to do is done by other, more knowledgeable musicians and composers. There's usually a good reason for things being done the way they are, as I've learned.
Now that I'm using Reaper, I can do this kind of thing more easily. It's opening up all kinds of possibilities and making me a better listener, but also creating some new challenges. Pretty exciting! I tend to think of how this kind of knowledge will translate to a DAW rather than to pen and paper (since I can't really read or write notation very well anyway). Thanks for the responses!
RE: Time Signature Identification - Paul Battersby - 07-12-2021
It must be 3/4. This song it practically a waltz.
(I'm kidding of course)