Is 5/4 simple or compound?

Question

I have seen 3 major ways of subdividing the quarter notes in 5/4. 1 is treating it as a simple meter and 2 others treat it as an irregular compound(or technically speaking, complex) meter. I have seen these interpretations in 2 main contexts, conducting an orchestra and music theory. I myself, when I see 5/4 always treat it the same way regardless of tempo. Of course, I can oblige by composers who used 5/4 as 2+3 or 3+2 by placing dynamic accents on the first note of each 2 or 3 note subdivision. But in my own compositions, I don't abide by the 2+3 or 3+2 that everybody else does when I use 5/4. I only use the irregular compound that everybody else uses for 7/4 and higher prime time signatures.

Simple Quintuple Meter

This is the interpretation I use in my own compositions when I use 5/4 is that 5/4 is a Simple Quintuple Meter. I mean, it makes sense right? 5 beats per bar, that is pretty easy to count, and isn't it ease of counting that makes 2/4, 3/4, and 4/4 all simple meters, even though in theory, the 4/4 could be subdivided into 2+2? 6/4 is when you really start needing to subdivide the bars into larger beats than the time signature. But 5/4 is easy to count as individual quarter notes, no need for subdivision.

1 2 3 4 5 | 1 2 3 4 5 | 1 2 3 4 5 | 1 2 3 4 5 |

This here is an example of a conducting gesture in 5 beats:

I see this used mainly for slow movements in 5/4 because at faster tempos it is hard to conduct in this 5 beat pattern. So for fast movements in 5/4, conductors generally will use a pattern of 2/4 3/4 2/4 3/4 or 3/4 2/4 3/4 2/4 depending on which beats the composer wanted to be accented beats. But for a solo pianist like me, counting in groups of 5 at a fast tempo is no problem.

Irregular Compound Meter(or complex meter)

This is the 2+3 and 3+2 that I have mentioned before. This has its merits, mainly for conductors, because the conductor doesn't have to use a 5 beat pattern which is difficult to do at fast tempos. But, if 5/4 is treated as an irregular compound meter, how would you know which accent pattern the composer wanted, whether it was 2+3 or 3+2? What if there are a lot of short notes in a given bar, making it hard to see the accents? Some composers have left the accents ambiguous, some have emphasized the accented beats with dynamic accents to make it clear, and others decomposed the 5/4 into 2/4 + 3/4 and used multiple time signature changes or a dual time signature to make it absolutely clear what interpretation the composer was going for.

So, given that 5/4 can be interpreted either as a Simple Quintuple Meter or as an Irregular Compound Meter and that each one has its merits, how should 5/4 be classified? As a simple meter? As an irregular compound meter?

Answer 1

Does it need classification? Why does everything have to be pigeon-holed?

5/4 (and 5/8 for that matter) is generally split into a more manageable 2 and 3, or 3 and 2. Not very often is it counted as a simple 5 with no sub pulse. That may be because humans are happier with basic counts of 2s and 3s. After all, most of our (Western) music falls into that category. we often count 1 2 3 4, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 in well used timings. So 2s and 3s seem natural.

If 5/4 was to be counted 1 2 3 4 5 1 etc, then it would be filed under 'simple'. If not, as is more common, it'd be 'compound'. Same would go for 7/4 as often counted as 1 2 1 2 1 2 3, (or other 2s and 3s combinations) - rarely as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7.

Answer 2

Regardless of how the notes in 5/4 are grouped, I believe 5/4 is a simple meter because its quarter notes are divided into 8th-note duplets. A quintuple-meter respective compound meter is 15/8, with 5 dotted-quarter-note beats made of 8th-note triplets.

Answer 3

Time signatures do not directly correlate to metre; 9/8 can be compound triple or an irregular quadruple metre, depending on where the main pulses are. It is inaccurate to refer to time signatures as "being" simple or compound, these are adjectives which describe metre, not time signatures.

Of course, the overwhelming majority of the time, 9/8 is compound triple; you could argue that 9/8 is so strongly associated with compound triple that it practically "is" compound triple. But it would be very difficult to substantiate a similar claim about 5/4 being so strongly associated with one particular metre.

Answer 4

It COULD be Simple Quintuple. Not very likely, but it could. The only example of this I can think of is at the end of Stravinsky's 'Firebird' where a 7/4 is simply hammered out with no 2 or 3-groups. (OK, 7 not 5. But same idea.)

But 5/4 (or 7/4) more usually falls into 2+3 or 3+2 groups. A simple beat and a compound one. I expect there's a name for this.

Note that 4/4 doesn't HAVE to be 'simple quadruple'. That's not a useful description of a Latin tune with consistent 3+3+2 8th note groupings.

We're not in the 19th century any more. Can't always pin down the identity of a time signature without looking at what it DOES.

Answer 5

Simple.

The top number isn't a multiple of 3.

But the body of your question doesn't seem to be about simple vs. compound. It seems to be about wanting a category beyond duple, triple, and everything else being some additive meter. At least you seem to hint at that. A non-additive, quintuple meter of strong, weak, weak, weak, weak. Maybe simple, non-additive quintuple?

But categorizing it that way doesn't seem nearly as important as notating so the accents are clear, because 3+2 & 3+2 seem to be the convention.