# Math Metal how to



## Jacobine (Jun 11, 2012)

Can we get a big thread on tips and tricks of how to write mathy stuff?

starting a band that does it. i was wondering how you write it. does it come to you or do you make up a 4/4 time and chop stuff out or what?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 11, 2012)

Do you mean actual "math metal" or shitty wannabe djentcore crap? Also please don't force time signatures, it can sound cool sometimes but most of the time it sounds generic and amateur. I would recommend just going with the flow of things, I think you'd surprise yourself with how many riffs you write are not in 4/4.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 11, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Also please don't force time signatures, it can sound cool sometimes but most of the time it sounds generic and amateur.



Not to shoot you down, but can you provide an example of somebody 'forcing' some meter and sounding generic and amateur? I hear this claim pretty frequently on this forum, and I tend to liken it to the "punk" attitude of forsaking any form of analysis or experimentation for no real reason. After all, I'd never liken the use of any meter, chord, scale, key, instrumentation, or other technique to novice music writing. If that were the case, we could easily quantify the workings of music and it wouldn't be much fun. Really, music is rife with as much personality as its creators, and bad writing will always be bad writing, whether it utilize the most common meter in the world or the least common. I've written plenty of music in order to try out something new, and there have been just as many mistakes as there have been successes, and in no case is that dictated by the particular technique that I am trying to incorporate. The only thing that is guaranteed to make your music sound like shit is bad form, and that's usually a case of a mismatch between content and form, or content that is not fully realized within the parameters of the form.

OP, post a song that sounds how you want to sound. I'll gladly give you an analysis of what's going on, although the way you use that information is entirely up to your own tastes.


----------



## Winspear (Jun 11, 2012)

^ I got his point. I probably would have said the same if Stealth didn't get there first.

A lot of it comes from personal experience: When I knew I liked odd time sigs but hadn't heard enough of them for it to come naturally. Trying to force rhythms in them and nothing flowed. Now most music I listen to uses odd signatures and so do most things I write or imagine in my head, without me being aware. It comes naturally, and the rhythm flows just fine.

Further backed up by witnessing the same thing with friends at various times - things that were clearly forced into a certain time signature, lacking flow.

Of course - once more experienced forcing things can work. For example I know that if I want a particularly jarring, tension building rhythmic stab, 7/8 (1234 123) can work very well.

To the OP - I recommend you just check out some tabs of stuff you like and learn it. Get used to the sound of other time signatures and you'll start to write riffs like that. I wouldn't try forcing writing in a particular style. Listen, learn, write whatever comes to you.


----------



## ChronicConsumer (Jun 11, 2012)

Listen to a lot of mathcore, and try to figure out what they're doing by ear. You probably won't get it right note for note, but hey, these 'wrong versions' can lead to some pretty cool ideas if you play around with them for a while.


----------



## Brill (Jun 11, 2012)

Time sigs are easy when you understand them, its all about the grouping. For example, althought 6/8 and 3/4 have the same value time wise, The grouping is very different, once you can learn grouping, it become quite easy to get most time sigs, Symmetrical or not.

another thing that is commonly done in "math" music, Is use dissonance. Dissonance is quite an easy concept, but math uses very dissonant notes, Like sharped Tonics, Flatened sevenths, Sevenths, Fourths and seconds.

Speed is also a very strong part of it, So I'd say get good at alt picking, and using each finger independently on the fret board with large Stretchs. 

If you have another guitarist in the band; Aim for writing intresting duels between the two of you. Something like "we should of never met - Aliases", It makes the music Feel very alive and less machine-like. 

Start with learning a few math songs, then move onto simple Syncopation, then complex time sigs, then multi-metre. Thats for the rythmic stuff, But that isn't all you should be worrying about, just because you can play a multi-metre doesn't mean the song is good, Put some thought into your writing, make it playfully fun and not to ear hurtie.

Listen to clean Math stuff, Something like Arusha Accord, or Protest the hero, or The human Abstract (Complex terms is a multi-metre) and aliases.

anyway good luck, make yourself different when Writing your music!


----------



## troyguitar (Jun 11, 2012)

I would say learn some actual math, but this so-called math metal has nothing to do with mathematics.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 11, 2012)

SchecterWhore said:


> Not to shoot you down, but can you provide an example of somebody 'forcing' some meter and sounding generic and amateur? I hear this claim pretty frequently on this forum, and I tend to liken it to the "punk" attitude of forsaking any form of analysis or experimentation for no real reason. After all, I'd never liken the use of any meter, chord, scale, key, instrumentation, or other technique to novice music writing. If that were the case, we could easily quantify the workings of music and it wouldn't be much fun. Really, music is rife with as much personality as its creators, and bad writing will always be bad writing, whether it utilize the most common meter in the world or the least common. I've written plenty of music in order to try out something new, and there have been just as many mistakes as there have been successes, and in no case is that dictated by the particular technique that I am trying to incorporate. The only thing that is guaranteed to make your music sound like shit is bad form, and that's usually a case of a mismatch between content and form, or content that is not fully realized within the parameters of the form.
> 
> OP, post a song that sounds how you want to sound. I'll gladly give you an analysis of what's going on, although the way you use that information is entirely up to your own tastes.



Every other person in the Recording section of this forum? Every other djent/deathcore thing going on?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 11, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Every other person in the Recording section of this forum? Every other djent/deathcore thing going on?



Is that the fault of the tools or the mechanic? I feel like that's what SW was getting at. 

It's basically like the converse of when ppl talk about how BB King says way more with just one note than any shredder can say with an infinite array of notes. One cannot be inherently better than another based solely upon the materials used when it comes to music. If we're talking windshields or airplane wings there may be room for argument. 

Also, isn't most of the stuff in the recording forum just 4/4 where someone accented it as strangely as possible?


----------



## nostealbucket (Jun 11, 2012)

Listen to The Dillinger Escape Plan. Calculating Infinity.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 11, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Is that the fault of the tools or the mechanic? I feel like that's what SW was getting at.
> 
> It's basically like the converse of when ppl talk about how BB King says way more with just one note than any shredder can say with an infinite array of notes. One cannot be inherently better than another based solely upon the materials used when it comes to music. If we're talking windshields or airplane wings there may be room for argument.
> 
> Also, isn't most of the stuff in the recording forum just 4/4 where someone accented it as strangely as possible?



I was just saying it sounds generic man, like cmon, how many more breakdowns does the world need? And yes lots of syncopation everywhere too


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 11, 2012)

It sounds generic because of the player, not the method. 99% of the stuff posted on this forum, either by members or from members sounds pretty generic  Naturally you need to defend your claim, but Shecterwhore is likely onto the root cause, the 'punk' mentality where knowledge of actions is overrated. This is a forum where may claim to know theory, when all they know is a few scales, but this knowledge is used to set themselves all apart/above. Your claim is much the same vein, a separation you impose, out of ignorance. The 'grooves' of modern metal already flow about as well as a stack of bricks anyway, that seems to be the point.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 11, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I was just saying it sounds generic man, like cmon, how many more breakdowns does the world need? And yes lots of syncopation everywhere too


 
Yea I get what you're saying, it just sounded like something different at first. 

And if there were any discernible difference between *modern* breakdowns from band to band/song to song, it might not be so bad. Some songs I think, "Damn, dance music doesn't even have this many break downs. I'm starting to think these guys lost track of their other 7 strings..." 

But all that being said, I still can't really fault the technique/style for what I deem to be improper use. 

SirMighyn touched on an interesting point too...

I hope this doesn't cause an unpleasant derailment, but I've found knowing more about my instrument has felt like both a boost AND an impediment at times.


----------



## Jacobine (Jun 11, 2012)

This is for (Melodic) Math Metal. my band is reforming and tring to find a new way to go. Our other guitarist isnt into djent because he's a piece of shit person (lol)

i listen to nothing but progressive like Nevermore, Periphery, Erra, AAL, Meshuggah, Chimp Spanner and even some old Born of Osiris so i listen to alot of mathy music. I just cant replicate it with my own writing. But it may be because i've never tried to cover it so i never got the grasp of it. IDK. but i've been kind of disecting Bulbs songs where he'd do a riff like 3 times and do another riff or do a quick rest and then do the original riff 2 times then same break or other riff and then go back to the 3 where it repeats.
So it looks like

O O O N/B O O N/B O O O N/B O O N/B :||

but the riffs could be in their own 4/4 measure and it just be a "quirky" way of making music

Our sound is going to be bassed more around Erra with a mix of some Devin Townsend

but i was wanting a little less of the breakdowny open noted mathematical rhythms more melodic stuff like that of Nevermore and Periphery and Dream Theater


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 11, 2012)

Look, as far as knowledge is concerned, the world is out there. Information is out there. Whether we choose to recognize that is a personal choice, and one that profoundly impacts our personality. I have a cat that's really intelligent, as far as cats go. Too intelligent, really. He needs a lot more stimulation that I can provide, but I'm not about to let him run around outdoors because I live in coyote country. To him, his containment must seem like hell at times. He can be really friendly, but sometimes he has a temper, and sometimes I see him staring off into the infinitude of space, pondering some question to which no human can privy and to which his feline companions have no awareness.







His reality is limited by his own physiology. None of you have this problem. Learn some goddamn music theory, don't complain, and you'll be a better person.

To continue with time signatures, it's wrong to say that doing something with something other than 4 is going to sound generic and amateur. Why? Because I can provide thousands of examples of music in 4 that sounds generic and amateur. To make that statement is to pose a false dichotomy.

OP, I'll get back to you later today when I have the time.


----------



## noUser01 (Jun 11, 2012)

I'm going with Mehtab on this one. Do not force time signatures where they don't belong. It's the same as anything else in music, make sure it fits the rest of the song. Don't put 45 solos in and expect them all to fit and flow throughout your 15 minute "masterpiece". If you wanna put in something, put it in! It's your music and your choice, and you can do whatever you want. But, don't expect it to "work", don't force it in, MOLD it and make it work within the entire context of a song.

If you write a riff you like in an odd time signature, use it! But don't try and force it with another cool riff you wrote and expect them both to work well together. 

Mehtab is NOT saying don't use different time signatures than 4/4 (correct me if I'm wrong), he's saying learn how to use them properly, and don't force something just to say you did it/can do it. Also, don't put them in just to say you're "Djent" or "Progressive". Again, you can do whatever you want and if all your "djent" or "progressive" or "math" metal is all in 4/4 then who cares? It's not going to make you any less of a musician or any less than you want to be, musically.

SchecterWhore: Hey, I appreciate long philosophical posts than don't help as much as the next guy, but let's focus here shall we? Nice cat by the way.

"To continue with time signatures, it's wrong to say that doing something with something other than 4 is going to sound generic and amateur. Why? Because I can provide thousands of examples of music in 4 that sounds generic and amateur. To make that statement is to pose a false dichotomy."

I believe I have covered this topic in the rest of my post, but just to clarify... Using odd time signatures will not make you sound generic and amateur. As a general statement this is not true. For this gentleman, the OP, I think it would sound very generic and amateur if he tried to write a song right now. But that's not because of his time signature use, it's because he doesn't know how to use them properly and make them flow in a song, fitting in a proper place like a piece of a puzzle. 

I think it's very clear Mehtab is not saying that anything outside of 4/4 is generic.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 11, 2012)

Pretty much.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 11, 2012)

^^ To put what you are saying into a much shorter, possibly hyperbolic statement. Everything you do should be a nice happy accident, that is how good music is written  

See 'forcing' something is a tough term to swallow, as music requires an element of contrast to make it flow in an interesting manner. Most music has a verse, A theme, opener that is very different from a chorus, reprise, B theme, etc for this reason. Many of these themes can become drastically different, but at put together. The art is in how you put them together, the transitional tools you use, not just hoping 2 things you have happen to play nice. You can make just about any contrasting themes co-exist and even flow beautiful, the trick is in the arrangement and the transition. 

A fun way to do this is to have a really strong B theme, or chorus, as then you can get away with a hell of a lot more on the A theme, going on some wild tangents. As long as you round back to a strong, solid point, no one will look too funny. Ideas are pretty flexible pieces of intangibility 

So set your limits, pick your time signatures, just remember that at the end of the day, even the tech metal is often verse-chorus-bridge format. Take your listeners on an epic journey of your own pompous desires, just don't forget to bring them home to get that sense of completion. You can develope, stretch, twist, and shuffle your way through similar ideas, or you can take wild tangents returning to where you began, but there has to be that homecoming otherwise you'll likely miss your make. Not saying your need verbatum repeats either, just enough that the listener doesn't feel it is 'new'. You can take this back to Sonatas in particular, as they have some wild development, but end on the opening theme (by and large). Wonder why that is...


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 11, 2012)




----------



## noUser01 (Jun 11, 2012)

To quote Mehtab, pretty much.


----------



## Jacobine (Jun 11, 2012)

i know not to force it. i just dont know how to let it flow better. i've got a bunch of ideas, but idk what time sig theyre in and idk what else goes with them,also i cant combine ideas because they dont go well together. 

Pretty much, what is a good way of letting the crazy time sig music ideas flow better


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 11, 2012)

ConnorGilks said:


> I'm going with Mehtab on this one. Do not force time signatures where they don't belong. It's the same as anything else in music, make sure it fits the rest of the song. Don't put 45 solos in and expect them all to fit and flow throughout your 15 minute "masterpiece". If you wanna put in something, put it in! It's your music and your choice, and you can do whatever you want. But, don't expect it to "work", don't force it in, MOLD it and make it work within the entire context of a song.
> 
> If you write a riff you like in an odd time signature, use it! But don't try and force it with another cool riff you wrote and expect them both to work well together.



So you agree that the content must match the form. I'll take that. However, you're going to have to take the time signature thing out of the equation, because you're saying that X works in Y situation, but X doesn't work in Z situation. Why even talk about X at all, then?



> Mehtab is NOT saying don't use different time signatures than 4/4 (correct me if I'm wrong), he's saying learn how to use them properly, and don't force something just to say you did it/can do it. Also, don't put them in just to say you're "Djent" or "Progressive". Again, you can do whatever you want and if all your "djent" or "progressive" or "math" metal is all in 4/4 then who cares? It's not going to make you any less of a musician or any less than you want to be, musically.


Mehtab's statement basically translates to "don't write bad music". A noble suggestion, for sure. OP, don't write bad music.



> SchecterWhore: Hey, I appreciate long philosophical posts than don't help as much as the next guy, but let's focus here shall we? Nice cat by the way.


My words were meant to combat the tide of irrelevant and derogatory posts emanating from a few people in this thread. Half of you are agreeing with this:



Stealthdejntastic said:


> Do you mean actual "math metal" or shitty wannabe djentcore crap? Also please don't force time signatures, it can sound cool sometimes but most of the time it sounds generic and amateur. I would recommend just going with the flow of things, I think you'd surprise yourself with how many riffs you write are not in 4/4.



Mehtab opens with a rhetorical question that immediately judges the OP. Doesn't help. The second sentence, as I indicated earlier, boils down to "time signatures are good, or they're bad... just don't write shitty music". Once again, why even bring it up? The final recommendation makes the assumption that the OP is doing things just fine and that he has no reason for making this thread. Once again, B.S. Here's you guys sounding your accord with a post that holds no weight and only serves to obscure the topic:



EtherealEntity said:


> ^ I got his point. I probably would have said the same if Stealth didn't get there first.





ConnorGilks said:


> I'm going with Mehtab on this one.



And here's troyguitar contributing more nonsense, but at least it's not damaging to the OP's question:



troyguitar said:


> I would say learn some actual math, but this so-called math metal has nothing to do with mathematics.





> "To continue with time signatures, it's wrong to say that doing something with something other than 4 is going to sound generic and amateur. Why? Because I can provide thousands of examples of music in 4 that sounds generic and amateur. To make that statement is to pose a false dichotomy."
> 
> I believe I have covered this topic in the rest of my post, but just to clarify... Using odd time signatures will not make you sound generic and amateur. As a general statement this is not true. For this gentleman, the OP, I think it would sound very generic and amateur if he tried to write a song right now. But that's not because of his time signature use, it's because he doesn't know how to use them properly and make them flow in a song, fitting in a proper place like a piece of a puzzle.


From my first post in this thread:



> The only thing that is guaranteed to make your music sound like shit is bad form, and that's usually a case of a mismatch between content and form, or content that is not fully realized within the parameters of the form.


At no point have I even ventured to say that any meter will sound definitively good or bad or any other way. What you do with the elements of music only affects the quality of music on a hyper-specific basis. Every piece of music becomes its own context, and to say that this note works some of the time but not all of the time is unnecessary generalization.



> I think it's very clear Mehtab is not saying that anything outside of 4/4 is generic.


Ahem...



Steatlhdjentastic said:


> Also please don't force time signatures, it can sound cool sometimes but most of the time it sounds generic and amateur.



I'll give it to you, he's not saying that timesig-hullaballoo is generic 100% of the time, but 'most of the time' is generally understood to be well over 50%.

Most of this thread thus far did not need to happen. Most of these posts have nothing to do with the topic on hand. I will admit that my posts, for the most part, are in that group, but it has been my intent since the beginning of this thread to negate the implications of Stealth's original post.


Let's do this now.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 11, 2012)

Jacobine said:


> but i was wanting a little less of the breakdowny open noted mathematical rhythms more melodic stuff like that of Nevermore and Periphery and Dream Theater



Post a song, please. If you make us guess at what you're trying to get at, the answers you will receive will be scattered.



Jacobine said:


> i know not to force it. i just dont know how to let it flow better. i've got a bunch of ideas, but idk what time sig theyre in and idk what else goes with them,also i cant combine ideas because they dont go well together.
> 
> Pretty much, what is a good way of letting the crazy time sig music ideas flow better



It sounds to me that you would do well to learn how to count meter and how to construct a phrase. Really quickly, any rhythm can be broken up into twos and threes. I use konnakol syllables to convey those groupings. I have a couple of posts on this method here and here.

Just think of counting meter with 2's (Taka) and 3's (Takita), and you will have a good handle on most things metrical. Here's a quick demonstration on counting, from SchecterWhore's Vault of Folk Music Insanity:

Ovila Légaré - Son Petit Jupon (Marie-Madeleine)








I know, it's not 'math metal', but if some old French-Canadian dude with a fiddle and a small choir of six-year-olds can pull off those meter changes with no problem, you'd better school up before using that label. Anyhow, let's make the eighth note the value of our konnakol syllables. We can divide the measures like this:

|: 3+2+2, 3
3+2+2, 3 :|
3+2+2, 2+2, 2+2,
2+2, 2+2, 2+2

So, the measures of 7 are Takita-Taka-Taka, the 3's are just Takita, and the 2's are Taka-Taka. After you can hear that in the song, just try vocalizing those syllables. Hear the uneven beats? There's no question of things flowing together, it's just one thing coming after another. That's how it always has been, whether you're in 4/4 the entire time (takatakatakatakatakatakatakatakatakataka, ad infinitum) or any other meter or series of meters.

That takes care of the rhythmic aspect. Of course, rhythm is only one side of the coin, pitch being the other. Pitch is a huge category, and one that I can't expand upon fully right now. Giving direction to music with pitch is done with chord progression and cadence. This video covers the basic idea of the cadence, but it's soooo fucking dry. I only picked it because the guy has audio examples to go along with the explanation, even if the deceptive cadence isn't particularly good.


----------



## JStraitiff (Jun 12, 2012)

Oh this is fun..


----------



## noUser01 (Jun 12, 2012)

ConnorGilks said:


> I think it's very clear Mehtab is not saying that anything outside of 4/4 is generic.





Stealthdjentstic said:


> Pretty much.





OP, one of the best things you can do is learn to count them before learning to write them. Other than the obvious first step, listening to music with time signature changes a lot, to make things smooth you need to be able to count them in a steady tempo without anything else. Just sit there and count them. 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2.

Try that to start, you're basically counting a bar of 4/4, then a bar of 2/4. Maybe you wanna try going between 7/8 and 4/4 (8/8).

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

Now it sounds stupid, but just put on a metronome and set it so that there's no accented beat, and on each beat, count. It gets pretty easy after a while, and you'll be able to count odd signature changes quickly and easily.

Well now you can count them at an even tempo... great... now what? How about writing a 7 note lick, then writing a different 8 note lick. Then instead of JUST counting these numbers as the metronome goes, play the lick and count too. If it's hard, turn down the tempo to a relaxed speed. There you go, now you've written a very basic riff that goes between 7/8 and 4/4. You'll slowly make it harder by changing the signatures to different ones, or playing more than just 8th notes on each beat.

It sounds stupid, but it's really that easy. You can get into polyrhythms and counting using Eastern methods etc. but the basic way to get started with odd time signatures is just that. Doesn't cover everything but it is a great place to start.


----------



## theo (Jun 12, 2012)

A fun way to come up with rhythms that I love is as follows::

Open your drum program or guitar pro. Program in x amount of bars each consisting of whatever time signatures you want. Have a steady metronome pulse to help you keep time. Program in bass drum beats at random. Listen to it. Play with. Change it. Eventually you'll come up with an interesting pattern. 

Then work some notes in.. You've only got 12 to choose from afterall, this should be the easiest part


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 12, 2012)

ConnorGilks said:


> OP, one of the best things you can do is learn to count them before learning to write them. Other than the obvious first step, listening to music with time signature changes a lot, to make things smooth you need to be able to count them in a steady tempo without anything else. Just sit there and count them. 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2.
> 
> Try that to start, you're basically counting a bar of 4/4, then a bar of 2/4. Maybe you wanna try going between 7/8 and 4/4 (8/8).
> 
> ...




Accents are an important part of time signature, and time signatures in 8 (and 16, so on) contain compound beats (+3, or SW's Takita), opposed to simple beat (SW's Taka).

A bar of 7/8 is not 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 (which is a bar of 7/4, 2+2+2+2+2+2+2 if dealing with 8th notes), it is 2+2+3, or 3+2+2, or 2+3+2. It has 3 beats, and they are not even. 

8/8 is 3+3+2 or 2+3+3 or 3+2+3. Consequently 4/4 is not 8/8 (despite they would be if you were working with fractions). It is best not to confuse the two as one contains only simple beats (4/4) and the other compound and simple beats.

Learning to count properly does indeed go leagues, as it also has the plus of being able to identify whatever time signature an idea is in near instantly.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 12, 2012)

double post


----------



## noUser01 (Jun 12, 2012)

Honestly when teaching this to my students I found they all progressed quickly by using that method, rather than thinking of them as two separate entities. But yes, some people do find it easier to teach 7 as 4 and 3 or 5 as 3 and 2.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 12, 2012)

It is a good starting point, just pointing out it is over simplified, as it doesn't capture the real meaning of the time signature. The beams in written music are the key to seeing it, typically. The overall point is, that a measure in 4 is simple beats, and a measure in 8 is complex beats, and the 2 are not equal. It is a very common mistake, but knowing how to count in properly greatly alters the execution.


----------



## noUser01 (Jun 12, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> It is a good starting point, just pointing out it is over simplified, as it doesn't capture the real meaning of the time signature. The beams in written music are the key to seeing it, typically. The overall point is, that a measure in 4 is simple beats, and a measure in 8 is complex beats, and the 2 are not equal. It is a very common mistake, but knowing how to count in properly greatly alters the execution.



See I do know how to count both ways, as I was taught to divide up the time signatures, but honestly when I'm playing a piece (especially when improvising) over an odd time signature, I feel like I really get the flow of that signature when I count the entire thing as one unit. Now I'm sure that's just preference but I feel like my lines are able to flow more when I'm thinking about the bar of 7 instead of two bars of 4 and 3. But that's just me.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 12, 2012)

^I do that too. My drummer told me I was wrong. 

But it *does* work. Kinda like finding a common denominator w fractions.


----------



## Varcolac (Jun 12, 2012)

ConnorGilks said:


> See I do know how to count both ways, as I was taught to divide up the time signatures, but honestly when I'm playing a piece (especially when improvising) over an odd time signature, I feel like I really get the flow of that signature when I count the entire thing as one unit. Now I'm sure that's just preference but I feel like my lines are able to flow more when I'm thinking about the bar of 7 instead of two bars of 4 and 3. But that's just me.



It's not bars, it's beats. They're still one unit. One-and-two-and-three-and-a. I count that as a bar of seven, two simple and one compound beat. Same way I'd count a bar of six as 'one-and-a-two-and-a', and see it as both six and two compound. Same with 15/8, 'one-and-a-two-and-a-three-and-a-four-and-five-and-six-and,' or any other permutation thereof. Thinking of it in terms of beats gives one a handle on the accents much more than counting through the whole thing as seven eighth notes of equal importance, I find.

Edit: I have nothing to add on the topic of writing mathcore. I'm just waiting for Schechterwhore's in-depth musical analysis of the Dillinger Escape Plan.


----------



## Jacobine (Jun 12, 2012)

theo said:


> A fun way to come up with rhythms that I love is as follows::
> 
> Open your drum program or guitar pro. Program in x amount of bars each consisting of whatever time signatures you want. Have a steady metronome pulse to help you keep time. Program in bass drum beats at random. Listen to it. Play with. Change it. Eventually you'll come up with an interesting pattern.
> 
> Then work some notes in.. You've only got 12 to choose from afterall, this should be the easiest part


 
i was actually thinking that earlier today. ill give it a try soon


----------



## Jacobine (Jun 12, 2012)

does it have to change up to be math metal? or can i just keep the whole som\ng one odd time sig and still be it?


----------



## Jacobine (Jun 12, 2012)

Varcolac said:


> It's not bars, it's beats. They're still one unit. One-and-two-and-three-and-a. I count that as a bar of seven, two simple and one compound beat. Same way I'd count a bar of six as 'one-and-a-two-and-a', and see it as both six and two compound. Same with 15/8, 'one-and-a-two-and-a-three-and-a-four-and-five-and-six-and,' or any other permutation thereof. Thinking of it in terms of beats gives one a handle on the accents much more than counting through the whole thing as seven eighth notes of equal importance, I find.


 
Ill keep that in mind that helped alot with figuring shit out. thanks alot bro


----------



## Varcolac (Jun 12, 2012)

Jacobine said:


> does it have to change up to be math metal? or can i just keep the whole som\ng one odd time sig and still be it?



It'd help us if you posted an example of the type of thing you'd like to be writing. One forum member's interpretation of "math metal" may be very different to your own.

I would say that in terms of the necessity of changing time signatures, it's what you make of it, and it's what sounds best first and foremost. If one riff in your predominately 7/8 song sounds better in 4/4, don't sweat it: if it sounds better do it. If you try to write something in 4/4 but it comes out in 6, don't worry. Use your own judgement and trust your ears. As for conforming to genre conventions, I don't listen to enough math metal to know if a song would be cast out of the fold for not being entirely in 23/16.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 12, 2012)

Yes, please post a song for us to tear apart.



ConnorGilks said:


> Honestly when teaching this to my students I found they all progressed quickly by using that method, rather than thinking of them as two separate entities. But yes, some people do find it easier to teach 7 as 4 and 3 or 5 as 3 and 2.



While there's nothing really wrong with counting "1 2 3 4 5 6 7", I've witnessed too many cases of people counting "one two three four five six sev-en", and one guy that auditioned for my band famously counted a measure of five out loud as "one two three four-- five--", so he was essentially doing this: &#9834; &#9834; &#9834; &#9833; &#9833; (for those that can't see the symbols, it's three eighth notes followed by two quarter notes, which fills a measure of 7 rather than a measure of 5).

I generally prefer the takadoodies because they drastically cut down the amount of numbers you need to think of, and they more accurately approximate the way rhythm works (simple divisions and compound divisions). Try to keep this straight in your head:






Or this:






"One two three four five six seveneightninemghshfgcdfga!"

The taka's and takita's have a bit of a groove to them and roll off the tongue a little easier.

Much easier to look at:






And that kind of additive thinking makes it easier to do things like this:






And both of those rhythms occur at 3:58 here, where they are clearly heard conforming to those simple and compound divisions that are endemic to konnakol (the quintuplet requires that one hear a simple beat and then divide it into five equal parts - something that is more difficult to do if that last simple beat is heard as "12 13", and one has to subdivide it into 5).

Van Der Graaf Generator - Over The Hill


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 12, 2012)

Tear this thing apart.


----------



## noUser01 (Jun 12, 2012)

Jacobine said:


> does it have to change up to be math metal? or can i just keep the whole som\ng one odd time sig and still be it?



Honestly man, if you worried about trying to be mathcore, you're not writing properly.  You can write whatever you want! That's what music is about, doing what YOU want. Whether or not it fits into the ridiculous lines of a certain genre or not doesn't matter.  I write lots of djent style stuff in my "punk" music. =/ It's not djent, it's not punk, sometimes it's complete djunk, but it doesn't matter. I really enjoy it and that's what matters.

SW: I find getting over the hurtle of the word "7" much easier than learning a new series of syllables for counting everything, but to each his own. For some it's worth doing so.


----------



## Ultraussie (Jun 13, 2012)

Just try not to "force" your riffs, I hate it when guys write 0-0-0---0-0-0--0-0-0----0- etc in 7/4 or 9/8 or whatever and think they're "so prog" or "so math".
I USED to come up with basicall anything but 4/4 and it worked but as I matured musically i just cant leave 4/4 or 9/8 3/4 etc.
Basically it has to flow.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 13, 2012)

> SW: I find getting over the hurtle of the word "7" much easier than learning a new series of syllables for counting everything, but to each his own. For some it's worth doing so.



In the end, it's the correct rhythm that matters. Anyone reading through this should understand that these methods have a common purpose, and that one need not think that they must commit to one way of doing things. I personally use three or four ways of counting on a regular basis, depending on what work for that day. Knowledge can only help.



7 Strings of Hate said:


> Tear this thing apart.



The form is easy enough, since there isn't any. This is what we call 'through-composed' music, meaning that recapitulation is nowhere to be found. This is rather common in metal. There is a pattern to be found in this kind of writing, though; I've developed a way of looking at through-composed music based on the idea that sections that have similar characteristics but otherwise disparate thematic material are essentially the same thing. You can read more on this idea in my second post in this thread.

My formal analysis -

0:00 - Introduction
0:06 - A
0:42 - B
0:55 - Transition - Talking
1:03 - C - Breakdown
1:34 - Transition - Based on C material - Talking
1:51 - D
2:25 - E - Similar to B, has the same snare thing as B.
2:38 - Transition, based on E material - Talking
2:50 - E' - Breakdown based on E material, similar to C in character.
3:20 - F - Sorta B'ish
3:50 - Coda

Now let's split it up into characters. We have an A and a D that never return, a B that comes back as E and tentatively F, a C that comes back later on as an E material breakdown, some transitions in which spoken word is a common factor, and an introduction and coda that are devoid of any thematic significance. That gives us this:

A = D
B = E, F
C = E'

[Intro] - ABtCt - (ABtCB') - [Coda]

The second set is parenthesized because those are the sections that we derived from the first set. There's never a real recapitulation of any of the material. Honestly, this kind of analysis is pretty useless here. A pattern does emerge with a good dose of abstraction, but it's quite a stretch to get there. I'm going to guess that these guys don't know or care about form. It seems that the thinking is "riff riff riff" (which, to me, is shit songwriting, but more power to you if that's what you like).

I can't identify a pitch system other than chugga chugga djent djent on the lowest string, plus the gamut of metulz atonality: tritones, minor seconds, chromatic lines, augmented triads. Surprisingly few diminished seventh chords, although they pop up every now and then. Riffs are probably realized by ear and by mechanics of the instrument. There is obviously a greater emphasis on rhythm than there is on pitch. A lot of the syncopation is created by filling in the spaces where the guitar is not playing, or by splitting the registers in the same manner. This isn't really surprising, just an observation. The meter changes frequently, and it would take me a while to compile every change, but the pattern's pretty simple: it usually goes along in one meter for a while and has an interruption here and there. For example, skip to 1:58 - it goes along in 3 for a tiny bit, has some other meter come in for a couple bars, then goes back to 3, then another interruption, and then it moves on to the next thing. All of this is geared toward sounding spastic and off-kilter, as if you needed me to tell you that. My overall impression is that this is fun to play and challenging to learn, but is a little bare to reveal anything in analysis.


----------



## Metal_Webb (Jun 13, 2012)

SchecterWhore said:


> While there's nothing really wrong with counting "1 2 3 4 5 6 7", I've witnessed too many cases of people counting "one two three four five six sev-en"



Thats when ever I count, I go five, six, sev, eight, nine. Cutting off the extra syllable off of seven needs to happen. Breaking it down also helps (as others have said).

Easiest way to identify what you're playing is slowing the tempo right down in Guitar Pro of your software of choice. Use that to construct the bars and you should find you have a much easier time of choosing the correct time signature.


----------



## noUser01 (Jun 13, 2012)

SchecterWhore said:


> In the end, it's the correct rhythm that matters. Anyone reading through this should understand that these methods have a common purpose, and that one need not think that they must commit to one way of doing things. I personally use three or four ways of counting on a regular basis, depending on what work for that day. Knowledge can only help.



Honestly I think if you're NOT using at least two different methods for learning music, you're not doing it right.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Jun 14, 2012)

learn all your rhythm subdivisions, and I think deciding on a time signature and forcing yourself to write to it can be a great way to unlock creativity. It often times gives a new view on an old riff if you're taking something that was original 4/4 and trying to make it fit 7/8 without losing feel. Plus then you got a wicked groove most listeners will scratch thier heads. Once you know how to "count" what you're doing, go nuts, you can always come back and figure out what timing your playing in.


----------



## noUser01 (Jun 14, 2012)

GunpointMetal said:


> learn all your rhythm subdivisions, and I think deciding on a time signature and forcing yourself to write to it can be a great way to unlock creativity. It often times gives a new view on an old riff if you're taking something that was original 4/4 and trying to make it fit 7/8 without losing feel. Plus then you got a wicked groove most listeners will scratch thier heads. Once you know how to "count" what you're doing, go nuts, you can always come back and figure out what timing your playing in.



That's the thing though. Unless you can count your subdivision and odd signatures you won't be able to properly write in them.

Also just because you can count it doesn't mean you'll get a "wicked groove" just because it's an odd time signature.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jun 14, 2012)

What I got out of the controversial statement on the first page was; Don't just use time signatures for the _sake of using time signatures_.

Dream Theater seem to have forgotten that with their new material. 

If your interested in a time signature, just learn or write some material in that format and practice it. Familiarity is the best way to develop confidence.

With counting 7/8 just say "Sev", the 2nd syllable of the word adds an extra beat so drop it and you'll be in time.

The 2nd most painful thing in music for me is counting complex times and the bar numbers at the same time *argh! the mental agony!!!*. For example; 1 - 2,3,4 - 2 - 2, 3,4 - 3 - 2,3,4... Once you get up to 121- 2,3,4, for me it's brain melting. 

1st most mentally painful thing is Alan Holdsworth, no criticism of him or his music.

@SchecterWhore; Nice posts, as always!


----------

