Why is common time most... common?

Hey everyone,

I've been pondering this lately, and I can't seem to figure out why 4/4 time is the most common time? what is it about most composers and almost always writing in 4/4?

I noticed it when I was showing another choir piece to my school's choir director, it was in 7/4, and she made a comment about "why isn't your music ever in 4/4?" which got me to thinking, what is you all's philosophy on why 4/4 is the most common time?

Speaking from an analytical point of view it is the most "stable" of the time signatures and therefor easiest to follow and play along with. After patterns of four (and its multiples) comes in three which is also very stable, then 5 (as 3+2) tends to be reasonably stable and followable as well.

One can also look at it from a psychological/evolutionary point of view and debate the fact that the skills that we use nowadays to create music were likely imperative to our survival at some point and the use of the patterns most easily recognizable like patterns of four or three were likely the most advantageous to our communication and therefor survival.

One could ask the same thing about prime scales other than the diatonic, and the simple answer here too is that they are less tonally stable the same way other time signatures are less rhythmically stable, and so will not be tended towards. I, maybe like you, am intrigued and inspired by rhythm more than other aspects of music and so write in all sorts of odd time signatures; I also love to experiment with other prime scales. But in doing so, I notice a certain tonal or rhythmic ambiguity or instability in writing in these alternate times and scales. Note though it is an instability which I hear and am inspired by, not something I have to "deal with" or "work around". Check out this great site:

The Scales Page primes

One can simply recognize analytically that the other prime scales (and odd time signatures) contain more than one tritone (or are harder to follow) while the diatonic contains only one (or 4/4 is more easy to follow,) and so realize it only makes sense that it contain more "stability". Or, one can venture into the psyche and attempt to discover why the tritone is tonally less stable (and why certain rhythms are easier to follow) than other intervals(or rhythms like 7, 11, etc.). Either way, it answers well the question of why certain musical structures like the diatonic scale or time signatures are tended towards.

John M

Ligeti's atmospheres is in 4/4. Why? It's easier to read.

Yep. I also do the same thing. I have tons of pieces that are in 4/4 but they sound NOTHING like 4/4 or follow any perceivable 4/4 rhythm or beat. Why? Easier to read and easier to conduct rehearsals, etc etc.

Ligeti's atmospheres is in 4/4. Why? It's easier to read.

Yep. I also do the same thing. I have tons of pieces that are in 4/4 but they sound NOTHING like 4/4 or follow any perceivable 4/4 rhythm or beat. Why? Easier to read and easier to conduct rehearsals, etc etc.

Same with me, I wrote a jazz piece that had the bass in a 3/4 feel (which was SO frustrating to teach him how to play) whilst the rest of the group was in 4/4

Interesting topic. I believe that the reason is a little mathematical. When we hear 4/4, our minds are grouping the notes into its factor, 2. The number 2 is the smallest prime number that can be divided into subdivisions(this excludes the number 1) and therefore is the most simple for us to process. This explains why 2/4 and 4/4 are the most stable, 3/4, a little less, and 5/4, 7/4, 11/4 etc. increasingly less.

4/4 is the simplest mathematical ratio and also, as JMisciagno mentioned, it is related to the smallest prime number. You can even see it the way you see the fundamental in the overtone series. It corresponds to symmetrical, repeating actions like hammering, walking, heartbeat. They are simple and intuitive, plain symmetrical, and require less focus to perform (unlike some specific Bulgarian folk dances in complex time signatures, for example).

(I now recall this was asked like 2 or 3 years ago in another forum where I replied in similar way, though more elaborated.)

4/4 is the simplest mathematical ratio and also, as JMisciagno mentioned, it is related to the smallest prime number. You can even see it the way you see the fundamental in the overtone series. It corresponds to symmetrical, repeating actions like hammering, walking, heartbeat. They are simple and intuitive, plain symmetrical, and require less focus to perform (unlike some specific Bulgarian folk dances in complex time signatures, for example).

(I now recall this was asked like 2 or 3 years ago in another forum where I replied in similar way, though more elaborated.)

Uh. I'm sorry, we're talking about 4/4 as in a pulse divided in four beats with different accents, right? My heart does NOT beat in 4/4, and repetitive actions certainly don't necessarily have a pattern like 4/4 (strong weak medium weak.)

Plus less focus to perform compared to what? 3/4? 6/8? Those are all very simple divisions all the same.

Likewise I don't see what any of it has to do with the overtone series... and of course, a whole LOT of folklore music/ethnic music is all over the place when it comes to pulse. In fact, I'd say 4/4 is rather LESS common in most music outside of the western tradtion so I can't really see how it's "more intuitive."

It corresponds to symmetrical, repeating actions like hammering, walking, heartbeat.

I don't quite understand what you mean with that. Those are just regular pulsations, but regular pulsations without any accented groupings have nothing to do with binary, ternary or tetrary metres - if anything then with an 1/1 time or something similar. Walking, ok, that can be considered inherently binary since there are two alternating yet regular beats.

A heartbeat on the other hand has nothing binary (or tetrary) to itself whatsoever. If anything, the sound of a single heartbeat is roughly ternary, with two audible beats, one being about twice as long as the other.

EDIT: Crossposted with SSC.

I think the answer's already been made. It was relatively obvious to start, too. 4/4 is rhythmically stable, even more so than 3/4 or 6/8. It works for audiences as well as performers. That's about it.

When refering to the overtone series, I refer to the parallel I see between this and that the more common, consonant and 'harmonious' intervals have simpler ratios (not going into acoustical explanations here). Which is what I put accent on in my post.

What does rhythmically stable stand for? This expression makes no sense to me. I presonally dislike it. It sounds like your music can collapse if you compose or play in other times. By analogy with harmonic stability? For example, 7/8 or 9/8 definitely don't sound to me as if they are unstable and/or want to resolve to 4/4. And, considering I am a Bulgarian, I can say they sound natural to me. So yes, cultural bias is very important, as usual.

When one talks from the perspective of Western music, one can argue that Western tuning systems, compositional techniques, forms, tonality, meters, etc., are more natural. And they subjectively are to those who say it since they are usually exposed to them far more often than to other musical traditions (with "peculiar" scales, timbres, forms...). But if we switch to other traditions, we can observe other statements. So, I personally have decided to not insist on the idea that something in art is more natural than other thing. If we talk about science and laws, that's another story.

Then shouldn't the question be why 4/4 is rythmically stable? And why our culture has developed a preference for rythmically stable (or rythmically simple) music? I'm sure I don't have to bring up the comparison with African music. Maybe we should be looking for an answer like Kamen's, only less wrong.

Then shouldn't the question be why 4/4 is rythmically stable? And why our culture has developed a preference for rythmically stable (or rythmically simple) music? I'm sure I don't have to bring up the comparison with African music. Maybe we should be looking for an answer like Kamen's, only less wrong.

What do you mean "Rhythmically stable" to begin with? If you can define that, then that'd be great since right now that term means nothing to me. 7/4 is very much stable to me, as much as 4/4 or 3/4.

Well, exactly :)

This is why I put "rythmically simple" between brackets, because maybe they're just the same things. Honestly, I don't know.

I could call 7/4 less stable because in Western music, it is a complex metrum: we western musicians find 7/4 so hard we have to divide it up into 4/4+3/4 or something.

Now it would seem to me that what I would call most stable is simply most symmetrical. And symmetry has always worked for our brains, right?

Dumb Question

Somebody thinks is a good question, no answer

Bad Answer

SSC/ Gardener/ Intelligent answer

Bad Answer reasserted

SSC/ Gardner- "Hold on there buddy."

Bad Answer reasserted

Bad Answer plus (more stuff pulled out of donkey)

Well, exactly :)

This is why I put "rythmically simple" between brackets, because maybe they're just the same things. Honestly, I don't know.

I could call 7/4 less stable because in Western music, it is a complex metrum: we western musicians find 7/4 so hard we have to divide it up into 4/4+3/4 or something.

Now it would seem to me that what I would call most stable is simply most symmetrical. And symmetry has always worked for our brains, right?

Uh, no. 7/4 is not complex, it's different. And, 4/4 is not symmetrical, remember that it's strong weak medium weak. How is this symmetrical again?

Don't make these distinctions since they make no sense. Writing and playing 7/4 is easy if you're used to it, like ANY other rhythm INCLUDING 4/4. I mean the 20th century is a great example as always, people writing in all sorts of time sigs for different reasons. None of it has to do with "stability." There are strictly practical reasons why you may want to write in 4/4 (Ligeti) or whatever that have NOTHING to do with rhythm.

ThomasJ, which scale did you use for measuring the wrongness of my proposal which makes reference to mathematical ratios and numbers? And where is your reference point? I myself don't like all the examples I gave in my quick answer and I don't claim it is the ultimate answer. I haven't devoted any time on this particular question simply because I think the answer won't contribute much to the quality of my music and that of others.

There are various interesting and unanswered "why's" in music. Thinking over things and proposing answers, no matter how right or wrong they are, is part of the search process (for those who are curious). For example, look at Terhardt's model, which is later refined by Parncutt (and later - Parncutt's used by others as a base for theirs).

Of course, I am open to read other thoughts on this topic, no matter how stupid or smart it is. Dismissing something without putting much thought into it is one of the easiest things in the world. To do it, one doesn't need an IQ higher than that of an imbecile.

Well yeah the answer is rather trivial, it doesn't bring anything to over-think it. Even if 4/4 was the most common sig, it says nothing about rhythm on its own. Even if it was the most common sig, we can as well blame trends or cultural baggage. I mean 3/4 is also immensely popular.

Yeah, I completely agree on that. The time signature alone doesn't say it all.

3/4, 4/4, 2/4, 6/8, 9/8, and 12/8 within Baroque and Classical European music all have root from Renaissance tempus/prolation... The triple meters were seen as more perfect, with 9/8 being the most perfect (three sets of three - because of the Holy Trinity).

Much non-Western music can be broken down into 4/4... but it's not always in 4/4; often it's not in a meter at all. Our own cultural expectations give us the perception of 4/4.

If you're into that sort of thing, the 4/4 meter can be considered "consonant" according to the definitions of Western common-practice music, since a 4/4 pulse (using that STRONG weak Medium weak scheme), when sped up, will result in a fundamental, plus the next two octaves above it, each with less amplitude than the one previous. 6/8 results in a fundamental plus the fifth above it, along with a couple of non-harmonic partials... It's not like this whole meter = pitch thing necessarily means anything, but it is interesting to consider.

Uh, no. 7/4 is not complex, it's different. And, 4/4 is not symmetrical, remember that it's strong weak medium weak. How is this symmetrical again?

It is complex in the sense that in our culture, we count it as 4 and 3 or 3 and 4. At the very least, it has to be tought this way. I don't know what the problem is then in calling it a complex metrum, comprised of several simple metra. I realize the distinction is not "natural" or inherent to music and rythm itself (again, African music), but for our Western music, I think it makes sense nonetheless.

You completely right about the symmetry though, I take that back. I'm just thinking aloud. Which I realize some people are afraid to do in order to maintain the impression that they are intellectually superior (and no SSC, I'm not talking about you).

Don't make these distinctions since they make no sense. Writing and playing 7/4 is easy if you're used to it, like ANY other rhythm INCLUDING 4/4. I mean the 20th century is a great example as always, people writing in all sorts of time sigs for different reasons. None of it has to do with "stability." There are strictly practical reasons why you may want to write in 4/4 (Ligeti) or whatever that have NOTHING to do with rhythm.

Though for some reason all of this waited until the 20th century to happen. Same can be said about harmony. This still doesn't answer the question why 95% of Western music is in 2,3 or 4.

4/4 is the simplest mathematical ratio and also, as JMisciagno mentioned, it is related to the smallest prime number. You can even see it the way you see the fundamental in the overtone series. It corresponds to symmetrical, repeating actions like hammering, walking, heartbeat. They are simple and intuitive, plain symmetrical, and require less focus to perform (unlike some specific Bulgarian folk dances in complex time signatures, for example).

(I now recall this was asked like 2 or 3 years ago in another forum where I replied in similar way, though more elaborated.)

The time signature 4/4 is hardly related to the mathematical ratio 4/4, because a time signature isn't a division. In fact, a 4/2 or 4/8 time signature can be exactly the same as 4/4, even though they are different ratios. Other people have already commented on the comparison with heartbeats etc. These are the things I considered wrong. As for the way I said it, I don't want to pretend you were objectively wrong, I was just being a little spiffy.

If you're into that sort of thing, the 4/4 meter can be considered "consonant" according to the definitions of Western common-practice music, since a 4/4 pulse (using that STRONG weak Medium weak scheme), when sped up, will result in a fundamental, plus the next two octaves above it, each with less amplitude than the one previous. 6/8 results in a fundamental plus the fifth above it, along with a couple of non-harmonic partials... It's not like this whole meter = pitch thing necessarily means anything, but it is interesting to consider.

One more person takes into consideration what I mentioned.

a 4/2 or 4/8 time signature can be exactly the same as 4/4, even though they are different ratios.

... and still simple in the end, by the way. ;)

It's not like this whole meter = pitch thing necessarily means anything, but it is interesting to consider.

It may be interesting to consider what types of time sigs equal which types of cars, too! Say, FR cars = 3/4, FF is definitely 4/4 (since they're easier to drive!) and MR = 7/4 since like sports cars it's tricky to handle!

... But of course that's all nonsense, and so is comparing rhythm/time sound organization parameters to pitches.

...comparing it to SPECIFIC pitches, yes, because of course, the specific tempo will determine what the "pitch" of the meter is. But the "timbral" application and manipulation of meter (by shifting the traditional accent patterns, etc.) does have some use in pulse-based spectral music.

But that's external coincidence, not internal. You're adding the relationships there (which are good things to add).