This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There is an article on additive rhythm. It says "the term additive rhythm is also often used to refer to what are also incorrectly called asymmetric rhythms and even irregular rhythms", so it pretty clearly doesn't apply to most (all) of the things in this article. It claims that it is more of an eastern music thing rather than a western music, but hedges that with "most western music". Is there actually any western music that is primarily additive? If there was, should we list it here? The only example I know of that seems to qualify is Miranda Sex Garden's "Monk Song"; but I think they're too obscure to justify adding a section on the subject just for that song, and besides I'm the author of the only notated version of the song that I've seen: [1], which makes this more the domain of original research rather than encyclopedic. On the other hand, it seems to me that people who are interested in reading this list to find out what's out there would be served to have things like this mentioned to them. Nothings 03:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is not in 10/4, but rather alternating bars of 4/4 and 12/8. Still interesting.
--For What it's worth, the sheet music has it notated as alternating bars of 4/4 and 6/8.
Besides Gregorian chants, I don't know if there are many such songs, but I know of at least one, a four-part choral piece called "This Marriage" by Eric Whitacre. How can you have a song with no time signature, you ask? Well, the best answer I could give you is that it sounds sort of like the "songs" you make up when you are just whistling/humming to yourself, not thinking about rhythm, key, melody, or anything, just singing for fun. You can listen to it at Eric Whitacre's Myspace. Are there enough of these songs to justify making a new section on this list, or perhaps even a new list? - MatrixFrog 01:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The thought of such music had occured to me also, and was the very reason I opened this talk page. Now that I think about it, though, I realise that this is a page for unusual time signatures. Music with no time signature can not be said to have an unusual time signature as they have none at all. Sure, they fit the unusual part, but not the time signature. Definitely, create a page for music with no time signature (you could link it to this one and vice versa) but don't put them here. Watto the jazzman 06:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
... but I don't want to argue that the article should be renamed, or sanitized or made politically correct or anything. What I would like to do is add something like this near the top:
It should be pointed out that the some of these meters are only considered "irregular" from a Western point of view; some music, notably that used for Bulgarian dances, uses such "odd" meters as 5, 7, 9, 11, 15 and other numbers of beats per measure regularly and extensively. (Like many such meters, these are all additive rhythms, which are built of simple units of 2 and 3 beats.)
There may be other examples of "irregular" meters which are culturally common, but I think this is one of the most notable. (Some Bulgarians consider our [Western] music remarkably square and boring for its lack of such meters!) What d'ya think? -- ILike2BeAnonymous 10:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
"asymmetric" is the correct term. "irregular" is just ahine.-- feline1 17:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
From what I can hear on the iTunes music store, this song doesn't appear to have any patterns of 13 in it. I just hear basic 4/4 with some 12/8 in there. Can anyone back this up? Saltbridge 00:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been noticing some entries with a comment such as "one bar 7/8 at the end of the verse". Should this type of thing be listed as a WORK in 7/8 ? Where should I move that? VdSV9• ♫♫♫
(1964) "Anyone Who Had a Heart" by Dionne Warwick - "5/4, 4/4, to 7/8 and resolving on 5/8 in only eight bars" according to the All-Music Guide [2] I listened to this song and the characterization is quite misleading. The song is actually in essentially in a very slow compound meter. If you preview it on Amazon, all you'll here is something that sounds like 6/8 or 12/8. However, the song does mix it up more; but in practice, it all amounts to various combinations of 6/8 and 9/8, which one could write as 15/8 and such, but it doesn't seem to accurately capture the dominating triple feel--though it's not quite slow enough to call the whole thing 3/4 and be done with it. The 5s and 7s seem to me to more or less represent a higher-level structure, which is not what this list is for. However, if you accept notating it as random mixes of 6/8 and 9/8, then the dramatic, syncopated sections at the end do end with 7/8, which is particularly surprising in such a strong compound meter (although the syncopation supresses the compound meter and masks it--it comes across as 3/4 + 3/4 + 2/4 + 3/8). But that's still noteworth enough it's worth keeping it in there somewhere (especially since it's so old), but I'm not sure where is best. And somebody else should probably verify that I'm hearing it right, or find a more trustworthy source than the AMG link above for the original claim. Nothings 11:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone check "Rusty Cage" by Soundgarden and "Morning Bell" by Radiohead? I wasn't able to "hear" that they are 19/8 and 5/4 respectively. Grue 17:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Morning Bell By Radiohead is indeed in 5/4, at least the version on Kid A. "Everything in its Right Place" is also a 5/4 signature.
I heard a Starsailor song on the radio that was in 5/4. No idea what it was, but maybe someone else knows? I know it's recent anyway, as it was being played to plug their current album. -- Bonalaw 19:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there any source for it being 3*4/4+2/4+2*4/4? The beats in the songs are obviously eights, not quarters, so it becomes 22/8=11/4, just like Rolling Stone says. Grue 22:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've seen two arangements of Hey Ya!, and both have three measures of 4/4, one measure of 2/2, and two measures of 4/4. Whether or not this is 'original research' is irrelevant, because you need citations to add something to Wikipedia, not to take something off of it. But that's just a technicality.... Goldencrisp87 07:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Across this page there are a whole bunch of comments by Wahoofive about original research versus citation. I would argue that this entire page is citation, as we are clearly not discussing anything that isn't clearly available for verification by musically literate people. If I were to write Song-X-by-unsigned-band-Y here that might qualify as original research. But suggesting that it is not reasonable to cite recorded material when music notation is acceptable is a little strage: it's arguable that there are just as many people in the world who can pick time signatures by ear as those who can read music notation. There is no original research going on here, just correct and incorrect reading of sources. If somebody reads an article in New Scientist, fails to comprehend it and then makes an inaccurate entry based on this citation is this original research, or a failure of comprehension of the source? There certainly are some odd entries in this list - things like Hey Ya do not belong. Hey Ya is in 4/4 with the occasional 2/4 bar inserted at the end of the progression, regardless of what some tit at Rolling Stone wrote to make himself look smart. That somebody could claim a citation of somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about is an improvement on citing a clearly verifiable source for a literate audience (i.e: the CD) is quite surprising. -- Finnhiggins 08:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: defense of this page as citation [common knowledge Hyacinth]: there are many ways to interpret the "no original research" comment in terms of this aspect of observing the work directly. If I am writing an article about a famous photograph, can I go look at that photograph, count the number of faces visible in it, and report that, or is that original research? WP:NOR says:
If the photograph is itself the primary source (that has been published), am I collecting and organizing information from it, or doing original research? Regardless, this followup comment seems clear:
It seems the basic argument here is that we are making descriptive claims the accuracy of which are relatively easily verifiable by reasonable adults with specialist knowledge, and thus this article does not fall into those exceptions. Even though this list seems valuable to many of us, it appears to fall outside the bounds of what wikipedia tolerates--not perhaps due to any inherent flaw of the list, but because it falls afoul of a rule designed to avoid certain bad things even knowing it might cull a few good things. Nothings 11:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the above because: Huh? Hyacinth 10:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC) ~
* (1997) " Paranoid Android" by Radiohead - 3 bars 7/8, one bar 8/8 (before and after the "ambition makes you look pretty ugly - kicking squealing gucci little piggy" and the heavy part that preceds slow part and ends music).
Can someone verify that this song is 5/4? I don't really know much about time signature but there is 11 beats. So wouldn't it be 11/4?
For example in The Radiohead song Morning Bell (Which is correctly listed under 5/4) there is 5 beats. Know what I mean? Or am I just wrong? PrettyMuchBryce 06:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Isn't Rapunzel by Dave Matthews band more like 11/8 or something? definately not 5/4 or 5/8 I think...
To whomever has posted this Genesis song. I finally had time to listen to it attentivelly, and the song is in 6/4. I haven't really listened to the whole song but even if there is a section or more in 7/4, it is not (even by close) the whole song so it was misplaced anyway... I just got to a part and thought it was it (by "it" I mean a 7/4 section) but actually it turned out to be a really syncopated 8/4. VdSV9• ♫ 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of some of the changes I've made yesterday, such as Incubus's "Nice to Know You", which I removed for having been posted as a 7/4 compass, but I counted a 6/8 followed by an 8/8 (or 6/4 and 8/4, it's a six and an eight anyway, I can't be sure (ever) about "this is a fourth!" or "this is an eighth!" except relatively, of course... but I'm wandering off).
Then I thought of Idiot Box (same band), the Riff is 7+8+8+9/8 - 16/4 you'd say. This song wouldn't be featured in the list from my POV of the way the list is working insofar.
Then I thought Hey, a song that is in it's entirety 7/4 isn't "Irregular" per se, it has a very regular feel to it. I'd say uncommon, or unusual time sig, but not as irregular as... "Nice to Know" (seeing it as a 6 and an 8 ) or one of my favorites "Mushroom Cult" by Dog Fashion Disco that has an 8 + 9 riff (which I prefer over 17, although some people have stated this before. I would notate one compass as 8/8 and the next as 9/8) or, say Erotomania. Now that is irregular. Opinions? VdSV9• ♫ 13:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for not saying anything for such a long time, I was hoping more people would give their opinions on this, since we're not the only ones working on this list (like I really did much...). What do you say we change it here and there? Is there an authoritative source where these are called irregular? Or was it just what the editor thought of when he edited the time signature page? If it's the latter, I say we change both, move and redirect this one and change the name there. VdSV9• ♫ 19:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Can we find more synonyms for unusual? VdSV9• ♫
Yeah, the way I see it, "assymetrical" would be interpreted similarly to "irregular", and that's what we are (or at least I am) trying to get rid of. OK, so assymetrical and uncommon are ruled out.
How about odd? Guess not... Keenan unknowingly suggested rare. I know that the list itself shows these signatures aren't that rare, just rarer. But hey, it's still an option.
This means we're left with rare or unusual so far. VdSV9• ♫ 19:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Brad Fiedel, Theme From The Terminator. 13/8 (3 3 3 2 2). Yes? No? -- 70.82.177.68 02:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this too. Gatesofawesome! 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe "The Ocean" is usually counted as 4/4+7/8, not 15/8. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 04:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This is listed as '4/4 + 3/4 during the intro'. This is wrong - it alternates between 7/8 and 9/8 in a (4 + 3) + (2 + 2 + 2 + 3) sort of way.
Has an unusual time signature, but my ears aren't trained to know what it is. marbeh raglaim 01:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous user added this:
Whoa dude, all this definitely doesn't belong here. If you want, start an article about the song (but be prepared to face accusations of original research). Only a short summary should go in this article. — Keenan Pepper 20:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking through the editing history, I see that most of the content has been destroyed and/or deleted by a user with IP 220.236.151.54. Possibility that this is due to the user using a browser which has trouble editing content of more than x kB and the rest has been truncated? Kick1 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Added the second movement of his Op 111 sonata. before anybody attacks it saying 6/16 is equivalent to 3/8 or 12/32, no it's not. firstly, because there is actually a difference in sound/feel between the two, but secondly (and more importantly) because that's what beethoven himself wrote (i have the score in front of me, just to be sure). and you can bet he knew what he was doing.
DonnyIDK 10:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
ITs in 3/8. it even says this on the album. im gonna change that unless someone proves me wrong.
Faust are notoriously unreliable when it comes to song titles, but "Giggy Smile" is the rock'n'roll song with "Giggy Smile" in the lyrics. The song that's in 13/8th time is actually called "Psalter", but on this album, it's listed as "Läuft...Heist das Es Läuft Oder Es Kommt Bald...Läuft" ("Running...Do you mean it's running or will soon...Running"), which is a bit of studio conversation tacked on at the beginning. The song "Run" is in there somewhere as well. But the bit that interests us has always been called "Psalter", on other records, in setlists, and so on. So I changed that bit. Juryen 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There is an article on additive rhythm. It says "the term additive rhythm is also often used to refer to what are also incorrectly called asymmetric rhythms and even irregular rhythms", so it pretty clearly doesn't apply to most (all) of the things in this article. It claims that it is more of an eastern music thing rather than a western music, but hedges that with "most western music". Is there actually any western music that is primarily additive? If there was, should we list it here? The only example I know of that seems to qualify is Miranda Sex Garden's "Monk Song"; but I think they're too obscure to justify adding a section on the subject just for that song, and besides I'm the author of the only notated version of the song that I've seen: [1], which makes this more the domain of original research rather than encyclopedic. On the other hand, it seems to me that people who are interested in reading this list to find out what's out there would be served to have things like this mentioned to them. Nothings 03:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is not in 10/4, but rather alternating bars of 4/4 and 12/8. Still interesting.
--For What it's worth, the sheet music has it notated as alternating bars of 4/4 and 6/8.
Besides Gregorian chants, I don't know if there are many such songs, but I know of at least one, a four-part choral piece called "This Marriage" by Eric Whitacre. How can you have a song with no time signature, you ask? Well, the best answer I could give you is that it sounds sort of like the "songs" you make up when you are just whistling/humming to yourself, not thinking about rhythm, key, melody, or anything, just singing for fun. You can listen to it at Eric Whitacre's Myspace. Are there enough of these songs to justify making a new section on this list, or perhaps even a new list? - MatrixFrog 01:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The thought of such music had occured to me also, and was the very reason I opened this talk page. Now that I think about it, though, I realise that this is a page for unusual time signatures. Music with no time signature can not be said to have an unusual time signature as they have none at all. Sure, they fit the unusual part, but not the time signature. Definitely, create a page for music with no time signature (you could link it to this one and vice versa) but don't put them here. Watto the jazzman 06:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
... but I don't want to argue that the article should be renamed, or sanitized or made politically correct or anything. What I would like to do is add something like this near the top:
It should be pointed out that the some of these meters are only considered "irregular" from a Western point of view; some music, notably that used for Bulgarian dances, uses such "odd" meters as 5, 7, 9, 11, 15 and other numbers of beats per measure regularly and extensively. (Like many such meters, these are all additive rhythms, which are built of simple units of 2 and 3 beats.)
There may be other examples of "irregular" meters which are culturally common, but I think this is one of the most notable. (Some Bulgarians consider our [Western] music remarkably square and boring for its lack of such meters!) What d'ya think? -- ILike2BeAnonymous 10:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
"asymmetric" is the correct term. "irregular" is just ahine.-- feline1 17:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
From what I can hear on the iTunes music store, this song doesn't appear to have any patterns of 13 in it. I just hear basic 4/4 with some 12/8 in there. Can anyone back this up? Saltbridge 00:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been noticing some entries with a comment such as "one bar 7/8 at the end of the verse". Should this type of thing be listed as a WORK in 7/8 ? Where should I move that? VdSV9• ♫♫♫
(1964) "Anyone Who Had a Heart" by Dionne Warwick - "5/4, 4/4, to 7/8 and resolving on 5/8 in only eight bars" according to the All-Music Guide [2] I listened to this song and the characterization is quite misleading. The song is actually in essentially in a very slow compound meter. If you preview it on Amazon, all you'll here is something that sounds like 6/8 or 12/8. However, the song does mix it up more; but in practice, it all amounts to various combinations of 6/8 and 9/8, which one could write as 15/8 and such, but it doesn't seem to accurately capture the dominating triple feel--though it's not quite slow enough to call the whole thing 3/4 and be done with it. The 5s and 7s seem to me to more or less represent a higher-level structure, which is not what this list is for. However, if you accept notating it as random mixes of 6/8 and 9/8, then the dramatic, syncopated sections at the end do end with 7/8, which is particularly surprising in such a strong compound meter (although the syncopation supresses the compound meter and masks it--it comes across as 3/4 + 3/4 + 2/4 + 3/8). But that's still noteworth enough it's worth keeping it in there somewhere (especially since it's so old), but I'm not sure where is best. And somebody else should probably verify that I'm hearing it right, or find a more trustworthy source than the AMG link above for the original claim. Nothings 11:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone check "Rusty Cage" by Soundgarden and "Morning Bell" by Radiohead? I wasn't able to "hear" that they are 19/8 and 5/4 respectively. Grue 17:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Morning Bell By Radiohead is indeed in 5/4, at least the version on Kid A. "Everything in its Right Place" is also a 5/4 signature.
I heard a Starsailor song on the radio that was in 5/4. No idea what it was, but maybe someone else knows? I know it's recent anyway, as it was being played to plug their current album. -- Bonalaw 19:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there any source for it being 3*4/4+2/4+2*4/4? The beats in the songs are obviously eights, not quarters, so it becomes 22/8=11/4, just like Rolling Stone says. Grue 22:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've seen two arangements of Hey Ya!, and both have three measures of 4/4, one measure of 2/2, and two measures of 4/4. Whether or not this is 'original research' is irrelevant, because you need citations to add something to Wikipedia, not to take something off of it. But that's just a technicality.... Goldencrisp87 07:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Across this page there are a whole bunch of comments by Wahoofive about original research versus citation. I would argue that this entire page is citation, as we are clearly not discussing anything that isn't clearly available for verification by musically literate people. If I were to write Song-X-by-unsigned-band-Y here that might qualify as original research. But suggesting that it is not reasonable to cite recorded material when music notation is acceptable is a little strage: it's arguable that there are just as many people in the world who can pick time signatures by ear as those who can read music notation. There is no original research going on here, just correct and incorrect reading of sources. If somebody reads an article in New Scientist, fails to comprehend it and then makes an inaccurate entry based on this citation is this original research, or a failure of comprehension of the source? There certainly are some odd entries in this list - things like Hey Ya do not belong. Hey Ya is in 4/4 with the occasional 2/4 bar inserted at the end of the progression, regardless of what some tit at Rolling Stone wrote to make himself look smart. That somebody could claim a citation of somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about is an improvement on citing a clearly verifiable source for a literate audience (i.e: the CD) is quite surprising. -- Finnhiggins 08:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: defense of this page as citation [common knowledge Hyacinth]: there are many ways to interpret the "no original research" comment in terms of this aspect of observing the work directly. If I am writing an article about a famous photograph, can I go look at that photograph, count the number of faces visible in it, and report that, or is that original research? WP:NOR says:
If the photograph is itself the primary source (that has been published), am I collecting and organizing information from it, or doing original research? Regardless, this followup comment seems clear:
It seems the basic argument here is that we are making descriptive claims the accuracy of which are relatively easily verifiable by reasonable adults with specialist knowledge, and thus this article does not fall into those exceptions. Even though this list seems valuable to many of us, it appears to fall outside the bounds of what wikipedia tolerates--not perhaps due to any inherent flaw of the list, but because it falls afoul of a rule designed to avoid certain bad things even knowing it might cull a few good things. Nothings 11:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the above because: Huh? Hyacinth 10:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC) ~
* (1997) " Paranoid Android" by Radiohead - 3 bars 7/8, one bar 8/8 (before and after the "ambition makes you look pretty ugly - kicking squealing gucci little piggy" and the heavy part that preceds slow part and ends music).
Can someone verify that this song is 5/4? I don't really know much about time signature but there is 11 beats. So wouldn't it be 11/4?
For example in The Radiohead song Morning Bell (Which is correctly listed under 5/4) there is 5 beats. Know what I mean? Or am I just wrong? PrettyMuchBryce 06:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Isn't Rapunzel by Dave Matthews band more like 11/8 or something? definately not 5/4 or 5/8 I think...
To whomever has posted this Genesis song. I finally had time to listen to it attentivelly, and the song is in 6/4. I haven't really listened to the whole song but even if there is a section or more in 7/4, it is not (even by close) the whole song so it was misplaced anyway... I just got to a part and thought it was it (by "it" I mean a 7/4 section) but actually it turned out to be a really syncopated 8/4. VdSV9• ♫ 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of some of the changes I've made yesterday, such as Incubus's "Nice to Know You", which I removed for having been posted as a 7/4 compass, but I counted a 6/8 followed by an 8/8 (or 6/4 and 8/4, it's a six and an eight anyway, I can't be sure (ever) about "this is a fourth!" or "this is an eighth!" except relatively, of course... but I'm wandering off).
Then I thought of Idiot Box (same band), the Riff is 7+8+8+9/8 - 16/4 you'd say. This song wouldn't be featured in the list from my POV of the way the list is working insofar.
Then I thought Hey, a song that is in it's entirety 7/4 isn't "Irregular" per se, it has a very regular feel to it. I'd say uncommon, or unusual time sig, but not as irregular as... "Nice to Know" (seeing it as a 6 and an 8 ) or one of my favorites "Mushroom Cult" by Dog Fashion Disco that has an 8 + 9 riff (which I prefer over 17, although some people have stated this before. I would notate one compass as 8/8 and the next as 9/8) or, say Erotomania. Now that is irregular. Opinions? VdSV9• ♫ 13:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for not saying anything for such a long time, I was hoping more people would give their opinions on this, since we're not the only ones working on this list (like I really did much...). What do you say we change it here and there? Is there an authoritative source where these are called irregular? Or was it just what the editor thought of when he edited the time signature page? If it's the latter, I say we change both, move and redirect this one and change the name there. VdSV9• ♫ 19:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Can we find more synonyms for unusual? VdSV9• ♫
Yeah, the way I see it, "assymetrical" would be interpreted similarly to "irregular", and that's what we are (or at least I am) trying to get rid of. OK, so assymetrical and uncommon are ruled out.
How about odd? Guess not... Keenan unknowingly suggested rare. I know that the list itself shows these signatures aren't that rare, just rarer. But hey, it's still an option.
This means we're left with rare or unusual so far. VdSV9• ♫ 19:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Brad Fiedel, Theme From The Terminator. 13/8 (3 3 3 2 2). Yes? No? -- 70.82.177.68 02:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this too. Gatesofawesome! 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe "The Ocean" is usually counted as 4/4+7/8, not 15/8. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 04:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This is listed as '4/4 + 3/4 during the intro'. This is wrong - it alternates between 7/8 and 9/8 in a (4 + 3) + (2 + 2 + 2 + 3) sort of way.
Has an unusual time signature, but my ears aren't trained to know what it is. marbeh raglaim 01:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous user added this:
Whoa dude, all this definitely doesn't belong here. If you want, start an article about the song (but be prepared to face accusations of original research). Only a short summary should go in this article. — Keenan Pepper 20:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking through the editing history, I see that most of the content has been destroyed and/or deleted by a user with IP 220.236.151.54. Possibility that this is due to the user using a browser which has trouble editing content of more than x kB and the rest has been truncated? Kick1 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Added the second movement of his Op 111 sonata. before anybody attacks it saying 6/16 is equivalent to 3/8 or 12/32, no it's not. firstly, because there is actually a difference in sound/feel between the two, but secondly (and more importantly) because that's what beethoven himself wrote (i have the score in front of me, just to be sure). and you can bet he knew what he was doing.
DonnyIDK 10:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
ITs in 3/8. it even says this on the album. im gonna change that unless someone proves me wrong.
Faust are notoriously unreliable when it comes to song titles, but "Giggy Smile" is the rock'n'roll song with "Giggy Smile" in the lyrics. The song that's in 13/8th time is actually called "Psalter", but on this album, it's listed as "Läuft...Heist das Es Läuft Oder Es Kommt Bald...Läuft" ("Running...Do you mean it's running or will soon...Running"), which is a bit of studio conversation tacked on at the beginning. The song "Run" is in there somewhere as well. But the bit that interests us has always been called "Psalter", on other records, in setlists, and so on. So I changed that bit. Juryen 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)