The Logic Off Topic list

leon m wrote:
>>> How about a bar of 3/5? Can you suggest a simple alternative?

Hendrik wrote:
>> What exactly would the difference with 3/4 be?

leon m wrote:
> A bar of 3/4 consists of three quarter notes (breve divided by 4). A bar of
> 3/5 consists of three quarter note quintuplets (breve divided by 5). A bar
> of 3/5 will therefore be shorter in length than a bar of 3/4. It is an
> elegant way of modulating tempo.

there inconsistencies in the logic in this.
But some of your points are valid.

question #1: for you, what is a quarter note quintuplet?
When you say that, I take my bar of 4/4 and divide each beat by 5 giving me 
16th note quintuplets. I then group them in groups of 2 for eighth note 
quintuplets and groups of 4 for quarter note quintuplets (just like you would do 
with triplets). The result is 5 beats of 4 16th notes per beat, which is a simple 
5/4 with 16th notes in my world.

So the resulting accented rhythm is 5/4, but the quarter note is %20 faster than 
the original 4/4. Your 3/5 would be 3 beats of that 5/4. or 3/4 with 16th notes  
%20 faster than the original 4/4. Yes? Are we on the same page? That I can 
understand using, And it does suck that Logic can't do that without chaging 
tempo.

question #2: in a bar of 3/3 you'd have 3 quarter note triplets, right? In what 
way does that total not equal a bar of 2/4 with quarter note triplets? I can't see 
any valid reason to use that one. 

Similarly a bar of 5/5 would be the same a bar of 4/4 with every 4th quintuplet 
accented. Right? if the piece was soley in that time sig, wouldn't 5/4 be just as 
easy to write since you're accenting every 4th note anyway? The 4 accented 
quintuplets end up just being 4 16th notes in that scenario... right?

If you were cruising along in 4/4 and wanted to hear 5 notes evenly spaced 
across that bar, why write a 5/5 when you can keep the tempo the same by 
accenting every 4th quintuplet in a 4/4 bar?

Someone else (sorry I haven't been keeping track of who is talking about this) 
said 5/5 would be 5 beats dived into 5 parts each, instead of thinking of the 
bottom 5 number as 5 "quarter note quintuplets" he was thinking of them as 
actual quintuplets, or, not tuplets at all but a real denominator. That makes 
more sense to me but is not the same as what you are saying.  

so, to sum up... 3/5 I can get with if it's 3 groups of 4 quintuplets in a song 
based on a 16th note rhythm. There really is no other way to express that 
without changing tempo. If 3/5 being advocated as a time signature one would 
use to base an entire song on, I'd personally rather read 3/4 with 16th notes. If 
3/5 is what I thought it was a day ago according to the other guy, 3 beats 
divided by 5, or 15/16, I can get with that as a time signature to base a piece 
on.

oh, the inconsistencies...

Teddy Kumpel

Hi there.
> 
> leon m wrote:
> > A bar of 3/4 consists of three quarter notes (breve divided by 4). A bar of
> > 3/5 consists of three quarter note quintuplets (breve divided by 5). A bar
> > of 3/5 will therefore be shorter in length than a bar of 3/4. It is an
> > elegant way of modulating tempo.
> 
> there inconsistencies in the logic in this.

Could you point them out? It is just simple maths.
And i did not invent this, it is an agreed classical practice, although rare.

> But some of your points are valid.
> 
> question #1: for you, what is a quarter note quintuplet?

A breve divided by 5.  Ie a note equal to the length of a fith of a breve, in the same 
way a quarter note is equal to a fourth of a breve.

> When you say that, I take my bar of 4/4 and divide each beat by 5 giving me 
> 16th note quintuplets.

No not saying that at all. 
 I then group them in groups of 2 for eighth note 
> quintuplets and groups of 4 for quarter note quintuplets (just like you would do 
> with triplets). The result is 5 beats of 4 16th notes per beat, which is a simple 
> 5/4 with 16th notes in my world.

> So the resulting accented rhythm is 5/4, but the quarter note is %20 faster than 
> the original 4/4. Your 3/5 would be 3 beats of that 5/4. or 3/4 with 16th notes  
> %20 faster than the original 4/4. Yes? Are we on the same page? That I can 
> understand using, And it does suck that Logic can't do that without chaging 
> tempo.

You got it. Cut the bar after the fourth quarter quintuplet and you get your 4/5. As 
you can see it is far neater to just use an odd time signature rather than write out all 
those subdivisions and ratios. Gets worse if you want 11 9 or 7.

> question #2: in a bar of 3/3 you'd have 3 quarter note triplets, right? In what 
> way does that total not equal a bar of 2/4 with quarter note triplets? I can't see 
> any valid reason to use that one. 


> 
> Similarly a bar of 5/5 would be the same a bar of 4/4 with every 4th quintuplet 
> accented. Right? if the piece was soley in that time sig, wouldn't 5/4 be just as 
> easy to write since you're accenting every 4th note anyway? The 4 accented 
> quintuplets end up just being 4 16th notes in that scenario... right?

Correct,there would be little ppoint in writing a piece that never changed from 5/5 3/
3 etc. The use is in the moving from one to the other

> If you were cruising along in 4/4 and wanted to hear 5 notes evenly spaced 
> across that bar, why write a 5/5 when you can keep the tempo the same by 
> accenting every 4th quintuplet in a 4/4 bar?  

Thats the whole point, we dont want the tempo to stay the same. If we did we just put 
a 5.4 ratio bracket and use normal quintuplets. 
 
> Someone else (sorry I haven't been keeping track of who is talking about this) 
> said 5/5 would be 5 beats dived into 5 parts each, instead of thinking of the 
> bottom 5 number as 5 "quarter note quintuplets" he was thinking of them as 
> actual quintuplets, or, not tuplets at all but a real denominator. That makes 
> more sense to me but is not the same as what you are saying.  
> 

Nope.

> so, to sum up... 3/5 I can get with if it's 3 groups of 4 quintuplets

NO!   

3/5 is a bar equal to the length of 3 quarter note quintuplets!What you put in that bar 
is up to you. In the same way 4/4 is a bar equal to the length of 4 normal quarter 
notes. We are talking bars and pulse here......

> in a song 
> based on a 16th note rhythm. There really is no other way to express that 
> without changing tempo. 

Reverse your thinking, we want to change the tempo! The16th note rhythm is 
therefore irrelevant


If 3/5 being advocated as a time signature one would 

> use to base an entire song on, I'd personally rather read 3/4 with 16th notes. If 
> 3/5 is what I thought it was a day ago according to the other guy, 3 beats 
> divided by 5, or 15/16, I can get with that as a time signature to base a piece 
> on.
> 



> oh, the inconsistencies...
> 
> Teddy Kumpel

>>> leon m wrote: A bar of 3/4 consists of three quarter notes (breve divided by
>>> 4). A bar of 3/5 consists of three quarter note quintuplets (breve divided
>>> by 5). A bar of 3/5 will therefore be shorter in length than a bar of 3/4.
>>> It is an elegant way of modulating tempo.
>> 
>> there inconsistencies in the logic in this.
>> 
> Could you point them out? It is just simple maths. And i did not invent this,
> it is an agreed classical practice, although rare.

I think I am just confused by the word "Breve"... never heard that one, you
must be British or something. So Breve is a bar. ok...

I get the whole tempo modulation thing.

the inconsistency is that you speak of "quarter note quintuplets" when if
you're in 3/5, the 5's are no longer tuplets, they're just quintle notes (or
something... what's the old English way to say a fifth?)
> 
>> But some of your points are valid.
>> 
>> question #1: for you, what is a quarter note quintuplet?
>> 
> A breve divided by 5.  Ie a note equal to the length of a fith of a breve, in
> the same way a quarter note is equal to a fourth of a breve.

so let's call it a quintle note. or something that doesn't imply that it is
over an even time signature.

>> So the resulting accented rhythm is 5/4, but the quarter note is %20 faster
>> than the original 4/4. Your 3/5 would be 3 beats of that 5/4. or 3/4 with
>> 16th notes  %20 faster than the original 4/4. Yes? Are we on the same page?
>> That I can understand using, And it does suck that Logic can't do that
>> without chaging tempo.
>> 
> You got it. Cut the bar after the fourth quarter quintuplet and you get your
> 4/5. As you can see it is far neater to just use an odd time signature rather
> than write out all those subdivisions and ratios. Gets worse if you want 11 9
> or 7.

yes, especially if you're sequencing. It may be easier to read or play in
for an actual performer the other way.

>> Similarly a bar of 5/5 would be the same a bar of 4/4 with every 4th
>> quintuplet accented. Right? if the piece was soley in that time sig, wouldn't
>> 5/4 be just as easy to write since you're accenting every 4th note anyway?
>> The 4 accented quintuplets end up just being 4 16th notes in that scenario...
>> right?
>> 
> Correct,there would be little ppoint in writing a piece that never changed
> from 5/5 3/ 3 etc. The use is in the moving from one to the other

well, good.

>> so, to sum up... 3/5 I can get with if it's 3 groups of 4 quintuplets
>> 
> NO!  
> 
> 3/5 is a bar equal to the length of 3 quarter note quintuplets!

sorry, I meant 3 groups of 4 16th note quintuplets (yuch) or 3 quintle
notes.

> What you put in 
> that bar is up to you.

well, duh...

>> in a song based on a 16th note rhythm. There really is no other way to
>> express that without changing tempo.
>> 
> Reverse your thinking, we want to change the tempo! The16th note rhythm is
> therefore irrelevant

oh. I don't want to change the tempo. I'm a groove guy. I'm into swinging my
quintuplets. Getting kind of African with it. so there you have it. 2 sides
of the coin. 

Teddy Kumpel

hi teddy.
a breve is the note the length of two whole notes (or semibreves).
leon's definition even of "2 because the breve is divided by 2" should 
actually be "2 because the semibreve is divided by 2"
this still makes no more mathematical sense than saying....
"the bottom number is 2 because the *breve* is divided by 4"
or
"the bottom number is 2 because the crotchet is doubled by 2"

these relationships in a piece of music have to be defined to be true 
(crotchet = quaver, or crotchet = crotchet...whatever).


steve parker

--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, steve parker <swimorsync@n...> wrote:
> hi teddy.
> a breve is the note the length of two whole notes (or semibreves).
> leon's definition even of "2 because the breve is divided by 2" should 
> actually be "2 because the semibreve is divided by 2"
> this still makes no more mathematical sense than saying....
> "the bottom number is 2 because the *breve* is divided by 4"
> or
> "the bottom number is 2 because the crotchet is doubled by 2"
> 
> these relationships in a piece of music have to be defined to be true 
> (crotchet = quaver, or crotchet = crotchet...whatever).
> 
> 
> steve parker


breve is my short for semibreve. sorry

leon

On a fine day, 19-02-2004, logicleon wrote:

>breve is my short for semibreve. sorry

You mean like 1/4 is my short for 1/5?  LOL... :-)

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra   h @ k n o w a r e . n l
Omega Art: http://www.omega-art.com/

> breve is my short for semibreve. sorry
> 
> leon

wow, You're really pushing the envelope on the language. If you're going to talk 
about this stuff why don't you make sure you're using understandable 
terminology? I'm going to drop out of this conversation now because I have 
idea what breve or quaver or crochet mean.

enjoy

Teddy

> On a fine day, 19-02-2004, logicleon wrote:
> 
> >breve is my short for semibreve. sorry
> 
> You mean like 1/4 is my short for 1/5?  LOL... :-)
> 
> -- 
> Hendrik Jan Veenstra   h @ k n o w a r e . n l


really good sense of humor Hendrik. You deserve beers for that one.

Teddy