Originally Posted by: dlwalke

I appreciate that it's the system we got, but if musicians were designing a new system from scratch, wouldn't it be more logical to devise something called 3rd notes and rename what we now call 3/4 time, 3/3 time instead.[/quote]

But then you are redefining the entire system across the board & different time signatures do not relate to each other. The lower numbers have to be equally divisable or there is no system wide integation.

The lower number is somewhat like a fraction, but not entirely. It's actual function is to specify what kind of symbol gets one beat (or count). So a bottom 4 means that the symbol of the quarter note gets one beat. The upper number contains the number of beats in the measure.

So the quarter note in 3/4 time doesn't specify a third of a measure. It specifies one beat of 3 in that measure.

Now there are are rhythmic notations that specify subdivisions with odd nubmers, for example a triplet, or a phrase of 4:3. But these are placed over bracketed notes in the notation.

But without the solid, dependable 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. on the bottom of the time signature, those subdivisions can't be used consistently across the board on any given time signature.

[quote=dlwalke]A quarter, in normal language is by definition one-fourth of something. In 3/4 time, the quarter notes are not a quarter of anything (well, I guess you could say that they are a quarter of 1.33 bars but that would be ridiculous). I guess nothing really hinges on this. I can understand and play 3/4 time. It just seems confusing for no good reason. But maybe there is a good reason and if there is, I'm probably not understanding something that I should understand.

That's a good observation! But I think the problem with that line of thinking is that you are conflating the time signature too literally with a mathematical fraction. And it's kind of apples & oranges you are comparing.

Hope that helps!