BPM & DELAY CALCULATOR

[Super 8]

RE: The BPM & DELAY CALCULATOR on the home page here.  Cool idea & the first time I've attempted to use it.  My question is: Does it work for non-4/4 time signatures?  I'm trying to get an average BPM for The Beatles song "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" (which I'm guessing is in 3/4 waltz time right?)  I doubt those oh-so-talented Moptops would have played to a rigid metronomic beat but an average song tempo for this track would be very helpful.  Any takers?

[Geir]

It will work for any time signature as it's the tempo that matters not the time signature. You'll get one repeat per note.

[Super 8]

Cheers Geir!  Re:

You'll get one repeat per note.

Sorry if I'm being thick here but, what do you mean by that exactly?

[Geir]

Lets say you have a song in 120 bpm. If its in 4/4 then it's one beat pr 1/4 note. If you set the delay to 500ms you'll get one delay-repeat on each 1/4 note. If the song is in 3/4 and still 120bpm you'll stil have one beat pr 1/4 note and can use the same delay setting.

Hope that explains it better

[Super 8]

Groovy!

[64Guitars]

Just had a listen on YouTube and I make it about 183 BPM in 3/4. But one thing I've never fully understood about time signatures is that you can usually count out a song in a few different ways. For example, four bars of 3/4 has 12 beats, which can also be counted as one bar of triplets in 4/4. When I count out "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" in 4/4 (the tambourine is heard on beats 2 and 4), I get about 60.7 BPM. To make matters more confusing, I found the following BPM database which says the song is 93 BPM.

http://bpmdatabase.com/browse.php?artist=The+Beatles

I have no idea how they're counting it. To me, 183 BPM in 3/4 feels most natural and that's what I'd use if I were covering this song.

[Super 8]

Above and beyond the call of duty 64Guitars!  Thanks SO much mate.  Yes, I was having real difficulty coming up with the definitive bpm for said song myself.  I'll try 183bpm and see how I go on.  Once again, thanks very much for this.  Really appreciated amigo!

[AndyR]

I think I can see where they get the 93 BPM from...

The song's in 12/8

It's one of the earliest useful things about time signatures and tempo that I learnt at school (and I've only just understood it, nearly 40 years later, while typing this lot out). We were trying to play the song and getting nowhere. Why does it feel so good but we can't get it right? Music teacher said "It's because it's in 12/8, count it like this and you'll get it:


ONE  2  3  TWO  2  3  THREE  2  3  FOUR  2  3
ONE  2  3  TWO  2  3  THREE  2  3  FOUR  2  3
Here    I  stand,     head      in hand


This is very close to what 64G said - triplets in 4/4

But where do you count the "beat" for a BPM? When I'm singing it, I'm "feeling" the beat on the ONE TWO etc above (the "Here I stand, head in hand") - and that's probably what John Lennon felt when he was writing it.

So my first thought would be to regard it as roughly 62 BPM ...

But that's 3 quavers (8th notes). One "beat" is actually a crochet (Quarter notes) = 2 quavers.

So, to get the correct BPM for this song in 12/8, you divide 62 by 2 and multiply by 3... gets you 93 BPM.

I suspect that's only going to work on your drum machine if you can set the time signature of the patterns to 12/8.

So to get a click track I'd probably try 64G's suggestion - treat it as a fast 3/4 and set the BPM to somewhere in the 180s (186 using the 62 and 93 figures above). To write a drum part, it could be done in 3/4, but the bars are awfully short!

======================================================
This next bit did my head in - apologies if it does everyone else's as well
======================================================

I can't tell you for certain whether calculating the delay (or chorus or any other time related effect) on 93 will work musically, though. But I suspect it might:

(I'm using the lyrics "Here I stand" as the example for where the first repeat occurs... but I can't imagine sticking a delay on the lead vox in this case!!)

If you assume 4/4 at 62 BPM and go for quarter-note delays, "Here" would repeat on "stand". This would be a "correct" delay interval but would possibly be too long, and it would emphasise the slow 4/4 nature of the 12/8. Too much maybe, at the expense of the underlying fast waltz. If you go for eighth-note delays, they'll be in a very odd place (just before "I", not on any of the 12 8th beats in the bar) not very musical - might as well not tune the delay at all or just do it by ear.

If you assume 3/4 at a BPM somewhere in the 180s and go for quarter-note delays, you'll get very short repeats (the second of which will be on "I"). And I suspect a delay of this nature would emphasise the very fast waltz, hiding the implied 4/4 in the 12/8 too much. It'll be "correct" but mess up the vibe of the song.

If instead you assume 12/8 at 93 BPM and go for quarter-note delays, the first repeat of "Here" will be on "I" - and as long as you don't have too many repeats and not too loud, this could possibly be very effective. It will go with the "rolling skipping" vibe of the 12/8 time signature.

The good news is, you can get the same effect as this for the 3/4 and 180s BPM by calculating the delay for half-notes.

SO, if you've gone for 183 BPM in 3/4, and have made the click or rhythm part work for you, I'd say try a delay time of 655.74 ms - I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

[Super 8]

Like ... WOW!!!  What a reply! Go to the top of the class AndyR.  So, let me get this right .... you're saying that 64G was very close with his triplets in 4/4 idea at 183 BPM but technically it would actually be 186BPM in 3/4 timing OR 93BPM in 12/8 timing right?  If I go with 12/8 timing (I like the idea of that!) what would the delay setting be?  (While I'm on the subject, do you use the delay setting just for applying to vocal tracks or globally or what?)  Thanks again for all the the input!  This casual enquiry of mine is turning into a very illuminating education on the science & importance of time signatures in music! 

[AndyR]

Actually, I only learnt/understood a lot of it while I was typing it out (but I've had most of the "facts" for years)!

Right, if my drum machine or whatever was up to it, I'd be trying to do the track in 12/8, because that's the time signature that embodies the vibe of the song (do the counting that my teacher said many many years ago, you'll see what I mean).

If you do that, I believe that commits you to setting a tempo of 93 BPM. You should be able to play along to that.

After that, delays... There's three you can try.

The whole idea behind all of this stuff is to get the "repeats" from a time-based effect to land somewhere musical. That's all it is, nothing else. In the old days they used to do it by ear. Nowadays we've got computers controlling us, so we have to do the maths to get it right!!!

For the quarter-note delay, the BPM Calculator gives us a 645.16 ms

That should result in the following repeat pattern for a single note on the first beat:

ONE  2  3  TWO  2  3  THREE  2  3  FOUR  2  3
Note    R       R     R         R        R 

(If you use that many repeats, it could get messy, but that illustrates the vibe that the delay will add/imply, even if you only set it to one repeat)

Now, as to what instrument/voice I'd use this on... personally, probably very little!

I very rarely use delays nowadays. They are repeat notes and therefore they add to and change the music itself. So I use them when I actually want that effect - eg a guitar solo, or to enhance a boring rhythm part (boring = "rhythmically simple"). Sometimes I try a delay on a vocal, but it really does put "echoes" on a voice, and I don't do many tracks that seem to benefit from that. Different styles really benefit from it, though... (oldrottenhead creates some seriously amazing vocals with delays on)

The main thing for me is: I try not to use delay on too many different parts in the recording - it can get a bit confusing for the listener.

It really is a matter of taste, though, go for what you like, what you think sounds good. And sometimes "a bit confusing for the listener" is exactly the vibe you want.

In this case, once I'd recorded a guitar and some backing, I would indeed experiment with the delay above to see what it sounds like. If it grabbed me, I'd then be trying to work the rest of the track around that vibe (this is one of the reasons I take so long between posting songs - there's all manner of "trying stuff out", living with it for a few days, and then changing it all back when the novelty has worn off).

If it turns out that first setting doesn't work, I'd then try 967.74 ms (calculated on 4/4 at 62 BPM - you can still keep the track in 12/8 at 93 BPM). That'll be the longer delay on the "fours":

ONE  2  3  TWO  2  3  THREE  2  3  FOUR  2  3
Note       R          R            R         

I'd also try 322.58 ms (calculated on 3/4 at 186 BPM). That'll be the short delay on the "twelves" (one every count):

ONE  2  3  TWO  2  3  THREE  2  3  FOUR  2  3
Note R  R  R    R  R  R      R  R  R     R  R


Remember that Chorus and other "time-based" effects (eg tremelo, rotary speakers, etc) can also benefit from being tuned to the tempo of the track. These same delay times are the very ones to try... maybe even longer ones, actually, 1935.48 ms for two cycles a bar or 3870.96 ms for one cycle a bar (these are just 2x and 4x the second example above).

BUT!!! All this "correct" way to do it (applies to everything in music/art) - don't stress about it too much. The above is my understanding of "how/why the tried and tested theories" work, and sometimes it helps to understand what the professional people would do. And it's always worth experimenting and trying to understand it more. But the bottom line is: if we just dial up any old delay and it sounds good, then it is good... any techie going "but you didn't tune the delay/wotever" can be countered easily with "but it's what I wanted, that's the sound I was trying to make".

The valid reason for understanding this stuff is for those times when you dial up any old delay and... it sounds nothing like you wanted it to, and it doesn't sound particularly pleasant either, and you've no idea how to fix it!!

Good luck.