Music - why is 4/4 so common?

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: Babbles
The questions, as you just stated above, is "WHY is 4/4 easy? "

If you are writing a large composition, then being able to divide the notes into nice even numbers makes sense in 'why' 4/4 is easy. Trying to write a symphony is some bizarre meter is going to be difficult (albeit very necessary at times). I sort of fail to understand how you could question "WHY is 4/4 easy."

Okay, then, why is 4/4 easier than 5/4? I grew up with Western classical music, with piano lessons from 4 and on, and I did my undergrad in classical music performance. Yet I have no problem switching between 3, 4, 5, 7, or anything else.

I'm just throwing this out here for the hell of it, but the average person probably hasn't studied classical music at the college level.

Therefore somebody who has studied classical music at the college level probably can switch between various meters. For everybody else, 4/4 is way easier.

Just a hunch.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sobriquet
I'm not going to deny that 4 is simpler than 5 or 7 (based on the premise than an easily divisible number is more simple). I just don't believe that it's somehow more natural. Are you saying that a tribesman couldn't pick up 5? If the strongest economic and cultural force on the planet was pumping out music in 5, are you confident that no one else would follow along?

No, what I'm saying is why do people and cultures without this influence pumping music do they still follow it?

without any cultural influence at all or even exposure to others?

Maybe the question then isn't why other people get along to 4/4 but rather why Western audiences don't get along to other meters. Maybe other musical cultures facilitate the feeling of numerous different meters, while Western listeners are largely limited to 4/4 (and to an extent 3/4). If you play 4/4 for someone who can groove to anything, they'll have no problem grooving to it.

I already addressed this - yes to you odd is good, even = bad.

But why the world wide dominance of 4 beats?

 

[sobriquet]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: Babbles
The questions, as you just stated above, is "WHY is 4/4 easy? "

If you are writing a large composition, then being able to divide the notes into nice even numbers makes sense in 'why' 4/4 is easy. Trying to write a symphony is some bizarre meter is going to be difficult (albeit very necessary at times). I sort of fail to understand how you could question "WHY is 4/4 easy."

Okay, then, why is 4/4 easier than 5/4? I grew up with Western classical music, with piano lessons from 4 and on, and I did my undergrad in classical music performance. Yet I have no problem switching between 3, 4, 5, 7, or anything else.

I'm just throwing this out here for the hell of it, but the average person probably hasn't studied classical music at the college level.

Therefore somebody who has studied classical music at the college level probably can switch between various meters. For everybody else, 4/4 is way easier.

Just a hunch.

Sure, maybe it made it a bit easier for me, but I never ever ever studied music in 5 or 7. Nor did I listen to it until I had already been indoctrinated with 4/4 for about 15 years.

 

[sobriquet]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sobriquet
I'm not going to deny that 4 is simpler than 5 or 7 (based on the premise than an easily divisible number is more simple). I just don't believe that it's somehow more natural. Are you saying that a tribesman couldn't pick up 5? If the strongest economic and cultural force on the planet was pumping out music in 5, are you confident that no one else would follow along?

No, what I'm saying is why do people and cultures without this influence pumping music do they still follow it?

without any cultural influence at all or even exposure to others?

Maybe the question then isn't why other people get along to 4/4 but rather why Western audiences don't get along to other meters. Maybe other musical cultures facilitate the feeling of numerous different meters, while Western listeners are largely limited to 4/4 (and to an extent 3/4). If you play 4/4 for someone who can groove to anything, they'll have no problem grooving to it.

I already addressed this - yes to you odd is good, even = bad.

But why the world wide dominance of 4 beats?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Maybe in other places, all meters = good, and to you odd meter = bad. What if, in other places, people can groove to anything? Then the American cultural phenomenon comes along and exports its music all over the globe, and people have no problem picking it up.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sobriquet
I'm not going to deny that 4 is simpler than 5 or 7 (based on the premise than an easily divisible number is more simple). I just don't believe that it's somehow more natural. Are you saying that a tribesman couldn't pick up 5? If the strongest economic and cultural force on the planet was pumping out music in 5, are you confident that no one else would follow along?

No, what I'm saying is why do people and cultures without this influence pumping music do they still follow it?

without any cultural influence at all or even exposure to others?

Maybe the question then isn't why other people get along to 4/4 but rather why Western audiences don't get along to other meters. Maybe other musical cultures facilitate the feeling of numerous different meters, while Western listeners are largely limited to 4/4 (and to an extent 3/4). If you play 4/4 for someone who can groove to anything, they'll have no problem grooving to it.

I already addressed this - yes to you odd is good, even = bad.

But why the world wide dominance of 4 beats?

Last time I say this...genetics. Our sense of rhythm and time developed around our locomotion.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: Babbles
The questions, as you just stated above, is "WHY is 4/4 easy? "

If you are writing a large composition, then being able to divide the notes into nice even numbers makes sense in 'why' 4/4 is easy. Trying to write a symphony is some bizarre meter is going to be difficult (albeit very necessary at times). I sort of fail to understand how you could question "WHY is 4/4 easy."

Okay, then, why is 4/4 easier than 5/4? I grew up with Western classical music, with piano lessons from 4 and on, and I did my undergrad in classical music performance. Yet I have no problem switching between 3, 4, 5, 7, or anything else.

I'm just throwing this out here for the hell of it, but the average person probably hasn't studied classical music at the college level.

Therefore somebody who has studied classical music at the college level probably can switch between various meters. For everybody else, 4/4 is way easier.

Just a hunch.

Sure, maybe it made it a bit easier for me, but I never ever ever studied music in 5 or 7. Nor did I listen to it until I had already been indoctrinated with 4/4 for about 15 years.

I would imagine studying music in any key, time, or whatever will tend to make studying another aspect of music (e.g. different time signature) that much easier.

Some people, and it seems that would include you, have a tendency to be more musical than other. I know this may come as a shock, but not everybody else in the world has the same experiences as you!

This is indeed an interesting question. I am beginning to think that you may have an easier time in figuring out this question once you stop assuming that your anecdotal experience with music is somehow the norm.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: sobriquet
You missed my point. You're stuck on 2, 4, and 8, and I'm talking about 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. I was trained in music that predominantly uses 2 and 4, and to a lesser extent 3. So why am I adept at music in 5 or 7? I don't know the answer, it's just always been that way.

I believe you are putting your personal influences and upbringing into the equation and not looking at human behavior as a whole.

If you have training you can be adept at any count. Those that don't can easily follow a 4 count - even if they are completely isolated from any other culture, developing their own music, without any influence. And it is still a 4 count. 1-2-3-4.

 

[warmodder]

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sobriquet
What's your point? People outside of the Western tradition play in 5, 7, 11, 13, and so on all the time without caring how divisible it is. Why should that matter?

Because that just doesn't have a natural feel. So what is it about that division and why?

And don't preach the merits of eastern music, western 4/4 has taken over the world. It is natural to all humans. So why is that?

I understand that eastern "odd is good" fung shwey stuff but the east eats up the common time. Mainly because they will naturally move their body to it. The chimp or the tribesman does not have any outside influence but they still pick up the beat.

So the question remains - what lead to the domination of 4 beats?

I'm not going to deny that 4 is simpler than 5 or 7 (based on the premise than an easily divisible number is more simple). I just don't believe that it's somehow more natural. Are you saying that a tribesman couldn't pick up 5? If the strongest economic and cultural force on the planet was pumping out music in 5, are you confident that no one else would follow along?

Most natural i'd imagine is free time actually. A lot of solo guitar stuff has no time signature at all. Eastern music could have evolved similarly in that it began with people just banging around and people applied complex signatures to them retrospectively.

4/4 is common because it provides a beat that people are now familiar and comfortable with. There are other related signatures that can provide the same effect though and I doubt most people would notice a difference. 12/8 sounds a lot like 4/4.
(Count: ONE and a TWO and a THREE and a FOUR and a) Velvet Revolver's- Fall to Pieces is an example. Count along with the hi-hat.

Anything with a constant snare will sound familiar to people. Even moving the snare to the off beat in 4/4 is enough to confuse people! (Verse of Foo Fighter's- Learn to Fly)

 

[sobriquet]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: Babbles
The questions, as you just stated above, is "WHY is 4/4 easy? "

If you are writing a large composition, then being able to divide the notes into nice even numbers makes sense in 'why' 4/4 is easy. Trying to write a symphony is some bizarre meter is going to be difficult (albeit very necessary at times). I sort of fail to understand how you could question "WHY is 4/4 easy."

Okay, then, why is 4/4 easier than 5/4? I grew up with Western classical music, with piano lessons from 4 and on, and I did my undergrad in classical music performance. Yet I have no problem switching between 3, 4, 5, 7, or anything else.

I'm just throwing this out here for the hell of it, but the average person probably hasn't studied classical music at the college level.

Therefore somebody who has studied classical music at the college level probably can switch between various meters. For everybody else, 4/4 is way easier.

Just a hunch.

Sure, maybe it made it a bit easier for me, but I never ever ever studied music in 5 or 7. Nor did I listen to it until I had already been indoctrinated with 4/4 for about 15 years.

I would imagine studying music in any key, time, or whatever will tend to make studying another aspect of music (e.g. different time signature) that much easier.

Some people, and it seems that would include you, have a tendency to be more musical than other. I know this may come as a shock, but not everybody else in the world has the same experiences as you!

This is indeed an interesting question. I am beginning to think that you may have an easier time in figuring out this question once you stop assuming that your anecdotal experience with music is somehow the norm.

Believe me, I understand that I am not the norm. However, neither is the experience that 4/4 is natural. That's all I've been trying to say this whole time.

Here's what I've posited so far:
4/4 feels more or less natural to many, if not most, Western listeners
Other meters feel more natural to people outside the Western musical tradition
Maybe, just maybe, there are other musical cultures in the world where people perceive multiple meters as natural.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
Last time I say this...genetics. Our sense of rhythm and time developed around our locomotion.

I agree. But the guy with three legs seems to disagree.

WAIT! I mean I'm the the guy with 3 legs and I disagree. And by legs I mean peter.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sobriquet
I'm not going to deny that 4 is simpler than 5 or 7 (based on the premise than an easily divisible number is more simple). I just don't believe that it's somehow more natural. Are you saying that a tribesman couldn't pick up 5? If the strongest economic and cultural force on the planet was pumping out music in 5, are you confident that no one else would follow along?

No, what I'm saying is why do people and cultures without this influence pumping music do they still follow it?

without any cultural influence at all or even exposure to others?

Maybe the question then isn't why other people get along to 4/4 but rather why Western audiences don't get along to other meters. Maybe other musical cultures facilitate the feeling of numerous different meters, while Western listeners are largely limited to 4/4 (and to an extent 3/4). If you play 4/4 for someone who can groove to anything, they'll have no problem grooving to it.

I already addressed this - yes to you odd is good, even = bad.

But why the world wide dominance of 4 beats?

Last time I say this...genetics. Our sense of rhythm and time developed around our locomotion.

You can get into a sort of ridiculous argument and say that everything is genetics. This very well may be true, but then you can just say the answer to everything is just math as eventually everything just gets down to it. Again, this too would be correct but it has no practical meaning.

My point is by just stating that it is genetics, the answer to how the physiological processes work out is still not explained. Great, it's hidden in the DNA somewhere, but how does that physiologically get expressed? Where does one find the selective advantage to this? Is it part of the inner ear balance thing, maybe? Sounds reasonable, but I don't know.

Saying it is genetics is like when Dr. Dawkins goes on about his memes and that all cultural tendencies are genetics - well yeah, sure, we selectively change within a given population (or between population . . . drift and all of that other crap I forgot about), but it still doesn't actually really answer any real meaning on why we do things we do.

 

[hiromizu]

Originally posted by: puffff
I'm guessing because 8 notes make an octave, thats why we dont see 3/3, 5/5, 6/6, etc time.

That is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You're comparing apples to oranges - intervalic tonal mechanics versus rhythmic mechanics.

As someone mentioned before, a lot of classical music was written in 4/4 but interestingly, also very diatonic and mechanical versus modern jazz or progressive music which explores atonal melodic and harmonic ideas while accenting off beats and other "irregular" musical patterns.

Almost all pop music is 4/4. It's easy to groove into and dance to. Easy for the non critical listener to guess and understand, relate to.

However I still cannot find a true reason behind it all

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sobriquet
I'm not going to deny that 4 is simpler than 5 or 7 (based on the premise than an easily divisible number is more simple). I just don't believe that it's somehow more natural. Are you saying that a tribesman couldn't pick up 5? If the strongest economic and cultural force on the planet was pumping out music in 5, are you confident that no one else would follow along?

No, what I'm saying is why do people and cultures without this influence pumping music do they still follow it?

without any cultural influence at all or even exposure to others?

Maybe the question then isn't why other people get along to 4/4 but rather why Western audiences don't get along to other meters. Maybe other musical cultures facilitate the feeling of numerous different meters, while Western listeners are largely limited to 4/4 (and to an extent 3/4). If you play 4/4 for someone who can groove to anything, they'll have no problem grooving to it.

I already addressed this - yes to you odd is good, even = bad.

But why the world wide dominance of 4 beats?

Last time I say this...genetics. Our sense of rhythm and time developed around our locomotion.

You can get into a sort of ridiculous argument and say that everything is genetics. This very well may be true, but then you can just say the answer to everything is just math as eventually everything just gets down to it. Again, this too would be correct but it has no practical meaning.

My point is by just stating that it is genetics, the answer to how the physiological processes work out is still not explained. Great, it's hidden in the DNA somewhere, but how does that physiologically get expressed? Where does one find the selective advantage to this? Is it part of the inner ear balance thing, maybe? Sounds reasonable, but I don't know.

Saying it is genetics is like when Dr. Dawkins goes on about his memes and that all cultural tendencies are genetics - well yeah, sure, we selectively change within a given population (or between population . . . drift and all of that other crap I forgot about), but it still doesn't actually really answer any real meaning on why we do things we do.

You want the methodology, results, and discussion? Look up Wundt or Stumpf's work on the subject. They have plenty for you to read.

 

[hiromizu]

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sobriquet
What's your point? People outside of the Western tradition play in 5, 7, 11, 13, and so on all the time without caring how divisible it is. Why should that matter?

Because that just doesn't have a natural feel. So what is it about that division and why?

And don't preach the merits of eastern music, western 4/4 has taken over the world. It is natural to all humans. So why is that?

I understand that eastern "odd is good" fung shwey stuff but the east eats up the common time. Mainly because they will naturally move their body to it. The chimp or the tribesman does not have any outside influence but they still pick up the beat.

So the question remains - what lead to the domination of 4 beats?

I'm not going to deny that 4 is simpler than 5 or 7 (based on the premise than an easily divisible number is more simple). I just don't believe that it's somehow more natural. Are you saying that a tribesman couldn't pick up 5? If the strongest economic and cultural force on the planet was pumping out music in 5, are you confident that no one else would follow along?

If you don't think it's more natural, try to stamp your feet to a beat and correctly hum a Dream Theater tune. You'll get confused unless you've memorized all the rhythmic changes - hence unnatural.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: warmodder
Most natural i'd imagine is free time actually. A lot of solo guitar stuff has no time signature at all. Eastern music could have evolved similarly in that it began with people just banging around and people applied complex signatures to them retrospectively.

4/4 is common because it provides a beat that people are now familiar and comfortable with. There are other related signatures that can provide the same effect though and I doubt most people would notice a difference. 12/8 sounds a lot like 4/4.
(Count: ONE and a TWO and a THREE and a FOUR and a) Velvet Revolver's- Fall to Pieces is an example. Count along with the hi-hat.

Anything with a constant snare will sound familiar to people. Even moving the snare to the off beat in 4/4 is enough to confuse people! (Verse of Foo Fighter's- Learn to Fly)

one-e-and-a-two-e-and-a-three-and-a-four.

Tool seems to love 12/8.

 

[hiromizu]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: warmodder
Most natural i'd imagine is free time actually. A lot of solo guitar stuff has no time signature at all. Eastern music could have evolved similarly in that it began with people just banging around and people applied complex signatures to them retrospectively.

4/4 is common because it provides a beat that people are now familiar and comfortable with. There are other related signatures that can provide the same effect though and I doubt most people would notice a difference. 12/8 sounds a lot like 4/4.
(Count: ONE and a TWO and a THREE and a FOUR and a) Velvet Revolver's- Fall to Pieces is an example. Count along with the hi-hat.

Anything with a constant snare will sound familiar to people. Even moving the snare to the off beat in 4/4 is enough to confuse people! (Verse of Foo Fighter's- Learn to Fly)

one-e-and-a-two-e-and-a-three-and-a-four.

Tool seems to love 12/8.

Check out Meshuggah if you think Tool is crazy.

 

[sobriquet]

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sobriquet
What's your point? People outside of the Western tradition play in 5, 7, 11, 13, and so on all the time without caring how divisible it is. Why should that matter?

Because that just doesn't have a natural feel. So what is it about that division and why?

And don't preach the merits of eastern music, western 4/4 has taken over the world. It is natural to all humans. So why is that?

I understand that eastern "odd is good" fung shwey stuff but the east eats up the common time. Mainly because they will naturally move their body to it. The chimp or the tribesman does not have any outside influence but they still pick up the beat.

So the question remains - what lead to the domination of 4 beats?

I'm not going to deny that 4 is simpler than 5 or 7 (based on the premise than an easily divisible number is more simple). I just don't believe that it's somehow more natural. Are you saying that a tribesman couldn't pick up 5? If the strongest economic and cultural force on the planet was pumping out music in 5, are you confident that no one else would follow along?

If you don't think it's more natural, try to stamp your feet to a beat and correctly hum a Dream Theater tune. You'll get confused unless you've memorized all the rhythmic changes - hence unnatural.

The key word being changes. Any music is confusing if you change meters all the time. If the music follows a regular pattern, then there should be no problem following it. Trying some Balkan dance music, where an entire tune is in 7. You'd learn to follow along in no time.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: hiromizu
Check out Meshuggah if you think Tool is crazy.

quick side topic:

I played/was schooled in music from elementary through high school. I have no problem picking up the downbeat within 3 measures. those farkers love to screw with time signature.

Seriously, I'm not a musician but I do have a good grasp.

I still say there has to be a REASON why humans respond to common time. I'm starting to sway to the bi-ped thought. SacrosanctFiend

 

[Goosemaster]

It is the compromise between the holy trinity and imperfection.

seriously.


fvking westerners

 

[m1ldslide1]

Just wanted to add some useless information: I studied music through college (minored in jazz performance) and still play today, and I've never heard the origins of meters addressed. Well, the historical origins yes, but the natural tendencies / genetics no.

Interesting topic, but I've never really thought about it in terms of rhythm. I've thought about it in terms of western tonal intervals, and ultimately decided it comes down to musical tradition. (an easy assumption to arrive at given how different is eastern / world tonal harmony)

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Yeah... But does the concerto take off?

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: sobriquet

Originally posted by: Babbles
The questions, as you just stated above, is "WHY is 4/4 easy? "

If you are writing a large composition, then being able to divide the notes into nice even numbers makes sense in 'why' 4/4 is easy. Trying to write a symphony is some bizarre meter is going to be difficult (albeit very necessary at times). I sort of fail to understand how you could question "WHY is 4/4 easy."

Okay, then, why is 4/4 easier than 5/4? I grew up with Western classical music, with piano lessons from 4 and on, and I did my undergrad in classical music performance. Yet I have no problem switching between 3, 4, 5, 7, or anything else.

notice the "grew up with western classical music, with piano lessons, etc.."

when music is played for the masses, those which haven't really learned to count, just tap their foot, etc.. it's easiest to default to a count of 4. its even, not so abrubt as a 2 count, and so long, like an 8 count.

this is why the waltz became so popular.. it was odd, but only a 3 count, so it was easy to wrap your mind around. 1-2-3-1-2-3

You missed my point. You're stuck on 2, 4, and 8, and I'm talking about 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. I was trained in music that predominantly uses 2 and 4, and to a lesser extent 3. So why am I adept at music in 5 or 7? I don't know the answer, it's just always been that way.

I don't mean to be offensive here, but the fact is that most "classically trained" musicians are merely highly skilled reading robots. You see the printed page, you translate it into movement in your fingers. Who cares what time signature its in if the length of every note and measure is spelled out in front of you and you are just streaming it out without thought or creativity? When musicians play purely by ear and by feel, and improvise and create their own music, suddenly odd time signatures can pose a bigger challenge.

Moving on...

3/4 sounds very natural, but it's just not used in modern pop music too much because it has the waltz-y quality that sounds "dated" and which writers try to avoid.

Weezer used 3/4 to great effect on "My name is Jonas." In that song, 3/4 gives it a constantly rushing feeling that helps the song really charge along. In my own band, I've written songs that switch in and out of 3/4 and 4/4. Also stuff in 2/4, which allows you play as though it is 4/4, but cut certain things off "early," or add in "extra" stuff. But I have never used an alternate time signature as a gimmick. I just play what I hear in my head, and that helps things always sound natural and not leave the listener going "WTF?" In fact, I've never heard a single person comment on the places where we change signature mid-song, and I'm glad of that. If people noticed, it would take away from the emotional content.

 

[IAteYourMother]

i would think the answer was obvious. start with one and keep dividing. eventually it goes to 2 and then 4 and 8 and so on and so forth. So obviously the most common time signature will be one of those numbers. 4/4 happens to be the most convenient since it has about the right amount of beats per measure.