Ok so is it 13/8 or not???

[lenron]

But I do my audio stuff on my G4 at my office.

Here's what I see. The bottom line problem, Rog, that I see is you don't have an intermediate step between the source (mic) and the recorder (eMac). Problem is easily resolved with the use of a preamp/mixer. A mixer itself should be what you need, if you were using a mic with 1/4" or XLR cable. Since you have a USB mic, and no mixer or preamp to control your input levels properly, you're at the mercy of the very consumer-grade audio input situation on your computer.

Possible solutions, bearing cost in mind, but if you wanna do it *right* you'll need to spend a little $$$:

Set aside the USB mic, or return it if you can. The range on a mic like that from a consumer electronics store is minimal at best. It is probably designed to be very "hot" in order for the standard user to be able to, in fact, send those audio birthday cards without worry that they are getting no signal.

Get a standard issue vocal mic. Ideally, you'll want one that has an XLR (balanced) cable. Price range: $30-$100 for something decent at home.

Then buy you a USB preamp that accepts XLR input. These devices have gain control for both channels (stereo), and with the combination of a preamp's control and the better tone of the XLR mic input, you should get impressive results in your audio app. Best suggestion for this device: M-Audio MobilePre. Around $149-$179 at music instrument retail shops, or online at http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_u...eUSB-main.html

I use this exact setup at home for recording tests, and it works surprisingly well. I've even used it for quick demo recordings in bands I've been in. (However, I use a Rode NT3 mic at home, since the MobilePre allows for 48v phantom power too. Heck, it'll take line-in bass or guitar or keyboard too, if you run your signal thru a DI box first.). But even my setup is basically the same as I described above.

$200-$275 and you are gonna be SET UP with home audio recording. That is about the lowest (and cheapest) you can go without sacrificing TOO much quality.

My 2 cents. Sorry to say you will have to spend a little money to get better results!

Suggested audio apps (cost prohibitive, but not nearly as much as industry-grade apps):

BIAS Peak 4 (www.bias-inc.com) - perfect post production stereo waveform editor. Supports up to 32 bit audio

BIAS Deck 3.5 (www.bias-inc.com) - 16 bit multitrack recording. As many tracks as your Mac can handle.

SoundStudio - should come with your eMac. A "lite" version of Peak, basically.

GarageBand from Apple is cool, from what I can tell, but my experience with it is minimal. Bear in mind it is consumer grade as well, mostly, however.

[kirk]

hi roger- i'm not a mac user, but i concur.
i'm surprised that the feedback hasn't been a problem.

there's some really good, (relatively) inexpensive
mics on the market. rather than go w/ a vocal mic,
like the industry standard shure sm-57 & 58,
i'd look at either a behringer "B" series or one of the
russian oktavia condenser mics. both are under $100,
available at the guitar center ect.
behringer also makes some decent small mixers.
for your use, 1 or 2 inputs w/ 48v phantom power is all
you'll need.
garageband has some fantastic features for the $$,
you can't go wrong w/ it. the trade mags have been
gushing over it for months.
you may be able to find some help/ back articles at
www.keyboardmag.com.

k

[roger]

Originally posted by lenron
but my notation reading easily less than 5% of what it should/could be with the right effort. Which I don't make, sadly. Its the biggest, gaping hole in my music theory knowledge at this point.

I have exactly the opposite problem. I'm too paper-trained and I have a hard time learning things by rote. give it to me in notation and I'm there, but try to just play it for me, and I'll probably try to write it down so I can learn it...
it's been several years since I've had a chance to play much, but i'll see if I can dig up some mp3's of some old odd-meter tunes...
this is a great thread...

[Yesspaz]

I love the second section of "Awaken" rocking in 11/8.
The opening of "Release, Release" is 4/4 and 6/4 at the same time.

[Roger -Dot- Lee(Admin)]

Originally posted by kirk
hi roger- i'm not a mac user, but i concur.
i'm surprised that the feedback hasn't been a problem.

there's some really good, (relatively) inexpensive
mics on the market. rather than go w/ a vocal mic,
like the industry standard shure sm-57 & 58,
i'd look at either a behringer "B" series or one of the
russian oktavia condenser mics. both are under $100,
available at the guitar center ect.
behringer also makes some decent small mixers.
for your use, 1 or 2 inputs w/ 48v phantom power is all
you'll need.
garageband has some fantastic features for the $$,
you can't go wrong w/ it. the trade mags have been
gushing over it for months.
you may be able to find some help/ back articles at
www.keyboardmag.com.

k

OK, I'll give those a look. I'll also run over to the local Radio Shacks to see what they might have (comparison purposes only. I don't buy from Radio Shack unless it's batteries or radio gear).

I think the very top end of my budget on this is probably going to be in the 2-250 range. Anything more than that and I'm going to have to answer to Mrs.Lee about it.

Roger -Dot- Lee, lookin' and readin s'more.

[lenron]

Talk about odd meters and drumming...

So in the late 70's, Robert Fripp had Bill Bruford join up in King Crimson. After a few sessions, Fripp liked Bill's skill, but became very frustrated. He wrote down the following guidelines for Bill, based on his dominant vision for things in the new KC:

"1. Any existing solution to a problem is the wrong one absolutum, obsoletum.
2. If you have an idea, don't play it.
3. When a change in the music needs emphasis, don't play it: the change in the music is emphasis enough.
4. Don't phrase with any other member of the band unless its in the part.
5. Phrasing in the part should include no more than two people.
6. If the tension in the music needs emphasizing, don't. The tension is there because of what you are playing, not what you are about to play.
7. If you really have to change your part to build tension, don't add - leave out.
8. The maximum amount of tension you can add is by stopping completely.
9. If there is space for a fill which is demanded by the music, don't play it; there are three other people who would like to use that opportunity.
10. If the part you are playing is boring, stop listening with your head.
11. If this still bores you, listen to the interaction between all the parts.
12. If this still bores you stop playing and wait until you are no longer bored.
13. Do not be dramatic.
14. Do not be afraid to repeat yourself.
15. Do not be afraid to take your time.

Boy, what a negative list. Let's be positive about this.

1. Repeat yourself.
2. Take your time.
3. Leave room.
4. Listen to everyone else.
5. Develop a new set of cliches.
6. Develop a new set of drum sounds.
7. Listen to the sound of what you play."

-- Robert Fripp.

Bruford once said:

"Usually I go for the lowest common denominator and make it appear not to be in 17/8 [for example]. That's the guitar's business, not mine. I'm in a cheerful 4/4, but I can play whatever I like in it. It's not terribly restricting, actually."

[lenron]

We all speak of "odd time" or "odd meters" and what have you. We are, of course, speaking of 5/4, 7/8, 9/8, 11/8, 17/8, 10/8, etc etc. And we all know that 4/4 is very much typical, and easily comprehended on a musical level. Right?

So I pose 2 questions for you:

1.) Why is 4/4 so natural, so typical, and so "simple"? (as opposed to other times)

2.) Why is 3/4 or 6/8 also considered natural, typical, and "simple"? (as opposed to other times)

It clearly has to do with what you're used to, says me. One parallel you can draw to help illustrate this point is traditional Indian music. That is, music from India - not American Indians, as it were. Anyway, the main, obvious difference in Indian music is that it utilizes quartertones, very UN-like the 12 note semitone scale we westerners are used to. To us - er, most of us - quartertones sound, well, out of tune. And technically, according to our pre-wired semitone western ears, it is out of tune. So semitones are "right", and quartertones are "weird" or even "wrong." Thats the basic concensus the average American music listener. Truly a challenge to get over the unfamiliarity of it to embrace it.

But in fact, its not "weird"...or "wrong". Just "different".

Back to meters/times. Music in the modern, civilized world from Europe to the Americas has been dominated heavily by songs in 4/4 and 3/4 for many many many decades. From the waltzes (3/4) to Americana folk (4/4 and 3/4), all the way to country, rock and roll, folk and bluegrass of modern times, almost everything that can be considered "popular music" is decidedly NOT in 5/4 or 7/8 and sure as hell is NOT in a quartertone scale.

Duh.

That being said, it is obvious this culture has raised millions of us to be comfortable with 4/4 and 3/4, and the 12 note semitone scale, so much so that it is a CHORE for us musicians to break beyond that "barrier" when we first try. It just makes no sense. You have to re-learn the very basic, raw, elemental concept of music again if you grew up with Sabbath and discovered Crimson in your 20's or 30's. Or heck, even if you simply grew up here.

"Odd time" or "odd meter"....doesn't 3 count as an odd number?

Then why is 3/4 so simple to understand and fall into, as opposed to 5/4 or 7/4 or 9/8? Could it be CONDITIONING? Inversely, if you were raised in a small Texas town called "Oddville" since birth, and all you heard was music in 7/8 or 5/4, and there simply was no other types of time signatures present in all the music you ever heard....

...4/4 would confuse the hell out of you. Most likely. Or would it?

Which brings me to my second point...

Is 4/4, straight time, a mystery of psycho-physiological function? Is there something about straight time that "connects" with our brains in such a way that it leads us "send another hero up the pop charts"? Is it in fact NATURAL yet there are those few (us) who challenge, nay, denounce the idea that its "just the way it has to be"? Or is my previous example valid? If you were raised with 5/4 and 7/8, would 4/4 be confusing at first or totally natural?

Bottom line, is it all relative, or is there something more behind the fact that those us who enjoy playing in 7/8 will never be in the Top 40 and become rich?

Do tell!

[Yesspaz]

Um, I think 3/4 and 4/4 are natural, and the rest aren't. I don't know why they are; they just are. Probably, it's because they are the lowest. 7/4 is a combo of 3/4 and 4/4 eliminating a downbeat. In other words, it's not as simple.

[lenron]

The very fact that you consider 7/4 a combination of 4/4 and 3/4 is my point exactly. The mystery continues!!

[Roger -Dot- Lee(Admin)]

Since it's so late here on the east coast, I'm going to take this in steps. I can't pass on the opportunity to answer the two questions at the top, and I've got a few comments for below that I'll address later.

Anyway....

Originally posted by lenron
We all speak of "odd time" or "odd meters" and what have you. We are, of course, speaking of 5/4, 7/8, 9/8, 11/8, 17/8, 10/8, etc etc. And we all know that 4/4 is very much typical, and easily comprehended on a musical level. Right?

So I pose 2 questions for you:

1.) Why is 4/4 so natural, so typical, and so "simple"? (as opposed to other times)

This goes back to pre-historic times and has to do with, of all things, the most natural of human rhythms: the heart beat. Everyone back in those days had one (kinda hard to be interested in music if they didn't, donchaknow), and it gave the basis for the music. Simple one beat per measure.

But why four? Dancing. Two legs. One two. One two. It just became easier to subdivide it into four as music became more complex.

This, of course, leads us to your next question:

2.) Why is 3/4 or 6/8 also considered natural, typical, and "simple"? (as opposed to other times)

It all has to do with subdivision. 4/4 is either 4 sets of 1, or if it's fast, 2 sets of 2. It's a lot easier to be precise with that than it is with, say, 11, which is often 3 sets of 3 with a set of 2 thrown in for good measure. Or 14, which is 2 sets of 7, which could be 2 2 3 or 3 2 2 or 2 3 2, or, in some cases, any combination of the above.

In short (yah, I know, too late. Look at my history to see how often I can say ANYTHING "in short"), 4 and its counterpart 2, have been around a LOT longer than 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 22, or 28, and are thus a lot more "natural" and "normal" and "regular" than some of the more esoteric time signatures.

3/4 and 6/8 are a much later mutation of the ancient 4 beat measure. MUCH later, like multiple thousand years. It's been around a lot longer than some of the more irregular (which is what we're really talking about here -- regular vs. irregular, not normal vs. abnormal or odd vs. even (since 10, 12, 14, and 18, all of which make appearances here on the Moon, are even)).

But let's take a look at music as it permutated over the years. Ancient manuscripts didn't HAVE the measure subdivided into beats. You had a few lines, some dots that went up and down, and some markings that meant that some notes were faster than others. Gregorian chants are a perfect example of this. You had some notes that were filled in, which meant that they didn't last as long as the other ones that weren't filled in. Some had dots, which meant that they were longer than the filled in ones without dots, but shorter than the empty ones.

Then we started subdividing once instruments were added; as music became more complex; as musicians needed to be more precise and composers wanted their music to be heard by more than the people who were listening to THEM playing it. We go back to the 4/4, simply because it was the easiest to subdivide. It's easier to write for, easier to memorize, and easier to conduct.

But the high born decided they wanted to dance in three, since step step got boring after a while, they added a pause in there. Step step pause. That sort of thing.

6/8 is simply a combination of 4/4 and 3/4, though faster. Usually 6/8 is conducted in two (two sets of three). If they wanted to do three sets of two, they'd write it in 3/4.

Do tell!

Proof positive that you did ask.

I'll likely address this in much greater detail later this week (oh stop groaning already). But it's time for Dr. Dot to hit the hay.

Roger -Dot- Lee, a big fan of 7, actually, with a budding interest in 11...

[Yesspaz]

yeah, that's what I meant . 7/4 is subdivided into 3/4 and 4/4. they are more basic.

[progdirjim(Admin)]

great thread!

Roger has said it better than I can. I'll add one thought.

4 is divisible by 1,2 and 4. 3 is divisible by 1 and 3. 5 is divisible by 1 and 5. 6 is divisible by 1,2,3, and 6. oops! talked about all of those except for 6. except, 6 is 2 3's, unless you're doing something very different with the second 3. 7 is divisible by 1 and 7. 8 is divisible by 1,2,4 and 8. same as 4, unless the second 4 is very different. etc, etc, etc. 9 is 3 3's. 10 can be 4,4,2; 12 is 4 3's or 3 4's. 4 is the smallest number that allows for a strong accent (typically on the 1 or 3 beat), a weak accent (on the 1 or 3 that isn't the strong accent) and unaccented beats. It's essentially mathematics that makes 4 our usual count.

Fripp's apocryphal message to Bruford shows a short sightedeness I don't associate with Fripp. I'm nowhere near as talented as Bruford, and I would NEVER join a band under those conditions.

[lenron]

Another great way of putting it progdirjim! A fine thread indeed.

I think Fripp's comments to Bruford were sincere, but at the same time with the tongue firmly planted in cheek. Perhaps the truth, but if you read the entire story this text is from, you get the feeling that Fripp's vision perhaps didn't quite account for Bruford's mastery. In the end, the music speaks for itself, I don't honestly hear Bruford being shackled with limitations on those records!

But as a bass player...I will say....when it comes to the backbeat, I have always acknowledged that sometimes the power of what you DON'T do is just as powerful, if not more so, than what you DO do.

[Yesspaz]

Bass players unite.

One thing I like is when a band changes time signatures to a signature with a different feel. For instance, 2/4 and 4/4 have the same feel, but 7/4 and 4/4 don't. Different feeling changes are colorful and sometimes staggering. Floyd's "Money" is in 7/4 but the bridge is 4/4. Yes' "Lightning Strikes" is a fast 7/4, and when they switch to 4/4 in the middle, it is dynamite. The Letter E's "Alushta" is 7/4, then 12/8or4, then 7, then 12, then 7 again. Journey's "Nickel and Dime" has two sections, one in 5/4 and one in 10/8or4.

Lenron, I'm sure you're familiar with the KC and Yes picks there, but maybe not the other two. For fun in time signatures, try those.



Hmmm... fun non-4/4 or 3/4 songs should be a thread. I start with American Football's "Never Meant" in 12/8.

[moses]

This is all good on why 4/4 and 3/4 are "natural" (or whatever the oringal term was) for WESTERN music.

(Hmm, oringal, that's a good one. I'll leave that. Sounds like a place. I just got back from Oringal and boy is it nice there this time of year!)

Of course I meant ORIGINAL!

But my point was that traditional Indian music (India-Indian, not Native American again) often used(uses?) 5/4 or 10/8 (depending on how you count it) in addition to the quartertones. My guess is because of the 5 fingers (per hand) thing.

Not that it really adds much to what has already been said. I'm going back to Oringal now.

[Yesspaz]

I read that all Oringnal ethnic music is in 1/1 time, but some of those non-traditionalist types are experimenting with 3.5/11 rhythm.

[moses]

I want to hear a Progressive Shores show on the Prog scene in Oringal! It could probably be a three-part series!

[Rick and Roll]

Originally posted by moses
I want to hear a Progressive Shores show on the Prog scene in Oringal! It could probably be a three-part series!

I believe it's next to Senegal. There may be some musicians on Gabriel's records from there.

[kirk]

oringal...... isn't that what the "O" stands
for in o.j. simpson's name?

[lenron]

I think it does, yeah. However, I have no idea how to REALLY spell it.