Is 3/8 compound time or simple time? Options

[Aquarelle]

There exists a sort of bible for French music theory ? well, at least where I live. It is known as the ?Danhauser? after the person who wrote it. Personally I find it of very little use as you can be sure if there is a complicated way of explaining things it will be in this book. However, I have just read the thread so looked up ?mesures simples? et mesures composees? in it.

The rule seems to be that if the sum of the values forming each beat can be divided by 2 then the time is simple. The rule for compound time is that the sum of the values of each beat should add up to a dotted note and therefore the beat is divisible by 3. This is what has been said above. However the question remains as to whether in that case 3/8 is simple triple with quaver beats or compound time with one dotted crotchet beat to the bar. The Danhauser then goes on to give examples and it does not include 3/8 in the examples of compound time but in the table on page 89 of my copy 3/8 appears as simple time and the corresponding compound time has three dotted quavers as the beats ? which is 9/16.

So I think Roseau?s students have misunderstood their theory lessons. They were probably just told that in compound time the beat is a dotted note and can be divided into three equal parts so they then assumed that this applied to 3/8 - but Mr Danhauser does not seem to be of the opinion that this applies to the dotted crotchet which would fill a bar in 3/8

[kenm]

The rule seems to be that if the sum of the values forming each beat can be divided by 2 then the time is simple. The rule for compound time is that the sum of the values of each beat should add up to a dotted note and therefore the beat is divisible by 3.

According to this definition, the conductor determines whether 3/8 is simple or compound; if it is not conducted, the category is, in principle, indeterminate.

[katica]

I asked my teacher and his first answer was compound, just like Roseau's students... To which I then asked how it would sound any different from 3/4 time (which is simple). Then he said that it also depends on how it's conducted. And that in the end the theory doesn't in practice really matter much. What the conductor decides does.

[Roseau]

Not exactly on topic but provides an interesting insight into my students' attitude towards theory...

I printed out grade 1, 5 and 8 syllabuses for them on their respective instruments for them to have a look at and compare with the French system. They were horrified by the sheer number of scales. The harpist in particular couldn't believe that they were asking for scales at grade 1. I thought that to play a major scale on a pedal harp all you had to do was to put the correct pedals down before you started and then play the notes so it seemed to me to be easier than any other instrument so I asked her if I had misunderstood. She confirmed that this is indeed what they do, so I asked her what the problem was. "Knowing which pedal to put down" she replied. I pointed out that in their first year of theory in France they are required to memorise the order of all the flats and sharps so that knowing which pedal to put down ought not to be a problem. Her reply to that was "Do you actually think we use what we do in theory lessons when we play our instruments" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif) And then the others all joined in to tell me that what she was saying was true!

I have come to the conclusion that although they are all excellent on their instruments their theoretical knowledge is probably not of the same level.

[linda.ff]

There exists a sort of bible for French music theory ? well, at least where I live. It is known as the ?Danhauser? after the person who wrote it. Personally I find it of very little use as you can be sure if there is a complicated way of explaining things it will be in this book.

I think there are many here who will have decided that I wrote it! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

However, I have just read the thread so looked up ?mesures simples? et mesures composees? in it.

The rule seems to be that if the sum of the values forming each beat can be divided by 2 then the time is simple. The rule for compound time is that the sum of the values of each beat should add up to a dotted note and therefore the beat is divisible by 3. This is what has been said above. However the question remains as to whether in that case 3/8 is simple triple with quaver beats or compound time with one dotted crotchet beat to the bar. The Danhauser then goes on to give examples and it does not include 3/8 in the examples of compound time but in the table on page 89 of my copy 3/8 appears as simple time and the corresponding compound time has three dotted quavers as the beats ? which is 9/16.

So I think Roseau?s students have misunderstood their theory lessons. They were probably just told that in compound time the beat is a dotted note and can be divided into three equal parts so they then assumed that this applied to 3/8 - but Mr Danhauser does not seem to be of the opinion that this applies to the dotted crotchet which would fill a bar in 3/8

It seems to me that this entire question hangs on the notion of whether you can divide music into bars of a single beat. (This is regardless of how the conductor beats it - after all, if you play Greensleeves (notated in 6/8) slowly and the conductor is beating every quaver, and you're in a fancy arrangement where those quavers subdivide into 2 semiquavers each, are you then in simple time?)

One of the things I often say to my pupils is that while time is measured in seconds and minutes (hours, days etc) and length in - well, nowadays - metres, a lot of us can remember feet and inches - music is measured in beats and bars. This usually comes up after a child has ventured to tell me that a minim lasts for two seconds! For my part, I doubt that bars can contain just one beat each, they would surely then need to be grouped together under a bigger measurement? but maybe this is why it's called theory (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[sbhoa]

Not exactly on topic but provides an interesting insight into my students' attitude towards theory...

I printed out grade 1, 5 and 8 syllabuses for them on their respective instruments for them to have a look at and compare with the French system. They were horrified by the sheer number of scales. The harpist in particular couldn't believe that they were asking for scales at grade 1. I thought that to play a major scale on a pedal harp all you had to do was to put the correct pedals down before you started and then play the notes so it seemed to me to be easier than any other instrument so I asked her if I had misunderstood. She confirmed that this is indeed what they do, so I asked her what the problem was. "Knowing which pedal to put down" she replied. I pointed out that in their first year of theory in France they are required to memorise the order of all the flats and sharps so that knowing which pedal to put down ought not to be a problem. Her reply to that was "Do you actually think we use what we do in theory lessons when we play our instruments" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif) And then the others all joined in to tell me that what she was saying was true!

I have come to the conclusion that although they are all excellent on their instruments their theoretical knowledge is probably not of the same level.

I dare say that the same is true over here where students and teacher cram for grade 5 theory but don't actually learn any of it and couldn't at grade 8 tell you what key their pieces are in.

[owainsutton]

I dare say that the same is true over here where students and teacher cram for grade 5 theory but don't actually learn any of it and couldn't at grade 8 tell you what key their pieces are in.

Oh, God, how I hate that! Especially when they get stumped by something like A major, which they've been playing in since they first picked up a violin. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

[sbhoa]

I dare say that the same is true over here where students and teacher cram for grade 5 theory but don't actually learn any of it and couldn't at grade 8 tell you what key their pieces are in.

Oh, God, how I hate that! Especially when they get stumped by something like A major, which they've been playing in since they first picked up a violin. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

I've known people work very hard at not retaining the information.
It really would be less effort to remember it.

[owainsutton]

I've known people work very hard at not retaining the information.
It really would be less effort to remember it.

So true. Has anyone got effective strategies for tackling such approaches?

[kenm]

For my part, I doubt that bars can contain just one beat each, they would surely then need to be grouped together under a bigger measurement? but maybe this is why it's called theory (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I think Beethoven disagreed with you. Look at the scherzo of the 9th symphony: at bar 177, he gives the instruction "Ritmo de tre battute" and at 234 "Ritmo de quattro battute". It is obvious from the music that each "battuta" corresponds to a bar, as the passage from 177 to 233 inclusive consists of a succession of three-bar phrases.

[linda.ff]

For my part, I doubt that bars can contain just one beat each, they would surely then need to be grouped together under a bigger measurement? but maybe this is why it's called theory (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I think Beethoven disagreed with you. Look at the scherzo of the 9th symphony: at bar 177, he gives the instruction "Ritmo de tre battute" and at 234 "Ritmo de quattro battute". It is obvious from the music that each "battuta" corresponds to a bar, as the passage from 177 to 233 inclusive consists of a succession of three-bar phrases.

Yes, but does a "beat" as given by a conductor, equate to a "beat" as written in a bar?

[owainsutton]

Yes, but does a "beat" as given by a conductor, equate to a "beat" as written in a bar?

A beat is what we feel as the pulse. The role of a conductor is to make sure this happens - many great conductors indicate NO beats for bars at a time, when the moment justifies it. They trust the ensemble to do the job, and indicate other things.

A beat, as in Beethoven or Elgar, can last several bars, and there's nothing strange about it. The semibreve is a subdivision of the breve/brevis, itself a subdivision of the longa. In these terms, we are still always beating subdivisions, whether the 'beat' is a quaver or four bars of semibreves.

[Roseau]

I dare say that the same is true over here where students and teacher cram for grade 5 theory but don't actually learn any of it and couldn't at grade 8 tell you what key their pieces are in.

Except that these students are post grade 8, are training to be music teachers and had to pass a selective exam to actually get on the course (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)