any tricks to be counting odd time signatures?

All time signatures are created out of groups of 2s or 3s, quarter notes (groups of 2 8th notes) or dotted quarter notes (groups of 3 8th notes).

Any time signature with a 4 on the bottom - 3/4, 4/4, 5/4 etc. - is just that many groups of 2: 3/4 is three groups of 2, 4/4 is four groups of 2, 5/4 is five groups of 2, and so on.

Any non-prime time signature with an 8 on the bottom is made of groups of three: 6/8 is two groups of 3, 9/8 is three groups of 3, 12/8 is four groups of 3, and so on.

Any prime number with an 8 on the bottom is made using combinations: 5/8 is one 3 and one 2, 7/8 is one 3 and two 2s.

In your example, 17/8 is five 3s and a 2: || 12312312312312312 :||
 
Jonathan Curtis said:
All time signatures are created out of groups of 2s or 3s, quarter notes (groups of 2 8th notes) or dotted quarter notes (groups of 3 8th notes).

Any time signature with a 4 on the bottom - 3/4, 4/4, 5/4 etc. - is just that many groups of 2: 3/4 is three groups of 2, 4/4 is four groups of 2, 5/4 is five groups of 2, and so on.

Any non-prime time signature with an 8 on the bottom is made of groups of three: 6/8 is two groups of 3, 9/8 is three groups of 3, 12/8 is four groups of 3, and so on.

Any prime number with an 8 on the bottom is made using combinations: 5/8 is one 3 and one 2, 7/8 is one 3 and two 2s.

In your example, 17/8 is five 3s and a 2: || 12312312312312312 :||
Click to expand...

wouldn't it be easier to count 17/8 as four 4 and a 1 ?
 
Jonathan Curtis said:
Any non-prime time signature with an 8 on the bottom is made of groups of three: 6/8 is two groups of 3, 9/8 is three groups of 3, 12/8 is four groups of 3, and so on.
Click to expand...
When talking about "compound" meters (meters where each beat is divided by 3), it's probably best to avoid using "non-prime" as the determining factor...simply because it isn't consistently correct. Just off the top of my head, 4 is a "non-prime" number, and yet 4/8 certainly isn't compound time. A better way to identify compound time would be that the top number is divisible by 3 but isn't actually 3 itself.
 
MattRitter said:
When talking about "compound" meters (meters where each beat is divided by 3), it's probably best to avoid using "non-prime" as the determining factor...simply because it isn't consistently correct. Just off the top of my head, 4 is a "non-prime" number, and yet 4/8 certainly isn't compound time. A better way to identify compound time would be that the top number is divisible by 3 but isn't actually 3 itself.
Click to expand...

I take your point. However, I explicitly avoid the use of "compound" because it is a confusing and, in my opinion, redundant term. I use the term "non-prime" because it is an easy way to conceptualise time signature that must include both 2s and 3s. In your example, 4/8 is such an odd time signature that I would always argue it is, itself, redunant, or at least reducible to 2/4. There is no compelling musical reason to write in 4/8 as opposed to 2/4, though this is part of a larger discussion that is probably not worth it here.

I do take your point though, and your final sentence is a good way to express this. I still push back against the term "compound", in any case.
 
georgeusa said:
wouldn't it be easier to count 17/8 as four 4 and a 1 ?
Click to expand...

That would equate to 5, and so I'm not sure how that would be an easier way to get to 17. Besides, 4 would be reduced to two groups of 2, as analysis is concerned with fundamental principles.

17/8 has an 8 on the bottom, which means it is fundamentally concerned with groups of 8 notes. The sole reason of writing in 17/8 is because the melodic idea is precisely 17 notes long. To retain any degree of musical coherence, a rhythmic phrase 17 notes long requires a specific group of accents, otherwise it would be far simpler to write in a shorter time signature. My presention of 3-3-3-3-3-2 is, therefore, the only real reason one would have to write in 17/8 in the first place.
 
George,

I think you might be best served by signing up for drum lessons with a reputable teacher and systematically going through the process of learning the instrument.

At the moment, you seem to be continually asking random questions as they occur to you...but in many cases, the questions themselves are not really the types of questions that will move you forward. They're often indicative of underlying misconceptions that you have already adopted. In some cases (such as with the question about "swinging a triplet"), the questions you ask are similar to Zen Koans. In other words, they're kinda like brain teasers that don't have a logical answer.

It's interesting to watch the forum members, especially some of the other teachers like Jonathan and Todd, attempt to answer your questions in the most rational way possible...but I'm not convinced that any of it will get you closer to understanding music theory or playing the drums well.

Just like any of us here on the forum, you're free to ask whatever you like. At the same time, though, I would urge you to simplify things for yourself by considering lessons and a methodical learning process...perhaps with Jonathan or Todd.
 
Billy Cobham has a good example.
Song in 17/16. I count it 1234567..123.....the last 123 is 16ths counted at double speed.
Seven.. 1/8 notes followed by 3... 1/16th notes=17 sixteenth notes
The accents in the music will help you find where to start the sub-count.
Here's Billy.
 
Last edited:
MattRitter said:
George,

I think you might be best served by signing up for drum lessons with a reputable teacher and systematically going through the process of learning the instrument.

At the moment, you seem to be continually asking random questions as they occur to you...but in many cases, the questions themselves are not really the types of questions that will move you forward. They're often indicative of underlying misconceptions that you have already adopted. In some cases (such as with the question about "swinging a triplet"), the questions you ask are similar to Zen Koans. In other words, they're kinda like brain teasers that don't have a logical answer.

It's interesting to watch the forum members, especially some of the other teachers like Jonathan and Todd, attempt to answer your questions in the most rational way possible...but I'm not convinced that any of it will get you closer to understanding music theory or playing the drums well.

Just like any of us here on the forum, you're free to ask whatever you like. At the same time, though, I would urge you to simplify things for yourself by considering lessons and a methodical learning process...perhaps with Jonathan or Todd.
Click to expand...

Absolute agreed. While I am alwas happy to see inquisitve questions, and to give my humble answers, you seem to fire off a string of random questions at once without much coherence or follow-up. A dedicated drum teacher and a comprehensive musical education would solve all of these issues for you, and vastly help your overall understanding.
 
green glass drum said:
Billy Cobham has a good example.
Song in 17/16. I count it 1234567..123.....the last 123 is 16ths counted at double speed.
Seven.. 1/8 notes followed by 3... 1/16th notes=17 sixteenth notes
The accents in the music will help you find where to start the sub-count.
Here's Billy.
Click to expand...
It works on this specific case (this song from Billy Cobham) because the tune is built OVER this specific rhythmic concept (7/8 +3/16), wich was very much in use in the 70´s (Mahavishnu Orchestra, Eleventh House, etc.) but it will not work for every case... Same goes for other kinds of countings you need to know the framework of the melody, harmony, etc. to build a coherent rhythm... and a counting (if you need to count) that does not goes against THE FLOW of the music

@MattRitter wrote the right thing, and it goes not just for @georgeusa ...
 
Last edited:
Alex Sanguinetti said:
It works on this specific case (this song from Billy Cobham) because the tune is built OVER this specific rhythmic concept (7/8 +3/16), wich was very much in use in the 70´s (Mahavishnu Orchestra, Eleventh House, etc.) but it will not work for every case... Same goes for other kinds of countings you need to know the framework of the melody, harmony, etc. to build a coherent rhythm... and a counting (if you need to count) that does not goes against THE FLOW of the music
Click to expand...
I tend to give the example of Solsbury Hill (7/4) because it's easy to follow the quarter notes with the bassdrum. I hear the intro as 123-1234, whereas when the verse starts, I hear 1234-123. And the rest of the song keeps switching between the two ways of counting. Nothing in the basic groove actually changes, it's only the basic two riffs over it that change.
 
georgeusa said:
wouldn't it be easier to count 17/8 as four 4 and a 1 ?
Click to expand...
It is completely acceptable to break longer meters into smaller subdivisions for counting purposes. Thus the comments regarding breaking the meter into groups of 2's and 3's.

Thus four 4's and a 1.... 1234 1234 1234 1234 1 does equal 17.

But realize this only applies if the music itself is divided that way -

As mentioned above, Spanish Moss is basically divided this way (though generally considered as 17/16). Though instead of 4+4+4+4+1 - I would think more like... 4+4+4+5 with the 5 divided as 2+3 Resulting in 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3. I hear it as a 4/4 bar with three 1/16th's in the last 1/8th of beat bar. Others hear it as a 7/8 followed by 3/16 - equally a very subtle difference in feel, but otherwise the same thing.

But that counting scheme only works when it fits the music itself...

Here's another piece in 17 by Don Ellis based on an entirely different subdivision - 5+5+7 or 23 23 223



So IMO the idea is always - listen to the piece.... find one.... then figure out the subdivisions by listening for the pattern of the beats (even if they are irregular) - from there you can determine the meter - as well as how to count - and feel - it.
 
The Nate Smith”Skip Step” is supposedly a 17/8 song and I’ve seen it transcribed 7/4 and 3/8 ,then also 4/4 and 9/8. Is one correct or both get you there and whatever most comfortable ?
 
I always listen for the phrasing, the melody and chord changes. You really need to break down odd time signatures into groups, but there groups are based on the phrasing of the music. Might be the melody, might be a bass part, might be the chord changes or any one or all.
 
I agree you seem to be going in a lot of directions all at once. I also recommend you slow down and focus on one thing at a time. Trying to learn so much so quickly is likely to result in not learning much at all about any one topic. Not to mention the time and focus it takes may negatively affect other important parts of your life. A teacher (preferably IRL, but online will work) with a specific lesson plan can help you focus on truly important topics and move through a logical sequence that is been developed by a professional.

I don't mean to imply I know all the answers, I certainly don't. But if you're goal is to join a cover band and play gigs locally you don't need to know half the stuff you are asking about. Just my 2 cents.
 
Ellis’s ”Electric Bath” was my introduction to asymmetrical time signatures. He pretty well broke everything down into smaller subdivisions of mostly 2s and 3s. But I found when I thought of songs in that way I was locked into those subdivisions which may or may not be correct.

But later I discovered I could play without all the little subdivisions by counting in half time. So not knowing what the song is that you are inquiring about I can suggest you count a bar like this

1& 2& 3& 4& 5& 6& 7& 8&&
 
georgeusa said:
wouldn't it be easier to count 17/8 as four 4 and a 1 ?
Click to expand...
Jonathan Curtis said:
That would equate to 5, and so I'm not sure how that would be an easier way to get to 17. Besides, 4 would be reduced to two groups of 2, as analysis is concerned with fundamental principles.
Click to expand...
I thought maybe he meant count 4/4 to the 16th note then add one. Edit: ignore this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top