Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures/Archive 3

Cleanup and removing some sections

From a musical standpoint, 12/8 and 9/8 are not unusual time signatures. Granted, they're compound, but frankly, if we're including 12/8 in this list we'd have to include practically every blues (and depending on your interpretation of swing, swing) song ever written. 9/8 is in a similar boat (though for the record it IS much more uncommon than 12/8). Also, 12/4, 16/4 and 16/8, as well as many of the larger numbered time signatures, all seem redundant, as they can be broken down into much simpler time signatures (the first three into 4/4, and various other complex ones into other metres). I'm not going to make any of these changes myself, but am merely suggesting them. --Joshua Boniface 17:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

-I deleted 3/4 and 3/8: not unusual time signatures. (anon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.63.60.164 (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

CVB song in 9/8?

A Camper Van Beethoven song, Sons Of The New Golden West, sounds like it has an odd meter, almost turkish sounding, is it in 9/8?here's a sample:sample

Although I couldn't read the sample you posted, the iTunes preview of this song sounded like it's in 6 to me (at about 110 bpm). Goldencrisp87 08:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

YYZ

Hi, why Rush's YYZ is both in 5/4 and 10/8? BTW I don't know almost anything about time signatures so maybe I'm saying something obvious :P. Cheers. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 02:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Time signatures can be converted like fractions. Just like 5 divided by 4 equals 10 divided by 8, 5/4 and 10/8 time signatures are technically interchangable (although notation would likely be different, in terms of stemming of the notes (but that goes beyond the scope of your question)). Goldencrisp87 08:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cannibal Corpse - Five Nails Through the Neck

That song definitely has an unconventional beat. Which should it be under? --74.129.196.221 17:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dir en Grey's "Namamekashiki Ansoku, Tamerai Ni Hohoemi"

From their new album "The Marrow of a Bone" (2007)

Anyone else notice a switch between 5/4 and 6/4? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.85.209 (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I noticed a switch from a shitty sound to a really really shitty sound... Does that count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.208.2 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Some more suggestions

Has anyone heard the Doom 3 theme by "Tweaker"? I'm certain that the chorus section is 21/8 (I count 6 + 4 + 6 + 5 /8), but I also count it as 12/8 also. Could someone clarify that? 88.107.5.193 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC) edit: I've added the Doom 3 theme to the list; though I only mentioned the 21/8 sections. (I could also count 11/8 and 25/16 - though the latter of the two only appeared once)88.107.98.33 18:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dream Theater

I think if we all work together we can add more DT songs to this page. There only seem to be about 10 songs of theirs on this page, however there are few (if any) that don't utilize some odd meters. And they have eight albums!

And by the way, I think arguing about whether to keep this page is pointless, it will always be a helpful resource, and yes sometimes our opinions differ but then that's what the discussion page is for. I don't know who created this page but he/she has definitely helped me become a better musician by showing songs i could practice, and draw inspiration from, and i am very grateful for that. Peace! (81.151.152.38 13:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

Found another one, but don't know where to put it under.

Cannibal Corpse's "Necropedophile" has a main riff that alternates between 4/4 and 7/8. Another riff alternates between 3/4 and 5/4. --SonicTailsKnuckles 19:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Just put it in the section of stuff with multiple time signatures. If you can, find "Schism" by Tool and put it there. It has about a hundred different time signatures.

What's so special about 16/8?

=/ It's basically like fast 8/4, which can be simplified to 4/4 with alternating bars. I say we trash that section. --208.115.202.219 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Pretty much anything with a numerator that is 4,8,16,32,64,128 etc sounds exactly like 4/4 but a bit slower, or possibly faster if the denominator is large. Delete it. Watto the jazzman 06:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

-16/8 wouldn't necessarily have the emphasis on the same beats that 4/4 would. It could be a deliberate choice corresponding with lack of or less consistent emphasis pattern. In such cases it is distinct from 4/4 / 8/4 and is unusual. (anon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.63.60.164 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's insane. Where the emphasis lies is totally irrelevant. 1/1 is the same as 2/2, and 4/4, etc. Mathematically, these are the exact same. What makes a time signature unique is the number of equal length beats in a measure. For instnace, 4/4, 2/4, 2/2, C, etc. are all basically just 1/1. The idea is to have a fraction that doesn't simplify, like 7/8. All prime numbers above 3 are uncommon in western music. 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, etc. All of these leave us feeling like we've skipped a beat, or added a beat. The mind tends to split them up, as 5/4 is almost always 6/8 + 2/4, and 7/8 is 2/4 + 3/8.

This is why we consider these to be unique time signatures. They are, to the mind, compound. The division of beats is uneven within the measure. I'm trying not to delve into music theory, because this should make sense from a psychological point of view, not a musical one. That's the idea. That's what makes a time signature interesting, the artist being able to keep a steady beat despite an uneven distribution of time. Sting has 2 songs, both on Ten Summoner's Tales... 7 Days, and St. Augustine in Hell, (5/4 and 7/4 respectively.) Both of these songs sound perfectly even.ReignMan (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hardly "insane", but this does raise some interesting issues. First is that musical metre is not "mathematical", in that the maths (as you present them, at least) do not take into account regular emphases and subdivision. Ignoring these factors, 6/8 and 3/4 are "exactly the same thing, mathematically". 4/4 and 2/2 are not equivalent metres, because the former has four beats to the bar, the latter only two. I think the point 146.63.60.164 is trying to make here is that when an uncommon metre signature like 16/8 is used, it is usually because there is a regularly occurring, unusual beat/subdivision pattern, such as 3+3+3+3+2+2. This can be just as "compound" in its effect as 11/8 or 31/8 time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference between 4/4 and 2/2 are entirely based on perception. The regular emphasis can be easilly omitted by the composer manually adding accents to beats. The fact is, while there is a musical basis, there is no scientific basis. 6/8 and 3/4 are the exact same thing, only that we use 6/8 as a 2 count and 3/4 as a 3 count. 6/8 should, in theory, be a 6 count, but it's not. These are all valid concerns musically, but not scientifically. If I wrote a song in 3/4, but gave it a drum beat that had a snare on the 2 &, then you'd think it was in 6/8. Despite what's written by a composer, these are not scientifically important. I have an extensive music theory education, and am an autistic savant, and I can tell you that all of this stuff, seems rather trivial and useless. In the very highest heights of the understanding of music, such divisions are merely artistic. I believe our job is not to say, "this avant-garde nutso said his song is in 8/8, so that makes it special. The job we have here is to tell what songs have a non 2, 3, or 4 based timing. 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, and so forth are the most important.

If a song has a 3+3+3+3+2+2 it could easilly be written in 4/4 as 16th notes with emphasis on the first of each group. This is not uncommon at all. Film scores often feature strings chugging out these kinds of patterns, I've done it myself for sountracks. It still adds up to 16, or 8, or 4 whatever way you look at it. You could say that The Rite of Sping is in odd time during the heavy string chords, because the emphasis is laid on odd beats, but it isn't. The important thing is that we show what songs don't add up. These are the ones that are unusual, like St. Augustine in Hell from Ten Summoner's Tales. That's 7/4, and very interestingly doesn't sound very odd at all. That's unique. ReignMan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

'Still adds up to . . .', yes, of course, but also 'based on perception' cannot simply be brushed aside as if it didn't matter. Music is what is perceived, by almost anyone's standards. I suppose the relevant question then is: Is this an article about music, or an article about 'science' (I would have thought 'mathematics', but there you go). Oddly enough, there are a lot of distinctions commonly made in music that are not 'mathematically' valid, though somehow I think we are talking overly simplistic maths here (set theory ought to cover the kinds of nested groupings that musical meter routinely involves, but I am a musician, not a mathematician). Another issue that really has not been properly addressed on this discussion page is: Are we concerned here strictly with notation (a time signature is something written on a piece of paper), or are we talking about rhythmic patterns as used in music performance (that is, meter or metrical rhythm, rather than 'time signatures')? If the latter, shouldn't the article title be changed? A further question: If we are talking about your actual music, rather than written symbols (as I believe we are), does it make sense to include vaguely 'weird' rhythms, which may not add up to any regularly recurring meter at all? If, on the other hand, this section is to be kept, should pieces with constantly fluctuating meter, like Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring, be included? There will be thousands upon thousands of these, of course, since this kind of thing is commonplace in 20th-century concert music.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Era Vulgaris by QOTSA

I'm pretty sure the bridge bit (where trent reznor sings) is in 7/4, just want to confirm. Rian xjml 04:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wedding Tree by Throwing Muses

The guitar section before the drums come in is crazy. When the drums start it just cycles through a couple of different meters and then becomes 4/4 for the main song but if anyone can figure out what the intro is doing then I would love to know. --Andybak 09:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved Pink Floyd's "Money"

If a song's got a big long guitar solo in 4/4 time, then it's not entirely in 7/4 time, now, is it?

I also simplified the bit about some people thinking it's 21/8 (I'm not taking a position on that, just clarifying the wording.) --63.25.239.112 18:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to hear...

...a track in 22/7!

Should be easy as $\pi$... 193.122.47.162 20:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a 7th note, so that meter doesn't exist. However, Pat Metheny's "First Circle" is in 22/8

previous unsigned comment, look up "irrational meter" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.146.19 (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Pot . . . The Patient by Tool

Pretty certain these songs have some shifting meters. If anyone wants to listen and decipher them, I think this list would appreciate their presence. Fdssdf 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Pot, to my knowledge is just in 4/4, and the Patient is in 5/4 or 10/8 and does not change time signatures Watto the jazzman 01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jambi has some 9/8 and 5/4 sections —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.20.3 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

list of all pop/rock songs in existence except those entirely in 4/4

this list includes way too much. i think there should be tighter restricktions made en enforced for inclusion. this has become a list of all pop/rock songs in existence except those entirely in 4/4 instead of musical works in unusual time signatures· Lygophile has spoken 14:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC) also i could think of about a million more songs to add, if i felt like it14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

66/16

"66/16
(2003) "This Dying Soul" by Dream Theater - parts of the beginning guitar parts (played 16+15+16+19)"

rediculous. just because they throw in a 2/6 and a 4/6 doesnt make it a 66/16. there are so many rediculousities in this article, it needs to be cleaned up drastically· Lygophile has spoken 14:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this would be more credible if you learned how to spell ridiculous.

ignoring how insulting is not allowed: shut the fuck up asshole· Lygophile has spoken 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

6/4, 9/8

Does 6/4 count as an unusual time signature? And I think if 9/8 counts as one, then so should 12/8 (compound triple, compound quadruple). What do you guys think? --217.44.177.107 15:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

i agree. 6/4 is more uncommon then 7/8. however, 6/8 is rather common· Lygophile has spoken 21:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking about it today. I guess the question is not about how common a time signature is, but how irregular it is. Seeing as how they list time signatures that are (4+4+2), I think 6/4 would definitely count, seeing as how it is just (4+2), or (2+2+2). But on the other hand, 9/8 and 12/8 songs that are in compound triple and compound quadruple are currently not being included.

ow yeah, the simple 9/8 is less common then 6/4 i think. does this mean 7/8 should be not included? hmm..probably it isnt about the commonality, but about complexity, as 7 is a prime number, making 7/8 quite odd, while 9/8 or 6/4 is quite simple· Lygophile has spoken 12:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that prime numbers over 3 are what we're looking for. 6/4 is just a fancy 3 count. So is 3/2 (the ET theme is in 3/2 for instance. While it's 2+2+2, it's not what we'd call an uncommon meter). 9/8 and 12/8 aren't really irregular meters. I like to call it the dancability factor. If you can dance to it, it's not uncommon. Someone described Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony, movement #2, as a Waltz for a man with 3 legs (it's in 5/4) I thought that explained it pretty well. ReignMan (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A few more comments

Personally, I think 12/8 should count as "unusual" myself, so I'm adding it. In addition, I doubt this question will ever get answered, but could some music expert please check "I Have to Surrender" by Ty Herndon? I think that song's in 4/8, but I'm not certain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Another song to check: "Every Once in a While" by BlackHawk. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Split the article up

The article is ridiculously long. I propose splitting it up into a series of smaller articles, eg one for each major grouping, from 5/4 to 11/8 plus the Unusual time sig combinations. The other sections would be kept here. I'm willing to do it. Comments? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

i just think we should drop out all songs that only have a section with an odd signature, and all songs 5/4 and such signatures, and make it a list of only the songs with a complicated time signature, or frequent signature changes. otherwise, this list can go on forever. i could think of millions more songs to add to this list, but it has allready become meaningless· Lygophile has spoken 15:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Making two new articles for "songs in 5" and "songs in 7" would clear up a lot of the length problems. How's that for a start? Korny O'Near 19:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll create the following pages and split out the material later today unless there are any objections:

• List of musical works in 5/4 or 5/8 time
• List of musical works in 7/4 time
• List of musical works in 7/8 time
• List of musical works with unusual time signature combinations

I think the rest of the article will stay where it is for now. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a single page for songs/works in 7/4 and 7/8 is better. It's often impossible to know exactly which is which, so I think it's better to have them on the same page. Otherwise, fine. Korny O'Near 13:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Done, with List of musical works in 7/4 or 7/8 time created instead per suggestion. Please look at them and make any changes necessary. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 12:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Anybody think that the 9-beat signatures should get their own page too? It's already almost as large as the 5-beat and 7-beat pages, and it's likely to get larger, since it is considerably more common. (Being divisible into 3 sets of 3 rather than a prime number.) I've got a couple older pieces I'm going to add to it right now, but I won't move it to a new page until we get some consensus that it should be. Lurlock 13:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that, per the header at the top of the 9/4 section, pieces that are simply in three groups of 3 don't belong here; it's only more unconventional groupings like 2+2+2+3, etc. If the new Beethoven, etc. pieces added are just 3+3+3, they should be removed. Korny O'Near 14:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The time signature written on the pages in the original publications is 9/8, it's not just triplets in 3/4. Is this enough to qualify? Lurlock 14:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so; the key is the feel of the piece, not the specific time signature. As you've noted, 9/8 per se isn't a very unusual time signature. Korny O'Near 15:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree in sentiment, there's one key problem with that criterion - It's a bit hard in many cases to determine how a piece "feels". Take Debussey's Claire de Lune for example (not my submission, but a good one). The opening and ending of that movement don't really feel like anything - you'd be hard pressed to count the beats listening to them (especially given the propensity of many performers to drag out the rests for much longer than their written values). The middle section, however, has a very clear steady rhythm of 16th notes in 3 sets of 6. At any rate, any such criteria for how a piece "feels" stands a good chance of being subjective or depending on who's performing the piece. The fact that the pieces are written with a 9/8 time signature is undeniable, and a far easier criterion to make an un-biased statement about. As you say, it would include a considerably larger number of works, given that it's not extremely unusual, but I think that might further justify it being moved to a separate page, with such restrictions removed. Including older works like these puts the issue in a more historical perspective, and it's information I feel is worth documenting, because otherwise this page is almost entirely composed of pieces written in the last 50 years. Lurlock 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, feel free to create a separate page for all 9/4 and 9/8 pieces - I just don't think pieces that are in compound triple meter belong here. 9/4 and 9/8 are not unusual time signatures. So why allow pieces in 9 at all, you could ask? Well, this page is really about cataloging unusual meters, not just unusual time signatures per se. It's somewhat subjective, and it's not what the title of the page says, but that's been the rough consensus until now. Korny O'Near 23:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

X-Ray Spex - Art-I-Ficial

Pretty sure this switches wackily between different signatures but not sure which. 86.0.169.202 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Classical music

My recent addition of a Beethoven piano sonata (1 movement in 9/8) made me realize that there is nothing else on this page prior to 1950. 9/8 or 9/4 time was actually rather common in some earlier music - I think there's a number of pieces by J.S. Bach and other earlier composers in these signatures. (I'd have to look at my music books when I get home.) 12/8 is also not that uncommon in older works, but for some reason, these have been completely overlooked on this page. Does anybody else have any knowledge of classical music to help rectify this oversight? Lurlock 18:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the piece you added in three groups of three? Because those don't belong here Pwrong 07:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Peeping Tom

Can someone explain to me why Neighbourhood spaceman is 31/16 rather than 4/4? It has a slightly odd pattern, but I can't see where the missing beat is. Pwrong 07:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What is unusual?

Are there any reliable sources that identify which time signatures are unusual? This sort of judgment really shouldn't be left up to editors. That's original research. Also, there should be sources for the time signatures of each piece listed. It's easy enough for the musically literate to figure such stuff out by listening to a piece, but again, that qualifies as original research. Nick Graves 18:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole page is OR, but it always survives deletion attempts because so many people have fun adding their favorite bands to it. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Some admin needs to take a harder line with this. This article is really an embarrassment to Wiki. Torc2 (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletions and sourcing

I have deleted all of the songs or time signatures that did not have reliable sources confirming that they are unusual, in order to bring this article in line with Wikipedia policies concerning verifiability and original research. This does not mean that none of the deleted songs or sections do not ultimately belong in the list, but that they do not belong in the list until sources are found confirming that a song has an unusual time signature. Unless a reliable source identifies a time signature as unusual, there should not be a section in this list for that time signature. Similarly, unless a reliable source identifies a song as having a particular time signature, it should not be added to a time signature section. Blogs, newsgroups, or other online forums are not reliable sources.

The deleted songs and sections can be found in the following diffs (they are the ones highlighted in yellow in the left column):

• List of musical works in unusual time signatures
• List of musical works in 5/4 or 5/8 time
• List of musical works in 7/4 or 7/8 time
• List of musical works with unusual time signature combinations

Please add these back to this list only if reliable sources are found confirming that these songs have an unusual time signature, and please cite your sources. Thank you. Nick Graves 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who has spent time listening to top 40 radio knows that the vast majority of pop songs are written in 4/4 time. Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull expressed genuine surprise when "Living in the Past" started climbing the American charts in the 1970's because it was played in 5/4. Genesis even drew attention to the time signature of their songs in the title, i.e. "7/8" or the "Apocalypse in 9/8" section of "Supper's Ready." The question of whether contemporary bands like Tool, Muse, System of a Down or Coheed and Cambria should be tagged progressive rock or alternative rock turns on the extent to which they play in time signatures other than 4/4. The main "source" for the time signature of a given song is of course one's ears. Users are of course free to dispute the characterizations of individual songs in the discussion page, but the lists should be left intact, so that they can do so. Kindly restore this list to its former glory. Fuurinkazan 19:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there should be a source then. Cite a source and then add the song back. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I have a challenge for you. Find a reliable source which notes that Steel Attack's track The Other Side from the album Diabolic Symphony is 7/4. Listen to the song and you won't be arguing, but find me any source and I'll be surprised, and find me a reliable source and I'll be dumbfounded. Is it your evaluation, then, that because it's not popular enough, it's not a viable entry? Oh, and as for sources, give me one reason not to axe two of those entries with unreliable sources, and explain how these people taking "complex time signature" and turning it into 5/4 are not conducting original research. As it stands now, we'll have three entries left and an insurmountable obstacle to actually entering anything into the list. --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 16:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if Flyguy or someone else listens to a song, they may or or may not be able to correctly identify the time signature. That is specialist knowledge, which cannot be included unless it is backed up by a reliable source. Any track by a notable artist may be added to this list, regardless of popularity, but statements about it must be backed up by reliable sources. You are certainly welcome to delete any tracks from the current list that you believe do not use reliable sources. It is not original research to cite a reliable source that identifies a song as having a complex time signature, or identifying its time signature as 5/4. If the source does not back up what is claimed in the list, by all means delete the material. Demanding sources for entries is not an insurmountable obstacle. There are sources out there, but few people have taken the trouble to find them. A short, reliable list is more useful than a massive, unreferenced list. Nick Graves 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Assume for a moment that you are an expert (no original research, now) and know for a fact what it is. The challenge is to find a reliable source for it. Publications do not regularly review the time signatures of music. When they do, they usually merely note that the time signature is unusual rather than what time signature it is in. Popular publications are occasionally wrong and/or disagree with one another (syncopation versus time signature). You will notice that two cited sources in the current article disagree about a song's time signature. Reliable is the key here (I can cite a forum entry or user review of someone claiming this, but it's not reliable), and reliable is the insurmountable obstacle to this list. It is what keeps the list from growing and what keeps only popular artists (those with sufficient press and also those who, with music typically in 4/4, make a splash when they do anything that isn't in common time) and classical compositions with public domain sheet music on the list. --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 02:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If you check the Time Signature page, you might notice that, in the section which references this page (Complex Time Signatures), you will find that 9/8 is listed explicitly. Furthermore, the citation rules do not ask for citations of every fact listed, and certainly not in these lists. If you want to make this kind of differentiation, I have just about every single list to exist ever in Wikipedia to delete in your name. List of progressive metal artists cites no sources, and I don't consider Amorphis prog metal. Thus, delete the entire section. Doing so would be absolutely inane, not to mention counterproductive. Your deletions and requests for sources are equivalent to saying "this number is 3" and requesting proof that 3 is indeed 3. Rather than REQUESTING verification, you simply took it upon yourself to delete everything. I am absolutely appalled that you as a Wikipedia editor would have the gall to do this. You left 5/4 and 7/8 without citing sources for why they are unusual, yet you deleted 9/8 for not having citation. If you look at the citations, all you have is "complex time signature" quoted and the time signature listed. That is also OR by your measure. And moreover, the setup of "verifiable sources" results in finding only explicit, reliable sources for popular music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.160.15 (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The claim about 9/8 in the time signature article is not backed up by a reliable source, so it should not be listed here yet. I heartily encourage you to delete all entries in any other lists that do not cite reliable sources. Unless someone is bold enough to do so, they will never be brought up to encyclopedic standards. Stating that "3 is 3" is not a claim requiring specialist knowledge. Stating that song X has time signature Y/Z does require specialist knowledge, so a source is needed. Stating that time signature Y/Z is "unusual" also requires specialist knowledge, and needs a source. I believe that if you review the sources in the 5/4 and 7/8 sections, you will find that they are identified as unusual, or odd, etc. If I am mistaken, please go ahead and delete those sections. Also, if you find anything that violates the original research policy, that too must go. Only songs by notable artists ought to be listed. Nick Graves 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying that it is sometimes unclear whether or not a song is in an unusual time signature, already is a stretch, but still makes at least some sense. Sometimes figuring out a time signature is indeed difficult, but in many cases it is quite easy and not something that requires any 'research work' to be done. But saying that it is a contested matter that time signatures such as 5/4 and 7/8 are unusual seems to be quite absurd to me, not any less absurd than contesting (e.g.) whether Germany is a European country or not. Your mode of thinking seems to be challenging a lot of generally accepted information that is available on Wikipedia. Or would you go to Time signature and delete every claim in that article that is not backed up by a reliable source? (Which includes most of the article, including the entire "Most frequent time signatures" section)? Joost (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

For songs I have, my ears would be my main source. How do you want me to cite it? Genesis's "Apocalypse in 9/8" is in 9/8.(1) ---- Footnotes: (1) My ears. The key to wikipedia's verifiability policy is a citation should be given only where a statement is "challenged or likely to be challenged." There have been precious few challenges to any of the time signatures laid out here, and I somehow doubt that this article in particular will become a hotbed of controversy. Let's bring back this precious treasure trove of info that so many editors have devoted countless hours to developing. Fuurinkazan 19:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

By deleting unsourced entries, I have challenged that material, and I will challenge any new entries that do not cite reliable sources. The reason: I do not trust your ears (and musical knowledge) as a reliable source, or the ears of any other Wikipedia editor. If you'll review WP:RS, I think that you'll find that your ears are not listed as a reliable source. If you take the time to understand WP:OR, I think you'll see that your judgment about time signatures constitutes original research. This "treasure trove" of information has little value unless the readers can trust that the contents are accurate, and that cannot be assured unless reliable sources are cited. Lists such as this can and should be built up to a useful and relatively authoritative state, but only if editors build up the list using reliable sources. This is not merely my opinion--it is official policy, and part of the wider consensus of the Wikipedia community. Nick Graves 15:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean I can delete any article I want and just say I'm challenging its material? --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 16:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Only administrators may delete articles, and then only in accord with consensus and policy. You may delete material that does not cite reliable sources. I encourage you to do so. Editors that wish to include such material are usually quick to find reliable sources so that the material may be restored. Deletion of unsourced material can be a good motivator for bringing an article into compliance with WP:V. Nick Graves 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not all material in an article needs to be sourced, as I mentioned earlier, and deletion is excessive. To quote WP:PROVEIT, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." But more importantly, unilaterally deleting an entire article (as was done here, leaving only the shell) is not a good course of action for anything -- you have a deletion request if necessary. As is, the article under WP:PROVEIT should be deleted because "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Even if it's something a stupidly obvious as this. People have cited works where the actual sheet music is evidence, but it can't be posted because it's copyrighted and a source cannot be found which says "If you look at this piece of music, you can see quite obviously that the time signature is 7/8." Doing so would be idiotic, and no reliable source would do it. --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 02:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You're stretching the policies for your own comfort. Sources are relevant when the claims made can be reasonably questioned or claimed ownership to. And challenging content by deleting content is not and has never been the way Wikipedia was meant to work. This smells like vandalism. --Desor 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not stretched policies, but merely put them into practice with this list. If you will review WP:OR, or the excerpts I quoted below, you will find that my edits have been in compliance with policy. I am reasonably questioning the expertise of those who have added material without citing sources. I do not know if any of these editors are musically literate, or if their ears can be trusted to correctly identify a time signature. I'm not sure where you're getting your information about how Wikipedia was "meant to work." Could you cite a policy or guideline? I did challenge the sourceless material earlier by putting a notice on this list requesting sources. After a substantial amount of time, exactly zero sources were added, so I began gradually deleting the material I had challenged. Because of Wikipedia policies concerning verifiability and original research, the onus is on those who wish to include material to provide reliable sources, not on those who wish to delete it. Please review WP:VANDAL to find out what constitutes vandalism. I do not believe my deletions qualify, but if you disagree, I encourage you to report my activities on the administrator's noticeboard. Nick Graves 17:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Challenging a statement is not a matter of mere distrust about the statement, but rather of having looked into the contested statement and having ended up with a different opinion. I would say in this case the songs themselves suffice as sources, and only if there is a disagreement about the particular interpretation of what time signature a song is in, challenging the claim is merited. You can compare this to other areas: you can claim that the Bible mentions Adam and Eve as the first two humans, citing the Bible itself as source without being contested; at the same time, there are many fragments of the Bible where even experts disagree about the interpretation: in those cases citing the Bible itself as only source would not be sufficient anymore. Joost (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Assigning a time signature to a song is quite obviously verifiable. The reader only has to listen to the same song to check it. No one is going to be misled by this list. I wonder if you would be so kind as to give specific examples of songs that you are familiar with where the time signature differed from that listed here.Fuurinkazan 15:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have encouraged those who object to deletion of the unsourced material to review Wikipedia's policy on original research. The policy quite clearly supports the changes I've made to this list. Since editors still object, I can only assume that they have not reviewed the policy. Below, I've reproduced the most relevant sections of that policy, so that those editors will better understand why the unsourced material must be deleted:

"...all material must be verifiable... Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts... Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses...

"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories.

"Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way.

"Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources.

"Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately.

"NPOV, V, and NOR are Wikipedia's three principal content policies.

"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is a claim for which no reliable source can be found. Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove an assertion that a claim constitutes original research.

"To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should (1) only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, unless such claims are verifiable either from the primary source itself or from another source. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

"...WP:COS This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources...

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia."

Stating that a time signature is unusual constitutes an interpretation, which is clearly prohibited by the above unless it is attributed to a reliable source. Who's to say what time signature is unusual, and what is not? According to policy, it is not the editors that ought to make that judgment, but the reliable sources. Stating that a song has a particular time signature without citing a reliable source constitutes original research, which is also prohibited by the above. Sure, it might be obvious to some people what a song's time signature is just by listening to it, but it is not obvious to most people. Even if one cites a recording of a song as a primary source, identification of the time signature requires specialist knowledge, so any claim about time signatures based on listening to a recording still constitutes original research. Someone might even be correct in making such a claim, but since the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," the claim cannot be included in an article unless a reliable source states what the time signature is.

The editors who have objected to deleting the unsourced material obviously care about the list, but I think they haven't recognized what would truly make it a good, encyclopedic list. It's easy enough to create a massive list by compiling a bunch of stuff off the top of several editors' heads, but a list's great size does not make it a good one. The list can never come close to being authoritative and truly useful unless sources are found to back up the information. Contributors to such lists generally do not take the care or time to add sources for their new entries unless other editors insist that sources be found for the new material. Already, there has been one new addition to the list with a source (a Radiohead song). Would the editor who made that contribution have been as likely to include a source if the other material had not been sourced, and/or if they did not know that their entry would be deleted without a source? In my experience, probably not.

There are plenty of other wikis out there that do not require their editors to cite their sources, and that do allow original research. If editors still wish to refer to and add to the information in the old, mostly sourceless list, they ought to use such wikis. Wikipedia is different. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which requires that the information within it is verified using reliable sources. Nick Graves 17:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, you have initiated a speedy deletion request. I'll let you add it yourself. Why? No verifiable sources can be found for this material (WP:PROVEIT). I won't bother fixing an article that's about to be deleted, but AMG is not a very good source (unless you believe Nightwish to be black metal, in which case I may have an edit in mind for that featured page -- not to mention that the genre listed on the featured page has no source) and using AMG to take "unusual time signature" and turn it into any actual time signature is original research. There are not reliable resources for this material, particularly for rock music (where sheet music is rarely published at all). Several sources have been edited in, but while none of them are wrong, most of them are not WP:V and are subject to deletion. Furthermore, there is no citation as to what constitutes unusual, which means the reason for the existence of the article is unsourced (i.e. unusual time signatures have not even been proven to exist). But I digress, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 02:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the question whether or not certain time signatures are "unusual" really only boils down to the meaning of the word 'unusual'. And I don't think that kind of word-splitting has any place in a discussion like this. Wikipedia itself and just about any source would list a few time signatures (e.g. 3/4, 4/4, 6/8) as common, and as such imply that other time signatures are unusual. No other encyclopedia known to me enforces such a strict referencing policy as you seem to propopose for Wikipedia. I'm all for making Wikipedia more reliable by requiring statements to be generally verifiable, but you're taking it too far. Joost (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with Wikipedia's policy on Original Research. I question a number of your assumptions though. One, I don't see listening to a song and tapping out the beat as "research." As I wrote above, I believe that the time signatures listed are verifiable by reference to the songs themselves. Also, this policy not withstanding, in Wikipedia, as in all academic work, it is only necessary to cite sources in case where the statement is likely to be challenged. It doesn't appear that anyone is challenging the stated time signatures based on an informed opinion formed from having listened to the songs in question. I would assume that the time signatures listed are by and large correct. Also if your main objection is that songs in 9/8 or whatever are not unusual, perhaps we should just rename the list "works in time signatures other than 4/4." My main point is that original list is far too valuable a resource to just allow it to be deleted.Fuurinkazan 06:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree - something that is self-evident, like a time-signature, hardly constitutes original research! Nick Graves is mistaken in seeing it so, IMO.

I also agree with the anonymous poster (and Nick Graves) that what is debatable is what constitutes an "unusual" time signature.

"Unusual" needs to be clearly defined - but time signatures are easily verifiable by those with the necessary musical training, so stands as provable fact, not research. MarkCertif1ed 14:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "time signatures are easily verifiable by those with the necessary musical training." You're talking about persons with specialist knowledge verifying the information by analyzing a primary source (a song recording).

Now examine this portion of original research policy as it relates to primary sources: "To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should (1) only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, unless such claims are verifiable either from the primary source itself or from another source. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." [Emphasis added.]

So what you're suggesting is pretty clearly not consistent with original research policy. I think what is tripping people up here is that, since they do have the specialist knowledge to analyze a recording and identify its time signature, it is obvious to them what the time signature is, so they conclude that there is no way that what they are doing (which happens to have become exceedingly effortless and intuitive to them as musicians) can constitute original research. They are forgetting that most people are not musically literate enough to identify a time signature by listening to it. Even many accomplished musicians (self-taught, garage band types) aren't familiar with the various time signatures, and wouldn't even be able to identify the time signature of a song that they themselves had composed. Nick Graves 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, clarification: identification of a time signature does not require any more knowledge than identification of a color or gender. I do not need to cite that a book's cover is magenta; however, I have indeed made an evaluation that has not been cited. It does not require any specialist knowledge to identify this; however, one might not know what "magenta" is. Does this make colour identification "specialist knowledge"? Furthermore, I would also like to emphasize something from that quote: "...unless such claims are verifiable either from the primary source itself or from another source." In this case, the contention is that it is verifiable from the primary source. While a mathmatical proof will require knowledge to interpret (and dear God does it ever when you get into nth-order imaginary partial differential equations), it is a verifiable source for itself.

And as for your self-taught musician claim, want to cite and source that? --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 06:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there are two parts to that section of policy, and both must be followed, not just one or the other. Even if the information is verifiable from the primary source itself, such verification requires specialist knowledge, which would run afoul of the first part of the policy.

Your comparisons to color and gender identification do not demonstrate your point, since identification of time signature in a piece requires more than simply counting. One must first know what constitutes a measure (which requires consciousness of where the accents fall) before counting the beats in the measure. Even the counting of beats will not be obvious to everyone, since one needs to know that the notes that may subdivide the beat are not themselves separate beats. Add to that the knowledge of the distinction between quarter notes, eighth notes, etc., as well as knowledge of the time signature notation itself, and you have a process that is not so simple or obvious to the general public as it seems to those with the requisite training. Ask most anyone in the general public what gender a person is, or what color their shirt is, and (assuming they aren't looking at a skilled crossdresser, or are not colorblind or otherwise challenged) they will be able to identify the correct answer. But ask these same people to identify the predominant time signature of Pink Floyd's "Money," or the time signature of the instrumental break in Blondie's "Heart of Glass," and most won't have a clue. The specialists among them (which would include all or most of the people taking part in this discussion), of course, will not find this task difficult, but that just illustrates my point that time signature identification requires specialist knowledge.

My claim about the self-taught musician is based on personal experience. To cite one example: a bandmate of mine, who had over 10 years of intensive musical experience, and who had already written dozens of songs, but who could not read a note of music to save his life, once identified a song he had written as being in 7/4, when it was actually in 7/8. No, I cannot cite a source for this other than myself, but then again, only the articles themselves have that requirement. Even if you doubt this particular claim, the larger point is that most members of the general public are not adept at identifying time signatures just by listening. This requires specialist knowledge beyond merely counting. Nick Graves 17:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am not sure if this is related, but List of musical works in time signatures other than 4/4, was recently created, and I thought that this may be something that should be noted here. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 06:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted, I have supported its deletion on the grounds that it is a copy of another article which was removed. The debate here will decide the fate of the information contained there. Thanks for the heads up. --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 08:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

To Mr Graves: Any person can identify a given time signature by counting - it is not specialist knowledge to be able to count - even as high as 66.

It is easier for a trained person than a non-trained person - but that does not mean a non-trained person cannot count.

Your assumptions about non-trained musicians are absolute tosh - if you play music in a band, you need to be able to keep time with everyone else - and you do that by counting beats in a bar.

This appears to be concrete evidence that you are not musical yourself - so why partake in a musical discussion?

Who but the musically inclined would be interested in such an article?

Please think before writing, it saves the rest of us a lot of time. MarkCertif1ed 14:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your contention that time signature identification is as simple as counting, please see my response to Anonymous. Time signature identification requires much more than just counting. My own musical training is irrelevant to the main question here, which concerns the interpretation of original research policy. Even if I were not musically inclined, and didn't know what the heck I was talking about regarding time signatures, that would only serve to illustrate my point that identification requires specialist knowledge. Your implication that I have no business participating in this discussion, and especially your last insult, violate WP:CIVIL. Please read and abide by that policy. Criticism should be directed at the arguments, not those who make them. Nick Graves 18:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am 100% behind sourcing every item on this list. First and most importantly, sourcing is almost always a good thing. It is harmful to argue against it. Sourcing makes all of our articles more credible and gives them a leg to stand on during AfD discussions (deletionists love to target lists like this, as well they should).

As far as the original research debate, I suppose is easy for non-experts to figure out that "Money" is in 7/4, but certain passages of, say, The Rite of Spring or "Schism" are virtually impossible for a non-musician to parse. Why not just altogether sidestep the argument of whether its easy or hard to figure out a given time signature by requiring a source? Even published sheet music can be considered a source, I would think. If you know any musician editors, perhaps we can ask them to help contribute to the article using sheet music they might have access to. With a little hard work, I think this could be an respectable article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, the question is not about whether an item should be sourced but rather whether the original material itself constitutes the source. All classical music is originally written as a score. The performance of the music is, then, just a reproduction of the original in a different form. The question is whether or not this allows one to cite the music itself as a source or whether the music obscures or encrypts the time signature such that it is not identifiable without expert knowledge. This could be analogous in its simplest form to whether or not the change to music constitutes the encryption of picture words (as used for verification that an editor is not an automated bot), which does not significantly affect the actual results, or to a form relatively indecipherable, such as what the German Enigma machine did. Also, please refer to the following section for the question of transcribed music (which constitutes the vast majority of rock sheet music). --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 07:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding recent deletions for sourcing: we have a big mess right now for sources. Some sources are an absolute and incomprehensible mess (Genesis, Guitar Anthology. Hal Leonard. What the heck is that?), some are broken links (in fact, four citations and the only thing claiming that 7/8 and 9/8 are unusual are attributed to a proxy link to a database, which is a supremely bad idea). Some deletions have been made to material poorly-sourced but still sourced (if you check the Schism page cited, the section is poorly referenced to an article in Guitar Magazine in 2001). The Eleven has become an exercise in review interpretation ("after the jam's tricky time signature" which means you have to assume it means it's in 11, and further 11/8, and that tricky constitutes unusual). Pandora's blog is back up there (again), and we have uncredited sources from fan sites being listed as fact. And we have Alan Pollack's Notes On series with no links or references to what the series is and who wrote it, who published it, and when it was published. There is a lot of faith here in AMG and their questionable assignments (such as the aforementioned black metal gaffe). And then we have New York Magazine, a Sony music listing (for some reason, it looks an advertisement -- what was this pulled from?), and Space.com (thank God this isn't a political article or we'd lose another source). What kind of sources are these, anyway? --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 03:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Some education and discussion about WP:RS and WP:CITE is definitely in order before people put too much work into restoring songs. The proxy link in one of the sources I provided was not proper, but the source itself (Grove Music Online) is reliable, accessed through a college's online research database. It's a subscriber service, so most people won't be able to access it, though they can access the quoted excerpt in the footnote, which clearly shows that certain time signatures have been identified as "irregular" or "odd," and confirms that certain songs have had these time signatures. I share your concern about some of the other sources, which are either incompletely cited, or unreliable. I don't know much about AMG, but the impression I got from a brief survey of its Wikipedia article was that there was a sufficient level of editorial oversight. If I am wrong on that, I would welcome correction. Another thing: it's not enough to merely confirm that a song has a certain time signature, since a source must first identify that time signature as unusual in order for there to be a section for the song in the first place. Also, quotes ought to be included in footnotes, as additional confirmation that a time signature is odd. This helps editors who may not have direct access to a source to check up on how that source has been interpreted (like, for instance, if a "tricky time signature" is being interpreted as an unusual one). Nick Graves 05:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

According to this article about AMG, the company has a staff of "150 well-trained media and technology geeks [who] set about the task of obsessively cataloging every piece of music, every movie and every video game ever produced." In other words, these are knowledgable professionals. They are not infallible, but their work is generally reliable. I know you (Anon) disagree with some of the information they've put out, but band categorization is largely a matter of opinion, and the occassional mistake does not utterly destroy a source's credibility. This company is a reputable publisher of reference books, and "it licenses its data to companies like Yahoo, AOL, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Borders and Barnes and Noble." I'd say this definitely qualifies as a reliable source. Nick Graves 06:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your Grove Music Online source, I noted it because the proxy source didn't work (obviously). Honestly, I know absolutely nothing about the site. Also, regarding AMG, that "qualification" of the staff is not any better than the qualification of the Pandora music analyst who created the source on the blog which you deleted. --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 06:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My contention about the Pandora source was based on this portion of WP:RS: "Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." So, when I saw the "blog" in the website address, I quickly dismissed Pandora. After digging further into Pandora, I found out that it was no mere blog, but a company with a knowledgable and professional staff. I consider it a reliable source, and support reinstating entries based on this source. I am curious, though. You question the reliability of AMG, Pandora and sheet music. If you do not think we can rely on these sources, what do consider to be sources that are reliable? Nick Graves 21:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe an original score is a reliable source (as if that needed to be said) and anyone with at least a B.A. in music theory (or maybe some other music-related degree) from an accredited and respectable college. Regarding AMG, I took a shot in the dark and grabbed a random AMG reference currently in the article (happened to be one from the Grateful Dead) and located the person's credentials. Lindsay Planer has a degree in English with a double minor in film and journalism. The article says nothing about any actual background in music aside from listening to the Grateful Dead (which hardly qualifies you to say... well, anything). Matthew Greenwald has pretty much nothing, and Steve Huey has a B.A. in English (with a thesis on Frank Zappa, which is interesting, but it's still not a music degree). Michael Smith has a theatre performance degree, which is closer, but... uhh, still not music theory. Not that I'm nitpicking or anything; I just want some qualified sources rather than just "it says what I want it to." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.160.15 (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for finding rigorous sources, but I think limiting sources to original scores and people with music degrees is setting the bar too high. While I've disagreed with the contention that identifying a time signature is as easy as counting, it still doesn't require a music degree to make this judgment. The writers for Pandora and AMG may not have music degrees, but they must be recognized as persons with a certain level of musical expertise to even gain employment at their respective companies. Just as the companies they work for cannot afford to gain a reputation for putting out inaccurate information, the employees themselves must gain and retain recognition by their companies for producing accurate information in order to continue working for them. These are significant checks against unreliability. Both Pandora and AMG have a level of editorial oversight that allows them to clear the bar of WP:RS: heading their "music genome" project, Pandora has Nolan Gasser, who has a a musicology PhD and is recognized as a "musical prodigy"; his counterpart at AMG is Chris Woodstra, who doesn't have a music degree (instead, he has a degree in physics and mathematics), but is recognized as someone who has "an encyclopedic knowledge of music." These are recognized music experts who provide the editorial oversight necessary to consider the work of the writers they supervise generally reliable. If this were an article about a very technical subject (like physics), I could see how it would be necessary to rely on degree-holding authors writing within their field, and peer-reviewed journals. But since the article is not that technical, but rather a largely pop-culture oriented list about an aspect of music that requires a relatively low level of specialist knowledge to accurately identify, I think we can afford to be a bit more liberal with our selection of sources. These are reputable publishers of information, headed by recognized experts, with a vetting process for their writers, and an established editorial oversight process. That's good enough for an article like this. Sheet music, too, will have checks against inaccuracy similar to these companies. This is not to say that the sources are infallible, or that all reliable sources are created equal. Some sources are obviously more reliable than others, and if there is ever any disagreement about a time signature identification in two or more sources, we should go with the more reliable one. Original scores and reputably published music degree-holding authors would trump sheet music that is a transcription of a recording, or AMG or Pandora authors without music degrees. Nick Graves 03:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that. You could say MTV couldn't afford to put out incorrect information, but I'm sure we've all been practically drenched in their misinformation. Also, judging by the biographies of the AMG editors, the "expertise" they require is merely that the person be a music-lover of some sort (and I'm sure you've seen plenty of fans about who know absolutely nothing about the music they're listening to). Again, I know I'm being harsh and uncompromising, but I still don't agree with the basic premise of the debate and I believe that only an expert can provide expert knowledge should its citation be required. If one of the thousands who graduate every year with a degree in music theory can provide a more accurate evaluation than a self-proclaimed music-lover (which can be anybody), I don't know why we should throw our hands up in the air and say "Oh, he's a music-lover and writer; that'll do." I was always taught that anything that requires expert knowledge should only be sourced to an expert, and I just can't justify calling a B.A. in English sufficient evidence to call anyone an expert of music. Writing a science column for a newspaper or magazine does not make you a climatology expert. --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 08:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised by the dramatic reversal your position has taken. Whereas before, you were advocating trusting the musical judgments of Wikipedia editors whose expertise is totally unknown to us, you now insist that only people with music degrees can be trusted to make this same judgment. I think the best approach lies in the middle.

Your MTV example does not help your case, since it is a reliable source for information about music and artists, and has been cited in this featured article, which happened to be the first one I selected as I browsed the featured music-related articles--there are doubtless many other featured articles that cite MTV media as reliable sources. Notice that I said these companies cannot afford to "gain a reputation for putting out inaccurate information" (emphasis added)--they might very well put out the occassional piece of misinformation, but the important point with regard to whether a source is reliable (per WP policy) is whether it has a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight.

No, merely having an English degree is not sufficient for someone to be confirmed as a musical expert, though one can become a recognized music expert even with this or some other non-music degree, and that is precisely what has happened with the staff of AMG and Pandora. Evaluating whether a source is reliable involves more than just looking at the degrees held by an individual author, but involves examining the editorial process through which their work is evaluated and published. Even a music degree-holding author's work might not meet WP standards for reliability if it is self-published material. Conversely, the work of writers who do not have a degree in a specific area can nevertheless be deemed reliable, even if they write on a topic unrelated or tangentially related to their degree, if it is published by a reputable publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and sufficient editorial oversight. Demanding a music degree of the authors to make a time signature identification is overkill. Even a lowly holder of a non-music bachelor of arts degree would have had to take an introductory arts or music class, which would have covered such relevant concepts as measure, accents, meter, note duration, and notation.

You had earlier said that time signature identification did not require specialist knowledge, yet you now say that only music degree-holders can be trusted to accomplish this task. The shift in your position was in the right direction, but I think it went too far. Certainly, identifying time signatures simply by listening to a primary source requires specialist knowledge (and therefore is original research unless confirmed by a secondary source). But identifying time signatures does not require a music degree. According to the reliable sources I cited earlier, AMG and Pandora have "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight," and writers working for these companies who might not have a music degree are nevertheless "recognized as having expertise in a secondary area of study." That makes these sources reliable enough according to Wikipedia policy, even though there are admittedly more authoritative sources out there (reputably published people with music degrees, original scores) that would trump these sources in case there are conflicting claims.

I sympathize with many of those who came here to express their dissatisfaction with the drastically shortened list, even though I would not budge from my insistence on reliable sources for each entry. I do want to see this list robustly populated by examples from many genres, even if its expansiveness might never approach that of the previous unsourced list. Requiring that only those with music degrees may be cited would make an already daunting task almost unworkable. Besides, such a requirement is not demanded by Wikipedia policy concerning reliable sources. Nick Graves 18:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You have me wrong. My position is exactly, precisely the same. I still think it does not require "expert knowledge" to identify a time signature. But I also think that if it does, sissy sources are absolutely not the way to go. Your position, correct me if I'm wrong, is that any old source in the storm will do. I simply do not believe that you can say that something requires expert knowledge but does not require an expert to identify. The two are fundamentally incompatible. That is my position. Saying that "well, it's reliable" and "Wikipedia's polity is verifiability, not truth" is not going to change my opinion that the sources are not any more qualified than your average Joe (they all have English and journalism degrees) and are not sufficient to pose as experts. That is and has been my position all along. Also, claiming that you've created a "daunting" task and that using good sources would make it "unworkable" is not justification for using weak sources in my book. Either use proper sources or move to delete it as uncitable. Why would you cite a journalist writing an opinion paper as an expert? They have no expertise.

As for featured articles, I did mention that there's no citation on Nightwish's genre, but I could put down some citations that would be reverted to the uncited ones. Just because it's in a featured article doesn't mean it's right. I'm damn surprised to see anyone considering MTV reputable in any way, shape, or form. Last time I checked, they have a reputation for putting out bad information. Not that I follow them, if your claim is that they have somehow overcome that reputation in recent years. I'm not going to waste my time finding more of their errors to make a case to Wikipedia that MTV should not be considered a reliable source (which would undoubtedly be challenged with "which part of MTV?"). --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 21:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank God somebody brought this up. I've hated this page for years. There's no way to distinguish 7/4 and 7/8 (or 7/2 or 7/16) by listening, regardless of what qualifications you have. Nor can 7/4 be distinguished from alternating bars of 4/4 and 3/4 by ear -- those are both legitimate ways to write the same music. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I had to remind myself to be civil for this one. Your argument is absolutely laughable. First, 7/4 can be 4+3/4 or 3+3+1/4 or 2+3+2/4 or similar combination. Thus, you CAN distinguish between different variants of 7/4 time. Furthermore, if you want to really get down to it and ignore absolutely everything, every piece of music ever is written in some number of bars of 1/4 or 1/1 or 1/inf if you really feel like it because you can have one beat make up anything. Have you ever taken a music theory course in your life? This argument is like saying that life can't exist because organics are almost entirely carbon and hydrogen. --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 08:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Always the ad hominem arguments. I know that Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony has a movement in 5/4, and not in 1/4 or alternating measures of 3/4 and 2/4 because we have the printed score (not to mention Tchaikovsky's manuscript) to verify it. We don't have that verification in the case of most pop music. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I support the removal of unsourced songs from this list, as I noted on User:Nick Graves' talk page. I believe WP:RS and WP:V are relevant here. However, I will reiterate a suggestion I made there. Perhaps this list should be taken to Requests for Comment to get the input of a wider swath of Wikipedia editors. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I considered doing an RfC, but I had hoped we might do more with the debate prior to doing so. Since it looks like we won't be getting anywhere any time soon, it might be better to do an RfC and see what comes of it. What do people think should be the question asked by the RfC? We can't possibly ask everyone to read 5000 words of text above for an RfC. The questions are many: "Does identifying a time signature constitute original research? If so, what is a reliable source for a time signature?" Sheet music is not always reliable in this regard (especially with rock music, where it is typically a transcription) and can be outright incorrect. I have a few classic examples of that, but they're tucked safely away a few thousand miles from here, so I can't cite them exactly. One with several errors was a collection of transcriptions from various jazz/swing sources and another was a transcription of the Pines of Rome. As such, would you have to cite the original score and not a transcription? --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 05:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that a score would generally be a reliable source, but perhaps only original ones, not transcribed ones. I realise this is somewhat biased in favour of classical (and perhaps jazz). As for the appropriate question for an RfC, I think you're about right there. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I approve of Anonymous' question, though I would tweak the wording slightly to be "Does identifying a song's time signature by listening to a recording of it constitute original research?" just to be clearer. I think the debate from the current participants has run its course, and we're just repeating ourselves at this point. The main difference of opinion, I think, boils down to the above question, and it would be good to get some input from a wider audience. The question about reliable sources is a good one, but I think it's best that we save that question until after the first one is settled. Nick Graves 08:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a discussion on reliable sources is probably in order now. I see from several recent edits that at least a couple of questionable sources are being used: a blog, and a tabs site. I don't believe such sites have the type of editorial oversight that allows them to qualify as reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Nick Graves 08:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous, I think you're confusing "reliable" with accuracy/trueness. We're not here to discover and report the truth (although, hopefully, more often than not, we do); we're just summarizing what reputable sources claim. Of course, sheet music might be wrong, just as any source cited in wikipedia (book/periodical/mainstream website) might not reflect your version of truth. But at least if we use verifiable, reputable, published as sources material (which explicitly, rather than implicitly, designate a time signature), our list's claims immediately become attributable, something that policy requires. My opinion is that all transcriptions should be valid, as long as they are officially produced by a known publishing house; anything that some kid online transcribed or uploaded should be discounted. Mainstream articles/interviews/reviews that mention time signatures are even better sources (even though they too might be "wrong"). I see it as a cut-and-dry issue.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but do you post incorrect information you know to be incorrect because someone else said it? I don't believe the spirit of WP:V has ever been "don't blame me, he said it!" Popular publications often do not take into account fact -- the editors wouldn't know heads from tails from it all in the first place. I'm sure you've read plenty of erroneous information from popular publications (assuming you've actually read any such publications). If we are going to affirm Nick's view that such identification requires expert knowledge, we should be looking for experts, not scapegoat sources. Sourcing bad information compromises the integrity of Wikipedia and is tantamount to vandalism if you ask me. --Anon 121.209.160.15 15:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying deliberately post false information. I'm saying we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about what the ultimate truth is, as long as what we're posting is not defamatory and as long as it was published by a known and reputable institution. If you know for a fact that a reliable source is of questionable veracity--and you have an alternate reliable source--please replace the citation--or better yet, include both sources, so readers can see that the facts are disputed/conratdicted by different authorities. That's the kind of thing that helps make articles good, IMO.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, truth is what we're ultimately after, but verifiability in reliable sources is the most practical standard by which to judge that truth for Wikipedia's purposes. Editors here do not know each other's qualifications, so there's no way to know whether we can trust their judgments on their word alone, and little recourse if two or more editors make conflicting claims about the truth. That's why reliable sources are needed--we can be reasonably confident that what a reliable source reports is true, since the writers' or editors' qualifications have been confirmed by those in a position to know. There are certainly instances in which a generally reliable source is wrong, but that possibility can often be addressed by making reference to other reliable sources, as The Fat Man points out. Also, on average, reliable sources are going to report things more accurately than a typical Wikipedia editor who is relying soley on personal knowledge, so relying on such sources will generally get us closer to the truth than just trusting an editor's say-so, even if there is the occassional inaccuracy. Anon points out that there are instances of sheet music where they get the time signature wrong. If even professional arrangers/transcribers and reputable music publishers can get such a judgment wrong, then that just further illustrates my point that time signature identification requires specialist knowledge. Nick Graves 21:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that published music is not subjected to rigorous standards in terms of correctness. It's not really a very professional endeavour aside from the payment for it. As long as it doesn't contain obvious errors and sounds right, they publish it anyway. Not that I'm leveling an attack at publishers; it's just not in their best interest to be correct when they sell it for the same amount either way. Doesn't make business sense. ESPECIALLY with regard to popular works, which have no check on their accuracy in the first place (it's just a variation, guys!). From my experience as a musician, transcriptions cannot be trusted (one of the things that makes buying sheet music from the internet so dubious is that you can't preview it). --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 04:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• IMHO, this article has changed from an incredible resource, to being completely worthless. Decimating the list has not improved the Wikipedia project in any way. Don't forget Jimbo's first rule and policy: Ignore all rules. dissolve^talk 10:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen. CrazeDaze (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in absolute agreement here. You know there's something weird going on if you're forced to look back to an older version of a page to find the information you're looking for. Joost (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. Whatever the technical merits of Nick Graves' position, it seems fairly clear that the page and its usefulness to the world have been utterly destroyed. For a great many interesting musical works in unusual meters it is simply impossible to find anything remotely like an authoratitive statement about their time signature, despite it being almost universally agreed what that time signature is. Such works are excluded from this page, for what would appear to be no other reason than pedantry. I do not see any way in which this helps further the goal of creating a free encyclopedia. Ignore all rules indeed. Conchisness (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Original research and reliable sources

Does identifying a song's time signature by listening to a recording constitute original research? What would qualify as a reliable source for time signature identification? Specifically, would sheet music, All Music Guide, or Pandora (music service) qualify as reliable secondary sources? Or is it sufficient to cite the song recording itself as a primary source for its own time signature?

To summarize what I may have already stated, yes, for me (the Wikipedia editor) to listen to a song and determine its time signature on my own is the very definition of original research, regardless of my alleged qualifications or lack thereof. And, no, you can't cite the song itself, unless perhaps the song title or lyrics mention the time signature; even then, it's a not a great idea. Sheet music is fine by my interpretation of WP:RS--it's just as cite-able as any other published piece of material--as long as the publisher or author is notable and significant. All Music Guide is fine; it's reasonably respected and mainstream and has been around for quite a while; some of our featured articles cite the AMG. I would avoid citing Pandora (music service); I fail to see how it can be construed to be "trustworthy or authoritative" according to WP:RS standards, but perhaps I'm not familiar enough with Pandora to make this judgment.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I will also add that the above discussion about whether you think Wikipedians or All Music Guide Editors or sheet music transcribers are qualified to identify time signatures correctly is an absolute red herring. Cited sources don't equal universal truth.... that's one of the reason why we cite things in the first place; we don't state what is; we merely reference and summarize what others (whom we've identified to be reliable according to our encylopedia's guidelines... not according to your personal analysis of an author's credentials) have already published. If you can show that one of the reliable sources in an article contains a factual error, please provide an alternative or additional source stating the contrary.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the qualifications discussion pertained to whether a source was reliable or not, so I don't think it's a red herring. Anon contends that we can't trust the work of those without a music degree, while I contend that the sources they produce are reliable by virtue of these writers having been recognized as music experts, and the editorial oversight process involved, regardless of what degrees the writers may or may not have.

Regarding the Pandora music service: I was of the opinion that the source was unreliable too, but don't let the "blog" in its website URL fool you. I changed my mind about this source after reading this article. Pandora's music "genome project" is headed by Nolan Gasser, who has a PhD in musicology, is described by a reliable source as the "rarest of musical prodigies," has conducting experience, has performed as a professional musician with some notable artists, and is a recognized expert in renaissance, jazz, and pop music. The article describes his job this way: "He deployed that eclecticism to crack the DNA of just about every musical genre, deconstructing the hundreds of traits that give each song its unique signature, from basic building-block genes like the vocal timbre and harmonic language that power rock to mutant chromosomes like rap's vocal stuttering and kick-drum patterning." With someone like that supervising the project, I don't think we can dismiss the information coming out of Pandora as unreliable. Nick Graves 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is my position that a song itself is evidence of its time signature. I would liken it to determining the colour of the sky: one does not need to cite a source to say that a clear midday sky indeed appears blue. The sky discussion page has, however, been tackling this issue repeatedly with editors who believe that you need a source to claim that the sky is blue. I believe both of these are cases of overzealous editors looking to fix what is not broken. A time signature is factual and indisputable and is not subject to interpretation. It does not require an expert to determine the time signature of a piece. All classical pieces are written as a score with a verifiable time signature. I do not believe the conversion to musical form obscures this time signature enough that it can only be observed by an expert.

However, if determining a time signature did require expert knowledge (and it is my contention that it does not), I believe that we should be seeking expert sources and not journalists with English degrees who enjoy their pop music, and I question whether they can even be considered more reliable than the average Wikipedia editor. I do not believe WP:V is meant to say "it's not my fault; he said it." Only an expert has the expert knowledge to make a judgment that requires expert knowledge. Thus, I don't believe All Music Guide and their complete lack of any music-related degrees can be considered suitable sources for the topic. --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 07:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider the song a primary source: instrument sounds recorded to a console and published on a CD could, in this context, be considered as quotable, citable, and verifiable as mouth sounds recorded by an interviewer's microphone and published on the airwaves. However, transcribing a quote from an instrument is a more specialized skill than transcribing a quote from a person; that is, it requires specialist knowledge, perhaps no more special than translation from another language, but not to be taken for granted in a layperson. The ability to count is not sufficient; one may count 6/8 as 3/4 if unaware of the difference in feel, and those aren't even unusual meters! Let a layperson try to verify the time signature of a Meshuggah track.

As to the second part, reading a score is certainly verifiable -- you may not speak the language, but the numerals look the same, and it's not hard to see whether the "fraction" is the same as listed here. I am unfamiliar with the depth and reliability of AMG and Pandora; however, it seems reasonable to me to start using them as sources unless and until it turns out that a fair number of their assertions are contradicted by other, more reliable sources. -- ShaneCarey (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How does a piece of music assert its time signature as "unusual"? Torc2 (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. It only asserts one or more time signatures. Other reliable sources are used to confirm that a time signature is unusual. Nick Graves (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A piece of music can assert its time signature as "odd" (i.e., the time signature has an odd number in it's "numerator"). It is up to the listener to decide (subjectively) whether he or she considers a time signature to be "unusual".12.25.34.2 (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And people are claiming that's not OR? That's not interpretive? Clearly this is violating WP:OR. Torc2 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Now please come on: everywhere on Wikipedia and elsewhere possibly subjective notions such as "unusual" are used, and hardly ever a reference is needed when something is clearly agreed on to be unusual. It doesn't take a musicologist to acknowledge that the time signatures 2/4, 4/4, 3/4, 6/8 are generally considered usual, and the others unusual. As far as I am concerned the idea of WP:OR is not to eliminate any such borderline subjective usage by hair-splitting over words such as unusual, but rather to prevent Wikipedia articles from getting cluttered by controversial and questionable claims that have no mainstream consensus. Joost (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the original question here is definitely YES. The whole argument about song sourcing is in complete ignorance of the fact that all music is said to be self-referenced. The idea is that if you want to find out whether "Song X" is in 22/16 time, you go out, buy a recording of the piece and count the number of beats in a bar, buy sheet music for the piece and check the time signature, ask the writer what time signature it's in, look it up on the internet or execute any number of methods to find out what time it's in. Can someone please notify the people who burned this page down that this is the case? CrazeDaze (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As written elsewhere on this talk page: I think a song's time signature can be said to be self-evident, and derivable from the music, unless there is a clear matter of disagreement or confusion about its time signature. A claim that a certain song is in a certain time signature generally needs no source other than the song itself. There are exceptions, but they can only be identified by individual cases where disagreement clearly arises. Joost (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes

Would anyone object to merging the "partial" sections into their main time signature sections? I think this would make the sections look less cluttered. Also, how about listing songs alphabetically by title, rather than by year of release? This seems the simpler and more intuitive method, at least to me. Please let me know what you think. Nick Graves (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to bring up this issue in an opposite light: the article as it stands would be better titled List of small sections of songs in time signatures that AMG editors consider to be unusual. Quite simply, the page lacks standards or direction. I would propose that we first come to some standard for how much of a song actually needs to be in a time signature. Things like "this song has 2 measures of 7/4!" are just adding bloat to the list. The work is not in 7/4; it is in 4/4 for 4 minutes with two bars of 7/4 at the end. Unless it has a significant section in a time signature (for example, Pink Floyd's Money is mostly in 7/4 with the solo in 4/4 -- it's not technically entirely in 7/4, so it should go in the partial section), it should not be listed here. I believe the inclusion of the "partial" denotation was meant to accurately include those, not to allow silly entries. I wouldn't even say Angra's Angels and Demons belongs on this list, as only the intro is partially in 7/8 (the rest of the song as well as the rest of the intro are 4/4, as you can hear for yourself if you search for "charmed angra angels demons" on YouTube without the quotes). Having songs with small sections in an unusual time signature is lovely and all, but it's rather silly to make a list of things. As for ordering, I tend to agree that chronological order is not a particularly useful way to order them as examples simply may not be forthcoming, especially when an AMG editor has to say it before it can be added. (By the way, spare me the copyright lecture on the YouTube video.) --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There are more sources cited here than just AMG, and no one has suggested that we have to wait for an AMG editor to talk about a song or time signature to include it here. I believe songs that are only partially in an unusual time signature should be denoted as such, but this can be accomplished without having to put them in a separate section--noting that fact in the entry would suffice. I am in favor of excluding songs that have only a trivial portion in an unusual time signature, but I am not sure how that distinction can be made nonarbitrarily. However, given the restriction that entries must cite reliable sources, I do not foresee including even such songs would make the list bloated or detract from it significantly. Nick Graves (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Noting that in the entry would create a really huge mess. Imagine when 75% of your entries start with "Only part, guys. Only part." Categorization is necessarily the best way to do it (this list is bound to grow to epic size again if we're allowing transcriptions to be used as sources). And by the way, those release dates need sources! --Anonymous 60.240.248.133 (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

additional 9/8

Your section on 9/8 pieces ignores the most famous classical example: Bach's JESU, JOY OF MAN'S DESIRING. And if you're listing the hymn "Blessed Assurance", you should also list "Morning has Broken". 68.32.72.248 (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Can you cite these, please? As in, find a reliable website proving them to be in those time signatures? Every version I've ever seen of "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" and "Morning Has Broken" has been either in straight 3/4, or no time signature at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm. [1] has it listed at 9/8, but [2] has 3/4. And people wonder why I objected to transcriptions. --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is often more than one right way to write a piece of music. In cases such as this, where reputable publishers choose different time signatures for the same piece, there is nothing wrong with listing the song while noting in its entry that it may be written with a different time signature. Also, in such cases, a more reliable source (such as an original score) could be used to settle the issue more definitively. Nick Graves (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I demand a source to confirm that different time signatures can be the same thing. More seriously, doesn't that kind of claim defeat the purpose of this entire page? If you want to write everything as 1/4 with absurd syncopation and nigh-illegible rhythms while claiming that emphasis is entirely a product of artist interpretation, you certainly can. Is this correct? Technically, yes. You could play the notes on the page just the same way. But similarly in that interpretation, you have eliminated time signature entirely. What we really need is a good, working definition of time signature from a reputable source with sufficient knowledge (i.e. a musicologist with a doctorate). That would hopefully lay to rest this abuse of good sense which seems to have swallowed this topic. (A short digression: you can also write music in any time signature you want if you really want to abuse the system -- it would be a complete mess to write and would require confused subdivisions, but it could be done. Convert 4/4 to 17/8 just for kicks. That doesn't mean the time signature is 17/8.)

By the way, the original page made the differentiation between simple triple 9/8 and complex 9/8. I believe the purpose of that was this exactly. Yet more evidence of the danger of applying overbroad statements beyond their context. --Anonymous 60.240.248.133 (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you get your wish. I have a doctorate in music. I have taught music theory at the university level. Here's the technical answer: a time signature is a feature of written notation, not an aspect of audible music. It makes no sense to speak of music having a time signature unless that signature is written down. What you can have with audible music is meter. We can speak of septuple and quintuple meters (and even 13-meters and so on) as being irregular ("unusual" being a value judgment), but you can notate them in multiple ways. The note value unit which corresponds to the "beat" can be pretty arbitarily assigned (in the 16th century it was typically a whole note). This entire article misuses the term "time signature" throughout. A septuple meter might be written as alternating measures of 3 and 4, so although it would still be an irregular meter, its time signatures would be very common ones. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll take you at your word on your credentials, but I believe writing the meter signature (semantics!) in such a way is rather counterproductive. In reading music, the time signature indicates the meter. What is intrinsic in the piece is its meter, which can be simple or compound and does depend on strong-weak emphasis / metric accents (Materials and Structure of Music, Volume I, Second Edition, 1972, and Paul Hindemith's Elementary Training for Musicians, second edition, 1949). So, if you prefer, we can retitle the page to "unusual meters" which would resolve that issue rather quickly. I personally see no need to do so as I see it as an issue of semantics (there are good and bad ways to write or transcribe music, and while you can use a bad way and still be technically correct, you may also find yourself looking for a new job).

On an interesting note, the Complete Idiot's Guide to Music Theory (it's not mine) actually noted Take Five as its example of 5/4 time. It also gives a list of the "more common" time signatures, which are 3 to 9 over 4 and 1 to 9 over 8 (obviously, they're looking at a higher threshold for what is common). Hindemith refers to 2/4, 3/4, and 4/4 as "simple meter". --Anonymous 24.98.234.43 (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Simple meter" is the antonym of "compound meter" e.g. 6/8, which has a triple subdivision of the beat. Whether using one method or another to transcribe music is a good idea or a bad one isn't relevant here; it suffices to say that there are multiple ways to do it. If you look at the previous versions of this page you'll note that there were sections on 23/4 and 31/16 and so on; we could all agree that breaking those into smaller measures would make it easier to read. But the point is that listening to the music doesn't determine what time signature (or meter signature) is used to notate it; just one which could be used to notate it. And that's OR. Requiring printed notation as a source (easily available for Take Five) is an approach much more in line with Wikipedia's goals.

Retitling the page, though a welcome idea, wouldn't really solve the problem; how do you determine whether 31-tuple meter is really a meter or is just common time with a dropped beat every 8 measures? Our life will be easier if we opt for bright lines of demarcation with no judgment calls required, which a requirement for printed (not just aural) documentation satisfies. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that would be a good idea as it would save us the fragmentation of the sections by denominator. Use "in 7" or "in 9" rather than 7/8 and 7/4 or 9/8 and 9/4 sections (which are as much OR as you can get, since the sources are not very apt to know the intended signature either). I would liken it to a Cartesian coordinate system, which is always superimposed but represents real distances. If a signature is superimposed (like a coordinate system), then only the original author can give you a reliable one, so the title is technically incorrect for all of our sources because they set the scale rather than ascertain it (i.e. they just guess at the denominator for the signature). However, the relative distances are absolute, and the coordinate system only works to connect the two. So a meter can be ascertained, more or less (it is a ratio).

And there are certain instances where breaking it into smaller subdivisions would not be helpful. If it's 31/16 for 15 minutes and hundreds of measures of 16 and 15, you're not likely to switch it back and forth repeatedly unless the phrasing is really bent on that structure (e.g. a two-measure phrase forever and a day, as you might see in post-rock). But similarly, you're not going to write the intro to Symphony X's Paradise Lost in 25/8 but rather 6-6-6-7. However, the best way if you're repeating a work would be to base it on the music itself. 6-6-6-7 is not played the same way as 25/8, and it's pretty hard to make the case that the music fits the latter. Emphasis is 1-3-5 in each measure, including 7, so it could also be written as 3 measures of 3/4 and a measure of 7/8. But 25/8 implies that the strong emphasis is only on the first measure of the phrase. Of course, it's really just beating a dead horse that much of the rest of the song is in 6 with a partial triplet feel (i.e. a guitar part that plays on 1 and 4 for a 6-beat measure or the off of 2 for a 3-beat measure) as well as in 7. But looking at the old page, it says the song is in 25/8, which isn't terribly correct (and I know that I'm going to have this one swung at me as an example of the need for citations, but whatever). --Anonymous 67.187.38.109 (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Vsnares?

Venetian Snares deserves to be somewhere on this list: after all, he makes a lot of songs in odd signatures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.140.116 (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Find sources making the claim of the time signatures and add them yourself. The old page had plenty of Venetian Snares entries, but the new one tolerates only cited entries. Avoid self-published sources as well (e.g. a personal blog or website forum). --Anonymous 67.187.38.109 (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Some other songs (first post, sorry if misplaced or inappropriate)

65.93.158.214 (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Other songs I can think of that have sections in 5/4: The intro to Cream's White Room. King Crimson's 21st Century Schizoid Man (April Wine's version as well...). April Wine's I Like To Rock (The main riff repeats with an added beat in one measure). 67.68.184.119 (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Same guy, changed 'time' for 'beat'