| Tiram 14.05.2009 13:13 |
I was wondering whether how many three-four time songs Queen has made. I'm too lazy to search for and check all the lists with figures, does somebody know this? (and I wonder which songs of parts are three-four) Sorry for my bad English |
| Daniel vZ 14.05.2009 14:42 |
I think the only full song in 3/4 timing is Sweet Lady. |
| Sebastian 14.05.2009 16:14 |
Sweet Lady has a section in 4/4. So it's not a full song in 3/4 anyway. |
| Daniel vZ 14.05.2009 17:04 |
Yes, you're right, my bad. So no song from Queen is fully in 3/4 timing? But then I can assume that Sweet Lady at least has the longest 3/4 timing from all Queen songs? |
| Mr Prime Jive 14.05.2009 19:40 |
isn't it a little bit of 3/4 in mustapha too ? |
| lalaalalaa 15.05.2009 15:51 |
The Millionaire Waltz has some 3/4 time doesn't it? |
| steven 35638 15.05.2009 16:45 |
I'm fairly positive The Millionaire Waltz is in 3/4 time. |
| lalaalalaa 15.05.2009 22:02 |
Steven wrote: I'm fairly positive The Millionaire Waltz is in 3/4 time. considering that it is a waltz...... I'm glad that someone agrees with me. |
| beautifulsoup 15.05.2009 22:37 |
Hmmm.....I was tempted say "I'm in Love With My Car," until I remenbered Roger saying in some video that it's really 6/8 time. So even though it's a rolling feeling of 3 notes within a 'beat," basically that "beat" is duple. Given, it's a slow duple. |
| lalaalalaa 16.05.2009 08:48 |
beautifulsoup wrote: Hmmm.....I was tempted say "I'm in Love With My Car," until I remenbered Roger saying in some video that it's really 6/8 time. So even though it's a rolling feeling of 3 notes within a 'beat,"basically that "beat" is duple. Given, it's a slow duple. well 6/8 time and 3/4 time is pretty much the same thing, since time signatures are just basic math problems. The reason you hear the 3/4 beat is because it's 6/8 time and 6/8 reduces to 3/4 in basic math. |
| Sebastian 16.05.2009 09:39 |
Actually, 3/4 and 6/8 aren't the same, just like so-called identical twins have some subtle differences, just like F# isn't the same as Gb, etc. In Queen, 6/8 is actually more common (Jesus, Somebody to Love, We Are the Champions, Drowse, I'm in Love With My Car), 3/4 still appears sometimes (e.g. Lap of the Gods... Revisited, Soul Brother, Sweet Lady and Millionaire Waltz, though the latter two include 4/4 sections). Both Bicycle Race and Innuendo have a break in 3/4 as well. |
| beautifulsoup 16.05.2009 10:36 |
Sebastian wrote: Actually, 3/4 and 6/8 aren't the same, just like so-called identical twins have some subtle differences, just like F# isn't the same as Gb, etc. *************************** Exactly! |
| lalaalalaa 16.05.2009 21:38 |
but 3/4 and 6/8 have a VERY similar recognizable sound. |
| redspecialusa 16.05.2009 21:40 |
Sebastian wrote: Actually, 3/4 and 6/8 aren't the same, just like so-called identical twins have some subtle differences, just like F# isn't the same as Gb, etc. In Queen, 6/8 is actually more common (Jesus, Somebody to Love, We Are the Champions, Drowse, I'm in Love With My Car), 3/4 still appears sometimes (e.g. Lap of the Gods... Revisited, Soul Brother, Sweet Lady and Millionaire Waltz, though the latter two include 4/4 sections). Both Bicycle Race and Innuendo have a break in 3/4 as well. Not to cause confusion...but I thought "We Are The Champions" was in 12/8. |
| Sebastian 17.05.2009 01:09 |
lalaalalaa wrote: but 3/4 and 6/8 have a VERY similar recognizable sound. Just like siblings (and identical twins even more) have VERY similar looks, traits, etc. but they're still different. Just like F# and Gb are VERY close but not the same, etc. As for We Are the Champions: you may be right about that. These things are sometimes neither black nor white nor grey: drums can be playing one pattern and vocal may have a different pulse, etc. Queen catalogue has some subtle polyrhythms, hemiolas and so on. If you can elaborate on Champions' metre, please do: I'll be happy to stand corrected if that's the case. |
| Yara 17.05.2009 02:25 |
Hi, folks! How are you doing? I hope you're all doing fine. Sunday! Yeah! No need to be that worried about time signatures, I think. These are very simplistic conventions which are useful under certain circumstances, but they don't really tell you anything more accurate about timing and the time structure upon which the music is built. In some cases, they're not useful at all - on the contrary, they can be misleading - because we don't know how certain notations were interpreted by a certain musician - things get more and more complicated the further back we go into the past. Nowadays there are other, more complex and accurate ways of rendering the time structure of a particular piece and the role it plays in organizing the sound material. There are usually, especially with regard to pop music, more than a single plausible interpretation for the time signature; it's more helpful just to speak in lay terms and say how we feel about the pulse of them song: where we notice a change, and so on. Just on a very basic, sensory level, without resorting to notations which may put off some people who otherwise can contribute a lot to the discussion. Rythim was described in ordinary language much before the current system of time signatures was tought out. I'd ask you humbly to try to be less technical and more intuitive. It may turn out to be more helpful for users in general. Have a nice sunday you all! Yara |
| lalaalalaa 17.05.2009 12:45 |
Sebastian wrote:lalaalalaa wrote: but 3/4 and 6/8 have a VERY similar recognizable sound.Just like siblings (and identical twins even more) have VERY similar looks, traits, etc. but they're still different. Just like F# and Gb are VERY close but not the same, etc. As for We Are the Champions: you may be right about that. These things are sometimes neither black nor white nor grey: drums can be playing one pattern and vocal may have a different pulse, etc. Queen catalogue has some subtle polyrhythms, hemiolas and so on. If you can elaborate on Champions' metre, please do: I'll be happy to stand corrected if that's the case. I realize they are different, since i read music every day in marching band/concert band and choir. |
| Sebastian 17.05.2009 14:15 |
Congratulations. Then, you must know that they're not 'pretty much the same thing'. |
| Mr. Farenheit 17.05.2009 22:28 |
|
| Mr. Farenheit 17.05.2009 22:30 |
beautifulsoup wrote: Sebastian wrote: Actually, 3/4 and 6/8 aren't the same, just like so-called identical twins have some subtle differences, just like F# isn't the same as Gb, etc. *************************** Exactly! F# and Gb are the same note...which name you would use would depend on the key you were in. But they are the same sound. |
| lalaalalaa 17.05.2009 23:13 |
Mr. Farenheit wrote:beautifulsoup wrote: Sebastian wrote: Actually, 3/4 and 6/8 aren't the same, just like so-called identical twins have some subtle differences, just like F# isn't the same as Gb, etc. *************************** Exactly!F# and Gb are the same note...which name you would use would depend on the key you were in. But they are the same sound. basically two names for the same thing. |
| lalaalalaa 17.05.2009 23:14 |
Sebastian wrote: Congratulations. Then, you must know that they're not 'pretty much the same thing'. They are close enough to the same thing. Closer to the same than 3/4 and 2/4.... |
| Sebastian 17.05.2009 23:18 |
Analysed by Pythagorean commas, F# is a little bit sharper than Gb. The difference is very, very, very subtle, but it does exist, like the teeny tiny details that tell an identical twin from another. Equal temperament is a bit of a compromise, since it gives a 'wee' margin of error. So, at the end of the day, B# and C are different in pitch (even if by an incredibly small amount - of course it also depends on the octave), as are F# and Gb, G# and Ab, etc. Yes, 3/4 and 6/8 are closer to 'the same thing' than 3/4 and 2/4, but it doesn't mean they're 'the same thing'. Brian May and Roger Taylor are more alike than Brian May and Kelly Brook, but it doesn't mean Brian and Roger are clones... A 6 ft 2 in man isn't a dwarf, but he ain't a giant either. |
| Yara 17.05.2009 23:26 |
Dear Queenzoners, F# and Gb are not the same thing! Yes, they are enharmonically equivalent - dear average Queenzoner, sorry for that: it only means that you press the same key on the piano to get the note :-)) - but they may play different roles and have different functions in a music composition. In short, they are not the same thing. That's exactly why there's the concept of enharmonic equivalency in the first place. -------- Again, I'd most humbly ask you guys to avoid technical descriptions of trivial music phenomena. First because most of music notations - such as time signatures - don't mean much. They are useful under very specific circumstances. Period. Second, because we are all able to describe pulse and rythm in lay terms and in a more intuitive and helpful way - by doing so, we avoid putting off users who are not familiar with the lingo but who may otherwise have very good thoughts on this and contribute to the thread. Whenever it's possible to simplify without taking the substance off the discussion, I think it'd be nice to do so. I know it's hard, but it's been my experience that this usually turns out to be very rewarding. NO OFFENSE to anyone. I deeply respect each one of you. It's just a suggestion, ok? Best regards and I hope you had a terrific weekend! Yeaah! Yara |
| Sebastian 17.05.2009 23:46 |
IMO, for Queenzone: Should insults be forbidden? Yes Should personal attacks be forbidden? Yes Should racial slurs be forbidden? Yes Should technical terms be forbidden? No. Who doesn't want to read them can skip them, but there may always be someone interested. Should disagreeing be forbidden? No. Should agreeing to disagree be forbidden? No - I think it should be encouraged. Conclusion: I won't refrain from using technical terms (and none of them are too complicated anyway, since my maths command is very limited, and most of this stuff is more maths than arts at the end of the day), but I appreciate your suggestion. I don't think I'll be able to convince you to change your mind (and I don't want to), but you're not gonna be able to change mine either. And then again, QZ debates have been very interesting these last few days! |
| lalaalalaa 18.05.2009 00:04 |
Just remember when I say 3/4 and 6/8 are basically the same thing, what I'm saying is that in general it's the same thing, but when you go into enough detail, there are differences. |
| Yara 19.05.2009 00:02 |
Sebastian wrote: IMO, for Queenzone: Should insults be forbidden? Yes Should personal attacks be forbidden? Yes Should racial slurs be forbidden? Yes Should technical terms be forbidden? No. Who doesn't want to read them can skip them, but there may always be someone interested. Should disagreeing be forbidden? No. Should agreeing to disagree be forbidden? No - I think it should be encouraged. Conclusion: I won't refrain from using technical terms (and none of them are too complicated anyway, since my maths command is very limited, and most of this stuff is more maths than arts at the end of the day), but I appreciate your suggestion. I don't think I'll be able to convince you to change your mind (and I don't want to), but you're not gonna be able to change mine either. And then again, QZ debates have been very interesting these last few days! (hugging Sebastian tenderly and caressing his hair) Dear Sebastian, How are you doing? I hope you're doing just great. Please! Excuse me. I think I don't have expressed myself very clearly, as my English is sufferable at best. You know how much I enjoy your posts and I keep recommending them, as well as your website, for the new users, because I think it's a very good job you do. Look, I never said I wanted to forbid anyone from expressing him/herself or, worse, from speaking his/her minds when there's disagreement. I didn't write this, my dear. On the contrary, I like it when there's, as you pointed out, thoughtful discussions without offense and personal attacks. I just tried to make a very humble suggestion - humble and modest. I'm not against the use of technical terms when they're called for, not at all - but in some cases, I try to invite people who don't know much about notations and so on to express their thoughts about the timing and the rythm of a song: these people may have, as it has already happened, a lot to conribute to the discussion through their intuitive way of seeing it all. I'm all for you writting more in-depth and technical analysis. I encourage you to do so, you know it! It's just that, in this case, especially when it comes to time signatures, I prefer another kind of approach - I know we DISAGREE (:op) about that, but it's great, I never suggested I don't want disagreement!!! I'm feeling bad because you're an user I admire a lot and I didn't want to suggest that I'd like you or anyone to refrain from expressing the way they feel like. It was only a suggestion. For instance: yes, some notes can indeed have the same tune (the sound translation of the note), as the users pointed out - but then, this doesn't mean they are the same thing or the same note: they're equivalent, and that's why there's the concept of enharmonic equivalency - they may fulfill different functions in a composition. But if I began expanding on it, I'd end up, as you correctly pointed out, discussing equal-temperament, and wow, I personally think it may be threatening to users who don't know much about it. If I acted wrong in any way, please forgive me. I like your posts, I admire your brightness and I think you must be a very good musician, Sebastian. I respect you a lot. When it comes to you, I say: just write as much as you want and the way you want. We admire you a lot and enjoy your posts. Do you forgive me? I'll only be convinced that you did forgive me if you send me a virtual kiss either in public or by pm, ok? : oppppppp Take care, honey, and be well. Yara |
| john bodega 19.05.2009 00:33 |
My memory is hazy on this because it's been 3 years since I did any Theory classes, but as I recall, sharp and flat notes were (some time ago) recoginsed to be different (some instruments even having separate keys for them?) but at some stage it was simplified down. The distinction now is only relevant to people who want to play microtonal stuff, at any rate. I'm also a bit fuzzy on this; when you're writing the chords for a song, you're not supposed to (for instance) say G and then G#? In that case, you're supposed to say G and Ab, so as to avoid confusion over G's? |
| Mr. Farenheit 19.05.2009 01:28 |
Sebastian wrote:
Analysed by Pythagorean commas, F# is a little bit sharper than Gb. The difference is very, very, very subtle, but it does exist, like the teeny tiny details that tell an identical twin from another.
Equal temperament is a bit of a compromise, since it gives a 'wee' margin of error. So, at the end of the day, B# and C are different in pitch (even if by an incredibly small amount - of course it also depends on the octave), as are F# and Gb, G# and Ab, etc.
Yes, 3/4 and 6/8 are closer to 'the same thing' than 3/4 and 2/4, but it doesn't mean they're 'the same thing'. Brian May and Roger Taylor are more alike than Brian May and Kelly Brook, but it doesn't mean Brian and Roger are clones...
A 6 ft 2 in man isn't a dwarf, but he ain't a giant either.
Sorry. The bit about F# being a "little bit sharper" than Gb is not correct. They are the same "tone." Same with B# or C. Same tone. The difference is only in what you would call the tone. That would be determined by many things...but the tone...the sound you hear... is the same. |
| john bodega 19.05.2009 02:07 |
In ye oldé music, they WERE different notes. You wouldn't be able to do them accurately on a fretted instrument; you'd have to do small string bends to get a feel for what they were. |
| Sebastian 19.05.2009 08:45 |
Yes: F# is sharper than Gb. It's a microtonal difference, but it exists (again, like the subtle differences between two identical twins). It's like those physics problems where you dismiss friction and only consider the most important factors, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. F# and Gb are enharmonically equivalent (i.e. they're so close to be the same that they're usually regarded as the same in order to ease things up), but they're not the same note, not the same pitch, not the same frequency, etc. Equal temperament has a slight margin of error, which is shown in these things precisely. Yara: There's nothing to 'forgive'. You expressed your opinion, and I expressed mine. I just want to add two things: - Absolutely none of what I've written here in the past eight years is very 'technical' or 'complex'. They're barely past the first fifteen pages of a regular book on music theory. Just by reading my posts you can learn 99% of what I know. - Sometimes maths are the only way to clear-up situations, because, indeed, some situations are indeed black or white. Compare: ** Roger sings better on Bohemian Rhapsody than on In the Lap of the Gods ** Roger sings better on In the Lap of the Gods than on Bohemian Rhapsody Those are two statements that are entirely subjective, thus there's no way at all to demonstrate if either one is absolutely 'right' or 'wrong', and it doesn't matter if Roger did more ornaments in one or the other or if the range covered was larger or smaller... no theoretical concept, no physics, no maths, no psychology can 'prove' either answer: it's up to the person who listens and has an opinion. But, compare: ** Roger's highest note on Bohemian Rhapsody is higher than his highest on Lap of the Gods ** Roger's highest note on Lap of the Gods is higher than his highest on Bohemian Rhapsody ** Roger's highest notes on Bohemian Rhapsody and Lap of the Gods are the same There, there's no opinion involved: two of the three statements are absolutely wrong and one of them is absolutely right. Full stop. How do we know it? Rog's highest note on ItLotG: Soprano A = 880 Hz Rog's highest note on BoRhap: Soprano Bb = (880 * (2^(1/12))) Hz = 932.32752303618 Hz (and btw A# is a tiny bit sharper) 932 > 880 hence, Roger's highest note on Bohemian Rhapsody is higher than his highest on In the Lap of the Gods and there's absolutely nothing subjective about it. Same for other topics: I can't possibly argue if someone tells me that, for instance, they prefer Brian's piano playing over Freddie's. I could (and would) disagree, but I can't tell them to think otherwise because it's a matter of opinion. But, if somebody tells me that Brian played as much piano on released Queen songs as Freddie did, I can prove them wrong by simply counting the number of songs each one played (actually, I could walk the extra mile and count the seconds, because the brief piano part on Now I'm Here isn't the same as a full epic song like March of the Black Queen). And for those cases, there is an absolute conclusion. |
| redspecialusa 20.05.2009 00:13 |
I was taught in theory class that en-harmonically F# & Gb are the same but in theory and application they are very different. And that's theory being taught from a classical standpoint. |