Bad Time Signatures

Heya. I was just writing a song to find out I was writing it in 11/8 time. It comes to me that sucha time signature rarely exists in real music, and I was just wondering, are their there time signatures which are just unnacceptable in music?

A friend told me that in his music course at college, they wanted him to find the time signature for Pi (as in Pi in algebra) To my knowledge, the time signature would be... 4 7/100 or something like that, try keeping time in that. I also saw a time that was 10/5, weird, I thought.

If you want bad time signatures, look at Licolnshire Posy. I believe there's a one-and-one-half/4. Those songs are nightmares, because they were written from a recording made of people singing folktunes. Very liberal with the meter changes.

It's possible to have a 10th note, a 12th note, etc. by working out the mathematical relationship between notes. Brian Ferneyhough does that quite a bit. He'll be going along in 5/8, 7/8, 3/8, 3/16, and then all of a sudden throw in 10/12.

Well, yes... But is it a bad idea to have these signatures?

Well.... if it's in your music you're pretty much stuck with aren't you? If you are so against the envelope that you can hear time sigs like 8/5 alternating with 2/4 then you probably have bigger fish to fry with regards to getting your music played.

Well, yes... But is it a bad idea to have these signatures?

Orchestrally, ensembl-ally...?

In practice with real orchestral players I'd say YES unless it's vitally necessary. Otherwise, break 11/8 down into simpler groups, frinstance 3/8 4/8 4/8 (depending how the rhythmic pattern falls). If it's 11/8 throughout, you may get away with it but frequent changes are an utter nuisance for players with loads of rests trying to count bars/measures with complex time sigs. If you must use them, include enough clear cues so they don't have to count the rests.

It's a question of whether you want it performed or not but can't afford the Boston Symphony Orch (or similar) so you have to turn to a provincial orchestra - and if you have to rely on an amateur orchestra, take it from me - they'll probably never make it, even a good one - amateurs have one thing over professionals - if they don't want to play it, they won't.

You will find weird note values, shapes, microtonal accidentals and a few more but you'll often find the composers working with the prospective performers who usually specialise in such music. If you must, include a glossary, much as you would in a book where you've made up lots of words that aren't obvious in meaning.

So keep it as simple as you can. Masses of rehearsal time can otherwise be lost trying to get things together. If you have to attend rehearsals be absolutely sure you know what you've composed and can demonstrate or conduct the thing correctly. There's nothing worse than a conductor stopping the orch, turning to the composer and asking "Was that all right?" A composer who doesn't really know what he's written may say "Yes." Whereon the conductor says "Oh really? Well, let me tell you that at bar 19 the oboe came in late and bar 29 the horns were silent..." etc etc. Well, there is worse - he might say, "Show me, then - there's a piano."

I've seen it.

Complexities may look impressive on paper (some composers like this) but in the real world of performance they serve to confuse and incur excessive time penalties.

So, if you have contacts with a damned good orchestra/ensemble, fine. If not, beware!

M

True. Really advanced stuff really only shows its face in chamber music. Occasionally you'll see it in orchestral stuff, but mostly it's chamber music.

Why would any time signature be "bad?" I'm afraid I'll never understand why there seem to be so many people concerned with doing things that are "wrong" in music. I rarely make myself consciously aware of what time signature I am composing in, so often I have very asymmetric, additive, poly, hemiola, etc. rhythms. I've found all such techniques to be fertile ground for good musical ideas...so..i'm really not so sure there is a such thing as a "bad" or "wrong" time signature.

I think he means just really hard to count in and keep time with

It seems to me that "difficult" and "bad" are two different things!

Anything but an approximation of pi would be impossible...

Why would any time signature be "bad?" I'm afraid I'll never understand why there seem to be so many people concerned with doing things that are "wrong" in music. I rarely make myself consciously aware of what time signature I am composing in, so often I have very asymmetric, additive, poly, hemiola, etc. rhythms. I've found all such techniques to be fertile ground for good musical ideas...so..i'm really not so sure there is a such thing as a "bad" or "wrong" time signature.

So, you would propose that 80/64 is just as good as 5/4? I would say neither are wrong, but one is confusing and makes reading music more difficult than it needs to be. I would suggest that the reasons many have concerns about right and wrong have to do with practicality. I'm not talking about musicality here. It is just as easy to write something badly in 4/4 as any other time signature. In fact, given the entire collection of music ever written, I have my suspicions that the the most awful music ever written may very well have been composed in 4/4 time.

It seems to me that "difficult" and "bad" are two different things!

I would tend to agree, but I would prefer to trade the word

I think this can boil down to one thing. If the players who are suppose to play your music cannot figure out your time signature correctly, it is a bad time signature.

Some time signatures that are complex make sense by breaking them down, like this:

11/8 is similar to 4/4, but the fourth beat would only be two thirds of a beat, it would also have a triplet feel.

ONE two three FOUR five six SEVEN eight nine TEN eleven

Often, in some hybrid time signatures - a hybrid signature being any time signature that's basically "wierd" - the composer will write a little note above the staff that breaks down the beats, and looks often like this:

Say the time signature is 7/8. Above it, there would be something that says, for example "2 + 2 + 3", or "3, 2, 2", or "2,3,2". Just to tell you where the beat pulses are.

Time signatures, such as the "time signature of pi" I consider to be pretentiously retarded, the composers attempt to look intelligent and intellectual without knowing full well that it's virtually impractical and stupid. A lot of composers try to be creative by doing stupid things like, "32/4", but it really does nothing.

Yea but a timesignatue like 11/8 isn't really that weird. As a musician you can expect to encounter that kind of signature even if you don't play anything that modern. When you encounter stuff like 17/2 and such, then it becomes assinine and confusing.

Please note that pi/4 would be an example of a very bad time signature.

Not as bad as Phi.

Why would any time signature be "bad?" I'm afraid I'll never understand why there seem to be so many people concerned with doing things that are "wrong" in music. I rarely make myself consciously aware of what time signature I am composing in, so often I have very asymmetric, additive, poly, hemiola, etc. rhythms. I've found all such techniques to be fertile ground for good musical ideas...so..i'm really not so sure there is a such thing as a "bad" or "wrong" time signature.

There certainly is "wrong" time signatures. Inappropriate ones.

For instance. Meter notated as 3/4. Chords changes are as follows: []=bar Numbers=beats

[1,3] [2][1,3][2][1,3][2]

There is a chord change every 2 beats. Unless this is a short section of the music, the meter marking is incorrect. It should indicate an even number of beats per bar - in line with the pattern of the melody or chords that accompany it. Would be the same if the chord changed every 4 beats, 8 beats, 16 etc.

Meter such as 80/4 is ridiculous since within those 80 beats there will be implied meters of common, 2/4,3/4 etc.

As for 11/8 - there is nothing wrong with the meter itself. That is, if your melody and/or chords fit it. Aside from some preferences (3/4 can be noted as 6/8 or 2/4 as 4/4 etc) - The music generally defines the meter, not the other way around.

I can

There is not really such a thing as a "bad time signature", in my opinion. Although 7/8, 5/8 and even more unusual metres are definitely difficult to use well, it's the result that counts. I don't support composers throwing in random effects into their works just to make it seem more impressive, but if it manages achieve a suitable effect, or at least doesn't sound completely retarded, then I see no problem.

I see no reason to use a denominator that is outside the realm of normal musical notation.

ie: 3/5, or 4/7.

these would require the base unit of time to be single notes of a quintuplet in the former, or single notes of a heptuplet in the latter.

so that would also require notating every single "beat" as a single beat taken from a tuplet...

it really makes no sense, since we have no notational basis for this.

for example, 5/5 means there are 5 beats in a measure, each beat is equal to one fifth of a whole note. In other words, each measure is actually made up of a quintuplet of quarters. So why not write it that way?

If you want to write a bar of 3/5 or 4/7, though, there isn't really a more convenient way as tuplets have to be filled out completely: you can't just write a group of three quintuplets or four septuplets without going outside 'normal' notation.

I think 7/8 and 5/8 are wonderful meters. Then again, I love asymmetrical meters. In my oppinion, there is no "wrong" meter. If you can make 1.5/7 work, by all means, do it.

I guess the reason why I like writing in asymmetrical meters is because there is so much more you can do off a single time signature. Its double and triple (maybe more) meters, but you can mix up the order. For example, two measures of double meter 3/4|2/4 could be written condensed into a single measure as 5\4, but 5\4 could be broken up into 2/4|3/4, 3/4|2/4, 2/4|2/4|1/4 etc. 11/8 could be broken down into many differant compound meters, and therefore, in my oppinion is a very good meter to work in.

If you want to write a bar of 3/5 or 4/7, though, there isn't really a more convenient way as tuplets have to be filled out completely: you can't just write a group of three quintuplets or four septuplets without going outside 'normal' notation.

I'm just curious, how exactly do you propose to notate one single beat in a measure of , let's say 4/5?

for time signatures, there should be a simple guideline: write the time signature that best reflects the rythmic feel of your music.

Don't notate something clearly divided in 2 groups of 3 eighth notes as being 3/4.

likewise, don't notate a lengthy passage clearly divided into 3 quarter notes as being 6/8.

Also, don't write a 27/2 adagio passage that is all written in slow sixteenth notes.

If the time signature you have chosen does not help to bring out the basic pulse of the music, then rewrite it in something that WILL help.

If you want your piece to have no strong beats, then indicate this in the score. Don't notate it in a fashion that will throw off the rythme.

For example, writing something that is clearly divided into groups of 6 in a 5-beat measure just so the first beat won't get an accent will only create a new displaced accent.