4x4x4
Why is all music in sets of 4? (4 beats,4 bars) i was having this discussion last night, and while i came to my own conclusion, im interested to hear others thoughts.
I think its because of the classical music formulas and because it feels natural to dance at that rate. But then again it may only be that way because of what we’ve been taught.
Not all music is in sets of four. True, the majority is but there are also some great tunes that aren’t.
Look around 
well yea i came to this conclusion also. like the waltz for example, where we have a 3x3 beat deal. its a whole lot more complicated for the mind tho, and requires speacial dance lessons, which i put down to it feeling unnatural. but as foreverhex said im not 100% sure if we have been conditioned this way or if there is some base humanness that requires a 4x4 beat.
and noone say chicken or egg because thats just lazy, i wanna know what the chicken and egg represent in this situation
I simply believe its math, check this out on wiki…
thats all very well, but i could say “its just maths” as an explanation for why i have hands. perhaps i need to make the master-question more specific. i need to think for a min or two 
I believe a core principal to ‘a lot of’ dance music is about creating a state of trance, much like tribal music of older cultures (very similar concept tbh, rhythmic drumming + drugs).
Because 4x4 rythems The maths is simpler, or at least more constant & most importantly, its always divisible by 2 which means its got a constant hit that you can always sync to. Since dance music is made for inducing this state of trance, a 3x3 timing which creates odd time beats (3,9,15,21 etc) would can easily put you out of sync breaking this sense of trance.
‘Most’ dance music atm effectively has a constant 1,2,1,2 pattern, be it with the kicks (house/electro) or more with the snares (Dubstep/DnB/Breaks/Garage) for this reason.
I don’t think you need to link this back to a base human condition as the basic premise the the maths is simpler and more sync able for creating a trance explains why its essentially required for dance music,.. though you could… human heartbeat being the most obvious one.
Creating some 3x3 rave music would be interesting… would really fuck with peoples heads.. hmmmmm
plenty of 3x3 and 3x4 dance music out there, or just “shuffled beat” music
Schaffel beat is pretty common. Goldfrapp, Skinny Puppy, T. Raumscmiere, Superpitcher, Electronicat, and songs like
iggy pop - nightclubbing
depeche mode - personal jesus
covenant - like tears in rain
and one - wasted
However, i think it’s the rock n’ roll influence that flooded in disco and became incorporated in the early days of house/techno music that came to the naturally accepted 4/4 rhythms in dance music.
I think it’s less of a “it has to be that way” and more of a “it’s generally accepted to produce in those rhythms”
3/4, 3/3 and Schaffel are perfectly fun and dance-able! (you guys can’t tell me you havn’t seen dancefloors packed to ‘personal jesus!’)
i think my conclusion basically came down to symmetry. 1-2 2-4 4-8 8-16 16-32
doubles doubles doubles. and yea the base symmetry is in fact 2 not 4. and the symmetry of 3s isnt as simple(symmetrical) as 2 as in there are less possibilities.
i came about my conclusion the wrong way tho perhaps. i decided that it must be because we have 2 feet, 2 possibilities of ratation etc… but thats just human symmetry right there.
dont know how well i explained that but… rip it to bits
well if youre saying its not “it has to be that way” then i guess (i assume) youre saying its not due to nature. i think the symmetrys in 2x2(4x4) are more accessable than 3x3.
could i perhaps argue the less symmetry in music the less dancable it becomes?
I think the symmetry of 3 is perfectly natural. except with 3 you tend to think of them in doubles. one two three, two two three // three two three, four two three.
In fact, sometimes I find triplets more satisfying that 8th notes or 16th notes.
I love me some triplet eighth notes. 
triplets in sets of 4?
3/4 is probably a more common time signature than 3/3
sometimes you’ll find 2/3-3/4, or 2/3-2/2.
strange time signatures happen. hehe
I was under the impression Schaffel was still 4x4?
3x3 & 3x4 are still very dance-able, in fact some ways even more so then house etc, they often have way more groove, I mean Swing is entirely based around them. And swing is all about getting up and dancing your ass off.
IMO they’re just not as trance inducing as 4x4, which is why a think a lot of dance music, especially that which revolves around and stems from the heavy use of psychoactive drugs uses a lot of 4x4 beats, or in the case of DnB/Breaks uses the snares to replicate the same 1,2,1,2 feel that you get from 4x4.
But I think your right, its prob also largely an acceptance thing has made dance music this way.
ok. but can we agree that the 2x2 beat is the most accessable?
@midian: I think sure that’s true of music that actually attempts to induce a trance, but MOST dance music is just about dancing. Not “a state of mind.” Pop music wont that fight. =^P
@Kaon:
I think the 3/4 is the most accessable.
4/4 is just the most common.
the waltz is ridiculously fun to dance to!
OH!!!
easier to write music in 4/4
that’s why.
I think this is definately the case. eg complex time signatures such as 5/4, 7/4 & 9/8 imo wouldnt work as dance music, and especially mixed meter time signatures , eg 3x4 in one part then 4x4 in another makes the music become completely impossible to dance to.
3x3, 3x4 or anything divisible by 2 or 3 are dancable, 3 patterns are more lilting which gives them more swing or groove, and 4x4 are more rhythmic or trance inducing which is why I think they are more often used as ‘rave’ music.
Ok I take back ‘dance music’ as your completely right, poor choice of phrase on my part.
Most ‘rave’ music revolves around that. Basically everything that stems from house > acid house > dnb/electro/etc/etc.
3x4 is probably more dance inducing then 4x4 due to the groove which I guess makes it more accessible ?