This is my first posting so hello everyone! I have a question which is probably really simple - Just me not getting it!
I am self teaching by the way. I played 'cello years ago and got to grade 4 but never bothered with theory and am now wanting to establish this before re - taking up.

In the AB guide (pink one) it writes a passage in 2/4 time using triplets and then the same again in 6/8 without. I get this part. But then it says that 6/8 means two beats (dotted crotchets) divided into threes? I thought 6/8 meant 6 quaver beats in a bar - where have the dotted crotchets come from?? And how come it's 2 beats not 6??

Thanks in advance

6/8 is counted as 1 2 3,2 2 3. So there are technically 6 beats in the bar, but the emphasis on the 1st and 4th beats gives it a feel of two in a bar.

Thanks. But why does it say " the beats are now dotted crotchets" when the 8 means quavers?

My understanding of it is that dotted crotchets don't fit into the 'quarter-note', 'eighth-note' etc thing (they would be '3-eighths-notes' ), so they go to the next smallest division, which is quavers.

Listening to and playing something in 6/8 time might help you to feel how it's really 2 beats which subdivide into 3 quavers rather than a count of 6 quavers.

6/8 is 2 beats, each consisting of a dotted crotchet (dotted crotchet = 3 quavers).
2/4 is 2 beats, each consisting of a crotchet.

This question has come up several times. Does this mean that the theory books explain it so badly that intelligent people have to ask for clarification elsewhere?

I would say it's more likely that people are trying to understand it without having heard or played it.
Or if they have heard or played it it's not been explained or understood at that point.

In the 'sound before symbol' stakes I think that this is one of those areas where it's a decided advantage to do it that way.

An important concept to understand is the difference between simple time and compound time.

For example, 2/4 is called simple duple time.
The top figure states how many beats in a bar.
The bottom figure states what kind of value makes up a beat - 4 represents a crotchet beat.
Examples: two crotchets in a bar of 2/4 equal two crotchet beats and four quavers in a bar, possibly grouped in twos, is also two crotchet beats in a bar because two quavers add up to a crotchet. Similarly, two groups of four semiquavers beamed together is two crotchet beats in a bar with a 2/4 time signature.

6/8 time is called compound duple time.
This time the top and bottom figures do not represent how many or what kind of beat is being used.
I tell my pupils that while there are 6 quaver sounds in a bar there is a little more work to do to organise the quavers into a two dotted crotchet beats in a bar pattern.

The beat is 'compounded' of a crotchet and a quaver. Every beat is made of a crotchet and a quaver. You can use those note values or anything that adds up to a 'crotchet and a quaver' package (if you like).
Three quavers grouped together equals a crotchet followed by a quaver. You will need two groups for 6/8, three groups for 9/8, four groups for 12/8.

To get a musical feel for compound time nursery rhymes are brilliant.

HTH

(unsurprisingly!)

Ah yes, sound before symbol! Does anyone still sing nursey rhymes to children? Or are they deemed too old-fashioned?

One of the troubles with a compound time 'groove' is that it's not danced/sung by many people these days, as most pop music is in 4/4. (Tears for Fears 'Everbody Wants To Rule The World is one of the few in compound time from the past 20 years that I can remember, from my limited exposure, m'lud.)

It's no wonder that people find the feeling of 6/8 relatively foreign. Once we were a land of jigs (I'm sure that's a Shakespeare quotation) and jig-like nursery rhymes; no longer, I fear.

Sorry, have just returned from watching Richard the Third, so I hope you'll excuse the tone of this posting. And the limp.

Thak you this helps a lot.
And thank you to everyone who took time to read and answer.
In general I would like to point out that I have both played and heard; I find that a natural musical ability practically does not mean that theory comes easily. It may take me a little longer to grasp even basic concepts especially when self teaching!
Thank-you once again

It seems to me that the fault, if any, lies not in the theory books, but in our notational system. From the middle of the fifteenth to the late sixteenth century, European vocal music was written in what is known as "white mensural notation", in which dots meant something different. Division of notes into three of the next size down was possibly more common than division into two. The distinction was made by the time signature, and in many circumstances the dot was not necessary. The system was complex, but when it was simplified into present day time notation, some distinctions were lost. This only began to matter when composers started to make the time taken by crotchets and quavers so long that one could think of them as a beat (but note that full time conductors were rare until the 19th C.) We now have the situation in which 3/8 and 3/4 can both mean either one or three beats to the bar, 6/8 six or two, 9/8 nine or three and 12/8 twelve or four.

There is another notation for time signatures, proposed and used by Carl Orff, in which the top number is retained, but the lower one is replaced by a note of the required length, so that the distinction can be made. For instance, a six over a quaver symbol and a two over a dotted crotchet are both represented in conventional notation by 6/8, but Orff notation shows that the first has six beats to the bar, the second two.

This is how Orff notates Carmina Burana - it's not easy to read quicky (probably only because it looks odd compared with what one's used to) - it's one of those things that seem to be a good idea, but doesn't quite work in practice. I found myself writing in the numerical equivalent for it to make sense. I guess that if it were used commonly it would be fine, but it never took off.

It's something I try to stress with pupils - that much of the 'code' of music theory has developed that way because the visual prompt of the 'shape' of that 'code' gives an immediate 'feel', once mastered, for whatever music you're playing. So, for instance, key signatures have to be the correct 'shape' (like F sharp being on the top line in treble clef in a sharp key signature) so that the eye immediately recognises the shape of the key signature (rather than having to count the sharps) as being that of a particular key. And, although they are expressed in numerals, I'd argue that time signatures are the same: a visual shape which should immediately recall in the player the feeling of a prticualr 'groove'. The important thing is common usage amongst musicians so that regularity of usage leads to this immediate link between visual shape and its musical meaning. Theory really is all about agreeing this common usage.

Yes - that makes sense. However, there will always be exceptions to a rule and exceptions will be found in very early music, still under development, and by very modern composers looking for something new to say. Beginner theory students need to learn the basic rudiments and 'common usage' first, before they learn to understand and/or use any exceptions.

There is another notation for time signatures, proposed and used by Carl Orff, in which the top number is retained, but the lower one is replaced by a note of the required length, so that the distinction can be made. For instance, a six over a quaver symbol and a two over a dotted crotchet are both represented in conventional notation by 6/8, but Orff notation shows that the first has six beats to the bar, the second two.
[/quote]

Orff is my kind of guy. That is what I meant in my earlier post with "how do I know which one it is"
Can you give me any other info on Carl Orff - His theory interests me

German composer, 10 July 1895 - 29 March 1982. He wrote simple tuneful music at a time when most composers preferred great complexity. Consequently he became popular with the Nazis, and was Adolf Hitler's favourite composer. Neither the post-war accusation that he had belonged to the Nazi party nor his own claim that he had been part of the resistance to it was ever proved. Carmina Burana remains in the standard repertoire, but scarcely any other music that he wrote. His contribution to music education is still valued and teaching based on it is provided by the Carl Orff Society, which has a UK branch with its web site at http://www.orff.org.uk/

I don't hear good things about the pink AB book, but my teacher (and others too) recommends the red and black 'First Steps' book instead and I do find that quite good. Of course, I'm lucky that I can ask her any questions and I also use the 'Theory in Practice' books to get the principles more into my head.

Just the other day, my violin teacher explained how notes in 6/8 are grouped because I was getting the timing in a piece all wrong.

I find the pink AB book utterly incomprehensible
I am 39 years old and I have University degrees (non-music!) etc.. so I don't consider my self dim witted..

I have made considerable use of www.dolmetsch.com. That site has a huge amount of information regarding music theory, but of course doesn't distinguish what is or is not required for various abrsm syllabi. It is nonetheless a fascinating read, and I have found a useful reference resource.

I would be very happy to receive any other suggestions for music theory text books. (preferably written for adults!)

I kind of successfully explained why 6/8 is (compound) duple time to my mother, who understands simple time e.g. 4/4, 2/4, 3/4, and also triplets in simple time. She needed to understand compound time so that she doesn't count in sixes (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) during singing, which confuses her because she cannot remember which beat she is currently at. Moreover, she could not tell where the accents were if she counted in sixes.

But I wonder whether my method is correct.


She could not understand why a dotted crotchet could be considered as one beat in 6/8. "Obviously, it is one-and-a-half beat," she argued. But she accepted 3 quavers together as one beat, because she was used to triplets.

I started off with a 2/4 time signature, drawing 2 sets of triplets in a bar. She understood that perfectly as 2 beats.

Under that, I drew another bar with a crotchet, a quaver, and one set of triplets. I grouped the crotchet and quaver as one triplet (with the "3" sign). She questioned the validity of that.

Mum: The triplet should always have 3 quavers!
Me: Right. But do you agree that 2 quavers equals one crotchet in time?
Mum: Yes.
Me: So 3 quavers will have the same time value as 1 crotchet and 1 quaver, right?
Mum: Oh, ok...

Under that I drew another bar of a dotted crotchet with the triplet sign on top, together with the normal triplet of quavers.

Me: So 3 quavers will also have the same time value as 1 dotted crotchet, right?
Mum: OK, acceptable. Go on.


Then I drew a few more bars of mixed crotchets, quavers and dotted crotchets, all grouped as triplets with the "3" sign. She acknowledged that.

Here comes my untested idea, which I am not sure if conceptually correct.

Me: So you see, the whole piece of music is full of triplet signs on top of the notes. Really confusing, right?
Mum: Yes, untidy.
Me: What do you think if I remove all the "3" signs, and change the time signature to 6/8 time?
Mum: OK, then?
Me: Now, isn't dotted crotchet a beat on its own?
Mum: Oh ok...

So that was how I convinced my mum about dotted crotchet being one beat. It was tough for me, because she has no classical background, and only sings from solfege (sol-fa), which always draws crotchets as one beat.

Is there anything blatantly wrong with my unorthodox method of teaching the compound time? I got the idea from the Grade 4/5 exercises of translating simple time to compound time and vice versa... If it is really wrong, I would be grateful if anyone points it out to me.

I can't see anything wrong at all with your explaination of 6/8, as long as we remember that compound time isn't just 6/8! But The whole thing that confused me was why we used 6/8 as the time signatures for 'two dotted crotchet beats per bar'. Once I understood that:
1. Because there isn't a 'number' to represent 1 and a half crotchet beats, we have to write it as an alternative value (although daft imo!) and
2.That in compound time, the top number doesn't represent the beats per bar, nor the bottom represent the 'kind' of beat
I was there.
It took a lot for me after years of thinking 6/8 (which I always use as my example) meant 6 quaver beats per bar

Yes. It is awful. In trying to be gentle paced and repetitive it generates confusion and fails to answer the obvious questions that any intelligent learner will want to ask.

The best I have seen is Introducing Music by Otto Karolyi. It is concise, clear, accurate and readable. But I read it when I already knew most of the content, and found it to be a superb summing up. I think it might be just the thing for the intelligent beginner. That is to say, someone that does not need to be spoon-fed. But it could turn out to be too terse and too fast paced.

My copy is a Pelican paperback - but for some reason it is on rather better quality paper and better bound than the typical penguin book. At least the pages have not gone yellow, nor the spine cracked, as has happened with most of my other old paperbacks. I don't know if it is currently in print, but it should be easy to find second-hand.

I have just ordered a copy of 'First steps', also written by Eric Taylor, from music-makers as they have free P+P
Skylark is often on here and has a list as long as your arm of recommende theory books.
I think the AB pink and blue books are best used as reference bibles for theory old hats or for intermediate - some cases begginer - students with prior knowledge and a teacher to talk them through the chapters and divisions.The lay out isn't grade order so it can be baffling as you get some grade five info. before grade two, as I have found out!!

Works for me and I'm sure it will be a useful one to fall back on sometime, thank you.
Nothing wrong with unorthodox explanations if they do the job and are fundamentally correct.
I 'make things up' all the time.

I've just realised that I've got this book - it was hidden in a dark corner of my music room. It's over 30 years old and still in good condition - although I haven't used it much. Perhaps I ought to look through it again and see if I can use it. Mine's a Pelican copy too - it says on the back that it was a set book for the Open University Arts Foundation Course. It's got useful Further Reading references at the end of each chapter too.

Available from Amazon UK; new and used

Also available from the local library

I will check it out. Thanks.

[quote name='musicalmel' date='Aug 13 2008, 02:18 AM' post='732547']
[/quote]Also available from the local library : [/quote]

Mine doesn't have a copy, will depend where you live. Anyway I probably want it for the long haul - and to add to my own library!!