...yeah, hate to split an already created topic, and start it over (it was in the Jambi forum). Anyway, I have counted it many times and I found it to be 6/4+5/4, or 3/4+3/4+5/4. Dunno why that particular rhythm, but that's what it sounds like.

I always count it like 3/4 + 3/4 + 5/4. I love how the guitars just flow through those meters.

I think your right,

to me it sounds like a very slow 11/8, subdivided into 3/8+3/8+3/8+2/8
which is vertully the same.

^That's how I count it... 3+3+3+2.

Another reference to eleven

I agree with the smeefmobile. It's all about the elevenseses. I personally just count eleven- no subdivisions necessary.

Haha, yeah, you just count eleven, but it wouldn't be eleven if you wouldn't count 8ths.

spinal tap?

Awesome.

I oversimplified- please allow me to clarify. I do count eleven eighth notes, I just don't count six and five eighth notes; or three and three and five eighth notes; or three and three and three and two eighth notes. Although, there's no reason that I can see to say that it has to be 11/8; it could be 11/4, and the slower pace of the song seems to justify the latter over the former. But that's just semantics, really . . .

"These amps go to eleven"

it's actually 6/8 minus 5/8 plus 5/4
eleven beats total

HAHA

Good post idea-I've been thinking about this a lot lately. If the rhythm is subdivided, the song clearly appears to be in 3+3+3+2. This combination makes the most sense as heard in the opening guitar rhythm. There are 3 sets of the same rhythm in 3, followed by one set in 2 - three times a dotted quarter is followed by three eighths, and is followed by one measure of 2 quarter notes. This last bar of two is where Maynard's "right in two", where the word two lands on 1, starting the cylce over again.
One could argue over time signatures, but the basic pattern makes the most sense in 3+3+3+2.

What's truly impressive is Tool's ability to manipulate and grow through the rhythm in their music. The constant rhythm dominating this song opened by the guitar grows throughout the work into the sweet, heavy riff about 5'24'' into the song. This is the exact same rhythm as the opening of the opening line, only alternating the 1st and dominant scale degrees. Of course Carey's bad ass drumming adds too much energy to put into words, and then Maynard brings the song to a climax with his counter rhythm "angel's on the sideline again" over the sweet riff 7'10'' into the song. Listen to how Maynard's vocals weave so rhythmically well with the guitar, especially in the "monkeys" refrain. What attracts me to Tool so much is their ability to take a simple motive and explore it's possibilities.

What I'd really like to see more on this site is the philosophy behind the non-lyrical aspects of the music. The real questions is this: WHY use such an odd 11-based time signature? An asymmetrical time signature like this seems to point to instability, or maybe gives the feeling that the song is not balanced. Maynard asserts we are forced "right in two", maybe these two parts are not equal. He is perhaps commenting on how humans are so unbalanced to begin with. Tool is too musical to just use 11 for the hell of it.

Good point, but I donŽt think there is any philosophical reson behind using an unsal time signature. The reson they picked 11, I think, is purly because it creates a truly unique and interesting flavour to the song. The band writes songs using almost every complex meter possible, one favorite of theirŽs is 10/8 like in The Grudge. I canŽt see any philosphy about the number 10 exept it sounds completely different to 11/8. Unusual time signitures add another dimension to the music, however, I doubt there is much inner meaning behind them. However, I might be wrong, so if you do find inner meaning behind their time signatures, let us know.

That's a great post, man. I've often wondered why more bands don't attempt to screw around with time signatures. As a drummer, I find that there is only so much fun to be had within the confines of cut time, 3/4, 4/4 , (which is really the same as cut time- I know it's not, but it is) and 6/8 (which is really the same as 3/4- again, I know it's not, but it is). I find fives, sevens, nines and elevens to much more fulfilling, especially in intertwining combinations. I like to finish a song and have my brain gasping for air by the end (figuratively, of course) with the exertion of wrapping itself around such complexity.

As far as musical complexity is related to philosophy; I must say that in the case of Tool it seems that such philosophical contributions would be from Adam, Danny and Justin (and Paul), rather than Maynard. Thus is the process of deciphering meaning that much harder, absent a verbal iteration of the thoughts exiting through the amplifiers. As for your assertion regarding the uneven halves of the whole constituting "Right In Two," I like that thought. The lyrics talk about the sorrow of division (of any kind- whether in even halves or not), while the music laments the fact that nothing is ever divided evenly (if thing is to be divided, it should not be done in a way that leaves some cups overflowing while others are virtually empty).

Again great post. This has the feel of uncharted territory.

Coming from a longtime musician, it's much easier, especially in a performance setting, to think of the beats in melodic passages in smaller groups. Even some college music professors I know -- some of the best musicians I've ever heard -- would balk at thinking about any musical passage in anything greater than 4 beats at a time.

Even a 5/4 beat is best felt as 3 beats and then 2 beats, or 4 beats with one tacked onto the end.

For someone listening though, counting 11 beats will seem just fine.

Yeah, true. I have played for 11-12 years with no theory training. A few years back me and the band I was in experimented with new, unusual time signatures. Learning as we went, I came to think of things like 5/4 and 7/8 as 1,2,3,4,5 or 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 respectively. Eventually I started counting like this but accenting certain numbers like 1,x,3,x,5,x,x (which effectively produced 1,2,1,2,1,2,3) and all kinds of things.

Now I am in a band with a classically trained musician and when he talks about these time signatures it is always things like 1,2,1,2,1,2,3 etc. I was like "What the hell are you talking about? Why don't you just count to 7?"

I am still not sure whether it is easier his way or not. I can't tell because I rarely need to count anything anymore, just feel it.

By subdividing odd units of 7 and 11, you were naturally finding accents and rhythm patterns within the time signature-something the classicaly trained musician is taught to do. Of course, you can just count to 11, but it is much easier to navigate and find yourself within a rhythmic system with subdivisions. Time signatures like 3+3+2 are actually used, but this is mainly to help guide musician's feel early on in the reading process. Ultimately, the goal is to be able to be freed from numbers and simply feel music the way you do.


As far as 11 being the time signature for the song, I was referring more to the feel of the song than the actual number 11. I think most would agree Tool's placement of the lyrics "right in two" happening where a beat seems to be "missing" gives emphasis on those lyrics. Our ears naturally pick up the patterns of 3's in the intro, but are thrown off by the set of two. After that, we are listening for that extra two that seem a bit out of place.

What's interesting is the lyrics "right in two" seem to imply equal halves, while the time of the song cannot be divided equally (coincidentally, the words 'right in two' break the cycle of threes). Think about the use of those words in conversation-it's not something I would normally say, but if someone said they wanted something or something to be done "right in two", I would assume two equal halves. The time of the song is clearly not in balanced, equal halves-my original point.

Some may dismiss this as trivial, but I think the more unstable time of 11 reflects the tone of the song-humans being unbalanced, contradictory, unstable monkeys. Mainly, I am asserting that there is more to understanding Tool's music than the lyrics.

I guess it is possible that this was intentional. A song that my band recently finished has a section which is both confusing to play and to listen to. I am not sure about the exact qualities of it, but it involves a guitar part in 3+3+3+5 with a bass part that goes 3+2+5+3+2+5+3+2+3 (the bass part starts early with a 2 beat pick up and it takes two cycles of the guitar part before the bass part repeats). Meanwhile the drums play a slow 4/4 groove underneath with accents that don't correspond regularly with anything else.

Anyway, my point is - the lyrics I wrote and the title of the song "Pian xin ze an" refer to the idea that believing only one side of a story will leave you in a muddle.
After the fact, I realised how the confusing middle section was quite fitting considering the title (because, without complete awareness of all the parts and how they make up the whole, you are likely to be left in a muddle).

Although I didn't write the lyrics and then decide to have a confusing bit, I guess it is possible for other musicians as pedantic as me to consider something like this as a worthy exercise.

Maynard: "whats that time signature, Adam?"

Adam: "Some 11 shit."

Maynard: "Can't divide that in two can you?"

Adam: "Not really..."

Maynard: "Cool, I got some lyrics that might fit..."

I think that the subdivision talk is superlative...
It's really left for the interpretation of the musician that plays it.

I regularly play in 9 and counts it in nine because I want to have that HUGE beat feeling.
Same thing with my grooves in 17, which CAN be interpreted in 5+5+7 but it's really a matter of personnal choices, but it the end, it will always circle round and round after the 17 bars...

^^^I think that this guy meant superfluous, rather than superlative.^^^

BAM
BAM BAM
BAM
BAM
BAM BAM
BAM
BAM
BAM BAM

I know, that's what I was thinking.

I know what you mean man. It's just like, the rythm sticks into your head and the accents 1s and threes find there way out in foot tapping or other body convulsions.

As a follow up, I was just listening to the CD randomly today and part of Rosetta Stoned can be heard in the 3+3+3+2 style 11. Check out about 5'4 into the song. This is one of the things I love about Tool-their ability to unify an entire CD.

This is one of the best threads I've ever read on the internet. Thank you.

am i a bad musician if I've never counted out time signatures?