4 ms·

Hmm, so you don't hear 7/8? Maybe I'm off, but do you hear the repeating percussion pattern on these notes (-- means an eighth rest)? 1 & -- & 3 -- 4 & -- --

Hmm, so you don't hear 7/8? Maybe I'm off, but do you hear the repeating percussion pattern on these notes (-- means an eighth rest)? 1 & -- & 3 -- 4 & -- -- 6 7 I hear that through the entire track, and counting with 7/8 has each new bar starting nicely on the first eighth note. My vote is 7/8.

cperciva 13y ago
It's definitely 1 (2) . 4 (5) . 7 (8) . 10 . 12 . where 1, 4, 7, 10, and 12 are strong notes, (2), (5), and (8) are weak notes, and the others are rests. Try counting "1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2" and you'll find that it fits perfectly.
- mzarate06 13y ago
  Ah yes, you're right. Thank you, great way of explaining it.
- maroonblazer 13y ago
  "1 (2) . 4 (5) . 7 (8) . 10 . 12 ." isn't a time signature. It's 7/8.
  - cperciva 13y ago
    Of course that isn't a time signature. It's a listing of where the loud notes, quiet notes, and rests line up in the bar.
  - baddox 13y ago
    It's definitely not straight 7/8.
- drivers99 13y ago
  Rather than 13/8 I would say it was alternating 9/8 (three triplet beats, 123123123) and 4/8 (2/4? same thing right? 1212) measures. I guess that's just a matter of notation, but I'm used to seeing it like that in heavy metal that will throw in a 2/4 once in a while where needed.
  - cperciva 13y ago
    Yes, it could be printed that way. Every classical musician I know hates it when editors do that, though -- it's exactly the same amount of work to keep track of the beats, but the alternating time signatures eat CPU cycles because you have to make sure that every change is the one you expect.
- baddox 13y ago
  13 subdivisions still isn't quite perfect, but it's closer than 14 (i.e. 7/8). It's somewhere in between, which makes sense considering the composer just manually looped a sample that wasn't an exact measure of any standard time signature.
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    Can someone explain what a "standard time signature" is, in terms of frequency, for someone who has no clue whatsoever about music theory? As far as I understand it, there's a duration which loops (e.g. 0.5 sec for 120 bpm) and then you subdivide that into something (I guess). How can this not be an exact measure of a time signature, since you can pick an arbitrary amount of time, loop it and subdivide it into parts?
    - bpaluzzi 13y ago
      Time signatures aren't strictly a ratio -- the bottom number has to relate to a note that can be indicated with notation, e.g. a multiple of 2. If you have something that falls just short or just long of that, it can be very difficult to notate using musical notation. It's generally possible, by using odd / non-base groupings within the measure, or by subdividing down ad infinitum (using a bottom number of 512 or 1024, for example), but in general at that point it's just masturbatory. People are claiming that this example is just a bit short of the "7" set up by the rhythm in the beginning of the phrase. I don't hear it, and think it falls quite nicely into a phrase of 7, using 8th notes as the bottom number.
    - narag 13y ago
      There are a number of different subdivisions. First there is the bars, that you could define as a complete cycle. Inside the bars there are beats, often 2 or 3 per bar, most often 4. Then each beat is divided in 2 or 3 parts. Then you can play it slower or faster, that's the tempo. Notice that it's just about the rythm of a song. The actual notes you can place on it wherever you feel. Of course you want them to match some subdivision for them to feel "right" but often intentionally shifted for expressivity (swing). Some standard signatures are: 4/4 - Bars of 4 beats naturally divided in two (most songs) 3/4 - Bars of 3 beats naturally divided in two (waltz) 2/4 - Bars of 2 beats naturally divided in two (march) 12/8 - Bars of 4 beats naturally divided in three (used in blues) The /4 or /8 difference is moot. It's the duration of the beat, but you can compensate it with tempo.
- bpaluzzi 13y ago
  This is 7/8. Your counting pattern doesn't line up. If it did, the first group of the "12 12" would hit the accents set up by the groups of 3. In other words, it would be _4_ evenly spaced notes at the beginning of the phrase: X__X__X__X_X_ Notice how the four first notes each have 2 rests between them? That's not what is in the audio. The groups of two are delayed. The actual counting pattern is: 123 123 1234 12 12 X__X__X___X_X_ Putting the second unaccented note in gets: XX_XX_XX__X_X_ The correct rhythm is: | 1e_a 2_+a __+_ 4_ | 1e_a 2_+a __+_ 4_ | 7/8 If you're playing it hand to hand, try this: RRL RRL RRLL RLRL Try it to a metronome, it's about 212BPM
bitwize 13y ago
Actually the rhythm is XX-XX-XX-X-X- where each X or dash represents a beat (or half a beat). You're lopping a beat off at the end and there should be a full beat's rest between the last two notes (and not two beats' rest between those and the previous note). So yeah, 13/16 (or 13/8) is about correct.

cperciva 13y ago

It's definitely 1 (2) . 4 (5) . 7 (8) . 10 . 12 . where 1, 4, 7, 10, and 12 are strong notes, (2), (5), and (8) are weak notes, and the others are rests. Try counting "1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2" and you'll find that it fits perfectly.

mzarate06 13y ago
Ah yes, you're right. Thank you, great way of explaining it.
maroonblazer 13y ago
"1 (2) . 4 (5) . 7 (8) . 10 . 12 ." isn't a time signature. It's 7/8.
- cperciva 13y ago
  Of course that isn't a time signature. It's a listing of where the loud notes, quiet notes, and rests line up in the bar.
- baddox 13y ago
  It's definitely not straight 7/8.
drivers99 13y ago
Rather than 13/8 I would say it was alternating 9/8 (three triplet beats, 123123123) and 4/8 (2/4? same thing right? 1212) measures. I guess that's just a matter of notation, but I'm used to seeing it like that in heavy metal that will throw in a 2/4 once in a while where needed.
- cperciva 13y ago
  Yes, it could be printed that way. Every classical musician I know hates it when editors do that, though -- it's exactly the same amount of work to keep track of the beats, but the alternating time signatures eat CPU cycles because you have to make sure that every change is the one you expect.
baddox 13y ago
13 subdivisions still isn't quite perfect, but it's closer than 14 (i.e. 7/8). It's somewhere in between, which makes sense considering the composer just manually looped a sample that wasn't an exact measure of any standard time signature.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  Can someone explain what a "standard time signature" is, in terms of frequency, for someone who has no clue whatsoever about music theory? As far as I understand it, there's a duration which loops (e.g. 0.5 sec for 120 bpm) and then you subdivide that into something (I guess). How can this not be an exact measure of a time signature, since you can pick an arbitrary amount of time, loop it and subdivide it into parts?
  - bpaluzzi 13y ago
    Time signatures aren't strictly a ratio -- the bottom number has to relate to a note that can be indicated with notation, e.g. a multiple of 2. If you have something that falls just short or just long of that, it can be very difficult to notate using musical notation. It's generally possible, by using odd / non-base groupings within the measure, or by subdividing down ad infinitum (using a bottom number of 512 or 1024, for example), but in general at that point it's just masturbatory. People are claiming that this example is just a bit short of the "7" set up by the rhythm in the beginning of the phrase. I don't hear it, and think it falls quite nicely into a phrase of 7, using 8th notes as the bottom number.
  - narag 13y ago
    There are a number of different subdivisions. First there is the bars, that you could define as a complete cycle. Inside the bars there are beats, often 2 or 3 per bar, most often 4. Then each beat is divided in 2 or 3 parts. Then you can play it slower or faster, that's the tempo. Notice that it's just about the rythm of a song. The actual notes you can place on it wherever you feel. Of course you want them to match some subdivision for them to feel "right" but often intentionally shifted for expressivity (swing). Some standard signatures are: 4/4 - Bars of 4 beats naturally divided in two (most songs) 3/4 - Bars of 3 beats naturally divided in two (waltz) 2/4 - Bars of 2 beats naturally divided in two (march) 12/8 - Bars of 4 beats naturally divided in three (used in blues) The /4 or /8 difference is moot. It's the duration of the beat, but you can compensate it with tempo.
bpaluzzi 13y ago
This is 7/8. Your counting pattern doesn't line up. If it did, the first group of the "12 12" would hit the accents set up by the groups of 3. In other words, it would be _4_ evenly spaced notes at the beginning of the phrase: X__X__X__X_X_ Notice how the four first notes each have 2 rests between them? That's not what is in the audio. The groups of two are delayed. The actual counting pattern is: 123 123 1234 12 12 X__X__X___X_X_ Putting the second unaccented note in gets: XX_XX_XX__X_X_ The correct rhythm is: | 1e_a 2_+a __+_ 4_ | 1e_a 2_+a __+_ 4_ | 7/8 If you're playing it hand to hand, try this: RRL RRL RRLL RLRL Try it to a metronome, it's about 212BPM

bitwize 13y ago

Actually the rhythm is XX-XX-XX-X-X- where each X or dash represents a beat (or half a beat). You're lopping a beat off at the end and there should be a full beat's rest between the last two notes (and not two beats' rest between those and the previous note). So yeah, 13/16 (or 13/8) is about correct.