I think we all know by now that tool is notorious for using polyrhythms in their songs. I have this strange problem though of not understanding musical timing at all.. I can feel it, so it makes it possible for me to follow one rhythm at a time, but piecing more than one together seems to be a little beyond me.
Now I'm putting this thread here mostly because I think the very end of Third Eye contains the most obvious polyrhythm (in my lack of timing understanding world). It's the two rhythms that are created between the bass/guitar/drums all hitting that D in sync and maynards "Pry-Ying-Oh-Pen-My-Third-Eye" If you listen, you notice that they hit the D at the start on Maynard's first "pry" and also on his "Eye". Then the D and the "Eye" syllable will sync up every third time. Maynard says the line 10 times altogether, and it links up at 1,4,7,10, ten being the last one where they all sync up and the song ends.
I'm just wondering if there's anyone out there that can explain this to me in more technical terms, or make it a little clearer as to just how they wrote this sequence in the first place. I mean, that's not something that you just jam out.. you sit down and write it out and say "this is gonna sync up here" then you play it, so to speak. I've tried to do it on my own time, but I can never seem to figure it out..
Also I'd love to hear anyone else's favourite polyrhthym, or more examples. My favourite has to be the last 30 seconds of Rosetta Stoned.. that one blows me away every time, I still can't really piece it together. Because all four of them are in different time sigs/rhythms (this is at the very end of the song as well, and even during all the shit the bed parts) and then at the very last note they all sync up. (God damn, shit the bed) You can hear them all out of sync if you really pay attention.... and then they all get closer and closer together until they all hit on the same beat. Amazing stuff, in my opinion.
If anyone's got a good handle on this stuff I'd love to hear about it.. thanks!
as would i like to hear the technical aspects. i just recently noticed that ending of Third Eye and how the beats corresponded to words, but didnt piece together that the last time it was all synced.
For my (current) favorite polyrhythm (only in the last months have i been able to lock on and actually appreciate that part) it would have to be Eulogy and the way Adam hits the first two beats synced with Dannys rhythm. Off topic but I love the bassline of that song so much, too
__________________ Balderdash~
Last edited by amenorakumo; 02-16-2007 at 02:19 AM..
10,000 Days (the song) has good polyrhythms, that's pretty much the only thing that saves that song for me. I love Justin's bassline underneath the rest of the song.
__________________ "You think my lack of tact is bad, which is subjective. Personally I think it's great." -misanthrope
Location: land of Danes! Smoking baby friend: mooseifer
Posts: 2,406
Bincount™: 4277
Re: Polyrhythms
Quote:
Originally Posted by hushypushy
10,000 Days (the song) has good polyrhythms, that's pretty much the only thing that saves that song for me. I love Justin's bassline underneath the rest of the song.
Shantzy, I think the polyrhythms come from jamming on one riff for quite a while. Personally, after playing drums for 20 years, i think you develop a sense of timing that allows you to break away from the current signature and play something different until the two (drums/guitar) or three (drums/guitar/bass) or four (drums/guitar/bass/vocals) all link up after a number of bars. I'm tipping with danny's extensive drumming knowledge, he would be able to do the math during jams and work out what signatures work. If you're in a band, try it at rehearsal next time. It takes a fair amount of concentration intitially but the more practice, the more you relax and it's damn good fun. It's a good challenge trying to work out danny's polyrhythm. Great work on deciphering the ending of third eye too, I've learnt something today
it took me a while to really depict all the polyrythmic parts in The Grudge.
for example..
that beat..."wear the grudge like a crown"
that "bam-babam-bam-babam"
maynard sings in that beat, adam hits it in D, danny plays it on the toms in the bridge,. it's a signature that strings through the whole song.
plus the climax at the end requirs excellent ears and rythm to really get right.
I <3 the polyrhythm, but I don't understand it. And there are many many examples of how the guys completely jam together on sort of an odd beat....none better than the end of 46&2 though, jeebus!!!
__________________ "Nobody is what he was meant by existence to be." ~Osho
Well, you wanted technical, so here you go: The end of "Third Eye" is not polyrhythmic. The band is simply playing in two different times. To explain it as simply as possible, Maynard is singing in 8/8, while the rest of the band plays in 3/8:
Maynard: Pry (1) ing (2) o (3) pen (4) my (5) third (6) eye (7) . . . (8)
(The ellipsis is a rest of one eighth note, the "basic unit" here.)
The band: D (1) . . . (2) . . . (3)
(Again, the ellipses are rests.)
The lowest multiple of 3 and 8 is 24, meaning the band will repeat every 3 measures for Maynard (8 beats each) and every 8 measures for Adam/Danny/Justin (3 beats each).
It would suck diagramming this here, but you can do it yourself (it's really easy to do by hand). Draw a 2x24 grid. On the top row, write each syllable of Maynard's part in a box (don't forget to skip one after "eye" each time) for 3 measures. Then, listen to the record and make a mark in the bottom row to match the syllable each time the band plays that D. You'll see how it works; this pattern repeats.
Again, this is not a polyrhythm, it's just phrasing. The breakdown of "Lateralus" operates similarly, but with three parts (before Maynard comes in again). I don't have the time to type up an explanation of polyrhythm (and I suck at explaining it to someone unfamiliar with the concept), so I would suggest you start here:
You'll see it's actually a much more complicated process, though Tool uses polyrhythms occasionally as well. Good luck.
__________________ <e4t> I added a lime and it tastes fucking salty or somethin
<nChainz> did you add salt?
<e4t> no I'm not drinkin' martinis ffs
<ru5ty> wat
alot of people seem to confuse polyrhythms and polymeters.
Most of the off timing sounds in tool are polymeters. This, simply put, means at least one intrument is playing in a different timing than the others.
Polyrhythms are less common in tools music, and the best example is the beat in the eulogy breakdown. (you claimed all this time..). Listen to the high hat groove compared to the bass drum and snare pattern. in this case the drums alone are polyrhythmic.
right on pickles. same happens in lateralus as he tries maynard "feels the rhythm". it's hard to find many tool songs where danny doesn't incorporate the high hat that throws you off completely...the best part of it is that it keeps the song flowing to the point of reminding me of water
Alex in Chains completely overcomplicated it...they're not even playing in two different time signatures...they're all in one time signature and the guitar and everything is just playing every third beat starting with the first...notice when the other (guitar/bass/synth/whatever) part starts fading in it's in the same time signature as maynard's singing...that's the rhythm, there's no other time signature going on, the guitars and drums are just playing on every third beat
it took me a while to really depict all the polyrythmic parts in The Grudge.
for example..
that beat..."wear the grudge like a crown"
that "bam-babam-bam-babam"
maynard sings in that beat, adam hits it in D, danny plays it on the toms in the bridge,. it's a signature that strings through the whole song.
plus the climax at the end requirs excellent ears and rythm to really get right.
i hope you get what i mean.
It wasn't until I heard the Third Eye Open version of The Grudge that I realized it's in 5/4 cuz with the strings you hear them accentuating the fact that the second repetition of the riff in each measure starts on the upbeat of the third beat of the measure.
woah woah, you guys are really confusing your words here. Polyrhythm and polymetre aren't really all the different, you coud get away with using either word.
But, strictly speaking, a polyrhythm is one where 2 different, evenly space rhythms fit together within one 'loop'. So, if you take a 3 beat pattern:
[due to the formatting of these forums, those bar lines don't quite match up, but they are supposed to]
The 3 beat pattern has 3 evenly spaced beats, and the 2 beat pattern underneath has two evenly spaced beats. They take up the same amount of time and the bar lines start and finish together. This is polyrhythm. It's two different rhythms within one metre.
The end of Third Eye is a polymetre. That is, to quote how wikipedia puts it, 'polymeter would be phrasing to suggest a different meter than the one being played by the rest of the ensemble.'
The band hit together every 3 quavers, whilst Maynard repeats the same 8 beat phrase. Therefore, when Maynard starts his new phrase, the band are then a beat later, hitting on beat '9' because they will be following a 3 beat pattern. (At this point I'd like to point out that while Alex In Chains didnt explain it very well, he is actually right, hobbitcore, because Maynard is repeating an 8 beat phrase while the band are repeating a 3 beat phrase, this is polymeter because it takes several rotations of each part to meet up with each other.)
People get confused though, because they think that 'polymeter' just means more than one meter within a given time frame. That is to say that a band could all play in 4, and then all move to a section in 7, and then back to 4, and their music could be described as polymetrical. While I personally wouldnt pick you up on that, that's strictly not the definition, polymetre has to be more than one meter played simultaneously, and polyrhythm is more than one rhythm played within a consistent metrical system.
Changing a time signature is just, well, I dunno, changing rhythm! A poly-signature, perhaps.
I think we all know by now that tool is notorious for using polyrhythms in their songs. I have this strange problem though of not understanding musical timing at all.. I can feel it, so it makes it possible for me to follow one rhythm at a time, but piecing more than one together seems to be a little beyond me.
Now I'm putting this thread here mostly because I think the very end of Third Eye contains the most obvious polyrhythm (in my lack of timing understanding world). It's the two rhythms that are created between the bass/guitar/drums all hitting that D in sync and maynards "Pry-Ying-Oh-Pen-My-Third-Eye" If you listen, you notice that they hit the D at the start on Maynard's first "pry" and also on his "Eye". Then the D and the "Eye" syllable will sync up every third time. Maynard says the line 10 times altogether, and it links up at 1,4,7,10, ten being the last one where they all sync up and the song ends.
I'm just wondering if there's anyone out there that can explain this to me in more technical terms, or make it a little clearer as to just how they wrote this sequence in the first place. I mean, that's not something that you just jam out.. you sit down and write it out and say "this is gonna sync up here" then you play it, so to speak. I've tried to do it on my own time, but I can never seem to figure it out..
Also I'd love to hear anyone else's favourite polyrhthym, or more examples. My favourite has to be the last 30 seconds of Rosetta Stoned.. that one blows me away every time, I still can't really piece it together. Because all four of them are in different time sigs/rhythms (this is at the very end of the song as well, and even during all the shit the bed parts) and then at the very last note they all sync up. (God damn, shit the bed) You can hear them all out of sync if you really pay attention.... and then they all get closer and closer together until they all hit on the same beat. Amazing stuff, in my opinion.
If anyone's got a good handle on this stuff I'd love to hear about it.. thanks!
hey, thanks for getting inside my head and writing out the question for me ;)
edit: my favorite poly-whatever-the-fuck-you-call-it must be that bit in Eulogy where it's just Danny and MJK.
Last edited by DON IOTAE; 05-07-2007 at 08:40 AM..
(At this point I'd like to point out that while Alex In Chains didnt explain it very well, he is actually right, hobbitcore, because Maynard is repeating an 8 beat phrase while the band are repeating a 3 beat phrase, this is polymeter because it takes several rotations of each part to meet up with each other.)
He's not right because he's claiming they're in two different time signatures which they're not. He also never said it was polymeter, which it is, I agree. I studied music in school for 7 years including 4 at New World School of the Arts where we played all kinds of music with crazy time signatures (Frank Ticheli, anyone?) and there's no way you could have different sections of the same band playing different time signatures in the same piece. It would fall apart.
Last edited by hobbitcore; 05-07-2007 at 11:02 AM..
Err, well they are playing two different time signatures, 3/8 and 8/8 (yes that can be expressed as 4/4 but 8/8 helps to show their interrelation). I don't quite understand your point, actually, because you've agreed that it's polymeter, so how can you have polymeter that isn't in two different time signatures? Hehe
Having different time signatures at the same time happens in loads of music, I'm really suprised you could say something like that. Everything Meshuggah do is based on having different time signatures over each other!
Err, well they are playing two different time signatures, 3/8 and 8/8 (yes that can be expressed as 4/4 but 8/8 helps to show their interrelation). I don't quite understand your point, actually, because you've agreed that it's polymeter, so how can you have polymeter that isn't in two different time signatures? Hehe
Having different time signatures at the same time happens in loads of music, I'm really suprised you could say something like that. Everything Meshuggah do is based on having different time signatures over each other!
there's a difference between having two different phrasings over one another and two different time signatures...a piece of music has one time signature at any given moment and that's that...you can play different rhythms to simulate different time signatures (polymeter) but there can't be two time signatures happening at once.
for instance in the section in question from Third Eye, the time signature is 4/4 (or 8/8 if that helps)...the fact that the guitars and drums are playing every three beats doesn't change the fact that they're playing in 8/8...observe:
|pry-ing-o-pen-my-third-eye-(rest)|pry-ing-o-pen-my-third-eye-(rest)|etc.
8 beats per measure
|DUN (rest) (rest) DUN (rest) (rest) DUN (rest)|(rest) DUN (rest) (rest) DUN (rest) (rest) DUN|(rest) (rest)...etc.
8 beats per measure
Last edited by hobbitcore; 05-07-2007 at 02:27 PM..
That's only because of the way we right it down though. Meshuggahs music, for example, would always be written as 4/4 (for the most part), but that bares no relationship to what is really happening. Ok, you couldnt write down two distinct time signatures, but I think you should be allowed to get away with calling it two time signatures! :D
That's only because of the way we right it down though. Meshuggahs music, for example, would always be written as 4/4 (for the most part), but that bares no relationship to what is really happening. Ok, you couldnt write down two distinct time signatures, but I think you should be allowed to get away with calling it two time signatures! :D
hahaha that's what the music is...notes (and time signatures) written down...sure you could call it that, but technically speaking you'd be incorrect and there are more accurate ways of explaining it
Making music and writting it down are two different things. Writing it down is a rough approximation to communicate the idea when simply listening to it isn't possible. I think moving it onto paper has been pretty bad for music, you get people learning out of text books, and thinking of their music as lines and dots on bits of paper. I cant fathom how much more exciting jamming with the early tribal drums was when they only concieved the sound rather than thinking about what that sound means on a bit of paper.
But yeah, we do have a more accurate way of describing it.. polymeter - more than one meterical system played simultaneously.
Making music and writting it down are two different things. Writing it down is a rough approximation to communicate the idea when simply listening to it isn't possible. I think moving it onto paper has been pretty bad for music, you get people learning out of text books, and thinking of their music as lines and dots on bits of paper. I cant fathom how much more exciting jamming with the early tribal drums was when they only concieved the sound rather than thinking about what that sound means on a bit of paper.
But yeah, we do have a more accurate way of describing it.. polymeter - more than one meterical system played simultaneously.
You think moving music onto paper has been bad for music?! Tell that to every classical composer ever. Or even just to anyone studying music as a serious endeavor at any given institution and taking the time to learn to read and write music and master their craft.
Obviously music is more than notes on a paper. It's also more than just four friends getting together in a garage and "jamming" because that's so much more "significant" than composing music in written form. Obviously no one "writes" rock music on sheet music because it's simple enough that you don't have to do that. But to devalue the written form of music like that is ludicrous. You might as well say that written word has been bad for the english language.
If one guy is playing in 4/4 and another guy is playing on every fifth quarter note, the second guy is counting to 5, not 4. I say Jimmeny has a point.
he's still counting in four if he knows how to count music... "1-2-3-4-PLAY-2-3-4-1-PLAY-3-4-1-2-PLAY-4, etc."
Anyway, he is still playing in 4, but my POINT was that I wouldn't pick anyone up if they used the terminology that they were playing in two different time signatures.
And the great composers of all time were not great composers because they wrote music down. I can devalue the written form if I want.
Anyway, he is still playing in 4, but my POINT was that I wouldn't pick anyone up if they used the terminology that they were playing in two different time signatures.
And the great composers of all time were not great composers because they wrote music down. I can devalue the written form if I want.
Well I guess since I studied music it just bothers me a lot more when someone says something like "they're playing in two different time signatures." I really am not just trying to be a douche about this, it's just that wrong.
And sure you can, you just sound like an idiot. Ask any composer if he could have composed the parts for all the 50-200 instruments in his symphony without the use of the written form of music.
I've studied music too, you're not the only one to have done that.
I'm talking in a very pure sense. I think these days, classical training is too sight based, I don't think it's a very good thing to move the creation of sound and rhythm into a new medium. I don't think moving it to sight rather than hearing and feeling is a very good thing. You sound more classically trained so I expect you to thoroughly disagree, but the fact you're so put out simply by using the words 'two different time signatures' goes to outline the point I'm making. Too many classicaly trained people these days play and compose through their technique and through ideas outlined by how things are written down, rather than ever truly connecting with the sounds and with the energy of it.
I've studied music too, you're not the only one to have done that.
I'm talking in a very pure sense. I think these days, classical training is too sight based, I don't think it's a very good thing to move the creation of sound and rhythm into a new medium. I don't think moving it to sight rather than hearing and feeling is a very good thing. You sound more classically trained so I expect you to thoroughly disagree, but the fact you're so put out simply by using the words 'two different time signatures' goes to outline the point I'm making. Too many classicaly trained people these days play and compose through their technique and through ideas outlined by how things are written down, rather than ever truly connecting with the sounds and with the energy of it.
First off, I never said I was the only one who studied music although I don't know what the point was of pointing that out.
I find it weird that you consider written music a "new medium" considering it has been used for centuries. However I also find it interesting how you describe "the move" to written music as something that was planned or sort of discovered one day for no particular reason (i.e. "i wonder what would happen if we wrote down the notes we were gonna play...hey, cool! let's keep doing it..."). Writing music was birthed out of necessity. Composers were hearing 10s/100s of instruments/voices in their heads and couldn't possibly just tell everyone what to play and expect it to be the music he imagined...not to mention playing a piece of music from memory (i'm talking about classical music, not a rock song you learned on guitar) is exceedingly difficult, even for a piece of music as easy as a grade 3, nevermind a 5 or 6.
You act like simply having music written in front of you takes away every bit of passion and beauty and emotion in it. I think you need to accept that there are other mediums, other kinds of music that don't appeal to you as much but are no less relevant or potent. Your mind is set in the "rock music" (or even "prog music") paradigm of no written music, where musicians "feel" the music and write songs simply by playing together and experimenting and so on. Accept that there are other forms of music where this simply isn't a logical process. I'm not trying to sound pretentious here but when someone just disposes of an entire medium by which music is created because in their paradigm it's too precise or too technical or whatever, I get a little offended. And I'm not just a classical music nerd, I listen to metal, hardcore, punk, indie, pop, hip hop, just about everything. I've been in several heavy/hardcore bands. So i'm not just a band geek/art school kid getting pissy about someone insulting my study or anything like that. I'm just a music lover and your statements are detrimental to your appreciation of music in all its forms.
I'd like to open your scope about this really. It's a shame you're reducing what could be an interesting subjective philosophical discussion into an objective right-or-wrong lesson - full of your own rhetoric and assumptions of my background rather than discussing the ideas at hand.
I'm not talking about specific genres, and infact I'm not comparing Westernised genres at all, I'm not stuck in 'rock mode' - I'm actually talking about ALL Western music.
I think Western music has struggled for hundreds of years for a true authentic sense of humanity in it's music. (yes of course music has been written down for hundreds of years lol, as if I was saying otherwise!) I look at World Folk music, from all countries, in all it's forms, and find it connects with the humanity of itself alot more than Western music, contemporary or otherwise.
Indian music, for example, like playing the tabla, is taught by memorising each individual sound it can make, and having a vocal sound to accompany them. This way, the instrument is connected much more to the player than many other isntruments. The ragas are not written down, they are played, they are felt, they are understood, by everyone, yet not one of them refers to paper, or requires paper to play them, to pass them on, or to share them.
African drummers know their pieces by understanding the rhythm - to the extent they find it hard to play their individual parts if the other rhythms from the other parts are not present. In this instance, the actual creation the ensemble makes is far more important to everyone, even the players, than the players themselves.
Of course, you're bound read this as 'I can't believe you think all Western music is inhumane'. While of course writing music down has, and has had, it's advantages, I'd be incredibly intrigued to hear what Western music would sound like today if it took a philisophy more like the indian or african reactions to music.
In the modern world, with electronic creation and distribution of music, the written form - and classical teachings there of - start to become alot more irrelevent to the population. That's why classical music isn't as popular as it used to be, apart from amongst people specifically trained to appreciate it. This is the inauthenticity of modern classical music. Mozart was a genius of music, of imagination, and he would have created amazing music written down or otherwise.
Far be it from me to deny the validity and relevance of Indian and African music. One can only have the utmost respect for them and their forms of musical expression. However the key aspect of those two forms of music that I have to mention is they are both very simplistic (not in a bad way) and very "jam session" oriented. Of course you don't have to write down African drum music or Indian ragas because in such cases they get a group of musicians together in a room (or wherever) and they just start playing and feed off each other. You can do the same thing with 4-5 guys in a rock band. Try going about it that way with a 50-100 piece orchestra. You'll only get a very unpleasant cacophony. But at least it will be more "connected" with the humanity of the people who are playing.
I'm sorry but I just feel like you're having a really narrow view about this...that you feel like all music should just be capricious and spur-of-the-moment. Different kinds of music require different processes with which to come to fruition. It amazes me that you appear to take the stance that written music has done much more harm to western music than good and has basically sucked the humanity out of it. There would be no classical music if not for written music. If you think classical music has no humanity I just feel sorry for you. I also don't know how you think a genius like Mozart would bring his ideas to life without the help of written music. There's only so much you can do with a piano and he probably wouldn't have taken up the tabla or taken part in African tribal drum jams.
Anyway my point is it's useless to compare such primitive forms of music (again, not in a bad way) to something as modern and sophisticated (not necessarily "better" in that respect) as classical music. As I was explaining earlier, they're two entirely different monsters. I also don't know why you're including ALL western music in this because most western music ISN'T written down with the exception of maybe lyrics (rock, pop, hip hop, folk, metal, prog, soul, you name it). Classical is probably the only one I can think of. The other styles are much more in the vein of what you're talking about.
Also you claim modern classical music is inauthentic. I've played a lot of modern classical in high school and I have to completely disagree with that.
I don't think writing music has necessarily done more harm than good for the most part, but only because we're moving away from written music / training these days. Like you say, Mozart couldnt have realised some of his best work without writing it down. I suppose what I am actually saying is that it's since then that the negative effects on music have been felt. Those amazing composers wrote the rule book on these things, but it's spawned this whole idea of teaching and training and rules to making perfect music, which I definitely don't think has been a good thing.
I have played with a many number of superbly trained classical musicians, and almost all of them have lacked the spontaneity I feel is required to make truly intriguing music. I think this is the main negative thing that such a swing towards sight reading and technique training can have, in my experience.
One of the key things that I think has led me to think this way (and this will probably come out as 'my experience is better than yours', but it's not meant to), is that the person that has inspired me the most in my music and in my life was my flatmate during my university years. He was blind, blind from birth, but was, and still is, the best musician I have ever had the delight of playing with. He was a classically trained pianist, but he had such a joy in spontaneity that really grasped his training and just went with the sound of whatever he was doing. He was pitch perfect. I was inspired by how much HE was inspired by sound.
Conversely, the last band I was in I worked with a classically trained singer, and it was just terrible. We had to take one section and repeat it over and over and over again until she constructed 'the perfect melody', based on all her training on how melodies should rise and fall, occupy certain ranges and suit her voice etc etc etc etc.. it sapped all the life out of everything.
But about you finding modern classical music good when you play it, I'd just re-iterate my point in my previous post - modern classical music is irrelevent to almost everyone, except the people that have been trained to appreciate it. And it's because of the rule book.
The only thing I could say to that is that in my experience, any good music teacher will always always put a great deal of emphasis on connecting with whatever piece you're playing and making it your own and putting your own emotion and heart into it. I really don't think there's a direct connection between music moving to the written medium and western music (or well, classical music...and moreso modern musicians) losing any of its/their humanity.
Undoubtedly you're always going to have musicians who focus on the technical aspects of the mastery of their instrument and the music they play. All 7 years I played saxophone (3 in middle school, 4 at New World School of the Arts) I was alongside an acquaintance and fellow sax player who was such a breed of musician. I don't think it was because of the books he learned from or anything. Maybe the private teacher he started with was more technique-oriented. But I think him and people like him are a case of a few bad apples possibly spoiling the bunch, which is a shame because classical music is one of the most beautiful, passionate, moving genres when it's done right. Even more technical pieces can have a great deal of humanity. Listen to some Frank Tichelli if you want some proof of this. Postcard and Blue Shades are two of the greatest modern classical compositions, maybe two of the greatest classical compositions ever.
I don't think classical music being irrelevant to most people has as much to do with the "rule book" as you put it. I think with any kind of music there are people who understand it and appreciate it and there are people who don't. We post on a Tool message board for example...there are plenty of people who don't understand or appreciate Tool's music, and certainly there are those of us who do--not because we've been trained to do so, just because those are our personal tastes. There are tons of people who love and appreciate modern classical music without knowing a damn thing about it. It's just what they like.
you can break measures into any kind of sets you want but it doesn't change how many beats are in the measure...a popular way to count a measure of 7/8 to make it easier is 2-2-3 or in terms of the actual 8th note beats: "1-2-1-2-1-2-3." In fact one of my favorite things about Tool is the way they can take "weird" time signatures and make them "weirder" by phrasing them differently than most people would. For instance the intro to Jambi is in 9/8 but rather than phrasing it in groups of three (3-3-3), they wrote a riff that--quite brilliantly--is broken up like so: 3-2-2-2. I LOVE how they did that. They do it a lot and it's awesome.
And I never said that any good musician counts the way I said. I just said it was the correct way. Anyone who actually learned the correct way will do it like that. That doesn't make them necessarily a better musician. A lot of really brilliant/unique musicians grew to be as such by learning methods and practices that are unorthodox and "wrong" which contributed directly to the uniqueness of their musical voice.
The only good way of couting music is to the discression of the musician.
If he's good counting everything in 12 bars or 31 bars I don't care. If it works for him, then it is the good way.
When we talk about writing music, there are diffrent ways to write music, as there is different ways to write poems and novels and such...
So there are no absolute, unrefutable way to write or interpret a measure.
Think for yourself and question authority! If it works for you then it is GOOD!
