Metre — where it appears
Named by 34 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Rhythm is a circle, and the bar line is a choice
Draw a rhythm as a line and it looks like a sequence of decisions. Draw it as a cycle and the same pattern turns out to be shared across continents, differing only in where somebody decided to start counting.
The beat is inferred, and sometimes wrongly
A bar line is not in the sound. One sequence of onsets supports a reading in four, in three and in six, and which one a listener settles on comes from a small set of preference rules rather than from anything in the signal — which is why the same recording can be heard two ways and why nobody can be talked out of either.
The bar above the bar
A four-bar group is a bar whose beats are bars. That is not an analogy — it is the same computation, and the same metre-induction model produces one when it is handed bars instead of beats, unchanged. What decides where the hierarchy of levels stops is not in the arithmetic at all, and it is a number the phrase essay already measured.
Which of the two is the beat
A polyrhythm is notated as a bar of two with three laid across it. Run the metre rules used here over the composite and they choose the three — at every ratio tried, without exception. Add the one other rule the rules have, and the answer changes hands at a bar of 1,013 milliseconds, which is 118 to the minute.
The right period at the wrong phase
Finding the beat is two problems, not one. How far apart the beats are, and where the first one is. This site's rule set answers the first confidently on a tresillo and returns a three-way tie on the second — the same score for the downbeat on step one, step four and step seven — which is not a near miss but no answer at all.
Syncopation is a number about the metre
Longuet-Higgins and Lee price a syncopation at the metrical weight a note skips over. That makes it computable, and it makes it a property of a pair rather than of a rhythm — the son clave scores 4 read from step one, 2 from step three and 8 from step four, and not one onset has moved. Worse, the induction rules pick very nearly the reading that scores lowest.
The beat that is never sounded
A listener who has heard four bars of a groove and then hears two bars with the downbeats taken out does not move the downbeat. This site's rule set does, every time, on every pattern tried — and the direction it moves in says exactly what kind of model would be needed instead.
No term for an unequal beat
A Balkan bar of nine is four beats, three short and one long. The induction rules lay their strong positions at a fixed period, so the only readings of nine it can offer are nine, three and one — and for a bar of seven, where seven is prime, the only readings are seven and one. The right answer is not among the candidates.
A metre has to be able to change its mind
Replace the scoring function with a phase-corrected oscillator and the two failures reported earlier separate. The beat now survives two silent bars, drifting 23 milliseconds of a 560-millisecond beat. But it does not lose a moving tempo so much as lag behind it, by the rate over the correction gain — and a cadential ritardando that halves the tempo in eight beats is faster than the model can follow.
The ratio that stops being two
Eight earlier essays have taken two clocks at a rational ratio to be a thing a listener can hold. There is a ratio past which it is not, and the bound is not where anyone would look for it: the cycle is exactly one bar long at every ratio, so the length of the pattern separates nothing. What separates them is the closest the two streams ever come, which is one part in their least common multiple — 400 milliseconds for three against two, and seventeen for thirteen against eleven, which is not two events at all.
Which notes are the chord
A progression is a list of chords, and before there is a list something has to decide which of the notes sounding are chord tones and which are passing. Take the eight notes of a scale as eight quavers and score every triad and seventh at every root: barred as written the best reading is C major seventh, with the barline moved by one quaver it is D minor seventh, and with no metre at all three readings tie exactly and the passage has no best analysis. Same eight notes in all three. Harmonic analysis is a function of a variable that is not harmony.
The time signature is a claim
A bar line is not a measurement. It is a claim about where the accents are, made before the sound exists, and there is a metre-induction model here that can be handed the same onsets and asked whether it agrees. On a hemiola it does not: the page says three and the model says six, by a margin of twelve against minus four. And on a bar of seven the signature is not even a candidate — what decides the reading is the beaming, which the signature does not contain.
What the onsets left out
Eight essays induce a metre from a list of ones and zeros, and every failure they recorded was argued about as a failure of the rules. Two of the three are not. Note length is already in that list and the scoring throws it away: put it back and the son clave's two-way tie resolves to the notated downbeat. But the groove with its beat removed cannot be repaired by any cue at any strength, and the reason is arithmetic rather than empirical — the true phase has no onset on any of its strong positions, so there is no credit for a cue to multiply and its line is exactly flat.
How unequal a beat is allowed to be
A Balkan bar of nine is four beats, three short and one long, and the long one is always three subdivisions against two. Never four against two, never five against three. The usual explanation is that this is what the tradition does; there is a better one and it needs no perceptual measurement at all. A group of four subdivisions decomposes into two twos and a group of five into a two and a three, so neither is a beat — it is two. The only indivisible lengths are two and three, which fixes the ratio at three to two before anybody listens, and leaves the tempo window to decide only how fast the bar can go.
Three decisions that constrain each other
Every model here decides one thing at a time — the key from the pitch classes, the metre from the onsets, the chords from the metre — and an earlier essay ended by saying a listener does all three at once. Resolving them jointly costs a hundred and fifty-seven times the search and changes the reading of two passages in five. It never once changes the key, and the reason it cannot is the reason the whole account is built the way it is.
A cycle that says where it is
Euclidean timelines were asked how quickly they tell a listener where in the cycle they are, and answered it with rotational asymmetry: a symmetric pattern never locates at all. A colotomic cycle answers the same question with nothing asymmetric in it. Several isochronous layers at nested periods — a gong every sixteen, a kempul every eight, a kenong every four — put the position in which instruments sound, and the position is legible from a single stroke.
Expectation is a curve, not a list
Every quantity so far is attached to a chord change: a list of surprises, one per event. A listener's expectation is continuous, sharpening through a bar and collapsing when the change arrives — and the two ingredients for it were already here, in two other accounts. What comes out is a second surprise, for when a chord arrives rather than for which one it is.
Two surprises and one event
A chord change is surprising twice over — in which chord it is, and in when it comes — and a listener meets one event. Adding two surprises needs to know how much they share, which is a fact about a repertoire nobody has. Sweeping it instead: the total moves by half, the ordering does not move at all, and the most surprising moment in a passage is the same one whatever the answer turns out to be.
The cycle that outruns the memory
A timeline and a colotomy were compared at equal strokes and the comparison had no clock in it. A memory span is a number of seconds and a cycle is a number of steps, so the two only meet through a tempo — and at a clave's two seconds a listener's memory covers twenty-eight steps and forgets nothing, while at a gong cycle's forty it covers 1.4 and forgets almost everything. The single line is the better locator up to twenty-three seconds a cycle and the layered code is better after it, which is very close to where each is actually used.
The surprise of nothing happening
A hazard charges a listener twice — once when the chord changes and once, quietly, at every beat it does not. The second term was expected to dominate, because there are more beats than changes. It is a third of the bill at one chord a bar and never reaches a half at any rate a metre survives, because the cost of a beat where nothing happens is second-order small.
Where the chord actually lands
Every timing surprise so far is evaluated on a downbeat: the curve spans a factor of 6.7 and every number is read at its peak. Charge the waiting as well as the arrival and the costs over a bar become a proper distribution, the spread between the best and worst beat rises to a factor of 19.5, and a third of the probability sits on a bar in which nothing changes at all.
A fourth decision, and two that were never made
The joint search resolves key, metre and segmentation together and holds the segmentation's cue mixture at zero. Adding the mixture is one loop, and reading the search in order to add it turns up something worse than a missing axis: on the passages it is drawn on, the key it reads is the same key at all forty-eight of its hypotheses and the metre scores every barline identically. The fourth axis then cannot be ranked at all until each reading is measured against its own null, because a mixture changes the ruler and not only the answer.
A twenty-five is a nine until its last unit
Every account of long additive metres says they are heard as groups of shorter ones, and the metre-induction model had never been pointed at the claim. Pointed at it, the model does not prefer the group — it prefers the long bar outright, and would go on preferring it more the longer anybody listened. What it cannot do is start: the evidence that separates a bar of twenty-five from a bar of nine does not exist until the whole bar has been heard, and at the tempo an unequal metre is best played at the psychological present holds sixteen units.
Where the note is costs more than which note it is
Thirteen earlier essays measure a page, and the three that price a reader price only its pitches — every line they measure is a run of equal notes. A metrical weight normalised by its own sum is a probability, and minus its logarithm is bits — the same substitution made earlier for intervals. Measured over the tunes used throughout it comes out at 2.23 bits a note against the pitches' 1.89, so the larger half of a reader's load is where the note is.
The chords never move the barline
Every hypothesis the joint search had drawn was one bar long, and on one bar with a note in every slot the metre cannot choose a barline at all. Four bars with rests in them make the barline a decision the metre and the chords both have an opinion about, and the prediction was that the chords would move the barline more often than the barline moves the chords. It is the other way round, completely: whenever the two prefer different barlines the search takes the metre's, on up to 72 per cent of passages, and in fifteen hundred passages the chords never once move it. What the chords decide is the one thing the metre cannot see — whether the bar starts on the downbeat or half a bar later — and they decide it right a little over two times in three at best.
The chords are a weak witness to the barline
Scaled by its own range, the metre overrules the chords every time the two disagree about where a bar begins. The obvious repair is to score each reading against its own chance — the metre against the same number of notes placed at random, the chords against the passage's notes shuffled across its bars — and add the standard scores. It changes very little: the search finds the barline within six points of where the product found it, and the chords gain the power to move the barline only on passages whose rhythm says nothing, where random notes move it nearly as often. The null's real result is the size of the two witnesses. At the written barline the metre stands up to 5.9 standard deviations above chance, and the chords, with every note a tone of its bar's chord, stand 1.55 above it at best.
The accent buys two units, however loud it is
A twenty-five cannot be told from a group of shorter bars on its onsets until more steps have gone by than a listener's present holds, and the obvious objection is that nobody plays an aksak bar as bare onsets: the long beat is louder, and the bar's first beat is marked. So how loud does an accent have to be? The question has a surprising answer. Loudness is not the variable. The existing accent cue changes nothing, and delays the answer where it changes anything. An accent that a reading has to predict works at any strength at all, and at no strength does more than a fixed amount: on the long beat it buys the two steps of a short beat, and on the downbeat it takes every arrangement to one floor — the bar less its last beat — which no cue carried by the notes can break. The longest bar that can be heard as one moves from sixteen units to eighteen.
The chords mark the barline by changing there
Read bar by bar, the chords stood barely above chance at the barline and broke the metre's half-bar tie two times in three at best. Read instead by where they change — how different the chords are across a candidate's barlines against how different they are across the middle of its bars — the same notes break the tie right on 81 to 96 per cent of passages, and added to the metre they find the barline on up to 89 per cent against 61. The weakness was the question the old reading asked, not the harmony.
Knowing every metre is slower than knowing none
A long aksak bar cannot be told from its shorter cuts by induction before one step into its last beat, and no accent carried by the notes moves that floor. The obvious escape is a listener who knows the repertoire and recognises the metre instead. Recognition among all 1,820 arrangements of twos and threes never beats the floor, is never quicker than induction, and is slower for half the metres: a nine induced in 9 steps is recognised in 27. What breaks the floor is a small repertoire that leaves out the metre's own longest cut — with the cut known, no repertoire of any size does.
A dancer who comes in late needs the downbeat marked
Every window for recognising an aksak metre so far started at its written downbeat. A dancer joining a dance already going has not heard the downbeat, and the arithmetic of that is blunt: a metre entered part-way is, onset for onset, each of its own rotations heard from their downbeats, and the rotations are metres too — 2+2+3 and 3+2+2 are counted differently. So on onsets, and with the long beats accented, no metre is ever told from its rotations. Only an accented downbeat tells them apart, and with it a listener who knows thirty metres recognises 54 per cent of them inside the present from a random entry, against 1 per cent without.
The change reading follows the chords, not the bar
Every passage read until now changes chord exactly at the barline, which is the one harmonic rhythm at which 'the chords change here' and 'the bar starts here' are the same sentence. Pull them apart and the reading goes with the chords: at one chord a bar it stands 1.52 standard units above the other candidates and finds the barline half the time, at two chords a bar it stands 0.01 above them and is at chance, and at a chord every two bars its margin is exactly half — because half the barlines then carry no change at all.
Asked for the rate, it answers a multiple
A reading that follows the chord rate rather than the bar can be asked what the rate is, and the shape of its errors is the whole of why it looked like a barline detector. Given two chords a bar it returns the right period a third of the time and something slower two thirds; given a chord every two bars it is right nine times in ten. It errs slow and essentially never fast, because a change every four slots also falls on every eighth slot and a slower grid inherits a faster rate's evidence — which is the same asymmetry that makes a pitch detector report an octave too low.
The bass errs fast where the content errs slow
Asked how often the chords change, a reading built on pitch-class content names a slower multiple and never a faster rate. Give the passage a bass that states each new root and moves between chord tones inside a chord, and a reading built on the bass's moves errs the other way: it names a faster grid and never a slower one. At two chords a bar the bass is right every time; at a chord every two bars it is never right. Six ways of combining the two readings each trade one end of the range for the other.
A bass that holds through a change marks the barline
At two chords a bar the chords change on the barline and on the half-bar alike, so a reading of where they change is at chance, and the metre ties the two. The bass has one more piece of evidence: a change inside the bar can be voiced over the note already sounding, and a change on the barline is voiced over its root. Hold the bass through one mid-bar change in six and the metre and bass together place the barline in 85 per cent of eight-bar passages; one in three, 97. The convention cannot be stronger than that, and the chord changes, asked first, only get in the way.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Harmonic rhythmDownbeatInferenceMetrical weightOnset patternSyncopationInformationAdditive metreAksakBeatEntrainmentEvidence