New answers tagged time-signatures
Here's a little test of your ability to read music without a time signature. This is the theme from a piece by a very well known composer - note, I transposed it into a different key because the original key might frighten some people. Which is the correct version - 3/4 time or 4/4? (I'll add a link to the original after a day or so, to give the OP time to ...
Probably. But it can get a bit silly. All these bars sound the same, but you wouldn't want to continue this sort of notation for too long!
Why, in that case, is the bottom number required either? Use time signatures and bars if they help organize the rhythmic patterns of your music. Most composers find they do, both for musical and practical reasons - what would you prefer, "go from bar 123" or "go from the 1,103rd note"? :-)
You can (theoretically) read a score without bar lines, and indeed bars (or measures) and bar lines, in the sense that we use today, are a relatively new invention, from the mid of 17th century. Before that, "bar" lines were not used at all, or were used only to visually divide a piece into sections or phrases. In fact if we go all the way back to Gregorian ...
No! it's possible to sort of translate 2/2 into 4/4, but even then there will be a subtle change in emphasis of certain notes, depending where they are in a bar. It's certainly not possible to tranlate 3/4 into 6/8, even though they both contain the equivalent of 3 crotchets/6 quavers. 12/8 is often written as 4/4, with a note at the top explaining the feel, ...
At the very least you could translate one three time into another type of three time. So for instance... Into. You can also change the nature of a certain type of time. Or in other change a passage from Simple Time to Compound Time. So for Instance take the next simple duple time passage and change it into a compound duple time.
Most (Western) music divides neatly into regular sections. We call those bars. Without them, there would be no particular emphasis on the first beat of each bar, which is where the composer got the top number from. When he wrote the music, he felt it had a rhythm, and translated that into number of beats - the top number. The bottom number, as you state, ...
It can be interpreted not as 59/48, but as 5/4+9/8 (i.e. 19/8). Sometimes composers use two meters to express the "alternation" (1st beat has 1st time signature, 2nd has 2nd, 3rd has 1st again, 4th has 2nd etc.). These meters are usually written next to each other, without any space or plus sign (which creates such confusion). So I advise you to count actual ...
You'd have to take a look at the actual music to be sure. As a hunch, 59 is 32+27, two numbers with musically useful small factors. If we only want actual divisors of 48, it may be 48+8+3 or 24+16+16+3. Not particularly more desirable. So really go hunt for more information in the music. How would a drummer work it? Like Joe Morello did in the David ...
Each bar is a "gnat's crotchet"* shorter than 5/4, which would be 60/48. Simples! "Gnat's crotchet": a technical term much used by the late jazz trumpeter (and later BBC radio panel game host) Humphrey Lyttleton. Similar, but not quite identical to, a "midge's minim".
Unless the composer has explicit instructions, I'd probably just take the song as un-metered. Take a sixteenth note as the unit time and use things as quarter notes or longer as just longer syllables. I'm not sure why this particular grouping was chosen. Normally a non-power-of-two in the lower number means there a triplet feel underlying things. Were my ...
Top 50 recent answers are included