This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Please let me know what you'd think of the following citations:
Redheylin ( talk) 18:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the first: I don't see any evidence of editorial oversight. I am unaware of whether this website is run by a reputable music publisher. Regarding the second source: It's a typical guitar tabs sight, with submissions made by Joe Schmoe, etc., whose credentials are unknown or non-existent--not any more reliable than a wiki site. Have you taken a look at WP:RS? That'll give you a good idea of what's acceptable, and what's typically not. Nick Graves ( talk) 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Redheylin ( talk) 14:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Redheylin ( talk) 17:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.folkinfo.org/songs/displaysong.php?songid=100
Redheylin ( talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Redheylin ( talk) 03:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: "Orginal scores are the ideal source.":
I'd go much further than that. Since time signatures (in contradistinction to musical groupings) are strictly a matter of notation, original scores and and sources that refer to original scores are the only valid sources. No piece is "in" a time signature.
Re: "Now, the point is; I am in possession of an impeccably-qualified textbook that asserts that rhythm cannot be divorced from the pattern of harmonic shifts and, on this basis, flatly asserts that Beethoven sometimes got his own time-signatures wrong.:
I'm not sure how that can be the point, although it may help to illustrate some point--in this case I'm not sure what. It would be helpful if you would actually name this textbook. In any case, harmonic rhythm in the common practice period was clearly an important part of rhythm overall and would tend to influence rhythmic notation. On the other hand, there is no "right and wrong" in respect to time signatures--time signatures are strictly a convenience for the performer; they are not obliged to describe accurately and consistently what is happening in the music, and unlike dynamic and articulation markings, and so on, they are not instructions for the performer. TheScotch ( talk) 01:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Why should this article be considered necessary? TheScotch ( talk) 11:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was left with after scanning the article. Its entire premise is POV. --It does state the unusual in the 'western' sense aspect, but why does it have to be an encyclopedia about each meter and the songs that 'go with it'. I'm especially amazed at the inclusion of folk-inspired classical works (proto "world music"). Maybe people still find it fascinating that it's possible to write music in something other than 3/4 and 4/4. I now will look for an article on "music in unusual keys/modes" and marvel at all the songs not in C Major. :) Just another strange OCD corner of the internet, i guess. Beetlecat ( talk) 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It probably is "an encyclopedia about each meter and the songs that 'go with it" because it is a list, rather than an article. Many of the lists on Wikipedia are pointless, and have a tendency to turn from notability to trivia very quickly. BTW, here is the article you seek: Music in unusual keys/modes. Enjoy ;-) — Jerome Kohl ( talk) 22:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If one is interested in studying the use of meter one may presume this list would be a handy reference to songs which use less common meters. Hyacinth ( talk) 02:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Not everyone comes from rich musical backgrounds. Some would find this a handy reference if their introduction to music was the radio or popular music. As they branch off they are not going to intrinsically know about this sort of thing. 208.49.182.106 ( talk) 21:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely. There seems to much arguing on this page about what a "time signature" is, and the exclusion of songs that don't "have" one (i.e. aren't scored out, regardless of how obvious the meter is). If we're talking strictly scored pieces, then this article is completely pointless, as official scores are quite rare for modern popular pieces, meaning we can't reliably create this list for anything not considered "Classical" music! A page for "list of music works in unusual metres" would be much more appropriate. -- Djbon2112 ( talk) 17:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Since this article appears to be founded on a misapprehension, it seems to me worthwhile to quote Walter Piston on the question at some length. This is from his Counterpoint, pages 26 and 27:
"In itself meter has no rhythm. It is simply a means of measuring music, principally for purposes of keeping time, and as an aid in playing or singing together in ensemble music. In placing bar-lines to apply our units of measurement to the music, we select, as far as we can, points where the music seems to have the feeling of an initial pulse. That we find this easy to do, with units of two and three beats, is due to the fact that a large amount of music is regular in pulse, and so we are deceived into assuming that the meter itself is rhythmic...." TheScotch ( talk) 06:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"[...]beats and bars that is maintained by performers and inferred by listeners which functions as a dynamic temporal framework for the production and comprehension of musical durations. In this sense, metre is more an aspect of the behaviour of performers and listeners than an aspect of the music itself." In other words, meter is an aspect of the performance" and its perception. Thus, pieces played with a metric feel have a meter. 71.161.100.42 ( talk) 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Depending what happens before and after, it may have been better if Ginastera had notated this as a normal 9/8, with all eighth notes beamed in groups of three. That way the conductor could beat even dotted quarter notes and not have to wear out his arm or his lungs. The pitch groupings will take of themselves. One of my teachers used to say (quoting one of his teachers), "[When notating music] keep the theory to yourself."
The Piston Counterpoint and Orchestration books are still published in their first editions, whereas the Piston Harmony book has been through many editions, the ones co-written by Mark Devoto radically different. Thus I tend to avoid quoting Piston's Harmony to avoid confusion, although I consider the first edition superior in most respects to every other Harmony textbook I've examined--which doesn't mean I would recommend it (were it still available) as a primary text for teaching; from a practical standpoint it's just too condensed.
Ad rem, however: A term that can mean--and commonly means--precisely the thing we want to use it to distinguish it from--Grove's (1)--is a compromised term, and, as we've seen, even Grove's (2) is disputed. TheScotch ( talk) 05:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Piston is clearly saying that meter is a matter of notation, not rhythm. One can get away with using meter to mean rhythmic grouping where one isn't specifically attempting to distinguish time signature and rhythmic grouping, but here we are specifically attempting to do that. The term I "have in mind" is the term I've been using all along: grouping. The different senses of tonality and so on are entirely irrelevant to the argument.
There are various passages in the Rite in which a perfectly ordinary rhythm is written in a perversely unordinary way. Although I've never been involved in any performance of the piece, I've read that it's quite common for conductors to renotate it--one way or another. There may have been nothing "preventing that conductor from beating [the Ginastera] in an ordinary three-to-a-bar", but if the piece is notated as you suggest, there is at least something discouraging him from doing so. I should think he'd at least warn the musicians ahead of time, so they would know what his beating is intended to represent. (I hope you aren't suggesting the players should "just ignore" the conductor here--or anywhere else, for that matter.)
The point about Harmony is that the Devoto editions are essentially different books entirely from the Piston editions--and, in my opinion, greatly inferior. TheScotch ( talk) 05:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
3/32 is uncommon, but is it truly unusual in the sense of the other time signatures on this page? — Robert Greer 03:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Since in ordinary usage the term unusual is a matter of degree, I don't think we have to be quite so ipso facto about it; we can simply say that 3/32 happens to be a time signature unusual enough for this article to discuss. I have to say the pseudo-mathematical definition we're using now seems a bit fussy and silly. If we're going to have to show the "replacement set" of "x" anyway, it seems to me we can save words by eliminating x altogether and just say this article concerns itself with all (traditionally constructed) time signatures that don't have a top numeral of either 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, or 12 and a bottom numeral of either 2, 4, 8, or 16. TheScotch ( talk) 09:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not adamant about keeping the article as currently named. If you review the discussion, you will find that I did suggest renaming it to something like List of musical works in unusual meters or time signatures. 3/32 and 12/1 are certainly unusual in a different way from the other time signatures listed. Why would that be a problem? Nick Graves ( talk) 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You must be using the term certainly "in a different way". The time signatures 3/32 and 12/1 are unusual in that they appear less often than, say, 4/4 and 6/8. The time signatures 5/4 and 7/8 are also unusual in that they appear less often than 4/4 and 6/8. This is the same way.
Re: "If you review the discussion, you will find that I did suggest renaming it to something like List of musical works in unusual meters or time signatures. Why would that be a problem?":
There are several problems: 1) Your suggested title is ambiguous because meter is very commonly used as a synonym for time signature. 2) Your suggested title is POV because certain very influential and esteemed music theorists (see the Walter Piston quote in the above section) don't recognize a distinction between the terms in any musical sense of the former. (These theorists obviously have etymology on their side--and, in my opinion, they have logic and common sense on their side as well.) 3) Your suggested title is rather like naming a Wikipedia article "List of apples and oranges". TheScotch ( talk) 07:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
How about 12/16, which appears in the B minor Bach flute sonata? — Wahoofive ( talk) 22:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is going to get nowhere if original research isn't allowed. If a song is blatantly in 5/8 or something, and this is agreed on by everyone, why should a source be needed? It's not like the time signature of a song can be disputed. It's like saying we need a source for the fact that bananas are yellow. - 70.105.161.188 ( talk) 15:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That's no excuse--and if you've never seen a green banana, you've likely never been to a grocery store either. Bananas are a curious thing; there're really only good for a day or two. After that it's banana bread or feed them to your pet monkey.
In any case, no "song" or other piece of music is "in" any time signature. A time signature is a thing written on paper. We can determine the time signature only by examining the score. All entries here should be referenced to a score, and where no score exists, no entry should either. TheScotch ( talk) 21:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the term time signature appears in the title of this article, it's reasonable to assume the article concerns time signatures. Since time signatures are strictly a matter of notation, only notated pieces can have them. TheScotch ( talk) 06:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying that a time signature is one numeral atop another appearing toward the beginning of the staff after the clef and the key signature. You don't think I can find five zillion sources that corroborate this? As far as not having "meter" goes, it rather depends in what sense you mean "meter". TheScotch ( talk) 07:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
They don't belong on the list (that is, in the article), and not just by "my criteria", but also by the definition of unusual the article proffers in its first paragraph. I've pointed this out already on this discussion page; it might save time and space if you'd go over the whole thing before posting further (which is not to say I particularly mind repeating myself). TheScotch ( talk) 11:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that the determination of the time signature expressing the meter of some specific pieces would not be original research. These determinations would be obvious deductions per
Wikipedia:These are not original research#Obvious deductions. For example, rock songs which began with the drummer counting out, "One, two, three, four!" are obviously in 4/4 (and easily excluded from the list).
The number of pieces whose unusual time signatures which could not be documented by sources and could be determined by obvious deductions such as listed above would be extremely small, and all specific claims that something is common knowledge may be checked against
Wikipedia:Common knowledge.
I am arguing that one must, when presenting a piece for the list without a source, also present why it would obviously be notated in that time signature.
Hyacinth (
talk)
02:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that we currently list, for example, all pieces in five together in one list. As such I do not see why it need be determined which specific time signature a piece would be notated in if published. Why? If this it is so important should we separate the specific time signatures? Hyacinth ( talk) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but with respect to time signatures and measures this is dead wrong--dangerously wrong, in fact. Time signatures and measure lines, unlike dynamic markings and so on, are not instructions. I've said this elsewhere on this discussion page, but I suppose it bears repeating: Measures measure out sections of equal duration (hence the name), and time signatures say what that duration is. Because it often makes sense to have these sections correspond to the prevailing grouping of the piece, time signatures also tend to imply (but only imply) groupings. I think we can say categorically that a performer who accents dynamically the beginning of a measure only because it is the beginning of a measure is a very bad performer (and likely a very misinformed performer as well). TheScotch ( talk) 06:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You both don't seem to be able to handle proposals without panic. Hyacinth ( talk) 06:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I propose that this article be moved to "List of musical works notated in unusual time signatures" because of arguments above. Hyacinth ( talk) 06:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Are you seriously proposing to erase all contemporary entries, which are typically non-notated, even though some have references? (The page doesn't seem to serve much purpose anyway, other than giving you chaps a place to argue...) 81.98.251.134 ( talk) 09:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If "the page", by which I take it you mean the article, serves little purpose, why should you care? What actual harm would it do to remove a great swath of the irrelevant matter in this irrelevant article?
Presumably by contemporary you mean modern, a usage to which Fowler takes great exception, the supposition presumably being that music is no longer notated and that the tradition of classical music ended with, say, Chopin (a refreshingly unostentatious rhythmic innovator, by the way). These suppositions are, of course, quite erroneous. TheScotch ( talk) 11:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No. If your reference is specifically to the Real Book transcription, rather than to the piece itself, then the Real Book transcription is a valid source; otherwise it isn't. If your reference is specifically to the arrangement which appears in the book I refer to in the "9/8" section of this discussion page, rather than to the piece itself or to the Real Book transcription, then this book is a valid sourse; otherwise it isn't. Paul Desmond may have jotted something down when he composed the piece--very likely he did. If your reference is to the piece itself then what Desmond jotted down is a valid source, and good luck finding it.
Re: "As to 'contemporary' vs 'modern', I'm with Fowler (whoever he may be) on this one. "Modern" is far too loose a term, potentially implying not so much post-Chopin as post-Monteverdi, thereby encompassing the entire period in which time signatures have been used.":
Henry Fowler is the extremely famous author of Modern English Usage, the second edition of which is to this very second in wide circulation and wide use. He is also the co-author of The King's English, still in print and very easy to obtain.
How far back modern is intended to extend has to inferred from the context in which it is used, and that is by no means a failing of the term or a reason to avoid it. What is contemporary refers to what exists simultaneously with whatever is being referenced. Goethe was a contemporary of Beethoven. Contemporary critics tended to be taken aback by Beethoven's third symphony. Fowler contends that contemporary should not be used as a synonym for modern because the more it is used thus the harder it is to use the term properly and be understood; the language is thereby diminished. Since modern already means modern, modern is the term to use when you want to mean modern. TheScotch ( talk) 06:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose — The title is awkward enough the way it is. — Robert Greer ( talk) 17:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
What pieces would be lost if the above change was made? Would any? Hyacinth ( talk) 00:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow... can someone explain that to me? Is that not just 4/4, or what? ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Um...a time signature is not a fraction. We put the virgule in, say, 4/4, when writing it thus because we either lack the facility to write one numeral atop the other or can't be bothered to hunt down the appropriate html code. TheScotch ( talk) 11:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize this actually appeared in the article itself. Anyway, I think the article should be consistent in form. If it's going to use 4/4, for example, then the above might be rendered /4. (Supposedly the <atop> tag should do the trick, but I can't seem to make it work here.) TheScotch ( talk) 07:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This song should be listed in "partially in 7/4" as each chorus has two 4/4 bars, but I can't find any sources to confirm this. Can anyone else find any information on this? Spell4yr ( talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If you listen really carefully, you'll find that the solid crotchet bass drum beat only lines up with the rest of the song every *other* phrase. Therefore, it's in an odd number of quavers; my counting says 13/8, rather than 15/8. Martinb9999 ( talk) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Another crazy time sig... now, I figured that is essentially 4/4, but my brain can't quite get around ⅔/4... I mean, that's saying it's ⅔ of a beat, over 4. ⅔ of one beat (as in, ⅔ of 1/4) would be 2.6 (recurring) multiplied by two, so 5.3 (recurring) over 8, so 5.3/8 - right? Or have I made something far to complicated for its own good? ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The song Killing Fields, from Slayer's 1994 album Divine Intervention, contains various parts written in 5/4. It also has another part that sounds like 13/16, but may be 3/4. I found a source for it, but I'm not sure if it is a reliable one, and I would like to add this song to songs partially in 5/4.
Alreadytaken4536 ( talk) 02:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe that many of Venetian Snares are 7/4, can anyone confirm? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
129.133.198.139 (
talk)
15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Such rhythms like 5/8, 7/8, 9/8 are the main rhythms of eastern folk dances. Should every folk song be added into this list and be called unusual, or are those rhythms only unusual for western folks?. Would calling them unusual in Wikipedia mean, Wikipedia adresses western folks? Yeah.. That was too pessimistic, but what i want to say is, this list has no point.
One page for each rhythm, and list of songs with each rhythm could be a solution. X_Kta ( talk) 22:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
X_Kta ( talk) 23:04, 19 July 2008
If one listens to Here Come the Bastards by Primus closely, the beat is clearly compound throughout the song. This means that although there are five beats, the time signature would likely be 15/8 or 15/16 (the latter being more likely, due to the fast tempo). I'm not saying that it couldn't be notated as 5/4 using triplets or swing notation, but it should at least be mentioned that both notations are possible. A good source for this might be official sheet music, if there is any. On this same subject: There is a vast difference between works in simple 7/4 time signatures, which consist of seven simple beats of quater-note length (I.E. Dem Bones by Alice in Chains), and works in complex 7/8 time signatures, which consist of unequal subdivisions such as 2+2+3 or 2+2+2+1 (I.E. the aptly named Subdivisions by Rush, which also features 4/4 and 3/4 sections). This distinction is made in the 9/8 section, but nowhere else. This is all based on my own knowledge of music theory, but if someone knows a good source, I feel that it is a very important distinction to make and should be added. 130.58.228.135 ( talk) 15:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I've heard quite a few internet sources state that Einstürzende Neubauten's "NNNAAAMMM" is in 9/4. Unfortunately, I can't find a single real, cite-able source for the statement, with the possible exception of a passing reference in this review. Any ideas? -- Myriologist ( talk) 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The intro to Vicarious is actually 3/8.
The reference cited also mentions that there are "rhythmic hiccups", which indeed there are.
For this reason, I think Vicarious should be in a "Partially in" section, rather than in the "5/4" section that it is.
(A bit like Money, which notes that it's solos are in 4/4, and therefore is not in the 7/4 section).
GreenAsJade ( talk) 00:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the page should be moved to one of the following:
The content would effectively remain the same but the context in which it is presented would be less subjective. A complex/asymmetrical/irregular time signature is a defined concept, what is usual or unusual will always be subject to someone's opinion. Complex/asymmetrical/irregular time signatures are apparently common in European folk music and Eastern popular and folk music [1], describing them as unusual is not looking at the topic from a neutral, global perspective. Guest9999 ( talk) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The guitar plays 5 eighth notes on the first chord, then 2 on each of the next two chords in each measure. (5 + 2 + 2.) That is not "ordinary triple compound," I'm pretty sure. Granted, it still doesn't have a "non-original-research" source and shouldn't be on the page yet. But if you're going to take something off the list, it would be nice to cite a legit reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.99.64 ( talk) 08:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
If my contributions weren't sourced, why is it that the page for the song, Freewill has it on the page? If I don't hear a good explanation, I'll be putting those back up. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden ( talk) 02:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I totally forgot about that- I haven't been too active lately. Ah well, it's really hard to come up with decent sources for this sort of thing, because there are a lot of patently false claims made even by the bands themselves (not Rush, but some of the other bands). My bass teacher told me I was spot on with my time signature writings for Freewill, but I KNOW that's not a reliable source, so I'll poke around and see what I can find. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden ( talk) 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Although I think this list is a nice source of information, I ask myself: how is it possible to ever have a complete list of alle songs (partly) in odd time signatures? Already the demand for a source is disputable. Is it the transcribed music? Or the original recorded song? For classical music, the first would be an important criteria since we often don't have original recordings and composer left us only the sheet music. For pop and rock music, this almost turned upside down. We often only have recordings. A lot of music is transcribed, but not all, and then often not by the original artist. There's a lot of interpretation (e.g. I remember that the main riff of Blackened by Metallica (opening song of ...And Justice for All) is written down in one book in 7/4, while in another book in 7/8). A lot of Spock's Beard and Neal Morse songs use odd time signatures, but a lot of songs aren't (professionaly) transcribed. But a musician with some reasonable counting skills can distinguish the time signatures. But: there's always discussion, is it 7/8 or 7/4, is 4/4+5/8, 13/8 or 8/8+5/8 etc? Also, if we would add these songs to the list, the list would become way to long. And then: what do you expect from a source? Is blog.pandora.com a reliable source? If i'd like to, I can create my own source this way! Then I would ask myself: why should we want a list with ALL songs in odd time signatures? Wouldn't it suffice to sum up the most well-known songs (easily to find sources), and for example some (well known) bands (like Rush) and musical styles that often use odd time signatures (like progressive rock, bulgarian music) (which is traceble as a source as well). Now you create a list in which everyone can add his or her "favorite oddtimesignaturesong", maybe let it get deleted because the song wasn't transcribed etc. etc. And who can decide what is a good source and what not? But I've already raised this question. My main problem is: how much encyclopedic value has a list as this? It can never be complete. So if it won't be complete, make sure it is representable and names the most well known songs, styles and bands. Any comments???
Sreglov 21:58, 7 may 2009 (CET)
How about the Scherzo in Borodin's Second Symphony: 1/1. Doesn't this qualify as "unusual"? -- megA ( talk) 16:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
List of extraordinary diseases and conditions has been tagged for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extraordinary diseases and conditions). Feel welcome to give comments and suggestions, because the main reason is basically the same as what was the case for this article: Lack of proper definition of what really is unusual, and therefore what to include or not, as well as making inclusions verifiable and without original research. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 18:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous editor recently removed this section saying: "Blanking section, no real use for it since the time signature is always specified (at least to the players...). These are just poorly sourced examples." This seems a far-fetched objection: notation is not music and many performers do not use notation.
More importantly Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, so one should find a better section heading title and better sources, if that is ones objection. Hyacinth ( talk) 18:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
In all three cases the author is a professional reviewer, in contrast to Wikipedia users who are unpaid volunteers. Thus my transcription would look and be more unprofessional. Even if I am a professional in "real life", on Wikipedia my credentials are irrelevant. Hyacinth ( talk) 02:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as we know the critics cited in the section under discussion while writing their articles had a detailed score lent to them by the composers/performers of the pieces in question and as such where describing the actual notated time signature(s) of the pieces. Following the conventions of popular/rock journalism they mentioned an interesting musical feature but left out extended technical discussion, leaving those notated time signatures, as we currently say, "unspecified".
Another possibility is that the critic interviewed the musicians and they named the time signature, and then the critic followed the conventions of rock journalism.
Another possibility is that a trained musicologist, possibly the critic, transcribed the pieces into notation and used the time signature(s) described by the critics, who then followed the conventions of rock journalism. Possibly this was assisted by the "unusual" time signature being simple and apparent deviations from common time that is easily transcribed.
The last possibility I will name is that the critics were imprecise in their use of music terminology, mistakenly substituting "time signature" when they intended "meter".
There is no evidence that the last possibility is the case, that the critics in question where not knowledgeable of music, and that as professional writers they would misuse words. As such, and given " Occam's razor", the three proceeding possibilities appear to be the simpler explanations and thus the more desirable. Hyacinth ( talk) 01:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
If we where to create this article, through what sources and how would we define "unusual meter"? As the introduction makes clear the list of pieces with "unusual meter" would be a different one than this list. It would contain pieces which do not make this list, such as "Passacaglia" from Britten's Peter Grimes, would not contain many pieces which are on this list, and some pieces would qualify for both lists. Do we have any pieces in mind and sources in mind for this proposed list? Hyacinth ( talk) 08:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Federico Mompou wrote a lot of music without any time signatures, key signatures or bar lines. But he also used odd markings such as the number 3 written not on either of the staves, but in the space between them. He did this in the Cancion y Danza No. 1, for example. Just the number 3. In the Prelude No. 5, the number 3 appears in each of the staves; in the Preludes Nos. 7 and 10, the number 4 appears in each of the staves. In most of the pieces from Musica Callada, the number 2 appears in each of the staves. Just the one number, not the two numbers we've come to expect. Do these qualify as "unusual time signatures"? -- JackofOz ( talk) 11:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Examples, sure. Jacques-Martin Hotteterre, "Musette" and "Menuet" from the Deuxième Suite de Pièces à deux dessus, op. 6, which are in 2 and 3, respectively (no second numeral). The "Sarabande La St. Maurice" from the same work is also in simple 3, and the pair of "Rondeaus" following are also in simple 2. François Couperin, Treizième Concert royal, third movement, "Sarabande" is in 3. Jean-Philippe Rameau, Pièces de clavecin en concerts, many movements with single-digit signatures: Première Concert, "La Coulicam", "La Livri", and "Le Vézinet" all in 2. Deuxième Concert, "La Laborde" in 2, "La Boucon", "La Agaçante", and two Menuets in 3, etc. More modern example, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Chôros No. 8, begins in a simple 3, at rehearsal-number 5 the meter changes to 4, then at rehearsal 6 back to an alternating 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2 etc. Four bars after rehearsal 9 is the less usual 5. In fact, throughout this score single-digit signatures are used, except for the compound meters 3/8, 6/8, 9/8, and 11/16, and one exceptional 2/4 four bars before rehearsal 44.
This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Please let me know what you'd think of the following citations:
Redheylin ( talk) 18:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the first: I don't see any evidence of editorial oversight. I am unaware of whether this website is run by a reputable music publisher. Regarding the second source: It's a typical guitar tabs sight, with submissions made by Joe Schmoe, etc., whose credentials are unknown or non-existent--not any more reliable than a wiki site. Have you taken a look at WP:RS? That'll give you a good idea of what's acceptable, and what's typically not. Nick Graves ( talk) 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Redheylin ( talk) 14:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Redheylin ( talk) 17:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.folkinfo.org/songs/displaysong.php?songid=100
Redheylin ( talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Redheylin ( talk) 03:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: "Orginal scores are the ideal source.":
I'd go much further than that. Since time signatures (in contradistinction to musical groupings) are strictly a matter of notation, original scores and and sources that refer to original scores are the only valid sources. No piece is "in" a time signature.
Re: "Now, the point is; I am in possession of an impeccably-qualified textbook that asserts that rhythm cannot be divorced from the pattern of harmonic shifts and, on this basis, flatly asserts that Beethoven sometimes got his own time-signatures wrong.:
I'm not sure how that can be the point, although it may help to illustrate some point--in this case I'm not sure what. It would be helpful if you would actually name this textbook. In any case, harmonic rhythm in the common practice period was clearly an important part of rhythm overall and would tend to influence rhythmic notation. On the other hand, there is no "right and wrong" in respect to time signatures--time signatures are strictly a convenience for the performer; they are not obliged to describe accurately and consistently what is happening in the music, and unlike dynamic and articulation markings, and so on, they are not instructions for the performer. TheScotch ( talk) 01:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Why should this article be considered necessary? TheScotch ( talk) 11:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was left with after scanning the article. Its entire premise is POV. --It does state the unusual in the 'western' sense aspect, but why does it have to be an encyclopedia about each meter and the songs that 'go with it'. I'm especially amazed at the inclusion of folk-inspired classical works (proto "world music"). Maybe people still find it fascinating that it's possible to write music in something other than 3/4 and 4/4. I now will look for an article on "music in unusual keys/modes" and marvel at all the songs not in C Major. :) Just another strange OCD corner of the internet, i guess. Beetlecat ( talk) 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It probably is "an encyclopedia about each meter and the songs that 'go with it" because it is a list, rather than an article. Many of the lists on Wikipedia are pointless, and have a tendency to turn from notability to trivia very quickly. BTW, here is the article you seek: Music in unusual keys/modes. Enjoy ;-) — Jerome Kohl ( talk) 22:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If one is interested in studying the use of meter one may presume this list would be a handy reference to songs which use less common meters. Hyacinth ( talk) 02:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Not everyone comes from rich musical backgrounds. Some would find this a handy reference if their introduction to music was the radio or popular music. As they branch off they are not going to intrinsically know about this sort of thing. 208.49.182.106 ( talk) 21:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely. There seems to much arguing on this page about what a "time signature" is, and the exclusion of songs that don't "have" one (i.e. aren't scored out, regardless of how obvious the meter is). If we're talking strictly scored pieces, then this article is completely pointless, as official scores are quite rare for modern popular pieces, meaning we can't reliably create this list for anything not considered "Classical" music! A page for "list of music works in unusual metres" would be much more appropriate. -- Djbon2112 ( talk) 17:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Since this article appears to be founded on a misapprehension, it seems to me worthwhile to quote Walter Piston on the question at some length. This is from his Counterpoint, pages 26 and 27:
"In itself meter has no rhythm. It is simply a means of measuring music, principally for purposes of keeping time, and as an aid in playing or singing together in ensemble music. In placing bar-lines to apply our units of measurement to the music, we select, as far as we can, points where the music seems to have the feeling of an initial pulse. That we find this easy to do, with units of two and three beats, is due to the fact that a large amount of music is regular in pulse, and so we are deceived into assuming that the meter itself is rhythmic...." TheScotch ( talk) 06:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"[...]beats and bars that is maintained by performers and inferred by listeners which functions as a dynamic temporal framework for the production and comprehension of musical durations. In this sense, metre is more an aspect of the behaviour of performers and listeners than an aspect of the music itself." In other words, meter is an aspect of the performance" and its perception. Thus, pieces played with a metric feel have a meter. 71.161.100.42 ( talk) 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Depending what happens before and after, it may have been better if Ginastera had notated this as a normal 9/8, with all eighth notes beamed in groups of three. That way the conductor could beat even dotted quarter notes and not have to wear out his arm or his lungs. The pitch groupings will take of themselves. One of my teachers used to say (quoting one of his teachers), "[When notating music] keep the theory to yourself."
The Piston Counterpoint and Orchestration books are still published in their first editions, whereas the Piston Harmony book has been through many editions, the ones co-written by Mark Devoto radically different. Thus I tend to avoid quoting Piston's Harmony to avoid confusion, although I consider the first edition superior in most respects to every other Harmony textbook I've examined--which doesn't mean I would recommend it (were it still available) as a primary text for teaching; from a practical standpoint it's just too condensed.
Ad rem, however: A term that can mean--and commonly means--precisely the thing we want to use it to distinguish it from--Grove's (1)--is a compromised term, and, as we've seen, even Grove's (2) is disputed. TheScotch ( talk) 05:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Piston is clearly saying that meter is a matter of notation, not rhythm. One can get away with using meter to mean rhythmic grouping where one isn't specifically attempting to distinguish time signature and rhythmic grouping, but here we are specifically attempting to do that. The term I "have in mind" is the term I've been using all along: grouping. The different senses of tonality and so on are entirely irrelevant to the argument.
There are various passages in the Rite in which a perfectly ordinary rhythm is written in a perversely unordinary way. Although I've never been involved in any performance of the piece, I've read that it's quite common for conductors to renotate it--one way or another. There may have been nothing "preventing that conductor from beating [the Ginastera] in an ordinary three-to-a-bar", but if the piece is notated as you suggest, there is at least something discouraging him from doing so. I should think he'd at least warn the musicians ahead of time, so they would know what his beating is intended to represent. (I hope you aren't suggesting the players should "just ignore" the conductor here--or anywhere else, for that matter.)
The point about Harmony is that the Devoto editions are essentially different books entirely from the Piston editions--and, in my opinion, greatly inferior. TheScotch ( talk) 05:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
3/32 is uncommon, but is it truly unusual in the sense of the other time signatures on this page? — Robert Greer 03:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Since in ordinary usage the term unusual is a matter of degree, I don't think we have to be quite so ipso facto about it; we can simply say that 3/32 happens to be a time signature unusual enough for this article to discuss. I have to say the pseudo-mathematical definition we're using now seems a bit fussy and silly. If we're going to have to show the "replacement set" of "x" anyway, it seems to me we can save words by eliminating x altogether and just say this article concerns itself with all (traditionally constructed) time signatures that don't have a top numeral of either 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, or 12 and a bottom numeral of either 2, 4, 8, or 16. TheScotch ( talk) 09:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not adamant about keeping the article as currently named. If you review the discussion, you will find that I did suggest renaming it to something like List of musical works in unusual meters or time signatures. 3/32 and 12/1 are certainly unusual in a different way from the other time signatures listed. Why would that be a problem? Nick Graves ( talk) 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You must be using the term certainly "in a different way". The time signatures 3/32 and 12/1 are unusual in that they appear less often than, say, 4/4 and 6/8. The time signatures 5/4 and 7/8 are also unusual in that they appear less often than 4/4 and 6/8. This is the same way.
Re: "If you review the discussion, you will find that I did suggest renaming it to something like List of musical works in unusual meters or time signatures. Why would that be a problem?":
There are several problems: 1) Your suggested title is ambiguous because meter is very commonly used as a synonym for time signature. 2) Your suggested title is POV because certain very influential and esteemed music theorists (see the Walter Piston quote in the above section) don't recognize a distinction between the terms in any musical sense of the former. (These theorists obviously have etymology on their side--and, in my opinion, they have logic and common sense on their side as well.) 3) Your suggested title is rather like naming a Wikipedia article "List of apples and oranges". TheScotch ( talk) 07:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
How about 12/16, which appears in the B minor Bach flute sonata? — Wahoofive ( talk) 22:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is going to get nowhere if original research isn't allowed. If a song is blatantly in 5/8 or something, and this is agreed on by everyone, why should a source be needed? It's not like the time signature of a song can be disputed. It's like saying we need a source for the fact that bananas are yellow. - 70.105.161.188 ( talk) 15:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That's no excuse--and if you've never seen a green banana, you've likely never been to a grocery store either. Bananas are a curious thing; there're really only good for a day or two. After that it's banana bread or feed them to your pet monkey.
In any case, no "song" or other piece of music is "in" any time signature. A time signature is a thing written on paper. We can determine the time signature only by examining the score. All entries here should be referenced to a score, and where no score exists, no entry should either. TheScotch ( talk) 21:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the term time signature appears in the title of this article, it's reasonable to assume the article concerns time signatures. Since time signatures are strictly a matter of notation, only notated pieces can have them. TheScotch ( talk) 06:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying that a time signature is one numeral atop another appearing toward the beginning of the staff after the clef and the key signature. You don't think I can find five zillion sources that corroborate this? As far as not having "meter" goes, it rather depends in what sense you mean "meter". TheScotch ( talk) 07:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
They don't belong on the list (that is, in the article), and not just by "my criteria", but also by the definition of unusual the article proffers in its first paragraph. I've pointed this out already on this discussion page; it might save time and space if you'd go over the whole thing before posting further (which is not to say I particularly mind repeating myself). TheScotch ( talk) 11:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that the determination of the time signature expressing the meter of some specific pieces would not be original research. These determinations would be obvious deductions per
Wikipedia:These are not original research#Obvious deductions. For example, rock songs which began with the drummer counting out, "One, two, three, four!" are obviously in 4/4 (and easily excluded from the list).
The number of pieces whose unusual time signatures which could not be documented by sources and could be determined by obvious deductions such as listed above would be extremely small, and all specific claims that something is common knowledge may be checked against
Wikipedia:Common knowledge.
I am arguing that one must, when presenting a piece for the list without a source, also present why it would obviously be notated in that time signature.
Hyacinth (
talk)
02:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that we currently list, for example, all pieces in five together in one list. As such I do not see why it need be determined which specific time signature a piece would be notated in if published. Why? If this it is so important should we separate the specific time signatures? Hyacinth ( talk) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but with respect to time signatures and measures this is dead wrong--dangerously wrong, in fact. Time signatures and measure lines, unlike dynamic markings and so on, are not instructions. I've said this elsewhere on this discussion page, but I suppose it bears repeating: Measures measure out sections of equal duration (hence the name), and time signatures say what that duration is. Because it often makes sense to have these sections correspond to the prevailing grouping of the piece, time signatures also tend to imply (but only imply) groupings. I think we can say categorically that a performer who accents dynamically the beginning of a measure only because it is the beginning of a measure is a very bad performer (and likely a very misinformed performer as well). TheScotch ( talk) 06:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You both don't seem to be able to handle proposals without panic. Hyacinth ( talk) 06:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I propose that this article be moved to "List of musical works notated in unusual time signatures" because of arguments above. Hyacinth ( talk) 06:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Are you seriously proposing to erase all contemporary entries, which are typically non-notated, even though some have references? (The page doesn't seem to serve much purpose anyway, other than giving you chaps a place to argue...) 81.98.251.134 ( talk) 09:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If "the page", by which I take it you mean the article, serves little purpose, why should you care? What actual harm would it do to remove a great swath of the irrelevant matter in this irrelevant article?
Presumably by contemporary you mean modern, a usage to which Fowler takes great exception, the supposition presumably being that music is no longer notated and that the tradition of classical music ended with, say, Chopin (a refreshingly unostentatious rhythmic innovator, by the way). These suppositions are, of course, quite erroneous. TheScotch ( talk) 11:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No. If your reference is specifically to the Real Book transcription, rather than to the piece itself, then the Real Book transcription is a valid source; otherwise it isn't. If your reference is specifically to the arrangement which appears in the book I refer to in the "9/8" section of this discussion page, rather than to the piece itself or to the Real Book transcription, then this book is a valid sourse; otherwise it isn't. Paul Desmond may have jotted something down when he composed the piece--very likely he did. If your reference is to the piece itself then what Desmond jotted down is a valid source, and good luck finding it.
Re: "As to 'contemporary' vs 'modern', I'm with Fowler (whoever he may be) on this one. "Modern" is far too loose a term, potentially implying not so much post-Chopin as post-Monteverdi, thereby encompassing the entire period in which time signatures have been used.":
Henry Fowler is the extremely famous author of Modern English Usage, the second edition of which is to this very second in wide circulation and wide use. He is also the co-author of The King's English, still in print and very easy to obtain.
How far back modern is intended to extend has to inferred from the context in which it is used, and that is by no means a failing of the term or a reason to avoid it. What is contemporary refers to what exists simultaneously with whatever is being referenced. Goethe was a contemporary of Beethoven. Contemporary critics tended to be taken aback by Beethoven's third symphony. Fowler contends that contemporary should not be used as a synonym for modern because the more it is used thus the harder it is to use the term properly and be understood; the language is thereby diminished. Since modern already means modern, modern is the term to use when you want to mean modern. TheScotch ( talk) 06:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose — The title is awkward enough the way it is. — Robert Greer ( talk) 17:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
What pieces would be lost if the above change was made? Would any? Hyacinth ( talk) 00:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow... can someone explain that to me? Is that not just 4/4, or what? ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Um...a time signature is not a fraction. We put the virgule in, say, 4/4, when writing it thus because we either lack the facility to write one numeral atop the other or can't be bothered to hunt down the appropriate html code. TheScotch ( talk) 11:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize this actually appeared in the article itself. Anyway, I think the article should be consistent in form. If it's going to use 4/4, for example, then the above might be rendered /4. (Supposedly the <atop> tag should do the trick, but I can't seem to make it work here.) TheScotch ( talk) 07:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This song should be listed in "partially in 7/4" as each chorus has two 4/4 bars, but I can't find any sources to confirm this. Can anyone else find any information on this? Spell4yr ( talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If you listen really carefully, you'll find that the solid crotchet bass drum beat only lines up with the rest of the song every *other* phrase. Therefore, it's in an odd number of quavers; my counting says 13/8, rather than 15/8. Martinb9999 ( talk) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Another crazy time sig... now, I figured that is essentially 4/4, but my brain can't quite get around ⅔/4... I mean, that's saying it's ⅔ of a beat, over 4. ⅔ of one beat (as in, ⅔ of 1/4) would be 2.6 (recurring) multiplied by two, so 5.3 (recurring) over 8, so 5.3/8 - right? Or have I made something far to complicated for its own good? ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The song Killing Fields, from Slayer's 1994 album Divine Intervention, contains various parts written in 5/4. It also has another part that sounds like 13/16, but may be 3/4. I found a source for it, but I'm not sure if it is a reliable one, and I would like to add this song to songs partially in 5/4.
Alreadytaken4536 ( talk) 02:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe that many of Venetian Snares are 7/4, can anyone confirm? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
129.133.198.139 (
talk)
15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Such rhythms like 5/8, 7/8, 9/8 are the main rhythms of eastern folk dances. Should every folk song be added into this list and be called unusual, or are those rhythms only unusual for western folks?. Would calling them unusual in Wikipedia mean, Wikipedia adresses western folks? Yeah.. That was too pessimistic, but what i want to say is, this list has no point.
One page for each rhythm, and list of songs with each rhythm could be a solution. X_Kta ( talk) 22:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
X_Kta ( talk) 23:04, 19 July 2008
If one listens to Here Come the Bastards by Primus closely, the beat is clearly compound throughout the song. This means that although there are five beats, the time signature would likely be 15/8 or 15/16 (the latter being more likely, due to the fast tempo). I'm not saying that it couldn't be notated as 5/4 using triplets or swing notation, but it should at least be mentioned that both notations are possible. A good source for this might be official sheet music, if there is any. On this same subject: There is a vast difference between works in simple 7/4 time signatures, which consist of seven simple beats of quater-note length (I.E. Dem Bones by Alice in Chains), and works in complex 7/8 time signatures, which consist of unequal subdivisions such as 2+2+3 or 2+2+2+1 (I.E. the aptly named Subdivisions by Rush, which also features 4/4 and 3/4 sections). This distinction is made in the 9/8 section, but nowhere else. This is all based on my own knowledge of music theory, but if someone knows a good source, I feel that it is a very important distinction to make and should be added. 130.58.228.135 ( talk) 15:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I've heard quite a few internet sources state that Einstürzende Neubauten's "NNNAAAMMM" is in 9/4. Unfortunately, I can't find a single real, cite-able source for the statement, with the possible exception of a passing reference in this review. Any ideas? -- Myriologist ( talk) 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The intro to Vicarious is actually 3/8.
The reference cited also mentions that there are "rhythmic hiccups", which indeed there are.
For this reason, I think Vicarious should be in a "Partially in" section, rather than in the "5/4" section that it is.
(A bit like Money, which notes that it's solos are in 4/4, and therefore is not in the 7/4 section).
GreenAsJade ( talk) 00:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the page should be moved to one of the following:
The content would effectively remain the same but the context in which it is presented would be less subjective. A complex/asymmetrical/irregular time signature is a defined concept, what is usual or unusual will always be subject to someone's opinion. Complex/asymmetrical/irregular time signatures are apparently common in European folk music and Eastern popular and folk music [1], describing them as unusual is not looking at the topic from a neutral, global perspective. Guest9999 ( talk) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The guitar plays 5 eighth notes on the first chord, then 2 on each of the next two chords in each measure. (5 + 2 + 2.) That is not "ordinary triple compound," I'm pretty sure. Granted, it still doesn't have a "non-original-research" source and shouldn't be on the page yet. But if you're going to take something off the list, it would be nice to cite a legit reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.99.64 ( talk) 08:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
If my contributions weren't sourced, why is it that the page for the song, Freewill has it on the page? If I don't hear a good explanation, I'll be putting those back up. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden ( talk) 02:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I totally forgot about that- I haven't been too active lately. Ah well, it's really hard to come up with decent sources for this sort of thing, because there are a lot of patently false claims made even by the bands themselves (not Rush, but some of the other bands). My bass teacher told me I was spot on with my time signature writings for Freewill, but I KNOW that's not a reliable source, so I'll poke around and see what I can find. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden ( talk) 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Although I think this list is a nice source of information, I ask myself: how is it possible to ever have a complete list of alle songs (partly) in odd time signatures? Already the demand for a source is disputable. Is it the transcribed music? Or the original recorded song? For classical music, the first would be an important criteria since we often don't have original recordings and composer left us only the sheet music. For pop and rock music, this almost turned upside down. We often only have recordings. A lot of music is transcribed, but not all, and then often not by the original artist. There's a lot of interpretation (e.g. I remember that the main riff of Blackened by Metallica (opening song of ...And Justice for All) is written down in one book in 7/4, while in another book in 7/8). A lot of Spock's Beard and Neal Morse songs use odd time signatures, but a lot of songs aren't (professionaly) transcribed. But a musician with some reasonable counting skills can distinguish the time signatures. But: there's always discussion, is it 7/8 or 7/4, is 4/4+5/8, 13/8 or 8/8+5/8 etc? Also, if we would add these songs to the list, the list would become way to long. And then: what do you expect from a source? Is blog.pandora.com a reliable source? If i'd like to, I can create my own source this way! Then I would ask myself: why should we want a list with ALL songs in odd time signatures? Wouldn't it suffice to sum up the most well-known songs (easily to find sources), and for example some (well known) bands (like Rush) and musical styles that often use odd time signatures (like progressive rock, bulgarian music) (which is traceble as a source as well). Now you create a list in which everyone can add his or her "favorite oddtimesignaturesong", maybe let it get deleted because the song wasn't transcribed etc. etc. And who can decide what is a good source and what not? But I've already raised this question. My main problem is: how much encyclopedic value has a list as this? It can never be complete. So if it won't be complete, make sure it is representable and names the most well known songs, styles and bands. Any comments???
Sreglov 21:58, 7 may 2009 (CET)
How about the Scherzo in Borodin's Second Symphony: 1/1. Doesn't this qualify as "unusual"? -- megA ( talk) 16:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
List of extraordinary diseases and conditions has been tagged for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extraordinary diseases and conditions). Feel welcome to give comments and suggestions, because the main reason is basically the same as what was the case for this article: Lack of proper definition of what really is unusual, and therefore what to include or not, as well as making inclusions verifiable and without original research. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 18:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous editor recently removed this section saying: "Blanking section, no real use for it since the time signature is always specified (at least to the players...). These are just poorly sourced examples." This seems a far-fetched objection: notation is not music and many performers do not use notation.
More importantly Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, so one should find a better section heading title and better sources, if that is ones objection. Hyacinth ( talk) 18:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
In all three cases the author is a professional reviewer, in contrast to Wikipedia users who are unpaid volunteers. Thus my transcription would look and be more unprofessional. Even if I am a professional in "real life", on Wikipedia my credentials are irrelevant. Hyacinth ( talk) 02:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as we know the critics cited in the section under discussion while writing their articles had a detailed score lent to them by the composers/performers of the pieces in question and as such where describing the actual notated time signature(s) of the pieces. Following the conventions of popular/rock journalism they mentioned an interesting musical feature but left out extended technical discussion, leaving those notated time signatures, as we currently say, "unspecified".
Another possibility is that the critic interviewed the musicians and they named the time signature, and then the critic followed the conventions of rock journalism.
Another possibility is that a trained musicologist, possibly the critic, transcribed the pieces into notation and used the time signature(s) described by the critics, who then followed the conventions of rock journalism. Possibly this was assisted by the "unusual" time signature being simple and apparent deviations from common time that is easily transcribed.
The last possibility I will name is that the critics were imprecise in their use of music terminology, mistakenly substituting "time signature" when they intended "meter".
There is no evidence that the last possibility is the case, that the critics in question where not knowledgeable of music, and that as professional writers they would misuse words. As such, and given " Occam's razor", the three proceeding possibilities appear to be the simpler explanations and thus the more desirable. Hyacinth ( talk) 01:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
If we where to create this article, through what sources and how would we define "unusual meter"? As the introduction makes clear the list of pieces with "unusual meter" would be a different one than this list. It would contain pieces which do not make this list, such as "Passacaglia" from Britten's Peter Grimes, would not contain many pieces which are on this list, and some pieces would qualify for both lists. Do we have any pieces in mind and sources in mind for this proposed list? Hyacinth ( talk) 08:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Federico Mompou wrote a lot of music without any time signatures, key signatures or bar lines. But he also used odd markings such as the number 3 written not on either of the staves, but in the space between them. He did this in the Cancion y Danza No. 1, for example. Just the number 3. In the Prelude No. 5, the number 3 appears in each of the staves; in the Preludes Nos. 7 and 10, the number 4 appears in each of the staves. In most of the pieces from Musica Callada, the number 2 appears in each of the staves. Just the one number, not the two numbers we've come to expect. Do these qualify as "unusual time signatures"? -- JackofOz ( talk) 11:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Examples, sure. Jacques-Martin Hotteterre, "Musette" and "Menuet" from the Deuxième Suite de Pièces à deux dessus, op. 6, which are in 2 and 3, respectively (no second numeral). The "Sarabande La St. Maurice" from the same work is also in simple 3, and the pair of "Rondeaus" following are also in simple 2. François Couperin, Treizième Concert royal, third movement, "Sarabande" is in 3. Jean-Philippe Rameau, Pièces de clavecin en concerts, many movements with single-digit signatures: Première Concert, "La Coulicam", "La Livri", and "Le Vézinet" all in 2. Deuxième Concert, "La Laborde" in 2, "La Boucon", "La Agaçante", and two Menuets in 3, etc. More modern example, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Chôros No. 8, begins in a simple 3, at rehearsal-number 5 the meter changes to 4, then at rehearsal 6 back to an alternating 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2 etc. Four bars after rehearsal 9 is the less usual 5. In fact, throughout this score single-digit signatures are used, except for the compound meters 3/8, 6/8, 9/8, and 11/16, and one exceptional 2/4 four bars before rehearsal 44.