# Why Alternating 3/4 & 2/4 and not 5/4?



## ElRay (Jun 20, 2013)

I'm in the process of transcribing "Castle on a Cloud" from the piano score to guitar for my daughter, and there's two sections that are alternating bars of 3/4 and 2/4 time. Why would that be done instead of single bars of 5/4? 


Ray


----------



## Quitty (Jun 20, 2013)

There's no actual difference, obviously. 
However, bars are made to be convenient - it could be that that treating them as alternating 3/4 and 2/4 is more logical or conveys the musical idea better.
Other than that, there is a matter of convention where the first beat of a bar is accentuated, but again - this can be changed.


----------



## 80H (Jun 20, 2013)

Writer might have just been thinking in terms of progressive timing versus odd timing. For example, sometimes I treat 11/4 as 3 groups of quarter notes (4/4/3, 4/3/4, 3/4/4) and other times I like to think of it as it's own unique chain. If I then end up adding two measures of 3/4 to my 11/4 soup, I might start thinking in terms of 17s, but usually I'm so syncopated that I confuse myself and just write whatever and hope nobody cares


----------



## tedtan (Jun 20, 2013)

I'm not familiar with the piece, but I suspect the score writer wanted to make sure it was read as 3+2 rather than 2+3.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 20, 2013)

A copyist/composer/arranger usually does this to break up the bar, especially if there is syncopation. It's easier to know where you are if you can see 4 eighth notes + 6 eighth notes rather than 10. Or 8 sixteenths + 12 sixteenths versus 20, for that matter. Leo Brouwer does this in the fourth movement of Estudios Sencillos.







I mean, you could write that in 5, but it starts to get a little cumbersome with the rests.






Modest Mussorgsky wrote the Promenade from Pictures at an Exhibition in 11/4, then later changed it to alternating 5/4 + 6/4 for much the same reason. Nobody really wants to read 11 beats. Also, I think that quarter notes are an awful beat if you have big additive meters. I'm fine with looking at something like this because it has beams, making it easier to see the groupings:






(^ The inversion notation kind of pisses me off.)


----------



## ElRay (Jun 20, 2013)

tedtan said:


> I'm not familiar with the piece, but I suspect the score writer wanted to make sure it was read as 3+2 rather than 2+3.



I was really listening to the piece being sung today and it makes more sense as 3+2. If it was 5/4, they'd have to add accent marks to every "beat #4". Also, there's a bit of rubato with the three beats of the 3/4 measures and the first beat of the 2/4 measures are pretty regular while the last beat of the 2/4 measures are slightly drawn-out.

I was so "lost" in the score trying to make an "Easy Guitar" version, I totally forgot it's really a vocal piece and forgot to listen to how it's actually sung vs. just looking the notation.



SchecterWhore said:


> ... I'm fine with looking at something like this because it has beams, making it easier to see the groupings ...



And I think that's the clincher. A lot of the bass line is "4 4 4 | 2" and the melody is "8-16-16 8-8 8-8 | 4 4" which fits nicely in 3/4 + 2/4.


Thanks all.


Ray


----------

