
What Is the Time Signature of the Ominous Electronic Score of The Terminator? - jipumarino
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/02/the_time_signature_of_the_terminator_score_is_a_mystery_for_the_ages.html
======
pdkl95
Obviously, it's a straight 4/4 ("Common Time")[0], with some swing and played
_tempo rubato_ ("robbed time")[1]. This is where the time allocated for the
various beats is pushed around a bit by the performer to add character or
emotional qualities. Very often, when the phrase "..with feeling!" is really
speaking about _rubato_ (or conversely, any "mechanical" quality a performance
may have). "Stop playing it like a robot; now stat again, _with feeling_ this
time!"

So many people have a hard time picking out the meter, because they are still
using an incorrect assumption: that time (meter/tempo/beats/etc) in music is
_regular /consistent_ \- or even well-defined in the first place.

The important part to remember, when speaking of time-signatures, meter, and
music theory in general, is that what's written (or even what was intended by
a composer) is only a guide. They've drawn a model on the page, that is
intended to help express how you go about playing a song, but just as "the map
is not the territory", a quarter-note is not necessarily 1/4 of a measure in
time[2].

This used to be more explicit in the Baroque era: you would see very simple
notation on the page, and the performer was supposed to infer (and ad-lib
their own) "embellishments" or "ornaments"[3] as they played.

This doesn't apply to all music, and some songs would not work without their
strict, mechanical interpretation of meter. Of particular note is "martial
music"[4], which is often quite regular/low-rubato, and the Terminator theme
has some march-like qualities such as its iconic sharp-beats. Martial music
could be appropriate for Terminator's subject matter, too. Instead, we get a
really-modern[5] song that was likely performed directly, skipping the sheet
music step entirely. That's the thing about music; you can't really shove it
all in to nice, neat pidgen-holes, and if you could, some artist would just go
and write a song that broke everything, for the lulz.

As the article mentions a Prophet-10, you also have to take into the
considerations of the hardware involved, and how that influences everything,
in large and/or subtle ways. If you're interested in the topic of how hardware
and creativity are intertwined, LFT (Linus Akesson) gave a very interesting
talk on the subject: "Poems for bugs"[6].

[0] There are other acceptable interpretations, of course, but that makes no
difference.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo_rubato](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo_rubato)

[2] Also measures/bars don't necessarily have the same time either, and the
frequency of a note (on instruments that allow it) can vary as well.

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_%28music%29#Western_cl...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_%28music%29#Western_classical_music)

[4]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_music](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_music)

[5] "Is it modern?" ~Emperor Joseph II, in _Amadeus_

[6] [http://www.linusakesson.net/programming/poems-for-
bugs/index...](http://www.linusakesson.net/programming/poems-for-
bugs/index.php)

~~~
MattBearman
I'd maybe agree with you if this was organic music played by real people, but
it's all electronic, so you can guarantee someone entered 13/8 into their
sequencer's time signature.

~~~
ctdonath
The history of [digital] electronics does not fit with our modern neat notions
of how things exactly must be. I've been there, seen the extraordinary
contortions taken to make things work at all on equipment we'd consider
completely incapable thereof; explaining why things worked out a particular
way requires explaining how bad things were (relative to our norm) and, given
such atrocious platforms, what mentally painful rationalizations gave rise to
what needed doing - and the strange artifacts which accompanied those
achievements.

The composer didn't "enter 13/8 into the sequencer's time signature." He
recorded a sequence, then hit "repeat" at an inopportune moment which,
serendipitously, led to the effect he was looking for. We take for granted
setting time signatures as an absolute act framing the subsequent content
inserted therein; wasn't so neat & tidy back then.

Because we take certain automatic framing processes for granted (to a near-
exestential degree), we cannot create such art without great deliberative
effort, and have great difficulty understanding why such art happened when it
did.

------
gonewest
As a drummer I really like odd time signatures, for example the Pat Metheny
Group song entitled "First Circle" is in 22/8... For fun, try memorizing and
clapping the pattern at the opening of the piece.

[http://www.halfstepup.com/articles/odd-time-signatures-in-
co...](http://www.halfstepup.com/articles/odd-time-signatures-in-composition)

[http://youtu.be/4YeoIn5-mSs](http://youtu.be/4YeoIn5-mSs)

~~~
daeken
I'm also a big fan of odd time signatures, especially those that change. A
great example of this is Dream Theater's "The Dance Of Eternity":
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ftRhsvvfBw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ftRhsvvfBw)
In ~6 minutes, there are 104 time signature changes, largely between 3/2, 3/4,
4/4, 5/4, 6/4, and 7/4.

Another great one is Radiohead's "Pyramid Song":
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbKQPqs-
cqc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbKQPqs-cqc) It's in (3+3+4+3+3)/16
(depending on how you interpret it), and it's one of the hardest songs to
count, as the last note is swung and deceptive. But it's a great composition.

~~~
psychometry
Pyramid Song is in 4/4\. If you only listen to the piano part, then you might
think it's odd, but when written in 4/4 the notes are just dotted quarter
notes and half notes. The drum part is more revealing of the 4/4 time
signature.

[http://cloud.freehandmusic.netdna-
cdn.com/preview/530x4/warn...](http://cloud.freehandmusic.netdna-
cdn.com/preview/530x4/warner/pyramsg.png)

~~~
daeken
This doesn't really follow, to me. If you count out the piano part, you get
the groups of 3 pretty quickly, then the group of 4 that sits in the middle is
immediately apparent.

Counting the drums, to my ear, gives (5+4+4+3)/4, not 4/4\. But admittedly,
those could be counted differently.

I definitely disagree completely that this song is in 4/4, though the exact
groupings can be tough to determine.

~~~
psychometry
I assure you, it's in 4/4\. I've transcribed and arranged this song myself.
Also, that screenshot is from the official Amnesiac sheet music book.

------
kens
It seems to me that time signatures assume a particular model of musical
structure that doesn't apply to this score. According to the article, the
sequence was looped a little short of a complete measure. So there's no reason
to expect a rational time signature.

It's kind of like creating music that repeats every π (pi) beats, and people
arguing if the time signature is 25/8 or 22/7\. (Actually that might be an
interesting piece of music.)

~~~
ghayes
On the latter part, you might want to check out Wikipedia's list of musical
works in unusual time signatures[0], which includes:

> "[Study] No. 40" for two non-synchronized pianos, version for player piano
> (punching score) by Conlon Nancarrow contains the mathematical constant e
> beats of pi.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_works_in_unusua...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures)

------
cperciva
As a classical musician it took me about three bars of audio to figure out
that this was 3+3+3+2+2. I'd call it 13/8 rather than the 13/16 which the
article suggests, but that's _mostly_ a non-difference.

~~~
plaguuuuuu
Drummer here..

Edited to rephrase this as a question as I'm not so sure any more :p

If it were 13/8, wouldn't each bar would comprise two 'patterns' (forgot the
correct term) with the second beginning halfway between beats 6 and 7? IMO
makes less sense than it beginning at the start of a bar of 13/16.

~~~
cperciva
It depends whether the notes we're hearing are 8th notes or 16th notes. Given
the style I'd say that they're fast 8ths rather than slow 16ths.

~~~
kisielk
I think another article (perhaps on Synthopia) stated the tempo was 190 bpm or
thereabouts, so definitely 8ths.

------
crazygringo
Fascinating. I think it's particularly tricky because I'd argue it's not
13/16, but rather 6.5/8, in terms of where we intuively feel the beats. (Like
the traditional difference between 4/4 and 2/2.)

But fractional top numbers in the time signature basically don't exist -- this
is the first time I've come across something that feels like that -- hence why
it's so hard to pin down.

~~~
mzarate06
Hmm, so you don't hear 7/8? Maybe I'm off, but do you hear the repeating
percussion pattern on these notes (-- means an eighth rest)?

1 & \-- & 3 -- 4 & \-- -- 6 7

I hear that through the entire track, and counting with 7/8 has each new bar
starting nicely on the first eighth note.

My vote is 7/8.

~~~
cperciva
It's definitely

1 (2) . 4 (5) . 7 (8) . 10 . 12 .

where 1, 4, 7, 10, and 12 are strong notes, (2), (5), and (8) are weak notes,
and the others are rests.

Try counting "1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2" and you'll find that it fits
perfectly.

~~~
maroonblazer
"1 (2) . 4 (5) . 7 (8) . 10 . 12 ." isn't a time signature.

It's 7/8.

~~~
cperciva
Of course that isn't a time signature. It's a listing of where the loud notes,
quiet notes, and rests line up in the bar.

------
leephillips
Since we're comparing music with weird time signatures: Mussorgsky's _Pictures
at an Exhibition_ , "Promenade" section, he wrote in 11/4 time, but it's
usually published as alternating 5/4 and 6/4 because, presumably, performers
find that less strange. Mussorgsky is notorious for having spent most of his
life in a drunken stupor, including, or perhaps especially, when composing.

~~~
cperciva
_he wrote in 11 /4 time, but it's usually published as alternating 5/4 and 6/4
because, presumably, performers find that less strange_

Oh god. I hate it when editors do this.

I can't think of any musicians who find this any easier -- quiet the contrary.
I think this practice originated in the early days of typeset music, when
there were letter blocks available for 5/4 and 6/4 but not for 11/4.

Whichever way it's printed, we just pencil "3 + 2 + 3 + 3" into our parts
anyway...

------
Aardwolf
If you would have one beat a few milliseconds off, would that turn your 6/8
into e.g. 619/824? There is no strict boundary between which streams of sound
are music and which are not, so have fun analyzing whatever else will come up.

~~~
baddox
If I were annotating it, I would use some ad hoc notation. I would probably
just say 13/16 with a note to add a quarter beat (or something like that) to
the end of each measure. Another option might be decimal signatures, like
13.25/16.

------
teddyh
From the article:

> _“DAH-doonk, dah-doonk, dah-doonk, gonk gonk.”_

That would actually be the Terminator _2_ soundtrack. The soundtrack from _The
Terminator_ would go “DAH-doonk, doonk, dah-doonk, gonk gonk.”; i.e. 2-1-2-2
instead of 2-2-2-2.

(Yes, this annoyed me back when Terminator 2 came out. Why, yes, I _am_ old.)

~~~
nzp
Isn't it the other way around? Terminator 2[0] is 2-1-2-2, and Terminator is
2-2-2-2.

[0] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhWs3DVk-
FU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhWs3DVk-FU)

~~~
teddyh
Hey, wow, you’re right — I totally mixed them up. Now I feel silly.

~~~
nzp
Haha, don't. I would never notice that there's a difference if you had not
pointed it out. :)

------
aaronsnoswell
Time signatures are extrinsic to a piece of music; a 3/4 piece can be also be
written as a x/y piece, it will just be confusing for the musicians to follow.

------
coldtea
Here's from my brother (classically trained orchestra musician and electronic
music composer):

 _I checked the cd version I have in cubase with a click track playing the
accents: it 's 13/8 (3+3+3+2+2), 194 bpm. You can hear the click being stable
throughout, without any adjustments (ok, it might be .0x off due to slightly
different midi timing from Cubase and his gear) - if this weren't the
tempo/meter, it would drift a lot.

The reason for the confusion is probably the sloppy/free live playing in some
of the lines. I imagine he had a click track or some quantised line running
(like the opening percussion), and played the rest live (even the
percussion/string hits in the middle, that sound a bit rushed and sloppy).

I think the whole 8ths/16ths etc about how the score should be are irrelevant
in electronic music, unless you were to transcribe it for someone to play._

~~~
bpaluzzi
I can't agree with that. 3+3+3+2+2 means that the first four notes are all
evenly spaced. Tap the accent with your hand. The fourth note is delayed. The
pattern is actually 3+3+4+2+2. 7/8.

And the tempo is definitely faster than 194 - it's closer to 212. Are you sure
your brother listened to the right track?

~~~
coldtea
Well, it listened to this one:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpwWYOE3Y9o&feature=kp](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpwWYOE3Y9o&feature=kp)

Are we talking about another?

~~~
bpaluzzi
That is the piece, but the part being discussed doesn't start until 2:23.

~~~
coldtea
He says:

He checked again. If we're being pedantic, 13/8 at 194.086 bpm is more
accurate once you line up the more percussive elements in the middle of the
track with a downbeat in the sequencer properly.

The actual tempo was probably 194 bpm, and the slight deviation has something
to do with equipment or the transfer (tape speed, midi timing, whatever). Also
consider the unquantised playing, slower attack times in some sounds, his gear
etc. I wouldn't be surprised if a contemporary classical composer thought "You
know what, no one's done a 13.1/16 piece - I bet it would be amazing. Such
inspiration. Much genius", but I don't think that applies here. No reason to
complicate things.

He made an mp3 with a ride cymbal doing the opening pattern throughout the
track; 13/8 no tempo alterations, at 194.086 bpm, and it's pretty much spot
on.

------
wmij
It sounds and feels like 7/8 to me. So it's 13/16, cool stuff! I have a clock
at home that plays the Big Ben Westminster Chimes in 5/4 time. Once I figured
out it played in 5/4, I think of "5" now every time I hear it. There is a
definite art to creating melodies that feel good in odd time signatures.

------
moondowner
More goodies:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_works_in_unusu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures)

------
Nux
Terminator Score (everybody talks about it, nobody links it, wtf)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6o1ipWtHig](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6o1ipWtHig)

------
mzarate06
I hear 7/8 all the way through.

Because I can't remember how to phrase an up beat in an */8 time signature,
think in terms of 7/4 for a moment. You can clearly hear the repeating
percussion pattern on these notes throughout the entire track:

1 & [rest on 2] & 3 4 & [rest on 5] 6 7

I distinctly hear 7 downbeats each bar.

~~~
rileyjshaw
Very close. The first beat comes in a _little_ bit too soon to be 7/8... try
tapping it out and you'll notice. Tapping with your first two taps on the
first two drum hits will get you the right tempo.

The reason that it can sound so close to 7/8 is because 7/8 = 14/16, which is
only one sixteenth off of 13/16.

~~~
mzarate06
_> The first beat comes in a little bit too soon to be 7/8_

Are you referring to the opening note of the track? I'd argue that's a pickup
note.

Edit: Either way, I just tapped out to 13/16 and see how that fits perfectly.
Thanks for explaining.

~~~
baddox
13/16 still isn't perfect. There is something like an extra quarter beat every
measure, as in 13.25/16\. Of course, that makes it closer to 13/16 than 7/8.

------
MattBearman
I'm another fan of odd time signatures, took me a few bars but I made it 13/X
(feels more like /8 than /16 to me, but meh)

I nailed it counting loops of 1234 1234 1234 1

I've noticed the place you're most likely to hear 'odd' time signatures (other
than prog music) is in scores.

------
whiddershins
I kept hearing it in 7/4, so I put hi hats and snares in 4/4, 7/4, and 13/8
against the motive ... now what does everyone think?

[https://soundcloud.com/noisegroove/terminatortimesignatures](https://soundcloud.com/noisegroove/terminatortimesignatures)

------
tunesmith
Usually it's simple to just count in groups of three and two (or four). This
is three threes and a four, so, thirteen.

If you want to drill yourself on a bunch of different examples of this - 11,
13, 17, whatever - go listen to Balkan folk music.

~~~
andybak
Don Ellis had a Bulgarian pianist (Milcho Leviev) in his Orchestra for a while
and this was one of the glorious outcomes:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUYtWvavvYg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUYtWvavvYg)

Here's a great blog that used to have regular posts on matters regarding
peculiar meters:
[http://oddtimeobsessed.blogspot.co.uk/](http://oddtimeobsessed.blogspot.co.uk/)

------
skuunk1
This one starts off in 17/16

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFoYsqVqDcU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFoYsqVqDcU)
Hells Bells by Bill Bruford

~~~
plaguuuuuu
Also I think the first bit in Biblical Violence by Hella is 17/16.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7S-RhlG1bk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7S-RhlG1bk)

and this is apparently a transcription of one of the following parts in some
sort of drumming tablature

    
    
        H |------|----|--------|----|---X--|----|--------|----|---X--|----|----------|
        t |o-----|o---|o---o---|o---|o-----|o---|o---o---|o---|o-----|o---|o---o---o-|
        S |-ooo--|--O-|-o---O--|--O-|-oooo-|--O-|-o---O--|--O-|-oo--o|--O-|-o---O----|
        B |o-oo-o|o---|o-oo---o|o---|o-oo-o|o---|o-oo---o|o---|o-oo-o|o---|o-oo---oo-|
        Hf|----x-|----|--------|-x--|----x-|----|--------|-x--|----x-|----|----------|
        ___1tl2tl|1 2 |1tl2tl3 |1 2 |1tl2tl|1 2 |1tl2tl3 |1 2 |1tl2tl|1 2 |1tl2tl3 4 |
    
        C |X----------|------|-----------|------|-----------|------|-----------|----X-|
        H |---X-------|------|---X-------|------|---X-------|------|---X-------|------|
        t |-------o---|o-----|o------o---|o-----|o------o---|o-----|o---oo-o---|o-----|
        S |-oo-ooo--O-|-o--O-|-oo-ooo--O-|-o--O-|-oo-ooo--O-|-o--O-|-oo---o--O-|-o--O-|
        B |o--o--oo---|o-oo--|o-oo--oo---|o-oo--|o-oo--oo---|o-oo--|o-oo--oo---|o-oo--|
        Hf|----x------|------|----x------|------|----x------|------|----x------|------|
        ___1tl2tl3tl4 |1 2 3 |1tl2tl3tl4 |1 2 3 |1tl2tl3tl4 |1 2 3 |1tl2tl3tl4 |1 2 3 |
    

w.t.f.

------
pygy_
It's not 13/16, or any other straight rational meter.

Xx-Xx-Xx-0–0–

The 0–0– section is half as long as Xx-Xx-Xx-.

Akin to a polyrhythm, but serial rather than parallel.

------
gooseyard
Check out Ben Monder's "Rooms of Light" for a really brain-bending bit of
counting.

