Music Velocity and Microdynamics

[musicrachs]

Music has the same features as any other human languages (ex. English, French, Mandarin, etc.) in which all rules and laws of these languages are applicable to music. Unfortunately, these rules and laws are neglected by today’s existing music education systems. As a result, this caused a real ignorance of contemporary musicians regarding one of the most important basics in music: the proper pronunciation of music words. Any musician knows that there are notes (letters) and phrases (sentences) in the music language, but how many of them know that these phrases consist of musical words? When reading a music score, musicians should be able to identify where to stress and soften each note. By doing this, each phrase is expressed as if music words were actually spoken. These musical words are constant, stable, and numerously repeated in plenty of other musical works. In addition to certain groups, steady combinations of notes, timing and intensity, music must be pronounced (played/sang) in a certain, strictly regulated, and only acceptable way otherwise these “musical words” will sound unpleasant for any unbiased audience, and will be rejected as unacceptable. Due to the lack of knowledge in applying proper pronunciation in music, many musicians pronounce musical words in the wrong way and thus always rejected by the majority of the audience. It affects the whole music business, especially in classical music.

[keyboardclass]

Good observation and nicely put!  Sadly, I'd be very surprised if many notice. 

[lelle]

strange poll... could you give any examples of specific musical words in different pieces to demonstrate your point?

[musicrachs]

Hi Lelle,

In an example of a 4/4 beat, which notes would you stress and which notes would you soften?

[nyiregyhazi]

Hi Lelle,

In an example of a 4/4 beat, which notes would you stress and which notes would you soften?

The whole point of this of thinking is that it's not based on some regular and predictable formula with the beats. It's based on issues of melodic shape, how the melody fits with/clashes with the harmony etc.

[scottmcc]

Hi Lelle,

In an example of a 4/4 beat, which notes would you stress and which notes would you soften?

I think that in different circumstances any of the beats could be stressed to varying degrees and still be correct, in the right context.  Beethoven famously put sfz marks on a number of unexpected beats in several of the sonatas and certainly nobody would accuse him of poor pronunciation.  look at the 3rd mvt of op 31 no 2 for instance, just before the repeat of the exposition.

Debussy frequently wrote phrases without a clear pulse and with little regard to bar lines (although he often wrote in strict meter as well, so clearly he understood the role of both in his construction).  Compare the different components of the suite bergamasque as an example.

Prosody in speech is not a simple matter of a few concrete rules.  Listen to a master orator for a few minutes and you will grasp the complexity of their craft.  Listen to a beat poet and compare him to a Shakespearean.  Clearly the two are fundamentally different, and not just in their use of pentameter or their diction.

[mcdiddy1]

I am kind of confused by your post. What does music velocity and microdynamics have to do with what you said? Is microdynamics a real word? If so what in the world does that mean?

Music has the same features as any other human languages (ex. English, French, Mandarin, etc.) in which all rules and laws of these languages are applicable to music. Unfortunately, these rules and laws are neglected by today’s existing music education systems. As a result, this caused a real ignorance of contemporary musicians regarding one of the most important basics in music: the proper pronunciation of music words. Any musician knows that there are notes (letters) and phrases (sentences) in the music language, but how many of them know that these phrases consist of musical words? When reading a music score, musicians should be able to identify where to stress and soften each note.

There are similiar features but music is not a language. There is never one specific meaning that comes from hearing any piece of music. How one person hears music is completely different from the next.

I think by words you are talking about musical syntax. That is a pretty interesting subject but simply put there are some rules that apply to language that do not apply to music such as nouns, verbs, adverbs and such. "Pronouncing " words comes from knowing the orgnanization of music, keys, chords, and scales. When that knowledge is known then you can go into more advance aspects of tension and release and then explain how some music is abstract and does not follow the rules of Western tonal music. Knowing when to stress of not stress a note takes musical sofistication and a great deal of study.

I am just saying teaching a student when to stress or not stress a note is not a direct comparision to language. There are some aspects that occur in music that do not occur in language. bIt can be analyzed and be taught artfully by teachers and some do not teach that but it is not as simple as playing playing soft or loud as the title of post appears to suggest.

M These musical words are constant, stable, and numerously repeated in plenty of other musical works. In addition to certain groups, steady combinations of notes, timing and intensity, music must be pronounced (played/sang) in a certain, strictly regulated, and only acceptable way otherwise these “musical words” will sound unpleasant for any unbiased audience, and will be rejected as unacceptable. Due to the lack of knowledge in applying proper pronunciation in music, many musicians pronounce musical words in the wrong way and thus always rejected by the majority of the audience. It affects the whole music business, especially in classical music.

So essencially bad performances suck.    What is a musical word? Do you mean notes? If you mean notes then they do not be constant , stable , and numerously repeated. It depends on what music and style period you are playing in. The performance you describe sounds like musicians who cannot count or articulate notes well. I think the poor performance may be the result of not only knowledge but also simple stage fright preventing them from playing the music to the best of their abilities. Musicians who do not well in the music buisiness have the basic knowledge of syntax, sometimes more innately than analytically but create an interpretation that does not resounate with audiences. I find it hard to believe they do not know how to count, phrase, or articulate but cannot execute it consitently or under pressure.

Hi Lelle,

In an example of a 4/4 beat, which notes would you stress and which notes would you soften?

This is not a great example. Performance accents is very different from metric accents. Metric accents are inaudiable stress that happen because of their position in the context of the music.  An example is a piece in 4/4 time written with a ppp dynamic. You not play a note loud just due to it being on the downbeat.  If you soften note based on creating a phrase, interpretation, dynamics and such is logical. But softening a note based on metric stress beats is not. Another example , if you were playing a C scale  in quarter-notes in 4.4 time, it would be incorrect to play the C loud, D soft, and E loud.

[nyiregyhazi]

"So essencially bad performances suck.    What is a musical word? Do you mean notes? If you mean notes then they do not be constant , stable , and numerously repeated. It depends on what music and style period you are playing in. The performance you describe sounds like musicians who cannot count or articulate notes well. I think the poor performance may be the result of not only knowledge but also simple stage fright preventing them from playing the music to the best of their abilities. Musicians who do not well in the music buisiness have the basic knowledge of syntax, sometimes more innately than analytically but create an interpretation that does not resounate with audiences. I find it hard to believe they do not know how to count, phrase, or articulate but cannot execute it consitently or under pressure."

Prior to this, I thought the points you made were pretty much spot on. However, this paragraph shows total misunderstanding of the point. Counting? That's the last thing that relates to this. It's easy to produce a "correct" execution in a MIDI file but that will reflect the syntax LESS than even the dullest of performers. To speak of counting in relation to this is totally to miss the point. It's how you DEPART from entirely literal counting that makes music speak. I wouldn't say that the poster expressed the concept stunningly well, but I agree entirely that most modern musicians are lacking in this respect. Just compare the way Josef Hassid made his phrases "speak" with even the most famous modern violinists:

Even Kreisler sounds rather literal and pedestrian by comparison. The ability to make music speak is not limited to the two single possibilities of either having it or not. Most modern performers have some ability, of course- but generally nothing close to the level great performers had. And where the hell does counting come into that?!!!

[mcdiddy1]

When I wrote the paragraph I was referring to the quote " constant, stable, and numerously repeated in plenty of other musical works. In addition to certain groups, steady combinations of notes, timing and intensity, music must be pronounced (played/sang) in a certain, strictly regulated, and only acceptable way ". Words such as constant, stable, steady and timing indicate counting to me. So that is where the counting mention came from.

In regards to your point, I agree part of artistry is the ability to depart from mechanical counting. That does not mean counting does come into play with great performances. After all without playing the correct rhythm then you are playing a different piece! All great pianist can count so it is part of the foundation of music playing. Once you reach more intricate understanding of musical structure than the counting is quickly replaced by muscle memory and from that interpretation can occur but the counting must be accurate first.

This concept of speaking has more to do with the art of interpretation. I personally try not to criticize other performers interpretation unless it goes completely against the nature of the music. I will say this about interpretation we often do not appreciate brilliance in the moment until way after the fact. Examples include Bach who was relatively unheard , Stravinsky's Rite of Spring and such.

Interpretation is subjective to who is listening. What is brilliant to someone may be ordinary to someone eles. I truly believe in 50 years or so from now the modern pianist we hear now that we often criticizes as not being as great as the past performers will be remember and respected more than they are today. The modern ears we have today of expecting music to "speak" may evolve to where we consider great music to be more conservative than now.

I am not saying I agree with one version over another, but the possibility is there. My point is all the great performers of day was criticized by their contemporary. Chopin even criticized his friend Liszt's playing as being too exuberant and Chopin's playing was criticized as being to timid and soft. While we say performers do not have the same skills than past performers personally think it does not matter because bad, good, excellent performers all have a place in music and should be excepted for who they are. Just personal opinion though.

[nyiregyhazi]

When I wrote the paragraph I was referring to the quote " constant, stable, and numerously repeated in plenty of other musical works. In addition to certain groups, steady combinations of notes, timing and intensity, music must be pronounced (played/sang) in a certain, strictly regulated, and only acceptable way ". Words such as constant, stable, steady and timing indicate counting to me. So that is where the counting mention came from.

Ah, I see. I think that his choice of words was a little misleading, but I don't think that's what he meant. At least, that's certainly not what people normally mean when they compare music to speech. I believe what he meant was that there are strict limits to pronunciation of musical syllables- not that they must be executed in metrically strict fashion.

Interpretation is subjective to who is listening. What is brilliant to someone may be ordinary to someone eles. I truly believe in 50 years or so from now the modern pianist we hear now that we often criticizes as not being as great as the past performers will be remember and respected more than they are today. The modern ears we have today of expecting music to "speak" may evolve to where we consider great music to be more conservative than now.

I don't believe that's a modern way of listening at all. I think the reason so many bland performers flourish is because people aren't used to hearing enough music speak. Listen to Vengerov play the same piece as Hassid:

If the violin were a technically easy instrument to play, such blandness is what I'd expect from a rank amateur. It's not totally without characterisation, but is this seriously how a great artist sounds?

I am not saying I agree with one version over another, but the possibility is there. My point is all the great performers of day was criticized by their contemporary. Chopin even criticized his friend Liszt's playing as being too exuberant and Chopin's playing was criticized as being to timid and soft. While we say performers do not have the same skills than past performers personally think it does not matter because bad, good, excellent performers all have a place in music and should be excepted for who they are.

I judge solely on style. The young pianist Benjamin Grosvenor has a style that involves real characterisation, that impressed me the moment I heard it. If more living performers also played with such character, they would impress me too. No amount of time will cause me to find blandness moving.

[musicrachs]

mcdiddy 1 - "An example is a piece in 4/4 time written with a ppp dynamic. You not play a note loud just due to it being on the downbeat". 

- so if the dynamics is ppp, you are saying that all notes should be soft, soft, soft, soft. In language, this is the equivalent to mumbling. No audience will understand this. But by stressing the right notes, there is still intonation even if the dynamics is ppp. You can pronounce a word correctly (ex. tomOrrow) either ff, pp. Either way the second syllable is still a bit louder no matter what the volume is.

"Another example , if you were playing a C scale  in quarter-notes in 4.4 time, it would be incorrect to play the C loud, D soft, and E loud".

- I have the same view too of stressing the 2nd and 4th beat. I would like to see more of what your view is about this. Please share your expertise.

[mcdiddy1]

mcdiddy 1 - "An example is a piece in 4/4 time written with a ppp dynamic. You not play a note loud just due to it being on the downbeat". 

- so if the dynamics is ppp, you are saying that all notes should be soft, soft, soft, soft. In language, this is the equivalent to mumbling. No audience will understand this. But by stressing the right notes, there is still intonation even if the dynamics is ppp. You can pronounce a word correctly (ex. tomOrrow) either ff, pp. Either way the second syllable is still a bit louder no matter what the volume is.

"Another example , if you were playing a C scale  in quarter-notes in 4.4 time, it would be incorrect to play the C loud, D soft, and E loud".

- I have the same view too of stressing the 2nd and 4th beat. I would like to see more of what your view is about this. Please share your expertise.

It depends on what musical style period you are talking about. If you are playing a piece from Classical style period , metric stress would be more emphasized in the performance in the piece. In impressionistic music, you generally do not want to hear strong metric accents because philosophically that is not what the music intent is.

If the music says ppp the intent is to create an intent to describe an emotion through sound. The audience should take away the intent or the "emotion" whether they can physically hear it or not. Playing a piece in a rhythmic and organized fashion will create the sense of meter without having to emphasis dynamics or articulation.

Saying the word "tomOrrow" can be said or sung louder or softer but the vowel 0 does not have to be loud. Ask a professional singer. Vowel are formed by the way the mouth is formed. You can articulate the vowel by opening your mouth in more of an oval shape and achieve the stress without accenting simply by articulating it different from the rest of word in any dynamic you wish. By the way you could also stress the vowel  by putting space between the syllables.

My point is meter should not affect dynamic levels. You can listen to a piece of music and determine whether it is duple( groups of two) or triple ( groups of three) but you should not be able to tell if it is in 2/4 or 4/4 because pieces in duple can be written with either meter signature.

Another example , if you were playing a C scale  in quarter-notes in 4.4 time, it would be incorrect to play the C loud, D soft, and E loud".

- I have the same view too of stressing the 2nd and 4th beat. I would like to see more of what your view is about this. Please share your expertise.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by this comment. I don't claim to claim I am an expert at the subject, I just speak what I know. The strong weak relationship of the beats happens because metric stress occur at different levels. In a nutshell the down beat gets more stress because there are more accents that occur on different levels of metric organization example feeling a piece in 4/4 the downbeat would have an metric stress for every 4 notes, every 2 notes and every measure and thus feel "stronger" than beat 2 and 4( with only one stress) and beat 3 ( with 2) .

Deciding to stress the meter is a decision made by the performer, style, and musical intent not just as a generic rule of strong and weak beats of meter.

[keypeg]

I don't believe that's a modern way of listening at all. I think the reason so many bland performers flourish is because people aren't used to hearing enough music speak. Listen to Vengerov play the same piece as Hassid:

If the violin were a technically easy instrument to play, such blandness is what I'd expect from a rank amateur. It's not totally without characterisation, but is this seriously how a great artist sounds?

I have a different take on this.  Hassid's version is definitely interesting in what he does with "rhythms", "words", "phrases" and yes, we don't hear those things in Vengerov's.  But there are other elements to this piece.  The piece is in an ABA form, and the A and B also represent two emotional states of the character in the opera, who is torn between religious and carnal impulses.  It begins "andante religioso" - there are a few "rall - a tempo" and then as of m. 25 the mood changes: "poco a poco appasionato" - "piu masso agitato" - "poco a poco appasionato" - This agitation (according to the score) changes at m. 40 after a dim. & rall. to Tempo Primo, and pp and we are back to the religious mood with a brief upwelling of emotion, and it ends "calmato" as our character has resolved his battle and chosen religious resignation and we assume, peace.  All of this is to be expressed through what we have available in music: timing, articulation, dynamics, and also pitch which can be subject to tone color.  The musician's challenge here is to create emotion through what he can do to sound, using the technical choices that he has at his disposal.

I don't hear these things in Hassid's version.  He has made different choices as a musician, and it has rendered his music interesting.  Is it wrong to do so?  The many versions of this piece and other pieces played by great musicians surely would suggest that there is not a single way of playing any piece.

[lostinidlewonder]

Music is a language with many different accents. Those who think that the world is forgetting how music should be spoken and most of todays performers (or up and coming ones) have it wrong, are merely delusional. I guess it is fun to complain however and pretend you have insider knowledge.

[nyiregyhazi]

I have a different take on this.  Hassid's version is definitely interesting in what he does with "rhythms", "words", "phrases" and yes, we don't hear those things in Vengerov's.  But there are other elements to this piece.  The piece is in an ABA form, and the A and B also represent two emotional states of the character in the opera, who is torn between religious and carnal impulses.  It begins "andante religioso" - there are a few "rall - a tempo" and then as of m. 25 the mood changes: "poco a poco appasionato" - "piu masso agitato" - "poco a poco appasionato" - This agitation (according to the score) changes at m. 40 after a dim. & rall. to Tempo Primo, and pp and we are back to the religious mood with a brief upwelling of emotion, and it ends "calmato" as our character has resolved his battle and chosen religious resignation and we assume, peace.  All of this is to be expressed through what we have available in music: timing, articulation, dynamics, and also pitch which can be subject to tone color.  The musician's challenge here is to create emotion through what he can do to sound, using the technical choices that he has at his disposal.

I don't hear these things in Hassid's version.  He has made different choices as a musician, and it has rendered his music interesting.  Is it wrong to do so?  The many versions of this piece and other pieces played by great musicians surely would suggest that there is not a single way of playing any piece.

I take your point there. I wouldn't say Hassid's tortured sound is terribly religious. However, I don't see why it needs to be as monotonous as Vengerov's. Kreisler and Rabin satisfy me with a more restrained approach. Vengerov just sounds totally dead to me, though. If someone were to read a solemn poem, they wouldn't stop articulating altogether or pronounce in the drawl of a primary school child. Kreisler makes more than enough of a religious meditation without having to resort to such empty sounds. I think it's often reasonable to make one section more restrained in order to "save up" for some drama. However, even without having done so, Hassid's middle section comes across with far more impact and far more sense of vocal characterisation. I particularly like the way he ever so slightly "misses" (likely deliberately) hitting the high note in the central climax, to really make it shriek. Even in contrast with the lifeless opening, I didn't find Vengerov hit me with any special drama or character. Contrast with blandness wasn't enough to make me feel anything close to what Hassid's playing conjures up.

Anyway, my point with the comparison was not about who follows the instructions of the score more closely. It was just about who solely about who makes the music "speak". Personally, I'd always put that before issues of what is correct, in terms of whether I'd care to hear any particular performer.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Saying the word "tomOrrow" can be said or sung louder or softer but the vowel 0 does not have to be loud. Ask a professional singer. Vowel are formed by the way the mouth is formed. You can articulate the vowel by opening your mouth in more of an oval shape and achieve the stress without accenting simply by articulating it different from the rest of word in any dynamic you wish. By the way you could also stress the vowel  by putting space between the syllables."

And when playing? Articulation is basically achieved solely with durations and dynamics- so we can forget how the mouth moves. To simulate different vocal articulations we are left with nothing other than those two variables to use. Arguably, you could also say that the shape of the mouth creates these contrasts is to a large extent BECAUSE it automatically generates dynamic contrasts in speaking/singing- not because it substitutes for them. To articulate a ppp on the piano, it's essential to perceive a RELATIVE sense of dynamics that still involves stronger and weaker notes. Also, of course the O need not be "loud". But when speaking/singing that in almost any dynamic, it will still need to be slightly louder (or "less quiet") compared to the other syllables- or it sounds like a Dalek. What theatrical actor simply whispers softer lines without crisp diction and contrasts? When playing, it's all the more necessary to create distinctions. I see why no more reason why ppp should be monotonously unaccented than why FFF should be monotonously accented. It often demands traditional strong/weak and it often demands less traditional off-beat emphasis.  

"You can listen to a piece of music and determine whether it is duple( groups of two) or triple ( groups of three) but you should not be able to tell if it is in 2/4 or 4/4 because pieces in duple can be written with either meter signature."

There are countless cases where I'd disagree with that. Particularly in dances. It may not be desirable to make it obvious, or even noticeable in all cases. To but to suggest something is necessarily wrong if the listener can detect the difference strikes me as going WAY overboard.

[keypeg]

Personally, I do not find Vengerov's version dead at all.  Were I to listen with a pianist's ear I might, because the things I am learning to pay attention to in piano are not there much, and they are there in Hassid's version.  What makes Vengerov interesting to me is what resides within the notes -how a particular note swells or develops.  This is something that is almost impossible on piano but it is a main part of the violin's expressiveness.

What I was saying, however, is that there are many ways to interpret music, and Vengerov and Hassid have chosen two different interpretations.  And those interpretations influence what we do with the elements of sound which is the subject of this thread.

[nyiregyhazi]

Personally, I do not find Vengerov's version dead at all.  Were I to listen with a pianist's ear I might, because the things I am learning to pay attention to in piano are not there much, and they are there in Hassid's version.  What makes Vengerov interesting to me is what resides within the notes -how a particular note swells or develops.  This is something that is almost impossible on piano but it is a main part of the violin's expressiveness.

Quite honestly, that's exactly what I missed the most. I can hear a small amount that might perhaps come across better on a CD recording- but I find it hard to believe that such slight amounts would come across favourably in a big concert hall. Compared to the artists I admire, it just felt utterly static and directionless to me. I'd even go as far as to say it reminded me of the style of Andre Rieu.

[keypeg]

This is the version I'm used to hearing.  Is it possible that the stage and orchestra held him back?
[urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yemjrHeh9gY][/url]

[nyiregyhazi]

This is the version I'm used to hearing.  Is it possible that the stage and orchestra held him back?
[urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yemjrHeh9gY][/url]

Interestingly different. There's a hell of a lot more characterisation in that one. Certainly far more to my taste than the more clean sound of the other one.

[mcdiddy1]

"Saying the word "tomOrrow" can be said or sung louder or softer but the vowel 0 does not have to be loud. Ask a professional singer. Vowel are formed by the way the mouth is formed. You can articulate the vowel by opening your mouth in more of an oval shape and achieve the stress without accenting simply by articulating it different from the rest of word in any dynamic you wish. By the way you could also stress the vowel  by putting space between the syllables."

And when playing? Articulation is basically achieved solely with durations and dynamics- so we can forget how the mouth moves. To simulate different vocal articulations we are left with nothing other than those two variables to use. Arguably, you could also say that the shape of the mouth creates these contrasts is to a large extent BECAUSE it automatically generates dynamic contrasts in speaking/singing- not because it substitutes for them. To articulate a ppp on the piano, it's essential to perceive a RELATIVE sense of dynamics that still involves stronger and weaker notes. Also, of course the O need not be "loud". But when speaking/singing that in almost any dynamic, it will still need to be slightly louder (or "less quiet") compared to the other syllables- or it sounds like a Dalek. What theatrical actor simply whispers softer lines without crisp diction and contrasts? When playing, it's all the more necessary to create distinctions. I see why no more reason why ppp should be monotonously unaccented than why FFF should be monotonously accented. It often demands traditional strong/weak and it often demands less traditional off-beat emphasis.  

The comparison of singing to playing was brought not by me so I was just responding to the statement.  I agree with everything you say about articulation but my point was that articulation is not just produced by dynamics but by dynamics, duration, AND placement. Placing a note in space is a type of articulation (staccato) and you can bring out something by the way it is placed is the music , example agogic accent. When you sing, articulation is also produced by where the emphasis sound formed by the tongue and mouth. The differences between vowels e and o is not only dynamic but the way the tongue and mouth cavity interact to influences, duration, placement, and volume of the sound.  My only argument is articulation is not limited to just playing a note louder in case of "tomorrow".

My argument was not that there should be no consideration for traditional strong weak emphasis but that meter is not the sole consideration for it. You would want to know about they style period and their treatment of meter because it is not the same for every time period. Some music, particularly Debussy music is "monotonously unaccented" because the composers intent is tone color, atmospheric, and dream-like. You can stick change the meter however you want to but playing his music based on meter signature conventions would unapproriatly musical in certain passages of his. I hear what you are saying about put intricate sound details with consideration of the meter but not until you figure out what the background of the music is.


"You can listen to a piece of music and determine whether it is duple( groups of two) or triple ( groups of three) but you should not be able to tell if it is in 2/4 or 4/4 because pieces in duple can be written with either meter signature."

There are countless cases where I'd disagree with that. Particularly in dances. It may not be desirable to make it obvious, or even noticeable in all cases. To but to suggest something is necessarily wrong if the listener can detect the difference strikes me as going WAY overboard.

[/quote]

In 4/4 the beats are "Strong weak strong weak Strong" right? In 2/4, the beats would be "Strong, weak Strong weak.  Does not look very different to me. Most dances are not limited to one measure phrases but four bar phrases, so accenting down beats on every measure would sound very unmusical.  If you were to listen to a piece, you would be able to count the pulse and "feel" the divisions of two and dictate it in 4/4. I argue if you erase the 4/4 and put 2/4 instead the piece should not be played different.

Of course some pieces sound like the are in 4/4 and you may guess the right signature but I argue if a player was to be extremely literal by playing music in 4/4 with four different dynamic levels in one measure because they are after a Strong, weak, strong, pattern because you are in 4/4 is generally musical especially if it is not inline with the intention of the music.  

My point is for every example of a dance you can think of as being in 4/4 and only 4/4, I could easily place a 2/4 and play it exactly the same. We are talking about notation not music. Notation is a very blunt way of trying to describe sound. Sound is not limited by the conventions of notation ( meter). Playing is music of the Baroque period may have a style trait of having more pronounced beats but it is based on the history of performance not based on what a meter signature says. If certainly does not apply to many contemporary pieces, atonal music, or some impressing music. Theory is just meant to describe the practice of music performance but it does not dictate how the sound must be produced. Music does not have until we get on the instrument and form sounds in some kind of organized way.

I am not saying we should ignore meter and the theory of strong beats and weak beats are unimportant, just we should not feel straight jacketed to it dynamically and play all of music based on just the music practice of Baroque, Classical and certain pieces are organized.

[nyiregyhazi]

In 4/4 the beats are "Strong weak strong weak Strong" right? In 2/4, the beats would be "Strong, weak Strong weak.  Does not look very different to me.

Assuming there's only one type of strong and one type of weak? Does music only have two dynamic levels? In the general outline for 4/4 the third beat is weaker than the first. That's totally different.

"Most dances are not limited to one measure phrases but four bar phrases, so accenting down beats on every measure would sound very unmusical."

Assuming there's only one type of accent and it's a very strong one indeed?

 "If you were to listen to a piece, you would be able to count the pulse and "feel" the divisions of two and dictate it in 4/4. I argue if you erase the 4/4 and put 2/4 instead the piece should not be played different."

I totally disagree. If a composer wrote 2/4, they would almost certainly be pointing towards consistently marked first beats. Otherwise, why write so many tiny bars? If you wrote 4/4 it would make every second of those accents a much lesser one. If the composer wants them to be more consistent they write 2/4. Why do you think composer would even use 2/4 if they saw no distinction? Arguably accentuation along the lines of 4/4 (with the strongest accent occurring once every four beats, and the third beat having a much lesser accent) could sound even more pedantic and lumpy than consistent application of an accent every two beats. 2/4 often has a very clearly defined yet more continuous feel.  


"My point is for every example of a dance you can think of as being in 4/4 and only 4/4, I could easily place a 2/4 and play it exactly the same. We are talking about notation not music."

Notation has no bearing on performance? If the performer decides there's no difference, it wouldn't be a surprise if there's not much of one to hear (although the perception of how the music sounds will be affected by the visual frequency of barlines). However. for those who do feel a difference, it can very much cause a difference.
 

"Notation is a very blunt way of trying to describe sound. Sound is not limited by the conventions of notation ( meter). Playing is music of the Baroque period may have a style trait of having more pronounced beats but it is based on the history of performance not based on what a meter signature says."

These are not mutually exclusive. It's based on what the time signature says AND performance practise. And notation PRESCRIBES sound to the performer. That's totally different to merely describing- as would be the case if an external party took dictation of an improvisation by a composer.

"If certainly does not apply to many contemporary pieces, atonal music, or some impressing music. Theory is just meant to describe the practice of music performance but it does not dictate how the sound must be produced."

So why don't they follow the example of composers who abandoned barlines?

I am not saying we should ignore meter and the theory of stong beats and weak beats are unimportant, just we should not feel straight jacketed to it dynamically and play all of music based on just the music practice of Baroque, Classical and certain pieces are organized.

There's nothing I hate more than accentuation that is so relentless that it regularly contradicts musical shape. But if you're going to say that 2/4 and 4/4 have no distinction between them at all, you're very much ignoring the metre. Thinking about these things should never be equated to the binary approach to strong-weak that is heard from so many appalling pianists (where there really do seem to be only two dynamic levels to correspond, and where 2/4 and 4/4 really are played as being identically accented).

[mcdiddy1]

In 4/4 the beats are "Strong weak strong weak Strong" right? In 2/4, the beats would be "Strong, weak Strong weak.  Does not look very different to me.

Assuming there's only one type of strong and one type of weak? Does music only have two dynamic levels? In the general outline for 4/4 the third beat is weaker than the first. That's totally different.

I know there are different types of "strong" beats ( thats why I capitalized the first one to indicate the downbeat) but dynamic changes and metric accents are not the same thing. The third beat is weaker because the divisions of pulse does not line up as much as the down beat not because you are required to play it louder than beat 2 and 4.

"If you were to listen to a piece, you would be able to count the pulse and "feel" the divisions of two and dictate it in 4/4. I argue if you erase the 4/4 and put 2/4 instead the piece should not be played different."

I totally disagree. If a composer wrote 2/4, they would almost certainly be pointing towards consistently marked first beats. Otherwise, why write so many tiny bars? If you wrote 4/4 it would make every second of those accents a much lesser one. If the composer wants them to be more consistent they write 2/4. Why do you think composer would even use 2/4 if they saw no distinction? Arguably accentuation along the lines of 4/4 (with the strongest accent occurring once every four beats, and the third beat having a much lesser accent) could sound even more pedantic and lumpy than consistent application of an accent every two beats. 2/4 often has a very clearly defined yet more continuous feel.  "

Composers write in different meters based on notational preference to make it clear to the performers and to sell music.

Think of a simple piece like Yankee Doodle. You could write the piece in 2/4, 4/8, 4/4, or 2/2.  Are you saying each of these pieces should have different sound? The reason most pieces are not in 4/8 is beacause if you want to sell your music you would want the quarter note to equal the beat simply because it is easier to read. There is no magic about 2/4 and 4/4, just simply easier to read.

The continouse feel you describe is a performance sound not by any selection of meter. Meter is based on imaginary, kinesthetic flow which form a structre where one can measure rhythmic events in music. The feeling you hear is created by audible performances characteristics from dynamics, phrasing, and accents.

Composers do not have a sound concept and say " this music must be 2/4 because I want to mark each bar". They have a music concept in their mind and bring it to life through an instrument and then settle on the notation that makes it clear or most of the time (especially Classical pieces) in a way that will sell to wide audience. Nobody wants to  by something in 4/8 when they can get it in 4/4.

"My point is for every example of a dance you can think of as being in 4/4 and only 4/4, I could easily place a 2/4 and play it exactly the same. We are talking about notation not music."

Notation has no bearing on performance? If the performer decides there's no difference, it wouldn't be a surprise if there's not much of one to hear (although the perception of how the music sounds will be affected by the visual frequency of barlines). However. for those who do feel a difference, it can very much cause a difference

Why would notation have a bearing on performance? Put a piece of paper with black dots in front of someone who does not know music and you never know what you will get. Notation is just black dots on a page, not music. There is more to music than can ever be described in notation which I am sure you agree. The only difference that can be made on a performance is when the performer, through education, decides to change the performance. It is the role of the performer to bring out what is beyond the notes. We do that by changing things technically based on what we know. What the black dots say means nothing until we have the knowledge to perform it in reality.

"Notation is a very blunt way of trying to describe sound. Sound is not limited by the conventions of notation ( meter). Playing is music of the Baroque period may have a style trait of having more pronounced beats but it is based on the history of performance not based on what a meter signature says."

These are not mutually exclusive. It's based on what the time signature says AND performance practise. And notation PRESCRIBES sound to the performer. That's totally different to merely describing- as would be the case if an external party took dictation of an improvisation by a composer.

In an external party was taking dictation of an improvisation the only thing they would be able to decern is whether it was in triple or duple. What is in 3/4 can easily be notated in 6/8 without missing a beat. Notation is deeply limited in what actually happens in music. For example, Baroque pieces typically have few dynamics. Are we suppose to play Bach in only forte and piano based on what notation prescribes to performer? The time signature should influence the performers decisions to perform in the differences between triple and duple but beyond that is based on the way the performer chooses to phrase, articulate, etc.

"If certainly does not apply to many contemporary pieces, atonal music, or some impressing music. Theory is just meant to describe the practice of music performance but it does not dictate how the sound must be produced."

So why don't they follow the example of composers who abandoned barlines?

Why would they? There is a place in theory where they describe what atonal people do. Classical music/ Baroque music follows the metric stress so that is what they teach. But there is more music than just that. Time signatures find their way in to contemporarly music and the practice of strong/ weak is abandonded and challenged because the composer is after a tonal concept beyond what is the conventions of the Classical/Baroque period. If you are playing Classical music in general, you should keep the strong/ weak stress in mind but it is not legally binding.

I am not saying we should ignore meter and the theory of stong beats and weak beats are unimportant, just we should not feel straight jacketed to it dynamically and play all of music based on just the music practice of Baroque, Classical and certain pieces are organized.

There's nothing I hate more than accentuation that is so relentless that it regularly contradicts musical shape. But if you're going to say that 2/4 and 4/4 have no distinction between them at all, you're very much ignoring the metre. Thinking about these things should never be equated to the binary approach to strong-weak that is heard from so many appalling pianists (where there really do seem to be only two dynamic levels to correspond, and where 2/4 and 4/4 really are played as being identically accented).

There is a difference. They are just notated differently to where one has four beats in a measure and one has 2 beats in measure. Beyond the visual there is no sound difference between them.  I could play "My country thi of tee" and  if you ask me to write I could write it is 6/4, 6/8, or 6/2.  If I wanted something that would sell I would probably choose 6/4. If I wanted to give you something weird I would give you the piece in 6/2. If I choose to accent a note based on my concept of meter that is me choosing to phrase it in a way that would appear to be in one meter but is not limited to one.

[nyiregyhazi]

"I know there are different types of "strong" beats ( thats why I capitalized the first one to indicate the downbeat) but dynamic changes and metric accents are not the same thing. The third beat is weaker because the divisions of pulse does not line up as much as the down beat not because you are required to play it louder than beat 2 and 4."

? So why are you saying 2/4 and 4/4 are executed in identical fashion? Your last sentence is totally at odds with that claim. If written in two bars of two it DOES fall on a down beat. You have made a distinction based upon the frequency at which downbeats occur in your own argument.


"Nobody wants to  by something in 4/8 when they can get it in 4/4. "

So composers who use 2/4 over 4/4 do so to make reading easy? Sorry, you'll have to do a lot better than that! I didn't ask about 4/8 over 4/4 (although I have also seen 4/8 used before). Why would 2/4 be easier to read than 4/4, please?  
 

"Why would notation have a bearing on performance? Put a piece of paper with black dots in front of someone who does not know music and you never know what you will get."


Write out Schubert's G flat impromptu enharmonically in F sharp major and get someone to play it for you. See what happens. In most cases, you'll get a far less placid performance. Anyway, the metre is not a solely notational issue. It is a PRESCRIPTIVE instruction. 2/4 and 4/4 MEAN totally different things.

"The only difference that can be made on a performance is when the performer, through education, decides to change the performance."

So everything we do is willfull? Of course it isn't. We have a subconscious. And we also have a conscious that responds to explicit instructions about metre. If you don't value that, perhaps you make no difference. Those who DO consider the difference will completely change the character based on how they perceive the metre. You seem to be under the impression that because you don't care about anything other than whether the smallest units are 2s or 3s, nobody else does? You're wrong, sorry. Performers look at bigger combinations and the time signature is among the considerations in how the larger whole operates.

"In an external party was taking dictation of an improvisation the only thing they would be able to decern is whether it was in triple or duple. What is in 3/4 can easily be notated in 6/8 without
missing a beat."

So you're not among those who think it's fine to accent Fur Elise as two threes (over three twos)? That's good. But the above premise rests on the idea that all accents are equal. That does not stand up. A good listener would be considering the extent and frequency of emphasis, in order to select a time signature to help reflect that. Were Chopin's E flat nocturne written with each triplet converted to a 3/4 bar, it would make for a startling change. Many pianists would interpret it as more of an accent-heavy waltz, due to the notation. Mathematical equivalence does not make the way a performer translates different notations a non-issue. In this case, it also goes the other way. If a performer were playing that with pronounced waltz accents, it would be vital to dictate it in separate bars of three. Using four triplets per bar would look too smooth to reflect on that.


"Time signatures find their way in to contemporarly music and the practice of strong/ weak is abandonded and challenged because the composer is after a tonal concept beyond what is the conventions of the Classical/Baroque period."

Abandoned? Really? I totally disagree. There's a reason why some the same composer frequently wrote some music with no time signature yet RETURNED to it in another. Not treating strong-weak as obviously as a 7 year old does not mean it's been abandoned. A lot of modern music needs an even stronger sense of pulse, for it to work effectively.

"If you are playing Classical music in general, you should keep the strong/ weak stress in mind but it is not legally binding."


Who said it is? You don't have to become legally bound to understand that there's a difference between 2 and 4.

[mcdiddy1]

"I know there are different types of "strong" beats ( thats why I capitalized the first one to indicate the downbeat) but dynamic changes and metric accents are not the same thing. The third beat is weaker because the divisions of pulse does not line up as much as the down beat not because you are required to play it louder than beat 2 and 4."

? So why are you saying 2/4 and 4/4 are executed in identical fashion? Your last sentence is totally at odds with that claim. If written in two bars of two it DOES fall on a down beat. You have made a distinction based upon the frequency at which downbeats occur in your own argument

I never said 2/4 and 4/4 are identically. Of course notationally they mean two different things. The way they sound however are not different until you make decisions about how to articulate and phrase it. If you played a simple C scale you can tell if it is in 4/4 or 2/4. If you can then you prove my point. Creating audible accents on downbeats in a decision by the performer not the meter. Sometimes it is appropriate and sometimes it is not but a what makes a beat strong in the division of the pulse.

""Nobody wants to  by something in 4/8 when they can get it in 4/4. "

So composers who use 2/4 over 4/4 do so to make reading easy? Sorry, you'll have to do a lot better than that! I didn't ask about 4/8 over 4/4 (although I have also seen 4/8 used before). Why would 2/4 be easier to read than 4/4, please?  "

For experienced musicians like you and me , it does not matter what meter music is in. If you want to sell to the beginner, a huge market, you choose 4/4. What is magical about 4/4 that it is the default time signature for most beginning pieces? If composers are not concerned about selling their music why not more pieces in 6/16, 6/2, or 9/4? You could easily write simple nursery rhymes with this time signature. If you were a composer would you choose 3/4 or 3/2? Then ask which one you would choose if you wanted to sell.

Write out Schubert's G flat impromptu enharmonically in F sharp major and get someone to play it for you. See what happens. In most cases, you'll get a far less placid performance. Anyway, the metre is not a solely notational issue. It is a PRESCRIPTIVE instruction. 2/4 and 4/4 MEAN totally different things

.

Yes of course it would be less familiar to read for most people. But what is your point? You only prove certain keys are easier to read than others. It does not chanage the correct performance of the piece.

 WHen you say prescriptive , you mean enforcing of rules right? So why do some conductors choose to conduct a piece in 9/8 in three or a piece in 4/4 in 2 or a piece in 3/4 in 1? Depedning on the speed of the music it would be tiring to conduct a fast piece in four and more musically acceptable to conduct in 2. If the meter was the rule, we would conduct based on the top number of the time signature and that does not work.

Meter is just an imaginary (because you cannot hear it) kinestetic (because it involves movement) sequence of events. You listen to music and you can feel a beat because after listening to it you anticipate the event.  There are many division on pules that go beyond just the beats in each measure. Conductors and performers tend to find bigger pulse divisions  depending on the nature of the music itself not limited to what the time signature says.

"The only difference that can be made on a performance is when the performer, through education, decides to change the performance."

So everything we do is willfull? Of course it isn't. We have a subconscious. And we also have a conscious that responds to explicit instructions about metre. If you don't value that, perhaps you make no difference. Those who DO consider the difference will completely change the character based on how they perceive the metre. You seem to be under the impression that because you don't care about anything other than whether the smallest units are 2s or 3s, nobody else does? You're wrong, sorry. Performers look at bigger combinations and the time signature is among the considerations in how the larger whole operates.

Yes of course we have a subconscious but whether we are conscious of it or not, in music we do something and something happens as a result. Changing the character based on the meter is my point. The decision is made by the knowledge of the performer. Of course all pieces in cut time are not always fast, or a dance. It depends on a variety of other factors. It is not a personal feeling, it is based on what people do. You play a piece and people can find your pulse and it usually the smaller divisions. Even when you "feel" downbeats 4 is a multiple of 2. My point is what you said "Performers look at bigger combinations and the time signature is among the considerations in how the larger whole operates."  Where we disagree is that time signature DICTATES the performance. It should be take in consideration.

So you're not among those who think it's fine to accent Fur Elise as two threes (over three twos)? That's good. But the above premise rests on the idea that all accents are equal. That does not stand up. A good listener would be considering the extent and frequency of emphasis, in order to select a time signature to help reflect that. Were Chopin's E flat nocturne written with each triplet converted to a 3/4 bar, it would make for a startling change. Many pianists would interpret it as more of an accent-heavy waltz, due to the notation. Mathematical equivalence does not make the way a performer translates different notations a non-issue. In this case, it also goes the other way. If a performer were playing that with pronounced waltz accents, it would be vital to dictate it in separate bars of three. Using four triplets per bar would look too smooth to reflect on that.

No sure I follow. I am one of the teachers who once students can learn the notes , discusses phrasing, feeling it in 1, and developing interpretation like sofisticated music teachers do.

 I never said there was one kind of accents there are several.

An accent is a feature that stands out from its sourounding.

There are dynamic accents- which are the ones we hear,
agogic accents- that come from extended duration,
melodic accents- accents created by higher notes in phrase,
 metric accents- which are silent.

 Sometimes they line up and sometimes they don't but they are different. When you hear a dynamic accent, that is a performance decision influenced by the performer's decision to use the meter but is not dictated by the meter itself. Does that makes sense?

"Time signatures find their way in to contemporarly music and the practice of strong/ weak is abandonded and challenged because the composer is after a tonal concept beyond what is the conventions of the Classical/Baroque period."

Abandoned? Really? I totally disagree. There's a reason why some the same composer frequently wrote some music with no time signature yet RETURNED to it in another. Not treating strong-weak as obviously as a 7 year old does not mean it's been abandoned. A lot of modern music needs an even stronger sense of pulse, for it to work effectively.

By abandon timesignature I mean the treatment of naturally stressing a note, structure, and creating predictable events based on historic use of time signature is challenged in the music. You cannot listen to certain pieces and be able to tell, this  is in 4/4 or 6/8. I am not saying there is no pulse just they way it has been relyed on compared to older historical time periods is drastically different.

"If you are playing Classical music in general, you should keep the strong/ weak stress in mind but it is not legally binding."

Who said it is? You don't have to become legally bound to understand that there's a difference between 2 and 4.

By this I mean you should not be locked into confusing dynamic accents with metric accents. Depends on who and what you are playing.  Mathematically there is a differene between 2 and 4 but 2/4 and 4/4 are both duple time signatures which are sound wise, in terms of what you play are interchangable. Performance wise you may create decisions based on your interpretations on the music with the time signature in mind.

An example is Beethoven's Moonlight sonata which is mistakenly written in 4/4 in some editions. It should be played in cut time to suggest a faster pulse. Knowing it is in cut time would suggest to the performer to play it faster but the tempo is not dictated by the meter. When the performer was playing 4/4 you could make the argument they were playing it in a slow cut time ( which does exist).

The point is of course there is a notational difference between 2/2 and 4/4 but in the performance of the piece the decision to take it faster or slower needs to come from knowledge of intent of the composer, general purpose of cut time (faster tempos), and style of music( classical). Being is cut time itself does not change how you play the piece until you take in consideration these elements. Cut time is not always fast and 4/4 is not always slower.

[nyiregyhazi]

"If you played a simple C scale you can tell if it is in 4/4 or 2/4."

It doesn't matter. What matters is whether the performer characterises according to what he sees. There's no shortage of performers who will characterise differently based on the metre- giving a totally different effect.

"For experienced musicians like you and me , it does not matter what meter music is in. If you want to sell to the beginner, a huge market, you choose 4/4. What is magical about 4/4 that it is the default time signature for most beginning pieces? If composers are not concerned about selling their music why not more pieces in 6/16, 6/2, or 9/4? You could easily write simple nursery rhymes with this time signature. If you were a composer would you choose 3/4 or 3/2? Then ask which one you would choose if you wanted to sell."

You're still not answering my question about why composers specifically choose 2 2/4 bars over 1 bigger 4/4 bar. This is far from infrequent and it's seen in many children's pieces by composers like Tchaikovsky. If you're want to argue that these things mean nothing, you cannot reasonably duck out of answering this.



"So why do some conductors choose to conduct a piece in 9/8 in three or a piece in 4/4 in 2 or a piece in 3/4 in 1? Depedning on the speed of the music it would be tiring to conduct a fast piece in four and more musically acceptable to conduct in 2. If the meter was the rule, we would conduct based on the top number of the time signature and that does not work."

It's up to the conductor. I do not believe in final rules. But neither do I believe in claiming it means nothing whether a composer chooses 4/4 or 2/4 etc. It doesn't have to be limited to the possibility of hard and fast rules or zero meaning. Your argument appears to be based on polarising to these two possibilities- where there's actually plenty of middle ground (upon which I reside myself). Also, 9/8 IS accepted as meaning three beats per bar, by the way, not 9.

"Where we disagree is that time signature DICTATES the performance. It should be take in consideration."

I don't believe I ever said it must dictate any performance. However, I don't believe there's any excuse for taking such a casual attitude as to regard 2/4 4/4 2/2 etc as all being interchangeable simply due to having a common root in 2s rather than 3s. They certainly do not mean the same thing.

"I never said there was one kind of accents there are several."

I didn't say you believe that. What I was saying was that your argument would hinge upon that being so, or it becomes invalidated. Without that being so, there's simply no way of arguing that different time signatures mean the same thing.

"Sometimes they line up and sometimes they don't but they are different. When you hear a dynamic accent, that is a performance decision influenced by the performer's decision to use the meter but is not dictated by the meter itself. Does that makes sense?"

Of course. Understanding the basic meaning of time signatures does not necessitate being ignorant to how much more complex musical phrasing makes accentuation. Neither does understanding the complexity of accentuation necessitate throwing out standard patterns altogether. Personally, I was taught very much along the lines of Schnabel's ideas- based heavily on unaccented first beats. Much a I hate players who accent every first beat hard, I realised more recently that my playing was too far the other way. It was too flaccid and didn't hold together. When you listen to Schnabel, he didn't truly abandon standard metrical accents. It was because he had such grounding in them that he was able to move away from them and yet keep a very solid sense of pulse. A less experienced player who abandons the concept of metrical accents altogether may not retain the foundation Schnabel did.

"By this I mean you should not be locked into confusing dynamic accents with metric accents. Depends on who and what you are playing.  Mathematically there is a differene between 2 and 4 but 2/4 and 4/4 are both duple time signatures which are sound wise, in terms of what you play are interchangable."

Sorry, but that's simply nonsense. If that held up, the same logic could be applied to the example I gave of Chopin's E flat nocturne. Just imagine that piece written with a 3/4 bar per notated group of three quavers. It would be played with the more frequent and heavier accentuation of a waltz. Mathematical equivalence in notation does not make the impression the performer receives the same. These things are NOT "interchangeable". Do you dispute this particular example of the nocturne? I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. Are you actually telling me that performers would not accent with greater frequency, were it notated that way- and that writing such long bars does not in any way serve to create an impression of smoothness and fluidity?


"The point is of course there is a notational difference between 2/2 and 4/4 but in the performance of the piece the decision to take it faster or slower needs to come from knowledge of intent of the composer, general purpose of cut time (faster tempos), and style of music( classical). Being is cut time itself does not change how you play the piece until you take in consideration these elements. Cut time is not always fast and 4/4 is not always slower. "

Well, obviously. It depends what tempo is asked for.  But tempo is based on the duration between beats. Thinking in four gives twice as many beats. The tempo should be based on feeling how long it takes between two beats per bar and not between each of four beats. Nobody has to think "cut time is faster". They simply count the beats the composer tells them to- so they don't perceive anything being faster. This means that what some people assume is "fast" is actually perfectly slow. You speak entirely for yourself when you say that the meter doesn't change anything with regard to how the music is played and conceived.

[mcdiddy1]

"If you played a simple C scale you can't tell if it is in 4/4 or 2/4."

It doesn't matter. What matters is whether the performer characterizes according to what he sees. There's no shortage of performers who will characterize differently based on the meter- giving a totally different effect.

Opps did I put can... I mean can. I am not against characterizing differently based on meter, just not being locked into the basic strong/weak stress pattern all the time. That is two different issues.

You're still not answering my question about why composers specifically choose 2 2/4 bars over 1 bigger 4/4 bar. This is far from infrequent and it's seen in many children's pieces by composers like Tchaikovsky. If you're want to argue that these things mean nothing, you cannot reasonably duck out of answering this.

I am not ducking out of answering it. They choose it either: it is easier to read, it sells, or it communicates something about the pulse of the music. If he wanted performance accents on the downbeats he could simply write them in 4/4.  Majority of beginner pieces, which you cannot argue, are in 4/4 . An exemption does not make the rule. The meter does not create stress, we do as performers depending on what division of pulse we choose to feel.

It's up to the conductor. I do not believe in final rules. But neither do I believe in claiming it means nothing whether a composer chooses 4/4 or 2/4 etc. It doesn't have to be limited to the possibility of hard and fast rules or zero meaning. Your argument appears to be based on polarizing to these two possibilities- where there's actually plenty of middle ground (upon which I reside myself). Also, 9/8 IS accepted as meaning three beats per bar, by the way, not 9.

I never said it means nothing. I believe there in middle ground as well. The time signature means something ( beats per measure), something about the characterization of the piece but it does not influence the sound. 9/8 is considered having 3 beats per bar because of it being in triple time but there is the possibility of conductors conducting in 9 and it does happen. This dual possibility of feeling the smaller divisions vs bigger divisions is the argument I am making. This possibility applies to piano music as well which can be felt in smaller and bigger subdivisions. if we felt time signature is absolute and cannot mean anything more then all conductors would conduct in 9 or just 3 but they do not. You come to that conclusion as a performer not based on what the time signature says.

"Where we disagree is that time signature DICTATES the performance. It should be take in consideration."

I don't believe I ever said it must dictate any performance. However, I don't believe there's any excuse for taking such a casual attitude as to regard 2/4 4/4 2/2 etc as all being interchangeable simply due to having a common root in 2s rather than 3s. They certainly do not mean the same thing.

So where is the harm in feeling a piece in 4/4 instead in 2? Feeling different pulses in the music does not make it faster or slower, just a different way of thinking. If you choose to increase or decrease the tempo then that is up to you. I do think however you should start with the basic subdivisions of the pulse when you are learning something. However when you perform you should experiment with trying different divisions of pulse and you may find one simply works better and flows more musically. I say leave the door of possibility open rather than seeing the time signature is law.

I didn't say you believe that. What I was saying was that your argument would hinge upon that being so, or it becomes invalidated. Without that being so, there's simply no way of arguing that different time signatures mean the same thing.

No, my argument hinges on there being multiple kinds of accents not just two. Of course there are two main possibilities for accents heard and unheard but musically there are different ways you can create accents in the realm of being heard. Time signature meaning the same thing is too broad. Specifically time signatures follow under the categories of duple, triple, or quadruple (this is debated because some feel it is a part of duple). 2/4 and 4/4 are not the same thing but follow the fall into the duple basic pattern of strong/ weak while triple meter (3/4) falls in the category of strong weak weak. What I am saying is all duple meter can be interchanged theoretically by increasing or decreasing the note value. How that affects your performance of the piece is up to. Simplifying what I am saying to 2/4 and 4/4 are the same thing is overgeneralizing the concept to something that is silly and doesn't make it wrong.

Of course. Understanding the basic meaning of time signatures does not necessitate being ignorant to how much more complex musical phrasing makes accentuation. Neither does understanding the complexity of accentuation necessitate throwing out standard patterns altogether. Personally, I was taught very much along the lines of Schnabel's ideas- based heavily on unaccented first beats. Much a I hate players who accent every first beat hard, I realized more recently that my playing was too far the other way. It was too flaccid and didn't hold together. When you listen to Schnabel, he didn't truly abandon standard metrical accents. It was because he had such grounding in them that he was able to move away from them and yet keep a very solid sense of pulse. A less experienced player who abandons the concept of metrical accents altogether may not retain the foundation Schnabel did.

Right. This is what I am saying. You cannot abandon metrical accents. They are there naturally. You could even hear in any one you listen too especially Schanabel. What you have been taught is performance wise to not overemphasize the downbeats. Which is not a bad thing until you take it too far and apply it to everything you do. Metric accents are in everything we do, but deciding to emphasizing should be taking in to consideration by a variety of other reasons

 A less experienced player can be taught to keep a pulse without accenting down beats the are just not taught. Rather than explain to students dryly the strong and weak patterns, if students are taught to keep a steady pulse, good phrasing and rhythmic accuracy they will be able to play just fine.

Sorry, but that's simply nonsense. If that held up, the same logic could be applied to the example I gave of Chopin's E flat nocturne. Just imagine that piece written with a 3/4 bar per notated group of three quavers. It would be played with the more frequent and heavier accentuation of a waltz. Mathematical equivalence in notation does not make the impression the performer receives the same. These things are NOT "interchangeable". Do you dispute this particular example of the nocturne? I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. Are you actually telling me that performers would not accent with greater frequency, were it notated that way- and that writing such long bars does not in any way serve to create an impression of smoothness and fluidity?

A player would play with more frequent and heavier accentuation of a waltz if there were trained to only think of 3/4 and Strong , weak,weak. A more experience musician like you and me read in phrases , longer ideas, and structures, rather than measures. That is one of the reasons you would choose 6/8 because for beginners it helps them out. I am sure if you erased the time signature and put 3/4 or 12/8 you would not phrase it any differently because you know how it goes. Some times the time signature the composers ( or editors) choose works well and sometimes it would be better as something eles. My opinion is just not to be blind to the possibilities of others.

I honestly do not know what other performers would do. There are some strong and weak performers out there who still play this piece incorrectly despite the time signature! Does the time signature chosen help them out? Absolutely. Thats why its there. Their piece is not married to the time signature though and whose to say the piece would not be better served in a time signature with more beats in a measure especially it being a romantic piece.

"T

he point is of course there is a notational difference between 2/2 and 4/4 but in the performance of the piece the decision to take it faster or slower needs to come from knowledge of intent of the composer, general purpose of cut time (faster tempos), and style of music( classical). Being is cut time itself does not change how you play the piece until you take in consideration these elements. Cut time is not always fast and 4/4 is not always slower. "

Well, obviously. It depends what tempo is asked for.  But tempo is based on the duration between beats. Thinking in four gives twice as many beats. The tempo should be based on feeling how long it takes between two beats per bar and not between each of four beats. Nobody has to think "cut time is faster". They simply count the beats the composer tells them to- so they don't perceive anything being faster. This means that what some people assume is "fast" is actually perfectly slow. You speak entirely for yourself when you say that the meter doesn't change anything with regard to how the music is played and conceived.

That is assuming we are keeping the same tempo. If you count in 4 at quarter note =80 for example , then switch to 2 then the piece will go faster. But that is one circumstance. It is easily possible to one 1 and 2 and on the same pulse and it is slow comparitivly. Fast and slow tempos are relative to what you conceive it to be.

I never said meter doesn't change anything with regard to how the music is played. That is overgeneralizing again so something silly. From the beginning I have said meter is partly chooses based on what sells. What sells is what beginners can play easily. Some time signatures like 4/4 are chooses because beginners can conceive it or read it easier. You as an advanced musician may look at a piece in 4/16 without  a problem but to the beginner who has a limited experience would look at it and think it is difficult just because there is a lot of black and assume it must be fast because it is a 16 note. understanding the tempo is largo , meaning very slow, and it is simply four counts per measure and  then they will be able to play it without fear. But just by being confused by the time signature is more than enough reason for a beginner to put the music away and choose something in 4/4 that is far less scary-looking.

I could easily simplify are position to you saying meter must be followed and you can simplify my position to do not worry about the meter play whatever you want. But that is obviously not a fair generalization of our positions. Meter is much too intricate to be boiled down to simple positions and be right.

[nyiregyhazi]

doubled

[nyiregyhazi]

"I am not ducking out of answering it. They choose it either: it is easier to read, it sells, or it communicates something about the pulse of the music."

Why would 2 2/4 bars communicate a different pulse to one 4/4 bar? Why would it be easier to read? Why would it sell better? Each of those is a total non-starter, that doesn't even begin to explain why composers made such decisions in many cases. Also, we're not talking about why most composers use a simple 4/4, as you talked about later in your post. That argument is in reverse. We're talking about why they specifically chose NOT to use 4/4- making it MORE complex and not less so.

"If he wanted performance accents on the downbeats he could simply write them in 4/4."

Except only half of them would be downbeats. This is spectacularly full of conjecture and does not explain why they often favour 2/4 over notating accents in 4/4. The point is that they DON'T always do the simple 4/4. So "could" has already been replaced with "did not".

"Majority of beginner pieces, which you cannot argue, are in 4/4 . An exemption does not make the rule."

No. But it shows composers felt there was good reason to depart from 4/4.

"The time signature means something ( beats per measure), something about the characterization of the piece but it does not influence the sound."

Changing the character independently of sound? I'm simply baffled by that sentence.

 "if we felt time signature is absolute and cannot mean anything more then all conductors would conduct in 9 or just 3 but they do not. You come to that conclusion as a performer not based on what the time signature says."

Not indepedently of it. First you consider it. I'm not arguing for absolutes. I'm saying that to claim anything that subdivides into 2 is basically the same anyway is totally off the mark. It isn't.



"Right. This is what I am saying. You cannot abandon metrical accents. They are there naturally."

That is not what I said at all. I explained that the extent to which I was taught the unaccented style of downbeats before aquiring solid rhythmic accentuation left my playing too flaccid. Quite the opposite. It was NOT there naturally in my playing of a few years ago.


 
"A player would play with more frequent and heavier accentuation of a waltz if there were trained to only think of 3/4 and Strong , weak,weak. A more experience musician like you and me read in phrases , longer ideas, and structures, rather than measures."

Without instruction to do otherwise, I play 3/4 waltzes patterns with at least some form of accentuation, not smoothly. Are you saying you don't? If I were presented with the nocturne notated that way, I would certainly play with more emphases- as it would look like a fast waltz accompaniment. The visual impression would change everything. Even the most advanced players will be affected by these issues. Writing a long bar is more conducive to smoothness than a lot of miniature ones.

"I am sure if you erased the time signature and put 3/4 or 12/8 you would not phrase it any differently because you know how it goes."

And if I didn;t? And if all of those who play it in the smooth way we are used to hearing it had been handed the same notation? Would the same tradition have been passed down? These are very much significant issues- not pedantic details.

"That is assuming we are keeping the same tempo. If you count in 4 at quarter note =80 for example , then switch to 2 then the piece will go faster."

It's not in 4. That was my point. To count in four is just to judge it from an inaccurate beat. If a composer takes the trouble to ask for cut time he means for the beats to be judged from it. Why even compare to inaccurate counting? I'm no purist, but why would I spend any of my time judging the duration between beats that the composer asked me not to think of as beats? My starting point is to judge from what he asked me to. I don't think, "let's pretend this is in 4" and then think "oh, yeah, but I'd better go faster because it's actually in 2". I just count in 2. Cut time just is cut time- not an instruction for a quicker 4/4.



"I could easily simplify are position to you saying meter must be followed and you can simplify my position to do not worry about the meter play whatever you want. But that is obviously not a fair generalization of our positions. Meter is much too intricate to be boiled down to simple positions and be right."

I am arguing against the explicit statement you made that 4/4 and 2/2 and 2/4 etc are all interchangeable. Not a distorted exaggeration of what you said. Changing between these can have major consequences on how a performer will interpret the piece. They may be equivalent in maths, but they are not equivalent in how they make a performer think.

[mcdiddy1]

Why would 2 2/4 bars communicate a different pulse to one 4/4 bar? Why would it be easier to read? Why would it sell better? Each of those is a total non-starter, that doesn't even begin to explain why composers made such decisions in many cases. Also, we're not talking about why most composers use a simple 4/4, as you talked about later in your post. That argument is in reverse. We're talking about why they specifically chose NOT to use 4/4- making it MORE complex and not less so.

2 2/4 bars vs 4/4= im not sure what u mean by this sentence. the pulse would not change because of a change of time signature. Only the way it is represented on the page. Going back and forth between these two signature would not change how you play unless you choose to bring out downbeats of 2/4. The choice is in the performer.

I explain why it would sell better in a earlier question. I am not sure you really read what I say and debate. You ask any beginner which music the perfer: music in 4/4 or music in 4/16 and they will pick 4/4. The prefer 4/4 so there for if the time signature is simple they will be more inclined to buy and make a profit. Isn't that simple logic??

Composers write music for fun? The write music out of the goodness of their heart. No they write music so they can sell it in someway. If you notate music in a way that is difficult to read, you will not get commissions to write more work, and beginners will not play your work. If you do not have the professional audience and the non professional audience then you have no money and no livelihood. I don't think that runs in circles. It comes back to what will benefit the composer, not some artistic need to create music in simple time signatures.

Why do composers choose not to write in 4/4 all the time. Sometimes music is harder to read in 4/4 or would simply take too many pages. An example of a composer changing music to be easier to read is Beethoven's 9 symphony. Beethoven's 2 movement was re written in a different time signature because the musicians had trouble keeping up with the speed. He changed the time signature to make it more readable and the concert went on to be a success.

"If he wanted performance accents on the downbeats he could simply write them in 4/4."

Except only half of them would be downbeats. This is spectacularly full of conjecture and does not explain why they often favor 2/4 over notating accents in 4/4. The point is that they DON'T always do the simple 4/4. So "could" has already been replaced with "did not".

Half of what? And 4/4 is much more common than 2/4, hence the name "common time". So they don't often favor 2/4, but when they do they probably choose it because it was easier to read. It sure wasn't like a time signature popped up in their mind and then started seeing the notes in the air. You start with a musical inspiration or concept and notate that and decide on a time signature that fits with it. 2/4 is a pretty simple time signature itself so a better question is why not choose 2/16?  It is the same notes and the speed would not change? There would be no different in how you played it, it would just be a different way notating it. They said no I don't like that and go to a bigger more common note value.

"The time signature means something ( beats per measure), something about the characterization of the piece but it does not influence the sound."

Changing the character independently of sound? I'm simply baffled by that sentence.

Lol, so nit picky. Ok the characterization of the piece does not change the notes and rhythms. You may choose to stress notes differently based on the time signature.

 

"if we felt time signature is absolute and cannot mean anything more then all conductors would conduct in 9 or just 3 but they do not. You come to that conclusion as a performer not based on what the time signature says."

Not independently of it. First you consider it. I'm not arguing for absolutes. I'm saying that to claim anything that subdivides into 2 is basically the same anyway is totally off the mark. It isn't.

It is not the same, just interchangeable. Same means they are essentially identical with no difference. That is not what I mean. Interchangeable means there is a possibility of the situation. What i mean is it is possible to count a piece in 4/4 in 2 just as it is possible to count 9/8 in three. Interchangeable does not mean the same.

That is not what I said at all. I explained that the extent to which I was taught the unaccented style of downbeats before acquiring solid rhythmic accentuation left my playing too flaccid. Quite the opposite. It was NOT there naturally in my playing of a few years ago.

I cannot comment on how you were playing. When you play a piece and another person can find the pulse and clap along with you're playing that is playing with good rhythm pulse. By natural I mean when you play something correctly certain notes will be accented just by being played correctly ( agogic accent and melodic accents). The time to bring out accents in the music depends on the situation. Unaccented downbeats and not having rhythmic accentuation sounds more like technique and interpretation issues to me.

Without instruction to do otherwise, I play 3/4 waltzes patterns with at least some form of accentuation, not smoothly. Are you saying you don't? If I were presented with the nocturne notated that way, I would certainly play with more emphases- as it would look like a fast waltz accompaniment. The visual impression would change everything. Even the most advanced players will be affected by these issues. Writing a long bar is more conducive to smoothness than a lot of miniature ones.

I would play 3/4 waltzes patterns with some form of accentuation because it is a waltz. Playing the waltz is a style I am a familiar with so I know what is expected in this music. However it does not mean all pieces in 3/4 are played with accents. I was playing Debussy's L'isle joyeuse in 3/4 and there are times where I intentionally play with tight rhythmic feel and certain imprository sections in the opening freer and less stress. The entire music is written in 3/4 but I am familiar with his style, treatment of the piano and orchestral colors.

I agree with you that visual impression of the writing music in one time signature over the other affects how we look at the music. Thats why advance players must go beyond are natural inclinations if it in conflict with the style of music. Yes, you would be influenced but using your experience, you would over come first impressions and look at more clues, composers, expressive marks, style etc like an advanced player should. You should give yourself more credit than that.

"I am sure if you erased the time signature and put 3/4 or 12/8 you would not phrase it any differently because you know how it goes."

And if I didn;t? And if all of those who play it in the smooth way we are used to hearing it had been handed the same notation? Would the same tradition have been passed down? These are very much significant issues- not pedantic details.

Well if you didn't then I would say you are a beginner. Beginners deal in absolutes. I must do this , this way until the end of time. Wisdom comes from growing and absorbing new information. Advance players now there is one best ways but have the adaptability to learn and discard something that does not work. What tradition would be passed? I don't know that is too hypothetical to answer.

It's not in 4. That was my point. To count in four is just to judge it from an inaccurate beat. If a composer takes the trouble to ask for cut time he means for the beats to be judged from it. Why even compare to inaccurate counting? I'm no purist, but why would I spend any of my time judging the duration between beats that the composer asked me not to think of as beats? My starting point is to judge from what he asked me to. I don't think, "Let's pretend this is in 4" and then think "oh, yeah, but I'd better go faster because it's actually in 2". I just count in 2. Cut time just is cut time- not an instruction for a quicker 4/

So any conductor who conduct music in 4/4 in 2 is judging from an inaccurate beat? Pretty much every conductor in the world does this at some point or their arms with fall of when then they try to do a four pattern at Presto. The distintion between orchestra conducting and piano solo repertoire is not there being how the great composers tended to think orchestrally.

Composers do not tell you how to think. Many times they do not even choose the time signatures their music are in. The publisher does. You make your own musical decisions based on what your experiences are.  There are some arraignments of Fur Elise in 8 notes for beginners and such. Is the piece actually in 3/4? Nope, it is in 3/8.  This idea we are doing the composer a disservice is silly because the arrangement sounds exactly the same except it is geared toward a more elementary audience.

So the great composers would be rolling over in their grave if you dared to try and do something beyond what a time signature says? I think there music is much more transcendent than that. The great fantasies of Bach , Beethoven ( one of the great improvisors, and Mozart( who could legendary create musical compositions at the drop of hat ) would be against experimenting with music? I could imagine Beethoven ripping the sheet music and showing everyone how he intended it to playing. Sheet music will never capture the emotion, feel or timing they played with. It can only capture the keys they pressed, some general dynamics, some phrasing, and the rhythm. If you play only what is on the page, thats all you will get. I am someone what surprised due to the fact earlier you said musicians do not play with great characterization like past performers do. Beyond saying general terms like lightly, or gracefully sheet music will never be able to capture it.

 Counting in cut time is not an instruction for a quicker 4 but it lends itself for quicker pieces. An example would be most marches are in cut time because they are intended to be played in a quicker tempo. 

My point is sometimes composers do not choose the time signature their music is in so why should we feel we need to be a slave to it. Playing that way leaves no room for the possibility of playing with a quicker and lighter character like you said. I am not saying you should do this for every piece. If a piece is in 3/4 you should generally play it with three beats to the bar.  But if the tempo says quick and light, and the title says waltz or nocturne then that should dramatically alter the way you stress or unstressed a beat.

[nyiregyhazi]

"I explain why it would sell better in a earlier question. I am not sure you really read what I say and debate. You ask any beginner which music the perfer: music in 4/4 or music in 4/16 and they will pick 4/4. The prefer 4/4 so there for if the time signature is simple they will be more inclined to buy and make a profit. Isn't that simple logic??"

No. Because I am referring to the countless instances when composers DO NOT use the simple  convenient 4/4. Your argument is obsolete and I have no idea why you keep repeating it.

"Half of what? And 4/4 is much more common than 2/4, hence the name "common time". So they don't often favor 2/4, but when they do they probably choose it because it was easier to read."

I should be interested to hear why having twice as many barlines and the introduction of a need for tied notes might be "easier to read". Why are you so intent on pushing this theory as covering all? Is it so hard to open your mind enough to wonder if the composer did this to tell the performer something? I'm perplexed by your strawman argument about how the page does not contain everything of the final sound. Who said it does? However it does contain MANY substantial pointers about interpretation and composers go out of their way to make this so. Look at most editions of Chopin's E minor prelude where idiot editors "correct" the stem directions in the melody. Chopin wrote them in the same direction, most likely because it LOOKS more continuous. Seeing them all over the place looks more fragmented and can impact upon the phrasing.

"It sure wasn't like a time signature popped up in their mind and then started seeing the notes in the air. You start with a musical inspiration or concept and notate that and decide on a time signature that fits with it. 2/4 is a pretty simple time signature itself so a better question is why not choose 2/16? It is the same notes and the speed would not change? There would be no different in how you played it, it would just be a different way notating it. They said no I don't like that and go to a bigger more common note value. "

That's a rather sly way of pretending 2/4 fits in with your keeping it simple theory. However, seeing as you keep reminding us that 4/4 is the norm, the real question is why they favoured 2/4 over the norm- not why they favoured it over a truly bizarre time-signature that nobody uses. Your explanation is really not cutting it, seeing as 2/4 is generally harder to read than 4/4.

"By natural I mean when you play something correctly certain notes will be accented just by being played correctly ( agogic accent and melodic accents). "

Listen to a MIDI files without dynamics. See how naturally the pulse comes out there. A pulse comes out "naturally" when a person has a prior grounding in mild accentuations.

"I would play 3/4 waltzes patterns with some form of accentuation because it is a waltz. Playing the waltz is a style I am a familiar with so I know what is expected in this music."

So you have to be told it's a waltz? If you were handed the score featuring that standard pattern, you would play every note equally and without accentuation unless someone said- this is a waltz? I don't believe you. A fast 3/4 will naturally have more prominence than the notation Chopin used. It gives too much impression of importance to each note. Likewise with Fur Elise. Using semiquavers illustrates the lightness and forward movement. Change them to crotchets for a beginner and even a professional would play it differently, were it not for the fact they already know the piece. Beethoven's notation coneys things to an experienced performer. To replace it with long notes and compensate by saying it goes fast is not interchangable except in mathematics.


"I agree with you that visual impression of the writing music in one time signature over the other affects how we look at the music. Thats why advance players must go beyond are natural inclinations if it in conflict with the style of music."

It's also why composers care about how they notate the meter- enough not to always favour 4/4 over 2/4.

"Yes, you would be influenced but using your experience, you would over come first impressions and look at more clues, composers, expressive marks, style etc like an advanced player should. You should give yourself more credit than that."

It's not about credit. It's about realising how different the implications of long notes marked presto are compared to the equivalent notated in shorter notes. Why do you think composers sometime write many quick bars of 3/4 but use compound time elsewhere? Repeating this argument about sales over and over again isn't going to help explain that. Composers WANT you to pick up on many of these notational clues. That's why they make specific choices about which style of notation to use.


"So any conductor who conduct music in 4/4 in 2 is judging from an inaccurate beat?"

Any conductor who judges his tempo from two beats per bar is judging from an inaccurate beat. If he chooses to conduct in two, that doesn't mean his misread the time-signature when choosing his tempo.
 

"Counting in cut time is not an instruction for a quicker 4 but it lends itself for quicker pieces. An example would be most marches are in cut time because they are intended to be played in a quicker tempo."

Quicker than what? Quicker than if you use beats of the wrong duration to judge your tempo? It's meaningless. The reason the composer tells you cut time is so THAT is what you judge from. What would anything other than what the composer tells you the beat is be used to judge it? Just because a conductor beats differently, doesn't mean that he judged his tempo from a different yardstick to what the composer asked for.

"But if the tempo says quick and light, and the title says waltz or nocturne then that should dramatically alter the way you stress or unstressed a beat."

So if the nocturne were notated that way, do you seriously think that conceiving it as "quick and light" would be conducive to cantabile? The results would be totally different, to how it Chopin notated it. Use of compound time makes it evident that the feel is NOT fast but slow. Notating longer notes to be thought of as fast would be disastrous. I get the impression you're actually starting to realise what significant consequences these issues can have, but are not keen to back down. The fact that he might need to say "quick and light" would already show that the impression has been changed by an alternative notation. However, it would not compensate. Even if the tempo came out the same, the impression would be different. The melody would not look continuous and merely to think of the accompaniment as quick (rather than as fitting within longer durations) would almost certainly make it more "notey". There's a very big difference between thinking about quick long notes and slow short notes. Far from trying to prevent themselves being influenced by such things, these are exactly the kinds of issues that advanced performers tend to think a great deal about.

[mcdiddy1]

No. Because I am referring to the countless instances when composers DO NOT use the simple  convenient 4/4. Your argument is obsolete and I have no idea why you keep repeating it.

Well if you ask the same question then I will keep answering it. Choosing not use 4/4 is because the time signiture lends itself better to the piece. Time signature is choosen out of convience not because it changes the music. You come up with a tune in your head. You write it down. You choose a time signature because of the readability and if it works well with nature. It does not work backward in that because it is cut time it must be fast or 6/8 must be slow. Composers communicate through music and notation is choosen to do its best to represent it and sometimes it simply fails.

"Half of what? And 4/4 is much more common than 2/4, hence the name "common time". So

they don't often favor 2/4, but when they do they probably choose it because it was easier to read."

I should be interested to hear why having twice as many barlines and the introduction of a need for tied notes might be "easier to read". Why are you so intent on pushing this theory as covering all? Is it so hard to open your mind enough to wonder if the composer did this to tell the performer something? I'm perplexed by your strawman argument about how the page does not contain everything of the final sound. Who said it does? However it does contain MANY substantial pointers about interpretation and composers go out of their way to make this so. Look at most editions of Chopin's E minor prelude where idiot editors "correct" the stem directions in the melody. Chopin wrote them in the same direction, most likely because it LOOKS more continuous. Seeing them all over the place looks more fragmented and can impact upon the phrasing.

Depends on the music. You choose a piece with straight quarter notes in 4/4 time and then switch to 2/4 , you are going to have twice as many barlines in the music. You choose an example where it would be difficult to read in 4/4 but you can do that with any time signature what is your point?

Why the limitation to 2/4 and 4/4? That is not a big leap. Transcibe a piece in 4/4 to 4/16 or 4/8 and the beginners would find that more challenging looking and think its faster for some reason.

So the composer choose 4/4 because it says something about the music? What does the generic 4/4 specically have to say. You can find any number of different styles and ways of playing piece with a 4/4 time signature.

It is not a theory that there is more to music than what is on the page. In an early disscusion you said yourself older performers had more characterization than modern one. Both performers look at the same music but come up with something that sounds worlds apart. Interpretation and creativity will never be totatlly captured by sheet music. I agree with what you say about Chopin that notation may help phrasing but where have you ever seen an instruction to add rubato in his music. Just because it is not written in the music does not mean we should not do it.

That's a rather sly way of pretending 2/4 fits in with your keeping it simple theory. However, seeing as you keep reminding us that 4/4 is the norm, the real question is why they favoured 2/4 over the norm- not why they favoured it over a truly bizarre time-signature that nobody uses. Your explanation is really not cutting it, seeing as 2/4 is generally harder to read than 4/4.

Why composers favor 2/4 over 4/4 can happen for a variety of reason that I named before including making it readable, fitting the phrasing of the music etc. The question is what makes this time signature bizarre and why does nobody use it? if you find it bizarre imagine how a beginner would feel looking at it. If you think composers did not quickly realize this and quickly start writing things in 4/4 time then that is nieve. That is reason we all know the stress patterns of 4/4 so well and have never seen unusual time signatures like that. It is not complex it just looks messier than the clean 4/4 time music we love.

Listen to a MIDI files without dynamics. See how naturally the pulse comes out there. A pulse comes out "naturally" when a person has a prior grounding in mild accentuations.

MIDI files sounds terrible. They sound terrible not because they have pulse but because all that is there is notes and rhythms. Just simple adding "mild accentuations" will not change how robotic and unmusical it sounds. Playing every 4/4 piece with a slightly louder 1 and 3 beats would make the music just as unmusical if not more because it would not make sense in every situation. Comparing a machine to what musicians do is not a very strong argument on the fact there is a natural pulse when we play in time.

So you have to be told it's a waltz? If you were handed the score featuring that standard pattern, you would play every note equally and without accentuation unless someone said- this is a waltz? I don't believe you. A fast 3/4 will naturally have more prominence than the notation Chopin used. It gives too much impression of importance to each note. Likewise with Fur Elise. Using semiquavers illustrates the lightness and forward movement. Change them to crotchets for a beginner and even a professional would play it differently, were it not for the fact they already know the piece. Beethoven's notation coneys things to an experienced performer. To replace it with long notes and compensate by saying it goes fast is not interchangable except in mathematics.

No but that is because I know the style not because I know what the stress of triple meter is.
Also Semiquavers do not illustrate lightness and forward movement in Stravinsky or if the music said semiquaver=60. Professionals look at all the information of the music and bring all their knowledge to the piece.

Quicker than what? Quicker than if you use beats of the wrong duration to judge your tempo? It's meaningless. The reason the composer tells you cut time is so THAT is what you judge from. What would anything other than what the composer tells you the beat is be used to judge it? Just because a conductor beats differently, doesn't mean that he judged his tempo from a different yardstick to what the composer asked for.

That is not the point I am trying to make. Of course conductors choose the same tempo the conductor chooses. What I am trying to say is there are different divisions of pules in all of music. It is the job of the conductor to magnify what the intent of the composer is. The time signature may indicate the divisions of the pulse but the intent of the music is too be felt in larger groups of pulses such as by measures or half-measures.

In a slow lyrical piece in 9/8 the conductor may conduct it in a 9 pattern, and in a faster dance like piece he may conduct in 3.  Choosing the pulse division should not be confused with tempo selection.

So if the nocturne were notated that way, do you seriously think that conceiving it as "quick and light" would be conducive to cantabile? The results would be totally different, to how it Chopin notated it. Use of compound time makes it evident that the feel is NOT fast but slow. Notating longer notes to be thought of as fast would be disastrous. I get the impression you're actually starting to realise what significant consequences these issues can have, but are not keen to back down. The fact that he might need to say "quick and light" would already show that the impression has been changed by an alternative notation. However, it would not compensate. Even if the tempo came out the same, the impression would be different. The melody would not look continuous and merely to think of the accompaniment as quick (rather than as fitting within longer durations) would almost certainly make it more "notey". There's a very big difference between thinking about quick long notes and slow short notes. Far from trying to prevent themselves being influenced by such things, these are exactly the kinds of issues that advanced performers tend to think a great deal about.

I never said any thing about a quick and light as being cantabile. These qualities can be added to the characteristic of playin cantabile. The rest of what you say is unclear because I think you are thinking of a specific pieces and it is a little too vague for me to understand. It would be better if you use a specific example of what you are trying to say.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Well if you ask the same question then I will keep answering it. Choosing not use 4/4 is because the time signiture lends itself better to the piece. Time signature is choosen out of convience not because it changes the music. You come up with a tune in your head. You write it down. You choose a time signature because of the readability and if it works well with nature. It does not work backward in that because it is cut time it must be fast or 6/8 must be slow. Composers communicate through music and notation is choosen to do its best to represent it and sometimes it simply fails. "

You say that as if you are personally in a position to speak for every composer in history. You are not. You're in no position to say that every composer never intended to convey a single thing about how the music is performed via the selection of time signature. Also, you might not consciously play the music with that in mind, but countless performers do. I was practising the last movement of Mozart's K 330 sonata today and it struck me just how differently I would be likely to play it, were there a 4/4 and half as many barlines. Be skeptical if you wish, but please do not presume yourself to be in a position to speak for anybody other than your lone self. You seem to believe you are in possession of evidence that composers never meant ANYTHING about the performance from their time signature and that any equivalent notation can never affect the way any performer naturally plays as a result. I find such a closed-minded attitude truly baffling.

"Why the limitation to 2/4 and 4/4? That is not a big leap. Transcibe a piece in 4/4 to 4/16 or 4/8 and the beginners would find that more challenging looking and think its faster for some reason."

What limitation? I'm referring to 2/4 because it's used so frequently- and hence destroys the validity of your point about how they (supposedly) stuck to 4/4 to make money. They didn't.

"So the composer choose 4/4 because it says something about the music? What does the generic 4/4 specically have to say."

? I made it quite clear that it is DEPARTURE from the regular 4/4 that shows the composer has something to say via his selection of time signature.


"The question is what makes this time signature bizarre and why does nobody use it? if you find it bizarre imagine how a beginner would feel looking at it. If you think composers did not quickly realize this and quickly start writing things in 4/4 time then that is nieve. "

I find that point deeply naive. You think composers like Alkan and Liszt were worrying about whether any one would have the ability to understand their time signatures- while writing things like interlocking octaves? This point is beyond ludicrous. Are we talking about "composers" who write pre grade 1 repertoire? If so why? I'm rather more interested in great composers of great music. I don't tend to think too long and hard about how to play "I am C". However, I do stop and wonder why Beethoven might have chosen a very slow 6/8 for the slow movement of his D major sonata- which certainly should mean something to the interpreter. How different would either using two 3/4 bars or a 6/4 have been and why did he decide not to use this- considering how much easier it would be to read and count? How is 6/8 more convenient? More likely Beethoven realised that the visual continuity of having notes beamed together would impact upon the interpretation- helping to maintain a real phrase throughout the slow tempo, rather than leaving a series of individual sounds.


"It is not a theory that there is more to music than what is on the page. In an early disscusion you said yourself older performers had more characterization than modern one.
 Both performers look at the same music but come up with something that sounds worlds apart. Interpretation and creativity will never be totatlly captured by sheet music. I agree with what you say about Chopin that notation may help phrasing but where have you ever seen an instruction to add rubato in his music. Just because it is not written in the music does not mean we should not do it. "

You're persisting with arguing against a strawman, in spite of my response to the last time? That a person feels that composer might actually wish to illustrate something with his time signature does not by default mean that the same person feels there is no more to music than what is on the page. Why are you attributing such a ridiculous point to me?


"MIDI files sounds terrible. They sound terrible not because they have pulse but because all that is there is notes and rhythms. Just simple adding "mild accentuations" will not change how robotic and unmusical it sounds."

Another strawman argument. I didn't say that mild accentuation alone creates the musical whole. I pointed out that the idea that implied accentuation occurs automatically is wrong. MIDI files prove that. The idea that it happens by itself can objectively be rubbished. When people "automatically" reveal the pulse it's due to what they've already ingrained to the point of not needing to think about it. For those who have not ingrained such a thing, the results can often be flaccid and vague- as I stated my own playing had been. You have to learn it before you forget about it and simply let it happen "automatically"- which is why a MIDI file with constant dynamic indeed sounds like it a dirge with constant dynamic and does not in any way imply the real sense of rhythmic pulse. It's not automatic at all. It's something that is learned and ingrained.

"In a slow lyrical piece in 9/8 the conductor may conduct it in a 9 pattern, and in a faster dance like piece he may conduct in 3.  Choosing the pulse division should not be confused with tempo selection."

Yes, that was my point. Regardless of how you conduct, you choose your tempo from what the COMPOSER tells you is the beat. So to speak of a conductor conducting 4/4 in 2 is beside the point. That doesn't mean he chose his tempo from a yardstick of 2s. If he did, you'd have to question his competence at reading a score- unless he had a very good explanation of why he did that.


"I never said any thing about a quick and light as being cantabile. These qualities can be added to the characteristic of playin cantabile. The rest of what you say is unclear because I think you are thinking of a specific pieces and it is a little too vague for me to understand. It would be better if you use a specific example of what you are trying to say."

? You do not think the E flat nocturne should be played cantabile? If notated as I described, it almost certainly would not be played with the same singing quality- especially if marked "quick and light" as you put it. Chopin's notation of the rhythm is of paramount importance. I really don't understand why you are still trying to claim that these things means nothing.

[mcdiddy1]

You say that as if you are personally in a position to speak for every composer in history. You are not. You're in no position to say that every composer never intended to convey a single thing about how the music is performed via the selection of time signature. Also, you might not consciously play the music with that in mind, but countless performers do. I was practicing the last movement of Mozart's K 330 sonata today and it struck me just how differently I would be likely to play it, were there a 4/4 and half as many barlines. Be skeptical if you wish, but please do not presume yourself to be in a position to speak for anybody other than your lone self. You seem to believe you are in possession of evidence that composers never meant ANYTHING about the performance from their time signature and that any equivalent notation can never affect the way any performer naturally plays as a result. I find such a closed-minded attitude truly baffling.

I never claimed to know everything or every composer in history. I just use logic. Some composer use different inspirations from nature and other pieces and such. I am just speaking in a general sense and having a discussion. There is no reason to resort to personal attacks when you have nothing that contradicts my reasoning. I sure do not stoop to that level.

Why the limitation to 2/4 and 4/4? That is not a big leap. Transcribe a piece in 4/4 to 4/16 or 4/8 and the beginners would find that more challenging looking and think its faster for some reason."

What limitation? I'm referring to 2/4 because it's used so frequently- and hence destroys the validity of your point about how they (supposedly) stuck to 4/4 to make money. They didn't.

Lol. I dont see how this destroys the validity of my point. 4/4 is called common time because it is the most common time signature. Just because 2/4 is used doesn't contradict the reason 4/4 is overused. If you want to disagree just to disagree thats fine but they didn't just because I said they didn't isn't a very powerful argument.

So the composer choose 4/4 because it says something about the music? What does the generic 4/4 specically have to say."

? I made it quite clear that it is DEPARTURE from the regular 4/4 that shows the composer has something to say via his selection of time signature.

Yea but what is the reasoning? 
Sure they do not use 4/4 but why not figure out why? I already gave my reasons.

You're persisting with arguing against a strawman, in spite of my response to the last time? That a person feels that composer might actually wish to illustrate something with his time signature does not by default mean that the same person feels there is no more to music than what is on the page. Why are you attributing such a ridiculous point to me

?

You say I am using a "strawman" argument but you keep using generalities such as "illustrate Something" . What does that mean? I atleast try and get specific. If you feel the everything in music is on page then that is your reality. I do not think musicality can be found in dried ink on paper but what do I know.

"MIDI files sounds terrible. They sound terrible not because they have pulse but because all that is there is notes and rhythms. Just simple adding "mild accentuations" will not change how robotic and unmusical it sounds."

Another strawman argument. I didn't say that mild accentuation alone creates the musical whole. I pointed out that the idea that implied accentuation occurs automatically is wrong. MIDI files prove that. The idea that it happens by itself can objectively be rubbished.

Well you didn't prove it. When you play a piece and the audience can clap along then there is "implied accentuation" You do not to say to the audience "here is the downbeat " the feel it based on the structure of the music. It is there even in mechanical playing. If machines has the capacity to play with more musicality they would sound better.

I never said any thing about a quick and light as being cantabile. These qualities can be added to the characteristic of playin cantabile. The rest of what you say is unclear because I think you are thinking of a specific pieces and it is a little too vague for me to understand. It would be better if you use a specific example of what you are trying to say."

? You do not think the E flat nocturne should be played cantabile? If notated as I described, it almost certainly would not be played with the same singing quality- especially if marked "quick and light" as you put it. Chopin's notation of the rhythm is of paramount importance. I really don't understand why you are still trying to claim that these things means nothing.

This is another example of you scanning a response without taking the time to understand it. I try and understand your response. I said these qualities can be added to a cantabile style of playing. Plus originally I was not talking about the specific E-flat nocturne but just any nocturne in general. Quick and light could be a term describing the left hand or even a transition section in the piece. When did I say these things mean nothing? I said you should apply it.

If you can come up with reasonable points without resorting to personal attacks then there is no point  in continuing this banter. I am very open to learning new things, but only when things makes sense. Because I said so, is not logical enough to accept as true. You can feel free to disagree with my points but if you can effectively challenge them you may have to decide if what you though you know is true or there is possibility you never considered another point of view. If you want to call me close-minded,  you may want to look objectively at your comments and mind and see it really is the case.

[nyiregyhazi]

"I never claimed to know everything or every composer in history. I just use logic. Some composer use different inspirations from nature and other pieces and such. I am just speaking in a general sense and having a discussion. There is no reason to resort to personal attacks when you have nothing that contradicts my reasoning. I sure do not stoop to that level. "

Actually, you accused me of being naive in your last post, but that's beside the point. No logic points towards exclusion of the possibility that composers might have actually wished to convey something to the performer via the time signature. I am truly baffled that anyone would dismiss the possibility outright, even if you may be skeptical.

"Lol. I dont see how this destroys the validity of my point. 4/4 is called common time because it is the most common time signature. Just because 2/4 is used doesn't contradict the reason 4/4 is overused."

That is illogical. 2/4 is not uncommon at all. Considering that all of these could easily have been done in a 4/4 equivalent, that logically illustrates shows that composers departed from 4/4  in order to convey something to the performer- seeing as they failed to stick to 4/4 ("to make money"). I'm not arguing against 4/4 being normal. I am pointing out that there is clearly a significance when a composer departs from a norm- and especially when the same piece could easily notated in 4/4. Sorry, but this renders this nonsense about writing in 4/4 to make money obsolete. 4/4 is just generally the simplest way for a composer to convey his meaning. If the composer feels a need to depart from that (enough need to cause himself to lose out on his earnings, if we believe your conjecture about 4/4 reaping more profit), it is overwhelmingly probable that he felt he could not adequately convey his meaning by using 4/4. To assume that this reason CANNOT be to convey something to the performer is something I'm bemused by. And if we believe your point about money, it's interesting that composers were willing to throw it away by using alternatives- which are supposedly not even supposed to convey anything about the music. Why make such a sacrifice if there's no musical difference?


"You say I am using a "strawman" argument but you keep using generalities such as "illustrate Something" . What does that mean? I atleast try and get specific. If you feel the everything in music is on page then that is your reality. I do not think musicality can be found in dried ink on paper but what do I know."

A strawman argument is when you attribute a point to someone that they never made. You're seemingly basing this on the assumption that a person who sees significance in a time signature believes that all musicality is found in ink. If not, I have no idea why you're preaching to the choir. Because I do see significance in time signatures, it does not logically follow that I therefore believe that ALL musicality is found in the text. It means that I believe the text contains SOME pointers and that the composer deliberately put many of them there.

Well you didn't prove it. When you play a piece and the audience can clap along then there is "implied accentuation" You do not to say to the audience "here is the downbeat " the feel it based on the structure of the music. It is there even in mechanical playing.

Yes, but it doesn't have you wanting to tap your foot in the way a performer will. It certainly wouldn't have a person wanting to get up and dance to a waltz- even if they could tell it's in three. Highlighting the rhythm is part of even understated musical performance. A performer does a good deal more than let beats show themself- even those who frequently do unaccented downbeats. The art is how well they blend it into the musical shape. This distinguishes them from performers who monotonously pound every downbeat- but it doesn't mean they aren't sneaking subtle emphasis into it!



"This is another example of you scanning a response without taking the time to understand it. I try and understand your response. I said these qualities can be added to a cantabile style of playing. Plus originally I was not talking about the specific E-flat nocturne but just any nocturne in general. Quick and light could be a term describing the left hand or even a transition section in the piece. When did I say these things mean nothing? I said you should apply it."

That nocturne is to be played cantabile. So if you compensate for changing it to 3/4 notation by saying "quick and light" , you screw up the whole impression of the melodic nature. To feel it as four bars of three "quick" beats rather than as four broad and spacious beats would destroy it. With a change of notation it still becomes a new piece. Are you really not prepared to concede that such changes impact upon the impression? They cannot fail to change a performer's perception. In everything we play, we take cues from the notation, whether we know it or not.


"Because I said so, is not logical enough to accept as true."

I have provided numerous examples. Your whole argument is based on the assumption that you are in a position to say that a composer could not possibly have intended a time signature to convey anything about performance. The best you've done to support that is conjecture about money that is refuted by a wealth of counter-examples. I would very much like to hear your response to my reference to the Beethoven slow movement- just one of those counter-examples from a composer who clearly did not give a damn about keeping it simple to make money. This is just one of many examples where a composer steps way outside of the norm- with a very obvious purpose. How anyone can seriously claim that there's no possibility that he could have meant something by that the selection of time signature is beyond me.

If you're going to claim that composers never chose their meter to convey something musical to a performer, you should be aware that a single counter-example is all it takes to leave such a claim in tatters. I do not have an open mind towards such sweeping statements, that claim to represent the whole of reality. Claiming to be able to speak for every individual composer's intentions (and supporting it with scarcely a single thing beyond weak conjecture about money) does not make for a strong argument. You're asking me to open my mind to a closed-minded argument that is founded upon personal assumptions rather than evidence and which is refuted by a wealth of counter-examples. In only takes one exception to disprove a rule.

[mcdiddy1]

Actually, you accused me of being naive in your last post, but that's beside the point. No logic points towards exclusion of the possibility that composers might have actually wished to convey something to the performer via the time signature. I am truly baffled that anyone would dismiss the possibility outright, even if you may be skeptical.

I said if that the idea composers were not interested in profit in naive. If you believe that applies to you then there is nothing I can do about that but majority of the great composers were not loaded with money and made a living based on what they wrote. I think ignoring that fact and thinking composers were perfect divine beings with deep transcendent thoughts is overly romantic. Despite creating beautiful music many of these composers were rude, selfish, pretentious, and sometimes crazy people. I love their music like the next person but they were not above the basic humanistic needs of wanting to make a profit and when their well being is on the line they would be happy to write commercial music to support themselves.
Lol, I am going to stop responding after this post because either you do not read what I right or you ignore it. Cut time can be used to indicate faster, and quicker tempos?

We disagree in the fact you think the composer right in a key signature because they have some to tell the performer. But if majority of pieces use these common time signature how specific is this information?  The more you learn about these composers the more you see how human and practical these composers are. You seem to think time sigantures have a deep underlying message to the performer and I say the time signatures come from practicality, necessity and profit.

A strawman argument is when you attribute a point to someone that they never made. You're seemingly basing this on the assumption that a person who sees significance in a time signature believes that all musicality is found in ink. If not, I have no idea why you're preaching to the choir. Because I do see significance in time signatures, it does not logically follow that I therefore believe that ALL musicality is found in the text. It means that I believe the text contains SOME pointers and that the composer deliberately put many of them there.

Lol, I was wondering what strawman argument means. Good then we agree with that.

Yes, but it doesn't have you wanting to tap your foot in the way a performer will. It certainly wouldn't have a person wanting to get up and dance to a waltz- even if they could tell it's in three. Highlighting the rhythm is part of even understated musical performance. A performer does a good deal more than let beats show themself- even those who frequently do unaccented downbeats. The art is how well they blend it into the musical shape. This distinguishes them from performers who monotonously pound every downbeat- but it doesn't mean they aren't sneaking subtle emphasis into it!

What do you know. I agree with that too! My main point was that is already built into the music. Empasizing it situations is an excellent thing to do.

That nocturne is to be played cantabile. So if you compensate for changing it to 3/4 notation by saying "quick and light" , you screw up the whole impression of the melodic nature. To feel it as four bars of three "quick" beats rather than as four broad and spacious beats would destroy it. With a change of notation it still becomes a new piece. Are you really not prepared to concede that such changes impact upon the impression? They cannot fail to change a performer's perception. In everything we play, we take cues from the notation, whether we know it or not

.

I am not talking about that nocturne. It is not the only nocturne Chopin wrote. He wrote some very un -cantabile sections in some of his nocturnes and quick and light would work just fine. Of course changing notation creats an impression on a performer's perceptions, that was my whole argument with the 4/4 being so common. But not all nocturnes are played the same way and I am not talking about the specific E-flat nocturne. I had another piece in mind where it is appropriate.

I have provided numerous examples. Your whole argument is based on the assumption that you are in a position to say that a composer could not possibly have intended a time signature to convey anything about performance. The best you've done to support that is conjecture about money that is refuted by a wealth of counter-examples. I would very much like to hear your response to my reference to the Beethoven slow movement- just one of those counter-examples from a composer who clearly did not give a damn about keeping it simple to make money. This is just one of many examples where a composer steps way outside of the norm- with a very obvious purpose. How anyone can seriously claim that there's no possibility that he could have meant something by that the selection of time signature is beyond me.

You realize you are talking about a composer who would often try and sell the same work twice just to make money. Just because he revolutionized music does not mean he was beyond being petty and crook. Beethoven went through many periods in life with changing moral views and philosophies. To say he is beyond writing music that is commercial to make money is silly. I never said that he never selected a time signature to indicate some type of musical intent. I am sure he did but I am sure many pieces he create was intended for commercial purposes. Many of his earlier sonatas were written with a playing public in mind before he went of the deep end in his middle period.

f you're going to claim that composers never chose their meter to convey something musical to a performer, you should be aware that a single counter-example is all it takes to leave such a claim in tatters. I do not have an open mind towards such sweeping statements, that claim to represent the whole of reality. Claiming to be able to speak for every individual composer's intentions (and supporting it with scarcely a single thing beyond weak conjecture about money) does not make for a strong argument. You're asking me to open my mind to a closed-minded argument that is founded upon personal assumptions rather than evidence and which is refuted by a wealth of counter-examples. In only takes one exception to disprove a rule.

When did I ever say composer never choose meter to say such and such? All I did was bring up other reasons for composers choosing time signatures. I brought up several reasons so it was never singular, in fact it could be a combination of many factors. It is not personal theory. Beethoven was no millionaire. He famously lived in a dirty apartment where he paid rent. Mozart lived beyond his means with his wife Costanza and was readily willing to write music for a commission. Haydn lived under a royal family as a servant/ court composer. These composers were not beyond listening to the demands of a paying public and producing works that was popular and would make them loads of money. My general statements do not meaning it applies to every composer. I am sure there are some composers who were well off like Schubert or Mendelsohnn who could write what they want without suffering consequences. But just cause there are exeptions does not mean the possibility does not exist.

When you say say absolute statements about an abstract subject like music you can always find some example that contradicts and destroys the 'rule"

[nyiregyhazi]

"I said if that the idea composers were not interested in profit in naive. If you believe that applies to you then there is nothing I can do about that but majority of the great composers were not loaded with money and made a living based on what they wrote. I think ignoring that fact and thinking composers were perfect divine beings with deep transcendent thoughts is overly romantic."

Another classic strawman argument. I ridiculed the specific idea that they typically chose 4/4 for the reason that they could make more money from it (rather than because it's the simplest way to express most of their ideas). I didn't say all composers never cared about money (although, arguably, many of them were totally uncompromising). I pointed out how absurd it is to think that writing extremely difficult music (often in difficult key signatures) in 4/4 makes it sell any better. Even if true, this argument would only reinforce how significant alternative meter selections is- considering that the composer would (supposedly) be throwing away revenue. Your money theory would actually indicate considerably greater significance still. Were composers throwing away their money, for something that they did not wish a performer to reflect in the sound of the music?

"Cut time can be used to indicate faster, and quicker tempos?"

Faster than what? Faster than if you judge your tempo by counting the wrong number of beats and judging the duration of a different beat to what the composer asked you to judge from? I do not personally believe a composer typically thinks in 4/4 and then decides to mark cut time to tell the performer it's fast. Cut time tells you what beat to judge from- not to think of a faster version of 4/4. It just is what it is. That will indeed make it faster than if it said 4/4- but it DOESN'T say 4/4. For those who think in terms of what a time-signature indicates, there's nothing to compare it to. You only have a point of comparison  from which to say "this is faster" if you have either initially misread or ignored the time-signature. The real speed is based on the pulse- not how quickly each note passes by.


"We disagree in the fact you think the composer right in a key signature because they have some to tell the performer. But if majority of pieces use these common time signature how specific is this information?"

Why do you keep repeating this? I am not saying 4/4 is significant. I am saying DEPARTURE from 4/4 is significant- especially if the composer could easily have stayed there. You are repeating an argument that would only have a trace of relevance, were I saying how remarkably significant 4/4 is. I am not. The prevalance of 4/4 makes every departure MORE significant and makes it all the more clear that the composer makes such departures because he wants to convey something. Departure from 4/4 is EXTREMELY specific. The composer is effectively shouting at you "THIS IS NOT NORMAL!!!"

"I am not talking about that nocturne. It is not the only nocturne Chopin wrote."

No, but I am. To illustrate that notation has a serious impact, you only need to one example to illustrate that. This is as powerful example as any- hence my reference to it specifically. Thinking of short fast beats is totally different to thinking of long, slower beats- which is why saying fast and light would not compensate for 3/4 notation.

"Of course changing notation creats an impression on a performer's perceptions, that was my whole argument with the 4/4 being so common."

No it wasn't. You claimed that notation has no bearing on what the performer does.

I quote:

"Why would notation have a bearing on performance? Put a piece of paper with black dots in front of someone who does not know music and you never know what you will get. Notation is just black dots on a page, not music."

and

"For experienced musicians like you and me , it does not matter what meter music is in"

and

"They are just notated differently to where one has four beats in a measure and one has 2 beats in measure. Beyond the visual there is no sound difference between them."

etc.

"To say he is beyond writing music that is commercial to make money is silly. I never said that he never selected a time signature to indicate some type of musical intent (...) When did I ever say composer never choose meter to say such and such? All I did was bring up other reasons for composers choosing time signatures. "

You said this:

"Choosing not use 4/4 is because the time signiture lends itself better to the piece. Time signature is choosen out of convience not because it changes the music."

Providing us with a rule that is was always for some form of convenience rather than a musical reason. That is not even stated as a possible theory. It is framed as being a factually airtight "correction" of the possibility that a time signature could have been selected because an alternative would have changed the music in some way. And you're wondering why I objected so vociferously? It's one thing to be skeptical. It's a whole other thing to be so casually dismissive and to speak as if in communion with the composer's intentions- when actually throwing around the most extreme conjecture.

[nyiregyhazi]

.

[nyiregyhazi]

Incidentally, I realised that even 4/4s can say a good deal. I was just practising the first movement of the smaller Schubert A major sonata and realised that by not considering the meter I was thinking far too much in units of four quavers- almost as if it were written in 2/4. I'm not somebody who ever does the monotonous style of heavy down beats (certainly not in such a lyrical piece), yet I realised that I was going ever so slightly in that direction- and as if there were twice as many downbeats as marked. Musically, you could argue that it would be more easily organised on the page had Schubert written it each bar as two of 2/4. In a way it's not a natural single bar. It more like two bars condensed into one- as if Schubert wrote something that would suggest smaller 2/4s (like the last movement on K. 330) but chose to squeeze it into 4/4 anyway. It's entirely possible that he meant something by doing so.

When you think consciously about the idea of the third beat being a lesser "strong" than the first, the music immediately evolves into something much more continuous. Despite a note landing on the first and third beats in every instance of the four bar phrase (except for one tie) it helps stop the music sounding like it lands quite so blatantly and squarely on first and third beats. Even without extra bar-lines, seeing four quavers beamed together at a time visually produces lumps of four notes that can lead to some lumpiness- even in a player who is conscious of the problems with excess accentuation in a lyrical phrase.

Am I someone who habitually accents downbeats in a blatant way? No. In fact I deliberately do an "unaccent" on two out of four of the first beats. However, realising how different the implications would be had Schubert employed twice as many bar-lines (before coming back to the fact he did not) helped to lighten it up further still. You seem to be of the opinion that anyone who considers the meter will necessarily end up banging out the textbook accents. It really isn't that simple. There are all kinds of different implications. Just because rank amateurs often make unmusical accentuation due to the time-signature, it does not follow that the most musical results come from regarding anything that can be reduced to 2 as being the same thing. Failing to stop and consider the time signature is the biggest danger of all.

[mcdiddy1]

Another classic strawman argument. I ridiculed the specific idea that they typically chose 4/4 for the reason that they could make more money from it (rather than because it's the simplest way to express most of their ideas). I didn't say all composers never cared about money (although, arguably, many of them were totally uncompromising). I pointed out how absurd it is to think that writing extremely difficult music (often in difficult key signatures) in 4/4 makes it sell any better. Even if true, this argument would only reinforce how significant alternative meter selections is- considering that the composer would (supposedly) be throwing away revenue. Your money theory would actually indicate considerably greater significance still. Were composers throwing away their money, for something that they did not wish a performer to reflect in the sound of the music?

I am going to make my answers very simple to understand. You said you find it absurd " idea that they typically chose 4/4 for the reason that they could make more money from it "If they do not care where are the "bizarre" time signature 4/16 , 4/8? The notes, rhythms, articulations rhythms and phrasing would all be the same.

You think it is "absurd it is to think that writing extremely difficult music (often in difficult key signatures) in 4/4 makes it sell any better. "

So you rather see difficult music in 12/4 rather than 4/4? Which one would you more likely buy?

Even if true, this argument would only reinforce how significant alternative meter selections is- considering that the composer would (supposedly) be throwing away revenue.

You can definetly make that argument. Bartok's music comes to mind in support of your point. But going through Beethoven's sonatas, chopin etudes, Bach's Well tempered Clavier ( which  are popular repertoire choices) majority of time signatures are in 3/4, 4/4, and 6/8. There are some exeptions but very few. The question I try and answer is why is this selections so few. It is a good point but the amount of composers that actually do depart from common signatures is few with good reasons.

"Cut time can be used to indicate faster, and quicker tempos?"

Faster than what? Faster than if you judge your tempo by counting the wrong number of beats and judging the duration of a different beat to what the composer asked you to judge from? I do not personally believe a composer typically thinks in 4/4 and then decides to mark cut time to tell the performer it's fast. Cut time tells you what beat to judge from- not to think of a faster version of 4/4. It just is what it is. That will indeed make it faster than if it said 4/4- but it DOESN'T say 4/4. For those who think in terms of what a time-signature indicates, there's nothing to compare it to. You only have a point of comparison  from which to say "this is faster" if you have either initially misread or ignored the time-signature. The real speed is based on the pulse- not how quickly each note passes by.

I am not comparing Cut time to 4/4. I am saying cut time is often assigned to pieces that are intended to be played quickly.

Why do you keep repeating this? I am not saying 4/4 is significant. I am saying DEPARTURE from 4/4 is significant- especially if the composer could easily have stayed there. You are repeating an argument that would only have a trace of relevance, were I saying how remarkably significant 4/4 is. I am not. The prevalance of 4/4 makes every departure MORE significant and makes it all the more clear that the composer makes such departures because he wants to convey something. Departure from 4/4 is EXTREMELY specific. The composer is effectively shouting at you "THIS IS NOT NORMAL!!!"

So if I choose to write Old Mac donald had a farm in 4/4 and then decide to play it in 2/4 tell me what message am I trying to send the performer. What if I wrote the piece in 6/4 ? What does my departure from 4/4 mean?

Ok well what are the name of pieces where the composer departs from normal time signatures?
I personally find them very hard to find. The ones that I normally see are :2/2, 2/4, 4/4, 3/4, 3/8/, 6/8 and 6/8, and 9/8.

"Of course changing notation creats an impression on a performer's perceptions, that was my whole argument with the 4/4 being so common."

No it wasn't. You claimed that notation has no bearing on what the performer does.

I quote:

"Why would notation have a bearing on performance? Put a piece of paper with black dots in front of someone who does not know music and you never know what you will get. Notation is just black dots on a page, not music."

The quotes you write about are on two different types of performer. For a beginner who knows nothing about music, notation mean nothing, You have to bring a wealth of knowledge to be able to read notation and accurately protray the music.

Assuming you can  read notation, yes of course notation would make a difference to the perception of the music, thats why the notation is there.

"For experienced musicians like you and me , it does not matter what meter music is in"
Thats true because we can read any meter and have our knowledge and background of music experiences to carry us.

"They are just notated differently to where one has four beats in a measure and one has 2 beats in measure. Beyond the visual there is no sound difference between them."

When you take it out of context this statement is incorrect. Of course a piece in 12/8 =4 beats would not sound the same as a piece in cut time=2. However between 2/4 and 4/4 the music on its own does not change. The pulse remains constant and in duple. If the performer chooses to stress certain notes due to the change of time signature that is a decision that is made by the performer not decided ahead of time by the time signature.

"To say he is beyond writing music that is commercial to make money is silly. I never said that he never selected a time signature to indicate some type of musical intent (...) When did I ever say composer never choose meter to say such and such? All I did was bring up other reasons for composers choosing time signatures. "

You said this:

"Choosing not use 4/4 is because the time signiture lends itself better to the piece. Time signature is choosen out of convience not because it changes the music."

This quote one of variety of reasons for choosing a time signature. Sometimes a time signature lends it self to the music, sometimes it is easier to beginners, sometimes it is convenient, and sometimes it shows intent.  Where we disagree at the moment is you like to shoot down the mere possibility that composers had other reasons in mind for choosing a time signature. I gave many reasons for choosing a time signature.

I don't believe time signatures are insignificant and should be down with on the contrary they are of course vital. I disagree with the idea that time signatures however are binding in all circumstances based on the common strong, weak beat pattern most music theory people are taught.

[mcdiddy1]

Incidentally, I realized that even 4/4s can say a good deal. I was just practicing the first movement of the smaller Schubert A major sonata and realized that by not considering the meter I was thinking far too much in units of four quavers-almost as if it were written in 2/4. I'm not somebody who ever does the monotonous style of heavy down beats (certainly not in such a lyrical piece), yet I realized that I was going ever so slightly in that direction- and as if there were twice as many downbeats as marked. Musically, you could argue that it would be more easily organized on the page had Schubert written it each bar as two of 2/4. In a way it's not a natural single bar. It more like two bars condensed into one- as if Schubert wrote something that would suggest smaller 2/4s (like the last movement on K. 330) but chose to squeeze it into 4/4 anyway. It's entirely possible that he meant something by doing so.

When you think consciously about the idea of the third beat being a lesser "strong" than the first, the music immediately evolves into something much more continuous. Despite a note landing on the first and third beats in every instance of the four bar phrase (except for one tie) it helps stop the music sounding like it lands quite so blatantly and squarely on first and third beats. Even without extra bar-lines, seeing four quavers beamed together at a time visually produces lumps of four notes that can lead to some lumpiness- even in a player who is conscious of the problems with excess accentuation in a lyrical phrase.

Am I someone who habitually accents downbeats in a blatant way? No. In fact I deliberately do an "unaccented" on two out of four of the first beats. However, realizing how different the implications would be had Schubert employed twice as many bar-lines (before coming back to the fact he did not) helped to lighten it up further still. You seem to be of the opinion that anyone who considers the meter will necessarily end up banging out the textbook accents. It really isn't that simple. There are all kinds of different implications. Just because rank amateurs often make unmusical accentuation due to the time-signature, it does not follow that the most musical results come from regarding anything that can be reduced to 2 as being the same thing. Failing to stop and consider the time signature is the biggest danger of all.

i am really glad you made that discovery about the piece. I am sure you will play the piece much differently and other pieces in similar ways.

Actually you misunderstand me that is my entire point. My point is not to ignore the time signature and it means nothing. But to know what it means and then essentially do what you did and explore with different divisions of pulse. Some times the composers intend for music to played one way but for a variety of reasons choose the time signature  from external pressures such as commercial appeal and read ability. More performers should do what you did and look out side the limitations of the time signature and discover what sounds right musically.

I am not someone who ascribes towards learning and discover rather than setting rules and limitations in music. I never said to ignore the time signature just to understand what it means and other aspects that are unsaid in the notation.

What I say about duple and triple meter is so they can make the same discovery you did. By knowing 2/4, 4/4, and 4/8 are in the same family than experimenting with different divisions can  help you ( like conductors)  find more musical ways to phrase, accent notes, perform and even memorize.

You may call me crazy, but I hope to think atleast being a part of this discussion pointed out a different view towards time signature  that allowed you to see the Schubert A sonata in a different light. I try not to impose my views or harm others, but just to find truth. I do not think you were harmed having the discussion and hopefully see my points are not as far off as you think.

[nyiregyhazi]

"I am going to make my answers very simple to understand. You said you find it absurd " idea that they typically chose 4/4 for the reason that they could make more money from it "If they do not care where are the "bizarre" time signature 4/16 , 4/8? The notes, rhythms, articulations rhythms and phrasing would all be the same. "

What purpose would that serve? Unless one has been established, there's nothing to do show that these were avoided simply to make money. What I am interested in is what they wanted to signify when they DID depart from something as simple as 4/4- not speculation about what they didn't do anyway.

"So you rather see difficult music in 12/4 rather than 4/4? Which one would you more likely buy?"

Whichever I preferred. Anyone who couldn't cope with the one in 12 (likely organised clearly in threes/fours anyway) would not be coping with difficult music in general. It's a non-issue. If a composer avoided something, they likely felt it did not serve any purpose. If they avoided such things for the sake of money and playability, they sure as hell left plenty of difficult things in- considering they were supposedly dumbing down. So you'd have us believe that they dumbed down time signatures, but nothing else?

"I am not comparing Cut time to 4/4. I am saying cut time is often assigned to pieces that are intended to be played quickly. "

They are not played quickly though. The notes might pass by quickly- but the tempo is not fast. The tempo comes from the beats.

"Ok well what are the name of pieces where the composer departs from normal time signatures?
I personally find them very hard to find. The ones that I normally see are :2/2, 2/4, 4/4, 3/4, 3/8/, 6/8 and 6/8, and 9/8."

You said 4/4 is normal. The point was based around why they feel a need to commonly depart from that- where they could have written the same in 4/4. Not why they don't use 16/16.
 

"The quotes you write about are on two different types of performer. For a beginner who knows nothing about music, notation mean nothing, You have to bring a wealth of knowledge to be able to read notation and accurately protray the music."

Nonsense. Beginners are often the most affected by notation. Nobody more than beginners have a worse tendency to pause at bar lines- yet even professionals fall into the same trap at times. The visual implication of notation means a huge amount, to the educated and uneducated alike- sometimes positively and sometimes negatively. Composers realised this and often made the most of it. It's not all about trying to avoid the implications of musical notation.

"When you take it out of context this statement is incorrect. Of course a piece in 12/8 =4 beats would not sound the same as a piece in cut time=2."

You still didn't grasp my point. It isn't in 4/4, so a comparison in meaningless. Tempo is felt from pulse and BEATS, not notes. Otherwise we could say the 2nd movement of the Italian concerto is pretty "fast".

"If the performer chooses to stress certain notes due to the change of time signature that is a decision that is made by the performer not decided ahead of time by the time signature."

Read my post about Schubert. I did not "choose" to play it as I had. I did it by failing to think enough. I can't believe you're not prepared to open your mind to how much of a role the subconscious plays. Notation has a collossal impact on what a performer perceives.
  
"Where we disagree at the moment is you like to shoot down the mere possibility that composers had other reasons in mind for choosing a time signature."

I disagreed precisely because you were not even willing to consider that the composers intended to convey ANYTHING about how the music is played. You told me that this never happens- as I quoted in my last post. I'm quite open to other factors playing SOME role. I am not open to a definitive claim that says composers meant nothing about the musical execution with their time signatures. I remind you that you said:

"not because it changes the music."

You were not simply listing valid possibilities. You were denying them without basis and portraying your own conjecture as being a truth. Hence the extent of my disagreement.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Actually you misunderstand me that is my entire point. My point is not to ignore the time signature and it means nothing. But to know what it means and then essentially do what you did and explore with different divisions of pulse. Some times the composers intend for music to played one way but for a variety of reasons choose the time signature  from external pressures such as commercial appeal and read ability. More performers should do what you did and look out side the limitations of the time signature and discover what sounds right musically."

I did by looking AT the time signature. I was already looking "outside of it" and that was the problem. And I certainly did not do it by deciding that anything that has a two in common is all exactly the same thing. It was precisely because I had fallen into the trap of doing so, that considering the nature of the actual time signature created improvement. I

"I am not someone who ascribes towards learning and discover rather than setting rules and limitations in music. I never said to ignore the time signature just to understand what it means and other aspects that are unsaid in the notation."

Yes you did! You said that there should be no difference in the execution of 2/4 and 4/4 etc! You didn't say a thing about looking to grasp what it means! You said that anything with a root of 2 is basically all the same anyway. Could that be any more different from saying to "understand what it means"?

"What I say about duple and triple meter is so they can make the same discovery you did."

What?!!! Make the same discovery by treating all things that can be divided into a root of twos as being interchangeable? It's because I was subconsciously doing so without adequate thought that there was a problem! It was by thinking about the fact that they are NOT alike that I found I could make improvement. You are talking about the polar opposite to what I did!

I can see that what we have in common is that it's the musical results that interest us- not pedantry. However, you've really been throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because you hate monotonous and consistently formulaic accentuation (which I do too) does not mean that equivalent ways of writing different things are synonomous. Just because you don't want to hear the different between 2/4 and 4/4 shoved down your throat, does not mean the two should be treated as basically the same thing. Nobody should be ignoring the potential significance of these details.

[mcdiddy1]

"I am going to make my answers very simple to understand. You said you find it absurd " idea that they typically chose 4/4 for the reason that they could make more money from it "If they do not care where are the "bizarre" time signature 4/16 , 4/8? The notes, rhythms, articulations rhythms and phrasing would all be the same. "

What purpose would that serve? Unless one has been established, there's nothing to do show that these were avoided simply to make money.

Common sense is my reason. Editors, publishers, and the public reception had no influence on the composer? If there is even a possibility it did, then that reasons for the selections is possible.

"So you rather see difficult music in 12/4 rather than 4/4? Which one would you more likely buy?"

Whichever I preferred.

Yes, predictably it does not matter much to you considering your experience. To the beginner who is limited in reading notation it would? There are plenty of forums on this website of beginners asking what basic time signatures mean. Like you said notation affects how we parceive the music (assuming we can read it) and even you called an unusual time signature bizarre. I argue If you are a composer interested in selling music  and it does not appeal to the beginner ( who do not understand time signatures or have difficulty reading) and the professional ( finding it unusual) then you would choose some thing that makes more common (4/4).

"I am not comparing Cut time to 4/4. I am saying cut time is often assigned to pieces that are intended to be played quickly. "

They are not played quickly though. The notes might pass by quickly- but the tempo is not fast. The tempo comes from the beats.

What does they mean? If you limit the disscussion to pieces that are intended to be played quickly then they are by definition played with a fast tempo. I am not saying cut time means to play fast only that the composer has a concept of the music in mind and chooses to give it a cut time time signature. I speaking from the side of composition not from performing.

"The quotes you write about are on two different types of performer. For a beginner who knows nothing about music, notation mean nothing, You have to bring a wealth of knowledge to be able to read notation and accurately protray the music."

Nonsense. Nobody more than beginners have a worse tendency to pause at bar lines. Notation means a huge amount, to the educated and uneducated alike

.

We are operating on two different definition of beginner. A beginner to me is one who has no idea how to read music, the staff, time signature, beats, rhythm, notes, etc. To them notation means nothing. The beginner you describe is someone who can read although incorrectly.

"If the performer chooses to stress certain notes due to the change of time signature that is a decision that is made by the performer not decided ahead of time by the time signature."

Read my post about Schubert. I did not "choose" to play it as I had. I did it by failing to think enough. I can't believe you're not prepared to open your mind to how much of a role the subconscious plays. Notation has a collossal impact on what a performer perceives.

 
We agree on that. Yes notation has an impact on what a performer percives and yes you should be aware. However if you notice something then it is no longer subconscious. At some point in learning you played it a certain way and you "choose" to keep playing it that way because to you it was correct. Allowing it to continue at some point was a choice before it because part of your subconsciousness. My point is too allow another possibility and experiment with different ways in the beginning so you could make the best choice so it can be correctly put in your subconsiousness before it becomes a habit. I never said you should not think about the time signature only that is can mean different things in different context. You should atleast be aware of the other possibilities in the beginning.

"Where we disagree at the moment is you like to shoot down the mere possibility that composers had other reasons in mind for choosing a time signature."

I disagreed precisely because you were not even willing to consider that the composers intended to convey ANYTHING about how the music is played. You told me that this never happens- as I quoted in my last post. I'm quite open to other factors playing SOME role. I am not open to a definitive claim that says composers meant nothing about the musical execution with their time signatures.

Thats not true. I gave I did say time signatures can be used to display musical content. I gave cut time numerous times as an example. I mention that because when I look at music I do look at the time signature and if it is in cut time I have a set of musical ideas that come to mind. I never said time signature says nothing about the music. What composers meant and what performers actually do is unfortunatly up to the will of the performer. There is some things the time signature tells us and can point the way or suggest certain ways of playing. But in the grand scale of music in general time signatures can have varying degrees of importance depending on what composer and time period the music was conceived in.

[mcdiddy1]

I did by looking AT the time signature. I was already looking "outside of it" and that was the problem. And I certainly did not do it by deciding that anything that has a two in common is all exactly the same thing. It was precisely because I had fallen into the trap of doing so, that considering the nature of the actual time signature created improvement. I

That is a common mistake also. Beginners make the opposite mistake of not being able to look outside of it. It still falls under my point that you should under the time signature and the bigger divisions of pulse as well.

Yes you did! You said that there should be no difference in the execution of 2/4 and 4/4 etc! You didn't say a thing about looking to grasp what it means! You said that anything with a root of 2 is basically all the same anyway. Could that be any more different from saying to "understand what it means"?

As I went on to say many times in previous post, of course there is a different between the two time signature. On had  two beats and the other has 4 beats. That is obvious once you grasp time signatures which elementary piano students can see very quickly. What I am more interested in is the "inaudible" divisions such as subdivision and bigger groupings of pulse. What these two time signatures have in common is there division is the same (groups of two). Just because they have something in common does not equal same. 
Simple Duple meter=2/4, 2/8
Compound duple meter=6/8 , 6/4

What makes them dupule is the fact there are two main pulses in the measure.  Thats not saying anything with a 2 is the same thing, just in the same basic family of duple. Knowing that information can allow you to play music in larger groups and smaller groups which would allow you to play better musically

"What I say about duple and triple meter is so they can make the same discovery you did."

What?!!! Make the same discovery by treating all things that can be divided into a root of twos as being interchangeable? It's because I was subconsciously doing so without adequate thought that there was a problem! It was by thinking about the fact that they are NOT alike that I found I could make improvement. You are talking about the polar opposite to what I did!at I found I could make improvement. You are talking about the polar opposite to what I did!

The whole point of me saying what I say is for discovery point blank. I never used the words "treat all things that can be divided into root of twos as being interchangeable" . Just to understand in duple there are different divisions and you should explore each one.

Example:

Division-      | | | | | | | | |

pulse           |   |   |   |   |

grouping      |        |       |

2nd groupin  |                |
 in 4/4         1   2   3  4  1
in  2/4         1   2   1  2   1

Sorry if they do not line up perfectly but you can see you can read the music on different levels from subdivision, to pulse, grouping or even bigger groupings of the measure. What is the different in the number of beats per measure.

 

Just because you hate monotonous and consistently formulaic accentuation (which I do too) does not mean that equivalent ways of writing different things are synonomous. Just because you don't want to hear the different between 2/4 and 4/4 shoved down your throat, does not mean the two should be treated as basically the same thing. Nobody should be ignoring the potential significance of these details.

I definetly agree with that. I do hear the difference between 2/4 and 4/4 when the performer chooses to make it obvious. They have much more in common than you think but they are not exactly the same. The subdivision stays the same but the grouping may be treated differently 

[nyiregyhazi]

"Common sense is my reason. Editors, publishers, and the public reception had no influence on the composer? If there is even a possibility it did, then that reasons for the selections is possible. "

I was referring to why the composer would feel a need to use such a bizarre time signature and what it might have conveyed had they done so. But I'm really not interested in speculation about why they did NOT use the truly bizarre. I'm interested in what they DID feel the need use instead of 4/4 and why.

"I argue If you are a composer interested in selling music  and it does not appeal to the beginner ( who do not understand time signatures or have difficulty reading) and the professional ( finding it unusual) then you would choose some thing that makes more common (4/4)."

They did NOT stick to 4/4 and it's almost exclusively when they DEPART from 4/4 that I am saying they were likely trying to convey something about the music. NOT when they stick with the normal 4/4 but when they DO NOT stick with the normal 4/4. How many times can I repeat this? Your point is obsolete. Why are you repeating it? And are you saying that when composers didn't use 4/4 they were sacrificing their income? You still haven't responded to that.

"If you limit the disscussion to pieces that are intended to be played quickly then they are by definition played with a fast tempo."

The tempo is NOT fast!!!!!!! The individual NOTES are fast. Do you not understand the difference? Count the last movement of Rach 3 in the correct 2 per bar. Even the composer does not actually play it especially fast. The rate at which notes go by is not the tempo. In fact, alla breve tends to be played with a rather spacious tempo, if you look at the actual beats- compared to a 4/4 presto. The BEATS pass by quicker in a rapid 4/4 than in a rapid 2/2. Tempo is calculated from the (correct) beats, not the notes.  

"We are operating on two different definition of beginner. A beginner to me is one who has no idea how to read music, the staff, time signature, beats, rhythm, notes, etc. To them notation means nothing. The beginner you describe is someone who can read although incorrectly."

So are many professionals then. You also hear plenty of performers who have the habit of pausing between bars, contrary to instructions of phrasing.

"I never said you should not think about the time signature only that is can mean different things in different context. You should atleast be aware of the other possibilities in the beginning."

I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is a blase atttitude that 2/4 and 4/4 are basically the same anyway (and particularly your statement that there should be no audible difference). That is not conducive to thoughtful playing. It's conducive to just doing it however it comes out.

[nyiregyhazi]

"The whole point of me saying what I say is for discovery point blank. I never used the words "treat all things that can be divided into root of twos as being interchangeable" . Just to understand in duple there are different divisions and you should explore each one."

Actually, that's virtually a direct quote of what you said, if you'd care to read back your old posts.


"You can listen to a piece of music and determine whether it is duple( groups of two) or triple ( groups of three) but you should not be able to tell if it is in 2/4 or 4/4 because pieces in duple can be written with either meter signature."

and

"I argue if you erase the 4/4 and put 2/4 instead the piece should not be played different."

 Are you seeing why I had a big problem with that? I'm pleased that you've since changed your tune.

[mcdiddy1]

"I argue If you are a composer interested in selling music  and it does not appeal to the beginner ( who do not understand time signatures or have difficulty reading) and the professional ( finding it unusual) then you would choose some thing that makes more common (4/4)."

They did NOT stick to 4/4 and it's almost exclusively when they DEPART from 4/4 that I am saying they were likely trying to convey something about the music. NOT when they stick with the normal 4/4 but when they DO NOT stick with the normal 4/4. How many times can I repeat this? Your point is obsolete. Why are you repeating it? And are you saying that when composers didn't use 4/4 they were sacrificing their income? You still haven't responded to that.

I did respond that. All you have to is read it. In a nutshell because it fits the music intent of the music.

The reason for composing departing from 4/4, which is not that unsual because there are much more common time signature than 4/4, has nothing to do with my point on why most pieces uses the same signatures.

 I think it is interesting when they choose a signature not normally see like 4/8 rather than the common ones. I think it aleast shows a willingness to experiment in unfamilar territory. But why is this so fasinating to you? Any simple piece can be written in an unsual time signature. I could write Mary had a little lamb in 12/4 but I would not proclaim myself a music genius with deep intellectual things to say. I just did it cause I could.  

When composer choose other time signatures beside 4/4 of course they are not hurting their incomes. There are plenty on normal time signatures like 3/4, 6/8, 9/8 and such which are all common. My point is these composers for all their genius can only choose mostly 4 time signatures and I don't think it is a coincedence these time signatures are beginner friendly.

The whole point of me saying what I say is for discovery point blank. I never used the words "treat all things that can be divided into root of twos as being interchangeable" . Just to understand in duple there are different divisions and you should explore each one."

Actually, that's virtually a direct quote of what you said, if you'd care to read back your old posts.


"You can listen to a piece of music and determine whether it is duple( groups of two) or triple ( groups of three) but you should not be able to tell if it is in 2/4 or 4/4 because pieces in duple can be written with either meter signature."

and

"I argue if you erase the 4/4 and put 2/4 instead the piece should not be played different."

 Are you seeing why I had a big problem with that? I'm pleased that you've since changed your tune.

No ,because 6/8 is divisible by two but it will not sound the same as something in 2/4 .

You like to generalize my statements to something that becomes silly.
 There are four basic time signatures

Simple duple, compound duple, simple triple, and commpond triple.
 Pieces written with a simple duple time signature 2/4 , and 2/8 can be interchanged. The values of the music would be written differently.
By switching the time signature, you can play the same piece, in exactly the same way and the piece would still be correct just written differently.
It would be easier to explain if I had sheet paper to write it on but it is possible you just have to change the values.

This has nothing do with dividing into roots which you assumed just because I said duple.
I dont know why this is a difficult concept to understand. If you play this simple piece in 4/4 and then switch it to 2/4 this piece is going to sound different?

[nyiregyhazi]

"I did respond that. All you have to is read it. In a nutshell because it fits the music intent of the music."

So you want to have your cake and eat it? On the one hand, time signatures don't mean all that much because composers basically stuck to 4/4 to make money? But on the other, they were regularly willing to sacrifice money to fit the "intent of the music" (despite your insistence it would not change how it sounds)? Are the composers cheap whores or not? You need to make up your mind and exercise consistency. If they didn't see significance in time signatures, why did these musical prostitutes often select alternatives that could have be notated in a simpler 4/4 and give up their income?

"But why is this so fasinating to you? Any simple piece can be written in an unsual time signature. I could write Mary had a little lamb in 12/4 but I would not proclaim myself a music genius with deep intellectual things to say. I just did it cause I could. "

Unless you had established yourself as a genius through other great compositions, I'd assume it to be a gimmick. If an established genius chose to make a departure from the norm, however, I'd want to think about why. I'm talking about instances where composers DID depart. Not some irrelevant speculation about where they could have had they chose to- but importantly DID NOT. Why must I repeat this over and over? I draw significance where they DID do something abnormal- not where they failed to do something extraordinary. Mary had a little lamb was NOT written in 12/4. If a genius composer wrote it that way, then it might be significant. Seeing as none did, it is not of any interest. Are you even reading my replies?

"My point is these composers for all their genius can only choose mostly 4 time signatures and I don't think it is a coincedence these time signatures are beginner friendly."

Whereas most piano pieces are "beginner friendly"? Like Beethoven sonatas? The more you push this train of speculation, the more ludicrous it becomes. The only reason they would use an unusual time signature is IF IT SERVED A PURPOSE! What this was about was the fact that distinguishing between 2 and 4 clearly DOES serve a musical purpose- or they would not have done it! I have no interest in speculation about why they don't use something like 3.5/7 as a time signature. There's a simple and most likely answer- because they didn't see any musical purpose.


"No ,because 6/8 is divisible by two but it will not sound the same as something in 2/4 ."

Musically it is not divisible into root units of 2, only mathematically. The root unit is a group of 3. If you want to be pedantic, your own comment was this:

"You can listen to a piece of music and determine whether it is duple( groups of two) or triple ( groups of three) but you should not be able to tell if it is in 2/4 or 4/4 because pieces in duple can be written with either meter signature."  

What you were clearly suggesting was that anything which has a root unit of 2s (unlike 6/8 which is rooted in 3s) is the same thing and can be written in any way that involves a root of 2s. You are wrong. If these thing didn't matter, composers would not take the trouble to differentiate between 2/4 and 4/4.

"If you play this simple piece in 4/4 and then switch it to 2/4 this piece is going to sound different?


YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of course it would make it sound different! Did not read a single one of the examples I gave? I'd likely be inclined to slur it in pairs, if I saw such a notation. Had the composer felt a need to notate what would otherwise have appeared to be a long line in such short chunks (despite the fact that nothing about the natural structure of the melody suggests such small subdivisions) I would naturally presume that he was making a point. I would make it more fragmented and make a bigger deal of articulations- compared to if it were presented in 4/4. No composer with an ounce of sense would present it in units as small as 2/4- unless he was trying to imply something other than the simple onward flow that 4/4 suggests. The second movement of Beethoven's op. 110 would be a different piece altogether, had he written 4 beat bars. It would be a lot smoother. His notation tells me that he doesn't want it to be overly fluid.

 If a composer chose to throw away his earnings by writing in two, why the hell would he bother unless he had intended the performer to pick up on a difference? If I were the tart you insist composers are, I'd be more than willing to notate a 2/4 piece in 4/4 for a few extra bucks. Seeing as composers did NOT stick to 4/4 all the time, clearly they were not the whores you would have us believe and acted with musical purpose in mind.

[callaeie]

this topic is so complex... I DON'T GET IT. Isn't playing music that somebody else wrote supposed to be kind of simple? Didn't the composer think it important to tell us how to play the music with correct phrase marks and accents and marks like that?

It's just with a language that you learn, you are taught by your teacher or textbook or study partner that this word is pronounced this way, this word is pronounced that way, etc... and you MEMORIZE it and it's the same no matter how many times you repeat it in a un-changing context.

But MUSIC is interpreted every single time we make/play it - differently every time. In that way (to me) music doesn't seem like a language, it seems like a river that changes. Languages are more logical, used to communicate, while music is used to express emotions, feeling, ideas, but it doesn't stay the same, so how could it be so logical as a language?

Haha I'm sorry I must really be missing something obvious or important or something, cause I just came into the middle of this conversation like an idiot haha.