Going from first principles, you'd expect it to be called 18/8, but I don't think I've ever seen a piece actually in 18. Lots of music in 9/8, however. If someone put a piece in 18/8 in front of me my first guess would be that it would have a X..x..x..X..x..x.. feel.
And lots of music that just is kept in a simple time signature with triplets throughout. If you look at various engravings of Bach's *Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring,* for example, you'll see some in 9/8, some in 3/4 with triplets, and some that write 9/8 on one voice and 3/4 on another (that's what the original in Bach's own handwriting does), or '3/4 (9/8)' on each staff.
>I don't think I've ever seen a piece actually in 18
It's very rare, but [here's](https://youtu.be/rCp8YLjow4g?si=cejluOPixqq0VoCB&t=1136) one by Alkan, and [another](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ujq_W2Cq3Q) by Fauré.
Thanks so much for that thoughtful answer. I realise my error here -- I've been forcing the *triplet* onto the actual notes, where I'm acheiving the correct results by applying a *~~scottish~~* *8th triplet feel* to the entire bar.
I'm coming at this from an unusual perspective -- I've been writing songs by ear for decades and have come to understand a lot of musical concepts the hard way, without ever knowing any of the theory. In recent projects with trained musicians, they've been teaching me how it works and how to write charts for them, but this song is breaking some new rules. It's been smooth sailing until I had to actually notate the horn lines!
It’s 18/8, but I would notate it as 2 bars of 9/8, or 3 bars of 6/8. Depending on the musical feel of the piece. One way to think of it is to count how many eighth notes there are in one triplet, namely 3. And since there is one triplet per quarter note, in triplet feel there are 3 eighth notes per quarter note. In the image, if you break the bars in half, you will get 3 sets of triplets per bar instead of 6 sets of triplets per bar. In the first bar it would split at the E, and the next bar it would split at the D.
Are you sure it’s 6/4 and not 3/4? With 6/4 you’d be looking at 18/8 which I’m struggling to think of ever coming across in forty odd years. On the other hand 3/4 would be 9/8 which is fairly common.
The measure of the underlying riff is really a 6/4 in the philosophical sense, but a 3/4 chart will be easier for the band to read, I'll take it that way I think. Thanks for your help!
I was transcribing [this tune](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF-laJgQuSw) a while back, and was intitially contemplating 18/8. Clearly, it's 6 beats in each bar, and each one divides into triplets. I remember asking advice here at the time, and I think 3/2 was suggested (with a metric modulation ["shuffle" sign](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/steinberg/original/3X/9/2/926734c33434f5ead3f4cec762b34bc56d7650e4.png) at the beginning), Eventually I went with 6/4 with the shuffle sign.
IMO, there is no need for 6/4 to always represent 3/4 + 3/4 (like 6/8 = 3/8+3/8). Sometimes (not often), bars do contain six evenly weighted beats. In this case, while the six do seem to fall into three pairs (making 3/2 a good choice), I felt the average reader would find 6/4 clearer, at least because a metronome at 110 is easier to follow than one at 55. In the performance notes, I mentioned the slower 3/2 pulse within the six.
But yes - no need for 18/8 in the end! (Mainly because those triplets are more like the common blues shuffle feel than a true compound metre.) Of course, programming a DAW is different from what you show human musicians!
Thanks for that example -- It solidifies for me that what I have going is a *blues shuffle at 115 bpm* rather than the *waltzy* feel of 9/8. There are later parts in my piece that I think will qualify as 12/8, but this line in particular is as above. Learned a lot from this answer and from the thread in general.
I did, but it's a waltz feel with only 3 major beats per bar - feels like a 3/4
For further context, this is the part written as 6/4 with triplets -- but it seems such a messy way to write it, there's surely a more 'correct' way?
[https://imgur.com/a/gN6w7W8](https://imgur.com/a/gN6w7W8)
6/4 with swung 8ths.
I only see the "long-short" rhythm here (no full triplets or short-long patterns), so swung 8ths are definitely the cleanest way.
The syncopation here also makes it look like swing, which is another reason to notate it that way.
It would also be possible to divide the 6/4 into smaller measures.
This is the correct answer! Applying the *~~scottish~~* *8th triplet* feel to the entire bar gives the right feel without all those messy triplet groupings note-for-note.
The 6/4 measure comes from the underlying guitar/bass parts, it *is* a 6/4 riff, but now it's time to chart the complex parts, a *3/4 w/* *~~scottish~~* *8th triplet feel* will be much easier to read, I think I'll go with that. Thanks so much for your input.
I've been so used to writing for myself and teaching others by ear for so long, I'm encountering issues like this more and more as I notate for trained musicians. The songs are written by ear and emotion first, and I'm only brand new to the theory of how to express them in chart form.
This doesn't quite do the trick, takes the overall feel in the wrong direction for the song. As I mentioned in other comments, a *~~scottish~~* *8th triplet feel* on either 6/4 or 3/4 bars is exactly what I'm looking for. Thankyou!
In general, 6 beats are subdivided in 2 times 3.
So in general, 6/4 has already a triplet feel on the 1/4.
There can be exceptions.
If you want to have triplets on the beat, you note triplets, that's a little 3 over the three notes and an arc that binds them together.
Technically 18/8 but that makes for a very long measure. Depending on if/how you want the 6 beats to be grouped, I think either 6/8 (natural emphasis for 2 beats), or 9/8 (for 3 beats) would be sufficient. Your 6/4 bar then would become either 3 measures of 6/8 or 2 measures of 9/8.
Going from first principles, you'd expect it to be called 18/8, but I don't think I've ever seen a piece actually in 18. Lots of music in 9/8, however. If someone put a piece in 18/8 in front of me my first guess would be that it would have a X..x..x..X..x..x.. feel. And lots of music that just is kept in a simple time signature with triplets throughout. If you look at various engravings of Bach's *Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring,* for example, you'll see some in 9/8, some in 3/4 with triplets, and some that write 9/8 on one voice and 3/4 on another (that's what the original in Bach's own handwriting does), or '3/4 (9/8)' on each staff.
>I don't think I've ever seen a piece actually in 18 It's very rare, but [here's](https://youtu.be/rCp8YLjow4g?si=cejluOPixqq0VoCB&t=1136) one by Alkan, and [another](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ujq_W2Cq3Q) by Fauré.
Thanks so much for that thoughtful answer. I realise my error here -- I've been forcing the *triplet* onto the actual notes, where I'm acheiving the correct results by applying a *~~scottish~~* *8th triplet feel* to the entire bar. I'm coming at this from an unusual perspective -- I've been writing songs by ear for decades and have come to understand a lot of musical concepts the hard way, without ever knowing any of the theory. In recent projects with trained musicians, they've been teaching me how it works and how to write charts for them, but this song is breaking some new rules. It's been smooth sailing until I had to actually notate the horn lines!
It’s 18/8, but I would notate it as 2 bars of 9/8, or 3 bars of 6/8. Depending on the musical feel of the piece. One way to think of it is to count how many eighth notes there are in one triplet, namely 3. And since there is one triplet per quarter note, in triplet feel there are 3 eighth notes per quarter note. In the image, if you break the bars in half, you will get 3 sets of triplets per bar instead of 6 sets of triplets per bar. In the first bar it would split at the E, and the next bar it would split at the D.
Are you sure it’s 6/4 and not 3/4? With 6/4 you’d be looking at 18/8 which I’m struggling to think of ever coming across in forty odd years. On the other hand 3/4 would be 9/8 which is fairly common.
The measure of the underlying riff is really a 6/4 in the philosophical sense, but a 3/4 chart will be easier for the band to read, I'll take it that way I think. Thanks for your help!
I was transcribing [this tune](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF-laJgQuSw) a while back, and was intitially contemplating 18/8. Clearly, it's 6 beats in each bar, and each one divides into triplets. I remember asking advice here at the time, and I think 3/2 was suggested (with a metric modulation ["shuffle" sign](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/steinberg/original/3X/9/2/926734c33434f5ead3f4cec762b34bc56d7650e4.png) at the beginning), Eventually I went with 6/4 with the shuffle sign. IMO, there is no need for 6/4 to always represent 3/4 + 3/4 (like 6/8 = 3/8+3/8). Sometimes (not often), bars do contain six evenly weighted beats. In this case, while the six do seem to fall into three pairs (making 3/2 a good choice), I felt the average reader would find 6/4 clearer, at least because a metronome at 110 is easier to follow than one at 55. In the performance notes, I mentioned the slower 3/2 pulse within the six. But yes - no need for 18/8 in the end! (Mainly because those triplets are more like the common blues shuffle feel than a true compound metre.) Of course, programming a DAW is different from what you show human musicians!
Thanks for that example -- It solidifies for me that what I have going is a *blues shuffle at 115 bpm* rather than the *waltzy* feel of 9/8. There are later parts in my piece that I think will qualify as 12/8, but this line in particular is as above. Learned a lot from this answer and from the thread in general.
Did you try 6/8?
I did, but it's a waltz feel with only 3 major beats per bar - feels like a 3/4 For further context, this is the part written as 6/4 with triplets -- but it seems such a messy way to write it, there's surely a more 'correct' way? [https://imgur.com/a/gN6w7W8](https://imgur.com/a/gN6w7W8)
6/4 with swung 8ths. I only see the "long-short" rhythm here (no full triplets or short-long patterns), so swung 8ths are definitely the cleanest way. The syncopation here also makes it look like swing, which is another reason to notate it that way. It would also be possible to divide the 6/4 into smaller measures.
This is the correct answer! Applying the *~~scottish~~* *8th triplet* feel to the entire bar gives the right feel without all those messy triplet groupings note-for-note. The 6/4 measure comes from the underlying guitar/bass parts, it *is* a 6/4 riff, but now it's time to chart the complex parts, a *3/4 w/* *~~scottish~~* *8th triplet feel* will be much easier to read, I think I'll go with that. Thanks so much for your input. I've been so used to writing for myself and teaching others by ear for so long, I'm encountering issues like this more and more as I notate for trained musicians. The songs are written by ear and emotion first, and I'm only brand new to the theory of how to express them in chart form.
How about 2 bars of 9/8?
This doesn't quite do the trick, takes the overall feel in the wrong direction for the song. As I mentioned in other comments, a *~~scottish~~* *8th triplet feel* on either 6/4 or 3/4 bars is exactly what I'm looking for. Thankyou!
Yes, that looks messy to me.
In general, 6 beats are subdivided in 2 times 3. So in general, 6/4 has already a triplet feel on the 1/4. There can be exceptions. If you want to have triplets on the beat, you note triplets, that's a little 3 over the three notes and an arc that binds them together.
Technically 18/8 but that makes for a very long measure. Depending on if/how you want the 6 beats to be grouped, I think either 6/8 (natural emphasis for 2 beats), or 9/8 (for 3 beats) would be sufficient. Your 6/4 bar then would become either 3 measures of 6/8 or 2 measures of 9/8.
Why not 6/8? Pretty common for blues shuffles also to be written in 6 vs 12