bordertangoman
Well-Known Member
I agree with you..I had a few music lessons from a music teacher and he explained this to me in the same way as you did 2/4 and 4/4 sound the same when played.
Rodriguez's 'Bailando todas los ritmos'
- Thread starter UKDancer
- Start date
I agree with you..I had a few music lessons from a music teacher and he explained this to me in the same way as you did 2/4 and 4/4 sound the same when played.
There's an interesting discussion between Christine Denniston & Alberto Paz here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tango-uk/message/5436 which deals with the 2x4 transition to 4x8.
In the end, what matters is how the musicians play the music, and how it is heard. The notation is secondary, and it serves the music and is not its master. Nevertheless, in principle, different metres are not interchangeable: they imply particular basic patterns of stress. It doesn't make any difference at all what length of note the basic pulse is determined by, be it quaver, crotchet or minim (sixteenth, eighth or quarter note), what matters is how they are grouped into bars.
Two, of anything, gives the basic pattern of STRONG, weak. So 2/4 gives the simple march time, but while music may be notated that way, it needs to be written and played in such a way that it is felt that the bar does divide into 2 crotchet beats. The metre has determined that the crotchet is the basic pulse (and the tempo, where indicated, will be in relation to that beat length), but where the actual notes are all, say, quavers, and the music is being felt in 4, the arranger of the musical score has broken a basic rule, whether out of convenience or expediency, and the music is really in another metre altogether, because the underlying unit of pulse has changed, and the stress pattern implied by the chosen meter is not actually present.
There is no need, musically, to use common metre (4/4 or 4/8 at all, unless you intend to convey a different expectation about how the music will be played. If 2/4 and 4/4 are interchangeable, one of them serves no purpose, and needn't exist. I well remember my own music exams, where we sat, learning to notate music from hearing it played. It was the most stressful part of the exam, too. The teacher would tell us the key, and play the tonic chord to establish the pitch. Then he would beat time with the palm of his hand on the top of the piano to establish a basic pulse and rhythm pattern, for a few bars, and then he would play a simple piece of a few bars, repeating it several times with pauses in between, and we would notate it. Woe betide anyone who made the basic mistake of not even getting the note lengths right, and grouping them properly. If I remember correctly, the range was limited to simple metres of 2 3 or 4 beats, and 6/8, the simplest compound time (where two groups of three made one bar, rather two).
There seems to have been a convention, in early tango notation, to play with a pulse that is twice that indicated. The 2x4 pattern that was so common before the Golden Age (but which survived in milonga, later) was based on a quaver pulse (eight beats over two bars).
'ONE two | three FOUR | FIVE six | SEVEN eight' fits into four bars having a STRONG, weak rhythm perfectly (allowing for the distinctive syncopation reversing the stress in the second bar). However, by convention, this was written in 2/4 with a quaver pulse, but my teacher would have corrected my work, and gently suggested writing either in 2/4 with a crotchet pulse, or possibly 2/8 with a quaver pulse.
Later tango, written in 4x8 has the pattern:
ONE two THREE four | FIVE six SEVEN eight, with regular stress on alternate beats, and common time (4/8 suits this perfectly. The quaver pulse is carried over from the earlier convention, but the groupings of beats now follows the metre being used to express them.
All this is pedantry, and I remain content to be in a minority of one. If I am wrong, no one has shown me where...
In the end, what matters is how the musicians play the music, and how it is heard. The notation is secondary, and it serves the music and is not its master. Nevertheless, in principle, different metres are not interchangeable: they imply particular basic patterns of stress. It doesn't make any difference at all what length of note the basic pulse is determined by, be it quaver, crotchet or minim (sixteenth, eighth or quarter note), what matters is how they are grouped into bars.
Two, of anything, gives the basic pattern of STRONG, weak. So 2/4 gives the simple march time, but while music may be notated that way, it needs to be written and played in such a way that it is felt that the bar does divide into 2 crotchet beats. The metre has determined that the crotchet is the basic pulse (and the tempo, where indicated, will be in relation to that beat length), but where the actual notes are all, say, quavers, and the music is being felt in 4, the arranger of the musical score has broken a basic rule, whether out of convenience or expediency, and the music is really in another metre altogether, because the underlying unit of pulse has changed, and the stress pattern implied by the chosen meter is not actually present.
There is no need, musically, to use common metre (4/4 or 4/8 at all, unless you intend to convey a different expectation about how the music will be played. If 2/4 and 4/4 are interchangeable, one of them serves no purpose, and needn't exist. I well remember my own music exams, where we sat, learning to notate music from hearing it played. It was the most stressful part of the exam, too. The teacher would tell us the key, and play the tonic chord to establish the pitch. Then he would beat time with the palm of his hand on the top of the piano to establish a basic pulse and rhythm pattern, for a few bars, and then he would play a simple piece of a few bars, repeating it several times with pauses in between, and we would notate it. Woe betide anyone who made the basic mistake of not even getting the note lengths right, and grouping them properly. If I remember correctly, the range was limited to simple metres of 2 3 or 4 beats, and 6/8, the simplest compound time (where two groups of three made one bar, rather two).
There seems to have been a convention, in early tango notation, to play with a pulse that is twice that indicated. The 2x4 pattern that was so common before the Golden Age (but which survived in milonga, later) was based on a quaver pulse (eight beats over two bars).
'ONE two | three FOUR | FIVE six | SEVEN eight' fits into four bars having a STRONG, weak rhythm perfectly (allowing for the distinctive syncopation reversing the stress in the second bar). However, by convention, this was written in 2/4 with a quaver pulse, but my teacher would have corrected my work, and gently suggested writing either in 2/4 with a crotchet pulse, or possibly 2/8 with a quaver pulse.
Later tango, written in 4x8 has the pattern:
ONE two THREE four | FIVE six SEVEN eight, with regular stress on alternate beats, and common time (4/8 suits this perfectly. The quaver pulse is carried over from the earlier convention, but the groupings of beats now follows the metre being used to express them.
All this is pedantry, and I remain content to be in a minority of one. If I am wrong, no one has shown me where...
opendoor
Forum Master
you know I do not agree with that, at all. Signatures are kind of crutches, aids that help you to arrange the chaos on the paper, but no essential substance by itself, as it seems you worship. You know I am learning bandoneón and I am fighting with that stuff even right now, and I really hate it.
All this technical discussion is leaving my eyes crossed, and I understand music, to a degree. I can't figure out how a note would SOUND different if it was an eighth note or a quarter note. Depending on the tempo, a four-note run written in quarter notes could sound exactly the like the same pitches written in eighth notes. 4/4 and 4/8 both have 4 beats in a measure, and as a listener, it makes no difference whether they are quarter or eighth notes. They just have a different shape on the page.
Whether the music is in 2 or in 4 does make a difference, because the stressed beats would sound different. I can visualize the conductor directing it in two or four, which would be different. I can hear the two stressed beats being equal or slightly different.
Of course, the musicians don't have to actually play the music as it's written. That's a different thing. They could even play it in a different key, if they decided to.
If music is written in 2 (and played that way), a dancer can hear it. If it's written in four, it sounds different, because the stressed beats are different.
Whether the music is in 2 or in 4 does make a difference, because the stressed beats would sound different. I can visualize the conductor directing it in two or four, which would be different. I can hear the two stressed beats being equal or slightly different.
Of course, the musicians don't have to actually play the music as it's written. That's a different thing. They could even play it in a different key, if they decided to.
If music is written in 2 (and played that way), a dancer can hear it. If it's written in four, it sounds different, because the stressed beats are different.
tangomonkey
Active Member
Um, yes..that was my point and I said so so several times.
and so on.....
I explained that metre is a theoretical construct and how the music is written and played determines the beat and stresses we hear. I was specific to tango music, since this is an AT forum. I care only about the source material, the printed music (such as it is) and the recordings. I couldn't care less about theoretical discussions of what should or shouldn't be strong and weak beats according to absolute, textbook, definitions of metre.
I'll give it one final attempt.
4/8 = 4 x 1 = 4. The count is 4, the beat is an eighth note
2/4 = 2 x 1 = 2. The count is 2, the beat is a quarter note. Now subdivided each quarter note beat into two eighth notes and emphasize every other eighth note when playing them. The count is now 4 x 1 = 4
That's dos por cuatro in 2/4 and 4/8 - with every other count being stressed by the musicians (not always, but in general).
It must be lonely, being a minority of one. Unless you can disprove basic arithmetic you should quit being so obstinate, join the rest of us. (meant totally in jest
)Quite.
That's not Dos por Cuartro (Canyengue) rhythm, I'm afraid. To quote Christine Denniston from 'The Meaning Of Tango', that's the "square rhythm of mature tango". Dos por quatro stresses 1, 4, 5 & often 7, and with the latter, is just 4 lots of beats in 2s (2x4) with the natural stress of the second pair reversed.
Now it's my turn to say 'I'm done', and I am.
tangomonkey
Active Member
All true. And with 2/4 tangos, your last paragraph is key. The music is in 2/4 but not played in 2, there is a "four" count feel. 4/8 is used because music looks identical in 2/4 and 4/8 - nothing needs to be changed except the time signature. That would not be the case in 4/4. And tangos continued to be written in 2/4 throughout the 60's (maybe longer, haven't checked...). It is not like 2/4 stopped being used.
tangomonkey
Active Member
Please explain how stressing an irregular pattern is dos por cuatro. Dos por cuatro is "2 in (by) 4". It is, in fact, stressing every other beat in a four count, despite what Denniston may claim. (As an aside, she get lots of things wrong. Her book is full of cliches and misinformation. If you want accurate tango history read Thompson).
Or McClarry's (sp?) Tango and Chaos site
http://www.tangoandchaos.org/chapt_6school/12walking3.htm
tangomonkey
Active Member
What UKDancer and I have been talking about is not music theory. It is called "rudiments". Time signatures, note values, the beat, sub-division of the beat - all these are so basic (rudimentary!) there should NO debate about them. They are what they are - there is no subjectivity or room for differences of opinion.
In a forum where almost everything we discuss is subjective, this might come as a shock. It is true nonetheles...
In a forum where almost everything we discuss is subjective, this might come as a shock. It is true nonetheles...
bordertangoman
Well-Known Member
" 2x4 is a lump of wood..seriously though....
bordertangoman
Well-Known Member
" 2x4 music is two beats per measure with a quarter note
getting one beat, but in 2x4 time the first beat of each measure is
typically accented (emphasized). The result is as follows: ONE, two, ONE,
two, ONE, two, ONE, two.
Music that is written in 4x4 calls is four beats per measure with a quarter
note getting one beat. The first beat is typically accented strongly and
the third lightly. The result is ONE, two, Three, four, ONE, two, Three,
four.
To make music written in 2x4 sound like 4x4, all one has to do is diminish
the accent on every other accented beat as follows: ONE, two, One, two,
ONE, two, One, two.
To make music written in 4x4 music sound like 2x4, all one has to do is
increase the accent on the third beat equal to that on the first beat as
follows: One, two, THREE, four, ONE, two, THREE, four.
There are really only minor technical differences between music written in
4x8 and that written 4x4. The accenting of the beats which is what is most
relevant to dancing would be the same.
getting one beat, but in 2x4 time the first beat of each measure is
typically accented (emphasized). The result is as follows: ONE, two, ONE,
two, ONE, two, ONE, two.
Music that is written in 4x4 calls is four beats per measure with a quarter
note getting one beat. The first beat is typically accented strongly and
the third lightly. The result is ONE, two, Three, four, ONE, two, Three,
four.
To make music written in 2x4 sound like 4x4, all one has to do is diminish
the accent on every other accented beat as follows: ONE, two, One, two,
ONE, two, One, two.
To make music written in 4x4 music sound like 2x4, all one has to do is
increase the accent on the third beat equal to that on the first beat as
follows: One, two, THREE, four, ONE, two, THREE, four.
There are really only minor technical differences between music written in
4x8 and that written 4x4. The accenting of the beats which is what is most
relevant to dancing would be the same.
tangomonkey
Active Member
BTM, why are you making me read more metre stuff?
It's funny. As a performing musician I do not think "OK we are in 4/4 (or 4/8, take your pick), I just played beat one, and it was strong, now I better play beat 2 softer, and, OK, now it's time for beat 3 - I better play that louder than I just did for beat 2, but not too loud - don't want to confuse the listeners into thinking it's beat one again. OK, beat four. Well that has to be soft, like beat two. Ah, here we go, beat one, better pound it as loud as I can so everyone knows it's beat one again"....
This is just a general thing that came to mind, not directed at you, BTM, or anyone else. Just wanted to make a point about how strict adherence to thinking in terms of metre has minimal practical value...
tangomonkey
Active Member
I've spent the past few days listening almost exclusively to Rodriguez. I am now a big fan too.
bordertangoman
Well-Known Member
BTM, why are you making me read more metre stuff?
It's funny. As a performing musician I do not think "OK we are in 4/4 (or 4/8, take your pick), I just played beat one, and it was strong, now I better play beat 2 softer, and, OK, now it's time for beat 3 - I better play that louder than I just did for beat 2, but not too loud - don't want to confuse the listeners into thinking it's beat one again. OK, beat four. Well that has to be soft, like beat two. Ah, here we go, beat one, better pound it as loud as I can so everyone knows it's beat one again"....
This is just a general thing that came to mind, not directed at you, BTM, or anyone else. Just wanted to make a point about how strict adherence to thinking in terms of metre has minimal practical value...
not aimed at you, just bored with this circular debate, and was looking for an authoratative conclusion....
any chance of doing a rough analysis of A Evaristo Carriego by Pugliese?; I'm rehearsing a demo with a friend and I'd be interested on your take on the music (I visualise it as a series of waves building up and subsiding)
tangomonkey
Active Member
A rough analysis can't do justice to A Evaristo Carriego. It's a concert tango, full of shifting moods (with a mournful character overall) and tempo changes. And a strong driving rhythm underneath that beautiful melody, played by solo cello then violin.
I think a "series of waves building up and subsiding" captures the essence quite well.
Will listen a few times and make some notes...