Entertainment desk
< May 18	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 19

Number of beats in 3/2; 3 or 6??

All sources I've found until recently say that 3/2 time has 3 beats in a measure and the half note gets the beat. However, look at this:

https://books.google.com/books?id=an06omlUZcsC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%226/4+time+is%22&source=bl&ots=4H-6S_AE5o&sig=zBmG-9Sswfgg1aaBnvdRLGNETsg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyi6LKq-bMAhVK6iYKHfxbC_o4ChDoAQgbMAA#v=onepage&q=%226%2F4%20time%20is%22&f=false

It's saying that 3/2 time is commonly used in pieces that otherwise have the quarter note getting the beat as if it were a time signature with 6 beats. In your experience, how many beats does 3/2 time usually have?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This less verbose link also works: https://books.google.com/books?id=an06omlUZcsC&pg=PA7&ved=0ahUKEwiyi6LKq-bMAhVK6iYKHfxbC_o4ChDoAQgbMAA —Tamfang (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the explanation (and that for 6/4) is badly worded, and I'm surprised to see it in a book from a reputable publisher. 3/2 is definitely three beats to a bar; you could say it's 3 beats of 2 crotchets (quarter notes), but to call those subdivisions "beats" is just wrong. Conductors might "beat" a slow 3/2 or 6/4 in 6, with different subdivisions, just as they might beat a slow 4/4 in eight (or conversely a fast 3/4 in one), but that doesn't affect the argument. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In 3/2 time, if you have successive quarter notes, they would get the half-beats. So, if you had a measure in 3/2 time with 6 quarter notes in it, you'd count it as "one and two and three and." Note that there doesn't actually have to be any half notes in the piece at all to be in 3/2 time. Also note that time signature is fairly arbitrary, and it exists for the convenience of the reader to know how to "count" the measure. If you had written it as 6/4 time, you'd count the measure as "one two three four five six" for the same 6 quarter notes. The difference can be subtle, mostly in things like accents and stresses. In 3/2 time, you tend to accent the main beats: ONE and TWO and THREE and, while in 6/4 time you tend to accent the one and four only: ONE two three FOUR five six. --Jayron 32 15:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually an issue here. If you want 3/2 to mean three half-note beats by default, and 6/4 to mean two dotted-half-note beats, then there is no way to indicate a bar of six quarter-note beats. (Yes, the odd-numbered beats would get preferentially accented, but there would be a differences in the stresses of the even-numbered beats as well, instead of just being off-beats.) So while 3/2 is the best option here, it doesn't quite work (as it implies the beat is a half note, not a quarter note.)

This is not just theoretical. There are indeed examples where 3/2 is written, but the beat has to be taken as a quarter note due to, for example, an even-quarter note pulsation in the accompaniment, that perhaps has changed from 4/4 and back. A wonderful example appears in Mussorgsky's Trepak, where the motivic material is presented in both four-beat and six-beat bars. I am obliged to quote somewhat extensively from the vocal part: the piano part continues in quarters almost throughout, with the top voice mostly doubling the vocal melody.

$\relative c'' { \tempo "Allegretto moderato e pesante" \key d \minor \time 4/4 \set Score.currentBarNumber = #21 % Permit first bar number to be printed a4\p a8 bes a4 a8 a | g4 e f d8 r | a'4 a8 bes a4 a8 a | g4 e f d8 r | \time 3/2 d'4\f d d bes d c | d d d bes d c | bes f' es bes cis d | bes f' es bes cis d | \time 4/4 a2\mf a4 a | \time 3/2 g4 g8 g f4 e f d8 r | \time 4/4 a'2 a4 a | \time 3/2 g4 g8 g f4 e f d8 r | \time 4/4 es4\p es8 f es4 es\< | bes'\! bes a8 r f4 | a e f d | d d8 e d4 f | g d e g | a f a e8 r | \tempo "Ancora più sostenuto" \time 3/2 r4 d'2\f a8 d bes4 g8 bes | \time 4/4 a r e4 f d8 r | \time 3/2 r4 d'2\f a8 d bes4 g8 bes | \time 4/4 a r e4 f d8 r }$

As (for example) the material of b.21–24 is expanded successively with either its odd- (b.39–42) or even-numbered (b.29–32) bars expanded, it is clearly illogical in this case to have the beat change to the half note, especially as the piano's relentless quarter-note tramp (not shown) stays constant throughout the metrical shifts. (Your book is actually completely right if we are talking about Mussorgsky: see for example his The Nursery.)

Well, this answer has expanded beyond my intentions, but to get back to your original question: theoretically, 3/2 has three half-note beats. In practice, it may be a stand in for the non-existent time signature that would indicate six quarter-note beats, and you will have to infer which it is from the context. Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This sort of "time signature abuse" is not uncommon. Mozart often wrote 2/4 where we would today write 4/8, for example. Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to say you're wrong, but the Wikipedia article on time signature states, of 6/4 time: " It is, for example, more natural to use the quarter note/crotchet as a beat unit in 6/4" rather than the dotted half note you say it is. --Jayron 32 15:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With a "citation needed", and I still would find this a bit strange. Even if the quarters are beats in 6/4, I would imagine an accentuation like "ONE two three Four five six" to be implied, like a slow 6/8 "in six". OTOH, quarter-note beats in 3/2 (which is not so far from the article's 2/2 example) would prime me for "ONE two Three four Five six". Double sharp (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is pretty much what I said, depending on how detailed you want to get into primary and secondary stresses... --Jayron 32 10:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there is a difference between having the half-notes as the beats and the quarter-notes as subdivisions (as you would have it) and having the quarter-notes as beats (as the book Georgia guy quotes would have it). (If there was not, 4/4 and 2/2 would be the same thing.) Double sharp (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I said exactly that. I even used the word difference. --Jayron 32 11:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So this is my point: theoretically, 3/2 should only mean a bar with three half-note beats. Equally theoretically, 6/4 should only mean a bar with two dotted-half-note beats (just like 6/8 is two dotted-quarter-note beats). However, this leaves no way to signify a bar with six quarter-note beats (NOT subdivisions), probably with default stress ONE two Three four Five six (which is not the same as ONE (and) two (and) three (and) that theoretically correct 3/2 would be), although this should be as flexible as the stresses in 4/4. (See the last line of the Mussorgsky example I quoted, where the syncopation privileges beats two and five.) So in practice, 3/2 is often roped in to mean the latter as well. (Here is where I think we differ: I am allowing the possibility of 3/2 having quarter-note beats, while you appear not to.) It is not a "theoretically correct" usage, but it fills a need.

Perhaps Carl Orff's notation would make this more obvious: if you use 3/2 to mean 3/, and 6/4 to mean 2/., there is no way to write 6/. So 3/2 ends up being (ab)used, as in the Mussorgsky example I quoted, to mean both 6/ as well as its proper meaning of 3/. Double sharp (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for the name of an actor

I'm looking for the name of a male actor who used to play the bad guy in 80's B-movies. It's a guy with a HUGE chin, (almost) disfigured. Does anybody know who this is? OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 14:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Z'Dar? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might be him. I guess you're right, thnx! OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 14:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe Richard Kiel? --Jayron 32 14:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. On that guy everything is huge, not particularly his chin/jaw. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 15:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Perlman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.50.242 (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ron perlman is defenitely one ugly M*@?~!F=/*^#R but i'm pretty shure it's that Robert Z'Dar, thanx to all. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 10:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perlman has steady work, and I suspect his house is bigger than anyone else's here. :) Also, although he's not exactly handsome, he's nowhere near Rondo Hatton. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know you found the answer already but the 1st person who came to my mind when reading the question was Brian Thompson. His chin is no where near the caliber of Z'Dar's, and that publicity shot is quite flattering, here's a chin shot more like what i was remembering. Vespine (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Submarine used in The Cruel Sea (1953 film)

I was watching The Cruel Sea (1953 film) on the telly recently and noticed that in the scene where a U-boat is forced to the surface and then sunk by gunfire, the submarine used looks like a British one (where would they get a working U-boat anyway?), but I wasn't clever enough to tell which class. Our article describes in some detail the surface ships used in the filming but doesn't mention the submarine. Can anybody find a reference for me? Alansplodge (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try Internet Movie Boat Database. --Jayron 32 18:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good link but the film isn't even mentioned there. Alansplodge (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this forum thread about the film it was an S-class submarine. DuncanHill (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting stuff there - looking at the S-class images, I'm sure that's right. There were a lot of them though. Alansplodge (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the submarine didn't need to be "working" to use it in a film. They could just tow it with an underwater cable for the motion scenes. Probably a lot cheaper than finding an entire crew that could run it, even if it was operational. StuRat (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The scene in the film required the submarine to surface, engage in a bit of shooting and then submerge again. It must have been a lot easier to borrow a real submarine for a couple of hours than to arrange all those special effects, especially when the Navy was already supplying several ships with crews. Our article mentions that some of the filming was off Portland, which was the main British anti-submarine training establishment at the time, so probably not too big an ask. PS I'm absolutely certain that it was a real submarine and not a mock-up. Alansplodge (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They have ways of cutting things together, like using stock footage of a submarine breaching the surface and diving. The part where they are firing the guns would be filmed live, then it's all spliced together. In some films of that era the transitions are jarring, while others do a far more professional job of it. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More recently, in the first Jaws film, they had a few stock footage shots of a shark underwater, which felt like they didn't belong, but Spielberg had a limited budget. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still not as bad as when they use models that are way too small, and the boats look like bathtub toys. StuRat (talk)

That would be the Ed Wood approach. Speaking of which, maybe you've seen Bride of the Monster, where they use an extraordinarily fake-looking octopus (except for a few stock shots of a real octopus in an aquarium). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All that may be true, but in this instance, it was definitely a British submarine throughout. I just wanted to know which one. Alansplodge (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming it's just one, when they often use one for close-ups, another for action scenes, stock footage of others, and maybe models that look like none-of-the-above. In scenes where you don't see any distinctive parts, it could be anything. StuRat (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was only one, it wasn't stock footage or a model. I only wanted a name. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]