I do sing nursery rhymes to my two year old ha ha! Maybe I am old-fashioned!!

I listened to some pop music last night and I think SHIVER by Coldplay is in 6/8??
I don't feel I have a problem with [/i]hearing the difference - only the actual concept of dotted crotchets instead of quavers being used confused me.

On a theory paper if the question asked was simply "Explain what the time signature 6/8 means", I would have written " 6 quaver beats (or their equivelant) in a bar". So here we are talking about an equivelant which adds up to the same value: How do I know when to use what? Is it because of the simple time equivelant value 2/4? Because to me, 6 quaver beats is the same value as 3 crotchet beats - not 2 crotchet beats??
yet I can hear the count of 2( 1 2 3 4 5 6) which I would also fit 2/4 only with a slight variation of rhythm.
So, simple douple time has the compound time equivelant of 6/8 (compound douple) both implying two beats in a bar.
Maybe I need to work on my note groupings more to get my head around things but I still don't get why they say two dotted crotchets. Is it simply because we are talking about two beats ,and quavers into 6 would site 3 beats?
Really sorry if I'm not being very concise.

Can you have 3/8 as a time signature and if so would that site 1 beat per bar??

Hi jay77, seeing as there's no-one else around at the moment, I'll try and help but I'm only a student myself so I may not be the best person - hopefully somebody else will correct me if I'm wrong though.



You *can* get 3/8 time, ie 3 quavers in a bar, but 3/8 is simple time, like 3/4, so it would be felt as 3 beats.

The x/8 compound time signatures (at least the most common ones that I know of) are 6/8, 9/8 and 12/8.



In compound time (6/8), there are 6 quavers in a bar, but they are felt as 2 beats, each beat containing the equivalent of 3 quavers.

It's neither 3 crotchet beats nor 2 crotchet beats. It's 2 *dotted* crotchet beats. I'm sure you know that the dot after the crotchet means that the note is lengthened by half its value, so the value of a dotted crotchet is One Crotchet + One Quaver. In 6/8 time, the bar can appear either as two groups of 3 quavers, or as two groups of a crotchet and a quaver, or as two groups of a dotted crotchet. Or any combination of these groups, provided that the bar always contains 2 beats, each consisting of the value of 3 quavers.




1 2 3 4 5 6 - this is correct for 6/8 time.

But 2/4 would be 1 2 (which if you split into quavers would be 1 + 2 + (the + sign being a quaver) - so there are only 4 quavers in 2/4 time.

So you're right that they both have 2 beats in the bar, but 6/8 compound time is split into 2 beats (each containing the value of 3 quavers) and 2/4 simple time is split into 2 beats (each containing the value of 2 quavers).

There *is* an occasion when 2/4 time can appear as two groups of 3 quavers each, but only when it is a triplet (sorry if this confuses things ). So in 2/4 time you could have two groups, each consisting of 3 quavers, but you would have a triplet sign over each group, indicating that the 3 quavers had a time value of 2 quavers.



6 quavers in a bar split into 3 beats would be simple time, ie 3/4 (1 + 2 + 3 +)

6 quavers in bar split into 2 beats would be compound time, ie 6/8 (1 + + 2 + +)




I've been through a few of these blind spots myself jay77 so don't worry about it. One day the penny suddenly drops and you wonder what the problem was In the meantime, keep asking if you don't understand, there are a quite number of people here who enjoy chatting about theory!

Incidentally I think you're using the pink book aren't you?? I know there are some people who like it but I found it really confusing and couldn't use it. If you're not finding it easy, have a look at the First Steps in Music Theory book, also published by the ABRSM. It takes each grade at a time in manageable chunks and I found it much easier to learn from. Or there are various other books you could look at to see if any of them explain things in a way that you can relate to better.


Welcome to the forums by the way!

I actually explain compound time to some of my adults via nursery rhymes - they will remember them from childhood and some rhymes just fit perfectly - like 'Humpty Dumpty' for example - with a variety of note combinations to make up 6/8. One very well-known piano tutor, not primarily aimed at children, uses nursery rhymes to explain the concept. If a pupil gets to understand something it doesn't matter how (within reason) in my view - so no you are not being old fashioned.

Yes - note groupings are extremely important. You won't be able to understand how to notate compound time otherwise. I won't be popular on this - but work on your visual understanding of note groupings in simple and compound time and theory should get easier. Of course, the aural concept is important but theory also needs visual skills.

A time signature with a 2, 3 or 4 as the top figure is simple time so the bottom figure will tell you the value of the beat

A time signature with a 6,9 or 12 on the top is compound time so the bottom figure will not tell you the value of the beat but will inform you which note values to group into threes.

6/8 - quavers - 3 into 6 goes twice - two groups of three (or note combinations to add up correctly)

9/8 - quavers - 3 into 9 goes three times - three groups

12/8 - quavers - 3 into 12 goes four times - four groups.

You have an extra quaver - so it has to be a dotted beat.

It also works with other note values.

6/4 - the bottom figure represents crotchet sounds. 6 crotchets group into two dotted minim beats.
6/16 - semiquaver sounds. 6 semiquavers group into two dotted quaver beats.

Skylark is right - it will click with practice and perhaps some new supporting theory books.

Good luck

Have just checked this out on Youtube, and I think you're spot on!! (It could just possibly be 12/8, but arguing about that would be a bit like arguing the difference between the words 'specialty' and 'speciality'.)

Interestingly Coldplay's drummer, Will Champion, had an early interest in Irish folk music - I wonder if that's been an influence?

Thank you so much I can't can't believe how helpful you all are on here it doesn't feel so bad knowing there are people only too willing to help. I am slowly digesting all your info and (unfortunately for all of you) shall probably be back with more questions as I battle my way through! Shall spend this afternoon reading the notes and practicing!!



Ah- ha! That explains why i am getting mysefl confused with the Quaver/dotted crotchet part: I was reading 6/8 as 8 meaning quavers (as value of 1 beat)
A light has just gone on he he.
Thank-you



Really? I don't know much about them other than their albumn is the only CD the car will play so I found myself getting quite used to and enjoying thier music (it is my husband's CD I'm more into swing and big band!)
I am pleased I was there or there abouts though it proves I am not too dim. I wonder if you can download sheet music to have a look at songs? Maybe some I'm very familiar with in different timings would help too.

Incidently, when you were learning did the earlier grades of theory make sense straight away or did some things seem to be in Greek?!
Thanks for your help

You're welcome, but as you were posting I was editing my original post to make it a bit more obvious how the beats relate to the time signature - so do read my original post and not the post which you've quoted.

Congratulations on identifying Shiver by the way!





I think I'll start a new thread! Hmmm... jazz forum I think!

[quote name='jay77' date='Aug 9 2008, 11:08 AM' post='731107']
Ah- ha! That explains why i am getting mysefl confused with the Quaver/dotted crotchet part: I was reading 6/8 as 8 meaning quavers (as value of 1 beat)
A light has just gone on he he.
Thank-you
[quote]


Oh good - glad to help where possible

Sorry - I lost the quote marks somewhere in cyberspace!!

Almost. Here it is 12/8. A good song though.

Ahh. Is being able to count the difference just prsctice or am I missing something?

If a theory exam question asked; "What does the time signature 6/8 mean?"

What would be the correct answer?

Still six quaver beats or their equivelant in each bar? Or

Two dotted crotchet beats or their equivelant in each bar?

I now the values both add up to the same but technically would one answer be incorrect or both be accepted?

The answer in an exam to 'what does 6/8 mean' is always two dotted crotchet beats in a bar. This is really important. You don't have to write 'or their equivalent' in an answer. Whatever the note values are, as long as they make a grouping pattern of a crotchet and a quaver in value, it is two dotted crotchet beats in a bar.

If you describe 2/4 for example, you have to say 'two crotchet beats in a bar'. If you just answer 'two crotchets in a bar' it wouldn't make sense. You can use any note values as long as they group correctly into the value of a beat.

I would avoid saying 6/8 is 6 quaver beats in a bar as that would be wrong for theory exam purposes. In practice there might well be exceptions but you don't need them at this stage. The concept of correct grouping of notes is fundamental to all of this and needs to be well understood.

Thank you. I really do think I need a new book as this pink one doesnt mention any of that. It just says the top number means the number of beats per bar and the bottom what kind of beat. When it gets into compound time it doesn't alter from that and I have in my head 6 quaver beats so I cant understand why it calls it 2 dotted crotchet beats.
Why is 3/8 simple time and not compound? I thought quavers always divides into threes unless 3/4 where you could have 2 groups of 2 quavers which is obviously simple time because the beats divide into twos. I think I am understanding now the difference between the beats in a bar and the number the beats are divided into.
I think I am counting the notes(6 quavers) in my head as 6 beats although the score may not actually be written like that. Am I right? Please say yes!!

Whether it's 3/4, 3/8 or 3/2, the beat divides into 2 equal notes, so that makes it simple time. In other words:
- 3/4: each of the three crotchets divides into 2 quavers
- 3/8: each of the three quavers divides into 2 semiquavers
- 3/2: each of the three minims divides into 2 crotchets

If the beat divides into 3 equal notes, that makes it compound time and it's known as a dotted rhythm.
- 6/8: the 6 divides into two groups, each of 3 equal notes
- 9/8: the 9 divides into three groups, each of 3 equal notes
- 12/8: the 12 divides into 4 groups, each of 3 equal notes


I'm getting the impression you quite like theory, in spite of this little hiccup If you do, you might like Dorothy Dingle's theory book - Pass Grade 5 Theory. It's 200 pages of full but concise explanations, in other words she doesn't skim over things like some of the other books do, and the explanations are quite clear. There are also lots of luvverly exercises It's not cheap - it's around £15 but it's very enjoyable if you like theory

The First Steps book I mentioned earlier is also good as it's step-by-step per grade, so you don't find yourself reading about Grade 5 stuff in the same chapter as Grade 2/3 stuff, which I think makes the learning process much more manageable.

The standard definition of a time signature - that the upper number is the number of beats in the measure, and the lower is the duration of the beats is just wrong. It is adequate for simple time, but misleading for compound time.

It is better to approach the idea of the time signature from the composer's point of view. Even then there are lots of inconsistencies and deficiencies in the system and you just have to learn the conventions and how composers have used the notation.

Anyway - on to a better understanding:

1. The first thing you decide is how many basic pulses you want in a measure. Typically that will be two (duple time), three (triple time), or four (quadruple time).

2. Next you decide whether you are going to subdivide the basic beats in 2's or in 3's

If in 2's then you have the three different flavours of simple time: 2/4, 3/4, 4/4 (2/2, 3/2, 4/2; 2/8, 3/8, 4/8). Whether the unit is the quaver, crotchet, minim (or other unit) is determined by many factors - the speed, the neatness of the notation, how quickly the harmonies change, the composers style, how easy it is for the performer to read and so on.

Suppose instead you wanted to subdivide the main beats into 3 parts. Now you have compound time. Suppose you want two main pulses (duple time) each divisible into three. You could write a 2/4 time signature and divide the crochets into triplet quavers. Some composers do that, but more often they only use that method whan a piece that is in simple time strays into compound time. The standard convention cor compound-duple time is to assume 6 quavers (semiquavers, crotchets, minims, whatever) grouped in two sets of three and write 6/8 (or 2 x 3 crotchets 6/4; 2 x 3 semiquavers 6/16 ... etc.)

And that is the whole of it. It is not a great system, but it is OK once you get the hang of it. Carl Orff's idea - as described earlier by kenm is a big improvement - but it hasn't been taken up by many (any?) other composers.

In real music (as opposed to answering queations on theory papers) you would never rely on the time signature alone. That is very artifical. The grouping of notes in the composition itself usually clarifies the composer's intentions.

Potentially confusing stuff ahead. May be ignored!
The biggest deficiency of the present system is that it makes a big deal of the subdivisions 2 and 3, but ignores all the other possibilities for subdividing the beat. Something that coped with subdivisions of 5 and 7 would be useful but there is no term for them equivalent to simple and compound for 2 and 3. Perhaps 10/8 and 14/8 would be understood anyway. In any case composers have always been inventive in finding ways around the many deficiencies in musical notation in the attempt (not always successful) to make their intentions understood.


Whether the unit is quaver, crotchet, minim, or something else is of no relevance to whether it is simple time or compound time.

It is okay so long as you place emphasis on the first and fourth quavers, with the stronger emphasis on the first one, but I find it better to think and count two beats. That is better as in: more likely to create the rhythm the composer wanted

Thanks so much Skylark. I have just ordered 'First steps' from the music makers web site on your advice!
I do like theory I just really seem to be mis understanding the book. Maybe it isn't for a complete (more or less) novice as it doesn't explain things in the detail I feel is needed without prior knowledge; especially for self teaching. Unless it is just me that's dim!! I'll let you know when i receive the new book.
You say you are a student - what level of study? What is your first instraument if you don't mind me asking. You seem to be very clued up and good at explaining too. Do you have a theory teacher?

I have to say I have never used the Blue or Pink AB books for teaching theory and I wouldn't recommend them to a beginner. They sit on my shelf and I use them for the odd reference, as they are quite good for musical terms and signs.

Music Makers are very helpful, and quick, and free postage!

I know there are people who like the pink book, but in my opinion it's enough to put anybody off theory for life Whereas the First Steps book, which is just a little pocket book, went with me everywhere! It's still not perfect - none of the theory books are, they all have their strengths and weaknesses, but I do find it more user-friendly. Even now, when I do (I think!) understand all the topics that are in the pink book, I still find it impossible to read.

I did all the theory grades from 1 to 5 (just enjoyed doing them ) and got a Distinction each time. I'm now studying for Grade 6, and finding it just as incomprehensible as you're finding compound rhythm!

My first instrument is clarinet and I wasn't doing too badly up until Grade 4, when I plummeted from a high Merit at Grade 3 to at Grade 4 But I'm recovering and improving bit by bit. I took up piano about 3 weeks ago as well because I thought it would help with my theory - the higher theory grades are mostly about harmony and composition and I thought being able to play harmonies etc on the piano would be useful. I've since discovered that I love it!

I did Grade 1 Theory through my clarinet teacher. At one of the grades, I forget which, I started going to a group class, and also had some ad hoc individual lessons with that teacher. She went abroad so now I have another theory teacher who's very good, and I've had a mixture of group and individual lessons with him. Not sure what I'm going to do next term - maybe start off with the group lessons and see how it goes, or see whether he can fit me in for some individual lessons

Have you got some past papers to work on, or Music Theory in Practice which gives you exercises to do? Are you planning to take an interim exam or wait until Grade 5?

I like Tom's definitions of simple and compound time, but unfortunately not all reference books give the same, or even a consistent picture. I have just looked at the Grove Dictionary of Music, which baldly has in one place that if the upper number is divisible by three, that gives compound metre, and in another place that compound metre is when the main beat has three of some time value within it. I find the names confusing, but composers' practice is independent of the names. For instance, 3/8 is not always simple by the second of these definitions, though it sometimes is. The main part of "Sorcerer's Apprentice" and all of Chabrier's "Espana" are in 3/8, but are always conducted with one beat in each bar, which makes them compound in practice, as well as by the first definition. For an opposite example, the slow movement of Brahms' Symphony No 4 is in 6/8, but is so slow that it is always conducted with six beats in each bar.

It's instances like these where theory doesn't really seem to be able to give us a definitive answer, and we can tie ourselves in knots trying to decide what theoretical label to give to something. I'm not sure that labelling a so-fast-3-in-a-bar-that-it's-really-one-in-a-bar as compound time (if that's what we decide to do) tells us anything more about the music - I'm recalling one or two of the Beethoven Symphony scherzi are so fast that they're one in a bar, but go in four-bar phrases, so aurally they sound like compound quadruple. If I knew more about Wittgenstein, I might know if his ideas were relevant to this, but I have a suspicion they might be .... words, meanings, and how the debate about the meaning of the word doesn't change what the thing is. Or something like that. Help, someone!

Well.
I have been studying all night and listening to pieces off t'internet. I think I am making progress although some things still don't make sense to me. I think I have learnt the following (please correct me when needed as I am not confident that what I have learnt is correct!)

1. Simple Time is when each beat can be divided into 2 equal beats eg. 2/4 - each crotchet beat can be divided into 2 quavers still keeping 2 beats in a bar.(although when written that would show 4 notes)
2. In Simple Time the time signature means; top nunber tells how many beats in a bar and bottom figure means what kind of note represents 1 beat. So in 3/2 there are 3 minim beats in a bar. Or any other note values which together make up 3 minims in value.

1. Compound Time is when each beat is 'grouped' into 3 eg. 6/8 -the quavers are grouped into threes. So you would need 2 groups of three quavers to make 6 - giving the feel of two beats in a bar. We describe the time signature as "2dotted crotchet beats in a bar" and not "6 quaver beats" because 6/8 means two beats divided into threes. So we have to convert 6 quavers into two beats which is 2 dotted crotchet beats.

Although I still don't understand why it is written as 6/8 I am thinking because there isn't a number to represent a dotted crotchet so we have to write it as an equivelant value(6 quavers) although we don't strictly count it as such.
Strikes me as daft but then maybe I am wrong on most counts!???

Please could some one read through and correct my theories. Very much appreciated as I didn't get much sleep

As far as I can see from your post jay77 you are correct for the basic rudiments of theory regarding time signatures. You can subdivide beats into smaller note values of course and they can be various notes as long as the 'beat group' adds up correctly. Kenm and others have shown how if you put theory into context of composition and performance practice there will be exceptions to rules. However, study of performance practice is university level study so you're okay for the theory grades

Me too. That's because it was not designed wholly by theorists, but by practical musicians, with theorists trying to catch up later. The players and singers didn't care about logical consistency so long as it worked in practice. It doesn't matter what you call the elements of music as long as it sounds OK.

Your theory is fine as far as it goes, and is close to one of the ones in the Grove dictionary. What you both need is another term for time signatures like 5/8, 7/4 and 11/4 ("irregular" would be OK). 8/8, when it means 3/8 + 3/8 + 1/4 in any order, would also be irregular, since by this definition it is neither simple nor compound.

The Grove definition refers to "main beats", which still leaves some ambiguity about what you would call a slow 6/8 metre. If all six beats are main (and they all have considerably weight in Brahms 4) this is simple metre, if you regard 1 and 4 as main and 2, 3, 5, 6 as subsidiary beats, you must call it compound (but still conduct it in six). Only exam boards care about this sort of hair splitting.

Irregular time signatures are covered in Grade 5 theory and are relatively straightforward compared to compound time introduced in Grade 3. In my opinion basic groundwork, teaching one thing at a time, has to be in place for beginners in theory. I don't think it is anything to do with exam boards. Different definitions and interpretations of time signatures are interesting but I think too much for someone trying to grasp the basics. I could be wrong of course - it will depend on the learner's age and experience

Of course it is daft. It is daft as the street layout in a large modern town that grew from a small ancient village. You can understand how it got to be that way, and you can use it to get from place to place (there is no alternative). You would never have designed it that way, but no-one is about to tear it down and put something "better" in its place. And we all know that if anyone tried the replacement would just turn out to have different deficiencies of its own.

I would not get hung up on time signatures. They are just one small part of musical notation. In practice there is no problem. Composers have many more ways to indicate the pulse and rhythm (and to vary it within a piece). They are not completely dependent on the time signature to define the pulse and metre, any more than they are dependent on the key signature for the specific tones they can use.

All you need know are the agreed conventions on how time signatures are to be interpreted. Don't expect to find the internal consistency and logic of a branch of mathematics.

I'd agree to an extent, except there does seem to be a human compulsion to categorise and label things and ideas, so the examination boards' focus on these areas is really only a symptom of this.


Quite so. All categorisation systems give the impression of being scientific and clear-cut, but in practice it can get a bit fuzzy round the edges. So for instance, in the Dewey system for book classification, the same book can end up with completely different Dewey numbers depending on who's done the classification, and in organology (the classification of musical instruments onto 'families') certain instruments don't sit easily into any one category in the system of classification we have ended up with. In another thread I see there's been some debate about the labelling of auxilliary, changing and passing notes. I'm not sure that the debate is about the things themselves, just about the arbitrary language used to describe the things. Hence my fuzzy reference to Wittgenstein.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) exam boards don't deal in 'fuzzy' in any shape or form, certainly not at Grade 5 theory.

Yep that's the sign of the true theory enthusiast - it's very addictive!



Just to qualify what I've said about my theory lessons because I know you haven't got a teacher at the moment. The way I worked it was to do the study and the past papers, and then discuss any queries with my teacher in the lesson. I didn't use Music Theory in Practice for the first grade or two, but then I really got into theory and did all the exercises I could get my hands on, just for enjoyment and, er, for relaxation (You have to be a theory enthusiast to understand! )

If you haven't got a teacher, you might be able to manage by asking queries on here, and you can get model answers now for the past papers (up to Grade 5 I think ), although there are no model answers available to the MTIP exercises. In my experience, until you get into the "mindset" of the papers and know what little tricks to look out for, you can miss something even when you're confident that you've got it right. And the model answers don't give the thinking behind the answers. There's a series of books (one for each grade) called Theory Time by David Turnbull - I've only got G5 and that one *does* have answers in, so I presume the books for the other grades also have answers, but if no-one on here confirms that and you want to get the book, Music Makers will be happy to check for you I'm sure.

The composition element is something which is difficult to do on your own, although guides are available - give a shout when you get to that bit.

Don't worry about asking too many questions - many of the teachers are happy to help, and speaking as a student, there is nothing like trying to explain it to someone else either to find chinks in or to consolidate your own knowledge so I find it useful as well

Theory Time books do all have answers in.
They don't, as far as I recall, have any answers for the composition questions as there are too many 'right' answers of varying quality.

I've just come across this piece of music and it's a good example of 6/8 rhythm. It clearly shows how the notes are grouped into 2 beats, and it's got all the different combinations of notes - dotted crotchets, 3 quavers, crochet + quaver and tied notes across the beat. It's also got a music clip so you can hear the beats.

O My Beloved Father (O Mio Babbino Caro - Gianni Schicci, Puccini )

For really hearing the 2 beats in a bar in 6/8 I don't think you can beat a CD of brass (or military) band marches. There are lots of marches in 6/8 time.