[Doggiebox] relevance of time signatures

Dan Costello stellaswindow at earthlink.net
Fri Feb 11 16:59:30 EST 2005

For those users like myself that DO read/write standard notation, and 
try to include DB into that context, it'd be a shame to not use time 
signatures. I'd probably look for a different sequencer.

With the current version of DB, you can still doodle all you want, 
knowing nothing about time signatures and music structures. I don't see 
how the time signatures get in the way.

And to suggest to a serious composer or recording artist to just "stick 
two 4/4 bars together and change the tempo to mimmick 5/4" is 
completely ridiculous. (No offense intended at all, Adrian... I just 
got a good laugh out of that.)

Actually another thing Adrian said struck me as a little odd-- a 
request to add more subdivisions of each beat. THIS is where a tempo 
change, and an understanding of time sigs, would apply. In standard 
notation it is EXTREMELY rare to find anything smaller than a 64th 
note. Even in very fast and complex Indian tabla rhythms, each beat 
rarely gets subdivided smaller than that. They just change the time 

And one last thing--  6/8 is different than 3/4, which is different 
than 12/16. At least to someone that's reading it from a sheet of 
music.  If I already have something written for which I want to use DB 
to build a drum track, and which shifts between the feel of 6/8 and the 
feel of 3/4, I want to see that on the screen in DB-- I don't want to 
have to guess which section I'm in by looking at where the snare is in 
that measure.

So, I vote for keeping time signatures.


More information about the Doggiebox mailing list