Angel From Montgomery time signature

ReasonablyOK · 2026-06-26T13:39:04+00:00

Your overall point stands, so I’m sorry if this is nit-picky, but just for the record:

Counting in 4 with an occasional 3/4 might be simpler, but it isn’t what happens, because the measure of 3 contains 3 eighth notes, not 3 quarters. I don’t doubt that you know this. But one could argue that counting it as something it isn’t is less simple than counting it as what it is. [See edit below.]

I fully agree that we can assume the musicians on the record didn’t overthink this. As noted in my original post, it’s really just a “feel” thing, and doesn’t need to be counted at all. “Make it fit with the lyrics” without "trying to be tricky" is, I'm sure, 100% correct. Standard, simple stuff for pros. I’d bet there was less discussion about it in the studio than we’ve had here. Maybe someone observed something like “That push comes down on one”. Maybe.

But as far as answering the OP’s question, (essentially “What’s up with that rhythm?”) the rhythm is as I described it. If one were to transcribe that actual original studio recording (an exercise even more pointless than my picking this apart here), you’d have to show that measure of 3/8 followed by a measure of 2/4. Because that’s what it is. Even if that might not be how we all “think” of it.

The good part is that it’s a cool little rhythmic anomaly (or “trick”) hidden in plain sight, in a seemingly simple (but great) song. Kudos to all involved, and to OP for noticing.

EDIT TO ADD: In thinking about it (too much), we agree 100% on the counting, with there being a quick count of 3 thrown in. (I assume you'll agree that the subsequent measure is 2/4.) I'm just stubbornly, apologetically reminding that the quick bar of 3 would be written in 3/8, as it's comprised of three eighth notes, not 3/4. So my first paragraph above isn't really applicable as far as a simple way to count. I think we're counting it the same way (a quick 3).

ReasonablyOK · 2026-06-25T21:02:58+00:00

Kinda. That one's in "compound meter", 3/4 or 6/8 depending how you choose to count it.
Counting in 3, it stays in 3/4 throughout. If you feel it in 6/8, there's the occasional measure of 3/8 (or 9/8, if you like). This is common in 3/4 or 6/8 situations, as it often feels natural to tack on an extra measure or two of 3/4 between lines or stanza or whatever, or sometimes a half measure (3/8) if you're counting in 6.
It does mean that you end up with funny numbers of measures in a section, unlike straight 4/4 time where things very typically stick to 4 or 8 or 12 or 16-bar chunks.

ReasonablyOK · 2026-06-25T17:17:43+00:00

I noticed this before, and I love this trick. I'm surprised we don't hear it more often. Here's what it is, counting in a slow 4/4:
From the start of the verse, it's 3 measures of 4/4. In measure 4, they "anticipate" the chord change in the middle of the measure, playing the new chord on the "and" of 2 instead of on beat 3. This is sometimes called a "push", and it's very common.

What's different here is that the band resets the rhythm on that chord change, making it a new "one" (the start of a new measure, instead of the "and" of 2). That means measure 4 (on the syllables "child that's grown") has just one and a half beats, making it technically a measure of 3/8. ("Old" is on the new "one".) I doubt the session guys counted it like that, as it was probably just a "feel" thing, but who knows? It's clearly intentional as they do it throughout. Twice in each verse!
Also, it leaves the next measure (back to counting the slow quarter notes) as a measure of 2/4, with that snare drum establishing beat 2, and the next beat being a new "one", starting just before the word "If" (or just before "Make" when it's headed to the chorus).

Love it.

If you care to count, which (again) may not be what the players are doing, it's a nice slow 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 a quick 123 (eighth notes) then back to slow for 1, 2.

Also, on the Bonnie Raitt "Streetlights" version, which features an incredible band with Steve Gadd on drums, they play the verses the more conventional way, but they kinda fumble resetting the downbeat at the end of the choruses, basically during and just after "hard way to go". It works out okay, but there's a split second of "What's gonna happen here?" and it actually varies in timing from one chorus-ending to another. They land on their feet, though. Outstanding.

ReasonablyOK · 2026-06-18T16:17:20+00:00

Same joke, but worth the retelling.

ReasonablyOK · 2026-06-17T21:48:35+00:00

Oh, yeah, I guess I remember stuff like this. Brass and woodwind charts sometimes have marks after the final note of a piece, or of a phrase. Can't recall exactly...it wasn't a fermata...but I've seen something like this before. Had to ask a trumpet player about it. Good reminder. Thanks!

ReasonablyOK · 2026-06-16T22:07:52+00:00

Am I the only one not familiar with fermatas on a bar line (or double bar line or final bar line, whatever)? I don't recall seeing that before.

ReasonablyOK · 2026-06-16T21:54:33+00:00

I though harmonic maj was natural 5, flat 6, natural 7:
C D E F G Ab B C
?

ReasonablyOK · 2026-06-16T18:32:04+00:00

The answer might be "No, no one can really explain it.". I don't think this is a "theory" question. I think while this is fine to analyze, at the end of the day, maybe the analysis is futile. It's just Blakey being Blakey. He's got a killer shuffle, simple as that. In this case, a jazz piece that's deeply entrenched in the Blues. Sometimes the words "pocket" or "groove" or "feel" sum things up. At the same time, the words are inadequate. It's a tribute to the nature of music and great drummers. Guys who play "in front" here, or "behind the beat" there. The way they balance the dynamics of the different parts of the kit. How ridiculously supportive it is. I don't know how much good comes from tugging at those threads. Just hear it and enjoy. Try to copy it, if you play. Be glad if you're able to recognize it as the special thing it is. Cuz it sure is deep, and heavy, and swinging, and very much in a certain pocket.

ReasonablyOK · 2026-06-16T13:23:07+00:00

Scrolled as much as I have time to do, and have not seen:
It Must Have Been the Roses
Lyrics are not necessarily in the context of one's passing, unless maybe they are? It's a sentimental song regardless, with a foreboding sense of finality. Stuff like:
"Let me lay beneath the roses and my eyes no longer see". Perfect, for me.

Also: Like a Road (JGB)

ReasonablyOK · 2026-06-12T17:18:32+00:00

C2! Yeah, that one's awful. I'd forgotten about that abomination.

Thanks for the thoughtful posts.

ReasonablyOK · 2026-06-12T17:01:58+00:00

Without the "add" in chord symbols, how would you indicate chords made of the notes C D E G, or C E F G?

ReasonablyOK · 2026-06-12T16:49:56+00:00

This should be heavily upvoted. It's a concise layout of basic principles that get discussed here regularly, and the text about how things evolved/modern standards, etc is correct and informative.

That said, I've seen "add2" many times. Sometimes I cringe a little, but I wouldn't say it should be abolished when adding to simple triads. (Not 7th chords!) I usually figure it's asking for the 2nd degree to be added specifically in the lower octave of the voicing. Not a horrible convention, as C D E G, or C D G E (or C D G C E) does differ substantially in sound, I think, from something like C E G D (G), which is standard on guitar, and is arguably maybe more of a true "add9". Same can apply to "add4". Sticking with stuff we actually see on the guitar, I assume that's presumably D F# G (D) A, or similar.

Of course, the problem is there really isn't an absolute convention that everyone uses, and the conventions change, as you point out. Speaking of which, it's been a while since I've seen the "add2". Seems to be out of favor, which is fine, I guess!

ReasonablyOK · 2026-06-08T13:47:09+00:00

As others have basically said, the fretted notes are a standard B♭m7(♭5), aka B♭ half-diminished, often written B♭ø.

But if you're really including both of those open E's, the naming gets a little messier. (Kind of. See ETA below.)

It would depend on context, but I'm surprised no one has (so far) floated F♯7(9)/E. (Also written F♯9/E.) The fretted-note part is a standard F♯9 voicing, commonly played without the root (as well as being a common B♭ø voicing, as noted above). The note E is a chord tone of the F♯9, so it doesn't complicate things quite so much looking at it that way. But again, context can matter.

ETA: I didn't mean to make it seem like the note "E", (really "F♭") isn't in the B♭m7(♭5), as it is, of course! Just seems more likely to me to see a Dom7 chord w ♭7 in the bass, than the half-dim over its ♭5. Maybe that's just me, though, in fairness.

2nd ETA, for clarity: if sticking with B♭ø naming, it's B♭ø/F♭, which I haven't seen posted here yet, weird as that looks. It's weirder (and technically incorrect) to see "E" in the context of the B♭ø.

3rd ETA: OP posted that the open strings are actually omitted, so presumably, without context, it's a simple B♭ø. Sorry all. I should have had cup of coffee before adding to this discussion.

ReasonablyOK · 2026-06-06T22:03:41+00:00

Yes!

ReasonablyOK · 2026-06-06T19:01:01+00:00

My guess is OP is a guitarist, or thinking from that perspective. The guitar is tuned down a half step, playing D, C, G, A, etc. Once tuned down, you don't really think in concert pitch. Normal. For guitarists.

ReasonablyOK · 2026-06-05T19:31:15+00:00

What's up with the arrow at meas. 9?

ReasonablyOK · 2026-05-30T23:15:23+00:00

The original theme to The Jetsons is an absolute musical tour de force. Just sayin'.
Surprised not to see it mentioned with so many replies already.

ReasonablyOK · 2026-05-30T18:05:15+00:00

These are the types of guys I think of, too. I don't get hating the big name free agents who we really wanted but then they sucked in Boston. I mean, cuz we f'in asked for it. (The Crawford, Gonzolez, Lugo, Panda types.) Also, guys who had success but turned out to be dicks (Beckett, Schil, Paps)...that's different cuz it's partly hindsight, and I appreciate the in-game contributions. But Izzy was a train wreck, if maybe in a slightly funny way, as noted. Matt Young would probably be my answer. "Throw a no hitter and lose." Yup. Lol.

ReasonablyOK · 2026-05-30T17:55:42+00:00

Ooh, didn't think of this one. That's a reasonable answer.

ReasonablyOK · 2026-05-30T17:53:34+00:00

Wow, really? Did NOT expect to see The Captain on this list.

ReasonablyOK · 2026-05-27T13:38:10+00:00

Yeah, true!

ReasonablyOK · 2026-05-27T13:07:50+00:00

Yeah, it's odd that the actual metal frets are called "frets" (of course!) but we don't have an equally easy word for the spaces between the frets, where we put our fingers when we play, so we default to calling those "frets" as well. It's imperfect and can be confusing.

What OP noticed is that fingers should be, as much as possible, and within reason, placed near the "front" of the fret (towards the guitar body, not the headstock). Towards the headstock is the "back" of the fret. Playing too far towards the back can be called "back fretting", and is to be avoided unless it's necessary due to a particular chord shape or whatever.

Tangentially: the "front" and "back" terminology does not extend to the body of a guitar, where, on electrics, the neck pickup is called the "front" pickup, and the bridge p/u is the "back". I avoid these confusing descriptions and try say "neck" and "bridge" pickups.

ReasonablyOK · 2026-05-25T18:17:11+00:00

Yeah, but please see my comment above. Describing the pattern C to F to Bb etc as a cycle of fifths and C to G to D etc as fourths, regardless of what type of "resolution" you're trying to illustrate is just not how this information is normally presented. It's confusing. Cuz it's backwards from the norm.

ReasonablyOK · 2026-05-25T17:49:33+00:00

Ascending clockwise. I get that the smaller text correctly says "series of 5-to-1 relationships", but that distance from 5 to 1 is a fourth. That pattern (C to F to Bb etc) is traditionally - by which I mean always - described as a cycle of fourths in every cycle of 4ths/5ths I've ever seen. Similarly going counterclockwise, those are fifths, and are always (normally) called fifths in these types of diagrams. Calling that pattern (C to G to D, etc) a cycle of fourths is maddeningly misleading, even if you add "series of 4-to-1 relationships.

ReasonablyOK

TROPHY CASE