Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Midis?

Midis would likely help clarify some issues, for those songs that have midi versions available. I have used Noteworthy Composer to look at time signatures before, and the interesting thing is that the midi-creators don't have to bother with figuring that out, because time signature is essentially optional (and a non-factor as far as the midis themselves are concerned). Speaking of which, "Weapons Factory" by Koji Kondo from the Super Mario RPG OSV is in 13/4 or 13/8 time (can't really tell the difference). Should things like this be added, or is video game music not "real" enough for this list? 74.32.238.243 (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think that songs from video games qualify as musical works. As long as you can find a reliable source confirming the time signature, I don't see why such a song couldn't be added. Nick Graves (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I don't suppose blogs count? [1] It has some information on other video game songs, but not Weapons Factory... I SWEAR, I WILL FIND IT 02:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.242.26 (talk)

In general, blogs are not regarded as reliable sources, though for possible exceptions see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

'Aight, so I realized I might want to explain my original point. My point is that if a song can be accurately and reliably reproduced with a given time signature, then that should be evidence enough of its time signature. For example, this: [2] should, in my opinion, be sufficient proof that "Weapons Factory" is in 13/8 time. The person accurately reproduced it with that time signature, so isn't that evidence enough? After all, what we're doing here is trying to find the time signatures that most accurately reproduce the meter of the song, so... uh... yeah, my rant didn't seem to be going anywhere, so I'll leave it at that. Peace. 216.114.242.26 (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with this source is that it is from Youtube, which is not regarded as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Beyond that, I don't see any time signature displayed in the video. As to the contention that, "if a song can be accurately and reliably reproduced with a given time signature, then that should be evidence enough of its time signature", please see the lead section of the present article, and the example of Britten's Passacaglia from Peter Grimes, which is "accurately and reliably reproduced" in 4/4 time in the published score, even though the sounding meter is 11/4. If you go back into the archived discussion from a couple of years ago, you will find a debat about whether this article is about (sounding) metre, or (written) time-signature. I argued that it should be the former, but lost the debate. I think this is relevant here since, if you were to run a recording of Britten's Passacaglia through a midi device (without pre-setting a metric convention), it would likely tell you—contrary to the printed score—that it is in 11/4.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Jerome: Perhaps this list could be both about works with unusual time signatures, and those with unusual meters. After all, a substantial portion of the songs here (pop songs) were originally composed without a score, and therefore weren't "in" any time signature at all, at least not until some analyst or transcriber assigned an unusual time signature to them that they believed helped best convey their unusual meter. Nick Graves (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, exactly, but the discussion went very badly the last time around. Part of the problem is that finding reliable sources for time signatures is a lot easier than for metres.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well... those are ridiculously valid points. ... seriously, how are we supposed to get around that? If official sheet music is the only way to go, then so many songs are off the list... I guess the real problem we have here is with time signature vs. meter. Is there a List of musical works in unusual meters? If so, then.... ... actually, I don't know what. We need some serious consensus about what constitutes verification. Maybe some professional musician should make a researched list, so that we can cite that. Just putting in my 1 cent for my thoughts. 74.32.238.243 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been consensus for a long time about what constitutes verifiability and reliable sources. All you need do is read those guideline article. A list published in a peer-reviewed journal would certainly do the trick, provided that any respectable journal would waste the space publishing such trivia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Running Returning"

• "Running Returning" by Akron/Family <ref>http://stereogum.com/archives/band-to-watch-akronfamily_001370.html</ref>

The above entry was removed due to: "No evidence of editorial oversight for this source." http://stereogum.com/about.html claims there is an editorial staff, which has won many awards: http://stereogum.com/press.html. Hyacinth (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really get it, either. Too informal? Similar to, I gather, why Animal Collective's "For Reverend Green" (7/4) and The Birthday Party's "Hats On Wrong" ([4+5]/8) aren't listed herein... (Although I'm most likely the first person on the Web to describe the latter's timing in precise terms.) - Myriologist (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My Human Gets Me Blues

"My Human Gets Me Blues" by Captain Beefheart is in 4/4 time, with a vocal break in the middle and a section of 6/4 at the end. The opinion of a music reviewer that a song has a "complex" time signature is not sufficient evidence for it to be considered as having a complex time signature. I move for deletion of that item. 99.28.69.88 (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. The source is pretty vague. Nick Graves (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

4/1 time

What note fills a measure in 4/1 time?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A longa. Not a value often encountered in modern notation, but it looks like a breve with a stem on the right.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to confirm that: longa (music). It is actually defined as four semibreves (a quadruple whole note, if you will) nowadays and the rest is often used with a number above to define multiple-bars rests. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

5 and 7 as top numbers

The pieces in this list with 5 or 7 as top numbers are getting large and I would like to know if these are still rare enough time signatures for them to qualify for unusual. Georgia guy (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Rare" is a relative term, of course. I would say that quintuple and septuple time are still quite rare compared to, say, quadruple time. (Anyone up to compiling a "List of all music in 4/4 time"?)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

How large would such a list be?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Bigger than a breadbox? … While I'm thinking about it, the criteria for inclusion on this list presently depend on a specific list of time signatures from a published article. If you wish to propose removing quintuple and septuple meters from the list, it will be necessary to find a similar article somewhere that includes them. Failing this, it will be necessary to find editorial consensus on what constitutes "unusual" (and this has been debated endlessly on this Talk page—check the contents of the archives).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "how long is a piece of string" is a more appropriate metaphor here! I would personally say that 5/8, 5/4, 7/8, and 7/4 are common enough to drop from this article. However, an explanation would be required and, indeed, further sourcing needed to back up the exclusion. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How about cutting down the size of this list by restricting it to time signatures that are truly unusual, in that they only occur uniquely? As soon as a second example is found, then the entire signature could be deleted automatically from the list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That may just leave Telemann since I doubt anyone else would ever write in (3 2/2)/4 again! The fractionals might remain, though I guess. That might work actually. It is worth a try. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It was the Telemann I was thinking of. I suspect that even the "fractionals" would prove to have been used by more than one composer, which would reduce this to a "List of the unique time signature used by Georg Philipp Telemann". Unless, of course, I ever recall the name of the once-famous horn etude I remember seeing in about 1967, which had meter signatures like 1/0.000000025 time—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The cut-off between common and unusual time signatures is arbitrary. Relative to many of the other time signatures represented here, 5/X and 7/X are certainly less unusual. Perhaps these sections may some day grow so large that their illustrative utility will be diluted beyond what could be considered encyclopedic. The requirement that each entry be reliably sourced will delay such an eventuality.

If we're worried about the list getting too long, we can split certain sections off. This was done with 5/X and 7/X some time ago, before citation of a reliable source became a criterion for inclusion of each work. And if even those lists get too long, perhaps entries in those lists could be limited only to those songs notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. Nick Graves (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A list with dozens of members, 7/x, still seems really small compared to a list with at least millions of members, 4/x. Counting all the songs in 7/x or 4/x the songs in 7/x would make up less than one percent of the total. That doesn't seem too frequent. Hyacinth (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Instruction to editors"

This section should contain only cited listings.

Why, all of a sudden, after years of remaining there, should the notice be removed? Secondly, how is the notice only to editors? Hyacinth (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many years an error has been allowed to stand. An error's longevity does not justify its retention. Of what use is the note to readers? It's not their responsibility to make sure a section only includes reliably sourced material. That responsibility clearly rests with those who maintain the material. Nick Graves (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

And what is the error? Hyacinth (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly was removed? Was it the edit reminder to source material? If so it should go back in post haste! --Jubilee♫clipman 06:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I added it to the top of this thread. It has been replaced by a hidden message with WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC given as the reason. Hyacinth (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The best I've been able to find in support of your position so far are essays, not policy: WP:RF and Wikipedia:Make articles useful for readers, neither of which explicitly support or oppose our stances. Hyacinth (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, having reader-visible instructions that are obviously meant to warn editors against adding unsourced material is not explicitly against Wikipedia policy. I ask again: of what use is this notice to the reader? If you were reading a print encyclopedia and came across a notice that said something like "The following section should only contain well-researched material," would you not think that a bit unprofessional? Would it not seem odd and obtrusive? Or even a little... unencyclopedic? Of course the section should only contain cited listings. So should all of the other sections in this article. Any material you find in Wikipedia should be backed up with reliable sources that have been cited. Does that mean we should put a note like this one at the start of every section? How about a note stating that the following section should only contain material written from a neutral point of view? Or how about a note at the start of all biographies of living people that says it should not contain any libelous material? How about a note that says the following section should not contain any grammatical or spelling errors? That would be pretty absurd.

The note is clearly there to warn editors against adding unsourced material, much like the hidden notes at the start of every other section. If you can think of another reason why it should be there, let's hear it, please. Nick Graves (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also the question of consistency. If this one note is to be presented as part of the article text, then should not all the other ones be similarly displayed? The result of course does not bear thinking about, since there is such a note at the head of the list, as well as at the beginning of each main section, since history has shown (and continues to show) that editors do not read these warnings—not just in the "Unspecified time signatures" section, either. Perhaps they could be set in large, boldface, red type, and be made to flash on and off, accompanied by the sound of loud sirens. Somehow, I don't think the average reader browsing the article would appreciate this, though.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What about "citation needed" templates? Shall we remove them from Wikipedia or make them hidden comments rather than templates? Hyacinth (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you expand on this? I don't see the connection here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Instruction to editors. Hyacinth (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A "Citation needed" notice does indeed function as an instruction to editors, and it is viewable to the reader. However, such is useful to the reader, as it serves as notice that the section they are reading is deficient. They should, of course, remain critical of what they read on Wikipedia regardless, but the "citation needed" notice shows where they should be particularly cautious about the material they find. You wouldn't find such notices in a print encyclopedia, of course, but the nature of this project requires such a difference.

When quality citations are there to back up the material presented, no notice is needed. That's what makes the notice in dispute different from "citation needed." Incidentally, I'm of the opinion that a better way to deal with unsupported material is to delete it immediately, rather than put a "citation needed" tag on it, as these often go unheeded for a long time. There is less motivation to put the work into finding quality sources when unsourced material is allowed to remain. I believe this list--in its "before" and "after" states--is a good demonstration of this principle. Nick Graves (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that a reader can notice by themselves when there is or isn't a citation and that they don't in any way need a notice telling them what isn't there. A citation is its own notice that something is cited. The lack of citation is its own notice that something isn't cited.

For example, if there is not a door in a doorway, I don't need a sign telling me not to turn the non-existent door handle. If someone doesn't have a medical degree or doctor's license, I know they aren't a doctor. If if a light isn't on, it's... Hyacinth (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, readers could notice the absence of citations for themselves, except that those little numbers can often get subconsciously lost as one reads, since they're not part of the prose, and normally skipped over. That means that when they're missing, you might not notice their absence. On the other hand, it's pretty hard to miss "citation needed." Regardless, notifying readers of the lack of sources for material is standard practice, whereas notifying them of the need for sources when sources are already cited is not. As Jerome and I pointed out, it would be pretty absurd if we consistently started adding such notices. This would mean the encyclopedia, even in its "perfected" state, would be littered with reminders that all of this material should have citations, be presented neutrally, be grammatically correct, etc. Nick Graves (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so now we've made up a reader who can't see blue after walking from their house to their car on a clear day (by that argument we could remove facts because with so many one just zones them out). But we're ignoring the actual situation in this specific article, which is a special case, and not because it's a list: WP:Source list.

What about the reader who checks the list while an uncited addition is added? If we're making up morons, what about the reader who then trusts that listing because of this oh so encyclopedic list with citations on (almost) every listing and then buys that album and brags about their new found knowledge to all their friends when it turns out two seconds later they wouldn't have even come across the listing (it having been diligently removed as uncited)? Hyacinth (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have a psychology degree, and I can say with a confidence based on the knowledge I've gained in the field that common sense often overestimates the average person's attentiveness to "obvious" details. One common demonstration of such inattentiveness involves counting the F's in a sentence. Unless they are alerted to the "trick" beforehand, most people (not just the morons) count incorrectly, omitting from their count the F's found in the word "of." One sees with the mind, not just with the eyes. Things can be as plain as day, and yet they are missed, because the mind is not attending to them.

The argument you are making could just as well be used to support similar notifications at the start of every article, section, sentence, or clause throughout Wikipedia--an absurd outcome. What's so special about this one section in this one article that you support going against prevailing practice in Wikipedia (and this very list) by notifying readers of the need for citations when those citations are already present?Nick Graves (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Again. If every clause in Wikipedia did actually require citation BEFORE being added, the argument I was making could just as well be used that way. But they don't and it can't.

And what is so poor about prevailing Wikipedia practice that you cannot justify it with reference to any Wikipedia policy or guideline? Saying, "well, I've always smoked meth," isn't a great reason to keep doing it, or behavior that may seem healthy ("...obsessivly groomed."). Actually, it's not a reason, it's a justification. Hyacinth (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We could move the notice to the top of the entire list, right above "⅔/2 and ⅔/4" or right below "This is an incomplete list..." and change "section" to "list". Hyacinth (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, every word on Wikipedia is meant to be sourced from RSs, hence the This section should contain only cited listings statement is completely redundant, IMO! The {{unsourced}}, {{moresources}}, {{nofootnotes}} and {{morefootnotes}} etc are really pointers to editors that work needs to be done. I can see the pre-emptive reasoning behind the added statement, but the fact remains that every WP article should have that on it, logically. Hyacinth's proposed page is a good idea, though, as long as it is consice and accurate-and sourced from policies and guidelines. My tuppence of thoughs... --Jubilee♫clipman 13:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that again, I'm pointing out the difference between "meant" and "required". Ideally everyone in my society would avoid rudeness and theft, but we actually have a law against theft. Hyacinth (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

How about the opposite. How about we put a notice that every item on this list is cited? Hyacinth (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 ? This section only contains cited listings. ? That might be marginally better but you would have to remove all of the uncited items (which might remove useful things that really could be cited quite easily with 5 minutes of Googling). --Jubilee♫clipman 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You [all] should familiarize yourself with this article before discussing further. Look at the top of this talk page: "musical works that might have unusual time signatures, but that do not yet have reliable sources confirming this, are excluded from this article." ALREADY. Secondly, I said "list" and I meant the entire list, not the one section. Hyacinth (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Essay on the above

Let's start Wikipedia:Instruction to editors. Hyacinth (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You might want to see the latest developments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Template:Passive voice... Let's start a movement! --Jubilee♫clipman 07:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced section

This contains lots of nonsense, eg:

6/8

• (2005) "Cygnus...Vismund Cygnus" by The Mars Volta. There is a riff in the song that goes from 9/16 to 6/8 to 2/4.

What is especially unusual about that? Why, indeed, does the header state "6/8"? That is is one of the most common times sigs used... Unusual for pop/rock perhaps but hardly a major revelation to the rest of us! --Jubilee♫clipman 06:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about the sandbox, which is there to list potential additions to the real list that do not yet have references backing them up. Such a list is bound to contain a lot of nonsense (as did this list before people started citing reliable sources). Feel free to remove the section, if you do not think it is helpful for improving the real list. Nick Graves (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah! That makes sense now. I'll leave it for now. It is, admittedly, odd for a piece of pop/rok music to use those time signatures, especially in that particular way. --Jubilee♫clipman 07:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox? How did you find it from here? Hyacinth (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, no: the /unsourced page. It's linked in the banner at the top of this page. --Jubilee♫clipman 09:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The many works of Don Ellis

I searched these pages and could not find reference to Don Ellis. Although his most well known piece may have been "The French Connection," in 7/4, for the film by the same name, he wrote songs in many uncommon time signatures. He has an entry in Wikipedia, as do some of his works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.89.145 (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is odd that no one has been able to document a single Don Ellis piece for this list. I've never heard of the French Connection in 7/4, but surely "Bulgarian Bulge" is far away his best-known "odd metre" piece (though of course an arrangement rather than an original composition). Why don't you see what you can do to come up with some documented examples, and I shall do the same.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've found a few, and added them to the list, but I have not yet found a reference for The French Connection.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is a legally uploaded media file adequate for use as a source?

http://www.rosen-kranz.jp/d_7throse
The song that automatically plays in the background on that page is the one I mean. I'm pretty sure it's written in 15/4.
The band is D, and the song is "7th Rose (Opening SE)". The website is of the company that the singer of the band owns. —TafelAnatomie (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as the media file does not require interpretation (that is, an unambiguous message is displayed in video, or a voice plainly announces, "this song is in 15/4 time"), and comes from a credible source, my opinion would be that it is acceptable (others may not agree). On the other hand, your statement of being "pretty sure" does not inspire confidence. Does it plainly state that it is in 15/4, or not? If not, then your opinion is original research.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly why I ask... since the only reference to it being in 15/4 is the audio file of the song itself, someone such as me that doesn't have a full music theory education can't rely entirely on her own intuition and say that it is definitely in 15/4 just by hearing it. But I can say that I tried writing it out, and the only way I could was in 15/4.

So, I guess my refined question is, if the only people who will be able to validate a reference such as an audio file of a song as a reference to its time signature are people with at least some knowledge of music theory, does that make it original research? (Even though the concept of unusual time signatures is definitely one that only people with at least some knowledge of music theory would understand.) —TafelAnatomie (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what you are asking is this: Can a recording of a piece of music be cited as a source for its meter signature. The answer is a flat "no", for reasons that are plainly set forth in the opening paragraph of the list. The example given there is the Passacaglia from Britten's Peter Grimes. Anyone with the basic musical ability to count to eleven can tell you from listening that it is in 11/4, but the score is in fact notated in 4/4. Your suspected 15/4 example could just as easily be written as three successive bars of 5/4, or three bars of 4/4 followed by a single bar of 3/4, etc. Or your interpretation could be mistaken. This is why you need a source, and not just some recording, to add something to this list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A score in the public domain or a fair use extract would probably do just as well but then the list would become unmanageable, I suspect, unless the score/extract were online and could be linked to rather than being placed inline wholesale. Of course, that isn't much help here as it is unlikely that there is a score --Jubilee♫clipman 09:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Discipline by King Crimson

May be a good song to put in (wherever it fits). It bounces back and forth between several odd time signatures. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

King Crimson has been brought up repeatedly in connection with this list. The trouble is, so far a source has been found only for one song. If you can find a reliable source that is a little more precise than "bounces back and forth between several odd time signatures", then by all means, add "Discipline".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find one for the song. I can find one for the album: a Rolling Stone review:

"In most of the tracks, Fripp introduces étude-like guitar figures, which he repeats, à la Philip Glass, as he did in Under Heavy Manners' "The Zero of the Signified." The band weaves in and out of these patterns in complex polyrhythmic countermovements, with Belew offering spoken documentary and guitar sound effects on top."[3] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

All well and good, but polyrhythm does not require unusual time signatures. For example, triplets against duplets in 4/4 time is polyrhythm.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Would the sheet music be acceptable? It would establish the time signatures used. Does there need to be a secondary source commenting on it? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The original sheet music is an acceptable (and preferred) source for time signatures. A recording of the work itself is not an acceptable primary source, as determining/assigning a time signature from the recording requires a certain expertise, and involves a judgment call by the editor (in other words, original research). Reputably published transcriptions of the work, or commentary/analysis published in reliable sources are also acceptable. Nick Graves (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

When Is a Blog Not a Blog? (or What Exactly Is a Reliable Source?)

After a brief discussion with Jerome Kohl on his talk page, I have decided to call into question the sources used by this article. Since I enjoy the music of Pink Floyd, I decided to look up "Money" on this list. I was interested to see what the sources said about the apparent 7/4 time signature, so I followed them. I discovered that not only are those "two" sources the exact same one source but also that that source is a blog. However, the blog is run by members of the Music Genome Project ([4]), and so might well be reliable enough for WP. Any way, this, among others, probably deals with matters as regards this particular song. WP:SOFIXIT, applies here, obviously. However, while I am happy to remove doubles and add additional refs for songs (including refs for "All You Need Is Love", whose sources on this page are also questionable, IMO), I am reluctant to remove sources without proper discussion of their merit/demerits on this page. I am going to fully review the policies/guidelines to remind/inform myself of the current consensus and thinking; then I will review this page's links to find out just how many doubles/questionables/WP:BADCHARTS there are. I'll get back after that, though I will watch this page and respond to replies, of course, in the mean time. Help in tracking down the dodgy entries would be appreciated, of course! Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 01:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I recommend going ahead and removing some of the most obviously dodgy sources. If no one reverts, there is clearly no need to discuss. As for duplicate sources: I still think these should be retained, so long as both are reliable. Some links go dead, in which case it is good to have a backup. Piece-wise removal of poorly sourced material would be better than wholesale removal in one or just a few edits, as it makes it easier to sort things out in case someone disagrees with deletion of a particular entry. As for Pandora, I believe this was accepted some time ago as one of those few reliably published blogs (that is, not a "blog blog" that we're used to dismissing out of hand). Consensus can change, but I am at present of the view that it is an acceptable source. Nick Graves (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the status of Pandora. I'll tread carefully, certainly, but you are probably right about WP:BRD... The "doubles" I mentioned actually point to the exact same URL (or seem to my end, anyway). Any need for doubled citations of the same webpage (which is what I meant)? --Jubilee♫clipman 04:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The matter of relative reliability of sources has been discussed extensively on this talk page, but it may take you some time to wade through it all (don't forget the four archives of earlier discussions!).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be that I just chanced on an unrepresentative few, then (leaving Pandora out of the equation, that is). Anyway, I'll certainly inform myself as and when I get time. Probably take a while though as you say... I won't make any changes—beyond reverting unsourced additions—however, until I have a clearer idea of the consensus here (and only if necessary, obviously) --Jubilee♫clipman 06:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Surprised no Conlon Nancarrow listed

I just discovered that no piece by Conlon Nancarrow is listed here, even though his music is famous for being extremely unusual rhythmically. I thought about it and realized one issue--often his music is not in a "time signature" at all, so there's no section of this page where you'd put a given Nancarrow piece. But then, his music is not rhythmless and free. The "meter", if the word is stretched a bit, of his music is strictly defined, but often impossible to describe in time signature terms. Of particular note are his Studies for Player Piano, Study No. 33, "2 against the square root of 2" rhythm, Study No. 40, "e:pi" rhythm. Anyway, I suppose I can see why these pieces might be fit to list here, being basically "meterless". It still seemed weird to not see them listed when I first checked. Pfly (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent observations! I wonder whether all of Nancarrow's player-piano studies defy meter-signature notation, though. Since Soundings Press published six volumes of them, it shouldn't be too difficult to investigate this and, if any are in fact notated with time signatures, they would probably make spectacular additions to this list. It might be worth checking some of his non-player-piano music as well, though as I recall Nancarrow didn't venture very far into metrical extremes except in the mechanical pieces. Thanks for bringing this up.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

2+2+2+3 and 4+2+3

What's the difference between 2+2+2+3 and 4+2+3?? 4 beats is always strong-weak-medium-weak, never strong-weak-weak-weak (without secondary stress on the middle "weak".) Georgia guy (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine the "difference" would be in how different sources choose to describe things, though the case you describe as never occurring (no secondary stress on the third of four divisions) might marginally be justified in some cases, if the accent on 5 is significantly (and consistently) stronger than the one on 3. However, I ran through the list and could not find an example claiming to be 4+2+3. Could you point it out to me, please?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. Bartók marked those two pieces in Mikrokosmos in just that way, so you will have to ask him what he meant by the difference. Unfortunately, Bartók is dead. Perhaps a look in the score will clarify things for you but, as I said, it really comes down to how the sources describe things.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

8/8 problem

Is there any rule about using 8/8 time?? I find it very natural to think that 4/4 time becomes 8/8 time if played at a slow enough tempo that you can easily feel 8 beats to a measure. However, a few Internet sites that talk about 8/8 time say that this is absolutely wrong and that 8/8 has to be grouped as 3+3+2 or 3+2+3 or 2+3+3. Anyone have a good experience with 8/8 time to be able to answer this question?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see what these internet sites have to say. Could you provide some URLs? In any case, my own experience is that 4/4 slow enough to be counted in 8 usually is still notated in 4/4, while 8/8 does usually indicate an additive rhythm configuration.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A Google search on "8/8 time" might give you some results. Georgia guy (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, 669,000 of them, more or less. I thought you might have had two or three particular ones in mind.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ring Out, Solstice Bells

I don't want to get into any wars here about the relative merits of one meter over another. But I was just searching the list of songs in 7 or partial-7 times and I thought of one, which maybe someone can find a source for: "Ring Out, Solstice Bells" by Jethro Tull. (from Songs from the Wood)

Perhaps the lyric of the verse (the part of the song played in 7) would suffice here as a source: "Seven maids move in seven time" and "Seven druids dance in seven time." Jtnet (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If this were to be taken as a source, we would have to accept the text of "The Twelve Days of Christmas" as proof that it is partially in 12, partially in 11, partially in 10, etc. time. What is really needed here is a published score or a reliable, third-party source that declares the meter of this piece.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Siberian Khatru

Again, as above I would need help sourcing this -- I don't have access to sheet music -- but the intro and numerous "in-between" bits that echo the intro of "Siberian Khatru" by Yes (from Close to the Edge) are in 15/4, or alternatively in 8/4 + 7/4. Jtnet (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a persistent problem with many genres of music that are not usually notated, and therefore are not published as sheet music. You may be able to find an online source somewhere, but beware of blogs, since they may claim all sorts of things and are therefore not generally regarded as reliable sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Four Sticks

Can someone please verify the time signature in Zeppelin's Four Sticks. The article states 5/4 and 3/4 but the beats are clearly eighth note beats. The reference is to a book. Even the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Sticks states it uses /8 time signatures. Did not want to just edit because it references a source, not sure how to handle. Thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpk0721 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Candidate For 42/8?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxgBde1dCLo

Mediaeval Baebes - Verbum Caro. Is this in 42/8? It seems so to my ear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.52.2 (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ears aren't sufficient—a reliable source is needed. You can always add it to this list of candidates, waiting for someone to find a source.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean ears aren't sufficient? Just listen to it!!! What do you want - a citation from an article in Unusual Time Signature Periodical? Because that just isn't going to happen, is it? Anyone who considers themselves an expert on the subject can surely listen and confirm/refute? I honestly don't get how this works. I listened to it repeatedly and counted fourteen triplets - anyone else who knows something about music could do exactly the same. Jesus....

Also, gotta say that kind of 'standard keeping' - noble though it is - is a bit rich when tunes like Go To Sleep and Say A Little Prayer are being included in some desperately vain attempt to provide some content. Anyone with a brain can tell that the former is 1 4/4, followed by 2 3/4s and the latter is 4/4, 3/4, 4/4. Although they may add upto their respective cited meters. anyone with an even remotely musical brain can tell that's just desperate barrel-scraping pedantry for the sake of having some content in this article that is threadbare PRECISELY because of the so-called 'standards' that you hold so dear. I'm citing a tune that IS in 42/8 - FACT and you're giving me crap about citations. I thought this was meant to be a community of knowledgeable individuals capable of making judgement calls of this nature themselves without having to plagiarise other people's web articles. Looks like I was wrong. I appreciate that you have to uphold a certain standard, but you're also not robots. Use your brains - and your EARS!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.52.2 (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. If you check back through the archives of this talk page, you will find acres and acres of wearisome discussion of exactly this topic. Also, you will find discussion of the issue of "time signature" vs. "meter" (and of course you are perfectly correct that a series of ordinary meter signatures (such as 4/4 and 3/4) is not the same thing as the composite of them (in meters like 7/4 or 11/4). However how can you tell by ear which meter is written down on paper? The lede paragraph to this article cites an example, plainly sounding in 11/4 (to anyone with ears) but written out in 4/4 time. A piece that "sounds like" 42/8 time (such as the Christmas Carol "In the Bleak Midwinter") is much more likely to be written as seven bars of 4/8 (or 4/4, if you accept 42/4 in place of 42/8). The relationship between writing and sound is a slippery issue, and one of the main reasons sources have been made mandatory for this list. Have you looked at the unverified list of candidates for this list?

To the specific question: "What do you want - a citation from an article in Unusual Time Signature Periodical?" the answer is "Yes". To the rhetorical follow-up, "Because that just isn't going to happen, is it?", the response is, "It has happened hundreds of times so far, so why should it not happen again?" As to this being "a community of knowledgeable individuals capable of making judgement calls", this would be correct except for the words "knowledgeable" and "capable of making judgment calls". Anyone can edit Wikipedia, knowledgeable, capable, or otherwise. This is why Wikipedia policy is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Differences between time signatures with same duration

It is clearly agreed by music theorists that 6/4 time is always 1-2-3-4-5-6, not 1-2-3-4-5-6, which is 3/2 counted wrongly; it should be counted with 3 beats. However, regarding:

"Playing in the Band" by the Grateful Dead (notated as 4/4 + 4/4 + 2/4). (10/4)

This I'm sure is the same as 5/2 only with the quarter note as the beat. That is, it is 2+2+2+2+2, not 3+3+2+2 (in any order.) Anyone have enough experience to confirm general differences between x/2 and 2x/4 time signatures (with x larger than 2)?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing metrical theory with musical rhythmic practice. For example, it is quite possible to write a 3/4 rhythm in a bar of 6/8 time (as shown here) and, particularly in slow tempos, the beat grouping in 6/4 may flexibly change from 3 + 3 to 2 + 2 + 2 (FWIW, I am myself a music theorist, and so clearly not all of us agree that 6/4 is always a compound meter—though I confess the purity of my theory is tarnished by years as a performing musician). The key word here is "notated". If the Grateful Dead notated "Playing in the Band" as stated, then it is not in 10/4, but (literally) in 4/4 + 4/4 + 2/4. If this pattern is regularly repeated, then it can well be interpreted as being in quintuple or decuple meter. Which of these it is will depend in part on tempo, and in part on the specific rhythms used.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Theme from "TRON" (original)

Do film scores count as well? Wendy Carlos's main "Theme from Tron" (original film) is in slow 7/8 (4+3/8). (last entry on her blog page) A sample can be heard on amazon.com... --- megA (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the title or lead paragraph of this list that says "all kinds of music except film scores", and the source looks perfectly sound to me. The only problem in this particular case is that there is now a separate article for Septuple meter, where all the 7/4, 7/8, etc. examples have been moved.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll head over there then. -- megA (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"Memory" (Cats by Andrew Lloyd Webber)

...is in 12/8 except for a single 10/8 bar on the penultimate line of every verse. (e. g. 1st verse on the text "I yearn to turn my face to the dawn". (It is, however, often simplified to 12/8 in "cheaper" arangements...) you can see the bar (bar 7) here on scribd... -- megA (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Published scores are the very best kind of source, so by all means add this to the list as "partially in 10/8". I certainly won't stop you, so long as you include that source reference.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Goody, I'll do that. Just wanted to make sure with the two examples, since these are my first contributions to the list... -- megA (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Rusty Cage

I'm not an expert in music theory -- can someone confirm that Rusty Cage is partly in 19/4 time? --Doradus (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Our own article on the song says it's partly 19/8. I can add that to this article now. --Doradus (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Arizona Train

I'm new to adding to Wikipedia. I tried to add a piece of music to this page, under the Partially in 2½/4 section, but it was deleted. I assume because there was no source. However, as I wrote the music in the first place, I know what the time signature is, and I know it is partially in 2½/4, wit a middle section in 4/4 time. I also put a link to the piece of music, so that anyone who wanted to could have a listen. Did I offend some other local cultural behaviour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingo master 17 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a "local cultural behaviour", but this list is peppered with editorial-text warning messages to the effect that a reliable source is required to verify each and every entry. What you did was to link the song title to a sound-file of it. As I mentioned in my edit summary, this does not verify the metre signature, any more than a CD of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring will confirm the myriad of different signatures found in the score—many of which are in fact different in the 1947 revision, despite the music being the same. Since you are new to Wikipedia, I imagine you find this situation frustrating, because you know "the truth" in this case. The problem is, on Wikipedia, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." So, what we need in the present case is, ideally, a published score. If this song is not published, then a review published in a reliable (online or print) magazine that states plainly what the time signature is. There are, unfortunately, many dozens—perhaps hundreds—of nominations for this list here, for which sources have not yet been found (you can also access this list through the link at the top of this page—the one with the i logo in a blue circle and the text beginning, "In accordance with Wikipedia's Original Research policy,…"). If you go through that list carefully, you will doubtless find some conflicting opinions about the metre of a song. If you read the lede paragraph of this list, you will also discover that the metre in which a piece is written may not correspond to the sounding music (the Benjamin Britten example cited is a classic case). This is all very antiseptic, but so far it is the only solution that has been found to the problem of subjective "knowing" on the parts of different editors.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who Sheet Music Possible New Entry

I have not made many contributions to Wikipedia, but I was itching when I found some music that could be in 7/8 for the first 40 or so seconds. It is "I am the Doctor" of Series 5, composed in a 2+2+2+1 grouping. I also am wondering about Olafur Arnalds's works. The latter could just be uneven fermatas. It does have a 5/8-type section. 71.234.166.64 (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Come Friendly Bombs

The above song [by Gallows] is played partially in either 7/4 or alternating 4/4 and 3/4, which I feel makes it a valid candidate. I'm just suggesting entry, I'm not going to change anything in case I oughtn't. 75.73.139.144 (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? If so, it would belong in the article Septuple meter, rather than in this list, which cross-references the section on 7/4, 7/8, etc. to that article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Prize - Wanderlust

Distinctive unconventional time signature indeed. One listen makes it clear that this is in 4/4. Roch Parisien doesn't know what he's talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.214.213 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Roch Parisien is a waltz fanatic, and finds any music not in 3/4 to be exotic? Or it may be as you say, he just doesn't know what he is talking about. Nevertheless, this raises an interesting problem since, on Wikipedia, "verifiability, not truth" is the criterion for inclusion. It is just as much Original Research to claim some piece is "obviously" in 4/4 as it would be to claim another one as being "obviously" in 13/4. This appears to me to be a problem of an unreliable source, and may well affect other items in this list that depend on it. For this reason, I propose restoring this (cited) example, but flagging the source as of questionable reliability. If no one can come up with a better (or contradictory) source in a reasonable amount of time (say, one month), then we may remove it again. It is refreshing to have this situation surface, rather than the usual opposite one of adding a title without providing a source.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

>>> Anyone who can count and has a little musical training can tell what time sig a tune has. It's hardly "research" to declare this, you bunch of stuffed shirts!!! Maybe the reason you can't find any decent sources is because it's generally worth nobody else's time (but people trying to enrich this article and being hindered by you lot) to publish stuff like "this is in 7/8, and this is in 9/4, etc, etc, etc". The only victim is the quantity of information in this article. As for quality? As I say - it's pretty trivial to work out a song's timing so I hardly think the quality is at risk from people performing original "research"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.156.182 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You might care to read the short exchange at the end of this discussion, and possibly even dip into the extremely long and tedious discussion of this point in the archived discussion. It is also recommended to have a look at this. As for the quantity of information in this article, I believe you will also find complaints of its excessive length in the discussion archives.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Time signatures like 3²/₂/4

Hi there, is there any explanation in any of the wikipedia articles of how to interpret the time signature notations such as 3²/₂/4 work? If so can I suggest you link to it from this list for readers such as myself who are unfamiliar with it? I've checked the time signatures article and though it mentions many unusual time signatures, doesn't seem to explain this notation.

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC).

This is why I hate footnotes, and believe they should be outlawed on Wikipedia in favour of in-text citations. If you click on the blue number, it will take you to the explanation of this time signature, in a quotation from Steven Zohn: "The ‘Reverie der Laputier, nebst ihren Aufweckern’ . . . teases the reader with a nonsensical time signature, 3²/₂/4, in an apparent allusion to the Laputians’ love for, and incompetence in, mathematics." As the article on time signatures explains, the lower number (in this case 4) indicates the counting unit (crotchet, or quarter note), and the upper number (in this case 3²/₂) indicates the number of beats (three and two-halves). It is true that we are handicapped on Wikipedia by having to use the convention of a solidus to separate what should be an upper number from another directly below it. This can cause some confusion when, as in this case, the upper number includes a fractional value which must itself employ a solidus due to the fact that there is no single Unicode symbol for the case fraction.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's it, I completely missed the footnote. The solidus wasn't confusing at all so don't worry about that, it's just the ²/₂ in 3²/₂ that threw me off track as it just didn't make sense that anyone would write that seriously. While I'm here, can I just check that I understand the other fractional examples? (There don't seem to be scores for them available on-line and I don't have easy access here to any library or the like where I can check the scores).

In 2½/4 I'd expect a polytempi type interpreation - a quarter note pulse with the measure beat occurring every 2½ quarter notes so that the quarter notes and measure beats only come together every second measure. In ⅔/2 I would expect that to mean that you play the half notes over the measure line so that - say if I am counting triplet quarter notes then you would go 1 2 | 3 1 | 2 3 | 1 where | is the measure line, or if just playing plain half notes it would go * - | - * | - - | * - ... where the *s are the half note beats and the |s are the measure beats. basically the half notes and the measure beats between them play out a 3 : 2 polyrhythm stretched to the time of three measures instead of one.

But there is another possible interpretation, you could it as 1 2 | 1 2 | 1 2 | where it is understood that each measure is missing the third note of the triplet (which doesn't make much sense in isolation or as the time signature for an entire piece, but might make sense in context e.g. if using a melodic phrase that was previously true triplets but now cut short). I'm the author of a visual metronome and am following up from a user's video comment here: "how to play 5/4 over 4/4" youtube video comments. I have many videos of these polyrhythmic measures here Golden ratio and other non repeating polyrhythms - don't have anything up with 2½ / 4 etc. but would be easy to do - a couple of my videos are used in the Wikipedia polyrhythms article, can do more of them for any articles that need them. Robert Walker (talk)

Yes, humour seems to be the last thing anyone expects in music. I can't think why. The editor of the modern edition of Telemann's duets didn't understand there was a joke involved, either, though being a German perhaps his lack of a sense of humour is understandable (and before anyone starts accusing me of stereotyping, please let me assure you this is also a joke).

Fractional metres like 2½/4 can also be expressed with a "denominator" of twice the value, in this case 5/8 is the exact equivalent. There is perhaps a difference insofar as 2½/4 implies a "stretched" second beat of two in a bar (crotchet + dotted crotchet), whereas 5/8 could have a stretched first of two beats, or just an ungrouped series of five even divisions. The ⅔/2 metre, if I recall the example correctly, is missing the first of the three tuplets. As you say, it only really makes sense as a single bar in a context of other metres.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for your reply, that all is understandable, so everything answered now Robert Walker (talk)

I was about to comment on this entry, when I saw that a section had already been started about it.

For one thing, the score for this piece *is* available on-line (p. 6):

http://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks/usimg/e/e3/IMSLP98987-PMLP203419-Telemann-Intrada-2-violinen.pdf

- and it is given as ordinary 2/2 time - and the notes within the bars conform to that, too. If Telemann or his original publisher used the unusual time signature, at least this edition has replaced it with 2/2 - and the note-values in each bar add up to that in perfectly orthodox fashion.

Has anyone seen a copy of this piece that uses the unusual time signature? If it doesn't exist, then this entry would seem to be questionable.

(If the intended meaning of this time signature is "three and two halves over 4" (in other words, 4/4 or maybe 2/2), then I'm not sure I quite see what's humorous about that. But (if it's not stretching the "humourless Germans" joke too far), I am quarter-German by blood, but certainly not without a sense of humour in general. But I had to study and think about the time signature for quite a while before I could decide what it *maybe* meant - and even then I wasn't sure.) M.J.E. (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources

To be honest, I think the "must have source" policy is a bit silly for this article, since the song/record itself is the reference! Vegard (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue has already been discussed extensively here. Do you have any new arguments to contribute besides "the policy is silly"? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise it had been discussed. Where can I find the discussion? Thanks. Vegard (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I found the archived discussions, but I'm not going to go through it all. I just want to say that time signatures are usually pretty clear just by listening to the song itself. The current policy is a bit like requiring that the summary plot of a movie comes from a review of the movie rather than the movie itself. Vegard (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the introductory paragraph? When you hear the passacaglia from Peter Grimes, can you tell that it is notated in 4/4, or does it sound like 11/4 to you? When you hear the (original) theme song to The Bill, do you think it is in 7/4 (an "unusual" time signature, according to the definition used here), or alternating bars of 6/8 and 4/4 ("ordinary" time signatures)? Summarizing a movie plot "from the movie itself" is a fairly good analogy, and just about as unacceptable on Wikipedia as speculating about musical notation from what you hear on a recording—the main difference being that movies usually have dialog that may sometimes be cited, whereas words to songs are almost always useless in verifying the meter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You have to take into account the fact that some people are simply not very good at figuring out time signatures. A song might have a "regular" or "simple" time signature but be weirdly accented, and that sort of thing tends to throw some people off. Some of the entries in this article are way off, for example. I have some problems with the article. 1. There is no universally accepted idea of what an "unusual" time signature is, making the whole premise of the article entirely subjective. 2. Most musicians have no problem working in 5/4, 7/4, 9/8 or 15/8, and time signatures such as these are by no means rare. 3. The article has the potential to mislead readers due to the likelihood that some people will make mistakes when counting out the more difficult rhythms. 4. Authors of "reliable" sources are human and are pretty much just as likely to make mistakes as anyone else, depending on how they came about their information. 5. There are literally thousands of pieces of music that could be added to the list in this article. It could make up a wiki on its own. Where would it end? In conclusion, I think it would be better to delete the whole article, or at least limit the entries included to genuinely rare time signiture such as 59/8 or 181/16. In my opinion, to save argument, deletion is probably the best course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.217.128 (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to nominate the article for deletion, go ahead; but it's probably worth reading the last deletion nomination first. I feel your first point has been addressed on both the talk page and the main article. However, the main issue I'd say to everyone when it comes to "I can count what time signature this is in" is the following: this consists wholly of original research, and is in fact the definition of original research. No matter how certain you are of a song's time signature, it's not our job to make interpretations (even if we are 100% certain). Our job is to provide reliable sources that make the interpretations. Yes, they may only be human, but if they are considered reliable then it usually means that they're rarely wrong in this subject. – Richard BB 11:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree with your point about original research, obviously. I guess the definition of what is considered an unusual time signiture is given in the article, though it does seem entirely arbitrary: 8/8 is simply never going to be an unusual time signiture by any sensible definition, for example. And then you have ones like this: 3²/₂/4. It's clearly a joke time signiture, and the reference basically acknowledges that. Three plus two halves is four, after all. It's just 4/4 written in a jokey way. And then you have other time signitures which have been counted wrong. I suppose there is no point in nominating the article for deletion if it was nominated before and not deleted. I feel that, at the very least, the article needs cleaning up, but I have no interest in getting into the edit war such a thing would entail. Perhaps there needs to be a discussion on what value the article would have even if it was cleaned up. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of all information, and information about which unusual time signatures have been used by a particular artist is often presented within the individual artists' articles anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.14.90 (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It is also worth emphasizing that this is a list (technically not an article) focussed on musical notation, and not on "Music in Goofy Meters". This is why Telemann's jokey meters qualify (despite the music being in perfectly ordinary meters, so far as performance is concerned), but Britten's Passacaglia from Peter Grimes does not (despite the music being in nonuple meter—see the lede paragraph). You are of course perfectly correct that Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of all information. Unfortunately, there are way too many violations of that principle extant, and prying some editors' tightly clenched fingers from their deathlike grip on these trivia lists is just not possible. We did manage to separate the quintuple and septuple meters from this list some time ago, so that they now have their own articles.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Telemann's joke, I see your point. But then that makes me wonder if time signitures such as that are the only ones that should really be in the list, since many of the time signatures mentioned are in the standard format and there is nothing inherently unusual about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.14.90 (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess that brings us back to the word "unusual", doesn't it? That word was a bone of considerable contention a while back (it is buried deep in the conversation archives by now), and was finally settled by quoting the source now cited at the head of this list. I think, however, that most people would agree that 4/4 is a slightly more usual signature than 59/16, even though no-one actually plays in 4/4 time any more—they just think that they do! ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, but if Telemann's joke is an unusual time signature, then it is unusual because of its non-standard format. 59/16 uses standard formatting but most would agree that 59 is an unusual meter. Perhaps splitting this thing so that pieces that have non-standard time signatures (3²/₂/4) make up one list and pieces with unusual meters (59) make up another list (or several lists, following what has been done with 5 and 7) might be one way to go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.14.90 (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless you are proposing a change of this list's name to "List of musical works with time signatures in unusual formats", I think you are flogging a dead horse. There is a definition of "usual time signatures" at the beginning of this list, which was adopted after a long a brutal squabble. It is not a very elegant definition, as it consists simply of a list declared to include all usual signatures. This has the merit of making it plain that any time signature not in the list is by definition "unusual". Considering the strife involved in settling on this device in the first place, I would not set much hope in getting agreement on something else, but if you are inclined to try, I can't stop you from re-opening the debate. Just please do everyone a favor and read the previous discussion first, so that no one will feel the need to quote it all back.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really proposing anything. It was just a suggestion for a future discussion really. There is certainly some disparity between the main article on time signatures, which plainly states that 5/8, 7/8, 11/8, 13/8, etc. are only considered unusual by the standards of modern popular music of Western nations, and this article, which, as I said before, includes time signatures such as 8/8 and 8/4 in its definition of "unusual". I appreciate what you're saying with the squabbling and all that but you must admit that the given definition is incomplete, at best. If you read Ian Waugh's article, you will see that he was merely trying to explain what time signatures are and made no claims regarding a definitive list of "usual" time signatures.

Sure, all of this is perfectly true, though you omit saying that by the standards of modern popular music 3/4 and 6/8 are unusual signatures (this was discussed long ago), and of course this is largely a matter of notational convention, and doesn't even apply to the larger part of popular music, which isn't written down anyway. Meters such as 8/8 and 9/8 only become unusual when they are not divided in the conventional way (and this in itself is an internal contradiction in this list, which pretends to ignore what the music actually sounds like—but can't, since it depends so heavily on sources that describe pieces as being in such-and-such a meter, even though they are not written down anywhere). Thank goodness we have gotten ordinary, everyday quintuple and septuple meters out of this mess. Perhaps we can one day start articles on undecuple, trevigesimal, and other such meters, and dismantle this silly list altogether.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

59/48

I am referring to this entry in the article:

59/48

Partially in 59/48

Evol by Damian LeGassick alternates a rhythm notated as five beats in the time of seven with another in 59/48 time.

I am not really sure that I understand the meaning of any time-signature denominator that is not a (positive) power of 2. (I hope no composers of the "weird" school ever take it into their heads to write negative denominators!)

I would understand exactly what 59/32 meant, or 59/64 - but just what does 59/48 signify? What exactly does the 48 refer to? 32 refers to a demisemiquaver, and 64 to a hemidemisemiquaver - so would 48 refer to the most obvious note of intermediate value: a dotted hemidemisemiquaver? Yet think about it another way: the 32, 64, etc. refer to the fraction of a whole-note or semibreve that the note itself occupies - so a note signified by "48" must be some note that is one 48th of a semibreve in value - and that is not a dotted hemidemisemiquaver. A dotted hemidemisemiquaver is equal to 3 (non-triplet) semihemidemisemiquavers (if such a name exists - or three 128th notes), so 48 of them are equal to 48 x 3 128th notes, and that comes to 144 128th notes, which is distinctly more than a semibreve in value (it's equal to 9 quavers or eighths). So presumably whatever note-value is exactly equal to one 48th of a semibreve is going to be part of some obscure tuplet or string of tied notes somewhere in between a 32nd and a 64th. (My head is spinning a bit around all these numbers, so I can't quite be bothered calculating exactly what it would be - but the point is that it is *not* equal to a dotted 64th.)

In other words, if you try to analyze it logically, 48 as a time-signature denominator is ambiguous and/or unclear.

Still, not to say that the composer didn't use it - and the article may simply reflect that. But it would add depth to the entry if an explanation of the meaning could be added. If anyone knows, it might be a useful addition to this entry to add a sentence or two explaining it.

Here's a much simpler, but exactly analogous example of the issue I'm referring to, which is far easier to understand. It would be as if you had a time signature like 4/3 - and I think I have seen such things occasionally, and puzzled over what the composer was intending to convey. What does the 3 mean? It might seem to signify a dotted crotchet, because that's roughly half-way between 4 (which represent a crotchet) and 2 (which represents a minim) - so it might look like an alternative way of notating 12/8 time (4 dotted crotchets in the bar). But 3 is that note-value exactly three of which fill a semibreve, *by definition* - that's how denominators in time signatures are defined - or, in other words, triplet minims in a 4/4 or 2/2 bar (there is no exact way of notating it without triplets). Again - quite different from the dotted crotchet that may come to mind. So, unless a detailed explanation is given (and it has some logic to it), a time signature of 4/3 is literally meaningless - conveys no meaning at all. M.J.E. (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not see what this all has to do with improving or correcting this list. If that piece uses a screwy time signature, and there is a reliable source to verify that it does, why is that not sufficient?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't sufficient. Since this list is about very unusual time signatures, if one appears that is not meaningful according to the usual ways that time-signatures are interpreted, I thought it would make the article more informative if the meaning of it could be explained. Time-signature denominators which are not positive powers of 2 are not normally used, and I cannot think of any unambiguous way of drawing meaning out of them. So if one appears in the list, it would be good if an explanation of what it means was added.

That's what it's got to do with improving this list. M.J.E. (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that the article Time signature, and in particular its section on irrational meters is the place to put such information. This is, after all, only a list, and this list is subordinate to that article. Wouldn't it be needless duplication to add substance from that article here?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

4/3 is 4 minim triplets in one bar, so that the whole bar lasts 2 2/3 minims (or 5 1/3 crotchets). A dotted crotchet is 3/8 of a semibreve, so 12/8 could be written (much less legibly) as 4/⁸/₃. Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

6/1

Does this (part b) count? Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No. The time signature is the notation at the beginning of the staff, which in this case is "O3" (your linked edition omitted the O, perhaps due to limitations in their notation software). 6/1 would fit the measure length, but the title of this article refers to "time signatures," which are specific notational devices. In any case, this type of meter isn't really "unusual" for Monteverdi's time. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Compound septuple meter

Does this go here? Double sharp (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Compound septuple meter is discussed in the article Septuple meter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What about triple septuple time (7+7+7/8), as opposed to compound septuple time (3+3+3+3+3+3+3/8)? Double sharp (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

See triple septuple time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And double duple quintuple time? (It is here with Alkan's E major octave study, but shouldn't it logically be at quintuple time?) Double sharp (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a very good point. It would also be logical to discuss both this and triple quintuple/septuple meters in the compound meter section of Meter (music).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Such things are basically generalizations of compound meter, where simple meter has beats subdivided into 2, compound into 3, quintuple into 5, septuple into 7, etc. Double sharp (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It gets tricky, though, when a source specifies, say 21/8 time, but does not say whether it is divided regularly as 7 + 7 +7 or 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3, or on the other hand falls into a repeating pattern of, say, 3 + 4 + 3 + 5 + 3 + 3.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The beaming of the score does provide a clue as to what the real pattern is, but (1) it doesn't work if the beat is a quarter note or longer and (2) it's a bit of a stretch of what counts as a reliable source. Double sharp (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Quintuple and septuple meter

While I wholeheartedly agree that they are common enough to not list here (putting them elsewhere), it seems to me that time signatures like 5/1, 7/64 and 7/128 do count as unusual enough to stay here. Double sharp (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Do I understand you to be saying that the entire contents of the articles Quintuple meter and Septuple meter should be duplicated here, or are you proposing their merger into this list?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No, just the ones with weird denominators (e.g. /1, /32, /64, /128, /256...) Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Why choose those in particular? Of course, the way "unusual" is currently defined, we really must admit meters such as 4/64 and 3/128, not to mention and the various other symbols used in mensural notation, as well as simple 4/4 meter when the composer chooses to use the symbol in place of the lower numeral, wouldn't you agree?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Consistency with what's done for the 2/x 3/x 4/x 6/x 9/x 12/x meters here, perhaps?

is equivalent to 2/2, so would not consider it unusual. Same with 4/. But only because those two are part of standard systems (the later from Carl Orff's). Thus Telemann's (3 2/2)/4 is still unusual.

Perhaps this is somewhat illogical and inconsistent, though. Double sharp (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to say about the 2/x 3/x 4x, etc. meters. Concerning your next sentence, all I am saying is that the definition given in the lede ("'Unusual' is here defined to be any time signature other than simple time signatures with top numerals of 2, 3, or 4 and bottom numerals of 2, 4, or 8, and compound time signatures with top numerals of 6, 9, or 12 and bottom numerals 4, 8, or 16") does not provide for any "equivalents". Keep in mind that this list is about time signatures (a notational device), not meters. The example of Britten's Passacaglia from Peter Grimes, given in the lede, makes clear the difference, I think. Logic and consistency of course are of little importance; what matters is that we have reliable sources, and such a source is provided for that definition in the lede's second sentence.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced: "Partially in a single unusual time signature"

I don't understand the point of this section in the "Unsourced" sub-article. Why don't the songs in it just get merged to the sections of their respective times? Most songs with unusual time signatures, it seems, have only one, so the section seems redundant. Tezero (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What "unsourced sub-article" is this? Do you mean the archived material on this Talk page, here? If that is it, I imagine it is an artifact from the time that list was pulled out of the main list. Perhaps the list organization has changed in the meantime but, should any of those items be verified then, yes, obviously, they would have to go under the time signature they contain. There seems little point in reorganizing an archive.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. I thought the idea was that if a source could be found for any of those songs the song would then be removed from the archive and placed in the real list. Tezero (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That is how I understand things, yes. So, should one of those songs be verified to be as advertised, it would go in the "partially in …" subhead, under the meter in question.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've dispersed them throughout the main Unsourced list as appropriate. Tezero (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

8/4 and 8/8

Sorry, I've gotta ask. Why are time signatures like 8/4 and 8/8 considered unusual? 4+4 grouping being widespread is a no-brainer, but even other groupings aren't that rare. 3+3+2, for example, is ubiquitous in dancehall and reggaeton music and is also pretty easy to find in rock, appearing in songs like "First It Giveth" by Queens of the Stone Age and "Hello Seattle" by Owl City. I'd venture that unevenly divided 8/x is more common than triple-compound 9/x.

Is it just that writing them in sheet music as 8/8 is considered unusual? Tezero (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The arbitrary definition chosen states that usual time signatures are "simple time signatures with top numerals of 2, 3, or 4 and bottom numerals of 2, 4, or 8, and compound time signatures with top numerals of 6, 9, or 12 and bottom numerals 4, 8, or 16". According to this then, yes, merely writing 8/8 in sheet music is considered unusual. However, the restriction to "unevenly divided" is a different thing entirely from having syncopations against an underlying 4/4 meter. I am not familiar with the genres or songs that you name, but I would be very surprised to learn that beat 2 of those 4/4 bars is never emphasized at all, either in the melody or the accompaniment. A few years back, we had this huge discussion about whether this list really should be dealing with meter instead of time signatures, and it was decided that, no, time signatures are more easily determined than meters. Hence the discussion added at about that time to the lede, giving examples where meter and time signature conflict. There is of course also the larger issue of the context in which a time signature may be considered unusual (3/4 is not at all usual in rock music, I am given to understand, and on the other hand 5/8 is a very common meter in Basque traditional music). These issues, however, are obviated by the definition adopted in the lede.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Surely the second 4th beat never being emphasized at all isn't a prerequisite for the section not being in simple 4/4, or else being "unevenly divided" would be the same thing as having syncopations against an underlying 4/4 meter... This is all largely hypothetical, though, as I haven't seen any sources that have taken a position either way on the status of 8/4 or 8/8 as a meter or time signature. It's disappointing that we have to go by a source like this arbitrary one. Tezero (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

By all means try to find a better definition for what constitutes "usual" and "unusual" meters. The current definition was finally settled on after a difficult discussion, but that does not mean it is a good solution. The fundamental problem is that, as I have already said, what is unusual for one group of musicians may not be for another. It may be possible to reasonably conclude in a discussion here that a certain set of meters are decidedly unusual for all cultures at all points in history, but finding a reliable source to support that opinion is another thing entirely.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I know, I agree with you. It's just that, given 4/4's incredible pervasiveness and the possibility of 8/4 standing simply for two measures of it, I don't see how it can really be unusual anywhere. Tezero (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention 8/8 "standing for" a single measure of 4/4? Sure, this is perfectly clear in mathematical thinking, but not necessarily in musical thinking. By the same line of (mathematical) reasoning, there is no meaningful distinction between 6/8 and 3/4. As far as octuple "aksak" meter is concerned, when we consider the unevenly divided 8/8 bars in Bartók, for example, there is usually a change of harmonic rhythm according to the groupings of three and two eighths, not to mention a perfectly regular cycle of rhythmic accents. Things become a lot murkier when we are dealing with constantly shifting accents, or with syncopations of the sort found in sections of "Puttin' on the Ritz", which are plainly in 7/4 despite being notated in (and accompanied by rhythms conforming to) 4/4 time. It is this kind of elusiveness that demands we use some sort of source, however arbitrary or deficient its criteria, to define just where the line is between "usual" and "unusual".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The source's author seems to agree that evenly divided compound signatures take on their components' status of unoriginality, or else 9/x and 12/x wouldn't be there. 8/x not being there just seems like a blind spot, albeit one we have to acknowledge. Tezero (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

8/4 is MUCH less common than 4/4, at least in notation! And in my experience aksak-rhythm octuple is normally written as an additive meter (and where the heck do we put such things on this list)?

Would place 9/x and 12/x as much more common at least in classical (with a lowercase c) works...it's very music-style-dependent. Double sharp (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand that 9/x and 12/x in notation are probably more common notations in classical (I've never actually seen anything but 4/4, 3/4, 2/4, 6/8, and occasionally 5/4 and 7/8 on paper, but I'll take your word for it). But I doubt that 9/x would be in other genres; 12/x might be in blues. It's a shame, really: the genres where unevenly divided 8/x is most common seem to be among the least likely to be written for sheet music. Tezero (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)