Is 3/8 compound time or simple time? Options

[linda.ff]

You seem to be suggesting that "1" can be the "number of bigger units" - even when just reading, with no indication of tempo. In that case most music would be compound, surely? 4/4 time is one unit divided into 4?

I fail to see why a fast one-in-a-bar 3/8 can't be described as compound. Excluding 'single compound' simply because it's not in the ABRSM theory syllabus doesn't make sense. And no, it's about groups of three, not four.

I think you're conflating two different ideas - wasn't it you yourself who earlier said that compound suggested a larger thing made of smaller things; compound as a word doesn't suggest anything to do with divisibility into three. This is what happens in music only because divisibility into two doesn't give us a problem with writing out time-signatures - what you see is what you get. And that's all that compound time is to do with, the time signature. Counting the baby beats because we can't count the mummy beats.

So is 3/4 compound as well, if 3/8 is?

Did I say anywhere that either are compound?

You just said earlier in this post that a fast one-in-a-bar could be considered as compound

[Tenor Viol]

Basically the flaw in our notation system is there are no symbols to represent note values for say a third of a crotchet, or a third of a minim: we only have symbols for halves (namely quavers and crotchets in this case).

We use the time signature to tell us this. So 6/8 is 2 beats subdivided into three, in this case dotted crotchets into triplet quavers and similarly 6/4 is 2 dotted minims divided into three triplet crotchets.

The issue I suppose with 3/8 and 3/4 is: are they three beats, which can be subdivided into twos (as 3/4 would usually be), or are they single beats which can be subdivided into three (which is often the case with 3/8)?

This is why the old mensuration indicators I mentioned where better - they told you exactly what was going on.

[linda.ff]

Basically the flaw in our notation system is there are no symbols to represent note values for say a third of a crotchet, or a third of a minim: we only have symbols for halves (namely quavers and crotchets in this case).

We use the time signature to tell us this. So 6/8 is 2 beats subdivided into three, in this case dotted crotchets into triplet quavers and similarly 6/4 is 2 dotted minims divided into three triplet crotchets.

The issue I suppose with 3/8 and 3/4 is: are they three beats, which can be subdivided into twos (as 3/4 would usually be), or are they single beats which can be subdivided into three (which is often the case with 3/8)?

This is why the old mensuration indicators I mentioned where better - they told you exactly what was going on.

Indeed, we didn't need bar-lines (well, not "we" as in me and you, I at any rate wasn't around then) But actually it went two layers further than that apparently; I read a big American book whose name and author I've forgotten (Karl or Carl something, and it was from the 1950s) something like a history of rhythm - and he certainly mentions somewhere some further divisions or classifications into 2 or 3, so maybe one end of this would be the equivalent of how may bars we have in a phrase, and the other end something really small like whether the quavers in what we think of as 6/8 actually split into 2's or 3's.

(I googled for "A History of Rhythm" but it only seemed to want to add " 'n Blues")

[owainsutton]

Did I say anywhere that either are compound?

You just said earlier in this post that a fast one-in-a-bar could be considered as compound

Could be. Not is. The ambiguity is the flaw in our system.

This is why the old mensuration indicators I mentioned where better

Definitely!

I read a big American book whose name and author I've forgotten (Karl or Carl something, and it was from the 1950s)

Carl Ruggles, maybe? Only a guess.

[Roseau]

I am amazed by the number of replies - I half thought I was asking a "stupid" question. It's a pity my student's English isn't good enough to follow the whole thread!

[JimM]

So how does one classify the time signatures in Bartok's Bulgarian dances (Microcosmos VI)? You know, when they're (3+3+2)/8?
Is that Compound time or Confused time?

[owainsutton]

So how does one classify the time signatures in Bartok's Bulgarian dances (Microcosmos VI)? You know, when they're (3+3+2)/8?
Is that Compound time or Confused time?

In theory exam terms, they're complex time signatures.

I prefer to explain them as 'lopsided compound time' (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[linda.ff]

I read a big American book whose name and author I've forgotten (Karl or Carl something, and it was from the 1950s)

Carl Ruggles, maybe? Only a guess.

No, sorry. A German derived surname, I think. I may even find it wasn't Karl or Carl but some other name. So not much to go on.

FOUND IT!!

We'll all be up all night now:

Not Carl but Curt:
Rhythm and Tempo: A Study in Music History by Curt Sachs

it's here
http://www.questia.com/library/book/rhythm...-curt-sachs.jsp

and it looks as though you can read it online.

It was bedtime reading for me at one stage (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) in between bouts of Pratchett and Jilly Cooper and Zola: I couldn't give it my undivided attention - but it was pretty well written and engrossing

[Maizie]

Is that Compound time or Confused time?

(IMG:http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/400474_10150499203461219_553471218_8786956_656571968_n.jpg)

[Tenor Viol]

Basically the flaw in our notation system is there are no symbols to represent note values for say a third of a crotchet, or a third of a minim: we only have symbols for halves (namely quavers and crotchets in this case).

We use the time signature to tell us this. So 6/8 is 2 beats subdivided into three, in this case dotted crotchets into triplet quavers and similarly 6/4 is 2 dotted minims divided into three triplet crotchets.

The issue I suppose with 3/8 and 3/4 is: are they three beats, which can be subdivided into twos (as 3/4 would usually be), or are they single beats which can be subdivided into three (which is often the case with 3/8)?

This is why the old mensuration indicators I mentioned where better - they told you exactly what was going on.

Indeed, we didn't need bar-lines (well, not "we" as in me and you, I at any rate wasn't around then) But actually it went two layers further than that apparently; I read a big American book whose name and author I've forgotten (Karl or Carl something, and it was from the 1950s) something like a history of rhythm - and he certainly mentions somewhere some further divisions or classifications into 2 or 3, so maybe one end of this would be the equivalent of how may bars we have in a phrase, and the other end something really small like whether the quavers in what we think of as 6/8 actually split into 2's or 3's.

(I googled for "A History of Rhythm" but it only seemed to want to add " 'n Blues")

Try searching for "mensuration" or "isorhythmic motets"

So how does one classify the time signatures in Bartok's Bulgarian dances (Microcosmos VI)? You know, when they're (3+3+2)/8?
Is that Compound time or Confused time?

In theory exam terms, they're complex time signatures.

I prefer to explain them as 'lopsided compound time' (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Agreed (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I regard it as two full triplet beats and a limp: yadada/yadada/yada

[anacrusis]

Maizie - fab - think I'll play all my pieces in the last time signature from now on....

oh, wait. I already do (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[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 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.

Thanks for spotting that - I was very tired when I wrote this! I've edited it now.

[katica]

Thanks for spotting that - I was very tired when I wrote this! I've edited it now.

Worth editing. It was a very good post. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

(I was just thinking that at last we seem to have got past the rather prolonged silly season we've had in recent months on the Forum and are getting more useful and knowledgeable posts again.)

[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.

[briantrumpet]

I think this debate highlights the conceptual problems we get into when we try to come to defining things clearly and unambiguously - we'll always find things that lie near or on the intersection between two definitions. We want everything to be clear-cut, even when we know the nature of the 'object' we're talking about.

Take the scherzo of Beethoven 5, for instance. We (probably) all know what it sounds like, and could sing the main tune. Why do we feel the urge to decide whether it's simple or compound time? Does it matter? Does that matter any more than if you cut a sandwich in half that's been made out of two rounds of bread, do you end up with two sandwiches or two halves of one sandwich? We can all understand the object(s) perfectly without necessarily being able to agree on what we call it/them.