Jump to content

Noob to the forum: what is this time sig change in "The Trees?"


Recommended Posts

This thread has taken a twist for the bizarre. We've got people insisting that you have to count in order to play songs despite the testimony from others who say that they have no problem playing songs without counting.

 

I think stoopid may have been on to something when he pointed out that perhaps for those who can't play a song without counting are the ones who are limited.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one thing to be able to know how to do it, but another to have to use it to be able to play something correctly. Theory is just a written way to explain something, like writing explains the spoken word.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one thing to be able to know how to do it, but another to have to use it to be able to play something correctly.

 

I agree. I'm glad that I know how to count -- being able to do so has made learning certain parts much easier -- but it's just ignorance (to borrow a term) to suggest that you have to do it in order to play a song.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The beginning of YYZ is counted 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4-5-6 (one phrase). Define what is meant by the end of Jacob's Ladder and I will count that too. The hardest thing in Rush to count is the descending runs in Spirit of Radio. All one needs is understanding.

 

1-2-3-4-5-6-1-2-3-4-5-6-7

1-2-3-4-5-6-1-2-3-4-5-6-7

 

:LOL:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The beginning of YYZ is counted 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4-5-6 (one phrase). Define what is meant by the end of Jacob's Ladder and I will count that too. The hardest thing in Rush to count is the descending runs in Spirit of Radio. All one needs is understanding.

 

1-2-3-4-5-6-1-2-3-4-5-6-7

1-2-3-4-5-6-1-2-3-4-5-6-7

 

:LOL:

I don't have enough fingers and toes to count that. But I can still play it. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The beginning of YYZ is counted 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4-5-6 (one phrase). Define what is meant by the end of Jacob's Ladder and I will count that too. The hardest thing in Rush to count is the descending runs in Spirit of Radio. All one needs is understanding.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=lBz8sDXewNQ

 

I was referring to the pattern starting at 6:39, although the whole song switches time signatures frequently. No need to count it though, I've had it figured out for years (and look ma! no tapping foot!) ;)

 

listen, absorb, practice...becomes second nature.

Edited by 2112FirstStreet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say you can't play if you don't learn to count. What I was trying to convey is, counting (learning to play On the beat) is the most fundamental part of music. If you don't know where notes sit within a measure of music, chances are you are not playing them as correctly as you may think.

Try telling a member of a professional orchestra that counting doesn't matter. Try telling a member of a professional drum corp that counting doesn't matter. Hell, try telling any member of a successful prog band that counting doesn't matter. You'll get the same answer from all of them..."it's the most important part".

 

Here's a challenge to anyone who thinks counting isn't important. Post a 1 minute video of you playing to a metronome.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a challenge to anyone who thinks counting isn't important. Post a 1 minute video of you playing to a metronome.

 

Well I haven't owned a metronome since high school and haven't had the need to buy one in the past 35 years. I got rid of the training wheels for my bicycle a long time ago as well.

 

Your request is a) pointless and b) insulting to the many accomplished musicians on this forum. WTF does our video of playing Mary had a little lamb to a metronome prove?

 

I have a challenge to you. Start your metronome and make a video of you playing the beginning of YYZ. I'd like to see first hand how f***ing worthless a metronome is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play to a metronome (well, a click track), whenever I record.

 

It seems like the current "you have to learn to count" argument is now morphing into "the better sense of time you have, the better of a player you are".

 

No shit, but no one is saying otherwise.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what we are saying is the claim "you have to learn to count" is incorrect. You don't have to. It's certainly useful at times to be able to do so, but it's not something you have to learn.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a challenge to anyone who thinks counting isn't important. Post a 1 minute video of you playing to a metronome.

 

Well I haven't owned a metronome since high school and haven't had the need to buy one in the past 35 years. I got rid of the training wheels for my bicycle a long time ago as well.

 

Your request is a) pointless and b) insulting to the many accomplished musicians on this forum. WTF does our video of playing Mary had a little lamb to a metronome prove?

 

I have a challenge to you. Start your metronome and make a video of you playing the beginning of YYZ. I'd like to see first hand how f***ing worthless a metronome is.

You can install a metronome app on your phone, for free.

Out of respect to any serious musicians you will ever play with in a band, please learn to count and keep solid time.

As for insulting any "accomplished musicians" on this forum. I guarantee they agree with me for emphasizing the importance of learning to count. Honestly, if you can't see the importance of counting and keeping good time, then you'll always be an average player, playing in average bands, with average musicians. This shouldn't even be an argument.

 

Playing Mary had a Little Lamb to a metronome is a great example. You'd be shocked at the very high percentage of people who can't do it.

 

Lots of my friends are private music teachers, and playing with a metronome and learning to count is usually the very first thing an instructor will teach you when you're taking lessons. I'll say it Again...it's the most fundamental part of music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what we are saying is the claim "you have to learn to count" is incorrect. You don't have to. It's certainly useful at times to be able to do so, but it's not something you have to learn.

Fair enough. You don't "have to" do anything.

But do you agree that if you know how to count that you would keep better time?

Do you agree that if you know how to count that you would place notes more accurately within a measure of music?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a challenge to anyone who thinks counting isn't important. Post a 1 minute video of you playing to a metronome.

 

Well I haven't owned a metronome since high school and haven't had the need to buy one in the past 35 years. I got rid of the training wheels for my bicycle a long time ago as well.

 

Your request is a) pointless and b) insulting to the many accomplished musicians on this forum. WTF does our video of playing Mary had a little lamb to a metronome prove?

 

I have a challenge to you. Start your metronome and make a video of you playing the beginning of YYZ. I'd like to see first hand how f***ing worthless a metronome is.

You can install a metronome app on your phone, for free.

Out of respect to any serious musicians you will ever play with in a band, please learn to count and keep solid time.

As for insulting any "accomplished musicians" on this forum. I guarantee they agree with me for emphasizing the importance of learning to count. Honestly, if you can't see the importance of counting and keeping good time, then you'll always be an average player, playing in average bands, with average musicians. This shouldn't even be an argument.

 

Playing Mary had a Little Lamb to a metronome is a great example. You'd be shocked at the very high percentage of people who can't do it.

 

Lots of my friends are private music teachers, and playing with a metronome and learning to count is usually the very first thing an instructor will teach you when you're taking lessons. I'll say it Again...it's the most fundamental part of music.

Oh I guess I'm average in your eyes. Oh the shame. *gets knife, cuts wrists*

 

Someday I'll let you know when I'm impressed by your musical acumen. It's not today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A metronome is a simple pulse, as is a click. That is not counting, it's tempo. There is a difference. The pulse is more fundamental because it's the feel.

 

Counting is about measures. I am sure construction workers don't always need to use a ruler or tape measure but you can be damn sure they understand half, quarter, eighth and sixteenth divisions of inches, feet and yards (at least in America :) ).

 

Again, anyone who wouldn't deign to learn to count is being arrogant and self limiting. Of understanding something they claim to care about. You might play music but cannot in good conscience be referred to as a musician. A musician is someone who is learned in the ways of music. Not someone who claims to play an instrument.

 

If one gets defensive by this ideal then perhaps it's hitting a little close to home. :)

Edited by CygnusX-1Bk2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key isn't important either. Who cares what key a piece of music is in? Who needs to be in tune or in time? It doesn't matter...

:wtf:

 

Sure, one could learn and play songs without knowing what keys or time sigs they're in, but then you won't have a full understanding of how the songs are constructed, which is valuable when learning other songs, and especially valuable if you want to get into writing your own stuff.

 

When I hear a song with a particularly interesting melody or chord progression, I love not only learning how to play it, but also deconstructing it to see how the composer came up with it. "So, the writer came up with a major chord there instead of the expected minor chord that would normally be played in this key -- that's why my ears perked up. Nice!" Same goes for interesting rhythm patterns -- is that an odd-time sig or just heavily syncopated 4/4?

 

Don't just learn the song, try and understand what went into it. Music appreciation, people!

 

It's good to know theory but IMO it's not necessary to learn a piece of music, Unless you really have trouble with learning odd time signatures you can play it without knowing it's in 5/4, 4/4 or whatever.

And there's plenty of music written in free time, with no set signature. You put it well when you said - in a a sense - that time signature were developed after the fact to describe rhythmic patterns common to music. I'm willing to bet that's still the case very often...that a riff structure is developed and the time signature is added afterward.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give an example of "Free Time" composition. Improvisation is not free from time nor time signature. One cannot add a time signature after the fact. A piece of music is in a time signature. That is not to say a composer/writer had a preconceived notion of what the time signature is. In fact I will go as far to say that Rush have written the majority of their songs NOT knowing what the time signature is. That doesn't mean there isn't one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what we are saying is the claim "you have to learn to count" is incorrect. You don't have to. It's certainly useful at times to be able to do so, but it's not something you have to learn.

Fair enough. You don't "have to" do anything.

But do you agree that if you know how to count that you would keep better time?

For some players, I suppose. What helps me keep better time is time spent with a metronome/click.

Counting has been useful to me when I'm trying to come up with a guitar part to fit an odd-timed piece of music, or if I'm learning a particularly tricky passage in a song.

Do you agree that if you know how to count that you would place notes more accurately within a measure of music?

For me, certainly, particularly when it comes to composition. But once I've written the part and/or learned the part, I don't bother counting any more. I would much rather play the part by feel once I've learned it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A metronome is a simple pulse, as is a click. That is not counting, it's tempo. There is a difference. The pulse is more fundamental because it's the feel.

 

Counting is about measures. I am sure construction workers don't always need to use a ruler or tape measure but you can be damn sure they understand half, quarter, eighth and sixteenth divisions of inches, feet and yards (at least in America :) ).

 

Again, anyone who wouldn't deign to learn to count is being arrogant and self limiting. Of understanding something they claim to care about. You might play music but cannot in good conscience be referred to as a musician. A musician is someone who is learned in the ways of music. Not someone who claims to play an instrument.

 

If one gets defensive by this ideal then perhaps it's hitting a little close to home. :)

:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give an example of "Free Time" composition. Improvisation is not free from time nor time signature. One cannot add a time signature after the fact. A piece of music is in a time signature. That is not to say a composer/writer had a preconceived notion of what the time signature is. In fact I will go as far to say that Rush have written the majority of their songs NOT knowing what the time signature is. That doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

I think what Goose is saying (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that parts are often "written" during jam sessions without thinking about what time sig they're in, and only afterwards when the writer "does the math" does the time sig emerge.

 

Take the muted riff that Alex plays after the middle keyboard section of "Jacob's Ladder." I doubt Alex thought about writing a riff in alternating measures of 6/8 and 7/8 (or, 13/8) and then tried to shoehorn in notes to fit them. I'm sure the notes just fell that way naturally and it just happened to be in those odd time sigs.

 

Of course, once such a riff has been written, it's easier to show someone else how to play it if you know the time sig and can count it out. Picture Alex showing that riff to Geddy for the first time: "Both patterns are similar. This first one is in 6, and then it repeats but adds this extra note at the end, so it's in 7. Then the two patterns repeat. Neil will have to come up with some f**ked up drum part to fit it, but that's his problem."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give an example of "Free Time" composition. Improvisation is not free from time nor time signature. One cannot add a time signature after the fact. A piece of music is in a time signature. That is not to say a composer/writer had a preconceived notion of what the time signature is. In fact I will go as far to say that Rush have written the majority of their songs NOT knowing what the time signature is. That doesn't mean there isn't one.

On Miles Davis classic album Kind of Blue, he first cut, So What, begins in free time. It's not until the bass enters that a discernible time signature exists. As for using time signature to describe a count after the fact, 3/4 vs. 6/8 is along those lines. Mathematically equivalent, but the assigned count is based on feel. It's the feel that determines the count, not vice-versa.

 

I don't care to get into a pissing match over this, though. I'm a "counter", which is a big part of my love for PWaves, side 1. A counter's wet dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give an example of "Free Time" composition. Improvisation is not free from time nor time signature. One cannot add a time signature after the fact. A piece of music is in a time signature. That is not to say a composer/writer had a preconceived notion of what the time signature is. In fact I will go as far to say that Rush have written the majority of their songs NOT knowing what the time signature is. That doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

I think what Goose is saying (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that parts are often "written" during jam sessions without thinking about what time sig they're in, and only afterwards when the writer "does the math" does the time sig emerge.

 

Take the muted riff that Alex plays after the middle keyboard section of "Jacob's Ladder." I doubt Alex thought about writing a riff in alternating measures of 6/8 and 7/8 (or, 13/8) and then tried to shoehorn in notes to fit them. I'm sure the notes just fell that way naturally and it just happened to be in those odd time sigs.

 

Of course, once such a riff has been written, it's easier to show someone else how to play it if you know the time sig and can count it out. Picture Alex showing that riff to Geddy for the first time: "Both patterns are similar. This first one is in 6, and then it repeats but adds this extra note at the end, so it's in 7. Then the two patterns repeat. Neil will have to come up with some f**ked up drum part to fit it, but that's his problem."

:yes: My thoughts exactly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give an example of "Free Time" composition. Improvisation is not free from time nor time signature. One cannot add a time signature after the fact. A piece of music is in a time signature. That is not to say a composer/writer had a preconceived notion of what the time signature is. In fact I will go as far to say that Rush have written the majority of their songs NOT knowing what the time signature is. That doesn't mean there isn't one.

On Miles Davis classic album Kind of Blue, he first cut, So What, begins in free time. It's not until the bass enters that a discernible time signature exists. As for using time signature to describe a count after the fact, 3/4 vs. 6/8 is along those lines. Mathematically equivalent, but the assigned count is based on feel. It's the feel that determines the count, not vice-versa.

 

Eddie Van Halen's "Eruption" could probably be considered a "free time" piece of music. I've seen it transcribed so it's possible to assign note values and put them into measures, but it's subject to the transcriber's interpretation -- really, the piece all feel and swing and attitude.

 

I don't care to get into a pissing match over this, though. I'm a "counter", which is a big part of my love for PWaves, side 1. A counter's wet dream.

 

Funny how we both referenced side 1 of Permanent Waves in this particular discussion. ;)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a musician for the better part of the last 25 or so years, I recognize the pretension that exists in some player's minds when I see/hear it. The pretension is strong with a few in this thread!

 

I'm glad for the bookish players out there, I've played with them. But I'm just as happy to play with some lowly untrained slob who knows their way around a piece of music, even if purely by instinct/happenstance. In fact, I'll always enjoy working with the less bookish musician more simply because they are always less hindered by what they think they know. It's like having a conversation with say a mathematician or a philosopher of logic. The philosopher can relate things to real life, but the mathematician has to draw "life" out on a piece of paper. The end goal is the same, this thread is just the minutia about how to get there.

Edited by stoopid
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give an example of "Free Time" composition. Improvisation is not free from time nor time signature. One cannot add a time signature after the fact. A piece of music is in a time signature. That is not to say a composer/writer had a preconceived notion of what the time signature is. In fact I will go as far to say that Rush have written the majority of their songs NOT knowing what the time signature is. That doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

I think what Goose is saying (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that parts are often "written" during jam sessions without thinking about what time sig they're in, and only afterwards when the writer "does the math" does the time sig emerge.

 

Take the muted riff that Alex plays after the middle keyboard section of "Jacob's Ladder." I doubt Alex thought about writing a riff in alternating measures of 6/8 and 7/8 (or, 13/8) and then tried to shoehorn in notes to fit them. I'm sure the notes just fell that way naturally and it just happened to be in those odd time sigs.

 

Of course, once such a riff has been written, it's easier to show someone else how to play it if you know the time sig and can count it out. Picture Alex showing that riff to Geddy for the first time: "Both patterns are similar. This first one is in 6, and then it repeats but adds this extra note at the end, so it's in 7. Then the two patterns repeat. Neil will have to come up with some f**ked up drum part to fit it, but that's his problem."

That's why I love the challenge of learning Rush. So much 'switching gears' in the middle of songs. While I have classical training as a kid, orchestras up the wazzoo with sheet music spoon fed to you, I much rather prefer getting under the hood and figuring it out by ear. When I do look at tabs these days to save time, I find that I start to play very predictably and mathematically...and the challenge and fun starts to go away.

 

Beating a dead horse with this thread, so I'm over it now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...