Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge time signature dorian mode compositions on NoteFlight.com

I would like to introduce you to some very interesting and unusual dorian-mode compositions that make very interesting use of unusual metres:

1)
http://NoteFlight.com/scores/view/774fc4a6b13719ab250656e76af2318f44d77f2a

In my transcription, I chose 15 over 16 as the time signature. Is that the best time signature for representing the meter of the piece?


---------

2)

Here is a 2nd composition:
http://www.noteFlight.com/scores/vi...4141ded6b94b62?scale=1&role=template

Like the previous example, that is also in Dorian mode , as well as an unusual meter (septuple, in this case).


I hope those pique your interest, musically - and maybe pedagogically, as well, if you are a teacher.

Those transcriptions of mine need further development.


The composer of both is Mike Ratledge, who played keyboards for The Soft Machine.

For the first piece, I'm not sure about 15/16 - it makes it a pain to count 15 beats per measure.

Maybe alternate bars of 6/8 + 3/16, or 4/8 + 5/16 might even be better. You'll have twice as many measures, but make it much easier to count.

7/8 works for the 2nd one.

Cool rhythms, interesting piece. The 15/16 is fine if you view this piece as a quintuple compound meter. To my ears it sounds like a mixed meter of 3/8 + 9/16 much/most of the time. But, those get mixed up at times. 15/16 works, but doesn't accurately describe what's happening rhythmically.

Listening now to the second, you do like your mixed meters. Frankly, 7/8 works but also doesn't accurately describe what's going on. I'd prefer 6/16 + 4/8.

Thank you for looking at it and providing feedback. Is it true that the numerator of a time signature doesn't necessarily signify the number of pulses or beats per measure. That would be the case, in simple time. But this is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_signature#Complex_time_signatures

I'm not going to give a quick course in music rhythm theory. If you don't understand what a compound meter is then mixed meter would be incomprehensible. It might help to mention that asymmetric meters are usually broken up into smaller bits, for example 7/4 could be a combination of 4/4 + 3/4. 15/8 would normally be 5 units of 3/8, but could be many other things.

I was taught (when I was 17.5) that compound time signatures are defined as each pulse (beat) being broken into 3 parts. 6 over 8 isn't 6 beats a measure -- it's 2. A compound time is usually something like a shuffle or a straight-ahead swing beat. At least that's my understanding. The rhythm of "Out-Bloody-Rageous" seems to me to be more like a Latin/Brasilian -type thing - albeit with a strange twist. There are hemiolas in there. That is based on division of the beat into powers of 2 (2 -- 8th notes ; and 4 -- 16th notes ) -- and highly syncopated.

Morodiene
stated :
"it makes it a pain to count 15 beats per measure"

I was responding to her, when I typed :
"the numerator of a time signature doesn't necessarily signify the number of pulses or beats per measure. That would be the case, in simple time."

That wasn't intended to be directed at Steve Chandler.

Morodiene is a "she". Not telling you off. Just let in you know!

I understand what compound metre is. (I did back in 2016, as well.)

Anything about the substance of what I (originally) posted? I prefer that the focus is on that.

By the way, the more technically-accurate word-choice would be "time", rather than "meter" -- when referring to "compound time", correct?

Im listening to the first one, and its cool!

It reminds me of Laura Nyro. If you haven't checked her out, its worth it. Cool stuff.

It seems like we've descended into rhythmic semantics. I think 15/16 works. All the phrases were designed to fit within that signature... but I personally think it would work better with something like 3+3+3+2+2+2... based on the rhythm of the right hand in the beginning, something like that.

Heres something I believe:

We, as modern composers, all go through a phase where complex time signatures are like a trick... a fun puzzle you can use to show off your savy intelligence. But eventually, you realize that this has just become part of the language... and you can't show off with something that is common now adays. And once you realize that complexity of rhythm is part of the modern language now, your rhythmic choices should always serve the music. No tricks, just substance... done for a very specific reason.

One more thing, In the first few pages, there is a moment where the L.H. and one of the saxes are playing together. Personally, I would see that as an opportunity to either write in some longer chords in the R.H., or make a notation for the performer to improvise a vamp

Intuitive Samba:

I found the video on Youtube of the live performance of Soft Machine's "Bloody Out-Rageous" posted by Cuneiform Records. This certainly gets your brain firing on all cylinders!

Back in the 70's and 80's I listened to WZUM, a local AM radio station located in Carnegie, PA. in Pittsburgh Pa area. WZUM was not one of those run-of-the-mill "Top Ten Hit" stations that dominated the airwaves back around that time. It instead played a wide variety of music you'd never hear on any other radio station including British folk (Pentangle, Steeleye Span, Ossian, Silly Wizard, etc.), progressive rock The Moody Blues [their more interesting non-radio hit LP tracks], Gentle Giant, Genesis, Traffic), folk (Nick Drake, Richie Havens) and more. They even played an hour or so of Polka music on weekends.

WZUM played Soft Machine, but that's one of the bands I never pursued any farther, so I'm not at all familiar with their music.

Your work recreating Soft Machine's "Bloody Out-Rageous" is very interesting indeed.

Thank you for bringing it and your version of it to our attention.

Jeanne W

MinscAndBoo wrote:

I assume that you are making that as a general statement, rather than implying that Mike Ratledge (in this specific case) made a gratuitous use of non-standard metres in his composition(s).
I dunno ; you would have to ask Mike what his thinking and motivation was (back in 1969 or whenever he first conceived of these musical ideas of his).

Your condescension is noted.
Next time you feel inclined to be condescending, first make an effort to properly understand the meaning, as well as context of what you are responding to. That's my advice to you.

I understood perfectly well what simple and compound time (w.c. not "meter") is.

I should not have even mentioned the minor question that I had about choice of time signature (to represent the metre) of this composition. That wasn't my intended main focus here, but that seems to be what the discussion ended up devolving into.