What tempo and time signature is this song?

[Iconoclast]

My daughter has to transcribe part of this song for a class and I was helping. I get it at around 116bpm and 4/4. Should be simple right?

 

My daughters teacher said it was half that tempo (approx 58bpm).

I don't really agree...Can any of you smart theory guys tell me what the definitive difference between a song at 58 vs 116 bpm?

 

 

[BluMunk]

Maybe there's some deeper codified knowledge I don't have (or maybe the prof. has access to the original score), but given that there are multiple "right" ways that a person might choose to notate a piece of music: 

I would 100% transcribe this with 1/4 notes occurring at 115 per minute. I would also likely choose 2/2 over 4/4. Why? The primary string melody moves with that sense of 58bpm. The quicker subdivisions in the rest of the orchestra are irrelevant to the main melody. 

It does sit in kind of a strange in-between, where it's very easy to feel both options. As I sit and conduct along to this, I find it very tempting to fluctuate back and forth between 2/2 and 4/4 depending on whether I want to give clear and precise 1/4 note marks to the piano/marimba, or whether I want to conduct the more fluid feel of the melody.


 

[Bill H.]

For the first minute, a case could plausibly be made both ways. But the piece reveals itself to be 116 with the pizzicato strings section.

[ElmerJFudd]

Hmmm, I don't see any reason not to transcribe the material at the start in 4/4 at quarter note = 116. 

But - when the strings come in, yeah, ok - there is this melodic material in 2. 

And when the "rhythm section" goes away, it definitely feels better in 2.  

So yeah, 2/2 half note = 54 makes sense overall.  

 

 

 

 

[Rodan88]

Folks - 

 

This piece is definitely in 4/4 throughout.

 

Of course, it's true that anything in 4/4 COULD also be written in cut time (2/2).  A piece in 4/4 COULD also be written in 2/4.  Or 4/8.  Or 16/16.

 

You could also write something that's clearly in 12/8 in 4/4, with the 8th notes being expressed as triplets.  Similarly, you could write a "swing 4" in 12/8, using alternating 1/4 notes and 8th notes to capture a swing feel.

 

But, none of the above choices make sense just because they're technically possible.

 

You have to evaluate any piece of music on its own terms, taking into account the style, genre, intent, phrasing, tempo and musicality to determine the appropriate time signature.

 

Certain genres are typically in cut time - bright "Broadway" tempos (e.g., "There's No Business Like Show Business), merengue, calypso, samba, etc. 

(Brazilians almost always write bossa novas - even slow ones - in 2/4, but that's another story.)

 

A good rule of thumb is: if something is too fast to conduct in 4, and has an underlying 2-feel, cut-time is the way to go.  Trying to conduct a slowish 4-feel in 2 would be equally awkward.  Of course, you might need to conduct something like a very fast bebop tempo in 2, but the underlying feel is definitely a 4-feel, as the walking bass underlines.  Imagine trying to conduct Coltrane's classic version of Giant Steps in 4.  It would be ridiculous to even attempt it, so for convenience and clarity, you'd want to conduct in 2.  (Not that that rhythm section needs a conductor!)  But, it's undeniably in 4.  

 

As far as the song in this thread, right off the bat, the bass line is a classic dotted quarter/8th note pattern.  Nice medium tempo, feels strongly in 4.  The underlying 4-pulse is clearly felt when the rhythm section drops out.  The rhythm-less section is not rhythmically complex.  It could be deceptive if you're not paying attention, but when the rhythm section re-enters, it feels like there's been a steady pulse throughout.  Because, there has been!

 

By the way, a real pet peeve of mine is something you see in published sheet music all the time.  I don't know if some editors are afraid of 16th notes (or perhaps they think their customers will be).  But there's nothing worse than seeing a pop balled at a slow tempo written in cut-time, where what should be written as 16th notes are written as 8ths, and every two bars of cut-time should be a single bar of 4/4 music.  It makes the sheet music twice as long as it should be, and is not what your eyes want to see.  It's the rhythmic equivalent of writing the middle note of an A Major triad as a Db.  Uh, no.

 

In short, my manifesto is:  WRITTEN MUSIC SHOULD LOOK LIKE WHAT IT IS.

 

There, I feel better now.  Gotta remember to take my medication!  ;-D

[Rodan88]

OK, NOW the example of deceptively-written sheet music is attached!  Sorry.

arthur's theme [best that you can do].pdf

[Jonathan Hughes]

Rodan88: well put! Occam's Razor comes to mind. Aside from what's already been stated, this piece was from a movie score, and movie scores are recorded quickly. No one wants to read runs of 32nd notes, and no one wants to read 2/2 when 4/4 does the job.

[analogika]

Definitely 115 bpm - the backbeat from the xylophone is on 2 and 4. 

 

I'm also going with 4/4, because the bass pattern is definitely built around 4/4 time. 

[BluMunk]

I mean . . . I was all in on 115bpm (and had written a post declaring so) until I locked into the strings, and I have a much harder time hearing that string movement at that pulse/beat.  The pickups in the string section really feel as an "+ 1" and not a "4 1", if that makes sense.

Also, the chorale part into the pizzicato section (1:48-2:12) feels strongly of two beat phrases to me.

Conversely, that bass part really feels like it should be happening twice in a measure.

All that said, it truly does sit in a place where either option feels reasonable. I wonder if the prof. has access to the score which leads them to definitively claim one interpretation as wrong.

[Reezekeys]

IMO, asking "what time signature is this" or "what tempo is this" by itself is too general a question and judging from the replies here - one with no single answer that satisfies everyone. In that regard, it's pointless. The real question, again imho, is what is the best way to notate this in the way that a professional would easily play it? It doesn't matter what anyone "thinks" the time sig or tempo is. If you're writing a chart for yourself, write it out in 1/4 if you think that's what it should be! The real question was answered expertly by Rodan88 above. I know that's not gonna stop a few more people from chiming in with what they "think", though (I've seen – and been a party to – several music theory threads here, so I know how these things go!). Carry on! 🙂

[MathOfInsects]

^^^^^^Lots o’ that.

 

The piece is well-chosen for sure—for this reason. 
 

I think there is a line being blurred here between how a piece is written and how it might be conducted. Lots of times a conductor might choose to conduct “in 2” across a halftime section (or in a “big 4”), to show the change in emphasis. But it doesn’t change the underlying piece. 
 

I’d be curious to hear the instructor’s rationale. It’s entirely possible Brion composed this 4-feeling piece in 2 to give it a sort of off-center feel, appropriate to the movie.

 

 

[BluMunk]

Totally.

I think about a piece I recently conducted that was written in 4/4 with occasional 3/4 bars. I conducted the 4/4 bars in 2, and the 3/4 bars in 3.  Whether my musicians were counting "1 2 3 4" or "1 + 2 +" in their heads is kind of up to them.

I also think that those of us who are steeped in rock/groove thinking are biased towards hearing things in 4/4, which can encourage a sort of rigidity of phrasing choices.

[Iconoclast]

Much thanks for everyone's well thought out replies to this topic. The internet can mark up a WIN for today.

My daughter's teacher accepted any of the very valid interpretations above. But all the great replies were a small education in itself so I thank you.

Ironically, this is not for a music class per-se, it was for a DANCE class. So the teacher was specifically looking for the rhythmic transcription and identifying by measure, which passage had which instruments. She did not have to actually write out the notes being played (wouldn't that be a b#$%&^!).