Understanding Cut time

[rbrentnall]

Hi, can someone explain to me something about cut time please. I have looked in books and on sites that give an explanation but can't find anything too detailed and still am not sure, unfortunately i don't have the benefit of a piano teacher's input. This  may be an extremely simple thing, so apologies if anyone feels i'm wasting time, but is it the case that in cut time there are two minims & therefore  two beats in the bar? Think i'm just getting confused by it being described as a fast 4/4 so thought if that was so, then why not just use a faster tempo, but suppose just using cut time is easier...?

[mcdiddy1]

Cut time is just a short hand term for the time signature 2/2

A time signature means the top number tells you how many beats are in each measure. The bottom tells you which note value gets the beat

For example in 4/ 4 time the time signature tells us there are four quarter notes in each measure.
in 2/2 time there are two beats of something in each measure, the bottom means the half-note gets a beat


There are two types of meters: duple and triple. Duple means the piece is divided in twos imaginary beats (2/4,4/4) and triple is divisions of three imaginary beats ( 3/4, and 6/8) .

Meter is simply a description of the number of silent imaginary accent, which may be in two or three pules.

Cut time is a time signature used for faster pieces such as marches and dances because it allows the music to flow quicker and smoother.

When you count simple pieces like Mary had a little lamb you can sing it and give each syllable a beat. The would be counting it or "feeling it in 4".  You could also sing it where the beat lands on Mary and every time you say little. You might want to actually do this so you can feel the difference.

Playing with less imaginary accents feels a bit easier to do on certain pieces and composers can notate the same melody in a variety of different ways. Chances are the composer will notate it depending of what will sell. 4/4 sells more because it is easier to count for most people.

Conductors and performers also choose interpret a piece in 4/4 or Cut time based on the character of the piece and the tempo they want to choose. If you want something to sound lilt, jumpy or energetic, you would probably want cut time . If you want something more stately and unhurried you would choose 4/4.

 Explaining meter is much easier to explain in person with musical examples but it hope it makes sense to you.

[zolaxi]

Yep, cut time is 2/2. It is music which has a feel of two beats per bar. The notation may look like it could be in 4/4, but the feel is 2 - two beats per bar.

Conductors and performers do not decide whether or not to play a piece in cut time. This is dictated by the composer and therefore the nature of the music. If the composer says:"4 beats per bar!", who are you to say "Oh, I think I'll play this in 2 beats per bar."

Cut time is not just about the speed of the music, but the number of beats per bar - the pulse, the feel of the music. Sure, cut time is usually (but not always) faster - more notes to play within a beat - but you can't just say:" This piece is in 4/4. It is fast. I'm going to play it in cut time." Music with a pulse of 4 feels different to music with a pulse of 2. As a performer, you need to interpret the composers intentions and reveal the character of the music.

A previous post said that "There are two types of meters: duple and triple." Whoops, we forgot quadruple - 4 beats per bar.

And "Duple means the piece is divided in twos imaginary beats (2/4,4/4) and triple is divisions of three imaginary beats ( 3/4, and 6/8) ."

Yep, duple is 2 and triple is three, but hang on. 3/4 is three beats per bar, but 6/8 is compound duple or 2 beats per bar and not 3. They are not somehow interchangeable. Music in 6/8 should have a 2 feel. It is not just 2 bits of 3 stuck together!

Whether music is in a duple, triple or quadruple meter is about the organic feel of the music, and it is not particularly helpful to just talk about 'imaginary beats'. There is nothing imaginary about the 3 feel of a waltz.

[mcdiddy1]

Conductors and performers do not decide whether or not to play a piece in cut time. This is dictated by the composer and therefore the nature of the music. If the composer says:"4 beats per bar!", who are you to say "Oh, I think I'll play this in 2 beats per bar."

Absolutly they decide whether to play a piece in cut time. Being in orchestras for years , seen conductors changing their counting pattern based on what is easier to follow. Such as Beethoven's 9 th symphony 2nd movement is notated in 3/4 but is conducted with a four pattern with each measure being part of a four bar phrase recieving one beat of the conducting pattern. You can go on youtube and look for yourself and you'll see. Like I said it is easier to see it done than explain it.

 Also most fast waltzs are conduced in 1 rather than a three pattern. Your hand would go numb conducting it in three. Yes any piece in duple meter can be played in cut time, 4/4,  or 2/4 time. It just depends on whether the editor feels it is easier to read in a certain meter, it will sell, or the character of music. A march conducted or played in 4/4 time will feel different because of different stresses on the beat.

Moonlight sonata is another piece that is often written in 4/4 depending on the editor but it is originally written in cut time.  Deciding which meter to play it in should not be guesswork but based on historical knowledge and good taste.

A previous post said that "There are two types of meters: duple and triple." Whoops, we forgot quadruple - 4 beats per bar.

 Quadruple meter is a combination of duple of meter because the divisions are in beats of two. Four is divisible by two so that makes it a duple meter. I did not mention this on purpose because I feel it it is too confusing especially for a beginner. Quadruple meter is a name that indicates 4/4 time but on a basic level all of music divides in to groups of 2s or 3s.

Yep, duple is 2 and triple is three, but hang on. 3/4 is three beats per bar, but 6/8 is compound duple or 2 beats per bar and not 3. They are not somehow interchangeable. Music in 6/8 should have a 2 feel. It is not just 2 bits of 3 stuck together!

Yes, you are right 6/8 is a compound duple. I mised typed earlier. (sorry was in a rush)

If we want to get very technical there are four types of meter: simple duple , simple triple, compound duple, and compound triple

Compound meter are meters that divide beats into 3 parts and simple divides each beat into two parts. Duple means the there are two main beats in the bar and triple means there are three beats in the bar. Duple meters can be combined into larger measures such as quadruple and sextuple measures-indicated by top numbers of 4, 6, 12, and 18. It is a matter of preference but the first 3 thankfully are more common.

These are most common
simple duple: 2/4, 4/4 -(divides 2 beats in a bar)
Simple triple: 3/4 (divides 3 beats in a bar)
compound duple: 6/8 ( divides in 2 beats in a bar)
Compound triple: 9 /8 (divides in 3 beats in a bar)

4/4 can be alternatively called quadruple time
(simple quadruple:4/4 (divides 4 beat in the bar)) depends on who you ask, some view it as two duple meters
(compound quadruple: 12/8, 12/6 ( divides 4 beat in a bar))

Confused, yet? Meter can be confusing when you bring up all this stuff. Haven't even talked about irregular meters or polymeter. I ll leave that for a music theory class. Honestly you do not really need to know it.


Whether music is in a duple, triple or quadruple meter is about the organic feel of the music, and it is not particularly helpful to just talk about 'imaginary beats'. There is nothing imaginary about the 3 feel of a waltz.

It should be imaginary unless you want someone creating an accent on every beat. Stress on downbeats of a waltz are a performance accent because it is audiable. I argue it is helpful to talk about imaginary accents because you cannot "hear" meter( or atleast you should not be able to)you feel it in your body and feel the divisions. Hopefully when there is a rest in a bar of a waltz, you are not "hearing" something but instead feeling the divisions of three before they next measure.  

[zolaxi]

What an interesting response. Thanks for taking the time to respond so generously. You are clearly a person who is passionate about music.

Well so am I, and we are going to have to agree to disagree on a number of points.

For example, fast waltzes being conducted in cut time. A conductor conducting the second movt of the 9th, where the mm marking is about dotted minim = 116, of course you can't flap your arms around that fast. But I would argue that this is nothing to do with cut time, but is  rather a technically and musically sensible way of conducting a fast 3/4. Cut time is 2/2 after all.

OK. You are thinking that what I'm saying is just not true, and you know better. But, all I ask is that you just put what I'm saying at the back of your mind somewhere, and just think about it in future perhaps.

To illustrate my point, let me make a few comments about the Moonlight Sonata which you mentioned. Well, I had a look at the four editions of the Beethoven Sonatas I have at home, and they all indicate cut time. Beethoven wrote cut time. And think about this: Why did Beethoven write cut time and not 4/4? Well, it's because cut time is different musically from 4/4.  Cut time is just not the same musically as 4/4.

I would suggest that any editor changing Beethoven's time signature from cut time to 4/4 just doesn't get it, and should get another job! Musical vandalism! Let's put a moustache on the Mona Lisa? I don't think so!

It may be convenient for an inexperienced musician to count it in 4 as if it was written in 4/4, but the result will musically a misreading of Beethoven's intentions. So just think about it. Why did one of the greatest musical minds in western music write cut time in the 1st movt of the Moonlight Sonata and not 4/4?

We will also have to disagree in regards to your analysis of quadruple meter simply being two duple meters joined together. If I understand you correctly, in the way you see it, in a 4/4 bar, beats 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 are much the same. But I would argure that they are not. The first beat is subtley different from the third beat, the second beat is different from the fourth. So, a 4/4 bar is not the same as two 2/4 bars glued together. (I hope I am not misrepresenting what you have said.)

So, I once again ask you to have a think about this. Why does a composer choose to write a piece in 4/4, and then another in 2/4. I would suggest that its about the musical difference between the two, and not just a matter of convenience or speed. Two examples. The slow movt of Beethoven's Pathetique is in 2/4, while the very fast last movt of his 7th Symphony is (off the top of my head!) also in 2/4. He chose 2/4. Why not 4/4? Answer: because they are not the same. Musically, they are different.

So why does a composer choose to notate a piece in cut time, 2/4 or 4/4, or 3/4 or 6/8 or 9/8 or a mixture of the above? It's for musical reasons, and musical reasons only. It is not for us mere mortals to question or change anything, but rather to try to understand what the composer intends. Nor should we cut corners or do what is convenient or easier for us.

OK. That's what I think. All I ask is that you think about these things, not just in the next 2 minutes, but perhaps in years to come. It is interesting to think about these things, and helps us develop as musicians. I know that you will agree with that, because you have demonstrated clearly that you are a thinker about things musical.

Have I made you think?

[mcdiddy1]

For example, fast waltzes being conducted in cut time. A conductor conducting the second movt of the 9th, where the mm marking is about dotted minim = 116, of course you can't flap your arms around that fast. But I would argue that this is nothing to do with cut time, but is  rather a technically and musically sensible way of conducting a fast 3/4. Cut time is 2/2 after all.

No, fast waltzes are not conducted in cut time, they are conducted in one. They are different. 3/8 , and 3/4 can be conducted in one. It is the technically and musically sensible way of conducting a fast 3/4.

OK. You are thinking that what I'm saying is just not true, and you know better. But, all I ask is that you just put what I'm saying at the back of your mind somewhere, and just think about it in future perhaps.

No, I agree with you, except Cut time is 2/2 and counting in 1 is reserved for counting fast triple meter. Any conductor can tell you that.

To illustrate my point, let me make a few comments about the Moonlight Sonata which you mentioned. Well, I had a look at the four editions of the Beethoven Sonatas I have at home, and they all indicate cut time. Beethoven wrote cut time. And think about this: Why did Beethoven write cut time and not 4/4? Well, it's because cut time is different musically from 4/4.  Cut time is just not the same musically as 4/4.

I would suggest that any editor changing Beethoven's time signature from cut time to 4/4 just doesn't get it, and should get another job! Musical vandalism! Let's put a moustache on the Mona Lisa? I don't think so!

Well I mention it because a student would bring in the sonata and I would start teaching and saying this piece is in cut time and then look at the music and it is not! Yes their are some stupid editors, so I go ahead and correct their music. There are some lazy editors out there.

I did mention that people choose cut time for musical reason before, right? Of course composers choose the time signature for musical reason. Thats what I said , the choose it depending on the character of the music, how easy it is to read, etc.

We will also have to disagree in regards to your analysis of quadruple meter simply being two duple meters joined together. If I understand you correctly, in the way you see it, in a 4/4 bar, beats 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 are much the same. But I would argure that they are not. The first beat is subtley different from the third beat, the second beat is different from the fourth. So, a 4/4 bar is not the same as two 2/4 bars glued together.

It is not really my analysis of quadruple meter. I have heard some people label 4/4 in quadruple meter and some label 4/4 in duple. Thats why it depends on who you talk to. I am not saying one is right and one is wrong, I just choose to explain 4/4 with the least complicated route.  What you are talking about in the above paragraph are the strong weak stress of 4/4. You are talking about performance and I am talking about notation. You can duple music in 4/4 and 2/4 or 2/2 regardless on stress. But yes your right this is what you are talking about

division-           | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
pulse-              |    |   |   |    |   |   |   |
grouping           |        |        |       |
 2nd grouping    |                 |
                       1   2   3   4   1   2  3   4
Sorry this does not line up very well , but yes 1 and 3 are stressed on multiple levels which makes them stronger. The division of the pules( 1+,2+), the main pulse, the grouping of 2s and the the down beat of each bar makes the one "stronger" (stress is better) than the 3.

So why does a composer choose to notate a piece in cut time, 2/4 or 4/4, or 3/4 or 6/8 or 9/8 or a mixture of the above? It's for musical reasons, and musical reasons only. It is not for us mere mortals to question or change anything, but rather to try to understand what the composer intends. Nor should we cut corners or do what is convenient or easier for us.

Well , it would be easier to explain this if I could draw you the music so you could see a simple tune like this but imagine you have simple tune like Yankee doodle in 4/4 time. You could write it in 2/2, 4/8, or 2/4 time. If I played that on the piano, would you be able to tell which meter I was reading in? If I were to stress ( in 4/4 time) 1 and 3 you could guess 4/4 but if I played it dryly with no stresses then it could be any one them. However if you look at the music , the  4/8 version of the song (where there are 4 eight-notes separated) is not as easy to read as 4/4 time. If you are a beginner and had a choice between a simple piece of music in 4/4 time or 4/8 time, which one would you choose? That is part of the reason 4/4 is common because people wanted to sell their music. If you wrote in. Not for musical reasons only. Musical is really vague. The reason is performance value (which notes they want to be stress), commercial value ( which version would sell better), and which version is easier to read ( who wants to read music in 6/16, or 4/9  )

Meter is not the most clear cut thing in the world so it is understandable that people get confused. Even the great Beethoven wrestled over his choice of meter. In the the 2nd movement the Scherzo, the performers had difficulty performing it because the quarter-notes blazed past their Eyes. Beethoven wrestled again using a compound meter because traditional values was to write in 3/4. So he found a way to write the piece by grouping the measures into groups of 4. He could have written it in 12/8 or 12/4 meter but he did not want to break tradition.

I am not trying to give a history lesson, my point is as revolutionary as Beethoven was, he was human like all of us and struggled with meter and sometimes the choice of meter is not a "magical musical " reason but many factors that go into choosing a meter.

Hopefully you can see why I didn't want to go to far in to music theory, because it can become confusing very quickly. I don't know everything about meter (obviously with my earlier mistake about 6/8)but I am always willing to learn more.  I am just speaking about what I experienced and read somewhere. Hopefully you can see why I didnt want to go to far down a dark road because I am sure the original poster is completely confused by now.

[rbrentnall]

Ok, thanks for the replies although my head started spinning after reading the more technical bits. Anyway,  so if i set my metronome at whatever the speed may be, then play a piece in cut time, the half note gets the beat so i'm playing two crotchets to every tick of the beat whereas if i played in 4/4 i would be playing one crotchet to every tick because the quarter note gets the beat. Is that right?

[pianowolfi]

Ok, thanks for the replies although my head started spinning after reading the more technical bits. Anyway,  so if i set my metronome at whatever the speed may be, then play a piece in cut time, the half note gets the beat so i'm playing two crotchets to every tick of the beat whereas if i played in 4/4 i would be playing one crotchet to every tick because the quarter note gets the beat. Is that right?

Principally yes ! But music and life is unpredictable, so you might encounter exceptions from this rule on your journey

[mcdiddy1]

Ok, thanks for the replies although my head started spinning after reading the more technical bits. Anyway,  so if i set my metronome at whatever the speed may be, then play a piece in cut time, the half note gets the beat so i'm playing two crotchets to every tick of the beat whereas if i played in 4/4 i would be playing one crotchet to every tick because the quarter note gets the beat. Is that right?

Yes in a nutshell.

[quantum]

The discussion above revolves under the concepts as meter as a notational convention and meter as a musical sensation.  What it boils down to is that sometimes the way music is written down is not the same as it is intended to be felt. 

If you think this makes your head spin, you aren't alone.  Composers and publishers have wrestled with these ideas for centuries.  There are probably many examples out there of meter that has been changed in order to make it look easier and have a better chance of garnering music sales. 

[rbrentnall]

Thanks for all the replies, think i understand a bit better now!

[keypeg]

I think that when we begin in music we have to start with some standard guidelines so that we get the gist of it.  Later on (to our dismay) we learn that music is much more fluid and that these are only guidelines.  When the dust finally settles  we realize that the guidelines never left, and they are like a solid skeleton on a fluid body giving us freedom.  (I got to wear that t-shirt only recently and am still learning.)

So the skeleton of it:  We have simple meter where everything is divided into two's (2 quarter notes = half note; 2 eighth notes = quarter notes; 4 eighth notes = half note) etc., so 2/4, 3/4, 4/4, 2/8, 3/8 etc.  This simple meter has two kinds of rhythms: the one that goes in three's (3/4, 3/8) and that gives us a kind of a lop-sided flow.  The other goes in two's (2/4 and 4/4) where 4/4 is usually described as "strong weak middle weak").  You can sort of see two two's in there because the "middle weak" is like a toned down "strong weak".  Well, what about just considering this as a general rule of thumb to give us a basic idea as our starting point?

The other meter is compound meter, where everything is divided into three's (3 eighth note pulses = 1 beat shown as a dotted quarter).  So in this one 6/8 = 2 beats, 9/8 = 3 beats etc.

Historically this all developed.  First there was no meter at all.  Music went with words in the chants and you would have rhythms, like say "tum diddledee" "doo dat" (I'm making up these names) and they just chanted along melodiously.    Then they got idealistic thinking three's were sacred so what we call 9/8 time (3 groups of 3 pulses) was ultra holy because of its pure threeness with no squared off edges.  There was notation where the noteheads designated this threeness (from the symbol of gold, I think) .  Another notation (silver symbol?) designated the more "profane" two-ness.  Our modern 3/4 and 6/8 time would be passable, while 4/4 - gasp! - utterly profane.  These two types are sort of stuck into our simple and compound meter, but instead of having a symbol for three-ness, we have those awkward dotted notes.

All this time while the eggheads were fiddling around with symbols and ideals, there were musicians trying to create music.  It is more real and flexible than the symbols, just like an 80 year old man or a young ballerina do not resemble stick figures or even paintings.  So these composers have to somehow symbolize that ballerina in a way that the musician will be able to duplicate her.  Their pallette for painting this consists of those conventions that I have described, and they then have to figure out what best suits the music they have in mind.  It's no longer cut and dry.  Meanwhile music conventions themselves evolve.  So is this rhythm that they hear in their head best represented through 4/4 or 2/4?  If sometimes there are lots of triplets and sometimes there aren't, will you go 2/4 or 6/8 - 4/4 or 12/8?  What if you also have lots of syncopation slipping away from the usual beat? 

What we're still missing  here is MUSIC - TYPES OF MUSIC etc.
Composers wrote and write for musicians.  The musicians of the Baroque period, for example, knew what a Gavotte should sound like, how aristocrats danced it, what feeling and rhythm was inside it.  A triple meter of a Gavotte is not the same as in a Waltz or in some other music from a different period with a different composer.  Remember that a composition starts with a composer's concept that he hears in his head while he also lives in a particular period and has gotten exposed to whatever in his time.  We have to extract what he had in mind, and this goes beyond notation.

Where I'm at is to learn history, about genres, about the composers - listen to interpretations by various artists and understand what's behind them - look at various editions of a piece and understand what's behind those versions.  I'm getting guidance from a teacher in this, because some of the conclusions I might come up with would be way off base.

If I were to summarize I'd say that what we first learn is a rough outline so that we can get our bearings.  We absolutely need this part.  But then we have to delve into the music itself because the symbols and conventions are just a starting point.

[ongaku_oniko]

Ok, thanks for the replies although my head started spinning after reading the more technical bits. Anyway,  so if i set my metronome at whatever the speed may be, then play a piece in cut time, the half note gets the beat so i'm playing two crotchets to every tick of the beat whereas if i played in 4/4 i would be playing one crotchet to every tick because the quarter note gets the beat. Is that right? 

Yes in a nutshell.

Really? I always thought that the beat was based on what was written at the top of the music, rather than the meter.

As in, in simple, made-for-students music books like the Celebration Series, they always have say quarter note = 120, or half note = 80 or something like that. It doesn't matter if it's 3/4 or 2/2 or 6/8, if it says quarter note = 120 then you play a quarter note as 120.

In older music sheets, I find that they only say words, like "allegro" or "cantabile" or something. Then the beat is really mostly left to the performer, no? You play how you think it should sound (within the range of allegro or whatever it says), the meter shouldn't affect the speed...

[nystul]

As in, in simple, made-for-students music books like the Celebration Series, they always have say quarter note = 120, or half note = 80 or something like that. It doesn't matter if it's 3/4 or 2/2 or 6/8, if it says quarter note = 120 then you play a quarter note as 120.

In older music sheets, I find that they only say words, like "allegro" or "cantabile" or something. Then the beat is really mostly left to the performer, no? You play how you think it should sound (within the range of allegro or whatever it says), the meter shouldn't affect the speed...

Well if the music has a specific tempo marking like half note = 80, then the matter of tempo is pretty much settled.  But for any other case, it is kind of a complex thing.  For example a Joplin rag is often indicated to be played at a slow march tempo, yet to an audience or beginning piano student these pieces sound incredibly fast.  Much of Bach's music does not have any tempo indication whatsoever.  This gets back into the understanding of meters and dances and musical form of the different time periods.  The music of Bach's day was inspired by dances like the gigue or the minuet.  The music of Joplin's day was inspired by the two step and the one step.  The musicians of those eras would know how fast that music is supposed to go without having to be told, because they are living it.  A kid today might know how fast hiphop or dubstep should be, but would have no intuition regarding the two step or even the waltz.

Anyways, I do think it has an influence at times in determining the intention of a composer.  It's not like Beethoven wrote Fur Elise in 3/4 and then thought "Man this looks way too easy... I better change it to 3/8!"  His choice of meter must tell us something about the style of the piece beyond simply the number of beats per measure.

But the short and simple answer to the original question remains:  Cut time is 2 beats per measure.

[mcdiddy1]

Yes in a nutshell.

Really? I always thought that the beat was based on what was written at the top of the music, rather than the meter.

As in, in simple, made-for-students music books like the Celebration Series, they always have say quarter note = 120, or half note = 80 or something like that. It doesn't matter if it's 3/4 or 2/2 or 6/8, if it says quarter note = 120 then you play a quarter note as 120.

In older music sheets, I find that they only say words, like "allegro" or "cantabile" or something. Then the beat is really mostly left to the performer, no? You play how you think it should sound (within the range of allegro or whatever it says), the meter shouldn't affect the speed...

Well if you choose to practice a piece that is set at 120 with the half note getting the beat (while in 2/2) instead of 140 you are still playing in cut time it is just slower than the goal tempo. He is talking about a different way of counting. You are talking about tempo.

The tempos are general markings. When people actually play music, if you got a metronome you would not be literally exactly at the speed of the music. Especially if you have rubato and ritards. Tempo is a bit more flexible than numbers on the metronome.

Anyways, I do think it has an influence at times in determining the intention of a composer.  It's not like Beethoven wrote Fur Elise in 3/4 and then thought "Man this looks way too easy... I better change it to 3/8!"  His choice of meter must tell us something about the style of the piece beyond simply the number of beats per measure.

But the short and simple answer to the original question remains:  Cut time is 2 beats per measure.

What does meter have to do with the style of the piece? He could have written it in 3/4. I have seen beginner arrangements of Fur Elise written in 3/4 and it is played the exact way ( other than them taking out the middle B section). I think the piece being in 3/4 would make the piece unnesscarly long but it would not change the style. What does the choice of meter tell us about the style? Not every piece in 3/4 is a waltz so style has to come from something beside meter.

Cut time is 2 beats per measure in 2/2. Because of that in 2/4 and 6/8 there are two beats per measure but it is not cut time.