What are the weirdest time signatures ever used in jazz?
Adam Bravo
Michael Fitzgerald
wrote:
>I'll start by saying 5.5/4, followed by 13/8. Anybody care to embellish?
Go investigate the music of Don Ellis - the most recent reissue of his
is entitled "Live in 3 2/3 / 4" - that's three and two-thirds over
four. I quote Gord McGonigal from:
http://www.mbnet.mb.ca/~mcgonig/donellis.html
"Odd time signatures were the band's trade mark -- anything but 3 or
4: 5, 7, 11, 13, 33, or even "a fast 25 with a bridge in 27"! But
these odd time signatures were not gimmicks; the band could play
through them with ease -- and swing! Most of the charts were written
and arranged by Don, although several band members, and Hank Levy,
also contributed originals."
Of course, Brubeck, Zappa, and John McLaughlin are worth mentioning
here as well.
Mike
Francois Ziegler
>
> Go investigate the music of Don Ellis - the most recent reissue of his
> is entitled "Live in 3 2/3 / 4" - that's three and two-thirds over
> four.
You've sent me listening to his masterpiece "Live at Monterey!" again.
His own liner notes to it contain relevant snippets:
"I remember our delight when about 6 months ago (...) I brought in
a chart in 3 2/3 / 4 time, and the band played it at sight!"
> "Odd time signatures were the band's trade mark -- anything but 3 or
> 4: 5, 7, 11, 13, 33, or even "a fast 25 with a bridge in 27"!
"this led to the development of such meters as 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 (19).
To arrive at this particular division of 19, I tried many different
patterns, but this was the one that swung the most. The longest meter
I have attempted to date is a piece in 85. But this isn't so far
fetched as one might think at first, because at the Department of
Ethnomusicology at UCLA I learned of one folk song with a 108 beat
cycle!"
And it *is* true that they made these numbers swing mightily. He was
not adverse to a little bit of showing off at times... On stage he
introduces the "traditional 19" (33 222 1 222): "of course that's just
the area code". Later: "We'd like to relax with something nice and easy
in a nice relaxed 27. So, er, this is in 27/16." And later: "This is
sort of a boogie woogie, only with a difference, because we do it in 7/8.
... Maybe we'll call it: Beat Me Daddy, 7 To The Bar".
Francois Z.
Dave Holmes
>
> That's all bullshit. It doesn't swing. It's a white man's exercise in
> counting. Totally contrived. Yeah, I'll concede that it all works out
> intellectually, but it's missing something essential. Maybe some spaceman
> with 7 arms and 11 legs might want to dance to it, but I, being an earth
> person with two arms, two legs, and a heartbeat, would prefer something that
> conforms to my natural rhythms, thank you.
Your heart doesn't beat in 4/4. You have (I assume) 10 fingers and toes.
"Odd meters" are not an intellectual exercise and are a part of the folk
music and "natural rhythms" of many cultures.
If you listen, you can almost hear the soft chuckling of Eastern
musicians whose mothers sang them quarter-tone lullabies in 13/8 time.
D.
Francois Ziegler
>
> (...talking about Don Ellis's band...)
>
> I don't know about the "with ease" part. I recently read an interview
> with someone who had been in Don's band for a while (sorry, don't
> remember who), and this person spoke about the tension of having to
> constantly be counting so you didn't get lost, and how relieved they
> were not to have to do that in their current band.
>
> Which is not to dis the musicianship in that band -- they made it
> *sound* "easy". But I'll bet they were sweatin' sometimes.
Yes, they were, by Don's own admission. The ellipsis in what I quoted:
> "I remember our delight when about 6 months ago (...) I brought in
> a chart in 3 2/3 / 4 time, and the band played it at sight!"
read: "after struggling like mad to feel comfortable in a fast 7
(divided 3 2 2)"
Francois Z.
Gary Smiley
counting. Totally contrived. Yeah, I'll concede that it all works out
intellectually, but it's missing something essential. Maybe some spaceman
with 7 arms and 11 legs might want to dance to it, but I, being an earth
person with two arms, two legs, and a heartbeat, would prefer something that
conforms to my natural rhythms, thank you.
Michael Fitzgerald wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:02:02 GMT, "Adam Bravo" <mra...@home.com>
> wrote:
> >I'll start by saying 5.5/4, followed by 13/8. Anybody care to embellish?
>
> Go investigate the music of Don Ellis - the most recent reissue of his
> is entitled "Live in 3 2/3 / 4" - that's three and two-thirds over
> four. I quote Gord McGonigal from:
>
> http://www.mbnet.mb.ca/~mcgonig/donellis.html
>
> "Odd time signatures were the band's trade mark -- anything but 3 or
Dennis J. Kosterman
<fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote:
(...talking about Don Ellis's band...)
>"Odd time signatures were the band's trade mark -- anything but 3 or
>4: 5, 7, 11, 13, 33, or even "a fast 25 with a bridge in 27"! But
>these odd time signatures were not gimmicks; the band could play
>through them with ease -- and swing! Most of the charts were written
>and arranged by Don, although several band members, and Hank Levy,
>also contributed originals."
I don't know about the "with ease" part. I recently read an interview
with someone who had been in Don's band for a while (sorry, don't
remember who), and this person spoke about the tension of having to
constantly be counting so you didn't get lost, and how relieved they
were not to have to do that in their current band.
Which is not to dis the musicianship in that band -- they made it
*sound* "easy". But I'll bet they were sweatin' sometimes.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Gary Smiley
That's not jazz, either, but I'll admit that it sounds better than Don Ellis'
wierd intellectual contrivances.
Steve Mack
> I'll start by saying 5.5/4, followed by 13/8. Anybody care to embellish?
One time in a class I had to play an Indian style tune in 30/8, where
everything is divided into 2's and 3's. The teacher of a the class told us
that he once played in an Indian band and had to play in 17/8 and 23/8 a
lot. But I've never actually played anything that weird in performance.
--
Smack
"Good jazz is when the leader jumps on the piano, waves his arms, and yells.
Fine jazz is when a tenorman lifts his foot in the air. Great jazz is when
he heaves a piercing note for 32 bars and collapses on his hands and knees.
A pure genius of jazz is manifested when he and the rest of the orchestra
run around the room while the rhythm section grimaces and dances around
their instruments." -Charles Mingus
DOUG NORWOOD
Someone once said that the only tune Don Ellis played in 4/4 was Take Five.
DougN
Thomas F Brown
>Adam Bravo wrote:
>
>One time in a class I had to play an Indian style tune in 30/8, where
>everything is divided into 2's and 3's. The teacher of a the class told us
>that he once played in an Indian band and had to play in 17/8 and 23/8 a
>lot.
That's just over-intellectualized white man's stuff. Or so they say.
Ted Williams
counting is counting....the only thing weird in time signatures (at least in
my mind) would be assigning values such as "weirdest" or "oddest". Then
again, if someone is playing in, let's say, an unusual time (depending on
what your musical experience is) and the whole mess is contrived...then I'd
say just about any time would be weird. Same goes for tonality...who gets to
say what notes are in tune or not? What time is "odd" or not? (wow, so
THAT's the sound of one hand clapping) I've played some (for me, at the
time) pretty "different" meters and tunings...some of which highly respected
"professional" musicians didn't even want to entertain, and found that music
is music...and if it swings, then why not call it jazz....more so, respect
it and don't call it weird. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to flame
anyone here. Just always amazed me that people thought some things weird
odd, and then, some things weren't.
err...what time DID I get into work today? And how much coffee have I
haaaaaad....
/Ted
Thomas F Brown <tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:8m4vb0$g8v6t$1...@news.jhu.edu...
Johan Lif
> If you listen, you can almost hear the soft chuckling of Eastern
> musicians whose mothers sang them quarter-tone lullabies in 13/8 time.
Are you suggesting that Don Ellis's use of odd times is not "contrived"?
I see no similarities with, say, Bulgarian music which, when reduced to
traditional notation, is often in odd times (but just as often in two,
three or four); the "Eastern" mother didn't introduce her lullaby with
bragging about its complexity, nor did she name it something like "Take
Thirteen".
Johan
Charles H Berg
Micho Leviev, the Bulgarian pianist with Ellis for awhile, co-authored
Bulgarian Bulge for the Don Ellis Orchestra. In 33/16.
Wierd Eastern European timesigs such as the above are fairly easy to
count - they get subdivided up into "shorts" and "longs", where a
short = 2 beats, and a long is 3 beats.
Then to count, you only need remember the shorts and longs. In fact,
you kinda sing the shorts and longs. For instance, i remember that
the bridge to Bulgarian Bulge was SSSSLSS'SSSLSLSS (sing "Short" for
S, and "Long" for L and the ' is a breath mark).
--
Charlie Berg
c...@world.std.com
Dave Holmes
I'm not commenting on Ellis' music (or his ostentation) at all.
My response was to the poster who suggested that, because he has limbs
in even numbers, there is some sort of "natural rhythm" for a human
being.
D.
Gary Smiley
watch you dance!
Edwin Daudrich
Gary Smiley wrote:
> That's all bullshit. It doesn't swing. It's a white man's exercise in
> counting. Totally contrived. Yeah, I'll concede that it all works out
> intellectually, but it's missing something essential. Maybe some spaceman
> with 7 arms and 11 legs might want to dance to it, but I, being an earth
> person with two arms, two legs, and a heartbeat, would prefer something that
> conforms to my natural rhythms, thank you.
I read in a music text on music and trance that it's the odd rhythms that seem
to induce trances more more potently than even ones. But I dunno. I'm not really
a believer in the "time signature". Really it's just a beat which we try to
write out. And this beat in jazz is constantly fluxing. I mean if we were coming
according to a time signature man that would be boring.
Adam
DHoff56012
>> counting. Totally contrived. Yeah, I'll concede that it all works out
>> intellectually, but it's missing something essential. Maybe some spaceman
>> with 7 arms and 11 legs might want to dance to it, but I, being an earth
>> person with two arms, two legs, and a heartbeat, would prefer something
>that
>> conforms to my natural rhythms, thank you.
>
accustomed to. But they do have a swing of their own. You certainly can't
count, but you can't count and swing in 4/4 either. The odd time signatures
are just combinations of 2 and 3, which you can think of as short beats and
long beats. Once you get used to that you can feel the groove as easily as
anything else, and to someone from some of the Eastern European countries it is
natural, since they were raised with it.
In all fairness, I don't use the odd time signatures nearly as much as I used
to. Having studied with someone who wrote extensively for Don Ellis, many of my
first compositions were in odd meters, which disconcerted the bands that had to
read them to no end. But I do really like good ol' 4/4, more so than any of
the others.
And man, it sure is convenient to have 7 arms to type with!
Thomas F Brown
DHoff56012 <dhoff...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>In all fairness, I don't use the odd time signatures nearly as much as I used
>to. Having studied with someone who wrote extensively for Don Ellis, many of my
>first compositions were in odd meters, which disconcerted the bands that had to
>read them to no end. But I do really like good ol' 4/4, more so than any of
>the others.
If you want players to sight-read this stuff, notate it in 4/4 and then
write in the accents. It's pedantically incorrect, but you'll get
better results with less rehearsal.
Steven Sullivan
: That's all bullshit. It doesn't swing. It's a white man's exercise in
: counting.
And that's racist bullshit. So maybe it all evens out.
--
-S.
'There may be many who admire you for your power, but there are also
many who find your actions unattractive.'
DHoff56012
>write in the accents. It's pedantically incorrect, but you'll get
>better results with less rehearsal.
>
Very true. If given a bass structure that is more familiar, it certain aids
the ability to read it.