I work for a large company and they had a pretty good amateur orchestra going for a few years. They did this piece and i created a 3D animation to project in the auditorium while they played. I was impressed that an amateur orchestra would attempt something in 9/4 time signature or whatever it is. But they did a good job. I should post the animation here, it was pretty funny.

that time signature is like.. totally ridiculous. and great

But I REALLY like bananas!

In reply to this comment by MINK:
I just disagree. there IS such thing as "good" music, and there is such thing as "crap" music. but there's some different issues getting mixed up here, so let me explain...

The comparison to filet mignon and bananas is pathetic. Man did not create bananas. Nobody had the choice of creating a totally new plant and decided on the banana. The banana is not art. You could even say the banana is a higher form of food than filet mignon, because god/evolution made it over a period of billions of years. That has nothing to do with 2unlimited making a pop song.

anyway. i could write a book about this but... consider this question:

is it possible to study music?

if you answer yes, then please stop with your postpostpostmodern "it's just my opinion" bullshit. There is a theory of music. It works. Pop sells because it uses the theory very well. Bad songs don't use the theory well. The theory is scientific. If you study it you will write "better" songs. Some people have better intuition, but you can study it.

Some writers, for example Elton John, churn out the same stuff over and over, and i personally can't stand it. But it is good music. I would prefer if he innovated more, and i vomit at the thought of having to endure one of his concerts, but i have to accept that he is a master songwriter. Not just because of his popularity and durability, although that's a pretty good indicator.

You are getting confused by genres. There is good pop and bad pop, good techno and bad techno, good classical music and bad classical music (but we kinda lost all the bad classical over time, because it was bad, so now it looks like all classical music was perfect)

You might not like these modern repetitive drum sounds, but your african ancestors did.

You might prefer Kylie to Celine Dion, but they both make good quality music. People use the words "bad" and "good" to encompass all things, but i would argue that there are fundamentals at work, and then your preference is a thin layer on top.

Peronally, I call Celine Dion "bad" but i am expressing an opinion on the way she does not innovate, she goes for the easy win, and i think innovation is essential because it's how we got to the great music we have today. But hey, not everyone wants to contribute, some people just want to cash in.

Bjork is right that if music makes you happy, you should listen to it and enjoy it and not worry about snobs.

BUT

She, and the commenters above, are wrong to dismiss the idea that you could actually educate yourself and improve your taste

Taste isn't a lucky dip of equally valid choices, it is a scale from bad taste to good taste.

A person with good taste usually likes many genres, but chooses the particular songs and artists carefully. He/she usually plays an instrument or sings or has studied music or has had parents who constantly played good music in the house. Coincidence? Or education?

I am not just being technical here, music has many facets which take more than 15 seconds and an IQ of 56 to appreciate, and the music industry and media distort the supply of music, and governments don't seem interested in teaching music, so look at the crap we get.

In summary, i just can't stand it when people say it's all a matter of taste. It is not that simple.

it should be noted that bjork has never made a shitty song in her life ... so is she just saying that's it's an accident that she was born with the same tastes as millions of people? Or is there something fundamentally powerful in her music that makes people change their tastes... to move their tastes closer to hers, because they learnt something without even noticing. Does she just write whatever frequencies she feels like? Or does she use a piano with strings tightened to frequencies which are mysteriously "good" and accepted by billions of people?

Does anyone "prefer" the 6.34572/42 time signature?? No.

Would you accept that the reason you don't understand some music is because you are ignorant? You say you "don't like it" as if you've taken the time to study it and come to a knowledgeable conclusion. I guess you haven't.

You just say it's all about taste because you can't be bothered to learn anything.

I just disagree. there IS such thing as "good" music, and there is such thing as "crap" music. but there's some different issues getting mixed up here, so let me explain...

The comparison to filet mignon and bananas is pathetic. Man did not create bananas. Nobody had the choice of creating a totally new plant and decided on the banana. The banana is not art. You could even say the banana is a higher form of food than filet mignon, because god/evolution made it over a period of billions of years. That has nothing to do with 2unlimited making a pop song.

anyway. i could write a book about this but... consider this question:

is it possible to study music?

if you answer yes, then please stop with your postpostpostmodern "it's just my opinion" bullshit. There is a theory of music. It works. Pop sells because it uses the theory very well. Bad songs don't use the theory well. The theory is scientific. If you study it you will write "better" songs. Some people have better intuition, but you can study it.

Some writers, for example Elton John, churn out the same stuff over and over, and i personally can't stand it. But it is good music. I would prefer if he innovated more, and i vomit at the thought of having to endure one of his concerts, but i have to accept that he is a master songwriter. Not just because of his popularity and durability, although that's a pretty good indicator.

You are getting confused by genres. There is good pop and bad pop, good techno and bad techno, good classical music and bad classical music (but we kinda lost all the bad classical over time, because it was bad, so now it looks like all classical music was perfect)

You might not like these modern repetitive drum sounds, but your african ancestors did.

You might prefer Kylie to Celine Dion, but they both make good quality music. People use the words "bad" and "good" to encompass all things, but i would argue that there are fundamentals at work, and then your preference is a thin layer on top.

Peronally, I call Celine Dion "bad" but i am expressing an opinion on the way she does not innovate, she goes for the easy win, and i think innovation is essential because it's how we got to the great music we have today. But hey, not everyone wants to contribute, some people just want to cash in.

Bjork is right that if music makes you happy, you should listen to it and enjoy it and not worry about snobs.

BUT

She, and the commenters above, are wrong to dismiss the idea that you could actually educate yourself and improve your taste

Taste isn't a lucky dip of equally valid choices, it is a scale from bad taste to good taste.

A person with good taste usually likes many genres, but chooses the particular songs and artists carefully. He/she usually plays an instrument or sings or has studied music or has had parents who constantly played good music in the house. Coincidence? Or education?

I am not just being technical here, music has many facets which take more than 15 seconds and an IQ of 56 to appreciate, and the music industry and media distort the supply of music, and governments don't seem interested in teaching music, so look at the crap we get.

In summary, i just can't stand it when people say it's all a matter of taste. It is not that simple.

it should be noted that bjork has never made a shitty song in her life ... so is she just saying that's it's an accident that she was born with the same tastes as millions of people? Or is there something fundamentally powerful in her music that makes people change their tastes... to move their tastes closer to hers, because they learnt something without even noticing. Does she just write whatever frequencies she feels like? Or does she use a piano with strings tightened to frequencies which are mysteriously "good" and accepted by billions of people?

Does anyone "prefer" the 6.34572/42 time signature?? No.

Would you accept that the reason you don't understand some music is because you are ignorant? You say you "don't like it" as if you've taken the time to study it and come to a knowledgeable conclusion. I guess you haven't.

You just say it's all about taste because you can't be bothered to learn anything.

Alright, what is the meter and the time signature at 1:50 in that abomination of a tune? I can't believe I wasted 5 minutes trying to figure it out.

cool track. it's like fear factory with wicked random time signatures.

That's Al Minns and Leon James.

One reason it syncs up is that swing jazz and electronica are both 4/4 time music. Same time signature, same bars to the phrase; same lots of things.

One reason it doesn't quite sync is that sometimes Charleston phrases start on the 1 (as in 1, 3, 5, 7) and sometimes they - like tap - start on the 8. Watch the Precision Charleston routine that starts around -0:43. I learned that routine a year or two ago and - well, I'm a little fuzzy now - but I think we danced it on 8.

Anyway, the music and dancing is a little off, but it's pretty dang tight considering the video clip is 50-60 years old.

I don't know if it's kosher to post a "video" clip that's only of a picture, but I'm hoping the song can stand on its own.

Blue Rondo is from Time Out, which was an experimental album. The name of the album is a play on words based on the songs it contains, which have non-standard time signatures. Blue Rondo starts in 9/8, and continues on at an unusual tempo.

Although Take Five is the more well-known piece from Time Out, I enjoy this song for its looser fix on tempo and its overall energetic feel. I'm biased, though: this was also the first jazz piece I ever played.

Go on then benjee, work out the time signature on this beaut

Broken Social Scene is a Canadian mega-indie-rock-band; this is the big single from their current self-titled album.

The song title refers to the fact that the song is in 7/4 time - as opposed to typical 4/4, ONE, two, Three, four beat you normally hear in pop/rock songs.

Aside from the unique time signature it's a really fun & enjoyable song.

*(Mega? When they played 7/4 Shoreline on Conan, he said they "need more guitars". There were 5 of them on stage.)