How to choose between 3/4 and 6/8 time?

Question

I am currently transcribing a piece of music for piano, and I have the following passage in 3/4 time:

I find that 3/4 time allows the half note in the RH to fall on the second beat, but the drawback is that the second bass note in each measure is offbeat between the second and third beat. This leads to ties as to avoid dotted notes that reach across beats, which I understand are less readable.

However, I find these ties to be unnecessary, since they don't give information on when the second bass note lands, but only clarifies the beats, even if it is clear that the it lasts for the rest of the measure. If I were to use dotted notes for them, I would receive:

Now, however, each measure seems to be divided into two parts, which presents another alternative, which is to write the whole passage in 6/8 time. This would better justify the dotted notes in the left hand, but now the half notes in the right hand land on the third beat, and the final part of the passage has this awkward, lone eighth note:

Between 3/4 and 6/8, which time signature is preferable here, from a readability and musical perspective?

(For reference, the piece that I am transcribing is rewitkin's night sketch, with the passage starting at around 0:34.)

---

EDIT: As others have noted in their answers, I have notated the 6/8 passage incorrectly, as there should be ties instead of half notes in the RH, as such:

This shows the two groupings of three eighth notes better.

Answer 1

tl;dr

It's most certainly a ternary rhythm, but, considering the possible overall meter of the piece and the convention for which compound rhythms are normally based on eighths, it's quite possible it is 3/8, not 3/4.

Insights

As a follow up to John's answer, if you have no way to get the source material or directly ask the composer, then you need to consider the possible "rhythm hierarchy" of the composition. Since the piece also contains some tempo variations, there will always be some level of inaccuracy, that also depends on how you may interpret the musical meaning of what you hear and how you decide its importance in your transcription.

Generally speaking, a composition normally has just one meter. In reality, many compositions have more than one, then you generally have specific meters for each relatively long section, or short passages with a different meter (possibly, even just one bar). Yet, you may decide that the "main reference meter" is not based on the maximum length of a section with a specific meter, but its importance.

This is not so different from knowing or deciding the key of a composition: consider the case of One Note Samba, which is traditionally in B flat, even though it fundamentally has just one bar using the chord of that key.

Still, when deciding the main key of a piece, we cannot just consider the percentage of notes in the melody or chords that are in the same key.
In general, the melody helps to find the key based on their rhythmic relevance (position in the bar, relation to the beats, duration), but that may not always be possible (consider the One Note Samba case above). A music piece also has a harmonic rhythm and its own hierarchy, which may help to define/confirm/contradict, to a certain accuracy, the possible meter of a piece.

Now, after listening to the piece, I think we can all agree that the basic rhythm references could be considered as eights and/or quarters. A general rhythm scheme and rhythmic relation can be recognized, and conventions tell us that, for instance, the first notes in the melody are probably eights and sixteenths, as much as the first two notes in the bass should be quarters.

Still, let's stop and consider the first two bars in that piece.

The very first bar is a bit ambiguous. If we only consider the melody, it's rhythmically straight forward, though:

• it almost certainly has 8 eighths (or 4 quarters);
• it stops at the fifth eighth or the down beat of the third quarter;
• it "reprises" with an upbeat for the new bar and creates a similar rhythm in there, stopping again on the third beat (or fifth eighth);
• the harmonic accompaniment follows a similar approach;

What happens to the bass line, though? We should always consider that the rhythm of the lower/bass note is quite important to define the harmony and, to some level, the overall rhythm.

The first bar has the following:

But considering that the third to last note is also the tonic of the chord in that point, are we sure that it shouldn't be written as such?

In this case, it would be an 8/8 intended as 2+3+3. Attaching the melody:

Still, as said above, one measure (even if it's the first) rarely dictate the overall meter.

Let's see what the bass does on the second measure:

While it may be possible to still consider this as 2+3+3, the relevance of the sixteenths within the context makes them almost as similar to an ornament.

Up to this point, statistically speaking, we may safely believe that the piece is still in 4/4 and consider the odd rhythm/melodic accents of the first bar as peculiar of the piece: the rhythm is odd, not its meter.

The third bar can theoretically confirm this:

Then, the fourth bar arrives. An educated guess would tell us that the meter has changed, based on the melody and the bass, as it's almost certainly a 12/8:

While, as said, a single bar doesn't decide the overall meter, it still may be an important hint, especially considering the ambiguity of the first bars.

The few following bars are most certainly based on 5 eighths (3+2), with semi phrases lasting two bars. The pattern is the following:

Then something changes. The third repetition of the pattern above slows down tempo a lot, but considering similar movements of the voices, we can assume that it still follows the same meter.

Then what? At circa 22 seconds from the beginning we have a further abrupt tempo change that is difficult to contextualize. Still, the melody has a similar pattern: the main note of the melody, followed by the note below and again the original one, both of smaller duration. Again the same, with the note above.

Since we're slowing down, another educated guess would tell us that the logical meter relation haven't changed: it's just slower, and it's 2/8.

After two bars of the above, we get back to 5/8 three times (with a slight rit. at the end of each bar).

And we're finally here, the point at hand. At circa 35 seconds we have something similar to the 5/8 above, but that fourth repetition takes another direction based on the second part/beat of that bar.

We clearly have a "3 beats" based section repeated four times, which could be transcribed as the following:

Obviously, the above could be written as 2/8 + 12/8 (which we've already seen above), or even 14/8.

Still, the general pattern of the melody (possibly in relation with the accompaniment), which dictates the general reference meter or meters, tells us that this specific section of the piece is ternary, not binary.

Note, though, that this may not be absolutely true:

• this is an educated guess, based on the "statistics" of the piece (it ends just a few "bars" after that);
• if the piece actually continued with a more "binary" concept, it would have make sense to switch to that 6/8 somewhere in the bars above;
• the composer may have thought that the piece is fundamentally based on compound metre, but the performer may have chosen a rendition that doesn't follow it; that isn't impossible, but remember that:
  • the performer may be wrong;
  • the composer may be wrong, and realize, after listening to some renditions of their piece and discussing with performers, that they actually were really wrong; or not;

Final considerations

We have to remember that music notation is just a way to render an artistic and somehow personal idea. It's an arbitrary convention that tries to translate a completely different medium. Most of the times, a proper transcription is reliable. Some of them, though, it cannot be in the first place, and trying to fixate too much on some aspects is quite irrelevant.

If you're transcribing for your own good, you shouldn't care too much. Just write what you need, and leave the rest to your interpretation.

If you're doing it for others, consider various aspects, including:

• the target of those transcriptions (readability is sometimes more important than accuracy);
• the composer intent;
• the possible accepted convention, including common renditions, and how that may be important for your purposes;
• how the difference in writing may actually affect playing, both in reading and in rendition;

Answer 2

3/4 indicates three beats to the bar (measure). 6/8 is a compound time signature that indicates two beats to a bar, with each beat subdivided into triplets.

Listening to that section on the YouTube link, for me there is a very clear "in two" feel to the first four bars of that passage - led by the left hand, with syncopations in the right hand. But the next bar with the four descending quavers played rubato is much more ambiguous and could easily be felt as in-three.

One option would be to use a 6/8 time signature for the first four bars and then change to 3/4 for the next two. It would make the intent clear but the switch of time signature is awkward. You might even need to add a quaver=quaver metric modulation above the 3/4 time signature to make it clear that you don't mean dotted crotchet=crotchet.

So you might want to bite the bullet and write the entire passage with a single time signature and use other markings to indicate the feel. In 6/8 you could do this by just placing a slur over the four descending quavers, or even just beaming them as in the 3/4 example. Or in 3/4 you could add a line over the first four bars with the text "two-feel".

Answer 3

This piece has several feel and tempo changes as well as some ritards and rubato so the only way to know the intentions of the composer is to find a notated copy or ask them if that is a possibility. If that is not an option then we do what you’re doing, transcribe.

Transcribing is something that requires some interpretation and sometimes a lot of it. It is not wrong to write this in either 3/4 or 6/8 as long as it can be played accurately so it is really up to you. In context I hear the first 4 bars more as a 6/8 because the left hand sounds like the pulse and the right hand sounds like the second note is syncopating into the second beat of the 6/8.

Now in terms of interpretation, it would not be wrong to say, write the first 4 bars as 2 bars of 4/4 where the left hand is playing quarter notes are the right hand is playing dotted quarters then eighths tied to quarters with a swing feel. Is it the best way to write it? Maybe not but it would also be played accurately that way and it does have a bit of a swing feel there.

As for the last 2 bars, I would interpret those as a single bar of 4/4, all 8th notes after beat 1 with a molto ritard on beat 4 because the next bar also has a 4 feel to it. The transition would be quarter=quarter, which ends up making a case for 3/4 in the previous 4 bars!

In the end, it is your transcription. What does it sound and feel like to you? That is what you should go with.

Answer 4

Strictly speaking, the 6/8 timing needs there to be a tie (on the top line chord) between the two - both of them written as dotted crotchets. So, either way - 3/4 or 6/8, there will need to be a tie written.

Given that the treble contains triads against the bass' single note, it'd probably look less busy with that tie in the bass. Thus 3/4 would look tidier. And, being in 3/4, technically speaking, there's no need the tie - both bass notes could be written as dotted crotchets. After all, why would the 1st note be written as such, but not the 2nd, in 3/4?

EDIT - now I've listened to it, with the exception of some rubato which throws any proper diagnosis off, it has more of a 3/4 tinge than 6/8.

To answer your actual question, you need to establish whether the 2nd of the imagined set of 3 beats starts with a pulse that's just as strong as the 1st. if it is, then 3/4 is the answer. If it's not quite as strong, then 6/8 is.

Answer 5

The final measure of the passage is the determining factor, and it depends on whether the emphasis should be placed on the first and third eighth notes (i.e., beats 2 and 3) or the second eighth note (i.e., beat "4").

For the rest of the passage, either time signature would suffice, being equally easy to read and interpret and giving the same musical result. But the final measure will sound different depending on the time signature.

Answer 6

Both are possible and it would depend on the feel and context. Now, I’ve listened to the section and the section before and to me it sounds like you have the beat wrong. To me it sounds like the section before would be a slow 3/4 (rather than being a fast 6/4), which would then essentially turn this into an inverse hemiola-thing in 6/8:

Keep in mind that different ways of notating this will infer different articulation. Your first notation in 3/4 will imply a sycopation and thus en emphasis on the bass. Your second notation in 3/4 will imply differing beats (3/4 on top, 6/8 on bottom). Your 6/8 notation similarly actually implies 3/4 in top. If you notated top as quarter, eigth tied to dotted quarter this would imply 6/8, but with syncopation and thus emphasis on the treble.

My suggestion would only imply a different split of a single beat, which is quite more common. If anything it would be closest to the notations implying 3/4 in top and 6/8 in bottom.

Answer 7

I think the question is whether the second RH event is meant to feel on the beat in 3/4 or syncopated in 6/8. mm. 27-28 seem clearly 3/4, so I suspect the former, on the beat in 3/4 is what you are aiming for.