Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Discussions about our next-generation scoring application, Dorico.
ryanwms
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:02 pm
Contact:

Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by ryanwms » Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:24 pm

I'm working on a piece and want to use some Henry Cowell-inspired meters (for example 5/6, 4/5). I know that Dorico supports using such meters.

The piece I'm using has encountered a problem, though!
In previous attempts at experimenting with such a meter (5/6), I get what's expected: space for 5 quarter notes. The metric playback isn't correct, but at least it *looks* correct:
Screen Shot 2017-10-09 at 11.20.18 AM.png
(8.16 KiB) Not downloaded yet
However, in the project I'm currently working on, it's only giving space for 4 quarters:
Screen Shot 2017-10-09 at 11.20.08 AM.png
(6.86 KiB) Not downloaded yet
What's happening? How can I get this to work correctly (WITHOUT pulling a Finale/Sibelius backdoor of making a Tuplet and hiding all the stuff)? I know Dorico supports this function - why is it failing in THIS project?

Related question: Are there plans to get the software to natively support the correct playback of such meters? At the end of the day, it's a simple multiplication/division equation to occur in the background.

Thanks!

User avatar
Andre
Member
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:49 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by Andre » Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:09 pm

How would you count a 5/6 or 4/5 meter? Can this be replaced by the more general used meters? Just wondering.
My music and tutorials on http://www.andrevanharen.com
iMac 2,8 GHz Intel Core i5, 16 GB ram, macOS High Sierra.
Sibelius 6.2, Sibelius 7.5, Sibelius 8.5. Cubase 8.5, Logic Pro X. EWQLSO Gold, Kirk Hunter Diamond Orchestra/Concert Strings 2/Concert Brass 2, NotePerformer 2.0 etc etc...

Sugar
Junior Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by Sugar » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:07 pm

your example doesn't look correct.
unless indicated otherwise, a change in time signature doesn't indicate a tempo change.
a quarter-note in: 4/4, 5/8 or 5/6 has the same duration.

5/6 indicates a bar length of 5 quarter-note sextuplets, which is less than 4/4.
It won't fit 5 regular quarters.

Let's consider simpler examples:
one bar in 6/6 = one bar in 4/4
can fit 4 quarter notes or 6 quarter sextuplets

4/4 q=q 6/4
in this case, 6/4 has the same tempo, longer metric length and longer duration

4/4 q=>q. 6/4
6/4 would have faster tempo, longer metric length and the same duration

4/4 q=q 6/6
6/6 has the same tempo, the same metric length (of 4 quarter-notes) and the same duration

4/4 qT=>q 6/6
6/6 has faster tempo, the same metric length (of 4 quarter-notes) and shorter duration
the same as
4/4 qT=>q 4/4

ryanwms
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by ryanwms » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:37 pm

Andre wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:09 pm
How would you count a 5/6 or 4/5 meter? Can this be replaced by the more general used meters? Just wondering.
Andre:
A bar of 5/6 would feel like quarter note triplets against 4/4 time, but it would only have 5 notes, not 6. It leaves out the last 2/3 of a beat.

Likewise for 4/5. Image a quarter note 5-tuplet pulse, but with only 4 notes, not 5.

ryanwms
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by ryanwms » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:42 pm

Sugar wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:07 pm
your example doesn't look correct.
unless indicated otherwise, a change in time signature doesn't indicate a tempo change.
a quarter-note in: 4/4, 5/8 or 5/6 has the same duration.

5/6 indicates a bar length of 5 quarter-note sextuplets, which is less than 4/4.
It won't fit 5 regular quarters.

Let's consider simpler examples:
one bar in 6/6 = one bar in 4/4
can fit 4 quarter notes or 6 quarter sextuplets

4/4 q=q 6/4
in this case, 6/4 has the same tempo, longer metric length and longer duration

4/4 q=>q. 6/4
6/4 would have faster tempo, longer metric length and the same duration

4/4 q=q 6/6
6/6 has the same tempo, the same metric length (of 4 quarter-notes) and the same duration

4/4 qT=>q 6/6
6/6 has faster tempo, the same metric length (of 4 quarter-notes) and shorter duration
the same as
4/4 qT=>q 4/4
Sugar -
You are correct.
However - Dorico doesn't (yet?) understand the abstract/irrational durations natively.
In the first example (allowing for 5 quarter notes in a bar of 5/6) - it allows for the notes to be entered. But for playback to work correctly (metrically), you need to insert a new Metronome Marking for 150% of the original tempo. It's a little clunky - hence my follow-up question.
In order to correctly insert 5 sixth notes, you would use the Notehead change under the Edit menu and select the triangle noteheads. However, that doesn't change the understood length of the note - only the graphic image for what's displayed. It's a conflict created by composers using Cowell's other notehead shapes for things other than fifth notes, sixth notes, etc.

As Dorico functions currently, inserting a bar of X/6 allows you to put X quarter notes in the measure - but it doesn't reinterpret tempo. Same applies for other denominators (/5, /7, /9, etc. -- although the /7 and /9 switch to 8th notes).

Sugar
Junior Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by Sugar » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:18 pm

perhaps I wasn't clear.

Dorico shouldn't allow you to enter 5 quarters in 5/6.
A bar in 5/6 only has room for 5 quarter-note sextuplets.

If you need a bar of 5 quarter-notes at faster tempo, it should be 5/4 + tempo change marking (e.g. q => q.)

If you need a bar of 5 quarter-note sextuplets, it would be 5/6 without any tempo change marking AND the 5 quarter-note sextuplets would need to be notated as tuplets, not as regular quarters.

User avatar
Stephen Taylor
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by Stephen Taylor » Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:59 am

Cowell, Ferneyhough, Adès and many others use the 5/6 time signature to mean that the quarter note is *the same* as the quarter-note sextuplet; in other words, it's exactly the same as marking the tempo a little faster in 5/4. The reason composers like to write 5/6 instead of a metric modulation is that the player can keep thinking in the same base tempo, with tuplets; and you can switch tuplets very quickly. I think of it as mixed meter (5/8 etc.) that's not limited to 8ths, 16ths, 32nds, etc. One of my pieces goes 2/4, 5/12, 6/14, 4/4, etc. That would be really cumbersome with constant metric modulations. So ryanwms is asking for something reasonable.

I've just tried out some of my Dorico pieces with 13/12 and 11/12, and created a new one in 5/6, and they all seem to work fine - so I'm not sure what the problem is with your file. Maybe try deleting the bar, and try again?
Dorico 1.1, Sibelius 7.5, Logic Pro, Max, Kyma; MacOS Sierra
http://www.stephenandrewtaylor.net

User avatar
Daniel at Steinberg
Moderator
Posts: 5423
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:35 am
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by Daniel at Steinberg » Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:03 am

My understanding of how these "irrational" or non-power-of-two time signatures work is that a 5/6 bar would be 5/6ths of a sextuplet lasting for a whole note (semibreve), and Dorico will allow 5 quarter notes in that bar.

I agree with Stephen's assessment that there must be some other reason why the fifth quarter note is not allowed in there: presumably the time signature for the following bar is in the "wrong" place, so try re-creating the 5/6 time signature with Insert mode on, which should push the following time signature to the right spot.

Sugar
Junior Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by Sugar » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:10 pm

Daniel at Steinberg wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:03 am
... a 5/6 bar would be 5/6ths of a sextuplet lasting for a whole note (semibreve), and Dorico will allow 5 quarter notes in that bar.
well..., if there is 5 quarter notes in a bar than it is 5/4 not 5/6.

Seriously though, I understand the concept of what you call "irrational" meters. I just think this practice is unnecessarily confusing.
Classical time signatures are consistent with what's inside the bar. Even if you hide all time signatures, you can still perform music as intended, because the number of notes and their grouping in the bar tell you the correct time.

Now, if you try doing it with your irrational time signatures, there will be no way telling which bar is which.
The solution is very simple. 5/6 should hold 5 quarter note sextuplets, marked as sextuplets, not as regular 5 quarter notes.

User avatar
Daniel at Steinberg
Moderator
Posts: 5423
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:35 am
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by Daniel at Steinberg » Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:18 pm

As I am not a practitioner of these kinds of techniques myself, I am perhaps arguing from shaky ground, but I think that your approach, Sugar, is at odds with that employed by the composers who habitually use this kind of time signature, such as Adès. Although a 5/6 bar could be notated with five quarter notes, it is not the length of five regular quarter notes: instead, it would be the length of six and two thirds quarter notes, assuming a consistent quarter note pulse between (say) a preceding bar of 4/4, so the metric modulation would be 1 quarter of 4/4 equals 1 1/3 quarter in 5/6.

GTBannah
Member
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by GTBannah » Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:43 pm

Now, where is that Henry Cowell plug-in?

Ahh! YouTube! :lol:
Derrkins

If that's really what you hear, Play It, Sing It, Write It or Program It!

Mac Mini, 2.6 GHz Intel Core i7, 16 GB RAM; OS X El Sierra 10.12.4; Nuendo 7 + NEK, Sibelius 7.5, iPad Pro 13", Cubasis, WaveLab 9.00, (Dorico. Couldn't wait anymore. Started learning it).

User avatar
Stephen Taylor
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by Stephen Taylor » Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:48 am

I actually use a version of Sugar's approach in my own pieces with these time signatures: in a 5/12 bar with 5 eighth notes, I will write (6) above the notes, as a way to show that these go at sextuplet speed. For 6/14, I'll write (7); for 7/20 I'll write (5), etc. That seems to help players understand the rhythm.
Fountain1-ex.jpeg
(51 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Dorico 1.1, Sibelius 7.5, Logic Pro, Max, Kyma; MacOS Sierra
http://www.stephenandrewtaylor.net

User avatar
Andre
Member
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:49 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by Andre » Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:54 am

I never thought about using this kind of meters and still wondering if there isn't a way to use the traditional meters instead. I wouldn't even know how to play a piece lilke this. Isn't this more used because it's different and intresting instead of practical?
My music and tutorials on http://www.andrevanharen.com
iMac 2,8 GHz Intel Core i5, 16 GB ram, macOS High Sierra.
Sibelius 6.2, Sibelius 7.5, Sibelius 8.5. Cubase 8.5, Logic Pro X. EWQLSO Gold, Kirk Hunter Diamond Orchestra/Concert Strings 2/Concert Brass 2, NotePerformer 2.0 etc etc...

LAE
Junior Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by LAE » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:15 am

If you try to notate the example above (fountain1) in a more traditional way, you will soon see why this method is so clear and straightforward. Try to keep 2/4 all the way. You will end with extremely complex nested tuplets. Try to change meters, like from 2/4 to 5/8 to 6/8 - you will have to specify metronome numbers all along to make the relations right.
Dorico 1.1
Finale 2014.5
Windows 10

Sugar
Junior Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by Sugar » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:35 am

In theory yes. If you listen to a human player performing a piece like this it will simply sound like tempo changes or "ad libitum". Nothing new or groundbreaking really.
This much complexity and implied precision looks more interesting on paper. The extra labor related to notation and rehearsal time doesn't translate to a unique musical expression. In my personal opinion of course.

LSalgueiro
Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:51 am
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by LSalgueiro » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:27 am

Yawn. Not this. Adès is the first to show how his music can be performed accurately and precisely — and not just alone on his piano, but also leading a large symphony orchestra. Both LAE and Stephen explained why this made its way into notation conventions. It's hardly up to you to decide whether or not this is viable. Let the chips fall where they may.

ryanwms
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by ryanwms » Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:43 pm

Daniel at Steinberg wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:03 am
My understanding of how these "irrational" or non-power-of-two time signatures work is that a 5/6 bar would be 5/6ths of a sextuplet lasting for a whole note (semibreve), and Dorico will allow 5 quarter notes in that bar.

I agree with Stephen's assessment that there must be some other reason why the fifth quarter note is not allowed in there: presumably the time signature for the following bar is in the "wrong" place, so try re-creating the 5/6 time signature with Insert mode on, which should push the following time signature to the right spot.
Daniel - You're correct in how you're interpreting what Dorico is allowing.
I have done the "delete the bar" trick a few times, but I keep ending up with the same result. The measure preceding the 5/6 bar is 2/4. I've tried making that something greater (7/4), but still the same result. I've even Quit and restarted Dorico altogether. In this specific file, at this spot, I cannot get the 5/6 to work correctly.

ryanwms
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by ryanwms » Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:46 pm

Sugar wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:35 am
In theory yes. If you listen to a human player performing a piece like this it will simply sound like tempo changes or "ad libitum". Nothing new or groundbreaking really.
This much complexity and implied precision looks more interesting on paper. The extra labor related to notation and rehearsal time doesn't translate to a unique musical expression. In my personal opinion of course.
If you're going hard core Cowell and intermixing fifth notes, sixth notes, and others into one bar of some other meter - yes, it would take a lot of time and sound crazy. However, I've used a simple x/4 to x/6 motion within a piece, and it sounds brilliant. A slight speed-up through the line. Especially going x/4 to x/6 is very easy - in a grad class, we accurately "performed" (clapped), at sight, a rhythm that mixed 4/4 and 4/6 meters.

LSalgueiro
Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:51 am
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by LSalgueiro » Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:28 pm

ryanwms wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:43 pm
Daniel at Steinberg wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:03 am
My understanding of how these "irrational" or non-power-of-two time signatures work is that a 5/6 bar would be 5/6ths of a sextuplet lasting for a whole note (semibreve), and Dorico will allow 5 quarter notes in that bar.

I agree with Stephen's assessment that there must be some other reason why the fifth quarter note is not allowed in there: presumably the time signature for the following bar is in the "wrong" place, so try re-creating the 5/6 time signature with Insert mode on, which should push the following time signature to the right spot.
Daniel - You're correct in how you're interpreting what Dorico is allowing.
I have done the "delete the bar" trick a few times, but I keep ending up with the same result. The measure preceding the 5/6 bar is 2/4. I've tried making that something greater (7/4), but still the same result. I've even Quit and restarted Dorico altogether. In this specific file, at this spot, I cannot get the 5/6 to work correctly.
Did you try to create the time signature change with Insert mode toggled on as well?

Rob Tuley
Member
Posts: 862
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 12:41 am

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by Rob Tuley » Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:54 pm

Sugar wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:35 am
In theory yes. If you listen to a human player performing a piece like this it will simply sound like tempo changes or "ad libitum". Nothing new or groundbreaking really.
Only of the human player doesn't "get" how the rhythm is meant to go.

But there are human players (and some of them call themselves professionals!) who don't even "get" J S Bach's rhythms, let alone Cowell's.

Sugar
Junior Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by Sugar » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:33 pm

just for the joy of discussion, let's play this argument a bit further.
Here's Thomas Adès - Traced Overhead for piano, including the score.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5G_I-pWR8Q

To my ears, the piece sounds like any free-time improvisation or a fluid interpretation of a classically notated work.
The complexity of the notation seems irrelevant to the outcome. What I mean is, you can't tell that this particular type of notation has been used, because the same musical expression could have been achieved with other simpler means.

Case in point, Chopin's piano works achieve equal rhythmic complexity merely through interpretation.
The underlying notation is much simpler and easier to read.

L3B
Junior Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:56 pm
Location: Central Ozark Region, Arkansas, USA
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by L3B » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:51 pm

Yes, composers who think they are being innovative because they use writing methods that LOOK different from the traditional notational methods-- that is, who use curved staves, cut-a-way scores, irrational time signatures, feathered beams, etc., etc., etc.-- are IMHO missing the whole point of musical innovation, which has to do with SOUND.

I know that in some minds that labels me as being from a couple of centuries ago, at least, but so be it. Perhaps I am.

--Len

Rob Tuley
Member
Posts: 862
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 12:41 am

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by Rob Tuley » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:29 am

Sugar wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:33 pm
Case in point, Chopin's piano works achieve equal rhythmic complexity merely through interpretation.
The underlying notation is much simpler and easier to read.
And with that "simpler" notation, who knows whether ANY of the hundreds of different "interpretations" correspond to what Chopin actually had in mind?

(I have very little respect for the so-called "traditions" passed down from teacher to pupil in Western music education - in other words, the only way to "play Chopin correctly" is to be a pupil of a pupil of a pupil ... of Chopin himself. That's demagoguery, not music education!)

Sugar
Junior Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by Sugar » Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:04 am

Rob Tuley wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:29 am
Sugar wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:33 pm
Case in point, Chopin's piano works achieve equal rhythmic complexity merely through interpretation.
The underlying notation is much simpler and easier to read.
And with that "simpler" notation, who knows whether ANY of the hundreds of different "interpretations" correspond to what Chopin actually had in mind?
That's why it's called "interpretation" not "rendition". Chopin expected his music to be interpreted. This was the norm at that time. So no, there was never only one proper way to play it. OTOH, excessively complex notation like Adès' doesn't leave much room for a personal touch. It's a performer's straight jacket, where precision becomes the main objective.

LSalgueiro
Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:51 am
Contact:

Re: Unusual/Abstract Time Signatures

Post by LSalgueiro » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:54 pm

Sugar, buddy, if you were alive in the 19th century you would be complaining about Chopin right in the first Nocturne. The desire to push bounds is truly what unites artists across time — but so does the absolute opposite reaction. Since you were not alive in the 19th century, you're here, now, engaging the music of a piano wunderkind who decided in his teens he was going to be a composer instead, sat down, and started revealing such a clear musical imagination in a Opus 1 with technical resources so elegantly he's still exploiting them right now twenty years later, all based on a superficial listen of a YouTube video. If it wasn't a superficial listen, perhaps you would know that these kinds of time signatures are used exclusively in Aetheria, a movement that is otherwise conventionally notated. And if you still think that rhythmic language can still be accommodated within the framework of Chopin's music and interpretative practice, then I don't know what to tell you but to check out Adès' Three Mazurkas, if it's score videos you like.

You don't have to listen (nor read) Adès. You don't have to like it or even to know it, acknowledge it or understand it. What you should do, however, is get out of the way of a fellow forum member, one who came to us asking for help in realizing an earnest creative impulse.

Post Reply

Return to “Dorico”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: eheilner and 6 guests