Talk:Time signature/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old discussions

Removed the following from this page:

There is also a cryptographic technique called a one-time signature scheme or protocol.

---

I am hesitent to edit here since I don't know enough about the subject, but I believe that this article (as well as metre (music), beat (music) and music notation) fail to mention the whole point of time signatures: that some beats are to be stressed more than others. If all beats were stressed the same, every 3/4 piece could be transformed into a 4/4 piece sounding exactly the same; only the musical notation would look different. But in a 4/4 piece, the beats are emphasized like this: ONE two Three four ONE two Three four,... (with Three being less emphasized than ONE but more than two and four), while in 3/4 we emphasize ONE two three ONE two three ... and in 2/4 we emphasize ONE two ONE two ONE two... and in 6/8 ONE two three Four five six ONE two three Four five six...

Rather than to say that different beats are "stressed" as determined by time signature (which seems to me to go too far), I'd say that the meter reflects the harmonic rhythm of the piece; it is an a posteriori fact of the music, not a priori. Though we hear a slight extra emphasis on the beats appropriate to the meter, this is a consequence of the harmonic rhythm (assuming no specific articulation is marked in the score)--how mechanical and silly music would sound if we consciously emphasized beats just because the meter seemed to call for it, even a little bit! The music itself carries emphasis; the performer shouldn't worry about it unless conscious emphasis is specifically called for in the score. -John, music student

Is it correct that every 2/4 piece can be converted into an equivalent 2/2 piece?

If my understanding is correct, this should be added to the article. AxelBoldt 15:34, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You're quite right, and I've added a quick mention of stressed and unstressed beats into the article. And yes, every piece in 2/4 can be rewritten into 2/2, though there's a subtle difference implied between the two - I suppose that's to be added in the future. I might have a look at going over this and related articles sometime (they could certainly do with rewriting for clarity). --Camembert

I've had a go at rewriting the page - I think it's better, but if others feel it's worse, revert away. One of the problems with the subject, it seems to me, is that it's so bound up with metre and beat and so on that it's difficult to write individual articles on each subject. Anyway, there it is. --Camembert

---

I wonder if this could do with breaking up into headings and perhaps some subtle restructuring. (Might add this to my list of things to do if nobody else wants to dive in and do it, or indeed has any objections.) Toby W 23:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I bring this up here in case I make the change erroneously - it is listed in the article

• (5+6)/4 -- Pictures at an Exhibition theme by Modest Mussorgsky:

But the image below it has one bar in 5/4 and the other in 6/4, which doesn't make the entire bar in 5+6/4. This should be thus removed, or reworded, correct? Dysprosia 06:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How's 5/4+6/4 look? Hyacinth

I was under the impression, though, that the time signature covered one bar only? I haven't seen a signature like 5/4+6/4 before, and such a signature isn't mentioned in the article - could we possibly get a description of the meaning of that form signature? Dysprosia 21:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that would be because it is not a time signature but two. However, I know realize that any reasonable person looking at that would assume it to be one. Given that it only needs a short explination that this is one of those pieces that uses two (or more/alternating?) time signatures. Hyacinth 21:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page revision

I'm planning to reorganize this page into several sections, including

• standard time signatures
• irregular time signatures
• mixed meters
• modern innovations (including things like 3+2+3, Orff notation)
• use in early music (I'm not really an expert in this so it will be more of a stub)

Examples of each would go under those categories. I have several more graphics, so I'd like Hyacinth to clarify what he meant (on my personal comments page) by the 3+2+3/8 one needing to be more "clear." Do you mean technically (in a computer-graphic sense) or in terms of content?

Wahoofive 00:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, revision accomplished. Still needs some work. I hate using the phrase "irregular time signatures" but "irregular meters" sounds out-of-place in an article on time signatures.

I removed the following:

In modern Western Music, in styles such as serialism and minimalism, the time signature is often avoided entirely (the key signature is also frequently omitted). An underlying time signature or key may be present, but it may be too notationally complex or too redundant to indicate. In the music of many cultures, time is maintained by a drum or other percussion instrument. Examples of this can be found in Indian classical music (see Indian music) and gamelan music, both of which often rely on oral tradition to pass down popular songs (although both utilize an idiosyncratic rhythmic notation).

I included a new sentence under "mixed meters" about omitting time signatures, but that's not really related to serialism or minimalism; I'm familir with both genres and they generally use standard time signatures. The other stuff seems off-topic, but worth saving.

Also removed:

Other unusual meters exist. Dave Brubeck is well known for his employment of unusual time signatures (see above); Don Ellis consistently explored this area also. Progressive rock, progressive metal, and modal jazz often employ unusual time signatures. The group Stereolab have made extensive use of unusual time signatures, as have Nels Cline and Nick Didkovsky's Doctor Nerve. In electronic music, Venetian Snares uses 7/4 and 5/4 almost exclusively.

There are already too many examples.

Wahoofive 22:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice work! Suggestions, of course: the image of various time signatures, Image:Common time signatures.gif, should seperate 4/4 & C and 2/2 & ¢. Otherwise an ignorant reader would assume they are one thing (notated 4/4C and 2/2¢) or alternate as below in Image:Alternating_time_signatures.gif. See Wikipedia:Section and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Hyacinth 22:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I'm also going to shorten the measures so this graphic is narrower. Also, I'm going to change the Orff example so one of them has a dotted note on the bottom, since the main advantage of the Orff notation is the elimination of "complex" signatures. Wahoofive 06:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bottom number

I always thought that the bottom number of a time signature has to be a power of 2, but 84 is not a power of 2 and towards the bottom of this article there is written music with a time signature that has 84 as its bottom number. Where did this come from?? Georgia guy 22:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Read the text: "If two time signatures alternate repeatedly, sometimes the two signatures will be placed together at the beginning of the piece or section." I don't think this is really how it looks, but the explination was right there! Hyacinth 23:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll move the signatures a little further apart for clarity. Wahoofive 06:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Orff signatures

The section on Carl Orff time signatures (with a note instead of a number to represent the basic unit) states that these signatures eliminate the need for 'complex' time signatures.

Shouldn't that word be 'compound'? Orff signatures enable rewriting compound signatures like 6/8 with 2/dotted-quarter.

Fixed. Don't forget to sign your posts. --Wahoofive 16:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

shiny happy people

Let me see if I got the article right. Does REM's "Shiny Happy People" have different time signatures for the violin intro and bridges, and the rest of the song? What would these ts be?

68.50.100.146

I somehow doubt that Kelly Clarkson and Lindsay Lohan use irregular time signatures. Hyacinth 20:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

OutKast's Hey Ya!

Is this song really in 11/4? I disagree. To my mind it's three bars of 4/4, one bar of 2/4 and two bars of 4/4. The total of 22 crotchets could be interpreted as 11/4, but to suggested that each chord cycle is just two bars seems utterly fallacious. --HighHopes 19:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• This was my source for putting that in, but Rolling Stone has been wrong before. But there's definitely something weird about the time signature for that song, and it's probably the most recent popular song with an unusual time signature, it would be good to put something about it in here. I just noticed List of works in irregular time signatures -- what's the difference between that list and the one on this page? They seem to have almost entirely the same items. --Arcadian 13:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks as if User:Hyacinth created that on May 24 in response to the discussion below, intending to make it just a link from this page, but didn't complete the process. I'd support following through on that, since it isn't that helpful on this page, and all the disputed ones can be disputed there. (P.S. I'd consider a Rolling Stone article sufficient documentation.) —Wahoofive (talk) 18:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've followed up and done that. --Arcadian 18:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Restricting the list of examples

The list of examples is getting ridiculous, not to mention controversial. There's no use in listing songs when people disagree on what meter they are in, like some examples mentioned above — that doesn't help the reader understand anything; furthermore, a million examples isn't that useful. Anyway, this article is about time signatures, a written notation, not meter.

I propose that the only examples allowed are those with printed sheet music available showing the time signature. This would keep Dave Brubeck and the classical-music examples, for sure, and probably Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull and Sting. Sound-files of excerpts might be useful. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you proposing that Wikipedia:Cite sources? Hyacinth 23:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your points, Wahoofive. FClef, 8 Sep 2005 04:08 (GMT)