Thinking About Creating Efficient and Intuitive Beat-Counting Systems

In chapter 3 of Thinking Musically (3rd edition), the author discusses some of the many ways in which time can be and is used as an organizing principle in music. A part of the reading that stuck out for me was the section on pages 75 and 76 that lists the strings of syllables used in India for counting macro- and micro-beats, or the beat and subdivisions of the beat. The basics of the counting system are as follows:

• "Ta" = a single beat, or the macro-beat
• "Ta ka" = a macro-beat subdivided into two micro-beats
• "Ta ki ta" = subdivision into three micro-beats
• "Ta ka di mi" = subdivision into four micro-beats
• Various strings of these fundamental subdivisions are used, up through a pattern containing 9 micro-beats: "Ta ka Ta ki ta Ta ka di mi" (2+3+4)

The author refers to this system as "the most systematically worked out organization for subdividing beats that [she has] encountered...." While on the surface this system seems to me adequate (I have listened to some Indian classical music, mostly Hindustani or North Indian, but I have not studied it extensively), if I were to construct my own system for counting beats and subdivisions, which I may eventually, that system would be very different.

One of the gripes I have with the Indian beat-counting system outlined above is that every kind of macro-beat, no matter what number of micro-beats are contained therein, begins with the same syllable: "Ta." This would be somewhat advantageous in that "Ta" would, to the listener, always mean the on-beat, or first micro-beat within a macro-beat, except that "ta" is also the sound that denotes the third of three micro-beats in "Ta ki ta." Even if this other "ta" were replaced with some other syllable to avoid the confusion between on- and off-beats, there would still be the issue that I, as a listener, cannot know how many micro-beats to expect within a given micro-beat until I have heard the second syllable in one of the fundamental subdivision patterns, if there is one (keep in mind that "Ta" can exist by itself as well, with no further subdivision).  For example, if I say "Ta," there is no way that another person listening would know, upon hearing my piece or improvisation for the first time, whether I am going to follow that with "ka," "ki," or nothing prior to the next "Ta." Similarly, both the subdivision pattern for two micro-beats and that for four micro-beats follow "Ta" with "ka," meaning that after hearing these two syllables one still would not be able to say with certainty whether to expect "di mi" or nothing between "ka" and the next "Ta."

In conclusion, I while I am glad that the Indian counting system presented in the text is somewhat versatile, including basic units of subdivision up through 4 macro-beats and allowing for various combinations of said units, I think that an even more thorough system could easily be, and should be, developed, ideally one wherein each basic unit of subdivision began with, and completely comprised, unique syllables, and also wherein each beat within a measure had its own on-beat syllable. Perhaps there already has been a system created that satisfies these parameters, but I have not found one; other counting systems in frequent use--"du-ta-deh-ta" and "ta ta ti ti ta"--have similar issues to those I listed above, namely recycling of few syllables for use in multiple contexts leading to conflicting information and necessarily slowing down the decoding of them.

I may touch on the topic of creating efficient, intuitive musical solfege systems in future blog posts, as I have much interest in the topic.  I have even created my own solfege system for pitch: a modified and, I think, optimized version of traditional fixed- and movable-Do solfege.