Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Are these sources reliable?

Please let me know what you'd think of the following citations:

• "Searching for Lambs" http://www.canasg.com/zlambs.htm
• "Autopsy" www.ultimate-guitar.com/tabs/f/fairport_convention/autopsy_crd.htm

Redheylin (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first: I don't see any evidence of editorial oversight. I am unaware of whether this website is run by a reputable music publisher. Regarding the second source: It's a typical guitar tabs sight, with submissions made by Joe Schmoe, etc., whose credentials are unknown or non-existent--not any more reliable than a wiki site. Have you taken a look at WP:RS? That'll give you a good idea of what's acceptable, and what's typically not. Nick Graves (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first: I don't see any evidence of editorial oversight

Translation, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redheylin (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Do What You Like", by Ginger Baker.[3]Ref 3: a b Gutmann, Peter (2005). Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky: Symphony #6 ("Pathetique"). Retrieved on 2008-03-23. !!

Redheylin (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation of "evidence of editorial oversight" can be found on Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship, where the criteria include: (1) Material vetted by the scholarly community, such as in peer-reviewed journals or books from publishers known to exercise editorial oversight, (2) items recommended in scholarly bibliographies, and (3) a preference for signed articles over unsigned ones. Negative indicators are found under Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources, and Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources.

In this specific case, http://www.canasg.com/zlambs.htm is the website of a minor music publisher, Canasg Music, which runs up against some objections about the reliability of online sources in Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. Far better would be a citation of the published score listed on that page, which would need to be cited as a piece by Douglas Cook, and not the traditional English folksong he uses as his material, since the arrangement may have incuded rhythmic interpretations not traceable to his source (whatever that may have been).

The Ginger Baker reference to an article by Peter Gutmann about the Tchaikovsky symphony (and there is absolutely no reason for the "!!" raised eyebrows—the article does in fact mention "Do What You Like" as an example in popular music of the quintuple meter found in the Tchaikovsky symphony movement) is missing an entry in the Bibliography, which should be rectified. This should show that it was published (or, to be more precise, is copyright) not in 2005 but 2003, and is in the series Classical Notes, all by the same author. His credentials are given at Who, What, Why . . .. His profession as an attorney specializing in broadcast regulation and transactions is of course regulated by the bar, and so may be regarded as being at expert level for that field, but this is not pertinent to his musical knowledge. I have to say that his regular music columns for Goldmine and Legal Times do not impress me as particularly reassuring in terms of musical knowledge. He does not say that he has a degree in music, or even any musical training at all, let alone a publishing track record in peer-reviewed journals or the like. The somewhat tenuous journalism background may grant him some credibility under Wikipedia:RS#News_organization, but a more reliable source would be desirable.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks again for the responses. Partly here I am myself trying to come to some overall personal understanding of acceptable sources and the area between POV, editorial decision and original research. I can say that I have found the use of non-text sources elsewhere on Wiki, and have as yet found no notice of prohibition, though that does not mean it is right.

Really, as I said, the difficulty is that I can find no consistency in the editorial policy, and the person who made the decision has not undertaken by any means to discuss it. There is nowhere any statement of criteria to follow, so inclusion or exclusion seems to depend on little more than whim, so far, which obviously is not NPOV.

For instance, the answer above suggests that peer-reviewed articles are the best source, but does not attempt to account for this rule being broken in respect of Bartok, Ginger Baker or The Beatles. Nobody has removed these, yet nobody has upheld my entry either. This looks like inconsistent editorial policy on unstated grounds.

I have not received any clarification of the reference "Bartok 1940" and how it differs from my Vaughan-Williams citation. A piece of music is not an article, it does not get "peer-review" in the sense you mean - and we are talking about pieces of music. You write;

"His profession as an attorney specializing in broadcast regulation and transactions is of course regulated by the bar, and so may be regarded as being at expert level for that field, but this is not pertinent to his musical knowledge."

Quite. This must be the well-known "tyranny of the bar line".

"the arrangement may have incuded rhythmic interpretations not traceable to his source (whatever that may have been"

"Searching for Lambs" is a variant of the tune I first cited "This is the truth sent from above"; it is widely attested both by field-recording and the transcriptions of Cecil Sharp and others. It is interesting to note that in neither case does the lyric metre require a 5/4 rhythm - melisma is used. Obviously this has important implications for the usage of 5/4 in British popular music, and this is why it would be good to extend towards these sources the same interest that has been extended to Bartok's use of Balkan dance music.

But as things stand, the decisions made seem as opaque as the Soviet Kremlin. Your patient explanation of the criteria as they at present stand in your actual article would be appreciated.

Redheylin (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

NB remark above; "like a score, for example, which would trump Grove. All I have been able to turn up online...."

http://www.folkinfo.org/songs/displaysong.php?songid=100

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6x6KkHpixjAC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=%22this+is+the+truth+sent+from+above%22+five+vaughan+williams+collected&source=web&ots=npOomNLe8j&sig=LNpoKiwEsV4zsRG8xzVsUwMuRxY&hl=en

Redheylin (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing the query about the "Bartók 1940" reference before but, obviously, this is a score. The time signatures are there for all to see. I see no reference to Vaughan Williams (hyphenated or not), either in the article or on this talk page up to this point, but if it is a published score or music example in a book, it would be a perfectly reliable source, in my opinion. The citation you now offer, to Paul McDowell and Kenneth MacKinnon's A Book of Folk Carols would, I think, also be an unimpeachable source. The same would be true for any of Cecil Sharp's many collections (provided, of course, that the usual publication details are included). I personally would rate the Folk-Info website lower, on the grounds put forth in Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship (unsigned article) and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples (preferance for print sources over web pages), but would not rule it out in the absence of anything better. However, it cites its own source as being "Sharp, C (ed),1916, One Hundred English Folksongs, Boston, Oliver Ditson Co", which would be the source to cite (with a little cleanup of the formatting, and addition of the page on which the trnscription appears).

"This must be the well-known "tyranny of the bar line". GROAN! (Remarks like this should be barred.)

"criteria as they at present stand in your actual article . . ." Let me correct a misapprehension: this is not "my" article. In fact, I only first stumbled across it a couple of months ago, well after the cite-sources policy had been established. I have added a number of items to it (all with source references, of course), and have made other edits, including deletions of good-faith but unsourced additions, but I am just one of many editors contributing to this article, and not even the most active.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Another response: The type and quality of sources available varies widely, and is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There is no way to state definitively what constitutes a reliable source, due to this variety. Furthermore, different editors are going to disagree on whether a certain source is reliable enough to be cited. Orginal scores are the ideal source. If you cited that for anything, no one would object. Obviously, original scores are not available for all pieces, and never even existed for several songs (particularly folk songs and pop songs). Analyses made by music experts in peer-reviewed publications are a step down, yet still nearly unimpeachable as sources. Liner notes are also deemed pretty reliable. After that, we get into the "good enough for now" category. They're not the best sources, but we'll take them unless and until something better can be found. In this category are transcriptions made by reputable music publishers, and analyses made by (probably non-degreed) persons for publications with adequate editorial oversight. Below that are the sources that will typically be regarded as not good enough: personal websites, guitar tabs sites, wikis, blogs, fansites, etc. A rule of thumb I use is this: If it has "blog" or a tilde (~) in the URL, has a bunch of pop-ups, or the site design seems a little sketchy, it's probably not a reliable source.

You will find a lot of articles on Wikipedia have been edited by those who aren't sticklers for having all material reliably sourced. It's a huge project open to editing by anyone, so that's to be expected. Still, policy calls for sourcing, and it's especially important in a list such as this, which can quickly get out of hand unless reliable sources are insisted upon for each entry. Those unsourced lists will never attain featured status in the state they're in, and they are frequently deleted. The stance taken by editors of this article certainly slows the pace of contributions, but it helps assure the quality of the list. Nick Graves (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick Graves: Thanks for that; I am glad that my question has drawn a considered response, which I trust will be modified by other contributors either now or never. Previous answers appeared to reserve decisions more to an unseen band possessed of some inscrutable magic power of discrimination. Still, however, I feel that many controversies might be dissolved by further discussion as to what constitutes a "time-signature" and the various means by which irregularities may arise. Points have been raised in the archives - such as the implications of the idea of "swing-time" and the considerable crossover with irregular phrase-length, that have not adequately been tackled. For example, Lennon's "Good Morning, Good Morning" which has an asymmetric ten-beat line; Lennon himself simply did not care how some arranger eventually would divide it up, and we cannot access the brass score.

Now, the point is; I am in possession of an impeccably-qualified textbook that asserts that rhythm cannot be divorced from the pattern of harmonic shifts and, on this basis, flatly asserts that Beethoven sometimes got his own time-signatures wrong.

Jerome Kohl, my use of "you" was plural, signifying the strangely silent remover of the Vaughan Williams citation as much as the hander-down of final judgment without appeal; the reference itself is, of course, still present in the history. In the course of this I mentioned that a date of composition (Bartok) is not a reference, otherwise the mere date of the Fantasia suffices even without view of the score.

You say that such remarks should be barred, but I cannot agree; they must needs occasionally be tolerated, though they may indeed be viewed as an irregular measure.

I further point out that Wiki specifically lists popular music as a matter of verifiable common knowledge that need not be erased if it be unquestioned. This does seem to include recordings as possible sources.

Redheylin (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Orginal scores are the ideal source.":

I'd go much further than that. Since time signatures (in contradistinction to musical groupings) are strictly a matter of notation, original scores and and sources that refer to original scores are the only valid sources. No piece is "in" a time signature.

Re: "Now, the point is; I am in possession of an impeccably-qualified textbook that asserts that rhythm cannot be divorced from the pattern of harmonic shifts and, on this basis, flatly asserts that Beethoven sometimes got his own time-signatures wrong.:

I'm not sure how that can be the point, although it may help to illustrate some point--in this case I'm not sure what. It would be helpful if you would actually name this textbook. In any case, harmonic rhythm in the common practice period was clearly an important part of rhythm overall and would tend to influence rhythmic notation. On the other hand, there is no "right and wrong" in respect to time signatures--time signatures are strictly a convenience for the performer; they are not obliged to describe accurately and consistently what is happening in the music, and unlike dynamic and articulation markings, and so on, they are not instructions for the performer. TheScotch (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And the point of this list is?

Why should this article be considered necessary? TheScotch (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was left with after scanning the article. Its entire premise is POV. --It does state the unusual in the 'western' sense aspect, but why does it have to be an encyclopedia about each meter and the songs that 'go with it'. I'm especially amazed at the inclusion of folk-inspired classical works (proto "world music"). Maybe people still find it fascinating that it's possible to write music in something other than 3/4 and 4/4. I now will look for an article on "music in unusual keys/modes" and marvel at all the songs not in C Major. :) Just another strange OCD corner of the internet, i guess. Beetlecat (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It probably is "an encyclopedia about each meter and the songs that 'go with it" because it is a list, rather than an article. Many of the lists on Wikipedia are pointless, and have a tendency to turn from notability to trivia very quickly. BTW, here is the article you seek: Music in unusual keys/modes. Enjoy ;-) —Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed when I started this section that this article (or list--whatever it is) had already at one point been nominated for deletion. I suppose it's an old argument now. I'm still going to insist, however, that it either confine itself to actual time signatures (in contradistinction to audible rhythmic groupings) or else change its name. TheScotch (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If one is interested in studying the use of meter one may presume this list would be a handy reference to songs which use less common meters. Hyacinth (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone comes from rich musical backgrounds. Some would find this a handy reference if their introduction to music was the radio or popular music. As they branch off they are not going to intrinsically know about this sort of thing. 208.49.182.106 (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. There seems to much arguing on this page about what a "time signature" is, and the exclusion of songs that don't "have" one (i.e. aren't scored out, regardless of how obvious the meter is). If we're talking strictly scored pieces, then this article is completely pointless, as official scores are quite rare for modern popular pieces, meaning we can't reliably create this list for anything not considered "Classical" music! A page for "list of music works in unusual metres" would be much more appropriate. --Djbon2112 (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What meter is not.

Since this article appears to be founded on a misapprehension, it seems to me worthwhile to quote Walter Piston on the question at some length. This is from his Counterpoint, pages 26 and 27:

"In itself meter has no rhythm. It is simply a means of measuring music, principally for purposes of keeping time, and as an aid in playing or singing together in ensemble music. In placing bar-lines to apply our units of measurement to the music, we select, as far as we can, points where the music seems to have the feeling of an initial pulse. That we find this easy to do, with units of two and three beats, is due to the fact that a large amount of music is regular in pulse, and so we are deceived into assuming that the meter itself is rhythmic...." TheScotch (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Piston says essentially the same thing in his Harmony. He doesn't quite equate "meter" with "time signature", but comes close. However, this is just one of two definitions. New Grove has:

(1) A synonym for Time signature as in ‘6/8 metre’.

(2) More generally, the temporal hierarchy of subdivisions, beats and bars that is maintained by performers and inferred by listeners which functions as a dynamic temporal framework for the production and comprehension of musical durations. In this sense, metre is more an aspect of the behaviour of performers and listeners than an aspect of the music itself.

It is the blurring of these two senses that is at the root of the disagreements about this list. The 'temporal hierarchy' of a 9/8 measure divided as 3/4 + 3/8 is substantially different from the 'normal' 9/8 of 3/8 + 3/8 + 3/8, as the hapless timpanist I once witnessed in an orchestra rehearsal would gladly attest. The work being rehearsed was Ginastera's Estancia ballet suite, and the problematic passage started at the ninth bar of "Los peones de hacienda", which is marked "9/8 (3/4 - 3/8)". At this point the timpani part plays steady eighth notes: C-G-C-G-C-G-C-G-G, so there is really no chance of error, but the conductor (who was not very good at this sort of rhythm, but not the sort of person you could correct in front of the orchestra) was beating time furiously, and shouting: "One, two, three, one-two-three! One, two, three, one-two-three!", not realising that at the end of each bar he was adding in an eighth-note's value, so: "One (and), two (and), three (and), one-two-three (and)", thereby extending the bar to simple quintuple (5/4) time. Naturally, he blamed the timpanist (not to mention the second violins, who play a steady sixteenth-note accompanimental figure straight through this passage) for not being able to count!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"[...]beats and bars that is maintained by performers and inferred by listeners which functions as a dynamic temporal framework for the production and comprehension of musical durations. In this sense, metre is more an aspect of the behaviour of performers and listeners than an aspect of the music itself." In other words, meter is an aspect of the performance" and its perception. Thus, pieces played with a metric feel have a meter.71.161.100.42 (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Depending what happens before and after, it may have been better if Ginastera had notated this as a normal 9/8, with all eighth notes beamed in groups of three. That way the conductor could beat even dotted quarter notes and not have to wear out his arm or his lungs. The pitch groupings will take of themselves. One of my teachers used to say (quoting one of his teachers), "[When notating music] keep the theory to yourself."

The Piston Counterpoint and Orchestration books are still published in their first editions, whereas the Piston Harmony book has been through many editions, the ones co-written by Mark Devoto radically different. Thus I tend to avoid quoting Piston's Harmony to avoid confusion, although I consider the first edition superior in most respects to every other Harmony textbook I've examined--which doesn't mean I would recommend it (were it still available) as a primary text for teaching; from a practical standpoint it's just too condensed.

Ad rem, however: A term that can mean--and commonly means--precisely the thing we want to use it to distinguish it from--Grove's (1)--is a compromised term, and, as we've seen, even Grove's (2) is disputed. TheScotch (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding it may have been better if Ginastera had notated this as a normal 9/8, of course there was nothing preventing that conductor from beating in an ordinary three-to-a-bar—except maybe pride. There is a story that Eugene Ormandy had his assistant conductor William Smith copy out the entire score of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, entirely in 4/4 time, because he (Ormandy) could not manage the constantly changing time signatures. The orchestra, of course, used the published parts and just ignored the conductor's downbeats, and Ormandy was still able to give cues and shaping gestures. Still, it must have been an interesting sight.

About the Piston Harmony book has been through many editions: Sure, and you can always quote from whatever edition you prefer. If you are asking me which one I checked to verify Piston's opinion, it was the second edition.

Finally, I'm not sure what term we ought to use in place of Grove's "metre (2)", but the concept is certainly accepted almost universally, even by Piston. Do you have a better word in mind? (While we're at it, maybe we can find better terminology to distinguish the different musical senses of "tonality", "cadence", "serialism", and "flute".)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Piston is clearly saying that meter is a matter of notation, not rhythm. One can get away with using meter to mean rhythmic grouping where one isn't specifically attempting to distinguish time signature and rhythmic grouping, but here we are specifically attempting to do that. The term I "have in mind" is the term I've been using all along: grouping. The different senses of tonality and so on are entirely irrelevant to the argument.

There are various passages in the Rite in which a perfectly ordinary rhythm is written in a perversely unordinary way. Although I've never been involved in any performance of the piece, I've read that it's quite common for conductors to renotate it--one way or another. There may have been nothing "preventing that conductor from beating [the Ginastera] in an ordinary three-to-a-bar", but if the piece is notated as you suggest, there is at least something discouraging him from doing so. I should think he'd at least warn the musicians ahead of time, so they would know what his beating is intended to represent. (I hope you aren't suggesting the players should "just ignore" the conductor here--or anywhere else, for that matter.)

The point about Harmony is that the Devoto editions are essentially different books entirely from the Piston editions--and, in my opinion, greatly inferior. TheScotch (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

3/32

3/32 is uncommon, but is it truly unusual in the sense of the other time signatures on this page? — Robert Greer 03:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. (See discussion with Nick Graves, above. He insisted that this, as well as the 12/1 example, needed adding.) See also the definition of "unusual time signature" at the head of the article. Any time signature not conforming to those specific examples are, ipso facto, "unusual".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Since in ordinary usage the term unusual is a matter of degree, I don't think we have to be quite so ipso facto about it; we can simply say that 3/32 happens to be a time signature unusual enough for this article to discuss. I have to say the pseudo-mathematical definition we're using now seems a bit fussy and silly. If we're going to have to show the "replacement set" of "x" anyway, it seems to me we can save words by eliminating x altogether and just say this article concerns itself with all (traditionally constructed) time signatures that don't have a top numeral of either 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, or 12 and a bottom numeral of either 2, 4, 8, or 16. TheScotch (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To return to the original question: 3/32 is a rare time signature, that is, a time signature that doesn't often appear (at least in my experience). The grouping implied (and only implied) by 3/32, on the other hand, is extremely common. Is 3/32 then "unusual in the sense of the other time signatures on this page"? Beats (so to speak) me: I can't read the minds of the contributors. TheScotch (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not adamant about keeping the article as currently named. If you review the discussion, you will find that I did suggest renaming it to something like List of musical works in unusual meters or time signatures. 3/32 and 12/1 are certainly unusual in a different way from the other time signatures listed. Why would that be a problem? Nick Graves (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody played, looked at the sheet music or listened to a recording of the Lilliputsche Chaconne, the sole 3/32 entry? — Robert Greer 00:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not a violinist, but I have nevertheless played through this piece, as well as the other parts of Telemann's Intrada, nebst burlesquer Suite (Telemann's original title, found in his 1728 edition of Der getreue Musikmeister). Obviously, therefore, I have seen the sheet music—I own copies of both the modern edition from Bärenreiter in the Hortus Musicus series, and the facsimile from Musica Musica of Telemann's original edition—as documented in the Bibliography of the present list. Anyone who owns one of the old Melodiya LPs marketed in the West between about 1965 and 1985 will also have seen this piece, as Telemann's engraving was used as a standard background on all of their covers (though it was never identified as such on those record sleeves). As to a recording, Andrew Manze and Caroline Balding have recorded it (under the title Gulliver Suite for Two Violins, which is the title provided by the editor of the Bärenreiter edition) on Harmonia Mundi CD 907137, as a filler on Manze's recording of all twelve Fantasias for solo violin. I have listened to this recording on numerous occasions. The "Intrada" and "Lilliputsche Chaconne" from this same recording have been excerpted on the Manze sampler CD, Harmonia Mundi 2907278. It was also once recorded on disc 4 of a 4-CD Deutsche Gramophon set, catalog #4761852, of the complete getreue Musikmeister, performed by the Ulsamer Consort. I cannot recall ever having heard this recording myself, nor the 2006 Dahiz Productions CD titled Los viales de Gulliver (y otras visiones extremas del Barroco), by the Grupo de musica barroca La Folia, directed by Pedro Bonet. Why do you ask? Did you think I made this up?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all: quite the contrary! I doubt that some of the other people writing about this know the piece. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"3/32 and 12/1 are certainly unusual in a different way from the other time signatures listed. ":

You must be using the term certainly "in a different way". The time signatures 3/32 and 12/1 are unusual in that they appear less often than, say, 4/4 and 6/8. The time signatures 5/4 and 7/8 are also unusual in that they appear less often than 4/4 and 6/8. This is the same way.

Re: "If you review the discussion, you will find that I did suggest renaming it to something like List of musical works in unusual meters or time signatures. Why would that be a problem?":

There are several problems: 1) Your suggested title is ambiguous because meter is very commonly used as a synonym for time signature. 2) Your suggested title is POV because certain very influential and esteemed music theorists (see the Walter Piston quote in the above section) don't recognize a distinction between the terms in any musical sense of the former. (These theorists obviously have etymology on their side--and, in my opinion, they have logic and common sense on their side as well.) 3) Your suggested title is rather like naming a Wikipedia article "List of apples and oranges". TheScotch (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

12/16

How about 12/16, which appears in the B minor Bach flute sonata? —Wahoofive (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

defined as "normal" in the article's first paragraph, which specifies as normal: "compound time signatures with top numerals of 6, 9, or 12 and bottom numerals 4, 8, or 16"—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research?

This article is going to get nowhere if original research isn't allowed. If a song is blatantly in 5/8 or something, and this is agreed on by everyone, why should a source be needed? It's not like the time signature of a song can be disputed. It's like saying we need a source for the fact that bananas are yellow. -70.105.161.188 (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good point and I think this is a case of wikipedia editors being strict to the point of absurdity. A lot of good examples have been removed, and I just think it's a shame that a song that might, for example, be a prime example of the use of 29/16 isn't included, just because it was never written on paper. Surely we can all count, and surely there is room for SOME ambiguity as to wether it was really 29/16, 29/8 or even 15/16 + 7/8. I don't even think finding a time signature is "research", rather than a choice of representation.84.238.115.158 (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm so glad you brought up that example, because if you read Banana you'll see: "Bananas come in a variety of sizes and colors when ripe, including yellow, purple and red." Furthermore, they're green and also brown/black at various points in their existence. It's an excellent example for why we need reliable sources and not just guesses. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that songs are in time signatures is just as much of a "guess" as bananas being yellow are (and don't run with that example; I made it up on the spot). -70.105.161.188 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's no excuse--and if you've never seen a green banana, you've likely never been to a grocery store either. Bananas are a curious thing; there're really only good for a day or two. After that it's banana bread or feed them to your pet monkey.

In any case, no "song" or other piece of music is "in" any time signature. A time signature is a thing written on paper. We can determine the time signature only by examining the score. All entries here should be referenced to a score, and where no score exists, no entry should either. TheScotch (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as a music major, I find that to be completely idiotic. Meter is a measure of pulse and the length of groupings of notes. While it is entirely subjective what a person wants to use as the "note that gets the beat," a song with chord changes every 5 beats is obviously in 5/(something). It is widely accepted that nearly ALL songs have meter. It is one thing for you to express your opinion, but it is another entirely to make claims based on one that is extremely unpopular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.100.42 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, too. Have you looked at the article title? Where does it refer to "meter"? I say this reluctantly, because I was taken to task a year or more ago for suggesting that the article ought to be changed to "List of musical works in unusual meters", or something similar. As things stand, there are many examples still in this list that do not really quite qualify, because the sources in fact only verify their meters (that is, "quintuple", "5 + 7 + 3" etc.), but do not establish how they are written (if at all).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wahoofive that sources are necessary, not only practically, but because it is Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought".

I also agree with TheScotch that time signatures, also known as meter signatures, are written conveniences indicating the probable prevalent meter for a piece or passage of music. However, that also means that pieces may be notated in different ways and often are, for example, by different publishers.

Lastly, please note that an appropriate source may be found which comments on the meter or time signature of a piece which has or has not been notated and thus musical notation is not the only source for time signatures.

Hyacinth (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well what about modes? Modes are hardly ever even written on paper, so who are we to determine what mode a song is? What note a song resolves to can be disputed, even if it's blatant. Time signatures are much more apparent than modes anyway. So what's allowing us to do original research on modes and not on time signatures? I think they fall into the same category. -70.105.161.188 (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the term time signature appears in the title of this article, it's reasonable to assume the article concerns time signatures. Since time signatures are strictly a matter of notation, only notated pieces can have them. TheScotch (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That is original research. Further than that, it appear to me that you are saying that pieces which are not notated do not have meter. Hyacinth (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that a time signature is one numeral atop another appearing toward the beginning of the staff after the clef and the key signature. You don't think I can find five zillion sources that corroborate this? As far as not having "meter" goes, it rather depends in what sense you mean "meter". TheScotch (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What about 9/8? Either the pieces are notated in 9/8, in which case by your criteria they do not belong on the list, or they are notated in, for example, 2+2+2+3/8 (or 9/8 (2+2+2+3/8), which appears to be a separate case altogether) and do not belong in the 9/8 section. Hyacinth (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

They don't belong on the list (that is, in the article), and not just by "my criteria", but also by the definition of unusual the article proffers in its first paragraph. I've pointed this out already on this discussion page; it might save time and space if you'd go over the whole thing before posting further (which is not to say I particularly mind repeating myself). TheScotch (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Obvious deductions

I would argue that the determination of the time signature expressing the meter of some specific pieces would not be original research. These determinations would be obvious deductions per Wikipedia:These are not original research#Obvious deductions. For example, rock songs which began with the drummer counting out, "One, two, three, four!" are obviously in 4/4 (and easily excluded from the list).
The number of pieces whose unusual time signatures which could not be documented by sources and could be determined by obvious deductions such as listed above would be extremely small, and all specific claims that something is common knowledge may be checked against Wikipedia:Common knowledge.
I am arguing that one must, when presenting a piece for the list without a source, also present why it would obviously be notated in that time signature. Hyacinth (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's flat impossible, Hyacinth. If you think a piece is "obviously" in 5/8, it's equally "obviously" in 5/4 or alternating measures of 3/8 and 2/8, or even in 10/8. We've already been through this argument a million times. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And yet people keep bringing it up. I'm trying to frame the debate differently by referring to Wikipedia policies and essays for criteria, rather than pulling them from the air as you appear to like to do. Hyacinth (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In your example it would still be easily and obviously determined that a piece is obviously "in" one of two "unusual" time signatures, and that the piece does belong on the list. Hyacinth (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that we currently list, for example, all pieces in five together in one list. As such I do not see why it need be determined which specific time signature a piece would be notated in if published. Why? If this it is so important should we separate the specific time signatures? Hyacinth (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "In your example it would still be easily and obviously determined that a piece is obviously "in" one of two "unusual" time signatures....":

Really? I count four--1) 5/8, 2) 5/4, 3) 3/8:2/8, 4) 10/8--and I think the implication is that 5/16 and so on would work equally well. Even if we could say categorically that the time signature would have to be "unusual" (and there happens to be no case where we could), the structure of the article still requires us to say what time signature in particular appears in the score. The reason that there is no case where we could is that the piece would sound precisely the same if it were written with a 4/4 time signature, and there are plenty of cases where a 4/4 time signature for a grouping of five beats would actually be the best course for the transcriber, arranger, or composer to take. You can't hear a time signature. TheScotch (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Some theorists refer to time signatures as meter signatures. Any performer knows that a piece would not sound the same if it where notated differently, that is why you would notate it differently. Hyacinth (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but with respect to time signatures and measures this is dead wrong--dangerously wrong, in fact. Time signatures and measure lines, unlike dynamic markings and so on, are not instructions. I've said this elsewhere on this discussion page, but I suppose it bears repeating: Measures measure out sections of equal duration (hence the name), and time signatures say what that duration is. Because it often makes sense to have these sections correspond to the prevailing grouping of the piece, time signatures also tend to imply (but only imply) groupings. I think we can say categorically that a performer who accents dynamically the beginning of a measure only because it is the beginning of a measure is a very bad performer (and likely a very misinformed performer as well). TheScotch (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Some theorists refer to time signatures as meter signatures.":

And as has also been pointed out elsewhere on this page, meter itself in one of its very common senses is synonymous with time signature: a thing written on a piece of paper. Meter simply means measure. TheScotch (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You both don't seem to be able to handle proposals without panic. Hyacinth (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Panic? You're proposing that the assertion that some pieces are in a certain time signature is as obvious as 2+2=4 (the example in the guideline you referenced), and I just pointed out its inapplicability. The word "obvious" is very irritating since we've had legions of editors put songs on here saying things like "it's obviously in 17/4 -- all you have to do is listen to it". It's exactly to get rid of that idea of "obviousness" that this page has gone through so many changes recently. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

One may consider those changes bad or good. Hyacinth (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (1)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Old requested move

I propose that this article be moved to "List of musical works notated in unusual time signatures" because of arguments above. Hyacinth (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think the notated would be redundant, but I suppose it may be nevertheless unfortunately necessary. I still have to object to the in, though. I think this is the wrong preposition and that with would be better. TheScotch (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Hyacinth (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Are you seriously proposing to erase all contemporary entries, which are typically non-notated, even though some have references? (The page doesn't seem to serve much purpose anyway, other than giving you chaps a place to argue...) 81.98.251.134 (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If "the page", by which I take it you mean the article, serves little purpose, why should you care? What actual harm would it do to remove a great swath of the irrelevant matter in this irrelevant article?

Presumably by contemporary you mean modern, a usage to which Fowler takes great exception, the supposition presumably being that music is no longer notated and that the tradition of classical music ended with, say, Chopin (a refreshingly unostentatious rhythmic innovator, by the way). These suppositions are, of course, quite erroneous. TheScotch (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, you're right, I probably shouldn't have used the word "contemporary", sorry. I'm well aware that notation didn't end with Chopin. My point was that Brubeck's "Take Five" is not a notated work, but it is one of the most famous works that, as many would say, is "in an unusual time signature". (Admittedly, "irregular meter" would be a more careful description.)

(My comment about the article being "irrelevant" wasn't entirely serious. It's unlikely to be deleted, so I think it's sensible to get it right.)128.232.13.13 (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think Brubeck's "Take Five" isn't notated, the same way Paul Desmond's identically titled piece, and Brubeck's "Blue Rondo alla Turk" are? Just because you have never seen the score doesn't mean there is none. As to "contemporary" vs "modern", I'm with Fowler (whoever he may be) on this one. "Modern" is far too loose a term, potentially implying not so much post-Chopin as post-Monteverdi, thereby encompassing the entire period in which time signatures have been used.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing Fowler (written 1926) as a yardstick for terms like "modern" and "contemporary" seems a bit, ah, archaic?

Oh, and I have a printed score of Blue Rondo (publ. Hansen House) which shows the signature as 2+2+2+3/8. However, there are some 4/4 bars mixed in. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right, I suppose Take Five is "notated" in the real book. But should it be listed here for that reason, or because both the sleeve notes and the Grove say that it's in five? 128.232.1.193 (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both, all three.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No. If your reference is specifically to the Real Book transcription, rather than to the piece itself, then the Real Book transcription is a valid source; otherwise it isn't. If your reference is specifically to the arrangement which appears in the book I refer to in the "9/8" section of this discussion page, rather than to the piece itself or to the Real Book transcription, then this book is a valid sourse; otherwise it isn't. Paul Desmond may have jotted something down when he composed the piece--very likely he did. If your reference is to the piece itself then what Desmond jotted down is a valid source, and good luck finding it.

Re: "As to 'contemporary' vs 'modern', I'm with Fowler (whoever he may be) on this one. "Modern" is far too loose a term, potentially implying not so much post-Chopin as post-Monteverdi, thereby encompassing the entire period in which time signatures have been used.":

Henry Fowler is the extremely famous author of Modern English Usage, the second edition of which is to this very second in wide circulation and wide use. He is also the co-author of The King's English, still in print and very easy to obtain.

How far back modern is intended to extend has to inferred from the context in which it is used, and that is by no means a failing of the term or a reason to avoid it. What is contemporary refers to what exists simultaneously with whatever is being referenced. Goethe was a contemporary of Beethoven. Contemporary critics tended to be taken aback by Beethoven's third symphony. Fowler contends that contemporary should not be used as a synonym for modern because the more it is used thus the harder it is to use the term properly and be understood; the language is thereby diminished. Since modern already means modern, modern is the term to use when you want to mean modern. TheScotch (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose — The title is awkward enough the way it is. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

What pieces would be lost if the above change was made? Would any? Hyacinth (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

" ${{3{{2} \over {2}}} \over {4}}$ " 3 2/2 over 4

${{3{{2} \over {2}}} \over {4}}$ Wow... can someone explain that to me? Is that not just 4/4, or what? ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a list of works in unusual time signatures, it seems a very appropriate entry, wouldn't you say? As the citation in the footnote says, this "nonsensical time signature [is] an apparent allusion to the Laputians’ love for, and incompetence in, mathematics". Working out the maths, it does in fact reduce to either 4/4 or 2/2 (the editor of the modern edition failed to get Telemann's joke, and assumed the "2/2" part was simply a correction of a previously engraved 3/4).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, that's fantastic. Gotta' love some of the crazier things done with time signtaures :P ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Um...a time signature is not a fraction. We put the virgule in, say, 4/4, when writing it thus because we either lack the facility to write one numeral atop the other or can't be bothered to hunt down the appropriate html code. TheScotch (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, and I accept the failing mark in HTML typesetting 101. I've done my best, which is obviously not good enough. Instead of complaining about it, why don't you fix it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize this actually appeared in the article itself. Anyway, I think the article should be consistent in form. If it's going to use 4/4, for example, then the above might be rendered ${3{{2} \over {2}}}$/4. (Supposedly the <atop> tag should do the trick, but I can't seem to make it work here.) TheScotch (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. It hadn't occurred to me that all of the other section headers use the virgule format. In this particular case, Telemann does in fact use the fraction separator in the "2/2" part of the signature. I've tried a few options out, but nothing seems to improve on the math format.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Solsbury Hill

This song should be listed in "partially in 7/4" as each chorus has two 4/4 bars, but I can't find any sources to confirm this. Can anyone else find any information on this? Spell4yr (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you listen really carefully, you'll find that the solid crotchet bass drum beat only lines up with the rest of the song every *other* phrase. Therefore, it's in an odd number of quavers; my counting says 13/8, rather than 15/8. Martinb9999 (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

⅔/4

Another crazy time sig... now, I figured that ${{3{{2} \over {2}}} \over {4}}$ is essentially 4/4, but my brain can't quite get around ⅔/4... I mean, that's saying it's ⅔ of a beat, over 4. ⅔ of one beat (as in, ⅔ of 1/4) would be 2.6 (recurring) multiplied by two, so 5.3 (recurring) over 8, so 5.3/8 - right? Or have I made something far to complicated for its own good? ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Taken in context, this signature makes a little better sense. The first occurrence is preceded by a bar of 7/8 (3+2+2) and followed by a bar of 8/8 (3+2+3), the second one is preceded by a bar of 5/8 and followed by a bar of 2/4. The ⅔/4 bar in each case then consists of a duration equivalent to two triplet quavers in a context where the beat is alternating between a dotted crotchet (dotted quarter-note) at 84 to the minute and a plain crotchet at 56. Boulez supplies the supplemental metronome marking of triplet-crotchet = 126, just in case the conductor prefers to think in terms of a momentary change in tempo, rather than a proportional rhythmic relation. (Oops, indeed! I've just spotted a third instance of ⅔/4, at bar 24, surrounded by bars of 5/8. I'd better go add it to the list!) Bar 3 is in ⁴∕₃/2 time, but I'm still trying to figure out the best way of setting it, since there isn't a case fraction for 4/3 in Unicode.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Slayer - Killing Fields

The song Killing Fields, from Slayer's 1994 album Divine Intervention, contains various parts written in 5/4. It also has another part that sounds like 13/16, but may be 3/4. I found a source for it, but I'm not sure if it is a reliable one, and I would like to add this song to songs partially in 5/4.

Alreadytaken4536 (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that many of Venetian Snares are 7/4, can anyone confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.198.139 (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Unusual?

Such rhythms like 5/8, 7/8, 9/8 are the main rhythms of eastern folk dances. Should every folk song be added into this list and be called unusual, or are those rhythms only unusual for western folks?. Would calling them unusual in Wikipedia mean, Wikipedia adresses western folks? Yeah.. That was too pessimistic, but what i want to say is, this list has no point.

One page for each rhythm, and list of songs with each rhythm could be a solution. X_Kta (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what point the article has, the basis of the list has always been on shaky ground. Sources and counter-sources have been used, from all manner of publication, to debate what constitutes an "unusual" time signature. The debate has long since been abandoned to a single source which conforms to the consensus of its supporters. You are absolutely welcome to re-open the debate with a reliable source which contends that said time signatures are not unusual or you can add these folk dances with citations. Your call. I've had my fill of the debate; this page will never escape the POV and OR issues because its premise demands that you follow a specific source's opinion on the matter. The page has essentially zero chance of being satisfactorily rewritten or deleted. 83.203.130.234 (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you really feel that is the case, then please stop writing on the talk page. Go collaborate on something worthwhile. Hyacinth (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to, but old loves die hard. More importantly, it takes time to accrue proper research into why an article such as this should or should not exist. In time, I will either begin a proper AfD discussing why the article is inherently flawed or a potentially large introduction explaining the definition of what is unusual and thus a detailed rationale for the criteria of the list. In ways, the latter would be more convenient as I would inevitably be buried in an avalanche when nominating a cited list like this for deletion. --Same anon as before 83.203.178.78 (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

X-Kta, is your problem with the title or with the article? Hyacinth (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My problem is with the title. Calling a rhythym "unusual" seemed to me absurd. Being unusual is relative. When your all folk songs, even many of your pop songs are in 9/8 you wouldn't call that rhythym unusual. 9/8 is well known, at least in Turkey, and be called Thrace or Gypsy rhythym. Well... If a source is needed to prove that, I will look for it.

"The neutral point of view" has to include such things too imho.

X_Kta (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2008

X_Kta: I had the same thought. I was thinking about adding an "eastern" piece which is in 5. Unfortunately, the discussion above makes it clear they only want *notated* (i.e., western notation) music, which pretty much rules out all oral tradition. So I guess it all works out: I can't provide a citation so I can't add it, but in its own context it's not really that "unusual", either.  :-) There's a more general problem of "How do you deal with oral tradition on Wikipedia?", but that's not about to be resolved here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.40.113 (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Primus + Simple vs. Complex

If one listens to Here Come the Bastards by Primus closely, the beat is clearly compound throughout the song. This means that although there are five beats, the time signature would likely be 15/8 or 15/16 (the latter being more likely, due to the fast tempo). I'm not saying that it couldn't be notated as 5/4 using triplets or swing notation, but it should at least be mentioned that both notations are possible. A good source for this might be official sheet music, if there is any. On this same subject: There is a vast difference between works in simple 7/4 time signatures, which consist of seven simple beats of quater-note length (I.E. Dem Bones by Alice in Chains), and works in complex 7/8 time signatures, which consist of unequal subdivisions such as 2+2+3 or 2+2+2+1 (I.E. the aptly named Subdivisions by Rush, which also features 4/4 and 3/4 sections). This distinction is made in the 9/8 section, but nowhere else. This is all based on my own knowledge of music theory, but if someone knows a good source, I feel that it is a very important distinction to make and should be added. 130.58.228.135 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The same goes for, for example, Money (Pink Floyd) and All you need is love (The Beatles) which have strong triplet feel. As far as I know, all scores for these songs use 7/4 (or 4/4+3/4), with often a triplet indication. I guess it's much easier to write it down as 7/4 or 5/4 in the case of Primus. 21/8 (or 12/8+9/8) or 15/8 (or 3x 5/8) seems more complex, and I guess isn't necissary. Of course, I've never thoroughly studies these "tripled" matters. I've seen several songs written down as 4/4 (w/triplet feel) in one score and as 12/8 in another score. Sreglov 16:50, 13 may 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreglov (talk • contribs)

On "NNNAAAMMM"

I've heard quite a few internet sources state that Einstürzende Neubauten's "NNNAAAMMM" is in 9/4. Unfortunately, I can't find a single real, cite-able source for the statement, with the possible exception of a passing reference in this review. Any ideas? --Myriologist (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Vicarious

The intro to Vicarious is actually 3/8.

The reference cited also mentions that there are "rhythmic hiccups", which indeed there are.

For this reason, I think Vicarious should be in a "Partially in" section, rather than in the "5/4" section that it is.

(A bit like Money, which notes that it's solos are in 4/4, and therefore is not in the 7/4 section).

GreenAsJade (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I think the page should be moved to one of the following:

• List of musical works in asymmetrical time signatures
• List of musical works in irregular time signatures
• List of musical works in complex time signatures

The content would effectively remain the same but the context in which it is presented would be less subjective. A complex/asymmetrical/irregular time signature is a defined concept, what is usual or unusual will always be subject to someone's opinion. Complex/asymmetrical/irregular time signatures are apparently common in European folk music and Eastern popular and folk music [1], describing them as unusual is not looking at the topic from a neutral, global perspective. Guest9999 (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand I'm having a bit of trouble finding sources that clearly define complex/asymmetrical/irregular time signatures so maybe this wasn't such a good idea. Guest9999 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be right. Just thinking logically, 7/8 would be "symmetrical" if divided 2 + 3 +2, but "assymetrical" if 2 + 2 +3. "irregular" in this context might just be a synonym for "unusual", or on the other hand might refer only to such things as 3 + 3 + 2 organization of 8/8, and not to time signatures like 5/4 or 11/16. "Complex" is not standard, but could be confused with "compound" meters, like 6/8 or 12/8, and meters such as 5/4 are not complex, but simple. I suggest you withdraw this request.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The term "unusual" is common in the literature. I'm not sure irregular solves the problems you raised previously with the title. NJGW (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The content of the article now is dependent on a source that identifies exactly which time signatures are and are not unusual (or "common"). A renaming would require that we find a source or sources that specify which time signatures qualify as asymmetrical, irregular or complex. This renaming may also involve a change in content more drastic than you would imagine, depending on what is found in the sources. "Unusual" is not an entirely subjective determination, as it is objective fact that certain time signatures are much rarer than others in Western music. How rare a time signature must be to be considered unusual is a subjective determination, but I see no problem with leaving that determination to a reliable source, as the article does now. I agree with Jerome Kohl that the request ought to be withdrawn. It opens a whole new can of worms, and would not represent much or any improvement over the current list even if implemented, after much labor. 75.87.109.190 (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Sting's "I Hung My Head"

The guitar plays 5 eighth notes on the first chord, then 2 on each of the next two chords in each measure. (5 + 2 + 2.) That is not "ordinary triple compound," I'm pretty sure. Granted, it still doesn't have a "non-original-research" source and shouldn't be on the page yet. But if you're going to take something off the list, it would be nice to cite a legit reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.99.64 (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced?

If my contributions weren't sourced, why is it that the page for the song, Freewill has it on the page? If I don't hear a good explanation, I'll be putting those back up. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Has what on it's page? A link to this list? I've looked, and do not find such a link. If you mean that the article Freewill makes claims about unusual time signatures, you should be aware that another wikipedia article cannot be regarded as a Reliable source.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I totally forgot about that- I haven't been too active lately. Ah well, it's really hard to come up with decent sources for this sort of thing, because there are a lot of patently false claims made even by the bands themselves (not Rush, but some of the other bands). My bass teacher told me I was spot on with my time signature writings for Freewill, but I KNOW that's not a reliable source, so I'll poke around and see what I can find. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, good, and best of luck. "Patently false claims" do abound, and include ones made in good faith. This is no doubt one reason why this inclusion on this list became suddenly so strictly controlled.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How complete can this list ever be?

Although I think this list is a nice source of information, I ask myself: how is it possible to ever have a complete list of alle songs (partly) in odd time signatures? Already the demand for a source is disputable. Is it the transcribed music? Or the original recorded song? For classical music, the first would be an important criteria since we often don't have original recordings and composer left us only the sheet music. For pop and rock music, this almost turned upside down. We often only have recordings. A lot of music is transcribed, but not all, and then often not by the original artist. There's a lot of interpretation (e.g. I remember that the main riff of Blackened by Metallica (opening song of ...And Justice for All) is written down in one book in 7/4, while in another book in 7/8). A lot of Spock's Beard and Neal Morse songs use odd time signatures, but a lot of songs aren't (professionaly) transcribed. But a musician with some reasonable counting skills can distinguish the time signatures. But: there's always discussion, is it 7/8 or 7/4, is 4/4+5/8, 13/8 or 8/8+5/8 etc? Also, if we would add these songs to the list, the list would become way to long. And then: what do you expect from a source? Is blog.pandora.com a reliable source? If i'd like to, I can create my own source this way! Then I would ask myself: why should we want a list with ALL songs in odd time signatures? Wouldn't it suffice to sum up the most well-known songs (easily to find sources), and for example some (well known) bands (like Rush) and musical styles that often use odd time signatures (like progressive rock, bulgarian music) (which is traceble as a source as well). Now you create a list in which everyone can add his or her "favorite oddtimesignaturesong", maybe let it get deleted because the song wasn't transcribed etc. etc. And who can decide what is a good source and what not? But I've already raised this question. My main problem is: how much encyclopedic value has a list as this? It can never be complete. So if it won't be complete, make sure it is representable and names the most well known songs, styles and bands. Any comments???

Sreglov 21:58, 7 may 2009 (CET)

It won't ever be complete. It doesn't need to be. All entries must be reliably sourced, per Wikipedia policy. You can get an idea what is considered reliable at WP:RS. Pandora was previously accepted as a reliable source. Someone's personal blog would not be. You can create your own source to cite, but it is only acceptable if it goes through the same type of editorial oversight that the other reliable sources go through. Time signatures of songs with no original score are subject to interpretation, of course. For our purposes, intepretations of time signatures made by a reliable source are good enough, even if there is no original score, and even if a different interpretation could just as reasonably be made (for example, a song in 7/4 could also be written as alternating measures of 4/4 and 3/4--for that matter, a song in septuple meter could even be written in straight 4/4). Determining time signatures and/or meter by listening to a recording, no matter how simple it is to most musicians, is still a process dependent on a certain level of expertise. Entries based on such judgments made by Wikipedia editors are therefore subject to deletion as original research. This has been discussed to death already, so I'll let you skim the talk page archive for all the reasons this is so. The page is an interesting compendium and supplement to articles concerning time signature and meter, and possible avenue for research for those who want to learn more about these subjects. It is therefore of encyclopedic value. Were its length to become an impediment to or dilution of that value, further tightening of inclusion criteria would be in order but I don't think we're there yet. Nick Graves (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(Applause.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nick, thanx for your comment. Still I've got mixed feelings. As a musician who loves to create music in odd time signatures (for the record: I won't list my own music ;-), I'm interested. And I see the problems with sourcing. I don't always agree with the time signatures that's given in a transcription, it's to a certain level subjective. But here counts: if it's sourced correctly, it's ok, even if the source is wrong. Also, not everybody is capable of determining the correct timesignature (or possible timesignatures), and for that reason it's better to have reliable source. But for a lot of music, there's no source at all. Then again: for most well-known songs it wouldn't be to hard to find a decent source.

As for the length of the list: of course, there are several solutions. It's hard to determine which song are better examples or well-known then others. Pretty subjective and would probably lead to editwars. I truly guess there's some value in this page. And when it gets to long, the first possible solution would be to divide into pages per (groups of) odd time signature and/or musical styles.

As for Jerome: your applause might seem a bit cynical towards me, I hope I misunderstand. Anyway: since wiki is free for everyone, especially the discussion pages, I felt free to share my thoughts. I'm glad to receive comments like those from Nick.

Sreglov 21:36, 11 may 2009 (CET)

No cynicism intended, and apologies if any offense was taken—certainly none was meant. I simply thought that Nick Graves answered your question better than I could have done myself, and wished to endorse his views completely.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for the comment, fortunately I misunderstood ;-). I understand both your view, but I needed to ventilate my thoughts, it helps me understand. I think my thoughts are clear, and I see your views better now.

Sreglov 19:36, 12 may 2009 (CET)

1/1

How about the Scherzo in Borodin's Second Symphony: 1/1. Doesn't this qualify as "unusual"? -- megA (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know it but, if this is indeed the key signature, then, yes, it certainly qualifies according to the definition given at the beginning of this list, and should be easy enough to document from a published edition of the score. By all means add it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- megA (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I've tweaked the citation a bit, to make it conform better to the full-citation content of other scores cited in this list. This is a perfectly delicious example of the clashing conceptual difference between "unusual meter" and "unusual time signature". Thank you for adding it to the list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

List of extraordinary diseases and conditions has been tagged for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extraordinary diseases and conditions). Feel welcome to give comments and suggestions, because the main reason is basically the same as what was the case for this article: Lack of proper definition of what really is unusual, and therefore what to include or not, as well as making inclusions verifiable and without original research. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This list clearly defines at the top what constitutes an "unusual time signature" for the purpose of inclusion. The definition is sourced to a proper reliable source (Music Tech Magazine). I don't think that there's any concern about this list being deleted for lack of a proper definition of what really is unusual, and it's perfectly apparent (to anyone that can read music, even a little bit) what should and shouldn't be included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If I am reading Mikael Häggström correctly, I think you are not in disagreement. What he says is that this list used to lack a proper definition. As you say, it certainly has got one now, however imperfect it may be. My assumption is that he is asking editors experienced with this list to have a look at the "Extraordinary diseases" list, to see if we can make any helpful suggestions based on the success of efforts here. Am I wrong?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You're completely right. I think the editors of this article have done a remarkable work, and this new article, now List of diseases and conditions with features considered unusual, could really need some advice and suggestions from it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Unspecified time signatures

An anonymous editor recently removed this section saying: "Blanking section, no real use for it since the time signature is always specified (at least to the players...). These are just poorly sourced examples." This seems a far-fetched objection: notation is not music and many performers do not use notation.

More importantly Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, so one should find a better section heading title and better sources, if that is ones objection. Hyacinth (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

While I can see 87.69.130.159's point—the whole idea of "unspecified time signatures" is vague beyond belief—I agree with you, Hyacinth, that blanking the section is inappropriate. It is not so much the case that the examples are poorly sourced as that the sources themselves are vague. What, for example, constitutes an "oddball" signature? To many rock musicians, that could be nothing more exotic than 3/4 time, and to a "waltz king" it could mean 4/4 time. Finding better sources is a more constructive goal than removing the references entirely.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I could not sympathize more with the approach of "don't remove, find sources." Unfortunately, the policy here seems that our ears are unreliable, as unsettling as it may be to me. I would be more than happy to contest that policy in this case, since this article is mostly constructed by musicians. The whole idea of "citing unspecified time signatures" looks weird: why would you include a source that merely states that the time signature is "oddball"? Thanks Einstein, we need an actual signature. Again, I believe that we should contest the policy and allow editors to exercise their musical ear. For example, I was looking for a source for the Nirvana song "Lithium" as performed by The Bad Plus, but all I could find was that the meter is "unconventional" or "herky-jerky, odd tempo." This is my transcription: ||:4/4 + 2/4 + 5/8 + 9/16 + 5/8 + 5/8 + 11/16:||x3 ||4/4 + 2/4 + 5/8 + 9/16 + 5/8 + 4/4||, which then goes to the straight-forward 4/4 B-part. To try and group it otherwise would not make any musical sense, especially considering the singer's phrasing. I'd love to include it in the list, but I know that without a source it will be removed. Is there anything that can be done about it?

To sum it all up: that section seems unprofessional, to say the least. I believe those examples should be analyzed by an editor with a good musical ear and moved to the "Unsourced" list until, hopefully, the policy can be changed.

Lastly, as for the notation remark, time signature has nothing to do with notation per se. Just look at African or Balkan music, which has definite time signatures without any notation.

By the way, Jerome – I would really appreciate a reply regarding the "Circle of fifths" issue (on your talk page). 87.69.130.159 (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that the policy requiring sources will ever change. One of Wikipedia's three core policies is "verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). The other two are related: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought" (WP:OR) and, lastly, the "fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia" is that, "Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (WP:NPOV). Hyacinth (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What about the other points I've raised? The sources are reviews pointing out "odd" time signatures without actually specifying them. That is, as Jerome Kohl precisely noted, "vague beyond belief." Again, I would strongly recommend that someone transcribe the time signatures and move it to the unsourced list until the time signatures can be actually sourced (such as the example given in my previous comment). If I have the time, I'll do it myself soon (provided I can find decent quality audio recordings). Regarding WP:V and WP:OR, since Wikipedia clearly states that what can be confirmed by sight, does not need citing (per WP:FILMPLOT), same logic should apply for hearing. Basic senses should count for reliable sources: you don't need a book to tell you that herring is salty and chocolate is sweet. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires sources exactly because many people do need sources to tell them basic facts about common items including chocolate, which is not sweet. See cocoa, dark chocolate, and chocolate: "Seeds of the cacao tree have an intense bitter taste" and chocolate must be sweetened to be "sweet chocolate". Hyacinth (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And may I just point out for the umpteenth time the sentence about Britten's Passacaglia from Peter Grimes in the introduction to this article. Any editor with half a musical ear will tell you it is in 11/4—the bass theme begins over and over at an interval of eleven beats, and the texture changes in the variations is faithful to the bass—but the score is written entirely in 4/4. Now what was that about time signatures having "nothing to do with notation"? Does Britten's score say 4/4, or not? I think there is a persistent confusion here (sanctioned to a degree by sloppy terminological practice) between "meter" and "signature".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My question is: do you hear anything that actually justifies the 4/4 notation? The harmonic progression seems to be in perfect sync with it, although anticipated by the melody at times. The confusion on your end seems to be between polymeters and the actual key signature. By the way, if you are already mentioning the "signature vs. meter" issue, the article should be renamed to "List of compositions in Western music that utilize unusual meters," what do you think? 87.69.130.159 (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You should simply start a separate article for "unusual" meters. Quite a few editors worked long and hard to create and justify this article, its title, and list. There is no reason to destroy it over nitpicking when you have yet to justify or create your proposed title, article, and list. Hyacinth (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant renaming it, not "destroying". 87.69.130.159 (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you may not be aware of the distinction between time signature and meter. And you may not have noticed that the topic of this article has been restricted to time signatures as is indicated by the title and the introduction. This was done in part to justify its existence per the deletion process, which you should probably familiarize yourself with if you wish to contribute to this article on this level, see Wikipedia:Deletion review and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Hyacinth (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In all three cases the author is a professional reviewer, in contrast to Wikipedia users who are unpaid volunteers. Thus my transcription would look and be more unprofessional. Even if I am a professional in "real life", on Wikipedia my credentials are irrelevant. Hyacinth (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to "do you hear anything that actually justifies the 4/4 notation [in Britten's Passacaglia]?" the answer is "No, absolutely nothing at all". It seems to me that Britten made this choice (as many 20th-century composers have done) strictly for the convenience of performers. There is a widespread rumor that back in the 1960s the Philadelphia Orchestra's assistant conductor, William Smith, copied out the entire score of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring in 4/4 time, for the benefit of principle conductor Eugene Ormandy, who had never been able to manage the constantly changing meters, even in Stravinsky's somewhat simplified 1947 revision. This enabled Ormandy to conduct the work in public for the first time. The orchestral musicians, on the other hand, used the original parts with varying meters, which is what they were used to reading (with guest conductors). Notated meter need not have anything to do with perceived or composed meter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me... but I completely fail to see the convenience of playing a succession of seemingly unrelated accents rather than repeating the same rhythmic pattern. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And you would get to talk about that in the interview about how you notated your compositions. But this is Wikipedia. Hyacinth (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey... I was only responding to an equally speculative statement that Britten must have notated the Passacaglia in 4/4 for players' convenience. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Occam's razor

As far as we know the critics cited in the section under discussion while writing their articles had a detailed score lent to them by the composers/performers of the pieces in question and as such where describing the actual notated time signature(s) of the pieces. Following the conventions of popular/rock journalism they mentioned an interesting musical feature but left out extended technical discussion, leaving those notated time signatures, as we currently say, "unspecified".

Another possibility is that the critic interviewed the musicians and they named the time signature, and then the critic followed the conventions of rock journalism.

Another possibility is that a trained musicologist, possibly the critic, transcribed the pieces into notation and used the time signature(s) described by the critics, who then followed the conventions of rock journalism. Possibly this was assisted by the "unusual" time signature being simple and apparent deviations from common time that is easily transcribed.

The last possibility I will name is that the critics were imprecise in their use of music terminology, mistakenly substituting "time signature" when they intended "meter".

There is no evidence that the last possibility is the case, that the critics in question where not knowledgeable of music, and that as professional writers they would misuse words. As such, and given "Occam's razor", the three proceeding possibilities appear to be the simpler explanations and thus the more desirable. Hyacinth (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

List of compositions in Western music that utilize unusual meters

If we where to create this article, through what sources and how would we define "unusual meter"? As the introduction makes clear the list of pieces with "unusual meter" would be a different one than this list. It would contain pieces which do not make this list, such as "Passacaglia" from Britten's Peter Grimes, would not contain many pieces which are on this list, and some pieces would qualify for both lists. Do we have any pieces in mind and sources in mind for this proposed list? Hyacinth (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Mompou

Federico Mompou wrote a lot of music without any time signatures, key signatures or bar lines. But he also used odd markings such as the number 3 written not on either of the staves, but in the space between them. He did this in the Cancion y Danza No. 1, for example. Just the number 3. In the Prelude No. 5, the number 3 appears in each of the staves; in the Preludes Nos. 7 and 10, the number 4 appears in each of the staves. In most of the pieces from Musica Callada, the number 2 appears in each of the staves. Just the one number, not the two numbers we've come to expect. Do these qualify as "unusual time signatures"? -- JackofOz (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. But, how do we know these single numbers were meant to indicate a time signature? Nick Graves (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that this question was raised once before, perhaps a year ago. Accepting that they are time signatures, how do they differ (apart from their placement off of the staff) from the usual French practice of the 18th century and later, whereby a single digit is used for duple and triple, and occasionally quadruple time?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That assumes the player is aware of that practice. I never was until now. I wonder what his intention was, when he must have realised that players with no knowledge of anything but current notation practice would not know how he intended them to interpret his notations. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Whose "current notation practice", though? Mompou was Catalan, but lived in Paris for thirty years. In French notational practice, these single-digit signatures are not universal, but quite normal. FWIW, I quote a brief list I offered in February 2008, which you will find in context under the heading "Mompou's time signatures" in Archive 4 of this discussion page:

Examples, sure. Jacques-Martin Hotteterre, "Musette" and "Menuet" from the Deuxième Suite de Pièces à deux dessus, op. 6, which are in 2 and 3, respectively (no second numeral). The "Sarabande La St. Maurice" from the same work is also in simple 3, and the pair of "Rondeaus" following are also in simple 2. François Couperin, Treizième Concert royal, third movement, "Sarabande" is in 3. Jean-Philippe Rameau, Pièces de clavecin en concerts, many movements with single-digit signatures: Première Concert, "La Coulicam", "La Livri", and "Le Vézinet" all in 2. Deuxième Concert, "La Laborde" in 2, "La Boucon", "La Agaçante", and two Menuets in 3, etc. More modern example, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Chôros No. 8, begins in a simple 3, at rehearsal-number 5 the meter changes to 4, then at rehearsal 6 back to an alternating 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2 etc. Four bars after rehearsal 9 is the less usual 5. In fact, throughout this score single-digit signatures are used, except for the compound meters 3/8, 6/8, 9/8, and 11/16, and one exceptional 2/4 four bars before rehearsal 44.

Of course, by the definition of "normal time signature" given in this list's lede, single-digit signatures are "unusual". I'm sure with a little effort I could find a few hundred or even thousands of examples from the French literature (and French-trained composers of other nationalities) between 1700 and the present. It might be fun.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jerome. I must be getting old. I had totally forgotten I ever wrote that question in 2008, and re-reading it now, I still don't have any memory of ever doing it. But there you go. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't mention it. Now that I have re-examined the lede, I see that, according to the definition given there, not only are single-digit signatures "unusual", but so are signatures in which the lower numeral is replaced by a note value, and in fact any signature not consisting of two vertically arranged numerals, such as 𝄴 and 𝄵 (those are the "common time" and "cut time" symbols, in case your browser doesn't support Unicode). I suddenly feel an almost irresistible urge to add thousands of "unusual" examples!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)