i'm serious.
i guess there could be some merit to knowing theory if you're teaching or trying to learn music that someone else created, but i don't see how anything beyond knowing how to play the instrument you're playing is important to creating original music.

Its nice idea i can share some of my knowledge about rock music, it was all started with "The Beatles"
they have taken gutiar music from streets to the heavy concerts .

RezZ-
Thanks for the feedback man. I'll keep exploring into it. I really wanna be able to play some decent jazz someday. :)

-------------

ThePhanastasio -
Okay you have the time signature - two numbers stacked on top of each other.

Top number tells you - how many beats per measure. (This can be any integer 1 - 10000, usually 12 is as high number, 2 is a low number).

Bottom number tells you - which note gets one beat. (This can be 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64.... (just multiply by two). Anything higher than 16 is kind of ridiculous though for most pieces, and 1 isn't too common. Most are in the range of 2, 4, or 8).

With the top number telling you how many beats per measure, the only question is "what note gets one beat?" And that's easy enough. You have to realize that the relationship between note durations is always the same-

One whole note ALWAYS equals 2 half notes.
One half note ALWAYS equals 2 quarter notes.
Etc.

But a quarter note is not always 1 beat.

If you have a 1 on the bottom of the time signature, a whole note is 1 beat. So a 4/1 measure would be 4 whole note per measure (and any combinations of other notes that add up to this total number). 4/1 is not very common. But in having a 1 on the bottom, a whole note is 1 beat, a half note is half a beat, a quarter note is a fourth of a beat, and so on.

If you have a 2 on the bottom, the half note is 1 beat. Therefor, the whole note is 2 beats, the quarter note is half a beat, and the eighth note is a fourth of a beat.

If you have a 4 on the bottom, the quarter note is 1, the half note is 2, the whole note is 4, and the eighth note is half.

If you have an 8 on the bottom, the eighth note is 1, the sixteenth note is half a beat, the quarter note is 2, the half note is 4, and the whole note is 8.

Finally, if you have a 16 on the bottom, the 16th note is 1, the 8th note is 2, the quarter note is 4, the half note is 8, and the whole note is a whopping 16.

This means that each time your metronome clicks (or your toe taps the ground), the beat that equals 1 has passed (generally).

The way I figure out what note equals 1 is that you just put 1 over x (1/x), where x is your bottom number.

So if you have 4/4, you take 1/4, which is a fourth, or quarter, so the quarter note = 1 beat.

If you have 2 on the bottom, 1/2 is a half, so the half note = 1.

More examples to drive the point home:

8/8 = 8 eighth notes per measure.
5/4 = 5 quarter notes per measure.
2/2 = 2 half notes per measure.
682/128 = 682 128th notes per measure (This is a ridiculous time signature only to illustrate. If you see this in serious music, you have full license to punch the composer in the face.)

---------
::Strong beats::

Generally you have strong and weak beats. These beats are played with a little more power to give the rhythm a feel of being in a certain time signature. Normally, strong beats are places for chord changes, important notes, etc. But first we need to talk about 'simple' and 'compound' meters (time signatures).

Simple are either 2, 3, or 4 (we're talking about the top number of time signatures only).

I'll bold the strong beats.

2 : 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 (1 is stronger than 2).
3 : 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 (1 is stronger than 2 and 3).
4 : 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 (1 and 3 are BOTH stronger than 2 and 4).

Now onto compound: 6 9 12. Basically you multiply everything by groups of 3:

1 2 3 4 5 6 (1 and 4 are the strongest) 1-2-3 4-5-6. Notice how it's similar to just the simple 2, only with a triplet figure present.

Same with 9 and 12.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1-2-3 4-5-6 7-8-9


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1-2-3 4-5-6 7-8-9 10-11-12

----------

Mixed meters:

Still talking about your top number here, these are the ones that don't divide into groups of 3, and aren't the simple ones. Typical numbers include 5, 7, 8, 10, and probably even 11.

5 is uneven. It's usually a group of 3, and a group of 2. Which one happens first is up to the composer. I've seen some compositions in one version, some in the other, and a few that actually switch back and forth every measure.

So either one of these is correct:

1-2 3-4-5
1-2-3 4-5

Same with 7 - a group of 3, and 2 groups of 2:

1-2 3-4 5-6-7
1-2 3-4-5 6-7
1-2-3 4-5 6-7

10 is usually 2 groups of 3, and 2 groups of 2. This cannot be arranged (usually) like 1-2-3 4-5 6-7-8 9-10 nor 1-2 3-4-5 6-7 8-9-10 because then you run the risk of it just sounding like it's in 5, and why not just use that instead, right?

I'd say the most common 10 setup is 1-2-3 4-5-6 7-8 9-10.

As for 11, it's kind of out there (and I'm not sure I've even seen it). But I'm sure it's been used somewhere by someone. It's not a very common one though, of course. I'm sure you can use groups of 2's and 3's to make it sound interesting at your discretion.

8's a little special. Simple ones would just be 2 groups of 4: 1-2-3-4 5-6-7-8.

But a more interesting one is: 1-2-3 4-5-6 7-8. Coldplay uses this in Clocks as their background rhythm pattern. It's a very very common setup in pop music of today.

----------

Two final things you should know about time signatures:

4/4 is the most common time signature. It's nicknamed "common time" and written with a C.

2/2 is another common one, and is called "cut time" (or "alla breve" in... England? I don't know anyone that says "alla breve", but it's in a theory book that I teach out of). This is written with a Cents sign (a C with a vertical line through it).

I hope this answered your question. Feel free to ask any follow up questions, ThePhanastasio.

----------------

jayshreddz-
And if you're a true English speaker, you just speak it with your fellow man because you don't need to read or write something that isn't verbally spoken.

Oh wait. You're on a forum, reading and typing.

It's important if you ever want to work in a professional environment or with anyone who's had that experience. Otherwise you come across as a hard headed idealistic pretentious hipster brat (I've got years of experience and little to show for exactly that reason).

Basically learning theory is an easy way to prove to other musicians that you're flexible and adaptable to styles and techniques besides the favourites from your personal comfort zone.

You don't need to learn much but I have to say, it's incredibly frustrating to try playing with someone who 'knows' how to play but never bothered learning 'any' theory. When someone asks you how to play a song and you call out 'it's G, C and D' and they give you a wide eyed look like you started speaking alien until you show them the actual chord shapes they recognize but refuse to learn the names of. That's your attitude. How awesome is it?

The worse thing was that guitar player who refused to learn alphabetical names of the basic major chords could blaze through Eruption on his acoustic. People lost their sh1t and kept praising him like he was some sort of wunderkin. But ask him to play a E minor chord? Forget it.

I can agree with you that approaching a new composition with theory rather than your ear will yield nothing more than a collection of musical facts that will most likely sound rather artificial, but the purpose of theory isn't to create music by following where things should/could go, it's about developing your sense of form so your ear is better equipped when you need to rely on it. Relying on an untrained ear to compose will produce very simple works and seeking to enrich will always prove difficult.

You could of course put ignorance on a pedestal and go about it your own way relying only on your own judgment and undeveloped sense of form, learning from pitfalls along the way but even if you were naturally gifted enough to reach the same level as those that took formal training you would have gotten there a hell of a lot faster had you of taken up music theory, So if you did have the interest in music why would you ignore an integral part of it and choose a more taxing, risky route that offers fewer rewards?

:)

edit :

The main riff definetly sounds like 123-123-123-12, like it would've been a straight up 3/4th (or something) had it not been for cutting out the last "3" there. I guess that's what you mean by groups of 2s and 3s!

Very nice find, tore! I'm still going to bet that 11's uncommon. But this is lovely to see. And yes, I'm hearing 3-3-3-2 here too. But that's def in 11, starting at about 0:45. The drumming at the start is probably too, but it's certainly harder to hear given the rhythm.

I'd venture to say this is 11/8. But that's just a personal preference. It's certainly 11. :)

For more obscure time signatures, this might be an interesting read: List of musical works in unusual time signatures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a bit of a funny coincidence :) Me and my friends are doing an album club on our mailinglist and Sailing the Seas of Cheese was last week's album and I noticed it had that that song in eleven time. I can't remember any other songs in 11 .. at least not right off the bat!

Although I do listen to a lot of prog so songs in 15/8 and 10/8 and so on come to mind!

Never would I ever compare Classic Rock to Skrillex. There is nothing to compare. BUT you can compare writing and the musicality behind it. I was giving contrast between symetrical writing and "non-symetrical writing." For example, Classic Rock usually follows a Ternary ABABA sequence, while artists like Skrillex write in ABABAC, also called a Rondo.

This brings up a situation I've pondered on quite a bit over the years in regards to Verse / Chorus / Verse songs.

If ABABA is Ternary
and ABABAC is a Rondo

How many other 'standard' variations are there? What would something like ABABCBAB become?