Is 3/8 compound time or simple time? Options

[Roseau]

I thought that 3/8 was simple time because you would divide each quaver beat into semi-quavers (ie into 2, whereas 6/8 is compound because each dotted crotchet beat can be divided into 3 quavers). However, I am teaching English to some French music students and they all spontaneously said that it was compound time because the three quavers added up to a dotted crotchet.

I am inclined to think that they are right as they are very good players (as in at least 1st diploma) and as this is France they have done a lot of theory as well but part of me is not convinced since you would then theoretically only have 1 beat in a bar. Or am I missing something obvious? *confused* (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

[sbhoa]

It's simple triple.
Has to be a multiple of 3 but not 3 itself for compound time.
If it was compound it would be one in a bar and by the same reasoning 3/4 would also be compound as is 6/4.

[Tenor Viol]

It's simple triple.
Has to be a multiple of 3 but not 3 itself for compound time.
If it was compound it would be one in a bar and by the same reasoning 3/4 would also be compound as is 6/4.

What sbhoa said. If the "how many of these are there in a bar" number is 3, then it is simple (3/4, 3/8, 3/2 etc). To be compound it must be a mutliple of 3 (6/2, 6/4, 6/8, 9/8, 12/8 etc).

This is one of the weaknesses of our notation system. Medieval and early Renaissance notation had much better way of doing this, but that's another story (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Robodoc]

It's simple triple.
Has to be a multiple of 3 but not 3 itself for compound time.
If it was compound it would be one in a bar and by the same reasoning 3/4 would also be compound as is 6/4.

What sbhoa said. If the "how many of these are there in a bar" number is 3, then it is simple (3/4, 3/8, 3/2 etc). To be compound it must be a mutliple of 3 (6/2, 6/4, 6/8, 9/8, 12/8 etc).

This is one of the weaknesses of our notation system. Medieval and early Renaissance notation had much better way of doing this, but that's another story (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'm intrigued: Tell us the other story. Please?

[Tenor Viol]

It's simple triple.
Has to be a multiple of 3 but not 3 itself for compound time.
If it was compound it would be one in a bar and by the same reasoning 3/4 would also be compound as is 6/4.

What sbhoa said. If the "how many of these are there in a bar" number is 3, then it is simple (3/4, 3/8, 3/2 etc). To be compound it must be a mutliple of 3 (6/2, 6/4, 6/8, 9/8, 12/8 etc).

This is one of the weaknesses of our notation system. Medieval and early Renaissance notation had much better way of doing this, but that's another story (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'm intrigued: Tell us the other story. Please?

OK

This is mensural notation. Until C13th ish there was no means of notating accurately the temporal relationship between different parts. You could indicate the length of a note (a longa or a breve etc). What you couldn't do was say show a hemiola with a triplet in one line against a duplet in another.

They came up with a clever solution. They realised that there was a problem in that sometimes you wanted to count in groups of two and sometimes in groups of three. But, they also realised that sometimes you want to subdivide the unit of the pulse (which they called tactus) into 2 and sometimes into 3. Two different things.

There are therefore FOUR possible combinations:

Count in three, divided in three
Count in three, divided in two
Count in two, divided in three
Count in two, divided in two.

Counting in three is called tempus perfectum (by association with the Trinity)
Counting in two is called tempus imperfectum
Dividing in threes is called prolatio major
Dividing in twos is called prolatio minor

Still with me? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

So, you had a SYMBOL which was the time signature and it told you which of the above you had. So,

A circle with a dot inside it means Tempus Perfectum Prolatio Major = 9/8
A circle, no dot inside means Tempus Imperfectum Prolatio Minor = 3/4
A semi-cicle (like a C) with a dot inside it means Tempus Imperfectum Prolatio Major = 6/8
A semi-circle (like a C) with no dot means Tempus Perfectum Prolatio Minor = 2/4

The last one is the only one still in use and is the root of the "C" for so-called 'common time'.

There's a full explanation in here or Google 'mensural notation'.

This enabled music of immense rhythmic complexity, such as the isorhythmic motets of the C13th and C14th - Dunstable, Dufay, Machaut etc.

I need a lie down.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

EDIT: text highlighted in blue has been changed to fix error caused by posting complex messages at nearly 01.00 in the morning! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[katica]

It's simple triple.
Has to be a multiple of 3 but not 3 itself for compound time.
If it was compound it would be one in a bar and by the same reasoning 3/4 would also be compound as is 6/4.

What sbhoa said. If the "how many of these are there in a bar" number is 3, then it is simple (3/4, 3/8, 3/2 etc). To be compound it must be a mutliple of 3 (6/2, 6/4, 6/8, 9/8, 12/8 etc).

This is one of the weaknesses of our notation system. Medieval and early Renaissance notation had much better way of doing this, but that's another story (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'm intrigued: Tell us the other story. Please?

OK

This is mensural notation. Until C13th ish there was no means of notating accurately the temporal relationship between different parts. You could indicate the length of a note (a longa or a breve etc). What you couldn't do was say show a hemiola with a triplet in one line against a duplet in another.

They came up with a clever solution. They realised that there was a problem in that sometimes you wanted to count in groups of two and sometimes in groups of three. But, they also realised that sometimes you want to subdivide the unit of the pulse (which they called tactus) into 2 and sometimes into 3. Two different things.

There are therefore FOUR possible combinations:

Count in three, divided in three
Count in three, divided in two
Count in two, divided in three
Count in two, divided in two.

Counting in three is called tempus perfectum (by association with the Trinity)
Counting in two is called tempus imperfectum
Dividing in threes is called prolatio major
Dividing in twos is called prolatio minor

Still with me? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

So, you had a SYMBOL which was the time signature and it told you which of the above you had. So,

A circle with a dot inside it means Tempus Perfectum Prolatio Major = 9/8
A circle, no dot inside means Tempus Imperfectum Prolatio Minor = 3/4
A semi-cicle (like a C) with a dot inside it means Tempus Perfectum Prolatio Major = 6/8
A semi-circle (like a C) with no dot means Tempus Imprefectum Prolatio Minor = 2/4

The last one is the only one still in use and is the root of the "C" for so-called 'common time'.

There's a full explanation in here or Google 'mensural notation'.

This enabled music of immense rhythmic complexity, such as the isorhythmic motets of the C13th and C14th - Dunstable, Dufay, Machaut etc.

I need a lie down.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

That was interesting and helpful. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You might want to edit your entry slightly, I think. If I've followed you correctly, the "circle no dot inside" symbol would actually be Tempus Perfectum Prolatio Minor, wouldn't it? Because you count three but would divide in twos. And then the "semi-circle with a dot inside" would have to be Tempus Imperfectum Prolatio Major because you count in two and divide in threes. Right? Or have I missed something?

Nothwithstanding the knowledgeable French pupils' explanation, I still can't understand 3/8 as compound time. As others have commented above, I understand it as simple triple time like 3/4 and 3/2.

There seems to be something in the French logic that is about adding up instead of breaking down. Must ask my teacher how it's understood over here.

[owainsutton]

Nothwithstanding the knowledgeable French pupils' explanation, I still can't understand 3/8 as compound time. As others have commented above, I understand it as simple triple time like 3/4 and 3/2.

With pupils who do a decent amount of ensemble playing, I reinforce compound time with the question of 'What would you expect to see the conductor do?' 6/8, you're looking for two beats. 3/4, three.

3/8? It depends on context and tempo, you might be looking for three beats, or one compound beat. Hence the ambiguity.

[sbhoa]

Nothwithstanding the knowledgeable French pupils' explanation, I still can't understand 3/8 as compound time. As others have commented above, I understand it as simple triple time like 3/4 and 3/2.

With pupils who do a decent amount of ensemble playing, I reinforce compound time with the question of 'What would you expect to see the conductor do?' 6/8, you're looking for two beats. 3/4, three.

3/8? It depends on context and tempo, you might be looking for three beats, or one compound beat. Hence the ambiguity.

But would that make 3/4 compound when conducted/counted 1 in a bar?

[owainsutton]

But would that make 3/4 compound when conducted/counted 1 in a bar?

Yep, I suppose it would, but I'd suggest it's less common. Anyway, that reinforces my point, that the theoretical descriptions fall short of covering all eventualities.

[kenm]

But would that make 3/4 compound when conducted/counted 1 in a bar?

Yep, I suppose it would, but I'd suggest it's less common. Anyway, that reinforces my point, that the theoretical descriptions fall short of covering all eventualities.

3/4 in 1 was favoured by some composers. Look at the Beethoven symphonies. If my count is correct, there are 16 movements in or including triple time, as follows

3 in 3/8 all conducted in 3: S1 M2; S2 M2; S5 M2
3 in 3/4, conducted in 3: S2 M1 introduction; S4 M2; S8 M3
8 in 3/4, conducted in 1; S1 M3; S2 M3; S3 M3; S4 M3; S5 M3; S6 M3; S7 M3; S9 M2
2 in 3/4, conducted in either 1 or 3*: S3 M1; S8 M1

* 3 probably means they are too slow.

Then again, think of all those waltzes by the Strauss family, Chaikovsky, Waldteufel, Lehar.... There will be places in some of them (including slow introductions) where the conductor will beat 3, but 1 is the norm for a quick waltz.

Of course, what the conductor beats is not necessarily what should be heard in the music and the difference beween "compound" and "simple" should hardly ever be heard.