4/4 is easy, and it's the basic time signature that is taught. If you really think about it, most rock musicians are good, but they're not great musicians. Danny Carey, Thomas Lang, and Buddy Rich are MUSICIANS are the finest degree.
Babbles
Diamond Member
- Jan 4, 2001
- 8,253
- 14
- 81
So the theory goes, the samurai initially started out as mounted archers way back in the day - they rode horses. That, though, is besides the point and getting off topic (oh the irony).
If you are going to look at some sort of evolutionary tendency to favor common time or specifically this entire riding horses example I think you may way to also evaluate how long humans have had horses domesticated and if the group of people who pioneered music were descended from a culture that traditionally rode domesticated horses.
It may tie together, I honestly don't know, but I think that correlation would have to be made if you want to take that angle.
Originally posted by: spidey07
There's no argument.But there HAS to be an answer.
If the time signatures between eastern and western music are so different then there HAS to be a reason for that divergence. Find the reason for that and you'll find the reason why common time is so common.
Maybe divergence isn't the best word or maybe it is. But there has to be an anthropological reason for this. I can understand why in this day and age common time is so natural - we've heard it all our lives. How this came to be is really what I'm trying to figure out.
But - I believe if you give a chimp common time with the appropriate accents he will merrily follow along. If this is true then my horse idea is out the window and we'll have to go further back.
I feel that if you think that if there was some divergence that this implies there was some sort of world-wide sameness from which a divergence could have taken place. Meaning if things diverged from one another, there must have had some common ancestor, and I am not so sure in the history of the world there was any one common music meter from which things then diverged.
I think music meters are different the world over because, shockingly enough, cultures all over the world are different. I would wager Western music grew from larger choral traditions, to orchestras, and basically large groups performing together. I know with my experience in traditional Japanese music, this is just about the opposite. Typically you may have a shamisen, a koto, and a shakuhachi. That's it.
Therefore there is not a need to have some sort of very highly structured system of music.
I think the answer for this topic can probably be found in studying anthropology, and not biology.
Think back a few hundred years or even a few thousand. Tell mozart he wasn't a great musician. It's easy because it's NATURAL. Why is it so natural and spans many centuries if not further back? Listen to tribal music from those that were never schooled or had any influence - surprise, they play in 4/4.
THAT'S what I'm looking for. why?
Originally posted by: spidey07
There's no argument.
If the time signatures between eastern and western music are so different then there HAS to be a reason for that divergence. Find the reason for that and you'll find the reason why common time is so common.
Maybe divergence isn't the best word or maybe it is. But there has to be an anthropological reason for this. I can understand why in this day and age common time is so natural - we've heard it all our lives. How this came to be is really what I'm trying to figure out.
But - I believe if you give a chimp common time with the appropriate accents he will merrily follow along. If this is true then my horse idea is out the window and we'll have to go further back.
Well, it's been demonstrated that music with a heavy pulse stimulates the same parts of our brain that are associated with movement. So it's really not a stretch to say that chimps can be similarly stimulated by the same sounds.
What about the simple fact that human beings have a bilateral symmetry, i.e. two arms and two legs? We can stomp left right left right, or hit things left right left right. Maybe that's where the basic understanding of duple meter came from. Of course that doesn't explain how some cultures settled on duple meter while others went for the more "complex" 5 or 7 (or 11, 13, and so on). Then again, neither does the horse theory. Back to square 1.
It seems to me that the Western classical music tradition, with all its notions of complexity, would be the tradition more likely to adopt a complex time signature as central. Balkan musicians, on the other hand, who have no pretense to complexity, at least in the sense that they claim their music is better because of its complexity, readily play in any number of time signatures that don't make sense to many Western musicians.
In other words, I don't buy the idea that 4/4 is just plain "natural." Even the experience of time can be culturally situated.
spidey, it has to do with grouping.
first you set tempo.. (bpm)
then you group sets of beats into groups, called measures. In musical situations where there are many parts, and many measures, often you have to say " go the 15th measure"
So when someone says I need a beat to last an entire measure that beat or note is called "whole note" because it takes the whole measure. If you have 4 beats in a measure, it's 4 quarter notes. With complicated music and many musicians doing different things, it's easier to find your way deep into a piece of music if the measures are consistent in length and you can say "go to the 16th measure." which would be the same as saying the 72'nd beat. (assuming each measure is 4 beats long)...
that, and 1-2-1-2-1-2, seems so sudden to repeat, 1-2-3-4 has more depth, but 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 may seem like tooo much.
on a side note.. 4/4 is relative. the first 4 is most important, as that dictates how many counts per measure.. the second four simply describes how each count is written.. if its 4, you write it as a quarter note.. if it's an 8, you write it as 8th notes. Theoretically, 4/8 and 4/4 should feel the same. It's only when you relate those counts to tempo that it matters.
1-2-3-4 is a comprimise of countability, even looping against a metronome, and ease in playability. It's easier to play a complex melody across 16 4 beat measures than having to worry about each subsequent measure being a different count and presenting a different, and sporatic sense of where the downbeat will fall.
blah
first you set tempo.. (bpm)
then you group sets of beats into groups, called measures. In musical situations where there are many parts, and many measures, often you have to say " go the 15th measure"
So when someone says I need a beat to last an entire measure that beat or note is called "whole note" because it takes the whole measure. If you have 4 beats in a measure, it's 4 quarter notes. With complicated music and many musicians doing different things, it's easier to find your way deep into a piece of music if the measures are consistent in length and you can say "go to the 16th measure." which would be the same as saying the 72'nd beat. (assuming each measure is 4 beats long)...
that, and 1-2-1-2-1-2, seems so sudden to repeat, 1-2-3-4 has more depth, but 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 may seem like tooo much.
on a side note.. 4/4 is relative. the first 4 is most important, as that dictates how many counts per measure.. the second four simply describes how each count is written.. if its 4, you write it as a quarter note.. if it's an 8, you write it as 8th notes. Theoretically, 4/8 and 4/4 should feel the same. It's only when you relate those counts to tempo that it matters.
1-2-3-4 is a comprimise of countability, even looping against a metronome, and ease in playability. It's easier to play a complex melody across 16 4 beat measures than having to worry about each subsequent measure being a different count and presenting a different, and sporatic sense of where the downbeat will fall.
blah
Okay, so you've answered how 4/4 is easy. The original question, though, is WHY is 4/4 easy? Why isn't triple meter the more prominent? Why not quintuple? Why don't we feel 7 as being more natural?
Why are 5 and 7 so easy for Eastern European musicians? Why does a great deal of traditional Japanese music follow no meter at all?
dennilfloss
Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
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?
SacrosanctFiend
Diamond Member
- Oct 2, 2004
- 4,269
- 0
- 0
Because our sense of rhythm and time, which the 4-beat is the epitome of, was derived from our locomotion, and is, therefor, innate. So says Stumpf and Wundt. So, we hear the 4-beat and our natural inclination (through temporal processing) is to enjoy and move to.
Edit: grammar
Edit: grammar
Babbles
Diamond Member
- Jan 4, 2001
- 8,253
- 14
- 81
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."
Yes 4/4 has 'taken over the world' or rather probably a better way to state it is that it is just so common (haha, get it . . . common time is common . . . anyhow) so everybody knows it.
Also you are just assuming that it is so natural to humans?
Is it?
We get bombarded with music from all over the place; people just grow up with it, but does that really mean it is natural for us?
Anyhow simple common time is just a duple beat, so when you really get down to it you got two beats. You just can't get any more simple and basic than that: one beat up, one beat down; one beat noise, one beat silence, ones and zeros. . .
Hell you got two arms, so it's just natural to beat on something taking turns with your arms. Damn, for all I know maybe just the swinging of the arms is a sort of internal metronome and things just grew up from there.
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?
SacrosanctFiend
Diamond Member
- Oct 2, 2004
- 4,269
- 0
- 0
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.
those are two totally differen things.
1. 4/4 and those other counts of 2-3-4-5-6-7-8, etc have to do with counting beats.
2. what 8 notes make an octave? only two notes make an octave. the tonic, and the octave, which is exactly 1/2 of the tonic's frequency. Yea, you can play a major scale, and the octave is 8 notes away from the tonic, but thats assuming you use a major/minor scale. A pentatonic scale only has 5 notes, not 8, and the 5th is the octave.
I think it has to do with ease of counting. 2/4/8 are almost he same. 4, is just double 2, and 8 is double of 4. When concerts where given where people would be dancing, it would be easiest for the crowd and the musicians to play something simple, and 4 is the simplest. a 2 count causes a fast recuring down beat and many measures.. Plus there isn't much rhtymic headroom with a 2 count. 4 gives you more room, keeps it simple and even, and is easy to count and keep track of. 8 just expands on 4, which is why many newer dance styles use 8 counts instead of 4.
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.
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter