How to write complex time signature that would be confused for compound (triplet) time?

Question

This question was sparked by many answers and comments on the site which describe 6/4 as a compound meter of 2 groups of dotted half notes (1 & a 2 & a), rather than the way I've always used and heard it (mainly in prog rock and metal genres) as simple meter of 6 groups of quarter notes (1&2&3&4&5&6&) or, if you prefer, a complex meter of 4/4 + 2/4 (1&2&3&4&1&2& 1&2&3&4&1&2&).

I've also been trying to write a piece that is in a complex meter of 4/4 + 1/8 (count 1&2&3&4&5 1&2&3&4&5) so mathematically that would be 9/8 but yet 9/8 feels like it should always be a compound triple meter.

Is there a standard way to denote that a piece should be interpreted as having a certain feel which differs from the "standard" interpretation of the meter, or are there alternate meters that would better convey my ideas?

Answer 1

There's not a definitive standard, but there are various conventions.

One option is to include two time signatures: the "actual" time signature and, parenthetically, the "compound" version expressing the metrical divisions.

Another option would be to include, say, a dotted barline to help visually divide the measure.

As the previous two examples make clear, the notation itself can make clear the intended metric divisions. Baring eighth-notes in groups of four rather than three, or use of quarter notes rather than dotted quarters, signals strongly the intended interpretation, even in the absence of a "fancy" time signature.

And finally, if needed, you can add accents to really make clear where the metric stresses should be.

Answer 2

Adding to the other answer, which covers the 9/8 case very well.

The 6/4 example should probably be written in alternating 4/4 and 2/4 bars -- you can put both time signatures at the start of the piece like Tchaikovsky does here.

Literally the only 6/4 beaming that will unambiguously convey what you're after is 8 + 4, which is going to look very strange and only helps if you don't have any intervening crotchets. You could try halving all your note values and write it in 6/8, but it'll look even worse and upset traditionalists. You might decide that 3/2 is "close enough", but it's not an approximation I'd personally settle for. Alternating time signatures definitely seems the way to go.

Answer 3

Examples of actual modern practice below.

The first is from Jubilate Deo (2016) by Dan Forrest. I believe the publisher is Hal Leonard or one of their subsidiaries. The time signature is 9/8 but there are four beats per measure, counted and conducted like "1 & uh 2 & 3 & 4 &".

The next two are from "Vesuvius" (1999) by Frank Ticheli, published by Manhattan Beach Music. The first example is again 9/8 time but counted and conducted "1 & 2 & uh 3 & 4 &".

The second example is 8/8 instead of 4/4 because the grouping is different from 4/4. This is "1 & uh 2 & uh 3 &"

This method of indicating non-standard beat groupings is the only method I've seen in scores over the last few years. I think any other method would seem outdated unless it was for an older work and was meant to re-create the manuscript faithfully.