Annoying Twit

[quote name='toneknob' timestamp='1397055085' post='2420199'] er, no actually (and it's "Theater" ) [/quote] That was deliberate! The misspelling of Portnoy in my previous sizeable post was an accident. But, as it became an example of what I was talking about, I misspelled both the band and the drummer in the google search.

[quote name='CamdenRob' timestamp='1397048069' post='2420084'] The 'quality' of a band is subjective and utterly irrelevent... what counts is how many people will turn out to watch them. If people will come to the venue to watch you, then you have something the venue can benefit from and you are therefore in a position to charge for your product... If no-one cares about your band, it doesnt matter at all how good you are, the marketability of your product depends on people coming out to see you who would otherwise be at home. [/quote] So, how do bands build a following if we posited a world where they shouldn't ever play for free?

[quote name='toneknob' timestamp='1397054156' post='2420182'] It's "Portnoy" actually [/quote] I just searched on 'Dream Theatre "Mike Portney"' and found 10,700 results. Doesn't that mean that it must be a correct spelling of his name since there are many examples of it being spelled that way?

[quote name='Lord Sausage' timestamp='1397045349' post='2420020'] I've just dug some music out, printed official by music publishers etc where i know there are parts containing bars of 9/8 that isn't compound. It's notated as 9/8. I think you should get on the phone to 'em and Portnoy. I ain't saying it's not compound, I'm saying it doesn't have to be and that it doesn't always get used as that. I've done plenty of reading gigs where it isn't. It's like language. things and meanings can change over time in English, why not music. Plus it's not that big a deal. I bet loads of musicians think of 9/8 in compound and simple. It's not a problem. Why do you need it to be just compound? [/quote] I don't have a "need" for 9/8 to be compound, it's just that I believe that it's correct to say that 9/8 is compound. And that when it's used for other types of time signature, that's an error. As you and others have pointed out, it isn't rare for 9/8 to be used to describe non-compound time signatures. But, that doesn't mean that this usage is correct. E.g. it's very common for people to write "your" when they should write "you're", but this doesn't make it correct. It's common for people to calculate "3 + 4 x 7" and come up with the answer 49, instead of 31, but that doesn't make it right. Nor does it mean that I have a "need" for "3 + 4 x 7" to equal 31, it's simply the correct answer. Just because people do things, that doesn't mean that they're correct. Sure, it's easy to come up with examples (as I did) where people use 9/8 for a time signature that isn't compound, but this doesn't make it correct. (After all, it was me that posted the Portney youtube video.)

I'm not directly involved in this as I don't perform live. And if I did, it would be as an amateur. But, I have one question. Many pub and club gigs seem to be based on the expectation that a band will have a following that will bring paying customers. How does a band build a following if they don't play live? And how will they play live for pay if they don't have a following? Is it a plausible model that a band which feels that it has a good product, but no following, will play for free until it is able to build a following, which gives it a stronger negotiating position with landlords and promoters. There seems to be an assumption in this thread that whether or not a band is only able to play for free only depends on the quality of the product. I could be wrong here, but I would expect that the size of the following is also a very important factor, and the quality of the product impacts mainly in how it affects the ability of the band to build a following. But, a band can't always just build a following immediately, it will take time. So, what does the band do in the meantime? It is a common business model for new products (e.g. foods) that free samples will be given away so that consumers are likely to try out the product. And if they find the product of high quality, they may well return as a paying customer. Does this not apply to music?

[quote name='Lord Sausage' timestamp='1396985747' post='2419524'] I agree with portnoy as there are 9 quaver beats in a bar. The groupings would be defined by how it's written down or a note at the beginning of the piece. With regards to lessening descriptive powers i think you maybe over thinking it. You wouldn't have to guess which 9/8 it meant. you could just tell by how it's written. (the whole piece) [/quote] I thought about what you said, and still have to disagree. The same argument can apply to both 3/4 and 6/8. We don't need 6/8, as 3/4 can have six quavers in a bar, and we could write all 6/8 rhythms as 3/4, showing that the quavers are grouped into two groups of three, rather than three groups of two. However, that's easy enough to notice if there is a bar of six quavers appropriately grouped. But, what if there is a different pattern, where it isn't obvious. What if the player wishes to embellish what is written, or even improvise around it, rather than play it straight. Having the correct time signature there gives such a player more accurate information about what the music is about. The same applies to time signatures incorrectly stated to be 9/8 when they aren't compound time signatures. (And I've revised online sources and thought about it, and I personally conclude that this is incorrect). An example is the 8/8 time signature of Ravel's Trio. Looking only at the first few bars in the treble clef, it's not clear as to what the groupings are, and it's plausible that either it's 2 + 2 + 3 + 2, or 2 + 2 + 2 + 3. As there's a single quaver before the last whole note. The slurs suggest to me that it's 2 + 2 + 2 + 3, but I'm not confident of this. An additive time signature would make this crystal clear. There is a quote often mis-attributed to Albert Einstein. "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler." IMHO, it's best to have time signatures where if we look at the time signature, we know what it means. If a single time signature is used for two or more fundamental rhythmic patterns, then we no longer know what it means. This is an example of that quote, in reducing the number of time signatures, we introduce ambiguity, and this causes problems as we no longer know what the time signature is. You say that I'm over-thinking this, but considering the 3/4 vs. 6/8 time signatures, I find that there is no logical difference between the two cases. And hence since I conclude that we should't write 6/8 using a 3/4 time signature, I feel that we also shoudn't write 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 / 8 as 9/8. There are examples of people, even very skilled musicians such as Mike Portney, incorrectly using 9/8 for a situation where the time signature is not compound. But, this doesn't mean that it's right. If we are going to appeal to authority on this one, then it should be to experts in musical theory, and I can't find examples of such people who don't say that 9/8 is a compound time signature. Hence, it appear to me that 9/8 implying a compound time signature is correct, and Portney is wrong. Personally, while I accept that there is wide (what I see as) misuse, I believe that 9/8 is compound by definition. And I also agree that this is a sensible and useful definition of this time signature. Hence, for these reasons, I personally conclude that using 9/8 for non-compound time signatures is wrong. I also think that 18/16 is literally correct, but preserves the ambiguity, meaning that the additive time signature 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 / 8 is the best time signature to use for Portney's rhythm.

Done

I'm probably at fault in the other direction. I see basses for sale that I really should buy, but it's so hard to separate me from my money.

[quote name='Lord Sausage' timestamp='1396972027' post='2419293'] i wouldn't say 9/8 has to be compound I've played a few things in nine where it's straight. You would just have the feel written and the beginning of the piece. You'd be able to tell by how the quavers were grouped when written. There's a lot of prog where 9 is straight. Why over complicate things? Just write things as easy as possible. So that the message gets across to the musician easier. [/quote] You say that you've played a few things, and there is a lot of prog, where 9 is straight. By 'straight', do you mean simple time? E.g. beats divided into two? In which case, you can't have 9/8, but could have 9/4, as 9 quavers can't be divided into two, but 9 crotchets can be. As is the belly dancing music further up. Or do you mean that you agree with Mike Portney, in saying that 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 / 8 is 9/8? Is that what you mean by 'straight'? That 9/8 is a compound time signature is very widely accepted. So, people can describe non-compound time signatures as 9/8, but that raises the question of whether that description is right or not. If the groupings are shown in the music, then it won't prevent musicians playing it correctly. But if the meanings of time signatures is weakened by widespread mis-use (assuming that this is mis-use), then they lose descriptive power. As if we see 9/8, we won't know immediately which 9/8 the music means, and we have to guess it from other information. That's why I've decided to use additive time signatures rather than 8/8. Because 8/8 is ambiguous, while additive time signatures aren't. And therefore they are much better at conveying information.

[quote name='Grangur' timestamp='1396962151' post='2419126'] Doesn't all depend on if you read music or not? If you're simply looking to find the root note and play from the heart n' soul using "the box" for the major scale, then I guess you don't need the keys. What you would then need is the circle of 5ths to know where to go to when you want to go up/down a key. [/quote] My long term aim is improvised music. I definitely don't want to be limited to 'the box' of a single scale. I use notes outside the box, but am still working on being able to fluidly change box at musically appropriate times, particularly if I can do this without using the root note of the new scale/box as a pivot. However, I don't think I need to know key signatures for this, as I rarely read music, and don't have to sight read. But, if anyone wants to argue that I should prioritise key signatures, I will read what they write and seriously consider it.

I don't know them by memory (except for the most obvious ones), but can work them out in non-real time. I tend to think of the root note of the scale, and then notes in terms of the scale degree. E.g. fourth, fifth, flat-sixth, etc. I'm open to being convinced that knowing the key signatures would significantly benefit me, and I should learn them sooner rather than later.

[quote name='toneknob' timestamp='1396956254' post='2419035'] No one counts "one two one two one two one two three" though do they? [/quote] I would personally find that confusing. I like to have only the beats having numbers. On the wikipedia page for counting there are a number of counting techniques given, some of which use numbers only for beats, and other sounds for divisions. Searching online reveals even more counting systems. Aztec drum syllables, anyone? Edit: Or, have I misinterpreted your post? Do you mean that no-one counts using numbers for both beats and divisions? Or that nobody counts time signatures that require division of an eight quaver bar into unequal beats? If the latter (which I now think is the case), then I'd agree that it's very rare, because very little music is written in that way, and that there is the alternative to interpret such music as being 4/4, but with a high degree of syncopation. As for the rarity of music of that type, how many examples have we seen in this thread other than Ravel's Trio? But, additive time signatures, counted as I've described, are being used by some people. E.g.: https://keenot.es/read/additive-time-signatures However, just because there are web pages using the terminology like that doesn't mean that it's correct.

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1396943486' post='2418883'] In 20 years of reading music I've [i]never [/i]come across 8/8. Its much more common for music to be written down using changing time signatures than it is using these "odd" ones. Your first example would be much clearer written as a bar of 6 and a bar of 2, for example. In my opinion the only time signatures theory beginners need consider are 4/4, 3/4, 2/4, 2/2, 5/4, 7/4. 6/8, 9/8, 12/8 and thankfully those are all easy to understand. These really weird things like 8/8 are little more than theoretical constructs that you'll only come across once in a lifetime unless you're into some pretty niche stuff. [/quote] As seen with the examples above, there are alternative ways of writing 8/8. While 8/8 exists as a concept, I feel that additive time signatures such as 3 + 3 + 2 / 8 are superior to a simply stated 8/8. As 3 + 3 + 2 / 8 indicates the groupings, while a simply stated 8/8 leaves the groupings to be inferred. Same for other odd time signatures. Ravel's Piano Trio, for example, is typically described as 8/8 in sheet music. Looking at it more closely, the bass line appears to be four crotchets, so rather 4/4 like. The treble line appears to be a 3 + 3 + 2 pattern. If a time signature of 3 + 2 + 3 / 8 is written as (say) one bar of 3/8 and then one bar of 5/8, then this would imply (in the absence of other information which can easily be provided) that the 1st quaver of the group and the 5th quaver of the group both start bars and then would receive equal emphasis. If the same time signature was written as one bar of 5/8 and then one of 3/8, then the stereotypical emphasis (in the absence of further information) changes. As I see it, the additive time signature 3 + 2 + 3 / 8 allows a particular grouping (and hence stereotypical emphasis patterns) that are more difficult to describe with separate bars. My interest in time signature theory is mainly as I find it helps push me into rhythmical areas that I otherwise might not go. The 8/8 (now I would describe that as 3 + 3 + 2 / 8) bassline example is ultra-trivial, but it was actually not trivial to come up with it. Even with a drum beat having three strong beats per bar, not four, I found it difficult to resist the inclination to play 4/4. When I wrote my looper pedal, one thing I added to it quite early was the ability to specify a very wide range of time signatures which the metronome can play back. Hence while many people may not come across extreme time signatures, I do. As I choose to. Edit: In this youtube video, Mike Portney describes a rhythm which is 4/4 plus an additional eighth note as '9/8'. It's the very first rhythm he describes. [url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no4luPP6t9c"]https://www.youtube....h?v=no4luPP6t9c[/url] I'm not sure I agree that the time signature there is 9/8, as 9/8 should be compound. Depending on how you classify the last eighth (it sounds like a beat to me), that would make the time signature: 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 / 8 or: 2 + 2 + 2 + 3 / 8

I thought that the Spear six strings were more than £200. I tried one in a local pawn shop, and it was £250 there, which if I remember correctly (never a guarantee) was a noticeable markdown from the new price, but it wasn't half new price or anything. However, while I'm not a bass connoisseur, I found the bass well made but not inspiring to play. It felt as if everything was put together right, but I certainly didn't think 'gosh, wow'. Edit: Current new price is £485. This is a redesigned model with an ebony top. Looks very much like they're actually trying to manufacture a bass that looks 'boutique'. [url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/String-E-Bass-SPEAR-Active-Ebony/dp/B00G0NHW7A/ref=sr_1_3?s=musical-instruments&ie=UTF8&qid=1396941452&sr=1-3&keywords=Spear"]http://www.amazon.co...&keywords=Spear[/url] EDIT2: Current ones are made in Indonesia. Perhaps the older ones (such as the one I found in 2009) were as well. From memory again, but I thought the Spear basses at that time were made in Korea. Maybe.

Very, very, nice. But I have no budget for instruments right now, and a fretless is a higher priority than a fretted 4 right now.

[quote name='nobody's prefect' timestamp='1396914811' post='2418807'] Absolutely! Blue Rondo was an example of music we'd write out in 9/8 but that has a different pulse. And the other one doesn't have a pulse that's made up of groups of three... So there's more to 9/2n time signatures than just the compound --> groups of three thing. Haven't played these two, tho. A song I [i]have[/i] played, 'Birds of Fire' is in 18, but the bass part isn't really in groups of three for a lot of the piece... So I think that part of the explanation needs a bit more fleshing out and room for variety. To summarize: your post stated that 9/2n time signatures were counted (and thus presumably felt) in groups of three, which is not the case for one of the best known jazz tunes that's in 9 or for Birds of Fire, which is numerically just 2(9/2n) but isn't a simple 3 3 3 3 3 3 feel. I felt your explanation left out important pieces of music - in fact, I don't think I ever heard or read a piece that was 3 3 3 in school, while some teachers did use Blue Rondo as a teaching piece. Thus the reply. Hope the point was clearer this time around. ESL here, so please pardon the stilted and unEnglish sentence structures. [/quote] Only compound time signatures are counted in groups of three. Hence, 9/8 would be counted in groups of three. I don't think I said anything anywhere that said that all 9/2n time signatures are counted in groups of three. I did mention 9/8, but only as an example of a compound time signature, 9/4 is a simple time signature counted as groups of 2, and the 2 + 2 + 2 + 3 / 8 bars of Blue Rondo would be 18/16 if expressed as a non-additive time signature, and counted as per the additive time signature. Interesting that 8notes.com says that all time signatures with a 9 are counted as compound time, but this clearly isn't the case. [url="http://www.8notes.com/school/theory/simple_and_compound_meter.asp"]http://www.8notes.co...pound_meter.asp[/url] musictheory.net says exactly the same thing, but with exactly the same text. So, someone has copied someone (perhaps a common source). I've reviewed such terms as polyrhythm, polymeter, irrational rhythm, and cross-meter, but haven't found something that would describe the situation where two parts are counting (e.g.) 9 quavers in a bar as different groups. I note Mile'stone's objection to using 'and a' to count divisions. I'm having a look around at counting systems, and note that even from wiki it's quite complicated. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_(music) The system I've been using is there, except that it uses 'ah' instead of 'a', and mostly (but not completely) '&' instead of 'and'. So, in that system we would have: 3/4 = 1 & 2 & 3 & 6/8 = 1 & ah 2 & ah 2+2+3/8 = 1 & 2 & 3 & ah but there are other counting systems. I do like the idea of counting triplets with 'po let'. E.g. an irrational meter with a single beat of triplets might be counted: 4/4 (irrational meter) = 1 & 2 po let 3 & 4 &

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1396910716' post='2418776'] That's loads better. I'll have a play with that tomorrow and let you know what I think. [/quote] It's not meant to be an improvement of the song. It's just me experimenting with the musical concepts that you've used, from my personal highly scale and theory orientated perspective.

[quote name='nobody's prefect' timestamp='1396909819' post='2418765'] Wait, what? No. Just to point at two easy examples that are 9/8 and 9/4. Feeling 1-2-3 2-2-3 3-2-3 doesn't create the right feel to me. [/quote] Blue Rondo a 'la Turk isn't a simple rhythm. There's a description of the piece on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Rondo_à_la_Turk According to that page, it starts with a repeating four measure pattern that is 2+2+2+3 for three measures, then one measure of 3+3+3. Then the piece goes into a straightforward 4/4 rhythm. I'm finding it quite hard to count the beats on the first section, and it doesn't appear to be a simple straightforward 9/8 time signature. Later on we get 4/4 alternating with 2+2+2+3 and more stuff going on. I don't understand why you label this an easy example. The belly dance music sounds to be quite straightforward 9/4 to me, which would be counted "1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and" as it's a simple time signature. That seems to fit. The sound quality isn't good, but the melodic phrases appear to indicate the starts of bars, and counting as mentioned seems to fit well. Hence, I'm not quite sure what your point is. Could you please clarify?

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1396909597' post='2418762'] AT, Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately a combination of HTML codes and my dyslexia have rendered your post incomprehensible to me. [/quote] Is the edited version better? (It took quite some work to remove the HTML codes that seem to appear in my posts at random).

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1396862812' post='2417968'] "Invasion Of The SpiderQueen" is available to listen to on [url="https://soundcloud.com/terrortonemusic/invasion-of-the-spiderqueen-1"]Soundcloud[/url]. The verse is predominantly E with a chromatic F# G Ab run for the main riff and then adding in the chords Bb and A in the second half. The Chorus is A, D, F, E, A, D, F (all major chords). The main intro/verse riff was written first and the rest of the song came from what sounded good to me and the desire to not reuse chord changes from other songs in the set at the time. Incidentally the "shoop be doop" vocals at the beginning are taken directly from another song that is predominantly in G but still manages to use all the notes except Eb and F! The use of lots of semi-tone intervals is very much a signature of the genre(s) of music we are playing. When I was playing more pop styled rock 15 years ago I would have stuck far more rigidly to the obvious notes in the scale, although to be fair I wouldn't have been writing songs with the same chord changes in them. [/quote] I have now had the chance to listen to your music properly. (I recognised that I have heard the song before, and have listened to Trench Stench a fair bit for reasons you may be able to guess). Looking at the chords, it sounds to me that the chorus is in A, which would make the chords in the chorus I, IV, bVI, IV, V, I , IV, bVI. Provided that I've identified the key correctly, the only non-diatonic chord there is the flat-sixth chord, which is a common borrowed chord, from the parallel minor key. The verse to me sounds to be in E major with the Bb and A chords being bV and IV. The bV is an unusual chord, but if you were writing on the bass, the flattened fifth note is from the blues scale, and is commonly used in music in genres similar to/overlapping with The Terrortones. Some weeks ago on here (I can search for the post if you want) I mentioned how I was practicing featuring the flattened fifth in bass riffs, even though I was doing so in a wish to expand my use of scales. There are chromatic runs in your bassline, but I think it's easy to increase the notes used even more without wrecking the song. Though, the maxim less is more has been severely broken. I didn't do this for all the song, but here is a modified bassline. New main riff. [font=courier new,courier,monospace]G:---------------------------------------------------------------------------[/font] [font=courier new,courier,monospace]D:---22334---44556-----------------------------------------------------------[/font] [font=courier new,courier,monospace]A:---------------------------------------------------------------------------[/font] [font=courier new,courier,monospace]E:-00-----000----------------------------------------------------------------[/font] And on the last repetition of this riff before the chorus, I reverse the direction of the last chromatic run so that it becomes: [font=courier new,courier,monospace]G:----------------------------------------------------------------------------[/font] [font=courier new,courier,monospace]D:---22334----66554-----------------------------------------------------------[/font] [font=courier new,courier,monospace]A:----------------------------------------------------------------------------[/font] [font=courier new,courier,monospace]E:-00------000----------------------------------------------------------------[/font] The chorus itself can have loads more chromatic runs added with it still appearing to fit the song (reminder: I'm not claiming this is an improvement - just not a complete ruining of the song). E.g. [font=courier new,courier,monospace]G:---------------------------------------------------------------------------[/font] [font=courier new,courier,monospace]D:-------0-01234-------------------------------------------------------------[/font] [font=courier new,courier,monospace]A:-0-1234--------------------------------------------------------------------[/font] [font=courier new,courier,monospace]E:----------------1-123210-01234---------------------------------------------[/font] (chorus repeats) Just the chorus includes every chromatic note from the open E string to F# on the D string, with the verse going to G# on that string. If anyone would hidebound by scales it should be me I think, as I've concentrated on scales a lot and can't play well. But, I found it easy to modify your bassline to be pretty much all chromatic runs, even though I'm very pro-theory. I don't feel that someone who has learnt theory is particularly unlikely or is going to be unable to come up with music such as your song.

I've been looking at Wikipedia. Additive time signatures are a good idea because they make the structure of the beats obvious for odd/complex time signatures. E.g. (3 + 2 + 3) / 8. I think I'm going to use additive time signatures from now on. The page doesn't explain that 2.5/ 4 time signature though. Just mentions it. Off to google further.

[quote name='EMG456' timestamp='1396884602' post='2418370'] Thanks again - I now see what you mean although I'm sure that if you went into a session and were handed out the parts, these patterns would almost certainly be written in 4/4 - the notes, ties and rests would be identical in each instance, would they not? I would just have viewed that pattern as a syncopated 4/4 with an offbeat snare or a kind of pushed half- time. That said, as instructed by dad3353, I went off to said Wikipedia and now my head hurts. 2 and a half over 4, anyone? And I found Ravel's Piano Trio which is indeed written in 8/8 although I confess my reading is so dodgy that I can't get my head around the first bar! Anyway - brilliant! Thanks everyone - I learnt something new today! Cheers Ed [/quote] I still need to work out why 2 1/2 over 4 is not 5/8. More for me to learn later. Someone could notate the 8/8 music as 4/4, and the notes and ties would be in the same place. But, if we had, say, a bar full of 8th root notes, then in an 8/8 case written as 4/4, there would have to be indications of which are the strong beats or musicians would put emphasis on the wrong notes if there were no indications of emphasis. If I wrote the eighth notes in 8/8 time signature and then joined the 8th notes into two groups of three eighth notes, and one group of two, then this would be a more accurate description of what I intended and it would be much more likely that someone would play what I intended. The music could be notated as 4/4, and someone could play it. But, I think that the 8/8 bassline and drums I did fit better with my intended "1 and a 2 and a 3 and" count than they do with "1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and" which sounds to me out of sync. (Perhaps because I know what the count is meant to be). After all, you can count "1 and 2 and 3 and" against 6/8 and notate it in that way, and it will 'work'. But

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1396880611' post='2418290'] 3/4 and 6/8 not so much, but how about 2/4 and 6/8? Things may have changed in the (many) years since I was learning GCSE Music, but my teachers always used to think it more important to learn to distinguish 2 from 6. I learnt to think of a typical 6/8 as a sort of "ONE-two-three, TWO-two-three" rhythm. [/quote] 2/4 and 6/8 are relatively easy to distinguish as one is a simple time signature and the other is a compound time signature. 2/4 versus 4/4 is much more difficult to distinguish.

I've also never seen music notated in 8/8. It was only a few years ago that I found that 8/8 exists as a time signature. I think that we're so used to syncopated 4/4 beats, that anything that is 8/8 would be written as 4/4 with a high degree of syncopation. Strange however that 3/4 and 6/8 aren't confused in this way.

[quote name='EMG456' timestamp='1396873054' post='2418163'] Very succinct - thanks for that. So are we saying that we are influencing the *accents* by writing in a different signature - according to how you suggest that you might count it out loud? If not, then for say 8/8, there is no reason whatsoever for not writing it in 4/4 as all of the note timings and lengths would be exactly the same. And if we are saying we *should* give it the feel it has when counting it out loud, how would I be able to differentiate between for example the two 8/8 examples you gave from just looking at the dots? This is interesting to me as one of the problems of standard notation and its application to pop/ rock/ whatever types of music has always been that the notes and timings were captured but the "feel" was not but I still don't see how you could tell the difference between two alternative types of 8/8. The drum machine thing is as old as... well drum machines but again, it's all to do with the accents. [/quote] The two 8/8 examples I gave sound very different to me. I just made a drum machine track to demonstrate. [url="https://soundcloud.com/annoyingtwit/four-versus-eight"]https://soundcloud.c...ur-versus-eight[/url] There are twelve bars. First four bars of 4/4, then four bars of 8/8, then four bars of another 8/8 time signature. It sounds a bit more like 8/8 if a bassline is added, but I had to keep it mega-simple or I'd play 4/4 by default. https://soundcloud.com/annoyingtwit/eightplusbass However, I will admit that it's easy to count 4/4 time against all of these examples, even though the 8/8 patterns were designed to be as 8/8 as I could make them (bass drum and snare on the beats, three beats per bar). I think this is something to do with my/our familiarity with 4/4, particularly syncopated, time signatures and relative unfamiliarity with 8/8 time signatures. It's easier to make something more obviously 8/8 with a pitched instrument such as a bass, or fingerstyle other guitars. We don't seem to have so much problem distinguishing 3/4 from 6/8, as both of those time signatures are commonly used. If we say that music is in 8/8 we are telling musicians that it isn't 4/4, but unlike (say) 12/8, we aren't telling them where the accents are. This could be shown by accents in musical notation. Or, it could be up the musician to guess where the strong beats are based on the time signature and the actual notes in the music.